# Why do the God-haters persist?



## Boss

We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic. 

True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion. 

_Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter. 

But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.

Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves. 

So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.


----------



## daws101




----------



## koshergrl

Right on cue.


----------



## koshergrl

They are abject failures, whose only joy in life is to attack people who are able to squeeze a modicom of happiness out of life.

They don't approve of happiness. That's why they want to kill babies, euthanise teh elderly,  make everybody poor, and turn our health system into crap.


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> Right on cue.


yes you are....


----------



## koshergrl

I see you haven't gained any iq points during my absence.

Pity.


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> I see you haven't gained any iq points during my absence.
> 
> Pity.


as always you be wrong.....


----------



## R.C. Christian

If I lived in CA I'd probably hate God too.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

I've never run across anyone who hates "god" but a lot of people don't like certain types of god's followers.


----------



## Boss

> *Dawsy's sig:* extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence/ Carl Sagan.



*"Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual. So are our emotions in the presence of great art or music or literature, or of acts of exemplary selfless courage such as those of Mohandas Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr. The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both."* ~Carl Sagan


Oh my.


----------



## Moonglow

> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks



Yes, those insidious christians.


----------



## SmedlyButler

Boss said:


> *Dawsy's sig:* extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence/ Carl Sagan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual. So are our emotions in the presence of great art or music or literature, or of acts of exemplary selfless courage such as those of Mohandas Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr. The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both."* ~Carl Sagan
> 
> 
> Oh my.
Click to expand...


If you're saying that a person can be an atheist or agnostic and still be spiritual and not 'hate" God I totally agree. Sagan fits in this category. I imagine he would think it silly to hate Osiris or Zeus or Yahweh or whatever mythical being you could name.

Sagan quotes:

"If fulfilled prophecy is your criterion, why do you not believe in materialistic science, which has an unparalleled record of fulfilled prophecy? Consider, for example, eclipses.

 Or;
"The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity."


----------



## hobelim

Luddly Neddite said:


> I've never run across anyone who hates "god" but a lot of people don't like certain types of god's followers.



Exactly. I don't understand why boss thinks that God is being mocked when someone mocks him...

Kinda like when GISM says that someone is arguing with God when they are arguing with him.

At some level these jerks must think of themselves as gods.

are people are not supposed to poke fun at that?


----------



## Moonglow

I don't have so much of a problem with God as I do their condemning, persecuting followers.......


----------



## koshergrl

Lol..you guys really do not understand how imbecilic and bigoted you sound...

Which doesn't say much for your allegedly superior understanding of the universe and its origins, lololol..


----------



## Boss

SmedlyButler said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Dawsy's sig:* extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence/ Carl Sagan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual. So are our emotions in the presence of great art or music or literature, or of acts of exemplary selfless courage such as those of Mohandas Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr. The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both."* ~Carl Sagan
> 
> 
> Oh my.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're saying that a person can be an atheist or agnostic and still be spiritual and not 'hate" God I totally agree. Sagan fits in this category. I imagine he would think it silly to hate Osiris or Zeus or Yahweh or whatever mythical being you could name.
> 
> Sagan quotes:
> 
> "If fulfilled prophecy is your criterion, why do you not believe in materialistic science, which has an unparalleled record of fulfilled prophecy? Consider, for example, eclipses.
> 
> Or;
> "The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity."
Click to expand...


Carl Sagan actually wrote an entire book on Science and Spirituality. Many of the greatest scientific minds of our time, as well as generations past, have expressed belief in God or "oneness with the universe" and a deep sense of spiritual connection. Aside from Richard Dawkins and a few others, you don't see many scientists going out of their way to refute God or denounce religion. 

No, this thread is not about atheists and agnostics. Some people in my family have categorized my views as "atheist or agnostic" although I don't identify as such. I am very much a Spiritualist who does believe in a spiritual energy which can be defined as God. I don't belong to a church or religion, and find most organized religions to be too political for me to ever consider. This thread is about the "God-haters" who spend an inordinate amount of their personal lives on a message board, denouncing a God they claim to not believe in. I'm calling them out, exposing them for the frauds they are.


----------



## SmedlyButler

"_Aside from Richard Dawkins and a few others, you don't see_* many scientists going out of their way to refute God or denounce religion. *" I've watched many debates between secular scientists and those who want Creationism taught as a valid origin theory. 

I'll make a guess here (a guess mind you because I have no stats) that a large majority scientists are worried about religion and creation myths encroaching on the teaching of real science.

Back to the OP. I haven't been around these forums for very long but I have yet to witness what you call a "god hater". Unless you call defending science and denouncing the acceptance and teaching of Myth as truth "hating god".


----------



## Boss

SmedlyButler said:


> "_Aside from Richard Dawkins and a few others, you don't see_* many scientists going out of their way to refute God or denounce religion. *" I've watched many debates between secular scientists and those who want Creationism taught as a valid origin theory.
> 
> I'll make a guess here (a guess mind you because I have no stats) that a large majority scientists are worried about religion and creation myths encroaching on the teaching of real science.
> 
> Back to the OP. I haven't been around these forums for very long but I have yet to witness what you call a "god hater". Unless you call defending science and denouncing the acceptance and teaching of Myth as truth "hating god".



A "myth" is a widely held but false belief or idea. If you have proof that God doesn't exist, or there wasn't an intelligent designer, then present that proof, or stop referring to belief in God as "myth."  Also, you don't get to define what is "valid" in terms of a theory. People fight you on these things because you arrogantly make proclamations that simply are not true, and expect the world to acquiesce. Fuck you! You're not any different than anyone else with an opinion. 

No, you don't see the God-haters because you're one of them.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Boss said:


> Why do the God-haters persist?


No one hates god, the notion is idiotic, but it is appropriate to be critical of the ignorance and hate that manifest among many theists as a consequence of religion. 

Man created religion, and the concept of god subsequently; where god as perceived by theists  an omnipotent deity controlling human events  doesnt exist. And because god is a creation of man, the concept is imbued with the failings, fears, and arrogance of man  we see proof of that arrogance exhibited by Christians on this very forum, and note the hypocrisy. 

To note the hate, arrogance, and hypocrisy of theists, therefore, is not to hate god, but to recognize the fact that humans are fallible, where no one person, group, religion, philosophy, or belief has all the answers, nor a monopoly on the truth.


----------



## Boss

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do the God-haters persist?
> 
> 
> 
> No one hates god, the notion is idiotic, but it is appropriate to be critical of the ignorance and hate that manifest among many theists as a consequence of religion.
> 
> Man created religion, and the concept of god subsequently; where god as perceived by theists  an omnipotent deity controlling human events  doesnt exist. And because god is a creation of man, the concept is imbued with the failings, fears, and arrogance of man  we see proof of that arrogance exhibited by Christians on this very forum, and note the hypocrisy.
> 
> To note the hate, arrogance, and hypocrisy of theists, therefore, is not to hate god, but to recognize the fact that humans are fallible, where no one person, group, religion, philosophy, or belief has all the answers, nor a monopoly on the truth.
Click to expand...


You are factually wrong about a few things. Yes, man did create religion. Religion is the direct manifestation from raw human spirituality and spiritual connection. There is no evidence God doesn't exist in a spiritual sense. Something spiritual certainly does exist or humans wouldn't be spiritual creatures with spiritual inclinations, spiritually motivated to create religions. 

Yes, people DO hate God, they hate the concept of God, they hate the people who profess belief in God. There are a myriad of reasons for every kind of hate, but hate is largely bigoted ignorance. 

I am not a Christian, I am pretty much a non-theist, some would call that "atheist." I understand the Bible very well, I have read the entire thing, and done intensive studies on the Scriptures. I don't mind arguing with someone about what the Bible says or doesn't say, and because of that, I am often labeled a "religious zealot" or any number of other god-hating labels. I will defend Christians and their points of view sometimes, because I feel they make a valid point or at least have the right to their viewpoint. This gets me labeled a "Christian wacko" by the god-haters. I see these god-haters every day here, and for you to waddle in and claim they don't exist, is laughable.


----------



## SmedlyButler

It didn't take long for your claim to be "very much a Spiritualist" to go up in smoke.  
"*Fuck you! You're not any different than anyone else with an opinion*". I don't see that response coming from a spiritually enlightened debater,  I see it coming from the real hater here.
You patronizingly declare your willingness to "....defend Christians and their points of view sometimes, because I feel they make a valid point or at least have the right to their viewpoint." That's awfully big of you. I don't feel the least slighted by you not extending this generous grandiosity to my opinions. A hater's benediction is worth exactly zero. As is the phony rhetoric of the OP. 
While you failed in your stated mission of "...calling them out, exposing them for the frauds they are." I have actually exposed you for the fraud that you are. Without even trying. Too easy. Yawn.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Never met an atheist who hated G-d. Rather they hate the people advocating for gods without being able to show anything resembling proof. Apparently we're supposed to take the word of the Bible itself hich would be like saying Xenu exists because Scientology's books do. A religious book does not prove itself.


----------



## Boss

SmedlyButler said:


> It didn't take long for your claim to be "very much a Spiritualist" to go up in smoke.
> "*Fuck you! You're not any different than anyone else with an opinion*". I don't see that response coming from a spiritually enlightened debater,  I see it coming from the real hater here.
> You patronizingly declare your willingness to "....defend Christians and their points of view sometimes, because I feel they make a valid point or at least have the right to their viewpoint." That's awfully big of you. I don't feel the least slighted by you not extending this generous grandiosity to my opinions. A hater's benediction is worth exactly zero. As is the phony rhetoric of the OP.
> While you failed in your stated mission of "...calling them out, exposing them for the frauds they are." I have actually exposed you for the fraud that you are. Without even trying. Too easy. Yawn.



Telling you to go fuck yourself doesn't have a thing to do with me being spiritual. Who the hell do you think you are to judge me? You're entitled to your opinion, you aren't entitled to cram it down our throat as the only valid opinion. The only thing you've exposed is your ass. Now you need to take your self-important loud-mouth ass to another thread where you can spew your vile and make yourself feel like you "won" something here. Shitstain.


----------



## Boss

Delta4Embassy said:


> Never met an atheist who hated G-d. Rather they hate the people advocating for gods without being able to show anything resembling proof. Apparently we're supposed to take the word of the Bible itself hich would be like saying Xenu exists because Scientology's books do. A religious book does not prove itself.



I never met an atheist who hated God either. They don't believe in God, so how can you hate what you don't believe exists? They also don't hate people who can't show proof of something they know doesn't exist, that doesn't even make logical sense. That's why I call the punks here "God-haters" and not Atheists. 

No, what you are "supposed to do" is follow your heart, and by "heart" I mean your inner spirit. That's the only path to the truth. All religious books are meaningless until you do that.


----------



## Moonglow

Show me proof that God exists and I will show you proof he does not......boy that is impossible on both sides, like prove to me that aliens from outer space do not exist...


----------



## Boss

Moonglow said:


> Show me proof that God exists and I will show you proof he does not......boy that is impossible on both sides, like prove to me that aliens from outer space do not exist...



Believe it or not, you can be shown proof that God exists. The problem is, it's spiritual proof and you only recognize physical proof. That's not the fault of the proof, is it?


----------



## Moonglow

Boss said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me proof that God exists and I will show you proof he does not......boy that is impossible on both sides, like prove to me that aliens from outer space do not exist...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Believe it or not, you can be shown proof that God exists. The problem is, it's spiritual proof and you only recognize physical proof. That's not the fault of the proof, is it?
Click to expand...


yes according to you you want empirical proof that God does not exist..from a non-believer..
Why do those that believe in God hate other sects that believe in God??

Muslims, Jews and Christians all pray to the same God, yet can't stand each other, not all but some do...


----------



## SmedlyButler

Boss said:


> SmedlyButler said:
> 
> 
> 
> It didn't take long for your claim to be "very much a Spiritualist" to go up in smoke.
> "*Fuck you! You're not any different than anyone else with an opinion*". I don't see that response coming from a spiritually enlightened debater,  I see it coming from the real hater here.
> You patronizingly declare your willingness to "....defend Christians and their points of view sometimes, because I feel they make a valid point or at least have the right to their viewpoint." That's awfully big of you. I don't feel the least slighted by you not extending this generous grandiosity to my opinions. A hater's benediction is worth exactly zero. As is the phony rhetoric of the OP.
> While you failed in your stated mission of "...calling them out, exposing them for the frauds they are." I have actually exposed you for the fraud that you are. Without even trying. Too easy. Yawn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Telling you to go fuck yourself doesn't have a thing to do with me being spiritual. Who the hell do you think you are to judge me? You're entitled to your opinion, you aren't entitled to cram it down our throat as the only valid opinion. The only thing you've exposed is your ass. Now you need to take your self-important loud-mouth ass to another thread where you can spew your vile and make yourself feel like you "won" something here. Shitstain.*
Click to expand...


The ever deepening hole you find yourself in seems to be inducing an obscenity strewn apoplexy, this is usually indicative of a hyper-inflated yet emotionally delicate ego. And again, don't blame me for your damaged sense of self importance. It's a self inflicted wound.


----------



## BreezeWood

.
whatever is the Everlasting can not possibly be physical however Gravity is proof as a component an existence without physiology the same as the Spirit from within to find admittance for however long to what has always been ... if the Spirit can be freed, others surly have succeeded in the past and will be a welcoming committee for whoever succeeds in the future, or "not".

.


----------



## Moonglow

according to my God that I am in contact with, you people have it all wrong. No one is destroyed or expelled/exiled from the spiritual life...

that is man's version, a way of scaring little children and weak minded humans into obedience to their form of religion..


----------



## Boss

Moonglow said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me proof that God exists and I will show you proof he does not......boy that is impossible on both sides, like prove to me that aliens from outer space do not exist...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Believe it or not, you can be shown proof that God exists. The problem is, it's spiritual proof and you only recognize physical proof. That's not the fault of the proof, is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes according to you you want empirical proof that God does not exist..from a non-believer..
> Why do those that believe in God hate other sects that believe in God??
> 
> Muslims, Jews and Christians all pray to the same God, yet can't stand each other, not all but some do...
Click to expand...


When have I ever asked for anything from a non-believer? I don't know why different religions fight each other, but it has nothing to do with whether God exists.


----------



## Boss

SmedlyButler said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmedlyButler said:
> 
> 
> 
> It didn't take long for your claim to be "very much a Spiritualist" to go up in smoke.
> "*Fuck you! You're not any different than anyone else with an opinion*". I don't see that response coming from a spiritually enlightened debater,  I see it coming from the real hater here.
> You patronizingly declare your willingness to "....defend Christians and their points of view sometimes, because I feel they make a valid point or at least have the right to their viewpoint." That's awfully big of you. I don't feel the least slighted by you not extending this generous grandiosity to my opinions. A hater's benediction is worth exactly zero. As is the phony rhetoric of the OP.
> While you failed in your stated mission of "...calling them out, exposing them for the frauds they are." I have actually exposed you for the fraud that you are. Without even trying. Too easy. Yawn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Telling you to go fuck yourself doesn't have a thing to do with me being spiritual. Who the hell do you think you are to judge me? You're entitled to your opinion, you aren't entitled to cram it down our throat as the only valid opinion. The only thing you've exposed is your ass. Now you need to take your self-important loud-mouth ass to another thread where you can spew your vile and make yourself feel like you "won" something here. Shitstain.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The ever deepening hole you find yourself in seems to be inducing an obscenity strewn apoplexy, this is usually indicative of a hyper-inflated yet emotionally delicate ego. And again, don't blame me for your damaged sense of self importance. It's a self inflicted wound.
Click to expand...


Obscenities are just words that religious people determined were bad. Glad to see you've suddenly found religion long enough to criticize and judge me, but I'm not real impressed.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Delta4Embassy said:


> Never met an atheist who hated G-d. Rather they hate the people advocating for gods without being able to show anything resembling proof. Apparently we're supposed to take the word of the Bible itself hich would be like saying Xenu exists because Scientology's books do. A religious book does not prove itself.



There is evidence of design as well as evidence refuting random accidents producing life and a finely tuned Universe.

Apparently mathematics don't mean much to the side that claims there is no designer.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Moonglow said:


> Show me proof that God exists and I will show you proof he does not......boy that is impossible on both sides, like prove to me that aliens from outer space do not exist...



Thinking rationally can provide an inference.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Boss said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me proof that God exists and I will show you proof he does not......boy that is impossible on both sides, like prove to me that aliens from outer space do not exist...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Believe it or not, you can be shown proof that God exists. The problem is, it's spiritual proof and you only recognize physical proof. That's not the fault of the proof, is it?
Click to expand...


There is physical evidence as well.


----------



## HUGGY

Boss said:


> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.



Some like myself are adverse to all forms of fraud.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Boss said:


> SmedlyButler said:
> 
> 
> 
> "_Aside from Richard Dawkins and a few others, you don't see_* many scientists going out of their way to refute God or denounce religion. *" I've watched many debates between secular scientists and those who want Creationism taught as a valid origin theory.
> 
> I'll make a guess here (a guess mind you because I have no stats) that a large majority scientists are worried about religion and creation myths encroaching on the teaching of real science.
> 
> Back to the OP. I haven't been around these forums for very long but I have yet to witness what you call a "god hater". Unless you call defending science and denouncing the acceptance and teaching of Myth as truth "hating god".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A "myth" is a widely held but false belief or idea. If you have proof that God doesn't exist, or there wasn't an intelligent designer, then present that proof, or stop referring to belief in God as "myth."  Also, you don't get to define what is "valid" in terms of a theory. People fight you on these things because you arrogantly make proclamations that simply are not true, and expect the world to acquiesce. Fuck you! You're not any different than anyone else with an opinion.
> 
> No, you don't see the God-haters because you're one of them.
Click to expand...


I see boss is still pushing his canards about mythical "god-haters"! 

The inability to learn from his mistakes seems to be the only consistent thing about boss. He still makes erroneous assumptions and utterly false allegations based upon his mythical beliefs. Then when he is called on them his only response is vulgarity.

Every thread of his is exactly the same. Nothing to see here folks. Move along now!


----------



## Boss

For a complete "myth" it sure as hell seems to have touched a nerve or two.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Boss said:


> For a complete "myth" it sure as hell seems to have touched a nerve or two.



Nope! 

Never ending stupidity is what irritates people!


----------



## Clement

Boss said:


> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.



Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision. - Psalm 2


----------



## Boss

Derideo_Te said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> For a complete "myth" it sure as hell seems to have touched a nerve or two.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope!
> 
> Never ending stupidity is what irritates people!
Click to expand...


Wow... so that's why you are so irritating! I wondered about that... thanks!


----------



## Derideo_Te

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> For a complete "myth" it sure as hell seems to have touched a nerve or two.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope!
> 
> Never ending stupidity is what irritates people!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow... so that's why you are so irritating! I wondered about that... thanks!
Click to expand...


Puerile!


----------



## MDiver

Boss, I'm a "true Atheist" and I agree with your statement that many Atheists will look at the very religious with a sense of humor and consider them a bit of a novelty and I have no problem with them up to a point.
I disagree vehemenly that as a true Atheist, I believe that I can do whatever I like and that there is no accountability for my actions.
The majority of true Atheists believe in law and order.  If you steal, you should be punished accordingly.  If you murder, you again should be held accountable.  For most of us, our belief is to be kind to your neighbor and report any crime.
The point where I and no doubt others draw a line is when the overtly religious feel that they must impose their religious ideologies on those "not of their faith" and as there are over 4,000 religions in the world and numerous sub-categories of them (Christianity supposedly having 41,000 sects, each one claiming to be the one true Christian religion, while the others are supposedly going to a hell of some sort), making any religious based laws or restrictions on those not of their religious ideology is inherently wrong.


----------



## DriftingSand

Boss said:


> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.



Generally speaking, the folks who insult or rave against God are the ones who are angry that God has given them the lives they think they deserve.  Instinctively, they believe that God exists but, like spoiled little children, rebel against Him to get His attention. Many simply don't understand Him and His relationship to His creation.  As a result, they blame Him for all the bad things that happen to them or their family members or their friends or the world.  

Perhaps they will humbly seek His wisdom one day and come to realize that He holds in His hands a great future for them if only they come to believe in Him and His Son.


----------



## Boss

MDiver said:


> Boss, I'm a "true Atheist" and I agree with your statement that many Atheists will look at the very religious with a sense of humor and consider them a bit of a novelty and I have no problem with them up to a point.
> I disagree vehemenly that as a true Atheist, I believe that I can do whatever I like and that there is no accountability for my actions.
> The majority of true Atheists believe in law and order.  If you steal, you should be punished accordingly.  If you murder, you again should be held accountable.  For most of us, our belief is to be kind to your neighbor and report any crime.
> The point where I and no doubt others draw a line is when the overtly religious feel that they must impose their religious ideologies on those "not of their faith" and as there are over 4,000 religions in the world and numerous sub-categories of them (Christianity supposedly having 41,000 sects, each one claiming to be the one true Christian religion, while the others are supposedly going to a hell of some sort), making any religious based laws or restrictions on those not of their religious ideology is inherently wrong.



I think you are missing the delineation made between actual Atheists and people who are god-haters pretending to be Atheists. As I said, some people in my own family define me as an Atheist. This is because I am non-theistic in my spirituality. I can certainly relate to Atheists having a sense of morality, but if you honestly feel that laws should never be based on religious ideology, then you should reject almost every law. You would be hard pressed to find any law that isn't based in some way, to some degree, on someone's religious ideology.


----------



## hobelim

Boss said:


> No, what you are "supposed to do" is follow your heart, and by "heart" I mean your inner spirit. That's the only path to the truth. All religious books are meaningless until you do that.



In ancient times people thought that the organ of the heart is where consciousness was seated. Whenever the affairs of the heart are spoken of in scripture what they are really speaking about is what goes on in the organ of the brain, where we now know that consciousness is seated.

There is no such think as a heart that a person is 'supposed to follow'. Everything is perceived in the brain. There is no inner spirit aside from consciousness itself.

according to you a person should follow a figment of their imagination as the only path to truth.

Great advice!

Anyone with eyes can see the many wonderful things that doing that has done for you.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Boss said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never met an atheist who hated G-d. Rather they hate the people advocating for gods without being able to show anything resembling proof. Apparently we're supposed to take the word of the Bible itself hich would be like saying Xenu exists because Scientology's books do. A religious book does not prove itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never met an atheist who hated God either. They don't believe in God, so how can you hate what you don't believe exists? They also don't hate people who can't show proof of something they know doesn't exist, that doesn't even make logical sense. That's why I call the punks here "God-haters" and not Atheists.
> 
> No, what you are "supposed to do" is follow your heart, and by "heart" I mean your inner spirit. That's the only path to the truth. All religious books are meaningless until you do that.
Click to expand...


All religious books are meaningless in any event.


----------



## Vandalshandle

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.&#8221; 

 Mahatma Gandhi


----------



## Youwerecreated

Derideo_Te said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> For a complete "myth" it sure as hell seems to have touched a nerve or two.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope!
> 
> Never ending stupidity is what irritates people!
Click to expand...


The New Atheism and Five Arguments for God




William Lane Craig

Are there good arguments for Gods existence? Have the so-called New Atheists shown that the arguments for God are no good?


Its perhaps something of a surprise that almost none of the so-called New Atheists has anything to say about arguments for Gods existence. Instead, they to tend to focus on the social effects of religion and question whether religious belief is good for society. One might justifiably doubt that the social impact of an idea for good or ill is an adequate measure of its truth, especially when there are reasons being offered to think that the idea in question really is true. Darwinism, for example, has certainly had at least some negative social influences, but thats hardly grounds for thinking the theory to be false and simply ignoring the biological evidence in its favor.

Perhaps the New Atheists think that the traditional arguments for Gods existence are now passé and so no longer need refutation. If so, they are naïve. Over the last generation there has been a revival of interest among professional philosophers, whose business it is to think about difficult metaphysical questions, in arguments for the existence of God. This resurgence of interest has not escaped the notice of even popular culture. In 1980 Time ran a major story entitled Modernizing the Case for God, which described the movement among contemporary philosophers to refurbish the traditional arguments for Gods existence. Time marveled,

In a quiet revolution in thought and argument that hardly anybody could have foreseen only two decades ago, God is making a comeback. Most intriguingly, this is happening not among theologians or ordinary believers, but in the crisp intellectual circles of academic philosophers, where the consensus had long banished the Almighty from fruitful discourse.1

According to the article, the noted American philosopher Roderick Chisholm opined that the reason atheism was so influential in the previous generation is that the brightest philosophers were atheists; but today, he observes, many of the brightest philosophers are theists, using a tough-minded intellectualism in defense of that belief.

The New Atheists are blissfully ignorant of this ongoing revolution in Anglo-American philosophy.2 They are generally out of touch with cutting-edge work in this field. About the only New Atheist to interact with arguments for Gods existence is Richard Dawkins. In his book The God Delusion, which has become an international best-seller, Dawkins examines and offers refutations of many of the most important arguments for God.3 He deserves credit for taking the arguments seriously. But are his refutations cogent? Has Dawkins dealt a fatal blow to the arguments?

Well, lets look at some of those arguments and see. But before we do, lets get clear what makes for a good argument. An argument is a series of statements (called premises) leading to a conclusion. A sound argument must meet two conditions: (1) it is logically valid (i.e., its conclusion follows from the premises by the rules of logic), and (2) its premises are true. If an argument is sound, then the truth of the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. But to be a good argument, its not enough that an argument be sound. We also need to have some reason to think that the premises are true. A logically valid argument that has, wholly unbeknownst to us, true premises isnt a good argument for the conclusion. The premises have to have some degree of justification or warrant for us in order for a sound argument to be a good one. But how much warrant? The premises surely dont need to be known to be true with certainty (we know almost nothing to be true with certainty!). Perhaps we should say that for an argument to be a good one the premises need to be probably true in light of the evidence. I think thats fair, though sometimes probabilities are difficult to quantify. Another way of putting this is that a good argument is a sound argument in which the premises are more plausible in light of the evidence than their opposites. You should compare the premise and its negation and believe whichever one is more plausibly true in light of the evidence. A good argument will be a sound argument whose premises are more plausible than their negations.

Given that definition, the question is this: Are there good arguments for Gods existence? Has Dawkins in particular shown that the arguments for God are no good? In order to find out, lets look at five arguments for Gods existence.

Further reading

The New Atheism and Five Arguments for God | Reasonable Faith


----------



## Derideo_Te

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> For a complete "myth" it sure as hell seems to have touched a nerve or two.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope!
> 
> Never ending stupidity is what irritates people!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The New Atheism and Five Arguments for God
> 
> 
> 
> 
> William Lane Craig
> 
> Are there good arguments for Gods existence? Have the so-called New Atheists shown that the arguments for God are no good?
> 
> 
> Its perhaps something of a surprise that almost none of the so-called New Atheists has anything to say about arguments for Gods existence. Instead, they to tend to focus on the social effects of religion and question whether religious belief is good for society. One might justifiably doubt that the social impact of an idea for good or ill is an adequate measure of its truth, especially when there are reasons being offered to think that the idea in question really is true. Darwinism, for example, has certainly had at least some negative social influences, but thats hardly grounds for thinking the theory to be false and simply ignoring the biological evidence in its favor.
> 
> Perhaps the New Atheists think that the traditional arguments for Gods existence are now passé and so no longer need refutation. If so, they are naïve. Over the last generation there has been a revival of interest among professional philosophers, whose business it is to think about difficult metaphysical questions, in arguments for the existence of God. This resurgence of interest has not escaped the notice of even popular culture. In 1980 Time ran a major story entitled Modernizing the Case for God, which described the movement among contemporary philosophers to refurbish the traditional arguments for Gods existence. Time marveled,
> 
> In a quiet revolution in thought and argument that hardly anybody could have foreseen only two decades ago, God is making a comeback. Most intriguingly, this is happening not among theologians or ordinary believers, but in the crisp intellectual circles of academic philosophers, where the consensus had long banished the Almighty from fruitful discourse.1
> 
> According to the article, the noted American philosopher Roderick Chisholm opined that the reason atheism was so influential in the previous generation is that the brightest philosophers were atheists; but today, he observes, many of the brightest philosophers are theists, using a tough-minded intellectualism in defense of that belief.
> 
> The New Atheists are blissfully ignorant of this ongoing revolution in Anglo-American philosophy.2 They are generally out of touch with cutting-edge work in this field. About the only New Atheist to interact with arguments for Gods existence is Richard Dawkins. In his book The God Delusion, which has become an international best-seller, Dawkins examines and offers refutations of many of the most important arguments for God.3 He deserves credit for taking the arguments seriously. But are his refutations cogent? Has Dawkins dealt a fatal blow to the arguments?
> 
> Well, lets look at some of those arguments and see. But before we do, lets get clear what makes for a good argument. An argument is a series of statements (called premises) leading to a conclusion. A sound argument must meet two conditions: (1) it is logically valid (i.e., its conclusion follows from the premises by the rules of logic), and (2) its premises are true. If an argument is sound, then the truth of the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. But to be a good argument, its not enough that an argument be sound. We also need to have some reason to think that the premises are true. A logically valid argument that has, wholly unbeknownst to us, true premises isnt a good argument for the conclusion. The premises have to have some degree of justification or warrant for us in order for a sound argument to be a good one. But how much warrant? The premises surely dont need to be known to be true with certainty (we know almost nothing to be true with certainty!). Perhaps we should say that for an argument to be a good one the premises need to be probably true in light of the evidence. I think thats fair, though sometimes probabilities are difficult to quantify. Another way of putting this is that a good argument is a sound argument in which the premises are more plausible in light of the evidence than their opposites. You should compare the premise and its negation and believe whichever one is more plausibly true in light of the evidence. A good argument will be a sound argument whose premises are more plausible than their negations.
> 
> Given that definition, the question is this: Are there good arguments for Gods existence? Has Dawkins in particular shown that the arguments for God are no good? In order to find out, lets look at five arguments for Gods existence.
> 
> Further reading
> 
> The New Atheism and Five Arguments for God | Reasonable Faith
Click to expand...


Logically there is no omnipotent God since omnipotence is a logic contradiction in itself. That meets the criteria of your quote above and logically establishes that an omnipotent God cannot exist. Ergo there is no need to waste any time going any further.


----------



## Boss

> omnipotence is a logic contradiction in itself.



Not if omnipotence created logic.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope!
> 
> Never ending stupidity is what irritates people!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The New Atheism and Five Arguments for God
> 
> 
> 
> 
> William Lane Craig
> 
> Are there good arguments for Gods existence? Have the so-called New Atheists shown that the arguments for God are no good?
> 
> 
> Its perhaps something of a surprise that almost none of the so-called New Atheists has anything to say about arguments for Gods existence. Instead, they to tend to focus on the social effects of religion and question whether religious belief is good for society. One might justifiably doubt that the social impact of an idea for good or ill is an adequate measure of its truth, especially when there are reasons being offered to think that the idea in question really is true. Darwinism, for example, has certainly had at least some negative social influences, but thats hardly grounds for thinking the theory to be false and simply ignoring the biological evidence in its favor.
> 
> Perhaps the New Atheists think that the traditional arguments for Gods existence are now passé and so no longer need refutation. If so, they are naïve. Over the last generation there has been a revival of interest among professional philosophers, whose business it is to think about difficult metaphysical questions, in arguments for the existence of God. This resurgence of interest has not escaped the notice of even popular culture. In 1980 Time ran a major story entitled Modernizing the Case for God, which described the movement among contemporary philosophers to refurbish the traditional arguments for Gods existence. Time marveled,
> 
> In a quiet revolution in thought and argument that hardly anybody could have foreseen only two decades ago, God is making a comeback. Most intriguingly, this is happening not among theologians or ordinary believers, but in the crisp intellectual circles of academic philosophers, where the consensus had long banished the Almighty from fruitful discourse.1
> 
> According to the article, the noted American philosopher Roderick Chisholm opined that the reason atheism was so influential in the previous generation is that the brightest philosophers were atheists; but today, he observes, many of the brightest philosophers are theists, using a tough-minded intellectualism in defense of that belief.
> 
> The New Atheists are blissfully ignorant of this ongoing revolution in Anglo-American philosophy.2 They are generally out of touch with cutting-edge work in this field. About the only New Atheist to interact with arguments for Gods existence is Richard Dawkins. In his book The God Delusion, which has become an international best-seller, Dawkins examines and offers refutations of many of the most important arguments for God.3 He deserves credit for taking the arguments seriously. But are his refutations cogent? Has Dawkins dealt a fatal blow to the arguments?
> 
> Well, lets look at some of those arguments and see. But before we do, lets get clear what makes for a good argument. An argument is a series of statements (called premises) leading to a conclusion. A sound argument must meet two conditions: (1) it is logically valid (i.e., its conclusion follows from the premises by the rules of logic), and (2) its premises are true. If an argument is sound, then the truth of the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. But to be a good argument, its not enough that an argument be sound. We also need to have some reason to think that the premises are true. A logically valid argument that has, wholly unbeknownst to us, true premises isnt a good argument for the conclusion. The premises have to have some degree of justification or warrant for us in order for a sound argument to be a good one. But how much warrant? The premises surely dont need to be known to be true with certainty (we know almost nothing to be true with certainty!). Perhaps we should say that for an argument to be a good one the premises need to be probably true in light of the evidence. I think thats fair, though sometimes probabilities are difficult to quantify. Another way of putting this is that a good argument is a sound argument in which the premises are more plausible in light of the evidence than their opposites. You should compare the premise and its negation and believe whichever one is more plausibly true in light of the evidence. A good argument will be a sound argument whose premises are more plausible than their negations.
> 
> Given that definition, the question is this: Are there good arguments for Gods existence? Has Dawkins in particular shown that the arguments for God are no good? In order to find out, lets look at five arguments for Gods existence.
> 
> Further reading
> 
> The New Atheism and Five Arguments for God | Reasonable Faith
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Logically there is no omnipotent God since omnipotence is a logic contradiction in itself. That meets the criteria of your quote above and logically establishes that an omnipotent God cannot exist. Ergo there is no need to waste any time going any further.
Click to expand...


If the truth is important to you,you would definitely go further with the reading. The omnipotent God created all.


----------



## edthecynic

Boss said:


> *We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks* on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead.


Two peas in a pod.


http://www.usmessageboard.com/scien...the-facts-behind-the-myth-of-abiogenesis.html

*Prufrock's Lair*
Years of experience have shown me that most *atheists are more obtuse than a pile of bricks.*


----------



## edthecynic

Boss said:


> I understand the Bible very well, I have read the entire thing, and done intensive studies on the Scriptures. I don't mind arguing with someone about what the Bible says or doesn't say, and because of that, I am often labeled a "religious zealot" or any number of other god-hating labels. I will defend Christians and their points of view sometimes, because I feel they make a valid point or at least have the right to their viewpoint. This gets me labeled a "Christian wacko" by the god-haters. I see these god-haters every day here, and for you to waddle in and claim they don't exist, is laughable.


Why are know-it alls so pompous?



M.D. Rawlings said:


> *Prufrock's Lair*
> I'm well acquainted with the hypotheses, the research and the findings  in the field of abiogenesis. Also, I understand evolutionary theory,  inside and out. I know the science, and I'm current. Indeed, I'm light  years ahead of the vast majority of atheists who routinely sneer at  theists as the former unwittingly expose their ignorance about the  science and the tremendously complex problems that routinely defy their  dogma. These are the sheeple blindly following an ideologically driven  community of scientists, which, since Darwin, is determined to overthrow  the unassailable.


----------



## edthecynic

Boss said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Man created religion, and the concept of god subsequently; where god as perceived by theists  an omnipotent deity controlling human events  doesnt exist. And because god is a creation of man, the concept is imbued with the failings, fears, and arrogance of man  we see proof of that arrogance exhibited by Christians on this very forum, and note the hypocrisy.
> 
> To note the hate, arrogance, and hypocrisy of theists, therefore, is not to hate god, but to recognize the fact that humans are fallible, where no one person, group, religion, philosophy, or belief has all the answers, nor a monopoly on the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are factually wrong about a few things. Yes, *man did create religion*. Religion is the direct manifestation from raw human spirituality and spiritual connection. *There is no evidence God doesn't exist in a spiritual sense. Something spiritual certainly does exist or humans wouldn't be spiritual creatures with spiritual inclinations, spiritually motivated to create religions. *
Click to expand...

Humans created spirituality, and have to exist first before human spirituality can exist. If you have evidence of spirituality preexisting humans then present it.


----------



## edthecynic

Boss said:


> omnipotence is a logic contradiction in itself.
> 
> 
> 
> Not if *omnipotence created logic*.
Click to expand...

That is illogical, there is no such thing as omnipotence! How can something that does not exist create anything?

Even God cannot change the past.
- Agathon


----------



## edthecynic

Boss said:


> A "myth" is a widely held but false belief or idea.* If you have proof that God doesn't exist, or there wasn't an intelligent designer, then present that proof*, or stop referring to belief in God as "myth."  Also, you don't get to define what is "valid" in terms of a theory. People fight you on these things because *you arrogantly make proclamations that simply are not true,* and expect the world to acquiesce.* Fuck you! You're not any different than anyone else with an opinion. *
> 
> No, you don't see the God-haters because you're one of them.


By that "logic" anything can be claimed to exist. A SuperGod that created the lesser Gods everyone else believes in. A SuperGod that made YOU so illogical that you can't see your lack of logic but instead see yourself as a logical genius.


----------



## mamooth

Boss said:


> Not if omnipotence created logic.



Too vague to be meaningful. Please clarify. Once the omnipotence has created logic, is it forever bound by that logic?

If yes, then the logical contradictions of omnipotence prevent it from being omnipotent.

If no, then it's outside of all logic. Even causality no longer works on it, so you can know nothing about it. If it says "Love your neighbor", it might really mean "devour your neighbor". Once you've put God outside logic, you've turned God into Cthulhu.


----------



## edthecynic

Boss said:


> SmedlyButler said:
> 
> 
> 
> It didn't take long for your claim to be "very much a Spiritualist" to go up in smoke.
> "*Fuck you! You're not any different than anyone else with an opinion*". I don't see that response coming from a spiritually enlightened debater,  I see it coming from the real hater here.
> You patronizingly declare your willingness to "....defend Christians and their points of view sometimes, because I feel they make a valid point or at least have the right to their viewpoint." That's awfully big of you. I don't feel the least slighted by you not extending this generous grandiosity to my opinions. A hater's benediction is worth exactly zero. As is the phony rhetoric of the OP.
> While you failed in your stated mission of "...calling them out, exposing them for the frauds they are." I have actually exposed you for the fraud that you are. Without even trying. Too easy. Yawn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Telling you to go fuck yourself doesn't have a thing to do with me being spiritual.* Who the hell do you think you are to judge me? You're entitled to your opinion, you aren't entitled to cram it down our throat as the only valid opinion. The only thing you've exposed is your ass. Now you need to take your self-important loud-mouth ass to another thread where you can spew your vile and make yourself feel like you "won" something here. *Shitstain*.
Click to expand...

But it does quite obviously expose you as being filled with the SPIRIT OF PURE HATE!


----------



## edthecynic

Boss said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me proof that God exists and I will show you proof he does not......boy that is impossible on both sides, like prove to me that aliens from outer space do not exist...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Believe it or not, you can be shown *proof that God exists.* The problem is, *it's spiritual proof* and you only recognize physical proof. That's not the fault of the proof, is it?
Click to expand...

Your problem is that the concept of the spiritual only exists in the mind of humans. You must prove that spirituality preexists humans, like in rocks for example.


----------



## edthecynic

Boss said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Believe it or not, you can be shown proof that God exists. The problem is, it's spiritual proof and you only recognize physical proof. That's not the fault of the proof, is it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes according to you *you want empirical proof that God does not exist..from a non-believer.*.
> Why do those that believe in God hate other sects that believe in God??
> 
> Muslims, Jews and Christians all pray to the same God, yet can't stand each other, not all but some do...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *When have I ever asked for anything from a non-believer? *I don't know why different religions fight each other, but it has nothing to do with whether God exists.
Click to expand...

Ask and you shall receive:



Boss said:


> *If you have proof that God doesn't exist*, or there  wasn't an intelligent designer, *then present that proof, or stop  referring to belief in God as "myth."*


----------



## Youwerecreated

mamooth said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not if omnipotence created logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too vague to be meaningful. Please clarify. Once the omnipotence has created logic, is it forever bound by that logic?
> 
> If yes, then the logical contradictions of omnipotence prevent it from being omnipotent.
> 
> If no, then it's outside of all logic. Even causality no longer works on it, so you can know nothing about it. If it says "Love your neighbor", it might really mean "devour your neighbor". Once you've put God outside logic, you've turned God into Cthulhu.
Click to expand...


I guess I see your point. We were created in the image of God with the ability to think and reason. Logic has always existed because God has always existed. It 's not a contradiction that an omnipotent God created logic because he created man and gave logic to man in the process, so that would be part of the creation. Scientists are limited on their knowledge concerning the brain.


----------



## Youwerecreated

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> omnipotence is a logic contradiction in itself.
> 
> 
> 
> Not if *omnipotence created logic*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is illogical, there is no such thing as omnipotence! How can something that does not exist create anything?
> 
> Even God cannot change the past.
> - Agathon
Click to expand...


I hope you watch this.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gjvuwne0RrE]Evolution: Modern Myth (100 WAYS to KILL DARWIN'S EVOLUTION) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Vandalshandle

Youwerecreated said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not if *omnipotence created logic*.
> 
> 
> 
> That is illogical, there is no such thing as omnipotence! How can something that does not exist create anything?
> 
> Even God cannot change the past.
> - Agathon
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hope you watch this.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gjvuwne0RrE]Evolution: Modern Myth (100 WAYS to KILL DARWIN'S EVOLUTION) - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


Is this guy used to teaching the blind and the deft with hand signing, or is he just full of himself, and want to make sure that you don't fall asleep when he is talking?


----------



## G.T.

Thread premise = beyond retarded.


----------



## Boss

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me proof that God exists and I will show you proof he does not......boy that is impossible on both sides, like prove to me that aliens from outer space do not exist...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Believe it or not, you can be shown *proof that God exists.* The problem is, *it's spiritual proof* and you only recognize physical proof. That's not the fault of the proof, is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your problem is that the concept of the spiritual only exists in the mind of humans. You must prove that spirituality preexists humans, like in rocks for example.
Click to expand...


Nonsense. Lot of things that humans practice didn't exist before humans were here to practice it. Doesn't make them not true. 

All we have to do is look at basic biology of animal behavior. No animal exhibits behavior that is not fundamental to the species. Every behavior in every form of life has reason. You may not understand that reason but you don't have to, we know it because we observe it in nature over and over. 

Humans didn't create spirituality to "cope with fear of death" because no other living thing has ever had to create something imaginary to cope with it's fears of death. We do not see this behavior in nature. Humans didn't create spirituality to "explain the unexplained" that's why humans created Science. Spirituality has always existed in man, and remains our most unique defining attribute as a species. 

To this day, 95% of the species believe in a power greater than self while 5% identify as Nihilist, which is the belief in nothing spiritual at all. It is a 'freak of nature' for humans to not be spiritual. Like the salmon who swim upstream, there is a reason for the behavior.


----------



## HUGGY

Boss said:


> MDiver said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boss, I'm a "true Atheist" and I agree with your statement that many Atheists will look at the very religious with a sense of humor and consider them a bit of a novelty and I have no problem with them up to a point.
> I disagree vehemenly that as a true Atheist, I believe that I can do whatever I like and that there is no accountability for my actions.
> The majority of true Atheists believe in law and order.  If you steal, you should be punished accordingly.  If you murder, you again should be held accountable.  For most of us, our belief is to be kind to your neighbor and report any crime.
> The point where I and no doubt others draw a line is when the overtly religious feel that they must impose their religious ideologies on those "not of their faith" and as there are over 4,000 religions in the world and numerous sub-categories of them (Christianity supposedly having 41,000 sects, each one claiming to be the one true Christian religion, while the others are supposedly going to a hell of some sort), making any religious based laws or restrictions on those not of their religious ideology is inherently wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are missing the delineation made between actual Atheists and people who are god-haters pretending to be Atheists. As I said, some people in my own family define me as an Atheist. This is because I am non-theistic in my spirituality. I can certainly relate to Atheists having a sense of morality, but if you honestly feel that laws should never be based on religious ideology, then you should reject almost every law. You would be hard pressed to find any law that isn't based in some way, to some degree, on someone's religious ideology.
Click to expand...


Nonsense.  No one is beholding to religion to pick whatever moral judgement to create laws frow wherever they find it.  

There is plenty of comon sense in the bibles and in the Koran.  Kahil Jibran makes sense.

The ten commandments have some worth.

All these words have been penned by real human beings.  Some if not most is jibberish. 

Proclaiming it is wrong to kill or steal is not privileged information that is OWNED by the religious.  

One has no obligation to give credit to any religion when making any law.  Thinking so is just stupid.


----------



## Boss

HUGGY said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MDiver said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boss, I'm a "true Atheist" and I agree with your statement that many Atheists will look at the very religious with a sense of humor and consider them a bit of a novelty and I have no problem with them up to a point.
> I disagree vehemenly that as a true Atheist, I believe that I can do whatever I like and that there is no accountability for my actions.
> The majority of true Atheists believe in law and order.  If you steal, you should be punished accordingly.  If you murder, you again should be held accountable.  For most of us, our belief is to be kind to your neighbor and report any crime.
> The point where I and no doubt others draw a line is when the overtly religious feel that they must impose their religious ideologies on those "not of their faith" and as there are over 4,000 religions in the world and numerous sub-categories of them (Christianity supposedly having 41,000 sects, each one claiming to be the one true Christian religion, while the others are supposedly going to a hell of some sort), making any religious based laws or restrictions on those not of their religious ideology is inherently wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are missing the delineation made between actual Atheists and people who are god-haters pretending to be Atheists. As I said, some people in my own family define me as an Atheist. This is because I am non-theistic in my spirituality. I can certainly relate to Atheists having a sense of morality, but if you honestly feel that laws should never be based on religious ideology, then you should reject almost every law. You would be hard pressed to find any law that isn't based in some way, to some degree, on someone's religious ideology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense.  No one is beholding to religion to pick whatever moral judgement to create laws frow wherever they find it.
> 
> There is plenty of comon sense in the bibles and in the Koran.  Kahil Jibran makes sense.
> 
> The ten commandments have some worth.
> 
> All these words have been penned by real human beings.  Some if not most is jibberish.
> 
> Proclaiming it is wrong to kill or steal is not privileged information that is OWNED by the religious.
> 
> One has no obligation to give credit to any religion when making any law.  Thinking so is just stupid.
Click to expand...


The statement was made that he did not believe in laws based on religious ideology. I merely pointed out this criteria disqualifies nearly every law. Now you come in and want to add "qualifiers" which you get to determine based on your own moral constructs. Well sorry bud, but you don't own society. No one has left you in charge of deciding which rules we can follow and which we can ignore, or what is justifiably moral and what isn't. 

Last I checked, religious people have just as much right to decide on these boundaries (laws) as you do. I get that you don't like it, but that's life. Move to a place where you can be king and you'll get to decide all by yourself.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Boss said:


> omnipotence is a logic contradiction in itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not if omnipotence created logic.
Click to expand...


Non sequitur!


----------



## Derideo_Te

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The New Atheism and Five Arguments for God
> 
> 
> 
> 
> William Lane Craig
> 
> Are there good arguments for Gods existence? Have the so-called New Atheists shown that the arguments for God are no good?
> 
> 
> Its perhaps something of a surprise that almost none of the so-called New Atheists has anything to say about arguments for Gods existence. Instead, they to tend to focus on the social effects of religion and question whether religious belief is good for society. One might justifiably doubt that the social impact of an idea for good or ill is an adequate measure of its truth, especially when there are reasons being offered to think that the idea in question really is true. Darwinism, for example, has certainly had at least some negative social influences, but thats hardly grounds for thinking the theory to be false and simply ignoring the biological evidence in its favor.
> 
> Perhaps the New Atheists think that the traditional arguments for Gods existence are now passé and so no longer need refutation. If so, they are naïve. Over the last generation there has been a revival of interest among professional philosophers, whose business it is to think about difficult metaphysical questions, in arguments for the existence of God. This resurgence of interest has not escaped the notice of even popular culture. In 1980 Time ran a major story entitled Modernizing the Case for God, which described the movement among contemporary philosophers to refurbish the traditional arguments for Gods existence. Time marveled,
> 
> In a quiet revolution in thought and argument that hardly anybody could have foreseen only two decades ago, God is making a comeback. Most intriguingly, this is happening not among theologians or ordinary believers, but in the crisp intellectual circles of academic philosophers, where the consensus had long banished the Almighty from fruitful discourse.1
> 
> According to the article, the noted American philosopher Roderick Chisholm opined that the reason atheism was so influential in the previous generation is that the brightest philosophers were atheists; but today, he observes, many of the brightest philosophers are theists, using a tough-minded intellectualism in defense of that belief.
> 
> The New Atheists are blissfully ignorant of this ongoing revolution in Anglo-American philosophy.2 They are generally out of touch with cutting-edge work in this field. About the only New Atheist to interact with arguments for Gods existence is Richard Dawkins. In his book The God Delusion, which has become an international best-seller, Dawkins examines and offers refutations of many of the most important arguments for God.3 He deserves credit for taking the arguments seriously. But are his refutations cogent? Has Dawkins dealt a fatal blow to the arguments?
> 
> Well, lets look at some of those arguments and see. But before we do, lets get clear what makes for a good argument. An argument is a series of statements (called premises) leading to a conclusion. A sound argument must meet two conditions: (1) it is logically valid (i.e., its conclusion follows from the premises by the rules of logic), and (2) its premises are true. If an argument is sound, then the truth of the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. But to be a good argument, its not enough that an argument be sound. We also need to have some reason to think that the premises are true. A logically valid argument that has, wholly unbeknownst to us, true premises isnt a good argument for the conclusion. The premises have to have some degree of justification or warrant for us in order for a sound argument to be a good one. But how much warrant? The premises surely dont need to be known to be true with certainty (we know almost nothing to be true with certainty!). Perhaps we should say that for an argument to be a good one the premises need to be probably true in light of the evidence. I think thats fair, though sometimes probabilities are difficult to quantify. Another way of putting this is that a good argument is a sound argument in which the premises are more plausible in light of the evidence than their opposites. You should compare the premise and its negation and believe whichever one is more plausibly true in light of the evidence. A good argument will be a sound argument whose premises are more plausible than their negations.
> 
> Given that definition, the question is this: Are there good arguments for Gods existence? Has Dawkins in particular shown that the arguments for God are no good? In order to find out, lets look at five arguments for Gods existence.
> 
> Further reading
> 
> The New Atheism and Five Arguments for God | Reasonable Faith
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Logically there is no omnipotent God since omnipotence is a logic contradiction in itself. That meets the criteria of your quote above and logically establishes that an omnipotent God cannot exist. Ergo there is no need to waste any time going any further.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *If the truth is important to you,*you would definitely go further with the reading. The omnipotent God created all.
Click to expand...


Ironic!

Logically an omnipotent God cannot exist. Debunking the illogical nonsense in the rest of that article was a waste of time since it was all based upon a false premise to begin with.


----------



## koshergrl

I love the assertion that man's logic is flawless, and thus to be trusted.

God does exist, and I see people on here every day who declare he doesn't exist..and who at the same time hate him. (If there's a God, then he's an asshole for allowing pain and suffering!) and who absolutely 100 percent hate people who believe in God...while at the same time touting their belief that Christians are intolerant.

It's psychotic, but that's what happens when you choose to reject your creator.


----------



## Derideo_Te

koshergrl said:


> I love the assertion that man's logic is flawless, and thus to be trusted.
> 
> God does exist, and I see people on here every day who declare he doesn't exist..and who at the same time hate him. (If there's a God, then he's an asshole for allowing pain and suffering!) and who absolutely 100 percent hate people who believe in God...while at the same time touting their belief that Christians are intolerant.
> 
> It's psychotic, but that's what happens when you choose to reject your creator.



The logic of mathematics applies across the known universe. The value of Pi remains the same no matter which planet you are on. 

However if you are saying that the definition of omnipotence is flawed then you are absolutely correct because omnipotence cannot exist given the current logical universe in which we exist. 

But if you agree that the definition of omnipotence is flawed then religion is wrong to claim that God is omnipotent. Perhaps religion should use the term ineffable instead. The only problem with that term is that it confounds the concept of "knowing" God. 

None of this equates to "God hating". It is more akin to asking believers to reconcile these contradictions. Since this is impossible given the available terminology it is disingenuous to accuse those asking for the contradictions to be reconciled of "hating God". If anything it is yet another contradiction that believers have no interest in reconciling this cognitive dissonance. 

But that is where faith comes into play. Your faith is absolute and as an Atheist I not only respect your faith but I am willing to die defending your right to your beliefs. Because to me your rights are sacrosanct. Without your right to believe as you do, my right to be an Atheist is meaningless. 

That is our common ground and while we might have what amounts to logical differences they don't rise to the level of hatred. In that respect the OP is utterly wrong because he is mischaracterizing those who have as much right to ask these questions as those of faith do to their beliefs.


----------



## mamooth

Boss said:


> Spirituality has always existed in man, and remains our most unique defining attribute as a species.



Your endless "Because I say so" arguments are not especially compelling, especially given that they're usually contradicted by the evidence.

Animals Said to Have Spiritual Experiences : Discovery News : Discovery News


----------



## Derideo_Te

mamooth said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spirituality has always existed in man, and remains our most unique defining attribute as a species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your endless "Because I say so" arguments are not especially compelling, especially given that they're usually contradicted by the evidence.
> 
> Animals Said to Have Spiritual Experiences : Discovery News : Discovery News
Click to expand...


The fact that animals experience love, bereavement and other emotions is documented. Spirituality, or a sense of awe, is akin to emotions since they stem from the same part of the brain. Furthermore we have the evidence of "healing dogs" whose visits to ill people help them to get better. For the OP to make a specious claim that spirituality is the "most unique defining attribute" of mankind is not only arrogant but also ignorant.


----------



## BreezeWood

*Why do the God-haters persist?*



> *Boss:* We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God.
> 
> I understand the Bible very well, *I have read the entire thing*, and done intensive studies on the Scriptures. I don't mind arguing with someone about what the Bible says or doesn't say, and because of that, I am often labeled a "religious zealot" or any number of other god-hating labels.




*I have read the entire thing ...*

really, a religious document that is flawed from its onset, Scripturally and Spiritually ?


*... interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious*

Atheism being a religion - that is a two way street, particularly by Scripturalist who refuse to recognize a work by man as not a Spiritual document.



*(persist)* - both have no other option, for the Spirit to accomplish admission to the Everlasting, omniscience - omnipotent etc all relate to Purity are the requirements for Remission as commanded from the beginning - not that being incomplete is itself Hatred, being incomplete and realizing a mortal fate may be its source. Purists do not hate.

just getting there is the real issue and if there is a God that does not accept a certain soul, to bad - however reading a falsehood "Bible" may insure the decision by God will never be taking place.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

DriftingSand said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Generally speaking, the folks who insult or rave against God are the ones who are angry that God has given them the lives they think they deserve.  Instinctively, they believe that God exists but, like spoiled little children, rebel against Him to get His attention. Many simply don't understand Him and His relationship to His creation.  As a result, they blame Him for all the bad things that happen to them or their family members or their friends or the world.
> 
> Perhaps they will humbly seek His wisdom one day and come to realize that He holds in His hands a great future for them if only they come to believe in Him and His Son.
Click to expand...


Actually, the opposite is closer to the truth. 

Those who believe give thanks to their god for giving them junk they pray for and then make up excuses for the really vile crap their god does to them. 

Really, don't you have to laugh at that whole "god moves in mysterious ways" and "its god's will" nonsense?

I have a perfect life and really, it just never occurs to me that I don't deserve it or that some magic sky fair gave it to me. I do, however, believe completely that my own actions have consequences and that I am completely, 100% responsible for that. 

I also don't hate any of the various gazillions of gods that others believe in. Mostly, I don't think about that either. 

Except that I do hate the terrible harm than religions do. 

Note that there's a huge difference between gods and the religions humans have concocted for the purpose of taking money away from the gullible.


----------



## Luddly Neddite




----------



## Boss

Derideo_Te said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> omnipotence is a logic contradiction in itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not if omnipotence created logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Non sequitur!
Click to expand...


Big term for such a small mind.


----------



## Boss

Derideo_Te said:


> The logic of mathematics applies across the known universe. The value of Pi remains the same no matter which planet you are on.



Well we already know you've made a false assumption here. The logic of math doesn't apply inside a black hole. Nor does it apply to "dark matter" or "dark energy." These make up 96% of the universe. If our laws of physics don't apply, then neither does Pi. 



> However if you are saying that the definition of omnipotence is flawed then you are absolutely correct because omnipotence cannot exist given the current logical universe in which we exist.



You keep saying this but I don't see any explanation. The omnipotent force known as God, created logic and the logical universe in which we exist, including the reality in which we realize. It's not hindered and limited by it's own creation. 



> None of this equates to "God hating".



What equates to "god-hating" is people spending every waking hour on a message board, denouncing, rejecting, ridiculing and insulting a thing they claim to not believe in. Endlessly arguing a position they can never support against those who will never accept their argument. A true Atheist would not give two good shits.


----------



## Boss

Derideo_Te said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spirituality has always existed in man, and remains our most unique defining attribute as a species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your endless "Because I say so" arguments are not especially compelling, especially given that they're usually contradicted by the evidence.
> 
> Animals Said to Have Spiritual Experiences : Discovery News : Discovery News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that animals experience love, bereavement and other emotions is documented. Spirituality, or a sense of awe, is akin to emotions since they stem from the same part of the brain. Furthermore we have the evidence of "healing dogs" whose visits to ill people help them to get better. For the OP to make a specious claim that spirituality is the "most unique defining attribute" of mankind is not only arrogant but also ignorant.
Click to expand...


Emotions are not spirituality. When Discovery has a special on apes and monkeys attending regular church services, I will be inclined to believe other animals have spiritual awareness and worship a higher power like humans. Until I see such evidence, I will maintain that human spirituality is our most defining attribute.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not if omnipotence created logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Non sequitur!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Big term for such a small mind.
Click to expand...


Not my problem if your nano brain can't handle 4 syllables!


----------



## GibsonSG

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your endless "Because I say so" arguments are not especially compelling, especially given that they're usually contradicted by the evidence.
> 
> Animals Said to Have Spiritual Experiences : Discovery News : Discovery News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that animals experience love, bereavement and other emotions is documented. Spirituality, or a sense of awe, is akin to emotions since they stem from the same part of the brain. Furthermore we have the evidence of "healing dogs" whose visits to ill people help them to get better. For the OP to make a specious claim that spirituality is the "most unique defining attribute" of mankind is not only arrogant but also ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Emotions are not spirituality. When Discovery has a special on apes and monkeys attending regular church services, I will be inclined to believe other animals have spiritual awareness and worship a higher power like humans. Until I see such evidence, I will maintain that human spirituality is our most defining attribute.
Click to expand...


If a higher power were actually a part of nature, chimps would know it's there. Maybe they just can't delude themselves as easily as humans can.


----------



## GibsonSG

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> The logic of mathematics applies across the known universe. The value of Pi remains the same no matter which planet you are on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well we already know you've made a false assumption here. The logic of math doesn't apply inside a black hole. Nor does it apply to "dark matter" or "dark energy." These make up 96% of the universe. If our laws of physics don't apply, then neither does Pi.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However if you are saying that the definition of omnipotence is flawed then you are absolutely correct because omnipotence cannot exist given the current logical universe in which we exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep saying this but I don't see any explanation. The omnipotent force known as God, created logic and the logical universe in which we exist, including the reality in which we realize. It's not hindered and limited by it's own creation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of this equates to "God hating".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What equates to "god-hating" is people spending every waking hour on a message board, denouncing, rejecting, ridiculing and insulting a thing they claim to not believe in. Endlessly arguing a position they can never support against those who will never accept their argument. A true Atheist would not give two good shits.
Click to expand...


For what purpose did god create the universe though? Because if it's to make humans so that god can have something to revere him, and burn those who don't, is a pretty dumb concept.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> The logic of mathematics applies across the known universe. The value of Pi remains the same no matter which planet you are on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well we already know you've made a false assumption here. The logic of math doesn't apply inside a black hole. Nor does it apply to "dark matter" or "dark energy." These make up 96% of the universe. If our laws of physics don't apply, then neither does Pi.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However if you are saying that the definition of omnipotence is flawed then you are absolutely correct because omnipotence cannot exist given the current logical universe in which we exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep saying this but I don't see any explanation. The omnipotent force known as God, created logic and the logical universe in which we exist, including the reality in which we realize. It's not hindered and limited by it's own creation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of this equates to "God hating".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What equates to "god-hating" is people spending every waking hour on a message board, denouncing, rejecting, ridiculing and insulting a thing they claim to not believe in. Endlessly arguing a position they can never support against those who will never accept their argument. A true Atheist would not give two good shits.
Click to expand...


Your pathetic lack of comprehension for common terms is glaringly obvious. The "known universe" doesn't encompass the interior of black holes or speculative things like dark matter and dark energy. 

Now pay close attention this time because I will type this very slowly for your benefit.

1. Omnipotence means all powerful. 

2. If your God can create something that he cannot destroy then he is not omnipotent because there is something that he cannot destroy.

3. If your God cannot create something that he cannot destroy then he not omnipotent because there is something that he cannot create. 

4. Ergo your God cannot be omnipotent because omnipotence is a contradiction. 

As far as your obsession with mythical "god-haters" that is entirely your problem. That they rule your world to the point where they are all you can think about says volumes. Your desperate need to start these inane threads over and over again where your delusions are exposed and debunked is the very definition of a mental illness on your part. You are expecting a different outcome each time and yet it always results in your ignorance being exposed.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your endless "Because I say so" arguments are not especially compelling, especially given that they're usually contradicted by the evidence.
> 
> Animals Said to Have Spiritual Experiences : Discovery News : Discovery News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that animals experience love, bereavement and other emotions is documented. Spirituality, or a sense of awe, is akin to emotions since they stem from the same part of the brain. Furthermore we have the evidence of "healing dogs" whose visits to ill people help them to get better. For the OP to make a specious claim that spirituality is the "most unique defining attribute" of mankind is not only arrogant but also ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Emotions are not spirituality. When Discovery has a special on apes and monkeys attending regular church services, I will be inclined to believe other animals have spiritual awareness and worship a higher power like humans. Until I see such evidence, I will maintain that human spirituality is our most defining attribute.
Click to expand...


Thank you for admitting to being arrogant, narrow minded and ignorant.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your endless "Because I say so" arguments are not especially compelling, especially given that they're usually contradicted by the evidence.
> 
> Animals Said to Have Spiritual Experiences : Discovery News : Discovery News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that animals experience love, bereavement and other emotions is documented. Spirituality, or a sense of awe, is akin to emotions since they stem from the same part of the brain. Furthermore we have the evidence of "healing dogs" whose visits to ill people help them to get better. For the OP to make a specious claim that spirituality is the "most unique defining attribute" of mankind is not only arrogant but also ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Emotions are not spirituality. When Discovery has a special on apes and monkeys attending regular church services, I will be inclined to believe other animals have spiritual awareness and worship a higher power like humans. Until I see such evidence, I will maintain that human spirituality is our most defining attribute.
Click to expand...


Actually, you have a point. 

Humans are the only animals who want or need or do believe in magic sky fairies. 

As far as we know ... 

Maybe the apes and monkeys have their own gods who created them in his/her image. At this time, we're not smart enough to get that information from them.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Luddly Neddite said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that animals experience love, bereavement and other emotions is documented. Spirituality, or a sense of awe, is akin to emotions since they stem from the same part of the brain. Furthermore we have the evidence of "healing dogs" whose visits to ill people help them to get better. For the OP to make a specious claim that spirituality is the "most unique defining attribute" of mankind is not only arrogant but also ignorant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Emotions are not spirituality. When Discovery has a special on apes and monkeys attending regular church services, I will be inclined to believe other animals have spiritual awareness and worship a higher power like humans. Until I see such evidence, I will maintain that human spirituality is our most defining attribute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, you have a point.
> 
> Humans are the only animals who want or need or do believe in magic sky fairies.
> 
> As far as we know ...
> 
> Maybe the apes and monkeys have their own gods who created them in his/her image. At this time, we're not smart enough to get that information from them.
Click to expand...


In one of the studies where a chimp was taught sign language there is evidence of it deliberately telling a lie. This evidence means that higher primates are probably capable of self deception.


----------



## Boss

Derideo_Te said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> The logic of mathematics applies across the known universe. The value of Pi remains the same no matter which planet you are on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well we already know you've made a false assumption here. The logic of math doesn't apply inside a black hole. Nor does it apply to "dark matter" or "dark energy." These make up 96% of the universe. If our laws of physics don't apply, then neither does Pi.
> 
> You keep saying this but I don't see any explanation. The omnipotent force known as God, created logic and the logical universe in which we exist, including the reality in which we realize. It's not hindered and limited by it's own creation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of this equates to "God hating".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What equates to "god-hating" is people spending every waking hour on a message board, denouncing, rejecting, ridiculing and insulting a thing they claim to not believe in. Endlessly arguing a position they can never support against those who will never accept their argument. A true Atheist would not give two good shits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your pathetic lack of comprehension for common terms is glaringly obvious. The "known universe" doesn't encompass the interior of black holes or speculative things like dark matter and dark energy.
Click to expand...


Uhm... sorry but go do some research, scientists have confirmed that 96% of the universe is comprised of dark energy and dark matter. (not speculative) Black holes most certainly do exist in the universe, where else would we have observed them existing? Now if you want to argue that "known universe" is only the part of the universe where we know our math and physics apply, then that's fine... we only "know" 4% of the universe where that is the case. The other 96% is currently unknown and unexplainable with our math and physics. Uh oh... guess we can now "disbelieve" nearly the entire universe because science can't explain it! 



> Now pay close attention this time because I will type this very slowly for your benefit.
> 
> 1. Omnipotence means all powerful.



Got it! 



> 2. If your God can create something that he cannot destroy then he is not omnipotent because there is something that he cannot destroy.



Who said God can't destroy it? 



> 3. If your God cannot create something that he cannot destroy then he not omnipotent because there is something that he cannot create.



Who says he can't? You're not omnipotent but you can create something that will destroy you, but you don't have to do that in order to prove you can. 



> 4. Ergo your God cannot be omnipotent because omnipotence is a contradiction.



No, you are a contradiction. You're failing to comprehend that your sense of reality is a creation, an illusion that you experience which God created. He can destroy that illusion as easily as he created it, along with your perception of logic and reason. He can do this ten quadrillion times a nanosecond if he wants. 



> As far as your obsession with mythical "god-haters" that is entirely your problem. That they rule your world to the point where they are all you can think about says volumes. Your desperate need to start these inane threads over and over again where your delusions are exposed and debunked is the very definition of a mental illness on your part. You are expecting a different outcome each time and yet it always results in your ignorance being exposed.



I don't have an obsession. You've not "exposed" anything other than the point of the thread.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Derideo_Te said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Emotions are not spirituality. When Discovery has a special on apes and monkeys attending regular church services, I will be inclined to believe other animals have spiritual awareness and worship a higher power like humans. Until I see such evidence, I will maintain that human spirituality is our most defining attribute.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you have a point.
> 
> Humans are the only animals who want or need or do believe in magic sky fairies.
> 
> As far as we know ...
> 
> Maybe the apes and monkeys have their own gods who created them in his/her image. At this time, we're not smart enough to get that information from them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In one of the studies where a chimp was taught sign language there is evidence of it deliberately telling a lie. This evidence means that higher primates are probably capable of self deception.
Click to expand...


I've read that too. 

If only they had a god to worship, they wouldn't lie because, as we all know, god-believers never lie.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Getting back to the OP's question ... 

Who hates "god"?


----------



## Derideo_Te

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well we already know you've made a false assumption here. The logic of math doesn't apply inside a black hole. Nor does it apply to "dark matter" or "dark energy." These make up 96% of the universe. If our laws of physics don't apply, then neither does Pi.
> 
> You keep saying this but I don't see any explanation. The omnipotent force known as God, created logic and the logical universe in which we exist, including the reality in which we realize. It's not hindered and limited by it's own creation.
> 
> 
> 
> What equates to "god-hating" is people spending every waking hour on a message board, denouncing, rejecting, ridiculing and insulting a thing they claim to not believe in. Endlessly arguing a position they can never support against those who will never accept their argument. A true Atheist would not give two good shits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your pathetic lack of comprehension for common terms is glaringly obvious. The "known universe" doesn't encompass the interior of black holes or speculative things like dark matter and dark energy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uhm... sorry but go do some research, scientists have confirmed that 96% of the universe is comprised of dark energy and dark matter. (not speculative) Black holes most certainly do exist in the universe, where else would we have observed them existing? Now if you want to argue that "known universe" is only the part of the universe where we know our math and physics apply, then that's fine... we only "know" 4% of the universe where that is the case. The other 96% is currently unknown and unexplainable with our math and physics. Uh oh... guess we can now "disbelieve" nearly the entire universe because science can't explain it!
> 
> 
> 
> Got it!
> 
> 
> 
> Who said God can't destroy it?
> 
> 
> 
> Who says he can't? You're not omnipotent but you can create something that will destroy you, but you don't have to do that in order to prove you can.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Ergo your God cannot be omnipotent because omnipotence is a contradiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you are a contradiction. You're failing to comprehend that your sense of reality is a creation, an illusion that you experience which God created. He can destroy that illusion as easily as he created it, along with your perception of logic and reason. He can do this ten quadrillion times a nanosecond if he wants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as your obsession with mythical "god-haters" that is entirely your problem. That they rule your world to the point where they are all you can think about says volumes. Your desperate need to start these inane threads over and over again where your delusions are exposed and debunked is the very definition of a mental illness on your part. You are expecting a different outcome each time and yet it always results in your ignorance being exposed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have an obsession. You've not "exposed" anything other than the point of the thread.
Click to expand...


Your original allegation;



> The logic of math doesn't apply inside a black hole.



How math works inside of a black hole is "unknown" therefore it is not part of the "known universe". This simple logic is beyond your grasp!

Your next erroneous allegation;



> scientists have confirmed that 96% of the universe is comprised of dark energy and dark matter.



That doesn't mean that scientists know what Dark Matter and Dark Energy actually are. They are still trying to figure it out. Simply because they put a name on something doesn't mean that they know everything about it. Dark Matter and Dark Energy are very much unknowns at the present time. 

The evidence of your delusions;



> No, you are a contradiction. You're failing to comprehend that your sense of reality is a creation, an illusion that you experience which God created. He can destroy that illusion as easily as he created it, along with your perception of logic and reason. He can do this ten quadrillion times a nanosecond if he wants.



That you had to go down this path says volumes about just how pathetic your position really is. To summarize you are claiming that reality is an illusion and only your God exists. Whereas the facts are that reality exists and your mythical God does not. 

You have essentially wandered off into lalaland with this latest response. But logic and reason always causes this kind of cognitive dissonance once the rubber meets the road.


----------



## edthecynic

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your endless "Because I say so" arguments are not especially compelling, especially given that they're usually contradicted by the evidence.
> 
> Animals Said to Have Spiritual Experiences : Discovery News : Discovery News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that animals experience love, bereavement and other emotions is documented. Spirituality, or a sense of awe, is akin to emotions since they stem from the same part of the brain. Furthermore we have the evidence of "healing dogs" whose visits to ill people help them to get better. For the OP to make a specious claim that spirituality is the "most unique defining attribute" of mankind is not only arrogant but also ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Emotions are not spirituality. When Discovery has a special on apes and monkeys *attending regular church services,* I will be inclined to believe other animals have spiritual awareness and worship a higher power like humans. Until I see such evidence, I will maintain that human spirituality is our most defining attribute.
Click to expand...

There is nothing spiritual about attending church. The only higher power humans worship is the God Almighty Dollar.

BBC - Future - Death rituals in the animal kingdom


----------



## edthecynic

Luddly Neddite said:


> Getting back to the OP's question ...
> 
> Who hates "god"?


Boss


----------



## Derideo_Te

Luddly Neddite said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you have a point.
> 
> Humans are the only animals who want or need or do believe in magic sky fairies.
> 
> As far as we know ...
> 
> Maybe the apes and monkeys have their own gods who created them in his/her image. At this time, we're not smart enough to get that information from them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In one of the studies where a chimp was taught sign language there is evidence of it deliberately telling a lie. This evidence means that higher primates are probably capable of self deception.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've read that too.
> 
> If only they had a god to worship, they wouldn't lie because, as we all know, god-believers never lie.
Click to expand...


There was another instance where the handler deliberately lied to the chimp and it become very upset. I can't find that article but it would suggest that there is an innate "morality" and sense of "right and wrong". Since no one has taught them about religion this must mean that it is a survival mechanism to be able to distinguish between truth and lies.


----------



## Boss

GibsonSG said:


> If a higher power were actually a part of nature, chimps would know it's there. Maybe they just can't delude themselves as easily as humans can.



Perhaps they do know it's there and they simply accept it and feel no obligation to worship it? But when you say "part of nature" you seem to indicate the problem you are having here, you don't comprehend there is a spiritual nature. To be a "part of nature" something has to be part of "physical nature" in your mind, because no other kind of nature exists. 

If the human species had "deluded itself" into believing something imaginary, the Darwinian theory of natural selection has failed miserably. Other upper primates who did not compel themselves to be hindered by their imaginations would have surpassed humans long ago, rendering them extinct as a species. So it's certainly not a 'delusion' if Darwin was anywhere in the ballpark. 



GibsonSG said:


> For what purpose did god create the universe though? Because if it's to make humans so that god can have something to revere him, and burn those who don't, is a pretty dumb concept.



I have no idea, maybe he was bored? Maybe we're some far out science project residing in God's closet on a shelf, long forgotten? God does not command you to revere him, not even in the Bible. Christians and other religious people may believe that it's a good idea to revere him... but that is religious belief. God is a spiritual energy, the best way for you to understand God is to think of God like electricity... does the electricity in a wall outlet want you to have illumination in the room? Does it become angry if you stick a butter knife in the outlet? Is it a good idea to respect it's power or can you handle it however you please without consequence? Look inside the outlet, do you see something physical in there? Can you find any physical proof of it's presence without some instrument to verify it? 

Now you probably understand what electricity does and how it works, and you may even comprehend that it is an energy force that is not visible and doesn't conform to the principles of other physical matter. Do you know what it is? Why it exists in our universe, in our reality? Waht about gravity? There's another energy force that is not visible, doesn't have physical properties, it just exists in our universe and reality. We've done all kinds of calculations on gravity, and we've assumed several times that we understand the principles of it, only to find that we're not totally correct. Our math and physics are baffled when it comes to the behavior of gravity in certain circumstances. Does this mean gravity is not real and doesn't really exist? The same thing applies to spiritual nature, spiritual forces, spiritual energy and spiritual entities.


----------



## dr.d

Actually...its the extreme religious groups like the Westboro Baptist bunch certain ultra conservative religious leaders like Falwell that come across as hateful...blaming gays for nine-11 and picketing soldiers' funerals...
The atheists and agnostics I know of mostly have a "live and let live" attitude and r guided by huministic morality...


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## Boss

> That doesn't mean that scientists know what Dark Matter and Dark Energy actually are. They are still trying to figure it out. Simply because they put a name on something doesn't mean that they know everything about it. Dark Matter and Dark Energy are very much unknowns at the present time.



Right.... and so is the case with God and spiritual nature. I rest my case.


----------



## GibsonSG

Boss said:


> GibsonSG said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a higher power were actually a part of nature, chimps would know it's there. Maybe they just can't delude themselves as easily as humans can.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps they do know it's there and they simply accept it and feel no obligation to worship it? But when you say "part of nature" you seem to indicate the problem you are having here, you don't comprehend there is a spiritual nature. To be a "part of nature" something has to be part of "physical nature" in your mind, because no other kind of nature exists.
> 
> If the human species had "deluded itself" into believing something imaginary, the Darwinian theory of natural selection has failed miserably. Other upper primates who did not compel themselves to be hindered by their imaginations would have surpassed humans long ago, rendering them extinct as a species. So it's certainly not a 'delusion' if Darwin was anywhere in the ballpark.
> 
> 
> 
> GibsonSG said:
> 
> 
> 
> For what purpose did god create the universe though? Because if it's to make humans so that god can have something to revere him, and burn those who don't, is a pretty dumb concept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea, maybe he was bored? Maybe we're some far out science project residing in God's closet on a shelf, long forgotten? God does not command you to revere him, not even in the Bible. Christians and other religious people may believe that it's a good idea to revere him... but that is religious belief. God is a spiritual energy, the best way for you to understand God is to think of God like electricity... does the electricity in a wall outlet want you to have illumination in the room? Does it become angry if you stick a butter knife in the outlet? Is it a good idea to respect it's power or can you handle it however you please without consequence? Look inside the outlet, do you see something physical in there? Can you find any physical proof of it's presence without some instrument to verify it?
> 
> Now you probably understand what electricity does and how it works, and you may even comprehend that it is an energy force that is not visible and doesn't conform to the principles of other physical matter. Do you know what it is? Why it exists in our universe, in our reality? Waht about gravity? There's another energy force that is not visible, doesn't have physical properties, it just exists in our universe and reality. We've done all kinds of calculations on gravity, and we've assumed several times that we understand the principles of it, only to find that we're not totally correct. Our math and physics are baffled when it comes to the behavior of gravity in certain circumstances. Does this mean gravity is not real and doesn't really exist? The same thing applies to spiritual nature, spiritual forces, spiritual energy and spiritual entities.
Click to expand...


"Can you find any physical proof of it's (electricity) presence without some instrument to verify it? ". Yes, stick your finger into an open outlet and see what happens, then report back. 
God can't be verified like electricity can = epic fail.

Gravity's not visible? Really? that's your position?  Take something in your hand and let it go and see what happens, then report back. 
So you admit that your spiritual nature has no proof. It's a start. 

"in your mind, because no other kind of nature exists", and I said this where?


----------



## Derideo_Te

Boss said:


> GibsonSG said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a higher power were actually a part of nature, chimps would know it's there. Maybe they just can't delude themselves as easily as humans can.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps they do know it's there and they simply accept it and feel no obligation to worship it? But when you say "part of nature" you seem to indicate the problem you are having here, you don't comprehend there is a spiritual nature. To be a "part of nature" something has to be part of "physical nature" in your mind, because no other kind of nature exists.
> 
> If the human species had "deluded itself" into believing something imaginary, the Darwinian theory of natural selection has failed miserably. Other upper primates who did not compel themselves to be hindered by their imaginations would have surpassed humans long ago, rendering them extinct as a species. So it's certainly not a 'delusion' if Darwin was anywhere in the ballpark.
> 
> 
> 
> GibsonSG said:
> 
> 
> 
> For what purpose did god create the universe though? Because if it's to make humans so that god can have something to revere him, and burn those who don't, is a pretty dumb concept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea, maybe he was bored? Maybe we're some far out science project residing in God's closet on a shelf, long forgotten? *God does not command you to revere him, not even in the Bible*. Christians and other religious people may believe that it's a good idea to revere him... but that is religious belief. God is a spiritual energy, the best way for you to understand God is to think of God like electricity... does the electricity in a wall outlet want you to have illumination in the room? Does it become angry if you stick a butter knife in the outlet? Is it a good idea to respect it's power or can you handle it however you please without consequence? Look inside the outlet, do you see something physical in there? Can you find any physical proof of it's presence without some instrument to verify it?
> 
> Now you probably understand what electricity does and how it works, and you may even comprehend that it is an energy force that is not visible and doesn't conform to the principles of other physical matter. Do you know what it is? Why it exists in our universe, in our reality? Waht about gravity? There's another energy force that is not visible, doesn't have physical properties, it just exists in our universe and reality. We've done all kinds of calculations on gravity, and we've assumed several times that we understand the principles of it, only to find that we're not totally correct. Our math and physics are baffled when it comes to the behavior of gravity in certain circumstances. Does this mean gravity is not real and doesn't really exist? The same thing applies to spiritual nature, spiritual forces, spiritual energy and spiritual entities.
Click to expand...


More arrant nonsense from boss!



> God does not command you to revere him, not even in the Bible.



2 Kings 17:39 
39 You must worship only the LORD your God. He is the one who will rescue you from all your enemies.

Hebrews 12:28-29
Since we are receiving a Kingdom that cannot be destroyed, let us be thankful and please God by worshiping him with holy fear and awe.

Just 2 examples picked at random!


----------



## Derideo_Te

Boss said:


> That doesn't mean that scientists know what Dark Matter and Dark Energy actually are. They are still trying to figure it out. Simply because they put a name on something doesn't mean that they know everything about it. Dark Matter and Dark Energy are very much unknowns at the present time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right.... and so is the case with God and spiritual nature. I rest my case.
Click to expand...


You don't have a case to rest!


----------



## Boss

dr.d said:


> Actually...its the extreme religious groups like the Westboro Baptist bunch certain ultra conservative religious leaders like Falwell that come across as hateful...blaming gays for nine-11 and picketing soldiers' funerals...
> *The atheists and agnostics I know of mostly have a "live and let live" attitude* and r guided by huministic morality...



Which is my point in the OP exactly. Atheists and agnostics have a "live and let live" attitude. That's why I argue that this board is not inundated by "Atheists and agnostics" but rather, God-haters. People who legitimately DO believe in God and are on a mission to destroy other's beliefs in the God they know exists. They are not Atheists, they lie about this. 

Their hatred of God is a manifestation of their fears. In order to prevent anyone from recognizing their true fears, they hide behind the label of "Atheist" and pretend they don't believe in God. They think they have everyone fooled, they may have even fooled themselves. But you cannot hate that which you do not believe in.


----------



## Boss

Derideo_Te said:


> God does not command you to revere him, not even in the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2 Kings 17:39
> 39 You must worship only the LORD your God. He is the one who will rescue you from all your enemies.
> 
> Hebrews 12:28-29
> Since we are receiving a Kingdom that cannot be destroyed, let us be thankful and please God by worshiping him with holy fear and awe.
> 
> Just 2 examples picked at random!
Click to expand...


Just 2 examples of men compelling followers to worship and revere God. When are you going to show us proof that *God* commands us to do this?


----------



## Derideo_Te

Boss said:


> dr.d said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually...its the extreme religious groups like the Westboro Baptist bunch certain ultra conservative religious leaders like Falwell that come across as hateful...blaming gays for nine-11 and picketing soldiers' funerals...
> *The atheists and agnostics I know of mostly have a "live and let live" attitude* and r guided by huministic morality...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is my point in the OP exactly. Atheists and agnostics have a "live and let live" attitude. That's why I argue that this board is not inundated by "Atheists and agnostics" but rather, God-haters. People who legitimately DO believe in God and are on a mission to destroy other's beliefs in the God they know exists. They are not Atheists, they lie about this.
> 
> Their hatred of God is a manifestation of their fears. In order to prevent anyone from recognizing their true fears, they hide behind the label of "Atheist" and pretend they don't believe in God. They think they have everyone fooled, they may have even fooled themselves. But you cannot hate that which you do not believe in.
Click to expand...


Your mythical "god haters" only exist in your delusions.


----------



## GibsonSG

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God does not command you to revere him, not even in the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2 Kings 17:39
> 39 You must worship only the LORD your God. He is the one who will rescue you from all your enemies.
> 
> Hebrews 12:28-29
> Since we are receiving a Kingdom that cannot be destroyed, let us be thankful and please God by worshiping him with holy fear and awe.
> 
> Just 2 examples picked at random!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just 2 examples of men compelling followers to worship and revere God. When are you going to show us proof that *God* commands us to do this?
Click to expand...


So now the bible isn't the word of god?


----------



## Boss

> More arrant nonsense from boss!



Translation: "More questions that I don't have an answer to, so let me dismiss them with smart-assery!"


----------



## edthecynic

Boss said:


> That doesn't mean that scientists know what Dark Matter and Dark Energy actually are. They are still trying to figure it out. Simply because they put a name on something doesn't mean that they know everything about it. Dark Matter and Dark Energy are very much unknowns at the present time.
> 
> 
> 
> Right.... and so is the case with God and spiritual nature. I rest my case.
Click to expand...

You have no case to rest.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God does not command you to revere him, not even in the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2 Kings 17:39
> 39 You must worship only the LORD your God. He is the one who will rescue you from all your enemies.
> 
> Hebrews 12:28-29
> Since we are receiving a Kingdom that cannot be destroyed, let us be thankful and please God by worshiping him with holy fear and awe.
> 
> Just 2 examples picked at random!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just 2 examples of men compelling followers to worship and revere God. When are you going to show us proof that *God* commands us to do this?
Click to expand...


You just erroneously alleged that the bible said no such thing and when your nose is rubbed in your ridiculous canards you squirm like a 3 year old needing to use the bathroom.

According to believers like yourself the bible is the inerrant word of God therefore it is a self referencing proof that your God is demanding that he be worshiped. 

Now if your cognitive dissonance is going to claim that the bible is *not *the inerrant word of God then that would make you a "god hater"!


----------



## Boss

GibsonSG said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2 Kings 17:39
> 39 You must worship only the LORD your God. He is the one who will rescue you from all your enemies.
> 
> Hebrews 12:28-29
> Since we are receiving a Kingdom that cannot be destroyed, let us be thankful and please God by worshiping him with holy fear and awe.
> 
> Just 2 examples picked at random!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just 2 examples of men compelling followers to worship and revere God. When are you going to show us proof that *God* commands us to do this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So now the bible isn't the word of god?
Click to expand...


That's an opinion religious people have. I made a statement that God does not command you to revere him, not even in the Bible. Has anyone shown me to be wrong? The two scriptures are from men compelling followers that it's a good idea to revere God. Which is exactly what I stated. Now either you can find something in the Bible where God directly commands you to revere him or you can't. ...I say you can't.


----------



## GibsonSG

Boss said:


> GibsonSG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just 2 examples of men compelling followers to worship and revere God. When are you going to show us proof that *God* commands us to do this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So now the bible isn't the word of god?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's an opinion religious people have. I made a statement that God does not command you to revere him, not even in the Bible. Has anyone shown me to be wrong? The two scriptures are from men compelling followers that it's a good idea to revere God. Which is exactly what I stated. Now either you can find something in the Bible where God directly commands you to revere him or you can't. ...I say you can't.
Click to expand...


If you don't think that the bible is the word of god from cover to cover, you're a fake Christian. Now you know.


----------



## edthecynic

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God does not command you to revere him, *not even in the Bible. *
> 
> 
> 
> 2 Kings 17:39
> 39 You must worship only the LORD your God. He is the one who will rescue you from all your enemies.
> 
> Hebrews 12:28-29
> Since we are receiving a Kingdom that cannot be destroyed, let us be thankful and please God by worshiping him with holy fear and awe.
> 
> Just 2 examples picked at random!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just 2 examples of men compelling followers to worship and revere God. When are you going to show us proof that *God* commands us to do this?
Click to expand...

Idiot!


----------



## Boss

Derideo_Te said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2 Kings 17:39
> 39 You must worship only the LORD your God. He is the one who will rescue you from all your enemies.
> 
> Hebrews 12:28-29
> Since we are receiving a Kingdom that cannot be destroyed, let us be thankful and please God by worshiping him with holy fear and awe.
> 
> Just 2 examples picked at random!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just 2 examples of men compelling followers to worship and revere God. When are you going to show us proof that *God* commands us to do this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just erroneously alleged that the bible said no such thing and when your nose is rubbed in your ridiculous canards you squirm like a 3 year old needing to use the bathroom.
> 
> According to believers like yourself the bible is the inerrant word of God therefore it is a self referencing proof that your God is demanding that he be worshiped.
> 
> Now if your cognitive dissonance is going to claim that the bible is *not *the inerrant word of God then that would make you a "god hater"!
Click to expand...


Look fucktard.... I said that God doesn't command you to revere him, not even in the Bible. You have not proven that statement incorrect and you can't. Religious people believe all kinds of shit! I'm not here to defend what religious people believe! I made a TRUE statement and unless you can prove it's UNTRUE, then you don't have an argument.


----------



## GibsonSG

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just 2 examples of men compelling followers to worship and revere God. When are you going to show us proof that *God* commands us to do this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just erroneously alleged that the bible said no such thing and when your nose is rubbed in your ridiculous canards you squirm like a 3 year old needing to use the bathroom.
> 
> According to believers like yourself the bible is the inerrant word of God therefore it is a self referencing proof that your God is demanding that he be worshiped.
> 
> Now if your cognitive dissonance is going to claim that the bible is *not *the inerrant word of God then that would make you a "god hater"!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look fucktard.... I said that God doesn't command you to revere him, not even in the Bible. You have not proven that statement incorrect and you can't. Religious people believe all kinds of shit! I'm not here to defend what religious people believe! I made a TRUE statement and unless you can prove it's UNTRUE, then you don't have an argument.
Click to expand...

"fucktard", ya, I think Jesus used to use that word.


----------



## Boss

GibsonSG said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GibsonSG said:
> 
> 
> 
> So now the bible isn't the word of god?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's an opinion religious people have. I made a statement that God does not command you to revere him, not even in the Bible. Has anyone shown me to be wrong? The two scriptures are from men compelling followers that it's a good idea to revere God. Which is exactly what I stated. Now either you can find something in the Bible where God directly commands you to revere him or you can't. ...I say you can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you don't think that the bible is the word of god from cover to cover, you're a fake Christian. Now you know.
Click to expand...


No, I'm not a "fake" Christian because I am not a Christian! lol


----------



## Derideo_Te

Boss said:


> GibsonSG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just 2 examples of men compelling followers to worship and revere God. When are you going to show us proof that *God* commands us to do this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So now the bible isn't the word of god?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's an opinion religious people have. I made a statement that God does not command you to revere him, not even in the Bible. Has anyone shown me to be wrong? The two scriptures are from men compelling followers that it's a good idea to revere God. Which is exactly what I stated. Now either you can find something in the Bible where God directly commands you to revere him or you can't. ...I say you can't.
Click to expand...


That loud clanging you are hearing is called cognitive dissonance!

And no, those voices in your head don't bother me at all!

But thanks for admitting to being the "god hater" you described in your OP. You have successfully managed to alienate even those who were on your side to begin with.


----------



## GibsonSG

Boss said:


> GibsonSG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's an opinion religious people have. I made a statement that God does not command you to revere him, not even in the Bible. Has anyone shown me to be wrong? The two scriptures are from men compelling followers that it's a good idea to revere God. Which is exactly what I stated. Now either you can find something in the Bible where God directly commands you to revere him or you can't. ...I say you can't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't think that the bible is the word of god from cover to cover, you're a fake Christian. Now you know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm not a "fake" Christian because I am not a Christian! lol
Click to expand...


Oh ok, I was kinda wondering why you know nothing about the subject.


----------



## Boss

GibsonSG said:


> "fucktard", ya, I think Jesus used to use that word.



Ya... that little "tactic" may work for you on Christians, but since I am not a Christian it doesn't work on me. I will say, it's nice to know that you "find Jesus" whenever you need to attack someone or cast judgement. More profound PROOF of my OP. Thanks for the contribution!


----------



## Derideo_Te

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just 2 examples of men compelling followers to worship and revere God. When are you going to show us proof that *God* commands us to do this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just erroneously alleged that the bible said no such thing and when your nose is rubbed in your ridiculous canards you squirm like a 3 year old needing to use the bathroom.
> 
> According to believers like yourself the bible is the inerrant word of God therefore it is a self referencing proof that your God is demanding that he be worshiped.
> 
> Now if your cognitive dissonance is going to claim that the bible is *not *the inerrant word of God then that would make you a "god hater"!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Look fucktard.*... I said that God doesn't command you to revere him, not even in the Bible. You have not proven that statement incorrect and you can't. Religious people believe all kinds of shit! I'm not here to defend what religious people believe! I made a TRUE statement and unless you can prove it's UNTRUE, then you don't have an argument.
Click to expand...


Yet another "man of God" using vulgarities because his delusion can't withstand logic, reason or even his own religious texts!

And as fair warning, I won't tolerate that language from you a second time!


----------



## edthecynic

Boss said:


> GibsonSG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just 2 examples of men compelling followers to worship and revere God. When are you going to show us proof that *God* commands us to do this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So now the bible isn't the word of god?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's an opinion religious people have. I made a statement that God does not command you to revere him, not even in the Bible. Has anyone shown me to be wrong? The two scriptures are from men compelling followers that it's a good idea to revere God. Which is exactly what I stated. Now either you can find* something in the Bible where God directly commands you to revere him* or you can't. ...I say you can't.
Click to expand...

Idiot!
*Exodus 3:12 NIV*

*And God said*, "I will be with you.  And this will be the sign to you that it is I who have sent you: When  you have brought the people out of Egypt, *you will worship God on this mountain."*


----------



## Boss

Derideo_Te said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GibsonSG said:
> 
> 
> 
> So now the bible isn't the word of god?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's an opinion religious people have. I made a statement that God does not command you to revere him, not even in the Bible. Has anyone shown me to be wrong? The two scriptures are from men compelling followers that it's a good idea to revere God. Which is exactly what I stated. Now either you can find something in the Bible where God directly commands you to revere him or you can't. ...I say you can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That loud clanging you are hearing is called cognitive dissonance!
> 
> And no, those voices in your head don't bother me at all!
> 
> But thanks for admitting to being the "god hater" you described in your OP. You have successfully managed to alienate even those who were on your side to begin with.
Click to expand...


Well I never admitted to being a god-hater. I made a statement that you are having trouble refuting. This is because it was a true statement and can't be refuted. God does not command you or anyone else to revere him. Not even in the Bible. <-TRUTH!


----------



## Derideo_Te

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's an opinion religious people have. I made a statement that God does not command you to revere him, not even in the Bible. Has anyone shown me to be wrong? The two scriptures are from men compelling followers that it's a good idea to revere God. Which is exactly what I stated. Now either you can find something in the Bible where God directly commands you to revere him or you can't. ...I say you can't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That loud clanging you are hearing is called cognitive dissonance!
> 
> And no, those voices in your head don't bother me at all!
> 
> But thanks for admitting to being the "god hater" you described in your OP. You have successfully managed to alienate even those who were on your side to begin with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I never admitted to being a god-hater. I made a statement that you are having trouble refuting. This is because it was a true statement and can't be refuted. God does not command you or anyone else to revere him. Not even in the Bible. <-TRUTH!
Click to expand...


BZZZT Wrong again!

Editec just posted this reference in post #118



> Exodus 3:12 NIV
> 
> *And God said*, "I will be with you. And this will be the sign to you that it is I who have sent you: When you have brought the people out of Egypt, *you will worship God on this mountain*."



So now that you are calling the bible and God a liar that makes you a "god hater" by your own OP definition!


----------



## Boss

> And God said, "I will be with you. And this will be the sign to you that it is I who have sent you: When you have brought the people out of Egypt, you will worship God on this mountain."



This is where God is telling Moses the location of where they can worship after the Pharaoh frees the people... Where is God's command that they must revere him? Still having trouble with that, are we?


----------



## edthecynic

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's an opinion religious people have. I made a statement that God does not command you to revere him, not even in the Bible. Has anyone shown me to be wrong? The two scriptures are from men compelling followers that it's a good idea to revere God. Which is exactly what I stated. Now either you can find something in the Bible where God directly commands you to revere him or you can't. ...I say you can't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That loud clanging you are hearing is called cognitive dissonance!
> 
> And no, those voices in your head don't bother me at all!
> 
> But thanks for admitting to being the "god hater" you described in your OP. You have successfully managed to alienate even those who were on your side to begin with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I never admitted to being a god-hater. I made a statement that you are having trouble refuting. This is because it was a true statement and can't be refuted. God does not command you or anyone else to revere him. Not even in the Bible. <-TRUTH!
Click to expand...

Liar^

*Luke 4:8 NIV*

 												Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.' "


----------



## hobelim

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's an opinion religious people have. I made a statement that God does not command you to revere him, not even in the Bible. Has anyone shown me to be wrong? The two scriptures are from men compelling followers that it's a good idea to revere God. Which is exactly what I stated. Now either you can find something in the Bible where God directly commands you to revere him or you can't. ...I say you can't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That loud clanging you are hearing is called cognitive dissonance!
> 
> And no, those voices in your head don't bother me at all!
> 
> But thanks for admitting to being the "god hater" you described in your OP. You have successfully managed to alienate even those who were on your side to begin with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I never admitted to being a god-hater. I made a statement that you are having trouble refuting. This is because it was a true statement and can't be refuted. God does not command you or anyone else to revere him. Not even in the Bible. <-TRUTH!
Click to expand...


sheesh.

rest your case already. You may be too enamored with yourself to be embarrassed but, damn!


----------



## Boss

> So now that you are calling the bible and God a liar that makes you a "god hater" by your own OP definition!



The only liars here are the god-haters.


----------



## edthecynic

Boss said:


> *And God said*, "I will be with you. And this will be the sign to you that it is I who have sent you: When you have brought the people out of Egypt, *you will worship God* on this mountain."
> 
> 
> 
> This is where God is telling Moses the location of where they can worship after the Pharaoh frees the people... *Where is God's command that they must revere him? *Still having trouble with that, are we?
Click to expand...

Idiot!


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Derideo_Te said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> In one of the studies where a chimp was taught sign language there is evidence of it deliberately telling a lie. This evidence means that higher primates are probably capable of self deception.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've read that too.
> 
> If only they had a god to worship, they wouldn't lie because, as we all know, god-believers never lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was another instance where the handler deliberately lied to the chimp and it become very upset. I can't find that article but it would suggest that there is an innate "morality" and sense of "right and wrong". Since no one has taught them about religion this must mean that it is a survival mechanism to be able to distinguish between truth and lies.
Click to expand...


My dog knows right from wrong and exhibits emotional responses to quite a few different situations. 

His feelings are hurt if we open gifts and there's not one for him.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God does not command you to revere him, not even in the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2 Kings 17:39
> 39 You must worship only the LORD your God. He is the one who will rescue you from all your enemies.
> 
> Hebrews 12:28-29
> Since we are receiving a Kingdom that cannot be destroyed, let us be thankful and please God by worshiping him with holy fear and awe.
> 
> Just 2 examples picked at random!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just 2 examples of men compelling followers to worship and revere God. When are you going to show us proof that *God* commands us to do this?
Click to expand...


IOW, it does not speak to me.


----------



## Boss

edthecynic said:


> Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.' "



Right... again we have a man compelling his followers to worship God. Where does God command that you revere him? Not seeing that.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

GibsonSG said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2 Kings 17:39
> 39 You must worship only the LORD your God. He is the one who will rescue you from all your enemies.
> 
> Hebrews 12:28-29
> Since we are receiving a Kingdom that cannot be destroyed, let us be thankful and please God by worshiping him with holy fear and awe.
> 
> Just 2 examples picked at random!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just 2 examples of men compelling followers to worship and revere God. When are you going to show us proof that *God* commands us to do this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So now the bible isn't the word of god?
Click to expand...


The bible is a bunch of fictional stories, passed down and translated and re-translated until it has no resemblance to the original tales.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Who hates "god"?


`


----------



## Derideo_Te

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.' "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right... again we have a man compelling his followers to worship God. Where does God command that you revere him? Not seeing that.
Click to expand...


Like all "god-haters" boss is now alleging that Jesus was not the Son of God!


----------



## edthecynic

Luddly Neddite said:


> Who hates "god"?
> 
> 
> `


Boss, and he hates Jesus too!


----------



## hobelim

Luddly Neddite said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2 Kings 17:39
> 39 You must worship only the LORD your God. He is the one who will rescue you from all your enemies.
> 
> Hebrews 12:28-29
> Since we are receiving a Kingdom that cannot be destroyed, let us be thankful and please God by worshiping him with holy fear and awe.
> 
> Just 2 examples picked at random!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just 2 examples of men compelling followers to worship and revere God. When are you going to show us proof that *God* commands us to do this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IOW, it does not speak to me.
Click to expand...


Maybe so, but Boss claimed that it is not commanded in the Bible to worship God.

Unfuckingbelievable.

 Boss  may be having a very intense spiritual experience but, obviously, it isn't a very good one.


----------



## hobelim

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.' "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right... again we have a man compelling his followers to worship God. Where does God command that you revere him? Not seeing that.
Click to expand...


You dishonest piece of shit.

You said that it is not commanded in the bible to worship God even after you were shown exactly where it is commanded in the bible, whoever wrote it.

You don't even have the slightest bit of integrity required to admit you were wrong even after you were proven wrong. How pathetic is that?

No one whose balls have been crushed can become a member of the assembly of the Lord.

Its the Law!


----------



## edthecynic

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.' "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right... again we have a man compelling his followers to worship God. Where does God command that you revere him? Not seeing that.
Click to expand...

*Exodus 8:1 NIV*

*Then the LORD said* to Moses, "Go to Pharaoh and say to him, *'This is what the LORD says: Let my people go, so that they may worship me.*


----------



## Boss

Luddly Neddite said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2 Kings 17:39
> 39 You must worship only the LORD your God. He is the one who will rescue you from all your enemies.
> 
> Hebrews 12:28-29
> Since we are receiving a Kingdom that cannot be destroyed, let us be thankful and please God by worshiping him with holy fear and awe.
> 
> Just 2 examples picked at random!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just 2 examples of men compelling followers to worship and revere God. When are you going to show us proof that *God* commands us to do this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IOW, it does not speak to me.
Click to expand...


Didn't say that. Let's stick with what I said. God does not command you or anyone to revere him. There are numerous places in the Bible where his followers compel others to worship God and revere him out of respect. This is often convoluted into the notion that God has commanded something, but God doesn't have to command a damn thing. God doesn't care what you do. You exist by the Grace of God. If God wanted ANYTHING to happen, it would instantaneously happen and you'd have no control over it. Likewise, if there was something God didn't want to happen, nothing you could do would ever make it happen. You are insignificant to God. What you want doesn't matter to God.


----------



## Boss

hobelim said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.' "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right... again we have a man compelling his followers to worship God. Where does God command that you revere him? Not seeing that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You dishonest piece of shit.
> 
> You said that it is not commanded in the bible to worship God even after you were shown exactly where it is commanded in the bible, whoever wrote it.
> 
> You don't even have the slightest bit of integrity required to admit you were wrong even after you were proven wrong. How pathetic is that?
> 
> No one whose balls have been crushed can become a member of the assembly of the Lord.
> 
> Its the Law!
Click to expand...


I did not say it is not commanded in the Bible to worship God, how silly.  I said that God does not command you to revere him, not even in the Bible. So far, you've not proven that statement incorrect and you can't because it is true. You keep on presenting examples of people in the Bible who are compelling others to worship and revere God, and I clearly stated that this was the case. God does not command this.


----------



## edthecynic

Boss said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just 2 examples of men compelling followers to worship and revere God. When are you going to show us proof that *God* commands us to do this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IOW, it does not speak to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't say that. Let's stick with what I said. God does not command you or anyone to revere him. There are numerous places in the Bible where his followers compel others to worship God and revere him out of respect. This is often convoluted into the notion that God has commanded something, but God doesn't have to command a damn thing. God doesn't care what you do. You exist by the Grace of God. If God wanted ANYTHING to happen, it would instantaneously happen and you'd have no control over it. Likewise, if there was something God didn't want to happen, nothing you could do would ever make it happen. You are insignificant to God. What you want doesn't matter to God.
Click to expand...

God has spoken!!! OBEY you peons!


----------



## Boss

edthecynic said:


> boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> jesus answered, "it is written: 'worship the lord your god and serve him only.' "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> right... Again we have a man compelling his followers to worship god. Where does god command that you revere him? Not seeing that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *exodus 8:1 niv*
> 
> *then the lord said* to moses, "go to pharaoh and say to him, *'this is what the lord says: Let my people go, so that they may worship me.*
Click to expand...


*where is god commanding that you revere him??????? *


----------



## edthecynic

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> right... Again we have a man compelling his followers to worship god. Where does god command that you revere him? Not seeing that.
> 
> 
> 
> *exodus 8:1 niv*
> 
> *then the lord said* to moses, "go to pharaoh and say to him, *'this is what the lord says: Let my people go, so that they may worship me.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *where is god commanding that you revere him??????? *
Click to expand...

Idiot!


----------



## Boss

edthecynic said:


> God has spoken!!! OBEY you peons!



Again, because you are such a fucking idiot... IF God wanted you to worship and revere Him... your ass would drop to your knees right now and be worshiping and revering Him, and there wouldn't be one fucking thing you'd be able to do about that. End of Argument!


----------



## edthecynic

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> God has spoken!!! OBEY you peons!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, because you are such a fucking idiot... IF God wanted you to worship and revere Him... your ass would drop to your knees right now and be worshiping and revering Him, and there wouldn't be one fucking thing you'd be able to do about that. End of Argument!
Click to expand...

That only proves God's lack of power to make me worship, and nothing else!
End of argument!


----------



## Derideo_Te

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> God has spoken!!! OBEY you peons!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, because you are such a fucking idiot... IF God wanted you to worship and revere Him... your ass would drop to your knees right now and be worshiping and revering Him, and there wouldn't be one fucking thing you'd be able to do about that. End of Argument!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That only proves God's lack of power to make me worship, and nothing else!
> End of argument!
Click to expand...


Not to mention nullifying "free will". Of course a "loving God" would prefer to earn the respect of his worshipers rather than force them to revere him. This is an exercise in futility, as are all boss's hissyfits on this topic!


----------



## Luddly Neddite

GibsonSG said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2 Kings 17:39
> 39 You must worship only the LORD your God. He is the one who will rescue you from all your enemies.
> 
> Hebrews 12:28-29
> Since we are receiving a Kingdom that cannot be destroyed, let us be thankful and please God by worshiping him with holy fear and awe.
> 
> Just 2 examples picked at random!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just 2 examples of men compelling followers to worship and revere God. When are you going to show us proof that *God* commands us to do this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So now the bible isn't the word of god?
Click to expand...


The bible is a bunch of fictional stories, passed down and translated and re-translated until it has no resemblance to the original tales.


----------



## Boss

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> God has spoken!!! OBEY you peons!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, because you are such a fucking idiot... IF God wanted you to worship and revere Him... your ass would drop to your knees right now and be worshiping and revering Him, and there wouldn't be one fucking thing you'd be able to do about that. End of Argument!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That only proves God's lack of power to make me worship, and nothing else!
> End of argument!
Click to expand...


No, it proves that it doesn't matter to God if you worship Him.


----------



## edthecynic

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, because you are such a fucking idiot... IF God wanted you to worship and revere Him... your ass would drop to your knees right now and be worshiping and revering Him, and there wouldn't be one fucking thing you'd be able to do about that. End of Argument!
> 
> 
> 
> That only proves God's lack of power to make me worship, and nothing else!
> End of argument!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it proves that it doesn't matter to God if you worship Him.
Click to expand...

No, it proves your God's impotence!


----------



## Boss

Derideo_Te said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, because you are such a fucking idiot... IF God wanted you to worship and revere Him... your ass would drop to your knees right now and be worshiping and revering Him, and there wouldn't be one fucking thing you'd be able to do about that. End of Argument!
> 
> 
> 
> That only proves God's lack of power to make me worship, and nothing else!
> End of argument!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not to mention nullifying "free will". Of course a "loving God" would prefer to earn the respect of his worshipers rather than force them to revere him. This is an exercise in futility, as are all boss's hissyfits on this topic!
Click to expand...


God doesn't love you anymore than the electricity in a wall outlet loves you. God doesn't "prefer" things, doesn't need to have preferences. These are humanistic incarnations, and granted, many of these are placed upon God by followers of religion, and as we see here, those who are God-haters. 

LMFAO... I don't know where you get "hissyfit" from. I simply made an observation in the OP and you along with several others have done an exceptional job of proving my point.


----------



## Boss

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> That only proves God's lack of power to make me worship, and nothing else!
> End of argument!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it proves that it doesn't matter to God if you worship Him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it proves your God's impotence!
Click to expand...


No, it proves your ignorance.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> That only proves God's lack of power to make me worship, and nothing else!
> End of argument!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention nullifying "free will". Of course a "loving God" would prefer to earn the respect of his worshipers rather than force them to revere him. This is an exercise in futility, as are all boss's hissyfits on this topic!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God doesn't love you anymore than the electricity in a wall outlet loves you. God doesn't "prefer" things, doesn't need to have preferences. These are humanistic incarnations, and granted, many of these are placed upon God by followers of religion, and as we see here, those who are God-haters.
> 
> LMFAO... I don't know where you get "hissyfit" from. I simply made an observation in the OP and you along with several others have done an exceptional job of proving my point.
Click to expand...


All that you have "proved" is that you are a "god hater" per your own OP definition. That you haven't figured this out yet and persist with your hissyfit outbursts every time you are exposed as being a liar is highly amusing.


----------



## The Irish Ram

> Exodus 3:12 NIV
> And God said, "I will be with you. And this will be the sign to you that it is I who have sent you: When you have brought the people out of Egypt, you will worship God on this mountain."



To understand that verse you need to understand the circumstances that prompted the remark.
God needs nothing from us.  Not glory, not fame, not adulation.  The above statement had nothing to do with what God needed, and everything to do with the needs of those EGYPTIAN JEWS, who for generations had lived and worshiped every God Egypt had to offer to no avail.  

What *they* needed for their sake, for their strength, for their freedom, was to re-recognize the God they had discarded over the years they spent in a pagan land.  *Him*, from whence came their help in generations past. 
*They* needed a way back to *Him*< who rewards those who know Him and call on Him, from any mountain top,  not the other way around.

He wanted them to recognize Him, rely on Him, call out to Him,  *so that He could (by way of their their free will and petition), care for them.* *He*, Abraham's covenant partner,  that wanted to end their slavery in Egypt and their adoration of powerless gods that failed to hear their cries.  But amazingly, the response He got, from their hard hearts was, "Thanks, but no thanks, we're used to golden calf gods and such."  And so they died there. 

Worshiping God on that mountain would have meant that *they* would have regained *their* footing  and *their* understanding of the God who chose to provide help to them for Abraham's sake.  
Had they turned from their pagan ways,  the 40 year trip would have taken 3 days and *all of them *would have enjoyed the land promised to them by the God they had forgotten.  He would have heard them rejoicing on the mountain top and gladly shepherded them home.  He heard not.  

The loss was theirs, not God's. God's esteem remains intact. Worship is for our benefit, not His.


----------



## The Irish Ram

On topic, God haters are capable of being propelled by evil because of a lack of understanding of their Father.  That's all it is. 

Satan knows God exists, and is well aware of His power.  He even quotes God! 
He just doesn't want *us* to know,  because then *all * of us would end up at God's table, saying grace.  We, accepting God's salvation through Christ, are a real bummer for Satan. And we are important to Satan. *Satan knows each of us by name*. Grace nullifies all of the hard work Satan has done in us.   

God haters are merely our brothers and sisters, unaware.  Pray for their conviction rather than engaging them in combat.  The Holy Spirit convicts, we just impart awareness of the unmerited favor God has for His children.   Spreading the Good News, prayer on their behalf,  and hope that  nonbelievers will realize what they are discarding is all we can do.  Then leave it in God's capable hands and enjoy the day He has prepared for us.  
He offered the Jews in the desert grace under His wing to replace their sins.   Some accepted His offer,  some did not.  He offered us grace under Christ's wing.  Some will accept His offer, some will not.


----------



## GibsonSG

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, because you are such a fucking idiot... IF God wanted you to worship and revere Him... your ass would drop to your knees right now and be worshiping and revering Him, and there wouldn't be one fucking thing you'd be able to do about that. End of Argument!
> 
> 
> 
> That only proves God's lack of power to make me worship, and nothing else!
> End of argument!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it proves that it doesn't matter to God if you worship Him.
Click to expand...


No, it doesn't prove anything about your invisible friend, since he's invisible and all, how do you presume to know what matters to someone you can't see, hear or touch? What a fucking noob you are.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Vandalshandle said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is illogical, there is no such thing as omnipotence! How can something that does not exist create anything?
> 
> Even God cannot change the past.
> - Agathon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you watch this.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gjvuwne0RrE]Evolution: Modern Myth (100 WAYS to KILL DARWIN'S EVOLUTION) - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is this guy used to teaching the blind and the deft with hand signing, or is he just full of himself, and want to make sure that you don't fall asleep when he is talking?
Click to expand...


 kinda like a preacher making sure you don't fall asleep.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Derideo_Te said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love the assertion that man's logic is flawless, and thus to be trusted.
> 
> God does exist, and I see people on here every day who declare he doesn't exist..and who at the same time hate him. (If there's a God, then he's an asshole for allowing pain and suffering!) and who absolutely 100 percent hate people who believe in God...while at the same time touting their belief that Christians are intolerant.
> 
> It's psychotic, but that's what happens when you choose to reject your creator.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The logic of mathematics applies across the known universe. The value of Pi remains the same no matter which planet you are on.
> 
> However if you are saying that the definition of omnipotence is flawed then you are absolutely correct because omnipotence cannot exist given the current logical universe in which we exist.
> 
> But if you agree that the definition of omnipotence is flawed then religion is wrong to claim that God is omnipotent. Perhaps religion should use the term ineffable instead. The only problem with that term is that it confounds the concept of "knowing" God.
> 
> None of this equates to "God hating". It is more akin to asking believers to reconcile these contradictions. Since this is impossible given the available terminology it is disingenuous to accuse those asking for the contradictions to be reconciled of "hating God". If anything it is yet another contradiction that believers have no interest in reconciling this cognitive dissonance.
> 
> But that is where faith comes into play. Your faith is absolute and as an Atheist I not only respect your faith but I am willing to die defending your right to your beliefs. Because to me your rights are sacrosanct. Without your right to believe as you do, my right to be an Atheist is meaningless.
> 
> That is our common ground and while we might have what amounts to logical differences they don't rise to the level of hatred. In that respect the OP is utterly wrong because he is mischaracterizing those who have as much right to ask these questions as those of faith do to their beliefs.
Click to expand...


Mathematics is not a friend to the atheist nor the macroevolutionist.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God does not command you to revere him, not even in the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2 Kings 17:39
> 39 You must worship only the LORD your God. He is the one who will rescue you from all your enemies.
> 
> Hebrews 12:28-29
> Since we are receiving a Kingdom that cannot be destroyed, let us be thankful and please God by worshiping him with holy fear and awe.
> 
> Just 2 examples picked at random!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just 2 examples of men compelling followers to worship and revere God. When are you going to show us proof that *God* commands us to do this?
Click to expand...


I have to agree with you they come off angry and bitter,not sure why.


----------



## Youwerecreated

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GibsonSG said:
> 
> 
> 
> So now the bible isn't the word of god?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's an opinion religious people have. I made a statement that God does not command you to revere him, not even in the Bible. Has anyone shown me to be wrong? The two scriptures are from men compelling followers that it's a good idea to revere God. Which is exactly what I stated. Now either you can find* something in the Bible where God directly commands you to revere him* or you can't. ...I say you can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Idiot!
> *Exodus 3:12 NIV*
> 
> *And God said*, "I will be with you.  And this will be the sign to you that it is I who have sent you: When  you have brought the people out of Egypt, *you will worship God on this mountain."*
Click to expand...


This was meant for the Jews,they were the chosen people. If they wanted God and his protection they had to obey God. They still had free will just as Adam.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Derideo_Te said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> That loud clanging you are hearing is called cognitive dissonance!
> 
> And no, those voices in your head don't bother me at all!
> 
> But thanks for admitting to being the "god hater" you described in your OP. You have successfully managed to alienate even those who were on your side to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I never admitted to being a god-hater. I made a statement that you are having trouble refuting. This is because it was a true statement and can't be refuted. God does not command you or anyone else to revere him. Not even in the Bible. <-TRUTH!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BZZZT Wrong again!
> 
> Editec just posted this reference in post #118
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exodus 3:12 NIV
> 
> *And God said*, "I will be with you. And this will be the sign to you that it is I who have sent you: When you have brought the people out of Egypt, *you will worship God on this mountain*."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So now that you are calling the bible and God a liar that makes you a "god hater" by your own OP definition!
Click to expand...


That scripture was taken out of context.


----------



## Youwerecreated

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> That loud clanging you are hearing is called cognitive dissonance!
> 
> And no, those voices in your head don't bother me at all!
> 
> But thanks for admitting to being the "god hater" you described in your OP. You have successfully managed to alienate even those who were on your side to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I never admitted to being a god-hater. I made a statement that you are having trouble refuting. This is because it was a true statement and can't be refuted. God does not command you or anyone else to revere him. Not even in the Bible. <-TRUTH!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar^
> 
> *Luke 4:8 NIV*
> 
> Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.' "
Click to expand...


Quit taking scripture out of context. You and I both have the choice to worship God or not. If you want what God is offering you obey and you come to love him.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Boss said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right... again we have a man compelling his followers to worship God. Where does God command that you revere him? Not seeing that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You dishonest piece of shit.
> 
> You said that it is not commanded in the bible to worship God even after you were shown exactly where it is commanded in the bible, whoever wrote it.
> 
> You don't even have the slightest bit of integrity required to admit you were wrong even after you were proven wrong. How pathetic is that?
> 
> No one whose balls have been crushed can become a member of the assembly of the Lord.
> 
> Its the Law!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did not say it is not commanded in the Bible to worship God, how silly.  I said that God does not command you to revere him, not even in the Bible. So far, you've not proven that statement incorrect and you can't because it is true. You keep on presenting examples of people in the Bible who are compelling others to worship and revere God, and I clearly stated that this was the case. God does not command this.
Click to expand...


They don't get it,maybe purposely. I can reject God tomorrow like many here have done. God is not a burden to me but I am to him. I fall short like everyone but I still follow him and his commands the best to my ability. I have chosen to worship him and give thanks to him for the blessings in my life. I am not being forced to it's a choice,not sure why they miss on that.


----------



## Boss

GibsonSG said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> That only proves God's lack of power to make me worship, and nothing else!
> End of argument!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it proves that it doesn't matter to God if you worship Him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't prove anything about your invisible friend, since he's invisible and all, how do you presume to know what matters to someone you can't see, hear or touch? What a fucking noob you are.
Click to expand...


What matters to someone? You sound like some idiot who thinks God is an invisible person. I've already explained to you that God is a spiritual force of energy, not a physical being. This could explain why god-haters think they can affect a difference with their hate. If God were a physical entity, you might hurt his feelings with all this mockery and ridicule.


----------



## Youwerecreated

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> God has spoken!!! OBEY you peons!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, because you are such a fucking idiot... IF God wanted you to worship and revere Him... your ass would drop to your knees right now and be worshiping and revering Him, and there wouldn't be one fucking thing you'd be able to do about that. End of Argument!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That only proves God's lack of power to make me worship, and nothing else!
> End of argument!
Click to expand...


Would you want a wife that was forced to marry you or one that freely chose to marry you ? oops or Husband.


----------



## edthecynic

Boss said:


> GibsonSG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it proves that it doesn't matter to God if you worship Him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't prove anything about your invisible friend, since he's invisible and all, how do you presume to know what matters to someone you can't see, hear or touch? What a fucking noob you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What matters to someone? You sound like some idiot who thinks God is an invisible person. I've already explained to you that *God is a spiritual force of energy, not a physical being*. This could explain why god-haters think they can affect a difference with their hate. If God were a physical entity, you might hurt his feelings with all this mockery and ridicule.
Click to expand...

Energy is a physical entity and as such can be measured. God cannot be measured and therefore is no form of energy.


----------



## dr.d

Geez...how can anyone be a burden to One who is omnipotent?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## Boss

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GibsonSG said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't prove anything about your invisible friend, since he's invisible and all, how do you presume to know what matters to someone you can't see, hear or touch? What a fucking noob you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What matters to someone? You sound like some idiot who thinks God is an invisible person. I've already explained to you that *God is a spiritual force of energy, not a physical being*. This could explain why god-haters think they can affect a difference with their hate. If God were a physical entity, you might hurt his feelings with all this mockery and ridicule.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Energy is a physical entity and as such can be measured. God cannot be measured and therefore is no form of energy.
Click to expand...


This is false. In some cases and in certain conditions, some forms of energy can be measured. 96% of our universe is comprised of dark energy and dark matter. They defy our modern physics. Dark matter has gravity but occupies no space. No one currently knows how to measure dark energy or even what it is. It appears to be so powerful that light cannot escape in some cases, which completely defies Laws of Thermodynamics and everything else. So when it comes to energy in 96% of the universe, you simply do not know and cannot measure it. 

God is a spiritual form of energy, it can't be measured physically, if it could be, it wouldn't be spiritual in nature. It is omnipresent, and humans have the capacity to connect to it, and billions upon billions have attested to this through history of man. It doesn't matter if physical science can't explain it because physical science can't even explain most of the physical universe.


----------



## MDiver

Most laws in the US are based upon simple common sense, rather than religion.  Yes the bible states that thou shalt not kill (while Moses went about killing right and left) and thou shalt not steal and those are laws that are on our books, but in general, the laws made in the US are inter-commerce laws, traffic laws, noise laws, property laws, tax laws, et cetera.


----------



## edthecynic

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> What matters to someone? You sound like some idiot who thinks God is an invisible person. I've already explained to you that *God is a spiritual force of energy, not a physical being*. This could explain why god-haters think they can affect a difference with their hate. If God were a physical entity, you might hurt his feelings with all this mockery and ridicule.
> 
> 
> 
> Energy is a physical entity and as such can be measured. God cannot be measured and therefore is no form of energy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is false. In some cases and in certain conditions, some forms of energy can be measured. *96% of our universe is comprised of dark energy and dark matter.* They defy our modern physics. Dark matter has gravity but occupies no space. *No one currently knows how to measure dark energy* or even what it is. It appears to be so powerful that light cannot escape in some cases, which completely defies Laws of Thermodynamics and everything else. So when it comes to energy in 96% of the universe, you simply do not know and cannot measure it.
> 
> God is a spiritual form of energy, it can't be measured physically, if it could be, it wouldn't be spiritual in nature. It is omnipresent, and humans have the capacity to connect to it, and billions upon billions have attested to this through history of man. It doesn't matter if physical science can't explain it because physical science can't even explain most of the physical universe.
Click to expand...

Idiot! If dark energy can't be measured, how can dark matter and energy total 96% of the universe? Dark energy is MEASURED by the expansion of the universe.


----------



## Boss

> Idiot! If dark energy can't be measured, how can dark matter and energy total 96% of the universe? Dark energy is MEASURED by the expansion of the universe.



Well because we can measure things that aren't dark energy and dark matter and do math. 100% minus 4%, which represent the stars, planets, carbon based life forms, periodic elements, etc. leaves 96%.... give or take. 

When I say we can't measure dark matter... how do you measure something that occupies no space, yet is there? Our physics don't know how to handle it. That's why scientists have invented Quantum Physics. They are trying to explain it, but at this point, everything is a theory. Dark matter and dark energy defy everything we thought we knew about our universe. 

We've not even touched on subatomic particles and what we've discovered there in the last decade, which completely rewrites all we thought we knew about atoms and the makeup of the universe. So to sit here and ignorantly claim that science can empirically measure energy and verify physical existence, is just plain dumb. It shows a complete lack of understanding when it comes to science and physics. 

If we were talking about a human's mental capacity in relation to science and understanding the universe, we'd be talking about someone who is severely and profoundly mentally retarded. What we factually know for certain about our universe compared to what there is to learn, wouldn't even register as a number. Yet you seem to be defiantly confident that science knows all, and this is the basis for you knowing it all too.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> What matters to someone? You sound like some idiot who thinks God is an invisible person. I've already explained to you that *God is a spiritual force of energy, not a physical being*. This could explain why god-haters think they can affect a difference with their hate. If God were a physical entity, you might hurt his feelings with all this mockery and ridicule.
> 
> 
> 
> Energy is a physical entity and as such can be measured. God cannot be measured and therefore is no form of energy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is false. In some cases and in certain conditions, some forms of energy can be measured. 96% of our universe is comprised of dark energy and dark matter. They defy our modern physics. Dark matter has gravity but occupies no space. No one currently knows how to measure dark energy or even what it is. It appears to be so powerful that light cannot escape in some cases, which completely defies Laws of Thermodynamics and everything else. So when it comes to energy in 96% of the universe, you simply do not know and cannot measure it.
> 
> *God is a spiritual form of energy, it can't be measured physically, if it could be, it wouldn't be spiritual in nature. It is omnipresent, and humans have the capacity to connect to it,* and billions upon billions have attested to this through history of man. It doesn't matter if physical science can't explain it because physical science can't even explain most of the physical universe.
Click to expand...


Once again boss is spouting the mental equivalent of fruit salad. If humans who are physical beings can "connect to it" then it must be possible to measure it. We experience spirituality, AKA meditation, via our brains and those brain waves can be measured scientifically. 







Your mumbo-jumbo pseudo intellect fails when the facts are provided.


----------



## Boss

MDiver said:


> Most laws in the US are based upon simple common sense, rather than religion.  Yes the bible states that thou shalt not kill (while Moses went about killing right and left) and thou shalt not steal and those are laws that are on our books, but in general, the laws made in the US are inter-commerce laws, traffic laws, noise laws, property laws, tax laws, et cetera.



You are free to believe whatever you wish to believe. But virtually every law in every culture and society, is based to some degree on a religious tenet. In our country, the specific foundational principle on which we base our Constitution and everything else, including all our laws, is the Judeo-Christian concept of all men being created equally and endowed rights by God. 

Now I am not here to defend the Bible or Christians, or what Moses did or didn't do, or whether Christians are bad... you can have your own opinions on that. You said you didn't think we should have laws based on religious doctrine, and that basically means you believe we shouldn't have laws. We should all be able to just do as we damn well please and let the chips fall where they may. No moral judgement, no accountability, no ethics or responsibility... just let's be a bunch of shit-flinging monkeys doing whatever feels good! 

If that's what you believe, that's fine. But I strongly suspect you don't believe that, and what you DO believe, is YOU should get to decide what morals and standards society gets to uphold, and then force the rest of us to live by your standards. Problem is, I don't agree with your standards, I have my own opinion and the political power of self-determination in a free society. So.... tough shit, Sherlock!


----------



## Boss

> Once again boss is spouting the mental equivalent of fruit salad. If humans who are physical beings can "connect to it" then it must be possible to measure it. We experience spirituality, AKA meditation, via our brains and those brain waves can be measured scientifically.



Man, you just don't give up, do you? They probably don't have instruments powerful enough to detect YOUR brain waves. If they did, they may have to invent a new type of physics to explain the results. If they ever cracked your noggin open, the vacuum might suck up the entire universe! 

When humans experience things, the brain emits electrical impulses. That simply does not "measure" anything other than activity of the brain. I hereby nominate you for the Nomad Award-- for going further out of the way to avoid the point than any other poster. Congrats!


----------



## Derideo_Te

Boss said:


> Once again boss is spouting the mental equivalent of fruit salad. If humans who are physical beings can "connect to it" then it must be possible to measure it. We experience spirituality, AKA meditation, via our brains and those brain waves can be measured scientifically.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Man, you just don't give up, do you? They probably don't have instruments powerful enough to detect YOUR brain waves. If they did, they may have to invent a new type of physics to explain the results. If they ever cracked your noggin open, the vacuum might suck up the entire universe!
> 
> When humans experience things, the brain emits electrical impulses. That simply does not "measure" anything other than activity of the brain. I hereby nominate you for the Nomad Award-- for going further out of the way to avoid the point than any other poster. Congrats!
Click to expand...


Typical dishonesty on your part. You edit out your own inane allegation because it exposes your stupidity. But here it is again!



> God is a spiritual form of energy, it can't be measured physically, if it could be, it wouldn't be spiritual in nature. It is omnipresent, and humans have the capacity to connect to it,



According to you this alleged "spiritual form of energy" is "omnipresent" therefore it must be detectable if "humans have the capacity to connect to it". 

When humans are in a state of "spiritual awareness" that is reflected through the scientifically measurable state of the brainwaves which are the electrical energy generated by the brain. Since that electrical energy has a physical source that is producing this "spiritual form of energy" your entire premise that "God is a spiritual form of energy, it can't be measured physically" is utterly bogus.


----------



## Steven_R

Boss said:


> When I say we can't measure dark matter... how do you measure something that occupies no space, yet is there?* Our physics don't know how to handle it. That's why scientists have invented Quantum Physics. *They are trying to explain it, but at this point, everything is a theory. Dark matter and dark energy defy everything we thought we knew about our universe.



Not for nothing, but Quantum Physics (aka Quantum Mechanics) has been a field since about 1900 beginning with Max Planck. Ideas about what we now call Dark Matter first hit the scene in the mid-1930s and Perlmutter _et al_ didn't publish their supernova observations that lead to the ideas behind Dark Energy until 1999. Even beyond that, the problem in physics isn't that Quantum Mechanics and the unknown 96% exist, it's that the physics that allow for the Quantum world don't work in the classic universe and vice versa. We seem to have two completely opposing sets of physics but only one universe.

This material is first introduced to physics students in Physics III (or Modern Physics or Physics 103 or so). It's a sophomore course, so anyone who has Calc I and the two classical mechanics courses under their belts can sign up.


----------



## GibsonSG

Boss said:


> GibsonSG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it proves that it doesn't matter to God if you worship Him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't prove anything about your invisible friend, since he's invisible and all, how do you presume to know what matters to someone you can't see, hear or touch? What a fucking noob you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What matters to someone? You sound like some idiot who thinks God is an invisible person. I've already explained to you that *God is a spiritual force of energy, not a physical being*. This could explain why god-haters think they can affect a difference with their hate. If God were a physical entity, you might hurt his feelings with all this mockery and ridicule.
Click to expand...


Please provide proof, you fucking noob.


----------



## GibsonSG

Youwerecreated said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, because you are such a fucking idiot... IF God wanted you to worship and revere Him... your ass would drop to your knees right now and be worshiping and revering Him, and there wouldn't be one fucking thing you'd be able to do about that. End of Argument!
> 
> 
> 
> That only proves God's lack of power to make me worship, and nothing else!
> End of argument!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Would you want a wife that was forced to marry you *or one that freely chose to marry you ? oops or Husband.
Click to expand...


That's called islam.


----------



## Derideo_Te

GibsonSG said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> That only proves God's lack of power to make me worship, and nothing else!
> End of argument!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Would you want a wife that was forced to marry you *or one that freely chose to marry you ? oops or Husband.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's called islam.
Click to expand...


Or pregnancy!


----------



## edthecynic

Boss said:


> Idiot! If dark energy can't be measured, how can dark matter and energy total 96% of the universe? Dark energy is MEASURED by the expansion of the universe.
> 
> 
> 
> *Well because we can measure things that aren't dark energy and dark matter and do math. 100% minus 4%, which represent the stars, planets, carbon based life forms, periodic elements, etc. leaves 96%*.... give or take.
> 
> When I say we can't measure dark matter... how do you measure something that occupies no space, yet is there? Our physics don't know how to handle it. That's why scientists have invented Quantum Physics. They are trying to explain it, but at this point, everything is a theory. Dark matter and dark energy defy everything we thought we knew about our universe.
> 
> We've not even touched on subatomic particles and what we've discovered there in the last decade, which completely rewrites all we thought we knew about atoms and the makeup of the universe. So to sit here and ignorantly claim that science can empirically measure energy and verify physical existence, is just plain dumb. It shows a complete lack of understanding when it comes to science and physics.
> 
> If we were talking about a human's mental capacity in relation to science and understanding the universe, we'd be talking about someone who is severely and profoundly mentally retarded. What we factually know for certain about our universe compared to what there is to learn, wouldn't even register as a number. Yet you seem to be defiantly confident that science knows all, and this is the basis for you knowing it all too.
Click to expand...

Idiot!
I told you how dark energy is measured, by measuring the expansion of the universe. Scientists are a bit better at figuring out things than you know-it-alls. Dark energy = 68.3%, dark matter = 26.8% and normal matter = 4.6%.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Derideo_Te said:


> GibsonSG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Would you want a wife that was forced to marry you *or one that freely chose to marry you ? oops or Husband.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's called islam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or pregnancy!
Click to expand...


Whatever the reason, God does not make man worship him. the final decision is left to the person to decide.

His world is not for everyone for some odd reason.


----------



## Youwerecreated

dr.d said:


> Geez...how can anyone be a burden to One who is omnipotent?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com



Because I do things that he loathes and despite all my short comings he still loves me. Just think of it this way,you have a child that is rebellious and is always putting himself in harms way and you just can't seem to get the child right. You still love him but he would become a burden because of his decisions continue to put himself in harms way even after all the lessons given and learned.


----------



## Youwerecreated

MDiver said:


> Most laws in the US are based upon simple common sense, rather than religion.  Yes the bible states that thou shalt not kill (while Moses went about killing right and left) and thou shalt not steal and those are laws that are on our books, but in general, the laws made in the US are inter-commerce laws, traffic laws, noise laws, property laws, tax laws, et cetera.



The proper law is thou shall not commit murder not kill,big difference. Thou shall not kill is a poor translation.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GibsonSG said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's called islam.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or pregnancy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whatever the reason, God does not make man worship him. the final decision is left to the person to decide.
> 
> His world is not for everyone for some odd reason.
Click to expand...


Religions make man worship whatever god(s) they have created in their own image. Some are more extreme than others but all of them demand obedience and worship. Given how many religions and gods that have come and gone there is no basis for any of them to claim to be the "one true religion" although all of them do so!

On the positive side religions have provided both solace for the distressed and real food and shelter for the needy. They offer hope for those who are seeking answers. They are founded on sound principles but there are always those who will exploit them for their own nefarious ends. In that respect religions lack "checks & balances". But overall they still do a lot of good!


----------



## Steven_R

Boss said:


> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.



You proceed from a false assumption. I don't hate God. I just don't believe in the Abrahamic God any more than I do in the thousands of other mythical deities. I don't even hate the believers in God so much as I pity them for clinging to fairy tales as adults. There might even be some force outside of the natural universe, but Jehovah is no more real than Zeus or Odin or Ganesh or Pele or Darth Vader. If you want to hang your entire weltanschaung on a fable, well I think it's stupid, but who am I to stop you?

What I hate is when True Believers decide they know how I should live my life and then use the force of law to make me. What I hate is when the religious demand that I accommodate their views and if I don't, I'm somehow hateful. What I hate is when those with a religious agenda try to jam their nonsense in classrooms. What I hate is the intolerance that comes along with knowing you are somehow worshipping the right god(s) and doctrine and everyone else is swine. What I hate is the violence that comes along with religion and how it gets used for political purposes as though it is a good and just thing.

In short, I don't hate God or even you, provided you keep it to yourself. Force it on me and that's when I start to hate.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or pregnancy!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever the reason, God does not make man worship him. the final decision is left to the person to decide.
> 
> His world is not for everyone for some odd reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religions make man worship whatever god(s) they have created in their own image. Some are more extreme than others but all of them demand obedience and worship. Given how many religions and gods that have come and gone there is no basis for any of them to claim to be the "one true religion" although all of them do so!
> 
> On the positive side religions have provided both solace for the distressed and real food and shelter for the needy. They offer hope for those who are seeking answers. They are founded on sound principles but there are always those who will exploit them for their own nefarious ends. In that respect religions lack "checks & balances". But overall they still do a lot of good!
Click to expand...


Religion has brought embarrassment to God. God has helped us with his words but man has manipulated the words to fit their own views.

God will deal with that, he has made it clear in the book of revelations.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever the reason, God does not make man worship him. the final decision is left to the person to decide.
> 
> His world is not for everyone for some odd reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Religions make man worship whatever god(s) they have created in their own image. Some are more extreme than others but all of them demand obedience and worship. Given how many religions and gods that have come and gone there is no basis for any of them to claim to be the "one true religion" although all of them do so!
> 
> On the positive side religions have provided both solace for the distressed and real food and shelter for the needy. They offer hope for those who are seeking answers. They are founded on sound principles but there are always those who will exploit them for their own nefarious ends. In that respect religions lack "checks & balances". But overall they still do a lot of good!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religion has brought embarrassment to God. God has helped us with his words but man has manipulated the words to fit their own views.
> 
> God will deal with that, he has made it clear in the book of revelations.
Click to expand...


Reminded me of a great quote:

"Every day people are straying away from the church and going back to God." Lenny Bruce

If the god in the BIble exists I'd expect the first thing he'll do is strike down all the non-Jews. Everyone claiming Yeshua is G-d has broken the first commandment and nothing angers G-d more.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Delta4Embassy said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religions make man worship whatever god(s) they have created in their own image. Some are more extreme than others but all of them demand obedience and worship. Given how many religions and gods that have come and gone there is no basis for any of them to claim to be the "one true religion" although all of them do so!
> 
> On the positive side religions have provided both solace for the distressed and real food and shelter for the needy. They offer hope for those who are seeking answers. They are founded on sound principles but there are always those who will exploit them for their own nefarious ends. In that respect religions lack "checks & balances". But overall they still do a lot of good!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Religion has brought embarrassment to God. God has helped us with his words but man has manipulated the words to fit their own views.
> 
> God will deal with that, he has made it clear in the book of revelations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reminded me of a great quote:
> 
> "Every day people are straying away from the church and going back to God." Lenny Bruce
> 
> If the god in the BIble exists I'd expect the first thing he'll do is strike down all the non-Jews. Everyone claiming Yeshua is G-d has broken the first commandment and nothing angers G-d more.
Click to expand...


In which case he will spare the Atheists since they are not making that claim!


----------



## hobelim

Delta4Embassy said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religions make man worship whatever god(s) they have created in their own image. Some are more extreme than others but all of them demand obedience and worship. Given how many religions and gods that have come and gone there is no basis for any of them to claim to be the "one true religion" although all of them do so!
> 
> On the positive side religions have provided both solace for the distressed and real food and shelter for the needy. They offer hope for those who are seeking answers. They are founded on sound principles but there are always those who will exploit them for their own nefarious ends. In that respect religions lack "checks & balances". But overall they still do a lot of good!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Religion has brought embarrassment to God. God has helped us with his words but man has manipulated the words to fit their own views.
> 
> God will deal with that, he has made it clear in the book of revelations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reminded me of a great quote:
> 
> "Every day people are straying away from the church and going back to God." Lenny Bruce
> 
> If the god in the BIble exists I'd expect the first thing he'll do is strike down all the non-Jews. Everyone claiming Yeshua is G-d has broken the first commandment and nothing angers G-d more.
Click to expand...


He already has. Can't you see that the inability of those who break the first commandment to be honest or rational excludes them from the fullness of life reserved for the righteous?

They have their reward already.


"He who leads into captivity shall go into captivity; he who lifts the sword to kill is bound by the sword to be killed."


----------



## koshergrl

One wonders why so-called atheists get so angry at people who believe in God.

The anger is palpable in this thread.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Delta4Embassy said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religions make man worship whatever god(s) they have created in their own image. Some are more extreme than others but all of them demand obedience and worship. Given how many religions and gods that have come and gone there is no basis for any of them to claim to be the "one true religion" although all of them do so!
> 
> On the positive side religions have provided both solace for the distressed and real food and shelter for the needy. They offer hope for those who are seeking answers. They are founded on sound principles but there are always those who will exploit them for their own nefarious ends. In that respect religions lack "checks & balances". But overall they still do a lot of good!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Religion has brought embarrassment to God. God has helped us with his words but man has manipulated the words to fit their own views.
> 
> God will deal with that, he has made it clear in the book of revelations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reminded me of a great quote:
> 
> "Every day people are straying away from the church and going back to God." Lenny Bruce
> 
> If the god in the BIble exists I'd expect the first thing he'll do is strike down all the non-Jews. Everyone claiming Yeshua is G-d has broken the first commandment and nothing angers G-d more.
Click to expand...


I like that Quote.

The OT prophesied concerning the coming messiah and his name.

The Name of Jesus Revealed in the Old Testament
"Yeshua Is My Name"


In my latest book, The Signature of God, I reported on one of the most astonishing and important biblical discoveries in history. God has hidden the name Yeshua - which is the Hebrew form of the name Jesus in numerous passages throughout the Old Testament. Especially within the great Messianic prophetic passages the Lord has hidden at equally spaced intervals in the Hebrew text the incredible message that "Yeshua is My Name." This is one of the most astonishing and tremendous biblical discoveries in the last two thousand years.

The phenomenon of Hebrew codes hidden within the text of the Torah gives us one of the strongest possible proofs that the Bible was truly inspired by God. My friend Yacov Rambsel, a Jewish Messianic pastor in San Antonio, Texas, made a series of extraordinary discoveries through a detailed analysis of the Hebrew Scriptures by individually counting the equally spaced intervals between the letters. Incredibly, Yacov found the original Hebrew name of Jesus, Yeshua - encoded in the very first verse Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Starting with the fifth letter, Yod - , in the first word in the Bible, B'raisheet "In the beginning" the name of Jesus - Yeshua - is spelled out by counting forward every 521st letter. The letters spell out the words "Yeshua Yakhol" which translates as "Jesus is able."

Grant R. Jeffrey Ministries


----------



## koshergrl

The bible is the only thing in the world that becomes more and more complex..yet more simple....upon constant review. The more you look at it, the more is revealed, the more power is exposed....and the only possible reason for that is divinity within the book itself.

God haters get all hung up on the fact that so many people have translated the Word..and they lose sight of the fact that despite that fact, the Word remains true, and constant, and completely intact. That in and of itself if proof of the existence of God and the indwelling of the holy spirit in the words themselves. 

For some reason, that makes them furious.


----------



## Steven_R

It doesn't make me furious that you think the Bible is all that and a bag of chips. Some people find great understanding and symbolism is all manner of things. You find it in a Bronze Age Creation Mythology. Good for you.

It's when your kind use it as a justification for all kinds of ugliness and then wrap themselves in a cloak of smug righteousness that I have problems.


----------



## Truthmatters

Boss said:


> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.



Not believing in YOUR chosen religion is NOT hate.


we have as much right NOT to believe as you do to believe


----------



## Youwerecreated

Truthmatters said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not believing in YOUR chosen religion is NOT hate.
> 
> 
> we have as much right NOT to believe as you do to believe
Click to expand...


Exactly, God allows that to take place otherwise we would be robots.


----------



## Truthmatters

and your proof god exists is what?


You see there are many many religions in this world.

You chose one( likely chosen for you by your parents).


how many religions are dead wrong about being the only way?


religion is provabley WRONG.


You choose to believe NOT out of facts.


You don't get to shame people for NOT  believing in your myths.

GET IT.

your not the judge


----------



## Truthmatters

When I tell you what I believe and why it is NOT an insult to you.

stop lying and being prejudice against science


----------



## Truthmatters

by your own theory 99 percent of religions are WRONG.


yet you have not one iota that YOUR chosen one is correct.


I believe in known science.

my ideas are provable with FACTS


----------



## Truthmatters

If that insults your religion then maybe you hate facts


----------



## Boss

Ahh, the Mother of All God Haters has arrived!!


----------



## Youwerecreated

Truthmatters said:


> and your proof god exists is what?
> 
> 
> You see there are many many religions in this world.
> 
> You chose one( likely chosen for you by your parents).
> 
> 
> how many religions are dead wrong about being the only way?
> 
> 
> religion is provabley WRONG.
> 
> 
> You choose to believe NOT out of facts.
> 
> 
> You don't get to shame people for NOT  believing in your myths.
> 
> GET IT.
> 
> your not the judge



I am not gonna keep repeating myself.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Truthmatters said:


> When I tell you what I believe and why it is NOT an insult to you.
> 
> stop lying and being prejudice against science



I don't know who this was directed at but I would not have spent so much on my education in science, if I felt the way about it as you claim.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Truthmatters said:


> by your own theory 99 percent of religions are WRONG.
> 
> 
> yet you have not one iota that YOUR chosen one is correct.
> 
> 
> I believe in known science.
> 
> my ideas are provable with FACTS



Already answered this question. religion does not matter to God your faith in him does.


----------



## koshergrl

Steven_R said:


> It doesn't make me furious that you think the Bible is all that and a bag of chips. Some people find great understanding and symbolism is all manner of things. You find it in a Bronze Age Creation Mythology. Good for you.
> 
> It's when your kind use it as a justification for all kinds of ugliness and then wrap themselves in a cloak of smug righteousness that I have problems.



Yeah. Excuses for bigotry. You'll notice you didn't use one specific example.

Because it's just about hate against a group of people who aren't like you. I see a LOT more smug righteousness, hatred and violence from atheists than I have EVER seen from Christians.

Tell me how many millions have atheists saved and freed because they believe it's the right thing to do? How many atheists have died to protect the freedom and lives of others?

That's right. None. Your irritation at our *smug* righteousness is nothing more than resentment and jealousy. You want what we have...but you can't, because you hate what we believe in.

So you piss and moan.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Truthmatters said:


> by your own theory 99 percent of religions are WRONG.
> 
> 
> yet you have not one iota that YOUR chosen one is correct.
> 
> 
> I believe in known science.
> 
> my ideas are provable with FACTS



How did origins of life begin ?


----------



## Boss

Derideo_Te said:


> According to you this alleged "spiritual form of energy" is "omnipresent" therefore it must be detectable if "humans have the capacity to connect to it".
> 
> When humans are in a state of "spiritual awareness" that is reflected through the scientifically measurable state of the brainwaves which are the electrical energy generated by the brain. Since that electrical energy has a physical source that is producing this "spiritual form of energy" your entire premise that "God is a spiritual form of energy, it can't be measured physically" is utterly bogus.



It is detectible, spiritually. That's why so many people believe in it. You are trying to argue that because we have brainwaves while we are spiritually connecting, there isn't a spiritual energy we are connecting to and it's just a byproduct of our brainwaves. Well then, this means nothing is real and reality doesn't exist, it is all just an illusion byproduct of our brainwaves. 

The mind is not producing spiritual energy, it is connecting to it. This spiritual energy is the source of inspiration. Billions and billions of people who have experienced spiritual connection are convinced it is real. Now, maybe everything that is real is an illusion, but spiritual connection is certainly a vital part of that illusion.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Youwerecreated said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> by your own theory 99 percent of religions are WRONG.
> 
> 
> yet you have not one iota that YOUR chosen one is correct.
> 
> 
> I believe in known science.
> 
> my ideas are provable with FACTS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How did origins of life begin ?
Click to expand...




How did the origins of god begin?


----------



## Steven_R

How many atheists have burned someone at the stake for believing in a God? How many atheists used their own Holy Book as a justification to rid political enemies by claiming they weren't right with God? How many atheists were involved in turning the Inca into slaves in order to "save their souls"?


----------



## Truthmatters

recombining of chemicals that make up life.


fact that what you CHOOSE to believe is not based in fact.


Its why they call it faith


----------



## Truthmatters

Vandalshandle said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> by your own theory 99 percent of religions are WRONG.
> 
> 
> yet you have not one iota that YOUR chosen one is correct.
> 
> 
> I believe in known science.
> 
> my ideas are provable with FACTS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How did origins of life begin ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How did the origins of god begin?
Click to expand...


people making him up


----------



## koshergrl

Here are some things for atheists to be smug about:

"&#8220;  It is true that it's  possible that religion can produce evil, and generally when we look  closer at the detail it produces evil because the individual people are  actually living in a rejection of the tenets of Christianity and a  rejection of the God that they are supposed to be following. So it can  produce it, but the historical fact is that outright rejection of God  and institutionalizing of atheism actually does produce evil on  incredible levels. We're talking about tens of millions of people as a  result of the rejection of God.[1]  &#8221;    

 


Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn


Nobel Prize winner Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn  was asked to account for the great tragedies that occurred under the  brutal communist regime he and fellow citizens suffered under. 
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn offered the following explanation: 
    &#8220;  Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: 'Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.' Since then I have spend well-nigh 50 years working on the history of  our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected  hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight  volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by  that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as  possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some  60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to  repeat: 'Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.' [9] 
  &#8221;    Vox Day notes concerning atheism and mass murder: 
    &#8220;  Apparently it was just  an amazing coincidence that every Communist of historical note publicly  declared his atheism &#8230; .there have been twenty-eight countries in world history  that can be confirmed to have been ruled by regimes with avowed  atheists at the helm &#8230; These twenty-eight historical regimes have been  ruled by eighty-nine atheists, of whom more than half have engaged in  democidal162 acts of the sort committed by Stalin and Mao &#8230; The total body count for the ninety years between 1917 and 2007 is  approximately 148 million dead at the bloody hands of fifty-two  atheists, three times more than all the human beings killed by war,  civil war, and individual crime in the entire twentieth century  combined." 


Atheism and Mass Murder - Conservapedia


----------



## koshergrl

"s a 58 percent chance that an atheist leader will murder a noticeable  percentage of the population over which he rules sufficient evidence  that atheism does, in fact, provide a systematic influence to do bad  things? If that is not deemed to be conclusive, how about the fact that  the average atheist crime against humanity is 18.3 million percent worse  than the very worst depredation committed by Christians, even though  atheists have had less than one-twentieth the number of opportunities  with which to commit them. If one considers the statistically  significant size of the historical atheist set and contrasts it with the  fact that not one in a thousand religious leaders have committed  similarly large-scale atrocities, it is impossible to conclude  otherwise, even if we do not yet understand exactly why this should be  the case. Once might be an accident, even twice could be coincidence,  but fifty-two incidents in ninety years reeks of causation![10]"

Atheism and Mass Murder - Conservapedia


----------



## Steven_R

For every example of an atheist regime doing unspeakable things you bring up, I can bring up at least one of unspeakable things being done in God's name. Is that really a game you want to play? Stalin had his purges, Torquemada had his auto de' fey.


----------



## Truthmatters

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to you this alleged "spiritual form of energy" is "omnipresent" therefore it must be detectable if "humans have the capacity to connect to it".
> 
> When humans are in a state of "spiritual awareness" that is reflected through the scientifically measurable state of the brainwaves which are the electrical energy generated by the brain. Since that electrical energy has a physical source that is producing this "spiritual form of energy" your entire premise that "God is a spiritual form of energy, it can't be measured physically" is utterly bogus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is detectible, spiritually. That's why so many people believe in it. You are trying to argue that because we have brainwaves while we are spiritually connecting, there isn't a spiritual energy we are connecting to and it's just a byproduct of our brainwaves. Well then, this means nothing is real and reality doesn't exist, it is all just an illusion byproduct of our brainwaves.
> you can not prove that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesnt
> The mind is not producing spiritual energy, it is connecting to it. This spiritual energy is the source of inspiration. Billions and billions of people who have experienced spiritual connection are convinced it is real. Now, maybe everything that is real is an illusion, but spiritual connection is certainly a vital part of that illusion.
Click to expand...




Now quit pretending science backs religion.


It doesn't.


It why the churches have always sought to control science.

the right in this country wants that right now


----------



## Steven_R

koshergrl said:


> "s a 58 percent chance that an atheist leader will murder a noticeable  percentage of the population over which he rules sufficient evidence  that atheism does, in fact, provide a systematic influence to do bad  things? If that is not deemed to be conclusive, how about the fact that  the average atheist crime against humanity is 18.3 million percent worse  than the very worst depredation committed by Christians, even though  atheists have had less than one-twentieth the number of opportunities  with which to commit them. If one considers the statistically  significant size of the historical atheist set and contrasts it with the  fact that not one in a thousand religious leaders have committed  similarly large-scale atrocities, it is impossible to conclude  otherwise, even if we do not yet understand exactly why this should be  the case. Once might be an accident, even twice could be coincidence,  but fifty-two incidents in ninety years reeks of causation![10]"
> 
> Atheism and Mass Murder - Conservapedia



Jim Jones.


----------



## GISMYS

God is outside time,time was created for man,there is no time when God was or is not,God is the alpha and omega=the beginning and the end. PTL.


----------



## Truthmatters

Prove that


----------



## Truthmatters

If you god fearing people would QUIT trying to FORCE others to live under your religious rules then we would leave you alone.

You always try to control everyone else and FORCE them to follow YOUR chosen religion.

STOP


----------



## koshergrl

"Atheism, lack belief in God, have the following characteristics that  can lend itself to mass murder and can explain why the greatest mass  murderers were atheists:[11][12][13] 

lack of recognition of an ultimate judge of moral actions and a  judge who sets injustice aright in a last judgement, and thus do not  recognize the immorality of murder.
lack of seeing the importance of human beings as images of God  and so easily discarding them as merely material things, products of  mere chance.
lack of acknowledging an external standard of moral perfection,  thus ending up with self-created standards which can include killing  for political survival.
absence of guidance by divine revelation of the moral law, such as "Thou shalt not kill".
following an ethic of atheistic evolutionism that is based on  the survival and victory of the fittest, which is ultimately a  "bloodthirsty ethic", the words of Joseph Ratzinger, that is an ethic that is eager to kill and to maim. This ethic is about conquering others rather than self-conquest.[14]."
Atheism and Mass Murder - Conservapedia


----------



## Truthmatters

Look at the republican party right now.

they want their religion to be LAW of the LAND.


We are not all christians


----------



## Avatar4321

Truthmatters said:


> Look at the republican party right now.
> 
> they want their religion to be LAW of the LAND.
> 
> 
> We are not all christians



Why do you feel the need to lie?


----------



## Truthmatters

koshergrl said:


> "Atheism, lack belief in God, have the following characteristics that  can lend itself to mass murder and can explain why the greatest mass  murderers were atheists:[11][12][13]
> 
> lack of recognition of an ultimate judge of moral actions and a  judge who sets injustice aright in a last judgement, and thus do not  recognize the immorality of murder.
> lack of seeing the importance of human beings as images of God  and so easily discarding them as merely material things, products of  mere chance.
> lack of acknowledging an external standard of moral perfection,  thus ending up with self-created standards which can include killing  for political survival.
> absence of guidance by divine revelation of the moral law, such as "Thou shalt not kill".
> following an ethic of atheistic evolutionism that is based on  the survival and victory of the fittest, which is ultimately a  "bloodthirsty ethic", the words of Joseph Ratzinger, that is an ethic that is eager to kill and to maim. This ethic is about conquering others rather than self-conquest.[14]."
> Atheism and Mass Murder - Conservapedia



see 


there they are right there doing exactly what I said.

If you don't believe what they want you to believe you are EVIL to them.


----------



## GISMYS

God is truth and love and the proof is everywhere in the universe. == I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last. Revelation 22:13


----------



## Truthmatters

Avatar4321 said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at the republican party right now.
> 
> they want their religion to be LAW of the LAND.
> 
> 
> We are not all christians
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you feel the need to lie?
Click to expand...


so your party doesn't USE religion for votes?


----------



## koshergrl

Stop being such a fruit loop TDM. Focus.

I'd ask you to provide evidence of the tripe you're pedaling, but I trust that everybody knows you're mentally ill and spouting your usual brand of lunacy, that has no basis in reality. Take your meds and a nap, please.


----------



## Avatar4321

Truthmatters said:


> If you god fearing people would QUIT trying to FORCE others to live under your religious rules then we would leave you alone.
> 
> You always try to control everyone else and FORCE them to follow YOUR chosen religion.
> 
> STOP



So we are forcing everyone to follow our rules by saying you cant force us to do something contrary to our beliefs?

I think you have it backwards as usual.


----------



## Steven_R

Truthmatters said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at the republican party right now.
> 
> they want their religion to be LAW of the LAND.
> 
> 
> We are not all christians
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you feel the need to lie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so your party doesn't USE religion for votes?
Click to expand...


Barry Goldwater was dead on right. The GOP getting in bed with the Religious Right was the worst thing the party every could have done.


----------



## Truthmatters

GISMYS said:


> God is truth and love and the proof is everywhere in the universe. == I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last. Revelation 22:13



and your wrong.

you have NOTHING to prove that is true.

Its faith.

YOU don't run countries with religion.

take a look at how that turns out in history


----------



## Truthmatters

Avatar4321 said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you god fearing people would QUIT trying to FORCE others to live under your religious rules then we would leave you alone.
> 
> You always try to control everyone else and FORCE them to follow YOUR chosen religion.
> 
> STOP
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we are forcing everyone to follow our rules by saying you cant force us to do something contrary to our beliefs?
> 
> I think you have it backwards as usual.
Click to expand...


no one is forcing anything on you.

You have the right to leave this country anytime.


Yopu don't have the right to force us all to live by your religious doctrine


----------



## Steven_R

Avatar4321 said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you god fearing people would QUIT trying to FORCE others to live under your religious rules then we would leave you alone.
> 
> You always try to control everyone else and FORCE them to follow YOUR chosen religion.
> 
> STOP
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we are forcing everyone to follow our rules by saying you cant force us to do something contrary to our beliefs?
> 
> I think you have it backwards as usual.
Click to expand...


Not when you're using the rule of law to enforce your beliefs on people who don't have the same belief system as you. See also, Blue Laws.


----------



## GISMYS

Truthmatters said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> God is truth and love and the proof is everywhere in the universe. == I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last. Revelation 22:13
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and your wrong.
> 
> you have NOTHING to prove that is true.
> 
> Its faith.
> 
> YOU don't run countries with religion.
> 
> take a look at how that turns out in history
Click to expand...


"in GOD we trust"====one nation under GOD with liberty and justice for all!!!!!


----------



## Truthmatters

when was that put in there?

Oh and BTW which god?


----------



## koshergrl

And we come full circle...what is it about Christianity that makes so called atheists pop blood vessels and start foaming at the mouth? What is it about Christianity that compels them to lie, and engage in the hate speech we see TDM throwing around?

It's because they're foul creatures who can't stand to see their depraved lifestyles threatened by good people who do good things. They are threatened by God, and by good, because they are in direct opposition to their desire to cause pain and suffering, and their desire to engage in every form of depravity known to man, despite the cost to man.


----------



## koshergrl

Steven_R said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you god fearing people would QUIT trying to FORCE others to live under your religious rules then we would leave you alone.
> 
> You always try to control everyone else and FORCE them to follow YOUR chosen religion.
> 
> STOP
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we are forcing everyone to follow our rules by saying you cant force us to do something contrary to our beliefs?
> 
> I think you have it backwards as usual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not when you're using the rule of law to enforce your beliefs on people who don't have the same belief system as you. See also, Blue Laws.
Click to expand...


Give us an example of legislation either in existence, or proposed, right now, that *forces* religion on you.

I will wait.


----------



## Truthmatters

koshergrl said:


> "Atheism, lack belief in God, have the following characteristics that  can lend itself to mass murder and can explain why the greatest mass  murderers were atheists:[11][12][13]
> 
> lack of recognition of an ultimate judge of moral actions and a  judge who sets injustice aright in a last judgement, and thus do not  recognize the immorality of murder.
> lack of seeing the importance of human beings as images of God  and so easily discarding them as merely material things, products of  mere chance.
> lack of acknowledging an external standard of moral perfection,  thus ending up with self-created standards which can include killing  for political survival.
> absence of guidance by divine revelation of the moral law, such as "Thou shalt not kill".
> following an ethic of atheistic evolutionism that is based on  the survival and victory of the fittest, which is ultimately a  "bloodthirsty ethic", the words of Joseph Ratzinger, that is an ethic that is eager to kill and to maim. This ethic is about conquering others rather than self-conquest.[14]."
> Atheism and Mass Murder - Conservapedia



this is hate you idiot


----------



## Truthmatters

koshergrl said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So we are forcing everyone to follow our rules by saying you cant force us to do something contrary to our beliefs?
> 
> I think you have it backwards as usual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not when you're using the rule of law to enforce your beliefs on people who don't have the same belief system as you. See also, Blue Laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give us an example of legislation either in existence, or proposed, right now, that *forces* religion on you.
> 
> I will wait.
Click to expand...


abortion

gay marriage


----------



## Derideo_Te

Boss said:


> Ahh, the Mother of All God Haters has arrived!!



Ironic!


----------



## Truthmatters

why is it the christains who want American children to starve so they can keep buying weapons?


----------



## Steven_R

koshergrl said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So we are forcing everyone to follow our rules by saying you cant force us to do something contrary to our beliefs?
> 
> I think you have it backwards as usual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not when you're using the rule of law to enforce your beliefs on people who don't have the same belief system as you. See also, Blue Laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give us an example of legislation either in existence, or proposed, right now, that *forces* religion on you.
> 
> I will wait.
Click to expand...


Forces your religion? No. Forces me to live by the tenets of your religion? I can't buy alcohol on Sundays in some states because it offends the religious' sense of morality. Can't buy a car in Sundays in Texas for the same reason. The FCC censorship of radio, again because of your morality. Shall I go on?


----------



## GISMYS

YES!!! Demons scream and gnash their teeth at GOD AND God's Word they know their time is very short now. and you??


----------



## Boss

> Yopu don't have the right to force us all to live by your religious doctrine



Sure we do! If there are enough of us who think you should. 

If you don't like it, leave!


----------



## koshergrl

Steven_R said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not when you're using the rule of law to enforce your beliefs on people who don't have the same belief system as you. See also, Blue Laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give us an example of legislation either in existence, or proposed, right now, that *forces* religion on you.
> 
> I will wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Forces your religion? No. Forces me to live by the tenets of your religion? I can't buy alcohol on Sundays in some states because it offends the religious' sense of morality. Can't buy a car in Sundays in Texas for the same reason. The FCC censorship of radio, again because of your morality. Shall I go on?
Click to expand...


No, you've thoroughly proven my point. Thank you.

There is no legislation forcing our religion upon anyone.

You want to drink on Sundays and in some states can't. Got it.

So are you equally pissed that there are laws that make murder illegal? That is also a Christian tenet, after all.



Go join TDM in the corner. Together you might make a halfwit.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to you this alleged "spiritual form of energy" is "omnipresent" therefore it must be detectable if "humans have the capacity to connect to it".
> 
> When humans are in a state of "spiritual awareness" that is reflected through the scientifically measurable state of the brainwaves which are the electrical energy generated by the brain. Since that electrical energy has a physical source that is producing this "spiritual form of energy" your entire premise that "God is a spiritual form of energy, it can't be measured physically" is utterly bogus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is detectible, spiritually. That's why so many people believe in it. You are trying to argue that because we have brainwaves while we are spiritually connecting, there isn't a spiritual energy we are connecting to and it's just a byproduct of our brainwaves. Well then, this means nothing is real and reality doesn't exist, it is all just an illusion byproduct of our brainwaves.
> 
> The mind is not producing spiritual energy, it is connecting to it. This spiritual energy is the source of inspiration. Billions and billions of people who have experienced spiritual connection are convinced it is real. Now, maybe everything that is real is an illusion, but spiritual connection is certainly a vital part of that illusion.
Click to expand...


Once again you make baseless assumptions that "spiritual energy" exists even though have not provided a single shred of proof because you can't. Your fallacious assumption that "nothing is real and reality doesn't exist" is just another reason why you lack credibility. 

Your ludicrous allegation that the "mind is not producing spiritual energy, it is connecting to it" requires hard evidence that "spiritual energy" exists independent of your mind. Until you can provide such evidence all you have are your delusions!


----------



## koshergrl

Freedom of religion is also a Christian tenet.

You want to remove the laws that establish that as well?

How about the concept of women's rights, and equal rights for blacks?

All laws that were *forced* upon the nation by Christians. You poor things.


----------



## Avatar4321

Truthmatters said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> God is truth and love and the proof is everywhere in the universe. == I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last. Revelation 22:13
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and your wrong.
> 
> you have NOTHING to prove that is true.
> 
> Its faith.
> 
> YOU don't run countries with religion.
> 
> take a look at how that turns out in history
Click to expand...


1) the fact that he cant prove something doesn't mean it's wrong. I can't prove to you that I love my wife. But I do.
2) He never said anything about running countries with religion. Though I seriously dont see why you would have a problem with honest, hardworking people running government.


----------



## Avatar4321

Truthmatters said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you god fearing people would QUIT trying to FORCE others to live under your religious rules then we would leave you alone.
> 
> You always try to control everyone else and FORCE them to follow YOUR chosen religion.
> 
> STOP
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we are forcing everyone to follow our rules by saying you cant force us to do something contrary to our beliefs?
> 
> I think you have it backwards as usual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no one is forcing anything on you.
> 
> You have the right to leave this country anytime.
> 
> 
> Yopu don't have the right to force us all to live by your religious doctrine
Click to expand...


So Obamacare doesn't require people who are against birth control to purchase birth control coverage? The law doesn't force photographers and cake makers to do work for gay marriages they religiously oppose?

The First amendment tells me I don't have to leave the country to practice my religious faith. Your intolerance does not give you the power to take away my rights.


----------



## koshergrl

Honest, hardworking people are a threat to atheists and those who are dependent upon the state. Honest, hardworking people have backbone, character, and integrity...and atheists who are sucking on the welfare tit don't...so they are threatened by them, even while they demand that they support them.


----------



## Steven_R

I see you've never seen the welfare rates of Haredi Jews. Good, honest, hard working people with huge families...many of whom never get a job because they spend all their time studying the Torah. Now where do you suppose the money to keep their families alive comes from?

Oh right, no one who is God-Fearing can be a leech.


----------



## koshergrl

Avatar4321 said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Atheism, lack belief in God, have the following characteristics that  can lend itself to mass murder and can explain why the greatest mass  murderers were atheists:[11][12][13]
> 
> lack of recognition of an ultimate judge of moral actions and a  judge who sets injustice aright in a last judgement, and thus do not  recognize the immorality of murder.
> lack of seeing the importance of human beings as images of God  and so easily discarding them as merely material things, products of  mere chance.
> lack of acknowledging an external standard of moral perfection,  thus ending up with self-created standards which can include killing  for political survival.
> absence of guidance by divine revelation of the moral law, such as "Thou shalt not kill".
> following an ethic of atheistic evolutionism that is based on  the survival and victory of the fittest, which is ultimately a  "bloodthirsty ethic", the words of Joseph Ratzinger, that is an ethic that is eager to kill and to maim. This ethic is about conquering others rather than self-conquest.[14]."
> Atheism and Mass Murder - Conservapedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this is hate you idiot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't really see how your expression of hate helps your arguments.
Click to expand...


No but it does support the premise of this thread...which is that atheists are full of hate.


----------



## Boss

Derideo_Te said:


> Once again you make baseless assumptions that "spiritual energy" exists even though have not provided a single shred of proof because you can't. Your fallacious assumption that "nothing is real and reality doesn't exist" is just another reason why you lack credibility.
> 
> Your ludicrous allegation that the "mind is not producing spiritual energy, it is connecting to it" requires hard evidence that "spiritual energy" exists independent of your mind. Until you can provide such evidence all you have are your delusions!



No assumption. I present billions and billions of testimonials, first-hand accounts of strong and profound connections with spiritual nature. People who have endured impossible circumstances who claim they couldn't have done so without God. People who have overcome enormous adversity who credit faith in God. People who have survived overwhelming odds, over and over again, attesting to the power of God. 

There is no stronger or more credible evidence than first-hand accounts. If you had billions upon billions of scientists who claimed they had observed something or tested a hypothesis, you'd believe them, wouldn't you?


----------



## koshergrl

Steven_R said:


> I see you've never seen the welfare rates of Haredi Jews. Good, honest, hard working people with huge families...many of whom never get a job because they spend all their time studying the Torah. Now where do you suppose the money to keep their families alive comes from?
> 
> Oh right, no one who is God-Fearing can be a leech.



Who said that?

Do Haredi Jews (in Israel ) spend a lot of time on the internet spreading hate against atheists...or Christians, for that matter? Because atheists spend an inordinate amount of time on the internet preaching hate against Chrsitians...and God.

Try to stick to the subject. It isn't Jim Jones, or Haredi Jews in Israel. It's "why do God-haters persist?"


----------



## Derideo_Te

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you make baseless assumptions that "spiritual energy" exists even though have not provided a single shred of proof because you can't. Your fallacious assumption that "nothing is real and reality doesn't exist" is just another reason why you lack credibility.
> 
> Your ludicrous allegation that the "mind is not producing spiritual energy, it is connecting to it" requires hard evidence that "spiritual energy" exists independent of your mind. Until you can provide such evidence all you have are your delusions!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No assumption. I present billions and billions of testimonials, first-hand accounts of strong and profound connections with spiritual nature. People who have endured impossible circumstances who claim they couldn't have done so without God. People who have overcome enormous adversity who credit faith in God. People who have survived overwhelming odds, over and over again, attesting to the power of God.
> 
> There is no stronger or more credible evidence than first-hand accounts. If you had billions upon billions of scientists who claimed they had observed something or tested a hypothesis, you'd believe them, wouldn't you?
Click to expand...


All you have are anecdotes! Nothing that meets the standard scientific criteria for credible proof of the existence of "spiritual energy".

Thanks for admitting that you are just another religious charleton!

Oh, and did forget to tell KG that you don't believe that Jesus is the Son of God?


----------



## Boss

> No but it does support the premise of this thread...which is that atheists are full of hate.



I have to correct you, it's not the Atheists it's the God-haters. Atheists are just people who don't believe in a theistic concept of God. They generally don't hate anyone or cause spiritual people any problems. It is the God-hating posers who hide behind the label of "Atheist" to bash and rail on God and those who are spiritual. These are moral and intellectual cowards who can't even be honest about who they are. They very much believe in God, they just hate God and those who worship Him. As evidenced in this thread.


----------



## koshergrl

I think some of them truly are atheists...but they're also bigoted crap heads, and they believe in their inalienable right to attack, discriminate against, and bad mouth anybody who doesn't live the life they think they should be living.

The irony is that they attack Christians for allegedly doing the same thing, lol.


----------



## Boss

Derideo_Te said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you make baseless assumptions that "spiritual energy" exists even though have not provided a single shred of proof because you can't. Your fallacious assumption that "nothing is real and reality doesn't exist" is just another reason why you lack credibility.
> 
> Your ludicrous allegation that the "mind is not producing spiritual energy, it is connecting to it" requires hard evidence that "spiritual energy" exists independent of your mind. Until you can provide such evidence all you have are your delusions!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No assumption. I present billions and billions of testimonials, first-hand accounts of strong and profound connections with spiritual nature. People who have endured impossible circumstances who claim they couldn't have done so without God. People who have overcome enormous adversity who credit faith in God. People who have survived overwhelming odds, over and over again, attesting to the power of God.
> 
> There is no stronger or more credible evidence than first-hand accounts. If you had billions upon billions of scientists who claimed they had observed something or tested a hypothesis, you'd believe them, wouldn't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All you have are anecdotes! Nothing that meets the standard scientific criteria for credible proof of the existence of "spiritual energy".
> 
> Thanks for admitting that you are just another religious charleton!
> 
> Oh, and did forget to tell KG that you don't believe that Jesus is the Son of God?
Click to expand...


I agree, there is no provable physical evidence for the existence of spiritual nature. But then, there can't be. If there were, it would no longer be spiritual in nature. Logical dichotomy.


----------



## Coyote

*Thread lightly cleaned of violative posts.  This is a good topic folks - please try to stick to it and leave the off topic flames for encounters of the Flame Zone variety.  Just a reminder - Religion is a Zone 2 forum and all posts must include some content related to the subject uinder discussion.

Carry on *


----------



## Derideo_Te

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> No assumption. I present billions and billions of testimonials, first-hand accounts of strong and profound connections with spiritual nature. People who have endured impossible circumstances who claim they couldn't have done so without God. People who have overcome enormous adversity who credit faith in God. People who have survived overwhelming odds, over and over again, attesting to the power of God.
> 
> There is no stronger or more credible evidence than first-hand accounts. If you had billions upon billions of scientists who claimed they had observed something or tested a hypothesis, you'd believe them, wouldn't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All you have are anecdotes! Nothing that meets the standard scientific criteria for credible proof of the existence of "spiritual energy".
> 
> Thanks for admitting that you are just another religious charleton!
> 
> Oh, and did forget to tell KG that you don't believe that Jesus is the Son of God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree, there is no provable physical evidence for the existence of spiritual nature. But then, there can't be. If there were, it would no longer be spiritual in nature. Logical dichotomy.
Click to expand...


The only "Logical dichotomy" is your cognitive dissonance! Let's deal with the facts instead.

1. People experience spirituality as a mental state that can be scientifically measured via electrical brainwave activity.

2. There is no evidence of any mythical "spiritual energy".

3. You are alleging that this mythical "spiritual energy" exists without providing any shred of actual evidence.

4. You are claiming that anyone who debunks your allegations that this mythical "spiritual energy" exists is a "god hater".

5. You have even less evidence for the existence of these mythical "god haters" than you do for your mythical "spiritual energy".

6. You are impervious to all logic and reason.


----------



## Steven_R

koshergrl said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see you've never seen the welfare rates of Haredi Jews. Good, honest, hard working people with huge families...many of whom never get a job because they spend all their time studying the Torah. Now where do you suppose the money to keep their families alive comes from?
> 
> Oh right, no one who is God-Fearing can be a leech.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who said that?
> 
> Do Haredi Jews (in Israel ) spend a lot of time on the internet spreading hate against atheists...or Christians, for that matter? Because atheists spend an inordinate amount of time on the internet preaching hate against Chrsitians...and God.
> 
> Try to stick to the subject. It isn't Jim Jones, or Haredi Jews in Israel. It's "why do God-haters persist?"
Click to expand...


I'm talking about the Haredi Jews in New York. Kivas Joel in particular. 

You want to be painted as some kind of martyr and that you're all oppressed by those godless atheists. All those things you accuse atheists of doing the religious have been doing since time immemorial, but somehow that's different.

I will always fight for your right to practice your religion up to the point that I'm subjected to it. It's stupid to need an imaginary friend as an adult, but I'll never deny your right to have it. But I will fight you tooth and nail when you try to jam your religious needs down my throat by using the law to do so.


----------



## koshergrl

Sadly, you haven't shown that you have ever been *subjected* to my religion, lol.

Nor have you shown any evidence of me *jamming my religious needs* down your throat.

I'm not even sure what that would look like. I think in your mind, it's not being able to buy a fifth of vodka on Sunday. Boo hoo. I suppose using your logic, I'm *forcing* my religion down your throat, and also *forcing* you to go and get your fix in a bar on Sunday.


----------



## koshergrl

Derideo_Te said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you make baseless assumptions that "spiritual energy" exists even though have not provided a single shred of proof because you can't. Your fallacious assumption that "nothing is real and reality doesn't exist" is just another reason why you lack credibility.
> 
> Your ludicrous allegation that the "mind is not producing spiritual energy, it is connecting to it" requires hard evidence that "spiritual energy" exists independent of your mind. Until you can provide such evidence all you have are your delusions!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No assumption. I present billions and billions of testimonials, first-hand accounts of strong and profound connections with spiritual nature. People who have endured impossible circumstances who claim they couldn't have done so without God. People who have overcome enormous adversity who credit faith in God. People who have survived overwhelming odds, over and over again, attesting to the power of God.
> 
> There is no stronger or more credible evidence than first-hand accounts. If you had billions upon billions of scientists who claimed they had observed something or tested a hypothesis, you'd believe them, wouldn't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All you have are anecdotes! Nothing that meets the standard scientific criteria for credible proof of the existence of "spiritual energy".
> 
> Thanks for admitting that you are just another religious charleton!
> 
> Oh, and did forget to tell KG that you don't believe that Jesus is the Son of God?
Click to expand...


Your own hysterical bigotry leads you to believe I care. I don't care if he doesn't believe, as long as he doesn't engage in hatred against Christians based on nothing but his own ill-will.


----------



## Derideo_Te

koshergrl said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> No assumption. I present billions and billions of testimonials, first-hand accounts of strong and profound connections with spiritual nature. People who have endured impossible circumstances who claim they couldn't have done so without God. People who have overcome enormous adversity who credit faith in God. People who have survived overwhelming odds, over and over again, attesting to the power of God.
> 
> There is no stronger or more credible evidence than first-hand accounts. If you had billions upon billions of scientists who claimed they had observed something or tested a hypothesis, you'd believe them, wouldn't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All you have are anecdotes! Nothing that meets the standard scientific criteria for credible proof of the existence of "spiritual energy".
> 
> Thanks for admitting that you are just another religious charleton!
> 
> Oh, and did forget to tell KG that you don't believe that Jesus is the Son of God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your own hysterical bigotry leads you to believe I care. I don't care if he doesn't believe, as long as he doesn't engage in hatred against Christians based on nothing but his own ill-will.
Click to expand...


When have I ever exhibited "hysterical bigotry" or engaged in "hatred against Christians"?


----------



## GibsonSG

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you make baseless assumptions that "spiritual energy" exists even though have not provided a single shred of proof because you can't. Your fallacious assumption that "nothing is real and reality doesn't exist" is just another reason why you lack credibility.
> 
> Your ludicrous allegation that the "mind is not producing spiritual energy, it is connecting to it" requires hard evidence that "spiritual energy" exists independent of your mind. Until you can provide such evidence all you have are your delusions!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No assumption. I present billions and billions of testimonials, first-hand accounts of strong and profound connections with spiritual nature. People who have endured impossible circumstances who claim they couldn't have done so without God. People who have overcome enormous adversity who credit faith in God. People who have survived overwhelming odds, over and over again, attesting to the power of God.
> 
> There is no stronger or more credible evidence than first-hand accounts. If you had billions upon billions of scientists who claimed they had observed something or tested a hypothesis, you'd believe them, wouldn't you?
Click to expand...

Why would their god even let them go through such shit. He doesn't care? Enjoys watching people suffer? Why are prayers not answered? He deaf?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me proof that God exists and I will show you proof he does not......boy that is impossible on both sides, like prove to me that aliens from outer space do not exist...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Believe it or not, you can be shown proof that God exists. The problem is, it's spiritual proof and you only recognize physical proof. That's not the fault of the proof, is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is physical evidence as well.
Click to expand...


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never met an atheist who hated G-d. Rather they hate the people advocating for gods without being able to show anything resembling proof. Apparently we're supposed to take the word of the Bible itself hich would be like saying Xenu exists because Scientology's books do. A religious book does not prove itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is evidence of design as well as evidence refuting random accidents producing life and a finely tuned Universe.
> 
> Apparently mathematics don't mean much to the side that claims there is no designer.
Click to expand...


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> GibsonSG said:
> 
> 
> 
> "fucktard", ya, I think Jesus used to use that word.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ya... that little "tactic" may work for you on Christians, but since I am not a Christian it doesn't work on me. I will say, it's nice to know that you "find Jesus" whenever you need to attack someone or cast judgement. More profound PROOF of my OP. Thanks for the contribution!
Click to expand...

besides not being a CHRISTIAN you are not near a intelligent as you "think" you are.
what you are is pretentious, petulant, whinny, ridiculous,etc...I could go on but it would fill a billion terabyte memory...


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> God has spoken!!! OBEY you peons!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, because you are such a fucking idiot... IF God wanted you to worship and revere Him... your ass would drop to your knees right now and be worshiping and revering Him, and there wouldn't be one fucking thing you'd be able to do about that. End of Argument!
Click to expand...

my ass has no knees! just one of the countless things you have no clue about...


----------



## emilynghiem

Whatever people can't forgive, they project outward; anger, denial and projection,
these are all part of the human process of grieving, recovery and healing from past wounds or injustice, traumas or changes in life.

For every person who "hates" or "attacks" secularists or secularism as material and rebellion or rejection of God, there is going to be the karmic opposite. Two wrongs don't make a right, but they both exist and find expression until the conflicts are resolved.

All this therapy we see is part of the process of reconciliation.
Forgiveness, letting go emotionally, and making mutual corrections are the keys.

Until we all learn to go with the flow of the process, we are going to see some grief, distrust, blame and anger expressed and directed at people who "represent" the problems.



Boss said:


> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love the assertion that man's logic is flawless, and thus to be trusted.
> 
> God does exist, and I see people on here every day who declare he doesn't exist..and who at the same time hate him. (If there's a God, then he's an asshole for allowing pain and suffering!) and who absolutely 100 percent hate people who believe in God...while at the same time touting their belief that Christians are intolerant.
> 
> It's psychotic, but that's what happens when you choose to reject your creator.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The logic of mathematics applies across the known universe. The value of Pi remains the same no matter which planet you are on.
> 
> However if you are saying that the definition of omnipotence is flawed then you are absolutely correct because omnipotence cannot exist given the current logical universe in which we exist.
> 
> But if you agree that the definition of omnipotence is flawed then religion is wrong to claim that God is omnipotent. Perhaps religion should use the term ineffable instead. The only problem with that term is that it confounds the concept of "knowing" God.
> 
> None of this equates to "God hating". It is more akin to asking believers to reconcile these contradictions. Since this is impossible given the available terminology it is disingenuous to accuse those asking for the contradictions to be reconciled of "hating God". If anything it is yet another contradiction that believers have no interest in reconciling this cognitive dissonance.
> 
> But that is where faith comes into play. Your faith is absolute and as an Atheist I not only respect your faith but I am willing to die defending your right to your beliefs. Because to me your rights are sacrosanct. Without your right to believe as you do, my right to be an Atheist is meaningless.
> 
> That is our common ground and while we might have what amounts to logical differences they don't rise to the level of hatred. In that respect the OP is utterly wrong because he is mischaracterizing those who have as much right to ask these questions as those of faith do to their beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mathematics is not a friend to the atheist nor the macroevolutionist.
Click to expand...


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever the reason, God does not make man worship him. the final decision is left to the person to decide.
> 
> His world is not for everyone for some odd reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Religions make man worship whatever god(s) they have created in their own image. Some are more extreme than others but all of them demand obedience and worship. Given how many religions and gods that have come and gone there is no basis for any of them to claim to be the "one true religion" although all of them do so!
> 
> On the positive side religions have provided both solace for the distressed and real food and shelter for the needy. They offer hope for those who are seeking answers. They are founded on sound principles but there are always those who will exploit them for their own nefarious ends. In that respect religions lack "checks & balances". But overall they still do a lot of good!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religion has brought embarrassment to God. God has helped us with his words but man has manipulated the words to fit their own views.
> 
> God will deal with that, he has made it clear in the book of revelations.
Click to expand...

ahhh... slap dick you belong to an organized religion and attend a church....a creationist evangelical one for that matter ...you are in no place to judge on the subject of manipulation of scripture....that is what you do .


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> Here are some things for atheists to be smug about:
> 
> "  It is true that it's  possible that religion can produce evil, and generally when we look  closer at the detail it produces evil because the individual people are  actually living in a rejection of the tenets of Christianity and a  rejection of the God that they are supposed to be following. So it can  produce it, but the historical fact is that outright rejection of God  and institutionalizing of atheism actually does produce evil on  incredible levels. We're talking about tens of millions of people as a  result of the rejection of God.[1]  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
> 
> 
> Nobel Prize winner Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn  was asked to account for the great tragedies that occurred under the  brutal communist regime he and fellow citizens suffered under.
> Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn offered the following explanation:
>   Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: 'Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.' Since then I have spend well-nigh 50 years working on the history of  our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected  hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight  volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by  that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as  possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some  60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to  repeat: 'Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.' [9]
>     Vox Day notes concerning atheism and mass murder:
>   Apparently it was just  an amazing coincidence that every Communist of historical note publicly  declared his atheism  .there have been twenty-eight countries in world history  that can be confirmed to have been ruled by regimes with avowed  atheists at the helm  These twenty-eight historical regimes have been  ruled by eighty-nine atheists, of whom more than half have engaged in  democidal162 acts of the sort committed by Stalin and Mao  The total body count for the ninety years between 1917 and 2007 is  approximately 148 million dead at the bloody hands of fifty-two  atheists, three times more than all the human beings killed by war,  civil war, and individual crime in the entire twentieth century  combined."
> 
> 
> Atheism and Mass Murder - Conservapedia


Read the top part
CONSERVAPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY; USE ENTIRELY AT YOUR OWN RISK
Conservapedia is a voluntary, collaborative effort to provide knowledge and information to the public. Like Wikipedia, the structure of this project permits anyone with electronic access to alter the content here. Nothing here has necessarily been reviewed or checked by anyone with expertise to ensure that it is accurate or reliable. USERS RELY ON INFORMATION HERE ENTIRELY AT THEIR OWN RISK. Conservapedia and its editors, contributors, sponsors, affiliates or anyone associated in any way with this project cannot guarantee the validity of any information found here, and shall not be responsible or liable in any way for any inaccurate or libelous information found here. Content of any given article may have been vandalized or modified by someone who lacks knowledge.
This information is being given to you gratuitously. There is no agreement or understanding between you and Conservapedia regarding your use or modification of information here, except that in using this website you fully accept and agree to this disclaimer for all past, present and future use. No one else associated with Conservapedia has any obligation in connection with the material you may contribute or edit to this site. Your contribution of information here irrevocably waives any personal claims to copyright that you may have in that information, except as provided in the Conservapedia:Copyright disclaimer.
Nothing on this site can be deemed to be professional advice in any field. See an appropriate professional, such as an attorney or physician, if you need professional advice. Nothing here has necessarily been reviewed or checked by anyone with expertise to ensure that it is accurate or reliable.
It is entirely your obligation to independently verify any information that you obtain from this website, and in no event should you rely on any information found on this site except entirely at your own risk.
IN NO EVENT SHALL CONSERVAPEDIA, ITS EDITORS, FOUNDERS, SPONSORS, CONTRIBUTORS, OR ANYONE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROJECT EVER BE LIABLE TO A USER FOR ANY INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, PERSONAL INJURY, OR ANY OTHER DIRECT OR INDIRECT LOSS OR DAMAGE, INCLUDING LOST PROFITS, PUNITIVE DAMAGES, OR PAIN AND SUFFERING, ARISING OUT OF ANY USE OF THIS SITE, WHETHER IN AN ACTION FOR OR ARISING OUT OF ANY CAUSE WHATSOEVER, REGARDLESS OF THE FORM OF ACTION, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, TORT INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY OR OTHERWISE.
Top


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> "s a 58 percent chance that an atheist leader will murder a noticeable  percentage of the population over which he rules sufficient evidence  that atheism does, in fact, provide a systematic influence to do bad  things? If that is not deemed to be conclusive, how about the fact that  the average atheist crime against humanity is 18.3 million percent worse  than the very worst depredation committed by Christians, even though  atheists have had less than one-twentieth the number of opportunities  with which to commit them. If one considers the statistically  significant size of the historical atheist set and contrasts it with the  fact that not one in a thousand religious leaders have committed  similarly large-scale atrocities, it is impossible to conclude  otherwise, even if we do not yet understand exactly why this should be  the case. Once might be an accident, even twice could be coincidence,  but fifty-two incidents in ninety years reeks of causation![10]"
> 
> Atheism and Mass Murder - Conservapedia


Read the top part
CONSERVAPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY; USE ENTIRELY AT YOUR OWN RISK
Conservapedia is a voluntary, collaborative effort to provide knowledge and information to the public. Like Wikipedia, the structure of this project permits anyone with electronic access to alter the content here. Nothing here has necessarily been reviewed or checked by anyone with expertise to ensure that it is accurate or reliable. USERS RELY ON INFORMATION HERE ENTIRELY AT THEIR OWN RISK. Conservapedia and its editors, contributors, sponsors, affiliates or anyone associated in any way with this project cannot guarantee the validity of any information found here, and shall not be responsible or liable in any way for any inaccurate or libelous information found here. Content of any given article may have been vandalized or modified by someone who lacks knowledge.
This information is being given to you gratuitously. There is no agreement or understanding between you and Conservapedia regarding your use or modification of information here, except that in using this website you fully accept and agree to this disclaimer for all past, present and future use. No one else associated with Conservapedia has any obligation in connection with the material you may contribute or edit to this site. Your contribution of information here irrevocably waives any personal claims to copyright that you may have in that information, except as provided in the Conservapedia:Copyright disclaimer.
Nothing on this site can be deemed to be professional advice in any field. See an appropriate professional, such as an attorney or physician, if you need professional advice. Nothing here has necessarily been reviewed or checked by anyone with expertise to ensure that it is accurate or reliable.
It is entirely your obligation to independently verify any information that you obtain from this website, and in no event should you rely on any information found on this site except entirely at your own risk.
IN NO EVENT SHALL CONSERVAPEDIA, ITS EDITORS, FOUNDERS, SPONSORS, CONTRIBUTORS, OR ANYONE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROJECT EVER BE LIABLE TO A USER FOR ANY INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, PERSONAL INJURY, OR ANY OTHER DIRECT OR INDIRECT LOSS OR DAMAGE, INCLUDING LOST PROFITS, PUNITIVE DAMAGES, OR PAIN AND SUFFERING, ARISING OUT OF ANY USE OF THIS SITE, WHETHER IN AN ACTION FOR OR ARISING OUT OF ANY CAUSE WHATSOEVER, REGARDLESS OF THE FORM OF ACTION, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, TORT INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY OR OTHERWISE.
Top


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever the reason, God does not make man worship him. the final decision is left to the person to decide.
> 
> His world is not for everyone for some odd reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Religions make man worship whatever god(s) they have created in their own image. Some are more extreme than others but all of them demand obedience and worship. Given how many religions and gods that have come and gone there is no basis for any of them to claim to be the "one true religion" although all of them do so!
> 
> On the positive side religions have provided both solace for the distressed and real food and shelter for the needy. They offer hope for those who are seeking answers. They are founded on sound principles but there are always those who will exploit them for their own nefarious ends. In that respect religions lack "checks & balances". But overall they still do a lot of good!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religion has brought embarrassment to God. God has helped us with his words but man has manipulated the words to fit their own views.
> 
> God will deal with that, he has made it clear in the book of revelations.
Click to expand...


This doesnt make any sense. 

An omnipotent deity cant become embarrassed. 

Obviously there is no god as  you perceive it to be, an omnipotent deity  given the fact that man created religion, and the myth of an omnipotent god subsequent to that.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

koshergrl said:


> "s a 58 percent chance that an atheist leader will murder a noticeable  percentage of the population over which he rules sufficient evidence  that atheism does, in fact, provide a systematic influence to do bad  things? If that is not deemed to be conclusive, how about the fact that  the average atheist crime against humanity is 18.3 million percent worse  than the very worst depredation committed by Christians, even though  atheists have had less than one-twentieth the number of opportunities  with which to commit them. If one considers the statistically  significant size of the historical atheist set and contrasts it with the  fact that not one in a thousand religious leaders have committed  similarly large-scale atrocities, it is impossible to conclude  otherwise, even if we do not yet understand exactly why this should be  the case. Once might be an accident, even twice could be coincidence,  but fifty-two incidents in ninety years reeks of causation![10]"
> 
> Atheism and Mass Murder - Conservapedia



Conservapedia? 

Youve *got* to be kidding. 

Its contents are as much contrivance and myth as god.


----------



## daws101

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religions make man worship whatever god(s) they have created in their own image. Some are more extreme than others but all of them demand obedience and worship. Given how many religions and gods that have come and gone there is no basis for any of them to claim to be the "one true religion" although all of them do so!
> 
> On the positive side religions have provided both solace for the distressed and real food and shelter for the needy. They offer hope for those who are seeking answers. They are founded on sound principles but there are always those who will exploit them for their own nefarious ends. In that respect religions lack "checks & balances". But overall they still do a lot of good!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Religion has brought embarrassment to God. God has helped us with his words but man has manipulated the words to fit their own views.
> 
> God will deal with that, he has made it clear in the book of revelations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This doesnt make any sense.
> 
> An omnipotent deity cant become embarrassed.
> 
> Obviously there is no god as  you perceive it to be, an omnipotent deity  given the fact that man created religion, and the myth of an omnipotent god subsequent to that.
Click to expand...

general Warning..... when dealing with YOUWERECREATED  kosherhag and bossy you must keep in mind, the religion made me stupid and bigoted effect..there opinions are based on fear, indoctrination and the idea that there is someplace to go after death.
to get there they must obey some completely arbitrary rules....
end transmission...


----------



## daws101

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "s a 58 percent chance that an atheist leader will murder a noticeable  percentage of the population over which he rules sufficient evidence  that atheism does, in fact, provide a systematic influence to do bad  things? If that is not deemed to be conclusive, how about the fact that  the average atheist crime against humanity is 18.3 million percent worse  than the very worst depredation committed by Christians, even though  atheists have had less than one-twentieth the number of opportunities  with which to commit them. If one considers the statistically  significant size of the historical atheist set and contrasts it with the  fact that not one in a thousand religious leaders have committed  similarly large-scale atrocities, it is impossible to conclude  otherwise, even if we do not yet understand exactly why this should be  the case. Once might be an accident, even twice could be coincidence,  but fifty-two incidents in ninety years reeks of causation![10]"
> 
> Atheism and Mass Murder - Conservapedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservapedia?
> 
> Youve *got* to be kidding.
> 
> Its contents are as much contrivance and myth as god.
Click to expand...

that way she sources it...a love of fantasy and farce....


----------



## BreezeWood

*Why do the God-haters persist?* 




> *Boss:* *God is a spiritual form of energy*, *it can't be measured physically*, *if it could be, it wouldn't be spiritual in nature.* *It is omnipresent* ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *GibsonSG:* Please provide proof, you fucking noob.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Boss:* It is the God-hating posers who hide behind the label of "Atheist" to bash and rail on God *and those who are spiritual.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Boss:* Ya... that little "tactic" may work for you on Christians, *but since I am not a Christian it doesn't work on me.*
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



*- and those who are spiritual .... It is omnipresent ... but since I am not a Christian it doesn't work on me.*


what could not be more Christian than the belief the Almighty is "Omnipresent" - obviously, acknowledging the Bible is not without a predictable cost - or who is actually doing the hating or is disguised as a lamb while prancing as a wolf ?

.


----------



## koshergrl

So you deny that Koukl,  Solzhenitsyn and Day said what I quoted?

"
Koukl summarized by stating: 
    &#8220;  It is true that it's  possible that religion can produce evil, and generally when we look  closer at the detail it produces evil because the individual people are  actually living in a rejection of the tenets of Christianity and a  rejection of the God that they are supposed to be following. So it can  produce it, but the historical fact is that outright rejection of God  and institutionalizing of atheism actually does produce evil on  incredible levels. We're talking about tens of millions of people as a  result of the rejection of God.[1]  &#8221;    

 


Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn


Nobel Prize winner Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn  was asked to account for the great tragedies that occurred under the  brutal communist regime he and fellow citizens suffered under. 
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn offered the following explanation: 
    &#8220;  Over a half century  ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people  offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had  befallen Russia: 'Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.' Since then I have spend well-nigh 50 years working on the history of  our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected  hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight  volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by  that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as  possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some  60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to  repeat: 'Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.' [9] 
  &#8221;    Vox Day notes concerning atheism and mass murder: 
    &#8220;  Apparently it was just  an amazing coincidence that every Communist of historical note publicly  declared his atheism &#8230; .there have been twenty-eight countries in world  history that can be confirmed to have been ruled by regimes with avowed  atheists at the helm &#8230; These twenty-eight historical regimes have been  ruled by eighty-nine atheists, of whom more than half have engaged in  democidal162 acts of the sort committed by Stalin and Mao &#8230; The total body count for the ninety years between 1917 and 2007 is  approximately 148 million dead at the bloody hands of fifty-two  atheists, three times more than all the human beings killed by war,  civil war, and individual crime in the entire twentieth century  combined."


Or do you deny the body count?


Specifics please, atheist loons.


----------



## koshergrl

More hateful atheist propaganda, jeering at those who dare to speak out against the atrocities of atheist regimes. Nothing new here...


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> More hateful atheist propaganda, jeering at those who dare to speak out against the atrocities of atheist regimes. Nothing new here...


----------



## Boss

BreezeWood said:


> *Why do the God-haters persist?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Boss:* *God is a spiritual form of energy*, *it can't be measured physically*, *if it could be, it wouldn't be spiritual in nature.* *It is omnipresent* ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Boss:* Ya... that little "tactic" may work for you on Christians, *but since I am not a Christian it doesn't work on me.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *- and those who are spiritual .... It is omnipresent ... but since I am not a Christian it doesn't work on me.*
> 
> what could not be more Christian than the belief the Almighty is "Omnipresent" - obviously, acknowledging the Bible is not without a predictable cost - or who is actually doing the hating or is disguised as a lamb while prancing as a wolf ?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Christians believe Jesus Christ was the living son of God. I don't believe this. Christians believe in the Holy Trinity. I don't believe this. Christians believe Jesus died on the cross so you could be forgiven for sin. I don't believe this. There are plenty of other things Christians believe that I don't believe. I'm not claiming they are wrong, I don't know. It's just not my personal belief. I am a Spiritualist. I believe in an omnipresent and omnipotent Spiritual energy. I believe the Bible is a great inspirational book that, when fully understood, can be a useful guide for living one's life in harmony with Spiritual nature. I believe Jesus was an inspirational speaker who taught nothing but love and forgiveness, things in harmony with Spiritual nature. I have no problem with organized religions which are in peaceful harmony with Spiritual nature. I do not personally subscribe to any organized religious belief, but I have no issue with those who do.


----------



## Boss

GibsonSG said:


> Why would their god even let them go through such shit. He doesn't care? Enjoys watching people suffer? Why are prayers not answered? He deaf?




Careful there.... you're getting really close to exposing why you hate God.


----------



## PostmodernProph

daws101 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "s a 58 percent chance that an atheist leader will murder a noticeable  percentage of the population over which he rules sufficient evidence  that atheism does, in fact, provide a systematic influence to do bad  things? If that is not deemed to be conclusive, how about the fact that  the average atheist crime against humanity is 18.3 million percent worse  than the very worst depredation committed by Christians, even though  atheists have had less than one-twentieth the number of opportunities  with which to commit them. If one considers the statistically  significant size of the historical atheist set and contrasts it with the  fact that not one in a thousand religious leaders have committed  similarly large-scale atrocities, it is impossible to conclude  otherwise, even if we do not yet understand exactly why this should be  the case. Once might be an accident, even twice could be coincidence,  but fifty-two incidents in ninety years reeks of causation![10]"
> 
> Atheism and Mass Murder - Conservapedia
> 
> 
> 
> Read the top part
> CONSERVAPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY; USE ENTIRELY AT YOUR OWN RISK
> Conservapedia is a voluntary, collaborative effort to provide knowledge and information to the public. Like Wikipedia, the structure of this project permits anyone with electronic access to alter the content here. Nothing here has necessarily been reviewed or checked by anyone with expertise to ensure that it is accurate or reliable. USERS RELY ON INFORMATION HERE ENTIRELY AT THEIR OWN RISK. Conservapedia and its editors, contributors, sponsors, affiliates or anyone associated in any way with this project cannot guarantee the validity of any information found here, and shall not be responsible or liable in any way for any inaccurate or libelous information found here. Content of any given article may have been vandalized or modified by someone who lacks knowledge.
> This information is being given to you gratuitously. There is no agreement or understanding between you and Conservapedia regarding your use or modification of information here, except that in using this website you fully accept and agree to this disclaimer for all past, present and future use. No one else associated with Conservapedia has any obligation in connection with the material you may contribute or edit to this site. Your contribution of information here irrevocably waives any personal claims to copyright that you may have in that information, except as provided in the Conservapedia:Copyright disclaimer.
> Nothing on this site can be deemed to be professional advice in any field. See an appropriate professional, such as an attorney or physician, if you need professional advice. Nothing here has necessarily been reviewed or checked by anyone with expertise to ensure that it is accurate or reliable.
> It is entirely your obligation to independently verify any information that you obtain from this website, and in no event should you rely on any information found on this site except entirely at your own risk.
> IN NO EVENT SHALL CONSERVAPEDIA, ITS EDITORS, FOUNDERS, SPONSORS, CONTRIBUTORS, OR ANYONE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROJECT EVER BE LIABLE TO A USER FOR ANY INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, PERSONAL INJURY, OR ANY OTHER DIRECT OR INDIRECT LOSS OR DAMAGE, INCLUDING LOST PROFITS, PUNITIVE DAMAGES, OR PAIN AND SUFFERING, ARISING OUT OF ANY USE OF THIS SITE, WHETHER IN AN ACTION FOR OR ARISING OUT OF ANY CAUSE WHATSOEVER, REGARDLESS OF THE FORM OF ACTION, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, TORT INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY OR OTHERWISE.
> Top
Click to expand...


so, you're saying Solzhenitsyn never said it?.....because Conservapedia quoted him?.....


----------



## GibsonSG

Boss said:


> GibsonSG said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would their god even let them go through such shit. He doesn't care? Enjoys watching people suffer? Why are prayers not answered? He deaf?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Careful there.... you're getting really close to exposing why you hate God.
Click to expand...


I can't hate something for which I see no proof. And I don't even hate the idea of a god. If there's one or more, so be it. But so far, zero proof.


----------



## GibsonSG

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Why do the God-haters persist?*
> 
> 
> *- and those who are spiritual .... It is omnipresent ... but since I am not a Christian it doesn't work on me.*
> 
> what could not be more Christian than the belief the Almighty is "Omnipresent" - obviously, acknowledging the Bible is not without a predictable cost - or who is actually doing the hating or is disguised as a lamb while prancing as a wolf ?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christians believe Jesus Christ was the living son of God. I don't believe this. Christians believe in the Holy Trinity. I don't believe this. Christians believe Jesus died on the cross so you could be forgiven for sin. I don't believe this. There are plenty of other things Christians believe that I don't believe. I'm not claiming they are wrong, I don't know. It's just not my personal belief. I am a Spiritualist. *I believe in an omnipresent and omnipotent Spiritual energy*. I believe the Bible is a great inspirational book that, when fully understood, can be a useful guide for living one's life in harmony with Spiritual nature. I believe Jesus was an inspirational speaker who taught nothing but love and forgiveness, things in harmony with Spiritual nature. I have no problem with organized religions which are in peaceful harmony with Spiritual nature. I do not personally subscribe to any organized religious belief, but I have no issue with those who do.
Click to expand...


I think that makes you a witch.


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> GibsonSG said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would their god even let them go through such shit. He doesn't care? Enjoys watching people suffer? Why are prayers not answered? He deaf?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Careful there.... you're getting really close to exposing why you hate God.
Click to expand...

how can he /she hate something that does not exist?
that's why this thread is nonsense and an excuse for you to pitch a fit!


----------



## daws101

PostmodernProph said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "s a 58 percent chance that an atheist leader will murder a noticeable  percentage of the population over which he rules sufficient evidence  that atheism does, in fact, provide a systematic influence to do bad  things? If that is not deemed to be conclusive, how about the fact that  the average atheist crime against humanity is 18.3 million percent worse  than the very worst depredation committed by Christians, even though  atheists have had less than one-twentieth the number of opportunities  with which to commit them. If one considers the statistically  significant size of the historical atheist set and contrasts it with the  fact that not one in a thousand religious leaders have committed  similarly large-scale atrocities, it is impossible to conclude  otherwise, even if we do not yet understand exactly why this should be  the case. Once might be an accident, even twice could be coincidence,  but fifty-two incidents in ninety years reeks of causation![10]"
> 
> Atheism and Mass Murder - Conservapedia
> 
> 
> 
> Read the top part
> CONSERVAPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY; USE ENTIRELY AT YOUR OWN RISK
> Conservapedia is a voluntary, collaborative effort to provide knowledge and information to the public. Like Wikipedia, the structure of this project permits anyone with electronic access to alter the content here. Nothing here has necessarily been reviewed or checked by anyone with expertise to ensure that it is accurate or reliable. USERS RELY ON INFORMATION HERE ENTIRELY AT THEIR OWN RISK. Conservapedia and its editors, contributors, sponsors, affiliates or anyone associated in any way with this project cannot guarantee the validity of any information found here, and shall not be responsible or liable in any way for any inaccurate or libelous information found here. Content of any given article may have been vandalized or modified by someone who lacks knowledge.
> This information is being given to you gratuitously. There is no agreement or understanding between you and Conservapedia regarding your use or modification of information here, except that in using this website you fully accept and agree to this disclaimer for all past, present and future use. No one else associated with Conservapedia has any obligation in connection with the material you may contribute or edit to this site. Your contribution of information here irrevocably waives any personal claims to copyright that you may have in that information, except as provided in the Conservapedia:Copyright disclaimer.
> Nothing on this site can be deemed to be professional advice in any field. See an appropriate professional, such as an attorney or physician, if you need professional advice. Nothing here has necessarily been reviewed or checked by anyone with expertise to ensure that it is accurate or reliable.
> It is entirely your obligation to independently verify any information that you obtain from this website, and in no event should you rely on any information found on this site except entirely at your own risk.
> IN NO EVENT SHALL CONSERVAPEDIA, ITS EDITORS, FOUNDERS, SPONSORS, CONTRIBUTORS, OR ANYONE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROJECT EVER BE LIABLE TO A USER FOR ANY INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, PERSONAL INJURY, OR ANY OTHER DIRECT OR INDIRECT LOSS OR DAMAGE, INCLUDING LOST PROFITS, PUNITIVE DAMAGES, OR PAIN AND SUFFERING, ARISING OUT OF ANY USE OF THIS SITE, WHETHER IN AN ACTION FOR OR ARISING OUT OF ANY CAUSE WHATSOEVER, REGARDLESS OF THE FORM OF ACTION, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, TORT INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY OR OTHERWISE.
> Top
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so, you're saying Solzhenitsyn never said it?.....because Conservapedia quoted him?.....
Click to expand...

no I saying you're an asshole for trying to infer that's what I SAID or I've given you too much credit for having more then one live brain cell.. 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Conservapedia
  Conservapedia is a self-described conservative, Christian alternative to Wikipedia. While the project began as an attempt to collaboratively develop an online encyclopedia, it has become in recent years a vanity project for its founder Andrew Schlafly, who uses the site as a way to forward his own particular insights on matters political and scientific. The site has a few other regular editors and administrators, most of whom use it to publicize their own projects or to write articles on their own pet causes. There is, in effect, no way to speak of "Conservapedia" as a collective voice or as a reflection of the insights of a larger community; what goes on the site reflects nothing more than the views of Schlafly and the handful of people he trusts with full editing privileges.
The site's administrators see liberals, atheists, "evolutionists" and other logic-loving heathens (plus whoever the "bête noire du jour" is, like Islam) as the direct cause of all society's ills. Attacks on these groups are fueled by their own particular obsessions, notably Barack Obama, Richard Dawkins, video games, and that eternal seductress, homosexuality. To make their arguments appear in any way feasible, liberal (zing!) use is made of ad hominem and other fallacies. Under Conservapedian Admin LogicTM, anyone who ever fails to toe the party line on any given issue, even the use of British spelling, is considered evidence that one is of the liberal flavour flavor.
Conservapedia is far from family friendly. Its front page contains many references to violent video games, homosexuality, abortion and spree shooters.


----------



## Boss

daws101 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GibsonSG said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would their god even let them go through such shit. He doesn't care? Enjoys watching people suffer? Why are prayers not answered? He deaf?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Careful there.... you're getting really close to exposing why you hate God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how can he /she hate something that does not exist?
> that why this thread is nonsense and an excuse for you to pitch a fit!
Click to expand...


Well that is my whole point. Why do you people spend hours upon hours trashing, bashing, ridiculing, insulting, refuting, scoffing, badgering, antagonizing, and making fun of something you claim not to believe exists? It seems that anything at all that you do know exists, would be far more important for you to spend your time on. 

As someone who has vast experience studying human behavior, this is very strange to me. I think there is a very clear distinction between true Atheists and the people we find here, who are simply God-haters. I think the Atheists don't bother with superfluous arguments like these. Why should they? I believe what we are seeing here, are people who DO believe in God, and they just hate God, for whatever reason. Maybe God let them down? Maybe God didn't answer their prayers? Maybe something traumatic happened in their life that  they blame God for? But for whatever reason, they've decided to make it their life's mission to do everything in their power to fight God. The God they claim to not believe in!


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Careful there.... you're getting really close to exposing why you hate God.
> 
> 
> 
> how can he /she hate something that does not exist?
> that why this thread is nonsense and an excuse for you to pitch a fit!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well that is my whole point. Why do you people spend hours upon hours trashing, bashing, ridiculing, insulting, refuting, scoffing, badgering, antagonizing, and making fun of something you claim not to believe exists? It seems that anything at all that you do know exists, would be far more important for you to spend your time on.
> 
> As someone who has vast experience studying human behavior, this is very strange to me. I think there is a very clear distinction between true Atheists and the people we find here, who are simply God-haters. I think the Atheists don't bother with superfluous arguments like these. Why should they? I believe what we are seeing here, are people who DO believe in God, and they just hate God, for whatever reason. Maybe God let them down? Maybe God didn't answer their prayers? Maybe something traumatic happened in their life that  they blame God for? But for whatever reason, they've decided to make it their life's mission to do everything in their power to fight God. The God they claim to not believe in!
Click to expand...

why do you persist in in blatantly lying about your vast experience? 
everyone who s ever read your shit knew for the start you don't know your ass from your eyeball let alone anything else..
all you proven is your ego is massive....so stfu already 
btw if any one spends an inordinate amount trying to prove something or bashing, ridiculing, insulting, refuting, scoffing, badgering, antagonizing, and making fun of it's you..
it's evidenced by the your insentient, long winded rambling page after page of diarrhea ...


----------



## BreezeWood

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Why do the God-haters persist?*
> 
> 
> *- and those who are spiritual .... It is omnipresent ... but since I am not a Christian it doesn't work on me.*
> 
> what could not be more Christian than the belief the Almighty is "Omnipresent" - obviously, acknowledging the Bible is not without a predictable cost - or who is actually doing the hating or is disguised as a lamb while prancing as a wolf ?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christians believe Jesus Christ was the living son of God. I don't believe this. Christians believe in the Holy Trinity. I don't believe this. Christians believe Jesus died on the cross so you could be forgiven for sin. I don't believe this. There are plenty of other things Christians believe that I don't believe. I'm not claiming they are wrong, I don't know. It's just not my personal belief. *I am a Spiritualist. I believe in an omnipresent and omnipotent Spiritual energy.* I believe the Bible is a great inspirational book that, when fully understood, can be a useful guide for living one's life in harmony with Spiritual nature. I believe Jesus was an inspirational speaker who taught nothing but love and forgiveness, things in harmony with Spiritual nature. I have no problem with organized religions which are in peaceful harmony with Spiritual nature. I do not personally subscribe to any organized religious belief, but I have no issue with those who do.
Click to expand...



well, all that is not believed above had first to have been purposefully considered and you were then lucky enough to step aside .... knowing its past history beforehand ?


*I am a Spiritualist. I believe in an omnipresent and omnipotent Spiritual energy.*

why would the ruler of the universe have to be everywhere at the same time - if that were true there would be no need for Judgement, as being everywhere would preclude spiritual "freedom" presumably acquired with admission rather than death ... the Everlasting is Omnipresent, its ruler is not and Spirits are free to roam.

what freed spirit would not be omnipotent ?

.


----------



## PostmodernProph

daws101 said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read the top part
> CONSERVAPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY; USE ENTIRELY AT YOUR OWN RISK
> Conservapedia is a voluntary, collaborative effort to provide knowledge and information to the public. Like Wikipedia, the structure of this project permits anyone with electronic access to alter the content here. Nothing here has necessarily been reviewed or checked by anyone with expertise to ensure that it is accurate or reliable. USERS RELY ON INFORMATION HERE ENTIRELY AT THEIR OWN RISK. Conservapedia and its editors, contributors, sponsors, affiliates or anyone associated in any way with this project cannot guarantee the validity of any information found here, and shall not be responsible or liable in any way for any inaccurate or libelous information found here. Content of any given article may have been vandalized or modified by someone who lacks knowledge.
> This information is being given to you gratuitously. There is no agreement or understanding between you and Conservapedia regarding your use or modification of information here, except that in using this website you fully accept and agree to this disclaimer for all past, present and future use. No one else associated with Conservapedia has any obligation in connection with the material you may contribute or edit to this site. Your contribution of information here irrevocably waives any personal claims to copyright that you may have in that information, except as provided in the Conservapedia:Copyright disclaimer.
> Nothing on this site can be deemed to be professional advice in any field. See an appropriate professional, such as an attorney or physician, if you need professional advice. Nothing here has necessarily been reviewed or checked by anyone with expertise to ensure that it is accurate or reliable.
> It is entirely your obligation to independently verify any information that you obtain from this website, and in no event should you rely on any information found on this site except entirely at your own risk.
> IN NO EVENT SHALL CONSERVAPEDIA, ITS EDITORS, FOUNDERS, SPONSORS, CONTRIBUTORS, OR ANYONE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROJECT EVER BE LIABLE TO A USER FOR ANY INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, PERSONAL INJURY, OR ANY OTHER DIRECT OR INDIRECT LOSS OR DAMAGE, INCLUDING LOST PROFITS, PUNITIVE DAMAGES, OR PAIN AND SUFFERING, ARISING OUT OF ANY USE OF THIS SITE, WHETHER IN AN ACTION FOR OR ARISING OUT OF ANY CAUSE WHATSOEVER, REGARDLESS OF THE FORM OF ACTION, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, TORT INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY OR OTHERWISE.
> Top
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so, you're saying Solzhenitsyn never said it?.....because Conservapedia quoted him?.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no I saying you're an asshole for trying to infer that's what I SAID or I've given you too much credit for having more then one live brain cell..
Click to expand...


so then you admit he said it, but decided to talk about Conservapedia because you felt that would make a better argument than anything you could say about Solzhenitzen?......


----------



## Boss

BreezeWood said:


> well, all that is not believed above had first to have been purposefully considered and you were then lucky enough to step aside .... knowing its past history beforehand ?
> 
> *I am a Spiritualist. I believe in an omnipresent and omnipotent Spiritual energy.*
> 
> why would the ruler of the universe have to be everywhere at the same time - if that were true there would be no need for Judgement, as being everywhere would preclude spiritual "freedom" presumably acquired with admission rather than death ... the Everlasting is Omnipresent, its ruler is not and Spirits are free to roam.
> 
> what freed spirit would not be omnipotent ?



The Creator is a spiritual force beyond anything our human minds can comprehend. We have a very limited scope of comprehension, mostly confined to our five limited senses. In order to imagine anything, we must imagine it within the parameters of our senses and what we understand. Our rationalizations are made on the basis of perception, what we commonly define as 'reality.' The Creator and Spiritual nature are in a dimension beyond reality as we perceive it. There is no way to explain any of it, we don't have words to describe it or the ability to rationalize it. It's like asking a dog to explain nuclear physics. 

Omnipotent, omnipresent, everlasting... words we have come up with to help us comprehend something we are unable to understand. Most people would agree they were born. Do you remember the moment of your birth? Surely this is one of the most profound days of your existence as a human, you should be able to remember it. Does the fact you can't remember it mean it never happened? No, it simply means it is something beyond your ability to remember. It does not change the fact that you were born. Even if your parents died and there was never anyone there who could confirm that you were born, you would still understand that you were born, even though you can't remember it. 

Humans are spiritually connected, we always have been. There is a reason we have this connection. It's not something we made up, it's not our wild imaginations. Even though it can't be explained or proved with science, it's just as real as our birth. Our minds can't rationalize it, our words are inadequate to define it, we're like our dogs licking their balls instead of comprehending nuclear physics. It does not make it any less real.


----------



## GibsonSG

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> well, all that is not believed above had first to have been purposefully considered and you were then lucky enough to step aside .... knowing its past history beforehand ?
> 
> *I am a Spiritualist. I believe in an omnipresent and omnipotent Spiritual energy.*
> 
> why would the ruler of the universe have to be everywhere at the same time - if that were true there would be no need for Judgement, as being everywhere would preclude spiritual "freedom" presumably acquired with admission rather than death ... the Everlasting is Omnipresent, its ruler is not and Spirits are free to roam.
> 
> what freed spirit would not be omnipotent ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Creator* is a spiritual force beyond anything our human minds can comprehend. We have a very limited scope of comprehension, mostly confined to our five limited senses. In order to imagine anything, we must imagine it within the parameters of our senses and what we understand. Our rationalizations are made on the basis of perception, what we commonly define as 'reality.' The Creator and Spiritual nature are in a dimension beyond reality as we perceive it. There is no way to explain any of it, we don't have words to describe it or the ability to rationalize it. It's like asking a dog to explain nuclear physics.
> 
> Omnipotent, omnipresent, everlasting... words we have come up with to help us comprehend something we are unable to understand. Most people would agree they were born. Do you remember the moment of your birth? Surely this is one of the most profound days of your existence as a human, you should be able to remember it. Does the fact you can't remember it mean it never happened? No, it simply means it is something beyond your ability to remember. It does not change the fact that you were born. Even if your parents died and there was never anyone there who could confirm that you were born, you would still understand that you were born, even though you can't remember it.
> 
> Humans are spiritually connected, we always have been. There is a reason we have this connection. It's not something we made up, it's not our wild imaginations. Even though it can't be explained or proved with science, it's just as real as our birth. Our minds can't rationalize it, our words are inadequate to define it, we're like our dogs licking their balls instead of comprehending nuclear physics. It does not make it any less real.
Click to expand...

Otherwise known as god.


----------



## hobelim

GibsonSG said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> well, all that is not believed above had first to have been purposefully considered and you were then lucky enough to step aside .... knowing its past history beforehand ?
> 
> *I am a Spiritualist. I believe in an omnipresent and omnipotent Spiritual energy.*
> 
> why would the ruler of the universe have to be everywhere at the same time - if that were true there would be no need for Judgement, as being everywhere would preclude spiritual "freedom" presumably acquired with admission rather than death ... the Everlasting is Omnipresent, its ruler is not and Spirits are free to roam.
> 
> what freed spirit would not be omnipotent ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Creator* is a spiritual force beyond anything our human minds can comprehend. We have a very limited scope of comprehension, mostly confined to our five limited senses. In order to imagine anything, we must imagine it within the parameters of our senses and what we understand. Our rationalizations are made on the basis of perception, what we commonly define as 'reality.' The Creator and Spiritual nature are in a dimension beyond reality as we perceive it. There is no way to explain any of it, we don't have words to describe it or the ability to rationalize it. It's like asking a dog to explain nuclear physics.
> 
> Omnipotent, omnipresent, everlasting... words we have come up with to help us comprehend something we are unable to understand. Most people would agree they were born. Do you remember the moment of your birth? Surely this is one of the most profound days of your existence as a human, you should be able to remember it. Does the fact you can't remember it mean it never happened? No, it simply means it is something beyond your ability to remember. It does not change the fact that you were born. Even if your parents died and there was never anyone there who could confirm that you were born, you would still understand that you were born, even though you can't remember it.
> 
> Humans are spiritually connected, we always have been. There is a reason we have this connection. It's not something we made up, it's not our wild imaginations. Even though it can't be explained or proved with science, it's just as real as our birth. Our minds can't rationalize it, our words are inadequate to define it, we're like our dogs licking their balls instead of comprehending nuclear physics. It does not make it any less real.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Otherwise known as god.
Click to expand...




Not exactly. If you read the fine print you will see that Boss compares God to some sort of  force or energy that does not care about humans or any life form one way or the other and does not fit the definition of a living being.

His insistence that people are connecting to God and that people are spiritual beings because they worship the unknown and have been deluded or brainwashed into believing the ridiculous, or even if they are having a psychotic experience, is proof of spiritual realities without ever  even trying to discern the difference between the truth and a fantasy is patently absurd. 


Whether God exists or not, his speculations and arguments prove nothing but the vanity of certain types of self indulgent people to maintain opinions of themselves that do not correspond to reality.


----------



## GISMYS

All that can be known about God by mankind is reveiled in His Holy Inspired(God breathed) Word. Read it,study it and believe it if you seek truth.


----------



## GibsonSG

GISMYS said:


> All that can be known about God by mankind is reveiled in His Holy Inspired(God breathed) Word. Read it,study it and believe it if you seek truth.



The Koran?


----------



## GISMYS

GibsonSG said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> All that can be known about God by mankind is reveiled in His Holy Inspired(God breathed) Word. Read it,study it and believe it if you seek truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Koran?
Click to expand...


Why would any thinking person want to know the FALSE god of the koran???


----------



## GibsonSG

hobelim said:


> GibsonSG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Creator* is a spiritual force beyond anything our human minds can comprehend. We have a very limited scope of comprehension, mostly confined to our five limited senses. In order to imagine anything, we must imagine it within the parameters of our senses and what we understand. Our rationalizations are made on the basis of perception, what we commonly define as 'reality.' The Creator and Spiritual nature are in a dimension beyond reality as we perceive it. There is no way to explain any of it, we don't have words to describe it or the ability to rationalize it. It's like asking a dog to explain nuclear physics.
> 
> Omnipotent, omnipresent, everlasting... words we have come up with to help us comprehend something we are unable to understand. Most people would agree they were born. Do you remember the moment of your birth? Surely this is one of the most profound days of your existence as a human, you should be able to remember it. Does the fact you can't remember it mean it never happened? No, it simply means it is something beyond your ability to remember. It does not change the fact that you were born. Even if your parents died and there was never anyone there who could confirm that you were born, you would still understand that you were born, even though you can't remember it.
> 
> Humans are spiritually connected, we always have been. There is a reason we have this connection. It's not something we made up, it's not our wild imaginations. Even though it can't be explained or proved with science, it's just as real as our birth. Our minds can't rationalize it, our words are inadequate to define it, we're like our dogs licking their balls instead of comprehending nuclear physics. It does not make it any less real.
> 
> 
> 
> Otherwise known as god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not exactly. If you read the fine print you will see that Boss compares God to some sort of  force or energy that does not care about humans or any life form one way or the other and does not fit the definition of a living being.
> 
> His insistence that people are connecting to God and that people are spiritual beings because they worship the unknown and have been deluded or brainwashed into believing the ridiculous, or even if they are having a psychotic experience, is proof of spiritual realities without ever  even trying to discern the difference between the truth and a fantasy is patently absurd.
> 
> 
> Whether God exists or not, his speculations and arguments prove nothing but the vanity of certain types of self indulgent people to maintain opinions of themselves that do not correspond to reality.
Click to expand...


"The Creator", his words, not mine. He believes in a god. 

Btw, your second paragraph makes no sense, maybe you should go and lie down.


----------



## GibsonSG

GISMYS said:


> GibsonSG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> All that can be known about God by mankind is reveiled in His Holy Inspired(God breathed) Word. Read it,study it and believe it if you seek truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Koran?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would any thinking person want to know the FALSE god of the koran???
Click to expand...


The Vedas?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

GibsonSG said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> well, all that is not believed above had first to have been purposefully considered and you were then lucky enough to step aside .... knowing its past history beforehand ?
> 
> *I am a Spiritualist. I believe in an omnipresent and omnipotent Spiritual energy.*
> 
> why would the ruler of the universe have to be everywhere at the same time - if that were true there would be no need for Judgement, as being everywhere would preclude spiritual "freedom" presumably acquired with admission rather than death ... the Everlasting is Omnipresent, its ruler is not and Spirits are free to roam.
> 
> what freed spirit would not be omnipotent ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Creator* is a spiritual force beyond anything our human minds can comprehend. We have a very limited scope of comprehension, mostly confined to our five limited senses. In order to imagine anything, we must imagine it within the parameters of our senses and what we understand. Our rationalizations are made on the basis of perception, what we commonly define as 'reality.' The Creator and Spiritual nature are in a dimension beyond reality as we perceive it. There is no way to explain any of it, we don't have words to describe it or the ability to rationalize it. It's like asking a dog to explain nuclear physics.
> 
> Omnipotent, omnipresent, everlasting... words we have come up with to help us comprehend something we are unable to understand. Most people would agree they were born. Do you remember the moment of your birth? Surely this is one of the most profound days of your existence as a human, you should be able to remember it. Does the fact you can't remember it mean it never happened? No, it simply means it is something beyond your ability to remember. It does not change the fact that you were born. Even if your parents died and there was never anyone there who could confirm that you were born, you would still understand that you were born, even though you can't remember it.
> 
> Humans are spiritually connected, we always have been. There is a reason we have this connection. It's not something we made up, it's not our wild imaginations. Even though it can't be explained or proved with science, it's just as real as our birth. Our minds can't rationalize it, our words are inadequate to define it, we're like our dogs licking their balls instead of comprehending nuclear physics. It does not make it any less real.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Otherwise known as god.
Click to expand...


a contrivance of man.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> well, all that is not believed above had first to have been purposefully considered and you were then lucky enough to step aside .... knowing its past history beforehand ?
> 
> *I am a Spiritualist. I believe in an omnipresent and omnipotent Spiritual energy.*
> 
> why would the ruler of the universe have to be everywhere at the same time - if that were true there would be no need for Judgement, as being everywhere would preclude spiritual "freedom" presumably acquired with admission rather than death ... the Everlasting is Omnipresent, its ruler is not and Spirits are free to roam.
> 
> what freed spirit would not be omnipotent ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Creator is a spiritual force beyond anything our human minds can comprehend. We have a very limited scope of comprehension, mostly confined to our five limited senses. In order to imagine anything, we must imagine it within the parameters of our senses and what we understand. Our rationalizations are made on the basis of perception, what we commonly define as 'reality.' The Creator and Spiritual nature are in a dimension beyond reality as we perceive it. There is no way to explain any of it, we don't have words to describe it or the ability to rationalize it. It's like asking a dog to explain nuclear physics.
> 
> Omnipotent, omnipresent, everlasting... words we have come up with to help us comprehend something we are unable to understand. Most people would agree they were born. Do you remember the moment of your birth? Surely this is one of the most profound days of your existence as a human, you should be able to remember it. Does the fact you can't remember it mean it never happened? No, it simply means it is something beyond your ability to remember. It does not change the fact that you were born. Even if your parents died and there was never anyone there who could confirm that you were born, you would still understand that you were born, even though you can't remember it.
> 
> Humans are spiritually connected, we always have been. There is a reason we have this connection. It's not something we made up, it's not our wild imaginations. Even though it can't be explained or proved with science, it's just as real as our birth. Our minds can't rationalize it, our words are inadequate to define it, we're like our dogs licking their balls instead of comprehending nuclear physics. It does not make it any less real.
Click to expand...


I see that boss has donned his voodoo costume and is prancing around the fire muttering incantations now! "Booga-wooga, this is beyond your comprehension. Worship the mythical jabberwock that only exists in my drug induced halucinations!" 

No, that isn't "hating god" at all! It is just mocking the absurd stupidity of your baseless claims. And yes, anything that stupid deserves to be ridiculed. At least modern religions have put some thought and effort into what they expect people to believe. You just spout  jibberish in the desperate hope that someone will take you seriously.


----------



## edthecynic

GibsonSG said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> All that can be known about God by mankind is reveiled in His Holy Inspired(God breathed) Word. Read it,study it and believe it if you seek truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Koran?
Click to expand...

The _Bhagavad Gita._


----------



## Steven_R

edthecynic said:


> GibsonSG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> All that can be known about God by mankind is reveiled in His Holy Inspired(God breathed) Word. Read it,study it and believe it if you seek truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Koran?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The _Bhagavad Gita._
Click to expand...


The _Silmarillion._


----------



## Steven_R

PostmodernProph said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> so, you're saying Solzhenitsyn never said it?.....because Conservapedia quoted him?.....
> 
> 
> 
> no I saying you're an asshole for trying to infer that's what I SAID or I've given you too much credit for having more then one live brain cell..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so then you admit he said it, but decided to talk about Conservapedia because you felt that would make a better argument than anything you could say about Solzhenitzen?......
Click to expand...


Before you trust Andrew Schlafly too much and quote Conservapedia as though it is gospel, keep in mind that in the past Schlafly and friends have been caught editing entries and banning editors when called on it. That isn't to say that the Solzhenitsyn quote isn't correct, but check the source against what Conservapedia presents.

Trust, but verify kind of a thing. 

And for the record, I generally lean Conservative more than anything.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Derideo_Te said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> well, all that is not believed above had first to have been purposefully considered and you were then lucky enough to step aside .... knowing its past history beforehand ?
> 
> *I am a Spiritualist. I believe in an omnipresent and omnipotent Spiritual energy.*
> 
> why would the ruler of the universe have to be everywhere at the same time - if that were true there would be no need for Judgement, as being everywhere would preclude spiritual "freedom" presumably acquired with admission rather than death ... the Everlasting is Omnipresent, its ruler is not and Spirits are free to roam.
> 
> what freed spirit would not be omnipotent ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Creator is a spiritual force beyond anything our human minds can comprehend. We have a very limited scope of comprehension, mostly confined to our five limited senses. In order to imagine anything, we must imagine it within the parameters of our senses and what we understand. Our rationalizations are made on the basis of perception, what we commonly define as 'reality.' The Creator and Spiritual nature are in a dimension beyond reality as we perceive it. There is no way to explain any of it, we don't have words to describe it or the ability to rationalize it. It's like asking a dog to explain nuclear physics.
> 
> Omnipotent, omnipresent, everlasting... words we have come up with to help us comprehend something we are unable to understand. Most people would agree they were born. Do you remember the moment of your birth? Surely this is one of the most profound days of your existence as a human, you should be able to remember it. Does the fact you can't remember it mean it never happened? No, it simply means it is something beyond your ability to remember. It does not change the fact that you were born. Even if your parents died and there was never anyone there who could confirm that you were born, you would still understand that you were born, even though you can't remember it.
> 
> Humans are spiritually connected, we always have been. There is a reason we have this connection. It's not something we made up, it's not our wild imaginations. Even though it can't be explained or proved with science, it's just as real as our birth. Our minds can't rationalize it, our words are inadequate to define it, we're like our dogs licking their balls instead of comprehending nuclear physics. It does not make it any less real.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see that boss has donned his voodoo costume and is prancing around the fire muttering incantations now! "Booga-wooga, this is beyond your comprehension. Worship the mythical jabberwock that only exists in my drug induced halucinations!"
> 
> No, that isn't "hating god" at all! It is just mocking the absurd stupidity of your baseless claims. And yes, anything that stupid deserves to be ridiculed. At least modern religions have put some thought and effort into what they expect people to believe. You just spout  jibberish in the desperate hope that someone will take you seriously.
Click to expand...


True. 

One cant hate something that doesnt exist as perceived by theists.


----------



## daws101

PostmodernProph said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> so, you're saying Solzhenitsyn never said it?.....because Conservapedia quoted him?.....
> 
> 
> 
> no I saying you're an asshole for trying to infer that's what I SAID or I've given you too much credit for having more then one live brain cell..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so then you admit he said it, but decided to talk about Conservapedia because you felt that would make a better argument than anything you could say about Solzhenitzen?......
Click to expand...

wrong again!


----------



## daws101

GISMYS said:


> GibsonSG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> All that can be known about God by mankind is reveiled in His Holy Inspired(God breathed) Word. Read it,study it and believe it if you seek truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Koran?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would any thinking person want to know the FALSE god of the koran???
Click to expand...

ahh jism...the god of the Quran IS THE SAME GOD THAT'S IN THE BIBLE...
the Jews Muslims and Christians all worship the same god ...the god of Abraham.


----------



## Boss

GibsonSG said:


> "The Creator", his words, not mine. He believes in a god



Yes, I do believe in a God. No, it's not the traditional Christian incarnation of God. I believe God is a spiritual energy force that is present all over the universe at the same time. This energy force doesn't have humanistic attributes. It doesn't "care" or "feel" things. Our souls or spirits are the spiritual aspects of who we are. We can connect to this spiritual energy which is positive, or we can choose to not connect and deny it. We were created by this positive spiritual energy along with a material physical universe. 

Now personally, I believe the physical universe we realize is a temporary stop for our souls. Perhaps it is a test or training for what lies ahead, I don't know for certain. I believe there could be many other dimensions beyond this physical dimension we comprehend, and our souls will ascend or descend to one of these other dimensions when our physical body dies.


----------



## Boss

> True.
> 
> One can&#8217;t &#8216;hate&#8217; something that doesn&#8217;t exist as perceived by theists.



And yet we see evidence that hate abounds for the theists and God. How can that be explained rationally?


----------



## rightwinger

Atheists don't hate God

Just the pompous judgemental simpletons who follow him


----------



## koshergrl

Steven_R said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> no I saying you're an asshole for trying to infer that's what I SAID or I've given you too much credit for having more then one live brain cell..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so then you admit he said it, but decided to talk about Conservapedia because you felt that would make a better argument than anything you could say about Solzhenitzen?......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Before you trust Andrew Schlafly too much and quote Conservapedia as though it is gospel, keep in mind that in the past Schlafly and friends have been caught editing entries and banning editors when called on it. That isn't to say that the Solzhenitsyn quote isn't correct, but check the source against what Conservapedia presents.
> 
> Trust, but verify kind of a thing.
> 
> And for the record, I generally lean Conservative more than anything.
Click to expand...

 
Sure it has a conservative slant and is open about it.

But that doesn't mean that they falsely attribute quotes to people, or fail to source their articles. Their citations and their sources are 100 percent...and they certainly do NOT falsely attribute quotes that were never made.

The fact of the matter is, they share information that the progressive media and the even less knowledgeable progressive loons on here ignore and bury, or don't even know exist. Becuase those lunatics get their information second and third hand from talk show hosts, history channel 30 - minute propaganda blurbs, celebrities, and wack a doodle cult leaders who outright LIE to you. Read the actual works of the people that are cited and referenced, instead of getting all worked up over the fact that the word "conservative" is used in the site title.

Conservatives are typically a lot more honest about their motivation...and also a lot more truthful in their sourcing, than any progressive propagandist site out there...even when those sites disguise themselves as being "journalistic" or "objective". Do your own research. Research what the quoted people said. The sources are listed right in the article. It's not that hard.

But of course, you have no interest in educating yourself, or actually accessing the truth...so you won't. Hurry over to Democrative Underground and get your propaganda fix for the day, and run with it.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Boss said:


> True.
> 
> One cant hate something that doesnt exist as perceived by theists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *And yet we see evidence that hate abounds for the theists and God.* How can that be explained rationally?
Click to expand...


Once again the boss pretends that this imaginary "evidence" exists even though he has never produced anything that isn't either anecdotal or flat out wrong!


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Boss said:


> GibsonSG said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The Creator", his words, not mine. He believes in a god
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I do believe in a God. No, it's not the traditional Christian incarnation of God. I believe God is a spiritual energy force that is present all over the universe at the same time. This energy force doesn't have humanistic attributes. It doesn't "care" or "feel" things. Our souls or spirits are the spiritual aspects of who we are. We can connect to this spiritual energy which is positive, or we can choose to not connect and deny it. We were created by this positive spiritual energy along with a material physical universe.
> 
> Now personally, I believe the physical universe we realize is a temporary stop for our souls. Perhaps it is a test or training for what lies ahead, I don't know for certain. I believe there could be many other dimensions beyond this physical dimension we comprehend, and our souls will ascend or descend to one of these other dimensions when our physical body dies.
Click to expand...


This religion as philosophy motif is just the most recent manifestation of mans contrivance of a belief system. 

Indeed, weve almost come full-circle to the belief systems that existed prior to the advent of civilization, but all created by man nonetheless.


----------



## Boss

rightwinger said:


> Atheists don't hate God
> 
> Just the pompous judgemental simpletons who follow him



Atheists don't, God-haters do. There is a difference. God-haters pretend to be Atheists because they think it gives them more credibility. There are actually some God-haters who believe in God more strongly than some Christians I know. 

Insults like "sky daddy" and "invisible friend" are outright hate from God-haters. Atheists don't hate what they don't believe exists. What we see here are God-hating frauds who cling to the label 'Atheist' because they are cowards, afraid to admit they believe in God and hate Him.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

koshergrl said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> so then you admit he said it, but decided to talk about Conservapedia because you felt that would make a better argument than anything you could say about Solzhenitzen?......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before you trust Andrew Schlafly too much and quote Conservapedia as though it is gospel, keep in mind that in the past Schlafly and friends have been caught editing entries and banning editors when called on it. That isn't to say that the Solzhenitsyn quote isn't correct, but check the source against what Conservapedia presents.
> 
> Trust, but verify kind of a thing.
> 
> And for the record, I generally lean Conservative more than anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure it has a conservative slant and is open about it.
Click to expand...


Which renders it subjective, prone to error, and invalid as a source.


----------



## Boss

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GibsonSG said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The Creator", his words, not mine. He believes in a god
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I do believe in a God. No, it's not the traditional Christian incarnation of God. I believe God is a spiritual energy force that is present all over the universe at the same time. This energy force doesn't have humanistic attributes. It doesn't "care" or "feel" things. Our souls or spirits are the spiritual aspects of who we are. We can connect to this spiritual energy which is positive, or we can choose to not connect and deny it. We were created by this positive spiritual energy along with a material physical universe.
> 
> Now personally, I believe the physical universe we realize is a temporary stop for our souls. Perhaps it is a test or training for what lies ahead, I don't know for certain. I believe there could be many other dimensions beyond this physical dimension we comprehend, and our souls will ascend or descend to one of these other dimensions when our physical body dies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This religion as philosophy motif is just the most recent manifestation of mans contrivance of a belief system.
> 
> Indeed, weve almost come full-circle to the belief systems that existed prior to the advent of civilization, but all created by man nonetheless.
Click to expand...


Well it's not a 'motif' it's just what I personally believe. I reject your idea that human spirituality is 'contrived' by man because it defies nature. It would actually be a contradiction to Darwin's theory of natural selection. Religions may be contrived, I can accept that, but human spirituality predates religion. It's an attribute our species has had since it's inception, this according to every unearthed archaeological human civilization. 

If the attribute were purely academic, contrived in our minds, imaginary... then other upper primates would have enjoyed a distinct advantage over homo sapiens and we would have become extinct through natural selection. Other upper primates who are much stronger than us, competing for the same resources, would not have been hindered by silly superstitions and ritual ceremonies. Their lack of this unnecessary attribute would have given them a tremendous advantage over us. That's clearly not what happened.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Boss said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I do believe in a God. No, it's not the traditional Christian incarnation of God. I believe God is a spiritual energy force that is present all over the universe at the same time. This energy force doesn't have humanistic attributes. It doesn't "care" or "feel" things. Our souls or spirits are the spiritual aspects of who we are. We can connect to this spiritual energy which is positive, or we can choose to not connect and deny it. We were created by this positive spiritual energy along with a material physical universe.
> 
> Now personally, I believe the physical universe we realize is a temporary stop for our souls. Perhaps it is a test or training for what lies ahead, I don't know for certain. I believe there could be many other dimensions beyond this physical dimension we comprehend, and our souls will ascend or descend to one of these other dimensions when our physical body dies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This religion as philosophy motif is just the most recent manifestation of mans contrivance of a belief system.
> 
> Indeed, weve almost come full-circle to the belief systems that existed prior to the advent of civilization, but all created by man nonetheless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well it's not a 'motif' it's just what I personally believe. I reject your idea that human spirituality is 'contrived' by man because it defies nature. It would actually be a contradiction to Darwin's theory of natural selection. Religions may be contrived, I can accept that, but human spirituality predates religion. It's an attribute our species has had since it's inception, this according to every unearthed archaeological human civilization.
> 
> If the attribute were purely academic, contrived in our minds, imaginary... then other upper primates would have enjoyed a distinct advantage over homo sapiens and we would have become extinct through natural selection. Other upper primates who are much stronger than us, competing for the same resources, would not have been hindered by silly superstitions and ritual ceremonies. Their lack of this unnecessary attribute would have given them a tremendous advantage over us. That's clearly not what happened.
Click to expand...


Oh brother! Now the boss is pretending that he understands how natural selection works and making idiotic assumptions that his delusions about "spiritual energy" played a significant role somehow!


----------



## rightwinger

Boss said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheists don't hate God
> 
> Just the pompous judgemental simpletons who follow him
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheists don't, God-haters do. There is a difference. God-haters pretend to be Atheists because they think it gives them more credibility. There are actually some God-haters who believe in God more strongly than some Christians I know.
> 
> Insults like "sky daddy" and "invisible friend" are outright hate from God-haters. Atheists don't hate what they don't believe exists. What we see here are God-hating frauds who cling to the label 'Atheist' because they are cowards, afraid to admit they believe in God and hate Him.
Click to expand...


Atheists do not hate a God they do not believe exists. Why would they

However, those pompus, judgemental simpletons who use his name to push their self rightous agenda are a different story


----------



## daws101




----------



## Boss

Derideo_Te said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> This religion as philosophy motif is just the most recent manifestation of mans contrivance of a belief system.
> 
> Indeed, weve almost come full-circle to the belief systems that existed prior to the advent of civilization, but all created by man nonetheless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well it's not a 'motif' it's just what I personally believe. I reject your idea that human spirituality is 'contrived' by man because it defies nature. It would actually be a contradiction to Darwin's theory of natural selection. Religions may be contrived, I can accept that, but human spirituality predates religion. It's an attribute our species has had since it's inception, this according to every unearthed archaeological human civilization.
> 
> If the attribute were purely academic, contrived in our minds, imaginary... then other upper primates would have enjoyed a distinct advantage over homo sapiens and we would have become extinct through natural selection. Other upper primates who are much stronger than us, competing for the same resources, would not have been hindered by silly superstitions and ritual ceremonies. Their lack of this unnecessary attribute would have given them a tremendous advantage over us. That's clearly not what happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh brother! Now the boss is pretending that he understands how natural selection works and making idiotic assumptions that his delusions about "spiritual energy" played a significant role somehow!
Click to expand...


It DID play a significant role, there is no other way to explain it if you believe in Darwin's theories. 

The question of whether there exists a Creator and Ruler of the Universe has been answered in the affirmative by some of the highest intellects that have ever existed. 
&#8213; Charles Darwin


----------



## Vandalshandle

Hmm.....Spiritual Energy.

Well, may the FORCE be with you.....


----------



## Luddly Neddite

daws101 said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GibsonSG said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Koran?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would any thinking person want to know the FALSE god of the koran???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ahh jism...the god of the Quran IS THE SAME GOD THAT'S IN THE BIBLE...
> the Jews Muslims and Christians all worship the same god ...the god of Abraham.
Click to expand...


I betcha my god can beat up your god.


----------



## daws101

Luddly Neddite said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would any thinking person want to know the FALSE god of the koran???
> 
> 
> 
> ahh jism...the god of the Quran IS THE SAME GOD THAT'S IN THE BIBLE...
> the Jews Muslims and Christians all worship the same god ...the god of Abraham.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I betcha my god can beat up your god.
Click to expand...

NAH! Zeus  would wipe the floor with Hades...


----------



## Derideo_Te

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well it's not a 'motif' it's just what I personally believe. I reject your idea that human spirituality is 'contrived' by man because it defies nature. It would actually be a contradiction to Darwin's theory of natural selection. Religions may be contrived, I can accept that, but human spirituality predates religion. It's an attribute our species has had since it's inception, this according to every unearthed archaeological human civilization.
> 
> If the attribute were purely academic, contrived in our minds, imaginary... then other upper primates would have enjoyed a distinct advantage over homo sapiens and we would have become extinct through natural selection. Other upper primates who are much stronger than us, competing for the same resources, would not have been hindered by silly superstitions and ritual ceremonies. Their lack of this unnecessary attribute would have given them a tremendous advantage over us. That's clearly not what happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh brother! Now the boss is pretending that he understands how natural selection works and making idiotic assumptions that his delusions about "spiritual energy" played a significant role somehow!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It DID play a significant role, there is no other way to explain it if you believe in Darwin's theories.
> 
> The question of whether there exists a Creator and Ruler of the Universe has been answered in the affirmative by some of the highest intellects that have ever existed.
> &#8213; Charles Darwin
Click to expand...


Once again your grasp of Darwin is superficial at best. 

For starters Darwin based Evolution on a book about Capitalism and market forces controlling which businesses thrive and which fail. Yes, Capitalism is proof of Evolution. Furthermore the writer of that book on Capitalism was an ordained minister and a friend of Darwin. 

Secondly, Darwin's personal beliefs have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on his scientific findings. Newton was an ordained minister of religion because that was a job requirement at the time. 

Finally your quote from Darwin in no way negates your profound ignorance when it comes to how natural selection actually works. If anything it proves that you have no clue whatsoever.


----------



## Steven_R

koshergrl said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> so then you admit he said it, but decided to talk about Conservapedia because you felt that would make a better argument than anything you could say about Solzhenitzen?......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before you trust Andrew Schlafly too much and quote Conservapedia as though it is gospel, keep in mind that in the past Schlafly and friends have been caught editing entries and banning editors when called on it. That isn't to say that the Solzhenitsyn quote isn't correct, but check the source against what Conservapedia presents.
> 
> Trust, but verify kind of a thing.
> 
> And for the record, I generally lean Conservative more than anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure it has a conservative slant and is open about it.
> 
> But that doesn't mean that they falsely attribute quotes to people, or fail to source their articles. Their citations and their sources are 100 percent...and they certainly do NOT falsely attribute quotes that were never made.
> 
> The fact of the matter is, they share information that the progressive media and the even less knowledgeable progressive loons on here ignore and bury, or don't even know exist. Becuase those lunatics get their information second and third hand from talk show hosts, history channel 30 - minute propaganda blurbs, celebrities, and wack a doodle cult leaders who outright LIE to you. Read the actual works of the people that are cited and referenced, instead of getting all worked up over the fact that the word "conservative" is used in the site title.
> 
> Conservatives are typically a lot more honest about their motivation...and also a lot more truthful in their sourcing, than any progressive propagandist site out there...even when those sites disguise themselves as being "journalistic" or "objective". Do your own research. Research what the quoted people said. The sources are listed right in the article. It's not that hard.
> 
> But of course, you have no interest in educating yourself, or actually accessing the truth...so you won't. Hurry over to Democrative Underground and get your propaganda fix for the day, and run with it.
Click to expand...


Go look at Schlafly and Conservepedia's actions during the Lenski Affair. Make sure you look at some outside sources describing the whole episode and then come back and tell us how Schlafly gets it right.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Vandalshandle said:


> Hmm.....Spiritual Energy.
> 
> Well, may the FORCE be with you.....




Or in the OP's case, the Farce!


----------



## Boss

Derideo_Te said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh brother! Now the boss is pretending that he understands how natural selection works and making idiotic assumptions that his delusions about "spiritual energy" played a significant role somehow!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It DID play a significant role, there is no other way to explain it if you believe in Darwin's theories.
> 
> The question of whether there exists a Creator and Ruler of the Universe has been answered in the affirmative by some of the highest intellects that have ever existed.
> &#8213; Charles Darwin
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again your grasp of Darwin is superficial at best.
> 
> For starters Darwin based Evolution on a book about Capitalism and market forces controlling which businesses thrive and which fail. Yes, Capitalism is proof of Evolution. Furthermore the writer of that book on Capitalism was an ordained minister and a friend of Darwin.
> 
> Secondly, Darwin's personal beliefs have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on his scientific findings. Newton was an ordained minister of religion because that was a job requirement at the time.
> 
> Finally your quote from Darwin in no way negates your profound ignorance when it comes to how natural selection actually works. If anything it proves that you have no clue whatsoever.
Click to expand...


Well now you are trying to claim that Darwin's theories have absolutely NOTHING to do with "science" and are actually a political notion based on Capitalism. That's pretty remarkable and astounding if you ask me. 

Then you try to spin it and claim that Darwin WAS practicing science and his political views don't matter. Can't you make up your mind on this? 

Finally, I quoted the man who came up with the theory of natural selection, who firmly did believe that the universe had a Creator and it was unquestionable. There are may other quotes Darwin made to affirm this as well. So was Darwin some religious whacko who didn't know what the hell he was talking about? Or was he a scientist practicing science? 

Natural Selection, as presented by Darwin in Origin of the Species, specifically states that attributes in species which are fundamental to survival are retained and attributes which are detrimental to the species survival are discarded. Therefore, human spirituality MUST be beneficial and fundamental to the survival of the species. This is not some irrelevant or unimportant attribute, and it can't be if you believe Darwin.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> It DID play a significant role, there is no other way to explain it if you believe in Darwin's theories.
> 
> The question of whether there exists a Creator and Ruler of the Universe has been answered in the affirmative by some of the highest intellects that have ever existed.
> &#8213; Charles Darwin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again your grasp of Darwin is superficial at best.
> 
> For starters Darwin based Evolution on a book about Capitalism and market forces controlling which businesses thrive and which fail. Yes, Capitalism is proof of Evolution. Furthermore the writer of that book on Capitalism was an ordained minister and a friend of Darwin.
> 
> Secondly, Darwin's personal beliefs have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on his scientific findings. Newton was an ordained minister of religion because that was a job requirement at the time.
> 
> Finally your quote from Darwin in no way negates your profound ignorance when it comes to how natural selection actually works. If anything it proves that you have no clue whatsoever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well now you are trying to claim that Darwin's theories have absolutely NOTHING to do with "science" and are actually a political notion based on Capitalism. That's pretty remarkable and astounding if you ask me.
> 
> Then you try to spin it and claim that Darwin WAS practicing science and his political views don't matter. Can't you make up your mind on this?
> 
> Finally, I quoted the man who came up with the theory of natural selection, who firmly did believe that the universe had a Creator and it was unquestionable. There are may other quotes Darwin made to affirm this as well. So was Darwin some religious whacko who didn't know what the hell he was talking about? Or was he a scientist practicing science?
> 
> Natural Selection, as presented by Darwin in Origin of the Species, specifically states that attributes in species which are fundamental to survival are retained and attributes which are detrimental to the species survival are discarded. Therefore, human spirituality MUST be beneficial and fundamental to the survival of the species. This is not some irrelevant or unimportant attribute, and it can't be if you believe Darwin.
Click to expand...


Ok, it is now official! You have a serious reading comprehension disorder if that is what you imagine that I wrote. Seek professional help!


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Vandalshandle said:


> Hmm.....Spiritual Energy.
> 
> Well, may the FORCE be with you.....



Pretty much.


----------



## PostmodernProph

rightwinger said:


> Atheists don't hate God
> 
> Just the pompous judgemental simpletons who follow him



certainly nothing judgmental about THAT post, eh?.......


----------



## PostmodernProph

daws101 said:


>



and still you can't obey......


----------



## Boss

Derideo_Te said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again your grasp of Darwin is superficial at best.
> 
> For starters Darwin based Evolution on a book about Capitalism and market forces controlling which businesses thrive and which fail. Yes, Capitalism is proof of Evolution. Furthermore the writer of that book on Capitalism was an ordained minister and a friend of Darwin.
> 
> Secondly, Darwin's personal beliefs have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on his scientific findings. Newton was an ordained minister of religion because that was a job requirement at the time.
> 
> Finally your quote from Darwin in no way negates your profound ignorance when it comes to how natural selection actually works. If anything it proves that you have no clue whatsoever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well now you are trying to claim that Darwin's theories have absolutely NOTHING to do with "science" and are actually a political notion based on Capitalism. That's pretty remarkable and astounding if you ask me.
> 
> Then you try to spin it and claim that Darwin WAS practicing science and his political views don't matter. Can't you make up your mind on this?
> 
> Finally, I quoted the man who came up with the theory of natural selection, who firmly did believe that the universe had a Creator and it was unquestionable. There are may other quotes Darwin made to affirm this as well. So was Darwin some religious whacko who didn't know what the hell he was talking about? Or was he a scientist practicing science?
> 
> Natural Selection, as presented by Darwin in Origin of the Species, specifically states that attributes in species which are fundamental to survival are retained and attributes which are detrimental to the species survival are discarded. Therefore, human spirituality MUST be beneficial and fundamental to the survival of the species. This is not some irrelevant or unimportant attribute, and it can't be if you believe Darwin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, it is now official! You have a serious reading comprehension disorder if that is what you imagine that I wrote. Seek professional help!
Click to expand...


I don't think YOU even know what you're writing anymore. It seems you're just emotively responding with random thoughts that contradict each other. You've already jumped the proverbial shark of logic several times and appear to be ready to make another pass.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

I don't much care, one way or the other, about any of the various gods but I sure as hell hate this -


----------



## rightwinger

PostmodernProph said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheists don't hate God
> 
> Just the pompous judgemental simpletons who follow him
> 
> 
> 
> 
> certainly nothing judgmental about THAT post, eh?.......
Click to expand...


 I call em like I see em


----------



## PostmodernProph

rightwinger said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheists don't hate God
> 
> Just the pompous judgemental simpletons who follow him
> 
> 
> 
> 
> certainly nothing judgmental about THAT post, eh?.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I call em like I see em
Click to expand...


don't you just hate pompous judgmental simpletons?......


----------



## PostmodernProph

Luddly Neddite said:


> I don't much care, one way or the other, about any of the various gods but I sure as hell hate this -



we could just eliminate all 501 organizations....


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> It DID play a significant role, there is no other way to explain it if you believe in Darwin's theories.
> 
> The question of whether there exists a Creator and Ruler of the Universe has been answered in the affirmative by some of the highest intellects that have ever existed.
> &#8213; Charles Darwin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again your grasp of Darwin is superficial at best.
> 
> For starters Darwin based Evolution on a book about Capitalism and market forces controlling which businesses thrive and which fail. Yes, Capitalism is proof of Evolution. Furthermore the writer of that book on Capitalism was an ordained minister and a friend of Darwin.
> 
> Secondly, Darwin's personal beliefs have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on his scientific findings. Newton was an ordained minister of religion because that was a job requirement at the time.
> 
> Finally your quote from Darwin in no way negates your profound ignorance when it comes to how natural selection actually works. If anything it proves that you have no clue whatsoever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well now you are trying to claim that Darwin's theories have absolutely NOTHING to do with "science" and are actually a political notion based on Capitalism. That's pretty remarkable and astounding if you ask me.
> 
> Then you try to spin it and claim that Darwin WAS practicing science and his political views don't matter. Can't you make up your mind on this?
> 
> Finally, I quoted the man who came up with the theory of natural selection, who firmly did believe that the universe had a Creator and it was unquestionable. There are may other quotes Darwin made to affirm this as well. So was Darwin some religious whacko who didn't know what the hell he was talking about? Or was he a scientist practicing science?
> 
> Natural Selection, as presented by Darwin in Origin of the Species, specifically states that attributes in species which are fundamental to survival are retained and attributes which are detrimental to the species survival are discarded. Therefore, human spirituality MUST be beneficial and fundamental to the survival of the species. This is not some irrelevant or unimportant attribute, and it can't be if you believe Darwin.
Click to expand...

wrong bossy he based his science on the ideas in the other book...rise and fall =survival of the fittest.
on spirituality as long as the attribute does not hinder survival it would remain.
another of bossy's fantasy's crashes and burns


----------



## daws101

PostmodernProph said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and still you can't obey......
Click to expand...


----------



## Gadawg73

Anyone interested in science is a God hater.
How dare anyone question the ID/creationist crowd.
They are the same as Democrats that lynch any African American that dare be a conservative.
The nerve of anyone to ever question what a Christian says about their beliefs on what is science and what is not.


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well now you are trying to claim that Darwin's theories have absolutely NOTHING to do with "science" and are actually a political notion based on Capitalism. That's pretty remarkable and astounding if you ask me.
> 
> Then you try to spin it and claim that Darwin WAS practicing science and his political views don't matter. Can't you make up your mind on this?
> 
> Finally, I quoted the man who came up with the theory of natural selection, who firmly did believe that the universe had a Creator and it was unquestionable. There are may other quotes Darwin made to affirm this as well. So was Darwin some religious whacko who didn't know what the hell he was talking about? Or was he a scientist practicing science?
> 
> Natural Selection, as presented by Darwin in Origin of the Species, specifically states that attributes in species which are fundamental to survival are retained and attributes which are detrimental to the species survival are discarded. Therefore, human spirituality MUST be beneficial and fundamental to the survival of the species. This is not some irrelevant or unimportant attribute, and it can't be if you believe Darwin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, it is now official! You have a serious reading comprehension disorder if that is what you imagine that I wrote. Seek professional help!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think YOU even know what you're writing anymore. It seems you're just emotively responding with random thoughts that contradict each other. You've already jumped the proverbial shark of logic several times and appear to be ready to make another pass.
Click to expand...

emotively responding ? you been on the rag for days now, everything you post reeks of sour grapes !


----------



## Boss

> on spirituality as long as the attribute does not hinder survival it would remain.



But it WOULD hinder survival. I am a primate competing with other primates for survival... survival of the fittest... While I am worshiping and practicing spiritual beliefs, the other primates are hunting food and resources I need to survive and killing off my species while we waste time with goofy ceremonies and silly rituals. 

If human spirituality was nonsense, we would have abandoned it long ago. Heck, just take a look within our own species.... millions upon millions of humans have been killed and persecuted by other humans over their spiritual beliefs. If that's not directly detrimental to survival, I don't know what would be. Yet the attribute remained, humans didn't discard it. Hundreds of religious wars, millions dead, millions more persecuted for generation after generation, and yet the attribute can't be stomped out of the heart of man. It doesn't matter how hard you try or for how many years you try it... still there... still a strong and present attribute in mankind.


----------



## Boss

Gadawg73 said:


> Anyone interested in science is a God hater.
> How dare anyone question the ID/creationist crowd.
> They are the same as Democrats that lynch any African American that dare be a conservative.
> The nerve of anyone to ever question what a Christian says about their beliefs on what is science and what is not.



You've lost all credibility to talk about science. You want to throw up court cases as "scientific evidence."  

Pfft.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well now you are trying to claim that Darwin's theories have absolutely NOTHING to do with "science" and are actually a political notion based on Capitalism. That's pretty remarkable and astounding if you ask me.
> 
> Then you try to spin it and claim that Darwin WAS practicing science and his political views don't matter. Can't you make up your mind on this?
> 
> Finally, I quoted the man who came up with the theory of natural selection, who firmly did believe that the universe had a Creator and it was unquestionable. There are may other quotes Darwin made to affirm this as well. So was Darwin some religious whacko who didn't know what the hell he was talking about? Or was he a scientist practicing science?
> 
> Natural Selection, as presented by Darwin in Origin of the Species, specifically states that attributes in species which are fundamental to survival are retained and attributes which are detrimental to the species survival are discarded. Therefore, human spirituality MUST be beneficial and fundamental to the survival of the species. This is not some irrelevant or unimportant attribute, and it can't be if you believe Darwin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, it is now official! You have a serious reading comprehension disorder if that is what you imagine that I wrote. Seek professional help!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think YOU even know what you're writing anymore. It seems you're just emotively responding with random thoughts that contradict each other. You've already jumped the proverbial shark of logic several times and appear to be ready to make another pass.
Click to expand...


Oh, the irony coming the illogical babbling of a delusional believer in non existent "spiritual forces" while alleging that they have some imaginary vital survival benefit.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Gadawg73 said:


> Anyone interested in science is a God hater.
> How dare anyone question the ID/creationist crowd.
> They are the same as Democrats that lynch any African American that dare be a conservative.
> The nerve of anyone to ever question what a Christian says about their beliefs on what is science and what is not.



Sarcasm is beyond the dull witted OP's limited cognitive abilities.


----------



## daws101

Derideo_Te said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone interested in science is a God hater.
> How dare anyone question the ID/creationist crowd.
> They are the same as Democrats that lynch any African American that dare be a conservative.
> The nerve of anyone to ever question what a Christian says about their beliefs on what is science and what is not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sarcasm is beyond the dull witted OP's limited cognitive abilities.
Click to expand...

bump!


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> on spirituality as long as the attribute does not hinder survival it would remain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it WOULD hinder survival. I am a primate competing with other primates for survival... survival of the fittest... While I am worshiping and practicing spiritual beliefs, the other primates are hunting food and resources I need to survive and killing off my species while we waste time with goofy ceremonies and silly rituals.
> 
> If human spirituality was nonsense, we would have abandoned it long ago. Heck, just take a look within our own species.... millions upon millions of humans have been killed and persecuted by other humans over their spiritual beliefs. If that's not directly detrimental to survival, I don't know what would be. Yet the attribute remained, humans didn't discard it. Hundreds of religious wars, millions dead, millions more persecuted for generation after generation, and yet the attribute can't be stomped out of the heart of man. It doesn't matter how hard you try or for how many years you try it... still there... still a strong and present attribute in mankind.
Click to expand...

bossy again proves his lack of understanding primate behavior....
most all animals hunt and fight when it's necessary most primates spend most of there time sleeping grooming and making other primates...leaving plenty of time for for myth making to develop...


----------



## Moonglow

Gadawg73 said:


> Anyone interested in science is a God hater.
> How dare anyone question the ID/creationist crowd.
> They are the same as Democrats that lynch any African American that dare be a conservative.
> The nerve of anyone to ever question what a Christian says about their beliefs on what is science and what is not.



Where are these dead blacks???


----------



## GibsonSG

Boss said:


> GibsonSG said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The Creator", his words, not mine. He believes in a god
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I do believe in a God. No, it's not the traditional Christian incarnation of God. I believe God is a spiritual energy force that is present all over the universe at the same time. This energy force doesn't have humanistic attributes. It doesn't "care" or "feel" things. Our souls or spirits are the spiritual aspects of who we are. We can connect to this spiritual energy which is positive, or we can choose to not connect and deny it. We were created by this positive spiritual energy along with a material physical universe.
> 
> Now personally, I believe the physical universe we realize is a temporary stop for our souls. Perhaps it is a test or training for what lies ahead, I don't know for certain. I believe there could be many other dimensions beyond this physical dimension we comprehend, and our souls will ascend or descend to one of these other dimensions when our physical body dies.
Click to expand...

Just like a good Christian.


----------



## guno

Boss said:


> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.



Which gods are you talking about? There is no one "god" if you study history. Gods are based on a time and place throughout history. The "one true god" today wasn't the "one true god" 5,000 years ago and todays one "true god"  won't be the same in 5,000  years


----------



## hobelim

Derideo_Te said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, it is now official! You have a serious reading comprehension disorder if that is what you imagine that I wrote. Seek professional help!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think YOU even know what you're writing anymore. It seems you're just emotively responding with random thoughts that contradict each other. You've already jumped the proverbial shark of logic several times and appear to be ready to make another pass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, the irony coming the illogical babbling of a delusional believer in non existent "spiritual forces" while alleging that they have some imaginary vital survival benefit.
Click to expand...



In all fairness there can be a survival benefit for those who pretend to believe in imaginary things. During the inquisition people who did not pretend to be a believer did not survive.  There are places all over the world to this day where if you don't gibber about Jesus, you can't get a decent job, or if you don't get on your hands and knees and pray to mecca you don't get to live which is a powerful 'spiritual force' and inspiration to believe. Even Chuck shamelessly cites business contacts and the material support of other believers as a lure and benefit to belief and supports anathema, treating unbelievers like pariah..

That does not mean that I think that cowardice  or dishonesty is a spiritual force in reality, but I can see why Boss and other believers do. It serves them well.


----------



## Boss

guno said:


> Which gods are you talking about? There is no one "god" if you study history. Gods are based on a time and place throughout history. The "one true god" today wasn't the "one true god" 5,000 years ago and todays one "true god"  won't be the same in 5,000  years



It doesn't matter. "God" is a word created by man to define the source of his spiritual connection. Because we lack the ability to comprehend this source (even though we can connect), it creates a variety of ideas as to who/what God is. This doesn't make it LESS real, it makes it MORE real and PROVES we do make a connection to something.


----------



## Derideo_Te

hobelim said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think YOU even know what you're writing anymore. It seems you're just emotively responding with random thoughts that contradict each other. You've already jumped the proverbial shark of logic several times and appear to be ready to make another pass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, the irony coming the illogical babbling of a delusional believer in non existent "spiritual forces" while alleging that they have some imaginary vital survival benefit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In all fairness there can be a survival benefit for those who pretend to believe in imaginary things. During the inquisition people who did not pretend to be a believer did not survive.  There are places all over the world to this day where if you don't gibber about Jesus, you can't get a decent job, or if you don't get on your hands and knees and pray to mecca you don't get to live which is a powerful 'spiritual force' and inspiration to believe. Even Chuck shamelessly cites business contacts and the material support of other believers as a lure and benefit to belief and supports anathema, treating unbelievers like pariah..
> 
> That does not mean that I think that cowardice  or dishonesty is a spiritual force in reality, but I can see why Boss and other believers do. It serves them well.
Click to expand...


Your examples apply only to the very short period (in evolutionary time frames) that organized religion has existed. The OP is alleging that there was some vital survival benefit when mankind was still competing with other primates for resources long before there was any religion. 

This is what the OP alleged in post #311;


> Well it's not a 'motif' it's just what I personally believe. I reject your idea that human spirituality is 'contrived' by man because it defies nature. It would actually be a contradiction to Darwin's theory of natural selection. Religions may be contrived, I can accept that, but human spirituality predates religion. It's an attribute *our species has had since it's inception*, this according to every *unearthed archaeological human civilization*.
> 
> If the attribute were purely academic, contrived in our minds, imaginary... then other upper primates would have enjoyed a distinct advantage over homo sapiens and we would have become extinct through natural selection. Other upper primates who are much stronger than us, competing for the same resources, would not have been hindered by silly superstitions and ritual ceremonies. Their lack of this unnecessary attribute would have given them a tremendous advantage over us. That's clearly not what happened.



The hilarity here is that the OP claims that there was an "inception" of the "species" of mankind while attempting to use an evolutionary argument at the same time. Furthermore he conveniently ignores the millions of years where no signs of any religion have been "unearthed".


----------



## Boss

GibsonSG said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GibsonSG said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The Creator", his words, not mine. He believes in a god
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I do believe in a God. No, it's not the traditional Christian incarnation of God. I believe God is a spiritual energy force that is present all over the universe at the same time. This energy force doesn't have humanistic attributes. It doesn't "care" or "feel" things. Our souls or spirits are the spiritual aspects of who we are. We can connect to this spiritual energy which is positive, or we can choose to not connect and deny it. We were created by this positive spiritual energy along with a material physical universe.
> 
> Now personally, I believe the physical universe we realize is a temporary stop for our souls. Perhaps it is a test or training for what lies ahead, I don't know for certain. I believe there could be many other dimensions beyond this physical dimension we comprehend, and our souls will ascend or descend to one of these other dimensions when our physical body dies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just like a good Christian.
Click to expand...


You can believe what you want, but Christians believe it is an unforgivable sin to be saved and then reject the God of Abraham. In fact, it is the only unforgivable sin. So....IF I am a Christian who is proclaiming I am not a Christian, I have committed an unforgivable sin, according to Christianity. 

I know that you hide behind Atheism because you are a coward who is afraid to admit you believe in God but hate Him, and I can see how you would imagine me doing the same, but you're not that important to me. If I were a Christian, I would own it... just like every Christian you come across in this thread and elsewhere.


----------



## Boss

Derideo_Te said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, the irony coming the illogical babbling of a delusional believer in non existent "spiritual forces" while alleging that they have some imaginary vital survival benefit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In all fairness there can be a survival benefit for those who pretend to believe in imaginary things. During the inquisition people who did not pretend to be a believer did not survive.  There are places all over the world to this day where if you don't gibber about Jesus, you can't get a decent job, or if you don't get on your hands and knees and pray to mecca you don't get to live which is a powerful 'spiritual force' and inspiration to believe. Even Chuck shamelessly cites business contacts and the material support of other believers as a lure and benefit to belief and supports anathema, treating unbelievers like pariah..
> 
> That does not mean that I think that cowardice  or dishonesty is a spiritual force in reality, but I can see why Boss and other believers do. It serves them well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your examples apply only to the very short period (in evolutionary time frames) that organized religion has existed. The OP is alleging that there was some vital survival benefit when mankind was still competing with other primates for resources long before there was any religion.
> 
> This is what the OP alleged in post #311;
> 
> 
> 
> Well it's not a 'motif' it's just what I personally believe. I reject your idea that human spirituality is 'contrived' by man because it defies nature. It would actually be a contradiction to Darwin's theory of natural selection. Religions may be contrived, I can accept that, but human spirituality predates religion. It's an attribute *our species has had since it's inception*, this according to every *unearthed archaeological human civilization*.
> 
> If the attribute were purely academic, contrived in our minds, imaginary... then other upper primates would have enjoyed a distinct advantage over homo sapiens and we would have become extinct through natural selection. Other upper primates who are much stronger than us, competing for the same resources, would not have been hindered by silly superstitions and ritual ceremonies. Their lack of this unnecessary attribute would have given them a tremendous advantage over us. That's clearly not what happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The hilarity here is that the OP claims that there was an "inception" of the "species" of mankind while attempting to use an evolutionary argument at the same time. Furthermore he conveniently ignores the millions of years where no signs of any religion have been "unearthed".
Click to expand...


You seem to be confusing spirituality with religious faith. Sorry that you are too stupid to understand the difference, but it's really not my problem. There has never been a 'civilization' of homo sapiens unearthed that did not show signs of spirituality. In every case, without fault, they exhibit some indication of some form of spirituality. 

I've never made any argument supporting religion or religious belief. Religions are manifestations of human spirituality and proof that humans are spiritually connecting. That's about all I have to say for them, I can tolerate and accept religions if they are in harmony and peace with spiritual nature. 

What's fascinating is how you expose your true animosity toward religion without even thinking about it. You just automatically associated spirituality with religion, as if they are one in the same.


----------



## GibsonSG

Boss said:


> GibsonSG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I do believe in a God. No, it's not the traditional Christian incarnation of God. I believe God is a spiritual energy force that is present all over the universe at the same time. This energy force doesn't have humanistic attributes. It doesn't "care" or "feel" things. Our souls or spirits are the spiritual aspects of who we are. We can connect to this spiritual energy which is positive, or we can choose to not connect and deny it. We were created by this positive spiritual energy along with a material physical universe.
> 
> Now personally, I believe the physical universe we realize is a temporary stop for our souls. Perhaps it is a test or training for what lies ahead, I don't know for certain. I believe there could be many other dimensions beyond this physical dimension we comprehend, and our souls will ascend or descend to one of these other dimensions when our physical body dies.
> 
> 
> 
> Just like a good Christian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can believe what you want, but Christians believe it is an unforgivable sin to be saved and then reject the God of Abraham. In fact, it is the only unforgivable sin. So....IF I am a Christian who is proclaiming I am not a Christian, I have committed an unforgivable sin, according to Christianity.
> 
> I know that you hide behind Atheism because you are a coward who is afraid to admit you believe in God but hate Him, and I can see how you would imagine me doing the same, but you're not that important to me. If I were a Christian, I would own it... just like every Christian you come across in this thread and elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Geez, your being wrong has no limits!  I'm not an atheist, they're just as deluded as you are. I'm agnostic, I see no real proof either way, but am open to changing my mind if I see real proof. Can't be any fairer than that.

If you quack like a Christian and walk like a Christian...


----------



## jillian

Luddly Neddite said:


> I've never run across anyone who hates "god" but a lot of people don't like certain types of god's followers.



that.... 

and most people don't want anyone ramming their G-d down everyone else's throats

honoring the first amendment isn't hating G-d. I find that assertion bizarre.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> In all fairness there can be a survival benefit for those who pretend to believe in imaginary things. During the inquisition people who did not pretend to be a believer did not survive.  There are places all over the world to this day where if you don't gibber about Jesus, you can't get a decent job, or if you don't get on your hands and knees and pray to mecca you don't get to live which is a powerful 'spiritual force' and inspiration to believe. Even Chuck shamelessly cites business contacts and the material support of other believers as a lure and benefit to belief and supports anathema, treating unbelievers like pariah..
> 
> That does not mean that I think that cowardice  or dishonesty is a spiritual force in reality, but I can see why Boss and other believers do. It serves them well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your examples apply only to the very short period (in evolutionary time frames) that organized religion has existed. The OP is alleging that there was some vital survival benefit when mankind was still competing with other primates for resources long before there was any religion.
> 
> This is what the OP alleged in post #311;
> 
> 
> 
> Well it's not a 'motif' it's just what I personally believe. I reject your idea that human spirituality is 'contrived' by man because it defies nature. It would actually be a contradiction to Darwin's theory of natural selection. Religions may be contrived, I can accept that, but human spirituality predates religion. It's an attribute *our species has had since it's inception*, this according to every *unearthed archaeological human civilization*.
> 
> If the attribute were purely academic, contrived in our minds, imaginary... then other upper primates would have enjoyed a distinct advantage over homo sapiens and we would have become extinct through natural selection. Other upper primates who are much stronger than us, competing for the same resources, would not have been hindered by silly superstitions and ritual ceremonies. Their lack of this unnecessary attribute would have given them a tremendous advantage over us. That's clearly not what happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The hilarity here is that the OP claims that there was an "inception" of the "species" of mankind while attempting to use an evolutionary argument at the same time. Furthermore he conveniently ignores the millions of years where no signs of any religion have been "unearthed".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to be confusing spirituality with religious faith. Sorry that you are too stupid to understand the difference, but it's really not my problem. There has never been a 'civilization' of homo sapiens unearthed that did not show signs of spirituality. In every case, without fault, they exhibit some indication of some form of spirituality.
> 
> I've never made any argument supporting religion or religious belief. Religions are manifestations of human spirituality and proof that humans are spiritually connecting. That's about all I have to say for them, I can tolerate and accept religions if they are in harmony and peace with spiritual nature.
> 
> What's fascinating is how you expose your true animosity toward religion without even thinking about it. You just automatically associated spirituality with religion, as if they are one in the same.
Click to expand...


Yet another pathetic failure to defend your nonsensical allegation that only "homo sapiens" "show signs of spirituality". There is evidence that Neanderthals also "showed signs of spirituality" in their burials and artifacts. Are you going to claim that is why they were wiped out by homo sapiens?


----------



## Boss

GibsonSG said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GibsonSG said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just like a good Christian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can believe what you want, but Christians believe it is an unforgivable sin to be saved and then reject the God of Abraham. In fact, it is the only unforgivable sin. So....IF I am a Christian who is proclaiming I am not a Christian, I have committed an unforgivable sin, according to Christianity.
> 
> I know that you hide behind Atheism because you are a coward who is afraid to admit you believe in God but hate Him, and I can see how you would imagine me doing the same, but you're not that important to me. If I were a Christian, I would own it... just like every Christian you come across in this thread and elsewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Geez, your being wrong has no limits!  I'm not an atheist, they're just as deluded as you are. I'm agnostic, I see no real proof either way, but am open to changing my mind if I see real proof. Can't be any fairer than that.
> 
> If you quack like a Christian and walk like a Christian...
Click to expand...


Let's be clear, you're not an Atheist OR an agnostic. You are a God-hater who believes in the God of Abraham. You are too much of a coward to admit that you believe in God but hate Him. 

As I said, you can believe whatever you wish about me.


----------



## GibsonSG

Boss said:


> GibsonSG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can believe what you want, but Christians believe it is an unforgivable sin to be saved and then reject the God of Abraham. In fact, it is the only unforgivable sin. So....IF I am a Christian who is proclaiming I am not a Christian, I have committed an unforgivable sin, according to Christianity.
> 
> I know that you hide behind Atheism because you are a coward who is afraid to admit you believe in God but hate Him, and I can see how you would imagine me doing the same, but you're not that important to me. If I were a Christian, I would own it... just like every Christian you come across in this thread and elsewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> Geez, your being wrong has no limits!  I'm not an atheist, they're just as deluded as you are. I'm agnostic, I see no real proof either way, but am open to changing my mind if I see real proof. Can't be any fairer than that.
> 
> If you quack like a Christian and walk like a Christian...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's be clear, you're not an Atheist OR an agnostic. You are a God-hater who believes in the God of Abraham. You are too much of a coward to admit that you believe in God but hate Him.
> 
> As I said, you can believe whatever you wish about me.
Click to expand...


Well, since you believe in a creator god, I guess it's not too far a stretch to believe that I hate the god of Abraham. Does it even matter that I don't even know who Abraham is?


----------



## Boss

Derideo_Te said:


> Yet another pathetic failure to defend your nonsensical allegation that only "homo sapiens" "show signs of spirituality". There is evidence that Neanderthals also "showed signs of spirituality" in their burials and artifacts. Are you going to claim that is why they were wiped out by homo sapiens?



The fact is, the only evidence of Neanderthal spirituality is rare and limited, and mostly seems to be in their final throes as a species. It is believed they may have attempted to be spiritual like their homo sapien counterparts, but it was too little-too late. 

So how do YOU explain Neanderthal extinction? Same genus and family as humans, so they had (ostensibly) the same capacities for thought, etc. We know they were considerably stronger and heartier as a species. According to 'natural selection' they should have eliminated the stupid homo sapiens who wasted their time practicing silly rituals and ceremonies. So why did natural selection fail?


----------



## Derideo_Te

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet another pathetic failure to defend your nonsensical allegation that only "homo sapiens" "show signs of spirituality". There is evidence that Neanderthals also "showed signs of spirituality" in their burials and artifacts. Are you going to claim that is why they were wiped out by homo sapiens?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is, the only evidence of Neanderthal spirituality is rare and limited, and mostly seems to be in their final throes as a species. It is believed they may have attempted to be spiritual like their homo sapien counterparts, but it was too little-too late.
> 
> So how do YOU explain Neanderthal extinction? Same genus and family as humans, so they had (ostensibly) the same capacities for thought, etc. We know they were considerably stronger and heartier as a species. According to 'natural selection' they should have eliminated the stupid homo sapiens who wasted their time practicing silly rituals and ceremonies. So why did natural selection fail?
Click to expand...


 at your attempt to disparage the hard evidence that you were just proven 100% wrong yet again. Obviously you lack the honesty and integrity necessary to admit when you are wrong. Instead you just lie about others and call them "god haters" because they expose the fact that your OP is FOS!


----------



## hobelim

Derideo_Te said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, the irony coming the illogical babbling of a delusional believer in non existent "spiritual forces" while alleging that they have some imaginary vital survival benefit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In all fairness there can be a survival benefit for those who pretend to believe in imaginary things. During the inquisition people who did not pretend to be a believer did not survive.  There are places all over the world to this day where if you don't gibber about Jesus, you can't get a decent job, or if you don't get on your hands and knees and pray to mecca you don't get to live which is a powerful 'spiritual force' and inspiration to believe. Even Chuck shamelessly cites business contacts and the material support of other believers as a lure and benefit to belief and supports anathema, treating unbelievers like pariah..
> 
> That does not mean that I think that cowardice  or dishonesty is a spiritual force in reality, but I can see why Boss and other believers do. It serves them well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your examples apply only to the very short period (in evolutionary time frames) that organized religion has existed. The OP is alleging that there was some vital survival benefit when mankind was still competing with other primates for resources long before there was any religion.
> 
> This is what the OP alleged in post #311;
> 
> 
> 
> Well it's not a 'motif' it's just what I personally believe. I reject your idea that human spirituality is 'contrived' by man because it defies nature. It would actually be a contradiction to Darwin's theory of natural selection. Religions may be contrived, I can accept that, but human spirituality predates religion. It's an attribute *our species has had since it's inception*, this according to every *unearthed archaeological human civilization*.
> 
> If the attribute were purely academic, contrived in our minds, imaginary... then other upper primates would have enjoyed a distinct advantage over homo sapiens and we would have become extinct through natural selection. Other upper primates who are much stronger than us, competing for the same resources, would not have been hindered by silly superstitions and ritual ceremonies. Their lack of this unnecessary attribute would have given them a tremendous advantage over us. That's clearly not what happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The hilarity here is that the OP claims that there was an "inception" of the "species" of mankind while attempting to use an evolutionary argument at the same time. Furthermore he conveniently ignores the millions of years where no signs of any religion have been "unearthed".
Click to expand...


I do realize that and agree, not to mention that Boss always likes to ask why people are still not like monkeys swinging from the trees without seeming to understand the difference between monkeys and great apes.

What I pointed out was to address 'the force' he says is evidence of spiritual realities that remains undefined which in many cases is nothing more than people pretending to believe to save their own assess.


----------



## Boss

Derideo_Te said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet another pathetic failure to defend your nonsensical allegation that only "homo sapiens" "show signs of spirituality". There is evidence that Neanderthals also "showed signs of spirituality" in their burials and artifacts. Are you going to claim that is why they were wiped out by homo sapiens?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is, the only evidence of Neanderthal spirituality is rare and limited, and mostly seems to be in their final throes as a species. It is believed they may have attempted to be spiritual like their homo sapien counterparts, but it was too little-too late.
> 
> So how do YOU explain Neanderthal extinction? Same genus and family as humans, so they had (ostensibly) the same capacities for thought, etc. We know they were considerably stronger and heartier as a species. According to 'natural selection' they should have eliminated the stupid homo sapiens who wasted their time practicing silly rituals and ceremonies. So why did natural selection fail?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> at your attempt to disparage the hard evidence that you were just proven 100% wrong yet again. Obviously you lack the honesty and integrity necessary to admit when you are wrong. Instead you just lie about others and call them "god haters" because they expose the fact that your OP is FOS!
Click to expand...


Well, sorry, but I don't see where you've proven a damn thing wrong. I asked you questions and you declined to answer. I guess you don't really have an answer?


----------



## Derideo_Te

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is, the only evidence of Neanderthal spirituality is rare and limited, and mostly seems to be in their final throes as a species. It is believed they may have attempted to be spiritual like their homo sapien counterparts, but it was too little-too late.
> 
> So how do YOU explain Neanderthal extinction? Same genus and family as humans, so they had (ostensibly) the same capacities for thought, etc. We know they were considerably stronger and heartier as a species. According to 'natural selection' they should have eliminated the stupid homo sapiens who wasted their time practicing silly rituals and ceremonies. So why did natural selection fail?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> at your attempt to disparage the hard evidence that you were just proven 100% wrong yet again. Obviously you lack the honesty and integrity necessary to admit when you are wrong. Instead you just lie about others and call them "god haters" because they expose the fact that your OP is FOS!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, sorry, but I don't see where you've proven a damn thing wrong. I asked you questions and you declined to answer. I guess you don't really have an answer?
Click to expand...


You made the erroneous allegation that only homo sapiens showed any signs of spirituality which was proven absolutely wrong by the evidence of neanderthal spirituality. That you lack the ability to comprehend when your claims have been exposed as utter falsehoods is just another of your many shortcomings.


----------



## Boss

hobelim said:


> I do realize that and agree, not to mention that Boss always likes to ask why people are still not like monkeys swinging from the trees without seeming to understand the difference between monkeys and great apes.
> 
> What I pointed out was to address 'the force' he says is evidence of spiritual realities that remains undefined which in many cases is nothing more than people pretending to believe to save their own assess.



I've never asked why we're not like monkeys. Like the great ape, they are a different genus, and we know that it's not possible for cross-genus evolution to happen. Science, bitch! 

Humans are not "pretending" as this would completely contradict and defy Darwin. Inherent traits that are not conducive to the survival of the species are discarded over time. Not a single example exists of any animal ever adopting an attribute of imaginary consequence, to console fear or explain it's reality. It's a completely implausible argument. It defies nature, it defies science, it defies Darwin.


----------



## Boss

Derideo_Te said:


> You made the erroneous allegation that only homo sapiens showed any signs of spirituality which was proven absolutely wrong by the evidence of neanderthal spirituality. That you lack the ability to comprehend when your claims have been exposed as utter falsehoods is just another of your many shortcomings.



Uhm... Neanderthals are extinct.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> You made the erroneous allegation that only homo sapiens showed any signs of spirituality which was proven absolutely wrong by the evidence of neanderthal spirituality. That you lack the ability to comprehend when your claims have been exposed as utter falsehoods is just another of your many shortcomings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uhm... Neanderthals are extinct.
Click to expand...


You never made that qualification when you spouted your original canard, and you are wrong as far as neanderthals being extinct is concerned. Homo sapiens have 2.5% neanderthal DNA which means that there was interbreeding. Therefore they are not extinct since their DNA is still alive and being reproduced on a regular basis. 

Homo sapien DNA is 96% identical chimpanzee DNA so the odds are that neanderthals had a similar match up. In which case it is perfectly possible that the percentage of neanderthal DNA is far greater than 2.5%. We have only identified that small amount as being "uniquely" neanderthal.


----------



## Boss

Derideo_Te said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> You made the erroneous allegation that only homo sapiens showed any signs of spirituality which was proven absolutely wrong by the evidence of neanderthal spirituality. That you lack the ability to comprehend when your claims have been exposed as utter falsehoods is just another of your many shortcomings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uhm... Neanderthals are extinct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You never made that qualification when you spouted your original canard, and you are wrong as far as neanderthals being extinct is concerned. Homo sapiens have 2.5% neanderthal DNA which means that there was interbreeding. Therefore they are not extinct since their DNA is still alive and being reproduced on a regular basis.
> 
> Homo sapien DNA is 96% identical chimpanzee DNA so the odds are that neanderthals had a similar match up. In which case it is perfectly possible that the percentage of neanderthal DNA is far greater than 2.5%. We have only identified that small amount as being "uniquely" neanderthal.
Click to expand...


So Neanderthals and Homo sapiens are essentially one-in-the-same now, and your rebuttal to my argument that homo sapiens are the only species who worship is that Neanderthals prove this false? Too funny! 

And chimps do have similar DNA... it's NOT identical. There is no such thing as "96% identical" when it comes to DNA... it is either identical or it's not. If the DNA is just .00001% different, it is NOT human. Please try to educate yourself on genetics before you make a fool of yourself.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uhm... Neanderthals are extinct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You never made that qualification when you spouted your original canard, and you are wrong as far as neanderthals being extinct is concerned. Homo sapiens have 2.5% neanderthal DNA which means that there was interbreeding. Therefore they are not extinct since their DNA is still alive and being reproduced on a regular basis.
> 
> Homo sapien DNA is 96% identical chimpanzee DNA so the odds are that neanderthals had a similar match up. In which case it is perfectly possible that the percentage of neanderthal DNA is far greater than 2.5%. We have only identified that small amount as being "uniquely" neanderthal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So Neanderthals and Homo sapiens are essentially one-in-the-same now, and your rebuttal to my argument that homo sapiens are the only species who worship is that Neanderthals prove this false? Too funny!
> 
> And chimps do have similar DNA... it's NOT identical. There is no such thing as "96% identical" when it comes to DNA... it is either identical or it's not. If the DNA is just .00001% different, it is NOT human. Please try to educate yourself on genetics before you make a fool of yourself.
Click to expand...


Your ignorance regarding DNA is on a par with your ignorance of "spiritual energy". DNA is DNA. You can take a piece of DNA from one species and graft it into another. They have been successfully doing this with plants to create genetically modified foods which you have probably eaten without even knowing it. So trying to pretend that you are an expert on genetics is just downright laughable.


----------



## Boss

Derideo_Te said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> You never made that qualification when you spouted your original canard, and you are wrong as far as neanderthals being extinct is concerned. Homo sapiens have 2.5% neanderthal DNA which means that there was interbreeding. Therefore they are not extinct since their DNA is still alive and being reproduced on a regular basis.
> 
> Homo sapien DNA is 96% identical chimpanzee DNA so the odds are that neanderthals had a similar match up. In which case it is perfectly possible that the percentage of neanderthal DNA is far greater than 2.5%. We have only identified that small amount as being "uniquely" neanderthal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Neanderthals and Homo sapiens are essentially one-in-the-same now, and your rebuttal to my argument that homo sapiens are the only species who worship is that Neanderthals prove this false? Too funny!
> 
> And chimps do have similar DNA... it's NOT identical. There is no such thing as "96% identical" when it comes to DNA... it is either identical or it's not. If the DNA is just .00001% different, it is NOT human. Please try to educate yourself on genetics before you make a fool of yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your ignorance regarding DNA is on a par with your ignorance of "spiritual energy". DNA is DNA. You can take a piece of DNA from one species and graft it into another. They have been successfully doing this with plants to create genetically modified foods which you have probably eaten without even knowing it. So trying to pretend that you are an expert on genetics is just downright laughable.
Click to expand...


Fuck you're dense. Genetic cloning and DNA manipulation in the lab have ZERO to do with nature, and actually *PROVE* my point! Show where they have ever caused a natural change in DNA to create a superior organism, and you have an argument. It does not happen because as you say, DNA is DNA. 

And YOU are the one who is "ignorant of spiritual energy" because you keep refuting it exists. Jeesh, you are dumb!


----------



## Derideo_Te

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Neanderthals and Homo sapiens are essentially one-in-the-same now, and your rebuttal to my argument that homo sapiens are the only species who worship is that Neanderthals prove this false? Too funny!
> 
> And chimps do have similar DNA... it's NOT identical. There is no such thing as "96% identical" when it comes to DNA... it is either identical or it's not. If the DNA is just .00001% different, it is NOT human. Please try to educate yourself on genetics before you make a fool of yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your ignorance regarding DNA is on a par with your ignorance of "spiritual energy". DNA is DNA. You can take a piece of DNA from one species and graft it into another. They have been successfully doing this with plants to create genetically modified foods which you have probably eaten without even knowing it. So trying to pretend that you are an expert on genetics is just downright laughable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck you're dense. Genetic cloning and DNA manipulation in the lab have ZERO to do with nature, and actually *PROVE* my point! Show where they have ever caused a natural change in DNA to create a superior organism, and you have an argument. It does not happen because as you say, DNA is DNA.
> 
> And YOU are the one who is "ignorant of spiritual energy" because you keep refuting it exists. Jeesh, you are dumb!
Click to expand...


BZZZZT Wrong again on multiple counts! 

Your DNA strawman has nothing to do with the FACTS. DNA can and is manipulated to improve plant strains. Prior to that mankind used cross breeding to improve strains. When french vineyards were threatened with root rot they used American Concorde grape vines as the root stock and grafted the french vines onto them. 

I am not refuting anything. You still haven't proven that your delusional "spiritual energy" exists. The onus remains on you to prove it first. So far you have failed miserably.


----------



## BreezeWood

Boss said:


> *Humans are not "pretending"* as this would completely contradict and defy Darwin. Inherent traits that are not conducive to the survival of the species are discarded over time. Not a single example exists of any animal ever adopting an attribute of imaginary consequence, to console fear or explain it's reality. It's a completely implausible argument. It defies nature, it defies science, it defies Darwin.




*Humans are not "pretending" ...*


if there is any species on earth guilty of a pretentious existence, it is humanity and plausibly humanity alone, at least in the extreme - 

... as exampled by a contention by some (Christians) or individuals, Boss that they are the sole recipients of a spiritual existence all other forms of "Life" created by God are lacking !!!


and who're the Haters ???

.


----------



## Boss

Derideo_Te said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your ignorance regarding DNA is on a par with your ignorance of "spiritual energy". DNA is DNA. You can take a piece of DNA from one species and graft it into another. They have been successfully doing this with plants to create genetically modified foods which you have probably eaten without even knowing it. So trying to pretend that you are an expert on genetics is just downright laughable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you're dense. Genetic cloning and DNA manipulation in the lab have ZERO to do with nature, and actually *PROVE* my point! Show where they have ever caused a natural change in DNA to create a superior organism, and you have an argument. It does not happen because as you say, DNA is DNA.
> 
> And YOU are the one who is "ignorant of spiritual energy" because you keep refuting it exists. Jeesh, you are dumb!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BZZZZT Wrong again on multiple counts!
> 
> Your DNA strawman has nothing to do with the FACTS. DNA can and is *manipulated to* improve plant strains. Prior to that mankind used cross breeding to improve strains. When french vineyards were threatened with root rot they used American Concorde grape vines as the root stock and grafted the french vines onto them.
> 
> I am not refuting anything. You still haven't proven that your delusional "spiritual energy" exists. The onus remains on you to prove it first. So far you have failed miserably.
Click to expand...


Keword, dimwit... MANIPULATED. I said show where they *naturally* caused DNA to change, you haven't done that. Cross-breeding has gone on for centuries, it doesn't involve changing the DNA. They never end up with anything superior to the DNA they begin with. 

I don't need to prove spiritual energy, I know it exists, so do countless billions of others who have experienced it. If you don't want to believe that, I can't help you there.


----------



## Boss

BreezeWood said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Humans are not "pretending"* as this would completely contradict and defy Darwin. Inherent traits that are not conducive to the survival of the species are discarded over time. Not a single example exists of any animal ever adopting an attribute of imaginary consequence, to console fear or explain it's reality. It's a completely implausible argument. It defies nature, it defies science, it defies Darwin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Humans are not "pretending" ...*
> 
> 
> if there is any species on earth guilty of a pretentious existence, it is humanity and plausibly humanity alone, at least in the extreme -
> 
> ... as exampled by a contention by some (Christians) or individuals, Boss that they are the sole recipients of a spiritual existence all other forms of "Life" created by God are lacking !!!
> 
> 
> and who're the Haters ???
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I never have said that humans are "sole recipients" to spiritual energy or existence. Other forms of life seem to lack spiritual awareness and connection. If you have evidence to suggest otherwise, present it. I am not claiming it's not so, just that it doesn't appear to be that way in nature. We don't see other living things worshiping or practicing spirituality. Maybe they do and we don't recognize it? I don't know for sure. I personally don't believe they do, and if you want to believe they do, that's fine. Spiritual nature does exist and humans do connect to it. That's what I do know.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you're dense. Genetic cloning and DNA manipulation in the lab have ZERO to do with nature, and actually *PROVE* my point! Show where they have ever caused a natural change in DNA to create a superior organism, and you have an argument. It does not happen because as you say, DNA is DNA.
> 
> And YOU are the one who is "ignorant of spiritual energy" because you keep refuting it exists. Jeesh, you are dumb!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BZZZZT Wrong again on multiple counts!
> 
> Your DNA strawman has nothing to do with the FACTS. DNA can and is *manipulated to* improve plant strains. Prior to that mankind used cross breeding to improve strains. When french vineyards were threatened with root rot they used American Concorde grape vines as the root stock and grafted the french vines onto them.
> 
> I am not refuting anything. You still haven't proven that your delusional "spiritual energy" exists. The onus remains on you to prove it first. So far you have failed miserably.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keword, dimwit... MANIPULATED. I said show where they *naturally* caused DNA to change, you haven't done that. *Cross-breeding has gone on for centuries, it doesn't involve changing the DNA. They never end up with anything superior to the DNA they begin with.*
> 
> I don't need to prove spiritual energy, I know it exists, so do countless billions of others who have experienced it. If you don't want to believe that, I can't help you there.
Click to expand...


 

The sheer irony of you calling anyone else a dimwit when you post such ignorant codswallop! 

And yes, you do need to prove your BS "spiritual energy" exists. All that you have experienced is the perfectly normal trance mental state that has nothing whatsoever to do with your utterly bogus "spiritual energy".

So far this thread of yours have been an epic failure. You can't prove your "spiritual energy"  exists and you can't prove that "god haters" exist either!

No wonder you have zero credibility around here!

Still  @ you!


----------



## Uncensored2008

I'm an agnostic, and believe that I am very respectful of the beliefs of others. Okay, maybe not so much the Muslims, but Christians, Jews, Mormons, Hindus, and Buddhists won't see any negative posts from me.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Uncensored2008 said:


> I'm an agnostic, and believe that I am very respectful of the beliefs of others. Okay, maybe not so much the Muslims, but Christians, Jews, Mormons, Hindus, and Buddhists won't see any negative posts from me.



No one is being disrespectful of anyone's belief in their religion, except perhaps the OP himself. 

He is just being given a hard time because he spouts such utter nonsense and then insults those who expose his drivel.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> You made the erroneous allegation that only homo sapiens showed any signs of spirituality which was proven absolutely wrong by the evidence of neanderthal spirituality. That you lack the ability to comprehend when your claims have been exposed as utter falsehoods is just another of your many shortcomings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uhm... Neanderthals are extinct.
Click to expand...


You dont understand: 



> Soleckis pioneering studies of the Shanidar skeletons and their burials suggested complex socialization skills. From pollen found in one of the Shanidar graves, Solecki hypothesized that flowers had been buried with the Neanderthal deaduntil then, such burials had been associated only with Cro-Magnons, the earliest known H. sapiens in Europe. Someone in the last Ice Age, Solecki wrote, must have ranged the mountainside in the mournful task of collecting flowers for the dead. Furthermore, Solecki continued, It seems logical to us today that pretty things like flowers should be placed with the cherished dead, but to find flowers in a Neanderthal burial that took place about 60,000 years ago is another matter. Skeletons showed evidence of injuries tended and healedindications that the sick and wounded had been cared for.
> 
> The Skeletons of Shanidar Cave | Arts & Culture | Smithsonian



That Neanderthals are extinct isnt the point, what is the point is that hominids began the process of contriving religious beliefs from the very beginning of human evolutionary history, that man in fact invented religion and made it a fundamental social component. And as human society and civilization developed and evolved, so too did religion develop and evolve, where man eventually created deities, and later created god.


----------



## hobelim

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Humans are not "pretending"* as this would completely contradict and defy Darwin. Inherent traits that are not conducive to the survival of the species are discarded over time. Not a single example exists of any animal ever adopting an attribute of imaginary consequence, to console fear or explain it's reality. It's a completely implausible argument. It defies nature, it defies science, it defies Darwin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Humans are not "pretending" ...*
> 
> 
> if there is any species on earth guilty of a pretentious existence, it is humanity and plausibly humanity alone, at least in the extreme -
> 
> ... as exampled by a contention by some (Christians) or individuals, Boss that they are the sole recipients of a spiritual existence all other forms of "Life" created by God are lacking !!!
> 
> 
> and who're the Haters ???
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never have said that humans are "sole recipients" to spiritual energy or existence. Other forms of life seem to lack spiritual awareness and connection. If you have evidence to suggest otherwise, present it. I am not claiming it's not so, just that it doesn't appear to be that way in nature. We don't see other living things worshiping or practicing spirituality. Maybe they do and we don't recognize it? I don't know for sure. I personally don't believe they do, and if you want to believe they do, that's fine. Spiritual nature does exist and humans do connect to it. That's what I do know.
Click to expand...


Dogs worship their masters , they grovel, adore, and serve with unquestioning devotion and  they believe in the power of barking because every time the scary garbage truck monster stops in front of the house it is turned away by spiritual energy of its awesome sound.


----------



## Boss

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> You made the erroneous allegation that only homo sapiens showed any signs of spirituality which was proven absolutely wrong by the evidence of neanderthal spirituality. That you lack the ability to comprehend when your claims have been exposed as utter falsehoods is just another of your many shortcomings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uhm... Neanderthals are extinct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You dont understand:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soleckis pioneering studies of the Shanidar skeletons and their burials suggested complex socialization skills. From pollen found in one of the Shanidar graves, Solecki hypothesized that flowers had been buried with the Neanderthal deaduntil then, such burials had been associated only with Cro-Magnons, the earliest known H. sapiens in Europe. Someone in the last Ice Age, Solecki wrote, must have ranged the mountainside in the mournful task of collecting flowers for the dead. Furthermore, Solecki continued, It seems logical to us today that pretty things like flowers should be placed with the cherished dead, but to find flowers in a Neanderthal burial that took place about 60,000 years ago is another matter. Skeletons showed evidence of injuries tended and healedindications that the sick and wounded had been cared for.
> 
> The Skeletons of Shanidar Cave | Arts & Culture | Smithsonian
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That Neanderthals are extinct isnt the point, what is the point is that hominids began the process of contriving religious beliefs from the very beginning of human evolutionary history, that man in fact invented religion and made it a fundamental social component. And as human society and civilization developed and evolved, so too did religion develop and evolve, where man eventually created deities, and later created god.
Click to expand...


I've never disputed that humans invented religion. Again, for about the millionth time, religion is a manifestation of human spiritual connection, our ability to connect spiritually. Try to get this point through that Cro-Magnon-thick cranium of yours. I'm getting tired of typing it. 

Neanderthal spirituality is rare and isolated. Most discovery of Neanderthal remains show no signs of any type of spiritual behavior, and honestly, flowers for the dead or caring for the sick is rudimentary spirituality at best. As I correctly stated, it is believed the Neanderthals were 'mimicking' what they observed in homo sapien counterparts as their populations declined... a typical behavior in natural selection. They were largely non-spiritual, but it wouldn't matter if there had been Neanderthal POPES! They are of the same genus as humans, many argue they are the same species. 

Back on the subject of spirituality vs. religion... while there are signs that humans invented religion, there is no sign that humans invented spiritual connection. In fact, that contradicts nature, science, biological behavior in animals, and Darwin's natural selection. I have explained how, I shouldn't have to keep re-typing it over and over again. We find ZERO evidence that any living organism has EVER invented something imaginary to cope with fears of death or the unknown. Now humans have certainly set some precedents for being the first at numerous things, this particular attribute could not have been retained unless it had benefit to the survival of the species. Had it been 'figment of imagination' it would have been long discarded as a behavioral attribute. Certainly, when thousands and millions of the species were being slaughtered and killed for practicing the behavior.  OR... Darwin was completely WRONG!


----------



## Boss

hobelim said:


> Dogs worship their masters , they grovel, adore, and serve with unquestioning devotion and  they believe in the power of barking because every time the scary garbage truck monster stops in front of the house it is turned away by spiritual energy of its awesome sound.



They adore their masters because we've bred the attribute in them over time, they are what we call "domesticated" animals. Wild dogs do not adore you, in fact, if they are hungry, they EAT you! Barking is a defense reaction, nothing 'spiritual' at all.


----------



## GibsonSG

Boss said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uhm... Neanderthals are extinct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You dont understand:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soleckis pioneering studies of the Shanidar skeletons and their burials suggested complex socialization skills. From pollen found in one of the Shanidar graves, Solecki hypothesized that flowers had been buried with the Neanderthal deaduntil then, such burials had been associated only with Cro-Magnons, the earliest known H. sapiens in Europe. Someone in the last Ice Age, Solecki wrote, must have ranged the mountainside in the mournful task of collecting flowers for the dead. Furthermore, Solecki continued, It seems logical to us today that pretty things like flowers should be placed with the cherished dead, but to find flowers in a Neanderthal burial that took place about 60,000 years ago is another matter. Skeletons showed evidence of injuries tended and healedindications that the sick and wounded had been cared for.
> 
> The Skeletons of Shanidar Cave | Arts & Culture | Smithsonian
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That Neanderthals are extinct isnt the point, what is the point is that hominids began the process of contriving religious beliefs from the very beginning of human evolutionary history, that man in fact invented religion and made it a fundamental social component. And as human society and civilization developed and evolved, so too did religion develop and evolve, where man eventually created deities, and later created god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've never disputed that humans invented religion. Again, for about the millionth time, religion is a manifestation of human spiritual connection, our ability to connect spiritually. Try to get this point through that Cro-Magnon-thick cranium of yours. I'm getting tired of typing it.
> 
> Neanderthal spirituality is rare and isolated. Most discovery of Neanderthal remains show no signs of any type of spiritual behavior, and honestly, flowers for the dead or caring for the sick is rudimentary spirituality at best. As I correctly stated, it is believed the Neanderthals were 'mimicking' what they observed in homo sapien counterparts as their populations declined... a typical behavior in natural selection. They were largely non-spiritual, but it wouldn't matter if there had been Neanderthal POPES! They are of the same genus as humans, many argue they are the same species.
> 
> Back on the subject of spirituality vs. religion... while there are signs that humans invented religion, there is no sign that humans invented spiritual connection. In fact, that contradicts nature, science, biological behavior in animals, and Darwin's natural selection. I have explained how, I shouldn't have to keep re-typing it over and over again. We find ZERO evidence that any living organism has EVER invented something imaginary to cope with fears of death or the unknown. Now humans have certainly set some precedents for being the first at numerous things, this particular attribute could not have been retained unless it had benefit to the survival of the species. Had it been 'figment of imagination' it would have been long discarded as a behavioral attribute. Certainly, when thousands and millions of the species were being slaughtered and killed for practicing the behavior.  OR... Darwin was completely WRONG!
Click to expand...

Says the guy who went apeshit when I didn't post a link backing up a statement of mine. Fuck, what a noob!


----------



## G.T.

Too many holes, not enough time.


----------



## Newby

Derideo_Te said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm an agnostic, and believe that I am very respectful of the beliefs of others. Okay, maybe not so much the Muslims, but Christians, Jews, Mormons, Hindus, and Buddhists won't see any negative posts from me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one is being disrespectful of anyone's belief in their religion, except perhaps the OP himself.
> 
> *He is just being given a hard time because he spouts such utter nonsense and then insults those who expose his drivel*.
Click to expand...


He's handed you your ass multiple times over in this thread, but you're too damn stupid to realize it.  Once you're backed into a corner, all you do is spout insults and change the subject, typical of your kind when you have nothing else left.


----------



## BreezeWood

Boss said:


> We find ZERO evidence that any living organism has EVER invented something imaginary to cope with fears of death or the unknown.




you're saying the Eagle is less Spiritual because it does not fear death ? - 


... just maybe, "your" spirituality may in fact be a regression from rather than a pursuit of eternal life that in reality is the pursuit of all other life forms and being fulfilled while humanity is self deluding itself into a downward spiral inexorably leading to extinction.

at any rate Boss, why would God only set such a goal for mankind alone - oh, he loves you so much ?

.


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> GibsonSG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can believe what you want, but Christians believe it is an unforgivable sin to be saved and then reject the God of Abraham. In fact, it is the only unforgivable sin. So....IF I am a Christian who is proclaiming I am not a Christian, I have committed an unforgivable sin, according to Christianity.
> 
> I know that you hide behind Atheism because you are a coward who is afraid to admit you believe in God but hate Him, and I can see how you would imagine me doing the same, but you're not that important to me. If I were a Christian, I would own it... just like every Christian you come across in this thread and elsewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> Geez, your being wrong has no limits!  I'm not an atheist, they're just as deluded as you are. I'm agnostic, I see no real proof either way, but am open to changing my mind if I see real proof. Can't be any fairer than that.
> 
> If you quack like a Christian and walk like a Christian...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's be clear, you're not an Atheist OR an agnostic. You are a God-hater who believes in the God of Abraham. You are too much of a coward to admit that you believe in God but hate Him.
> 
> As I said, you can believe whatever you wish about me.
Click to expand...

wow bossy! are you now claiming to have the ability to mind meld?
you just made two massive  false assumptions....when SG just told you what he/she was.
no you're not arrogant at all ..


----------



## daws101

Newby said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm an agnostic, and believe that I am very respectful of the beliefs of others. Okay, maybe not so much the Muslims, but Christians, Jews, Mormons, Hindus, and Buddhists won't see any negative posts from me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one is being disrespectful of anyone's belief in their religion, except perhaps the OP himself.
> 
> *He is just being given a hard time because he spouts such utter nonsense and then insults those who expose his drivel*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's handed you your ass multiple times over in this thread, but you're too damn stupid to realize it.  Once you're backed into a corner, all you do is spout insults and change the subject, typical of your kind when you have nothing else left.
Click to expand...

speaking of spouting nonsense...


----------



## Boss

BreezeWood said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> We find ZERO evidence that any living organism has EVER invented something imaginary to cope with fears of death or the unknown.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *you're saying the Eagle is less Spiritual because it does not fear death ?* -
> 
> 
> ... just maybe, "your" spirituality may in fact be a regression from rather than a pursuit of eternal life that in reality is the pursuit of all other life forms and being fulfilled while humanity is self deluding itself into a downward spiral inexorably leading to extinction.
> 
> at any rate Boss, why would God only set such a goal for mankind alone - oh, he loves you so much ?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I didn't see where I said that. 

On your second point, you could be right... or humans could have a burden-laden heart to worship because of original sin.  For whatever reason, we appear to be the only organisms that worship. 

Final point: MY God doesn't "love" ...that's a human emotion. My God is Spiritual Energy.


----------



## Uncensored2008

daws101 said:


> wow bossy! are you now claiming to have the ability to mind meld?
> you just made two massive  false assumptions....when SG just told you what he/she was.
> no you're not arrogant at all ..



Boss has a point, duhs. I've gone after you myself. IF you truly don't believe, then the ideas of Christians should have no more meaning to you than an episode of Hercules on TV. 

But we all know that you lose it at the very mention of Jesus. 

One does not hate what one does not believe.


----------



## daws101

Uncensored2008 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> wow bossy! are you now claiming to have the ability to mind meld?
> you just made two massive  false assumptions....when SG just told you what he/she was.
> no you're not arrogant at all ..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss has a point, duhs. I've gone after you myself. IF you truly don't believe, then the ideas of Christians should have no more meaning to you than an episode of Hercules on TV.
> 
> But we all know that you lose it at the very mention of Jesus.
> 
> One does not hate what one does not believe.
Click to expand...

like always you'd be wrong...


----------



## Uncensored2008

daws101 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> wow bossy! are you now claiming to have the ability to mind meld?
> you just made two massive  false assumptions....when SG just told you what he/she was.
> no you're not arrogant at all ..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss has a point, duhs. I've gone after you myself. IF you truly don't believe, then the ideas of Christians should have no more meaning to you than an episode of Hercules on TV.
> 
> But we all know that you lose it at the very mention of Jesus.
> 
> One does not hate what one does not believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> like always you'd be wrong...
Click to expand...


About what?

"Christian" is a dog whistle to you; you react every time.


----------



## hobelim

Boss said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dogs worship their masters , they grovel, adore, and serve with unquestioning devotion and  they believe in the power of barking because every time the scary garbage truck monster stops in front of the house it is turned away by spiritual energy of its awesome sound.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They adore their masters because we've bred the attribute in them over time, they are what we call "domesticated" animals. Wild dogs do not adore you, in fact, if they are hungry, they EAT you! Barking is a defense reaction, nothing 'spiritual' at all.
Click to expand...


LOL... that's exactly the point. How are human beings any different? Wild humans don't serve any master and don't love God at all and even eat him in some bizzaro ceremony. And those who think Jesus was God are more than happy to accept his torture and death as a free ticked to paradise even though they also believe his death was a consequence of their sin as if they have no responsibility for themselves and what they do whether good or evil, like some opportunistic garbage eating lily white cur.

And isn't prayer, like barking, a defense reaction? wishful thinking or reacting to the unknown out of fear?

Like you said, nothing spiritual at all.


Maybe you should not underestimate the power of barking or rethink your claims of spiritual forces, powers, and realities unique to humans undetected by science and indistinguishable from any number of known mental illnesses.


----------



## daws101

Uncensored2008 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boss has a point, duhs. I've gone after you myself. IF you truly don't believe, then the ideas of Christians should have no more meaning to you than an episode of Hercules on TV.
> 
> But we all know that you lose it at the very mention of Jesus.
> 
> One does not hate what one does not believe.
> 
> 
> 
> like always you'd be wrong...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About what?
> 
> "Christian" is a dog whistle to you; you react every time.
Click to expand...

where to start? 
if you mean the cino's that populate this site (not every Christian on it) then yes I do...and make or need to make any kind of apology for it...


----------



## daws101

hobelim said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dogs worship their masters , they grovel, adore, and serve with unquestioning devotion and  they believe in the power of barking because every time the scary garbage truck monster stops in front of the house it is turned away by spiritual energy of its awesome sound.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They adore their masters because we've bred the attribute in them over time, they are what we call "domesticated" animals. Wild dogs do not adore you, in fact, if they are hungry, they EAT you! Barking is a defense reaction, nothing 'spiritual' at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL... that's exactly the point. How are human beings any different? Wild humans don't serve any master and don't love God at all and even eat him in some bizzaro ceremony. And those who think Jesus was God are more than happy to accept his torture and death as a free ticked to paradise even though they also believe his death was a consequence of their sin as if they have no responsibility for themselves and what they do whether good or evil, like some opportunistic garbage eating lily white cur.
> 
> And isn't prayer, like barking, a defense reaction? wishful thinking or reacting to the unknown out of fear?
> 
> Like you said, nothing spiritual at all.
> 
> 
> Maybe you should not underestimate the power of barking or rethink your claims of spiritual forces, powers, and realities unique to humans undetected by science and indistinguishable from any number of known mental illnesses.
Click to expand...

bump...


----------



## Uncensored2008

Boss said:


> They adore their masters because we've bred the attribute in them over time, they are what we call "domesticated" animals. Wild dogs do not adore you, in fact, if they are hungry, they EAT you! Barking is a defense reaction, nothing 'spiritual' at all.



Utter nonsense.

Humans and wolves/dogs have a relationship that goes back tens of thousands of years. Wolves found that by hanging around camps of humans, they could find scraps and leftover food. Humans found that barking alerted them of danger, Thus, they encouraged the wolves to follow. Aggressive wolves were driven away, passive ones were fed.

Along the line, something magical happened, these two species of hunters figured out that they were far more effective hunting together, than either was alone. And that was that, the bond between man and dog was cemented, forever. We have manipulated those wolves by breeding in every imaginable way, but the bond is innate.

The dog in my avatar is a Dingo, a "wild dog." She adores me, and I adore her. Once  bond of trust is established, most humans and most dogs, including wolves, will form a strong bond. We evolved a symbiosis between our species.


----------



## Boss

hobelim said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dogs worship their masters , they grovel, adore, and serve with unquestioning devotion and  they believe in the power of barking because every time the scary garbage truck monster stops in front of the house it is turned away by spiritual energy of its awesome sound.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They adore their masters because we've bred the attribute in them over time, they are what we call "domesticated" animals. Wild dogs do not adore you, in fact, if they are hungry, they EAT you! Barking is a defense reaction, nothing 'spiritual' at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL... that's exactly the point. How are human beings any different? Wild humans don't serve any master and don't love God at all and even eat him in some bizzaro ceremony. And those who think Jesus was God are more than happy to accept his torture and death as a free ticked to paradise even though they also believe his death was a consequence of their sin as if they have no responsibility for themselves and what they do whether good or evil, like some opportunistic garbage eating lily white cur.
> 
> And isn't prayer, like barking, a defense reaction? wishful thinking or reacting to the unknown out of fear?
> 
> Like you said, nothing spiritual at all.
> 
> Maybe you should not underestimate the power of barking or rethink your claims of spiritual forces, powers, and realities unique to humans undetected by science and indistinguishable from any number of known mental illnesses.
Click to expand...


Human beings are different because they are making spiritual connection to spiritual nature, and have been doing so for as long as humans have been civilized. If it were a superficial attribute, humans would have abandoned it at some point, probably when there were millions of them being killed for their loyalty to spiritual faith. Unless, of course, Darwin was wrong and species retain superficial attributes detrimental to survival. 

Science can't evaluate spiritual nature, it's beyond it's capability at this time. It's like asking your dog about nuclear physics and determining that nuclear physics must be impossible because Fido couldn't explain it. Now you understand that science can't evaluate spiritual nature, yet you continue to demand that spiritual nature must be explained by science before you can believe it. You've constructed a logical dichotomy.


----------



## Boss

Uncensored2008 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> They adore their masters because we've bred the attribute in them over time, they are what we call "domesticated" animals. Wild dogs do not adore you, in fact, if they are hungry, they EAT you! Barking is a defense reaction, nothing 'spiritual' at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Utter nonsense.
> 
> Humans and wolves/dogs have a relationship that goes back tens of thousands of years. Wolves found that by hanging around camps of humans, they could find scraps and leftover food. Humans found that barking alerted them of danger, Thus, they encouraged the wolves to follow. Aggressive wolves were driven away, passive ones were fed.
> 
> Along the line, something magical happened, these two species of hunters figured out that they were far more effective hunting together, than either was alone. And that was that, the bond between man and dog was cemented, forever. We have manipulated those wolves by breeding in every imaginable way, but the bond is innate.
> 
> The dog in my avatar is a Dingo, a "wild dog." She adores me, and I adore her. Once  bond of trust is established, most humans and most dogs, including wolves, will form a strong bond. We evolved a symbiosis between our species.
Click to expand...


I don't understand why you think what I posted was "utter nonsense" because it's essentially the same thing you posted. We domesticated dogs, that's why they 'adore' us. Your dog is a breed considered to be wild, but your particular dog is domesticated. Dogs have no natural or spiritual inclination to worship humans as their deities, that was the argument presented as I understood it, and I refuted it. You seem to be making my exact same point, yet you thought my response was nonsense... I am confused.


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> They adore their masters because we've bred the attribute in them over time, they are what we call "domesticated" animals. Wild dogs do not adore you, in fact, if they are hungry, they EAT you! Barking is a defense reaction, nothing 'spiritual' at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL... that's exactly the point. How are human beings any different? Wild humans don't serve any master and don't love God at all and even eat him in some bizzaro ceremony. And those who think Jesus was God are more than happy to accept his torture and death as a free ticked to paradise even though they also believe his death was a consequence of their sin as if they have no responsibility for themselves and what they do whether good or evil, like some opportunistic garbage eating lily white cur.
> 
> And isn't prayer, like barking, a defense reaction? wishful thinking or reacting to the unknown out of fear?
> 
> Like you said, nothing spiritual at all.
> 
> Maybe you should not underestimate the power of barking or rethink your claims of spiritual forces, powers, and realities unique to humans undetected by science and indistinguishable from any number of known mental illnesses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Human beings are different because they are making spiritual connection to spiritual nature, and have been doing so for as long as humans have been civilized. If it were a superficial attribute, humans would have abandoned it at some point, probably when there were millions of them being killed for their loyalty to spiritual faith. Unless, of course, Darwin was wrong and species retain superficial attributes detrimental to survival.
> 
> Science can't evaluate spiritual nature, it's beyond it's capability at this time. It's like asking your dog about nuclear physics and determining that nuclear physics must be impossible because Fido couldn't explain it. Now you understand that science can't evaluate spiritual nature, yet you continue to demand that spiritual nature must be explained by science before you can believe it. You've constructed a logical dichotomy.
Click to expand...

the spiritual connection you're always blathering about is not detectable ,not because science is not to the task but because there is nothing there to evaluate..and you say you don't misrepresent..


----------



## BreezeWood

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> We find ZERO evidence that any living organism has EVER invented something imaginary to cope with fears of death or the unknown.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *you're saying the Eagle is less Spiritual because it does not fear death ?* -
> 
> 
> ... just maybe, "your" spirituality may in fact be a regression from rather than a pursuit of eternal life that in reality is the pursuit of all other life forms and being fulfilled while humanity is self deluding itself into a downward spiral inexorably leading to extinction.
> 
> at any rate Boss, *why would God only set such a goal for mankind alone* - oh, he loves you so much ?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I didn't see where I said that. *
> 
> On your second point, you could be right... or humans could have a burden-laden heart to worship because of original sin.  For whatever reason, we appear to be the only organisms that worship.
> 
> Final point: MY God doesn't "love" ...that's a human emotion. My God is Spiritual Energy.
Click to expand...



* Why do the God-haters persist?* 




> *Boss:* I didn't see where I said that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Boss:* We find ZERO evidence that any living organism has EVER invented something imaginary to cope with fears of death or the unknown.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



??? - Boss, how do you explain who is more freighted when left in a room together, the man or the Tiger ?





> *Boss:* MY God doesn't "love" ...that's a human emotion. My God is Spiritual Energy.




*MY God doesn't "love" ...*


I'm not sure you have answered the exclusivity of your belief only mankind connects to the Almighty - or "why would God only set such a goal for mankind alone" - with the absurd notion, God is without emotion ?

what connection does mankind have that is not based on emotion and is not shared by all other living creatures, having all evolved from the same origin ? 

does it really make a difference - building an airplane no other species on earth is capable of, relates to an exclusive spiritual affinity to God by Gods design ... ?

.


----------



## Boss

BreezeWood said:


> Boss, how do you explain who is more freighted when left in a room together, the man or the Tiger ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Boss:* MY God doesn't "love" ...that's a human emotion. My God is Spiritual Energy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *MY God doesn't "love" ...*
> 
> I'm not sure you have answered the exclusivity of your belief only mankind connects to the Almighty - or "why would God only set such a goal for mankind alone" - with the absurd notion, God is without emotion ?
> 
> what connection does mankind have that is not based on emotion and is not shared by all other living creatures, having all evolved from the same origin ?
> 
> does it really make a difference - building an airplane no other species on earth is capable of, relates to an exclusive spiritual affinity to God by Gods design ... ?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


First, you need to stop talking in riddles and chopping my comments up into parts you infer meaning to that isn't there. It's annoying, but it also makes it difficult for me to respond to you. My words are what I mean, there is no hidden meaning or mysterious values to read into them. 

A tiger is much more fearsome than a human for obvious reasons, you know this, which is why you give the example. Let me just answer you by saying this... I know humans who have such a profound spiritual connection, they would have no fear in the midst of a tiger. Their faith is that strong. So your question, while it may seem to have an obvious answer, does not. It depends on the human in question and how strong their faith is. 

I am not clear on what you mean by God "setting goals for mankind alone" and I've not indicated that I believe God sets goals. I also don't believe that everything evolved from the same origin. Spiritual connection of humans is not an emotion of God. 

You're simply jumping all over the board with emotive assumptions of what I believe. It's as if you are trying to back me into a corner of contradiction by using profoundly distorted examples of what you think I have said. If we can't have an honest dialogue, there is no point in a dialogue.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Newby said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm an agnostic, and believe that I am very respectful of the beliefs of others. Okay, maybe not so much the Muslims, but Christians, Jews, Mormons, Hindus, and Buddhists won't see any negative posts from me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one is being disrespectful of anyone's belief in their religion, except perhaps the OP himself.
> 
> *He is just being given a hard time because he spouts such utter nonsense and then insults those who expose his drivel*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *He's handed you your ass multiple times over in this thread,* but you're too damn stupid to realize it.  Once you're backed into a corner, all you do is spout insults and change the subject, typical of your kind when you have nothing else left.
Click to expand...

Nonsense, theres no evidence of that  as is also the case with your god; in fact the opposite is true, as the OP has failed to prove anyone can hate something that doesnt exist as perceived by theists.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

daws101 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL... that's exactly the point. How are human beings any different? Wild humans don't serve any master and don't love God at all and even eat him in some bizzaro ceremony. And those who think Jesus was God are more than happy to accept his torture and death as a free ticked to paradise even though they also believe his death was a consequence of their sin as if they have no responsibility for themselves and what they do whether good or evil, like some opportunistic garbage eating lily white cur.
> 
> And isn't prayer, like barking, a defense reaction? wishful thinking or reacting to the unknown out of fear?
> 
> Like you said, nothing spiritual at all.
> 
> Maybe you should not underestimate the power of barking or rethink your claims of spiritual forces, powers, and realities unique to humans undetected by science and indistinguishable from any number of known mental illnesses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Human beings are different because they are making spiritual connection to spiritual nature, and have been doing so for as long as humans have been civilized. If it were a superficial attribute, humans would have abandoned it at some point, probably when there were millions of them being killed for their loyalty to spiritual faith. Unless, of course, Darwin was wrong and species retain superficial attributes detrimental to survival.
> 
> Science can't evaluate spiritual nature, it's beyond it's capability at this time. It's like asking your dog about nuclear physics and determining that nuclear physics must be impossible because Fido couldn't explain it. Now you understand that science can't evaluate spiritual nature, yet you continue to demand that spiritual nature must be explained by science before you can believe it. You've constructed a logical dichotomy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the spiritual connection you're always blathering about is not detectable ,not because science is not to the task but because there is nothing there to evaluate..and you say you don't misrepresent..
Click to expand...


True. 

It exists in the same manner as a subjective opinion or life philosophy, impossible to prove, and no more or less valid than any other subjective opinion or life philosophy.


----------



## Boss

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> the OP has failed to prove anyone can hate something that doesnt exist as perceived by theists.



The OP is based on that precise point. God-haters can't be Atheists. You're lying. If you were truly an Atheist, you wouldn't be bothered enough to hurl insults and denigration in thread after thread after thread. You can't hate what you don't believe in. This is what distinguishes "God-haters" from "Atheists" and what the OP is pointing out. 

God-haters persist because they believe in God and hate Him. This prompts the mean and nasty comments, the surly and snarky retorts, the continued incessant ridicule. You can't help it, you HATE God. As clever as you think you are with your smart-ass remarks an insulting names like "sky daddy" and "spaghetti monsters," you are demonstrating that you believe in God and hate Him.


----------



## Boss

> the spiritual connection you're always blathering about is not detectable ,not because science is not to the task but because there is nothing there to evaluate..and you say you don't misrepresent..



Most rational people will agree that science is the examination of the physical universe. How can it evaluate the spiritual? This would defy logic. If physical sciences could evaluate the spiritual, they would no longer be spiritual, by definition. So we see here who is doing the misrepresenting, and it is you. Once again, you want to irrationally demand that science of physical nature offer some evidence to support spiritual nature, which it can't do. Then you want to take that fact and parlay it into an argument that spiritual nature must not exist. 

It is the rational equivalent of asking your dog to explain nuclear physics and when he can't, proclaiming nuclear physics must certainly not be real... the dog couldn't explain it.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Boss said:


> the spiritual connection you're always blathering about is not detectable ,not because science is not to the task but because there is nothing there to evaluate..and you say you don't misrepresent..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most rational people will agree that science is the examination of the physical universe. How can it evaluate the spiritual? This would defy logic. If physical sciences could evaluate the spiritual, they would no longer be spiritual, by definition. So we see here who is doing the misrepresenting, and it is you. Once again, you want to irrationally demand that science of physical nature offer some evidence to support spiritual nature, which it can't do. Then you want to take that fact and parlay it into an argument that spiritual nature must not exist.
> 
> It is the rational equivalent of asking your dog to explain nuclear physics and when he can't, proclaiming nuclear physics must certainly not be real... the dog couldn't explain it.
Click to expand...


More BS from the OP. Science can measure the spiritual trance state of mind quite easily. What is irrational is the delusion that "spiritual energy" exists. 

There is as much evidence for the existence of "spiritual energy" as there is for the Easter Bunny, fairies, hobgoblins and pixie dust. The OP should believe in the Easter Bunny too.


----------



## Gadawg73

Boss said:


> the spiritual connection you're always blathering about is not detectable ,not because science is not to the task but because there is nothing there to evaluate..and you say you don't misrepresent..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most rational people will agree that science is the examination of the physical universe. How can it evaluate the spiritual? This would defy logic. If physical sciences could evaluate the spiritual, they would no longer be spiritual, by definition. So we see here who is doing the misrepresenting, and it is you. Once again, you want to irrationally demand that science of physical nature offer some evidence to support spiritual nature, which it can't do. Then you want to take that fact and parlay it into an argument that spiritual nature must not exist.
> 
> It is the rational equivalent of asking your dog to explain nuclear physics and when he can't, proclaiming nuclear physics must certainly not be real... the dog couldn't explain it.
Click to expand...


You are right.
Science can never evaluate the spiritual.
Because the spiritual is based totally on beliefs.
And beliefs are never science.
And no matter how hard you try you can not polish a turd.


----------



## MaxGrit

Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might. Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm. Stand therefore, having fastened on the belt of truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and, as shoes for your feet, having put on the readiness given by the gospel of peace. In all circumstances take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming darts of the evil one; and take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, praying at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication. To that end keep alert with all perseverance, making supplication for all the saints, and also for me, that words may be given to me in opening my mouth boldly to proclaim the mystery of the gospel, for which I am an ambassador in chains, that I may declare it boldly, as I ought to speak.

Ephesians 6 (English Standard Version)


----------



## Boss

> More BS from the OP. Science can measure the spiritual trance state of mind quite easily



No it can't, and you've never produced as much as a shred of evidence it can. 



> What is irrational is the delusion that "spiritual energy" exists.



No, what's irrational is that you continue to insist it doesn't exist without any proof. 



> There is as much evidence for the existence of "spiritual energy" as there is for the Easter Bunny, fairies, hobgoblins and pixie dust. The OP should believe in the Easter Bunny too.



More bunk from the bunkmaster because he has failed to prove God doesn't exist.


----------



## Boss

Gadawg73 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the spiritual connection you're always blathering about is not detectable ,not because science is not to the task but because there is nothing there to evaluate..and you say you don't misrepresent..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most rational people will agree that science is the examination of the physical universe. How can it evaluate the spiritual? This would defy logic. If physical sciences could evaluate the spiritual, they would no longer be spiritual, by definition. So we see here who is doing the misrepresenting, and it is you. Once again, you want to irrationally demand that science of physical nature offer some evidence to support spiritual nature, which it can't do. Then you want to take that fact and parlay it into an argument that spiritual nature must not exist.
> 
> It is the rational equivalent of asking your dog to explain nuclear physics and when he can't, proclaiming nuclear physics must certainly not be real... the dog couldn't explain it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are right.
> Science can never evaluate the spiritual.
> Because the spiritual is based totally on beliefs.
> And beliefs are never science.
> And no matter how hard you try you can not polish a turd.
Click to expand...


Sorry but beliefs ARE science. Everything we believe is a belief. If you believe the laws of physics, that is a belief. If you believe we evolved from apes, that is a belief. If you believe the universe is expanding, that is a belief. You will find nothing that is believed that is not a belief. 

All belief relies on faith. You can believe NOTHING without faith.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most rational people will agree that science is the examination of the physical universe. How can it evaluate the spiritual? This would defy logic. If physical sciences could evaluate the spiritual, they would no longer be spiritual, by definition. So we see here who is doing the misrepresenting, and it is you. Once again, you want to irrationally demand that science of physical nature offer some evidence to support spiritual nature, which it can't do. Then you want to take that fact and parlay it into an argument that spiritual nature must not exist.
> 
> It is the rational equivalent of asking your dog to explain nuclear physics and when he can't, proclaiming nuclear physics must certainly not be real... the dog couldn't explain it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are right.
> Science can never evaluate the spiritual.
> Because the spiritual is based totally on beliefs.
> And beliefs are never science.
> And no matter how hard you try you can not polish a turd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry but beliefs ARE science. Everything we believe is a belief. If you believe the laws of physics, that is a belief. If you believe we evolved from apes, that is a belief. If you believe the universe is expanding, that is a belief. You will find nothing that is believed that is not a belief.
> 
> All belief relies on faith. You can believe NOTHING without faith.
Click to expand...


And therefore nothing is real, or everything is real, but it doesn't actually matter, because everything you see or hear or know is nothing but faith!  That seems to about sum up your statement.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> the OP has failed to prove anyone can hate something that doesnt exist as perceived by theists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The OP is based on that precise point. God-haters can't be Atheists. You're lying. If you were truly an Atheist, you wouldn't be bothered enough to hurl insults and denigration in thread after thread after thread. You can't hate what you don't believe in. This is what distinguishes "God-haters" from "Atheists" and what the OP is pointing out.
> 
> God-haters persist because they believe in God and hate Him. This prompts the mean and nasty comments, the surly and snarky retorts, the continued incessant ridicule. You can't help it, you HATE God. As clever as you think you are with your smart-ass remarks an insulting names like "sky daddy" and "spaghetti monsters," you are demonstrating that you believe in God and hate Him.
Click to expand...


There is a difference between hating believers or hating the belief and actually hating god.

Being an atheist in no way means being quiet about religion or not having any feelings about the beliefs of others.  I'm not sure why you feel all atheists are going to act the same way toward people of religious faith.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Boss said:


> More BS from the OP. Science can measure the spiritual trance state of mind quite easily
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it can't, and you've never produced as much as a shred of evidence it can.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is irrational is the delusion that "spiritual energy" exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, what's irrational is that you continue to insist it doesn't exist without any proof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is as much evidence for the existence of "spiritual energy" as there is for the Easter Bunny, fairies, hobgoblins and pixie dust. The OP should believe in the Easter Bunny too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More bunk from the bunkmaster because he has failed to prove God doesn't exist.
Click to expand...


The OP is either a blatant liar or has the memory span of a fruitfly! Probably both in his case.

Here is another in depth scientific study of spiritual trance states.







PLOS ONE: Neuroimaging during Trance State: A Contribution to the Study of Dissociation


----------



## Boss

Derideo_Te said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More BS from the OP. Science can measure the spiritual trance state of mind quite easily
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it can't, and you've never produced as much as a shred of evidence it can.
> 
> 
> 
> No, what's irrational is that you continue to insist it doesn't exist without any proof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is as much evidence for the existence of "spiritual energy" as there is for the Easter Bunny, fairies, hobgoblins and pixie dust. The OP should believe in the Easter Bunny too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More bunk from the bunkmaster because he has failed to prove God doesn't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The OP is either a blatant liar or has the memory span of a fruitfly! Probably both in his case.
> 
> Here is another in depth scientific study of spiritual trance states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLOS ONE: Neuroimaging during Trance State: A Contribution to the Study of Dissociation
Click to expand...


I see no evidence of anything but apparent brain activity. #FAIL... try again!


----------



## Derideo_Te

Boss said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most rational people will agree that science is the examination of the physical universe. How can it evaluate the spiritual? This would defy logic. If physical sciences could evaluate the spiritual, they would no longer be spiritual, by definition. So we see here who is doing the misrepresenting, and it is you. Once again, you want to irrationally demand that science of physical nature offer some evidence to support spiritual nature, which it can't do. Then you want to take that fact and parlay it into an argument that spiritual nature must not exist.
> 
> It is the rational equivalent of asking your dog to explain nuclear physics and when he can't, proclaiming nuclear physics must certainly not be real... the dog couldn't explain it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are right.
> Science can never evaluate the spiritual.
> Because the spiritual is based totally on beliefs.
> And beliefs are never science.
> And no matter how hard you try you can not polish a turd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry but *beliefs ARE science*. Everything we believe is a belief. If you believe the laws of physics, that is a belief. If you believe we evolved from apes, that is a belief. If you believe the universe is expanding, that is a belief. You will find nothing that is believed that is not a belief.
> 
> All belief relies on faith. You can believe NOTHING without faith.
Click to expand...


Knowledge does not require belief. Take a hammer and drop it on your foot. The hammer is real, gravity is real and the pain in your foot is real. All of them are physical and measurable scientifically.

Only a fanatic is stupid enough to claim that "beliefs ARE science"!


----------



## Derideo_Te

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it can't, and you've never produced as much as a shred of evidence it can.
> 
> 
> 
> No, what's irrational is that you continue to insist it doesn't exist without any proof.
> 
> 
> 
> More bunk from the bunkmaster because he has failed to prove God doesn't exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The OP is either a blatant liar or has the memory span of a fruitfly! Probably both in his case.
> 
> Here is another in depth scientific study of spiritual trance states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLOS ONE: Neuroimaging during Trance State: A Contribution to the Study of Dissociation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see no evidence of anything but apparent brain activity. #FAIL... try again!
Click to expand...


You could not have read the entire article in 2 minutes therefore your kneejerk response is further proof that you are just FOS!


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> the OP has failed to prove anyone can hate something that doesnt exist as perceived by theists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The OP is based on that precise point. God-haters can't be Atheists. You're lying. If you were truly an Atheist, you wouldn't be bothered enough to hurl insults and denigration in thread after thread after thread. You can't hate what you don't believe in. This is what distinguishes "God-haters" from "Atheists" and what the OP is pointing out.
> 
> God-haters persist because they believe in God and hate Him. This prompts the mean and nasty comments, the surly and snarky retorts, the continued incessant ridicule. You can't help it, you HATE God. As clever as you think you are with your smart-ass remarks an insulting names like "sky daddy" and "spaghetti monsters," you are demonstrating that you believe in God and hate Him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a difference between hating believers or hating the belief and actually hating god.
> 
> Being an atheist in no way means being quiet about religion or not having any feelings about the beliefs of others.  I'm not sure why you feel all atheists are going to act the same way toward people of religious faith.
Click to expand...


A true Atheist cannot hate what he doesn't believe in. That's why. 

Now, there are lots and lots of people who CLAIM to be Atheists. That's a fact. And perhaps you are assuming they are telling the truth about that, and you figure they are simply behaving differently than other Athiests, I don't know. What I do know is, an Atheist can't hate what he doesn't believe in.


----------



## Boss

Derideo_Te said:


> You could not have read the entire article in 2 minutes therefore your kneejerk response is further proof that you are just FOS!



I already knew what you were going to post before I made my first response to you. What you have "evidence" of is brain activity, nothing more. You cannot show the person was in a "spiritual trance" as opposed to any other kind of trance, only that their brain was active. Now you can certainly have FAITH in your belief that this "proves" something, I won't argue there. But you've not shown evidence of what you claimed.


----------



## Boss

Derideo_Te said:


> Knowledge does not require belief. Take a hammer and drop it on your foot. The hammer is real, gravity is real and the pain in your foot is real. All of them are physical and measurable scientifically.
> 
> Only a fanatic is stupid enough to claim that "beliefs ARE science"!



Everything you believe requires belief. 

Taking a hammer and dropping it on your foot is not a belief, it is an action. When you conduct this action, you believe the force of gravity will work. You believe that when the force of gravity works and the hammer hits your foot it will cause pain. Your experiment confirms those beliefs. You have faith your beliefs are valid. You have faith that gravity will work as you believe. What if you are standing on the moon when you do this? Will pain still result? No, because gravity doesn't cause the same effect on the moon as it does on Earth. This doesn't mean gravity isn't real or your faith is invalid.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> You could not have read the entire article in 2 minutes therefore your kneejerk response is further proof that you are just FOS!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I already knew what you were going to post *before I made my first response to you. What you have "evidence" of is brain activity, nothing more. *You cannot show the person was in a "spiritual trance" as opposed to any other kind of trance,* only that their brain was active. Now you can certainly have FAITH in your belief that this "proves" something, I won't argue there. But you've not shown evidence of what you claimed.
Click to expand...


 at the OP claiming "psychic powers" now! 

And you just debunked you own allegation that "billions of people" are "evidence" of "spiritual energy". 

These were experienced spiritual mediums that acknowledged that they were "communicating" and having "out of body" experiences while they were being scientifically monitored. The monitored readings show that their brains were operating in different states while in a spiritual trance as opposed to normal functioning. This data meets all the criteria for reproducible scientific studies. 

Your desperation is showing now that you are trying to claim that there has to be "belief" and "faith" where none is needed.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Knowledge does not require belief. Take a hammer and drop it on your foot. The hammer is real, gravity is real and the pain in your foot is real. All of them are physical and measurable scientifically.
> 
> Only a fanatic is stupid enough to claim that "beliefs ARE science"!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Everything you believe requires belief. *
Click to expand...

No belief is required for factual knowledge!





> Taking a hammer and dropping it on your foot is not a belief, it is an action. When you conduct this action, you believe the force of gravity will work. You believe that when the force of gravity works and the hammer hits your foot it will cause pain. Your experiment confirms those beliefs. You have faith your beliefs are valid. You have faith that gravity will work as you believe. What if you are standing on the moon when you do this? Will pain still result? No,* because gravity doesn't cause the same effect on the moon as it does on Earth*. This doesn't mean gravity isn't real or your faith is invalid.



Your ignorance is on display again! The same experiment works on the moon and it proves that gravity is real because the pain that you feel will be far less since the hammer only weighs 1/6th of what it does on earth. No belief required.


----------



## hobelim

Derideo_Te said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> You could not have read the entire article in 2 minutes therefore your kneejerk response is further proof that you are just FOS!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I already knew what you were going to post *before I made my first response to you. What you have "evidence" of is brain activity, nothing more. *You cannot show the person was in a "spiritual trance" as opposed to any other kind of trance,* only that their brain was active. Now you can certainly have FAITH in your belief that this "proves" something, I won't argue there. But you've not shown evidence of what you claimed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> at the OP claiming "psychic powers" now!
> 
> And you just debunked your own allegation that "billions of people" are "evidence" of "spiritual energy".
> 
> These were experienced spiritual mediums that acknowledged that they were "communicating" and having "out of body" experiences while they were being scientifically monitored. The monitored readings show that their brains were operating in different states while in a spiritual trance as opposed to normal functioning. This data meets all the criteria for reproducible scientific studies.
> 
> Your desperation is showing now that you are trying to claim that there has to be "belief" and "faith" where none is needed.
Click to expand...



I think the basic problem is that accepting the evidence requires honesty and a love of truth that boss has repeatedly demonstrated that he lacks

However it must take vast amounts of 'spiritual energy', faith, and belief in the face of diminishing returns, to always try to get people who know better to keep playing three-card Monte.


----------



## Boss

Derideo_Te said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> You could not have read the entire article in 2 minutes therefore your kneejerk response is further proof that you are just FOS!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I already knew what you were going to post *before I made my first response to you. What you have "evidence" of is brain activity, nothing more. *You cannot show the person was in a "spiritual trance" as opposed to any other kind of trance,* only that their brain was active. Now you can certainly have FAITH in your belief that this "proves" something, I won't argue there. But you've not shown evidence of what you claimed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> at the OP claiming "psychic powers" now!
> 
> And you just debunked you own allegation that "billions of people" are "evidence" of "spiritual energy".
> 
> These were experienced spiritual mediums that acknowledged that they were "communicating" and having "out of body" experiences while they were being scientifically monitored. The monitored readings show that their brains were operating in different states while in a spiritual trance as opposed to normal functioning. This data meets all the criteria for reproducible scientific studies.
> 
> Your desperation is showing now that you are trying to claim that there has to be "belief" and "faith" where none is needed.
Click to expand...


All it "shows" is measured activity in the brain. Different activity causes different measurements, that doesn't "prove" anything. Spirituality is not an "out of body" experience, I am very much IN my body when I connect spiritually. 

There is no "desperation" on my part when I correctly state that ANYTHING you believe requires belief... that's logic. Faith is required for ANY belief. Again, that is logic not desperation. If you can give an example of something you believe without belief, or something you believe in without faith in that belief, then go for it. I predict this is not possible.


----------



## BreezeWood

Boss said:


> *I know humans who have such a profound spiritual connection*, they would have no fear in the midst of a tiger - It depends on the human in question *and how strong their faith is* - So your question, while it may seem to have an obvious answer, does not..




who's talking about faith - or science ?




> I know humans who have such a profound spiritual connection ...



ok, you want it simple, what is your basis the Tiger does not have the same spiritual connection ?



*Why do the God-haters persist?*

is that anyone that represents Spirituality for all that is living ?  .... or God created life without soul's for the purpose to please mankind - otherwise you are a hater ?





> Spiritual connection of humans is not an emotion of God.



what or why does it then exist ? - you and theword might consider a conference call.

.


----------



## hobelim

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I already knew what you were going to post *before I made my first response to you. What you have "evidence" of is brain activity, nothing more. *You cannot show the person was in a "spiritual trance" as opposed to any other kind of trance,* only that their brain was active. Now you can certainly have FAITH in your belief that this "proves" something, I won't argue there. But you've not shown evidence of what you claimed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> at the OP claiming "psychic powers" now!
> 
> And you just debunked you own allegation that "billions of people" are "evidence" of "spiritual energy".
> 
> These were experienced spiritual mediums that acknowledged that they were "communicating" and having "out of body" experiences while they were being scientifically monitored. The monitored readings show that their brains were operating in different states while in a spiritual trance as opposed to normal functioning. This data meets all the criteria for reproducible scientific studies.
> 
> Your desperation is showing now that you are trying to claim that there has to be "belief" and "faith" where none is needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All it "shows" is measured activity in the brain. Different activity causes different measurements, that doesn't "prove" anything. Spirituality is not an "out of body" experience, I am very much IN my body when I connect spiritually.
> 
> There is no "desperation" on my part when I correctly state that ANYTHING you believe requires belief... that's logic. Faith is required for ANY belief. Again, that is logic not desperation. If you can give an example of something you believe without belief, or something you believe in without faith in that belief, then go for it. I predict this is not possible.
Click to expand...


 knowing something is true because it can be tested and verified is not the same as believing something to be true even though it cannot be tested or verified.


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boss, how do you explain who is more freighted when left in a room together, the man or the Tiger ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Boss:* MY God doesn't "love" ...that's a human emotion. My God is Spiritual Energy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *MY God doesn't "love" ...*
> 
> I'm not sure you have answered the exclusivity of your belief only mankind connects to the Almighty - or "why would God only set such a goal for mankind alone" - with the absurd notion, God is without emotion ?
> 
> what connection does mankind have that is not based on emotion and is not shared by all other living creatures, having all evolved from the same origin ?
> 
> does it really make a difference - building an airplane no other species on earth is capable of, relates to an exclusive spiritual affinity to God by Gods design ... ?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, you need to stop talking in riddles and chopping my comments up into parts you infer meaning to that isn't there. It's annoying, but it also makes it difficult for me to respond to you. My words are what I mean, there is no hidden meaning or mysterious values to read into them.
> 
> A tiger is much more fearsome than a human for obvious reasons, you know this, which is why you give the example. Let me just answer you by saying this... I know humans who have such a profound spiritual connection, they would have no fear in the midst of a tiger. Their faith is that strong. So your question, while it may seem to have an obvious answer, does not. It depends on the human in question and how strong their faith is.
> 
> I am not clear on what you mean by God "setting goals for mankind alone" and I've not indicated that I believe God sets goals. I also don't believe that everything evolved from the same origin. Spiritual connection of humans is not an emotion of God.
> 
> You're simply jumping all over the board with emotive assumptions of what I believe. It's as if you are trying to back me into a corner of contradiction by using profoundly distorted examples of what you think I have said. If we can't have an honest dialogue, there is no point in a dialogue.
Click to expand...

It seems breezewood has you by the balls. 
no one needs to assume any thing about what you believe it flows like diarrhea from your keyboard.
you contradict yourself endlessly and when called onit you plead the old stand byes :emotive assumption, lack of intelligence etc..


----------



## Derideo_Te

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I already knew what you were going to post *before I made my first response to you. What you have "evidence" of is brain activity, nothing more. *You cannot show the person was in a "spiritual trance" as opposed to any other kind of trance,* only that their brain was active. Now you can certainly have FAITH in your belief that this "proves" something, I won't argue there. But you've not shown evidence of what you claimed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> at the OP claiming "psychic powers" now!
> 
> And you just debunked you own allegation that "billions of people" are "evidence" of "spiritual energy".
> 
> These were experienced spiritual mediums that acknowledged that they were "communicating" and having "out of body" experiences while they were being scientifically monitored. The monitored readings show that their brains were operating in different states while in a spiritual trance as opposed to normal functioning. This data meets all the criteria for reproducible scientific studies.
> 
> Your desperation is showing now that you are trying to claim that there has to be "belief" and "faith" where none is needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All it "shows" is measured activity in the brain. Different activity causes different measurements, that doesn't "prove" anything. Spirituality is not an "out of body" experience, I am very much IN my body when I connect spiritually.
> 
> There is no "desperation" on my part when I correctly state that ANYTHING you believe requires belief... that's logic. Faith is required for ANY belief. Again, that is logic not desperation. If you can give an example of something you believe without belief, or something you believe in without faith in that belief, then go for it. I predict this is not possible.
Click to expand...


You made this absurd allegation;



> You have* faith *that gravity will work as you *believe*.



*Factual scientific knowledge* of gravity requires neither faith nor belief. 

Your dishonest allegation that it does just destroys your own credibility!


----------



## Boss

Derideo_Te said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Knowledge does not require belief. Take a hammer and drop it on your foot. The hammer is real, gravity is real and the pain in your foot is real. All of them are physical and measurable scientifically.
> 
> Only a fanatic is stupid enough to claim that "beliefs ARE science"!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Everything you believe requires belief. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No belief is required for factual knowledge!
Click to expand...


Yes, you have to believe it is factual knowledge. 



> Taking a hammer and dropping it on your foot is not a belief, it is an action. When you conduct this action, you believe the force of gravity will work. You believe that when the force of gravity works and the hammer hits your foot it will cause pain. Your experiment confirms those beliefs. You have faith your beliefs are valid. You have faith that gravity will work as you believe. What if you are standing on the moon when you do this? Will pain still result? No,* because gravity doesn't cause the same effect on the moon as it does on Earth*. This doesn't mean gravity isn't real or your faith is invalid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your ignorance is on display again! The same experiment works on the moon and it proves that gravity is real because the pain that you feel will be far less since the hammer only weighs 1/6th of what it does on earth. No belief required.
Click to expand...


Yes, the same experiment works and the result is different. Your belief that dropping a hammer on your foot causes pain is not valid on the moon. Your belief in how gravity reacts with the hammer is not the same on the moon. 

Now you introduced "knowledge" into the equation. Knowledge requires faith. In order to know something, you must have faith it is true. It's impossible to know something if you lack faith that it is true. All "known facts" require your faith in the belief they are true. There are NO exceptions.


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> the spiritual connection you're always blathering about is not detectable ,not because science is not to the task but because there is nothing there to evaluate..and you say you don't misrepresent..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most rational people will agree that science is the examination of the physical universe. How can it evaluate the spiritual? This would defy logic. If physical sciences could evaluate the spiritual, they would no longer be spiritual, by definition. So we see here who is doing the misrepresenting, and it is you. Once again, you want to irrationally demand that science of physical nature offer some evidence to support spiritual nature, which it can't do. Then you want to take that fact and parlay it into an argument that spiritual nature must not exist.
> 
> It is the rational equivalent of asking your dog to explain nuclear physics and when he can't, proclaiming nuclear physics must certainly not be real... the dog couldn't explain it.
Click to expand...

that the second time you've used that bullshit to dodge..
btw what I'm asking is not irrational ..it's just another dodge by you.
if something is experienced in this physical universe ..that's everything including spirituality,it must have a physical component or attribute that can be measured and tested. 
as I said before science is more then capable of testing and analyzing spirituality.
if we can catch neutrinos :   A neutrino is an electrically neutral, weakly interacting elementary subatomic particle with half-integer spin. The neutrino is denoted by the Greek letter &#957;. All evidence suggests that neutrinos have mass but the upper bounds established for their mass are tiny even by the standards of subatomic particles."
then seeing if and how spirituality works ,should be a snap..


----------



## daws101

MaxGrit said:


> Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might. Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm. Stand therefore, having fastened on the belt of truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and, as shoes for your feet, having put on the readiness given by the gospel of peace. In all circumstances take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming darts of the evil one; and take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, praying at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication. To that end keep alert with all perseverance, making supplication for all the saints, and also for me, that words may be given to me in opening my mouth boldly to proclaim the mystery of the gospel, for which I am an ambassador in chains, that I may declare it boldly, as I ought to speak.
> 
> Ephesians 6 (English Standard Version)


speaking of belief not fact!


----------



## Boss

> Factual scientific knowledge of gravity requires neither faith nor belief.



Well I am sorry, but yes it does.


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Knowledge does not require belief. Take a hammer and drop it on your foot. The hammer is real, gravity is real and the pain in your foot is real. All of them are physical and measurable scientifically.
> 
> Only a fanatic is stupid enough to claim that "beliefs ARE science"!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything you believe requires belief.
> 
> Taking a hammer and dropping it on your foot is not a belief, it is an action. When you conduct this action, you believe the force of gravity will work. You believe that when the force of gravity works and the hammer hits your foot it will cause pain. Your experiment confirms those beliefs. You have faith your beliefs are valid. You have faith that gravity will work as you believe. What if you are standing on the moon when you do this? Will pain still result? No, because gravity doesn't cause the same effect on the moon as it does on Earth. This doesn't mean gravity isn't real or your faith is invalid.
Click to expand...

best steaming pile of bullshit award goes to.....


----------



## Derideo_Te

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Everything you believe requires belief. *
> 
> 
> 
> No belief is required for factual knowledge!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you have to believe it is factual knowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taking a hammer and dropping it on your foot is not a belief, it is an action. When you conduct this action, you believe the force of gravity will work. You believe that when the force of gravity works and the hammer hits your foot it will cause pain. Your experiment confirms those beliefs. You have faith your beliefs are valid. You have faith that gravity will work as you believe. What if you are standing on the moon when you do this? Will pain still result? No,* because gravity doesn't cause the same effect on the moon as it does on Earth*. This doesn't mean gravity isn't real or your faith is invalid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your ignorance is on display again! The same experiment works on the moon and it proves that gravity is real because the pain that you feel will be far less since the hammer only weighs 1/6th of what it does on earth. No belief required.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the same experiment works and the result is different. Your belief that dropping a hammer on your foot causes pain is not valid on the moon. Your belief in how gravity reacts with the hammer is not the same on the moon.
> 
> Now you introduced "knowledge" into the equation. Knowledge requires faith. In order to know something, you must have faith it is true. It's impossible to know something if you lack faith that it is true. All "known facts" require your faith in the belief they are true. There are NO exceptions.
Click to expand...


You are drowning in denial!


----------



## Boss

daws101 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the spiritual connection you're always blathering about is not detectable ,not because science is not to the task but because there is nothing there to evaluate..and you say you don't misrepresent..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most rational people will agree that science is the examination of the physical universe. How can it evaluate the spiritual? This would defy logic. If physical sciences could evaluate the spiritual, they would no longer be spiritual, by definition. So we see here who is doing the misrepresenting, and it is you. Once again, you want to irrationally demand that science of physical nature offer some evidence to support spiritual nature, which it can't do. Then you want to take that fact and parlay it into an argument that spiritual nature must not exist.
> 
> It is the rational equivalent of asking your dog to explain nuclear physics and when he can't, proclaiming nuclear physics must certainly not be real... the dog couldn't explain it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that the second time you've used that bullshit to dodge..
> btw what I'm asking is not irrational ..it's just another dodge by you.
> if something is experienced in this physical universe ..that's everything including spirituality,it must have a physical component or attribute that can be measured and tested.
> as I said before science is more then capable of testing and analyzing spirituality.
> if we can catch neutrinos :   A neutrino is an electrically neutral, weakly interacting elementary subatomic particle with half-integer spin. The neutrino is denoted by the Greek letter &#957;. All evidence suggests that neutrinos have mass but the upper bounds established for their mass are tiny even by the standards of subatomic particles."
> then seeing if and how spirituality works ,should be a snap..
Click to expand...


And perhaps one day it will be a snap. For now, physical science can't evaluate spiritual nature. Maybe one day, my dog will be able to explain nuclear physics or quantum theory? The fact that he can't do that today doesn't mean it's not real or doesn't exist. The same can be said for spiritual nature.


----------



## Boss

> You are drowning in denial!



Then you should be able to demonstrate that.


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> Factual scientific knowledge of gravity requires neither faith nor belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I am sorry, but yes it does.
Click to expand...

to you maybe in reality not so much.
besides you have to say that or your already silly and ignorant argument will shatter.
any way the point here is not that god haters nonsense it's true propose is to showcase your hubris and total self involvement... the rest is window dressing.


----------



## Boss

> knowing something is true because it can be tested and verified is not the same as believing something to be true even though it cannot be tested or verified.



But here is the problem, you continue to assume that spiritual faith is untested and unverified. You are correct, you can't believe anything without faith. Not science, not theory, not religion, not God. Nothing. In order to believe it, you must have faith. There is no exception to this, no matter how hard you try.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Boss said:


> Factual scientific knowledge of gravity requires neither faith nor belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I am sorry, but yes it does.
Click to expand...


Prove it!

Provide credible factual scientific proof of that allegation!


----------



## Derideo_Te

Boss said:


> You are drowning in denial!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should be able to demonstrate that.
Click to expand...


Your posts are evidence of your denial. You falsely allege that factual scientific knowledge requires faith and belief when it doesn't.


----------



## Boss

daws101 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Factual scientific knowledge of gravity requires neither faith nor belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I am sorry, but yes it does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> to you maybe in reality not so much.
> besides you have to say that or your already silly and ignorant argument will shatter.
> any way the point here is not that god haters nonsense it's true propose is to showcase your hubris and total self involvement... the rest is window dressing.
Click to expand...


No, in reality. You have to believe something is A.) Factual B.) Scientific and C.) Knowledge in order to believe it. If you don't have faith in that belief, you can't believe it. It doesn't matter if that thing is "gravity" or "God" it still requires faith and belief.


----------



## Boss

Derideo_Te said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are drowning in denial!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should be able to demonstrate that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your posts are evidence of your denial. You falsely allege that factual scientific knowledge requires faith and belief when it doesn't.
Click to expand...


But it does.


----------



## Boss

> You falsely allege that factual scientific knowledge requires faith and belief when it doesn't.



Then present for us an example of something you have no faith or belief in that you consider to be factual scientific knowledge? 

.........Waiting


----------



## Derideo_Te

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should be able to demonstrate that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your posts are evidence of your denial. You falsely allege that factual scientific knowledge requires faith and belief when it doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But it does.
Click to expand...


BZZZZT Wrong again!


----------



## Boss

Still waiting.....


----------



## Boss

Anybody??? .....Hellooooo???


----------



## Derideo_Te

Boss said:


> You falsely allege that factual scientific knowledge requires faith and belief when it doesn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then present for us an example of something you have no faith or belief in that you consider to be factual scientific knowledge?
> 
> .........Waiting
Click to expand...


Already done so!

If I let go of a hammer the force of gravity will accelerate it at 32 feet/sec towards the ground and if my foot is in the way when that kinetic energy transfers from the hammer into the tissues of my foot the nerve endings will relay the pain via measurable electric signals to my brain. All of this is scientifically measurable and repeatable and will give the same results each and every time the experiment is perfromed. No faith or belief is required to measure the acceleration of gravity, the kinetic energy of the hammer, the electrical impulses of the nerves or the brain waves that are the result.


----------



## Boss

Present for us an example of something you have no faith or belief in that you consider to be factual scientific knowledge? 

Your hammer example doesn't qualify as you've already expressed your faith and belief in the principles of gravity, etc. Again.... we need an example of something you have no faith in and do not believe, which you also consider to be factual scientific knowledge. 

.....Waiting........


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> The OP is based on that precise point. God-haters can't be Atheists. You're lying. If you were truly an Atheist, you wouldn't be bothered enough to hurl insults and denigration in thread after thread after thread. You can't hate what you don't believe in. This is what distinguishes "God-haters" from "Atheists" and what the OP is pointing out.
> 
> God-haters persist because they believe in God and hate Him. This prompts the mean and nasty comments, the surly and snarky retorts, the continued incessant ridicule. You can't help it, you HATE God. As clever as you think you are with your smart-ass remarks an insulting names like "sky daddy" and "spaghetti monsters," you are demonstrating that you believe in God and hate Him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a difference between hating believers or hating the belief and actually hating god.
> 
> Being an atheist in no way means being quiet about religion or not having any feelings about the beliefs of others.  I'm not sure why you feel all atheists are going to act the same way toward people of religious faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A true Atheist cannot hate what he doesn't believe in. That's why.
> 
> Now, there are lots and lots of people who CLAIM to be Atheists. That's a fact. And perhaps you are assuming they are telling the truth about that, and you figure they are simply behaving differently than other Athiests, I don't know. What I do know is, an Atheist can't hate what he doesn't believe in.
Click to expand...


The fact that an atheist doesn't believe a god exists in no way means they cannot care about the fact that many others do hold such beliefs.  Nor does it mean they cannot or will not argue against religious belief, or hate religious beliefs, or hate believers.

You are operating under the assumption that not believing in god means not caring if others do, and that is a completely false assumption with no logical basis.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Boss said:


> Present for us an example of something you have no faith or belief in that you consider to be factual scientific knowledge?
> 
> Your hammer example doesn't qualify as *you've already expressed your faith and belief in the principles of gravity, etc*. Again.... we need an example of something you have no faith in and do not believe, which you also consider to be factual scientific knowledge.
> 
> .....Waiting........



Thanks for admitting that you cannot refute the scientific facts and have no other recourse but to lie!


----------



## Boss

> All of this is scientifically measurable and repeatable and will give the same results each and every time the experiment is perfromed.



Not true. I've already proven it false. If the experiment is done on the moon, the results are different. If you are standing in a vat of jello, the results are different. The experiment simply doesn't give the same results every time it is tried, it fully depends on the conditions and variables of the environment. You believe and have faith that forces of gravity will react predictably as they have before. If you are standing on Earth and not in jello, under normal conditions, you believe and have faith that gravity will do what gravity has done before. Granted, you do have very good reason to believe and have faith because you've observed the phenomenon before and it has been repeatedly tested. Still, you must have faith and believe it will happen again. This is tough to overcome because it is logic. 

Now.... can you present any example of something you absolutely do not believe or have faith in, that you consider to be "factual scientific knowledge?"


----------



## HUGGY

*Why do the God-haters persist? *

Why do the god myth apologists persist?


----------



## Derideo_Te

Boss said:


> All of this is scientifically measurable and repeatable and will give the same results each and every time the experiment is perfromed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. I've already proven it false. If the experiment is done on the moon, the results are different. If you are standing in a vat of jello, the results are different. The experiment simply doesn't give the same results every time it is tried, it fully depends on the conditions and variables of the environment. You believe and have faith that forces of gravity will react predictably as they have before. If you are standing on Earth and not in jello, under normal conditions, you believe and have faith that gravity will do what gravity has done before. Granted, you do have very good reason to believe and have faith because you've observed the phenomenon before and it has been repeatedly tested. Still, you must have faith and believe it will happen again. This is tough to overcome because it is logic.
> 
> Now.... can you present any example of something you absolutely do not believe or have faith in, that you consider to be "factual scientific knowledge?"
Click to expand...


Your ignorance of science is always so glaringly obvious. Changing the conditions means that you are not repeating the exact same experiment. Perform the experiment under the identical conditions and it will always yield the same results. 

It is illogical to change the conditions and then dishonestly allege that this equates to "proof" of belief and faith. You must have been home schooled to be this ignorant and illogical.


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a difference between hating believers or hating the belief and actually hating god.
> 
> Being an atheist in no way means being quiet about religion or not having any feelings about the beliefs of others.  I'm not sure why you feel all atheists are going to act the same way toward people of religious faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A true Atheist cannot hate what he doesn't believe in. That's why.
> 
> Now, there are lots and lots of people who CLAIM to be Atheists. That's a fact. And perhaps you are assuming they are telling the truth about that, and you figure they are simply behaving differently than other Athiests, I don't know. What I do know is, an Atheist can't hate what he doesn't believe in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that an atheist doesn't believe a god exists in no way means they cannot care about the fact that many others do hold such beliefs.  Nor does it mean they cannot or will not argue against religious belief, or hate religious beliefs, or hate believers.
> 
> You are operating under the assumption that not believing in god means not caring if others do, and that is a completely false assumption with no logical basis.
Click to expand...


I don't operate under assumptions. People lie about things all the time. They even lie to themselves sometimes. In fact, some people lie to themselve to the point they convince themselves of the lie. You cannot hate what you do not believe exists, it's impossible. 

When I come here and see thread after thread from supposed "atheists" who are chortling insults left and right, using perjoratives like "magic sky daddy" and "flying spaghetti monster" and "imaginary friend" ....that is sheer raw hate. These are people who are lying about their beliefs, perhaps even lying to themselves to the point they believe it. Living in pure denial of the fact that they DO believe in God and hate Him.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> A true Atheist cannot hate what he doesn't believe in. That's why.
> 
> Now, there are lots and lots of people who CLAIM to be Atheists. That's a fact. And perhaps you are assuming they are telling the truth about that, and you figure they are simply behaving differently than other Athiests, I don't know. What I do know is, an Atheist can't hate what he doesn't believe in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that an atheist doesn't believe a god exists in no way means they cannot care about the fact that many others do hold such beliefs.  Nor does it mean they cannot or will not argue against religious belief, or hate religious beliefs, or hate believers.
> 
> You are operating under the assumption that not believing in god means not caring if others do, and that is a completely false assumption with no logical basis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't operate under assumptions. *People lie about things all the time. They even lie to themselves sometimes.* In fact, some people lie to themselve to the point they convince themselves of the lie. You cannot hate what you do not believe exists, it's impossible.
> 
> When I come here and see thread after thread from supposed "atheists" who are chortling insults left and right, using perjoratives like "magic sky daddy" and "flying spaghetti monster" and "imaginary friend" ....that is sheer raw hate. These are people who are lying about their beliefs, perhaps even lying to themselves to the point they believe it. Living in pure denial of the fact that they DO believe in God and hate Him.
Click to expand...


Ironic!


----------



## Boss

Derideo_Te said:


> Your ignorance of science is always so glaringly obvious. Changing the conditions means that you are not repeating the exact same experiment. Perform the experiment under the identical conditions and it will always yield the same results.
> 
> It is illogical to change the conditions and then dishonestly allege that this equates to "proof" of belief and faith. You must have been home schooled to be this ignorant and illogical.



And your ignorance of logic is glaringly obvious as well. 

The exact same experiment is repeated, the conditions and parameters were changed but the experiment is the same. 

Even if you perform the experiment under identical conditions, it requires faith and belief. You must have faith and belief the effects of gravity will be the same as they have been previously and you will get the same results. What if, the moment you drop the hammer, some unknown and unprecedented phenomenon happened in our universe which rendered gravity impotent? Would the results be the same? You see, you have faith and belief that such a thing is not going to happen, and you're probably right. Still... it requires faith and belief, as does everything you believe.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your ignorance of science is always so glaringly obvious. Changing the conditions means that you are not repeating the exact same experiment. Perform the experiment under the identical conditions and it will always yield the same results.
> 
> It is illogical to change the conditions and then dishonestly allege that this equates to "proof" of belief and faith. You must have been home schooled to be this ignorant and illogical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your ignorance of logic is glaringly obvious as well.
> 
> The exact same experiment is repeated, the conditions and parameters were changed but the experiment is the same.
> 
> Even if you perform the experiment under identical conditions, it requires faith and belief. You must have faith and belief the effects of gravity will be the same as they have been previously and you will get the same results. *What if, the moment you drop the hammer, some unknown and unprecedented phenomenon happened in our universe which rendered gravity impotent? *Would the results be the same? You see, you have faith and belief that such a thing is not going to happen, and you're probably right. Still... it requires faith and belief, as does everything you believe.
Click to expand...


The conditions would have changed therefore the experiment is not being performed under identical circumstances. Same conditions equal identical results. Change any of them and you will get different results. That doesn't require belief or faith either. 

So far you have struck out every time!


----------



## Boss

> The conditions would have changed therefore the experiment is not being performed under identical circumstances. Same conditions equal identical results. Change any of them and you will get different results. That doesn't require belief or faith either.
> 
> So far you have struck out every time!



Hey, you're the one who gave the hammer experiment as an example. I simply showed where it failed your test of logic. The experiment doesn't automatically produce the same results, it depends on the conditions and other intangibles. It might produce the same results, you may be relatively certain it will, but you still need faith and belief to be absolutely certain it will. 

Everything you believe requires belief, and every belief requires faith. This is why you have ignored my challenge to present an example of something you do not believe or have faith in, yet you consider it factual scientific knowledge. Anything you can present, you have faith in and believe. Why is this so hard for you to accept? It's basic logic.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Boss said:


> The conditions would have changed therefore the experiment is not being performed under identical circumstances. Same conditions equal identical results. Change any of them and you will get different results. That doesn't require belief or faith either.
> 
> So far you have struck out every time!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, you're the one who gave the hammer experiment as an example. I simply showed where it failed your test of logic. The experiment doesn't automatically produce the same results, it depends on the conditions and other intangibles. It might produce the same results, you may be relatively certain it will, but you still need faith and belief to be absolutely certain it will.
> 
> Everything you believe requires belief, and every belief requires faith. This is why you have ignored my challenge to present an example of something you do not believe or have faith in, yet you consider it factual scientific knowledge. Anything you can present, you have faith in and believe. Why is this so hard for you to accept? It's basic logic.
Click to expand...


Yet another strike out! You are utterly clueless as to how the scientific method works. Your home schooling didn't do you any favors. It left you unable to cope with the real world that you inhabit. You are stuck in some delusional fantasy bubble instead. But that is your problem. Have a nice day!


----------



## Boss

*Present an example of something you do not believe or have faith in, yet you consider it factual scientific knowledge.*

This should not be that difficult for you if what you've stated is true. All I need is one example.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Boss said:


> *Present an example of something you do not believe or have faith in, yet you consider it factual scientific knowledge.*
> 
> This should not be that difficult for you if what you've stated is true. All I need is one example.



You already have an example and you have repeatedly struck out trying to establish your fallacious position. You don't get a 2nd helping until you finish your first one. 

Of course you can always admit that you are wrong!

But that would take honesty and integrity and we already know that a congenital liar like you has no integrity and is incapable of ever being honest.


----------



## Boss

Derideo_Te said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Present an example of something you do not believe or have faith in, yet you consider it factual scientific knowledge.*
> 
> This should not be that difficult for you if what you've stated is true. All I need is one example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You already have an example and you have repeatedly struck out trying to establish your fallacious position. You don't get a 2nd helping until you finish your first one.
> 
> Of course you can always admit that you are wrong!
> 
> But that would take honesty and integrity and we already know that a congenital liar like you has no integrity and is incapable of ever being honest.
Click to expand...


No, I don't have an example. You presented an example of an experiment using a hammer and gravity, but you certainly believe in gravity and have faith that gravity works, do you not? 

Again.. present an example of something you do not believe or have faith in, yet you consider it factual scientific knowledge. OR, just admit that I made a valid point you can't refute with logic. Either way is cool.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Present an example of something you do not believe or have faith in, yet you consider it factual scientific knowledge.*
> 
> This should not be that difficult for you if what you've stated is true. All I need is one example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You already have an example and you have repeatedly struck out trying to establish your fallacious position. You don't get a 2nd helping until you finish your first one.
> 
> Of course you can always admit that you are wrong!
> 
> But that would take honesty and integrity and we already know that a congenital liar like you has no integrity and is incapable of ever being honest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I don't have an example. You presented an example of an experiment using a hammer and gravity, but you certainly believe in gravity and have faith that gravity works, do you not?
> 
> Again.. present an example of something you do not believe or have faith in, yet you consider it factual scientific knowledge. OR, just admit that I made a valid point you can't refute with logic. Either way is cool.
Click to expand...


Strike 76!


----------



## Boss

Nadda, huh?


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I am sorry, but yes it does.
> 
> 
> 
> to you maybe in reality not so much.
> besides you have to say that or your already silly and ignorant argument will shatter.
> any way the point here is not that god haters nonsense it's true propose is to showcase your hubris and total self involvement... the rest is window dressing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, in reality. You have to believe something is A.) Factual B.) Scientific and C.) Knowledge in order to believe it. If you don't have faith in that belief, you can't believe it. It doesn't matter if that thing is "gravity" or "God" it still requires faith and belief.
Click to expand...

false you believe things that have none of those qualities... 
1. 
6 Interesting Facts About Religious Beliefs and Spirituality You Were Wrong About

Common Myths, Incorrect Information and More on Religion and Spirituality


Whether you're a member of a debate team, a hopeful game show contestant, or you like to argue for the sake of arguing to show off your knowledge of all material useful and useless alike (any sophists in the house?), this is the spot for you.
Many commonly held beliefs are misinterpreted or misunderstood. Many of those cocktail party conversation starters that you thought you were so special and brilliant for being able to spew out of your mouth, are untrue. Worse yet, much of the religious dogma and wisdom you cite as a measure of your faith and intelligence may be rooted in misconception, half-truths and factual incorrectness. Here, I'll look at the 6 most interesting things I found were untrue or misinterpreted about religious beliefs, spirituality and more.

1. 666 The Mark Of The... - ...Stuck key on your keyboard? Whatever it's the mark of, it is not the mark of the beast. That would be 616. At least that's what new translations of the earliest copies of the Book of Revelation reveal. It's not an entirely new movement either; Friedrich Engles found the number to be 616 and there were copies of the Bible in circulation with 616 as the number almost 2,000 years ago. The number is also said to not literally represent the devil but to actually represent either Caligula or Nero, oppressors of the early Christians.

2. The Voodoo Doll - The voodoo doll does not even exist. The majority of voodoo practices are focused on healing somebody, not harming somebody. While voodoo rituals did have a small wooden figure that would have twigs inserted into it, called a "bocheo", those twigs were said to channel healing energy. The figure that most closely resembles an actual voodoo doll is of European design and ancient Greek origins. Anything done to these poppet dolls were said to, with the help of the devil, happen to the subject. Early colonists and explorers assigned these more malicious practices to voodoo, which was then popularized in literature, theatre and lore, giving voodoo an undeserved evil and dark reputation.

3. The Twenty Wise Men - In the original Gospel of St. Mathew there were no three wise men. In fact there was no specific mention of how many wise men there were visiting Jesus at all. (Jesus is also said to be a young child and not a baby). The number varied from two to twenty and three wasn't chosen as the standard until the sixth century. In the last few years, sentiments have even included that it couldn't be ruled out that some or all of the visitors were actually women. While this may seem more unlikely, there is no specific mention of gender in the original doctrine either.

4. Save Some Money on Your Front Yard Manger - While St. Luke's Gospel states that Jesus was "laid in a manger" it is an assumption that Jesus was born in a stable. There is also no evidence of there being any animals, whatsoever. The familiar Nativity scene wasn't invented until the 13th century. That version included a baby Jesus, some hay, an ox and a donkey. Everything and everybody else was then added on as time went on and tradition spread.

5. Count Your Sheep - Make sure you get all of them, there was said to be at least seven sheep on Noah's Ark. While all unclean animals were taken aboard in a pairing of one male and one female, all clean animals were taken aboard with at least seven in total. Interpretations vary that this could mean seven males and seven females or seven altogether. Sheep, one of the clean animals, therefore came aboard in a group large enough for an automatic gratuity to already be added onto their bill.

6. Jesus and the Immaculate Conception - The problem with this is that the majority of people associate the birth of Jesus as the Immaculate Conception. The Immaculate Conception actually refers to the birth of Mary. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception (which wasn't adopted by the Catholic Church until 1854, by the way) states that Mary was granted immunity from sin and suspicion of sin as soon as she was conceived. It is the doctrine of the Virgin Birth that refers to Jesus' birth. The virgin birth of Jesus was also said to be a late addition to the religion, which started incorporating a broader spectrum of pagan ideas (the virgin birth idea had been used in Greek, Egyptian and Persian religion and mythology; but never Jewish) to appeal to the masses. Don't worry though, Franco Harris and the Immaculate Reception remain bound in fact.

Sources: John Lloyd and John Mitchinson, The Book of General Ignorance. Harmony Books, 2006.
6 Interesting Facts About Religious Beliefs and Spirituality You Were Wrong About - Yahoo Voices - voices.yahoo.com


----------



## Derideo_Te

Boss said:


> Nadda, huh?



Strike 77!


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> You are drowning in denial!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should be able to demonstrate that.
Click to expand...

he has, I have, everybody else has....your denial precludes you from seeing it..
both are fact and testable but you don't believe it....


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> You falsely allege that factual scientific knowledge requires faith and belief when it doesn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then present for us an example of something you have no faith or belief in that you consider to be factual scientific knowledge?
> 
> .........Waiting
Click to expand...

the tides ....the seasons...the cycle of the moon.
these and every other action reaction require no faith or belief 
you are attempting to imbue subjective notions to real world events 
faith and belief  are not cause and effect....


----------



## koshergrl

Derideo_Te said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The conditions would have changed therefore the experiment is not being performed under identical circumstances. Same conditions equal identical results. Change any of them and you will get different results. That doesn't require belief or faith either.
> 
> So far you have struck out every time!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, you're the one who gave the hammer experiment as an example. I simply showed where it failed your test of logic. The experiment doesn't automatically produce the same results, it depends on the conditions and other intangibles. It might produce the same results, you may be relatively certain it will, but you still need faith and belief to be absolutely certain it will.
> 
> Everything you believe requires belief, and every belief requires faith. This is why you have ignored my challenge to present an example of something you do not believe or have faith in, yet you consider it factual scientific knowledge. Anything you can present, you have faith in and believe. Why is this so hard for you to accept? It's basic logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet another strike out! You are utterly clueless as to how the scientific method works. Your home schooling didn't do you any favors. It left you unable to cope with the real world that you inhabit. You are stuck in some delusional fantasy bubble instead. But that is your problem. Have a nice day!
Click to expand...

 
There's that bigotry and hatred coming out.

It always does. Trust me, there are a lot of Christians who have a perfect understanding of how the scientific method works.

The existence of God is not dependent upon the application of the scientific method (which frequently leads to INCREDIBLE *scientific* misconceptions).


----------



## Derideo_Te

koshergrl said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, you're the one who gave the hammer experiment as an example. I simply showed where it failed your test of logic. The experiment doesn't automatically produce the same results, it depends on the conditions and other intangibles. It might produce the same results, you may be relatively certain it will, but you still need faith and belief to be absolutely certain it will.
> 
> Everything you believe requires belief, and every belief requires faith. This is why you have ignored my challenge to present an example of something you do not believe or have faith in, yet you consider it factual scientific knowledge. Anything you can present, you have faith in and believe. Why is this so hard for you to accept? It's basic logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet another strike out! You are utterly clueless as to how the scientific method works. Your home schooling didn't do you any favors. It left you unable to cope with the real world that you inhabit. You are stuck in some delusional fantasy bubble instead. But that is your problem. Have a nice day!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's that bigotry and hatred coming out.
> 
> It always does. *Trust me, there are a lot of Christians who have a perfect understanding of how the scientific method works.*
> 
> The existence of God is not dependent upon the application of the scientific method (which frequently leads to INCREDIBLE *scientific* misconceptions).
Click to expand...


Where did I say that Christians don't "have a perfect understanding of how the scientific method works"?

The OP has repeatedly stated that he is not a Christian and my comments are directed at him and him alone.


----------



## Boss

daws101 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You falsely allege that factual scientific knowledge requires faith and belief when it doesn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then present for us an example of something you have no faith or belief in that you consider to be factual scientific knowledge?
> 
> .........Waiting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the tides ....the seasons...the cycle of the moon.
> these and every other action reaction require no faith or belief
> you are attempting to imbue subjective notions to real world events
> faith and belief  are not cause and effect....
Click to expand...


Let the record show, dawsy doesn't believe or have faith in tides, seasons or cycles of the moon.   ...but he does believe in gravitons, right dawsy?


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> A true Atheist cannot hate what he doesn't believe in. That's why.
> 
> Now, there are lots and lots of people who CLAIM to be Atheists. That's a fact. And perhaps you are assuming they are telling the truth about that, and you figure they are simply behaving differently than other Athiests, I don't know. What I do know is, an Atheist can't hate what he doesn't believe in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that an atheist doesn't believe a god exists in no way means they cannot care about the fact that many others do hold such beliefs.  Nor does it mean they cannot or will not argue against religious belief, or hate religious beliefs, or hate believers.
> 
> You are operating under the assumption that not believing in god means not caring if others do, and that is a completely false assumption with no logical basis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't operate under assumptions. People lie about things all the time. They even lie to themselves sometimes. In fact, some people lie to themselve to the point they convince themselves of the lie. You cannot hate what you do not believe exists, it's impossible.
> 
> When I come here and see thread after thread from supposed "atheists" who are chortling insults left and right, using perjoratives like "magic sky daddy" and "flying spaghetti monster" and "imaginary friend" ....that is sheer raw hate. These are people who are lying about their beliefs, perhaps even lying to themselves to the point they believe it. Living in pure denial of the fact that they DO believe in God and hate Him.
Click to expand...

that's your hate talking the pejoratives ,insults are in actuality clever euphemisms for your imagined god..
they are in fact directed at you not god. 
if they offended god then, if he were as thin skinned as you are he would react.
where do you get off speaking for god anyway?
if god existed and gave a holy shit about this conversation it would be you bossy that would get gods wrath for being a pretentious snot..


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, you're the one who gave the hammer experiment as an example. I simply showed where it failed your test of logic. The experiment doesn't automatically produce the same results, it depends on the conditions and other intangibles. It might produce the same results, you may be relatively certain it will, but you still need faith and belief to be absolutely certain it will.
> 
> Everything you believe requires belief, and every belief requires faith. This is why you have ignored my challenge to present an example of something you do not believe or have faith in, yet you consider it factual scientific knowledge. Anything you can present, you have faith in and believe. Why is this so hard for you to accept? It's basic logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet another strike out! You are utterly clueless as to how the scientific method works. Your home schooling didn't do you any favors. It left you unable to cope with the real world that you inhabit. You are stuck in some delusional fantasy bubble instead. But that is your problem. Have a nice day!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's that bigotry and hatred coming out.
> 
> It always does. Trust me, there are a lot of Christians who have a perfect understanding of how the scientific method works.
> 
> The existence of God is not dependent upon the application of the scientific method (which frequently leads to INCREDIBLE *scientific* misconceptions).
Click to expand...

kosherhag the world's leading expert on bigotry and hatred..
btw those christian you're talking about laugh at "Christians" like you constantly....


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then present for us an example of something you have no faith or belief in that you consider to be factual scientific knowledge?
> 
> .........Waiting
> 
> 
> 
> the tides ....the seasons...the cycle of the moon.
> these and every other action reaction require no faith or belief
> you are attempting to imbue subjective notions to real world events
> faith and belief  are not cause and effect....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let the record show, dawsy doesn't believe or have faith in tides, seasons or cycles of the moon.   ...but he does believe in gravitons, right dawsy?
Click to expand...

still stinging from being punked are we?

you still believe in your sky daddy?


----------



## koshergrl

My point stands. The scientific method has absolutely no bearing on the existence of spirtuality, the validity of it, the existence of a higher power, nor can it determine the existence of *faith*.


----------



## SillyWabbit

R.C. Christian said:


> If I lived in CA I'd probably hate God too.



Why does everyone have to fuck with CA? I live in CA. I don't hate God. Now how _God_ feels about the people of CA, that's a whole other story.


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> My point stands. The scientific method has absolutely no bearing on the existence of spirtuality, the validity of it, the existence of a higher power, nor can it determine the existence of *faith*.


of course it can, faith exist as a thought /memory/action..
people act on faith all the time 
thought memory and actions can and are studied by science. there is no question that faith exists...


----------



## daws101

SillyWabbit said:


> R.C. Christian said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I lived in CA I'd probably hate God too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why does everyone have to fuck with CA? I live in CA. I don't hate God. Now how _God_ feels about the people of CA, that's a whole other story.
Click to expand...

so do I and it's sheer jealousy.


----------



## Derideo_Te

koshergrl said:


> My point stands. The scientific method has absolutely no bearing on the existence of spirtuality, the validity of it, the existence of a higher power, nor can it determine the existence of *faith*.



Agreed, but that is not the point the OP is trying to make. He is alleging the existence of a mythical "spiritual energy" and claiming that people's feelings of spirituality are "evidence" of this "spiritual energy". He has invoked Darwin and alleged that only mankind is capable of a "spiritual connection" to his mythical "spiritual energy" only to be proven wrong when evidence of spirituality exists in Neanderthal sites that predate human ones. He also alleges that anyone who successfully debunks his absurdities is a de facto "god hater". Too bad that his own posts expose the OP as a Christian hater. 

So, unlike you, the OP is making ludicrous claims that he cannot substantiate. As you stated there are plenty of Christians who understand and embrace the scientific method. The OP would classify them as "god haters" too if they were to hold up his allegations to any kind of scrutiny.


----------



## koshergrl

My point is that whether or not something can be substantiated is in no way EVIDENCE that it doesn't exist.

It's just evidence that man can't figure it out.


----------



## Derideo_Te

koshergrl said:


> My point is that whether or not something can be substantiated is in no way EVIDENCE that it doesn't exist.
> 
> It's just evidence that man can't figure it out.



And no one is making that claim either. 

But the OP is alleging that we have to prove that his "spiritual energy" does NOT exist. That is not how it works. If you make a claim that something exists you have to either (a) prove it via the scientific method, or (b) say that you believe that it exists. 

Your belief in God is based upon your faith. That is perfectly understandable and you don't go around expecting others to prove via the scientific method that he doesn't. 

However the OP is doing that and that is just not acceptable.


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> My point is that whether or not something can be substantiated is in no way EVIDENCE that it doesn't exist.
> 
> It's just evidence that man can't figure it out.


false! you claim faith is substantiation
do you not? for you that is evidence..the problem is it's subjective and anecdotal.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> A true Atheist cannot hate what he doesn't believe in. That's why.
> 
> Now, there are lots and lots of people who CLAIM to be Atheists. That's a fact. And perhaps you are assuming they are telling the truth about that, and you figure they are simply behaving differently than other Athiests, I don't know. What I do know is, an Atheist can't hate what he doesn't believe in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that an atheist doesn't believe a god exists in no way means they cannot care about the fact that many others do hold such beliefs.  Nor does it mean they cannot or will not argue against religious belief, or hate religious beliefs, or hate believers.
> 
> You are operating under the assumption that not believing in god means not caring if others do, and that is a completely false assumption with no logical basis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't operate under assumptions. People lie about things all the time. They even lie to themselves sometimes. In fact, some people lie to themselve to the point they convince themselves of the lie. You cannot hate what you do not believe exists, it's impossible.
> 
> When I come here and see thread after thread from supposed "atheists" who are chortling insults left and right, using perjoratives like "magic sky daddy" and "flying spaghetti monster" and "imaginary friend" ....that is sheer raw hate. These are people who are lying about their beliefs, perhaps even lying to themselves to the point they believe it. Living in pure denial of the fact that they DO believe in God and hate Him.
Click to expand...


Let me get this straight.  You claim not to operate under assumptions, yet turn around and say that people who argue against the existence of god(s) are, in fact, secretly believers in god(s), and your evidence for this is the voracity with which they argue?

OK, you go with that.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Boss said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then present for us an example of something you have no faith or belief in that you consider to be factual scientific knowledge?
> 
> .........Waiting
> 
> 
> 
> the tides ....the seasons...the cycle of the moon.
> these and every other action reaction require no faith or belief
> you are attempting to imbue subjective notions to real world events
> faith and belief  are not cause and effect....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let the record show, dawsy doesn't believe or have faith in tides, seasons or cycles of the moon.   ...but he does believe in gravitons, right dawsy?
Click to expand...


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the tides ....the seasons...the cycle of the moon.
> these and every other action reaction require no faith or belief
> you are attempting to imbue subjective notions to real world events
> faith and belief  are not cause and effect....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let the record show, dawsy doesn't believe or have faith in tides, seasons or cycles of the moon.   ...but he does believe in gravitons, right dawsy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> still stinging from being punked are we?
> 
> you still believe in your sky daddy?
Click to expand...


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> SillyWabbit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R.C. Christian said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I lived in CA I'd probably hate God too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why does everyone have to fuck with CA? I live in CA. I don't hate God. Now how _God_ feels about the people of CA, that's a whole other story.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so do I and it's sheer jealousy.
Click to expand...


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the tides ....the seasons...the cycle of the moon.
> these and every other action reaction require no faith or belief
> you are attempting to imbue subjective notions to real world events
> faith and belief  are not cause and effect....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let the record show, dawsy doesn't believe or have faith in tides, seasons or cycles of the moon.   ...but he does believe in gravitons, right dawsy?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

slow day at the creation museum?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the record show, dawsy doesn't believe or have faith in tides, seasons or cycles of the moon.   ...but he does believe in gravitons, right dawsy?
> 
> 
> 
> still stinging from being punked are we?
> 
> you still believe in your sky daddy?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

ken hamm not returning your calls


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SillyWabbit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why does everyone have to fuck with CA? I live in CA. I don't hate God. Now how _God_ feels about the people of CA, that's a whole other story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so do I and it's sheer jealousy.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

watched any fruit flies fuck lately?


----------



## Boss

Derideo_Te said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> My point stands. The scientific method has absolutely no bearing on the existence of spirtuality, the validity of it, the existence of a higher power, nor can it determine the existence of *faith*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed, but that is not the point the OP is trying to make. He is alleging the existence of a mythical "spiritual energy" and claiming that people's feelings of spirituality are "evidence" of this "spiritual energy". He has invoked Darwin and alleged that only mankind is capable of a "spiritual connection" to his mythical "spiritual energy" only to be proven wrong when evidence of spirituality exists in Neanderthal sites that predate human ones. He also alleges that anyone who successfully debunks his absurdities is a de facto "god hater". Too bad that his own posts expose the OP as a Christian hater.
> 
> So, unlike you, the OP is making ludicrous claims that he cannot substantiate. As you stated there are plenty of Christians who understand and embrace the scientific method. The OP would classify them as "god haters" too if they were to hold up his allegations to any kind of scrutiny.
Click to expand...


Stop lying to people, asshole. I've made no such arguments. The OP is about the difference between true Atheists and God-haters. I've substantiated every claim I've made, you've not refuted them, and so now you're just bowing up and lying through your shit-stained teeth, like the low-life trash you are. You've not held up anything to scrutiny, you have twisted and wiggled around logic at every turn to avoid admitting you've had your ass handed to you. It's not my job to prove spiritual nature to you, it's your job to disprove it if you are going to claim it doesn't exist. So far, you have failed to do so. I couldn't care less if you believe it or don't believe it, makes no difference to me or the God I believe in.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> My point stands. The scientific method has absolutely no bearing on the existence of spirtuality, the validity of it, the existence of a higher power, nor can it determine the existence of *faith*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed, but that is not the point the OP is trying to make. He is alleging the existence of a mythical "spiritual energy" and claiming that people's feelings of spirituality are "evidence" of this "spiritual energy". He has invoked Darwin and alleged that only mankind is capable of a "spiritual connection" to his mythical "spiritual energy" only to be proven wrong when evidence of spirituality exists in Neanderthal sites that predate human ones. He also alleges that anyone who successfully debunks his absurdities is a de facto "god hater". Too bad that his own posts expose the OP as a Christian hater.
> 
> So, unlike you, the OP is making ludicrous claims that he cannot substantiate. As you stated there are plenty of Christians who understand and embrace the scientific method. The OP would classify them as "god haters" too if they were to hold up his allegations to any kind of scrutiny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop lying to people, asshole. I've made no such arguments. The OP is about the difference between true Atheists and God-haters. I've substantiated every claim I've made, you've not refuted them, and so now you're just bowing up and lying through your shit-stained teeth, like the low-life trash you are. You've not held up anything to scrutiny, you have twisted and wiggled around logic at every turn to avoid admitting you've had your ass handed to you. It's not my job to prove spiritual nature to you, it's your job to disprove it if you are going to claim it doesn't exist. So far, you have failed to do so. I couldn't care less if you believe it or don't believe it, makes no difference to me or the God I believe in.
Click to expand...


Considering the insults and vitriol in this reply, shall I assume you are a god-hater?


----------



## Boss

> Considering the insults and vitriol in this reply, shall I assume you are a god-hater?



Gee, I don't see where I said anything about insults and vitriol automatically being God-hate. Nope, not there. Didn't say it, wasn't my argument or point. But thanks for demonstrating what a totally incompetent dickhead you are.


----------



## Boss

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> so do I and it's sheer jealousy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> watched any fruit flies fuck lately?
Click to expand...


Heard any good April Fool's jokes lately, Mr. Graviton?


----------



## Derideo_Te

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> My point stands. The scientific method has absolutely no bearing on the existence of spirtuality, the validity of it, the existence of a higher power, nor can it determine the existence of *faith*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed, but that is not the point the OP is trying to make. He is alleging the existence of a mythical "spiritual energy" and claiming that people's feelings of spirituality are "evidence" of this "spiritual energy". He has invoked Darwin and alleged that only mankind is capable of a "spiritual connection" to his mythical "spiritual energy" only to be proven wrong when evidence of spirituality exists in Neanderthal sites that predate human ones. He also alleges that anyone who successfully debunks his absurdities is a de facto "god hater". Too bad that his own posts expose the OP as a Christian hater.
> 
> So, unlike you, the OP is making ludicrous claims that he cannot substantiate. As you stated there are plenty of Christians who understand and embrace the scientific method. The OP would classify them as "god haters" too if they were to hold up his allegations to any kind of scrutiny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop lying to people, asshole. I've made no such arguments. The OP is about the difference between true Atheists and God-haters. I've substantiated every claim I've made, you've not refuted them, and so now you're just bowing up and lying through your shit-stained teeth, like the low-life trash you are. You've not held up anything to scrutiny, you have twisted and wiggled around logic at every turn to avoid admitting you've had your ass handed to you. *It's not my job to prove spiritual nature to you, it's your job to disprove it *if you are going to claim it doesn't exist. So far, you have failed to do so. I couldn't care less if you believe it or don't believe it, makes no difference to me or the God I believe in.
Click to expand...


Do you seriously want to defend someone like this, KG? Whereas your position is consistent the OP has just admitted to demanding "evidence" as opposed to being honest and relying on faith for his beliefs. It doesn't help that he resorts to vulgarities and insults whenever anyone exposes the truth about his dissembling.  

In my opinion you are better off without him since he is doing those of true faith way more harm than good.


----------



## Boss

What an egotistical self-important hick.


----------



## Spiderman

Boss said:


> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.



Not believing the god myth does not equal hate.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Boss said:


> What an egotistical self-important hick.



Ironic!


----------



## Boss

Spiderman said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not believing the god myth does not equal hate.
Click to expand...


Never claimed it did. Perhaps you should read the OP again, maybe you can grasp the point next time?


----------



## Spiderman

Boss said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not believing the god myth does not equal hate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never claimed it did. Perhaps you should read the OP again, maybe you can grasp the point next time?
Click to expand...


Thin skinned believers are just as bad as thin skinned nonbelievers


----------



## Boss

> Thin skinned believers are just as bad as thin skinned nonbelievers



Yeah? You read it again and that's what you came up with? Maybe a third try?


----------



## Spiderman

Boss said:


> Thin skinned believers are just as bad as thin skinned nonbelievers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah? You read it again and that's what you came up with? Maybe a third try?
Click to expand...


Yeah more whining about "haters"

grow a set.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Considering the insults and vitriol in this reply, shall I assume you are a god-hater?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, I don't see where I said anything about insults and vitriol automatically being God-hate. Nope, not there. Didn't say it, wasn't my argument or point. But thanks for demonstrating what a totally incompetent dickhead you are.
Click to expand...


No, you didn't....but you DID equate insults and vitriol to god-haters and the supposed secret believers.

Perhaps you are upset that I am mocking the assumptions you supposedly don't make instead of mocking god?


----------



## HUGGY

daws101 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are drowning in denial!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should be able to demonstrate that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> he has, I have, everybody else has....your denial precludes you from seeing it..
> both are fact and testable but you don't believe it....
Click to expand...


People that choose their own reality arbitrarily apart from the facts are technically mentally ill.


----------



## BreezeWood

BreezeWood said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I know humans who have such a profound spiritual connection*, they would have no fear in the midst of a tiger - It depends on the human in question *and how strong their faith is* - So your question, while it may seem to have an obvious answer, does not..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> who's talking about faith - or science ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know humans who have such a profound spiritual connection ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ok, you want it simple, what is your basis the Tiger does not have the same spiritual connection ?
> 
> 
> 
> *Why do the God-haters persist?*
> 
> is that anyone that represents Spirituality for all that is living ?  .... or God created life without soul's for the purpose to please mankind - otherwise you are a hater ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiritual connection of humans is not an emotion of God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what or why does it then exist ? - you and theword might consider a conference call.
> 
> .
Click to expand...



bump, just for kicks ...

"what is your basis the Tiger does not have the same spiritual connection ?"



*Why do the God-haters persist?*

seriously ... is it your goal to destroy all other life as a member of the NRA using your God to be consciously correct ? ... i guess the attempted hummer will preclude an answer to the above, again.


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> watched any fruit flies fuck lately?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heard any good April Fool's jokes lately, Mr. Graviton?
Click to expand...

yeah the one I pulled on you..


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> What an egotistical self-important hick.


I never thought you admit that about yourself....
your intellectual facade is crumbling...


----------



## daws101

HUGGY said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should be able to demonstrate that.
> 
> 
> 
> he has, I have, everybody else has....your denial precludes you from seeing it..
> both are fact and testable but you don't believe it....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People that choose their own reality arbitrarily apart from the facts are technically mentally ill.
Click to expand...

boosy is definitely one of those.


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Considering the insults and vitriol in this reply, shall I assume you are a god-hater?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, I don't see where I said anything about insults and vitriol automatically being God-hate. Nope, not there. Didn't say it, wasn't my argument or point. But thanks for demonstrating what a totally incompetent dickhead you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you didn't....but you DID equate insults and vitriol to god-haters and the supposed secret believers.
> 
> Perhaps you are upset that I am mocking the assumptions you supposedly don't make instead of mocking god?
Click to expand...


Uhm... no... I did not equate insults and vitriol to God-haters. I stated factually that true Atheists can't hate what they don't believe exists. Now I certainly do believe that God-haters exist. I submit that God-haters are not Atheists as they claim to be. God-haters can insult God all day long, I can insult you all day long. Atheists have no rational reason to insult God or believers in God because they don't believe God exists. 

I'm not upset. I'm sorry that you have misinterpreted my insults as me being upset, and perhaps you need to feel like I am upset and you've done the upsetting. To me, this is more evidence that you are a true believer in God and hate Him.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, I don't see where I said anything about insults and vitriol automatically being God-hate. Nope, not there. Didn't say it, wasn't my argument or point. But thanks for demonstrating what a totally incompetent dickhead you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you didn't....but you DID equate insults and vitriol to god-haters and the supposed secret believers.
> 
> Perhaps you are upset that I am mocking the assumptions you supposedly don't make instead of mocking god?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uhm... no... I did not equate insults and vitriol to God-haters. I stated factually that true Atheists can't hate what they don't believe exists. Now I certainly do believe that God-haters exist. I submit that God-haters are not Atheists as they claim to be. God-haters can insult God all day long, I can insult you all day long. Atheists have no rational reason to insult God or believers in God because they don't believe God exists.
> 
> I'm not upset. I'm sorry that you have misinterpreted my insults as me being upset, and perhaps you need to feel like I am upset and you've done the upsetting. To me, this is more evidence that you are a true believer in God and hate Him.
Click to expand...


Of course that's what you think.  Clearly you have a problem accepting the possibility that people without faith might argue or mock those who do have it.  That's fairly silly, considering how often people of opposing faiths argue with or mock those of different beliefs.

Rarely do I see a self-proclaimed atheist insult god as though they believe in it.  Where you get the idea that mocking believers or mocking belief systems/religions is somehow an admittance that a god exists, I don't know; then again, most of what you post falls into that category.  

Is there a rational reason to insult anyone for any reason?  If so, do those reasons never apply to atheists regarding those with faith?

Do you somehow expect atheists to be always rational in their actions?  Are you, perhaps, mistaking atheists for Vulcans?  

I realize atheists can't hate a thing they don't believe exists.  That is why I have, over and over, pointed out that hating a system of beliefs is not the same as hating the supposed entity that belief system is based around.  It is why I have, over and over, pointed out that hating people who believe in a god is not the same as hating the god in which they believe.

If someone were to hate Santa Claus, to denigrate and insult in extreme measure either the children who believe in him or the parents who perpetuate the myth, would you assume such a person secretly believes in Santa?

If a person of faith hates the Flying Spaghetti Monster, would you assume they believe in his noodley appendages?

I can only suppose that your insistence is somehow connected to your belief about human spirituality; perhaps you think people who truly have no spiritual beliefs must be vanishingly rare, I don't know.  It certainly doesn't make sense that only atheists should be rational as well as polite about faith.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you didn't....but you DID equate insults and vitriol to god-haters and the supposed secret believers.
> 
> Perhaps you are upset that I am mocking the assumptions you supposedly don't make instead of mocking god?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uhm... no... I did not equate insults and vitriol to God-haters. I stated factually that true Atheists can't hate what they don't believe exists. Now I certainly do believe that God-haters exist. I submit that God-haters are not Atheists as they claim to be. God-haters can insult God all day long, I can insult you all day long. Atheists have no rational reason to insult God or believers in God because they don't believe God exists.
> 
> I'm not upset. I'm sorry that you have misinterpreted my insults as me being upset, and perhaps you need to feel like I am upset and you've done the upsetting. To me, this is more evidence that you are a true believer in God and hate Him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course that's what you think.  Clearly you have a problem accepting the possibility that people without faith might argue or mock those who do have it.  That's fairly silly, considering how often people of opposing faiths argue with or mock those of different beliefs.
> 
> Rarely do I see a self-proclaimed atheist insult god as though they believe in it.  Where you get the idea that mocking believers or mocking belief systems/religions is somehow an admittance that a god exists, I don't know; then again, most of what you post falls into that category.
> 
> Is there a rational reason to insult anyone for any reason?  If so, do those reasons never apply to atheists regarding those with faith?
> 
> Do you somehow expect atheists to be always rational in their actions?  Are you, perhaps, mistaking atheists for Vulcans?
> 
> I realize atheists can't hate a thing they don't believe exists.  That is why I have, over and over, pointed out that hating a system of beliefs is not the same as hating the supposed entity that belief system is based around.  It is why I have, over and over, pointed out that hating people who believe in a god is not the same as hating the god in which they believe.
> 
> If someone were to hate Santa Claus, to denigrate and insult in extreme measure either the children who believe in him or the parents who perpetuate the myth, would you assume such a person secretly believes in Santa?
> 
> If a person of faith hates the Flying Spaghetti Monster, would you assume they believe in his noodley appendages?
> 
> I can only suppose that your insistence is somehow connected to your belief about human spirituality; *perhaps you think people who truly have no spiritual beliefs must be vanishingly rare, *I don't know.  It certainly doesn't make sense that only atheists should be rational as well as polite about faith.
Click to expand...


Quiet the opposite as a matter of fact. Atheists, agnostics, non adherents to any one faith now comprise the 3rd or 4th largest group in the entire world today when people are asked to self identify their religious beliefs. Even in the USA that group is the fastest growing of all. 

Statistics on Religion in America Report -- Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life

You wouldn't believe it but atheism is now world's third biggest 'faith' after Christianity and Islam | Mail Online


----------



## Boss

And here we see DoritoTea reinforcing his facade by showing some rather specious statistics. 

As I said in the OP, the God-haters are lying about their Atheism. So all of these stats which show this massive growing trend of Atheism is largely the lying God-haters, who claim to be Atheists but are not. 

Nihilism is the belief in nothing. No spirituality whatsoever. Surveys vary, but there has never been a survey of significance which has shown more than about 5~7% who identify as Nihilists worldwide, and even in the most Atheistic of all regions (Scandinavia) only about 10~12% identify as Nihilists. 

Now it seems to me there are an awful lot of Atheists who don't quite feel comfortable making the leap to Nihilism. Perhaps they are Atheists in the sense they reject theism and belief in deities but still accept there is a spiritual nature of some kind. Or maybe they are lying asswipes like DoritoTea, who really do believe in God and just hate Him. In any event, it appears the overwhelming majority of humans do believe in something.


----------



## Boss

> If someone were to hate Santa Claus, to denigrate and insult in extreme measure either the children who believe in him or the parents who perpetuate the myth, would you assume such a person secretly believes in Santa?



I would say that if you had someone who devoted vast number of hours each day to seeking out the children who believe in Santa and "informing" them they are idiots and morons, ridiculing them, insulting them, coming up with every thinkable way to denigrate them for believing in Santa.... they either have mental problems or they must believe Santa is real. Probably both. 

The fact remains, you can't hate something you don't believe in. There is no rational reason for the hate and vitriol we see from the God-haters, if they are legitimately Atheists. Oh they may have some dismissive comment to interject now and again, but by-and-large, the people who believed in God and the concept itself, wouldn't mean anything to them.  As we see here, it very much does mean something to God-haters.


----------



## Imperious

It's because they want to assure themselves that they are right, and they believe that shoving their views in everyone's face is the only way for confirmation, it's pathetic and childish really. I also believe that some people feel that they want to prove that no one can control them, and that they are themselves, so as a result, they try to prove that no god can ever control their actions, and that they do what they want when they want, a massive ego trip. I believe that there are many other reasons behind this too, some stimulate from being pressured by parents, others are just looking for something/someone to blame and they feel that god and/or a higher power is a easy target.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed, but that is not the point the OP is trying to make. He is alleging the existence of a mythical "spiritual energy" and claiming that people's feelings of spirituality are "evidence" of this "spiritual energy". He has invoked Darwin and alleged that only mankind is capable of a "spiritual connection" to his mythical "spiritual energy" only to be proven wrong when evidence of spirituality exists in Neanderthal sites that predate human ones. He also alleges that anyone who successfully debunks his absurdities is a de facto "god hater". Too bad that his own posts expose the OP as a Christian hater.
> 
> So, unlike you, the OP is making ludicrous claims that he cannot substantiate. As you stated there are plenty of Christians who understand and embrace the scientific method. The OP would classify them as "god haters" too if they were to hold up his allegations to any kind of scrutiny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop lying to people, asshole. I've made no such arguments. The OP is about the difference between true Atheists and God-haters. I've substantiated every claim I've made, you've not refuted them, and so now you're just bowing up and lying through your shit-stained teeth, like the low-life trash you are. You've not held up anything to scrutiny, you have twisted and wiggled around logic at every turn to avoid admitting you've had your ass handed to you. It's not my job to prove spiritual nature to you, it's your job to disprove it if you are going to claim it doesn't exist. So far, you have failed to do so. I couldn't care less if you believe it or don't believe it, makes no difference to me or the God I believe in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Considering the insults and vitriol in this reply, shall I assume you are a god-hater?
Click to expand...


That comes through loud and clear in his posts. 

He's free to believe whatever gets him through the night but its not god. That's for sure.


----------



## Luddly Neddite




----------



## Luddly Neddite




----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> And here we see DoritoTea reinforcing his facade by showing some rather specious statistics.
> 
> As I said in the OP, the God-haters are lying about their Atheism. So all of these stats which show this massive growing trend of Atheism is largely the lying God-haters, who claim to be Atheists but are not.
> 
> Nihilism is the belief in nothing. No spirituality whatsoever. Surveys vary, but there has never been a survey of significance which has shown more than about 5~7% who identify as Nihilists worldwide, and even in the most Atheistic of all regions (Scandinavia) only about 10~12% identify as Nihilists.
> 
> Now it seems to me there are an awful lot of Atheists who don't quite feel comfortable making the leap to Nihilism. Perhaps they are Atheists in the sense they reject theism and belief in deities but still accept there is a spiritual nature of some kind. Or maybe they are lying asswipes like DoritoTea, who really do believe in God and just hate Him. In any event, it appears the overwhelming majority of humans do believe in something.



A couple of problems with your statements here.

First, I don't know what definition of nihilism you are using, but 'belief in nothing, no spirituality whatsoever' is not one I've seen.  

Second, even if we were to accept your definition of nihilism, that it is somehow related to spiritual faith and merely a synonym for atheism, I'd guess that many people do not know the definition.  I'd guess that surveys about religious/spiritual belief rarely, if ever, put nihilism as a choice.  And most importantly, if atheism and nihilism are synonymous, as you seem to claim, why would a survey put both of them down as choices?

So.  You don't believe that very many people could truly disbelieve in god.  That's fine, and I disagree.  However, supposed evidence you're providing has been thin, at best.  Why not just say you believe you know what people really think, rather than what they claim, and be done with it?


----------



## Derideo_Te

Boss said:


> And here we see DoritoTea reinforcing his facade by showing some rather specious statistics.
> 
> As I said in the OP, the God-haters are lying about their Atheism. So all of these stats which show this massive growing trend of Atheism is largely the lying God-haters, who claim to be Atheists but are not.
> 
> Nihilism is the belief in nothing. No spirituality whatsoever. Surveys vary, but there has never been a survey of significance which has shown more than about 5~7% who identify as Nihilists worldwide, and even in the most Atheistic of all regions (Scandinavia) only about 10~12% identify as Nihilists.
> 
> Now it seems to me there are an awful lot of Atheists who don't quite feel comfortable making the leap to Nihilism. Perhaps they are Atheists in the sense they reject theism and belief in deities but still accept there is a spiritual nature of some kind. Or maybe they are lying asswipes like DoritoTea, who really do believe in God and just hate Him. In any event, it appears the overwhelming majority of humans do believe in something.



More pathetic lies from the OP!

The surveys are credible and you can't factually refute them!

Atheism is not equal to nihilism no matter what the voices in your head tell you. 

Your inability to engage in civil discourse will be dealt with in full accordance with USMB rules!


----------



## BreezeWood

> Imperious said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's because they want to assure themselves that they are right, and they believe that shoving their views in everyone's face is the only way for confirmation ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Boss:* We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. *Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh?* But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout believers in God, *who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him.* To put it in simple terms, they fear God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> the God-haters are lying about their Atheism.
> 
> Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh?
> 
> who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him.
> 
> 
> *Boss: If we can't have an honest dialogue ...*
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



* clue Boss, where's the honesty ?

.


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> And here we see DoritoTea reinforcing his facade by showing some rather specious statistics.
> 
> As I said in the OP, the God-haters are lying about their Atheism. So all of these stats which show this massive growing trend of Atheism is largely the lying God-haters, who claim to be Atheists but are not.
> 
> Nihilism is the belief in nothing. No spirituality whatsoever. Surveys vary, but there has never been a survey of significance which has shown more than about 5~7% who identify as Nihilists worldwide, and even in the most Atheistic of all regions (Scandinavia) only about 10~12% identify as Nihilists.
> 
> Now it seems to me there are an awful lot of Atheists who don't quite feel comfortable making the leap to Nihilism. Perhaps they are Atheists in the sense they reject theism and belief in deities but still accept there is a spiritual nature of some kind. Or maybe they are lying asswipes like DoritoTea, who really do believe in God and just hate Him. In any event, it appears the overwhelming majority of humans do believe in something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A couple of problems with your statements here.
> 
> First, I don't know what definition of nihilism you are using, but 'belief in nothing, no spirituality whatsoever' is not one I've seen.
> 
> Second, even if we were to accept your definition of nihilism, that it is somehow related to spiritual faith and merely a synonym for atheism, I'd guess that many people do not know the definition.  I'd guess that surveys about religious/spiritual belief rarely, if ever, put nihilism as a choice.  And most importantly, if atheism and nihilism are synonymous, as you seem to claim, why would a survey put both of them down as choices?
> 
> So.  You don't believe that very many people could truly disbelieve in god.  That's fine, and I disagree.  However, supposed evidence you're providing has been thin, at best.  Why not just say you believe you know what people really think, rather than what they claim, and be done with it?
Click to expand...


I never said that Nihilism is synonymous with Atheism. Certainly they are not synonymous. But yet again we see the eagerness of yourself and others to be deliberately dishonest. Why do you do this? What purpose do you have to distort my words into lies? 

It's not that I don't believe very many people could disbelieve in God, it's that I believe many people claim to disbelieve and they are lying. I personally know a lot of real-life Atheists. Not a single one of them has ever mocked me or my beliefs, called God "sky daddy" or any other pejorative, or spent much time at all denigrating the faith of others. They simply couldn't care less. As I said before, I have certain family members who define ME as an Atheist because I reject organized religions. I would never define myself as such, but I see their point. 

I am a psychologist, I study behavior in humans. When I come here and I see people who are spending day after day in thread after thread, denouncing, bemoaning, ridiculing and denigrating God and those who believe in God, I can't help but think I am seeing classic "cognitive dissonance" in all it's glory. These are not true Atheists, although they claim to be and perhaps have even sociopathically convinced themselves they are. I can't speak to their motives, everyone has their own reasonings for their behavior. I just don't believe they are true Atheists because a true Atheist wouldn't be this obsessed. 

Someone who does believe in God but hates God, is not going to come right out and admit that. It's like a pathological liar telling you, "hey, don't believe a word I say because I lie all the time!" Humans don't behave this way. We often hide our true feelings and pretend we are something else, especially if our true feelings leave us vulnerable. This is why the God-haters pretend to be Atheists. However, it is their obsession with God and vehement hatred of all things associated with God, which reveals who they really are.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> And here we see DoritoTea reinforcing his facade by showing some rather specious statistics.
> 
> As I said in the OP, the God-haters are lying about their Atheism. So all of these stats which show this massive growing trend of Atheism is largely the lying God-haters, who claim to be Atheists but are not.
> 
> Nihilism is the belief in nothing. No spirituality whatsoever. Surveys vary, but there has never been a survey of significance which has shown more than about 5~7% who identify as Nihilists worldwide, and even in the most Atheistic of all regions (Scandinavia) only about 10~12% identify as Nihilists.
> 
> Now it seems to me there are an awful lot of Atheists who don't quite feel comfortable making the leap to Nihilism. Perhaps they are Atheists in the sense they reject theism and belief in deities but still accept there is a spiritual nature of some kind. Or maybe they are lying asswipes like DoritoTea, who really do believe in God and just hate Him. In any event, it appears the overwhelming majority of humans do believe in something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A couple of problems with your statements here.
> 
> First, I don't know what definition of nihilism you are using, but 'belief in nothing, no spirituality whatsoever' is not one I've seen.
> 
> Second, even if we were to accept your definition of nihilism, that it is somehow related to spiritual faith and merely a synonym for atheism, I'd guess that many people do not know the definition.  I'd guess that surveys about religious/spiritual belief rarely, if ever, put nihilism as a choice.  And most importantly, if atheism and nihilism are synonymous, as you seem to claim, why would a survey put both of them down as choices?
> 
> So.  You don't believe that very many people could truly disbelieve in god.  That's fine, and I disagree.  However, supposed evidence you're providing has been thin, at best.  Why not just say you believe you know what people really think, rather than what they claim, and be done with it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said that Nihilism is synonymous with Atheism. Certainly they are not synonymous. But yet again we see the eagerness of yourself and others to be deliberately dishonest. Why do you do this? What purpose do you have to distort my words into lies?
> 
> It's not that I don't believe very many people could disbelieve in God, it's that I believe many people claim to disbelieve and they are lying. I personally know a lot of real-life Atheists. Not a single one of them has ever mocked me or my beliefs, called God "sky daddy" or any other pejorative, or spent much time at all denigrating the faith of others. They simply couldn't care less. As I said before, I have certain family members who define ME as an Atheist because I reject organized religions. I would never define myself as such, but I see their point.
> 
> *I am a psychologist, I study behavior in humans*. When I come here and I see people who are spending day after day in thread after thread, denouncing, bemoaning, ridiculing and denigrating God and those who believe in God, I can't help but think I am seeing classic "cognitive dissonance" in all it's glory. These are not true Atheists, although they claim to be and perhaps have even sociopathically convinced themselves they are. I can't speak to their motives, everyone has their own reasonings for their behavior. I just don't believe they are true Atheists because a true Atheist wouldn't be this obsessed.
> 
> Someone who does believe in God but hates God, is not going to come right out and admit that. It's like a pathological liar telling you, "hey, don't believe a word I say because I lie all the time!" Humans don't behave this way. We often hide our true feelings and pretend we are something else, especially if our true feelings leave us vulnerable. This is why the God-haters pretend to be Atheists. However, it is their obsession with God and vehement hatred of all things associated with God, which reveals who they really are.
Click to expand...


     


         

          ​


----------



## BreezeWood

whoever convinced Boss they "hate" God and not scriptural religion ?


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> And here we see DoritoTea reinforcing his facade by showing some rather specious statistics.
> 
> As I said in the OP, the God-haters are lying about their Atheism. So all of these stats which show this massive growing trend of Atheism is largely the lying God-haters, who claim to be Atheists but are not.
> 
> Nihilism is the belief in nothing. No spirituality whatsoever. Surveys vary, but there has never been a survey of significance which has shown more than about 5~7% who identify as Nihilists worldwide, and even in the most Atheistic of all regions (Scandinavia) only about 10~12% identify as Nihilists.
> 
> Now it seems to me there are an awful lot of Atheists who don't quite feel comfortable making the leap to Nihilism. Perhaps they are Atheists in the sense they reject theism and belief in deities but still accept there is a spiritual nature of some kind. Or maybe they are lying asswipes like DoritoTea, who really do believe in God and just hate Him. In any event, it appears the overwhelming majority of humans do believe in something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A couple of problems with your statements here.
> 
> First, I don't know what definition of nihilism you are using, but 'belief in nothing, no spirituality whatsoever' is not one I've seen.
> 
> Second, even if we were to accept your definition of nihilism, that it is somehow related to spiritual faith and merely a synonym for atheism, I'd guess that many people do not know the definition.  I'd guess that surveys about religious/spiritual belief rarely, if ever, put nihilism as a choice.  And most importantly, if atheism and nihilism are synonymous, as you seem to claim, why would a survey put both of them down as choices?
> 
> So.  You don't believe that very many people could truly disbelieve in god.  That's fine, and I disagree.  However, supposed evidence you're providing has been thin, at best.  Why not just say you believe you know what people really think, rather than what they claim, and be done with it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said that Nihilism is synonymous with Atheism. Certainly they are not synonymous. But yet again we see the eagerness of yourself and others to be deliberately dishonest. Why do you do this? What purpose do you have to distort my words into lies?
> 
> It's not that I don't believe very many people could disbelieve in God, it's that I believe many people claim to disbelieve and they are lying. I personally know a lot of real-life Atheists. Not a single one of them has ever mocked me or my beliefs, called God "sky daddy" or any other pejorative, or spent much time at all denigrating the faith of others. They simply couldn't care less. As I said before, I have certain family members who define ME as an Atheist because I reject organized religions. I would never define myself as such, but I see their point.
> 
> I am a psychologist, I study behavior in humans. When I come here and I see people who are spending day after day in thread after thread, denouncing, bemoaning, ridiculing and denigrating God and those who believe in God, I can't help but think I am seeing classic "cognitive dissonance" in all it's glory. These are not true Atheists, although they claim to be and perhaps have even sociopathically convinced themselves they are. I can't speak to their motives, everyone has their own reasonings for their behavior. I just don't believe they are true Atheists because a true Atheist wouldn't be this obsessed.
> 
> Someone who does believe in God but hates God, is not going to come right out and admit that. It's like a pathological liar telling you, "hey, don't believe a word I say because I lie all the time!" Humans don't behave this way. We often hide our true feelings and pretend we are something else, especially if our true feelings leave us vulnerable. This is why the God-haters pretend to be Atheists. However, it is their obsession with God and vehement hatred of all things associated with God, which reveals who they really are.
Click to expand...


I see you skipped the definition of nihilism issue.

You said, and I quote, "Now it seems to me there are an awful lot of Atheists who don't quite feel comfortable making the leap to Nihilism. Perhaps they are Atheists in the sense they reject theism and belief in deities but still accept there is a spiritual nature of some kind. Or maybe they are lying asswipes like DoritoTea, who really do believe in God and just hate Him. In any event, it appears the overwhelming majority of humans do believe in something.".  You appear to be giving choices.  The first is atheists who don't believe in deities but do believe in the spiritual.  The second is liars who really do believe but won't admit it.  And that's it.  Those are, apparently, the only possibilities you see as to why people don't self-identify as nihilists rather than simply atheists.

Well, you are free to use whatever definitions you want for those words, but I'm afraid you're unlikely to find the rest of the world agreeing with you.  There is no reason an atheist must 'make the leap' to nihilism, as you put it, if they hold no spiritual beliefs.  That is a false connection on your part.  And as I pointed out, I think it is possible that many of those who fit your definition of nihilism would not know they should self-identify as such instead of simply as atheist.

Do you have any evidence that the definition of nihilism you provided is a correct one, and more importantly, a commonly used one?

Do you have any evidence that all or even most surveys about religious or spiritual belief provide nihilism as one of the choices?

Are you just making this up as you go?


----------



## Boss

> I see you skipped the definition of nihilism issue.



Because it is superfluous. I never presented a dictionary definition of Nihlism. I simply stated that Nihilism is the belief in nothing. No spirituality or deities. I also did not claim to be listing all possible reasons Atheists don't identify as Nihilist. I gave a couple of examples of why they might not, and said that everyone has their own motivations. 

I've had these sort of debates with you before. You like to distort and pervert what people say, then have a phantom argument with that. You like to find little contextual faults you can exploit and make the argument about, instead of engaging in meaningful dialogue. And you're really good at it too, I might add. The thing is, I am not interested in playing your game.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> I see you skipped the definition of nihilism issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it is superfluous. I never presented a dictionary definition of Nihlism. I simply stated that Nihilism is the belief in nothing. No spirituality or deities. I also did not claim to be listing all possible reasons Atheists don't identify as Nihilist. I gave a couple of examples of why they might not, and said that everyone has their own motivations.
> 
> I've had these sort of debates with you before. You like to distort and pervert what people say, then have a phantom argument with that. You like to find little contextual faults you can exploit and make the argument about, instead of engaging in meaningful dialogue. And you're really good at it too, I might add. The thing is, I am not interested in playing your game.
Click to expand...


Pot meet kettle.  

I didn't say you presented a dictionary definition of nihilism.  However, if you use a definition that other people do not, it makes your entire argument pretty much asinine, doesn't it?  I mean, of course people will not consider themselves nihilists if they don't believe it means the same thing you say it does!

Yet here you are, making an argument about why atheists don't identify themselves as nihilists based on your own personal definition of the term, then complain about *me* arguing distortions of what people say.  

You have now stated that that atheists who argue strongly against god or are extremely insulting to believers actually secretly believe in god and are hiding that behind a false veneer of atheism.  That's not enough, though, as you've tried to provide evidence for that.  In this particular case, you've used an uncommon, or entirely false, definition of the word nihilism to try and make that case.

What part of that is a distortion or perversion of what you've said in this thread?


----------



## Boss

> You have now stated that that atheists who argue strongly against god or are extremely insulting to believers actually secretly believe in god and are hiding that behind a false veneer of atheism.



Not what I said. 

God-haters are people who believe in God and hate Him. They are intellectual cowards who will not admit they believe in God, and hide behind the label "Atheist" because they believe this gives them cover. They should never be confused with Atheists. But yet here again, you have misconstrued what I said and are assuming I have said something I didn't.


----------



## hobelim

Boss said:


> You have now stated that that atheists who argue strongly against god or are extremely insulting to believers actually secretly believe in god and are hiding that behind a false veneer of atheism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not what I said.
> 
> God-haters are people who believe in God and hate Him. They are intellectual cowards who will not admit they believe in God, and hide behind the label "Atheist" because they believe this gives them cover. They should never be confused with Atheists. But yet here again, you have misconstrued what I said and are assuming I have said something I didn't.
Click to expand...


Just a question, if you believe that God is 'spiritual energy' and someone who believes that God is more than energy ridicules someone else's belief that God is triune and edible how is that showing hatred for your belief in God or hatred for God?


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> You have now stated that that atheists who argue strongly against god or are extremely insulting to believers actually secretly believe in god and are hiding that behind a false veneer of atheism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not what I said.
> 
> God-haters are people who believe in God and hate Him. They are intellectual cowards who will not admit they believe in God, and hide behind the label "Atheist" because they believe this gives them cover. They should never be confused with Atheists. But yet here again, you have misconstrued what I said and are assuming I have said something I didn't.
Click to expand...


You have said, on multiple occasions, that a 'real' atheist won't argue against belief in god or hate believers or any of the things you attribute to the god-haters.  Here's just one example :


Boss said:


> I never met an atheist who hated God either. They don't believe in God, so how can you hate what you don't believe exists? They also don't hate people who can't show proof of something they know doesn't exist, that doesn't even make logical sense. That's why I call the punks here "God-haters" and not Atheists.
> 
> No, what you are "supposed to do" is follow your heart, and by "heart" I mean your inner spirit. That's the only path to the truth. All religious books are meaningless until you do that.



You assume that you know who a person will or won't hate based on their lack of religious belief.  You assume people (or at least atheists) will act logically and rationally.

Or perhaps you are, once again, using your own personal definition of a word?  Do you define atheist not just as a person who doesn't believe in gods, but one who doesn't believe in gods and doesn't argue about it?


----------



## daws101

Imperious said:


> It's because they want to assure themselves that they are right, and they believe that shoving their views in everyone's face is the only way for confirmation, it's pathetic and childish really. I also believe that some people feel that they want to prove that no one can control them, and that they are themselves, so as a result, they try to prove that no god can ever control their actions, and that they do what they want when they want, a massive ego trip. I believe that there are many other reasons behind this too, some stimulate from being pressured by parents, others are just looking for something/someone to blame and they feel that god and/or a higher power is a easy target.


(cue buzzer )rahahahahaha!
religious people, mainly Christians or those who pose as Christians have been forcing their pov on every culture  on the globe for the last 2000 years..
if that's not "a giant ego trip then nothing is...
you asshats have been doing it for so long and are so indoctrinated to the practice that you spew total nonsense like the above post.


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> And here we see DoritoTea reinforcing his facade by showing some rather specious statistics.
> 
> As I said in the OP, the God-haters are lying about their Atheism. So all of these stats which show this massive growing trend of Atheism is largely the lying God-haters, who claim to be Atheists but are not.
> 
> Nihilism is the belief in nothing. No spirituality whatsoever. Surveys vary, but there has never been a survey of significance which has shown more than about 5~7% who identify as Nihilists worldwide, and even in the most Atheistic of all regions (Scandinavia) only about 10~12% identify as Nihilists.
> 
> Now it seems to me there are an awful lot of Atheists who don't quite feel comfortable making the leap to Nihilism. Perhaps they are Atheists in the sense they reject theism and belief in deities but still accept there is a spiritual nature of some kind. Or maybe they are lying asswipes like DoritoTea, who really do believe in God and just hate Him. In any event, it appears the overwhelming majority of humans do believe in something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A couple of problems with your statements here.
> 
> First, I don't know what definition of nihilism you are using, but 'belief in nothing, no spirituality whatsoever' is not one I've seen.
> 
> Second, even if we were to accept your definition of nihilism, that it is somehow related to spiritual faith and merely a synonym for atheism, I'd guess that many people do not know the definition.  I'd guess that surveys about religious/spiritual belief rarely, if ever, put nihilism as a choice.  And most importantly, if atheism and nihilism are synonymous, as you seem to claim, why would a survey put both of them down as choices?
> 
> So.  You don't believe that very many people could truly disbelieve in god.  That's fine, and I disagree.  However, supposed evidence you're providing has been thin, at best.  Why not just say you believe you know what people really think, rather than what they claim, and be done with it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said that Nihilism is synonymous with Atheism. Certainly they are not synonymous. But yet again we see the eagerness of yourself and others to be deliberately dishonest. Why do you do this? What purpose do you have to distort my words into lies?
> 
> It's not that I don't believe very many people could disbelieve in God, it's that I believe many people claim to disbelieve and they are lying. I personally know a lot of real-life Atheists. Not a single one of them has ever mocked me or my beliefs, called God "sky daddy" or any other pejorative, or spent much time at all denigrating the faith of others. They simply couldn't care less. As I said before, I have certain family members who define ME as an Atheist because I reject organized religions. I would never define myself as such, but I see their point.
> 
> I am a psychologist, I study behavior in humans. When I come here and I see people who are spending day after day in thread after thread, denouncing, bemoaning, ridiculing and denigrating God and those who believe in God, I can't help but think I am seeing classic "cognitive dissonance" in all it's glory. These are not true Atheists, although they claim to be and perhaps have even sociopathically convinced themselves they are. I can't speak to their motives, everyone has their own reasonings for their behavior. I just don't believe they are true Atheists because a true Atheist wouldn't be this obsessed.
> 
> Someone who does believe in God but hates God, is not going to come right out and admit that. It's like a pathological liar telling you, "hey, don't believe a word I say because I lie all the time!" Humans don't behave this way. We often hide our true feelings and pretend we are something else, especially if our true feelings leave us vulnerable. This is why the God-haters pretend to be Atheists. However, it is their obsession with God and vehement hatred of all things associated with God, which reveals who they really are.
Click to expand...

no you claim to be a psychologist !
psychologists have to keep their religious views separate from their profession so as not to taint their advice to clients.
I've yet to see you take a neutral position in any of your posts..


----------



## MrMax

hobelim said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have now stated that that atheists who argue strongly against god or are extremely insulting to believers actually secretly believe in god and are hiding that behind a false veneer of atheism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not what I said.
> 
> God-haters are people who believe in God and hate Him. They are intellectual cowards who will not admit they believe in God, and hide behind the label "Atheist" because they believe this gives them cover. They should never be confused with Atheists. But yet here again, you have misconstrued what I said and are assuming I have said something I didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just a question, if you believe that God is 'spiritual energy' and someone who believes that God is more than energy ridicules someone else's belief that God is triune and edible how is that showing hatred for your belief in God or hatred for God?
Click to expand...


Bossboy, why do you hate god so much?


----------



## Boss

hobelim said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have now stated that that atheists who argue strongly against god or are extremely insulting to believers actually secretly believe in god and are hiding that behind a false veneer of atheism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not what I said.
> 
> God-haters are people who believe in God and hate Him. They are intellectual cowards who will not admit they believe in God, and hide behind the label "Atheist" because they believe this gives them cover. They should never be confused with Atheists. But yet here again, you have misconstrued what I said and are assuming I have said something I didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just a question, if you believe that God is 'spiritual energy' and someone who believes that God is more than energy ridicules someone else's belief that God is triune and edible how is that showing hatred for your belief in God or hatred for God?
Click to expand...


It's not, and I have no objection to honest questioning or disagreement with various 'incarnations' of God. In other words, if someone says, "I believe God is [fill in blank]!" And someone responds, "I don't believe that, I believe [fill in blank]!" This is sharing of opinions and is fine, I have no problem with that. My OP is addressing people who are obsessed with God to the point of vitriol and hatred, making insultuous remarks, attacking with meanness and hostility, ridiculing and demeaning. These are also opinions, but they are opinions based on a belief and hate of God.


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not what I said.
> 
> God-haters are people who believe in God and hate Him. They are intellectual cowards who will not admit they believe in God, and hide behind the label "Atheist" because they believe this gives them cover. They should never be confused with Atheists. But yet here again, you have misconstrued what I said and are assuming I have said something I didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just a question, if you believe that God is 'spiritual energy' and someone who believes that God is more than energy ridicules someone else's belief that God is triune and edible how is that showing hatred for your belief in God or hatred for God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not, and I have no objection to honest questioning or disagreement with various 'incarnations' of God. In other words, if someone says, "I believe God is [fill in blank]!" And someone responds, "I don't believe that, I believe [fill in blank]!" This is sharing of opinions and is fine, I have no problem with that. My OP is addressing people who are obsessed with God to the point of vitriol and hatred, making insultuous remarks, attacking with meanness and hostility, ridiculing and demeaning. These are also opinions, but they are opinions based on a belief and hate of God.
Click to expand...

false! only in your rationalizing...not in reality.
your argument besides being weak it's for the most part an aesthetic one...
you IMO  are feigning insult and injury to make it seem that you have some imagined moral high ground or to put it another way "your shit don't stink."
the oh my virgin eyes /ears routine went out with "getting the vapors" and horse drawn carriages ,even then it was fantasy...


----------



## Boss

daws101 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> A couple of problems with your statements here.
> 
> First, I don't know what definition of nihilism you are using, but 'belief in nothing, no spirituality whatsoever' is not one I've seen.
> 
> Second, even if we were to accept your definition of nihilism, that it is somehow related to spiritual faith and merely a synonym for atheism, I'd guess that many people do not know the definition.  I'd guess that surveys about religious/spiritual belief rarely, if ever, put nihilism as a choice.  And most importantly, if atheism and nihilism are synonymous, as you seem to claim, why would a survey put both of them down as choices?
> 
> So.  You don't believe that very many people could truly disbelieve in god.  That's fine, and I disagree.  However, supposed evidence you're providing has been thin, at best.  Why not just say you believe you know what people really think, rather than what they claim, and be done with it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said that Nihilism is synonymous with Atheism. Certainly they are not synonymous. But yet again we see the eagerness of yourself and others to be deliberately dishonest. Why do you do this? What purpose do you have to distort my words into lies?
> 
> It's not that I don't believe very many people could disbelieve in God, it's that I believe many people claim to disbelieve and they are lying. I personally know a lot of real-life Atheists. Not a single one of them has ever mocked me or my beliefs, called God "sky daddy" or any other pejorative, or spent much time at all denigrating the faith of others. They simply couldn't care less. As I said before, I have certain family members who define ME as an Atheist because I reject organized religions. I would never define myself as such, but I see their point.
> 
> I am a psychologist, I study behavior in humans. When I come here and I see people who are spending day after day in thread after thread, denouncing, bemoaning, ridiculing and denigrating God and those who believe in God, I can't help but think I am seeing classic "cognitive dissonance" in all it's glory. These are not true Atheists, although they claim to be and perhaps have even sociopathically convinced themselves they are. I can't speak to their motives, everyone has their own reasonings for their behavior. I just don't believe they are true Atheists because a true Atheist wouldn't be this obsessed.
> 
> Someone who does believe in God but hates God, is not going to come right out and admit that. It's like a pathological liar telling you, "hey, don't believe a word I say because I lie all the time!" Humans don't behave this way. We often hide our true feelings and pretend we are something else, especially if our true feelings leave us vulnerable. This is why the God-haters pretend to be Atheists. However, it is their obsession with God and vehement hatred of all things associated with God, which reveals who they really are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no you claim to be a psychologist !
> psychologists have to keep their religious views separate from their profession so as not to taint their advice to clients.
> I've yet to see you take a neutral position in any of your posts..
Click to expand...


A few points I need to correct you on here. First of all, psychologists do not have "clients" (...you may be thinking of psychiatrists.) A psychologist is a scientist who studies human behavior. Secondly, I do not post at USMB in an "official" capacity of my profession, but as an individual posting his opinion and viewpoint. Lastly, I have no "religious" views, other than the view that I don't condone or advocate any organized religious doctrine. I am a Spiritualist. I believe in a Spiritual Nature and Spiritual God.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Boss said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not what I said.
> 
> God-haters are people who believe in God and hate Him. They are intellectual cowards who will not admit they believe in God, and hide behind the label "Atheist" because they believe this gives them cover. They should never be confused with Atheists. But yet here again, you have misconstrued what I said and are assuming I have said something I didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just a question, if you believe that God is 'spiritual energy' and someone who believes that God is more than energy ridicules someone else's belief that God is triune and edible how is that showing hatred for your belief in God or hatred for God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not, and I have no objection to honest questioning or disagreement with various 'incarnations' of God. In other words, if someone says, "I believe God is [fill in blank]!" And someone responds, "I don't believe that, I believe [fill in blank]!" This is sharing of opinions and is fine, I have no problem with that. My OP is addressing* people who are obsessed with God to the point of vitriol and hatred, making insultuous remarks, attacking with meanness and hostility, ridiculing and demeaning. *These are also opinions, but they are opinions based on a belief and hate of God.
Click to expand...


Ironic given the OP's tendency to spew vitriolic, hostile  and demeaning insults.


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said that Nihilism is synonymous with Atheism. Certainly they are not synonymous. But yet again we see the eagerness of yourself and others to be deliberately dishonest. Why do you do this? What purpose do you have to distort my words into lies?
> 
> It's not that I don't believe very many people could disbelieve in God, it's that I believe many people claim to disbelieve and they are lying. I personally know a lot of real-life Atheists. Not a single one of them has ever mocked me or my beliefs, called God "sky daddy" or any other pejorative, or spent much time at all denigrating the faith of others. They simply couldn't care less. As I said before, I have certain family members who define ME as an Atheist because I reject organized religions. I would never define myself as such, but I see their point.
> 
> I am a psychologist, I study behavior in humans. When I come here and I see people who are spending day after day in thread after thread, denouncing, bemoaning, ridiculing and denigrating God and those who believe in God, I can't help but think I am seeing classic "cognitive dissonance" in all it's glory. These are not true Atheists, although they claim to be and perhaps have even sociopathically convinced themselves they are. I can't speak to their motives, everyone has their own reasonings for their behavior. I just don't believe they are true Atheists because a true Atheist wouldn't be this obsessed.
> 
> Someone who does believe in God but hates God, is not going to come right out and admit that. It's like a pathological liar telling you, "hey, don't believe a word I say because I lie all the time!" Humans don't behave this way. We often hide our true feelings and pretend we are something else, especially if our true feelings leave us vulnerable. This is why the God-haters pretend to be Atheists. However, it is their obsession with God and vehement hatred of all things associated with God, which reveals who they really are.
> 
> 
> 
> no you claim to be a psychologist !
> psychologists have to keep their religious views separate from their profession so as not to taint their advice to clients.
> I've yet to see you take a neutral position in any of your posts..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A few points I need to correct you on here. First of all, psychologists do not have "clients" (...you may be thinking of psychiatrists.) A psychologist is a scientist who studies human behavior. Secondly, I do not post at USMB in an "official" capacity of my profession, but as an individual posting his opinion and viewpoint. Lastly, I have no "religious" views, other than the view that I don't condone or advocate any organized religious doctrine. I am a Spiritualist. I believe in a Spiritual Nature and Spiritual God.
Click to expand...

you have no official anything....


----------



## BreezeWood

.

*Why do the (God-haters) (persist)?*




> *Boss:* We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous *attacks on the religious*, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything *and everything to do with God.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. *If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty.*
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



*
Boss: - - > True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess (religious belief).*

since when are peoples religious beliefs not a matter for an Atheist concern, who for centuries were persecuted by the very people and beliefs you defend ?


*Boss: - - > Atheist ... they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty.*

oh, those inquisitions - how novel and amusing.



Boss, is there no doubt scriptural religions truly represent God, unconditionally and without Persistence.

.


----------



## hobelim

Boss said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not what I said.
> 
> God-haters are people who believe in God and hate Him. They are intellectual cowards who will not admit they believe in God, and hide behind the label "Atheist" because they believe this gives them cover. They should never be confused with Atheists. But yet here again, you have misconstrued what I said and are assuming I have said something I didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just a question, if you believe that God is 'spiritual energy' and someone who believes that God is more than energy ridicules someone else's belief that God is triune and edible how is that showing hatred for your belief in God or hatred for God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not, and I have no objection to honest questioning or disagreement with various 'incarnations' of God. In other words, if someone says, "I believe God is [fill in blank]!" And someone responds, "I don't believe that, I believe [fill in blank]!" This is sharing of opinions and is fine, I have no problem with that. My OP is addressing people who are obsessed with God to the point of vitriol and hatred, making insultuous remarks, attacking with meanness and hostility, ridiculing and demeaning. These are also opinions, but they are opinions based on a belief and hate of God.
Click to expand...


I see.

I don't think that it is so much that they are obsessed with God or hate God as it is that they are determined to not let people who are obsessed with God, especially  with superstitious and irrational positions, to usurp a place of moral authority over anything given that they are hardly more than con artists who deliberately prey on the gullible or mentally ill and delusional and living in denial of reality at best..

I  think it is extremely commendable that they are dedicated to oppose the 'spiritual forces' that thrive on ignorance and darkness especially if they have risen to life from such a well sealed tomb.


----------



## MrMax

Boss said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said that Nihilism is synonymous with Atheism. Certainly they are not synonymous. But yet again we see the eagerness of yourself and others to be deliberately dishonest. Why do you do this? What purpose do you have to distort my words into lies?
> 
> It's not that I don't believe very many people could disbelieve in God, it's that I believe many people claim to disbelieve and they are lying. I personally know a lot of real-life Atheists. Not a single one of them has ever mocked me or my beliefs, called God "sky daddy" or any other pejorative, or spent much time at all denigrating the faith of others. They simply couldn't care less. As I said before, I have certain family members who define ME as an Atheist because I reject organized religions. I would never define myself as such, but I see their point.
> 
> I am a psychologist, I study behavior in humans. When I come here and I see people who are spending day after day in thread after thread, denouncing, bemoaning, ridiculing and denigrating God and those who believe in God, I can't help but think I am seeing classic "cognitive dissonance" in all it's glory. These are not true Atheists, although they claim to be and perhaps have even sociopathically convinced themselves they are. I can't speak to their motives, everyone has their own reasonings for their behavior. I just don't believe they are true Atheists because a true Atheist wouldn't be this obsessed.
> 
> Someone who does believe in God but hates God, is not going to come right out and admit that. It's like a pathological liar telling you, "hey, don't believe a word I say because I lie all the time!" Humans don't behave this way. We often hide our true feelings and pretend we are something else, especially if our true feelings leave us vulnerable. This is why the God-haters pretend to be Atheists. However, it is their obsession with God and vehement hatred of all things associated with God, which reveals who they really are.
> 
> 
> 
> no you claim to be a psychologist !
> psychologists have to keep their religious views separate from their profession so as not to taint their advice to clients.
> I've yet to see you take a neutral position in any of your posts..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A few points I need to correct you on here. First of all, psychologists do not have "clients" (...you may be thinking of psychiatrists.) A psychologist is a scientist who studies human behavior. Secondly, I do not post at USMB in an "official" capacity of my profession, but as an individual posting his opinion and viewpoint. Lastly, I have no "religious" views, other than the view that I don't condone or advocate any organized religious doctrine. I am a Spiritualist. I believe in a Spiritual Nature and Spiritual God.
Click to expand...

Didn't I read that you were talking about a Creator? That's pretty much all the organized religions who believe in that. If you're really a negro, you're probably a baptist.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not what I said.
> 
> God-haters are people who believe in God and hate Him. They are intellectual cowards who will not admit they believe in God, and hide behind the label "Atheist" because they believe this gives them cover. They should never be confused with Atheists. But yet here again, you have misconstrued what I said and are assuming I have said something I didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just a question, if you believe that God is 'spiritual energy' and someone who believes that God is more than energy ridicules someone else's belief that God is triune and edible how is that showing hatred for your belief in God or hatred for God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not, and I have no objection to honest questioning or disagreement with various 'incarnations' of God. In other words, if someone says, "I believe God is [fill in blank]!" And someone responds, "I don't believe that, I believe [fill in blank]!" This is sharing of opinions and is fine, I have no problem with that. My OP is addressing people who are obsessed with God to the point of vitriol and hatred, making insultuous remarks, attacking with meanness and hostility, ridiculing and demeaning. These are also opinions, but they are opinions based on a belief and hate of God.
Click to expand...


Just to interject a quick clarification of my views : plenty of times atheists or non-believers can be total ass-holes toward the religious.  I am in no way trying to deny or defend any bad behavior from atheists.

I simply don't see a reason to assume such bad behavior equates to a belief in god.


----------



## daws101

MrMax said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> no you claim to be a psychologist !
> psychologists have to keep their religious views separate from their profession so as not to taint their advice to clients.
> I've yet to see you take a neutral position in any of your posts..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A few points I need to correct you on here. First of all, psychologists do not have "clients" (...you may be thinking of psychiatrists.) A psychologist is a scientist who studies human behavior. Secondly, I do not post at USMB in an "official" capacity of my profession, but as an individual posting his opinion and viewpoint. Lastly, I have no "religious" views, other than the view that I don't condone or advocate any organized religious doctrine. I am a Spiritualist. I believe in a Spiritual Nature and Spiritual God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Didn't I read that you were talking about a Creator? That's pretty much all the organized religions who believe in that. If you're really a negro, you're probably a baptist.
Click to expand...

ahhh max boosy's race is irrelevant....besides only fucking ignorant racists use the term negro.
there is no love lost between boosy and I but racism has no place here!


----------



## daws101

Clinical psychologists have a wide range of clients. Who is included depends on the setting, the role, the interests, and the training of the particular psychologists in question. In a private practice focusing on life coaching, a broad sample of the general population would be seen. In an educational setting, both students and staff could be clients. In a hospital environment, patients with psychological issues affecting their physical health might be the focus (e.g., those with diabetes, cardiac disease, epilepsy, or chronic pain). In community mental health agencies, clients might include people with mental disorders, such as bipolar affective disorder, dissociative identity disorder (i.e., multiple personality disorders), schizophrenia, mental retardation, or significant life struggles (e.g., gender issues).


----------



## Boss

daws101 said:


> Clinical psychologists have a wide range of clients. Who is included depends on the setting, the role, the interests, and the training of the particular psychologists in question. In a private practice focusing on life coaching, a broad sample of the general population would be seen. In an educational setting, both students and staff could be clients. In a hospital environment, patients with psychological issues affecting their physical health might be the focus (e.g., those with diabetes, cardiac disease, epilepsy, or chronic pain). In community mental health agencies, clients might include people with mental disorders, such as bipolar affective disorder, dissociative identity disorder (i.e., multiple personality disorders), schizophrenia, mental retardation, or significant life struggles (e.g., gender issues).



And what you are doing now is trying again to save face after demonstrating your ignorance. This is getting to be a habit with you. You stick your size 12 in your pie hole, then you have to come back and spin it to do damage control. 

Again, psychologists do not have "clients." A psychiatrist (who has a degree in psychology) may have clients. An educator who has a degree in education and psychology, may have students. Hospitals and community health centers do not have psychologists, they sometimes have psychiatrists who have degrees in psychology. Most psychologists (who do not have medical degrees in psychiatry) work for research groups. Sometimes those research groups may be associated with a large medical center like Johns Hopkins. The psychologist still doesn't have "clients." 

Why we are waist-deep in this discussion, I do not know. It has nothing to do with the topic or OP. It's a bit of personal information I revealed about myself, and it appears you want to challenge that, for some odd reason. I guess it's because I've been kicking your ass around this place for so long, you are getting desperate to make any kind of point. Sorry, but challenging someone's professional credentials is usually not a real wise way to go about that. Just saying.


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just a question, if you believe that God is 'spiritual energy' and someone who believes that God is more than energy ridicules someone else's belief that God is triune and edible how is that showing hatred for your belief in God or hatred for God?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not, and I have no objection to honest questioning or disagreement with various 'incarnations' of God. In other words, if someone says, "I believe God is [fill in blank]!" And someone responds, "I don't believe that, I believe [fill in blank]!" This is sharing of opinions and is fine, I have no problem with that. My OP is addressing people who are obsessed with God to the point of vitriol and hatred, making insultuous remarks, attacking with meanness and hostility, ridiculing and demeaning. These are also opinions, but they are opinions based on a belief and hate of God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just to interject a quick clarification of my views : plenty of times atheists or non-believers can be total ass-holes toward the religious.  I am in no way trying to deny or defend any bad behavior from atheists.
> 
> I simply don't see a reason to assume such bad behavior equates to a belief in god.
Click to expand...


It doesn't always. But most of the time it does.


----------



## Boss

MrMax said:


> Didn't I read that you were talking about a Creator? That's pretty much all the organized religions who believe in that. If you're really a negro, you're probably a baptist.



Yes, I believe in a Creator and yes, most organized religions also believe in that. This does not mean I am religious or have religious beliefs. That is called a "logical fallacy."


----------



## Boss

Derideo_Te said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just a question, if you believe that God is 'spiritual energy' and someone who believes that God is more than energy ridicules someone else's belief that God is triune and edible how is that showing hatred for your belief in God or hatred for God?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not, and I have no objection to honest questioning or disagreement with various 'incarnations' of God. In other words, if someone says, "I believe God is [fill in blank]!" And someone responds, "I don't believe that, I believe [fill in blank]!" This is sharing of opinions and is fine, I have no problem with that. My OP is addressing* people who are obsessed with God to the point of vitriol and hatred, making insultuous remarks, attacking with meanness and hostility, ridiculing and demeaning. *These are also opinions, but they are opinions based on a belief and hate of God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ironic given the OP's tendency to spew vitriolic, hostile  and demeaning insults.
Click to expand...


In order to make you point, you need to find some example of something I don't believe exists and then show where I have insulted and denigrated that or those who believe in it. My argument is not a complaint about insults and vitriol. I fully understand people have passion over their beliefs and sometimes become aggressive in tone when discussing those beliefs. That said, it kind of proves my point. The so-called "Atheist" who spends inordinate amounts of time here, hurling one insult after another at religious people and God, are true believers. They hide behind the mask of Atheism because they are cowards. 

You're one of those people, and I am calling you out. I fully understand this upsets you and makes you feel compelled to emotively respond. People don't like being exposed as frauds.


----------



## Chuckt

MrMax said:


> religions who believe in that. If you're really a negro, you're probably a baptist.



That is a stereotype.  I use to go to a school that was more than 50% white and demographics changed where white people are the minority and now black people are the majority.

Black people are in different denominations and non-denominational churches.

Black church - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please tell me which church this is and why there are so many black people in it among white people.  Let me give you a hint... It isn't in America.....


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AT3yznbubKQ]LOU FELLINGHAM & THE PHATFISH-STRENTH WILL RISE - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Chuckt

Can you tell me what church it is?  I don't believe it is Baptist looking at the church structure in England.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not, and I have no objection to honest questioning or disagreement with various 'incarnations' of God. In other words, if someone says, "I believe God is [fill in blank]!" And someone responds, "I don't believe that, I believe [fill in blank]!" This is sharing of opinions and is fine, I have no problem with that. My OP is addressing people who are obsessed with God to the point of vitriol and hatred, making insultuous remarks, attacking with meanness and hostility, ridiculing and demeaning. These are also opinions, but they are opinions based on a belief and hate of God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just to interject a quick clarification of my views : plenty of times atheists or non-believers can be total ass-holes toward the religious.  I am in no way trying to deny or defend any bad behavior from atheists.
> 
> I simply don't see a reason to assume such bad behavior equates to a belief in god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't always. But most of the time it does.
Click to expand...


Why do you assume that to be the case?


----------



## Chuckt

Here is another video with a look at the building structure.  Do you know what church it is?  It isn't in America and there are white and black people in this church.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQbdjCYXWZo#t=17]LOU FELLINGHAM & THE PHATFISH-TO GOD BE THE GLORY - YouTube[/ame]

No racism here.


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just to interject a quick clarification of my views : plenty of times atheists or non-believers can be total ass-holes toward the religious.  I am in no way trying to deny or defend any bad behavior from atheists.
> 
> I simply don't see a reason to assume such bad behavior equates to a belief in god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't always. But most of the time it does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you assume that to be the case?
Click to expand...


Because, as some Atheists in this thread have admitted, you cannot hate what you don't believe exists.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't always. But most of the time it does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you assume that to be the case?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because, as some Atheists in this thread have admitted, you cannot hate what you don't believe exists.
Click to expand...


So yet again I have to point out that hating the belief in a god(s) is not the same as hating the god(s).  Hating the believer is not the same as hating the god(s).  

Is there a particular reason you assume atheists cannot hate either the belief or the believer and must, instead, hate the god(s)?


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you assume that to be the case?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because, as some Atheists in this thread have admitted, you cannot hate what you don't believe exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So yet again I have to point out that hating the belief in a god(s) is not the same as hating the god(s).  Hating the believer is not the same as hating the god(s).
> 
> Is there a particular reason you assume atheists cannot hate either the belief or the believer and must, instead, hate the god(s)?
Click to expand...


You can't hate what you do not believe exists. I don't know how else to explain that to you. In order to hate something, you have to believe it exists first. If you don't believe in God, why do you need to call him "sky daddy" and other assorted names? It makes no sense. Those are perjoratives designed to insult and infer hate or ridicule for something you very much do believe in but loathe. When you are obsessing with it, spending day after day here, doing the same thing, it is either a mental disorder or you honestly hate the God that you believe exists. There is not another rational explanation. 

Now you are doing practically everything you can think of to avoid seeing my point. You've come up with every possible way to create and exception or explain a nuance instead of trying to understand my point, and I wonder why that is? Is it so you can keep on defending your personal God-hate? Is it because you are thick and obtuse? Or is it just because you like to win arguments on any front for the hell of it? 

It doesn't really matter to me, if you're stubbornly going to refuse to see my point, there isn't much I can do about that. You just keep trying to sidestep it and carve out an exception... well, there are exceptions to everything. I've not said that 100% of the time in all cases this is true. It's my observation, I've made my point, and if you don't agree with me, that's fine.


----------



## strollingbones

koshergrl said:


> Lol..you guys really do not understand how imbecilic and bigoted you sound...
> 
> Which doesn't say much for your allegedly superior understanding of the universe and its origins, lololol..




that can certainly be said of the christians on here....


----------



## MrMax

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because, as some Atheists in this thread have admitted, you cannot hate what you don't believe exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So yet again I have to point out that hating the belief in a god(s) is not the same as hating the god(s).  Hating the believer is not the same as hating the god(s).
> 
> Is there a particular reason you assume atheists cannot hate either the belief or the believer and must, instead, hate the god(s)?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't hate what you do not believe exists. I don't know how else to explain that to you. In order to hate something, you have to believe it exists first. If you don't believe in God, why do you need to call him "sky daddy" and other assorted names? It makes no sense. Those are perjoratives designed to insult and infer hate or ridicule for something you very much do believe in but loathe. *When you are obsessing with it, spending day after day here, doing the same thing, it is either a mental disorder or you honestly hate the God that you believe exists. There is not another rational explanation. *
> 
> Now you are doing practically everything you can think of to avoid seeing my point. You've come up with every possible way to create and exception or explain a nuance instead of trying to understand my point, and I wonder why that is? Is it so you can keep on defending your personal God-hate? Is it because you are thick and obtuse? Or is it just because you like to win arguments on any front for the hell of it?
> 
> It doesn't really matter to me, if you're stubbornly going to refuse to see my point, there isn't much I can do about that. You just keep trying to sidestep it and carve out an exception... well, there are exceptions to everything. I've not said that 100% of the time in all cases this is true. It's my observation, I've made my point, and if you don't agree with me, that's fine.
Click to expand...


Just like you.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Boss said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said that Nihilism is synonymous with Atheism. Certainly they are not synonymous. But yet again we see the eagerness of yourself and others to be deliberately dishonest. Why do you do this? What purpose do you have to distort my words into lies?
> 
> It's not that I don't believe very many people could disbelieve in God, it's that I believe many people claim to disbelieve and they are lying. I personally know a lot of real-life Atheists. Not a single one of them has ever mocked me or my beliefs, called God "sky daddy" or any other pejorative, or spent much time at all denigrating the faith of others. They simply couldn't care less. As I said before, I have certain family members who define ME as an Atheist because I reject organized religions. I would never define myself as such, but I see their point.
> 
> I am a psychologist, I study behavior in humans. When I come here and I see people who are spending day after day in thread after thread, denouncing, bemoaning, ridiculing and denigrating God and those who believe in God, I can't help but think I am seeing classic "cognitive dissonance" in all it's glory. These are not true Atheists, although they claim to be and perhaps have even sociopathically convinced themselves they are. I can't speak to their motives, everyone has their own reasonings for their behavior. I just don't believe they are true Atheists because a true Atheist wouldn't be this obsessed.
> 
> Someone who does believe in God but hates God, is not going to come right out and admit that. It's like a pathological liar telling you, "hey, don't believe a word I say because I lie all the time!" Humans don't behave this way. We often hide our true feelings and pretend we are something else, especially if our true feelings leave us vulnerable. This is why the God-haters pretend to be Atheists. However, it is their obsession with God and vehement hatred of all things associated with God, which reveals who they really are.
> 
> 
> 
> no you claim to be a psychologist !
> psychologists have to keep their religious views separate from their profession so as not to taint their advice to clients.
> I've yet to see you take a neutral position in any of your posts..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A few points I need to correct you on here. *First of all, psychologists do not have "clients" *(...you may be thinking of psychiatrists.) A psychologist is a scientist who studies human behavior. Secondly, I do not post at USMB in an "official" capacity of my profession, but as an individual posting his opinion and viewpoint. Lastly, I have no "religious" views, other than the view that I don't condone or advocate any organized religious doctrine. I am a Spiritualist. I believe in a Spiritual Nature and Spiritual God.
Click to expand...


Imagine that? Someone who claims to be a psychologist but doesn't even know that clinical/counseling psychologists treat patients (not "clients"). 



> A psychologist evaluates, diagnoses, treats, and studies behavior and mental processes.[1] Some psychologists, such as clinical and counseling psychologists, provide mental health care, and some psychologists, such as social or organizational psychologists conduct research and provide consultation services..
> 
> Psychologist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Furthermore it requires advanced degrees (mostly doctorates) to be classified as a psychologist with the only exception being a "school psychologist" but the OP claims to be in "research" and is a "scientist who studies human behavior" instead. (Makes one wonder why he picked an inane handle like "the boss" )

Nothing in the OP's posts indicate that he has any great depth of education, or that he has any insight into human behavior, or any grasp whatsoever of the scientific method. Quite the opposite in fact. He demonstrates an inability to express himself clearly and concisely, he has an all too obvious problem controlling his emotions and he posts logical fallacies on a regular basis. 

So perhaps he is just a PsyINO!


----------



## PostmodernProph

MrMax said:


> If you're really a negro, you're probably a baptist.



wow.....it takes a lot of balls to say that to a psychologist.......he may be qualified to point out what you just revealed about yourself.......


----------



## MrMax

PostmodernProph said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're really a negro, you're probably a baptist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wow.....it takes a lot of balls to say that to a psychologist.......he may be qualified to point out what you just revealed about yourself.......
Click to expand...


Depends if I'm right or not.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not, and I have no objection to honest questioning or disagreement with various 'incarnations' of God. In other words, if someone says, "I believe God is [fill in blank]!" And someone responds, "I don't believe that, I believe [fill in blank]!" This is sharing of opinions and is fine, I have no problem with that. My OP is addressing* people who are obsessed with God to the point of vitriol and hatred, making insultuous remarks, attacking with meanness and hostility, ridiculing and demeaning. *These are also opinions, but they are opinions based on a belief and hate of God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ironic given the OP's tendency to spew vitriolic, hostile  and demeaning insults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In order to make you point, you need to find some example of something I don't believe exists and then show where I have insulted and denigrated that or those who believe in it. My argument is not a complaint about insults and vitriol. I fully understand people have passion over their beliefs and sometimes become aggressive in tone when discussing those beliefs. That said, it kind of proves my point. The so-called "Atheist" who spends inordinate amounts of time here, hurling one insult after another at religious people and God, are true believers. They hide behind the mask of Atheism because they are cowards.
> 
> *You're one of those people, and I am calling you out.* I fully understand this upsets you and makes you feel compelled to emotively respond. People don't like being exposed as frauds.
Click to expand...


Does this mean you want this thread moved to the FZ now? 

 [MENTION=40540]Connery[/MENTION] [MENTION=9429]AVG-JOE[/MENTION]


----------



## BreezeWood

> *OP:* There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, *the adult knows these are not real entities,* and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. *What does it hurt?*
> 
> No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where *Santa* visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Boss:* You can't hate what you do not believe exists. I don't know how else to explain that to you. In order to hate something, you have to believe it exists first. If you don't believe in God, why do you need to call him "sky daddy" and other assorted names? It makes no sense. Those are perjoratives designed to insult and infer hate or ridicule for something you very much do believe in but loathe.
> *
> Now you are doing practically everything you can think of to avoid seeing my point.*
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...




> *Boss: What does it hurt?*



your point being history does not bear the proof of scriptural religious persecution and conquest ?


just curious Boss, have the Santa Clause believers ever tortured to death those who question their beliefs ?



*Why do the God-haters persist?* 

there is no basis to your argument there are "haters" of God but only a perspective void of historical reality as the cause and affect of existing scriptural religions and the righteous cause for their dismissal.

.


----------



## Boss

> just curious Boss, have the Santa Clause believers ever tortured to death those who question their beliefs ?



Well I hardly believe anyone here was affected by the Crusades. But even so, if the God-haters simply admitted they hate God because of the Crusades, I would totally understand the justifications for their vitriolic hate.


----------



## Boss

> Furthermore it requires advanced degrees (mostly doctorates) to be classified as a psychologist with the only exception being a "school psychologist" but *the OP claims to be in "research"* and is a "scientist who studies human behavior" instead. (Makes one wonder why he picked an inane handle like "the boss" )



I've never made any such claims. To be a psychologist you only have to obtain a degree in Psychology. To be a doctor of psychology, you have to obtain a doctorate in Psychology. This entire line of questioning is the result of daws incorrectly stating that psychologists are obligated to remain neutral for their clients. This is clearly an ethical consideration of a practicing psychiatrist and not a psychologist. It's a common error made by dummies like daws. 

Now as I said, psychologists can work in all kinds of specialized fields, and in rare cases, some may actually treat patients and have clients. The vast majority of psychologists do not. In fact, most people who have a psychology degree never use it.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Boss said:


> Furthermore it requires advanced degrees (mostly doctorates) to be classified as a psychologist with the only exception being a "school psychologist" but *the OP claims to be in "research"* and is a "scientist who studies human behavior" instead. (Makes one wonder why he picked an inane handle like "the boss" )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never made any such claims. To be a psychologist you only have to obtain a degree in Psychology. To be a doctor of psychology, you have to obtain a doctorate in Psychology. This entire line of questioning is the result of daws incorrectly stating that psychologists are obligated to remain neutral for their clients. This is clearly an ethical consideration of a practicing psychiatrist and not a psychologist. It's a common error made by dummies like daws.
> 
> Now as I said, psychologists can work in all kinds of specialized fields, and in rare cases, some may actually treat patients and have clients. The vast majority of psychologists do not. In fact, most people who have a psychology degree never use it.
Click to expand...



Once again the OP's canards are exposed!



> *DT:* but the OP claims to be in "*research*" and is a "*scientist who studies human behavior*"





> *Boss:** I've never made any such claims.*





> *Boss:* *I am a psychologist, I study behavior in humans.*


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because, as some Atheists in this thread have admitted, you cannot hate what you don't believe exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So yet again I have to point out that hating the belief in a god(s) is not the same as hating the god(s).  Hating the believer is not the same as hating the god(s).
> 
> Is there a particular reason you assume atheists cannot hate either the belief or the believer and must, instead, hate the god(s)?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't hate what you do not believe exists. I don't know how else to explain that to you. In order to hate something, you have to believe it exists first. If you don't believe in God, why do you need to call him "sky daddy" and other assorted names? It makes no sense. Those are perjoratives designed to insult and infer hate or ridicule for something you very much do believe in but loathe. When you are obsessing with it, spending day after day here, doing the same thing, it is either a mental disorder or you honestly hate the God that you believe exists. There is not another rational explanation.
> 
> Now you are doing practically everything you can think of to avoid seeing my point. You've come up with every possible way to create and exception or explain a nuance instead of trying to understand my point, and I wonder why that is? Is it so you can keep on defending your personal God-hate? Is it because you are thick and obtuse? Or is it just because you like to win arguments on any front for the hell of it?
> 
> It doesn't really matter to me, if you're stubbornly going to refuse to see my point, there isn't much I can do about that. You just keep trying to sidestep it and carve out an exception... well, there are exceptions to everything. I've not said that 100% of the time in all cases this is true. It's my observation, I've made my point, and if you don't agree with me, that's fine.
Click to expand...


Wow, pot meet kettle.

Once again!  Hating a belief in god is not hating the god.  Hating believers in god is not hating god.  Are you able to understand that yet?

Each time I bring up hating not the god, but the belief in it or those who believe, you once again go right back to assuming any hatred must be of the god itself.  That's simply untrue and a completely foolish assumption to make.  Why is it only with god that a person cannot hate a belief?  Certainly this board shows many people hating various political beliefs.  Is that for some reason impossible with religious belief?

Clearly when someone uses the term 'sky daddy' it is an insult.  However, only someone reaching for ways to fit things into their preconceived notions of god hate would think it is anything other than an insult to the believer.  It is a dig at someone who believes in god.  That doesn't indicate the insulter believes!  I could call Santa Clause the fat fairy, it wouldn't indicate I believe in his existence!

I'm not sidestepping.  I'm pointing out the clear differences that you seem incapable of accepting.  Hating something you don't believe in isn't possible.  Hating the idea of something, or the people who believe in the thing, certainly is.  For some reason, in your mind, that doesn't seem to be true.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> So yet again I have to point out that hating the belief in a god(s) is not the same as hating the god(s).  Hating the believer is not the same as hating the god(s).
> 
> Is there a particular reason you assume atheists cannot hate either the belief or the believer and must, instead, hate the god(s)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't hate what you do not believe exists. I don't know how else to explain that to you. In order to hate something, you have to believe it exists first. If you don't believe in God, why do you need to call him "sky daddy" and other assorted names? It makes no sense. Those are perjoratives designed to insult and infer hate or ridicule for something you very much do believe in but loathe. When you are obsessing with it, spending day after day here, doing the same thing, it is either a mental disorder or you honestly hate the God that you believe exists. There is not another rational explanation.
> 
> Now you are doing practically everything you can think of to avoid seeing my point. You've come up with every possible way to create and exception or explain a nuance instead of trying to understand my point, and I wonder why that is? Is it so you can keep on defending your personal God-hate? Is it because you are thick and obtuse? Or is it just because you like to win arguments on any front for the hell of it?
> 
> It doesn't really matter to me, if you're stubbornly going to refuse to see my point, there isn't much I can do about that. You just keep trying to sidestep it and carve out an exception... well, there are exceptions to everything. I've not said that 100% of the time in all cases this is true. It's my observation, I've made my point, and if you don't agree with me, that's fine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, pot meet kettle.
> 
> Once again!  Hating a belief in god is not hating the god.  Hating believers in god is not hating god.  Are you able to understand that yet?
> 
> Each time I bring up hating not the god, but the belief in it or those who believe, you once again go right back to assuming any hatred must be of the god itself.  That's simply untrue and a completely foolish assumption to make.  Why is it only with god that a person cannot hate a belief?  Certainly this board shows many people hating various political beliefs.  Is that for some reason impossible with religious belief?
> 
> Clearly when someone uses the term 'sky daddy' it is an insult.  However, only someone reaching for ways to fit things into their preconceived notions of god hate would think it is anything other than an insult to the believer.  It is a dig at someone who believes in god.  That doesn't indicate the insulter believes!  I could call Santa Clause the fat fairy, it wouldn't indicate I believe in his existence!
> 
> I'm not sidestepping.  I'm pointing out the clear differences that you seem incapable of accepting.  Hating something you don't believe in isn't possible.  Hating the idea of something, or the people who believe in the thing, certainly is.  *For some reason, in your mind, that doesn't seem to be true*.
Click to expand...


The OP's excuse is that he is a "psychologist" so he can make up whatever convenient "truths" suit his vague purposes at any point in time.


----------



## Boss

Derideo_Te said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Furthermore it requires advanced degrees (mostly doctorates) to be classified as a psychologist with the only exception being a "school psychologist" but *the OP claims to be in "research"* and is a "scientist who studies human behavior" instead. (Makes one wonder why he picked an inane handle like "the boss" )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never made any such claims. To be a psychologist you only have to obtain a degree in Psychology. To be a doctor of psychology, you have to obtain a doctorate in Psychology. This entire line of questioning is the result of daws incorrectly stating that psychologists are obligated to remain neutral for their clients. This is clearly an ethical consideration of a practicing psychiatrist and not a psychologist. It's a common error made by dummies like daws.
> 
> Now as I said, psychologists can work in all kinds of specialized fields, and in rare cases, some may actually treat patients and have clients. The vast majority of psychologists do not. In fact, most people who have a psychology degree never use it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again the OP's canards are exposed!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Boss:** I've never made any such claims.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Boss:* *I am a psychologist, I study behavior in humans.*
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Sorry, I am not seeing where I said I was in research there. 

The "canard" seems to be your focus on my personal life instead of the thread OP.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never made any such claims. To be a psychologist you only have to obtain a degree in Psychology. To be a doctor of psychology, you have to obtain a doctorate in Psychology. This entire line of questioning is the result of daws incorrectly stating that psychologists are obligated to remain neutral for their clients. This is clearly an ethical consideration of a practicing psychiatrist and not a psychologist. It's a common error made by dummies like daws.
> 
> Now as I said, psychologists can work in all kinds of specialized fields, and in rare cases, some may actually treat patients and have clients. The vast majority of psychologists do not. In fact, most people who have a psychology degree never use it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again the OP's canards are exposed!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Boss:* *I am a psychologist, I study behavior in humans.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry,* I am not seeing where I said I was in research there. *
> 
> The "canard" seems to be your focus on my personal life instead of the thread OP.
Click to expand...


 your hole even deeper again?

When you "study behavior in humans" that is research. Fascinating how you don't even know the common terms and their meanings in your alleged own line of work. 

Your credibility as the OP is what is in question now. Since you utterly failed to substantiate your OP and then tried to bolster yourself by alleging to be a "psychologist" it is perfectly legitimate to vet your latest claim. 

That this claim appears to be as bogus as your OP comes as no surprise.


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> So yet again I have to point out that hating the belief in a god(s) is not the same as hating the god(s).  Hating the believer is not the same as hating the god(s).
> 
> Is there a particular reason you assume atheists cannot hate either the belief or the believer and must, instead, hate the god(s)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't hate what you do not believe exists. I don't know how else to explain that to you. In order to hate something, you have to believe it exists first. If you don't believe in God, why do you need to call him "sky daddy" and other assorted names? It makes no sense. Those are perjoratives designed to insult and infer hate or ridicule for something you very much do believe in but loathe. When you are obsessing with it, spending day after day here, doing the same thing, it is either a mental disorder or you honestly hate the God that you believe exists. There is not another rational explanation.
> 
> Now you are doing practically everything you can think of to avoid seeing my point. You've come up with every possible way to create and exception or explain a nuance instead of trying to understand my point, and I wonder why that is? Is it so you can keep on defending your personal God-hate? Is it because you are thick and obtuse? Or is it just because you like to win arguments on any front for the hell of it?
> 
> It doesn't really matter to me, if you're stubbornly going to refuse to see my point, there isn't much I can do about that. You just keep trying to sidestep it and carve out an exception... well, there are exceptions to everything. I've not said that 100% of the time in all cases this is true. It's my observation, I've made my point, and if you don't agree with me, that's fine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, pot meet kettle.
> 
> Once again!  Hating a belief in god is not hating the god.  Hating believers in god is not hating god.  Are you able to understand that yet?
> 
> Each time I bring up hating not the god, but the belief in it or those who believe, you once again go right back to assuming any hatred must be of the god itself.  That's simply untrue and a completely foolish assumption to make.  Why is it only with god that a person cannot hate a belief?  Certainly this board shows many people hating various political beliefs.  Is that for some reason impossible with religious belief?
> 
> Clearly when someone uses the term 'sky daddy' it is an insult.  However, only someone reaching for ways to fit things into their preconceived notions of god hate would think it is anything other than an insult to the believer.  It is a dig at someone who believes in god.  That doesn't indicate the insulter believes!  I could call Santa Clause the fat fairy, it wouldn't indicate I believe in his existence!
> 
> I'm not sidestepping.  I'm pointing out the clear differences that you seem incapable of accepting.  Hating something you don't believe in isn't possible.  Hating the idea of something, or the people who believe in the thing, certainly is.  For some reason, in your mind, that doesn't seem to be true.
Click to expand...


I have no idea what you mean by "pot meet kettle" ...you keep saying it, but you're failing to explain why the anecdote applies. I am not obsessively attacking something I don't believe exists. Find an example of me doing that and I will admit you got me. 

Again, hating and loathing someone to the point of obsession the way some do here, is not indicative of people who don't believe in something. The God-haters firmly believe those who worship God gain some sort of benefit from it, and they detest this. They know that God influences these people and they don't like that. If that were not the case, it wouldn't matter, just as it doesn't matter that some people believe in Santa, the Easter Bunny, alien abductions, ghosts, etc. They're not obsessively attacking those people, are they? 

Yes, you can say Santa is a fat fairy and it doesn't mean you believe in Santa... but if you spent nearly all your waking hours seeking out those who believe in Santa to ridicule and denigrate them in every imaginative way possible, one would have to conclude that you either have a mental problem or there was something about those people's belief that caused you great consternation. If you didn't believe there was anything to it, why would it bother you?


----------



## Boss

Derideo_Te said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again the OP's canards are exposed!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry,* I am not seeing where I said I was in research there. *
> 
> The "canard" seems to be your focus on my personal life instead of the thread OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> your hole even deeper again?
> 
> When you "study behavior in humans" that is research. Fascinating how you don't even know the common terms and their meanings in your alleged own line of work.
> 
> Your credibility as the OP is what is in question now. Since you utterly failed to substantiate your OP and then tried to bolster yourself by alleging to be a "psychologist" it is perfectly legitimate to vet your latest claim.
> 
> That this claim appears to be as bogus as your OP comes as no surprise.
Click to expand...


Hmm... Not seeing the word research anywhere in what I said. Sorry. 
"I am a psychologist" --true statement, I have a degree in psychology from the University of Alabama, 1983. 
"I study behavior in humans" ---true statement, does not denote "research" in any way.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't hate what you do not believe exists. I don't know how else to explain that to you. In order to hate something, you have to believe it exists first. If you don't believe in God, why do you need to call him "sky daddy" and other assorted names? It makes no sense. Those are perjoratives designed to insult and infer hate or ridicule for something you very much do believe in but loathe. When you are obsessing with it, spending day after day here, doing the same thing, it is either a mental disorder or you honestly hate the God that you believe exists. There is not another rational explanation.
> 
> Now you are doing practically everything you can think of to avoid seeing my point. You've come up with every possible way to create and exception or explain a nuance instead of trying to understand my point, and I wonder why that is? Is it so you can keep on defending your personal God-hate? Is it because you are thick and obtuse? Or is it just because you like to win arguments on any front for the hell of it?
> 
> It doesn't really matter to me, if you're stubbornly going to refuse to see my point, there isn't much I can do about that. You just keep trying to sidestep it and carve out an exception... well, there are exceptions to everything. I've not said that 100% of the time in all cases this is true. It's my observation, I've made my point, and if you don't agree with me, that's fine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, pot meet kettle.
> 
> Once again!  Hating a belief in god is not hating the god.  Hating believers in god is not hating god.  Are you able to understand that yet?
> 
> Each time I bring up hating not the god, but the belief in it or those who believe, you once again go right back to assuming any hatred must be of the god itself.  That's simply untrue and a completely foolish assumption to make.  Why is it only with god that a person cannot hate a belief?  Certainly this board shows many people hating various political beliefs.  Is that for some reason impossible with religious belief?
> 
> Clearly when someone uses the term 'sky daddy' it is an insult.  However, only someone reaching for ways to fit things into their preconceived notions of god hate would think it is anything other than an insult to the believer.  It is a dig at someone who believes in god.  That doesn't indicate the insulter believes!  I could call Santa Clause the fat fairy, it wouldn't indicate I believe in his existence!
> 
> I'm not sidestepping.  I'm pointing out the clear differences that you seem incapable of accepting.  Hating something you don't believe in isn't possible.  Hating the idea of something, or the people who believe in the thing, certainly is.  For some reason, in your mind, that doesn't seem to be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea what you mean by "pot meet kettle" ...you keep saying it, but you're failing to explain why the anecdote applies. I am not obsessively attacking something I don't believe exists. Find an example of me doing that and I will admit you got me.
> 
> Again, hating and loathing someone to the point of obsession the way some do here, is not indicative of people who don't believe in something. *The God-haters firmly believe those who worship God gain some sort of benefit from it, and they detest this.* They know that God influences these people and they don't like that. If that were not the case, it wouldn't matter, just as it doesn't matter that some people believe in Santa, the Easter Bunny, alien abductions, ghosts, etc. They're not obsessively attacking those people, are they?
> 
> Yes, you can say Santa is a fat fairy and it doesn't mean you believe in Santa... but if you spent nearly all your waking hours seeking out those who believe in Santa to ridicule and denigrate them in every imaginative way possible, one would have to conclude that you either have a mental problem or there was something about those people's belief that caused you great consternation. If you didn't believe there was anything to it, why would it bother you?
Click to expand...





> The God-haters firmly believe those who worship God gain some sort of benefit from it, and they detest this.



The OP has consistently FAILED to prove any of the following;

1. There are "god haters".

2. That "god haters" have any of the "beliefs" that he alleges they have.

3. That "god haters" "detest" whatever "benefit" those who worship God might obtain.

All of the above only exists in the OP's fevered imagination. He is utterly obsessed with these mythical "god haters" and goes around accusing people of being "god haters" much like the witch-finders of yore. Next thing he will be insisting upon using a ducking stool on innocent people to "prove" that they are "god haters" If they drown they are innocent and if they don't that means they must be "god haters".


----------



## Derideo_Te

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry,* I am not seeing where I said I was in research there. *
> 
> The "canard" seems to be your focus on my personal life instead of the thread OP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> your hole even deeper again?
> 
> When you "study behavior in humans" that is research. Fascinating how you don't even know the common terms and their meanings in your alleged own line of work.
> 
> Your credibility as the OP is what is in question now. Since you utterly failed to substantiate your OP and then tried to bolster yourself by alleging to be a "psychologist" it is perfectly legitimate to vet your latest claim.
> 
> That this claim appears to be as bogus as your OP comes as no surprise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmm... Not seeing the word research anywhere in what I said. Sorry.
> "I am a psychologist" --true statement, I have a degree in psychology from the University of Alabama, 1983.
> "I study behavior in humans" ---true statement, does not denote "research" in any way.
Click to expand...


Let me google that for you


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clinical psychologists have a wide range of clients. Who is included depends on the setting, the role, the interests, and the training of the particular psychologists in question. In a private practice focusing on life coaching, a broad sample of the general population would be seen. In an educational setting, both students and staff could be clients. In a hospital environment, patients with psychological issues affecting their physical health might be the focus (e.g., those with diabetes, cardiac disease, epilepsy, or chronic pain). In community mental health agencies, clients might include people with mental disorders, such as bipolar affective disorder, dissociative identity disorder (i.e., multiple personality disorders), schizophrenia, mental retardation, or significant life struggles (e.g., gender issues).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what you are doing now is trying again to save face after demonstrating your ignorance. This is getting to be a habit with you. You stick your size 12 in your pie hole, then you have to come back and spin it to do damage control.
> 
> Again, psychologists do not have "clients." A psychiatrist (who has a degree in psychology) may have clients. An educator who has a degree in education and psychology, may have students. Hospitals and community health centers do not have psychologists, they sometimes have psychiatrists who have degrees in psychology. Most psychologists (who do not have medical degrees in psychiatry) work for research groups. Sometimes those research groups may be associated with a large medical center like Johns Hopkins. The psychologist still doesn't have "clients."
> 
> Why we are waist-deep in this discussion, I do not know. It has nothing to do with the topic or OP. It's a bit of personal information I revealed about myself, and it appears you want to challenge that, for some odd reason. I guess it's because I've been kicking your ass around this place for so long, you are getting desperate to make any kind of point. Sorry, but challenging someone's professional credentials is usually not a real wise way to go about that. Just saying.
Click to expand...

since you have no professional credentials ,unless they give them out for hubris..
the only one doing damage control and getting their ass hand to them is you...


----------



## daws101

Derideo_Te said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> no you claim to be a psychologist !
> psychologists have to keep their religious views separate from their profession so as not to taint their advice to clients.
> I've yet to see you take a neutral position in any of your posts..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A few points I need to correct you on here. *First of all, psychologists do not have "clients" *(...you may be thinking of psychiatrists.) A psychologist is a scientist who studies human behavior. Secondly, I do not post at USMB in an "official" capacity of my profession, but as an individual posting his opinion and viewpoint. Lastly, I have no "religious" views, other than the view that I don't condone or advocate any organized religious doctrine. I am a Spiritualist. I believe in a Spiritual Nature and Spiritual God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Imagine that? Someone who claims to be a psychologist but doesn't even know that clinical/counseling psychologists treat patients (not "clients").
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A psychologist evaluates, diagnoses, treats, and studies behavior and mental processes.[1] Some psychologists, such as clinical and counseling psychologists, provide mental health care, and some psychologists, such as social or organizational psychologists conduct research and provide consultation services..
> 
> Psychologist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Furthermore it requires advanced degrees (mostly doctorates) to be classified as a psychologist with the only exception being a "school psychologist" but the OP claims to be in "research" and is a "scientist who studies human behavior" instead. (Makes one wonder why he picked an inane handle like "the boss" )
> 
> Nothing in the OP's posts indicate that he has any great depth of education, or that he has any insight into human behavior, or any grasp whatsoever of the scientific method. Quite the opposite in fact. He demonstrates an inability to express himself clearly and concisely, he has an all too obvious problem controlling his emotions and he posts logical fallacies on a regular basis.
> 
> So perhaps he is just a PsyINO!
Click to expand...

bump


----------



## daws101




----------



## Boss

Ahh... Now I can rest assured I have made my point brilliantly! Dawsy is posting memes!


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> Ahh... Now I can rest assured I have made my point brilliantly! Dawsy is posting memes!


sure you can but as with everything you post  it's false.
your meme phobia is truly telling.. do you have other ocd issues?


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't hate what you do not believe exists. I don't know how else to explain that to you. In order to hate something, you have to believe it exists first. If you don't believe in God, why do you need to call him "sky daddy" and other assorted names? It makes no sense. Those are perjoratives designed to insult and infer hate or ridicule for something you very much do believe in but loathe. When you are obsessing with it, spending day after day here, doing the same thing, it is either a mental disorder or you honestly hate the God that you believe exists. There is not another rational explanation.
> 
> Now you are doing practically everything you can think of to avoid seeing my point. You've come up with every possible way to create and exception or explain a nuance instead of trying to understand my point, and I wonder why that is? Is it so you can keep on defending your personal God-hate? Is it because you are thick and obtuse? Or is it just because you like to win arguments on any front for the hell of it?
> 
> It doesn't really matter to me, if you're stubbornly going to refuse to see my point, there isn't much I can do about that. You just keep trying to sidestep it and carve out an exception... well, there are exceptions to everything. I've not said that 100% of the time in all cases this is true. It's my observation, I've made my point, and if you don't agree with me, that's fine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, pot meet kettle.
> 
> Once again!  Hating a belief in god is not hating the god.  Hating believers in god is not hating god.  Are you able to understand that yet?
> 
> Each time I bring up hating not the god, but the belief in it or those who believe, you once again go right back to assuming any hatred must be of the god itself.  That's simply untrue and a completely foolish assumption to make.  Why is it only with god that a person cannot hate a belief?  Certainly this board shows many people hating various political beliefs.  Is that for some reason impossible with religious belief?
> 
> Clearly when someone uses the term 'sky daddy' it is an insult.  However, only someone reaching for ways to fit things into their preconceived notions of god hate would think it is anything other than an insult to the believer.  It is a dig at someone who believes in god.  That doesn't indicate the insulter believes!  I could call Santa Clause the fat fairy, it wouldn't indicate I believe in his existence!
> 
> I'm not sidestepping.  I'm pointing out the clear differences that you seem incapable of accepting.  Hating something you don't believe in isn't possible.  Hating the idea of something, or the people who believe in the thing, certainly is.  For some reason, in your mind, that doesn't seem to be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea what you mean by "pot meet kettle" ...you keep saying it, but you're failing to explain why the anecdote applies. I am not obsessively attacking something I don't believe exists. Find an example of me doing that and I will admit you got me.
> 
> Again, hating and loathing someone to the point of obsession the way some do here, is not indicative of people who don't believe in something. The God-haters firmly believe those who worship God gain some sort of benefit from it, and they detest this. They know that God influences these people and they don't like that. If that were not the case, it wouldn't matter, just as it doesn't matter that some people believe in Santa, the Easter Bunny, alien abductions, ghosts, etc. They're not obsessively attacking those people, are they?
> 
> Yes, you can say Santa is a fat fairy and it doesn't mean you believe in Santa... but if you spent nearly all your waking hours seeking out those who believe in Santa to ridicule and denigrate them in every imaginative way possible, one would have to conclude that you either have a mental problem or there was something about those people's belief that caused you great consternation. If you didn't believe there was anything to it, why would it bother you?
Click to expand...


There are multiple ways in which the pot calling the kettle black applies to you.

First, while you may not be obsessively posting about something you don't believe in, you are obsessively posting as well as insulting, which you deride the supposed god-haters for.

Next, you are clearly refusing to see *my* point, repeated multiple times, that one can easily hate the belief in god without believing the god exists, just as one can easily hate believers without believing the god exists.  Each time I've pointed out that simple and obvious truth to you, you've fallen back on assuming that these atheists must believe in god.

If these god-haters think that believers gain some benefit from their belief, why assume they think the benefit is borne of the actions of god?  Perhaps they believe society provides benefits to the believers and are jealous or resentful of those benefits.  

Really, what bothers me most is probably that you admit that atheists don't believe in god, and when presented with self-professed atheists, rather than looking for a reason for their actions not rooted in belief in god, you instead go straight to that belief as your answer.  

I completely agree, an atheist will not hate god because he/she doesn't believe in god.  But that's the point!  They don't believe, so why jump to the conclusion they do?  Because being insulting and obsessively posting about a topic isn't rational?  That's pretty much the M.O. of 75% of the posts on this board!  Why is such behavior rational and acceptable in politics, but not religion?

Some people have a strong desire to try and convince others their views are correct.  That's why we argue, particularly about subjects like these in which actually swaying someone to your view is such a rarity.  Can you agree with those statements?


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> There are multiple ways in which the pot calling the kettle black applies to you.
> 
> First, while you may not be obsessively posting about something you don't believe in, you are obsessively posting as well as insulting, which you deride the supposed god-haters for.



No no no... I do not deride them for obsessively posting or insulting, I deride them for being dishonest players. If someone said, "I believe in God, I just hate the mofo!" I'm fine with that! If someone said, "I realize God is real and you believe in Him or have a sense of loyalty to Him and get some benefit from that, and I hate you for it!" I'm fine with that! No problem whatsoever! 



> Next, you are clearly refusing to see *my* point, repeated multiple times, that one can easily hate the belief in god without believing the god exists, just as one can easily hate believers without believing the god exists.  Each time I've pointed out that simple and obvious truth to you, you've fallen back on assuming that these atheists must believe in god.



Well it's because it's not rational behavior when it becomes an obsession. There is no rational reason to hate something that doesn't exist, nor to hate the belief in something that is academic. It's pointless and irrational. Now some people are pointless and irrational, but most who behave this way are just dishonest. 



> If these god-haters think that believers gain some benefit from their belief, why assume they think the benefit is borne of the actions of god?  Perhaps they believe society provides benefits to the believers and are jealous or resentful of those benefits.



Because there is no societal benefit to religious conviction of faith. The religious are the most persecuted people on the planet. They certainly don't get any breaks in society for believing in God. I'm not complaining about that, it's just a fact of life. 



> Really, what bothers me most is probably that you admit that atheists don't believe in god, and when presented with self-professed atheists, rather than looking for a reason for their actions not rooted in belief in god, you instead go straight to that belief as your answer.



Again, just because someone claims they are an Atheist, doesn't make it true. I contend there are some "Atheists" who are bigger believers in God than some so-called "Christians." People lie all the time about who they are.  



> I completely agree, an atheist will not hate god because he/she doesn't believe in god.  But that's the point!  They don't believe, so why jump to the conclusion they do?  Because being insulting and obsessively posting about a topic isn't rational?  That's pretty much the M.O. of 75% of the posts on this board!  Why is such behavior rational and acceptable in politics, but not religion?



Because politics affect our lives and are very much real and believable things. People are passionate about what they believe in. They are not obsessed with what they don't believe exists or things they believe are pointless and superficial. I don't jump to the conclusion that a true Atheist actually believes in God, and I haven't made that argument. 



> Some people have a strong desire to try and convince others their views are correct.  That's why we argue, particularly about subjects like these in which actually swaying someone to your view is such a rarity.  Can you agree with those statements?



You try to sway the views of others when it matters to you, when it affects you personally, when you know and are aware of the opposing viewpoint being relevant and meaningful. If you don't believe the opposing view has validity or is meaningless, what difference does it make? How does that affect you? Why would you rationally obsess on something that has no merit or doesn't matter because it's superficial and not real? Makes no logical sense.


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are multiple ways in which the pot calling the kettle black applies to you.
> 
> First, while you may not be obsessively posting about something you don't believe in, you are obsessively posting as well as insulting, which you deride the supposed god-haters for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No no no... I do not deride them for obsessively posting or insulting, I deride them for being dishonest players. If someone said, "I believe in God, I just hate the mofo!" I'm fine with that! If someone said, "I realize God is real and you believe in Him or have a sense of loyalty to Him and get some benefit from that, and I hate you for it!" I'm fine with that! No problem whatsoever!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Next, you are clearly refusing to see *my* point, repeated multiple times, that one can easily hate the belief in god without believing the god exists, just as one can easily hate believers without believing the god exists.  Each time I've pointed out that simple and obvious truth to you, you've fallen back on assuming that these atheists must believe in god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well it's because it's not rational behavior when it becomes an obsession. There is no rational reason to hate something that doesn't exist, nor to hate the belief in something that is academic. It's pointless and irrational. Now some people are pointless and irrational, but most who behave this way are just dishonest.
> 
> 
> 
> Because there is no societal benefit to religious conviction of faith. The religious are the most persecuted people on the planet. They certainly don't get any breaks in society for believing in God. I'm not complaining about that, it's just a fact of life.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, just because someone claims they are an Atheist, doesn't make it true. I contend there are some "Atheists" who are bigger believers in God than some so-called "Christians." People lie all the time about who they are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I completely agree, an atheist will not hate god because he/she doesn't believe in god.  But that's the point!  They don't believe, so why jump to the conclusion they do?  Because being insulting and obsessively posting about a topic isn't rational?  That's pretty much the M.O. of 75% of the posts on this board!  Why is such behavior rational and acceptable in politics, but not religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because politics affect our lives and are very much real and believable things. People are passionate about what they believe in. They are not obsessed with what they don't believe exists or things they believe are pointless and superficial. I don't jump to the conclusion that a true Atheist actually believes in God, and I haven't made that argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some people have a strong desire to try and convince others their views are correct.  That's why we argue, particularly about subjects like these in which actually swaying someone to your view is such a rarity.  Can you agree with those statements?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You try to sway the views of others when it matters to you, when it affects you personally, when you know and are aware of the opposing viewpoint being relevant and meaningful. If you don't believe the opposing view has validity or is meaningless, what difference does it make? How does that affect you? Why would you rationally obsess on something that has no merit or doesn't matter because it's superficial and not real? Makes no logical sense.
Click to expand...

the award for best unessential rationalizing goes to.....


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are multiple ways in which the pot calling the kettle black applies to you.
> 
> First, while you may not be obsessively posting about something you don't believe in, you are obsessively posting as well as insulting, which you deride the supposed god-haters for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No no no... I do not deride them for obsessively posting or insulting, I deride them for being dishonest players. If someone said, "I believe in God, I just hate the mofo!" I'm fine with that! If someone said, "I realize God is real and you believe in Him or have a sense of loyalty to Him and get some benefit from that, and I hate you for it!" I'm fine with that! No problem whatsoever!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Next, you are clearly refusing to see *my* point, repeated multiple times, that one can easily hate the belief in god without believing the god exists, just as one can easily hate believers without believing the god exists.  Each time I've pointed out that simple and obvious truth to you, you've fallen back on assuming that these atheists must believe in god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well it's because it's not rational behavior when it becomes an obsession. There is no rational reason to hate something that doesn't exist, nor to hate the belief in something that is academic. It's pointless and irrational. Now some people are pointless and irrational, but most who behave this way are just dishonest.
> 
> 
> 
> Because there is no societal benefit to religious conviction of faith. The religious are the most persecuted people on the planet. They certainly don't get any breaks in society for believing in God. I'm not complaining about that, it's just a fact of life.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, just because someone claims they are an Atheist, doesn't make it true. I contend there are some "Atheists" who are bigger believers in God than some so-called "Christians." People lie all the time about who they are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I completely agree, an atheist will not hate god because he/she doesn't believe in god.  But that's the point!  They don't believe, so why jump to the conclusion they do?  Because being insulting and obsessively posting about a topic isn't rational?  That's pretty much the M.O. of 75% of the posts on this board!  Why is such behavior rational and acceptable in politics, but not religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because politics affect our lives and are very much real and believable things. People are passionate about what they believe in. They are not obsessed with what they don't believe exists or things they believe are pointless and superficial. I don't jump to the conclusion that a true Atheist actually believes in God, and I haven't made that argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some people have a strong desire to try and convince others their views are correct.  That's why we argue, particularly about subjects like these in which actually swaying someone to your view is such a rarity.  Can you agree with those statements?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You try to sway the views of others when it matters to you, when it affects you personally, when you know and are aware of the opposing viewpoint being relevant and meaningful. If you don't believe the opposing view has validity or is meaningless, what difference does it make? How does that affect you? Why would you rationally obsess on something that has no merit or doesn't matter because it's superficial and not real? Makes no logical sense.
Click to expand...


If you think the religious beliefs of others have no effect on you, you are in the minority IMO.  People of all different beliefs feel they are persecuted or looked down upon, that people of other beliefs are setting policy which contradicts or suppresses their own beliefs, etc. etc. 

Have you read this board?  A large portion of the arguments revolve around things that don't effect the posters any more than religion (which, as I already pointed out, can have a large effect on people's lives).  You seem to be making another assumption; that the religion of others is unimportant to most people, or even just to atheists.  I have no idea what that assumption is based on.

I am confident that many atheists feel the religious get benefits in our society they do not.  Just look at our politicians, who nearly all express religious belief.  Look at any poll as to the religious identification of adults in this country : the vast majority claim some sort of religious belief.  Atheists are most certainly a small minority, and as such, are probably more at risk of being the outcasts, the outsiders.  Any member of a 'different' group has a risk of that.  Your posts in this thread can be seen as an example of it!

So atheists must be logical and rational.  Is there any other group you feel must be lying if they do not act in ways you consider logical and rational?  Apparently political affiliations are given a pass.  Do believers need to act logically and rationally, or can they be as obsessive as they want?

I find it amazing and pretty hilarious that you claim people will only act in ways you find acceptable or reasonable.  Especially as I would say most of your arguments here are anything but.


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> If you think the religious beliefs of others have no effect on you, you are in the minority IMO.  People of all different beliefs feel they are persecuted or looked down upon, that people of other beliefs are setting policy which contradicts or suppresses their own beliefs, etc. etc.



I'm not an Atheist who doesn't believe in a God or that religious people are practicing a pointless endeavor. Whether other people feel persecuted has nothing to do with my point. Religious people are persecuted every single day. There is no "social advantage" for the religious. You made that baseless claim, not me. 



> Have you read this board?  A large portion of the arguments revolve around things that don't effect the posters any more than religion (which, as I already pointed out, can have a large effect on people's lives).  You seem to be making another assumption; that the religion of others is unimportant to most people, or even just to atheists.  I have no idea what that assumption is based on.



Again, it doesn't matter what other arguments are being made or how they affect others. That's not the point of our conversation. Has nothing to do with it whatsoever. The assumption I'm making is based on the fact that Atheists don't believe in God and don't believe worshiping God has any purpose. God-haters obviously believe differently, which is why they obsess and hate. Religion of others is very important to them. 



> I am confident that many atheists feel the religious get benefits in our society they do not.  Just look at our politicians, who nearly all express religious belief.  Look at any poll as to the religious identification of adults in this country : the vast majority claim some sort of religious belief.  Atheists are most certainly a small minority, and as such, are probably more at risk of being the outcasts, the outsiders.  Any member of a 'different' group has a risk of that.  Your posts in this thread can be seen as an example of it!



You can be confident all you like, you've not listed a single social benefit to being religious. My post? Hell, have you been reading the same comments as me? Doesn't look as if I am winning any favor here with my viewpoint, does it? What fucking "advantage" do you see me getting out of this? 



> So atheists must be logical and rational.  Is there any other group you feel must be lying if they do not act in ways you consider logical and rational?  Apparently political affiliations are given a pass.  Do believers need to act logically and rationally, or can they be as obsessive as they want?



I did not say they must be logical and rational, did I? No... In fact, I admitted that sometimes people aren't logical and rational. I've also not said a thing about legitimate Atheists, you are again trying to confuse Atheists with God-haters... two different animals.



> I find it amazing and pretty hilarious that you claim people will only act in ways you find acceptable or reasonable.  Especially as I would say most of your arguments here are anything but.



I didn't say people have to behave the way I want them to, did I? NOPE! Again, we see that you are just making shit up as you go along. No wonder you have the view you do about my arguments, you're going out of your way to twist my arguments into absurdities you can contradict. When you do that, it automatically makes you biased toward my arguments. I can't fucking make you stop, dude. If you want to distort what I say into things you can trash and bash, there's not a damn thing in the world I can do about that.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you think the religious beliefs of others have no effect on you, you are in the minority IMO.  People of all different beliefs feel they are persecuted or looked down upon, that people of other beliefs are setting policy which contradicts or suppresses their own beliefs, etc. etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not an Atheist who doesn't believe in a God or that religious people are practicing a pointless endeavor. Whether other people feel persecuted has nothing to do with my point. Religious people are persecuted every single day. There is no "social advantage" for the religious. You made that baseless claim, not me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you read this board?  A large portion of the arguments revolve around things that don't effect the posters any more than religion (which, as I already pointed out, can have a large effect on people's lives).  You seem to be making another assumption; that the religion of others is unimportant to most people, or even just to atheists.  I have no idea what that assumption is based on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, it doesn't matter what other arguments are being made or how they affect others. That's not the point of our conversation. Has nothing to do with it whatsoever. The assumption I'm making is based on the fact that Atheists don't believe in God and don't believe worshiping God has any purpose. God-haters obviously believe differently, which is why they obsess and hate. Religion of others is very important to them.
> 
> 
> 
> You can be confident all you like, you've not listed a single social benefit to being religious. My post? Hell, have you been reading the same comments as me? Doesn't look as if I am winning any favor here with my viewpoint, does it? What fucking "advantage" do you see me getting out of this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So atheists must be logical and rational.  Is there any other group you feel must be lying if they do not act in ways you consider logical and rational?  Apparently political affiliations are given a pass.  Do believers need to act logically and rationally, or can they be as obsessive as they want?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did not say they must be logical and rational, did I? No... In fact, I admitted that sometimes people aren't logical and rational. I've also not said a thing about legitimate Atheists, you are again trying to confuse Atheists with God-haters... two different animals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find it amazing and pretty hilarious that you claim people will only act in ways you find acceptable or reasonable.  Especially as I would say most of your arguments here are anything but.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say people have to behave the way I want them to, did I? NOPE! Again, we see that you are just making shit up as you go along. No wonder you have the view you do about my arguments, you're going out of your way to twist my arguments into absurdities you can contradict. When you do that, it automatically makes you biased toward my arguments. I can't fucking make you stop, dude. If you want to distort what I say into things you can trash and bash, there's not a damn thing in the world I can do about that.
Click to expand...


Actually, you did say that people have to behave the way you want them to, in that you said atheists will not be obsessive about believers or belief or god, they will not insult and spew vitriol about god or believers, etc.  What you have said is basically that in order to be a 'true' atheist, a person must not divert from your set of behavioral standards.    I don't have to distort anything.  When you say atheists will not do certain things which have nothing to do with what makes them atheists, especially when you don't feel the same standards apply to other kinds of belief or lack of belief, you speak for yourself.

You said it would not be rational for atheists to argue 'obsessively' about god.  What would be the point of that argument if you think atheists often act irrationally?  Wouldn't that kind of undermine your entire god-hater idea?  

I should have been more specific.  You are correct that those with unusual religious or spiritual beliefs are unlikely to get much societal benefit from those beliefs.  They, like atheists, are in the minority, and so will find themselves on the outside looking in at times.

Atheists do not need to believe that worshiping god serves no purpose.  They just don't believe in the existence of god.  That doesn't mean religion cannot serve a purpose.  Once again, you set standards for the belief or behavior of atheists beyond the definition of atheism.

Use your own definition of atheism if you like.  If you want to argue anything about atheists, however, you might want to clearly state that definition rather than assume others know and agree with the one you are using which is neither a dictionary definition nor a common use one.

I'm not making shit up as I go along.  I'm taking your posts and responding to the things you are saying.  I'm sorry if you don't mean what you are saying.


----------



## BreezeWood

Boss said:


> just curious Boss, have the Santa Clause believers ever tortured to death those who question their beliefs ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I hardly believe anyone here was affected by the Crusades. But even so, if the God-haters simply admitted *they hate God because of the Crusades*, I would totally understand the justifications for their vitriolic hate.
Click to expand...



*... they hate God because of the Crusades*


why chose the Crusades, other than the scripturally bound religion of the middle east it is difficult to believe ordinary people have an ongoing "hatred" for that historical event.

or, are you saying the Islamist (not just Atheists) hate God also rather than the misguided crusaders responsible for the bloodshed ?

Boss, where do you find the "love" in the actions of the crusaders ? -

do you find Love in the scriptures of Bible ?

.


----------



## koshergrl

Derideo_Te said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, pot meet kettle.
> 
> Once again! Hating a belief in god is not hating the god. Hating believers in god is not hating god. Are you able to understand that yet?
> 
> Each time I bring up hating not the god, but the belief in it or those who believe, you once again go right back to assuming any hatred must be of the god itself. That's simply untrue and a completely foolish assumption to make. Why is it only with god that a person cannot hate a belief? Certainly this board shows many people hating various political beliefs. Is that for some reason impossible with religious belief?
> 
> Clearly when someone uses the term 'sky daddy' it is an insult. However, only someone reaching for ways to fit things into their preconceived notions of god hate would think it is anything other than an insult to the believer. It is a dig at someone who believes in god. That doesn't indicate the insulter believes! I could call Santa Clause the fat fairy, it wouldn't indicate I believe in his existence!
> 
> I'm not sidestepping. I'm pointing out the clear differences that you seem incapable of accepting. Hating something you don't believe in isn't possible. Hating the idea of something, or the people who believe in the thing, certainly is. For some reason, in your mind, that doesn't seem to be true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea what you mean by "pot meet kettle" ...you keep saying it, but you're failing to explain why the anecdote applies. I am not obsessively attacking something I don't believe exists. Find an example of me doing that and I will admit you got me.
> 
> Again, hating and loathing someone to the point of obsession the way some do here, is not indicative of people who don't believe in something. *The God-haters firmly believe those who worship God gain some sort of benefit from it, and they detest this.* They know that God influences these people and they don't like that. If that were not the case, it wouldn't matter, just as it doesn't matter that some people believe in Santa, the Easter Bunny, alien abductions, ghosts, etc. They're not obsessively attacking those people, are they?
> 
> Yes, you can say Santa is a fat fairy and it doesn't mean you believe in Santa... but if you spent nearly all your waking hours seeking out those who believe in Santa to ridicule and denigrate them in every imaginative way possible, one would have to conclude that you either have a mental problem or there was something about those people's belief that caused you great consternation. If you didn't believe there was anything to it, why would it bother you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The God-haters firmly believe those who worship God gain some sort of benefit from it, and they detest this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The OP has consistently FAILED to prove any of the following;
> 
> 1. There are "god haters".
> 
> 2. That "god haters" have any of the "beliefs" that he alleges they have.
> 
> 3. That "god haters" "detest" whatever "benefit" those who worship God might obtain.
> 
> All of the above only exists in the OP's fevered imagination. He is utterly obsessed with these mythical "god haters" and goes around accusing people of being "god haters" much like the witch-finders of yore. Next thing he will be insisting upon using a ducking stool on innocent people to "prove" that they are "god haters" If they drown they are innocent and if they don't that means they must be "god haters".
Click to expand...

 
God haters and anti-Christian bigots post on here every day.

Every. Single. Day.

And they claim they are atheists.


----------



## GISMYS

BreezeWood said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> just curious Boss, have the Santa Clause believers ever tortured to death those who question their beliefs ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I hardly believe anyone here was affected by the Crusades. But even so, if the God-haters simply admitted *they hate God because of the Crusades*, I would totally understand the justifications for their vitriolic hate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *... they hate God because of the Crusades*
> 
> 
> why chose the Crusades, other than the scripturally bound religion of the middle east it is difficult to believe ordinary people have an ongoing "hatred" for that historical event.
> 
> or, are you saying the Islamist (not just Atheists) hate God also rather than the misguided crusaders responsible for the bloodshed ?
> 
> Boss, where do you find the "love" in the actions of the crusaders ? -
> 
> do you find Love in the scriptures of Bible ?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Why would any "thinking" person try to blame God for the sins of so called crusaders 1000 years ago????


----------



## Steven_R

koshergrl said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea what you mean by "pot meet kettle" ...you keep saying it, but you're failing to explain why the anecdote applies. I am not obsessively attacking something I don't believe exists. Find an example of me doing that and I will admit you got me.
> 
> Again, hating and loathing someone to the point of obsession the way some do here, is not indicative of people who don't believe in something. *The God-haters firmly believe those who worship God gain some sort of benefit from it, and they detest this.* They know that God influences these people and they don't like that. If that were not the case, it wouldn't matter, just as it doesn't matter that some people believe in Santa, the Easter Bunny, alien abductions, ghosts, etc. They're not obsessively attacking those people, are they?
> 
> Yes, you can say Santa is a fat fairy and it doesn't mean you believe in Santa... but if you spent nearly all your waking hours seeking out those who believe in Santa to ridicule and denigrate them in every imaginative way possible, one would have to conclude that you either have a mental problem or there was something about those people's belief that caused you great consternation. If you didn't believe there was anything to it, why would it bother you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The God-haters firmly believe those who worship God gain some sort of benefit from it, and they detest this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The OP has consistently FAILED to prove any of the following;
> 
> 1. There are "god haters".
> 
> 2. That "god haters" have any of the "beliefs" that he alleges they have.
> 
> 3. That "god haters" "detest" whatever "benefit" those who worship God might obtain.
> 
> All of the above only exists in the OP's fevered imagination. He is utterly obsessed with these mythical "god haters" and goes around accusing people of being "god haters" much like the witch-finders of yore. Next thing he will be insisting upon using a ducking stool on innocent people to "prove" that they are "god haters" If they drown they are innocent and if they don't that means they must be "god haters".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God haters and anti-Christian bigots post on here every day.
> 
> Every. Single. Day.
> 
> And they claim they are atheists.
Click to expand...


Hardly. If you get some kind of inner peace from believing you are communing with the Almighty and it relieves some of your stress or angst or whatever and you end up as a happier, better person for it, then by all means get whatever comfort you can from your god(s) and holy book(s). I'll never stop you. But I don't believe what benefit you get is from on high. 

Not only will I never stop you from believing in the tenents of your religion and your ability to practice it, I regularly fight on your side when it comes to restrictions on the First Amendment. Everyone should have the right to believe what they want and practice their own religion (provided no one else is harmed in the process and it doesn't require government intervention).

I don't even claim to be an atheist so much as I'm an agnostic. I can't say for certain there is a God, there is no God, there are or aren't multiple gods, Nature spirits, the Force, whatever. I have no data either way. If I had to pick one based on what I know, I'd have to choose the Deist conceptualization of God who put the universe in motion and then promptly did nothing with it. But based on what I do know about science and history and archaeology I don't believe Jehovah is any more real than Zeus, Ganesh, Ra or a thousand other gods people have come up with over time.

I don't hate religion or people who derive some benefit from it. I just don't understand how some adults still believe in fairy tales.


----------



## koshergrl

Then I wasn't talking about you, was I?

But there are posters who troll these forums and their sole purpose is to claim they are atheists out of one side of their mouths, while spouting vile garbage ABOUT GOD out of the other side of their mouths, while simultaneously attacking Christians and their right to worship as they please.

So explain to me...why would a so-called "atheist" feel compelled to call out a God they don't believe in, call a God they don't believe in various names, and make ridiculous statements like "If there is a God, he's an asshole because..." fill in the blank. 

They can't seem to make up their minds....except on one thing. If there's a God, and they appear to be ambiguous in their belief that there isn't...then he's an asshole, and the people who believe in Him should be ostracized, ridiculed, imprisoned, or worse. They claim they're atheists...but they also profess their hatred of God (in the event that he might exist).

Either way. Charming people. Obviously superior to Christians in every way.


----------



## Boss

BreezeWood said:


> why chose the Crusades, other than the scripturally bound religion of the middle east it is difficult to believe ordinary people have an ongoing "hatred" for that historical event.
> 
> or, are you saying the Islamist (not just Atheists) hate God also rather than the misguided crusaders responsible for the bloodshed ?
> 
> Boss, where do you find the "love" in the actions of the crusaders ? -
> 
> do you find Love in the scriptures of Bible ?



I find nothing but Love in the teachings of Jesus Christ. If anyone can show me one single word ever spoken by Jesus that was not pure Love, I challenge them to do so. I'm not here to defend religious beliefs or actions of those misguided in their religious beliefs. I don't believe in a religious incarnation of God. We can see by the actions of radical Islamic fundamentalists, not all religious beliefs are good. Some are despicably evil. Men often do terrible things in the name of religion. 

My God is Spiritual Nature. A force so profound that man can't wrap his mind around it. We've created religions in order to try and comprehend something we can't. I don't fault man for this, we're trying to do so with the best of intentions, but it's like ants trying to comprehend nuclear physics.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

koshergrl said:


> Then I wasn't talking about you, was I?
> 
> But there are posters who troll these forums and their sole purpose is to claim they are atheists out of one side of their mouths, while spouting vile garbage ABOUT GOD out of the other side of their mouths, while simultaneously attacking Christians and their right to worship as they please.
> 
> So explain to me...why would a so-called "atheist" feel compelled to call out a God they don't believe in, call a God they don't believe in various names, and make ridiculous statements like "If there is a God, he's an asshole because..." fill in the blank.
> 
> They can't seem to make up their minds....except on one thing. If there's a God, and they appear to be ambiguous in their belief that there isn't...then he's an asshole, and the people who believe in Him should be ostracized, ridiculed, imprisoned, or worse. They claim they're atheists...but they also profess their hatred of God (in the event that he might exist).
> 
> Either way. Charming people. Obviously superior to Christians in every way.



In lieu of acceptable evidence, the existence of G-d is one of those things that can be sensibly argued either way. 

Pro-God:
If we had convincing evidence of G-d's existence, belief would be redundant. We'd simply submit ourselves to a being way higher on the food chain out of selfish best interest (not getting stepped on.) Also, if G-d exists, He may simply not feel the egotistical need to prove His existence to lowly humans just as we don't feel the need to constantly prove our existence to lower animals. Although, if G-d values being worshipped and obeyed then He obviously shares at least some psychology in common with us. 
Proving His existence is also redundant. According to Torah, the Exodus Jews had such proof of G-d existing. They saw the miracles in Egypt against Pharaoh, then saw the sea split wide allowing their escape etc. Yet even with this proof of G-d, many still doubted Him and disobeyed Him. So having proof doesn't mean you then have compliance or faith too. So why give proof when asked?

Con-God: 
Everything 'real' in the universe we know of so far has a science explaining how it works. Further, everythign 'real' is composed of particles (atoms, subatomic particles, etc.) If G-d is real like we are, then G-d MUST be composed of particles just as we are. Especially if He's able to communicate with us orally (for speech to occur some physical manifestation enabling it must exist.) So why in the history of religion has no one ever been able to even hypothesize how gods exist and do the things they do unless they simply don't exist. Can't prove something that doesn't exist doesn't exist (can't prove a negative et al..) But when things do exist, you can at least offer a possible explanation. But thus far religious 'proof' involves 'just believe it or else.' which is obviously unsatisfying and with so many religions all claiming to be right, the likelyhood a current religion is simply the descendent of some previous one becomes more likely than all of a sudden some faith got it right about G-d.


----------



## koshergrl

That's your belief, Boss....

But it doesn't make it right. You've got a lot about it right...except for the sad insistence that you created God, and a real God doesn't exist.

You'll make a fabulous Christian when the Holy Spirit enters in!


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> why chose the Crusades, other than the scripturally bound religion of the middle east it is difficult to believe ordinary people have an ongoing "hatred" for that historical event.
> 
> or, are you saying the Islamist (not just Atheists) hate God also rather than the misguided crusaders responsible for the bloodshed ?
> 
> Boss, where do you find the "love" in the actions of the crusaders ? -
> 
> do you find Love in the scriptures of Bible ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find nothing but Love in the teachings of Jesus Christ. If anyone can show me one single word ever spoken by Jesus that was not pure Love, I challenge them to do so. I'm not here to defend religious beliefs or actions of those misguided in their religious beliefs. I don't believe in a religious incarnation of God. We can see by the actions of radical Islamic fundamentalists, not all religious beliefs are good. Some are despicably evil. Men often do terrible things in the name of religion.
> 
> My God is Spiritual Nature. A force so profound that man can't wrap his mind around it. We've created religions in order to try and comprehend something we can't. I don't fault man for this, we're trying to do so with the best of intentions, but it's like ants trying to comprehend nuclear physics.
Click to expand...


Luke I think it is, "If you don't own a sword, sell your cloak and buy one." Not exactly love. Nor is Matthew and Mark when he curses a fig tree for not yielding fruit (even though it was out of season) making it wither and die. 

Couple examples off the top of my head.


----------



## koshergrl

We're supposed to love fig trees as people?

See this is the basic disconnect of the god/Christian haters. They don't understand the innate value of humanity, and think there is no more value in a human than in a stick.

Regarding the sword....

"
Cited in isolation, the verse suggests that swords and violence are a possibility. It seems as if all of the disciples should go out and buy one each. After the death and burial of Jesus, they would have to face the world alone without him, so they thought.
However, what happens to the apparent meaning of the verse when it is not read in isolation, but in context? Did Jesus really wield a sword and want all of the disciples to buy one each?
*Exegesis of Luke 22:36*
The historical context of Luke 22:36 demonstrates that for three years Jesus avoided making a public, triumphal entry of his visits to Jerusalem because he understood that when he set foot in the holy city in this way, he would fulfill his mission to die, in a death that looked like one of a common criminal, just as Isaiah the prophet had predicted hundreds of years before (Is. 53:12). He needed to complete his work outside of Jerusalem.
Now, however, Jesus finally enters the city famous for killing her prophets (Luke 13:33-34), a few days before his arrest, trial and crucifixion, all of which he predicted. Religious leaders were spying on him and asked him trick questions, so they could incriminate him (Luke 20:20). These insincere questions, though they were also asked before he entered the city, increased in frequency during these compacted tense days. But he answered impressively, avoiding their traps. Despite the tension, each day Jesus taught in the temple, and crowds gathered around him, so the authorities could not arrest him, for fear of the people. Then Judas volunteered to betray him, saying that he would report back to the authorities when no crowd was present (Luke 22:1-6).
As Passover drew near, Jesus asked some of his disciples to prepare the Last Supper (most likely the Seder). He elevated the bread and the wine, representing his body and blood, which was broken and shed for the sins of the world in the New Covenant (Luke 22:17-20). However, during the meal, Judas slipped out to search for the authorities because he knew that it was the custom of Jesus to go to the Mount of Olives to pray (Luke 21:37), and that night would be no different.
At this point we pick up the textual context of Luke 22:36 (bold print). He is eating the Last Supper on the night he was betrayed.
Luke 22:35-38 says:
35 [Jesus] asked them [the eleven apostles], "When I sent you out without a purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?"
They said, "No, not a thing."
36 *He said to them, "But now the one who has a purse must take it, and likewise a bag. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one*. 37 For I tell you, this scripture must be fulfilled in me: &#8216;And he was numbered among the lawless&#8217;; and indeed what is written about me is being fulfilled."
38 They [the disciples] said, "See, Lord, here are two swords."
"It is enough," he replied. (NRSV)​The textual context reveals at least two truths. First, Jesus contrasts his ministry before his arrival in Jerusalem with the tense few days in Jerusalem when spies and the authorities themselves were seeking to trap him. Does the tension play a part in understanding why he told his disciples to go out and buy swords? This is answered, below. Second, he says that he would be arrested and tried as a criminal, as the prophecy in Is. 53:12 predicted. Does this have anything to do with swords? Do criminals carry them around? This too is explained, below. Jesus may have a deeper meaning in mind than the violent use of the swords. What is it?
The interpretation of the verses can follow either a strictly physical direction in which swords must be used, or a nonphysical one in which swords must not be used, during Jesus&#8217; last hours. The surest and clearest direction is the nonliteral one, but first we analyze why the literal one will not fit into Luke 22:34-38 and into the passage about the arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane (Luke 22:39-53).
_Violent use of the swords_
Jesus says to the disciples to buy swords, but when they show him two, Jesus says the two are enough. The first direction, the literal one, is inadequate for two reasons.
First, the obvious question is: two swords are enough for what? Are they enough for a physical fight to resist arrest? This is hardly the case because during Jesus&#8217; arrest a disciple (Peter according to John 18:10) took out his sword and cut off the ear of the servant (Malchus according to John 18:10) of the high priest. Jesus sternly tells Peter to put away his sword, "No more of this!" and then he heals the servant, restoring his ear (Luke 22:49-51). Resisting arrest cannot be the purpose of the two swords.
Second, were the two swords enough for an armed rebellion to resist the authorities and to impose the new Jesus movement in a political and military way? Jesus denounces this purpose in Luke 22:52, as the authorities are in the process of arresting him: "Am I leading a rebellion that you have come with swords and clubs?" The answer is no, as he is seized and led away (v. 54).
So the physical interpretation of Luke 22:36 (the two swords were intended to be used) will not work in the larger context. Two swords are not enough to resist arrest, to pull off a revolt of some kind, or to fully protect themselves in the Garden of Gethsemane."

A Brief Explanation of the Sword in Luke 22:36


----------



## koshergrl

"
Jesus wanted the disciples to buy swords, so scripture could be fulfilled when His disciples wielded swords and made themselves *"transgressors"* for _Jesus_ to be *"reckoned among the transgressors."*

Calling All Christians: Luke 22:36 is NOT license to fight the government. (VANITY)

Christ told Peter to put away his sword when he drew it. But they needed the swords for the scripture to be fulfilled. It's that simple.


----------



## Boss

> Everything 'real' in the universe we know of so far has a science explaining how it works. Further, everythign 'real' is composed of particles (atoms, subatomic particles, etc.) If G-d is real like we are, then G-d MUST be composed of particles just as we are.



But science has shown this not to be true. The universe is 96% dark energy and dark matter. This is not atoms and particles. So is 96% of our universe "unreal?" 



> Luke I think it is, "If you don't own a sword, sell your cloak and buy one." Not exactly love. Nor is Matthew and Mark when he curses a fig tree for not yielding fruit (even though it was out of season) making it wither and die.



I would have to read the entire context of these statements/events, but I don't believe they teach anything contradictory to Love. It could be a perception thing or a translational barrier, without researching it fully, I couldn't tell you. I just know that Jesus' teachings were about love and forgiveness. He preached this even as he was being crucified on the cross.


----------



## GISMYS

koshergrl said:


> "
> Jesus wanted the disciples to buy swords, so scripture could be fulfilled when His disciples wielded swords and made themselves *"transgressors"* for _Jesus_ to be *"reckoned among the transgressors."*
> 
> Calling All Christians: Luke 22:36 is NOT license to fight the government. (VANITY)
> 
> Christ told Peter to put away his sword when he drew it. But they needed the swords for the scripture to be fulfilled. It's that simple.[/QUOTE===============WHAT A WILD CRAZY IDEA!!! GET REAL. GOD WANTS NO ONE TO DO EVIL,GOD WILL NOT TELL PEOPLE TO SIN. THINK!


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Boss said:


> Everything 'real' in the universe we know of so far has a science explaining how it works. Further, everythign 'real' is composed of particles (atoms, subatomic particles, etc.) If G-d is real like we are, then G-d MUST be composed of particles just as we are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But science has shown this not to be true. The universe is 96% dark energy and dark matter. This is not atoms and particles. So is 96% of our universe "unreal?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luke I think it is, "If you don't own a sword, sell your cloak and buy one." Not exactly love. Nor is Matthew and Mark when he curses a fig tree for not yielding fruit (even though it was out of season) making it wither and die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would have to read the entire context of these statements/events, but I don't believe they teach anything contradictory to Love. It could be a perception thing or a translational barrier, without researching it fully, I couldn't tell you. I just know that Jesus' teachings were about love and forgiveness. He preached this even as he was being crucified on the cross.
Click to expand...


Dark matter and energy are in fact 'particles.'

"Dark matter fills the universe, and exerts a gravitational pull on the "normal" matter, like stars and planets, around it. Yet it produces no detectable form of energy  no light, heat, radio waves, or anything else. Some physicists believe that dark matter is a form of particle that was produced in the Big Bang but that has not yet been detected."

"Dark energy, of course, is still in the early stages of study. Physicists who feel that vacuum energy has too many problems are looking for other solutions, and one contender is a new type of particle. Dark-energy particles likely would have been created in the Big Bang as well, and would permeate the entire universe."
New Physics, Or Particle X - Dark Energy - HETDEX


----------



## GISMYS

ROFLMAO!!! What was "true" in science yesterday is proved wrong today!!!


----------



## Boss

koshergrl said:


> That's your belief, Boss....
> 
> But it doesn't make it right. You've got a lot about it right...except for the sad insistence that you created God, and a real God doesn't exist.
> 
> You'll make a fabulous Christian when the Holy Spirit enters in!



Hold on here... where did I insist that I created God or a real God doesn't exist? Has someone hacked my account and posted that? I don't think it's something I would ever insinuate. 

We are created by the power of God. A very real God. My belief is, as humans we are completely unable to comprehend God. Therefore, we need to apply human attributes to God in order to imagine Him. I don't know that I am right, that's just what I personally believe.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Why science is science and religion is religion. Religion by it's very nature cannot change regardless of discoveries that disprove specific assertions. Science can change as new or better experiments confirm its' assertions.


----------



## GISMYS

Delta4Embassy said:


> Why science is science and religion is religion. Religion by it's very nature cannot change regardless of discoveries that disprove specific assertions. Science can change as new or better experiments confirm its' assertions.



YES!!! GOD AND TRUTH are unchanging for all eternity.man's silly ideas and opinions come and go for them what was true yesterday is proven false the next day or year.


----------



## G.T.

GISMYS said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why science is science and religion is religion. Religion by it's very nature cannot change regardless of discoveries that disprove specific assertions. Science can change as new or better experiments confirm its' assertions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YES!!! GOD AND TRUTH are unchanging for all eternity.man's silly ideas and opinions come and go for them what was true yesterday is proven false the next day or year.
Click to expand...


rapture any day now!!! pack your bags!!


----------



## Boss

Delta4Embassy said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything 'real' in the universe we know of so far has a science explaining how it works. Further, everythign 'real' is composed of particles (atoms, subatomic particles, etc.) If G-d is real like we are, then G-d MUST be composed of particles just as we are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But science has shown this not to be true. The universe is 96% dark energy and dark matter. This is not atoms and particles. So is 96% of our universe "unreal?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luke I think it is, "If you don't own a sword, sell your cloak and buy one." Not exactly love. Nor is Matthew and Mark when he curses a fig tree for not yielding fruit (even though it was out of season) making it wither and die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would have to read the entire context of these statements/events, but I don't believe they teach anything contradictory to Love. It could be a perception thing or a translational barrier, without researching it fully, I couldn't tell you. I just know that Jesus' teachings were about love and forgiveness. He preached this even as he was being crucified on the cross.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Dark matter and energy are in fact 'particles.'*
> 
> "Dark matter fills the universe, and exerts a gravitational pull on the "normal" matter, like stars and planets, around it. Yet it produces no detectable form of energy  no light, heat, radio waves, or anything else. *Some physicists believe that dark matter is a form of particle* that was produced in the Big Bang but that has not yet been detected."
> 
> "Dark energy, of course, is still in the early stages of study. Physicists who feel that vacuum energy has too many problems are looking for other solutions, and one contender is a new type of particle. Dark-energy particles likely would have been created in the Big Bang as well, and would permeate the entire universe."
> New Physics, Or Particle X - Dark Energy - HETDEX
Click to expand...


You start by proclaiming dark energy "is in fact" particles, then you reveal this is a theory that some scientists believe. Which one is it? Fact or belief? 

The fact is, we don't know what dark energy and dark matter is, but it's not atoms. Now previously you intimated that things which are not atoms or particles can't be real. So what we now see is scientists imagining there must be this mysterious particle we haven't yet defined, which explains this phenomena. That's all well and good, but it's far from a "fact."


----------



## GISMYS

G.T. said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why science is science and religion is religion. Religion by it's very nature cannot change regardless of discoveries that disprove specific assertions. Science can change as new or better experiments confirm its' assertions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YES!!! GOD AND TRUTH are unchanging for all eternity.man's silly ideas and opinions come and go for them what was true yesterday is proven false the next day or year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> rapture any day now!!! pack your bags!!
Click to expand...


YES!!! I AM READY!!! THERE is no upside to being left behind to try to stay alive on a world ruled by evil and under the judgments of OUR JUST GOD ALMIGHTY!


----------



## G.T.

GISMYS said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> YES!!! GOD AND TRUTH are unchanging for all eternity.man's silly ideas and opinions come and go for them what was true yesterday is proven false the next day or year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rapture any day now!!! pack your bags!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YES!!! I AM READY!!! THERE is no upside to being left behind to try to stay alive on a world ruled by evil and under the judgments of OUR JUST GOD ALMIGHTY!
Click to expand...


My world isn't ruled by evil.

Where are you living?


----------



## GISMYS

G.T. said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> rapture any day now!!! pack your bags!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YES!!! I AM READY!!! THERE is no upside to being left behind to try to stay alive on a world ruled by evil and under the judgments of OUR JUST GOD ALMIGHTY!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My world isn't ruled by evil.
> 
> Where are you living?
Click to expand...


WATCH TV NEWS,READ A NEWSAPER AND YOU SEE war and rumor of war,murder,abortion,sexual perversion,stealing, liars,crime and more crime and you blinded see no evil???


----------



## koshergrl

Science is wrong all the time. Science doesn't prove anything. People prove what they want, using scientific methods...of the time. But the one thing we know for sure about science is that it can be used to  *prove* one thing..and then be used to *prove* the exact opposite almost immediately thereafter. Or maybe years later. But there are scientific *truths* that were accepted as incontrovertible...that are now recognized as complete and utter tripe.

Place science next to God...and place your money on God every time. There are no lies, no bribes, and no mistakes with God. He knows it all, he knows the truth, and he has no agenda except the salvation of mankind.


----------



## koshergrl

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> why chose the Crusades, other than the scripturally bound religion of the middle east it is difficult to believe ordinary people have an ongoing "hatred" for that historical event.
> 
> or, are you saying the Islamist (not just Atheists) hate God also rather than the misguided crusaders responsible for the bloodshed ?
> 
> Boss, where do you find the "love" in the actions of the crusaders ? -
> 
> do you find Love in the scriptures of Bible ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find nothing but Love in the teachings of Jesus Christ. If anyone can show me one single word ever spoken by Jesus that was not pure Love, I challenge them to do so. I'm not here to defend religious beliefs or actions of those misguided in their religious beliefs. I don't believe in a religious incarnation of God. We can see by the actions of radical Islamic fundamentalists, not all religious beliefs are good. Some are despicably evil. Men often do terrible things in the name of religion.
> 
> My God is Spiritual Nature. A force so profound that man can't wrap his mind around it. We've created religions in order to try and comprehend something we can't. I don't fault man for this, we're trying to do so with the best of intentions, but it's like ants trying to comprehend nuclear physics.
Click to expand...

 
Well I agree with you that God is of a spiritual nature.though he is also of a physical nature. I thought that you also said that God was a manmade concept, but in this quote you say that religion is....

I don't believe that is true, but I am comforted that you don't think God is likewise created by man.


----------



## Boss

koshergrl said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> why chose the Crusades, other than the scripturally bound religion of the middle east it is difficult to believe ordinary people have an ongoing "hatred" for that historical event.
> 
> or, are you saying the Islamist (not just Atheists) hate God also rather than the misguided crusaders responsible for the bloodshed ?
> 
> Boss, where do you find the "love" in the actions of the crusaders ? -
> 
> do you find Love in the scriptures of Bible ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find nothing but Love in the teachings of Jesus Christ. If anyone can show me one single word ever spoken by Jesus that was not pure Love, I challenge them to do so. I'm not here to defend religious beliefs or actions of those misguided in their religious beliefs. I don't believe in a religious incarnation of God. We can see by the actions of radical Islamic fundamentalists, not all religious beliefs are good. Some are despicably evil. Men often do terrible things in the name of religion.
> 
> My God is Spiritual Nature. A force so profound that man can't wrap his mind around it. We've created religions in order to try and comprehend something we can't. I don't fault man for this, we're trying to do so with the best of intentions, but it's like ants trying to comprehend nuclear physics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I agree with you that God is of a spiritual nature.though he is also of a physical nature. I thought that you also said that God was a manmade concept, but in this quote you say that religion is....
> 
> I don't believe that is true, but I am comforted that you don't think God is likewise created by man.
Click to expand...


And I agree that God is manifest in simply the presence and existence of physical nature. God created it. 

The human spiritual connection to spiritual nature far predates any "religious" belief. For many thousands of years, mankind had deep spiritual connection, long before the thought of establishing a formal religion. These religions are manifestations of our human spiritual connection, and I believe the fact that so many various religions exist, is evidence that we don't fully comprehend God or Spiritual Nature. Perhaps Christianity comes closest? Perhaps some other religions do as well? I won't argue this because it's obvious many people have found a way to connect to Spiritual Nature through religious faith, and mostly that's a good thing. 

Regardless of whether you share my beliefs on God, it should be obvious to anyone who studies humanity, human nature and behavior, or biology, that spiritual nature does exist and is not "made up" by man. Many can argue over what God is, but you cannot deny Spiritual Nature exists and we have the capacity to connect with it. For all intents and purposes, that IS God.


----------



## MrMax

Boss said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find nothing but Love in the teachings of Jesus Christ. If anyone can show me one single word ever spoken by Jesus that was not pure Love, I challenge them to do so. I'm not here to defend religious beliefs or actions of those misguided in their religious beliefs. I don't believe in a religious incarnation of God. We can see by the actions of radical Islamic fundamentalists, not all religious beliefs are good. Some are despicably evil. Men often do terrible things in the name of religion.
> 
> My God is Spiritual Nature. A force so profound that man can't wrap his mind around it. We've created religions in order to try and comprehend something we can't. I don't fault man for this, we're trying to do so with the best of intentions, but it's like ants trying to comprehend nuclear physics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I agree with you that God is of a spiritual nature.though he is also of a physical nature. I thought that you also said that God was a manmade concept, but in this quote you say that religion is....
> 
> I don't believe that is true, but I am comforted that you don't think God is likewise created by man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I agree that God is manifest in simply the presence and existence of physical nature. God created it.
> 
> The human spiritual connection to spiritual nature far predates any "religious" belief. For many thousands of years, mankind had deep spiritual connection, long before the thought of establishing a formal religion. These religions are manifestations of our human spiritual connection, and I believe the fact that so many various religions exist, is evidence that we don't fully comprehend God or Spiritual Nature. Perhaps Christianity comes closest? Perhaps some other religions do as well? I won't argue this because it's obvious many people have found a way to connect to Spiritual Nature through religious faith, and mostly that's a good thing.
> 
> Regardless of whether you share my beliefs on God, it should be obvious to anyone who studies humanity, human nature and behavior, or biology, that spiritual nature does exist and is not "made up" by man. Many can argue over what God is, but you cannot deny Spiritual Nature exists and we have the capacity to connect with it. For all intents and purposes, that IS God.
Click to expand...


Religion was invented because of man's ignorance to the universe around him, as a way to explain the unknown. Now you know.


----------



## Boss

> Religion was invented because of man's ignorance to the universe around him, as a way to explain the unknown. Now you know.



Nope. That's not true. That's why man invented SCIENCE. 
Belief in God no more explains the unknown than science explains why the unknown happens. Science tells us how things work, explains the unknown, but it doesn't explain why. 

Religion was invented because humans have a profound and intrinsic connection to spiritual nature. This gives us the ability to rationalize right from wrong. Other animals operate on pure primal instinct. We invented religion, we did not invent spiritual connection.


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea what you mean by "pot meet kettle" ...you keep saying it, but you're failing to explain why the anecdote applies. I am not obsessively attacking something I don't believe exists. Find an example of me doing that and I will admit you got me.
> 
> Again, hating and loathing someone to the point of obsession the way some do here, is not indicative of people who don't believe in something. *The God-haters firmly believe those who worship God gain some sort of benefit from it, and they detest this.* They know that God influences these people and they don't like that. If that were not the case, it wouldn't matter, just as it doesn't matter that some people believe in Santa, the Easter Bunny, alien abductions, ghosts, etc. They're not obsessively attacking those people, are they?
> 
> Yes, you can say Santa is a fat fairy and it doesn't mean you believe in Santa... but if you spent nearly all your waking hours seeking out those who believe in Santa to ridicule and denigrate them in every imaginative way possible, one would have to conclude that you either have a mental problem or there was something about those people's belief that caused you great consternation. If you didn't believe there was anything to it, why would it bother you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The God-haters firmly believe those who worship God gain some sort of benefit from it, and they detest this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The OP has consistently FAILED to prove any of the following;
> 
> 1. There are "god haters".
> 
> 2. That "god haters" have any of the "beliefs" that he alleges they have.
> 
> 3. That "god haters" "detest" whatever "benefit" those who worship God might obtain.
> 
> All of the above only exists in the OP's fevered imagination. He is utterly obsessed with these mythical "god haters" and goes around accusing people of being "god haters" much like the witch-finders of yore. Next thing he will be insisting upon using a ducking stool on innocent people to "prove" that they are "god haters" If they drown they are innocent and if they don't that means they must be "god haters".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God haters and anti-Christian bigots post on here every day.
> 
> Every. Single. Day.
> 
> And they claim they are atheists.
Click to expand...

 you must have "thought" that was important...even after bossy has beaten that dead horse to mush...


----------



## MrMax

Boss said:


> Religion was invented because of man's ignorance to the universe around him, as a way to explain the unknown. Now you know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. That's not true. That's why man invented SCIENCE.
> Belief in God no more explains the unknown than science explains why the unknown happens. Science tells us how things work, explains the unknown, but it doesn't explain why.
> 
> Religion was invented because humans have a profound and intrinsic connection to spiritual nature. This gives us the ability to rationalize right from wrong. Other animals operate on pure primal instinct. We invented religion, we did not invent spiritual connection.
Click to expand...


So then why do people like myself and millions more have no profound spiritual connection? Are we then unable to "rationalize right from wrong"? 
Your spiritual connection is part of religion, so is your "Creator".


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> Science is wrong all the time. Science doesn't prove anything. People prove what they want, using scientific methods...of the time. But the one thing we know for sure about science is that it can be used to  *prove* one thing..and then be used to *prove* the exact opposite almost immediately thereafter. Or maybe years later. But there are scientific *truths* that were accepted as incontrovertible...that are now recognized as complete and utter tripe.
> 
> Place science next to God...and place your money on God every time. There are no lies, no bribes, and no mistakes with God. He knows it all, he knows the truth, and he has no agenda except the salvation of mankind.


----------



## daws101

jism's and kosherhag's delusional blathering  were a nice change from boosy's usual steaming piles..
angry over the crusades! still laughing at that one!


----------



## Derideo_Te

daws101 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science is wrong all the time. Science doesn't prove anything. People prove what they want, using scientific methods...of the time. But the one thing we know for sure about science is that it can be used to  *prove* one thing..and then be used to *prove* the exact opposite almost immediately thereafter. Or maybe years later. But there are scientific *truths* that were accepted as incontrovertible...that are now recognized as complete and utter tripe.
> 
> Place science next to God...and place your money on God every time. There are no lies, no bribes, and no mistakes with God. He knows it all, he knows the truth, and he has no agenda except the salvation of mankind.
Click to expand...


How is the promise of an "afterlife" not a bribe? How is the hell not a threat? Granted that to those who believe they don't have that perception but to those that don't that is how they appear. If you are good I will give you some candy and it you are bad I will send you to your room. Same concepts of carrot and stick.


----------



## Boss

MrMax said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Religion was invented because of man's ignorance to the universe around him, as a way to explain the unknown. Now you know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. That's not true. That's why man invented SCIENCE.
> Belief in God no more explains the unknown than science explains why the unknown happens. Science tells us how things work, explains the unknown, but it doesn't explain why.
> 
> Religion was invented because humans have a profound and intrinsic connection to spiritual nature. This gives us the ability to rationalize right from wrong. Other animals operate on pure primal instinct. We invented religion, we did not invent spiritual connection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So then why do people like myself and millions more have no profound spiritual connection? Are we then unable to "rationalize right from wrong"?
> Your spiritual connection is part of religion, so is your "Creator".
Click to expand...


Because you choose to reject it. If you are able to rationalize right from wrong, you have evidence of your spiritual connection. Whether you choose to acknowledge it is another matter. 

Religion did not precede spirituality. Sorry, your point is not made.


----------



## Boss

Derideo_Te said:


> How is the promise of an "afterlife" not a bribe? How is the hell not a threat? Granted that to those who believe they don't have that perception but to those that don't that is how they appear. If you are good I will give you some candy and it you are bad I will send you to your room. Same concepts of carrot and stick.



Your perception of afterlife is based on your own subjective reality. Since you can't imagine or conceive of a spiritual nature beyond the physical, you imagine afterlife as some bizarre and impossible existence mirroring physical reality. This seems quite preposterous, and it is. Just as preposterous as you imagining a human-like entity sitting on a cloud, looking down upon you in moral judgement. It's a perception you have created in your closed and limited mind that you cannot overcome.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is the promise of an "afterlife" not a bribe? How is the hell not a threat? Granted that to those who believe they don't have that perception but to those that don't that is how they appear. If you are good I will give you some candy and it you are bad I will send you to your room. Same concepts of carrot and stick.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your perception of afterlife is based on your own subjective reality. Since you can't imagine or conceive of a spiritual nature beyond the physical, you imagine afterlife as some bizarre and impossible existence mirroring physical reality. This seems quite preposterous, and it is. Just as preposterous as you imagining a human-like entity sitting on a cloud, looking down upon you in moral judgement. It's a perception you have created in your closed and limited mind that you cannot overcome.
Click to expand...


Nothing more ludicrous than your nonsensical delusions that you vainly attempt to impose on others!


----------



## Boss

The only thing I've attempted imposing on anyone is open mindedness. 

You've soundly rejected that.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Boss said:


> The only thing I've attempted imposing on anyone is open mindedness.
> 
> You've soundly rejected that.



Ironic coming from the OP who imposed his definition of "god hater" on everyone who exposed his canards!


----------



## BreezeWood

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> why chose the Crusades, other than the scripturally bound religion of the middle east it is difficult to believe ordinary people have an ongoing "hatred" for that historical event.
> 
> or, are you saying the Islamist (not just Atheists) hate God also rather than the misguided crusaders responsible for the bloodshed ?
> 
> Boss, where do you find the "love" in the actions of the crusaders ? -
> 
> do you find Love in the scriptures of Bible ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I find nothing but Love in the teachings of Jesus Christ.* If anyone can show me one single word ever spoken by Jesus that was not pure Love, I challenge them to do so. I'm not here to defend religious beliefs or actions of those misguided in their religious beliefs. I don't believe in a religious incarnation of God. We can see by the actions of radical Islamic fundamentalists, not all religious beliefs are good. Some are despicably evil. Men often do terrible things in the name of religion.
> 
> My God is Spiritual Nature. *A force so profound that man can't wrap his mind around it.* We've created religions in order to try and comprehend something we can't. I don't fault man for this, we're trying to do so with the best of intentions, but it's like ants trying to comprehend nuclear physics.
Click to expand...



*A force so profound that man can't wrap his mind around it.*

that is far from the truth, the only connection is the one accomplished by reaching the Apex and being allowed Admission by God - good luck reading your way into the - - > Everlasting.



*Why do the God-haters persist?*



> Boss: I find nothing but Love in the teachings of Jesus Christ.



sure you do Boss, the same as your crusaders - by the way, I have yet to meet an Atheist that "hates" Santa Clause.

.


----------



## koshergrl

Derideo_Te said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science is wrong all the time. Science doesn't prove anything. People prove what they want, using scientific methods...of the time. But the one thing we know for sure about science is that it can be used to *prove* one thing..and then be used to *prove* the exact opposite almost immediately thereafter. Or maybe years later. But there are scientific *truths* that were accepted as incontrovertible...that are now recognized as complete and utter tripe.
> 
> Place science next to God...and place your money on God every time. There are no lies, no bribes, and no mistakes with God. He knows it all, he knows the truth, and he has no agenda except the salvation of mankind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is the promise of an "afterlife" not a bribe? How is the hell not a threat? Granted that to those who believe they don't have that perception but to those that don't that is how they appear. If you are good I will give you some candy and it you are bad I will send you to your room. Same concepts of carrot and stick.
Click to expand...

 
Wow sounds like you hate God because you don't understand him.

I guess that makes sense.

My point is, if God do has never paid a bribe to anyone to slant or falsify a study to make a *scientific* point, and then portray that *science* as beyond question.

And when did I say that there were no threats with God? Those who aren't saved will go to hell. There can be no righteousness, no judgement, without punishment. Hell is the just punishment for rejection of God. If you don't like it, oh well, why does it make you so angry at God? You don't believe in God, remember?


----------



## MrMax

Boss said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. That's not true. That's why man invented SCIENCE.
> Belief in God no more explains the unknown than science explains why the unknown happens. Science tells us how things work, explains the unknown, but it doesn't explain why.
> 
> Religion was invented because humans have a profound and intrinsic connection to spiritual nature. This gives us the ability to rationalize right from wrong. Other animals operate on pure primal instinct. We invented religion, we did not invent spiritual connection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So then why do people like myself and millions more have no profound spiritual connection? Are we then unable to "rationalize right from wrong"?
> Your spiritual connection is part of religion, so is your "Creator".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because you choose to reject it. *If you are able to rationalize right from wrong, you have evidence of your spiritual connection*. Whether you choose to acknowledge it is another matter.
> 
> Religion did not precede spirituality. Sorry, your point is not made.
Click to expand...


Your point isn't made for the link between right and wrong and spirituality, you're just a fucking noob who pontificates as though you're the only one who knows the truth, when in actuality, you have no clue. 

"Religion did not precede spirituality. Sorry, your point is not made." Maybe that's because I never tried to make that point.


----------



## koshergrl

Your join date is March 2014, Mr. Max. Boss has 2 years on you.

Whoops your slip is showing.


----------



## MrMax

koshergrl said:


> Your join date is March 2014, Mr. Max. Boss has 2 years on you.
> 
> Whoops your slip is showing.



Wtf does that have to do with anything?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Boss said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. That's not true. That's why man invented SCIENCE.
> Belief in God no more explains the unknown than science explains why the unknown happens. Science tells us how things work, explains the unknown, but it doesn't explain why.
> 
> Religion was invented because humans have a profound and intrinsic connection to spiritual nature. This gives us the ability to rationalize right from wrong. Other animals operate on pure primal instinct. We invented religion, we did not invent spiritual connection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So then why do people like myself and millions more have no profound spiritual connection? Are we then unable to "rationalize right from wrong"?
> Your spiritual connection is part of religion, so is your "Creator".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because you choose to reject it. If you are able to rationalize right from wrong, you have evidence of your spiritual connection. Whether you choose to acknowledge it is another matter.
> 
> Religion did not precede spirituality. Sorry, your point is not made.
Click to expand...


Spirituality, religion, god, it makes no difference  as all are creations of man, where god as perceived by theists doesnt exists, and consequently theres nothing to hate.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

MrMax said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your join date is March 2014, Mr. Max. Boss has 2 years on you.
> 
> Whoops your slip is showing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wtf does that have to do with anything?
Click to expand...


Nothing, as usual.


----------



## GISMYS

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> So then why do people like myself and millions more have no profound spiritual connection? Are we then unable to "rationalize right from wrong"?
> Your spiritual connection is part of religion, so is your "Creator".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because you choose to reject it. If you are able to rationalize right from wrong, you have evidence of your spiritual connection. Whether you choose to acknowledge it is another matter.
> 
> Religion did not precede spirituality. Sorry, your point is not made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Spirituality, religion, god, it makes no difference  as all are creations of man, where god as perceived by theists doesnt exists, and consequently theres nothing to hate.
Click to expand...


YOU PROVE THIS SCRIPTURE TRUE======The fool says in his heart,
    There is no God.
They are corrupt, and their ways are vile. Pssalm 53:1


----------



## Boss

MrMax said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> So then why do people like myself and millions more have no profound spiritual connection? Are we then unable to "rationalize right from wrong"?
> Your spiritual connection is part of religion, so is your "Creator".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because you choose to reject it. *If you are able to rationalize right from wrong, you have evidence of your spiritual connection*. Whether you choose to acknowledge it is another matter.
> 
> Religion did not precede spirituality. Sorry, your point is not made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your point isn't made for the link between right and wrong and spirituality, you're just a fucking noob who pontificates as though you're the only one who knows the truth, when in actuality, you have no clue.
> 
> "Religion did not precede spirituality. Sorry, your point is not made." Maybe that's because I never tried to make that point.
Click to expand...


Well you stated the following: "Your spiritual connection is part of religion, so is your "Creator"." Sounds to me like you are saying spiritual connection is part of religion, it's right there in your own words. This is not true. Religion is a part of spiritual connection. Various incarnations of a "Creator" are also part of spiritual connection. 

Now you say my point about spirituality and knowing right from wrong is not made and I am just a "noob" who thinks he knows the truth.... but I'm not seeing where you refuted my point with evidence. Thought you were all about evidence and the scientific method? Why do you believe you can make these grandiose pronouncements of who has made their point? Did someone or something bestow the authority on you to make this call? 

The way I see it, if you can't refute my argument, you should say, "I never thought of it that way, Boss, you make a good point, I can't argue with that." Instead, you simply reject my argument without any basis and pretend you've done so legitimately. This tells me you're just another closed-minded idiot who thinks his opinion is empirical fact and can't be questioned. That seems to be an epidemic around here.


----------



## Boss

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> So then why do people like myself and millions more have no profound spiritual connection? Are we then unable to "rationalize right from wrong"?
> Your spiritual connection is part of religion, so is your "Creator".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because you choose to reject it. If you are able to rationalize right from wrong, you have evidence of your spiritual connection. Whether you choose to acknowledge it is another matter.
> 
> Religion did not precede spirituality. Sorry, your point is not made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Spirituality, religion, god, it makes no difference  as *all are creations of man*, where god as perceived by theists doesnt exists, and consequently theres nothing to hate.
Click to expand...


No they're not, and you've failed to prove this repeatedly. Religion is the creation of man. Spirituality has been present in man since the beginning. God is who is on the other end of our spiritual connection, and man has created various incarnations of God through the ages, but this only proves the spiritual connection is real and not imagined. 

If there is nothing to hate, why do we see so much hate? If there is nothing to it, why are people so passionately opposed to it? Nothing in logic or reason supports this. 

You will claim that humans "invented" spirituality to cope with fears of death or explain the unknown, but if this were true, we'd see evidence of other creatures inventing imaginary placebos to console themselves, and that's not present in nature. If it were imaginary and nothing to it, the attribute would have disappeared in man as kings and rulers killed off scores of the species out of jealousy... or else, Darwin was completely wrong about natural selection. We've retained the attribute, it's still as strong in mankind as ever. It can't be stomped out of our hearts, no matter how hard you try. The spiritual connection is real.


----------



## koshergrl

MrMax said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your join date is March 2014, Mr. Max. Boss has 2 years on you.
> 
> Whoops your slip is showing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wtf does that have to do with anything?
Click to expand...

 
I'm just questioning the intelligence of a poster who calls someone who has been here 2 years longer than he has a "fucking noob" with something to prove.

Seriously. You're the noob...is there anything more stupid looking than someone who points a finger in his own face and then insults himself?


----------



## MaryL

God HATERS? People are a mixed bag. But when the  forces of the universe,  random or guided, when bad things happen to good people, (yes, I read the book) I makes you question the nature of the universe. I don't hate god, that would be childish. I totally doubt God's existence. Not hatefully, everyone does it. Every pope, every saint, every  Muslim suicide bomber. Even you. Even atheists have doubts. Pascal's wager reminds me that if there is a GOD, God will forgive the atheists. But,  call it Mary's razor, if there isn't a god, then all people that ever practiced religion  wasted their lives and devotion for absolutely NOTHING. Everything they did, for what? Martyrdom,  wars, restrictions, all that, for what?


----------



## koshergrl

Pascal's wrong.

God will not forgive the atheists. They rejected God, and they will suffer the consequences.

I know. Dirty word. Atheists hate God because they recognize that he will impose consequences upon them for rejecting him, repeatedly. 

Oh well.


----------



## Montrovant

koshergrl said:


> Pascal's wrong.
> 
> God will not forgive the atheists. They rejected God, and they will suffer the consequences.
> 
> I know. Dirty word. Atheists hate God because they recognize that he will impose consequences upon them for rejecting him, repeatedly.
> 
> Oh well.



Except, of course, for the problem that atheists don't, by definition, believe in god.



Hey, we're back to where this thread has been again!


----------



## MrMax

koshergrl said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your join date is March 2014, Mr. Max. Boss has 2 years on you.
> 
> Whoops your slip is showing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wtf does that have to do with anything?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm just questioning the intelligence of a poster who calls someone who has been here 2 years longer than he has a "fucking noob" with something to prove.
> 
> Seriously. You're the noob...is there anything more stupid looking than someone who points a finger in his own face and then insults himself?
Click to expand...

If he argues like a noob... And quacks like a noob...


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pascal's wrong.
> 
> God will not forgive the atheists. They rejected God, and they will suffer the consequences.
> 
> I know. Dirty word. Atheists hate God because they recognize that he will impose consequences upon them for rejecting him, repeatedly.
> 
> Oh well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except, of course, for the problem that atheists don't, by definition, believe in god.
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, we're back to where this thread has been again!
Click to expand...


Which is why it is very convenient and provides the perfect cover for God-haters.


----------



## MrMax

Boss said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because you choose to reject it. *If you are able to rationalize right from wrong, you have evidence of your spiritual connection*. Whether you choose to acknowledge it is another matter.
> 
> Religion did not precede spirituality. Sorry, your point is not made.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your point isn't made for the link between right and wrong and spirituality, you're just a fucking noob who pontificates as though you're the only one who knows the truth, when in actuality, you have no clue.
> 
> "Religion did not precede spirituality. Sorry, your point is not made." Maybe that's because I never tried to make that point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you stated the following: "Your spiritual connection is part of religion, so is your "Creator"." Sounds to me like you are saying spiritual connection is part of religion, it's right there in your own words. This is not true. Religion is a part of spiritual connection. Various incarnations of a "Creator" are also part of spiritual connection.
> 
> Now you say my point about spirituality and knowing right from wrong is not made and I am just a "noob" who thinks he knows the truth.... but I'm not seeing where you refuted my point with evidence. Thought you were all about evidence and the scientific method? Why do you believe you can make these grandiose pronouncements of who has made their point? Did someone or something bestow the authority on you to make this call?
> 
> The way I see it, if you can't refute my argument, you should say, "I never thought of it that way, Boss, you make a good point, I can't argue with that." Instead, you simply reject my argument without any basis and pretend you've done so legitimately. This tells me you're just another closed-minded idiot who thinks his opinion is empirical fact and can't be questioned. That seems to be an epidemic around here.
Click to expand...


You never proved the connection between knowing right and wrong and spirituality, and you want ME to prove my statement that you never proved the connection between knowing right and wrong and spirituality. The lack of your proof is my proof. Get it? You fucking noob.


----------



## Boss

MrMax said:


> You never proved the connection between knowing right and wrong and spirituality, and you want ME to prove my statement that you never proved the connection between knowing right and wrong and spirituality. The lack of your proof is my proof. Get it? You fucking noob.



Well the proof is, we make spiritual connection and other animals don't. We also have a sense of right and wrong and other animals don't. Occam's Razor says the simplest explanation is these are directly related to each other. This would also be the biological conclusion of any other species ever examined. If salmon only swim upstream to spawn and you observe a salmon swimming upstream, it's probably not going sightseeing. If cherry blossoms only bloom on cherry trees in the spring and you see cherry blossoms on a tree, it's safe to say it's a cherry tree in spring. If you witness someone on a message board who is unable to make their points and resorts to personal insults and denigrations, they are probably an idiot. 

Now, do you have any scientific evidence to offer, that the unique human attribute of spirituality and the unique human attribute of knowing right from wrong are unrelated?


----------



## PostmodernProph

MrMax said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I agree with you that God is of a spiritual nature.though he is also of a physical nature. I thought that you also said that God was a manmade concept, but in this quote you say that religion is....
> 
> I don't believe that is true, but I am comforted that you don't think God is likewise created by man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I agree that God is manifest in simply the presence and existence of physical nature. God created it.
> 
> The human spiritual connection to spiritual nature far predates any "religious" belief. For many thousands of years, mankind had deep spiritual connection, long before the thought of establishing a formal religion. These religions are manifestations of our human spiritual connection, and I believe the fact that so many various religions exist, is evidence that we don't fully comprehend God or Spiritual Nature. Perhaps Christianity comes closest? Perhaps some other religions do as well? I won't argue this because it's obvious many people have found a way to connect to Spiritual Nature through religious faith, and mostly that's a good thing.
> 
> Regardless of whether you share my beliefs on God, it should be obvious to anyone who studies humanity, human nature and behavior, or biology, that spiritual nature does exist and is not "made up" by man. Many can argue over what God is, but you cannot deny Spiritual Nature exists and we have the capacity to connect with it. For all intents and purposes, that IS God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religion was invented because of man's ignorance to the universe around him, as a way to explain the unknown. Now you know.
Click to expand...

must not have worked.....most of the posts I see tell me people are still ignorant......


----------



## PostmodernProph

MrMax said:


> So then why do people like myself and millions more have no profound spiritual connection? Are we then unable to "rationalize right from wrong"?
> Your spiritual connection is part of religion, so is your "Creator".



for the most part you've shown yourself unable, yes......I see people killing unborn children, I see racism, I see drug abuse, I see war......none of those things are taught by religion......


----------



## PostmodernProph

Derideo_Te said:


> How is the hell not a threat?



????.....since the only ones who will end up there are people who refuse to believe it even exists, how can you call it a threat?......


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because you choose to reject it. If you are able to rationalize right from wrong, you have evidence of your spiritual connection. Whether you choose to acknowledge it is another matter.
> 
> Religion did not precede spirituality. Sorry, your point is not made.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spirituality, religion, god, it makes no difference  as *all are creations of man*, where god as perceived by theists doesnt exists, and consequently theres nothing to hate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they're not, and you've failed to prove this repeatedly. Religion is the creation of man. Spirituality has been present in man since the beginning. God is who is on the other end of our spiritual connection, and man has created various incarnations of God through the ages, but this only proves the spiritual connection is real and not imagined.
> 
> If there is nothing to hate, why do we see so much hate? If there is nothing to it, why are people so passionately opposed to it? Nothing in logic or reason supports this.
> 
> You will claim that humans "invented" spirituality to cope with fears of death or explain the unknown, but if this were true, we'd see evidence of other creatures inventing imaginary placebos to console themselves, and that's not present in nature. If it were imaginary and nothing to it, the attribute would have disappeared in man as kings and rulers killed off scores of the species out of jealousy... or else, Darwin was completely wrong about natural selection. We've retained the attribute, it's still as strong in mankind as ever. It can't be stomped out of our hearts, no matter how hard you try. The spiritual connection is real.
Click to expand...


WTF?  If spirituality is a human invention we'd see other animals doing it?  That makes no sense whatsoever.  Of course, having seen this conversation before, I'm pretty sure you'll contend that human intelligence and reasoning are products of our spiritual nature.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> You never proved the connection between knowing right and wrong and spirituality, and you want ME to prove my statement that you never proved the connection between knowing right and wrong and spirituality. The lack of your proof is my proof. Get it? You fucking noob.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well the proof is, we make spiritual connection and other animals don't. We also have a sense of right and wrong and other animals don't. Occam's Razor says the simplest explanation is these are directly related to each other. This would also be the biological conclusion of any other species ever examined. If salmon only swim upstream to spawn and you observe a salmon swimming upstream, it's probably not going sightseeing. If cherry blossoms only bloom on cherry trees in the spring and you see cherry blossoms on a tree, it's safe to say it's a cherry tree in spring. If you witness someone on a message board who is unable to make their points and resorts to personal insults and denigrations, they are probably an idiot.
> 
> Now, do you have any scientific evidence to offer, that the unique human attribute of spirituality and the unique human attribute of knowing right from wrong are unrelated?
Click to expand...


Occam's Razor says the simplest answer is often the correct one, not that spiritual connections are related to right and wrong.

However, I would agree they are related, as both are products of human intelligence and reasoning.

That doesn't mean spirituality is based on something real or that spirituality is imagined.  It just means that most, if not all, other animals lack the ability to understand the kinds of concepts involved with either spirituality or morality.

Do you have any scientific evidence that spirituality and knowing right from wrong are related?  Other than through our higher intelligence as I've pointed out, of course.


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spirituality, religion, god, it makes no difference  as *all are creations of man*, where god as perceived by theists doesnt exists, and consequently theres nothing to hate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they're not, and you've failed to prove this repeatedly. Religion is the creation of man. Spirituality has been present in man since the beginning. God is who is on the other end of our spiritual connection, and man has created various incarnations of God through the ages, but this only proves the spiritual connection is real and not imagined.
> 
> If there is nothing to hate, why do we see so much hate? If there is nothing to it, why are people so passionately opposed to it? Nothing in logic or reason supports this.
> 
> You will claim that humans "invented" spirituality to cope with fears of death or explain the unknown, but if this were true, we'd see evidence of other creatures inventing imaginary placebos to console themselves, and that's not present in nature. If it were imaginary and nothing to it, the attribute would have disappeared in man as kings and rulers killed off scores of the species out of jealousy... or else, Darwin was completely wrong about natural selection. We've retained the attribute, it's still as strong in mankind as ever. It can't be stomped out of our hearts, no matter how hard you try. The spiritual connection is real.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF?  If spirituality is a human invention we'd see other animals doing it?  That makes no sense whatsoever.  Of course, having seen this conversation before, I'm pretty sure you'll contend that human intelligence and reasoning are products of our spiritual nature.
Click to expand...


Nothing else in nature invents imaginary things to cope with their mortality. Where'd this "evolve" from? Couldn't have been common ancestors of great apes, they don't invent imaginary things to cope with their mortality. 

Intelligence and reasoning are present in other species. Humans have a unique ability to reason what is morally right and wrong and behave accordingly. This comes from human spiritual connection. Other animals lack the ability to spiritually connect, and thus, lack the ability to reason moral right and wrong or behave accordingly. They naturally behave by primal instinct. This isn't because their brain is different, because we can train them to reason right and wrong through rewards and consequences. So they have the ability to, they just don't naturally do it.


----------



## Gadawg73

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they're not, and you've failed to prove this repeatedly. Religion is the creation of man. Spirituality has been present in man since the beginning. God is who is on the other end of our spiritual connection, and man has created various incarnations of God through the ages, but this only proves the spiritual connection is real and not imagined.
> 
> If there is nothing to hate, why do we see so much hate? If there is nothing to it, why are people so passionately opposed to it? Nothing in logic or reason supports this.
> 
> You will claim that humans "invented" spirituality to cope with fears of death or explain the unknown, but if this were true, we'd see evidence of other creatures inventing imaginary placebos to console themselves, and that's not present in nature. If it were imaginary and nothing to it, the attribute would have disappeared in man as kings and rulers killed off scores of the species out of jealousy... or else, Darwin was completely wrong about natural selection. We've retained the attribute, it's still as strong in mankind as ever. It can't be stomped out of our hearts, no matter how hard you try. The spiritual connection is real.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WTF?  If spirituality is a human invention we'd see other animals doing it?  That makes no sense whatsoever.  Of course, having seen this conversation before, I'm pretty sure you'll contend that human intelligence and reasoning are products of our spiritual nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing else in nature invents imaginary things to cope with their mortality. Where'd this "evolve" from? Couldn't have been common ancestors of great apes, they don't invent imaginary things to cope with their mortality.
> 
> Intelligence and reasoning are present in other species. Humans have a unique ability to reason what is morally right and wrong and behave accordingly. This comes from human spiritual connection. Other animals lack the ability to spiritually connect, and thus, lack the ability to reason moral right and wrong or behave accordingly. They naturally behave by primal instinct. This isn't because their brain is different, because we can train them to reason right and wrong through rewards and consequences. So they have the ability to, they just don't naturally do it.
Click to expand...


Our species never had any unique ability to reason what is morally right and wrong was/is until we were TAUGHT.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they're not, and you've failed to prove this repeatedly. Religion is the creation of man. Spirituality has been present in man since the beginning. God is who is on the other end of our spiritual connection, and man has created various incarnations of God through the ages, but this only proves the spiritual connection is real and not imagined.
> 
> If there is nothing to hate, why do we see so much hate? If there is nothing to it, why are people so passionately opposed to it? Nothing in logic or reason supports this.
> 
> You will claim that humans "invented" spirituality to cope with fears of death or explain the unknown, but if this were true, we'd see evidence of other creatures inventing imaginary placebos to console themselves, and that's not present in nature. If it were imaginary and nothing to it, the attribute would have disappeared in man as kings and rulers killed off scores of the species out of jealousy... or else, Darwin was completely wrong about natural selection. We've retained the attribute, it's still as strong in mankind as ever. It can't be stomped out of our hearts, no matter how hard you try. The spiritual connection is real.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WTF?  If spirituality is a human invention we'd see other animals doing it?  That makes no sense whatsoever.  Of course, having seen this conversation before, I'm pretty sure you'll contend that human intelligence and reasoning are products of our spiritual nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing else in nature invents imaginary things to cope with their mortality. Where'd this "evolve" from? Couldn't have been common ancestors of great apes, they don't invent imaginary things to cope with their mortality.
> 
> Intelligence and reasoning are present in other species. Humans have a unique ability to reason what is morally right and wrong and behave accordingly. This comes from human spiritual connection. Other animals lack the ability to spiritually connect, and thus, lack the ability to reason moral right and wrong or behave accordingly. They naturally behave by primal instinct. This isn't because their brain is different, because we can train them to reason right and wrong through rewards and consequences. So they have the ability to, they just don't naturally do it.
Click to expand...


It is because their brains are different, actually.  We can't teach them to speak our languages, write or read.  We can't teach them a plethora of concepts and ideas and technology unique to humans.

And we don't generally teach animals to reason right and wrong.  Animals aren't learning morality because they get a treat for a certain action, for instance.  They are just learning a way to earn a treat.

Besides, by your reasoning, to teach an animal right and wrong, wouldn't they need a spiritual connection?  If they have a spiritual connection, it's not unique to humans, so your arguments about the human uniqueness of spirituality would fall flat, yes?

Do other animals imagine much of anything?  You continue to compare humans to other animals as though our mental abilities are equal.


----------



## Boss

> You continue to compare humans to other animals as though our mental abilities are equal.



Indeed, they are not equal. That is the point.


----------



## MrMax

Boss said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> You never proved the connection between knowing right and wrong and spirituality, and you want ME to prove my statement that you never proved the connection between knowing right and wrong and spirituality. The lack of your proof is my proof. Get it? You fucking noob.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well the proof is, we make spiritual connection and other animals don't. We also have a sense of right and wrong and other animals don't. *
> *This would also be the biological conclusion of any other species ever examined. If salmon only swim upstream to spawn and you observe a salmon swimming upstream, it's probably not going sightseeing. If cherry blossoms only bloom on cherry trees in the spring and you see cherry blossoms on a tree, it's safe to say it's a cherry tree in spring. If you witness someone on a message board who is unable to make their points and resorts to personal insults and denigrations, they are probably an idiot.
> 
> Now, do you have any scientific evidence to offer, that the unique human attribute of spirituality and the unique human attribute of knowing right from wrong are unrelated?
Click to expand...

Occam's razor says no such thing, you fucking noob.
"In science, Occam's Razor is used as a heuristic (discovery tool) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models rather than as an arbiter between published models.[8][9] In the scientific method, *Occam's Razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result*.[1][10][11]".
You offer nothing to prove your point and want scientific evidence to refute your claim? Why don't YOU offer up some real scientific evidence to prove your claim first? You can't? Gee, what a surprise.


----------



## Newby

MrMax said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> You never proved the connection between knowing right and wrong and spirituality, and you want ME to prove my statement that you never proved the connection between knowing right and wrong and spirituality. The lack of your proof is my proof. Get it? You fucking noob.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well the proof is, we make spiritual connection and other animals don't. We also have a sense of right and wrong and other animals don't. *
> *This would also be the biological conclusion of any other species ever examined. If salmon only swim upstream to spawn and you observe a salmon swimming upstream, it's probably not going sightseeing. If cherry blossoms only bloom on cherry trees in the spring and you see cherry blossoms on a tree, it's safe to say it's a cherry tree in spring. If you witness someone on a message board who is unable to make their points and resorts to personal insults and denigrations, they are probably an idiot.
> 
> Now, do you have any scientific evidence to offer, that the unique human attribute of spirituality and the unique human attribute of knowing right from wrong are unrelated?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Occam's razor says no such thing, you fucking noob.
> "In science, Occam's Razor is used as a heuristic (discovery tool) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models rather than as an arbiter between published models.[8][9] In the scientific method, *Occam's Razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result*.[1][10][11]".
> You offer nothing to prove your point and want scientific evidence to refute your claim? Why don't YOU offer up some real scientific evidence to prove your claim first? You can't? Gee, what a surprise.
Click to expand...


How delightful, yet another militant, hateful atheist running around calling someone else a noob when the idiot's just joined the board himself this month.   Does it get any better?


----------



## Newby

Just the fact that this thread has gone 642 posts attracting every militant athesit on the board and even new ones, is testimony proving the op's premise.


----------



## MrMax

Newby said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well the proof is, we make spiritual connection and other animals don't. We also have a sense of right and wrong and other animals don't. *
> *This would also be the biological conclusion of any other species ever examined. If salmon only swim upstream to spawn and you observe a salmon swimming upstream, it's probably not going sightseeing. If cherry blossoms only bloom on cherry trees in the spring and you see cherry blossoms on a tree, it's safe to say it's a cherry tree in spring. If you witness someone on a message board who is unable to make their points and resorts to personal insults and denigrations, they are probably an idiot.
> 
> Now, do you have any scientific evidence to offer, that the unique human attribute of spirituality and the unique human attribute of knowing right from wrong are unrelated?
> 
> 
> 
> Occam's razor says no such thing, you fucking noob.
> "In science, Occam's Razor is used as a heuristic (discovery tool) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models rather than as an arbiter between published models.[8][9] In the scientific method, *Occam's Razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result*.[1][10][11]".
> You offer nothing to prove your point and want scientific evidence to refute your claim? Why don't YOU offer up some real scientific evidence to prove your claim first? You can't? Gee, what a surprise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How delightful, yet another militant, hateful atheist running around calling someone else a noob when the idiot's just joined the board himself this month.   Does it get any better?
Click to expand...


I noticed though, that you couldn't refute my post. Gee, another noob who can only attack the poster, not the post.


----------



## Newby

MrMax said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> Occam's razor says no such thing, you fucking noob.
> "In science, Occam's Razor is used as a heuristic (discovery tool) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models rather than as an arbiter between published models.[8][9] In the scientific method, *Occam's Razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result*.[1][10][11]".
> You offer nothing to prove your point and want scientific evidence to refute your claim? Why don't YOU offer up some real scientific evidence to prove your claim first? You can't? Gee, what a surprise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How delightful, yet another militant, hateful atheist running around calling someone else a noob when the idiot's just joined the board himself this month.   Does it get any better?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I noticed though, that you couldn't refute my post. Gee, another noob who can only attack the poster, not the post.
Click to expand...


There's nothing there worth refuting, you refute hate by ignoring it.  Hey, and at least you can be accurate calling me that since at least it's my name, otherwise you just look like a total idiot!


----------



## Boss

MrMax said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> You never proved the connection between knowing right and wrong and spirituality, and you want ME to prove my statement that you never proved the connection between knowing right and wrong and spirituality. The lack of your proof is my proof. Get it? You fucking noob.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well the proof is, we make spiritual connection and other animals don't. We also have a sense of right and wrong and other animals don't. *
> *This would also be the biological conclusion of any other species ever examined. If salmon only swim upstream to spawn and you observe a salmon swimming upstream, it's probably not going sightseeing. If cherry blossoms only bloom on cherry trees in the spring and you see cherry blossoms on a tree, it's safe to say it's a cherry tree in spring. If you witness someone on a message board who is unable to make their points and resorts to personal insults and denigrations, they are probably an idiot.
> 
> Now, do you have any scientific evidence to offer, that the unique human attribute of spirituality and the unique human attribute of knowing right from wrong are unrelated?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Occam's razor says no such thing, you fucking noob.
> "In science, Occam's Razor is used as a heuristic (discovery tool) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models rather than as an arbiter between published models.[8][9] In the scientific method, *Occam's Razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result*.[1][10][11]".
> You offer nothing to prove your point and want scientific evidence to refute your claim? Why don't YOU offer up some real scientific evidence to prove your claim first? You can't? Gee, what a surprise.
Click to expand...


Didn't say Occam's was an irrefutable principle, or that I could give you physical scientfic evidence of something spiritual. Most non-retards understand that physical science can't currently evaluate the spiritual. So now you are presenting arguments ad absurdum. You asked for evidence of a connection and that's what I gave you. Now, I've asked you for evidence to suggest there is not a connection, and you've not provided an answer. Punk!


----------



## MrMax

Boss said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well the proof is, we make spiritual connection and other animals don't. We also have a sense of right and wrong and other animals don't. *
> *This would also be the biological conclusion of any other species ever examined. If salmon only swim upstream to spawn and you observe a salmon swimming upstream, it's probably not going sightseeing. If cherry blossoms only bloom on cherry trees in the spring and you see cherry blossoms on a tree, it's safe to say it's a cherry tree in spring. If you witness someone on a message board who is unable to make their points and resorts to personal insults and denigrations, they are probably an idiot.
> 
> Now, do you have any scientific evidence to offer, that the unique human attribute of spirituality and the unique human attribute of knowing right from wrong are unrelated?
> 
> 
> 
> Occam's razor says no such thing, you fucking noob.
> "In science, Occam's Razor is used as a heuristic (discovery tool) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models rather than as an arbiter between published models.[8][9] In the scientific method, *Occam's Razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result*.[1][10][11]".
> You offer nothing to prove your point and want scientific evidence to refute your claim? Why don't YOU offer up some real scientific evidence to prove your claim first? You can't? Gee, what a surprise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't say Occam's was an irrefutable principle, or that I could give you physical scientfic evidence of something spiritual. Most non-retards understand that physical science can't currently evaluate the spiritual. So now you are presenting arguments ad absurdum. You asked for evidence of a connection and that's what I gave you. Now, I've asked you for evidence to suggest there is not a connection, and you've not provided an answer. Punk!
Click to expand...

Problem is, Occam's razor isn't proof. So what is the connection? You haven't shown one yet for me to refute.


----------



## BreezeWood

Boss said:


> *Other animals* lack the ability to spiritually connect, and thus, lack the ability to reason moral right and wrong or behave accordingly. They naturally behave by primal instinct.




...  does that include all that is Flora as well is without a spiritual connection ?


why wouldn't religious people "persist" against such an insidious characterization evolved from an obviously depraved soul.

.


----------



## Boss

MrMax said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> Occam's razor says no such thing, you fucking noob.
> "In science, Occam's Razor is used as a heuristic (discovery tool) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models rather than as an arbiter between published models.[8][9] In the scientific method, *Occam's Razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result*.[1][10][11]".
> You offer nothing to prove your point and want scientific evidence to refute your claim? Why don't YOU offer up some real scientific evidence to prove your claim first? You can't? Gee, what a surprise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't say Occam's was an irrefutable principle, or that I could give you physical scientfic evidence of something spiritual. Most non-retards understand that physical science can't currently evaluate the spiritual. So now you are presenting arguments ad absurdum. You asked for evidence of a connection and that's what I gave you. Now, I've asked you for evidence to suggest there is not a connection, and you've not provided an answer. Punk!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Problem is, Occam's razor isn't proof. So what is the connection? You haven't shown one yet for me to refute.
Click to expand...


No, Occam's isn't proof and I didn't say it was. Occam's Razor is a principle of parsimony, a way to evaluate answers to questions. I presented it in support of my answer to the question because the question involves something non-physical that physical sciences alone are unable to confirm. Again, the "connection" is obvious, we are spiritual and we have a sense of morality judgement and act upon it. The later comes from the former, and Occam's Razor supports this. Biological observation and behavioral information of other species also supports this. I could also throw in 'common sense' but you seem to be lacking in that department. 

Now, a salmon and how it reproduces is totally physical, we can derive an answer to the question of why salmon only spawn when they swim upstream at certain times of the year because we're dealing with physical nature. But if we had no physical way to evaluate the question, Occam's Razor would apply. Salmon obviously must swim upstream to spawn, since that seems to always be what happens whenever they swim upstream at certain times of the year. It's not an unrelated coincidence. The two unique circumstances are related. Occam's Razor doesn't "prove" this, but it helps to support the argument. 

While we're on the subject, let's talk a moment about "proof" and what that means. In a purely philosophical sense, NOTHING is proven. Not even reality. Proof is subjective. It is dependent on personal evaluation of what you are willing to accept as valid evidence. You may say, "well, I can prove gravity by doing an experiment..." No, you can prove gravity to yourself because you are willing to accept the evidence of your experiment as valid. If I am not willing to accept your evidence as valid, you've not proven gravity to me. 

In the case of spiritual nature and things related to spirituality, you refuse to acknowledge they exist because there is no physical evidence. I can't change that fact. I'm never going to be able to present you with valid physical evidence of spiritual nature, and if I could do that, it would immediately cease to be spiritual nature, so we have a logic dichotomy. I don't know which is more stupid and idiotic, a person who thinks there can be physical proof of something spiritual or someone who posts on a public forum as if they expect such evidence to be presented. Repeatedly doing this doesn't make you any smarter.


----------



## Boss

BreezeWood said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Other animals* lack the ability to spiritually connect, and thus, lack the ability to reason moral right and wrong or behave accordingly. They naturally behave by primal instinct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...  does that include all that is Flora as well is without a spiritual connection ?
> 
> 
> why wouldn't religious people "persist" against such an insidious characterization evolved from an obviously depraved soul.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Show me evidence Flora has awareness of right and wrong and acts upon it, and I will agree that Flora has spiritual awareness. Until then, I can't say I see evidence of this, it's an interesting proposition and maybe you are correct, but you need more than an opinion to validate your argument.


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is the promise of an "afterlife" not a bribe? How is the hell not a threat? Granted that to those who believe they don't have that perception but to those that don't that is how they appear. If you are good I will give you some candy and it you are bad I will send you to your room. Same concepts of carrot and stick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow sounds like you hate God because you don't understand him.
> 
> I guess that makes sense.
> 
> My point is, if God do has never paid a bribe to anyone to slant or falsify a study to make a *scientific* point, and then portray that *science* as beyond question.
> 
> And when did I say that there were no threats with God? Those who aren't saved will go to hell. There can be no righteousness, no judgement, without punishment. Hell is the just punishment for rejection of God. If you don't like it, oh well, why does it make you so angry at God? You don't believe in God, remember?
Click to expand...

who is god do?.....you're always correct   Tiara  is slipping.


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> Your join date is March 2014, Mr. Max. Boss has 2 years on you.
> 
> Whoops your slip is showing.


another fine example of kosher hag's meaningless ranking system....


----------



## daws101

MrMax said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your join date is March 2014, Mr. Max. Boss has 2 years on you.
> 
> Whoops your slip is showing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wtf does that have to do with anything?
Click to expand...

bump!


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> Pascal's wrong.
> 
> God will not forgive the atheists. They rejected God, and they will suffer the consequences.
> 
> I know. Dirty word. Atheists hate God because they recognize that he will impose consequences upon them for rejecting him, repeatedly.
> 
> Oh well.


right! now prove pascals wrong..since it's a mathematical exercise and you are not a mathematician by any stretch of the imagination, this should be fun.


----------



## daws101

PostmodernProph said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> So then why do people like myself and millions more have no profound spiritual connection? Are we then unable to "rationalize right from wrong"?
> Your spiritual connection is part of religion, so is your "Creator".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> for the most part you've shown yourself unable, yes......I see people killing unborn children, I see racism, I see drug abuse, I see war......none of those things are taught by religion......
Click to expand...

really.....
Religious war quotes:

   There is a religious war going on in our country for the soul of America 

 Patrick Buchanan quotes

     We had better dispense with the personification of evil, because it leads, all too easily, to the most dangerous kind of war: religious war. 

 Konrad Lorenz quotes (Austrian Zoologist, 1903-1989)


     The fruits of Christianity were religious wars, butcheries, crusades, inquisitions, extermination of the natives of America and the introduction of African slaves in their place 

 Arthur Schopenhauer quotes (German Philosopher, 1788-1860)


    We all remember how many religious wars were fought for a religion of love and gentleness; how many bodies were burned alive with the genuinely kind intention of saving souls from the eternal fire of hell 

 Karl Popper 

     After all, it [the Internet] was designed to withstand nuclear war, not just the puny huffs and puffs of politicians and religious fanatics. 

 Denise Caruso quotes (Digital commerce columnist, New York Times)

     In the long term we can hope that religion will change the nature of man and reduce conflict. But history is not encouraging in this respect. The bloodiest wars in history have been religious wars. 

 Richard M. Nixon quotes (American 37th US President (1969-74), 1913-1994)

    CROSS, n. An ancient religious symbol erroneously supposed to owe its significance to the most solemn event in the history of Christianity, but really antedating it by thousands of years. By many it has been believed to be identical with the _crux ansata_ of the ancient phallic worship, but it has been traced even beyond all that we know of that, to the rites of primitive peoples. We have to-day the White Cross as a symbol of chastity, and the Red Cross as a badge of benevolent neutrality in war. Having in mind the former, the reverend Father Gassalasca Jape smites the lyre to the effect following:

"Be good, be good!" the sisterhood Cry out in holy chorus, And, to dissuade from sin, parade Their various charms before us.


But why, O why, has ne'er an eye Seen her of winsome manner And youthful grace and pretty face Flaunting the White Cross banner?



Now where's the need of speech and screed To better our behaving? A simpler plan for saving man

(But, first, is he worth saving?)

Is, dears, when he declines to flee From bad thoughts that beset him, Ignores the Law as 't were a straw, And wants to sin --don't let him. 

 Ambrose Bierce quotes (American Writer, Journalist and Editor, 1842-1914)
Book: Devil's Dictionary quotes


    The Revolution was effected before the War commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments of their duties and obligations. This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people, was the real American Revolution. 

 John Adams quotes (American 2nd US President (1797-1801), 1735-1826)


----------



## Boss

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Fuck... time to put the ol' scroll button to use folks! 
This idiot is going to prattle on for 30-40 more posts.

Just keep on scrolling!


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Fuck... time to put the ol' scroll button to use folks!
> This idiot is going to prattle on for 30-40 more posts.
> 
> Just keep on scrolling!


yes folks follow boosy's advice he  will yammer nonsense for many posts to come.


----------



## MrMax

Boss said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't say Occam's was an irrefutable principle, or that I could give you physical scientfic evidence of something spiritual. Most non-retards understand that physical science can't currently evaluate the spiritual. So now you are presenting arguments ad absurdum. You asked for evidence of a connection and that's what I gave you. Now, I've asked you for evidence to suggest there is not a connection, and you've not provided an answer. Punk!
> 
> 
> 
> Problem is, Occam's razor isn't proof. So what is the connection? You haven't shown one yet for me to refute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, Occam's isn't proof and I didn't say it was. Occam's Razor is a principle of parsimony, a way to evaluate answers to questions. I presented it in support of my answer to the question because the question involves something non-physical that physical sciences alone are unable to confirm. Again, the "connection" is obvious, we are spiritual and we have a sense of morality judgement and act upon it. The later comes from the former, and Occam's Razor supports this. Biological observation and behavioral information of other species also supports this. I could also throw in 'common sense' but you seem to be lacking in that department.
> 
> Now, a salmon and how it reproduces is totally physical, we can derive an answer to the question of why salmon only spawn when they swim upstream at certain times of the year because we're dealing with physical nature. But if we had no physical way to evaluate the question, Occam's Razor wouuld apply. Salmon obviously must swim upstream to spawn, since that seems to always be what happens whenever they swim upstream at certain times of the year. It's not an unrelated coincidence. The two unique circumstances are related. Occam's Razor doesn't "prove" this, but it helps to support the argument.
> 
> While we're on the subject, let's talk a moment about "proof" and what that means. In a purely philosophical sense, NOTHING is proven. Not even reality. Proof is subjective. It is dependent on personal evaluation of what you are willing to accept as valid evidence. You may say, "well, I can prove gravity by doing an experiment..." No, you can prove gravity to yourself because you are willing to accept the evidence of your experiment as valid. If I am not willing to accept your evidence as valid, you've not proven gravity to me.
> 
> In the case of spiritual nature and things related to spirituality, you refuse to acknowledge they exist because there is no physical evidence. I can't change that fact. I'm never going to be able to present you with valid physical evidence of spiritual nature, and if I could do that, it would immediately cease to be spiritual nature, so we have a logic dichotomy. I don't know which is more stupid and idiotic, a person who thinks there can be physical proof of something spiritual or someone who posts on a public forum as if they expect such evidence to be presented. Repeatedly doing this doesn't make you any smarter.
Click to expand...


So in other words for you, proof doesn't exist, ever. Ok, so you admit you have no proof. You thinking that something is obvious with no proof whatsoever is not refutable as there's still nothing to refute except your opinion, which is just an opinion, no biggie. Got it.


----------



## GISMYS

The Perfect Revelation of the Lord

To the Chief Musician. A Psalm of David.
19 The heavens declare the glory of God;
And the firmament shows His handiwork.
2 
Day unto day utters speech,
And night unto night reveals knowledge.
3 
There is no speech nor language
Where their voice is not heard.
4 
Their line has gone out through all the earth,
And their words to the end of the world.
In them He has set a tabernacle for the sun,
5 
Which is like a bridegroom coming out of his chamber,
And rejoices like a strong man to run its race.
6 
Its rising is from one end of heaven,
And its circuit to the other end;
And there is nothing hidden from its heat.
7 
The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul;
The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple;
8 
The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart;
The commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes;
9 
The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever;
The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.
10 
More to be desired are they than gold,
Yea, than much fine gold;
Sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb.
11
Moreover by them Your servant is warned,
And in keeping them there is great reward.
12 
Who can understand his errors?
Cleanse me from secret faults.
13 
Keep back Your servant also from presumptuous sins;
Let them not have dominion over me.
Then I shall be blameless,
And I shall be innocent of great transgression.
14 
Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart
Be acceptable in Your sight,
O Lord, my strength and my Redeemer.


----------



## Boss

MrMax said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> Problem is, Occam's razor isn't proof. So what is the connection? You haven't shown one yet for me to refute.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, Occam's isn't proof and I didn't say it was. Occam's Razor is a principle of parsimony, a way to evaluate answers to questions. I presented it in support of my answer to the question because the question involves something non-physical that physical sciences alone are unable to confirm. Again, the "connection" is obvious, we are spiritual and we have a sense of morality judgement and act upon it. The later comes from the former, and Occam's Razor supports this. Biological observation and behavioral information of other species also supports this. I could also throw in 'common sense' but you seem to be lacking in that department.
> 
> Now, a salmon and how it reproduces is totally physical, we can derive an answer to the question of why salmon only spawn when they swim upstream at certain times of the year because we're dealing with physical nature. But if we had no physical way to evaluate the question, Occam's Razor wouuld apply. Salmon obviously must swim upstream to spawn, since that seems to always be what happens whenever they swim upstream at certain times of the year. It's not an unrelated coincidence. The two unique circumstances are related. Occam's Razor doesn't "prove" this, but it helps to support the argument.
> 
> While we're on the subject, let's talk a moment about "proof" and what that means. In a purely philosophical sense, NOTHING is proven. Not even reality. Proof is subjective. It is dependent on personal evaluation of what you are willing to accept as valid evidence. You may say, "well, I can prove gravity by doing an experiment..." No, you can prove gravity to yourself because you are willing to accept the evidence of your experiment as valid. If I am not willing to accept your evidence as valid, you've not proven gravity to me.
> 
> In the case of spiritual nature and things related to spirituality, you refuse to acknowledge they exist because there is no physical evidence. I can't change that fact. I'm never going to be able to present you with valid physical evidence of spiritual nature, and if I could do that, it would immediately cease to be spiritual nature, so we have a logic dichotomy. I don't know which is more stupid and idiotic, a person who thinks there can be physical proof of something spiritual or someone who posts on a public forum as if they expect such evidence to be presented. Repeatedly doing this doesn't make you any smarter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So in other words for you, proof doesn't exist, ever. Ok, so you admit you have no proof. You thinking that something is obvious with no proof whatsoever is not refutable as there's still nothing to refute except your opinion, which is just an opinion, no biggie. Got it.
Click to expand...


Again, try to comprehend this in your pea-sized little brain... PROOF is subjective. ALL PROOF! It is totally dependent on what you accept as valid evidence. I presented evidence, you rejected it. You did not refute it, you rejected it. We're all free to reject anything we please, it does not ever mean that we refuted it.


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, Occam's isn't proof and I didn't say it was. Occam's Razor is a principle of parsimony, a way to evaluate answers to questions. I presented it in support of my answer to the question because the question involves something non-physical that physical sciences alone are unable to confirm. Again, the "connection" is obvious, we are spiritual and we have a sense of morality judgement and act upon it. The later comes from the former, and Occam's Razor supports this. Biological observation and behavioral information of other species also supports this. I could also throw in 'common sense' but you seem to be lacking in that department.
> 
> Now, a salmon and how it reproduces is totally physical, we can derive an answer to the question of why salmon only spawn when they swim upstream at certain times of the year because we're dealing with physical nature. But if we had no physical way to evaluate the question, Occam's Razor wouuld apply. Salmon obviously must swim upstream to spawn, since that seems to always be what happens whenever they swim upstream at certain times of the year. It's not an unrelated coincidence. The two unique circumstances are related. Occam's Razor doesn't "prove" this, but it helps to support the argument.
> 
> While we're on the subject, let's talk a moment about "proof" and what that means. In a purely philosophical sense, NOTHING is proven. Not even reality. Proof is subjective. It is dependent on personal evaluation of what you are willing to accept as valid evidence. You may say, "well, I can prove gravity by doing an experiment..." No, you can prove gravity to yourself because you are willing to accept the evidence of your experiment as valid. If I am not willing to accept your evidence as valid, you've not proven gravity to me.
> 
> In the case of spiritual nature and things related to spirituality, you refuse to acknowledge they exist because there is no physical evidence. I can't change that fact. I'm never going to be able to present you with valid physical evidence of spiritual nature, and if I could do that, it would immediately cease to be spiritual nature, so we have a logic dichotomy. I don't know which is more stupid and idiotic, a person who thinks there can be physical proof of something spiritual or someone who posts on a public forum as if they expect such evidence to be presented. Repeatedly doing this doesn't make you any smarter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So in other words for you, proof doesn't exist, ever. Ok, so you admit you have no proof. You thinking that something is obvious with no proof whatsoever is not refutable as there's still nothing to refute except your opinion, which is just an opinion, no biggie. Got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, try to comprehend this in your pea-sized little brain... PROOF is subjective. ALL PROOF! It is totally dependent on what you accept as valid evidence. I presented evidence, you rejected it. You did not refute it, you rejected it. We're all free to reject anything we please, it does not ever mean that we refuted it.
Click to expand...

bullshit  hot water is not hot because you accept the  evidence...it is because it is ....spirituality is subjective as because there is no testable evidence to prove it ....


----------



## Boss

daws101 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> So in other words for you, proof doesn't exist, ever. Ok, so you admit you have no proof. You thinking that something is obvious with no proof whatsoever is not refutable as there's still nothing to refute except your opinion, which is just an opinion, no biggie. Got it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, try to comprehend this in your pea-sized little brain... PROOF is subjective. ALL PROOF! It is totally dependent on what you accept as valid evidence. I presented evidence, you rejected it. You did not refute it, you rejected it. We're all free to reject anything we please, it does not ever mean that we refuted it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> bullshit  hot water is not hot because you accept the  evidence...it is because it is ....spirituality is subjective as because there is no testable evidence to prove it ....
Click to expand...


No it isn't. It's very cool compared to lava. 

There is testable evidence to prove spirituality. You have to first accept that spiritual nature exists and is real. Once you can do that, it's very easy to test and confirm it... billions and billions have done so.


----------



## BreezeWood

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Other animals* lack the ability to spiritually connect, and thus, lack the ability to reason moral right and wrong or behave accordingly. They naturally behave by primal instinct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...  does that include all that is Flora as well is without a spiritual connection ?
> 
> 
> why wouldn't religious people "persist" against such an insidious characterization evolved from an obviously depraved soul.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me evidence Flora has awareness of right and wrong and acts upon it, and I will agree that Flora has spiritual awareness. Until then, I can't say I see evidence of this, it's an interesting proposition and maybe you are correct, but you need more than an opinion to validate your argument.
Click to expand...



Show me evidence Flora has awareness:

.







.


the examples are endless - I get it, not one can be found in your Bible.

.


----------



## Boss

BreezeWood said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...  does that include all that is Flora as well is without a spiritual connection ?
> 
> 
> why wouldn't religious people "persist" against such an insidious characterization evolved from an obviously depraved soul.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show me evidence Flora has awareness of right and wrong and acts upon it, and I will agree that Flora has spiritual awareness. Until then, I can't say I see evidence of this, it's an interesting proposition and maybe you are correct, but you need more than an opinion to validate your argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Show me evidence Flora has awareness:
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> the examples are endless - I get it, not one can be found in your Bible.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


You're not demonstrating how this is awareness of right and wrong or action based upon that awareness. Sorry. Got any more examples?


----------



## Boss

> bullshit hot water is not hot because you accept the evidence...it is because it is



Again, because I love to slap ol' dawsy around like a crack whore... Where is your "science?" You're just saying something is a matter of fact "because it is."  Your words exactly. 

The FACT is, hot water is *not* hot. In fact, the hottest you can ever make water become is practically freezing compared to the surface of the sun.


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> bullshit hot water is not hot because you accept the evidence...it is because it is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, because I love to slap ol' dawsy around like a crack whore... Where is your "science?" You're just saying something is a matter of fact "because it is."  Your words exactly.
> 
> The FACT is, hot water is *not* hot. In fact, the hottest you can ever make water become is practically freezing compared to the surface of the sun.
Click to expand...

love it when you make false and impracticable  comparisons...
do us all a favor and stick you dick in a pot of boiling water and deny it's hot ....and doing no damage..
denying reality  by making outlandish comparisons is not slapping ole dawsy around.it is however a fine example  of your obsession with yourself...


----------



## Boss

daws101 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit hot water is not hot because you accept the evidence...it is because it is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, because I love to slap ol' dawsy around like a crack whore... Where is your "science?" You're just saying something is a matter of fact "because it is."  Your words exactly.
> 
> The FACT is, hot water is *not* hot. In fact, the hottest you can ever make water become is practically freezing compared to the surface of the sun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> love it when you make false and impracticable  comparisons...
> do us all a favor and stick you dick in a pot of boiling water and deny it's hot ....and doing no damage..
> denying reality  by making outlandish comparisons is not slapping ole dawsy around.it is however a fine example  of your obsession with yourself...
Click to expand...



aka: *PWNED!*


----------



## koshergrl

duhs devoted a lot of bandwidth over a succession of days (possibly weeks?) insisting the bronze age took place somewhere around 1500. Despite having multiple links, quotes, wondeful sites, learned explanations...from a variety of posters....telling her she was a little off.

She's just not the sharpest tool in the shed, let me tell ya.


----------



## koshergrl

Likewise, she thinks some weird event in 18th century England is evidence that today's Christians are attempting to turn the US into a theocracy.

The elevator to the top does not rise...


----------



## mamooth

We get it already. Boss hates all of the thousands of gods that aren't his god. He's a god-hater of epic proportions, and god-haters are bad.

It's much better to be an atheist, and just think it's all silly. You get to skip all the hate.


----------



## Boss

mamooth said:


> We get it already. Boss hates all of the thousands of gods that aren't his god. He's a god-hater of epic proportions, and god-haters are bad.
> 
> It's much better to be an atheist, and just think it's all silly. You get to skip all the hate.



Ha.. shows how well you don't know me. 

There is actually very little I hate. Lots of things I despise, especially if they pertain to the interruption or flow of my positive spiritual energy. Oh... and asparagus. Although a friend recently made some that was wrapped in bacon which was tolerable.


----------



## Wake

I do believe religion in all its forms should be attacked and defeated in the realm of debate.

However, this doesn't equal being a mean-spirited jerk who lobs insults, personal attacks, and mockery towards religious people. Mockery of religion itself is alright. 

Attacking Christianity as we know it is fine. Being an ass isn't. Attitude is everything.


----------



## MrMax

Boss said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, Occam's isn't proof and I didn't say it was. Occam's Razor is a principle of parsimony, a way to evaluate answers to questions. I presented it in support of my answer to the question because the question involves something non-physical that physical sciences alone are unable to confirm. Again, the "connection" is obvious, we are spiritual and we have a sense of morality judgement and act upon it. The later comes from the former, and Occam's Razor supports this. Biological observation and behavioral information of other species also supports this. I could also throw in 'common sense' but you seem to be lacking in that department.
> 
> Now, a salmon and how it reproduces is totally physical, we can derive an answer to the question of why salmon only spawn when they swim upstream at certain times of the year because we're dealing with physical nature. But if we had no physical way to evaluate the question, Occam's Razor wouuld apply. Salmon obviously must swim upstream to spawn, since that seems to always be what happens whenever they swim upstream at certain times of the year. It's not an unrelated coincidence. The two unique circumstances are related. Occam's Razor doesn't "prove" this, but it helps to support the argument.
> 
> While we're on the subject, let's talk a moment about "proof" and what that means. In a purely philosophical sense, NOTHING is proven. Not even reality. Proof is subjective. It is dependent on personal evaluation of what you are willing to accept as valid evidence. You may say, "well, I can prove gravity by doing an experiment..." No, you can prove gravity to yourself because you are willing to accept the evidence of your experiment as valid. If I am not willing to accept your evidence as valid, you've not proven gravity to me.
> 
> In the case of spiritual nature and things related to spirituality, you refuse to acknowledge they exist because there is no physical evidence. I can't change that fact. I'm never going to be able to present you with valid physical evidence of spiritual nature, and if I could do that, it would immediately cease to be spiritual nature, so we have a logic dichotomy. I don't know which is more stupid and idiotic, a person who thinks there can be physical proof of something spiritual or someone who posts on a public forum as if they expect such evidence to be presented. Repeatedly doing this doesn't make you any smarter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So in other words for you, proof doesn't exist, ever. Ok, so you admit you have no proof. You thinking that something is obvious with no proof whatsoever is not refutable as there's still nothing to refute except your opinion, which is just an opinion, no biggie. Got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, try to comprehend this in your pea-sized little brain... PROOF is subjective. ALL PROOF! It is totally dependent on what you accept as valid evidence. I presented evidence, you rejected it. You did not refute it, you rejected it. We're all free to reject anything we please, it does not ever mean that we refuted it.
Click to expand...


I'm still waiting for some real proof, you gave an opinion, and did not present proof or facts. I can't refute an opinion, just disagree with it.


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, because I love to slap ol' dawsy around like a crack whore... Where is your "science?" You're just saying something is a matter of fact "because it is."  Your words exactly.
> 
> The FACT is, hot water is *not* hot. In fact, the hottest you can ever make water become is practically freezing compared to the surface of the sun.
> 
> 
> 
> love it when you make false and impracticable  comparisons...
> do us all a favor and stick you dick in a pot of boiling water and deny it's hot ....and doing no damage..
> denying reality  by making outlandish comparisons is not slapping ole dawsy around.it is however a fine example  of your obsession with yourself...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> aka: *PWNED!*
Click to expand...


ine example  of your obsession with yourself.


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> duhs devoted a lot of bandwidth over a succession of days (possibly weeks?) insisting the bronze age took place somewhere around 1500. Despite having multiple links, quotes, wondeful sites, learned explanations...from a variety of posters....telling her she was a little off.
> 
> She's just not the sharpest tool in the shed, let me tell ya.


who would that be kosher hag since I'm not and never have been a she.


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> Likewise, she thinks some weird event in 18th century England is evidence that today's Christians are attempting to turn the US into a theocracy.
> 
> The elevator to the top does not rise...


lo! beside thinking I'm female you are under the delusion the theocracy in "NEW ENGLAND" WAS SOME WEIRD EVENT when in fact it was the norm in new England in the 17th century not the 18th...
also it's extremely relevant to today's Christians, some of which are attempting to do the very same thing..
someone's synapses are misfiring and they're not mine....


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> duhs devoted a lot of bandwidth over a succession of days (possibly weeks?) insisting the bronze age took place somewhere around 1500. Despite having multiple links, quotes, wondeful sites, learned explanations...from a variety of posters....telling her she was a little off.
> 
> She's just not the sharpest tool in the shed, let me tell ya.


bullshit I was one post the rest were you and your shadow vox trying to get mileage out of a freely admitted mistake...say a lot about the maturity and mental status of some so called christian posters.


----------



## BreezeWood

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me evidence Flora has awareness of right and wrong and acts upon it, and I will agree that Flora has spiritual awareness. Until then, I can't say I see evidence of this, it's an interesting proposition and maybe you are correct, but you need more than an opinion to validate your argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show me evidence Flora has awareness:
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> the examples are endless - I get it, not one can be found in your Bible.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not demonstrating how this is awareness of right and wrong or action based upon that awareness. Sorry. Got any more examples?
Click to expand...



how could the example not be based on an awareness - you are just stupid.

.


----------



## Boss

> how could the example not be based on an awareness - you are just stupid.


Well first of all, I never claimed that things don't have 'awareness' because most every living thing is 'aware' of it's environment and reacts accordingly. My argument was "spiritual awareness" and I don't see where you have demonstrated that here. Secondly, I never said that you are wrong, I just said you haven't shown me evidence to prove you're right. I respectfully admitted you could be right, and you return my respect by calling me stupid.


----------



## BreezeWood

Boss said:


> how could the example not be based on an awareness - you are just stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> Well first of all, I never claimed that things don't have 'awareness' because most every living thing is 'aware' of it's environment and reacts accordingly.* My argument was "spiritual awareness" and I don't see where you have demonstrated that here.* Secondly, I never said that you are wrong, I just said you haven't shown me evidence to prove you're right.* I respectfully admitted you could be right, and you return my respect by calling me stupid.*
Click to expand...





> *Boss (1st response):* You're not demonstrating how this is awareness of right and wrong *or action based upon that awareness*. Sorry. Got any more examples?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Boss (2nd response):* I respectfully admitted you could be right, and you return my respect by calling me stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



where did you "respectfully admitted" there could be awareness in your 1st response - "or action based upon that awareness".

what specifically in the example leads you to believe there is not a demonstrative awareness and deliberation of content exhibited by the Orchid ?




> My argument was "spiritual awareness" and I don't see where you have demonstrated that here.



are you saying all Orchids are the same - 

I have said to you before, no two blades of grass from 700 million years ago to this day or for all eternity will ever be the same - you do not understand your own premise of spirituality - as no other life is the same by definition each life its own spiritual "awareness" to everything around it. and for the religious to prosper forever in the Everlasting.


----------



## Boss

BreezeWood said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how could the example not be based on an awareness - you are just stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> Well first of all, I never claimed that things don't have 'awareness' because most every living thing is 'aware' of it's environment and reacts accordingly.* My argument was "spiritual awareness" and I don't see where you have demonstrated that here.* Secondly, I never said that you are wrong, I just said you haven't shown me evidence to prove you're right.* I respectfully admitted you could be right, and you return my respect by calling me stupid.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> where did you "respectfully admitted" there could be awareness in your 1st response - "or action based upon that awareness".
Click to expand...


http://www.usmessageboard.com/8841004-post650.html

*"Show me evidence Flora has awareness of right and wrong and acts upon it, and I will agree that Flora has spiritual awareness. Until then, I can't say I see evidence of this, it's an interesting proposition and maybe you are correct, but you need more than an opinion to validate your argument."*



> what specifically in the example leads you to believe there is not a demonstrative awareness and deliberation of content exhibited by the Orchid ?



I've never argued that living things show no awareness of their environment or react accordingly. I'm not sure what "deliberation of content" means.. did the orchid debate whether or not to bloom or which colors it would wear today? Do you have any evidence to support that idea? I see nothing to indicate the orchid had "spiritual awareness" of any kind. Again... not claiming that it didn't... not saying it's impossible. interesting theory... could be right... I just am not seeing the evidence of it, nor do I believe the orchid is making moral decisions of right and wrong in any way. 



> My argument was "spiritual awareness" and I don't see where you have demonstrated that here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> are you saying all Orchids are the same -
> 
> I have said to you before, no two blades of grass from 700 million years ago to this day or for all eternity will ever be the same - you do not understand your own premise of spirituality - as no other life is the same by definition each life its own spiritual "awareness" to everything around it. and for the religious to prosper forever in the Everlasting.
Click to expand...


Why is it that I clearly state things, post them in plain English, use easy to understand words and phrases, and people assume I am "saying" something completely different? I have never argued that living things have no 'awareness' of environment, that is patently idiotic. Plants do not have consciousness or conscious awareness. Animals have consciousness and conscious awareness and they make conscious decisions. Humans are the only animals I am aware of that make consciously aware decisions based on a sense of moral right and wrong.

You can have a different opinion, but you've simply not shown me any evidence that what I said is not true. I'm open minded, I'm all ears... show me the evidence! Posting a picture of a flower exhibiting that living things are aware of environment, as if this is something I didn't know or understand, is NOT proving your point.


----------



## MrMax

Boss said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, try to comprehend this in your pea-sized little brain... PROOF is subjective. ALL PROOF! It is totally dependent on what you accept as valid evidence. I presented evidence, you rejected it. You did not refute it, you rejected it. We're all free to reject anything we please, it does not ever mean that we refuted it.
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit  hot water is not hot because you accept the  evidence...it is because it is ....spirituality is subjective as because there is no testable evidence to prove it ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it isn't. It's very cool compared to lava.
> 
> There is testable evidence to prove spirituality. *You have to first accept that spiritual nature exists and is real.* Once you can do that, it's very easy to test and confirm it... billions and billions have done so.
Click to expand...


You have to have evidence to make that statement real, just like you said here; "you need to provide EVIDENCE. That means more than the ACLUs opinion or a court finding in an unrelated case. It means actual confirmed and verified scientific tests and observations which have been peer reviewed and published. "


----------



## Boss

MrMax said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit  hot water is not hot because you accept the  evidence...it is because it is ....spirituality is subjective as because there is no testable evidence to prove it ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it isn't. It's very cool compared to lava.
> 
> There is testable evidence to prove spirituality. *You have to first accept that spiritual nature exists and is real.* Once you can do that, it's very easy to test and confirm it... billions and billions have done so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have to have evidence to make that statement real, just like you said here; "you need to provide EVIDENCE. That means more than the ACLUs opinion or a court finding in an unrelated case. It means actual confirmed and verified scientific tests and observations which have been peer reviewed and published. "
Click to expand...


Well, the "evidence" is the billions and billions of people who testify to the power of God in their daily lives. All kinds of miraculous stories of healing the doctors can't explain, survival of the most hopeless odds, perseverance through the worst of storms, the enabling of unknowable personal strength to accomplish the impossible. These people offer first-hand accounts of their own personal "experiment" and it's results. They swear it was through their faith in the power of God and they believe it with all their heart. They write and publish books about how God has changed their lives, shelves and shelves full of them. They become inspiring motivational speakers, sharing their stories with their peers. 

Like dark energy, dark matter, black holes, a universe expanding faster than the speed of light... there is not a "physical" explanation. Like gravity, time and space, there is not a "physical" component. It falls outside the bounds of "physical" sciences, but it is every much as real as the aforementioned phenomena. Nearly every great mind that has ever existed has acknowledged this. BUT... It REQUIRES you to accept and believe spiritual nature exists. Until you can do that, it's not possible to prove it.


----------



## MrMax

Boss said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it isn't. It's very cool compared to lava.
> 
> There is testable evidence to prove spirituality. *You have to first accept that spiritual nature exists and is real.* Once you can do that, it's very easy to test and confirm it... billions and billions have done so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have to have evidence to make that statement real, just like you said here; "you need to provide EVIDENCE. That means more than the ACLUs opinion or a court finding in an unrelated case. It means actual confirmed and verified scientific tests and observations which have been peer reviewed and published. "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, the "evidence" is the billions and billions of people who testify to the power of God in their daily lives. All kinds of miraculous stories of healing the doctors can't explain, survival of the most hopeless odds, perseverance through the worst of storms, the enabling of unknowable personal strength to accomplish the impossible. These people offer first-hand accounts of their own personal "experiment" and it's results. They swear it was through their faith in the power of God and they believe it with all their heart. They write and publish books about how God has changed their lives, shelves and shelves full of them. They become inspiring motivational speakers, sharing their stories with their peers.
> 
> Like dark energy, dark matter, black holes, a universe expanding faster than the speed of light... there is not a "physical" explanation. Like gravity, time and space, there is not a "physical" component. It falls outside the bounds of "physical" sciences, but it is every much as real as the aforementioned phenomena. Nearly every great mind that has ever existed has acknowledged this. BUT... It REQUIRES you to accept and believe spiritual nature exists. Until you can do that, it's not possible to prove it.
Click to expand...


So you have no real evidence. Billions of people believing in invisible superbeings is only proof of possible mass delusion or ignorance, not any sort of proof of anything real.


----------



## hangover

> So you have no real evidence. Billions of people believing in invisible superbeings is only proof of possible mass delusion or ignorance, not any sort of proof of anything real.


Everything that exists is REAL evidence. Just because you refuse to see it, is your problem. Fanaticism also prevents evangelicals from seeing the "evidence" of the world being more that 6,000 years old.


----------



## MrMax

hangover said:


> So you have no real evidence. Billions of people believing in invisible superbeings is only proof of possible mass delusion or ignorance, not any sort of proof of anything real.
> 
> 
> 
> Everything that exists is REAL evidence. Just because you refuse to see it, is your problem. Fanaticism also prevents evangelicals from seeing the "evidence" of the world being more that 6,000 years old.
Click to expand...


Sorry, but just having a lot of people agree that we descend from aliens is not proof, just wishful thinking.


----------



## BreezeWood

Boss said:


> BUT... It REQUIRES you to accept and believe spiritual nature exists.
> 
> ............
> 
> I see nothing to indicate the orchid had "spiritual awareness" of any kind ... *I just am not seeing the evidence of it.*




*... I just am not seeing the evidence of it.*




> King James Bible
> 
> And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.



by having read and accepted the above you will forever not see the evidence made plainly visible to the True Believers of the Everlasting.


*Why do the God-haters persist?*




> "when Moses actually saw them he destroyed the most sacred and precious things ever given to mankind before anyone else had a chance to see them."



where is Christianities condemnation of the greatest sinner ever to walk upon Earth ?

at any rate Boss, you follow the script of Christianity - when you see what you do not like, you destroy it. - - > Earth.

.


----------



## Boss

MrMax said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have to have evidence to make that statement real, just like you said here; "you need to provide EVIDENCE. That means more than the ACLUs opinion or a court finding in an unrelated case. It means actual confirmed and verified scientific tests and observations which have been peer reviewed and published. "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the "evidence" is the billions and billions of people who testify to the power of God in their daily lives. All kinds of miraculous stories of healing the doctors can't explain, survival of the most hopeless odds, perseverance through the worst of storms, the enabling of unknowable personal strength to accomplish the impossible. These people offer first-hand accounts of their own personal "experiment" and it's results. They swear it was through their faith in the power of God and they believe it with all their heart. They write and publish books about how God has changed their lives, shelves and shelves full of them. They become inspiring motivational speakers, sharing their stories with their peers.
> 
> Like dark energy, dark matter, black holes, a universe expanding faster than the speed of light... there is not a "physical" explanation. Like gravity, time and space, there is not a "physical" component. It falls outside the bounds of "physical" sciences, but it is every much as real as the aforementioned phenomena. Nearly every great mind that has ever existed has acknowledged this. BUT... It REQUIRES you to accept and believe spiritual nature exists. Until you can do that, it's not possible to prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you have no real evidence. Billions of people believing in invisible superbeings is only proof of possible mass delusion or ignorance, not any sort of proof of anything real.
Click to expand...


No, I gave you the evidence and you just rejected it. It's not any different than you giving me evidence to support a theory of gravity and me rejecting it. Doesn't change a thing. Evidence is subject to what you are willing to accept as such. I can't change that, it's just how things are. If you reject my evidence, that's your prerogative, it doesn't negate or change the validity of the evidence in any way. 

This "mass delusional ignorance" theory you have is not supportable with science. If it were true, humans would have abandoned the attribute long ago. Instead, the attribute of human spirituality has persevered and thrived, through centuries of oppression, millions of martyrs, scores of executions and persecutions clearly not conducive with survival of the species. so your theory isn't even supportable by Darwinian natural selection. 

It is the opinion of an ignorant moron who is incapable of thinking beyond your own parameters of understanding. You are not much different than the monkey in the zoo, existing for our entertainment in your antics and amusement of simple curiosity, but unable to comprehend the world outside your environment.


----------



## Boss

BreezeWood said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> BUT... It REQUIRES you to accept and believe spiritual nature exists.
> 
> ............
> 
> I see nothing to indicate the orchid had "spiritual awareness" of any kind ... *I just am not seeing the evidence of it.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *... I just am not seeing the evidence of it.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> King James Bible
> 
> And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> by having read and accepted the above you will forever not see the evidence made plainly visible to the True Believers of the Everlasting.
> 
> 
> *Why do the God-haters persist?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "when Moses actually saw them he destroyed the most sacred and precious things ever given to mankind before anyone else had a chance to see them."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> where is Christianities condemnation of the greatest sinner ever to walk upon Earth ?
> 
> at any rate Boss, you follow the script of Christianity - when you see what you do not like, you destroy it. - - > Earth.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Why are you quoting scriptures from the Bible and applying them to me, a person who has repeatedly stated he is not a Christian? What part of the conversation we were having had anything to do with religious scriptures or interpretations of them? Where in the hell did I claim I wanted to destroy the Earth because I didn't like something? You're becoming as fucking delusional as MrMax, I hope his retardation isn't contagious.


----------



## MrMax

Boss said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the "evidence" is the billions and billions of people who testify to the power of God in their daily lives. All kinds of miraculous stories of healing the doctors can't explain, survival of the most hopeless odds, perseverance through the worst of storms, the enabling of unknowable personal strength to accomplish the impossible. These people offer first-hand accounts of their own personal "experiment" and it's results. They swear it was through their faith in the power of God and they believe it with all their heart. They write and publish books about how God has changed their lives, shelves and shelves full of them. They become inspiring motivational speakers, sharing their stories with their peers.
> 
> Like dark energy, dark matter, black holes, a universe expanding faster than the speed of light... there is not a "physical" explanation. Like gravity, time and space, there is not a "physical" component. It falls outside the bounds of "physical" sciences, but it is every much as real as the aforementioned phenomena. Nearly every great mind that has ever existed has acknowledged this. BUT... It REQUIRES you to accept and believe spiritual nature exists. Until you can do that, it's not possible to prove it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you have no real evidence. Billions of people believing in invisible superbeings is only proof of possible mass delusion or ignorance, not any sort of proof of anything real.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I gave you the evidence and you just rejected it. It's not any different than you giving me evidence to support a theory of gravity and me rejecting it. Doesn't change a thing. Evidence is subject to what you are willing to accept as such. I can't change that, it's just how things are. If you reject my evidence, that's your prerogative, it doesn't negate or change the validity of the evidence in any way.
> 
> This "mass delusional ignorance" theory you have is not supportable with science. If it were true, humans would have abandoned the attribute long ago. Instead, the attribute of human spirituality has persevered and thrived, through centuries of oppression, millions of martyrs, scores of executions and persecutions clearly not conducive with survival of the species. so your theory isn't even supportable by Darwinian natural selection.
> 
> It is the opinion of an ignorant moron who is incapable of thinking beyond your own parameters of understanding. You are not much different than the monkey in the zoo, existing for our entertainment in your antics and amusement of simple curiosity, but unable to comprehend the world outside your environment.
Click to expand...


Dark energy and black holes... Have physical measurable effects that we can see. Your spiritual energy doesn't. Comparing the two is nonsense. Fuck, are you ever a dumb noob.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it isn't. It's very cool compared to lava.
> 
> There is testable evidence to prove spirituality. *You have to first accept that spiritual nature exists and is real.* Once you can do that, it's very easy to test and confirm it... billions and billions have done so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have to have evidence to make that statement real, just like you said here; "you need to provide EVIDENCE. That means more than the ACLUs opinion or a court finding in an unrelated case. It means actual confirmed and verified scientific tests and observations which have been peer reviewed and published. "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, the "evidence" is the billions and billions of people who testify to the power of God in their daily lives. All kinds of miraculous stories of healing the doctors can't explain, survival of the most hopeless odds, perseverance through the worst of storms, the enabling of unknowable personal strength to accomplish the impossible. These people offer first-hand accounts of their own personal "experiment" and it's results. They swear it was through their faith in the power of God and they believe it with all their heart. They write and publish books about how God has changed their lives, shelves and shelves full of them. They become inspiring motivational speakers, sharing their stories with their peers.
> 
> Like dark energy, dark matter, black holes, a universe expanding faster than the speed of light... there is not a "physical" explanation. Like gravity, time and space, there is not a "physical" component. It falls outside the bounds of "physical" sciences, but it is every much as real as the aforementioned phenomena. Nearly every great mind that has ever existed has acknowledged this. BUT... It REQUIRES you to accept and believe spiritual nature exists. Until you can do that, it's not possible to prove it.
Click to expand...


Every great mind? You don't say.
A bit of hyperbole there, in the extreme.
Your argument boils down to "that which can not be explained has a default explanation of the supernatural, and the best evidence for that is anecdotal".
Does that sum it up pretty well?
Does the belief of millions of Muslims mean that they are right? Is that the argument you are making?
Or is it the 330 million Buddhists that have it right?
Most people on the planet are not Christians, so your argument that the numbers prove anything is clearly fallacious.
If you have to believe it before you can prove it, that isn't proof. It's investment.
You are clearly deeply invested.


----------



## Boss

MrMax said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you have no real evidence. Billions of people believing in invisible superbeings is only proof of possible mass delusion or ignorance, not any sort of proof of anything real.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I gave you the evidence and you just rejected it. It's not any different than you giving me evidence to support a theory of gravity and me rejecting it. Doesn't change a thing. Evidence is subject to what you are willing to accept as such. I can't change that, it's just how things are. If you reject my evidence, that's your prerogative, it doesn't negate or change the validity of the evidence in any way.
> 
> This "mass delusional ignorance" theory you have is not supportable with science. If it were true, humans would have abandoned the attribute long ago. Instead, the attribute of human spirituality has persevered and thrived, through centuries of oppression, millions of martyrs, scores of executions and persecutions clearly not conducive with survival of the species. so your theory isn't even supportable by Darwinian natural selection.
> 
> It is the opinion of an ignorant moron who is incapable of thinking beyond your own parameters of understanding. You are not much different than the monkey in the zoo, existing for our entertainment in your antics and amusement of simple curiosity, but unable to comprehend the world outside your environment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dark energy and black holes... Have physical measurable effects that we can see. Your spiritual energy doesn't. Comparing the two is nonsense. Fuck, are you ever a dumb noob.
Click to expand...


Sorry but you're wrong. We can see the physically measurable effects of human spirituality.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I gave you the evidence and you just rejected it. It's not any different than you giving me evidence to support a theory of gravity and me rejecting it. Doesn't change a thing. Evidence is subject to what you are willing to accept as such. I can't change that, it's just how things are. If you reject my evidence, that's your prerogative, it doesn't negate or change the validity of the evidence in any way.
> 
> This "mass delusional ignorance" theory you have is not supportable with science. If it were true, humans would have abandoned the attribute long ago. Instead, the attribute of human spirituality has persevered and thrived, through centuries of oppression, millions of martyrs, scores of executions and persecutions clearly not conducive with survival of the species. so your theory isn't even supportable by Darwinian natural selection.
> 
> It is the opinion of an ignorant moron who is incapable of thinking beyond your own parameters of understanding. You are not much different than the monkey in the zoo, existing for our entertainment in your antics and amusement of simple curiosity, but unable to comprehend the world outside your environment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dark energy and black holes... Have physical measurable effects that we can see. Your spiritual energy doesn't. Comparing the two is nonsense. Fuck, are you ever a dumb noob.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry but you're wrong. We can see the physically measurable effects of human spirituality.
Click to expand...


Great. Share them with citations that show the data. This should be fascinating.


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have to have evidence to make that statement real, just like you said here; "you need to provide EVIDENCE. That means more than the ACLUs opinion or a court finding in an unrelated case. It means actual confirmed and verified scientific tests and observations which have been peer reviewed and published. "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the "evidence" is the billions and billions of people who testify to the power of God in their daily lives. All kinds of miraculous stories of healing the doctors can't explain, survival of the most hopeless odds, perseverance through the worst of storms, the enabling of unknowable personal strength to accomplish the impossible. These people offer first-hand accounts of their own personal "experiment" and it's results. They swear it was through their faith in the power of God and they believe it with all their heart. They write and publish books about how God has changed their lives, shelves and shelves full of them. They become inspiring motivational speakers, sharing their stories with their peers.
> 
> Like dark energy, dark matter, black holes, a universe expanding faster than the speed of light... there is not a "physical" explanation. Like gravity, time and space, there is not a "physical" component. It falls outside the bounds of "physical" sciences, but it is every much as real as the aforementioned phenomena. Nearly every great mind that has ever existed has acknowledged this. BUT... It REQUIRES you to accept and believe spiritual nature exists. Until you can do that, it's not possible to prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every great mind? You don't say.
Click to expand...


You're right, I *didn't* say! I said *NEARLY* every great mind, didn't I? Yes, I did. So we see that you begin your tirade with a completely dishonest assertion of what was said. Is this because you lack the ability to comprehend language? Or are you just flat out dishonest about the things you do comprehend? 



> A bit of hyperbole there, in the extreme.



Nothing hyperbolic about it, I stated the truth. Then you distorted it. 



> Your argument boils down to "that which can not be explained has a default explanation of the supernatural, and the best evidence for that is anecdotal".
> Does that sum it up pretty well?



Not *my* argument at all. There is nothing "supernatural" about human spirituality, it is as clearly a part of nature as the nose on your face. It has been present in man since the beginning. The spiritual evidence is not anecdotal, it is overwhelming, you just choose to reject it. 

Now, to address your inane point about "explanation" ...spiritual belief doesn't explain anything. This is why man invented science, to explain things. The person who believes spirituality explains anything is no more rational than the person who thinks science explains everything. 



> Does the belief of millions of Muslims mean that they are right? Is that the argument you are making? Or is it the 330 million Buddhists that have it right?



I'll defer to my previous comments... I type in coherent sentences using plain English and mostly common terminology the average person can comprehend. There is not a rational reason for you to interject things into what I've said that were not said. If that was what I wanted to say, believe me, I would have said it. If that had been my argument, I would have stated it as such. I did not. 



> Most people on the planet are not Christians, so your argument that the numbers prove anything is clearly fallacious.



I've made no argument that most people are Christians. I've not argued that numbers "prove" anything. I merely offered evidence, you can choose to accept it or not accept it. I have repeatedly stated that I am not a Christian. I don't know how else to type that to make this point, is there some other way that I can get that point inside your closed mind? I am not arguing on behalf of Christianity or ANY religion for that matter. Human spirituality FAR predates ANY religious doctrine. 



> If you have to believe it before you can prove it, that isn't proof. It's investment.
> You are clearly deeply invested.



Name any goddamn thing you want to that you don't have to believe in order to accept it as proof? You are simply making an ignorant point that doesn't even comport with logic. EVERYTHING you believe as "proof" you have to first believe. It's not possible to believe anything is proof, yet not believe it. This is probably the most absurd and ridiculous comment I've read in my time on this forum. And that's saying something.


----------



## Boss

> Great. Share them with citations that show the data. This should be fascinating.



Human history.  DONE!


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> Great. Share them with citations that show the data. This should be fascinating.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Human history.  DONE!
Click to expand...


Where are the citations I asked for? You do know what those are, right?
Give me data, baby!
You are making claims.
You bear the burden of proof.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the "evidence" is the billions and billions of people who testify to the power of God in their daily lives. All kinds of miraculous stories of healing the doctors can't explain, survival of the most hopeless odds, perseverance through the worst of storms, the enabling of unknowable personal strength to accomplish the impossible. These people offer first-hand accounts of their own personal "experiment" and it's results. They swear it was through their faith in the power of God and they believe it with all their heart. They write and publish books about how God has changed their lives, shelves and shelves full of them. They become inspiring motivational speakers, sharing their stories with their peers.
> 
> Like dark energy, dark matter, black holes, a universe expanding faster than the speed of light... there is not a "physical" explanation. Like gravity, time and space, there is not a "physical" component. It falls outside the bounds of "physical" sciences, but it is every much as real as the aforementioned phenomena. Nearly every great mind that has ever existed has acknowledged this. BUT... It REQUIRES you to accept and believe spiritual nature exists. Until you can do that, it's not possible to prove it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every great mind? You don't say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right, I *didn't* say! I said *NEARLY* every great mind, didn't I? Yes, I did. So we see that you begin your tirade with a completely dishonest assertion of what was said. Is this because you lack the ability to comprehend language? Or are you just flat out dishonest about the things you do comprehend?
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing hyperbolic about it, I stated the truth. Then you distorted it.
> 
> 
> 
> Not *my* argument at all. There is nothing "supernatural" about human spirituality, it is as clearly a part of nature as the nose on your face. It has been present in man since the beginning. The spiritual evidence is not anecdotal, it is overwhelming, you just choose to reject it.
> 
> Now, to address your inane point about "explanation" ...spiritual belief doesn't explain anything. This is why man invented science, to explain things. The person who believes spirituality explains anything is no more rational than the person who thinks science explains everything.
> 
> 
> 
> I'll defer to my previous comments... I type in coherent sentences using plain English and mostly common terminology the average person can comprehend. There is not a rational reason for you to interject things into what I've said that were not said. If that was what I wanted to say, believe me, I would have said it. If that had been my argument, I would have stated it as such. I did not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most people on the planet are not Christians, so your argument that the numbers prove anything is clearly fallacious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've made no argument that most people are Christians. I've not argued that numbers "prove" anything. I merely offered evidence, you can choose to accept it or not accept it. I have repeatedly stated that I am not a Christian. I don't know how else to type that to make this point, is there some other way that I can get that point inside your closed mind? I am not arguing on behalf of Christianity or ANY religion for that matter. Human spirituality FAR predates ANY religious doctrine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you have to believe it before you can prove it, that isn't proof. It's investment.
> You are clearly deeply invested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Name any goddamn thing you want to that you don't have to believe in order to accept it as proof? You are simply making an ignorant point that doesn't even comport with logic. EVERYTHING you believe as "proof" you have to first believe. It's not possible to believe anything is proof, yet not believe it. This is probably the most absurd and ridiculous comment I've read in my time on this forum. And that's saying something.
Click to expand...


Wow, testy!
While I freely admit that I made an assumption about the Christian bent of your position, you are making the case for the belief in God, or god, and that is being supported by the vast numbers of people that believe it, which is nothing more than anecdotal evidence. The volume of it doesn't change that. It is still anecdotal. I haven't rejected anything. You haven't provided any. Wow me.
"Nearly every great mind". My apology. Still hyperbole. Doesn't change an iota of what I said.
As far as the spiritual "explaining" things, this is what you are saying. You list all the unexplained things and you attribute them to people's belief in god, because they believe it to be so.
Many people believe things because they have been proven to them. Your argument suggests that proof is available only after you invest in the belief. You think belief comes first. I think the proof does. I think that "believing precedes proof" is delusional, so there you go.
Swear at me some more!
That was exciting!


----------



## MrMax

Boss said:


> Great. Share them with citations that show the data. This should be fascinating.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Human history.  DONE!
Click to expand...


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> Wow, testy!
> While I freely admit that I made an assumption about the Christian bent of your position, you are making the case for the belief in God, or god, and that is being supported by the vast numbers of people that believe it, which is nothing more than anecdotal evidence.



Well, no hard head, it is not. Things aren't "anecdotal" simply because you've proclaimed them to be. I'm sorry that you feel someone bestowed the gift of rationality upon you alone, and only you get to decide these things. I assure you, everyone who believes in God doesn't share your opinion the evidence is anecdotal. That is your opinion and you are entitled to it, but you can't infer your opinion on everyone else. Sorry! 



> The volume of it doesn't change that. It is still anecdotal. I haven't rejected anything. You haven't provided any. Wow me.



Oh, but indeed I did provide it, and you rejected it as anecdotal. Wow you! 



> "Nearly every great mind". My apology. Still hyperbole. Doesn't change an iota of what I said.



Well, yes it most certainly does change it. Nearly doesn't equate to every, not in any fucking dictionary I've ever encountered. So it completely changes the meaning of what was said, and you were completely dishonest about it, as you are continuing to be dishonest in claiming it doesn't change anything. We can see by this that you are not an honest person, you lie and when you're caught lying, you lie some more to cover up the first lie. This is probably because you lack a true moral compass, which is caused by your lack of a spiritual connection. 



> As far as the spiritual "explaining" things, this is what you are saying. You list all the unexplained things and you attribute them to people's belief in god, because they believe it to be so.



Well, no I didn't do that. Again, you simply feel compelled to lie. I've attributed nothing unexplained to anyone's belief in God. In fact, I said quite the opposite. If someone believes spirituality explains anything, they are as irrational and misguided as someone who claims science explains everything. 



> Many people believe things because they have been proven to them.



Yep... Like the power of God or Spiritual Nature. 



> Your argument suggests that proof is available only after you invest in the belief.



No, my argument doesn't "suggest" anything, my argument clearly states the truth. It's impossible to believe something as proof if you don't believe in what it proves. I asked you for an example to contradict this, and you failed to present one. 



> You think belief comes first. I think the proof does.



But it doesn't, and you can't support your argument with an example. Show me one thing that you accept as "proof" that you don't believe in the thing it proves. Just one! You must first believe whatever it is the "proof" is supposed to prove.


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great. Share them with citations that show the data. This should be fascinating.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Human history.  DONE!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where are the citations I asked for? You do know what those are, right?
> Give me data, baby!
> You are making claims.
> You bear the burden of proof.
Click to expand...


What? You want me to go back to the beginning of humanity and present every instance where a human has cited the power of spiritual nature's influence in their lives? I hardly think this forum could withstand the bandwidth requirement. 

Oh... maybe you are talking about citations from physical science? Well, here's the problem with that... physical science deals with physical nature and spiritual nature (by definition) is not physical nature. So it's like asking to cite every instance where you've turned on the faucet and the H2O has flowed out in the form of ice cubes. This wouldn't prove there is no such thing as ice cubes. It also wouldn't prove that H2O can't take the form as a solid and can only exist as a liquid. Those might be your assumptions based on lack of citation, but it doesn't make anything a fact except your ignorance.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Human history.  DONE!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where are the citations I asked for? You do know what those are, right?
> Give me data, baby!
> You are making claims.
> You bear the burden of proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What? You want me to go back to the beginning of humanity and present every instance where a human has cited the power of spiritual nature's influence in their lives? I hardly think this forum could withstand the bandwidth requirement.
> 
> Oh... maybe you are talking about citations from physical science? Well, here's the problem with that... physical science deals with physical nature and spiritual nature (by definition) is not physical nature. So it's like asking to cite every instance where you've turned on the faucet and the H2O has flowed out in the form of ice cubes. This wouldn't prove there is no such thing as ice cubes. It also wouldn't prove that H2O can't take the form as a solid and can only exist as a liquid. Those might be your assumptions based on lack of citation, but it doesn't make anything a fact except your ignorance.
Click to expand...


You're right. I could walk over to the freezer and prove to you there are ice cubes.
What'cha got?


----------



## MaryL

If religion is about anything, it's forgiveness. God made the universe, made us what we are, preordained fate. Yes? then, fate is god's will, and we are like flies trapped in amber,  we are what we are. So why bother with faith at all? It's almost comical. But this is a serious subject, deserves a level of reverence.  Even atheists are god&#8217;s children.


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I gave you the evidence and you just rejected it. It's not any different than you giving me evidence to support a theory of gravity and me rejecting it. Doesn't change a thing. Evidence is subject to what you are willing to accept as such. I can't change that, it's just how things are. If you reject my evidence, that's your prerogative, it doesn't negate or change the validity of the evidence in any way.
> 
> This "mass delusional ignorance" theory you have is not supportable with science. If it were true, humans would have abandoned the attribute long ago. Instead, the attribute of human spirituality has persevered and thrived, through centuries of oppression, millions of martyrs, scores of executions and persecutions clearly not conducive with survival of the species. so your theory isn't even supportable by Darwinian natural selection.
> 
> It is the opinion of an ignorant moron who is incapable of thinking beyond your own parameters of understanding. You are not much different than the monkey in the zoo, existing for our entertainment in your antics and amusement of simple curiosity, but unable to comprehend the world outside your environment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dark energy and black holes... Have physical measurable effects that we can see. Your spiritual energy doesn't. Comparing the two is nonsense. Fuck, are you ever a dumb noob.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry but you're wrong. We can see the physically measurable effects of human spirituality.
Click to expand...

really? sure those effects are not from a physical source...


----------



## daws101

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every great mind? You don't say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're right, I *didn't* say! I said *NEARLY* every great mind, didn't I? Yes, I did. So we see that you begin your tirade with a completely dishonest assertion of what was said. Is this because you lack the ability to comprehend language? Or are you just flat out dishonest about the things you do comprehend?
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing hyperbolic about it, I stated the truth. Then you distorted it.
> 
> 
> 
> Not *my* argument at all. There is nothing "supernatural" about human spirituality, it is as clearly a part of nature as the nose on your face. It has been present in man since the beginning. The spiritual evidence is not anecdotal, it is overwhelming, you just choose to reject it.
> 
> Now, to address your inane point about "explanation" ...spiritual belief doesn't explain anything. This is why man invented science, to explain things. The person who believes spirituality explains anything is no more rational than the person who thinks science explains everything.
> 
> 
> 
> I'll defer to my previous comments... I type in coherent sentences using plain English and mostly common terminology the average person can comprehend. There is not a rational reason for you to interject things into what I've said that were not said. If that was what I wanted to say, believe me, I would have said it. If that had been my argument, I would have stated it as such. I did not.
> 
> 
> 
> I've made no argument that most people are Christians. I've not argued that numbers "prove" anything. I merely offered evidence, you can choose to accept it or not accept it. I have repeatedly stated that I am not a Christian. I don't know how else to type that to make this point, is there some other way that I can get that point inside your closed mind? I am not arguing on behalf of Christianity or ANY religion for that matter. Human spirituality FAR predates ANY religious doctrine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you have to believe it before you can prove it, that isn't proof. It's investment.
> You are clearly deeply invested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Name any goddamn thing you want to that you don't have to believe in order to accept it as proof? You are simply making an ignorant point that doesn't even comport with logic. EVERYTHING you believe as "proof" you have to first believe. It's not possible to believe anything is proof, yet not believe it. This is probably the most absurd and ridiculous comment I've read in my time on this forum. And that's saying something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, testy!
> While I freely admit that I made an assumption about the Christian bent of your position, you are making the case for the belief in God, or god, and that is being supported by the vast numbers of people that believe it, which is nothing more than anecdotal evidence. The volume of it doesn't change that. It is still anecdotal. I haven't rejected anything. You haven't provided any. Wow me.
> "Nearly every great mind". My apology. Still hyperbole. Doesn't change an iota of what I said.
> As far as the spiritual "explaining" things, this is what you are saying. You list all the unexplained things and you attribute them to people's belief in god, because they believe it to be so.
> Many people believe things because they have been proven to them. Your argument suggests that proof is available only after you invest in the belief. You think belief comes first. I think the proof does. I think that "believing precedes proof" is delusional, so there you go.
> Swear at me some more!
> That was exciting!
Click to expand...

he throws those tantrums when he's getting his ass handed to him....


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where are the citations I asked for? You do know what those are, right?
> Give me data, baby!
> You are making claims.
> You bear the burden of proof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What? You want me to go back to the beginning of humanity and present every instance where a human has cited the power of spiritual nature's influence in their lives? I hardly think this forum could withstand the bandwidth requirement.
> 
> Oh... maybe you are talking about citations from physical science? Well, here's the problem with that... physical science deals with physical nature and spiritual nature (by definition) is not physical nature. So it's like asking to cite every instance where you've turned on the faucet and the H2O has flowed out in the form of ice cubes. This wouldn't prove there is no such thing as ice cubes. It also wouldn't prove that H2O can't take the form as a solid and can only exist as a liquid. Those might be your assumptions based on lack of citation, but it doesn't make anything a fact except your ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right. I could walk over to the freezer and prove to you there are ice cubes.
> What'cha got?
Click to expand...


Not if I rejected your evidence and refused to accept anything that didn't come from the faucet.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> What? You want me to go back to the beginning of humanity and present every instance where a human has cited the power of spiritual nature's influence in their lives? I hardly think this forum could withstand the bandwidth requirement.
> 
> Oh... maybe you are talking about citations from physical science? Well, here's the problem with that... physical science deals with physical nature and spiritual nature (by definition) is not physical nature. So it's like asking to cite every instance where you've turned on the faucet and the H2O has flowed out in the form of ice cubes. This wouldn't prove there is no such thing as ice cubes. It also wouldn't prove that H2O can't take the form as a solid and can only exist as a liquid. Those might be your assumptions based on lack of citation, but it doesn't make anything a fact except your ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're right. I could walk over to the freezer and prove to you there are ice cubes.
> What'cha got?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not if I rejected your evidence and refused to accept anything that didn't come from the faucet.
Click to expand...


True that.
You could be as disconnected as your rant and refuse to accept the undeniable evidence I would hand you dripping into your hand and pretend it didn't exist. That would be your choice, and it would marginalize you with even remotely sane people.
The problem with what you want to absurdly term as "evidence" is it is whatever anyone wants to say it is. It has no way of confirming or testing or validating it as anything other than whim.
You can be demonstrative or outraged and pound the table if you like, but I haven't seen anything that would qualify as evidence. That would require a standard to be judged by. People with wildly different ideas of what their spirituality has revealed to them can not all be right, and that is good evidence that the kind of testimony you want to submit can simply not be depended on as confirmation of any greater truth.
But if it comforts your incurious mind, rock on, brother!


----------



## GISMYS

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're right. I could walk over to the freezer and prove to you there are ice cubes.
> What'cha got?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not if I rejected your evidence and refused to accept anything that didn't come from the faucet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True that.
> You could be as disconnected as your rant and refuse to accept the undeniable evidence I would hand you dripping into your hand and pretend it didn't exist. That would be your choice, and it would marginalize you with even remotely sane people.
> The problem with what you want to absurdly term as "evidence" is it is whatever anyone wants to say it is. It has no way of confirming or testing or validating it as anything other than whim.
> You can be demonstrative or outraged and pound the table if you like, but I haven't seen anything that would qualify as evidence. That would require a standard to be judged by. People with wildly different ideas of what their spirituality has revealed to them can not all be right, and that is good evidence that the kind of testimony you want to submit can simply not be depended on as confirmation of any greater truth.
> But if it comforts your incurious mind, rock on, brother!
Click to expand...


If you do not believe God's word then you have no way to know anything about God other than He is GOD,FOR GOD is reveiled to mankind through his holy inspired(God breathed) WOED!


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're right. I could walk over to the freezer and prove to you there are ice cubes.
> What'cha got?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not if I rejected your evidence and refused to accept anything that didn't come from the faucet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True that.
> You could be as disconnected as your rant and refuse to accept the undeniable evidence I would hand you dripping into your hand and pretend it didn't exist.
Click to expand...


Like you do with spirituality and spiritual nature. 



> That would be your choice, and it would marginalize you with even remotely sane people.



Like it does you with regard to spirituality and spiritual nature. The overwhelming majority of humans are spiritual... always have been, always will be. 



> The problem with what you want to absurdly term as "evidence" is it is whatever anyone wants to say it is. It has no way of confirming or testing or validating it as anything other than whim.



But it's not a whim. It's undeniable and real. You can confirm, test and validate, but you first have to believe it exists. Until you do, you can't. 



> You can be demonstrative or outraged and pound the table if you like, but I haven't seen anything that would qualify as evidence.



Not pounding the table, not outraged, and I know... you reject the evidence as anecdotal.



> That would require a standard to be judged by. People with wildly different ideas of what their spirituality has revealed to them can not all be right, and that is good evidence that the kind of testimony you want to submit can simply not be depended on as confirmation of any greater truth.
> But if it comforts your incurious mind, rock on, brother!



No one is always right all the time about anything. Science has certainly not always been right. People have had wildly different ideas of what science revealed to them. They weren't all right. So I guess we can't depend on it as confirmation of any greater truth?


----------



## MaryL

I belong to the church of Bruce&#8217;s Yams. God is a sweet potato. He forgives the no-believers, ye of little yams!


----------



## mamooth

Boss said:


> What? You want me to go back to the beginning of humanity and present every instance where a human has cited the power of spiritual nature's influence in their lives? I hardly think this forum could withstand the bandwidth requirement.



Humans have cited a lot of things that aren't true. And your attempted "proof by warm fuzzy feeling" is rather pathetic. As is the fact that everyone's warm fuzzy feelings all contradict everyone else's warm fuzzy feelings. You've just shown people get warm fuzzy feelings. That's not even close to being evidence for God.

Lots of things give me a warm fuzzy feeling. When I was less mature, I attributed such things to God. Then I grew up. Having lived it, I have direct evidence that your spirituality is self-delusion. And by your standards, I don't need to back it up, I just need to state that my feelings are a fact, and that settles the issue completely for all of humanity.


----------



## thebrucebeat

GISMYS said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not if I rejected your evidence and refused to accept anything that didn't come from the faucet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True that.
> You could be as disconnected as your rant and refuse to accept the undeniable evidence I would hand you dripping into your hand and pretend it didn't exist. That would be your choice, and it would marginalize you with even remotely sane people.
> The problem with what you want to absurdly term as "evidence" is it is whatever anyone wants to say it is. It has no way of confirming or testing or validating it as anything other than whim.
> You can be demonstrative or outraged and pound the table if you like, but I haven't seen anything that would qualify as evidence. That would require a standard to be judged by. People with wildly different ideas of what their spirituality has revealed to them can not all be right, and that is good evidence that the kind of testimony you want to submit can simply not be depended on as confirmation of any greater truth.
> But if it comforts your incurious mind, rock on, brother!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you do not believe God's word then you have no way to know anything about God other than He is GOD,FOR GOD is reveiled to mankind through his holy inspired(God breathed) WOED!
Click to expand...


Well, you're at odds with the Boss man. He isn't a Christian, don't you know.
God is "reveiled"(sic)? Did you mean "revealed" or "reviled"? Very different ideas.
Actually, most mainstream seminaries in this country don't relate to scripture in the sycophantic way that you do. You have created an idol out of the "WOED"(sic) as have many fundamentalists, but it is perfectly possibly to love god and have a more discerning relationship with scripture.


----------



## GISMYS

MOCKERS AND SCOFFERS BEWARNED!! Only total fools dare God to judge them. and you?


----------



## MaryL

Does God hates animals too? Or they don't matter. When you chow down  on a big fat burger, think of the suffering the animals had to go through, just like Jesus did on the cross. Maybe it won't taste as good.  Yum yum.  Even the flesh of Christ is a wafer made from gluteus crap. Transubstantion  my sweet bippy.  Prove it.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not if I rejected your evidence and refused to accept anything that didn't come from the faucet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True that.
> You could be as disconnected as your rant and refuse to accept the undeniable evidence I would hand you dripping into your hand and pretend it didn't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like you do with spirituality and spiritual nature.
> 
> 
> 
> Like it does you with regard to spirituality and spiritual nature. The overwhelming majority of humans are spiritual... always have been, always will be.
> 
> 
> 
> But it's not a whim. It's undeniable and real. You can confirm, test and validate, but you first have to believe it exists. Until you do, you can't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can be demonstrative or outraged and pound the table if you like, but I haven't seen anything that would qualify as evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not pounding the table, not outraged, and I know... you reject the evidence as anecdotal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would require a standard to be judged by. People with wildly different ideas of what their spirituality has revealed to them can not all be right, and that is good evidence that the kind of testimony you want to submit can simply not be depended on as confirmation of any greater truth.
> But if it comforts your incurious mind, rock on, brother!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is always right all the time about anything. Science has certainly not always been right. People have had wildly different ideas of what science revealed to them. They weren't all right. So I guess we can't depend on it as confirmation of any greater truth?
Click to expand...


What would you hand me that would be undeniable for anyone to see?
The problem you have is that things in evidence (I mean actual evidence) don't have to be believed in before they can be validated. Just like your example, when I took the ice cube out of the freezer, you could deny it all you like, but anyone watching us would know you were certifiably insane. The same would not be true of people standing around watching you tell us about the undetectable spiritual experience you swear you are having. One is not dependent on someone already being on your "team". Real evidence is its own team.
Science does morph and change, because it retains the humility required to learn. It doesn't confirm any greater truth than what it confirms in fact, not speculation. Those are called "hypotheses" and remain so until the evidence to solidify them takes them to the next realm.
Why do people of different spiritual traditions have throw downs over spiritual revelations if they can be confirmed, tested and validated?
Because they can't, because those terms indicate that data can be shared with anyone and be accepted, not the chosen few that simply "believe".
Perhaps it is best to start with a definition of your terms. You say most people are spiritual. Define how you are using the term.
Who knows? You might have such a gelatinous definition that I'll find it hard to disagree.


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> What would you hand me that would be undeniable for anyone to see?
> The problem you have is that things in evidence (I mean actual evidence) don't have to be believed in before they can be validated. Just like your example, when I took the ice cube out of the freezer, you could deny it all you like, but anyone watching us would know you were certifiably insane. The same would not be true of people standing around watching you tell us about the undetectable spiritual experience you swear you are having. One is not dependent on someone already being on your "team". Real evidence is its own team.
> Science does morph and change, because it retains the humility required to learn. It doesn't confirm any greater truth than what it confirms in fact, not speculation. Those are called "hypotheses" and remain so until the evidence to solidify them takes them to the next realm.
> Why do people of different spiritual traditions have throw downs over spiritual revelations if they can be confirmed, tested and validated?
> Because they can't, because those terms indicate that data can be shared with anyone and be accepted, not the chosen few that simply "believe".
> Perhaps it is best to start with a definition of your terms. You say most people are spiritual. Define how you are using the term.
> Who knows? You might have such a gelatinous definition that I'll find it hard to disagree.



Lots more words and still no example of something you accept as proof of something you don't believe in. Why can't you give me an example? All I asked for is one. Surely you can come up with something, since that was your argument? 

Spiritual faith is tested all the time. Haven't you heard someone say "my faith was tested?" Those who believe in spiritual nature have all the evidence they need. You can't acknowledge the evidence because you don't believe in spiritual nature. No amount of evidence is ever going to suffice because you reject it. Doesn't matter if you are among about 14% of the human race that doesn't believe in spiritual nature, that never does phase you. 

You totally missed my example with the ice. The faucet represents science. Ice represents God. The water which normally flows from a faucet is physical nature. You turn on the faucet and ice doesn't come out, so you conclude that ice must not exist or is not real. I can show you ice from the freezer, but you reject anything that doesn't come from the faucet. The freezer and what comes from it are "anecdotal" in your mind. I can never prove ice exists to you because ice is never going to come out of the faucet, it can't... if it did, it would no longer be ice. I can put the ice in your hand, everyone who believes in the ice can see me do that, and you just smile and say, "that's nice, but it didn't come from the faucet, so I don't believe it is real!" The rest of us just shake our heads. You don't get it, just like you didn't get this analogy. 

I don't just "say" most people are spiritual, it's a known fact. 86% of us worship some spiritual power greater than self and do so regularly. Humans would not do this if there was no benefit to them, if it were a meaningless practice. This has been going on for all of man's existence. Through century after century of jealous kings and tyrants trying to stomp spirituality out of the hearts of man. It can't be done. We refuse to abandon our spiritual connection. 

Science NEVER concludes something as fact. Everything in science is theory. There is an important reason for this. Science is the human practice of investigation. Investigation of possibilities. Once something has been concluded as fact, there is no more science to be done, no other possibility exists, science is through... *FAITH* begins. You can't practice science on a fact, there is nothing to do. Science has to be able to investigate, ask questions, hypothesis and theorize. It cannot do that with something that has been established as a fact. Even the most clearly indisputable aspects of scientific discovery which we can all universally agree on, remains theory in principle. Even things science establishes as laws.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> What would you hand me that would be undeniable for anyone to see?
> The problem you have is that things in evidence (I mean actual evidence) don't have to be believed in before they can be validated. Just like your example, when I took the ice cube out of the freezer, you could deny it all you like, but anyone watching us would know you were certifiably insane. The same would not be true of people standing around watching you tell us about the undetectable spiritual experience you swear you are having. One is not dependent on someone already being on your "team". Real evidence is its own team.
> Science does morph and change, because it retains the humility required to learn. It doesn't confirm any greater truth than what it confirms in fact, not speculation. Those are called "hypotheses" and remain so until the evidence to solidify them takes them to the next realm.
> Why do people of different spiritual traditions have throw downs over spiritual revelations if they can be confirmed, tested and validated?
> Because they can't, because those terms indicate that data can be shared with anyone and be accepted, not the chosen few that simply "believe".
> Perhaps it is best to start with a definition of your terms. You say most people are spiritual. Define how you are using the term.
> Who knows? You might have such a gelatinous definition that I'll find it hard to disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lots more words and still no example of something you accept as proof of something you don't believe in. Why can't you give me an example? All I asked for is one. Surely you can come up with something, since that was your argument?
> 
> Spiritual faith is tested all the time. Haven't you heard someone say "my faith was tested?" Those who believe in spiritual nature have all the evidence they need. You can't acknowledge the evidence because you don't believe in spiritual nature. No amount of evidence is ever going to suffice because you reject it. Doesn't matter if you are among about 14% of the human race that doesn't believe in spiritual nature, that never does phase you.
> 
> You totally missed my example with the ice. The faucet represents science. Ice represents God. The water which normally flows from a faucet is physical nature. You turn on the faucet and ice doesn't come out, so you conclude that ice must not exist or is not real. I can show you ice from the freezer, but you reject anything that doesn't come from the faucet. The freezer and what comes from it are "anecdotal" in your mind. I can never prove ice exists to you because ice is never going to come out of the faucet, it can't... if it did, it would no longer be ice. I can put the ice in your hand, everyone who believes in the ice can see me do that, and you just smile and say, "that's nice, but it didn't come from the faucet, so I don't believe it is real!" The rest of us just shake our heads. You don't get it, just like you didn't get this analogy.
> 
> I don't just "say" most people are spiritual, it's a known fact. 86% of us worship some spiritual power greater than self and do so regularly. Humans would not do this if there was no benefit to them, if it were a meaningless practice. This has been going on for all of man's existence. Through century after century of jealous kings and tyrants trying to stomp spirituality out of the hearts of man. It can't be done. We refuse to abandon our spiritual connection.
> 
> Science NEVER concludes something as fact. Everything in science is theory. There is an important reason for this. Science is the human practice of investigation. Investigation of possibilities. Once something has been concluded as fact, there is no more science to be done, no other possibility exists, science is through... *FAITH* begins. You can't practice science on a fact, there is nothing to do. Science has to be able to investigate, ask questions, hypothesis and theorize. It cannot do that with something that has been established as a fact. Even the most clearly indisputable aspects of scientific discovery which we can all universally agree on, remains theory in principle. Even things science establishes as laws.
Click to expand...

So your definition of spiritual is people worshipping something greater than self. They do it for their self-benefit. It could be anything, and has been all kinds of things through the centuries of self-flagellations, none of which have needed to remotely resemble each other, but all having some validity in spite of their lack of kinship with each other.
This leads me to conclude that somewhere along the line, someone's spirituality was, as Dickens suggested, an un digested bit of beef.


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> So your definition of spiritual is people worshipping something greater than self. They do it for their self-benefit. It could be anything, and has been all kinds of things through the centuries of self-flagellations, none of which have needed to remotely resemble each other, but all having some validity in spite of their lack of kinship with each other.
> This leads me to conclude that somewhere along the line, someone's spirituality was, as Dickens suggested, an un digested bit of beef.



It's not MY definition, it's what spirituality IS. 

Leads you to conclude? How can something lead you to conclude if you don't believe it exists to begin with? You've already concluded, haven't you? Or is this like the not believing in things you have proof for, but don't seem to be able to give an example of? 

And Dickens? Really? You are going to offer up a supposed quote from the man who wrote _A Christmas Carol_-- the classic story of a hardened heart who was visited at Christmas by spiritual entities which changed his heart? I got to hand it to God-haters, they do have some moxy, don't they? You do realize this isn't actually a quote from Dickens, but rather a quote from Ebenezer Scrooge?


----------



## Boss

mamooth said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> What? You want me to go back to the beginning of humanity and present every instance where a human has cited the power of spiritual nature's influence in their lives? I hardly think this forum could withstand the bandwidth requirement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humans have cited a lot of things that aren't true. And your attempted "proof by warm fuzzy feeling" is rather pathetic. As is the fact that everyone's warm fuzzy feelings all contradict everyone else's warm fuzzy feelings. You've just shown people get warm fuzzy feelings. That's not even close to being evidence for God.
> 
> Lots of things give me a warm fuzzy feeling. When I was less mature, I attributed such things to God. Then I grew up. Having lived it, I have direct evidence that your spirituality is self-delusion. And by your standards, I don't need to back it up, I just need to state that my feelings are a fact, and that settles the issue completely for all of humanity.
Click to expand...


Sorry, but the testimonies are far more than "warm fuzzy feelings" and if that were all there was to spirituality, domestication of cats would have done it in centuries ago. 

Try to let this soak into your granite-like cranium... nothing anyone here is ever going to show you is going to convince you of spiritual nature. You refuse to accept that it exists. Expecting me to "prove" God to you when you don't believe in spiritual nature, is kind of a waste of time. Anything I say is going to immediately be met with rejection because you've decided you don't believe and no one is going to make you believe. So what is the point of me continuing to show you what you refuse to accept, and what is the point in you continuing to demand proof or evidence of something you choose to disbelieve? 

Now your story about when you were "less mature" is charming, but I don't believe you've ever had a personal relationship with God. If you had, you couldn't be arguing that God doesn't exist. So you either know that God does exist, or you never had a personal relationship with Him.... he couldn't have stopped existing when you decided to abandon Him. Of course, this makes perfect sense if you're a lying God-hater hiding behind Atheism because you're too much of a coward to admit you believe in God but hate Him.


----------



## MrMax

Boss said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> What? You want me to go back to the beginning of humanity and present every instance where a human has cited the power of spiritual nature's influence in their lives? I hardly think this forum could withstand the bandwidth requirement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humans have cited a lot of things that aren't true. And your attempted "proof by warm fuzzy feeling" is rather pathetic. As is the fact that everyone's warm fuzzy feelings all contradict everyone else's warm fuzzy feelings. You've just shown people get warm fuzzy feelings. That's not even close to being evidence for God.
> 
> Lots of things give me a warm fuzzy feeling. When I was less mature, I attributed such things to God. Then I grew up. Having lived it, I have direct evidence that your spirituality is self-delusion. And by your standards, I don't need to back it up, I just need to state that my feelings are a fact, and that settles the issue completely for all of humanity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but the testimonies are far more than "warm fuzzy feelings" and if that were all there was to spirituality, domestication of cats would have done it in centuries ago.
> 
> Try to let this soak into your granite-like cranium... nothing anyone here is ever going to show you is going to convince you of spiritual nature. You refuse to accept that it exists. Expecting me to "prove" God to you when you don't believe in spiritual nature, is kind of a waste of time. Anything I say is going to immediately be met with rejection because you've decided you don't believe and no one is going to make you believe. So what is the point of me continuing to show you what you refuse to accept, and what is the point in you continuing to demand proof or evidence of something you choose to disbelieve?
> 
> Now your story about when you were "less mature" is charming, but I don't believe you've ever had a personal relationship with God. If you had, you couldn't be arguing that God doesn't exist. So you either know that God does exist, or you never had a personal relationship with Him.... he couldn't have stopped existing when you decided to abandon Him. Of course, this makes perfect sense if you're a lying God-hater hiding behind Atheism because you're too much of a coward to admit you believe in God but hate Him.
Click to expand...


You've never proven ANYTHING about spiritual nature. I'm not saying that it might not exist, or that there might not be a single or more creators, universes... (I'm agnostic), but you sure haven't proven squat. Then you ask us for hard, scientific evidence to disprove what you have not yet proven. Kinda comical, but it's fun.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your definition of spiritual is people worshipping something greater than self. They do it for their self-benefit. It could be anything, and has been all kinds of things through the centuries of self-flagellations, none of which have needed to remotely resemble each other, but all having some validity in spite of their lack of kinship with each other.
> This leads me to conclude that somewhere along the line, someone's spirituality was, as Dickens suggested, an un digested bit of beef.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not MY definition, it's what spirituality IS.
> 
> Leads you to conclude? How can something lead you to conclude if you don't believe it exists to begin with? You've already concluded, haven't you? Or is this like the not believing in things you have proof for, but don't seem to be able to give an example of?
> 
> And Dickens? Really? You are going to offer up a supposed quote from the man who wrote _A Christmas Carol_-- the classic story of a hardened heart who was visited at Christmas by spiritual entities which changed his heart? I got to hand it to God-haters, they do have some moxy, don't they? You do realize this isn't actually a quote from Dickens, but rather a quote from Ebenezer Scrooge?
Click to expand...

Do you think Scrooge wrote that?
That explains much about your posts.
LOL!
Swear at me some more. That always makes for compelling argument.
By the way, I'm not an atheist, so the god-hater tripe lands on deaf ears.
I made a conclusion that spirituality, in and of itself, leads to no credible conclusions because it has led to so many incompatible ones. 
How do you reconcile that?


----------



## hangover

MrMax said:


> hangover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you have no real evidence. Billions of people believing in invisible superbeings is only proof of possible mass delusion or ignorance, not any sort of proof of anything real.
> 
> 
> 
> Everything that exists is REAL evidence. Just because you refuse to see it, is your problem. Fanaticism also prevents evangelicals from seeing the "evidence" of the world being more that 6,000 years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but just having a lot of people agree that we descend from aliens is not proof, just wishful thinking.
Click to expand...

You need to work on your math skills.


----------



## mamooth

Boss said:


> Sorry, but the testimonies are far more than "warm fuzzy feelings".



No, they aren't. You keep wishing otherwise and saying it, but you never back it up. And you keep neglecting to explain why everyone's warm fuzzy feelings all contradict each other. Your universal truth isn't universal at all.



> Try to let this soak into your granite-like cranium... nothing anyone here is ever going to show you is going to convince you of spiritual nature.



They don't have to, since I've experienced spiritual nature, and found it to be an interesting mental phenomenon. The fact that you haven't matured enough to understand the nature of spirituality isn't not my problem.

By the way, one hit of LSD can give you a "spiritual experience" that will blow away anything you can get from religion. That's another nail in your coffin, the way that spirituality can so easily come from chemicals.



> Now your story about when you were "less mature" is charming, but I don't believe you've ever had a personal relationship with God.



The "No true scotsman" fallacy. The endless parade of logical fallacies that you rely on confirms you're a substandard thinker.


----------



## BreezeWood

> *Boss:*
> 
> Well first of all, I never claimed that things don't have 'awareness' because most every living thing is 'aware' of it's environment and reacts accordingly. My argument was "spiritual awareness" and I don't see where you have demonstrated that here. Secondly, I never said that you are wrong, I just said you haven't shown me evidence to prove you're right.





> "Show me evidence Flora has awareness of right and wrong and acts upon it, and I will agree that Flora has spiritual awareness. Until then, I can't say I see evidence of this, it's an interesting proposition and maybe you are correct, but you need more than an opinion to validate your argument."





> I see nothing to indicate the orchid had "spiritual awareness" of any kind. Again... not claiming that it didn't...   I just am not seeing the evidence of it, nor do I believe the orchid is making moral decisions of right and wrong in any way.




*My argument was "spiritual awareness" ... Show me evidence Flora has awareness of right and wrong and acts upon it.*




> *Boss:* Why are you quoting scriptures from the Bible and applying them to me, a person who has repeatedly stated he is not a Christian? What part of the conversation we were having had anything to do with religious scriptures or interpretations of them? Where in the hell did I claim I wanted to destroy the Earth because I didn't like something? You're becoming as fucking delusional as MrMax, I hope his retardation isn't contagious.




dodge - 

I would never quote scriptures, I have not read the book, you have was my point - I simply copied two paragraphs from their writing's as the basis to explain how someone could claim to be a spiritualist and then demand of someone else to prove any other life form on Earth conceptually understands right from wrong - than yourself. You are mimicking their book, only mankind is the likeness of God.


*Show me evidence Flora has awareness of right and wrong and acts upon it.*

that is an absurd proposition - as prove to us you have the same facility or why it is not synonymous to all life ... your request is proof of "your" misunderstanding of spiritual awareness and is associated with other religious dogmas - nothing new there.

.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss, how does spirituality having a benefit prove it is based on something real?

To once again use the Santa Claus analogy, people have continued to use belief in him with their children despite the fact he is a myth.  There must be some benefit, does that mean he is real?  Of course not.  

I realize that the belief in something greater than one's self is more widespread and has gone on longer than belief in Santa.  The analogy still works, IMO.  That people believe in something or that such belief can be beneficial is in no way objective evidence that the thing they believe in exists.  

And saying someone must believe in something before they will accept evidence of that thing continues to be hilarious.  
"What is that?" 
"A pink unicorn" 
"There's no such thing" 
"Yes there is" 
"Really?  OK, give me some evidence of it so I can believe you"
 "No.  Believe me first, then I'll give you evidence!"


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> What? You want me to go back to the beginning of humanity and present every instance where a human has cited the power of spiritual nature's influence in their lives? I hardly think this forum could withstand the bandwidth requirement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humans have cited a lot of things that aren't true. And your attempted "proof by warm fuzzy feeling" is rather pathetic. As is the fact that everyone's warm fuzzy feelings all contradict everyone else's warm fuzzy feelings. You've just shown people get warm fuzzy feelings. That's not even close to being evidence for God.
> 
> Lots of things give me a warm fuzzy feeling. When I was less mature, I attributed such things to God. Then I grew up. Having lived it, I have direct evidence that your spirituality is self-delusion. And by your standards, I don't need to back it up, I just need to state that my feelings are a fact, and that settles the issue completely for all of humanity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but the testimonies are far more than "warm fuzzy feelings" and if that were all there was to spirituality, domestication of cats would have done it in centuries ago.
> 
> Try to let this soak into your granite-like cranium... nothing anyone here is ever going to show you is going to convince you of spiritual nature. You refuse to accept that it exists. Expecting me to "prove" God to you when you don't believe in spiritual nature, is kind of a waste of time. Anything I say is going to immediately be met with rejection because you've decided you don't believe and no one is going to make you believe. So what is the point of me continuing to show you what you refuse to accept, and what is the point in you continuing to demand proof or evidence of something you choose to disbelieve?
> 
> Now your story about when you were "less mature" is charming, but I don't believe you've ever had a personal relationship with God. If you had, you couldn't be arguing that God doesn't exist. So you either know that God does exist, or you never had a personal relationship with Him.... he couldn't have stopped existing when you decided to abandon Him. Of course, this makes perfect sense if you're a lying God-hater hiding behind Atheism because you're too much of a coward to admit you believe in God but hate Him.
Click to expand...


You love to assert you aren't a Christian. What is this god you claim to love? Why are the Christians so misguided in their "spirituality"? They are mistaken, according to you, in their worship of Jesus, so what good is their spirituality if it leads to false conclusions?
I once had what you would consider a "personal relationship with God". I was a pastor and the whole thing was my everything.
I got better (thanks Monty Python).
It has nothing to do with god ceasing to exist.  Leprechauns are not extinct. They didn't exist in the first place. They are a human creation.
I retain a belief that something exists beyond my apprehension, but any time one presumes to know anything about the nature of it you can be pretty sure, as you have even stated, that it is for their own personal benefit. No one constructs a spiritual realm with a god that would send THEM to hell!
LOL!


----------



## Boss

MrMax said:


> You've never proven ANYTHING about spiritual nature. I'm not saying that it might not exist, or that there might not be a single or more creators, universes... (I'm agnostic), but you sure haven't proven squat. Then you ask us for hard, scientific evidence to disprove what you have not yet proven. Kinda comical, but it's fun.



My arguments have always been centered on providing evidence of possibility. If proof beyond any reasonable doubt could be achieved, do you think we'd be having this conversation? 

What exactly IS proof? I am betting you don't have a clue, so let me educate you. Proof is the subjective evaluation of what one is willing to accept as conclusive evidence. This means, what "proves" something to you, may not "prove" something to me. And visa versa.

In a purely philosophical sense, nothing is ever proven. Not even reality itself. Can you prove this reality we experience isn't all a persistent illusion? You can't even prove the laws of nature, science and physics always work in this universe which we've barely explored, much less other theorized universes that may exist. Proof is tough nut. 

I've never asked you for proof. I've asked you for evidence to support your arguments, and you've repeatedly failed to deliver. I guess you expect people to accept your arguments on faith in your word. I have presented evidence for my arguments, both from the world around us and the history of it, and from spiritual nature which you reject. I can't "prove" anything, and I've never claimed I could. 



> Do you think Scrooge wrote that?
> That explains much about your posts.
> LOL!
> Swear at me some more. That always makes for compelling argument.
> By the way, I'm not an atheist, so the god-hater tripe lands on deaf ears.
> I made a conclusion that spirituality, in and of itself, leads to no credible conclusions because it has led to so many incompatible ones.
> How do you reconcile that?



No, I think that Scrooge SAID that, in Charles Dickens 'A Christmas Carol'. Interesting story... you see ol' Scrooge was like you, skeptical of spiritual nature. So he had this smarmy "undigested beef" retort when he first encountered a spiritual entity. By the end of the story he was very much a believer and it changed his cold heart. That's why I found it ironic you would pick that quote. 

Oh, you're not an 'Atheist' God-hater, you're an 'agnostic' one? Well that's actually worse, you are MORE of a coward. At least the 'Atheist' God-hater has the balls to completely denounce the God they believe in. You choose to hedge your bets. I guess you think God may show you some mercy because you didn't completely disavow Him? You've made the conclusion that you don't believe in spiritual nature, so you can't believe in God. 

*because it has led to so many incompatible ones. 
How do you reconcile that?*

Because we are fallible human beings. 

We have this profound spiritual connection to something we can't wrap our minds around, but are aware of it and know it exists. Through this realization, we attempt to create "religions" to try and develop an organized understanding of what we can't comprehend. But since we are not perfect, we often create false incarnations of God. Those incarnations become ingrained and rooted in our culture and society. 

The wise men of ancient tribes realized if they didn't construct some formal pattern of spiritual practice through ceremony and ritual, their people risked spiritual entropy and eventual disassociation, which would lead to a collapse of their civil society. It's logical that people who practice anything as a unified group are stronger than those who don't, therefore, religions were born. 

I am actually non-religious. My sister, a devout Baptist, calls me an Atheist. I don't consider myself to be, because I do believe in a Spiritual God. Now, my God isn't a man, but I'll often refer to God as He or Him in conversation. My God doesn't judge or condemn, it is a spiritual force and energy without humanistic attributes. This is why I can swear at you and not feel guilty about it, even when you believe you can make me feel guilt. 

That said, I can understand the benefit of religion which is conducive with promotion of positive spiritual energy and have respect for it. I condemn religion when it doesn't promote positive spiritual energy. Most religions are positive and serve to maintain human spiritual fidelity. They may very well be incompatible with each other but they share one important aspect, spiritual fidelity.


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Boss, how does spirituality having a benefit prove it is based on something real?
> 
> To once again use the Santa Claus analogy, people have continued to use belief in him with their children despite the fact he is a myth.  There must be some benefit, does that mean he is real?  Of course not.
> 
> I realize that the belief in something greater than one's self is more widespread and has gone on longer than belief in Santa.  The analogy still works, IMO.  That people believe in something or that such belief can be beneficial is in no way objective evidence that the thing they believe in exists.
> 
> And saying someone must believe in something before they will accept evidence of that thing continues to be hilarious.
> "What is that?"
> "A pink unicorn"
> "There's no such thing"
> "Yes there is"
> "Really?  OK, give me some evidence of it so I can believe you"
> "No.  Believe me first, then I'll give you evidence!"



There is no benefit in Santa Claus belief. It is purely a novelty. Kids 'benefit' by gaining toys, but the parents buy the toys, so the benefit is offset by sacrifice. Yes, you could say the parents 'benefit' by watching the joy on their children's faces, but this could be achieved in any number of ways without Santa Claus. 

You are correct, the human belief in something greater than self (spirituality) has gone on since the inception of man. It is through our spiritual connection that man gained inspiration. Inspiration led to everything that makes man what he is today. Without spirituality, we'd still be living in the jungles competing with the great apes for survival of our species. 

And I frankly do not care that you think it is hilarious that you must first believe something can exist to be able to accept evidence of it. The fact that you can't show me any example of something you accept evidence for but don't believe in, speaks volumes. If you don't believe pink unicorns can exist, it doesn't matter what evidence you're shown, you will reject the evidence because you don't believe unicorns can exist.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've never proven ANYTHING about spiritual nature. I'm not saying that it might not exist, or that there might not be a single or more creators, universes... (I'm agnostic), but you sure haven't proven squat. Then you ask us for hard, scientific evidence to disprove what you have not yet proven. Kinda comical, but it's fun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My arguments have always been centered on providing evidence of possibility. If proof beyond any reasonable doubt could be achieved, do you think we'd be having this conversation?
> 
> What exactly IS proof? I am betting you don't have a clue, so let me educate you. Proof is the subjective evaluation of what one is willing to accept as conclusive evidence. This means, what "proves" something to you, may not "prove" something to me. And visa versa.
> 
> In a purely philosophical sense, nothing is ever proven. Not even reality itself. Can you prove this reality we experience isn't all a persistent illusion? You can't even prove the laws of nature, science and physics always work in this universe which we've barely explored, much less other theorized universes that may exist. Proof is tough nut.
> 
> I've never asked you for proof. I've asked you for evidence to support your arguments, and you've repeatedly failed to deliver. I guess you expect people to accept your arguments on faith in your word. I have presented evidence for my arguments, both from the world around us and the history of it, and from spiritual nature which you reject. I can't "prove" anything, and I've never claimed I could.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think Scrooge wrote that?
> That explains much about your posts.
> LOL!
> Swear at me some more. That always makes for compelling argument.
> By the way, I'm not an atheist, so the god-hater tripe lands on deaf ears.
> I made a conclusion that spirituality, in and of itself, leads to no credible conclusions because it has led to so many incompatible ones.
> How do you reconcile that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I think that Scrooge SAID that, in Charles Dickens 'A Christmas Carol'. Interesting story... you see ol' Scrooge was like you, skeptical of spiritual nature. So he had this smarmy "undigested beef" retort when he first encountered a spiritual entity. By the end of the story he was very much a believer and it changed his cold heart. That's why I found it ironic you would pick that quote.
> 
> Oh, you're not an 'Atheist' God-hater, you're an 'agnostic' one? Well that's actually worse, you are MORE of a coward. At least the 'Atheist' God-hater has the balls to completely denounce the God they believe in. You choose to hedge your bets. I guess you think God may show you some mercy because you didn't completely disavow Him? You've made the conclusion that you don't believe in spiritual nature, so you can't believe in God.
> 
> *because it has led to so many incompatible ones.
> How do you reconcile that?*
> 
> Because we are fallible human beings.
> 
> We have this profound spiritual connection to something we can't wrap our minds around, but are aware of it and know it exists. Through this realization, we attempt to create "religions" to try and develop an organized understanding of what we can't comprehend. But since we are not perfect, we often create false incarnations of God. Those incarnations become ingrained and rooted in our culture and society.
> 
> The wise men of ancient tribes realized if they didn't construct some formal pattern of spiritual practice through ceremony and ritual, their people risked spiritual entropy and eventual disassociation, which would lead to a collapse of their civil society. It's logical that people who practice anything as a unified group are stronger than those who don't, therefore, religions were born.
> 
> I am actually non-religious. My sister, a devout Baptist, calls me an Atheist. I don't consider myself to be, because I do believe in a Spiritual God. Now, my God isn't a man, but I'll often refer to God as He or Him in conversation. My God doesn't judge or condemn, it is a spiritual force and energy without humanistic attributes. This is why I can swear at you and not feel guilty about it, even when you believe you can make me feel guilt.
> 
> That said, I can understand the benefit of religion which is conducive with promotion of positive spiritual energy and have respect for it. I condemn religion when it doesn't promote positive spiritual energy. Most religions are positive and serve to maintain human spiritual fidelity. They may very well be incompatible with each other but they share one important aspect, spiritual fidelity.
Click to expand...


Spiritual fidelity to what?
Thousands of completely incompatible ideas.
You are actually an agnostic as well, but want to use it as a pejorative toward me.
This post of yours is a bit hilarious, actually. You have made a great case for spirituality being the invention of people with a great need to have answers and be included. Read through it. Tribal leaders invented religion to create cohesion and tribal identity, so you say. I suggest it was a power grab, and can recommend a great book on the subject if you like.
By the way, atheists don't renounce the "god they believe in". They don't believe in one. I contend that everyone is agnostic, since if the god that is believed in can be known, what need faith? That is all agnosticism really is. The humility to admit that the nature or existence of a god can not be "known". Nothing more. People like to get heated with the use of "atheist" and "agnostic" and twist the terms to mean things that support their own "spiritual" assumptions, but it paints them as agenda driven egoists.
You think people are driven to their spiritual revelations because they sense there is something there. It is more the fear of the unknown and the need to believe that there is more. I don't suggest there isn't something more, I simply have no idea, and no way of discovering if it is true.
Understand, I have convinced myself of the opposite in the past. I was a pastor and quite dedicated to it, but I realized I had done a massive brain wash on myself to achieve that level of belief, and as I studied more deeply I realized I had duped myself. Hard stuff to face, but I couldn't deny it either.
Most people value the "spiritual" comfort more than the honest recognition of what they actually "know". Whether it is beneficial or not is not relevant to whether or not it is true. It comforts people to know there is a purpose, and they either invent that or imagine that their higher power is real but not yet fully revealed.
The latter would describe you.
And me, to a far lesser extent.


----------



## daws101

boosy's bullshit is really reeking this fine saturday!


----------



## thebrucebeat

daws101 said:


> boosy's bullshit is really reeking this fine saturday!



New here.
Who's boosy?


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boss, how does spirituality having a benefit prove it is based on something real?
> 
> To once again use the Santa Claus analogy, people have continued to use belief in him with their children despite the fact he is a myth.  There must be some benefit, does that mean he is real?  Of course not.
> 
> I realize that the belief in something greater than one's self is more widespread and has gone on longer than belief in Santa.  The analogy still works, IMO.  That people believe in something or that such belief can be beneficial is in no way objective evidence that the thing they believe in exists.
> 
> And saying someone must believe in something before they will accept evidence of that thing continues to be hilarious.
> "What is that?"
> "A pink unicorn"
> "There's no such thing"
> "Yes there is"
> "Really?  OK, give me some evidence of it so I can believe you"
> "No.  Believe me first, then I'll give you evidence!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no benefit in Santa Claus belief. It is purely a novelty. Kids 'benefit' by gaining toys, but the parents buy the toys, so the benefit is offset by sacrifice. Yes, you could say the parents 'benefit' by watching the joy on their children's faces, but this could be achieved in any number of ways without Santa Claus.
> 
> You are correct, the human belief in something greater than self (spirituality) has gone on since the inception of man. It is through our spiritual connection that man gained inspiration. Inspiration led to everything that makes man what he is today. Without spirituality, we'd still be living in the jungles competing with the great apes for survival of our species.
> 
> And I frankly do not care that you think it is hilarious that you must first believe something can exist to be able to accept evidence of it. The fact that you can't show me any example of something you accept evidence for but don't believe in, speaks volumes. If you don't believe pink unicorns can exist, it doesn't matter what evidence you're shown, you will reject the evidence because you don't believe unicorns can exist.
Click to expand...


You are missing the point.

It's not a question of whether pink unicorns can exist but whether there is any evidence they do.  If someone showed me evidence of a pink unicorn (or put one in front of me) my views would change.  Why would I change my views, why would I believe, without any evidence?  

Even for those who believe in something spiritual, they think they have evidence.  It's almost always subjective, but there is some kind of evidence first.  If a person didn't require any evidence first, they'd believe everything anyone ever told them.

And how's this for an example?  Germs.  Before someone was able to discover them, I doubt many people believed that microscopic organisms were responsible for sickness.  Yet, once evidence became available, people changed their minds.  No one needed to believe in germs before evidence was provided, the evidence is what brought about the belief.

People don't need to believe before they will accept evidence.  They merely need evidence they find convincing, reliable, confirmed, etc.  Of course, there are times a person may simply refuse to accept something.  I think you assume it happens far more frequently than it does when it comes to atheists.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boss, how does spirituality having a benefit prove it is based on something real?
> 
> To once again use the Santa Claus analogy, people have continued to use belief in him with their children despite the fact he is a myth.  There must be some benefit, does that mean he is real?  Of course not.
> 
> I realize that the belief in something greater than one's self is more widespread and has gone on longer than belief in Santa.  The analogy still works, IMO.  That people believe in something or that such belief can be beneficial is in no way objective evidence that the thing they believe in exists.
> 
> And saying someone must believe in something before they will accept evidence of that thing continues to be hilarious.
> "What is that?"
> "A pink unicorn"
> "There's no such thing"
> "Yes there is"
> "Really?  OK, give me some evidence of it so I can believe you"
> "No.  Believe me first, then I'll give you evidence!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no benefit in Santa Claus belief. It is purely a novelty. Kids 'benefit' by gaining toys, but the parents buy the toys, so the benefit is offset by sacrifice. Yes, you could say the parents 'benefit' by watching the joy on their children's faces, but this could be achieved in any number of ways without Santa Claus.
> 
> You are correct, the human belief in something greater than self (spirituality) has gone on since the inception of man. It is through our spiritual connection that man gained inspiration. Inspiration led to everything that makes man what he is today. Without spirituality, we'd still be living in the jungles competing with the great apes for survival of our species.
> 
> And I frankly do not care that you think it is hilarious that you must first believe something can exist to be able to accept evidence of it. The fact that you can't show me any example of something you accept evidence for but don't believe in, speaks volumes. If you don't believe pink unicorns can exist, it doesn't matter what evidence you're shown, you will reject the evidence because you don't believe unicorns can exist.
Click to expand...


If Santa has no benefit and is purely imaginary, wouldn't it have ceased?  Why does it persist?

You've said one of the evidences for the spiritual is that human spiritual belief has always existed, and that if spiritual beliefs were based on something imaginary they would have stopped by now.  Why does Santa not follow that same guideline?  Or is the Santa myth a spiritual belief?


----------



## daws101

thebrucebeat said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> boosy's bullshit is really reeking this fine saturday!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New here.
> Who's boosy?
Click to expand...

no but you must be, boss aka boosy.....you've read his shit hence the nick name.
 alcohol plays a big part in his ramblings..


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> Spiritual fidelity to what?
> Thousands of completely incompatible ideas.



The spiritual nature we are connected to as humans. The incompatibility is not the fault of spiritual nature, it is the fault of imperfect man. Vain arrogance, the belief that you are right and others are wrong. 



> You are actually an agnostic as well, but want to use it as a pejorative toward me.



Ah, no... not an agnonstic. In fact, I am more atheistic than agnostic. An agnostic doesn't know if there is a God or not, I know there is a God, a Spiritual God. I have a problem with theistic incarnations of God. I don't call myself an "Atheist" because most of them don't believe in God, and I do. I am a Spiritualist. I totally believe in God as a spiritual force of energy without humanistic characteristics of love, hate, caring, forgiveness, envy, anger, etc.



> This post of yours is a bit hilarious, actually. You have made a great case for spirituality being the invention of people with a great need to have answers and be included. Read through it. Tribal leaders invented religion to create cohesion and tribal identity, so you say. I suggest it was a power grab, and can recommend a great book on the subject if you like.



Now you are confusing religion with spiritual connection and spirituality. We did not invent human spiritual connection. We did invent religions, they are a byproduct of our human spiritual connections. I explained how religions came to be, and it wasn't about a power grab at all. That's not to say that some religions weren't a power grab, Islamic religion comes to mind. 

Thanks for your reading recommendation but I probably already have the book or have read it. 



> By the way, atheists don't renounce the "god they believe in". They don't believe in one.



I know, but God-haters do... there is a difference. You seem to be under the delusion that because someone claims they are an Atheist they must honestly not believe in God. People do lie about things all the time, didn't you know this? I know some so-called 'Atheists' who believe in God more than some so-called 'Christians'. They LIE about their Atheism in order to give themselves cover while they renounce the God they believe in and hate. That's the point of the OP, or did you miss that?  



> I contend that everyone is agnostic, since if the god that is believed in can be known, what need faith?



Faith is yet another tricky word. Anything you believe is truth requires faith. This applies to science, religion and philosophy. I have often said, I don't have 'faith' in spiritual nature because I 'know' it exists. Still, faith is required for me to know this is true. 



> That is all agnosticism really is. The humility to admit that the nature or existence of a god can not be "known". Nothing more. People like to get heated with the use of "atheist" and "agnostic" and twist the terms to mean things that support their own "spiritual" assumptions, but it paints them as agenda driven egoists.



Again, agnosticism is essentially saying you don't know or have faith in anything as truth. I don't 'twist' anything with regard to the terms, I just find it interesting how some God-haters claim atheism while others aren't so bold and claim agnosticism instead. It's almost like saying, "I don't believe in God, but just in case...." BTW... there are also some 'Christians' who are very much agnostic. (Remember, people DO lie!)



> You think people are driven to their spiritual revelations because they sense there is something there. It is more the fear of the unknown and the need to believe that there is more. I don't suggest there isn't something more, I simply have no idea, and no way of discovering if it is true.



But it's not fear of the unknown, and I have demonstrated this with evidence. No other living creature in nature experiences such a prolific "fear of the unknown" that it must create placebos of imaginary things to console it. Nothing! Not found in nature at all! Man, through his inspiration from spiritual connection, invented Science to explain the unknown. It's not a "need" to believe there is more, it's an intrinsic awareness there is something greater than ourselves. The difference between me and you is, I DO know it's true. I've discovered it, I've tapped into it, I've realized the magnificence of it. You will never be able to convince me it's not true, not in my lifetime. 



> Understand, I have convinced myself of the opposite in the past. I was a pastor and quite dedicated to it, but I realized I had done a massive brain wash on myself to achieve that level of belief, and as I studied more deeply I realized I had duped myself. Hard stuff to face, but I couldn't deny it either.



Then you never actually had a true connection with spiritual nature. Sounds like what you had was a faith in religious philosophy, and you discovered that dogma was flawed and fallible. Therefore, you've rejected spirituality on that basis alone. Big mistake. Error in judgement on your part. 



> Most people value the "spiritual" comfort more than the honest recognition of what they actually "know". Whether it is beneficial or not is not relevant to whether or not it is true. It comforts people to know there is a purpose, and they either invent that or imagine that their higher power is real but not yet fully revealed.
> The latter would describe you.
> And me, to a far lesser extent.



What you are saying is often true for religious people, I can't deny that. However, our human spiritual connection can't be denied, we have it and it's real, not imaginary. I'm sorry, but you've not described me at all. I realize personal benefits from having and maintaining a strong spiritual connection to my God. I can't deny this any more than I could deny my mother exists. I didn't invent it or make it up, and there are often times I wish I weren't guided by my Spiritual God and could do whatever I pleased. I guess this is where my "faith" comes into play, I believe that doing whatever I please and forsaking my Spiritual conscience would destroy who I am as a person. You may have noticed, I kinda like who I am a little... don't want to lose that.


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> If Santa has no benefit and is purely imaginary, wouldn't it have ceased?  Why does it persist?
> 
> You've said one of the evidences for the spiritual is that human spiritual belief has always existed, and that if spiritual beliefs were based on something imaginary they would have stopped by now.  Why does Santa not follow that same guideline?  Or is the Santa myth a spiritual belief?



Okay... Let's imagine that somewhere in the future, a 'movement' begins to stamp out belief in Santa... millions and millions of people are slaughtered and killed for believing in Santa. This goes on for centuries, through generation after generation... how long do you suppose it would take for people to abandon the practice? 

Now, the concept of Santa Claus only dates back a few hundred years to an actual person who really existed and the 'folk legend' has evolved from there. Even the most skeptical believers in evolution understand that attributes take many thousands of years to come and go through evolution, so with Santa, you're nowhere near that degree of time. Furthermore, there has to be some vital survival interest at stake for the species, and there has never been any harmful aspect to the species for belief in Santa.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spiritual fidelity to what?
> Thousands of completely incompatible ideas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The spiritual nature we are connected to as humans. The incompatibility is not the fault of spiritual nature, it is the fault of imperfect man. Vain arrogance, the belief that you are right and others are wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are actually an agnostic as well, but want to use it as a pejorative toward me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, no... not an agnonstic. In fact, I am more atheistic than agnostic. An agnostic doesn't know if there is a God or not, I know there is a God, a Spiritual God. I have a problem with theistic incarnations of God. I don't call myself an "Atheist" because most of them don't believe in God, and I do. I am a Spiritualist. I totally believe in God as a spiritual force of energy without humanistic characteristics of love, hate, caring, forgiveness, envy, anger, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are confusing religion with spiritual connection and spirituality. We did not invent human spiritual connection. We did invent religions, they are a byproduct of our human spiritual connections. I explained how religions came to be, and it wasn't about a power grab at all. That's not to say that some religions weren't a power grab, Islamic religion comes to mind.
> 
> Thanks for your reading recommendation but I probably already have the book or have read it.
> 
> 
> 
> I know, but God-haters do... there is a difference. You seem to be under the delusion that because someone claims they are an Atheist they must honestly not believe in God. People do lie about things all the time, didn't you know this? I know some so-called 'Atheists' who believe in God more than some so-called 'Christians'. They LIE about their Atheism in order to give themselves cover while they renounce the God they believe in and hate. That's the point of the OP, or did you miss that?
> 
> 
> 
> Faith is yet another tricky word. Anything you believe is truth requires faith. This applies to science, religion and philosophy. I have often said, I don't have 'faith' in spiritual nature because I 'know' it exists. Still, faith is required for me to know this is true.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, agnosticism is essentially saying you don't know or have faith in anything as truth. I don't 'twist' anything with regard to the terms, I just find it interesting how some God-haters claim atheism while others aren't so bold and claim agnosticism instead. It's almost like saying, "I don't believe in God, but just in case...." BTW... there are also some 'Christians' who are very much agnostic. (Remember, people DO lie!)
> 
> 
> 
> But it's not fear of the unknown, and I have demonstrated this with evidence. No other living creature in nature experiences such a prolific "fear of the unknown" that it must create placebos of imaginary things to console it. Nothing! Not found in nature at all! Man, through his inspiration from spiritual connection, invented Science to explain the unknown. It's not a "need" to believe there is more, it's an intrinsic awareness there is something greater than ourselves. The difference between me and you is, I DO know it's true. I've discovered it, I've tapped into it, I've realized the magnificence of it. You will never be able to convince me it's not true, not in my lifetime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Understand, I have convinced myself of the opposite in the past. I was a pastor and quite dedicated to it, but I realized I had done a massive brain wash on myself to achieve that level of belief, and as I studied more deeply I realized I had duped myself. Hard stuff to face, but I couldn't deny it either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you never actually had a true connection with spiritual nature. Sounds like what you had was a faith in religious philosophy, and you discovered that dogma was flawed and fallible. Therefore, you've rejected spirituality on that basis alone. Big mistake. Error in judgement on your part.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most people value the "spiritual" comfort more than the honest recognition of what they actually "know". Whether it is beneficial or not is not relevant to whether or not it is true. It comforts people to know there is a purpose, and they either invent that or imagine that their higher power is real but not yet fully revealed.
> The latter would describe you.
> And me, to a far lesser extent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you are saying is often true for religious people, I can't deny that. However, our human spiritual connection can't be denied, we have it and it's real, not imaginary. I'm sorry, but you've not described me at all. I realize personal benefits from having and maintaining a strong spiritual connection to my God. I can't deny this any more than I could deny my mother exists. I didn't invent it or make it up, and there are often times I wish I weren't guided by my Spiritual God and could do whatever I pleased. I guess this is where my "faith" comes into play, I believe that doing whatever I please and forsaking my Spiritual conscience would destroy who I am as a person. You may have noticed, I kinda like who I am a little... don't want to lose that.
Click to expand...


I thought you were the one that gets hysterical about you being right and everyone else wrong?
Ah well.
How does your description of yourself make you an atheist? I didn't see that in your commentary at all. I saw not only a believer, but a self-professed "knower". Hardly an atheist. Once again, though, you assure us you are right and most of those other believers are wrong. The one true scotsman canard.
Witch doctors made a power grab, knowing if they were perceived as having a direct link with the beyond, their power amongst the tribesmen increased exponentially. All the rest is an extension of that power lust. Not only are religions invented, the fears of ancient man invented the gods themselves. You are their "spiritual" successor, terrified and in need of a reason.
Your fantasy of atheists being closeted believers is without support. Just barking at the moon without an argument. What data do you base that on? Not your "spiritual" discernment on the issue.
Data.
Agnostics can most certainly believe in god. They have the humility to understand there is no way to know whether their belief is true. Most believers fall in this category. Your understanding of the term is deeply flawed, but commonly so.
What I learned as a pastor is how easily people like yourself can convince themselves that they "know" all kinds of things, myself included. How frightened and helpless people can latch on to the most desperate and unsupportable concepts imaginable. I lived through it.
Through it. I didn't stay there.
You have created a spiritual essence that allows you to maintain your inflated sense of self worth. You like yourself greatly, and god forbid you should lose that. Don't worry. The spirit you serve is the one you created, and it will support any need to self-aggrandize your need to strut your stuff.
It will never fail you. I guarantee it.
Who has ever created a spiritual creation that would condemn themselves?
No one. Even Christians have created a formula where they are the bad guy and get a get out of jail card free.
No one discovers a god that isn't what they need them to be.
You will be no exception.


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> You are missing the point.
> 
> It's not a question of whether pink unicorns can exist but whether there is any evidence they do.  If someone showed me evidence of a pink unicorn (or put one in front of me) my views would change.  Why would I change my views, why would I believe, without any evidence?



I predict your views would NOT change because you know there is no such thing as unicorns, pink or otherwise. You would reject any evidence of such because of that. You would say, "Oh that's just a horse someone painted pink and stuck a horn on!" or maybe you'd argue that it was some kind of freak anomoly. You would not accept evidence for something you did not believe could exist. Now... IF you believed that it was actually a possibility that unicorns MAY exist... different story! But you first have to believe it is possible before you can accept anything as evidence. 



> Even for those who believe in something spiritual, they think they have evidence.  It's almost always subjective, but there is some kind of evidence first.  If a person didn't require any evidence first, they'd believe everything anyone ever told them.



The part you're not getting is, ALL evidence is subjective! It doesn't matter what it's for or what it pertains to, anything that is "evidence" is subject to the personal perception of it as such. I never said that people don't require evidence before something is proven to them. You are distorting my words and meaning. Before anything can be proven or any evidence can be presented to prove, a person has to first be willing to accept the possibility exists.  



> And how's this for an example?  Germs.  Before someone was able to discover them, I doubt many people believed that microscopic organisms were responsible for sickness.  Yet, once evidence became available, people changed their minds.  No one needed to believe in germs before evidence was provided, the evidence is what brought about the belief.



Well, yes... actually they DID have to believe it was possible before they could accept the evidence. Louis Pasteur presented his evidence to people and they rejected it on that very basis. Before anyone could change their minds and accept the evidence, they had to rationalize that maybe he is right, maybe there can be these microscopic organisms. Once they accepted that possibility, the evidence convinced them. 

It's no different with human spirituality. You have to first accept the possibility it exists before ANY evience evaluation happens. You cannot evaluate evidence of something you don't accept the possibility of. This is why you continue to come up empty with any example.  



> People don't need to believe before they will accept evidence.  They merely need evidence they find convincing, reliable, confirmed, etc.  Of course, there are times a person may simply refuse to accept something.  I think you assume it happens far more frequently than it does when it comes to atheists.



Again, read what you are saying. You can't convince someone until they are willing to accept the possibility of what you are trying to convince them of. It's not possible. You have not presented a single example to support this, and you can't. Just come up with ONE thing! Just ONE! Give me an example of something you believe in not possible or does not exist, that you accept the evidence of as valid and legitimate?


----------



## Boss

> How does your description of yourself make you an atheist?



It doesn't, and I don't call myself an Atheist. I explained it, but apparently you are having reading comprehension problems again. Atheist means A-Theist... or NOT-Theist. Since I do not subscribe to any organized theological doctrine, I am more "atheistic" than "agnostic." That's what I said.


----------



## Boss

> Your fantasy of atheists being closeted believers is without support.



I also didn't say this. Closeted believers often claim to be Atheists. Just as closeted agnostics sometimes claim to be Christians. People often lie about who they are and what they believe for a variety of reasons.


----------



## Boss

> I thought you were the one that gets hysterical about you being right and everyone else wrong?



I've not argued that I am right and everyone else is wrong. That said, I am certainly not going to abandon what I believe is right on the basis that it's your opinion I am wrong. _Oh sorry... what was I thinking, I must obviously be wrong because you say I am! _


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are missing the point.
> 
> It's not a question of whether pink unicorns can exist but whether there is any evidence they do.  If someone showed me evidence of a pink unicorn (or put one in front of me) my views would change.  Why would I change my views, why would I believe, without any evidence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I predict your views would NOT change because you know there is no such thing as unicorns, pink or otherwise. You would reject any evidence of such because of that. You would say, "Oh that's just a horse someone painted pink and stuck a horn on!" or maybe you'd argue that it was some kind of freak anomoly. You would not accept evidence for something you did not believe could exist. Now... IF you believed that it was actually a possibility that unicorns MAY exist... different story! But you first have to believe it is possible before you can accept anything as evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even for those who believe in something spiritual, they think they have evidence.  It's almost always subjective, but there is some kind of evidence first.  If a person didn't require any evidence first, they'd believe everything anyone ever told them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The part you're not getting is, ALL evidence is subjective! It doesn't matter what it's for or what it pertains to, anything that is "evidence" is subject to the personal perception of it as such. I never said that people don't require evidence before something is proven to them. You are distorting my words and meaning. Before anything can be proven or any evidence can be presented to prove, a person has to first be willing to accept the possibility exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And how's this for an example?  Germs.  Before someone was able to discover them, I doubt many people believed that microscopic organisms were responsible for sickness.  Yet, once evidence became available, people changed their minds.  No one needed to believe in germs before evidence was provided, the evidence is what brought about the belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, yes... actually they DID have to believe it was possible before they could accept the evidence. Louis Pasteur presented his evidence to people and they rejected it on that very basis. Before anyone could change their minds and accept the evidence, they had to rationalize that maybe he is right, maybe there can be these microscopic organisms. Once they accepted that possibility, the evidence convinced them.
> 
> It's no different with human spirituality. You have to first accept the possibility it exists before ANY evience evaluation happens. You cannot evaluate evidence of something you don't accept the possibility of. This is why you continue to come up empty with any example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People don't need to believe before they will accept evidence.  They merely need evidence they find convincing, reliable, confirmed, etc.  Of course, there are times a person may simply refuse to accept something.  I think you assume it happens far more frequently than it does when it comes to atheists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, read what you are saying. You can't convince someone until they are willing to accept the possibility of what you are trying to convince them of. It's not possible. You have not presented a single example to support this, and you can't. Just come up with ONE thing! Just ONE! Give me an example of something you believe in not possible or does not exist, that you accept the evidence of as valid and legitimate?
Click to expand...


So what is the compelling evidence for your "spirituality" that if we accept the possibility it will overwhelmingly take us over the top and put us on our knees?
He has given several perfectly adequate examples.
Your response, reduced to its essence, is...
"No way. No you wouldn't! You would never believe!"
There are some people that regardless of evidence still deny, deny, deny.
They think we didn't go to the moon, Iraq war was justified, and so on.
Those people are considered crazy once the evidence becomes overwhelming.
You are those people's spiritual mentor. You give them a way of defending the indefensible position by simply saying "You just don't know what I know, and I can't tell you!"


----------



## holston

SmedlyButler said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Dawsy's sig:* extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence/ Carl Sagan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual. So are our emotions in the presence of great art or music or literature, or of acts of exemplary selfless courage such as those of Mohandas Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr. The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both."* ~Carl Sagan
> 
> 
> Oh my.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're saying that a person can be an atheist or agnostic and still be spiritual and not 'hate" God I totally agree. Sagan fits in this category. I imagine he would think it silly to hate Osiris or Zeus or Yahweh or whatever mythical being you could name.
> 
> Sagan quotes:
> 
> "If fulfilled prophecy is your criterion, why do you not believe in materialistic science, which has an unparalleled record of fulfilled prophecy? Consider, for example, eclipses.
> 
> Or;
> *"The idea that God is an oversized white male *with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity."
Click to expand...


 Sagan was equally dissatisfied with the notion that Jesus Christ was his son, as are ALL Jews.


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> So what is the compelling evidence for your "spirituality" that if we accept the possibility it will overwhelmingly take us over the top and put us on our knees?



I've never said any evidence is going to take you over the top and put you on your knees... (is that even physically possible to do at the same time?) What I said is, you cannot accept any evidence of something you don't accept exists. It's a logical dichotomy. 



> He has given several perfectly adequate examples.



Uhm, no... he hasn't given ANY examples and neither have you. Pretending you have is not going to work on a public forum where people can read what is posted. 



> Your response, reduced to its essence, is...
> "No way. No you wouldn't! You would never believe!"



Again... logical dichotomy. You cannot accept something as evidence if you don't believe in the possibility of whatever the evidence is for. You have to first believe there is a possibility, then you can accept evidence of it. This is why you (and he) continue to come up empty with any example. 



> There are some people that regardless of evidence still deny, deny, deny.
> They think we didn't go to the moon, Iraq war was justified, and so on.
> Those people are considered crazy once the evidence becomes overwhelming.
> You are those people's spiritual mentor. You give them a way of defending the indefensible position by simply saying "You just don't know what I know, and I can't tell you!"



This is true, and it proves my point. Until you can believe something to be possible, no amount of evidence, no matter how compelling it is, will ever be able to convince you. "Evidence" is subjective, as I said earlier. It depends totally on the perception of the individual and whether they accept the evidence as such. Anyone can claim they have "evidence" of anything... I could say I have "evidence" aliens visited me last night... If you don't believe in aliens, my "evidence" is meaningless to you. 

Again... Challenge is on the table... Present something that you absolutely do not believe in, that you accept there is valid evidence to support.  Just ONE thing, that's all I ask.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what is the compelling evidence for your "spirituality" that if we accept the possibility it will overwhelmingly take us over the top and put us on our knees?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never said any evidence is going to take you over the top and put you on your knees... (is that even physically possible to do at the same time?) What I said is, you cannot accept any evidence of something you don't accept exists. It's a logical dichotomy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He has given several perfectly adequate examples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uhm, no... he hasn't given ANY examples and neither have you. Pretending you have is not going to work on a public forum where people can read what is posted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your response, reduced to its essence, is...
> "No way. No you wouldn't! You would never believe!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again... logical dichotomy. You cannot accept something as evidence if you don't believe in the possibility of whatever the evidence is for. You have to first believe there is a possibility, then you can accept evidence of it. This is why you (and he) continue to come up empty with any example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are some people that regardless of evidence still deny, deny, deny.
> They think we didn't go to the moon, Iraq war was justified, and so on.
> Those people are considered crazy once the evidence becomes overwhelming.
> You are those people's spiritual mentor. You give them a way of defending the indefensible position by simply saying "You just don't know what I know, and I can't tell you!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is true, and it proves my point. Until you can believe something to be possible, no amount of evidence, no matter how compelling it is, will ever be able to convince you. "Evidence" is subjective, as I said earlier. It depends totally on the perception of the individual and whether they accept the evidence as such. Anyone can claim they have "evidence" of anything... I could say I have "evidence" aliens visited me last night... If you don't believe in aliens, my "evidence" is meaningless to you.
> 
> Again... Challenge is on the table... Present something that you absolutely do not believe in, that you accept there is valid evidence to support.  Just ONE thing, that's all I ask.
Click to expand...


Your challenge has been met by the last poster.
What evidence would you provide the person that says they accept the possibility that your premise is true?
Like you say, "Anyone can claim they have 'evidence' of anything". Show us you aren't one of these.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> I thought you were the one that gets hysterical about you being right and everyone else wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've not argued that I am right and everyone else is wrong. That said, I am certainly not going to abandon what I believe is right on the basis that it's your opinion I am wrong. _Oh sorry... what was I thinking, I must obviously be wrong because you say I am! _
Click to expand...


You repeatedly tell us that others are wrong and you are right. It's a mantra of yours.
Do you want me to post a list? Easily done.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> How does your description of yourself make you an atheist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't, and I don't call myself an Atheist. I explained it, but apparently you are having reading comprehension problems again. Atheist means A-Theist... or NOT-Theist. Since I do not subscribe to any organized theological doctrine, I am more "atheistic" than "agnostic." That's what I said.
Click to expand...


Atheist has nothing to do to subscribing to an organized theological doctrine.
Totally unrelated.
Fail.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Santa has no benefit and is purely imaginary, wouldn't it have ceased?  Why does it persist?
> 
> You've said one of the evidences for the spiritual is that human spiritual belief has always existed, and that if spiritual beliefs were based on something imaginary they would have stopped by now.  Why does Santa not follow that same guideline?  Or is the Santa myth a spiritual belief?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay... Let's imagine that somewhere in the future, a 'movement' begins to stamp out belief in Santa... millions and millions of people are slaughtered and killed for believing in Santa. This goes on for centuries, through generation after generation... how long do you suppose it would take for people to abandon the practice?
> 
> Now, the concept of Santa Claus only dates back a few hundred years to an actual person who really existed and the 'folk legend' has evolved from there. Even the most skeptical believers in evolution understand that attributes take many thousands of years to come and go through evolution, so with Santa, you're nowhere near that degree of time. Furthermore, there has to be some vital survival interest at stake for the species, and there has never been any harmful aspect to the species for belief in Santa.
Click to expand...


You are aware that evolution, in the physical, biologic use of the word, has little if anything to do with folk legends, aren't you?

Even the most skeptical believers in evolution don't try to compare the changing of a species into another with the changing of beliefs within a society or humanity in general.

Not all attributes take many thousands of years to come and go, you realize that, don't you?  Just look at the changes in technology, medicine, philosophy, etc. since the Industrial Revolution!

There is no reason ideas, even if they are generally accepted, must have some vital interest for our species.

You are conflating things that are not the same.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss, you did not say a person has to believe a thing is possible.  Let me give you a couple of quotes.



Boss said:


> No it isn't. It's very cool compared to lava.
> 
> There is testable evidence to prove spirituality. You have to first accept that spiritual nature exists and is real. Once you can do that, it's very easy to test and confirm it... billions and billions have done so.



Note you said that a person must first accept that spiritual nature is real before there can be any kind of testing.



Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, testy!
> While I freely admit that I made an assumption about the Christian bent of your position, you are making the case for the belief in God, or god, and that is being supported by the vast numbers of people that believe it, which is nothing more than anecdotal evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, no hard head, it is not. Things aren't "anecdotal" simply because you've proclaimed them to be. I'm sorry that you feel someone bestowed the gift of rationality upon you alone, and only you get to decide these things. I assure you, everyone who believes in God doesn't share your opinion the evidence is anecdotal. That is your opinion and you are entitled to it, but you can't infer your opinion on everyone else. Sorry!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The volume of it doesn't change that. It is still anecdotal. I haven't rejected anything. You haven't provided any. Wow me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, but indeed I did provide it, and you rejected it as anecdotal. Wow you!
> 
> 
> 
> Well, yes it most certainly does change it. Nearly doesn't equate to every, not in any fucking dictionary I've ever encountered. So it completely changes the meaning of what was said, and you were completely dishonest about it, as you are continuing to be dishonest in claiming it doesn't change anything. We can see by this that you are not an honest person, you lie and when you're caught lying, you lie some more to cover up the first lie. This is probably because you lack a true moral compass, which is caused by your lack of a spiritual connection.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, no I didn't do that. Again, you simply feel compelled to lie. I've attributed nothing unexplained to anyone's belief in God. In fact, I said quite the opposite. If someone believes spirituality explains anything, they are as irrational and misguided as someone who claims science explains everything.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep... Like the power of God or Spiritual Nature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Your argument suggests that proof is available only after you invest in the belief.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *No, my argument doesn't "suggest" anything, my argument clearly states the truth. It's impossible to believe something as proof if you don't believe in what it proves. I asked you for an example to contradict this, and you failed to present one.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *You think belief comes first. I think the proof does.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *But it doesn't, and you can't support your argument with an example. Show me one thing that you accept as "proof" that you don't believe in the thing it proves. Just one! You must first believe whatever it is the "proof" is supposed to prove.*
Click to expand...


I put the relevant sections in bold with this.

Maybe this is just a product of miscommunication.  However, you have argued that a person must believe in something before they can do any testing to confirm it's existence and that belief comes before proof.

I'll grant that proof and evidence are not the same, so that may well be a semantics issue.

I can only guess that what you mean to say is that a person won't believe in something unless the proof they are given is something they can accept.  That isn't quite the same as saying a person must believe before they are given proof.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> Your fantasy of atheists being closeted believers is without support.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I also didn't say this. Closeted believers often claim to be Atheists. Just as closeted agnostics sometimes claim to be Christians. People often lie about who they are and what they believe for a variety of reasons.
Click to expand...


You sound like an expert on the latter.
Most Christians ARE agnostics. They have the humility to know their beliefs are a faith, not a verifiable proof text. The bible says just the same.


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what is the compelling evidence for your "spirituality" that if we accept the possibility it will overwhelmingly take us over the top and put us on our knees?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never said any evidence is going to take you over the top and put you on your knees... (is that even physically possible to do at the same time?) What I said is, you cannot accept any evidence of something you don't accept exists. It's a logical dichotomy.
> 
> 
> 
> Uhm, no... he hasn't given ANY examples and neither have you. Pretending you have is not going to work on a public forum where people can read what is posted.
> 
> 
> 
> Again... logical dichotomy. You cannot accept something as evidence if you don't believe in the possibility of whatever the evidence is for. You have to first believe there is a possibility, then you can accept evidence of it. This is why you (and he) continue to come up empty with any example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are some people that regardless of evidence still deny, deny, deny.
> They think we didn't go to the moon, Iraq war was justified, and so on.
> Those people are considered crazy once the evidence becomes overwhelming.
> You are those people's spiritual mentor. You give them a way of defending the indefensible position by simply saying "You just don't know what I know, and I can't tell you!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is true, and it proves my point. Until you can believe something to be possible, no amount of evidence, no matter how compelling it is, will ever be able to convince you. "Evidence" is subjective, as I said earlier. It depends totally on the perception of the individual and whether they accept the evidence as such. Anyone can claim they have "evidence" of anything... I could say I have "evidence" aliens visited me last night... If you don't believe in aliens, my "evidence" is meaningless to you.
> 
> Again... Challenge is on the table... Present something that you absolutely do not believe in, that you accept there is valid evidence to support.  Just ONE thing, that's all I ask.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your challenge has been met by the last poster.
> What evidence would you provide the person that says they accept the possibility that your premise is true?
> Like you say, "Anyone can claim they have 'evidence' of anything". Show us you aren't one of these.
Click to expand...


Well no, hard head... the challenge wasn't met. You continuing to lie and claim it has been met is not going to ever change that fact. Sorry. 

Doesn't matter what evidence I would present, you and others are convinced that any evidence is invalid because you do not believe in what the evidence supports. You'll continue to find ways to rationalize why you perceive the evidence is invalid unless and until you accept the possibility of whatever the evidence is for. 

Billions of people find plenty of evidence to support their spiritual beliefs, and have done so for thousands and thousands of years. That is a fact, it can't be disputed or refuted. You can only dismiss the evidence because you don't believe it is evidence for what you don't believe possible. 

I can't show you anything. You are asking me to overcome your disbelief in something, and I can't do that, it's impossible for me to ever do that. Only YOU have that power.


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Santa has no benefit and is purely imaginary, wouldn't it have ceased?  Why does it persist?
> 
> You've said one of the evidences for the spiritual is that human spiritual belief has always existed, and that if spiritual beliefs were based on something imaginary they would have stopped by now.  Why does Santa not follow that same guideline?  Or is the Santa myth a spiritual belief?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay... Let's imagine that somewhere in the future, a 'movement' begins to stamp out belief in Santa... millions and millions of people are slaughtered and killed for believing in Santa. This goes on for centuries, through generation after generation... how long do you suppose it would take for people to abandon the practice?
> 
> Now, the concept of Santa Claus only dates back a few hundred years to an actual person who really existed and the 'folk legend' has evolved from there. Even the most skeptical believers in evolution understand that attributes take many thousands of years to come and go through evolution, so with Santa, you're nowhere near that degree of time. Furthermore, there has to be some vital survival interest at stake for the species, and there has never been any harmful aspect to the species for belief in Santa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are aware that evolution, in the physical, biologic use of the word, has little if anything to do with folk legends, aren't you?
Click to expand...


Well yes, but biological behaviors are part of biology, aren't they? YOU were the one who introduced a folk legend, not me. I simply explained why your example didn't apply to what I had said about biological behaviors and evolution. Now you want to somehow twist around your illogical example and pretend I brought it up. Dishonesty at it's best. 



> Even the most skeptical believers in evolution don't try to compare the changing of a species into another with the changing of beliefs within a society or humanity in general.



I haven't made such a comparisson. You are now conflating species evolution with natural selection. Spirituality is a behavioral characteristic of our species. It's not "changing beliefs" but an ever-present characteristic of our human behavior as a species, which has been present since the beginning. Religious beliefs have changed, but that isn't spirituality itself.



> Not all attributes take many thousands of years to come and go, you realize that, don't you?  Just look at the changes in technology, medicine, philosophy, etc. since the Industrial Revolution!



You're not talking about behavioral attributes anymore. Now you are talking about ideas and knowledge. Yes, those change very rapidly in our species, mostly due to inspiration derived from spirituality. This is why we are sending men to the moon and exploring our universe and not swinging from tree to tree and fighting great apes for survival. 



> There is no reason ideas, even if they are generally accepted, must have some vital interest for our species.
> 
> You are conflating things that are not the same.



Well no, there's not, and I never argued there was. You twisted and distorted what I said and misinterpreted it deliberately because you think that's a clever thing to do. 

Darwin's natural selection says that species discard unimportant attributes which are detrimental to the species over time. Religious persecution, or the persecution of what spirituality manifests itself as, has certainly been detrimental to survival. Therefore, if Darwin was right, spirituality must have some important value to humans, else we would have discarded the behavioral attribute long ago.


----------



## mamooth

Boss said:


> Darwin's natural selection says that species discard unimportant attributes which are detrimental to the species over time.



Not so. Note the peacock's tail, as one example. Detrimental to the species, but selected for by evolution.

Evolution can be more correctly thought of as individual genes using a species as a tool to create more copies of themselves. From that standpoint, the peacock's tail becomes understandable. The meme of religiousity would be an analogue to genes, and such memes can become dominant even if detrimental to the species.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> Darwin's natural selection says that species discard unimportant attributes which are detrimental to the species over time. Religious persecution, or the persecution of what spirituality manifests itself as, has certainly been detrimental to survival. Therefore, if Darwin was right, spirituality must have some important value to humans, else we would have discarded the behavioral attribute long ago.



That's not what Darwin said at all.


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Boss, you did not say a person has to believe a thing is possible.  Let me give you a couple of quotes.
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it isn't. It's very cool compared to lava.
> 
> There is testable evidence to prove spirituality. You have to first accept that spiritual nature exists and is real. Once you can do that, it's very easy to test and confirm it... billions and billions have done so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note you said that a person must first accept that spiritual nature is real before there can be any kind of testing.
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, no hard head, it is not. Things aren't "anecdotal" simply because you've proclaimed them to be. I'm sorry that you feel someone bestowed the gift of rationality upon you alone, and only you get to decide these things. I assure you, everyone who believes in God doesn't share your opinion the evidence is anecdotal. That is your opinion and you are entitled to it, but you can't infer your opinion on everyone else. Sorry!
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, but indeed I did provide it, and you rejected it as anecdotal. Wow you!
> 
> 
> 
> Well, yes it most certainly does change it. Nearly doesn't equate to every, not in any fucking dictionary I've ever encountered. So it completely changes the meaning of what was said, and you were completely dishonest about it, as you are continuing to be dishonest in claiming it doesn't change anything. We can see by this that you are not an honest person, you lie and when you're caught lying, you lie some more to cover up the first lie. This is probably because you lack a true moral compass, which is caused by your lack of a spiritual connection.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, no I didn't do that. Again, you simply feel compelled to lie. I've attributed nothing unexplained to anyone's belief in God. In fact, I said quite the opposite. If someone believes spirituality explains anything, they are as irrational and misguided as someone who claims science explains everything.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep... Like the power of God or Spiritual Nature.
> 
> 
> 
> *No, my argument doesn't "suggest" anything, my argument clearly states the truth. It's impossible to believe something as proof if you don't believe in what it proves. I asked you for an example to contradict this, and you failed to present one.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *You think belief comes first. I think the proof does.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *But it doesn't, and you can't support your argument with an example. Show me one thing that you accept as "proof" that you don't believe in the thing it proves. Just one! You must first believe whatever it is the "proof" is supposed to prove.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I put the relevant sections in bold with this.
> 
> Maybe this is just a product of miscommunication.  However, you have argued that a person must believe in something before they can do any testing to confirm it's existence and that belief comes before proof.
> 
> I'll grant that proof and evidence are not the same, so that may well be a semantics issue.
> 
> I can only guess that what you mean to say is that a person won't believe in something unless the proof they are given is something they can accept.  That isn't quite the same as saying a person must believe before they are given proof.
Click to expand...


Look... you can try all you like to twist and distort what I've said if you feel better about yourself for doing that. I can't do anything about it other than point it out. 

What I am saying is simple basic one-brain-cell-to-comprehend logic. You can't accept ANY evidence for something you don't believe in the possibility for. It's illogical. It cannot happen in this universe, in this reality we exist in. In order for you to accept anything as "evidence" ...don't give a shit what that is... it first requires an acceptance of the possibility that whatever the evidence is for, actually is possible. If you do not believe something is possible, there can be no "evidence" you will accept. It's irrational. 

As I have repeatedly challenged you to do in order to prove this point to yourself... Present for me just one example of something you absolutely do not believe in... don't believe it is possible... don't believe it exists... yet you acknowledge there is some valid evidence to support it.  Anything! Just one example is all you need to give me, and I will admit I am wrong. Seems like that would be FAR easier than continuing to try and distort or pervert the things I've stated, which I am not letting you get away with.


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin's natural selection says that species discard unimportant attributes which are detrimental to the species over time. Religious persecution, or the persecution of what spirituality manifests itself as, has certainly been detrimental to survival. Therefore, if Darwin was right, spirituality must have some important value to humans, else we would have discarded the behavioral attribute long ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what Darwin said at all.
Click to expand...


Yes he did, it's the basis of natural selection.


----------



## Ronin

Boss said:


> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.



Do you separate God from religion?  At what point does as person steer from debate into this descriptive category you have stated here?


----------



## Boss

mamooth said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin's natural selection says that species discard unimportant attributes which are detrimental to the species over time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not so. Note the peacock's tail, as one example. Detrimental to the species, but selected for by evolution.
> 
> Evolution can be more correctly thought of as individual genes using a species as a tool to create more copies of themselves. From that standpoint, the peacock's tail becomes understandable. The meme of religiousity would be an analogue to genes, and such memes can become dominant even if detrimental to the species.
Click to expand...


Peafowl - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Evolution and sexual selection
Charles Darwin first theorized in On the Origin of Species that the peacock's plumage had evolved through sexual selection. This idea was expanded upon in his second book, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex.
The sexual struggle is of two kinds; in the one it is between individuals of the same sex, generally the males, in order to drive away or kill their rivals, the females remaining passive; whilst in the other, the struggle is likewise between the individuals of the same sex, in order to excite or charm those of the opposite sex, generally the females, which no longer remain passive, but select the more agreeable partners.

Work concerning female behavior in many species of animals has sought to confirm Darwin's basic idea of female preference for males with certain characteristics as a major force in the evolution of species.[3] Females have often been shown to distinguish small differences among potential mates and to prefer mating with individuals bearing the most exaggerated characters.[4] In some cases, those males have been shown to be more healthy and vigorous, suggesting that the ornaments serve as markers indicating the males' abilities to survive and, thus, their genetic qualities.
The peacock is perhaps the best-known example of traits believed to have arisen through sexual selection, though in recent years this theory has become the object of some controversy.[5] It is known that male peafowl erect their trains to form a shimmering fan in their display to females. Marion Petrie tested whether or not these displays signaled a male's genetic quality by studying a feral population of peafowl in Whipsnade Wildlife Park in southern England. She showed that the number of eyespots in the train predicted a male's mating success, and this success could be manipulated by cutting the eyespots off some of the male's tails.[6] Females lost interest in pruned males and became attracted to untrimmed ones. Further testing revealed that males with fewer eyespots, and thus with lower mating success, were more likely to suffer from greater predation.[7] Even more interestingly, she allowed females to mate with males that had variable numbers of eyespots and reared the offspring in a communal incubator to control for differences in maternal care. Chicks fathered by more ornamented males weighed more than those fathered by less ornamented males, an attribute generally associated with better survival rate in birds. When these chicks were released into the park and recaptured one year later, those with heavily ornamented fathers were found to be better able to avoid predators and survive in natural conditions.[3] Thus, Petrie's work has shown correlations between tail ornamentation, mating success and increased survival ability in both the ornamented males and their offspring.
Furthermore, peafowl and their sexual characteristics have been used in the discussion of the causes for sexual traits. Amotz Zahavi used the excessive tail plumes of male peafowls as evidence for his Handicap Principle.[8] Considering that these trains are obviously deleterious to the survival of an individual (due to the more brilliant plumes being highly visible to predators and the longer plumes making escape from danger more difficult), Zahavi argued that only the most fit males could survive the handicap of a large tail. Thus, the brilliant tail of the peacock serves as an indicator for females that highly ornamented males are good at surviving for other reasons, and are, therefore, more preferable mates. This theory may be contrasted with Fisher's theory that male sexual traits, such as the peacock's train, are the result of selection for attractive traits because these traits are considered attractive
-------------------------------------------------------------

BAM! ...Refuted! 
Next?


----------



## Boss

Ronin said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you separate God from religion?  At what point does as person steer from debate into this descriptive category you have stated here?
Click to expand...


I do separate God from religion. You must understand, human spirituality predates all religion by many years. Religion is the manifestation of our spiritual connection. It's a byproduct of being spiritually aware and spiritually connected. Spirituality is God... that is who/what we are spiritually connecting to. Religion is man's attempt to better understand that connection, and because men are imperfect, our attempts to comprehend something we can't totally grasp, is enigmatic at best. 

I am not understanding your second question.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin's natural selection says that species discard unimportant attributes which are detrimental to the species over time. Religious persecution, or the persecution of what spirituality manifests itself as, has certainly been detrimental to survival. Therefore, if Darwin was right, spirituality must have some important value to humans, else we would have discarded the behavioral attribute long ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what Darwin said at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes he did, it's the basis of natural selection.
Click to expand...


You suggest species "discard unimportant attributes". They simply have genetic mutations that are accidental, and if the accident produces a benefit, it will be selected through the advantageous benefits it represents to continue. Beneficial attributes get eliminated by genetic mutation also and those individuals don't thrive and thus don't reproduce.
A very good argument can be made for how spiritual devotion can retard progress of cultures now, and is in fact doing so. 4000 churches open in the U.S. every year, but 7000 close. Maybe we are in the beginnings of discarding this behavioral attribute now.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boss, you did not say a person has to believe a thing is possible.  Let me give you a couple of quotes.
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it isn't. It's very cool compared to lava.
> 
> There is testable evidence to prove spirituality. You have to first accept that spiritual nature exists and is real. Once you can do that, it's very easy to test and confirm it... billions and billions have done so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note you said that a person must first accept that spiritual nature is real before there can be any kind of testing.
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, no hard head, it is not. Things aren't "anecdotal" simply because you've proclaimed them to be. I'm sorry that you feel someone bestowed the gift of rationality upon you alone, and only you get to decide these things. I assure you, everyone who believes in God doesn't share your opinion the evidence is anecdotal. That is your opinion and you are entitled to it, but you can't infer your opinion on everyone else. Sorry!
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, but indeed I did provide it, and you rejected it as anecdotal. Wow you!
> 
> 
> 
> Well, yes it most certainly does change it. Nearly doesn't equate to every, not in any fucking dictionary I've ever encountered. So it completely changes the meaning of what was said, and you were completely dishonest about it, as you are continuing to be dishonest in claiming it doesn't change anything. We can see by this that you are not an honest person, you lie and when you're caught lying, you lie some more to cover up the first lie. This is probably because you lack a true moral compass, which is caused by your lack of a spiritual connection.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, no I didn't do that. Again, you simply feel compelled to lie. I've attributed nothing unexplained to anyone's belief in God. In fact, I said quite the opposite. If someone believes spirituality explains anything, they are as irrational and misguided as someone who claims science explains everything.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep... Like the power of God or Spiritual Nature.
> 
> 
> 
> *No, my argument doesn't "suggest" anything, my argument clearly states the truth. It's impossible to believe something as proof if you don't believe in what it proves. I asked you for an example to contradict this, and you failed to present one.
> *
> 
> 
> *But it doesn't, and you can't support your argument with an example. Show me one thing that you accept as "proof" that you don't believe in the thing it proves. Just one! You must first believe whatever it is the "proof" is supposed to prove.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I put the relevant sections in bold with this.
> 
> Maybe this is just a product of miscommunication.  However, you have argued that a person must believe in something before they can do any testing to confirm it's existence and that belief comes before proof.
> 
> I'll grant that proof and evidence are not the same, so that may well be a semantics issue.
> 
> I can only guess that what you mean to say is that a person won't believe in something unless the proof they are given is something they can accept.  That isn't quite the same as saying a person must believe before they are given proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look... you can try all you like to twist and distort what I've said if you feel better about yourself for doing that. I can't do anything about it other than point it out.
> 
> What I am saying is simple basic one-brain-cell-to-comprehend logic. You can't accept ANY evidence for something you don't believe in the possibility for. It's illogical. It cannot happen in this universe, in this reality we exist in. In order for you to accept anything as "evidence" ...don't give a shit what that is... it first requires an acceptance of the possibility that whatever the evidence is for, actually is possible. If you do not believe something is possible, there can be no "evidence" you will accept. It's irrational.
> 
> As I have repeatedly challenged you to do in order to prove this point to yourself... Present for me just one example of something you absolutely do not believe in... don't believe it is possible... don't believe it exists... yet you acknowledge there is some valid evidence to support it.  Anything! Just one example is all you need to give me, and I will admit I am wrong. Seems like that would be FAR easier than continuing to try and distort or pervert the things I've stated, which I am not letting you get away with.
Click to expand...


I'm not twisting or distorting anything.  I provided quotes from you in this very thread.  How is that distorting?  It's your words.

When responding to the statement that proof comes before belief, you said that it does not.  That is entirely different than someone being open to possibility.  Belief means you think something is not just possible but accept it as real.  One can be open to the possibility of something without yet accepting it as being real, as with god(s).

If you cannot see that I was pointing out how the very words you posted in this thread on multiple occasions did not say merely that a person must believe a thing is possible before they accept any evidence, you are intentionally ignoring what's been put in front of you.  Sort of an example of just what you are talking about.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay... Let's imagine that somewhere in the future, a 'movement' begins to stamp out belief in Santa... millions and millions of people are slaughtered and killed for believing in Santa. This goes on for centuries, through generation after generation... how long do you suppose it would take for people to abandon the practice?
> 
> Now, the concept of Santa Claus only dates back a few hundred years to an actual person who really existed and the 'folk legend' has evolved from there. Even the most skeptical believers in evolution understand that attributes take many thousands of years to come and go through evolution, so with Santa, you're nowhere near that degree of time. Furthermore, there has to be some vital survival interest at stake for the species, and there has never been any harmful aspect to the species for belief in Santa.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are aware that evolution, in the physical, biologic use of the word, has little if anything to do with folk legends, aren't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well yes, but biological behaviors are part of biology, aren't they? YOU were the one who introduced a folk legend, not me. I simply explained why your example didn't apply to what I had said about biological behaviors and evolution. Now you want to somehow twist around your illogical example and pretend I brought it up. Dishonesty at it's best.
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't made such a comparisson. You are now conflating species evolution with natural selection. Spirituality is a behavioral characteristic of our species. It's not "changing beliefs" but an ever-present characteristic of our human behavior as a species, which has been present since the beginning. Religious beliefs have changed, but that isn't spirituality itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not all attributes take many thousands of years to come and go, you realize that, don't you?  Just look at the changes in technology, medicine, philosophy, etc. since the Industrial Revolution!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not talking about behavioral attributes anymore. Now you are talking about ideas and knowledge. Yes, those change very rapidly in our species, mostly due to inspiration derived from spirituality. This is why we are sending men to the moon and exploring our universe and not swinging from tree to tree and fighting great apes for survival.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no reason ideas, even if they are generally accepted, must have some vital interest for our species.
> 
> You are conflating things that are not the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well no, there's not, and I never argued there was. You twisted and distorted what I said and misinterpreted it deliberately because you think that's a clever thing to do.
> 
> Darwin's natural selection says that species discard unimportant attributes which are detrimental to the species over time. Religious persecution, or the persecution of what spirituality manifests itself as, has certainly been detrimental to survival. Therefore, if Darwin was right, spirituality must have some important value to humans, else we would have discarded the behavioral attribute long ago.
Click to expand...


Feel free to show me where I in any way claimed you are the one who brought up Santa.  I was pointing out that describing beliefs in terms of biological evolution is disingenuous, at best.

If spirituality is a behavior attribute brought about through biological evolution, if it is necessary for the survival of the species, if lack of spirituality is a detriment to human survival, why has that lack of spirituality survived so long?

If spirituality is part of our physical evolution, can you point to the physical characteristics that give us this spiritual nature?  And if it is physical in nature, why the constant argument about how spirituality cannot be defined nor proven through physical sciences?  If it is not something you can see through physical characteristics, why try to define it as part of evolution?

Religious persecution has certainly not prevented the survival of our species.  It has gone on for pretty much the entire history of humanity, it continues this very day, yet our species thrives.  How can you that natural selection means species weed out detrimental attributes, religious persecution is a detrimental attribute, yet not come to the conclusion that religious persecution should have been weeded out?  You basically said, "If A is true, B is true.  A is true, therefore C is true.".  

You harp about distortions of your words, but you cannot even maintain your own chain of logic.  You do not even see what your own posts say when they are presented to you.


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> I'm not twisting or distorting anything.  I provided quotes from you in this very thread.  How is that distorting?  It's your words.
> 
> When responding to the statement that proof comes before belief, you said that it does not.  That is entirely different than someone being open to possibility.  Belief means you think something is not just possible but accept it as real.  One can be open to the possibility of something without yet accepting it as being real, as with god(s).
> 
> If you cannot see that I was pointing out how the very words you posted in this thread on multiple occasions did not say merely that a person must believe a thing is possible before they accept any evidence, you are intentionally ignoring what's been put in front of you.  Sort of an example of just what you are talking about.



Well, I have been clear on what I meant since the first time I said it, and it hasn't changed. If you don't understand it by now, my repeating it isn't going to clarify anything. You should go back and read it again, because you are apparently missing something. I have gone over it in detail, given examples, explained it several times, and you continue to try and pick apart what was said to find some different meaning or comprehend it in a different way than what was intended, just so you can supposedly have an argument to make, I guess. 

I've repeatedly challenged you to give an example of something you don't believe in, yet find there is credible evidence for. You can't name anything, you just keep trying to argue that I am being illogical. Maybe this ammuses you somehow, I don't know. It's getting to be annoying, to be honest. So from here on out, this particular point is closed for discussion unless you wish to comply with my challenge. Capiche?


----------



## Boss

> Feel free to show me where I in any way claimed you are the one who brought up Santa. I was pointing out that describing beliefs in terms of biological evolution is disingenuous, at best.



We've already seen your technique, you distort what is said and deliberately take things out of context wherever you can, in order to show everyone how fucking brilliant you are. YOU brought up Santa, when I  addressed Santa, you started yammering about how Santa didn't have anything to do with behavioral attributes of evolution, which was MY point to YOU! It's not brilliant, it's not clever, it's actually a chickenshit move by a chickenshit coward who doesn't want to discuss a topic, and just wants to show what an obtuse ass clown he can be.


----------



## Boss

> If spirituality is part of our physical evolution...



Where the fuck did I say this, ass clown???


----------



## Boss

> Religious persecution has certainly not prevented the survival of our species.



Where the fuck did I argue it had, ass clown???


----------



## Boss

> How can you that natural selection means species weed out detrimental attributes, religious persecution is a detrimental attribute, yet not come to the conclusion that religious persecution should have been weeded out?



I explained it, ass clown. But you don't fucking read the entirety of the post, you jump on one sentence or phrase that you can distort the context of and show everyone what a fucking 'genius' you are at twisting what people say around on them. 

Religious persecution is not a behavioral attribute, it is an action taken against a behavioral attribute. If the attribute were not important to species survival, it would have been abandoned in the distant past. Humans would have discarded it in favor of surviving. The fact that it was retained shows that it is fundamentally important to the species.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> Feel free to show me where I in any way claimed you are the one who brought up Santa. I was pointing out that describing beliefs in terms of biological evolution is disingenuous, at best.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We've already seen your technique, you distort what is said and deliberately take things out of context wherever you can, in order to show everyone how fucking brilliant you are. YOU brought up Santa, when I  addressed Santa, you started yammering about how Santa didn't have anything to do with behavioral attributes of evolution, which was MY point to YOU! It's not brilliant, it's not clever, it's actually a chickenshit move by a chickenshit coward who doesn't want to discuss a topic, and just wants to show what an obtuse ass clown he can be.
Click to expand...


Compelling argumentation.
LOL!
Your oft repeated idea that you can't accept the proof of anything unless you already accept the possibility of the conclusion means you have never been shocked by anything you learned. Paradigm shifts are exactly the experience you don't believe are possible. Look them up.


----------



## Boss

Boss said:


> So from here on out, *this particular point is closed for discussion unless you wish to comply with my challenge.* Capiche?



What part of that did you not understand, buttmunch?


----------



## MrMax

No link between spirituality and knowing right from wrong has been shown in this thread. So Bossy Bully, you're the noob ass clown. But you're funny, keep it up.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> So from here on out, *this particular point is closed for discussion unless you wish to comply with my challenge.* Capiche?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What part of that did you not understand, buttmunch?
Click to expand...


The part where you think you have any authority to make demands of others on a public forum.
Buttmunch?
What are you, in middle school?


----------



## Boss

MrMax said:


> No link between spirituality and knowing right from wrong has been shown in this thread.



Well actually, it has. The first thing to remember is that you tend to lie a lot. So we can't take your word on anything. If a curious mind is interested in discovering the truth, they can review the thread and my previous posts, where I did explain the link between spirituality and knowing right from wrong. But this has become a common tactic here, I will make a point to one poster, then another will drag the topic off into a superfluous argument over nonsense for several pages, then the original poster reemerges to proclaim a point was never made. I suppose the justification is, you are betting most people are too lazy to actually go back and read through 3-4 pages of nonsense to find the making of the original point. And perhaps you are correct? 

The question of the relationship between spirituality and knowing right from wrong is essentially the same as a question of the relationship between a peach and a peach tree. Now one could argue that a peach is much different than a peach tree, and surely anyone can see one is a fruit while the other is a tree, so they are clearly unrelated. While this is true, there is still a correlation and relational connection. The peach couldn't exist without the peach tree. Our knowing right from wrong cannot exist without spirituality. 

_Oh, but Boss, now you are saying that non-spiritual people can't be moral!_ Not what I am saying at all. We are all spiritual people, even the Atheists and Nihilists. You see, it is hard-wired into us and part of our DNA as human beings. Our spirituality resides in the third neural sector of the brain and geneticists believe we may even have a 'spiritual gene' but research is still relatively new. Of course, some people prefer not to use that part of their brain or act upon their spirituality, but it exists in every human whether we like it or not.  

Morality, as it pertains to the knowing of right and wrong, always has metaphysical justification. This is as true for an Atheist as it is for a Christian. Atheists will explain their morality as being a consideration of mutually beneficial cooperation among others. But this is a metaphysical consideration. It is determined by a sense of being and purpose, which in essence, is what our spirituality is. Morality becomes our understanding of something more important than our self interests, more important than self. Again, our spirituality.

I could actually write volumes more on the topic because it is complex and complicated, but suffice it to say, I have offered clear evidence to connect spirituality with knowing right from wrong. At least to those who have a brain. Not much I can offer to those who lack a brain.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Religious persecution has certainly not prevented the survival of our species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where the fuck did I argue it had, ass clown???
Click to expand...




Boss said:


> Darwin's natural selection says that species discard unimportant attributes which are detrimental to the species over time. Religious persecution, or the persecution of what spirituality manifests itself as, has certainly been detrimental to survival. Therefore, if Darwin was right, spirituality must have some important value to humans, else we would have discarded the behavioral attribute long ago.



If religious persecution is so detrimental to the survival of our species, how has our species survived and continued to thrive despite religious persecution being around throughout our history?

Queue claims of distortion.....


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Religious persecution has certainly not prevented the survival of our species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where the fuck did I argue it had, ass clown???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin's natural selection says that species discard unimportant attributes which are detrimental to the species over time. Religious persecution, or the persecution of what spirituality manifests itself as, has certainly been detrimental to survival. Therefore, if Darwin was right, spirituality must have some important value to humans, else we would have discarded the behavioral attribute long ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If religious persecution is so detrimental to the survival of our species, how has our species survived and continued to thrive despite religious persecution being around throughout our history?
> 
> Queue claims of distortion.....
Click to expand...


Because the attribute of human spirituality is far more important and fundamental to the survival of the species than it has been a detriment to survival.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> How can you that natural selection means species weed out detrimental attributes, religious persecution is a detrimental attribute, yet not come to the conclusion that religious persecution should have been weeded out?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I explained it, ass clown. But you don't fucking read the entirety of the post, you jump on one sentence or phrase that you can distort the context of and show everyone what a fucking 'genius' you are at twisting what people say around on them.
> 
> Religious persecution is not a behavioral attribute, it is an action taken against a behavioral attribute. If the attribute were not important to species survival, it would have been abandoned in the distant past. Humans would have discarded it in favor of surviving. The fact that it was retained shows that it is fundamentally important to the species.
Click to expand...


Oh, I read the whole post.  Perhaps you didn't.  Here, let me provide it for you :


Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay... Let's imagine that somewhere in the future, a 'movement' begins to stamp out belief in Santa... millions and millions of people are slaughtered and killed for believing in Santa. This goes on for centuries, through generation after generation... how long do you suppose it would take for people to abandon the practice?
> 
> Now, the concept of Santa Claus only dates back a few hundred years to an actual person who really existed and the 'folk legend' has evolved from there. Even the most skeptical believers in evolution understand that attributes take many thousands of years to come and go through evolution, so with Santa, you're nowhere near that degree of time. Furthermore, there has to be some vital survival interest at stake for the species, and there has never been any harmful aspect to the species for belief in Santa.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are aware that evolution, in the physical, biologic use of the word, has little if anything to do with folk legends, aren't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well yes, but biological behaviors are part of biology, aren't they? YOU were the one who introduced a folk legend, not me. I simply explained why your example didn't apply to what I had said about biological behaviors and evolution. Now you want to somehow twist around your illogical example and pretend I brought it up. Dishonesty at it's best.
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't made such a comparisson. You are now conflating species evolution with natural selection. Spirituality is a behavioral characteristic of our species. It's not "changing beliefs" but an ever-present characteristic of our human behavior as a species, which has been present since the beginning. Religious beliefs have changed, but that isn't spirituality itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not all attributes take many thousands of years to come and go, you realize that, don't you?  Just look at the changes in technology, medicine, philosophy, etc. since the Industrial Revolution!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not talking about behavioral attributes anymore. Now you are talking about ideas and knowledge. Yes, those change very rapidly in our species, mostly due to inspiration derived from spirituality. This is why we are sending men to the moon and exploring our universe and not swinging from tree to tree and fighting great apes for survival.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no reason ideas, even if they are generally accepted, must have some vital interest for our species.
> 
> You are conflating things that are not the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well no, there's not, and I never argued there was. You twisted and distorted what I said and misinterpreted it deliberately because you think that's a clever thing to do.
> 
> *Darwin's natural selection says that species discard unimportant attributes which are detrimental to the species over time. Religious persecution, or the persecution of what spirituality manifests itself as, has certainly been detrimental to survival. Therefore, if Darwin was right, spirituality must have some important value to humans, else we would have discarded the behavioral attribute long ago.*
Click to expand...


Take a look at that last paragraph.  I put it in bold in case you have some trouble understand which one I mean.

In that paragraph, you start by saying natural selection says species discard detrimental attributes.  The very next sentence you describe religious persecution as detrimental.  If you do not see how your very words should lead to the conclusion that religious persecution should have been discarded, I think *you* are the ass clown.

Or did you intentionally put a misleading point about religious persecution in the same paragraph, directly after a statement about natural selection?  Were you trying to conceal or confuse your point?  Ass clown.

Or were you unable to realize that making the statement about natural selection and immediately following it with the statement about religious prosecution, using the same terms, would connect the two statements?  Ass clown.

Just because everything boils down to spirituality for you doesn't make that true for anyone else.  So when you describe religious persecution as detrimental, not everyone will assume you are trying to point out spirituality is not detrimental.


----------



## MrMax

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where the fuck did I argue it had, ass clown???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin's natural selection says that species discard unimportant attributes which are detrimental to the species over time. Religious persecution, or the persecution of what spirituality manifests itself as, has certainly been detrimental to survival. Therefore, if Darwin was right, spirituality must have some important value to humans, else we would have discarded the behavioral attribute long ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If religious persecution is so detrimental to the survival of our species, how has our species survived and continued to thrive despite religious persecution being around throughout our history?
> 
> Queue claims of distortion.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the attribute of human spirituality is far more important and fundamental to the survival of the species than it has been a detriment to survival.
Click to expand...


Link? Proof? Anything but your own fartsmoke?


----------



## MrMax

Boss said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> No link between spirituality and knowing right from wrong has been shown in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well actually, it has. The first thing to remember is that you tend to lie a lot. So we can't take your word on anything. If a curious mind is interested in discovering the truth, they can review the thread and my previous posts, where I did explain the link between spirituality and knowing right from wrong. But this has become a common tactic here, I will make a point to one poster, then another will drag the topic off into a superfluous argument over nonsense for several pages, then the original poster reemerges to proclaim a point was never made. I suppose the justification is, you are betting most people are too lazy to actually go back and read through 3-4 pages of nonsense to find the making of the original point. And perhaps you are correct?
> 
> The question of the relationship between spirituality and knowing right from wrong is essentially the same as a question of the relationship between a peach and a peach tree. Now one could argue that a peach is much different than a peach tree, and surely anyone can see one is a fruit while the other is a tree, so they are clearly unrelated. While this is true, there is still a correlation and relational connection. The peach couldn't exist without the peach tree. Our knowing right from wrong cannot exist without spirituality.
> 
> _Oh, but Boss, now you are saying that non-spiritual people can't be moral!_ Not what I am saying at all. We are all spiritual people, even the Atheists and Nihilists. You see, it is hard-wired into us and part of our DNA as human beings. Our spirituality resides in the third neural sector of the brain and geneticists believe we may even have a 'spiritual gene' but research is still relatively new. Of course, some people prefer not to use that part of their brain or act upon their spirituality, but it exists in every human whether we like it or not.
> 
> Morality, as it pertains to the knowing of right and wrong, always has metaphysical justification. This is as true for an Atheist as it is for a Christian. Atheists will explain their morality as being a consideration of mutually beneficial cooperation among others. But this is a metaphysical consideration. It is determined by a sense of being and purpose, which in essence, is what our spirituality is. Morality becomes our understanding of something more important than our self interests, more important than self. Again, our spirituality.
> 
> I could actually write volumes more on the topic because it is complex and complicated, but suffice it to say, I have offered clear evidence to connect spirituality with knowing right from wrong. At least to those who have a brain. Not much I can offer to those who lack a brain.
Click to expand...

You have proven no such link, just your own inflated opinion. Over and over again.


----------



## Boss

> Take a look at that last paragraph. I put it in bold in case you have some trouble understand which one I mean.
> 
> In that paragraph, you start by saying natural selection says species discard detrimental attributes. The very next sentence you describe religious persecution as detrimental. If you do not see how your very words should lead to the conclusion that religious persecution should have been discarded.



No, I did not say species discard detrimental attributes. 

*Species discard unimportant attributes which are detrimental to the species over time.*

Very important word is underlined for you here. 

Persecution is not an attribute, it is an action. To understand how natural selection works, it's vitally important to understand the difference between attributes and actions, they are not the same thing. If actions were discarded, there wouldn't be any 'natural selection' needed. The "less fit" would be equal to the "more fit" because the "more fit" would discard their action of killing off the "less fit" for the sake of species preservation. That obviously is not the case with "survival of the fittest". 

What you are doing is confusing an action with an attribute, and I am not sure whether this is because you are just plain dumb and don't comprehend the difference, or you are dishonest and want to try and establish a dishonest point.


----------



## Boss

MrMax said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> If religious persecution is so detrimental to the survival of our species, how has our species survived and continued to thrive despite religious persecution being around throughout our history?
> 
> Queue claims of distortion.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the attribute of human spirituality is far more important and fundamental to the survival of the species than it has been a detriment to survival.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link? Proof? Anything but your own fartsmoke?
Click to expand...


[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Origin-Species-Charles-Darwin/dp/1619491303/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1396199595&sr=1-3&keywords=the+origin+of+species+darwin]On the Origin of Species: Charles Darwin: 9781619491304: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]


----------



## Boss

MrMax said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> No link between spirituality and knowing right from wrong has been shown in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well actually, it has. The first thing to remember is that you tend to lie a lot. So we can't take your word on anything. If a curious mind is interested in discovering the truth, they can review the thread and my previous posts, where I did explain the link between spirituality and knowing right from wrong. But this has become a common tactic here, I will make a point to one poster, then another will drag the topic off into a superfluous argument over nonsense for several pages, then the original poster reemerges to proclaim a point was never made. I suppose the justification is, you are betting most people are too lazy to actually go back and read through 3-4 pages of nonsense to find the making of the original point. And perhaps you are correct?
> 
> The question of the relationship between spirituality and knowing right from wrong is essentially the same as a question of the relationship between a peach and a peach tree. Now one could argue that a peach is much different than a peach tree, and surely anyone can see one is a fruit while the other is a tree, so they are clearly unrelated. While this is true, there is still a correlation and relational connection. The peach couldn't exist without the peach tree. Our knowing right from wrong cannot exist without spirituality.
> 
> _Oh, but Boss, now you are saying that non-spiritual people can't be moral!_ Not what I am saying at all. We are all spiritual people, even the Atheists and Nihilists. You see, it is hard-wired into us and part of our DNA as human beings. Our spirituality resides in the third neural sector of the brain and geneticists believe we may even have a 'spiritual gene' but research is still relatively new. Of course, some people prefer not to use that part of their brain or act upon their spirituality, but it exists in every human whether we like it or not.
> 
> Morality, as it pertains to the knowing of right and wrong, always has metaphysical justification. This is as true for an Atheist as it is for a Christian. Atheists will explain their morality as being a consideration of mutually beneficial cooperation among others. But this is a metaphysical consideration. It is determined by a sense of being and purpose, which in essence, is what our spirituality is. Morality becomes our understanding of something more important than our self interests, more important than self. Again, our spirituality.
> 
> I could actually write volumes more on the topic because it is complex and complicated, but suffice it to say, I have offered clear evidence to connect spirituality with knowing right from wrong. At least to those who have a brain. Not much I can offer to those who lack a brain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have proven no such link, just your own inflated opinion. Over and over again.
Click to expand...


You keep demanding things be "proven" and nothing can be "proven" including reality. I did present the evidence, and you've not refuted my evidence. If you do not want to accept my evidence, there's nothing I can do about that, but it's there. Lying and claiming it's not there is kind of silly, since people can read the words on the page. But whatever.


----------



## MrMax

Boss said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well actually, it has. The first thing to remember is that you tend to lie a lot. So we can't take your word on anything. If a curious mind is interested in discovering the truth, they can review the thread and my previous posts, where I did explain the link between spirituality and knowing right from wrong. But this has become a common tactic here, I will make a point to one poster, then another will drag the topic off into a superfluous argument over nonsense for several pages, then the original poster reemerges to proclaim a point was never made. I suppose the justification is, you are betting most people are too lazy to actually go back and read through 3-4 pages of nonsense to find the making of the original point. And perhaps you are correct?
> 
> The question of the relationship between spirituality and knowing right from wrong is essentially the same as a question of the relationship between a peach and a peach tree. Now one could argue that a peach is much different than a peach tree, and surely anyone can see one is a fruit while the other is a tree, so they are clearly unrelated. While this is true, there is still a correlation and relational connection. The peach couldn't exist without the peach tree. Our knowing right from wrong cannot exist without spirituality.
> 
> _Oh, but Boss, now you are saying that non-spiritual people can't be moral!_ Not what I am saying at all. We are all spiritual people, even the Atheists and Nihilists. You see, it is hard-wired into us and part of our DNA as human beings. Our spirituality resides in the third neural sector of the brain and geneticists believe we may even have a 'spiritual gene' but research is still relatively new. Of course, some people prefer not to use that part of their brain or act upon their spirituality, but it exists in every human whether we like it or not.
> 
> Morality, as it pertains to the knowing of right and wrong, always has metaphysical justification. This is as true for an Atheist as it is for a Christian. Atheists will explain their morality as being a consideration of mutually beneficial cooperation among others. But this is a metaphysical consideration. It is determined by a sense of being and purpose, which in essence, is what our spirituality is. Morality becomes our understanding of something more important than our self interests, more important than self. Again, our spirituality.
> 
> I could actually write volumes more on the topic because it is complex and complicated, but suffice it to say, I have offered clear evidence to connect spirituality with knowing right from wrong. At least to those who have a brain. Not much I can offer to those who lack a brain.
> 
> 
> 
> You have proven no such link, just your own inflated opinion. Over and over again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep demanding things be "proven" and nothing can be "proven" including reality. I did present the evidence, and you've not refuted my evidence. If you do not want to accept my evidence, there's nothing I can do about that, but it's there. Lying and claiming it's not there is kind of silly, since people can read the words on the page. But whatever.
Click to expand...


As long as you admit that you can't prove the connection, that's good enough for me.


----------



## Boss

MrMax said:


> As long as you admit that you can't prove the connection, that's good enough for me.



Good for you, but what you originally said was a lie.

*No link between spirituality and knowing right from wrong has been shown in this thread.*

It has been shown. Proven? ...Nothing is ever proven. 
If you believe something is "proven" you have what is called "FAITH." 

That's good enough for me.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Take a look at that last paragraph. I put it in bold in case you have some trouble understand which one I mean.
> 
> In that paragraph, you start by saying natural selection says species discard detrimental attributes. The very next sentence you describe religious persecution as detrimental. If you do not see how your very words should lead to the conclusion that religious persecution should have been discarded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I did not say species discard detrimental attributes.
> 
> *Species discard unimportant attributes which are detrimental to the species over time.*
> 
> Very important word is underlined for you here.
> 
> Persecution is not an attribute, it is an action. To understand how natural selection works, it's vitally important to understand the difference between attributes and actions, they are not the same thing. If actions were discarded, there wouldn't be any 'natural selection' needed. The "less fit" would be equal to the "more fit" because the "more fit" would discard their action of killing off the "less fit" for the sake of species preservation. That obviously is not the case with "survival of the fittest".
> 
> What you are doing is confusing an action with an attribute, and I am not sure whether this is because you are just plain dumb and don't comprehend the difference, or you are dishonest and want to try and establish a dishonest point.
Click to expand...


If an attribute is unimportant, how can it be detrimental?  That would make it important.  

Persecution is certainly an action.  What I have tried to point out to you is that when you describe natural selection as removing detrimental attributes (yes, you said unimportant attributes, but then described them as being detrimental over time) and then immediately describe religious persecution as detrimental, you are connecting the two statements.  Perhaps it was unintentional, but there we are.

Belief is action.  This is true of spiritual belief or religious belief.  Now I realize you think there is an inherent spiritual nature in humans, but believing is as much an action as persecution.  So again we come to the question of just what, exactly, you are saying human spiritual nature actually is.  If it is an attribute, not an action, then you are not saying it is belief in something greater than one's self unless you are trying to claim that believing something is not an action.

Oh, and natural selection certainly could result in actions being discarded, if indirectly : if an animal with a particular instinct, say to attack other members of the same species that intrude on it's territory, were less able to survive and reproduce than others of the same species that didn't have that instinct, that instinct could be weeded out, leading to that action no longer occurring.  

It is not the same with humans, however, as we have found many ways around things which would likely be weeded out of other species; and, of course, we rely very little on instinct, which leads to more unpredictability.


----------



## MrMax

Boss said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> As long as you admit that you can't prove the connection, that's good enough for me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good for you, but what you originally said was a lie.
> 
> *No link between spirituality and knowing right from wrong has been shown in this thread.*
> 
> It has been shown. Proven? ...Nothing is ever proven.
> If you believe something is "proven" you have what is called "FAITH."
> 
> That's good enough for me.
Click to expand...


You admit that you haven't shown the connection with anything provable. Which PROVES that you're a fucking BIGTIME noob. 
See? Some things can be proven.


----------



## mamooth

Boss said:


> BAM! ...Refuted!Next?



So showing the peacock's tail is a handicap, and thus confirming my point, is a refutation? The handicap theory doesn't save you, since there are far more efficient ways to telegraph health status than incredibly ornate sexual characteristics.

Anyways, you certainly are a legend in your own mind. Too bad everyone is just laughing.

Again, evolution does not say that only things beneficial to a species get passed down, or that it always moves towards what benefits a species. If that was the case, every species would be moving towards a 10% male and 90% female balance, being that such a balance would be far more beneficial to the species. 

Evolution is mainly gene-centered, as opposed to individual or species centered. Genes that get passed on are the ones that optimize the survival of that gene. Genes have no problem reducing survival probabilities of an organism or species, so long as the odds of the gene surviving increase. A 50% male ratio gene is detrimental to the species, but it's beneficial to the gene itself, so the gene survives.

And in the same way, the meme of spirituality could survive even if it was detrimental to the species, so long as it was beneficial to itself.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where the fuck did I argue it had, ass clown???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin's natural selection says that species discard unimportant attributes which are detrimental to the species over time. Religious persecution, or the persecution of what spirituality manifests itself as, has certainly been detrimental to survival. Therefore, if Darwin was right, spirituality must have some important value to humans, else we would have discarded the behavioral attribute long ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If religious persecution is so detrimental to the survival of our species, how has our species survived and continued to thrive despite religious persecution being around throughout our history?
> 
> Queue claims of distortion.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the attribute of human spirituality is far more important and fundamental to the survival of the species than it has been a detriment to survival.
Click to expand...

If human spirituality is so important and necessary for the continuation of the human species, and you are the self proclaimed exemplar of this phenomenon that has personally connected with this spirit that you call god for lack of a better word, why are you so arrogant, angry, defensive and childishly crude? Are these the traits that will extend the human family, or the very things that will hasten its demise?
What positive attributes has your spirituality encouraged in you that you choose to keep such a secret?


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Take a look at that last paragraph. I put it in bold in case you have some trouble understand which one I mean.
> 
> In that paragraph, you start by saying natural selection says species discard detrimental attributes. The very next sentence you describe religious persecution as detrimental. If you do not see how your very words should lead to the conclusion that religious persecution should have been discarded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I did not say species discard detrimental attributes.
> 
> *Species discard unimportant attributes which are detrimental to the species over time.*
> 
> Very important word is underlined for you here.
> 
> Persecution is not an attribute, it is an action. To understand how natural selection works, it's vitally important to understand the difference between attributes and actions, they are not the same thing. If actions were discarded, there wouldn't be any 'natural selection' needed. The "less fit" would be equal to the "more fit" because the "more fit" would discard their action of killing off the "less fit" for the sake of species preservation. That obviously is not the case with "survival of the fittest".
> 
> What you are doing is confusing an action with an attribute, and I am not sure whether this is because you are just plain dumb and don't comprehend the difference, or you are dishonest and want to try and establish a dishonest point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If an attribute is unimportant, how can it be detrimental?  That would make it important.
> 
> Persecution is certainly an action.  What I have tried to point out to you is that when you describe natural selection as removing detrimental attributes (yes, you said unimportant attributes, but then described them as being detrimental over time) and then immediately describe religious persecution as detrimental, you are connecting the two statements.  Perhaps it was unintentional, but there we are.
> 
> Belief is action.  This is true of spiritual belief or religious belief.  Now I realize you think there is an inherent spiritual nature in humans, but believing is as much an action as persecution.  So again we come to the question of just what, exactly, you are saying human spiritual nature actually is.  If it is an attribute, not an action, then you are not saying it is belief in something greater than one's self unless you are trying to claim that believing something is not an action.
> 
> Oh, and natural selection certainly could result in actions being discarded, if indirectly : if an animal with a particular instinct, say to attack other members of the same species that intrude on it's territory, were less able to survive and reproduce than others of the same species that didn't have that instinct, that instinct could be weeded out, leading to that action no longer occurring.
> 
> It is not the same with humans, however, as we have found many ways around things which would likely be weeded out of other species; and, of course, we rely very little on instinct, which leads to more unpredictability.
Click to expand...


Okay, now you are again trying to play "Word Salad" and I've told you I don't play that game. I realize you think this is a clever way to argue, but it's simply a dishonest way to pump your own ego. 

*If an attribute is unimportant, how can it be detrimental?*

Because one has nothing to do with the other, unless you wish to twist and distort context and make that be the case so you can show people what an ass clown you are. Attributes can most certainly be unimportant to a species and detrimental to survival at the same time. It's the opposite of being important to a species and conducive with survival. 

*Belief is action.*

Nope. Belief does not require any action. It's also not an attribute. It is faith. Spirituality is an attribute. It appears you are profoundly dumb, if you can't discern the differences in these things.  

*Oh, and natural selection certainly could result in actions being discarded, if indirectly...*

I never claimed they couldn't. Actions are often the result of an attribute. More "Word Salad" from the ass clown. 

*of course, we rely very little on instinct...*

Because of our attribute of spirituality.


----------



## Boss

mamooth said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> BAM! ...Refuted!Next?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So showing the peacock's tail is a handicap, and thus confirming my point, is a refutation? The handicap theory doesn't save you, since there are far more efficient ways to telegraph health status than incredibly ornate sexual characteristics.
> 
> Anyways, you certainly are a legend in your own mind. Too bad everyone is just laughing.
> 
> Again, evolution does not say that only things beneficial to a species get passed down, or that it always moves towards what benefits a species. If that was the case, every species would be moving towards a 10% male and 90% female balance, being that such a balance would be far more beneficial to the species.
> 
> Evolution is mainly gene-centered, as opposed to individual or species centered. Genes that get passed on are the ones that optimize the survival of that gene. Genes have no problem reducing survival probabilities of an organism or species, so long as the odds of the gene surviving increase. A 50% male ratio gene is detrimental to the species, but it's beneficial to the gene itself, so the gene survives.
> 
> And in the same way, the meme of spirituality could survive even if it was detrimental to the species, so long as it was beneficial to itself.
Click to expand...


*So showing the peacock's tail is a handicap, and thus confirming my point, is a refutation?*

Sorry, but that isn't what the link I posted shows. That was your claim, but the evidence from those who have studied it find you to be wrong. The tail might be detrimental, but it is also important for reproduction. Only a moron would think reproduction is not important to survival of a species. 

*Again, evolution does not say that only things beneficial to a species get passed down, or that it always moves towards what benefits a species.*

Again, I did not say this and it's not my argument. Darwin says that things unimportant to a species and detrimental to survival of the species, are discarded over time. Anyone who has read _Origin of the Species_ should understand this, it's the cornerstone of natural selection. 

*And in the same way, the meme of spirituality could survive even if it was detrimental to the species, so long as it was beneficial to itself.*

So now you are applying the characteristics of a gene to something you define as a "meme."  That's pretty fucking bold. Spirituality is a behavioral attribute, and although it has historically been detrimental to the species in many ways (religious persecution) it remains an important fundamental part of who we are, therefore it is retained. If it were unimportant and served no value (a meme) then it would have been discarded, according to Darwin's theory.


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> If religious persecution is so detrimental to the survival of our species, how has our species survived and continued to thrive despite religious persecution being around throughout our history?
> 
> Queue claims of distortion.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the attribute of human spirituality is far more important and fundamental to the survival of the species than it has been a detriment to survival.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If human spirituality is so important and necessary for the continuation of the human species, and you are the self proclaimed exemplar of this phenomenon that has personally connected with this spirit that you call god for lack of a better word, why are you so arrogant, angry, defensive and childishly crude? Are these the traits that will extend the human family, or the very things that will hasten its demise?
> What positive attributes has your spirituality encouraged in you that you choose to keep such a secret?
Click to expand...


You know nothing about me other than what is posted here. I respond to people in this forum with a reciprocation of what they give. If you are respectful and courteous to me, you will get the same in return. If you are hostile and crude, that's what you're going to get as well. You've decided to be a royal jerk to me, so I've decided to be one right back to you. That's how that works. 

Now I've always been fascinated by this little "guilt trip" game people like you want to play with those of faith. It's as if you believe you can be as nasty and crude as you please, and we're just supposed to "do as Jesus" and turn the other cheek. But the thing about me is, I don't subscribe to Christianity, so there is no "guilt" in me being just as nasty and crude as you. My God doesn't punish me for that or care that I am that way toward you on the Internet. 

On the other hand, if I were to run across you in real life out on the street, and you were in distress and need of help, I would do whatever I could to help you. Even if I knew who you were. I would put my own safety at risk to save you, and never give a thought to how you've treated me here. But I am willing to bet that you would never do the same for me.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I did not say species discard detrimental attributes.
> 
> *Species discard unimportant attributes which are detrimental to the species over time.*
> 
> Very important word is underlined for you here.
> 
> Persecution is not an attribute, it is an action. To understand how natural selection works, it's vitally important to understand the difference between attributes and actions, they are not the same thing. If actions were discarded, there wouldn't be any 'natural selection' needed. The "less fit" would be equal to the "more fit" because the "more fit" would discard their action of killing off the "less fit" for the sake of species preservation. That obviously is not the case with "survival of the fittest".
> 
> What you are doing is confusing an action with an attribute, and I am not sure whether this is because you are just plain dumb and don't comprehend the difference, or you are dishonest and want to try and establish a dishonest point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If an attribute is unimportant, how can it be detrimental?  That would make it important.
> 
> Persecution is certainly an action.  What I have tried to point out to you is that when you describe natural selection as removing detrimental attributes (yes, you said unimportant attributes, but then described them as being detrimental over time) and then immediately describe religious persecution as detrimental, you are connecting the two statements.  Perhaps it was unintentional, but there we are.
> 
> Belief is action.  This is true of spiritual belief or religious belief.  Now I realize you think there is an inherent spiritual nature in humans, but believing is as much an action as persecution.  So again we come to the question of just what, exactly, you are saying human spiritual nature actually is.  If it is an attribute, not an action, then you are not saying it is belief in something greater than one's self unless you are trying to claim that believing something is not an action.
> 
> Oh, and natural selection certainly could result in actions being discarded, if indirectly : if an animal with a particular instinct, say to attack other members of the same species that intrude on it's territory, were less able to survive and reproduce than others of the same species that didn't have that instinct, that instinct could be weeded out, leading to that action no longer occurring.
> 
> It is not the same with humans, however, as we have found many ways around things which would likely be weeded out of other species; and, of course, we rely very little on instinct, which leads to more unpredictability.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, now you are again trying to play "Word Salad" and I've told you I don't play that game. I realize you think this is a clever way to argue, but it's simply a dishonest way to pump your own ego.
> 
> *If an attribute is unimportant, how can it be detrimental?*
> 
> Because one has nothing to do with the other, unless you wish to twist and distort context and make that be the case so you can show people what an ass clown you are. Attributes can most certainly be unimportant to a species and detrimental to survival at the same time. It's the opposite of being important to a species and conducive with survival.
> 
> *Belief is action.*
> 
> Nope. Belief does not require any action. It's also not an attribute. It is faith. Spirituality is an attribute. It appears you are profoundly dumb, if you can't discern the differences in these things.
> 
> *Oh, and natural selection certainly could result in actions being discarded, if indirectly...*
> 
> I never claimed they couldn't. Actions are often the result of an attribute. More "Word Salad" from the ass clown.
> 
> *of course, we rely very little on instinct...*
> 
> Because of our attribute of spirituality.
Click to expand...


Sorry, 'word salad' is your forte.  

Important does not mean good or positive.  You are the one who seems to be making that distinction.  If an attribute is detrimental to the survival of a species, it is not unimportant.  To give an individual analogy, if someone were to threaten you with a gun to your head, that could be detrimental to your survival.  Would you say it is unimportant?  I think perhaps you would be better served saying unnecessary.

To believe is an action.  It is something you do.  It is a verb, generally denoting action.  The belief itself is not an action, but believing in something is.

You said this, "To understand how natural selection works, it's vitally important to understand the difference between attributes and actions, they are not the same thing. If actions were discarded, there wouldn't be any 'natural selection' needed.".  According to that, actions are not discarded because then there wouldn't be any natural selection needed.  That's what I was commenting on.

And once again, back to the non-physical, not objectively observable, ill-defined spirituality responsible for everything that makes humans unique from other animals.  Yet you try to use Darwin to provide evidence of spirituality's necessity.  I wonder, was Origin of Species based heavily on metaphysics?


----------



## JakeStarkey

*Why do the God-haters persist? *

The Ruler of the Universe wields the scepter of judgment over you, Boss.

This is the Lenten Season.  Read the Gospels again, humble yourself, and repent before your God.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the attribute of human spirituality is far more important and fundamental to the survival of the species than it has been a detriment to survival.
> 
> 
> 
> If human spirituality is so important and necessary for the continuation of the human species, and you are the self proclaimed exemplar of this phenomenon that has personally connected with this spirit that you call god for lack of a better word, why are you so arrogant, angry, defensive and childishly crude? Are these the traits that will extend the human family, or the very things that will hasten its demise?
> What positive attributes has your spirituality encouraged in you that you choose to keep such a secret?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know nothing about me other than what is posted here. I respond to people in this forum with a reciprocation of what they give. If you are respectful and courteous to me, you will get the same in return. If you are hostile and crude, that's what you're going to get as well. You've decided to be a royal jerk to me, so I've decided to be one right back to you. That's how that works.
> 
> Now I've always been fascinated by this little "guilt trip" game people like you want to play with those of faith. It's as if you believe you can be as nasty and crude as you please, and we're just supposed to "do as Jesus" and turn the other cheek. But the thing about me is, I don't subscribe to Christianity, so there is no "guilt" in me being just as nasty and crude as you. My God doesn't punish me for that or care that I am that way toward you on the Internet.
> 
> On the other hand, if I were to run across you in real life out on the street, and you were in distress and need of help, I would do whatever I could to help you. Even if I knew who you were. I would put my own safety at risk to save you, and never give a thought to how you've treated me here. But I am willing to bet that you would never do the same for me.
Click to expand...


You're right. All I have to go on is your online persona. It's atrocious.
You are not returning "in kind". Find a post of mine where I have addressed you in the humiliating way you choose to address others.
I'll wait.
Assumptions of how others might be in the real world and grandiose statements about your magnanimity out there are more of the same self-aggrandizement people have come to expect from you.


----------



## MaryL

Vapid post aside...Why do  GOD Lovers persist? My last posts on this thread were in jest. But now I am serious. Why does  anyone take religion seriously ?  Religions are artificial concepts without a shred of proof.  It is blind unprovable reckless   FAITH.  Like gambling, I think there is a corollary here. To keep your head, whilst those among you are losing theirs&#8230; Gambling  with you lives and  future with nothing more than intuition&#8230;.or whatever faith is.  Einstein said that god doesn&#8217;t gamble.  Certainty. Unambiguous  truths.  Yet, the universe is rife with contradictions. Waves or particles. Two places at once. Duality , Spooky actions at a distance&#8230;weird stuff.  It&#8217;s easier to believe in god&#8217;s will, and pretend there is rhyme and reason to all this.


----------



## JakeStarkey

MaryL, simply serve your fellow man every day in every way and you will find true "religion".


----------



## BreezeWood

JakeStarkey said:


> *Why do the God-haters persist? *
> 
> The Ruler of the Universe wields the scepter of judgment over you, Boss.
> 
> This is the Lenten Season.  *Read the Gospels again*, humble yourself, and repent before your God.




*Read the Gospels again ...*


what would there be to repent if one is sinless, reading gospels is not required ... turning the "book" on who is the God hater though is a feather in your cap.


... the scepter of judgment


----------



## Boss

> turning the "book" on who is the God hater though is a feather in your cap.



The thread is nearly 800 posts long now, and well over half are from people who hate God. I think my point has been proven in spades. You pretending I am a God-hater is amusing, much like a monkey doing tricks is amusing.


----------



## Boss

MaryL said:


> Vapid post aside...Why do  GOD Lovers persist? My last posts on this thread were in jest. But now I am serious. Why does  anyone take religion seriously ?  Religions are artificial concepts without a shred of proof.  It is blind unprovable reckless   FAITH.  Like gambling, I think there is a corollary here. To keep your head, whilst those among you are losing theirs Gambling  with you lives and  future with nothing more than intuition.or whatever faith is.  Einstein said that god doesnt gamble. Yet, the universe is rife with contradictions. Waves or particles. Two places at once. Duality , Spooky actions at a distanceweird stuff.  Its easier to believe in gods will, and pretend there is rhyme and reason to all this.



Those who are spiritual have always persisted. This is why I find it interesting that in our modern times, there seem to be this contingent of people who actually think they can destroy spirituality. I mean, that can be their only logical intent, correct? Let's shame people and ridicule them so much that they abandon this silliness and move on... that's the idea, right? 

Yet man has been around for what? 100k~200k years? We've always been spiritual creatures, always worshiping something greater than self. Many have come and gone who tried their damndest to stomp spirituality out of the hearts of man but failed. They've killed and persecuted millions of people in their efforts, but human spirituality is as strong as ever. I hardly think a handful of punks on a message board are going to make a difference.

I don't know whether the God-haters have convinced themselves that spirituality is some kind of pop culture fad that hasn't been around that long, and they can "out-cool" it by continuing to "thank" each other's posts on a forum, or keep beating their drums of protest, or if they actually believe they can accomplish what has never been done before. It's intriguing to me. 

I can totally relate to your sentiments on religion. I see the evidence that a good deal of religion is misguided and detrimental to mankind. The Islamic religion, for example. Where women are castigated and treated like shit, homosexuals are stoned to death, racism and hate rule the day in a culture of death... none of it good for mankind. Even in some sects of Christianity, the Westboro Baptists, Jim Jones, Heavens Gate... we see religion perverted and distorted for all kinds of self-serving interests. But religion and spiritual connection are not necessarily the same thing, and it's a grave error in personal judgement to assume they are. Spiritual nature is real and humans connect to it, always have, always will.


----------



## BreezeWood

Boss said:


> turning the "book" on who is the God hater though is a feather in your cap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The thread is nearly 800 posts long now, and well over half are from people who hate God.* I think my point has been proven in spades.* You pretending I am a God-hater is amusing, much like a monkey doing tricks is amusing.
Click to expand...



it is interpretive who is the God "hater" ...


* I think my point has been proven in spades.*

liest they who judge themselves - the Orchid will have its say.

.


----------



## JakeStarkey

BreezeWood said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Why do the God-haters persist? *
> 
> The Ruler of the Universe wields the scepter of judgment over you, Boss.
> 
> This is the Lenten Season.  *Read the Gospels again*, humble yourself, and repent before your God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Read the Gospels again ...*
> what would there be to repent if one is sinless, reading gospels is not required ... turning the "book" on who is the God hater though is a feather in your cap.  ... the scepter of judgment
Click to expand...


No one is sinless.  Reading the Gospels will lead Boss to reconsider his judgment on others during this Lenten Season and remind others of the purpose of this season.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Boss said:


> turning the "book" on who is the God hater though is a feather in your cap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The thread is nearly 800 posts long now, and well over half are from people who hate God. I think my point has been proven in spades. You pretending I am a God-hater is amusing, much like a monkey doing tricks is amusing.
Click to expand...


The obvious point is that you have no right to judge others or to decide who is a God hater.

That is above your pay grade.


----------



## Boss

JakeStarkey said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turning the "book" on who is the God hater though is a feather in your cap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The thread is nearly 800 posts long now, and well over half are from people who hate God. I think my point has been proven in spades. You pretending I am a God-hater is amusing, much like a monkey doing tricks is amusing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The obvious point is that you have no right to judge others or to decide who is a God hater.
> 
> That is above your pay grade.
Click to expand...


Wow, you sound offended, Starsky. 

I judge you to be a fucktard, and for Lent... maybe I will give up commenting to morons?


----------



## daws101

Montrovant said:


> Boss, you did not say a person has to believe a thing is possible.  Let me give you a couple of quotes.
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it isn't. It's very cool compared to lava.
> 
> There is testable evidence to prove spirituality. You have to first accept that spiritual nature exists and is real. Once you can do that, it's very easy to test and confirm it... billions and billions have done so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note you said that a person must first accept that spiritual nature is real before there can be any kind of testing.
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, no hard head, it is not. Things aren't "anecdotal" simply because you've proclaimed them to be. I'm sorry that you feel someone bestowed the gift of rationality upon you alone, and only you get to decide these things. I assure you, everyone who believes in God doesn't share your opinion the evidence is anecdotal. That is your opinion and you are entitled to it, but you can't infer your opinion on everyone else. Sorry!
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, but indeed I did provide it, and you rejected it as anecdotal. Wow you!
> 
> 
> 
> Well, yes it most certainly does change it. Nearly doesn't equate to every, not in any fucking dictionary I've ever encountered. So it completely changes the meaning of what was said, and you were completely dishonest about it, as you are continuing to be dishonest in claiming it doesn't change anything. We can see by this that you are not an honest person, you lie and when you're caught lying, you lie some more to cover up the first lie. This is probably because you lack a true moral compass, which is caused by your lack of a spiritual connection.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, no I didn't do that. Again, you simply feel compelled to lie. I've attributed nothing unexplained to anyone's belief in God. In fact, I said quite the opposite. If someone believes spirituality explains anything, they are as irrational and misguided as someone who claims science explains everything.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep... Like the power of God or Spiritual Nature.
> 
> 
> 
> *No, my argument doesn't "suggest" anything, my argument clearly states the truth. It's impossible to believe something as proof if you don't believe in what it proves. I asked you for an example to contradict this, and you failed to present one.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *You think belief comes first. I think the proof does.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *But it doesn't, and you can't support your argument with an example. Show me one thing that you accept as "proof" that you don't believe in the thing it proves. Just one! You must first believe whatever it is the "proof" is supposed to prove.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I put the relevant sections in bold with this.
> 
> Maybe this is just a product of miscommunication.  However, you have argued that a person must believe in something before they can do any testing to confirm it's existence and that belief comes before proof.
> 
> I'll grant that proof and evidence are not the same, so that may well be a semantics issue.
> 
> I can only guess that what you mean to say is that a person won't believe in something unless the proof they are given is something they can accept.  That isn't quite the same as saying a person must believe before they are given proof.
Click to expand...

proof is mathematical term. all uses of the the term are a lazy way of saying evidence...


----------



## Boss

> proof is mathematical term. all uses of the the term are a lazy way of saying evidence...



Nope. Evidence is subjective to reasoning. You can believe something is evidence that is not evidence. You can value evidence more than I value the same evidence. You can think evidence is weak and I can think it's strong. I can believe evidence is conclusive and proves, while you think the exact same evidence isn't even evidence. 

Proof is not mathematics. Proof is also subjective. Proof happens when you have conclusive faith in evidence. You can think something is proven because you have faith in the evidence, I can think something is not proven because I lack faith in the very same evidence, or don't consider it valid as evidence at all. Nothing mathematical makes this happen, it is subjective to reason and faith. 

The mere fact that you don't seem to understand this, explains much of your problem. You have profound faith in your evidence as fact, and you reject anything you do not wish to accept as "invalid" evidence. You believe so faithfully in your evidence that it "proves" things to you. This becomes your truth, and nothing can dissuade your faith. Give yourself a funny hat and congregate, and you have a Religion!


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> proof is mathematical term. all uses of the the term are a lazy way of saying evidence...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Evidence is subjective to reasoning. You can believe something is evidence that is not evidence. You can value evidence more than I value the same evidence. You can think evidence is weak and I can think it's strong. I can believe evidence is conclusive and proves, while you think the exact same evidence isn't even evidence.
> 
> Proof is not mathematics. Proof is also subjective. Proof happens when you have conclusive faith in evidence. You can think something is proven because you have faith in the evidence, I can think something is not proven because I lack faith in the very same evidence, or don't consider it valid as evidence at all. Nothing mathematical makes this happen, it is subjective to reason and faith.
> 
> The mere fact that you don't seem to understand this, explains much of your problem. You have profound faith in your evidence as fact, and you reject anything you do not wish to accept as "invalid" evidence. You believe so faithfully in your evidence that it "proves" things to you. This becomes your truth, and nothing can dissuade your faith. Give yourself a funny hat and congregate, and you have a Religion!
Click to expand...


Couldn't this just as easily be applied to the evidence you claim? How you KNOW the truth of your spirituality? You have claimed this many times.
Pot/kettle.


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> proof is mathematical term. all uses of the the term are a lazy way of saying evidence...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope
Click to expand...

hey bossy 

vidence
According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, science is "knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws, especially as obtained and tested through scientific method." The core of the scientific method is using evidence to test theories. Evidence is specific observations of a given phenomenon. Galileo, the famed Italian scientist, was reputed to have collected evidence on gravitational forces by dropping balls from the top of the Tower of Pisa, timing how long they took to hit the ground. By analyzing this evidence, Galileo discovered that, disregarding air resistance, all objects accelerate at the same rate when falling. Galileo's experiment is a model example of the scientific method where theory is derived from observational evidence.

Proof
Proof exists when you can say that a statement or theory is absolutely true in all instances. Proof is a concept that is really only applicable in mathematics, because math deals with abstract concepts and definitions. The statement 1+1=2 is a true statement and will always remain true because the definitions of 1 and 2 never change. Definition statements and logic are used to create theorems, which are absolutely true or false.



Read more: What Is the Difference Between Proof & Evidence in Science? | eHow


all steaming pile rationalizing by boosy has been edit out.


----------



## daws101

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> proof is mathematical term. all uses of the the term are a lazy way of saying evidence...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Evidence is subjective to reasoning. You can believe something is evidence that is not evidence. You can value evidence more than I value the same evidence. You can think evidence is weak and I can think it's strong. I can believe evidence is conclusive and proves, while you think the exact same evidence isn't even evidence.
> 
> Proof is not mathematics. Proof is also subjective. Proof happens when you have conclusive faith in evidence. You can think something is proven because you have faith in the evidence, I can think something is not proven because I lack faith in the very same evidence, or don't consider it valid as evidence at all. Nothing mathematical makes this happen, it is subjective to reason and faith.
> 
> The mere fact that you don't seem to understand this, explains much of your problem. You have profound faith in your evidence as fact, and you reject anything you do not wish to accept as "invalid" evidence. You believe so faithfully in your evidence that it "proves" things to you. This becomes your truth, and nothing can dissuade your faith. Give yourself a funny hat and congregate, and you have a Religion!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Couldn't this just as easily be applied to the evidence you claim? How you KNOW the truth of your spirituality? You have claimed this many times.
> Pot/kettle.
Click to expand...

sometimes boosy forgets he's not a prophet and just a spewing anal orifice...


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> proof is mathematical term. all uses of the the term are a lazy way of saying evidence...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Evidence is subjective to reasoning. You can believe something is evidence that is not evidence. You can value evidence more than I value the same evidence. You can think evidence is weak and I can think it's strong. I can believe evidence is conclusive and proves, while you think the exact same evidence isn't even evidence.
> 
> Proof is not mathematics. Proof is also subjective. Proof happens when you have conclusive faith in evidence. You can think something is proven because you have faith in the evidence, I can think something is not proven because I lack faith in the very same evidence, or don't consider it valid as evidence at all. Nothing mathematical makes this happen, it is subjective to reason and faith.
> 
> The mere fact that you don't seem to understand this, explains much of your problem. You have profound faith in your evidence as fact, and you reject anything you do not wish to accept as "invalid" evidence. You believe so faithfully in your evidence that it "proves" things to you. This becomes your truth, and nothing can dissuade your faith. Give yourself a funny hat and congregate, and you have a Religion!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Couldn't this just as easily be applied to the evidence you claim? How you KNOW the truth of your spirituality? You have claimed this many times.
> Pot/kettle.
Click to expand...


Well, I know the truth because I experience it personally.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Evidence is subjective to reasoning. You can believe something is evidence that is not evidence. You can value evidence more than I value the same evidence. You can think evidence is weak and I can think it's strong. I can believe evidence is conclusive and proves, while you think the exact same evidence isn't even evidence.
> 
> Proof is not mathematics. Proof is also subjective. Proof happens when you have conclusive faith in evidence. You can think something is proven because you have faith in the evidence, I can think something is not proven because I lack faith in the very same evidence, or don't consider it valid as evidence at all. Nothing mathematical makes this happen, it is subjective to reason and faith.
> 
> The mere fact that you don't seem to understand this, explains much of your problem. You have profound faith in your evidence as fact, and you reject anything you do not wish to accept as "invalid" evidence. You believe so faithfully in your evidence that it "proves" things to you. This becomes your truth, and nothing can dissuade your faith. Give yourself a funny hat and congregate, and you have a Religion!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Couldn't this just as easily be applied to the evidence you claim? How you KNOW the truth of your spirituality? You have claimed this many times.
> Pot/kettle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I know the truth because I experience it personally.
Click to expand...


How would you share that as evidence to another?
How is that different from Son of Sam believing the dog was talking to him? He also would swear he experienced that personally.
That would be called anecdotal, but you don't believe that exists.


----------



## Boss

daws101 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> proof is mathematical term. all uses of the the term are a lazy way of saying evidence...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hey bossy
> 
> vidence
> According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, science is "knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws, especially as obtained and tested through scientific method." The core of the scientific method is using evidence to test theories. Evidence is specific observations of a given phenomenon. Galileo, the famed Italian scientist, was reputed to have collected evidence on gravitational forces by dropping balls from the top of the Tower of Pisa, timing how long they took to hit the ground. By analyzing this evidence, Galileo discovered that, disregarding air resistance, all objects accelerate at the same rate when falling. Galileo's experiment is a model example of the scientific method where theory is derived from observational evidence.
> 
> Proof
> Proof exists when you can say that a statement or theory is absolutely true in all instances. Proof is a concept that is really only applicable in mathematics, because math deals with abstract concepts and definitions. The statement 1+1=2 is a true statement and will always remain true because the definitions of 1 and 2 never change. Definition statements and logic are used to create theorems, which are absolutely true or false.
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: What Is the Difference Between Proof & Evidence in Science? | eHow
> 
> 
> all steaming pile rationalizing by boosy has been edit out.
Click to expand...


Evidence - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
ev·i·dence noun \&#712;e-v&#601;-d&#601;n(t)s, -v&#601;-&#716;den(t)s\
1a :  an outward sign :  *indication*

Proof - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
proof noun \&#712;prüf\
1a :  the cogency of evidence that *compels acceptance* by the mind of a truth or a fact.
1b :  the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning.

So Merriam sez "evidence" is an *indication* of something... I may or may not believe it. It is subjective to my acceptance as such. 

Proof is also subjective to my acceptance of the evidence, as I stated correctly.


----------



## Boss

What Is the Difference Between Proof & Evidence in Science? | eHow

Directly from YOUR link:

In popular scientific discourse, the unfortunate tendency is to use "proof" and "evidence" interchangeably. News stories refer to scientific experiments "proving" that some food has negative health consequences or that cellphones cause cancer. However, these experiments do not prove anything. They merely provide evidence that supports one theory or another while the theory itself cannot be proved or disproved.

------------------------------------------

Now, correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't this state clearly that evidence and proof are not interchangeable? That was your claim when you said: "all uses of the the term [proof] are a lazy way of saying evidence." Seems you are in total disagreement with your own link, dawsy.


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Couldn't this just as easily be applied to the evidence you claim? How you KNOW the truth of your spirituality? You have claimed this many times.
> Pot/kettle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I know the truth because I experience it personally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How would you share that as evidence to another?
> How is that different from Son of Sam believing the dog was talking to him? He also would swear he experienced that personally.
> That would be called anecdotal, but you don't believe that exists.
Click to expand...


First you asked me how I know something is true, then you come back with how I can share that evidence with others. These are two entirely different problems. The thing is, I can't show you evidence of something you do not acknowledge existence of because you reject my evidence. If I believe black holes cannot exist, there is no 'evidence' I will ever accept for their existence. You can show it to me, and I can reject it. I can say your equipment is flawed, it's some unexplained phenomena, there is some other undiscovered physical explanation, the data is incorrect or invalid... until I am willing to accept that black holes are a possibility, I can't accept your evidence. 

Such is the case for Spiritual Nature. Now, if you were to honestly accept that such a thing is a possibility, I can give you numerous ways to evaluate spiritual evidence and perhaps you would come to my same conclusion of truth, that it does exist. But we don't know because you've rejected spiritual evidence as a possibility. I can't do anything about that, but it doesn't change my mind about what I know to be the truth.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I know the truth because I experience it personally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How would you share that as evidence to another?
> How is that different from Son of Sam believing the dog was talking to him? He also would swear he experienced that personally.
> That would be called anecdotal, but you don't believe that exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First you asked me how I know something is true, then you come back with how I can share that evidence with others. These are two entirely different problems. The thing is, I can't show you evidence of something you do not acknowledge existence of because you reject my evidence. If I believe black holes cannot exist, there is no 'evidence' I will ever accept for their existence. You can show it to me, and I can reject it. I can say your equipment is flawed, it's some unexplained phenomena, there is some other undiscovered physical explanation, the data is incorrect or invalid... until I am willing to accept that black holes are a possibility, I can't accept your evidence.
> 
> Such is the case for Spiritual Nature. Now, if you were to honestly accept that such a thing is a possibility, I can give you numerous ways to evaluate spiritual evidence and perhaps you would come to my same conclusion of truth, that it does exist. But we don't know because you've rejected spiritual evidence as a possibility. I can't do anything about that, but it doesn't change my mind about what I know to be the truth.
Click to expand...


But you never, ever give any evidence for anyone to evaluate. You don't have the courage of your conviction to provide the evidence for anyone to test your theory.
So you think Son of Sam might have been right, and you just don't accept the possibility so you can't evaluate the evidence, is that your point?


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I know the truth because I experience it personally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How would you share that as evidence to another?
> How is that different from Son of Sam believing the dog was talking to him? He also would swear he experienced that personally.
> That would be called anecdotal, but you don't believe that exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First you asked me how I know something is true, then you come back with how I can share that evidence with others. These are two entirely different problems. The thing is, I can't show you evidence of something you do not acknowledge existence of because you reject my evidence. If I believe black holes cannot exist, there is no 'evidence' I will ever accept for their existence. You can show it to me, and I can reject it. I can say your equipment is flawed, it's some unexplained phenomena, there is some other undiscovered physical explanation, the data is incorrect or invalid... until I am willing to accept that black holes are a possibility, I can't accept your evidence.
> 
> Such is the case for Spiritual Nature. Now, if you were to honestly accept that such a thing is a possibility, I can give you numerous ways to evaluate spiritual evidence and perhaps you would come to my same conclusion of truth, that it does exist. But we don't know because you've rejected spiritual evidence as a possibility. I can't do anything about that, but it doesn't change my mind about what I know to be the truth.
Click to expand...


You say that people in this thread have rejected spiritual evidence as a possibility, but I'm not sure how you have come to that conclusion.  Has anyone said there can be no such thing as spirituality?

Sure, some people may believe that nothing supernatural can exist, I just get the impression that you fall back on that as a convenient excuse as to why someone rejects your evidence as conclusive.

And while in general you are right that someone who considers something impossible will reject evidence to the contrary, it is possible that the evidence for something might prove so overwhelming as to change their view of what is or is not possible.  To go back to a previous example I gave, if a pink unicorn were to be shown to a veterinarian, a horse vet let's say, if given a chance to examine the animal and see it wasn't a hoax they might find themselves believing in the existence of unicorns where before they thought it wasn't possible.

My point is that I think the type of evidence provided can be as important a consideration as the starting point of the person the evidence is meant to convince.


----------



## Boss

> But you never, ever give any evidence for anyone to evaluate. You don't have the courage of your conviction to provide the evidence for anyone to test your theory.
> So you think Son of Sam might have been right, and you just don't accept the possibility so you can't evaluate the evidence, is that your point?



Why do you keep bringing up Son of Sam? He was a mentally disturbed person. 85~90% of the human race isn't mentally disturbed, obviously. For all of human history, this number of humans weren't mentally disturbed, you can't honestly think that is the case, can you? So what does one lone nutbag have to do with anything we're discussing here? 

It's not about courage of my conviction, you have already said you don't accept the possibility that spiritual nature exists, you think it's a ruse. The evidence I have is spiritual evidence because that's the only evidence you can use to evaluate spiritual nature, and you don't believe it exists. Billions upon billions of people have accepted the possibility of spiritual nature and verified their theory that it exists. They've given you their testimony, but you reject their evidence because you don't believe in spiritual nature. 

I've already told you that I can't change your mind for you, it's beyond my control. No evidence I can show you will ever be acceptable until you believe spiritual nature is possible. So what point is it to show you evidence you will simply reject and call anecdotal? Over and over and over again? It's sort of pointless for me to do that and even more pointless for you to ask. This doesn't change truth.


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> How would you share that as evidence to another?
> How is that different from Son of Sam believing the dog was talking to him? He also would swear he experienced that personally.
> That would be called anecdotal, but you don't believe that exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First you asked me how I know something is true, then you come back with how I can share that evidence with others. These are two entirely different problems. The thing is, I can't show you evidence of something you do not acknowledge existence of because you reject my evidence. If I believe black holes cannot exist, there is no 'evidence' I will ever accept for their existence. You can show it to me, and I can reject it. I can say your equipment is flawed, it's some unexplained phenomena, there is some other undiscovered physical explanation, the data is incorrect or invalid... until I am willing to accept that black holes are a possibility, I can't accept your evidence.
> 
> Such is the case for Spiritual Nature. Now, if you were to honestly accept that such a thing is a possibility, I can give you numerous ways to evaluate spiritual evidence and perhaps you would come to my same conclusion of truth, that it does exist. But we don't know because you've rejected spiritual evidence as a possibility. I can't do anything about that, but it doesn't change my mind about what I know to be the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You say that people in this thread have rejected spiritual evidence as a possibility, but I'm not sure how you have come to that conclusion.  Has anyone said there can be no such thing as spirituality?
> 
> Sure, some people may believe that nothing supernatural can exist, I just get the impression that you fall back on that as a convenient excuse as to why someone rejects your evidence as conclusive.
> 
> And while in general you are right that someone who considers something impossible will reject evidence to the contrary, it is possible that the evidence for something might prove so overwhelming as to change their view of what is or is not possible.  To go back to a previous example I gave, if a pink unicorn were to be shown to a veterinarian, a horse vet let's say, if given a chance to examine the animal and see it wasn't a hoax they might find themselves believing in the existence of unicorns where before they thought it wasn't possible.
> 
> My point is that I think the type of evidence provided can be as important a consideration as the starting point of the person the evidence is meant to convince.
Click to expand...


Well, first and foremost is the existence of life. The fact that we exist, and a world exists within a universe that enables intelligence. On a planet with an environment specifically designed to support life and intelligence. The fact that things can be organic and organisms can exist. The fact that physics and principles are predictable and work every time. The fact that logic exists. So there's a whole list of things that are overwhelming evidence God exists. You'll reject that as evidence because you don't believe God can exist.

Then we can move on to human nature. The fact that you cannot explain origin of life because all life comes from other life. It didn't spontaneously generate, this is a mathematical impossibility. Humans have always connected to something greater than self, it is the source of human inspiration and responsible for everything we've become. It can't be something superficial or imaginary, and it's not "supernatural" as much as you will claim it to be. Whatever we are connecting to must be real, the results are indisputable. 

From here we can move on to quantum physics and string theory, the most advanced science known to mankind. It suggests that we are living in but one of many universes, where as many "laws of physics" are also possible. Many more dimensions than we currently know about, where there are essentially endless possibilities to possibility. BUT... you have dismissed possibilities. So nothing can be shown to you that you won't reject.


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Evidence is subjective to reasoning. You can believe something is evidence that is not evidence. You can value evidence more than I value the same evidence. You can think evidence is weak and I can think it's strong. I can believe evidence is conclusive and proves, while you think the exact same evidence isn't even evidence.
> 
> Proof is not mathematics. Proof is also subjective. Proof happens when you have conclusive faith in evidence. You can think something is proven because you have faith in the evidence, I can think something is not proven because I lack faith in the very same evidence, or don't consider it valid as evidence at all. Nothing mathematical makes this happen, it is subjective to reason and faith.
> 
> The mere fact that you don't seem to understand this, explains much of your problem. You have profound faith in your evidence as fact, and you reject anything you do not wish to accept as "invalid" evidence. You believe so faithfully in your evidence that it "proves" things to you. This becomes your truth, and nothing can dissuade your faith. Give yourself a funny hat and congregate, and you have a Religion!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Couldn't this just as easily be applied to the evidence you claim? How you KNOW the truth of your spirituality? You have claimed this many times.
> Pot/kettle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I know the truth because I experience it personally.
Click to expand...

subjective experience is not evidence of objective truth.


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> What Is the Difference Between Proof & Evidence in Science? | eHow
> 
> Directly from YOUR link:
> 
> In popular scientific discourse, the unfortunate tendency is to use "proof" and "evidence" interchangeably. News stories refer to scientific experiments "proving" that some food has negative health consequences or that cellphones cause cancer. However, these experiments do not prove anything. They merely provide evidence that supports one theory or another while the theory itself cannot be proved or disproved.
> 
> ------------------------------------------
> 
> Now, correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't this state clearly that evidence and proof are not interchangeable? That was your claim when you said: "all uses of the the term [proof] are a lazy way of saying evidence." Seems you are in total disagreement with your own link, dawsy.


no it does not, that's you falsely interpreting interchangeability  to fit your nonsense...not what was intended by the authors...

 you missed this :Theories vs. Theorems
Scientists collect evidence and from there form theories. Every theory in science is falsifiable; that is, if new evidence surfaces that does not com+port with a current theory, then the theory needs revision. A scientist may then develop a new theory that addresses the old body of evidence as well as the new outlier data. Theorems, on the other hand, state unchanging mathematical laws. A proof is the attempt to use logic to verify these laws. The term "proof" is now understood as some fact that absolutely affirms a theory or idea.



Read more: http://www.ehow.com/info_11403053_difference-between-proof-evidence-science.html#ixzz2xaa1FvRS


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> But you never, ever give any evidence for anyone to evaluate. You don't have the courage of your conviction to provide the evidence for anyone to test your theory.
> So you think Son of Sam might have been right, and you just don't accept the possibility so you can't evaluate the evidence, is that your point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you keep bringing up Son of Sam? He was a mentally disturbed person. 85~90% of the human race isn't mentally disturbed, obviously. For all of human history, this number of humans weren't mentally disturbed, you can't honestly think that is the case, can you? So what does one lone nutbag have to do with anything we're discussing here?
> 
> It's not about courage of my conviction, you have already said you don't accept the possibility that spiritual nature exists, you think it's a ruse. The evidence I have is spiritual evidence because that's the only evidence you can use to evaluate spiritual nature, and you don't believe it exists. Billions upon billions of people have accepted the possibility of spiritual nature and verified their theory that it exists. They've given you their testimony, but you reject their evidence because you don't believe in spiritual nature.
> 
> I've already told you that I can't change your mind for you, it's beyond my control. No evidence I can show you will ever be acceptable until you believe spiritual nature is possible. So what point is it to show you evidence you will simply reject and call anecdotal? Over and over and over again? It's sort of pointless for me to do that and even more pointless for you to ask. This doesn't change truth.
Click to expand...


A long winded way of saying you are not willing to test your theory and share the evidence you say is compelling if only one would believe first. 
Share! What are you afraid of? Having people see the basis for which this spirituality of hatefulness that you have cultivated was generated?
How do you know Berkowitz was disturbed? Maybe he was the only one that knew the spiritual truth! How do you know the dog didn't talk to him?
I think you just refuse to believe his evidence. You don't believe, so you can't see. Then you just label him "disturbed". If you believed first you would understand his evidence, but as it is nothing will make you believe, there is no evidence you would accept!
You see how that silly argument can be applied to any assinine proposition that you want to apply it to?


----------



## daws101

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you never, ever give any evidence for anyone to evaluate. You don't have the courage of your conviction to provide the evidence for anyone to test your theory.
> So you think Son of Sam might have been right, and you just don't accept the possibility so you can't evaluate the evidence, is that your point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you keep bringing up Son of Sam? He was a mentally disturbed person. 85~90% of the human race isn't mentally disturbed, obviously. For all of human history, this number of humans weren't mentally disturbed, you can't honestly think that is the case, can you? So what does one lone nutbag have to do with anything we're discussing here?
> 
> It's not about courage of my conviction, you have already said you don't accept the possibility that spiritual nature exists, you think it's a ruse. The evidence I have is spiritual evidence because that's the only evidence you can use to evaluate spiritual nature, and you don't believe it exists. Billions upon billions of people have accepted the possibility of spiritual nature and verified their theory that it exists. They've given you their testimony, but you reject their evidence because you don't believe in spiritual nature.
> 
> I've already told you that I can't change your mind for you, it's beyond my control. No evidence I can show you will ever be acceptable until you believe spiritual nature is possible. So what point is it to show you evidence you will simply reject and call anecdotal? Over and over and over again? It's sort of pointless for me to do that and even more pointless for you to ask. This doesn't change truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A long winded way of saying you are not willing to test your theory and share the evidence you say is compelling if only one would believe first.
> Share! What are you afraid of? Having people see the basis for which this spirituality of hatefulness that you have cultivated was generated?
> How do you know Berkowitz was disturbed? Maybe he was the only one that knew the spiritual truth! How do you know the dog didn't talk to him?
> I think you just refuse to believe his evidence. You don't believe, so you can't see. Then you just label him "disturbed". If you believed first you would understand his evidence, but as it is nothing will make you believe, there is no evidence you would accept!
> You see how that silly argument can be applied to any assinine proposition that you want to apply it to?
Click to expand...

long winded bullshit is his specialty..


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> First you asked me how I know something is true, then you come back with how I can share that evidence with others. These are two entirely different problems. The thing is, I can't show you evidence of something you do not acknowledge existence of because you reject my evidence. If I believe black holes cannot exist, there is no 'evidence' I will ever accept for their existence. You can show it to me, and I can reject it. I can say your equipment is flawed, it's some unexplained phenomena, there is some other undiscovered physical explanation, the data is incorrect or invalid... until I am willing to accept that black holes are a possibility, I can't accept your evidence.
> 
> Such is the case for Spiritual Nature. Now, if you were to honestly accept that such a thing is a possibility, I can give you numerous ways to evaluate spiritual evidence and perhaps you would come to my same conclusion of truth, that it does exist. But we don't know because you've rejected spiritual evidence as a possibility. I can't do anything about that, but it doesn't change my mind about what I know to be the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say that people in this thread have rejected spiritual evidence as a possibility, but I'm not sure how you have come to that conclusion.  Has anyone said there can be no such thing as spirituality?
> 
> Sure, some people may believe that nothing supernatural can exist, I just get the impression that you fall back on that as a convenient excuse as to why someone rejects your evidence as conclusive.
> 
> And while in general you are right that someone who considers something impossible will reject evidence to the contrary, it is possible that the evidence for something might prove so overwhelming as to change their view of what is or is not possible.  To go back to a previous example I gave, if a pink unicorn were to be shown to a veterinarian, a horse vet let's say, if given a chance to examine the animal and see it wasn't a hoax they might find themselves believing in the existence of unicorns where before they thought it wasn't possible.
> 
> My point is that I think the type of evidence provided can be as important a consideration as the starting point of the person the evidence is meant to convince.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, first and foremost is the existence of life. The fact that we exist, and a world exists within a universe that enables intelligence. On a planet with an environment specifically designed to support life and intelligence. The fact that things can be organic and organisms can exist. The fact that physics and principles are predictable and work every time. The fact that logic exists. So there's a whole list of things that are overwhelming evidence God exists. You'll reject that as evidence because you don't believe God can exist.
> 
> Then we can move on to human nature. The fact that you cannot explain origin of life because all life comes from other life. It didn't spontaneously generate, this is a mathematical impossibility. Humans have always connected to something greater than self, it is the source of human inspiration and responsible for everything we've become. It can't be something superficial or imaginary, and it's not "supernatural" as much as you will claim it to be. Whatever we are connecting to must be real, the results are indisputable.
> 
> From here we can move on to quantum physics and string theory, the most advanced science known to mankind. It suggests that we are living in but one of many universes, where as many "laws of physics" are also possible. Many more dimensions than we currently know about, where there are essentially endless possibilities to possibility. BUT... you have dismissed possibilities. So nothing can be shown to you that you won't reject.
Click to expand...


And here we are.  You assume that everyone must see evidence as being as compelling as you do, despite your rants about the impossibility of proof and how subjective all evidence is.

Those things that you consider overwhelming evidence of an undefined god, other people do not.  Even those who believe in a god or gods will not all find your evidence overwhelming.  They might agree it is evidence, but those things by themselves they will not consider overwhelming; they use holy books or personal experiences as evidence as well, not simply the fact that the universe and life exist and follow certain rules.

So no, I don't reject those things as evidence god(s) exist because I refuse the possibility, but rather because I don't see it as overwhelming evidence.  A rock exists, is that overwhelming evidence of god(s)?  

Spontaneous generation of life is a mathematical impossibility?  I'd love to see your evidence of that.  I'm perfectly willing to admit my ignorance regarding the origin of life.  Whether directed or by chance, I have no idea.  I consider the fact that I do not know what the origin of life is to be evidence only of my own limitations, both as a human and individually.

I'm not sure what results you think are indisputable.  I agree that people have believed in something supernatural, metaphysical, incorporeal, choose whatever term suits you.  I disagree that such belief automatically means that those things exist, especially considering the wildly divergent specifics of those beliefs.

What the hell does string theory have to do with the conversation?  Did I dismiss the possibility of string theory at some point?

That I don't consider the evidence you provide to be overwhelming does not, in any way, mean I refuse any possibility a god or gods exist.


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> You say that people in this thread have rejected spiritual evidence as a possibility, but I'm not sure how you have come to that conclusion.  Has anyone said there can be no such thing as spirituality?
> 
> Sure, some people may believe that nothing supernatural can exist, I just get the impression that you fall back on that as a convenient excuse as to why someone rejects your evidence as conclusive.
> 
> And while in general you are right that someone who considers something impossible will reject evidence to the contrary, it is possible that the evidence for something might prove so overwhelming as to change their view of what is or is not possible.  To go back to a previous example I gave, if a pink unicorn were to be shown to a veterinarian, a horse vet let's say, if given a chance to examine the animal and see it wasn't a hoax they might find themselves believing in the existence of unicorns where before they thought it wasn't possible.
> 
> My point is that I think the type of evidence provided can be as important a consideration as the starting point of the person the evidence is meant to convince.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, first and foremost is the existence of life. The fact that we exist, and a world exists within a universe that enables intelligence. On a planet with an environment specifically designed to support life and intelligence. The fact that things can be organic and organisms can exist. The fact that physics and principles are predictable and work every time. The fact that logic exists. So there's a whole list of things that are overwhelming evidence God exists. You'll reject that as evidence because you don't believe God can exist.
> 
> Then we can move on to human nature. The fact that you cannot explain origin of life because all life comes from other life. It didn't spontaneously generate, this is a mathematical impossibility. Humans have always connected to something greater than self, it is the source of human inspiration and responsible for everything we've become. It can't be something superficial or imaginary, and it's not "supernatural" as much as you will claim it to be. Whatever we are connecting to must be real, the results are indisputable.
> 
> From here we can move on to quantum physics and string theory, the most advanced science known to mankind. It suggests that we are living in but one of many universes, where as many "laws of physics" are also possible. Many more dimensions than we currently know about, where there are essentially endless possibilities to possibility. BUT... you have dismissed possibilities. So nothing can be shown to you that you won't reject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And here we are.  You assume that everyone must see evidence as being as compelling as you do, despite your rants about the impossibility of proof and how subjective all evidence is.
Click to expand...


Well, no I didn't assume anything. I predicted you'd reject the evidence and you did. I admitted up front that you wouldn't be able to find the evidence compelling.



> Those things that you consider overwhelming evidence of an undefined god, other people do not.  Even those who believe in a god or gods will not all find your evidence overwhelming.  They might agree it is evidence, but those things by themselves they will not consider overwhelming; they use holy books or personal experiences as evidence as well, not simply the fact that the universe and life exist and follow certain rules.



And once again, I did not ever claim that everyone would find my evidence compelling or overwhelming. I told you that I had evidence but you would reject it as evidence because you disbelieve what it proves. You gave me some shpeil about pink unicorns and argued for two pages about how that wasn't automatically true, and kept insisting I show you the evidence. So I did, and you reacted exactly the way I predicted you would. 

There is tons more evidence I didn't post because there is no need to go to all that trouble, you're going to reject anything I present. I just barely scraped the surface, but it was enough to prove my point, that you would reject my evidence. 



> So no, I don't reject those things as evidence god(s) exist because I refuse the possibility, but rather because I don't see it as overwhelming evidence.  A rock exists, is that overwhelming evidence of god(s)?



Well, yes you do, that's exactly why you reject the evidence. Just as if we had a pink unicorn, you would reject the evidence because you don't believe in pink unicorns. You would never accept anything as "evidence" because you'd argue pink unicorns can't exist. You'd find other explanations for the evidence, you'd claim it doesn't qualify as legitimate evidence, you'd refuse to ever accept it as valid evidence. Now, if some scientist came along and explained it, and said; "we though this was not possible, but we have now studied the data and have determined this pink unicorn does exist..." THEN you'd believe it, because your 'spiritual faith' has been substituted with science. 

A rock exists... it came from something. Matter doesn't create matter. 



> Spontaneous generation of life is a mathematical impossibility?  I'd love to see your evidence of that.  I'm perfectly willing to admit my ignorance regarding the origin of life.  Whether directed or by chance, I have no idea.  I consider the fact that I do not know what the origin of life is to be evidence only of my own limitations, both as a human and individually.



Well you can go look it up if you like. Scientists have been exploring this possibility for over 100 years. They've done experiments with fruit flies and bacteria, the fastest reproductive life we can find, and through millions of generations, not even one new enzyme has spontaneously emerged. You'd need about 100 enzymes and 70 proteins to spontaneously emerge to just have one cell of any life form. With the fruit flies, and I assume the bacteria as well, they've attempted mutations with every conceivable possible scenario for early earth conditions and environment. They concluded the fruit flies "seem to be immune" to evolution. Now this is with an already-exiting organism in place. The possibility of any single-cell organism just spontaneously popping into existence is nil. You need the protein to create the DNA but the DNA is required to produce the protein. 



> I'm not sure what results you think are indisputable.  I agree that people have believed in something supernatural, metaphysical, incorporeal, choose whatever term suits you.  I disagree that such belief automatically means that those things exist, especially considering the wildly divergent specifics of those beliefs.



I didn't say they were indisputable to everyone, I predicted you would dispute them by rejecting them because you don't believe in the possibility of spiritual nature. You believe in Darwin's theory of natural selection, I presume. Well, if human spirituality were pointless and meaningless, without any valid justification, the species would have abandoned it over the tens of thousands of years humans were being slaughtered for practicing it. In spite of the detriment to survival, they retain the attribute, therefore it must be fundamentally important to humans. That's if you believe Darwin was correct. 

I think I already explained why there is 'divergent specifics' ...it's because humans can't comprehend spiritual nature. We connect to something we can't comprehend. So what we've done, being the imperfect and fallible creatures we are, is to create various incarnations of what we think that thing is. This is actually more spiritual evidence that something real must exist. 



> What the hell does string theory have to do with the conversation?  Did I dismiss the possibility of string theory at some point?
> 
> That I don't consider the evidence you provide to be overwhelming does not, in any way, mean I refuse any possibility a god or gods exist.



Well, like I said, string theory opens the door to endless possibilities. Perhaps what we define as our spiritual connection is some sort of cosmic connection to another universe? Perhaps our Creator God resides in another universe? Perhaps the intelligent design is produced behind the scenes in an alternate universe we haven't discovered? Can you say with certainty this is not possible? I can't, and I find it compelling evidence to support my belief in spiritual nature. 

You do not find my evidence to be overwhelming precisely as I predicted you wouldn't, and it's because you reject the possibility of the premise. You'll never accept any evidence because you have to first believe something is possible, and you don't.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, first and foremost is the existence of life. The fact that we exist, and a world exists within a universe that enables intelligence. On a planet with an environment specifically designed to support life and intelligence. The fact that things can be organic and organisms can exist. The fact that physics and principles are predictable and work every time. The fact that logic exists. So there's a whole list of things that are overwhelming evidence God exists. You'll reject that as evidence because you don't believe God can exist.
> 
> Then we can move on to human nature. The fact that you cannot explain origin of life because all life comes from other life. It didn't spontaneously generate, this is a mathematical impossibility. Humans have always connected to something greater than self, it is the source of human inspiration and responsible for everything we've become. It can't be something superficial or imaginary, and it's not "supernatural" as much as you will claim it to be. Whatever we are connecting to must be real, the results are indisputable.
> 
> From here we can move on to quantum physics and string theory, the most advanced science known to mankind. It suggests that we are living in but one of many universes, where as many "laws of physics" are also possible. Many more dimensions than we currently know about, where there are essentially endless possibilities to possibility. BUT... you have dismissed possibilities. So nothing can be shown to you that you won't reject.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here we are.  You assume that everyone must see evidence as being as compelling as you do, despite your rants about the impossibility of proof and how subjective all evidence is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, no I didn't assume anything. I predicted you'd reject the evidence and you did. I admitted up front that you wouldn't be able to find the evidence compelling.
> 
> 
> 
> And once again, I did not ever claim that everyone would find my evidence compelling or overwhelming. I told you that I had evidence but you would reject it as evidence because you disbelieve what it proves. You gave me some shpeil about pink unicorns and argued for two pages about how that wasn't automatically true, and kept insisting I show you the evidence. So I did, and you reacted exactly the way I predicted you would.
> 
> There is tons more evidence I didn't post because there is no need to go to all that trouble, you're going to reject anything I present. I just barely scraped the surface, but it was enough to prove my point, that you would reject my evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, yes you do, that's exactly why you reject the evidence. Just as if we had a pink unicorn, you would reject the evidence because you don't believe in pink unicorns. You would never accept anything as "evidence" because you'd argue pink unicorns can't exist. You'd find other explanations for the evidence, you'd claim it doesn't qualify as legitimate evidence, you'd refuse to ever accept it as valid evidence. Now, if some scientist came along and explained it, and said; "we though this was not possible, but we have now studied the data and have determined this pink unicorn does exist..." THEN you'd believe it, because your 'spiritual faith' has been substituted with science.
> 
> A rock exists... it came from something. Matter doesn't create matter.
> 
> 
> 
> Well you can go look it up if you like. Scientists have been exploring this possibility for over 100 years. They've done experiments with fruit flies and bacteria, the fastest reproductive life we can find, and through millions of generations, not even one new enzyme has spontaneously emerged. You'd need about 100 enzymes and 70 proteins to spontaneously emerge to just have one cell of any life form. With the fruit flies, and I assume the bacteria as well, they've attempted mutations with every conceivable possible scenario for early earth conditions and environment. They concluded the fruit flies "seem to be immune" to evolution. Now this is with an already-exiting organism in place. The possibility of any single-cell organism just spontaneously popping into existence is nil. You need the protein to create the DNA but the DNA is required to produce the protein.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what results you think are indisputable.  I agree that people have believed in something supernatural, metaphysical, incorporeal, choose whatever term suits you.  I disagree that such belief automatically means that those things exist, especially considering the wildly divergent specifics of those beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say they were indisputable to everyone, I predicted you would dispute them by rejecting them because you don't believe in the possibility of spiritual nature. You believe in Darwin's theory of natural selection, I presume. Well, if human spirituality were pointless and meaningless, without any valid justification, the species would have abandoned it over the tens of thousands of years humans were being slaughtered for practicing it. In spite of the detriment to survival, they retain the attribute, therefore it must be fundamentally important to humans. That's if you believe Darwin was correct.
> 
> I think I already explained why there is 'divergent specifics' ...it's because humans can't comprehend spiritual nature. We connect to something we can't comprehend. So what we've done, being the imperfect and fallible creatures we are, is to create various incarnations of what we think that thing is. This is actually more spiritual evidence that something real must exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the hell does string theory have to do with the conversation?  Did I dismiss the possibility of string theory at some point?
> 
> That I don't consider the evidence you provide to be overwhelming does not, in any way, mean I refuse any possibility a god or gods exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, like I said, string theory opens the door to endless possibilities. Perhaps what we define as our spiritual connection is some sort of cosmic connection to another universe? Perhaps our Creator God resides in another universe? Perhaps the intelligent design is produced behind the scenes in an alternate universe we haven't discovered? Can you say with certainty this is not possible? I can't, and I find it compelling evidence to support my belief in spiritual nature.
> 
> You do not find my evidence to be overwhelming precisely as I predicted you wouldn't, and it's because you reject the possibility of the premise. You'll never accept any evidence because you have to first believe something is possible, and you don't.
Click to expand...

Not being able to say with certainty that something is not possible is compelling evidence that it is true?
Could you possibly set the bar any lower for your standards for evidence?


----------



## Boss

> Not being able to say with certainty that something is not possible is compelling evidence that it is true?
> Could you possibly set the bar any lower for your standards for evidence?



It's not evidence something is true but it is evidence which is compelling if you believe in and accept the possibility of spiritual nature. I don't think the bar is set low for my standards of proving something is possible. I've never said that I could *prove definitively* that God and Spiritual Nature exist, if I could do that, we wouldn't be having this conversation, would we? 

You see, YOU want to keep setting the bar impossibly high. You want something PROVEN when we all know that very little in reality is ever definitively proven. Philosophers have argued that even our perception of reality is not "proven" ...we could all be imagining reality. In fact, even Einstein made comments on this, he said that "reality is an illusion, albeit a persistent one." 

Furthermore, you expect something defined as "spiritual nature" to be "proven" with physical sciences before you'll accept it's possibility. This poses quite the logical dichotomy, for if something spiritual is ever proven physically, it ceases to be spiritual and becomes physical nature. So it becomes a really safe bet to say that physical science cannot ever prove spiritual nature. It can't, it defies logic. 

The ONLY way to evaluate, test, verify, confirm or examine "spiritual nature" is through "spiritual evidence" because that what spiritual nature is as opposed to physical nature. This is problematic if you do not accept that spiritual nature exists or is possible.


----------



## MrMax

Boss said:


> Not being able to say with certainty that something is not possible is compelling evidence that it is true?
> Could you possibly set the bar any lower for your standards for evidence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not evidence something is true but it is evidence which is compelling if you believe in and accept the possibility of spiritual nature. I don't think the bar is set low for my standards of proving something is possible. I've never said that I could *prove definitively* that God and Spiritual Nature exist, if I could do that, we wouldn't be having this conversation, would we?
> 
> You see, YOU want to keep setting the bar impossibly high. You want something PROVEN when we all know that very little in reality is ever definitively proven. Philosophers have argued that even our perception of reality is not "proven" ...we could all be imagining reality. In fact, even Einstein made comments on this, he said that "reality is an illusion, albeit a persistent one."
> 
> Furthermore, you expect something defined as "spiritual nature" to be "proven" with physical sciences before you'll accept it's possibility. This poses quite the logical dichotomy, for if something spiritual is ever proven physically, it ceases to be spiritual and becomes physical nature. So it becomes a really safe bet to say that physical science cannot ever prove spiritual nature. It can't, it defies logic.
> 
> The ONLY way to evaluate, test, verify, confirm or examine "spiritual nature" is through "spiritual evidence" because that what spiritual nature is as opposed to physical nature. This is problematic if you do not accept that spiritual nature exists or is possible.
Click to expand...

As long as you realize that you can't prove spiritual nature and know that it's only your opinion, I think we're done here.


----------



## Geaux4it

God haters exist because evil exist.

'Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil'..

And my Kimber gives me an extra secure feeling 

-Geaux


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, first and foremost is the existence of life. The fact that we exist, and a world exists within a universe that enables intelligence. On a planet with an environment specifically designed to support life and intelligence. The fact that things can be organic and organisms can exist. The fact that physics and principles are predictable and work every time. The fact that logic exists. So there's a whole list of things that are overwhelming evidence God exists. You'll reject that as evidence because you don't believe God can exist.
> 
> Then we can move on to human nature. The fact that you cannot explain origin of life because all life comes from other life. It didn't spontaneously generate, this is a mathematical impossibility. Humans have always connected to something greater than self, it is the source of human inspiration and responsible for everything we've become. It can't be something superficial or imaginary, and it's not "supernatural" as much as you will claim it to be. Whatever we are connecting to must be real, the results are indisputable.
> 
> From here we can move on to quantum physics and string theory, the most advanced science known to mankind. It suggests that we are living in but one of many universes, where as many "laws of physics" are also possible. Many more dimensions than we currently know about, where there are essentially endless possibilities to possibility. BUT... you have dismissed possibilities. So nothing can be shown to you that you won't reject.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here we are.  You assume that everyone must see evidence as being as compelling as you do, despite your rants about the impossibility of proof and how subjective all evidence is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, no I didn't assume anything. I predicted you'd reject the evidence and you did. I admitted up front that you wouldn't be able to find the evidence compelling.
> 
> 
> 
> And once again, I did not ever claim that everyone would find my evidence compelling or overwhelming. I told you that I had evidence but you would reject it as evidence because you disbelieve what it proves. You gave me some shpeil about pink unicorns and argued for two pages about how that wasn't automatically true, and kept insisting I show you the evidence. So I did, and you reacted exactly the way I predicted you would.
> 
> There is tons more evidence I didn't post because there is no need to go to all that trouble, you're going to reject anything I present. I just barely scraped the surface, but it was enough to prove my point, that you would reject my evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, yes you do, that's exactly why you reject the evidence. Just as if we had a pink unicorn, you would reject the evidence because you don't believe in pink unicorns. You would never accept anything as "evidence" because you'd argue pink unicorns can't exist. You'd find other explanations for the evidence, you'd claim it doesn't qualify as legitimate evidence, you'd refuse to ever accept it as valid evidence. Now, if some scientist came along and explained it, and said; "we though this was not possible, but we have now studied the data and have determined this pink unicorn does exist..." THEN you'd believe it, because your 'spiritual faith' has been substituted with science.
> 
> A rock exists... it came from something. Matter doesn't create matter.
> 
> 
> 
> Well you can go look it up if you like. Scientists have been exploring this possibility for over 100 years. They've done experiments with fruit flies and bacteria, the fastest reproductive life we can find, and through millions of generations, not even one new enzyme has spontaneously emerged. You'd need about 100 enzymes and 70 proteins to spontaneously emerge to just have one cell of any life form. With the fruit flies, and I assume the bacteria as well, they've attempted mutations with every conceivable possible scenario for early earth conditions and environment. They concluded the fruit flies "seem to be immune" to evolution. Now this is with an already-exiting organism in place. The possibility of any single-cell organism just spontaneously popping into existence is nil. You need the protein to create the DNA but the DNA is required to produce the protein.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what results you think are indisputable.  I agree that people have believed in something supernatural, metaphysical, incorporeal, choose whatever term suits you.  I disagree that such belief automatically means that those things exist, especially considering the wildly divergent specifics of those beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say they were indisputable to everyone, I predicted you would dispute them by rejecting them because you don't believe in the possibility of spiritual nature. You believe in Darwin's theory of natural selection, I presume. Well, if human spirituality were pointless and meaningless, without any valid justification, the species would have abandoned it over the tens of thousands of years humans were being slaughtered for practicing it. In spite of the detriment to survival, they retain the attribute, therefore it must be fundamentally important to humans. That's if you believe Darwin was correct.
> 
> I think I already explained why there is 'divergent specifics' ...it's because humans can't comprehend spiritual nature. We connect to something we can't comprehend. So what we've done, being the imperfect and fallible creatures we are, is to create various incarnations of what we think that thing is. This is actually more spiritual evidence that something real must exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the hell does string theory have to do with the conversation?  Did I dismiss the possibility of string theory at some point?
> 
> That I don't consider the evidence you provide to be overwhelming does not, in any way, mean I refuse any possibility a god or gods exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, like I said, string theory opens the door to endless possibilities. Perhaps what we define as our spiritual connection is some sort of cosmic connection to another universe? Perhaps our Creator God resides in another universe? Perhaps the intelligent design is produced behind the scenes in an alternate universe we haven't discovered? Can you say with certainty this is not possible? I can't, and I find it compelling evidence to support my belief in spiritual nature.
> 
> You do not find my evidence to be overwhelming precisely as I predicted you wouldn't, and it's because you reject the possibility of the premise. You'll never accept any evidence because you have to first believe something is possible, and you don't.
Click to expand...


You didn't simply predict I'd reject evidence, you assumed you know the reason behind it, that I refuse any possibility of a god or gods, or of a spiritual nature.  The same thing you do with your supposed god-haters, with anyone who doesn't have some kind of spiritual faith, it seems.

You did not specify that your evidence was overwhelming to any particular people.  You just said it was overwhelming.  
You did not specify that your results were indisputable to any particular people.  You just said they were indisputable.
And you accuse me of 'word salad' and distortion?  

You continue to misrepresent evolution and natural selection.

There are plenty of possibilities, including who knows how many possibilities that humans have not thought up.  That I don't find the fact there are myriad possibilities for the origin of life or the universe, or of things we cannot see in the physical realm, life after death, etc. to be overwhelming evidence of anything does not, again, mean I reject all possibility of either a god(s) or a spiritual nature.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> Not being able to say with certainty that something is not possible is compelling evidence that it is true?
> Could you possibly set the bar any lower for your standards for evidence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not evidence something is true but it is evidence which is compelling if you believe in and accept the possibility of spiritual nature. I don't think the bar is set low for my standards of proving something is possible. I've never said that I could *prove definitively* that God and Spiritual Nature exist, if I could do that, we wouldn't be having this conversation, would we?
> 
> You see, YOU want to keep setting the bar impossibly high. You want something PROVEN when we all know that very little in reality is ever definitively proven. Philosophers have argued that even our perception of reality is not "proven" ...we could all be imagining reality. In fact, even Einstein made comments on this, he said that "reality is an illusion, albeit a persistent one."
> 
> Furthermore, you expect something defined as "spiritual nature" to be "proven" with physical sciences before you'll accept it's possibility. This poses quite the logical dichotomy, for if something spiritual is ever proven physically, it ceases to be spiritual and becomes physical nature. So it becomes a really safe bet to say that physical science cannot ever prove spiritual nature. It can't, it defies logic.
> 
> The ONLY way to evaluate, test, verify, confirm or examine "spiritual nature" is through "spiritual evidence" because that what spiritual nature is as opposed to physical nature. This is problematic if you do not accept that spiritual nature exists or is possible.
Click to expand...


Long winded avoidance of what you said, which this entire post does not address at all. You specifically stated that not being able to disprove something with certainty is compelling evidence that it does in fact exist. This is simply moronic.
Think of how many things that must lead you to believe there is "compelling" evidence for.
I have never asked you to "prove" anything, just to share evidence that supported your ideas. You stoically refuse because you would be casting your pearls before swine, so you say, but I think perhaps you know it would rather reveal the weakness of what you claim as evidence.
Essentially, your position amounts to "If you have faith you can find evidence for it" and I will concede that. Faith creates its own evidence and overcomes the rational, removing all tools to realize the evidence is, in fact, a creation and not a discovery.


----------



## BreezeWood

Montrovant said:


> The same thing you do with your supposed god-haters ...



has anything Boss referred to in this thread related to God "hating" or specifically what his description, if any presented of his God people would find objectionable ?


- other than (his) God relates only to humanity with disregard for all other life forms ?

.


----------



## thebrucebeat

BreezeWood said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same thing you do with your supposed god-haters ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> has anything Boss referred to in this thread related to God "hating" or specifically what his description, if any presented of his God people would find objectionable ?
> 
> 
> - other than (his) God relates only to humanity with disregard for all other life forms ?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


He has specifically stated he is not a Christian.
I think alot of believers would find that objectionable, don't you?


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, first and foremost is the existence of life. The fact that we exist, and a world exists within a universe that enables intelligence. On a planet with an environment specifically designed to support life and intelligence. The fact that things can be organic and organisms can exist. The fact that physics and principles are predictable and work every time. The fact that logic exists. So there's a whole list of things that are overwhelming evidence God exists. You'll reject that as evidence because you don't believe God can exist.
> 
> Then we can move on to human nature. The fact that you cannot explain origin of life because all life comes from other life. It didn't spontaneously generate, this is a mathematical impossibility. Humans have always connected to something greater than self, it is the source of human inspiration and responsible for everything we've become. It can't be something superficial or imaginary, and it's not "supernatural" as much as you will claim it to be. Whatever we are connecting to must be real, the results are indisputable.
> 
> From here we can move on to quantum physics and string theory, the most advanced science known to mankind. It suggests that we are living in but one of many universes, where as many "laws of physics" are also possible. Many more dimensions than we currently know about, where there are essentially endless possibilities to possibility. BUT... you have dismissed possibilities. So nothing can be shown to you that you won't reject.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here we are.  You assume that everyone must see evidence as being as compelling as you do, despite your rants about the impossibility of proof and how subjective all evidence is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, no I didn't assume anything. I predicted you'd reject the evidence and you did. I admitted up front that you wouldn't be able to find the evidence compelling.
> 
> 
> 
> And once again, I did not ever claim that everyone would find my evidence compelling or overwhelming. I told you that I had evidence but you would reject it as evidence because you disbelieve what it proves. You gave me some shpeil about pink unicorns and argued for two pages about how that wasn't automatically true, and kept insisting I show you the evidence. So I did, and you reacted exactly the way I predicted you would.
> 
> There is tons more evidence I didn't post because there is no need to go to all that trouble, you're going to reject anything I present. I just barely scraped the surface, but it was enough to prove my point, that you would reject my evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, yes you do, that's exactly why you reject the evidence. Just as if we had a pink unicorn, you would reject the evidence because you don't believe in pink unicorns. You would never accept anything as "evidence" because you'd argue pink unicorns can't exist. You'd find other explanations for the evidence, you'd claim it doesn't qualify as legitimate evidence, you'd refuse to ever accept it as valid evidence. Now, if some scientist came along and explained it, and said; "we though this was not possible, but we have now studied the data and have determined this pink unicorn does exist..." THEN you'd believe it, because your 'spiritual faith' has been substituted with science.
> 
> A rock exists... it came from something. Matter doesn't create matter.
> 
> 
> 
> Well you can go look it up if you like. Scientists have been exploring this possibility for over 100 years. They've done experiments with fruit flies and bacteria, the fastest reproductive life we can find, and through millions of generations, not even one new enzyme has spontaneously emerged. You'd need about 100 enzymes and 70 proteins to spontaneously emerge to just have one cell of any life form. With the fruit flies, and I assume the bacteria as well, they've attempted mutations with every conceivable possible scenario for early earth conditions and environment. They concluded the fruit flies "seem to be immune" to evolution. Now this is with an already-exiting organism in place. The possibility of any single-cell organism just spontaneously popping into existence is nil. You need the protein to create the DNA but the DNA is required to produce the protein.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what results you think are indisputable.  I agree that people have believed in something supernatural, metaphysical, incorporeal, choose whatever term suits you.  I disagree that such belief automatically means that those things exist, especially considering the wildly divergent specifics of those beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say they were indisputable to everyone, I predicted you would dispute them by rejecting them because you don't believe in the possibility of spiritual nature. You believe in Darwin's theory of natural selection, I presume. Well, if human spirituality were pointless and meaningless, without any valid justification, the species would have abandoned it over the tens of thousands of years humans were being slaughtered for practicing it. In spite of the detriment to survival, they retain the attribute, therefore it must be fundamentally important to humans. That's if you believe Darwin was correct.
> 
> I think I already explained why there is 'divergent specifics' ...it's because humans can't comprehend spiritual nature. We connect to something we can't comprehend. So what we've done, being the imperfect and fallible creatures we are, is to create various incarnations of what we think that thing is. This is actually more spiritual evidence that something real must exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the hell does string theory have to do with the conversation?  Did I dismiss the possibility of string theory at some point?
> 
> That I don't consider the evidence you provide to be overwhelming does not, in any way, mean I refuse any possibility a god or gods exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, like I said, string theory opens the door to endless possibilities. Perhaps what we define as our spiritual connection is some sort of cosmic connection to another universe? Perhaps our Creator God resides in another universe? Perhaps the intelligent design is produced behind the scenes in an alternate universe we haven't discovered? Can you say with certainty this is not possible? I can't, and I find it compelling evidence to support my belief in spiritual nature.
> 
> You do not find my evidence to be overwhelming precisely as I predicted you wouldn't, and it's because you reject the possibility of the premise. You'll never accept any evidence because you have to first believe something is possible, and you don't.
Click to expand...

http://www.coppit.org/god/hoyle.php


----------



## daws101

BreezeWood said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same thing you do with your supposed god-haters ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> has anything Boss referred to in this thread related to God "hating" or specifically what his description, if any presented of his God people would find objectionable ?
> 
> 
> - other than (his) God relates only to humanity with disregard for all other life forms ?
> 
> .
Click to expand...

no ...just what he finds objectionable...


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> You didn't simply predict I'd reject evidence, you assumed you know the reason behind it, that I refuse any possibility of a god or gods, or of a spiritual nature.  The same thing you do with your supposed god-haters, with anyone who doesn't have some kind of spiritual faith, it seems.



No, I clearly stated and we argued for two days about this... you cannot accept evidence for things you don't believe are possible. You don't believe God is real, spiritual nature is possible, that people have souls and spirits... you reject that concept entirely. Unless you believe in spiritual nature, you can't accept any evidence for it. 



> You did not specify that your evidence was overwhelming to any particular people.  You just said it was overwhelming.
> You did not specify that your results were indisputable to any particular people.  You just said they were indisputable.



Uhm... no, I didn't. Go back and read it again if you missed it. I clearly stated that the evidence is overwhelming and results indisputable to those who accept spiritual nature. 



> You continue to misrepresent evolution and natural selection.



Which is why you've presented some compelling factual evidence of this charge here in your post?



> There are plenty of possibilities, including who knows how many possibilities that humans have not thought up.  That I don't find the fact there are myriad possibilities for the origin of life or the universe, or of things we cannot see in the physical realm, life after death, etc. to be overwhelming evidence of anything does not, again, mean I reject all possibility of either a god(s) or a spiritual nature.



Well GOOD! I am glad to know that you at least accept the possibility God exists and Spiritual Nature is real. That means you are open-minded enough to evaluate the volumes of spiritual evidence to support the existence of spiritual nature and God. That's really the best I can hope to expect here, nothing more. 

Now, as I pointed out before, people lie all the time about what they believe and don't believe. I could post here that I believe in the possibility of pink unicorns, when in actuality, I don't really believe it's possible at all. The "proof" that I wouldn't be just lying to you about that, would be my ability to objectively look at some piece of evidence and say... okay, that does have some merit and credibility. So that's what you need to demonstrate now with your professed faith in spiritual nature. Tell us which aspects of evidence for spiritual nature you find compelling, so that I believe what you've said is true.


----------



## MrMax

thebrucebeat said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same thing you do with your supposed god-haters ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> has anything Boss referred to in this thread related to God "hating" or specifically what his description, if any presented of his God people would find objectionable ?
> 
> 
> - other than (his) God relates only to humanity with disregard for all other life forms ?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He has specifically stated he is not a Christian.
> I think alot of believers would find that objectionable, don't you?
Click to expand...


Boss believes in a "Creator" and spirituality. He's half-way there to Christianity already. So Bossy, what's you stand on Jesus, he walk on water or not?


----------



## Newby

thebrucebeat said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same thing you do with your supposed god-haters ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> has anything Boss referred to in this thread related to God "hating" or specifically what his description, if any presented of his God people would find objectionable ?
> 
> 
> - other than (his) God relates only to humanity with disregard for all other life forms ?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He has specifically stated he is not a Christian.
> *I think *alot of believers would find that objectionable, don't you?
Click to expand...


There's the first problem with your post, bolded in red...  Perhaps you do 'think', it's just lacking in quality and quantity.  

You have no idea what believers would find objectionable, claiming that you do is a fallacy. I love Boss, he owns every single one of you haters in here, and you all know it, it's why you persist and persist, you can't remotely win a debate with him.


----------



## daws101

Newby said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> has anything Boss referred to in this thread related to God "hating" or specifically what his description, if any presented of his God people would find objectionable ?
> 
> 
> - other than (his) God relates only to humanity with disregard for all other life forms ?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He has specifically stated he is not a Christian.
> *I think *alot of believers would find that objectionable, don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's the first problem with your post, bolded in red...  Perhaps you do 'think', it's just lacking in quality and quantity.
> 
> You have no idea what believers would find objectionable, claiming that you do is a fallacy. I love Boss, he owns every single one of you haters in here, and you all know it, it's why you persist and persist, you can't remotely win a debate with him.
Click to expand...

oh no not the you're not a believer ploy again.....
not only is a false assumption but it infers that believers are by some magical means superior to non believers....


----------



## Boss

BreezeWood said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same thing you do with your supposed god-haters ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> has anything Boss referred to in this thread related to God "hating" or specifically what his description, if any presented of his God people would find objectionable ?
> 
> 
> - other than (his) God relates only to humanity with disregard for all other life forms ?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I've never said God has disregard for other life forms. In fact, I admitted that you make an interesting argument that perhaps all living things experience a form of spiritual connection and we may just not know about it. 

My own personal belief is, God doesn't have disregard or regard, those are humanistic attributes. God is a force of spiritual energy. Perhaps other living things recognize that spiritual energy, tap into it in order to thrive and bloom, etc. It appears humans are the only living things that actively worship this force, cognitively contemplate it, consciously connect to it and gain profound inspiration from it.


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same thing you do with your supposed god-haters ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> has anything Boss referred to in this thread related to God "hating" or specifically what his description, if any presented of his God people would find objectionable ?
> 
> 
> - other than (his) God relates only to humanity with disregard for all other life forms ?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've never said God has disregard for other life forms. In fact, I admitted that you make an interesting argument that perhaps all living things experience a form of spiritual connection and we may just not know about it.
> 
> My own personal belief is, God doesn't have disregard or regard, those are humanistic attributes. God is a force of spiritual energy. Perhaps other living things recognize that spiritual energy, tap into it in order to thrive and bloom, etc. It appears humans are the only living things that actively worship this force, cognitively contemplate it, consciously connect to it and gain profound inspiration from it.
Click to expand...

wow! another "believer" who has the audacity to pick and choose who god is and what god will do or not do.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't simply predict I'd reject evidence, you assumed you know the reason behind it, that I refuse any possibility of a god or gods, or of a spiritual nature.  The same thing you do with your supposed god-haters, with anyone who doesn't have some kind of spiritual faith, it seems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I clearly stated and we argued for two days about this... you cannot accept evidence for things you don't believe are possible. You don't believe God is real, spiritual nature is possible, that people have souls and spirits... you reject that concept entirely. Unless you believe in spiritual nature, you can't accept any evidence for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You did not specify that your evidence was overwhelming to any particular people.  You just said it was overwhelming.
> You did not specify that your results were indisputable to any particular people.  You just said they were indisputable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uhm... no, I didn't. Go back and read it again if you missed it. I clearly stated that the evidence is overwhelming and results indisputable to those who accept spiritual nature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You continue to misrepresent evolution and natural selection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is why you've presented some compelling factual evidence of this charge here in your post?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are plenty of possibilities, including who knows how many possibilities that humans have not thought up.  That I don't find the fact there are myriad possibilities for the origin of life or the universe, or of things we cannot see in the physical realm, life after death, etc. to be overwhelming evidence of anything does not, again, mean I reject all possibility of either a god(s) or a spiritual nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well GOOD! I am glad to know that you at least accept the possibility God exists and Spiritual Nature is real. That means you are open-minded enough to evaluate the volumes of spiritual evidence to support the existence of spiritual nature and God. That's really the best I can hope to expect here, nothing more.
> 
> Now, as I pointed out before, people lie all the time about what they believe and don't believe. I could post here that I believe in the possibility of pink unicorns, when in actuality, I don't really believe it's possible at all. The "proof" that I wouldn't be just lying to you about that, would be my ability to objectively look at some piece of evidence and say... okay, that does have some merit and credibility. So that's what you need to demonstrate now with your professed faith in spiritual nature. Tell us which aspects of evidence for spiritual nature you find compelling, so that I believe what you've said is true.
Click to expand...


So you still feel paradigm shifts are absolutely impossible, right?
Not being able to disprove something with certainty to you is "compelling evidence" that that something is actually true. 
That makes martians true. Leprechauns. Pink unicorns. The Spaghetti Monster.
You need to think before bloviating.


----------



## daws101

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't simply predict I'd reject evidence, you assumed you know the reason behind it, that I refuse any possibility of a god or gods, or of a spiritual nature.  The same thing you do with your supposed god-haters, with anyone who doesn't have some kind of spiritual faith, it seems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I clearly stated and we argued for two days about this... you cannot accept evidence for things you don't believe are possible. You don't believe God is real, spiritual nature is possible, that people have souls and spirits... you reject that concept entirely. Unless you believe in spiritual nature, you can't accept any evidence for it.
> 
> 
> 
> Uhm... no, I didn't. Go back and read it again if you missed it. I clearly stated that the evidence is overwhelming and results indisputable to those who accept spiritual nature.
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why you've presented some compelling factual evidence of this charge here in your post?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are plenty of possibilities, including who knows how many possibilities that humans have not thought up.  That I don't find the fact there are myriad possibilities for the origin of life or the universe, or of things we cannot see in the physical realm, life after death, etc. to be overwhelming evidence of anything does not, again, mean I reject all possibility of either a god(s) or a spiritual nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well GOOD! I am glad to know that you at least accept the possibility God exists and Spiritual Nature is real. That means you are open-minded enough to evaluate the volumes of spiritual evidence to support the existence of spiritual nature and God. That's really the best I can hope to expect here, nothing more.
> 
> Now, as I pointed out before, people lie all the time about what they believe and don't believe. I could post here that I believe in the possibility of pink unicorns, when in actuality, I don't really believe it's possible at all. The "proof" that I wouldn't be just lying to you about that, would be my ability to objectively look at some piece of evidence and say... okay, that does have some merit and credibility. So that's what you need to demonstrate now with your professed faith in spiritual nature. Tell us which aspects of evidence for spiritual nature you find compelling, so that I believe what you've said is true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you still feel paradigm shifts are absolutely impossible, right?
> Not being able to disprove something with certainty to you is "compelling evidence" that that something is actually true.
> That makes martians true. Leprechauns. Pink unicorns. The Spaghetti Monster.
> You need to think before bloviating.
Click to expand...

hey! wait a sec...I've seen the flying spaghetti monster with my own two eyes..he was driving a 59 cadie (Cadillac) with Elvis Jim Morrison and Micheal Jackson inside down route 66.


----------



## Boss

MrMax said:


> So Bossy, what's you stand on Jesus, he walk on water or not?



I don't know, maybe that is a metaphorical depiction told in a story to make a broader point? A lot of old ancient Hebrew stories are told this way, they didn't have sprite graphics and Youtube videos back then. They relied on imagination, so they often used metaphor as a tool to convey a story meaning. 

I tell ya what I find more intriguing is the story of Paul of Tarsus. Here's a guy that was pretty much the epitome of you god-haters. He was a Roman who went around after Jesus died, killing Christians because of their faith. The Christians knew him well, he was brutal and violent, showed no mercy on them whatsoever. Hated and loathed everything they stood for, denounced their God and religious faith with every fiber of his being. He had learned that a group of Jesus' followers had fled to Damascus, so he went after them with the intents of killing them all, as he could not stand Christians. Wanted to stomp the religion out then and there, nip it in the bud. On the road to Damascus, the dead Jesus appeared before him. He was blinded by the experience and went nuts, so they locked him away for a bit. During that time, Jesus appeared to one of his disciples and told him to go find Paul of Tarsus, he had selected him to bring his word to the gentiles. The disciple thought the request was crazy, this was a man who hated Christians more than the ones who crucified Jesus, but he did as Jesus told him. He found Paul and miraculously restored his sight after Paul repented and asked forgiveness. Paul of Tarsus went on to write most of the New Testament, and aside from Jesus, is probably the most influential person in the New Testament. 

I find this story a lot more compelling than Jesus walking on water, because it shows that even someone as full of hate for God as you, can be changed.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Newby said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> has anything Boss referred to in this thread related to God "hating" or specifically what his description, if any presented of his God people would find objectionable ?
> 
> 
> - other than (his) God relates only to humanity with disregard for all other life forms ?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He has specifically stated he is not a Christian.
> *I think *alot of believers would find that objectionable, don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's the first problem with your post, bolded in red...  Perhaps you do 'think', it's just lacking in quality and quantity.
> 
> You have no idea what believers would find objectionable, claiming that you do is a fallacy. I love Boss, he owns every single one of you haters in here, and you all know it, it's why you persist and persist, you can't remotely win a debate with him.
Click to expand...


And yet he doesn't endorse your faith in the least.
As a former pastor, I have a bit of understanding regarding believers.
If you think Boss owns anything, you aren't a very careful reader.
You both do the same thing. When cornered, here comes the swearing and the really crude comments and the ignoring of the actual arguments.


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Bossy, what's you stand on Jesus, he walk on water or not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know, maybe that is a metaphorical depiction told in a story to make a broader point? A lot of old ancient Hebrew stories are told this way, they didn't have sprite graphics and Youtube videos back then. They relied on imagination, so they often used metaphor as a tool to convey a story meaning.
> 
> I tell ya what I find more intriguing is the story of Paul of Tarsus. Here's a guy that was pretty much the epitome of you god-haters. He was a Roman who went around after Jesus died, killing Christians because of their faith. The Christians knew him well, he was brutal and violent, showed no mercy on them whatsoever. Hated and loathed everything they stood for, denounced their God and religious faith with every fiber of his being. He had learned that a group of Jesus' followers had fled to Damascus, so he went after them with the intents of killing them all, as he could not stand Christians. Wanted to stomp the religion out then and there, nip it in the bud. On the road to Damascus, the dead Jesus appeared before him. He was blinded by the experience and went nuts, so they locked him away for a bit. During that time, Jesus appeared to one of his disciples and told him to go find Paul of Tarsus, he had selected him to bring his word to the gentiles. The disciple thought the request was crazy, this was a man who hated Christians more than the ones who crucified Jesus, but he did as Jesus told him. He found Paul and miraculously restored his sight after Paul repented and asked forgiveness. Paul of Tarsus went on to write most of the New Testament, and aside from Jesus, is probably the most influential person in the New Testament.
> 
> I find this story a lot more compelling than Jesus walking on water, because it shows that even someone as full of hate for God as you, can be changed.
Click to expand...

that's one of my favorite fairy tales out of the bible...


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Bossy, what's you stand on Jesus, he walk on water or not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know, maybe that is a metaphorical depiction told in a story to make a broader point? A lot of old ancient Hebrew stories are told this way, they didn't have sprite graphics and Youtube videos back then. They relied on imagination, so they often used metaphor as a tool to convey a story meaning.
> 
> I tell ya what I find more intriguing is the story of Paul of Tarsus. Here's a guy that was pretty much the epitome of you god-haters. He was a Roman who went around after Jesus died, killing Christians because of their faith. The Christians knew him well, he was brutal and violent, showed no mercy on them whatsoever. Hated and loathed everything they stood for, denounced their God and religious faith with every fiber of his being. He had learned that a group of Jesus' followers had fled to Damascus, so he went after them with the intents of killing them all, as he could not stand Christians. Wanted to stomp the religion out then and there, nip it in the bud. On the road to Damascus, the dead Jesus appeared before him. He was blinded by the experience and went nuts, so they locked him away for a bit. During that time, Jesus appeared to one of his disciples and told him to go find Paul of Tarsus, he had selected him to bring his word to the gentiles. The disciple thought the request was crazy, this was a man who hated Christians more than the ones who crucified Jesus, but he did as Jesus told him. He found Paul and miraculously restored his sight after Paul repented and asked forgiveness. Paul of Tarsus went on to write most of the New Testament, and aside from Jesus, is probably the most influential person in the New Testament.
> 
> I find this story a lot more compelling than Jesus walking on water, because it shows that even someone as full of hate for God as you, can be changed.
Click to expand...


And that would be the god that you think Christians are mistaken in believing he cares about them at all?
That one, right?


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> So you still feel paradigm shifts are absolutely impossible, right?
> Not being able to disprove something with certainty to you is "compelling evidence" that that something is actually true.
> That makes martians true. Leprechauns. Pink unicorns. The Spaghetti Monster.
> You need to think before bloviating.



Evidence = Proof is a dawsy argument, not mine. The only thing I've ever argued for is the possibility of something and the objective evaluation of relevant evidence. We all know that God can't be proved or disproved with physical evidence because God is not physical. In order to evaluate God's existence, we must look to spiritual evidence instead, because that's what God is. This becomes a problem for those who don't accept spiritual evidence.


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Bossy, what's you stand on Jesus, he walk on water or not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know, maybe that is a metaphorical depiction told in a story to make a broader point? A lot of old ancient Hebrew stories are told this way, they didn't have sprite graphics and Youtube videos back then. They relied on imagination, so they often used metaphor as a tool to convey a story meaning.
> 
> I tell ya what I find more intriguing is the story of Paul of Tarsus. Here's a guy that was pretty much the epitome of you god-haters. He was a Roman who went around after Jesus died, killing Christians because of their faith. The Christians knew him well, he was brutal and violent, showed no mercy on them whatsoever. Hated and loathed everything they stood for, denounced their God and religious faith with every fiber of his being. He had learned that a group of Jesus' followers had fled to Damascus, so he went after them with the intents of killing them all, as he could not stand Christians. Wanted to stomp the religion out then and there, nip it in the bud. On the road to Damascus, the dead Jesus appeared before him. He was blinded by the experience and went nuts, so they locked him away for a bit. During that time, Jesus appeared to one of his disciples and told him to go find Paul of Tarsus, he had selected him to bring his word to the gentiles. The disciple thought the request was crazy, this was a man who hated Christians more than the ones who crucified Jesus, but he did as Jesus told him. He found Paul and miraculously restored his sight after Paul repented and asked forgiveness. Paul of Tarsus went on to write most of the New Testament, and aside from Jesus, is probably the most influential person in the New Testament.
> 
> I find this story a lot more compelling than Jesus walking on water, because it shows that even someone as full of hate for God as you, can be changed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that would be the god that you think Christians are mistaken in believing he cares about them at all?
> That one, right?
Click to expand...


No, that would be Jesus, a prophet of God who brought the message of hope, love and kindness to mankind. After his death, he appeared in spiritual form to inspire one of his greatest adversaries and motivate him to pen most of the New Testament.


----------



## Boss

> that's one of my favorite fairy tales out of the bible...



Except the people are real and the historic events well documented.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you still feel paradigm shifts are absolutely impossible, right?
> Not being able to disprove something with certainty to you is "compelling evidence" that that something is actually true.
> That makes martians true. Leprechauns. Pink unicorns. The Spaghetti Monster.
> You need to think before bloviating.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence = Proof is a dawsy argument, not mine. The only thing I've ever argued for is the possibility of something and the objective evaluation of relevant evidence. We all know that God can't be proved or disproved with physical evidence because God is not physical. In order to evaluate God's existence, we must look to spiritual evidence instead, because that's what God is. This becomes a problem for those who don't accept spiritual evidence.
Click to expand...


You want me to dig up your quote?
You specifically made the idiotic comment that the inability to prove something with certainty was compelling evidence that it was actually true.
It is a moronic position, one that can't be defended but only run from.
And so you are.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know, maybe that is a metaphorical depiction told in a story to make a broader point? A lot of old ancient Hebrew stories are told this way, they didn't have sprite graphics and Youtube videos back then. They relied on imagination, so they often used metaphor as a tool to convey a story meaning.
> 
> I tell ya what I find more intriguing is the story of Paul of Tarsus. Here's a guy that was pretty much the epitome of you god-haters. He was a Roman who went around after Jesus died, killing Christians because of their faith. The Christians knew him well, he was brutal and violent, showed no mercy on them whatsoever. Hated and loathed everything they stood for, denounced their God and religious faith with every fiber of his being. He had learned that a group of Jesus' followers had fled to Damascus, so he went after them with the intents of killing them all, as he could not stand Christians. Wanted to stomp the religion out then and there, nip it in the bud. On the road to Damascus, the dead Jesus appeared before him. He was blinded by the experience and went nuts, so they locked him away for a bit. During that time, Jesus appeared to one of his disciples and told him to go find Paul of Tarsus, he had selected him to bring his word to the gentiles. The disciple thought the request was crazy, this was a man who hated Christians more than the ones who crucified Jesus, but he did as Jesus told him. He found Paul and miraculously restored his sight after Paul repented and asked forgiveness. Paul of Tarsus went on to write most of the New Testament, and aside from Jesus, is probably the most influential person in the New Testament.
> 
> I find this story a lot more compelling than Jesus walking on water, because it shows that even someone as full of hate for God as you, can be changed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that would be the god that you think Christians are mistaken in believing he cares about them at all?
> That one, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that would be Jesus, a prophet of God who brought the message of hope, love and kindness to mankind. After his death, he appeared in spiritual form to inspire one of his greatest adversaries and motivate him to pen most of the New Testament.
Click to expand...


So now you DO believe in a God the Father that personally cares about each believer?
Do you want to endorse that meme?


----------



## Lonestar_logic

God haters persist because God is pursuing them.

No matter how many times an atheist says there is no God, he can not help himself but to talk about God.

God works in mysterious ways indeed.


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> He has specifically stated he is not a Christian.
> *I think *alot of believers would find that objectionable, don't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's the first problem with your post, bolded in red...  Perhaps you do 'think', it's just lacking in quality and quantity.
> 
> You have no idea what believers would find objectionable, claiming that you do is a fallacy. I love Boss, he owns every single one of you haters in here, and you all know it, it's why you persist and persist, you can't remotely win a debate with him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet he doesn't endorse your faith in the least.
> As a former pastor, I have a bit of understanding regarding believers.
> If you think Boss owns anything, you aren't a very careful reader.
> You both do the same thing. When cornered, here comes the swearing and the really crude comments and the ignoring of the actual arguments.
Click to expand...


Wow, you can't help the lies spewing from inside, can you? I think I just roundly endorsed Paul of Tarsus, one of the most influential writers in the Bible. I see nothing in Newby's post that is either crude or swearing in any way. No, we're not all "clever" like you, God only made so many of us with the ability to distort and pervert the words of others for their own benefit. Pastor my ass. This is yet another LIE you tell to lend some sort of credibility to yourself in the face of having your ass handed to you repeatedly. 

If you were a pastor, tell us something here... I want to know about the day and moment you decided you didn't believe anymore. Tell us about the events of that day which led to your abandoning faith in God?


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that would be the god that you think Christians are mistaken in believing he cares about them at all?
> That one, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that would be Jesus, a prophet of God who brought the message of hope, love and kindness to mankind. After his death, he appeared in spiritual form to inspire one of his greatest adversaries and motivate him to pen most of the New Testament.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So now you DO believe in a God the Father that personally cares about each believer?
> Do you want to endorse that meme?
Click to expand...


Work on your reading comprehension skills a bit, moron.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, that would be Jesus, a prophet of God who brought the message of hope, love and kindness to mankind. After his death, he appeared in spiritual form to inspire one of his greatest adversaries and motivate him to pen most of the New Testament.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So now you DO believe in a God the Father that personally cares about each believer?
> Do you want to endorse that meme?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Work on your reading comprehension skills a bit, moron.
Click to expand...


Answer the question, or be forever known as the coward who wouldn't.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's the first problem with your post, bolded in red...  Perhaps you do 'think', it's just lacking in quality and quantity.
> 
> You have no idea what believers would find objectionable, claiming that you do is a fallacy. I love Boss, he owns every single one of you haters in here, and you all know it, it's why you persist and persist, you can't remotely win a debate with him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet he doesn't endorse your faith in the least.
> As a former pastor, I have a bit of understanding regarding believers.
> If you think Boss owns anything, you aren't a very careful reader.
> You both do the same thing. When cornered, here comes the swearing and the really crude comments and the ignoring of the actual arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, you can't help the lies spewing from inside, can you? I think I just roundly endorsed Paul of Tarsus, one of the most influential writers in the Bible. I see nothing in Newby's post that is either crude or swearing in any way. No, we're not all "clever" like you, God only made so many of us with the ability to distort and pervert the words of others for their own benefit. Pastor my ass. This is yet another LIE you tell to lend some sort of credibility to yourself in the face of having your ass handed to you repeatedly.
> 
> If you were a pastor, tell us something here... I want to know about the day and moment you decided you didn't believe anymore. Tell us about the events of that day which led to your abandoning faith in God?
Click to expand...


Do you endorse the "born again" fantasy? That it happens in a day?
Recovering from faith doesn't happen like that. It was a process of gradually realizing that what I was spouting from the pulpit I no longer could endorse. It is common. People leave the pulpit every day, all over the country. You can look it up.
I assure you I was a minister. You calling it a lie is more of your poor argumentation skills, accusations without evidence. I share it only to make you understand that I have been in the haze you are in now. I know how I convinced myself, and how it all fell away.
You are a very sad little man.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't simply predict I'd reject evidence, you assumed you know the reason behind it, that I refuse any possibility of a god or gods, or of a spiritual nature.  The same thing you do with your supposed god-haters, with anyone who doesn't have some kind of spiritual faith, it seems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I clearly stated and we argued for two days about this... you cannot accept evidence for things you don't believe are possible. You don't believe God is real, spiritual nature is possible, that people have souls and spirits... you reject that concept entirely. Unless you believe in spiritual nature, you can't accept any evidence for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You did not specify that your evidence was overwhelming to any particular people.  You just said it was overwhelming.
> You did not specify that your results were indisputable to any particular people.  You just said they were indisputable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uhm... no, I didn't. Go back and read it again if you missed it. I clearly stated that the evidence is overwhelming and results indisputable to those who accept spiritual nature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You continue to misrepresent evolution and natural selection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is why you've presented some compelling factual evidence of this charge here in your post?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are plenty of possibilities, including who knows how many possibilities that humans have not thought up.  That I don't find the fact there are myriad possibilities for the origin of life or the universe, or of things we cannot see in the physical realm, life after death, etc. to be overwhelming evidence of anything does not, again, mean I reject all possibility of either a god(s) or a spiritual nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well GOOD! I am glad to know that you at least accept the possibility God exists and Spiritual Nature is real. That means you are open-minded enough to evaluate the volumes of spiritual evidence to support the existence of spiritual nature and God. That's really the best I can hope to expect here, nothing more.
> 
> Now, as I pointed out before, people lie all the time about what they believe and don't believe. I could post here that I believe in the possibility of pink unicorns, when in actuality, I don't really believe it's possible at all. The "proof" that I wouldn't be just lying to you about that, would be my ability to objectively look at some piece of evidence and say... okay, that does have some merit and credibility. So that's what you need to demonstrate now with your professed faith in spiritual nature. Tell us which aspects of evidence for spiritual nature you find compelling, so that I believe what you've said is true.
Click to expand...


You can show me where you said that the overwhelming evidence and indisputable results are only for those who accept spiritual nature, I imagine :


Boss said:


> Well, first and foremost is the existence of life. The fact that we exist, and a world exists within a universe that enables intelligence. On a planet with an environment specifically designed to support life and intelligence. The fact that things can be organic and organisms can exist. The fact that physics and principles are predictable and work every time. The fact that logic exists. So there's a whole list of things that are overwhelming evidence God exists. You'll reject that as evidence because you don't believe God can exist.
> 
> Then we can move on to human nature. The fact that you cannot explain origin of life because all life comes from other life. It didn't spontaneously generate, this is a mathematical impossibility. Humans have always connected to something greater than self, it is the source of human inspiration and responsible for everything we've become. It can't be something superficial or imaginary, and it's not "supernatural" as much as you will claim it to be. Whatever we are connecting to must be real, the results are indisputable.
> 
> From here we can move on to quantum physics and string theory, the most advanced science known to mankind. It suggests that we are living in but one of many universes, where as many "laws of physics" are also possible. Many more dimensions than we currently know about, where there are essentially endless possibilities to possibility. BUT... you have dismissed possibilities. So nothing can be shown to you that you won't reject.




You have again assumed I don't believe god or spiritual nature is possible.  There is a difference between believing something is possible and accepting it as true.  You often seem to conflate those two.  I don't believe in god, I don't believe in a soul, but I do believe those things are possible.  I simply haven't seen evidence of them that I find convincing.

You are the one who claimed that natural selection would have removed humanity's spiritual nature if it weren't necessary to survival.  I would like to see where natural selection is defined in such a way, whether as part of modern evolutionary theory or Darwin's original ideas.

I did not, in any way, profess any faith in spiritual nature.  Why do you continue to equate belief in the possibility of a thing to belief in the existence of a thing?  

There are many things I cannot explain, do not have answers to, etc.  That is why I consider some sort of god or spiritual nature possible.  Supposed instances of telepathy, near death experiences, testimony from people about ghosts, miraculous healing, etc. etc.  The world is full of wonders.  In my opinion, based on my observations and reading of those types of occurrences, there is vastly more speculation than direct evidence.  I think people create many different explanations when they don't have convincing evidence, and that tends to be the case with things of a seemingly supernatural or spiritual nature.


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> So now you DO believe in a God the Father that personally cares about each believer?
> Do you want to endorse that meme?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Work on your reading comprehension skills a bit, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Answer the question, or be forever known as the coward who wouldn't.
Click to expand...


I'll be happy to answer your question as soon as you answer mine. I asked you about the day you decided you didn't believe in God anymore. You dodged my question with some bullshit about a process of gradual realization, but I don't accept that. There was some point at which you "convinced yourself" ...your words there... and that's the time period I want to know about. The moment you became fully convinced and stopped believing. What was it that did that for you? 

Don't be a coward and dodge the question like you did the first time, spit it out. Tell us about that day, what happened, what event(s) caused this convincing realization? Was it something you are too embarassed to talk about? Did your church kick you out for doing something wrong? I promise, I won't judge you or ridicule you for it, I just honestly want to hear your story. Because, frankly, I believe you are lying about this. I think you are saying it so you can paint yourself as being "once like me" and you think this lends more credibility to your rejection of God. I say this based on your own remarks and your behavior towards others here, trying to use their faith against them, etc. I think you are a dishonest person who will do whatever you need to try and bolster your argument. So here's your chance to prove me wrong, give us a rundown on the events surrounding your spiritual demise.


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> You can show me where you said that the overwhelming evidence and indisputable results are only for those who accept spiritual nature, I imagine :



Yep, I could... but I'm not going to. I've posted it several times in this thread, we had a lengthy debate over whether you can believe evidence of something you don't believe in. You never could give me any example, it went on for two days and is back a few pages in this thread. If you want to show that I didn't qualify my argument for overwhelming evidence and indisputable results with the fact that you must first accept spiritual nature, be my guest. 



> You have again assumed I don't believe god or spiritual nature is possible.  There is a difference between believing something is possible and accepting it as true.  You often seem to conflate those two.  I don't believe in god, I don't believe in a soul, but I do believe those things are possible.  I simply haven't seen evidence of them that I find convincing.



Because you don't REALLY believe they are possible. You're only saying you do because it makes you look more credible and objective, the same reason Brucey claims to be a former pastor. Anyone can CLAIM they believe in the possibility of ANYTHING. 



> You are the one who claimed that natural selection would have removed humanity's spiritual nature if it weren't necessary to survival.  I would like to see where natural selection is defined in such a way, whether as part of modern evolutionary theory or Darwin's original ideas.



Well, behavioral attributes of species are very much covered in _On Origin of the Species_ by Charles Darwin. In fact, it is one of the cornerstones to natural selection. It doesn't "define" natural selection, there are various different aspects in the entirety of the theory, but behavioral attributes are covered. Spirituality is a behavioral attribute. And I didn't say it is "necessary" to survival, I said it is "fundamental" to survival. If it were "necessary" you'd die from lack of spirituality, and obviously people don't. 



> I did not, in any way, profess any faith in spiritual nature.  Why do you continue to equate belief in the possibility of a thing to belief in the existence of a thing?



I never said you had faith in spirituality... man, you really work hard at drawing things completely out of context to try and make a point, don't you? I said if you honestly believe in the possibility, legitimately, you could cite some pieces of spiritual evidence you accept as valid support for spiritual nature. You can't, therefore, I believe you're lying. 



> There are many things I cannot explain, do not have answers to, etc.  That is why I consider some sort of god or spiritual nature possible.  Supposed instances of telepathy, near death experiences, testimony from people about ghosts, miraculous healing, etc. etc.  The world is full of wonders.  In my opinion, based on my observations and reading of those types of occurrences, *there is vastly more speculation* than direct evidence.  I think people create many different explanations when they don't have convincing evidence, and that tends to be the case with things of a seemingly supernatural or spiritual nature.



*there is vastly more speculation*

You feel this way because you honestly don't believe in spiritual nature, you don't think it is possible, you think it is something people made up to "explain the unexplained" or "console fears of death" or whatever. You've made your mind up on this and that's what you believe. So whenever ANY evidence is presented, you reject it. But you realize that people might think you are closed-minded to the possibility, and so you construct the lie that you aren't dismissing such a possibility, when in actuality, you have.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Work on your reading comprehension skills a bit, moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Answer the question, or be forever known as the coward who wouldn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll be happy to answer your question as soon as you answer mine. I asked you about the day you decided you didn't believe in God anymore. You dodged my question with some bullshit about a process of gradual realization, but I don't accept that. There was some point at which you "convinced yourself" ...your words there... and that's the time period I want to know about. The moment you became fully convinced and stopped believing. What was it that did that for you?
> 
> Don't be a coward and dodge the question like you did the first time, spit it out. Tell us about that day, what happened, what event(s) caused this convincing realization? Was it something you are too embarassed to talk about? Did your church kick you out for doing something wrong? I promise, I won't judge you or ridicule you for it, I just honestly want to hear your story. Because, frankly, I believe you are lying about this. I think you are saying it so you can paint yourself as being "once like me" and you think this lends more credibility to your rejection of God. I say this based on your own remarks and your behavior towards others here, trying to use their faith against them, etc. I think you are a dishonest person who will do whatever you need to try and bolster your argument. So here's your chance to prove me wrong, give us a rundown on the events surrounding your spiritual demise.
Click to expand...


Sorry real life isn't as compelling to you as the great drama you want to invent. I continued to study the bible and went through a similar process that Bart Ehrmann went through, and many, many others. The critical study of scripture just didn't hold up, and gradually, slowly, the defenses I had built up to defend myself against that truth withered away, bit by bit. There was no "moment". You see too many movies. I quit. I couldn't do it any more. No scandal. No firing. Not even a loss of ordination. I just quit.
Since you have chosen to invent a different narrative, I am helpless to change a closed mind.
By the way, I am not an atheist either.
Wrap your head around that one.
Keep running. I know you won't answer the question. It punks your whole game.
By the way, so far I have found many opportunities to prove you wrong. It is going very, very well.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can show me where you said that the overwhelming evidence and indisputable results are only for those who accept spiritual nature, I imagine :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, I could... but I'm not going to. I've posted it several times in this thread, we had a lengthy debate over whether you can believe evidence of something you don't believe in. You never could give me any example, it went on for two days and is back a few pages in this thread. If you want to show that I didn't qualify my argument for overwhelming evidence and indisputable results with the fact that you must first accept spiritual nature, be my guest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have again assumed I don't believe god or spiritual nature is possible.  There is a difference between believing something is possible and accepting it as true.  You often seem to conflate those two.  I don't believe in god, I don't believe in a soul, but I do believe those things are possible.  I simply haven't seen evidence of them that I find convincing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because you don't REALLY believe they are possible. You're only saying you do because it makes you look more credible and objective, the same reason Brucey claims to be a former pastor. Anyone can CLAIM they believe in the possibility of ANYTHING.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, behavioral attributes of species are very much covered in _On Origin of the Species_ by Charles Darwin. In fact, it is one of the cornerstones to natural selection. It doesn't "define" natural selection, there are various different aspects in the entirety of the theory, but behavioral attributes are covered. Spirituality is a behavioral attribute. And I didn't say it is "necessary" to survival, I said it is "fundamental" to survival. If it were "necessary" you'd die from lack of spirituality, and obviously people don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did not, in any way, profess any faith in spiritual nature.  Why do you continue to equate belief in the possibility of a thing to belief in the existence of a thing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said you had faith in spirituality... man, you really work hard at drawing things completely out of context to try and make a point, don't you? I said if you honestly believe in the possibility, legitimately, you could cite some pieces of spiritual evidence you accept as valid support for spiritual nature. You can't, therefore, I believe you're lying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are many things I cannot explain, do not have answers to, etc.  That is why I consider some sort of god or spiritual nature possible.  Supposed instances of telepathy, near death experiences, testimony from people about ghosts, miraculous healing, etc. etc.  The world is full of wonders.  In my opinion, based on my observations and reading of those types of occurrences, *there is vastly more speculation* than direct evidence.  I think people create many different explanations when they don't have convincing evidence, and that tends to be the case with things of a seemingly supernatural or spiritual nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *there is vastly more speculation*
> 
> You feel this way because you honestly don't believe in spiritual nature, you don't think it is possible, you think it is something people made up to "explain the unexplained" or "console fears of death" or whatever. You've made your mind up on this and that's what you believe. So whenever ANY evidence is presented, you reject it. But you realize that people might think you are closed-minded to the possibility, and so you construct the lie that you aren't dismissing such a possibility, when in actuality, you have.
Click to expand...


Did you not see that I quoted your post in which you both gave examples of evidence you called overwhelming and said the results of connecting to whatever it is we connect to are indisputable?  I wasn't talking about everything you've discussed on this topic, I was pointing out things you said in a post I quoted.  I quoted that entire post of yours in my previous response, and you can clearly see that there was no mention of your overwhelming evidence or indisputable results only being in regards to a certain set of people.

Here, let me provide yet another quote from you :


Boss said:


> Now, as I pointed out before, people lie all the time about what they believe and don't believe. I could post here that I believe in the possibility of pink unicorns, when in actuality, I don't really believe it's possible at all. The "proof" that I wouldn't be just lying to you about that, would be my ability to objectively look at some piece of evidence and say... okay, that does have some merit and credibility. *So that's what you need to demonstrate now with your professed faith in spiritual nature*. Tell us which aspects of evidence for spiritual nature you find compelling, so that I believe what you've said is true.



Do you see how you said exactly what I said you did?  You said I have a professed faith in spiritual nature.  I denied having professed faith in spiritual nature, because I did not.  You responded by telling me you never said I have faith in spirituality.  Well, there's the quote for you, your own words, which say just what I told you they did.  Ready with some sort of denial or attempt to pretend that's a distortion?  

You're right, I don't believe in spiritual nature.  I've freely admitted that.  What you either fail to understand, refuse to understand, or just won't admit to understanding, is that not believing in a thing is different than not believing a thing is possible.  That's odd, given your citing Paul of Tarsus as someone who didn't believe and then had his mind changed.  But oh, wait, according to you he was a god-hater, meaning he secretly believed but didn't admit it.  Oh, but if I'm a god-hater as well, then I secretly believe.....but that would mean your statement that I don't believe god or spirituality are possible is not only asinine assumption but contradicts your entire argument, wouldn't it?  

Ready to explain how my quoting of your own words is a distortion?  How you know what I think and believe and I do not?  Or whatever other nonsense you want to try and pass off as reasoned conversation this time?


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Answer the question, or be forever known as the coward who wouldn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll be happy to answer your question as soon as you answer mine. I asked you about the day you decided you didn't believe in God anymore. You dodged my question with some bullshit about a process of gradual realization, but I don't accept that. There was some point at which you "convinced yourself" ...your words there... and that's the time period I want to know about. The moment you became fully convinced and stopped believing. What was it that did that for you?
> 
> Don't be a coward and dodge the question like you did the first time, spit it out. Tell us about that day, what happened, what event(s) caused this convincing realization? Was it something you are too embarassed to talk about? Did your church kick you out for doing something wrong? I promise, I won't judge you or ridicule you for it, I just honestly want to hear your story. Because, frankly, I believe you are lying about this. I think you are saying it so you can paint yourself as being "once like me" and you think this lends more credibility to your rejection of God. I say this based on your own remarks and your behavior towards others here, trying to use their faith against them, etc. I think you are a dishonest person who will do whatever you need to try and bolster your argument. So here's your chance to prove me wrong, give us a rundown on the events surrounding your spiritual demise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry real life isn't as compelling to you as the great drama you want to invent. I continued to study the bible and went through a similar process that Bart Ehrmann went through, and many, many others. The critical study of scripture just didn't hold up, and gradually, slowly, the defenses I had built up to defend myself against that truth withered away, bit by bit. There was no "moment". You see too many movies. I quit. I couldn't do it any more. No scandal. No firing. Not even a loss of ordination. I just quit.
> Since you have chosen to invent a different narrative, I am helpless to change a closed mind.
> By the way, I am not an atheist either.
> Wrap your head around that one.
> Keep running. I know you won't answer the question. It punks your whole game.
> By the way, so far I have found many opportunities to prove you wrong. It is going very, very well.
Click to expand...


Okay, so you don't want to share the details of when you "became convinced" of your beliefs. This tells us everything we need to know about your integrity. Not a single example of scripture that didn't hold up or what defenses withered away, just a bunch of smoke blowing from your ass. You can't explain this in detail because it's not true. 

No, you're not an atheist, you are a God-hater. You fully believe in God, but hate Him. You're too much of a coward to admit that, probably because it sounds superficial, selfish and trite, and you know this, so you'd rather pretend you're something you're not and hope you can sell that to everyone else. Problem is, I've blown your cover and you don't like that.


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Do you see how you said exactly what I said you did?  You said I have a professed faith in spiritual nature.  I denied having professed faith in spiritual nature, because I did not.  You responded by telling me you never said I have faith in spirituality.  Well, there's the quote for you, your own words, which say just what I told you they did.  Ready with some sort of denial or attempt to pretend that's a distortion?



No, that was called "sarcasm." If you BELIEVE something is possible, you HAVE FAITH something is possible. The words are synonymous. 



> You're right, I don't believe in spiritual nature.  I've freely admitted that.



Exactly! Which is what I said all along.



> What you either fail to understand, refuse to understand, or just won't admit to understanding, is that not believing in a thing is different than not believing a thing is possible.



No difference in this case. You don't believe in spiritual nature and don't believe it's possible. You are simply lying about the later in order to appear credible and objective. 



> That's odd, given your citing Paul of Tarsus as someone who didn't believe and then had his mind changed.  But oh, wait, according to you he was a god-hater, meaning he secretly believed but didn't admit it.  Oh, but if I'm a god-hater as well, then I secretly believe.....but that would mean your statement that I don't believe god or spirituality are possible is not only asinine assumption but contradicts your entire argument, wouldn't it?



Wow, that's actually a compelling point! You could honestly be someone who does believe in God but hates Him. This would explain why you have been so defensive and have spent days on this thread defending yourself. It would also explain your convoluted reasoning of how you don't believe in spirituality but believe it's possible, but not really. 



> Ready to explain how my quoting of your own words is a distortion?  How you know what I think and believe and I do not?  Or whatever other nonsense you want to try and pass off as reasoned conversation this time?



You're right. I can't speak for what's actually in your heart. But whether I have been right or wrong about you and your beliefs, it seems to have at least made you examine what you do actually believe. I've not let you get away with distorting my comments and taking them out of context, and I will never knowingly allow you to do this. You can keep trying, but I'm pretty sharp and generally know what I have said.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll be happy to answer your question as soon as you answer mine. I asked you about the day you decided you didn't believe in God anymore. You dodged my question with some bullshit about a process of gradual realization, but I don't accept that. There was some point at which you "convinced yourself" ...your words there... and that's the time period I want to know about. The moment you became fully convinced and stopped believing. What was it that did that for you?
> 
> Don't be a coward and dodge the question like you did the first time, spit it out. Tell us about that day, what happened, what event(s) caused this convincing realization? Was it something you are too embarassed to talk about? Did your church kick you out for doing something wrong? I promise, I won't judge you or ridicule you for it, I just honestly want to hear your story. Because, frankly, I believe you are lying about this. I think you are saying it so you can paint yourself as being "once like me" and you think this lends more credibility to your rejection of God. I say this based on your own remarks and your behavior towards others here, trying to use their faith against them, etc. I think you are a dishonest person who will do whatever you need to try and bolster your argument. So here's your chance to prove me wrong, give us a rundown on the events surrounding your spiritual demise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry real life isn't as compelling to you as the great drama you want to invent. I continued to study the bible and went through a similar process that Bart Ehrmann went through, and many, many others. The critical study of scripture just didn't hold up, and gradually, slowly, the defenses I had built up to defend myself against that truth withered away, bit by bit. There was no "moment". You see too many movies. I quit. I couldn't do it any more. No scandal. No firing. Not even a loss of ordination. I just quit.
> Since you have chosen to invent a different narrative, I am helpless to change a closed mind.
> By the way, I am not an atheist either.
> Wrap your head around that one.
> Keep running. I know you won't answer the question. It punks your whole game.
> By the way, so far I have found many opportunities to prove you wrong. It is going very, very well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, so you don't want to share the details of when you "became convinced" of your beliefs. This tells us everything we need to know about your integrity. Not a single example of scripture that didn't hold up or what defenses withered away, just a bunch of smoke blowing from your ass. You can't explain this in detail because it's not true.
> 
> No, you're not an atheist, you are a God-hater. You fully believe in God, but hate Him. You're too much of a coward to admit that, probably because it sounds superficial, selfish and trite, and you know this, so you'd rather pretend you're something you're not and hope you can sell that to everyone else. Problem is, I've blown your cover and you don't like that.
Click to expand...

Where do you invent this crap, and why?
Are you that embarrassed that I keep putting you in corners that you can't escape from? You keep running away from questions you have no answers for, and then go on this overwrought bloviation of some invented movie script because I don't choose to derail the thread with a long biography.
Not a god-hater at all. Nor am I an atheist.
Based on what do you think you have "blown my cover"? Some complete fabrication of your own? Blowing another's cover traditionally entails uncovering some fact that lends new light on a subject. I haven't noticed you had done that. You invented some and got very excited by your storytelling, hoping some of your equally dense sycophants will think you have gleaned something.
You are, I think, actually unhinged. This post of yours sincerely makes you look insane.


----------



## Boss

I've blown your cover by revealing your fraud. You have never been a pastor or you would have been able to tell us the details of your supposed spiritual downfall. You couldn't come up with anything, you floundered around and tried to pass off platitudes and bullshit that had no real meaning. I even gave you a second chance to clarify detail and you once again failed to do so. 

You've not put me in any corner, nor have I avoided any questions. I've clearly stated my personal beliefs in this thread and others. I have no problem going into as much detail as needed and explaining what I believe and why. You've shown a clear pattern of using religion and the religious beliefs of others against them, and your 'former pastor' lie is another example of that same tactic. 

You honestly believe you can pull it off, that you can fool people into thinking you've honestly been a pastor and now you've "seen the light" ..pun intended. You figure, if people buy this bullshit, they may question their own faith, and that's what you are all about. But you blew it when you couldn't answer my question. So now you're thinking you can paint me as delusional and unhinged, which is also a very common tactic of those who have been exposed as frauds.


----------



## MrMax

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll be happy to answer your question as soon as you answer mine. I asked you about the day you decided you didn't believe in God anymore. You dodged my question with some bullshit about a process of gradual realization, but I don't accept that. There was some point at which you "convinced yourself" ...your words there... and that's the time period I want to know about. The moment you became fully convinced and stopped believing. What was it that did that for you?
> 
> Don't be a coward and dodge the question like you did the first time, spit it out. Tell us about that day, what happened, what event(s) caused this convincing realization? Was it something you are too embarassed to talk about? Did your church kick you out for doing something wrong? I promise, I won't judge you or ridicule you for it, I just honestly want to hear your story. Because, frankly, I believe you are lying about this. I think you are saying it so you can paint yourself as being "once like me" and you think this lends more credibility to your rejection of God. I say this based on your own remarks and your behavior towards others here, trying to use their faith against them, etc. I think you are a dishonest person who will do whatever you need to try and bolster your argument. So here's your chance to prove me wrong, give us a rundown on the events surrounding your spiritual demise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry real life isn't as compelling to you as the great drama you want to invent. I continued to study the bible and went through a similar process that Bart Ehrmann went through, and many, many others. The critical study of scripture just didn't hold up, and gradually, slowly, the defenses I had built up to defend myself against that truth withered away, bit by bit. There was no "moment". You see too many movies. I quit. I couldn't do it any more. No scandal. No firing. Not even a loss of ordination. I just quit.
> Since you have chosen to invent a different narrative, I am helpless to change a closed mind.
> By the way, I am not an atheist either.
> Wrap your head around that one.
> Keep running. I know you won't answer the question. It punks your whole game.
> By the way, so far I have found many opportunities to prove you wrong. It is going very, very well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, so you don't want to share the details of when you "became convinced" of your beliefs. This tells us everything we need to know about your integrity. Not a single example of scripture that didn't hold up or what defenses withered away, just a bunch of smoke blowing from your ass. You can't explain this in detail because it's not true.
> 
> No, you're not an atheist, you are a God-hater. You fully believe in God, but hate Him. You're too much of a coward to admit that, probably because it sounds superficial, selfish and trite, and you know this, so you'd rather pretend you're something you're not and hope you can sell that to everyone else. Problem is, I've blown your cover and you don't like that.
Click to expand...


The only person selling something is you and your bogus spiritual nature, because you know that it's bullshit but will fight tooth and nail to get anyone to validate your theory. So is your name calling part of your spiritual nature, or is that simply your human nature acting like an ass?


----------



## G.T.

having faith something is possible =/= having faith that it exists


----------



## G.T.

MrMax said:


> The only person selling something is you and your bogus spiritual nature, because you know that it's bullshit but will fight tooth and nail to get anyone to validate your theory. So is your name calling part of your spiritual nature, or is that simply your human nature acting like an ass?



His "spiritual evidence" canard was destroyed like a year ago or more. 

The human belief in "higher powers" was found in the brain, actually within the last few years, as a Darwinian mechanism created to alleviate our fear of death which came to be overwhelming once sentience came to root.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> I've blown your cover by revealing your fraud. You have never been a pastor or you would have been able to tell us the details of your supposed spiritual downfall. You couldn't come up with anything, you floundered around and tried to pass off platitudes and bullshit that had no real meaning. I even gave you a second chance to clarify detail and you once again failed to do so.
> 
> You've not put me in any corner, nor have I avoided any questions. I've clearly stated my personal beliefs in this thread and others. I have no problem going into as much detail as needed and explaining what I believe and why. You've shown a clear pattern of using religion and the religious beliefs of others against them, and your 'former pastor' lie is another example of that same tactic.
> 
> You honestly believe you can pull it off, that you can fool people into thinking you've honestly been a pastor and now you've "seen the light" ..pun intended. You figure, if people buy this bullshit, they may question their own faith, and that's what you are all about. But you blew it when you couldn't answer my question. So now you're thinking you can paint me as delusional and unhinged, which is also a very common tactic of those who have been exposed as frauds.


Without writing a book about my experiences, I answered your question. Who here but you cares about the minutiae of my leaving the ministry? You want to share a lot of details here about your personal life? How would that change the impoverished nature of your arguments?
Stop derailing with your absurd unfounded accusations.
You are very clearly nuts. You run away from many of my responses to you. You have no answers so you ignore them and try to pretend you never saw them. You do it repeatedly.
You want to try to attack the messenger, because you can't handle the message. You succeed only in making yourself look like the clown to match the avatars.


----------



## Newby

thebrucebeat said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> He has specifically stated he is not a Christian.
> *I think *alot of believers would find that objectionable, don't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's the first problem with your post, bolded in red...  Perhaps you do 'think', it's just lacking in quality and quantity.
> 
> You have no idea what believers would find objectionable, claiming that you do is a fallacy. I love Boss, he owns every single one of you haters in here, and you all know it, it's why you persist and persist, you can't remotely win a debate with him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet he doesn't endorse your faith in the least.
> *As a former pastor*, I have a bit of understanding regarding believers.
> If you think Boss owns anything, you aren't a very careful reader.
> You both do the same thing. When cornered, here comes the swearing and the really crude comments and the ignoring of the actual arguments.
Click to expand...


Yeah, sure you were...


----------



## thebrucebeat

Newby said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's the first problem with your post, bolded in red...  Perhaps you do 'think', it's just lacking in quality and quantity.
> 
> You have no idea what believers would find objectionable, claiming that you do is a fallacy. I love Boss, he owns every single one of you haters in here, and you all know it, it's why you persist and persist, you can't remotely win a debate with him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet he doesn't endorse your faith in the least.
> *As a former pastor*, I have a bit of understanding regarding believers.
> If you think Boss owns anything, you aren't a very careful reader.
> You both do the same thing. When cornered, here comes the swearing and the really crude comments and the ignoring of the actual arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, sure you were...
Click to expand...


Quite so.
Do you have any idea how many pastors leave the ministry every year?
It's staggering. 
The depth of exposure to the faith and its proponents is withering. We have to see the nastiness that people justify with a deity, or in some cases just "spirituality", on a day-in, day-out basis.
Why do you love Boss? He may strike at who you perceive as your enemies, but he counts you as one of those who believe false doctrine. He doesn't believe in the Nicene Creed. He thinks the idea of a Father God that loves you is incorrect.
What you really admire in him is his rudeness and anger. You identify with it so much, you turn a blind eye to him being what you have to believe is an apostate. It isn't the Prince of Peace you worship, it is aggressiveness you bend your knee to. Your persona, your avatar, all you are is invested in a fight motif, and you love it so much you give a pass to someone who actually marginalizes your beliefs.
This is the kind of myopia that drives pastors from the pulpit.
What's the use?


----------



## Newby

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's the first problem with your post, bolded in red...  Perhaps you do 'think', it's just lacking in quality and quantity.
> 
> You have no idea what believers would find objectionable, claiming that you do is a fallacy. I love Boss, he owns every single one of you haters in here, and you all know it, it's why you persist and persist, you can't remotely win a debate with him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet he doesn't endorse your faith in the least.
> As a former pastor, I have a bit of understanding regarding believers.
> If you think Boss owns anything, you aren't a very careful reader.
> You both do the same thing. *When cornered, here comes the swearing and the really crude comments and the ignoring of the actual arguments*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, you can't help the lies spewing from inside, can you? I think I just roundly endorsed Paul of Tarsus, one of the most influential writers in the Bible. I see nothing in Newby's post that is either crude or swearing in any way. No, we're not all "clever" like you, God only made so many of us with the ability to distort and pervert the words of others for their own benefit. Pastor my ass. This is yet another LIE you tell to lend some sort of credibility to yourself in the face of having your ass handed to you repeatedly.
> 
> If you were a pastor, tell us something here... I want to know about the day and moment you decided you didn't believe anymore. Tell us about the events of that day which led to your abandoning faith in God?
Click to expand...


As I stated in another thread that's his MO... he tries and tries to insult, denigrate, and belittle to anger anyone he thinks is a Christian to provide what he will then deem 'un-Christian like behavior' so that he can use it against them in his 'debate'.  'Use their own morals and beliefs against them' is a Marxist tenet, taught in Saul Alinsky's 'Rules for Radicals'.  And of course, lying is right up there as well, they can't stand on truth, it's an anathema to people like him.


----------



## PostmodernProph

thebrucebeat said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet he doesn't endorse your faith in the least.
> *As a former pastor*, I have a bit of understanding regarding believers.
> If you think Boss owns anything, you aren't a very careful reader.
> You both do the same thing. When cornered, here comes the swearing and the really crude comments and the ignoring of the actual arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, sure you were...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quite so.
> Do you have any idea how many pastors leave the ministry every year?
> It's staggering.
> The depth of exposure to the faith and its proponents is withering. We have to see the nastiness that people justify with a deity, or in some cases just "spirituality", on a day-in, day-out basis.
> Why do you love Boss? He may strike at who you perceive as your enemies, but he counts you as one of those who believe false doctrine. He doesn't believe in the Nicene Creed. He thinks the idea of a Father God that loves you is incorrect.
> What you really admire in him is his rudeness and anger. You identify with it so much, you turn a blind eye to him being what you have to believe is an apostate. It isn't the Prince of Peace you worship, it is aggressiveness you bend your knee to. Your persona, your avatar, all you are is invested in a fight motif, and you love it so much you give a pass to someone who actually marginalizes your beliefs.
> This is the kind of myopia that drives pastors from the pulpit.
> What's the use?
Click to expand...


it is a problem.....when pastors start to follow instead of lead......


----------



## Newby

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Work on your reading comprehension skills a bit, moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Answer the question, or be forever known as the coward who wouldn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll be happy to answer your question as soon as you answer mine. I asked you about the day you decided you didn't believe in God anymore. You dodged my question with some bullshit about a process of gradual realization, but I don't accept that. There was some point at which you "convinced yourself" ...your words there... and that's the time period I want to know about. The moment you became fully convinced and stopped believing. What was it that did that for you?
> 
> Don't be a coward and dodge the question like you did the first time, spit it out. Tell us about that day, what happened, what event(s) caused this convincing realization? Was it something you are too embarassed to talk about? Did your church kick you out for doing something wrong? I promise, I won't judge you or ridicule you for it, I just honestly want to hear your story. Because, frankly, I believe you are lying about this. I think you are saying it so you can paint yourself as being "once like me" and you think this lends more credibility to your rejection of God.* I say this based on your own remarks and your behavior towards others here, trying to use their faith against them, etc. I think you are a dishonest person who will do whatever you need to try and bolster your argument*. So here's your chance to prove me wrong, give us a rundown on the events surrounding your spiritual demise.
Click to expand...


Yes, exactly.


----------



## Newby

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Answer the question, or be forever known as the coward who wouldn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll be happy to answer your question as soon as you answer mine. I asked you about the day you decided you didn't believe in God anymore. You dodged my question with some bullshit about a process of gradual realization, but I don't accept that. There was some point at which you "convinced yourself" ...your words there... and that's the time period I want to know about. The moment you became fully convinced and stopped believing. What was it that did that for you?
> 
> Don't be a coward and dodge the question like you did the first time, spit it out. Tell us about that day, what happened, what event(s) caused this convincing realization? Was it something you are too embarassed to talk about? Did your church kick you out for doing something wrong? I promise, I won't judge you or ridicule you for it, I just honestly want to hear your story. Because, frankly, I believe you are lying about this. I think you are saying it so you can paint yourself as being "once like me" and you think this lends more credibility to your rejection of God. I say this based on your own remarks and your behavior towards others here, trying to use their faith against them, etc. I think you are a dishonest person who will do whatever you need to try and bolster your argument. So here's your chance to prove me wrong, give us a rundown on the events surrounding your spiritual demise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry real life isn't as compelling to you as the great drama you want to invent. I continued to study the bible and went through a similar process that Bart Ehrmann went through, and many, many others. The critical study of scripture just didn't hold up, and gradually, slowly, the defenses I had built up to defend myself against that truth withered away, bit by bit. There was no "moment". You see too many movies. I quit. I couldn't do it any more. No scandal. No firing. Not even a loss of ordination. I just quit.
> Since you have chosen to invent a different narrative, I am helpless to change a closed mind.
> By the way, I am not an atheist either.
> Wrap your head around that one.
> Keep running. I know you won't answer the question. It punks your whole game.
> By the way, so far I have found many opportunities to prove you wrong. It is going very, very well.
Click to expand...


It's easy to state what you aren't, difficult to stand up for what you are, because then it can be used as a reference point against you.  And you call others cowards..


----------



## Newby

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry real life isn't as compelling to you as the great drama you want to invent. I continued to study the bible and went through a similar process that Bart Ehrmann went through, and many, many others. The critical study of scripture just didn't hold up, and gradually, slowly, the defenses I had built up to defend myself against that truth withered away, bit by bit. There was no "moment". You see too many movies. I quit. I couldn't do it any more. No scandal. No firing. Not even a loss of ordination. I just quit.
> Since you have chosen to invent a different narrative, I am helpless to change a closed mind.
> By the way, I am not an atheist either.
> Wrap your head around that one.
> Keep running. I know you won't answer the question. It punks your whole game.
> By the way, so far I have found many opportunities to prove you wrong. It is going very, very well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, so you don't want to share the details of when you "became convinced" of your beliefs. This tells us everything we need to know about your integrity. Not a single example of scripture that didn't hold up or what defenses withered away, just a bunch of smoke blowing from your ass. You can't explain this in detail because it's not true.
> 
> No, you're not an atheist, you are a God-hater. You fully believe in God, but hate Him. You're too much of a coward to admit that, probably because it sounds superficial, selfish and trite, and you know this, so you'd rather pretend you're something you're not and hope you can sell that to everyone else. Problem is, I've blown your cover and you don't like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where do you invent this crap, and why?
> *Are you that embarrassed that I keep putting you in corners that you can't escape from?* You keep running away from questions you have no answers for, and then go on this overwrought bloviation of some invented movie script because I don't choose to derail the thread with a long biography.
> Not a god-hater at all. Nor am I an atheist.
> Based on what do you think you have "blown my cover"? Some complete fabrication of your own? Blowing another's cover traditionally entails uncovering some fact that lends new light on a subject. I haven't noticed you had done that. You invented some and got very excited by your storytelling, hoping some of your equally dense sycophants will think you have gleaned something.
> You are, I think, actually unhinged. This post of yours sincerely makes you look insane.
Click to expand...


You really are quite amusing, and a raging narcissist on top of it.


----------



## thebrucebeat

PostmodernProph said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, sure you were...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quite so.
> Do you have any idea how many pastors leave the ministry every year?
> It's staggering.
> The depth of exposure to the faith and its proponents is withering. We have to see the nastiness that people justify with a deity, or in some cases just "spirituality", on a day-in, day-out basis.
> Why do you love Boss? He may strike at who you perceive as your enemies, but he counts you as one of those who believe false doctrine. He doesn't believe in the Nicene Creed. He thinks the idea of a Father God that loves you is incorrect.
> What you really admire in him is his rudeness and anger. You identify with it so much, you turn a blind eye to him being what you have to believe is an apostate. It isn't the Prince of Peace you worship, it is aggressiveness you bend your knee to. Your persona, your avatar, all you are is invested in a fight motif, and you love it so much you give a pass to someone who actually marginalizes your beliefs.
> This is the kind of myopia that drives pastors from the pulpit.
> What's the use?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it is a problem.....when pastors start to follow instead of lead......
Click to expand...

Expand on this. I don't want to respond until the point you are trying to make is clearer.


----------



## Newby

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've blown your cover by revealing your fraud. You have never been a pastor or you would have been able to tell us the details of your supposed spiritual downfall. You couldn't come up with anything, you floundered around and tried to pass off platitudes and bullshit that had no real meaning. I even gave you a second chance to clarify detail and you once again failed to do so.
> 
> You've not put me in any corner, nor have I avoided any questions. I've clearly stated my personal beliefs in this thread and others. I have no problem going into as much detail as needed and explaining what I believe and why. You've shown a clear pattern of using religion and the religious beliefs of others against them, and your 'former pastor' lie is another example of that same tactic.
> 
> You honestly believe you can pull it off, that you can fool people into thinking you've honestly been a pastor and now you've "seen the light" ..pun intended. You figure, if people buy this bullshit, they may question their own faith, and that's what you are all about. But you blew it when you couldn't answer my question. So now you're thinking you can paint me as delusional and unhinged, which is also a very common tactic of those who have been exposed as frauds.
> 
> 
> 
> Without writing a book about my experiences, I answered your question. Who here but you cares about the minutiae of my leaving the ministry? You want to share a lot of details here about your personal life? How would that change the impoverished nature of your arguments?
> Stop derailing with your absurd unfounded accusations.
> You are very clearly nuts. *You run away from many of my responses to you. You have no answers so you ignore them and try to pretend you never saw them.* You do it repeatedly.
> You want to try to attack the messenger, because you can't handle the message. You succeed only in making yourself look like the clown to match the avatars.
Click to expand...


You lie, he's responded to every post you and other like you have made on here, he has 'run' from nothing.  All you have is lies, all you do is lie.


----------



## G.T.

Newby said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've blown your cover by revealing your fraud. You have never been a pastor or you would have been able to tell us the details of your supposed spiritual downfall. You couldn't come up with anything, you floundered around and tried to pass off platitudes and bullshit that had no real meaning. I even gave you a second chance to clarify detail and you once again failed to do so.
> 
> You've not put me in any corner, nor have I avoided any questions. I've clearly stated my personal beliefs in this thread and others. I have no problem going into as much detail as needed and explaining what I believe and why. You've shown a clear pattern of using religion and the religious beliefs of others against them, and your 'former pastor' lie is another example of that same tactic.
> 
> You honestly believe you can pull it off, that you can fool people into thinking you've honestly been a pastor and now you've "seen the light" ..pun intended. You figure, if people buy this bullshit, they may question their own faith, and that's what you are all about. But you blew it when you couldn't answer my question. So now you're thinking you can paint me as delusional and unhinged, which is also a very common tactic of those who have been exposed as frauds.
> 
> 
> 
> Without writing a book about my experiences, I answered your question. Who here but you cares about the minutiae of my leaving the ministry? You want to share a lot of details here about your personal life? How would that change the impoverished nature of your arguments?
> Stop derailing with your absurd unfounded accusations.
> You are very clearly nuts. *You run away from many of my responses to you. You have no answers so you ignore them and try to pretend you never saw them.* You do it repeatedly.
> You want to try to attack the messenger, because you can't handle the message. You succeed only in making yourself look like the clown to match the avatars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You lie, he's responded to every post you and other like you have made on here, he has 'run' from nothing.  All you have is lies, all you do is lie.
Click to expand...


Actually, he glosses over the points he cannot address and ignores them completely. It's all right there.


----------



## PostmodernProph

thebrucebeat said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quite so.
> Do you have any idea how many pastors leave the ministry every year?
> It's staggering.
> The depth of exposure to the faith and its proponents is withering. We have to see the nastiness that people justify with a deity, or in some cases just "spirituality", on a day-in, day-out basis.
> Why do you love Boss? He may strike at who you perceive as your enemies, but he counts you as one of those who believe false doctrine. He doesn't believe in the Nicene Creed. He thinks the idea of a Father God that loves you is incorrect.
> What you really admire in him is his rudeness and anger. You identify with it so much, you turn a blind eye to him being what you have to believe is an apostate. It isn't the Prince of Peace you worship, it is aggressiveness you bend your knee to. Your persona, your avatar, all you are is invested in a fight motif, and you love it so much you give a pass to someone who actually marginalizes your beliefs.
> This is the kind of myopia that drives pastors from the pulpit.
> What's the use?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it is a problem.....when pastors start to follow instead of lead......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Expand on this. I don't want to respond until the point you are trying to make is clearer.
Click to expand...


was it obscure?.....a pastor's job is to lead his congregation toward a more mature faith.....those that choose to follow the congregation instead, spiral down to abandoning it......sounds like a passive-aggressive response to a troubled congregation......"I don't have the nerve to confront you in your error, so I will quit being a preacher and be just like you"........


----------



## Newby

thebrucebeat said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet he doesn't endorse your faith in the least.
> *As a former pastor*, I have a bit of understanding regarding believers.
> If you think Boss owns anything, you aren't a very careful reader.
> You both do the same thing. When cornered, here comes the swearing and the really crude comments and the ignoring of the actual arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, sure you were...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quite so.
> Do you have any idea how many pastors leave the ministry every year?
> It's staggering.
> The depth of exposure to the faith and its proponents is withering. We have to see the nastiness that people justify with a deity, or in some cases just "spirituality", on a day-in, day-out basis.
> Why do you love Boss? He may strike at who you perceive as your enemies, but he counts you as one of those who believe false doctrine. He doesn't believe in the Nicene Creed. He thinks the idea of a Father God that loves you is incorrect.
> What you really admire in him is his rudeness and anger. You identify with it so much, you turn a blind eye to him being what you have to believe is an apostate. It isn't the Prince of Peace you worship, it is aggressiveness you bend your knee to. Your persona, your avatar, all you are is invested in a fight motif, and you love it so much you give a pass to someone who actually marginalizes your beliefs.
> This is the kind of myopia that drives pastors from the pulpit.
> What's the use?
Click to expand...


Enemies?  I don't see you or anyone on here as an enemy, you'd never be capable of generating enough emotion to come anywhere close to being considered that.  As I've said before, I pity you, greatly in fact.   Boss is what you will never be, that's why you hate him, he has succeeded at what you have failed at, and it's driving you crazy.  It's also driving you crazy that you can't drive him to anger, he's acted and spoke with integrity and honesty, and you haven't gotten him to waver from that.  Sucks for you.

And you're just completely obsessed with my avatar, aren't you???


----------



## thebrucebeat

Newby said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've blown your cover by revealing your fraud. You have never been a pastor or you would have been able to tell us the details of your supposed spiritual downfall. You couldn't come up with anything, you floundered around and tried to pass off platitudes and bullshit that had no real meaning. I even gave you a second chance to clarify detail and you once again failed to do so.
> 
> You've not put me in any corner, nor have I avoided any questions. I've clearly stated my personal beliefs in this thread and others. I have no problem going into as much detail as needed and explaining what I believe and why. You've shown a clear pattern of using religion and the religious beliefs of others against them, and your 'former pastor' lie is another example of that same tactic.
> 
> You honestly believe you can pull it off, that you can fool people into thinking you've honestly been a pastor and now you've "seen the light" ..pun intended. You figure, if people buy this bullshit, they may question their own faith, and that's what you are all about. But you blew it when you couldn't answer my question. So now you're thinking you can paint me as delusional and unhinged, which is also a very common tactic of those who have been exposed as frauds.
> 
> 
> 
> Without writing a book about my experiences, I answered your question. Who here but you cares about the minutiae of my leaving the ministry? You want to share a lot of details here about your personal life? How would that change the impoverished nature of your arguments?
> Stop derailing with your absurd unfounded accusations.
> You are very clearly nuts. *You run away from many of my responses to you. You have no answers so you ignore them and try to pretend you never saw them.* You do it repeatedly.
> You want to try to attack the messenger, because you can't handle the message. You succeed only in making yourself look like the clown to match the avatars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You lie, he's responded to every post you and other like you have made on here, he has 'run' from nothing.  All you have is lies, all you do is lie.
Click to expand...

No, he really hasn't. He's avoided a lot of my responses.
I don't expect you to keep up with his responses, or lack of same, to my posts like I do.
But if you did, you would have a paradigm shift (that's a hint to a couple of my posts he's ignored).


----------



## Newby

thebrucebeat said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Without writing a book about my experiences, I answered your question. Who here but you cares about the minutiae of my leaving the ministry? You want to share a lot of details here about your personal life? How would that change the impoverished nature of your arguments?
> Stop derailing with your absurd unfounded accusations.
> You are very clearly nuts. *You run away from many of my responses to you. You have no answers so you ignore them and try to pretend you never saw them.* You do it repeatedly.
> You want to try to attack the messenger, because you can't handle the message. You succeed only in making yourself look like the clown to match the avatars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You lie, he's responded to every post you and other like you have made on here, he has 'run' from nothing.  All you have is lies, all you do is lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, he really hasn't. He's avoided a lot of my responses.
> I don't expect you to keep up with his responses, or lack of same, to my posts like I do.
> But if you did, you would have a paradigm shift (that's a hint to a couple of my posts he's ignored).
Click to expand...


He's kept up with all of you haters in here, one against how many now?  Trying to answer and respond to every one of you with posts addressing everything that's been said to him. And he's done so without anger, very little insults considering how many have been hurled at him, and with a logic and truth that none of you have been able to refute(hence the insults and anger towards him).  He's done a great job, I applaud him and have much respect for him, he's very articulate and intelligent, many qualities to admire.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Newby said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, sure you were...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quite so.
> Do you have any idea how many pastors leave the ministry every year?
> It's staggering.
> The depth of exposure to the faith and its proponents is withering. We have to see the nastiness that people justify with a deity, or in some cases just "spirituality", on a day-in, day-out basis.
> Why do you love Boss? He may strike at who you perceive as your enemies, but he counts you as one of those who believe false doctrine. He doesn't believe in the Nicene Creed. He thinks the idea of a Father God that loves you is incorrect.
> What you really admire in him is his rudeness and anger. You identify with it so much, you turn a blind eye to him being what you have to believe is an apostate. It isn't the Prince of Peace you worship, it is aggressiveness you bend your knee to. Your persona, your avatar, all you are is invested in a fight motif, and you love it so much you give a pass to someone who actually marginalizes your beliefs.
> This is the kind of myopia that drives pastors from the pulpit.
> What's the use?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Enemies?  I don't see you or anyone on here as an enemy, you'd never be capable of generating enough emotion to come anywhere close to being considered that.  As I've said before, I pity you, greatly in fact.   Boss is what you will never be, that's why you hate him, he has succeeded at what you have failed at, and it's driving you crazy.  It's also driving you crazy that you can't drive him to anger, he's acted and spoke with integrity and honesty, and you haven't gotten him to waver from that.  Sucks for you.
> 
> And you're just completely obsessed with my avatar, aren't you???
Click to expand...


Anger is the stock in trade for both of you.
Flinging rude epithets at people, vulgar language and so on. He specializes in complete hysterical meltdowns. Does it regularly. I don't have to drive him to anger. He goes there on his own, no prodding necessary.
It is so natural and ingrained in you that you have ceased to even perceive it in yourself any longer. It seems normal to you.
Boss is succeeding at nothing except sweeping up susceptible, uncritical minds like your own.
Hopefully you are right about one thing.
I will never be like Boss, spending time trying to create a persona of credibility with the outward appearances like his changing and embarrassing self-promoting avatars and not being able to actually supply the intellectual firepower.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Newby said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> You lie, he's responded to every post you and other like you have made on here, he has 'run' from nothing.  All you have is lies, all you do is lie.
> 
> 
> 
> No, he really hasn't. He's avoided a lot of my responses.
> I don't expect you to keep up with his responses, or lack of same, to my posts like I do.
> But if you did, you would have a paradigm shift (that's a hint to a couple of my posts he's ignored).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's kept up with all of you haters in here, one against how many now?  Trying to answer and respond to every one of you with posts addressing everything that's been said to him. And he's done so without anger, very little insults considering how many have been hurled at him, and with a logic and truth that none of you have been able to refute(hence the insults and anger towards him).  He's done a great job, I applaud him and have much respect for him, he's very articulate and intelligent, many qualities to admire.
Click to expand...


So you support him when he denounces some of the basic tenets of your faith? He is your champion?
I don't think I will be coming to you for lessons in logic.


----------



## Newby

thebrucebeat said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quite so.
> Do you have any idea how many pastors leave the ministry every year?
> It's staggering.
> The depth of exposure to the faith and its proponents is withering. We have to see the nastiness that people justify with a deity, or in some cases just "spirituality", on a day-in, day-out basis.
> Why do you love Boss? He may strike at who you perceive as your enemies, but he counts you as one of those who believe false doctrine. He doesn't believe in the Nicene Creed. He thinks the idea of a Father God that loves you is incorrect.
> What you really admire in him is his rudeness and anger. You identify with it so much, you turn a blind eye to him being what you have to believe is an apostate. It isn't the Prince of Peace you worship, it is aggressiveness you bend your knee to. Your persona, your avatar, all you are is invested in a fight motif, and you love it so much you give a pass to someone who actually marginalizes your beliefs.
> This is the kind of myopia that drives pastors from the pulpit.
> What's the use?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Enemies?  I don't see you or anyone on here as an enemy, you'd never be capable of generating enough emotion to come anywhere close to being considered that.  As I've said before, I pity you, greatly in fact.   Boss is what you will never be, that's why you hate him, he has succeeded at what you have failed at, and it's driving you crazy.  It's also driving you crazy that you can't drive him to anger, he's acted and spoke with integrity and honesty, and you haven't gotten him to waver from that.  Sucks for you.
> 
> And you're just completely obsessed with my avatar, aren't you???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anger is the stock in trade for both of you.
> Flinging rude epithets at people, vulgar language and so on. He specializes in complete hysterical meltdowns. Does it regularly. I don't have to drive him to anger. He goes there on his own, no prodding necessary.
> It is so natural and ingrained in you that you have ceased to even perceive it in yourself any longer. It seems normal to you.
> Boss is succeeding at nothing except sweeping up susceptible, uncritical minds like your own.
> Hopefully you are right about one thing.
> *I will never be like Boss*, spending time trying to create a persona of credibility with the outward appearances like his changing and embarrassing self-promoting avatars and not being able to actually supply the intellectual firepower.
Click to expand...


Hey, how about that??? One truth, at last!!!  No, you will never be like him, I agree!  And it drives you crazy!


----------



## Newby

thebrucebeat said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, he really hasn't. He's avoided a lot of my responses.
> I don't expect you to keep up with his responses, or lack of same, to my posts like I do.
> But if you did, you would have a paradigm shift (that's a hint to a couple of my posts he's ignored).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's kept up with all of you haters in here, one against how many now?  Trying to answer and respond to every one of you with posts addressing everything that's been said to him. And he's done so without anger, very little insults considering how many have been hurled at him, and with a logic and truth that none of you have been able to refute(hence the insults and anger towards him).  He's done a great job, I applaud him and have much respect for him, he's very articulate and intelligent, many qualities to admire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you support him when he denounces some of the basic tenets of your faith? He is your champion?
> I don't think I will be coming to you for lessons in logic.
Click to expand...


Thank you for finally admitting that you have no understanding of that which you are speaking about.  You will sadly never understand, you should just accept that and move on.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Newby said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's kept up with all of you haters in here, one against how many now?  Trying to answer and respond to every one of you with posts addressing everything that's been said to him. And he's done so without anger, very little insults considering how many have been hurled at him, and with a logic and truth that none of you have been able to refute(hence the insults and anger towards him).  He's done a great job, I applaud him and have much respect for him, he's very articulate and intelligent, many qualities to admire.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you support him when he denounces some of the basic tenets of your faith? He is your champion?
> I don't think I will be coming to you for lessons in logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for finally admitting that you have no understanding of that which you are speaking about.  You will sadly never understand, you should just accept that and move on.
Click to expand...

Avoiding my post is not a response.


----------



## thebrucebeat

PostmodernProph said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is a problem.....when pastors start to follow instead of lead......
> 
> 
> 
> Expand on this. I don't want to respond until the point you are trying to make is clearer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> was it obscure?.....a pastor's job is to lead his congregation toward a more mature faith.....those that choose to follow the congregation instead, spiral down to abandoning it......sounds like a passive-aggressive response to a troubled congregation......"I don't have the nerve to confront you in your error, so I will quit being a preacher and be just like you"........
Click to expand...


I have to tell you that your naïveté of the day to day life in pastoral ministry is profound. The attempts to do what you seem to think would be simple and natural are met with a hostility that would shock you, even from other clergy. In denominational churches you add the political and economic realities that large organizations add to the mix and you have a compromise of the first order.
For me personally, my continued study of scripture on a critical level led me to believe the effort was ill-conceived and unfounded, so the profound ethical battles, though worthy, couldn't be supported in the context of the specific belief system which the congregation and denomination were far more invested in anyway.
You wish to find the fault in me and make it as simple as dismissing the messenger. What I went through happens every day among clergy. It is extremely common. Pastors leave every day. 4000 churches open every year. 7000 close.
I lost faith in the biblical presentation of god as a literal description of a deity. Should I have continued and preached what I believed to be true and undermine the beliefs of the larger church?
What would you have done?


----------



## Newby

thebrucebeat said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you support him when he denounces some of the basic tenets of your faith? He is your champion?
> I don't think I will be coming to you for lessons in logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for finally admitting that you have no understanding of that which you are speaking about.  You will sadly never understand, you should just accept that and move on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Avoiding my post is not a response.
Click to expand...


Avoid it?  I don't take you seriously, you don't answer questions put to you, I don't respect you.  You speak of anger and insults, yet you are one of the most guilty parties on here for both of those. 

Your 'anger' argument doesn't even work on Boss, he doesn't claim to be a Christian, so you can't use his actions against him since he doesn't subscribe to a specific moral code, which is why you are left without a weapon to use against him since you have no others.

To answer your question, I absolutely support him, he does not denegrate and insult people for their beliefs and faiths, in other words, he isn't lowlife scum that needs to pull others down in order to raise themselves up, people like you.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Newby said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Enemies?  I don't see you or anyone on here as an enemy, you'd never be capable of generating enough emotion to come anywhere close to being considered that.  As I've said before, I pity you, greatly in fact.   Boss is what you will never be, that's why you hate him, he has succeeded at what you have failed at, and it's driving you crazy.  It's also driving you crazy that you can't drive him to anger, he's acted and spoke with integrity and honesty, and you haven't gotten him to waver from that.  Sucks for you.
> 
> And you're just completely obsessed with my avatar, aren't you???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anger is the stock in trade for both of you.
> Flinging rude epithets at people, vulgar language and so on. He specializes in complete hysterical meltdowns. Does it regularly. I don't have to drive him to anger. He goes there on his own, no prodding necessary.
> It is so natural and ingrained in you that you have ceased to even perceive it in yourself any longer. It seems normal to you.
> Boss is succeeding at nothing except sweeping up susceptible, uncritical minds like your own.
> Hopefully you are right about one thing.
> *I will never be like Boss*, spending time trying to create a persona of credibility with the outward appearances like his changing and embarrassing self-promoting avatars and not being able to actually supply the intellectual firepower.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, how about that??? One truth, at last!!!  No, you will never be like him, I agree!  And it drives you crazy!
Click to expand...

On the contrary.
It gives me great peace.


----------



## Newby

thebrucebeat said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anger is the stock in trade for both of you.
> Flinging rude epithets at people, vulgar language and so on. He specializes in complete hysterical meltdowns. Does it regularly. I don't have to drive him to anger. He goes there on his own, no prodding necessary.
> It is so natural and ingrained in you that you have ceased to even perceive it in yourself any longer. It seems normal to you.
> Boss is succeeding at nothing except sweeping up susceptible, uncritical minds like your own.
> Hopefully you are right about one thing.
> *I will never be like Boss*, spending time trying to create a persona of credibility with the outward appearances like his changing and embarrassing self-promoting avatars and not being able to actually supply the intellectual firepower.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, how about that??? One truth, at last!!!  No, you will never be like him, I agree!  And it drives you crazy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> On the contrary.
> It gives me great peace.
Click to expand...

 
You don't sound like you have peace... quite the contrary..


----------



## thebrucebeat

Newby said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for finally admitting that you have no understanding of that which you are speaking about.  You will sadly never understand, you should just accept that and move on.
> 
> 
> 
> Avoiding my post is not a response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Avoid it?  I don't take you seriously, you don't answer questions put to you, I don't respect you.  You speak of anger and insults, yet you are one of the most guilty parties on here for both of those.
> 
> Your 'anger' argument doesn't even work on Boss, he doesn't claim to be a Christian, so you can't use his actions against him since he doesn't subscribe to a specific moral code, which is why you are left without a weapon to use against him since you have no others.
> 
> To answer your question, I absolutely support him, he does not denegrate and insult people for their beliefs and faiths, in other words, he isn't lowlife scum that needs to pull others down in order to raise themselves up, people like you.
Click to expand...


Read your description of Boss you just wrote and ask yourself why, as a Christian, you hold him up as an exemplar. "He doesn't subscribe to a specific moral code...". This is your standard bearer, the man you rally behind? WWJD?
He constantly degenerates into insult and vulgarity, as do you. That is what you like about him. You worship aggression in all its forms, not Christ. You have tabled Him long ago.


----------



## Newby

thebrucebeat said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Avoiding my post is not a response.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avoid it?  I don't take you seriously, you don't answer questions put to you, I don't respect you.  You speak of anger and insults, yet you are one of the most guilty parties on here for both of those.
> 
> Your 'anger' argument doesn't even work on Boss, he doesn't claim to be a Christian, so you can't use his actions against him since he doesn't subscribe to a specific moral code, which is why you are left without a weapon to use against him since you have no others.
> 
> To answer your question, I absolutely support him, he does not denegrate and insult people for their beliefs and faiths, in other words, he isn't lowlife scum that needs to pull others down in order to raise themselves up, people like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read your description of Boss you just wrote and ask yourself why, as a Christian, you hold him up as an exemplar. "He doesn't subscribe to a specific moral code...". This is your standard bearer, the man you rally behind? WWJD?
> He constantly degenerates into insult and vulgarity, as do you. That is what you like about him. You worship aggression in all its forms, not Christ. You have tabled Him long ago.
Click to expand...


Your question only displays your ignorance.  Where did I say that I held him up as 'an exemplar' for Christian faith?  Those are your words, not mine.  I said I respected him, I believe him to be a good person by his actions, words, and behavior.  I see him as articulate and intelligent.  Should my opinion somehow be prohibited because I'm a Christian?  That's what you're implying, so why don't you deliniate why a Christian cannot respect another person that is not a Christian?  That's typically what a person who does not know the Christian faith would argue.

Even your ridiculous 'WWJD' is inaccurate.  So tell me, what would Jesus do differently?


----------



## thebrucebeat

Newby said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Avoid it?  I don't take you seriously, you don't answer questions put to you, I don't respect you.  You speak of anger and insults, yet you are one of the most guilty parties on here for both of those.
> 
> Your 'anger' argument doesn't even work on Boss, he doesn't claim to be a Christian, so you can't use his actions against him since he doesn't subscribe to a specific moral code, which is why you are left without a weapon to use against him since you have no others.
> 
> To answer your question, I absolutely support him, he does not denegrate and insult people for their beliefs and faiths, in other words, he isn't lowlife scum that needs to pull others down in order to raise themselves up, people like you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read your description of Boss you just wrote and ask yourself why, as a Christian, you hold him up as an exemplar. "He doesn't subscribe to a specific moral code...". This is your standard bearer, the man you rally behind? WWJD?
> He constantly degenerates into insult and vulgarity, as do you. That is what you like about him. You worship aggression in all its forms, not Christ. You have tabled Him long ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your question only displays your ignorance.  Where did I say that I held him up as 'an exemplar' for Christian faith?  Those are your words, not mine.  I said I respected him, I believe him to be a good person by his actions, words, and behavior.  I see him as articulate and intelligent.  Should my opinion somehow be prohibited because I'm a Christian?  That's what you're implying, so why don't you deliniate why a Christian cannot respect another person that is not a Christian?  That's typically what a person who does not know the Christian faith would argue.
> 
> Even your ridiculous 'WWJD' is inaccurate.  So tell me, what would Jesus do differently?
Click to expand...


Actually you have put words in my mouth.
I never said you "held him up as an exemplar of the Christian faith", I said you held him up as an exemplar, period. You added the last part dishonestly to argue something you could handle rather than what was actually said.
Since you use the same rhetorical tools of invective, vulgarity and dishonesty it only stands to reason you should find him admirable, but as a Christian it seems odd that you would attack me for not knowing the Christian faith but give him a complete and utter pass for the very same.
This illogical incongruity is what announces your subservience to aggression over your faith. 
You think it is articulate and intelligent to hold Paul up as a biblical hero while discrediting what Paul preached about the Fruits and saying they don't apply to him? For saying you can't see evidence for something if you don't believe in it, when this is exactly what happens to Paul?
You only like Boss because he is aggressive toward people you dislike. That is what your idol is. Aggression. You worship it, admire it, and hold it up as your exemplar.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Newby said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, how about that??? One truth, at last!!!  No, you will never be like him, I agree!  And it drives you crazy!
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary.
> It gives me great peace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't sound like you have peace... quite the contrary..
Click to expand...


Not in the big picture, but Boss helps.
He makes me realize I could be worse.


----------



## Newby

thebrucebeat said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read your description of Boss you just wrote and ask yourself why, as a Christian, you hold him up as an exemplar. "He doesn't subscribe to a specific moral code...". This is your standard bearer, the man you rally behind? WWJD?
> He constantly degenerates into insult and vulgarity, as do you. That is what you like about him. You worship aggression in all its forms, not Christ. You have tabled Him long ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your question only displays your ignorance.  Where did I say that I held him up as 'an exemplar' for Christian faith?  Those are your words, not mine.  I said I respected him, I believe him to be a good person by his actions, words, and behavior.  I see him as articulate and intelligent.  Should my opinion somehow be prohibited because I'm a Christian?  That's what you're implying, so why don't you deliniate why a Christian cannot respect another person that is not a Christian?  That's typically what a person who does not know the Christian faith would argue.
> 
> Even your ridiculous 'WWJD' is inaccurate.  So tell me, what would Jesus do differently?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually you have put words in my mouth.
> I never said you "held him up as an exemplar of the Christian faith", I said you held him up as an exemplar, period. You added the last part dishonestly to argue something you could handle rather than what was actually said.
> Since you use the same rhetorical tools of invective, vulgarity and dishonesty it only stands to reason you should find him admirable, but as a Christian it seems odd that you would attack me for not knowing the Christian faith but give him a complete and utter pass for the very same.
> This illogical incongruity is what announces your subservience to aggression over your faith.
> You think it is articulate and intelligent to hold Paul up as a biblical hero while discrediting what Paul preached about the Fruits and saying they don't apply to him? For saying you can't see evidence for something if you don't believe in it, when this is exactly what happens to Paul?
> You only like Boss because he is aggressive toward people you dislike. That is what your idol is. Aggression. You worship it, admire it, and hold it up as your exemplar.
Click to expand...


You just can't put forth anything without lying.  I never said he was an 'exemplar' of anything, 'exemplar' was your word, not mine.  I was very specific in what I said my opinion of him was.  I asked you a question that did not get answered, where does it say that as a Christian I am unable to respect and admire people who are not Christians?  Can you answer that question or not, or will you type yet more babble that is meaningless?

Attack you?   What words 'attacked' you, please be specific. 

Tell me, what is wrong with aggression? Does aggression only have a negative connotation to you? Are you not aggressive for your cause? Hypocrit.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Newby said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your question only displays your ignorance.  Where did I say that I held him up as 'an exemplar' for Christian faith?  Those are your words, not mine.  I said I respected him, I believe him to be a good person by his actions, words, and behavior.  I see him as articulate and intelligent.  Should my opinion somehow be prohibited because I'm a Christian?  That's what you're implying, so why don't you deliniate why a Christian cannot respect another person that is not a Christian?  That's typically what a person who does not know the Christian faith would argue.
> 
> Even your ridiculous 'WWJD' is inaccurate.  So tell me, what would Jesus do differently?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually you have put words in my mouth.
> I never said you "held him up as an exemplar of the Christian faith", I said you held him up as an exemplar, period. You added the last part dishonestly to argue something you could handle rather than what was actually said.
> Since you use the same rhetorical tools of invective, vulgarity and dishonesty it only stands to reason you should find him admirable, but as a Christian it seems odd that you would attack me for not knowing the Christian faith but give him a complete and utter pass for the very same.
> This illogical incongruity is what announces your subservience to aggression over your faith.
> You think it is articulate and intelligent to hold Paul up as a biblical hero while discrediting what Paul preached about the Fruits and saying they don't apply to him? For saying you can't see evidence for something if you don't believe in it, when this is exactly what happens to Paul?
> You only like Boss because he is aggressive toward people you dislike. That is what your idol is. Aggression. You worship it, admire it, and hold it up as your exemplar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just can't put forth anything without lying.  I never said he was an 'exemplar' of anything, 'exemplar' was your word, not mine.  I was very specific in what I said my opinion of him was.  I asked you a question that did not get answered, where does it say that as a Christian I am unable to respect and admire people who are not Christians?  Can you answer that question or not, or will you type yet more babble that is meaningless?
> 
> Attack you?   What words 'attacked' you, please be specific.
> 
> Tell me, what is wrong with aggression? Does aggression only have a negative connotation to you? Are you not aggressive for your cause? Hypocrit.
Click to expand...

I didn't say you started with the word "exemplar". I said you dishonestly added to it to argue a point I didn't make. This response clearly shows you are not able to read and follow a conversation.
Read the Fruits again. Do you find aggression, or traits that specifically counsel against it?
Be honest, if not here, with yourself.


----------



## Newby

thebrucebeat said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually you have put words in my mouth.
> I never said you "held him up as an exemplar of the Christian faith", I said you held him up as an exemplar, period. You added the last part dishonestly to argue something you could handle rather than what was actually said.
> Since you use the same rhetorical tools of invective, vulgarity and dishonesty it only stands to reason you should find him admirable, but as a Christian it seems odd that you would attack me for not knowing the Christian faith but give him a complete and utter pass for the very same.
> This illogical incongruity is what announces your subservience to aggression over your faith.
> You think it is articulate and intelligent to hold Paul up as a biblical hero while discrediting what Paul preached about the Fruits and saying they don't apply to him? For saying you can't see evidence for something if you don't believe in it, when this is exactly what happens to Paul?
> You only like Boss because he is aggressive toward people you dislike. That is what your idol is. Aggression. You worship it, admire it, and hold it up as your exemplar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just can't put forth anything without lying.  I never said he was an 'exemplar' of anything, 'exemplar' was your word, not mine.  I was very specific in what I said my opinion of him was.  I asked you a question that did not get answered, where does it say that as a Christian I am unable to respect and admire people who are not Christians?  Can you answer that question or not, or will you type yet more babble that is meaningless?
> 
> Attack you?   What words 'attacked' you, please be specific.
> 
> Tell me, what is wrong with aggression? Does aggression only have a negative connotation to you? Are you not aggressive for your cause? Hypocrit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I didn't say you started with the word "exemplar".* I said you dishonestly added to it to argue a point I didn't make. This response clearly shows you are not able to read and follow a conversation.
> Read the Fruits again. Do you find aggression, or traits that specifically counsel against it?
> Be honest, if not here, with yourself.
Click to expand...


That's because I didn't, you did.

Deflect, deflect, deflect... sad little Brucie...


----------



## thebrucebeat

Newby said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just can't put forth anything without lying.  I never said he was an 'exemplar' of anything, 'exemplar' was your word, not mine.  I was very specific in what I said my opinion of him was.  I asked you a question that did not get answered, where does it say that as a Christian I am unable to respect and admire people who are not Christians?  Can you answer that question or not, or will you type yet more babble that is meaningless?
> 
> Attack you?   What words 'attacked' you, please be specific.
> 
> Tell me, what is wrong with aggression? Does aggression only have a negative connotation to you? Are you not aggressive for your cause? Hypocrit.
> 
> 
> 
> *I didn't say you started with the word "exemplar".* I said you dishonestly added to it to argue a point I didn't make. This response clearly shows you are not able to read and follow a conversation.
> Read the Fruits again. Do you find aggression, or traits that specifically counsel against it?
> Be honest, if not here, with yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's because I didn't, you did.
> 
> Deflect, deflect, deflect... sad little Brucie...
Click to expand...


Again, avoiding it doesn't evaporate your unwillingness to confront your rejection of the Fruits.
It confirms it.


----------



## Newby

thebrucebeat said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I didn't say you started with the word "exemplar".* I said you dishonestly added to it to argue a point I didn't make. This response clearly shows you are not able to read and follow a conversation.
> Read the Fruits again. Do you find aggression, or traits that specifically counsel against it?
> Be honest, if not here, with yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's because I didn't, you did.
> 
> Deflect, deflect, deflect... sad little Brucie...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, avoiding it doesn't evaporate your unwillingness to confront your rejection of the Fruits.
> It confirms it.
Click to expand...


When you show or illustrate where I supposedly 'rejected the fruits', then perhaps we'll talk, until then I'll just chalk it up to desparation on your part.   Or you're just delusional, which confirms what I've thought all along.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Newby said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's because I didn't, you did.
> 
> Deflect, deflect, deflect... sad little Brucie...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, avoiding it doesn't evaporate your unwillingness to confront your rejection of the Fruits.
> It confirms it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you show or illustrate where I supposedly 'rejected the fruits', then perhaps we'll talk, until then I'll just chalk it up to desparation on your part.   Or you're just delusional, which confirms what I've thought all along.
Click to expand...

All of your posts illustrate your rejection of the Fruits.
Did you take the time to compare them to aggression?
What did you find?


----------



## Newby

thebrucebeat said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, avoiding it doesn't evaporate your unwillingness to confront your rejection of the Fruits.
> It confirms it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you show or illustrate where I supposedly 'rejected the fruits', then perhaps we'll talk, until then I'll just chalk it up to desparation on your part.   Or you're just delusional, which confirms what I've thought all along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *All of your posts illustrate your rejection of the Fruits.*Did you take the time to compare them to aggression?
> What did you find?
Click to expand...


Okay... 

I concede that I totally 'reject the fruits'.   You can go away now.


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've blown your cover by revealing your fraud. You have never been a pastor or you would have been able to tell us the details of your supposed spiritual downfall. You couldn't come up with anything, you floundered around and tried to pass off platitudes and bullshit that had no real meaning. I even gave you a second chance to clarify detail and you once again failed to do so.
> 
> You've not put me in any corner, nor have I avoided any questions. I've clearly stated my personal beliefs in this thread and others. I have no problem going into as much detail as needed and explaining what I believe and why. You've shown a clear pattern of using religion and the religious beliefs of others against them, and your 'former pastor' lie is another example of that same tactic.
> 
> You honestly believe you can pull it off, that you can fool people into thinking you've honestly been a pastor and now you've "seen the light" ..pun intended. You figure, if people buy this bullshit, they may question their own faith, and that's what you are all about. But you blew it when you couldn't answer my question. So now you're thinking you can paint me as delusional and unhinged, which is also a very common tactic of those who have been exposed as frauds.
> 
> 
> 
> Without writing a book about my experiences, I answered your question. Who here but you cares about the minutiae of my leaving the ministry? You want to share a lot of details here about your personal life? How would that change the impoverished nature of your arguments?
> Stop derailing with your absurd unfounded accusations.
> You are very clearly nuts. You run away from many of my responses to you. You have no answers so you ignore them and try to pretend you never saw them. You do it repeatedly.
> You want to try to attack the messenger, because you can't handle the message. You succeed only in making yourself look like the clown to match the avatars.
Click to expand...


No, you failed to answer my question. I didn't ask for a book, I asked about the specific details surrounding your "convincing" moment, when you "realized" God wasn't real and everything you believed was bullshit. You did not answer. I asked again. You did not answer. Instead, you want to pass off some generalizations and platitudes that simply don't tell us much. It was a slow process over time where you came to realize the scripture couldn't support itself....blah blah blah. No details, nothing specific, just hot air. 

This is how I know you're lying, you should have been able to answer my question with candid specificity. You should be able to tell us what event made you finally say "that's it, I can't believe this anymore!" But you can't tell us that because you're lying. It's another attempt at attacking Christians with their own faith, as you've come to be known for. 

We see that when PmP gives you the benefit of the doubt and accepts your lie, you don't respond to the point he makes about you abandoning your leadership with your congregation, you immediately begin to spew 'statistics' about how many pastors are leaving and how many churches are closing. Your responses to what others post are revealing your true motives.


----------



## Steven_R

I didn't have a moment when I decided the Judeo-Christian religion was just as much mythology as what the Greeks or Aztecs worshiped. It came down to realizing many things in the Bible can't be literally real and if some of it can't be real, then all of it might not be real. Then we get into stuff like kids with cancer but evil men dying in their own beds. Then I took science classes and realized I needed proof if I was going to buy into a religion and none would be forthcoming.


----------



## Boss

> You think it is articulate and intelligent to hold Paul up as a biblical hero while discrediting what Paul preached about the Fruits and saying they don't apply to him? For saying you can't see evidence for something if you don't believe in it, when this is exactly what happens to Paul?



I never said that anything didn't apply to me. I never discredited anything Paul preached. These are more distortions you introduce to try and use Christianity against Christians. The truth is, you can't see evidence for what you don't believe in, and that's NOT what happened to Paul. He was visited by Jesus after the Crucifixion. A purely spiritual thing happened there. One he could not deny. Perhaps if Jesus were to pay you a visit, it would convince you spiritual nature is real? Who knows?


----------



## Boss

Steven_R said:


> I didn't have a moment when I decided the Judeo-Christian religion was just as much mythology as what the Greeks or Aztecs worshiped. It came down to realizing many things in the Bible can't be literally real and if some of it can't be real, then all of it might not be real. Then we get into stuff like kids with cancer but evil men dying in their own beds. Then I took science classes and realized I needed proof if I was going to buy into a religion and none would be forthcoming.



So you don't believe you have a soul, a spirit, an essence of who you are?


----------



## Steven_R

Boss said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't have a moment when I decided the Judeo-Christian religion was just as much mythology as what the Greeks or Aztecs worshiped. It came down to realizing many things in the Bible can't be literally real and if some of it can't be real, then all of it might not be real. Then we get into stuff like kids with cancer but evil men dying in their own beds. Then I took science classes and realized I needed proof if I was going to buy into a religion and none would be forthcoming.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't believe you have a soul, a spirit, an essence of who you are?
Click to expand...


I don't know one way or another, but I suspect not, or at least not in some form where I maintain some consciousness. When I die, whatever makes me me just goes away.


----------



## HUGGY

Boss said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't have a moment when I decided the Judeo-Christian religion was just as much mythology as what the Greeks or Aztecs worshiped. It came down to realizing many things in the Bible can't be literally real and if some of it can't be real, then all of it might not be real. Then we get into stuff like kids with cancer but evil men dying in their own beds. Then I took science classes and realized I needed proof if I was going to buy into a religion and none would be forthcoming.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't believe you have a soul, a spirit, an essence of who you are?
Click to expand...


That wasn't so hard...was it ?


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you see how you said exactly what I said you did?  You said I have a professed faith in spiritual nature.  I denied having professed faith in spiritual nature, because I did not.  You responded by telling me you never said I have faith in spirituality.  Well, there's the quote for you, your own words, which say just what I told you they did.  Ready with some sort of denial or attempt to pretend that's a distortion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that was called "sarcasm." If you BELIEVE something is possible, you HAVE FAITH something is possible. The words are synonymous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're right, I don't believe in spiritual nature.  I've freely admitted that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly! Which is what I said all along.
> 
> 
> 
> No difference in this case. You don't believe in spiritual nature and don't believe it's possible. You are simply lying about the later in order to appear credible and objective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's odd, given your citing Paul of Tarsus as someone who didn't believe and then had his mind changed.  But oh, wait, according to you he was a god-hater, meaning he secretly believed but didn't admit it.  Oh, but if I'm a god-hater as well, then I secretly believe.....but that would mean your statement that I don't believe god or spirituality are possible is not only asinine assumption but contradicts your entire argument, wouldn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, that's actually a compelling point! You could honestly be someone who does believe in God but hates Him. This would explain why you have been so defensive and have spent days on this thread defending yourself. It would also explain your convoluted reasoning of how you don't believe in spirituality but believe it's possible, but not really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ready to explain how my quoting of your own words is a distortion?  How you know what I think and believe and I do not?  Or whatever other nonsense you want to try and pass off as reasoned conversation this time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right. I can't speak for what's actually in your heart. But whether I have been right or wrong about you and your beliefs, it seems to have at least made you examine what you do actually believe. I've not let you get away with distorting my comments and taking them out of context, and I will never knowingly allow you to do this. You can keep trying, but I'm pretty sharp and generally know what I have said.
Click to expand...


I see I was correct that you would ignore your own words pointed out to you.

You haven't let me get away with taking your comments *in* context, let alone out of context.


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> that's one of my favorite fairy tales out of the bible...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except the people are real and the historic events well documented.
Click to expand...

false...paul's story is a redemption myth,  
he Legend of Paul's Conversion
We Have Ways of Making You Talk




One reason it is so often difficult to tell whether, with a particular piece of biblical narrative, we are dealing with history or fiction is that stories appear in the Bible for their edifying and theological value. Since the stories are not there simply to satisfy idle reader curiosity, we cannot readily determine whether a given story has been remembered or fabricated, or a bit of both. And in the nature of the case, it will always be easier to show the unhistorical nature of a narrative than to verify one as historical. For historical criticism scrutinizes; it doubts; it holds the text's feet to the fire, rather like the evil interrogator in the movies who must assume his captive has information, that he is lying when he pretends not to know anything. Even though the poor prisoner may, like Dustin Hoffman in The Marathon Man, really know nothing, the interrogator must nonetheless assume he is lying ("I'll ask you one more time..."). Even so, the biblical critic may never be finally convinced his story is true even if God knows it to be a factual account. It is a matter of the futility of trying to prove a negative, in this case that the text is not a piece of fiction. At any rate, the story of Paul's conversion (Acts 9, 22, 26) has been for many hundreds of years both edifying (as a paradigm case of God's forgiving grace even to the chief of sinners) and apologetically important (miraculously proving the reality of the Risen Christ). As such it naturally calls forth our suspicions. And if the critic is like a merciless interrogator of texts, we may compare him with the picture of Paul as a persecutor1 of the saints in the very story we intend to subject to such cross-examination here.



Seeing Double

To suspect or reject the historical basis of the story of Paul's conversion as we read it in Acts is certainly nothing new in the history of scholarship. Indeed, one might have thought the issue settled long ago, with a negative verdict, by Baur, Zeller, and Haenchen.2 The contradictions and implausibilities of the three linked episodes (Paul's persecution after Stephen's stoning; his vision of the Risen Jesus on the Damascus Road; and his catechism and baptism by Ananias) are well known. To review just a few of them, and thus to beat a dead horse, the Stephen martyrdom (as Hans-Joachim Schoeps,3 followed by Robert Eisenman,4 suggests) is a fictionalization of the story of the martyrdom of James the Just in similar circumstances (as one can still glimpse in Acts 7:52, "... the Just One, whom you have now betrayed and murdered."). Luke's reduction of the Jewish Sanhedrin to a howling lynch mob is not to be dignified with learned discussion. Worse yet, Saul has been appended to the narrative by means of a typical Lukan blunder. The Law mandated the casting aside of the clothes of the one executed, not those of his executioners, but Luke has Saul play coat-check for the mob. And then Saul does not so much spearhead as personify the persecution, which, as Haenchen notes,5 is primarily a piece of "darkness before the dawn" hagiography anticipating the impending conversion of the enemy of the faith. The whole church is supposedly dispersed, jailed, or tortured into blaspheming Jesus, but the Apostles and myriads of their followers remain unmolested all the way into chapter 21. Saul obtains a hunting license from the high priest to persecute Jewish Jesus-believers in Damascus, though in fact the jurisdiction of that worthy extended into Damascus no more than did that of Quirinius into Bethlehem.

That the Damascus Road Christophany is the creation of Luke is evident, first, from the fact that, for artistry's sake, he quite properly varied the details between his three accounts, even as he had with his two accounts of the Ascension, a full forty days apart. As James Barr said regarding the latter case, a writer who is so little concerned for consistency cannot very well have been striving for historical accuracy.6  Second, as Gerhard Lohfink notes, Luke's stories copy standard scriptural type-scenes (to borrow Robert Alter's phrase).7 The scenes "work" because they prompt the reader to recall the biblical prototypes. Since he offers them as transparent literary allusions, he simply cannot have expected his readers to take such scenes as historical reportage. And the Damascus Road episode certainly does embody such a type-scene, the kind Lohfink calls the "double vision." In such a sequence a heavenly visitant grants the protagonist a revelation, adding that at the very same moment he/she is appearing to someone elsewhere with instructions to meet/help the protagonist.8 A third reason, and the strongest of all, as we will see, is that, while Paul's epistles provide nary a historical peg from which to hang the Lukan tale, there are strikingly close literary prototypes on which Luke seems to have drawn.
The Legend of Paul's Conversion We Have Ways of Making You Talk by Robert M. Price


----------



## daws101

Lonestar_logic said:


> God haters persist because God is pursuing them.
> 
> No matter how many times an atheist says there is no God, he can not help himself but to talk about God.
> 
> God works in mysterious ways indeed.


bahahahahahahahahah!


----------



## daws101

Newby said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's the first problem with your post, bolded in red...  Perhaps you do 'think', it's just lacking in quality and quantity.
> 
> You have no idea what believers would find objectionable, claiming that you do is a fallacy. I love Boss, he owns every single one of you haters in here, and you all know it, it's why you persist and persist, you can't remotely win a debate with him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet he doesn't endorse your faith in the least.
> *As a former pastor*, I have a bit of understanding regarding believers.
> If you think Boss owns anything, you aren't a very careful reader.
> You both do the same thing. When cornered, here comes the swearing and the really crude comments and the ignoring of the actual arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, sure you were...
Click to expand...

fine display of christian intolerance...do you have any evidence that he was not or are you just talking out your ass?


----------



## Boss

Steven_R said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't have a moment when I decided the Judeo-Christian religion was just as much mythology as what the Greeks or Aztecs worshiped. It came down to realizing many things in the Bible can't be literally real and if some of it can't be real, then all of it might not be real. Then we get into stuff like kids with cancer but evil men dying in their own beds. Then I took science classes and realized I needed proof if I was going to buy into a religion and none would be forthcoming.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't believe you have a soul, a spirit, an essence of who you are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know one way or another, but I suspect not, or at least not in some form where I maintain some consciousness. When I die, whatever makes me me just goes away.
Click to expand...

How do you know what happens when your physical body dies? If you accept the idea of this "whatever makes me" that must go away when you die, then you must believe your soul, spirit and essence of who you are, is a physical thing. That means your thoughts, desires and dreams, they must be physical things as well. Is that what you honestly think? Or --- you don't know one way or another?



> That wasn't so hard...was it ?



Seems to be a little hard for him to commit.


----------



## daws101

Newby said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've blown your cover by revealing your fraud. You have never been a pastor or you would have been able to tell us the details of your supposed spiritual downfall. You couldn't come up with anything, you floundered around and tried to pass off platitudes and bullshit that had no real meaning. I even gave you a second chance to clarify detail and you once again failed to do so.
> 
> You've not put me in any corner, nor have I avoided any questions. I've clearly stated my personal beliefs in this thread and others. I have no problem going into as much detail as needed and explaining what I believe and why. You've shown a clear pattern of using religion and the religious beliefs of others against them, and your 'former pastor' lie is another example of that same tactic.
> 
> You honestly believe you can pull it off, that you can fool people into thinking you've honestly been a pastor and now you've "seen the light" ..pun intended. You figure, if people buy this bullshit, they may question their own faith, and that's what you are all about. But you blew it when you couldn't answer my question. So now you're thinking you can paint me as delusional and unhinged, which is also a very common tactic of those who have been exposed as frauds.
> 
> 
> 
> Without writing a book about my experiences, I answered your question. Who here but you cares about the minutiae of my leaving the ministry? You want to share a lot of details here about your personal life? How would that change the impoverished nature of your arguments?
> Stop derailing with your absurd unfounded accusations.
> You are very clearly nuts. *You run away from many of my responses to you. You have no answers so you ignore them and try to pretend you never saw them.* You do it repeatedly.
> You want to try to attack the messenger, because you can't handle the message. You succeed only in making yourself look like the clown to match the avatars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You lie, he's responded to every post you and other like you have made on here, he has 'run' from nothing.  All you have is lies, all you do is lie.
Click to expand...

attention posters the above is a classic newby dodge..


----------



## daws101

Newby said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> You lie, he's responded to every post you and other like you have made on here, he has 'run' from nothing.  All you have is lies, all you do is lie.
> 
> 
> 
> No, he really hasn't. He's avoided a lot of my responses.
> I don't expect you to keep up with his responses, or lack of same, to my posts like I do.
> But if you did, you would have a paradigm shift (that's a hint to a couple of my posts he's ignored).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's kept up with all of you haters in here, one against how many now?  Trying to answer and respond to every one of you with posts addressing everything that's been said to him. And he's done so without anger, very little insults considering how many have been hurled at him, and with a logic and truth that none of you have been able to refute(hence the insults and anger towards him).  He's done a great job, I applaud him and have much respect for him, he's very articulate and intelligent, many qualities to admire.
Click to expand...

woow boosy has a groupie!...or a sycophant .....she probably thinks jim jones and david koresh are rock stars!
boosy must be proud ,he's bagged another sucker!


----------



## Steven_R

Boss said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't believe you have a soul, a spirit, an essence of who you are?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know one way or another, but I suspect not, or at least not in some form where I maintain some consciousness. When I die, whatever makes me me just goes away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you know what happens when your physical body dies? If you accept the idea of this "whatever makes me" that must go away when you die, then you must believe your soul, spirit and essence of who you are, is a physical thing. That means your thoughts, desires and dreams, they must be physical things as well. Is that what you honestly think? Or --- you don't know one way or another?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That wasn't so hard...was it ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems to be a little hard for him to commit.
Click to expand...


You're asking me to commit when I keep saying I don't know. I don't know one way or another. Do I have a soul, do you, does anyone or is it all just electro-chemical brain activity? What makes people unique? I don't have any data either way for what happens to that special essence that makes humans unique when we die. I assume nothing except we die and that's it because I have no data other than people die. So far as I know, my brain simply shuts down and that's the end of the story. I'm willing to accept that may be wrong, but I need data first.

Maybe there's a soul, maybe there isn't. Maybe there's a god, maybe there' isn't. I just don't know one way or another. I'm just as agnostic about my soul as I am about god. I have no proof either way and nobody has ever produced proof.


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't have a moment when I decided the Judeo-Christian religion was just as much mythology as what the Greeks or Aztecs worshiped. It came down to realizing many things in the Bible can't be literally real and if some of it can't be real, then all of it might not be real. Then we get into stuff like kids with cancer but evil men dying in their own beds. Then I took science classes and realized I needed proof if I was going to buy into a religion and none would be forthcoming.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't believe you have a soul, a spirit, an essence of who you are?
Click to expand...

this is amusing boosy is absolutely certain he has a soul......fact is no one is exactly sure what a soul is..


----------



## Boss

> false...paul's story is a redemption myth



But the story is not mythical at all. By your own evidence, the people and events were real, not mythical. You present some supposed "investigative opinion" to contradict the Biblical story, mostly by pointing out how the Biblical story leaves out some details, but it smacks of the intellectualism of a Bill Mahr or Richard Dawkins, who doesn't want to recognize the story as truth to begin with. It's full of sneering mockery and ridicule, not indicative of anyone honestly trying to find the truth. There is no objective evaluation happening here, it's more anti-Christian bullshit topped off with your proclamation of "myth" when that clearly is untrue by your own accounts. 

This man, Paul, existed and was a real live person who persecuted Christians. He was like you in so many ways, except where you stumble out of your bed over to the computer to log on the Internet and persecute Christians, he mounted a donkey and rode off into the desert for days, in order to hunt down Christians and kill them. He ends up being the most prolific writer of the New Testament. What changed him? A spiritual event, spiritual nature intervened. And that's really all it takes for any of you to be converted and changed for life, your whole perspective changes.


----------



## Boss

Steven_R said:


> You're asking me to commit when I keep saying I don't know. I don't know one way or another. Do I have a soul, do you, does anyone or is it all just electro-chemical brain activity? What makes people unique? I don't have any data either way for what happens to that special essence that makes humans unique when we die. I assume nothing except we die and that's it because I have no data other than people die. So far as I know, my brain simply shuts down and that's the end of the story. I'm willing to accept that may be wrong, but I need data first.
> 
> Maybe there's a soul, maybe there isn't. Maybe there's a god, maybe there' isn't. I just don't know one way or another. I'm just as agnostic about my soul as I am about god. I have no proof either way and nobody has ever produced proof.



Well I am asking you to commit because you should be able to if you're absolutely certain about your convictions. But as we can see here, you're not absolutely sure about anything. This tells me that you DO realize there is something more to you than your physical being. You recognize that is the case, but you've somehow managed to justify that whatever it is that you define as such, must be a manifestation of your mind. 

You say that you need "proof" but you're only looking to physical science for proof of something that you know is not physical. You are fully aware that it's not physical, but yet, you require some form of physical validation before you can accept it exists. Now you must be aware that you're never going to find physical evidence to support something that is clearly not physical in nature, but still... that's where you've decided to let things rest. Not knowing and searching endlessly for answers in a place they can't be found.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> You think it is articulate and intelligent to hold Paul up as a biblical hero while discrediting what Paul preached about the Fruits and saying they don't apply to him? For saying you can't see evidence for something if you don't believe in it, when this is exactly what happens to Paul?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said that anything didn't apply to me. I never discredited anything Paul preached. These are more distortions you introduce to try and use Christianity against Christians. The truth is, you can't see evidence for what you don't believe in, and that's NOT what happened to Paul. He was visited by Jesus after the Crucifixion. A purely spiritual thing happened there. One he could not deny. Perhaps if Jesus were to pay you a visit, it would convince you spiritual nature is real? Who knows?
Click to expand...

So now I could see spiritual evidence even if I didn't believe, just like Paul?
Now I've got it.


----------



## Boss

> this is amusing boosy is absolutely certain he has a soul......fact is no one is exactly sure what a soul is..



Revealing testimony from dawsy. *No one is exactly sure what a soul is...* notice this is not _"there is no such thing as a soul"_ or anything indicating that our soul, spirit and essence of who we are doesn't exist. No science is being offered to reject the notion of a soul. Nothing to disprove we have one. Not even a clear indication that he doesn't believe souls exist. Just the admonition that "we don't know what a soul is." 

However, billions and billions of humans over many thousands of years, certainly have believed they knew what a soul was and that they had one. I don't think dawsy is an exception because he doesn't commit to not having a soul, spirit or essence of who he is. Isn't it amazing how few non-believers are comfortable coming out and pronouncing this?


----------



## G.T.

A soul does not need to be disproven, as it is not proven.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Newby said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you show or illustrate where I supposedly 'rejected the fruits', then perhaps we'll talk, until then I'll just chalk it up to desparation on your part.   Or you're just delusional, which confirms what I've thought all along.
> 
> 
> 
> *All of your posts illustrate your rejection of the Fruits.*Did you take the time to compare them to aggression?
> What did you find?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay...
> 
> I concede that I totally 'reject the fruits'.   You can go away now.
Click to expand...


I may use your post as a signature with an attribution to you. Is that ok?


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've blown your cover by revealing your fraud. You have never been a pastor or you would have been able to tell us the details of your supposed spiritual downfall. You couldn't come up with anything, you floundered around and tried to pass off platitudes and bullshit that had no real meaning. I even gave you a second chance to clarify detail and you once again failed to do so.
> 
> You've not put me in any corner, nor have I avoided any questions. I've clearly stated my personal beliefs in this thread and others. I have no problem going into as much detail as needed and explaining what I believe and why. You've shown a clear pattern of using religion and the religious beliefs of others against them, and your 'former pastor' lie is another example of that same tactic.
> 
> You honestly believe you can pull it off, that you can fool people into thinking you've honestly been a pastor and now you've "seen the light" ..pun intended. You figure, if people buy this bullshit, they may question their own faith, and that's what you are all about. But you blew it when you couldn't answer my question. So now you're thinking you can paint me as delusional and unhinged, which is also a very common tactic of those who have been exposed as frauds.
> 
> 
> 
> Without writing a book about my experiences, I answered your question. Who here but you cares about the minutiae of my leaving the ministry? You want to share a lot of details here about your personal life? How would that change the impoverished nature of your arguments?
> Stop derailing with your absurd unfounded accusations.
> You are very clearly nuts. You run away from many of my responses to you. You have no answers so you ignore them and try to pretend you never saw them. You do it repeatedly.
> You want to try to attack the messenger, because you can't handle the message. You succeed only in making yourself look like the clown to match the avatars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you failed to answer my question. I didn't ask for a book, I asked about the specific details surrounding your "convincing" moment, when you "realized" God wasn't real and everything you believed was bullshit. You did not answer. I asked again. You did not answer. Instead, you want to pass off some generalizations and platitudes that simply don't tell us much. It was a slow process over time where you came to realize the scripture couldn't support itself....blah blah blah. No details, nothing specific, just hot air.
> 
> This is how I know you're lying, you should have been able to answer my question with candid specificity. You should be able to tell us what event made you finally say "that's it, I can't believe this anymore!" But you can't tell us that because you're lying. It's another attempt at attacking Christians with their own faith, as you've come to be known for.
> 
> We see that when PmP gives you the benefit of the doubt and accepts your lie, you don't respond to the point he makes about you abandoning your leadership with your congregation, you immediately begin to spew 'statistics' about how many pastors are leaving and how many churches are closing. Your responses to what others post are revealing your true motives.
Click to expand...

When answers are given you don't like you simply call them lies without any reason to support your accusations. Why do you think it had to be an epiphany bolt-of-lightning moment? Where in the world is that supported by any kind of data?
On the contrary, I responded clearly to PmP before citing the uncomfortable statistics.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're asking me to commit when I keep saying I don't know. I don't know one way or another. Do I have a soul, do you, does anyone or is it all just electro-chemical brain activity? What makes people unique? I don't have any data either way for what happens to that special essence that makes humans unique when we die. I assume nothing except we die and that's it because I have no data other than people die. So far as I know, my brain simply shuts down and that's the end of the story. I'm willing to accept that may be wrong, but I need data first.
> 
> Maybe there's a soul, maybe there isn't. Maybe there's a god, maybe there' isn't. I just don't know one way or another. I'm just as agnostic about my soul as I am about god. I have no proof either way and nobody has ever produced proof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I am asking you to commit because you should be able to if you're absolutely certain about your convictions. But as we can see here, you're not absolutely sure about anything. This tells me that you DO realize there is something more to you than your physical being. You recognize that is the case, but you've somehow managed to justify that whatever it is that you define as such, must be a manifestation of your mind.
> 
> You say that you need "proof" but you're only looking to physical science for proof of something that you know is not physical. You are fully aware that it's not physical, but yet, you require some form of physical validation before you can accept it exists. Now you must be aware that you're never going to find physical evidence to support something that is clearly not physical in nature, but still... that's where you've decided to let things rest. Not knowing and searching endlessly for answers in a place they can't be found.
Click to expand...

He clearly made his case for where he is on the question. He wasn't evasive or vague.
The fact you don't like where he stands doesn't change that.
You have this habit of putting arbitrary layers you invent out of thin air on people that don't align with your personal spiritual certainty. You did it with me, and now you are doing it with him.
What massive insecurity would cause you to do that?


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> A soul does not need to be disproven, as it is not proven.



But it has been proven to billions and billions of people over thousands and thousands of years. It hasn't been proven to YOU... but YOU aren't everyone. 

If you are going to make the claim that something doesn't exist, you need to support that claim with some evidence. Whether there is proof for it or not, doesn't matter. I could argue that time and space do not exist because you've not proven they do. I could argue that reality doesn't exist because you've not proven it does. The list goes on an on. Because, in fact, only mathematics are proven absolutely, and that's just in our realization within the known universe.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're asking me to commit when I keep saying I don't know. I don't know one way or another. Do I have a soul, do you, does anyone or is it all just electro-chemical brain activity? What makes people unique? I don't have any data either way for what happens to that special essence that makes humans unique when we die. I assume nothing except we die and that's it because I have no data other than people die. So far as I know, my brain simply shuts down and that's the end of the story. I'm willing to accept that may be wrong, but I need data first.
> 
> Maybe there's a soul, maybe there isn't. Maybe there's a god, maybe there' isn't. I just don't know one way or another. I'm just as agnostic about my soul as I am about god. I have no proof either way and nobody has ever produced proof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I am asking you to commit because you should be able to if you're absolutely certain about your convictions. But as we can see here, you're not absolutely sure about anything. This tells me that you DO realize there is something more to you than your physical being. You recognize that is the case, but you've somehow managed to justify that whatever it is that you define as such, must be a manifestation of your mind.
> 
> You say that you need "proof" but you're only looking to physical science for proof of something that you know is not physical. You are fully aware that it's not physical, but yet, you require some form of physical validation before you can accept it exists. Now you must be aware that you're never going to find physical evidence to support something that is clearly not physical in nature, but still... that's where you've decided to let things rest. Not knowing and searching endlessly for answers in a place they can't be found.
Click to expand...


I wonder, does a person's soul have any affect on them?  On their day to day lives, on what they do in their physical bodies?  If the answer is yes, then despite the soul not being physical, evidence of it would be able to be seen and tested with physical science, wouldn't it?


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> false...paul's story is a redemption myth
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the story is not mythical at all. By your own evidence, the people and events were real, not mythical. You present some supposed "investigative opinion" to contradict the Biblical story, mostly by pointing out how the Biblical story leaves out some details, but it smacks of the intellectualism of a Bill Mahr or Richard Dawkins, who doesn't want to recognize the story as truth to begin with. It's full of sneering mockery and ridicule, not indicative of anyone honestly trying to find the truth. There is no objective evaluation happening here, it's more anti-Christian bullshit topped off with your proclamation of "myth" when that clearly is untrue by your own accounts.
> 
> This man, Paul, existed and was a real live person who persecuted Christians. He was like you in so many ways, except where you stumble out of your bed over to the computer to log on the Internet and persecute Christians, he mounted a donkey and rode off into the desert for days, in order to hunt down Christians and kill them. He ends up being the most prolific writer of the New Testament. What changed him? A spiritual event, spiritual nature intervened. And that's really all it takes for any of you to be converted and changed for life, your whole perspective changes.
Click to expand...

love it when you rationalize....


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> this is amusing boosy is absolutely certain he has a soul......fact is no one is exactly sure what a soul is..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Revealing testimony from dawsy. *No one is exactly sure what a soul is...* notice this is not _"there is no such thing as a soul"_ or anything indicating that our soul, spirit and essence of who we are doesn't exist. No science is being offered to reject the notion of a soul. Nothing to disprove we have one. Not even a clear indication that he doesn't believe souls exist. Just the admonition that "we don't know what a soul is."
> 
> However, billions and billions of humans over many thousands of years, certainly have believed they knew what a soul was and that they had one. I don't think dawsy is an exception because he doesn't commit to not having a soul, spirit or essence of who he is. Isn't it amazing how few non-believers are comfortable coming out and pronouncing this?
Click to expand...

sorry boosy but your characterization of what I said is shit ..a giant steaming pile of it ...how bout we try some logic here, if we are not sure what a soul is and there is no objective evidence of such a thing, then the only honest thing to say about it is we don't know...however not knowing is in no way an indication or inference that one could or does exist....
the non committal nonsense you are spewing is just another ploy  Feigning  an imagined superior pov.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> A soul does not need to be disproven, as it is not proven.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it has been proven to billions and billions of people over thousands and thousands of years. It hasn't been proven to YOU... but YOU aren't everyone.
> 
> If you are going to make the claim that something doesn't exist, you need to support that claim with some evidence. Whether there is proof for it or not, doesn't matter. I could argue that time and space do not exist because you've not proven they do. I could argue that reality doesn't exist because you've not proven it does. The list goes on an on. Because, in fact, only mathematics are proven absolutely, and that's just in our realization within the known universe.
Click to expand...

If you want to prove something DOES exist, does that require evidence also, or merely faith or belief?
If it does, will you now provide some for the spiritual nature?


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> A soul does not need to be disproven, as it is not proven.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it has been proven to billions and billions of people over thousands and thousands of years. It hasn't been proven to YOU... but YOU aren't everyone.
> 
> If you are going to make the claim that something doesn't exist, you need to support that claim with some evidence. Whether there is proof for it or not, doesn't matter. I could argue that time and space do not exist because you've not proven they do. I could argue that reality doesn't exist because you've not proven it does. The list goes on an on. Because, in fact, only mathematics are proven absolutely, and that's just in our realization within the known universe.
Click to expand...

the imaginary authority of the masses ploy.......not evidence ..


----------



## G.T.

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> A soul does not need to be disproven, as it is not proven.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it has been proven to billions and billions of people over thousands and thousands of years. It hasn't been proven to YOU... but YOU aren't everyone.
> 
> If you are going to make the claim that something doesn't exist, you need to support that claim with some evidence. Whether there is proof for it or not, doesn't matter. I could argue that time and space do not exist because you've not proven they do. I could argue that reality doesn't exist because you've not proven it does. The list goes on an on. Because, in fact, only mathematics are proven absolutely, and that's just in our realization within the known universe.
Click to expand...


No it hasnt been proven to billions and billions of people.

Believed by / faith in -----does not equal proven.

Gluck with that.


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> A soul does not need to be disproven, as it is not proven.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it has been proven to billions and billions of people over thousands and thousands of years. It hasn't been proven to YOU... but YOU aren't everyone.
> 
> If you are going to make the claim that something doesn't exist, you need to support that claim with some evidence. Whether there is proof for it or not, doesn't matter. I could argue that time and space do not exist because you've not proven they do. I could argue that reality doesn't exist because you've not proven it does. The list goes on an on. Because, in fact, only mathematics are proven absolutely, and that's just in our realization within the known universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it hasnt been proven to billions and billions of people.
> 
> Believed by / faith in -----does not equal proven.
> 
> Gluck with that.
Click to expand...


Anything "believed" requires faith. If you believe something is proven, you have faith that it is proven, and it doesn't matter what that is.


----------



## G.T.

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it has been proven to billions and billions of people over thousands and thousands of years. It hasn't been proven to YOU... but YOU aren't everyone.
> 
> If you are going to make the claim that something doesn't exist, you need to support that claim with some evidence. Whether there is proof for it or not, doesn't matter. I could argue that time and space do not exist because you've not proven they do. I could argue that reality doesn't exist because you've not proven it does. The list goes on an on. Because, in fact, only mathematics are proven absolutely, and that's just in our realization within the known universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it hasnt been proven to billions and billions of people.
> 
> Believed by / faith in -----does not equal proven.
> 
> Gluck with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anything "believed" requires faith. If you believe something is proven, you have faith that it is proven, and it doesn't matter what that is.
Click to expand...


Proving and having faith; however, are not one in the same. 

The spirit is not proven.


----------



## G.T.

Also worthy of note - 

A crusade to debate whether there is or is not proof of a god is not being a God hater. Hopefully some level headed people can decipher between haters and philosophical shoot the shitters.


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> A soul does not need to be disproven, as it is not proven.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it has been proven to billions and billions of people over thousands and thousands of years. It hasn't been proven to YOU... but YOU aren't everyone.
> 
> If you are going to make the claim that something doesn't exist, you need to support that claim with some evidence. Whether there is proof for it or not, doesn't matter. I could argue that time and space do not exist because you've not proven they do. I could argue that reality doesn't exist because you've not proven it does. The list goes on an on. Because, in fact, only mathematics are proven absolutely, and that's just in our realization within the known universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you want to prove something DOES exist, does that require evidence also, or merely faith or belief?
> If it does, will you now provide some for the spiritual nature?
Click to expand...


You can prove to yourself that things of a spiritual nature exist by examining spiritual evidence, but in order to do this, your mind has to accept that spiritual nature is real. If you don't think it is real, you can't believe any spiritual evidence. 

Think about it like this... If I only believe that our reality and existence in this universe is a spiritual experience and not physically in existence, there is no physical evidence you can offer me that I can accept, because I do not believe in physical nature. You can present it and I can immediately reject it as conjecture, illusion, delusion, myth, fantasy... whatever. 

I have to first acknowledge a physical existence before physical evidence means a thing to me. This doesn't change the evidence or render it invalid to anyone other than me. You can show me how gravity physically works and I can demand you show me how it spiritually works. You can show me how we have physical evidence of how planets move around suns, etc., and I can demand you show me some spiritual evidence to support that belief. What can you do? Can you ever reach me with physical science? Is it possible for me to ever acknowledge physical science if my mind is closed to that possibility? 

As a thinking and rational being, you understand the various concepts of light and dark, positive and negative, matter and antimatter, good and bad, ying and yang, organic and inorganic, conscience and subconscious, life and death.... etc., etc., etc. on and on and on... but for some reason, you have this mental block where you cannot comprehend physical and spiritual. In your mind, there is only the physical and spiritual must not exist because it can't be confirmed by the physical. I can't make you accept it, I lack that power. Only YOU have that capacity as a sentient being.


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it hasnt been proven to billions and billions of people.
> 
> Believed by / faith in -----does not equal proven.
> 
> Gluck with that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anything "believed" requires faith. If you believe something is proven, you have faith that it is proven, and it doesn't matter what that is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Proving and having faith; however, are not one in the same.
> 
> The spirit is not proven.
Click to expand...


Nothing is "proven" except mathematics, and even that is only proven in our current understanding of reality in our known universe. Virtually EVERYTHING including reality itself, is a matter of faith. We believe it or we don't believe it.


----------



## G.T.

Boss said:


> You can prove to yourself that things of a spiritual nature exist by examining spiritual evidence, but in order to do this, your mind has to accept that spiritual nature is real.





huh?



anyone?

cart before the horse
circular logic
fallacy

whoo00o geez, too many to list patna


----------



## G.T.

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anything "believed" requires faith. If you believe something is proven, you have faith that it is proven, and it doesn't matter what that is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Proving and having faith; however, are not one in the same.
> 
> The spirit is not proven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing is "proven" except mathematics, and even that is only proven in our current understanding of reality in our known universe. Virtually EVERYTHING including reality itself, is a matter of faith. We believe it or we don't believe it.
Click to expand...


Your previous post literally started with "you can prove"


----------



## Boss

daws101 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> A soul does not need to be disproven, as it is not proven.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it has been proven to billions and billions of people over thousands and thousands of years. It hasn't been proven to YOU... but YOU aren't everyone.
> 
> If you are going to make the claim that something doesn't exist, you need to support that claim with some evidence. Whether there is proof for it or not, doesn't matter. I could argue that time and space do not exist because you've not proven they do. I could argue that reality doesn't exist because you've not proven it does. The list goes on an on. Because, in fact, only mathematics are proven absolutely, and that's just in our realization within the known universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the imaginary authority of the masses ploy.......not evidence ..
Click to expand...


You look up into the sky and see a moon there. Billions of people have seen it too. Scientists have confirmed it is there and exists. We've sent rockets there and men have set foot on it. Is that authority of the masses ploy as well? What if I tell you the moon is not there? It's an illusion from God? That your so-called "physical evidence" is an "authority of the masses ploy" and not evidence?

Show me the spiritual evidence for anything you think is proven to exist in the physical world, or I will tell you it's an illusion put there by God to make you think it exists. Now, I MUST be speaking the TRUTH because you can't show me any spiritual evidence and you can't refute my argument with spiritual evidence. 

Game--set--match!


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Proving and having faith; however, are not one in the same.
> 
> The spirit is not proven.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing is "proven" except mathematics, and even that is only proven in our current understanding of reality in our known universe. Virtually EVERYTHING including reality itself, is a matter of faith. We believe it or we don't believe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your previous post literally started with "you can prove"
Click to expand...


 and it ended with "to yourself!" You need to read the entire sentence. We can indeed "prove" things to ourselves, and then we can have *faith* that we believe that which we've "proven" to ourselves.


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can prove to yourself that things of a spiritual nature exist by examining spiritual evidence, but in order to do this, your mind has to accept that spiritual nature is real.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> huh?
> 
> 
> 
> anyone?
> 
> cart before the horse
> circular logic
> fallacy
> 
> whoo00o geez, too many to list patna
Click to expand...


There's no "cart before the horse" or fallacy. Circular logic doesn't mean incorrect logic. If you encountered a jungle tribe deep in the heart of Africa, where they did not believe or know of anything regarding physical science, and you began trying to explain things in terms of physical science, but they just pointed to the sky and grunted at you... would you likely ever be able to convince them of any relevant scientific fact? If they rejected your concept of physical science and demanded you could ONLY appeal to spiritual evidence, could you ever make them realize physical evidence? 

The same thing is happening here in reverse. You refuse to recognize spiritual evidence because you don't believe in spiritual nature. Doesn't matter what evidence I present, you will reject it because you don't believe the premise to begin with. I can't reach you with spiritual evidence, you just point to your science book and grunt.


----------



## BreezeWood

Steven_R said:


> You're asking me to commit when I keep saying I don't know. I don't know one way or another. Do I have a soul, do you, does anyone *or is it all just electro-chemical brain activity?* What makes people unique? I don't have any data either way for what happens to that special essence that makes humans unique when we die. I assume nothing except we die and that's it because I have no data other than people die. So far as I know, my brain simply shuts down and that's the end of the story. I'm willing to accept that may be wrong, but I need data first.
> 
> Maybe there's a soul, maybe there isn't. Maybe there's a god, maybe there' isn't. I just don't know one way or another. I'm just as agnostic about my soul as I am about god. I have no proof either way and nobody has ever produced proof.





*...  or is it all just electro-chemical brain activity?*

.








the Orchid has no "electro-chemical brain activity" - sortof, it has no pysiology at all ... True believers, excluding Boss and Newby would never confine Spirituality to a God but to the Everlasting from which it came.

the Everlasting is visible and physical for even those without vision to see.

.


----------



## Boss

> the Everlasting is visible and physical for even those without vision to see.



How do you identify spiritually? What do you call yourself?  Just curious.


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it has been proven to billions and billions of people over thousands and thousands of years. It hasn't been proven to YOU... but YOU aren't everyone.
> 
> If you are going to make the claim that something doesn't exist, you need to support that claim with some evidence. Whether there is proof for it or not, doesn't matter. I could argue that time and space do not exist because you've not proven they do. I could argue that reality doesn't exist because you've not proven it does. The list goes on an on. Because, in fact, only mathematics are proven absolutely, and that's just in our realization within the known universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it hasnt been proven to billions and billions of people.
> 
> Believed by / faith in -----does not equal proven.
> 
> Gluck with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anything "believed" requires faith. If you believe something is proven, you have faith that it is proven, and it doesn't matter what that is.
Click to expand...

bullshit and gobbledygook....
believing and faith only prove themselves and nothing else..


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anything "believed" requires faith. If you believe something is proven, you have faith that it is proven, and it doesn't matter what that is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Proving and having faith; however, are not one in the same.
> 
> The spirit is not proven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing is "proven" except mathematics, and even that is only proven in our current understanding of reality in our known universe. Virtually EVERYTHING including reality itself, is a matter of faith. We believe it or we don't believe it.
Click to expand...

CHERRY PICKING ALERT.....
QUOTE IN CONTEXT :has anything ever been "proven" in Philosophy. [ The answer is no.] In fact nothing is ever "proven" in any intellectual field except for Mathematics, and even their proofs are relative to localized systems. In the natural sciences things are "evidenced" they are not proven, which is how old theories can be replaced with new ones which see the world.


 THE SECTION BOOSY LEFT OUT : "in any intellectual field except for Mathematics, and even their proofs are relative to localized systems".


----------



## Boss

daws101 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Proving and having faith; however, are not one in the same.
> 
> The spirit is not proven.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing is "proven" except mathematics, and even that is only proven in our current understanding of reality in our known universe. Virtually EVERYTHING including reality itself, is a matter of faith. We believe it or we don't believe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> CHERRY PICKING ALERT.....
> QUOTE IN CONTEXT :has anything ever been "proven" in Philosophy. [ The answer is no.] In fact nothing is ever "proven" in any intellectual field except for Mathematics, and even their proofs are relative to localized systems. In the natural sciences things are "evidenced" they are not proven, which is how old theories can be replaced with new ones which see the world.
> 
> 
> THE SECTION BOOSY LEFT OUT : "in any intellectual field except for Mathematics, and even their proofs are relative to localized systems".
Click to expand...


Nothing is "proven"* except mathematics, and even that is only proven in our current understanding of reality in our known universe.*

As we see, retard dawsy has a little problem with his reading comprehension skills.


----------



## Boss

daws101 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it hasnt been proven to billions and billions of people.
> 
> Believed by / faith in -----does not equal proven.
> 
> Gluck with that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anything "believed" requires faith. If you believe something is proven, you have faith that it is proven, and it doesn't matter what that is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> bullshit and gobbledygook....
> believing and faith only prove themselves and nothing else..
Click to expand...


 Too rich!! Cannot comment, laughing too hard and cleaning the beer from my monitor!


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it has been proven to billions and billions of people over thousands and thousands of years. It hasn't been proven to YOU... but YOU aren't everyone.
> 
> If you are going to make the claim that something doesn't exist, you need to support that claim with some evidence. Whether there is proof for it or not, doesn't matter. I could argue that time and space do not exist because you've not proven they do. I could argue that reality doesn't exist because you've not proven it does. The list goes on an on. Because, in fact, only mathematics are proven absolutely, and that's just in our realization within the known universe.
> 
> 
> 
> the imaginary authority of the masses ploy.......not evidence ..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You look up into the sky and see a moon there. Billions of people have seen it too. Scientists have confirmed it is there and exists. We've sent rockets there and men have set foot on it. Is that authority of the masses ploy as well? What if I tell you the moon is not there? It's an illusion from God? That your so-called "physical evidence" is an "authority of the masses ploy" and not evidence?
> 
> Show me the spiritual evidence for anything you think is proven to exist in the physical world, or I will tell you it's an illusion put there by God to make you think it exists. Now, I MUST be speaking the TRUTH because you can't show me any spiritual evidence and you can't refute my argument with spiritual evidence.
> 
> Game--set--match!
Click to expand...

FALSE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR OR AGAINST THE EXISTENCE OF GOD .......
Our 'minds', 'souls', 'spirit' and consciousness are all physical in nature. Thousands of years of research have shown that our brains comprise and produce our true selves. Souls and spirits do not exist. Our bodies run themselves. We know from cases of brain damage and the effects of psychoactive drugs, that our experiences are caused by physical chemistry acting on our physical neurones in our brains. Our innermost self is our biochemical self.

Human and animal mental processes look just as they can be expected to look if there is no soul or other immaterial component.
Prof. Victor Stenger (2007)

Souls do not Exist: Evidence from Science & Philosophy Against Mind-Body Dualism


rationalizing in 5....4...3...2..1


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing is "proven" except mathematics, and even that is only proven in our current understanding of reality in our known universe. Virtually EVERYTHING including reality itself, is a matter of faith. We believe it or we don't believe it.
> 
> 
> 
> CHERRY PICKING ALERT.....
> QUOTE IN CONTEXT :has anything ever been "proven" in Philosophy. [ The answer is no.] In fact nothing is ever "proven" in any intellectual field except for Mathematics, and even their proofs are relative to localized systems. In the natural sciences things are "evidenced" they are not proven, which is how old theories can be replaced with new ones which see the world.
> 
> 
> THE SECTION BOOSY LEFT OUT : "in any intellectual field except for Mathematics, and even their proofs are relative to localized systems".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing is "proven"* except mathematics, and even that is only proven in our current understanding of reality in our known universe.*
> 
> As we see, retard dawsy has a little problem with his reading comprehension skills.
Click to expand...

false boosy is dodging :THE SECTION BOOSY LEFT OUT : "in any intellectual field except for Mathematics, and even their proofs are relative to localized systems"
colorizing your shit does not make it any less false...


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anything "believed" requires faith. If you believe something is proven, you have faith that it is proven, and it doesn't matter what that is.
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit and gobbledygook....
> believing and faith only prove themselves and nothing else..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too rich!! Cannot comment, laughing too hard and cleaning the beer from my monitor!
Click to expand...

I knew you were an alcoholic..thanks for proving to everyone!


----------



## PostmodernProph

thebrucebeat said:


> Should I have continued and preached what I believed to be true and undermine the beliefs of the larger church?



Difficult to say without further information.....if you truly lost your faith, obviously you shouldn't have continued to preach....leading a congregation into hell is not the role of a pastor.....however, I believe its a cop out to say you lost your faith because your congregation was headed in the wrong direction......if they were at fault you tell them they were at fault, then if they fail to change you look for a wiser congregation and suggest they disband and become a night club.....


----------



## daws101

PostmodernProph said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should I have continued and preached what I believed to be true and undermine the beliefs of the larger church?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Difficult to say without further information.....if you truly lost your faith, obviously you shouldn't have continued to preach....leading a congregation into hell is not the role of a pastor.....however, I believe its a cop out to say you lost your faith because your congregation was headed in the wrong direction......if they were at fault you tell them they were at fault, then if they fail to change you look for a wiser congregation and suggest they disband and become a night club.....
Click to expand...

what part of this did you not understand:Should I have continued and preached what I believed to be true and undermine the beliefs of the larger church?


----------



## thebrucebeat

PostmodernProph said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should I have continued and preached what I believed to be true and undermine the beliefs of the larger church?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Difficult to say without further information.....if you truly lost your faith, obviously you shouldn't have continued to preach....leading a congregation into hell is not the role of a pastor.....however, I believe its a cop out to say you lost your faith because your congregation was headed in the wrong direction......if they were at fault you tell them they were at fault, then if they fail to change you look for a wiser congregation and suggest they disband and become a night club.....
Click to expand...


Your right about one thing. You shouldn't have made assumptions when you didn't have enough information. That was out of line.
And I didn't say I lost my faith because of the congregation. Read it again. That is a completely inaccurate statement.
I thought better of you than you are showing in these last two posts directed at me.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can prove to yourself that things of a spiritual nature exist by examining spiritual evidence, but in order to do this, your mind has to accept that spiritual nature is real.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> huh?
> 
> 
> 
> anyone?
> 
> cart before the horse
> circular logic
> fallacy
> 
> whoo00o geez, too many to list patna
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no "cart before the horse" or fallacy. Circular logic doesn't mean incorrect logic. If you encountered a jungle tribe deep in the heart of Africa, where they did not believe or know of anything regarding physical science, and you began trying to explain things in terms of physical science, but they just pointed to the sky and grunted at you... would you likely ever be able to convince them of any relevant scientific fact? If they rejected your concept of physical science and demanded you could ONLY appeal to spiritual evidence, could you ever make them realize physical evidence?
> 
> The same thing is happening here in reverse. You refuse to recognize spiritual evidence because you don't believe in spiritual nature. Doesn't matter what evidence I present, you will reject it because you don't believe the premise to begin with. I can't reach you with spiritual evidence, you just point to your science book and grunt.
Click to expand...

Actually circular logic IS INCORRECT LOGIC.


Main Entry:   	circular reasoning
Part of Speech:   	n
Definition:   	a use of reason in which the premises depends on or is equivalent to the conclusion, a method of false logic by which "this is used to prove that, and that is used to prove this"; also called circular logic


----------



## BreezeWood

Boss said:


> the Everlasting is visible and physical for even those without vision to see.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you identify spiritually? What do you call yourself?  Just curious.
Click to expand...


I would just say and you might agree it is readily apparent, what is confusing is why you insist humanity alone is responding to something other than self ... and insist an Orchid's display similarly in response to something other than self requires "proof" of spirituality inferring it is ??? something else. -   

between the two, humanity and the Orchid the Orchid wins the contest hands down, responding to something other than self.

.


----------



## Boss

BreezeWood said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the Everlasting is visible and physical for even those without vision to see.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you identify spiritually? What do you call yourself?  Just curious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would just say and you might agree it is readily apparent, what is confusing is why you insist humanity alone is responding to something other than self ... and insist an Orchid's display similarly in response to something other than self requires "proof" of spirituality inferring it is ??? something else. -
> 
> between the two, humanity and the Orchid the Orchid wins the contest hands down, responding to something other than self.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Why didn't you answer my question? It appears you aren't an Atheist or agnostic, you do believe in spiritual nature. I am just curious as to what you identify with spiritually. 

Per your argument, I have never said that things don't respond to their environment. Every living thing responds to it's surrounding environment. Obviously, a surrounding environment is not part of self. Humans worship a power greater than self, is not saying that nothing else recognizes or responds to it's environment.


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> Actually circular logic IS INCORRECT LOGIC.
> 
> Main Entry:   	circular reasoning
> Part of Speech:   	n
> Definition:   	a use of reason in which the premises depends on or is equivalent to the conclusion, a method of false logic by which "this is used to prove that, and that is used to prove this"; also called circular logic



Actually, no it's not. Your definition doesn't say it's incorrect, it says it's "false logic" but I disagree with your definition as well. It's not necessarily false logic. 

"Criminals break the law because breaking the law is what criminals do." --this is logically true, not false. It is also circular logic. Now, it doesn't explain all the various reasons a criminal might break the law, so it's maybe an "incomplete" logic. An argument based on this alone is circular reasoning and weak support for an argument, but my argument didn't simply depend on this one point.


----------



## Boss

daws101 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the imaginary authority of the masses ploy.......not evidence ..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You look up into the sky and see a moon there. Billions of people have seen it too. Scientists have confirmed it is there and exists. We've sent rockets there and men have set foot on it. Is that authority of the masses ploy as well? What if I tell you the moon is not there? It's an illusion from God? That your so-called "physical evidence" is an "authority of the masses ploy" and not evidence?
> 
> Show me the spiritual evidence for anything you think is proven to exist in the physical world, or I will tell you it's an illusion put there by God to make you think it exists. Now, I MUST be speaking the TRUTH because you can't show me any spiritual evidence and you can't refute my argument with spiritual evidence.
> 
> Game--set--match!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FALSE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR OR AGAINST THE EXISTENCE OF GOD .......
Click to expand...

There's plenty of evidence for the existence of God. We're here, we exist. The universe is here, it exists. Logic and physics work. 



> Our 'minds', 'souls', 'spirit' and consciousness are all physical in nature. Thousands of years of research have shown that our brains comprise and produce our true selves. Souls and spirits do not exist. Our bodies run themselves. We know from cases of brain damage and the effects of psychoactive drugs, that our experiences are caused by physical chemistry acting on our physical neurones in our brains. Our innermost self is our biochemical self.



Bwhahahaha... THOUSANDS of years, dawsy? Really? You do realize that only a few HUNDRED years ago, your precious scientists all mutually agreed our 'essence of true self' came from the heart and not the brain, right? The research regarding chemical reactions in the brain is less than 75 years old. 

You're all over the board with this, first you start by stating that our spirit and soul are physical in nature, but before you finish your paragraph, they do not exist. Now, in YOUR case, you're probably correct, YOUR "biochemical self" is probably copious amounts of methamphetamines working on your atrophied brain to produce random thoughts that don't comport with logic and reason. That would certainly explain your profound stupidity on this and many other topics. 



> Human and animal mental processes look just as they can be expected to look if there is no soul or other immaterial component.
> Prof. Victor Stenger (2007)
> 
> Souls do not Exist: Evidence from Science & Philosophy Against Mind-Body Dualism
> 
> rationalizing in 5....4...3...2..1



Yes, well, someone needs to introduce some rationality to this idiot, that's for certain. Did this moron not notice that humans have the capacity to rationalize right from wrong and react on that, while other animals react on primal instinct alone? Victor must be hittin' the meth pipe too.


----------



## Boss

daws101 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> CHERRY PICKING ALERT.....
> QUOTE IN CONTEXT :has anything ever been "proven" in Philosophy. [ The answer is no.] In fact nothing is ever "proven" in any intellectual field except for Mathematics, and even their proofs are relative to localized systems. In the natural sciences things are "evidenced" they are not proven, which is how old theories can be replaced with new ones which see the world.
> 
> 
> THE SECTION BOOSY LEFT OUT : "in any intellectual field except for Mathematics, and even their proofs are relative to localized systems".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing is "proven"* except mathematics, and even that is only proven in our current understanding of reality in our known universe.*
> 
> As we see, retard dawsy has a little problem with his reading comprehension skills.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> false boosy is dodging :THE SECTION BOOSY LEFT OUT : "in any intellectual field except for Mathematics, and even their proofs are relative to localized systems"
> colorizing your shit does not make it any less false...
Click to expand...


Well, I did not copy and paste my remarks from a third-party source like you did. In my own words, I said: _except mathematics, and even that is only proven in our current understanding of reality in our known universe._ You somehow deduce it is a "gotchya" moment because your copy-n-paste definition says: _except for Mathematics, and even their proofs are relative to localized systems._

I'm not sure if you are comprehending this, but "relative to localized systems" and "reality in our known universe" are practically the same thing. I mean, it's not identical, but mine is my own words and yours is a copy/paste from someone smarter than you.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually circular logic IS INCORRECT LOGIC.
> 
> Main Entry:   	circular reasoning
> Part of Speech:   	n
> Definition:   	a use of reason in which the premises depends on or is equivalent to the conclusion, a method of false logic by which "this is used to prove that, and that is used to prove this"; also called circular logic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, no it's not. Your definition doesn't say it's incorrect, it says it's "false logic" but I disagree with your definition as well. It's not necessarily false logic.
> 
> "Criminals break the law because breaking the law is what criminals do." --this is logically true, not false. It is also circular logic. Now, it doesn't explain all the various reasons a criminal might break the law, so it's maybe an "incomplete" logic. An argument based on this alone is circular reasoning and weak support for an argument, but my argument didn't simply depend on this one point.
Click to expand...

Are things that are false incorrect?


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> Are things that are false incorrect?



Well, false and incorrect are two different words, aren't they? I would imagine if they both meant the identical same thing, there would be no need for both words. A false pregnancy test is not an incorrect pregnancy test, is it? False teeth aren't incorrect teeth, are they? A false bottom is not an incorrect bottom, is it? I can go on and on with examples, but I don't know what the purpose is of this idiocy, I disagree with the definition that it's "false logic" OR "incorrect logic." Circular logic is neither. It's just circular. 

Again, my example: "Criminals break the law because breaking the law is what criminals do." Do you think that is an "incorrect" or "false" statement, or not? It's clearly circular logic, but it's still true. 

Back to the point... you cannot objectively evaluate something as evidence if you don't first believe in whatever the evidence is supposed to be for. None of you have been able to give a single example of something you do not believe exists or is true, yet accept credible evidence exists to support it. Not one thing... it's been three days... not ONE THING! 

Instead of myopically trying to pin me down with semantics and minutia, why not just post an example to prove me wrong? That shouldn't be too difficult if I am wrong, should it?


----------



## MrMax

daws101 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit and gobbledygook....
> believing and faith only prove themselves and nothing else..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too rich!! Cannot comment, laughing too hard and cleaning the beer from my monitor!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I knew you were an alcoholic..thanks for proving to everyone!
Click to expand...


Ha! He's a drunk. That explains a lot!!!!


----------



## MrMax

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can prove to yourself that things of a spiritual nature exist by examining spiritual evidence, but in order to do this, your mind has to accept that spiritual nature is real.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> huh?
> 
> anyone?
> cart before the horse
> circular logic
> fallacy
> whoo00o geez, too many to list patna
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no "cart before the horse" or fallacy. Circular logic doesn't mean incorrect logic. If you encountered a jungle tribe deep in the heart of Africa, where they did not believe or know of anything regarding physical science, and you began trying to explain things in terms of physical science, but they just pointed to the sky and grunted at you... would you likely ever be able to convince them of any relevant scientific fact? If they rejected your concept of physical science and demanded you could ONLY appeal to spiritual evidence, could you ever make them realize physical evidence?
> 
> The same thing is happening here in reverse. *You refuse to recognize spiritual evidence *because you don't believe in spiritual nature. Doesn't matter what evidence I present, you will reject it because you don't believe the premise to begin with. I can't reach you with spiritual evidence, you just point to your science book and grunt.
Click to expand...


Because you haven't shown any spiritual evidence that is scientifically valid.


----------



## MrMax

Boss said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it has been proven to billions and billions of people over thousands and thousands of years. It hasn't been proven to YOU... but YOU aren't everyone.
> 
> If you are going to make the claim that something doesn't exist, you need to support that claim with some evidence. Whether there is proof for it or not, doesn't matter. I could argue that time and space do not exist because you've not proven they do. I could argue that reality doesn't exist because you've not proven it does. The list goes on an on. Because, in fact, only mathematics are proven absolutely, and that's just in our realization within the known universe.
> 
> 
> 
> the imaginary authority of the masses ploy.......not evidence ..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You look up into the sky and see a moon there. Billions of people have seen it too. Scientists have confirmed it is there and exists. We've sent rockets there and men have set foot on it. Is that authority of the masses ploy as well? What if I tell you the moon is not there? It's an illusion from God? That your so-called "physical evidence" is an "authority of the masses ploy" and not evidence?
> 
> Show me the spiritual evidence for anything you think is proven to exist in the physical world, or I will tell you it's an illusion put there by God to make you think it exists. Now, I MUST be speaking the TRUTH *because you can't show me any spiritual evidence and you can't refute my argument with spiritual evidence. *
> 
> Game--set--match!
Click to expand...


Because there's no such thing. Spirituality is a manifestation of our own brain put there by evolution because our ancestors were very afraid of death and needed some way to rationalize it to make themselves feel better.


----------



## thanatos144

People who hate God and many here on this board does fear judgment for the things they do. Hedonism.


----------



## G.T.

thanatos144 said:


> People who hate God and many here on this board does fear judgment for the things they do. Hedonism.



People do, not people does homey.


----------



## Newby

thebrucebeat said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> *All of your posts illustrate your rejection of the Fruits.*Did you take the time to compare them to aggression?
> What did you find?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay...
> 
> I concede that I totally 'reject the fruits'.   You can go away now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I may use your post as a signature with an attribution to you. Is that ok?
Click to expand...


If you're too damn stupid to 'get it', then go right ahead you fool...   I gave myself a good laugh on that one.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are things that are false incorrect?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, false and incorrect are two different words, aren't they? I would imagine if they both meant the identical same thing, there would be no need for both words. A false pregnancy test is not an incorrect pregnancy test, is it? False teeth aren't incorrect teeth, are they? A false bottom is not an incorrect bottom, is it? I can go on and on with examples, but I don't know what the purpose is of this idiocy, I disagree with the definition that it's "false logic" OR "incorrect logic." Circular logic is neither. It's just circular.
> 
> Again, my example: "Criminals break the law because breaking the law is what criminals do." Do you think that is an "incorrect" or "false" statement, or not? It's clearly circular logic, but it's still true.
> 
> Back to the point... you cannot objectively evaluate something as evidence if you don't first believe in whatever the evidence is supposed to be for. None of you have been able to give a single example of something you do not believe exists or is true, yet accept credible evidence exists to support it. Not one thing... it's been three days... not ONE THING!
> 
> Instead of myopically trying to pin me down with semantics and minutia, why not just post an example to prove me wrong? That shouldn't be too difficult if I am wrong, should it?
Click to expand...


Circular logic is false because it is framed as a proof argument but actually proves nothing, simply stating the original premise as proof.

I see you changing the goalpost here.
You have said before that one would have to believe in something to accept evidence for it.
Now you are saying you want an example of something one does not believe in that they accept evidence for. Not the same proposition in the least.
This is not "minutia"(sic).


----------



## BreezeWood

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you identify spiritually? What do you call yourself?  Just curious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would just say and you might agree it is readily apparent, what is confusing is why you insist humanity alone is responding to something other than self ... and insist an Orchid's display similarly in response to something other than self requires "proof" of spirituality inferring it is ??? something else. -
> 
> between the two, humanity and the Orchid the Orchid wins the contest hands down, responding to something other than self.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why didn't you answer my question? It appears you aren't an Atheist or agnostic, you do believe in spiritual nature. I am just curious as to what you identify with spiritually.
> 
> Per your argument, I have never said that things don't respond to their environment. Every living thing responds to it's surrounding environment. Obviously, a surrounding environment is not part of self. *Humans worship a power greater than self, is not saying that nothing else recognizes or responds to it's environment.*
Click to expand...



*Humans worship a power greater than self, is not saying that nothing else recognizes or responds to it's environment.*


or the extreme subtlety of wildlife simply does not resonate on your radar is not proof their spirituality does not exist. 

- worship is a failure to understand.

.


----------



## Boss

BreezeWood said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would just say and you might agree it is readily apparent, what is confusing is why you insist humanity alone is responding to something other than self ... and insist an Orchid's display similarly in response to something other than self requires "proof" of spirituality inferring it is ??? something else. -
> 
> between the two, humanity and the Orchid the Orchid wins the contest hands down, responding to something other than self.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why didn't you answer my question? It appears you aren't an Atheist or agnostic, you do believe in spiritual nature. I am just curious as to what you identify with spiritually.
> 
> Per your argument, I have never said that things don't respond to their environment. Every living thing responds to it's surrounding environment. Obviously, a surrounding environment is not part of self. *Humans worship a power greater than self, is not saying that nothing else recognizes or responds to it's environment.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Humans worship a power greater than self, is not saying that nothing else recognizes or responds to it's environment.*
> 
> 
> *or the extreme subtlety of wildlife simply does not resonate on your radar is not proof their spirituality does not exist. *
> 
> - worship is a failure to understand.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I've conceded that you may have a point with this, and I haven't disputed it. Perhaps when the birds are chirping in the early morning as the sun rises, it is their form of "worship" and I don't recognize it as such? It's possible, I grant you that. But you respond by calling me names and pretending I've rejected that. 

"Worship is a failure to understand." I don't know that I accept that simplistic platitude. "Worship is reverence" would be more in line with what I believe. But to each his own.


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are things that are false incorrect?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, false and incorrect are two different words, aren't they? I would imagine if they both meant the identical same thing, there would be no need for both words. A false pregnancy test is not an incorrect pregnancy test, is it? False teeth aren't incorrect teeth, are they? A false bottom is not an incorrect bottom, is it? I can go on and on with examples, but I don't know what the purpose is of this idiocy, I disagree with the definition that it's "false logic" OR "incorrect logic." Circular logic is neither. It's just circular.
> 
> Again, my example: "Criminals break the law because breaking the law is what criminals do." Do you think that is an "incorrect" or "false" statement, or not? It's clearly circular logic, but it's still true.
> 
> Back to the point... you cannot objectively evaluate something as evidence if you don't first believe in whatever the evidence is supposed to be for. None of you have been able to give a single example of something you do not believe exists or is true, yet accept credible evidence exists to support it. Not one thing... it's been three days... not ONE THING!
> 
> Instead of myopically trying to pin me down with semantics and minutia, why not just post an example to prove me wrong? That shouldn't be too difficult if I am wrong, should it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Circular logic is false because it is framed as a proof argument but actually proves nothing, simply stating the original premise as proof.
> 
> I see you changing the goalpost here.
> You have said before that one would have to believe in something to accept evidence for it.
> Now you are saying you want an example of something one does not believe in that they accept evidence for. Not the same proposition in the least.
> This is not "minutia"(sic).
Click to expand...


No goalpost changing again. It continues to be your apparent inability to read basic grammatical structuring of sentences and remain in context. Same proposition, you're just conflating the context. Whether it is on purpose or out of ignorance doesn't seem to matter, I have now clarified what my point was and you still want to find a way to reject my point. Now you seem to be wanting to tell me what I did or didn't mean to say. Amazing.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, false and incorrect are two different words, aren't they? I would imagine if they both meant the identical same thing, there would be no need for both words. A false pregnancy test is not an incorrect pregnancy test, is it? False teeth aren't incorrect teeth, are they? A false bottom is not an incorrect bottom, is it? I can go on and on with examples, but I don't know what the purpose is of this idiocy, I disagree with the definition that it's "false logic" OR "incorrect logic." Circular logic is neither. It's just circular.
> 
> Again, my example: "Criminals break the law because breaking the law is what criminals do." Do you think that is an "incorrect" or "false" statement, or not? It's clearly circular logic, but it's still true.
> 
> Back to the point... you cannot objectively evaluate something as evidence if you don't first believe in whatever the evidence is supposed to be for. None of you have been able to give a single example of something you do not believe exists or is true, yet accept credible evidence exists to support it. Not one thing... it's been three days... not ONE THING!
> 
> Instead of myopically trying to pin me down with semantics and minutia, why not just post an example to prove me wrong? That shouldn't be too difficult if I am wrong, should it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Circular logic is false because it is framed as a proof argument but actually proves nothing, simply stating the original premise as proof.
> 
> I see you changing the goalpost here.
> You have said before that one would have to believe in something to accept evidence for it.
> Now you are saying you want an example of something one does not believe in that they accept evidence for. Not the same proposition in the least.
> This is not "minutia"(sic).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No goalpost changing again. It continues to be your apparent inability to read basic grammatical structuring of sentences and remain in context. Same proposition, you're just conflating the context. Whether it is on purpose or out of ignorance doesn't seem to matter, I have now clarified what my point was and you still want to find a way to reject my point. Now you seem to be wanting to tell me what I did or didn't mean to say. Amazing.
Click to expand...

Are you too defensive to see the difference?
Really?
Ok.


----------



## Boss

> Are you too defensive to see the difference?



Look, there is no difference. If my argument is, you can't accept evidence of something you don't believe in... and you can't provide proof that I am wrong by showing me something you don't believe in but accept evidence for... that proves my point. 

And I am almost always defensive when some fucktarded moron starts telling me what I mean to say and don't mean to say... sorry about that, just how I am.


----------



## G.T.

Boss said:


> Are you too defensive to see the difference?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look, there is no difference. If my argument is, you can't accept evidence of something you don't believe in... and you can't provide proof that I am wrong by showing me something you don't believe in but accept evidence for... that proves my point.
> 
> And I am almost always defensive when some fucktarded moron starts telling me what I mean to say and don't mean to say... sorry about that, just how I am.
Click to expand...


I accept that life on earth is evidence of a creator. 

That's accepting evidence of something I don't believe in.

I'll believe in it when there's enough evidence to form a case beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Until then,

Believing in something's possibility is not believing in it. Not even close. Your argument fails there.


----------



## GISMYS

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you too defensive to see the difference?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look, there is no difference. If my argument is, you can't accept evidence of something you don't believe in... and you can't provide proof that I am wrong by showing me something you don't believe in but accept evidence for... that proves my point.
> 
> And I am almost always defensive when some fucktarded moron starts telling me what I mean to say and don't mean to say... sorry about that, just how I am.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I accept that life on earth is evidence of a creator.
> 
> That's accepting evidence of something I don't believe in.
> 
> I'll believe in it when there's enough evidence to form a case beyond a reasonable doubt.
> 
> Until then,
> 
> Believing in something's possibility is not believing in it. Not even close. Your argument fails there.
Click to expand...


LOL!!!So you want to believe in the "big bang" to create the universe and life,the human body and brain=the most well designed most complex things in the known universe is just a accident of time and chance starting with a big bang???????????? GET REAL!!!!  what exployed and why???THINK!!!


----------



## MrMax

Boss said:


> Are you too defensive to see the difference?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look, there is no difference. If my argument is, you can't accept evidence of something you don't believe in... and you can't provide proof that I am wrong by showing me something you don't believe in but accept evidence for... that proves my point.
> 
> And I am almost always defensive when some fucktarded moron starts telling me what I mean to say and don't mean to say... sorry about that, just how I am.
Click to expand...


Except that you haven't shown any scientific evidence, ever.


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> I accept that life on earth is evidence of a creator.
> 
> That's accepting evidence of something I don't believe in.
> 
> I'll believe in it when there's enough evidence to form a case beyond a reasonable doubt.
> 
> Until then,
> 
> Believing in something's possibility is not believing in it. Not even close. Your argument fails there.



But really you DON'T believe life on earth is evidence of a creator because you don't believe in said creator, and you constantly rationalize how life on earth doesn't require one. So what you are doing now is lying deliberately so you can have a "gotchya moment" on me. It's cheeky, it's clever, but it's totally dishonest horseshit and you know it.


----------



## Boss

MrMax said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you too defensive to see the difference?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look, there is no difference. If my argument is, you can't accept evidence of something you don't believe in... and you can't provide proof that I am wrong by showing me something you don't believe in but accept evidence for... that proves my point.
> 
> And I am almost always defensive when some fucktarded moron starts telling me what I mean to say and don't mean to say... sorry about that, just how I am.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that you haven't shown any scientific evidence, ever.
Click to expand...


You're right, and if God were a physical entity which could be evaluated with physical sciences, you'd have a rational point. As it stands, God is not and you don't.


----------



## G.T.

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I accept that life on earth is evidence of a creator.
> 
> That's accepting evidence of something I don't believe in.
> 
> I'll believe in it when there's enough evidence to form a case beyond a reasonable doubt.
> 
> Until then,
> 
> Believing in something's possibility is not believing in it. Not even close. Your argument fails there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But really you DON'T believe life on earth is evidence of a creator because you don't believe in said creator, and you constantly rationalize how life on earth doesn't require one. So what you are doing now is lying deliberately so you can have a "gotchya moment" on me. It's cheeky, it's clever, but it's totally dishonest horseshit and you know it.
Click to expand...


Except you're wrong, and not at liberty to tell me WHAT I believe. 

I am agnostic. The correct answer is, I do not know. 

Life on earth is evidence of a creator. 

Having evidence towards something does not mean believing in it. 

There is evidence that I'm Irish. 
(my skin color). 

I accept that there is evidence that I'm Irish. 

I do not *believe* I'm Irish. 

Your statement was profoundly flawed.


----------



## Boss

> you haven't shown *any* scientific evidence, ever.



Of course, this isn't actually true, either. I have indeed shown scientific evidence to support the validity of human spiritual worship. You didn't agree with my evidence.


----------



## MrMax

Boss said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, there is no difference. If my argument is, you can't accept evidence of something you don't believe in... and you can't provide proof that I am wrong by showing me something you don't believe in but accept evidence for... that proves my point.
> 
> And I am almost always defensive when some fucktarded moron starts telling me what I mean to say and don't mean to say... sorry about that, just how I am.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that you haven't shown any scientific evidence, ever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right, and if God were a physical entity which could be evaluated with physical sciences, you'd have a rational point. As it stands, God is not and you don't.
Click to expand...


You don't know that as fact, just more wild speculation.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> Are you too defensive to see the difference?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look, there is no difference. If my argument is, you can't accept evidence of something you don't believe in... and you can't provide proof that I am wrong by showing me something you don't believe in but accept evidence for... that proves my point.
> 
> And I am almost always defensive when some fucktarded moron starts telling me what I mean to say and don't mean to say... sorry about that, just how I am.
Click to expand...


Yes, there is a difference.
You now want someone to show evidence for something they don't believe in.  That doesn't prove your point in the least.
Devolving to epithets and vulgarity doesn't make it a valid point either.
Maybe what you mean to say and what you do say are two different things.


----------



## MrMax

Boss said:


> you haven't shown *any* scientific evidence, ever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, this isn't actually true, either. I have indeed shown scientific evidence to support the validity of human spiritual worship. You didn't agree with my evidence.
Click to expand...


Your evidence was that billions of people are religious. Which is no evidence at all.


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I accept that life on earth is evidence of a creator.
> 
> That's accepting evidence of something I don't believe in.
> 
> I'll believe in it when there's enough evidence to form a case beyond a reasonable doubt.
> 
> Until then,
> 
> Believing in something's possibility is not believing in it. Not even close. Your argument fails there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But really you DON'T believe life on earth is evidence of a creator because you don't believe in said creator, and you constantly rationalize how life on earth doesn't require one. So what you are doing now is lying deliberately so you can have a "gotchya moment" on me. It's cheeky, it's clever, but it's totally dishonest horseshit and you know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except you're wrong, and not at liberty to tell me WHAT I believe.
> 
> I am agnostic. The correct answer is, I do not know.
> 
> Life on earth is evidence of a creator.
> 
> Having evidence towards something does not mean believing in it.
> 
> There is evidence that I'm Irish.
> (my skin color).
> 
> I accept that there is evidence that I'm Irish.
> 
> I do not *believe* I'm Irish.
> 
> Your statement was profoundly flawed.
Click to expand...


If you don't believe you are Irish, you don't believe the evidence you are Irish is valid evidence. Accepting something is invalid evidence is not accepting evidence. Sorry!


----------



## G.T.

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> But really you DON'T believe life on earth is evidence of a creator because you don't believe in said creator, and you constantly rationalize how life on earth doesn't require one. So what you are doing now is lying deliberately so you can have a "gotchya moment" on me. It's cheeky, it's clever, but it's totally dishonest horseshit and you know it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except you're wrong, and not at liberty to tell me WHAT I believe.
> 
> I am agnostic. The correct answer is, I do not know.
> 
> Life on earth is evidence of a creator.
> 
> Having evidence towards something does not mean believing in it.
> 
> There is evidence that I'm Irish.
> (my skin color).
> 
> I accept that there is evidence that I'm Irish.
> 
> I do not *believe* I'm Irish.
> 
> Your statement was profoundly flawed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you don't believe you are Irish, you don't believe the evidence you are Irish is valid evidence. Accepting something is invalid evidence is not accepting evidence. Sorry!
Click to expand...


Actually, not. 

I could not KNOW if I were Irish or not. 

Also not believe one way or another IF I were Irish


And still accept my skin color as evidence. 




You can collect evidence at a crime scene that points one way, and knowing that your analysis is not complete, not YET BELIEVE the outcome just yet. 

It's not that hard a concept. What you said was dumb. No wiggle room, it was dumb.


----------



## GISMYS

Demanding proof before you will believe has a high cost==One of the twelve disciples, Thomas (nicknamed the Twin), was not with the others when Jesus came. 25 They told him, We have seen the Lord!

But he replied, I wont believe it unless I see the nail wounds in his hands, put my fingers into them, and place my hand into the wound in his side.

26 Eight days later the disciples were together again, and this time Thomas was with them. The doors were locked; but suddenly, as before, Jesus was standing among them. Peace be with you, he said. 27 Then he said to Thomas, Put your finger here, and look at my hands. Put your hand into the wound in my side. Dont be faithless any longer. Believe!

28 My Lord and my God! Thomas exclaimed.

29 Then Jesus told him, You believe because you have seen me. Blessed are those who believe without seeing me.
john


----------



## Boss

MrMax said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you haven't shown *any* scientific evidence, ever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, this isn't actually true, either. I have indeed shown scientific evidence to support the validity of human spiritual worship. You didn't agree with my evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your evidence was that billions of people are religious. Which is no evidence at all.
Click to expand...


Nope. Went into a LOT more detail than that. Actually got to invoke Darwinian Natural Selection as well. My scientific argument starts thousands of years before ANY religion. Back to the dawn of human civilization. Humans are naturally spiritual creatures, it's in our DNA, we can't help it. We are intrinsically drawn to awareness of a spiritual power greater than self. 

This behavioral attribute is not present because we invented it or had to concoct some explanation for the unknown or console ourselves about death, and we know this because we don't see the anomaly anywhere else in nature.  No other life form needs to create placebos of imagination to cope... none. Besides, if it were imagined, the species would have abandoned it long ago as it would not be fundamental to survival, while remaining alive and free from religious persecution would have been far more important. 

So there is the scientific evidence for the validity of human spiritual worship.


----------



## Boss

> I could not KNOW if I were Irish or not.
> 
> Also not believe one way or another IF I were Irish



You said "I do not believe I am Irish." Now you are saying "I don't know if I am Irish." These are contradicting statements. Both positions cannot be true at the same time. You can either be certain or uncertain, you can't be both at the same time.


----------



## G.T.

Boss said:


> I could not KNOW if I were Irish or not.
> 
> Also not believe one way or another IF I were Irish
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said "I do not believe I am Irish." Now you are saying "I don't know if I am Irish." These are contradicting statements. Both positions cannot be true at the same time. You can either be certain or uncertain, you can't be both at the same time.
Click to expand...


Do you not know what "I could" means?

It means I was giving you a hypothetical, genius. 

Wow


----------



## G.T.

I could give ya 6, 000 more examples of how you could NOT believe in something, yet still accept evidence for it. 

Because the statement is retarded. 




My flag is ripped off its pole.

I accept that that is evidence that the wind blew it off.

Doesn't mean I believe the wind blew it off - there's not enough evidence. 

It being off its pole could also mean someone cut it off. 

I don't believe someone cut it off. 

But I accept that it being off is evidence that someone could have. 

Its literally a derp thing to say. congrats brah


----------



## G.T.

I accept that my computer's existence is evidence that god made it.
I accept my computer's existence is evidence that science made it. 
I believe neither, because that's just not enough evidence to decide.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> But really you DON'T believe life on earth is evidence of a creator because you don't believe in said creator, and you constantly rationalize how life on earth doesn't require one. So what you are doing now is lying deliberately so you can have a "gotchya moment" on me. It's cheeky, it's clever, but it's totally dishonest horseshit and you know it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except you're wrong, and not at liberty to tell me WHAT I believe.
> 
> I am agnostic. The correct answer is, I do not know.
> 
> Life on earth is evidence of a creator.
> 
> Having evidence towards something does not mean believing in it.
> 
> There is evidence that I'm Irish.
> (my skin color).
> 
> I accept that there is evidence that I'm Irish.
> 
> I do not *believe* I'm Irish.
> 
> Your statement was profoundly flawed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you don't believe you are Irish, you don't believe the evidence you are Irish is valid evidence. Accepting something is invalid evidence is not accepting evidence. Sorry!
Click to expand...


Do you regularly accept evidence you find invalid? Would that be rational?


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Are you too defensive to see the difference?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look, there is no difference. If my argument is, you can't accept evidence of something you don't believe in... and you can't provide proof that I am wrong by showing me something you don't believe in but accept evidence for... that proves my point.
> 
> And I am almost always defensive when some fucktarded moron starts telling me what I mean to say and don't mean to say... sorry about that, just how I am.
Click to expand...


Says the fucktard moron who's spent most of this thread telling people what they do believe and don't believe.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> I could not KNOW if I were Irish or not.
> 
> Also not believe one way or another IF I were Irish
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said "I do not believe I am Irish." Now you are saying "I don't know if I am Irish." These are contradicting statements. Both positions cannot be true at the same time. You can either be certain or uncertain, you can't be both at the same time.
Click to expand...


Those are not contradictory statements.  Belief and knowledge are not the same thing.  So believing or not believing something does not mean that you know something.

So I could say I believe in ghosts and also say I don't know if there are ghosts and not be making contradictory statements.

I could say I believe in life on other planets but also say I don't know if there is life on other planets and not be making contradictory statements.


----------



## G.T.

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could not KNOW if I were Irish or not.
> 
> Also not believe one way or another IF I were Irish
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said "I do not believe I am Irish." Now you are saying "I don't know if I am Irish." These are contradicting statements. Both positions cannot be true at the same time. You can either be certain or uncertain, you can't be both at the same time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those are not contradictory statements.  Belief and knowledge are not the same thing.  So believing or not believing something does not mean that you know something.
> 
> So I could say I believe in ghosts and also say I don't know if there are ghosts and not be making contradictory statements.
> 
> I could say I believe in life on other planets but also say I don't know if there is life on other planets and not be making contradictory statements.
Click to expand...



He's an idiot. 

I wasn't literally contradicting myself, I was giving him the hypothetical REVERSE scenario of my first statement, to make a point. 

And he thought I was still being literal, because he doesn't understand the nuance of the English language I guess, like how I started the second post with "I could"

As opposed to I am?

Oh, I dunno gee willickers


----------



## Boss

None of you are giving legitimate evidence of something you don't believe is possible, yet accept there is valid evidence to support it. You are doing everything but backflips to try and find a way to prove me wrong, and you're failing all over the place. It's quite the comic tragedy.


----------



## G.T.

Boss said:


> None of you are giving legitimate evidence of something you don't believe is possible, yet accept there is valid evidence to support it. You are doing everything but backflips to try and find a way to prove me wrong, and you're failing all over the place. It's quite the comic tragedy.



You're a dummy. 

Evidence is not legitimate or illegitimate until the CONCLUSION is KNOWN. 

WOW, I cant tell if you really think you're smart or if you're just trying to pass it off that way on the internet. 

Evidence is evidence. When its debunked, its illegitimate, when its not, it's up in the air. 

GET FUCKING REAL. 

You said ppl who don't believe in the spirit cannot accept spiritual evidence. 

That is asinine. You can accept all kinds of evidence for things that you don't know their conclusion......

and conversely, dumbass, if you ALREADY BELIEVE IN THE SPIRIT, you no longer NEED evidence. 



Not sure if serious, but damn.


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> He's an idiot.
> 
> I wasn't literally contradicting myself, I was giving him the hypothetical REVERSE scenario of my first statement, to make a point.
> 
> And he thought I was still being literal, because he doesn't understand the nuance of the English language I guess, like how I started the second post with "I could"
> 
> As opposed to I am?
> 
> Oh, I dunno gee willickers



Well, no I'm not an idiot... jury is still out on you. Yes, if you believe it is possible you "could be" Irish, then you could logically examine evidence that you "may be" Irish and find it credible without "believing you are Irish". That doesn't refute my point, it makes my point.

If you KNOW for a clinical fact through DNA testing or whatever, that you are absolutely NOT Irish.... then it does not matter if someone shows you shamrocks and lucky charms spewing from your ass, you will not accept it as valid evidence. Nothing they can show you will convince you unless you believe it could be possible first.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> None of you are giving legitimate evidence of something you don't believe is possible, yet accept there is valid evidence to support it. You are doing everything but backflips to try and find a way to prove me wrong, and you're failing all over the place. It's quite the comic tragedy.



You're right.
Everyone is saying they would accept valid evidence of something they don't currently believe in if it was provided.
Your construct is assinine.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could not KNOW if I were Irish or not.
> 
> Also not believe one way or another IF I were Irish
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said "I do not believe I am Irish." Now you are saying "I don't know if I am Irish." These are contradicting statements. Both positions cannot be true at the same time. You can either be certain or uncertain, you can't be both at the same time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those are not contradictory statements.  Belief and knowledge are not the same thing.  So believing or not believing something does not mean that you know something.
> 
> So I could say I believe in ghosts and also say I don't know if there are ghosts and not be making contradictory statements.
> 
> I could say I believe in life on other planets but also say I don't know if there is life on other planets and not be making contradictory statements.
Click to expand...

The very basis of agnosticism.


----------



## G.T.

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's an idiot.
> 
> I wasn't literally contradicting myself, I was giving him the hypothetical REVERSE scenario of my first statement, to make a point.
> 
> And he thought I was still being literal, because he doesn't understand the nuance of the English language I guess, like how I started the second post with "I could"
> 
> As opposed to I am?
> 
> Oh, I dunno gee willickers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, no I'm not an idiot... jury is still out on you. Yes, if you believe it is possible you "could be" Irish, then you could logically examine evidence that you "may be" Irish and find it credible without "believing you are Irish". That doesn't refute my point, it makes my point.
> If you KNOW for a clinical fact through DNA testing or whatever, that you are absolutely NOT Irish.... then it does not matter if someone shows you shamrocks and lucky charms spewing from your ass, you will not accept it as valid evidence. Nothing they can show you will convince you unless you believe it could be possible first.
Click to expand...


The big part?

It doesn't make your point. 

You said exactly: if you do not believe something you cannot accept evidence of it. 



Be a man. what you said was dumb.


----------



## Boss

> Evidence is evidence.



NO! Evidence is NOT evidence! We've covered this in preceding pages. Evidence is SUBJECTIVE! What YOU may view as valid and legitimate evidence for something, I may totally reject as evidence at all. It has a different value to me than it has to you. So evidence is _NOT_ evidence. 

This is part of the damn problem with you people, you think YOUR evidence is above reproach and no one can disagree with it. Therefore, it becomes "PROOF" that you have faith in and believe with all your heart, and anyone who disputes you is a "moron" or whatever name you wish to call them.


----------



## G.T.

Boss said:


> Evidence is evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO! Evidence is NOT evidence! We've covered this in preceding pages. Evidence is SUBJECTIVE! What YOU may view as valid and legitimate evidence for something, I may totally reject as evidence at all. It has a different value to me than it has to you. So evidence is _NOT_ evidence.
> 
> This is part of the damn problem with you people, you think YOUR evidence is above reproach and no one can disagree with it. Therefore, it becomes "PROOF" that you have faith in and believe with all your heart, and anyone who disputes you is a "moron" or whatever name you wish to call them.
Click to expand...


theres a reason you cut the rest of the quote - 

its cuz youre a guy who is even dishonest with himself

and said to yourself:

well, theres this ONE part I can nitpick! cant really address the rest though!




everything you are saying contradicts your original assertion


people can very well accept spiritual evidence if it existed, without believing in the spirit.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> Evidence is evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO! Evidence is NOT evidence! We've covered this in preceding pages. Evidence is SUBJECTIVE! What YOU may view as valid and legitimate evidence for something, I may totally reject as evidence at all. It has a different value to me than it has to you. So evidence is _NOT_ evidence.
> 
> This is part of the damn problem with you people, you think YOUR evidence is above reproach and no one can disagree with it. Therefore, it becomes "PROOF" that you have faith in and believe with all your heart, and anyone who disputes you is a "moron" or whatever name you wish to call them.
Click to expand...


The name calling is really your special stock in trade.
So all evidence is subjective and equal?
There goes our justice system, as well as all disciplines of science.


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's an idiot.
> 
> I wasn't literally contradicting myself, I was giving him the hypothetical REVERSE scenario of my first statement, to make a point.
> 
> And he thought I was still being literal, because he doesn't understand the nuance of the English language I guess, like how I started the second post with "I could"
> 
> As opposed to I am?
> 
> Oh, I dunno gee willickers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, no I'm not an idiot... jury is still out on you. Yes, if you believe it is possible you "could be" Irish, then you could logically examine evidence that you "may be" Irish and find it credible without "believing you are Irish". That doesn't refute my point, it makes my point.
> If you KNOW for a clinical fact through DNA testing or whatever, that you are absolutely NOT Irish.... then it does not matter if someone shows you shamrocks and lucky charms spewing from your ass, you will not accept it as valid evidence. Nothing they can show you will convince you unless you believe it could be possible first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The big part?
> 
> It doesn't make your point.
> 
> You said exactly: if you do not believe something you cannot accept evidence of it.
> 
> Be a man. what you said was dumb.
Click to expand...


You are deliberately taking what I said out of context so you can prove me wrong. I won't allow it to go unchallenged. In my example (the big part) you say that you believe you "could be" Irish. If you believe you could be Irish, then you can accept evidence you might be Irish. But first it required you to believe that you could be Irish. If you are certain you are not Irish, then you can't accept any evidence you might be Irish. If by some chance you DO, then it means you have modified your original belief that you are certain you're not Irish, and now believe it's possible you could be. It's logically and rationally impossible for you to believe you are not Irish but accept valid evidence you are Irish. Either the original belief has to change or you have to find the evidence to be invalid, both cannot exist at the same time.


----------



## Newby

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you too defensive to see the difference?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look, there is no difference. If my argument is, you can't accept evidence of something you don't believe in... and you can't provide proof that I am wrong by showing me something you don't believe in but accept evidence for... that proves my point.
> 
> And I am almost always defensive when some fucktarded moron starts telling me what I mean to say and don't mean to say... sorry about that, just how I am.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the* fucktard moron *who's spent most of this thread telling people what they do believe and don't believe.
Click to expand...




thebrucebeat said:


> The name calling is really your special stock in trade.
> So all evidence is subjective and equal?
> There goes our justice system, as well as all disciplines of science.




How about his swearing, BrucieBoy?  Do you see it in the same light? 

It's like you make the rules as you go along, telling everyone how they should conduct themselves and what behavior is acceptable... sort of what you idiots accuse Christians of supposedly doing... Imagine that? Hypocrisy, I love it!


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> The name calling is really your special stock in trade.
> So all evidence is subjective *and equal?*
> There goes our justice system, as well as all disciplines of science.



Where did I say all evidence is "equal?" Why the hell do you have to interject things that aren't there? Evidence is subjective, it's always subjective, it doesn't matter if it's science or justice. 

Again, I give you the OJ trial... the prosecution didn't spend all that time making a case against OJ with evidence it viewed as invalid, they certainly believed their evidence was proof he committed the crime or they wouldn't have brought the case to court. The jury heard the evidence, along with a large chunk of the nation. In the end, the jury did not view the evidence the same as the prosecution and found OJ not guilty. Many people who viewed the exact same evidence across the nation were shocked because they found the evidence to be valid and credible and thought OJ should have been found guilty. 

Was the evidence "equal" in that case? Was all evidence, evidence? Or was the evidence SUBJECTIVE.... (meaning subject to personal evaluation, in case you're illiterate.)


----------



## G.T.

wowwwwww


----------



## G.T.

"Look, there is no difference. If my argument is, you can't accept evidence of something you don't believe in... and you can't provide proof that I am wrong by showing me something you don't believe in but accept evidence for... that proves my point. " - Boss

Your quote. You own it. It is factually stupid.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Newby said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, there is no difference. If my argument is, you can't accept evidence of something you don't believe in... and you can't provide proof that I am wrong by showing me something you don't believe in but accept evidence for... that proves my point.
> 
> And I am almost always defensive when some fucktarded moron starts telling me what I mean to say and don't mean to say... sorry about that, just how I am.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the* fucktard moron *who's spent most of this thread telling people what they do believe and don't believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> The name calling is really your special stock in trade.
> So all evidence is subjective and equal?
> There goes our justice system, as well as all disciplines of science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How about his swearing, BrucieBoy?  Do you see it in the same light?
> 
> It's like you make the rules as you go along, telling everyone how they should conduct themselves and what behavior is acceptable... sort of what you idiots accuse Christians of supposedly doing... Imagine that? Hypocrisy, I love it!
Click to expand...


He was deliberately using the word Boss had used against him.
Not an excuse, but it was quoting back what he had received first.
You can look it up!
Do you think I made up the Fruits of the Spirit?
That explains a lot!


----------



## Montrovant

Newby said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, there is no difference. If my argument is, you can't accept evidence of something you don't believe in... and you can't provide proof that I am wrong by showing me something you don't believe in but accept evidence for... that proves my point.
> 
> And I am almost always defensive when some *fucktarded moron* starts telling me what I mean to say and don't mean to say... sorry about that, just how I am.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the* fucktard moron *who's spent most of this thread telling people what they do believe and don't believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> The name calling is really your special stock in trade.
> So all evidence is subjective and equal?
> There goes our justice system, as well as all disciplines of science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How about his swearing, BrucieBoy?  Do you see it in the same light?
> 
> It's like you make the rules as you go along, telling everyone how they should conduct themselves and what behavior is acceptable... sort of what you idiots accuse Christians of supposedly doing... Imagine that? Hypocrisy, I love it!
Click to expand...


Except, of course, for the important distinction that I was repeating Boss's insult back at him, rather than deciding to insult him on my own.  Or did you somehow miss his previous post?  I went ahead and put it in bold for you, so you can see.

Or do you make the rules as you go along, letting Boss insult people whenever he wants and only finding fault when someone repeats his own words back at him?  Imagine that?  Hypocrisy!


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> None of you are giving legitimate evidence of something you don't believe is possible, yet accept there is valid evidence to support it. You are doing everything but backflips to try and find a way to prove me wrong, and you're failing all over the place. It's quite the comic tragedy.



Perhaps, if you were consistent in saying that a person must believe something is possible, rather than just believe in something, this entire issue could be avoided.

Then again, considering you refuse to accept anyone who says they believe something is possible yet don't believe it to be true, at least if they are things you believe in, maybe this never could be avoided.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> The name calling is really your special stock in trade.
> So all evidence is subjective *and equal?*
> There goes our justice system, as well as all disciplines of science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I say all evidence is "equal?" Why the hell do you have to interject things that aren't there? Evidence is subjective, it's always subjective, it doesn't matter if it's science or justice.
> 
> Again, I give you the OJ trial... the prosecution didn't spend all that time making a case against OJ with evidence it viewed as invalid, they certainly believed their evidence was proof he committed the crime or they wouldn't have brought the case to court. The jury heard the evidence, along with a large chunk of the nation. In the end, the jury did not view the evidence the same as the prosecution and found OJ not guilty. Many people who viewed the exact same evidence across the nation were shocked because they found the evidence to be valid and credible and thought OJ should have been found guilty.
> 
> Was the evidence "equal" in that case? Was all evidence, evidence? Or was the evidence SUBJECTIVE.... (meaning subject to personal evaluation, in case you're illiterate.)
Click to expand...


You equate peoples judgment with the quality of evidence.
False equivalency.
Same thing with the evidence you give for spirituality.
You equate the evaluation of the "evidence" with its quality. People believe it so it must be true.


----------



## Newby

Montrovant said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says the* fucktard moron *who's spent most of this thread telling people what they do believe and don't believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> The name calling is really your special stock in trade.
> So all evidence is subjective and equal?
> There goes our justice system, as well as all disciplines of science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How about his swearing, BrucieBoy?  Do you see it in the same light?
> 
> It's like you make the rules as you go along, telling everyone how they should conduct themselves and what behavior is acceptable... sort of what you idiots accuse Christians of supposedly doing... Imagine that? Hypocrisy, I love it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except, of course, for the important distinction that I was repeating Boss's insult back at him, rather than deciding to insult him on my own.  Or did you somehow miss his previous post?  I went ahead and put it in bold for you, so you can see.
> 
> Or do you make the rules as you go along, letting Boss insult people whenever he wants and only finding fault when someone repeats his own words back at him?  Imagine that?  Hypocrisy!
Click to expand...


Yeah, cause all you guys taking him on have been so polite and respectful to him this entire time, right?


----------



## thebrucebeat

Newby said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about his swearing, BrucieBoy?  Do you see it in the same light?
> 
> It's like you make the rules as you go along, telling everyone how they should conduct themselves and what behavior is acceptable... sort of what you idiots accuse Christians of supposedly doing... Imagine that? Hypocrisy, I love it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except, of course, for the important distinction that I was repeating Boss's insult back at him, rather than deciding to insult him on my own.  Or did you somehow miss his previous post?  I went ahead and put it in bold for you, so you can see.
> 
> Or do you make the rules as you go along, letting Boss insult people whenever he wants and only finding fault when someone repeats his own words back at him?  Imagine that?  Hypocrisy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, cause all you guys taking him on have been so polite and respectful to him this entire time, right?
Click to expand...


Nice backpedal.
Noted.


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> You look up into the sky and see a moon there. Billions of people have seen it too. Scientists have confirmed it is there and exists. We've sent rockets there and men have set foot on it. Is that authority of the masses ploy as well? What if I tell you the moon is not there? It's an illusion from God? That your so-called "physical evidence" is an "authority of the masses ploy" and not evidence?
> 
> Show me the spiritual evidence for anything you think is proven to exist in the physical world, or I will tell you it's an illusion put there by God to make you think it exists. Now, I MUST be speaking the TRUTH because you can't show me any spiritual evidence and you can't refute my argument with spiritual evidence.
> 
> Game--set--match!
> 
> 
> 
> FALSE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR OR AGAINST THE EXISTENCE OF GOD .......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's plenty of evidence for the existence of God. We're here, we exist. The universe is here, it exists. Logic and physics work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our 'minds', 'souls', 'spirit' and consciousness are all physical in nature. Thousands of years of research have shown that our brains comprise and produce our true selves. Souls and spirits do not exist. Our bodies run themselves. We know from cases of brain damage and the effects of psychoactive drugs, that our experiences are caused by physical chemistry acting on our physical neurones in our brains. Our innermost self is our biochemical self.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bwhahahaha... THOUSANDS of years, dawsy? Really? You do realize that only a few HUNDRED years ago, your precious scientists all mutually agreed our 'essence of true self' came from the heart and not the brain, right? The research regarding chemical reactions in the brain is less than 75 years old.
> 
> You're all over the board with this, first you start by stating that our spirit and soul are physical in nature, but before you finish your paragraph, they do not exist. Now, in YOUR case, you're probably correct, YOUR "biochemical self" is probably copious amounts of methamphetamines working on your atrophied brain to produce random thoughts that don't comport with logic and reason. That would certainly explain your profound stupidity on this and many other topics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Human and animal mental processes look just as they can be expected to look if there is no soul or other immaterial component.
> Prof. Victor Stenger (2007)
> 
> Souls do not Exist: Evidence from Science & Philosophy Against Mind-Body Dualism
> 
> rationalizing in 5....4...3...2..1
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, well, someone needs to introduce some rationality to this idiot, that's for certain. Did this moron not notice that humans have the capacity to rationalize right from wrong and react on that, while other animals react on primal instinct alone? Victor must be hittin' the meth pipe too.
Click to expand...

 oh oh, the false and haggard you're on drugs ploy...ironic coming an alcoholic..
funnier still ....is the desperation in your writing ...means your nuts are in a vice...


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing is "proven"* except mathematics, and even that is only proven in our current understanding of reality in our known universe.*
> 
> As we see, retard dawsy has a little problem with his reading comprehension skills.
> 
> 
> 
> false boosy is dodging :THE SECTION BOOSY LEFT OUT : "in any intellectual field except for Mathematics, and even their proofs are relative to localized systems"
> colorizing your shit does not make it any less false...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I did not copy and paste my remarks from a third-party source like you did. In my own words, I said: _except mathematics, and even that is only proven in our current understanding of reality in our known universe._ You somehow deduce it is a "gotchya" moment because your copy-n-paste definition says: _except for Mathematics, and even their proofs are relative to localized systems._
> 
> I'm not sure if you are comprehending this, but "relative to localized systems" and "reality in our known universe" are practically the same thing. I mean, it's not identical, but mine is my own words and yours is a copy/paste from someone smarter than you.
Click to expand...

false! more tantruming....  
odd that "your" words are an exact word for word quote just be caused you memorized them does not make them yours...
hers another example of you misrepresenting for your own "Theory"  : "relative to localized systems" and "reality in our known universe" are practically the same thing."
boosy

ah no they are not .....you've reinvented what localized systems are to fit your nonsense in the same way you attempted to bullshit that hot water is not hot by using the impracticable faux comparison that since it's not as hot as the sun it's not hot..
as to you being smarter than I Am....truly smart people do not need to proclaim they are...they just are....
also, making word soup as you do is more evidence of your denseness..
truly  smart people are direct and choose the right words even if they are not theirs.
anyone can yammer and you have a black belt in yammering...


----------



## daws101

MrMax said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Too rich!! Cannot comment, laughing too hard and cleaning the beer from my monitor!
> 
> 
> 
> I knew you were an alcoholic..thanks for proving to everyone!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha! He's a drunk. That explains a lot!!!!
Click to expand...

my dad was too so boosy was easy to spot...bet he drinks the cheap shit too..


----------



## daws101

thanatos144 said:


> People who hate God and many here on this board does fear judgment for the things they do. Hedonism.


judgement by who?....the after you're dead sky daddy. seems like that's counter productive since you've already done all the sinning.
thought the commandments and other rules of religion...were to prevent sinning.
or as they used to the horse is already out of the barn...


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I accept that life on earth is evidence of a creator.
> 
> That's accepting evidence of something I don't believe in.
> 
> I'll believe in it when there's enough evidence to form a case beyond a reasonable doubt.
> 
> Until then,
> 
> Believing in something's possibility is not believing in it. Not even close. Your argument fails there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But really you DON'T believe life on earth is evidence of a creator because you don't believe in said creator, and you constantly rationalize how life on earth doesn't require one. So what you are doing now is lying deliberately so you can have a "gotchya moment" on me. It's cheeky, it's clever, but it's totally dishonest horseshit and you know it.
Click to expand...

hey guys is this karma or what..."some fucktarded moron starts telling me what I mean to say and don't mean to say..."boosy 
here boosy is doing exactly the same fucking thing he claims to hate....
pretty  stupid for the self proclaimed smartest kid in class.


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> None of you are giving legitimate evidence of something you don't believe is possible, yet accept there is valid evidence to support it. You are doing everything but backflips to try and find a way to prove me wrong, and you're failing all over the place. It's quite the comic tragedy.


really captain mellodrama!
if you were so right then your shit would stand up to the scrutiny and criticism it's getting...
it's you who's running around like his ass is on fire to defended your bullshit.


----------



## Montrovant

Newby said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about his swearing, BrucieBoy?  Do you see it in the same light?
> 
> It's like you make the rules as you go along, telling everyone how they should conduct themselves and what behavior is acceptable... sort of what you idiots accuse Christians of supposedly doing... Imagine that? Hypocrisy, I love it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except, of course, for the important distinction that I was repeating Boss's insult back at him, rather than deciding to insult him on my own.  Or did you somehow miss his previous post?  I went ahead and put it in bold for you, so you can see.
> 
> Or do you make the rules as you go along, letting Boss insult people whenever he wants and only finding fault when someone repeats his own words back at him?  Imagine that?  Hypocrisy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, cause all you guys taking him on have been so polite and respectful to him this entire time, right?
Click to expand...


Yeah, cause I'm 'all you guys', right?

When you find an instance of me insulting Boss prior to him insulting me in this thread, I'll apologize immediately.

As far as I know, however, all the insults have begun with him.  I have only responded to them.

But go ahead and get upset with me repeating his own insults back at him and talk about how hypocritical someone is for not being as upset with that as with the original insults, while at the same time you praise Boss's posts and never take issue when he's the one who decides to start resorting to insults.  It's amusing.


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of you are giving legitimate evidence of something you don't believe is possible, yet accept there is valid evidence to support it. You are doing everything but backflips to try and find a way to prove me wrong, and you're failing all over the place. It's quite the comic tragedy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps, if you were consistent in saying that a person must believe something is possible, rather than just believe in something, this entire issue could be avoided.
> 
> Then again, considering you refuse to accept anyone who says they believe something is possible yet don't believe it to be true, at least if they are things you believe in, maybe this never could be avoided.
Click to expand...


This entire side-rant began as me making the point that you cannot objectively evaluate spiritual evidence because you don't believe in spiritual nature, and thus, don't believe spiritual evidence can exist. Therefore, all spiritual evidence offered is rejected on the grounds that it doesn't exist or is subjective/anecdotal/invalid. 

Do you believe or accept that spiritual nature exists, that there is a spiritual realm which is not a part of physical nature? Yes or no? If the answer is "yes" you can objectively evaluate spiritual evidence. If the answer is "no" you cannot.... it's not possible. Now you can twist and contort semantics around and call it "circular logic" or focus on some minutia unrelated to the question and pretend you don't understand the context for three or four days, or you can get a fucking clue and comprehend what I am saying. I have no control over that, it's on you.


----------



## G.T.




----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of you are giving legitimate evidence of something you don't believe is possible, yet accept there is valid evidence to support it. You are doing everything but backflips to try and find a way to prove me wrong, and you're failing all over the place. It's quite the comic tragedy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps, if you were consistent in saying that a person must believe something is possible, rather than just believe in something, this entire issue could be avoided.
> 
> Then again, considering you refuse to accept anyone who says they believe something is possible yet don't believe it to be true, at least if they are things you believe in, maybe this never could be avoided.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This entire side-rant began as me making the point that you cannot objectively evaluate spiritual evidence because you don't believe in spiritual nature, and thus, don't believe spiritual evidence can exist. Therefore, all spiritual evidence offered is rejected on the grounds that it doesn't exist or is subjective/anecdotal/invalid.
> 
> Do you believe or accept that spiritual nature exists, that there is a spiritual realm which is not a part of physical nature? Yes or no? If the answer is "yes" you can objectively evaluate spiritual evidence. If the answer is "no" you cannot.... it's not possible. Now you can twist and contort semantics around and call it "circular logic" or focus on some minutia unrelated to the question and pretend you don't understand the context for three or four days, or you can get a fucking clue and comprehend what I am saying. I have no control over that, it's on you.
Click to expand...


And we're back again to having to believe in something before seeing evidence of it!  

So which is it?  Does a person need to believe something is possible, or already believe something exists?

Do you even believe a person can think of a thing as possible without actually accepting it as real?


----------



## Montrovant

Montrovant said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except, of course, for the important distinction that I was repeating Boss's insult back at him, rather than deciding to insult him on my own.  Or did you somehow miss his previous post?  I went ahead and put it in bold for you, so you can see.
> 
> Or do you make the rules as you go along, letting Boss insult people whenever he wants and only finding fault when someone repeats his own words back at him?  Imagine that?  Hypocrisy!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, cause all you guys taking him on have been so polite and respectful to him this entire time, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, cause I'm 'all you guys', right?
> 
> When you find an instance of me insulting Boss prior to him insulting me in this thread, I'll apologize immediately.
> 
> As far as I know, however, all the insults have begun with him.  I have only responded to them.
> 
> But go ahead and get upset with me repeating his own insults back at him and talk about how hypocritical someone is for not being as upset with that as with the original insults, while at the same time you praise Boss's posts and never take issue when he's the one who decides to start resorting to insults.  It's amusing.
Click to expand...


And just to be clear, the post where Boss said 'fucktarded morons' was not directed specifically at me.  However, as I've tried to point out what his posts seem to be saying on multiple occasions, I certainly felt I was included in the comment.

But I'll go ahead and apologize now.  That insult may not have been in any way directed at me.  Sorry.

Of course, I don't feel the slightest compunction repeating it back at him.  It's certainly not a case of me opening with an insult and him responding to it, at any rate.


----------



## Boss

daws101 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> false boosy is dodging :THE SECTION BOOSY LEFT OUT : "in any intellectual field except for Mathematics, and even their proofs are relative to localized systems"
> colorizing your shit does not make it any less false...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I did not copy and paste my remarks from a third-party source like you did. In my own words, I said: _except mathematics, and even that is only proven in our current understanding of reality in our known universe._ You somehow deduce it is a "gotchya" moment because your copy-n-paste definition says: _except for Mathematics, and even their proofs are relative to localized systems._
> 
> I'm not sure if you are comprehending this, but "relative to localized systems" and "reality in our known universe" are practically the same thing. I mean, it's not identical, but mine is my own words and yours is a copy/paste from someone smarter than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> false! more tantruming....
> odd that "your" words are an exact word for word quote just be caused you memorized them does not make them yours...
> hers another example of you misrepresenting for your own "Theory"  : "relative to localized systems" and "reality in our known universe" are practically the same thing."
> boosy
> 
> ah no they are not .....you've reinvented what localized systems are to fit your nonsense in the same way you attempted to bullshit that hot water is not hot by using the impracticable faux comparison that since it's not as hot as the sun it's not hot..
> as to you being smarter than I Am....truly smart people do not need to proclaim they are...they just are....
> also, making word soup as you do is more evidence of your denseness..
> truly  smart people are direct and choose the right words even if they are not theirs.
> anyone can yammer and you have a black belt in yammering...
Click to expand...


I didn't "memorize" anything dawsy, I learned this a long time ago, and have argued it on numerous occasions, including when you tried to claim that "evidence is a lazy way of saying proof" or whatever nonsense you spewed. You're not smart, hell, I don't even believe you rise to the level of DUMB! You're a borderline retard. You're constantly saying the most retarded stuff... like arguing that "hot water is hot because it just is!" Then being totally schooled by me when I point out that it's practically freezing compared to the sun. 

Now anyone with half a brain can understand "hot water is hot because it just is!" is an asinine argument, and IF something like that were to be posted by ME, we'd hear about it for weeks! But your butt-buddies feel sorry for your retard ass because you're one of them, god love ya, so they cut you some slack. 

Mathematics is "proof" relative to localized systems, means essentially what I said it means in a different way using some different words. You thought you had found something you could finally prove me wrong about, but you didn't. Sorry about that, I guess I should show some sympathy to you and let you win a few of these yammering spars, but seeing how I'm a black belt and I enjoy kicking your retarded ass around, I don't think so. Suck it!


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> And we're back again to having to believe in something before seeing evidence of it!
> 
> So which is it?  Does a person need to believe something is possible, or already believe something exists?
> 
> Do you even believe a person can think of a thing as possible without actually accepting it as real?



And AGAIN... you totally dodge the question and attempt to take the debate off into la-la-land. 

Do you believe spiritual nature exists? YES or NO???? 

We'll proceed from there, AFTER you've answered the goddamn question, Moonbat!


----------



## G.T.

You dont need to believe in something to accept evidence of it. 

That is an illogical assertion and renders your uh...train of thought......moot. Completely moot.

You are fucking literally saying that belief comes BEFORE evidence can be considered. That is dumb.
.


----------



## Steven_R

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of you are giving legitimate evidence of something you don't believe is possible, yet accept there is valid evidence to support it. You are doing everything but backflips to try and find a way to prove me wrong, and you're failing all over the place. It's quite the comic tragedy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps, if you were consistent in saying that a person must believe something is possible, rather than just believe in something, this entire issue could be avoided.
> 
> Then again, considering you refuse to accept anyone who says they believe something is possible yet don't believe it to be true, at least if they are things you believe in, maybe this never could be avoided.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This entire side-rant began as me making the point that you cannot objectively evaluate spiritual evidence because you don't believe in spiritual nature, and thus, don't believe spiritual evidence can exist. Therefore, all spiritual evidence offered is rejected on the grounds that it doesn't exist or is subjective/anecdotal/invalid.
> 
> Do you believe or accept that spiritual nature exists, that there is a spiritual realm which is not a part of physical nature? Yes or no? If the answer is "yes" you can objectively evaluate spiritual evidence. If the answer is "no" you cannot.... it's not possible. Now you can twist and contort semantics around and call it "circular logic" or focus on some minutia unrelated to the question and pretend you don't understand the context for three or four days, or you can get a fucking clue and comprehend what I am saying. I have no control over that, it's on you.
Click to expand...


I had a professor tell me one time "analysis without data isn't analysis. It's an opinion."

I fully allow for the _possibility _of the spiritual world. But there has been zero quantitative evidence offered for its _existence_. Until that evidence exists, the spiritual is a scientific non-entity. It simply doesn't enter into what science does until it can be shown to exist.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of you are giving legitimate evidence of something you don't believe is possible, yet accept there is valid evidence to support it. You are doing everything but backflips to try and find a way to prove me wrong, and you're failing all over the place. It's quite the comic tragedy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps, if you were consistent in saying that a person must believe something is possible, rather than just believe in something, this entire issue could be avoided.
> 
> Then again, considering you refuse to accept anyone who says they believe something is possible yet don't believe it to be true, at least if they are things you believe in, maybe this never could be avoided.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This entire side-rant began as me making the point that you cannot objectively evaluate spiritual evidence because you don't believe in spiritual nature, and thus, don't believe spiritual evidence can exist. Therefore, all spiritual evidence offered is rejected on the grounds that it doesn't exist or is subjective/anecdotal/invalid.
> 
> Do you believe or accept that spiritual nature exists, that there is a spiritual realm which is not a part of physical nature? Yes or no? If the answer is "yes" you can objectively evaluate spiritual evidence. If the answer is "no" you cannot.... it's not possible. Now you can twist and contort semantics around and call it "circular logic" or focus on some minutia unrelated to the question and pretend you don't understand the context for three or four days, or you can get a fucking clue and comprehend what I am saying. I have no control over that, it's on you.
Click to expand...


We comprehend. It is complete nonsense.
Once more you ask if we already believe something exists. If you already believe any evidence will do. You will further enhance your belief by any excuse if you already believe, and will call it "evidence". Circular logic is not "minutia"(sic). It's poor argumentation.
What happens if someone has no idea if there is a "spiritual nature"? Are they cast into your abyss as liars, deceitful, cowards, and then the vulgarity that follows?


----------



## BreezeWood

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why didn't you answer my question? It appears you aren't an Atheist or agnostic, you do believe in spiritual nature. I am just curious as to what you identify with spiritually.
> 
> Per your argument, I have never said that things don't respond to their environment. Every living thing responds to it's surrounding environment. Obviously, a surrounding environment is not part of self. *Humans worship a power greater than self, is not saying that nothing else recognizes or responds to it's environment.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Humans worship a power greater than self, is not saying that nothing else recognizes or responds to it's environment.*
> 
> 
> *or the extreme subtlety of wildlife simply does not resonate on your radar is not proof their spirituality does not exist. *
> 
> - worship is a failure to understand.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've conceded that you may have a point with this, and I haven't disputed it. Perhaps when the birds are chirping in the early morning as the sun rises, it is their form of "worship" and I don't recognize it as such? It's possible, I grant you that. But you respond by calling me names and pretending I've rejected that.
> 
> "Worship is a failure to understand." I don't know that I accept that simplistic platitude. *"Worship is reverence"* would be more in line with what I believe. But to each his own.
Click to expand...



*I've conceded that you may have a point with this, and I haven't disputed it ... 

"Worship is reverence" -*


why would you not bother to connect the two - humanity and wildlife being equally connected to their mutual Creator ???? - why even question its existence, religion ?

you would rather show "reverence" (involving only yourself) than "understanding" the complete meaning of everything available for observation ?

.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we're back again to having to believe in something before seeing evidence of it!
> 
> So which is it?  Does a person need to believe something is possible, or already believe something exists?
> 
> Do you even believe a person can think of a thing as possible without actually accepting it as real?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And AGAIN... you totally dodge the question and attempt to take the debate off into la-la-land.
> 
> Do you believe spiritual nature exists? YES or NO????
> 
> We'll proceed from there, AFTER you've answered the goddamn question, Moonbat!
Click to expand...


I've answered this question already, so I'm not sure why you're ranting about it.  No, I don't believe spiritual nature exists, at least not beyond human belief.  Then again, you already knew that.  Like I said, I've answered that question before.

It has nothing to do with the point, which is that you most certainly do not have to believe in something before you can accept evidence of it.  That has been pointed out to you, with examples, on multiple occasions.

I've gone so far as to concede that not believing a thing is even possible makes it extremely difficult to find evidence that a person will accept.  Yet somehow, again and again, you revert back from the idea that a person must believe a thing possible before examining evidence to a person already having to believe a thing exists before examining evidence.  By that reasoning, no new discovery could ever be made, unless it was a discovery based on a coincidental imagining.  After all, if someone discovers something completely new, they didn't believe in it when they discovered it, so they wouldn't be able to objectively examine evidence of it.  

Aside : since you've stated that all evidence is subjectively examined, no one can ever objectively examine evidence anyway. 

So, as has been said, I understand what you are saying.  I'm telling you you are wrong, monumentally wrong, when you say a person must believe in a thing before they can examine evidence of that thing.  I've been more than willing to operate under the idea that a person must believe a thing is possible, but since you continually go back to having to actually believe in it, this particular trail in the discussion rambles on.


----------



## Boss

> No, I don't believe spiritual nature exists, at least not beyond human belief. Then again, you already knew that.



Right... so you CAN'T objectively evaluate the spiritual evidence to support spiritual nature. You don't believe in it. This  is really no different than if I don't believe in Physics, I CAN'T objectively evaluate a physics problem. 



> ...since you've stated that all evidence is subjectively examined...



I never said this, fucknuts. I said evidence is subjective, not subjectively examined. Why is it your instinct to twist and distort what I say every single time?


----------



## Boss

BreezeWood said:


> why would you not bother to connect the two - humanity and wildlife being equally connected to their mutual Creator ???? - why even question its existence, religion ?
> 
> you would rather show "reverence" (involving only yourself) than "understanding" the complete meaning of everything available for observation ?
> 
> .



I've never said they weren't connected or even "equally" connected. I conceded that you might be correct, other living things may experience spiritual connection in their own way and we may just not be aware of that. I see no signs of other living things making moral conscious decisions of right and wrong or proactively worshiping something greater than self. I didn't say it's not possible or it doesn't happen. I see no indication of it happening. 

I don't belong to a religion, why would I question anything based on religion?


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> why would you not bother to connect the two - humanity and wildlife being equally connected to their mutual Creator ???? - why even question its existence, religion ?
> 
> you would rather show "reverence" (involving only yourself) than "understanding" the complete meaning of everything available for observation ?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never said they weren't connected or even "equally" connected. I conceded that you might be correct, other living things may experience spiritual connection in their own way and we may just not be aware of that. I see no signs of other living things making moral conscious decisions of right and wrong or proactively worshiping something greater than self. I didn't say it's not possible or it doesn't happen. I see no indication of it happening.
> 
> I don't belong to a religion, why would I question anything based on religion?
Click to expand...


Now you understand all the people that say they can entertain the possibility of something being true and yet see no evidence for it. Just like you and your perception of animals. You don't believe it is true, but you could entertain the evidence if it was presented to you.
The walls of Jericho just came a'tumblin' down.


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> why would you not bother to connect the two - humanity and wildlife being equally connected to their mutual Creator ???? - why even question its existence, religion ?
> 
> you would rather show "reverence" (involving only yourself) than "understanding" the complete meaning of everything available for observation ?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never said they weren't connected or even "equally" connected. I conceded that you might be correct, other living things may experience spiritual connection in their own way and we may just not be aware of that. I see no signs of other living things making moral conscious decisions of right and wrong or proactively worshiping something greater than self. I didn't say it's not possible or it doesn't happen. I see no indication of it happening.
> 
> I don't belong to a religion, why would I question anything based on religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you understand all the people that say they can entertain the possibility of something being true and yet see no evidence for it. Just like you and your perception of animals. You don't believe it is true, but you could entertain the evidence if it was presented to you.
> The walls of Jericho just came a'tumblin' down.
Click to expand...


Yeah, but I know animals exist, dimwit.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> No, I don't believe spiritual nature exists, at least not beyond human belief. Then again, you already knew that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right... so you CAN'T objectively evaluate the spiritual evidence to support spiritual nature. You don't believe in it. This  is really no different than if I don't believe in Physics, I CAN'T objectively evaluate a physics problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...since you've stated that all evidence is subjectively examined...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said this, fucknuts. I said evidence is subjective, not subjectively examined. Why is it your instinct to twist and distort what I say every single time?
Click to expand...


You complain about people harping on minutiae, then respond with this?

OK, evidence is subjective.  So if I see a rock as evidence of god.....is the rock different for everyone who sees it?  Or is it the examination and conclusions drawn from the rock that are subjective?

Sure, if I am using someone's opinion on something as evidence, that's subjective.  But since, by definition, subjective is about the thoughts and opinions of an individual, all evidence is not subjective.  

Maybe I 'twist and distort' what you say because so often it makes no sense.  Fucknuts.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never said they weren't connected or even "equally" connected. I conceded that you might be correct, other living things may experience spiritual connection in their own way and we may just not be aware of that. I see no signs of other living things making moral conscious decisions of right and wrong or proactively worshiping something greater than self. I didn't say it's not possible or it doesn't happen. I see no indication of it happening.
> 
> I don't belong to a religion, why would I question anything based on religion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you understand all the people that say they can entertain the possibility of something being true and yet see no evidence for it. Just like you and your perception of animals. You don't believe it is true, but you could entertain the evidence if it was presented to you.
> The walls of Jericho just came a'tumblin' down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, but I know animals exist, dimwit.
Click to expand...


But you don't know that the spiritual nature of animals exists, dimwit.


----------



## Montrovant

Hey [MENTION=17441]Newby[/MENTION], want to complain about me returning Boss's insults some more?  As you can see from the previous posts, he's spewed out a couple more.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never said they weren't connected or even "equally" connected. I conceded that you might be correct, other living things may experience spiritual connection in their own way and we may just not be aware of that. I see no signs of other living things making moral conscious decisions of right and wrong or proactively worshiping something greater than self. I didn't say it's not possible or it doesn't happen. I see no indication of it happening.
> 
> I don't belong to a religion, why would I question anything based on religion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you understand all the people that say they can entertain the possibility of something being true and yet see no evidence for it. Just like you and your perception of animals. You don't believe it is true, but you could entertain the evidence if it was presented to you.
> The walls of Jericho just came a'tumblin' down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, but I know animals exist, dimwit.
Click to expand...

And I know people exist.
You don't know if animals have a spiritual nature. You don't believe so but you would entertain evidence if it was presented.
I hear you.
Ditto that with people.
Jericho in rubbles now.


----------



## Boss

Brucey, you also know spiritual nature exists and you best be getting right with your God before it's too late. He's probably not very amused with your behavior here. Just sayin'. 

I believe in spiritual nature and I believe in animals, so there is nothing that prevents me from examining evidence objectively (spiritual or physical) to evaluate what I believe. This is not the case for someone who doesn't accept or believe in spiritual nature. I doubt Moonbat thinks animals worship the God he doesn't believe in. 

Don't know what the deal is with all the Jericho refs, maybe that works on fearful Christian types? Like I said, you best be gettin' right with Da Man before he zaps your miserable ass with a lightning bolt. Stop tormenting his followers with your satanic tactics of trying to use their faith against them before he unleashes a thousand plagues on you and yours. 

As for me, you're not phasing me a bit with your shit. I'm far more concerned with the fungus under my toenail than I am with you. The more you yap, the stupider you get here.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> Brucey, you also know spiritual nature exists and you best be getting right with your God before it's too late. He's probably not very amused with your behavior here. Just sayin'.
> 
> I believe in spiritual nature and I believe in animals, so there is nothing that prevents me from examining evidence objectively (spiritual or physical) to evaluate what I believe. This is not the case for someone who doesn't accept or believe in spiritual nature. I doubt Moonbat thinks animals worship the God he doesn't believe in.
> 
> Don't know what the deal is with all the Jericho refs, maybe that works on fearful Christian types? Like I said, you best be gettin' right with Da Man before he zaps your miserable ass with a lightning bolt. Stop tormenting his followers with your satanic tactics of trying to use their faith against them before he unleashes a thousand plagues on you and yours.
> 
> As for me, you're not phasing me a bit with your shit. I'm far more concerned with the fungus under my toenail than I am with you. The more you yap, the stupider you get here.



You're busted and you know it.
My "shit", as you so elegantly put it, is using your logic to show you are a blowhard and not too bright.
You don't believe that animals have a spirit nature but you would consider the evidence.
You could consider the evidence for something you have no belief in, exactly what you say is completely impossible for everyone else you address.
I have this image of a water ballon dropped from three stories high and hitting the pavement.
It's your argument, completely blowing apart.
An occasional shower might help your fungus.


----------



## Newby

Boss said:


> *Brucey*, you also know spiritual nature exists and you best be getting right with your God before it's too late. He's probably not very amused with your behavior here. Just sayin'.
> 
> I believe in spiritual nature and I believe in animals, so there is nothing that prevents me from examining evidence objectively (spiritual or physical) to evaluate what I believe. This is not the case for someone who doesn't accept or believe in spiritual nature. I doubt Moonbat thinks animals worship the God he doesn't believe in.
> 
> Don't know what the deal is with all the Jericho refs, maybe that works on fearful Christian types? Like I said, you best be gettin' right with Da Man before he zaps your miserable ass with a lightning bolt. Stop tormenting his followers with your satanic tactics of trying to use their faith against them before he unleashes a thousand plagues on you and yours.
> 
> As for me, you're not phasing me a bit with your shit. I'm far more concerned with the fungus under my toenail than I am with you. *The more you yap, the stupider you get here*.



Ain't that the truth!!


----------



## thebrucebeat

Newby said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Brucey*, you also know spiritual nature exists and you best be getting right with your God before it's too late. He's probably not very amused with your behavior here. Just sayin'.
> 
> I believe in spiritual nature and I believe in animals, so there is nothing that prevents me from examining evidence objectively (spiritual or physical) to evaluate what I believe. This is not the case for someone who doesn't accept or believe in spiritual nature. I doubt Moonbat thinks animals worship the God he doesn't believe in.
> 
> Don't know what the deal is with all the Jericho refs, maybe that works on fearful Christian types? Like I said, you best be gettin' right with Da Man before he zaps your miserable ass with a lightning bolt. Stop tormenting his followers with your satanic tactics of trying to use their faith against them before he unleashes a thousand plagues on you and yours.
> 
> As for me, you're not phasing me a bit with your shit. I'm far more concerned with the fungus under my toenail than I am with you. *The more you yap, the stupider you get here*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ain't that the truth!!
Click to expand...


And you aren't bright enough to know your buddy just crashed and burned.


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brucey, you also know spiritual nature exists and you best be getting right with your God before it's too late. He's probably not very amused with your behavior here. Just sayin'.
> 
> I believe in spiritual nature and I believe in animals, so there is nothing that prevents me from examining evidence objectively (spiritual or physical) to evaluate what I believe. This is not the case for someone who doesn't accept or believe in spiritual nature. I doubt Moonbat thinks animals worship the God he doesn't believe in.
> 
> Don't know what the deal is with all the Jericho refs, maybe that works on fearful Christian types? Like I said, you best be gettin' right with Da Man before he zaps your miserable ass with a lightning bolt. Stop tormenting his followers with your satanic tactics of trying to use their faith against them before he unleashes a thousand plagues on you and yours.
> 
> As for me, you're not phasing me a bit with your shit. I'm far more concerned with the fungus under my toenail than I am with you. The more you yap, the stupider you get here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're busted and you know it.
> My "shit", as you so elegantly put it, is using your logic to show you are a blowhard and not too bright.
> You don't believe that animals have a spirit nature but you would consider the evidence.
> You could consider the evidence for something you have no belief in, exactly what you say is completely impossible for everyone else you address.
> I have this image of a water ballon dropped from three stories high and hitting the pavement.
> It's your argument, completely blowing apart.
> An occasional shower might help your fungus.
Click to expand...


Uh oh... Busted by Brucey the Babbling Buffoon! (This should be good!) 

You are the one who appears not too bright... try to comprehend little Brucey... I believe in spiritual nature. I believe in animals. Where are you getting that I have no belief in them? If I did not believe that one of the two (or both) did not exist, it would be impossible for me to evaluate any evidence pertaining to them. Since I do believe in the existence of both, I can evaluate such evidence and have. 

Now, if you are imagining water balloons splatting on the pavement from 3 stories, I would avoid any tall buildings until you repent to God. You may want to keep any small children, pets or other family members away as well. Sounds like your punishment may get ugly.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brucey, you also know spiritual nature exists and you best be getting right with your God before it's too late. He's probably not very amused with your behavior here. Just sayin'.
> 
> I believe in spiritual nature and I believe in animals, so there is nothing that prevents me from examining evidence objectively (spiritual or physical) to evaluate what I believe. This is not the case for someone who doesn't accept or believe in spiritual nature. I doubt Moonbat thinks animals worship the God he doesn't believe in.
> 
> Don't know what the deal is with all the Jericho refs, maybe that works on fearful Christian types? Like I said, you best be gettin' right with Da Man before he zaps your miserable ass with a lightning bolt. Stop tormenting his followers with your satanic tactics of trying to use their faith against them before he unleashes a thousand plagues on you and yours.
> 
> As for me, you're not phasing me a bit with your shit. I'm far more concerned with the fungus under my toenail than I am with you. The more you yap, the stupider you get here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're busted and you know it.
> My "shit", as you so elegantly put it, is using your logic to show you are a blowhard and not too bright.
> You don't believe that animals have a spirit nature but you would consider the evidence.
> You could consider the evidence for something you have no belief in, exactly what you say is completely impossible for everyone else you address.
> I have this image of a water ballon dropped from three stories high and hitting the pavement.
> It's your argument, completely blowing apart.
> An occasional shower might help your fungus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh oh... Busted by Brucey the Babbling Buffoon! (This should be good!)
> 
> You are the one who appears not too bright... try to comprehend little Brucey... I believe in spiritual nature. I believe in animals. Where are you getting that I have no belief in them? If I did not believe that one of the two (or both) did not exist, it would be impossible for me to evaluate any evidence pertaining to them. Since I do believe in the existence of both, I can evaluate such evidence and have.
> 
> Now, if you are imagining water balloons splatting on the pavement from 3 stories, I would avoid any tall buildings until you repent to God. You may want to keep any small children, pets or other family members away as well. Sounds like your punishment may get ugly.
Click to expand...


What you don't believe in is the spiritual nature of animals.
That is the something you don't believe.
You said you would consider the evidence for that.
You CAN now consider evidence for that which you don't believe.
Your argument has been demolished.
Move on. Your credibility is gone.
You will be left with the intellectual powerhouses like your muscle-bound Newby for company.


----------



## Boss

> What you don't believe in is the spiritual nature of animals.
> That is the something you don't believe.



I believe it's possible, and I said so. 



> You said you would consider the evidence for that.
> You CAN now consider evidence for that which you don't believe.



Now you're doing like Moonbat and taking what I said out of context. I can consider evidence because I believe in animals and I believe in spiritual nature. If I did not believe one of them actually existed, I couldn't evaluate any evidence, it wouldn't logically be possible. But since I do believe that both exist, I can evaluate the evidence and form an opinion from it.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> What you don't believe in is the spiritual nature of animals.
> That is the something you don't believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe it's possible, and I said so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said you would consider the evidence for that.
> You CAN now consider evidence for that which you don't believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you're doing like Moonbat and taking what I said out of context. I can consider evidence because I believe in animals and I believe in spiritual nature. If I did not believe one of them actually existed, I couldn't evaluate any evidence, it wouldn't logically be possible. But since I do believe that both exist, I can evaluate the evidence and form an opinion from it.
Click to expand...


Fail.
You have repeatedly said you can't entertain evidence for something you don't believe in.
Over and over and over.
The something you don't believe in is the spiritual nature of animals.
So now your rule only applies to the things your challengers don't believe in, but it doesn't apply to the things you don't believe in.
Got it.
You have circled down the drain.


----------



## thanatos144

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you don't believe in is the spiritual nature of animals.
> That is the something you don't believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe it's possible, and I said so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said you would consider the evidence for that.
> You CAN now consider evidence for that which you don't believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you're doing like Moonbat and taking what I said out of context. I can consider evidence because I believe in animals and I believe in spiritual nature. If I did not believe one of them actually existed, I couldn't evaluate any evidence, it wouldn't logically be possible. But since I do believe that both exist, I can evaluate the evidence and form an opinion from it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fail.
> You have repeatedly said you can't entertain evidence for something you don't believe in.
> Over and over and over.
> The something you don't believe in is the spiritual nature of animals.
> So now your rule only applies to the things your challengers don't believe in, but it doesn't apply to the things you don't believe in.
> Got it.
> You have circled down the drain.
Click to expand...

even though you hate him dont worry because God loves you.


----------



## thebrucebeat

thanatos144 said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe it's possible, and I said so.
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're doing like Moonbat and taking what I said out of context. I can consider evidence because I believe in animals and I believe in spiritual nature. If I did not believe one of them actually existed, I couldn't evaluate any evidence, it wouldn't logically be possible. But since I do believe that both exist, I can evaluate the evidence and form an opinion from it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fail.
> You have repeatedly said you can't entertain evidence for something you don't believe in.
> Over and over and over.
> The something you don't believe in is the spiritual nature of animals.
> So now your rule only applies to the things your challengers don't believe in, but it doesn't apply to the things you don't believe in.
> Got it.
> You have circled down the drain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> even though you hate him dont worry because God loves you.
Click to expand...

I admire your humility in realizing you can't address the issue being discussed.
Liberals defend your rights at every turn. The ACLU has repeatedly defended schoolchildren that wish to carry and read their bibles and pray in school. You are being fed a lie that you need to believe to feed your need to be persecuted. You are being used.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> What you don't believe in is the spiritual nature of animals.
> That is the something you don't believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe it's possible, and I said so.
Click to expand...


To take a page from your book, you are lying.  You don't believe spiritual nature in animals is possible, you are just saying that to appear credible and objective.


----------



## BreezeWood

Boss said:


> I doubt Moonbat thinks animals *worship* the God he doesn't believe in.






> *Why do the God-haters persist?*
> 
> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Boss:* I don't belong to a religion, why would I question anything based on religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



*... animals worship the God he doesn't believe in.*


saying animals "worship" God is an extract of religion practiced by certain elements of humanity, Newby whom you have aligned yourself with in associate replies during this thread as the basis of your OP that the non Religious "hate" God.



> I don't belong to a religion



in fact your responses are based on religion and rather than having your beliefs questioned you deflect by accusing those who question your religion of inaccurately hating God when in fact they are simply questioning your religion. -

just to clarify the OP, the non Religious do not "hate" God - if they "hate" it is your religion.


Wildlife does not Worship God, nor do I.  ... it is a waste of time.

.


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you don't believe in is the spiritual nature of animals.
> That is the something you don't believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe it's possible, and I said so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said you would consider the evidence for that.
> You CAN now consider evidence for that which you don't believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you're doing like Moonbat and taking what I said out of context. I can consider evidence because I believe in animals and I believe in spiritual nature. If I did not believe one of them actually existed, I couldn't evaluate any evidence, it wouldn't logically be possible. But since I do believe that both exist, I can evaluate the evidence and form an opinion from it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fail.
> You have repeatedly said you can't entertain evidence for something you don't believe in.
> Over and over and over.
Click to expand...


Right... I believe in animals... they exist. I believe in spiritual nature... it exists. Therefore, I can entertain evidence for something pertaining to them. Where am I losing you? 



> The something you don't believe in is the spiritual nature of animals.



No no no... I did not say this. I admitted the idea was interesting and possible. I don't personally believe animals are spiritually connected like humans. They may be, I just don't find the evidence supports that idea. 



> So now your rule only applies to the things your challengers don't believe in, but it doesn't apply to the things you don't believe in.



No, my 'rule' still applies because it's basic logic. I had to first believe in the existence of animals and spiritual nature to evaluate the evidence pertaining to them. If I didn't believe spiritual nature existed or didn't believe animals existed, I couldn't have reached my conclusions objectively. 

What is happening here is you and Moonbat have purposely taken my 'rule' out of context. I've corrected you on this ...oh, bout a dozen times now... but you still stubbornly keep insisting I have made some silly irrational argument that I never made. I don't know why you keep doing that... bad meth? shortage of brain cells? profound retardation? Who the fuck knows?


----------



## thanatos144

thebrucebeat said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fail.
> You have repeatedly said you can't entertain evidence for something you don't believe in.
> Over and over and over.
> The something you don't believe in is the spiritual nature of animals.
> So now your rule only applies to the things your challengers don't believe in, but it doesn't apply to the things you don't believe in.
> Got it.
> You have circled down the drain.
> 
> 
> 
> even though you hate him dont worry because God loves you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I admire your humility in realizing you can't address the issue being discussed.
> Liberals defend your rights at every turn. The ACLU has repeatedly defended schoolchildren that wish to carry and read their bibles and pray in school. You are being fed a lie that you need to believe to feed your need to be persecuted. You are being used.
Click to expand...


I dont need to defend God. Oh and the ACLU doesn't fight for my rights they fight to dismantle them .... It was created by a communist.


----------



## Boss

> Animals do not Worship God, nor do I. ... it is a waste of time.



 Good for you! ...I disagree.


----------



## thebrucebeat

thanatos144 said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> even though you hate him dont worry because God loves you.
> 
> 
> 
> I admire your humility in realizing you can't address the issue being discussed.
> Liberals defend your rights at every turn. The ACLU has repeatedly defended schoolchildren that wish to carry and read their bibles and pray in school. You are being fed a lie that you need to believe to feed your need to be persecuted. You are being used.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I dont need to defend God. Oh and the ACLU doesn't fight for my rights they fight to dismantle them .... It was created by a communist.
Click to expand...


You don't know what they have done for you.
You are a pawn in someone else's game.


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you don't believe in is the spiritual nature of animals.
> That is the something you don't believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe it's possible, and I said so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To take a page from your book, you are lying.  You don't believe spiritual nature in animals is possible, you are just saying that to appear credible and objective.
Click to expand...


Whatever floats that boat, Moonbat. I can't rationalize with someone who's being irrational. I find Breeze's argument compelling and I confessed he may be making a valid point. I don't dismiss the possibility of animals practicing spirituality. I don't personally believe they do, but I could be wrong. Now I don't really care if you believe me or think I am lying, you're free to form your own assessments in that regard, nothing I can do about that.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe it's possible, and I said so.
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're doing like Moonbat and taking what I said out of context. I can consider evidence because I believe in animals and I believe in spiritual nature. If I did not believe one of them actually existed, I couldn't evaluate any evidence, it wouldn't logically be possible. But since I do believe that both exist, I can evaluate the evidence and form an opinion from it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fail.
> You have repeatedly said you can't entertain evidence for something you don't believe in.
> Over and over and over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right... I believe in animals... they exist. I believe in spiritual nature... it exists. Therefore, I can entertain evidence for something pertaining to them. Where am I losing you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The something you don't believe in is the spiritual nature of animals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No no no... I did not say this. I admitted the idea was interesting and possible. I don't personally believe animals are spiritually connected like humans. They may be, I just don't find the evidence supports that idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So now your rule only applies to the things your challengers don't believe in, but it doesn't apply to the things you don't believe in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, my 'rule' still applies because it's basic logic. I had to first believe in the existence of animals and spiritual nature to evaluate the evidence pertaining to them. If I didn't believe spiritual nature existed or didn't believe animals existed, I couldn't have reached my conclusions objectively.
> 
> What is happening here is you and Moonbat have purposely taken my 'rule' out of context. I've corrected you on this ...oh, bout a dozen times now... but you still stubbornly keep insisting I have made some silly irrational argument that I never made. I don't know why you keep doing that... bad meth? shortage of brain cells? profound retardation? Who the fuck knows?
Click to expand...


Maybe the dummies that support you will ignore that what you have really done is changed your rules because they blew up in your face.
You will be known by the company you keep.


----------



## Boss

> Maybe the dummies that support you will ignore that what you have really done is changed your rules because they blew up in your face.
> You will be known by the company you keep.



But I didn't change anything, you did. The context of what I said was changed into an argument I never made. I clarified this immediately, and have been clarifying it ever since, but you and Moonbat continue to insist that I've made some irrational nonsensical argument that I never made. Now you're claiming I have changed something... Nope, argument is still the same. I have to believe animals exist, I have to believe spiritual nature exists, then I can evaluate whether animals experience spiritual nature. 

If you still don't get it, I understand... you're pretty stupid. But I've spent enough time explaining it to you in specific detail, and I'm tired of repeating myself over and over again. Shouldn't need to do that, you're able to read and if you haven't comprehended it by now, you're not going to. So be it!


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Maybe the dummies that support you will ignore that what you have really done is changed your rules because they blew up in your face.
> You will be known by the company you keep.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I didn't change anything, you did. The context of what I said was changed into an argument I never made. I clarified this immediately, and have been clarifying it ever since, but you and Moonbat continue to insist that I've made some irrational nonsensical argument that I never made. Now you're claiming I have changed something... Nope, argument is still the same. I have to believe animals exist, I have to believe spiritual nature exists, then I can evaluate whether animals experience spiritual nature.
> 
> If you still don't get it, I understand... you're pretty stupid. But I've spent enough time explaining it to you in specific detail, and I'm tired of repeating myself over and over again. Shouldn't need to do that, you're able to read and if you haven't comprehended it by now, you're not going to. So be it!
Click to expand...


So if someone discovers something new, something you never heard of or imagined, because you don't believe it exists, you cannot evaluate any evidence of it?

If someone claims something exists but you don't believe them, you can never evaluate any new evidence that comes to light?

Once a person holds a belief in something existing or not, that belief is permanent because no new evidence can ever convince them?

Those are examples of what your reasoning on this subject leads to.  And of course, there's always the wonderful idea that evidence is not what causes a person to believe a thing exists, rather they believe in a thing and then they see if there is any evidence for it.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> Maybe the dummies that support you will ignore that what you have really done is changed your rules because they blew up in your face.
> You will be known by the company you keep.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I didn't change anything, you did. The context of what I said was changed into an argument I never made. I clarified this immediately, and have been clarifying it ever since, but you and Moonbat continue to insist that I've made some irrational nonsensical argument that I never made. Now you're claiming I have changed something... Nope, argument is still the same. I have to believe animals exist, I have to believe spiritual nature exists, then I can evaluate whether animals experience spiritual nature.
> 
> If you still don't get it, I understand... you're pretty stupid. But I've spent enough time explaining it to you in specific detail, and I'm tired of repeating myself over and over again. Shouldn't need to do that, you're able to read and if you haven't comprehended it by now, you're not going to. So be it!
Click to expand...


Do you really want me to quote your post where you say specifically that you have to believe something to accept evidence for it? In context of course, the entire post without editing it?
Let me know if you want that displayed here to clarify your dishonesty. I will be happy to oblige you.


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> So if someone discovers something new, something you never heard of or imagined, because you don't believe it exists, you cannot evaluate any evidence of it?
> 
> If someone claims something exists but you don't believe them, you can never evaluate any new evidence that comes to light?
> 
> Once a person holds a belief in something existing or not, that belief is permanent because no new evidence can ever convince them?
> 
> Those are examples of what your reasoning on this subject leads to.  And of course, there's always the wonderful idea that evidence is not what causes a person to believe a thing exists, rather they believe in a thing and then they see if there is any evidence for it.



You're continuing to miss the logic boat as you try and try to twist the context of what I've said into a pretzel you can refute. It's just really sad, pathetic and desperate. You must have a really boring life, Moonbat. 

This is not about discovering something new that you never imagined before. Certainly new discoveries are made all the time where they were never imagined before. The belief in possibility has to first exist before you can objectively evaluate anything as evidence for the possibility. I don't know another way to state that. The fact that you can somehow distort it and twist it out of context to find fault with it, doesn't impress me. It may show that you are a moron incapable of rational thought, or an astute inability to comprehend context, but it doesn't impress me. 

My "reasoning" is nothing more than simple logic. Evidence can only be objectively analyzed if you are willing to accept whatever premise the evidence is for. Otherwise, you don't see evidence. How can you have evidence of something you do not believe is possible? It's like seeing something that is invisible... it defies logic. Now you can believe in the possibility of something and not believe there is evidence to support it, but that is where you are confusing the context. I've never made such a ridiculous argument, but by god you're going to try as hard as you can to make that my argument so you can refute it with your brilliance! 

Case in point here: I do not believe the Earth is hollow. Absolutely don't believe that is possible in any way. If someone came to me and said, "I want you to look at my evidence to suggest the Earth is hollow..." It wouldn't be objectively viewed by me as "evidence" because I do not believe in the possibility at all. You can show it to me, and I will dismiss it as invalid because I do not believe the Earth can be hollow. It doesn't matter how much you believe the evidence supports the idea, it doesn't matter how compelling you believe the evidence is, MY perception of the so-called "evidence" is, it's not evidence the Earth is hollow. That is never going to change unless I come to believe it might be possible the Earth could be hollow. 

Now this "argument" has gone on far too long, and if you still don't comprehend what I am saying, I give up. You're just never going to get it. I think you DO get it, you're just trying to be a dickhead. Why? I have no idea, I guess you like that sort of thing?


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> Do you really want me to quote your post where you say specifically that you have to believe something to accept evidence for it? In context of course, the entire post without editing it?
> Let me know if you want that displayed here to clarify your dishonesty. I will be happy to oblige you.



No, what I really want you to do is shut the fuck up and try to move on to a topic of conversation worth discussing instead of continuing to try and distort my words. I've had enough of this and I am not going to keep commenting on it. If you and Moonbat want to jerk each other off in a "victory celebration" be my fucking guest! I'm done with this!


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really want me to quote your post where you say specifically that you have to believe something to accept evidence for it? In context of course, the entire post without editing it?
> Let me know if you want that displayed here to clarify your dishonesty. I will be happy to oblige you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, what I really want you to do is shut the fuck up and try to move on to a topic of conversation worth discussing instead of continuing to try and distort my words. I've had enough of this and I am not going to keep commenting on it. If you and Moonbat want to jerk each other off in a "victory celebration" be my fucking guest! I'm done with this!
Click to expand...


Discussing your basic mantra, the basis of most of your posts on these threads is not worth talking about?
You might have a point.
Didn't think you wanted to see that post again.

"My little runaway...
Run, run, run, run, runaway"
(Thanks Del Shannon!)


----------



## GISMYS

GOD haters are nothing new==being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, 30slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful. =Typical of those that choose to reject GOD!!! AND YOU???


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if someone discovers something new, something you never heard of or imagined, because you don't believe it exists, you cannot evaluate any evidence of it?
> 
> If someone claims something exists but you don't believe them, you can never evaluate any new evidence that comes to light?
> 
> Once a person holds a belief in something existing or not, that belief is permanent because no new evidence can ever convince them?
> 
> Those are examples of what your reasoning on this subject leads to.  And of course, there's always the wonderful idea that evidence is not what causes a person to believe a thing exists, rather they believe in a thing and then they see if there is any evidence for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're continuing to miss the logic boat as you try and try to twist the context of what I've said into a pretzel you can refute. It's just really sad, pathetic and desperate. You must have a really boring life, Moonbat.
> 
> This is not about discovering something new that you never imagined before. Certainly new discoveries are made all the time where they were never imagined before. The belief in possibility has to first exist before you can objectively evaluate anything as evidence for the possibility. I don't know another way to state that. The fact that you can somehow distort it and twist it out of context to find fault with it, doesn't impress me. It may show that you are a moron incapable of rational thought, or an astute inability to comprehend context, but it doesn't impress me.
> 
> My "reasoning" is nothing more than simple logic. Evidence can only be objectively analyzed if you are willing to accept whatever premise the evidence is for. Otherwise, you don't see evidence. How can you have evidence of something you do not believe is possible? It's like seeing something that is invisible... it defies logic. Now you can believe in the possibility of something and not believe there is evidence to support it, but that is where you are confusing the context. I've never made such a ridiculous argument, but by god you're going to try as hard as you can to make that my argument so you can refute it with your brilliance!
> 
> Case in point here: I do not believe the Earth is hollow. Absolutely don't believe that is possible in any way. If someone came to me and said, "I want you to look at my evidence to suggest the Earth is hollow..." It wouldn't be objectively viewed by me as "evidence" because I do not believe in the possibility at all. You can show it to me, and I will dismiss it as invalid because I do not believe the Earth can be hollow. It doesn't matter how much you believe the evidence supports the idea, it doesn't matter how compelling you believe the evidence is, MY perception of the so-called "evidence" is, it's not evidence the Earth is hollow. That is never going to change unless I come to believe it might be possible the Earth could be hollow.
> 
> Now this "argument" has gone on far too long, and if you still don't comprehend what I am saying, I give up. You're just never going to get it. I think you DO get it, you're just trying to be a dickhead. Why? I have no idea, I guess you like that sort of thing?
Click to expand...


But that isn't what you said in the post I am happy to cite for you.
You said you actually have to believe something before you can accept evidence for it. Not that it is possible, but that you have to believe it.
You keep trying to craft your argument to have it make sense as it gets perforated repeatedly, subtly changing it to cover the idiocy of where you have come from.
You've been busted, and that is always embarrassing.
We understand.
Paradigm shifts come hard. (Remember avoiding that one twice?)


----------



## thebrucebeat

GISMYS said:


> GOD haters are nothing new==being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, 30slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful. =Typical of those that choose to reject GOD!!! AND YOU???



People indwelt with the Holy Spirit display these traits, according to Paul in Galatians.

Peace, love, joy, patience, goodness, kindness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control.

AND YOU???


----------



## koshergrl

The God-haters persist on this site because they are given a forum and protection to promote hatred and bigotry against Christians....a protection which is NOT extended to Christians on this site. 

It's called "Religion and Ethics" and it has a special set of rules...that only applies to Christians. 

http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...uls-stalking-the-oso-mudslide-disgusting.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/348023-what-exactly-are-christian-values.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...stian-right-thinks-causes-kids-to-be-gay.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...reationists-confused-about-fossils-again.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...st-the-pope-confesses-his-sins-in-public.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/347167-you-are-a-soul.html


----------



## thebrucebeat

koshergrl said:


> The God-haters persist on this site because they are given a forum and protection to promote hatred and bigotry against Christians....a protection which is NOT extended to Christians on this site.
> 
> It's called "Religion and Ethics" and it has a special set of rules...that only applies to Christians.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...uls-stalking-the-oso-mudslide-disgusting.html
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/348023-what-exactly-are-christian-values.html



My brief experience here is that the believers dish out as hard if not harder than they get.
Same forum, same protections.
You have a need to feel persecuted.
It's cute.


----------



## koshergrl

Your brief experience counts for exactly nothing.

My extensive experience here is that attacks on Christians is encouraged and supported by multiple mods, who allow them to post garbage that is diametrically opposed to the stated rules in particular forums.

The Religion and Ethics forum, for example. Go read the rules, then read the first page of Huggy's "Goul" thread.


----------



## GISMYS

TAKE NOTE!!!==Last week Raymond Cardinal Burke, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Vatican City State, caused quite a stir. He told a Polish magazine, "The president of the United States has become progressively more hostile toward Christian civilization. He appears to be a totally secularized man who aggressively promotes anti-life and anti-family policies."


----------



## thebrucebeat

koshergrl said:


> Your brief experience counts for exactly nothing.
> 
> My extensive experience here is that attacks on Christians is encouraged and supported by multiple mods, who allow them to post garbage that is diametrically opposed to the stated rules in particular forums.
> 
> The Religion and Ethics forum, for example. Go read the rules, then read the first page of Huggy's "Goul" thread.



Thanks for validating my experiences.
Your respect sure is appreciated.
Christian love is always so inspiring.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if someone discovers something new, something you never heard of or imagined, because you don't believe it exists, you cannot evaluate any evidence of it?
> 
> If someone claims something exists but you don't believe them, you can never evaluate any new evidence that comes to light?
> 
> Once a person holds a belief in something existing or not, that belief is permanent because no new evidence can ever convince them?
> 
> Those are examples of what your reasoning on this subject leads to.  And of course, there's always the wonderful idea that evidence is not what causes a person to believe a thing exists, rather they believe in a thing and then they see if there is any evidence for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're continuing to miss the logic boat as you try and try to twist the context of what I've said into a pretzel you can refute. It's just really sad, pathetic and desperate. You must have a really boring life, Moonbat.
> 
> This is not about discovering something new that you never imagined before. Certainly new discoveries are made all the time where they were never imagined before. The belief in possibility has to first exist before you can objectively evaluate anything as evidence for the possibility. I don't know another way to state that. The fact that you can somehow distort it and twist it out of context to find fault with it, doesn't impress me. It may show that you are a moron incapable of rational thought, or an astute inability to comprehend context, but it doesn't impress me.
> 
> My "reasoning" is nothing more than simple logic. Evidence can only be objectively analyzed if you are willing to accept whatever premise the evidence is for. Otherwise, you don't see evidence. How can you have evidence of something you do not believe is possible? It's like seeing something that is invisible... it defies logic. Now you can believe in the possibility of something and not believe there is evidence to support it, but that is where you are confusing the context. I've never made such a ridiculous argument, but by god you're going to try as hard as you can to make that my argument so you can refute it with your brilliance!
> 
> Case in point here: I do not believe the Earth is hollow. Absolutely don't believe that is possible in any way. If someone came to me and said, "I want you to look at my evidence to suggest the Earth is hollow..." It wouldn't be objectively viewed by me as "evidence" because I do not believe in the possibility at all. You can show it to me, and I will dismiss it as invalid because I do not believe the Earth can be hollow. It doesn't matter how much you believe the evidence supports the idea, it doesn't matter how compelling you believe the evidence is, MY perception of the so-called "evidence" is, it's not evidence the Earth is hollow. That is never going to change unless I come to believe it might be possible the Earth could be hollow.
> 
> Now this "argument" has gone on far too long, and if you still don't comprehend what I am saying, I give up. You're just never going to get it. I think you DO get it, you're just trying to be a dickhead. Why? I have no idea, I guess you like that sort of thing?
Click to expand...


As has been said more than once, if you would remain consistent in your premise, this argument wouldn't be happening.

However, since you continually vacillate between a person needing to believe something is possible and a person needing to believe something exists before evidence can be examined, you have made your own bed here.

So if a person believes spiritual nature is a possibility, but does not yet believe it exists, they can objectively examine the evidence.  I've agreed with that premise more than once.  You have stated that basic premise more than once.  Yet, for some reason, you continue to backtrack to someone having to believe in spiritual nature, not just the possibility of it, in order to objectively examine the evidence.  Those are two separate things you have been using interchangeably.

You do not have to accept a premise to see something as evidence.  You can consider it unconvincing evidence, but evidence nonetheless.  You can see a thing as evidence of something but not be convinced it is the thing someone else believes.  

You are the one doing the twisting in continually changing your statement.  On the one hand you say that belief in the possibility of a thing is the requirement to objectively examine evidence, then on the other you say that belief in the thing is required.  You can't have it both ways.    Either one needs only believe something is possible, or they must already believe a thing exists.

Is it objective to view evidence if you must have a preconceived idea of what the evidence means?

Oh, and as to your hollow Earth example : while for the most part I agree, I also think that it is possible for compelling enough evidence to convince someone of something they didn't believe possible.  So, if you don't believe a hollow Earth is possible, but someone digs a tunnel to that hollow core and you travel there with them, you may change what you believe is possible based on the evidence.  Maybe there wouldn't be enough evidence to convince you, but that doesn't mean the same is true of everyone.  The type of evidence or the amount of it can be important.  I don't know why you continue to assume that one must change their belief about something before evidence can convince them of it rather than the evidence changing their belief.


----------



## koshergrl

Yes, it's so unchristian to point out bigotry and hatred.

Thanks for your input, noob. It means a lot!


----------



## BreezeWood

Boss said:


> Animals do not Worship God, nor do I. ... it is a waste of time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good for you! ...I disagree.
Click to expand...





> *Boss:* I don't belong to a religion ...




on what basis do you disagree ?

.


----------



## BreezeWood

> *koshergirl:* The God-haters persist on this site because ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *GISMYS:* GOD haters are nothing new==being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Boss:* We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God ...
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



show where anyone that is not religious have "hated" God - 

it is a fallacy promoted by the OP that can not and has not been substantiated and is in fact the opposite of reality - the use of a religion that undermines the associated God.

.


----------



## Steven_R

thebrucebeat said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> GOD haters are nothing new==being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, 30slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful. =Typical of those that choose to reject GOD!!! AND YOU???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People indwelt with the Holy Spirit display these traits, according to Paul in Galatians.
> 
> Peace, love, joy, patience, goodness, kindness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control.
> 
> AND YOU???
Click to expand...


So I can't be a decent person if I don't believe in a Bronze Age mythologies? Is the reverse also true then, that I can do no evil provided I do believe in those same Bronze Age mythologies?


----------



## thebrucebeat

Steven_R said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> GOD haters are nothing new==being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, 30slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful. =Typical of those that choose to reject GOD!!! AND YOU???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People indwelt with the Holy Spirit display these traits, according to Paul in Galatians.
> 
> Peace, love, joy, patience, goodness, kindness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control.
> 
> AND YOU???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So I can't be a decent person if I don't believe in a Bronze Age mythologies? Is the reverse also true then, that I can do no evil provided I do believe in those same Bronze Age mythologies?
Click to expand...


Of course you can!
That was directed at GYSMYS, who wants to admonish everyone but doesn't display these traits, even though he is an avowed believer. He has no interest in what scripture actually instructs him to be.
I'm on your team, generally.


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I did not copy and paste my remarks from a third-party source like you did. In my own words, I said: _except mathematics, and even that is only proven in our current understanding of reality in our known universe._ You somehow deduce it is a "gotchya" moment because your copy-n-paste definition says: _except for Mathematics, and even their proofs are relative to localized systems._
> 
> I'm not sure if you are comprehending this, but "relative to localized systems" and "reality in our known universe" are practically the same thing. I mean, it's not identical, but mine is my own words and yours is a copy/paste from someone smarter than you.
> 
> 
> 
> false! more tantruming....
> odd that "your" words are an exact word for word quote just be caused you memorized them does not make them yours...
> hers another example of you misrepresenting for your own "Theory"  : "relative to localized systems" and "reality in our known universe" are practically the same thing."
> boosy
> 
> ah no they are not .....you've reinvented what localized systems are to fit your nonsense in the same way you attempted to bullshit that hot water is not hot by using the impracticable faux comparison that since it's not as hot as the sun it's not hot..
> as to you being smarter than I Am....truly smart people do not need to proclaim they are...they just are....
> also, making word soup as you do is more evidence of your denseness..
> truly  smart people are direct and choose the right words even if they are not theirs.
> anyone can yammer and you have a black belt in yammering...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't "memorize" anything dawsy, I learned this a long time ago,
Click to expand...

 boosy's rationalizing has been edited..... 
I didn't "memorize" anything dawsy, I learned this a long time ago,-boosy 
if the above is not :mem·o·rize[ mémm&#601; r&#772;&#768;z ]
learn and remember something: to commit something to memory..
then what is it ......!


----------



## koshergrl

Steven_R said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> GOD haters are nothing new==being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, 30slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful. =Typical of those that choose to reject GOD!!! AND YOU???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People indwelt with the Holy Spirit display these traits, according to Paul in Galatians.
> 
> Peace, love, joy, patience, goodness, kindness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control.
> 
> AND YOU???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So I can't be a decent person if I don't believe in a Bronze Age mythologies? Is the reverse also true then, that I can do no evil provided I do believe in those same Bronze Age mythologies?
Click to expand...

 
Stop, you're confusing duhs. She fought over a period of days (and I think WEEKS) declaring that the Bronze Age occurred in the 16th century.

She fought hard and valiantly, but eventually had to give up her idiocy. But right now she's thinking "What mythologies of the 1500s is he talking about?" Because despite everything, I imagine she already has reverted to believing the Bronze Age took place in 1559.


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> off topic.....


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> Your brief experience counts for exactly nothing.
> 
> My extensive experience here is that attacks on Christians is encouraged and supported by multiple mods, who allow them to post garbage that is diametrically opposed to the stated rules in particular forums.
> 
> The Religion and Ethics forum, for example. Go read the rules, then read the first page of Huggy's "Goul" thread.


your' extensive experience  here if for amusement purposes only


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> People indwelt with the Holy Spirit display these traits, according to Paul in Galatians.
> 
> Peace, love, joy, patience, goodness, kindness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control.
> 
> AND YOU???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So I can't be a decent person if I don't believe in a Bronze Age mythologies? Is the reverse also true then, that I can do no evil provided I do believe in those same Bronze Age mythologies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop, you're confusing duhs. She fought over a period of days (and I think WEEKS) declaring that the Bronze Age occurred in the 16th century.
> 
> She fought hard and valiantly, but eventually had to give up her idiocy. But right now she's thinking "What mythologies of the 1500s is he talking about?" Because despite everything, I imagine she already has reverted to believing the Bronze Age took place in 1559.
Click to expand...

speaking of confused  kosher hag is suffering under the delusion that I'm female...
and the incident kosher hag is embellishing the shit out of was one post...in one day...
I made a mistake and admitted it....
kosher hags incessant need to re hash and and falsify it , is all the proof any sane poster would need to know she's mentally unstable..


----------



## koshergrl

You are female, you poor pathetic loon.

Now every one of your PERSONALITIES may not be female, but you are, yourself, a female..or at least you once were. Or maybe it's that you are now...but anyway. Female.


----------



## koshergrl

Sometimes we can fool ourselves a long time about what sex we should have chosen, or so I've heard from those who claim that people who are confused sexually were born that way....

I think you're confused...but I'm sure you were born that way. So it's okay and there are pills for it, as I'm sure you're well aware.


----------



## koshergrl

It is sad that SSI isn't paying out for gender confusion, though. I know that was a big disappointment for you. Give it time and make sure you continue to function at lower and lower levels...in a couple of years they'll realize you mean business...you really ARE that big a loser. And they will cut you your loser check.

And it won't go as far as you think it will.

And your foodstamps will go down.

And then you'll nut out even worse than you do already. Perhaps your goal is to be committed altogether?


----------



## thebrucebeat

koshergrl said:


> It is sad that SSI isn't paying out for gender confusion, though. I know that was a big disappointment for you. Give it time and make sure you continue to function at lower and lower levels...in a couple of years they'll realize you mean business...you really ARE that big a loser. And they will cut you your loser check.
> 
> And it won't go as far as you think it will.
> 
> And your foodstamps will go down.
> 
> And then you'll nut out even worse than you do already. Perhaps your goal is to be committed altogether?



You are a Christian?
What use do you have of a deity? Does it take a god to allow you to be this low of a human being?
Why would someone that follows Christ behave toward others as you do?
Was Paul totally mistaken about what a person that walked with the Holy Spirit would behave like?
Peace, love, joy, patience, goodness, kindness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control.
These are the Fruits of the Spirit, the signature of a person that walks with the Spirit.
Why have you given your finger to the Holy Spirit?
Or did He give it to you?


----------



## daws101

gotta thank the hag for proving my point! she's batshit top to bottom side to side...her gender misidentification problem is interesting....


----------



## koshergrl

Good grief, can't you come up with a better insult? We all know who the hag, and the hag squad, were and are.

Are you that confused, or is this your way of shifting blame?

And weren't you going to ignore me forever?  I think you said you were, after you said you put some sort of hex on me, lol...


----------



## thebrucebeat

koshergrl said:


> Good grief, can't you come up with a better insult? We all know who the hag, and the hag squad, were and are.
> 
> Are you that confused, or is this your way of shifting blame?
> 
> And weren't you going to ignore me forever?  I think you said you were, after you said you put some sort of hex on me, lol...



Brave enough to leave a negative rating but not to confront your hypocrisy.
Enough said.


----------



## koshergrl

daws101 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your brief experience counts for exactly nothing.
> 
> My extensive experience here is that attacks on Christians is encouraged and supported by multiple mods, who allow them to post garbage that is diametrically opposed to the stated rules in particular forums.
> 
> The Religion and Ethics forum, for example. Go read the rules, then read the first page of Huggy's "Goul" thread.
> 
> 
> 
> your' extensive experience here if for amusement purposes only
Click to expand...


----------



## koshergrl

thebrucebeat said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good grief, can't you come up with a better insult? We all know who the hag, and the hag squad, were and are.
> 
> Are you that confused, or is this your way of shifting blame?
> 
> And weren't you going to ignore me forever? I think you said you were, after you said you put some sort of hex on me, lol...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brave enough to leave a negative rating but not to confront your hypocrisy.
> Enough said.
Click to expand...

 
You think bravery is required to post under an assumed name on an anonymous board?

I'll bet you think it does.

Which says quite a bit more about you than it does about me, lol.


----------



## GISMYS

GOD haters are nothing new AND THEY HAVE NEVER WON YET==being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, 30slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful. =Typical of those that choose to reject GOD!!! AND YOU???


----------



## Montrovant

koshergrl said:


> Good grief, can't you come up with a better insult? We all know who the hag, and the hag squad, were and are.
> 
> Are you that confused, or is this your way of shifting blame?
> 
> And weren't you going to ignore me forever?  I think you said you were, after you said you put some sort of hex on me, lol...



I have no idea who the hag squad were and/or are.


----------



## thebrucebeat

koshergrl said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good grief, can't you come up with a better insult? We all know who the hag, and the hag squad, were and are.
> 
> Are you that confused, or is this your way of shifting blame?
> 
> And weren't you going to ignore me forever? I think you said you were, after you said you put some sort of hex on me, lol...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brave enough to leave a negative rating but not to confront your hypocrisy.
> Enough said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think bravery is required to post under an assumed name on an anonymous board?
> 
> I'll bet you think it does.
> 
> Which says quite a bit more about you than it does about me, lol.
Click to expand...

Brave being a relative term.
I think it is brave not to avoid a post that was directed at you. I think it is cowardice not to confront the challenge that was presented to you.


----------



## Boss

BreezeWood said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Animals do not Worship God, nor do I. ... it is a waste of time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good for you! ...I disagree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Boss:* I don't belong to a religion ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> on what basis do you disagree ?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


On the basis that it is important and fundamental for humans to worship God. That's why we do it... or most of us do. We need to maintain fidelity with our spiritual connection. Worshiping God in whatever "manifestation" you believe God is, keeps us spiritually grounded. When we don't do this, we tend to disassociate with our spiritual awareness. I don't know whether that is caused by our vanity or arrogance, being too smart for our own good, or just plain selfish laziness. 

When we've lost our spiritual fidelity, we make decisions and take actions that serve only our self interests. The further from our spirituality we get, the more this is apparent. We become too big for our britches. Over time, the lack of spiritual fidelity will cause us to begin worshiping ourselves, thinking we are God and we have the ability to pass judgement on others or dictate what can be acceptable to them. If this condition persists over a broad enough population, given time, it will lead to the downfall of civilized society. 

So that is the basis in which I disagree with you. I think humans have to worship something, if not God then self. It's far better for society to worship God and remain in fidelity with our spiritual nature. Now, there are some caveats to that. Religion, while it can serve as a useful platform for our spiritual fidelity, can also lead people astray, away from spirituality itself. It can be very subtle and hard to detect, but through religion, humans sometimes risk losing spiritual connection with God and replace that with worship of the religion instead. It's as misguided as worshiping self, but it does happen.


----------



## holston

thebrucebeat said:


> You are a Christian?
> What use do you have of a deity? Does it take a god to allow you to be this low of a human being?
> Why would someone that follows Christ behave toward others as you do?
> Was Paul totally mistaken about what a person that walked with the Holy Spirit would behave like?
> Peace, love, joy, patience, goodness, kindness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control.
> These are the Fruits of the Spirit, the signature of a person that walks with the Spirit.
> Why have you given your finger to the Holy Spirit?
> Or did He give it to you?



 Well if it isn't BruceAlmighty. Fancy meeting you here. 

 I didn't have a chance to properly give you a reply on the other forum because the Stazi there kept censoring and deleting everything I said to you. 

 I see you're using the same schtick here as you did there. 

 Can't you see that a "Kosher" girl cannot be a "Christian" in anything but name only? 

 Christianity proper is 180 degrees from Judaism. A Christian accepts Christ. A Jew rejects Christ. 

  Do you always fall back on this "Fruits of the spirit" thingy to attack people?

 You come across as though no one except yourself is capable of ever demonstrating any "Peace, love, joy, patience, goodness, kindness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control".

 Come now. Do you really believe that? 
 Do you really think that anyone else does?


 It's a common characteristic of human nature to react to deliberate attempts by others to aggravate them with something like annoyance, or even anger. 


 You are implying that you have some sort of insight into the "Holy Spirit" which only you possess. If that's so then please share it with the rest of us. 


 If all that consists of is what has been revealed in the scriptures then what is it that you are trying to say?

 Are you trying to say that for anyone to be a Christian that it must be impossible for them to be annoyed by a constant pest?

 Are you trying to say that a "Christian" is only one who can never be angered by anything or irritated by any kind of monkey shines?

 Are you saying that the "Holy Spirit" is something that only lights on people who act like Fairies all the time?

 If all that is so, then how do you explain scriptures which say "Be angry but sin not" ?

 Do you suppose that Christ was a little bit "pissed" when he overturned the tables of the money changers?

 If not, then why do the scriptures tell us that he was in all ways tempted just as we are and that we don't have a mediator who has never experienced what it is like to be here on earth in the flesh?


  Besides, if the first thing a Christian does in order to receive salvation is confess his sins, then are you trying to say that there is some sort of magical beam that shines down out of the sky that suddenly makes it impossible for him to ever experience normal human emotions or sin again? 

 If that's true then why did Christ teach us to pray, _"Forgive us our trespasses _even as we forgive those who trespass against us" ?

  I don't believe for a minute that YOU know a bit more about the "Holy Spirit" than anyone else does or that you are more able to be "perfect" than anyone else. 

  Do you realize how you sound trying to pretend to be the spokesman for the Holy Ghost?
  Frankly, if I took the idea of the Holy Spirit seriously, and believed that it was a real thing I was talking about, I don't think I would be trying to use the name of it as means of getting under someone elses skin.

  So, do you really believe in the thing you are mouthing about or not?


----------



## thebrucebeat

holston said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a Christian?
> What use do you have of a deity? Does it take a god to allow you to be this low of a human being?
> Why would someone that follows Christ behave toward others as you do?
> Was Paul totally mistaken about what a person that walked with the Holy Spirit would behave like?
> Peace, love, joy, patience, goodness, kindness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control.
> These are the Fruits of the Spirit, the signature of a person that walks with the Spirit.
> Why have you given your finger to the Holy Spirit?
> Or did He give it to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well if it isn't BruceAlmighty. Fancy meeting you here.
> 
> I didn't have a chance to properly give you a reply on the other forum because the Stazi there kept censoring and deleting everything I said to you.
> 
> I see you're using the same schtick here as you did there.
> 
> Can't you see that a "Kosher" girl cannot be a "Christian" in anything but name only?
> 
> Christianity proper is 180 degrees from Judaism. A Christian accepts Christ. A Jew rejects Christ.
> 
> Do you always fall back on this "Fruits of the spirit" thingy to attack people?
> 
> You come across as though no one except yourself is capable of ever demonstrating any "Peace, love, joy, patience, goodness, kindness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control".
> 
> Come now. Do you really believe that?
> Do you really think that anyone else does?
> 
> 
> It's a common characteristic of human nature to react to deliberate attempts by others to aggravate them with something like annoyance, or even anger.
> 
> 
> You are implying that you have some sort of insight into the "Holy Spirit" which only you possess. If that's so then please share it with the rest of us.
> 
> 
> If all that consists of is what has been revealed in the scriptures then what is it that you are trying to say?
> 
> Are you trying to say that for anyone to be a Christian that it must be impossible for them to be annoyed by a constant pest?
> 
> Are you trying to say that a "Christian" is only one who can never be angered by anything or irritated by any kind of monkey shines?
> 
> Are you saying that the "Holy Spirit" is something that only lights on people who act like Fairies all the time?
> 
> If all that is so, then how do you explain scriptures which say "Be angry but sin not" ?
> 
> Do you suppose that Christ was a little bit "pissed" when he overturned the tables of the money changers?
> 
> If not, then why do the scriptures tell us that he was in all ways tempted just as we are and that we don't have a mediator who has never experienced what it is like to be here on earth in the flesh?
> 
> 
> Besides, if the first thing a Christian does in order to receive salvation is confess his sins, then are you trying to say that there is some sort of magical beam that shines down out of the sky that suddenly makes it impossible for him to ever experience normal human emotions or sin again?
> 
> If that's true then why did Christ teach us to pray, _"Forgive us our trespasses _even as we forgive those who trespass against us" ?
> 
> I don't believe for a minute that YOU know a bit more about the "Holy Spirit" than anyone else does or that you are more able to be "perfect" than anyone else.
> 
> Do you realize how you sound trying to pretend to be the spokesman for the Holy Ghost?
> Frankly, if I took the idea of the Holy Spirit seriously, and believed that it was a real thing I was talking about, I don't think I would be trying to use the name of it as means of getting under someone elses skin.
> 
> So, do you really believe in the thing you are mouthing about or not?
Click to expand...

You made a very long mess of missing the point!
LOL!
I am not a spokesman for the Holy Spirit. I neither profess to be holier than thou or anyone else, nor do I take it seriously.
But aren't these true believers supposed to?
If there is a very clear description of what the believer should look like if really taken with the HS, and there is, then shouldn't believers aspire to it, and when egregiously denying it try to correct to that standard?
But they never, ever do.
They make excuses. They always simply ramp up their ugliness and get worse, further digging their heels into the hypocrisy of their pretend faith, showing that what they truly worship and are indwelt by is anger and hatred.
I only take the Fruits of the Spirit out of the quiver for the professed Christian posters that cultivate a consistent online persona of nastiness, rudeness and hatefulness. If that is how they perceive the way they are supposed to "witness" for their god, I simply question why they need a god at all, least of all one that has said their behavior is anathema to the revelation of him in man.
What's the point? 
You don't need a god to cultivate being an asshole, but it helps to have one if you have higher aspirations.
But believers react to the Fruits the same way you do, thinking it is just schtick and not to be taken seriously.
After all, in the big picture of the faith, who's Paul, right? What did he know? He was asking people to act like "fairies", right?
No one expects Christians to be perfect or not get annoyed, but when confronted with what scripture expects of them, some small measure of correction in their ugliness might be expected if they took the faith and the "inerrant Word" even a bit seriously. All they really do is strip mine scripture for justification of selected hatred and in some cases the pursuit of their fortunes, but if a sacrifice be asked of them, well that simply won't do.
Again, this doesn't apply and isn't used against believers who have seemed to have gleaned that a life of love is being preached and try to follow it and treat others with some respect for their beliefs and feelings. I bear no malice toward them.
But those who hate and are simply nasty people in Jesus name will hear about the Fruits every time.
It is like pouring burning coals on their heads.


----------



## Boss

> But aren't these true believers supposed to?



Who the hell do you think you are to determine what believers are supposed to do? 

You supposedly abandoned your faith and now you run around besmirching people of faith by trying to use their faith against them. What a despicable piece of garbage you are. 

As a pastor, you lived a lie, freeloading off people who trusted you. Now you live a lie being an intellectual freeloader, preferring to denigrate and judge as opposed to validating your points. And here we discover this ain't your first rodeo, you've been pulling this shtick on other boards too. 

What a pathetic example of human garbage.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> But aren't these true believers supposed to?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who the hell do you think you are to determine what believers are supposed to do?
> 
> You supposedly abandoned your faith and now you run around besmirching people of faith by trying to use their faith against them. What a despicable piece of garbage you are.
> 
> As a pastor, you lived a lie, freeloading off people who trusted you. Now you live a lie being an intellectual freeloader, preferring to denigrate and judge as opposed to validating your points. And here we discover this ain't your first rodeo, you've been pulling this shtick on other boards too.
> 
> What a pathetic example of human garbage.
Click to expand...


Because you would never denigrate and judge.


----------



## koshergrl

thebrucebeat said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brave enough to leave a negative rating but not to confront your hypocrisy.
> Enough said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think bravery is required to post under an assumed name on an anonymous board?
> 
> I'll bet you think it does.
> 
> Which says quite a bit more about you than it does about me, lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Brave being a relative term.
> I think it is brave not to avoid a post that was directed at you. I think it is cowardice not to confront the challenge that was presented to you.
Click to expand...


Too bad. I am hounded by lunatics and anti-Christian bigots on this board and always have been. I respond to what I feel like responding to, ignore what I feel like ignoring, and could give two shits how you feel about it, noob.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> But aren't these true believers supposed to?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who the hell do you think you are to determine what believers are supposed to do?
> 
> You supposedly abandoned your faith and now you run around besmirching people of faith by trying to use their faith against them. What a despicable piece of garbage you are.
> 
> As a pastor, you lived a lie, freeloading off people who trusted you. Now you live a lie being an intellectual freeloader, preferring to denigrate and judge as opposed to validating your points. And here we discover this ain't your first rodeo, you've been pulling this shtick on other boards too.
> 
> What a pathetic example of human garbage.
Click to expand...


Ah, the lovely spiritual man rises from the ashes!
I don't determine what believers are supposed to do. Their "inerrant Word" does that for them, the one they claim deference to. They hate direct quotations that reveal them as disinterested in the faith as displayed in scripture.
They do the same thing you do. They lose control of themselves, hurl epithets, and marginalize themselves with defensive tantrums.


----------



## thebrucebeat

koshergrl said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think bravery is required to post under an assumed name on an anonymous board?
> 
> I'll bet you think it does.
> 
> Which says quite a bit more about you than it does about me, lol.
> 
> 
> 
> Brave being a relative term.
> I think it is brave not to avoid a post that was directed at you. I think it is cowardice not to confront the challenge that was presented to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too bad. I am hounded by lunatics and anti-Christian bigots on this board and always have been. I respond to what I feel like responding to, ignore what I feel like ignoring, and could give two shits how you feel about it, noob.
Click to expand...

That's fine.
You also don't give two shits about the Holy Spirit and being a witness for him with the Fruits of the Spirit. You have given the finger to him and just use faith to justify a very nasty heart.
Amen, sister!
Odd that this conversation began because you were accusing the OP of not responding to you, but now want to justify that when you do it.
Ah, the brain dead irony!


----------



## BreezeWood

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good for you! ...I disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Boss:* I don't belong to a religion ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> on what basis do you disagree ?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *On the basis that it is important and fundamental for humans to worship God.* That's why we do it... or most of us do. We need to maintain fidelity with our spiritual connection. Worshiping God in whatever "manifestation" you believe God is, keeps us spiritually grounded. *When we don't do this, we tend to disassociate with our spiritual awareness.* I don't know whether that is caused by our vanity or arrogance, being too smart for our own good, or just plain selfish laziness.
> 
> *When we've lost our spiritual fidelity, we make decisions and take actions that serve only our self interests.* The further from our spirituality we get, the more this is apparent. We become too big for our britches. Over time, the lack of spiritual fidelity will cause us to begin worshiping ourselves, *thinking we are God and we have the ability to pass judgement on others* or dictate what can be acceptable to them. If this condition persists over a broad enough population, given time, *it will lead to the downfall of civilized society. *
> 
> So that is the basis in which I disagree with you. I think humans have to worship something, if not God then self. It's far better for society to worship God and remain in fidelity with our spiritual nature. Now, there are some caveats to that. Religion, while it can serve as a useful platform for our spiritual fidelity, can also lead people astray, away from spirituality itself. It can be very subtle and hard to detect, but through religion, humans sometimes risk losing spiritual connection with God and replace that with worship of the religion instead. It's as misguided as worshiping self, but it does happen.
Click to expand...





> *Boss:*
> 
> *On the basis that it is important and fundamental for humans to worship God.*
> 
> *When we don't do this, we tend to disassociate with our spiritual awareness.*
> 
> *When we've lost our spiritual fidelity, we make decisions and take actions that serve only our self interests.*
> 
> *thinking we are God and we have the ability to pass judgement on others ... it will lead to the downfall of civilized society. *




I am glad someone who is not religious is also not a holyroller ... there is something wrong here.


*When we don't do this, we tend to disassociate with our spiritual awareness.*


the key word is "worship" - the word is implicit to: "actions that serve only our self interests" and not an association distinct from self, the same as reading a book irregardless its content.

the idea is for a spirit to live without a physiology when the time comes, wildlife the Orchid live in association with the Everlasting to reach the purity to relinquish their physical presence the same as a plane uses the runaway to attain flight ... worshiping God rather than striving for the goal of Admission through "enlightenment" is a self defeating purpose that suredly will wither the spirit ... religion.

at any rate your exclusion of Wildlife from the Everlasting through Admission by God does seem a little egocentric.

.


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But aren't these true believers supposed to?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who the hell do you think you are to determine what believers are supposed to do?
> 
> You supposedly abandoned your faith and now you run around besmirching people of faith by trying to use their faith against them. What a despicable piece of garbage you are.
> 
> As a pastor, you lived a lie, freeloading off people who trusted you. Now you live a lie being an intellectual freeloader, preferring to denigrate and judge as opposed to validating your points. And here we discover this ain't your first rodeo, you've been pulling this shtick on other boards too.
> 
> What a pathetic example of human garbage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, the lovely spiritual man rises from the ashes!
> I don't determine what believers are supposed to do. Their "inerrant Word" does that for them, the one they claim deference to. They hate direct quotations that reveal them as disinterested in the faith as displayed in scripture.
> They do the same thing you do. They lose control of themselves, hurl epithets, and marginalize themselves with defensive tantrums.
Click to expand...


Again, who the hell are YOU to determine what their word does for them? You fell out of grace with the word, which means you have no understanding of it whatsoever. You're the LAST person who should be counseling advice on the word or how Christians should behave. You're like the guy who drove a school bus full of kids off a cliff, trying to teach a driver safety class for school bus drivers! A really BAD joke! 

If you weren't such a self-absorbed pretentious little asshole, you'd understand that people aren't God or Jesus, they often make mistakes and have errors in judgement. Jesus said, "He who is without sin, cast the first stone." So do you believe you're following that advice? Of course not, but then, you've abandoned it in your life and think you can do however you please. Like I told you before, you'd better get right with your Lord before it's too late.


----------



## MrMax

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who the hell do you think you are to determine what believers are supposed to do?
> 
> You supposedly abandoned your faith and now you run around besmirching people of faith by trying to use their faith against them. What a despicable piece of garbage you are.
> 
> As a pastor, you lived a lie, freeloading off people who trusted you. Now you live a lie being an intellectual freeloader, preferring to denigrate and judge as opposed to validating your points. And here we discover this ain't your first rodeo, you've been pulling this shtick on other boards too.
> 
> What a pathetic example of human garbage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, the lovely spiritual man rises from the ashes!
> I don't determine what believers are supposed to do. Their "inerrant Word" does that for them, the one they claim deference to. They hate direct quotations that reveal them as disinterested in the faith as displayed in scripture.
> They do the same thing you do. They lose control of themselves, hurl epithets, and marginalize themselves with defensive tantrums.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, who the hell are YOU to determine what their word does for them? You fell out of grace with the word, which means you have no understanding of it whatsoever. You're the LAST person who should be counseling advice on the word or how Christians should behave. You're like the guy who drove a school bus full of kids off a cliff, trying to teach a driver safety class for school bus drivers! A really BAD joke!
> 
> If you weren't such a self-absorbed pretentious little asshole, you'd understand that people aren't God or Jesus, they often make mistakes and have errors in judgement. Jesus said, "He who is without sin, cast the first stone." So do you believe you're following that advice? Of course not, but then, you've abandoned it in your life and think you can do however you please. Like I told you before, you'd better get right with your Lord before it's too late.
Click to expand...

The real question is: bossy, why are you so angry? You're on a fucking douche chat board getting all bent out of shape.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who the hell do you think you are to determine what believers are supposed to do?
> 
> You supposedly abandoned your faith and now you run around besmirching people of faith by trying to use their faith against them. What a despicable piece of garbage you are.
> 
> As a pastor, you lived a lie, freeloading off people who trusted you. Now you live a lie being an intellectual freeloader, preferring to denigrate and judge as opposed to validating your points. And here we discover this ain't your first rodeo, you've been pulling this shtick on other boards too.
> 
> What a pathetic example of human garbage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, the lovely spiritual man rises from the ashes!
> I don't determine what believers are supposed to do. Their "inerrant Word" does that for them, the one they claim deference to. They hate direct quotations that reveal them as disinterested in the faith as displayed in scripture.
> They do the same thing you do. They lose control of themselves, hurl epithets, and marginalize themselves with defensive tantrums.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, who the hell are YOU to determine what their word does for them? You fell out of grace with the word, which means you have no understanding of it whatsoever. You're the LAST person who should be counseling advice on the word or how Christians should behave. You're like the guy who drove a school bus full of kids off a cliff, trying to teach a driver safety class for school bus drivers! A really BAD joke!
> 
> If you weren't such a self-absorbed pretentious little asshole, you'd understand that people aren't God or Jesus, they often make mistakes and have errors in judgement. Jesus said, "He who is without sin, cast the first stone." So do you believe you're following that advice? Of course not, but then, you've abandoned it in your life and think you can do however you please. Like I told you before, you'd better get right with your Lord before it's too late.
Click to expand...


More of the same ranting tirades.
The scripture isn't real confusing regarding the Fruits. It doesn't take great interpretive skill. If the Holy Spirit is in you, here's what you'll look like. When confronted with this in regard to their own behavior, they foam at the mouth.
Like you!


----------



## Boss

BreezeWood said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> on what basis do you disagree ?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *On the basis that it is important and fundamental for humans to worship God.* That's why we do it... or most of us do. We need to maintain fidelity with our spiritual connection. Worshiping God in whatever "manifestation" you believe God is, keeps us spiritually grounded. *When we don't do this, we tend to disassociate with our spiritual awareness.* I don't know whether that is caused by our vanity or arrogance, being too smart for our own good, or just plain selfish laziness.
> 
> *When we've lost our spiritual fidelity, we make decisions and take actions that serve only our self interests.* The further from our spirituality we get, the more this is apparent. We become too big for our britches. Over time, the lack of spiritual fidelity will cause us to begin worshiping ourselves, *thinking we are God and we have the ability to pass judgement on others* or dictate what can be acceptable to them. If this condition persists over a broad enough population, given time, *it will lead to the downfall of civilized society. *
> 
> So that is the basis in which I disagree with you. I think humans have to worship something, if not God then self. It's far better for society to worship God and remain in fidelity with our spiritual nature. Now, there are some caveats to that. Religion, while it can serve as a useful platform for our spiritual fidelity, can also lead people astray, away from spirituality itself. It can be very subtle and hard to detect, but through religion, humans sometimes risk losing spiritual connection with God and replace that with worship of the religion instead. It's as misguided as worshiping self, but it does happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Boss:*
> 
> *On the basis that it is important and fundamental for humans to worship God.*
> 
> *When we don't do this, we tend to disassociate with our spiritual awareness.*
> 
> *When we've lost our spiritual fidelity, we make decisions and take actions that serve only our self interests.*
> 
> *thinking we are God and we have the ability to pass judgement on others ... it will lead to the downfall of civilized society. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am glad someone who is not religious is also not a holyroller ... there is something wrong here.
> 
> *When we don't do this, we tend to disassociate with our spiritual awareness.*
> 
> the key word is "worship" - the word is implicit to: "actions that serve only our self interests" and not an association distinct from self, the same as reading a book irregardless its content.
> 
> the idea is for a spirit to live without a physiology when the time comes, wildlife the Orchid live in association with the Everlasting to reach the purity to relinquish their physical presence the same as a plane uses the runaway to attain flight ... worshiping God rather than striving for the goal of Admission through "enlightenment" is a self defeating purpose that suredly will wither the spirit ... religion.
> 
> at any rate your exclusion of Wildlife from the Everlasting through Admission by God does seem a little egocentric.
Click to expand...


I haven't excluded wildlife from anything. Anyone can see that humans are different from other wildlife. It's because of that difference that we require consistent maintenance of spiritual fidelity where other wildlife doesn't appear to. If we lacked this, we would be no different than other wildlife. Our actions and behavior would be determined by primal instinct or reaction to environment without any regard for morality as we know it. We'd kill and eat our own. In the Spring, we'd go out and mate with others suitable for reproduction without regard to "consent."  Stronger males would kill off weaker ones, etc. We would have never become "civilized" creatures, our nature would be no different than wildlife. 

It's not an ego thing, it's a requirement thing. We comprehend spiritual nature and connect to it because we've been given that ability by "the Everlasting" as you put it. Other animals may also have an ability to connect that we're not aware of, I recognized you might have a valid point there, I don't know. I personally think we were chosen as the Stewards of life by God, The Everlasting, Spiritual Nature, whatever you wish to call it. This responsibility requires we maintain spiritual fidelity and we do that through worship. You apparently see "worship" as some unnecessary component that isn't required. And IF man could maintain spiritual fidelity without it, I could see your point. But we can't.


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, the lovely spiritual man rises from the ashes!
> I don't determine what believers are supposed to do. Their "inerrant Word" does that for them, the one they claim deference to. They hate direct quotations that reveal them as disinterested in the faith as displayed in scripture.
> They do the same thing you do. They lose control of themselves, hurl epithets, and marginalize themselves with defensive tantrums.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, who the hell are YOU to determine what their word does for them? You fell out of grace with the word, which means you have no understanding of it whatsoever. You're the LAST person who should be counseling advice on the word or how Christians should behave. You're like the guy who drove a school bus full of kids off a cliff, trying to teach a driver safety class for school bus drivers! A really BAD joke!
> 
> If you weren't such a self-absorbed pretentious little asshole, you'd understand that people aren't God or Jesus, they often make mistakes and have errors in judgement. Jesus said, "He who is without sin, cast the first stone." So do you believe you're following that advice? Of course not, but then, you've abandoned it in your life and think you can do however you please. Like I told you before, you'd better get right with your Lord before it's too late.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More of the same ranting tirades.
> The scripture isn't real confusing regarding the Fruits. It doesn't take great interpretive skill. If the Holy Spirit is in you, here's what you'll look like. When confronted with this in regard to their own behavior, they foam at the mouth.
> Like you!
Click to expand...


You don't know about the Holy Spirit or what it looks like in someone. You're drawing a false conclusion based on your total ignorance and inability to comprehend it. You rejected it because you thought it was invalid. Remember? You have NO basis on which to apply your false stereotypes to others. 

The Bible most certainly takes great interpretive skills, why the hell do you think there are so many Biblical-based religions out there? If we all interpreted it the same, there would only be one and we'd all comprehend and interpret the Bible in the same way. Yes, the Bible can be VERY confusing, especially to someone as dumb and gullible as you. Some people can study the Bible and use it as inspiration to grow, while others (like yourself) can pervert it and use it to denigrate and judge others. Some people view the Bible as the infallible Word of God, others (like myself) see it as an intriguing book with useful inspiring wisdom for how to live a good spiritual life. 

No one died and made you the arbiter of how folks should behave. I don't find THAT in the Bible anywhere, and I've read it cover to cover. The only thing on trial here is your soul, and what I am seeing is a person who's soul is lost. Floundering over what he believes. Searching for validation through dragging down those around him. Failing miserably at setting any kind of example for others to follow, but at the same time, trying to hold others accountable to his own false interpretations of the Bible. You're a fraud, and a really poor one at that.


----------



## Boss

MrMax said:


> The real question is: bossy, why are you so angry? You're on a fucking douche chat board getting all bent out of shape.



I am fully aware that my words sting and that you have the perception there is anger behind them. I believe this is because you have to imagine me being angry so that you can feel as if you are the one who made me angry and that gives some feeling of validation to you. I hate to burst your bubble, but I am not angry at all. I'm not "bent out of shape" or any of the other delusions you may be having. Those are all in your head. 

Yesterday, I had the opportunity to help someone in need. I won't go into detail, but what I was able to do will profoundly change their lives for the better. The joy I witnessed in them and the satisfaction I received in the process, FAR outweighs any frustration you and your ilk can throw at me here. So you just go right on thinking I am angry, I fully understand why you need to perceive me that way.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, who the hell are YOU to determine what their word does for them? You fell out of grace with the word, which means you have no understanding of it whatsoever. You're the LAST person who should be counseling advice on the word or how Christians should behave. You're like the guy who drove a school bus full of kids off a cliff, trying to teach a driver safety class for school bus drivers! A really BAD joke!
> 
> If you weren't such a self-absorbed pretentious little asshole, you'd understand that people aren't God or Jesus, they often make mistakes and have errors in judgement. Jesus said, "He who is without sin, cast the first stone." So do you believe you're following that advice? Of course not, but then, you've abandoned it in your life and think you can do however you please. Like I told you before, you'd better get right with your Lord before it's too late.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More of the same ranting tirades.
> The scripture isn't real confusing regarding the Fruits. It doesn't take great interpretive skill. If the Holy Spirit is in you, here's what you'll look like. When confronted with this in regard to their own behavior, they foam at the mouth.
> Like you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know about the Holy Spirit or what it looks like in someone. You're drawing a false conclusion based on your total ignorance and inability to comprehend it. You rejected it because you thought it was invalid. Remember? You have NO basis on which to apply your false stereotypes to others.
> 
> The Bible most certainly takes great interpretive skills, why the hell do you think there are so many Biblical-based religions out there? If we all interpreted it the same, there would only be one and we'd all comprehend and interpret the Bible in the same way. Yes, the Bible can be VERY confusing, especially to someone as dumb and gullible as you. Some people can study the Bible and use it as inspiration to grow, while others (like yourself) can pervert it and use it to denigrate and judge others. Some people view the Bible as the infallible Word of God, others (like myself) see it as an intriguing book with useful inspiring wisdom for how to live a good spiritual life.
> 
> No one died and made you the arbiter of how folks should behave. I don't find THAT in the Bible anywhere, and I've read it cover to cover. The only thing on trial here is your soul, and what I am seeing is a person who's soul is lost. Floundering over what he believes. Searching for validation through dragging down those around him. Failing miserably at setting any kind of example for others to follow, but at the same time, trying to hold others accountable to his own false interpretations of the Bible. You're a fraud, and a really poor one at that.
Click to expand...


You're hilarious, and a completely inept debater.
No one ever said the bible doesn't require interpretive skills. I said that verse doesn't challenge anyones interpretive skills. 
You create a strawman argument about how I said the bible as a whole doesn't require those skills and then argue against your creation rather than address my post.
You are a hack, a seriously poor thinker, but highly entertaining.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, who the hell are YOU to determine what their word does for them? You fell out of grace with the word, which means you have no understanding of it whatsoever. You're the LAST person who should be counseling advice on the word or how Christians should behave. You're like the guy who drove a school bus full of kids off a cliff, trying to teach a driver safety class for school bus drivers! A really BAD joke!
> 
> If you weren't such a self-absorbed pretentious little asshole, you'd understand that people aren't God or Jesus, they often make mistakes and have errors in judgement. Jesus said, "He who is without sin, cast the first stone." So do you believe you're following that advice? Of course not, but then, you've abandoned it in your life and think you can do however you please. Like I told you before, you'd better get right with your Lord before it's too late.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More of the same ranting tirades.
> The scripture isn't real confusing regarding the Fruits. It doesn't take great interpretive skill. If the Holy Spirit is in you, here's what you'll look like. When confronted with this in regard to their own behavior, they foam at the mouth.
> Like you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know about the Holy Spirit or what it looks like in someone. You're drawing a false conclusion based on your total ignorance and inability to comprehend it. You rejected it because you thought it was invalid. Remember? You have NO basis on which to apply your false stereotypes to others.
> 
> The Bible most certainly takes great interpretive skills, why the hell do you think there are so many Biblical-based religions out there? If we all interpreted it the same, there would only be one and we'd all comprehend and interpret the Bible in the same way. Yes, the Bible can be VERY confusing, especially to someone as dumb and gullible as you. Some people can study the Bible and use it as inspiration to grow, while others (like yourself) can pervert it and use it to denigrate and judge others. Some people view the Bible as the infallible Word of God, others (like myself) see it as an intriguing book with useful inspiring wisdom for how to live a good spiritual life.
> 
> No one died and made you the arbiter of how folks should behave. I don't find THAT in the Bible anywhere, and I've read it cover to cover. The only thing on trial here is your soul, and what I am seeing is a person who's soul is lost. Floundering over what he believes. Searching for validation through dragging down those around him. Failing miserably at setting any kind of example for others to follow, but at the same time, trying to hold others accountable to his own false interpretations of the Bible. You're a fraud, and a really poor one at that.
Click to expand...


As someone who has professed to not believe in the major religions of the world, who has said they are sometimes believed to be an atheist by those who know them because of their lack of religious belief, how do you feel qualified to know whether he is correct or not about Christians?

If being a former Christian bars him from being able to know about the Holy Spirit or see it in someone, it would certainly seem you cannot know about it or see it in someone, either.  And if you can't know about it or see it in someone, how can you really judge if he can?  

True, no one made him the arbiter of how people should behave.  No one made you that either, but you have no problem telling us all about how we should be spiritual so as not to become overly selfish, do you?  In the religion and ethics forum, I would guess many threads have posts by people telling others how they should behave.


----------



## Boss

> You're hilarious, and a completely inept debater.
> No one ever said the bible doesn't require interpretive skills. I said that verse doesn't challenge anyones interpretive skills.
> You create a strawman argument about how I said the bible as a whole doesn't require those skills and then argue against your creation rather than address my post.
> You are a hack, a seriously poor thinker, but highly entertaining.



Well if I am an inept debater and I'm clearly running circles around you, that doesn't speak very well for your debate skills. According to John, the Bible has to be taken as a whole. Parsing out one verse and trying to formulate some argument based on that is useless. Am I a poor thinker, or am I hitting the nail on the head every time you open your stupid little mouth? 

Again, humans are fallible, they aren't God or Jesus, they make mistakes and commit sin. They don't always live by the Word, they can't... it's why they require salvation. You claim you were a pastor but you didn't know this? No wonder you fell from grace.


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> As someone who has professed to not believe in the major religions of the world, who has said they are sometimes believed to be an atheist by those who know them because of their lack of religious belief, how do you feel qualified to know whether he is correct or not about Christians?



Because I've read the Bible, dimwit. I understand the Christian theology. The fact that I am not a Christian doesn't mean I can't understand Christianity. But I can know he's not correct about Christians because he's not correct about much of anything, he's a moron like you. 



> If being a former Christian bars him from being able to know about the Holy Spirit or see it in someone, it would certainly seem you cannot know about it or see it in someone, either.  And if you can't know about it or see it in someone, how can you really judge if he can?
> 
> True, no one made him the arbiter of how people should behave.  No one made you that either, but you have no problem telling us all about how we should be spiritual so as not to become overly selfish, do you?  In the religion and ethics forum, I would guess many threads have posts by people telling others how they should behave.



I'm not the one here telling Christians how to behave, Moonbat. I'm not taking what you personally believe and turning it against you, that's HIS shtick, not mine. You can believe whatever the hell you want to believe, it's up to you. All I can do is convey what I believe, and if you want to listen that's fine, if not, so be it. 

I've not told you that you need to be spiritual, you ARE spiritual, whether you like it or not... it's part of your DNA. If you want to ignore your spirituality, that's your choice. I can't control what you do.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> You're hilarious, and a completely inept debater.
> No one ever said the bible doesn't require interpretive skills. I said that verse doesn't challenge anyones interpretive skills.
> You create a strawman argument about how I said the bible as a whole doesn't require those skills and then argue against your creation rather than address my post.
> You are a hack, a seriously poor thinker, but highly entertaining.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well if I am an inept debater and I'm clearly running circles around you, that doesn't speak very well for your debate skills. According to John, the Bible has to be taken as a whole. Parsing out one verse and trying to formulate some argument based on that is useless. Am I a poor thinker, or am I hitting the nail on the head every time you open your stupid little mouth?
> 
> Again, humans are fallible, they aren't God or Jesus, they make mistakes and commit sin. They don't always live by the Word, they can't... it's why they require salvation. You claim you were a pastor but you didn't know this? No wonder you fell from grace.
Click to expand...

Never fell from grace. Where did you invent that lie from?
No, you really are a very poor thinker.
Yes, it really was a strawman. Yes, people can comment on individual verses. Yes, some of them are less dependent on interpretation than others.
You couldn't hit a nail with a ping pong paddle. You puff and strut and swear and yell, but that is not argument. Strawmen are not arguments. Circular reasoning is not argument. Changing goalposts is not argument.
These are your stocks in trade.
You are right about one thing. You are running around in circles.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> As someone who has professed to not believe in the major religions of the world, who has said they are sometimes believed to be an atheist by those who know them because of their lack of religious belief, how do you feel qualified to know whether he is correct or not about Christians?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because I've read the Bible, dimwit. I understand the Christian theology. The fact that I am not a Christian doesn't mean I can't understand Christianity. But I can know he's not correct about Christians because he's not correct about much of anything, he's a moron like you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If being a former Christian bars him from being able to know about the Holy Spirit or see it in someone, it would certainly seem you cannot know about it or see it in someone, either.  And if you can't know about it or see it in someone, how can you really judge if he can?
> 
> True, no one made him the arbiter of how people should behave.  No one made you that either, but you have no problem telling us all about how we should be spiritual so as not to become overly selfish, do you?  In the religion and ethics forum, I would guess many threads have posts by people telling others how they should behave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the one here telling Christians how to behave, Moonbat. I'm not taking what you personally believe and turning it against you, that's HIS shtick, not mine. You can believe whatever the hell you want to believe, it's up to you. All I can do is convey what I believe, and if you want to listen that's fine, if not, so be it.
> 
> I've not told you that you need to be spiritual, you ARE spiritual, whether you like it or not... it's part of your DNA. If you want to ignore your spirituality, that's your choice. I can't control what you do.
Click to expand...


Part of his DNA, huh?
So it's physical now, and can be observed.
Good to know.
Since I have read the bible many times, that means I must know what I am talking about also, by your reasoning, not mine.
Just a very poor thinker.
Circles, circles, and down the drain.


----------



## thanatos144

So many haters of God in this thread..... He didnt make your life miserable you know....You did that all on your own.


----------



## Boss

> Never fell from grace. Where did you invent that lie from?



From your confession that you were a pastor and now you're not. You fell out of grace with God's Word.



> Yes, people can comment on individual verses.



Well yes, people can eat each other too! People can do all kinds of things they're not supposed to do. 



> You couldn't hit a nail with a ping pong paddle.



Wouldn't want to. Wouldn't have any reason to.



> Part of his DNA, huh?
> So it's physical now, and can be observed.



Sure. It's in the third neural sector of the brain. It always has been. 

Now, before you ignorantly take that out of context and run with it... I did not say that *spiritual nature* is physical and can be observed. The human ability to rationalize spiritual existence and be spiritually connected (aka: spirituality) is part of human DNA. 



> Since I have read the bible many times, that means I must know...



Means absolutely nothing because you rejected it as invalid when you fell from grace.


----------



## MrMax

Boss said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> The real question is: bossy, why are you so angry? You're on a fucking douche chat board getting all bent out of shape.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am fully aware that my words sting and that you have the perception there is anger behind them. I believe this is because you have to imagine me being angry so that you can feel as if you are the one who made me angry and that gives some feeling of validation to you. I hate to burst your bubble, but I am not angry at all. I'm not "bent out of shape" or any of the other delusions you may be having. Those are all in your head.
> 
> Yesterday, I had the opportunity to help someone in need. I won't go into detail, but what I was able to do will profoundly change their lives for the better. The joy I witnessed in them and the satisfaction I received in the process, FAR outweighs any frustration you and your ilk can throw at me here. So you just go right on thinking I am angry, I fully understand why you need to perceive me that way.
Click to expand...


Angry... and frustrated. Probably because everyone laughs at your spiritual nature and the "proof" that you offer up, which in none, because hey, IT'S SO OBVIOUS!!! 

Your words sting, that's another good one!!! 

And I'm just curious, is all the juvenile name-calling supposed to up your cred as a debater? Or do you consider yourself so fucking incredible that losing a little cred is meaningless?


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> Never fell from grace. Where did you invent that lie from?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From your confession that you were a pastor and now you're not. You fell out of grace with God's Word.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, people can comment on individual verses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well yes, people can eat each other too! People can do all kinds of things they're not supposed to do.
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't want to. Wouldn't have any reason to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Part of his DNA, huh?
> So it's physical now, and can be observed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure. It's in the third neural sector of the brain. It always has been.
> 
> Now, before you ignorantly take that out of context and run with it... I did not say that *spiritual nature* is physical and can be observed. The human ability to rationalize spiritual existence and be spiritually connected (aka: spirituality) is part of human DNA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since I have read the bible many times, that means I must know...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Means absolutely nothing because you rejected it as invalid when you fell from grace.
Click to expand...


You are saying no one can comment on anything in the bible unless they comment on the bible in its entirety? I will keep that in mind when reading your posts. You are not permitted to comment on any individual verse. Got it.
We agree. Spirituality is rationalized. Finally.
You also have stated that you don't accept the bible in its entirety. How are we different in this regard?
You are the silliest man I've ever experienced. Talk yourself into corners trying to be such the tough guy.


----------



## Boss

I consider myself so fucking incredible I don't lose cred. Some of it just falls off because it can't find anyplace to hang on anymore. Happens mostly when I waste time kicking around little ass chumps like you on the Internet. But what can I say, my cup runneth over. I can understand what it's like to not have any cred except from other ass clowns like yourself...wait, nope... I can't relate to it at all. Must really suck, eh?


----------



## Boss

> You are saying no one can comment on anything in the bible unless...



No, I didn't say that... YOU'RE saying that for me right here. What I said is posted under my name above.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> You are saying no one can comment on anything in the bible unless...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I didn't say that... YOU'RE saying that for me right here. What I said is posted under my name above.
Click to expand...


It's exactly what you said.
The reason you edited my quote is you don't want to have to deal with tripping over yourself AGAIN!


----------



## Boss

> We agree. Spirituality is rationalized.



No, we don't agree. Spirituality CAN BE rationalized, it's in our DNA to have that capability. 



> You also have stated that you don't accept the bible in its entirety. How are we different in this regard?



I respect the Bible and those who believe in it and you don't. You try to use the Bible against those who believe in it and I don't.  We are as different as night and day.


----------



## G.T.

Youre wasting your time bruce.

He is ego centric and irrational. 

Youre best to join my thread, a thread where we can cordially agree or disagree and also maintain some modicum of adult reasoning.


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are saying no one can comment on anything in the bible unless...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I didn't say that... YOU'RE saying that for me right here. What I said is posted under my name above.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's exactly what you said.
> The reason you edited my quote is you don't want to have to deal with tripping over yourself AGAIN!
Click to expand...


No, scroll back up and read exactly what I said and try again. What you quoted isn't what I said, it's what *YOU* said and tried to lie and claim I said, and I called you out on your lie. 

I'm not tripping over anything, I'm exposing you as a liar and a fraud. You don't like it and I fully understand, it must really be frustrating for you.


----------



## thebrucebeat

G.T. said:


> Youre wasting your time bruce.
> 
> He is ego centric and irrational.
> 
> Youre best to join my thread, a thread where we can cordially agree or disagree and also maintain some modicum of adult reasoning.



It's an ego thing.
He makes me feel so much smarter than I probably am.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> We agree. Spirituality is rationalized.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, we don't agree. Spirituality CAN BE rationalized, it's in our DNA to have that capability.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You also have stated that you don't accept the bible in its entirety. How are we different in this regard?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I respect the Bible and those who believe in it and you don't. You try to use the Bible against those who believe in it and I don't.  We are as different as night and day.
Click to expand...


Spirituality CAN be rationalized. Agreed.
I respect a great deal of the bible but don't find it inerrant and some of it ridiculous. Same as you.
What I find hilarious is people's hypocrisy that swear it is what they live by. That's always good for laughs.
Like your posts!


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I didn't say that... YOU'RE saying that for me right here. What I said is posted under my name above.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's exactly what you said.
> The reason you edited my quote is you don't want to have to deal with tripping over yourself AGAIN!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, scroll back up and read exactly what I said and try again. What you quoted isn't what I said, it's what *YOU* said and tried to lie and claim I said, and I called you out on your lie.
> 
> I'm not tripping over anything, I'm exposing you as a liar and a fraud. You don't like it and I fully understand, it must really be frustrating for you.
Click to expand...


" According to John, the Bible has to be taken as a whole. Parsing out one verse and trying to formulate some argument based on that is useless."

If you see a major distinction, you let us know what that is.
You are the gift that keeps on giving.


----------



## Derideo_Te

thebrucebeat said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Youre wasting your time bruce.
> 
> He is ego centric and irrational.
> 
> Youre best to join my thread, a thread where we can cordially agree or disagree and also maintain some modicum of adult reasoning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's an ego thing.
> He makes me feel so much smarter than I probably am.
Click to expand...


True, but he becomes tiresome after a while. The illogical circular reasoning that has no basis on reality or indisputable facts cobbled together with a mishmash of pseudo intellectual allegations combine to form the internet version of whack-a-fool!


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> As someone who has professed to not believe in the major religions of the world, who has said they are sometimes believed to be an atheist by those who know them because of their lack of religious belief, how do you feel qualified to know whether he is correct or not about Christians?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because I've read the Bible, dimwit. I understand the Christian theology. The fact that I am not a Christian doesn't mean I can't understand Christianity. But I can know he's not correct about Christians because he's not correct about much of anything, he's a moron like you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If being a former Christian bars him from being able to know about the Holy Spirit or see it in someone, it would certainly seem you cannot know about it or see it in someone, either.  And if you can't know about it or see it in someone, how can you really judge if he can?
> 
> True, no one made him the arbiter of how people should behave.  No one made you that either, but you have no problem telling us all about how we should be spiritual so as not to become overly selfish, do you?  In the religion and ethics forum, I would guess many threads have posts by people telling others how they should behave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the one here telling Christians how to behave, Moonbat. I'm not taking what you personally believe and turning it against you, that's HIS shtick, not mine. You can believe whatever the hell you want to believe, it's up to you. All I can do is convey what I believe, and if you want to listen that's fine, if not, so be it.
> 
> I've not told you that you need to be spiritual, you ARE spiritual, whether you like it or not... it's part of your DNA. If you want to ignore your spirituality, that's your choice. I can't control what you do.
Click to expand...


You're going with 'I'm smarter than him!' as a rationale for being able to discuss Christianity while he cannot?  

You're right, you didn't say anyone needs to be spiritual.  You said they should worship god.  I apologize for not getting the minutiae correct.   Of course, that's still telling people how they should behave.  And yes, I realize you didn't directly say, "Worship god Montrovant" or anyone else.  You did, however, say it is important and fundamental, that those who don't do it become self-centered, and that if not enough people do it it will lead to the downfall of civilized society.

And yes, you have, on multiple occasions, told people what they believe and turned that against them.  You have said that many professed atheists are actually god-haters.  It's the very premise of this thread!  That is most certainly telling a person what it is they believe and then using that against them to paint them in a bad light, denigrate them, and insult them.  I guess it's OK for you since you aren't telling Christians what they believe, though?  

In neither case is anyone prevented from believing whatever the hell they want.


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> " According to John, the Bible has to be taken as a whole. Parsing out one verse and trying to formulate some argument based on that is useless."
> 
> If you see a major distinction, you let us know what that is.
> You are the gift that keeps on giving.



Well, I see LOTS of distinctions. First, nothing in that statement says "You must" do anything. Second, that is a true statement, the verse is in Revelations as you well know. Finally, it doesn't say people can't or don't do otherwise. So your claim that I "am saying" is completely wrong on numerous distinctions. What makes that even worse is, it came in response to a follow-up post clarifying what I originally said so you would have no doubt what was meant.

What we see here is you twisting around what was said so that you can argue against what you WISH was said. And I guess some people let you get away with that shit, I don't. I call you a liar for it because that's what you're doing, you're lying. Yes, I am the gift you opened that keeps on giving you that ass on a platter as you run around telling one lie after another trying to spin your way out of the arguments you start.


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> You're going with 'I'm smarter than him!' as a rationale for being able to discuss Christianity while he cannot?



As good a rationale as any the way I see it. But he's not really discussing Christianity, he's using the Bible to pass judgement on people, like he is God or Jesus and has that authority. 



> You're right, you didn't say anyone needs to be spiritual.  You said they should worship god.  I apologize for not getting the minutiae correct.



You still haven't gotten it correct. I never said anyone should worship god. I said it's important and fundamental for humans to worship. 



> Of course, that's still telling people how they should behave.



Well frankly, no it's not. I have not told anyone how they should behave and I continue to reject your argument that I have. I don't dictate how individuals should behave because I haven't replaced my spiritual connection with worship of myself and think I am God like you. I understand that people have the free will to behave however they want and I can't control that. 



> And yes, I realize you didn't directly say, "Worship god Montrovant" or anyone else.  You did, however, say it is important and fundamental, that those who don't do it become self-centered, and that if not enough people do it it will lead to the downfall of civilized society.



Yep, that's (almost)what I said. (people TEND TO become) Why didn't you say that to start with? Why is your first reaction always to distort what I've said and take it out of context? Read stuff into it that's just not there, and proceed to lie about it and make a fool of yourself? You could easily avoid this kind of embarrassment by simply quoting me accurately and in context. 



> And yes, you have, on multiple occasions, told people what they believe and turned that against them.  You have said that many professed atheists are actually god-haters.  It's the very premise of this thread!  That is most certainly telling a person what it is they believe and then using that against them to paint them in a bad light, denigrate them, and insult them.  I guess it's OK for you since you aren't telling Christians what they believe, though?
> 
> In neither case is anyone prevented from believing whatever the hell they want.



I agree that I have analyzed what people believe based on their own words and actions. And I suppose you can view that as me using the truth against you, but you should just be more honest and that wouldn't happen, would it? I don't have a problem analyzing what Christians say and do and telling them what they believe, and when I encounter one here who is being dishonest about that, perhaps I will. 

And WOW... you end your post with probably the only truth you've posted today! I am impressed, you seem to be learning honesty! There may be hope for your pathetic ass!


----------



## Boss

Derideo_Te said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Youre wasting your time bruce.
> 
> He is ego centric and irrational.
> 
> Youre best to join my thread, a thread where we can cordially agree or disagree and also maintain some modicum of adult reasoning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's an ego thing.
> He makes me feel so much smarter than I probably am.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True, but he becomes tiresome after a while. The illogical circular reasoning that has no basis on reality or indisputable facts cobbled together with a mishmash of pseudo intellectual allegations combine to form the internet version of whack-a-fool!
Click to expand...


Dorito Tea! Reduced to posting snarky commentary from the peanut gallery and handing out "thanks" to his butt buddies like the lowly coward he is! Yes, you're fighting the "good fight" ...these dweebs need all the moral support they can get, it's been a rough go! Keep on pushing the "thank" button and leaving your retarded mouth closed, that's what I like to see!


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> Youre wasting your time bruce.
> 
> He is ego centric and irrational.
> 
> Youre best to join my thread, a thread where we can cordially agree or disagree and also maintain some modicum of adult reasoning.



Yes Brucey, I agree! Stop posting in my thread and go join G.T.'s thread where you pinheads can cordially agree with each other and slap each other on the back at your profound displays of brilliance. Maintaining some modicum of adult reasoning is going to take all the retard brain cells they can muster, so run along now!


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're going with 'I'm smarter than him!' as a rationale for being able to discuss Christianity while he cannot?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As good a rationale as any the way I see it. But he's not really discussing Christianity, he's using the Bible to pass judgement on people, like he is God or Jesus and has that authority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're right, you didn't say anyone needs to be spiritual.  You said they should worship god.  I apologize for not getting the minutiae correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still haven't gotten it correct. I never said anyone should worship god. I said it's important and fundamental for humans to worship.
> 
> 
> 
> Well frankly, no it's not. I have not told anyone how they should behave and I continue to reject your argument that I have. I don't dictate how individuals should behave because I haven't replaced my spiritual connection with worship of myself and think I am God like you. I understand that people have the free will to behave however they want and I can't control that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yes, I realize you didn't directly say, "Worship god Montrovant" or anyone else.  You did, however, say it is important and fundamental, that those who don't do it become self-centered, and that if not enough people do it it will lead to the downfall of civilized society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, that's (almost)what I said. (people TEND TO become) Why didn't you say that to start with? Why is your first reaction always to distort what I've said and take it out of context? Read stuff into it that's just not there, and proceed to lie about it and make a fool of yourself? You could easily avoid this kind of embarrassment by simply quoting me accurately and in context.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yes, you have, on multiple occasions, told people what they believe and turned that against them.  You have said that many professed atheists are actually god-haters.  It's the very premise of this thread!  That is most certainly telling a person what it is they believe and then using that against them to paint them in a bad light, denigrate them, and insult them.  I guess it's OK for you since you aren't telling Christians what they believe, though?
> 
> In neither case is anyone prevented from believing whatever the hell they want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree that I have analyzed what people believe based on their own words and actions. And I suppose you can view that as me using the truth against you, but you should just be more honest and that wouldn't happen, would it? I don't have a problem analyzing what Christians say and do and telling them what they believe, and when I encounter one here who is being dishonest about that, perhaps I will.
> 
> And WOW... you end your post with probably the only truth you've posted today! I am impressed, you seem to be learning honesty! There may be hope for your pathetic ass!
Click to expand...


Yes, saying worship of god is important, fundamental, prevents people from becoming overly self-centered and stands in the way of the downfall of civilization is completely different from saying people should worship god.  Totally unrelated!    You continue to try and hide behind 'word salad' and minutiae while complaining about the same from others.  Bravo!

And yet, in the very same post, you seem to have decided to change my words and try to argue against what I did not say.  Where did I say anything about using truth against someone?  Where was that said in your post that I quoted?  I don't view your analysis of people's views as truth, and never indicated I do.  In fact, I've pretty clearly indicated I think you are basing your analysis on faulty information when you base it on anything at all other than your own imaginings.  

Wonderful hypocrisy, saying you have no problem telling Christians what they believe.  To use your turn of phrase, who the hell are YOU to tell anyone what they believe?  And strange that you don't mind telling people what they believe but are so opposed to telling them how to behave.


----------



## Boss

> To use your turn of phrase, who the hell are YOU to tell anyone what they believe? And strange that you don't mind telling people what they believe but are so opposed to telling them how to behave.



Well, I have a PhD in Psychology and understand how the human mind works. I can pretty much tell what people believe by what they say because I am trained to do so. And I'm not understanding what is so "strange" about two completely different and unrelated things. Analyzing what you believe and telling you how you should behave are as different as night and day.


----------



## Boss

> Yes, saying worship of god is important, fundamental, prevents people from becoming overly self-centered and stands in the way of the downfall of civilization is completely different from saying people should worship god. Totally unrelated!



Yep... thanks for finally acknowledging the truth.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> " According to John, the Bible has to be taken as a whole. Parsing out one verse and trying to formulate some argument based on that is useless."
> 
> If you see a major distinction, you let us know what that is.
> You are the gift that keeps on giving.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I see LOTS of distinctions. First, nothing in that statement says "You must" do anything. Second, that is a true statement, the verse is in Revelations as you well know. Finally, it doesn't say people can't or don't do otherwise. So your claim that I "am saying" is completely wrong on numerous distinctions. What makes that even worse is, it came in response to a follow-up post clarifying what I originally said so you would have no doubt what was meant.
> 
> What we see here is you twisting around what was said so that you can argue against what you WISH was said. And I guess some people let you get away with that shit, I don't. I call you a liar for it because that's what you're doing, you're lying. Yes, I am the gift you opened that keeps on giving you that ass on a platter as you run around telling one lie after another trying to spin your way out of the arguments you start.
Click to expand...


LOL!
It doesn't say "must". It says "has to".
LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!
You are simply hilarious!


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Youre wasting your time bruce.
> 
> He is ego centric and irrational.
> 
> Youre best to join my thread, a thread where we can cordially agree or disagree and also maintain some modicum of adult reasoning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes Brucey, I agree! Stop posting in my thread and go join G.T.'s thread where you pinheads can cordially agree with each other and slap each other on the back at your profound displays of brilliance. Maintaining some modicum of adult reasoning is going to take all the retard brain cells they can muster, so run along now!
Click to expand...

I'm sure you wish I would leave, but...
I like it here!
It is so much fun revealing you as a moron on your own turf.
U. of A. is humiliated. This is what you get from a PhD there?
Confirms all the stereotypes.
LOL!
You can't even keep agreement within a post. You start by addressing me and switch to addressing...who?...in the middle as you include me in the "they" you refer to and then switch back to addressing me. What a cluster.
Was English not required in the 'Bama doctorate program?
LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> Yes, saying worship of god is important, fundamental, prevents people from becoming overly self-centered and stands in the way of the downfall of civilization is completely different from saying people should worship god. Totally unrelated!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep... thanks for finally acknowledging the truth.
Click to expand...


By the way, I meant to compliment you on the new avatar.
You look exactly like the pathetic dude drinking alone, scoping the hot girls on the dance floor...from a distance.
LOL!


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Derideo_Te said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Youre wasting your time bruce.
> 
> He is ego centric and irrational.
> 
> Youre best to join my thread, a thread where we can cordially agree or disagree and also maintain some modicum of adult reasoning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's an ego thing.
> He makes me feel so much smarter than I probably am.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True, but he becomes tiresome after a while. The illogical circular reasoning that has no basis on reality or indisputable facts cobbled together with a mishmash of pseudo intellectual allegations combine to form the internet version of whack-a-fool!
Click to expand...


This is a very good description of religion, and why in fact there is no god as perceived by theists.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> To use your turn of phrase, who the hell are YOU to tell anyone what they believe? And strange that you don't mind telling people what they believe but are so opposed to telling them how to behave.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I have a PhD in Psychology and understand how the human mind works. I can pretty much tell what people believe by what they say because I am trained to do so. And I'm not understanding what is so "strange" about two completely different and unrelated things. Analyzing what you believe and telling you how you should behave are as different as night and day.
Click to expand...


And if all you were doing was attempting to determine someone's beliefs when they haven't been stated, that might make sense.

Instead, you have been telling people what they believe in direct contradiction of what they say.  You've done this multiple times, to both individuals and groups of people, and you've done it with almost no data to base it on.  

Your training seems to have been pretty lax if you think a few anti-religious posts on a message board are enough for you to decide people are lying when they claim to be atheists, yet that's basically what you've been saying for xx amount of pages.


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To use your turn of phrase, who the hell are YOU to tell anyone what they believe? And strange that you don't mind telling people what they believe but are so opposed to telling them how to behave.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I have a PhD in Psychology and understand how the human mind works. I can pretty much tell what people believe by what they say because I am trained to do so. And I'm not understanding what is so "strange" about two completely different and unrelated things. Analyzing what you believe and telling you how you should behave are as different as night and day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if all you were doing was attempting to determine someone's beliefs when they haven't been stated, that might make sense.
> 
> Instead, you have been telling people what they believe in direct contradiction of what they say.  You've done this multiple times, to both individuals and groups of people, and you've done it with almost no data to base it on.
> 
> Your training seems to have been pretty lax if you think a few anti-religious posts on a message board are enough for you to decide people are lying when they claim to be atheists, yet that's basically what you've been saying for xx amount of pages.
Click to expand...


Well, no it's not. Go back and read the OP again. That synopsis took 9 words-- "people are lying when they claim to be atheists" and that was never my argument. I clearly wrote a number of full paragraphs spelling out my entire argument, and have written numerous more paragraphs explaining aspects of it in specific detail. Nine words simply don't sum it up, unless you've completely missed my point and want to distort the context so you can lie. 

And yes, I will be happy to tell you what you believe if you reveal your beliefs in what you unintentionally say then proceed to lie and misrepresent yourself. I have no problem whatsoever in doing that. Yep... the truth is generally a direct contradiction of a lie. 

Now I'm still not seeing how this is me telling you how to behave. That was the claim you made in the last post, and I challenged it, but here you're completely ignoring that challenge. So are you going to tell us how me telling what you really believe is me telling you how to behave, or not?


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I have a PhD in Psychology and understand how the human mind works. I can pretty much tell what people believe by what they say because I am trained to do so. And I'm not understanding what is so "strange" about two completely different and unrelated things. Analyzing what you believe and telling you how you should behave are as different as night and day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if all you were doing was attempting to determine someone's beliefs when they haven't been stated, that might make sense.
> 
> Instead, you have been telling people what they believe in direct contradiction of what they say.  You've done this multiple times, to both individuals and groups of people, and you've done it with almost no data to base it on.
> 
> Your training seems to have been pretty lax if you think a few anti-religious posts on a message board are enough for you to decide people are lying when they claim to be atheists, yet that's basically what you've been saying for xx amount of pages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, no it's not. Go back and read the OP again. That synopsis took 9 words-- "people are lying when they claim to be atheists" and that was never my argument. I clearly wrote a number of full paragraphs spelling out my entire argument, and have written numerous more paragraphs explaining aspects of it in specific detail. Nine words simply don't sum it up, unless you've completely missed my point and want to distort the context so you can lie.
> 
> And yes, I will be happy to tell you what you believe if you reveal your beliefs in what you unintentionally say then proceed to lie and misrepresent yourself. I have no problem whatsoever in doing that. Yep... the truth is generally a direct contradiction of a lie.
> 
> Now I'm still not seeing how this is me telling you how to behave. That was the claim you made in the last post, and I challenged it, but here you're completely ignoring that challenge. So are you going to tell us how me telling what you really believe is me telling you how to behave, or not?
Click to expand...

"We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic. "

From your OP.
This states that not only are these people not atheist or agnostic (the latter term incorrectly used to describe a watered-down atheism) but you claim it is their dirty little secret, indicating they are aware that they are lying about their beliefs.
The 9 words were a perfectly apt summary of what was stated as part of your argument.
You love that "context" bit. Every single time your own words are used to display your muddled thought process or your goalpost realignment you trudge out the idea that idiocy surrounded by more of it will suddenly become profound.
It doesn't.
Neither does making up words like "insultuous". It further marginalizes your degree.


----------



## koshergrl

Yawn. Yet another example of the wit that permeates the anti-christian bigotry forum.


----------



## Boss

Bruce, I will no longer argue with you over misrepresented context. You've tried this enough and it has failed over and over through the whole thread and in the other thread we are conversing. I don't have the time or patience to correct you each time you misrepresent something I've said. So you and Moonbat go right ahead and infer different meanings into what I have posted, and show the world how you are willing to lie and manipulate things in order to win an argument. 

As for "insultuous" you are correct, it's a made-up word. It means insolent. I will frequently use these to see if there are any Word Nazi's lurking out there, because that helps me to evaluate your psyche. Usually people don't pick up on it unless they are like you, determined to find anything they can to stick their victory flag in. I wasn't an English major, I was a Science major. I often have people tell me I should have been an English major, but I've found the rules of English too stuffy and confining for me. Irregardless, I am betting you had to go look up "insultuous" to be sure it wasn't actually a word.


----------



## MrMax

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To use your turn of phrase, who the hell are YOU to tell anyone what they believe? And strange that you don't mind telling people what they believe but are so opposed to telling them how to behave.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I have a PhD in Psychology and understand how the human mind works. I can pretty much tell what people believe by what they say because I am trained to do so. And I'm not understanding what is so "strange" about two completely different and unrelated things. Analyzing what you believe and telling you how you should behave are as different as night and day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if all you were doing was attempting to determine someone's beliefs when they haven't been stated, that might make sense.
> 
> Instead, you have been telling people what they believe in direct contradiction of what they say.  You've done this multiple times, to both individuals and groups of people, and you've done it with almost no data to base it on.
> 
> Your training seems to have been pretty lax if you think a few anti-religious posts on a message board are enough for you to decide people are lying when they claim to be atheists, yet that's basically what you've been saying for xx amount of pages.
Click to expand...

Boss has a Phd in psychology? Doesn't everyone on the internet have a Phd? I have 2.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> Bruce, I will no longer argue with you over misrepresented context. You've tried this enough and it has failed over and over through the whole thread and in the other thread we are *conversing*. I don't have the time or patience to correct you each time you misrepresent something I've said. So you and Moonbat go right ahead and infer different meanings *into* what I have posted, and show the world how you are willing to lie and manipulate things in order to win an argument.
> 
> As for "insultuous" you are correct, it's a made-up word. It means insolent. I will frequently use these to see if there are any *Word Nazi's* lurking out there, because that helps me to evaluate your psyche. Usually people don't pick up on it unless they are like you, determined to find anything they can to stick their victory flag in. I wasn't an English major, I was a *Science* major. I often have people tell me I should have been an English major, but I've found the rules of English too stuffy and confining for me. Irregardless, I am betting you had to go look up "insultuous" to be sure it wasn't actually a word.



"Irregardless is a word commonly used in place of regardless or irrespective, which has caused controversy since the early twentieth century, though the word appeared in print as early as 1795.[1] Most dictionaries[citation needed] list it as "nonstandard" or "incorrect". ". From Wiki

Strike two.
As far as "insultuous" goes, it means nothing at all.
You really think anyone believes that you undermined the credibility of your OP by using made up words in order to troll for "Word Nazi's(sic)", as you call people who speak English.
See if you can figure out why the other things are highlighted in bold above. They are also errors. We'll have a quiz later.
You made the right decision not being an English major. Those suggesting you should have been must have been science majors, too.
You reveal yourself again as being a borderline cretin and invent a narrative to save face.
As for misrepresenting you, if you mean quoting you directly then I am guilty as charged.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's an ego thing.
> He makes me feel so much smarter than I probably am.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True, but he becomes tiresome after a while. The illogical circular reasoning that has no basis on reality or indisputable facts cobbled together with a mishmash of pseudo intellectual allegations combine to form the internet version of whack-a-fool!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dorito Tea! Reduced to posting snarky commentary from the peanut gallery and handing out "thanks" to his butt buddies like the lowly coward he is! Yes, you're fighting the "good fight" ...these dweebs need all the moral support they can get, it's been a rough go! Keep on pushing the "thank" button and leaving your retarded mouth closed, that's what I like to see!
Click to expand...


Don't flatter yourself that you and your mindless drivel merit more of my time and attention than you deserve.


----------



## thebrucebeat

koshergrl said:


> Yawn. Yet another example of the wit that permeates the anti-christian bigotry forum.



Rapier insight on my post.
Neither of you could handle the truth.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I have a PhD in Psychology and understand how the human mind works. I can pretty much tell what people believe by what they say because I am trained to do so. And I'm not understanding what is so "strange" about two completely different and unrelated things. Analyzing what you believe and telling you how you should behave are as different as night and day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if all you were doing was attempting to determine someone's beliefs when they haven't been stated, that might make sense.
> 
> Instead, you have been telling people what they believe in direct contradiction of what they say.  You've done this multiple times, to both individuals and groups of people, and you've done it with almost no data to base it on.
> 
> Your training seems to have been pretty lax if you think a few anti-religious posts on a message board are enough for you to decide people are lying when they claim to be atheists, yet that's basically what you've been saying for xx amount of pages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, no it's not. Go back and read the OP again. That synopsis took 9 words-- "people are lying when they claim to be atheists" and that was never my argument. I clearly wrote a number of full paragraphs spelling out my entire argument, and have written numerous more paragraphs explaining aspects of it in specific detail. Nine words simply don't sum it up, unless you've completely missed my point and want to distort the context so you can lie.
> 
> And yes, I will be happy to tell you what you believe if you reveal your beliefs in what you unintentionally say then proceed to lie and misrepresent yourself. I have no problem whatsoever in doing that. Yep... the truth is generally a direct contradiction of a lie.
> 
> Now I'm still not seeing how this is me telling you how to behave. That was the claim you made in the last post, and I challenged it, but here you're completely ignoring that challenge. So are you going to tell us how me telling what you really believe is me telling you how to behave, or not?
Click to expand...


Yet again, despite all your bitching about other people misrepresenting and distorting your posts, you do it to someone else.

I did not claim that you telling someone they are lying about their atheism is telling them how to behave.  What I said was that your telling people that worshiping god is fundamental, keeps them from becoming overly self-centered, and prevents the downfall of civilization is telling them how they should behave.

I said I find it strange that you don't mind telling people what they believe but profess to be against telling them how they should behave.  That strikes me as being like saying, "I won't tell you what to do, but I'll tell you how to think.".

The spelling out of your argument boils down to reasons why you think people claiming to be atheists or agnostics are lying.  You've been very clear that you do think many of them are lying and secretly believe in god but hate him.  You've based that on what I would call spotty evidence at best, having to do with the number and tone of posts on an anonymous message board.  What part of this is untrue?

Ready to complain that I am distorting your words while you distort mine?


----------



## BreezeWood

Boss said:


> I haven't excluded wildlife from anything. *Anyone can see that humans are different from other wildlife.* It's because of that difference that we require consistent maintenance of spiritual fidelity where other wildlife doesn't appear to. *If we lacked this, we would be no different than other wildlife. Our actions and behavior would be determined by primal instinct or reaction to environment without any regard for morality as we know it.* We'd kill and eat our own. In the Spring, we'd go out and mate with others suitable for reproduction without regard to "consent."  Stronger males would kill off weaker ones, etc. *We would have never become "civilized" creatures, our nature would be no different than wildlife.*
> 
> It's not an ego thing, it's a requirement thing. We comprehend spiritual nature and connect to it because we've been given that ability by "the Everlasting" as you put it. *Other animals may also have an ability to connect that we're not aware of, I recognized you might have a valid point there, I don't know.* I personally think we were chosen as the Stewards of life by God, The Everlasting, Spiritual Nature, whatever you wish to call it. This responsibility requires we maintain spiritual fidelity and we do that through worship. You apparently see "worship" as some unnecessary component that isn't required. And IF man could maintain spiritual fidelity without it, I could see your point. But we can't.




*We'd kill and eat our own.*




> *B:* Anyone can see that humans are different from other wildlife ...It's because of that difference that we require consistent maintenance of spiritual fidelity where other wildlife doesn't appear to.



other than their not building a car why is it necessary to distinguish a difference specifically to humanity ? - *"we require consistent maintenance of spiritual fidelity"* - "fidelity" ? are you saying they have no Spirit at all ? 




> *B:* If we lacked this, we would be no different than other wildlife. Our actions and behavior would be determined by primal instinct or reaction to environment without any regard for morality as we know it.



you really are a Racist - *"without any regard for morality as we know it."* that certainly is well defined.





> *B:* We would have never become "civilized" creatures, our nature would be no different than wildlife.



have you ever ventured outside your bedroom ? - there is no difference between T-Rex and a Terrier, civilization is found in an outhouse ?




> *B:* Other animals may also have an ability to connect that we're not aware of, I recognized you might have a valid point there, I don't know.



*"we're not aware of"* - your bedroom is connected to your "church", that does explain much of your reasoning.




> *B:* I personally think we were chosen as the Stewards of life by God ... This responsibility requires we maintain spiritual fidelity and we do that through worship. You apparently see "worship" as some unnecessary component that isn't required. And IF man could maintain spiritual fidelity without it, I could see your point. But we can't.



*"... as the Stewards of life by God"* - what in the history of mankind could possibly draw you to that conclusion other than the fallacy of the literature you chose to read and accept as fact ?
.............



> *B:* You still haven't gotten it correct. I never said anyone should worship god. I said it's important and fundamental for humans to worship.



is that how a car is built ? how about those people who stone someone to death ?




> *B:* Again, humans are fallible, they aren't God or Jesus, they make mistakes and commit sin.



*...  they make mistakes and commit sin.* sorry, the only people who are not Admitted are sinners - to bad for you.




> *OP:* True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief.



another example of an absurdity based on duplicitous reasoning.

.


----------



## koshergrl

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if all you were doing was attempting to determine someone's beliefs when they haven't been stated, that might make sense.
> 
> Instead, you have been telling people what they believe in direct contradiction of what they say.  You've done this multiple times, to both individuals and groups of people, and you've done it with almost no data to base it on.
> 
> Your training seems to have been pretty lax if you think a few anti-religious posts on a message board are enough for you to decide people are lying when they claim to be atheists, yet that's basically what you've been saying for xx amount of pages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, no it's not. Go back and read the OP again. That synopsis took 9 words-- "people are lying when they claim to be atheists" and that was never my argument. I clearly wrote a number of full paragraphs spelling out my entire argument, and have written numerous more paragraphs explaining aspects of it in specific detail. Nine words simply don't sum it up, unless you've completely missed my point and want to distort the context so you can lie.
> 
> And yes, I will be happy to tell you what you believe if you reveal your beliefs in what you unintentionally say then proceed to lie and misrepresent yourself. I have no problem whatsoever in doing that. Yep... the truth is generally a direct contradiction of a lie.
> 
> Now I'm still not seeing how this is me telling you how to behave. That was the claim you made in the last post, and I challenged it, but here you're completely ignoring that challenge. So are you going to tell us how me telling what you really believe is me telling you how to behave, or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet again, despite all your bitching about other people misrepresenting and distorting your posts, you do it to someone else.
> 
> I did not claim that you telling someone they are lying about their atheism is telling them how to behave.  What I said was that your telling people that worshiping god is fundamental, keeps them from becoming overly self-centered, and prevents the downfall of civilization is telling them how they should behave.
> 
> I said I find it strange that you don't mind telling people what they believe but profess to be against telling them how they should behave.  That strikes me as being like saying, "I won't tell you what to do, but I'll tell you how to think.".
> 
> The spelling out of your argument boils down to reasons why you think people claiming to be atheists or agnostics are lying.  You've been very clear that you do think many of them are lying and secretly believe in god but hate him.  You've based that on what I would call spotty evidence at best, having to do with the number and tone of posts on an anonymous message board.  What part of this is untrue?
> 
> Ready to complain that I am distorting your words while you distort mine?
Click to expand...


You don't understand the language. Telling someone the rewards of behaving a certain way is not the same as telling them to behave in a certain way.

Telling people they can attain eternal salvation through Jesus Christ isn't telling them how they must behave. It's giving them a choice. And if they reject it, the consequences are their own. It still isn't telling them how to behave.

Any more than telling Christians they're retarded for believing in a *sky pixie* is telling them how to live their lives.

Or is it?


----------



## thebrucebeat

koshergrl said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, no it's not. Go back and read the OP again. That synopsis took 9 words-- "people are lying when they claim to be atheists" and that was never my argument. I clearly wrote a number of full paragraphs spelling out my entire argument, and have written numerous more paragraphs explaining aspects of it in specific detail. Nine words simply don't sum it up, unless you've completely missed my point and want to distort the context so you can lie.
> 
> And yes, I will be happy to tell you what you believe if you reveal your beliefs in what you unintentionally say then proceed to lie and misrepresent yourself. I have no problem whatsoever in doing that. Yep... the truth is generally a direct contradiction of a lie.
> 
> Now I'm still not seeing how this is me telling you how to behave. That was the claim you made in the last post, and I challenged it, but here you're completely ignoring that challenge. So are you going to tell us how me telling what you really believe is me telling you how to behave, or not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet again, despite all your bitching about other people misrepresenting and distorting your posts, you do it to someone else.
> 
> I did not claim that you telling someone they are lying about their atheism is telling them how to behave.  What I said was that your telling people that worshiping god is fundamental, keeps them from becoming overly self-centered, and prevents the downfall of civilization is telling them how they should behave.
> 
> I said I find it strange that you don't mind telling people what they believe but profess to be against telling them how they should behave.  That strikes me as being like saying, "I won't tell you what to do, but I'll tell you how to think.".
> 
> The spelling out of your argument boils down to reasons why you think people claiming to be atheists or agnostics are lying.  You've been very clear that you do think many of them are lying and secretly believe in god but hate him.  You've based that on what I would call spotty evidence at best, having to do with the number and tone of posts on an anonymous message board.  What part of this is untrue?
> 
> Ready to complain that I am distorting your words while you distort mine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't understand the language. Telling someone the rewards of behaving a certain way is not the same as telling them to behave in a certain way.
> 
> Telling people they can attain eternal salvation through Jesus Christ isn't telling them how they must behave. It's giving them a choice. And if they reject it, the consequences are their own. It still isn't telling them how to behave.
> 
> Any more than telling Christians they're retarded for believing in a *sky pixie* is telling them how to live their lives.
> 
> Or is it?
Click to expand...


How does that relate to Boss' post?
He has stated he is not a Christian.


----------



## koshergrl

Whether or not he is Christian has nothing to do with anything.

I'm agreeing with him that it isn't "telling people how to behave" when you tell them what you believe.


----------



## koshergrl

Anti-Christian bigots are so dedicated to their bigotry that they can't conceive of Christians and non-Christians agreeing about anything.

Because their sole objective is to sow hate against Christians.


----------



## thebrucebeat

koshergrl said:


> Whether or not he is Christian has nothing to do with anything.
> 
> I'm agreeing with him that it isn't "telling people how to behave" when you tell them what you believe.



So what does the Christian rap have to do with it?


----------



## thebrucebeat

koshergrl said:


> Anti-Christian bigots are so dedicated to their bigotry that they can't conceive of Christians and non-Christians agreeing about anything.
> 
> Because their sole objective is to sow hate against Christians.



I don't hate Christians. I have alot of respect for those that have those beliefs influence the way they live their lives.
I don't have much respect for hypocrites, though.
Peace, love, joy, patience, goodness, kindness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control.
The Fruits of the Spirit.
Why do you think they are a punchline? You certainly don't respect them.


----------



## Boss

> I did not claim that you telling someone they are lying about their atheism is telling them how to behave. What I said was that your telling people that worshiping god is fundamental, keeps them from becoming overly self-centered, and prevents the downfall of civilization is telling them how they should behave.
> 
> I said I find it strange that you don't mind telling people what they believe but profess to be against telling them how they should behave. That strikes me as being like saying, "I won't tell you what to do, but I'll tell you how to think.".



When someone tells me they think worship is a waste of time and I say I disagree, and they ask me on what basis do I disagree, what am I supposed to say? I gave my reason why I believe it is fundamentally important for humans to worship. I did not tell you that YOU MUST BEHAVE THE WAY I SAY! In no way whatsoever was it "telling them how they should behave!" I also haven't told anyone how to think. You're free to agree or disagree with my opinion. 

When you lie and claim to be an "Atheist" yet your actions and words demonstrate you are, in fact, an "Anti-theist" instead, I am going to point those actions and words out and expose your lie. I understand you liars don't like this, as most liars recoil at having their lies exposed. This does not bother me in the least. As a matter of fact, it actually serves to prove my point even better than I could've done if you all had simply ignored my thread. So "thank yous" are in order! You've brilliantly shown the OP to be spot on! Well done!


----------



## koshergrl

thebrucebeat said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anti-Christian bigots are so dedicated to their bigotry that they can't conceive of Christians and non-Christians agreeing about anything.
> 
> Because their sole objective is to sow hate against Christians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't hate Christians. I have alot of respect for those that have those beliefs influence the way they live their lives.
> I don't have much respect for hypocrites, though.
> Peace, love, joy, patience, goodness, kindness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control.
> The Fruits of the Spirit.
> Why do you think they are a punchline? You certainly don't respect them.
Click to expand...


That is the punchline.

"I love Christians if they act the way I think they should act"...

Lolol....


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> I did not claim that you telling someone they are lying about their atheism is telling them how to behave. What I said was that your telling people that worshiping god is fundamental, keeps them from becoming overly self-centered, and prevents the downfall of civilization is telling them how they should behave.
> 
> I said I find it strange that you don't mind telling people what they believe but profess to be against telling them how they should behave. That strikes me as being like saying, "I won't tell you what to do, but I'll tell you how to think.".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When someone tells me they think worship is a waste of time and I say I disagree, and they ask me on what basis do I disagree, what am I supposed to say? I gave my reason why I believe it is fundamentally important for humans to worship. I did not tell you that YOU MUST BEHAVE THE WAY I SAY! In no way whatsoever was it "telling them how they should behave!" I also haven't told anyone how to think. You're free to agree or disagree with my opinion.
> 
> When you lie and claim to be an "Atheist" yet your actions and words demonstrate you are, in fact, an "Anti-theist" instead, I am going to point those actions and words out and expose your lie. I understand you liars don't like this, as most liars recoil at having their lies exposed. This does not bother me in the least. As a matter of fact, it actually serves to prove my point even better than I could've done if you all had simply ignored my thread. So "thank yous" are in order! You've brilliantly shown the OP to be spot on! Well done!
Click to expand...


Being an atheist and an anti-theist as you call them are in no way mutually exclusive. Why would someone have to be an anti-theist "instead"?
Silly stuff.


----------



## thebrucebeat

koshergrl said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anti-Christian bigots are so dedicated to their bigotry that they can't conceive of Christians and non-Christians agreeing about anything.
> 
> Because their sole objective is to sow hate against Christians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't hate Christians. I have alot of respect for those that have those beliefs influence the way they live their lives.
> I don't have much respect for hypocrites, though.
> Peace, love, joy, patience, goodness, kindness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control.
> The Fruits of the Spirit.
> Why do you think they are a punchline? You certainly don't respect them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is the punchline.
> 
> "I love Christians if they act the way I think they should act"...
> 
> Lolol....
Click to expand...


No.
It's the way Paul said you should act if you are indwelt with the Holy Spirit.
These are your scriptures, supposedly.
But what did that rube know, right?


----------



## koshergrl

As I said, you are the punchline...fomenting hatred against Christians because you think they should all act in a way YOU think they should act..and punishing them if they don't.


----------



## Montrovant

koshergrl said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, no it's not. Go back and read the OP again. That synopsis took 9 words-- "people are lying when they claim to be atheists" and that was never my argument. I clearly wrote a number of full paragraphs spelling out my entire argument, and have written numerous more paragraphs explaining aspects of it in specific detail. Nine words simply don't sum it up, unless you've completely missed my point and want to distort the context so you can lie.
> 
> And yes, I will be happy to tell you what you believe if you reveal your beliefs in what you unintentionally say then proceed to lie and misrepresent yourself. I have no problem whatsoever in doing that. Yep... the truth is generally a direct contradiction of a lie.
> 
> Now I'm still not seeing how this is me telling you how to behave. That was the claim you made in the last post, and I challenged it, but here you're completely ignoring that challenge. So are you going to tell us how me telling what you really believe is me telling you how to behave, or not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet again, despite all your bitching about other people misrepresenting and distorting your posts, you do it to someone else.
> 
> I did not claim that you telling someone they are lying about their atheism is telling them how to behave.  What I said was that your telling people that worshiping god is fundamental, keeps them from becoming overly self-centered, and prevents the downfall of civilization is telling them how they should behave.
> 
> I said I find it strange that you don't mind telling people what they believe but profess to be against telling them how they should behave.  That strikes me as being like saying, "I won't tell you what to do, but I'll tell you how to think.".
> 
> The spelling out of your argument boils down to reasons why you think people claiming to be atheists or agnostics are lying.  You've been very clear that you do think many of them are lying and secretly believe in god but hate him.  You've based that on what I would call spotty evidence at best, having to do with the number and tone of posts on an anonymous message board.  What part of this is untrue?
> 
> Ready to complain that I am distorting your words while you distort mine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't understand the language. Telling someone the rewards of behaving a certain way is not the same as telling them to behave in a certain way.
> 
> Telling people they can attain eternal salvation through Jesus Christ isn't telling them how they must behave. It's giving them a choice. And if they reject it, the consequences are their own. It still isn't telling them how to behave.
> 
> Any more than telling Christians they're retarded for believing in a *sky pixie* is telling them how to live their lives.
> 
> Or is it?
Click to expand...


First of all, he didn't really describe rewards so much as negative consequences of not worshiping, including the end of civilized society.  No, it's not telling someone directly to behave a certain way.  Unless you think Boss is perfectly fine with the idea of the end of civilized society, however, it certainly seems clear that he thinks most people should worship.  

To the same extent, yes, telling Christians they believe in a sky pixie or something similar can be telling them how they should behave.  It's telling them they believe in nonsense, and of course most people would say people are better off not believing in nonsense.

In the same way, if a Christian tells someone that only through devotion to Christ can they achieve salvation, and without it they are doomed to an eternity of suffering, they are telling people what they should believe.

Any time you tell someone something they believe or do is basically stupid, you are at the very least strongly implying they shouldn't believe or do that thing.  That is what I am saying.


----------



## koshergrl

Well we all have our personal beliefs. That's neither here nor there. Giving someone a choice and explaining that you think that behaving in a certain way will not benefit them is not the same as telling them what to do. It's simply giving them the option of doing the right thing.

Telling someone what to do, in our language, is giving an order. Not a choice.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> I did not claim that you telling someone they are lying about their atheism is telling them how to behave. What I said was that your telling people that worshiping god is fundamental, keeps them from becoming overly self-centered, and prevents the downfall of civilization is telling them how they should behave.
> 
> I said I find it strange that you don't mind telling people what they believe but profess to be against telling them how they should behave. That strikes me as being like saying, "I won't tell you what to do, but I'll tell you how to think.".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When someone tells me they think worship is a waste of time and I say I disagree, and they ask me on what basis do I disagree, what am I supposed to say? I gave my reason why I believe it is fundamentally important for humans to worship. I did not tell you that YOU MUST BEHAVE THE WAY I SAY! In no way whatsoever was it "telling them how they should behave!" I also haven't told anyone how to think. You're free to agree or disagree with my opinion.
> 
> When you lie and claim to be an "Atheist" yet your actions and words demonstrate you are, in fact, an "Anti-theist" instead, I am going to point those actions and words out and expose your lie. I understand you liars don't like this, as most liars recoil at having their lies exposed. This does not bother me in the least. As a matter of fact, it actually serves to prove my point even better than I could've done if you all had simply ignored my thread. So "thank yous" are in order! You've brilliantly shown the OP to be spot on! Well done!
Click to expand...


When you assume someone lies because you cannot comprehend a person behaving in an irrational fashion, arguing a point that isn't directly important to them, etc. would be a more accurate description.  This is especially funny as I have not claimed to be an atheist, unless it is using the definition of simply not believing in any god.  I don't deny the possibility of a god or gods.  Of course, you have claimed that I actually do deny the possibility.....which is hilarious since you appear to be saying that I am one of your 'god-haters'.    Obviously both of these things can't be true, but don't let the contradictory nature of your posts bother you!

I don't doubt that there are some people who believe in god but say they do not.  I do not, however, accept argumentative and insulting behavior on a message board, a place well known for that kind of behavior in just about any discussion, as evidence a person is lying when they say they don't believe.


----------



## thebrucebeat

koshergrl said:


> As I said, you are the punchline...fomenting hatred against Christians because you think they should all act in a way YOU think they should act..and punishing them if they don't.



So the scriptures don't influence you at all? This is something I made up and doesn't apply to you?
Do you feel punished because someone asks why this doesn't matter to you?
Ok.
You go with that.


----------



## koshergrl

I think whether or not they believe is actually irrelevant, though it is fun to point out how idiotic it is to race around asking questions about God if you maintain he doesn't exist.

I believe they're  arrogant pissants that are used by Satan to do his dirty work. And they're too stupid to even recognize it...despite their eternal cry of "We're so much smarter than the average bear!"


----------



## koshergrl

thebrucebeat said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, you are the punchline...fomenting hatred against Christians because you think they should all act in a way YOU think they should act..and punishing them if they don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the scriptures don't influence you at all? This is something I made up and doesn't apply to you?
> Do you feel punished because someone asks why this doesn't matter to you?
> Ok.
> You go with that.
Click to expand...


I would, if it had anything to do with anything I'd actually said, implied, or thought at any time.

As it is..meh. it's not.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did not claim that you telling someone they are lying about their atheism is telling them how to behave. What I said was that your telling people that worshiping god is fundamental, keeps them from becoming overly self-centered, and prevents the downfall of civilization is telling them how they should behave.
> 
> I said I find it strange that you don't mind telling people what they believe but profess to be against telling them how they should behave. That strikes me as being like saying, "I won't tell you what to do, but I'll tell you how to think.".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When someone tells me they think worship is a waste of time and I say I disagree, and they ask me on what basis do I disagree, what am I supposed to say? I gave my reason why I believe it is fundamentally important for humans to worship. I did not tell you that YOU MUST BEHAVE THE WAY I SAY! In no way whatsoever was it "telling them how they should behave!" I also haven't told anyone how to think. You're free to agree or disagree with my opinion.
> 
> When you lie and claim to be an "Atheist" yet your actions and words demonstrate you are, in fact, an "Anti-theist" instead, I am going to point those actions and words out and expose your lie. I understand you liars don't like this, as most liars recoil at having their lies exposed. This does not bother me in the least. As a matter of fact, it actually serves to prove my point even better than I could've done if you all had simply ignored my thread. So "thank yous" are in order! You've brilliantly shown the OP to be spot on! Well done!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you assume someone lies because you cannot comprehend a person behaving in an irrational fashion, arguing a point that isn't directly important to them, etc. would be a more accurate description.  This is especially funny as I have not claimed to be an atheist, unless it is using the definition of simply not believing in any god.  I don't deny the possibility of a god or gods.  Of course, you have claimed that I actually do deny the possibility.....which is hilarious since you appear to be saying that I am one of your 'god-haters'.    Obviously both of these things can't be true, but don't let the contradictory nature of your posts bother you!
> 
> I don't doubt that there are some people who believe in god but say they do not.  I do not, however, accept argumentative and insulting behavior on a message board, a place well known for that kind of behavior in just about any discussion, as evidence a person is lying when they say they don't believe.
Click to expand...


In fairness, if you don't believe in any god you are an atheist. The fact that you are also an agnostic and realize that you can't absolutely know that is the case is incidental. Not believing in any god is the very definition of atheism. Agnosticism is the realization that being able to actually know the truth of that is unavailable to you.
You are both.


----------



## Boss

> other than their not building a car why is it necessary to distinguish a difference specifically to humanity ? - "we require consistent maintenance of spiritual fidelity" - "fidelity" ? are you saying they have no Spirit at all ?



No, Breeze, that doesn't appear to be remotely close to what I said. What is the problem here with people having to create completely different things for what others actually post? 

"I believe the sky is blue!" ..."What? Are you saying you don't believe ice cream is delicious?" I mean, come on now man, really? Why has this grown to an epidemic in this thread? Where could you possibly get from the use of the word "fidelity" as applied to human spirit, that I am somehow saying humans don't have spirits? 

Other than not building cars, there about a billion things that humans can do which no other living creature is capable of doing. Do I need to compile a complete list of those things or do you think it may be possible to stop being an obtuse nitwit for a hot second? 

Humans, through our ability to spiritually connect, obtain inspiration through faith in a power greater than self. We can rationalize these inspirations to achieve things we dream possible, other animals simply seem to lack this ability. Horses, dogs, cats, pigs and goats, don't study mathematics and send their species to the moon... humans do.


----------



## thebrucebeat

koshergrl said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, you are the punchline...fomenting hatred against Christians because you think they should all act in a way YOU think they should act..and punishing them if they don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the scriptures don't influence you at all? This is something I made up and doesn't apply to you?
> Do you feel punished because someone asks why this doesn't matter to you?
> Ok.
> You go with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would, if it had anything to do with anything I'd actually said, implied, or thought at any time.
> 
> As it is..meh. it's not.
Click to expand...


How does it not relate to you? Explain that to me.
Rationally, if you can.


----------



## koshergrl

I'm not going to argue points I never made. You're boring me.


----------



## thebrucebeat

koshergrl said:


> I'm not going to argue points I never made. You're boring me.



"That is the punchline.

"I love Christians if they act the way I think they should act"...

Lolol.... "

This is the point you made.
My point is it isn't how I have told you to act. It is how Paul told you you should act if you are indwelt by the Holy Spirit. That's scripture, not me telling you how to act. 
I responded to your point. Does scripture matter to you? If yes, why don't the Fruits count? If no, what do you base your Christianity on?
How can this be a point you never made, if I am quoting you directly?
Like I said, I hoped you could be rational.
Hope springs eternal, I guess.


----------



## koshergrl

That's your opinion. And you think you are justified in attacking Christians based on your judgement of their *christian* behavior.

You are what you claim to hate...sans salvation. So sad.


----------



## thebrucebeat

koshergrl said:


> That's your opinion. And you think you are justified in attacking Christians based on your judgement of their *christian* behavior.
> 
> You are what you claim to hate...sans salvation. So sad.



What opinion?
What scripture says?
How am I attacking you by asking you how you relate to your holy book?
Why are you not indwelt by the Holy Spirit?
Did you reject Him or did He reject you?


----------



## koshergrl

Good grief. 

Is it my imagination or are the lunatics increasing at this site EXPONENTIALLY in the last couple of years?

Never mind. I know the answer.


----------



## thebrucebeat

koshergrl said:


> Good grief.
> 
> Is it my imagination or are the lunatics increasing at this site EXPONENTIALLY in the last couple of years?
> 
> Never mind. I know the answer.



Avoidance is not argument.
What about my question to you indicates lunacy to you?
Are you that afraid to admit that you have no interest in what is expected of you from your faith?
Free yourself and finally admit that you aren't interested in the hard part of your faith. Just the part where you get to call people names.


----------



## koshergrl

You are engaged in your own conversation, with yourself. Carry on, since you aren't capable of intelligently discussing the topic.


----------



## Montrovant

thebrucebeat said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> When someone tells me they think worship is a waste of time and I say I disagree, and they ask me on what basis do I disagree, what am I supposed to say? I gave my reason why I believe it is fundamentally important for humans to worship. I did not tell you that YOU MUST BEHAVE THE WAY I SAY! In no way whatsoever was it "telling them how they should behave!" I also haven't told anyone how to think. You're free to agree or disagree with my opinion.
> 
> When you lie and claim to be an "Atheist" yet your actions and words demonstrate you are, in fact, an "Anti-theist" instead, I am going to point those actions and words out and expose your lie. I understand you liars don't like this, as most liars recoil at having their lies exposed. This does not bother me in the least. As a matter of fact, it actually serves to prove my point even better than I could've done if you all had simply ignored my thread. So "thank yous" are in order! You've brilliantly shown the OP to be spot on! Well done!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you assume someone lies because you cannot comprehend a person behaving in an irrational fashion, arguing a point that isn't directly important to them, etc. would be a more accurate description.  This is especially funny as I have not claimed to be an atheist, unless it is using the definition of simply not believing in any god.  I don't deny the possibility of a god or gods.  Of course, you have claimed that I actually do deny the possibility.....which is hilarious since you appear to be saying that I am one of your 'god-haters'.    Obviously both of these things can't be true, but don't let the contradictory nature of your posts bother you!
> 
> I don't doubt that there are some people who believe in god but say they do not.  I do not, however, accept argumentative and insulting behavior on a message board, a place well known for that kind of behavior in just about any discussion, as evidence a person is lying when they say they don't believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In fairness, if you don't believe in any god you are an atheist. The fact that you are also an agnostic and realize that you can't absolutely know that is the case is incidental. Not believing in any god is the very definition of atheism. Agnosticism is the realization that being able to actually know the truth of that is unavailable to you.
> You are both.
Click to expand...


I try to be clear about the definition of atheism I am using since, in my experience, people often argue about atheists while operating under different definitions of the word.

So yes, not believing in a god is perhaps the dictionary definition of atheism, but in common use, it is often a person who denies any god could exist.


----------



## Montrovant

koshergrl said:


> Well we all have our personal beliefs. That's neither here nor there. Giving someone a choice and explaining that you think that behaving in a certain way will not benefit them is not the same as telling them what to do. It's simply giving them the option of doing the right thing.
> 
> Telling someone what to do, in our language, is giving an order. Not a choice.



Telling someone what they should do, however, is not an order.  

When you tell someone they will experience some terrible consequence if they do not behave in a certain way, that is, IMO, telling them what they should do.  They certainly retain the choice as to whether or not to actually do it, it isn't an order, but it gets the point across that they ought to.


----------



## thebrucebeat

koshergrl said:


> You are engaged in your own conversation, with yourself. Carry on, since you aren't capable of intelligently discussing the topic.



How would you know?
You are too afraid to discuss the topic at all.
I think my questions go to the heart of the hypocrisy of the faith, and you are its standard bearer.
You go hide from me if you like, but if you really believe in the god and Jesus of scripture, and think Paul was a reliable preacher, ask yourself why you piss in Paul's eye, and refuse to deal with the plank in you own eye before scratching at the splinter in your neighbor's. Running from me is easy, and well documented now, but if your god is real, can you run from him?
You should hope so.
As for this being a monologue, each of my posts address one of yours. You may have nothing interesting to say, I grant you. But you are in the conversation and can't avoid responding.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Montrovant said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you assume someone lies because you cannot comprehend a person behaving in an irrational fashion, arguing a point that isn't directly important to them, etc. would be a more accurate description.  This is especially funny as I have not claimed to be an atheist, unless it is using the definition of simply not believing in any god.  I don't deny the possibility of a god or gods.  Of course, you have claimed that I actually do deny the possibility.....which is hilarious since you appear to be saying that I am one of your 'god-haters'.    Obviously both of these things can't be true, but don't let the contradictory nature of your posts bother you!
> 
> I don't doubt that there are some people who believe in god but say they do not.  I do not, however, accept argumentative and insulting behavior on a message board, a place well known for that kind of behavior in just about any discussion, as evidence a person is lying when they say they don't believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fairness, if you don't believe in any god you are an atheist. The fact that you are also an agnostic and realize that you can't absolutely know that is the case is incidental. Not believing in any god is the very definition of atheism. Agnosticism is the realization that being able to actually know the truth of that is unavailable to you.
> You are both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I try to be clear about the definition of atheism I am using since, in my experience, people often argue about atheists while operating under different definitions of the word.
> 
> So yes, not believing in a god is perhaps the dictionary definition of atheism, but in common use, it is often a person who denies any god could exist.
Click to expand...


We have to agree to disagree. I think the more common usage is simply not believing in a deity.


----------



## BreezeWood

Boss said:


> other than their not building a car why is it necessary to distinguish a difference specifically to humanity ? - "we require consistent maintenance of spiritual fidelity" - "fidelity" ? are you saying they have no Spirit at all ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, Breeze, that doesn't appear to be remotely close to what I said. What is the problem here with people having to create completely different things for what others actually post?
> 
> "I believe the sky is blue!" ..."What? Are you saying you don't believe ice cream is delicious?" I mean, come on now man, really? Why has this grown to an epidemic in this thread?* Where could you possibly get from the use of the word "fidelity" as applied to human spirit, that I am somehow saying humans don't have spirits? *
> 
> Other than not building cars, there about a billion things that humans can do which no other living creature is capable of doing. Do I need to compile a complete list of those things or do you think it may be possible to stop being an obtuse nitwit for a hot second?
> 
> Humans, through our ability to spiritually connect, obtain inspiration through faith in a power greater than self. We can rationalize these inspirations to achieve things we dream possible, other animals simply seem to lack this ability. Horses, dogs, cats, pigs and goats, don't study mathematics and send their species to the moon... humans do.
Click to expand...





> *B:* Where could you possibly get from the use of the word "fidelity" as applied to human spirit, that I am somehow saying humans don't have spirits?



I derived from that, you were saying nothing else in "Nature" has a Spirit, not humans - otherwise if your quote is a misprint and you meant Nature, I would suggest obligations, duties, and observances outweigh "worship" handsdown.





> Humans, through our ability to spiritually connect, obtain inspiration through faith in a power greater than self. We can rationalize these inspirations to achieve things we dream possible, other animals simply seem to lack this ability. Horses, dogs, cats, pigs and goats, don't study mathematics and send their species to the moon... humans do.




the smoking Gun -


*Humans, through our ability to spiritually connect, obtain inspiration through faith in a power greater than self.*

since you are using the plural Humans can you cite a period in "Human" history that is void of self ?  of course the history of Nature is the exact opposite, no self exists.


*We can rationalize these inspirations to achieve things we dream possible, other animals simply seem to lack this ability.*

it is not out of the question that Nature could chose to manufacture a product it is not an indictment that that has not occurred, except the narrowness of perspective as what is Spiritual. - so far only your Humanity is threatening Gods Creation with the A-Bomb.


*Horses, dogs, cats, pigs and goats, don't study mathematics and send their species to the moon... humans do.*

is that a joke, T-Rex is extinct, it did not destroy the planet before it left, you on the otherhand are accomplishing the feat in a facet of multiple fronts ... and are perhaps to late to stop.


Spiritual Nature is just that - from Nature.

.


----------



## Ronin

IMHO there is a difference between having disdain for a perception of God (or a God) and taking the Bible or Koran as absolute reality.   Is there anything which has ironically caused more war and human suffering than religion?


----------



## GISMYS

WHY BE A TOOL AND FOOR FOR satan???  Only fools say in their hearts,
    There is no God.
They are corrupt, and their actions are evil;
    not one of them does good! Psalm 53:1


----------



## koshergrl

Ronin said:


> IMHO there is a difference between having disdain for a perception of God (or a God) and taking the Bible or Koran as absolute reality.   Is there anything which has ironically caused more war and human suffering than religion?



Yes..state embraced atheism.


----------



## MrMax

koshergrl said:


> Ronin said:
> 
> 
> 
> IMHO there is a difference between having disdain for a perception of God (or a God) and taking the Bible or Koran as absolute reality.   Is there anything which has ironically caused more war and human suffering than religion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes..state embraced atheism.
Click to expand...


Not even close.


----------



## MrMax

Boss said:


> other than their not building a car why is it necessary to distinguish a difference specifically to humanity ? - "we require consistent maintenance of spiritual fidelity" - "fidelity" ? are you saying they have no Spirit at all ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, Breeze, that doesn't appear to be remotely close to what I said. What is the problem here with people having to create completely different things for what others actually post?
> 
> "I believe the sky is blue!" ..."What? Are you saying you don't believe ice cream is delicious?" I mean, come on now man, really? Why has this grown to an epidemic in this thread? Where could you possibly get from the use of the word "fidelity" as applied to human spirit, that I am somehow saying humans don't have spirits?
> 
> Other than not building cars, there about a billion things that humans can do which no other living creature is capable of doing. Do I need to compile a complete list of those things or do you think it may be possible to stop being an obtuse nitwit for a hot second?
> 
> Humans, through our ability to spiritually connect, obtain inspiration through faith in a power greater than self. We can rationalize these inspirations to achieve things we dream possible, other animals simply seem to lack this ability. Horses, dogs, cats, pigs and goats, don't study mathematics and send their species to the moon... humans do.
Click to expand...


And other species can do things that humans can't do. It's called evolution, you should try it sometime.


----------



## ScienceRocks

There's no evidence and science explains it better...


----------



## Boss

> And other species can do things that humans can't do. It's called evolution, you should try it sometime.



LMFAO... You just get more stupid the more you talk. Humans can't evolve now? What about the midgets of the 1750s evolving into tall people? That was yesterday you made that irrational claim!


----------



## Boss

Matthew said:


> There's no evidence and science explains it better...



LOL... Science doesn't explain it at all.


----------



## MrMax

Boss said:


> And other species can do things that humans can't do. It's called evolution, you should try it sometime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LMFAO... You just get more stupid the more you talk. Humans can't evolve now? What about the midgets of the 1750s evolving into tall people? That was yesterday you made that irrational claim!
Click to expand...


You must have misread my post, that's not what I said at all. And you were complaining about how posters here misinterpret posts for their own agenda, lol!

People over time have been getting taller, it's a fact called evolution. What's so hard to grasp. You know, Phd and all?


----------



## PostmodernProph

MrMax said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ronin said:
> 
> 
> 
> IMHO there is a difference between having disdain for a perception of God (or a God) and taking the Bible or Koran as absolute reality.   Is there anything which has ironically caused more war and human suffering than religion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes..state embraced atheism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not even close.
Click to expand...


actually, I think if you add Mao and Stalin together they outnumber everything else combined.....


----------



## thebrucebeat

PostmodernProph said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes..state embraced atheism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not even close.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> actually, I think if you add Mao and Stalin together they outnumber everything else combined.....
Click to expand...


I think if you take God alone and add up his mass genocides and the sufferings and plagues He has wrought according to scripture it isn't even a fair fight.
He would be far and away the heavyweight champion of slaughter and destruction.
Everyone else would just be trying to catch up with the champ!


----------



## koshergrl

MrMax said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ronin said:
> 
> 
> 
> IMHO there is a difference between having disdain for a perception of God (or a God) and taking the Bible or Koran as absolute reality. Is there anything which has ironically caused more war and human suffering than religion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes..state embraced atheism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not even close.
Click to expand...

 
"
Is a 58 percent chance that an atheist leader will murder a noticeable percentage of the population over which he rules sufficient evidence that atheism does, in fact, provide a systematic influence to do bad things? If that is not deemed to be conclusive, how about the fact that the average atheist crime against humanity is 18.3 million percent worse than the very worst depredation committed by Christians, even though atheists have had less than one-twentieth the number of opportunities with which to commit them. If one considers the statistically significant size of the historical atheist set and contrasts it with the fact that not one in a thousand religious leaders have committed similarly large-scale atrocities, it is impossible to conclude otherwise, even if we do not yet understand exactly why this should be the case. Once might be an accident, even twice could be coincidence, but fifty-two incidents in ninety years reeks of causation![10] 

Atheism and Mass Murder - Conservapedia


----------



## PostmodernProph

thebrucebeat said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not even close.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> actually, I think if you add Mao and Stalin together they outnumber everything else combined.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think if you take God alone and add up his mass genocides and the sufferings and plagues He has wrought according to scripture it isn't even a fair fight.
> He would be far and away the heavyweight champion of slaughter and destruction.
> Everyone else would just be trying to catch up with the champ!
Click to expand...

/shrugs....yes, but that's just because you're making things up........


----------



## thebrucebeat

PostmodernProph said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> actually, I think if you add Mao and Stalin together they outnumber everything else combined.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think if you take God alone and add up his mass genocides and the sufferings and plagues He has wrought according to scripture it isn't even a fair fight.
> He would be far and away the heavyweight champion of slaughter and destruction.
> Everyone else would just be trying to catch up with the champ!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /shrugs....yes, but that's just because you're making things up........
Click to expand...


Not at all. All documented in your scripture. You can look it up if you like.


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> I think if you take God alone and add up his mass genocides and the sufferings and plagues He has wrought according to scripture it isn't even a fair fight.
> He would be far and away the heavyweight champion of slaughter and destruction.
> Everyone else would just be trying to catch up with the champ!



But then, God also created Mao and Stalin, (and everyone else) so God is ultimately responsible for who they killed too. We should just hate God for creating humans at all. This world would have been a much better place without humans.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think if you take God alone and add up his mass genocides and the sufferings and plagues He has wrought according to scripture it isn't even a fair fight.
> He would be far and away the heavyweight champion of slaughter and destruction.
> Everyone else would just be trying to catch up with the champ!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But then, God also created Mao and Stalin, (and everyone else) so God is ultimately responsible for who they killed too. We should just hate God for creating humans at all. This world would have been a much better place without humans.
Click to expand...


God is responsible for the whole mess of human suffering, if you accept the god premise.
Totally agree.


----------



## Steven_R

PostmodernProph said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes..state embraced atheism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not even close.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> actually, I think if you add Mao and Stalin together they outnumber everything else combined.....
Click to expand...


The only difference is technology. Capability versus intent. Is Mao worse than Cromwell because he starved 50 times as many people to death or are they both evil because they deliberately starved people to death for political and religious reasons?


----------



## BreezeWood

PostmodernProph said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> actually, I think if you add Mao and Stalin together they outnumber everything else combined.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think if you take God alone and add up his mass genocides and the sufferings and plagues He has wrought according to scripture it isn't even a fair fight.
> He would be far and away the heavyweight champion of slaughter and destruction.
> Everyone else would just be trying to catch up with the champ!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /shrugs....yes, but that's just because you're making things up........
Click to expand...



what is being made up ? -

the Atheist and Scripturalist are both not guilty of mass genocides ... of course not, history is your proof.

.


----------



## Boss

> God is responsible for the whole mess of human suffering, if you accept the god premise.
> Totally agree.



And if you don't accept the "God premise" who is responsible?


----------



## Steven_R

Boss said:


> God is responsible for the whole mess of human suffering, if you accept the god premise.
> Totally agree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if you don't accept the "God premise" who is responsible?
Click to expand...


If you accept the supernatural as the reason for existence, then you don't really get to pick and choose what He/She/It/They are responsible for. Either we're granted this special consciousness and everything that goes along with it from on high or we weren't. 

It's not some Chinese menu where the Gods give us something from Column A, a side from Column B, and an extra egg roll instead of the soup.


----------



## Boss

Steven_R said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God is responsible for the whole mess of human suffering, if you accept the god premise.
> Totally agree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if you don't accept the "God premise" who is responsible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you accept the supernatural as the reason for existence, then you don't really get to pick and choose what He/She/It/They are responsible for. Either we're granted this special consciousness and everything that goes along with it from on high or we weren't.
> 
> It's not some Chinese menu where the Gods give us something from Column A, a side from Column B, and an extra egg roll instead of the soup.
Click to expand...


I don't accept the supernatural as the reason for existence. I believe Spiritual Nature created all physical existence including life.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> God is responsible for the whole mess of human suffering, if you accept the god premise.
> Totally agree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if you don't accept the "God premise" who is responsible?
Click to expand...


Men of all stripes.
Particularly those that invest in a great spiritual reality through their own rationalizations.


----------



## MrMax

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God is responsible for the whole mess of human suffering, if you accept the god premise.
> Totally agree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if you don't accept the "God premise" who is responsible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Men of all stripes.
> Particularly those that invest in a great spiritual reality through their own rationalizations.
Click to expand...


We're all responsible for our own actions. Boss, stop trying to blame someone else for your failings.


----------



## Boss

MrMax said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if you don't accept the "God premise" who is responsible?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Men of all stripes.
> Particularly those that invest in a great spiritual reality through their own rationalizations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're all responsible for our own actions. Boss, stop trying to blame someone else for your failings.
Click to expand...



Where did I do that, idiot???


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God is responsible for the whole mess of human suffering, if you accept the god premise.
> Totally agree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if you don't accept the "God premise" who is responsible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Men of all stripes.
> Particularly those that invest in a great spiritual reality through their own rationalizations.
Click to expand...



So you think men would be more "moral" if we completely abandoned spiritual reality?


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if you don't accept the "God premise" who is responsible?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Men of all stripes.
> Particularly those that invest in a great spiritual reality through their own rationalizations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you think men would be more "moral" if we completely abandoned spiritual reality?
Click to expand...


The question makes an assumption that is not accepted as a given.
Based on you being a practitioner of what you believe to be a connection with the spiritual nature it doesn't appear that it foments any particular goodwill among men.


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Men of all stripes.
> Particularly those that invest in a great spiritual reality through their own rationalizations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you think men would be more "moral" if we completely abandoned spiritual reality?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The question makes an assumption that is not accepted as a given.
> Based on you being a practitioner of what you believe to be a connection with the spiritual nature it doesn't appear that it foments any particular goodwill among men.
Click to expand...


Questions don't make assumptions. That is the point of a question, to ascertain information so an assumption doesn't happen. My position notwithstanding, I asked what you thought. I'm not really seeing an answer. You are simply trying to push the question back in my face.

You are indicating you don't believe spirituality foments any particular goodwill among men. I am trying not to assume anything here, I ask you again, would mankind be better off (i.e. more moral) if we completely abandoned spiritual reality? Clarify your position, please?


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you think men would be more "moral" if we completely abandoned spiritual reality?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The question makes an assumption that is not accepted as a given.
> Based on you being a practitioner of what you believe to be a connection with the spiritual nature it doesn't appear that it foments any particular goodwill among men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Questions don't make assumptions. That is the point of a question, to ascertain information so an assumption doesn't happen. My position notwithstanding, I asked what you thought. I'm not really seeing an answer. You are simply trying to push the question back in my face.
> 
> You are indicating you don't believe spirituality foments any particular goodwill among men. I am trying not to assume anything here, I ask you again, would mankind be better off (i.e. more moral) if we completely abandoned spiritual reality? Clarify your position, please?
Click to expand...


Questions absolutely can make assumptions. Yours most certainly did. You called spirituality a "reality", which by answering the question I am accepting that, so as asked the question won't be addressed.
If I asked you "Why are you an asshole?", would that question have any assumptions? If you say "No", you are accepting the premise of the question.
I know, English isn't your forte.
I am observing that your particular brand of spirituality foments no particular goodwill.
Restating the question would be necessary for me to answer it.


----------



## BreezeWood

thebrucebeat said:


> I am observing that your particular brand of spirituality foments no particular goodwill.
> .



only if you believe as Boss that just humanity has a connection with our Creator ... goodwill in Nature and levels of purity far surpassing anything attributed to mankind exist and for all living creatures as far back as 700 million years and counting.

.


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> Good grief, can't you come up with a better insult? We all know who the hag, and the hag squad, were and are.
> 
> Are you that confused, or is this your way of shifting blame?
> 
> And weren't you going to ignore me forever?  I think you said you were, after you said you put some sort of hex on me, lol...


now your just making more shit up...not like you ever stopped..


----------



## daws101

Montrovant said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good grief, can't you come up with a better insult? We all know who the hag, and the hag squad, were and are.
> 
> Are you that confused, or is this your way of shifting blame?
> 
> And weren't you going to ignore me forever?  I think you said you were, after you said you put some sort of hex on me, lol...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea who the hag squad were and/or are.
Click to expand...

neither does kosher hag....


----------



## G.T.

@ "questions dont make assumptions."

Another hairbrained assertion six billion nautical miles from the truth.


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> You're hilarious, and a completely inept debater.
> No one ever said the bible doesn't require interpretive skills. I said that verse doesn't challenge anyones interpretive skills.
> You create a strawman argument about how I said the bible as a whole doesn't require those skills and then argue against your creation rather than address my post.
> You are a hack, a seriously poor thinker, but highly entertaining.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well if I am an inept debater and I'm clearly running circles around you, that doesn't speak very well for your debate skills. According to John, the Bible has to be taken as a whole. Parsing out one verse and trying to formulate some argument based on that is useless. Am I a poor thinker, or am I hitting the nail on the head every time you open your stupid little mouth?
> 
> Again, humans are fallible, they aren't God or Jesus, they make mistakes and commit sin. They don't always live by the Word, they can't... it's why they require salvation. You claim you were a pastor but you didn't know this? No wonder you fell from grace.
Click to expand...

wake up dorthy!


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> To use your turn of phrase, who the hell are YOU to tell anyone what they believe? And strange that you don't mind telling people what they believe but are so opposed to telling them how to behave.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I have a PhD in Psychology and understand how the human mind works. I can pretty much tell what people believe by what they say because I am trained to do so. And I'm not understanding what is so "strange" about two completely different and unrelated things. Analyzing what you believe and telling you how you should behave are as different as night and day.
Click to expand...


----------



## orogenicman

Anyone who says they understand how the mind works - doesn't.


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> I think whether or not they believe is actually irrelevant, though it is fun to point out how idiotic it is to race around asking questions about God if you maintain he doesn't exist.
> 
> I believe they're  arrogant pissants that are used by Satan to do his dirty work. And they're too stupid to even recognize it...despite their eternal cry of "We're so much smarter than the average bear!"





satan is as much a fictional character as god.
if he were not,he could not do anything god would not allow him to do...


----------



## Derideo_Te

Boss said:


> To use your turn of phrase, who the hell are YOU to tell anyone what they believe? And strange that you don't mind telling people what they believe but are so opposed to telling them how to behave.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well,* I have a PhD in Psychology and understand how the human mind works.* I can pretty much tell what people believe by what they say because I am trained to do so. And I'm not understanding what is so "strange" about two completely different and unrelated things. Analyzing what you believe and telling you how you should behave are as different as night and day.
Click to expand...


----------



## Derideo_Te

orogenicman said:


> Anyone who says they understand how the mind works - doesn't.



Least of all the OP!


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes..state embraced atheism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not even close.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "
> Is a 58 percent chance that an atheist leader will murder a noticeable percentage of the population over which he rules sufficient evidence that atheism does, in fact, provide a systematic influence to do bad things? If that is not deemed to be conclusive, how about the fact that the average atheist crime against humanity is 18.3 million percent worse than the very worst depredation committed by Christians, even though atheists have had less than one-twentieth the number of opportunities with which to commit them. If one considers the statistically significant size of the historical atheist set and contrasts it with the fact that not one in a thousand religious leaders have committed similarly large-scale atrocities, it is impossible to conclude otherwise, even if we do not yet understand exactly why this should be the case. Once might be an accident, even twice could be coincidence, but fifty-two incidents in ninety years reeks of causation![10]
> 
> Atheism and Mass Murder - Conservapedia
Click to expand...

Conservapedia:General disclaimer
CONSERVAPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY; USE ENTIRELY AT YOUR OWN RISK
Conservapedia is a voluntary, collaborative effort to provide knowledge and information to the public. Like Wikipedia, the structure of this project permits anyone with electronic access to alter the content here. Nothing here has necessarily been reviewed or checked by anyone with expertise to ensure that it is accurate or reliable. USERS RELY ON INFORMATION HERE ENTIRELY AT THEIR OWN RISK. Conservapedia and its editors, contributors, sponsors, affiliates or anyone associated in any way with this project cannot guarantee the validity of any information found here, and shall not be responsible or liable in any way for any inaccurate or libelous information found here. Content of any given article may have been vandalized or modified by someone who lacks knowledge.
This information is being given to you gratuitously. There is no agreement or understanding between you and Conservapedia regarding your use or modification of information here, except that in using this website you fully accept and agree to this disclaimer for all past, present and future use. No one else associated with Conservapedia has any obligation in connection with the material you may contribute or edit to this site. Your contribution of information here irrevocably waives any personal claims to copyright that you may have in that information, except as provided in the Conservapedia:Copyright disclaimer.
Nothing on this site can be deemed to be professional advice in any field. See an appropriate professional, such as an attorney or physician, if you need professional advice. Nothing here has necessarily been reviewed or checked by anyone with expertise to ensure that it is accurate or reliable.
It is entirely your obligation to independently verify any information that you obtain from this website, and in no event should you rely on any information found on this site except entirely at your own risk.
IN NO EVENT SHALL CONSERVAPEDIA, ITS EDITORS, FOUNDERS, SPONSORS, CONTRIBUTORS, OR ANYONE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROJECT EVER BE LIABLE TO A USER FOR ANY INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, PERSONAL INJURY, OR ANY OTHER DIRECT OR INDIRECT LOSS OR DAMAGE, INCLUDING LOST PROFITS, PUNITIVE DAMAGES, OR PAIN AND SUFFERING, ARISING OUT OF ANY USE OF THIS SITE, WHETHER IN AN ACTION FOR OR ARISING OUT OF ANY CAUSE WHATSOEVER, REGARDLESS OF THE FORM OF ACTION, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, TORT INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY OR OTHERWISE.


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> God is responsible for the whole mess of human suffering, if you accept the god premise.
> Totally agree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if you don't accept the "God premise" who is responsible?
Click to expand...

not the nonexsistant debil..


----------



## thanatos144

Look at all the hate from the atheists.....Does your religion of nothing leave you guys empty????? Is that why you need to lash out at those who have found God?


----------



## orogenicman

thanatos144 said:


> Look at all the hate from the atheists.....Does your religion of nothing leave you guys empty????? Is that why you need to lash out at those who have found God?



No, actually, once you realize that belief in god is no different than belief in the tooth fairy, and you can satisfy yourself that no harm will come to you from some imaginary critter simply because you dropped such childish beliefs, and then you can get on with your life and worry about the important things, like family, food on the table, a roof over their heads, and helping one's fellow man.  And we do those things because WE believe that helping others is an important part of obtaining inner peace in this life, not because we believe we will reap rewards in some imaginary after life or because some magic sky daddy wants or demands us to.  So to answer your question, no it does not leave us empty.  You should try it sometime.


----------



## MaxGrit

thanatos144 said:


> Look at all the hate from the atheists.....Does your religion of nothing leave you guys empty????? Is that why you need to lash out at those who have found God?



Militant atheists are like this:

&#8220;When the unclean spirit has gone out of a person, it passes through waterless places seeking rest, but finds none. Then  it says, &#8216;I will return to my house from which I came.&#8217; And when it  comes, it finds the house empty, swept, and put in order. Then it goes and brings with it seven other spirits more evil than itself, and they enter and dwell there, and the last state of that person is worse than the first. So also will it be with this evil generation.&#8221;

*Matthew 12  (ESV)*


----------



## orogenicman

MaxGrit said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at all the hate from the atheists.....Does your religion of nothing leave you guys empty????? Is that why you need to lash out at those who have found God?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Militant atheists are like this:
> 
> When the unclean spirit has gone out of a person, it passes through waterless places seeking rest, but finds none. Then it says, I will return to my house from which I came. And when it comes, it finds the house empty, swept, and put in order. Then it goes and brings with it seven other spirits more evil than itself, and they enter and dwell there, and the last state of that person is worse than the first. So also will it be with this evil generation.
> 
> *Matthew 12 (ESV)*
Click to expand...


 So you are saying that atheists are "unclean spirits"?  Wow,  talk about hate!


----------



## thanatos144

orogenicman said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at all the hate from the atheists.....Does your religion of nothing leave you guys empty????? Is that why you need to lash out at those who have found God?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, actually, once you realize that belief in god is no different than belief in the tooth fairy, and you can satisfy yourself that no harm will come to you from some imaginary critter simply because you dropped such childish beliefs, and then you can get on with your life and worry about the important things, like family, food on the table, a roof over their heads, and helping one's fellow man.  And we do those things because WE believe that helping others is an important part of obtaining inner peace in this life, not because we believe we will reap rewards in some imaginary after life or because some magic sky daddy wants or demands us to.  So to answer your question, no it does not leave us empty.  You should try it sometime.
Click to expand...

And yet here you are taking time out of your schedule of putting food on the table to tell me that since I believe in God I am little more then a child.... Whats the saying? Thou dost protests to much?


----------



## thanatos144

orogenicman said:


> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at all the hate from the atheists.....Does your religion of nothing leave you guys empty????? Is that why you need to lash out at those who have found God?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Militant atheists are like this:
> 
> When the unclean spirit has gone out of a person, it passes through waterless places seeking rest, but finds none. Then it says, I will return to my house from which I came. And when it comes, it finds the house empty, swept, and put in order. Then it goes and brings with it seven other spirits more evil than itself, and they enter and dwell there, and the last state of that person is worse than the first. So also will it be with this evil generation.
> 
> *Matthew 12 (ESV)*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are saying that atheists are "unclean spirits"?  Wow,  talk about hate!
Click to expand...


LOL of course you are. Your sins have not been washed clean by the lord.... Logic young man.


----------



## orogenicman

thanatos144 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Militant atheists are like this:
> 
> When the unclean spirit has gone out of a person, it passes through waterless places seeking rest, but finds none. Then it says, I will return to my house from which I came. And when it comes, it finds the house empty, swept, and put in order. Then it goes and brings with it seven other spirits more evil than itself, and they enter and dwell there, and the last state of that person is worse than the first. So also will it be with this evil generation.
> 
> *Matthew 12 (ESV)*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying that atheists are "unclean spirits"? Wow, talk about hate!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL of course you are. Your sins have not been washed clean by the lord.... Logic young man.
Click to expand...


That's not logic.  That is using your religion to justify your bigotry.


----------



## daws101

thanatos144 said:


> Look at all the hate from the atheists.....Does your religion of nothing leave you guys empty????? Is that why you need to lash out at those who have found God?


since it's not a religion how could it? 
how could god be lost since god never existed except in the minds of his creators?


----------



## daws101

MaxGrit said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at all the hate from the atheists.....Does your religion of nothing leave you guys empty????? Is that why you need to lash out at those who have found God?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Militant atheists are like this:
> 
> When the unclean spirit has gone out of a person, it passes through waterless places seeking rest, but finds none. Then  it says, I will return to my house from which I came. And when it  comes, it finds the house empty, swept, and put in order. Then it goes and brings with it seven other spirits more evil than itself, and they enter and dwell there, and the last state of that person is worse than the first. So also will it be with this evil generation.
> 
> *Matthew 12  (ESV)*
Click to expand...

in your most bias opinion all atheists, agnostics and non christiaNS ARE MILITANT...


----------



## daws101

thanatos144 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at all the hate from the atheists.....Does your religion of nothing leave you guys empty????? Is that why you need to lash out at those who have found God?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, actually, once you realize that belief in god is no different than belief in the tooth fairy, and you can satisfy yourself that no harm will come to you from some imaginary critter simply because you dropped such childish beliefs, and then you can get on with your life and worry about the important things, like family, food on the table, a roof over their heads, and helping one's fellow man.  And we do those things because WE believe that helping others is an important part of obtaining inner peace in this life, not because we believe we will reap rewards in some imaginary after life or because some magic sky daddy wants or demands us to.  So to answer your question, no it does not leave us empty.  You should try it sometime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet here you are taking time out of your schedule of putting food on the table to tell me that since I believe in God I am little more then a child.... Whats the saying? Thou dost protests to much?
Click to expand...

hey dumb ass it's " thou protest too much"
do use a favor and don't disrespect shakespeare with your ignorance....
my guess is you don't have a clue to what that phrase means or what play it came from with out googling it..


----------



## thebrucebeat

daws101 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, actually, once you realize that belief in god is no different than belief in the tooth fairy, and you can satisfy yourself that no harm will come to you from some imaginary critter simply because you dropped such childish beliefs, and then you can get on with your life and worry about the important things, like family, food on the table, a roof over their heads, and helping one's fellow man.  And we do those things because WE believe that helping others is an important part of obtaining inner peace in this life, not because we believe we will reap rewards in some imaginary after life or because some magic sky daddy wants or demands us to.  So to answer your question, no it does not leave us empty.  You should try it sometime.
> 
> 
> 
> And yet here you are taking time out of your schedule of putting food on the table to tell me that since I believe in God I am little more then a child.... Whats the saying? Thou dost protests to much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hey dumb ass it's " thou protest too much"
> do use a favor and don't disrespect shakespeare with your ignorance....
> my guess is you don't have a clue to what that phrase means or what play it came from with out googling it..
Click to expand...


Methinks the lady doth protest too much.


----------



## daws101

thanatos144 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Militant atheists are like this:
> 
> When the unclean spirit has gone out of a person, it passes through waterless places seeking rest, but finds none. Then it says, I will return to my house from which I came. And when it comes, it finds the house empty, swept, and put in order. Then it goes and brings with it seven other spirits more evil than itself, and they enter and dwell there, and the last state of that person is worse than the first. So also will it be with this evil generation.
> 
> *Matthew 12 (ESV)*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying that atheists are "unclean spirits"?  Wow,  talk about hate!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL of course you are. Your sins have not been washed clean by the lord.... Logic young man.
Click to expand...

 more things you know jack shit about: logic, what it is or how it and why it's used.


----------



## daws101

orogenicman said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying that atheists are "unclean spirits"? Wow, talk about hate!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL of course you are. Your sins have not been washed clean by the lord.... Logic young man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not logic.  That is using your religion to justify your bigotry.
Click to expand...

well he did say you were young....


----------



## daws101

thebrucebeat said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet here you are taking time out of your schedule of putting food on the table to tell me that since I believe in God I am little more then a child.... Whats the saying? Thou dost protests to much?
> 
> 
> 
> hey dumb ass it's " thou protest too much"
> do use a favor and don't disrespect shakespeare with your ignorance....
> my guess is you don't have a clue to what that phrase means or what play it came from with out googling it..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
Click to expand...

ay....and the slack jaw doth bray like an ass.!


----------



## thanatos144

orogenicman said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying that atheists are "unclean spirits"? Wow, talk about hate!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL of course you are. Your sins have not been washed clean by the lord.... Logic young man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not logic.  That is using your religion to justify your bigotry.
Click to expand...


LOL that's rich.... The bigot is projecting LOL. You asked so I answered . I dont care if you're butthurt over the truth.


----------



## orogenicman

thanatos144 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at all the hate from the atheists.....Does your religion of nothing leave you guys empty????? Is that why you need to lash out at those who have found God?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, actually, once you realize that belief in god is no different than belief in the tooth fairy, and you can satisfy yourself that no harm will come to you from some imaginary critter simply because you dropped such childish beliefs, and then you can get on with your life and worry about the important things, like family, food on the table, a roof over their heads, and helping one's fellow man. And we do those things because WE believe that helping others is an important part of obtaining inner peace in this life, not because we believe we will reap rewards in some imaginary after life or because some magic sky daddy wants or demands us to. So to answer your question, no it does not leave us empty. You should try it sometime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet here you are taking time out of your schedule of putting food on the table to tell me that since I believe in God I am little more then a child.... Whats the saying? Thou dost protests to much?
Click to expand...


My children are all grown.  So yes, I have time to post, so here I am sharing myself with others.  Enjoy,


----------



## thanatos144

daws101 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at all the hate from the atheists.....Does your religion of nothing leave you guys empty????? Is that why you need to lash out at those who have found God?
> 
> 
> 
> since it's not a religion how could it?
> how could god be lost since god never existed except in the minds of his creators?
Click to expand...


Of course it is a religion! You are one of the most devout of them. A bunch of people who find solace in worshiping hedonism together ! LOL How is that different then people worshiping God together?


----------



## thanatos144

daws101 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, actually, once you realize that belief in god is no different than belief in the tooth fairy, and you can satisfy yourself that no harm will come to you from some imaginary critter simply because you dropped such childish beliefs, and then you can get on with your life and worry about the important things, like family, food on the table, a roof over their heads, and helping one's fellow man.  And we do those things because WE believe that helping others is an important part of obtaining inner peace in this life, not because we believe we will reap rewards in some imaginary after life or because some magic sky daddy wants or demands us to.  So to answer your question, no it does not leave us empty.  You should try it sometime.
> 
> 
> 
> And yet here you are taking time out of your schedule of putting food on the table to tell me that since I believe in God I am little more then a child.... Whats the saying? Thou dost protests to much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hey dumb ass it's " thou protest too much"
> do use a favor and don't disrespect shakespeare with your ignorance....
> my guess is you don't have a clue to what that phrase means or what play it came from with out googling it..
Click to expand...


If you want to act smart you need to use something more then a missing o.


----------



## thanatos144

daws101 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying that atheists are "unclean spirits"?  Wow,  talk about hate!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL of course you are. Your sins have not been washed clean by the lord.... Logic young man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> more things you know jack shit about: logic, what it is or how it and why it's used.
Click to expand...


Seems you cant engage you brain.....If you dont understand the post why quote it?


----------



## thanatos144

orogenicman said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, actually, once you realize that belief in god is no different than belief in the tooth fairy, and you can satisfy yourself that no harm will come to you from some imaginary critter simply because you dropped such childish beliefs, and then you can get on with your life and worry about the important things, like family, food on the table, a roof over their heads, and helping one's fellow man. And we do those things because WE believe that helping others is an important part of obtaining inner peace in this life, not because we believe we will reap rewards in some imaginary after life or because some magic sky daddy wants or demands us to. So to answer your question, no it does not leave us empty. You should try it sometime.
> 
> 
> 
> And yet here you are taking time out of your schedule of putting food on the table to tell me that since I believe in God I am little more then a child.... Whats the saying? Thou dost protests to much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My children are all grown.  So yes, I have time to post, so here I am sharing myself with others.  Enjoy,
Click to expand...

You're point is what?


----------



## orogenicman

thanatos144 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL of course you are. Your sins have not been washed clean by the lord.... Logic young man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not logic. That is using your religion to justify your bigotry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL that's rich.... The bigot is projecting LOL. You asked so I answered . I dont care if you're butthurt over the truth.
Click to expand...


Excuse me but I am not the one telling people how to live their lives, and what the consequences are if they don't heed my advice.  If you want to believe in magic sky daddies, go for it.  But don't you dare try to tell me how or what to believe in or make up lame guilt trips about what happens if I don't believe as you do.  You don't have that right.


----------



## thanatos144

orogenicman said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not logic. That is using your religion to justify your bigotry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL that's rich.... The bigot is projecting LOL. You asked so I answered . I dont care if you're butthurt over the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excuse me but I am not the one telling people how to live their lives, and what the consequences are if they don't heed my advice.  If you want to believe in magic sky daddies, go for it.  But don't you dare try to tell me how or what to believe in or make up lame guilt trips about what happens if I don't believe as you do.  You don't have that right.
Click to expand...

Do you think your pathetic attempts are personally insulting the Lord will make me angry? I do pray someday you see the truth about the Lord. Yet that is between him and you. I dont push faith. I defend my own. You see the one being intolerant and hateful here right now is you.


----------



## daws101

thanatos144 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at all the hate from the atheists.....Does your religion of nothing leave you guys empty????? Is that why you need to lash out at those who have found God?
> 
> 
> 
> since it's not a religion how could it?
> how could god be lost since god never existed except in the minds of his creators?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course it is a religion! You are one of the most devout of them. A bunch of people who find solace in worshiping hedonism together ! LOL How is that different then people worshiping God together?
Click to expand...

i'd say you're fucking ignorant but that would be stating the obvious...  

Many Christians seem to believe that atheism is a religion, but no one with a fair understanding of both concepts would make such a mistake. Because it's such a common claim, though, it's worth demonstrating the depth and breadth of the errors being made. Presented here are the characteristics which best define religions, distinguishing them from other types of belief systems, and how atheism utterly fails to even remotely match any of them.

Belief in Supernatural Beings:

Perhaps the most common and fundamental characteristic of religion is a belief in supernatural beings - usually, but not always, including gods. Few religions lack this characteristic and most religions are founded upon it. Atheism is the absence of belief in gods and thus excludes belief in gods, but it does not exclude belief in other supernatural beings. More important, however, is that atheism does not teach the existence of such beings and most atheists in the West do not believe in them.

Sacred vs Profane Objects, Places, Times:

Differentiating between sacred and profane objects, places, and times helps religious believers focus on transcendental values and/or the existence of a supernatural realm. Atheism excludes believing in things that are "sacred" for the purpose of worshiping gods, but otherwise has nothing to say on the matter - neither promoting nor rejecting the distinction. Many atheists probably have things, places, or times which they consider "sacred" in that they are venerated or esteemed highly.

Ritual Acts Focused on Sacred Objects, Places, Times:

If people believe in something sacred, they probably have associated rituals. As with the very existence of a category of "sacred" things, however, there is nothing about atheism which either mandates such a belief or necessarily excludes it - it's simply an irrelevant issue. An atheist who holds something as "sacred" may engage in some sort of associated ritual or ceremony, but there is no such thing as an "atheist ritual."

Moral Code With Supernatural Origins:

Most religions preach some sort of moral code which is typically based upon its transcendental and supernatural beliefs. Thus, for example, theistic religions typically claim that morality is derived from the commands of their gods. Atheists have moral codes, but they don't believe that those codes are derived from any gods and it would be unusual for them to believe that their morals have a supernatural origin. More importantly, atheism doesn't teach any particular moral code.

Is Atheism a Religion? Defining Atheism and Religion


----------



## thanatos144

daws101 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> since it's not a religion how could it?
> how could god be lost since god never existed except in the minds of his creators?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it is a religion! You are one of the most devout of them. A bunch of people who find solace in worshiping hedonism together ! LOL How is that different then people worshiping God together?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i'd say you're fucking ignorant but that would be stating the obvious...
> 
> Many Christians seem to believe that atheism is a religion, but no one with a fair understanding of both concepts would make such a mistake. Because it's such a common claim, though, it's worth demonstrating the depth and breadth of the errors being made. Presented here are the characteristics which best define religions, distinguishing them from other types of belief systems, and how atheism utterly fails to even remotely match any of them.
> 
> Belief in Supernatural Beings:
> 
> Perhaps the most common and fundamental characteristic of religion is a belief in supernatural beings - usually, but not always, including gods. Few religions lack this characteristic and most religions are founded upon it. Atheism is the absence of belief in gods and thus excludes belief in gods, but it does not exclude belief in other supernatural beings. More important, however, is that atheism does not teach the existence of such beings and most atheists in the West do not believe in them.
> 
> Sacred vs Profane Objects, Places, Times:
> 
> Differentiating between sacred and profane objects, places, and times helps religious believers focus on transcendental values and/or the existence of a supernatural realm. Atheism excludes believing in things that are "sacred" for the purpose of worshiping gods, but otherwise has nothing to say on the matter - neither promoting nor rejecting the distinction. Many atheists probably have things, places, or times which they consider "sacred" in that they are venerated or esteemed highly.
> 
> Ritual Acts Focused on Sacred Objects, Places, Times:
> 
> If people believe in something sacred, they probably have associated rituals. As with the very existence of a category of "sacred" things, however, there is nothing about atheism which either mandates such a belief or necessarily excludes it - it's simply an irrelevant issue. An atheist who holds something as "sacred" may engage in some sort of associated ritual or ceremony, but there is no such thing as an "atheist ritual."
> 
> Moral Code With Supernatural Origins:
> 
> Most religions preach some sort of moral code which is typically based upon its transcendental and supernatural beliefs. Thus, for example, theistic religions typically claim that morality is derived from the commands of their gods. Atheists have moral codes, but they don't believe that those codes are derived from any gods and it would be unusual for them to believe that their morals have a supernatural origin. More importantly, atheism doesn't teach any particular moral code.
> 
> Is Atheism a Religion? Defining Atheism and Religion
Click to expand...

Yet just saying it doesn't make it true does it? Face it. Atheism is a religion.


----------



## daws101

thanatos144 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet here you are taking time out of your schedule of putting food on the table to tell me that since I believe in God I am little more then a child.... Whats the saying? Thou dost protests to much?
> 
> 
> 
> hey dumb ass it's " thou protest too much"
> do use a favor and don't disrespect shakespeare with your ignorance....
> my guess is you don't have a clue to what that phrase means or what play it came from with out googling it..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want to act smart you need to use something more then a missing o.
Click to expand...

i'm not acting, you also fucked up on which is correct, then or than 
two times...but that an aside to your real stupidity...


----------



## orogenicman

thanatos144 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL that's rich.... The bigot is projecting LOL. You asked so I answered . I dont care if you're butthurt over the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me but I am not the one telling people how to live their lives, and what the consequences are if they don't heed my advice. If you want to believe in magic sky daddies, go for it. But don't you dare try to tell me how or what to believe in or make up lame guilt trips about what happens if I don't believe as you do. You don't have that right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you think your pathetic attempts are personally insulting the Lord will make me angry? I do pray someday you see the truth about the Lord. Yet that is between him and you. I dont push faith. I defend my own. You see the one being intolerant and hateful here right now is you.
Click to expand...


If it is between me and your imaginary god, why are you trying to intervene with your prayers?  If you don't push faith, then why are you telling me that you will pray for me?  Don't be a hypocrite.


----------



## daws101

thanatos144 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL of course you are. Your sins have not been washed clean by the lord.... Logic young man.
> 
> 
> 
> more things you know jack shit about: logic, what it is or how it and why it's used.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems you cant engage you brain.....If you dont understand the post why quote it?
Click to expand...


unlike yourself I actually understand the bible...


----------



## thanatos144

orogenicman said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me but I am not the one telling people how to live their lives, and what the consequences are if they don't heed my advice. If you want to believe in magic sky daddies, go for it. But don't you dare try to tell me how or what to believe in or make up lame guilt trips about what happens if I don't believe as you do. You don't have that right.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think your pathetic attempts are personally insulting the Lord will make me angry? I do pray someday you see the truth about the Lord. Yet that is between him and you. I dont push faith. I defend my own. You see the one being intolerant and hateful here right now is you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it is between me and your imaginary god, why are you trying to intervene with your prayers?  If you don't push faith, then why are you telling me that you will pray for me?  Don't be a hypocrite.
Click to expand...

My prayer that you find God is distressful???? How can that be if you dont believe in God?


----------



## thanatos144

daws101 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> more things you know jack shit about: logic, what it is or how it and why it's used.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems you cant engage you brain.....If you dont understand the post why quote it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> unlike yourself I actually understand the bible...
Click to expand...


Obviously you dont.


----------



## daws101

orogenicman said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not logic. That is using your religion to justify your bigotry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL that's rich.... The bigot is projecting LOL. You asked so I answered . I dont care if you're butthurt over the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excuse me but I am not the one telling people how to live their lives, and what the consequences are if they don't heed my advice.  If you want to believe in magic sky daddies, go for it.  But don't you dare try to tell me how or what to believe in or make up lame guilt trips about what happens if I don't believe as you do.  You don't have that right.
Click to expand...

major bump!


----------



## orogenicman

thanatos144 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it is a religion! You are one of the most devout of them. A bunch of people who find solace in worshiping hedonism together ! LOL How is that different then people worshiping God together?
> 
> 
> 
> i'd say you're fucking ignorant but that would be stating the obvious...
> 
> Many Christians seem to believe that atheism is a religion, but no one with a fair understanding of both concepts would make such a mistake. Because it's such a common claim, though, it's worth demonstrating the depth and breadth of the errors being made. Presented here are the characteristics which best define religions, distinguishing them from other types of belief systems, and how atheism utterly fails to even remotely match any of them.
> 
> Belief in Supernatural Beings:
> 
> Perhaps the most common and fundamental characteristic of religion is a belief in supernatural beings - usually, but not always, including gods. Few religions lack this characteristic and most religions are founded upon it. Atheism is the absence of belief in gods and thus excludes belief in gods, but it does not exclude belief in other supernatural beings. More important, however, is that atheism does not teach the existence of such beings and most atheists in the West do not believe in them.
> 
> Sacred vs Profane Objects, Places, Times:
> 
> Differentiating between sacred and profane objects, places, and times helps religious believers focus on transcendental values and/or the existence of a supernatural realm. Atheism excludes believing in things that are "sacred" for the purpose of worshiping gods, but otherwise has nothing to say on the matter - neither promoting nor rejecting the distinction. Many atheists probably have things, places, or times which they consider "sacred" in that they are venerated or esteemed highly.
> 
> Ritual Acts Focused on Sacred Objects, Places, Times:
> 
> If people believe in something sacred, they probably have associated rituals. As with the very existence of a category of "sacred" things, however, there is nothing about atheism which either mandates such a belief or necessarily excludes it - it's simply an irrelevant issue. An atheist who holds something as "sacred" may engage in some sort of associated ritual or ceremony, but there is no such thing as an "atheist ritual."
> 
> Moral Code With Supernatural Origins:
> 
> Most religions preach some sort of moral code which is typically based upon its transcendental and supernatural beliefs. Thus, for example, theistic religions typically claim that morality is derived from the commands of their gods. Atheists have moral codes, but they don't believe that those codes are derived from any gods and it would be unusual for them to believe that their morals have a supernatural origin. More importantly, atheism doesn't teach any particular moral code.
> 
> Is Atheism a Religion? Defining Atheism and Religion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet just saying it doesn't make it true does it? Face it. Atheism is a religion.
Click to expand...


You say that atheism is a religion while suggesting "Yet just saying it doesn't make it true does it".  No doubt you said that with a straight face.


----------



## orogenicman

thanatos144 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think your pathetic attempts are personally insulting the Lord will make me angry? I do pray someday you see the truth about the Lord. Yet that is between him and you. I dont push faith. I defend my own. You see the one being intolerant and hateful here right now is you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it is between me and your imaginary god, why are you trying to intervene with your prayers? If you don't push faith, then why are you telling me that you will pray for me? Don't be a hypocrite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My prayer that you find God is distressful???? How can that be if you dont believe in God?
Click to expand...


Did I say anything about being stressed? I just pointed out the hypocrisy of your stance.  You are the one who appears to be stressed. You want to pray for me, you say I am insulting your god, blah, blah, blah. Get a life.


----------



## thanatos144

You two geniuses know you in a thread discussing religion right????? Who forced you to join the debate if you think hearing the other side is coercion?


----------



## daws101

thanatos144 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it is a religion! You are one of the most devout of them. A bunch of people who find solace in worshiping hedonism together ! LOL How is that different then people worshiping God together?
> 
> 
> 
> i'd say you're fucking ignorant but that would be stating the obvious...
> 
> Many Christians seem to believe that atheism is a religion, but no one with a fair understanding of both concepts would make such a mistake. Because it's such a common claim, though, it's worth demonstrating the depth and breadth of the errors being made. Presented here are the characteristics which best define religions, distinguishing them from other types of belief systems, and how atheism utterly fails to even remotely match any of them.
> 
> Belief in Supernatural Beings:
> 
> Perhaps the most common and fundamental characteristic of religion is a belief in supernatural beings - usually, but not always, including gods. Few religions lack this characteristic and most religions are founded upon it. Atheism is the absence of belief in gods and thus excludes belief in gods, but it does not exclude belief in other supernatural beings. More important, however, is that atheism does not teach the existence of such beings and most atheists in the West do not believe in them.
> 
> Sacred vs Profane Objects, Places, Times:
> 
> Differentiating between sacred and profane objects, places, and times helps religious believers focus on transcendental values and/or the existence of a supernatural realm. Atheism excludes believing in things that are "sacred" for the purpose of worshiping gods, but otherwise has nothing to say on the matter - neither promoting nor rejecting the distinction. Many atheists probably have things, places, or times which they consider "sacred" in that they are venerated or esteemed highly.
> 
> Ritual Acts Focused on Sacred Objects, Places, Times:
> 
> If people believe in something sacred, they probably have associated rituals. As with the very existence of a category of "sacred" things, however, there is nothing about atheism which either mandates such a belief or necessarily excludes it - it's simply an irrelevant issue. An atheist who holds something as "sacred" may engage in some sort of associated ritual or ceremony, but there is no such thing as an "atheist ritual."
> 
> Moral Code With Supernatural Origins:
> 
> Most religions preach some sort of moral code which is typically based upon its transcendental and supernatural beliefs. Thus, for example, theistic religions typically claim that morality is derived from the commands of their gods. Atheists have moral codes, but they don't believe that those codes are derived from any gods and it would be unusual for them to believe that their morals have a supernatural origin. More importantly, atheism doesn't teach any particular moral code.
> 
> Is Atheism a Religion? Defining Atheism and Religion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet just saying it doesn't make it true does it? Face it. Atheism is a religion.
Click to expand...

true but I did not make up the above facts....and they are true and are not Affected by your IGNORANCE OF WHAT A RELIGION IS...


----------



## daws101

thanatos144 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems you cant engage you brain.....If you dont understand the post why quote it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> unlike yourself I actually understand the bible...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously you dont.
Click to expand...

I could have have had half or more of my brain shot away and still know and understand more about the bible than you ever will.


----------



## orogenicman

thanatos144 said:


> You two geniuses know you in a thread discussing religion right????? Who forced you to join the debate if you think hearing the other side is coercion?



Discuss it all you want.  No one is stopping you.  Are you suggesting that we don't have a right to discuss religion in an open forum?  Because that would be silly.


----------



## holston

The "God Haters" persist because who needs a God that won't give him everything he wants?
 Isn't that the real reason why we all get "pissed" at the idea of "God"?
 Any "God" that won't give me _what_ I want and_ when _I want it is worthy only of my unwavering contempt. 

 No one in their right minds would want to take up a cross when they could have fame and fortune instead. 

 What kind of monstrous God would it have to be that wouldn't give you all the money, sex, acclaim, and whatever else you want that you asked for? 
 Just tell me what in life could possibly be more important than those things and why should God almighty pay the least bit of attention to them, especially when they might interfere with my own good pleasure and entertainment?

 Besides, since "God" is supposed to be so "good" then it ought to be safe to hate him since a "good" God would never do anything to hurt me personally. On the other hand, BAD God's, like bad guys WOULD. So it pays to know who to look out for and who not to sass. We KNOW what THEY are capable of!



 Another reason that "God haters" persist may also be because every one knows that the Jews are God and everybody hates the Jews. 

 That's what the Jews say, and who are you to disagree with the Gods?

 Since the Jewish religion does more than any other religion to gain it's adherents the highest standard of living, then it must be the right one. 
Too bad they don't proselytize or at least make it easier for more people to join the club. Maybe then everyone would be a member and the whole world's problems would be solved once and for all. Then we could ALL sit and eat like an effendi!


----------



## holston

> 'The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference between a mermaid and seal. It could not be expressed better.'
> -- Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens


 
 God has produced at least one, possibly the other, whereas man could create neither except perhaps in his imagination of multiple universes where ANYTHING can happen which he dreams up himself. 



> "I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the scriptures, but with experiments, demonstrations, and observations".
> 
> - Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)



  Then if the facts we observe lead us to conclude that the universe cannot be rationally explained by any other means than there was an intelligent creator behind it, then we should be honest enough to admit it, or at least admit that we don't know enough to rule that possibility out.


----------



## Steven_R

Ask any scientist worth his salt and they will flat out say it is entirely _possible _that there is some supernatural cause for the universe or life on Earth, but there is no evidence to point in that direction. Even someone like Dawkins will acknowledge the possibility, but the next question out of his mouth will be "so where's the evidence of God?"


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question makes an assumption that is not accepted as a given.
> Based on you being a practitioner of what you believe to be a connection with the spiritual nature it doesn't appear that it foments any particular goodwill among men.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Questions don't make assumptions. That is the point of a question, to ascertain information so an assumption doesn't happen. My position notwithstanding, I asked what you thought. I'm not really seeing an answer. You are simply trying to push the question back in my face.
> 
> You are indicating you don't believe spirituality foments any particular goodwill among men. I am trying not to assume anything here, I ask you again, would mankind be better off (i.e. more moral) if we completely abandoned spiritual reality? Clarify your position, please?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Questions absolutely can make assumptions. Yours most certainly did. You called spirituality a "reality", which by answering the question I am accepting that, so as asked the question won't be addressed.
> If I asked you "Why are you an asshole?", would that question have any assumptions? If you say "No", you are accepting the premise of the question.
> I know, English isn't your forte.
> I am observing that your particular brand of spirituality foments no particular goodwill.
> Restating the question would be necessary for me to answer it.
Click to expand...


No sir, YOU said: "Men of all stripes. Particularly those that invest in a great spiritual *reality* through their own rationalizations." So you acknowledged that people invest in a "great spiritual reality" because there is your direct quote. I merely asked you a follow-up question based on your previous response. 

What is my "particular brand of spirituality?" How can you possibly know anything about my personal brand of spirituality? And what does that have to do with my question? I asked you if mankind would be better off (more moral) if mankind abandoned spiritual reality? You want to now object to the very word you previously used, "reality" so... Do you think mankind would be better off (more moral) if mankind abandoned spirituality? 

It sounds like that is your argument, but before I comment further, I wanted to clarify it and give you a chance to speak up for what you believe. Now is your chance! Rather than dodging the question, just answer it!


----------



## Boss

Steven_R said:


> Ask any scientist worth his salt and they will flat out say it is entirely _possible _that there is some supernatural cause for the universe or life on Earth, but there is no evidence to point in that direction. Even someone like Dawkins will acknowledge the possibility, but the next question out of his mouth will be "so where's the evidence of God?"



Where do you look for your evidence? If you are looking to physical science to provide evidence for spiritual things, doesn't that seem a bit dumb? And why do you call spiritual nature "supernatural?" Is it just because physical science can't presently explain it? Are black holes, dark energy and dark matter also "supernatural" because science can't presently explain them? Is string theory delving into the "supernatural" by theorizing multiple universes? 

You toss this word around rather casually because you believe it denigrates spiritaul nature to do so. It makes spiritual nature something "paranormal" and whimsical. Evidence is clear, humans have been connecting with spiritual nature as a part of our fundamental being since there have been humans to do so. It's every bit a part of general nature as physical nature, you just can't evaluate it with physical sciences at the moment. 

There is actually a LOT of evidence to point in that direction, but it is spiritual evidence. If you don't accept a such thing as spiritual nature, you can't acknowledge or evaluate spiritual evidence, your brain doesn't allow you to do that because it would be illogical in your mind to do so. This doesn't mean there isn't any evidence, it just means you can't recognize the evidence.


----------



## Steven_R

There is direct physical evidence that shows the existence of black holes, dark matter, and dark energy. We may not understand what is going on, but we can see there is something there.

The existence of the spiritual world? Not so much.

Do you see the difference?


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Questions don't make assumptions. That is the point of a question, to ascertain information so an assumption doesn't happen. My position notwithstanding, I asked what you thought. I'm not really seeing an answer. You are simply trying to push the question back in my face.
> 
> You are indicating you don't believe spirituality foments any particular goodwill among men. I am trying not to assume anything here, I ask you again, would mankind be better off (i.e. more moral) if we completely abandoned spiritual reality? Clarify your position, please?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Questions absolutely can make assumptions. Yours most certainly did. You called spirituality a "reality", which by answering the question I am accepting that, so as asked the question won't be addressed.
> If I asked you "Why are you an asshole?", would that question have any assumptions? If you say "No", you are accepting the premise of the question.
> I know, English isn't your forte.
> I am observing that your particular brand of spirituality foments no particular goodwill.
> Restating the question would be necessary for me to answer it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No sir, YOU said: "Men of all stripes. Particularly those that invest in a great spiritual *reality* through their own rationalizations." So you acknowledged that people invest in a "great spiritual reality" because there is your direct quote. I merely asked you a follow-up question based on your previous response.
> 
> What is my "particular brand of spirituality?" How can you possibly know anything about my personal brand of spirituality? And what does that have to do with my question? I asked you if mankind would be better off (more moral) if mankind abandoned spiritual reality? You want to now object to the very word you previously used, "reality" so... Do you think mankind would be better off (more moral) if mankind abandoned spirituality?
> 
> It sounds like that is your argument, but before I comment further, I wanted to clarify it and give you a chance to speak up for what you believe. Now is your chance! Rather than dodging the question, just answer it!
Click to expand...

I called spirituality a rationalization. Fascinating you ignored that to "take it out of context" as you like to say. At least you were blatant about it by quoting the entire context and revealing boldly that you are a lying hack. Kudos!
As to your question, perhaps. Can't say with any certainty, but without the rationalization of spirituality we might start taking more direct responsibility for our actions toward each other and not pretend there is some unseen excuse for treating people like your signature persona chooses to on these boards with your professed spiritual anchor. There would just be you, foul-mouthed and rude and language impaired with no place to run. Maybe that would force the false bravado into submission and the humility of simple humanity would be unleashed, unadorned by the hubris of the fantasy that you are connected to a greater good the troglodytes can't share.
Or not.
Either way, it doesn't really matter. Whether we improved our ways or sank into chaos, neither would indicate the reality of spirituality. This is Pascal's Wager Light. If you're better off pretending in the spiritual nature why not invest in that bank? The answer of course is that if you don't actually believe it, you live your life in a fantasy.


----------



## orogenicman

holston said:


> The "God Haters" persist because who needs a God that won't give him everything he wants?
> Isn't that the real reason why we all get "pissed" at the idea of "God"?
> Any "God" that won't give me _what_ I want and_ when _I want it is worthy only of my unwavering contempt.
> 
> No one in their right minds would want to take up a cross when they could have fame and fortune instead.
> 
> What kind of monstrous God would it have to be that wouldn't give you all the money, sex, acclaim, and whatever else you want that you asked for?
> Just tell me what in life could possibly be more important than those things and why should God almighty pay the least bit of attention to them, especially when they might interfere with my own good pleasure and entertainment?
> 
> Besides, since "God" is supposed to be so "good" then it ought to be safe to hate him since a "good" God would never do anything to hurt me personally. On the other hand, BAD God's, like bad guys WOULD. So it pays to know who to look out for and who not to sass. We KNOW what THEY are capable of!
> 
> 
> 
> Another reason that "God haters" persist may also be because every one knows that the Jews are God and everybody hates the Jews.
> 
> That's what the Jews say, and who are you to disagree with the Gods?
> 
> Since the Jewish religion does more than any other religion to gain it's adherents the highest standard of living, then it must be the right one.
> Too bad they don't proselytize or at least make it easier for more people to join the club. Maybe then everyone would be a member and the whole world's problems would be solved once and for all. Then we could ALL sit and eat like an effendi!



Well that is just about the most sophomoric response I've seen in a while.  Atheists don't believe in god because they don't see any evidence for it, and plenty of evidence that the concept is manmade.  We don't go around whining about what we did or did not get from a non-existent god.  Why would we?  It would be like a grown up complaining because the tooth fairy didn't leave a dollar bill under his pillow.  Is that what you aspire to?  A religion that is all about personal gain? Seems to be a rather self-limiting, selfish religion, in my view.


----------



## orogenicman

holston said:


> 'The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference between a mermaid and seal. It could not be expressed better.'
> -- Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens
> 
> 
> 
> God has produced at least one, possibly the other, whereas man could create neither except perhaps in his imagination of multiple universes where ANYTHING can happen which he dreams up himself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the scriptures, but with experiments, demonstrations, and observations".
> 
> - Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then if the facts we observe lead us to conclude that the universe cannot be rationally explained by any other means than there was an intelligent creator behind it, then we should be honest enough to admit it, or at least admit that we don't know enough to rule that possibility out.
Click to expand...


If we were at a point where we had explained everything we were able to explain, and were still left with unanswered questions, you might have a point.  I don't believe we are there yet, assuming that we will ever get there at all.


----------



## orogenicman

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Questions absolutely can make assumptions. Yours most certainly did. You called spirituality a "reality", which by answering the question I am accepting that, so as asked the question won't be addressed.
> If I asked you "Why are you an asshole?", would that question have any assumptions? If you say "No", you are accepting the premise of the question.
> I know, English isn't your forte.
> I am observing that your particular brand of spirituality foments no particular goodwill.
> Restating the question would be necessary for me to answer it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No sir, YOU said: "Men of all stripes. Particularly those that invest in a great spiritual *reality* through their own rationalizations." So you acknowledged that people invest in a "great spiritual reality" because there is your direct quote. I merely asked you a follow-up question based on your previous response.
> 
> What is my "particular brand of spirituality?" How can you possibly know anything about my personal brand of spirituality? And what does that have to do with my question? I asked you if mankind would be better off (more moral) if mankind abandoned spiritual reality? You want to now object to the very word you previously used, "reality" so... Do you think mankind would be better off (more moral) if mankind abandoned spirituality?
> 
> It sounds like that is your argument, but before I comment further, I wanted to clarify it and give you a chance to speak up for what you believe. Now is your chance! Rather than dodging the question, just answer it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I called spirituality a rationalization. Fascinating you ignored that to "take it out of context" as you like to say. At least you were blatant about it by quoting the entire context and revealing boldly that you are a lying hack. Kudos!
> As to your question, perhaps. Can't say with any certainty, but without the rationalization of spirituality we might start taking more direct responsibility for our actions toward each other and not pretend there is some unseen excuse for treating people like your signature persona chooses to on these boards with your professed spiritual anchor. There would just be you, foul-mouthed and rude and language impaired with no place to run. Maybe that would force the false bravado into submission and the humility of simple humanity would be unleashed, unadorned by the hubris of the fantasy that you are connected to a greater good the troglodytes can't share.
> Or not.
> Either way, it doesn't really matter. Whether we improved our ways or sank into chaos, neither would indicate the reality of spirituality. This is Pascal's Wager Light. If you're better off pretending in the spiritual nature why not invest in that bank? The answer of course is that if you don't actually believe it, you live your life in a fantasy.
Click to expand...


  Kudos.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ask any scientist worth his salt and they will flat out say it is entirely _possible _that there is some supernatural cause for the universe or life on Earth, but there is no evidence to point in that direction. Even someone like Dawkins will acknowledge the possibility, but the next question out of his mouth will be "so where's the evidence of God?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you look for your evidence? If you are looking to physical science to provide evidence for spiritual things, doesn't that seem a bit dumb? And why do you call spiritual nature "supernatural?" Is it just because physical science can't presently explain it? Are black holes, dark energy and dark matter also "supernatural" because science can't presently explain them? Is string theory delving into the "supernatural" by theorizing multiple universes?
> 
> You toss this word around rather casually because you believe it denigrates spiritaul nature to do so. It makes spiritual nature something "paranormal" and whimsical. Evidence is clear, humans have been connecting with spiritual nature as a part of our fundamental being since there have been humans to do so. It's every bit a part of general nature as physical nature, you just can't evaluate it with physical sciences at the moment.
> 
> There is actually a LOT of evidence to point in that direction, but it is spiritual evidence. If you don't accept a such thing as spiritual nature, you can't acknowledge or evaluate spiritual evidence, your brain doesn't allow you to do that because it would be illogical in your mind to do so. This doesn't mean there isn't any evidence, it just means you can't recognize the evidence.
Click to expand...

What you like to call "evidence" leads to all kinds of incompatible conclusions for all kinds of people. It leads nowhere consistently and provides no reliable roadmap, so what is it evidence of?
Need.
What you think is connecting with spiritual nature I see as the natural fears and longings that cognitive man confronts with the awareness of his mortality and the unknown. He tries desperately to fill the vacuum, and in desperation can convince himself of a myriad of outlandish things.
All through history, consistently.
As the unknown lessens, the spiritual vision changes as it must as new testable, real evidence replaces the myths. There is no lightning god any more. It is no longer needed, but primitive man couldn't leave that vacuum, so he filled it and believed in it. The lightning god was undeniably "true".
Zeus has been retired. Thor. As knowledge increases the myths recede. You still need to fill the void, rather than acknowledge it has always been there but is dwindling. 
The void still exists. The unknown remains, and probably always will. Some now have an awareness that the void can't arbitrarily be filled any more. It can be acknowledged, but the lie that we can see into it can not be supported in any way. Only time and brilliant people will penetrate it, and its revelation must wait.
But you will still draw cave paintings and howl at the moon.


----------



## flacaltenn

Moderation Reminder:

This is a Zone2 thread. Remember to include 
relevant discussion in every post.  It can't 
descend into flame exchanges.. 

flacaltenn


----------



## Boss

Steven_R said:


> There is direct physical evidence that shows the existence of black holes, dark matter, and dark energy. We may not understand what is going on, but we can see there is something there.
> 
> The existence of the spiritual world? Not so much.
> 
> Do you see the difference?



Nope, because there is "direct physical evidence" that humans connect to something greater than self and have always had this attribute. No difference, we don't understand what is going on but we can see something is happening there.


----------



## thebrucebeat

thanatos144 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it is a religion! You are one of the most devout of them. A bunch of people who find solace in worshiping hedonism together ! LOL How is that different then people worshiping God together?
> 
> 
> 
> i'd say you're fucking ignorant but that would be stating the obvious...
> 
> Many Christians seem to believe that atheism is a religion, but no one with a fair understanding of both concepts would make such a mistake. Because it's such a common claim, though, it's worth demonstrating the depth and breadth of the errors being made. Presented here are the characteristics which best define religions, distinguishing them from other types of belief systems, and how atheism utterly fails to even remotely match any of them.
> 
> Belief in Supernatural Beings:
> 
> Perhaps the most common and fundamental characteristic of religion is a belief in supernatural beings - usually, but not always, including gods. Few religions lack this characteristic and most religions are founded upon it. Atheism is the absence of belief in gods and thus excludes belief in gods, but it does not exclude belief in other supernatural beings. More important, however, is that atheism does not teach the existence of such beings and most atheists in the West do not believe in them.
> 
> Sacred vs Profane Objects, Places, Times:
> 
> Differentiating between sacred and profane objects, places, and times helps religious believers focus on transcendental values and/or the existence of a supernatural realm. Atheism excludes believing in things that are "sacred" for the purpose of worshiping gods, but otherwise has nothing to say on the matter - neither promoting nor rejecting the distinction. Many atheists probably have things, places, or times which they consider "sacred" in that they are venerated or esteemed highly.
> 
> Ritual Acts Focused on Sacred Objects, Places, Times:
> 
> If people believe in something sacred, they probably have associated rituals. As with the very existence of a category of "sacred" things, however, there is nothing about atheism which either mandates such a belief or necessarily excludes it - it's simply an irrelevant issue. An atheist who holds something as "sacred" may engage in some sort of associated ritual or ceremony, but there is no such thing as an "atheist ritual."
> 
> Moral Code With Supernatural Origins:
> 
> Most religions preach some sort of moral code which is typically based upon its transcendental and supernatural beliefs. Thus, for example, theistic religions typically claim that morality is derived from the commands of their gods. Atheists have moral codes, but they don't believe that those codes are derived from any gods and it would be unusual for them to believe that their morals have a supernatural origin. More importantly, atheism doesn't teach any particular moral code.
> 
> Is Atheism a Religion? Defining Atheism and Religion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet just saying it doesn't make it true does it? Face it. Atheism is a religion.
Click to expand...


That's it?
That's your response to that very clear and definitive post?
Nanny-nanny-boo-boo is all you have?
Seriously?


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Questions absolutely can make assumptions. Yours most certainly did. You called spirituality a "reality", which by answering the question I am accepting that, so as asked the question won't be addressed.
> If I asked you "Why are you an asshole?", would that question have any assumptions? If you say "No", you are accepting the premise of the question.
> I know, English isn't your forte.
> I am observing that your particular brand of spirituality foments no particular goodwill.
> Restating the question would be necessary for me to answer it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No sir, YOU said: "Men of all stripes. Particularly those that invest in a great spiritual *reality* through their own rationalizations." So you acknowledged that people invest in a "great spiritual reality" because there is your direct quote. I merely asked you a follow-up question based on your previous response.
> 
> What is my "particular brand of spirituality?" How can you possibly know anything about my personal brand of spirituality? And what does that have to do with my question? I asked you if mankind would be better off (more moral) if mankind abandoned spiritual reality? You want to now object to the very word you previously used, "reality" so... Do you think mankind would be better off (more moral) if mankind abandoned spirituality?
> 
> It sounds like that is your argument, but before I comment further, I wanted to clarify it and give you a chance to speak up for what you believe. Now is your chance! Rather than dodging the question, just answer it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I called spirituality a rationalization. Fascinating you ignored that to "take it out of context" as you like to say. At least you were blatant about it by quoting the entire context and revealing boldly that you are a lying hack. Kudos!
> As to your question, perhaps. Can't say with any certainty, but without the rationalization of spirituality we might start taking more direct responsibility for our actions toward each other and not pretend there is some unseen excuse for treating people like your signature persona chooses to on these boards with your professed spiritual anchor. There would just be you, foul-mouthed and rude and language impaired with no place to run. Maybe that would force the false bravado into submission and the humility of simple humanity would be unleashed, unadorned by the hubris of the fantasy that you are connected to a greater good the troglodytes can't share.
> Or not.
> Either way, it doesn't really matter. Whether we improved our ways or sank into chaos, neither would indicate the reality of spirituality. This is Pascal's Wager Light. If you're better off pretending in the spiritual nature why not invest in that bank? The answer of course is that if you don't actually believe it, you live your life in a fantasy.
Click to expand...


As we can see, you are still not answering my question. You say that without rationalizing spirituality we might start taking more responsibility for our own actions toward each other. You don't explain on what basis this would occur, just that it might happen. 

Now, here is where real science kicks in. We can observe other animal behavior and we see that the natural inclination of animals which lack spiritual 'rationalization' is to behave in a certain way. They simply don't 'take responsibility' for their actions against each other. It's a brutal and heartless world in the wild. Watch the Nature Channel sometime. So what natural basis do you actually have for this supposition that we MIGHT conduct ourselves in a more responsible manner toward others? 

The answer is, you have no basis for this belief. You simply wish to live in a fantasy world where you think spirituality is pointless and without it, we'd be just fine and no more people would kill each other and hate would cease to exist. Nothing we observe in nature supports this idea, it's just your fantasy. The actual reality of animals living in the wild is brutal and unforgiving. No moral conscience resides there, it's kill or be killed. You think it is a problem to have to endure foul language, but imagine if I had no sense of moral constraint and humans handled things the way rivals in the wild handle things? Don't you think your problems might be just a little more disconcerting?


----------



## Boss

> What you like to call "evidence" leads to all kinds of incompatible conclusions for all kinds of people.



People will always have incompatible conclusions about everything. There are over 150 incompatible theories regarding abiogenesis. Theoretical physicists have probably 30~40 various incarnations of string theory they are working on at present, they can't all be correct. Countless theories on how the universe came into existence. There are even conflicting theories on basic elements like gravity and electromagnetism. Very little is universally conclusive and most anything has an opposing or contradictory theory or idea. So you are applying a criteria to spiritual evidence that nothing else has to meet. 

Spirituality can be summed up very simply, it is the human comprehension of something greater than self. Yes, our ideas of what exactly that is, are all over the board... but this is because we are human beings.


----------



## earlycuyler

Boss said:


> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.



This is covered in the word. And its no big thing. After I unwind some, and get over my hangover I'll post up some scripture that will splane it all. In the mean time, don't get pissed. Contemplate turning the other cheek, and dig around in 1 Corinthians some. I'll be along in a bit.


----------



## Boss

> What you think is connecting with spiritual nature I see as the natural fears and longings that cognitive man confronts with the awareness of his mortality and the unknown. He tries desperately to fill the vacuum, and in desperation can convince himself of a myriad of outlandish things.



Yes, I call this the "mass delusion" theory, and I find it laughable for several reasons. Most notably, you are suggesting that the most intellectually advanced species of all, has basically tricked itself into believing a falsehood for the entirety of it's existence. Furthermore, humans are far from the only creatures with sentience or cognizance. We see no signs from any other living creatures of having to invent placebo imaginary things to pacify awareness of mortality or the unknown. Not only do they lack desperation to do so, they don't even seem to be phased by this. I would think, if what you claim is a natural phenomenon, we'd at least see some indications of it in upper primates like apes and chimpanzees. Therefore, it's very much NOT a natural fear at all. 

What you are misinterpreting as a natural fear is a concern that is caused through our awareness of something greater than ourselves. That's why we don't see this behavior anywhere else but humans. As humans, we are aware of something immortal and beyond the physical but we can't quite comprehend it. We have a sense of connection to it, and this 'thing' gives us courage, inspiration, strength, and an ability to rationalize morality and ethics. Some of us believe that we are compelled to obey and show reverence to this 'thing' and in return we may one day become a part of it, and that constitutes our 'purpose' here and reason for being.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> No sir, YOU said: "Men of all stripes. Particularly those that invest in a great spiritual *reality* through their own rationalizations." So you acknowledged that people invest in a "great spiritual reality" because there is your direct quote. I merely asked you a follow-up question based on your previous response.
> 
> What is my "particular brand of spirituality?" How can you possibly know anything about my personal brand of spirituality? And what does that have to do with my question? I asked you if mankind would be better off (more moral) if mankind abandoned spiritual reality? You want to now object to the very word you previously used, "reality" so... Do you think mankind would be better off (more moral) if mankind abandoned spirituality?
> 
> It sounds like that is your argument, but before I comment further, I wanted to clarify it and give you a chance to speak up for what you believe. Now is your chance! Rather than dodging the question, just answer it!
> 
> 
> 
> I called spirituality a rationalization. Fascinating you ignored that to "take it out of context" as you like to say. At least you were blatant about it by quoting the entire context and revealing boldly that you are a lying hack. Kudos!
> As to your question, perhaps. Can't say with any certainty, but without the rationalization of spirituality we might start taking more direct responsibility for our actions toward each other and not pretend there is some unseen excuse for treating people like your signature persona chooses to on these boards with your professed spiritual anchor. There would just be you, foul-mouthed and rude and language impaired with no place to run. Maybe that would force the false bravado into submission and the humility of simple humanity would be unleashed, unadorned by the hubris of the fantasy that you are connected to a greater good the troglodytes can't share.
> Or not.
> Either way, it doesn't really matter. Whether we improved our ways or sank into chaos, neither would indicate the reality of spirituality. This is Pascal's Wager Light. If you're better off pretending in the spiritual nature why not invest in that bank? The answer of course is that if you don't actually believe it, you live your life in a fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As we can see, you are still not answering my question. You say that without rationalizing spirituality we might start taking more responsibility for our own actions toward each other. You don't explain on what basis this would occur, just that it might happen.
> 
> Now, here is where real science kicks in. We can observe other animal behavior and we see that the natural inclination of animals which lack spiritual 'rationalization' is to behave in a certain way. They simply don't 'take responsibility' for their actions against each other. It's a brutal and heartless world in the wild. Watch the Nature Channel sometime. So what natural basis do you actually have for this supposition that we MIGHT conduct ourselves in a more responsible manner toward others?
> 
> The answer is, you have no basis for this belief. You simply wish to live in a fantasy world where you think spirituality is pointless and without it, we'd be just fine and no more people would kill each other and hate would cease to exist. Nothing we observe in nature supports this idea, it's just your fantasy. The actual reality of animals living in the wild is brutal and unforgiving. No moral conscience resides there, it's kill or be killed. You think it is a problem to have to endure foul language, but imagine if I had no sense of moral constraint and humans handled things the way rivals in the wild handle things? Don't you think your problems might be just a little more disconcerting?
Click to expand...

You ARE the guy that made that long post on how we are very different from the animal kingdom in so very many ways, aren't you?
Here you are making the case that without your professed spirituality we are exactly the same.
Seems like you haven't come to a consistent conclusion.
Mine was that man has the cognitive ability to recognize his mortality and the unknown, and like you his fear seeks to fill the void. The animals recognize none of this. They operate without the constrictions that a rational reasoning power necessitates.
To equate them is silly.
Simply silly.
And I most certainly answered your question.
We have a hint how men would act without your fear based spirituality. There are many on here that reject your theory. I don't think any of them are bloodthirsty sociopaths. Do you?


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> What you think is connecting with spiritual nature I see as the natural fears and longings that cognitive man confronts with the awareness of his mortality and the unknown. He tries desperately to fill the vacuum, and in desperation can convince himself of a myriad of outlandish things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I call this the "mass delusion" theory, and I find it laughable for several reasons. Most notably, you are suggesting that the most intellectually advanced species of all, has basically tricked itself into believing a falsehood for the entirety of it's existence. Furthermore, humans are far from the only creatures with sentience or cognizance. We see no signs from any other living creatures of having to invent placebo imaginary things to pacify awareness of mortality or the unknown. Not only do they lack desperation to do so, they don't even seem to be phased by this. I would think, if what you claim is a natural phenomenon, we'd at least see some indications of it in upper primates like apes and chimpanzees. Therefore, it's very much NOT a natural fear at all.
> 
> What you are misinterpreting as a natural fear is a concern that is caused through our awareness of something greater than ourselves. That's why we don't see this behavior anywhere else but humans. As humans, we are aware of something immortal and beyond the physical but we can't quite comprehend it. We have a sense of connection to it, and this 'thing' gives us courage, inspiration, strength, and an ability to rationalize morality and ethics. Some of us believe that we are compelled to obey and show reverence to this 'thing' and in return we may one day become a part of it, and that constitutes our 'purpose' here and reason for being.
Click to expand...

You really are all over the map.
Animals are like us.
They're completely different.
Any argument in a storm, right?
Your explanation is the afore mentioned baying at the moon. It is the new arbitrary explanation of the void that, like Thor or the lightning god, can't be supported in any way but a desire to fill it, the fear of the unknown.
What you once described as a spiritual nature you were connected to and knew it had no personal interest in you and was unlike the Christian god and other details of the specifics of it is now an enigma we can't quite comprehend, that we just "feel", we are aware of or have a sense of, all jello terms that you call "evidence".
Your inconsistencies are voluminous and your argument is non-existent.
History shows man filling the void and moving the goalpost of what he describes to fill it with as knowledge increases and forces the change. Man hasn't convinced himself of a falsehood for his entire existence. He has convinced himself of thousands of them, but always smaller and smaller, as the void contracts and knowledge increases.
You are the next iteration of the caveman.


----------



## Boss

> You ARE the guy that made that long post on how we are very different from the animal kingdom in so very many ways, aren't you?
> Here you are making the case that without your professed spirituality we are exactly the same.



But my entire basis for the argument on why we are different is BECAUSE of human spirituality. So yes... naturally, without that, we would be no different. There is no basis in understanding of nature and biology to think otherwise. And it's not "my professed" spirituality, it is the intrinsic and inseparable spirituality which has existed in mankind for all of our existence in some form. 

You are literally arguing against the entire history of human civilization. It is almost akin to making an argument against human ability to reason and claiming that is an unneeded and superfluous attribute of man and we'd be better off without it. That is the level of 'ridiculous' you are at with this argument. 

*...man has the cognitive ability to recognize his mortality and the unknown...*

Man recognizes mortality because he is aware of immortality through his spirituality. Other animals have just as much ability to be as cognitive as humans, they lack awareness of an immortal spiritual nature. There is certainly not anything special about our cognitive ability that makes us delusionally create imaginary playmates and cling to them for the entirety of our existence. If anything, that would denote a LESSER cognitive ability. 

*What you once described as a spiritual nature you were connected to and knew it had no personal interest in you and was unlike the Christian god and other details of the specifics of it is now an enigma we can't quite comprehend, that we just "feel", we are aware of or have a sense of, all jello terms that you call "evidence".*

Yes, but when I speak to you about my personal spirituality and then later about the generality of human spiritual connection as a whole, they are two completely different things. One is an explanation of MY understanding, the other is explaining how mankind grapples with something it can't comprehend.


----------



## orogenicman

Boss said:


> You ARE the guy that made that long post on how we are very different from the animal kingdom in so very many ways, aren't you?
> Here you are making the case that without your professed spirituality we are exactly the same.
> 
> 
> 
> But my entire basis for the argument on why we are different is BECAUSE of human spirituality. So yes... naturally, without that, we would be no different. There is no basis in understanding of nature and biology to think otherwise. And it's not "my professed" spirituality, it is the intrinsic and inseparable spirituality which has existed in mankind for all of our existence in some form.
> 
> You are literally arguing against the entire history of human civilization. It is almost akin to making an argument against human ability to reason and claiming that is an unneeded and superfluous attribute of man and we'd be better off without it. That is the level of 'ridiculous' you are at with this argument.
> 
> *...man has the cognitive ability to recognize his mortality and the unknown...*
> 
> Man recognizes mortality because he is aware of immortality through his spirituality. Other animals have just as much ability to be as cognitive as humans, they lack awareness of an immortal spiritual nature. There is certainly not anything special about our cognitive ability that makes us delusionally create imaginary playmates and cling to them for the entirety of our existence. If anything, that would denote a LESSER cognitive ability.
> 
> *What you once described as a spiritual nature you were connected to and knew it had no personal interest in you and was unlike the Christian god and other details of the specifics of it is now an enigma we can't quite comprehend, that we just "feel", we are aware of or have a sense of, all jello terms that you call "evidence".*
> 
> Yes, but when I speak to you about my personal spirituality and then later about the generality of human spiritual connection as a whole, they are two completely different things. One is an explanation of MY understanding, the other is explaining how mankind grapples with something it can't comprehend.
Click to expand...


"We may be human, but we are still animals"

- Steve Vai

By the way, Man recognizes his mortality, not because he sees his own immortality (that is a lot of hogwash), but because he sees death for what it is, including the likelihood of his own - a true finality of life. We as a species kill for food and for much less honorable reasons every single day. We see other species killing or being killed every day as well. It has always been this way, and always will be. In this, we are no different from many other species (perhaps the only real difference is in the scale of our brutality towards other species and towards ourselves). You see yourself as something separate from the rest because you are arrogant and blind to the world around you. Only when you open your circle of compassion to include all of nature and all of mankind will you see the world for what it truly is. Only then can you call yourself a spiritual being.


----------



## MrMax

Boss thinks that his creator just plopped humans down in their present form. Any dumber than that, and you'd probably die.


----------



## amrchaos

I take it that Boss never met an adult that would happily tell a 6 year old that Santa/Easter bunny does not exist

Strangely, 
I know a couple of adults that will do just that, and get attacked by other adults that proclaim "you are taking the fun out of Christmas"

Tell me, when an atheist tells you "there is no god" is he/she taking the fun out of religion/cults?  Is "hope" another word for fun, by any chance?


----------



## thanatos144

amrchaos said:


> I take it that Boss never met an adult that would happily tell a 6 year old that Santa/Easter bunny does not exist
> 
> Strangely,
> I know a couple of adults that will do just that, and get attacked by other adults that proclaim "you are taking the fun out of Christmas"
> 
> Tell me, when an atheist tells you "there is no god" is he/she taking the fun out of religion/cults?  Is "hope" another word for fun, by any chance?



Saying you dont believe in a God is not making fun of others that do.....Likening God to Santa and inferring all who have faith have no maturity is insulting us...


----------



## koshergrl

MrMax said:


> Boss thinks that his creator just plopped humans down in their present form. Any dumber than that, and you'd probably die.



Yeah, we should be more like you. You're obviously a genius. And definitely NOT bigoted!


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> You ARE the guy that made that long post on how we are very different from the animal kingdom in so very many ways, aren't you?
> Here you are making the case that without your professed spirituality we are exactly the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But my entire basis for the argument on why we are different is BECAUSE of human spirituality. So yes... naturally, without that, we would be no different. There is no basis in understanding of nature and biology to think otherwise. And it's not "my professed" spirituality, it is the intrinsic and inseparable spirituality which has existed in mankind for all of our existence in some form.
> 
> You are literally arguing against the entire history of human civilization. It is almost akin to making an argument against human ability to reason and claiming that is an unneeded and superfluous attribute of man and we'd be better off without it. That is the level of 'ridiculous' you are at with this argument.
> 
> *...man has the cognitive ability to recognize his mortality and the unknown...*
> 
> Man recognizes mortality because he is aware of immortality through his spirituality. Other animals have just as much ability to be as cognitive as humans, they lack awareness of an immortal spiritual nature. There is certainly not anything special about our cognitive ability that makes us delusionally create imaginary playmates and cling to them for the entirety of our existence. If anything, that would denote a LESSER cognitive ability.
> 
> *What you once described as a spiritual nature you were connected to and knew it had no personal interest in you and was unlike the Christian god and other details of the specifics of it is now an enigma we can't quite comprehend, that we just "feel", we are aware of or have a sense of, all jello terms that you call "evidence".*
> 
> Yes, but when I speak to you about my personal spirituality and then later about the generality of human spiritual connection as a whole, they are two completely different things. One is an explanation of MY understanding, the other is explaining how mankind grapples with something it can't comprehend.
Click to expand...

"It is almost akin to making an argument against human ability to reason and claiming that is an unneeded and superfluous attribute of man and we'd be better off without it."

"Other animals have just as much ability to be as cognitive as humans, ..."

So is it an attribute of man, or do animals have just as much cognitive ability?
These two in the same post!
You are such a train wreck.
We understand mortality because we recognize our death is inevitable before it comes.
What good is your "understanding" of what you term "incomprehensible"?
I'm not arguing against history in the least. I am pointing out why man has always had the need to fill the void where his knowledge has not completed the task. As it gradually gets filled, the myths morph to adapt to the remainder. The fear remains as long as the void exists, and people either embrace the unknown or make an arbitrary stab at filling the gaps for their own comfort.
Your spirituality is the vestigial tail of cavemen howling at the moon.


----------



## Boss

> So is it an attribute of man, or do animals have just as much cognitive ability?
> These two in the same post!



Spirituality is an attribute of man, cognizance is found in all primates.

YOU are the idiot claiming cognizance is the reason for spirituality, so where is the imaginary placebo apes and chimps create to cope with their mortality? 

Oh, they don't have that? Well isn't that scientifically curious? Man has this unique attribute of spirituality and also this unique need to cope with mortality. Where did THAT evolve from? Ohhh... some sort of "special" cognizance no other animals in nature have?


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> So is it an attribute of man, or do animals have just as much cognitive ability?
> These two in the same post!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spirituality is an attribute of man, cognizance is found in all primates.
> 
> YOU are the idiot claiming cognizance is the reason for spirituality, so where is the imaginary placebo apes and chimps create to cope with their mortality?
> 
> Oh, they don't have that? Well isn't that scientifically curious? Man has this unique attribute of spirituality and also this unique need to cope with mortality. Where did THAT evolve from? Ohhh... some sort of "special" cognizance no other animals in nature have?
Click to expand...

Nice edit to try to run from your incompatible nonsense.
Unfortunately the whole thing is right there a couple of posts ago.
You are the one that made the case that human cognitive ability is far beyond the animal kingdom, allowing us all these incredible technological achievements like I'm typing on now. But suddenly that is inconvenient so our cognitive abilities are magically no different than the apes.
Where was your thesis published?
Marvel Comics?


----------



## Boss

> I'm not arguing against history in the least.



It's precisely what you are doing. You and others are trying your best to destroy something that has been present in man since the inception of man. And you laughably think your goofy immature chortles are accomplishing this! We should actually invent a new word beyond "fool" to describe you.


----------



## Boss

> You are the one that made the case that human cognitive ability is far beyond the animal kingdom, allowing us all these incredible technological achievements like I'm typing on now.



Yep... BECAUSE OF OUR *SPIRITUALITY!*


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> You are the one that made the case that human cognitive ability is far beyond the animal kingdom, allowing us all these incredible technological achievements like I'm typing on now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep... BECAUSE OF OUR *SPIRITUALITY!*
Click to expand...


Did someone pray my computer into existence, or did science have to overcome centuries of dogma and misunderstandings to achieve this from rational application of cognitive ability?
Is it your position that if chimps could pray they would build computers?


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> I'm not arguing against history in the least.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's precisely what you are doing. You and others are trying your best to destroy something that has been present in man since the inception of man. And you laughably think your goofy immature chortles are accomplishing this! We should actually invent a new word beyond "fool" to describe you.
Click to expand...


Not trying to destroy, but rather illuminate the fear that causes man to create fantasies to sooth himself.
When losing, resort to attack mode.


----------



## koshergrl

The thought of an eternity in the presence of perfection and joy soothes that fear just fine, thanks.


----------



## thebrucebeat

koshergrl said:


> The thought of an eternity in the presence of perfection and joy soothes that fear just fine, thanks.



Exactly!
Thank you.


----------



## koshergrl

You're welcome.

It's there for you too.

Christians need fear nothing or no one. And they don't.


----------



## orogenicman

Boss said:


> So is it an attribute of man, or do animals have just as much cognitive ability?
> These two in the same post!
> 
> 
> 
> Spirituality is an attribute of man, cognizance is found in all primates.
> 
> YOU are the idiot claiming cognizance is the reason for spirituality, so where is the imaginary placebo apes and chimps create to cope with their mortality?
> 
> Oh, they don't have that? Well isn't that scientifically curious? Man has this unique attribute of spirituality and also this unique need to cope with mortality. Where did THAT evolve from? Ohhh... some sort of "special" cognizance no other animals in nature have?
Click to expand...


They call them angry alpha males.  We call them gods.


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one that made the case that human cognitive ability is far beyond the animal kingdom, allowing us all these incredible technological achievements like I'm typing on now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep... BECAUSE OF OUR *SPIRITUALITY!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did someone pray my computer into existence, or did science have to overcome centuries of dogma and misunderstandings to achieve this from rational application of cognitive ability?
> Is it your position that if chimps could pray they would build computers?
Click to expand...


Our inspiration to invent science comes from our connection to spirituality. This explains very rationally, why homo sapiens who came along rather recently in the life line of our planet, have been able to accomplish things that no other life in the preceding millions of years were able to. Nature and evolution didn't just suddenly stumble upon the perfect combo of cerebral cortex, cognitive thought and ability to reason to enable all of what we've accomplished. The key to it ALL is our unique attribute of spirituality. Through this spirituality we obtain inspiration, and inspiration has driven every aspect of advancement in technology and discovery. You ignorantly wish to believe the thing that has driven us is the thing that has hindered us.


----------



## koshergrl

You call angry alpha males, gods?

That explains so much.

Our God is Love.


----------



## orogenicman

koshergrl said:


> You call angry alpha males, gods?
> 
> That explains so much.
> 
> Our God is Love.



Yeah, God so loved his creation that he send a wall of water across the face of the earth to destroy his entire creation - all except 8 "special people", one of which apparently looked a lot like Russell Crowe.

 If that isn't the behavior of an angry alpha male, then what is?


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep... BECAUSE OF OUR *SPIRITUALITY!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did someone pray my computer into existence, or did science have to overcome centuries of dogma and misunderstandings to achieve this from rational application of cognitive ability?
> Is it your position that if chimps could pray they would build computers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our inspiration to invent science comes from our connection to spirituality. This explains very rationally, why homo sapiens who came along rather recently in the life line of our planet, have been able to accomplish things that no other life in the preceding millions of years were able to. Nature and evolution didn't just suddenly stumble upon the perfect combo of cerebral cortex, cognitive thought and ability to reason to enable all of what we've accomplished. The key to it ALL is our unique attribute of spirituality. Through this spirituality we obtain inspiration, and inspiration has driven every aspect of advancement in technology and discovery. You ignorantly wish to believe the thing that has driven us is the thing that has hindered us.
Click to expand...


Not suddenly.
It took millions of years.
Silly man.
You are still making the case that if chimps had spirituality they have all the other cognitive abilities to allow them to invent the computer. That is all they lack.
That is your position.
PhD?
Really!


----------



## koshergrl

orogenicman said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> You call angry alpha males, gods?
> 
> That explains so much.
> 
> Our God is Love.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, God so loved his creation that he send a wall of water across the face of the earth to destroy his entire creation - all except 8 "special people", one of which apparently looked a lot like Russell Crowe.
> 
> If that isn't the behavior of an angry alpha male, then what is?
Click to expand...

 
You..except the male and alpha part.


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is direct physical evidence that shows the existence of black holes, dark matter, and dark energy. We may not understand what is going on, but we can see there is something there.
> 
> The existence of the spiritual world? Not so much.
> 
> Do you see the difference?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, because there is "direct physical evidence" that humans connect to something greater than self and have always had this attribute. No difference, we don't understand what is going on but we can see something is happening there.
Click to expand...

false! you've contradicted your own edict ..
spirituality /god  has no physical component(paraphrased boosy claim) 
now you claim, "direct physical evidence".
if that's fact 
then god and spirituality  can be traced measured etc...making it part of the physical universe.
something you proclaim is impossible..


----------



## koshergrl

Jesus Christ is the physical component of Christianity.
You fail, duhs. Yet again.


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not arguing against history in the least.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's precisely what you are doing. You and others are trying your best to destroy something that has been present in man since the inception of man. And you laughably think your goofy immature chortles are accomplishing this! We should actually invent a new word beyond "fool" to describe you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not trying to destroy, but rather illuminate the fear that causes man to create fantasies to sooth himself.
> When losing, resort to attack mode.
Click to expand...


Well, yes... I think "destroy" is the apt word to apply here. I find it very interesting how you dance around what you are doing. You denounce spiritual belief in God but when it comes to the universe you don't quite want to say there isn't a God who created it. You think God is a man-created fantasy, but you stop short of proclaiming your Atheism, preferring to call yourself "agnostic" instead. When asked if man would be better off without any spirituality, you hem-haw around an answer then throw out some emotional vomit about your hopes in what man might become without it. When confronted with the actuality that human spirituality is where we get the uniqueness of humanity, you balk and run to some idiotic notion that our uniqueness caused the spirituality. 

You're not trying to "illuminate" anything. You are trying to destroy something which has been ingrained in mankind for all of his history. And you are doing a really piss-poor job of it at that.


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> You call angry alpha males, gods?
> 
> That explains so much.
> 
> Our God is Love.


really ? you show no sign of knowing or practicing that love...


----------



## koshergrl

You reject love outright, so it's to be expected that you don't recognize it when you see it.


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> Jesus Christ is the physical component of Christianity.
> You fail, duhs. Yet again.


right jesus is a physical component of a belief nothing more.
the rest is unproven fantasy.....o queen of willful ignorance...


----------



## Boss

> Not suddenly.
> It took millions of years.
> Silly man.



How is that so if homo sapiens have only been around 100~200k years?


----------



## koshergrl

daws101 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus Christ is the physical component of Christianity.
> You fail, duhs. Yet again.
> 
> 
> 
> right jesus is a physical component of a belief nothing more.
> the rest is unproven fantasy.....o queen of willful ignorance...
Click to expand...

 
Gads. Punctuation is your friend.


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> You reject love outright, so it's to be expected that you don't recognize it when you see it.


right! that makes about as much sense as your delusion that I'm female...
my guess is your understand of love is on par with charles manson...


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> Not suddenly.
> It took millions of years.
> Silly man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is that so if homo sapiens have only been around 100~200k years?
Click to expand...

 do you have any idea how long 200 thousand years is....


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus Christ is the physical component of Christianity.
> You fail, duhs. Yet again.
> 
> 
> 
> right jesus is a physical component of a belief nothing more.
> the rest is unproven fantasy.....o queen of willful ignorance...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gads. Punctuation is your friend.
Click to expand...

yes it is and I use it well....like all you shit it's not relevant to this topic..


----------



## Boss

> false! you've contradicted your own edict ..
> spirituality /god has no physical component(paraphrased boosy claim)
> now you claim, "direct physical evidence".
> if that's fact
> then god and spirituality can be traced measured etc...making it part of the physical universe.
> something you proclaim is impossible..



Spirituality is certainly physically measurable, the _SPIRITUAL_ is not. 

I've not said that it's impossible for God and the spiritual to be traced or measured. Many people do this through faith in spiritual nature. It is also a possibility that physical science will one day discover a physical aspect to God or the spiritual, but whenever that happens it will cease to be something "spiritual" by definition. 

YOU are the one who dismisses possibility, not ME!


----------



## MrMax

koshergrl said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boss thinks that his creator just plopped humans down in their present form. Any dumber than that, and you'd probably die.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, we should be more like you. You're obviously a genius. And definitely NOT bigoted!
Click to expand...


I'm a bigot because I think it's funny that you and Boss think that god just plopped humans down on earth as we are now?


----------



## Boss

daws101 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not suddenly.
> It took millions of years.
> Silly man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is that so if homo sapiens have only been around 100~200k years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> do you have any idea how long 200 thousand years is....
Click to expand...


Well I believe it is certainly much less than "millions of years" ...is it not?


----------



## koshergrl

No, you're a bigot because you keep saying that people who believe in God are necessarily stupid.

That's like saying Muslims and Buddhists are stupid, or Pakistanis, lol. And it's definitely bigoted.


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> false! you've contradicted your own edict ..
> spirituality /god has no physical component(paraphrased boosy claim)
> now you claim, "direct physical evidence".
> if that's fact
> then god and spirituality can be traced measured etc...making it part of the physical universe.
> something you proclaim is impossible..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spirituality is certainly physically measurable, the _SPIRITUAL_ is not.
> 
> I've not said that it's impossible for God and the spiritual to be traced or measured. Many people do this through faith in spiritual nature. It is also a possibility that physical science will one day discover a physical aspect to God or the spiritual, but whenever that happens it will cease to be something "spiritual" by definition.
> 
> YOU are the one who dismisses possibility, not ME!
Click to expand...

bullshit if spirituality is then logically the spiritual must be too....don't backpedal now boosy...


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's precisely what you are doing. You and others are trying your best to destroy something that has been present in man since the inception of man. And you laughably think your goofy immature chortles are accomplishing this! We should actually invent a new word beyond "fool" to describe you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not trying to destroy, but rather illuminate the fear that causes man to create fantasies to sooth himself.
> When losing, resort to attack mode.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, yes... I think "destroy" is the apt word to apply here. I find it very interesting how you dance around what you are doing. You denounce spiritual belief in God but when it comes to the universe you don't quite want to say there isn't a God who created it. You think God is a man-created fantasy, but you stop short of proclaiming your Atheism, preferring to call yourself "agnostic" instead. When asked if man would be better off without any spirituality, you hem-haw around an answer then throw out some emotional vomit about your hopes in what man might become without it. When confronted with the actuality that human spirituality is where we get the uniqueness of humanity, you balk and run to some idiotic notion that our uniqueness caused the spirituality.
> 
> You're not trying to "illuminate" anything. You are trying to destroy something which has been ingrained in mankind for all of his history. And you are doing a really piss-poor job of it at that.
Click to expand...


Why is the notion that spirituality caused our ability to think in ways no other animal can completely reasonable, but the notion that our ability to think in ways no other animal can caused our spiritual beliefs idiotic?

And if spirituality is what has made humanity unique and allowed us to create the technology and art and moral codes that we have, how can you say that you think it's possible animals could have a spiritual nature like humans do?  Would they, if they had the same spiritual nature, also be able to do many of the things humans do that you attribute to our spirituality?  By your reasoning, isn't spirituality in animals pretty much impossible?


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is that so if homo sapiens have only been around 100~200k years?
> 
> 
> 
> do you have any idea how long 200 thousand years is....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I believe it is certainly much less than "millions of years" ...is it not?
Click to expand...

another classic impractical comparison....


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> No, you're a bigot because you keep saying that people who believe in God are necessarily stupid.
> 
> That's like saying Muslims and Buddhists are stupid, or Pakistanis, lol. And it's definitely bigoted.


pakistanis are not a religion...
stupid is not a necessity it is however an option lot's o believers choose...


----------



## koshergrl

Boss said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is that so if homo sapiens have only been around 100~200k years?
> 
> 
> 
> do you have any idea how long 200 thousand years is....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I believe it is certainly much less than "millions of years" ...is it not?
Click to expand...

 
Duhs has a serious blind spot with regards to the time/space continuum. She has no concept of time, no sense of history, and limited understanding of such complex issues.

She maintained for DAYS that the BRONZE AGE occurred in the 1500s. She thinks she looks smart when she makes historical references...but they're always incorrect (WAAAYYYY incorrect) and she refuses to accept correction regarding them because that's #1, how she validates herself TO herself, and #2, because when she has to admit she's using the reference INCORRECTLY she also has to admit she's WRONG.

In other words...she can't distinguish between millions and 200 thousand, and she has no idea what the history of Man is, except what she picks up from the most bizarre and lunatic wicca sites on the internet.

And trust me, those things aren't run by historians, biologists or scholars.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> Not suddenly.
> It took millions of years.
> Silly man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is that so if homo sapiens have only been around 100~200k years?
Click to expand...


Because the evolution of man didn't start with homo sapiens.
That was pretty easy.


----------



## thebrucebeat

koshergrl said:


> You reject love outright, so it's to be expected that you don't recognize it when you see it.



Peace, love, joy, patience, goodness, kindness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control?
Would it look anything like that?
Where are those traits in you?


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> do you have any idea how long 200 thousand years is....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I believe it is certainly much less than "millions of years" ...is it not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Duhs has a serious blind spot with regards to the time/space continuum. She has no concept of time, no sense of history, and limited understanding of such complex issues.
> 
> She maintained for DAYS that the BRONZE AGE occurred in the 1500s. She thinks she looks smart when she makes historical references...but they're always incorrect (WAAAYYYY incorrect) and she refuses to accept correction regarding them because that's #1, how she validates herself TO herself, and #2, because when she has to admit she's using the reference INCORRECTLY she also has to admit she's WRONG.
> 
> In other words...she can't distinguish between millions and 200 thousand, and she has no idea what the history of Man is, except what she picks up from the most bizarre and lunatic wicca sites on the internet.
> 
> And trust me, those things aren't run by historians, biologists or scholars.
Click to expand...

there it is folks kosher hag's delusion....in all it's glory... 
please make special note of the furiously desperate projection....


----------



## daws101

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not suddenly.
> It took millions of years.
> Silly man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is that so if homo sapiens have only been around 100~200k years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the evolution of man didn't start with homo sapiens.
> That was pretty easy.
Click to expand...

hey buddy! logic and facts have no place in  this thread


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's precisely what you are doing. You and others are trying your best to destroy something that has been present in man since the inception of man. And you laughably think your goofy immature chortles are accomplishing this! We should actually invent a new word beyond "fool" to describe you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not trying to destroy, but rather illuminate the fear that causes man to create fantasies to sooth himself.
> When losing, resort to attack mode.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, yes... I think "destroy" is the apt word to apply here. I find it very interesting how you dance around what you are doing. You denounce spiritual belief in God but when it comes to the universe you don't quite want to say there isn't a God who created it. You think God is a man-created fantasy, but you stop short of proclaiming your Atheism, preferring to call yourself "agnostic" instead. When asked if man would be better off without any spirituality, you hem-haw around an answer then throw out some emotional vomit about your hopes in what man might become without it. When confronted with the actuality that human spirituality is where we get the uniqueness of humanity, you balk and run to some idiotic notion that our uniqueness caused the spirituality.
> 
> You're not trying to "illuminate" anything. You are trying to destroy something which has been ingrained in mankind for all of his history. And you are doing a really piss-poor job of it at that.
Click to expand...


Seems like if I hit a nerve that makes you abandon argument.
You want to talk about me instead.
Go with that if you're lost.


----------



## holston

Steven_R said:


> Ask any scientist worth his salt and they will flat out say it is entirely _possible _that there is some supernatural cause for the universe or life on Earth, but there is no evidence to point in that direction. Even someone like Dawkins will acknowledge the possibility, but the next question out of his mouth will be "so where's the evidence of God?"



Psalm 19


> The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
> 
> 2 Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.
> 
> 3 There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.




 God made himself visible to man once in the form of Jesus Christ but the world didn't recognize him, at least not most of it, and not immediately. 

 Hebrews 11


> 1 Now *faith is confidence* in what we hope for *and assurance about what we do not see.* 2 This is what the ancients were commended for.
> 
> 3 *By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God&#8217;s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.*






> 6 And *without faith it is impossible to please God, *because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.






> 13 *All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance, admitting that they were foreigners and strangers on earth.* 14 People who say such things show that they are looking for a country of their own. 15 If they had been thinking of the country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return. 16 Instead, they were longing for a better country&#8212;a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them.




 There are many things which we accept as fact for which our personal knowledge of is only second hand and/or circumstantial. 

 You should be able to think of many examples without my help. 

 We take these things for granted _without_ proof in the sense in which you are demanding it. 

 People may reject some things even given "proof". 
In such cases no amount of "proof" would be sufficient for them. For they could always find reasons to doubt it such as those problems which have been proposed by philosophers. 

 Indeed, I believe it was a mathematician named Godel who proposed a theorem which states something to the effect that all "proofs" must ultimately lie upon a foundation of assumptions called lemmas. 

 A crude way of saying this is that a man believes what he wants to believe. 
 This is exactly what the doubters and skeptics of the Christian faith accuse believers of, ie believing in something for which there is no proof. 

 Again, the same thing could be said about anyone and everyone. For their very existence lacks "proof". It is simply "self evident" which is not to say it is "proven". 

 It is not fair to say that all Christians have a "blind" faith. This implies that they have no evidence. But there IS evidence. There is much evidence. The difference in people is in what bodies of evidence they are willing to accept or focus their attention on. One must first seek it. To do that he must at least be receptive to it when it is revealed to him. Otherwise how will he notice it?

 I have tried to avoid the position that so many athiests have taken wherein they only admit arguments which tend to bolster their own desire to disprove that which they inwardly reject. I also have tried to avoid the timid position that so many Christians of little faith assume when they put on blinders at any evidence which is presented to them which challenges their own preconceived notions of how the universe MUST operate in order to permit the existence of God. 
  Based on my past experience with such questions, I do not fear that anything which supports my faith worth keeping will fail given enough information and enough scrutiny, for I do not believe that it is possible to disprove a thing which is true under those circumstances. If these supports are so shaky that they fall that easily then they weren't very sturdy in the first place. It's better to build on a strong foundation. 

 I believe your estimation of "any" or "most" scientists is an inaccurate one. There are many scientists both past and present who do see the sense in a creator and take it to be such a reasonable or likely proposition that they readily accept it as well as the most unlearned man might. One doesn't have to be ignorant in order to believe in God but he does have to have enough humility to realize the fact that he does not nor cannot know everything. 

 I welcome revelations of new knowledge of a scientific nature for I am convinced that ultimately they can do nothing but add weight to the convictions I have already. Those convictions are based not only on a knowledge of what the scriptures have to say about the condition of man, but the corroboration of them with what I have experienced is actually there. There is no other codified religion which correlates better with reality as I perceive it than that which is contained within the Bible. 

 You can not go to the Bible looking for an aerodynamic, thermodynamic explanation for the origin of the universe. It isn't there. But I would take care not to make gross and premature assumptions in making my _interpretations_ of the first few chapters of Genesis or of accepting those of others when attempting to extrapolate that narrative with the _theories_ which have been proposed by men in order to explain them. You wouldn't want to mistake those theories for known facts in either case. 

 The Bible was written no doubt with ALL of the generations of men in mind, That would include those who lacked knowledge which we possess today and those which will have knowledge in the future which we do not possess today.

 It's clear enough to me that man will never possess all knowledge and power in the sense in which God possesses it, not in this lifetime or any others. But it is still possible I believe to possess the "peace which passeth all understanding".
 This does not require us to close our eyes to the light of day, only to open them.


----------



## Boss

daws101 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> false! you've contradicted your own edict ..
> spirituality /god has no physical component(paraphrased boosy claim)
> now you claim, "direct physical evidence".
> if that's fact
> then god and spirituality can be traced measured etc...making it part of the physical universe.
> something you proclaim is impossible..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spirituality is certainly physically measurable, the _SPIRITUAL_ is not.
> 
> I've not said that it's impossible for God and the spiritual to be traced or measured. Many people do this through faith in spiritual nature. It is also a possibility that physical science will one day discover a physical aspect to God or the spiritual, but whenever that happens it will cease to be something "spiritual" by definition.
> 
> YOU are the one who dismisses possibility, not ME!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> bullshit if spirituality is then logically the spiritual must be too....don't backpedal now boosy...
Click to expand...


No backpedal, you're just illiterately stupid. Human spirituality is a physical behavior found in humans. It is measurable and traceable by monitoring brain activity. What humans are connecting to, the spiritual, is not physical and not detectable or traceable by physical science at this time. They are two quite different things, hence the reason for two different words. I realize they seem to sound alike... spiritual, spirituality... very close, but very different also. 

So "logically" you are just illiterate and stupid.


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spirituality is certainly physically measurable, the _SPIRITUAL_ is not.
> 
> I've not said that it's impossible for God and the spiritual to be traced or measured. Many people do this through faith in spiritual nature. It is also a possibility that physical science will one day discover a physical aspect to God or the spiritual, but whenever that happens it will cease to be something "spiritual" by definition.
> 
> YOU are the one who dismisses possibility, not ME!
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit if spirituality is then logically the spiritual must be too....don't backpedal now boosy...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No backpedal, you're just illiterately stupid. Human spirituality is a physical behavior found in humans. It is measurable and traceable by monitoring brain activity. What humans are connecting to, the spiritual, is not physical and not detectable or traceable by physical science at this time. They are two quite different things, hence the reason for two different words. I realize they seem to sound alike... spiritual, spirituality... very close, but very different also.
> 
> So "logically" you are just illiterate and stupid.
Click to expand...

every thing you just said is back peddling 
my logic is sound unlike yours.......


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not suddenly.
> It took millions of years.
> Silly man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is that so if homo sapiens have only been around 100~200k years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the evolution of man didn't start with homo sapiens.
> That was pretty easy.
Click to expand...


Well, aside from the fact that you have not proven this... where is the evidence that whatever preceded man was spiritual? Where is the evidence that our "common ancestors" were spiritual? Where is evidence that species we supposedly share common ancestry with are spiritual? 

Yes... it IS easy... you have NO EVIDENCE!


----------



## Boss

daws101 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit if spirituality is then logically the spiritual must be too....don't backpedal now boosy...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No backpedal, you're just illiterately stupid. Human spirituality is a physical behavior found in humans. It is measurable and traceable by monitoring brain activity. What humans are connecting to, the spiritual, is not physical and not detectable or traceable by physical science at this time. They are two quite different things, hence the reason for two different words. I realize they seem to sound alike... spiritual, spirituality... very close, but very different also.
> 
> So "logically" you are just illiterate and stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> every thing you just said is back peddling
> my logic is sound unlike yours.......
Click to expand...


You have no logic, dawsy-doodle. You are logicless. Devoid of logic. A logical black hole. 

Backpedaling is when you change or alter something you originally stated. I have not changed a thing. I've always maintained that human spirituality is a natural attribute of humams for as long as humans have existed. I've also maintained spiritual nature is not measurable by physical science. Where do you see anything that indicates I've backpedaled, and why are you failing to point that out here?


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spirituality is certainly physically measurable, the _SPIRITUAL_ is not.
> 
> I've not said that it's impossible for God and the spiritual to be traced or measured. Many people do this through faith in spiritual nature. It is also a possibility that physical science will one day discover a physical aspect to God or the spiritual, but whenever that happens it will cease to be something "spiritual" by definition.
> 
> YOU are the one who dismisses possibility, not ME!
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit if spirituality is then logically the spiritual must be too....don't backpedal now boosy...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No backpedal, you're just illiterately stupid. Human spirituality is a physical behavior found in humans. It is measurable and traceable by monitoring brain activity. What humans are connecting to, the spiritual, is not physical and not detectable or traceable by physical science at this time. They are two quite different things, hence the reason for two different words. I realize they seem to sound alike... spiritual, spirituality... very close, but very different also.
> 
> So "logically" you are just illiterate and stupid.
Click to expand...


What you have identified in the brain is the fear response.
The "spiritual" that can not be defined is what man invents with it.


----------



## Boss

> What you have identified in the brain is the fear response.
> The "spiritual" that can not be defined is what man invents with it.



Defies biology because we don't see such a phenomenon elsewhere in nature. If anything you are claiming were true, we'd see apes and chimps exhibiting similar behavior patterns, since they are our closest supposed common ancestors. We'd probably see such phenomena in most mammals with cognitivity. BUT... we see it nowhere except in humans.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is that so if homo sapiens have only been around 100~200k years?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the evolution of man didn't start with homo sapiens.
> That was pretty easy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, aside from the fact that you have not proven this... where is the evidence that whatever preceded man was spiritual? Where is the evidence that our "common ancestors" were spiritual? Where is evidence that species we supposedly share common ancestry with are spiritual?
> 
> Yes... it IS easy... you have NO EVIDENCE!
Click to expand...


Didn't make the argument that the predecessors had it, so you have again created a strawman that you can work with. It is your habit, and we have come to expect this common dodge from you. You are nothing if not predictable.
It took millions of years for species to develop to attain the cognitive abilities we have both recognized are unique to humans.


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is that so if homo sapiens have only been around 100~200k years?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the evolution of man didn't start with homo sapiens.
> That was pretty easy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, aside from the fact that you have not proven this... where is the evidence that whatever preceded man was spiritual? Where is the evidence that our "common ancestors" were spiritual? Where is evidence that species we supposedly share common ancestry with are spiritual?
> 
> Yes... it IS easy... you have NO EVIDENCE!
Click to expand...

ah yes he did , I did and so have many thousands of paleobiolgists, paleontologists ,amature fossil hunters...
lets do a little speculative storytelling..shall we..
One fine day the human race obliterates itself...NOTHING IS LEFT but a few objects to denote what the now extinct species knew or did or believed.
lets say that this obliteration  is the kickstart for the evolution of another species. lets say the cockroach.
they are in fact, almost indestructible and adaptable  making them a good candidate for survival  
they evolve SENTIENCE , technology and science.
they explore their world and find  an ancient human cemetery .
having no experience with human civilization they speculate on what these creatures were and what thought and believed....
the unearth a cross, with jesus on it .
a cigarette lighter and  pacemaker.. 
from these few and unrecognisable objects could they correctly guess ,infer etc,
what sort of spiritually if any these creatures had or did they believe in a deity....
my guess is no.....
making them just like us...


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> What you have identified in the brain is the fear response.
> The "spiritual" that can not be defined is what man invents with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Defies biology because we don't see such a phenomenon elsewhere in nature. If anything you are claiming were true, we'd see apes and chimps exhibiting similar behavior patterns, since they are our closest supposed common ancestors. We'd probably see such phenomena in most mammals with cognitivity. BUT... we see it nowhere except in humans.
Click to expand...


The physiology of those brains are not the same, are they?
Closest ancestors, but an entirely different species. Totally different brain, isn't it?
Silly argument.
Totally silly.
Embarrasing, really.


----------



## orogenicman

Boss said:


> What you have identified in the brain is the fear response.
> The "spiritual" that can not be defined is what man invents with it.
> 
> 
> 
> Defies biology because we don't see such a phenomenon elsewhere in nature. If anything you are claiming were true, we'd see apes and chimps exhibiting similar behavior patterns, since they are our closest supposed common ancestors. We'd probably see such phenomena in most mammals with cognitivity. BUT... we see it nowhere except in humans.
Click to expand...


Chimpanzees and Bonobos can make and use tools, show grief upon the death of a relative, laugh when they see something funny, and recognize themselves in a mirror, demonstrating that they understand the concept of self.  

 Neanderthals conducted rituals for the dead, made sophisticated tools and weapons, and may have been the first to make cave drawings of animals and items they saw in their every day lives.  It has also been demonstrated that they were anatomically capable of human speech (their hyoid bones were identical to ours).  Whether they had an actual language is unknown at this time.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Boss said:


> What you have identified in the brain is the fear response.
> The "spiritual" that can not be defined is what man invents with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Defies biology because we don't see such a phenomenon elsewhere in nature. If anything you are claiming were true, we'd see apes and chimps exhibiting similar behavior patterns, since they are our closest supposed common ancestors. We'd probably see such phenomena in most mammals with cognitivity. BUT... we see it nowhere except in humans.
Click to expand...


Yet again your ignorance is palpable. Studies have identified the brainwave patterns of humans undergoing spiritual experiences and found similar brainwave patterns in other animals. Links to these studies have been provided to you several times in this thread and you have denied the scientific evidence that exposes your ignorance and outright lies. Furthermore it exposes your claim to be qualified in this area since you would have come across these studies as a professional.


----------



## koshergrl

daws101 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you're a bigot because you keep saying that people who believe in God are necessarily stupid.
> 
> That's like saying Muslims and Buddhists are stupid, or Pakistanis, lol. And it's definitely bigoted.
> 
> 
> 
> pakistanis are not a religion...
> stupid is not a necessity it is however an option lot's o believers choose...
Click to expand...

 
I didn't say Pakistani was a religion, duhs. My point is about the nature of bigotry, which is not confined to RELIGION. You can be bigoted against someone based on their skin color, their point of origin, their height, their accent, their religion, or their nation.

Which was rather my point. Which of course must eternally be dumbed down for you..a point I have also made before. It's remarkable how consistent you are in your inability to comprehend the simplest and most commonly understood concepts. No wonder you seek out alternate methods of fulfillment...it's obvious that you have very limited understanding of anything normal, reasonable, or even factual.


----------



## Boss

> Chimpanzees and Bonobos can make and use tools, show grief upon the death of a relative, laugh when they see something funny, and recognize themselves in a mirror, demonstrating that they understand the concept of self.



Yet they don't have the fears of mortality and unknown causing them to create imaginary playmates to make it through life. Even though they have cognizance of self and are saddened by the death of relatives, they don't seem to be having trouble with this pesky fear of their own mortality. Strange, isn't it?


----------



## koshergrl

They also aren't bothered by any sense of morality and will happily and without any pause or punishment at all cannibalize their own children. Likewise, they have neither the desire nor the ability to create.

And anti-Christian bigots think this is an admirable trait.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> Chimpanzees and Bonobos can make and use tools, show grief upon the death of a relative, laugh when they see something funny, and recognize themselves in a mirror, demonstrating that they understand the concept of self.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet they don't have the fears of mortality and unknown causing them to create imaginary playmates to make it through life. Even though they have cognizance of self and are saddened by the death of relatives, they don't seem to be having trouble with this pesky fear of their own mortality. Strange, isn't it?
Click to expand...


Not in the least, unless you think we are exactly the same as the apes.
But I thought your position was quite the opposite.


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the evolution of man didn't start with homo sapiens.
> That was pretty easy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, aside from the fact that you have not proven this... where is the evidence that whatever preceded man was spiritual? Where is the evidence that our "common ancestors" were spiritual? Where is evidence that species we supposedly share common ancestry with are spiritual?
> 
> Yes... it IS easy... you have NO EVIDENCE!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Didn't make the argument that the predecessors had it,* so you have again created a strawman that you can work with. It is your habit, and we have come to expect this common dodge from you. You are nothing if not predictable.
> *It took millions of years for species to develop* to attain the cognitive abilities we have both recognized are unique to humans.
Click to expand...


If ancestors which preceded homo sapiens didn't have it then it couldn't have taken millions of years to develop and humans are only 100~200k years old. The behavior didn't evolve into humans from something else. It is an attribute unique to humans, not found anywhere else in nature, not found in evidence from any other creature in nature ever. 

Your theory is total rubbish. You contend that all these millions of years things were developing a secret mystical attribute that none were aware of until humans came along, and then *POOF* out of nowhere, humans had this insatiable need to develop a placebo to deal with fears of mortality that also, curiously, don't exist anywhere else in nature past or present. The most intelligently advanced species ever to evolve into existence, yet they have this pronounced mental handicap of needing something to pacify insecurity. 

You are literally Fonzie jumping the shark of logic on this one.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, aside from the fact that you have not proven this... where is the evidence that whatever preceded man was spiritual? Where is the evidence that our "common ancestors" were spiritual? Where is evidence that species we supposedly share common ancestry with are spiritual?
> 
> Yes... it IS easy... you have NO EVIDENCE!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Didn't make the argument that the predecessors had it,* so you have again created a strawman that you can work with. It is your habit, and we have come to expect this common dodge from you. You are nothing if not predictable.
> *It took millions of years for species to develop* to attain the cognitive abilities we have both recognized are unique to humans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If ancestors which preceded homo sapiens didn't have it then it couldn't have taken millions of years to develop and humans are only 100~200k years old. The behavior didn't evolve into humans from something else. It is an attribute unique to humans, not found anywhere else in nature, not found in evidence from any other creature in nature ever.
> 
> Your theory is total rubbish. You contend that all these millions of years things were developing a secret mystical attribute that none were aware of until humans came along, and then *POOF* out of nowhere, humans had this insatiable need to develop a placebo to deal with fears of mortality that also, curiously, don't exist anywhere else in nature past or present. The most intelligently advanced species ever to evolve into existence, yet they have this pronounced mental handicap of needing something to pacify insecurity.
> 
> You are literally Fonzie jumping the shark of logic on this one.
Click to expand...


Again you make up something, attribute it to me and then try to dismantle it.
So pathetic.
No secret mystical attribute. Fear is as common as oxygen.
Many attributes are unique to humans, but his reasoning power is chief among them. It is this that trips him up in the spiritual fantasy. He sees his mortality, fears it and creates a mythology to save himself from it.
Only the most intelligent species could develop a way of using the mind to overcome its greatest fear.


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you're a bigot because you keep saying that people who believe in God are necessarily stupid.
> 
> That's like saying Muslims and Buddhists are stupid, or Pakistanis, lol. And it's definitely bigoted.
> 
> 
> 
> pakistanis are not a religion...
> stupid is not a necessity it is however an option lot's o believers choose...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say Pakistani was a religion, duhs. My point is about the nature of bigotry, which is not confined to RELIGION. You can be bigoted against someone based on their skin color, their point of origin, their height, their accent, their religion, or their nation.
> 
> Which was rather my point. Which of course must eternally be dumbed down for you..a point I have also made before. It's remarkable how consistent you are in your inability to comprehend the simplest and most commonly understood concepts. No wonder you seek out alternate methods of fulfillment...it's obvious that you have very limited understanding of anything normal, reasonable, or even factual.
Click to expand...

love it when you rationalize ...you were spewing hate ...that all...
and that was and is your point.....the rest is you justifying your madness ... 

 alternate methods of fulfillment.---a new wrinkle in your delusion....


----------



## koshergrl

It's not "spewing hate" to point out bigotry, bigot.


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> They also aren't bothered by any sense of morality and will happily and without any pause or punishment at all cannibalize their own children. Likewise, they have neither the desire nor the ability to create.
> 
> And anti-Christian bigots think this is an admirable trait.


no... you're not at all unhinged....not at all....!
melodrama at it's worst...


----------



## koshergrl

Poor duhs.


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> It's not "spewing hate" to point out bigotry, bigot.


then you should pointing at yourself....you're not bigoted like you're not nut's....


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> Poor duhs.


that's right faux compassion! gotta make those brownie points for god.....


----------



## koshergrl

God doesn't need me to earn him brownie points.

See, like I said, your obvious intellectual deficits undo you. Impaired capability makes me sad.


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> God doesn't need me to earn him brownie points.
> 
> See, like I said, your obvious intellectual deficits undo you. Impaired capability makes me sad.


no god doesn't but you do ..god is your construct and feeding it is a major part of your ongoing delusion...
as are the imagined mental defects you project on others ...


----------



## koshergrl




----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


>


I have that same reaction....every time you post....


----------



## koshergrl

Yes, it's obvious that you do enjoy being held up as an object of ridicule. I have to agree with you there....


----------



## Boss

> Many attributes are unique to humans, but his reasoning power is chief among them. It is this that trips him up in the spiritual fantasy. He sees his mortality, fears it and creates a mythology to save himself from it.



A bunch of other critters have "reasoning power." Crows are especially astute at reasoning, figuring things out, rationalizing and planning then executing their plans. There is nothing unique about this ability in humans. But again, you are claiming the most advanced intellectual creature ever in the history of intelligent life, has this handicap where they need to create an imaginary security blanket so they can cope with fear of their mortality. Do you not realize how absolutely preposterous this sounds? 

He sees his mortality because he comprehends potential immortality. Why? Because he has an intrinsic connection he can't ignore with something profound and greater than self, which he recognizes as immortal. And dude, I am sorry, you can sit here and pop off your pretentious and arrogant snorts toward "spiritual fantasy" all you like, the fact that you balk when it comes to defining yourself as an Atheist or completely rejecting the idea of God the Creator of the universe, speaks volumes. 

Face it, you are a bitter man with an axe to grind. This is a personal vendetta between you and God. You feel that God somehow let you down and now you're going to make God pay. I hate to tell you this, but long after you have returned to the dust of the Earth, God will still be going strong and mankind will still be connecting with God. In the scope of eternity, you are essentially meaningless.


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> Yes, it's obvious that you do enjoy being held up as an object of ridicule. I have to agree with you there....


thanks for showcasing your delusion,again.
ridicule by the fringe nut club ..is not ridicule at all....


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> Many attributes are unique to humans, but his reasoning power is chief among them. It is this that trips him up in the spiritual fantasy. He sees his mortality, fears it and creates a mythology to save himself from it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A bunch of other critters have "reasoning power." Crows are especially astute at reasoning, figuring things out, rationalizing and planning then executing their plans. There is nothing unique about this ability in humans. But again, you are claiming the most advanced intellectual creature ever in the history of intelligent life, has this handicap where they need to create an imaginary security blanket so they can cope with fear of their mortality. Do you not realize how absolutely preposterous this sounds?
> 
> He sees his mortality because he comprehends potential immortality. Why? Because he has an intrinsic connection he can't ignore with something profound and greater than self, which he recognizes as immortal. And dude, I am sorry, you can sit here and pop off your pretentious and arrogant snorts toward "spiritual fantasy" all you like, the fact that you balk when it comes to defining yourself as an Atheist or completely rejecting the idea of God the Creator of the universe, speaks volumes.
> 
> Face it, you are a bitter man with an axe to grind. This is a personal vendetta between you and God. You feel that God somehow let you down and now you're going to make God pay. I hate to tell you this, but long after you have returned to the dust of the Earth, God will still be going strong and mankind will still be connecting with God. In the scope of eternity, you are essentially meaningless.
Click to expand...


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> Many attributes are unique to humans, but his reasoning power is chief among them. It is this that trips him up in the spiritual fantasy. He sees his mortality, fears it and creates a mythology to save himself from it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A bunch of other critters have "reasoning power." Crows are especially astute at reasoning, figuring things out, rationalizing and planning then executing their plans. There is nothing unique about this ability in humans. But again, you are claiming the most advanced intellectual creature ever in the history of intelligent life, has this handicap where they need to create an imaginary security blanket so they can cope with fear of their mortality. Do you not realize how absolutely preposterous this sounds?
> 
> He sees his mortality because he comprehends potential immortality. Why? Because he has an intrinsic connection he can't ignore with something profound and greater than self, which he recognizes as immortal. And dude, I am sorry, you can sit here and pop off your pretentious and arrogant snorts toward "spiritual fantasy" all you like, the fact that you balk when it comes to defining yourself as an Atheist or completely rejecting the idea of God the Creator of the universe, speaks volumes.
> 
> Face it, you are a bitter man with an axe to grind. This is a personal vendetta between you and God. You feel that God somehow let you down and now you're going to make God pay. I hate to tell you this, but long after you have returned to the dust of the Earth, God will still be going strong and mankind will still be connecting with God. In the scope of eternity, you are essentially meaningless.
Click to expand...

You want to make the case that other animals reason, too, and then immediately make the case that man is "the most advanced intellectual creature ever in the history of intelligent life" (though the way that is written puts the issue in great doubt) making my case for me that his reasoning power would give him the unique ability to rationalize, which requires one to make a fiction that one then invests in. 
The rest is you getting into your usual personal snit when you know you are getting humiliated.


----------



## thanatos144

daws101 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> God doesn't need me to earn him brownie points.
> 
> See, like I said, your obvious intellectual deficits undo you. Impaired capability makes me sad.
> 
> 
> 
> no god doesn't but you do ..god is your construct and feeding it is a major part of your ongoing delusion...
> as are the imagined mental defects you project on others ...
Click to expand...


the great tolerance of the atheist religion.


----------



## orogenicman

Boss said:


> Chimpanzees and Bonobos can make and use tools, show grief upon the death of a relative, laugh when they see something funny, and recognize themselves in a mirror, demonstrating that they understand the concept of self.
> 
> 
> 
> Yet they don't have the fears of mortality and unknown causing them to create imaginary playmates to make it through life. Even though they have cognizance of self and are saddened by the death of relatives, they don't seem to be having trouble with this pesky fear of their own mortality. Strange, isn't it?
Click to expand...


Most animals have a fear of death, Booseyman.  Gazelles, for instance, understand that if they get caught by a lion, they will be eaten.  That is why they run away!  This is well documented.  But you may be right about one thing.  Most other animals aren't as deluded as we are into making shit up, like you have been doing right here.  Isn't that strange?


----------



## orogenicman

koshergrl said:


> They also aren't bothered by any sense of morality and will happily and without any pause or punishment at all cannibalize their own children. Likewise, they have neither the desire nor the ability to create.
> 
> And anti-Christian bigots think this is an admirable trait.



You don't get out much, do you?


----------



## orogenicman

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, aside from the fact that you have not proven this... where is the evidence that whatever preceded man was spiritual? Where is the evidence that our "common ancestors" were spiritual? Where is evidence that species we supposedly share common ancestry with are spiritual?
> 
> Yes... it IS easy... you have NO EVIDENCE!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Didn't make the argument that the predecessors had it,* so you have again created a strawman that you can work with. It is your habit, and we have come to expect this common dodge from you. You are nothing if not predictable.
> *It took millions of years for species to develop* to attain the cognitive abilities we have both recognized are unique to humans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If ancestors which preceded homo sapiens didn't have it then it couldn't have taken millions of years to develop and humans are only 100~200k years old. The behavior didn't evolve into humans from something else. It is an attribute unique to humans, not found anywhere else in nature, not found in evidence from any other creature in nature ever.
> 
> Your theory is total rubbish. You contend that all these millions of years things were developing a secret mystical attribute that none were aware of until humans came along, and then *POOF* out of nowhere, humans had this insatiable need to develop a placebo to deal with fears of mortality that also, curiously, don't exist anywhere else in nature past or present. The most intelligently advanced species ever to evolve into existence, yet they have this pronounced mental handicap of needing something to pacify insecurity.
> 
> You are literally Fonzie jumping the shark of logic on this one.
Click to expand...


Explain to me why humans lived in caves and lean tos and out in the open for much of his existence until about 10,000 years ago?  What changed?


----------



## orogenicman

Boss said:


> Many attributes are unique to humans, but his reasoning power is chief among them. It is this that trips him up in the spiritual fantasy. He sees his mortality, fears it and creates a mythology to save himself from it.
> 
> 
> 
> A bunch of other critters have "reasoning power." Crows are especially astute at reasoning, figuring things out, rationalizing and planning then executing their plans. There is nothing unique about this ability in humans. But again, you are claiming the most advanced intellectual creature ever in the history of intelligent life, has this handicap where they need to create an imaginary security blanket so they can cope with fear of their mortality. Do you not realize how absolutely preposterous this sounds?
Click to expand...


You're right. It is preposterous. So why do we do it? I think we do it because we have an innate need to fear angry alpha males. It is a left over from our earlier primate youth. Is it a coincidence that your God is depicted as a grizzled gray haired old man? I don't think it is.  Here is the original archetype for your god:







 Congratulations.


----------



## BreezeWood

> *Boss:* It is also a possibility that physical science will one day discover a physical aspect to God ...



so, your God is inanimate ?





> *Boss:* What humans are connecting to, the spiritual, *is not physical* and not detectable or traceable by physical science at this time.



there is no reason to believe the "Creator" of the universe would not be physical by only its imperception  ... by humanity.





> *Boss:* ... where is the evidence that whatever preceded man was spiritual? Where is the evidence that our "common ancestors" were spiritual? Where is evidence that species we supposedly share common ancestry with are spiritual?




happily, not everyone is a Scripturalist - it is readily apparent simply by observation whatever is alive is Spiritual ...

.






the physiology of a plant is not attributable to a brain and yet it has the same reasoning ability displayed by animals.

.


----------



## Boss

> ...making my case for me that his reasoning power would give him the unique ability to rationalize, which requires one to make a fiction that one then invests in.



And your premise is preposterous. Other things rationalize! They don't rationalize fictions to invest in! You are literally arguing that our extremely advanced intelligence gives us the ability to be total imbeciles and do something completely illogical for the entirety of our existence.  

Look, I know that you probably look up to some moronic geek who told you all this crap on one of his 'blogs-o-wisdom' somewhere, but it hasn't been thought through properly. It's completely nosediving as a theory because it just doesn't make a lot of sense. It fits your narrative, and that's about all it does.


----------



## orogenicman

Boss said:


> ...making my case for me that his reasoning power would give him the unique ability to rationalize, which requires one to make a fiction that one then invests in.
> 
> 
> 
> And your premise is preposterous. Other things rationalize! They don't rationalize fictions to invest in! You are literally arguing that our extremely advanced intelligence gives us the ability to be total imbeciles and do something completely illogical for the entirety of our existence.
> 
> Look, I know that you probably look up to some moronic geek who told you all this crap on one of his 'blogs-o-wisdom' somewhere, but it hasn't been thought through properly. It's completely nosediving as a theory because it just doesn't make a lot of sense. It fits your narrative, and that's about all it does.
Click to expand...


Being an intelligent species is no guarantee that we won't do stupid things.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> ...making my case for me that his reasoning power would give him the unique ability to rationalize, which requires one to make a fiction that one then invests in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your premise is preposterous. Other things rationalize! They don't rationalize fictions to invest in! You are literally arguing that our extremely advanced intelligence gives us the ability to be total imbeciles and do something completely illogical for the entirety of our existence.
> 
> Look, I know that you probably look up to some moronic geek who told you all this crap on one of his 'blogs-o-wisdom' somewhere, but it hasn't been thought through properly. It's completely nosediving as a theory because it just doesn't make a lot of sense. It fits your narrative, and that's about all it does.
Click to expand...


You have done nothing to undermine it, that is certain.
All of my words are mine, not regurgitated from anywhere unless cited as such.
In the movie "The Big Chill" Jeff Goldblum says rationalizations are more important than sex. When challenged, he asks "Have you ever gone a week without a good rationalization?"
People continuously rationalize all kinds of things.  All the time. Constantly. 
Name a rationalization from the animal kingdom.


----------



## koshergrl

They don't need to rationalize, they have no morality.


----------



## thebrucebeat

koshergrl said:


> They don't need to rationalize, they have no morality.



You don't have any idea how funny what you just said is.


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...making my case for me that his reasoning power would give him the unique ability to rationalize, which requires one to make a fiction that one then invests in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your premise is preposterous. Other things rationalize! They don't rationalize fictions to invest in! You are literally arguing that our extremely advanced intelligence gives us the ability to be total imbeciles and do something completely illogical for the entirety of our existence.
> 
> Look, I know that you probably look up to some moronic geek who told you all this crap on one of his 'blogs-o-wisdom' somewhere, but it hasn't been thought through properly. It's completely nosediving as a theory because it just doesn't make a lot of sense. It fits your narrative, and that's about all it does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have done nothing to undermine it, that is certain.
> All of my words are mine, not regurgitated from anywhere unless cited as such.
> In the movie "The Big Chill" Jeff Goldblum says rationalizations are more important than sex. When challenged, he asks "Have you ever gone a week without a good rationalization?"
> People continuously rationalize all kinds of things.  All the time. Constantly.
> Name a rationalization from the animal kingdom.
Click to expand...


Well, I gave you one example already. Crows rationalize all the time. They rationalize, they reason, they plan and implement ideas. Other than being able to marginally read and write, they are probably as intelligent as you. They are not alone, I could give you countless examples of animals who rationalize. What they don't seem to do is spiritually connect to something greater than self and become inspired. God knows creatures such as yourself would be in very big trouble if they did. 

I think your theory was totally destroyed. The most intelligent species ever to exist, certainly didn't create some imaginary meme and cling to it for all it's existence so it could get through life. If you're so fucking stupid you want to believe that, it's your business. You best just hope the fucking crows don't learn how to read and operate a computer, or you're toast.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> ...making my case for me that his reasoning power would give him the unique ability to rationalize, which requires one to make a fiction that one then invests in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your premise is preposterous. Other things rationalize! They don't rationalize fictions to invest in! You are literally arguing that our extremely advanced intelligence gives us the ability to be total imbeciles and do something completely illogical for the entirety of our existence.
> 
> Look, I know that you probably look up to some moronic geek who told you all this crap on one of his 'blogs-o-wisdom' somewhere, but it hasn't been thought through properly. It's completely nosediving as a theory because it just doesn't make a lot of sense. It fits your narrative, and that's about all it does.
Click to expand...


I would appreciate an example of something not human rationalizing.  A single example would be nice.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> And your premise is preposterous. Other things rationalize! They don't rationalize fictions to invest in! You are literally arguing that our extremely advanced intelligence gives us the ability to be total imbeciles and do something completely illogical for the entirety of our existence.
> 
> Look, I know that you probably look up to some moronic geek who told you all this crap on one of his 'blogs-o-wisdom' somewhere, but it hasn't been thought through properly. It's completely nosediving as a theory because it just doesn't make a lot of sense. It fits your narrative, and that's about all it does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have done nothing to undermine it, that is certain.
> All of my words are mine, not regurgitated from anywhere unless cited as such.
> In the movie "The Big Chill" Jeff Goldblum says rationalizations are more important than sex. When challenged, he asks "Have you ever gone a week without a good rationalization?"
> People continuously rationalize all kinds of things.  All the time. Constantly.
> Name a rationalization from the animal kingdom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I gave you one example already. Crows rationalize all the time. They rationalize, they reason, they plan and implement ideas. Other than being able to marginally read and write, they are probably as intelligent as you. They are not alone, I could give you countless examples of animals who rationalize. What they don't seem to do is spiritually connect to something greater than self and become inspired. God knows creatures such as yourself would be in very big trouble if they did.
> 
> I think your theory was totally destroyed. The most intelligent species ever to exist, certainly didn't create some imaginary meme and cling to it for all it's existence so it could get through life. If you're so fucking stupid you want to believe that, it's your business. You best just hope the fucking crows don't learn how to read and operate a computer, or you're toast.
Click to expand...


Of course, it's your contention that all of the various beliefs people have had are drawn from the same source.  I'm pretty sure that all of those people who believed the various religions and other forms of supernatural or spiritual concepts don't agree with that.  

It could also be that the most intelligent species ever to exist (on this planet) created many different imaginary memes.  

And you saying crows rationalize isn't exactly a good example without some sort of evidence.  Considering crows do not have a language I'm curious how you think you know that they rationalize.  I do, in fact, wonder just what definition of rationalize you are operating under to reach such a conclusion.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> And your premise is preposterous. Other things rationalize! They don't rationalize fictions to invest in! You are literally arguing that our extremely advanced intelligence gives us the ability to be total imbeciles and do something completely illogical for the entirety of our existence.
> 
> Look, I know that you probably look up to some moronic geek who told you all this crap on one of his 'blogs-o-wisdom' somewhere, but it hasn't been thought through properly. It's completely nosediving as a theory because it just doesn't make a lot of sense. It fits your narrative, and that's about all it does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have done nothing to undermine it, that is certain.
> All of my words are mine, not regurgitated from anywhere unless cited as such.
> In the movie "The Big Chill" Jeff Goldblum says rationalizations are more important than sex. When challenged, he asks "Have you ever gone a week without a good rationalization?"
> People continuously rationalize all kinds of things.  All the time. Constantly.
> Name a rationalization from the animal kingdom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I gave you one example already. Crows rationalize all the time. They rationalize, they reason, they plan and implement ideas. Other than being able to marginally read and write, they are probably as intelligent as you. They are not alone, I could give you countless examples of animals who rationalize. What they don't seem to do is spiritually connect to something greater than self and become inspired. God knows creatures such as yourself would be in very big trouble if they did.
> 
> I think your theory was totally destroyed. The most intelligent species ever to exist, certainly didn't create some imaginary meme and cling to it for all it's existence so it could get through life. If you're so fucking stupid you want to believe that, it's your business. You best just hope the fucking crows don't learn how to read and operate a computer, or you're toast.
Click to expand...


You don't know what rationalization is, do you?
It's a psychological term.

"In psychology and logic, rationalization (also known as making excuses[1]) is a defense mechanism in which perceived controversial behaviors or feelings are logically justified and explained in a rational or logical manner in order to avoid any true explanation, and are made consciously tolerable  or even admirable and superior  by plausible means.[2] Rationalization encourages irrational or unacceptable behavior, motives, or feelings and often involves ad hoc hypothesizing. This process ranges from fully conscious (e.g. to present an external defense against ridicule from others) to mostly unconscious (e.g. to create a block against internal feelings of guilt)."

A PhD. in psychology might have exposed you to this concept.
Point out how a crow enlists rationalizations, or any animal for that matter.
They don't, and there is the key to your spirituality. Man does.
It isn't a meme man clings to, it is a behavior that is performed in psychic self-defense.
The rest is your usual childish name calling.


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have done nothing to undermine it, that is certain.
> All of my words are mine, not regurgitated from anywhere unless cited as such.
> In the movie "The Big Chill" Jeff Goldblum says rationalizations are more important than sex. When challenged, he asks "Have you ever gone a week without a good rationalization?"
> People continuously rationalize all kinds of things.  All the time. Constantly.
> Name a rationalization from the animal kingdom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I gave you one example already. Crows rationalize all the time. They rationalize, they reason, they plan and implement ideas. Other than being able to marginally read and write, they are probably as intelligent as you. They are not alone, I could give you countless examples of animals who rationalize. What they don't seem to do is spiritually connect to something greater than self and become inspired. God knows creatures such as yourself would be in very big trouble if they did.
> 
> I think your theory was totally destroyed. The most intelligent species ever to exist, certainly didn't create some imaginary meme and cling to it for all it's existence so it could get through life. If you're so fucking stupid you want to believe that, it's your business. You best just hope the fucking crows don't learn how to read and operate a computer, or you're toast.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, it's your contention that all of the various beliefs people have had are drawn from the same source.  I'm pretty sure that all of those people who believed the various religions and other forms of supernatural or spiritual concepts don't agree with that.
> 
> It could also be that the most intelligent species ever to exist (on this planet) created many different imaginary memes.
> 
> And you saying crows rationalize isn't exactly a good example without some sort of evidence.  Considering crows do not have a language I'm curious how you think you know that they rationalize.  I do, in fact, wonder just what definition of rationalize you are operating under to reach such a conclusion.
Click to expand...


Yes, all religions are essentially manifestations of human spiritual connection. Doesn't matter if they all agree with my understanding of spiritual nature. You can believe that the most intelligent living things have suffered from mass delusion the entirety of their existence if that helps you sleep at night, I don't believe that. Sorry! 

What kind of evidence do you want that crows rationalize things? 

Crows are incredible. [VIDEO]

Is It Possible: Super Smart Crows : Video : Discovery Channel

Intelligent Crows: The Brainiacs Of the Animal World - TIME

6 Terrifying Ways Crows Are Way Smarter Than You Think | Cracked.com

Crows are as intelligent as CHILDREN: Study reveals birds have same intelligence as a seven-year-old | Mail Online


....Convinced yet?


----------



## Boss

> Point out how a crow enlists rationalizations



Watch the videos posted above, read the articles.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I gave you one example already. Crows rationalize all the time. They rationalize, they reason, they plan and implement ideas. Other than being able to marginally read and write, they are probably as intelligent as you. They are not alone, I could give you countless examples of animals who rationalize. What they don't seem to do is spiritually connect to something greater than self and become inspired. God knows creatures such as yourself would be in very big trouble if they did.
> 
> I think your theory was totally destroyed. The most intelligent species ever to exist, certainly didn't create some imaginary meme and cling to it for all it's existence so it could get through life. If you're so fucking stupid you want to believe that, it's your business. You best just hope the fucking crows don't learn how to read and operate a computer, or you're toast.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, it's your contention that all of the various beliefs people have had are drawn from the same source.  I'm pretty sure that all of those people who believed the various religions and other forms of supernatural or spiritual concepts don't agree with that.
> 
> It could also be that the most intelligent species ever to exist (on this planet) created many different imaginary memes.
> 
> And you saying crows rationalize isn't exactly a good example without some sort of evidence.  Considering crows do not have a language I'm curious how you think you know that they rationalize.  I do, in fact, wonder just what definition of rationalize you are operating under to reach such a conclusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, all religions are essentially manifestations of human spiritual connection. Doesn't matter if they all agree with my understanding of spiritual nature. You can believe that the most intelligent living things have suffered from mass delusion the entirety of their existence if that helps you sleep at night, I don't believe that. Sorry!
> 
> What kind of evidence do you want that crows rationalize things?
> 
> Crows are incredible. [VIDEO]
> 
> Is It Possible: Super Smart Crows : Video : Discovery Channel
> 
> Intelligent Crows: The Brainiacs Of the Animal World - TIME
> 
> 6 Terrifying Ways Crows Are Way Smarter Than You Think | Cracked.com
> 
> Crows are as intelligent as CHILDREN: Study reveals birds have same intelligence as a seven-year-old | Mail Online
> 
> 
> ....Convinced yet?
Click to expand...


I'll watch the videos later, but again, I have to wonder what definition of rationalize you are using.  None of the articles in any way showed crows rationalizing.  They showed an ability to understand causal relationships, but not an attempt to make the irrational or illogical seem rational.

Crows are pretty smart as animals go.  OK.  That is not the same as rationalizing, sorry.

As to the mass delusions, again, it's not been the same mass delusion throughout human history.  Human spiritual beliefs have been very varied over our history, and they are and have been varied at any given time as well.  And there have probably always been those who do not believe in any supernatural or spiritual things.  Even many believers likely think that those who do not agree with their beliefs are suffering delusion, as you like to put it.

I wonder what makes you think you have a rare ability to see the truth of spirituality that most others do not seem to?  Certainly you've argued that atheists are incorrect because of the volume of believers in this thread.


----------



## thebrucebeat

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have done nothing to undermine it, that is certain.
> All of my words are mine, not regurgitated from anywhere unless cited as such.
> In the movie "The Big Chill" Jeff Goldblum says rationalizations are more important than sex. When challenged, he asks "Have you ever gone a week without a good rationalization?"
> People continuously rationalize all kinds of things.  All the time. Constantly.
> Name a rationalization from the animal kingdom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I gave you one example already. Crows rationalize all the time. They rationalize, they reason, they plan and implement ideas. Other than being able to marginally read and write, they are probably as intelligent as you. They are not alone, I could give you countless examples of animals who rationalize. What they don't seem to do is spiritually connect to something greater than self and become inspired. God knows creatures such as yourself would be in very big trouble if they did.
> 
> I think your theory was totally destroyed. The most intelligent species ever to exist, certainly didn't create some imaginary meme and cling to it for all it's existence so it could get through life. If you're so fucking stupid you want to believe that, it's your business. You best just hope the fucking crows don't learn how to read and operate a computer, or you're toast.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know what rationalization is, do you?
> It's a psychological term.
> 
> "In psychology and logic, rationalization (also known as making excuses[1]) is a defense mechanism in which perceived controversial behaviors or feelings are logically justified and explained in a rational or logical manner in order to avoid any true explanation, and are made consciously tolerable  or even admirable and superior  by plausible means.[2] Rationalization encourages irrational or unacceptable behavior, motives, or feelings and often involves ad hoc hypothesizing. This process ranges from fully conscious (e.g. to present an external defense against ridicule from others) to mostly unconscious (e.g. to create a block against internal feelings of guilt)."
> 
> A PhD. in psychology might have exposed you to this concept.
> Point out how a crow enlists rationalizations, or any animal for that matter.
> They don't, and there is the key to your spirituality. Man does.
> It isn't a meme man clings to, it is a behavior that is performed in psychic self-defense.
> The rest is your usual childish name calling.
Click to expand...




Boss said:


> Point out how a crow enlists rationalizations
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Watch the videos posted above, read the articles.
Click to expand...


Do you think ignoring my post will prevent you from being exposed as a fraud regarding your expertise in psychology?
Too late.
The cat is out of the bag.


----------



## orogenicman

Well, it's pretty clear that Boss is not a PhD in psychology.  But he does get to play one on the internet.


----------



## thebrucebeat

orogenicman said:


> Well, it's pretty clear that Boss is not a PhD in psychology.  But he does get to play one on the internet.



If he was one, he would realize that his constant self-promotion in his avatars and his declarations of his brilliance without supporting evidence clearly demonstrates a massive insecurity and a profound sense of a lack of accomplishment. His childish descents into tantrums and vulgar, invective filled tirades shows a maturity level arrested at a middle school level.
Can you possibly imagine a highly educated Doctor of Psychology behaving the way he does on here, with the possible exception of one that had completely slipped a gear?


----------



## orogenicman

thebrucebeat said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it's pretty clear that Boss is not a PhD in psychology. But he does get to play one on the internet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If he was one, he would realize that his constant self-promotion in his avatars and his declarations of his brilliance without supporting evidence clearly demonstrates a massive insecurity and a profound sense of a lack of accomplishment. His childish descents into tantrums and vulgar, invective filled tirades shows a maturity level arrested at a middle school level.
> Can you possibly imagine a highly educated Doctor of Psychology behaving the way he does on here, with the possible exception of one that had completely slipped a gear?
Click to expand...


Yes, he does seem to present us with delusions of grandeur.  Hence the user name "Boss".


----------



## BreezeWood

.

I'll go out on a limb and just say I believe Boss does live up to his PHD billing .... exmpl. by how much subject matter he is able to condense in a few sentences / paragraph.




koshergrl said:


> They don't need to rationalize, they have no morality.



is that because as a Scripturalist you rely on a single book for all your beliefs ... ? - when in Nature the opposite is abundantly evident.

.


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> They don't need to rationalize, they have no morality.


bullshit! you have no idea if they do or do not have morality....it's obvious you have none..


----------



## koshergrl

BreezeWood said:


> .
> 
> I'll go out on a limb and just say I believe Boss does live up to his PHD billing .... exmpl. by how much subject matter he is able to condense in a few sentences / paragraph.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> They don't need to rationalize, they have no morality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is that because as a Scripturalist you rely on a single book for all your beliefs ... ? - when in Nature the opposite is abundantly evident.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

 
I find it amusing that you jeer at Boss. Your comment above makes zero sense. No, my "Scripturalist" beliefs (whether or not that is accurate) have absolutely zero bearing on whether or not animals have a sense of morality.

The two things are utterly unrelated.


----------



## westwall

*Keep it civil and topical.*


----------



## thebrucebeat

koshergrl said:


> They don't need to rationalize, they have no morality.





thebrucebeat said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> They don't need to rationalize, they have no morality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have any idea how funny what you just said is.
Click to expand...


Let me explain why your argument is absolutely hilarious to me.
You just made the case that the need to rationalize is directly connected to having"morality".
Your morality immediately creates the need to create artificial excuses to avoid the behavioral changes that morality would require.
No morality, no need for rationalization.
Your words, not mine.
It's like being a bible believer but making excuses not to be influenced by the Fruits of the Spirit.
Very, very funny.


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> I'll watch the videos later, but again, I have to wonder what definition of rationalize you are using.  None of the articles in any way showed crows rationalizing.  They showed an ability to understand causal relationships, but not an attempt to make the irrational or illogical seem rational.
> 
> Crows are pretty smart as animals go.  OK.  That is not the same as rationalizing, sorry.



There are numerous ways in which the dictionary definition of "rationalize" is written, but I don't find any which indicate this is exclusive to humans. Seems as if this were something only humans have, the definitions would universally state such a thing. So I should think most intelligent people don't recognize it as an attribute exclusive to humans. 

Here is one of the more easily understood definitions for you--
*rationalize:* _use or exercise the mind or one's power of reason in order to make inferences, decisions, or arrive at a solution or judgments._

Every link I posted demonstrates crows with such ability. In one of the videos, the scientist literally uses the word "rationalize" to describe what he observes in their behavior. I think i provided ample evidence to support the point I made, and you've shown nothing to refute it other than your opinion. If you have anything tantamount to evidence to show otherwise, here is where you need to present that. 



> As to the mass delusions, again, it's not been the same mass delusion throughout human history.  Human spiritual beliefs have been very varied over our history, and they are and have been varied at any given time as well.  And there have probably always been those who do not believe in any supernatural or spiritual things.  Even many believers likely think that those who do not agree with their beliefs are suffering delusion, as you like to put it.



Seems to me that we are able to rationalize what constitutes spirituality or spiritual belief and can recognize such behavior in humans. And it generally always involves the faith in a power greater than self. So now this supposed "mass delusion" can take on different forms and incarnations depending on cultures and histories, yet curiously still retains the same general belief in something greater than self. While I think it's bizarre you believe spirituality is mass delusion, I find it even more bizarre you think this "delusion" has the ability to morph and change incarnation across culture and time yet retain the same basic conceptualization of something greater than self. 



> I wonder what makes you think you have a rare ability to see the truth of spirituality that most others do not seem to?  Certainly you've argued that atheists are incorrect because of the volume of believers in this thread.



I don't think I have any rare ability, in fact, I think what I believe is what most humans now and in the past have believed. Overwhelmingly, humans have spirituality. So it is actually YOUR ability that is rare. Mine is the norm. I've never argued that anyone is correct or incorrect based on popularity of support, and I actually think it is kind of stupid to do so. It shows a complete lack of ability to rationalize.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll watch the videos later, but again, I have to wonder what definition of rationalize you are using.  None of the articles in any way showed crows rationalizing.  They showed an ability to understand causal relationships, but not an attempt to make the irrational or illogical seem rational.
> 
> Crows are pretty smart as animals go.  OK.  That is not the same as rationalizing, sorry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are numerous ways in which the dictionary definition of "rationalize" is written, but I don't find any which indicate this is exclusive to humans. Seems as if this were something only humans have, the definitions would universally state such a thing. So I should think most intelligent people don't recognize it as an attribute exclusive to humans.
> 
> Here is one of the more easily understood definitions for you--
> *rationalize:* _use or exercise the mind or one's power of reason in order to make inferences, decisions, or arrive at a solution or judgments._
> 
> Every link I posted demonstrates crows with such ability. In one of the videos, the scientist literally uses the word "rationalize" to describe what he observes in their behavior. I think i provided ample evidence to support the point I made, and you've shown nothing to refute it other than your opinion. If you have anything tantamount to evidence to show otherwise, here is where you need to present that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As to the mass delusions, again, it's not been the same mass delusion throughout human history.  Human spiritual beliefs have been very varied over our history, and they are and have been varied at any given time as well.  And there have probably always been those who do not believe in any supernatural or spiritual things.  Even many believers likely think that those who do not agree with their beliefs are suffering delusion, as you like to put it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems to me that we are able to rationalize what constitutes spirituality or spiritual belief and can recognize such behavior in humans. And it generally always involves the faith in a power greater than self. So now this supposed "mass delusion" can take on different forms and incarnations depending on cultures and histories, yet curiously still retains the same general belief in something greater than self. While I think it's bizarre you believe spirituality is mass delusion, I find it even more bizarre you think this "delusion" has the ability to morph and change incarnation across culture and time yet retain the same basic conceptualization of something greater than self.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder what makes you think you have a rare ability to see the truth of spirituality that most others do not seem to?  Certainly you've argued that atheists are incorrect because of the volume of believers in this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think I have any rare ability, in fact, I think what I believe is what most humans now and in the past have believed. Overwhelmingly, humans have spirituality. So it is actually YOUR ability that is rare. Mine is the norm. I've never argued that anyone is correct or incorrect based on popularity of support, and I actually think it is kind of stupid to do so. It shows a complete lack of ability to rationalize.
Click to expand...


Well you certainly don't seem to be using rationalize as it was used before this side-track started.  You've picked a definition that fits your argument rather than the one that was in context.

Have you not said that the fact that most of humanity has had some sort of belief in something greater than themselves is evidence that something greater actually exists?

Atheism/agnosticism may be rare, but so is your non-religious spiritual belief.  The vast majority of people today and, I would guess, throughout history, have believed in an established religion.  You claim that people are all connecting to the same thing with the many and varied religions and faiths that humanity has followed.  Is that a common belief?  

That you find it strange beliefs would change over time, whether the belief is centered on something real or a mass delusion, is strange in itself.  Of course they would change.  Most things do.  Why, if spiritual belief is delusion, would it remain static?

I don't think I'd characterize religious or spiritual belief as delusion, anyway.  I don't think it quite fits, at least not most of the time.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll watch the videos later, but again, I have to wonder what definition of rationalize you are using.  None of the articles in any way showed crows rationalizing.  They showed an ability to understand causal relationships, but not an attempt to make the irrational or illogical seem rational.
> 
> Crows are pretty smart as animals go.  OK.  That is not the same as rationalizing, sorry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are numerous ways in which the dictionary definition of "rationalize" is written, but I don't find any which indicate this is exclusive to humans. Seems as if this were something only humans have, the definitions would universally state such a thing. So I should think most intelligent people don't recognize it as an attribute exclusive to humans.
> 
> Here is one of the more easily understood definitions for you--
> *rationalize:* _use or exercise the mind or one's power of reason in order to make inferences, decisions, or arrive at a solution or judgments._
> 
> Every link I posted demonstrates crows with such ability. In one of the videos, the scientist literally uses the word "rationalize" to describe what he observes in their behavior. I think i provided ample evidence to support the point I made, and you've shown nothing to refute it other than your opinion. If you have anything tantamount to evidence to show otherwise, here is where you need to present that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As to the mass delusions, again, it's not been the same mass delusion throughout human history.  Human spiritual beliefs have been very varied over our history, and they are and have been varied at any given time as well.  And there have probably always been those who do not believe in any supernatural or spiritual things.  Even many believers likely think that those who do not agree with their beliefs are suffering delusion, as you like to put it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems to me that we are able to rationalize what constitutes spirituality or spiritual belief and can recognize such behavior in humans. And it generally always involves the faith in a power greater than self. So now this supposed "mass delusion" can take on different forms and incarnations depending on cultures and histories, yet curiously still retains the same general belief in something greater than self. While I think it's bizarre you believe spirituality is mass delusion, I find it even more bizarre you think this "delusion" has the ability to morph and change incarnation across culture and time yet retain the same basic conceptualization of something greater than self.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder what makes you think you have a rare ability to see the truth of spirituality that most others do not seem to?  Certainly you've argued that atheists are incorrect because of the volume of believers in this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think I have any rare ability, in fact, I think what I believe is what most humans now and in the past have believed. Overwhelmingly, humans have spirituality. So it is actually YOUR ability that is rare. Mine is the norm. I've never argued that anyone is correct or incorrect based on popularity of support, and I actually think it is kind of stupid to do so. It shows a complete lack of ability to rationalize.
Click to expand...


Boss I just don't know for sure but rationalize seems to be the wrong term. Being a hunter and someone who has raised horses and dogs. I think the proper term to describe what you're discussing would be instinct.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll watch the videos later, but again, I have to wonder what definition of rationalize you are using.  None of the articles in any way showed crows rationalizing.  They showed an ability to understand causal relationships, but not an attempt to make the irrational or illogical seem rational.
> 
> Crows are pretty smart as animals go.  OK.  That is not the same as rationalizing, sorry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are numerous ways in which the dictionary definition of "rationalize" is written, but I don't find any which indicate this is exclusive to humans. Seems as if this were something only humans have, the definitions would universally state such a thing. So I should think most intelligent people don't recognize it as an attribute exclusive to humans.
> 
> Here is one of the more easily understood definitions for you--
> *rationalize:* _use or exercise the mind or one's power of reason in order to make inferences, decisions, or arrive at a solution or judgments._
> 
> Every link I posted demonstrates crows with such ability. In one of the videos, the scientist literally uses the word "rationalize" to describe what he observes in their behavior. I think i provided ample evidence to support the point I made, and you've shown nothing to refute it other than your opinion. If you have anything tantamount to evidence to show otherwise, here is where you need to present that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As to the mass delusions, again, it's not been the same mass delusion throughout human history.  Human spiritual beliefs have been very varied over our history, and they are and have been varied at any given time as well.  And there have probably always been those who do not believe in any supernatural or spiritual things.  Even many believers likely think that those who do not agree with their beliefs are suffering delusion, as you like to put it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems to me that we are able to rationalize what constitutes spirituality or spiritual belief and can recognize such behavior in humans. And it generally always involves the faith in a power greater than self. So now this supposed "mass delusion" can take on different forms and incarnations depending on cultures and histories, yet curiously still retains the same general belief in something greater than self. While I think it's bizarre you believe spirituality is mass delusion, I find it even more bizarre you think this "delusion" has the ability to morph and change incarnation across culture and time yet retain the same basic conceptualization of something greater than self.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder what makes you think you have a rare ability to see the truth of spirituality that most others do not seem to?  Certainly you've argued that atheists are incorrect because of the volume of believers in this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think I have any rare ability, in fact, I think what I believe is what most humans now and in the past have believed. Overwhelmingly, humans have spirituality. So it is actually YOUR ability that is rare. Mine is the norm. I've never argued that anyone is correct or incorrect based on popularity of support, and I actually think it is kind of stupid to do so. It shows a complete lack of ability to rationalize.
Click to expand...


We are talking about the uniquely human habit of constructing rationalizations to justify behavior or opinions that are not legitimate.
You don't have a rare ability.
You are just like everyone else.
You create rationalizations to protect your self-identity. Only man does this.
This is taught to first year Psych students.
By your avatar I would think that guy sells vitamin supplements or Medicare plans to seniors.


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Well you certainly don't seem to be using rationalize as it was used before this side-track started.  You've picked a definition that fits your argument rather than the one that was in context.



How can a dictionary definition be "out of context?" You asked which definition I was using and I showed you one. I also said there were many, so you can pick one to as well. Find any recognized dictionary source which indicates rationality is an exclusive human attribute,  since that was your argument. There didn't seem to be one of those when I looked. None of them indicated this was exclusive to humans, and I would think if that were the case, they would all mention this. Maybe all the dictionaries are being irrational and taking things out of context? Maybe they all suffer from mass delusions? 



> Have you not said that the fact that most of humanity has had some sort of belief in something greater than themselves is evidence that something greater actually exists?



I've said that 95% of the species has exhibited a behavioral characteristic for the entirety of it's existence and this is evidence the characteristic is fundamental to the species. But actually, I didn't state this, it comes from a cat named Darwin. 



> Atheism/agnosticism may be rare, but so is your non-religious spiritual belief.  The vast majority of people today and, I would guess, throughout history, have believed in an established religion.  You claim that people are all connecting to the same thing with the many and varied religions and faiths that humanity has followed.  Is that a common belief?



Yes, everyone is connecting to spiritual nature and believe in something greater than self. 



> That you find it strange beliefs would change over time, whether the belief is centered on something real or a mass delusion, is strange in itself.  Of course they would change.  Most things do.  Why, if spiritual belief is delusion, would it remain static?
> 
> I don't think I'd characterize religious or spiritual belief as delusion, anyway.  I don't think it quite fits, at least not most of the time.



I find it strange that a mass delusion would need to take on different incarnations. If it's just some fake thing that man invented in their mind to console their mortality, then why would it need to change at all? Now I've explained why I believe different religions exist, it's because man can't quite comprehend spiritual nature, and as a result, conjures up different versions of what he thinks it may be. Perhaps some of those beliefs have been dilusional? I won't argue that, but spirituality is consistent and constant belief in something greater than self. 

Ahh.... so now you are running away from your compadres mass delusion theory? Can't say I blame you for that at all. It's pretty fucked!


----------



## Boss

> Boss I just don't know for sure but rationalize seems to be the wrong term. Being a hunter and someone who has raised horses and dogs. I think the proper term to describe what you're discussing would be instinct.



Well, when I watch a video of a crow who has to implement a multi-step plan to obtain food... get the small stick from the end of a dangling string-- use the small stick to get a longer stick inside a cage-- use the longer stick to get the food in a box... this is an exhibition of something rationalizing. Another experiment demonstrates crows recognizing faces of people who were mean to them as opposed to those who were kind and responding accordingly... again, rationalizing. Not only did they do this, they passed down the information to other crows who had never seen the faces. They're rationalizing all over the place... amazing creatures God created! 

But we have a couple of morons here who refuse to accept the evidence when it's presented. Oh no, I've taken 'rationalize' out of context using my dictionary definition... it can't mean that because it has to mean something they believe it means, a trait only known to humans! Funny, the dictionary definitions don't mention this, and the dang crows certainly do seem to be rationalizing how to get the food from the box or who the mean humans are. And crows are FAR from the only example, I just picked crows because it's a simple animal. Dolphins and chimps also rationalize thought and they've done experiments to prove this as well. It's just that we have some really dumb people here who can't accept the fact they are dumb. 

They'd rather make stupid arguments they cannot support, then hurl insults at me over my avatar.


----------



## koshergrl

Crows are super smart! They are the only bird that will recognize particular people..and follow them..regardless of the cars they drive! 

I read that on a crow site..and have experienced it as well. For a while we had a group of crows that would descend upon our driveway as soon as the kids and I left each am, to eat whatever had fallen out of the car, whatever dog food might be left on the patio. My son put something on the roof the car for them a time or two...and there for a couple of weeks, everywhere we went, including DOWNTOWN at the LIGHT, we had our own crow escort.

I made him stop that post haste. Kinda freaky to drive around town in a swirl of crows.

Also my boss at the time was walking down by the marina (which is our touristy-place) with some out of town relatives, and a crow swooped down, literally landed on her head and started attacking her..HAHAHAHA...she's still all traumatized by it.


----------



## thebrucebeat

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll watch the videos later, but again, I have to wonder what definition of rationalize you are using.  None of the articles in any way showed crows rationalizing.  They showed an ability to understand causal relationships, but not an attempt to make the irrational or illogical seem rational.
> 
> Crows are pretty smart as animals go.  OK.  That is not the same as rationalizing, sorry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are numerous ways in which the dictionary definition of "rationalize" is written, but I don't find any which indicate this is exclusive to humans. Seems as if this were something only humans have, the definitions would universally state such a thing. So I should think most intelligent people don't recognize it as an attribute exclusive to humans.
> 
> Here is one of the more easily understood definitions for you--
> *rationalize:* _use or exercise the mind or one's power of reason in order to make inferences, decisions, or arrive at a solution or judgments._
> 
> Every link I posted demonstrates crows with such ability. In one of the videos, the scientist literally uses the word "rationalize" to describe what he observes in their behavior. I think i provided ample evidence to support the point I made, and you've shown nothing to refute it other than your opinion. If you have anything tantamount to evidence to show otherwise, here is where you need to present that.
> 
> 
> 
> Seems to me that we are able to rationalize what constitutes spirituality or spiritual belief and can recognize such behavior in humans. And it generally always involves the faith in a power greater than self. So now this supposed "mass delusion" can take on different forms and incarnations depending on cultures and histories, yet curiously still retains the same general belief in something greater than self. While I think it's bizarre you believe spirituality is mass delusion, I find it even more bizarre you think this "delusion" has the ability to morph and change incarnation across culture and time yet retain the same basic conceptualization of something greater than self.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder what makes you think you have a rare ability to see the truth of spirituality that most others do not seem to?  Certainly you've argued that atheists are incorrect because of the volume of believers in this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think I have any rare ability, in fact, I think what I believe is what most humans now and in the past have believed. Overwhelmingly, humans have spirituality. So it is actually YOUR ability that is rare. Mine is the norm. I've never argued that anyone is correct or incorrect based on popularity of support, and I actually think it is kind of stupid to do so. It shows a complete lack of ability to rationalize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are talking about the uniquely human habit of constructing rationalizations to justify behavior or opinions that are not legitimate.
> You don't have a rare ability.
> You are just like everyone else.
> You create rationalizations to protect your self-identity. Only man does this.
> This is taught to first year Psych students.
> By your avatar I would think that guy sells vitamin supplements or Medicare plans to seniors.
Click to expand...




Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well you certainly don't seem to be using rationalize as it was used before this side-track started.  You've picked a definition that fits your argument rather than the one that was in context.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can a dictionary definition be "out of context?" You asked which definition I was using and I showed you one. I also said there were many, so you can pick one to as well. Find any recognized dictionary source which indicates rationality is an exclusive human attribute,  since that was your argument. There didn't seem to be one of those when I looked. None of them indicated this was exclusive to humans, and I would think if that were the case, they would all mention this. Maybe all the dictionaries are being irrational and taking things out of context? Maybe they all suffer from mass delusions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you not said that the fact that most of humanity has had some sort of belief in something greater than themselves is evidence that something greater actually exists?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've said that 95% of the species has exhibited a behavioral characteristic for the entirety of it's existence and this is evidence the characteristic is fundamental to the species. But actually, I didn't state this, it comes from a cat named Darwin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism/agnosticism may be rare, but so is your non-religious spiritual belief.  The vast majority of people today and, I would guess, throughout history, have believed in an established religion.  You claim that people are all connecting to the same thing with the many and varied religions and faiths that humanity has followed.  Is that a common belief?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, everyone is connecting to spiritual nature and believe in something greater than self.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That you find it strange beliefs would change over time, whether the belief is centered on something real or a mass delusion, is strange in itself.  Of course they would change.  Most things do.  Why, if spiritual belief is delusion, would it remain static?
> 
> I don't think I'd characterize religious or spiritual belief as delusion, anyway.  I don't think it quite fits, at least not most of the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it strange that a mass delusion would need to take on different incarnations. If it's just some fake thing that man invented in their mind to console their mortality, then why would it need to change at all? Now I've explained why I believe different religions exist, it's because man can't quite comprehend spiritual nature, and as a result, conjures up different versions of what he thinks it may be. Perhaps some of those beliefs have been dilusional? I won't argue that, but spirituality is consistent and constant belief in something greater than self.
> 
> Ahh.... so now you are running away from your compadres mass delusion theory? Can't say I blame you for that at all. It's pretty fucked!
Click to expand...


See you are still avoiding my posts that rip yours to pieces. 
Can't blame you.
The rest of us are discussing rationalizations. Ironically, your avoiding that discussion could be considered a rationalization itself. You don't negate my theory, you confirm it.
The delusions change over time because the old ones are proved to be in error by increased knowledge.
Thus, we don't have a thunder god because we no longer need one to explain thunder.
As the delusions are revealed as such, they systematically melt away. That process continues.


----------



## koshergrl

good grief.

You just don't get any smarter. Ever.

One of the wonders of the world. Even crows figure things out better than anti-Christian pukes.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> Boss I just don't know for sure but rationalize seems to be the wrong term. Being a hunter and someone who has raised horses and dogs. I think the proper term to describe what you're discussing would be instinct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, when I watch a video of a crow who has to implement a multi-step plan to obtain food... get the small stick from the end of a dangling string-- use the small stick to get a longer stick inside a cage-- use the longer stick to get the food in a box... this is an exhibition of something rationalizing. Another experiment demonstrates crows recognizing faces of people who were mean to them as opposed to those who were kind and responding accordingly... again, rationalizing. Not only did they do this, they passed down the information to other crows who had never seen the faces. They're rationalizing all over the place... amazing creatures God created!
> 
> But we have a couple of morons here who refuse to accept the evidence when it's presented. Oh no, I've taken 'rationalize' out of context using my dictionary definition... it can't mean that because it has to mean something they believe it means, a trait only known to humans! Funny, the dictionary definitions don't mention this, and the dang crows certainly do seem to be rationalizing how to get the food from the box or who the mean humans are. And crows are FAR from the only example, I just picked crows because it's a simple animal. Dolphins and chimps also rationalize thought and they've done experiments to prove this as well. It's just that we have some really dumb people here who can't accept the fact they are dumb.
> 
> They'd rather make stupid arguments they cannot support, then hurl insults at me over my avatar.
Click to expand...


You are completely avoiding the conversation about rationalization.
The rest is your usual.


----------



## Boss

> See you are still avoiding my posts that rip yours to pieces.



You couldn't rip wet toilet paper to pieces, you're an idiot. I ignore idiots. 

Watch out for the crows!


----------



## Boss

> You are completely avoiding the conversation about rationalization.



No, I addressed it thoroughly. I'm waiting on your accredited dictionary definition which states it is an exclusively human attribute. I guess you must fail at conversation like everything else you do?


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> See you are still avoiding my posts that rip yours to pieces.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You couldn't rip wet toilet paper to pieces, you're an idiot. I ignore idiots.
> 
> Watch out for the crows!
Click to expand...


More avoidance.
Noted.

My little Runaway.


----------



## Uncensored2008

koshergrl said:


> Crows are super smart! They are the only bird that will recognize particular people..and follow them..regardless of the cars they drive!
> 
> I read that on a crow site..and have experienced it as well. For a while we had a group of crows that would descend upon our driveway as soon as the kids and I left each am, to eat whatever had fallen out of the car, whatever dog food might be left on the patio. My son put something on the roof the car for them a time or two...and there for a couple of weeks, everywhere we went, including DOWNTOWN at the LIGHT, we had our own crow escort.
> 
> I made him stop that post haste. *Kinda freaky to drive around town in a swirl of crows.*
> 
> Also my boss at the time was walking down by the marina (which is our touristy-place) with some out of town relatives, and a crow swooped down, literally landed on her head and started attacking her..HAHAHAHA...she's still all traumatized by it.



FYI, the term is a MURDER of crows. 

Flying rats, if you ask me..


----------



## Boss

koshergrl said:


> Crows are super smart! They are the only bird that will recognize particular people..and follow them..regardless of the cars they drive!
> 
> I read that on a crow site..and have experienced it as well. For a while we had a group of crows that would descend upon our driveway as soon as the kids and I left each am, to eat whatever had fallen out of the car, whatever dog food might be left on the patio. My son put something on the roof the car for them a time or two...and there for a couple of weeks, everywhere we went, including DOWNTOWN at the LIGHT, we had our own crow escort.
> 
> I made him stop that post haste. Kinda freaky to drive around town in a swirl of crows.
> 
> Also my boss at the time was walking down by the marina (which is our touristy-place) with some out of town relatives, and a crow swooped down, literally landed on her head and started attacking her..HAHAHAHA...she's still all traumatized by it.



One of the articles I posted is talking about how crows memorize the schedules and routes of the garbage trucks. They know what days they will be where and which trucks to follow. They will drop nuts at an intersection so that cars will run over and crack them open, and when they retrieve the nuts, it's only during the red light so they don't get run over. 

In a battle of wits, I think I would be more comfortable picking any crow over Brucey.


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See you are still avoiding my posts that rip yours to pieces.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You couldn't rip wet toilet paper to pieces, you're an idiot. I ignore idiots.
> 
> Watch out for the crows!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More avoidance.
> Noted.
> 
> My little Runaway.
Click to expand...


Level 2 Forum... note the rules. 
You're violating them.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> You are completely avoiding the conversation about rationalization.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I addressed it thoroughly. I'm waiting on your accredited dictionary definition which states it is an exclusively human attribute. I guess you must fail at conversation like everything else you do?
Click to expand...


How many more do you need? I already have given you one, but here's another. I can supply as many as you want.
You are creating a rationalization to protect your very sensitive psyche.

ra·tion·al·ize/&#712;ræ&#643;&#601;nl&#716;a&#618;z, &#712;ræ&#643;nl&#716;a&#618;z/ Show Spelled [rash-uh-nl-ahyz, rash-nl-ahyz] Show IPA 
verb (used with object), ra·tion·al·ized, ra·tion·al·iz·ing.  
1. to ascribe (one's acts, opinions, etc.) to causes that superficially seem reasonable and valid but that actually are unrelated to the true, possibly unconscious and often less creditable or agreeable causes.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Crows are super smart! They are the only bird that will recognize particular people..and follow them..regardless of the cars they drive!
> 
> I read that on a crow site..and have experienced it as well. For a while we had a group of crows that would descend upon our driveway as soon as the kids and I left each am, to eat whatever had fallen out of the car, whatever dog food might be left on the patio. My son put something on the roof the car for them a time or two...and there for a couple of weeks, everywhere we went, including DOWNTOWN at the LIGHT, we had our own crow escort.
> 
> I made him stop that post haste. Kinda freaky to drive around town in a swirl of crows.
> 
> Also my boss at the time was walking down by the marina (which is our touristy-place) with some out of town relatives, and a crow swooped down, literally landed on her head and started attacking her..HAHAHAHA...she's still all traumatized by it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the articles I posted is talking about how crows memorize the schedules and routes of the garbage trucks. They know what days they will be where and which trucks to follow. They will drop nuts at an intersection so that cars will run over and crack them open, and when they retrieve the nuts, it's only during the red light so they don't get run over.
> 
> In a battle of wits, I think I would be more comfortable picking any crow over Brucey.
Click to expand...


You would be more comfortable there.
You are wildly overmatched here.


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are completely avoiding the conversation about rationalization.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I addressed it thoroughly. I'm waiting on your accredited dictionary definition *which states it is an exclusively human attribute.* I guess you must fail at conversation like everything else you do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many more do you need? I already have given you one, but here's another. I can supply as many as you want.
> You are creating a rationalization to protect your very sensitive psyche.
> 
> ra·tion·al·ize/&#712;ræ&#643;&#601;nl&#716;a&#618;z, &#712;ræ&#643;nl&#716;a&#618;z/ Show Spelled [rash-uh-nl-ahyz, rash-nl-ahyz] Show IPA
> verb (used with object), ra·tion·al·ized, ra·tion·al·iz·ing.
> 1. to ascribe (one's acts, opinions, etc.) to causes that superficially seem reasonable and valid but that actually are unrelated to the true, possibly unconscious and often less creditable or agreeable causes.
Click to expand...


Where does that say that only humans rationalize? That was your argument, that is why we are having this myopic and obtuse conversation. That is the definition you need to provide.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well you certainly don't seem to be using rationalize as it was used before this side-track started.  You've picked a definition that fits your argument rather than the one that was in context.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can a dictionary definition be "out of context?" You asked which definition I was using and I showed you one. I also said there were many, so you can pick one to as well. Find any recognized dictionary source which indicates rationality is an exclusive human attribute,  since that was your argument. There didn't seem to be one of those when I looked. None of them indicated this was exclusive to humans, and I would think if that were the case, they would all mention this. Maybe all the dictionaries are being irrational and taking things out of context? Maybe they all suffer from mass delusions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you not said that the fact that most of humanity has had some sort of belief in something greater than themselves is evidence that something greater actually exists?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've said that 95% of the species has exhibited a behavioral characteristic for the entirety of it's existence and this is evidence the characteristic is fundamental to the species. But actually, I didn't state this, it comes from a cat named Darwin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism/agnosticism may be rare, but so is your non-religious spiritual belief.  The vast majority of people today and, I would guess, throughout history, have believed in an established religion.  You claim that people are all connecting to the same thing with the many and varied religions and faiths that humanity has followed.  Is that a common belief?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, everyone is connecting to spiritual nature and believe in something greater than self.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That you find it strange beliefs would change over time, whether the belief is centered on something real or a mass delusion, is strange in itself.  Of course they would change.  Most things do.  Why, if spiritual belief is delusion, would it remain static?
> 
> I don't think I'd characterize religious or spiritual belief as delusion, anyway.  I don't think it quite fits, at least not most of the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it strange that a mass delusion would need to take on different incarnations. If it's just some fake thing that man invented in their mind to console their mortality, then why would it need to change at all? Now I've explained why I believe different religions exist, it's because man can't quite comprehend spiritual nature, and as a result, conjures up different versions of what he thinks it may be. Perhaps some of those beliefs have been dilusional? I won't argue that, but spirituality is consistent and constant belief in something greater than self.
> 
> Ahh.... so now you are running away from your compadres mass delusion theory? Can't say I blame you for that at all. It's pretty fucked!
Click to expand...


If a word has multiple definitions, then at least one will always be out of context when used in a sentence!  Since I believe this side-track started when someone said either you, or perhaps religious people, were rationalizing, the context is important.  Really, the only time context isn't important with a word that has multiple definitions is when discussing the various definitions.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I addressed it thoroughly. I'm waiting on your accredited dictionary definition *which states it is an exclusively human attribute.* I guess you must fail at conversation like everything else you do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many more do you need? I already have given you one, but here's another. I can supply as many as you want.
> You are creating a rationalization to protect your very sensitive psyche.
> 
> ra·tion·al·ize/&#712;ræ&#643;&#601;nl&#716;a&#618;z, &#712;ræ&#643;nl&#716;a&#618;z/ Show Spelled [rash-uh-nl-ahyz, rash-nl-ahyz] Show IPA
> verb (used with object), ra·tion·al·ized, ra·tion·al·iz·ing.
> 1. to ascribe (one's acts, opinions, etc.) to causes that superficially seem reasonable and valid but that actually are unrelated to the true, possibly unconscious and often less creditable or agreeable causes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where does that say that only humans rationalize? That was your argument, that is why we are having this myopic and obtuse conversation. That is the definition you need to provide.
Click to expand...


I asked for an example from the animal kingdom that would match the definition of "rationalization" I have provided, twice in fact.
Whenever you are ready.


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well you certainly don't seem to be using rationalize as it was used before this side-track started.  You've picked a definition that fits your argument rather than the one that was in context.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can a dictionary definition be "out of context?" You asked which definition I was using and I showed you one. I also said there were many, so you can pick one to as well. Find any recognized dictionary source which indicates rationality is an exclusive human attribute,  since that was your argument. There didn't seem to be one of those when I looked. None of them indicated this was exclusive to humans, and I would think if that were the case, they would all mention this. Maybe all the dictionaries are being irrational and taking things out of context? Maybe they all suffer from mass delusions?
> 
> 
> 
> I've said that 95% of the species has exhibited a behavioral characteristic for the entirety of it's existence and this is evidence the characteristic is fundamental to the species. But actually, I didn't state this, it comes from a cat named Darwin.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, everyone is connecting to spiritual nature and believe in something greater than self.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That you find it strange beliefs would change over time, whether the belief is centered on something real or a mass delusion, is strange in itself.  Of course they would change.  Most things do.  Why, if spiritual belief is delusion, would it remain static?
> 
> I don't think I'd characterize religious or spiritual belief as delusion, anyway.  I don't think it quite fits, at least not most of the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it strange that a mass delusion would need to take on different incarnations. If it's just some fake thing that man invented in their mind to console their mortality, then why would it need to change at all? Now I've explained why I believe different religions exist, it's because man can't quite comprehend spiritual nature, and as a result, conjures up different versions of what he thinks it may be. Perhaps some of those beliefs have been dilusional? I won't argue that, but spirituality is consistent and constant belief in something greater than self.
> 
> Ahh.... so now you are running away from your compadres mass delusion theory? Can't say I blame you for that at all. It's pretty fucked!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If a word has multiple definitions, then at least one will always be out of context when used in a sentence!  Since I believe this side-track started when someone said either you, or perhaps religious people, were rationalizing, the context is important.  Really, the only time context isn't important with a word that has multiple definitions is when discussing the various definitions.
Click to expand...


About all I can say to you is this... If anyone ever needs some scarecrows constructed, you'd be the man to call! You're very good with straw men. 

The argument started when someone claimed we have spirituality because we rationalize. I pointed out that other creatures also rationalize.... from there, we've come to here. Now "rationalize" does have a bunch of various definitions across several sources that I found, but not a single one of them mentions this being an exclusive human attribute. Which has always been my point.


----------



## Boss

> I asked for an example from the animal kingdom that would match the definition of "rationalization" I have provided, twice in fact.
> Whenever you are ready.



Crows. The research was posted.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> I asked for an example from the animal kingdom that would match the definition of "rationalization" I have provided, twice in fact.
> Whenever you are ready.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crows. The research was posted.
Click to expand...


That doesn't address the definition posted at all.


----------



## Boss

> ...that would match the definition of "rationalization" I have provided...



And let's get you straightened out here... You don't get to establish one single definition to a word and claim that is the only thing that word can ever mean when used in conversations. No one died and made you King of Words. The other definitions exist for a reason, and that is because the word can be used in various different contexts. However, with the word "rationalize" there is no context in which the word is defined to be an exclusive attribute only found in humans.


----------



## orogenicman

Look, man is not so much a rational creature as a rationalizing one.  And his ability to rationalize doesn't automatically mean that these rationalizations are reasonable.  I think most people would agree that, for instance, the Church's rationalization for burning people at the stake who they accused of being witches was not reasonable.  One can rationalize just about anything.  That doesn't make it reasonable or true.


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I asked for an example from the animal kingdom that would match the definition of "rationalization" I have provided, twice in fact.
> Whenever you are ready.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crows. The research was posted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesn't address the definition posted at all.
Click to expand...


Yes it does, you're just too stupid to understand it. 

_*to ascribe (one's acts, opinions, etc.) to causes that superficially seem reasonable and valid but that actually are unrelated to the true, possibly unconscious and often less creditable or agreeable causes.*_

The crows act of obtaining the small stick on a string is actually unrelated to true realization of getting food. Using the small stick to obtain a longer stick is actually unrelated to true realization of eating food. Using the long stick to obtain and eat the food is a result of the crow's step-by-step rationalizations.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Crows. The research was posted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't address the definition posted at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it does, you're just too stupid to understand it.
> 
> _*to ascribe (one's acts, opinions, etc.) to causes that superficially seem reasonable and valid but that actually are unrelated to the true, possibly unconscious and often less creditable or agreeable causes.*_
> 
> The crows act of obtaining the small stick on a string is actually unrelated to true realization of getting food. Using the small stick to obtain a longer stick is actually unrelated to true realization of eating food. Using the long stick to obtain and eat the food is a result of the crow's step-by-step rationalizations.
Click to expand...


They aren't trying to convince themselves of something that is simply an excuse for something else.
This is a ridiculous fail of cosmic proportions.


----------



## Boss

orogenicman said:


> Look, man is not so much a rational creature as a rationalizing one.  And his ability to rationalize doesn't automatically mean that these rationalizations are reasonable.  I think most people would agree that, for instance, the Church's rationalization for burning people at the stake who they accused of being witches was not reasonable.  One can rationalize just about anything.  That doesn't make it reasonable or true.



No one is arguing that ability to rationalize is always correct or reasonable. The crow didn't know the long stick would reach the food when he was rationalizing how he might obtain it. 

This whole argument about "rationalization" stems from someone making the erroneous claim that humankind is spiritual because of our (unique) ability to rationalize. It's not an unique ability of humans to rationalize, and there is no logical explanation for why the most intelligent of all species would have 'rationalized' a complete falsehood for the entirety of it's existence.


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't address the definition posted at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it does, you're just too stupid to understand it.
> 
> _*to ascribe (one's acts, opinions, etc.) to causes that superficially seem reasonable and valid but that actually are unrelated to the true, possibly unconscious and often less creditable or agreeable causes.*_
> 
> The crows act of obtaining the small stick on a string is actually unrelated to true realization of getting food. Using the small stick to obtain a longer stick is actually unrelated to true realization of eating food. Using the long stick to obtain and eat the food is a result of the crow's step-by-step rationalizations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They aren't trying to convince themselves of something that is simply an excuse for something else.
> This is a ridiculous fail of cosmic proportions.
Click to expand...


Yes they are. They convince themselves the small stick can be used to reach the longer stick and the excuse is to obtain a piece of food in a box they can't reach without this longer stick.


----------



## orogenicman

Boss said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, man is not so much a rational creature as a rationalizing one. And his ability to rationalize doesn't automatically mean that these rationalizations are reasonable. I think most people would agree that, for instance, the Church's rationalization for burning people at the stake who they accused of being witches was not reasonable. One can rationalize just about anything. That doesn't make it reasonable or true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one is arguing that ability to rationalize is always correct or reasonable. The crow didn't know the long stick would reach the food when he was rationalizing how he might obtain it.
> 
> This whole argument about "rationalization" stems from someone making the erroneous claim that humankind is spiritual because of our (unique) ability to rationalize. It's not an unique ability of humans to rationalize, and there is no logical explanation for why the most intelligent of all species would have 'rationalized' a complete falsehood for the entirety of it's existence.
Click to expand...


If man has a spiritual side, it comes from his ability to look beyond himself to the bigger picture, and with his ability to empathy with others.  While it is true that other species may exhibit altruism, no other species exhibits it on the scale of humans.  Then again, no other species exhibits hatred of others on the scale in which humans exhibit it.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> ...that would match the definition of "rationalization" I have provided...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And let's get you straightened out here... You don't get to establish one single definition to a word and claim that is the only thing that word can ever mean when used in conversations. No one died and made you King of Words. The other definitions exist for a reason, and that is because the word can be used in various different contexts. However, with the word "rationalize" there is no context in which the word is defined to be an exclusive attribute only found in humans.
Click to expand...


It is the definition that was under discussion when you changed the goalpost.
Because we are talking about rationalization and you are discussing whether crows are rational, you are bound be to be confused. The other definitions DO have uses, but we weren't discussing them here. Changing to them was your rationalization to defend your very sensitive ego.
Find an example in the animal kingdom of an animal coming up with a rationalization for their behavior.
Good luck.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it does, you're just too stupid to understand it.
> 
> _*to ascribe (one's acts, opinions, etc.) to causes that superficially seem reasonable and valid but that actually are unrelated to the true, possibly unconscious and often less creditable or agreeable causes.*_
> 
> The crows act of obtaining the small stick on a string is actually unrelated to true realization of getting food. Using the small stick to obtain a longer stick is actually unrelated to true realization of eating food. Using the long stick to obtain and eat the food is a result of the crow's step-by-step rationalizations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They aren't trying to convince themselves of something that is simply an excuse for something else.
> This is a ridiculous fail of cosmic proportions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they are. They convince themselves the small stick can be used to reach the longer stick and the excuse is to obtain a piece of food in a box they can't reach without this longer stick.
Click to expand...


But the piece of food is the real purpose.
It isn't a rationalization. He isn't creating a false narrative to protect his ego.
Monumental fail.


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...that would match the definition of "rationalization" I have provided...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And let's get you straightened out here... You don't get to establish one single definition to a word and claim that is the only thing that word can ever mean when used in conversations. No one died and made you King of Words. The other definitions exist for a reason, and that is because the word can be used in various different contexts. However, with the word "rationalize" there is no context in which the word is defined to be an exclusive attribute only found in humans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is the definition that was under discussion when you changed the goalpost.
> Because we are talking about rationalization and you are discussing whether crows are rational, you are bound be to be confused. The other definitions DO have uses, but we weren't discussing them here. Changing to them was your rationalization to defend your very sensitive ego.
> Find an example in the animal kingdom of an animal coming up with a rationalization for their behavior.
> Good luck.
Click to expand...


No, you posted your definition well into the discussion, it was never originally established this was the one and only definition anyone could possibly use, and it still hasn't been established by anyone but you. There is no goal post to move here, you're a fucking moron who can't accept that he is wrong because you somehow think you're not a moron. 

We were discussing human spirituality and the erroneous point was made that it is caused by unique human rationality. I refuted that point by demonstrating other creatures can and do rationalize. THEN you wanted to cherry pick a definition you believed made your retarded point, and I dismantled your argument again, because you are a retard. 

I've already found an example, posted video to demonstrate my example, and explained in detail how my example comports with your own cherry-picked definition. Still, you want to argue like a moronic retard. I don't need luck, what I need is for you to back up your argument that only humans exhibit the ability to rationalize. I totally understand you can't do this, which is why you are now trying to pretend we're having a different conversation.


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> They aren't trying to convince themselves of something that is simply an excuse for something else.
> This is a ridiculous fail of cosmic proportions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they are. They convince themselves the small stick can be used to reach the longer stick and the excuse is to obtain a piece of food in a box they can't reach without this longer stick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the piece of food is the real purpose.
> It isn't a rationalization. He isn't creating a false narrative to protect his ego.
> Monumental fail.
Click to expand...


There is nothing in your definition about a false narrative to protect ego. 

A short stick on a string is not related to the food. It literally has nothing to do with the food. The crow *RATIONALIZES* that it needs the short stick so it can get to the longer stick. Again... the longer stick doesn't relate to food. The crow *RATIONALIZES* that it can use the long stick to move the food closer so it can reach it. 

If you are still too profoundly retarded to understand this, I can't help you. Even the scientist who conducted this experiment says the crow is rationalizing. So why are you continuing to cling to your cherry-picked definition which also failed to prove your point? 

Monumental fail indeed!


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> And let's get you straightened out here... You don't get to establish one single definition to a word and claim that is the only thing that word can ever mean when used in conversations. No one died and made you King of Words. The other definitions exist for a reason, and that is because the word can be used in various different contexts. However, with the word "rationalize" there is no context in which the word is defined to be an exclusive attribute only found in humans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is the definition that was under discussion when you changed the goalpost.
> Because we are talking about rationalization and you are discussing whether crows are rational, you are bound be to be confused. The other definitions DO have uses, but we weren't discussing them here. Changing to them was your rationalization to defend your very sensitive ego.
> Find an example in the animal kingdom of an animal coming up with a rationalization for their behavior.
> Good luck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you posted your definition well into the discussion, it was never originally established this was the one and only definition anyone could possibly use, and it still hasn't been established by anyone but you. There is no goal post to move here, you're a fucking moron who can't accept that he is wrong because you somehow think you're not a moron.
> 
> We were discussing human spirituality and the erroneous point was made that it is caused by unique human rationality. I refuted that point by demonstrating other creatures can and do rationalize. THEN you wanted to cherry pick a definition you believed made your retarded point, and I dismantled your argument again, because you are a retard.
> 
> I've already found an example, posted video to demonstrate my example, and explained in detail how my example comports with your own cherry-picked definition. Still, you want to argue like a moronic retard. I don't need luck, what I need is for you to back up your argument that only humans exhibit the ability to rationalize. I totally understand you can't do this, which is why you are now trying to pretend we're having a different conversation.
Click to expand...


Sorry you got so confused.
I am talking about rationalizations.
Do you understand now?
If you want to discuss this further with me please address the issue I am discussing, not the goalpost issue you have moved to.
I don't think I am "wrong" about the issue I was discussing. Sorry you didn't pick up on the TWO definitions that I have listed.
The only thing that you have dismantled is your already discredited reputation.
Your example has absolutely ZERO to do with rationalizations, a psychological term that you obviously have no familiarity with.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they are. They convince themselves the small stick can be used to reach the longer stick and the excuse is to obtain a piece of food in a box they can't reach without this longer stick.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the piece of food is the real purpose.
> It isn't a rationalization. He isn't creating a false narrative to protect his ego.
> Monumental fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing in your definition about a false narrative to protect ego.
> 
> A short stick on a string is not related to the food. It literally has nothing to do with the food. The crow *RATIONALIZES* that it needs the short stick so it can get to the longer stick. Again... the longer stick doesn't relate to food. The crow *RATIONALIZES* that it can use the long stick to move the food closer so it can reach it.
> 
> If you are still too profoundly retarded to understand this, I can't help you. Even the scientist who conducted this experiment says the crow is rationalizing. So why are you continuing to cling to your cherry-picked definition which also failed to prove your point?
> 
> Monumental fail indeed!
Click to expand...


You are discussing rational thought.
I am discussing the psychological term "rationalization".
I understand it is completely unfamiliar to your faux PhD.
If you want to show me how crows fool themselves, like you do, please do.


----------



## Boss

> Sorry you got so confused.
> I am talking about rationalizations.
> Do you understand now?
> If you want to discuss this further with me please address the issue I am discussing, not the goalpost issue you have moved to.
> I don't think I am "wrong" about the issue I was discussing. Sorry you didn't pick up on the TWO definitions that I have listed.
> The only thing that you have dismantled is your already discredited reputation.
> Your example has absolutely ZERO to do with rationalizations, a psychological term that you obviously have no familiarity with.



Well you need to tell the scientists who've conducted the experiments on the crows about this, because they believe the crows are rationalizing. I simply posted the video evidence and what they had to say about it. I'm still looking for any credible dictionary definition of "rationalize" to denote this is exclusive to humans. Not finding anything so far. Certainly haven't found your second definition which appears to have come from your vapid and empty little head and isn't found elsewhere in the real world. 

Now you can bow up and proclaim things "have absolutely ZERO to do with" all the fuck you like, moron. You've not proven anything here except that you are a moron. You presented your definition, I explained how my evidence met the criteria, I gave you video and scientists telling you that you're wrong, and all you seem to want to do is vent frustration and act like more of a retard. 

Humans experience spiritual connection. It's not caused by a "unique ability to rationalize" because other animals also have that ability, and they don't go around creating false memes to console their irrational fears of their own mortality. Yes, humans can and do use rationality to construct religious beliefs surrounding their very real spiritual connection. One has nothing to do with the other, aside from proving humans DO have spiritual connection.


----------



## Boss

> You are discussing rational thought.
> I am discussing the psychological term "rationalization".



You don't know what the fuck you're discussing, you're just a lost little puppy on the highway of life, trying to pretend you know more than you do. Rational thought IS rationalization. Someone or something that exhibits rational thought, has rationalized. Yes, the term is used in psychology, but there is not a "special secret definition" used by science that doesn't apply elsewhere. The word means the same thing. 

Damn... are you really THIS stupid or is this an act?


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> You are discussing rational thought.
> I am discussing the psychological term "rationalization".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know what the fuck you're discussing, you're just a lost little puppy on the highway of life, trying to pretend you know more than you do. Rational thought IS rationalization. Someone or something that exhibits rational thought, has rationalized. Yes, the term is used in psychology, but there is not a "special secret definition" used by science that doesn't apply elsewhere. The word means the same thing.
> 
> Damn... are you really THIS stupid or is this an act?
Click to expand...


Not a secret.
I have posted the definition twice from two different sources.
The fact that you are unfamiliar with very basic, freshman psychology is all anyone really needs to know about you.
Do you want me to cite more definitions?
How many sources do you want?
You poor thing. This kind of public humiliation can be devestating.
But you will build a nice protective rationalization to defend your disgraced persona.
The uneducated followers you attract will buy it.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> Sorry you got so confused.
> I am talking about rationalizations.
> Do you understand now?
> If you want to discuss this further with me please address the issue I am discussing, not the goalpost issue you have moved to.
> I don't think I am "wrong" about the issue I was discussing. Sorry you didn't pick up on the TWO definitions that I have listed.
> The only thing that you have dismantled is your already discredited reputation.
> Your example has absolutely ZERO to do with rationalizations, a psychological term that you obviously have no familiarity with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well you need to tell the scientists who've conducted the experiments on the crows about this, because they believe the crows are rationalizing. I simply posted the video evidence and what they had to say about it. I'm still looking for any credible dictionary definition of "rationalize" to denote this is exclusive to humans. Not finding anything so far. Certainly haven't found your second definition which appears to have come from your vapid and empty little head and isn't found elsewhere in the real world.
> 
> Now you can bow up and proclaim things "have absolutely ZERO to do with" all the fuck you like, moron. You've not proven anything here except that you are a moron. You presented your definition, I explained how my evidence met the criteria, I gave you video and scientists telling you that you're wrong, and all you seem to want to do is vent frustration and act like more of a retard.
> 
> Humans experience spiritual connection. It's not caused by a "unique ability to rationalize" because other animals also have that ability, and they don't go around creating false memes to console their irrational fears of their own mortality. Yes, humans can and do use rationality to construct religious beliefs surrounding their very real spiritual connection. One has nothing to do with the other, aside from proving humans DO have spiritual connection.
Click to expand...


The scientists are NOT making the case the crows are developing rationalizations for their behavior.
So humiliating for you.
You are making my case for me with your rationalization of an argument.


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll watch the videos later, but again, I have to wonder what definition of rationalize you are using.  None of the articles in any way showed crows rationalizing.  They showed an ability to understand causal relationships, but not an attempt to make the irrational or illogical seem rational.
> 
> Crows are pretty smart as animals go.  OK.  That is not the same as rationalizing, sorry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are numerous ways in which the dictionary definition of "rationalize" is written, but I don't find any which indicate this is exclusive to humans. Seems as if this were something only humans have, the definitions would universally state such a thing. So I should think most intelligent people don't recognize it as an attribute exclusive to humans.
> 
> Here is one of the more easily understood definitions for you--
> *rationalize:* _use or exercise the mind or one's power of reason in order to make inferences, decisions, or arrive at a solution or judgments._
> 
> Every link I posted demonstrates crows with such ability. In one of the videos, the scientist literally uses the word "rationalize" to describe what he observes in their behavior. I think i provided ample evidence to support the point I made, and you've shown nothing to refute it other than your opinion. If you have anything tantamount to evidence to show otherwise, here is where you need to present that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As to the mass delusions, again, it's not been the same mass delusion throughout human history.  Human spiritual beliefs have been very varied over our history, and they are and have been varied at any given time as well.  And there have probably always been those who do not believe in any supernatural or spiritual things.  Even many believers likely think that those who do not agree with their beliefs are suffering delusion, as you like to put it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems to me that we are able to rationalize what constitutes spirituality or spiritual belief and can recognize such behavior in humans. And it generally always involves the faith in a power greater than self. So now this supposed "mass delusion" can take on different forms and incarnations depending on cultures and histories, yet curiously still retains the same general belief in something greater than self. While I think it's bizarre you believe spirituality is mass delusion, I find it even more bizarre you think this "delusion" has the ability to morph and change incarnation across culture and time yet retain the same basic conceptualization of something greater than self.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder what makes you think you have a rare ability to see the truth of spirituality that most others do not seem to?  Certainly you've argued that atheists are incorrect because of the volume of believers in this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think I have any rare ability, in fact, I think what I believe is what most humans now and in the past have believed. Overwhelmingly, humans have spirituality. So it is actually YOUR ability that is rare. Mine is the norm. I've never argued that anyone is correct or incorrect based on popularity of support, and I actually think it is kind of stupid to do so. It shows a complete lack of ability to rationalize.
Click to expand...

 the following is what boosy does:    ra·tion·al·ize[ rásh&#601;n'l &#772;&#768;z ]In psychology and logic, rationalization (also known as making excuses[1]) is a defense mechanism in which perceived controversial behaviors or feelings are logically justified and explained in a rational or logical manner in order to avoid any true explanation, and are made consciously tolerable &#8211; or even admirable and superior &#8211; by plausible means.[2] Rationalization encourages irrational or unacceptable behavior, motives, or feelings and often involves ad hoc hypothesizing. This process ranges from fully conscious (e.g. to present an external defense against ridicule from others) to mostly unconscious (e.g. to create a block against internal feelings of guilt).

People rationalize for various reasons. Rationalization may differentiate the original deterministic explanation of the behavior or feeling in question.[3][4] Sometimes rationalization occurs when we think we know ourselves better than we do. It is also an informal fallacy of reasoning.[5]
next is what boosy attempts to bamboozle people into,thinking he does..: 

interpret something rationally: to interpret something from a rational or logical perspective.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalization_(making_excuses)


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry you got so confused.
> I am talking about rationalizations.
> Do you understand now?
> If you want to discuss this further with me please address the issue I am discussing, not the goalpost issue you have moved to.
> I don't think I am "wrong" about the issue I was discussing. Sorry you didn't pick up on the TWO definitions that I have listed.
> The only thing that you have dismantled is your already discredited reputation.
> Your example has absolutely ZERO to do with rationalizations, a psychological term that you obviously have no familiarity with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well you need to tell the scientists who've conducted the experiments on the crows about this, because they believe the crows are rationalizing. I simply posted the video evidence and what they had to say about it. I'm still looking for any credible dictionary definition of "rationalize" to denote this is exclusive to humans. Not finding anything so far. Certainly haven't found your second definition which appears to have come from your vapid and empty little head and isn't found elsewhere in the real world.
> 
> Now you can bow up and proclaim things "have absolutely ZERO to do with" all the fuck you like, moron. You've not proven anything here except that you are a moron. You presented your definition, I explained how my evidence met the criteria, I gave you video and scientists telling you that you're wrong, and all you seem to want to do is vent frustration and act like more of a retard.
> 
> Humans experience spiritual connection. It's not caused by a "unique ability to rationalize" because other animals also have that ability, and they don't go around creating false memes to console their irrational fears of their own mortality. Yes, humans can and do use rationality to construct religious beliefs surrounding their very real spiritual connection. One has nothing to do with the other, aside from proving humans DO have spiritual connection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The scientists are NOT making the case the crows are developing rationalizations for their behavior.
> So humiliating for you.
> You are making my case for me with your rationalization of an argument.
Click to expand...


Yep, that's exactly what they are demonstrating. Numerous scientists and different types of experiments. The crows rationalize and then use deductive reasoning to implement their rationalizations. They do so on at least the level of a chimpanzee and perhaps a 6-7 year-old child. Now I apologize if this was a revelation to you, but now you are starting to prove my other point... you can't believe it's possible that crows are rationalizing, therefore you can't accept clear evidence such a thing is happening. 

I don't understand why you think this is humiliating for me, you still haven't shown any evidence to support your argument that rationalization is exclusive to the human species. I think you just like to post nonsense arguments and see how long you can string someone along in a "debate" over them. What I don't get is what you are getting out of this, unless you've somehow deluded yourself into thinking this makes you appear brilliant or something. It's starting to appear really sad and pathetic, a cry for attention, the need to shore up your own self-esteem. This is probably because your mind is going through withdrawals from lack of spiritual connectivity.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll watch the videos later, but again, I have to wonder what definition of rationalize you are using.  None of the articles in any way showed crows rationalizing.  They showed an ability to understand causal relationships, but not an attempt to make the irrational or illogical seem rational.
> 
> Crows are pretty smart as animals go.  OK.  That is not the same as rationalizing, sorry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are numerous ways in which the dictionary definition of "rationalize" is written, but I don't find any which indicate this is exclusive to humans. Seems as if this were something only humans have, the definitions would universally state such a thing. So I should think most intelligent people don't recognize it as an attribute exclusive to humans.
> 
> Here is one of the more easily understood definitions for you--
> *rationalize:* _use or exercise the mind or one's power of reason in order to make inferences, decisions, or arrive at a solution or judgments._
> 
> Every link I posted demonstrates crows with such ability. In one of the videos, the scientist literally uses the word "rationalize" to describe what he observes in their behavior. I think i provided ample evidence to support the point I made, and you've shown nothing to refute it other than your opinion. If you have anything tantamount to evidence to show otherwise, here is where you need to present that.
> 
> 
> 
> Seems to me that we are able to rationalize what constitutes spirituality or spiritual belief and can recognize such behavior in humans. And it generally always involves the faith in a power greater than self. So now this supposed "mass delusion" can take on different forms and incarnations depending on cultures and histories, yet curiously still retains the same general belief in something greater than self. While I think it's bizarre you believe spirituality is mass delusion, I find it even more bizarre you think this "delusion" has the ability to morph and change incarnation across culture and time yet retain the same basic conceptualization of something greater than self.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder what makes you think you have a rare ability to see the truth of spirituality that most others do not seem to?  Certainly you've argued that atheists are incorrect because of the volume of believers in this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think I have any rare ability, in fact, I think what I believe is what most humans now and in the past have believed. Overwhelmingly, humans have spirituality. So it is actually YOUR ability that is rare. Mine is the norm. I've never argued that anyone is correct or incorrect based on popularity of support, and I actually think it is kind of stupid to do so. It shows a complete lack of ability to rationalize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boss I just don't know for sure but rationalize seems to be the wrong term. Being a hunter and someone who has raised horses and dogs. I think the proper term to describe what you're discussing would be instinct.
Click to expand...

false! instinct is an automatic reaction to certain stimuli... like recoiling from fire or ducking at loud sounds like thunder...sex..etc


----------



## Derideo_Te

Boss said:


> You are discussing rational thought.
> I am discussing the psychological term "rationalization".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *You don't know what the fuck you're discussing*, you're just a lost little puppy on the highway of life, trying to pretend you know more than you do. Rational thought IS rationalization. Someone or something that exhibits rational thought, has rationalized. Yes, the term is used in psychology, but there is not a "special secret definition" used by science that doesn't apply elsewhere. The word means the same thing.
> 
> *Damn... are you really THIS stupid or is this an act?*
Click to expand...


http://www.usmessageboard.com/8899537-post1272.html



> Moderation Reminder:
> 
> This is a Zone2 thread. Remember to include
> relevant discussion in every post.* It can't
> descend into flame exchanges.. *
> 
> @flacaltenn



The OP for this thread was nothing but an attempt to flame Atheists as being "God-haters" and the OP has consistently been rude and abusive to anyone who has dared to expose his canards.

This thread belonged in the FZ from the very outset in my opinion. The OP himself isn't interested in abiding by the warning given in post #1272 either. Further evidence can be found ins Post #1425.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/8913736-post1425.html



> Well you need to tell the scientists who've conducted the experiments on the crows about this, because they believe the crows are rationalizing. I simply posted the video evidence and what they had to say about it. I'm still looking for any credible dictionary definition of "rationalize" to denote this is exclusive to humans. Not finding anything so far. Certainly haven't found your second definition which appears to have come from* your vapid and empty little head *and isn't found elsewhere in the real world.
> 
> Now you can bow up and proclaim things "have absolutely ZERO to do with"* all the fuck you like, moron*. *You've not proven anything here except that you are a moron*. You presented your definition, I explained how my evidence met the criteria, I gave you video and scientists telling you that you're wrong, and *all you seem to want to do is vent frustration and act like more of a retard*.


----------



## Boss

daws101 said:


> the following is what boosy does:    ra·tion·al·ize[ rásh&#601;n'l &#772;&#768;z ]In psychology and logic, rationalization (also known as making excuses[1]) is a defense mechanism in which perceived controversial behaviors or feelings are logically justified and explained in a rational or logical manner in order to avoid any true explanation, and are made consciously tolerable  or even admirable and superior  by plausible means.[2] Rationalization encourages irrational or unacceptable behavior, motives, or feelings and often involves ad hoc hypothesizing. This process ranges from fully conscious (e.g. to present an external defense against ridicule from others) to mostly unconscious (e.g. to create a block against internal feelings of guilt).
> 
> People rationalize for various reasons. Rationalization may differentiate the original deterministic explanation of the behavior or feeling in question.[3][4] Sometimes rationalization occurs when we think we know ourselves better than we do. It is also an informal fallacy of reasoning.[5]
> next is what boosy attempts to bamboozle people into,thinking he does..:
> 
> interpret something rationally: to interpret something from a rational or logical perspective.



Look who's here? The Copy-n-Paste Queen of USMB! 

What you are now doing is copying a definition of *FALSE* rationalization and trying to argue this is the only applicable definition of the word "rationalize". Talk about some profound intellectual dishonesty... this one takes the prize!


----------



## daws101

orogenicman said:


> Look, man is not so much a rational creature as a rationalizing one.  And his ability to rationalize doesn't automatically mean that these rationalizations are reasonable.  I think most people would agree that, for instance, the Church's rationalization for burning people at the stake who they accused of being witches was not reasonable.  One can rationalize just about anything.  That doesn't make it reasonable or true.


from my pov the "church" had to rationalize one hell of alot  to do something as irrational as burning people at the stake..but then again the church and christianity in general have spent copious amounts of time creating and practicing interesting way to torture and kill...


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well you need to tell the scientists who've conducted the experiments on the crows about this, because they believe the crows are rationalizing. I simply posted the video evidence and what they had to say about it. I'm still looking for any credible dictionary definition of "rationalize" to denote this is exclusive to humans. Not finding anything so far. Certainly haven't found your second definition which appears to have come from your vapid and empty little head and isn't found elsewhere in the real world.
> 
> Now you can bow up and proclaim things "have absolutely ZERO to do with" all the fuck you like, moron. You've not proven anything here except that you are a moron. You presented your definition, I explained how my evidence met the criteria, I gave you video and scientists telling you that you're wrong, and all you seem to want to do is vent frustration and act like more of a retard.
> 
> Humans experience spiritual connection. It's not caused by a "unique ability to rationalize" because other animals also have that ability, and they don't go around creating false memes to console their irrational fears of their own mortality. Yes, humans can and do use rationality to construct religious beliefs surrounding their very real spiritual connection. One has nothing to do with the other, aside from proving humans DO have spiritual connection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The scientists are NOT making the case the crows are developing rationalizations for their behavior.
> So humiliating for you.
> You are making my case for me with your rationalization of an argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, that's exactly what they are demonstrating. Numerous scientists and different types of experiments. The crows rationalize and then use deductive reasoning to implement their rationalizations. They do so on at least the level of a chimpanzee and perhaps a 6-7 year-old child. Now I apologize if this was a revelation to you, but now you are starting to prove my other point... you can't believe it's possible that crows are rationalizing, therefore you can't accept clear evidence such a thing is happening.
> 
> I don't understand why you think this is humiliating for me, you still haven't shown any evidence to support your argument that rationalization is exclusive to the human species. I think you just like to post nonsense arguments and see how long you can string someone along in a "debate" over them. What I don't get is what you are getting out of this, unless you've somehow deluded yourself into thinking this makes you appear brilliant or something. It's starting to appear really sad and pathetic, a cry for attention, the need to shore up your own self-esteem. This is probably because your mind is going through withdrawals from lack of spiritual connectivity.
Click to expand...



What is RATIONALIZATION?
An explanation in which apparently logical reasons are given to justify unacceptable behavior. In psychoanalytical theory, such an outlook is regarded as a defense mechanism against feelings of guilt.

Psychology Dictionary: What is RATIONALIZATION? definition of RATIONALIZATION (Psychology Dictionary) 

This is from the Psychology Dictionary.
I am more and more positive you have never heard of it.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> You are discussing rational thought.
> I am discussing the psychological term "rationalization".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know what the fuck you're discussing, you're just a lost little puppy on the highway of life, trying to pretend you know more than you do. Rational thought IS rationalization. Someone or something that exhibits rational thought, has rationalized. Yes, the term is used in psychology, but there is not a "special secret definition" used by science that doesn't apply elsewhere. The word means the same thing.
> 
> Damn... are you really THIS stupid or is this an act?
Click to expand...


But rational thought is not rationalization in the context it was originally used in this discussion.  That, of course, is what started this side discussion, and obviously should be the definition we are operating under here.  Why you insist to use a different definition (and yes, there are multiple definitions, and yes, it is important which one is being used) is unclear, but certainly seem to be a rationalization.


----------



## Boss

> The OP for this thread was nothing but an attempt to flame Atheists.



Nonsense. The legitimate argument was made and has yet to be refuted. I have never "flamed" true Atheists in this thread and make a clear distinction in the OP between legitimate Atheists and what I call "God-haters" who are not Atheists at all. I'm sorry if you feel my choice of words was inflammatory, you can substitute "Anti-theist" for "God-hater" if it makes you feel better. The points still stand unless you can formulate a valid argument against them, which you haven't done.


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> The scientists are NOT making the case the crows are developing rationalizations for their behavior.
> So humiliating for you.
> You are making my case for me with your rationalization of an argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, that's exactly what they are demonstrating. Numerous scientists and different types of experiments. The crows rationalize and then use deductive reasoning to implement their rationalizations. They do so on at least the level of a chimpanzee and perhaps a 6-7 year-old child. Now I apologize if this was a revelation to you, but now you are starting to prove my other point... you can't believe it's possible that crows are rationalizing, therefore you can't accept clear evidence such a thing is happening.
> 
> I don't understand why you think this is humiliating for me, you still haven't shown any evidence to support your argument that rationalization is exclusive to the human species. I think you just like to post nonsense arguments and see how long you can string someone along in a "debate" over them. What I don't get is what you are getting out of this, unless you've somehow deluded yourself into thinking this makes you appear brilliant or something. It's starting to appear really sad and pathetic, a cry for attention, the need to shore up your own self-esteem. This is probably because your mind is going through withdrawals from lack of spiritual connectivity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What is RATIONALIZATION?
> An explanation in which apparently logical reasons are given to justify unacceptable behavior. In psychoanalytical theory, such an outlook is regarded as a defense mechanism against feelings of guilt.
> 
> Psychology Dictionary: What is RATIONALIZATION? definition of RATIONALIZATION (Psychology Dictionary)
> 
> This is from the Psychology Dictionary.
> I am more and more positive you have never heard of it.
Click to expand...


Again, that is called a FALSE RATIONALIZATION... not rationalization. 

You're confused.


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they are. They convince themselves the small stick can be used to reach the longer stick and the excuse is to obtain a piece of food in a box they can't reach without this longer stick.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the piece of food is the real purpose.
> It isn't a rationalization. He isn't creating a false narrative to protect his ego.
> Monumental fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing in your definition about a false narrative to protect ego.
> 
> A short stick on a string is not related to the food. It literally has nothing to do with the food. The crow *RATIONALIZES* that it needs the short stick so it can get to the longer stick. Again... the longer stick doesn't relate to food. The crow *RATIONALIZES* that it can use the long stick to move the food closer so it can reach it.
> 
> If you are still too profoundly retarded to understand this, I can't help you. Even the scientist who conducted this experiment says the crow is rationalizing. So why are you continuing to cling to your cherry-picked definition which also failed to prove your point?
> 
> Monumental fail indeed!
Click to expand...

bullshit! the crow realizes and deduces  why it needs a longer stick it not a rationalization of any kind .... 

The Great Crow Experiment is a non-scientific study conducted by wordsxo scientist-wannabesMEH (My Engineer Husband) and me. As previously reported in MEH and the Crows (citation: wordsxo) and Science News (citation: Science News), American Crows are extremely intelligent animals. The hypothesis of this experiment is that Corvus brachyrhynchos (American Crow) has the ability to recognize individual people and individual cars. Part 1 of the experiment presented the hypothesis, materials, and method. This post, Part 2, presents Results, Conclusions, as well as opportunities for further research (i.e., things we just dont know the answers to).

The Great Crow Experiment, Part 2


----------



## daws101

Derideo_Te said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are discussing rational thought.
> I am discussing the psychological term "rationalization".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *You don't know what the fuck you're discussing*, you're just a lost little puppy on the highway of life, trying to pretend you know more than you do. Rational thought IS rationalization. Someone or something that exhibits rational thought, has rationalized. Yes, the term is used in psychology, but there is not a "special secret definition" used by science that doesn't apply elsewhere. The word means the same thing.
> 
> *Damn... are you really THIS stupid or is this an act?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/8899537-post1272.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moderation Reminder:
> 
> This is a Zone2 thread. Remember to include
> relevant discussion in every post.* It can't
> descend into flame exchanges.. *
> 
> @flacaltenn
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The OP for this thread was nothing but an attempt to flame Atheists as being "God-haters" and the OP has consistently been rude and abusive to anyone who has dared to expose his canards.
> 
> This thread belonged in the FZ from the very outset in my opinion. The OP himself isn't interested in abiding by the warning given in post #1272 either. Further evidence can be found ins Post #1425.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/8913736-post1425.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well you need to tell the scientists who've conducted the experiments on the crows about this, because they believe the crows are rationalizing. I simply posted the video evidence and what they had to say about it. I'm still looking for any credible dictionary definition of "rationalize" to denote this is exclusive to humans. Not finding anything so far. Certainly haven't found your second definition which appears to have come from* your vapid and empty little head *and isn't found elsewhere in the real world.
> 
> Now you can bow up and proclaim things "have absolutely ZERO to do with"* all the fuck you like, moron*. *You've not proven anything here except that you are a moron*. You presented your definition, I explained how my evidence met the criteria, I gave you video and scientists telling you that you're wrong, and *all you seem to want to do is vent frustration and act like more of a retard*.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

major bump


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the following is what boosy does:    ra·tion·al·ize[ rásh&#601;n'l &#772;&#768;z ]In psychology and logic, rationalization (also known as making excuses[1]) is a defense mechanism in which perceived controversial behaviors or feelings are logically justified and explained in a rational or logical manner in order to avoid any true explanation, and are made consciously tolerable  or even admirable and superior  by plausible means.[2] Rationalization encourages irrational or unacceptable behavior, motives, or feelings and often involves ad hoc hypothesizing. This process ranges from fully conscious (e.g. to present an external defense against ridicule from others) to mostly unconscious (e.g. to create a block against internal feelings of guilt).
> 
> People rationalize for various reasons. Rationalization may differentiate the original deterministic explanation of the behavior or feeling in question.[3][4] Sometimes rationalization occurs when we think we know ourselves better than we do. It is also an informal fallacy of reasoning.[5]
> next is what boosy attempts to bamboozle people into,thinking he does..:
> 
> interpret something rationally: to interpret something from a rational or logical perspective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look who's here? The Copy-n-Paste Queen of USMB!
> 
> What you are now doing is copying a definition of *FALSE* rationalization and trying to argue this is the only applicable definition of the word "rationalize". Talk about some profound intellectual dishonesty... this one takes the prize!
Click to expand...

call the whambulance...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalization_(making_excuses)


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, that's exactly what they are demonstrating. Numerous scientists and different types of experiments. The crows rationalize and then use deductive reasoning to implement their rationalizations. They do so on at least the level of a chimpanzee and perhaps a 6-7 year-old child. Now I apologize if this was a revelation to you, but now you are starting to prove my other point... you can't believe it's possible that crows are rationalizing, therefore you can't accept clear evidence such a thing is happening.
> 
> I don't understand why you think this is humiliating for me, you still haven't shown any evidence to support your argument that rationalization is exclusive to the human species. I think you just like to post nonsense arguments and see how long you can string someone along in a "debate" over them. What I don't get is what you are getting out of this, unless you've somehow deluded yourself into thinking this makes you appear brilliant or something. It's starting to appear really sad and pathetic, a cry for attention, the need to shore up your own self-esteem. This is probably because your mind is going through withdrawals from lack of spiritual connectivity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is RATIONALIZATION?
> An explanation in which apparently logical reasons are given to justify unacceptable behavior. In psychoanalytical theory, such an outlook is regarded as a defense mechanism against feelings of guilt.
> 
> Psychology Dictionary: What is RATIONALIZATION? definition of RATIONALIZATION (Psychology Dictionary)
> 
> This is from the Psychology Dictionary.
> I am more and more positive you have never heard of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, that is called a FALSE RATIONALIZATION... not rationalization.
> 
> You're confused.
Click to expand...


You better call the Psychology Dictionary! Even the headline is from them.
They have no idea!
Neither does Wiki, or Dictionary.com, or Websters, or........
Your post is a fine example of rationalization.
It is also confirmation that you have no exposure to the field of psychology.


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are discussing rational thought.
> I am discussing the psychological term "rationalization".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know what the fuck you're discussing, you're just a lost little puppy on the highway of life, trying to pretend you know more than you do. Rational thought IS rationalization. Someone or something that exhibits rational thought, has rationalized. Yes, the term is used in psychology, but there is not a "special secret definition" used by science that doesn't apply elsewhere. The word means the same thing.
> 
> Damn... are you really THIS stupid or is this an act?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But rational thought is not rationalization in the context it was originally used in this discussion.  That, of course, is what started this side discussion, and obviously should be the definition we are operating under here.  Why you insist to use a different definition (and yes, there are multiple definitions, and yes, it is important which one is being used) is unclear, but certainly seem to be a rationalization.
Click to expand...


Yes "rational thought" is rationalization in the context it was originally used in this discussion. The argument was that human spirituality is derived from our ability to rationalize. It is not. Nor has it been proven with any kind of scientific evidence whatsoever. Somehow, the "definition" of "rationalize" was morphed into the definition of FALSE rationalizations, and then an instance this was what was meant by "rationalize." 

You're cherry picking the definition of rationalize as it applies to false rationalization, and insisting this is the only thing "rationalize" can ever mean in conversations. That's just flat out intellectually dishonest. It's like arguing that cubic zirconia is a type of diamond, and when you are shown evidence that it's NOT a type of diamond, running to the argument that it's a FALSE kind of diamond!


----------



## daws101

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is RATIONALIZATION?
> An explanation in which apparently logical reasons are given to justify unacceptable behavior. In psychoanalytical theory, such an outlook is regarded as a defense mechanism against feelings of guilt.
> 
> Psychology Dictionary: What is RATIONALIZATION? definition of RATIONALIZATION (Psychology Dictionary)
> 
> This is from the Psychology Dictionary.
> I am more and more positive you have never heard of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, that is called a FALSE RATIONALIZATION... not rationalization.
> 
> You're confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You better call the Psychology Dictionary! Even the headline is from them.
> They have no idea!
> Neither does Wiki, or Dictionary.com, or Websters, or........
> Your post is a fine example of rationalization.
Click to expand...

if you ever needed proof  that boss has no integrity his epic fail spin on rationality 
ra·tion·al·i·ty[ ràsh&#601; náll&#601;tee ]
rational attitude: rational thought or behavior, or the ability to think rationally
something rational: a rational belief, opinion, or action
condition of being logical: the condition in which values, beliefs, and techniques are believed to be based on logical, explicable principles
should do it!


----------



## Boss

> You better call the Psychology Dictionary! Even the headline is from them.
> They have no idea!
> Neither does Wiki, or Dictionary.com, or Websters, or........



Which one states it's an exclusively human attribute?


----------



## Derideo_Te

Boss said:


> The OP for this thread was nothing but an attempt to flame Atheists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. The legitimate argument was made and has yet to be refuted. I have never "flamed" true Atheists in this thread and make a clear distinction in the OP between legitimate Atheists and what I call "God-haters" who are not Atheists at all. I'm sorry if you feel my choice of words was inflammatory, you can substitute "Anti-theist" for "God-hater" if it makes you feel better. *The points still stand unless you can formulate a valid argument against them, which you haven't done*.
Click to expand...


Ironic how the OP now openly admits that he has failed to "*formulate a valid argument against*" these imaginary "*God-haters*" of his.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know what the fuck you're discussing, you're just a lost little puppy on the highway of life, trying to pretend you know more than you do. Rational thought IS rationalization. Someone or something that exhibits rational thought, has rationalized. Yes, the term is used in psychology, but there is not a "special secret definition" used by science that doesn't apply elsewhere. The word means the same thing.
> 
> Damn... are you really THIS stupid or is this an act?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But rational thought is not rationalization in the context it was originally used in this discussion.  That, of course, is what started this side discussion, and obviously should be the definition we are operating under here.  Why you insist to use a different definition (and yes, there are multiple definitions, and yes, it is important which one is being used) is unclear, but certainly seem to be a rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes "rational thought" is rationalization in the context it was originally used in this discussion. The argument was that human spirituality is derived from our ability to rationalize. It is not. Nor has it been proven with any kind of scientific evidence whatsoever. Somehow, the "definition" of "rationalize" was morphed into the definition of FALSE rationalizations, and then an instance this was what was meant by "rationalize."
> 
> You're cherry picking the definition of rationalize as it applies to false rationalization, and insisting this is the only thing "rationalize" can ever mean in conversations. That's just flat out intellectually dishonest. It's like arguing that cubic zirconia is a type of diamond, and when you are shown evidence that it's NOT a type of diamond, running to the argument that it's a FALSE kind of diamond!
Click to expand...


Since I made the argument I can categorically tell you that the use of "rationalization" was always intended the way the Psychology Dictionary, Websters, Dictionary.com and Wiki have all defined it, and all without preceding it with "false".
Your argument is one long, massive rationalization that fits perfectly with all of these credible sources definitions of the word.
You are humiliated and so insecure that admitting you tripped on your sneakers is just not an option for you.
You have been thoroughly discredited in this argument. It has been repeatedly demonstrated and you have proved that your PhD. is a total fabrication and you have no exposure to the field.
This is such a ridiculous beat down that it is hard to keep going.
Why don't you stop?
Let the bleeding heal.


----------



## Boss

Derideo_Te said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The OP for this thread was nothing but an attempt to flame Atheists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. The legitimate argument was made and has yet to be refuted. I have never "flamed" true Atheists in this thread and make a clear distinction in the OP between legitimate Atheists and what I call "God-haters" who are not Atheists at all. I'm sorry if you feel my choice of words was inflammatory, you can substitute "Anti-theist" for "God-hater" if it makes you feel better. *The points still stand unless you can formulate a valid argument against them, which you haven't done*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ironic how the OP now openly admits that he has failed to "*formulate a valid argument against*" these imaginary "*God-haters*" of his.
Click to expand...


Funny, I'm not seeing where I "openly admitted" or even vaguely implied any such nonsense.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> You better call the Psychology Dictionary! Even the headline is from them.
> They have no idea!
> Neither does Wiki, or Dictionary.com, or Websters, or........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which one states it's an exclusively human attribute?
Click to expand...


Goalpost shift alert!
Now it isn't that they got the definition wrong and left off the introductory word.
Now you are going to try to make the case that crows use rationalizations to overcome their feelings of guilt.
Go for it!!!
This should be good.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. The legitimate argument was made and has yet to be refuted. I have never "flamed" true Atheists in this thread and make a clear distinction in the OP between legitimate Atheists and what I call "God-haters" who are not Atheists at all. I'm sorry if you feel my choice of words was inflammatory, you can substitute "Anti-theist" for "God-hater" if it makes you feel better. *The points still stand unless you can formulate a valid argument against them, which you haven't done*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ironic how the OP now openly admits that he has failed to "*formulate a valid argument against*" these imaginary "*God-haters*" of his.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny, I'm not seeing where I "openly admitted" or even vaguely implied any such nonsense.
Click to expand...




bigot  

 n
*a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion*, politics, or race

Bigot | Define Bigot at Dictionary.com


----------



## Derideo_Te

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is RATIONALIZATION?
> An explanation in which apparently logical reasons are given to justify unacceptable behavior. In psychoanalytical theory, such an outlook is regarded as a defense mechanism against feelings of guilt.
> 
> Psychology Dictionary: What is RATIONALIZATION? definition of RATIONALIZATION (Psychology Dictionary)
> 
> This is from the Psychology Dictionary.
> I am more and more positive you have never heard of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, that is called a FALSE RATIONALIZATION... not rationalization.
> 
> You're confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You better call the Psychology Dictionary! Even the headline is from them.
> They have no idea!
> Neither does Wiki, or Dictionary.com, or Websters, or........
> Your post is a fine example of rationalization.
> *It is also confirmation that you have no exposure to the field of psychology.*
Click to expand...


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> But rational thought is not rationalization in the context it was originally used in this discussion.  That, of course, is what started this side discussion, and obviously should be the definition we are operating under here.  Why you insist to use a different definition (and yes, there are multiple definitions, and yes, it is important which one is being used) is unclear, but certainly seem to be a rationalization.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes "rational thought" is rationalization in the context it was originally used in this discussion. The argument was that human spirituality is derived from our ability to rationalize. It is not. Nor has it been proven with any kind of scientific evidence whatsoever. Somehow, the "definition" of "rationalize" was morphed into the definition of FALSE rationalizations, and then an instance this was what was meant by "rationalize."
> 
> You're cherry picking the definition of rationalize as it applies to false rationalization, and insisting this is the only thing "rationalize" can ever mean in conversations. That's just flat out intellectually dishonest. It's like arguing that cubic zirconia is a type of diamond, and when you are shown evidence that it's NOT a type of diamond, running to the argument that it's a FALSE kind of diamond!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since I made the argument I can categorically tell you that the use of "rationalization" was always intended the way the Psychology Dictionary, Websters, Dictionary.com and Wiki have all defined it, and all without preceding it with "false".
> Your argument is one long, massive rationalization that fits perfectly with all of these credible sources definitions of the word.
> You are humiliated and so insecure that admitting you tripped on your sneakers is just not an option for you.
> You have been thoroughly discredited in this argument. It has been repeatedly demonstrated and you have proved that your PhD. is a total fabrication and you have no exposure to the field.
> This is such a ridiculous beat down that it is hard to keep going.
> Why don't you stop?
> Let the bleeding heal.
Click to expand...


I've already been through the dictionary definitions. There are numerous variations and implied context for the word "rationalize" and you are using only one of them. If you had stated that humans derived spirituality from their ability to formulate false rationalizations, I would have still disagreed with your argument, but we wouldn't have gone off on this long debate over the intended context of the word. 

You know, I wish now that I hadn't ever shared with you that I have a PhD in psychology. It seems to be something you simply want to keep using to badger me with, and that's a good lesson for anyone posting on these forums... keep your personal life off here! Don't reveal ANY details of who you are or what you've done, because little pissant morons will take that information and harass you with it from then on. Tell you what, you ever get brave enough to confront me face-to-face, you come to Alabama and I will show you my diplomas. 

You won't do that for the same reason you won't back up your arguments here, you're a fraudulent little chickenshit moron who thinks he can fool people. It's apparent to me that you have no intentions of engaging in an honest debate on anything, and you simply want to turn the thread into a flame war. Well mister, our conversation is OVER... got it? DONE!


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes "rational thought" is rationalization in the context it was originally used in this discussion. The argument was that human spirituality is derived from our ability to rationalize. It is not. Nor has it been proven with any kind of scientific evidence whatsoever. Somehow, the "definition" of "rationalize" was morphed into the definition of FALSE rationalizations, and then an instance this was what was meant by "rationalize."
> 
> You're cherry picking the definition of rationalize as it applies to false rationalization, and insisting this is the only thing "rationalize" can ever mean in conversations. That's just flat out intellectually dishonest. It's like arguing that cubic zirconia is a type of diamond, and when you are shown evidence that it's NOT a type of diamond, running to the argument that it's a FALSE kind of diamond!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since I made the argument I can categorically tell you that the use of "rationalization" was always intended the way the Psychology Dictionary, Websters, Dictionary.com and Wiki have all defined it, and all without preceding it with "false".
> Your argument is one long, massive rationalization that fits perfectly with all of these credible sources definitions of the word.
> You are humiliated and so insecure that admitting you tripped on your sneakers is just not an option for you.
> You have been thoroughly discredited in this argument. It has been repeatedly demonstrated and you have proved that your PhD. is a total fabrication and you have no exposure to the field.
> This is such a ridiculous beat down that it is hard to keep going.
> Why don't you stop?
> Let the bleeding heal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've already been through the dictionary definitions. There are numerous variations and implied context for the word "rationalize" and you are using only one of them. If you had stated that humans derived spirituality from their ability to formulate false rationalizations, I would have still disagreed with your argument, but we wouldn't have gone off on this long debate over the intended context of the word.
> 
> You know, I wish now that I hadn't ever shared with you that I have a PhD in psychology. It seems to be something you simply want to keep using to badger me with, and that's a good lesson for anyone posting on these forums... keep your personal life off here! Don't reveal ANY details of who you are or what you've done, because little pissant morons will take that information and harass you with it from then on. Tell you what, you ever get brave enough to confront me face-to-face, you come to Alabama and I will show you my diplomas.
> 
> You won't do that for the same reason you won't back up your arguments here, you're a fraudulent little chickenshit moron who thinks he can fool people. It's apparent to me that you have no intentions of engaging in an honest debate on anything, and you simply want to turn the thread into a flame war. Well mister, our conversation is OVER... got it? DONE!
Click to expand...


I think that is a wise choice for you.
You have been crushed.
Why go on?
I have backed up every argument I have made, complete with citations from sources you should find entirely credible. Dictionaries that are specific to your claimed field of expertise should have some weight for you.
Your anger is your humiliation on display, nothing more.
By the way, I got a diploma from high school. After that I got degrees. Is it different at U. of A.?
Your half of the conversation was over a very long time ago.
I will feel free to respond to any nonsense you utter.
You are free to keep to yourself.


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> You of course are familiar with the fact that personal flames/insults/attacks are against the rules in this forum.
> 
> Of course you are.
> 
> Trolls.


 you mean like this  http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...do-the-god-haters-persist-94.html#post8912716     they are ok as long as the are in context to the subject...


----------



## flacaltenn

*Moderation Message:

Reopening the thread. A lot of honest effort in 
these pages.. But it got derailed again.. 
Keep it on the Zone 2 rails.. 


flacaltenn*


----------



## BreezeWood

Boss said:


> The OP for this thread was nothing but an attempt to flame Atheists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Nonsense. The legitimate argument was made and has yet to be refuted. I have never "flamed" true Atheists in this thread and make a clear distinction in the OP between legitimate Atheists and what I call "God-haters" who are not Atheists at all.* I'm sorry if you feel my choice of words was inflammatory, you can substitute "Anti-theist" for "God-hater" if it makes you feel better. The points still stand unless you can formulate a valid argument against them, which you haven't done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OP: True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...






> Report
> 
> *Atheists, Humanists Suffer Persecution World Wide. *
> 
> 
> (Reuters) - Atheists and other religious skeptics suffer persecution or discrimination in many parts of the world and in at least seven nations can be executed if their beliefs become known, according to a report issued on Monday.
> 
> The study, from the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU), showed that "unbelievers" in Islamic countries face the most severe - sometimes brutal - treatment at the hands of the state and adherents of the official religion.
> 
> The report, "Freedom of Thought 2012", said "there are laws that deny atheists' right to exist, curtail their freedom of belief and expression, revoke their right to citizenship, restrict their right to marry."




just a snapshot of today, not mentioning past history of the Dark and Middle ages ...




> *Boss:* Nonsense. The legitimate argument was made and has yet to be refuted. I have never "flamed" true Atheists in this thread and make a clear distinction in the OP between legitimate Atheists and what I call "God-haters" who are not Atheists at all.



oh really Boss and that is not to say your brethren do not today and have not in past history persecuted in large no.s anyone who disagreed with their religious beliefs ...


your OP is nothing but a blind eye to the legitimate consequences incurred by scripturalist for their past and present actions and a provocative attempt to lay blame where it is least deserving.

.


----------



## orogenicman

Well said.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, that's exactly what they are demonstrating. Numerous scientists and different types of experiments. The crows rationalize and then use deductive reasoning to implement their rationalizations. They do so on at least the level of a chimpanzee and perhaps a 6-7 year-old child. Now I apologize if this was a revelation to you, but now you are starting to prove my other point... you can't believe it's possible that crows are rationalizing, therefore you can't accept clear evidence such a thing is happening.
> 
> I don't understand why you think this is humiliating for me, you still haven't shown any evidence to support your argument that rationalization is exclusive to the human species. I think you just like to post nonsense arguments and see how long you can string someone along in a "debate" over them. What I don't get is what you are getting out of this, unless you've somehow deluded yourself into thinking this makes you appear brilliant or something. It's starting to appear really sad and pathetic, a cry for attention, the need to shore up your own self-esteem. This is probably because your mind is going through withdrawals from lack of spiritual connectivity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is RATIONALIZATION?
> An explanation in which apparently logical reasons are given to justify unacceptable behavior. In psychoanalytical theory, such an outlook is regarded as a defense mechanism against feelings of guilt.
> 
> Psychology Dictionary: What is RATIONALIZATION? definition of RATIONALIZATION (Psychology Dictionary)
> 
> This is from the Psychology Dictionary.
> I am more and more positive you have never heard of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, that is called a FALSE RATIONALIZATION... not rationalization.
> 
> You're confused.
Click to expand...

Well, no.
I looked up the phrase "false rationalization" and you'll never guess what I found.
Nothing. Nada. Zip.
No reference to the phrase in either professional or common usage.
Rationalization on the other hand?
Pages and pages of professional reference to the term as well as common usage, and all in perfect agreement with the definitions I have already posted. Not a single outlier.
You are so easy.
The gig is up.
Anyone with a freshman exposure to psychology would not be having this discussion. Well, certainly not your half of it. They might be having mine.
Why don't you take a picture of your "diploma", black out the name and make it your avatar.
Either you are a complete charlatan or U. Of A. is more inept as an educational institution than our stereotypes of that state allow us to imagine.


----------



## thanatos144

Looks like a good movie that is debates the same things in this thread.... With the same bigotry towards those with faith that those in this thread show.


----------



## daws101

thanatos144 said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QXbXu5jHrzY
> 
> Looks like a good movie that is debates the same things in this thread.... With the same bigotry towards those with faith that those in this thread show.


you would think that.. it's  easy money another way to fleece the flock..


----------



## koshergrl

What is with the progressive habit of assigning thoughts/emotions to other people?

Seriously. It's like a compulsive thing with you extremist baby killers.


----------



## thebrucebeat

koshergrl said:


> What is with the progressive habit of assigning thoughts/emotions to other people?
> 
> Seriously. It's like a compulsive thing with you extremist baby killers.



What about what the bible says about your thoughts/emotions?
Like the Fruits of the Spirit?


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> What is with the progressive habit of assigning thoughts/emotions to other people?
> 
> Seriously. It's like a compulsive thing with you extremist baby killers.


you got that from where? out of your ass is the answer....
the film was made for a targeted audience....easy pickin's


----------



## Montrovant

koshergrl said:


> What is with the progressive habit of assigning thoughts/emotions to other people?
> 
> Seriously. It's like a compulsive thing with you extremist baby killers.



Unless you're saying Boss is a progressive, isn't the entire premise of this thread assigning thoughts to other people?  After all, it's saying that people believe something other than what they state.


----------



## koshergrl

I was referring to the progressive affliction, as is indicated by several posts in this thread, of assigning emotions/thoughts to other people, and then trying to make the conversation about that, instead of the actual topic.

The majority of us, those of us who aren't the extremist baby killing loons, understand what I'm talking about. Those of us who don't believe in dumbing everything down.


----------



## koshergrl

I'm sure you understand that *baby killer* is a euphenism for "god hater"...right? You are one and the same.


----------



## orogenicman

koshergrl said:


> I was referring to the progressive affliction, as is indicated by several posts in this thread, of assigning emotions/thoughts to other people, and then trying to make the conversation about that, instead of the actual topic.
> 
> The majority of us, those of us who aren't the extremist baby killing loons, understand what I'm talking about. Those of us who don't believe in dumbing everything down.



What, exactly, are you doing here, if not "assigning emotions/thoughts to others and then trying to make the conversation about that"?  Are you telling us that you are a closet "progressive?  Oh my.


----------



## orogenicman

koshergrl said:


> I'm sure you understand that *baby killer* is a euphenism for "god hater"...right? You are one and the same.



Not realizing, of course, that many of your fellow Christians are pro-choice.


----------



## thebrucebeat

koshergrl said:


> I was referring to the progressive affliction, as is indicated by several posts in this thread, of assigning emotions/thoughts to other people, and then trying to make the conversation about that, instead of the actual topic.
> 
> The majority of us, those of us who aren't the extremist baby killing loons, understand what I'm talking about. Those of us who don't believe in dumbing everything down.



Do I need to dumb down Galatians for you?
It seems pretty simple and straightforward as it is.


----------



## koshergrl

orogenicman said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure you understand that *baby killer* is a euphenism for "god hater"...right? You are one and the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not realizing, of course, that many of your fellow Christians are pro-choice.
Click to expand...

 
No, they aren't, if by "choice" you're talking about free abortion for all, no questions asked, age of mother/baby no object, no parental interference tolerated, coercion A-OK if that's what it takes...

And that is the only choice the god-hating baby killers want.


----------



## orogenicman

koshergrl said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure you understand that *baby killer* is a euphenism for "god hater"...right? You are one and the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not realizing, of course, that many of your fellow Christians are pro-choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they aren't, if by "choice" you're talking about free abortion for all, no questions asked, age of mother/baby no object, no parental interference tolerated, coercion A-OK if that's what it takes...
> 
> And that is the only choice the god-hating baby killers want.
Click to expand...


Um, what?  I have never heard anyone say that they were for free abortion for all nor any of the other nonsense you posted. Are all of your arguments based on straw?


----------



## koshergrl

Quit trying to turn this into an abortion thread, please. If you can't address the topic, just go away...


----------



## orogenicman

koshergrl said:


> Quit trying to turn this into an abortion thread, please. If you can't address the topic, just go away...



Excuse me but I'm not the one who brought up abortion, dumbass.


----------



## koshergrl

But you certainly want to make it about that, all the same.
My how you go on. Try to stick to the topic, dumbass.


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is with the progressive habit of assigning thoughts/emotions to other people?
> 
> Seriously. It's like a compulsive thing with you extremist baby killers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you're saying Boss is a progressive, isn't the entire premise of this thread assigning thoughts to other people?  After all, it's saying that people believe something other than what they state.
Click to expand...


I didn't assign thoughts to others. I drew a logical parallel between behavioral actions and professed beliefs and pointed this out in detail. You're free to disagree, but I established a point-by-point case for my argument in the OP. It was never my argument that people believe something other than they state, and the OP clearly points this out in painstaking detail. SOME people lie about what they believe, and you can determine who is lying by their behavioral actions. 

I'm not a progressive, and I'm not assigning thoughts to other people. The OP nailed the point perfectly, and you have done everything you can think of to try and destroy the argument you can't refute. For days you tried to manipulate context and purposely misconstrue what I said. You tried to derail the topic by focusing on minutia and superfluous nonsense. Now you're trying to completely reconstruct the arguments stated in the OP. All because you know full well that I nailed that ass like it's never been nailed before, and you couldn't defeat the argument. All of you have done nothing but prove my point this entire thread, and you continue to spew more proof as the days go by. 

I am deeply satisfied by all this, btw.


----------



## koshergrl

No I wasn't talking about you, Boss. I was actually talking about others. Who take great delight, when they are unable to make a point, in addressing the motivations, thoughts and actions they have *assigned* to the group of people they have determined to behave discriminatorily towards.

When they can't get you on your actions, then they start to pretend your motivations are, in and of themselves, illegal. They assign a thought to you, and then make it illegal to have that thought.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Less than 10 posts after being cleaned up this thread is off the rails again! But I guess that is only to be expected given that the OP deliberately set it up to be divisive and disparaging of others.


----------



## Boss

Derideo_Te said:


> Less than 10 posts after being cleaned up this thread is off the rails again! But I guess that is only to be expected given that the OP deliberately set it up to be divisive and disparaging of others.



I'm sorry you feel I've been "disparaging to others" here. The OP doesn't deliberately set up anything of the kind. It simply lays out a case, presents facts and makes an argument. I've corrected you once already on the claim that I am bashing Atheists here by calling them "God-haters" and if that's what the thread OP laid out, I'm sure the mods would have moved it. So you're basically just wrong, as you so often are. But you are perfectly entitled to be wrong.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Less than 10 posts after being cleaned up this thread is off the rails again! But I guess that is only to be expected given that the OP deliberately set it up to be divisive and disparaging of others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry you feel I've been "disparaging to others" here. The OP doesn't deliberately set up anything of the kind. It simply lays out a case, presents facts and makes an argument. I've corrected you once already on the claim that I am bashing Atheists here by calling them "God-haters" and if that's what the thread OP laid out, I'm sure the mods would have moved it. So you're basically just wrong, as you so often are. But you are perfectly entitled to be wrong.
Click to expand...


You regularly express that right.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is with the progressive habit of assigning thoughts/emotions to other people?
> 
> Seriously. It's like a compulsive thing with you extremist baby killers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you're saying Boss is a progressive, isn't the entire premise of this thread assigning thoughts to other people?  After all, it's saying that people believe something other than what they state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't assign thoughts to others. I drew a logical parallel between behavioral actions and professed beliefs and pointed this out in detail. You're free to disagree, but I established a point-by-point case for my argument in the OP. It was never my argument that people believe something other than they state, and the OP clearly points this out in painstaking detail. SOME people lie about what they believe, and you can determine who is lying by their behavioral actions.
> 
> I'm not a progressive, and I'm not assigning thoughts to other people. The OP nailed the point perfectly, and you have done everything you can think of to try and destroy the argument you can't refute. For days you tried to manipulate context and purposely misconstrue what I said. You tried to derail the topic by focusing on minutia and superfluous nonsense. Now you're trying to completely reconstruct the arguments stated in the OP. All because you know full well that I nailed that ass like it's never been nailed before, and you couldn't defeat the argument. All of you have done nothing but prove my point this entire thread, and you continue to spew more proof as the days go by.
> 
> I am deeply satisfied by all this, btw.
Click to expand...


Blah blah blah.  The same ego stroking BS you've been spouting for most of the thread.  "You're distorting my words!  I'm destroying all of you in this argument!  Look at me, I'm smarter than all of you!"  That's paraphrasing, of course.  

I've provided multiple examples of how you have either distorted your own words, distorted the words of others, or simply moved the goalposts.  As a wonderful example, in this very post you state, "It was never my argument that people believe something other than they state".  That is, in fact, the entire basis of your OP, that many people who state they are atheist or agnostic believe in god, which is believing something other than they state. 

I feel confident you will now chime in about how this is taking your words the wrong way.  Perhaps you meant that your argument wasn't that all people believe something other than they state.  That's fine, but of course, I've never claimed that you were making such an argument.  Other than that, I don't know how I can take what you've said as anything other than a clear contradiction.  You say you can determine what some people believe, in opposition to what they state, after claiming you have never argued that people believe something other than they state.

I've even agreed that some people lie about their beliefs.  This is true of those of faith as well.  What I have argued, as far as the OP is concerned, is that the criteria you use to determine who is lying is flawed and inconsistent.  You do not apply it to people arguing anything other than about god which allows you to ignore the fact that many people exhibit the same behaviors about a variety of other subjects.  

I also disagree with your asinine contention that not believing in god means a person will not argue about god.  Some people simply enjoy arguing, some people may have had bad experiences with religion and feel a desire to 'get back' at believers, so to speak, or any number of other reasons a person might feel like arguing about various beliefs.  Arguing with someone about a thing does not require belief in that thing.

Then you have been inconsistent, if not downright contradictory, in some of your arguments.  For example, you claim that spiritual nature is what gives humanity its unique traits, yet say you believe it's possible animals may have spiritual nature despite not sharing those traits.  You've also claimed that I do not believe in any possibility of a god existing (saying I believe something other than I state ) yet called me one of the god-haters, who by your own definition believe in god.

But you've clearly won something here!  You win the interwebz, congratulations.


----------



## koshergrl

Derideo_Te said:


> Less than 10 posts after being cleaned up this thread is off the rails again! But I guess that is only to be expected given that the OP deliberately set it up to be divisive and disparaging of others.


 
Actually, no, you're confusing this with another thread that has been closed that actually WAS created to be divisive.

Boss has entered into this discussion with a good spirit, and it has repeatedly been trolled by the same trolls over...and over..and over...and over. 

Trolls that include you. You appear just not to understand how this works.


----------



## HUGGY

*Why do the God-haters persist?*

Because there is no god to stop us... 

Neener...neener


----------



## thebrucebeat

koshergrl said:


> No I wasn't talking about you, Boss. I was actually talking about others. Who take great delight, when they are unable to make a point, in addressing the motivations, thoughts and actions they have *assigned* to the group of people they have determined to behave discriminatorily towards.
> 
> When they can't get you on your actions, then they start to pretend your motivations are, in and of themselves, illegal. They assign a thought to you, and then make it illegal to have that thought.



How do people make things illegal all by themselves?
How does that work?


----------



## HUGGY

thebrucebeat said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I wasn't talking about you, Boss. I was actually talking about others. Who take great delight, when they are unable to make a point, in addressing the motivations, thoughts and actions they have *assigned* to the group of people they have determined to behave discriminatorily towards.
> 
> When they can't get you on your actions, then they start to pretend your motivations are, in and of themselves, illegal. They assign a thought to you, and then make it illegal to have that thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do people make things illegal all by themselves?
> How does that work?
Click to expand...


In regards to your sig line...

A Google search for "are there any professional atheists?" produces nothing.  Just similar inquiries along the lines of religious topics.

I know of no "professional atheists".  

Please produce a list of known "professional atheists".  I've heard the term but never any evidense including a list of these so called "professional atheists".


----------



## thebrucebeat

HUGGY said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I wasn't talking about you, Boss. I was actually talking about others. Who take great delight, when they are unable to make a point, in addressing the motivations, thoughts and actions they have *assigned* to the group of people they have determined to behave discriminatorily towards.
> 
> When they can't get you on your actions, then they start to pretend your motivations are, in and of themselves, illegal. They assign a thought to you, and then make it illegal to have that thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do people make things illegal all by themselves?
> How does that work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In regards to your sig line...
> 
> A Google search for "are there any professional atheists?" produces nothing.  Just similar inquiries along the lines of religious topics.
> 
> I know of no "professional atheists".
> 
> Please produce a list of known "professional atheists".  I've heard the term but never any evidense including a list of these so called "professional atheists".
Click to expand...


Who are you addressing?
Einstein is referring to the vociferous atheists that are strident.
Your literal understanding of Einstein's words is a bit silly. He is saying his agnosticism is a complete lack of belief in a personal god, but he isn't completely resistant to "something".


----------



## HUGGY

thebrucebeat said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do people make things illegal all by themselves?
> How does that work?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In regards to your sig line...
> 
> A Google search for "are there any professional atheists?" produces nothing.  Just similar inquiries along the lines of religious topics.
> 
> I know of no "professional atheists".
> 
> Please produce a list of known "professional atheists".  I've heard the term but never any evidense including a list of these so called "professional atheists".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who are you addressing?
Click to expand...


^


----------



## thebrucebeat

HUGGY said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> In regards to your sig line...
> 
> A Google search for "are there any professional atheists?" produces nothing.  Just similar inquiries along the lines of religious topics.
> 
> I know of no "professional atheists".
> 
> Please produce a list of known "professional atheists".  I've heard the term but never any evidense including a list of these so called "professional atheists".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you addressing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ^
Click to expand...


See update to last post of mine


----------



## MaryL

Well, despite the fact god can't be proven, it amazes me you godlovers still persist. Please. Why are you people still  believing?  You can't possibility prove "god" is out there and listens to you. With all the madness and chaos in the world, hard to believe  there is a GOD in this mess.  I admire that. Noble.


----------



## BreezeWood

they're not, they are just following a script.

the Garden is the Physical Presence and Proof of God's existance.


----------



## HUGGY

thebrucebeat said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you addressing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See update to last post of mine
Click to expand...


Sorry.  I can't peel away your onion layer upon layer.  Still with THAT sig.  I don't care what Einstein said.  He's not the boss of me.  

I don't believe Einstein was genius in all things.  There are many examples of scientists in history that got some things incredibly right and other aspects of understanding as backwards as the contemporary group of their time.

In a sense we are all genius now that we have the knowledge of the ages at our fingertips.

I can still remember the sweet chemical smell of the fresh mimeograph copies drying marking the last gasp end of printing in schools in the 50's and 60's.  The decemination of some peoples opinion as fact has steadily been diluted to where it is today and everybody's opinion is for the taking and giving.

What is clear is just how stupid the average man or woman really is.  They have no good argument supporting fairy tales so it is down to crying out about the "hate".  

Why the hate ???  Is god such a bad guy ???  What did Jesus ever do to deserve such venom ???

You fucking CLOWNS !!!  You have been BUSTED !!!  Lying is WRONG !!!

S'MATTER WITH YOU GOOFY FUCKERS ???  Can't you be and do good without the lying ???

Tell ya what suckers.  You stop the lying and I'll stop being mad about it.


----------



## PostmodernProph

MaryL said:


> Well, despite the fact god can't be proven, it amazes me you godlovers still persist. Please. Why are you people still  believing?  You can't possibility prove "god" is out there and listens to you. With all the madness and chaos in the world, hard to believe  there is a GOD in this mess.  I admire that. Noble.



because of things we and others experience.....

for example, a family from my church lost a daughter to cancer.....the parents and three friends were in her hospital room when she died.....the father had prayed "God if you have to take her from us, at least let us know she's with you".......when she died all five heard a choir of angels singing......the next morning as they were checking out, the night duty nurse asked them....."Pardon me but I have to know.....what was that CD you were playing last night......it was the most beautiful music I have ever heard"......

the unbelievers will accuse me of lying.......they will say it was a mass hallucination....irregardless, it is the answer to your question of why are we still believing.......


----------



## thebrucebeat

PostmodernProph said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, despite the fact god can't be proven, it amazes me you godlovers still persist. Please. Why are you people still  believing?  You can't possibility prove "god" is out there and listens to you. With all the madness and chaos in the world, hard to believe  there is a GOD in this mess.  I admire that. Noble.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> because of things we and others experience.....
> 
> for example, a family from my church lost a daughter to cancer.....the parents and three friends were in her hospital room when she died.....the father had prayed "God if you have to take her from us, at least let us know she's with you".......when she died all five heard a choir of angels singing......the next morning as they were checking out, the night duty nurse asked them....."Pardon me but I have to know.....what was that CD you were playing last night......it was the most beautiful music I have ever heard"......
> 
> the unbelievers will accuse me of lying.......they will say it was a mass hallucination....irregardless, it is the answer to your question of why are we still believing.......
Click to expand...


The night janitor with his boom box is saving the roach and laughing his ass off.


----------



## thebrucebeat

HUGGY said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See update to last post of mine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry.  I can't peel away your onion layer upon layer.  Still with THAT sig.  I don't care what Einstein said.  He's not the boss of me.
> 
> I don't believe Einstein was genius in all things.  There are many examples of scientists in history that got some things incredibly right and other aspects of understanding as backwards as the contemporary group of their time.
> 
> In a sense we are all genius now that we have the knowledge of the ages at our fingertips.
> 
> I can still remember the sweet chemical smell of the fresh mimeograph copies drying marking the last gasp end of printing in schools in the 50's and 60's.  The decemination of some peoples opinion as fact has steadily been diluted to where it is today and everybody's opinion is for the taking and giving.
> 
> What is clear is just how stupid the average man or woman really is.  They have no good argument supporting fairy tales so it is down to crying out about the "hate".
> 
> Why the hate ???  Is god such a bad guy ???  What did Jesus ever do to deserve such venom ???
> 
> You fucking CLOWNS !!!  You have been BUSTED !!!  Lying is WRONG !!!
> 
> S'MATTER WITH YOU GOOFY FUCKERS ???  Can't you be and do good without the lying ???
> 
> Tell ya what suckers.  You stop the lying and I'll stop being mad about it.
Click to expand...


I agree with most all of this, but side with Einstein on the humility toward it all.
Who knows?
What is absolutely certain is there is lots that we DON'T know.
No reason to invent anything to slip in the gaps, either god or any other claimed certainty, theological or scientific.
They are the unknown.
Period.
My hot button is poor argumentation.


----------



## Spoonman

Boss said:


> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.



more likely they can't live up to the standards and expectations set by god so they chose to tear him down rather than admit to their own shortcomings and failures.


----------



## amrchaos

By the way

I always thought God-haters were Satanists.
Yep, they believe in God, but argue Satan is more worthy of worship.

How did the atheists and agnostics get wrapped up in to the "God hating business"?

If anything, are not Atheist and agnostics more along the line of  "religion denying/doubting" business?


----------



## MrMax

Spoonman said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> more likely they can't live up to the standards and expectations set by god so they chose to tear him down rather than admit to their own shortcomings and failures.
Click to expand...


Being agnostic isn't hedging my bet, it means that I see no proof either way to say for sure whether a god exists or not, that's all. I've always been interested in WHY people believe in the invisible superdude, with really no solid reason. Some here go as far as saying their invisible dude plopped down humans fully formed, again with nothing solid to back it up. I find that weird and interesting at the same time.


----------



## amrchaos

MrMax said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> more likely they can't live up to the standards and expectations set by god so they chose to tear him down rather than admit to their own shortcomings and failures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being agnostic isn't hedging my bet, it means that I see no proof either way to say for sure whether a god exists or not, that's all. I've always been interested in WHY people believe in the invisible superdude, with really no solid reason. Some here go as far as saying their invisible dude plopped down humans fully formed, again with nothing solid to back it up. I find that weird and interesting at the same time.
Click to expand...


As an agnostic, you go to far

how do they even know that god is even sentient? Let alone intended this if god was sentient?


----------



## PainefulTruth

> Why do the God-haters persist?



It's mostly revealed religion haters.  They just say "God" to piss the thumpers off.  But they aren't nearly the threat that those who purvey the socialist brand of revealed religion are, at this point.


----------



## Boss

> Being agnostic isn't hedging my bet, it means that *I see no proof either way* to say for sure whether a god exists or not, that's all. I've always been interested in WHY people believe in the* invisible superdude*, with really *no solid reason*. Some here go as far as saying *their invisible dude* plopped down humans fully formed, again with *nothing solid to back it up*. I find that *weird* and interesting at the same time.



We can observe by your own words, you are far from an objective and fair-minded "agnostic" who accepts that it could be "either way." You clearly do not believe God is possible and think it is a silly irrational thing to believe. You detest the idea of God so much, you can't help but be disrespectful and call Him names. 

You are a God-hater, plain and simple. You lie to people and tell them you are an "agnostic" because you believe this makes you appear more objective and reasonable. You're actually worse than a God-hater who claims to be an Atheist because you are attempting to dishonestly portray yourself as objective.


----------



## PostmodernProph

thebrucebeat said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, despite the fact god can't be proven, it amazes me you godlovers still persist. Please. Why are you people still  believing?  You can't possibility prove "god" is out there and listens to you. With all the madness and chaos in the world, hard to believe  there is a GOD in this mess.  I admire that. Noble.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> because of things we and others experience.....
> 
> for example, a family from my church lost a daughter to cancer.....the parents and three friends were in her hospital room when she died.....the father had prayed "God if you have to take her from us, at least let us know she's with you".......when she died all five heard a choir of angels singing......the next morning as they were checking out, the night duty nurse asked them....."Pardon me but I have to know.....what was that CD you were playing last night......it was the most beautiful music I have ever heard"......
> 
> the unbelievers will accuse me of lying.......they will say it was a mass hallucination....irregardless, it is the answer to your question of why are we still believing.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The night janitor with his boom box is saving the roach and laughing his ass off.
Click to expand...


I accurately predicted what your reaction would be.....its what makes me a prophet.....


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> Being agnostic isn't hedging my bet, it means that *I see no proof either way* to say for sure whether a god exists or not, that's all. I've always been interested in WHY people believe in the* invisible superdude*, with really *no solid reason*. Some here go as far as saying *their invisible dude* plopped down humans fully formed, again with *nothing solid to back it up*. I find that *weird* and interesting at the same time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We can observe by your own words, you are far from an objective and fair-minded "agnostic" who accepts that it could be "either way." You clearly do not believe God is possible and think it is a silly irrational thing to believe. You detest the idea of God so much, you can't help but be disrespectful and call Him names.
> 
> You are a God-hater, plain and simple. You lie to people and tell them you are an "agnostic" because you believe this makes you appear more objective and reasonable. You're actually worse than a God-hater who claims to be an Atheist because you are attempting to dishonestly portray yourself as objective.
Click to expand...


What respect is expected for something you don't believe in?
Do you speak in hushed tones when discussing unicorns?
Specious argument, poorly considered.
Again.


----------



## orogenicman

thebrucebeat said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, despite the fact god can't be proven, it amazes me you godlovers still persist. Please. Why are you people still believing? You can't possibility prove "god" is out there and listens to you. With all the madness and chaos in the world, hard to believe there is a GOD in this mess. I admire that. Noble.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> because of things we and others experience.....
> 
> for example, a family from my church lost a daughter to cancer.....the parents and three friends were in her hospital room when she died.....the father had prayed "God if you have to take her from us, at least let us know she's with you".......when she died all five heard a choir of angels singing......the next morning as they were checking out, the night duty nurse asked them....."Pardon me but I have to know.....what was that CD you were playing last night......it was the most beautiful music I have ever heard"......
> 
> the unbelievers will accuse me of lying.......they will say it was a mass hallucination....irregardless, it is the answer to your question of why are we still believing.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The night janitor with his boom box is saving the roach and laughing his ass off.
Click to expand...


Hehehehe.  Hilarious!


----------



## BreezeWood

PostmodernProph said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> because of things we and others experience.....
> 
> for example, a family from my church lost a daughter to cancer.....the parents and three friends were in her hospital room when she died.....the father had prayed "God if you have to take her from us, at least let us know she's with you".......when she died all five heard a choir of angels singing......*the next morning as they were checking out, the night duty nurse asked them....."Pardon me but I have to know.....* what was that CD you were playing last night......it was the most beautiful music I have ever heard"......
> 
> the unbelievers will accuse me of lying.......they will say it was a mass hallucination....irregardless, it is the answer to your question of why are we still believing.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The night janitor with his boom box is saving the roach and laughing his ass off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I accurately predicted what your reaction would be.....its what makes me a prophet.....
Click to expand...



*the next morning as they were checking out, the night duty nurse asked them....."Pardon me but I have to know.....*


*"the parents and three friends were in her hospital room when she died....."* - 

no one else ?


very doubtful they would be alone or would not have had someone, the nite duty nurse in the room with them for such an event in a hospital.


sympathizing with the event is no reason to make up stories to superficially enhance your agenda.


----------



## HUGGY

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRUErh47sao]Jane Siberry & KD Lang - Calling All Angels - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## koshergrl

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being agnostic isn't hedging my bet, it means that *I see no proof either way* to say for sure whether a god exists or not, that's all. I've always been interested in WHY people believe in the* invisible superdude*, with really *no solid reason*. Some here go as far as saying *their invisible dude* plopped down humans fully formed, again with *nothing solid to back it up*. I find that *weird* and interesting at the same time.
> 
> 
> 
> We can observe by your own words, you are far from an objective and fair-minded "agnostic" who accepts that it could be "either way." You clearly do not believe God is possible and think it is a silly irrational thing to believe. You detest the idea of God so much, you can't help but be disrespectful and call Him names.
> 
> You are a God-hater, plain and simple. You lie to people and tell them you are an "agnostic" because you believe this makes you appear more objective and reasonable. You're actually worse than a God-hater who claims to be an Atheist because you are attempting to dishonestly portray yourself as objective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What respect is expected for something you don't believe in?
> Do you speak in hushed tones when discussing unicorns?
> Specious argument, poorly considered.
> Again.
Click to expand...


You owe God eternal respect, but because you're an idiot, you won't give it, and that is totally your call. You aren't required to show respect for God. You are required to show it to people of faith, though...at least in the sense that you are not allowed to behave towards them in a discriminatory manner.

This is a matter of faith, and what you engage in is discriminatory and bigoted attack upon a whole group of people because of their faith.


----------



## BDBoop

Nobody is required to give respect, Nor is it owed to anyone.

What I don't understand is why either side cares. Atheists have no logical reason for attacking a person's faith, and vice-versa. Faith is a gift, we should be grateful we are so blessed. We should also understand that not all have been gifted in a like manner. Conversely, trying to win an atheist to your redeemer is a complete waste of time. Just pray for them and let your life be proof of God in you.


----------



## MrMax

Boss said:


> Being agnostic isn't hedging my bet, it means that *I see no proof either way* to say for sure whether a god exists or not, that's all. I've always been interested in WHY people believe in the* invisible superdude*, with really *no solid reason*. Some here go as far as saying *their invisible dude* plopped down humans fully formed, again with *nothing solid to back it up*. I find that *weird* and interesting at the same time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We can observe by your own words, you are far from an objective and fair-minded "agnostic" who accepts that it could be "either way." You clearly do not believe God is possible and think it is a silly irrational thing to believe. You detest the idea of God so much, you can't help but be disrespectful and call Him names.
> 
> You are a God-hater, plain and simple. You lie to people and tell them you are an "agnostic" because you believe this makes you appear more objective and reasonable. You're actually worse than a God-hater who claims to be an Atheist because you are attempting to dishonestly portray yourself as objective.
Click to expand...


You're an asshole, plain and simple. You can't handle that I see no proof either way, which is really, the only position to hold if you're a thinking person, because really, nobody's proven the existence or not of a god who made everything.


----------



## Derideo_Te

BDBoop said:


> *Nobody is required to give respect, Nor is it owed to anyone.*
> 
> What I don't understand is why either side cares. Atheists have no logical reason for attacking a person's faith, and vice-versa. Faith is a gift, we should be grateful we are so blessed. We should also understand that not all have been gifted in a like manner. Conversely, trying to win an atheist to your redeemer is a complete waste of time. Just pray for them and let your life be proof of God in you.



Exactly!

Respect is earned. People who actually live their lives according to their beliefs earn respect. Those that use their religion as a blunt object to beat others into submission don't deserve any at all. The OP insulting Atheists by calling them "God-haters" actually does more harm to believers than he does to Atheists. If there is a God then he must shake his head when he sees the vile language the OP uses in his name.


----------



## thebrucebeat

koshergrl said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can observe by your own words, you are far from an objective and fair-minded "agnostic" who accepts that it could be "either way." You clearly do not believe God is possible and think it is a silly irrational thing to believe. You detest the idea of God so much, you can't help but be disrespectful and call Him names.
> 
> You are a God-hater, plain and simple. You lie to people and tell them you are an "agnostic" because you believe this makes you appear more objective and reasonable. You're actually worse than a God-hater who claims to be an Atheist because you are attempting to dishonestly portray yourself as objective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What respect is expected for something you don't believe in?
> Do you speak in hushed tones when discussing unicorns?
> Specious argument, poorly considered.
> Again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You owe God eternal respect, but because you're an idiot, you won't give it, and that is totally your call. You aren't required to show respect for God. You are required to show it to people of faith, though...at least in the sense that you are not allowed to behave towards them in a discriminatory manner.
> 
> This is a matter of faith, and what you engage in is discriminatory and bigoted attack upon a whole group of people because of their faith.
Click to expand...


Not at all.
I do not discriminate against people of faith.
I attack poor argumentation. I don't have to respect poor logic skills, weak thinking.
I'm not the one that uses vulgar or incendiary name calling like you and Boss descend into with regularity. I don't have to respect people that do that. I identify them as childish, immature thinkers.
I point out when believers have no respect for their own god by ignoring the Fruits of the Spirit in their behavior. I point out hypocrisy and illogical argumentation.
You happen to give me frequent opportunities to do that.


----------



## thebrucebeat

BDBoop said:


> Nobody is required to give respect, Nor is it owed to anyone.
> 
> What I don't understand is why either side cares. Atheists have no logical reason for attacking a person's faith, and vice-versa. Faith is a gift, we should be grateful we are so blessed. We should also understand that not all have been gifted in a like manner. Conversely, trying to win an atheist to your redeemer is a complete waste of time. Just pray for them and let your life be proof of God in you.



Overall agreement and due respect.
One question, though.
If faith is a gift, from who?
If from god, and I am not granted this gift, will I be held eternally accountable for not having it?
How does your personal theology reconcile that? It seems that would leave my salvation in the hands of a capricious god, the win of a cosmic lottery.


----------



## BDBoop

thebrucebeat said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody is required to give respect, Nor is it owed to anyone.
> 
> What I don't understand is why either side cares. Atheists have no logical reason for attacking a person's faith, and vice-versa. Faith is a gift, we should be grateful we are so blessed. We should also understand that not all have been gifted in a like manner. Conversely, trying to win an atheist to your redeemer is a complete waste of time. Just pray for them and let your life be proof of God in you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overall agreement and due respect.
> One question, though.
> If faith is a gift, from who?
> If from god, and I am not granted this gift, will I be held eternally accountable for not having it?
> How does your personal theology reconcile that? It seems that would leave my salvation in the hands of a capricious god, the win of a cosmic lottery.
Click to expand...


In my estimation, no. You can't be punished for not having that which was not granted to you.


----------



## thebrucebeat

BDBoop said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody is required to give respect, Nor is it owed to anyone.
> 
> What I don't understand is why either side cares. Atheists have no logical reason for attacking a person's faith, and vice-versa. Faith is a gift, we should be grateful we are so blessed. We should also understand that not all have been gifted in a like manner. Conversely, trying to win an atheist to your redeemer is a complete waste of time. Just pray for them and let your life be proof of God in you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overall agreement and due respect.
> One question, though.
> If faith is a gift, from who?
> If from god, and I am not granted this gift, will I be held eternally accountable for not having it?
> How does your personal theology reconcile that? It seems that would leave my salvation in the hands of a capricious god, the win of a cosmic lottery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In my estimation, no. You can't be punished for not having that which was not granted to you.
Click to expand...


Fair enough.
The bible becomes a guideline for you, but not an inerrant, infallible word from god.
That seems more reasonable.


----------



## Boss

MrMax said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being agnostic isn't hedging my bet, it means that *I see no proof either way* to say for sure whether a god exists or not, that's all. I've always been interested in WHY people believe in the* invisible superdude*, with really *no solid reason*. Some here go as far as saying *their invisible dude* plopped down humans fully formed, again with *nothing solid to back it up*. I find that *weird* and interesting at the same time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We can observe by your own words, you are far from an objective and fair-minded "agnostic" who accepts that it could be "either way." You clearly do not believe God is possible and think it is a silly irrational thing to believe. You detest the idea of God so much, you can't help but be disrespectful and call Him names.
> 
> You are a God-hater, plain and simple. You lie to people and tell them you are an "agnostic" because you believe this makes you appear more objective and reasonable. You're actually worse than a God-hater who claims to be an Atheist because you are attempting to dishonestly portray yourself as objective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an asshole, plain and simple. You can't handle that I see no proof either way, which is really, the only position to hold if you're a thinking person, because really, nobody's proven the existence or not of a god who made everything.
Click to expand...


I could handle it better and be less of an asshole if you weren't such a liar. The ONLY reason you claim agnosticism is to make it appear you are a "thinking person." You're not sitting on the fence objectively considering whether or not God exists. If that were the case, you'd be able to get the lie out of your mouth good before you started ridiculing and denigrating God. You can barely complete a sentence without contradicting your proclaimed "objectivity."

You are likely the only person here buying your agnostic claims. Some might get the impression you are an atheist who doesn't believe in God. But I think it's apparent you DO believe in God and you hate Him. You've got your little suit of agnostic armour on with your science shield and your sharp tongue as your sword, but you're still an unworthy opponent.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Boss said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can observe by your own words, you are far from an objective and fair-minded "agnostic" who accepts that it could be "either way." You clearly do not believe God is possible and think it is a silly irrational thing to believe. You detest the idea of God so much, you can't help but be disrespectful and call Him names.
> 
> You are a God-hater, plain and simple. You lie to people and tell them you are an "agnostic" because you believe this makes you appear more objective and reasonable. You're actually worse than a God-hater who claims to be an Atheist because you are attempting to dishonestly portray yourself as objective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're an asshole, plain and simple. You can't handle that I see no proof either way, which is really, the only position to hold if you're a thinking person, because really, nobody's proven the existence or not of a god who made everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I could handle it better and be less of an asshole if you weren't such a liar. The ONLY reason you claim agnosticism is to make it appear you are a "thinking person." You're not sitting on the fence objectively considering whether or not God exists. If that were the case, you'd be able to get the lie out of your mouth good before you started ridiculing and denigrating God. You can barely complete a sentence without contradicting your proclaimed "objectivity."
> 
> You are likely the only person here buying your agnostic claims. Some might get the impression you are an atheist who doesn't believe in God. But I think it's apparent you DO believe in God and you hate Him. You've got your little suit of agnostic armour on with your science shield and your sharp tongue as your sword, but you're still an unworthy opponent.
Click to expand...


Once again the OP exposes his true intent to flame those who don't share his beliefs.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can observe by your own words, you are far from an objective and fair-minded "agnostic" who accepts that it could be "either way." You clearly do not believe God is possible and think it is a silly irrational thing to believe. You detest the idea of God so much, you can't help but be disrespectful and call Him names.
> 
> You are a God-hater, plain and simple. You lie to people and tell them you are an "agnostic" because you believe this makes you appear more objective and reasonable. You're actually worse than a God-hater who claims to be an Atheist because you are attempting to dishonestly portray yourself as objective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're an asshole, plain and simple. You can't handle that I see no proof either way, which is really, the only position to hold if you're a thinking person, because really, nobody's proven the existence or not of a god who made everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I could handle it better and be less of an asshole if you weren't such a liar. The ONLY reason you claim agnosticism is to make it appear you are a "thinking person." You're not sitting on the fence objectively considering whether or not God exists. If that were the case, you'd be able to get the lie out of your mouth good before you started ridiculing and denigrating God. You can barely complete a sentence without contradicting your proclaimed "objectivity."
> 
> You are likely the only person here buying your agnostic claims. Some might get the impression you are an atheist who doesn't believe in God. But I think it's apparent you DO believe in God and you hate Him. You've got your little suit of agnostic armour on with your science shield and your sharp tongue as your sword, but you're still an unworthy opponent.
Click to expand...


On the contrary.
I accept his claim. Why wouldn't I?
You have shown no evidence to suggest otherwise, and you have proven that you are wildly accusing people of lying about their beliefs.
It is one thing to provide evidence that a person's beliefs are inaccurate.
To accuse them of lying is another thing altogether and assumes an intent you have no way to justify.


----------



## MrMax

Boss said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can observe by your own words, you are far from an objective and fair-minded "agnostic" who accepts that it could be "either way." You clearly do not believe God is possible and think it is a silly irrational thing to believe. You detest the idea of God so much, you can't help but be disrespectful and call Him names.
> 
> You are a God-hater, plain and simple. You lie to people and tell them you are an "agnostic" because you believe this makes you appear more objective and reasonable. You're actually worse than a God-hater who claims to be an Atheist because you are attempting to dishonestly portray yourself as objective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're an asshole, plain and simple. You can't handle that I see no proof either way, which is really, the only position to hold if you're a thinking person, because really, nobody's proven the existence or not of a god who made everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I could handle it better and be less of an asshole if you weren't such a liar. The ONLY reason you claim agnosticism is to make it appear you are a "thinking person." You're not sitting on the fence objectively considering whether or not God exists. If that were the case, you'd be able to get the lie out of your mouth good before you started ridiculing and denigrating God. You can barely complete a sentence without contradicting your proclaimed "objectivity."
> 
> You are likely the only person here buying your agnostic claims. Some might get the impression you are an atheist who doesn't believe in God. But I think it's apparent you DO believe in God and you hate Him. You've got your little suit of agnostic armour on with your science shield and your sharp tongue as your sword, but you're still an unworthy opponent.
Click to expand...


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 

I'm agnostic! And you can't do SHIT about it! Least of all prove your god claim.


----------



## Boss

> Once again the OP exposes his true intent to flame those who don't share his beliefs.



LOL.. no flame just fact. Pointing out how someone is being dishonest has nothing to do with sharing my beliefs or flaming. But here you are again violating the piss out of forum rules, trying to get the thread moved to the flame zone because you don't like the OP. 

Someone call the waaahmbulance!


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> Once again the OP exposes his true intent to flame those who don't share his beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.. no flame just fact. Pointing out how someone is being dishonest has nothing to do with sharing my beliefs or flaming. But here you are again violating the piss out of forum rules, trying to get the thread moved to the flame zone because you don't like the OP.
> 
> Someone call the waaahmbulance!
Click to expand...


But you haven't pointed it out. You have stated it and shown no basis for your accusations.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can observe by your own words, you are far from an objective and fair-minded "agnostic" who accepts that it could be "either way." You clearly do not believe God is possible and think it is a silly irrational thing to believe. You detest the idea of God so much, you can't help but be disrespectful and call Him names.
> 
> You are a God-hater, plain and simple. You lie to people and tell them you are an "agnostic" because you believe this makes you appear more objective and reasonable. You're actually worse than a God-hater who claims to be an Atheist because you are attempting to dishonestly portray yourself as objective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're an asshole, plain and simple. You can't handle that I see no proof either way, which is really, the only position to hold if you're a thinking person, because really, nobody's proven the existence or not of a god who made everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I could handle it better and be less of an asshole if you weren't such a liar. The ONLY reason you claim agnosticism is to make it appear you are a "thinking person." You're not sitting on the fence objectively considering whether or not God exists. If that were the case, you'd be able to get the lie out of your mouth good before you started ridiculing and denigrating God. You can barely complete a sentence without contradicting your proclaimed "objectivity."
> 
> You are likely the only person here buying your agnostic claims. Some might get the impression you are an atheist who doesn't believe in God. But I think it's apparent you DO believe in God and you hate Him. You've got your little suit of agnostic armour on with your science shield and your sharp tongue as your sword, but you're still an unworthy opponent.
Click to expand...


Or could it be that he rejects the god(s) of human religions, but accepts that a god not described by humanity may exist?  Perhaps he merely rejects the god of the Abrahamic religions?  Or perhaps he is trying to get a rise out of believers by calling god an 'invisible superdude'.  Maybe that's just part of his manner of speaking; invisible superdude really isn't that inaccurate a description of god, more a simplistic one.

You jump quickly into a determination of someone's beliefs contrary to what they state.


----------



## GISMYS

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're an asshole, plain and simple. You can't handle that I see no proof either way, which is really, the only position to hold if you're a thinking person, because really, nobody's proven the existence or not of a god who made everything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could handle it better and be less of an asshole if you weren't such a liar. The ONLY reason you claim agnosticism is to make it appear you are a "thinking person." You're not sitting on the fence objectively considering whether or not God exists. If that were the case, you'd be able to get the lie out of your mouth good before you started ridiculing and denigrating God. You can barely complete a sentence without contradicting your proclaimed "objectivity."
> 
> You are likely the only person here buying your agnostic claims. Some might get the impression you are an atheist who doesn't believe in God. But I think it's apparent you DO believe in God and you hate Him. You've got your little suit of agnostic armour on with your science shield and your sharp tongue as your sword, but you're still an unworthy opponent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or could it be that he rejects the god(s) of human religions, but accepts that a god not described by humanity may exist?  Perhaps he merely rejects the god of the Abrahamic religions?  Or perhaps he is trying to get a rise out of believers by calling god an 'invisible superdude'.  Maybe that's just part of his manner of speaking; invisible superdude really isn't that inaccurate a description of god, more a simplistic one.
> 
> You jump quickly into a determination of someone's beliefs contrary to what they state.
Click to expand...


Simple answer to this question= The fool has said in his heart,
There is no God.
They are corrupt, and have done abominable iniquity. Psalm 53:1


----------



## Steven_R

What about "there might be a God or Gods or something, I just don't know because there is no data either way, but based on the scientific, historical and archaeological evidence it's safe to say Jehovah and Jesus as just myths"?


----------



## Derideo_Te

Boss said:


> Once again the OP exposes his true intent to flame those who don't share his beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.. no flame just fact. Pointing out how someone is being dishonest has nothing to do with sharing my beliefs or flaming.* But here you are again violating the piss out of forum rules,* trying to get the thread moved to the flame zone because you don't like the OP.
> 
> Someone call the waaahmbulance!
Click to expand...


Ironic!


----------



## Boss

Steven_R said:


> What about "there might be a God or Gods or something, I just don't know because there is no data either way, but based on the scientific, historical and archaeological evidence it's safe to say Jehovah and Jesus as just myths"?



Well you're saying two different things. First you say there is "no evidence either way" then you somehow glean all of this supposed evidence from science, history and archeology. That's why I keep pointing out you're lying. Both statements cannot be true. If you believe "no evidence either way" then you can't also believe there is evidence either way. You can't take the position that you're not certain, but yet you're sure it's a myth. You either believe one or the other, but you lie because you believe that makes you appear more objective. 

Now you can certainly get angry at me for pointing out your lies, that's a normal response. But it isn't going to turn your lies into truth. You can do like Dorito Tea and pull out every trick in the book to get the thread booted to the flame zone where you can claim a "moral" victory, it's still not going to change your lies to truth.

As for your so-called "evidence" let's go over that. Your physical sciences are not designed to properly evaluate spiritual nature, by default. So the fact that physical science shows no evidence of spiritual nature is not unexpected or illogical. IF science ever does show physical evidence of something spiritual it instantly becomes something physical, does it not? Am I wrong about that? Is there something you're not comprehending with that? Therefore, we can't accept this fact as anything more than confirmation that physical is not spiritual. But I think we all knew this already. 

Next we have history. Well, historically, humans have always been spiritually connected to something greater than self. This has taken many various forms, but the constant of human spirituality is not changed. We've observed brutal times in history where jealous kings and rulers tried their best to stomp spirituality out of the hearts of man and failed. It remains our most defining attribute as a species. History certainly shows that humans need spiritual connection and it simply will not be denied. 

Finally, archeology. We know for a fact that roughly 95% of the life which has existed in the past, no longer exists. So how does this translate to evidence that life is this burgeoning and evolving thing that spawns all sorts of new things? The evidence shows life is suffering entropy, not recreating more life. The fossil record shows no signs of life emerging from single-cell organisms into multicellular organisms, and then into all other genera. And to top that off, nothing in science refutes biogenesis, the fact that life can only come from life. 

So there are strikes one, two and three! The "evidence" does not refute God or creation by God. It doesn't indicate it is a myth. Now, if this is a lie you want to convince yourself of, that's fine, but just know that other people are going to pinpoint your lies and expose them.


----------



## Steven_R

You're over complicating this. It's two separate questions. 

1) Is(are) there a God(s)?
Dunno. There's no data either way supporting the supernatural, which by definition is outside of whatever plane of existence we're on.

2) Is the God of the Bible (and Jesus and Moses) real?
No. There is no corroborating evidence (geological, archaeological, historical, physical) that the Jehovah and/or Jesus stories are true.


----------



## GISMYS

IF YOU ARE REALLY SEEKING TRUTH,READ AND BELIEVE GOD'S WORD, GOD is reveiled through His Word to those that seek him.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about "there might be a God or Gods or something, I just don't know because there is no data either way, but based on the scientific, historical and archaeological evidence it's safe to say Jehovah and Jesus as just myths"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well you're saying two different things. First you say there is "no evidence either way" then you somehow glean all of this supposed evidence from science, history and archeology. That's why I keep pointing out you're lying. Both statements cannot be true. If you believe "no evidence either way" then you can't also believe there is evidence either way. You can't take the position that you're not certain, but yet you're sure it's a myth. You either believe one or the other, but you lie because you believe that makes you appear more objective.
> 
> Now you can certainly get angry at me for pointing out your lies, that's a normal response. But it isn't going to turn your lies into truth. You can do like Dorito Tea and pull out every trick in the book to get the thread booted to the flame zone where you can claim a "moral" victory, it's still not going to change your lies to truth.
> 
> As for your so-called "evidence" let's go over that. Your physical sciences are not designed to properly evaluate spiritual nature, by default. So the fact that physical science shows no evidence of spiritual nature is not unexpected or illogical. IF science ever does show physical evidence of something spiritual it instantly becomes something physical, does it not? Am I wrong about that? Is there something you're not comprehending with that? Therefore, we can't accept this fact as anything more than confirmation that physical is not spiritual. But I think we all knew this already.
> 
> Next we have history. Well, historically, humans have always been spiritually connected to something greater than self. This has taken many various forms, but the constant of human spirituality is not changed. We've observed brutal times in history where jealous kings and rulers tried their best to stomp spirituality out of the hearts of man and failed. It remains our most defining attribute as a species. History certainly shows that humans need spiritual connection and it simply will not be denied.
> 
> Finally, archeology. We know for a fact that roughly 95% of the life which has existed in the past, no longer exists. So how does this translate to evidence that life is this burgeoning and evolving thing that spawns all sorts of new things? The evidence shows life is suffering entropy, not recreating more life. The fossil record shows no signs of life emerging from single-cell organisms into multicellular organisms, and then into all other genera. And to top that off, nothing in science refutes biogenesis, the fact that life can only come from life.
> 
> So there are strikes one, two and three! The "evidence" does not refute God or creation by God. It doesn't indicate it is a myth. Now, if this is a lie you want to convince yourself of, that's fine, but just know that other people are going to pinpoint your lies and expose them.
Click to expand...


Your history lesson is hilarious. You pretend that a spiritual connection is a historical fact, when in fact it is nothing of the kind. It is your unsupported hypothesis which I have previously challenged with the idea that what is historically consistent is man's awareness of his mortality and the unknown and how his fear of these has consistently developed the rationalization of faith in a fiction he adopts to fill in the blanks. Throughout history, as these fictions are eviscerated by greater and greater knowledge, man adapts these fictions to react to the realization that they have been operating under rationalizations that no longer can be supported. This has been repeated through all of man's existence.
You of course, classically had no idea what a rationalization was or how prevalent they are in the consciousness and sub-consciousness of man, how people can't get through a day without them, and how utterly dependent mankind is on them.
These are freshman year psychological concepts that you have, seemingly, no exposure to whatsoever.
As for archeology, the fossil record is static. Evolution is a process. The argument you share is ridiculous on its face.


----------



## thebrucebeat

GISMYS said:


> IF YOU ARE REALLY SEEKING TRUTH,READ AND BELIEVE GOD'S WORD, GOD is reveiled through His Word to those that seek him.



"Reveiled"(sic)?
Did you mean revealed or reviled?


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about "there might be a God or Gods or something, I just don't know because there is no data either way, but based on the scientific, historical and archaeological evidence it's safe to say Jehovah and Jesus as just myths"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well you're saying two different things. First you say there is "no evidence either way" then you somehow glean all of this supposed evidence from science, history and archeology. That's why I keep pointing out you're lying. Both statements cannot be true. If you believe "no evidence either way" then you can't also believe there is evidence either way. You can't take the position that you're not certain, but yet you're sure it's a myth. You either believe one or the other, but you lie because you believe that makes you appear more objective.
> 
> Now you can certainly get angry at me for pointing out your lies, that's a normal response. But it isn't going to turn your lies into truth. You can do like Dorito Tea and pull out every trick in the book to get the thread booted to the flame zone where you can claim a "moral" victory, it's still not going to change your lies to truth.
> 
> As for your so-called "evidence" let's go over that. Your physical sciences are not designed to properly evaluate spiritual nature, by default. So the fact that physical science shows no evidence of spiritual nature is not unexpected or illogical. IF science ever does show physical evidence of something spiritual it instantly becomes something physical, does it not? Am I wrong about that? Is there something you're not comprehending with that? Therefore, we can't accept this fact as anything more than confirmation that physical is not spiritual. But I think we all knew this already.
> 
> Next we have history. Well, historically, humans have always been spiritually connected to something greater than self. This has taken many various forms, but the constant of human spirituality is not changed. We've observed brutal times in history where jealous kings and rulers tried their best to stomp spirituality out of the hearts of man and failed. It remains our most defining attribute as a species. History certainly shows that humans need spiritual connection and it simply will not be denied.
> 
> Finally, archeology. We know for a fact that roughly 95% of the life which has existed in the past, no longer exists. So how does this translate to evidence that life is this burgeoning and evolving thing that spawns all sorts of new things? The evidence shows life is suffering entropy, not recreating more life. The fossil record shows no signs of life emerging from single-cell organisms into multicellular organisms, and then into all other genera. And to top that off, nothing in science refutes biogenesis, the fact that life can only come from life.
> 
> So there are strikes one, two and three! The "evidence" does not refute God or creation by God. It doesn't indicate it is a myth. Now, if this is a lie you want to convince yourself of, that's fine, but just know that other people are going to pinpoint your lies and expose them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your history lesson is hilarious. You pretend that a spiritual connection is a historical fact, when in fact it is nothing of the kind. It is your unsupported hypothesis which I have previously challenged with the idea that what is historically consistent is man's awareness of his mortality and the unknown and how his fear of these has consistently developed the rationalization of faith in a fiction he adopts to fill in the blanks. Throughout history, as these fictions are eviscerated by greater and greater knowledge, man adapts these fictions to react to the realization that they have been operating under rationalizations that no longer can be supported. This has been repeated through all of man's existence.
> You of course, classically had no idea what a rationalization was or how prevalent they are in the consciousness and sub-consciousness of man, how people can't get through a day without them, and how utterly dependent mankind is on them.
> These are freshman year psychological concepts that you have, seemingly, no exposure to whatsoever.
> As for archeology, the fossil record is static. Evolution is a process. The argument you share is ridiculous on its face.
Click to expand...


Well I do know what rationalizations are, you just wanted to apply a single definition to the word. But here you indicate rationalizations can "no longer be supported" which implies some rationalizations can be supported. So you've now destroyed your very own argument regarding rationalizations, and I didn't have to say a word. It is YOU who drew some rigid 7th-grade comprehension of "rationalization" up and stuck with that for days. Most high school psych students learn that rationalization can be good and bad, it can be legitimate and illegitimate, and it's basically the processing and evaluation of rational thought. Other species do it. You never posted a single refrence definition that indicated this was exclusive to humans because it fucking isn't. Moron! 

Spirituality is a historical fact. From the very oldest remains of human civilization we've unearthed, there are signs of spiritual rituals and ceremonies. It's not a hypothesis, it's a proven goddamn fact. What ISN'T a proven fact is this idiocy about man having to create imaginary beings to console this unexplained fear of their own mortality, which no other creature seems to have the slightest problem with in nature.


----------



## GISMYS

BOTTOMLINE= GOD HATERS ARE SIN LOVERS!!! They want to think there is no GOD HOPING THAT they can live in their pet sins and not face GOD'S JUDGMENTS!!!! DREAM ON!!


----------



## Boss

Steven_R said:


> You're over complicating this. It's two separate questions.
> 
> 1) Is(are) there a God(s)?
> Dunno. There's no data either way supporting the supernatural, which by definition is outside of whatever plane of existence we're on.
> 
> 2) Is the God of the Bible (and Jesus and Moses) real?
> No. There is no corroborating evidence (geological, archaeological, historical, physical) that the Jehovah and/or Jesus stories are true.



Well, sorry but you are simply wrong. There is tons of evidence to show the people mentioned in the Bible did exist and weren't made up. If what you stated were true, it would be the biggest and most widespread conspiracy to ever have been theorized, encompassing thousands of people over several hundred years, from vastly different regions, all conspiring to promote a total fabrication. Now there are people who don't believe we landed on the moon, but this is that times a million. 

I'm not here to defend the Christian incarnation of God. I don't know if that is true or not. I don't know if every story in the Bible is true or literally happened. I believe a good deal of the stories are metaphoric and intended to illustrate a message. That said, I can't prove that every single word of the Bible isn't true and accurate as written. It's possible.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well you're saying two different things. First you say there is "no evidence either way" then you somehow glean all of this supposed evidence from science, history and archeology. That's why I keep pointing out you're lying. Both statements cannot be true. If you believe "no evidence either way" then you can't also believe there is evidence either way. You can't take the position that you're not certain, but yet you're sure it's a myth. You either believe one or the other, but you lie because you believe that makes you appear more objective.
> 
> Now you can certainly get angry at me for pointing out your lies, that's a normal response. But it isn't going to turn your lies into truth. You can do like Dorito Tea and pull out every trick in the book to get the thread booted to the flame zone where you can claim a "moral" victory, it's still not going to change your lies to truth.
> 
> As for your so-called "evidence" let's go over that. Your physical sciences are not designed to properly evaluate spiritual nature, by default. So the fact that physical science shows no evidence of spiritual nature is not unexpected or illogical. IF science ever does show physical evidence of something spiritual it instantly becomes something physical, does it not? Am I wrong about that? Is there something you're not comprehending with that? Therefore, we can't accept this fact as anything more than confirmation that physical is not spiritual. But I think we all knew this already.
> 
> Next we have history. Well, historically, humans have always been spiritually connected to something greater than self. This has taken many various forms, but the constant of human spirituality is not changed. We've observed brutal times in history where jealous kings and rulers tried their best to stomp spirituality out of the hearts of man and failed. It remains our most defining attribute as a species. History certainly shows that humans need spiritual connection and it simply will not be denied.
> 
> Finally, archeology. We know for a fact that roughly 95% of the life which has existed in the past, no longer exists. So how does this translate to evidence that life is this burgeoning and evolving thing that spawns all sorts of new things? The evidence shows life is suffering entropy, not recreating more life. The fossil record shows no signs of life emerging from single-cell organisms into multicellular organisms, and then into all other genera. And to top that off, nothing in science refutes biogenesis, the fact that life can only come from life.
> 
> So there are strikes one, two and three! The "evidence" does not refute God or creation by God. It doesn't indicate it is a myth. Now, if this is a lie you want to convince yourself of, that's fine, but just know that other people are going to pinpoint your lies and expose them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your history lesson is hilarious. You pretend that a spiritual connection is a historical fact, when in fact it is nothing of the kind. It is your unsupported hypothesis which I have previously challenged with the idea that what is historically consistent is man's awareness of his mortality and the unknown and how his fear of these has consistently developed the rationalization of faith in a fiction he adopts to fill in the blanks. Throughout history, as these fictions are eviscerated by greater and greater knowledge, man adapts these fictions to react to the realization that they have been operating under rationalizations that no longer can be supported. This has been repeated through all of man's existence.
> You of course, classically had no idea what a rationalization was or how prevalent they are in the consciousness and sub-consciousness of man, how people can't get through a day without them, and how utterly dependent mankind is on them.
> These are freshman year psychological concepts that you have, seemingly, no exposure to whatsoever.
> As for archeology, the fossil record is static. Evolution is a process. The argument you share is ridiculous on its face.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I do know what rationalizations are, you just wanted to apply a single definition to the word. But here you indicate rationalizations can "no longer be supported" which implies some rationalizations can be supported. So you've now destroyed your very own argument regarding rationalizations, and I didn't have to say a word. It is YOU who drew some rigid 7th-grade comprehension of "rationalization" up and stuck with that for days. Most high school psych students learn that rationalization can be good and bad, it can be legitimate and illegitimate, and it's basically the processing and evaluation of rational thought. Other species do it. You never posted a single refrence definition that indicated this was exclusive to humans because it fucking isn't. Moron!
> 
> Spirituality is a historical fact. From the very oldest remains of human civilization we've unearthed, there are signs of spiritual rituals and ceremonies. It's not a hypothesis, it's a proven goddamn fact. What ISN'T a proven fact is this idiocy about man having to create imaginary beings to console this unexplained fear of their own mortality, which no other creature seems to have the slightest problem with in nature.
Click to expand...


Do you really want me to humiliate you again with your total lack of comprehension about rationalization?
Shall I post the dozen definitions that all identify you as a fraud? AGAIN?
Will you make up the term "false rationalization" AGAIN so I can show there is no reference to the phrase anywhere?
When rationalizations are used to cover guilt they are often exposed and no longer supported. If you understood the term, you would know that the whole exercise depends on building a supporting mythology. It is what the term is all about.
How stupid do you really want to reveal yourself as being? You are pushing the envelope of what is possible.
Proof of ceremonies is not proof of what they celebrate.


----------



## MrMax

Boss said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about "there might be a God or Gods or something, I just don't know because there is no data either way, but based on the scientific, historical and archaeological evidence it's safe to say Jehovah and Jesus as just myths"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well you're saying two different things. First you say there is "no evidence either way" then you somehow glean all of this supposed evidence from science, history and archeology. That's why I keep pointing out you're lying. Both statements cannot be true. If you believe "no evidence either way" then you can't also believe there is evidence either way. You can't take the position that you're not certain, but yet you're sure it's a myth. You either believe one or the other, but you lie because you believe that makes you appear more objective.
> 
> Now you can certainly get angry at me for pointing out your lies, that's a normal response. But it isn't going to turn your lies into truth. You can do like Dorito Tea and pull out every trick in the book to get the thread booted to the flame zone where you can claim a "moral" victory, it's still not going to change your lies to truth.
> 
> As for your so-called "evidence" let's go over that. *Your physical sciences are not designed to properly evaluate spiritual nature, by default. *So the fact that physical science shows no evidence of spiritual nature is not unexpected or illogical. IF science ever does show physical evidence of something spiritual it instantly becomes something physical, does it not? Am I wrong about that? Is there something you're not comprehending with that? Therefore, we can't accept this fact as anything more than confirmation that physical is not spiritual. But I think we all knew this already.
> 
> Next we have history. Well, historically, humans have always been spiritually connected to something greater than self. This has taken many various forms, but the constant of human spirituality is not changed. We've observed brutal times in history where jealous kings and rulers tried their best to stomp spirituality out of the hearts of man and failed. It remains our most defining attribute as a species. History certainly shows that humans need spiritual connection and it simply will not be denied.
> 
> Finally, archeology. We know for a fact that roughly 95% of the life which has existed in the past, no longer exists. So how does this translate to evidence that life is this burgeoning and evolving thing that spawns all sorts of new things? The evidence shows life is suffering entropy, not recreating more life. The fossil record shows no signs of life emerging from single-cell organisms into multicellular organisms, and then into all other genera. And to top that off, nothing in science refutes biogenesis, the fact that life can only come from life.
> 
> So there are strikes one, two and three! The "evidence" does not refute God or creation by God. It doesn't indicate it is a myth. Now, if this is a lie you want to convince yourself of, that's fine, but just know that other people are going to pinpoint your lies and expose them.
Click to expand...


If there were actually something there, science could eventually detect it. So once more, EPIC FAIL!!!


----------



## Newby

MrMax said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about "there might be a God or Gods or something, I just don't know because there is no data either way, but based on the scientific, historical and archaeological evidence it's safe to say Jehovah and Jesus as just myths"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well you're saying two different things. First you say there is "no evidence either way" then you somehow glean all of this supposed evidence from science, history and archeology. That's why I keep pointing out you're lying. Both statements cannot be true. If you believe "no evidence either way" then you can't also believe there is evidence either way. You can't take the position that you're not certain, but yet you're sure it's a myth. You either believe one or the other, but you lie because you believe that makes you appear more objective.
> 
> Now you can certainly get angry at me for pointing out your lies, that's a normal response. But it isn't going to turn your lies into truth. You can do like Dorito Tea and pull out every trick in the book to get the thread booted to the flame zone where you can claim a "moral" victory, it's still not going to change your lies to truth.
> 
> As for your so-called "evidence" let's go over that. *Your physical sciences are not designed to properly evaluate spiritual nature, by default. *So the fact that physical science shows no evidence of spiritual nature is not unexpected or illogical. IF science ever does show physical evidence of something spiritual it instantly becomes something physical, does it not? Am I wrong about that? Is there something you're not comprehending with that? Therefore, we can't accept this fact as anything more than confirmation that physical is not spiritual. But I think we all knew this already.
> 
> Next we have history. Well, historically, humans have always been spiritually connected to something greater than self. This has taken many various forms, but the constant of human spirituality is not changed. We've observed brutal times in history where jealous kings and rulers tried their best to stomp spirituality out of the hearts of man and failed. It remains our most defining attribute as a species. History certainly shows that humans need spiritual connection and it simply will not be denied.
> 
> Finally, archeology. We know for a fact that roughly 95% of the life which has existed in the past, no longer exists. So how does this translate to evidence that life is this burgeoning and evolving thing that spawns all sorts of new things? The evidence shows life is suffering entropy, not recreating more life. The fossil record shows no signs of life emerging from single-cell organisms into multicellular organisms, and then into all other genera. And to top that off, nothing in science refutes biogenesis, the fact that life can only come from life.
> 
> So there are strikes one, two and three! The "evidence" does not refute God or creation by God. It doesn't indicate it is a myth. Now, if this is a lie you want to convince yourself of, that's fine, but just know that other people are going to pinpoint your lies and expose them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there were actually something there, science could eventually detect it. So once more, EPIC FAIL!!!
Click to expand...


Wow, what a huge presumption to make, as well as requiring complete faith.


----------



## MrMax

Newby said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well you're saying two different things. First you say there is "no evidence either way" then you somehow glean all of this supposed evidence from science, history and archeology. That's why I keep pointing out you're lying. Both statements cannot be true. If you believe "no evidence either way" then you can't also believe there is evidence either way. You can't take the position that you're not certain, but yet you're sure it's a myth. You either believe one or the other, but you lie because you believe that makes you appear more objective.
> 
> Now you can certainly get angry at me for pointing out your lies, that's a normal response. But it isn't going to turn your lies into truth. You can do like Dorito Tea and pull out every trick in the book to get the thread booted to the flame zone where you can claim a "moral" victory, it's still not going to change your lies to truth.
> 
> As for your so-called "evidence" let's go over that. *Your physical sciences are not designed to properly evaluate spiritual nature, by default. *So the fact that physical science shows no evidence of spiritual nature is not unexpected or illogical. IF science ever does show physical evidence of something spiritual it instantly becomes something physical, does it not? Am I wrong about that? Is there something you're not comprehending with that? Therefore, we can't accept this fact as anything more than confirmation that physical is not spiritual. But I think we all knew this already.
> 
> Next we have history. Well, historically, humans have always been spiritually connected to something greater than self. This has taken many various forms, but the constant of human spirituality is not changed. We've observed brutal times in history where jealous kings and rulers tried their best to stomp spirituality out of the hearts of man and failed. It remains our most defining attribute as a species. History certainly shows that humans need spiritual connection and it simply will not be denied.
> 
> Finally, archeology. We know for a fact that roughly 95% of the life which has existed in the past, no longer exists. So how does this translate to evidence that life is this burgeoning and evolving thing that spawns all sorts of new things? The evidence shows life is suffering entropy, not recreating more life. The fossil record shows no signs of life emerging from single-cell organisms into multicellular organisms, and then into all other genera. And to top that off, nothing in science refutes biogenesis, the fact that life can only come from life.
> 
> So there are strikes one, two and three! The "evidence" does not refute God or creation by God. It doesn't indicate it is a myth. Now, if this is a lie you want to convince yourself of, that's fine, but just know that other people are going to pinpoint your lies and expose them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If there were actually something there, science could eventually detect it. So once more, EPIC FAIL!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, what a huge presumption to make, as well as requiring complete faith.
Click to expand...


Boss claimed that science couldn't detect spiritual nature. It's up to him to prove his point, not just throw out unfounded suppositions. 
If science can't detect anything, then for now you'd have to say that said object probably doesn't exist. I'm agnostic, so I leave the door ajar in case someone finds anything, but until science confirms said object, you have nothing but an unfounded theory. Sorry.


----------



## PostmodernProph

MrMax said:


> If science can't detect anything, then for now you'd have to say that said object probably doesn't exist.



why?....science has never taken that position....especially in the realm of pre-Big Bang........


----------



## orogenicman

PostmodernProph said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> If science can't detect anything, then for now you'd have to say that said object probably doesn't exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why?....science has never taken that position....especially in the realm of pre-Big Bang........
Click to expand...


He wasn't talking about pre-bang bang or pre-anything else.  Stop trying to derail the conversation, bubba.


----------



## BreezeWood

MrMax said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> So there are strikes one, two and three! The "evidence" does not refute God *or creation* by God. It doesn't indicate it is a myth. Now, if this is a lie you want to convince yourself of, that's fine, but just know that other people are going to pinpoint your lies and expose them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If there were actually something there, science could eventually detect it. So once more, EPIC FAIL!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *... or creation*
> 
> 
> what is creation ? -
> 
> is there in your opinion a difference between a planet and physiology or are they the same ?
> 
> is there a Spirit in physiology or is physiology necessary for a Spirit (consciousness) or is there a Spirit found in a stone ? * a stone represented by a finite atomic structure of cohesion and uniformity.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


----------



## koshergrl

MrMax said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there were actually something there, science could eventually detect it. So once more, EPIC FAIL!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, what a huge presumption to make, as well as requiring complete faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boss claimed that science couldn't detect spiritual nature. It's up to him to prove his point, not just throw out unfounded suppositions.
> If science can't detect anything, then for now you'd have to say that said object probably doesn't exist. I'm agnostic, so I leave the door ajar in case someone finds anything, but until science confirms said object, you have nothing but an unfounded theory. Sorry.
Click to expand...

 
No, and unfounded theory has to be proven to be wrong.

It remains a plain theory. As did the idea of electric current and gravity, until the right person came along.


----------



## Boss

MrMax said:


> If there were actually something there, science could eventually detect it. So once more, EPIC FAIL!!!



Oh really? So for hundreds of years before astronomers were able to confirm that Jupiter was there, it didn't exist? Until Pasteur confirmed the presence of microorganisms, they weren't actually there? Until about 15 years ago when we confirmed black holes existed, they didn't really exist and weren't really real? Back when scientists didn't yet know the Earth was round, it was actually flat? 

YOU are an EPIC FAIL! You don't even make rational sense. What exactly was your statement supposed to prove aside from your idiotic stupidity?


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there were actually something there, science could eventually detect it. So once more, EPIC FAIL!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really? So for hundreds of years before astronomers were able to confirm that Jupiter was there, it didn't exist? Until Pasteur confirmed the presence of microorganisms, they weren't actually there? Until about 15 years ago when we confirmed black holes existed, they didn't really exist and weren't really real? Back when scientists didn't yet know the Earth was round, it was actually flat?
> 
> YOU are an EPIC FAIL! You don't even make rational sense. What exactly was your statement supposed to prove aside from your idiotic stupidity?
Click to expand...


Other than that ugliness at the end, I actually agree with this.


----------



## Boss

MrMax said:


> Boss claimed that science couldn't detect spiritual nature. It's up to him to prove his point, not just throw out unfounded suppositions.
> If science can't detect anything, then for now you'd have to say that said object probably doesn't exist. I'm agnostic, so I leave the door ajar in case someone finds anything, but until science confirms said object, you have nothing but an unfounded theory. Sorry.



Nope, you misinterpreted my claim because you're a dimwit. Follow closely... Physical science deals with PHYSICAL nature. By definition, spiritual nature is that which is not PHYSICAL. Therefore, IF physical science discovers PHYSICAL evidence for something that is considered SPIRITUAL, it ceases to be something SPIRITUAL because it has obtained PHYSICAL proof. 

There is nothing in science that says it can't discover things that are "spiritual" and history is rife with plenty of examples of just this sort of thing. I leave the door of possibility open that science will one day discover a physical explanation for spiritual nature. But the fact that it hasn't yet made that discovery in no way means that spiritual nature does not exist.

You are idiotically trying to make the argument that since science hasn't discovered it yet, that it's not possible and can't exist. If this had always been the assumption of science, most of what science has learned would have never been discovered. Science is an ongoing investigation of things, it isn't complete or empirical by any stretch. It hasn't already discovered all there is to find out. It is just flat out brain-dead stupid to make such an assumption.


----------



## daws101

PostmodernProph said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, despite the fact god can't be proven, it amazes me you godlovers still persist. Please. Why are you people still  believing?  You can't possibility prove "god" is out there and listens to you. With all the madness and chaos in the world, hard to believe  there is a GOD in this mess.  I admire that. Noble.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> because of things we and others experience.....
> 
> for example, a family from my church lost a daughter to cancer.....the parents and three friends were in her hospital room when she died.....the father had prayed "God if you have to take her from us, at least let us know she's with you".......when she died all five heard a choir of angels singing......the next morning as they were checking out, the night duty nurse asked them....."Pardon me but I have to know.....what was that CD you were playing last night......it was the most beautiful music I have ever heard"......
> 
> the unbelievers will accuse me of lying.......they will say it was a mass hallucination....irregardless, it is the answer to your question of why are we still believing.......
Click to expand...

religious experiences are subjective...
not saying you're lying but you've falsely accused non believers of lying consistently.
the choir of angels is most probably from somebody's tv in another room in the hospital  hospital. 
all non private rooms have at least two...
I also seriously doubt any one there had the presence of mind to check it out objectively..
sorry about the loss.


----------



## daws101

Spoonman said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> more likely they can't live up to the standards and expectations set by god so they chose to tear him down rather than admit to their own shortcomings and failures.
Click to expand...

there is no evidence that god set any sort of standard ..however there is and extraordinary amount of evidence that believers did...and blamed it on god.


----------



## daws101

PostmodernProph said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> because of things we and others experience.....
> 
> for example, a family from my church lost a daughter to cancer.....the parents and three friends were in her hospital room when she died.....the father had prayed "God if you have to take her from us, at least let us know she's with you".......when she died all five heard a choir of angels singing......the next morning as they were checking out, the night duty nurse asked them....."Pardon me but I have to know.....what was that CD you were playing last night......it was the most beautiful music I have ever heard"......
> 
> the unbelievers will accuse me of lying.......they will say it was a mass hallucination....irregardless, it is the answer to your question of why are we still believing.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The night janitor with his boom box is saving the roach and laughing his ass off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I accurately predicted what your reaction would be.....its what makes me a prophet.....
Click to expand...

hardly....it was a setup with high probability of success.

proph·et  [prof-it]  Show IPA
noun
1.
a person who speaks for God or a deity, or by divine inspiration.
2.
a.
a person chosen to speak for God and to guide the people of Israel: Moses was the greatest of Old Testament prophets.
b.
( often initial capital letter ) one of the Major or Minor Prophets.
c.
one of a band of ecstatic visionaries claiming divine inspiration and, according to popular belief, possessing magical powers.
d.
a person who practices divination.
3.
one of a class of persons in the early church, next in order after the apostles, recognized as inspired to utter special revelations and predictions. 1 Cor. 12:28.
4.
the Prophet, Muhammad, the founder of Islam.
5.
a person regarded as, or claiming to be, an inspired teacher or leader.
you have none of the trait listed above...
boosy on the other hand fakes the above list very well.


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> Once again the OP exposes his true intent to flame those who don't share his beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.. no flame just fact. Pointing out how someone is being dishonest has nothing to do with sharing my beliefs or flaming. But here you are again violating the piss out of forum rules, trying to get the thread moved to the flame zone because you don't like the OP.
> 
> Someone call the waaahmbulance!
Click to expand...

how not original! you're so desperate, you need to steal lines form me who in your estimation is the lowest lifeform on the planet...irony is screaming..


----------



## daws101

Hi, you have received -7260 reputation points from koshergrl.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
.

Regards,
koshergrl


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there were actually something there, science could eventually detect it. So once more, EPIC FAIL!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really? So for hundreds of years before astronomers were able to confirm that Jupiter was there, it didn't exist? Until Pasteur confirmed the presence of microorganisms, they weren't actually there? Until about 15 years ago when we confirmed black holes existed, they didn't really exist and weren't really real? Back when scientists didn't yet know the Earth was round, it was actually flat?
> 
> YOU are an EPIC FAIL! You don't even make rational sense. What exactly was your statement supposed to prove aside from your idiotic stupidity?
Click to expand...


To be fair, he did say science *could eventually* detect it.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boss claimed that science couldn't detect spiritual nature. It's up to him to prove his point, not just throw out unfounded suppositions.
> If science can't detect anything, then for now you'd have to say that said object probably doesn't exist. I'm agnostic, so I leave the door ajar in case someone finds anything, but until science confirms said object, you have nothing but an unfounded theory. Sorry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, you misinterpreted my claim because you're a dimwit. Follow closely... Physical science deals with PHYSICAL nature. By definition, spiritual nature is that which is not PHYSICAL. Therefore, IF physical science discovers PHYSICAL evidence for something that is considered SPIRITUAL, it ceases to be something SPIRITUAL because it has obtained PHYSICAL proof.
> 
> There is nothing in science that says it can't discover things that are "spiritual" and history is rife with plenty of examples of just this sort of thing. I leave the door of possibility open that science will one day discover a physical explanation for spiritual nature. But the fact that it hasn't yet made that discovery in no way means that spiritual nature does not exist.
> 
> You are idiotically trying to make the argument that since science hasn't discovered it yet, that it's not possible and can't exist. If this had always been the assumption of science, most of what science has learned would have never been discovered. Science is an ongoing investigation of things, it isn't complete or empirical by any stretch. It hasn't already discovered all there is to find out. It is just flat out brain-dead stupid to make such an assumption.
Click to expand...


Two things.

First, haven't you said that the spiritual has an effect on the physical?  If that is the case, then physical science could discover (or has discovered) physical evidence for the spiritual, at least of an indirect nature.

Second, you say that physical science cannot find physical evidence for the spiritual, then leave open the possibility that science may one day find a physical explanation for spiritual nature.  If there is a physical explanation for spiritual nature, might that be used as evidence for the spiritual?  Those things seem at least somewhat contradictory.


----------



## MrMax

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boss claimed that science couldn't detect spiritual nature. It's up to him to prove his point, not just throw out unfounded suppositions.
> If science can't detect anything, then for now you'd have to say that said object probably doesn't exist. I'm agnostic, so I leave the door ajar in case someone finds anything, but until science confirms said object, you have nothing but an unfounded theory. Sorry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, you misinterpreted my claim because you're a dimwit. Follow closely... Physical science deals with PHYSICAL nature. By definition, spiritual nature is that which is not PHYSICAL. Therefore, IF physical science discovers PHYSICAL evidence for something that is considered SPIRITUAL, it ceases to be something SPIRITUAL because it has obtained PHYSICAL proof.
> 
> There is nothing in science that says it can't discover things that are "spiritual" and history is rife with plenty of examples of just this sort of thing. I leave the door of possibility open that science will one day discover a physical explanation for spiritual nature. But the fact that it hasn't yet made that discovery in no way means that spiritual nature does not exist.
> 
> You are idiotically trying to make the argument that since science hasn't discovered it yet, that it's not possible and can't exist. If this had always been the assumption of science, most of what science has learned would have never been discovered. Science is an ongoing investigation of things, it isn't complete or empirical by any stretch. It hasn't already discovered all there is to find out. It is just flat out brain-dead stupid to make such an assumption.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Two things.
> 
> First, haven't you said that the spiritual has an effect on the physical?  If that is the case, then physical science could discover (or has discovered) physical evidence for the spiritual, at least of an indirect nature.
> 
> Second, you say that physical science cannot find physical evidence for the spiritual, then leave open the possibility that science may one day find a physical explanation for spiritual nature.  If there is a physical explanation for spiritual nature, might that be used as evidence for the spiritual?  Those things seem at least somewhat contradictory.
Click to expand...


^^ What Monte said. 

Plus, I never said that "since science hasn't discovered it yet, that it's not possible and can't exist." You made that up. What I said was: "until science confirms said object, you have nothing but an unfounded theory." Please polish up on your reading skills.


----------



## koshergrl

Steven_R said:


> What about "there might be a God or Gods or something, I just don't know because there is no data either way, but based on the scientific, historical and archaeological evidence it's safe to say Jehovah and Jesus as just myths"?


 

Actually, archaeologists don't agree, nor do historians. They concur that Jesus absolutely existed.


----------



## MrMax

koshergrl said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about "there might be a God or Gods or something, I just don't know because there is no data either way, but based on the scientific, historical and archaeological evidence it's safe to say Jehovah and Jesus as just myths"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, archaeologists don't agree, nor do historians. They concur that Jesus absolutely existed.
Click to expand...


Actually, they concur that several preaching Jesuses existed at the time.


----------



## koshergrl

Yeah prove that.


----------



## koshergrl

Names please. If they ALL agree that there was no Jesus, then there should be a whole list of them who have said so. 

I'll wait.


----------



## orogenicman

Actually, there is only one (alleged) written record from the 1st century of the existence of Jesus, and that comes from Josephus (ancestor of Bocephus - otherwise known as Hank Williams, Jr.). 

But who was this Josephus:

Josephus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> *Titus Flavius Josephus* (/d&#658;o&#650;&#712;si&#720;f&#601;s/;[1] 37  c. 100),[2] born *Joseph ben Matityahu* (Hebrew: &#1497;&#1493;&#1505;&#1507; &#1489;&#1503; &#1502;&#1514;&#1514;&#1497;&#1492;&#1493;, _Yosef ben Matityahu_),[3] was a first-century Romano-Jewish scholar, historian and hagiographer, who was born in Jerusalemthen part of Roman Judeato a father of priestly descent and a mother who claimed royal ancestry.
> 
> He initially fought against the Romans during the First JewishRoman War as head of Jewish forces in Galilee, until surrendering in 67 to Roman forces led by Vespasian after the six-week siege of Jotapata. Josephus claims the Jewish Messianic prophecies that initiated the First Roman-Jewish War made reference to Vespasian becoming Emperor of Rome. In response Vespasian decided to keep Josephus as a hostage and interpreter. After Vespasian did become Emperor in 69, he granted Josephus his freedom, at which time Josephus assumed the emperor's family name of Flavius.
> 
> *Flavius Josephus fully defected to the Roman side* and was granted Roman citizenship. He became an advisor and friend of Vespasian's son Titus, serving as his translator when Titus led the Siege of Jerusalem, which resultedwhen the Jewish revolt did not surrenderin the city's destruction and the looting and destruction of Herod's Temple (Second Temple).
> Josephus recorded Jewish history, with special emphasis on the first century AD and the First JewishRoman War, including the Siege of Masada, but the imperial patronage of his work has sometimes caused it to be characterized as pro-Roman propaganda.
> His most important works were _The Jewish War_ (c. 75) and _Antiquities of the Jews_ (c. 94).[4] _The Jewish War_ recounts the Jewish revolt against Roman occupation (6670). _Antiquities of the Jews_ recounts the history of the world from a Jewish perspective for an ostensibly Roman audience. These works provide valuable insight into first century Judaism and the background of Early Christianity.[4] (See main article Josephus on Jesus).


 
 So he was a Jew who betrayed his own people to the Romans.  His reference to Jesus was written around 9394 AD, long after Jesus is said to have died.  

Josephus on Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> Scholarly opinion on the total or partial authenticity of the reference in Book 18, Chapter 3, 3 of the _Antiquities_, a passage that states that Jesus the Messiah was a wise teacher who was crucified by Pilate, usually called the _Testimonium Flavianum_, varies.[4][5][1] The general scholarly view is that while the _Testimonium Flavianum_ is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it is broadly agreed upon that it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus, which was then subject to Christian interpolation or forgery [5][6][7][8][9][10] by fourth-century apologist Eusebius or by others.[11] Although the exact nature and extent of the Christian redaction remains unclear[12] there is broad consensus as to what the original text of the _Testimonium_ by Josephus would have looked like.[9]
> 
> Modern scholarship has largely acknowledged the authenticity of the reference in Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 of the _Antiquities_ to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" [13] and considers it as having the highest level of authenticity among the references of Josephus to Christianity.[14][1][2][15][16][17] However, critics point out that Josephus wrote about a number of people who went by the name Jesus, Yeshua or Joshua,[18] and also speculate that Josephus may have considered James a fraternal brother rather than a sibling.[19]
> 
> Almost all modern scholars consider the reference in Book 18, Chapter 5, 2 of the _Antiquities_ to the imprisonment and death of John the Baptist to also be authentic.[20][21][22]
> 
> The references found in _Antiquities_ have no parallel texts in the other work by Josephus such as the _Jewish War_, written 20 years earlier, but some scholars have provided explanations for their absence.[23] A number of variations exist between the statements by Josephus regarding the deaths of James and John the Baptist and the New Testament accounts.[20][24] Scholars generally view these variations as indications that the Josephus passages are not interpolations, for a Christian interpolator would have made them correspond to the New Testament accounts, not differ from them.[20][25][24]


----------



## koshergrl

That has nothing to do with anything.

The allegation is that historians and archaeologists all agree that there was no Jesus.

At least one historian, Josephus, actually recorded his existence in ancient times.

So I would like a list of all the modern archaeologists and scientists that *agree* Jesus is simply a mythical creature.

It isn't forthcoming, because it's a lie. But I'm just observing the niceties.


----------



## koshergrl

Stand by for indignant backpedaling from resident Christianophobes, progressives and god-haters.

Oh wait, they're one and the same.


----------



## orogenicman

koshergrl said:


> That has nothing to do with anything.
> 
> The allegation is that historians and archaeologists all agree that there was no Jesus.
> 
> At least one historian, Josephus, actually recorded his existence in ancient times.
> 
> So I would like a list of all the modern archaeologists and scientists that *agree* Jesus is simply a mythical creature.
> 
> It isn't forthcoming, because it's a lie. But I'm just observing the niceties.



Did you read the post I made with reference to Josephus?  Because, what is "accepted" as evidence for Jesus in those texts is rather scant and not consensually accepted.  And I might add that although he had written a history of the Jews some 20 years earlier, there was no mention of Jesus in that text.  And the mention of Jesus, when/if it did come, was over 60 years after the fact.  Josephus didn't know Jesus personally, and in fact, none of the Gospel authors knew him personally.


----------



## thebrucebeat

koshergrl said:


> That has nothing to do with anything.
> 
> The allegation is that historians and archaeologists all agree that there was no Jesus.
> 
> At least one historian, Josephus, actually recorded his existence in ancient times.
> 
> So I would like a list of all the modern archaeologists and scientists that *agree* Jesus is simply a mythical creature.
> 
> It isn't forthcoming, because it's a lie. But I'm just observing the niceties.



There is great disagreement as to whether or not Jesus existed. Many agree that he did. Others think it is a complete myth.
I fall on the side that he most definitely DID exist, and was an itinerant preacher.
I also am familiar with the fact that there was more than one named Jesus doing the same thing.
One thing is certain. Most credible scholars do find the Josephus reference completely unreliable and useless as proof of his existence or divinity.


----------



## koshergrl

You're not educating me regarding Josephus. I know who he is.

As I said, I'm still waiting for the evidence that doesn't exist, to support the lie that all archaeologists and historians agree that Christ is a mythical creature.

They don't. Not at all. In fact, many of the pre eminent archaeologists and historians are actually Christians...


----------



## orogenicman

koshergrl said:


> Stand by for indignant backpedaling from resident Christianophobes, progressives and god-haters.
> 
> Oh wait, they're one and the same.



Except I am neither afraid of Christians, nor do I hate them.  Plenty of Christians are progressives, so do you have a label for them?  Atheists are not god-haters, since they don't even acknowledge its existence.  Something has to exist before one can decide to hate it.  Perhaps you are confusing your god with organized religion.


----------



## koshergrl

Modern progressives aren't christian. Period. If they claim they are, then they're liars.


----------



## orogenicman

koshergrl said:


> You're not educating me regarding Josephus. I know who he is.
> 
> As I said, I'm still waiting for the evidence that doesn't exist, to support the lie that all archaeologists and historians agree that Christ is a mythical creature.
> 
> They don't. Not at all. In fact, many of the pre eminent archaeologists and historians are actually Christians...



Why would you support a man who betrayed his own people as well as the Christians of the day to the Romans?


----------



## thebrucebeat

koshergrl said:


> You're not educating me regarding Josephus. I know who he is.
> 
> As I said, I'm still waiting for the evidence that doesn't exist, to support the lie that all archaeologists and historians agree that Christ is a mythical creature.
> 
> They don't. Not at all. In fact, many of the pre eminent archaeologists and historians are actually Christians...



Not many, but some.
I am not making the claim, so if you are responding to me it is a silly thing to attribute to me.
But how would one know, as you haven't yet mastered the quote feature.


----------



## koshergrl

I didn't attribute it to you.


----------



## koshergrl

orogenicman said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're not educating me regarding Josephus. I know who he is.
> 
> As I said, I'm still waiting for the evidence that doesn't exist, to support the lie that all archaeologists and historians agree that Christ is a mythical creature.
> 
> They don't. Not at all. In fact, many of the pre eminent archaeologists and historians are actually Christians...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you support a man who betrayed his own people as well as the Christians of the day to the Romans?
Click to expand...

 
I thought it was all mythical?

Isn't that what you maintain?


----------



## thebrucebeat

koshergrl said:


> I didn't attribute it to you.



Should I assume this post is directed at me?


----------



## koshergrl

You can assume whatever you like.


----------



## orogenicman

koshergrl said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're not educating me regarding Josephus. I know who he is.
> 
> As I said, I'm still waiting for the evidence that doesn't exist, to support the lie that all archaeologists and historians agree that Christ is a mythical creature.
> 
> They don't. Not at all. In fact, many of the pre eminent archaeologists and historians are actually Christians...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you support a man who betrayed his own people as well as the Christians of the day to the Romans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought it was all mythical?
> 
> Isn't that what you maintain?
Click to expand...


Where did you see me say it was mythical?


----------



## orogenicman

koshergrl said:


> Modern progressives aren't christian. Period. If they claim they are, then they're liars.



Well, that is certainly NOT true.  I know many Christians who are progressives.


----------



## koshergrl

I'm afraid not.


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there were actually something there, science could eventually detect it. So once more, EPIC FAIL!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really? So for hundreds of years before astronomers were able to confirm that Jupiter was there, it didn't exist? Until Pasteur confirmed the presence of microorganisms, they weren't actually there? Until about 15 years ago when we confirmed black holes existed, they didn't really exist and weren't really real? Back when scientists didn't yet know the Earth was round, it was actually flat?
> 
> YOU are an EPIC FAIL! You don't even make rational sense. What exactly was your statement supposed to prove aside from your idiotic stupidity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To be fair, he did say science *could eventually* detect it.
Click to expand...


I know, which is why the statement made no rational sense. He is assuming it's not possible that something is there because science "could have" detected it if so. Whereas, my statement is more rationally stated: It is possible that science could detect it someday,  if something is there.


----------



## orogenicman

koshergrl said:


> I'm afraid not.



The first part of that sentence is certainly correct.  That last part, however, is seriously mistaken.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really? So for hundreds of years before astronomers were able to confirm that Jupiter was there, it didn't exist? Until Pasteur confirmed the presence of microorganisms, they weren't actually there? Until about 15 years ago when we confirmed black holes existed, they didn't really exist and weren't really real? Back when scientists didn't yet know the Earth was round, it was actually flat?
> 
> YOU are an EPIC FAIL! You don't even make rational sense. What exactly was your statement supposed to prove aside from your idiotic stupidity?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be fair, he did say science *could eventually* detect it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know, which is why the statement made no rational sense. He is assuming it's not possible that something is there because science "could have" detected it if so. Whereas, my statement is more rationally stated: It is possible that science could detect it someday,  if something is there.
Click to expand...

And yet completely contradictory to all the other posts where you have categorically stated that the spiritual nature could never be discovered in this way.


----------



## koshergrl

orogenicman said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm afraid not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The first part of that sentence is certainly correct. That last part, however, is seriously mistaken.
Click to expand...


----------



## westwall

orogenicman said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're not educating me regarding Josephus. I know who he is.
> 
> As I said, I'm still waiting for the evidence that doesn't exist, to support the lie that all archaeologists and historians agree that Christ is a mythical creature.
> 
> They don't. Not at all. In fact, many of the pre eminent archaeologists and historians are actually Christians...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you support a man who betrayed his own people as well as the Christians of the day to the Romans?
Click to expand...







That's not the question that should be asked.  The question is, did he accurately report what he saw?  There is no doubt that Josephus wrote eloquently about the Romans...he was PAID to do that.  The fact that Jesus appears in any of Josephus' writings lends credence to his existence.  There is no reason for Josephus to make him up after all.

Furthermore, whenever archaeologists get to dig deep enough they invariably find evidence to support what was written in the bible.  Pilate is mentioned on a plaque that was found in Ceasarea for instance.  He's not mentioned in Roman sources but his name was found on the stone during a dig in 1961.


----------



## orogenicman

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're not educating me regarding Josephus. I know who he is.
> 
> As I said, I'm still waiting for the evidence that doesn't exist, to support the lie that all archaeologists and historians agree that Christ is a mythical creature.
> 
> They don't. Not at all. In fact, many of the pre eminent archaeologists and historians are actually Christians...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you support a man who betrayed his own people as well as the Christians of the day to the Romans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not the question that should be asked. The question is, did he accurately report what he saw? There is no doubt that Josephus wrote eloquently about the Romans...he was PAID to do that. The fact that Jesus appears in any of Josephus' writings lends credence to his existence. There is no reason for Josephus to make him up after all.
Click to expand...


The fact that he makes reference to more than one person using that name throws in doubt the entire interpretation that he is referring to the Jesus of the New Testament.  The fact that many scholars believe that large sections of Josephus' writings were redacted by later Christians also throws the entire narrative in doubt.



			
				WW said:
			
		

> Furthermore, whenever archaeologists get to dig deep enough they invariably find evidence to support what was written in the bible. Pilate is mentioned on a plaque that was found in Ceasarea for instance. He's not mentioned in Roman sources but his name was found on the stone during a dig in 1961.



Furthermore, not one scrap of archaeological evidence supports the Jesus narrative in the New Testament. The evidence that Pilate may have been a real person is evidence only that Pilate MAY HAVE BEEN A REAL PERSON.


----------



## orogenicman

koshergrl said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm afraid not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The first part of that sentence is certainly correct. That last part, however, is seriously mistaken.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


All I need to disprove your claim is to find one Christian who is a progressive.  But wait, ahem, there is an entire progressive Christian movement:

Progressive Christianity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> To be fair, he did say science *could eventually* detect it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know, which is why the statement made no rational sense. He is assuming it's not possible that something is there because science "could have" detected it if so. Whereas, my statement is more rationally stated: It is possible that science could detect it someday,  if something is there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet completely contradictory to all the other posts where you have categorically stated that the spiritual nature could never be discovered in this way.
Click to expand...


No I haven't and that is a mischaracterization of what I've said. By definition, something that is physically proven with physical science is physical in nature. If something is thought to be spiritual and physical evidence comes to light in support of it, that thing can no longer be spiritual in nature because it just became physical. It's a logic dichotomy. 

Where you might be drawing confusion is my position on "evidence" and how physical science can't evaluate spiritual evidence. This does not mean that physical science can't evaluate physical evidence that explains something believed spiritual in nature.


----------



## koshergrl

There's no such thing as a Christian who is a modern progressive.

If they say they are, they're either lying or mistaken.

Progressives do like to try to blend in....they generally do it by changing the language to hide what they're doing, or changing the definition of the words that can describe them. This is one of those cases. They may call themselves Christians...but they're not. They've changed the meaning of the word.


----------



## thebrucebeat

koshergrl said:


> There's no such thing as a Christian who is a modern progressive.
> 
> If they say they are, they're either lying or mistaken.
> 
> Progressives do like to try to blend in....they generally do it by changing the language to hide what they're doing, or changing the definition of the words that can describe them. This is one of those cases. They may call themselves Christians...but they're not. They've changed the meaning of the word.



And they think the hate-filled conservatives have.
Who is the one real Scotsman?
You of course, right?


----------



## koshergrl

Christians certainly aren't judged, and will never be judged, by non-believers.


----------



## orogenicman

koshergrl said:


> There's no such thing as a Christian who is a modern progressive.
> 
> If they say they are, they're either lying or mistaken.


 
 Repeating a false claim does not make it true, and never will.


----------



## Boss

> Furthermore, not one scrap of archaeological evidence supports the Jesus narrative in the New Testament.



There are many factors surrounding your claim that you are glossing over here. Most notably, the efforts made by the Roman Empire to expunge all information regarding Jesus and his life from the books. Not that we're talking about the Age of Information where everything was recorded and documented as it is today, many details and events of the time were simply never documented. Not only did the Romans actively try to erase all traces of Jesus and his life, the Jews did as well. 

We do know enough to piece together events and places which put specific people in place to confirm much of what is in the Bible. It's certainly not a completely fabricated myth, as has been claimed. In order to believe your tale, you have to literally suspend rational thought. You have to believe that thousands of people for hundreds of years were duplicitous in the conspiracy. And that the most influential human to ever walk the planet was a complete fabrication and they knew it. Sorry... not buying that hogwash for a second, but you go right ahead and believe whatever you need to sleep at night.


----------



## koshergrl

orogenicman said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no such thing as a Christian who is a modern progressive.
> 
> If they say they are, they're either lying or mistaken.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Repeating a false claim does not make it true, and never will.
Click to expand...

 
No, it's true on it's own.

As evidenced by the colossal failure to produce a single "progressive christian" as evidence of their existence.


----------



## orogenicman

Boss said:


> Furthermore, not one scrap of archaeological evidence supports the Jesus narrative in the New Testament.
> 
> 
> 
> There are many factors surrounding your claim that you are glossing over here. Most notably, the efforts made by the Roman Empire to expunge all information regarding Jesus and his life from the books. Not that we're talking about the Age of Information where everything was recorded and documented as it is today, many details and events of the time were simply never documented. Not only did the Romans actively try to erase all traces of Jesus and his life, the Jews did as well.
Click to expand...

 
 Well, that is a convenient explanation, isn't it?  And of course, you have at hand the documentation demonstrating that the Romans actually expunged any record of the existence of your savior, right?  No?  well, that too is convenient, isn't it?  By the way, if the Jews and the Romans actively expunged any and all record of the existence of Jesus, why are you trying to make a case that Josephus, a well known ex-Jewish Roman, wrote about him?  Details, details.


----------



## orogenicman

koshergrl said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no such thing as a Christian who is a modern progressive.
> 
> If they say they are, they're either lying or mistaken.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Repeating a false claim does not make it true, and never will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's true on it's own.
> 
> As evidenced by the colossal failure to produce a single "progressive christian" as evidence of their existence.
Click to expand...


I take it that English is a second language for you.  How else to explain your neglect in reading the article at the link I provided earlier about progressive Christianity?  Or perhaps willful ignorance, stupidity, denial,  retardation?  What is it that led to YOUR colossal failure?


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> Furthermore, not one scrap of archaeological evidence supports the Jesus narrative in the New Testament.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are many factors surrounding your claim that you are glossing over here. Most notably, the efforts made by the Roman Empire to expunge all information regarding Jesus and his life from the books. Not that we're talking about the Age of Information where everything was recorded and documented as it is today, many details and events of the time were simply never documented. Not only did the Romans actively try to erase all traces of Jesus and his life, the Jews did as well.
> 
> We do know enough to piece together events and places which put specific people in place to confirm much of what is in the Bible. It's certainly not a completely fabricated myth, as has been claimed. In order to believe your tale, you have to literally suspend rational thought. You have to believe that thousands of people for hundreds of years were duplicitous in the conspiracy. And that the most influential human to ever walk the planet was a complete fabrication and they knew it. Sorry... not buying that hogwash for a second, but you go right ahead and believe whatever you need to sleep at night.
Click to expand...


Document the Roman whitewashing of the Jesus evidence. Citations please.
E.L. Doctorow was famous for his novels that incorporated real people into his fictional accounts. The fact that certain places or events are in the book no more confirm scripture than Houdini confirms "Ragtime".
Pretty vociferous in your defense of the bible when you have repeatedly said the Christians have it wrong and the "spiritual nature" you believe in doesn't look anything like their "god".


----------



## Boss

orogenicman said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Furthermore, not one scrap of archaeological evidence supports the Jesus narrative in the New Testament.
> 
> 
> 
> There are many factors surrounding your claim that you are glossing over here. Most notably, the efforts made by the Roman Empire to expunge all information regarding Jesus and his life from the books. Not that we're talking about the Age of Information where everything was recorded and documented as it is today, many details and events of the time were simply never documented. Not only did the Romans actively try to erase all traces of Jesus and his life, the Jews did as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, that is a convenient explanation, isn't it?  And of course, you have at hand the documentation demonstrating that the Romans actually expunged any record of the existence of your savior, right?  No?  well, that too is convenient, isn't it?  By the way, if the Jews and the Romans actively expunged any and all record of the existence of Jesus, why are you trying to make a case that Josephus, a well known ex-Jewish Roman, wrote about him?  Details, details.
Click to expand...


It's not that it's "convenient" it's the truth. What kind of documentation do you want? It's all in the history books of how the Romans and Jews persecuted Jesus' followers after his crucifixion. As for Josephus, I don't think I've ever mentioned his name. I did speak of Paul of Tarsus who was a Roman. There were some Romans who converted to Christianity and advocated the teachings of Jesus. When we speak in terms of history, we often use generalized phraseology like "the Romans" but it is never implied we mean "every single Roman who was alive."  In context of thought, it is meant to describe the political and governmental hierarchy. But I am sure you realized this and just wanted to be an obtuse ass clown, right?


----------



## orogenicman

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Furthermore, not one scrap of archaeological evidence supports the Jesus narrative in the New Testament.
> 
> 
> 
> There are many factors surrounding your claim that you are glossing over here. Most notably, the efforts made by the Roman Empire to expunge all information regarding Jesus and his life from the books. Not that we're talking about the Age of Information where everything was recorded and documented as it is today, many details and events of the time were simply never documented. Not only did the Romans actively try to erase all traces of Jesus and his life, the Jews did as well.
> 
> We do know enough to piece together events and places which put specific people in place to confirm much of what is in the Bible. It's certainly not a completely fabricated myth, as has been claimed. In order to believe your tale, you have to literally suspend rational thought. You have to believe that thousands of people for hundreds of years were duplicitous in the conspiracy. And that the most influential human to ever walk the planet was a complete fabrication and they knew it. Sorry... not buying that hogwash for a second, but you go right ahead and believe whatever you need to sleep at night.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Document the Roman whitewashing of the Jesus evidence. Citations please.
> E.L. Doctorow was famous for his novels that incorporated real people into his fictional accounts. The fact that certain places or events are in the book no more confirm scripture than Houdini confirms "Ragtime".
> *Pretty vociferous in your defense of the bible when you have repeatedly said the Christians have it wrong and the "spiritual nature" you believe in doesn't look anything like their "god".*
Click to expand...


 Particularly considering that he has vociferously denied that he is even a Christian.



> I've also stated that I am not a Christian, nor do I have any organized religious affiliation.


----------



## Boss

> Document the Roman whitewashing of the Jesus evidence. Citations please.



LOL... Well, jeesh... see that's the thing about when the most powerful ruling government known to mankind is in charge of the records and decides something should be expunged... there's not much actual documentational evidence left behind to incriminate them. I'm sure you've heard the term "the victors write the history books" haven't you? 

Tell ya what... I'll provide the evidence you request when you go and find the documentational evidence to explain what happened to 50 million indigenous people who once lived in the Americas. (aka: Indians, Native Americans) You see, you're going to have some trouble because it's not like the US Government kept really accurate records of how many were slaughtered over the years. Still... we don't have absolute ass clown idiots running around claiming it never happened.


----------



## thebrucebeat

koshergrl said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no such thing as a Christian who is a modern progressive.
> 
> If they say they are, they're either lying or mistaken.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Repeating a false claim does not make it true, and never will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's true on it's own.
> 
> As evidenced by the colossal failure to produce a single "progressive christian" as evidence of their existence.
Click to expand...


So many. Where to start?
Sloane Coffin. Stanley Hauerwaus of Duke University. Tony Campolo. Jim Wallis. John Crossan. Marcus Borg. Anne LaMott. Thomas Merton. Bono. Henri Nouwen. John Shelby Spong. Shane Claiborne.


----------



## Boss

> Pretty vociferous in your defense of the bible when you have repeatedly said the Christians have it wrong and the "spiritual nature" you believe in doesn't look anything like their "god".



What the hell does this have to do with speaking up for the truth against ass clowns who want to lie and manipulate the facts? YES... I very often DO find myself defending Christians against your type. It does not mean I am a Christian, it just means that I really dislike lying ass clowns more.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> Pretty vociferous in your defense of the bible when you have repeatedly said the Christians have it wrong and the "spiritual nature" you believe in doesn't look anything like their "god".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the hell does this have to do with speaking up for the truth against ass clowns who want to lie and manipulate the facts? YES... I very often DO find myself defending Christians against your type. It does not mean I am a Christian, it just means that I really dislike lying ass clowns more.
Click to expand...


Any particular lie you want to point out, or just flail about?


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really? So for hundreds of years before astronomers were able to confirm that Jupiter was there, it didn't exist? Until Pasteur confirmed the presence of microorganisms, they weren't actually there? Until about 15 years ago when we confirmed black holes existed, they didn't really exist and weren't really real? Back when scientists didn't yet know the Earth was round, it was actually flat?
> 
> YOU are an EPIC FAIL! You don't even make rational sense. What exactly was your statement supposed to prove aside from your idiotic stupidity?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be fair, he did say science *could eventually* detect it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know, which is why the statement made no rational sense. He is assuming it's not possible that something is there because science "could have" detected it if so. Whereas, my statement is more rationally stated: It is possible that science could detect it someday,  if something is there.
Click to expand...


I don't think that's what he said at all.  I think he said that if the spiritual exists, at some point it can be detected by science.  Hence could eventually, not would have.  I'm pretty sure he was arguing against your point that the since the spiritual is inherently not physical, science can never detect it.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> Pretty vociferous in your defense of the bible when you have repeatedly said the Christians have it wrong and the "spiritual nature" you believe in doesn't look anything like their "god".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the hell does this have to do with speaking up for the truth against ass clowns who want to lie and manipulate the facts? YES... I very often DO find myself defending Christians against your type. It does not mean I am a Christian, it just means that I really dislike lying ass clowns more.
Click to expand...


You aren't defending Christians.
You are defending the Jesus of scripture, which you already have stated they got wrong.
Your such a weak thinker.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know, which is why the statement made no rational sense. He is assuming it's not possible that something is there because science "could have" detected it if so. Whereas, my statement is more rationally stated: It is possible that science could detect it someday,  if something is there.
> 
> 
> 
> And yet completely contradictory to all the other posts where you have categorically stated that the spiritual nature could never be discovered in this way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I haven't and that is a mischaracterization of what I've said. By definition, something that is physically proven with physical science is physical in nature. If something is thought to be spiritual and physical evidence comes to light in support of it, that thing can no longer be spiritual in nature because it just became physical. It's a logic dichotomy.
> 
> Where you might be drawing confusion is my position on "evidence" and how physical science can't evaluate spiritual evidence. This does not mean that physical science can't evaluate physical evidence that explains something believed spiritual in nature.
Click to expand...


So truth can be extrapolated?
Like with macro-evolution?
Got it.


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty vociferous in your defense of the bible when you have repeatedly said the Christians have it wrong and the "spiritual nature" you believe in doesn't look anything like their "god".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the hell does this have to do with speaking up for the truth against ass clowns who want to lie and manipulate the facts? YES... I very often DO find myself defending Christians against your type. It does not mean I am a Christian, it just means that I really dislike lying ass clowns more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You aren't defending Christians.
> You are defending the Jesus of scripture, which you already have stated they got wrong.
> Your such a weak thinker.
Click to expand...


See here you are lying some more because you just can't help yourself. I have never said "they got it wrong" with regard to what Christians believe. I've said that I personally don't believe in the religious doctrine. They may be 100% correct, I don't know. Why don't you stop lying and manipulating everything I say and argue like a real man? If I am such a weal thinker, that shouldn't be a problem for a brainiac such as yourself. So stop being dishonest and trying to distort everything out of context so you can try and look big, and just debate me on the merits of what I say?


----------



## Agit8r

Because the Abrahamic god is quite simply despicable, as evidenced by the violence that takes place on Earth in his name.  Duh.


----------



## koshergrl

How can he be despicable, if he doesn't exist?


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the hell does this have to do with speaking up for the truth against ass clowns who want to lie and manipulate the facts? YES... I very often DO find myself defending Christians against your type. It does not mean I am a Christian, it just means that I really dislike lying ass clowns more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You aren't defending Christians.
> You are defending the Jesus of scripture, which you already have stated they got wrong.
> Your such a weak thinker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See here you are lying some more because you just can't help yourself. I have never said "they got it wrong" with regard to what Christians believe. I've said that I personally don't believe in the religious doctrine. They may be 100% correct, I don't know. Why don't you stop lying and manipulating everything I say and argue like a real man? If I am such a weal thinker, that shouldn't be a problem for a brainiac such as yourself. So stop being dishonest and trying to distort everything out of context so you can try and look big, and just debate me on the merits of what I say?
Click to expand...


I AM!!!
These are your arguments.
YOU have said your version of god isn't personal, it has no interest in you personally. You have said that you don't think the Christian vision of god is accurate, though you like some of what the bible says you don't think it is the inerrant word of a god. You don't believe in the religious doctrine. You just said it!!!!
What context should I take that in? How did I manipulate that?
You just hate it when your own words are thrown back in your face at inconvenient moments.  You are a very "weal"(sic) thinker, and you are a coward when faced with your own inconsistent and illogical argumentation.
These are the lack of merits of what you say.
But they ARE what you say.


----------



## thebrucebeat

koshergrl said:


> How can he be despicable, if he doesn't exist?



The same way the miserly Scrooge was despicable.
Fiction paints some very despicable characters.


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> You're not educating me regarding Josephus. I know who he is.
> 
> As I said, I'm still waiting for the evidence that doesn't exist, to support the lie that all archaeologists and historians agree that Christ is a mythical creature.
> 
> They don't. Not at all. In fact, many of the pre eminent archaeologists and historians are actually Christians...


false

Who are some historians who question the existence of the biblical Jesus?
In: History, Politics & Society, Religion & Spirituality, Atheism	 [Edit categories]
Answer:



Historians traditionally take the approach that a person attested to by an ancient author probably did exist, unless there is reason to believe otherwise. The following is a quick list of some who challenge this view of Jesus, which could be extended with some research. I have not read most of the works cited and in these cases can not attest to the quality of the conclusions drawn: 

Downing (In Search of the Historical Jesus, edited by H. McArthur) is quoted as saying, "There is now no dearth of scholars who think that the Jesus of the gospels never existed in history." 

H. Raschke wrote, "The historical existence of Jesus need not be denied as it has never been affirmed". 

Albert Schweitzer, the world famous theologian and missionary, "There is nothing more negative than the result of the critical study of the Life of Jesus. The Jesus of Nazareth who came forward publicly as the Messiah, who preached the ethic of the Kingdom of God, who founded the Kingdom of Heaven upon earth, and died to give His work its final consecration, never had any existence." 

Pastor J. Kahl, "Nothing at all is known of Jesus beyond the bare fact that 'he existed at a date and place which can be established approximately' and that both his teaching and manner of death remain unknown so that 'the name of Jesus is bound to remain cryptic and meaningless, indistinguishable from a myth'." 

G. A. Wells, author of Did Jesus Exist?

Richard Carrier, author of Sense and Goodness without God

Earl Doherty, author of The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ? Challenging the Existence of an Historical Jesus

Timothy Freke, who co-authored with Peter Gandy, The Jesus Mysteries. 

Michael Grant, author of Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels

Maurice Goguel, author of Jesus the Nazarene: Myth or History (1926)


----------



## Agit8r

koshergrl said:


> How can he be despicable, if he doesn't exist?



Those who call themselves "His body" do exist.


----------



## koshergrl

You deny the existence of God, yet you just said he was despicable.

So you have a problem. Can't be both ways. If he doesn't exist, then he can't be despicable.


----------



## daws101

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're not educating me regarding Josephus. I know who he is.
> 
> As I said, I'm still waiting for the evidence that doesn't exist, to support the lie that all archaeologists and historians agree that Christ is a mythical creature.
> 
> They don't. Not at all. In fact, many of the pre eminent archaeologists and historians are actually Christians...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you support a man who betrayed his own people as well as the Christians of the day to the Romans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not the question that should be asked.  The question is, did he accurately report what he saw?  There is no doubt that Josephus wrote eloquently about the Romans...he was PAID to do that.  The fact that Jesus appears in any of Josephus' writings lends credence to his existence.  There is no reason for Josephus to make him up after all.
> 
> Furthermore, whenever archaeologists get to dig deep enough they invariably find evidence to support what was written in the bible.  Pilate is mentioned on a plaque that was found in Ceasarea for instance.  He's not mentioned in Roman sources but his name was found on the stone during a dig in 1961.
Click to expand...

that brings up something I thought would be obvious....
the romans were meticulous record keepers there is no non biblical source roman or otherwise that  that corroborates josephus's  account...
every time jesus is claimed to have spoken publicly the romans were there just like the modern day police ....but not one account of the water to wine or the fish and loaves stories ...


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> How can he be despicable, if he doesn't exist?


you and lot's o other people believe he does...you cannot in all honesty say god is not despicable or not a mass murder...
to believe in him you have to take the good with the evil...
if you don't you're either tailoring god to fit your pov or you are a cino....christian in name only


----------



## koshergrl

How can you hate something you claim doesn't exist?

Ah well, logic and sense isn't the forte of Christianophobic hate mongers, I suppose.


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> You deny the existence of God, yet you just said he was despicable.
> 
> So you have a problem. Can't be both ways. If he doesn't exist, then he can't be despicable.


sure he can as already explained to you, fictional characters are as good or as evil as you wish them to be..


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> How can you hate something you claim doesn't exist?
> 
> Ah well, logic and sense isn't the forte of Christianophobic hate mongers, I suppose.


the only people claiming the imaginary Christianophobic hate mongers hate an imaginary god are the believer hate spewers!
 if you and other believers had any sense or had any idea what logic or reason are, you'd not believe what you believe...


----------



## koshergrl

daws101 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> You deny the existence of God, yet you just said he was despicable.
> 
> So you have a problem. Can't be both ways. If he doesn't exist, then he can't be despicable.
> 
> 
> 
> sure he can as already explained to you, fictional characters are as good or as evil as you wish them to be..
Click to expand...


So you admit your depiction of God as angry, evil, or whatever is not based in reality.

And you're right. The God you want doesn't exist. The real God is pure love and righteousness.


----------



## koshergrl

daws101 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can you hate something you claim doesn't exist?
> 
> Ah well, logic and sense isn't the forte of Christianophobic hate mongers, I suppose.
> 
> 
> 
> the only people claiming the imaginary Christianophobic hate mongers hate an imaginary god are the believer hate spewers!
> if you and other believers had any sense or had any idea what logic or reason are, you'd not believe what you believe...
Click to expand...


That's some pretty riveting gibberish you just spewed there, duhs. The dope wearing off?


----------



## holston

koshergrl said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> You deny the existence of God, yet you just said he was despicable.
> 
> So you have a problem. Can't be both ways. If he doesn't exist, then he can't be despicable.
> 
> 
> 
> sure he can as already explained to you, fictional characters are as good or as evil as you wish them to be..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you admit your depiction of God as angry, evil, or whatever is not based in reality.
> 
> And you're right. The God you want doesn't exist. *The real God is pure love and righteousness.*
Click to expand...


 This last concept escapes their grasp. 
 They see the evil in the world and cannot reconcile it's presence with the existence of an all powerful God who is "good" who will not step in and cause all evil to cease. 

 They cannot see any reason why a "good" God who was powerful enough to eradicate all evil would not. 

 This can only be because they either have not given the matter enough thought, they haven't had enough time and experience to have done so yet, or they are unable to reason that far. 

 The only other alternative is that they simply refuse to see. 

 A person who cannot reason is only guilty of a mental deficiency. A person who CAN reason but refuses to might be either too lazy to or is HAPPY to leave his thoughts lying where they are. 

 I can't say which case applies to these people here. 

 But I can say that only a fool would deliberately CHOOSE to believe that God does not exist if there was just as much reason to suppose that he did. 

 I can see why a person would refuse to believe in a God who was evil. 
 In fact, I would agree that refusing to believe in such a God would be the right thing to do. 
 For what fool would wish that God almighty were evil? It would take an even bigger fool to say that God was evil and yet still profess a belief in him. 

 For then what would such a God have to think and say about a tiny person who had that much audacity? Shouldn't he then fear what such an evil power would do to him for openly proclaiming him to be so?  Who could stop an Almighty force of evil from doing evil? 


 I sympathize with those who become so disillusioned by the misery and corruption of the world that they find it difficult to believe that a "good God" could preside over this mess. 

 But when I examine the New Testament scriptures I catch a glimmer of hope that a good God may indeed exist and that there are good reasons why he has permitted the forces of evil to exist among men. 

 Whether I "choose" to believe or whether I am _able to believe_ or not, I am still confronted with the problem of evil and pain either way.  

 The atheistic proposition has no hope whatsoever in it unless one can look forward to total non existence, in which case it makes all our efforts on earth to be temporal and futile. Why would a reasonable person WANT to persist in BELIEVING in such an absurdity if he had any better alternative?

  An ability to believe enough to qualify as a genuine faith must be based upon reasonable evidence. NO belief can be based upon KNOWING EVERYTHING since _that_ is impossible for ANY MAN. Even atheists must admit that they do not know and cannot know everything. Therefore their _conviction_ that there is no God or that God could not possibly be good is based upon nothing more than their own assumptions and suppositions about how things OUGHT to be. 

 The faith of atheism can not be based upon scientific reasoning because there is no body of science which contains a proof that God cannot exist. Moreover, there is no systematic line of reasoning which can be demonstrated which affirms that the proposition of God's existence is unreasonable OR impossible. 


 The sorriest state a man can be in concerning what he "chooses" to believe or the faith which he affirms with his mouth, is one who has chosen to deny God's existence, not because of the pain and suffering which is rampant in the world, but because he feels personally deprived of those things _which he desires most. _

 And what should a person who is "good", _desire most?_

  A person who denies the existence of God or of his goodness because of an apparent lack of selfless attention to the creature needs and pleasures of his creations, cannot justifiably accuse such a God of being evil for not meeting those standards while the person himself who is making the accusations cannot likewise live up to those standards which he requires of God, without making the tacit admission that it is he himself who is unrighteous and that it is only a presumption to assume that God is equally as lacking.

 A simpler way of putting this would be to say that it isn't fair to assume that God does not exist or isn't good because the person thinking that finds himself incapable of being as righteous as he would have God to be in order to admit his existence. 

 A person who is honest enough with himself to admit that he himself is not capable of meeting the standards which he would demand a righteous God cannot logically negate the existence of God on those grounds without similarly denying his own existence. 

 Since that person DOES admit the existence of evil, he necessarily must admit the existence of GOOD, since evil cannot exist without reference to that which is good. 

 So one is left not only with the problem of explaining the existence of EVIL but also the existence of GOOD. Since one is not synonymous or compatible with the other we cannot say that the origin of evil was good or that the origin of good was evil. We recognize them to be at opposite poles. 

 Even if we were to allow the idea that one spawned the other, we still can't determine which came first. This leaves us with an unbearable paradox which to me is just another way of describing hell. 

 A "yin and yang" universe of this nature without end or resolution is no better than any other hell I could imagine. 

 I would much prefer that the atheists be correct than believe in _that!_

 But we have decided that the true nature of the universe does not depend upon our wishful thinking. Haven't we?

  The ultimate TRUTH is not a matter of what I WANT to believe is it?
 This rule would apply to a heaven or a hell. 

 Given no more information than I have to go on , and no greater faculties of reason than those I possess, I would CHOOSE to believe in an Almighty God who IS GOOD, and who is able to resolve these paradoxes once and for all. 

 I would CHOOSE not to be like a miserable  DOG being condemned to chase his own tail throughout eternity. 

 Otherwise I would CHOOSE not to be at all, just as the atheist proposes. 

 If those latter two options are the only ones available then I would much PREFER to CHOOSE the atheist one. Oblivion would be infinitely more MERCIFUL, ..............
 IF such a THING    as    MERCY   were to exist. 

 But then, when I think of concepts such as MERCY, and GOODNESS, I tend to associate those things in my mind with the attributes I would assign to an Almighty God IF I had my "rathers". 

 If the universe is entirely devoid of mercy and goodness in the first place, I fail to see how such concepts could have emerged from the stones of the ground, seeing that they lack intelligence altogether. 

 To believe that the stones produced these "things" one would have to believe in something like a law of entropy which works in reverse. In other words, that all things tend to become more and more organized as time progresses. This of course violates the common sense experience which convicts us in the belief of certain laws of thermodynamics. 

 The most ardent evolutionist _can only imagine_ how consciousness, emotion, and moral concepts have "evolved" from inanimate matter. To claim otherwise is more than a little presumptuous. So to accuse Christians or other believers in God as guilty of "wishful thinking" is somewhat intellectually unfair if not downright dishonest. 

 I submit to you, that a truly "open" mind, or a "scientifically reasonable" one, would approach the issue of the existence of God without preconceived notions which have grown out of personal disappointments or unwarranted assumptions about the role of pain and suffering in the world whether it is ours or someone elses. 

 God will no more disappear if we fall on the floor holding our breath and kicking our feet than Santa Claus will appear on my roof at Christmas. 

 People are going to suffer and die in any case. 
That's no reason to slam the door in the face of hope prematurely simply because I am dissatisfied with my interminable ignorance or the speed in which God moves to demonstrate himself to me personally. 

 In the meantime I'll do what I can to improve my circumstances and hope that Providence will cut me some slack when I need it. I'll conduct myself as though what I say and do matters enough to be judged someday by one who has the full story inside and out, the wisdom to render the right verdict, and the power to pass sentence. 

 If conducting myself in that manner is a fools errand then the most I can _wish for_ is _total annihilation_. (If only it were that simple. )

 No friends. The absurdity of that proposition is just too much for me to reasonably accept, other people's definition of what constitutes the body of "science"  not withstanding.


----------



## Derideo_Te

holston said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> sure he can as already explained to you, fictional characters are as good or as evil as you wish them to be..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you admit your depiction of God as angry, evil, or whatever is not based in reality.
> 
> And you're right. The God you want doesn't exist. *The real God is pure love and righteousness.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> * This last concept escapes their grasp.
> They see the evil in the world and cannot reconcile it's presence with the existence of an all powerful God who is "good" who will not step in and cause all evil to cease.
> 
> They cannot see any reason why a "good" God who was powerful enough to eradicate all evil would not.
> 
> This can only be because they either have not given the matter enough thought, *they haven't had enough time and experience to have done so yet, or they are unable to reason that far.
> 
> The only other alternative is that they simply refuse to see.
> 
> A person who cannot reason is only guilty of a mental deficiency. A person who CAN reason but refuses to might be either too lazy to or is HAPPY to leave his thoughts lying where they are.
> 
> I can't say which case applies to these people here.
> 
> But I can say that only a fool would deliberately CHOOSE to believe that God does not exist if there was just as much reason to suppose that he did.
> 
> I can see why a person would refuse to believe in a God who was evil.
> In fact, I would agree that refusing to believe in such a God would be the right thing to do.
> For what fool would wish that God almighty were evil? It would take an even bigger fool to say that God was evil and yet still profess a belief in him.
> 
> For then what would such a God have to think and say about a tiny person who had that much audacity? Shouldn't he then fear what such an evil power would do to him for openly proclaiming him to be so?  Who could stop an Almighty force of evil from doing evil?
> 
> 
> I sympathize with those who become so disillusioned by the misery and corruption of the world that they find it difficult to believe that a "good God" could preside over this mess.
> 
> But when I examine the New Testament scriptures I catch a glimmer of hope that a good God may indeed exist and that there are good reasons why he has permitted the forces of evil to exist among men.
> 
> Whether I "choose" to believe or whether I am _able to believe_ or not, I am still confronted with the problem of evil and pain either way.
> 
> The atheistic proposition has no hope whatsoever in it unless one can look forward to total non existence, in which case it makes all our efforts on earth to be temporal and futile. Why would a reasonable person WANT to persist in BELIEVING in such an absurdity if he had any better alternative?
> 
> An ability to believe enough to qualify as a genuine faith must be based upon reasonable evidence. NO belief can be based upon KNOWING EVERYTHING since _that_ is impossible for ANY MAN. Even atheists must admit that they do not know and cannot know everything. Therefore their _conviction_ that there is no God or that God could not possibly be good is based upon nothing more than their own assumptions and suppositions about how things OUGHT to be.
> 
> The faith of atheism can not be based upon scientific reasoning because there is no body of science which contains a proof that God cannot exist. Moreover, there is no systematic line of reasoning which can be demonstrated which affirms that the proposition of God's existence is unreasonable OR impossible.
> 
> 
> The sorriest state a man can be in concerning what he "chooses" to believe or the faith which he affirms with his mouth, is one who has chosen to deny God's existence, not because of the pain and suffering which is rampant in the world, but because he feels personally deprived of those things _which he desires most. _
> 
> And what should a person who is "good", _desire most?_
> 
> A person who denies the existence of God or of his goodness because of an apparent lack of selfless attention to the creature needs and pleasures of his creations, cannot justifiably accuse such a God of being evil for not meeting those standards while the person himself who is making the accusations cannot likewise live up to those standards which he requires of God, without making the tacit admission that it is he himself who is unrighteous and that it is only a presumption to assume that God is equally as lacking.
> 
> A simpler way of putting this would be to say that it isn't fair to assume that God does not exist or isn't good because the person thinking that finds himself incapable of being as righteous as he would have God to be in order to admit his existence.
> 
> A person who is honest enough with himself to admit that he himself is not capable of meeting the standards which he would demand a righteous God cannot logically negate the existence of God on those grounds without similarly denying his own existence.
> 
> Since that person DOES admit the existence of evil, he necessarily must admit the existence of GOOD, since evil cannot exist without reference to that which is good.
> 
> So one is left not only with the problem of explaining the existence of EVIL but also the existence of GOOD. Since one is not synonymous or compatible with the other we cannot say that the origin of evil was good or that the origin of good was evil. We recognize them to be at opposite poles.
> 
> Even if we were to allow the idea that one spawned the other, we still can't determine which came first. This leaves us with an unbearable paradox which to me is just another way of describing hell.
> 
> A "yin and yang" universe of this nature without end or resolution is no better than any other hell I could imagine.
> 
> I would much prefer that the atheists be correct than believe in _that!_
> 
> But we have decided that the true nature of the universe does not depend upon our wishful thinking. Haven't we?
> 
> The ultimate TRUTH is not a matter of what I WANT to believe is it?
> This rule would apply to a heaven or a hell.
> 
> Given no more information than I have to go on , and no greater faculties of reason than those I possess, I would CHOOSE to believe in an Almighty God who IS GOOD, and who is able to resolve these paradoxes once and for all.
> 
> I would CHOOSE not to be like a miserable  DOG being condemned to chase his own tail throughout eternity.
> 
> Otherwise I would CHOOSE not to be at all, just as the atheist proposes.
> 
> If those latter two options are the only ones available then I would much PREFER to CHOOSE the atheist one. Oblivion would be infinitely more MERCIFUL, ..............
> IF such a THING    as    MERCY   were to exist.
> 
> But then, when I think of concepts such as MERCY, and GOODNESS, I tend to associate those things in my mind with the attributes I would assign to an Almighty God IF I had my "rathers".
> 
> If the universe is entirely devoid of mercy and goodness in the first place, I fail to see how such concepts could have emerged from the stones of the ground, seeing that they lack intelligence altogether.
> 
> To believe that the stones produced these "things" one would have to believe in something like a law of entropy which works in reverse. In other words, that all things tend to become more and more organized as time progresses. This of course violates the common sense experience which convicts us in the belief of certain laws of thermodynamics.
> 
> The most ardent evolutionist _can only imagine_ how consciousness, emotion, and moral concepts have "evolved" from inanimate matter. To claim otherwise is more than a little presumptuous. So to accuse Christians or other believers in God as guilty of "wishful thinking" is somewhat intellectually unfair if not downright dishonest.
> 
> I submit to you, that a truly "open" mind, or a "scientifically reasonable" one, would approach the issue of the existence of God without preconceived notions which have grown out of personal disappointments or unwarranted assumptions about the role of pain and suffering in the world whether it is ours or someone elses.
> 
> God will no more disappear if we fall on the floor holding our breath and kicking our feet than Santa Claus will appear on my roof at Christmas.
> 
> People are going to suffer and die in any case.
> That's no reason to slam the door in the face of hope prematurely simply because I am dissatisfied with my interminable ignorance or the speed in which God moves to demonstrate himself to me personally.
> 
> In the meantime I'll do what I can to improve my circumstances and hope that Providence will cut me some slack when I need it. I'll conduct myself as though what I say and do matters enough to be judged someday by one who has the full story inside and out, the wisdom to render the right verdict, and the power to pass sentence.
> 
> If conducting myself in that manner is a fools errand then the most I can _wish for_ is _total annihilation_. (If only it were that simple. )
> 
> No friends. The absurdity of that proposition is just too much for me to reasonably accept, other people's definition of what constitutes the body of "science"  not withstanding.
Click to expand...


Ironic!



> This last concept escapes their grasp.
> They see the evil in the world and cannot reconcile it's presence with the existence of an all powerful God who is "good" who will not step in and cause all evil to cease.



Has it escaped your grasp that if evil exists it is because your God created it in the first place?



> They cannot see any reason why a "good" God who was powerful enough to eradicate all evil would not.



Since your God created the evil in the first place what would be his motivation for eradicating it?



> This can only be because they either have not given the matter enough thought



Obviously you haven't given much thought to the paradox that your God is 100% responsible for all of the evil in this world. What is even worse is that your God knows that it is going to happen and yet does nothing to stop it from happening. Therein lies premeditation and collusion when it comes to this evil.

Needless to say you have probably not given any thought to the paradox inherent in the concept of omnipotence either.


----------



## koshergrl

Of course he is. Nothing happens except by his Design.

That doesn't make him evil. It makes him perfect, and omnipotent.


----------



## Derideo_Te

koshergrl said:


> Of course he is. Nothing happens except by his Design.
> 
> That doesn't make him evil. It makes him perfect, and omnipotent.



So perfection encompasses evil and imperfection?

Isn't that an oxymoron?


----------



## BreezeWood

holston said:


> But when I examine the New Testament scriptures ...



* (Hint) those are not working either - time for Newer new ones ... Triumph of Good over Evil, the inside story in under 100 pages.

.


----------



## holston

Derideo_Te said:


> Ironic!
> 
> Has it escaped your grasp that if evil exists it is because your God created it in the first place?


 
 You are falsely assuming that God "created" evil. 




Derideo_Te said:


> Since your God created the evil in the first place what would be his motivation for eradicating it?



 Assuming he created it, I can't think of one, unless he was like some people are who are rotten but still want others to think that they are good. Al Capone opened soup kitchens during the depression I've heard. But I wouldn't say that made him a true humanitarian. 

 One problem with humans is that they tend to judge others according to their own subjective set of experiences and perceptions when to do so requires them to make the gross assumption that everyone else feels and thinks the same way they do themselves. 
 What "scientific" evidence can they produce which proves that everyone else does. There is no known method I am aware of which allows one person to experience first hand the emotions, thoughts, and feelings of others. We can only "assume" that they resemble those of our own. 

 It is much more presumptuous to jump to conclusions about the infinite mind of God so much so that a simple comparison seems ridiculous. 
 The only reason I allow for it in my own mind is based on the New Testament scriptures which tell us that God essentially was "made flesh" in order that he should be tempted in all manner like unto man. 

 In other words, because God was able to stoop to the level of man does not mean that man is able to ascend to the level of God. 




Derideo_Te said:


> Obviously you haven't given much thought to the paradox that your *God is 100% responsible for all of the evil in this world.* What is even worse is that your God knows that it is going to happen and yet does nothing to stop it from happening. Therein lies premeditation and collusion when it comes to this evil.



 This is obviously not true unless you are a Pantheist who believes that EVERYTHING is GOD, which is rather absurd on the face of it. 

 Right now I am typing words. It is I who am responsible for them, not you. 
Likewise, YOU are responsible for YOUR actions, not me. 
 Since neither of us can claim to be God, then it holds that God is not responsible for the actions of either one of us. 

 You are also assuming that God can only be GOOD if he prohibits all possible evil from existing. There are some conceptual problems inherent in that idea of a universe. 

 Nevertheless you cannot say with certainty which things God has allowed and whether there ARE certain actions and deeds which he HAS prevented. 

 You could gain a much better idea of how God acts to intervene in the affairs of men if you studied the Old Testament a little. 

 Some people erroneously conclude as you have that God never does anything or takes any actions which would interfere with mens desires to commit evil. Others may think that if God intervenes once, then he must always intervene in order to be logically consistent with their own concepts of what a GOOD God MUST do. 

 Others do not see the paradox inherent in presuming that man could be given a mind of his own and at the same time be subjected to a force which constantly acted at every moment in time to prevent him from exercising the free will he is supposed to have. 

 If you take the time to follow this line of reasoning to it's logical conclusion you will see some of the absurd scenarios this would lead to. To prevent every fool with a notion of harming himself, God would have to be constantly suspending the laws of nature to the point where every individual would be living in a fantasy universe of his own in which there were no dependable  rules of operation at all. 






Derideo_Te said:


> Needless to say you have probably not given any thought to the paradox inherent in the concept of omnipotence either.



  Not at all. I have thought many times on the concept of omnipotence. 

 What results is similar to what happens when one tries to grasp the concept of infinity. 

 You can try the mental experiment of trying to envision large numbers beginning with the smallest value you can hold in your mind and then proceeding conceptually to larger and larger ones. The mind rapidly loses the ability to form an accurate mental depiction of them. 
 The most we can do is handle them conceptually. We can't really juggle them mentally the way we can mentally feel our own fingers and toes. 

 The terms omniscience and omnipotent are concepts which imply an INFINITE capacity for knowledge and awareness. 

 It is said that a cat fish can "see" in pitch black with his whiskers just like a bat can "see" with his ears. 
  I can scarcely imagine what either sensation would feel like. 

 Even more baffling is the story I heard where when a person who was blind from birth was asked whether she "saw" black, she replied "NO" !

 Dig it. A person who is blind from birth does not "see" black or anything else. There is the total lack of any concept of vision!

 I can more easily imagine myself to be a deep sea fish than to "picture" NOTHING when I close my eyes. 


 There are many many illustrations of this nature I can cite which address the problems inherent with the conceptual problems of perception, even on these planes which are much closer to our experience than the infinite would allow. 

 I can't imagine what it would be like to be able to see a 360 degree panoramic view, much less what it would be like to be in multiple locations at once. 

 I can't imagine what it would be like to exist independently of the past, present, or future. 

 I can't imagine what it would be like to be as big as the furthermost reaches of outer space and yet smaller than the smallest "quark" of the densest space at the same time. 

 If you dwell on these concepts long enough, it begins to become almost laughable to presume to make judgements on HOW creation SHOULD be. 


 The Biblical account of creation mentions the existence of beings which have been referred to as angels. 

 These angels were said to have existed long before the creation of the earth. Living in heaven with God from the moment of their creation must have subjected them to a different set of rules than those which Adam and Eve encountered once they violated God's prohibitions. 

 For when the Angel called Lucifer fell from grace, he must have done so with a much more intimate knowledge of what he was doing than shortsighted Adam was blessed with. Because apparently once Lucifer decided to assume the position of God he was "cast down like lightening".  From all I can gather he has no way of reversing the course of his decision. 

 The idea of this fills me with a kind of dread which I cannot describe. The possibility of committing any sort of act of any consequence for which there is no hope of reversal is a very frightening proposition indeed. 

 I guess that is where someone came up with the saying "Fools rush in where angels dare to tread". 

 I'm not saying that I haven't been such a fool. I AM saying that the prospects of continuing to be one or of having no way to ameliorate the consequences of having been so are positively terrifying. 

 This is what I am suggesting when I speak of a person who would call God EVIL and at the same time admit of his existence. 

 A homely analogy to elucidate this idea would be to imagine a person who walked up to a really bad person who was known to be very fierce and mercilessly cruel in his dealing with others, and then to dare him to knock the chip off your shoulder. 

 There aren't many people in the world who are either that fearless or foolish that they would be so insolent to someone whom they knew they could not handle in a physical contest and who would be certain to attack if crossed. 

 It amazes me how so many people know of people like this and are very careful not to tax their limits yet would speak as if with a brazen authority about an "evil" God as if one were to exist that he would just ignore the insult. 

 I would have to be so confident that such an evil God did NOT exist before I dared say anything which might offend him. 

 If I am so weak and fearful that I have to watch my step so carefully around vile and vicious men, then I shudder to think what such a God might do. 

  If I couldn't avoid such a person, I at least would not want to say anything to upset him if I valued my hide. 
  But all physical monsters can do is tear your body up. Eventually death would make it impossible for them to cause you further pain. 
 This escape wouldn't be available on a spiritual plane. 

 I wouldn't expect an thoroughly EVIL God to be capable of showing ANY mercy whatsoever. 
 To do so would give him an attribute more akin to a GOOD God. What self respecting EVIL God would want to do that?


----------



## Derideo_Te

holston said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ironic!
> 
> Has it escaped your grasp that if evil exists it is because your God created it in the first place?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * You are falsely assuming that God "created" evil. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since your God created the evil in the first place what would be his motivation for eradicating it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Assuming he created it, I can't think of one, unless he was like some people are who are rotten but still want others to think that they are good. Al Capone opened soup kitchens during the depression I've heard. But I wouldn't say that made him a true humanitarian.
> 
> One problem with humans is that they tend to judge others according to their own subjective set of experiences and perceptions when to do so requires them to make the gross assumption that everyone else feels and thinks the same way they do themselves.
> What "scientific" evidence can they produce which proves that everyone else does. There is no known method I am aware of which allows one person to experience first hand the emotions, thoughts, and feelings of others. We can only "assume" that they resemble those of our own.
> 
> It is much more presumptuous to jump to conclusions about the infinite mind of God so much so that a simple comparison seems ridiculous.
> The only reason I allow for it in my own mind is based on the New Testament scriptures which tell us that God essentially was "made flesh" in order that he should be tempted in all manner like unto man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously you haven't given much thought to the paradox that your *God is 100% responsible for all of the evil in this world.* What is even worse is that your God knows that it is going to happen and yet does nothing to stop it from happening. Therein lies premeditation and collusion when it comes to this evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is obviously not true unless you are a Pantheist who believes that EVERYTHING is GOD, which is rather absurd on the face of it.
> 
> Right now I am typing words. It is I who am responsible for them, not you.
> Likewise, YOU are responsible for YOUR actions, not me.
> Since neither of us can claim to be God, then it holds that God is not responsible for the actions of either one of us.
> 
> You are also assuming that God can only be could if he prohibits evil from being committed.
> 
> You cannot say with certainty which things God has allowed and whether there ARE certain actions and deeds which he HAS prevented.
> 
> You could gain a much better idea of how God acts to intervene in the affairs of men if you studied the Old Testament a little.
> 
> Some people erroneously conclude as you have that God never does anything or takes any actions which would interfere with mens desires to commit evil.
> 
> Others do not see the paradox inherent in presuming that man could be given a mind of his own and at the same time be subjected to a force which constantly acted at every moment in time to prevent him from acting on it.
> 
> If you take the time to follow this line of reasoning to it's logical conclusion you will see some of the absurd scenarios this would lead to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Needless to say you have probably not given any thought to the paradox inherent in the concept of omnipotence either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all. I have thought many times on the concept of omnipotence.
> 
> What results is similar to what happens when one tries to grasp the concept of infinity.
> 
> You can try the mental experiment of trying to envision large numbers beginning with the smallest value you can hold in your mind and then proceeding conceptually to larger and larger ones. The mind rapidly loses the ability to form an accurate mental depiction of them.
> The most we can do is handle them conceptually. We can't really juggle them mentally the way we can mentally feel our own fingers and toes.
> 
> The terms omniscience and omnipotent are concepts which imply an INFINITE capacity for knowledge and awareness.
> 
> It is said that a cat fish can "see" in pitch black with his whiskers just like a bat can "see" with his eyes.
> I can scarcely imagine what either sensation would feel like.
> 
> Even more baffling is the story I heard where when a person who was blind from birth was asked whether she "saw" black, she replied "NO" !
> 
> Dig it. A person who is blind from birth does not "see" black or anything else. There is the total lack of any concept of vision!
> 
> I can more easily imagine myself to be a deep sea fish than to "picture" NOTHING when I close my eyes.
> 
> 
> There are many many illustrations of this nature I can cite which address the problems inherent with the conceptual problems of perception, even on these planes which are much closer to our experience than the infinite would allow.
> 
> I can't imagine what it would be like to be able to see a 360 degree panoramic view, much less what it would be like to be in multiple locations at once.
> 
> I can't imagine what it would be like to exist independently of the past, present, or future.
> 
> I can't imagine what it would be like to be as big as the furthermost reaches of outer space and yet smaller than the smallest "quark" of the densest space at the same time.
> 
> If you dwell on these concepts long enough, it begins to become almost laughable to presume to make judgements on HOW creation SHOULD be.
> 
> 
> The Biblical account of creation mentions the existence of beings which have been referred to as angels.
> 
> These angels were said to have existed long before the creation of the earth. Living in heaven with God from the moment of their creation must have subjected them to a different set of rules than those which Adam and Eve encountered once they violated God's prohibitions.
> 
> For when the Angel called Lucifer fell from grace, he must have done so with a much more intimate knowledge of what he was doing than shortsighted Adam was blessed with. Because apparently once Lucifer decided to assume the position of God he was "cast down like lightening".  From all I can gather he has no way of reversing the course of his decision.
> 
> The idea of this fills me with a kind of dread which I cannot describe. The possibility of committing any sort of act of any consequence for which there is no hope of reversal is a very frightening proposition indeed.
> 
> I guess that is where someone came up with the saying "Fools rush in where angels dare to tread".
> 
> I'm not saying that I haven't been such a fool. I AM saying that the prospects of continuing to be one or of having no way to ameliorate the consequences of having been so are positively terrifying.
> 
> This is what I am suggesting when I speak of a person who would call God EVIL and at the same time admit of his existence.
> 
> A homely analogy to elucidate this idea would be to imagine a person who walked up to a really bad person who was known to be very fierce and mercilessly cruel in his dealing with others, and then to dare him to knock the chip off your shoulder.
> 
> There aren't many people in the world who are either that fearless or foolish that they would be so insolent to someone whom they knew they could not handle in a physical contest and who would be certain to attack if crossed.
> 
> It amazes me how so many people know of people like this and are very careful not to tax their limits yet would speak as if with a brazen authority about an "evil" God as if one were to exist that he would just ignore the insult.
> 
> I would have to be so confident that such an evil God did NOT exist before I dared say anything which might offend him.
> 
> If I am so weak and fearful that I have to watch my step so carefully around vile and vicious men, then I shudder to think what such a God might do.
> 
> If I couldn't avoid such a person, I at least would not want to say anything to upset him if I valued my hide.
> But all physical monsters can do is tear your body up. Eventually death would make it impossible for them to cause you further pain.
> This escape wouldn't be available on a spiritual plane.
> 
> I wouldn't expect an thoroughly EVIL God to be capable of showing ANY mercy whatsoever.
> To do so would give him an attribute more akin to a GOOD God. What self respecting EVIL God would want to do that?
Click to expand...


Interesting!



> You are falsely assuming that God "created" evil.



You were the one who alleged that your God is "all powerful" which means that he must have created evil. If he didn't then he cannot be "all powerful" because another equally powerful entity must exist to have created evil. 



> The terms omniscience and omnipotent are concepts which imply an INFINITE capacity for knowledge and awareness.



Nope! I suggest that you look up the term omnipotent.


----------



## holston

BreezeWood said:


> holston said:
> 
> 
> 
> But when I examine the New Testament scriptures ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * (Hint) those are not working either - time for Newer new ones ... Triumph of Good over Evil, the inside story in under 100 pages.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


 I take this to mean that you want the whole thing in a nut shell. 

 It pretty much has already been given to you in that form already, which IS the New Testament. 

 I'm sorry but you aren't allowed a "new" one every time you feel an urge or there is a change in the weather. 
 The same rule has to apply to everyone. Otherwise there wouldn't be "one" plan of salvation, there would be literally billions. 

 Then again, that is exactly what some people propose to be the situation. 
 They maintain that there are as many ways to heaven as there are people in the world. 

 I suppose that could be considered to be "true" depending on the way in which you wish to conceptualize it. 

 But there still must remain some standard to which they are all obliged to adhere. Otherwise we would have a situation in which one would be as good as another regardless of how disparate and contradictory they were. 
 Again, that is exactly what some people propose to be the truth. 
 In which case I fail to see why there needs be any "truth" at all, since everyone would be free to create whatever "truth" they desire. 


 Let's say for the moment that we can grant your request for a "new" plan. 
 While we are at it, let's grant every person a "new" plan every time they wish for one. 

 No doubt there would be many among this mob who would complain of a lack of conformity, consistency, and stability. They would complain that there is no standard by which to gauge anything. 

 Unfortunately you can't have the kind of uniformity that can be relied upon to remain unchanged from day to day, and at the same time leave the whole matter to the caprice of a billion individuals. 


 So I speculate that your contention that the New plan  "isn't working" is based more upon your private expectations of how it _should work_ and what those results _should _
 entail rather than simply looking at the thing for what it is and taking it at face value. 

 Many people have the erroneous notion that God's plan for the redemption of man requires the creation of a paradise on earth. This is the idea that the Jews believe in when they speak of a "Mashianic Age". 

 They are still looking for a conquering King who will provide them all with the kind of earthly comforts which the Muslims look forward to after blowing themselves to kingdom come. 

 In fact, there are still many many different people who are following all sorts of schemes concocted by men in order to achieve "Nirvana" or find "Elderado" on earth. None of them have succeeded in the history of mankind. But just like the search for the perpetual motion machine, there are still those who persist in the belief that such can be found. 

 The pain and dissatisfaction they feel in their own personal lives is so unbearable that they cannot reconcile their minds to accepting anything less. 

 And any "God" who is not willing or able to provide this paradise on earth is not worth worshiping in the first place. Right? I don't think so. Either give my Paradise or make my Mashianic Age come to pass or you are no God of mine. Isn't that essentially what they are demanding?
  We demand comfort and pleasure of our "Gods", otherwise what GOOD are they? These people don't want a God; they want an old man in the sky with a long beard who will give them whatever they want whenever they want it without expecting so much as an act of obedience or a fine thank-you in return. 


 If the teachings of New Testament Christianity are not sinking in, or taking hold, it's only with those people who equate the worship of God with the acquisition of creature comforts and earthly "success". 

 Christianity is the type of religion that demands that our attention be focused on the higher qualities of mercy, charity, compassion, honesty, good deeds and so forth, irrespective of what ill fortune befalls us. 
 This is the story of Job. 
 Thankfully God doesn't demand of the majority of us the patience which Satan sought to destroy in Job. 

 Our trials and tribulations are not near as demanding as it was of those who were fed to lions, impaled on sticks, decapitated, crucified upside down, and so forth. 
 This doesn't mean that acceptance of the Christian yoke will relieve a person of all hardships and make him exempt from illness, death, or mistreatment at the hands of other men. 

 It involves accepting the idea that such qualities as mercy and charity and those mentioned above exist anyway despite the abundance of evil in the world, and that they still demand that we treasure them more than we would a pain free existence. 

 This brings the question to mind as to whether a "pain free" existence on a spiritual plane were even possible in the absence of those spiritual qualities.


----------



## holston

Derideo_Te said:


> You were the one who alleged that your God is "all powerful" which means that he must have created evil. If he didn't then he cannot be "all powerful" because another equally powerful entity must exist to have created evil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The terms omniscience and omnipotent are concepts which imply an INFINITE capacity for knowledge and awareness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope! I suggest that you look up the term omnipotent.
Click to expand...



 Yes I am alleging that God is all powerful. 

 That is not to say that God has not given man or the devil a power of his own. 
 He couldn't exactly do that and at the same time prevent him from using it now could he?



> 1. Able in every respect and for every work; unlimited in
> ability; all-powerful; almighty; as, the Being that can
> create worlds must be omnipotent.
> [1913 Webster]
> 
> God's will and pleasure and his omnipotent power.
> --Sir T. More.
> [1913 Webster]
> 
> 2. Having unlimited power of a particular kind; as,
> omnipotent love. --Shak.
> [1913 Webster]
> 
> The Omnipotent, The Almighty; God. --Milton.
> [1913 Webster]



 I stand by what I said.


----------



## holston

I don't think my detractors are hardly being fair returning so little for all the time I have given them. 

 They can either read what I have written in full and reply to the sum total of it or else they should expect no more from me.


----------



## Derideo_Te

holston said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> You were the one who alleged that your God is "all powerful" which means that he must have created evil. If he didn't then he cannot be "all powerful" because another equally powerful entity must exist to have created evil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The terms omniscience and omnipotent are concepts which imply an INFINITE capacity for knowledge and awareness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope! I suggest that you look up the term omnipotent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I am alleging that God is all powerful.
> 
> That is not to say that God has not given man or the devil a power of his own.
> He couldn't exactly do that and at the same time prevent him from using it now could he?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Able in every respect and for every work; unlimited in
> ability; all-powerful; almighty; as, the Being that can
> create worlds must be omnipotent.
> [1913 Webster]
> 
> God's will and pleasure and his omnipotent power.
> --Sir T. More.
> [1913 Webster]
> 
> 2. Having unlimited power of a particular kind; as,
> omnipotent love. --Shak.
> [1913 Webster]
> 
> The Omnipotent, The Almighty; God. --Milton.
> [1913 Webster]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I stand by what I said.
Click to expand...


What you said was incorrect. Omnipotent is not all knowing. Omniscience is all knowing. 

Since you are sticking by God being omnipotent then he created the devil with the power for evil. Ergo God created evil and since he is omniscient he knew that evil would be done so my statement regarding God's premeditation and collusion when it comes to evil is 100% correct.


----------



## thebrucebeat

holston said:


> I don't think my detractors are hardly being fair returning so little for all the time I have given them.
> 
> They can either read what I have written in full and reply to the sum total of it or else they should expect no more from me.



You can make demands all you like.
Threads like this don't usually reward the essayist.
You can fret about it if you like, but it works that way no matter what you write.
It isn't personal.
You have just chosen the wrong venue.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

I still haven't seen any evidence that anyone hates "god". 

Its certain of his followers who give him a bad name.


----------



## thanatos144

fear is why Atheists hate God....Fear that there is a God and he will judge their sinful lives.


----------



## orogenicman

holston said:


> I don't think my detractors are hardly being fair returning so little for all the time I have given them.
> 
> They can either read what I have written in full and reply to the sum total of it or else they should expect no more from me.



No offense, but your posts are wordy.  Perhaps you could keep it more concise.


----------



## emilynghiem

Hi Holston:
I see two different factors mixed together here

A. one factor is forgiveness, if people cannot imagine forgiving the wrongs in the world, if they hold on to unforgiveness of problems of the past, they project the same onto the present and future, and do not understand the process of higher forgiveness to let this go.
so this separates us from understanding God's truth, love and higher will: unforgiveness

B. differences where people do not see the world the same way by our nature or design

with other people, it is not their fault if their psychology and perception is different. God created both the believers under scriptural laws and secular gentiles under natural laws.

similar to how people have different vocal or hearing ranges,
some people cannot sing above or below certain pitch levels, it is not within their nature.

if you consider the gentiles under natural laws and the believers under sacred laws
to be the treble lines and bass lines within the same symphony, they are written that way.

I find some people do not see the world in terms of a "personified God or creator"
but see the world and the laws as "impersonal" as "one with the universe" or
"self-existent" (as the laws of science or nature are universal and do not require believing in a creator or starting point to believe in and follow these laws).

You are right, that SOME people whose perceptions or biases are limited due to unforgiveness can be changed, so that is factor A.  Christian believers are equally affected by this Forgiveness factor, and can grow to understand God more, the more we forgive.

For factor B, some people are just nontheistic in how they see the world.
Some people are more objective in math and science and do not process information personally or emotionally or in relation to others. Some people are just different,
though the same universal laws apply to all of us, they can be expressed differently.

Note: I still believe Jesus is a universal concept, but this same concept of "divine or universal justice" is expressed and understood differently for nontheists than for Christians.
the factor that makes the key difference is "forgiveness" in whether people seek "restorative justice" which Christ Jesus represents and fulfills, or whether people act out of retribution rejection or "retributive justice" which is antichrist and goes against Christ.

Again, the Forgiveness Factor (A) is the real issue to address.  How we express forgiveness in terms of "restorative justice" can vary but it is still the spirit of Christ Jesus.



holston said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> sure he can as already explained to you, fictional characters are as good or as evil as you wish them to be..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you admit your depiction of God as angry, evil, or whatever is not based in reality.
> 
> And you're right. The God you want doesn't exist. *The real God is pure love and righteousness.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This last concept escapes their grasp.
> They see the evil in the world and cannot reconcile it's presence with the existence of an all powerful God who is "good" who will not step in and cause all evil to cease.
> 
> They cannot see any reason why a "good" God who was powerful enough to eradicate all evil would not.
> 
> This can only be because they either have not given the matter enough thought, they haven't had enough time and experience to have done so yet, or they are unable to reason that far.
> 
> The only other alternative is that they simply refuse to see.
> 
> A person who cannot reason is only guilty of a mental deficiency. A person who CAN reason but refuses to might be either too lazy to or is HAPPY to leave his thoughts lying where they are.
> 
> I can't say which case applies to these people here.
> 
> But I can say that only a fool would deliberately CHOOSE to believe that God does not exist if there was just as much reason to suppose that he did.
> 
> I can see why a person would refuse to believe in a God who was evil.
> In fact, I would agree that refusing to believe in such a God would be the right thing to do.
> For what fool would wish that God almighty were evil? It would take an even bigger fool to say that God was evil and yet still profess a belief in him.
> 
> For then what would such a God have to think and say about a tiny person who had that much audacity? Shouldn't he then fear what such an evil power would do to him for openly proclaiming him to be so?  Who could stop an Almighty force of evil from doing evil?
> 
> 
> I sympathize with those who become so disillusioned by the misery and corruption of the world that they find it difficult to believe that a "good God" could preside over this mess.
> 
> But when I examine the New Testament scriptures I catch a glimmer of hope that a good God may indeed exist and that there are good reasons why he has permitted the forces of evil to exist among men.
> 
> Whether I "choose" to believe or whether I am _able to believe_ or not, I am still confronted with the problem of evil and pain either way.
> 
> The atheistic proposition has no hope whatsoever in it unless one can look forward to total non existence, in which case it makes all our efforts on earth to be temporal and futile. Why would a reasonable person WANT to persist in BELIEVING in such an absurdity if he had any better alternative?
> 
> An ability to believe enough to qualify as a genuine faith must be based upon reasonable evidence. NO belief can be based upon KNOWING EVERYTHING since _that_ is impossible for ANY MAN. Even atheists must admit that they do not know and cannot know everything. Therefore their _conviction_ that there is no God or that God could not possibly be good is based upon nothing more than their own assumptions and suppositions about how things OUGHT to be.
> 
> The faith of atheism can not be based upon scientific reasoning because there is no body of science which contains a proof that God cannot exist. Moreover, there is no systematic line of reasoning which can be demonstrated which affirms that the proposition of God's existence is unreasonable OR impossible.
> 
> 
> The sorriest state a man can be in concerning what he "chooses" to believe or the faith which he affirms with his mouth, is one who has chosen to deny God's existence, not because of the pain and suffering which is rampant in the world, but because he feels personally deprived of those things _which he desires most. _
> 
> And what should a person who is "good", _desire most?_
> 
> A person who denies the existence of God or of his goodness because of an apparent lack of selfless attention to the creature needs and pleasures of his creations, cannot justifiably accuse such a God of being evil for not meeting those standards while the person himself who is making the accusations cannot likewise live up to those standards which he requires of God, without making the tacit admission that it is he himself who is unrighteous and that it is only a presumption to assume that God is equally as lacking.
> 
> A simpler way of putting this would be to say that it isn't fair to assume that God does not exist or isn't good because the person thinking that finds himself incapable of being as righteous as he would have God to be in order to admit his existence.
> 
> A person who is honest enough with himself to admit that he himself is not capable of meeting the standards which he would demand a righteous God cannot logically negate the existence of God on those grounds without similarly denying his own existence.
> 
> Since that person DOES admit the existence of evil, he necessarily must admit the existence of GOOD, since evil cannot exist without reference to that which is good.
> 
> So one is left not only with the problem of explaining the existence of EVIL but also the existence of GOOD. Since one is not synonymous or compatible with the other we cannot say that the origin of evil was good or that the origin of good was evil. We recognize them to be at opposite poles.
> 
> Even if we were to allow the idea that one spawned the other, we still can't determine which came first. This leaves us with an unbearable paradox which to me is just another way of describing hell.
> 
> A "yin and yang" universe of this nature without end or resolution is no better than any other hell I could imagine.
> 
> I would much prefer that the atheists be correct than believe in _that!_
> 
> But we have decided that the true nature of the universe does not depend upon our wishful thinking. Haven't we?
> 
> The ultimate TRUTH is not a matter of what I WANT to believe is it?
> This rule would apply to a heaven or a hell.
> 
> Given no more information than I have to go on , and no greater faculties of reason than those I possess, I would CHOOSE to believe in an Almighty God who IS GOOD, and who is able to resolve these paradoxes once and for all.
> 
> I would CHOOSE not to be like a miserable  DOG being condemned to chase his own tail throughout eternity.
> 
> Otherwise I would CHOOSE not to be at all, just as the atheist proposes.
> 
> If those latter two options are the only ones available then I would much PREFER to CHOOSE the atheist one. Oblivion would be infinitely more MERCIFUL, ..............
> IF such a THING    as    MERCY   were to exist.
> 
> But then, when I think of concepts such as MERCY, and GOODNESS, I tend to associate those things in my mind with the attributes I would assign to an Almighty God IF I had my "rathers".
> 
> If the universe is entirely devoid of mercy and goodness in the first place, I fail to see how such concepts could have emerged from the stones of the ground, seeing that they lack intelligence altogether.
> 
> To believe that the stones produced these "things" one would have to believe in something like a law of entropy which works in reverse. In other words, that all things tend to become more and more organized as time progresses. This of course violates the common sense experience which convicts us in the belief of certain laws of thermodynamics.
> 
> The most ardent evolutionist _can only imagine_ how consciousness, emotion, and moral concepts have "evolved" from inanimate matter. To claim otherwise is more than a little presumptuous. So to accuse Christians or other believers in God as guilty of "wishful thinking" is somewhat intellectually unfair if not downright dishonest.
> 
> I submit to you, that a truly "open" mind, or a "scientifically reasonable" one, would approach the issue of the existence of God without preconceived notions which have grown out of personal disappointments or unwarranted assumptions about the role of pain and suffering in the world whether it is ours or someone elses.
> 
> God will no more disappear if we fall on the floor holding our breath and kicking our feet than Santa Claus will appear on my roof at Christmas.
> 
> People are going to suffer and die in any case.
> That's no reason to slam the door in the face of hope prematurely simply because I am dissatisfied with my interminable ignorance or the speed in which God moves to demonstrate himself to me personally.
> 
> In the meantime I'll do what I can to improve my circumstances and hope that Providence will cut me some slack when I need it. I'll conduct myself as though what I say and do matters enough to be judged someday by one who has the full story inside and out, the wisdom to render the right verdict, and the power to pass sentence.
> 
> If conducting myself in that manner is a fools errand then the most I can _wish for_ is _total annihilation_. (If only it were that simple. )
> 
> No friends. The absurdity of that proposition is just too much for me to reasonably accept, other people's definition of what constitutes the body of "science"  not withstanding.
Click to expand...


----------



## holston

emilynghiem said:


> Hi Holston:
> I see two different factors mixed together here
> 
> A. *one factor is forgiveness,* if people cannot imagine forgiving the wrongs in the world, if they hold on to unforgiveness of problems of the past, they project the same onto the present and future, and *do not understand the process of higher forgiveness* to let this go.
> so this separates us from understanding God's truth, love and higher will: unforgiveness
> 
> B. differences where people do not see the world the same way by our nature or design
> 
> with other people, *it is not their fault if their psychology and perception is different*. God created both the believers under scriptural laws and secular gentiles under natural laws.
> 
> similar to how people have different vocal or hearing ranges,
> some people cannot sing above or below certain pitch levels, it is not within their nature.
> 
> *if you consider the gentiles under natural laws and the believers under sacred laws*
> to be the treble lines and bass lines within the same symphony, they are written that way.
> 
> I find some people do not see the world in terms of a "personified God or creator"
> but see the world and the laws as "impersonal" as "one with the universe" or
> "self-existent" (as the laws of science or nature are universal and do not require believing in a creator or starting point to believe in and follow these laws).
> 
> You are right, that SOME people whose perceptions or biases are limited due to unforgiveness can be changed, so that is factor A.  Christian believers are equally affected by this Forgiveness factor, and can grow to understand God more, the more we forgive.
> 
> For factor B, some people are just nontheistic in how they see the world.
> Some people are more objective in math and science and do not process information personally or emotionally or in relation to others. Some people are just different,
> though the same universal laws apply to all of us, they can be expressed differently.
> 
> Note: *I still believe Jesus is a universal concept*, but this same concept of "divine or universal justice" is expressed and understood differently for nontheists than for Christians.
> the factor that makes the key difference is "forgiveness" in whether people seek "restorative justice" which Christ Jesus represents and fulfills, or whether people act out of retribution rejection or "retributive justice" which is antichrist and goes against Christ.
> 
> Again, the Forgiveness Factor (A) is the real issue to address.  How we express forgiveness in terms of "restorative justice" can vary but it is still the spirit of Christ Jesus.



 If you check the above posts you will see that some of them contain the criticism that I am "too wordy" and guilty of "writing essays". 
 I won't deny either charge. 

  I'll be the first to admit that arguing these kinds of points and explaining oneself fully consumes a great deal of time and space. 
 This is why that so many people want clear and concise answers. They either lack the patience, do not have the time, or think it is not worth the time to listen to a thorough explanation. 
  Volumes have been written on these subjects so I can scarcely be blamed for not doing them justice within this space. Even short essays necessarily leave much unsaid. 

 Therefore it isn't hard for the naysayers to find occasions to take exceptions. If they fail there then they will go for lesser infractions, "too boring", incorrect grammar, punctuation, etc etc. One gets the impression that they are less interested in the subject matter than they are fussing about it. 


 If I have neglected to include "forgiveness" in my very truncated enumeration of God's attributes, it wasn't due to negligence as much as it was the constraints of time in covering every possible base in one smooth sweep. 

 Some of what you are saying is merely a reiteration of what I have already said myself numerous times. That is, that a truly atheistic person has a problem with belief which is rooted in honest doubt. I was careful to make the distinction between this sort of person and others who are simply contrary for no better reason. 

 I wouldn't judge the two the same way and I'm sure that God knows how to account for such "factors". 


 I see ALL people, call them Jews or gentiles as you will, as being under the same law and under the same obligations under God. 

 The same plan of salvation applies to all of them. 

 I do not see Jesus as a "universal concept" but rather as an actual historical person just like any other with the exception of the claims which he made of himself and which others attested to. 


 Forgiveness is a thing which a person must not only be willing to dispense himself in order to receive it, but he must also seek it. That involves repenting of whatever deeds it is he is seeking forgiveness for , ie ceases to do them, and asking forgiveness of the person or persons whom he has offended. 

 Ultimately only God can truly forgive. 
 Nevertheless God expects us to imitate him in doing likewise among ourselves. 

 I seriously doubt if a person is ever forgiven of any sin which he never ceases to do, or has ever felt the need to ask forgiveness for. 

 I can say that I forgive someone of this or that, but that does not necessarily mean that God has if that person has never sought forgiveness and repented of his sin before God himself.  

  In that case my "forgiveness" has not exonerated that person of anything. 

 It's only in the case in which a person has repented and received forgiveness of God that God requires me to forgive him as well. Otherwise I do not have the power to bestow a pardon on that person even if I wanted to.


----------



## BreezeWood

holston said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> holston said:
> 
> 
> 
> But when I examine the New Testament scriptures ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * (Hint) those are not working either - time for Newer new ones ... Triumph of Good over Evil, the inside story in under 100 pages.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In which case I fail to see why there needs be any "truth" at all, since everyone would be free to create whatever "truth" they desire.
Click to expand...




that in itself would not be evil - what is evil is to claim for a truth being from God that does not exist - your "Book", as though there is in it the answer for the Remission to the Everlasting.

it is incomplete.

.


----------



## GISMYS

BreezeWood said:


> holston said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> * (Hint) those are not working either - time for Newer new ones ... Triumph of Good over Evil, the inside story in under 100 pages.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In which case I fail to see why there needs be any "truth" at all, since everyone would be free to create whatever "truth" they desire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that in itself would not be evil - what is evil is to claim for a truth being from God that does not exist - your "Book", as though there is in it the answer for the Remission to the Everlasting.
> 
> it is incomplete.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


only a total fool trys to debate about what you know nothing. READ THE WORD OF GOD FIRST BEFORE YOU MAKE A FOOL OF YOURSELF!!!


----------



## orogenicman

Holston said:
			
		

> I'll be the first to admit that arguing these kinds of points and explaining oneself fully consumes a great deal of time and space.
> This is why that so many people want clear and concise answers. They either lack the patience, do not have the time, or think it is not worth the time to listen to a thorough explanation.
> Volumes have been written on these subjects so I can scarcely be blamed for not doing them justice within this space. Even short essays necessarily leave much unsaid.



Actually, the point is that we have blogs for more in-depth coverage of an issue. I really don't believe that such lengthy posts are productive on the regular forums, and are actually a bit annoying. Perhaps you could give a more concise response, and then link to a blog that you can create in the blog section for those who want a more detailed analysis.  And for the record, I think that posting lengthy discussions of God's attributes in a thread about "*Why do the God-haters persist?" *is inappropriate, and off topic.  But that's just my own opinion.


----------



## Boss

On the topic of "good and evil" let me ask this question... If there were no evil, how could we recognize good? Would we be able to acknowledge or comprehend a universe of only good? Or perhaps, create our own "evil" which might otherwise have been simply a lesser good? Good and evil are subjective perception. There is no universal understanding. When Hitler was incinerating Jews, he believed it was good. When we dropped nukes on Japan to end WWII, was that good or evil? When someone aborts a child they know will suffer a lifetime of pain and mality, is that good or evil? We all have different perceptions. 

The fact that humans conceptualize good and evil is a testament to the existence of spiritual nature. It is through human spiritual awareness we are able to rationalize good and evil.


----------



## holston

Boss said:


> On the topic of "good and evil" let me ask this question... If there were no evil, how could we recognize good? Would we be able to acknowledge or comprehend a universe of only good? Or perhaps, create our own "evil" which might otherwise have been simply a lesser good? Good and evil are subjective perception. There is no universal understanding. When Hitler was incinerating Jews, he believed it was good. When we dropped nukes on Japan to end WWII, was that good or evil? When someone aborts a child they know will suffer a lifetime of pain and mality, is that good or evil? We all have different perceptions.
> 
> The fact that humans conceptualize good and evil is a testament to the existence of spiritual nature. It is through human spiritual awareness we are able to rationalize good and evil.



 If I may venture a guess of my own, I would say that before man was introduced to the KNOWLEDGE of good and evil, he had no appreciation of the difference because he was acquainted with only good. 

 After his "eyes were opened" he was exposed to a knowledge of something that he as a mere mortal was unequipped to handle. 

 God knew the difference alright. That's why he warned Adam and Eve not to discover it. 

 Satan, being a fallen angle himself, also knew about it. And being a malignant sort of fellow he wished to bring the same curse on man which he had suffered himself through his own rebellion in order to harm both man and God. Is THIS "the light" which Lucifer showed to us?

 There are SOME things in this life which may be considered "relative". This does not mean that ALL things are. 

 A person can conceptualize about a thing any number of ways without altering the essence of the thing which he is thinking. 

 Good and evil are not nearly so relative as some people like to pretend. I suppose that many of them do so for ulterior reasons which are not always apparent, such as to justify some deed which they wish to do which is not normally considered acceptable. 

 I would go so far as to agree that _all men are right in their own eyes._ That does not make them right in the eyes of God. Whether a person is genuinely ignorant of some wrong is may be known only to God who is able to see the inner most workings of a man's "heart". 
 A man may even be capable of deceiving himself at times and concealing his own true motives from himself. But God knows all about his hidden agendas. 

 What criminal does a thing without having created some justification for his actions in his own mind?

 Everyone may believe themselves to be right. But the scriptures say that* it is not in a man to direct his own steps. *This is why it is necessary that we have the instructions contained in the Bible and why it is imperative for the welfare of ones own soul that he follow them as earnestly as he is able and never give them up. 

 The Muslims say that "God is one". The Jews say that "God is one". And contrary to the mumbo jumbo that Jews and others like to make about "the trinity", Christians also believe that God is one. 

 That being the case, none of these different persuasions can argue that the judgements of God emanate from more than one source. Therefore no one can argue that the moral good has any roots in that which is evil. 

  People can appeal to situation ethics in an effort to justify some wrong or make an argument to that effect. But the moral essence of right and wrong is not subject to the caprice of man whether he can honestly plead ignorance or not. 
 Adam and Eve were ignorant right up until the time they disobeyed. Then their former ignorance was no excuse for their disobedience. Nor did it serve to shield them from the natural consequences of that action. 


 We can imagine a great many scenarios where one might see "moral relativity" in them. But I would submit that the underlying foundation for the moral good is not so variable as many try to argue. 

 For example, we might consider the case where a man steals bread for his starving family a case of theft. We might judge him less harshly for this theft than we might a man who would knowingly steal another man's horse leaving him alone in the desert on foot to die when to do so was unnecessary. 

 In both cases we apply the word "theft". But we can easily distinguish the quality between the two cases and render a punishment that is more commensurate with the crime. Are we so daft that we would hang a man in both cases for the sake of preserving the rigid construction of a definition in our minds?

 Our ineptitude in processing the limitations of language and the problems inherent in communication can serve as a spring board for those who wish to use them as a means of prevarication and dissembling. But none of those deviations alter the moral spirit of justice any more than perfect justice can destroy the spirit of mercy. 

 A person may encounter dilemmas of a moral or ethical nature which leave him genuinely perplexed. But I would attribute that more to his own lack of knowledge and wisdom than to some paradox of good and evil inherent in nature. 

 The inability of a man to say with all honesty that he always knows absolutely how to rightly judge each and every situation he encounters only underscores the fact that man himself is finite and incapable of rendering perfect justice. This is no reason to assume that God is equally incapable. 

 If one can conceive of a God who is NOT lacking in either wisdom and knowledge so that he IS capable of rendering perfect judgement, then we should all take extra care before we cast judgements which are not clearly spelled out for us by the word of God himself. Even then we ought to do so cautiously and perhaps with a little fear where we are left with no other choice. 

 A Civil Judge is one job I would not want. I want to judge a man's soul even less. But I am not only permitted, it is required of me to judge whether a man's deeds are in accordance with what I know to be scriptural. 

 Christ went to people as a physician because he was ABLE to. I on the other hand must determine for my own safety whose company I choose to keep. 

 Can you see the moral difference in the two types of "judgement" involved here, even though we are speaking of God's judgement on one hand and God's admonitions to man on the other?

 You don't have to buy into _the situation ethics and moral relativism of Secular Humanism _to exercise an appropriate moral judgement. You only need a just set of scales and measurements and to follow the rules in applying them.


----------



## holston

orogenicman said:


> Holston said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll be the first to admit that arguing these kinds of points and explaining oneself fully consumes a great deal of time and space.
> This is why that so many people want clear and concise answers. They either lack the patience, do not have the time, or think it is not worth the time to listen to a thorough explanation.
> Volumes have been written on these subjects so I can scarcely be blamed for not doing them justice within this space. Even short essays necessarily leave much unsaid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the point is that we have blogs for more in-depth coverage of an issue. I really don't believe that such lengthy posts are productive on the regular forums, and are actually a bit annoying. Perhaps you could give a more concise response, and then link to a blog that you can create in the blog section for those who want a more detailed analysis.  And for the record, I think that posting lengthy discussions of God's attributes in a thread about "*Why do the God-haters persist?" *is inappropriate, and off topic.  But that's just my own opinion.
Click to expand...


 I will take your criticism under serious consideration as it was intended as good advice. 

 I will do my best to improve upon my method of expression. This will probably take some time and additional effort on my part. 

 In the meantime if what I write bothers you, just don't read it.


----------



## holston

thebrucebeat said:


> *Didn't you cum yet?*



 Spoken like BruceAlmighty. 







 Below the director of "BruceAlmighty" preaches the gospel to a rapt audience.













 I can't say what I would do, but it's obvious how BruceAlmighty would spend his time.


----------



## Marie888

Boss said:


> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.






*Romans 1:20-32
King James Version (KJV)

20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
*



.


----------



## orogenicman

> *28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;*


 
 What, like wait in traffic jams, and such?


----------



## thebrucebeat

Marie888 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Romans 1:20-32
> King James Version (KJV)
> 
> 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
> 
> 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
> 
> 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
> 
> 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
> 
> 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
> 
> 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
> 
> 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
> 
> 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
> 
> 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
> 
> 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
> 
> 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
> 
> 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
> 
> 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

You quoted 12 verses from a 2500 page book collection to show your favorite term was used once?
Well, compelling!
What do you think you have proved with your post?


----------



## thebrucebeat

holston said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Didn't you cum yet?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoken like BruceAlmighty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Below the director of "BruceAlmighty" preaches the gospel to a rapt audience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't say what I would do, but it's obvious how BruceAlmighty would spend his time.
Click to expand...


Doesn't take much to leave the "holier than thou" high road, does it?
Welcome to the real forum!
LOL!


----------



## MrMax

Boss hates god for making him only THINK that he's smarter than everyone else.


----------



## Newby

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the hell does this have to do with speaking up for the truth against ass clowns who want to lie and manipulate the facts? YES... I very often DO find myself defending Christians against your type. It does not mean I am a Christian, it just means that I really dislike lying ass clowns more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You aren't defending Christians.
> You are defending the Jesus of scripture, which you already have stated they got wrong.
> Your such a weak thinker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See here you are lying some more because you just can't help yourself. I have never said "they got it wrong" with regard to what Christians believe. I've said that I personally don't believe in the religious doctrine. They may be 100% correct, I don't know. Why don't you stop lying and manipulating everything I say and argue like a real man? If I am such a weal thinker, that shouldn't be a problem for a brainiac such as yourself. So stop being dishonest and trying to distort everything out of context so you can try and look big, *and just debate me on the merits of what I say?*
Click to expand...


He's incapable, simple as that.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Newby said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> You aren't defending Christians.
> You are defending the Jesus of scripture, which you already have stated they got wrong.
> Your such a weak thinker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See here you are lying some more because you just can't help yourself. I have never said "they got it wrong" with regard to what Christians believe. I've said that I personally don't believe in the religious doctrine. They may be 100% correct, I don't know. Why don't you stop lying and manipulating everything I say and argue like a real man? If I am such a weal thinker, that shouldn't be a problem for a brainiac such as yourself. So stop being dishonest and trying to distort everything out of context so you can try and look big, *and just debate me on the merits of what I say?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's incapable, simple as that.
Click to expand...


I directly responded to him, using his own words from this very cited post of his.
You aren't responding to the argument here, however, at all.
You are on the sidelines in a pleated skirt, cheer leading.


----------



## Newby

thebrucebeat said:


> holston said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Didn't you cum yet?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoken like BruceAlmighty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Below the director of "BruceAlmighty" preaches the gospel to a rapt audience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't say what I would do, but it's obvious how BruceAlmighty would spend his time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesn't take much to leave the "holier than thou" high road, does it?
> Welcome to the real forum!
> LOL!
Click to expand...


Jealousy... tsk, tsk...


----------



## Newby

thebrucebeat said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> See here you are lying some more because you just can't help yourself. I have never said "they got it wrong" with regard to what Christians believe. I've said that I personally don't believe in the religious doctrine. They may be 100% correct, I don't know. Why don't you stop lying and manipulating everything I say and argue like a real man? If I am such a weal thinker, that shouldn't be a problem for a brainiac such as yourself. So stop being dishonest and trying to distort everything out of context so you can try and look big, *and just debate me on the merits of what I say?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's incapable, simple as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I directly responded to him, using his own words from this very cited post of his.
> You aren't responding to the argument here, however, at all.
> You are on the sidelines in a pleated skirt, cheer leading.
Click to expand...


I'll happily be a cheerleader to Boss, he's on the winning team, or rather he is the winning team.  It's driving you crazy, so yes, I'm content being amused with that. 

You're a lot like Jake, you babble and spew words, but in the end never really say anything or make any assertions of your own that aren't based upon strawmen that you've built.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Newby said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's incapable, simple as that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I directly responded to him, using his own words from this very cited post of his.
> You aren't responding to the argument here, however, at all.
> You are on the sidelines in a pleated skirt, cheer leading.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll happily be a cheerleader to Boss, he's on the winning team, or rather he is the winning team.  It's driving you crazy, so yes, I'm content being amused with that.
> 
> You're a lot like Jake, you babble and spew words, but in the end never really say anything or make any assertions of your own that aren't based upon strawmen that you've built.
Click to expand...


Your winning team member thinks your beloved scripture contains a completely inaccurate description of the god you pretend to follow and respect.
If strawmen are built by quoting the other guy, I guess I'm guilty.


----------



## BreezeWood

> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the topic of "good and evil" let me ask this question... *If there were no evil, how could we recognize good?* Would we be able to acknowledge or comprehend a universe of only good? Or perhaps, create our own "evil" which might otherwise have been simply a lesser good? Good and evil are subjective perception. *There is no universal understanding.* When Hitler was incinerating Jews, he believed it was good. When we dropped nukes on Japan to end WWII, was that good or evil? When someone aborts a child they know will suffer a lifetime of pain and mality, is that good or evil? We all have different perceptions.
> 
> The fact that humans conceptualize good and evil is a testament to the existence of spiritual nature. It is through human spiritual awareness we are able to rationalize good and evil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *holston:* A person can conceptualize about a thing any number of ways without altering the essence of the thing which he is thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



*There is no universal understanding.*

since the reference for this thread is to God, it seems a bit lighthearted to suggest the terms of Good and Evil are not subject to a strict interpretation ... otherwise what is there to Hate. (Why do the God-haters persist?)


*It is through human spiritual awareness we are able to rationalize good and evil.*

* not everyone restricts spiritual awareness to humans as rather spiritual awareness is a universal conflict between good and evil for all living creatures ... in contrast to the Bible.


simply, it is not enough to rationalize what the two terms mean, for a Spirit to be freed the task is to conquer one to become the other - a freed Spirit can not be both simultaneously, the physiology is what enables the deliberation - it is God that determines from the outcome which Spirits will survive if even a decision is needed to be made.

conceptualization is what everyone has the ability to exercise, what is forbidden is allowing Evil to exist in a physical form and is the reason Satan is dead and any of those choosing Evil over Good will likewise perish.


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> You deny the existence of God, yet you just said he was despicable.
> 
> So you have a problem. Can't be both ways. If he doesn't exist, then he can't be despicable.
> 
> 
> 
> sure he can as already explained to you, fictional characters are as good or as evil as you wish them to be..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you admit your depiction of God as angry, evil, or whatever is not based in reality.
> 
> And you're right. The God you want doesn't exist. The real God is pure love and righteousness.
Click to expand...

false....funny how you inevitably misrepresent everything.god being god can be angry or not angry, it would be up to god to make that choice 
if god were real  and if the bible were true then god has already proven him or herself to be a capricious  deity.
that of course is only if god existed, since there is no objective, testable evidence that god does  or does not  exist.
Your declaration that there is a reaL GOD...HAS NO BASIS IN REALITY..


----------



## daws101

holston said:


> I don't think my detractors are hardly being fair returning so little for all the time I have given them.
> 
> They can either read what I have written in full and reply to the sum total of it or else they should expect no more from me.


are we self aggrandizing or whaT?


----------



## daws101

Newby said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's incapable, simple as that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I directly responded to him, using his own words from this very cited post of his.
> You aren't responding to the argument here, however, at all.
> You are on the sidelines in a pleated skirt, cheer leading.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll happily be a cheerleader to Boss, he's on the winning team, or rather he is the winning team.  It's driving you crazy, so yes, I'm content being amused with that.
> 
> You're a lot like Jake, you babble and spew words, but in the end never really say anything or make any assertions of your own that aren't based upon strawmen that you've built.
Click to expand...


----------



## koshergrl

daws101 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> sure he can as already explained to you, fictional characters are as good or as evil as you wish them to be..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you admit your depiction of God as angry, evil, or whatever is not based in reality.
> 
> And you're right. The God you want doesn't exist. The real God is pure love and righteousness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> false....funny how you inevitably misrepresent everything.god being god can be angry or not angry, it would be up to god to make that choice
> if god were real and if the bible were true then god have already proven him or herself to be a capricious deity.
> that of course is only if god existed, since there is no objective, testable evidence that god does or does not exist.
> Your declaration that there is a reaL GOD...HAS NO BASIS IN REALITY..
Click to expand...

 



What a fruit loop.


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you admit your depiction of God as angry, evil, or whatever is not based in reality.
> 
> And you're right. The God you want doesn't exist. The real God is pure love and righteousness.
> 
> 
> 
> false....funny how you inevitably misrepresent everything.god being god can be angry or not angry, it would be up to god to make that choice
> if god were real and if the bible were true then god have already proven him or herself to be a capricious deity.
> that of course is only if god existed, since there is no objective, testable evidence that god does or does not exist.
> Your declaration that there is a reaL GOD...HAS NO BASIS IN REALITY..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a fruit loop.
Click to expand...

why yes you are ,well you would be if mental illness was like a too sugary cereal.


----------



## MrMax

The only one who hates god is Boss, because god created evolution, and Bossy isn't have any of it!


----------



## Marie888

thebrucebeat said:


> Marie888 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Romans 1:20-32
> King James Version (KJV)
> 
> 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
> 
> 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
> 
> 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
> 
> 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
> 
> 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
> 
> 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
> 
> 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
> 
> 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
> 
> 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
> 
> 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
> 
> 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
> 
> 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
> 
> 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You quoted 12 verses from a 2500 page book collection to show your favorite term was used once?
> Well, compelling!
> What do you think you have proved with your post?
Click to expand...


Not my favorite term.. I never said that.
I think the whole of the chapter speaks for itself and further addresses the issue.  I only highlighted specifically in the chapter what was being addressed in this thread.  


.


----------



## BreezeWood

Marie888 said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marie888 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Romans 1:20-32
> King James Version (KJV)
> 
> 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
> 
> 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
> 
> 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
> 
> 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
> 
> 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
> 
> 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
> 
> 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
> 
> 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
> 
> 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
> 
> 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
> 
> 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
> 
> 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
> 
> 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> You quoted 12 verses from a 2500 page book collection to show your favorite term was used once?
> Well, compelling!
> What do you think you have proved with your post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not my favorite term.. *I never said that.*
> I think the whole of the chapter speaks for itself and further addresses the issue.  I only highlighted specifically in the chapter what was being addressed in this thread.
> .
Click to expand...



*I never said that.*

the post says it for you ... are your issues, and the OP the same ?

.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Marie888 said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marie888 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Romans 1:20-32
> King James Version (KJV)
> 
> 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
> 
> 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
> 
> 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
> 
> 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
> 
> 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
> 
> 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
> 
> 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
> 
> 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
> 
> 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
> 
> 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
> 
> 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
> 
> 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
> 
> 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> You quoted 12 verses from a 2500 page book collection to show your favorite term was used once?
> Well, compelling!
> What do you think you have proved with your post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not my favorite term.. I never said that.
> I think the whole of the chapter speaks for itself and further addresses the issue.  I only highlighted specifically in the chapter what was being addressed in this thread.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

See what I made magenta up above?
Are you now on the outs with the big guy too?


----------



## thanatos144

J4ust remember God haters. God loves you. It isn't his fault you all are living in sin so stop trying to blame him.


----------



## thebrucebeat

thanatos144 said:


> J4ust remember God haters. God loves you. It isn't his fault you all are living in sin so stop trying to blame him.



Isn't everyone?
Isn't that the point?
No one is without sin, no not one?


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> J4ust remember God haters. God loves you. It isn't his fault you all are living in sin so stop trying to blame him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't everyone?
> Isn't that the point?
> No one is without sin, no not one?
Click to expand...


What is your point? You just seem to relish rubbing people's noses in it. Using their faith against them to judge and condemn like some sort of demigod. Christians believe Jesus died on the cross for their sins, that God sent Jesus so man could be redeemed from sin. Even someone like you, a fallen pastor who has forsaken God, need only ask forgiveness.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> J4ust remember God haters. God loves you. It isn't his fault you all are living in sin so stop trying to blame him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't everyone?
> Isn't that the point?
> No one is without sin, no not one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is your point? You just seem to relish rubbing people's noses in it. Using their faith against them to judge and condemn like some sort of demigod. Christians believe Jesus died on the cross for their sins, that God sent Jesus so man could be redeemed from sin. Even someone like you, a fallen pastor who has forsaken God, need only ask forgiveness.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure why you respond to this particular post with those comments.  I think thebrucebeat has made much more judgmental and condemning posts.....this one was a pretty simple and pertinent group of questions.


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't everyone?
> Isn't that the point?
> No one is without sin, no not one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your point? You just seem to relish rubbing people's noses in it. Using their faith against them to judge and condemn like some sort of demigod. Christians believe Jesus died on the cross for their sins, that God sent Jesus so man could be redeemed from sin. Even someone like you, a fallen pastor who has forsaken God, need only ask forgiveness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure why you respond to this particular post with those comments.  I think thebrucebeat has made much more judgmental and condemning posts.....this one was a pretty simple and pertinent group of questions.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure why you respond to me responding to this particular post... oh, wait, yes I do... it's because you think you're important. Since you lack a god, you've simply put yourself in charge of judgement and condemnation. You and your butt-buddy brucey have done nothing but distort context and manipulate words so you can denigrate others. This is supposed to compensate for your lack of intellectual ability, but it doesn't. 

Yep... It was a group of questions, but they weren't pertinent, they were rhetorical and smug.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is your point? You just seem to relish rubbing people's noses in it. Using their faith against them to judge and condemn like some sort of demigod. Christians believe Jesus died on the cross for their sins, that God sent Jesus so man could be redeemed from sin. Even someone like you, a fallen pastor who has forsaken God, need only ask forgiveness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure why you respond to this particular post with those comments.  I think thebrucebeat has made much more judgmental and condemning posts.....this one was a pretty simple and pertinent group of questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure why you respond to me responding to this particular post... oh, wait, yes I do... it's because you think you're important. Since you lack a god, you've simply put yourself in charge of judgement and condemnation. You and your butt-buddy brucey have done nothing but distort context and manipulate words so you can denigrate others. This is supposed to compensate for your lack of intellectual ability, but it doesn't.
> 
> Yep... It was a group of questions, but they weren't pertinent, they were rhetorical and smug.
Click to expand...


The OP is just as vacuous as ever!


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> J4ust remember God haters. God loves you. It isn't his fault you all are living in sin so stop trying to blame him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't everyone?
> Isn't that the point?
> No one is without sin, no not one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is your point? You just seem to relish rubbing people's noses in it. Using their faith against them to judge and condemn like some sort of demigod. Christians believe Jesus died on the cross for their sins, that God sent Jesus so man could be redeemed from sin. Even someone like you, a fallen pastor who has forsaken God, need only ask forgiveness.
Click to expand...

Ironic, as you have stated you don't believe that either!
LOL!
How is asking people to take their own holy book seriously "rubbing their nose in it"?
Perhaps if they put their nose in it once in awhile they would know what it says.
Why am I the bad guy for pointing out the logical disconnect scripturally when a believer goes off the rails?
The fact that someone who doesn't hold the scriptures as the inerrant word of god knows them better than they do and calls them on their separation from clear teachings is what gets them bent out of shape.
They can despise the messenger, but when they despise the message they begin to defecate where they ingest their meals.


----------



## jillian

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> J4ust remember God haters. God loves you. It isn't his fault you all are living in sin so stop trying to blame him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't everyone?
> Isn't that the point?
> No one is without sin, no not one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is your point? You just seem to relish rubbing people's noses in it. Using their faith against them to judge and condemn like some sort of demigod. Christians believe Jesus died on the cross for their sins, that God sent Jesus so man could be redeemed from sin. Even someone like you, a fallen pastor who has forsaken God, need only ask forgiveness.
Click to expand...


seems you're the judgmental one.

and you do realize not everyone who believes in G-d believes a jewish rabbi was the messiah.

right?


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is your point? You just seem to relish rubbing people's noses in it. Using their faith against them to judge and condemn like some sort of demigod. Christians believe Jesus died on the cross for their sins, that God sent Jesus so man could be redeemed from sin. Even someone like you, a fallen pastor who has forsaken God, need only ask forgiveness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure why you respond to this particular post with those comments.  I think thebrucebeat has made much more judgmental and condemning posts.....this one was a pretty simple and pertinent group of questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure why you respond to me responding to this particular post... oh, wait, yes I do... it's because you think you're important. Since you lack a god, you've simply put yourself in charge of judgement and condemnation. You and your butt-buddy brucey have done nothing but distort context and manipulate words so you can denigrate others. This is supposed to compensate for your lack of intellectual ability, but it doesn't.
> 
> Yep... It was a group of questions, but they weren't pertinent, they were rhetorical and smug.
Click to expand...

You are posting on a public forum. Anyone can respond to anything they like, and you have done exactly the same on many occasions. 
Nothing was taken out of context here.
If you think so show it. You use "context" as your get out of jail free card constantly, but you conveniently never point out that actually occurred. You think the simpletons that follow you will think you've really shown us up, when in fact you hide behind that line every single time you get embarrassed and wish to bail.
Don't worry. The simpletons don't notice. They don't want to.
No words were manipulated.
If you think so, show it.
My questions pointed out a very basic and fundamental part of the Christian theology that the poster was ignoring. 
He was making an us/them out of being a sinner. The faith does exactly the opposite.
Any disagreement on that point?


----------



## thanatos144

Just saying God loves you drive some of you mad. This says something 

tapatalk post


----------



## thebrucebeat

thanatos144 said:


> Just saying God loves you drive some of you mad. This says something
> 
> tapatalk post



A non-response is as good as a denial.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is your point? You just seem to relish rubbing people's noses in it. Using their faith against them to judge and condemn like some sort of demigod. Christians believe Jesus died on the cross for their sins, that God sent Jesus so man could be redeemed from sin. Even someone like you, a fallen pastor who has forsaken God, need only ask forgiveness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure why you respond to this particular post with those comments.  I think thebrucebeat has made much more judgmental and condemning posts.....this one was a pretty simple and pertinent group of questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure why you respond to me responding to this particular post... oh, wait, yes I do... it's because you think you're important. Since you lack a god, you've simply put yourself in charge of judgement and condemnation. You and your butt-buddy brucey have done nothing but distort context and manipulate words so you can denigrate others. This is supposed to compensate for your lack of intellectual ability, but it doesn't.
> 
> Yep... It was a group of questions, but they weren't pertinent, they were rhetorical and smug.
Click to expand...


What are you even talking about?  

Where did I 'put myself in charge of judgement and condemnation'?  I gave my opinion on your post.  You've got a problem with that?  Stop posting on a public message board or put me on ignore.  Otherwise you'll just have to deal with the possibility of me responding to something you say.  

Oh, and distorting context and manipulating words so you can denigrate others is pretty much your theme in this thread.


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure why you respond to this particular post with those comments.  I think thebrucebeat has made much more judgmental and condemning posts.....this one was a pretty simple and pertinent group of questions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure why you respond to me responding to this particular post... oh, wait, yes I do... it's because you think you're important. Since you lack a god, you've simply put yourself in charge of judgement and condemnation. You and your butt-buddy brucey have done nothing but distort context and manipulate words so you can denigrate others. This is supposed to compensate for your lack of intellectual ability, but it doesn't.
> 
> Yep... It was a group of questions, but they weren't pertinent, they were rhetorical and smug.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are posting on a public forum. Anyone can respond to anything they like, and you have done exactly the same on many occasions.
> Nothing was taken out of context here.
> If you think so show it. You use "context" as your get out of jail free card constantly, but you conveniently never point out that actually occurred. You think the simpletons that follow you will think you've really shown us up, when in fact you hide behind that line every single time you get embarrassed and wish to bail.
> Don't worry. The simpletons don't notice. They don't want to.
> No words were manipulated.
> If you think so, show it.
> *My questions pointed out a very basic and fundamental part of the Christian theology that the poster was ignoring.*
> He was making an us/them out of being a sinner. The faith does exactly the opposite.
> Any disagreement on that point?
Click to expand...


No it didn't and the poster didn't ignore anything. You're a jackass who doesn't know how to comprehend things in context, or you deliberately take things out of context to appear "smart" for others. 

I'll let the poster defend himself on this, but my understanding of Christians is that they believe Jesus died for their sins and if you believe in Jesus, you're forgiven for sin. Well, that disqualifies you because you're not a Christian and don't believe in Jesus... ergo: You are a sinner who hasn't been forgiven for his sins.


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure why you respond to this particular post with those comments.  I think thebrucebeat has made much more judgmental and condemning posts.....this one was a pretty simple and pertinent group of questions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure why you respond to me responding to this particular post... oh, wait, yes I do... it's because you think you're important. Since you lack a god, you've simply put yourself in charge of judgement and condemnation. You and your butt-buddy brucey have done nothing but distort context and manipulate words so you can denigrate others. This is supposed to compensate for your lack of intellectual ability, but it doesn't.
> 
> Yep... It was a group of questions, but they weren't pertinent, they were rhetorical and smug.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you even talking about?
> 
> Where did I 'put myself in charge of judgement and condemnation'?  I gave my opinion on your post.  You've got a problem with that?  Stop posting on a public message board or put me on ignore.  Otherwise *you'll just have to deal with the possibility of me responding to something you say.*
> 
> Oh, and distorting context and manipulating words so you can denigrate others is pretty much your theme in this thread.
Click to expand...


And you'll have to deal with me doing the same.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure why you respond to me responding to this particular post... oh, wait, yes I do... it's because you think you're important. Since you lack a god, you've simply put yourself in charge of judgement and condemnation. You and your butt-buddy brucey have done nothing but distort context and manipulate words so you can denigrate others. This is supposed to compensate for your lack of intellectual ability, but it doesn't.
> 
> Yep... It was a group of questions, but they weren't pertinent, they were rhetorical and smug.
> 
> 
> 
> You are posting on a public forum. Anyone can respond to anything they like, and you have done exactly the same on many occasions.
> Nothing was taken out of context here.
> If you think so show it. You use "context" as your get out of jail free card constantly, but you conveniently never point out that actually occurred. You think the simpletons that follow you will think you've really shown us up, when in fact you hide behind that line every single time you get embarrassed and wish to bail.
> Don't worry. The simpletons don't notice. They don't want to.
> No words were manipulated.
> If you think so, show it.
> *My questions pointed out a very basic and fundamental part of the Christian theology that the poster was ignoring.*
> He was making an us/them out of being a sinner. The faith does exactly the opposite.
> Any disagreement on that point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it didn't and the poster didn't ignore anything. You're a jackass who doesn't know how to comprehend things in context, or you deliberately take things out of context to appear "smart" for others.
> 
> I'll let the poster defend himself on this, but my understanding of Christians is that they believe Jesus died for their sins and if you believe in Jesus, you're forgiven for sin. Well, that disqualifies you because you're not a Christian and don't believe in Jesus... ergo: You are a sinner who hasn't been forgiven for his sins.
Click to expand...

No one is without sin. No not one.
The Christian may be forgiven, but he inescapably lives in it. The need for forgiveness never ends.
Way to let the poster defend himself!
LOL!
The return of "context", your all-purpose lean-to shelter in a storm!
LOL!


----------



## thanatos144

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are posting on a public forum. Anyone can respond to anything they like, and you have done exactly the same on many occasions.
> Nothing was taken out of context here.
> If you think so show it. You use "context" as your get out of jail free card constantly, but you conveniently never point out that actually occurred. You think the simpletons that follow you will think you've really shown us up, when in fact you hide behind that line every single time you get embarrassed and wish to bail.
> Don't worry. The simpletons don't notice. They don't want to.
> No words were manipulated.
> If you think so, show it.
> *My questions pointed out a very basic and fundamental part of the Christian theology that the poster was ignoring.*
> He was making an us/them out of being a sinner. The faith does exactly the opposite.
> Any disagreement on that point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it didn't and the poster didn't ignore anything. You're a jackass who doesn't know how to comprehend things in context, or you deliberately take things out of context to appear "smart" for others.
> 
> I'll let the poster defend himself on this, but my understanding of Christians is that they believe Jesus died for their sins and if you believe in Jesus, you're forgiven for sin. Well, that disqualifies you because you're not a Christian and don't believe in Jesus... ergo: You are a sinner who hasn't been forgiven for his sins.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is without sin. No not one.
> The Christian may be forgiven, but he inescapably lives in it. The need for forgiveness never ends.
> Way to let the poster defend himself!
> LOL!
> The return of "context", your all-purpose lean-to shelter in a storm!
> LOL!
Click to expand...

Unlike you most Christians dont revel in it and blame God for their own weakness.


----------



## thebrucebeat

thanatos144 said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it didn't and the poster didn't ignore anything. You're a jackass who doesn't know how to comprehend things in context, or you deliberately take things out of context to appear "smart" for others.
> 
> I'll let the poster defend himself on this, but my understanding of Christians is that they believe Jesus died for their sins and if you believe in Jesus, you're forgiven for sin. Well, that disqualifies you because you're not a Christian and don't believe in Jesus... ergo: You are a sinner who hasn't been forgiven for his sins.
> 
> 
> 
> No one is without sin. No not one.
> The Christian may be forgiven, but he inescapably lives in it. The need for forgiveness never ends.
> Way to let the poster defend himself!
> LOL!
> The return of "context", your all-purpose lean-to shelter in a storm!
> LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unlike you most Christians dont revel in it and blame God for their own weakness.
Click to expand...


Please point out where I have made that case.
Don't forget to use the quote function.
At least this confirms your post was an ignorant one.


----------



## HUGGY

thanatos144 said:


> J4ust remember God haters. God loves you. It isn't his fault you all are living in sin so stop trying to blame him.



Just curious...  Do you make a habit of remembering what others tell you to?  Even if it appears useless information?  God does not exist so it would be a waste of time "hating" a figment of YOUR imagination.  All this energy and time invested in make believe is foolish.

I can only speak for me but I tend to ignore the advice from fools.

Worrying about if YOUR make believe diety loves me or hates me or is indifferent compounds the foolishness.

I have some "advice" for you.  I have gone more than 50 years not caring about any relationship with any "higher power" and the effect on me for this lack of interest is zero.  

Since this is the only time you have I suggest you and others do not waste it.

There is no payoff in the scam.  There isn't even dissappointment unfortunately because there is nothing when you die.  It would be more just if when you take your last breath you would get the bad news and just for that instant you could wake up and share your surprise but that isn't how it works.   

It really is too bad no one can warn off this foolish waste of time.


----------



## Boss

HUGGY said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> J4ust remember God haters. God loves you. It isn't his fault you all are living in sin so stop trying to blame him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just curious...  Do you make a habit of remembering what others tell you to?  Even if it appears useless information?  God does not exist so it would be a waste of time "hating" a figment of YOUR imagination.  All this energy and time invested in make believe is foolish.
> 
> I can only speak for me but I tend to ignore the advice from fools.
> 
> Worrying about if YOUR make believe diety loves me or hates me or is indifferent compounds the foolishness.
> 
> I have some "advice" for you.  I have gone more than 50 years not caring about any relationship with any "higher power" and the effect on me for this lack of interest is zero.
> 
> Since this is the only time you have I suggest you and others do not waste it.
> 
> There is no payoff in the scam.  There isn't even dissappointment unfortunately because there is nothing when you die.  It would be more just if when you take your last breath you would get the bad news and just for that instant you could wake up and share your surprise but that isn't how it works.
> 
> It really is too bad no one can warn off this foolish waste of time.
Click to expand...


Are you aware of how utterly insignificant your 50 years are to eternity? Or even the existence of your monkey-like species and it's Type-0 civilizations? You mean nothing, your opinions and advice mean nothing. You have no way of knowing what happens after you die, so why do you pretend to know? If you think it's a foolish waste of time, why do you waste so much time doing battle against it? Looks to me like the effect on you has been irrational idiocy. You make arguments you cannot support and spend your time fighting something you don't believe is real. 

You don't believe you have a soul or spirit. That's fine, it's your business. It must also mean that you are incapable of love, compassion, sympathy, empathy, and remorse. These are merely superficial attributes the mind tricks itself into believing and you're far too smart to believe in such nonsense. Why waste your time believing these are anything more than mind games? All that really matters is primal instinct, what you can take and defend. So... why are you here arguing with the other gorillas about nonsense you don't believe in?


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> J4ust remember God haters. God loves you. It isn't his fault you all are living in sin so stop trying to blame him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just curious...  Do you make a habit of remembering what others tell you to?  Even if it appears useless information?  God does not exist so it would be a waste of time "hating" a figment of YOUR imagination.  All this energy and time invested in make believe is foolish.
> 
> I can only speak for me but I tend to ignore the advice from fools.
> 
> Worrying about if YOUR make believe diety loves me or hates me or is indifferent compounds the foolishness.
> 
> I have some "advice" for you.  I have gone more than 50 years not caring about any relationship with any "higher power" and the effect on me for this lack of interest is zero.
> 
> Since this is the only time you have I suggest you and others do not waste it.
> 
> There is no payoff in the scam.  There isn't even dissappointment unfortunately because there is nothing when you die.  It would be more just if when you take your last breath you would get the bad news and just for that instant you could wake up and share your surprise but that isn't how it works.
> 
> It really is too bad no one can warn off this foolish waste of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you aware of how utterly insignificant your 50 years are to eternity? Or even the existence of your monkey-like species and it's Type-0 civilizations? You mean nothing, your opinions and advice mean nothing. You have no way of knowing what happens after you die, so why do you pretend to know? If you think it's a foolish waste of time, why do you waste so much time doing battle against it? Looks to me like the effect on you has been irrational idiocy. You make arguments you cannot support and spend your time fighting something you don't believe is real.
> You don't believe you have a soul or spirit. That's fine, it's your business. It must also mean that you are incapable of love, compassion, sympathy, empathy, and remorse. These are merely superficial attributes the mind tricks itself into believing and you're far too smart to believe in such nonsense. Why waste your time believing these are anything more than mind games? All that really matters is primal instinct, what you can take and defend. So... why are you here arguing with the other gorillas about nonsense you don't believe in?
Click to expand...


The red portion is exactly what you do on these threads. Precisely what you do.
The second paragraph you make all kinds of unfounded and unsupported extrapolations, trying to relate them back to a soul connected to a spirit. That is not the sole explanation for the traits you list, but you make the unfounded criteria for them an absolute.
You argue about things you don't believe in every single day.
Why do YOU do it?
That's Entertainment!


----------



## Boss

> The red portion is exactly what you do on these threads. Precisely what you do.
> The second paragraph you make all kinds of unfounded and unsupported extrapolations, trying to relate them back to a soul connected to a spirit. That is not the sole explanation for the traits you list, but you make the unfounded criteria for them an absolute.
> You argue about things you don't believe in every single day.
> Why do YOU do it?
> That's Entertainment!



Brucey, I'm sorry but I'm not seeing anything in the OP or topic that pertains to what I do or your opinion about how well I've done at establishing my arguments and defending my viewpoints. According to the rules for level 2 forums, your posts must contain material subject to the topic, and yours repeatedly do not. I'm not sure if the moderators are just giving you a pass or trying to cut you some slack, but it's getting really old. I'm expected to obey the rules and stay on topic here, and I try my best to maintain composure and do so, but it gets really difficult to ignore the persistent flames and harassment. USMB has a flame board, and you are welcome to go start a thread there and ridicule my posting style all you like, that's what it's there for. This board is for discussing the OP and topic, not hurling flurries of insults and denigrations. 

*The second paragraph you make all kinds of unfounded and unsupported extrapolations...*

Let me give you a little tip on reading my posts... Whenever a leading sentence tweaks your emotions and you feel that tingling impulse to retort, just stop yourself for a moment and continue reading the next sentences. Generally, I will support whatever extrapolation has been made. If I somehow miss something, then you can use the quote feature and ask me specifically about it. I'll be happy to explain in detail. In this case, I have no idea of what you're talking about because I specifically supported my extrapolations. 

*That is not the sole explanation for the traits you list...*

Well, I believe it is. You see, your soul and spirit control your human conscience, and that's what drives those traits or emotions mentioned. Without soul or spirit, your conscience can only rely on primal instinct, there is no other rationale. We observe the animal kingdom, predators don't have empathy for their prey. When female gorillas in the wild come into heat, the alpha male mates with the female without regard for "love" or "consent" from the female. They are driven by a conscience that is not guided by soul or spirit but by primal instinct.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> The red portion is exactly what you do on these threads. Precisely what you do.
> The second paragraph you make all kinds of unfounded and unsupported extrapolations, trying to relate them back to a soul connected to a spirit. That is not the sole explanation for the traits you list, but you make the unfounded criteria for them an absolute.
> You argue about things you don't believe in every single day.
> Why do YOU do it?
> That's Entertainment!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brucey, I'm sorry but I'm not seeing anything in the OP or topic that pertains to what I do or your opinion about how well I've done at establishing my arguments and defending my viewpoints. According to the rules for level 2 forums, your posts must contain material subject to the topic, and yours repeatedly do not. I'm not sure if the moderators are just giving you a pass or trying to cut you some slack, but it's getting really old. I'm expected to obey the rules and stay on topic here, and I try my best to maintain composure and do so, but it gets really difficult to ignore the persistent flames and harassment. USMB has a flame board, and you are welcome to go start a thread there and ridicule my posting style all you like, that's what it's there for. This board is for discussing the OP and topic, not hurling flurries of insults and denigrations.
> 
> *The second paragraph you make all kinds of unfounded and unsupported extrapolations...*
> 
> Let me give you a little tip on reading my posts... Whenever a leading sentence tweaks your emotions and you feel that tingling impulse to retort, just stop yourself for a moment and continue reading the next sentences. Generally, I will support whatever extrapolation has been made. If I somehow miss something, then you can use the quote feature and ask me specifically about it. I'll be happy to explain in detail. In this case, I have no idea of what you're talking about because I specifically supported my extrapolations.
> 
> *That is not the sole explanation for the traits you list...*
> 
> Well, I believe it is. You see, your soul and spirit control your human conscience, and that's what drives those traits or emotions mentioned. Without soul or spirit, your conscience can only rely on primal instinct, there is no other rationale. We observe the animal kingdom, predators don't have empathy for their prey. When female gorillas in the wild come into heat, the alpha male mates with the female without regard for "love" or "consent" from the female. They are driven by a conscience that is not guided by soul or spirit but by primal instinct.
Click to expand...


Read the red part.
This is the "support" of the extrapolations you have made.
That is why I called them unsupported.
Because they are.
Simple really.
This all relates to the topic, just like they did in my last post.
The blue part above is one of the most hilarious of your posts to date. If by composure you mean descending to invective and vulgarity and schoolyard tirades against people, well, we will have to agree we have different standards for "composure".
LOL!
Methinks the lady doth protest too much.


----------



## Boss

*"Without soul or spirit, your conscience can only rely on primal instinct, there is no other rationale. We observe the animal kingdom, predators don't have empathy for their prey. When female gorillas in the wild come into heat, the alpha male mates with the female without regard for "love" or "consent" from the female. They are driven by a conscience that is not guided by soul or spirit but by primal instinct."*

Again... Read beyond whatever tweaks your melons into emotively responding to me, and you will find your answers. Your biggest problem is, you start reading my post and you hit a sentence that sets you off and then you immediately start emoting. If you'd just keep reading on, you'd see that I am explaining what I said. You are always free to disagree with my opinions, but you can't state that I am "wrong" until you have presented something to show that I am wrong. Your unfounded opinion doesn't trump my supported opinion.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> *"Without soul or spirit, your conscience can only rely on primal instinct, there is no other rationale. We observe the animal kingdom, predators don't have empathy for their prey. When female gorillas in the wild come into heat, the alpha male mates with the female without regard for "love" or "consent" from the female. They are driven by a conscience that is not guided by soul or spirit but by primal instinct."*
> 
> Again... Read beyond whatever tweaks your melons into emotively responding to me, and you will find your answers. Your biggest problem is, you start reading my post and you hit a sentence that sets you off and then you immediately start emoting. If you'd just keep reading on, you'd see that I am explaining what I said. You are always free to disagree with my opinions, but you can't state that I am "wrong" until you have presented something to show that I am wrong. Your unfounded opinion doesn't trump my supported opinion.



You are hilarious.
Where was my emotional outburst?
That is clearly your department, Bust.
You don't support your opinion. You restate it and then say it is the "only rationale". You don't support it in any way, you simply say there is no other explanation other than yours.
All you have shown is that whatever causes love or empathy, etc., does not exist in large degree in the animal kingdom.
So what?
That doesn't have the first thing to do with showing why it is  unique to humans. You make some absurd causal leap and say "See!".
If you think this is "support", I would have loved to have read your thesis.
How many crayons did you go through writing it?
I'm sure you think you have supported your opinion. I really do. I don't think you think well enough to understand what it means to support your opinion.
"I say so" is not support.
It's masturbation.


----------



## Boss

> All you have shown is that whatever causes love or empathy, etc., does not exist in large degree in the animal kingdom.
> So what?
> That doesn't have the first thing to do with showing why it is unique to humans.



Well I think it does until you can show some evidence it doesn't. 

If you don't believe you have a soul or spirit, what guides your conscience? On what basis are you establishing love, compassion, empathy, sympathy, apathy, and all other emotional attributes governed by the conscious mind? If it's not through your soul and spirit which you don't believe exists, it has to be through primal instinct and self-established parameters of a completely unaccountable personal morality. There can't be another rational explanation as far as I am aware. If you can come up with one, present it and let's discuss it's possibility. As it stands, you just want to bow up and reject what I have to say and call me a bunch of names. That's not a debate. And you're certainly not "winning" one.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> All you have shown is that whatever causes love or empathy, etc., does not exist in large degree in the animal kingdom.
> So what?
> That doesn't have the first thing to do with showing why it is unique to humans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I think it does until you can show some evidence it doesn't.
> 
> If you don't believe you have a soul or spirit, what guides your conscience? On what basis are you establishing love, compassion, empathy, sympathy, apathy, and all other emotional attributes governed by the conscious mind? If it's not through your soul and spirit which you don't believe exists, it has to be through primal instinct and self-established parameters of a completely unaccountable personal morality. There can't be another rational explanation as far as I am aware. If you can come up with one, present it and let's discuss it's possibility. As it stands, you just want to bow up and reject what I have to say and call me a bunch of names. That's not a debate. And you're certainly not "winning" one.
Click to expand...

See the red above.
Same argument as last time.
Man has evolved from a tribal mentality to a cultural one and the need to coexist and find ways to live together without continual fighting in all corners to the destruction of itself leads to a natural evolution of all the qualities you suggest are from some external source and our connection to it.
Most of this is very, very elementary psychology. First year stuff.
You are free to disagree, but there is another possibility, so now you have another way to go, so your "my way or the highway" routine can be retired for the imbecilic ego explosion that it is.


----------



## thanatos144

Today is the day we remember the resurrection.  Happy Easter all even to those of the religion of atheism 

tapatalk post


----------



## jillian

thanatos144 said:


> Today is the day we remember the resurrection.  Happy Easter all even to those of the religion of atheism
> 
> tapatalk post



that's nice of you.

but atheism isn't a religion.


----------



## thanatos144

jillian said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today is the day we remember the resurrection.  Happy Easter all even to those of the religion of atheism
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that's nice of you.
> 
> but atheism isn't a religion.
Click to expand...

Of course it is. Otherwise they wouldnt preach as much about it 


tapatalk post


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All you have shown is that whatever causes love or empathy, etc., does not exist in large degree in the animal kingdom.
> So what?
> That doesn't have the first thing to do with showing why it is unique to humans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I think it does until you can show some evidence it doesn't.
> 
> If you don't believe you have a soul or spirit, what guides your conscience? On what basis are you establishing love, compassion, empathy, sympathy, apathy, and all other emotional attributes governed by the conscious mind? If it's not through your soul and spirit which you don't believe exists, it has to be through primal instinct and self-established parameters of a completely unaccountable personal morality. There can't be another rational explanation as far as I am aware. If you can come up with one, present it and let's discuss it's possibility. As it stands, you just want to bow up and reject what I have to say and call me a bunch of names. That's not a debate. And you're certainly not "winning" one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See the red above.
> Same argument as last time.
> Man has evolved from a tribal mentality to a cultural one and the need to coexist and find ways to live together without continual fighting in all corners to the destruction of itself leads to a natural evolution of all the qualities you suggest are from some external source and our connection to it.
> Most of this is very, very elementary psychology. First year stuff.
> You are free to disagree, but there is another possibility, so now you have another way to go, so your "my way or the highway" routine can be retired for the imbecilic ego explosion that it is.
Click to expand...


You're not making an argument, you are highlighting in red where I state that I believe something. Are you arguing that I can't believe something?  

*Man has evolved from a tribal mentality to a cultural one and the need to coexist and find ways to live together without continual fighting in all corners to the destruction of itself leads to a natural evolution of all the qualities you suggest are from some external source and our connection to it.*

But man hasn't ever found a way to coexist and live together without continual fighting in all corners to the destruction of self, it still goes on today. If man no longer fought and destroyed each other, you might have a valid point, but that's simply not what evidence shows. So this is not what has caused these qualities in man because your premise is invalid. Man has simply not evolved in that regard, we still fight and kill each other, furthermore, with the capability and capacity of fighting and killing more people than we've ever before imagined. 

You have simply not explained what drives human consciousness. I believe it is our spirit and soul, but you don't believe those exist. So I am waiting to discover what you believe does so? The only other thing I can rationalize is self-established parameters of a completely unaccountable personal morality. Are you at a loss for an explanation, or what?


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I think it does until you can show some evidence it doesn't.
> 
> If you don't believe you have a soul or spirit, what guides your conscience? On what basis are you establishing love, compassion, empathy, sympathy, apathy, and all other emotional attributes governed by the conscious mind? If it's not through your soul and spirit which you don't believe exists, it has to be through primal instinct and self-established parameters of a completely unaccountable personal morality. There can't be another rational explanation as far as I am aware. If you can come up with one, present it and let's discuss it's possibility. As it stands, you just want to bow up and reject what I have to say and call me a bunch of names. That's not a debate. And you're certainly not "winning" one.
> 
> 
> 
> See the red above.
> Same argument as last time.
> Man has evolved from a tribal mentality to a cultural one and the need to coexist and find ways to live together without continual fighting in all corners to the destruction of itself leads to a natural evolution of all the qualities you suggest are from some external source and our connection to it.
> Most of this is very, very elementary psychology. First year stuff.
> You are free to disagree, but there is another possibility, so now you have another way to go, so your "my way or the highway" routine can be retired for the imbecilic ego explosion that it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not making an argument, you are highlighting in red where I state that I believe something. Are you arguing that I can't believe something?
> 
> *Man has evolved from a tribal mentality to a cultural one and the need to coexist and find ways to live together without continual fighting in all corners to the destruction of itself leads to a natural evolution of all the qualities you suggest are from some external source and our connection to it.*
> 
> But man hasn't ever found a way to coexist and live together without continual fighting in all corners to the destruction of self, it still goes on today. If man no longer fought and destroyed each other, you might have a valid point, but that's simply not what evidence shows. So this is not what has caused these qualities in man because your premise is invalid. Man has simply not evolved in that regard, we still fight and kill each other, furthermore, with the capability and capacity of fighting and killing more people than we've ever before imagined.
> 
> You have simply not explained what drives human consciousness. I believe it is our spirit and soul, but you don't believe those exist. So I am waiting to discover what you believe does so? The only other thing I can rationalize is self-established parameters of a completely unaccountable personal morality. Are you at a loss for an explanation, or what?
Click to expand...


So you think civilization has self-destructed already? You think we haven't come up with ways to survive with each other for the most part? Is your neighborhood in ruins?
My building is still standing. My town has a working government. 
Man has evolved as a societal animal. People work together. They have done it in larger and larger iterations over the course of time, and it most certainly has created the rise of the traits you name.
Did U of A teach the spirit world in the doctrinal program?
If you had taken psychology (I mean actually studied it) none of what I am saying would be new territory for you.
Here's an article you might enjoy. It's from Psychology Today.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-athletes-way/201310/the-neuroscience-empathy

"In a study published in the Journal of Neuroscience on October 9, 2013, Max Planck researchers identified that the tendency to be egocentric is innate for human beings &#8211; but that a part of your brain recognizes a lack of empathy and autocorrects. This specific part of your brain is called the the right supramarginal gyrus. When this brain region doesn't function properly&#8212;or when we have to make particularly quick decisions&#8212;the researchers found one&#8217;s ability for empathy is dramatically reduced. This area of the brain helps us to distinguish our own emotional state from that of other people and is responsible for empathy and compassion."

Perhaps this is what is wrong with you. Your brain doesn't function properly. Your right supramarginal gyrus is damaged.


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> So you think civilization has self-destructed already?



Civilizations have certainly self-destructed more times than I can list here.



> You think we haven't come up with ways to survive with each other for the most part? Is your neighborhood in ruins?



Mostly through our spiritually-driven conscience. But what does it have to do with you presenting your rationale for what drives human conscience other than our soul and spirit? You are trying to use circular reasoning here, and you know that isn't going to fly.  



> My building is still standing. My town has a working government.



I suspect your town still has people with souls and spiritually-driven conscience. 



> Man has evolved as a societal animal. People work together. They have done it in larger and larger iterations over the course of time, and it most certainly has created the rise of the traits you name.



We're not arguing whether the traits exist, we're arguing what drives them, where they come from, how we determine them. I say it's through our soul and spirit which is spiritually connected to something greater than self of which we are accountable. You argue that doesn't exist but you won't define what drives our conscience. 

As for the rest of your insult-filled tantrum, I am going to ignore it because it has nothing to do with this topic.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I think it does until you can show some evidence it doesn't.
> 
> If you don't believe you have a soul or spirit, what guides your conscience? On what basis are you establishing love, compassion, empathy, sympathy, apathy, and all other emotional attributes governed by the conscious mind? If it's not through your soul and spirit which you don't believe exists, it has to be through primal instinct and self-established parameters of a completely unaccountable personal morality. There can't be another rational explanation as far as I am aware. If you can come up with one, present it and let's discuss it's possibility. As it stands, you just want to bow up and reject what I have to say and call me a bunch of names. That's not a debate. And you're certainly not "winning" one.
> 
> 
> 
> See the red above.
> Same argument as last time.
> Man has evolved from a tribal mentality to a cultural one and the need to coexist and find ways to live together without continual fighting in all corners to the destruction of itself leads to a natural evolution of all the qualities you suggest are from some external source and our connection to it.
> Most of this is very, very elementary psychology. First year stuff.
> You are free to disagree, but there is another possibility, so now you have another way to go, so your "my way or the highway" routine can be retired for the imbecilic ego explosion that it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not making an argument, you are highlighting in red where I state that I believe something. Are you arguing that I can't believe something?
> 
> *Man has evolved from a tribal mentality to a cultural one and the need to coexist and find ways to live together without continual fighting in all corners to the destruction of itself leads to a natural evolution of all the qualities you suggest are from some external source and our connection to it.*
> 
> But man hasn't ever found a way to coexist and live together without continual fighting in all corners to the destruction of self, it still goes on today. If man no longer fought and destroyed each other, you might have a valid point, but that's simply not what evidence shows. So this is not what has caused these qualities in man because your premise is invalid. Man has simply not evolved in that regard, we still fight and kill each other, furthermore, with the capability and capacity of fighting and killing more people than we've ever before imagined.
> 
> You have simply not explained what drives human consciousness. I believe it is our spirit and soul, but you don't believe those exist. So I am waiting to discover what you believe does so? The only other thing I can rationalize is self-established parameters of a completely unaccountable personal morality. Are you at a loss for an explanation, or what?
Click to expand...


You toss aroud terms such as spirits and souls, yet youre unable to define these terms without resorting to silly retreats to bizarre and ludicrous sidesteps and waffles.
You have no explanation for "spirits" or "souls" because the claims are undemonstrated and without merit. Obviously, you can describe no properties and characteristics for that which does not exist.

On the other hand, I can explain the phenomenon of _personality_ and where that comes from. The human sense of self is a higher brain function and it's seen in comparably lesser degrees in lesser animals. Not surprisingly, humans are not the only creatures with a sense of "self"). This clearly demonstrates that "selfhood" is a natural phenomenon linked to higher brain functions. Or, are you going to suggest that your gods have made monkeys and men with a spirit or soul each?

Personality is a phenomenon of the brain and can be directly traced and measured by way of chemical reactions in the brain. Remove sections (or damage sections), of the brain or change the way the brain operates with psychoactive drugs and the "self" changes as well.

All the mumbo-jumbo you spew about spirits and souls is nonsense because those spirits or souls cannot override damaging impact or chemical alteration to the brain and the change in personality that attends those.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you think civilization has self-destructed already?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Civilizations have certainly self-destructed more times than I can list here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think we haven't come up with ways to survive with each other for the most part? Is your neighborhood in ruins?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mostly through our spiritually-driven conscience. But what does it have to do with you presenting your rationale for what drives human conscience other than our soul and spirit? You are trying to use circular reasoning here, and you know that isn't going to fly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My building is still standing. My town has a working government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suspect your town still has people with souls and spiritually-driven conscience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Man has evolved as a societal animal. People work together. They have done it in larger and larger iterations over the course of time, and it most certainly has created the rise of the traits you name.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're not arguing whether the traits exist, we're arguing what drives them, where they come from, how we determine them. I say it's through our soul and spirit which is spiritually connected to something greater than self of which we are accountable. You argue that doesn't exist but you won't define what drives our conscience.
> 
> As for the rest of your insult-filled tantrum, I am going to ignore it because it has nothing to do with this topic.
Click to expand...


By insult filled tantrum, are you referring to the peer reviewed article that is cited in the Psychology Today article that you chose to completely ignore, in spite of it being an example of what your "peers" have discovered about the issue?
Never mind.
What would those psychology clowns know anyway, right?
They don't know about souls and spirits and stuff.
If only they believed, you could show them the evidence!


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> By insult filled tantrum, are you referring to the peer reviewed article that is cited in the Psychology Today article that you chose to completely ignore, in spite of it being an example of what your "peers" have discovered about the issue?
> Never mind.
> What would those psychology clowns know anyway, right?
> They don't know about souls and spirits and stuff.
> If only they believed, you could show them the evidence!



First of all, articles which appear in Psychology Today are not "peer reviewed" as such. At least not in the context of scientific peer review. You're talking about two different things, an article is an opinion or story someone wrote, not a scientific research or hypothesis. Secondly, I find it quite ironic you are using Max Planck researchers to make your ill-fated point against the human soul, when it's Max Planck who said the following:

_"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter."_

Planck is also the father of quantum mechanics, which theorizes existence of other universes and dimensions, where our laws of physics simply may not apply. 

Finally, we are not talking about how the brain functions to enable the attributes we both agree exist in humans. How the brain allows humans to have this ability has nothing to do with the question of what drives our conscience. We both agree humans have the capacity to love, show compassion, empathy, etc. Pointing me to some article that explains how the brain functions to give us that ability doesn't explain what motivates and drives the ability to take various forms. That was the point we were discussing and you were going to explain what drives human conscience other than human spirit and soul, or alternatively, self-established and completely non-accountable personal morality. 

We find ourselves on the other end of the field with a different location for the goalpost. 

Strange!


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> By insult filled tantrum, are you referring to the peer reviewed article that is cited in the Psychology Today article that you chose to completely ignore, in spite of it being an example of what your "peers" have discovered about the issue?
> Never mind.
> What would those psychology clowns know anyway, right?
> They don't know about souls and spirits and stuff.
> If only they believed, you could show them the evidence!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, articles which appear in Psychology Today are not "peer reviewed" as such. At least not in the context of scientific peer review. You're talking about two different things, an article is an opinion or story someone wrote, not a scientific research or hypothesis. Secondly, I find it quite ironic you are using Max Planck researchers to make your ill-fated point against the human soul, when it's Max Planck who said the following:
> 
> _"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter."_
> 
> Planck is also the father of quantum mechanics, which theorizes existence of other universes and dimensions, where our laws of physics simply may not apply.
> 
> Finally, we are not talking about how the brain functions to enable the attributes we both agree exist in humans. How the brain allows humans to have this ability has nothing to do with the question of what drives our conscience. We both agree humans have the capacity to love, show compassion, empathy, etc. Pointing me to some article that explains how the brain functions to give us that ability doesn't explain what motivates and drives the ability to take various forms. That was the point we were discussing and you were going to explain what drives human conscience other than human spirit and soul, or alternatively, self-established and completely non-accountable personal morality.
> 
> We find ourselves on the other end of the field with a different location for the goalpost.
> 
> Strange!
Click to expand...


The article references a peer reviewed article that I cited in my post.
The brain does show the way people have empathy from a purely physiological mechanism.
Total fail. 
Your right.
You don't know.


----------



## Boss

Hollie said:


> You toss aroud terms such as spirits and souls, yet youre unable to define these terms without resorting to silly retreats to bizarre and ludicrous sidesteps and waffles.
> You have no explanation for "spirits" or "souls" because the claims are undemonstrated and without merit. Obviously, you can describe no properties and characteristics for that which does not exist.
> 
> On the other hand, I can explain the phenomenon of _personality_ and where that comes from. The human sense of self is a higher brain function and it's seen in comparably lesser degrees in lesser animals. Not surprisingly, humans are not the only creatures with a sense of "self"). This clearly demonstrates that "selfhood" is a natural phenomenon linked to higher brain functions. Or, are you going to suggest that your gods have made monkeys and men with a spirit or soul each?
> 
> Personality is a phenomenon of the brain and can be directly traced and measured by way of chemical reactions in the brain. Remove sections (or damage sections), of the brain or change the way the brain operates with psychoactive drugs and the "self" changes as well.
> 
> All the mumbo-jumbo you spew about spirits and souls is nonsense because those spirits or souls cannot override damaging impact or chemical alteration to the brain and the change in personality that attends those.



Sweetie, you're welcome to offer your hypothesis on what drives human conscience as well. Explaining how chemical processes happen in the brain to enable such ability in humans isn't doing that. I think we all understand how the brain works, that's not at issue here. 

And yep... you can take the wheels off the Caddy or pour sugar in the gas tank and it's doesn't matter how good of a driver you are, it's not going anywhere. The soul and spirit merely drive the conscience, if the brain is not properly functioning the conscience is essentially useless.


----------



## Boss

> The article references a peer reviewed article that I cited in my post.
> The brain does show the way people have empathy from a purely physiological mechanism.



Again, "articles" are never "peer reviewed" if we're speaking in context of "peer reviewed science." A research study or theory might be peer reviewed, but it simply doesn't matter anyway because how the brain physiologically causes people to have empathy, doesn't tell us what drives and motivates that characteristic. I'm asking you how a Waldorf salad is made and you're pointing at tree and saying, "APPLES!"


----------



## thanatos144

Anyone else find it funny that Bruce doesn't believe in God yet blames him for war and death at the same time?  

tapatalk post


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> The article references a peer reviewed article that I cited in my post.
> The brain does show the way people have empathy from a purely physiological mechanism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, "articles" are never "peer reviewed" if we're speaking in context of "peer reviewed science." A research study or theory might be peer reviewed, but it simply doesn't matter anyway because how the brain physiologically causes people to have empathy, doesn't tell us what drives and motivates that characteristic. I'm asking you how a Waldorf salad is made and you're pointing at tree and saying, "APPLES!"
Click to expand...


Not at all.
It shows that spirit land can be located in the brain. What drives it IS that part of the brain. It is a mechanism.
Just like adrenalin can make you feel energized and endorphins can make you feel joy or tranquility. You don't then ask what exterior force causes that. They ARE the cause.
You are losing 52-0 and saying "Sure, but your points don't count".
Here's another article that states exactly what I postulated previously.

The Evolution of Empathy | Greater Good

"This capacity likely evolved because it served our ancestors survival in two ways. First, like every mammal, we need to be sensitive to the needs of our offspring. Second, our species depends on cooperation, which means that we do better if we are surrounded by healthy, capable group mates. Taking care of them is just a matter of enlightened self-interest."

I can pound you out as long as you like. There is plenty of academic research on the topic.
Lots of that there psychology stuff you're so expert in, dontcha know.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You toss aroud terms such as &#8220;spirits&#8221; and &#8220;souls&#8221;, yet you&#8217;re unable to define these terms without resorting to silly retreats to bizarre and ludicrous sidesteps and waffles.
> You have no explanation for "spirits" or "souls" because the claims are undemonstrated and without merit. Obviously, you can describe no properties and characteristics for that which does not exist.
> 
> On the other hand, I can explain the phenomenon of _personality_ and where that comes from. The human sense of self is a higher brain function and it's seen in comparably lesser degrees in lesser animals. Not surprisingly, humans are not the only creatures with a sense of "self"). This clearly demonstrates that "selfhood" is a natural phenomenon linked to higher brain functions. Or, are you going to suggest that your gods have made monkeys and men with a &#8220;spirit&#8221; or &#8220;soul&#8221; each?
> 
> Personality is a phenomenon of the brain and can be directly traced and measured by way of chemical reactions in the brain. Remove sections (or damage sections), of the brain or change the way the brain operates with psychoactive drugs and the "self" changes as well.
> 
> All the mumbo-jumbo you spew about &#8220;spirits&#8221; and &#8220;souls&#8221; is nonsense because those &#8220;spirits&#8221; or &#8220;souls&#8221; cannot override damaging impact or chemical alteration to the brain and the change in personality that attends those.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sweetie, you're welcome to offer your hypothesis on what drives human conscience as well. Explaining how chemical processes happen in the brain to enable such ability in humans isn't doing that. I think we all understand how the brain works, that's not at issue here.
> 
> And yep... you can take the wheels off the Caddy or pour sugar in the gas tank and it's doesn't matter how good of a driver you are, it's not going anywhere. The soul and spirit merely drive the conscience, if the brain is not properly functioning the conscience is essentially useless.
Click to expand...


Well, sweetie, I had a strong suspicion you would turn and run when presented with data that refutes your unsupported opinions. 

And yes, you can offer all the pointless comments about General Motors cars and sugar in the tank but do you really think that such sidesteps offer any meaningful defense to your claims to supernaturalism?

Abstract and material concepts require a brain to substantiate them. Damage or impact to the brain directly affects the development and delivery of the concepts. You are simply inventing abstract ideas such as &#8220;spirits&#8221; and &#8220;souls&#8221; and not submitting any case to support them.

All your silliness about &#8220;spirits&#8221; and &#8220;souls&#8221; and so on resides only in the brain. Damage the brain or alter the brains activity with drugs and away goes your &#8220;spirits&#8221; and &#8220;souls&#8221;.


----------



## koshergrl

Nonsense. There is no data that refutes his opinions. You opinions are every bit as unsupported as his. The only difference is he doesn't lie about it.


----------



## Hollie

koshergrl said:


> Nonsense. There is no data that refutes his opinions. You opinions are every bit as unsupported as his. The only difference is he doesn't lie about it.



So tell us about "souls" and the spirit world.


----------



## pillars

I don't hate god, but his followers get on my last damn nerve sometimes.


----------



## thanatos144

pillars said:


> I don't hate god, but his followers get on my last damn nerve sometimes.



Why because they are not as tolerant as those in the atheist religion?  You know the ones that demand people never pray or speak of God ever in public?  The ones who demand we all believe a negative exists with out evidence?  

tapatalk post


----------



## BreezeWood

thebrucebeat said:


> No one is without sin. No not one.




you are anotherone who should have known better than to have read that book ... JC was chosen because he was without sin, and is the underlying message to all the Prophecies.

Admission to the Everlasting, one way or the other is available only to the sinless. 

.


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The article references a peer reviewed article that I cited in my post.
> The brain does show the way people have empathy from a purely physiological mechanism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, "articles" are never "peer reviewed" if we're speaking in context of "peer reviewed science." A research study or theory might be peer reviewed, but it simply doesn't matter anyway because how the brain physiologically causes people to have empathy, doesn't tell us what drives and motivates that characteristic. I'm asking you how a Waldorf salad is made and you're pointing at tree and saying, "APPLES!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all.
> It shows that spirit land can be located in the brain. What drives it IS that part of the brain. It is a mechanism.
Click to expand...


Nonsense. It shows no such thing. If your claim were true, we'd all be Stepford Wives. Instead, our consciences are very different. In this very thread you have people who believe their conscience is guided by their soul or spirit, while you don't believe that. You  have certain people who's conscience would have no problem doing certain things while others could never bring themselves to do such things. It's not a "mechanism in the brain" controlling that, it's your soul or spirit. 



> Just like adrenalin can make you feel energized and endorphins can make you feel joy or tranquility. You don't then ask what exterior force causes that. They ARE the cause.



I've never been asking "what causes" anything. You keep misinterpreting that and I keep correcting you. I want to know what DRIVES that. What GUIDES it. I don't know how else to get that across to you, I've explained it numerous times, drew analogies, gave examples... did everything but break out the coloring books and play dough. I guess you're just not capable of understanding my question because you're still avoiding it. 



> "This capacity likely evolved because it served our ancestors survival in two ways. First, like every mammal, we need to be sensitive to the needs of our offspring. Second, our species depends on cooperation, which means that we do better if we are surrounded by healthy, capable group mates. Taking care of them is just a matter of enlightened self-interest."



This is called an "opinion" and it's not science but a philosophical belief. I disagree with it. 

I think this capacity evolved because our conscience is driven by our spirit and soul, the intrinsic inspiration derived from something greater than self. You don't believe in souls, therefore, you believe (as I said before) this is guided by a self-established and totally unaccountable sense of personal morality... or as this quote puts it, "enlightened self-interest." 

Now what does this all mean with regard to your capacity to love, have empathy, sympathy, apathy and compassion? It means your expressions of these things are rooted fundamentally in self-interest, while mine and those who have souls, are rooted in selfless obedience to a greater power.


----------



## Boss

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You toss aroud terms such as spirits and souls, yet youre unable to define these terms without resorting to silly retreats to bizarre and ludicrous sidesteps and waffles.
> You have no explanation for "spirits" or "souls" because the claims are undemonstrated and without merit. Obviously, you can describe no properties and characteristics for that which does not exist.
> 
> On the other hand, I can explain the phenomenon of _personality_ and where that comes from. The human sense of self is a higher brain function and it's seen in comparably lesser degrees in lesser animals. Not surprisingly, humans are not the only creatures with a sense of "self"). This clearly demonstrates that "selfhood" is a natural phenomenon linked to higher brain functions. Or, are you going to suggest that your gods have made monkeys and men with a spirit or soul each?
> 
> Personality is a phenomenon of the brain and can be directly traced and measured by way of chemical reactions in the brain. Remove sections (or damage sections), of the brain or change the way the brain operates with psychoactive drugs and the "self" changes as well.
> 
> All the mumbo-jumbo you spew about spirits and souls is nonsense because those spirits or souls cannot override damaging impact or chemical alteration to the brain and the change in personality that attends those.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sweetie, you're welcome to offer your hypothesis on what drives human conscience as well. Explaining how chemical processes happen in the brain to enable such ability in humans isn't doing that. I think we all understand how the brain works, that's not at issue here.
> 
> And yep... you can take the wheels off the Caddy or pour sugar in the gas tank and it's doesn't matter how good of a driver you are, it's not going anywhere. The soul and spirit merely drive the conscience, if the brain is not properly functioning the conscience is essentially useless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, sweetie, I had a strong suspicion you would turn and run when presented with data that refutes your unsupported opinions.
> 
> And yes, you can offer all the pointless comments about General Motors cars and sugar in the tank but do you really think that such sidesteps offer any meaningful defense to your claims to supernaturalism?
> 
> Abstract and material concepts require a brain to substantiate them. Damage or impact to the brain directly affects the development and delivery of the concepts. You are simply inventing abstract ideas such as spirits and souls and not submitting any case to support them.
> 
> All your silliness about spirits and souls and so on resides only in the brain. Damage the brain or alter the brains activity with drugs and away goes your spirits and souls.
Click to expand...


I've not turned and run away from anything, you must be hallucinating. All you did was give a very elementary summary of how the brain operates, which we already knew. The question of what drives and guides your conscience was not answered. 

I can't comprehend why you keep wanting to call spirituality "supernaturalism" when it's clearly a part of human nature. It's as much a part of man as our ability think... are thoughts supernatural? How about love? Is that supernatural? 

And again, our souls and spirit do not have some omnipotent ability to overcome physical obstruction. They can only manifest guidance to our conscience if our conscience is properly operational. I guess you are trying to infer the power of God into our souls or something... kind of like arguing a light bulb should be like the power company.


----------



## BreezeWood

> *thebrucebeat:* Not at all.
> It shows that spirit land can be located in the brain. What drives it IS that part of the brain. It is a mechanism.



there is both Fauna and Flora, hopefully since you at least acknowledge "spirit land" you recognize its existence and certainly for at least the living, of which Flora has no recognizable "Brain" as you refer to it and would then exclude your contention of a physiological origin to the Spirit exhibited by all of Gods creatures.

.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, "articles" are never "peer reviewed" if we're speaking in context of "peer reviewed science." A research study or theory might be peer reviewed, but it simply doesn't matter anyway because how the brain physiologically causes people to have empathy, doesn't tell us what drives and motivates that characteristic. I'm asking you how a Waldorf salad is made and you're pointing at tree and saying, "APPLES!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all.
> It shows that spirit land can be located in the brain. What drives it IS that part of the brain. It is a mechanism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense. It shows no such thing. If your claim were true, we'd all be Stepford Wives. Instead, our consciences are very different. In this very thread you have people who believe their conscience is guided by their soul or spirit, while you don't believe that. You  have certain people who's conscience would have no problem doing certain things while others could never bring themselves to do such things. It's not a "mechanism in the brain" controlling that, it's your soul or spirit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just like adrenalin can make you feel energized and endorphins can make you feel joy or tranquility. You don't then ask what exterior force causes that. They ARE the cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've never been asking "what causes" anything. You keep misinterpreting that and I keep correcting you. I want to know what DRIVES that. What GUIDES it. I don't know how else to get that across to you, I've explained it numerous times, drew analogies, gave examples... did everything but break out the coloring books and play dough. I guess you're just not capable of understanding my question because you're still avoiding it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "This capacity likely evolved because it served our ancestors survival in two ways. First, like every mammal, we need to be sensitive to the needs of our offspring. Second, our species depends on cooperation, which means that we do better if we are surrounded by healthy, capable group mates. Taking care of them is just a matter of enlightened self-interest."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is called an "opinion" and it's not science but a philosophical belief. I disagree with it.
> 
> I think this capacity evolved because our conscience is driven by our spirit and soul, the intrinsic inspiration derived from something greater than self. You don't believe in souls, therefore, you believe (as I said before) this is guided by a self-established and totally unaccountable sense of personal morality... or as this quote puts it, "enlightened self-interest."
> 
> Now what does this all mean with regard to your capacity to love, have empathy, sympathy, apathy and compassion? It means your expressions of these things are rooted fundamentally in self-interest, while mine and those who have souls, are rooted in selfless obedience to a greater power.
Click to expand...

We can do this forever.
I will cite papers, studies, all kinds of evidence, and you can come back with the enlightening "Well, I don't think so, and if you just believe me I'll prove it to you".
One is enlightened self-interest.
The other is ignorant self-interest hoping for the big payoff.


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> We can do this forever.
> I will cite papers, studies, all kinds of evidence, and you can come back with the enlightening "Well, I don't think so, and if you just believe me I'll prove it to you".
> One is enlightened self-interest.
> The other is ignorant self-interest hoping for the big payoff.



Yes, we can do this forever. You can continue to cite opinion pieces that are not science, and I will continue to point out that I disagree with their opinions. 

One is enlightened self-interest, the other is the intrinsic connection to something greater than self which mankind has possessed its entire existence. We've been over your "ignorance" claims before as well, if it were superficial and ignorant, the attribute would have never taken off in man, we would have abandoned it before anyone ever conceived of religions. The fact that man is fundamentally tied to this for all our existence is evidence that it's fundamental to the species.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can do this forever.
> I will cite papers, studies, all kinds of evidence, and you can come back with the enlightening "Well, I don't think so, and if you just believe me I'll prove it to you".
> One is enlightened self-interest.
> The other is ignorant self-interest hoping for the big payoff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we can do this forever. You can continue to cite opinion pieces that are not science, and I will continue to point out that I disagree with their opinions.
> 
> One is enlightened self-interest, the other is the intrinsic connection to something greater than self which mankind has possessed its entire existence. We've been over your "ignorance" claims before as well, if it were superficial and ignorant, the attribute would have never taken off in man, we would have abandoned it before anyone ever conceived of religions. The fact that man is fundamentally tied to this for all our existence is evidence that it's fundamental to the species.
Click to expand...


It proves the need for relief, not the veracity of what is believed. It isn't even evidence of the thing believed. 
Shall we go down the "rationalization" rabbit hole again, where you don't know a basic psychological term and its overwhelming influence on the ego. Rationalizations are used continuously on a daily basis to justify thoughts and actions to ourselves. They are inescapable, unavoidable and powerful.
You can take a class on it.
Great way to meet freshman girls. Your avatar guy would dig that!


----------



## Boss

> It proves the need for relief, not the veracity of what is believed.



Sorry, you need to prove that this phantom "need for relief" is naturally occurring and you can't. No other species of life has been plagued with such a handicap, so where did it evolve from? You can't tell us because it's a speculation without basis. What you perceive as a "need for relief" is actually a result of our being spiritually aware of something immortal. 



> Rationalizations are used continuously on a daily basis to justify thoughts and actions to ourselves.



Yes, and they are both positive and negative. Some are legitimate and some are false. They are simply the product and result of rational thought. This has nothing to do with the question at hand.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> It proves the need for relief, not the veracity of what is believed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, you need to prove that this phantom "need for relief" is naturally occurring and you can't. No other species of life has been plagued with such a handicap, so where did it evolve from? You can't tell us because it's a speculation without basis. What you perceive as a "need for relief" is actually a result of our being spiritually aware of something immortal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rationalizations are used continuously on a daily basis to justify thoughts and actions to ourselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, and they are both positive and negative. Some are legitimate and some are false. They are simply the product and result of rational thought. This has nothing to do with the question at hand.
Click to expand...


It has everything to do with it and I will be glad to  beat you down again with the definition of rationalization from as many sources as you like so you can once again be humiliated by knowing nothing of the tem which is basic in an intro Psych. class. The term does NOT refer to the simple product of rational thought. Why would you want this humiliation again? It put the nail in the coffin of your PhD. lie the last time when out of your embarrassment you tried to make up the term "false rationalization" which can not be found in a search as used by professionals or in common parlance.
Where did the need for relief from fear evolve from? The greater awareness the human brain is capable of of his surroundings, his future, his mortality and the unknown.
Your spiritual masturbation is what is without basis.


----------



## Boss

I've about had it with your insults. If the mods aren't going to take action against your flaming, I am going to just put you on ignore and be done with you for good. I graduated from the University of Alabama with a double major in psychology and business and was near the top of my class. I know full well what "rationalization" means and any dictionary you care to look in will give you numerous and varied definitions.  You have gone on now for a month about this word, stubbornly refusing to acknowledge but one single cherry-picked definition which you seem to believe is the only possible definition for "rationalize." My professor would have flunked you on that basis alone in the first semester. We actually had a question about this on an exam, where many people got the answer wrong because they believed like you, and like the morons at Ask.com and elsewhere, that "rationalize" only can mean one thing. You didn't put any nail in any coffin, you just demonstrated what an obtuse little moronic twit you are. And you continue to do so.

*Where did the need for relief from fear evolve from? The greater awareness the human brain is capable of of his surroundings, his future, his mortality and the unknown.*

You did not answer the damn question. You stated a fact that any moron already knew. Where did this "greater awareness" evolve from? Monkeys? Gorillas? Why don't they show need for relief from fears? Basically, all I am getting out of you is that humans have "something special" in our brains... well yeah, we have spiritual awareness! We comprehend our mortality because we are intrinsically aware of immortality.


----------



## MrMax

Boss said:


> I've about had it with your insults. If the mods aren't going to take action against your flaming, I am going to just put you on ignore and be done with you for good. I graduated from the University of Alabama with a double major in psychology and business and was near the top of my class. I know full well what "rationalization" means and any dictionary you care to look in will give you numerous and varied definitions.  You have gone on now for a month about this word, stubbornly refusing to acknowledge but one single cherry-picked definition which you seem to believe is the only possible definition for "rationalize." My professor would have flunked you on that basis alone in the first semester. We actually had a question about this on an exam, where many people got the answer wrong because they believed like you, and like the morons at Ask.com and elsewhere, that "rationalize" only can mean one thing. You didn't put any nail in any coffin, you just demonstrated what an obtuse little moronic twit you are. And you continue to do so.
> 
> *Where did the need for relief from fear evolve from? The greater awareness the human brain is capable of of his surroundings, his future, his mortality and the unknown.*
> 
> You did not answer the damn question. You stated a fact that any moron already knew. Where did this "greater awareness" evolve from? Monkeys? Gorillas? Why don't they show need for relief from fears? Basically, all I am getting out of you is that humans have "something special" in our brains... well yeah, we have spiritual awareness! We comprehend our mortality because we are intrinsically aware of immortality.


Wow! This must be the web's most intelligent chat board! I was just on another thread where toro was saying that he lectured at a university. I feel so honored to be debating with against such a distinguished crowd. 

You still haven't proven anything about your theory about spiritual nature. Spiritual awareness is nothing more than a more evolved brain rationalizing its fear of death.


----------



## thanatos144

MrMax said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've about had it with your insults. If the mods aren't going to take action against your flaming, I am going to just put you on ignore and be done with you for good. I graduated from the University of Alabama with a double major in psychology and business and was near the top of my class. I know full well what "rationalization" means and any dictionary you care to look in will give you numerous and varied definitions.  You have gone on now for a month about this word, stubbornly refusing to acknowledge but one single cherry-picked definition which you seem to believe is the only possible definition for "rationalize." My professor would have flunked you on that basis alone in the first semester. We actually had a question about this on an exam, where many people got the answer wrong because they believed like you, and like the morons at Ask.com and elsewhere, that "rationalize" only can mean one thing. You didn't put any nail in any coffin, you just demonstrated what an obtuse little moronic twit you are. And you continue to do so.
> 
> *Where did the need for relief from fear evolve from? The greater awareness the human brain is capable of of his surroundings, his future, his mortality and the unknown.*
> 
> You did not answer the damn question. You stated a fact that any moron already knew. Where did this "greater awareness" evolve from? Monkeys? Gorillas? Why don't they show need for relief from fears? Basically, all I am getting out of you is that humans have "something special" in our brains... well yeah, we have spiritual awareness! We comprehend our mortality because we are intrinsically aware of immortality.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow! This must be the web's most intelligent chat board! I was just on another thread where toro was saying that he lectured at a university. I feel so honored to be debating with against such a distinguished crowd.
> 
> You still haven't proven anything about your theory about spiritual nature. Spiritual awareness is nothing more than a more evolved brain rationalizing its fear of death.
Click to expand...


Prove God doesn't exist......


----------



## MrMax

thanatos144 said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've about had it with your insults. If the mods aren't going to take action against your flaming, I am going to just put you on ignore and be done with you for good. I graduated from the University of Alabama with a double major in psychology and business and was near the top of my class. I know full well what "rationalization" means and any dictionary you care to look in will give you numerous and varied definitions.  You have gone on now for a month about this word, stubbornly refusing to acknowledge but one single cherry-picked definition which you seem to believe is the only possible definition for "rationalize." My professor would have flunked you on that basis alone in the first semester. We actually had a question about this on an exam, where many people got the answer wrong because they believed like you, and like the morons at Ask.com and elsewhere, that "rationalize" only can mean one thing. You didn't put any nail in any coffin, you just demonstrated what an obtuse little moronic twit you are. And you continue to do so.
> 
> *Where did the need for relief from fear evolve from? The greater awareness the human brain is capable of of his surroundings, his future, his mortality and the unknown.*
> 
> You did not answer the damn question. You stated a fact that any moron already knew. Where did this "greater awareness" evolve from? Monkeys? Gorillas? Why don't they show need for relief from fears? Basically, all I am getting out of you is that humans have "something special" in our brains... well yeah, we have spiritual awareness! We comprehend our mortality because we are intrinsically aware of immortality.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow! This must be the web's most intelligent chat board! I was just on another thread where toro was saying that he lectured at a university. I feel so honored to be debating with against such a distinguished crowd.
> 
> You still haven't proven anything about your theory about spiritual nature. Spiritual awareness is nothing more than a more evolved brain rationalizing its fear of death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove God doesn't exist......
Click to expand...

I'm agnostic, there's no proof either way. It's really the only logical position to hold.


----------



## thanatos144

MrMax said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow! This must be the web's most intelligent chat board! I was just on another thread where toro was saying that he lectured at a university. I feel so honored to be debating with against such a distinguished crowd.
> 
> You still haven't proven anything about your theory about spiritual nature. Spiritual awareness is nothing more than a more evolved brain rationalizing its fear of death.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove God doesn't exist......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm agnostic, there's no proof either way. It's really the only logical position to hold.
Click to expand...


No it isn't. Logic isn't the absence of belief or faith.


----------



## MrMax

thanatos144 said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove God doesn't exist......
> 
> 
> 
> I'm agnostic, there's no proof either way. It's really the only logical position to hold.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it isn't. Logic isn't the absence of belief or faith.
Click to expand...


There's no real proof that a god exists, and there's no real proof that one couldn't exist. Pretty simple really.


----------



## thanatos144

MrMax said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm agnostic, there's no proof either way. It's really the only logical position to hold.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it isn't. Logic isn't the absence of belief or faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no real proof that a god exists, and there's no real proof that one couldn't exist. Pretty simple really.
Click to expand...


Proof that God exists is everywhere. Humans are proof God exists. Some just wish to ignore that proof.


----------



## MrMax

thanatos144 said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it isn't. Logic isn't the absence of belief or faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's no real proof that a god exists, and there's no real proof that one couldn't exist. Pretty simple really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Proof that God exists is everywhere. Humans are proof God exists. Some just wish to ignore that proof.
Click to expand...


Your standards for proof are non-existant. All you really have are suppositions.


----------



## thanatos144

MrMax said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no real proof that a god exists, and there's no real proof that one couldn't exist. Pretty simple really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Proof that God exists is everywhere. Humans are proof God exists. Some just wish to ignore that proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your standards for proof are non-existant. All you really have are suppositions.
Click to expand...


Are you saying a tree doesn't exist? Or DNA?


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> I've about had it with your insults. If the mods aren't going to take action against your flaming, I am going to just put you on ignore and be done with you for good. I graduated from the University of Alabama with a double major in psychology and business and was near the top of my class. I know full well what "rationalization" means and any dictionary you care to look in will give you numerous and varied definitions.  You have gone on now for a month about this word, stubbornly refusing to acknowledge but one single cherry-picked definition which you seem to believe is the only possible definition for "rationalize." My professor would have flunked you on that basis alone in the first semester. We actually had a question about this on an exam, where many people got the answer wrong because they believed like you, and like the morons at Ask.com and elsewhere, that "rationalize" only can mean one thing. You didn't put any nail in any coffin, you just demonstrated what an obtuse little moronic twit you are. And you continue to do so.
> 
> *Where did the need for relief from fear evolve from? The greater awareness the human brain is capable of of his surroundings, his future, his mortality and the unknown.*
> 
> You did not answer the damn question. You stated a fact that any moron already knew. Where did this "greater awareness" evolve from? Monkeys? Gorillas? Why don't they show need for relief from fears? Basically, all I am getting out of you is that humans have "something special" in our brains... well yeah, we have spiritual awareness! We comprehend our mortality because we are intrinsically aware of immortality.


I gave you six definitions last time, all conforming with what I am saying, including one from a psychology dictionary. None from Ask.com by the way. All major dictionaries and sources specific to psychology.
How many do you want this time?
Well, we have gone from a PhD. to a Bachelors in one quick hurry. Did the guilt of you being a fraud finally catch up to you? Probably the Spiritual Nature working on your conscience.
Oh wait! It doesn't care about you personally. I forgot.
As for insults, you and your vulgarities (which I am sure used to make your academic mentors proud) kind of lead the pack on these boards for that.
You want to put me on ignore to save yourself further embarrassment, and that is probably a good idea. You can't handle my arguments, which I support with data and research and you just finally descend to name calling when you are revealed as an unskilled laborer in the field of critical thinking.
As to where does this empathic nature evolve from? We see it in lesser degrees in the animal kingdom. Chimps show it, lions and even whales to a lesser degree. In man it is a larger part of the brain and is more pronounced. The development of that part of the brain would have been naturally selected for as working together as a group had a greater chance of survival than having everyone and everything being an enemy. If it is survival of the fittest, what made us more fit was empathy and a collective mindset.
The part of the brain can be shown. It has been identified. The process of evolution for it to be more pronounced in man is understood. The reason nature might select it becomes obvious. This is discussed in the articles I have already posted and the many more I can crush you with.
What have you got?
"We'll, I don't think so!"
Go ahead and declare your victory now, and then put me on ignore.
I will still embarrass you, but at least you won't have to see it and you can create a rationalization that tells yourself you are intelligent, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.


----------



## Hollie

thanatos144 said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've about had it with your insults. If the mods aren't going to take action against your flaming, I am going to just put you on ignore and be done with you for good. I graduated from the University of Alabama with a double major in psychology and business and was near the top of my class. I know full well what "rationalization" means and any dictionary you care to look in will give you numerous and varied definitions.  You have gone on now for a month about this word, stubbornly refusing to acknowledge but one single cherry-picked definition which you seem to believe is the only possible definition for "rationalize." My professor would have flunked you on that basis alone in the first semester. We actually had a question about this on an exam, where many people got the answer wrong because they believed like you, and like the morons at Ask.com and elsewhere, that "rationalize" only can mean one thing. You didn't put any nail in any coffin, you just demonstrated what an obtuse little moronic twit you are. And you continue to do so.
> 
> *Where did the need for relief from fear evolve from? The greater awareness the human brain is capable of of his surroundings, his future, his mortality and the unknown.*
> 
> You did not answer the damn question. You stated a fact that any moron already knew. Where did this "greater awareness" evolve from? Monkeys? Gorillas? Why don't they show need for relief from fears? Basically, all I am getting out of you is that humans have "something special" in our brains... well yeah, we have spiritual awareness! We comprehend our mortality because we are intrinsically aware of immortality.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow! This must be the web's most intelligent chat board! I was just on another thread where toro was saying that he lectured at a university. I feel so honored to be debating with against such a distinguished crowd.
> 
> You still haven't proven anything about your theory about spiritual nature. Spiritual awareness is nothing more than a more evolved brain rationalizing its fear of death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove God doesn't exist......
Click to expand...


I have proof that god doesn't exist. Prove I don't.


----------



## koshergrl

Can't prove a negative.

You haven't proven you have the evidence, so there's no need to prove you don't. It's assumed you don't. That's the way logic and debate work.


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've about had it with your insults. If the mods aren't going to take action against your flaming, I am going to just put you on ignore and be done with you for good. I graduated from the University of Alabama with a double major in psychology and business and was near the top of my class. I know full well what "rationalization" means and any dictionary you care to look in will give you numerous and varied definitions.  You have gone on now for a month about this word, stubbornly refusing to acknowledge but one single cherry-picked definition which you seem to believe is the only possible definition for "rationalize." My professor would have flunked you on that basis alone in the first semester. We actually had a question about this on an exam, where many people got the answer wrong because they believed like you, and like the morons at Ask.com and elsewhere, that "rationalize" only can mean one thing. You didn't put any nail in any coffin, you just demonstrated what an obtuse little moronic twit you are. And you continue to do so.
> 
> *Where did the need for relief from fear evolve from? The greater awareness the human brain is capable of of his surroundings, his future, his mortality and the unknown.*
> 
> You did not answer the damn question. You stated a fact that any moron already knew. Where did this "greater awareness" evolve from? Monkeys? Gorillas? Why don't they show need for relief from fears? Basically, all I am getting out of you is that humans have "something special" in our brains... well yeah, we have spiritual awareness! We comprehend our mortality because we are intrinsically aware of immortality.
> 
> 
> 
> I gave you six definitions last time, all conforming with what I am saying, including one from a psychology dictionary. None from Ask.com by the way. All major dictionaries and sources specific to psychology.
> How many do you want this time?
> Well, we have gone from a PhD. to a Bachelors in one quick hurry. Did the guilt of you being a fraud finally catch up to you? Probably the Spiritual Nature working on your conscience.
> Oh wait! It doesn't care about you personally. I forgot.
> As for insults, you and your vulgarities (which I am sure used to make your academic mentors proud) kind of lead the pack on these boards for that.
> You want to put me on ignore to save yourself further embarrassment, and that is probably a good idea. You can't handle my arguments, which I support with data and research and you just finally descend to name calling when you are revealed as an unskilled laborer in the field of critical thinking.
> As to where does this empathic nature evolve from? We see it in lesser degrees in the animal kingdom. Chimps show it, lions and even whales to a lesser degree. In man it is a larger part of the brain and is more pronounced. The development of that part of the brain would have been naturally selected for as working together as a group had a greater chance of survival than having everyone and everything being an enemy. If it is survival of the fittest, what made us more fit was empathy and a collective mindset.
> The part of the brain can be shown. It has been identified. The process of evolution for it to be more pronounced in man is understood. The reason nature might select it becomes obvious. This is discussed in the articles I have already posted and the many more I can crush you with.
> What have you got?
> "We'll, I don't think so!"
> Go ahead and declare your victory now, and then put me on ignore.
> I will still embarrass you, but at least you won't have to see it and you can create a rationalization that tells yourself you are intelligent, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.
Click to expand...


Again, you are not answering the question, you are obsessing on a word from a month ago. You posted the same incomplete definition from 6 sources, and the definitions were accurate in certain context. The word has about 5-6 different meanings depending on what you're talking about. Humans make both legitimate and false rationalizations all the time. For instance, humans rationalized sending men to the moon. In this thread, you and others are rationalizing the existence of life without a Creator. You can rationalize buying a house or car. Or getting married, going or not going to college, etc., etc., etc. 

The argument over "rationalization" was whether or not it is an attribute exclusive to humans, and it's not. None of your 6 definitions indicated this. You've yet to find any definition that indicates this. So your theory that human spirituality is caused by our unique ability to rationalize is without support. To cover for this failure, you are obsessing on what you have 'rationalized' as a victory over a word definition. Now you've moved swiftly to explaining how the brain works, but the physiology of how the brain works is not in question. Whether other animals are capable of empathy has nothing to do with what drives human conscience. 

Now we have basically distilled the question of what drives human conscience down to two possible answers depending on individual perspective. It is either driven by soul/spirit or self-interest. I believe our conscience is driven by our soul and spirit. You don't believe in souls or spirits so you believe our conscience is driven by self-interest. Superficial discussions about chemistry and the brain are only distractions from this point. 

What this means in terms of conscience guided emotions like love, empathy, compassion, etc., is that people who's conscience is driven by their soul are operating with consideration for their obligations to something greater than self. It's not "all about them." Whereas, those who don't believe in souls are operating ultimately out of self-interest. You "love" someone because there is something in it for you. You "show compassion" because it serves your self-interest to do so.


----------



## thebrucebeat

koshergrl said:


> Can't prove a negative.
> 
> You haven't proven you have the evidence, so there's no need to prove you don't. It's assumed you don't. That's the way logic and debate work.



Agreed.
That is why agnosticism is the only reasonable place to land.
It is equally assumed you have no proof.
The acknowledgment that there is no proof either way is the essence of agnosticism.
It doesn't imply belief or a lack of same.
It implies that the knowledge of either is unattainable.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've about had it with your insults. If the mods aren't going to take action against your flaming, I am going to just put you on ignore and be done with you for good. I graduated from the University of Alabama with a double major in psychology and business and was near the top of my class. I know full well what "rationalization" means and any dictionary you care to look in will give you numerous and varied definitions.  You have gone on now for a month about this word, stubbornly refusing to acknowledge but one single cherry-picked definition which you seem to believe is the only possible definition for "rationalize." My professor would have flunked you on that basis alone in the first semester. We actually had a question about this on an exam, where many people got the answer wrong because they believed like you, and like the morons at Ask.com and elsewhere, that "rationalize" only can mean one thing. You didn't put any nail in any coffin, you just demonstrated what an obtuse little moronic twit you are. And you continue to do so.
> 
> *Where did the need for relief from fear evolve from? The greater awareness the human brain is capable of of his surroundings, his future, his mortality and the unknown.*
> 
> You did not answer the damn question. You stated a fact that any moron already knew. Where did this "greater awareness" evolve from? Monkeys? Gorillas? Why don't they show need for relief from fears? Basically, all I am getting out of you is that humans have "something special" in our brains... well yeah, we have spiritual awareness! We comprehend our mortality because we are intrinsically aware of immortality.
> 
> 
> 
> I gave you six definitions last time, all conforming with what I am saying, including one from a psychology dictionary. None from Ask.com by the way. All major dictionaries and sources specific to psychology.
> How many do you want this time?
> Well, we have gone from a PhD. to a Bachelors in one quick hurry. Did the guilt of you being a fraud finally catch up to you? Probably the Spiritual Nature working on your conscience.
> Oh wait! It doesn't care about you personally. I forgot.
> As for insults, you and your vulgarities (which I am sure used to make your academic mentors proud) kind of lead the pack on these boards for that.
> You want to put me on ignore to save yourself further embarrassment, and that is probably a good idea. You can't handle my arguments, which I support with data and research and you just finally descend to name calling when you are revealed as an unskilled laborer in the field of critical thinking.
> As to where does this empathic nature evolve from? We see it in lesser degrees in the animal kingdom. Chimps show it, lions and even whales to a lesser degree. In man it is a larger part of the brain and is more pronounced. The development of that part of the brain would have been naturally selected for as working together as a group had a greater chance of survival than having everyone and everything being an enemy. If it is survival of the fittest, what made us more fit was empathy and a collective mindset.
> The part of the brain can be shown. It has been identified. The process of evolution for it to be more pronounced in man is understood. The reason nature might select it becomes obvious. This is discussed in the articles I have already posted and the many more I can crush you with.
> What have you got?
> "We'll, I don't think so!"
> Go ahead and declare your victory now, and then put me on ignore.
> I will still embarrass you, but at least you won't have to see it and you can create a rationalization that tells yourself you are intelligent, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you are not answering the question, you are obsessing on a word from a month ago. You posted the same incomplete definition from 6 sources, and the definitions were accurate in certain context. The word has about 5-6 different meanings depending on what you're talking about. Humans make both legitimate and false rationalizations all the time. For instance, humans rationalized sending men to the moon. In this thread, you and others are rationalizing the existence of life without a Creator. You can rationalize buying a house or car. Or getting married, going or not going to college, etc., etc., etc.
> 
> The argument over "rationalization" was whether or not it is an attribute exclusive to humans, and it's not. None of your 6 definitions indicated this. You've yet to find any definition that indicates this. So your theory that human spirituality is caused by our unique ability to rationalize is without support. To cover for this failure, you are obsessing on what you have 'rationalized' as a victory over a word definition. Now you've moved swiftly to explaining how the brain works, but the physiology of how the brain works is not in question. Whether other animals are capable of empathy has nothing to do with what drives human conscience.
> 
> Now we have basically distilled the question of what drives human conscience down to two possible answers depending on individual perspective. It is either driven by soul/spirit or self-interest. I believe our conscience is driven by our soul and spirit. You don't believe in souls or spirits so you believe our conscience is driven by self-interest. Superficial discussions about chemistry and the brain are only distractions from this point.
> 
> What this means in terms of conscience guided emotions like love, empathy, compassion, etc., is that people who's conscience is driven by their soul are operating with consideration for their obligations to something greater than self. It's not "all about them." Whereas, those who don't believe in souls are operating ultimately out of self-interest. You "love" someone because there is something in it for you. You "show compassion" because it serves your self-interest to do so.
Click to expand...


LOL!
You claim the chemistry and the physical evidence are "distractions" because they make a very compelling case against your pulling your vision out of thin air.
I understand.

"Rationalization is a defense mechanism that involves explaining an unacceptable behavior or feeling in a rational or logical manner, avoiding the true reasons for the behavior. For example, a person who is turned down for a date might rationalize the situation by saying they were not attracted to the other person anyway, or a student might blame a poor exam score on the instructor rather than his or her lack of preparation."
From Psychology.about.com

I can post as many of these as you like, and then you can create a rationalization of how starfish make arguments for explaining their unacceptable behaviors.
You are absolutely hilarious.
Every definition for rationalization attributes it specifically to humans.
Every...Single...One.
Do you want to see them all again?
I have the information. I can confirm it all for you. I have done it once. Do you want me to show your are a fraud AGAIN?!
From a PhD. to a top of the class Bachelors.
What's the next update?
It was really only a GED?


----------



## Boss

Until you can isolate a special chemical which makes one person consciously decide to kill people and another unique chemical which makes someone else help the needy, then you haven't supported your argument that chemicals in the brain drive or motivate our conscience. You've explained how our brain enables the various abilities, but I think we can all agree we have these abilities. That's not in question here. 

Yes, you can post all the incomplete definitions you like, and I can't refute them. I gave several examples of rationalizations which simply don't fit your definition. And no, your definition certainly doesn't state that rationalization is exclusive to humans... it just doesn't. 

I don't know where you're getting the whole "PhD to a Bachelors" denigration. I never said I had a Bachelors, you must have assumed this somewhere. We can see you're very good at making baseless assumptions, then stubbornly insisting you are correct.


----------



## MrMax

thanatos144 said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Proof that God exists is everywhere. Humans are proof God exists. Some just wish to ignore that proof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your standards for proof are non-existant. All you really have are suppositions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying a tree doesn't exist? Or DNA?
Click to expand...


I'm saying that you have no proof that an invisible superbeing made the tree or DNA...


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> Until you can isolate a special chemical which makes one person consciously decide to kill people and another unique chemical which makes someone else help the needy, then you haven't supported your argument that chemicals in the brain drive or motivate our conscience. You've explained how our brain enables the various abilities, but I think we can all agree we have these abilities. That's not in question here.
> 
> Yes, you can post all the incomplete definitions you like, and I can't refute them. I gave several examples of rationalizations which simply don't fit your definition. And no, your definition certainly doesn't state that rationalization is exclusive to humans... it just doesn't.
> 
> I don't know where you're getting the whole "PhD to a Bachelors" denigration. I never said I had a Bachelors, you must have assumed this somewhere. We can see you're very good at making baseless assumptions, then stubbornly insisting you are correct.



They have specifically identified the part of the brain that causes empathy. I posted that earlier. Don't know why you are pretending that hasn't already been established.
Just kidding. I know why you are pretending.
Show how starfish cover up their feelings of guilt with rationalizations.
We are all on the edge of our seats.
Since rationalizations require language, as they are a product of it, you have a tough hill to climb.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Boss said:


> On the topic of "good and evil" let me ask this question... If there were no evil, how could we recognize good?



Why would we need to?

You've posed an very old Sunday School question, but it is not logical.



> Would we be able to acknowledge or comprehend a universe of only good? Or perhaps, create our own "evil" which might otherwise have been simply a lesser good?



Are you saying that God created evil? If so, was it for the purpose of daming people to eternal suffering?



> Good and evil are subjective perception.



Nonsense.



> There is no universal understanding.



Really?

How about we discuss that while I cut your arm off with a butter knife?



> When Hitler was incinerating Jews, he believed it was good.



No, he sure didn't. He knew full well that he was engaged in evil. His lust for power made him not care.



> When we dropped nukes on Japan to end WWII, was that good or evil? When someone aborts a child they know will suffer a lifetime of pain and mality, is that good or evil? We all have different perceptions.



Some questions of morality are open to dissension, many are not.



> The fact that humans conceptualize good and evil is a testament to the existence of spiritual nature. It is through human spiritual awareness we are able to rationalize good and evil.



I'm agnostic, yet seem to have a far more developed sense of good and evil than you. As such, your thesis is flawed.


----------



## Spoonman

you don't like god. or don't believe in him, don't worship him.   libs are famous for saying don't like gays, don't be gay.  why can't they ever follow their own advice?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Spoonman said:


> you don't like god. or don't believe in him, don't worship him.   libs are famous for saying don't like gays, don't be gay.  why can't they ever follow their own advice?



It's funny how the left demands that others not believe in God. duhs goes absolutely apeshit over the idea that others are permitted to believe.


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Until you can isolate a special chemical which makes one person consciously decide to kill people and another unique chemical which makes someone else help the needy, then you haven't supported your argument that chemicals in the brain drive or motivate our conscience. You've explained how our brain enables the various abilities, but I think we can all agree we have these abilities. That's not in question here.
> 
> Yes, you can post all the incomplete definitions you like, and I can't refute them. I gave several examples of rationalizations which simply don't fit your definition. And no, your definition certainly doesn't state that rationalization is exclusive to humans... it just doesn't.
> 
> I don't know where you're getting the whole "PhD to a Bachelors" denigration. I never said I had a Bachelors, you must have assumed this somewhere. We can see you're very good at making baseless assumptions, then stubbornly insisting you are correct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have specifically identified the part of the brain that causes empathy. I posted that earlier. Don't know why you are pretending that hasn't already been established.
> Just kidding. I know why you are pretending.
> Show how starfish cover up their feelings of guilt with rationalizations.
> We are all on the edge of our seats.
> Since rationalizations require language, as they are a product of it, you have a tough hill to climb.
Click to expand...


What "causes" empathy has nothing to do with what drives it. We can identify what part of the brain causes anger, or even what chemicals are released in the brain when anger is felt... we can't explain why some people project anger by killing a bunch of innocent people while another projects anger by punching a wall. That's not a different chemical or way the brain is functioning physiologically, it's driven by conscience of the individual. 

I've not "pretended" anything, I already know the brain and how it functions. I also know about rationalization. "Covering up feelings of guilt" is not the exclusive definition of a rationalization. I never claimed starfish rationalize, and I don't know why you bring that up here. I gave you several valid examples of rationalizations which simply don't conform to your myopic one-dimensional definition. We rationalize getting married, buying a car or house, going or not going to college. You're rationalizing in this thread how life can exist without a Creator. Do you think you are "covering up feelings of guilt?" 

And why do you keep referring to "WE" in your posts? Are you pregnant? Split personality disorder? Do you believe you're speaking for everyone here besides me? I see you and a few of your equally moronic friends who spend more time thanking each other's posts than making salient points, but I also see several people here schooling that ass on a regular basis. I certainly don't see the basis for your "we are all" chortles, unless you are delusional, which is a high possibility.


----------



## HUGGY

Uncensored2008 said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> you don't like god. or don't believe in him, don't worship him.   libs are famous for saying don't like gays, don't be gay.  why can't they ever follow their own advice?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny how the *left demands that others not believe in God*. duhs goes absolutely apeshit over the idea that others are permitted to believe.
Click to expand...


I believe it serves capitalists more than any other group to promote the selling of things no one needs.  I have never seen where someone from the left demanded that you cannot believe in god or any make believe entity.  Lefties sell just as much nonsense as righties.


----------



## Boss

Uncensored2008 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the topic of "good and evil" let me ask this question... If there were no evil, how could we recognize good?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would we need to?
> 
> You've posed an very old Sunday School question, but it is not logical.
Click to expand...


Why do we need to now? 

Yes, it's very logical. Don't know about Sunday School questions since I don't attend Sunday School. 



> Would we be able to acknowledge or comprehend a universe of only good? Or perhaps, create our own "evil" which might otherwise have been simply a lesser good?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that God created evil? If so, was it for the purpose of daming people to eternal suffering?
Click to expand...


Doesn't look like that's what I posted and I generally post what I am saying. 

Did Light create Dark? 



> *Good and evil are subjective perception.*
> Nonsense.



Not nonsense. Terrorists flew planes into buildings declaring "God is Good!" They believed they were doing good. 



> *When Hitler was incinerating Jews, he believed it was good.*
> No, he sure didn't. He knew full well that he was engaged in evil. His lust for power made him not care.



Well, yes he most certainly did. It's written in his own words. He called it the "Final Solution" and believed he was forming the perfect race. His perception was, killing the Jews was a good thing that needed to be done to cleanse humanity. Many agreed with him. Many still do. 



> When we dropped nukes on Japan to end WWII, was that good or evil? When someone aborts a child they know will suffer a lifetime of pain and mality, is that good or evil? We all have different perceptions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some questions of morality are open to dissension, many are not.
Click to expand...


Now you seem to be agreeing with my point. 



> The fact that humans conceptualize good and evil is a testament to the existence of spiritual nature. It is through human spiritual awareness we are able to rationalize good and evil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm agnostic, yet seem to have a far more developed sense of good and evil than you. As such, your thesis is flawed.
Click to expand...


No, you have a perception of good and evil just the same as I do. In most cases your "agnostic" perceptions are driven by the culture that surrounds you. Your opinion doesn't make my thesis flawed, sorry.


----------



## Boss

MrMax said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your standards for proof are non-existant. All you really have are suppositions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying a tree doesn't exist? Or DNA?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm saying that you have no proof that an invisible superbeing made the tree or DNA...
Click to expand...


Biogenesis. They didn't create themselves.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Until you can isolate a special chemical which makes one person consciously decide to kill people and another unique chemical which makes someone else help the needy, then you haven't supported your argument that chemicals in the brain drive or motivate our conscience. You've explained how our brain enables the various abilities, but I think we can all agree we have these abilities. That's not in question here.
> 
> Yes, you can post all the incomplete definitions you like, and I can't refute them. I gave several examples of rationalizations which simply don't fit your definition. And no, your definition certainly doesn't state that rationalization is exclusive to humans... it just doesn't.
> 
> I don't know where you're getting the whole "PhD to a Bachelors" denigration. I never said I had a Bachelors, you must have assumed this somewhere. We can see you're very good at making baseless assumptions, then stubbornly insisting you are correct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have specifically identified the part of the brain that causes empathy. I posted that earlier. Don't know why you are pretending that hasn't already been established.
> Just kidding. I know why you are pretending.
> Show how starfish cover up their feelings of guilt with rationalizations.
> We are all on the edge of our seats.
> Since rationalizations require language, as they are a product of it, you have a tough hill to climb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What "causes" empathy has nothing to do with what drives it. We can identify what part of the brain causes anger, or even what chemicals are released in the brain when anger is felt... we can't explain why some people project anger by killing a bunch of innocent people while another projects anger by punching a wall. That's not a different chemical or way the brain is functioning physiologically, it's driven by conscience of the individual.
> 
> I've not "pretended" anything, I already know the brain and how it functions. I also know about rationalization. "Covering up feelings of guilt" is not the exclusive definition of a rationalization. I never claimed starfish rationalize, and I don't know why you bring that up here. I gave you several valid examples of rationalizations which simply don't conform to your myopic one-dimensional definition. We rationalize getting married, buying a car or house, going or not going to college. You're rationalizing in this thread how life can exist without a Creator. Do you think you are "covering up feelings of guilt?"
> 
> And why do you keep referring to "WE" in your posts? Are you pregnant? Split personality disorder? Do you believe you're speaking for everyone here besides me? I see you and a few of your equally moronic friends who spend more time thanking each other's posts than making salient points, but I also see several people here schooling that ass on a regular basis. I certainly don't see the basis for your "we are all" chortles, unless you are delusional, which is a high possibility.
Click to expand...


You are ignoring the psychological definition of the word, which is the only one relevant to any discussion we have ever had on this topic. It is clear and unambiguous.
It is just as obvious that the animal world won't share it, as the language required to formulate a good juicy rationalization is not available to them.
You are obviously unfamiliar with the research regarding how the amount of chemicals or the the size of certain elements of the brain influence behavior. The cause IS the driver.
Sophmore year.
The rest is just your usual bluster and vitriol. Not worth addressing.


----------



## Boss

> It is just as obvious that the animal world won't share it, as the language required to formulate a good juicy rationalization is not available to them.



Not true. Crows communicate using as many as 250 various sounds and even have regional "dialect." They are able to tell each other about hostile faces so other crows recognize people they've never seen before. They pass down information through generations as well. 



> The cause IS the driver



Not it's not, and if this were the case, there would be no need for psychology at all. Everything would be about chemistry and biology. Those are certainly important aspects, but they do not explain everything. This seems to be a recurring theme with you. 



> You are ignoring the psychological definition of the word..



Even psychological definitions do not state the attribute is exclusive to humans. And where have I "ignored" the definitions you presented? I said they are valid definitions. Incomplete, but valid nonetheless. You've taken a single definition which is certainly a valid fundamental of psychology and sociology, and tried to argue this is the ONLY valid definition. All I can say is, if you had studied psychology under my professor, you would have failed the course.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> It is just as obvious that the animal world won't share it, as the language required to formulate a good juicy rationalization is not available to them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. Crows communicate using as many as 250 various sounds and even have regional "dialect." They are able to tell each other about hostile faces so other crows recognize people they've never seen before. They pass down information through generations as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The cause IS the driver
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not it's not, and if this were the case, there would be no need for psychology at all. Everything would be about chemistry and biology. Those are certainly important aspects, but they do not explain everything. This seems to be a recurring theme with you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are ignoring the psychological definition of the word..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even psychological definitions do not state the attribute is exclusive to humans. And where have I "ignored" the definitions you presented? I said they are valid definitions. Incomplete, but valid nonetheless. You've taken a single definition which is certainly a valid fundamental of psychology and sociology, and tried to argue this is the ONLY valid definition. All I can say is, if you had studied psychology under my professor, you would have failed the course.
Click to expand...


Thank god I didn't, because he certainly failed you as an educator.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the topic of "good and evil" let me ask this question... If there were no evil, how could we recognize good?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would we need to?
> 
> You've posed an very old Sunday School question, but it is not logical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do we need to now?
> 
> Yes, it's very logical. Don't know about Sunday School questions since I don't attend Sunday School.
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't look like that's what I posted and I generally post what I am saying.
> 
> Did Light create Dark?
> 
> 
> 
> Not nonsense. Terrorists flew planes into buildings declaring "God is Good!" They believed they were doing good.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, yes he most certainly did. It's written in his own words. He called it the "Final Solution" and believed he was forming the perfect race. His perception was, killing the Jews was a good thing that needed to be done to cleanse humanity. Many agreed with him. Many still do.
> 
> 
> 
> Now you seem to be agreeing with my point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that humans conceptualize good and evil is a testament to the existence of spiritual nature. It is through human spiritual awareness we are able to rationalize good and evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm agnostic, yet seem to have a far more developed sense of good and evil than you. As such, your thesis is flawed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you have a perception of good and evil just the same as I do. In most cases your "agnostic" perceptions are driven by the culture that surrounds you. Your opinion doesn't make my thesis flawed, sorry.
Click to expand...


I agree with the idea that good and evil are subjective.
We agree on this.
They are a cultural decision that determines if you are contributing to that society or are an antisocial element of it.
It does kind of kick in the groin that the idea of good and evil are externally motivated by some force or entity that determines them.


----------



## Boss

> It does kind of kick in the groin that the idea of good and evil are externally motivated by some force or entity that determines them.



Not really, because in most all civilized cultures the understanding of "good and evil" are directly or indirectly related to religious or spiritual beliefs.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> It does kind of kick in the groin that the idea of good and evil are externally motivated by some force or entity that determines them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really, because in most all civilized cultures the understanding of "good and evil" are directly or indirectly related to religious or spiritual beliefs.
Click to expand...


"Good and evil are subjective perception."

That's from you.
Next.


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It does kind of kick in the groin that the idea of good and evil are externally motivated by some force or entity that determines them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really, because in most all civilized cultures the understanding of "good and evil" are directly or indirectly related to religious or spiritual beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Good and evil are subjective perception."
> 
> That's from you.
> Next.
Click to expand...


Yep, and there is not a contradiction. Next.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> It is just as obvious that the animal world won't share it, as the language required to formulate a good juicy rationalization is not available to them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. Crows communicate using as many as 250 various sounds and even have regional "dialect." They are able to tell each other about hostile faces so other crows recognize people they've never seen before. They pass down information through generations as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The cause IS the driver
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not it's not, and if this were the case, there would be no need for psychology at all. Everything would be about chemistry and biology. Those are certainly important aspects, but they do not explain everything. This seems to be a recurring theme with you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are ignoring the psychological definition of the word..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even psychological definitions do not state the attribute is exclusive to humans. And where have I "ignored" the definitions you presented? I said they are valid definitions. Incomplete, but valid nonetheless. You've taken a single definition which is certainly a valid fundamental of psychology and sociology, and tried to argue this is the ONLY valid definition. All I can say is, if you had studied psychology under my professor, you would have failed the course.
Click to expand...


Didn't the whole rationalization side-car start because the word was used in a particular context?

Wouldn't that mean it was used with one specific definition?

If I were to bring up civil rights, would you start arguing about the opposite of left?


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> It is just as obvious that the animal world won't share it, as the language required to formulate a good juicy rationalization is not available to them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. Crows communicate using as many as 250 various sounds and even have regional "dialect." They are able to tell each other about hostile faces so other crows recognize people they've never seen before. They pass down information through generations as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The cause IS the driver
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not it's not, and if this were the case, there would be no need for psychology at all. Everything would be about chemistry and biology. Those are certainly important aspects, but they do not explain everything. This seems to be a recurring theme with you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are ignoring the psychological definition of the word..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even psychological definitions do not state the attribute is exclusive to humans. And where have I "ignored" the definitions you presented? I said they are valid definitions. Incomplete, but valid nonetheless. You've taken a single definition which is certainly a valid fundamental of psychology and sociology, and tried to argue this is the ONLY valid definition. All I can say is, if you had studied psychology under my professor, you would have failed the course.
Click to expand...


Are all activities or attributes which are only found in humans described as such in their definitions?  If I look up the definition of the word novel, as a noun, will it say something like, "A written story of a certain length only created by humans"?


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not really, because in most all civilized cultures the understanding of "good and evil" are directly or indirectly related to religious or spiritual beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Good and evil are subjective perception."
> 
> That's from you.
> Next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, and there is not a contradiction. Next.
Click to expand...


Love to hear that rationalization.


----------



## Boss

> Didn't the whole rationalization side-car start because the word was used in a particular context?
> 
> Wouldn't that mean it was used with one specific definition?
> 
> If I were to bring up civil rights, would you start arguing about the opposite of left?



It was argued that humans have spirituality because humans are able to rationalize. It has been demonstrated that other species also rationalize behavior. Then the argument ensued regarding psychoanalytic derivatives of rationalization which are important to psychiatric evaluation but really do not pertain to the topic in context. 

If you were to bring up civil rights then start talking about pedophiles having the right to molest children, this would be similar.


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Good and evil are subjective perception."
> 
> That's from you.
> Next.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, and there is not a contradiction. Next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Love to hear that rationalization.
Click to expand...


No need for rationalization, there are two different comments being made. It's logic.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, and there is not a contradiction. Next.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Love to hear that rationalization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need for rationalization, there are two different comments being made. It's logic.
Click to expand...


You're busted again.


----------



## Boss

> You're busted again.



No, you're fucked in the head again. 

Read the two statements slowly, you'll notice they contain different words which mean different things. The meanings do not contradict. 

*Good and evil are subjective perception.*

This does not negate the fact that *in most all civilized cultures the understanding of "good and evil" are directly or indirectly related to religious or spiritual beliefs.*

Many of our subjective perceptions of good and evil are influenced by religious and spiritual beliefs whether we recognize them as such or not.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> You're busted again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you're fucked in the head again.
> 
> Read the two statements slowly, you'll notice they contain different words which mean different things. The meanings do not contradict.
> 
> *Good and evil are subjective perception.*
> 
> This does not negate the fact that *in most all civilized cultures the understanding of "good and evil" are directly or indirectly related to religious or spiritual beliefs.*
> 
> Many of our subjective perceptions of good and evil are influenced by religious and spiritual beliefs whether we recognize them as such or not.
Click to expand...


BELIEFS!!!
Not truths.
Subjective beliefs agreed upon culturally that have no intrinsic validity but are subjectively agreed upon within a given social structure.
Subjective!
Internally selected not externally verified.
You just give and give and give.
What did I do to deserve a gift like you?


----------



## Boss

Again, cultures are very often influenced by religious beliefs since most humans are spiritual. 

Subjectivity is also very often influenced by religious beliefs of a given culture. 

Why do you deserve a gift like me? I guess you're just "special"?


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> Again, cultures are very often influenced by religious beliefs since most humans are spiritual.
> 
> Subjectivity is also very often influenced by religious beliefs of a given culture.
> 
> Why do you deserve a gift like me? I guess you're just "special"?



A great argument for the subjectivity of "spirituality" and against its objective reality.
Well done.


----------



## BreezeWood

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, cultures are very often influenced by religious beliefs since most humans are spiritual.
> 
> Subjectivity is also very often influenced by religious beliefs of a given culture.
> 
> Why do you deserve a gift like me? I guess you're just "special"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A great argument for the subjectivity of "spirituality" and against its objective reality.
> Well done.
Click to expand...



since Good and Evil are not subjective, that would conclude Spirituality is an objective Reality - exemplified by a Spirit that persists without a physiology accomplished by attaining the full compliment of one, Good at the expense over the other as prescribed by a Deity.

The Triumph of Good over Evil ... so seldom accomplished if ever since year 0, when walking on water, Spiritually became a Reality.

.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Didn't the whole rationalization side-car start because the word was used in a particular context?
> 
> Wouldn't that mean it was used with one specific definition?
> 
> If I were to bring up civil rights, would you start arguing about the opposite of left?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was argued that humans have spirituality because humans are able to rationalize. It has been demonstrated that other species also rationalize behavior. Then the argument ensued regarding psychoanalytic derivatives of rationalization which are important to psychiatric evaluation but really do not pertain to the topic in context.
> 
> If you were to bring up civil rights then start talking about pedophiles having the right to molest children, this would be similar.
Click to expand...


I believe you made that argument after rationalization was already brought up.


----------



## thebrucebeat

BreezeWood said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, cultures are very often influenced by religious beliefs since most humans are spiritual.
> 
> Subjectivity is also very often influenced by religious beliefs of a given culture.
> 
> Why do you deserve a gift like me? I guess you're just "special"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A great argument for the subjectivity of "spirituality" and against its objective reality.
> Well done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> since Good and Evil are not subjective, that would conclude Spirituality is an objective Reality - exemplified by a Spirit that persists without a physiology accomplished by attaining the full compliment of one, Good at the expense over the other as prescribed by a Deity.
> 
> The Triumph of Good over Evil ... so seldom accomplished if ever since year 0, when walking on water, Spiritually became a Reality.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


A completely unsupported premise to reach a subsequently unfounded conclusion.
Well done.
A completely aborted syllogism.


----------



## jillian

Boss said:


> It does kind of kick in the groin that the idea of good and evil are externally motivated by some force or entity that determines them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really, because in most all civilized cultures the understanding of "good and evil" are directly or indirectly related to religious or spiritual beliefs.
Click to expand...


I haven't found that at all. in fact, some of the ugliest people I've seen online are the ones who pretend great religious faith.  there is also a huge difference between religious and "spiritual". and there is certainly a huger difference still when you superimpose organized religion over "faith".


----------



## jillian

BreezeWood said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, cultures are very often influenced by religious beliefs since most humans are spiritual.
> 
> Subjectivity is also very often influenced by religious beliefs of a given culture.
> 
> Why do you deserve a gift like me? I guess you're just "special"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A great argument for the subjectivity of "spirituality" and against its objective reality.
> Well done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> since Good and Evil are not subjective, that would conclude Spirituality is an objective Reality - exemplified by a Spirit that persists without a physiology accomplished by attaining the full compliment of one, Good at the expense over the other as prescribed by a Deity.
> 
> The Triumph of Good over Evil ... so seldom accomplished if ever since year 0, when walking on water, Spiritually became a Reality.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


no


----------



## Boss

jillian said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It does kind of kick in the groin that the idea of good and evil are externally motivated by some force or entity that determines them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really, because in most all civilized cultures the understanding of "good and evil" are directly or indirectly related to religious or spiritual beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I haven't found that at all. in fact, some of the ugliest people I've seen online are the ones who pretend great religious faith.  there is also a huge difference between religious and "spiritual". and there is certainly a huger difference still when you superimpose organized religion over "faith".
Click to expand...

You have completely misinterpreted the comment. I've said nothing remotely close to what you seem to have inferred. Nowhere did I say religious people can't be ugly. Nowhere did I superimpose religion over faith or equate religion and spirituality. How you arrived at these conclusions, I honestly have no idea. 

Culturally, our concepts of what is "good" or what is "evil" is very often rooted in some religious or spiritual belief, whether we recognize it as such or not. Case in point, your own sentiments here. Not that "people online being ugly" is actual "evil" in any sense of the word, you have a perception of people "being ugly" because they aren't behaving in the way you perceive as "good." Now, what is your perception of "good" based on, and on what basis have you determined they were "ugly" to you? Most likely, from the concept of "do unto others as you'd have them do unto you." You see them as not upholding that compact, which is rooted in a religious teaching. 

Another example... You probably don't believe it is cool for your husband or boyfriend to cheat on you. If you are married, you'd probably expect your husband to be loyal. This is rooted culturally in religious beliefs regarding adultery. In other cultures, men have multiple wives, so it is not viewed as "disloyal" for your husband to be with another woman. And likewise, this is culturally accepted because of religious beliefs. 

If you were around for 9/11, you likely saw something "evil" happen that day. Men flew planes full of innocent people into the WTC buildings. However, in another culture and based on completely different religious underpinnings, this same event was seen as "good" and not "evil" at all. These men were martyrs and saints in the eyes of many. Our perceptions of what is "good" and what constitutes "evil" are very much rooted in a cultural understanding which is very often based on religious or spiritual beliefs.


----------



## daws101

Uncensored2008 said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> you don't like god. or don't believe in him, don't worship him.   libs are famous for saying don't like gays, don't be gay.  why can't they ever follow their own advice?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny how the left demands that others not believe in God. duhs goes absolutely apeshit over the idea that others are permitted to believe.
Click to expand...

that's a lie and you claim you never lie ...you just fucked yourself .
my pov is any one can believe anything they want...whether it fits the facts is another story...
there's nothing in the freedom of religion clause of the constitution that says you can spew whatever religious nonsense you wish and not be questioned or disagreed with concerning your belief.
the problem with  believers is they "think" that their take on religion is the only and best one.
it's not ....


----------



## daws101

jillian said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It does kind of kick in the groin that the idea of good and evil are externally motivated by some force or entity that determines them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really, because in most all civilized cultures the understanding of "good and evil" are directly or indirectly related to religious or spiritual beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I haven't found that at all. in fact, some of the ugliest people I've seen online are the ones who pretend great religious faith.  there is also a huge difference between religious and "spiritual". and there is certainly a huger difference still when you superimpose organized religion over "faith".
Click to expand...


----------



## orogenicman

BreezeWood said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, cultures are very often influenced by religious beliefs since most humans are spiritual.
> 
> Subjectivity is also very often influenced by religious beliefs of a given culture.
> 
> Why do you deserve a gift like me? I guess you're just "special"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A great argument for the subjectivity of "spirituality" and against its objective reality.
> Well done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> since Good and Evil are not subjective, that would conclude Spirituality is an objective Reality - exemplified by a Spirit that persists without a physiology accomplished by attaining the full compliment of one, Good at the expense over the other as prescribed by a Deity.
> 
> The Triumph of Good over Evil ... so seldom accomplished if ever since year 0, when walking on water, Spiritually became a Reality.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Word salad.


----------



## daws101

orogenicman said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> A great argument for the subjectivity of "spirituality" and against its objective reality.
> Well done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> since Good and Evil are not subjective, that would conclude Spirituality is an objective Reality - exemplified by a Spirit that persists without a physiology accomplished by attaining the full compliment of one, Good at the expense over the other as prescribed by a Deity.
> 
> The Triumph of Good over Evil ... so seldom accomplished if ever since year 0, when walking on water, Spiritually became a Reality.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Word salad.
Click to expand...

and no dressing!


----------



## HUGGY

BreezeWood said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, cultures are very often influenced by religious beliefs since most humans are spiritual.
> 
> Subjectivity is also very often influenced by religious beliefs of a given culture.
> 
> Why do you deserve a gift like me? I guess you're just "special"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A great argument for the subjectivity of "spirituality" and against its objective reality.
> Well done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> since Good and Evil are not subjective, that would conclude Spirituality is an objective Reality - exemplified by a Spirit that persists without a physiology accomplished by attaining the full compliment of one, Good at the expense over the other as prescribed by a Deity.
> 
> The Triumph of Good over Evil ... so seldom accomplished if ever since year 0, *when walking on water*, Spiritually became a Reality.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


*when walking on water*

Good grief.  Are you goofs still trying to push THAT?

This is the reality of spirituality... Some of you people on the god squad are seriously mentally ill.  

Nobody walked on water.  Nobody was dead for three days and just jumped up and moved a huge stone to escape his burial place.  The dozen or so miracles produced by jesus just did not happen.  Period.

That's where you goofballs blew it.  It wasn't good enough that Jesus was a good man and acted in a way that was highly commendable.  You just had to throw in the hocus pocus.  

We with both feet on the ground like to call these feats.. Hallucinations..  All that shit was just made up out of whole cloth.

If YOU believe that crap then you cannot be trusted to distinguish fact from myth.


----------



## BreezeWood

thebrucebeat said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> A great argument for the subjectivity of "spirituality" and against its objective reality.
> Well done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> since Good and Evil are not subjective, that would conclude Spirituality is an objective Reality - exemplified by a Spirit that persists without a physiology accomplished by attaining the full compliment of one, Good at the expense over the other as prescribed by a Deity.
> 
> The Triumph of Good over Evil ... so seldom accomplished if ever since year 0, when walking on water, Spiritually became a Reality.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *A completely unsupported premise to reach a subsequently unfounded conclusion.*
> Well done.
> A completely aborted syllogism.
Click to expand...




Yes.


*... A completely unsupported premise to reach a subsequently unfounded conclusion.*

but Bruce isn't it true of Gravity that from one pole to the other the reciprocal flow of water is reversed - but you are then similarly denying an individual would not be affected by their choice between the force of Good and Evil ? -

it is your conclusion, not historical precedent that the premise is unsupported or that for you nothing is in control of its own destiny.




> Word salad / and no dressing!



1+1 = 5




> *HUGGY:* This is the reality of spirituality ... Nobody walked on water.



no christian anyway - 

the Triumph of Good over Evil is a contrast in force no different than gravity and could when mastered lead to levitation. 

yes, a reality of Spirituality.

.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not really, because in most all civilized cultures the understanding of "good and evil" are directly or indirectly related to religious or spiritual beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't found that at all. in fact, some of the ugliest people I've seen online are the ones who pretend great religious faith.  there is also a huge difference between religious and "spiritual". and there is certainly a huger difference still when you superimpose organized religion over "faith".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have completely misinterpreted the comment. I've said nothing remotely close to what you seem to have inferred. Nowhere did I say religious people can't be ugly. Nowhere did I superimpose religion over faith or equate religion and spirituality. How you arrived at these conclusions, I honestly have no idea.
> 
> Culturally, our concepts of what is "good" or what is "evil" is very often rooted in some religious or spiritual belief, whether we recognize it as such or not. Case in point, your own sentiments here. Not that "people online being ugly" is actual "evil" in any sense of the word, you have a perception of people "being ugly" because they aren't behaving in the way you perceive as "good." Now, what is your perception of "good" based on, and on what basis have you determined they were "ugly" to you? Most likely, from the concept of "do unto others as you'd have them do unto you." You see them as not upholding that compact, which is rooted in a religious teaching.
> 
> Another example... You probably don't believe it is cool for your husband or boyfriend to cheat on you. If you are married, you'd probably expect your husband to be loyal. This is rooted culturally in religious beliefs regarding adultery. In other cultures, men have multiple wives, so it is not viewed as "disloyal" for your husband to be with another woman. And likewise, this is culturally accepted because of religious beliefs.
> 
> If you were around for 9/11, you likely saw something "evil" happen that day. Men flew planes full of innocent people into the WTC buildings. However, in another culture and based on completely different religious underpinnings, this same event was seen as "good" and not "evil" at all. These men were martyrs and saints in the eyes of many. Our perceptions of what is "good" and what constitutes "evil" are very much rooted in a cultural understanding which is very often based on religious or spiritual beliefs.
Click to expand...


I agree wholeheartedly.
I couldn't have written a better post to describe the completely subjective nature of the beliefs that a fictitious spirituality could guide one to. No objective truth is being revealed, only the consensus of a culture.
Well done!


----------



## orogenicman

BreezeWood said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> since Good and Evil are not subjective, that would conclude Spirituality is an objective Reality - exemplified by a Spirit that persists without a physiology accomplished by attaining the full compliment of one, Good at the expense over the other as prescribed by a Deity.
> 
> The Triumph of Good over Evil ... so seldom accomplished if ever since year 0, when walking on water, Spiritually became a Reality.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *A completely unsupported premise to reach a subsequently unfounded conclusion.*
> Well done.
> A completely aborted syllogism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> 
> *... A completely unsupported premise to reach a subsequently unfounded conclusion.*
> 
> but Bruce isn't it true of Gravity that from one pole to the other the reciprocal flow of water is reversed - but you are then similarly denying an individual would not be affected by their choice between the force of Good and Evil ?
Click to expand...


Erm, what? If you are referring to the coriolis effect, it is caused by the rotation of the Earth and the inertia of the mass experiencing the effect. Granted, I know a lot of people who have called hurricanes evil  but dude, they are just weather.



			
				huggys said:
			
		

> the Triumph of Good over Evil is a contrast in force no different than gravity and could when mastered lead to levitation.



Only while simultaneously sucking on helium-filled balloons.


----------



## thebrucebeat

BreezeWood said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> since Good and Evil are not subjective, that would conclude Spirituality is an objective Reality - exemplified by a Spirit that persists without a physiology accomplished by attaining the full compliment of one, Good at the expense over the other as prescribed by a Deity.
> 
> The Triumph of Good over Evil ... so seldom accomplished if ever since year 0, when walking on water, Spiritually became a Reality.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *A completely unsupported premise to reach a subsequently unfounded conclusion.*
> Well done.
> A completely aborted syllogism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> 
> *... A completely unsupported premise to reach a subsequently unfounded conclusion.*
> 
> but Bruce isn't it true of Gravity that from one pole to the other the reciprocal flow of water is reversed - but you are then similarly denying an individual would not be affected by their choice between the force of Good and Evil ? -
> 
> it is your conclusion, not historical precedent that the premise is unsupported or that for you nothing is in control of its own
> .
Click to expand...


You misunderstand. I am actually referring to the actual rules of basic Logic 101.
You start with a completely unsupported premise.
"Since Good and Evil are not subjective..."
So your argument is doomed before you begin.
I understand.
Basic logic comes next semester for you.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Boss said:


> Why do we need to now?



Assumes facts not in evidence.

Who says we need to?

Rational people recognize evil. Good is a far more subjective concept, yet all save sociopaths recognize evil. 



> Yes, it's very logical. Don't know about Sunday School questions since I don't attend Sunday School.



No, it is not logical. IF there were no evil, then there would be no need at all to recognize the difference between good, and that which does not exist, Your question is akin to demanding how we know the difference between dogs and unicorns. The simple answer is one exists, the other doesn't.

The excuse that evil must exist so that we can know good is that kind of crap that Catholic schools feed second graders; it's illogical pablum. 



> Doesn't look like that's what I posted and I generally post what I am saying.
> 
> Did Light create Dark?



No one claims that light is the master creator of all, yet is that not your claim of God? If God created all that is, as Christians claim, then God created evil. To what purpose?



> Not nonsense. Terrorists flew planes into buildings declaring "God is Good!" They believed they were doing good.



False.

They believed that the EVIL they perpetrated ultimately served a higher good. There is a significant distinction between these propositions.



> Well, yes he most certainly did. It's written in his own words. He called it the "Final Solution" and believed he was forming the perfect race. His perception was, killing the Jews was a good thing that needed to be done to cleanse humanity. Many agreed with him. Many still do.



Ah, so you have never read a solid history of Hitler and the Third Reich.

I understand.

Hitler was a master manipulator. His use of rhetoric was astounding. Antisemitism offered Hitler a vehicle to ride to power upon. But Hitler was a meth addict, and by the time that the final solution came about, no longer rational. Hitler was no longer able to distinguish right from wrong by that point.



> Now you seem to be agreeing with my point.



I wouldn't go that far.



> No, you have a perception of good and evil just the same as I do. In most cases your "agnostic" perceptions are driven by the culture that surrounds you. Your opinion doesn't make my thesis flawed, sorry.



True, my opinion doesn't make your thesis flawed, your faulty logic does.


----------



## emilynghiem

thebrucebeat said:


> You misunderstand. I am actually referring to the actual rules of basic Logic 101.
> You start with a completely unsupported premise.
> "Since Good and Evil are not subjective..."
> So your argument is doomed before you begin.
> I understand.
> Basic logic comes next semester for you.



Yes and no, Bruce.

There is both the subjective concepts and labels of what is good and what is evil
that are indeed relative to individuals, I agree with you on that part.

But there is also a proveable distinction between the
ENERGY that is associated with good as opposed to evil.

The "positive energy" in healing prayer and therapy based on "forgiveness"
is measurably distinct and clashes with
the "negative energy" in self-willed sorcery, occult, witchcraft and other such
spiritism-based practices that rely on manipulation and not healing the root cause.

Doctors researching the process of spiritual healing and prayer
have noted the conflict and danger involved in mixing these two "distinct"
types of energies.

If just what these doctors have observed, in studying the difference in healing
prayers and processes, is not enough to establish a "scientific difference" in energy,
you could look up the studies on "forgiveness and unforgiveness," and see the
difference that these make on people's health and the correlation with illness.

another friend of mine points out the negative reactions in the body to FEAR,
as opposed to LOVE, so you could measure the differences there scientifically.

Yes Bruce it is relative what labels of Good or Bad 
humans assign to these differences.

But the differences themselves can be scientifically distinguished 
and proven to have different energy and different effects. 

There is a provable difference between "positive" and "negative"
or whatever we call these things.

The subjective part is how we judge and throw on labels,
because of our relative experiences and perceptions that, of course, is biased and flawed.


----------



## thebrucebeat

emilynghiem said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> You misunderstand. I am actually referring to the actual rules of basic Logic 101.
> You start with a completely unsupported premise.
> "Since Good and Evil are not subjective..."
> So your argument is doomed before you begin.
> I understand.
> Basic logic comes next semester for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and no, Bruce.
> 
> There is both the subjective concepts and labels of what is good and what is evil
> that are indeed relative to individuals, I agree with you on that part.
> 
> But there is also a proveable distinction between the
> ENERGY that is associated with good as opposed to evil.
> 
> The "positive energy" in healing prayer and therapy based on "forgiveness"
> is measurably distinct and clashes with
> the "negative energy" in self-willed sorcery, occult, witchcraft and other such
> spiritism-based practices that rely on manipulation and not healing the root cause.
> 
> Doctors researching the process of spiritual healing and prayer
> have noted the conflict and danger involved in mixing these two "distinct"
> types of energies.
> 
> If just what these doctors have observed, in studying the difference in healing
> prayers and processes, is not enough to establish a "scientific difference" in energy,
> you could look up the studies on "forgiveness and unforgiveness," and see the
> difference that these make on people's health and the correlation with illness.
> 
> another friend of mine points out the negative reactions in the body to FEAR,
> as opposed to LOVE, so you could measure the differences there scientifically.
> 
> Yes Bruce it is relative what labels of Good or Bad
> humans assign to these differences.
> 
> But the differences themselves can be scientifically distinguished
> and proven to have different energy and different effects.
> 
> There is a provable difference between "positive" and "negative"
> or whatever we call these things.
> 
> The subjective part is how we judge and throw on labels,
> because of our relative experiences and perceptions that, of course, is biased and flawed.
Click to expand...

I am sure you are prepared to cite these peer reviewed "studies" that conclusively prove your premise.
Now two of you are starting with equally unsupported premises. You further limit good and evil to the effects of prayer. Not the same discussion at all.
Relative experiences and perceptions are what cause the positive and negative reactions to stimuli, making that healing process as subjective as any other description of good and evil.


----------



## Boss

Uncensored2008 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do we need to now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Assumes facts not in evidence.
> 
> Who says we need to?
> 
> Rational people recognize evil. Good is a far more subjective concept, yet all save sociopaths recognize evil.
Click to expand...


Rational people recognize evil only because there is something to compare it to. If there were no such thing as "good" and everything was "evil" you wouldn't recognize it as evil. Likewise, if everything was "good" and nothing was "evil" you'd never comprehend something as "good" because there would be no comparative basis. Good compared to what? 



> Yes, it's very logical. Don't know about Sunday School questions since I don't attend Sunday School.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is not logical. IF there were no evil, then there would be no need at all to recognize the difference between good, and that which does not exist, Your question is akin to demanding how we know the difference between dogs and unicorns. The simple answer is one exists, the other doesn't.
Click to expand...


Right, if there were no evil, then we would have no concept of "good" because everything would be good by default. I've not presented a question, it's an argument, and nothing like the analogy you've made here. It's completely logical and what is illogical is the idea that we would be able to recognize something as "good" if there were nothing to compare it with.



> The excuse that evil must exist so that we can know good is that kind of crap that Catholic schools feed second graders; it's illogical pablum.



It's not an "excuse" it's reality and logic. Evil exists because good exists and we can subjectively compare them to rationalize one from the other. If either did not exist, the other would also not exist. If there were no such thing as darkness, there would be no such thing as light. It is because darkness exists that we can distinguish light and visa versa. 



> No one claims that light is the master creator of all, yet is that not your claim of God? If God created all that is, as Christians claim, then God created evil. To what purpose?



God didn't create evil. Evil exists necessarily because good exists. We can rationalize evil only because good exists. If there were no good, there could be no evil, and visa versa.




> *Not nonsense. Terrorists flew planes into buildings declaring "God is Good!" They believed they were doing good.*
> False.
> 
> They believed that the EVIL they perpetrated ultimately served a higher good. There is a significant distinction between these propositions.



Not true, they religiously believed they were doing something good. They did not view it as evil, they did not have the perception that it was evil. As a matter of fact, they believed they were flying planes into the symbol of evil. You have a different perception. 



> Ah, so you have never read a solid history of Hitler and the Third Reich.
> 
> I understand.
> 
> Hitler was a master manipulator. His use of rhetoric was astounding. Antisemitism offered Hitler a vehicle to ride to power upon. But Hitler was a meth addict, and by the time that the final solution came about, no longer rational. Hitler was no longer able to distinguish right from wrong by that point.



Ah, but I have. Insulting me is not making your point. Mein Kampf (meaning, My Struggle) was published (vol. 1) in 1925, years before Hitler came into power. In it, Hitler used the main thesis of "the Jewish peril", which posits a Jewish conspiracy to gain world leadership. The narrative describes the process by which he became increasingly antisemitic and militaristic, especially during his years in Vienna. The racial laws to which Hitler referred resonate directly with his ideas in Mein Kampf. Hitler stated that the destruction of the weak and sick is far more humane than their protection. However, apart from his allusion to humane treatment, Hitler saw a purpose in destroying "the weak" in order to provide the proper space and purity for the strong.



> Now you seem to be agreeing with my point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't go that far.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you have a perception of good and evil just the same as I do. In most cases your "agnostic" perceptions are driven by the culture that surrounds you. Your opinion doesn't make my thesis flawed, sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True, my opinion doesn't make your thesis flawed, your faulty logic does.
Click to expand...


But it is your logic that is faulty, as I've demonstrated. Your inability to see your own faulty logic is not my problem and there isn't much I can do about it. You're arguing the glass could be half full if only the glass did not exist.


----------



## daws101

BreezeWood said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> since Good and Evil are not subjective, that would conclude Spirituality is an objective Reality - exemplified by a Spirit that persists without a physiology accomplished by attaining the full compliment of one, Good at the expense over the other as prescribed by a Deity.
> 
> The Triumph of Good over Evil ... so seldom accomplished if ever since year 0, when walking on water, Spiritually became a Reality.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *A completely unsupported premise to reach a subsequently unfounded conclusion.*
> Well done.
> A completely aborted syllogism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> 
> *... A completely unsupported premise to reach a subsequently unfounded conclusion.*
> 
> but Bruce isn't it true of Gravity that from one pole to the other the reciprocal flow of water is reversed - but you are then similarly denying an individual would not be affected by their choice between the force of Good and Evil ? -
> 
> it is your conclusion, not historical precedent that the premise is unsupported or that for you nothing is in control of its own destiny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Word salad / and no dressing!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1+1 = 5
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *HUGGY:* This is the reality of spirituality ... Nobody walked on water.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no christian anyway -
> 
> the Triumph of Good over Evil is a contrast in force no different than gravity and could when mastered lead to levitation.
> 
> yes, a reality of Spirituality.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

1+1 can sometimes equal 5 or in the case of octomom  many more...


----------



## thanatos144

Belief in God is important.  Secularism leads to things like over 50 million babies killed by abortion and high gang violence by the young.  

tapatalk post


----------



## BreezeWood

thebrucebeat said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> *A completely unsupported premise to reach a subsequently unfounded conclusion.*
> Well done.
> A completely aborted syllogism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *... A completely unsupported premise to reach a subsequently unfounded conclusion.*
> 
> but Bruce isn't it true of Gravity that from one pole to the other the reciprocal flow of water is reversed - but you are then similarly denying an individual would not be affected by their choice between the force of Good and Evil ? -
> 
> it is your conclusion, not historical precedent that the premise is unsupported or that for you nothing is in control of its own
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You misunderstand. I am actually referring to the actual rules of basic Logic 101.
> You start with a completely unsupported premise.
> "Since Good and Evil are not subjective..."
> So your argument is doomed before you begin.
> I understand.
> Basic logic comes next semester for you.
Click to expand...



what makes you think Good and Evil are subjective and not the same forces derived as gravity ?




> *thebrucebeat:* No one is without sin. No not one.



it is your subjection that is illogical - Christian ... 

not the premise of a nonphysiological existence extent to its conception at birth, for those willing to exercise the abilities granted at Creation culminating as a Triumph, with due Judgment for the Admission to the Everlasting. and necessarily by a sinless being.

.


----------



## HUGGY

thanatos144 said:


> Belief in God is important.  Secularism leads to things like over 50 million babies killed by abortion and high gang violence by the young.
> 
> tapatalk post



So you think atheists are behind abortion clinics and gang violence?  Social policies are run by politicians that get elected by the voters.  Open atheists are unelectable.  

You might consider that your unsupportable or provable "god fearing ways" make those that get elected with their hands on the bible appear as hypocrits and to the abortion practitioners and gang members liars and not to be respected.

Those that do wrong right under your noses know that there is no god to smite them no matter how much you pray that he/she/it will.

Maybe you should try a more honest approach?  No...wait...you can't.  It is YOU living the lie while expecting others to live a good life.


----------



## thebrucebeat

BreezeWood said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> *... A completely unsupported premise to reach a subsequently unfounded conclusion.*
> 
> but Bruce isn't it true of Gravity that from one pole to the other the reciprocal flow of water is reversed - but you are then similarly denying an individual would not be affected by their choice between the force of Good and Evil ? -
> 
> it is your conclusion, not historical precedent that the premise is unsupported or that for you nothing is in control of its own
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You misunderstand. I am actually referring to the actual rules of basic Logic 101.
> You start with a completely unsupported premise.
> "Since Good and Evil are not subjective..."
> So your argument is doomed before you begin.
> I understand.
> Basic logic comes next semester for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> what makes you think Good and Evil are subjective and not the same forces derived as gravity ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *thebrucebeat:* No one is without sin. No not one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it is your subjection that is illogical - Christian ...
> 
> not the premise of a nonphysiological existence extent to its conception at birth, for those willing to exercise the abilities granted at Creation culminating as a Triumph, with due Judgment for the Admission to the Everlasting. and necessarily by a sinless being.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I didn't say anything about good and evil. I said the initial premise was unproven so led to an unsupportable conclusion.
Emotions always cloud a good thought process.
The rest is such a complete rhetorical train-wreck that it is impossible to respond to.
Do you know what subjection means? How did you mean to use it?


----------



## thanatos144

HUGGY said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Belief in God is important.  Secularism leads to things like over 50 million babies killed by abortion and high gang violence by the young.
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you think atheists are behind abortion clinics and gang violence?  Social policies are run by politicians that get elected by the voters.  Open atheists are unelectable.
> 
> You might consider that your unsupportable or provable "god fearing ways" make those that get elected with their hands on the bible appear as hypocrits and to the abortion practitioners and gang members liars and not to be respected.
> 
> Those that do wrong right under your noses know that there is no god to smite them no matter how much you pray that he/she/it will.
> 
> Maybe you should try a more honest approach?  No...wait...you can't.  It is YOU living the lie while expecting others to live a good life.
Click to expand...


I think secularism like all selfish beliefs leads to selfish actions 

tapatalk post


----------



## HUGGY

thanatos144 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Belief in God is important.  Secularism leads to things like over 50 million babies killed by abortion and high gang violence by the young.
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you think atheists are behind abortion clinics and gang violence?  Social policies are run by politicians that get elected by the voters.  Open atheists are unelectable.
> 
> You might consider that your unsupportable or provable "god fearing ways" make those that get elected with their hands on the bible appear as hypocrits and to the abortion practitioners and gang members liars and not to be respected.
> 
> Those that do wrong right under your noses know that there is no god to smite them no matter how much you pray that he/she/it will.
> 
> Maybe you should try a more honest approach?  No...wait...you can't.  It is YOU living the lie while expecting others to live a good life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think secularism like all selfish beliefs leads to selfish actions
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


Haven't you noticed that it is the Atheists that have promised nothing and asked for nothing? The escense of unselfishness.


----------



## thanatos144

HUGGY said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you think atheists are behind abortion clinics and gang violence?  Social policies are run by politicians that get elected by the voters.  Open atheists are unelectable.
> 
> You might consider that your unsupportable or provable "god fearing ways" make those that get elected with their hands on the bible appear as hypocrits and to the abortion practitioners and gang members liars and not to be respected.
> 
> Those that do wrong right under your noses know that there is no god to smite them no matter how much you pray that he/she/it will.
> 
> Maybe you should try a more honest approach?  No...wait...you can't.  It is YOU living the lie while expecting others to live a good life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think secularism like all selfish beliefs leads to selfish actions
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haven't you noticed that it is the Atheists that have promised nothing and asked for nothing? The escense of unselfishness.
Click to expand...


Who are you lying to me or you?


----------



## orogenicman

thanatos144 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think secularism like all selfish beliefs leads to selfish actions
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Haven't you noticed that it is the Atheists that have promised nothing and asked for nothing? The escense of unselfishness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who are you lying to me or you?
Click to expand...


I am an atheist and the only thing I've ever promised of myself or asked of others is honesty in human relations. What about you?


----------



## thanatos144

orogenicman said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Haven't you noticed that it is the Atheists that have promised nothing and asked for nothing? The escense of unselfishness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you lying to me or you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am an atheist and the only thing I've ever promised of myself or asked of others is honesty in human relations. What about you?
Click to expand...


you demand all other believe in your religion....


----------



## orogenicman

thanatos144 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you lying to me or you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am an atheist and the only thing I've ever promised of myself or asked of others is honesty in human relations. What about you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you demand all other believe in your religion....
Click to expand...


Really? And you know this because you know me? I think not. I could care less what you or anyone else believe as long as those beliefs do no harm to others. And since I don't have a religion, non-sequitur.


----------



## daws101

thanatos144 said:


> Belief in God is important.  Secularism leads to things like over 50 million babies killed by abortion and high gang violence by the young.
> 
> tapatalk post


really........belief in god has never stopped any sort of  killing or anything else..
on the other hand, it's single handily the world's leading cause of war and hate...


----------



## Uncensored2008

daws101 said:


> really........belief in god has never stopped any sort of  killing or anything else..
> on the other hand, it's single handily the world's leading cause of war and hate...



Yeah, as long as you exclude Communism, hate, and lust for power.....

Brilliant post as always, duhs....


----------



## koshergrl

Duhs is a genius.

And yes, many deaths have been prevented..and untold lives have been saved...by people who made the choices they made based on their belief in God.


----------



## daws101

Uncensored2008 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> really........belief in god has never stopped any sort of  killing or anything else..
> on the other hand, it's single handily the world's leading cause of war and hate...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, as long as you exclude Communism, hate, and lust for power.....
> 
> Brilliant post as always, duhs....
Click to expand...

false even when you factor those in, belief in god still tops the list ....


----------



## orogenicman

What I don't understand, and never have, is what is it about people with different beliefs/opinions that so intimidates people of faith.  If they have faith, what are they afraid of?


----------



## daws101

orogenicman said:


> What I don't understand, and never have, is what is it about people with different beliefs/opinions that so intimidates people of faith.  If they have faith, what are they afraid of?


 they are afraid that  a non believer may reawaken their natural skepticism.....?
naw...because their faith emboldens them into believing they are chosen...!


----------



## koshergrl

Actually, we're afraid you may kill us.

It's what anti-Christians do..and it's what atheists do.


----------



## thanatos144

koshergrl said:


> Actually, we're afraid you may kill us.
> 
> It's what anti-Christians do..and it's what atheists do.



First they start with those who can't defend themselves like the unborn. ... 

tapatalk post


----------



## orogenicman

koshergrl said:


> Actually, we're afraid you may kill us.
> 
> It's what anti-Christians do..and it's what atheists do.



You confuse being an atheist with being anti-Christian. Not true. We treat all religions with equal disbelief. But don't confuse disbelief with evil intent. Believe whatever you choose. It is nothing personal. We simply choose not to believe as you do, that's all. Get over yourself, already.


----------



## thanatos144

orogenicman said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, we're afraid you may kill us.
> 
> It's what anti-Christians do..and it's what atheists do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You confuse being an atheist with being anti-Christian. Not true. We treat all religions with equal disbelief. But don't confuse disbelief with evil intent. Believe whatever you choose. It is nothing personal. We simply choose not to believe as you do, that's all. Get over yourself, already.
Click to expand...


Stop pushing your religion on us. 

tapatalk post


----------



## orogenicman

thanatos144 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, we're afraid you may kill us.
> 
> It's what anti-Christians do..and it's what atheists do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You confuse being an atheist with being anti-Christian. Not true. We treat all religions with equal disbelief. But don't confuse disbelief with evil intent. Believe whatever you choose. It is nothing personal. We simply choose not to believe as you do, that's all. Get over yourself, already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop pushing your religion on us.
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


----------



## westwall

daws101 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> really........belief in god has never stopped any sort of  killing or anything else..
> on the other hand, it's single handily the world's leading cause of war and hate...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, as long as you exclude Communism, hate, and lust for power.....
> 
> Brilliant post as always, duhs....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> false even when you factor those in, belief in god still tops the list ....
Click to expand...







Totally untrue.  Progressive governments have killed more people in 100 years than all religions have killed in 2000.  Try reading a book.


----------



## westwall

orogenicman said:


> What I don't understand, and never have, is what is it about people with different beliefs/opinions that so intimidates people of faith.  If they have faith, what are they afraid of?








The same can be said of militant atheists.  They are just as vocal in their denigration of those who believe in God, and even more vociferous in their attacks upon those who choose to worship than most religious folks.  Militant atheists are every bit as intolerant as the worst religious nutters.


----------



## koshergrl

orogenicman said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, we're afraid you may kill us.
> 
> It's what anti-Christians do..and it's what atheists do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You confuse being an atheist with being anti-Christian. Not true. We treat all religions with equal disbelief. But don't confuse disbelief with evil intent. Believe whatever you choose. It is nothing personal. We simply choose not to believe as you do, that's all. Get over yourself, already.
Click to expand...

 
Trust me, I'm the least confused person you know, particularly on this topic.


----------



## Boss

daws101 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Belief in God is important.  Secularism leads to things like over 50 million babies killed by abortion and high gang violence by the young.
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> really........belief in god has never stopped any sort of  killing or anything else..
> on the other hand, it's single handily the world's leading cause of war and hate...
Click to expand...


Sorry but you've presented ZERO evidence to support this mindless stupidity.


----------



## flacaltenn

daws101 said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Belief in God is important.  Secularism leads to things like over 50 million babies killed by abortion and high gang violence by the young.
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> really........belief in god has never stopped any sort of  killing or anything else..
> on the other hand, it's single handily the world's leading cause of war and hate...
Click to expand...


Name the event, Inquisition, Crusades,  and 90% of the other oft quoted examples of religious killing --- wouldnt have gotten off the drawing board without HUGE STATE sponsorship... Its that govt collusion that gave religious fringes the power and means to harm..


----------



## orogenicman

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I don't understand, and never have, is what is it about people with different beliefs/opinions that so intimidates people of faith. If they have faith, what are they afraid of?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same can be said of militant atheists. They are just as vocal in their denigration of those who believe in God, and even more vociferous in their attacks upon those who choose to worship than most religious folks. Militant atheists are every bit as intolerant as the worst religious nutters.
Click to expand...


There are some 650,000 churches, synagogues, temples and Mosques in this country.  If you are going to claim that you are being persecuted, you are going to have to explain the existence of these buildings.


----------



## orogenicman

koshergrl said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, we're afraid you may kill us.
> 
> It's what anti-Christians do..and it's what atheists do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You confuse being an atheist with being anti-Christian. Not true. We treat all religions with equal disbelief. But don't confuse disbelief with evil intent. Believe whatever you choose. It is nothing personal. We simply choose not to believe as you do, that's all. Get over yourself, already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trust me, I'm the least confused person you know, particularly on this topic.
Click to expand...


I don't know you, but you don't appear to me to have it all that well together. Otherwise, why are the apparent (as evidenced from your posts) hatred of people who don't believe as you do?


----------



## koshergrl

I feel sorry for people.

I hate their promotion of evil and their desire to inflict human rights offenses upon others.

Meanwhile, I remain un-confused.


----------



## orogenicman

flacaltenn said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Belief in God is important. Secularism leads to things like over 50 million babies killed by abortion and high gang violence by the young.
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> really........belief in god has never stopped any sort of killing or anything else..
> on the other hand, it's single handily the world's leading cause of war and hate...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Name the event, Inquisition, Crusades, and 90% of the other oft quoted examples of religious killing --- wouldnt have gotten off the drawing board without HUGE STATE sponsorship... Its that govt collusion that gave religious fringes the power and means to harm..
Click to expand...


So what you are saying is the Muslim on Muslim violence (in the middle east and elsewhere) is not a religious thing?  What you are saying is that Christian on Christian violence (as has occurred in Ireland) is not a religious thing?  Muslim on Buddhist violence is not a religious thing?  All the atrocities in Africa (particularly what is going on in South Sudan today) is not a religious thing?  Are you sure you want to make that argument?


----------



## orogenicman

koshergrl said:


> I feel sorry for people.
> 
> I hate their promotion of evil and their desire to inflict human rights offenses upon others.
> 
> Meanwhile, I remain un-confused.



Name one person on this thread who has stated or insinuated that they have a desire to promote evil or inflict human rights offenses against ANYONE.


----------



## koshergrl

When the state gets involved in religion..i.e., regulating it...then human rights violations occur.

Always.

When the STATE gets involved.

When the state GET INVOLVED.

When the STATE restricts...

Get it?


----------



## koshergrl

orogenicman said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I feel sorry for people.
> 
> I hate their promotion of evil and their desire to inflict human rights offenses upon others.
> 
> Meanwhile, I remain un-confused.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name one person on this thread who has stated or insinuated that they have a desire to promote evil or inflict human rights offenses against ANYONE.
Click to expand...

 
Every single one of the posters in this thread who have also posted for abortion and euthanasia.

That's pretty much every single self-proclaimed atheist or otherwise anti-Christian.


----------



## thanatos144

orogenicman said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> really........belief in god has never stopped any sort of killing or anything else..
> on the other hand, it's single handily the world's leading cause of war and hate...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name the event, Inquisition, Crusades, and 90% of the other oft quoted examples of religious killing --- wouldnt have gotten off the drawing board without HUGE STATE sponsorship... Its that govt collusion that gave religious fringes the power and means to harm..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what you are saying is the Muslim on Muslim violence (in the middle east and elsewhere) is not a religious thing?  What you are saying is that Christian on Christian violence (as has occurred in Ireland) is not a religious thing?  Muslim on Buddhist violence is not a religious thing?  All the atrocities in Africa (particularly what is going on in South Sudan today) is not a religious thing?  Are you sure you want to make that argument?
Click to expand...


None of which equals to the amount of killing you secularist have committed.  Chistains don't kill babies in the womb. Christains don't starve millions for thier ideology. No they feed them. They save lives. You atheists need to stop judging 

tapatalk post


----------



## orogenicman

koshergrl said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I feel sorry for people.
> 
> I hate their promotion of evil and their desire to inflict human rights offenses upon others.
> 
> Meanwhile, I remain un-confused.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name one person on this thread who has stated or insinuated that they have a desire to promote evil or inflict human rights offenses against ANYONE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every single one of the posters in this thread who have also posted for abortion and euthanasia.
> 
> That's pretty much every single self-proclaimed atheist or otherwise anti-Christian.
Click to expand...


Did you support the war in Iraq?


----------



## Boss

orogenicman said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I feel sorry for people.
> 
> I hate their promotion of evil and their desire to inflict human rights offenses upon others.
> 
> Meanwhile, I remain un-confused.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name one person on this thread who has stated or insinuated that they have a desire to promote evil or inflict human rights offenses against ANYONE.
Click to expand...



Hilarious.... So religious folk have to take it in the shorts for any and all conflict the world has ever known, while the godless only have to be accountable for what is posted in a thread at USMB? ...Wow, sounds a bit one-sided to me.


----------



## orogenicman

Boss said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I feel sorry for people.
> 
> I hate their promotion of evil and their desire to inflict human rights offenses upon others.
> 
> Meanwhile, I remain un-confused.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name one person on this thread who has stated or insinuated that they have a desire to promote evil or inflict human rights offenses against ANYONE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hilarious.... So religious folk have to take it in the shorts for any and all conflict the world has ever known, while the godless only have to be accountable for what is posted in a thread at USMB? ...Wow, sounds a bit one-sided to me.
Click to expand...


I never said that religious folk have to take it in the shorts.  But it is clear that when these atrocities do occur, you people go into denial mode, and try to attribute them to anything other than religion.  I don't see gangs of atheists raping and pillaging anywhere today and setting off car and belt bombs.  Do you?


----------



## Boss

orogenicman said:


> I never said that religious folk have to take it in the shorts.  But it is clear that when these atrocities do occur, you people go into denial mode, and try to attribute them to anything other than religion.  I don't see gangs of atheists raping and pillaging anywhere today and setting off car and belt bombs.  Do you?



Probably because there's not that many of them. What is it about 1 in 9 or something? 

Plus... there are at least 50 million silent victims in the US alone since Roe v. Wade. Every day, thousands of lives are ended abruptly by godless people who do not value life, and they are never even heard from.


----------



## thanatos144

orogenicman said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name one person on this thread who has stated or insinuated that they have a desire to promote evil or inflict human rights offenses against ANYONE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hilarious.... So religious folk have to take it in the shorts for any and all conflict the world has ever known, while the godless only have to be accountable for what is posted in a thread at USMB? ...Wow, sounds a bit one-sided to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said that religious folk have to take it in the shorts.  But it is clear that when these atrocities do occur, you people go into denial mode, and try to attribute them to anything other than religion.  I don't see gangs of atheists raping and pillaging anywhere today and setting off car and belt bombs.  Do you?
Click to expand...

 give me a break. What is happening is that secularism is the cause since there is no moral base. Once you tell people it is okay to kill babies what did you think would happen to society?  When we were a Godly country we had lower crime and less mmurder infidelity stealing and violence towards eachother. Secularist love to ignore the truth because they want others to believe the lie that the society can survive without God. It doesn't.  It rots  from the inside from hedonism 



tapatalk post


----------



## orogenicman

thanatos144 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hilarious.... So religious folk have to take it in the shorts for any and all conflict the world has ever known, while the godless only have to be accountable for what is posted in a thread at USMB? ...Wow, sounds a bit one-sided to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said that religious folk have to take it in the shorts. But it is clear that when these atrocities do occur, you people go into denial mode, and try to attribute them to anything other than religion. I don't see gangs of atheists raping and pillaging anywhere today and setting off car and belt bombs. Do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> give me a break. What is happening is that secularism is the cause since there is no moral base.
Click to expand...

 
 So Muslims become radicalized and blow up people because they have become secular?


----------



## orogenicman

Boss said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said that religious folk have to take it in the shorts. But it is clear that when these atrocities do occur, you people go into denial mode, and try to attribute them to anything other than religion. I don't see gangs of atheists raping and pillaging anywhere today and setting off car and belt bombs. Do you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably because there's not that many of them. What is it about 1 in 9 or something?
> 
> Plus... there are at least 50 million silent victims in the US alone since Roe v. Wade. Every day, thousands of lives are ended abruptly by godless people who do not value life, and they are never even heard from.
Click to expand...


I hate to break it to you but the majority of women who get abortions aren't atheists. I'll let you search to find out what their beliefs are.

Speaking of people who do not value life, are you pro-death penalty? Did you support the war in Iraq?


----------



## Boss

> Did you support the war in Iraq?



You mean that war where we went and killed off a bunch of radical religious people who were killing innocent folks?


----------



## BreezeWood

thanatos144 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hilarious.... So religious folk have to take it in the shorts for any and all conflict the world has ever known, while the godless only have to be accountable for what is posted in a thread at USMB? ...Wow, sounds a bit one-sided to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said that religious folk have to take it in the shorts.  But it is clear that when these atrocities do occur, you people go into denial mode, and try to attribute them to anything other than religion.  I don't see gangs of atheists raping and pillaging anywhere today and setting off car and belt bombs.  Do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> give me a break. What is happening is that secularism is the cause since there is no moral base. Once you tell people it is okay to kill babies what did you think would happen to society? * When we were a Godly country* we had lower crime and less mmurder infidelity stealing and violence towards eachother. Secularist love to ignore the truth because they want others to believe the lie that the society can survive without God. It doesn't.  It rots  from the inside from hedonism
> 
> 
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...



*When we were a Godly country ...*

* Godly is not Christian - that time above is yet to be.




> No one is without sin. No not one. -



the Christian motto is what speaks for their heritage and yes for them it is their standard.

.


----------



## BreezeWood

thebrucebeat said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> You misunderstand. I am actually referring to the actual rules of basic Logic 101.
> You start with a completely unsupported premise.
> "Since Good and Evil are not subjective..."
> So your argument is doomed before you begin.
> I understand.
> Basic logic comes next semester for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what makes you think Good and Evil are subjective and not the same forces derived as gravity ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *thebrucebeat:* No one is without sin. No not one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it is your subjection that is illogical - Christian ...
> 
> not the premise of a nonphysiological existence extent to its conception at birth, for those willing to exercise the abilities granted at Creation culminating as a Triumph, with due Judgment for the Admission to the Everlasting. and necessarily by a sinless being.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say anything about good and evil. I said the initial premise was unproven so led to an unsupportable conclusion.
> Emotions always cloud a good thought process.
> The rest is such a complete rhetorical train-wreck that it is impossible to respond to.
> Do you know what subjection means? How did you mean to use it?
Click to expand...



*I didn't say anything about good and evil - The rest is such a complete rhetorical train-wreck that it is impossible to respond to.* 

... subjection to logical fallacy.

.


----------



## PostmodernProph

orogenicman said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name one person on this thread who has stated or insinuated that they have a desire to promote evil or inflict human rights offenses against ANYONE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every single one of the posters in this thread who have also posted for abortion and euthanasia.
> 
> That's pretty much every single self-proclaimed atheist or otherwise anti-Christian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you support the war in Iraq?
Click to expand...


lovely....if you opposed the war in Iraq you have a license to kill unborn children!.......


----------



## flacaltenn

orogenicman said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> really........belief in god has never stopped any sort of killing or anything else..
> on the other hand, it's single handily the world's leading cause of war and hate...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name the event, Inquisition, Crusades, and 90% of the other oft quoted examples of religious killing --- wouldnt have gotten off the drawing board without HUGE STATE sponsorship... Its that govt collusion that gave religious fringes the power and means to harm..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what you are saying is the Muslim on Muslim violence (in the middle east and elsewhere) is not a religious thing?  What you are saying is that Christian on Christian violence (as has occurred in Ireland) is not a religious thing?  Muslim on Buddhist violence is not a religious thing?  All the atrocities in Africa (particularly what is going on in South Sudan today) is not a religious thing?  Are you sure you want to make that argument?
Click to expand...


Oh absolutely I do.. Africa is Tribal conflict. Arab conflict is similiar. Only thing that would make Arabs fight someone else MIGHT be a religious difference to Islam, but then again -- Until Al Queada -- and the "stateless" terrorists, they've not done near as much "religious" pillaging as you imagine. 

Religions don't go to war -- STATES do. Only when the 2 corrupt each other is there a POTENTIAL to do the damage that secularists imagine HAS been done..


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said that religious folk have to take it in the shorts.  But it is clear that when these atrocities do occur, you people go into denial mode, and try to attribute them to anything other than religion.  I don't see gangs of atheists raping and pillaging anywhere today and setting off car and belt bombs.  Do you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably because there's not that many of them. What is it about 1 in 9 or something?
> 
> Plus... there are at least 50 million silent victims in the US alone since Roe v. Wade. Every day, thousands of lives are ended abruptly by godless people who do not value life, and they are never even heard from.
Click to expand...


But "god" was never interested anyway, right? He has no personal interest in you, in human life? Right? 
Hasn't this been your consistent argument?


----------



## thebrucebeat

BreezeWood said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> what makes you think Good and Evil are subjective and not the same forces derived as gravity ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it is your subjection that is illogical - Christian ...
> 
> not the premise of a nonphysiological existence extent to its conception at birth, for those willing to exercise the abilities granted at Creation culminating as a Triumph, with due Judgment for the Admission to the Everlasting. and necessarily by a sinless being.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say anything about good and evil. I said the initial premise was unproven so led to an unsupportable conclusion.
> Emotions always cloud a good thought process.
> The rest is such a complete rhetorical train-wreck that it is impossible to respond to.
> Do you know what subjection means? How did you mean to use it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *I didn't say anything about good and evil - The rest is such a complete rhetorical train-wreck that it is impossible to respond to.*
> 
> ... subjection to logical fallacy.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Wow.
It took you forever to craft that bail-out.
LOL!


----------



## thanatos144

BreezeWood said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said that religious folk have to take it in the shorts.  But it is clear that when these atrocities do occur, you people go into denial mode, and try to attribute them to anything other than religion.  I don't see gangs of atheists raping and pillaging anywhere today and setting off car and belt bombs.  Do you?
> 
> 
> 
> give me a break. What is happening is that secularism is the cause since there is no moral base. Once you tell people it is okay to kill babies what did you think would happen to society? * When we were a Godly country* we had lower crime and less mmurder infidelity stealing and violence towards eachother. Secularist love to ignore the truth because they want others to believe the lie that the society can survive without God. It doesn't.  It rots  from the inside from hedonism
> 
> 
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *When we were a Godly country ...*
> 
> * Godly is not Christian - that time above is yet to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one is without sin. No not one. -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the Christian motto is what speaks for their heritage and yes for them it is their standard.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


The Christ was


----------



## westwall

orogenicman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I don't understand, and never have, is what is it about people with different beliefs/opinions that so intimidates people of faith. If they have faith, what are they afraid of?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same can be said of militant atheists. They are just as vocal in their denigration of those who believe in God, and even more vociferous in their attacks upon those who choose to worship than most religious folks. Militant atheists are every bit as intolerant as the worst religious nutters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are some 650,000 churches, synagogues, temples and Mosques in this country.  If you are going to claim that you are being persecuted, you are going to have to explain the existence of these buildings.
Click to expand...








I'm agnostic, I don't get persecuted.  I do however see militant atheists suing religious groups all the time because of a misinterpretation of the meaning of "separation of Church and State".


----------



## orogenicman

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same can be said of militant atheists. They are just as vocal in their denigration of those who believe in God, and even more vociferous in their attacks upon those who choose to worship than most religious folks. Militant atheists are every bit as intolerant as the worst religious nutters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are some 650,000 churches, synagogues, temples and Mosques in this country. If you are going to claim that you are being persecuted, you are going to have to explain the existence of these buildings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm agnostic, I don't get persecuted. I do however see militant atheists suing religious groups all the time because of a misinterpretation of the meaning of "separation of Church and State".
Click to expand...


How are they misinterpreting the Constitution?  And what, exactly, is your interpretation of the Constitution in this regard?


----------



## Boss

> How are they misinterpreting the Constitution? And what, exactly, is your interpretation of the Constitution in this regard?



Well first of all... "separation of church and state" isn't in the constitution.


----------



## MrMax

Boss said:


> How are they misinterpreting the Constitution? And what, exactly, is your interpretation of the Constitution in this regard?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well first of all... "separation of church and state" isn't in the constitution.
Click to expand...


"Separation of church and state" is a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson and others expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The phrase has since been repeatedly used by the Supreme Court of the United States.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..." and Article VI specifies that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Now you know.


----------



## Boss

MrMax said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How are they misinterpreting the Constitution? And what, exactly, is your interpretation of the Constitution in this regard?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well first of all... "separation of church and state" isn't in the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Separation of church and state" is a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson and others expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The phrase has since been repeatedly used by the Supreme Court of the United States.
> 
> The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..." and Article VI specifies that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
> 
> Now you know.
Click to expand...


Did I say I didn't know where the statement came from or the history behind it? Nope. 

Did I say the Supreme Court had never used the statement? Nope.

Did I indicate I wasn't aware of the First Amendment? Nope. 

The phrase was contained in a letter Jefferson wrote in 1801 to the Danbury Baptists who had written him about their opposition to the state's official religion. Jefferson's position was quite simple, it wasn't a federal matter. He used the phrase to denote something entirely different than the modern interpretation. In fact, in his capacity as President, he ends the letter with a prayer. 

It wasn't until nearly 150 years later the phrase was ever mentioned again, and it was by Justice Hugo Black in a 1947 ruling, where he completely re-interpreted Jefferson's statement to mean something entirely different. This is what westwall is referring to.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well first of all... "separation of church and state" isn't in the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Separation of church and state" is a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson and others expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The phrase has since been repeatedly used by the Supreme Court of the United States.
> 
> The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..." and Article VI specifies that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
> 
> Now you know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did I say I didn't know where the statement came from or the history behind it? Nope.
> 
> Did I say the Supreme Court had never used the statement? Nope.
> 
> Did I indicate I wasn't aware of the First Amendment? Nope.
> 
> The phrase was contained in a letter Jefferson wrote in 1801 to the Danbury Baptists who had written him about their opposition to the state's official religion. Jefferson's position was quite simple, it wasn't a federal matter. He used the phrase to denote something entirely different than the modern interpretation. In fact, in his capacity as President, he ends the letter with a prayer.
> 
> It wasn't until nearly 150 years later the phrase was ever mentioned again, and it was by Justice Hugo Black in a 1947 ruling, where he completely re-interpreted Jefferson's statement to mean something entirely different. This is what westwall is referring to.
Click to expand...


It's really quite simple:

"Separation of church and state" is a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson and others expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States."


----------



## Boss

But the intent and function is not as Hugo Black interpreted it 150 years after Jefferson wrote those words. Jefferson's understanding was quite different. In fact, most people's understanding was quite different until 1947.


----------



## MrMax

Boss said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well first of all... "separation of church and state" isn't in the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Separation of church and state" is a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson and others expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The phrase has since been repeatedly used by the Supreme Court of the United States.
> 
> The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..." and Article VI specifies that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
> 
> Now you know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did I say I didn't know where the statement came from or the history behind it? Nope.
> 
> Did I say the Supreme Court had never used the statement? Nope.
> 
> Did I indicate I wasn't aware of the First Amendment? Nope.
> 
> The phrase was contained in a letter Jefferson wrote in 1801 to the Danbury Baptists who had written him about their opposition to the state's official religion. Jefferson's position was quite simple, it wasn't a federal matter. He used the phrase to denote something entirely different than the modern interpretation. In fact, in his capacity as President, he ends the letter with a prayer.
> 
> It wasn't until nearly 150 years later the phrase was ever mentioned again, and it was by Justice Hugo Black in a 1947 ruling, where he completely re-interpreted Jefferson's statement to mean something entirely different. This is what westwall is referring to.
Click to expand...

It's hard to tell whether you're being obtuse or just plain ignorant.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> But the intent and function is not as Hugo Black interpreted it 150 years after Jefferson wrote those words. Jefferson's understanding was quite different. In fact, most people's understanding was quite different until 1947.



You once again neglected to append "because I say so" to your post.


----------



## Hollie

MrMax said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Separation of church and state" is a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson and others expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The phrase has since been repeatedly used by the Supreme Court of the United States.
> 
> The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..." and Article VI specifies that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
> 
> Now you know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did I say I didn't know where the statement came from or the history behind it? Nope.
> 
> Did I say the Supreme Court had never used the statement? Nope.
> 
> Did I indicate I wasn't aware of the First Amendment? Nope.
> 
> The phrase was contained in a letter Jefferson wrote in 1801 to the Danbury Baptists who had written him about their opposition to the state's official religion. Jefferson's position was quite simple, it wasn't a federal matter. He used the phrase to denote something entirely different than the modern interpretation. In fact, in his capacity as President, he ends the letter with a prayer.
> 
> It wasn't until nearly 150 years later the phrase was ever mentioned again, and it was by Justice Hugo Black in a 1947 ruling, where he completely re-interpreted Jefferson's statement to mean something entirely different. This is what westwall is referring to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's hard to tell whether you're being obtuse or just plain ignorant.
Click to expand...


You're slow. You should fix that.


----------



## jillian

Boss said:


> How are they misinterpreting the Constitution? And what, exactly, is your interpretation of the Constitution in this regard?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well first of all... "separation of church and state" isn't in the constitution.
Click to expand...


seriously?

funny... even the loony justices say there is. what is up for grabs (barely) is what constitutes separation of church and state.

I hope that helps.


----------



## Boss

jillian said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How are they misinterpreting the Constitution? And what, exactly, is your interpretation of the Constitution in this regard?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well first of all... "separation of church and state" isn't in the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> seriously?
> 
> funny... even the loony justices say there is. what is up for grabs (barely) is what constitutes separation of church and state.
> 
> I hope that helps.
Click to expand...


You're not making any sense. Loony justices say WHAT is? That "separation of church and state" is in the constitution? Well, I've got a copy right here, just point me to where I can find that phrase? The words are not in the Constitution, they never have been. The phrase comes from a letter written in 1801 by President Jefferson to Danbury Baptists. NOT the Constitution. 

Now, I am trying to educate you here. In 1947, Justice Hugo Black made a landmark ruling in which he used the phrase to literally re-interpret the Constitution. That's where this comes from and why all of these people believe we have this "wall of separation" between church and state. The First Amendment doesn't say it, the Constitution doesn't say it, and it was re-interpreted into something else after the man who said it was dead for a while. 

No one has argued that the SCOTUS doesn't uphold the 1947 misinterpretation of Jefferson's statement. In Jefferson's context, the statement is more about Federalism and State's Rights than religion and government. As I said, in the very same letter he writes "wall of separation between church and state" he also ends his letter in a prayer. Now, that is kind of odd for the President to do if he honestly thinks the Federal government can't acknowledge any kind of religious view, isn't it?


----------



## Boss

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the intent and function is not as Hugo Black interpreted it 150 years after Jefferson wrote those words. Jefferson's understanding was quite different. In fact, most people's understanding was quite different until 1947.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You once again neglected to append "because I say so" to your post.
Click to expand...


Well no, sweetie, it's a matter of history, not because I say so.


----------



## koshergrl

Boss said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said that religious folk have to take it in the shorts.  But it is clear that when these atrocities do occur, you people go into denial mode, and try to attribute them to anything other than religion.  I don't see gangs of atheists raping and pillaging anywhere today and setting off car and belt bombs.  Do you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably because there's not that many of them. What is it about 1 in 9 or something?
> 
> Plus... there are at least 50 million silent victims in the US alone since Roe v. Wade. Every day, thousands of lives are ended abruptly by godless people who do not value life, and they are never even heard from.
Click to expand...

And that not counting the countless millions of women abused, butchered and killed in the  name of abortion.


----------



## koshergrl

westwall said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same can be said of militant atheists. They are just as vocal in their denigration of those who believe in God, and even more vociferous in their attacks upon those who choose to worship than most religious folks. Militant atheists are every bit as intolerant as the worst religious nutters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are some 650,000 churches, synagogues, temples and Mosques in this country.  If you are going to claim that you are being persecuted, you are going to have to explain the existence of these buildings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm agnostic, I don't get persecuted.  I do however see militant atheists suing religious groups all the time because of a misinterpretation of the meaning of "separation of Church and State".
Click to expand...


They use the state to attack Christians...and that is where egregious civil and human rights violations in the name of atheism always begins. When the state exerts control over religion and criminalizes faith.


----------



## koshergrl

Jefferson and the baptists knew it, which is why they determined that the state should have no say in religion whatever.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the intent and function is not as Hugo Black interpreted it 150 years after Jefferson wrote those words. Jefferson's understanding was quite different. In fact, most people's understanding was quite different until 1947.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You once again neglected to append "because I say so" to your post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well no, sweetie, it's a matter of history, not because I say so.
Click to expand...


Well, actually sweetie, separation of church and state is an established principle. 

You always have the option of arming your religious militias and storming congress. You can raise the flag of Falwell Nation.

Good luck with that.


In the meantime,  would you care for some reading material on court decisions regarding stealth Christianity, AKA creationism, being introduced into public schools?


----------



## orogenicman

Boss said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well first of all... "separation of church and state" isn't in the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Separation of church and state" is a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson and others expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The phrase has since been repeatedly used by the Supreme Court of the United States.
> 
> The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..." and Article VI specifies that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
> 
> Now you know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did I say I didn't know where the statement came from or the history behind it? Nope.
> 
> Did I say the Supreme Court had never used the statement? Nope.
> 
> Did I indicate I wasn't aware of the First Amendment? Nope.
> 
> The phrase was contained in a letter Jefferson wrote in 1801 to the Danbury Baptists who had written him about their opposition to the state's official religion. Jefferson's position was quite simple, *it wasn't a federal matter. He used the phrase to denote something entirely different than the modern interpretation.* In fact, in his capacity as President, he ends the letter with a prayer.
> 
> It wasn't until nearly 150 years later the phrase was ever mentioned again, and it was by Justice Hugo Black in a 1947 ruling, where he completely re-interpreted Jefferson's statement to mean something entirely different. This is what westwall is referring to.
Click to expand...


The Supreme Court and perhaps every Constitutional lawyer in the country would disagree with you.



> Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
> - Thomas Jefferson


 
 Is this in any way ambiguous?


----------



## thebrucebeat

koshergrl said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are some 650,000 churches, synagogues, temples and Mosques in this country.  If you are going to claim that you are being persecuted, you are going to have to explain the existence of these buildings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm agnostic, I don't get persecuted.  I do however see militant atheists suing religious groups all the time because of a misinterpretation of the meaning of "separation of Church and State".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They use the state to attack Christians...and that is where egregious civil and human rights violations in the name of atheism always begins. When the state exerts control over religion and criminalizes faith.
Click to expand...


Can you point out where your faith is being attacked by government fiat?


----------



## BreezeWood

thanatos144 said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> give me a break. What is happening is that secularism is the cause since there is no moral base. Once you tell people it is okay to kill babies what did you think would happen to society? * When we were a Godly country* we had lower crime and less mmurder infidelity stealing and violence towards eachother. Secularist love to ignore the truth because they want others to believe the lie that the society can survive without God. It doesn't.  It rots  from the inside from hedonism
> 
> 
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *When we were a Godly country ...*
> 
> * Godly is not Christian - that time above is yet to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one is without sin. No not one. -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the Christian motto is what speaks for their heritage and yes for them it is their standard.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Christ was
Click to expand...



and how is the Messiah referred to in reference before JC ? -


most certainly Jesus was sinless and was the example chosen by God to accomplish Remission.

Christianity hasn't a clue - the persecution continues as demonstrated throughout history as those that drove the initial nails.

.


----------



## Boss

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You once again neglected to append "because I say so" to your post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well no, sweetie, it's a matter of history, not because I say so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, actually sweetie, separation of church and state is an established principle.
> 
> You always have the option of arming your religious militias and storming congress. You can raise the flag of Falwell Nation.
> 
> Good luck with that.
> 
> In the meantime,  would you care for some reading material on court decisions regarding stealth Christianity, AKA creationism, being introduced into public schools?
Click to expand...


It's NOT an established principle. It's an established misinterpretation since 1947. I hardly think our country plodded along for 150 years with a total misunderstanding of the 1st Amendment until Mr. Black's court informed them of their error. 

And actually, those of us who value the Constitution's original intent have another option.


----------



## Boss

orogenicman said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Separation of church and state" is a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson and others expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The phrase has since been repeatedly used by the Supreme Court of the United States.
> 
> The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..." and Article VI specifies that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
> 
> Now you know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did I say I didn't know where the statement came from or the history behind it? Nope.
> 
> Did I say the Supreme Court had never used the statement? Nope.
> 
> Did I indicate I wasn't aware of the First Amendment? Nope.
> 
> The phrase was contained in a letter Jefferson wrote in 1801 to the Danbury Baptists who had written him about their opposition to the state's official religion. Jefferson's position was quite simple, *it wasn't a federal matter. He used the phrase to denote something entirely different than the modern interpretation.* In fact, in his capacity as President, he ends the letter with a prayer.
> 
> It wasn't until nearly 150 years later the phrase was ever mentioned again, and it was by Justice Hugo Black in a 1947 ruling, where he completely re-interpreted Jefferson's statement to mean something entirely different. This is what westwall is referring to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court and perhaps every Constitutional lawyer in the country would disagree with you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
> - Thomas Jefferson
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is this in any way ambiguous?
Click to expand...


The Supreme Court may very well disagree with me, but I know for a fact that every Constitutional lawyer in the country doesn't. And why are you posting an excerpt of Jefferson's letter like I've not read it before? Why do you OMIT the prayer he ended the letter with? 

_"I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem." ~*President* Thomas Jefferson_

OMFG... He just endorsed the establishment of a religion!!1!! 

In the very letter by which you interpret him to be saying that government can't officially recognize any religion, he does so in his official capacity as President with his highest respect and esteem.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well no, sweetie, it's a matter of history, not because I say so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, actually sweetie, separation of church and state is an established principle.
> 
> You always have the option of arming your religious militias and storming congress. You can raise the flag of Falwell Nation.
> 
> Good luck with that.
> 
> In the meantime,  would you care for some reading material on court decisions regarding stealth Christianity, AKA creationism, being introduced into public schools?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's NOT an established principle. It's an established misinterpretation since 1947. I hardly think our country plodded along for 150 years with a total misunderstanding of the 1st Amendment until Mr. Black's court informed them of their error.
> 
> And actually, those of us who value the Constitution's original intent have another option.
Click to expand...


Your denials of court decisions are yours to deal with.

"Other options"?  Your melodrama impresses no one. 

Get on with it. Lock and load, tough guy.


----------



## orogenicman

Boss said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did I say I didn't know where the statement came from or the history behind it? Nope.
> 
> Did I say the Supreme Court had never used the statement? Nope.
> 
> Did I indicate I wasn't aware of the First Amendment? Nope.
> 
> The phrase was contained in a letter Jefferson wrote in 1801 to the Danbury Baptists who had written him about their opposition to the state's official religion. Jefferson's position was quite simple, *it wasn't a federal matter. He used the phrase to denote something entirely different than the modern interpretation.* In fact, in his capacity as President, he ends the letter with a prayer.
> 
> It wasn't until nearly 150 years later the phrase was ever mentioned again, and it was by Justice Hugo Black in a 1947 ruling, where he completely re-interpreted Jefferson's statement to mean something entirely different. This is what westwall is referring to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court and perhaps every Constitutional lawyer in the country would disagree with you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
> - Thomas Jefferson
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is this in any way ambiguous?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court may very well disagree with me, but I know for a fact that every Constitutional lawyer in the country doesn't. And why are you posting an excerpt of Jefferson's letter like I've not read it before? Why do you OMIT the prayer he ended the letter with?
Click to expand...

 
 Because his prayer is irrelevant to the issue of separation of Church and State.

_


			
				booseyman said:
			
		


			"I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem." ~*President* Thomas Jefferson
		
Click to expand...

_


			
				booseyman said:
			
		

> OMFG... He just endorsed the establishment of a religion!!1!!


 
 Lay off the Scotch, dude.  An executive leader reciprocating a prayer in a letter to a church is not an endorsement of religion by the Congress.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did I say I didn't know where the statement came from or the history behind it? Nope.
> 
> Did I say the Supreme Court had never used the statement? Nope.
> 
> Did I indicate I wasn't aware of the First Amendment? Nope.
> 
> The phrase was contained in a letter Jefferson wrote in 1801 to the Danbury Baptists who had written him about their opposition to the state's official religion. Jefferson's position was quite simple, *it wasn't a federal matter. He used the phrase to denote something entirely different than the modern interpretation.* In fact, in his capacity as President, he ends the letter with a prayer.
> 
> It wasn't until nearly 150 years later the phrase was ever mentioned again, and it was by Justice Hugo Black in a 1947 ruling, where he completely re-interpreted Jefferson's statement to mean something entirely different. This is what westwall is referring to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court and perhaps every Constitutional lawyer in the country would disagree with you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
> - Thomas Jefferson
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is this in any way ambiguous?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court may very well disagree with me, but I know for a fact that every Constitutional lawyer in the country doesn't. And why are you posting an excerpt of Jefferson's letter like I've not read it before? Why do you OMIT the prayer he ended the letter with?
> 
> _"I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem." ~*President* Thomas Jefferson_
> 
> OMFG... He just endorsed the establishment of a religion!!1!!
> 
> In the very letter by which you interpret him to be saying that government can't officially recognize any religion, he does so in his official capacity as President with his highest respect and esteem.
Click to expand...


You're a Moron. 

Jefferson ending his letter with a prayer is what we call "free expression".


----------



## Boss

orogenicman said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court and perhaps every Constitutional lawyer in the country would disagree with you.
> 
> Is this in any way ambiguous?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court may very well disagree with me, but I know for a fact that every Constitutional lawyer in the country doesn't. And why are you posting an excerpt of Jefferson's letter like I've not read it before? Why do you OMIT the prayer he ended the letter with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because his prayer is irrelevant to the issue of separation of Church and State.
Click to expand...


Well, not under YOUR interpretation of this "wall" which supposedly separates religion from state. It seems to be in direct contradiction to that interpretation. A point that obviously escaped Hugo Black in 1947 when he perverted Jefferson's words and re-wrote the 1st Amendment. 



> _
> 
> 
> 
> booseyman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem." ~*President* Thomas Jefferson
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> booseyman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OMFG... He just endorsed the establishment of a religion!!1!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lay off the Scotch, dude.  An executive leader reciprocating a prayer in a letter to a church is not an endorsement of religion by the Congress.
Click to expand...


And neither is a student leading a prayer in a state-owned schoolhouse.


----------



## Boss

Hollie said:


> You're a Moron.
> 
> Jefferson ending his letter with a prayer is what we call "free expression".




Yes, and so is a kid leading prayer in a state schoolhouse.


----------



## BreezeWood

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well no, sweetie, it's a matter of history, not because I say so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, actually sweetie, separation of church and state is an established principle.
> 
> You always have the option of arming your religious militias and storming congress. You can raise the flag of Falwell Nation.
> 
> Good luck with that.
> 
> In the meantime,  would you care for some reading material on court decisions regarding stealth Christianity, AKA creationism, being introduced into public schools?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's NOT an established principle. It's an established misinterpretation since 1947. *I hardly think our country plodded along for 150 years with a total misunderstanding of the 1st Amendment until Mr. Black's court informed them of their error. *
> 
> And actually, those of us who value the Constitution's original intent have another option.
Click to expand...





> Amendment [I.]
> 
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.




are you ignoring a specific reason for the document was to address religious persecution that was instrumental in the founding of the new country ?




> I hardly think our country plodded along for 150 years with a total misunderstanding of the 1st Amendment until Mr. Black's court informed them of their error.






> The roots of church/state separation
> 
> *First coined by the 17th century Baptist leader Roger Williams who, in 1636, founded Rhode Island, the phrase "separation of church and state"* was used by both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison (the father of the Constitution), to describe the meaning of the Constitution's religion clauses.
> 
> Roger Williams (theologian) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Roger Williams (c. 1603  between January and March 1683) was an English Protestant theologian who was an early proponent of religious freedom and the separation of church and state. In 1636, he began the colony of Providence Plantation, which provided a refuge for religious minorities. Williams started the first Baptist church in America, the First Baptist Church of Providence. He was a student of Native American languages and an advocate for fair dealings with Native Americans. Williams was arguably the first abolitionist in North America, having organized the first attempt to prohibit slavery in any of the original thirteen colonies.




*Roger Williams who, in 1636, founded Rhode Island, the phrase "separation of church and state"*

not exactly 150 years ago.

.


----------



## orogenicman

Boss said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court may very well disagree with me, but I know for a fact that every Constitutional lawyer in the country doesn't. And why are you posting an excerpt of Jefferson's letter like I've not read it before? Why do you OMIT the prayer he ended the letter with?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because his prayer is irrelevant to the issue of separation of Church and State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, not under YOUR interpretation of this "wall" which supposedly separates religion from state. It seems to be in direct contradiction to that interpretation. A point that obviously escaped Hugo Black in 1947 when he perverted Jefferson's words and re-wrote the 1st Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> booseyman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem." ~*President* Thomas Jefferson
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> booseyman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OMFG... He just endorsed the establishment of a religion!!1!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lay off the Scotch, dude. An executive leader reciprocating a prayer in a letter to a church is not an endorsement of religion by the Congress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And neither is a student leading a prayer in a state-owned schoolhouse.
Click to expand...


It is when the laws regulating that state-run school is promulgated by the state legislature. It is when the taxpayer is paying for the said school. But you're (allegedly) not a Christian anyway, so why do you give a damn?


----------



## PostmodernProph

thebrucebeat said:


> well, every time they touch a dollar bill they are forced to utter a prayer....


----------



## BreezeWood

orogenicman said:


> But you're (allegedly) not a Christian anyway, so why do you give a damn?




its agenda has become readily apparent ....



> First coined by the 17th century Baptist leader Roger Williams who, in 1636, founded Rhode Island, the phrase "separation of church and state" *was used by both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison (the father of the Constitution), to describe the meaning of the Constitution's religion clauses. *




*both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison (the father of the Constitution) -*


the founding fathers must be "God Haters" according to the fundy.

.


----------



## Boss

> are you ignoring a specific reason for the document was to address religious persecution that was instrumental in the founding of the new country ?



Not ignoring it at all. However, since 1947 and the Hugo Black ruling, we have had a de facto persecution of religious belief in this country. What was intended by Jefferson and the founding fathers to be a way of declaring federal "neutrality" in matters of religion, was turned into the notion of a barrier where religion and state could never touch. 

Let's construct an analogy... Let's say you are the parent of 5 children, you represent our government and the children represent the various religions. You make the compact that you will never show favoritism for one child over the other, that you will treat them all equally and respectfully. (The 1st Amendment Establishment Clause) Does this mean you should lock your children in the dungeon and never speak to them again as long as they live? (The 'wall of separation' interpretation since 1947)



> Roger Williams who, in 1636, founded Rhode Island, the phrase "separation of church and state"
> not exactly 150 years ago.



Well, I was referring to the Constitution of the United States as opposed to the 1947 ruling by Justice Black.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> are you ignoring a specific reason for the document was to address religious persecution that was instrumental in the founding of the new country ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not ignoring it at all. However, since 1947 and the Hugo Black ruling, we have had a de facto persecution of religious belief in this country. What was intended by Jefferson and the founding fathers to be a way of declaring federal "neutrality" in matters of religion, was turned into the notion of a barrier where religion and state could never touch.
> 
> Let's construct an analogy... Let's say you are the parent of 5 children, you represent our government and the children represent the various religions. You make the compact that you will never show favoritism for one child over the other, that you will treat them all equally and respectfully. (The 1st Amendment Establishment Clause) Does this mean you should lock your children in the dungeon and never speak to them again as long as they live? (The 'wall of separation' interpretation since 1947)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roger Williams who, in 1636, founded Rhode Island, the phrase "separation of church and state"
> not exactly 150 years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I was referring to the Constitution of the United States as opposed to the 1947 ruling by Justice Black.
Click to expand...


What persecution of religious beliefs?


----------



## Boss

orogenicman said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because his prayer is irrelevant to the issue of separation of Church and State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, not under YOUR interpretation of this "wall" which supposedly separates religion from state. It seems to be in direct contradiction to that interpretation. A point that obviously escaped Hugo Black in 1947 when he perverted Jefferson's words and re-wrote the 1st Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lay off the Scotch, dude. An executive leader reciprocating a prayer in a letter to a church is not an endorsement of religion by the Congress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And neither is a student leading a prayer in a state-owned schoolhouse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is when the laws regulating that state-run school is promulgated by the state legislature. It is when the taxpayer is paying for the said school. But you're (allegedly) not a Christian anyway, so why do you give a damn?
Click to expand...


Well hold on a second, you just said the criteria was what Congress does. Last I checked, the taxpayers also pay the salary of the President. And how did we suddenly jump from what Congress is able to do to what states are able to do? Have you read the 10th Amendment? 

My religious affiliation has nothing to do with this argument. Sorry.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, not under YOUR interpretation of this "wall" which supposedly separates religion from state. It seems to be in direct contradiction to that interpretation. A point that obviously escaped Hugo Black in 1947 when he perverted Jefferson's words and re-wrote the 1st Amendment.
> 
> And neither is a student leading a prayer in a state-owned schoolhouse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is when the laws regulating that state-run school is promulgated by the state legislature. It is when the taxpayer is paying for the said school. But you're (allegedly) not a Christian anyway, so why do you give a damn?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well hold on a second, you just said the criteria was what Congress does. Last I checked, the taxpayers also pay the salary of the President. And how did we suddenly jump from what Congress is able to do to what states are able to do? Have you read the 10th Amendment?
> 
> My religious affiliation has nothing to do with this argument. Sorry.
Click to expand...


Did you know that congress is the law-making body of the government?


----------



## koshergrl

BreezeWood said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you're (allegedly) not a Christian anyway, so why do you give a damn?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> its agenda has become readily apparent ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First coined by the 17th century Baptist leader Roger Williams who, in 1636, founded Rhode Island, the phrase "separation of church and state" *was used by both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison (the father of the Constitution), to describe the meaning of the Constitution's religion clauses. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison (the father of the Constitution) -*
> 
> 
> the founding fathers must be "God Haters" according to the fundy.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

 
The founding fathers, who had seen religious persecution up close and personal, as had the Anabaptists who suggested a separation...knew the inherent danger in allowing the state to dictate to people what they must believe, and in what manner they could express their beliefs.

They proposed state and church remain separate in order to protect the faithful of any God-centered faith from lunatics like the progressives...who will back any cause, no matter how violent or abhorrent, if the final outcome is the silencing and murder of the faithful.


----------



## Boss

> What persecution of religious beliefs?



All of them.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> What persecution of religious beliefs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of them.
Click to expand...


As I thought, your reactionary, paranoid claims are absent support.


----------



## Boss

> Did you know that congress is the law-making body of the government?



Yes. Did you know that a kid saying a prayer in a state-operated school is not Congress passing a law?


----------



## Boss

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What persecution of religious beliefs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I thought, your reactionary, paranoid claims are absent support.
Click to expand...


There is nothing reactionary or paranoid in my claim. Since 1947 and a controversial ruling by Justice Hugo Black, we've had a de facto persecution of religious freedom in America. We are NOT able to exercise our religious freedom because at every turn we are met by some moron chortling "wall of separation!"


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Did you know that congress is the law-making body of the government?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Did you know that a kid saying a prayer in a state-operated school is not Congress passing a law?
Click to expand...


Kids can say their prayers in public school. 

You watch a lot of the 700 club, right?


----------



## BreezeWood

> An Outline of Baptist Persecution in Colonial America
> 
> The year is 1774.  American colonists are strongly protesting British invasions of their rights, and in September the first Continental Congress is convened as a response British encroachments.   Also in 1774 in Northampton, Massachusetts, eighteen Baptists are sitting in jail.  Their crime?  Refusing to pay taxes for the support of the towns Congregational minister.
> 
> Also in 1774, down South in Virginia, James Madison declared, "That diabolical, hell-conceived principle of persecution rages among some. . . . There are at this time in the adjacent county not less than five or six well-meaning men in close jail for publishing their religious sentiments, which in the main are very orthodox. . . . So I must beg you to . . . pray for liberty of conscience for all."
> 
> The fight for religious liberty in America extended from the early 17th century to the early 19th century.  *Of the various religious sects in America, Baptists were the most persecuted, and thus became the most vocal advocates of religious liberty and separation of church and state, taking the lead in the establishment of religious liberty and separation of church and state first in Virginia, and then at the federal level.*




*Of the various religious sects in America, Baptists were the most persecuted, and thus became the most vocal advocates of religious liberty and separation of church and state, taking the lead in the establishment of religious liberty and separation of church and state first in Virginia, and then at the federal level.*

the fundies have it backwards, the American Revolution was fought for the seperation not against it ... they were the recipients of State / Church persecution in Europa.

.


----------



## thebrucebeat

BreezeWood said:


> An Outline of Baptist Persecution in Colonial America
> 
> The year is 1774.  American colonists are strongly protesting British invasions of their rights, and in September the first Continental Congress is convened as a response British encroachments.   Also in 1774 in Northampton, Massachusetts, eighteen Baptists are sitting in jail.  Their crime?  Refusing to pay taxes for the support of the towns Congregational minister.
> 
> Also in 1774, down South in Virginia, James Madison declared, "That diabolical, hell-conceived principle of persecution rages among some. . . . There are at this time in the adjacent county not less than five or six well-meaning men in close jail for publishing their religious sentiments, which in the main are very orthodox. . . . So I must beg you to . . . pray for liberty of conscience for all."
> 
> The fight for religious liberty in America extended from the early 17th century to the early 19th century.  *Of the various religious sects in America, Baptists were the most persecuted, and thus became the most vocal advocates of religious liberty and separation of church and state, taking the lead in the establishment of religious liberty and separation of church and state first in Virginia, and then at the federal level.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Of the various religious sects in America, Baptists were the most persecuted, and thus became the most vocal advocates of religious liberty and separation of church and state, taking the lead in the establishment of religious liberty and separation of church and state first in Virginia, and then at the federal level.*
> 
> the fundies have it backwards, the American Revolution was fought for the seperation not against it ... they were the recipients of State / Church persecution in Europa.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


That is the irony.
The Baptists now lead the charge for infiltration into government by the church.


----------



## thebrucebeat

PostmodernProph said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> well, every time they touch a dollar bill they are forced to utter a prayer....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does that "attack" your faith or support it?
> I don't think I'm getting your point?
Click to expand...


----------



## BreezeWood

> *thebrucebeat:* In the meantime, a hit-and-run does not make an argument and is one example of the poor argumentation I referred to.



speaking of the devil ...

.


----------



## Uncensored2008

orogenicman said:


> You confuse being an atheist with being anti-Christian. Not true. We treat all religions with equal disbelief. But don't confuse disbelief with evil intent. Believe whatever you choose. It is nothing personal. We simply choose not to believe as you do, that's all. Get over yourself, already.



Maybe, but then there are those like duhs, who are absolutely anti-Christian. With Atheist leaders like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ho, et al. out there, you can see where Christians would have a healthy fear of hate-filled Atheists spouting what duhs spouts. 

Agnosticism is a lack of belief, Atheism is an evangelical movement to proselytize that lack of belief - often through force and murder.


----------



## koshergrl

thebrucebeat said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An Outline of Baptist Persecution in Colonial America
> 
> The year is 1774. American colonists are strongly protesting British invasions of their rights, and in September the first Continental Congress is convened as a response British encroachments. Also in 1774 in Northampton, Massachusetts, eighteen Baptists are sitting in jail. Their crime? Refusing to pay taxes for the support of the towns Congregational minister.
> 
> Also in 1774, down South in Virginia, James Madison declared, "That diabolical, hell-conceived principle of persecution rages among some. . . . There are at this time in the adjacent county not less than five or six well-meaning men in close jail for publishing their religious sentiments, which in the main are very orthodox. . . . So I must beg you to . . . pray for liberty of conscience for all."
> 
> The fight for religious liberty in America extended from the early 17th century to the early 19th century. *Of the various religious sects in America, Baptists were the most persecuted, and thus became the most vocal advocates of religious liberty and separation of church and state, taking the lead in the establishment of religious liberty and separation of church and state first in Virginia, and then at the federal level.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Of the various religious sects in America, Baptists were the most persecuted, and thus became the most vocal advocates of religious liberty and separation of church and state, taking the lead in the establishment of religious liberty and separation of church and state first in Virginia, and then at the federal level.*
> 
> the fundies have it backwards, the American Revolution was fought for the seperation not against it ... they were the recipients of State / Church persecution in Europa.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is the irony.
> The Baptists now lead the charge for infiltration into government by the church.
Click to expand...

 
No, they don't. They are exactly where they have always been...staunchly against state interference or obstruction when it comes to matters of faith.

We are allowed to vote our consciences and declare our faith, even when our consciences are steered by our faith, and even when our faith is attacked. And we will (and do) die to defend that freedom.


----------



## koshergrl

Anabaptists have a fine tradition of speaking out against state interference...and they have been persecuted heavily because of it.

"Another defining characteristic of Anabaptists is their belief in the separation of church and state, and the concept that the church represents the community of saved."

"The movement&#8217;s most distinctive tenet was adult baptism. In its first generation, converts submitted to a second baptism, which was a crime punishable by death under the legal codes of the time."

"The vehemence and intransigence of the Anabaptist leaders and the revolutionary implications of their teaching led to their expulsion from one city after another. .....Soon civil magistrates took sterner measures, and most of the early Anabaptist leaders died in prison or were executed."

Progressive wetdream ^^^^^

http://www.patheos.com/Library/Anabaptist.html


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> All of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I thought, your reactionary, paranoid claims are absent support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing reactionary or paranoid in my claim. Since 1947 and a controversial ruling by Justice Hugo Black, we've had a de facto persecution of religious freedom in America. We are NOT able to exercise our religious freedom because at every turn we are met by some moron chortling "wall of separation!"
Click to expand...


Only when the exercise implies a tacit approval from the state, like when the childs prayer is leading the entire class at a commencement. They are acting as a representative of the school in that capacity.
The ACLU has repeatedly defended kids rights to carry and study their bibles in school, to meet in prayer at school, etc.  What they have fought is the school proper being the catalyst for such activities.
I never understand why this difference is so confusing.
Seems simple enough to me.
As to the Justice Black opinion, that is their job, to interpret the constitutionality of laws and decisions. His way of thinking has been upheld ever since, regardless of the makeup of the court.
Sorry they didn't agree with you, that the document should be frozen in a time capsule.
You lost that one.


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> Only when the exercise implies a tacit approval from the state, like when the childs prayer is leading the entire class at a commencement. They are acting as a representative of the school in that capacity.
> The ACLU has repeatedly defended kids rights to carry and study their bibles in school, to meet in prayer at school, etc.  What they have fought is the school proper being the catalyst for such activities.
> I never understand why this difference is so confusing.
> Seems simple enough to me.
> As to the Justice Black opinion, that is their job, to interpret the constitutionality of laws and decisions. His way of thinking has been upheld ever since, regardless of the makeup of the court.
> Sorry they didn't agree with you, that the document should be frozen in a time capsule.
> You lost that one.



But I presented the example earlier to refute this interpretation. The President of the United States is most certainly representing "the state" in his official capacity as President, is he not? We, the taxpayers are paying his salary, correct? So when I point out that in the very letter where (then President) Jefferson used the words "wall of separation between church and state" actually concludes with a prayer and respectful and esteemed reciprocation to the Danbury Baptists, it seems to completely contradict the modern interpretation of the Establishment Clause.

Oromoron chimes in that this doesn't violate it because it's not _Congress making a law_... well, kids leading a prayer is also not Congress making a law. A Ten Commandments monument in a statehouse building is not Congress making a law. A nativity scene in front of the courthouse is not Congress making a law. 

Supreme Court rulings are not forever carved in granite, else slaves would still be property! Women would still be unable to vote! Schools would still be segregated! The list goes on and on. So I wouldn't get too cocky about a 1947 ruling which changed the original intent of the 1st Amendment.


----------



## thebrucebeat

koshergrl said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Of the various religious sects in America, Baptists were the most persecuted, and thus became the most vocal advocates of religious liberty and separation of church and state, taking the lead in the establishment of religious liberty and separation of church and state first in Virginia, and then at the federal level.*
> 
> the fundies have it backwards, the American Revolution was fought for the seperation not against it ... they were the recipients of State / Church persecution in Europa.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is the irony.
> The Baptists now lead the charge for infiltration into government by the church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they don't. They are exactly where they have always been...staunchly against state interference or obstruction when it comes to matters of faith.
> 
> We are allowed to vote our consciences and declare our faith, even when our consciences are steered by our faith, and even when our faith is attacked. And we will (and do) die to defend that freedom.
Click to expand...


On the contrary.
Falwell and Robertson led the charge in the attempt to usurp the power of government to direct social policy in the name of Jesus and the Baptists. 
There is a great book by Cal Thomas called "Blinded by Might". Cal was, and is, a very conservative evangelical Christian and syndicated columnist. He was tapped to be communications director, Falwell's right hand man. It was a very prestigious position at the time.
He quit.
The book tells why. The Moral Majority was an organization with power, not freedom in mind, and Cal ultimately could not support it as it left the faith in a background position.
Cal is still a very well known conservative voice.
He just put his faith first.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only when the exercise implies a tacit approval from the state, like when the childs prayer is leading the entire class at a commencement. They are acting as a representative of the school in that capacity.
> The ACLU has repeatedly defended kids rights to carry and study their bibles in school, to meet in prayer at school, etc.  What they have fought is the school proper being the catalyst for such activities.
> I never understand why this difference is so confusing.
> Seems simple enough to me.
> As to the Justice Black opinion, that is their job, to interpret the constitutionality of laws and decisions. His way of thinking has been upheld ever since, regardless of the makeup of the court.
> Sorry they didn't agree with you, that the document should be frozen in a time capsule.
> You lost that one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I presented the example earlier to refute this interpretation. The President of the United States is most certainly representing "the state" in his official capacity as President, is he not? We, the taxpayers are paying his salary, correct? So when I point out that in the very letter where (then President) Jefferson used the words "wall of separation between church and state" actually concludes with a prayer and respectful and esteemed reciprocation to the Danbury Baptists, it seems to completely contradict the modern interpretation of the Establishment Clause.
> 
> Oromoron chimes in that this doesn't violate it because it's not _Congress making a law_... well, kids leading a prayer is also not Congress making a law. A Ten Commandments monument in a statehouse building is not Congress making a law. A nativity scene in front of the courthouse is not Congress making a law.
> 
> Supreme Court rulings are not forever carved in granite, else slaves would still be property! Women would still be unable to vote! Schools would still be segregated! The list goes on and on. So I wouldn't get too cocky about a 1947 ruling which changed the original intent of the 1st Amendment.
Click to expand...


Nor should you be upset by it. It is the normal course of events.
As far as Jefferson is concerned, you could argue that he was not in the process of making official policy, but describing what his personal beliefs were regarding the issue, or you can argue that based on today's understanding he was simply wrong.
Jefferson is not infallible.


----------



## orogenicman

Uncensored2008 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You confuse being an atheist with being anti-Christian. Not true. We treat all religions with equal disbelief. But don't confuse disbelief with evil intent. Believe whatever you choose. It is nothing personal. We simply choose not to believe as you do, that's all. Get over yourself, already.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe, but then there are those like duhs, who are absolutely anti-Christian. With Atheist leaders like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ho, et al. out there, you can see where Christians would have a healthy fear of hate-filled Atheists spouting what duhs spouts.
> 
> Agnosticism is a lack of belief, Atheism is an evangelical movement to proselytize that lack of belief - often through force and murder.
Click to expand...


Erm, last time I checked my history, those guys were dead (though I can't speak for et. al. He might still be alive). So they can hardly be described as being "out there". Moreover, though they may have been atheists, they were, above all, communists and maniacal dictators with delusions of grandeur. I am certainly not a communist, nor do I have delusions of grandeur. Your attempts to vilify atheists only make you appear cowardly and incapable of reasoning with those who see things differently than you do. That's on you and no one else.


----------



## orogenicman

koshergrl said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Of the various religious sects in America, Baptists were the most persecuted, and thus became the most vocal advocates of religious liberty and separation of church and state, taking the lead in the establishment of religious liberty and separation of church and state first in Virginia, and then at the federal level.*
> 
> the fundies have it backwards, the American Revolution was fought for the seperation not against it ... they were the recipients of State / Church persecution in Europa.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is the irony.
> The Baptists now lead the charge for infiltration into government by the church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they don't. They are exactly where they have always been...staunchly against state interference or obstruction when it comes to matters of faith.
> 
> We are allowed to vote our consciences and declare our faith, even when our consciences are steered by our faith, and even when our faith is attacked. And we will (and do) die to defend that freedom.
Click to expand...


I'm just curious.  Do Baptists keep kosher these days?


----------



## orogenicman

Boss said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, not under YOUR interpretation of this "wall" which supposedly separates religion from state. It seems to be in direct contradiction to that interpretation. A point that obviously escaped Hugo Black in 1947 when he perverted Jefferson's words and re-wrote the 1st Amendment.
> 
> And neither is a student leading a prayer in a state-owned schoolhouse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is when the laws regulating that state-run school is promulgated by the state legislature. It is when the taxpayer is paying for the said school. But you're (allegedly) not a Christian anyway, so why do you give a damn?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well hold on a second, you just said the criteria was what Congress does. Last I checked, the taxpayers also pay the salary of the President. And how did we suddenly jump from what Congress is able to do to what states are able to do? Have you read the 10th Amendment?
> 
> My religious affiliation has nothing to do with this argument. Sorry.
Click to expand...


The states must abide by the Constitution of the United States.  The 1st amendment applies to every state, and every citizen.  Have you even read the document?

 I dare say your religious affiliation is an issue here since you are defending, above all, Christianity, and yet have repeated told us that you are not one.  So the question still stands.  Why do you care?


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only when the exercise implies a tacit approval from the state, like when the childs prayer is leading the entire class at a commencement. They are acting as a representative of the school in that capacity.
> The ACLU has repeatedly defended kids rights to carry and study their bibles in school, to meet in prayer at school, etc.  What they have fought is the school proper being the catalyst for such activities.
> I never understand why this difference is so confusing.
> Seems simple enough to me.
> As to the Justice Black opinion, that is their job, to interpret the constitutionality of laws and decisions. His way of thinking has been upheld ever since, regardless of the makeup of the court.
> Sorry they didn't agree with you, that the document should be frozen in a time capsule.
> You lost that one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I presented the example earlier to refute this interpretation. The President of the United States is most certainly representing "the state" in his official capacity as President, is he not? We, the taxpayers are paying his salary, correct? So when I point out that in the very letter where (then President) Jefferson used the words "wall of separation between church and state" actually concludes with a prayer and respectful and esteemed reciprocation to the Danbury Baptists, it seems to completely contradict the modern interpretation of the Establishment Clause.
> 
> Oromoron chimes in that this doesn't violate it because it's not _Congress making a law_... well, kids leading a prayer is also not Congress making a law. A Ten Commandments monument in a statehouse building is not Congress making a law. A nativity scene in front of the courthouse is not Congress making a law.
> 
> Supreme Court rulings are not forever carved in granite, else slaves would still be property! Women would still be unable to vote! Schools would still be segregated! The list goes on and on. So I wouldn't get too cocky about a 1947 ruling which changed the original intent of the 1st Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nor should you be upset by it. It is the normal course of events.
> As far as Jefferson is concerned, you could argue that he was not in the process of making official policy, but describing what his personal beliefs were regarding the issue, or you can argue that based on today's understanding he was simply wrong.
> Jefferson is not infallible.
Click to expand...


LOL... So now, Jefferson was "wrong" to violate his very own "wall of separation" in the same letter in which he articulated it? That's rich! 

"Congress shall pass no law" does not translate to "students shall say no prayer on government property." Nor does it translate to "process of making official policy." Nor does it have beans to do with what the States can do under the 10th Amendment. 

You can also argue that a particular Supreme Court Justice (Hugo Black) was wrong in 1947, when he made the ruling that solidified this idiotic interpretation of the Establishment Clause.


----------



## orogenicman

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> But I presented the example earlier to refute this interpretation. The President of the United States is most certainly representing "the state" in his official capacity as President, is he not? We, the taxpayers are paying his salary, correct? So when I point out that in the very letter where (then President) Jefferson used the words "wall of separation between church and state" actually concludes with a prayer and respectful and esteemed reciprocation to the Danbury Baptists, it seems to completely contradict the modern interpretation of the Establishment Clause.
> 
> Oromoron chimes in that this doesn't violate it because it's not _Congress making a law_... well, kids leading a prayer is also not Congress making a law. A Ten Commandments monument in a statehouse building is not Congress making a law. A nativity scene in front of the courthouse is not Congress making a law.
> 
> Supreme Court rulings are not forever carved in granite, else slaves would still be property! Women would still be unable to vote! Schools would still be segregated! The list goes on and on. So I wouldn't get too cocky about a 1947 ruling which changed the original intent of the 1st Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nor should you be upset by it. It is the normal course of events.
> As far as Jefferson is concerned, you could argue that he was not in the process of making official policy, but describing what his personal beliefs were regarding the issue, or you can argue that based on today's understanding he was simply wrong.
> Jefferson is not infallible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL... So now, Jefferson was "wrong" to violate his very own "wall of separation" in the same letter in which he articulated it? That's rich!
> 
> "Congress shall pass no law" does not translate to "students shall say no prayer on government property." Nor does it translate to "process of making official policy." Nor does it have beans to do with what the States can do under the 10th Amendment.
> 
> You can also argue that a particular Supreme Court Justice (Hugo Black) was wrong in 1947, when he made the ruling that solidified this idiotic interpretation of the Establishment Clause.
Click to expand...


There are 650,000 churches, synagogues, temples, and mosques in this country.  Pick one and be done with it.


----------



## Boss

> The states must abide by the Constitution of the United States. The 1st amendment applies to every state, and every citizen. Have you even read the document?



I have. But you pointed out the 1st Amendment is about what Congress can do. Remember that? It was only a few posts back, go refresh your memory! How is any state action related to what the US Congress does or doesn't do?


----------



## GISMYS

Why do GOD haters persist??? SIMPLE!!! BELIEVERS! know and expect to be attacked if you post GOD'S WORD=ETERNAL TRUTH. Unbelievers and false religious minions of satan hate GOD and GOD'S WORD = ETERNAL TRUTH. Against JESUS They screamed and gnashed their teeth crying ban him from the temple,then CRUCIFY HIM!!! CRUCIFY HIM!! Pilate knew JESUS was inocent but he wanted to please the people,so he washed his hands and said ," you crucify him but I find him inocent"!!! ==The world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. 19"If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you.. John  15:18 SAD!! But most GOD haters will not wise up until they feel the flames!!!and you??


----------



## Luddly Neddite

There goes the neighborhood.


----------



## Boss

> *oromoron:* _...nor do I have delusions of grandeur._



OMG.. that made me laugh out loud when I read it.



> ...they were, above all, communists and *maniacal dictators with delusions of grandeur.*



As is the case for most Atheists. 

I would just about put money on it that your political leanings skew decidedly left. Am I wrong?


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> But I presented the example earlier to refute this interpretation. The President of the United States is most certainly representing "the state" in his official capacity as President, is he not? We, the taxpayers are paying his salary, correct? So when I point out that in the very letter where (then President) Jefferson used the words "wall of separation between church and state" actually concludes with a prayer and respectful and esteemed reciprocation to the Danbury Baptists, it seems to completely contradict the modern interpretation of the Establishment Clause.
> 
> Oromoron chimes in that this doesn't violate it because it's not _Congress making a law_... well, kids leading a prayer is also not Congress making a law. A Ten Commandments monument in a statehouse building is not Congress making a law. A nativity scene in front of the courthouse is not Congress making a law.
> 
> Supreme Court rulings are not forever carved in granite, else slaves would still be property! Women would still be unable to vote! Schools would still be segregated! The list goes on and on. So I wouldn't get too cocky about a 1947 ruling which changed the original intent of the 1st Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nor should you be upset by it. It is the normal course of events.
> As far as Jefferson is concerned, you could argue that he was not in the process of making official policy, but describing what his personal beliefs were regarding the issue, or you can argue that based on today's understanding he was simply wrong.
> Jefferson is not infallible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL... So now, Jefferson was "wrong" to violate his very own "wall of separation" in the same letter in which he articulated it? That's rich!
> 
> "Congress shall pass no law" does not translate to "students shall say no prayer on government property." Nor does it translate to "process of making official policy." Nor does it have beans to do with what the States can do under the 10th Amendment.
> 
> You can also argue that a particular Supreme Court Justice (Hugo Black) was wrong in 1947, when he made the ruling that solidified this idiotic interpretation of the Establishment Clause.
Click to expand...


Sure you can. No doubt about it.
But it has been upheld for 67 years.
Right now the tide is against you.
Your argument has been made by your betters. It has lost continuously.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> *oromoron:* _...nor do I have delusions of grandeur._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OMG.. that made me laugh out loud when I read it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...they were, above all, communists and *maniacal dictators with delusions of grandeur.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As is the case for most Atheists.
> 
> I would just about put money on it that your political leanings skew decidedly left. Am I wrong?
Click to expand...


You think the majority of atheists are maniacal dictators?
What are millions of people "dictators" of?
Slipped a gear with that one, didn't you?


----------



## koshergrl

Don't be more of a moron than you already are, bb.


----------



## thebrucebeat

koshergrl said:


> Don't be more of a moron than you already are, bb.



How do you come to this?


----------



## thanatos144

God didn't say to kill 50 million unborn in the USA for eugenics....No that would be secularists. Even Muslim radicals are not as adept at mass murder as atheists.


----------



## Uncensored2008

orogenicman said:


> Erm, last time I checked my history, those guys were dead (though I can't speak for et. al. He might still be alive). So they can hardly be described as being "out there". Moreover, though they may have been atheists, they were, above all, communists and maniacal dictators with delusions of grandeur. I am certainly not a communist, nor do I have delusions of grandeur. Your attempts to vilify atheists only make you appear cowardly and incapable of reasoning with those who see things differently than you do. That's on you and no one else.



I can understand your desire to distance yourself from other Atheists, but it's a bit disengenuous. Lenin and Mao particularly made a big deal out of the fact that they were establishing Atheist states.


----------



## koshergrl

As were Pol Pot and Mao....


----------



## thebrucebeat

Uncensored2008 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Erm, last time I checked my history, those guys were dead (though I can't speak for et. al. He might still be alive). So they can hardly be described as being "out there". Moreover, though they may have been atheists, they were, above all, communists and maniacal dictators with delusions of grandeur. I am certainly not a communist, nor do I have delusions of grandeur. Your attempts to vilify atheists only make you appear cowardly and incapable of reasoning with those who see things differently than you do. That's on you and no one else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can understand your desire to distance yourself from other Atheists, but it's a bit disengenuous. Lenin and Mao particularly made a big deal out of the fact that they were establishing Atheist states.
Click to expand...




koshergrl said:


> As were Pol Pot and Mao....



None of them cared a whit about atheism.
What they cared about was eliminating competing concepts.
No different from the Taliban eliminating competing concepts.
All totalitarian states are based on that.
Atheism wasn't the least bit central to any of these despotic regimes. It didn't matter at all.
Worshiping something other than the state, on the other hand, carried a death sentence.


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be more of a moron than you already are, bb.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you come to this?
Click to expand...


Yeah koshergrl, how do you come to this? It's not possible for him to be any more of a moron than he already is. 

*You think the majority of atheists are maniacal dictators?*

I think most of them, at least the ones represented here, would love nothing more than to be little left-wing authoritarian dictators who tell us what to do, how to act, what to believe, and what is acceptable and not. 

*But it has been upheld for 67 years.*

Wow, did you think my argument was that it hadn't been?


----------



## koshergrl

thebrucebeat said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Erm, last time I checked my history, those guys were dead (though I can't speak for et. al. He might still be alive). So they can hardly be described as being "out there". Moreover, though they may have been atheists, they were, above all, communists and maniacal dictators with delusions of grandeur. I am certainly not a communist, nor do I have delusions of grandeur. Your attempts to vilify atheists only make you appear cowardly and incapable of reasoning with those who see things differently than you do. That's on you and no one else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can understand your desire to distance yourself from other Atheists, but it's a bit disengenuous. Lenin and Mao particularly made a big deal out of the fact that they were establishing Atheist states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> As were Pol Pot and Mao....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of them cared a whit about atheism.
> What they cared about was eliminating competing concepts.
> No different from the Taliban eliminating competing concepts.
> All totalitarian states are based on that.
> Atheism wasn't the least bit central to any of these despotic regimes. It didn't matter at all.
> Worshiping something other than the state, on the other hand, carried a death sentence.
Click to expand...

 
They were atheists.

The competing concepts they sought to eliminate were religious ones, because religion advised their subjects that what they were doing was evil.

I love to watch atheists wriggle and squirm and try to minimalize the truth..which is that openly atheist regimes are the most efficiently brutal and murderous regimes the world has ever known.


----------



## orogenicman

Uncensored2008 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Erm, last time I checked my history, those guys were dead (though I can't speak for et. al. He might still be alive). So they can hardly be described as being "out there". Moreover, though they may have been atheists, they were, above all, communists and maniacal dictators with delusions of grandeur. I am certainly not a communist, nor do I have delusions of grandeur. Your attempts to vilify atheists only make you appear cowardly and incapable of reasoning with those who see things differently than you do. That's on you and no one else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can understand your desire to distance yourself from other Atheists, but it's a bit disengenuous. Lenin and Mao particularly made a big deal out of the fact that they were establishing Atheist states.
Click to expand...


Even if true (which is a dubious claim, at best) I know of no one in the modern American atheist community who sees any of them (or ever saw them) as role models, least of all me. Again, your attempt to vilify atheists in this manner is nothing new but is a perfect definition of cowardice. Of course, you are entitled to your opinion, no matter how stupid it makes you appear.


----------



## Boss

> None of them cared a whit about atheism.



Not true. You must not have read much on Marxism, which is essentially the favored ideology of all those mentioned. It specifically calls for the elimination of all religious constructs. You see, you can't have your people effectively putting faith in the national government if they are consumed with faith in God. 

We can actually see this manifest in our own politics today. The religious tend to be more right-wing conservative, smaller government, less handouts to the needy, more personal responsibility... The non-religious tend to be more left-wing, bigger government, more handouts to the needy, less personal responsibility. You'd think it would be the other way around, the religious would be more about helping the needy, etc. But the religious put faith in God to take care of the needy, while the non-religious think we must rely on government taking from one class to give to another. Now, before you jump on this as a "generalization" let me add, this is not ALWAYS the case, but we still have some religious freedom in America.


----------



## orogenicman

Boss said:


> None of them cared a whit about atheism.
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. You must not have read much on Marxism, which is essentially the favored ideology of all those mentioned. It specifically calls for the elimination of all religious constructs. You see, you can't have your people effectively putting faith in the national government if they are consumed with faith in God.
> 
> We can actually see this manifest in our own politics today. The religious tend to be more right-wing conservative, smaller government, less handouts to the needy, more personal responsibility...
Click to expand...


Actually, that perfectly describes the religious right particularly the part about starving the poor.



			
				booseyman said:
			
		

> The non-religious tend to be more left-wing, bigger government, more handouts to the needy, less personal responsibility.



Right. That would explain why fewer atheists are in jail, on welfare, and more have modest to high paying jobs compared to many uneducated, redneck, right wing, Jesus-loving bubbas in the south. In fact, since you brought it up, Mitch McConnell's state, my state, a red state, is amongst the poorest in the country, and has one of the highest rates of welfare in the country.  Which is why the movement is on in earnest to "ditch Mitch".


----------



## koshergrl

orogenicman said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of them cared a whit about atheism.
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. You must not have read much on Marxism, which is essentially the favored ideology of all those mentioned. It specifically calls for the elimination of all religious constructs. You see, you can't have your people effectively putting faith in the national government if they are consumed with faith in God.
> 
> We can actually see this manifest in our own politics today. The religious tend to be more right-wing conservative, smaller government, less handouts to the needy, more personal responsibility...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, that perfectly describes the religious right particularly the part about starving the poor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> booseyman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The non-religious tend to be more left-wing, bigger government, more handouts to the needy, less personal responsibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right. That would explain why fewer atheists are in jail, on welfare, and more have modest to high paying jobs compared to many uneducated, redneck, right wing, Jesus-loving bubbas in the south. In fact, since you brought it up, Mitch McConnell's state, my state, a red state, is amongst the poorest in the country, and has one of the highest rates of welfare in the country. Which is why the movement is on in earnest to "ditch Mitch".
Click to expand...

 
Haha, that's what we call "Ass Facts". Facts that you pull from your ass, but otherwise have no basis in reality.


----------



## koshergrl

"
"There are some statistics that atheists love to repeat. One of them is this: &#8220;_About 8-16% of America&#8217;s population are atheists, but only 0.21% of the prison population are_.&#8221; 
"This page is apparently their source for that. It gives the numbers for prison inmates, and their reported religious groupings, on 5 March 1997. (_I wonder why do no atheist ever mention a more recent study? Is this particular 11-year old study the one with results that best match their agenda?_)
"But wait a minute. These numbers apparently also say that 19,7% of the prisoners population chose not to answer this question, or was perhaps not asked, or perhaps just ticked a box named &#8220;other religious view&#8221; without naming their view in it. Now, the prisoners that were not asked are probably not much different from anyone else. We do not know how many of those were numbered in the sample.
"But the prisoners who chose not to answer? It make perfect sense that an atheist will be less likely to honestly answer that question. (It may indirectly affect his chances for parole, for instance.) And with a tick box for &#8220;Catholic&#8221; or &#8220;Muslim&#8221;, but none for atheist, it is likely that some atheists will be among those who just tick &#8220;other&#8221; without filling in the word atheist. 
"The people who chose not to answer could, fairly speaking, include anything from absolutely no atheists at all to all atheists, without exception. Atheists could, if these statistics were accurate, anything between 0,21% and 19,95% of the prison population in the USA. Since many (probably the mayority of) people who do not believe in God or the supernatural- fail to identify themselves with the label of &#8220;atheist&#8221;, you could assume their true number will be higher"

Lies, damned lies and atheists in prison | Looking around and trying to understand


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> None of them cared a whit about atheism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. You must not have read much on Marxism, which is essentially the favored ideology of all those mentioned. It specifically calls for the elimination of all religious constructs. You see, you can't have your people effectively putting faith in the national government if they are consumed with faith in God. We can actually see this manifest in our own politics today. The religious tend to be more right-wing conservative, smaller government, less handouts to the needy, more personal responsibility... The non-religious tend to be more left-wing, bigger government, more handouts to the needy, less personal responsibility. You'd think it would be the other way around, the religious would be more about helping the needy, etc. But the religious put faith in God to take care of the needy, while the non-religious think we must rely on government taking from one class to give to another. Now, before you jump on this as a "generalization" let me add, this is not ALWAYS the case, but we still have some religious freedom in America.
Click to expand...

You just stated what I did. They eliminated competing ideas. They didn't care about atheism, per se. They cared about absolute power and control. The theology or lack of it was comparatively unimportant.
All that mattered was the state.
The red part of your post states this pretty well.
The rest is silly agenda screed. Not worth responding to.


----------



## Boss

> They didn't care about atheism, per se. They cared about absolute power and control. The theology or lack of it was comparatively unimportant.



You see, you can't have your people effectively putting faith in the national government if they are consumed with faith in God.

Part of achieving absolute power and control was removing people from their religious underpinnings. Atheism is the belief in no God. What part of this are you having trouble understanding, dimwit?


----------



## thebrucebeat

koshergrl said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can understand your desire to distance yourself from other Atheists, but it's a bit disengenuous. Lenin and Mao particularly made a big deal out of the fact that they were establishing Atheist states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> As were Pol Pot and Mao....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of them cared a whit about atheism.
> What they cared about was eliminating competing concepts.
> No different from the Taliban eliminating competing concepts.
> All totalitarian states are based on that.
> Atheism wasn't the least bit central to any of these despotic regimes. It didn't matter at all.
> Worshiping something other than the state, on the other hand, carried a death sentence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They were atheists.
> 
> The competing concepts they sought to eliminate were religious ones, because religion advised their subjects that what they were doing was evil.
> 
> I love to watch atheists wriggle and squirm and try to minimalize the truth..which is that openly atheist regimes are the most efficiently brutal and murderous regimes the world has ever known.
Click to expand...


They also eliminated intellectuals, poets, artists. It wasn't just religions. It was anyone that had the temerity to challenge the status quo. The religious were one of those groups, but no more interesting than anyone else that would dare to challenge them.
These were despotic regimes, not atheist per se. That was purely incidental.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> They didn't care about atheism, per se. They cared about absolute power and control. The theology or lack of it was comparatively unimportant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You see, you can't have your people effectively putting faith in the national government if they are consumed with faith in God.
> 
> Part of achieving absolute power and control was removing people from their religious underpinnings. Atheism is the belief in no God. What part of this are you having trouble understanding, dimwit?
Click to expand...


I'm not having any problem understanding that they were eliminating competing ideas, wherever they stemmed from. Atheism is not the belief in no god. It is the lack of belief in any god.
Do you think they exclusively targeted people of faith?
If you do, you are not very well familiarized with this history.
Don't forget to always include an invective or I won't know it is your post.


----------



## Boss

> It wasn't just religions.



That argument wasn't made. Sorry.


----------



## Boss

> Do you think they exclusively targeted people of faith?



Again, not something that was ever argued. Keep up with the conversation and stop trying to change the subject. They were atheists who didn't believe in God, whether they fed babies into woodchippers or not, is completely irrelevant.


----------



## thebrucebeat

koshergrl said:


> "
> "There are some statistics that atheists love to repeat. One of them is this: _About 8-16% of Americas population are atheists, but only 0.21% of the prison population are_.
> "This page is apparently their source for that. It gives the numbers for prison inmates, and their reported religious groupings, on 5 March 1997. (_I wonder why do no atheist ever mention a more recent study? Is this particular 11-year old study the one with results that best match their agenda?_)
> "But wait a minute. These numbers apparently also say that 19,7% of the prisoners population chose not to answer this question, or was perhaps not asked, or perhaps just ticked a box named other religious view without naming their view in it. Now, the prisoners that were not asked are probably not much different from anyone else. We do not know how many of those were numbered in the sample.
> "But the prisoners who chose not to answer? It make perfect sense that an atheist will be less likely to honestly answer that question. (It may indirectly affect his chances for parole, for instance.) And with a tick box for Catholic or Muslim, but none for atheist, it is likely that some atheists will be among those who just tick other without filling in the word atheist.
> "The people who chose not to answer could, fairly speaking, include anything from absolutely no atheists at all to all atheists, without exception. Atheists could, if these statistics were accurate, anything between 0,21% and 19,95% of the prison population in the USA. Since many (probably the mayority of) people who do not believe in God or the supernatural- fail to identify themselves with the label of atheist, you could assume their true number will be higher"
> 
> Lies, damned lies and atheists in prison | Looking around and trying to understand



So your big revelation is the statistic could be as low as .21% as stated or as high as nearly 20%. The vast, vast majority of inmates, no matter what you assume is true on that range, are people of faith.
What point did you THINK you were making?


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> Do you think they exclusively targeted people of faith?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, not something that was ever argued. Keep up with the conversation and stop trying to change the subject. They were atheists who didn't believe in God, whether they fed babies into woodchippers or not, is completely irrelevant.
Click to expand...


What does that even mean?
You still think that atheism was an important issue to these despots?
It wasn't an issue at all.
Religion was simply one of many threats, all of which were not tolerated.
Academics were also targeted as threats.


----------



## Boss

> The vast, vast majority of inmates, no matter what you assume is true on that range, are people of faith.



This is probably due to the fact that for all of recorded human history, humans have found solace and comfort in times of peril and struggle through their spiritual faith in something greater than self. Haven't you heard the expression, "there are no Atheists in foxholes?" When people face adversity they often turn to faith for strength and hope. I bet if we threw you in prison, it would take about a week for you to find your religion again. 



> You still think that atheism was an important issue to these despots?
> It wasn't an issue at all.



It certainly was. This is assuming you comprehend Atheism is the belief in no God. Now you can CLAIM they didn't care about Atheism, and they didn't run around on a crusade denouncing God like you and oromoron do, they simply executed those who believed in a God and didn't allow religion. And YES, it was paramount to their success of Marxist Utopian Totalitarianism. To try and attempt to skate around this is just plain ignorant.


----------



## orogenicman

koshergrl said:


> "
> "There are some statistics that atheists love to repeat. One of them is this: _About 8-16% of Americas population are atheists, but only 0.21% of the prison population are_.
> "This page is apparently their source for that. It gives the numbers for prison inmates, and their reported religious groupings, on 5 March 1997. (_I wonder why do no atheist ever mention a more recent study? Is this particular 11-year old study the one with results that best match their agenda?_)
> "But wait a minute. These numbers apparently also say that 19,7% of the prisoners population chose not to answer this question, or was perhaps not asked, or perhaps just ticked a box named other religious view without naming their view in it. Now, the prisoners that were not asked are probably not much different from anyone else. We do not know how many of those were numbered in the sample.
> "But the prisoners who chose not to answer? It make perfect sense that an atheist will be less likely to honestly answer that question. (It may indirectly affect his chances for parole, for instance.) And with a tick box for Catholic or Muslim, but none for atheist, it is likely that some atheists will be among those who just tick other without filling in the word atheist.
> "The people who chose not to answer could, fairly speaking, include anything from absolutely no atheists at all to all atheists, without exception. Atheists could, if these statistics were accurate, anything between 0,21% and 19,95% of the prison population in the USA. Since many (probably the mayority of) people who do not believe in God or the supernatural- fail to identify themselves with the label of atheist, you could assume their true number will be higher"
> 
> Lies, damned lies and atheists in prison | Looking around and trying to understand



So what you are saying is that prisons discriminate against atheists and keep them imprisoned longer than Christians simply for the fact that they are atheists, and that that is why according to your logic, there are more atheists in prison than the statistics show.  Now, having stated your claim, do you have any evidence that this is actually true?  How many atheist inmates have filed discrimination lawsuits against the prison system for such actions?  Has there been even one such lawsuit?  Now, I noticed that you didn't answer my earlier question so I will repeat it.  How many Christians such as yourself keep kosher, kosher girl?


----------



## orogenicman

Boss said:


> The vast, vast majority of inmates, no matter what you assume is true on that range, are people of faith.
> 
> 
> 
> This is probably due to the fact that for all of recorded human history, humans have found solace and comfort in times of peril and struggle through their spiritual faith in something greater than self. Haven't you heard the expression, "there are no Atheists in foxholes?" When people face adversity they often turn to faith for strength and hope. I bet if we threw you in prison, it would take about a week for you to find your religion again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still think that atheism was an important issue to these despots?
> It wasn't an issue at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It certainly was. This is assuming you comprehend Atheism is the belief in no God. Now you can CLAIM they didn't care about Atheism, and they didn't run around on a crusade denouncing God like you and oromoron do, they simply executed those who believed in a God and didn't allow religion. And YES, it was paramount to their success of Marxist Utopian Totalitarianism. To try and attempt to skate around this is just plain ignorant.
Click to expand...


The fact is that they didn't kill off all religionists, particularly in Russia.  In fact, Russia is largely orthodox, and has been for centuries.  Bruce is correct that the issue was not religion.  The issue was squelching all opposition to the regimes.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> The vast, vast majority of inmates, no matter what you assume is true on that range, are people of faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is probably due to the fact that for all of recorded human history, humans have found solace and comfort in times of peril and struggle through their spiritual faith in something greater than self. Haven't you heard the expression, "there are no Atheists in foxholes?" When people face adversity they often turn to faith for strength and hope. I bet if we threw you in prison, it would take about a week for you to find your religion again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still think that atheism was an important issue to these despots?
> It wasn't an issue at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It certainly was. This is assuming you comprehend Atheism is the belief in no God. Now you can CLAIM they didn't care about Atheism, and they didn't run around on a crusade denouncing God like you and oromoron do, they simply executed those who believed in a God and didn't allow religion. And YES, it was paramount to their success of Marxist Utopian Totalitarianism. To try and attempt to skate around this is just plain ignorant.
Click to expand...


Congratulations!!!
You just made the argument I made to you more than once, that you fought so hard against.
People are drawn to faith out of fear, out of hardship, out of a need for solace.
Exactly!!!
See the red part of your post.
You nailed it!!!
It isn't an inate sense of spirituality, it is the cure for fear.
Well done, my friend.
Wisdom may come slowly, but it's coming.

As for Marxism, what was paramount to success was a lack of detractors, of any stripe. The religious were one, but only one, potential threat to their absolute dominance of paradigm.
To call them an atheist regime makes as much sense as saying they were an anti-academic regime. While true, it doesn't define the movement in the grand sense. It is an element. The more inclusive view is they sought cognitive dominance at any price.


----------



## Hollie

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The vast, vast majority of inmates, no matter what you assume is true on that range, are people of faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is probably due to the fact that for all of recorded human history, humans have found solace and comfort in times of peril and struggle through their spiritual faith in something greater than self. Haven't you heard the expression, "there are no Atheists in foxholes?" When people face adversity they often turn to faith for strength and hope. I bet if we threw you in prison, it would take about a week for you to find your religion again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still think that atheism was an important issue to these despots?
> It wasn't an issue at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It certainly was. This is assuming you comprehend Atheism is the belief in no God. Now you can CLAIM they didn't care about Atheism, and they didn't run around on a crusade denouncing God like you and oromoron do, they simply executed those who believed in a God and didn't allow religion. And YES, it was paramount to their success of Marxist Utopian Totalitarianism. To try and attempt to skate around this is just plain ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Congratulations!!!
> You just made the argument I made to you more than once, that you fought so hard against.
> People are drawn to faith out of fear, out of hardship, out of a need for solace.
> Exactly!!!
> See the red part of your post.
> You nailed it!!!
> It isn't an inate sense of spirituality, it is the cure for fear.
> Well done, my friend.
> Wisdom may come slowly, but it's coming.
> 
> As for Marxism, what was paramount to success was a lack of detractors, of any stripe. The religious were one, but only one, potential threat to their absolute dominance of paradigm.
> To call them an atheist regime makes as much sense as saying they were an anti-academic regime. While true, it doesn't define the movement in the grand sense. It is an element. The more inclusive view is they sought cognitive dominance at any price.
Click to expand...


Standing applause.


----------



## BreezeWood

> Russian Orthodox Church - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> *Russian Orthodox Church*
> 
> The year 1917 was a major turning point in Russian history, and also the Russian Orthodox Church.[11] The Russian empire was dissolved and the Tsarist government - which had granted the Church numerous privileges - was overthrown. After a few months of political turmoil, *the Bolsheviks took power in October 1917 and declared a separation of church and state.* Thus the Russian Orthodox Church found itself without official state backing for the first time in its history. One of the first decrees of the new Communist government (issued in January 1918) declared freedom from "religious and anti-religious propaganda". *This led to a marked decline in the power and influence of the Church. The Church was also caught in the crossfire of the Russian Civil War that began later the same year, and many leaders of the Church supported what would ultimately turn out to be the losing side (the White movement).*




just a snapshot of one particular event reflecting the Church / State relationship prominent at the turn of the 20th century and its causal effect and ensuing outcome - 


*... the Bolsheviks took power in October 1917 and declared a separation of church and state.*

for anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of world history, knows this event had its first roots established by the 13 colonies that later became the United States of America. 

.


----------



## Boss

orogenicman said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The vast, vast majority of inmates, no matter what you assume is true on that range, are people of faith.
> 
> 
> 
> This is probably due to the fact that for all of recorded human history, humans have found solace and comfort in times of peril and struggle through their spiritual faith in something greater than self. Haven't you heard the expression, "there are no Atheists in foxholes?" When people face adversity they often turn to faith for strength and hope. I bet if we threw you in prison, it would take about a week for you to find your religion again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still think that atheism was an important issue to these despots?
> It wasn't an issue at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It certainly was. This is assuming you comprehend Atheism is the belief in no God. Now you can CLAIM they didn't care about Atheism, and they didn't run around on a crusade denouncing God like you and oromoron do, they simply executed those who believed in a God and didn't allow religion. And YES, it was paramount to their success of Marxist Utopian Totalitarianism. To try and attempt to skate around this is just plain ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact is that they didn't kill off all religionists, particularly in Russia.  In fact, Russia is largely orthodox, and has been for centuries.  Bruce is correct that the issue was not religion.  The issue was squelching all opposition to the regimes.
Click to expand...


Russian Orthodox Church - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The year 1917 was a major turning point in Russian history, and also the Russian Orthodox Church.[11] The Russian empire was dissolved and the Tsarist government - which had granted the Church numerous privileges - was overthrown. After a few months of political turmoil, the Bolsheviks took power in October 1917 and declared a separation of church and state. Thus the Russian Orthodox Church found itself without official state backing for the first time in its history. One of the first decrees of the new Communist government (issued in January 1918) *declared freedom from "religious and anti-religious propaganda".* This led to a marked decline in the power and influence of the Church. The Church was also caught in the crossfire of the Russian Civil War that began later the same year, and many leaders of the Church supported what would ultimately turn out to be the losing side (the White movement).

The Russian Orthodox Church supported the White Army in the Russian Civil War (see White movement) after the October Revolution. This may have further strengthened the Bolshevik antipathy against the church. Actually as early as 1905, Lenin, leader of the Bolshevik party, berated religion in Novaya Zhizn in 1905 "... Religion is opium for the people. Religion is a sort of spiritual booze, in which the slaves of capital drown their human image, their demand for a life more or less worthy of man..."

Even before the end of the civil war and the establishment of the Soviet Union, the Russian Orthodox Church came under pressure from the secular Communist government. The Soviet government stood on a platform of antireligion, viewing the church as a "counter-revolutionary" organization and an independent voice with a great influence in society. While the Soviet Union officially claimed religious tolerance, in practice the government discouraged organized religion and did much to remove religious influence from Soviet society.

After the October Revolution of November 7, 1917, the officially proclaimed objective of the Soviet Union was to unite all of the people of the world in a communist state free of "capitalist exploitation" (see Communist International). With such a view of the world any ethnic heritage closely tied to traditional religion and its clergy was targeted by Soviet authorities.[12][13]

The Soviet Union was the first state to have elimination of religion as an ideological objective. Toward that end, the Communist regime confiscated church property, ridiculed religion, harassed believers,* and propagated atheism in schools.*

Thousands of churches and monasteries were *taken over* by the government and either destroyed or converted to secular use. It was impossible to build new churches. Practising Orthodox Christians were restricted from prominent careers and membership in communist organizations (the party, the Komsomol). Anti-religious propaganda *was openly sponsored and encouraged by the government*, which the Church was not given an opportunity to publicly respond to. The government youth organization, the Komsomol, encouraged its members to vandalize Orthodox Churches and harass worshippers. Seminaries were closed down, and the church was restricted from using the press.

In November 1917, following the collapse of the tsarist government, a council of the Russian Orthodox church reestablished the patriarchate and elected the metropolitan Tikhon, the former Metropolitan of All America and Canada, as patriarch. But the new Soviet government soon declared the separation of church and state and also nationalized all church-held lands. These administrative measures were followed by brutal state-sanctioned persecutions that included the wholesale destruction of churches, as well as the arrest and execution of many clerics. 

Stalin era[edit]
The main target of the anti-religious campaign in the 1920s and 1930s was the Russian Orthodox Church, which had the largest congregation. Nearly all of its clergy, and many of its believers, were shot or sent to labor camps. Theological schools were closed, and church publications were prohibited.

...between 1927 and 1940, the number of Orthodox Churches in the Russian Republic fell from 29,584 to less than 500. Between 1917 and 1935, 130,000 Orthodox priests were arrested. Of these, 95,000 were put to death.

A new and widespread persecution of the church was subsequently instituted under the leadership of Nikita Khrushchev and Leonid Brezhnev. A second round of repression, harassment and church closures took place between 1959 and 1964 when Nikita Khrushchev was in office.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, the human spiritual faith prevailed even with tyrannic atheist communists doing their best to stomp it out of the hearts of man. To now formulate the argument that "atheism didn't matter" in light of what the history clearly shows, is total and complete ignorance.


----------



## Boss

> Congratulations!!!
> You just made the argument I made....



No I didn't you lying fucktard. I never said a thing about "FEAR!" Stop trying to harass me by misquoting what I've said and stick to the topic. 

When people face adversity they often turn to faith for strength and hope.

Where is there ANY reference there to FEAR?


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> Congratulations!!!
> You just made the argument I made....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I didn't you lying fucktard. I never said a thing about "FEAR!" Stop trying to harass me by misquoting what I've said and stick to the topic.
> 
> When people face adversity they often turn to faith for strength and hope.
> 
> Where is there ANY reference there to FEAR?
Click to expand...


"humans have found solace and comfort in times of peril and struggle..."

Maybe you made the case better with this line of yours.
LOL!!!
If you feel no fear during times of peril, you are Robocop.
Man, this one really embarrassed you! You flipped out good!
LOL!!!
And the hits just keep on coming!


----------



## koshergrl

God and a faithful heart alleviate misery.

Yet...we should reject them?

That makes no sense whatever. Embrace God and say goodbye to fear, anxiety and sorrow..why on earth wouldn't people choose God, given the alternative?


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Congratulations!!!
> You just made the argument I made....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I didn't you lying fucktard. I never said a thing about "FEAR!" Stop trying to harass me by misquoting what I've said and stick to the topic.
> 
> When people face adversity they often turn to faith for strength and hope.
> 
> Where is there ANY reference there to FEAR?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "humans have found solace and comfort in times of peril and struggle..."
> 
> Maybe you made the case better with this line of yours.
> LOL!!!
> If you feel no fear during times of peril, you are Robocop.
> Man, this one really embarrassed you! You flipped out good!
> LOL!!!
> And the hits just keep on coming!
Click to expand...


Where did I say ANYTHING about *FEAR?* You are jumping to conclusions, attributing comments to me that I never made. Why the hell do you think I am embarrassed by you outright *LYING* about what I said? You're the one who should be embarrassed, here you've been caught in yet another lie you can't defend or justify. Just a pathetic little puss pocket who can't make an argument, can't make a point, can't even be honest in the simplest of discourse.


----------



## BreezeWood

> The Soviet Union was the first state to have elimination of religion as an ideological objective. Toward that end, the Communist regime confiscated church property, ridiculed religion, harassed believers, and propagated atheism in schools.



the Soviet Union was post WWII - Stalin

what is your point Boss, Stalin is simply the reverse reflection of your own agenda that promotes religious dogma by the same means of intimidation.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I didn't you lying fucktard. I never said a thing about "FEAR!" Stop trying to harass me by misquoting what I've said and stick to the topic.
> 
> When people face adversity they often turn to faith for strength and hope.
> 
> Where is there ANY reference there to FEAR?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "humans have found solace and comfort in times of peril and struggle..."
> 
> Maybe you made the case better with this line of yours.
> LOL!!!
> If you feel no fear during times of peril, you are Robocop.
> Man, this one really embarrassed you! You flipped out good!
> LOL!!!
> And the hits just keep on coming!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did I say ANYTHING about *FEAR?* You are jumping to conclusions, attributing comments to me that I never made. Why the hell do you think I am embarrassed by you outright *LYING* about what I said? You're the one who should be embarrassed, here you've been caught in yet another lie you can't defend or justify. Just a pathetic little puss pocket who can't make an argument, can't make a point, can't even be honest in the simplest of discourse.
Click to expand...


No.
I think you are pretty conclusively punked here.
Tell you what.
We'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Let's say we let you off the hook on fear(I don't, but let's pretend).
You have still made the case that people come to faith because of what they are facing, not what they have inherently within them. Not their spirituality but their lack, their need, their loss, their sorrow or challenges. Pick a couple. They make the case as well as fear, though all of them are rooted in the latter.
All I have to do is let you open your mouth, and you always do the hard work for me.
LOLOLOL!!!!


----------



## Boss

BreezeWood said:


> The Soviet Union was the first state to have elimination of religion as an ideological objective. Toward that end, the Communist regime confiscated church property, ridiculed religion, harassed believers, and propagated atheism in schools.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the Soviet Union was post WWII - Stalin
> 
> what is your point Boss, Stalin is simply the reverse reflection of your own agenda that promotes religious dogma by the same means of intimidation.
Click to expand...


The Soviet Union was born out of the Russian Revolution of 1917 and became formalized in 1922. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that is prior to WWII. My point is, tyrannical Communist rulers are Atheists by design and out of necessity. I don't know how you think I promote ANY religious dogma when I have repeatedly stated that I don't subscribe to organized religion. I promote a spiritualistic realization of spiritual nature which has been connected with humans their entire existence. This transcends religion of any kind.


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> "humans have found solace and comfort in times of peril and struggle..."
> 
> Maybe you made the case better with this line of yours.
> LOL!!!
> If you feel no fear during times of peril, you are Robocop.
> Man, this one really embarrassed you! You flipped out good!
> LOL!!!
> And the hits just keep on coming!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I say ANYTHING about *FEAR?* You are jumping to conclusions, attributing comments to me that I never made. Why the hell do you think I am embarrassed by you outright *LYING* about what I said? You're the one who should be embarrassed, here you've been caught in yet another lie you can't defend or justify. Just a pathetic little puss pocket who can't make an argument, can't make a point, can't even be honest in the simplest of discourse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
> I think you are pretty conclusively punked here.
> Tell you what.
> We'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Let's say we let you off the hook on fear(I don't, but let's pretend).
> You have still made the case that people come to faith because of what they are facing, not what they have inherently within them. Not their spirituality but their lack, their need, their loss, their sorrow or challenges. Pick a couple. They make the case as well as fear, though all of them are rooted in the latter.
> All I have to do is let you open your mouth, and you always do the hard work for me.
> LOLOLOL!!!!
Click to expand...


You can think whatever you please, you're a lying idiot. You've proved that here.

Humans have the ability within them to connect to spiritual nature, a force greater than self. This force is a source of inspiration and strength which gives them courage to handle adversity, but it is not something invented because of fear, which has always been your argument. If it were not real, it wouldn't serve this purpose of fulfilling these needs in humans, but it does. 

What's been totally blown out of the water here is your notion of a superficial anomaly humans invented to cope with fears of their own mortality. Here is a classic example of Communist tyrants actively working for decades to destroy spirituality and failing to do so. In spite of brutal persecutions and executions, spiritualism prevailed. It cannot be stomped out of the hearts of man. The harder you try, the more persistent it becomes. 

In light of what history shows, you have the nerve to lie and distort what I've said and claim some sort of "victory" where nothing of the kind exists for you. Don't look now but another huge chunk of your ass is missing... it's being mounted on my trophy wall as we speak. We're going to have to start calling you "the assless wonder" pretty soon.


----------



## MrMax

Religion was invented to explain the unknown scary things in a human's life. Apparently, some people are still afraid of the unknown.


----------



## angstandvexed

Hi hi's^^
Well isn't this a cluster---- of an issue?  I don't hate God (in reference to the Judeo-Christian version),

nor do I hate Christians.  I have an issue with the way that I'm treated as a non-Christian, but I also 

have an issue with the way some Atheists treat believers (of any religion/spirituality).  I think that 

humanity was meant to be able to have faith, of one sort or another.  Whether that faith is in one 

god, many god/dess's, or science, it really doesn't matter.  It is still faith.  Instead of one specific 

religion acting as a unifying force, maybe our capacity to believe should be the unifying force.  

*Hugs and Bright Blessings*
angstandvexed


----------



## Boss

MrMax said:


> Religion was invented to explain the unknown scary things in a human's life. Apparently, some people are still afraid of the unknown.



You keep claiming this over and over but you've never proven it. The fact of the matter is, you can't prove it because it's not true. It's a baseless opinion that you wish were true. 

Religion was invented to explain the intrinsic spiritual connection humans make with something beyond the physical. Science was invented to explain the unknown. Weapons were invented to address fear of scary things. The only people I see here obsessed with a fear of the unknown are those without spiritual connection to something greater than self.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I say ANYTHING about *FEAR?* You are jumping to conclusions, attributing comments to me that I never made. Why the hell do you think I am embarrassed by you outright *LYING* about what I said? You're the one who should be embarrassed, here you've been caught in yet another lie you can't defend or justify. Just a pathetic little puss pocket who can't make an argument, can't make a point, can't even be honest in the simplest of discourse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> I think you are pretty conclusively punked here.
> Tell you what.
> We'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Let's say we let you off the hook on fear(I don't, but let's pretend).
> You have still made the case that people come to faith because of what they are facing, not what they have inherently within them. Not their spirituality but their lack, their need, their loss, their sorrow or challenges. Pick a couple. They make the case as well as fear, though all of them are rooted in the latter.
> All I have to do is let you open your mouth, and you always do the hard work for me.
> LOLOLOL!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can think whatever you please, you're a lying idiot. You've proved that here.
> 
> Humans have the ability within them to connect to spiritual nature, a force greater than self. This force is a source of inspiration and strength which gives them courage to handle adversity, but it is not something invented because of fear, which has always been your argument. If it were not real, it wouldn't serve this purpose of fulfilling these needs in humans, but it does.
> 
> What's been totally blown out of the water here is your notion of a superficial anomaly humans invented to cope with fears of their own mortality. Here is a classic example of Communist tyrants actively working for decades to destroy spirituality and failing to do so. In spite of brutal persecutions and executions, spiritualism prevailed. It cannot be stomped out of the hearts of man. The harder you try, the more persistent it becomes.
> 
> In light of what history shows, you have the nerve to lie and distort what I've said and claim some sort of "victory" where nothing of the kind exists for you. Don't look now but another huge chunk of your ass is missing... it's being mounted on my trophy wall as we speak. We're going to have to start calling you "the assless wonder" pretty soon.
Click to expand...


So trials and tribulations show that people have this innate quality to be able to connect to the Spiritual nature, huh?
If it is so basic to human nature, why should it increase in the face of trouble? Where was this "inate" quality before the need arose for it?
Of course faith survives in the face of brutal persecution. What does one have left? This is the basic message of Revelation.
The whole point of rationalizations is they provide justifications that the individual can invest in for their own benefit and survival in spite of the fact they represent a self-deception. Many things that are not real still fulfill a need in people. People create untruth for themselves every single day.
In your other post you stumbled upon the truth, that difficulties of all stripes can lead people to faith. You were right.  It becomes necessary and then is miraculously discovered. People react to crisis differently. Some become addicted to a substance or behavior, some slip into catatonic "other worlds", some become A-type personality over-achievers, some miraculously encounter "god", but they cope, somehow finding a reason to go on, or a method to endure.
Or they don't.
You can make the argument that the "god" solution is better, but there is no way to make the argument it's "true".
Your last paragraph is why I always think I'm really talking to a young teenager.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religion was invented to explain the unknown scary things in a human's life. Apparently, some people are still afraid of the unknown.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep claiming this over and over but you've never proven it. The fact of the matter is, you can't prove it because it's not true. It's a baseless opinion that you wish were true.
> 
> Religion was invented to explain the intrinsic spiritual connection humans make with something beyond the physical. Science was invented to explain the unknown. Weapons were invented to address fear of scary things. The only people I see here obsessed with a fear of the unknown are those without spiritual connection to something greater than self.
Click to expand...

Again, if intrinsic why do people "come" to faith? Why do they suddenly discover it if they had this inherent quality all along? Why does spirituality spike in the hard times and moderate in the good, statistically?
Stay with that other post that admits that people come to faith as a reaction to circumstance. You were standing at the door, about to wake from your stupor.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religion was invented to explain the unknown scary things in a human's life. Apparently, some people are still afraid of the unknown.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep claiming this over and over but you've never proven it. The fact of the matter is, you can't prove it because it's not true. It's a baseless opinion that you wish were true.
> 
> Religion was invented to explain the intrinsic spiritual connection humans make with something beyond the physical. Science was invented to explain the unknown. Weapons were invented to address fear of scary things. The only people I see here obsessed with a fear of the unknown are those without spiritual connection to something greater than self.
Click to expand...


Nonsense.  Religion was invented to account for natural phenomenon which wasn't understood.

Why do you think there are gods of thunder, lightning, sun gods, moon gods, etc.?


----------



## koshergrl

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it.

Of course you can't prove it, so that's all it is. You choose to believe that God is the product of man's lying nature.

I believe man reaches beyond his sinful nature by the grace of God.

Ultimately, I'm right, and you're wrong. But you won't see that until the very end.


----------



## thebrucebeat

koshergrl said:


> That's your opinion and you're entitled to it.
> 
> Of course you can't prove it, so that's all it is. You choose to believe that God is the product of man's lying nature.
> 
> I believe man reaches beyond his sinful nature by the grace of God.
> 
> Ultimately, I'm right, and you're wrong. But you won't see that until the very end.



Compelling argumentation skills!
LOL!!!


----------



## MrMax

Boss said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religion was invented to explain the unknown scary things in a human's life. Apparently, some people are still afraid of the unknown.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep claiming this over and over but you've never proven it. The fact of the matter is, you can't prove it because it's not true. It's a baseless opinion that you wish were true.
> 
> Religion was invented to explain the intrinsic spiritual connection humans make with something beyond the physical. Science was invented to explain the unknown. Weapons were invented to address fear of scary things. The only people I see here obsessed with a fear of the unknown are those without spiritual connection to something greater than self.
Click to expand...

You respond because of your fear of the unknown and that you could be wrong about it, making you scared of not having your creator to hug you when you die. You pretend to try to convince others to your cause, but what you're really doing is to keep convincing yourself of something because you're so unsure about it deep down.


----------



## koshergrl

What is with anti-Christian progressives, and their insistence on telling other people 1. WHAT they think, and 2. That they SHOULDN'T think that.


Freaking loons. Don't worry about mind reading. Try to concern yourself with your own thoughts, rather than the thoughts of others.


----------



## orogenicman

koshergrl said:


> What is with anti-Christian progressives, and their insistence on telling other people 1. WHAT they think, and 2. That they SHOULDN'T think that.
> 
> 
> Freaking loons. Don't worry about mind reading. Try to concern yourself with your own thoughts, rather than the thoughts of others.



Here is a thought.  Do Christian conservatives really keep kosher?


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I say ANYTHING about *FEAR?* You are jumping to conclusions, attributing comments to me that I never made. Why the hell do you think I am embarrassed by you outright *LYING* about what I said? You're the one who should be embarrassed, here you've been caught in yet another lie you can't defend or justify. Just a pathetic little puss pocket who can't make an argument, can't make a point, can't even be honest in the simplest of discourse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> I think you are pretty conclusively punked here.
> Tell you what.
> We'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Let's say we let you off the hook on fear(I don't, but let's pretend).
> You have still made the case that people come to faith because of what they are facing, not what they have inherently within them. Not their spirituality but their lack, their need, their loss, their sorrow or challenges. Pick a couple. They make the case as well as fear, though all of them are rooted in the latter.
> All I have to do is let you open your mouth, and you always do the hard work for me.
> LOLOLOL!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can think whatever you please, you're a lying idiot. You've proved that here.
> 
> Humans have the ability within them to connect to spiritual nature, a force greater than self. This force is a source of inspiration and strength which gives them courage to handle adversity, but it is not something invented because of fear, which has always been your argument. If it were not real, it wouldn't serve this purpose of fulfilling these needs in humans, but it does.
> 
> What's been totally blown out of the water here is your notion of a superficial anomaly humans invented to cope with fears of their own mortality. Here is a classic example of Communist tyrants actively working for decades to destroy spirituality and failing to do so. In spite of brutal persecutions and executions, spiritualism prevailed. It cannot be stomped out of the hearts of man. The harder you try, the more persistent it becomes.
> 
> In light of what history shows, you have the nerve to lie and distort what I've said and claim some sort of "victory" where nothing of the kind exists for you. Don't look now but another huge chunk of your ass is missing... it's being mounted on my trophy wall as we speak. We're going to have to start calling you "the assless wonder" pretty soon.
Click to expand...


Two things.

First, why must some sort of spiritual entity or force be real for belief to provide people courage during adversity?

Second, do you think there are still atheists in theocracies which practice brutal persecutions and executions for people who do not follow the proscribed faith?


----------



## Steinlight

Atheists would be alright if they weren't so religious.


----------



## BreezeWood

koshergrl said:


> What is with anti-Christian progressives, and their insistence on telling other people 1. WHAT they think, and 2. That they SHOULDN'T think that.
> 
> 
> Freaking loons. Don't worry about mind reading. *Try to concern yourself with your own thoughts, rather than the thoughts of others.*






> Try to concern yourself with your own thoughts, *rather than the thoughts of others.*




*"No one is without sin. No not one." - "No one comes to the Father except through me."*


it is your thoughts and those who promote your religion, Boss ("However, since 1947 and the Hugo Black ruling, we have had a de facto persecution of religious belief in this country") that are insistent their Dogma be made a part of the public agenda.


*Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.*


Religious Freedom - nothing there to impose the Christian Bible on anyone.

.


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religion was invented to explain the unknown scary things in a human's life. Apparently, some people are still afraid of the unknown.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep claiming this over and over but you've never proven it. The fact of the matter is, you can't prove it because it's not true. It's a baseless opinion that you wish were true.
> 
> Religion was invented to explain the intrinsic spiritual connection humans make with something beyond the physical. Science was invented to explain the unknown. Weapons were invented to address fear of scary things. The only people I see here obsessed with a fear of the unknown are those without spiritual connection to something greater than self.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, if intrinsic why do people "come" to faith? Why do they suddenly discover it if they had this inherent quality all along? Why does spirituality spike in the hard times and moderate in the good, statistically?
> Stay with that other post that admits that people come to faith as a reaction to circumstance. You were standing at the door, about to wake from your stupor.
Click to expand...


Why does an alcoholic wait until he has lost everything to seek help? Why do people wait until they are lost to get directions? Why do people wait until they are hungry to eat? Until they are sick to go to the doctor? Until their tooth aches to go to the dentist... etc., etc., etc. Why are humans vain and self-absorbed? I can't really answer these questions because it's just how we tend to be. Our intrinsic ability to spiritually connect is there, we're all born with it. 

Some people do come to faith as a reaction to circumstance, others practice faith daily and have no circumstantial reason whatsoever. I see this girl jogging by my house everyday, she doesn't need to, she is in great shape. Me, I need to be out there jogging but I lack the motivation. There's no "template" everyone follows, we're all different. People tend to turn to faith more in times of adversity because they have nothing else. But here is the kicker; If there were nothing to it, if it were completely superficial and meaningless, no one would do it. 

We all know about fad diets... Okay, imagine if someone came up with a fad diet where you can eat anything you want and never exercise, but for 30-minutes each morning, you stand in front of the mirror and tell yourself that you're losing weight. Now, if this worked, millions and millions of people would do it, whether they could explain how it works or not. Correct? But if it didn't produce results, what would happen? The fad would run it's course and people would simply abandon it. If, for all these years of human turmoil and struggle, the turning to spiritual faith for strength did not work, people would not do it. Yet, millions and millions do it, whether they can explain how it works or not. 




Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religion was invented to explain the unknown scary things in a human's life. Apparently, some people are still afraid of the unknown.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep claiming this over and over but you've never proven it. The fact of the matter is, you can't prove it because it's not true. It's a baseless opinion that you wish were true.
> 
> Religion was invented to explain the intrinsic spiritual connection humans make with something beyond the physical. Science was invented to explain the unknown. Weapons were invented to address fear of scary things. The only people I see here obsessed with a fear of the unknown are those without spiritual connection to something greater than self.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense.  Religion was invented to account for natural phenomenon which wasn't understood.
> 
> Why do you think there are gods of thunder, lightning, sun gods, moon gods, etc.?
Click to expand...


SCIENCE was invented to account for natural phenomenon which wasn't understood.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep claiming this over and over but you've never proven it. The fact of the matter is, you can't prove it because it's not true. It's a baseless opinion that you wish were true.
> 
> Religion was invented to explain the intrinsic spiritual connection humans make with something beyond the physical. Science was invented to explain the unknown. Weapons were invented to address fear of scary things. The only people I see here obsessed with a fear of the unknown are those without spiritual connection to something greater than self.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, if intrinsic why do people "come" to faith? Why do they suddenly discover it if they had this inherent quality all along? Why does spirituality spike in the hard times and moderate in the good, statistically?
> Stay with that other post that admits that people come to faith as a reaction to circumstance. You were standing at the door, about to wake from your stupor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why does an alcoholic wait until he has lost everything to seek help? Why do people wait until they are lost to get directions? Why do people wait until they are hungry to eat? Until they are sick to go to the doctor? Until their tooth aches to go to the dentist... etc., etc., etc. Why are humans vain and self-absorbed? I can't really answer these questions because it's just how we tend to be. Our intrinsic ability to spiritually connect is there, we're all born with it.
> 
> Some people do come to faith as a reaction to circumstance, others practice faith daily and have no circumstantial reason whatsoever. I see this girl jogging by my house everyday, she doesn't need to, she is in great shape. Me, I need to be out there jogging but I lack the motivation. There's no "template" everyone follows, we're all different. People tend to turn to faith more in times of adversity because they have nothing else. But here is the kicker; If there were nothing to it, if it were completely superficial and meaningless, no one would do it.
> 
> We all know about fad diets... Okay, imagine if someone came up with a fad diet where you can eat anything you want and never exercise, but for 30-minutes each morning, you stand in front of the mirror and tell yourself that you're losing weight. Now, if this worked, millions and millions of people would do it, whether they could explain how it works or not. Correct? But if it didn't produce results, what would happen? The fad would run it's course and people would simply abandon it. If, for all these years of human turmoil and struggle, the turning to spiritual faith for strength did not work, people would not do it. Yet, millions and millions do it, whether they can explain how it works or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep claiming this over and over but you've never proven it. The fact of the matter is, you can't prove it because it's not true. It's a baseless opinion that you wish were true.
> 
> Religion was invented to explain the intrinsic spiritual connection humans make with something beyond the physical. Science was invented to explain the unknown. Weapons were invented to address fear of scary things. The only people I see here obsessed with a fear of the unknown are those without spiritual connection to something greater than self.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense.  Religion was invented to account for natural phenomenon which wasn't understood.
> 
> Why do you think there are gods of thunder, lightning, sun gods, moon gods, etc.?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SCIENCE was invented to account for natural phenomenon which wasn't understood.
Click to expand...


Science provides answers to how nature operates.

Your promotion of fear and ignorance is what gave humanity the Dark Ages.


----------



## koshergrl

Please don't pretend you know anything at all about the Dark Ages, ignoramus.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep claiming this over and over but you've never proven it. The fact of the matter is, you can't prove it because it's not true. It's a baseless opinion that you wish were true.
> 
> Religion was invented to explain the intrinsic spiritual connection humans make with something beyond the physical. Science was invented to explain the unknown. Weapons were invented to address fear of scary things. The only people I see here obsessed with a fear of the unknown are those without spiritual connection to something greater than self.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, if intrinsic why do people "come" to faith? Why do they suddenly discover it if they had this inherent quality all along? Why does spirituality spike in the hard times and moderate in the good, statistically?
> Stay with that other post that admits that people come to faith as a reaction to circumstance. You were standing at the door, about to wake from your stupor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why does an alcoholic wait until he has lost everything to seek help? Why do people wait until they are lost to get directions? Why do people wait until they are hungry to eat? Until they are sick to go to the doctor? Until their tooth aches to go to the dentist... etc., etc., etc. Why are humans vain and self-absorbed? I can't really answer these questions because it's just how we tend to be. Our intrinsic ability to spiritually connect is there, we're all born with it.
> 
> Some people do come to faith as a reaction to circumstance, others practice faith daily and have no circumstantial reason whatsoever. I see this girl jogging by my house everyday, she doesn't need to, she is in great shape. Me, I need to be out there jogging but I lack the motivation. There's no "template" everyone follows, we're all different. People tend to turn to faith more in times of adversity because they have nothing else. But here is the kicker; If there were nothing to it, if it were completely superficial and meaningless, no one would do it.
> 
> We all know about fad diets... Okay, imagine if someone came up with a fad diet where you can eat anything you want and never exercise, but for 30-minutes each morning, you stand in front of the mirror and tell yourself that you're losing weight. Now, if this worked, millions and millions of people would do it, whether they could explain how it works or not. Correct? But if it didn't produce results, what would happen? The fad would run it's course and people would simply abandon it. If, for all these years of human turmoil and struggle, the turning to spiritual faith for strength did not work, people would not do it. Yet, millions and millions do it, whether they can explain how it works or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep claiming this over and over but you've never proven it. The fact of the matter is, you can't prove it because it's not true. It's a baseless opinion that you wish were true.
> 
> Religion was invented to explain the intrinsic spiritual connection humans make with something beyond the physical. Science was invented to explain the unknown. Weapons were invented to address fear of scary things. The only people I see here obsessed with a fear of the unknown are those without spiritual connection to something greater than self.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense.  Religion was invented to account for natural phenomenon which wasn't understood.
> 
> Why do you think there are gods of thunder, lightning, sun gods, moon gods, etc.?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SCIENCE was invented to account for natural phenomenon which wasn't understood.
Click to expand...


See the red part above?
All of them are reacting to needs they have developed. Certain lacks they seek to correct. They don't inherently connect to any of those things. They satisfy a need when it arises.
Once again, you make my point for me, and I thank you.
Why do they do it? They are out of options. The last refuge for the desperate.


----------



## Boss

> See the red part above?
> All of them are reacting to needs they have developed. Certain lacks they seek to correct. They don't inherently connect to any of those things. They satisfy a need when it arises.
> Once again, you make my point for me, and I thank you.
> Why do they do it? They are out of options. The last refuge for the desperate.



But I'm not making your point, I am making the counter to your point. You asked why people only turn to faith when they need it, but the fact is, that's not the only time people turn to faith. Many people have faith without any subsequent need. You don't see many people at AA meetings who don't need to be there. 

I don't understand what you're saying with "they don't inherently connect to any of those things" and I don't think I've made that argument. "Inherently" means by natural character or ability. All humans are born with the natural characteristic and ability to connect spiritually to something greater than self. It is "intrinsic", meaning, belonging to a thing by its very nature. Perhaps you are confused by these words and believe that I am saying spirituality is "inexorable" or "inevitable"? People make the choice whether to exercise their spiritual connecting ability. 

Humans tend to satisfy needs when they arise, they put off things that they don't find necessary or important. This simply doesn't mean those things are unimportant or unnecessary, just that an individual may find them to be under their circumstances. You may put off going to the doctor because you don't find it necessary or important, but it doesn't mean doctors are unimportant or unnecessary. Now, if you suddenly develop severe abdominal pain, your first inclination is to go see a doctor. Yesterday, you may have felt the doctor visit was unimportant and unnecessary. 

Okay, now why is your natural reaction to go see the doctor for your severe abdominal pain? It's because you rationalize the doctor may be able to help. BUT... If doctors were meaningless and superficial and no one ever gained any benefit from going to see them, you may as well be rationalizing to go see a plumber. The fact that you are aware that people have been helped by going to see the doctor, helps you to rationalize why this is a wise move. The same thing applies to spiritual connection and people who are struggling with adversity.


----------



## MrMax

No "intrinsic spiritual connection" has ever been proven. That some people disagree/don't have it would kinda disprove the statement, wouldn't you think? Otherwise we'd all feel it, no?


----------



## westwall

*Keep it civil and on the subject...*


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> See the red part above?
> All of them are reacting to needs they have developed. Certain lacks they seek to correct. They don't inherently connect to any of those things. They satisfy a need when it arises.
> Once again, you make my point for me, and I thank you.
> Why do they do it? They are out of options. The last refuge for the desperate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I'm not making your point, I am making the counter to your point. You asked why people only turn to faith when they need it, but the fact is, that's not the only time people turn to faith. Many people have faith without any subsequent need. You don't see many people at AA meetings who don't need to be there.
> 
> I don't understand what you're saying with "they don't inherently connect to any of those things" and I don't think I've made that argument. "Inherently" means by natural character or ability. All humans are born with the natural characteristic and ability to connect spiritually to something greater than self. It is "intrinsic", meaning, belonging to a thing by its very nature. Perhaps you are confused by these words and believe that I am saying spirituality is "inexorable" or "inevitable"? People make the choice whether to exercise their spiritual connecting ability.
> 
> Humans tend to satisfy needs when they arise, they put off things that they don't find necessary or important. This simply doesn't mean those things are unimportant or unnecessary, just that an individual may find them to be under their circumstances. You may put off going to the doctor because you don't find it necessary or important, but it doesn't mean doctors are unimportant or unnecessary. Now, if you suddenly develop severe abdominal pain, your first inclination is to go see a doctor. Yesterday, you may have felt the doctor visit was unimportant and unnecessary.
> 
> Okay, now why is your natural reaction to go see the doctor for your severe abdominal pain? It's because you rationalize the doctor may be able to help. BUT... If doctors were meaningless and superficial and no one ever gained any benefit from going to see them, you may as well be rationalizing to go see a plumber. The fact that you are aware that people have been helped by going to see the doctor, helps you to rationalize why this is a wise move. The same thing applies to spiritual connection and people who are struggling with adversity.
Click to expand...


So your new point is that people inherently have this capability to connect to the spiritual, but they ignore it unless they become desperate enough to put it to work.
Got it.


----------



## thanatos144

MrMax said:


> Religion was invented to explain the unknown scary things in a human's life. Apparently, some people are still afraid of the unknown.



Bullshit. Religion is sharing your faith with others. It is community. You dont like it ? Fine but stop trying to insult those who enjoy the community that their faith brings them.


----------



## Boss

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, if intrinsic why do people "come" to faith? Why do they suddenly discover it if they had this inherent quality all along? Why does spirituality spike in the hard times and moderate in the good, statistically?
> Stay with that other post that admits that people come to faith as a reaction to circumstance. You were standing at the door, about to wake from your stupor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why does an alcoholic wait until he has lost everything to seek help? Why do people wait until they are lost to get directions? Why do people wait until they are hungry to eat? Until they are sick to go to the doctor? Until their tooth aches to go to the dentist... etc., etc., etc. Why are humans vain and self-absorbed? I can't really answer these questions because it's just how we tend to be. Our intrinsic ability to spiritually connect is there, we're all born with it.
> 
> Some people do come to faith as a reaction to circumstance, others practice faith daily and have no circumstantial reason whatsoever. I see this girl jogging by my house everyday, she doesn't need to, she is in great shape. Me, I need to be out there jogging but I lack the motivation. There's no "template" everyone follows, we're all different. People tend to turn to faith more in times of adversity because they have nothing else. But here is the kicker; If there were nothing to it, if it were completely superficial and meaningless, no one would do it.
> 
> We all know about fad diets... Okay, imagine if someone came up with a fad diet where you can eat anything you want and never exercise, but for 30-minutes each morning, you stand in front of the mirror and tell yourself that you're losing weight. Now, if this worked, millions and millions of people would do it, whether they could explain how it works or not. Correct? But if it didn't produce results, what would happen? The fad would run it's course and people would simply abandon it. If, for all these years of human turmoil and struggle, the turning to spiritual faith for strength did not work, people would not do it. Yet, millions and millions do it, whether they can explain how it works or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.  Religion was invented to account for natural phenomenon which wasn't understood.
> 
> Why do you think there are gods of thunder, lightning, sun gods, moon gods, etc.?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SCIENCE was invented to account for natural phenomenon which wasn't understood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science provides answers to how nature operates.
> 
> Your promotion of fear and ignorance is what gave humanity the Dark Ages.
Click to expand...


*Science provides answers to how nature operates.*
is just another way of saying:
*Science accounts for natural phenomenon.*

But this is why you claim "religion" was invented. 

There is no one speaking of "fear" here except those who don't believe in God. Strange! 

Ignorance is when you believe science has concluded things it hasn't yet proved. Like the origin of life, for example. Or "special evolution" that crosses the genus barrier. These are 'fanaticisms' you've invested faith in, and you promote them under the name of science. 

As for "Dark Ages" you need to be more specific, there are about 20-30 different things you could be referencing with this term. If you mean the European Middle Ages, there are many misconceptions surrounding Renaissance and Enlightenment. While there were many reforms in science and culture, there were also many reforms in theology during this period. Most of the scientists of this time had no problem reconciling science and theological beliefs. Things are simply not as 'black and white' as you obviously think.


----------



## koshergrl

She's not going to give us any specifics because she doesn't know what she's talking about.


----------



## Boss

> So your new point is that people inherently have this capability to connect to the spiritual, but they ignore it unless they become desperate enough to put it to work.
> Got it.



Again, there is no "new" point. I have been consistent. You keep flailing around trying to take things all out of context and distort them into lies about what has been said, and I keep calling attention to that. I never said "they ignore it until" anything. Millions upon millions simply do not "ignore it until" and practice their spiritual connection every day, regardless of circumstance. The question was; why do people tend to turn to spirituality when faced with adversity? I answered the question, but now you want to twist my answer into some irrational statement which you can attack and pretend you've "won" some argument that wasn't being had. 

Yeah, we "got it" a a long time ago. You're a lying dishonest little shit heel who will say and do whatever you can to keep your pretend balloon in the air. You're not genuinely interested in a debate or honest discussion, you are on a hapless mission to find ways to reject everything that is said.


----------



## Boss

MrMax said:


> No "intrinsic spiritual connection" has ever been proven. That some people disagree/don't have it would kinda disprove the statement, wouldn't you think? Otherwise we'd all feel it, no?



Here's the problem with your argument, NOTHING can be "proven!" Not even REALITY! I can reject any "proof" of reality by saying it's an illusion that doesn't really exist. There is no way to prove that I am wrong, and if you can't prove that I am wrong then you haven't proved reality. 

No, we don't all "feel it" with regard to our intrinsic ability to spiritually connect. You're only going to "feel" your abilities when you recognize them and seek to utilize them. Do you think magicians are magical people who can make the impossible happen? Or are they people who have studied and honed an ability to do something the average person hasn't? Can anyone be a magician if they practice and utilize common skills? Clearly, not everyone IS a magician, but it does not mean magicians have some sort of special ability that others do not have.


----------



## Spoonman

koshergrl said:


> Please don't pretend you know anything at all about the Dark Ages, ignoramus.



Why?  they're obviously living in the dark


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> So your new point is that people inherently have this capability to connect to the spiritual, but they ignore it unless they become desperate enough to put it to work.
> Got it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, there is no "new" point. I have been consistent. You keep flailing around trying to take things all out of context and distort them into lies about what has been said, and I keep calling attention to that. I never said "they ignore it until" anything. Millions upon millions simply do not "ignore it until" and practice their spiritual connection every day, regardless of circumstance. The question was; why do people tend to turn to spirituality when faced with adversity? I answered the question, but now you want to twist my answer into some irrational statement which you can attack and pretend you've "won" some argument that wasn't being had.
> 
> Yeah, we "got it" a a long time ago. You're a lying dishonest little shit heel who will say and do whatever you can to keep your pretend balloon in the air. You're not genuinely interested in a debate or honest discussion, you are on a hapless mission to find ways to reject everything that is said.
Click to expand...


Not at all!
Just the really silly inconsistent stuff, like yours!


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why does an alcoholic wait until he has lost everything to seek help? Why do people wait until they are lost to get directions? Why do people wait until they are hungry to eat? Until they are sick to go to the doctor? Until their tooth aches to go to the dentist... etc., etc., etc. Why are humans vain and self-absorbed? I can't really answer these questions because it's just how we tend to be. Our intrinsic ability to spiritually connect is there, we're all born with it.
> 
> Some people do come to faith as a reaction to circumstance, others practice faith daily and have no circumstantial reason whatsoever. I see this girl jogging by my house everyday, she doesn't need to, she is in great shape. Me, I need to be out there jogging but I lack the motivation. There's no "template" everyone follows, we're all different. People tend to turn to faith more in times of adversity because they have nothing else. But here is the kicker; If there were nothing to it, if it were completely superficial and meaningless, no one would do it.
> 
> We all know about fad diets... Okay, imagine if someone came up with a fad diet where you can eat anything you want and never exercise, but for 30-minutes each morning, you stand in front of the mirror and tell yourself that you're losing weight. Now, if this worked, millions and millions of people would do it, whether they could explain how it works or not. Correct? But if it didn't produce results, what would happen? The fad would run it's course and people would simply abandon it. If, for all these years of human turmoil and struggle, the turning to spiritual faith for strength did not work, people would not do it. Yet, millions and millions do it, whether they can explain how it works or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SCIENCE was invented to account for natural phenomenon which wasn't understood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science provides answers to how nature operates.
> 
> Your promotion of fear and ignorance is what gave humanity the Dark Ages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Science provides answers to how nature operates.*
> is just another way of saying:
> *Science accounts for natural phenomenon.*
> 
> But this is why you claim "religion" was invented.
> 
> There is no one speaking of "fear" here except those who don't believe in God. Strange!
> 
> Ignorance is when you believe science has concluded things it hasn't yet proved. Like the origin of life, for example. Or "special evolution" that crosses the genus barrier. These are 'fanaticisms' you've invested faith in, and you promote them under the name of science.
> 
> As for "Dark Ages" you need to be more specific, there are about 20-30 different things you could be referencing with this term. If you mean the European Middle Ages, there are many misconceptions surrounding Renaissance and Enlightenment. While there were many reforms in science and culture, there were also many reforms in theology during this period. Most of the scientists of this time had no problem reconciling science and theological beliefs. Things are simply not as 'black and white' as you obviously think.
Click to expand...


I can point to dozens of posts on here that are by theists saying that god cures all fears. It isn't just non-believers talking about fear. It comes up all the time.


----------



## thanatos144

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science provides answers to how nature operates.
> 
> Your promotion of fear and ignorance is what gave humanity the Dark Ages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Science provides answers to how nature operates.*
> is just another way of saying:
> *Science accounts for natural phenomenon.*
> 
> But this is why you claim "religion" was invented.
> 
> There is no one speaking of "fear" here except those who don't believe in God. Strange!
> 
> Ignorance is when you believe science has concluded things it hasn't yet proved. Like the origin of life, for example. Or "special evolution" that crosses the genus barrier. These are 'fanaticisms' you've invested faith in, and you promote them under the name of science.
> 
> As for "Dark Ages" you need to be more specific, there are about 20-30 different things you could be referencing with this term. If you mean the European Middle Ages, there are many misconceptions surrounding Renaissance and Enlightenment. While there were many reforms in science and culture, there were also many reforms in theology during this period. Most of the scientists of this time had no problem reconciling science and theological beliefs. Things are simply not as 'black and white' as you obviously think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can point to dozens of posts on here that are by theists saying that god cures all fears. It isn't just non-believers talking about fear. It comes up all the time.
Click to expand...

Ego is not a very helpful trait of yours.


----------



## MrMax

Boss said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> No "intrinsic spiritual connection" has ever been proven. That some people disagree/don't have it would kinda disprove the statement, wouldn't you think? Otherwise we'd all feel it, no?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the problem with your argument, NOTHING can be "proven!" Not even REALITY! I can reject any "proof" of reality by saying it's an illusion that doesn't really exist. There is no way to prove that I am wrong, and if you can't prove that I am wrong then you haven't proved reality.
> 
> No, we don't all "feel it" with regard to our intrinsic ability to spiritually connect. You're only going to "feel" your abilities when you recognize them and seek to utilize them. Do you think magicians are magical people who can make the impossible happen? Or are they people who have studied and honed an ability to do something the average person hasn't? Can anyone be a magician if they practice and utilize common skills? Clearly, not everyone IS a magician, but it does not mean magicians have some sort of special ability that others do not have.
Click to expand...


So what you're saying is that, like a magician, you aren't born with spiritual connectability, you have to learn it. Got it. So much for being intrinsic.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> No "intrinsic spiritual connection" has ever been proven. That some people disagree/don't have it would kinda disprove the statement, wouldn't you think? Otherwise we'd all feel it, no?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the problem with your argument, NOTHING can be "proven!" Not even REALITY! I can reject any "proof" of reality by saying it's an illusion that doesn't really exist. There is no way to prove that I am wrong, and if you can't prove that I am wrong then you haven't proved reality.
> 
> No, we don't all "feel it" with regard to our intrinsic ability to spiritually connect. You're only going to "feel" your abilities when you recognize them and seek to utilize them. Do you think magicians are magical people who can make the impossible happen? Or are they people who have studied and honed an ability to do something the average person hasn't? Can anyone be a magician if they practice and utilize common skills? Clearly, not everyone IS a magician, but it does not mean magicians have some sort of special ability that others do not have.
Click to expand...

I found it interesting that you used an analogy involving magic in connection with your claims to a spirit realm.


----------



## thebrucebeat

thanatos144 said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Science provides answers to how nature operates.*
> is just another way of saying:
> *Science accounts for natural phenomenon.*
> 
> But this is why you claim "religion" was invented.
> 
> There is no one speaking of "fear" here except those who don't believe in God. Strange!
> 
> Ignorance is when you believe science has concluded things it hasn't yet proved. Like the origin of life, for example. Or "special evolution" that crosses the genus barrier. These are 'fanaticisms' you've invested faith in, and you promote them under the name of science.
> 
> As for "Dark Ages" you need to be more specific, there are about 20-30 different things you could be referencing with this term. If you mean the European Middle Ages, there are many misconceptions surrounding Renaissance and Enlightenment. While there were many reforms in science and culture, there were also many reforms in theology during this period. Most of the scientists of this time had no problem reconciling science and theological beliefs. Things are simply not as 'black and white' as you obviously think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can point to dozens of posts on here that are by theists saying that god cures all fears. It isn't just non-believers talking about fear. It comes up all the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ego is not a very helpful trait of yours.
Click to expand...

Maybe not, but you not addressing my argument doesn't do much for you, either.


----------



## jillian

koshergrl said:


> Please don't pretend you know anything at all about the Dark Ages, ignoramus.



oh do tell what he was wrong about regarding the middle ages.

one of the most ignorant eras because people ignored science in favor of a vengeful and punishing higher being.

but that's always what happens when fire and brimstone type theocrats try to run things.


----------



## Boss

MrMax said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> No "intrinsic spiritual connection" has ever been proven. That some people disagree/don't have it would kinda disprove the statement, wouldn't you think? Otherwise we'd all feel it, no?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the problem with your argument, NOTHING can be "proven!" Not even REALITY! I can reject any "proof" of reality by saying it's an illusion that doesn't really exist. There is no way to prove that I am wrong, and if you can't prove that I am wrong then you haven't proved reality.
> 
> No, we don't all "feel it" with regard to our intrinsic ability to spiritually connect. You're only going to "feel" your abilities when you recognize them and seek to utilize them. Do you think magicians are magical people who can make the impossible happen? Or are they people who have studied and honed an ability to do something the average person hasn't? Can anyone be a magician if they practice and utilize common skills? Clearly, not everyone IS a magician, but it does not mean magicians have some sort of special ability that others do not have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is that, like a magician, you aren't born with spiritual connectability, you have to learn it. Got it. So much for being intrinsic.
Click to expand...


That's not what I said. You are born with it, just as you are born with the ability to do magic tricks. You have to learn how to use the ability, but it is intrinsic. Magicians don't learn some special ability to make things disappear or magic happen, they have the same exact abilities that you and I have as human beings. The same abilities we are all born with. They learn (and practice) to use that ability to make illusions happen. 

Do you have it now? If not, we can go through it again and again until you get it.


----------



## MrMax

Boss said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the problem with your argument, NOTHING can be "proven!" Not even REALITY! I can reject any "proof" of reality by saying it's an illusion that doesn't really exist. There is no way to prove that I am wrong, and if you can't prove that I am wrong then you haven't proved reality.
> 
> No, we don't all "feel it" with regard to our intrinsic ability to spiritually connect. You're only going to "feel" your abilities when you recognize them and seek to utilize them. Do you think magicians are magical people who can make the impossible happen? Or are they people who have studied and honed an ability to do something the average person hasn't? Can anyone be a magician if they practice and utilize common skills? Clearly, not everyone IS a magician, but it does not mean magicians have some sort of special ability that others do not have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is that, like a magician, you aren't born with spiritual connectability, you have to learn it. Got it. So much for being intrinsic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not what I said. You are born with it, just as you are born with the ability to do magic tricks. You have to learn how to use the ability, but it is intrinsic. Magicians don't learn some special ability to make things disappear or magic happen, they have the same exact abilities that you and I have as human beings. The same abilities we are all born with. They learn (and practice) to use that ability to make illusions happen.
> 
> Do you have it now? If not, we can go through it again and again until you get it.
Click to expand...

You're born with the ability to do magic tricks? 

C'mon brah, if you keep it up, I'm gonna split a gut!!!


----------



## Boss

jillian said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please don't pretend you know anything at all about the Dark Ages, ignoramus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oh do tell what he was wrong about regarding the middle ages.
> 
> one of the most ignorant eras because people ignored science in favor of a vengeful and punishing higher being.
> 
> but that's always what happens when fire and brimstone type theocrats try to run things.
Click to expand...


But you are incorrect. There wasn't much "science" in the Middle Ages, in fact it wasn't even called "science" back then, it was "natural philosophy." One of the more bizarre theories of natural philosophy was Aristotle's theory of gravity and levity. That heavy things wanted to be closer to earth while lighter things wanted to be closer to the sky. Also his theory of motion-- that things in motion slow down because the become tired. 

You depict a rather ignorant viewpoint of this era and the subsequent era to follow because it's as if you believe some event happened to unseat religious authority and put scientists in the positions of power. The Age of Enlightenment involved both science and religion, they both became enlightened at the same time. Theocrats still ran things, just as they always had, they simply had greater tolerance for science, culture, art, etc. 

Fascinating is the history of some of the earliest "scientists" and their close relationship with theology... 

Robert Grosseteste-- Teacher of theology at Oxford and "father of scientific thought." 

Roger Bacon-- Catholic friar and theologian who wrote and presented to the Pope, Opus Majus, which presented his views on how to incorporate the philosophy of Aristotle and science into a new Theology. One of the earliest advocates of the Scientific Method.

Nicolaus Copernicus-- A Catholic cannon. He had a doctorate in cannon law (body of laws and regulations made by ecclesiastical authority, for the government of a Christian organization or church and its members.) Here is a man who considered himself "inspired by God" to give us the heliocentric theory. 

William of Ockham--  English Franciscan friar and scholastic philosopher and theologian, He is commonly known for Occam's razor, the methodological principle that bears his name, and also produced significant works on logic, physics, and theology.

Galileo Galilei-- A genuinely pious Roman Catholic who played a major role in the scientific revolution. Although it is noted he had a stormy relationship with the Church, who condemned him for heresy, two of his daughters were nuns. He spent much of his life trying to reconcile the prevailing religious views and what he had discovered through science. 

René Descartes-- Like Galileo, a staunch Catholic who spent most of his life defending science to the Church and trying to reconcile the difference in views. He has been called The Father of Modern Philosophy. 

Blaise Pascal-- French mathematician, physicist, inventor, writer and Christian philosopher. 

Isaac Newton-- Widely recognised as one of the most influential scientists of all time and as a key figure in the scientific revolution. He was a devout but unorthodox Christian. Newton saw God as the master creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation. in 1733, he wrote, Observations on Daniel and The Apocalypse of St. John, which essentially became the foundation for modern Protestant cannon.

The list goes on and on. I could give you at least 100 examples like these. To live in some fantasy world where "scientists" are not believers in God or don't believe in Spiritual Nature because they believe in Science instead, is simply a foolish delusion you're suffering from. Nothing could be further from the truth.


----------



## Boss

MrMax said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is that, like a magician, you aren't born with spiritual connectability, you have to learn it. Got it. So much for being intrinsic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what I said. You are born with it, just as you are born with the ability to do magic tricks. You have to learn how to use the ability, but it is intrinsic. Magicians don't learn some special ability to make things disappear or magic happen, they have the same exact abilities that you and I have as human beings. The same abilities we are all born with. They learn (and practice) to use that ability to make illusions happen.
> 
> Do you have it now? If not, we can go through it again and again until you get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're born with the ability to do magic tricks?
> 
> C'mon brah, if you keep it up, I'm gonna split a gut!!!
Click to expand...


Well you are. Sorry if you thought magicians obtained some super-ability or something, they don't. They have the same human ability as you and I, believe it or not!


----------



## MrMax

Boss said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what I said. You are born with it, just as you are born with the ability to do magic tricks. You have to learn how to use the ability, but it is intrinsic. Magicians don't learn some special ability to make things disappear or magic happen, they have the same exact abilities that you and I have as human beings. The same abilities we are all born with. They learn (and practice) to use that ability to make illusions happen.
> 
> Do you have it now? If not, we can go through it again and again until you get it.
> 
> 
> 
> You're born with the ability to do magic tricks?
> 
> C'mon brah, if you keep it up, I'm gonna split a gut!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you are. Sorry if you thought magicians obtained some super-ability or something, they don't. They have the same human ability as you and I, believe it or not!
Click to expand...

Ya, the ability to LEARN!!! Not some intrinsic ability to do magic! That's MAYBE the dumbest thing you've ever said.


----------



## thebrucebeat

MrMax said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're born with the ability to do magic tricks?
> 
> C'mon brah, if you keep it up, I'm gonna split a gut!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well you are. Sorry if you thought magicians obtained some super-ability or something, they don't. They have the same human ability as you and I, believe it or not!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ya, the ability to LEARN!!! Not some intrinsic ability to do magic! That's MAYBE the dumbest thing you've ever said.
Click to expand...


I don't know about that. There's a lot of competition.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please don't pretend you know anything at all about the Dark Ages, ignoramus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oh do tell what he was wrong about regarding the middle ages.
> 
> one of the most ignorant eras because people ignored science in favor of a vengeful and punishing higher being.
> 
> but that's always what happens when fire and brimstone type theocrats try to run things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you are incorrect. There wasn't much "science" in the Middle Ages, in fact it wasn't even called "science" back then, it was "natural philosophy." One of the more bizarre theories of natural philosophy was Aristotle's theory of gravity and levity. That heavy things wanted to be closer to earth while lighter things wanted to be closer to the sky. Also his theory of motion-- that things in motion slow down because the become tired.
> 
> You depict a rather ignorant viewpoint of this era and the subsequent era to follow because it's as if you believe some event happened to unseat religious authority and put scientists in the positions of power. The Age of Enlightenment involved both science and religion, they both became enlightened at the same time. Theocrats still ran things, just as they always had, they simply had greater tolerance for science, culture, art, etc.
> 
> Fascinating is the history of some of the earliest "scientists" and their close relationship with theology...
> 
> Robert Grosseteste-- Teacher of theology at Oxford and "father of scientific thought."
> 
> Roger Bacon-- Catholic friar and theologian who wrote and presented to the Pope, Opus Majus, which presented his views on how to incorporate the philosophy of Aristotle and science into a new Theology. One of the earliest advocates of the Scientific Method.
> 
> Nicolaus Copernicus-- A Catholic cannon. He had a doctorate in cannon law (body of laws and regulations made by ecclesiastical authority, for the government of a Christian organization or church and its members.) Here is a man who considered himself "inspired by God" to give us the heliocentric theory.
> 
> William of Ockham--  English Franciscan friar and scholastic philosopher and theologian, He is commonly known for Occam's razor, the methodological principle that bears his name, and also produced significant works on logic, physics, and theology.
> 
> Galileo Galilei-- A genuinely pious Roman Catholic who played a major role in the scientific revolution. Although it is noted he had a stormy relationship with the Church, who condemned him for heresy, two of his daughters were nuns. He spent much of his life trying to reconcile the prevailing religious views and what he had discovered through science.
> 
> René Descartes-- Like Galileo, a staunch Catholic who spent most of his life defending science to the Church and trying to reconcile the difference in views. He has been called The Father of Modern Philosophy.
> 
> Blaise Pascal-- French mathematician, physicist, inventor, writer and Christian philosopher.
> 
> Isaac Newton-- Widely recognised as one of the most influential scientists of all time and as a key figure in the scientific revolution. He was a devout but unorthodox Christian. Newton saw God as the master creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation. in 1733, he wrote, Observations on Daniel and The Apocalypse of St. John, which essentially became the foundation for modern Protestant cannon.
> 
> The list goes on and on. I could give you at least 100 examples like these. To live in some fantasy world where "scientists" are not believers in God or don't believe in Spiritual Nature because they believe in Science instead, is simply a foolish delusion you're suffering from. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Click to expand...

All true. 
And as time has gone on and science has revealed more and more about the actual workings of the world, the influence of religion on it has become smaller and smaller, and the separation between them has become greater and greater.
We no longer see the need, as Galileo did, of having to reconcile revealed scientific truth with religious doctrines. We accept that often those doctrines are sacrificed on the altar of truth. They are not sacred cows any longer.
This is why religion is vastly underrepresented in the scientific community today. Some scientists are still "spiritual" and believe in an overarching force that for lack of other terminology is generically referred to as god, but we are all well aware of the statistics regarding believers within the scientific community.
So your walk down memory lane through the history of scientific believers was entertaining but incomplete. As you continue down that road you walk into Einstein who represents the kind of modern believer that remains in the scientific community as presented in my signature. His "faith" if you could call it that at all amounts to his acknowledgement of his awe and his humility of what their is still to discover.
Then you get to Watson and Crick, the atheists who correctly theorized the double helix of DNA, and the list of the devoutly religious scientific geniuses dwindles to nearly nothing.
The Enlightenment was the beginning of that separation.
So what was your point?


----------



## BreezeWood

Boss said:


> None of them cared a whit about atheism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. You must not have read much on Marxism, which is essentially the favored ideology of all those mentioned. *It specifically calls for the elimination of all religious constructs.* You see, you can't have your people effectively putting faith in the national government *if they are consumed with faith in God.*
> 
> We can actually see this manifest in our own politics today. The religious tend to be more right-wing conservative, smaller government, less handouts to the needy, more personal responsibility... The non-religious tend to be more left-wing, bigger government, more handouts to the needy, less personal responsibility. You'd think it would be the other way around, the religious would be more about helping the needy, etc. But the religious put faith in God to take care of the needy, while the non-religious think we must rely on government taking from one class to give to another. Now, before you jump on this as a "generalization" let me add, this is not ALWAYS the case, *but we still have some religious freedom in America.*
Click to expand...



*Boss: It specifically calls for the elimination of all religious constructs.*




> Marx, A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right 1844
> 
> *Marx:* The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people *is the demand for their real happiness.* To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.
> 
> It is, therefore, the task of history, once the other-world of truth has vanished, to establish the truth of this world. It is the immediate task of philosophy, which is in the service of history, to unmask self-estrangement in its unholy forms once the holy form of human self-estrangement has been unmasked. Thus, the criticism of Heaven turns into the criticism of Earth, the criticism of religion into the criticism of law, and the criticism of theology into the criticism of politics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He argued that religious belief had been invented as a reaction against the suffering and injustice of the world. In Marx's view, the poor and oppressed were the original creators of religion, and they used it as a way to reassure themselves that they would have a better life in the future, after death. Thus, it served as a kind of "opium," or a way to escape the harsh realities of the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



*... is the demand for their real happiness.* - - - > Boss, is the progression a persecution of Christianity (religion) or simply the failure of the Scriptural religions to fulfill the original parishioners goals ?




> *Boss:* That's not what I said. You are born with it, just as you are born with the ability to do magic tricks. You have to learn how to use the ability, *but it is intrinsic.* Magicians don't learn some special ability to make things disappear or magic happen, they have the same exact abilities that you and I have as human beings. The same abilities we are all born with. They learn (and practice) to use that ability to make illusions happen.




*... but it is intrinsic.*




> *Boss:* Stalin era
> 
> *Yes, the human spiritual faith prevailed even with tyrannic atheist communists doing their best to stomp it out of the hearts of man.* To now formulate the argument that "atheism didn't matter" in light of what the history clearly shows, is total and complete ignorance.




with your "second coming" Boss, is it only through you our intrinsic beliefs must be verified ?




> *Boss:* The list goes on and on. I could give you at least 100 examples like these. To live in some fantasy world *where "scientists" are not believers in God or don't believe in Spiritual Nature* because they believe in Science instead, is simply a foolish delusion you're suffering from. Nothing could be further from the truth.




*... where "scientists" are not believers in God or don't believe in Spiritual Nature ...*


it is exasperating trying to figure out just what is the basis for your belief - why would you embrace Christianity (at all) and then not recognize Communism as the logical precursor for what you speculate is an inert being - and have abandoned the forces of Good and Evil in your belief and that all of Gods creatures are not integral for the purpose of your own survival ... ?

.


----------



## Boss

MrMax said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're born with the ability to do magic tricks?
> 
> C'mon brah, if you keep it up, I'm gonna split a gut!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well you are. Sorry if you thought magicians obtained some super-ability or something, they don't. They have the same human ability as you and I, believe it or not!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ya, the ability to LEARN!!! Not some intrinsic ability to do magic! That's MAYBE the dumbest thing you've ever said.
Click to expand...


Yes, you have to learn how to use your born-with ability. I said that. 
This is probably the dumbest thing you've ever misinterpreted.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please don't pretend you know anything at all about the Dark Ages, ignoramus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oh do tell what he was wrong about regarding the middle ages.
> 
> one of the most ignorant eras because people ignored science in favor of a vengeful and punishing higher being.
> 
> but that's always what happens when fire and brimstone type theocrats try to run things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you are incorrect. There wasn't much "science" in the Middle Ages, in fact it wasn't even called "science" back then, it was "natural philosophy." One of the more bizarre theories of natural philosophy was Aristotle's theory of gravity and levity. That heavy things wanted to be closer to earth while lighter things wanted to be closer to the sky. Also his theory of motion-- that things in motion slow down because the become tired.
> 
> You depict a rather ignorant viewpoint of this era and the subsequent era to follow because it's as if you believe some event happened to unseat religious authority and put scientists in the positions of power. The Age of Enlightenment involved both science and religion, they both became enlightened at the same time. Theocrats still ran things, just as they always had, they simply had greater tolerance for science, culture, art, etc.
> 
> Fascinating is the history of some of the earliest "scientists" and their close relationship with theology...
> 
> Robert Grosseteste-- Teacher of theology at Oxford and "father of scientific thought."
> 
> Roger Bacon-- Catholic friar and theologian who wrote and presented to the Pope, Opus Majus, which presented his views on how to incorporate the philosophy of Aristotle and science into a new Theology. One of the earliest advocates of the Scientific Method.
> 
> Nicolaus Copernicus-- A Catholic cannon. He had a doctorate in cannon law (body of laws and regulations made by ecclesiastical authority, for the government of a Christian organization or church and its members.) Here is a man who considered himself "inspired by God" to give us the heliocentric theory.
> 
> William of Ockham--  English Franciscan friar and scholastic philosopher and theologian, He is commonly known for Occam's razor, the methodological principle that bears his name, and also produced significant works on logic, physics, and theology.
> 
> Galileo Galilei-- A genuinely pious Roman Catholic who played a major role in the scientific revolution. Although it is noted he had a stormy relationship with the Church, who condemned him for heresy, two of his daughters were nuns. He spent much of his life trying to reconcile the prevailing religious views and what he had discovered through science.
> 
> René Descartes-- Like Galileo, a staunch Catholic who spent most of his life defending science to the Church and trying to reconcile the difference in views. He has been called The Father of Modern Philosophy.
> 
> Blaise Pascal-- French mathematician, physicist, inventor, writer and Christian philosopher.
> 
> Isaac Newton-- Widely recognised as one of the most influential scientists of all time and as a key figure in the scientific revolution. He was a devout but unorthodox Christian. Newton saw God as the master creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation. in 1733, he wrote, Observations on Daniel and The Apocalypse of St. John, which essentially became the foundation for modern Protestant cannon.
> 
> The list goes on and on. I could give you at least 100 examples like these. To live in some fantasy world where "scientists" are not believers in God or don't believe in Spiritual Nature because they believe in Science instead, is simply a foolish delusion you're suffering from. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Click to expand...


The ignorant viewpoint of the time period is yours, actually.

You made a concerted effort to ascribe Christianity to folks such as Galileo, for one example. Are you really surprised that Galileo would be a Christian when the schools were run by the Church?  Would you be similarly surprised to discover that students in a Pakistani madrassah were muslim?

I also found it curious to note that you forgot. to identify that Galileo was ruthlessly persecuted by the church for his works challenging the heliocentric model. He was forced to recant his lifes work at the business end of the church capos who made him an offer he couldnt refuse. He spent the better part of the last decade of his life under house arrest. 

We can go through others in your list that similarly ran afoul of church teachings and were persuaded (at the business end of a torch) that roasting marshmallows over their own burning flesh was the price for challenging church dogma.

My point is, you are dismissing the fact that religious institutions have often been a yolk around the neck of science and discovery. I think people are vastly more tolerant about scientific truths today than they were say, 400 years ago. In large part thats because religion has been throttled by the secular institutions. Not too many weathermen being burned at the stake these days because they predict a solar eclipse or a drought.

Do you want to know the time and date of every lunar eclipse for the 1,000 years? Well, you could ask an astronomer or, you could ask a prayer leader at the Pakistani madrassah.


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> oh do tell what he was wrong about regarding the middle ages.
> 
> one of the most ignorant eras because people ignored science in favor of a vengeful and punishing higher being.
> 
> but that's always what happens when fire and brimstone type theocrats try to run things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you are incorrect. There wasn't much "science" in the Middle Ages, in fact it wasn't even called "science" back then, it was "natural philosophy." One of the more bizarre theories of natural philosophy was Aristotle's theory of gravity and levity. That heavy things wanted to be closer to earth while lighter things wanted to be closer to the sky. Also his theory of motion-- that things in motion slow down because the become tired.
> 
> You depict a rather ignorant viewpoint of this era and the subsequent era to follow because it's as if you believe some event happened to unseat religious authority and put scientists in the positions of power. The Age of Enlightenment involved both science and religion, they both became enlightened at the same time. Theocrats still ran things, just as they always had, they simply had greater tolerance for science, culture, art, etc.
> 
> Fascinating is the history of some of the earliest "scientists" and their close relationship with theology...
> 
> Robert Grosseteste-- Teacher of theology at Oxford and "father of scientific thought."
> 
> Roger Bacon-- Catholic friar and theologian who wrote and presented to the Pope, Opus Majus, which presented his views on how to incorporate the philosophy of Aristotle and science into a new Theology. One of the earliest advocates of the Scientific Method.
> 
> Nicolaus Copernicus-- A Catholic cannon. He had a doctorate in cannon law (body of laws and regulations made by ecclesiastical authority, for the government of a Christian organization or church and its members.) Here is a man who considered himself "inspired by God" to give us the heliocentric theory.
> 
> William of Ockham--  English Franciscan friar and scholastic philosopher and theologian, He is commonly known for Occam's razor, the methodological principle that bears his name, and also produced significant works on logic, physics, and theology.
> 
> Galileo Galilei-- A genuinely pious Roman Catholic who played a major role in the scientific revolution. Although it is noted he had a stormy relationship with the Church, who condemned him for heresy, two of his daughters were nuns. He spent much of his life trying to reconcile the prevailing religious views and what he had discovered through science.
> 
> René Descartes-- Like Galileo, a staunch Catholic who spent most of his life defending science to the Church and trying to reconcile the difference in views. He has been called The Father of Modern Philosophy.
> 
> Blaise Pascal-- French mathematician, physicist, inventor, writer and Christian philosopher.
> 
> Isaac Newton-- Widely recognised as one of the most influential scientists of all time and as a key figure in the scientific revolution. He was a devout but unorthodox Christian. Newton saw God as the master creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation. in 1733, he wrote, Observations on Daniel and The Apocalypse of St. John, which essentially became the foundation for modern Protestant cannon.
> 
> The list goes on and on. I could give you at least 100 examples like these. To live in some fantasy world where "scientists" are not believers in God or don't believe in Spiritual Nature because they believe in Science instead, is simply a foolish delusion you're suffering from. Nothing could be further from the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All true.
> And as time has gone on and science has revealed more and more about the actual workings of the world, the influence of religion on it has become smaller and smaller, and the separation between them has become greater and greater.
> We no longer see the need, as Galileo did, of having to reconcile revealed scientific truth with religious doctrines. We accept that often those doctrines are sacrificed on the altar of truth. They are not sacred cows any longer.
> This is why religion is vastly underrepresented in the scientific community today. Some scientists are still "spiritual" and believe in an overarching force that for lack of other terminology is generically referred to as god, but we are all well aware of the statistics regarding believers within the scientific community.
> So your walk down memory lane through the history of scientific believers was entertaining but incomplete. As you continue down that road you walk into Einstein who represents the kind of modern believer that remains in the scientific community as presented in my signature. His "faith" if you could call it that at all amounts to his acknowledgement of his awe and his humility of what their is still to discover.
> Then you get to Watson and Crick, the atheists who correctly theorized the double helix of DNA, and the list of the devoutly religious scientific geniuses dwindles to nearly nothing.
> The Enlightenment was the beginning of that separation.
> So what was your point?
Click to expand...


Well my list only covers the late Middle Ages and early Renaissance, since that was the point I was contradicting from another poster. But we see here that you are yet again taking what I said in response to one argument, and composing a completely new argument to juxtapose my statement with, so that you can pretend to "win" the argument. I'm sure you think this talent makes you clever, but it actually just makes you a dishonest retard.  

Einstein, in response to a question about whether or not he believed in God, explained:

Your question [about God] is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations. 

Francis Collins-- Man who mapped the human genome. Calls it: The Language of God. 

Wernher von Braun-- One of the most important rocket developers and champions of space exploration during the period between the 1930s and the 1970s.  He was a Lutheran who as a youth and young man had little interest in religion. But as an adult he developed a firm belief in the Lord and in an the afterlife. He was pleased to have opportunities to speak to peers (and anybody else who would listen) about his faith and Biblical beliefs.

Werner Heisenberg-- German theoretical physicist who made significant contributions to quantum mechanics, nuclear physics and quantum field theory. He was a practising Lutheran.

Max Planck-- The founder of Quantum mechanics. He had been raised an observant Lutheran and was an elder in his church from 1920 to his death. In 1937 he delivered the lecture, "Religion and Natural Science", stating that both religion and science require a belief in God.

George Washington Carver-- Scientist, botanist, educator, and inventor. He testified on many occasions that his faith in Jesus was the only mechanism by which he could effectively pursue and perform the art of science.

Ian Barbour-- Physicist who wrote Christianity and the Scientists in 1960, and When Science Meets Religion.

This is just a tiny sampling of some of the more recognizable names in 'modern' science. So we see that "as time has gone on" this has certainly not changed. There are still a great many people in science who have deep spiritual belief in God. I will tell you like I told the other ignorant fool, to cling to your belief that "real scientists" don't believe in God, is a delusion.


----------



## Boss

Hollie said:


> The ignorant viewpoint of the time period is yours, actually.



No, actually the ignorant view is that which contends religion was somehow responsible for the "dark ages" when it was religious scientists who brought forth the age of enlightenment. Nothing I posted was either ignorant or untrue. 



> You made a concerted effort to ascribe Christianity to folks such as Galileo, for one example. Are you really surprised that Galileo would be a Christian when the schools were run by the Church?  Would you be similarly surprised to discover that students in a Pakistani madrassah were muslim?



The funny thing is, about 85% of all humans on the planet to this day are spiritual. You are among the VAST minority of fools who reject God. I find it surprising that Galileo had two daughters who were nuns if he (their father) did not believe in God. 



> I also found it curious to note that you forgot. to identify that Galileo was ruthlessly persecuted by the church for his works challenging the heliocentric model. He was forced to recant his lifes work at the business end of the church capos who made him an offer he couldnt refuse. He spent the better part of the last decade of his life under house arrest.
> We can go through others in your list that similarly ran afoul of church teachings and were persuaded (at the business end of a torch) that roasting marshmallows over their own burning flesh was the price for challenging church dogma.



Wow... Guess you missed the part where I said basically that? 

*Although it is noted he had a stormy relationship with the Church, who condemned him for heresy... He spent much of his life trying to reconcile the prevailing religious views and what he had discovered through science.*

Same goes for Descartes and others of the time. I'm not sugarcoating it, they were definitely persecuted by the religious leaders of their time because they often contradicted the long-standing teachings of the Church. That said, they were certainly not Atheists or seculars leading some crusade to bring us out of the Dark Ages into Enlightenment. They were largely religious people who fought and succeeded in bringing reform to the teachings of the Church as well as advancement of modern science. 



> My point is, you are dismissing the fact that religious institutions have often been a yolk around the neck of science and discovery...



And as history shows, it has often been religious believers in the very same God who brought forth reform and change to the Church's view through their works in science. The only thing I am dismissing is this DELUSION that non-religious scientists have fought a mythical battle against the believers in God and prevailed. It's a wild fanatical claim that you may wish were true, but it simply isn't.


----------



## Boss

BreezeWood said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of them cared a whit about atheism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. You must not have read much on Marxism, which is essentially the favored ideology of all those mentioned. *It specifically calls for the elimination of all religious constructs.* You see, you can't have your people effectively putting faith in the national government *if they are consumed with faith in God.*
> 
> We can actually see this manifest in our own politics today. The religious tend to be more right-wing conservative, smaller government, less handouts to the needy, more personal responsibility... The non-religious tend to be more left-wing, bigger government, more handouts to the needy, less personal responsibility. You'd think it would be the other way around, the religious would be more about helping the needy, etc. But the religious put faith in God to take care of the needy, while the non-religious think we must rely on government taking from one class to give to another. Now, before you jump on this as a "generalization" let me add, this is not ALWAYS the case, *but we still have some religious freedom in America.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Boss: It specifically calls for the elimination of all religious constructs.*
> 
> *... is the demand for their real happiness.* - - - > Boss, is the progression a persecution of Christianity (religion) or simply the failure of the Scriptural religions to fulfill the original parishioners goals ?
> 
> *... but it is intrinsic.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Boss:* Stalin era
> 
> *Yes, the human spiritual faith prevailed even with tyrannic atheist communists doing their best to stomp it out of the hearts of man.* To now formulate the argument that "atheism didn't matter" in light of what the history clearly shows, is total and complete ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> with your "second coming" Boss, is it only through you our intrinsic beliefs must be verified ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Boss:* The list goes on and on. I could give you at least 100 examples like these. To live in some fantasy world *where "scientists" are not believers in God or don't believe in Spiritual Nature* because they believe in Science instead, is simply a foolish delusion you're suffering from. Nothing could be further from the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *... where "scientists" are not believers in God or don't believe in Spiritual Nature ...*
> 
> 
> it is exasperating trying to figure out just what is the basis for your belief - why would you embrace Christianity (at all) and then not recognize Communism as the logical precursor for what you speculate is an inert being - and have abandoned the forces of Good and Evil in your belief and that all of Gods creatures are not integral for the purpose of your own survival ... ?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


What's exasperating is trying to figure out what the hell you're trying to say! Can you post in something other than disjointed gobbledy-gook and try to make rational sense? I see you've asked me some questions here, but I have no idea of what you're asking.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ignorant viewpoint of the time period is yours, actually.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, actually the ignorant view is that which contends religion was somehow responsible for the "dark ages" when it was religious scientists who brought forth the age of enlightenment. Nothing I posted was either ignorant or untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow. That was quite the sidestep. It was the over-reaching of the church that kept Europe saddled in the Dark Ages. It was religious scientists who were Christian because the church controlled the schools. It was religious (Christian) scientists who were persecuted by the Christian clergy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You made a concerted effort to ascribe Christianity to folks such as Galileo, for one example. Are you really surprised that Galileo would be a Christian when the schools were run by the Church?  Would you be similarly surprised to discover that students in a Pakistani madrassah were muslim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The funny thing is, about 85% of all humans on the planet to this day are spiritual. You are among the VAST minority of fools who reject God. I find it surprising that Galileo had two daughters who were nuns if he (their father) did not believe in God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny thing is, "spiritual" does not necessarily mean belief in human constructed gods nor does it imply belief in your gods.
> 
> Most of the planet does not believe in your gods. Funny, huh?
> 
> As noted several times now, it's not surprising that Galileo was a Christian as Christianity was the dominant religion and the church controlled the schools.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I also found it curious to note that you forgot. to identify that Galileo was ruthlessly persecuted by the church for his works challenging the heliocentric model. He was forced to recant his lifes work at the business end of the church capos who made him an offer he couldnt refuse. He spent the better part of the last decade of his life under house arrest.
> We can go through others in your list that similarly ran afoul of church teachings and were persuaded (at the business end of a torch) that roasting marshmallows over their own burning flesh was the price for challenging church dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow... Guess you missed the part where I said basically that?
> 
> *Although it is noted he had a stormy relationship with the Church, who condemned him for heresy... He spent much of his life trying to reconcile the prevailing religious views and what he had discovered through science.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow.... Guess you missed where you said nothing remotely like basically that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same goes for Descartes and others of the time. I'm not sugarcoating it, they were definitely persecuted by the religious leaders of their time because they often contradicted the long-standing teachings of the Church. That said, they were certainly not Atheists or seculars leading some crusade to bring us out of the Dark Ages into Enlightenment. They were largely religious people who fought and succeeded in bringing reform to the teachings of the Church as well as advancement of modern science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How nice. What a shame the teachings of the church caused all those other poor slobs to die at the hand of the church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My point is, you are dismissing the fact that religious institutions have often been a yolk around the neck of science and discovery...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And as history shows, it has often been religious believers in the very same God who brought forth reform and change to the Church's view through their works in science. The only thing I am dismissing is this DELUSION that non-religious scientists have fought a mythical battle against the believers in God and prevailed. It's a wild fanatical claim that you may wish were true, but it simply isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What history shows is that the religious institutions have often had to be dragged out of their fears and ignorance, much to the suffering of humanity.
Click to expand...


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you are incorrect. There wasn't much "science" in the Middle Ages, in fact it wasn't even called "science" back then, it was "natural philosophy." One of the more bizarre theories of natural philosophy was Aristotle's theory of gravity and levity. That heavy things wanted to be closer to earth while lighter things wanted to be closer to the sky. Also his theory of motion-- that things in motion slow down because the become tired.
> 
> You depict a rather ignorant viewpoint of this era and the subsequent era to follow because it's as if you believe some event happened to unseat religious authority and put scientists in the positions of power. The Age of Enlightenment involved both science and religion, they both became enlightened at the same time. Theocrats still ran things, just as they always had, they simply had greater tolerance for science, culture, art, etc.
> 
> Fascinating is the history of some of the earliest "scientists" and their close relationship with theology...
> 
> Robert Grosseteste-- Teacher of theology at Oxford and "father of scientific thought."
> 
> Roger Bacon-- Catholic friar and theologian who wrote and presented to the Pope, Opus Majus, which presented his views on how to incorporate the philosophy of Aristotle and science into a new Theology. One of the earliest advocates of the Scientific Method.
> 
> Nicolaus Copernicus-- A Catholic cannon. He had a doctorate in cannon law (body of laws and regulations made by ecclesiastical authority, for the government of a Christian organization or church and its members.) Here is a man who considered himself "inspired by God" to give us the heliocentric theory.
> 
> William of Ockham--  English Franciscan friar and scholastic philosopher and theologian, He is commonly known for Occam's razor, the methodological principle that bears his name, and also produced significant works on logic, physics, and theology.
> 
> Galileo Galilei-- A genuinely pious Roman Catholic who played a major role in the scientific revolution. Although it is noted he had a stormy relationship with the Church, who condemned him for heresy, two of his daughters were nuns. He spent much of his life trying to reconcile the prevailing religious views and what he had discovered through science.
> 
> René Descartes-- Like Galileo, a staunch Catholic who spent most of his life defending science to the Church and trying to reconcile the difference in views. He has been called The Father of Modern Philosophy.
> 
> Blaise Pascal-- French mathematician, physicist, inventor, writer and Christian philosopher.
> 
> Isaac Newton-- Widely recognised as one of the most influential scientists of all time and as a key figure in the scientific revolution. He was a devout but unorthodox Christian. Newton saw God as the master creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation. in 1733, he wrote, Observations on Daniel and The Apocalypse of St. John, which essentially became the foundation for modern Protestant cannon.
> 
> The list goes on and on. I could give you at least 100 examples like these. To live in some fantasy world where "scientists" are not believers in God or don't believe in Spiritual Nature because they believe in Science instead, is simply a foolish delusion you're suffering from. Nothing could be further from the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> All true.
> And as time has gone on and science has revealed more and more about the actual workings of the world, the influence of religion on it has become smaller and smaller, and the separation between them has become greater and greater.
> We no longer see the need, as Galileo did, of having to reconcile revealed scientific truth with religious doctrines. We accept that often those doctrines are sacrificed on the altar of truth. They are not sacred cows any longer.
> This is why religion is vastly underrepresented in the scientific community today. Some scientists are still "spiritual" and believe in an overarching force that for lack of other terminology is generically referred to as god, but we are all well aware of the statistics regarding believers within the scientific community.
> So your walk down memory lane through the history of scientific believers was entertaining but incomplete. As you continue down that road you walk into Einstein who represents the kind of modern believer that remains in the scientific community as presented in my signature. His "faith" if you could call it that at all amounts to his acknowledgement of his awe and his humility of what their is still to discover.
> Then you get to Watson and Crick, the atheists who correctly theorized the double helix of DNA, and the list of the devoutly religious scientific geniuses dwindles to nearly nothing.
> The Enlightenment was the beginning of that separation.
> So what was your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well my list only covers the late Middle Ages and early Renaissance, since that was the point I was contradicting from another poster. But we see here that you are yet again taking what I said in response to one argument, and composing a completely new argument to juxtapose my statement with, so that you can pretend to "win" the argument. I'm sure you think this talent makes you clever, but it actually just makes you a dishonest retard.
> 
> Einstein, in response to a question about whether or not he believed in God, explained:
> 
> Your question [about God] is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations.
> 
> Francis Collins-- Man who mapped the human genome. Calls it: The Language of God.
> 
> Wernher von Braun-- One of the most important rocket developers and champions of space exploration during the period between the 1930s and the 1970s.  He was a Lutheran who as a youth and young man had little interest in religion. But as an adult he developed a firm belief in the Lord and in an the afterlife. He was pleased to have opportunities to speak to peers (and anybody else who would listen) about his faith and Biblical beliefs.
> 
> Werner Heisenberg-- German theoretical physicist who made significant contributions to quantum mechanics, nuclear physics and quantum field theory. He was a practising Lutheran.
> 
> Max Planck-- The founder of Quantum mechanics. He had been raised an observant Lutheran and was an elder in his church from 1920 to his death. In 1937 he delivered the lecture, "Religion and Natural Science", stating that both religion and science require a belief in God.
> 
> George Washington Carver-- Scientist, botanist, educator, and inventor. He testified on many occasions that his faith in Jesus was the only mechanism by which he could effectively pursue and perform the art of science.
> 
> Ian Barbour-- Physicist who wrote Christianity and the Scientists in 1960, and When Science Meets Religion.
> 
> This is just a tiny sampling of some of the more recognizable names in 'modern' science. So we see that "as time has gone on" this has certainly not changed. There are still a great many people in science who have deep spiritual belief in God. I will tell you like I told the other ignorant fool, to cling to your belief that "real scientists" don't believe in God, is a delusion.
Click to expand...


Einstein's attitude is perfectly summarized in my signature line. He had an awe regarding the universe and a humility about his understanding of it.
Your outliers don't change the fact that most people of science don't share your "Spiritual Nature" meme today. You provide nothing that counters that argument.
The more that is revealed through science, the less dependence science has on an unfounded explanation.
Wouldn't recognize your posts without the child-like invectives.


----------



## Boss

> Einstein's attitude is perfectly summarized in my signature line.



Your sig line is one of many quotes from Einstein regarding religion. 

I posted his answer to the direct question as to whether he believed in God. I actually believe his personal beliefs were akin to my own, a Spiritual God does exist but it's not a humanistic incarnation. 



> He had an awe regarding the universe and a humility about his understanding of it.



*"Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations."* 



> ...the fact that most people of science don't share your "Spiritual Nature" meme today.



I disagree. You've continually tried to misconstrue my statements and make me out to be a Christian apologist or some sort of religious zealot, despite my constant refutation of the claims. 



> The more that is revealed through science, the less dependence science has on an unfounded explanation.



LMAO... Well, since science never has or never will be dependent on unfounded explanation, I guess that's a good thing!


----------



## Boss

> What history shows is that the religious institutions have often had to be dragged out of their fears and ignorance, much to the suffering of humanity.



LMAO... Yes... most notably by *other Christians* who practiced science.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> What history shows is that the religious institutions have often had to be dragged out of their fears and ignorance, much to the suffering of humanity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO... Yes... most notably by *other Christians* who practiced science.
Click to expand...


LMAO... Yes.... Christians persecuting and causing untold misery at the expense of other Christians.

Those gods, they're such kidders.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> Einstein's attitude is perfectly summarized in my signature line.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your sig line is one of many quotes from Einstein regarding religion.
> 
> I posted his answer to the direct question as to whether he believed in God. I actually believe his personal beliefs were akin to my own, a Spiritual God does exist but it's not a humanistic incarnation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He had an awe regarding the universe and a humility about his understanding of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...the fact that most people of science don't share your "Spiritual Nature" meme today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree. You've continually tried to misconstrue my statements and make me out to be a Christian apologist or some sort of religious zealot, despite my constant refutation of the claims.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The more that is revealed through science, the less dependence science has on an unfounded explanation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO... Well, since science never has or never will be dependent on unfounded explanation, I guess that's a good thing![/QUOTE]
> 
> I don't misconstrue you to be a Christian apologist.
> I see you as an entirely inept "Spiritual Nature" apologist.
> As to the red part, you're right.
> That is your department.
Click to expand...


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> What history shows is that the religious institutions have often had to be dragged out of their fears and ignorance, much to the suffering of humanity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO... Yes... most notably by *other Christians* who practiced science.
Click to expand...


You may be able to argue that, but it can be debated.
What can't be is that it is no longer the case. As more and more is revealed, fewer and fewer scientists invest in the unknowable.


----------



## Boss

> fewer and fewer scientists invest in the unknowable.



Scientists have never invested in the unknowable, dimwit! That was the point of my comment in red. You're about as stupid as a fucking turnip, to be honest. No wonder you need to resort to lying and manipulating to make it look like you're winning an argument. 

Science cannot test, observe or falsify the unknowable... so it sure as hell isn't invested in it! No scientist has EVER invested in the unknowable, so where you get this "fewer and fewer" crap is beyond me. Science only invests in what is observable, testable and falsifiable, which makes it very much KNOWABLE and the opposite of unknowable. 

And what the living hell does "unknowable" have to do with GOD? Do you think God is unknowable? I hate to tell you this and break your little God-hating heart, but BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of human beings totally disagree with you! God may be "unknowable" to YOU, but Newsflash: YOU AIN'T EVERYBODY!


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> fewer and fewer scientists invest in the unknowable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists have never invested in the unknowable, dimwit! That was the point of my comment in red. You're about as stupid as a fucking turnip, to be honest. No wonder you need to resort to lying and manipulating to make it look like you're winning an argument.
> 
> Science cannot test, observe or falsify the unknowable... so it sure as hell isn't invested in it! No scientist has EVER invested in the unknowable, so where you get this "fewer and fewer" crap is beyond me. Science only invests in what is observable, testable and falsifiable, which makes it very much KNOWABLE and the opposite of unknowable.
> 
> And what the living hell does "unknowable" have to do with GOD? Do you think God is unknowable? I hate to tell you this and break your little God-hating heart, but BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of human beings totally disagree with you! God may be "unknowable" to YOU, but Newsflash: YOU AIN'T EVERYBODY!
Click to expand...


LOL!!!
I just love it when you lose your mind. It's like telling a 5 year old they can't have ice cream.
When the early scientists were still holding onto the purse strings of the church, they invested in the unknowable.
Now, not so much.
Even you find the "Spiritual Nature" unknowable, otherwise no faith would be required, right? You would simply "know" it.
You really are one of the most childlike people I have ever encountered on the internet.
Entertaining as hell, though.
It's fun to watch someone that really isn't very bright but is absolutely convinced they are.


----------



## BreezeWood

Boss said:


> What's exasperating is trying to figure out what the hell you're trying to say! Can you post in something other than disjointed gobbledy-gook and try to make rational sense? I see you've asked me some questions here, but I have no idea of what you're asking.






> it is exasperating trying to figure out just what is the basis for your belief - why would you embrace Christianity (at all) and then not recognize Communism as the logical precursor for what you speculate is an inert being - and have abandoned the forces of Good and Evil in your "spiritual" belief and that all of Gods creatures are not integral for the purpose of your own survival ... ?




well the explanation is derived by reading the post ... not my job to do that for you.

... reading your rendition of History is answer enough. 

.


----------



## Boss

BreezeWood said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's exasperating is trying to figure out what the hell you're trying to say! Can you post in something other than disjointed gobbledy-gook and try to make rational sense? I see you've asked me some questions here, but I have no idea of what you're asking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it is exasperating trying to figure out just what is the basis for your belief - why would you embrace Christianity (at all) and then not recognize Communism as the logical precursor for what you speculate is an inert being - and have abandoned the forces of Good and Evil in your "spiritual" belief and that all of Gods creatures are not integral for the purpose of your own survival ... ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well the explanation is derived by reading the post ... not my job to do that for you.
> 
> ... reading your rendition of History is answer enough.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Well, I read your post but your question is like a Rubik's Cube, I can't discern what you are asking. Is it a rhetorical question and you're trying to make a statement?  

Basis for my belief?: 
I understand and communicate with a guiding spiritual force.

Why would I embrace Christianity?: 
I don't. I've repeatedly stated that I do not embrace, endorse or otherwise affiliate with any organized religion. I will defend Christians or any other peaceful religion against hateful godless persecution. 

Not recognize Communism as the logical precursor for what you speculate is an inert being?: Because Communism is the precursor for a godless Atheist society. And I haven't speculated on an inert being. 

Have abandoned the forces of Good and Evil in your "spiritual" belief and that all of Gods creatures are not integral for the purpose of your own survival?: 
I've never abandoned the forces of good and evil in my belief, nor have I rejected God's creatures as integral for the purpose of my survival. 

I find your five-headed question to be insulting and offensive to what I actually believe and what I have articulated here as my beliefs. It hasn't seemed to matter how much I've tried to clarify my beliefs to you, I just keep getting these perverse distortions of what you imagine I believe, thrown back in my face. Meanwhile, you totally ignore me when I ask for you to explain your own spiritual beliefs.


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fewer and fewer scientists invest in the unknowable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists have never invested in the unknowable, dimwit! That was the point of my comment in red. You're about as stupid as a fucking turnip, to be honest. No wonder you need to resort to lying and manipulating to make it look like you're winning an argument.
> 
> Science cannot test, observe or falsify the unknowable... so it sure as hell isn't invested in it! No scientist has EVER invested in the unknowable, so where you get this "fewer and fewer" crap is beyond me. Science only invests in what is observable, testable and falsifiable, which makes it very much KNOWABLE and the opposite of unknowable.
> 
> And what the living hell does "unknowable" have to do with GOD? Do you think God is unknowable? I hate to tell you this and break your little God-hating heart, but BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of human beings totally disagree with you! God may be "unknowable" to YOU, but Newsflash: YOU AIN'T EVERYBODY!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!!!
> I just love it when you lose your mind. It's like telling a 5 year old they can't have ice cream.
> When the early scientists were still holding onto the purse strings of the church, they invested in the unknowable.
> Now, not so much.
> Even you find the "Spiritual Nature" unknowable, otherwise no faith would be required, right? You would simply "know" it.
> You really are one of the most childlike people I have ever encountered on the internet.
> Entertaining as hell, though.
> It's fun to watch someone that really isn't very bright but is absolutely convinced they are.
Click to expand...


But I haven't lost my mind. 

Early scientists or modern scientists... doesn't matter, they can be both scientists and believers in God, and I proved this with two lists of some of our greatest scientific minds. One thing they've never done is invest in the unknowable, that is the antithesis of science. They explore the unknown, that's virtually all science does. You are the one constructing a crutch of "unknowable" out of your sheer ignorance of the unknown. 

*Even you find the "Spiritual Nature" unknowable, otherwise no faith would be required, right? You would simply "know" it.*

But you see, I DO know it! I feel it around me and communicate with it daily. I've felt its blessings in my life. I see its presence in the beauty all around me. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that it's real, no faith is needed for me to believe it. You will not ever change my mind about it.


----------



## orogenicman

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists have never invested in the unknowable, dimwit! That was the point of my comment in red. You're about as stupid as a fucking turnip, to be honest. No wonder you need to resort to lying and manipulating to make it look like you're winning an argument.
> 
> Science cannot test, observe or falsify the unknowable... so it sure as hell isn't invested in it! No scientist has EVER invested in the unknowable, so where you get this "fewer and fewer" crap is beyond me. Science only invests in what is observable, testable and falsifiable, which makes it very much KNOWABLE and the opposite of unknowable.
> 
> And what the living hell does "unknowable" have to do with GOD? Do you think God is unknowable? I hate to tell you this and break your little God-hating heart, but BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of human beings totally disagree with you! God may be "unknowable" to YOU, but Newsflash: YOU AIN'T EVERYBODY!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!!!
> I just love it when you lose your mind. It's like telling a 5 year old they can't have ice cream.
> When the early scientists were still holding onto the purse strings of the church, they invested in the unknowable.
> Now, not so much.
> Even you find the "Spiritual Nature" unknowable, otherwise no faith would be required, right? You would simply "know" it.
> You really are one of the most childlike people I have ever encountered on the internet.
> Entertaining as hell, though.
> It's fun to watch someone that really isn't very bright but is absolutely convinced they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But I haven't lost my mind.
Click to expand...

 
 Most mentally ill people don't realize that they've lost their minds.  So don't worry, you aren't alone.


----------



## Boss

> Most mentally ill people don't realize that they've lost their minds. So don't worry, you aren't alone.



Does that have anything to do with the thread topic? Have you not read the rules of Level 2 forum posting yet? I suggest you go do that before you end up getting banned like some of your fellow antagonists. Some of us are trying to have a serious discussion, and some are trying their best to derail the thread and turn it into a flame war. 

If I am "mentally ill" and you've spent the last 6 months in perpetual arguments with me, what does that say about your mental state? If I am dumb and stupid, why don't people just put me on ignore and forget about what I have to say? Reason is, I am making valid points that are nailing your asses to the wall in every possible way. I'm refuting your baseless arguments, destroying them at their weak foundations, and making you look like drooling idiots. So the only recourse you have left is the personal attacks and insults. Weaker and less confident people in the past, may have responded to this tactic by leaving or declining to comment further. I'm not one of those people. There is no insult you can hurl at me that hasn't been chucked my way before. I'm impervious to them. They only serve to reassure me that I am making my point and you are feeling it. 

I started this thread to explain the psychology behind why certain people lie about their supposed "Atheism" in order to attack those who believe in God. I think the responses have more than proven my point. Your little flaming and harassing off-topic retorts add an exclamation point. I think the mods have done a great job of trying to keep the peace here, cleaning up the posts like yours which have nothing to do with the topic and are just flaming harassment, but my god, they have to be getting tired of this.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists have never invested in the unknowable, dimwit! That was the point of my comment in red. You're about as stupid as a fucking turnip, to be honest. No wonder you need to resort to lying and manipulating to make it look like you're winning an argument.
> 
> Science cannot test, observe or falsify the unknowable... so it sure as hell isn't invested in it! No scientist has EVER invested in the unknowable, so where you get this "fewer and fewer" crap is beyond me. Science only invests in what is observable, testable and falsifiable, which makes it very much KNOWABLE and the opposite of unknowable.
> 
> And what the living hell does "unknowable" have to do with GOD? Do you think God is unknowable? I hate to tell you this and break your little God-hating heart, but BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of human beings totally disagree with you! God may be "unknowable" to YOU, but Newsflash: YOU AIN'T EVERYBODY!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!!!
> I just love it when you lose your mind. It's like telling a 5 year old they can't have ice cream.
> When the early scientists were still holding onto the purse strings of the church, they invested in the unknowable.
> Now, not so much.
> Even you find the "Spiritual Nature" unknowable, otherwise no faith would be required, right? You would simply "know" it.
> You really are one of the most childlike people I have ever encountered on the internet.
> Entertaining as hell, though.
> It's fun to watch someone that really isn't very bright but is absolutely convinced they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But I haven't lost my mind.
> 
> Early scientists or modern scientists... doesn't matter, they can be both scientists and believers in God, and I proved this with two lists of some of our greatest scientific minds. One thing they've never done is invest in the unknowable, that is the antithesis of science. They explore the unknown, that's virtually all science does. You are the one constructing a crutch of "unknowable" out of your sheer ignorance of the unknown.
> 
> *Even you find the "Spiritual Nature" unknowable, otherwise no faith would be required, right? You would simply "know" it.*
> 
> But you see, I DO know it! I feel it around me and communicate with it daily. I've felt its blessings in my life. I see its presence in the beauty all around me. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that it's real, no faith is needed for me to believe it. You will not ever change my mind about it.
Click to expand...


I dont see anyone necessarily trying to change your mind about your feelings. The issue is your insistence that some supernatural force is extant and real. 

Further, I think youre making a break from reasoning with the more feelings based tenets of Religion and superstition. Feelings are the least reliable way to make a solid decision. I would hope that you do not make decisions that affect you or your family based upon feelings but with comparative analysis, risk/reward and probable outcome. If something feels good, investigate it objectively. See if the good feelings are substantiated. You function with your critical faculties on an ongoing basis, and while you can misinterpret some sensory input, rationality adheres to parameters that are testable.


Heres a little experiment you can try at home. In your diatribe above, try substituting spiritual nature with The Easter Bunny. See if your comment still makes sense.
Here, Ive some you homework for you:

But you see, I DO know [(The Easter Bunny ed.)]!  I feel [(The Easter Bunny ed.)] around me and communicate with [(The Easter Bunny ed.)] daily.


----------



## orogenicman

Boss said:


> Most mentally ill people don't realize that they've lost their minds. So don't worry, you aren't alone.
> 
> 
> 
> Does that have anything to do with the thread topic? Have you not read the rules of Level 2 forum posting yet? I suggest you go do that before you end up getting banned like some of your fellow antagonists. Some of us are trying to have a serious discussion, and some are trying their best to derail the thread and turn it into a flame war.
> 
> If I am "mentally ill" and you've spent the last 6 months in perpetual arguments with me, what does that say about your mental state? If I am dumb and stupid, why don't people just put me on ignore and forget about what I have to say? Reason is, I am making valid points that are nailing your asses to the wall in every possible way. I'm refuting your baseless arguments, destroying them at their weak foundations, and making you look like drooling idiots. So the only recourse you have left is the personal attacks and insults. Weaker and less confident people in the past, may have responded to this tactic by leaving or declining to comment further. I'm not one of those people. There is no insult you can hurl at me that hasn't been chucked my way before. *I'm impervious to them*. They only serve to reassure me that I am making my point and you are feeling it.
> 
> I started this thread to explain the psychology behind why certain people lie about their supposed "Atheism" in order to attack those who believe in God. I think the responses have more than proven my point. Your little flaming and harassing off-topic retorts add an exclamation point. I think the mods have done a great job of trying to keep the peace here, cleaning up the posts like yours which have nothing to do with the topic and are just flaming harassment, but my god, they have to be getting tired of this.
Click to expand...


Yes, it is quite clear to us that your head is composed of zoisite, a ruby-containing rock which is so tough it can shatter a hard rock hammer.  Unfortunately for you, being tough as zoisite doesn't help you to learn because all you have left is your own delusions.  Poor dear.


----------



## Dr Grump

Boss said:


> Does that have anything to do with the thread topic? Have you not read the rules of Level 2 forum posting yet? I suggest you go do that before you end up getting banned like some of your fellow antagonists. Some of us are trying to have a serious discussion, and some are trying their best to derail the thread and turn it into a flame war.
> 
> If I am "mentally ill" and you've spent the last 6 months in perpetual arguments with me, what does that say about your mental state? If I am dumb and stupid, why don't people just put me on ignore and forget about what I have to say? Reason is, I am making valid points that are nailing your asses to the wall in every possible way. I'm refuting your baseless arguments, destroying them at their weak foundations, and making you look like *drooling idiots*. So the only recourse you have left is the personal attacks and insults. Weaker and less confident people in the past, may have responded to this tactic by leaving or declining to comment further. I'm not one of those people. There is no insult you can hurl at me that hasn't been chucked my way before. I'm impervious to them. They only serve to reassure me that I am making my point and you are feeling it.
> 
> I started this thread to explain the psychology behind why certain people lie about their supposed "Atheism" in order to attack those who believe in God. I think the responses have more than proven my point. Your little flaming and harassing off-topic retorts add an exclamation point. I think the mods have done a great job of trying to keep the peace here, cleaning up the posts like yours which have nothing to do with the topic and are just flaming harassment, but my god, they have to be getting tired of this.



what was that about this being a Level 2 discussion again?


----------



## Dr Grump

Boss said:


> fewer and fewer scientists invest in the unknowable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists have never invested in the unknowable, *dimwit! *That was the point of my comment in red. *You're about as stupid as a fucking turnip,* to be honest. No wonder you need to resort to lying and manipulating to make it look like you're winning an argument.
> 
> Science cannot test, observe or falsify the unknowable... so it sure as hell isn't invested in it! No scientist has EVER invested in the unknowable, so where you get this "fewer and fewer" crap is beyond me. Science only invests in what is observable, testable and falsifiable, which makes it very much KNOWABLE and the opposite of unknowable.
> 
> And what the living hell does "unknowable" have to do with GOD? Do you think God is unknowable? I hate to tell you this and break your little God-hating heart, but BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of human beings totally disagree with you! God may be "unknowable" to YOU, but Newsflash: YOU AIN'T EVERYBODY!
Click to expand...


And again (the bolded part)..

As for you last para about God being unknowable, of course god is unknowable. There is absolutely no evidence of a god existing....zilch, nada, nothing. Just belief. As for billions believing, they are getting less and less everyday. Almost every human being thought that the sun revolved around the earth. How did that work out? They also thought thunder was caused by angry gods. Again, how did that work out? Your argument is both asinine and superfluous at best...


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists have never invested in the unknowable, dimwit! That was the point of my comment in red. You're about as stupid as a fucking turnip, to be honest. No wonder you need to resort to lying and manipulating to make it look like you're winning an argument.
> 
> Science cannot test, observe or falsify the unknowable... so it sure as hell isn't invested in it! No scientist has EVER invested in the unknowable, so where you get this "fewer and fewer" crap is beyond me. Science only invests in what is observable, testable and falsifiable, which makes it very much KNOWABLE and the opposite of unknowable.
> 
> And what the living hell does "unknowable" have to do with GOD? Do you think God is unknowable? I hate to tell you this and break your little God-hating heart, but BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of human beings totally disagree with you! God may be "unknowable" to YOU, but Newsflash: YOU AIN'T EVERYBODY!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!!!
> I just love it when you lose your mind. It's like telling a 5 year old they can't have ice cream.
> When the early scientists were still holding onto the purse strings of the church, they invested in the unknowable.
> Now, not so much.
> Even you find the "Spiritual Nature" unknowable, otherwise no faith would be required, right? You would simply "know" it.
> You really are one of the most childlike people I have ever encountered on the internet.
> Entertaining as hell, though.
> It's fun to watch someone that really isn't very bright but is absolutely convinced they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But I haven't lost my mind.
> 
> Early scientists or modern scientists... doesn't matter, they can be both scientists and believers in God, and I proved this with two lists of some of our greatest scientific minds. One thing they've never done is invest in the unknowable, that is the antithesis of science. They explore the unknown, that's virtually all science does. You are the one constructing a crutch of "unknowable" out of your sheer ignorance of the unknown.
> 
> *Even you find the "Spiritual Nature" unknowable, otherwise no faith would be required, right? You would simply "know" it.*
> 
> But you see, I DO know it! I feel it around me and communicate with it daily. I've felt its blessings in my life. I see its presence in the beauty all around me. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that it's real, no faith is needed for me to believe it. You will not ever change my mind about it.
Click to expand...


It is certainly possible to have cognitive dissonance, but fewer and fewer scientists invest in it in regard to belief in a deity. A steady, inexorable decline in scientist believers is history's trajectory. The proof is how far back you have to go for your samples. You use George Washington Carver as an example of a recent believer.
LOL!
I do believe that this is the great unknowable. You present your FEELINGS as evidence, and science would find that a laughable argument. You have felt the blessings from a god you have consistently stated doesn't care a bit about you.
Your belief it is absolutely true is not the same as knowing.


----------



## DriftingSand

It is interesting to note the persistence and insistence and energy posited by non-believers concerning matters of faith, spirit, and divinity in general.  What draws them to the subject of God day after day after day after day after day after day after day?  Is it that they want desperately to believe but are searching for that convincing (albeit elusive) evidence that they desperately crave?  Does the OP's conclusion have a certain amount of veracity and weight? Is it true that so-called "atheists/agnostics" actually do believe but are simply angry at God for something that happened in their life or because they didn't get that new cell phone they prayed for?  Or perhaps they know God's moral standard but are so engulfed a particular sin that they feel a dire need to eliminate God and His standards as a means to legitimize their sinful desires and actions.

Whatever the case may be, we can bank on the fact that certain "atheists" will be drawn to the religious discussion forums like ducks to water.


----------



## MrMax

DriftingSand said:


> It is interesting to note the persistence and insistence and energy posited by non-believers concerning matters of faith, spirit, and divinity in general.  What draws them to the subject of God day after day after day after day after day after day after day?  Is it that they want desperately to believe but are searching for that convincing (albeit elusive) evidence that they desperately crave?  Does the OP's conclusion have a certain amount of veracity and weight? Is it true that so-called "atheists/agnostics" actually do believe but are simply angry at God for something that happened in their life or because they didn't get that new cell phone they prayed for?  Or perhaps they know God's moral standard but are so engulfed a particular sin that they feel a dire need to eliminate God and His standards as a means to legitimize their sinful desires and actions.
> 
> Whatever the case may be, we can bank on the fact that certain "atheists" will be drawn to the religious discussion forums like ducks to water.


As an agnostic, what initially drew me to a forum like this was to see WHY believers believe. Do they have some sort of irrefutable proof? Turns out it's all based on nothing, like, "look how complicated DNA is, god must have made it", kind of arguments. Or "the bible is the word of god", but just because, not for any real reason. It's fascinating actually. And funny.


----------



## DriftingSand

MrMax said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is interesting to note the persistence and insistence and energy posited by non-believers concerning matters of faith, spirit, and divinity in general.  What draws them to the subject of God day after day after day after day after day after day after day?  Is it that they want desperately to believe but are searching for that convincing (albeit elusive) evidence that they desperately crave?  Does the OP's conclusion have a certain amount of veracity and weight? Is it true that so-called "atheists/agnostics" actually do believe but are simply angry at God for something that happened in their life or because they didn't get that new cell phone they prayed for?  Or perhaps they know God's moral standard but are so engulfed a particular sin that they feel a dire need to eliminate God and His standards as a means to legitimize their sinful desires and actions.
> 
> Whatever the case may be, we can bank on the fact that certain "atheists" will be drawn to the religious discussion forums like ducks to water.
> 
> 
> 
> As an agnostic, what initially drew me to a forum like this was to see WHY believers believe. Do they have some sort of irrefutable proof? Turns out it's all based on nothing, like, "look how complicated DNA is, god must have made it", kind of arguments. Or "the bible is the word of god", but just because, not for any real reason. It's fascinating actually. And funny.
Click to expand...


And yet ... here you are after your "initial" purpose for coming here was satisfied.


----------



## DriftingSand

Also interesting is the fact that atheists/agnostics rail against Christians and Christianity almost exclusively but have almost nothing to say about Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, or Judaism.  I conclude that there must be a lot of power in the name of Jesus Christ. He must be seen as a greater threat to their worldview than all other religions combined.  It certainly make ya wonder.


----------



## MrMax

DriftingSand said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is interesting to note the persistence and insistence and energy posited by non-believers concerning matters of faith, spirit, and divinity in general.  What draws them to the subject of God day after day after day after day after day after day after day?  Is it that they want desperately to believe but are searching for that convincing (albeit elusive) evidence that they desperately crave?  Does the OP's conclusion have a certain amount of veracity and weight? Is it true that so-called "atheists/agnostics" actually do believe but are simply angry at God for something that happened in their life or because they didn't get that new cell phone they prayed for?  Or perhaps they know God's moral standard but are so engulfed a particular sin that they feel a dire need to eliminate God and His standards as a means to legitimize their sinful desires and actions.
> 
> Whatever the case may be, we can bank on the fact that certain "atheists" will be drawn to the religious discussion forums like ducks to water.
> 
> 
> 
> As an agnostic, what initially drew me to a forum like this was to see WHY believers believe. Do they have some sort of irrefutable proof? Turns out it's all based on nothing, like, "look how complicated DNA is, god must have made it", kind of arguments. Or "the bible is the word of god", but just because, not for any real reason. It's fascinating actually. And funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet ... here you are after your "initial" purpose for coming here was satisfied.
Click to expand...

I did say "And funny".  A classic would be Boss who said that we're all born with the ability to do magic tricks!  
And I'm still trying to get an answer for how Noah got polar bears to his ark and back again. And did he really have millions of species on his boat with food for everyone for 40 days? With only 6 people to shovel all the shit?


----------



## MrMax

DriftingSand said:


> Also interesting is the fact that atheists/agnostics rail against Christians and Christianity almost exclusively but have almost nothing to say about Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, or Judaism.  I conclude that there must be a lot of power in the name of Jesus Christ. He must be seen as a greater threat to their worldview than all other religions combined.  It certainly make ya wonder.



That's only because there aren't any Buddhists... here. I'd be very interested to hear their views. And there are a few moo slims and mor(m)ons who we get to set their pants on fire every now and then.


----------



## DriftingSand

MrMax said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> As an agnostic, what initially drew me to a forum like this was to see WHY believers believe. Do they have some sort of irrefutable proof? Turns out it's all based on nothing, like, "look how complicated DNA is, god must have made it", kind of arguments. Or "the bible is the word of god", but just because, not for any real reason. It's fascinating actually. And funny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet ... here you are after your "initial" purpose for coming here was satisfied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did say "And funny".  A classic would be Boss who said that we're all born with the ability to do magic tricks!
> And I'm still trying to get an answer for how Noah got polar bears to his ark and back again. And did he really have millions of species on his boat with food for everyone for 40 days? With only 6 people to shovel all the shit?
Click to expand...


I'm certain that you've quoted Boss in context -- right?  You couldn't possibility one of those individuals that twists the words of others as a means to ridicule.

I think there is already a thread concerning Noah and his ark.  But I'll bite. 

a) Many creation scientists believe that prior to the flood there was water canopy or cloud that surrounded the entire earth keeping the temperatures mild worldwide. The canopy filtered the sun's rays while equalizing temperatures.  There was no particular region that was more suited to one animal over another.  Mammoths have been found in today's arctic regions with buttercups in their mouths.  That indicates two things: 1) They died quickly while they were chewing food and 2) the arctic regions were warm enough to sustain the buttercup which requires a warmer climate.  The canopy of water held in the clouds above the earth were released and caused the flood.

b) It is quite possible that all the animals that entered the arc were within a fairly close proximity to the arc.  Most were probably brought onto the arc in a state of infancy or at least very young requiring less food.  Also, we know that many animals are able to hibernate.  It's quite plausible to believe that the animals on the arc went into hibernation or semi-hibernation thus requiring less food.

c) I happen to believe in micro-evolution.  That is to say that I believe a particular species can adapt to a particular climate or environment.  It's quite possible that only one particular type of bear was brought onto the arc.  After the flood, they reproduced and spread across the landscape.  Each subsequent generation of bear adapted to it's particular environment as a means of survival. Polar bears are white because they live in an environment that requires them to be white so as to not be seen by potential prey.


----------



## DriftingSand

MrMax said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also interesting is the fact that atheists/agnostics rail against Christians and Christianity almost exclusively but have almost nothing to say about Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, or Judaism.  I conclude that there must be a lot of power in the name of Jesus Christ. He must be seen as a greater threat to their worldview than all other religions combined.  It certainly make ya wonder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's only because there aren't any Buddhists... here. I'd be very interested to hear their views. And there are a few moo slims and mor(m)ons who we get to set their pants on fire every now and then.
Click to expand...


And yet there are likely numerous forums in Internet-Land that have plenty of Buddhist or Hindu members and yet here you are -- badgering, belittling, and taunting Christians.  I've been a member of lots and lots of forums and the pattern is always the same.  Christian forums draw (by far) the most naysayers and trolls.


----------



## orogenicman

DriftingSand said:


> Also interesting is the fact that *atheists/agnostics rail against Christians and Christianity almost exclusively but have almost nothing to say about Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, or Judaism*. I conclude that there must be a lot of power in the name of Jesus Christ. He must be seen as a greater threat to their worldview than all other religions combined. It certainly make ya wonder.



Probably because none of those religions are here proselytizing and telling atheists that they are evil and will go to hell for their beliefs. If they were, I can almost guarantee that they would not be left out of the discussion.


----------



## orogenicman

DriftingSand said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet ... here you are after your "initial" purpose for coming here was satisfied.
> 
> 
> 
> I did say "And funny".  A classic would be Boss who said that we're all born with the ability to do magic tricks!
> And I'm still trying to get an answer for how Noah got polar bears to his ark and back again. And did he really have millions of species on his boat with food for everyone for 40 days? With only 6 people to shovel all the shit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm certain that you've quoted Boss in context -- right? You couldn't possibility one of those individuals that twists the words of others as a means to ridicule.
> 
> I think there is already a thread concerning Noah and his ark. But I'll bite.
> 
> a) Many creation scientists believe that prior to the flood there was water canopy or cloud that surrounded the entire earth keeping the temperatures mild worldwide. The canopy filtered the sun's rays while equalizing temperatures. There was no particular region that was more suited to one animal over another. Mammoths have been found in today's arctic regions with buttercups in their mouths. That indicates two things: 1) They died quickly while they were chewing food and 2) the arctic regions were warm enough to sustain the buttercup which requires a warmer climate. The canopy of water held in the clouds above the earth were released and caused the flood.
> 
> b) It is quite possible that all the animals that entered the arc were within a fairly close proximity to the arc. Most were probably brought onto the arc in a state of infancy or at least very young requiring less food. Also, we know that many animals are able to hibernate. It's quite plausible to believe that the animals on the arc went into hibernation or semi-hibernation thus requiring less food.
> 
> c) I happen to believe in micro-evolution. That is to say that I believe a particular species can adapt to a particular climate or environment. It's quite possible that only one particular type of bear was brought onto the arc. After the flood, they reproduced and spread across the landscape. Each subsequent generation of bear adapted to it's particular environment as a means of survival. Polar bears are white because they live in an environment that requires them to be white so as to not be seen by potential prey.
Click to expand...


As a geologist, I've read or heard just about every variation and explanation for Noah's ark coming from creationists and other Christians, and I find it rather satisfying that the majority of Christians don't actually take it literally like you evangelicals do.  But hey, I enjoy a good laugh every now and then, and I'm sure the Christians who don't take it literally do as well.  

 Cheers,


----------



## MrMax

DriftingSand said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet ... here you are after your "initial" purpose for coming here was satisfied.
> 
> 
> 
> I did say "And funny".  A classic would be Boss who said that we're all born with the ability to do magic tricks!
> And I'm still trying to get an answer for how Noah got polar bears to his ark and back again. And did he really have millions of species on his boat with food for everyone for 40 days? With only 6 people to shovel all the shit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm certain that you've quoted Boss in context -- right?  You couldn't possibility one of those individuals that twists the words of others as a means to ridicule.
> 
> I think there is already a thread concerning Noah and his ark.  But I'll bite.
> 
> a) Many creation scientists believe that prior to the flood there was water canopy or cloud that surrounded the entire earth keeping the temperatures mild worldwide. The canopy filtered the sun's rays while equalizing temperatures.  There was no particular region that was more suited to one animal over another.  Mammoths have been found in today's arctic regions with buttercups in their mouths.  That indicates two things: 1) They died quickly while they were chewing food and 2) the arctic regions were warm enough to sustain the buttercup which requires a warmer climate.  The canopy of water held in the clouds above the earth were released and caused the flood.
> 
> b) It is quite possible that all the animals that entered the arc were within a fairly close proximity to the arc.  Most were probably brought onto the arc in a state of infancy or at least very young requiring less food.  Also, we know that many animals are able to hibernate.  It's quite plausible to believe that the animals on the arc went into hibernation or semi-hibernation thus requiring less food.
> 
> c) I happen to believe in micro-evolution.  That is to say that I believe a particular species can adapt to a particular climate or environment.  It's quite possible that only one particular type of bear was brought onto the arc.  After the flood, they reproduced and spread across the landscape.  Each subsequent generation of bear adapted to it's particular environment as a means of survival. Polar bears are white because they live in an environment that requires them to be white so as to not be seen by potential prey.
Click to expand...


a) No proof whatsoever. Completely made up.
b) So no animals came from say, Australia? And how did animals get to Australia afterwards? And how come there are animals in Australia that we find nowhere else?
c) You're a heretic and could be excommunicated for believing in evolution. And you're already bordering on not even being a Christian to start with for holding such views.


----------



## thebrucebeat

DriftingSand said:


> Also interesting is the fact that atheists/agnostics rail against Christians and Christianity almost exclusively but have almost nothing to say about Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, or Judaism.  I conclude that there must be a lot of power in the name of Jesus Christ. He must be seen as a greater threat to their worldview than all other religions combined.  It certainly make ya wonder.



None of those other faith traditions are trying to influence American policy. None of them are a threat to the people who live in this country and come on these boards that do not share this dominant faith tradition. 
It has nothing to do with the "power in the name of Jesus Christ", but rather the defense of liberty of the people who find that concept unsupportable. Hindus don't threaten that in any way.


----------



## DriftingSand

MrMax said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> a) Many creation scientists believe that prior to the flood there was water canopy or cloud that surrounded the entire earth keeping the temperatures mild worldwide. The canopy filtered the sun's rays while equalizing temperatures.  There was no particular region that was more suited to one animal over another.  Mammoths have been found in today's arctic regions with buttercups in their mouths.  That indicates two things: 1) They died quickly while they were chewing food and 2) the arctic regions were warm enough to sustain the buttercup which requires a warmer climate.  The canopy of water held in the clouds above the earth were released and caused the flood.
> 
> b) It is quite possible that all the animals that entered the arc were within a fairly close proximity to the arc.  Most were probably brought onto the arc in a state of infancy or at least very young requiring less food.  Also, we know that many animals are able to hibernate.  It's quite plausible to believe that the animals on the arc went into hibernation or semi-hibernation thus requiring less food.
> 
> c) I happen to believe in micro-evolution.  That is to say that I believe a particular species can adapt to a particular climate or environment.  It's quite possible that only one particular type of bear was brought onto the arc.  After the flood, they reproduced and spread across the landscape.  Each subsequent generation of bear adapted to it's particular environment as a means of survival. Polar bears are white because they live in an environment that requires them to be white so as to not be seen by potential prey.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a) No proof whatsoever. Completely made up.
> b) So no animals came from say, Australia? And how did animals get to Australia afterwards? And how come there are animals in Australia that we find nowhere else?
> c) You're a heretic and could be excommunicated for believing in evolution. And you're already bordering on not even being a Christian to start with for holding such views.
Click to expand...


a) Really? You were there?
b) Not necessarily.  Australia is where post-flood animals eventually went to. Prior to the flood there likely wasn't enough water to separate the world's land mass so there likely was no Australia.
c) I don't belong to an organized religion so excommunication from any particular organized church likely occurred a long, long time ago.  Remember, there is a different between "micro" evolution and "macro" evolution.  I totally reject the latter.


----------



## DriftingSand

thebrucebeat said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also interesting is the fact that atheists/agnostics rail against Christians and Christianity almost exclusively but have almost nothing to say about Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, or Judaism.  I conclude that there must be a lot of power in the name of Jesus Christ. He must be seen as a greater threat to their worldview than all other religions combined.  It certainly make ya wonder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of those other faith traditions are trying to influence American policy. None of them are a threat to the people who live in this country and come on these boards that do not share this dominant faith tradition.
> It has nothing to do with the "power in the name of Jesus Christ", but rather the defense of liberty of the people who find that concept unsupportable. Hindus don't threaten that in any way.
Click to expand...


It's somehow wrong for Christians to want to influence their surroundings and liberties but it's okay for atheists/agnostics to exercise influence?  Can you produce a logical avenue that led you to that conclusion?  It sounds like you have something against moral standards and would like to see them eliminated.  Care to share anything with us?

But Eastern, religious philosophy does attempt to affect the public psyche here in the states. Everywhere we see the yin/yang symbol. It's hidden on packaging or, in some cases, not so hidden.   I'm guessing that you know what the yin/yang represents.


----------



## thebrucebeat

DriftingSand said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also interesting is the fact that atheists/agnostics rail against Christians and Christianity almost exclusively but have almost nothing to say about Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, or Judaism.  I conclude that there must be a lot of power in the name of Jesus Christ. He must be seen as a greater threat to their worldview than all other religions combined.  It certainly make ya wonder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of those other faith traditions are trying to influence American policy. None of them are a threat to the people who live in this country and come on these boards that do not share this dominant faith tradition.
> It has nothing to do with the "power in the name of Jesus Christ", but rather the defense of liberty of the people who find that concept unsupportable. Hindus don't threaten that in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's somehow wrong for Christians to want to influence their surroundings and liberties but it's okay for atheists/agnostics to exercise influence?  Can you produce a logical avenue that led you to that conclusion?  It sounds like you have something against moral standards and would like to see them eliminated.  Care to share anything with us?
> 
> But Eastern, religious philosophy does attempt to affect the public psyche here in the states. Everywhere we see the yin/yang symbol. It's hidden on packaging or, in some cases, not so hidden.   I'm guessing that you know what the yin/yang represents.
Click to expand...


It isn't atheism that is being promoted.
It is secularism.
That means our laws stay out of the discussion. You can be as devout as you want and leave others alone not to be if that is what they want.
No one is promoting the enforcement of atheism as a required paradigm. That is just silly. No one is promoting duality as represented by the ying/yang symbol as a government decree. What businesses do on their packaging is irrelevant. You can have a crucifix displayed on your Wheaties box and get not the first objection from anyone. Put behind the speakers chair in the Senate and their is a problem.
You really don't understand these distinctions?


----------



## MrMax

DriftingSand said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> a) Many creation scientists believe that prior to the flood there was water canopy or cloud that surrounded the entire earth keeping the temperatures mild worldwide. The canopy filtered the sun's rays while equalizing temperatures.  There was no particular region that was more suited to one animal over another.  Mammoths have been found in today's arctic regions with buttercups in their mouths.  That indicates two things: 1) They died quickly while they were chewing food and 2) the arctic regions were warm enough to sustain the buttercup which requires a warmer climate.  The canopy of water held in the clouds above the earth were released and caused the flood.
> 
> b) It is quite possible that all the animals that entered the arc were within a fairly close proximity to the arc.  Most were probably brought onto the arc in a state of infancy or at least very young requiring less food.  Also, we know that many animals are able to hibernate.  It's quite plausible to believe that the animals on the arc went into hibernation or semi-hibernation thus requiring less food.
> 
> c) I happen to believe in micro-evolution.  That is to say that I believe a particular species can adapt to a particular climate or environment.  It's quite possible that only one particular type of bear was brought onto the arc.  After the flood, they reproduced and spread across the landscape.  Each subsequent generation of bear adapted to it's particular environment as a means of survival. Polar bears are white because they live in an environment that requires them to be white so as to not be seen by potential prey.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a) No proof whatsoever. Completely made up.
> b) So no animals came from say, Australia? And how did animals get to Australia afterwards? And how come there are animals in Australia that we find nowhere else?
> c) You're a heretic and could be excommunicated for believing in evolution. And you're already bordering on not even being a Christian to start with for holding such views.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> a) Really? You were there?
> b) Not necessarily.  Australia is where post-flood animals eventually went to. Prior to the flood there likely wasn't enough water to separate the world's land mass so there likely was no Australia.
> c) I don't belong to an organized religion so excommunication from any particular organized church likely occurred a long, long time ago.  Remember, there is a different between "micro" evolution and "macro" evolution.  I totally reject the latter.
Click to expand...


a) the burden of proof lies with the person who makes the claim.
b) no proof whatsoever.
c) you believe in one form of evolution, you're halfway home!


----------



## Hollie

DriftingSand said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet ... here you are after your "initial" purpose for coming here was satisfied.
> 
> 
> 
> I did say "And funny".  A classic would be Boss who said that we're all born with the ability to do magic tricks!
> And I'm still trying to get an answer for how Noah got polar bears to his ark and back again. And did he really have millions of species on his boat with food for everyone for 40 days? With only 6 people to shovel all the shit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm certain that you've quoted Boss in context -- right?  You couldn't possibility one of those individuals that twists the words of others as a means to ridicule.
> 
> I think there is already a thread concerning Noah and his ark.  But I'll bite.
> 
> a) Many creation scientists believe that prior to the flood there was water canopy or cloud that surrounded the entire earth keeping the temperatures mild worldwide. The canopy filtered the sun's rays while equalizing temperatures.  There was no particular region that was more suited to one animal over another.  Mammoths have been found in today's arctic regions with buttercups in their mouths.  That indicates two things: 1) They died quickly while they were chewing food and 2) the arctic regions were warm enough to sustain the buttercup which requires a warmer climate.  The canopy of water held in the clouds above the earth were released and caused the flood.
> 
> b) It is quite possible that all the animals that entered the arc were within a fairly close proximity to the arc.  Most were probably brought onto the arc in a state of infancy or at least very young requiring less food.  Also, we know that many animals are able to hibernate.  It's quite plausible to believe that the animals on the arc went into hibernation or semi-hibernation thus requiring less food.
> 
> c) I happen to believe in micro-evolution.  That is to say that I believe a particular species can adapt to a particular climate or environment.  It's quite possible that only one particular type of bear was brought onto the arc.  After the flood, they reproduced and spread across the landscape.  Each subsequent generation of bear adapted to it's particular environment as a means of survival. Polar bears are white because they live in an environment that requires them to be white so as to not be seen by potential prey.
Click to expand...


If you want flood tales, there is no shortage. 

Flood Stories from Around the World


----------



## Hollie

> b) It is quite possible that all the animals that entered the arc were within a fairly close proximity to the arc. Most were probably brought onto the arc in a state of infancy or at least very young requiring less food. Also, we know that many animals are able to hibernate. It's quite plausible to believe that the animals on the arc went into hibernation or semi-hibernation thus requiring less food.




We're doomed. In the longer term, the US will slip away as a nation that competes in a technical world.


----------



## koshergrl

Our country wasn't built on secularism, and there are no laws that prevent us from discussing religion. And if there ever are, our country is doomed.

Sorry.


----------



## jillian

koshergrl said:


> Our country wasn't built on secularism, and there are no laws that prevent us from discussing religion. And if there ever are, our country is doomed.
> 
> Sorry.



nonsense.


----------



## orogenicman

Hollie said:


> b) It is quite possible that all the animals that entered the arc were within a fairly close proximity to the arc. Most were probably brought onto the arc in a state of infancy or at least very young requiring less food. Also, we know that many animals are able to hibernate. It's quite plausible to believe that the animals on the arc went into hibernation or semi-hibernation thus requiring less food.
> 
> 
> 
> We're doomed. In the longer term, the US will slip away as a nation that competes in a technical world.
Click to expand...


Yes I know. Christians call it the apocalypse. I think bringing on the downfall of the U.S. must be part of their master plan.


----------



## thebrucebeat

koshergrl said:


> Our country wasn't built on secularism, and there are no laws that prevent us from discussing religion. And if there ever are, our country is doomed.
> 
> Sorry.



The First Amendment protects that right for you. All of us on these threads are exercising that right.
It is also the amendment that defines us as a secular country.
It doesn't define us as an atheist country.
There is a difference.


----------



## BreezeWood

Boss said:


> I started this thread to explain the psychology behind why certain people lie about their supposed "Atheism"* in order to attack those who believe in God.* I.






> *OP:* *Why do the God-haters persist?*
> 
> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, *anything and everything to do with God.*






> *DriftingSand:* It's somehow wrong for Christians to want to influence their surroundings and liberties but it's okay for atheists/agnostics to exercise influence? Can you produce a logical avenue that led you to that conclusion? *It sounds like you have something against moral standards* and would like to see them eliminated. Care to share anything with us?





*Why do the God-haters persist? ...  in order to attack those who believe in God ... It sounds like you have something against moral standards.*


who is attacking who ???  - - - > (It sounds like you have something against moral standards.)


where have either of the above shown evidence that anyone has ever "Hated" God ?

* rather than flawed beliefs as the subject matter of the discussion.

.


----------



## HUGGY

* Why do the God-haters persist?*

Clean living

Diet

Pacing for endurance


----------



## Gadawg73

koshergrl said:


> Our country wasn't built on secularism, and there are no laws that prevent us from discussing religion. And if there ever are, our country is doomed.
> 
> Sorry.



The crown monarch ruled over the common man based on the principle of divine right which was that the right of rule derives from God. At the time this country was starting the revolution every European state and country, including England, was run by that doctrine of divine right where kings and queens have a GOD given right TO RULE and any and all rebellion against them IS A SIN.
This is how this colony was run before the revolution and it was BASED on RELIGION and religious beliefs of divine right. The church directly influenced through religion every colony of England and all of Europe.
And the Founders of this great nation wanted NO PART of that shit and made damn sure that THE LAW of this country would be formed WITHOUT God or religion influencing it in any way.
Anyone that does not know this is stupid, ignorant or both. Any and all claims that this nation was founded on "Christian principles" are absurd. Just the opposite. The top Christian principle that directly affected the Founders was the religious principle of divine right.
They opposed that as indicated in The United States Constitution.
We immediately went from religion dominating government to NO religion in government.
To deny that is secularism is fraud.


----------



## Boss

Hollie said:


> I dont see anyone necessarily trying to change your mind about your feelings. The issue is your insistence that some supernatural force is extant and real.
> 
> Further, I think youre making a break from reasoning with the more feelings based tenets of Religion and superstition. Feelings are the least reliable way to make a solid decision. I would hope that you do not make decisions that affect you or your family based upon feelings but with comparative analysis, risk/reward and probable outcome. If something feels good, investigate it objectively. See if the good feelings are substantiated. You function with your critical faculties on an ongoing basis, and while you can misinterpret some sensory input, rationality adheres to parameters that are testable.
> 
> Heres a little experiment you can try at home. In your diatribe above, try substituting spiritual nature with The Easter Bunny. See if your comment still makes sense.
> Here, Ive some you homework for you:
> 
> But you see, I DO know [(The Easter Bunny ed.)]!  I feel [(The Easter Bunny ed.)] around me and communicate with [(The Easter Bunny ed.)] daily.



Here's the thing, Hollie... What is "real" to you are things you can physically confirm with your five limited senses, or what secular godless scientists tell you they believe. You have no capacity to comprehend any other sort of reality or existence. Under that conception, you simply can't find evidence for God or the Spiritual, and you probably never will. Unless your atheistic science people tell you they've confirmed God's existence, you aren't likely to ever believe it. 

Now, with this understanding firmly set in your mind, you can't rationalize why so many people claim a belief in something they can't "prove" to you. This prompts you to ridicule them and scoff at their notions of God being "real" or "existing" because of your narrow understanding of what is real and what exists. It's not your fault and it's not their fault, it's just how things are. 

The Easter Bunny is a fairly recent man-made invention. It stems from a 17th century German tradition, and interestingly enough, has some religious tie-ins. Hares and rabbits were thought to be animals who could reproduce without sexual intercourse, thus likened to the Virgin Mary, and often depicted in ancient religious art. Eggs were often the food of choice to be given up for Lent, and the only way to prevent them from spoiling (chickens don't stop laying for Lent) was to boil them. The American commercialization began around 1946, when "The Easter Bunny" began visiting department stores and such. 

Of course, this is quite different than the Spiritual Force humans have connected with since we became civilized creatures. That force has been the catalyst and inspiration for all of human advancement and humanities and our ability to connect with it, remains our most defining attribute as a species. While it is not "real" or "existing" in a physical sense, untold billions of humans, maybe even trillions, have professed a profound faith in the belief that it certainly is real and does exist in a spiritual sense. You can't comprehend spiritual existence or reality, so you can't accept it. 



Dr Grump said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fewer and fewer scientists invest in the unknowable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists have never invested in the unknowable, *dimwit! *That was the point of my comment in red. *You're about as stupid as a fucking turnip,* to be honest. No wonder you need to resort to lying and manipulating to make it look like you're winning an argument.
> 
> Science cannot test, observe or falsify the unknowable... so it sure as hell isn't invested in it! No scientist has EVER invested in the unknowable, so where you get this "fewer and fewer" crap is beyond me. Science only invests in what is observable, testable and falsifiable, which makes it very much KNOWABLE and the opposite of unknowable.
> 
> And what the living hell does "unknowable" have to do with GOD? Do you think God is unknowable? I hate to tell you this and break your little God-hating heart, but BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of human beings totally disagree with you! God may be "unknowable" to YOU, but Newsflash: YOU AIN'T EVERYBODY!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *what was that about this being a Level 2 discussion again?*
> And again (the bolded part)..
> 
> As for you last para about God being unknowable, of course god is unknowable. There is absolutely no evidence of a god existing....zilch, nada, nothing. Just belief. As for billions believing, they are getting less and less everyday. Almost every human being thought that the sun revolved around the earth. How did that work out? They also thought thunder was caused by angry gods. Again, how did that work out? Your argument is both asinine and superfluous at best...
Click to expand...


Level 2 forum rules are pretty clear, they say you can post flames and insults but your post has to also contain topic-relative content. My post conforms to Level 2 rules. 

God is certainly not unknowable and there are literally billions of people who would be more than happy to give their testimonials to that. People come to know God every day. I agree there is no "physical" evidence of a God "physically" existing. (See my response to Hollie above.)

As much as you may believe "they are getting less and less every day" this is simply not true. Humans are spiritual by nature and always have been. Generally speaking, about 95% of the species believes in something greater than self, and 5% believe in nothing (Nihilists). Atheists account for maybe 15%, but as I've argued, there are "Atheists" who are bigger believers in God than some Christians. People lie about this all the time. Times change, religions come and go, people move away and back toward spiritual faith, but over the course of human history, we have remained largely spiritual creatures. This isn't something in "rapid decline" as you like to believe. 

People have thought all kinds of things. We base our views largely on what our five limited senses can confirm, as I said before. When we see the sun rise in the East and set in the West, it appears the sun goes around the Earth. Interestingly, this was actually considered "science" at one time, as opposed to the "spiritual" belief that God rose the Sun, moved it across the sky, and laid it to rest in the evening. But... Science can be completely wrong just like Religion. 

All that said, do you know why the physical properties of the universe cause there to be a sound made when thunder happens? I'm not asking you to explain how it happens, I am asking why it happens. It's caused by friction from lightning, but why does friction from lightning create an experience of sound that we can detect with one of our five senses? Again, I understand HOW sound is produced, save the explanation there, I want to know WHY it happens. Why does lightning happen? Why do some atoms become electrically charged while others do not? Keep the focus on WHY and not HOW. You see, there is a lot you can't really explain. Principles in physics are things we can comprehend and understand, but we don't comprehend why they function predictably as they do in an otherwise chaotic and random universe. Food for thought.


----------



## Dr Grump

Boss said:


> Level 2 forum rules are pretty clear, they say you can post flames and insults but your post has to also contain topic-relative content. My post conforms to Level 2 rules.
> 
> God is certainly not unknowable and there are literally billions of people who would be more than happy to give their testimonials to that. People come to know God every day. I agree there is no "physical" evidence of a God "physically" existing. (See my response to Hollie above.)
> 
> As much as you may believe "they are getting less and less every day" this is simply not true. Humans are spiritual by nature and always have been. Generally speaking, about 95% of the species believes in something greater than self, and 5% believe in nothing (Nihilists). Atheists account for maybe 15%, but as I've argued, there are "Atheists" who are bigger believers in God than some Christians. People lie about this all the time. Times change, religions come and go, people move away and back toward spiritual faith, but over the course of human history, we have remained largely spiritual creatures. This isn't something in "rapid decline" as you like to believe.
> 
> People have thought all kinds of things. We base our views largely on what our five limited senses can confirm, as I said before. When we see the sun rise in the East and set in the West, it appears the sun goes around the Earth. Interestingly, this was actually considered "science" at one time, as opposed to the "spiritual" belief that God rose the Sun, moved it across the sky, and laid it to rest in the evening. But... Science can be completely wrong just like Religion.
> 
> All that said, do you know why the physical properties of the universe cause there to be a sound made when thunder happens? I'm not asking you to explain how it happens, I am asking why it happens. It's caused by friction from lightning, but why does friction from lightning create an experience of sound that we can detect with one of our five senses? Again, I understand HOW sound is produced, save the explanation there, I want to know WHY it happens. Why does lightning happen? Why do some atoms become electrically charged while others do not? Keep the focus on WHY and not HOW. You see, there is a lot you can't really explain. Principles in physics are things we can comprehend and understand, but we don't comprehend why they function predictably as they do in an otherwise chaotic and random universe. Food for thought.



I know the rules re Level 2 but you appeared to be having a go at people playing the man not the ball, thus my input.

Actually it is true. The percentage of human beings believing in a supernatural god is getting less and less as time goes on - especially those that are educated.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism#Studies_and_statistics

The why? Who cares why. It happens. You think a god does it? Allows some atoms to charge and not others? To which I also say "why does he do that?"


----------



## Boss

Dr Grump said:


> I know the rules re Level 2 but you appeared to be having a go at people playing the man not the ball, thus my input.
> 
> Actually it is true. The percentage of human beings believing in a supernatural god is getting less and less as time goes on - especially those that are educated.  Demographics of atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The why? Who cares why. It happens. You think a god does it? Allows some atoms to charge and not others? To which I also say "why does he do that?"



Again, "having a go" at people is perfectly acceptable in Level 2, as long as your post contains topic-related content as well. My complaint was about someone who wasn't abiding by the rules of Level 2 forums. 

Actually, your link is more disconcerting than my assertion. It says 2% are Atheists and 9% are non-religious, where I gave you a modest 15% for just Atheists. I couldn't find anything that stated belief in God was in some kind of "rapid decline" as was indicated. As I pointed out, there have always been fluctuating periods throughout human history, times where more people were spiritual or spirituality declined. However, humans have always been predominately and overwhelmingly spiritual. There has never been any point in human history where this was not the case. 

Who cares why? Well, I do! That's why I asked you the question. Yes, I believe the Spiritual Force which I identify as "God" is the force which makes all of this reality we experience "happen" or at least, our perception of it. God makes physics work, principles of math function predictably, bestows logic and order to the universe, created life, etc. HOW he did it, maybe we can discover through Science and maybe not? WHY he did it? I have no idea.


----------



## Dr Grump

Boss said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know the rules re Level 2 but you appeared to be having a go at people playing the man not the ball, thus my input.
> 
> Actually it is true. The percentage of human beings believing in a supernatural god is getting less and less as time goes on - especially those that are educated.  Demographics of atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The why? Who cares why. It happens. You think a god does it? Allows some atoms to charge and not others? To which I also say "why does he do that?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, "having a go" at people is perfectly acceptable in Level 2, as long as your post contains topic-related content as well. My complaint was about someone who wasn't abiding by the rules of Level 2 forums.
> 
> Actually, your link is more disconcerting than my assertion. It says 2% are Atheists and 9% are non-religious, where I gave you a modest 15% for just Atheists. I couldn't find anything that stated belief in God was in some kind of "rapid decline" as was indicated. As I pointed out, there have always been fluctuating periods throughout human history, times where more people were spiritual or spirituality declined. However, humans have always been predominately and overwhelmingly spiritual. There has never been any point in human history where this was not the case.
> 
> Who cares why? Well, I do! That's why I asked you the question. Yes, I believe the Spiritual Force which I identify as "God" is the force which makes all of this reality we experience "happen" or at least, our perception of it. God makes physics work, principles of math function predictably, bestows logic and order to the universe, created life, etc. HOW he did it, maybe we can discover through Science and maybe not? WHY he did it? I have no idea.
Click to expand...


I'd read the link more carefully....definitely shows a decline in god-fearing folk.

And there is the crux. You want me to explain 'why' something happens, while believing your 'theory' only takes an "I have no idea" cop out. Shrug...

Some super natural being just struts around doing stuff for no apparent reason? You couldn't make this shit up....


----------



## Boss

Dr Grump said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know the rules re Level 2 but you appeared to be having a go at people playing the man not the ball, thus my input.
> 
> Actually it is true. The percentage of human beings believing in a supernatural god is getting less and less as time goes on - especially those that are educated.  Demographics of atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The why? Who cares why. It happens. You think a god does it? Allows some atoms to charge and not others? To which I also say "why does he do that?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, "having a go" at people is perfectly acceptable in Level 2, as long as your post contains topic-related content as well. My complaint was about someone who wasn't abiding by the rules of Level 2 forums.
> 
> Actually, your link is more disconcerting than my assertion. It says 2% are Atheists and 9% are non-religious, where I gave you a modest 15% for just Atheists. I couldn't find anything that stated belief in God was in some kind of "rapid decline" as was indicated. As I pointed out, there have always been fluctuating periods throughout human history, times where more people were spiritual or spirituality declined. However, humans have always been predominately and overwhelmingly spiritual. There has never been any point in human history where this was not the case.
> 
> Who cares why? Well, I do! That's why I asked you the question. Yes, I believe the Spiritual Force which I identify as "God" is the force which makes all of this reality we experience "happen" or at least, our perception of it. God makes physics work, principles of math function predictably, bestows logic and order to the universe, created life, etc. HOW he did it, maybe we can discover through Science and maybe not? WHY he did it? I have no idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd read the link more carefully....definitely shows a decline in god-fearing folk.
> 
> And there is the crux. You want me to explain 'why' something happens, while believing your 'theory' only takes an "I have no idea" cop out. Shrug...
> 
> Some super natural being just struts around doing stuff for no apparent reason? You couldn't make this shit up....
Click to expand...


LOL.. Well which is more reasoned? _"I have no idea why shit happens, it just does!"_ OR _"Something happened because an intelligent force made it happen and I don't know why!"_ 

I read your link carefully, as I said, it started off by giving my "15% Atheists" claim a good ol' kick in the crotch, and asserts that there are only 2% Atheists, not 15%. It then goes on to explain how difficult it is to get actual results on legitimate numbers to formulate a statistic. I've already admitted that there have been periods of human history where spirituality declined and then resurged. Still, there has *never* been a time where more people were non-spiritual, and guess what? There never is going to be such a time because humans are intrinsically spiritual in nature. There may very well be a decline in spirituality at the moment, but let the next asteroid hit the planet and wipe out half of human civilization and see what happens! I'm betting belief in God makes a huge comeback in light of such an event. Nothing like a little turmoil and struggle to jolt humans back into a respect and appreciation for Spiritual Nature.


----------



## koshergrl

Numbers in the US are declining, as our schools and media work harder and harder to portray those of faith as stupid or extremist...

But Christianity world wide is increasing.


----------



## koshergrl

"... in 1900, there were approximately 10 million  Christians in Africa. By 2000, there were 360 million. By 2025, conservative estimates  see that number rising to 633 million. Those same estimates put the number of  Christians in Latin America in 2025 at 640 million and in Asia at 460 million."

"
This story of Christianitys explosive growth is  one of the great untold stories of our time -- a story that North American Christians  need to hear. 
               Its a story that repudiates those who say that Christians  must compromise their beliefs to remain relevant. The opposite is the case. Biblical  orthodoxy is winning converts while churches that have lost their biblical moorings  languish."


How Christianity is Growing Around the World


----------



## koshergrl

"
*The five fastest growing religions in terms of absolute numbers (new adherents per year, in millions):           *
                            1.               Christianity               25,210,195 
                                        2.               Islam               22,588,676 
                                        3.               Hinduism               12,533,734 
                                        4.               Chinese folk-religions               3,715,548 
                                        5.               Buddhism 3,687,527

*The five fastest growing religions by conversions (new adherents per year, in millions):           *
                            1.               Christianity               2,501,396 
                                        2.               Islam               865,558
3.               Buddhism               156,609 
                                        4.               Sikhism               28,961                                         
5.               Baha'is               26,333

Fastest Growing Religion; Christianity


----------



## orogenicman

Dr Grump said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know the rules re Level 2 but you appeared to be having a go at people playing the man not the ball, thus my input.
> 
> Actually it is true. The percentage of human beings believing in a supernatural god is getting less and less as time goes on - especially those that are educated. Demographics of atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The why? Who cares why. It happens. You think a god does it? Allows some atoms to charge and not others? To which I also say "why does he do that?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, "having a go" at people is perfectly acceptable in Level 2, as long as your post contains topic-related content as well. My complaint was about someone who wasn't abiding by the rules of Level 2 forums.
> 
> Actually, your link is more disconcerting than my assertion. It says 2% are Atheists and 9% are non-religious, where I gave you a modest 15% for just Atheists. I couldn't find anything that stated belief in God was in some kind of "rapid decline" as was indicated. As I pointed out, there have always been fluctuating periods throughout human history, times where more people were spiritual or spirituality declined. However, humans have always been predominately and overwhelmingly spiritual. There has never been any point in human history where this was not the case.
> 
> Who cares why? Well, I do! That's why I asked you the question. Yes, I believe the Spiritual Force which I identify as "God" is the force which makes all of this reality we experience "happen" or at least, our perception of it. God makes physics work, principles of math function predictably, bestows logic and order to the universe, created life, etc. HOW he did it, maybe we can discover through Science and maybe not? WHY he did it? I have no idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd read the link more carefully....definitely shows a decline in god-fearing folk.
> 
> And there is the crux. You want me to explain 'why' something happens, while believing your 'theory' only takes an "I have no idea" cop out. Shrug...
> 
> Some super natural being just struts around doing stuff for no apparent reason? You couldn't make this shit up....
Click to expand...


Actually, I think he just did.


----------



## koshergrl

There's a Christian explosion in China alone......

"
Official Chinese surveys now show that nearly one in three Chinese  describe themselves as religious, an astonishing figure for an  officially atheist country, where religion was banned until three  decades ago.
   The last 30 years of economic reform  have seen an explosion of religious belief. China's government  officially recognizes five religions: Protestantism, Catholicism,  Buddhism, Islam and Daoism. The biggest boom of all has been in  Christianity, which the government has struggled to control."



In The Land Of Mao, A Rising Tide Of Christianity Among Chinese : NPR


----------



## koshergrl

""The state was trying to control us," says one worshiper, who asked not  to be named, "so we set up our own church not to follow the government,  but to follow the God of the Bible."

"China's youth once trundled across the countryside spreading communism. Now, they're spreading God's word."

In The Land Of Mao, A Rising Tide Of Christianity Among Chinese : NPR


----------



## koshergrl

"
"China is experiencing a Christian explosion among intellectuals" says leading Chinese academic
The  growth of Christianity among intellectuals has fundamentally "reshaped  the religious landscape in China", says a leading Chinese academic and  Editor of what's being described as the "most authoritative" journal on  religion in the People's Republic of China."


Churches Together in Britain and Ireland - China is experiencing a Christian Explosion among Intellectu


----------



## koshergrl

"The rise in the number of Protestants, many of them Pentecostals, has  been described as the greatest revival Christianity has ever known.  There is even talk that by the middle of this century, Chinese  Christians could outnumber those in the United States, at present more than 170 million and declining, making China the most populous Christian country on earth."

The Middle Kingdom's Problem with Religion | Standpoint

It makes sense that as American progressives successfully drive American churches into the ground, and brainwash American children...that America's strength, power, and liberty become increasingly compromised.

Meanwhile, in countries where they are moving out of oppression, Christianity is growing by leaps and bounds.


----------



## koshergrl

"Mao, on the other hand, described religion as "poison", and the Cultural  Revolution of the 1960s and 70s attempted to eradicate it. Driven  underground, Christianity not only survived, but with its own Chinese  martyrs, it grew in strength."

Loons like dump and the rest can continue to proclaim lies, but the truth is this...people recognize that Christianity is a religion of liberty and freedom...thus it flourishes under oppression.

The more you try to wipe it out, the stronger it becomes.


BBC News - Christians in China: Is the country in spiritual crisis?


----------



## Gadawg73

koshergrl said:


> Numbers in the US are declining, as our schools and media work harder and harder to portray those of faith as stupid or extremist...
> 
> But Christianity world wide is increasing.



The question has NEVER been if Christianity is bad or not.
That is the myth you have been conned into believing as the naive and gullible sheeple are easily manipulated.
The question is if this country was founded on one religion or not.
And the overwhelming undisputed evidence is the Founders WENT OUT OF THEIR WAY to keep ALL religions out of government.
Because this nation was founded as a secular government.


----------



## holston

Gadawg73 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our country wasn't built on secularism, and there are no laws that prevent us from discussing religion. And if there ever are, our country is doomed.
> 
> Sorry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The crown monarch ruled over the common man based on the principle of divine right which was that the right of rule derives from God. At the time this country was starting the revolution every European state and country, including England, was run by that doctrine of divine right where kings and queens have a GOD given right TO RULE and any and all rebellion against them IS A SIN.
> This is how this colony was run before the revolution and it was BASED on RELIGION and religious beliefs of divine right. The church directly influenced through religion every colony of England and all of Europe.
> And the Founders of this great nation wanted NO PART of that shit and *made damn sure that THE LAW of this country would be formed WITHOUT God or religion influencing it in any way.*
> Anyone that does not know this is stupid, ignorant or both.* Any and all claims that this nation was founded on "Christian principles" *are absurd. Just the opposite. The top Christian principle that directly affected the Founders was the religious principle of divine right.
> They opposed that as indicated in The United States Constitution.
> We immediately went from religion dominating government to NO religion in government.
> To deny that is secularism is fraud.
Click to expand...


 This is only partly true, right up to the point marked in bold. This is where you took a wrong turn. 

 The mistake you make is a common error, one that is so pervasive that it requires constant correction. 

 It's based on the false assumption that any man, including a King, always says and does as God would have him do. 
 If you examine the Old Testament history of the ancient Israelites, you will see that there was a time in which the people demanded a King to rule them despite warnings and the best advice of their prophets against it. 

 God consented however to allow them to have a King. From that point on, one errant King after another led Israel down the road to enslavement. There were some decent Kings interspersed among the bad ones who did a reasonably good job of leading the people in a direction which pleased God. But all in all, having a King turned out to be not such a good idea after all. 

 It was not God's will that they should have a King in the first place, but he consented to their desire. He preferred that they didn't have a King for whatever reason. But had they chosen to not have a King and follow the advice of the sages, do you think that meant that God's intention was to exclude Him as well? 
 Of course not!

 There are many people who do things in the name of God or Jesus Christ which are not in accordance with God's will. The evil deeds that men do should not be attributed to God if God has warned against them. The only way a person can blame God or Christ for the acts of men is to suppose that God forces them to do them. This implies that a man can have no will of his own and is thus incapable of making a decision and acting upon it. You don't believe _that_ do you? 

 If I was to blame YOU for something that I did, or if someone else was to blame YOU for something that I did, would you not consider it unreasonable of them? 

 Nevertheless, men often blame God for all the evil in the world. 

 Men, being fallible as they are, can not be trusted entirely to always say and do as they ought. THIS is why the Founding Fathers did not want the entire rule of law and all power resting in the hands of a single individual. 
 Such a man might wake up on the wrong side of the bed one morning and decide that so and so should have his head chopped off for little or no reason. If he did, what kind of fool would it take to believe that such a wicked deed could be the result of an oracle of God?

 The purpose of trying to create a government with a system of "checks and balances" was intended to avoid situations like that from arising by not allowing all power to rest in the hands of so few that a conspiracy among them could result in the perversion of the law. 

 In case you haven't noticed, King Obama has acquired a habit of invoking the Presidential Powers Act in order to circumvent the need for Congressional approval. 
 The suspension of many aspects of the Bill of Rights and the liberty which this and the previous Bush administrations have granted themselves to decide which laws they should enforce and which they can ignore has grown dangerously like that of a KINGSHIP. 

 No person who lacks the faith that Yomamma has been granted divine wisdom and authority would agree that this is a good thing. Nevertheless the Zionist Supremacists and the Marxist black, Mexican, and dope head suckers seem to think so. One can only suppose that they seek a government redistribution of wealth more than a lasting freedom. The only way they could reasonably embrace such a notion is if they were fools enough to believe that a country can prosper under those conditions. 

 All that put aside, the lack of faith of the Founders in the unwavering integrity of a man, even one calling himself a King, and their desire to have some say in decisions made by the government which would affect their personal lives, should not be taken as an indication that they were Godless , that they objected to Christian principles, or that they believed that religious convictions have no role in the government. 

 The majority of them would probably have been aghast at the idea of a government or a society comprised of people who were either atheistic or were only willing to abide by those principles which they invented for themselves. 

 A society of Secular Humanists would be such a society since they recognize no greater authority than man himself. Another way of putting this is to say that they place themselves in the position of God as being the sole arbiter of moral principles. There is a push in our country at this time for just that! 
 The arguments they use to promote their ideology are remarkably similar to the one you have made which essentially holds that there is no such thing as a religious conviction or belief in God which can result in anything BUT evil. 
 However it is NOT true that just because some men may use the facade of organized religion or cloak themselves as ministers of God in order to do evil, that it follows that all religious principles are invalid and that it is impossible for men to approximate them in the practical application to their lives. 

 The desire of the Founders was not that their leaders become irreligious or that they should have no faith in God or conviction that all moral laws are the result of a divine being greater than man. Rather it was to prevent that some men, presenting themselves falsely as representatives of God should come in among the flock so to speak as "wolves in sheep's clothing". Men still can make a pretense of religious conviction in order to deceive the naive and gullible. 

 Do you see the difference? The founders intention was not to bar the divine presence or wisdom of God from the government, but to prevent the government from interfering with the religious beliefs of it's citizens. 


 Also, it should be remembered that the cause of the American Revolution, according to Ben Franklin, was chiefly due to the Crowns interference with the financial system within the colonies. Not only were the colonists suffering from "taxation without representation" , they were not allowed to control the economy of the colonies to serve the best interests of the colonists. They were being unfairly taken advantage of. The majority of them probably had no particular objections to the Crown per say. And had the dispute over who should control the money supply of the colonies and how much they should be taxed it is doubtful that a rebellion would have occurred at all!

 A similar complaint was made by many Southerners against the North prior to the War between the States. It seemed that the North did not want to play fair when it came to tariffs and other money matters. 

  Isn't it often the case that so many troubles can be traced back to squabbles over money?
 Is it any wonder why a verse in the Bible says something like "Money is the root of all evil." Other people say it says "Money is the root of all sorts of evil." 
 I don't think we have to quibble over the difference to recognize that money is indeed the source of a great many woes. 

  A lot of people have trouble reconciling the necessary evils of this world like "love and money", or more appropriately "sex and money", with the Christian call to "take up one's cross daily."  Some people find it difficult or impossible to believe that such a thing as absolute "good" can exist in a world that centers around either one of them. 

 A Christian has to believe that it IS possible to make righteous decisions in the face of so many reasons that cause one to become cynical. That isn't saying that it is _easy_, only that it is _possible._ They also believe that it is reasonable of God to expect a man to strive towards those goals despite his occasional blunders. 


 The Founders believed that the "Divine right" originated with God, NOT man. They spell that out clearly in the opening to the Declaration of Independence:



> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are *endowed by their Creator *with certain *inalienable Rights, *that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, *Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed;*




 Notice that they say that certain truths are "self evident" and that they are "endowed by their Creator". 

 That's hardly a declaration of secularism. 

 "Secularism" to them would probably mean something more like, "Let the government know it's rightful boundaries and refrain from making declarations of a religious nature that should be imposed upon men against their wishes." 
 In other words, government business ends where a mans private religious convictions begin. It's only when a person breaks the law or infringes upon the rights of others that the government has a right to intervene. Even then it can do so only so far as the law prescribes. And the laws are written so as to protect the God given inalienable rights of one man against the trespasses of another man. 

 The kind of governmental violation which I believe you are referring to which is often referred to as "separation of church and state" has already been committed by Papa Bush.

 viz.

Guillotine Death by Noahide Laws PASSED BY CONGRESS-1991? | Home of the r??O?ution !



> &#8220;Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That March 26, 1991, the start of the ninetieth year of Rabbi Menachem Schneerson, leader of the worldwide Lubavitch movement, is designated as &#8216;EDUCATION DAY U.S.A.&#8217; The President is requested to issue a proclamation calling upon the people of the United States to observe such day with appropriate ceremonies and activities.&#8221;





> &#8220;Because the NOAHIDE LAWS forbid the free exercise of religion (especially Christianity) in America, and respect on religion over another (JUDAISM over all other religions) they clearly violate the First Amendment Establishment Clause.
> 
> THEREFORE, as long as the US CONSTITUION remains in force, they CANNOT ACTIVATE THE NOAHIDE LAWS AND ENFORCE THEM IN AMERICA AT THIS TIME!
> 
> However, WHEN the CONSTITUTION IS ABOLISHED through the declaration of NATIONAL EMERGENCY, MARTIAL LAW, THEN you will see the NOAHIDE LAWS activated and the enforcers (which are the military, foreign and domestic) and their guillotines brought out in full force.




 It's astonishing that so few people are aware that Bush Senior signed this House Resolution so long ago at the behest of Chabad Lubavitch, one of the most militant Jewish organizations there is. 
 But it's not surprising that they are unaware since the media is controlled by Jews. 

 Indeed, Jewish political, social, and religious organizations have been the most vocal about and active in promoting the concept of "separation of church and state". 

 Since none of the Jewish community has objected to the insertion of proclamations such as the Noahide Resolution, one can only surmise that it by "separation of church and state" that the "church" they are objecting to is the Christian one. 

  None of them have ever protested against the "separation of synagogue and state". 

 For those who are not familiar with the Noahide laws, it is noteworthy that the first one of them is a Jewish prohibition against "idolatry" whose definition includes the worship of any "man" as God. This would include the person Jesus Christ whom Jews consider merely a man. And that's putting it nicely. 

 The Noahide penalty for idolatry calls for death by guillotine. They describe this method as being the most humane among the options which are prescribed. 

 So are you like so many others who remain bewildered by the objections so many people have against the establishment of a "New World Order". Papa Bush used the term himself. He's the same one who signed off on the Noahide Laws in behalf of Chabad Lubavitch. 

 You can do simple arithmetic can't you?


 There is no law against being an atheist or a Secular Humanist or even a Jew. 
 There are only laws which have been written according to certain principles of fairness that are designed to prevent one man from abusing another. 

 THOSE laws EVERYONE is bound to follow. That would include Jews as well as atheists or Satanists or any other kind of 'ist.

 The principles upon which those laws are based can be gleaned from New Testament Christianity. 
 The law of "Divine Right" you referred to is probably something attributable to Catholicism. 

 Protestant Christians do not recognize the Pope as being representative of divine authority any more than they do King Yomamma. 

 No where in Christian theology will you find an edict demanding that non-Christians should be beheaded. 

 In Judaism as well as Islam you CAN!


----------



## BreezeWood

> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, this is quite different than the Spiritual Force humans have connected with since we became civilized creatures. That force has been the catalyst and inspiration for all of human advancement and humanities and our ability to connect with it, remains our most defining attribute as a species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marx, A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right 1844
> 
> In Marx's view, the poor and oppressed were the original creators of religion, and they used it as a way to reassure themselves that they would have a better life in the future, after death. Thus, it served as a kind of "opium," or a way to escape the harsh realities of the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



just a contrast between two views of the same subject, I agree with both and do not believe one is exclusive of the other but that certain factions of each are instrumental through deliberation to make a separation between spiritual and practical needs for alterior motivations ... in many cases deliberate suppression from advancements for shortsighted and dubious gains.

.


----------



## koshergrl

Gadawg73 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Numbers in the US are declining, as our schools and media work harder and harder to portray those of faith as stupid or extremist...
> 
> But Christianity world wide is increasing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The question has NEVER been if Christianity is bad or not.
> That is the myth you have been conned into believing as the naive and gullible sheeple are easily manipulated.
> The question is if this country was founded on one religion or not.
> And the overwhelming undisputed evidence is the Founders WENT OUT OF THEIR WAY to keep ALL religions out of government.
> Because this nation was founded as a secular government.
Click to expand...



no, that isn't the question. Maybe it's the question in some other thread. Feel free to go there.


----------



## Boss

Gadawg73 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Numbers in the US are declining, as our schools and media work harder and harder to portray those of faith as stupid or extremist...
> 
> But Christianity world wide is increasing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The question has NEVER been if Christianity is bad or not.
> That is the myth you have been conned into believing as the naive and gullible sheeple are easily manipulated.
> *The question is if this country was founded on one religion or not.*
> And the overwhelming undisputed evidence is the Founders WENT OUT OF THEIR WAY to keep ALL religions out of government.
> Because this nation was founded as a secular government.
Click to expand...


Wow... Could've sworn the question was "Why do the God-haters persist?" 

Our nation was NOT founded as a "secular nation" or this would have been clearly indicated in our founding documents. This nation was converted to a secular nation in 1947 when Hugo Black misinterpreted the establishment clause. Before then, it was clearly a Judeo-Christian nation founded on the principle of religious freedom. 

The founders all went out of their way to ensure religious freedom would be protected and that government would not interfere with religious beliefs. Jefferson even articulated the reassurance to Danbury Baptists as a "wall of separation" to protect religion from governmental influence or interference, as was the case in England. To completely destroy your "secular nation" argument, Jefferson ended his letter to Danbury Baptists with a completely 'non-secular' prayer, in his official capacity as President of the United States. 

Here's what our premier Founding Father, George Washington, had to say in his Farewell Address: 

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are *indispensable supports*. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both *forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."*

Many other Founding Father quotes reflect the same sentiment for God in government:

"The Declaration of Independence laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity." - John Adams 

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great Nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ." - Patrick Henry 

We have staked the whole future of our new nation, not upon the power of government; far from it. We have staked the future of all our political constitutions upon the capacity of each of ourselves to govern ourselves according to the moral principles of the Ten Commandments. - James Madison

Religion [is] the basis and foundation of Government - James Madison 

"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is their duty  as well as privilege and interest  of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." - John Jay 

Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. - Benjamin Franklin

_*...and a few others...*_

I verily believe Christianity necessary to the support of civil society. One of the beautiful boasts of our municipal jurisprudence is that Christianity is a part of the Common Law  There never has been a period in which the Common Law did not recognize Christianity as lying its foundations. - Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story

[The Bible] is the rock on which our Republic rests. - Andrew Jackson

"This nation under God.." - Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg Address and inscribed on Lincoln Memorial

"And whereas it is the duty of nations as well as of men, to own their dependence upon the overruling power of God  and to recognize the sublime truth, announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history, that those nations only are blessed whose God is the Lord." - Abraham Lincoln

This is a Christian nation - United States Supreme Court Decision in Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 1892 

USA Constitution  First Amendment
Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the *Year of our Lord* one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth

.............Now, forgive me, but these quotes and proclamations seem rather unusual and odd for people who thought we were a "secular nation" in any context of the word.


----------



## BreezeWood

> holston said:
> 
> 
> 
> No person who lacks the faith that Yomamma has been granted divine wisdom and authority would agree that this is a good thing. Nevertheless the Zionist Supremacists and the Marxist black, Mexican, and dope head suckers seem to think so. One can only suppose that they seek a government redistribution of wealth more than a lasting freedom. The only way they could reasonably embrace such a notion is if they were fools enough to believe that a country can prosper under those conditions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I gotta hand that one to you holston, a work of Art.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> holston said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Founders believed that the "Divine right" originated with God, NOT man. They spell that out clearly in the opening to the Declaration of Independence:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Notice that they say that certain truths are "self evident" and that they are "endowed by their Creator".
> 
> That's hardly a declaration of secularism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *... by their Creator*
> 
> that most certainly is secular and does not ascribe any particular religion.
> 
> 
> * was that a post or a pre-write for Sundays sermon ???
> 
> .
Click to expand...


----------



## orogenicman

Boss said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Numbers in the US are declining, as our schools and media work harder and harder to portray those of faith as stupid or extremist...
> 
> But Christianity world wide is increasing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The question has NEVER been if Christianity is bad or not.
> That is the myth you have been conned into believing as the naive and gullible sheeple are easily manipulated.
> *The question is if this country was founded on one religion or not.*
> And the overwhelming undisputed evidence is the Founders WENT OUT OF THEIR WAY to keep ALL religions out of government.
> Because this nation was founded as a secular government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow... Could've sworn the question was "Why do the God-haters persist?"
> 
> Our nation was NOT founded as a "secular nation" or this would have been clearly indicated in our founding documents. This nation was converted to a secular nation in 1947 when Hugo Black misinterpreted the establishment clause. Before then, it was clearly a Judeo-Christian nation founded on the principle of religious freedom.
> 
> The founders all went out of their way to ensure religious freedom would be protected and that government would not interfere with religious beliefs. Jefferson even articulated the reassurance to Danbury Baptists as a "wall of separation" to protect religion from governmental influence or interference, as was the case in England. To completely destroy your "secular nation" argument, Jefferson ended his letter to Danbury Baptists with a completely 'non-secular' prayer, in his official capacity as President of the United States.
> 
> Here's what our premier Founding Father, George Washington, had to say in his Farewell Address:
> 
> "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are *indispensable supports*. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both *forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."*
> 
> Many other Founding Father quotes reflect the same sentiment for God in government:
> 
> "The Declaration of Independence laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity." - John Adams
> 
> "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great Nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ." - Patrick Henry
> 
> We have staked the whole future of our new nation, not upon the power of government; far from it. We have staked the future of all our political constitutions upon the capacity of each of ourselves to govern ourselves according to the moral principles of the Ten Commandments. - James Madison
> 
> Religion [is] the basis and foundation of Government - James Madison
> 
> "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is their duty  as well as privilege and interest  of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." - John Jay
> 
> Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. - Benjamin Franklin
> 
> _*...and a few others...*_
> 
> I verily believe Christianity necessary to the support of civil society. One of the beautiful boasts of our municipal jurisprudence is that Christianity is a part of the Common Law  There never has been a period in which the Common Law did not recognize Christianity as lying its foundations. - Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story
> 
> [The Bible] is the rock on which our Republic rests. - Andrew Jackson
> 
> "This nation under God.." - Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg Address and inscribed on Lincoln Memorial
> 
> "And whereas it is the duty of nations as well as of men, to own their dependence upon the overruling power of God  and to recognize the sublime truth, announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history, that those nations only are blessed whose God is the Lord." - Abraham Lincoln
> 
> This is a Christian nation - United States Supreme Court Decision in Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 1892
> 
> USA Constitution  First Amendment
> Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the *Year of our Lord* one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth
> 
> .............Now, forgive me, but these quotes and proclamations seem rather unusual and odd for people who thought we were a "secular nation" in any context of the word.
Click to expand...


Clearly the majority of the nation's people are Christian, and live by Christian traditions and standards, such as they are.  But to suggest that our government is anything other than a secular one is to attempt to revise history.  The United States is not a theocracy no matter how badly you may want it to be.  The United States government is a republic, and that is just about as secular as it gets.  If you are looking for a theocracy, may I suggest you move to the Vatican or else Iran may take you in.


----------



## koshergrl

The whole premise of equality is a Christian one, and the founding fathers were eloquent about that in many writings.

Nonetheless, gadawg is just drunk again, and doesn't know what the hell is going on. That was certainly not the topic of this thread.


----------



## holston

BreezeWood said:


> holston said:
> 
> 
> 
> No person who lacks the faith that Yomamma has been granted divine wisdom and authority would agree that this is a good thing. Nevertheless the Zionist Supremacists and the Marxist black, Mexican, and dope head suckers seem to think so. One can only suppose that they seek a government redistribution of wealth more than a lasting freedom. The only way they could reasonably embrace such a notion is if they were fools enough to believe that a country can prosper under those conditions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I gotta hand that one to you holston, a work of Art.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *... by their Creator*
> 
> that most certainly is secular and does not ascribe any particular religion.
> 
> 
> * was that a post or a pre-write for Sundays sermon ???
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why thank you very much.
> 
> I suppose one could take "Creator" to mean many things, Odin, Zeus, Isis, Dr Frankenstein, Aliens from another Galaxy, Carl Sagan, The Almighty Primordial Amoeba,  A space rock, The Great Pumpkin.....take your pick".
> If nothing in this little list appeals to you, just make something up. All you have to do is wish upon a star and there you have it.
> 
> But I seriously doubt if the Founders were referring to the likes of any of them when they made the statements quoted by da Boss manes.
> 
> 
> If my reply sounded like a sermon to you, we'll just have to chalk that up to your interpretation of it. Look very carefully and you'll see that it was mostly a reply to Gawdogdiggity dawg.
> 
> 
> Did you overlook the part towards the end about the Noahide Laws and Chabbad Lubavitches House Resolution?
> 
> What SECULAR religion would you ascribe THAT to?
Click to expand...


----------



## Boss

orogenicman said:


> Clearly the majority of the nation's people are Christian, and live by Christian traditions and standards, such as they are.  But to suggest that our government is anything other than a secular one is to attempt to revise history.  The United States is not a theocracy no matter how badly you may want it to be.  The United States government is a republic, and that is just about as secular as it gets.  If you are looking for a theocracy, may I suggest you move to the Vatican or else Iran may take you in.



History was revised in 1947 by Justice Hugo Black. The foundation of our great nation was established on a completely religious principle that all men are created equal and endowed rights by a Creator. (Note the capitalization, Breeze.) To suggest this implies "secular" in any way, is just plain dishonest. 

The United States is NOT a theocracy, I never claimed it was. In fact, the United States can never BE a theocracy as long as we have a First Amendment, it is expressly forbidden.


----------



## MaryL

My priest, years ago practically apologized for all  the Catholic  church's weakness...Then, he died from  Cirrhosis   of the liver. Too much sacramental wine. We all have a weakness or other.  The lesson I learned.


----------



## holston

orogenicman said:


> *Clearly the majority of the nation's people are Christian, and live by Christian traditions and standards,* such as they are.  *But to suggest that our government is anything other than a secular one is to attempt to revise history*.  The United States is not a theocracy no matter how badly you may want it to be.  The United States government is a republic, and that is just about as secular as it gets.  If you are looking for a theocracy, may I suggest you move to the Vatican or else Iran may take you in.



  So we "clearly" have a majority of the nation claiming to be Christians having those standards and traditions you say?

 I could argue with you whether the majority of them are in any more than name only, but that's another problem. 

 Still it seems odd that a bunch of people who by your own admission would profess to some sort of Christian affiliation would be any more averse to having a nation based on those principles than the Jews would want one based on the enforced assumption of Jewish Supremacy. 

 That would be like saying that although Muslims have been ordered by Muhammed to decapitate all infidels resisting conversion or submission to slavery would have no interest in declaring Sharia Law to be the law of the land. 

 Are Jews less dedicated to their own ethnic and religious heritage than people of other persuasions?

 Or are there so many atheists and Secular Humanists among them that they have lost interest in everything about Judaism except for their mutually shared desire to achieve dominion over everyone else?

 It's funny that you should suggest a revision of history given the Jewish penchant for doing the same. 


 Indeed the Founders did NOT intend to establish a Theocracy. This can easily be surmised from the fact that there are so many different denominations of "Christianity" which have sprung up since then. 
  Being Protestants it's certain that they did not wish for a repeat of Bloody Mary or King Henry. I would agree with Gawdog that they surely did not desire any more of THAT "sh!t". 

 AND they probably had the foresight to anticipate a time in the future in which some OTHER religious order that laid no claim to Christianity might usurp all power of government for themselves and then attempt to establish a Theocracy of their own in place of the Constitution. 

 Although the Muslims certainly wish they could, it is the Jews who have positioned themselves to have a chance of actually being able to do so. 

 Before this could be accomplished they would first have to remove all traces of Christian iconography which might serve as a reminder to those who have abandoned the faith, prohibit by law any mention of it in the public sphere, remove the teaching of it from as many venues as possible, starting with public schools, and make the preaching of any doctrine of Christ which is contrary to bastions of political correctness such as the homosexual lobby punishable by law. 

 In Communist China and the former Soviet Union all expression of the Christian faith have been severely frowned upon as you are probably aware. A condition which the U.S. grows nearer to as the days pass. 

 Do you suppose that bloody history could be revised as well given a completely State owned Communist or Secular Humanist press?


 It appears that those who wish to eradicate Christianity in any form, heretical or otherwise, would probably approach the problem by way of all the operations listed above. 

 Perhaps the easiest and most effective means of "Blotting out his name" would be to encourage the people to do so themselves. Movies, books, TV, radio, magazines, "scholarly" journals, public education could all become vehicles to accomplish this objective in the hands of people who were organized, racially, ethically and religiously motivated by a commonly shared "faith" and who are skilled in Public Relations and advertising campaigns. 

 Can you think of any particular religious/racial/ethnic group that would fit that description having the means, the motive and the capital to finance it?


 I concur with Washington et al on the desirable traits of a nations leaders and people. 

 I would also agree that the best way to ensure that no Supremacist or head chopping Theocracies be afforded the opportunity to arise to such power without the express consent of the people themselves would be to construct a Constitutional system which distributed power to elected representatives of the people, and not place it all in the hands of those who would dismantle or subvert it altogether. In short, I would wish to give the people the opportunity to choose their own poison, and not force it down their throats as some would be dictators would like to. 

 It isn't I who want a Theocracy.  YOU are gravely mistaken on that point and have done me an injustice by implying that I did. 

 But if YOU are determined that your desire for a society whose majority abhor religious constraint, moral admonishments, and whose God's are their stomachs then I would congratulate your fellows on a job well done. You appear to be well on your way to seeing your dreams realized. Only I don't believe for a minute that it will be anything like the utopia you envision.


----------



## orogenicman

holston said:
			
		

> Still it seems odd that a bunch of people who by your own admission would profess to some sort of Christian affiliation would be any more averse to having a nation based on those principles than the Jews would want one based on the enforced assumption of Jewish Supremacy.



Why? Because the colonies saw religious strife throughout it's history prior to the 13 colonies becoming a nation. The founding fathers wanted to mitigate such religious strife and said so on many occasions. That is the reason they included freedom of religion as the FIRST amendment. And you cannot have freedom of religion when one religion is ruling over another.



			
				holston said:
			
		

> But if YOU are determined that your desire for a society whose majority abhor religious constraint, moral admonishments, and whose God's are their stomachs then I would congratulate your fellows on a job well done. You appear to be well on your way to seeing your dreams realized. Only I don't believe for a minute that it will be anything like the utopia you envision.



If you believe that the religiously devout are the only ones who understand and practice morality, then you don't know much about people outside of your own narrow world view. If you believe that religions have not been a party to barbarity and immoral behavior, then you don't know much about the history of religions.


----------



## orogenicman

Boss said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly the majority of the nation's people are Christian, and live by Christian traditions and standards, such as they are. But to suggest that our government is anything other than a secular one is to attempt to revise history. The United States is not a theocracy no matter how badly you may want it to be. The United States government is a republic, and that is just about as secular as it gets. If you are looking for a theocracy, may I suggest you move to the Vatican or else Iran may take you in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> History was revised in 1947 by Justice Hugo Black. The foundation of *our great nation was established on a completely religious principle that all men are created equal and endowed rights by a Creator*. (Note the capitalization, Breeze.) To suggest this implies "secular" in any way, is just plain dishonest.
> 
> The United States is NOT a theocracy, I never claimed it was. In fact, the United States can never BE a theocracy as long as we have a First Amendment, it is expressly forbidden.
Click to expand...


Erm, the declaration of independence is not the law of the law. It was a letter to Mad King George declaring our independence from his tyranny. Next. And the establishment of a religious nation (particularly one based on Christianity) was never stated in the declaration as a goal, nor was it ever expressed as a goal in any other founding document. You really should read it before you make such silly claims.


----------



## koshergrl

Morality does always originate with religion.

I don't understand the pretense that there are non-religious, yet insanely moral, societies out there doing fabulously. It's a pipe dream.


----------



## orogenicman

koshergrl said:


> Morality does always originate with religion.



If your argument were true, all atheists would be rapists, thieves, and murderers. Except by and large, we are better behaved than many so-called moral-religious people. You don't see us building rape compounds like the Branch Davidians did, or like Jeff Warrems did, or feeding poisoned Kool-Aid to our family and friends, like Jim Jones did, do you?

So I am calling you out on your bullshite statement.


----------



## koshergrl

No, that's a logical fallacy. 

Most atheists live in communities that are held together by laws...laws that have their basis in religion.

So your assumption is not valid.


----------



## orogenicman

koshergrl said:


> No, that's a logical fallacy.
> 
> Most atheists live in communities that are held together by laws...laws that have their basis in religion.
> 
> So your assumption is not valid.



Do try to substantiate that claim. (this should be good)


----------



## Boss

orogenicman said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly the majority of the nation's people are Christian, and live by Christian traditions and standards, such as they are. But to suggest that our government is anything other than a secular one is to attempt to revise history. The United States is not a theocracy no matter how badly you may want it to be. The United States government is a republic, and that is just about as secular as it gets. If you are looking for a theocracy, may I suggest you move to the Vatican or else Iran may take you in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> History was revised in 1947 by Justice Hugo Black. The foundation of *our great nation was established on a completely religious principle that all men are created equal and endowed rights by a Creator*. (Note the capitalization, Breeze.) To suggest this implies "secular" in any way, is just plain dishonest.
> 
> The United States is NOT a theocracy, I never claimed it was. In fact, the United States can never BE a theocracy as long as we have a First Amendment, it is expressly forbidden.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Erm, the declaration of independence is not the law of the law. It was a letter to Mad King George declaring our independence from his tyranny. Next. And the establishment of a religious nation (particularly one based on Christianity) was never stated in the declaration as a goal, nor was it ever expressed as a goal in any other founding document. You really should read it before you make such silly claims.
Click to expand...


It's not supposed to be "law of the land" and it wasn't written to be. It's the founding establishment of our nation. I didn't say it was our goal to establish a Christian theocracy. It certainly wasn't, or we wouldn't have had the First Amendment. Try to get this through your thick head, we were established on a Judeo-Christian principle that all men are created equally and endowed rights by a Creator, among those rights is the freedom to worship however we please without persecution. We can't BE a theocracy, unless we abolish the First Amendment. 

It's certainly not a silly claim, it's right there in black and white for everyone to see. The silly claim is that we are a "secular" nation or else a "theocracy" when we are neither.


----------



## Boss

> Do try to substantiate that claim. (this should be good)



Tell you what do... YOU pick a law, any law... and then I will give you the specific religious underpinning for that law.


----------



## orogenicman

Boss said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> History was revised in 1947 by Justice Hugo Black. The foundation of *our great nation was established on a completely religious principle that all men are created equal and endowed rights by a Creator*. (Note the capitalization, Breeze.) To suggest this implies "secular" in any way, is just plain dishonest.
> 
> The United States is NOT a theocracy, I never claimed it was. In fact, the United States can never BE a theocracy as long as we have a First Amendment, it is expressly forbidden.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Erm, the declaration of independence is not the law of the law. It was a letter to Mad King George declaring our independence from his tyranny. Next. And the establishment of a religious nation (particularly one based on Christianity) was never stated in the declaration as a goal, nor was it ever expressed as a goal in any other founding document. You really should read it before you make such silly claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not supposed to be "law of the land" and it wasn't written to be. It's the founding establishment of our nation. I didn't say it was our goal to establish a Christian theocracy. It certainly wasn't, or we wouldn't have had the First Amendment. Try to get this through your thick head, we were established on a Judeo-Christian principle that all men are created equally and endowed rights by a Creator, among those rights is the freedom to worship however we please without persecution. We can't BE a theocracy, unless we abolish the First Amendment.
> 
> It's certainly not a silly claim, it's right there in black and white for everyone to see. The silly claim is that we are a "secular" nation or else a "theocracy" when we are neither.
Click to expand...


Except that the notion of equality didn't originate from Christianity or Judaism (far from it), and our founders weren't the first to express the idea. Thomas Jefferson and many other founders were slave holders, and didn't treat them very well either. That is the 'Christian' tradition that original founded our society. So sorry to disappoint you.


----------



## Boss

orogenicman said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Erm, the declaration of independence is not the law of the law. It was a letter to Mad King George declaring our independence from his tyranny. Next. And the establishment of a religious nation (particularly one based on Christianity) was never stated in the declaration as a goal, nor was it ever expressed as a goal in any other founding document. You really should read it before you make such silly claims.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not supposed to be "law of the land" and it wasn't written to be. It's the founding establishment of our nation. I didn't say it was our goal to establish a Christian theocracy. It certainly wasn't, or we wouldn't have had the First Amendment. Try to get this through your thick head, we were established on a Judeo-Christian principle that all men are created equally and endowed rights by a Creator, among those rights is the freedom to worship however we please without persecution. We can't BE a theocracy, unless we abolish the First Amendment.
> 
> It's certainly not a silly claim, it's right there in black and white for everyone to see. The silly claim is that we are a "secular" nation or else a "theocracy" when we are neither.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that the notion of equality didn't originate from Christianity or Judaism (far from it), and our founders weren't the first to express the idea. Thomas Jefferson and many other founders were slave holders, and didn't treat them very well either. That is the 'Christian' tradition that original founded our society. So sorry to disappoint you.
Click to expand...


The notion of a Creator who endows all men equally with rights, is most certainly a Judeo-Christian notion. The argument has nothing to do with who came up with the idea first or the institution of slavery which had existed since before Christianity. Again, we didn't establish a Christian Theocracy. 

I don't know how Jefferson treated slaves and it doesn't matter. At the time, they weren't considered people. However, when Abraham Lincoln emancipated the slaves and ended slavery, he did so on the basis of the very same Judeo-Christian principle we were founded upon. He couldn't have done that if we had been a "secular" nation.


----------



## koshergrl

Jefferson was open about his struggle with his ideals vs. his slave ownership. He thought that our country was not in a position to deal with the issue at the same time it was dealing with revolution issues/new nation issues.


----------



## orogenicman

koshergrl said:


> Jefferson was open about his struggle with his ideals vs. his slave ownership. He thought that our country was not in a position to deal with the issue at the same time it was dealing with revolution issues/new nation issues.



Actually, he was very secretive about the fact that he owned slave.  Although he called slavery an abomination, his very livelihood depended on it:

Scientific American Frontiers . Unearthing Secret America . Slave Housing at Monticello | PBS


----------



## Gadawg73

koshergrl said:


> No, that's a logical fallacy.
> 
> Most atheists live in communities that are held together by laws...laws that have their basis in religion.
> 
> So your assumption is not valid.



LOL, communities have been slaughtering each other since the inception of religion.
BECAUSE OF THEIR DIFFERENCES OF RELIGION.
If there is one common denominator of what TEARS APART communities over the last 4000 years it is RELIGION.
Where do you come up with your nonsense?
You WANT to believe this so it makes it true.


----------



## Gadawg73

Jefferson held a woman in bondage, fucked her, forced her to bear his children and felt real bad about it.
Sure, right.
This is the man that cut and pasted selective parts of the Bible because he labeled most of it folly.
If we want to stick to the facts.


----------



## Gadawg73

Boss said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> History was revised in 1947 by Justice Hugo Black. The foundation of *our great nation was established on a completely religious principle that all men are created equal and endowed rights by a Creator*. (Note the capitalization, Breeze.) To suggest this implies "secular" in any way, is just plain dishonest.
> 
> The United States is NOT a theocracy, I never claimed it was. In fact, the United States can never BE a theocracy as long as we have a First Amendment, it is expressly forbidden.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Erm, the declaration of independence is not the law of the law. It was a letter to Mad King George declaring our independence from his tyranny. Next. And the establishment of a religious nation (particularly one based on Christianity) was never stated in the declaration as a goal, nor was it ever expressed as a goal in any other founding document. You really should read it before you make such silly claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not supposed to be "law of the land" and it wasn't written to be. It's the founding establishment of our nation. I didn't say it was our goal to establish a Christian theocracy. It certainly wasn't, or we wouldn't have had the First Amendment. Try to get this through your thick head, we were established on a Judeo-Christian principle that all men are created equally and endowed rights by a Creator, among those rights is the freedom to worship however we please without persecution. We can't BE a theocracy, unless we abolish the First Amendment.
> 
> It's certainly not a silly claim, it's right there in black and white for everyone to see. The silly claim is that we are a "secular" nation or else a "theocracy" when we are neither.
Click to expand...


We were founded as a nation OF LAWS, not God's laws as divine right was God's laws.
We were founded on MAN'S LAWS. 
The United States Constitution, a document you spit on and take for granted the very rights it gave freeing you from the bondage religion had on man for centuries.


----------



## koshergrl

Anyway, back to the topic...laws that promote liberty and equality are all bible based.

Time for gaddawg to pass out shortly. It's been what, a 24 hour bender?


----------



## orogenicman

koshergrl said:


> Anyway, back to the topic...laws that promote liberty and equality are all bible based.
> 
> Time for gaddawg to pass out shortly. It's been what, a 24 hour bender?



When is liberty and equality cited in the Bible?  When Abraham owned slaves?  When Jesus gave advice for to people who owned slaves?    When?


----------



## koshergrl

You're kidding..or else you're painfully ignorant.


----------



## holston

orogenicman said:


> holston said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still it seems odd that a bunch of people who by your own admission would profess to some sort of Christian affiliation would be any more averse to having a nation based on those principles than the Jews would want one based on the enforced assumption of Jewish Supremacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why? Because the colonies saw religious strife throughout it's history prior to the 13 colonies becoming a nation. The founding fathers wanted to mitigate such religious strife and said so on many occasions. That is the reason they included freedom of religion as the FIRST amendment. And you cannot have freedom of religion when one religion is ruling over another.
Click to expand...


 Everyone should want to mitigate religious strife. Not everyone does. 

 Yes. The Freedom of Religion was intended to prevent government interference in peoples religion, not to prevent people with religious beliefs from occupying positions within government or acting upon _their own_ religious convictions. Otherwise Rabbi Joseph Lieberman would never have been admitted to Congress nor Ruth Ginsberg to the Supreme court. Ginsberg has stated openly that her Judaism influences her decisions. No doubt Lieberman's orthodox Judaism does as well. 
 I mentioned this before but you must have forgotten. 

 The JUDEO-xtians who serve Zion before Christ should be made aware that all Jews of religious convictions are Supremacists and are no more compromising about that than the Muslims are about Muhammed. 

 Because of these convictions, both the Jews and the Muslims will seek to eradicate Christianity if at all possible. There are no ifs, ands, or buts about it. People remain as free today to reject the teachings of Christ as they ever were. There is no man made law possible that could ever FORCE any person to accept Christ, not even an government authorization to torture those who don't 

 On the other hand, Talmudic Judaism as well as Islam would FORCE non Jews or non Muslims to serve Jews or Muslims respectively. Christian teachings permit as many people who desire to serve the devil as will. 
However laws built on Christian principles would forbid ANYONE the "freedom" to just do whatever in hell they please despite whatever they think about Jesus Christ. 





orogenicman said:


> If you believe that the religiously devout are the only ones who understand and practice morality, then you don't know much about people outside of your own narrow world view. If you believe that religions have not been a party to barbarity and immoral behavior, then you don't know much about the history of religions.



 I don't believe that and I never indicated that I did. 

 However I do believe that there is merit in preaching the teachings of Christ and that a society which practices those principles will benefit from them. 

 The Founders prohibition of government enacting laws to either censor or enforce the traditions of one particular religion over another was not intended to bar the belief in or respect of God. I stated this earlier with reference to Bloody Mary and King Henry.
 It absolutely was not intended to prohibit Christianity or as a back door means of endorsing Judaism, Islam, Secular Humanism, or Godless Communism. That's exactly what some people are trying to sneak in under the guise of "separation of church and state".

 If you are trying to suggest that the Founders were Darwinian atheists you have a lot of explaining to do.

 What kind of fools do you take us for?


 Romans 2:


> 12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For *it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God&#8217;s sight, but it is those who obey the law* who will be declared righteous. 14 (*Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness,* and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God judges people&#8217;s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.



 The explanation as to why moral intuition exists even outside the declaration of Christ is given in the Bible itself. 

 What does this mean?
 Does it mean that God has nothing to do with the moral instincts of man?

 NOT in the least!

 What that indicates is that the moral nature of man is a natural part of man.

 Why? 
 Because God doesn't exist?

 Absolutely not!

 It's because God DOES exist and because God CREATED man, not the other way around. 

 You should consider the nature of "God" himself. The Bible states that God is "love". 
 What does this mean?
 That God is Amoral?
 No! Just the opposite. 

 It means that God is the fountain of morality because in essence "God" IS morality. 

 Since God created man, it is only natural that he should instinctively be aware of moral constructs which ought to govern the behavior of men. 

 You would have us believe that man CREATES morality. Or that moral standards have no commonality between one race or culture when they obviously do. 
 The differences exist because of the differences in traditions and differences between the doctrines which are taught. 
  Talmudic Judaism naturally bears some semblances to Christianity in it's rules and regulations. The chief difference lies in the Talmudic doctrine that places Jews above others and reserves certain aspects of charitable behavior to be practiced exclusively among Jews while condoning certain practices against outsiders which Christianity does not condone in any case. 
 Islam makes similar reservations. 

 There is no doubt that a man can be taught to behave one way or another and that these teachings can effect the way in which he treats others because there is no doubt that the moral instincts which we both admit can be found universally can be overridden by depraved and morally destitute individuals REGARDLESS of what they have been taught. 


 What you people keep missing is the difference between the TEACHINGS of CHRIST and the ACTIONS of MEN, whether they do them in this name or that one. 
  An act which is condemned by Christ remains condemned whether a "Christian" commits them or anyone else. 
 When this happens, those actions in no way nullify what Christ has spoken about them. 

 You are also kidding yourself if you think that the censorship or eradication of Christianity would eliminate the IMMORAL behaviors of men.


----------



## BreezeWood

Boss said:


> History was revised in 1947 by Justice Hugo Black. The foundation of our great nation was established on a completely religious principle that all men are created equal and endowed rights by a Creator. (Note the capitalization, Breeze.) To suggest this implies "secular" in any way, is just plain dishonest.






> An Outline of Baptist Persecution in Colonial America
> 
> The fight for religious liberty in America extended from the early 17th century to the early 19th century. Of the various religious sects in America, Baptists were the most persecuted, and thus became the most vocal advocates of religious liberty and separation of church and state, taking the lead in the establishment of religious liberty and separation of church and state first in Virginia, and then at the federal level.




just a snapshot, posted earlier ...


the problem fundies have, is not what the intent of the Constitution is but who actually wrote it .... they were the leading "Liberals" of the time and wrote a Liberal inspired document the reactionaries have desperately fought against since the ink began to dry.

Boss, the issue is Separation of Church and State not your latent religious rhetoric and was both the intent of those who convened to establish a Constitution but in most instances of these dispute was categorically "written" by the Liberal theology of that time to be indisputably understood.


*Boss: To suggest this implies "secular" in any way, is just plain dishonest.* 


no, Separation of Church and State defined by our Constitution by the Liberal theology of its text is not only secular but was the first of its kind in the history of mankind - it is your religious dishonesty that is appalling and you are the threat the Constitution was written for.

.


----------



## holston

BreezeWood said:


> no, Separation of Church and State defined by our Constitution by the *Liberal theology* of its text is not only secular but was the first of its kind in the history of mankind - it is your religious dishonesty that is appalling and *you are the threat the Constitution was written for.*
> 
> .



Show me your "Separation of Church and State" amendment. 



> Amendment I: *Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;* or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.



 This says that the government cannot establish a religion or interfere with a persons religious beliefs. 

 So why aren't you "liberals" up in arms about the Noahide House Resolution?

 Do you want to venture a guess or shall I tell you?



Bill Text - 102nd Congress (1991-1992) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

 This was just a way setting a legal precedent for things to come, namely opening the door to Government enforced JUDAISM which means one set of rules and regulations for Jews and another for all the non-Jews. The one for non-Jews are called "Noahide" by the Jews. 
 This is clearly a VIOLATION of your "separation of church and synagogue" argument. Yet Papa Weenie Bush gave it his blessings and Bush the Boob Junior later became President.  

 No doubt the Founders had the prevention of something like this in mind when they wrote the first amendment. 

 If "WASP" America wants to surrender the US to Zionist Jews and their Secular Humanist, atheist Marxist allies then they will just have to suffer the consequences. 

 I for one will not if there is anything I can do to prevent it. 


 This is the problem with so called "multiculturalism" and "diversification". 

 I hear the  mostly Jewish protagonists for it being featured by the "right wing" "Republican" NEO-CON talking heads off and on all the time. 

 Just today one of the female Laura what's her name had some Jewiss on hawking her new book and explaining how desirable it is to have "diversity" in everything. 

 The worst thing in the world that could happen according to her is to have a group of nothing but "white" men making decisions. 

 She would have us believe that a bunch of people having contrary religions, speaking different languages, and all vying for power and disagreeing on everything under the son is infinitely preferable to just leaving "white" men the hell alone. 

 I say "white" because "white" in the context in which she used it could only refer to "white" gentiles. 
 "White" Jews are a horse of a different color. 

 How long Oh Lord shall I have to tolerate this brood of vipers?


----------



## koshergrl

I love it when anti-Christian goons maintain that anyone who says this country was founded on Christian principles (as it definitely was) or disagrees with their ridiculous contention that the founding fathers were LIBERALS as liberals are defined today...are FUNDIES.

Sorry, Southern Baptist isn't *fundy*. Nor is Catholic. Nor is whatever Boss is.


----------



## orogenicman

holston said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> holston said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still it seems odd that a bunch of people who by your own admission would profess to some sort of Christian affiliation would be any more averse to having a nation based on those principles than the Jews would want one based on the enforced assumption of Jewish Supremacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why? Because the colonies saw religious strife throughout it's history prior to the 13 colonies becoming a nation. The founding fathers wanted to mitigate such religious strife and said so on many occasions. That is the reason they included freedom of religion as the FIRST amendment. And you cannot have freedom of religion when one religion is ruling over another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone should want to mitigate religious strife. Not everyone does.
> 
> Yes. The Freedom of Religion was intended to prevent government interference in peoples religion, not to prevent people with religious beliefs from occupying positions within government or acting upon _their own_ religious convictions. Otherwise Rabbi Joseph Lieberman would never have been admitted to Congress nor Ruth Ginsberg to the Supreme court. Ginsberg has stated openly that her Judaism influences her decisions. No doubt Lieberman's orthodox Judaism does as well.
> I mentioned this before but you must have forgotten.
> 
> The JUDEO-xtians who serve Zion before Christ should be made aware that all Jews of religious convictions are Supremacists and are no more compromising about that than the Muslims are about Muhammed.
> 
> Because of these convictions, both the Jews and the Muslims will seek to eradicate Christianity if at all possible.
Click to expand...


<snipped the remaining train wreck>

I think you are in the wrong forum. This should be posted in the flame zone. Moderators, can you move the post above to the rubber room?  I think it qualifies.


----------



## orogenicman

koshergrl said:


> I love it when anti-Christian goons maintain that anyone who says this country was founded on Christian principles (as it definitely was) or disagrees with their ridiculous contention that the founding fathers were LIBERALS as liberals are defined today...are FUNDIES.
> 
> Sorry, Southern Baptist isn't *fundy*. Nor is Catholic. Nor is whatever Boss is.



The real question is do Christians actually keep kosher?


----------



## Boss

> no, Separation of Church and State defined by our Constitution by the Liberal theology of its text is not only secular but was the first of its kind in the history of mankind - it is your religious dishonesty that is appalling and you are the threat the Constitution was written for.



I've not been dishonest, I've stated nothing but verifiable facts. Our nation is certainly NOT secular, nor is it a theocracy. We have freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. There wasn't a problem with the understanding of this until 1947, when Hugo Black decided to misinterpret Jefferson's "wall of separation" to mean we're supposed to have a secular government. "Secular" means without deference to religion. Our nation was founded and constitution written to give equal deference to ALL religion.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> no, Separation of Church and State defined by our Constitution by the Liberal theology of its text is not only secular but was the first of its kind in the history of mankind - it is your religious dishonesty that is appalling and you are the threat the Constitution was written for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've not been dishonest, I've stated nothing but verifiable facts. Our nation is certainly NOT secular, nor is it a theocracy. We have freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. There wasn't a problem with the understanding of this until 1947, when Hugo Black decided to misinterpret Jefferson's "wall of separation" to mean we're supposed to have a secular government. "Secular" means without deference to religion. Our nation was founded and constitution written to give equal deference to ALL religion.
Click to expand...


Clueless.

The Constitution is a secular document.

There is no way to have freedom _of_ religion without also having freedom _from_ religion. If it were otherwise, then Moslems could argue that Christians are not permitted to have freedom _from_ believing in Islam! Or Christians could claim that Moslems could not be permitted to have freedom_from_ Christianity! Freedom _from_ is part and parcel of freedom _of_.

The _entire_ constitution is rules that limit the government's involvement in the citizen's lives. It is clearly a muzzle on the state's ability to dictate to the citizenry what it can and cannot do within the paradigm of the federal mandate. Certainly rule of law is to be enforced, but that is also controlled at the local level. So it is not any news that government is restrained from interfering with religion.


----------



## orogenicman

Boss said:


> no, Separation of Church and State defined by our Constitution by the Liberal theology of its text is not only secular but was the first of its kind in the history of mankind - it is your religious dishonesty that is appalling and you are the threat the Constitution was written for.
> 
> 
> 
> I've not been dishonest, I've stated nothing but verifiable facts. Our nation is certainly NOT secular, nor is it a theocracy. *We have freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.* There wasn't a problem with the understanding of this until 1947, when Hugo Black decided to misinterpret Jefferson's "wall of separation" to mean we're supposed to have a secular government. "Secular" means without deference to religion. Our nation was founded and constitution written to give equal deference to ALL religion.
Click to expand...


And that interpretation AND attitude is why you are a threat not only to the Constitution, but to future of this country.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> no, Separation of Church and State defined by our Constitution by the Liberal theology of its text is not only secular but was the first of its kind in the history of mankind - it is your religious dishonesty that is appalling and you are the threat the Constitution was written for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've not been dishonest, I've stated nothing but verifiable facts. Our nation is certainly NOT secular, nor is it a theocracy. We have freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. There wasn't a problem with the understanding of this until 1947, when Hugo Black decided to misinterpret Jefferson's "wall of separation" to mean we're supposed to have a secular government. "Secular" means without deference to religion. Our nation was founded and constitution written to give equal deference to ALL religion.
Click to expand...


Bing Dictionary
sec·u·lar[ séky&#601;l&#601;r ]1.not concerned with religion: not controlled by a religious body or concerned with religious or spiritual matters
2.not religious: not religious or spiritual in nature
3.not monastic: not belonging to a monastic order

Gee, that sounds like our government, doesn't it?
Equal deference?
LOL!!!
That would equate to no deference at all.


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no, Separation of Church and State defined by our Constitution by the Liberal theology of its text is not only secular but was the first of its kind in the history of mankind - it is your religious dishonesty that is appalling and you are the threat the Constitution was written for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've not been dishonest, I've stated nothing but verifiable facts. Our nation is certainly NOT secular, nor is it a theocracy. We have freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. There wasn't a problem with the understanding of this until 1947, when Hugo Black decided to misinterpret Jefferson's "wall of separation" to mean we're supposed to have a secular government. "Secular" means without deference to religion. Our nation was founded and constitution written to give equal deference to ALL religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bing Dictionary
> sec·u·lar[ séky&#601;l&#601;r ]1.not concerned with religion: not controlled by a religious body or concerned with religious or spiritual matters
> 2.not religious: not religious or spiritual in nature
> 3.not monastic: not belonging to a monastic order
> 
> Gee, that sounds like our government, doesn't it?
> Equal deference?
> LOL!!!
> That would equate to no deference at all.
Click to expand...


Since 1947, that has been the understanding. It's incorrect.

How can a government that guarantees religious freedom NOT be concerned with religion?

Equal deference to all does not equate to NO deference.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've not been dishonest, I've stated nothing but verifiable facts. Our nation is certainly NOT secular, nor is it a theocracy. We have freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. There wasn't a problem with the understanding of this until 1947, when Hugo Black decided to misinterpret Jefferson's "wall of separation" to mean we're supposed to have a secular government. "Secular" means without deference to religion. Our nation was founded and constitution written to give equal deference to ALL religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bing Dictionary
> sec·u·lar[ séky&#601;l&#601;r ]1.not concerned with religion: not controlled by a religious body or concerned with religious or spiritual matters
> 2.not religious: not religious or spiritual in nature
> 3.not monastic: not belonging to a monastic order
> 
> Gee, that sounds like our government, doesn't it?
> Equal deference?
> LOL!!!
> That would equate to no deference at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since 1947, that has been the understanding. It's incorrect.
> 
> How can a government that guarantees religious freedom NOT be concerned with religion?
> 
> Equal deference to all does not equate to NO deference.
Click to expand...


Since 1947 it has been the standard of American jurisprudence.
Your opinion fascinates you, I'm quite sure, but has no weight.
The SCOTUS decision, on the other hand, does.
In 67 years, it has not been questioned.
There is no reason to think it will be any time soon.
The ONLY  thing Justice Black and his court acknowledged is that those with no faith have the same equal protections.
Not exactly radical.


----------



## Boss

> The Constitution is a secular document.



But it's not secular. It deals with religion and religious freedom in the First Amendment. If it were truly "secular" there would be no mention of religion or religious freedom. In so much that it's the establishment of law, it is "religion-neutral" and this is by design, we are not a theocracy. But "religion-neutral" doesn't mean "secular" which is to be completely devoid of anything religious. 

As I said, it has been a gross misconception since 1947, and was not what the Founding Fathers ever intended or constructed. We're NOT a secular nation.


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bing Dictionary
> sec·u·lar[ séky&#601;l&#601;r ]1.not concerned with religion: not controlled by a religious body or concerned with religious or spiritual matters
> 2.not religious: not religious or spiritual in nature
> 3.not monastic: not belonging to a monastic order
> 
> Gee, that sounds like our government, doesn't it?
> Equal deference?
> LOL!!!
> That would equate to no deference at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since 1947, that has been the understanding. It's incorrect.
> 
> How can a government that guarantees religious freedom NOT be concerned with religion?
> 
> Equal deference to all does not equate to NO deference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since 1947 it has been the standard of American jurisprudence.
> Your opinion fascinates you, I'm quite sure, but has no weight.
> The SCOTUS decision, on the other hand, does.
> In 67 years, it has not been questioned.
> There is no reason to think it will be any time soon.
Click to expand...


*Since 1947 it has been the standard of American jurisprudence.*

Haven't argued otherwise, in fact, that was MY statement. Glad we could agree on it. 

*Your opinion fascinates you, I'm quite sure, but has no weight.*

Never claimed it did.

*The SCOTUS decision, on the other hand, does.*

Yup. 

*In 67 years, it has not been questioned.*

Wrong. It has been controversial since 1947 when it was ruled. It has been widely questioned. It remains hotly contested and debated. 

*There is no reason to think it will be any time soon.*

But it's being challenged all the time by constitutional originalists.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since 1947, that has been the understanding. It's incorrect.
> 
> How can a government that guarantees religious freedom NOT be concerned with religion?
> 
> Equal deference to all does not equate to NO deference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since 1947 it has been the standard of American jurisprudence.
> Your opinion fascinates you, I'm quite sure, but has no weight.
> The SCOTUS decision, on the other hand, does.
> In 67 years, it has not been questioned.
> There is no reason to think it will be any time soon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Since 1947 it has been the standard of American jurisprudence.*
> 
> Haven't argued otherwise, in fact, that was MY statement. Glad we could agree on it.
> 
> *Your opinion fascinates you, I'm quite sure, but has no weight.*
> 
> Never claimed it did.
> 
> *The SCOTUS decision, on the other hand, does.*
> 
> Yup.
> 
> *In 67 years, it has not been questioned.*
> 
> Wrong. It has been controversial since 1947 when it was ruled. It has been widely questioned. It remains hotly contested and debated.
> 
> *There is no reason to think it will be any time soon.*
> 
> But it's being challenged all the time by constitutional originalists.
Click to expand...


And losing.
Every single time.


----------



## ZenBubba

SmedlyButler said:


> "If fulfilled prophecy is your criterion, why do you not believe in materialistic science, which has an unparalleled record of fulfilled prophecy? Consider, for example, eclipses.



Fulfilled prophecy isn't the criterion of belief. The nature of being is and that isn't addressed by the physical sciences.



SmedlyButler said:


> The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous.



Absolutely. 



SmedlyButler said:


> But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity.



The physical laws of the universe are the _mechanism_ by which God governs the universe but not the_ agency_.


----------



## orogenicman

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've not been dishonest, I've stated nothing but verifiable facts. Our nation is certainly NOT secular, nor is it a theocracy. We have freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. There wasn't a problem with the understanding of this until 1947, when Hugo Black decided to misinterpret Jefferson's "wall of separation" to mean we're supposed to have a secular government. "Secular" means without deference to religion. Our nation was founded and constitution written to give equal deference to ALL religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bing Dictionary
> sec·u·lar[ séky&#601;l&#601;r ]1.not concerned with religion: not controlled by a religious body or concerned with religious or spiritual matters
> 2.not religious: not religious or spiritual in nature
> 3.not monastic: not belonging to a monastic order
> 
> Gee, that sounds like our government, doesn't it?
> Equal deference?
> LOL!!!
> That would equate to no deference at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since 1947, that has been the understanding. It's incorrect.
> 
> How can a government that guarantees religious freedom NOT be concerned with religion?
Click to expand...


It's only concern is that it prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, or impeding the free exercise of religion. You are free to practice your religion outside of the government domain. You are not free to use government to further a religious cause, belief, or sect because that would violate the establishment clause. You are not free to use government to impede the free exercise of religious practices by others because that would violate the religious freedom clause.


----------



## Boss

orogenicman said:


> It's only concern is that it prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, or impeding the free exercise of religion.




Still, it concerns religion, therefore not "secular" by definition. 



> You are free to practice your religion outside of the government domain.



I'm free to practice my religion ANYWHERE, or at least I was until 1947. The 1st makes no such restriction of religious freedom inside or outside government domain. It states Congress can't pass a law respecting establishment of religion. It also says it can't prohibit the free exercise of religion and doesn't specify it has this authority within the confines of government domain. 



> You are not free to use government to further a religious cause, belief, or sect because that would violate the establishment clause.



Only since 1947 when Jefferson's "wall of separation" was misinterpreted to mean this. 



> You are not free to use government to impede the free exercise of religious practices by others because that would violate the religious freedom clause.



Agreed, but of ALL places this should surely apply, 'government domain' should certainly be included. It's like saying "here's our set of rules and laws, but they don't apply if you're in a government building!" Of all places they _should_ apply, that would seem to be the foremost.

Again... Not arguing they DO... Since 1947, the constitutional understanding has been otherwise. But 67 years of the Constitution being interpreted wrong doesn't mean it's right. For 87 years, the Constitution was interpreted to make black people property. Things can change.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's only concern is that it prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, or impeding the free exercise of religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still, it concerns religion, therefore not "secular" by definition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are free to practice your religion outside of the government domain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm free to practice my religion ANYWHERE, or at least I was until 1947. The 1st makes no such restriction of religious freedom inside or outside government domain. It states Congress can't pass a law respecting establishment of religion. It also says it can't prohibit the free exercise of religion and doesn't specify it has this authority within the confines of government domain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are not free to use government to further a religious cause, belief, or sect because that would violate the establishment clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only since 1947 when Jefferson's "wall of separation" was misinterpreted to mean this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are not free to use government to impede the free exercise of religious practices by others because that would violate the religious freedom clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed, but of ALL places this should surely apply, 'government domain' should certainly be included. It's like saying "here's our set of rules and laws, but they don't apply if you're in a government building!" Of all places they _should_ apply, that would seem to be the foremost.
> 
> Again... Not arguing they DO... Since 1947, the constitutional understanding has been otherwise. But 67 years of the Constitution being interpreted wrong doesn't mean it's right. For 87 years, the Constitution was interpreted to make black people property. Things can change.
Click to expand...

Yes they can change.
That's why the originalist movement being heralded by a black man is such an anomaly.
You are in Alabama, right?
What would your status be right now under an originalist understanding of the COTUS?
Since Justice Black's court ruled, it is understood that the establishment clause prevents the government or its institutions to give the implication of support for any faith tradition.
The fact that the COTUS states its neutrality toward religion doesn't mean it is "concerned" with religion. It means it is specifically and clearly stating it is not concerned with it. To not state it clearly, as it does, would leave the issue of religious influence on government an open question. They categorically stated otherwise and closed the question with a slam.
Justice Black merely stated the obvious.


----------



## BreezeWood

> Everson v. Board of Education - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> *Everson v. Board of Education*
> 
> Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)[1][2] was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court which applied the Establishment Clause in the country's Bill of Rights to State law. Prior to this decision the First Amendment words, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"[3] imposed limits only on the federal government, while many states continued to grant certain religious denominations legislative or effective privileges.[4] This was the first Supreme Court case incorporating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as binding upon the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision in Everson marked a turning point in the interpretation and application of disestablishment law in the modern era.[5]
> 
> ..................
> 
> 
> Perhaps as important as the actual outcome, though, was the interpretation given by the entire Court to the Establishment Clause. It reflected a broad interpretation of the Clause that was to guide the Court's decisions for decades to come. Black's language was sweeping:
> 
> "The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'" 330 U.S. 1, 15-16.




*... the interpretation given by the entire Court to the Establishment Clause.*

Boss, was Hugo Black the entire court ?


*This was the first Supreme Court case incorporating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as binding upon the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.*

and who would have guessed, 1947 to be a banner year for Liberal Theocracy.

.


----------



## MrMax

Hey Boss, I've been trying to do this magic trick for 3 days now and can't seem to get it. Do I not have any Spiritual Nature?


----------



## holston

Hollie said:


> Clueless.
> 
> The Constitution is a secular document.
> 
> There is no way to have freedom _of_ religion without also having freedom _from_ religion. If it were otherwise, then Moslems could argue that Christians are not permitted to have freedom _from_ believing in Islam! Or Christians could claim that Moslems could not be permitted to have freedom_from_ Christianity! Freedom _from_ is part and parcel of freedom _of_.
> 
> The _entire_ constitution is rules that limit the government's involvement in the citizen's lives. It is clearly a muzzle on the state's ability to dictate to the citizenry what it can and cannot do within the paradigm of the federal mandate. Certainly rule of law is to be enforced, but that is also controlled at the local level. So it is not any news that government is restrained from interfering with religion.



 This is what we've gotten for allowing the Jews to muck with immigration and anything else.


----------



## holston

orogenicman said:


> The real question is do Christians actually keep kosher?



 Whenever you people can't think of a rebuttal you always resort to flaming.


----------



## orogenicman

holston said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clueless.
> 
> The Constitution is a secular document.
> 
> There is no way to have freedom _of_ religion without also having freedom _from_ religion. If it were otherwise, then Moslems could argue that Christians are not permitted to have freedom _from_ believing in Islam! Or Christians could claim that Moslems could not be permitted to have freedom_from_ Christianity! Freedom _from_ is part and parcel of freedom _of_.
> 
> The _entire_ constitution is rules that limit the government's involvement in the citizen's lives. It is clearly a muzzle on the state's ability to dictate to the citizenry what it can and cannot do within the paradigm of the federal mandate. Certainly rule of law is to be enforced, but that is also controlled at the local level. So it is not any news that government is restrained from interfering with religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is what we've gotten for allowing the Jews to muck with immigration and anything else.
Click to expand...


I'm pretty sure that this kind of bigotry is against the forum rules.  Please stop.


----------



## holston

orogenicman said:


> It's only concern is that it prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, or impeding the free exercise of religion. You are free to practice your religion outside of the government domain. You are not free to use government to further a religious cause, belief, or sect because that would violate the establishment clause. You are not free to use government to impede the free exercise of religious practices by others because that would violate the religious freedom clause.



 I take it you are not the least bit concerned with the House Resolution declaring Judaism's "Noahide Laws" the foundation of law?


----------



## holston

orogenicman said:


> I'm pretty sure that this kind of bigotry is against the forum rules.  Please stop.



 There's nothing bigoted about speaking the truth. 
 The Jews have been behind the changes in immigration law and policy. They did the same thing in Europe. It's all part of the "diversification" "multiculturalism" program they promote. 
 They promote it because a fragmented society allows the Jewish Socio-Political Union (JSPU) more leverage.


----------



## orogenicman

holston said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure that this kind of bigotry is against the forum rules. Please stop.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's nothing bigoted about speaking the truth.
> The Jews have been behind the changes in immigration law and policy. They did the same thing in Europe. It's all part of the "diversification" "multiculturalism" program they promote.
> They promote it because a fragmented society allows the Jewish Socio-Political Union (JSPU) more leverage.
Click to expand...


Moderators, I believe this conversation belongs in the rubber room.  Please move it.  TIA.


----------



## BreezeWood

holston said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's only concern is that it prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, or impeding the free exercise of religion. You are free to practice your religion outside of the government domain. You are not free to use government to further a religious cause, belief, or sect because that would violate the establishment clause. You are not free to use government to impede the free exercise of religious practices by others because that would violate the religious freedom clause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I take it you are not the least bit concerned with the House Resolution declaring Judaism's "Noahide Laws" the foundation of law?
Click to expand...





> Bill Text - 102nd Congress (1991-1992) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)
> 
> 
> H.J.RES.104 -- To designate March 26, 1991, as `Education Day, U.S.A.'. (Enrolled Bill [Final as Passed Both House and Senate] - ENR)
> 
> --H.J.Res.104--
> 
> H.J.Res.104
> 
> One Hundred Second Congress of the United States of America
> 
> AT THE FIRST SESSION
> 
> Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, the third day of January,
> 
> one thousand nine hundred and ninety-one
> 
> Joint Resolution
> 
> To designate March 26, 1991, as `Education Day, U.S.A.'.
> 
> Whereas Congress recognizes the historical tradition of ethical values and principles which are the basis of civilized society and upon which our great Nation was founded;
> 
> Whereas these ethical values and principles have been the bedrock of society from the dawn of civilization, when they were known as the Seven Noahide Laws;
> 
> Whereas without these ethical values and principles the edifice of civilization stands in serious peril of returning to chaos;
> 
> Whereas society is profoundly concerned with the recent weakening of these principles that has resulted in crises that beleaguer and threaten the fabric of civilized society;
> 
> Whereas the justified preoccupation with these crises must not let the citizens of this Nation lose sight of their responsibility to transmit these historical ethical values from our distinguished past to the generations of the future;
> 
> Whereas the Lubavitch movement has fostered and promoted these ethical values and principles throughout the world;
> 
> Whereas Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, leader of the Lubavitch movement, is universally respected and revered and his eighty-ninth birthday falls on March 26, 1991;
> 
> Whereas in tribute to this great spiritual leader, `the rebbe', this, his ninetieth year will be seen as one of `education and giving', the year in which we turn to education and charity to return the world to the moral and ethical values contained in the Seven Noahide Laws; and
> 
> Whereas this will be reflected in an international scroll of honor signed by the President of the United States and other heads of state: Now, therefore, be it
> 
> Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That March 26, 1991, the start of the ninetieth year of Rabbi Menachem Schneerson, leader of the worldwide Lubavitch movement, is designated as `Education Day, U.S.A.'. The President is requested to issue a proclamation calling upon the people of the United States to observe such day with appropriate ceremonies and activities.
> 
> Speaker of the House of Representatives.
> 
> Vice President of the United States and
> 
> President of the Senate.







> * holston:* I take it you are not the least bit concerned with the House Resolution declaring Judaism's "Noahide Laws" the foundation of law?




is designated as *`Education Day, U.S.A.'*


holston, is the above the resolution you are referring to ... I sympathise with your concern but isn't the law simply granting recognition by setting aside a day for deliberation - where does it declare - "Noahide Laws" the foundation of law - as anyother than an opinion.

.


----------



## koshergrl

orogenicman said:


> holston said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure that this kind of bigotry is against the forum rules. Please stop.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's nothing bigoted about speaking the truth.
> The Jews have been behind the changes in immigration law and policy. They did the same thing in Europe. It's all part of the "diversification" "multiculturalism" program they promote.
> They promote it because a fragmented society allows the Jewish Socio-Political Union (JSPU) more leverage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Moderators, I believe this conversation belongs in the rubber room. Please move it. TIA.
Click to expand...

 
Why, because you think his views are hateful?

Pretty much every anti-Christian thread in the religion forum should be in the rubber room. Take your whine there.


----------



## holston

orogenicman said:


> Moderators, I believe this conversation belongs in the rubber room.  Please move it.  TIA.



 Prove me wrong on the immigration issue or anything else if you can. 

 You can deny it all you want but that is not the same thing as offering evidence to the contrary. 
 If you don't read what I've said then you can't pass judgement on it. 



Founding Fathers Quotes - Christian Quotes of the Founding Fathers


> George Washington
> 1st U.S. President
> 
> "While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. *To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian."*



  Zionists are neither loyal to the Constitutional Republic of the US anymore than they are friends of Christiandom. They ARE however loyal to Zionism and patriotic to Israel. There are many in this country who would call themselves Patriots who are traitors to it. 


 It's easy enough for anyone to call themselves anything, including "Christian". That doesn't mean they are.
  If they manage to fool others into accepting the label they've attached to themselves or anything else without regard to whether it's substance or contents match the label, then it's the fault of those who are foolish enough to accept them without testing to see whether they match. 

 This is what is meant by "wolves in sheep's clothing" as if you didn't know. 

 These people have always been around since Christ established the Church upon his resurrection and ascension into heaven. There will always be charlatans and hypocrites as well. Those who deny this ignore the fact that the whole purpose of Christ's death, burial, and resurrection was to save sinners. Charlatans and hypocrites are only descriptions of certain types of sinners. 

 The existence of sinners is not evidence that Christianity should be abandoned or abolished, Rather, they are evidence of the need for it. 

 You wish to censor the teaching of Christ as Lord just as you would censor whatever i have to say which doesn't agree with your Marxist atheist, Jewish Supremacist agenda. 


 You see the problems with the world and the evil that men do and wish to blame them on the doctrines of Christ. You think that eradicating the mention of Christ in public will in some mysterious way result in a better world. 
 Why should you think that unless that you see gospel of Christ as a road block to an atheistic Marxist state or as standing in the way of the "Mashianic Age"?

 You pretend that no one but those who disbelieve in God are capable of being rational. Yet you seem to think that the ills of man began with Christ and can only disappear when his name has been "obliterated". 

 You haven't said a word about the "Noahide" House Resolution, much less objected to it.  Therefore I take it you have no objection to THAT aspect of religion being injected into the government. 
 This can only mean that it isn't the "separation of church and state" that you are after, but rather the removal of all references within it that might denote Christianity. 

 You are unwilling to admit that "Noahide" law has NOTHING to do with Christianity, and that it is nothing more than an attempt by Chabbad Lubavitch to inject their venomous doctrines into the government institution which was NOT formulated by Jews. 



> John Adams
> 2nd U.S. President and Signer of the Declaration of Independence
> 
> "*Suppose a nation in some distant Region should take the Bible for their only law Book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited!* Every member would be obliged in conscience, to temperance, frugality, and industry; to justice, kindness, and charity towards his fellow men; and to piety, love, and reverence toward Almighty God ... What a Eutopia, what a Paradise would this region be."



 Now go ahead and pretend, or lie if you will, that the founders had no inclination towards Christianity and I will continue to post quotes which expose the truth of the matter whether you like it or not. 

 Otherwise you will have to call the forum censors to do the job that you cannot do by force of reason. 

 And in doing so you will demonstrate just exactly what the cadre of atheist Marxist Zionists have in store for "freedom of speech" once they gain a sufficient foothold.


> "The general principles, on which the Fathers achieved independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite, and these Principles only could be intended by them in their address, or by me in my answer. And what were these general Principles?* I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all these Sects were United: A*nd the general Principles of English and American Liberty, in which all those young Men United, and which had United all Parties in America, in Majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her Independence.
> 
> "Now I will avow, that I then believe, and now believe, *that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God; and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System."*
> --Adams wrote this on June 28, 1813, excerpt from a letter to Thomas Jefferson.


----------



## orogenicman

Wow, the willful ignorance displayed in that rant is simply breathtaking.  I rest my case.


----------



## koshergrl

Then you lose.


----------



## holston

koshergrl said:


> Why, because you think his views are hateful?
> 
> Pretty much every anti-Christian thread in the religion forum should be in the rubber room. Take your whine there.



 I'm no more hateful than he and his atheist/Zionist compatriots are and he knows it. 

 What they do is needle and weasel around in hopes of making you angry enough to insult them in the same manner in which they insult you. 
 Then like little tattle tales they go running to the monitors hoping to have you censored and removed from the discussion so they will no longer be burdened with the awful task of having to defend the indefensible.

 The only defense for lies is more lies.


----------



## koshergrl

Actually, you're less hateful. They go out of their way to target Christians, to troll threads, post deliberate and blatant lies. They attempt to shut down the opposition first by lying, then via censorship, while they blatantly and knowingly spread propaganda meant to diminish liberty, re-create history, and establish a totalitarian government here in the US.

I have yet to see you posting the hateful nonsense they do. But they will claim you are hateful...as they label anything they disagree with as 1. illegal, 2. hateful, 3. racist.

That's what propagandists do, in order to justify the silencing/imprisonment/death of the opposition. It starts just like this.


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> Yes they can change.
> That's why the originalist movement being heralded by a black man is such an anomaly.
> You are in Alabama, right?
> What would your status be right now under an originalist understanding of the COTUS?



I would be a free man with equal rights. You see, between 1865 and 1870, Congress passed and the States ratified the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution. This simply overrules any previous interpretation of the Constitution by previous courts or Congresses. Constitutional originalists do not object to legitimate passage of amendments to the Constitution, this was a built-in function of the Constitution itself, to allow the people to change with the times. 



> Since Justice Black's court ruled, it is understood that the establishment clause prevents the government or its institutions to give the implication of support for any faith tradition.



Which is clearly and certainly what I stated to the letter. I disagree with his interpretation and ruling. I think he was wrong, and so do millions of others. His interpretation is simply not what the Constitution said, meant or implied, and it wasn't until 1947 that became the understanding. 



> The fact that the COTUS states its neutrality toward religion doesn't mean it is "concerned" with religion.



Well I disagree, certainly it does. How can it state something and not be concerned with it? 



> It means it is specifically and clearly stating it is not concerned with it.



Sorry but the text does *NOT* state any such thing. It specifically and clearly states *Congress can't make laws respecting establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.* Not a word about _"not concerned with it"_ in there as best I can tell. 



> To not state it clearly, as it does, would leave the issue of religious influence on government an open question.



Nowhere is it stated that religion can't influence government. *Congress can't pass laws establishing religion.* That's what it says. It doesn't confirm we are a _secular_ nation or that religion _can't be exercised in government domain_. Those are misinterpretations stemming from Hugo Black's ruling in 1947. 



> They categorically stated otherwise and closed the question with a slam.
> Justice Black merely stated the obvious.



Well, they simply DON'T _categorically_ state otherwise or close the question. To "categorically" state what you claim, the COTUS would read: _"Government is secular and cannot respect anything religious under any circumstance...Religion is never to be recognized by Government in any way...No one is ever permitted to exercise religion within the confines of government domain under any condition."_ If the COTUS said this, I would agree that it "categorically" stated it. As it stands, that's not what is written.

Justice Black misinterpreted Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1947, and since then, we've ostensibly had "secular government" in the US. It's an incorrect and terrible misinterpretation, and one that has been a major cause of many societal problems since.


----------



## holston

koshergrl said:


> Actually, you're less hateful. They go out of their way to target Christians, to troll threads, post deliberate and blatant lies. They attempt to shut down the opposition first by lying, then via censorship, while they blatantly and knowingly spread propaganda meant to diminish liberty, re-create history, and establish a totalitarian government here in the US.
> 
> I have yet to see you posting the hateful nonsense they do. But they will claim you are hateful...as they label anything they disagree with as 1. illegal, 2. hateful, 3. racist.
> 
> That's what propagandists do, in order to justify the silencing/imprisonment/death of the opposition. It starts just like this.




 "Christianity" is comprised of tens of hundreds of different denominations. 
 Just like the contests between the Catholics and Protestant these differing denominations exist because men either can't agree or get along. 

 At the time the framers of the Constitution were busy making the blueprint for the US government, I doubt if they gave much thought to Islam or Judaism becoming the threats they are today. 

 It is much more likely that they didn't want someone like Queen "Bloody" Mary arising to power and burning people who didn't join the Catholic Church or Henry the VIII chopping people's head off who didn't want to become Protestants.


http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/queen-mary.html



> The ebb and flow of freedom continued through the 1540's...and into the 1550's. After King Henry VIII, King Edward VI took the throne, and after his death, the reign of Queen &#8220;Bloody&#8221; Mary was the next obstacle to the printing of the Bible in English. She was possessed in her quest to return England to the Roman Church. In 1555, John "Thomas Matthew" Rogers and Thomas Cranmer were both burned at the stake. Mary went on to burn reformers at the stake by the hundreds for the "crime" of being a Protestant. This era was known as the Marian Exile, and the refugees fled from England with little hope of ever seeing their home or friends again. During their exile, they produced the famous 1560 Geneva Bible which was "The Bible of the Protestant Reformation", from which many home-schooled their children.





> &#8220;Bloody Mary&#8221;&#8230; Relentless Papist and Mass-Murderer
> 
> Mary had always rejected and resented the break with Rome that her father had instituted and his subsequent establishment of the Anglican Church that had flowed from her half-brother's protestantism, and now she tried to turn England back to Roman Catholicism. This effort was carried out by force, and hundreds of Protestant leaders were executed. The first was John Rogers (a.k.a. &#8220;Thomas Matthews&#8221, the printer of the &#8220;Matthews-Tyndale Bible&#8221;. His execution was followed by the execution of former Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Cranmer, who was primarily responsible for the printing of the &#8220;Great Bible&#8221;. Hundreds more would follow in Mary&#8217;s bloody reign of terror. This earned the queen the title of &#8220;Bloody Mary&#8221;.



Thomas Becket - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




> Thomas Becket (also known as Saint Thomas of Canterbury, Thomas of London,[1] and later Thomas à Becket;[note 1] c. 1118 (or 1120) &#8211; 29 December 1170) was Archbishop of Canterbury from 1162 until his murder in 1170. He is venerated as a saint and martyr by both the Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion. He engaged in conflict with Henry II of England over the rights and privileges of the Church and was murdered by followers of the king in Canterbury Cathedral. Soon after his death, he was canonised by Pope Alexander III.




 One could be murdered for being a Catholic by Protestants, or for being Protestant by Catholics. 

 Even among Protestant denominations there are people who would do the same to each other. 

 The Founders new this and tried to set up a system of government which would prevent fanatics like these and other tyrants from acquiring so much political power that they could order anyone executed. 

 The NEO-CONS have succeeded in giving this kind of power into the hands of their puppet Yomamma. 

 Since the Neo-Cons have supplanted the original Republican party, and since it was Neo-Cons and Zionists who ensured the success of 9/11 to drag the US into war(s) unnecessarily, sponsored the "Patriot" Act, the NDAA, the Expatriation Act, declared the US to be a battle ground, put a velvet form of martial law in place, and etc, 
 it is only reasonable that we give them credit for their work. 

 And since the Ne-Cons were started by Jews and receive their marching orders from the Zionist faction, we have the Jews in general to thank for all of this. 

 They know what I am saying is true. But they let on like I'm saying it because I "hate" _them._

 Somehow we are all supposed to believe that only Anglo Saxon non-Jewish whites, Christians , and Muslims are the only people in the world capable of conspiring to get their way and hating their enemies. 

 I assure you. There is nothing in the "WASP" genetic code which guarantees "racism" or hatred anymore than that which exists in the Ashkenazim/Khazar Klan. 

 The things I have been discussing are nothing less than political realities which they want to deny because they know that once the majority of people in the US realize it they will no longer be so easy to manipulate via the media. 

  I admit that I too was deceived by Bumbling Bush and all the lies about terrorist camps and "WMDs" and Yellow Cake. 
 I sorely resent being taken for a Putz . But that's exactly what the Neo- CONs have done to the US. And they continue on a course which can lead nowhere except to the collapse of the US as a sovereign nation. 

 Those Jews who are seeking a "Mashianic Age" will welcome this demise as a prelude to the coming "New World Order" which they no doubt realize will actuality be a JEW World Order.

 Why? Because they know who pulls the purse strings of the US and other countries like France Germany, and England. They know who controls the World Bank, the IMF, the Federal Reserve, and other major financial institutions which have global power. 


 The Jews are no more about freedom of religion than the Muslims are or they wouldn't have had Daddy Bush sign the House Resolution of "Noahide" Law and they wouldn't be so active and MILITANT in their efforts to squelch the doctrines of Christ. And that's why you don't see very many of them coming out to denounce some of intentions and motives of some prominent members of their own "tribe". Anyone who does is "a self hating Jew". 

 Why do you think the Israelites ban evangelistic proselytizing in Israel?

 For the same reason they would ban it in the US and blot out the name of Christ altogether if they could. If the nincompoop JUDEO xtians continue supporting them unconditionally believing in the fairy tale that these imposters are "God's Chosen People" they may well succeed in doing so. 

 Hypocritical "Christians" notwithstanding, including all the modern day Marys and Henrys, 
the proclamation of the Gospel of Christ should no more be silenced today than it was when the Apostles were murdered for not keeping their mouths shut about it. 


 If this nation sits on it's hands on it's big rump and yields complete control to the Jewish Zionist Social-Political Faction in the US they may wake up and realize that Christianity has died out in the general population and there will no more exist even the semblance of it. 

 The Apostle Paul spoke of men even in his day who were sewing discord, trying to make his life more difficult, and preaching the Gospel as a means of self promotion. But that didn't bother him too badly because as he said, "Nevertheless, the Gospel is preached."

 The most important thing about all that was that the message got out. 


 The situation man is in today is no different than it was then as far as his appointment with death and the judgement that awaits them. 

  Societies which sanction "Christianity" and teach it, even if it is only mostly superficial, I believe will profit from doing so despite the Charlatans and hypocrites for the very reason that those pretenders must at least make an appearance of it whether it is a part of their inmost being or not. This is because of societal pressures put upon people to accept what is in vogue or the norm. I dislike PRETENSE as much as anyone here. But I won't allow the pretense of some to cause me to abandon my faith or wish to see it destroyed. Let them be hypocrites if that be the case. They will have to learn to overlook my weaknesses as well. 

 Today this social pressure to conform comes more from "Political Correctness" than it does from the true application of the doctrines of Christ. 

 And who is it that sets the tempo for "Political Correctness" if it isn't those who control the media?
 And who is in charge of the media if it isn't the "Jews"?

 I say "Jew" to refer to those who ascribe to the Machiavellian doctrines of Judaic Talmudism. 


 If anything, it is the Jewish coalitions who HATE the "WASPs".

 Why?
 Because they stand in the way of their "Mashianic Age" and the acquisition of all wealth and power for themselves. 
 Furthermore they resent any cultural or religious heritages which do not wreak of their own in just the manner that anyone else does. 


 It is true that many people are quick to fight over religious issues. This doesn't mean that Christ ordered them to do so. (Quite the contrary. This is the communist rationale for trying to eliminate it and anything else which would usurp a tittle of State power.
I don't accept their reasoning that Christian teachings are the cause of man's tendency to be that way.



 People who want to do things which are condemned by the Bible naturally do not want those doctrines embraced by the public because such a public attitude would either prevent them from doing as they wish or make it very difficult for them to do so. 

 I agree whole heartedly that "Christians" ought to behave like Christians. 

 But the fact that many of them fail to or are Christian in name only is no good reason to dispose of the Gospel of Christ. 

 Why?

 Because to a believer the Gospel of Christ is the power of salvation and the hope of everlasting life. 

 Jews, Marxists, and homos don't like this idea one bit because of the teachings associated with it that do not condone their private agendas.  

 Mark my word. Religious Jews can be every bit as adamant about getting their own way and just as militant as any Muslim or Christian. 

 No one can attribute all the sin and violence in the world to Christianity unless they confuse the person of Christ with other persons. 

 And Jews do not have the market cornered on acts of benevolence or the generation of peace. 

 Only a person lacking common sense could believe otherwise. 

 Even Buddhists and Hindus can be seen to erupt in fits of anger and to fight over things. 


 Human nature is human nature. 

 What people are TAUGHT can vary. And what people are TAUGHT CAN have an effect on their behavior!

 A good parent tries to teach his child to do good. But since a child has a mind of his own, there is no 100% guarantee that he cannot rebel against that which others have tried to instill in him. This independence of will would exist under any other system.

 Parents aren't perfect anymore than humans in general. The same thing is true with "Christians". 

 Destroying Christianity or trying to censor the teaching of it will not improve human behavior. If anything, the suppression of Biblical admonitions is bound to make it worse.

 I can allow myself to get fuming mad because the world is such a Mucked up place. But it won't do me a bit of good to cut my own nose off to spite my face because of despair. 

 The hope in Christ that some people cling to provides a good reason NOT to despair and a rationale for not allowing anger to dictate his actions. 

 Marx can call that "the opiate of the masses". But what would Marx have to offer in exchange for it? Even if his "worker's paradise" was viable (it isn't) the absurdity of this life and the futility of all work would be exposed for the lack of any hope. The incentive to do good is much more likely to die in conditions where there are no consequences for misconduct. A Christian believes in a higher authority than man which exists even in the absence of police forces, a military, or any other human threat. His actions are commensurate with the will of God insofar as he is actually a Christian. His gets his guidance from the Bible, not the Communist or Humanist manifesto. 

 NO GOVERNMENT of man can offer a person the hope of eternal life. And no man made government can make this existence any less absurd if all you have in it is all there ever will be or you can ever hope for.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they can change.
> That's why the originalist movement being heralded by a black man is such an anomaly.
> You are in Alabama, right?
> What would your status be right now under an originalist understanding of the COTUS?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would be a free man with equal rights. You see, between 1865 and 1870, Congress passed and the States ratified the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution. This simply overrules any previous interpretation of the Constitution by previous courts or Congresses. Constitutional originalists do not object to legitimate passage of amendments to the Constitution, this was a built-in function of the Constitution itself, to allow the people to change with the times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since Justice Black's court ruled, it is understood that the establishment clause prevents the government or its institutions to give the implication of support for any faith tradition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is clearly and certainly what I stated to the letter. I disagree with his interpretation and ruling. I think he was wrong, and so do millions of others. His interpretation is simply not what the Constitution said, meant or implied, and it wasn't until 1947 that became the understanding.
> 
> 
> 
> Well I disagree, certainly it does. How can it state something and not be concerned with it?
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but the text does *NOT* state any such thing. It specifically and clearly states *Congress can't make laws respecting establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.* Not a word about _"not concerned with it"_ in there as best I can tell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To not state it clearly, as it does, would leave the issue of religious influence on government an open question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nowhere is it stated that religion can't influence government. *Congress can't pass laws establishing religion.* That's what it says. It doesn't confirm we are a _secular_ nation or that religion _can't be exercised in government domain_. Those are misinterpretations stemming from Hugo Black's ruling in 1947.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They categorically stated otherwise and closed the question with a slam.
> Justice Black merely stated the obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, they simply DON'T _categorically_ state otherwise or close the question. To "categorically" state what you claim, the COTUS would read: _"Government is secular and cannot respect anything religious under any circumstance...Religion is never to be recognized by Government in any way...No one is ever permitted to exercise religion within the confines of government domain under any condition."_ If the COTUS said this, I would agree that it "categorically" stated it. As it stands, that's not what is written.
> 
> Justice Black misinterpreted Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1947, and since then, we've ostensibly had "secular government" in the US. It's an incorrect and terrible misinterpretation, and one that has been a major cause of many societal problems since.
Click to expand...


No, Justice Black got it right, and the COTUS simply worded it better than this clumsy vomit you have created.
See if you can get enough justices appointed to see it your way, and good luck. Even the conservative justices don't lean your way.


----------



## Boss

> No, Justice Black got it right, and the COTUS simply worded it better than this clumsy vomit you have created.
> See if you can get enough justices appointed to see it your way, and good luck. Even the conservative justices don't lean your way.



Well no, I believe Justice Black got it wrong and YOU are the one stumbling around with clumsy wording that is not found in the Constitution. I've demonstrated this clearly. Justices do not have the final say on what the Constitution means. If that were so, I would probably still be someone's property.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> No, Justice Black got it right, and the COTUS simply worded it better than this clumsy vomit you have created.
> See if you can get enough justices appointed to see it your way, and good luck. Even the conservative justices don't lean your way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well no, I believe Justice Black got it wrong and YOU are the one stumbling around with clumsy wording that is not found in the Constitution. I've demonstrated this clearly. Justices do not have the final say on what the Constitution means. If that were so, I would probably still be someone's property.
Click to expand...


I love talking to you. You always step in it.
Justices DO have the final say on what the Constitution means.
You can have the states ratify an amendment.
The justices are then empowered to interpret its application from then on.
That is their job.
Specifically.
And for 67 years the greatest legal minds have disagreed with you.
You have demonstrated only one thing clearly and consistently.
You get very excited, and then puke on your shoes.
Every time.
You would "still" be someone's property?
LOL!
When were you freed?


----------



## orogenicman

Boss said:


> No, Justice Black got it right, and the COTUS simply worded it better than this clumsy vomit you have created.
> See if you can get enough justices appointed to see it your way, and good luck. Even the conservative justices don't lean your way.
> 
> 
> 
> *Well no, I believe Justice Black got it wrong* and YOU are the one stumbling around with clumsy wording that is not found in the Constitution. I've demonstrated this clearly. Justices do not have the final say on what the Constitution means. If that were so, I would probably still be someone's property.
Click to expand...


And you have every right to believe it, even when you are wrong.  You can thank the founding fathers for that.


----------



## thanatos144

Fear. That is why people hate God. It is also why so many are antisemitic.


----------



## thebrucebeat

thanatos144 said:


> Fear. That is why people hate God. It is also why so many are antisemitic.



Your close.
Fear is why people love god.


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, Justice Black got it right, and the COTUS simply worded it better than this clumsy vomit you have created.
> See if you can get enough justices appointed to see it your way, and good luck. Even the conservative justices don't lean your way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well no, I believe Justice Black got it wrong and YOU are the one stumbling around with clumsy wording that is not found in the Constitution. I've demonstrated this clearly. Justices do not have the final say on what the Constitution means. If that were so, I would probably still be someone's property.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love talking to you. You always step in it.
> Justices DO have the final say on what the Constitution means.
> You can have the states ratify an amendment.
> The justices are then empowered to interpret its application from then on.
> That is their job.
> Specifically.
> And for 67 years the greatest legal minds have disagreed with you.
> You have demonstrated only one thing clearly and consistently.
> You get very excited, and then puke on your shoes.
> Every time.
> You would "still" be someone's property?
> LOL!
> When were you freed?
Click to expand...


You are crazier than I previously thought. No, the SCOTUS does NOT have the authority to overrule a Constitutional Amendment. The do not have the final say, if they did, black people would still be property as they ruled in Dred Scott v. Sandford. They also ruled the Federal government had no authority to establish "free states" in the United States, and it was the second time in history the court overruled a Congressional action. They have never attempted to do it since. Congress retains the power to make law, not the fucking SCOTUS!

My God, I had no idea you were so opposed to representative democracy! That's a scary thing, and anyone who agrees with you or thanks your post is a danger to our nation and form of government.


----------



## orogenicman

thanatos144 said:


> Fear. That is why people hate God. It is also why so many are antisemitic.



Fear is why people prostrate themselves before the alter.  Atheists don't do that because we have no illusions that an alter is anything other than furniture.


----------



## thanatos144

orogenicman said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fear. That is why people hate God. It is also why so many are antisemitic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fear is why people prostrate themselves before the alter.  Atheists don't do that because we have no illusions that an alter is anything other than furniture.
Click to expand...


And what the hell do think you have been doing this whole thread?????? You are preaching more then everyone who believes in God. Stop pushing your religion on me.


----------



## orogenicman

thanatos144 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fear. That is why people hate God. It is also why so many are antisemitic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fear is why people prostrate themselves before the alter. Atheists don't do that because we have no illusions that an alter is anything other than furniture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what the hell do think you have been doing this whole thread?????? You are preaching more then everyone who believes in God. Stop pushing your religion on me.
Click to expand...


What religion where?  Oh, you mean human reasoning?  Here is what Thomas Jefferson had to say about it:

 "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
 -Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

 "Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear."
 -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well no, I believe Justice Black got it wrong and YOU are the one stumbling around with clumsy wording that is not found in the Constitution. I've demonstrated this clearly. Justices do not have the final say on what the Constitution means. If that were so, I would probably still be someone's property.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love talking to you. You always step in it.
> Justices DO have the final say on what the Constitution means.
> You can have the states ratify an amendment.
> The justices are then empowered to interpret its application from then on.
> That is their job.
> Specifically.
> And for 67 years the greatest legal minds have disagreed with you.
> You have demonstrated only one thing clearly and consistently.
> You get very excited, and then puke on your shoes.
> Every time.
> You would "still" be someone's property?
> LOL!
> When were you freed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are crazier than I previously thought. No, the SCOTUS does NOT have the authority to overrule a Constitutional Amendment. The do not have the final say, if they did, black people would still be property as they ruled in Dred Scott v. Sandford. They also ruled the Federal government had no authority to establish "free states" in the United States, and it was the second time in history the court overruled a Congressional action. They have never attempted to do it since. Congress retains the power to make law, not the fucking SCOTUS!
> 
> My God, I had no idea you were so opposed to representative democracy! That's a scary thing, and anyone who agrees with you or thanks your post is a danger to our nation and form of government.
Click to expand...


Even more stupid than your usual offerings. A total strawman argument.
Please quote where I said the SCOTUS can "overrule" an amendment.
Quote it.
You can't, because I never said that, did I? Not even anything remotely like that.
Their job is to interpret the constitutionality of an application of a law.
You are an unconscionably dim bulb. Your equally ignorant supporters will not acknowledge your dishonesty so among the cretins you will still be king.


----------



## Boss

> Their job is to interpret the constitutionality of an application of a law.



No it's not, and this is a BIG problem we have in this country. Many people like you BELIEVE this is the case! That 9 men and women in robes get to decide what is or isn't "constitutional" and we are their subjects, forced to live under their rule. That wasn't the system our Founding Fathers established. 

The SCOTUS is supposed to be there to decide if specific federal cases meet the criteria of conformity with the Constitution, as  written. In MANY cases, they have overstepped their authority and "reinterpreted" the Constitution in order to make things constitutional that weren't. The SCOTUS merely gave themselves the power of "interpretation" in 1803 with their ruling in Marbury v. Madison. This is in direct violation of Article III where the ONLY authority of the court resides. Judicial review, that's ALL the SCOTUS is supposed to do. 

Since Marbury, they have found all sorts of ways to make things "constitutional" that simply aren't found in the constitution or articulated in the Federalist Papers. (The outline and argumentative basis for the Constitution.) In some cases, what the court determined was so egregious and in error, that Congress was forced to act and pass legislation to try and undo what they did. In cases where this couldn't be done, they've passed Amendments to the Constitution and had them ratified by the States. 

So NO... the SCOTUS is in NO WAY the "final arbiter" of what is Constitutional or what the law of the land shall be. That remains an authority vested in the Legislative Branch, our representatives in government, and most directly, WE THE PEOPLE! We do not live in a Kingdom ruled by a 9-headed King!


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> Their job is to interpret the constitutionality of an application of a law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it's not, and this is a BIG problem we have in this country. Many people like you BELIEVE this is the case! That 9 men and women in robes get to decide what is or isn't "constitutional" and we are their subjects, forced to live under their rule. That wasn't the system our Founding Fathers established.
> 
> The SCOTUS is supposed to be there to decide if specific federal cases meet the criteria of conformity with the Constitution, as  written. In MANY cases, they have overstepped their authority and "reinterpreted" the Constitution in order to make things constitutional that weren't. The SCOTUS merely gave themselves the power of "interpretation" in 1803 with their ruling in Marbury v. Madison. This is in direct violation of Article III where the ONLY authority of the court resides. Judicial review, that's ALL the SCOTUS is supposed to do.
> 
> Since Marbury, they have found all sorts of ways to make things "constitutional" that simply aren't found in the constitution or articulated in the Federalist Papers. (The outline and argumentative basis for the Constitution.) In some cases, what the court determined was so egregious and in error, that Congress was forced to act and pass legislation to try and undo what they did. In cases where this couldn't be done, they've passed Amendments to the Constitution and had them ratified by the States.
> 
> So NO... the SCOTUS is in NO WAY the "final arbiter" of what is Constitutional or what the law of the land shall be. That remains an authority vested in the Legislative Branch, our representatives in government, and most directly, WE THE PEOPLE! We do not live in a Kingdom ruled by a 9-headed King!
Click to expand...


"Their job is to interpret the constitutionality of an application of a law." Me

"The SCOTUS is supposed to be there to decide if specific federal cases meet the criteria of conformity with the Constitution, as  written." You

They interpret "what's written" and apply it to see if it conforms to their understanding of the COTUS. 
We agree.
The rest is your usual.
The Federalist Papers are irrelevant because they are not U.S. law.
The Legislative Branch CAN be overruled by the SCOTUS and was in the case of DOMA.
We have divided government to protect us against zealots like yourself.
None of the branches have exclusive authority.
Legislative by SCOTUS decision or veto.
SCOTUS by amendment.
Executive by overturning veto.
You're a hoot!


----------



## BreezeWood

Boss said:


> Their job is to interpret the constitutionality of an application of a law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it's not, and this is a BIG problem we have in this country. Many people like you BELIEVE this is the case! That 9 men and women in robes get to decide what is or isn't "constitutional" and we are their subjects, forced to live under their rule. That wasn't the system our Founding Fathers established.
> 
> The SCOTUS is supposed to be there to decide if specific federal cases meet the criteria of conformity with the Constitution, as  written. In MANY cases, they have overstepped their authority and "reinterpreted" the Constitution in order to make things constitutional that weren't. The SCOTUS merely gave themselves the power of "interpretation" in 1803 with their ruling in Marbury v. Madison. This is in direct violation of Article III where the ONLY authority of the court resides. Judicial review, that's ALL the SCOTUS is supposed to do.
> 
> Since Marbury, they have found all sorts of ways to make things "constitutional" that simply aren't found in the constitution or articulated in the Federalist Papers. (The outline and argumentative basis for the Constitution.) In some cases, what the court determined was so egregious and in error, that Congress was forced to act and pass legislation to try and undo what they did. In cases where this couldn't be done, they've passed Amendments to the Constitution and had them ratified by the States.
> 
> So NO... the SCOTUS is in NO WAY the "final arbiter" of what is Constitutional or what the law of the land shall be. That remains an authority vested in the Legislative Branch, our representatives in government, and most directly, WE THE PEOPLE! We do not live in a Kingdom ruled by a 9-headed King!
Click to expand...



The SCOTUS is supposed to be there to decide if specific federal cases meet the criteria of conformity with the Constitution, as  written.




> AMENDMENT [II.]
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.




^ an example of "as written" - and of its "clarity" of intent. (by intent)


keep in mind Boss the document had eventually to be ratified and it was predominantly written by others than (your) rightwing extremists - but not without their input, unfortunately.

.


----------



## Boss

> We agree.



Then shut the fuck up!


----------



## Boss

> keep in mind Boss the document had eventually to be ratified and it was predominantly written by others than (your) rightwing extremists - but not without their input, unfortunately.



And it would have NEVER been ratified if people believed the government had the right to take their guns. 



> AMENDMENT [II.]
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.



Plain and simple... It is necessary for freedom that free people have the uninfringed right to bear arms.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> We agree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then shut the fuck up!
Click to expand...


Always the high road my infantile friend.
You at least are avoiding digging your grave deeper by trying to defend your absurd rants.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> keep in mind Boss the document had eventually to be ratified and it was predominantly written by others than (your) rightwing extremists - but not without their input, unfortunately.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And it would have NEVER been ratified if people believed the government had the right to take their guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AMENDMENT [II.]
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Plain and simple... It is necessary for freedom that free people have the uninfringed right to bear arms.
Click to expand...


Purposely ignoring the "WELL REGULATED Militia" bit.
You just give and give and give.


----------



## Boss

> You at least are avoiding digging your grave deeper by trying to defend your absurd rants.



But you said we agree! 



thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> keep in mind Boss the document had eventually to be ratified and it was predominantly written by others than (your) rightwing extremists - but not without their input, unfortunately.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And it would have NEVER been ratified if people believed the government had the right to take their guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AMENDMENT [II.]
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Plain and simple... It is necessary for freedom that free people have the uninfringed right to bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Purposely ignoring the "WELL REGULATED Militia" bit.
> You just give and give and give.
Click to expand...


Yes, and you can't have one of those, in order to defend your freedoms, if you don't have the uninfringed right to bear arms. Dingbat!


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> keep in mind Boss the document had eventually to be ratified and it was predominantly written by others than (your) rightwing extremists - but not without their input, unfortunately.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And it would have NEVER been ratified if people believed the government had the right to take their guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AMENDMENT [II.]
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Plain and simple... It is necessary for freedom that free people have the uninfringed right to bear arms.
Click to expand...


I'm curious, do you think the Supreme Court has the responsibility to determine what constitutes 'arms' in the case of the second amendment?

If not, how should that be determined?


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> You at least are avoiding digging your grave deeper by trying to defend your absurd rants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you said we agree!
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> And it would have NEVER been ratified if people believed the government had the right to take their guns.
> 
> 
> 
> Plain and simple... It is necessary for freedom that free people have the uninfringed right to bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Purposely ignoring the "WELL REGULATED Militia" bit.
> You just give and give and give.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, and you can't have one of those, in order to defend your freedoms, if you don't have the uninfringed right to bear arms. Dingbat!
Click to expand...


And you don't have the right to bear arms without one.
Always the high road.


----------



## BreezeWood

Boss said:


> keep in mind Boss the document had eventually to be ratified and it was predominantly written by others than (your) rightwing extremists - but not without their input, unfortunately.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And it would have NEVER been ratified if people believed the government had the right to take their guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AMENDMENT [II.]
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Plain and simple... It is necessary for freedom that free people have the uninfringed right to bear arms.
Click to expand...



Arms as determined by the court to be lever or bolt action per round, non detachable magazine at 6 rounds or less capacity.

.


----------



## Boss

> I'm curious, do you think the Supreme Court has the responsibility to determine what constitutes 'arms' in the case of the second amendment?
> 
> If not, how should that be determined?



In my view, the SCOTUS does not have this authority. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. The amendment does not stipulate the right may be infringed by a court ruling at future undisclosed date. 

I know what you are getting at here... should we have the "right to bear NUKES then?" And the answer is, no.  Studying the Federalist Papers and arguments presented by John Locke and others, the "right" we retain to bear arms is for our defense. We have a right to be secure in our property and life, and we do not have the right to indiscriminately harm others. Machine guns, chemical weapons, anti-tank missiles, nukes... are weapons which have the capacity to kill indiscriminately, not merely "defend" our property and life.


----------



## Boss

> And you don't have the right to bear arms without one.



Uhm yes I do.


----------



## Boss

> Arms as determined by the court to be lever or bolt action per round, non detachable magazine at 6 rounds or less capacity.



Funny... I don't see this caveat in the 2nd Amendment.


----------



## BreezeWood

Boss said:


> Arms as determined by the court to be lever or bolt action per round, non detachable magazine at 6 rounds or less capacity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny... I don't see this caveat in the 2nd Amendment.
Click to expand...



A well regulated Militia ... is a caveat the extrapolation is your own.

.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> I'm curious, do you think the Supreme Court has the responsibility to determine what constitutes 'arms' in the case of the second amendment?
> 
> If not, how should that be determined?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my view, the SCOTUS does not have this authority. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. The amendment does not stipulate the right may be infringed by a court ruling at future undisclosed date.
> 
> I know what you are getting at here... should we have the "right to bear NUKES then?" And the answer is, no.  Studying the Federalist Papers and arguments presented by John Locke and others, the "right" we retain to bear arms is for our defense. We have a right to be secure in our property and life, and we do not have the right to indiscriminately harm others. Machine guns, chemical weapons, anti-tank missiles, nukes... are weapons which have the capacity to kill indiscriminately, not merely "defend" our property and life.
Click to expand...


Aren't you merely interpreting the amendment yourself here?

My point isn't simply that arms can be used to describe a whole host of things not covered by the second according to SCOTUS.  The point is that almost any statement, no matter how clear it may seem, can contain some ambiguity; this is especially true with the passage of time, the rise of new technology, changes in language, etc.

So who determines what, exactly, any amendment actually means?  Clearly you have your own opinion about what constitutes arms in the second.  Just as clearly that opinion is not shared universally.  So who has the final say?

And wow have we ranged far afield!


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> And you don't have the right to bear arms without one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uhm yes I do.
Click to expand...


Why does the COTUS say anything about a militia, then?
I thought you were all for what is written.


----------



## Boss

BreezeWood said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arms as determined by the court to be lever or bolt action per round, non detachable magazine at 6 rounds or less capacity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny... I don't see this caveat in the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A well regulated Militia ... is a caveat the extrapolation is your own.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


And what "well regulated militia" is restricted to "lever or bolt action per round, non detachable magazine at 6 rounds or less capacity?"   ...Switzerland?


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm curious, do you think the Supreme Court has the responsibility to determine what constitutes 'arms' in the case of the second amendment?
> 
> If not, how should that be determined?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my view, the SCOTUS does not have this authority. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. The amendment does not stipulate the right may be infringed by a court ruling at future undisclosed date.
> 
> I know what you are getting at here... should we have the "right to bear NUKES then?" And the answer is, no.  Studying the Federalist Papers and arguments presented by John Locke and others, the "right" we retain to bear arms is for our defense. We have a right to be secure in our property and life, and we do not have the right to indiscriminately harm others. Machine guns, chemical weapons, anti-tank missiles, nukes... are weapons which have the capacity to kill indiscriminately, not merely "defend" our property and life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aren't you merely interpreting the amendment yourself here?
> 
> My point isn't simply that arms can be used to describe a whole host of things not covered by the second according to SCOTUS.  The point is that almost any statement, no matter how clear it may seem, can contain some ambiguity; this is especially true with the passage of time, the rise of new technology, changes in language, etc.
> 
> So who determines what, exactly, any amendment actually means?  Clearly you have your own opinion about what constitutes arms in the second.  Just as clearly that opinion is not shared universally.  So who has the final say?
> 
> And wow have we ranged far afield!
Click to expand...


I'm interpreting the amendment on the basis of what the founding fathers said in the Federalist Papers, which is the outline for the amendment itself. The court is allowed to look at the Federalist Papers and make rulings based on what they prescribe. They are not allowed to arbitrarily say "we think this is what it _should_ mean." Or, as Justice Kennedy did a few years ago and "look to international law" to determine what the Constitution means. 

I understand your point, but there is a very fine line between judicial activism and earnestly ruling based on the founding intent. In my opinion, we crossed that line a long time ago.

The Constitution is anything but ambiguous, if you juxtapose it with the body of Federalist Papers. Each one of the Bill of Rights were heavily debated for months, proponents and opponents on each side made their cases and ironed out the arguments. This wasn't just some collective group-think where everyone agreed. So in every case, there is ample documentation to determine exactly what was intended and meant by every single word. SCOTUS is supposed to rule on that basis alone, not what Justices WISH were the case. If it's not in the Constitution or intended by the founders, the court is supposed to rule that way and leave the rest to the legislative branch and the people. If something is not Constitutional and the people want it to be, they have a process by which they can amend the Constitution.


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you don't have the right to bear arms without one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uhm yes I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why does the COTUS say anything about a militia, then?
> I thought you were all for what is written.
Click to expand...


Because the right of the citizenry to bear arms is for the defense of freedom and liberty. It is a rationale and not a precursor. The thinking of Madison and others was, if we should come under attack, the several state militias would be more formidable than a single national army. Or, in the event a hostile takeover of federal government happened (a coup) then mobilized state militias could overwhelm the federalized arsenal. 

There is no "requirement" of membership in any state militia to bear arms. In fact, there were very specific formulations made as to the estimated size of militias to ratio of population. Had the intent be to  ONLY arm militia members, the right to bear arms would have only been extended to that specified number and no more. The right is not to be infringed regardless of militia status. In fact, Samuel Adams argued and lost a bid to REQUIRE every citizen to be armed.


----------



## MrMax

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uhm yes I do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why does the COTUS say anything about a militia, then?
> I thought you were all for what is written.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the right of the citizenry to bear arms is for the defense of freedom and liberty. It is a rationale and not a precursor. The thinking of Madison and others was, if we should come under attack, the several state militias would be more formidable than a single national army. Or, in the event a hostile takeover of federal government happened (a coup) then mobilized state militias could overwhelm the federalized arsenal.
> 
> There is no "requirement" of membership in any state militia to bear arms. In fact, there were very specific formulations made as to the estimated size of militias to ratio of population. Had the intent be to  ONLY arm militia members, the right to bear arms would have only been extended to that specified number and no more. The right is not to be infringed regardless of militia status. In fact, Samuel Adams argued and lost a bid to REQUIRE every citizen to be armed.
Click to expand...


The 2nd Amendment has been violated by the government by not letting you own nukes, tanks and other arms, to defend yourselves against a tyrannical government, which has you out-gunned right now. So arguing about respecting something that already is not being respected is a moot argument.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uhm yes I do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why does the COTUS say anything about a militia, then?
> I thought you were all for what is written.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the right of the citizenry to bear arms is for the defense of freedom and liberty. It is a rationale and not a precursor. The thinking of Madison and others was, if we should come under attack, the several state militias would be more formidable than a single national army. Or, in the event a hostile takeover of federal government happened (a coup) then mobilized state militias could overwhelm the federalized arsenal.
> 
> There is no "requirement" of membership in any state militia to bear arms. In fact, there were very specific formulations made as to the estimated size of militias to ratio of population. Had the intent be to  ONLY arm militia members, the right to bear arms would have only been extended to that specified number and no more. The right is not to be infringed regardless of militia status. In fact, Samuel Adams argued and lost a bid to REQUIRE every citizen to be armed.
Click to expand...


So it is a "rationale" or an example of the amendments usefulness?
Can you show other parts of the COTUS that give this kind of example?


----------



## BreezeWood

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny... I don't see this caveat in the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A well regulated Militia ... is a caveat the extrapolation is your own.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what "well regulated militia" is restricted to "lever or bolt action per round, non detachable magazine at 6 rounds or less capacity?"   ...Switzerland?
Click to expand...



in my opinion, a well regulated one (militia), the same as the Arms available to its citizenry.


we know Bossy, every Ukrainian should have an AK47 fully automatic rifle because they like you need unlimited firepower to defend themselves.

.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my view, the SCOTUS does not have this authority. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. The amendment does not stipulate the right may be infringed by a court ruling at future undisclosed date.
> 
> I know what you are getting at here... should we have the "right to bear NUKES then?" And the answer is, no.  Studying the Federalist Papers and arguments presented by John Locke and others, the "right" we retain to bear arms is for our defense. We have a right to be secure in our property and life, and we do not have the right to indiscriminately harm others. Machine guns, chemical weapons, anti-tank missiles, nukes... are weapons which have the capacity to kill indiscriminately, not merely "defend" our property and life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aren't you merely interpreting the amendment yourself here?
> 
> My point isn't simply that arms can be used to describe a whole host of things not covered by the second according to SCOTUS.  The point is that almost any statement, no matter how clear it may seem, can contain some ambiguity; this is especially true with the passage of time, the rise of new technology, changes in language, etc.
> 
> So who determines what, exactly, any amendment actually means?  Clearly you have your own opinion about what constitutes arms in the second.  Just as clearly that opinion is not shared universally.  So who has the final say?
> 
> And wow have we ranged far afield!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm interpreting the amendment on the basis of what the founding fathers said in the Federalist Papers, which is the outline for the amendment itself. The court is allowed to look at the Federalist Papers and make rulings based on what they prescribe. They are not allowed to arbitrarily say "we think this is what it _should_ mean." Or, as Justice Kennedy did a few years ago and "look to international law" to determine what the Constitution means.
> 
> I understand your point, but there is a very fine line between judicial activism and earnestly ruling based on the founding intent. In my opinion, we crossed that line a long time ago.
> 
> The Constitution is anything but ambiguous, if you juxtapose it with the body of Federalist Papers. Each one of the Bill of Rights were heavily debated for months, proponents and opponents on each side made their cases and ironed out the arguments. This wasn't just some collective group-think where everyone agreed. So in every case, there is ample documentation to determine exactly what was intended and meant by every single word. SCOTUS is supposed to rule on that basis alone, not what Justices WISH were the case. If it's not in the Constitution or intended by the founders, the court is supposed to rule that way and leave the rest to the legislative branch and the people. If something is not Constitutional and the people want it to be, they have a process by which they can amend the Constitution.
Click to expand...


I'm not going to argue the infallibility or even correctness of the court.  I'll even agree that it would be good to see the amendment process used more rather than so many judgements left to court decisions.

However, the SCOTUS is the final judge on issues of constitutionality.  If people believe they have gone beyond the bounds of their powers in interpreting amendments, that is yet another time where using the constitutional amendment process would be appropriate.  In the case of the second, I certainly wouldn't be opposed to that amendment being reworded, at the least, rather than trying to figure out what the founders' intent would be if they were exposed to modern weapons technology.


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why does the COTUS say anything about a militia, then?
> I thought you were all for what is written.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the right of the citizenry to bear arms is for the defense of freedom and liberty. It is a rationale and not a precursor. The thinking of Madison and others was, if we should come under attack, the several state militias would be more formidable than a single national army. Or, in the event a hostile takeover of federal government happened (a coup) then mobilized state militias could overwhelm the federalized arsenal.
> 
> There is no "requirement" of membership in any state militia to bear arms. In fact, there were very specific formulations made as to the estimated size of militias to ratio of population. Had the intent be to  ONLY arm militia members, the right to bear arms would have only been extended to that specified number and no more. The right is not to be infringed regardless of militia status. In fact, Samuel Adams argued and lost a bid to REQUIRE every citizen to be armed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So it is a "rationale" or an example of the amendments usefulness?
> Can you show other parts of the COTUS that give this kind of example?
Click to expand...


Rationale and example are certainly not synonyms. They are not defining "usefulness" of an inalienable right. Whether other parts are presented similarly is not relevant. 

Grow a brain, read the Federalist Papers.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the right of the citizenry to bear arms is for the defense of freedom and liberty. It is a rationale and not a precursor. The thinking of Madison and others was, if we should come under attack, the several state militias would be more formidable than a single national army. Or, in the event a hostile takeover of federal government happened (a coup) then mobilized state militias could overwhelm the federalized arsenal.
> 
> There is no "requirement" of membership in any state militia to bear arms. In fact, there were very specific formulations made as to the estimated size of militias to ratio of population. Had the intent be to  ONLY arm militia members, the right to bear arms would have only been extended to that specified number and no more. The right is not to be infringed regardless of militia status. In fact, Samuel Adams argued and lost a bid to REQUIRE every citizen to be armed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it is a "rationale" or an example of the amendments usefulness?
> Can you show other parts of the COTUS that give this kind of example?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rationale and example are certainly not synonyms. They are not defining "usefulness" of an inalienable right. Whether other parts are presented similarly is not relevant.
> 
> Grow a brain, read the Federalist Papers.
Click to expand...


It's very relevant.
If the practice of providing the rationale or example is non-existent elsewhere in the COTUS it sort of undermines your argument.
The Federalist Papers are not U.S. law.


----------



## Boss

MrMax said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why does the COTUS say anything about a militia, then?
> I thought you were all for what is written.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the right of the citizenry to bear arms is for the defense of freedom and liberty. It is a rationale and not a precursor. The thinking of Madison and others was, if we should come under attack, the several state militias would be more formidable than a single national army. Or, in the event a hostile takeover of federal government happened (a coup) then mobilized state militias could overwhelm the federalized arsenal.
> 
> There is no "requirement" of membership in any state militia to bear arms. In fact, there were very specific formulations made as to the estimated size of militias to ratio of population. Had the intent be to  ONLY arm militia members, the right to bear arms would have only been extended to that specified number and no more. The right is not to be infringed regardless of militia status. In fact, Samuel Adams argued and lost a bid to REQUIRE every citizen to be armed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 2nd Amendment has been violated by the government by not letting you own nukes, tanks and other arms, to defend yourselves against a tyrannical government, which has you out-gunned right now. So arguing about respecting something that already is not being respected is a moot argument.
Click to expand...


I've addressed this meme already. If you'll read the Federalist Papers, the argument made for our right to bear arms is defense of liberty and freedom, to be secure in property and life. You do not have the right to kill indiscriminately. Nukes, etc. kill indiscriminately. 

On the question of being outgunned... Do you know of any army with 250 million armed soldiers? Yep, you're gonna have to nuke the entire place rendering it uninhabitable... kinda defeats the purpose. Also, there is an estimated 480,000 machine guns registered in the US.


----------



## Boss

*It's very relevant.*

Nope. It's not.

*If the practice of providing the rationale or example is non-existent elsewhere in the COTUS it sort of undermines your argument.*

Didn't say it was non-existent, said it was irrelevant. Doesn't matter if it's elsewhere, unless elsewhere they are talking about our inalienable right to bear arms. 

*The Federalist Papers are not U.S. law.*

Didn't say they were. Legal briefs which outline civil and criminal code are also not U.S. law. There is a difference between what is the law and what is the outline for the law. This is why we have lawyers and constitutional scholars, and don't depend on idiots who frequent message boards.


----------



## orogenicman

Boss said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the right of the citizenry to bear arms is for the defense of freedom and liberty. It is a rationale and not a precursor. The thinking of Madison and others was, if we should come under attack, the several state militias would be more formidable than a single national army. Or, in the event a hostile takeover of federal government happened (a coup) then mobilized state militias could overwhelm the federalized arsenal.
> 
> There is no "requirement" of membership in any state militia to bear arms. In fact, there were very specific formulations made as to the estimated size of militias to ratio of population. Had the intent be to ONLY arm militia members, the right to bear arms would have only been extended to that specified number and no more. The right is not to be infringed regardless of militia status. In fact, Samuel Adams argued and lost a bid to REQUIRE every citizen to be armed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd Amendment has been violated by the government by not letting you own nukes, tanks and other arms, to defend yourselves against a tyrannical government, which has you out-gunned right now. So arguing about respecting something that already is not being respected is a moot argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've addressed this meme already. If you'll read the Federalist Papers, the argument made for our right to bear arms is defense of liberty and freedom, to be secure in property and life. You do not have the right to kill indiscriminately. Nukes, etc. kill indiscriminately.
> 
> On the question of being outgunned... Do you know of any army with 250 million armed soldiers? Yep, you're gonna have to nuke the entire place rendering it uninhabitable... kinda defeats the purpose. Also, there is an estimated 480,000 machine guns registered in the US.
Click to expand...


Yeah, well, someone please explain to me why any private citizen needs a machine gun.


----------



## Boss

> However, the SCOTUS is the final judge on issues of constitutionality.



No, they're not. _*We The People*_ are the final judge. Sorry!


----------



## Boss

> Yeah, well, someone please explain to me why any private citizen needs a machine gun.



So that when private citizens like you decide to declare your dictatorship, we can put you down like the rabid dogs you've become.


----------



## orogenicman

Boss said:


> Yeah, well, someone please explain to me why any private citizen needs a machine gun.
> 
> 
> 
> So that when private citizens like you decide to declare your dictatorship, we can put you down like the rabid dogs you've become.
Click to expand...


Not buying it.  That is why we have law enforcement, and the military.  I submit that anyone who thinks that they need to a machine gun in order to be our saviors is the real threat.  And for the record, no one asked me if I needed saving.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> Yeah, well, someone please explain to me why any private citizen needs a machine gun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So that when private citizens like you decide to declare your dictatorship, we can put you down like the rabid dogs you've become.
Click to expand...


You just made the case for the repeal of the amendment.
I'm not suggesting that mind you.
There are very few unhinged zealots like yourself that would be a threat, and you could easily be taken care of if necessary.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> However, the SCOTUS is the final judge on issues of constitutionality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they're not. _*We The People*_ are the final judge. Sorry!
Click to expand...


LOL!!!
We don't even have a direct vote for president.


----------



## Boss

orogenicman said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, well, someone please explain to me why any private citizen needs a machine gun.
> 
> 
> 
> So that when private citizens like you decide to declare your dictatorship, we can put you down like the rabid dogs you've become.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not buying it.  That is why we have law enforcement, and the military.  I submit that anyone who thinks that they need to a machine gun in order to be our saviors is the real threat.  And for the record, no one asked me if I needed saving.
Click to expand...


Don't care what you buy, to be honest. 

For the record, my viewpoint regarding arguments made by John Locke and others in the Federalist Papers, gives the government limited power to restrict ownership of certain kinds of weaponry, such as machine guns, bombs, missiles, chemical and biological weapons and nukes. The key is the weapon's capacity to kill indiscriminately. We do not have that constitutional right as individuals. 

That said, state militias should retain the right to arm themselves in any way the government is able to arm itself. One of the purposes of a state militia is to repel a possible rogue federal government. Hard to do that with pea shooters and pellet guns.


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, well, someone please explain to me why any private citizen needs a machine gun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So that when private citizens like you decide to declare your dictatorship, we can put you down like the rabid dogs you've become.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just made the case for the repeal of the amendment.
> I'm not suggesting that mind you.
> There are very few unhinged zealots like yourself that would be a threat, and you could easily be taken care of if necessary.
Click to expand...


Sorry that you are retarded and can't seem to read a paragraph without misconstruing context. I am not an "unhinged zealot" and pose no threat to freedom and liberty.


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, the SCOTUS is the final judge on issues of constitutionality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they're not. _*We The People*_ are the final judge. Sorry!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!!!
> We don't even have a direct vote for president.
Click to expand...


We're not supposed to. It's called "representative democracy." 

This has nothing to do with how amendments are ratified. It's a totally different process than we use to elect a president. You would realize this if you weren't so retarded.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> So that when private citizens like you decide to declare your dictatorship, we can put you down like the rabid dogs you've become.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just made the case for the repeal of the amendment.
> I'm not suggesting that mind you.
> There are very few unhinged zealots like yourself that would be a threat, and you could easily be taken care of if necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry that you are retarded and can't seem to read a paragraph without misconstruing context. I am not an "unhinged zealot" and pose no threat to freedom and liberty.
Click to expand...


You're the only one on here advocating gunning down their fellow citizens.


----------



## Newby

orogenicman said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd Amendment has been violated by the government by not letting you own nukes, tanks and other arms, to defend yourselves against a tyrannical government, which has you out-gunned right now. So arguing about respecting something that already is not being respected is a moot argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've addressed this meme already. If you'll read the Federalist Papers, the argument made for our right to bear arms is defense of liberty and freedom, to be secure in property and life. You do not have the right to kill indiscriminately. Nukes, etc. kill indiscriminately.
> 
> On the question of being outgunned... Do you know of any army with 250 million armed soldiers? Yep, you're gonna have to nuke the entire place rendering it uninhabitable... kinda defeats the purpose. Also, there is an estimated 480,000 machine guns registered in the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, well, someone please explain to me why any private citizen needs a machine gun.
Click to expand...


Yeah, well, someone please explain to me why any private citizen needs ....

Fill in the blank.  A private citizen doesn't 'need' a lot of things, but it's not for the government to decide what a citizen should need or not, it's up to the PRIVATE citizen to determine their own needs and fulfill them. And it's not anyone ele's business as long as laws are not broken. 

Do you need sugar?  It's just bad for you..
Do you need ciggies?  Nah, they just cause everyone else to pay higher insurance...
Do you need a truck? Nope, uses too much fuel, creates carbon emissions, etc..
Do you need a house greater than 1000 sq. ft.?  Nope, big home use too much energy..

And on and on and on...


----------



## orogenicman

Newby said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've addressed this meme already. If you'll read the Federalist Papers, the argument made for our right to bear arms is defense of liberty and freedom, to be secure in property and life. You do not have the right to kill indiscriminately. Nukes, etc. kill indiscriminately.
> 
> On the question of being outgunned... Do you know of any army with 250 million armed soldiers? Yep, you're gonna have to nuke the entire place rendering it uninhabitable... kinda defeats the purpose. Also, there is an estimated 480,000 machine guns registered in the US.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, well, someone please explain to me why any private citizen needs a machine gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, well, someone please explain to me why any private citizen needs ....
> 
> Fill in the blank. A private citizen doesn't 'need' a lot of things, but it's not for the government to decide what a citizen should need or not, it's up to the PRIVATE citizen to determine their own needs and fulfill them. And it's not anyone ele's business as long as laws are not broken.
> 
> Do you need sugar? It's just bad for you..
> Do you need ciggies? Nah, they just cause everyone else to pay higher insurance...
> Do you need a truck? Nope, uses too much fuel, creates carbon emissions, etc..
> Do you need a house greater than 1000 sq. ft.? Nope, big home use too much energy..
> 
> And on and on and on...
Click to expand...


If that were true, you wouldn't need a permit to own a machine gun in this country. If that were true, everyone would be allowed to own a trident nuclear submarine. Try again, please, to answer my question with a relevant response.


----------



## Boss

> You're the only one on here advocating gunning down their fellow citizens.



LOL... Where did I advocate any such thing?


----------



## orogenicman

Boss said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> So that when private citizens like you decide to declare your dictatorship, we can put you down like the rabid dogs you've become.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not buying it. That is why we have law enforcement, and the military. I submit that anyone who thinks that they need to a machine gun in order to be our saviors is the real threat. And for the record, no one asked me if I needed saving.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't care what you buy, to be honest.
> 
> For the record, my viewpoint regarding arguments made by John Locke and others in the Federalist Papers, gives the government limited power to restrict ownership of certain kinds of weaponry, such as machine guns, bombs, missiles, chemical and biological weapons and nukes. The key is the weapon's capacity to kill indiscriminately. We do not have that constitutional right as individuals.
> 
> That said, state militias should retain the right to arm themselves in any way the government is able to arm itself. One of the purposes of a state militia is to repel a possible rogue federal government. Hard to do that with pea shooters and pellet guns.
Click to expand...


A semi-automatic rifle with a 20 round cartridge, in any hands, has the potential to kill twenty people indiscriminately.  And yet they are completely legal in most, in not all, states.  When you say state Militias, I assume you are not talking about the National Guard (which, in my opinion is the only Constitutionally valid state militia that truly exists), because nowhere in the Constitution does it say that private militias (which is what you are really talking about) have the Constitutional right to overthrow the government of the United States.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> You're the only one on here advocating gunning down their fellow citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL... Where did I advocate any such thing?
Click to expand...


"So that when private citizens like you decide to declare your dictatorship, we can put you down like the rabid dogs you've become."

Right there.


----------



## Boss

> A semi-automatic rifle with a 20 round cartridge, in any hands, has the potential to kill twenty people indiscriminately. And yet they are completely legal in most, in not all, states. When you say state Militias, I assume you are not talking about the National Guard (which, in my opinion is the only Constitutionally valid state militia that truly exists), because nowhere in the Constitution does it say that private militias (which is what you are really talking about) have the Constitutional right to overthrow the government of the United States.



Well a slingshot and baseball bat have the potential to kill indiscriminately as well. The thing is, it takes an intentional act to make that happen. The other weapons mentioned can kill indiscriminately without intent to do so. Semi-automatic with 20-round cartridge does not have that capability, it requires intent. 

The National Guard is part of the reserve components of the United States Armed Forces. It is essentially State Militia under command of the US Department of Defense. 

No one has argued that the Constitution says private militias have the right to overthrow the government. Where in the fuck do you come up with these mistranslations???


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're the only one on here advocating gunning down their fellow citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL... Where did I advocate any such thing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "So that when private citizens like you decide to declare your dictatorship, we can put you down like the rabid dogs you've become."
> 
> Right there.
Click to expand...


Wow... not seeing where I *advocated* anything at all.


----------



## Boss

> If that were true, you wouldn't need a permit to own a machine gun in this country. If that were true, everyone would be allowed to own a trident nuclear submarine. Try again, please, to answer my question with a relevant response.



I've already answered this. It's found in the Federalist Papers, argued by Mr. John Locke and others. We're not allowed to have machine guns and nuclear weapons because they have the ability to unintentionally kill indiscriminately, which is not our Constitutional right as individuals.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL... Where did I advocate any such thing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "So that when private citizens like you decide to declare your dictatorship, we can put you down like the rabid dogs you've become."
> 
> Right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow... not seeing where I *advocated* anything at all.
Click to expand...


There are volumes of things you don't see about yourself.
Add one more.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> If that were true, you wouldn't need a permit to own a machine gun in this country. If that were true, everyone would be allowed to own a trident nuclear submarine. Try again, please, to answer my question with a relevant response.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've already answered this. It's found in the Federalist Papers, argued by Mr. John Locke and others. We're not allowed to have machine guns and nuclear weapons because they have the ability to unintentionally kill indiscriminately, which is not our Constitutional right as individuals.
Click to expand...


Ten round clips do this. Automatic weapons do this.
Are you against them as well?
No background checks encourage the type of people that will kill indiscriminately.
Are you for them?


----------



## orogenicman

Boss said:


> A semi-automatic rifle with a 20 round cartridge, in any hands, has the potential to kill twenty people indiscriminately. And yet they are completely legal in most, in not all, states. When you say state Militias, I assume you are not talking about the National Guard (which, in my opinion is the only Constitutionally valid state militia that truly exists), because nowhere in the Constitution does it say that private militias (which is what you are really talking about) have the Constitutional right to overthrow the government of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> Well a slingshot and baseball bat have the potential to kill indiscriminately as well. The thing is, it takes an intentional act to make that happen. The other weapons mentioned can kill indiscriminately without intent to do so. Semi-automatic with 20-round cartridge does not have that capability, it requires intent.
Click to expand...


33,000 gun-related deaths per year in the U.S. alone indicates that there is a hell of a lot of intent going on.



			
				booseyman said:
			
		

> The National Guard is part of the reserve components of the United States Armed Forces. It is essentially State Militia under command of the US Department of Defense.
> 
> *No one has argued that the Constitution says private militias have the right to overthrow the government. Where in the fuck do you come up with these mistranslations*???



"So that when private citizens like you decide to declare your dictatorship, we can put you down like the rabid dogs you've become."

Right there. 

By the way:

National Guard



> The Guard dates back to 1636, when Citizen-Soldiers formed militias to defend community and country. And for 377 years, the Guard has stayed true to its roots.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> However, the SCOTUS is the final judge on issues of constitutionality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they're not. _*We The People*_ are the final judge. Sorry!
Click to expand...


Let me clarify.  SCOTUS is the final organ of government to determine constitutionality.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> A semi-automatic rifle with a 20 round cartridge, in any hands, has the potential to kill twenty people indiscriminately. And yet they are completely legal in most, in not all, states. When you say state Militias, I assume you are not talking about the National Guard (which, in my opinion is the only Constitutionally valid state militia that truly exists), because nowhere in the Constitution does it say that private militias (which is what you are really talking about) have the Constitutional right to overthrow the government of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well a slingshot and baseball bat have the potential to kill indiscriminately as well. The thing is, it takes an intentional act to make that happen. The other weapons mentioned can kill indiscriminately without intent to do so. Semi-automatic with 20-round cartridge does not have that capability, it requires intent.
> 
> The National Guard is part of the reserve components of the United States Armed Forces. It is essentially State Militia under command of the US Department of Defense.
> 
> No one has argued that the Constitution says private militias have the right to overthrow the government. Where in the fuck do you come up with these mistranslations???
Click to expand...


I believe I understand your point, and in large part you are correct, but not entirely.  Any gun (any ranged weapon, really) can kill indiscriminately without intent.  A miss that hits a bystander.  A ricochet.  A bullet which continues on after traveling through the target.  Even with a hand to hand type weapon it's possible, just much harder to do because of the limited range.

You seem to be trying to make an argument based on difference in type when what you are actually arguing is a difference in degree.


----------



## BreezeWood

Boss said:


> If that were true, you wouldn't need a permit to own a machine gun in this country. If that were true, everyone would be allowed to own a trident nuclear submarine. Try again, please, to answer my question with a relevant response.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've already answered this. It's found in the Federalist Papers, argued by Mr. John Locke and others. *We're not allowed to have machine guns and nuclear weapons because they have the ability to unintentionally kill indiscriminately, which is not our Constitutional right as individuals.*
Click to expand...



*Link* ... We're not allowed to have machine guns and nuclear weapons *because they have the ability to unintentionally kill indiscriminately, which is not our Constitutional right as individuals.* ???  ...  because the federalist papers "says so". 


so you agree: 

Arms defined as lever or bolt action per round, non detachable magazine at 6 rounds or less capacity - is not an "infringement", according to "Mr. John Locke and others" due to the weapons accountability is Constitutional ... well, maybe you are not insane afterall.

.


----------



## Boss

Jeeesh... I've never seen a bunch so determine to hang something out of context just because it wasn't fully clarified. You guys are so freaking desperate to catch me in a snafu, you are literally foaming at the mouth to find something... anything... that you can manipulate into a misstatement. 

*33,000 gun-related deaths per year in the U.S. alone indicates that there is a hell of a lot of intent going on.

Any gun (any ranged weapon, really) can kill indiscriminately without intent.

Ten round clips do this. Automatic weapons do this.*

You only have the right to DEFEND your life, property, freedom. Yes, any gun, knife or rock can kill someone indiscriminately if in the hands of someone who intends to kill someone indiscriminately. THAT is NOT what is being discussed or debated. We are talking specifically about a weapon being used in the defense of your property, life or freedom. Whether the weapon has the _likelihood_ of harming an innocent bystander through no intention of the user. A nuke would _obviously_ kill innocent people. A surface-to-air missile would _obviously_ kill innocent people. A chemical or biological weapon... _obviously_, would kill innocent people who weren't intended targets of your defensive action. Dear Jesus... do I have to use more detailed and precise wording to get the point across to you people? 

A machine gun is borderline. I included it because I believe they have 'very high probability' of indiscriminately killing someone who shouldn't be killed when they are used in defense. Any type of semi-automatic weapon does not have the likelihood of indiscriminately harming someone who you don't intend to harm in your defensive action. Yeah... it _COULD_ happen.... probably it won't. 



> Link ... We're not allowed to have machine guns and nuclear weapons because they have the ability to unintentionally kill indiscriminately, which is not our Constitutional right as individuals. ??? ... because the federalist papers "says so".



Not because the Federalist Papers say so, because that is the law of the land. I'm attempting to explain WHY that is the law of the land, the basis for WHY we have some degree of limitation on "bearing arms" in America. The argument is found in Federalist 46, 23, 27 and 29. We are allowed to bear arms, but not allowed to bear arms that are _likely to indiscriminately kill innocent people_ when we use them in our defensive action. Like a nuclear bomb! Obviously, nuclear bombs were not argued or the issue raised in the Federalist Papers, but weapons like cannons were. The right to bear arms for self defense  is weighted against the right of the innocent bystander to remain alive. 

If you don't get it or understand it, I can't explain in any more detail than this. You'll need to go read the Federalist Papers to get a better idea of what the Founding Fathers intended with the 2nd Amendment. I've given you an overview, and if you don't believe me or think I am just blowing smoke up your ass, go find out for yourself. This isn't a game, there are no points to win by trying to twist and distort my context into something you can argue against. I gave you the benefit of my wisdom and you can take it or leave it.


----------



## MrMax

Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!

Was it in your creator's plan that we should be shooting at each other? Even in our own countries? He must be one hell of a badass dude!!! I bet everyone is packing in heaven.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Jeeesh... I've never seen a bunch so determine to hang something out of context just because it wasn't fully clarified. You guys are so freaking desperate to catch me in a snafu, you are literally foaming at the mouth to find something... anything... that you can manipulate into a misstatement.
> 
> *33,000 gun-related deaths per year in the U.S. alone indicates that there is a hell of a lot of intent going on.
> 
> Any gun (any ranged weapon, really) can kill indiscriminately without intent.
> 
> Ten round clips do this. Automatic weapons do this.*
> 
> You only have the right to DEFEND your life, property, freedom. Yes, any gun, knife or rock can kill someone indiscriminately if in the hands of someone who intends to kill someone indiscriminately. THAT is NOT what is being discussed or debated. We are talking specifically about a weapon being used in the defense of your property, life or freedom. Whether the weapon has the _likelihood_ of harming an innocent bystander through no intention of the user. A nuke would _obviously_ kill innocent people. A surface-to-air missile would _obviously_ kill innocent people. A chemical or biological weapon... _obviously_, would kill innocent people who weren't intended targets of your defensive action. Dear Jesus... do I have to use more detailed and precise wording to get the point across to you people?
> 
> A machine gun is borderline. I included it because I believe they have 'very high probability' of indiscriminately killing someone who shouldn't be killed when they are used in defense. Any type of semi-automatic weapon does not have the likelihood of indiscriminately harming someone who you don't intend to harm in your defensive action. Yeah... it _COULD_ happen.... probably it won't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link ... We're not allowed to have machine guns and nuclear weapons because they have the ability to unintentionally kill indiscriminately, which is not our Constitutional right as individuals. ??? ... because the federalist papers "says so".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not because the Federalist Papers say so, because that is the law of the land. I'm attempting to explain WHY that is the law of the land, the basis for WHY we have some degree of limitation on "bearing arms" in America. The argument is found in Federalist 46, 23, 27 and 29. We are allowed to bear arms, but not allowed to bear arms that are _likely to indiscriminately kill innocent people_ when we use them in our defensive action. Like a nuclear bomb! Obviously, nuclear bombs were not argued or the issue raised in the Federalist Papers, but weapons like cannons were. The right to bear arms for self defense  is weighted against the right of the innocent bystander to remain alive.
> 
> If you don't get it or understand it, I can't explain in any more detail than this. You'll need to go read the Federalist Papers to get a better idea of what the Founding Fathers intended with the 2nd Amendment. I've given you an overview, and if you don't believe me or think I am just blowing smoke up your ass, go find out for yourself. This isn't a game, there are no points to win by trying to twist and distort my context into something you can argue against. I gave you the benefit of my wisdom and you can take it or leave it.
Click to expand...


Again, there has to be an interpretation, a determination of how the founders intent jibes with modern weapons.  Obviously the founders did not know the many forms that weaponry would take over the years.  Would you agree that the SCOTUS must make that kind of determination when a relevant case comes before them?

As far as killing indiscriminately, the likelihood of such a thing is going to vary widely.  The type of weapon is only one factor; the skill and experience of the user, the physical condition of the user, the number of attackers, the location of the attack, etc. all can have an effect on whether a weapon is likely to kill indiscriminately.  Obviously a nuclear bomb is more likely to do so than a pistol, but given the right circumstances (firing in the middle of a large crowd, for example) a pistol has a pretty good chance of doing the same.  Again, someone must make those kinds of judgements as the cases arise.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> Jeeesh... I've never seen a bunch so determine to hang something out of context just because it wasn't fully clarified. You guys are so freaking desperate to catch me in a snafu, you are literally foaming at the mouth to find something... anything... that you can manipulate into a misstatement.
> 
> *33,000 gun-related deaths per year in the U.S. alone indicates that there is a hell of a lot of intent going on.
> 
> Any gun (any ranged weapon, really) can kill indiscriminately without intent.
> 
> Ten round clips do this. Automatic weapons do this.*
> 
> You only have the right to DEFEND your life, property, freedom. Yes, any gun, knife or rock can kill someone indiscriminately if in the hands of someone who intends to kill someone indiscriminately. THAT is NOT what is being discussed or debated. We are talking specifically about a weapon being used in the defense of your property, life or freedom. Whether the weapon has the _likelihood_ of harming an innocent bystander through no intention of the user. A nuke would _obviously_ kill innocent people. A surface-to-air missile would _obviously_ kill innocent people. A chemical or biological weapon... _obviously_, would kill innocent people who weren't intended targets of your defensive action. Dear Jesus... do I have to use more detailed and precise wording to get the point across to you people?
> 
> A machine gun is borderline. I included it because I believe they have 'very high probability' of indiscriminately killing someone who shouldn't be killed when they are used in defense. Any type of semi-automatic weapon does not have the likelihood of indiscriminately harming someone who you don't intend to harm in your defensive action. Yeah... it _COULD_ happen.... probably it won't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link ... We're not allowed to have machine guns and nuclear weapons because they have the ability to unintentionally kill indiscriminately, which is not our Constitutional right as individuals. ??? ... because the federalist papers "says so".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not because the Federalist Papers say so, because that is the law of the land. I'm attempting to explain WHY that is the law of the land, the basis for WHY we have some degree of limitation on "bearing arms" in America. The argument is found in Federalist 46, 23, 27 and 29. We are allowed to bear arms, but not allowed to bear arms that are _likely to indiscriminately kill innocent people_ when we use them in our defensive action. Like a nuclear bomb! Obviously, nuclear bombs were not argued or the issue raised in the Federalist Papers, but weapons like cannons were. The right to bear arms for self defense  is weighted against the right of the innocent bystander to remain alive.
> 
> If you don't get it or understand it, I can't explain in any more detail than this. You'll need to go read the Federalist Papers to get a better idea of what the Founding Fathers intended with the 2nd Amendment. I've given you an overview, and if you don't believe me or think I am just blowing smoke up your ass, go find out for yourself. This isn't a game, there are no points to win by trying to twist and distort my context into something you can argue against. I gave you the benefit of my wisdom and you can take it or leave it.
Click to expand...


Your "wisdom" is a crock.
Those papers simply don't make the case you are suggesting. They all relate to a militia vs. a standing army.
Read them again, or for the first time.


----------



## thanatos144

BreezeWood said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> A well regulated Militia ... is a caveat the extrapolation is your own.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what "well regulated militia" is restricted to "lever or bolt action per round, non detachable magazine at 6 rounds or less capacity?"   ...Switzerland?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> in my opinion, a well regulated one (militia), the same as the Arms available to its citizenry.
> 
> 
> we know Bossy, every Ukrainian should have an AK47 fully automatic rifle because they like you need unlimited firepower to defend themselves.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Bet they wish they did now with Russia invading them.


----------



## thanatos144

So the Gid haters lost the Debate on God so they derailed the thread to about Guns????? Pathetic.


----------



## Uncensored2008

thebrucebeat said:


> Ten round clips do this. Automatic weapons do this.
> Are you against them as well?
> No background checks encourage the type of people that will kill indiscriminately.
> Are you for them?



Mindless platitudes encourage the type of people who vote for and support tyrants - clealy you are for them...


----------



## Uncensored2008

orogenicman said:


> 33,000 gun-related deaths per year in the U.S. alone indicates that there is a hell of a lot of intent going on.



Comrade; how many of those are shootings by cops? 



> "So that when private citizens like you decide to declare your dictatorship, we can put you down like the rabid dogs you've become."
> 
> Right there.
> 
> By the way:
> 
> National Guard
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Guard dates back to 1636, when Citizen-Soldiers formed militias to defend community and country. And for 377 years, the Guard has stayed true to its roots.
Click to expand...


Comrade, are you saying that you want to disarm the peasants so that the party may slaughter them without resistance? Kinda that Khmer Rouge Killing Field thingy you Communists are so found of perpetrating?


----------



## Uncensored2008

orogenicman said:


> A semi-automatic rifle with a 20 round cartridge, in any hands, has the potential to kill twenty people indiscriminately.  And yet they are completely legal in most, in not all, states.  When you say state Militias, I assume you are not talking about the National Guard (which, in my opinion is the only Constitutionally valid state militia that truly exists), because nowhere in the Constitution does it say that private militias (which is what you are really talking about) have the Constitutional right to overthrow the government of the United States.



Comrade, you appear to not know the meaning of the word "indiscriminate."

Well, hatred and stupidity are the twin pillars of leftism, after all.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Uncensored2008 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 33,000 gun-related deaths per year in the U.S. alone indicates that there is a hell of a lot of intent going on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Comrade; how many of those are shootings by cops?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "So that when private citizens like you decide to declare your dictatorship, we can put you down like the rabid dogs you've become."
> 
> Right there.
> 
> By the way:
> 
> National Guard
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Guard dates back to 1636, when Citizen-Soldiers formed militias to defend community and country. And for 377 years, the Guard has stayed true to its roots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Comrade, are you saying that you want to disarm the peasants so that the party may slaughter them without resistance? Kinda that Khmer Rouge Killing Field thingy you Communists are so found of perpetrating?
Click to expand...


In 2011, 607 deaths were attributed to gunfire by police.
Next.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Uncensored2008 said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ten round clips do this. Automatic weapons do this.
> Are you against them as well?
> No background checks encourage the type of people that will kill indiscriminately.
> Are you for them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindless platitudes encourage the type of people who vote for and support tyrants - clealy you are for them...
Click to expand...


Tellingly, neither of you respond to the questions.


----------



## Clement

Boss said:


> *The Federalist Papers are not U.S. law.*
> 
> Didn't say they were. Legal briefs which outline civil and criminal code are also not U.S. law. There is a difference between what is the law and what is the outline for the law. This is why we have lawyers and constitutional scholars, and don't depend on idiots who frequent message boards.



"Separation of Church and State" is not US law, either, but the shriek it every chance they get, don't they?


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Again, there has to be an interpretation, a determination of how the founders intent jibes with modern weapons.  Obviously the founders did not know the many forms that weaponry would take over the years.  Would you agree that the SCOTUS must make that kind of determination when a relevant case comes before them?



This is what I have said since the first comment I made on this. The SCOTUS can use the Federalist Papers to determine founding intent and rule accordingly. The FF did know there would be a question as to what the limitations should be on all freedoms, not just this one. And the FP are where those are ironed out in very specific detail. It is not just arbitrarily up to the SCOTUS to "interpret" their own ideas into the Constitution. 



> As far as killing indiscriminately, the likelihood of such a thing is going to vary widely.  The type of weapon is only one factor; the skill and experience of the user, the physical condition of the user, the number of attackers, the location of the attack, etc. all can have an effect on whether a weapon is likely to kill indiscriminately.  Obviously a nuclear bomb is more likely to do so than a pistol, but given the right circumstances (firing in the middle of a large crowd, for example) a pistol has a pretty good chance of doing the same.  Again, someone must make those kinds of judgements as the cases arise.



Again, you are focusing on "kill indiscriminately" and ignoring context. Firing into the middle of a crowd is an ACTION... the pistol didn't take the action. Nor is firing into a crowd typically a defense of your property, life or freedom, unless the crowd is attacking them. Apparently I did a poor job of trying to explain the intent of the founding fathers on this. I've read extensively on this because I was curious about it myself... where do our "rights to bear arms" become limited or restricted by anyone, if the Constitution says they can't be infringed? Why can't an individual own a nuke? And it's because the nuke has the capacity to kill indiscriminately, not just "defend" your life and property. The right we have to bear arms is for defense of life, property and freedom. If in the normal usage of the weapon for that intent, it has the likely capacity to indiscriminately kill innocent people who pose no threat to your life, property or freedom, it is out of the range of what is covered by your constitutional right. Yes... the SCOTUS has the authority to look at the Federalist Papers and determine what the FF intended. That is ALL they are supposed to do.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, there has to be an interpretation, a determination of how the founders intent jibes with modern weapons.  Obviously the founders did not know the many forms that weaponry would take over the years.  Would you agree that the SCOTUS must make that kind of determination when a relevant case comes before them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is what I have said since the first comment I made on this. The SCOTUS can use the Federalist Papers to determine founding intent and rule accordingly. The FF did know there would be a question as to what the limitations should be on all freedoms, not just this one. And the FP are where those are ironed out in very specific detail. It is not just arbitrarily up to the SCOTUS to "interpret" their own ideas into the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as killing indiscriminately, the likelihood of such a thing is going to vary widely.  The type of weapon is only one factor; the skill and experience of the user, the physical condition of the user, the number of attackers, the location of the attack, etc. all can have an effect on whether a weapon is likely to kill indiscriminately.  Obviously a nuclear bomb is more likely to do so than a pistol, but given the right circumstances (firing in the middle of a large crowd, for example) a pistol has a pretty good chance of doing the same.  Again, someone must make those kinds of judgements as the cases arise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you are focusing on "kill indiscriminately" and ignoring context. Firing into the middle of a crowd is an ACTION... the pistol didn't take the action. Nor is firing into a crowd typically a defense of your property, life or freedom, unless the crowd is attacking them. Apparently I did a poor job of trying to explain the intent of the founding fathers on this. I've read extensively on this because I was curious about it myself... where do our "rights to bear arms" become limited or restricted by anyone, if the Constitution says they can't be infringed? Why can't an individual own a nuke? And it's because the nuke has the capacity to kill indiscriminately, not just "defend" your life and property. The right we have to bear arms is for defense of life, property and freedom. If in the normal usage of the weapon for that intent, it has the likely capacity to indiscriminately kill innocent people who pose no threat to your life, property or freedom, it is out of the range of what is covered by your constitutional right. Yes... the SCOTUS has the authority to look at the Federalist Papers and determine what the FF intended. That is ALL they are supposed to do.
Click to expand...

Two questions.
Where does it say in the COTUS that the Federalist Papers are to be consulted in legal determinations?
Where in the Federalist Papers does it make your case about individual defense of life, property or freedom? Quote it please, because I've read them.


----------



## Boss

> Two questions.
> Where does it say in the COTUS that the Federalist Papers are to be consulted in legal determinations?
> Where in the Federalist Papers does it make your case about individual defense of life, property or freedom? Quote it please, because I've read them.



I'm on my way out the door and don't have time to look it up... it's in there, as I said.. Check Federalist 46, 23, 27 & 29. I believe it's one of those. 

It doesn't say in the COTUS that the FP are to be consulted, it gives the SCOTUS the limited authority to rule on constitutionality. The FP are the outline and argument for everything in the Constitution, so this is the logical "source" by which the SCOTUS is appropriately authorized to consult. Anything other than the FP should have no bearing on the intent of the founding fathers.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> Two questions.
> Where does it say in the COTUS that the Federalist Papers are to be consulted in legal determinations?
> Where in the Federalist Papers does it make your case about individual defense of life, property or freedom? Quote it please, because I've read them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm on my way out the door and don't have time to look it up... it's in there, as I said.. Check Federalist 46, 23, 27 & 29. I believe it's one of those.
> 
> It doesn't say in the COTUS that the FP are to be consulted, it gives the SCOTUS the limited authority to rule on constitutionality. The FP are the outline and argument for everything in the Constitution, so this is the logical "source" by which the SCOTUS is appropriately authorized to consult. Anything other than the FP should have no bearing on the intent of the founding fathers.
Click to expand...


Strikes one and two.
I looked those up already. It's none of those.
It doesn't say the FP are to be consulted, you're right.
It is simply what you wish.


----------



## Boss

*Strikes one and two.*

There's no strikes, we're not playing a game. Well... perhaps YOU are, but I'm not. 

*I looked those up already. It's none of those.*

I believe it is, I may be wrong. It's in there, I've read it before, the main argument is either raised or addressed by John Locke. You see, every freedom has limitation, there is no such thing as totally unfettered and unrestricted freedom. The boundaries of those limitations are outlined in the FP, but they are very difficult to read and decipher because they used Colonial era language that we no longer speak. Since you have such a difficult time with the common language we DO speak, it doesn't surprise me in the least that you don't find it. 

*It doesn't say the FP are to be consulted, you're right.
It is simply what you wish.*

Well it's not what I wish, it is as I said, the logical source for making determinations on what the Constitution is intended to mean. The Constitution is NOT a "living document" that changes in meaning over time. It's the law... the rules of the game. Would you like to play poker with me and have the rules of the game be "living?" I should think not. 

The FP are the source files for determining the unambiguous meaning of everything written in the Constitution. Not a thing is left out or not addressed. It's beyond the authority of the SCOTUS to "interpret" meaning into the Constitution, they are supposed to rule according to founding intent as written. They have not always followed this course, and the further down the road we go, the more it seems to be that people like yourself, seeing the court stacked with left-wing justices, seem to be content to let it ride. The danger here is what can happen whenever the makeup of the court changes, and you don't like what a right-wing court starts "interpreting" into the Constitution. Our system works for the best when it is allowed to work under the rules as established. If you want to change something in the Constitution, do it by ratification.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> *Strikes one and two.*
> 
> There's no strikes, we're not playing a game. Well... perhaps YOU are, but I'm not.
> 
> *I looked those up already. It's none of those.*
> 
> I believe it is, I may be wrong. It's in there, I've read it before, the main argument is either raised or addressed by John Locke. You see, every freedom has limitation, there is no such thing as totally unfettered and unrestricted freedom. The boundaries of those limitations are outlined in the FP, but they are very difficult to read and decipher because they used Colonial era language that we no longer speak. Since you have such a difficult time with the common language we DO speak, it doesn't surprise me in the least that you don't find it.
> 
> *It doesn't say the FP are to be consulted, you're right.
> It is simply what you wish.*
> 
> Well it's not what I wish, it is as I said, the logical source for making determinations on what the Constitution is intended to mean. The Constitution is NOT a "living document" that changes in meaning over time. It's the law... the rules of the game. Would you like to play poker with me and have the rules of the game be "living?" I should think not.
> 
> The FP are the source files for determining the unambiguous meaning of everything written in the Constitution. Not a thing is left out or not addressed. It's beyond the authority of the SCOTUS to "interpret" meaning into the Constitution, they are supposed to rule according to founding intent as written. They have not always followed this course, and the further down the road we go, the more it seems to be that people like yourself, seeing the court stacked with left-wing justices, seem to be content to let it ride. The danger here is what can happen whenever the makeup of the court changes, and you don't like what a right-wing court starts "interpreting" into the Constitution. Our system works for the best when it is allowed to work under the rules as established. If you want to change something in the Constitution, do it by ratification.



You are a never ending source of absurdity.
First you categorically stated the specific papers we should go to.
Then it was "I think those are the ones, but I gotta go."
Now it's "I may be wrong, but trust me. It's in there somewhere."
Compelling.
Don't bother to walk it back either. I'll just quote you and humiliate you...again.
The "living document" vs. "original intent" argument is long standing and ongoing. People disagree. It is not a fait accompli as you pretend and wish it to be.
I detest what the current right wing court has done. I detest the ridiculous interpretations they have come to with no regard to the original intent, and not because they violate original intent, but because they have violated the American people.
But it doesn't change the fact that they are empowered to do the egregious things they have done. They are, and only the power of amendment will change it.
You are under the same system and are free to be disgusted by whatever your imagined liberal court might do in the future, should that come to pass.
But they most certainly DO have that power, and crying about it and saying "I'm right, I'm right!" won't change that.


----------



## Boss

> But it doesn't change the fact that they are empowered to do the egregious things they have done.



No, they are not.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> But it doesn't change the fact that they are empowered to do the egregious things they have done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
Click to expand...


Oh, no?
How did they do it then?


----------



## emilynghiem

thebrucebeat said:


> Two questions.
> Where does it say in the COTUS that the Federalist Papers are to be consulted in legal determinations?
> Where in the Federalist Papers does it make your case about individual defense of life, property or freedom? Quote it please, because I've read them.



By "free exercise of religion" and 
"equal protection of the laws without discrimination by creed"
whatever people's beliefs are should be included under the 1st and 14th Amendment.

If someone uses the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, Bible
Federalist writings etc. to explain what their beliefs are, that is up to that person.

If we only counted Christianity/the Bible or "established religions" as protected, then we would be guilty of discriminating against people whose beliefs draw from other resources.

So out of respect for people's beliefs, does it really matter what resources they cite?
Shouldn't all people's beliefs be treated with equal respect and inclusion?


----------



## emilynghiem

Boss said:


> However, the SCOTUS is the final judge on issues of constitutionality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they're not. _*We The People*_ are the final judge. Sorry!
Click to expand...


Yes and no.

By the letter of the law, the last stop is the Supreme Court.
If there is still a problem, we have to start over and
pass an amendment to change the law that the SC does not have
power to rewrite, only say yes or no.

In essence, I agree totally that the people have the ultimate check on all govt at all levels.
We are not automatons blindly following law and govt or that would be violating religious freedom.

Ultimately all authority of law and govt resides with the consent of the people.
This is a NATURAL LAW so you will see the democratic due process follow
the consent of the people, and bring about protest/objection/reform where
the consent of people has been violated or not represented and requires connection.

by the spirit of the laws and the democratic process
the people are the last check on govt; if we do not consent to a law or decision, then we will follow the laws to push for reform and correction.


----------



## emilynghiem

[MENTION=18558]Gadawg73[/MENTION]
I would say the common denominator is
FEAR and unforgiveness

Religious teachings, where taught consistently as UNIVERSAL truth (not exclusionary tactics), help to OVERCOME fear with faith in greater truth and love for all humanity.
So they have been used for equal good.

if you are going to blame religion for being used as a weapon for war and destruction
isn't it fair to equally credit religion for preventing and recovering from war and destruction



Gadawg73 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's a logical fallacy.
> 
> Most atheists live in communities that are held together by laws...laws that have their basis in religion.
> 
> So your assumption is not valid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, communities have been slaughtering each other since the inception of religion.
> BECAUSE OF THEIR DIFFERENCES OF RELIGION.
> If there is one common denominator of what TEARS APART communities over the last 4000 years it is RELIGION.
> Where do you come up with your nonsense?
> You WANT to believe this so it makes it true.
Click to expand...


----------



## emilynghiem

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it doesn't change the fact that they are empowered to do the egregious things they have done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, no?
> How did they do it then?
Click to expand...


The people in govt have free will to make decisions, whether they follow laws consistently or not. The DOMA and bans were not perfectly constitutional, but those legislators still used their capacity to write and pass those laws, even though these were ruled unconstitutional. Technically, as with contested mandates in ACA, these conflicts should be resolved BEFORE passing laws, instead of imposing biases that exclude other beliefs which is discrimination by creed and against Constitutional laws.

People run by "inertia" and will do what we want until something stops us. People in govt are no different.

Ideally, govt officials should check themselves, against the Constitution and the Code of Ethics for Govt Service by which partisan interests should NOT come before principle.

But our system is such that people are now using it more and more to push their agenda and wait for the other branches to check or change it.
(Corporate developers and the City of Houston have been getting away with this FOR YEARS because the people affected do not have legal resources to sue to stop them, so they go unchecked!)

I don't agree with this, and believe it is a wasteful abuse of power and resources that ultimately destroys integrity of govt and public trust.
It influences other people not to respect laws and authority, but do whatever we can get away with until the law stops us, which is what criminals do.

If there is a conflict with the law, that should be a sign to govt officials to RESOLVE the conflict FIRST, in order to write or reform the laws to reflect a consensual solution that addresses the objections, not "overrides them politically" as is happening now, left and right.

The driving force is 'consent of the governed" and the will of the people.
That is why people, politicians and parties are doing whatever they can within their capacity to push their agenda through all levels of govt they can reach.
They all want policies that reflect THEIR consent and represent THEIR beliefs.
Which is natural, as long as we include ALL people and beliefs equally in the democratic process.

The problem is we are NOT respecting the process, but abusing politics to bully opposition by coercion or exclusion,
instead of equally including and protecting all views and due process/right to petition for all people as the
Constitutional laws require. So then we rely on Courts or congress or votes/rulings
to "decide conflicts for us" instead of resolving issues directly with each other
where everyone is equally included, represented and protected. People on both sides of issues are abusing
political influence to manipulate and thwart the democratic process to get their way --
NOT what represents all the public as govt is authorized.

Because we the people are NOT following the Constitutional standards of equal protection, right to petition/due process,
and representation/consent of others equally as ourselves, that is why politics and govt have run amok and are no longer bound to represent our consent.
Then we respond by doing more of the same to override the people overriding us, and back and forth. 

So that is what is driving it, human free will and desire to make sure our consent or beliefs are represented, but unfortunately at the expense of others where these laws are ignored.


----------



## emilynghiem

[MENTION=37754]Hollie[/MENTION] I found 3 quotes of yours I wanted to respond to

A. one was about blaming Christianity for all the violent wars and killing

A. There is a book on "Saving Paradise" that points out the first 900+ years of the early church were about peace, brotherly love and paradise on earth, but around the 1000 year that's when the Crusade kick started with killing in the name of the Cross for politics.
This is not to be confused with the true message in Christianity.
It is more aligned with the warning in the Bible of the rise of the Antichrist
(also that Satan would be bound for 1000 years before being loosed again)

It is not fair to paint all Christianity in a bad light because of religious abuses.
Not all corporations are bad just because a lot of them abuse people and the environment.
The Constitution is not bad just because politicians and lawyers abuse power for greed.

The wrongs committed by abusing any law or religion are separate from the real meaning.

The violence committed by Buddhists against Muslims in the East is certainly
NOT what Buddhism is about or should be judged for.

Can I ask you to please make a distinction and not accuse the entire practice
because of the abuses of it?



Hollie said:


> The ignorant viewpoint of the time period is yours, actually.
> 
> You made a concerted effort to ascribe Christianity to folks such as Galileo, for one example. Are you really surprised that Galileo would be a Christian when the schools were run by the Church?  Would you be similarly surprised to discover that students in a Pakistani madrassah were muslim?
> 
> I also found it curious to note that you forgot. to identify that Galileo was ruthlessly persecuted by the church for his works challenging the heliocentric model. He was forced to recant his lifes work at the business end of the church capos who made him an offer he couldnt refuse. He spent the better part of the last decade of his life under house arrest.
> 
> We can go through others in your list that similarly ran afoul of church teachings and were persuaded (at the business end of a torch) that roasting marshmallows over their own burning flesh was the price for challenging church dogma.
> 
> My point is, you are dismissing the fact that religious institutions have often been a yolk around the neck of science and discovery. I think people are vastly more tolerant about scientific truths today than they were say, 400 years ago. In large part thats because religion has been throttled by the secular institutions. Not too many weathermen being burned at the stake these days because they predict a solar eclipse or a drought.
> 
> Do you want to know the time and date of every lunar eclipse for the 1,000 years? Well, you could ask an astronomer or, you could ask a prayer leader at the Pakistani madrassah.



B. as for science and faith, 
Many Christians would agree with you in criticizing the church for these problems.
Please notice that they do so to DEFEND the true faith, not discredit the whole thing.

All the same arguments you make can also be used to defend true Christianity by
distinguishing it from false practices and abuses to oppress and contradict itself.

C. your other message about proving God and not just "in terms of a feeling" etc.

What I suggest is proving the process of spiritual healing
which is quantifiable and does show the difference it makes
with forgiveness on curing mental and physical illness.

This has been studied medically and can be proven scientifically by replicable research.

There is a difference  between the negative energy in voodoo, sorcery witchcraft occult and other spiritism type practices and spells to try to effect change or cure people
vs.
the natural process of spiritual forgiveness, and deliverance from generational blockages
that otherwise prevent the mind and body from healing. by removing these blocks the results are facilitated healing, not just in the mind and body but also the person's relationships.

if you seek scientific proof that there is validity to the power of Christian prayer and healing, this is where I would focus. And I believe it would affirm America's key role in influencing the rest of the world by bridging the gaps between science and religion to reform the medical, mental health, and criminal justice systems by proving the natural healing process by which mental physical and criminal illnesses can be cured.


----------



## BreezeWood

> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking.




hey emily, remove the one word above and what do you get ?

.


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it doesn't change the fact that they are empowered to do the egregious things they have done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, no?
> How did they do it then?
Click to expand...


They did it by ruling in Marbury v. Madison.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, no?
> How did they do it then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They did it by ruling in Marbury v. Madison.
Click to expand...


Over 200 years ago.
Fairly significant precedent.


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, no?
> How did they do it then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They did it by ruling in Marbury v. Madison.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Over 200 years ago.
> Fairly significant precedent.
Click to expand...


_*But it doesn't change the fact that they are empowered to do the egregious things they have done.*_

Now we've determined it was a precedent established and not an empowerment by the Constitution. Thank you.


----------



## holston

emilynghiem said:


> By "free exercise of religion" and
> "equal protection of the laws without discrimination by creed"
> whatever people's beliefs are should be included under the 1st and 14th Amendment.
> 
> If someone uses the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, Bible
> Federalist writings etc. to explain what their beliefs are, that is up to that person.
> 
> If we only counted Christianity/the Bible or "established religions" as protected, then we would be guilty of discriminating against people whose beliefs draw from other resources.
> 
> So out of respect for people's beliefs, does it really matter what resources they cite?
> Shouldn't all people's beliefs be treated with equal respect and inclusion?



 What you people are persistent about overlooking is the fact that Freedom of Religion is already under assault in the US, Christian denominations in particular, and also the fact that* a legal precedent *has already been set which WILL censor religions other than Judaism. 

Now the Government Can Legally Kill Christians


> *
> Bill Dannemeyer
> U.S. Congressman, 1979-1992*
> 
> 
> 
> Your U.S. government can now legally kill Christians for the &#8220;crime&#8221; of worshipping Jesus Christ!  A diabolic deception has been perpetrated on the American people by their OWN leaders, Senators and Congressmen, who have sold their soul to the devil.  On March 5, 1991, in the House of Representatives, and March 7, 1991, in the U.S. Senate, without any knowledge of, or input by, the people of the United States, U.S. Senators and Congressmen passed a law that is so outrageous &#8211; and frankly unconstitutional &#8211; that it forces the American people to be bound by a set of monstrous rules, called the Noahide Laws, rules that make the belief in Jesus Christ a crime punishable by decapitation by guillotine!  On March 20, 1991, President George H.W. Bush, a supposed Christian, signed the bill into law.
> 
> *Before you respond, &#8220;NO, that cannot be &#8211; not in our free country!&#8221; let me explain.*
> 
> The passage of this law, HJ Res. 104, is especially troublesome to me because I was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives at the time it was passed.  Even worse, I was in the House Chamber the very day that is was passed, voting on other legislation.  *Yet I, as a U.S. Congressman, had NO KNOWLEDGE that it had been passed or even that it was to be brought up for a vote.*
> 
> How could this be?  *How could the deception be so pervasive *that those of us who had sworn to uphold our country&#8217;s Constitution, particularly *those of us (few, indeed) who really took our position seriously as the protectors of the people, could be totally in the dark *regarding the content of this bill and its passage by the leaders of this country &#8211; by *treachery and deceit?*



 Those who are interested can click on the link and read the CONGRESSMAN'S explanation. 

 If the words of a Congressman WHO WAS THERE don't carry enough weight for you, there are plenty of other links which may be found written from the viewpoint of a variety of sources which verify the above is true. 
 Those include a few written by Jews and proponents of Noahidism themselves who try to gloss the affair over and depict it as harmless by the equivocal use of words and ambiguity. 

 The bottom line here, is that where "Jews" and all their boot lickers  have made the first move towards _the eradication of _
Freedom of Religion. 
 It is also a FACT that ALL religions are NOT equal anymore than they are all harmless. The Jews are forced to admit this themselves with regard to Islam. What they WON'T admit is the insidious, Pharisaic, Machiavellian nature of Talmudic Judaism.

 The "end times" according to the Jewish religion call for GLOBAL RULE by JEWS. 

 Don't believe me? Look it up. I will continue posting the evidence as long as the Hasbara continue covering it up until every Tom, Dick, and Harry in the US is fully aware of what I am saying. 
 In the meantime the Jews can continue to slither out of it and all the Putzes who would trust their liberty and lives entirely in the hands of Zionist Jewish Supremacists and power mad, money lusting megalomaniacs can continue to swallow their lies. 


 The little US emblem and all the talk pretense of defending Christianity is a nice dodge but it won't work. The actions of the Jewish Union, despite their manifold attempts to conceal them, speak far louder than their words.


----------



## thebrucebeat

holston said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> By "free exercise of religion" and
> "equal protection of the laws without discrimination by creed"
> whatever people's beliefs are should be included under the 1st and 14th Amendment.
> 
> If someone uses the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, Bible
> Federalist writings etc. to explain what their beliefs are, that is up to that person.
> 
> If we only counted Christianity/the Bible or "established religions" as protected, then we would be guilty of discriminating against people whose beliefs draw from other resources.
> 
> So out of respect for people's beliefs, does it really matter what resources they cite?
> Shouldn't all people's beliefs be treated with equal respect and inclusion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you people are persistent about overlooking is the fact that Freedom of Religion is already under assault in the US, Christian denominations in particular, and also the fact that* a legal precedent *has already been set which WILL censor religions other than Judaism.
> 
> Now the Government Can Legally Kill Christians
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Bill Dannemeyer
> U.S. Congressman, 1979-1992*
> 
> 
> 
> Your U.S. government can now legally kill Christians for the crime of worshipping Jesus Christ!  A diabolic deception has been perpetrated on the American people by their OWN leaders, Senators and Congressmen, who have sold their soul to the devil.  On March 5, 1991, in the House of Representatives, and March 7, 1991, in the U.S. Senate, without any knowledge of, or input by, the people of the United States, U.S. Senators and Congressmen passed a law that is so outrageous  and frankly unconstitutional  that it forces the American people to be bound by a set of monstrous rules, called the Noahide Laws, rules that make the belief in Jesus Christ a crime punishable by decapitation by guillotine!  On March 20, 1991, President George H.W. Bush, a supposed Christian, signed the bill into law.
> 
> *Before you respond, NO, that cannot be  not in our free country! let me explain.*
> 
> The passage of this law, HJ Res. 104, is especially troublesome to me because I was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives at the time it was passed.  Even worse, I was in the House Chamber the very day that is was passed, voting on other legislation.  *Yet I, as a U.S. Congressman, had NO KNOWLEDGE that it had been passed or even that it was to be brought up for a vote.*
> 
> How could this be?  *How could the deception be so pervasive *that those of us who had sworn to uphold our countrys Constitution, particularly *those of us (few, indeed) who really took our position seriously as the protectors of the people, could be totally in the dark *regarding the content of this bill and its passage by the leaders of this country  by *treachery and deceit?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those who are interested can click on the link and read the CONGRESSMAN'S explanation.
> 
> If the words of a Congressman WHO WAS THERE don't carry enough weight for you, there are plenty of other links which may be found written from the viewpoint of a variety of sources which verify the above is true.
> Those include a few written by Jews and proponents of Noahidism themselves who try to gloss the affair over and depict it as harmless by the equivocal use of words and ambiguity.
> 
> The bottom line here, is that where "Jews" and all their boot lickers  have made the first move towards _the eradication of _
> Freedom of Religion.
> It is also a FACT that ALL religions are NOT equal anymore than they are all harmless. The Jews are forced to admit this themselves with regard to Islam. What they WON'T admit is the insidious, Pharisaic, Machiavellian nature of Talmudic Judaism.
> 
> The "end times" according to the Jewish religion call for GLOBAL RULE by JEWS.
> 
> Don't believe me? Look it up. I will continue posting the evidence as long as the Hasbara continue covering it up until every Tom, Dick, and Harry in the US is fully aware of what I am saying.
> In the meantime the Jews can continue to slither out of it and all the Putzes who would trust their liberty and lives entirely in the hands of Zionist Jewish Supremacists and power mad, money lusting megalomaniacs can continue to swallow their lies.
> 
> 
> The little US emblem and all the talk pretense of defending Christianity is a nice dodge but it won't work. The actions of the Jewish Union, despite their manifold attempts to conceal them, speak far louder than their words.
Click to expand...

I read it all, including the citation.
Both you and the congressman are clinically insane.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> They did it by ruling in Marbury v. Madison.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Over 200 years ago.
> Fairly significant precedent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _*But it doesn't change the fact that they are empowered to do the egregious things they have done.*_
> 
> Now we've determined it was a precedent established and not an empowerment by the Constitution. Thank you.
Click to expand...


By a COTUS determined method of jurisprudence that includes judgment of the court as the determinant of what is constitutional. What they do is set precedent or rule on the constitutionality of previously set precedent. Precedent isn't something outside the COTUS. It is the history of what has been adjudicated as upholding it.
Your argument essentially boils down to the history of American jurisprudence disagreeing with you, but YOU are right.
Got it.


----------



## Boss

> By a COTUS determined method of jurisprudence that includes judgment of the court as the determinant of what is constitutional. What they do is set precedent or rule on the constitutionality of previously set precedent. Precedent isn't something outside the COTUS. It is the history of what has been adjudicated as upholding it.
> Your argument essentially boils down to the history of American jurisprudence disagreeing with you, but YOU are right.
> Got it.



Man, that's some fancy tap dancing there with all the spinning and gyrating. So it's a precedent of a previous precedent constitutionally establishing what is already constitutionally established? An adjudication of the jurisprudence that adjudicates the jurisprudence of that which needed to be jurisprudently adjudicated forthwith? 
 LMFAO! Yeah... Got it!


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> By a COTUS determined method of jurisprudence that includes judgment of the court as the determinant of what is constitutional. What they do is set precedent or rule on the constitutionality of previously set precedent. Precedent isn't something outside the COTUS. It is the history of what has been adjudicated as upholding it.
> Your argument essentially boils down to the history of American jurisprudence disagreeing with you, but YOU are right.
> Got it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Man, that's some fancy tap dancing there with all the spinning and gyrating. So it's a precedent of a previous precedent constitutionally establishing what is already constitutionally established? An adjudication of the jurisprudence that adjudicates the jurisprudence of that which needed to be jurisprudently adjudicated forthwith?
> LMFAO! Yeah... Got it!
Click to expand...


No you don't.
You don't want to, because then you would have to admit that if there is a problem it is with the structure of the rule book.
If you can't defend your position, just don't post.
This one makes you look incapable of reading.


----------



## Boss

RE: holston's Noahide Laws resolution allowing the gov't to _kill Christians for worshiping Jesus_ and whatnot:

Bill Text - 102nd Congress (1991-1992) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That March 26, 1991, the start of the ninetieth year of Rabbi Menachem Schneerson, leader of the worldwide Lubavitch movement, is designated as `Education Day, U.S.A.'. The President is requested to issue a proclamation calling upon the people of the United States to _observe such day with appropriate ceremonies and activities._

Not a word in there about killing Christians for worshiping Jesus. Sorry!


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By a COTUS determined method of jurisprudence that includes judgment of the court as the determinant of what is constitutional. What they do is set precedent or rule on the constitutionality of previously set precedent. Precedent isn't something outside the COTUS. It is the history of what has been adjudicated as upholding it.
> Your argument essentially boils down to the history of American jurisprudence disagreeing with you, but YOU are right.
> Got it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Man, that's some fancy tap dancing there with all the spinning and gyrating. So it's a precedent of a previous precedent constitutionally establishing what is already constitutionally established? An adjudication of the jurisprudence that adjudicates the jurisprudence of that which needed to be jurisprudently adjudicated forthwith?
> LMFAO! Yeah... Got it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you don't.
> You don't want to, because then you would have to admit that if there is a problem it is with the structure of the rule book.
> If you can't defend your position, just don't post.
> This one makes you look incapable of reading.
Click to expand...


My position was already defended, I thanked you for it too!


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Man, that's some fancy tap dancing there with all the spinning and gyrating. So it's a precedent of a previous precedent constitutionally establishing what is already constitutionally established? An adjudication of the jurisprudence that adjudicates the jurisprudence of that which needed to be jurisprudently adjudicated forthwith?
> LMFAO! Yeah... Got it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you don't.
> You don't want to, because then you would have to admit that if there is a problem it is with the structure of the rule book.
> If you can't defend your position, just don't post.
> This one makes you look incapable of reading.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My position was already defended, I thanked you for it too!
Click to expand...


If that makes you feel better.


----------



## BreezeWood

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Man, that's some fancy tap dancing there with all the spinning and gyrating. So it's a precedent of a previous precedent constitutionally establishing what is already constitutionally established? An adjudication of the jurisprudence that adjudicates the jurisprudence of that which needed to be jurisprudently adjudicated forthwith?
> LMFAO! Yeah... Got it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you don't.
> You don't want to, because then you would have to admit that if there is a problem it is with the structure of the rule book.
> If you can't defend your position, just don't post.
> This one makes you look incapable of reading.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My position was already defended, I thanked you for it too!
Click to expand...



Boss, are you at all familiar with the Continental Congress "Articles of Confederation" ?

- that may be the bastion for reactionary right wing philosophy, but the proof of its failure is the document that replaced it, the US Constitution - you have a long treck to go back to where you want to be. thankfully it is not going to happen ...

the Federalist Papers were nothing but a ruse in the process of ratifying the new Liberal Theocracy - to replaced the past failure and its ardent admirers.

.


----------



## Boss

BreezeWood said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you don't.
> You don't want to, because then you would have to admit that if there is a problem it is with the structure of the rule book.
> If you can't defend your position, just don't post.
> This one makes you look incapable of reading.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My position was already defended, I thanked you for it too!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boss, are you at all familiar with the Continental Congress "Articles of Confederation" ?
> 
> - that may be the bastion for reactionary right wing philosophy, but the proof of its failure is the document that replaced it, the US Constitution - you have a long treck to go back to where you want to be. thankfully it is not going to happen ...
> 
> the Federalist Papers were nothing but a ruse in the process of ratifying the new Liberal Theocracy - to replaced the past failure and its ardent admirers.
Click to expand...


I'm very familiar with the Articles of Confederation, as well as the Anti-Federalist Papers... we don't hear much about them, but they did exist. And I suppose it's fair to point out not everyone agreed we should be a Federal republic, there were those who wanted us to be the Non-united States of America. But the FP were the establishing arguments, they include many of the Anti-federalist arguments juxtaposed with their Federalist response. In fact, the Bill of Rights was a major compromise to the Anti-Federalist argument and the Federalists would have likely failed without them. 

Now, the Bill of Rights were supposed to be a set of amendments which stood alone as unbreachable and unassailable by government or any court appointed by government. Yet, no sooner than the ink was dry and the Constitution ratified, they began doing just that. Nowadays, we think nothing in the world of it, we have morons like brucey believing this is empowered unto the court in the Constitution, when it certainly wasn't. The SCOTUS was established with very limited power to rule judiciously on matters where our constitutional rights collided. Does your right to liberty supercede my right to property... that sort of thing. But since Marbury, the SCOTUS has established an unconstitutional right to "interpret" the meaning of various aspects of the Constitution and it has only gotten worse with the passage of time.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> My position was already defended, I thanked you for it too!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss, are you at all familiar with the Continental Congress "Articles of Confederation" ?
> 
> - that may be the bastion for reactionary right wing philosophy, but the proof of its failure is the document that replaced it, the US Constitution - you have a long treck to go back to where you want to be. thankfully it is not going to happen ...
> 
> the Federalist Papers were nothing but a ruse in the process of ratifying the new Liberal Theocracy - to replaced the past failure and its ardent admirers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm very familiar with the Articles of Confederation, as well as the Anti-Federalist Papers... we don't hear much about them, but they did exist. And I suppose it's fair to point out not everyone agreed we should be a Federal republic, there were those who wanted us to be the Non-united States of America. But the FP were the establishing arguments, they include many of the Anti-federalist arguments juxtaposed with their Federalist response. In fact, the Bill of Rights was a major compromise to the Anti-Federalist argument and the Federalists would have likely failed without them.
> 
> Now, the Bill of Rights were supposed to be a set of amendments which stood alone as unbreachable and unassailable by government or any court appointed by government. Yet, no sooner than the ink was dry and the Constitution ratified, they began doing just that. Nowadays, we think nothing in the world of it, we have morons like brucey believing this is empowered unto the court in the Constitution, when it certainly wasn't. The SCOTUS was established with very limited power to rule judiciously on matters where our constitutional rights collided. Does your right to liberty supercede my right to property... that sort of thing. But since Marbury, the SCOTUS has established an unconstitutional right to "interpret" the meaning of various aspects of the Constitution and it has only gotten worse with the passage of time.
Click to expand...


I selected a scholastic site to explain this so it was at a level you can understand.
The Role of the Supreme Court | Scholastic.com

Here's another.
Supreme Court of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The Supreme Court of the United States (first abbreviated as SCOTUS in 1879)[1] was established pursuant to Article III of the United States Constitution in 1789 as the highest federal court in the United States. It has ultimate (and largely discretionary) appellate jurisdiction over all federal courts and over state court cases involving issues of federal law, plus original jurisdiction over a small range of cases. In the legal system of the United States, the Supreme Court is the final interpreter of federal constitutional law, although it may only act within the context of a case in which it has jurisdiction."


----------



## Boss

Why are you trying to turn this into (yet again) an argument you can "win" when there is no real argument here? What wikipedia or scholastics.com say about the SCOTUS present day, has absolutely nothing to do with the founding intent of the men who wrote the Constitution. It's like if I am arguing abortion is wrong and immoral, and someone posts a link to "show me" that abortion is legal! I already know this! That's NOT the argument! 

First of all, here is what Article III Section 2 says: 

_The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;&#8212;to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;&#8212;to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;&#8212;to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;&#8212;to Controversies between two or more States;&#8212;between a State and Citizens of another State;&#8212;between Citizens of different States;&#8212;between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, *with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.*

Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places *as the Congress may by Law have directed.*_

So we see here a very specifically defined role of the SCOTUS with a very rigorous helping of Congressional oversight. They are simply NOT delegated the sole authority to do as they damn well please without regard for Congress or The People. 

Here is what Thomas Jefferson had to say about SCOTUS judicial review in 1820:

_You seem ... to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution *has erected no such single tribunal*, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves._

Now this is juxtaposed to Hamilton's argument from Federalist 78: 

_Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental._

Hamilton continues. . .

_It can be of no weight to say that the courts, on the pretense of a repugnancy, may substitute their own pleasure to the constitutional intentions of the legislature. This might as well happen in the case of two contradictory statutes; or it might as well happen in every adjudication upon any single statute. The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body. The observation, if it prove any thing, would prove that there ought to be no judges distinct from that body._

So now we have two distinctively different Founding Fathers from opposite ends of the spectrum, both in agreement that it's ludicrous to assume the SCOTUS has the unmitigated "right" to determine and infer their own "intent" into the Constitution. They are simply supposed to rule on the basis of the Constitution unless there is a compelling fundamental violation of rights to the individual. In ALL cases, there is to be a specific legal case brought to the court for a legitimate hearing, it is NEVER supposed to be something hypothetical or to test Constitutionality. 

We've long since jumped the shark on this, and the SCOTUS now rules as an oligarchy, determining and shaping the Constitution of which we live by. That's NOT what the Founding Fathers  EVER intended.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> Why are you trying to turn this into (yet again) an argument you can "win" when there is no real argument here? What wikipedia or scholastics.com say about the SCOTUS present day, has absolutely nothing to do with the founding intent of the men who wrote the Constitution. It's like if I am arguing abortion is wrong and immoral, and someone posts a link to "show me" that abortion is legal! I already know this! That's NOT the argument!
> 
> First of all, here is what Article III Section 2 says:
> 
> _The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;to Controversies between two or more States;between a State and Citizens of another State;between Citizens of different States;between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
> 
> In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, *with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.*
> 
> Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places *as the Congress may by Law have directed.*_
> 
> So we see here a very specifically defined role of the SCOTUS with a very rigorous helping of Congressional oversight. They are simply NOT delegated the sole authority to do as they damn well please without regard for Congress or The People.
> 
> Here is what Thomas Jefferson had to say about SCOTUS judicial review in 1820:
> 
> _You seem ... to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution *has erected no such single tribunal*, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves._
> 
> Now this is juxtaposed to Hamilton's argument from Federalist 78:
> 
> _Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental._
> 
> Hamilton continues. . .
> 
> _It can be of no weight to say that the courts, on the pretense of a repugnancy, may substitute their own pleasure to the constitutional intentions of the legislature. This might as well happen in the case of two contradictory statutes; or it might as well happen in every adjudication upon any single statute. The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body. The observation, if it prove any thing, would prove that there ought to be no judges distinct from that body._
> 
> So now we have two distinctively different Founding Fathers from opposite ends of the spectrum, both in agreement that it's ludicrous to assume the SCOTUS has the unmitigated "right" to determine and infer their own "intent" into the Constitution. They are simply supposed to rule on the basis of the Constitution unless there is a compelling fundamental violation of rights to the individual. In ALL cases, there is to be a specific legal case brought to the court for a legitimate hearing, it is NEVER supposed to be something hypothetical or to test Constitutionality.
> 
> We've long since jumped the shark on this, and the SCOTUS now rules as an oligarchy, determining and shaping the Constitution of which we live by. That's NOT what the Founding Fathers  EVER intended.


Total hogwash, but with citations!
In ALL cases there IS a specific legal case brought to the court.
The court interprets the intent as applied to issues the founders could never have imagined.
We all hate a percentage of their decisions and feel they have jumped the shark.
The difference is you think YOU have somehow channeled the Founder's intent.
The Founders themselves didn't have a single intent.


----------



## thanatos144

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you trying to turn this into (yet again) an argument you can "win" when there is no real argument here? What wikipedia or scholastics.com say about the SCOTUS present day, has absolutely nothing to do with the founding intent of the men who wrote the Constitution. It's like if I am arguing abortion is wrong and immoral, and someone posts a link to "show me" that abortion is legal! I already know this! That's NOT the argument!
> 
> First of all, here is what Article III Section 2 says:
> 
> _The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;to Controversies between two or more States;between a State and Citizens of another State;between Citizens of different States;between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
> 
> In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, *with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.*
> 
> Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places *as the Congress may by Law have directed.*_
> 
> So we see here a very specifically defined role of the SCOTUS with a very rigorous helping of Congressional oversight. They are simply NOT delegated the sole authority to do as they damn well please without regard for Congress or The People.
> 
> Here is what Thomas Jefferson had to say about SCOTUS judicial review in 1820:
> 
> _You seem ... to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution *has erected no such single tribunal*, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves._
> 
> Now this is juxtaposed to Hamilton's argument from Federalist 78:
> 
> _Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental._
> 
> Hamilton continues. . .
> 
> _It can be of no weight to say that the courts, on the pretense of a repugnancy, may substitute their own pleasure to the constitutional intentions of the legislature. This might as well happen in the case of two contradictory statutes; or it might as well happen in every adjudication upon any single statute. The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body. The observation, if it prove any thing, would prove that there ought to be no judges distinct from that body._
> 
> So now we have two distinctively different Founding Fathers from opposite ends of the spectrum, both in agreement that it's ludicrous to assume the SCOTUS has the unmitigated "right" to determine and infer their own "intent" into the Constitution. They are simply supposed to rule on the basis of the Constitution unless there is a compelling fundamental violation of rights to the individual. In ALL cases, there is to be a specific legal case brought to the court for a legitimate hearing, it is NEVER supposed to be something hypothetical or to test Constitutionality.
> 
> We've long since jumped the shark on this, and the SCOTUS now rules as an oligarchy, determining and shaping the Constitution of which we live by. That's NOT what the Founding Fathers  EVER intended.
> 
> 
> 
> Total hogwash, but with citations!
> In ALL cases there IS a specific legal case brought to the court.
> The court interprets the intent as applied to issues the founders could never have imagined.
> We all hate a percentage of their decisions and feel they have jumped the shark.
> The difference is you think YOU have somehow channeled the Founder's intent.
> The Founders themselves didn't have a single intent.
Click to expand...


They didn't hate Christians like you do.


----------



## thebrucebeat

thanatos144 said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you trying to turn this into (yet again) an argument you can "win" when there is no real argument here? What wikipedia or scholastics.com say about the SCOTUS present day, has absolutely nothing to do with the founding intent of the men who wrote the Constitution. It's like if I am arguing abortion is wrong and immoral, and someone posts a link to "show me" that abortion is legal! I already know this! That's NOT the argument!
> 
> First of all, here is what Article III Section 2 says:
> 
> _The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;to Controversies between two or more States;between a State and Citizens of another State;between Citizens of different States;between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
> 
> In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, *with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.*
> 
> Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places *as the Congress may by Law have directed.*_
> 
> So we see here a very specifically defined role of the SCOTUS with a very rigorous helping of Congressional oversight. They are simply NOT delegated the sole authority to do as they damn well please without regard for Congress or The People.
> 
> Here is what Thomas Jefferson had to say about SCOTUS judicial review in 1820:
> 
> _You seem ... to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution *has erected no such single tribunal*, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves._
> 
> Now this is juxtaposed to Hamilton's argument from Federalist 78:
> 
> _Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental._
> 
> Hamilton continues. . .
> 
> _It can be of no weight to say that the courts, on the pretense of a repugnancy, may substitute their own pleasure to the constitutional intentions of the legislature. This might as well happen in the case of two contradictory statutes; or it might as well happen in every adjudication upon any single statute. The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body. The observation, if it prove any thing, would prove that there ought to be no judges distinct from that body._
> 
> So now we have two distinctively different Founding Fathers from opposite ends of the spectrum, both in agreement that it's ludicrous to assume the SCOTUS has the unmitigated "right" to determine and infer their own "intent" into the Constitution. They are simply supposed to rule on the basis of the Constitution unless there is a compelling fundamental violation of rights to the individual. In ALL cases, there is to be a specific legal case brought to the court for a legitimate hearing, it is NEVER supposed to be something hypothetical or to test Constitutionality.
> 
> We've long since jumped the shark on this, and the SCOTUS now rules as an oligarchy, determining and shaping the Constitution of which we live by. That's NOT what the Founding Fathers  EVER intended.
> 
> 
> 
> Total hogwash, but with citations!
> In ALL cases there IS a specific legal case brought to the court.
> The court interprets the intent as applied to issues the founders could never have imagined.
> We all hate a percentage of their decisions and feel they have jumped the shark.
> The difference is you think YOU have somehow channeled the Founder's intent.
> The Founders themselves didn't have a single intent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They didn't hate Christians like you do.
Click to expand...

It's probably best for you not to try to actually engage in the conversation, like you have chosen not to here.
You are outgunned


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> Total hogwash, but with citations!
> In ALL cases there IS a specific legal case brought to the court.
> The court interprets the intent as applied to issues the founders could never have imagined.
> We all hate a percentage of their decisions and feel they have jumped the shark.
> The difference is you think YOU have somehow channeled the Founder's intent.
> The Founders themselves didn't have a single intent.



The Founder's intent is outlined in the Federalist Papers. The SCOTUS is not supposed to be "interpreting" anything, they are supposed to be ruling on the letter of the law. When you grant them the latitude to "interpret" things, you give them the ability to interject their will and not the intent of the Founders or the will of The People. Both Hamilton and Jefferson agreed on this, which is extremely rare, they didn't agree on much. 

*In ALL cases there IS a specific legal case brought to the court.*

Yep, this is what I am pointing out in support of my argument. A specific case involves specific parties with a specific problem. The SCOTUS ruling should apply to that specific case and no other, unless the parameters are identical. However, we have allowed them for so many years, to literally change the Constitution for all with their rulings. That was not the intent of the Founding Fathers. We have a legitimate mechanism to change the Constitution.


----------



## MaryL

God is a big tease. Who can say. Hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, diseases, pointless wars over the centuries. for what? God already  knows how this will end...Or maybe not. Are we waiting for Godot? For Nothing? Please.


----------



## thanatos144

thebrucebeat said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Total hogwash, but with citations!
> In ALL cases there IS a specific legal case brought to the court.
> The court interprets the intent as applied to issues the founders could never have imagined.
> We all hate a percentage of their decisions and feel they have jumped the shark.
> The difference is you think YOU have somehow channeled the Founder's intent.
> The Founders themselves didn't have a single intent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They didn't hate Christians like you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's probably best for you not to try to actually engage in the conversation, like you have chosen not to here.
> You are outgunned
Click to expand...


Maybe you should engage your brain and stop derailing the thread because you cant win the debate.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Total hogwash, but with citations!
> In ALL cases there IS a specific legal case brought to the court.
> The court interprets the intent as applied to issues the founders could never have imagined.
> We all hate a percentage of their decisions and feel they have jumped the shark.
> The difference is you think YOU have somehow channeled the Founder's intent.
> The Founders themselves didn't have a single intent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Founder's intent is outlined in the Federalist Papers. The SCOTUS is not supposed to be "interpreting" anything, they are supposed to be ruling on the letter of the law. When you grant them the latitude to "interpret" things, you give them the ability to interject their will and not the intent of the Founders or the will of The People. Both Hamilton and Jefferson agreed on this, which is extremely rare, they didn't agree on much.
> 
> *In ALL cases there IS a specific legal case brought to the court.*
> 
> Yep, this is what I am pointing out in support of my argument. A specific case involves specific parties with a specific problem. The SCOTUS ruling should apply to that specific case and no other, unless the parameters are identical. However, we have allowed them for so many years, to literally change the Constitution for all with their rulings. That was not the intent of the Founding Fathers. We have a legitimate mechanism to change the Constitution.
Click to expand...

If the interpretive skills of the justices were unnecessary every decision would be 9-0.
They virtually never are.
When the ruling is made it sets a precedent that is then used to support the arguments in similar cases.
PoliSci 101.


----------



## Avatar4321

thebrucebeat said:


> It's probably best for you not to try to actually engage in the conversation, like you have chosen not to here.
> You are outgunned



You have a tendency to underestimate your opponents and overestimate yourself.

BTW having more guns doesn't mean you are right. Napoleon had alot of guns, so have countless other people on the wrong side of history.


----------



## Avatar4321

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Total hogwash, but with citations!
> In ALL cases there IS a specific legal case brought to the court.
> The court interprets the intent as applied to issues the founders could never have imagined.
> We all hate a percentage of their decisions and feel they have jumped the shark.
> The difference is you think YOU have somehow channeled the Founder's intent.
> The Founders themselves didn't have a single intent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Founder's intent is outlined in the Federalist Papers. The SCOTUS is not supposed to be "interpreting" anything, they are supposed to be ruling on the letter of the law. When you grant them the latitude to "interpret" things, you give them the ability to interject their will and not the intent of the Founders or the will of The People. Both Hamilton and Jefferson agreed on this, which is extremely rare, they didn't agree on much.
> 
> *In ALL cases there IS a specific legal case brought to the court.*
> 
> Yep, this is what I am pointing out in support of my argument. A specific case involves specific parties with a specific problem. The SCOTUS ruling should apply to that specific case and no other, unless the parameters are identical. However, we have allowed them for so many years, to literally change the Constitution for all with their rulings. That was not the intent of the Founding Fathers. We have a legitimate mechanism to change the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the interpretive skills of the justices were unnecessary every decision would be 9-0.
> They virtually never are.
> When the ruling is made it sets a precedent that is then used to support the arguments in similar cases.
> PoliSci 101.
Click to expand...


And if the justices were acting honestly according to the law and less politically, you would see many more 9-0 decisions. The fact that men have ulterior motives and aren't always honestly understanding the law doesn't mean the law isn't clear.


----------



## Boss

MaryL said:


> God is a big tease. Who can say. Hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, diseases, pointless wars over the centuries. for what? God already  knows how this will end...Or maybe not. Are we waiting for Godot? For Nothing? Please.



Mary, it has been my observation there are two kinds of people. Those who can realize there is something going on here beyond our existence, something more profound and important. That there is a purpose to the universe and the amazingly beautiful and extraordinary thing we call life. That there is a reason we are compelled to goodness over evil, light over darkness, knowledge over ignorance, and purpose over insignificance. Then there are those who don't have the capacity to realize this. 

I can't give you an answer as to why God has placed our spirits and souls in this devastating and harsh physical material univesrse. Perhaps our souls failed the test to ascend to a higher dimension and this is where we ended up as punishment? Perhaps our souls are placed here to test us or train us for a further journey after our mortal life is over? But I do believe we all have something inside us that is beyond our physical self. I believe it is something that will continue to exist after we die. Where it goes or what becomes of it next, I do not know, but it seems we are compelled toward a certain direction and course. Some people realize this and some people don't.


----------



## Avatar4321

MaryL said:


> God is a big tease. Who can say. Hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, diseases, pointless wars over the centuries. for what? God already  knows how this will end...Or maybe not. Are we waiting for Godot? For Nothing? Please.



So go through this so we can learn.




> If thou art called to pass through tribulation; if thou art in perils among false brethren; if thou art in perils among robbers; if thou art in perils by land or by sea;
> 
> If thou art accused with all manner of false accusations; if thine enemies fall upon thee; if they tear thee from the society of thy father and mother and brethren and sisters; and if with a drawn sword thine enemies tear thee from the bosom of thy wife, and of thine offspring, and thine elder son, although but six years of age, shall cling to thy garments, and shall say, My father, my father, why cant you stay with us? O, my father, what are the men going to do with you? and if then he shall be thrust from thee by the sword, and thou be dragged to prison, and thine enemies prowl around thee like wolves for the blood of the lamb;
> 
> And if thou shouldst be cast into the pit, or into the hands of murderers, and the sentence of death passed upon thee; if thou be cast into the deep; if the billowing surge conspire against thee; if fierce winds become thine enemy; if the heavens gather blackness, and all the elements combine to hedge up the way; and above all, if the very jaws of hell shall gape open the mouth wide after thee, know thou, my son, that all these things shall give thee experience, and shall be for thy good.
> 
> The Son of Man hath descended below them all. Art thou greater than he? (D&C 122:5-8)



Some lessons are difficult to learn. The key is to keep trying, to do good, to seek justice, to love mercy.


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Total hogwash, but with citations!
> In ALL cases there IS a specific legal case brought to the court.
> The court interprets the intent as applied to issues the founders could never have imagined.
> We all hate a percentage of their decisions and feel they have jumped the shark.
> The difference is you think YOU have somehow channeled the Founder's intent.
> The Founders themselves didn't have a single intent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Founder's intent is outlined in the Federalist Papers. The SCOTUS is not supposed to be "interpreting" anything, they are supposed to be ruling on the letter of the law. When you grant them the latitude to "interpret" things, you give them the ability to interject their will and not the intent of the Founders or the will of The People. Both Hamilton and Jefferson agreed on this, which is extremely rare, they didn't agree on much.
> 
> *In ALL cases there IS a specific legal case brought to the court.*
> 
> Yep, this is what I am pointing out in support of my argument. A specific case involves specific parties with a specific problem. The SCOTUS ruling should apply to that specific case and no other, unless the parameters are identical. However, we have allowed them for so many years, to literally change the Constitution for all with their rulings. That was not the intent of the Founding Fathers. We have a legitimate mechanism to change the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the interpretive skills of the justices were unnecessary every decision would be 9-0.
> They virtually never are.
> When the ruling is made it sets a precedent that is then used to support the arguments in similar cases.
> PoliSci 101.
Click to expand...


I think the SCOTUS was originally comprised of 5 justices. Reason being, it wasn't supposed to be an "interpretive" position. Justices merely looked at the specifics of a case and ruled on the basis of what the Constitution said, and if ANY interpretation was needed, this was found in the writings of the Federalist Papers, where the specified arguments were originally presented by the Founding Fathers. As I said before, the idea behind having a SCOTUS was to rule in specific cases where Constitutional rights conflicted with each other. The Founding Fathers realized there would be such cases, and some judicial body would be needed to sort things out. 

So the SCOTUS are supposed to be like referees in a football game... can you imagine if referees started "interpreting" the rules as the games were played, changing fundamentally how the game is played? _*whistle* The referees have ruled that Team A shall not be awarded the field goal because they are already leading by 10 or more points! *whistle* The refs have determined that what once was typical "blocking" by the offensive line is now "holding" and will no longer be permitted._ How long would it take to see the referees completely fuck up the game?


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Founder's intent is outlined in the Federalist Papers. The SCOTUS is not supposed to be "interpreting" anything, they are supposed to be ruling on the letter of the law. When you grant them the latitude to "interpret" things, you give them the ability to interject their will and not the intent of the Founders or the will of The People. Both Hamilton and Jefferson agreed on this, which is extremely rare, they didn't agree on much.
> 
> *In ALL cases there IS a specific legal case brought to the court.*
> 
> Yep, this is what I am pointing out in support of my argument. A specific case involves specific parties with a specific problem. The SCOTUS ruling should apply to that specific case and no other, unless the parameters are identical. However, we have allowed them for so many years, to literally change the Constitution for all with their rulings. That was not the intent of the Founding Fathers. We have a legitimate mechanism to change the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> If the interpretive skills of the justices were unnecessary every decision would be 9-0.
> They virtually never are.
> When the ruling is made it sets a precedent that is then used to support the arguments in similar cases.
> PoliSci 101.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the SCOTUS was originally comprised of 5 justices. Reason being, it wasn't supposed to be an "interpretive" position. Justices merely looked at the specifics of a case and ruled on the basis of what the Constitution said, and if ANY interpretation was needed, this was found in the writings of the Federalist Papers, where the specified arguments were originally presented by the Founding Fathers. As I said before, the idea behind having a SCOTUS was to rule in specific cases where Constitutional rights conflicted with each other. The Founding Fathers realized there would be such cases, and some judicial body would be needed to sort things out.
> 
> So the SCOTUS are supposed to be like referees in a football game... can you imagine if referees started "interpreting" the rules as the games were played, changing fundamentally how the game is played? _*whistle* The referees have ruled that Team A shall not be awarded the field goal because they are already leading by 10 or more points! *whistle* The refs have determined that what once was typical "blocking" by the offensive line is now "holding" and will no longer be permitted._ How long would it take to see the referees completely fuck up the game?
Click to expand...

It was 5 judges.
So you think it was always 5-0?
In football, pass interference calls are ALWAYS controversial.
If the SCOTUS rulings were to be so obvious, why not just one justice?
Because to apply the COTUS requires interpretation.


----------



## Boss

> It was 5 judges.
> So you think it was always 5-0?



Nope, as Jefferson said, our justices are as honest as any man, not more honest. They realized there might be an inclination of justices to rule based on will rather than law, but they felt this would be remedied by having five instead of one. 



> In football, pass interference calls are ALWAYS controversial.



Is that because the rule on what is pass interference is ambiguous and open to interpretation, or is it that the ref has to make split second decisions based on what he sees happening? What if the ref had the authority to determine for himself what "pass interference" was? Perhaps the cornerback swatting down the ball in an otherwise perfect defensive maneuver could be "interpreted" into pass interference? 



> If the SCOTUS rulings were to be so obvious, why not just one justice?
> Because to apply the COTUS requires interpretation.



As I stated above, the FF knew that one justice would be much more inclined to pervert the constitution and impose his will instead of the constitution. Five justices were a sort of 'check and balance' in practice. 

And let me be clear, I am not stating the COTUS requires absolutely NO interpretation. If that were the case, there wouldn't be a need for a SCOTUS at all, we'd all just carry around Constitutions in our pockets and whenever a dispute arose, whip out our copy and show the other party what it said. So there is a limited degree of "interpretation" involved by implication of the SCOTUS itself. The interpretation is supposed to be very limited and confined to the letter of the Constitution and founding intent as written. More importantly, the decisions and rulings are supposed to be case specific, not universal wholesale changes forevermore.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> It was 5 judges.
> So you think it was always 5-0?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, as Jefferson said, our justices are as honest as any man, not more honest. They realized there might be an inclination of justices to rule based on will rather than law, but they felt this would be remedied by having five instead of one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In football, pass interference calls are ALWAYS controversial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that because the rule on what is pass interference is ambiguous and open to interpretation, or is it that the ref has to make split second decisions based on what he sees happening? What if the ref had the authority to determine for himself what "pass interference" was? Perhaps the cornerback swatting down the ball in an otherwise perfect defensive maneuver could be "interpreted" into pass interference?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the SCOTUS rulings were to be so obvious, why not just one justice?
> Because to apply the COTUS requires interpretation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I stated above, the FF knew that one justice would be much more inclined to pervert the constitution and impose his will instead of the constitution. Five justices were a sort of 'check and balance' in practice.
> 
> And let me be clear, I am not stating the COTUS requires absolutely NO interpretation. If that were the case, there wouldn't be a need for a SCOTUS at all, we'd all just carry around Constitutions in our pockets and whenever a dispute arose, whip out our copy and show the other party what it said. So there is a limited degree of "interpretation" involved by implication of the SCOTUS itself. The interpretation is supposed to be very limited and confined to the letter of the Constitution and founding intent as written. More importantly, the decisions and rulings are supposed to be case specific, not universal wholesale changes forevermore.
Click to expand...


I can sympathize with what you are saying, but I wonder : do you think we should have a new constitutional amendment for every new piece of technology about which there is a constitutional question?  For example, I believe the SCOTUS is or will be hearing a case about cell phones and determining whether police are performing an illegal search by viewing the contents of a cell phone taken from a person who has been arrested.  Obviously the founders had no idea about cell phones.  It's not something specifically covered by the constitution of course.  Is this something the SCOTUS should rule on, or should they, in effect, throw up their hands and say, "We can't tell you if this is constitutional or not, go ask the legislature."?  And if the SCOTUS does rule, should that ruling not apply to all cases of police arresting someone and searching their cell phone?


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> It was 5 judges.
> So you think it was always 5-0?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, as Jefferson said, our justices are as honest as any man, not more honest. They realized there might be an inclination of justices to rule based on will rather than law, but they felt this would be remedied by having five instead of one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In football, pass interference calls are ALWAYS controversial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that because the rule on what is pass interference is ambiguous and open to interpretation, or is it that the ref has to make split second decisions based on what he sees happening? What if the ref had the authority to determine for himself what "pass interference" was? Perhaps the cornerback swatting down the ball in an otherwise perfect defensive maneuver could be "interpreted" into pass interference?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the SCOTUS rulings were to be so obvious, why not just one justice?
> Because to apply the COTUS requires interpretation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I stated above, the FF knew that one justice would be much more inclined to pervert the constitution and impose his will instead of the constitution. Five justices were a sort of 'check and balance' in practice.
> 
> And let me be clear, I am not stating the COTUS requires absolutely NO interpretation. If that were the case, there wouldn't be a need for a SCOTUS at all, we'd all just carry around Constitutions in our pockets and whenever a dispute arose, whip out our copy and show the other party what it said. So there is a limited degree of "interpretation" involved by implication of the SCOTUS itself. The interpretation is supposed to be very limited and confined to the letter of the Constitution and founding intent as written. More importantly, the decisions and rulings are supposed to be case specific, not universal wholesale changes forevermore.
Click to expand...


So, multiple justices because the interpretation will vary and the final decision is simply consensus.
Agreed.
You acknowledge there is interpretation.
You simply object when it isn't yours.


----------



## Boss

> You acknowledge there is interpretation.
> You simply object when it isn't yours.



Not so. I object that interpretation has been taken to mean interpreting unintended meaning unto the Constitution. The interpretive aspect is only in the consideration of what is written in the Constitution and supporting documentation, like the Federalist Papers. "Interpret" like most every word in the dictionary, has multiple meanings in context. As usual, you have no concept of context.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> You acknowledge there is interpretation.
> You simply object when it isn't yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not so. I object that interpretation has been taken to mean interpreting unintended meaning unto the Constitution. The interpretive aspect is only in the consideration of what is written in the Constitution and supporting documentation, like the Federalist Papers. "Interpret" like most every word in the dictionary, has multiple meanings in context. As usual, you have no concept of context.
Click to expand...


What is the interpretation of unintended meaning? The interpretative aspect is itself subject to interpretation thus rendering subjective interpretation to be interpretative. 

And there you have it - Boss'isms defined. 

Boss'isms..... Bush'isms.... there's a pattern here.


----------



## Boss

> I can sympathize with what you are saying, but I wonder : do you think we should have a new constitutional amendment for every new piece of technology about which there is a constitutional question? For example, I believe the SCOTUS is or will be hearing a case about cell phones and determining whether police are performing an illegal search by viewing the contents of a cell phone taken from a person who has been arrested. Obviously the founders had no idea about cell phones. It's not something specifically covered by the constitution of course. Is this something the SCOTUS should rule on, or should they, in effect, throw up their hands and say, "We can't tell you if this is constitutional or not, go ask the legislature."? And if the SCOTUS does rule, should that ruling not apply to all cases of police arresting someone and searching their cell phone?



No, I think the 4th Amendment is very clear. The FF certainly knew about illegal searches and seizures of property and included an Amendment to address it in the Bill of Rights. If the SCOTUS has a case brought by John Doe vs. US Gov't... they should decide on the merits of that case and the circumstances of that case, and it should have NO bearing on how the 4th Amendment is interpreted. Their decision should apply to John Doe and the US Gov't, and no one else, unless the same circumstances exist.


----------



## Boss

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You acknowledge there is interpretation.
> You simply object when it isn't yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not so. I object that interpretation has been taken to mean interpreting unintended meaning unto the Constitution. The interpretive aspect is only in the consideration of what is written in the Constitution and supporting documentation, like the Federalist Papers. "Interpret" like most every word in the dictionary, has multiple meanings in context. As usual, you have no concept of context.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is the interpretation of unintended meaning? The interpretative aspect is itself subject to interpretation thus rendering subjective interpretation to be interpretative.
> 
> And there you have it - Boss'isms defined.
> 
> Boss'isms..... Bush'isms.... there's a pattern here.
Click to expand...


  Babbling idiot!


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> You acknowledge there is interpretation.
> You simply object when it isn't yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not so. I object that interpretation has been taken to mean interpreting unintended meaning unto the Constitution. The interpretive aspect is only in the consideration of what is written in the Constitution and supporting documentation, like the Federalist Papers. "Interpret" like most every word in the dictionary, has multiple meanings in context. As usual, you have no concept of context.
Click to expand...


No.
Your argument is that the justices have no concept of context.
They do.
It just isn't yours.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> I can sympathize with what you are saying, but I wonder : do you think we should have a new constitutional amendment for every new piece of technology about which there is a constitutional question? For example, I believe the SCOTUS is or will be hearing a case about cell phones and determining whether police are performing an illegal search by viewing the contents of a cell phone taken from a person who has been arrested. Obviously the founders had no idea about cell phones. It's not something specifically covered by the constitution of course. Is this something the SCOTUS should rule on, or should they, in effect, throw up their hands and say, "We can't tell you if this is constitutional or not, go ask the legislature."? And if the SCOTUS does rule, should that ruling not apply to all cases of police arresting someone and searching their cell phone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I think the 4th Amendment is very clear. The FF certainly knew about illegal searches and seizures of property and included an Amendment to address it in the Bill of Rights. If the SCOTUS has a case brought by John Doe vs. US Gov't... they should decide on the merits of that case and the circumstances of that case, and it should have NO bearing on how the 4th Amendment is interpreted. Their decision should apply to John Doe and the US Gov't, and no one else, unless the same circumstances exist.
Click to expand...


You are simply defining what precedent is.
It is the process of interpreting how the Amendment would be used going forward in similar circumstances.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not so. I object that interpretation has been taken to mean interpreting unintended meaning unto the Constitution. The interpretive aspect is only in the consideration of what is written in the Constitution and supporting documentation, like the Federalist Papers. "Interpret" like most every word in the dictionary, has multiple meanings in context. As usual, you have no concept of context.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is the interpretation of unintended meaning? The interpretative aspect is itself subject to interpretation thus rendering subjective interpretation to be interpretative.
> 
> And there you have it - Boss'isms defined.
> 
> Boss'isms..... Bush'isms.... there's a pattern here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Babbling idiot!
Click to expand...


Fascinating, insightful response.
Rises to your best.


----------



## thanatos144

This thread is dead. You guys let the atheists successfully derail it 

tapatalk post


----------



## thebrucebeat

thanatos144 said:


> This thread is dead. You guys let the atheists successfully derail it
> 
> tapatalk post



How did this post help?


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> I can sympathize with what you are saying, but I wonder : do you think we should have a new constitutional amendment for every new piece of technology about which there is a constitutional question? For example, I believe the SCOTUS is or will be hearing a case about cell phones and determining whether police are performing an illegal search by viewing the contents of a cell phone taken from a person who has been arrested. Obviously the founders had no idea about cell phones. It's not something specifically covered by the constitution of course. Is this something the SCOTUS should rule on, or should they, in effect, throw up their hands and say, "We can't tell you if this is constitutional or not, go ask the legislature."? And if the SCOTUS does rule, should that ruling not apply to all cases of police arresting someone and searching their cell phone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I think the 4th Amendment is very clear. The FF certainly knew about illegal searches and seizures of property and included an Amendment to address it in the Bill of Rights. If the SCOTUS has a case brought by John Doe vs. US Gov't... they should decide on the merits of that case and the circumstances of that case, and it should have NO bearing on how the 4th Amendment is interpreted. Their decision should apply to John Doe and the US Gov't, and no one else, unless the same circumstances exist.
Click to expand...


I'm not certain I understand your stance.  

If the SCOTUS rules that a policeman browsing through your cell after an arrest is an unreasonable search, isn't that interpreting the 4th to cover cell phones and the information on them?  And wouldn't such a ruling apply to any arrested persons and their cell phones in the future?

Do you think there should be a new constitutional amendment to cover all of the things which were not around at the time the Bill of Rights was created?  Email, texts, all the forms of electronic communications used today and taken for granted were nothing but fanciful imagination when the constitution was written.  Do you think new amendments to cover those things should be written whenever they are created?

I'm not opposing that viewpoint, I'm just trying to be clear about your position.


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can sympathize with what you are saying, but I wonder : do you think we should have a new constitutional amendment for every new piece of technology about which there is a constitutional question? For example, I believe the SCOTUS is or will be hearing a case about cell phones and determining whether police are performing an illegal search by viewing the contents of a cell phone taken from a person who has been arrested. Obviously the founders had no idea about cell phones. It's not something specifically covered by the constitution of course. Is this something the SCOTUS should rule on, or should they, in effect, throw up their hands and say, "We can't tell you if this is constitutional or not, go ask the legislature."? And if the SCOTUS does rule, should that ruling not apply to all cases of police arresting someone and searching their cell phone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I think the 4th Amendment is very clear. The FF certainly knew about illegal searches and seizures of property and included an Amendment to address it in the Bill of Rights. If the SCOTUS has a case brought by John Doe vs. US Gov't... they should decide on the merits of that case and the circumstances of that case, and it should have NO bearing on how the 4th Amendment is interpreted. Their decision should apply to John Doe and the US Gov't, and no one else, unless the same circumstances exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not certain I understand your stance.
> 
> If the SCOTUS rules that a policeman browsing through your cell after an arrest is an unreasonable search, isn't that interpreting the 4th to cover cell phones and the information on them?  And wouldn't such a ruling apply to any arrested persons and their cell phones in the future?
> 
> Do you think there should be a new constitutional amendment to cover all of the things which were not around at the time the Bill of Rights was created?  Email, texts, all the forms of electronic communications used today and taken for granted were nothing but fanciful imagination when the constitution was written.  Do you think new amendments to cover those things should be written whenever they are created?
> 
> I'm not opposing that viewpoint, I'm just trying to be clear about your position.
Click to expand...


First of all, the SCOTUS is not hearing a case about all policemen browsing all cell phones after all arrests. They are hearing of a specific person, a specific officer, and a specific act with specific circumstances. Second, the 4th protects against *unlawful* search and seizure, if you have been arrested for proper cause, there is no violation. Third, it doesn't matter what form "property" takes, it is still protected universally under the 4th. 

You're trying to create a straw man but he is falling apart before you can get there.


----------



## HUGGY

Nobody "Hates" a non existant sky fairy.

Some intelligent people just hate the ignorance that sustains the myth.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I think the 4th Amendment is very clear. The FF certainly knew about illegal searches and seizures of property and included an Amendment to address it in the Bill of Rights. If the SCOTUS has a case brought by John Doe vs. US Gov't... they should decide on the merits of that case and the circumstances of that case, and it should have NO bearing on how the 4th Amendment is interpreted. Their decision should apply to John Doe and the US Gov't, and no one else, unless the same circumstances exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not certain I understand your stance.
> 
> If the SCOTUS rules that a policeman browsing through your cell after an arrest is an unreasonable search, isn't that interpreting the 4th to cover cell phones and the information on them?  And wouldn't such a ruling apply to any arrested persons and their cell phones in the future?
> 
> Do you think there should be a new constitutional amendment to cover all of the things which were not around at the time the Bill of Rights was created?  Email, texts, all the forms of electronic communications used today and taken for granted were nothing but fanciful imagination when the constitution was written.  Do you think new amendments to cover those things should be written whenever they are created?
> 
> I'm not opposing that viewpoint, I'm just trying to be clear about your position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, the SCOTUS is not hearing a case about all policemen browsing all cell phones after all arrests. They are hearing of a specific person, a specific officer, and a specific act with specific circumstances. Second, the 4th protects against *unlawful* search and seizure, if you have been arrested for proper cause, there is no violation. Third, it doesn't matter what form "property" takes, it is still protected universally under the 4th.
> 
> You're trying to create a straw man but he is falling apart before you can get there.
Click to expand...


I'm not trying to create a straw man.  The SCOTUS is hearing a couple of cases about searching the information on a person's cell phone after an arrest.  There is disagreement about whether that is constitutional or not in the courts.

Here, a link : Justices to look at privacy cases involving police cell phone searches - CNN.com

The question is whether the information contained on a cell phone should be open to search without a warrant.  This is not something the founders likely envisioned; a device capable of containing so much information about a person so easily accessed by government during an arrest.

So there is a question of whether the information contained on a person's cell phone is open to search upon any arrest, or protected from unlawful search.  And I bring it up to ask if you think the SCOTUS should be making a judgement on the case or if, since this kind of information search is certainly not covered by an 18th century document, you think it requires a new constitutional amendment.  Or, I suppose, if you think there are no situations in which the constitution is unclear.


----------



## Boss

> I'm not trying to create a straw man. The SCOTUS is hearing a couple of cases about searching the information on a person's cell phone after an arrest.



What the SCOTUS is doing and has been doing has nothing to do with MY argument of what the SCOTUS is supposed to be doing and should be doing according to the Founding Fathers and the Constitution. This is what makes it a straw man, I am trying to argue what they are supposed to be doing, you are trying to counter that with what they are doing. 

Just the way you phrase this is wrongheaded. The SCOTUS shouldn't be hearing anything about "a person" and their cell phone. There is a specific person. They are hearing about John Doe's information on HIS cell phone, after HIS arrest. Stare decisis withstanding, are ALL arrests the same? Is ALL cell phone information the same? Is the pertinence of the information on the cell phone the same for a person arrested for DUI as opposed to kidnapping, murder, terrorism?


----------



## Boss

thanatos144 said:


> This thread is dead. You guys let the atheists successfully derail it
> 
> tapatalk post



Oh, it's just taken a slight detour. You see, many of these so-called "Atheists" are also Marxist activists who want to destroy the representative democracy we have in America and replace it with socialist totalitarianism. They are just as dishonest about their hate for America as they are about their hate for a God they don't believe in.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is dead. You guys let the atheists successfully derail it
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, it's just taken a slight detour. You see, many of these so-called "Atheists" are also Marxist activists who want to destroy the representative democracy we have in America and replace it with socialist totalitarianism. They are just as dishonest about their hate for America as they are about their hate for a God they don't believe in.
Click to expand...


Paranoid delusions.

That unseemly drool on your keyboard notwithstanding, you apparently believe your alternate realities are real?


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> I'm not trying to create a straw man. The SCOTUS is hearing a couple of cases about searching the information on a person's cell phone after an arrest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the SCOTUS is doing and has been doing has nothing to do with MY argument of what the SCOTUS is supposed to be doing and should be doing according to the Founding Fathers and the Constitution. This is what makes it a straw man, I am trying to argue what they are supposed to be doing, you are trying to counter that with what they are doing.
> 
> Just the way you phrase this is wrongheaded. The SCOTUS shouldn't be hearing anything about "a person" and their cell phone. There is a specific person. They are hearing about John Doe's information on HIS cell phone, after HIS arrest. Stare decisis withstanding, are ALL arrests the same? Is ALL cell phone information the same? Is the pertinence of the information on the cell phone the same for a person arrested for DUI as opposed to kidnapping, murder, terrorism?
Click to expand...


Still not a straw man.

All I am doing is giving a current example of what SCOTUS is doing and asking if you think it is appropriate or not, and if not, if you think the appropriate action would be a constitutional amendment.  I'm not arguing what you do or don't think about the subject, as I clearly stated, I'm trying to understand your position and it has been somewhat unclear in previous posts.

Obviously the cases are based on specific people.  However, the ruling is expected to be on whether the actions by police in searching the cell phones of the specific people were constitutional or not.  They might make a broad ruling or a very specific one, I have no idea.  I was just using it as an example.


----------



## Steven_R

Boss said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is dead. You guys let the atheists successfully derail it
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, it's just taken a slight detour. You see, many of these so-called "Atheists" are also Marxist activists who want to destroy the representative democracy we have in America and replace it with socialist totalitarianism. They are just as dishonest about their hate for America as they are about their hate for a God they don't believe in.
Click to expand...


At least when I say those good God fearing Christians at the DiscoTute want to get rid of science because they think knowledge is a threat to Godliness, I can use their own papers to prove it.


----------



## koshergrl

Anti-Christian movement stopped in its tracks..for now:

"
The court, in a 5-to-4 ruling today, said those prayers don't violate the Constitution -- even if they routinely emphasize Christianity -- as long as there's no effort to proselytize or to denigrate non-Christians. Justice Anthony Kennedy said the prayers are ceremonial, and in keeping with the nation's traditions. He wrote that they are designed to "acknowledge religious leaders and the institutions they represent," and not to "exclude or coerce nonbelievers."

High court ruling favors prayer at council meeting - WTOP.com


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.



I am happy to answer all of your questions.  First of all, this is coming from a person who was born Christian but deep down always knew the stories made no sense.  But I still believed in a God.  Like many Christians I dont take the bible literally and I doubt Jesus performed any miracles.  There is zero proof of miracles.  Just like I doubt Adam talked to a snake, Noah put every animal on earth in a boat or Moses parted the red seas.  Many Christians are ok with the idea that these are not actual historical events yet they still believe in Christianity.  Why?  Because they were brainwashed from birth to believe in God.  If they sit down and have an intelligent conversation and dont get emotional about it, they will see that God was made up a long time ago, a long time before Christianity.  Why?  Because we didnt understand why natural evens happened like thunder, commits, drouts and floods.  Its not our/your fault.  We didnt know science and we were brainwashed from birth.  And for thousands of years youd be crucified if you didnt believe.  So its been engrained into our DNA.  And our parents and their parents and their parents too were brainwashed by their church/parents/leaders.  We know where religion came from.  It was a long time before Christianity or even the old testament.  And funny that our current religion stole stories from the religions that came before us like the virgin birth or resurrection.  Its not even an original made up story.  There were 1000 different religions in human history.  How come you understand 998 of them are fake but not yours or the Jewish religion?  And yes most of us are agnostic.  Why?  Because there is no way to prove or disprove something that doesnt exist.  So as smart intelligent scientific people we dont believe something that is made up but we dont deny something that we cant prove.  Best answer is we dont know.  God has left no fingerprint ever and if you look at the history of Christianity you will see Kings and churches used religion to control the masses and they continue to use it to control the sheep today.  They do it in the muslim world and Israel too.  So dont say it must be true because a lot of people believe because a lot of people believe in Mohammad and the Mormon faith too.  That doesnt mean anything.  Google whynogod.  So we get mad at religious people because they want to impose their fairytale on our society.  Fuck that.  We have laws and a constitution and thats good enough for everyone.  We dont need Christianity.  In fact, in a few generations Chrstians or anyone who believes in organized religion will be in the minority and this world will be much better off.   You religious people are hypocrites and ignorant.  Reason why we separate church and state.  People with cancer and Alzheimers will be better off if you let science rule, not religion.  We already have too many people so we cant ban abortion.  But do you cry when we crack an egg or kill a mosquito?  And you guys have used your God to start too many wars so please stop the foolishness.  There is no God.  And if there is, he aint Christian.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is dead. You guys let the atheists successfully derail it
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, it's just taken a slight detour. You see, many of these so-called "Atheists" are also Marxist activists who want to destroy the representative democracy we have in America and replace it with socialist totalitarianism. They are just as dishonest about their hate for America as they are about their hate for a God they don't believe in.
Click to expand...


What fascinates us is that your religion says feed the poor and heal the sick but your politics says fuck the poor and let people die or go bankrupt if they don't have good health insurance.  It also gets you to go along with not doing research that could cure cancer, gets you to go along with denying global warming.  

The greatest thing the devil ever did was not to convince us he wasn't real.  It was to get you fools to vote for him.


----------



## sealybobo

HUGGY said:


> Nobody "Hates" a non existant sky fairy.
> 
> Some intelligent people just hate the ignorance that sustains the myth.



Great point.  I don't hate something that doesn't exist.  I hate the churches and leaders who use religion to control the masses.  And I hate the masses who fall for it.  What do I love?  That more and more people are waking up and not believing in fairytales.  

This is very promising:  More than one-quarter of American adults (28%) have left the faith in which they were raised

Statistics on Religion in America Report -- Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is dead. You guys let the atheists successfully derail it
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, it's just taken a slight detour. You see, many of these so-called "Atheists" are also Marxist activists who want to destroy the representative democracy we have in America and replace it with socialist totalitarianism. They are just as dishonest about their hate for America as they are about their hate for a God they don't believe in.
Click to expand...


This is just flat out bullshit.  Just like you guys think athiests are bad people but when you look in our prisons there are very few athiests in prison but the prisons are full of christians.  

Im re reading your post to make sure I covered everything.  Please dont attempt to scare us into believing your lies.  It wont work.  Thats how they got you to have blind ignorant faith.  We need proof.   You guys already tried to tell us if we dont believe your story we are going to hell and we still dont believe.  So you are going to have to do better than that.  It is not our responsibility to prove God is fake.  For a unbelievable story it is your job to prove to us your story is true.  And you dont have any It makes no sense yet were supposed to believe it blindly?  Again, google whynogod and read the entire thing and it will poke holes in every stupid thought you have on religion.  Best answer is we dont know, so agnostics have it right.  But I am 100% certain atheists are not going to hell because they dont believe your story or any of the 998 other fake ass stories that came before or after your fake ass story.  This is why Americans are still stupid and losing their democracy to the rich.  The rich are able to use God to divide us.  So you vote against science and your own financial best interests because of things like abortion?  There is no God so abortion is no big deal.  Its the equivilant of stepping on an ant or smacking a mosquito.  I do fear an ignorant society that denies science because of superstitions and a corrupt church.  Religion has held us back over 1000 years.  Yes, I fear a society where stupidity rules.  No we dont deny God so we can be unaccountable.  We truly dont believe there is a God.  If we did believe in God, we certainly wouldnt be denying him.  And it is your religion that allows you all to be assholes 6 days a week and think you are forgiven because you are saved and believe.  What a joke.  We persist on Message boards because we cant say these things to our friends and co wokers YET.  I have lost friends who couldnt handle the truth.  If they are so sure, why would any of my arguments have any effect on them?  Its because I/we make a lot of good points.  You are believing a fairytale.  The only difference is a fairytale happened a long time ago in a place far far away and Jesus happened SUPPOSEDLY 2014 years ago in Jeruselum.  But there are no historical records, the story literally comes from 11 people.  11???  Thats a cult.  Were supposed to believe he did miracles because 11 people said so?  If you have studied religious history and you still believe you have to be stupid.


----------



## HUGGY

Boss said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is dead. You guys let the atheists successfully derail it
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, it's just taken a slight detour. You see, many of these so-called "Atheists" are also Marxist activists who want to destroy the representative democracy we have in America and replace it with socialist totalitarianism. They are just as dishonest about their hate for America as they are about their hate for a God they don't believe in.
Click to expand...


What a laughable post.  

I know dozens of atheists and have never met an actual Marxist activist.  Where are these "many" Marxist activists?

Who posting on USMB do you have evidence of being a Marxist Activist?

What should we do about these people?

Shouldn't someone contact the FBI?

If YOU have evidense isn't it your duty to report it?

I hope you are not suggesting that the atheists that are not Marxist activists get in touch with the authorities if only to clear their names.

I just don't have the time.


----------



## Boss

> Shouldn't someone contact the FBI?
> If YOU have evidense isn't it your duty to report it?



There's no law against being a Marxist activist. 
We live in a free society where you have the liberty to support whatever ideology you please, there is no crime in it.


----------



## Boss

> What should we do about these people?



I would say, marginalize and ignore them.


----------



## Boss

> That more and more people are waking up and not believing in fairytales.



Think what you want to but this isn't true.  95% of the human race believes in something greater than self. Only about 5% identify as Nihilists who believe in nothing. This statistic traces back to the origins of man.

Now, you'll find propaganda to show that membership in Christian churches are declining in America, or fewer people report attending regular religious services, etc. Religions come and go, trends also change with times, but the number of people who believe in something greater than self is not changing.


----------



## HUGGY

Boss said:


> Shouldn't someone contact the FBI?
> If YOU have evidense isn't it your duty to report it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's no law against being a Marxist activist.
> We live in a free society where you have the liberty to support whatever ideology you please, there is no crime in it.
Click to expand...


SOOooo.... I guess those of us that support NO ideology are SOL...  

I'm OK with it really.  It gives me more time to be with my dogs and work on my inventions and keep up on vehicle repairs and other chores.  

That's what I don't get about the Marxist activists... Where do they find the time?


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> That more and more people are waking up and not believing in fairytales.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Think what you want to but this isn't true.  95% of the human race believes in something greater than self. Only about 5% identify as Nihilists who believe in nothing. This statistic traces back to the origins of man.
> 
> Now, you'll find propaganda to show that membership in Christian churches are declining in America, or fewer people report attending regular religious services, etc. Religions come and go, trends also change with times, but the number of people who believe in something greater than self is not changing.
Click to expand...


Fear is eternal.


----------



## MaxGrit

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That more and more people are waking up and not believing in fairytales.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Think what you want to but this isn't true.  95% of the human race believes in something greater than self. Only about 5% identify as Nihilists who believe in nothing. This statistic traces back to the origins of man.
> 
> Now, you'll find propaganda to show that membership in Christian churches are declining in America, or fewer people report attending regular religious services, etc. Religions come and go, trends also change with times, but the number of people who believe in something greater than self is not changing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fear is eternal.
Click to expand...


Only God is eternal. 

e = without
ternal = time

Fear is not an inherent attribute of God, therefore fear is not eternal.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> That more and more people are waking up and not believing in fairytales.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Think what you want to but this isn't true.  95% of the human race believes in something greater than self. Only about 5% identify as Nihilists who believe in nothing. This statistic traces back to the origins of man.
> 
> Now, you'll find propaganda to show that membership in Christian churches are declining in America, or fewer people report attending regular religious services, etc. Religions come and go, trends also change with times, but the number of people who believe in something greater than self is not changing.
Click to expand...


Why do you continue to bring up Nihilism as the only possible choice for those who do not have faith in some sort of higher power?


----------



## Boss

> Why do you continue to bring up Nihilism as the only possible choice for those who do not have faith in some sort of higher power?



Because Nihilism is the belief in nothing existential. That life has no greater purpose or meaning. Why do you run from the label which defines your supposed beliefs? You don't believe in God or Spiritual Nature. You think humans just live, exist, die, and become worm food. Do you avoid the label because you're not so sure this is what you actually believe?


----------



## orogenicman

MaxGrit said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Think what you want to but this isn't true. 95% of the human race believes in something greater than self. Only about 5% identify as Nihilists who believe in nothing. This statistic traces back to the origins of man.
> 
> Now, you'll find propaganda to show that membership in Christian churches are declining in America, or fewer people report attending regular religious services, etc. Religions come and go, trends also change with times, but the number of people who believe in something greater than self is not changing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fear is eternal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only God is eternal.
> 
> e = without
> ternal = time
> 
> Fear is not an inherent attribute of God, therefore fear is not eternal.
Click to expand...


So you are saying that the God made man in his own image claim is wrong.  I agree.


----------



## orogenicman

Boss said:


> Why do you continue to bring up Nihilism as the only possible choice for those who do not have faith in some sort of higher power?
> 
> 
> 
> Because Nihilism is the belief in nothing existential. That life has no greater purpose or meaning. Why do you run from the label which defines your supposed beliefs? You don't believe in God or Spiritual Nature. You think humans just live, exist, die, and become worm food. Do you avoid the label because you're not so sure this is what you actually believe?
Click to expand...


Because atheism is not nihilism.  Next.


----------



## HUGGY

Boss said:


> Why do you continue to bring up Nihilism as the only possible choice for those who do not have faith in some sort of higher power?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Because Nihilism is the belief in nothing existential*. That life has no greater purpose or meaning. Why do you run from the label which defines your supposed beliefs? You don't believe in God or Spiritual Nature. You think humans just live, exist, die, and become worm food. Do you avoid the label because you're not so sure this is what you actually believe?
Click to expand...


That simply is not true.  You REALLY need to look up the definition.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> That more and more people are waking up and not believing in fairytales.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Think what you want to but this isn't true.  95% of the human race believes in something greater than self. Only about 5% identify as Nihilists who believe in nothing. This statistic traces back to the origins of man.
> 
> Now, you'll find propaganda to show that membership in Christian churches are declining in America, or fewer people report attending regular religious services, etc. Religions come and go, trends also change with times, but the number of people who believe in something greater than self is not changing.
Click to expand...


Your attitudes are stereotypical for a wide cross section of religious extremists who use their religion only to foment hate and derision.


----------



## Boss

orogenicman said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you continue to bring up Nihilism as the only possible choice for those who do not have faith in some sort of higher power?
> 
> 
> 
> Because Nihilism is the belief in nothing existential. That life has no greater purpose or meaning. Why do you run from the label which defines your supposed beliefs? You don't believe in God or Spiritual Nature. You think humans just live, exist, die, and become worm food. Do you avoid the label because you're not so sure this is what you actually believe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because atheism is not nihilism.  Next.
Click to expand...


Yes, and I find that very interesting. Even the most devout Atheists have some belief in purpose of life and something greater than self. Something inside your brain just won't let you pull the trigger on the whole Nihilist shtick. Can't quite bring yourselves to go that far. Best just to hang out with the God-haters and Christian-bashers and leave that question of greater purpose alone for now, huh? 

But okay... I get that I touched a nerve with you Atheists by comparing you to Nihilists... Let's take just people who identify as Atheists into account here... Still, 90% of the human population believe in something non-Atheistic. Hardly an endorsement for sealybobo's claim that "more and more people are waking up and not believing..." One in ten? Really?


----------



## Boss

HUGGY said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you continue to bring up Nihilism as the only possible choice for those who do not have faith in some sort of higher power?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Because Nihilism is the belief in nothing existential*. That life has no greater purpose or meaning. Why do you run from the label which defines your supposed beliefs? You don't believe in God or Spiritual Nature. You think humans just live, exist, die, and become worm food. Do you avoid the label because you're not so sure this is what you actually believe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That simply is not true.  You REALLY need to look up the definition.
Click to expand...


Well, I have done more than look up the definition at Wikipedia and elsewhere. Understand that Nihilism as well as nihilism has numerous connotations. There is a wide range of beliefs and attributes associated, just like with Atheism and atheistic. I gave a rather short concise definition for the sake of brevity. 

While there are a great deal of anti-social aspects to Nihilism that aren't found in Atheism, I believe it's because Atheists talk the talk while Nihilists walk the walk. If you honestly believe there is no God, no supreme spiritual force out there of any kind, then what real purpose does life have? What is the basis for moral accountability? Humanity? Social mores? Everything is just a big mind fuck and we live for ourselves, and that's it. Nihilists simply take Atheism to it's logical conclusion, nothing means anything. There is no reason for it to mean anything. 

What is SO fascinating to me as a psychologist, is just how quickly the "Atheists" here were to jump on this and weigh in. Totally offended at the notion that someone might think of them as *gasp* Nihilists! ...I love messing with minds here!


----------



## Boss

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That more and more people are waking up and not believing in fairytales.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Think what you want to but this isn't true.  95% of the human race believes in something greater than self. Only about 5% identify as Nihilists who believe in nothing. This statistic traces back to the origins of man.
> 
> Now, you'll find propaganda to show that membership in Christian churches are declining in America, or fewer people report attending regular religious services, etc. Religions come and go, trends also change with times, but the number of people who believe in something greater than self is not changing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your attitudes are stereotypical for a wide cross section of religious extremists who use their religion only to foment hate and derision.
Click to expand...


No sweetie, my attitudes are anything but stereotypical. I am a one-of-a-kind American original. I am not religious, although I am extremely spiritual, but I don't use religion or anything else to foment hate and derision. I often find myself defending religious arguments here against the likes of you God-haters, but I've had my share of disagreements with Christians and other religious people. My sister, who is devoutly religious, calls me her "Atheist Brother" and tells me I am destined for Hell. I'm not shook, I have a strong relationship with my God, and I believe if I were headed for Hell, my God would certainly let me know of this.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Think what you want to but this isn't true.  95% of the human race believes in something greater than self. Only about 5% identify as Nihilists who believe in nothing. This statistic traces back to the origins of man.
> 
> Now, you'll find propaganda to show that membership in Christian churches are declining in America, or fewer people report attending regular religious services, etc. Religions come and go, trends also change with times, but the number of people who believe in something greater than self is not changing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your attitudes are stereotypical for a wide cross section of religious extremists who use their religion only to foment hate and derision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No sweetie, my attitudes are anything but stereotypical. I am a one-of-a-kind American original. I am not religious, although I am extremely spiritual, but I don't use religion or anything else to foment hate and derision. I often find myself defending religious arguments here against the likes of you God-haters, but I've had my share of disagreements with Christians and other religious people. My sister, who is devoutly religious, calls me her "Atheist Brother" and tells me I am destined for Hell. I'm not shook, I have a strong relationship with my God, and I believe if I were headed for Hell, my God would certainly let me know of this.
Click to expand...


Actually, pumpkin, you are very much the archetype for the angry fundamentalist. You define as god-haters, those who challenge your religious beliefs in the gods. 

It's remarkable how in lock-step you are with the other fundies who become incensed when their claims to supernaturalism are challenged, in a public forum when you should expect that others will disagree with you.

If you're not prepared emotionally for challenges to what you're unable to defend without appeals to magic and supernaturalism, you should engage on a forum where everyone shares your religious beliefs.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Because Nihilism is the belief in nothing existential*. That life has no greater purpose or meaning. Why do you run from the label which defines your supposed beliefs? You don't believe in God or Spiritual Nature. You think humans just live, exist, die, and become worm food. Do you avoid the label because you're not so sure this is what you actually believe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That simply is not true.  You REALLY need to look up the definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I have done more than look up the definition at Wikipedia and elsewhere. Understand that Nihilism as well as nihilism has numerous connotations. There is a wide range of beliefs and attributes associated, just like with Atheism and atheistic. I gave a rather short concise definition for the sake of brevity.
> 
> While there are a great deal of anti-social aspects to Nihilism that aren't found in Atheism, I believe it's because Atheists talk the talk while Nihilists walk the walk. If you honestly believe there is no God, no supreme spiritual force out there of any kind, then what real purpose does life have? What is the basis for moral accountability? Humanity? Social mores? Everything is just a big mind fuck and we live for ourselves, and that's it. Nihilists simply take Atheism to it's logical conclusion, nothing means anything. There is no reason for it to mean anything.
> 
> What is SO fascinating to me as a psychologist, is just how quickly the "Atheists" here were to jump on this and weigh in. Totally offended at the notion that someone might think of them as *gasp* Nihilists! ...I love messing with minds here!
Click to expand...


You love thinking you are messing with minds, anyway.  

As I've said before, I doubt that many surveys (likely to be one of the major ways people come up with statistics about belief in god(s)) have nihilism as a choice, at least in the US.  Atheism or agnosticism, perhaps, but nihilism is not a common word used to describe lack of religious belief.  So making claims about nihilism as the only non-religious choice is just silly.

That's not even taking into account the simple misuse of the word.

But go ahead and keep on thinking your keen psychologist's training is really throwing all the non-believers for a loop with this.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Think what you want to but this isn't true.  95% of the human race believes in something greater than self. Only about 5% identify as Nihilists who believe in nothing. This statistic traces back to the origins of man.
> 
> Now, you'll find propaganda to show that membership in Christian churches are declining in America, or fewer people report attending regular religious services, etc. Religions come and go, trends also change with times, but the number of people who believe in something greater than self is not changing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your attitudes are stereotypical for a wide cross section of religious extremists who use their religion only to foment hate and derision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No sweetie, my attitudes are anything but stereotypical. I am a one-of-a-kind American original. I am not religious, although I am extremely spiritual, but I don't use religion or anything else to foment hate and derision. I often find myself defending religious arguments here against the likes of you God-haters, but I've had my share of disagreements with Christians and other religious people. My sister, who is devoutly religious, calls me her "Atheist Brother" and tells me I am destined for Hell. I'm not shook, I have a strong relationship with my God, and I believe if I were headed for Hell, my God would certainly let me know of this.
Click to expand...


But you have repeatedly said that your "god" has no personal interest in you whatsoever so clearly you have no relationship with this entitity, unless your relationships are defined by the other person having no interest in you.
Which I can certainly imagine being the case.


----------



## sealybobo

HUGGY said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is dead. You guys let the atheists successfully derail it
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, it's just taken a slight detour. You see, many of these so-called "Atheists" are also Marxist activists who want to destroy the representative democracy we have in America and replace it with socialist totalitarianism. They are just as dishonest about their hate for America as they are about their hate for a God they don't believe in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a laughable post.
> 
> I know dozens of atheists and have never met an actual Marxist activist.  Where are these "many" Marxist activists?
> 
> Who posting on USMB do you have evidence of being a Marxist Activist?
> 
> What should we do about these people?
> 
> Shouldn't someone contact the FBI?
> 
> If YOU have evidense isn't it your duty to report it?
> 
> I hope you are not suggesting that the atheists that are not Marxist activists get in touch with the authorities if only to clear their names.
> 
> I just don't have the time.
Click to expand...


Conservatives never change.  Hence the name.  So it is no surprise that the people that rule our society because they have all the money would use the same Red Scare tactics that worked in 1920's then again in the 40's and 50's.  Conservatives have never changed.  Hell, they don't even believe science.  And what is amazing is they are our neighbors, bosses, friends, customers, co workers.  These idiots live among us.  They were conned into Iraq by Bush and they actually NEVER blamed Bush or the GOP for the collapse of our economy.  That's how brainwashed and dumb they are.  I wish for Jesus to come back and take them all home.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> That more and more people are waking up and not believing in fairytales.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Think what you want to but this isn't true.  95% of the human race believes in something greater than self. Only about 5% identify as Nihilists who believe in nothing. This statistic traces back to the origins of man.
> 
> Now, you'll find propaganda to show that membership in Christian churches are declining in America, or fewer people report attending regular religious services, etc. Religions come and go, trends also change with times, but the number of people who believe in something greater than self is not changing.
Click to expand...


We see since the internet more and more people are waking up and realizing there is no God.  Never before have we had the resources to go seek out all the facts.  Until the internet all you could do was 

a.  Talk to a christian
b. Talk to a priest
c. Read the bible

Any of these choices are bad because christians are brainwashed, priests are either liars fools or brainwashed too and the bible was written 100 years after Jesus by a cult.

We also know why people are religious.  It's because we didn't know science.  God was the only way to explain away things we didn't understand.  Time to evolve.  God is dead or at least dying.  What, the other 998 religions are fake but yours is not?  And yesterday I saw a thing on Facebook about a new athiest church that is growing like crazy.  We are not afraid because we know if there is a God he isn't the Christian's, Jews or Muslim's version of God so we don't fear mocking you guys because we know 100% for sure you are fos.  If there is a God, he doesn't give a shit what you or I are typing.  Rediculous.  This was the church/kings way of controlling the people.  Gullible unevolved uneducated people.  It even took me a couple days with a true athiest to realize there is no God.  I used to say I don't believe the Christian's version but I do believe in God.  Then they educated me on why humans do that.  First off, I've been brainwashed since birth too.  I just woke up.  But don't you think I want to believe there is a heaven?  But it's just the most rediculous stories in the bible.  Anyone who takes those stories literally can't be that smart.  And the ones that don't, well they are really christians are they?  The church says yes to keep you as a member but the truly faithful say you either believe in miracles and fairytales or go to hell.  I know God wouldn't do that, if there was one.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That more and more people are waking up and not believing in fairytales.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Think what you want to but this isn't true.  95% of the human race believes in something greater than self. Only about 5% identify as Nihilists who believe in nothing. This statistic traces back to the origins of man.
> 
> Now, you'll find propaganda to show that membership in Christian churches are declining in America, or fewer people report attending regular religious services, etc. Religions come and go, trends also change with times, but the number of people who believe in something greater than self is not changing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We see since the internet more and more people are waking up and realizing there is no God.  Never before have we had the resources to go seek out all the facts.  Until the internet all you could do was
> 
> a.  Talk to a christian
> b. Talk to a priest
> c. Read the bible
Click to expand...


No, you could go to the library and read many books on theology and atheism. You could take college courses. You could rent videos and buy tapes. You could go around and talk to other people, attend seminars and lectures, listen to the radio or watch television. You make it sound as if "before the internet" we lived in the age of the Flintstones. 

You've still not proven this statement about "more and more people are waking up" because statistics don't bear this out. 9-out-of-10 people have some kind of spiritual belief. 



> Any of these choices are bad because christians are brainwashed, priests are either liars fools or brainwashed too and the bible was written 100 years after Jesus by a cult.



The Bible was written over a span of several hundred years preceding Jesus and after his death by numerous authors. This sounds like something you may have read on that bastion of intelligent and unassailable information, The Internet! Yes... the good ol' Internet we used to not have, where all the actual TRUTH can be found on assorted blogs and websites constructed by morons like yourself. Whatever did we do without it to tell us what was good and bad? 



> We also know why people are religious.  It's because we didn't know science.  God was the only way to explain away things we didn't understand.  Time to evolve.



This is also not true. Science predates the modern era. It came about somewhere around the 4th century BCE... well before Christianity. It probably dates back to the ancient Greeks, as science comes from Latin 'scientia', meaning "knowledge". So it's really difficult to believe that the Christian movement as well as most modern religions, emerged in the shadows of this glorious thing called science to where 90% of us still worship something greater than self and 10% of us are atheistic. But then, 'evolution' takes millions of years, right?



> God is dead or at least dying.



LMFAO... The God that doesn't exist??? 



> What, the other 998 religions are fake but yours is not?  And yesterday I saw a thing on Facebook about a new athiest church that is growing like crazy.  We are not afraid because we know if there is a God....



Wait... so some of this 10% who claim to be Atheists actually believe there might be a God?  I had NO idea!! I thought you just said science was dispelling that myth, but now we have Atheists forming churches and believing there might be a God? Can't make up your minds?



> we know 100% for sure you are fos.



Doesn't sound like you know anything 100%. Sounds like there may be some doubts, if Atheists are forming churches and whatnot. 



> If there is a God, he doesn't give a shit what you or I are typing.  Rediculous.  This was the church/kings way of controlling the people.  Gullible unevolved uneducated people.



For the record, the God I believe in doesn't give a shit what you and I are typing. Just saying. And yes, I agree, religion has often been used by the powerful as a means of control over others. However, we part ways on the idea that people who are spiritually inclined are gullible, unevolved or uneducated. You do realize that almost to a fault, every person responsible for modern science coming to exist, was devoutly spiritual and believed in God, right? Yep, they may not have been particularly religious (although some were), but you'll be hard pressed to find any example of them categorizing a belief in God as "ridiculous". At best, they left the question open. 



> It even took me a couple days with a true athiest to realize there is no God.



Ah.... so THAT's your problem... but you feel that others are "brainwashed" and not you? Yes, 90% of us are gullible, unevolved and uneducated brainwashed idiots, and you are among the 10% who are enlightened to the truth... but some of you are forming churches, just in case. lol



> I used to say I don't believe the Christian's version but I do believe in God.  Then they educated me on why humans do that.  First off, I've been brainwashed since birth too.  I just woke up.  But don't you think I want to believe there is a heaven?  But it's just the most rediculous stories in the bible.  Anyone who takes those stories literally can't be that smart.  And the ones that don't, well they are really christians are they?  The church says yes to keep you as a member but the truly faithful say you either believe in miracles and fairytales or go to hell.  I know God wouldn't do that, if there was one.



Here's what has happened to you, moron. You've bought a bunch of hyperbolic nonsense from propagandists who are out to destroy God. You didn't "wake up" you became brainwashed into believing a lie. Humans, since the first human civilizations, have been intrinsically connected to something greater than self, beyond the physical. It is our most defining attribute as a species and 90% of us still retain the feature, in spite of science and the Internet. Even the 10% who claim to be Atheists are creating churches on the off-chance they may be wrong about the no-God thing. 

Now, let me address Chrisitianity here.... It is a RELIGION. It may be right or wrong, I make no claims because I am not a Christian, but I do know a lot about their religion and beliefs. For instance, it is a religion of ACCEPTANCE. That means, no matter how much you want to believe it or how much they may wish it, you CANNOT be forced to be a Christian. You have to ACCEPT the Lord as your personal savior, there is no other way to become a Christian. No one can ever MAKE you do that, it's a matter of your personal faith and what is inside your heart. 

That said, regardless of your belief regarding Christianity, it has nothing to do with whether or not Spiritual Nature exists. There CAN be a God without it being the Christian's God of Abraham.


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> But you have repeatedly said that your "god" has no personal interest in you whatsoever so clearly you have no relationship with this entitity, unless your relationships are defined by the other person having no interest in you.
> Which I can certainly imagine being the case.



No, I have said that God doesn't "care" or have human emotional attributes, and I gave a comparison of electricity in your wall socket not "caring" what you do with it, but more than willing to dole out the consequences for disrespecting it's power. If you wish to believe electricity doesn't exist because you can't see it, that's fine... it's still there in the outlet and available to benefit you, if you ever decide to accept it exists. 

Now, you and I have conversations here daily... You tell me what you want me to hear, and I tell you what I want you to hear, and we argue our points back and forth, usually with me beating your brains in and causing you to act emotively in a pathetic attempt to save face... but the point is, you don't have any concern for what I am doing or about to do. I also have no interest in you whatsoever.... more interested in the fungus beneath my toenail, honestly. However, we do have what can be described as a 'relationship' here on this forum, under our respective screen names and avatars. Strange how that works, huh?


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> That simply is not true.  You REALLY need to look up the definition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I have done more than look up the definition at Wikipedia and elsewhere. Understand that Nihilism as well as nihilism has numerous connotations. There is a wide range of beliefs and attributes associated, just like with Atheism and atheistic. I gave a rather short concise definition for the sake of brevity.
> 
> While there are a great deal of anti-social aspects to Nihilism that aren't found in Atheism, I believe it's because Atheists talk the talk while Nihilists walk the walk. If you honestly believe there is no God, no supreme spiritual force out there of any kind, then what real purpose does life have? What is the basis for moral accountability? Humanity? Social mores? Everything is just a big mind fuck and we live for ourselves, and that's it. Nihilists simply take Atheism to it's logical conclusion, nothing means anything. There is no reason for it to mean anything.
> 
> What is SO fascinating to me as a psychologist, is just how quickly the "Atheists" here were to jump on this and weigh in. Totally offended at the notion that someone might think of them as *gasp* Nihilists! ...I love messing with minds here!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You love thinking you are messing with minds, anyway.
> 
> As I've said before, I doubt that many surveys (likely to be one of the major ways people come up with statistics about belief in god(s)) have nihilism as a choice, at least in the US.  Atheism or agnosticism, perhaps, but nihilism is not a common word used to describe lack of religious belief.  So making claims about nihilism as the only non-religious choice is just silly.
> 
> That's not even taking into account the simple misuse of the word.
> 
> But go ahead and keep on thinking your keen psychologist's training is really throwing all the non-believers for a loop with this.
Click to expand...


Well they can certainly ask people if they are Nihilists worldwide and come up with a statistic. That's what I assume they've done when it's reported that less than 5% are Nihilist. I would assume they are probably also Atheists... (but not part of the Atheists who are forming churches, according to sillyboob.)

But if you want to just count Atheists, then only 1 out of 10 people describe themselves as that, the other 90% have some sort of belief in something greater than self. It's still a very laughable far cry from this supposed "mass exodus" from God, as has been inferred.


----------



## Boss

Hollie said:


> Actually, pumpkin, you are very much *the archetype* for the angry fundamentalist......It's remarkable how in lock-step you are with the *other* fundies...



Isn't it curious how in one sentence I am "the archetype" and the next sentence, I am following in lockstep with the "other" fundies? You segregated me from the rest and didn't even seem to notice you did it. 

I guess you think calling people "angry fundamentalist" is supposed to upset them and make them run from their religious faith or something? Actually, it only serves to further marginalize you as an anti-religious intolerant who can't be conversed with civilly.


----------



## srlip

since there is no such thing as "god", anyone bothering to hate "him" is just irrational. So are those who love "him", obviously.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you have repeatedly said that your "god" has no personal interest in you whatsoever so clearly you have no relationship with this entitity, unless your relationships are defined by the other person having no interest in you.
> Which I can certainly imagine being the case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I have said that God doesn't "care" or have human emotional attributes, and I gave a comparison of electricity in your wall socket not "caring" what you do with it, but more than willing to dole out the consequences for disrespecting it's power. If you wish to believe electricity doesn't exist because you can't see it, that's fine... it's still there in the outlet and available to benefit you, if you ever decide to accept it exists.
> 
> Now, you and I have conversations here daily... You tell me what you want me to hear, and I tell you what I want you to hear, and we argue our points back and forth, usually with me beating your brains in and causing you to act emotively in a pathetic attempt to save face... but the point is, you don't have any concern for what I am doing or about to do. I also have no interest in you whatsoever.... more interested in the fungus beneath my toenail, honestly. However, we do have what can be described as a 'relationship' here on this forum, under our respective screen names and avatars. Strange how that works, huh?
Click to expand...


How does electricity tell you what your future is?
That is what you are saying your god will do regarding hell, right?
As for emotive, that is your department. You are notorious for losing complete control of yourself and simply descending into swearing and other vulgarities. That is your bailiwick, not mine.
I have repeatedly embarrassed you in your ridiculous arguments, like this one here in this exchange. God doesn't care, but he will tell me if I am going to hell, but he doesn't care about me personally or directly. Silly stuff. Don't worry, the fools that think you are credible never notice the logical head-on collisions that you write.
Your arguments are so self-defeating that all I ever have to do is get out of the way and let you trip on your spurs.
As for that hygiene problem under your toe, an occaisional shower should take care of it.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I have done more than look up the definition at Wikipedia and elsewhere. Understand that Nihilism as well as nihilism has numerous connotations. There is a wide range of beliefs and attributes associated, just like with Atheism and atheistic. I gave a rather short concise definition for the sake of brevity.
> 
> While there are a great deal of anti-social aspects to Nihilism that aren't found in Atheism, I believe it's because Atheists talk the talk while Nihilists walk the walk. If you honestly believe there is no God, no supreme spiritual force out there of any kind, then what real purpose does life have? What is the basis for moral accountability? Humanity? Social mores? Everything is just a big mind fuck and we live for ourselves, and that's it. Nihilists simply take Atheism to it's logical conclusion, nothing means anything. There is no reason for it to mean anything.
> 
> What is SO fascinating to me as a psychologist, is just how quickly the "Atheists" here were to jump on this and weigh in. Totally offended at the notion that someone might think of them as *gasp* Nihilists! ...I love messing with minds here!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You love thinking you are messing with minds, anyway.
> 
> As I've said before, I doubt that many surveys (likely to be one of the major ways people come up with statistics about belief in god(s)) have nihilism as a choice, at least in the US.  Atheism or agnosticism, perhaps, but nihilism is not a common word used to describe lack of religious belief.  So making claims about nihilism as the only non-religious choice is just silly.
> 
> That's not even taking into account the simple misuse of the word.
> 
> But go ahead and keep on thinking your keen psychologist's training is really throwing all the non-believers for a loop with this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well they can certainly ask people if they are Nihilists worldwide and come up with a statistic. That's what I assume they've done when it's reported that less than 5% are Nihilist. I would assume they are probably also Atheists... (but not part of the Atheists who are forming churches, according to sillyboob.)
> 
> But if you want to just count Atheists, then only 1 out of 10 people describe themselves as that, the other 90% have some sort of belief in something greater than self. It's still a very laughable far cry from this supposed "mass exodus" from God, as has been inferred.
Click to expand...


Oh, I don't want to argue that there is some kind of mass change going on in people's beliefs.  I would guess that it's more likely that, since so few people were atheist or agnostic in the past (or at least willing to admit as much) that what we could be seeing is a huge jump in comparative numbers.  Going from, let's say, 2% of people claiming atheism or agnosticism to 10% is an extremely large increase....but still a pretty small minority compared to believers.

I just don't think that nihilism is generally considered in questions of religious belief.  I also think surveys are often crafted in such a way so as to try and reach a particular conclusion, and that nihilism is unlikely to be part of such a conclusion.  That's my issue as far as this part of the discussion is concerned.  I don't want to give the impression I think the world is suddenly turning away from religion or spiritual belief in droves.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, pumpkin, you are very much *the archetype* for the angry fundamentalist......It's remarkable how in lock-step you are with the *other* fundies...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't it curious how in one sentence I am "the archetype" and the next sentence, I am following in lockstep with the "other" fundies? You segregated me from the rest and didn't even seem to notice you did it.
> 
> I guess you think calling people "angry fundamentalist" is supposed to upset them and make them run from their religious faith or something? Actually, it only serves to further marginalize you as an anti-religious intolerant who can't be conversed with civilly.
Click to expand...


My goodness. Such melodrama. I just find it curious that you are unable to even define your own beliefs and the gods who are the capos of those belief systems. 

Virtually in a single sentence, you will sack your gods for something you call "spiritual nature" and then later, make appeals to the gods. 

It's just a confused tirade of anti-science rhetoric that makes appeals to magic and supernaturalism.


----------



## emilynghiem

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You at least are avoiding digging your grave deeper by trying to defend your absurd rants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you said we agree!
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Purposely ignoring the "WELL REGULATED Militia" bit.
> You just give and give and give.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, and you can't have one of those, in order to defend your freedoms, if you don't have the uninfringed right to bear arms. Dingbat!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you don't have the right to bear arms without one.
> Always the high road.
Click to expand...


NO, not all states had their own militia at the time this was written and passed.

What I WILL say about natural laws, is what gives people the right to bear arms
is the responsibility of each person for defending the laws SIMILAR to militia.

Even if the written laws says "you have the right to bear arms"
NO ONE has the natural right, given by God or by Govt, to bear arms
for the purpose of committing crimes or other unlawful abuse.

To abuse the law to justify owning or bearing guns for some criminal intent
is further abuse of that freedom that comes with natural responsibility.

People are invoking that right, because it is the people who ultimately
are responsible for our government. The govt and laws are supposed to reflect
our consent, and our agreements on laws as social contracts WITH EACH OTHER.

So we do have equal responsibility for enforcing laws, even WITHOUT a formal militia.

Even individual citizens with guns have social responsibility for safety and enforcing laws
not violating them when taken on and exercising their capacity using firearms.

It is the COMMITMENT by conscience to the laws that gives people authority of govt.
Lawless abuse is not an option, nor does the law require joining a formal militia.


----------



## emilynghiem

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, pumpkin, you are very much *the archetype* for the angry fundamentalist......It's remarkable how in lock-step you are with the *other* fundies...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't it curious how in one sentence I am "the archetype" and the next sentence, I am following in lockstep with the "other" fundies? You segregated me from the rest and didn't even seem to notice you did it.
> 
> I guess you think calling people "angry fundamentalist" is supposed to upset them and make them run from their religious faith or something? Actually, it only serves to further marginalize you as an anti-religious intolerant who can't be conversed with civilly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My goodness. Such melodrama. I just find it curious that you are unable to even define your own beliefs and the gods who are the capos of those belief systems.
> 
> Virtually in a single sentence, you will sack your gods for something you call "spiritual nature" and then later, make appeals to the gods.
> 
> It's just a confused tirade of anti-science rhetoric that makes appeals to magic and supernaturalism.
Click to expand...


Dear Hollie: Where God represents something truly universal,
what is wrong with directing the focus to "spiritual nature" or "Wisdom"
or any number of ways that Manifestation of this God can be expressed?

Why is that "sacking" God to explain in any number of terms God is known?

Jesus in one context means spiritual salvation
while in another means justice; these are related but not the same.

Am I sacking the name of Jesus by describing Jesus as Justice for one person,
or as Salvation for another? What if people receive understanding in different ways?

What is wrong with that? Is it something to criticize as negative?
Or see as something positive that these concepts are so universal
they translate into each person's perception in relatively ways unique to them?

Isn't that even better?


----------



## emilynghiem

thebrucebeat said:


> How does electricity tell you what your future is?
> That is what you are saying your god will do regarding hell, right?



This electricity analogy works when explaining how natural healing works with life energy.
If there is a break, blowout, disconnect or disruption in the circuit (or the switch is off),
then the electricity will not flow.  

If the point is found and remedied, then the circuit and flow is restored.

Hellish suffering is caused by a massive buildup or blowout of negative energy.
So again, compared with a safely flowing circuit, anything that negative can be detected and corrected instead.

So God's laws are like the laws of science that explain when the circuit is flowing, or is broken, or overloaded, or if we are mixing AC with DC and causing a blowout.

God's laws are neutral.  Both heavenly balance and peace, and hellish abuse and suffering can be explained using neutral laws of "cause and effect" which are universal (apply to all people regardless of our views or beliefs, but are part of natural laws of the world).

If you believe in God's love, or some collective force of life or love that is "biased" toward good, then God is not neutral but in favor of love, healing and happiness for humanity.

=====================================================


> As for emotive, that is your department. You are notorious for losing complete control of yourself and simply descending into swearing and other vulgarities. That is your bailiwick, not mine.
> 
> I have repeatedly embarrassed you in your ridiculous arguments, like this one here in this exchange. God doesn't care, but he will tell me if I am going to hell, but he doesn't care about me personally or directly. Silly stuff. Don't worry, the fools that think you are credible never notice the logical head-on collisions that you write.
> Your arguments are so self-defeating that all I ever have to do is get out of the way and let you trip on your spurs.
> 
> As for that hygiene problem under your toe, an occaisional shower should take care of it.



Even if you don't believe God cares about, people who love God may care about you
enough not to want you to suffer when you could have greater understanding and peace.

When y'all are done criticizing your personal objections, I hope you can see that all of you are incredibly adept at discussing these things objectively and articulately.

I do not doubt each of your ability to carry the topic to full conclusion, so I see little need to sidetrack on personal remarks. If that is only a test to see if anyone else will give up and back out first, I hope you all stay to finish sharing an interesting in-depth conversation. 

Please do not waste words insulting each other's intelligence, I would like to hear the rest of what you have to say without distraction.

Thank you for this!


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you have repeatedly said that your "god" has no personal interest in you whatsoever so clearly you have no relationship with this entitity, unless your relationships are defined by the other person having no interest in you.
> Which I can certainly imagine being the case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I have said that God doesn't "care" or have human emotional attributes, and I gave a comparison of electricity in your wall socket not "caring" what you do with it, but more than willing to dole out the consequences for disrespecting it's power. If you wish to believe electricity doesn't exist because you can't see it, that's fine... it's still there in the outlet and available to benefit you, if you ever decide to accept it exists.
> 
> Now, you and I have conversations here daily... You tell me what you want me to hear, and I tell you what I want you to hear, and we argue our points back and forth, usually with me beating your brains in and causing you to act emotively in a pathetic attempt to save face... but the point is, you don't have any concern for what I am doing or about to do. I also have no interest in you whatsoever.... more interested in the fungus beneath my toenail, honestly. However, we do have what can be described as a 'relationship' here on this forum, under our respective screen names and avatars. Strange how that works, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does electricity tell you what your future is?
> That is what you are saying your god will do regarding hell, right?
> As for emotive, that is your department. You are notorious for losing complete control of yourself and simply descending into swearing and other vulgarities. That is your bailiwick, not mine.
> I have repeatedly embarrassed you blah blah blah blah blah....(dream on!)
Click to expand...


Electricity doesn't tell my future, but my knowledge that it exists is inspiration for me to plug in a lamp so I can see when the sun goes down, or plug in an electronic device and converse with you here on the Internet. 

I don't think I've spoken much about Hell and what my God will do regarding it. One of the reasons I'm not a Christian is because I don't believe in the Christian incarnation of Heaven and Hell. (Not saying they are wrong, just not my personal belief.) 

Now, I may be completely wrong, this is totally MY opinion, but I think there are various levels or planes of existence above and below where we currently reside in this physical presence and reality. Call them different dimensions if you will. Our souls or spirits are here for now, and depending on a myriad of factors regarding how we maintain our soul, it will either go to a higher plane or lower plane after our physical life here is over. This is why we are compelled to do "good" and seek "light" instead of dark, etc. Spiritual Nature is attempting to guide us on a positive path to something greater, a higher plane of awareness and existence in another dimension. 

What we do is solely dependent on the strength of our spirit, and some of us have stronger spirits than others. It's not about your mind or religious beliefs, it's about your 'humanity' more than anything else I can describe. If you are purely an evil spirit, your soul is destined for the lowest rung of existence, which is probably not a pleasant place. However, if you have tried to obey your conscience and do as Spiritual Nature has guided you to do in your life, then perhaps you ascend to a higher level, maybe even to the highest level.


----------



## emilynghiem

sealybobo said:


> Conservatives never change.  Hence the name.  So it is no surprise that the people that rule our society because they have all the money would use the same Red Scare tactics that worked in 1920's then again in the 40's and 50's.  Conservatives have never changed.  Hell, they don't even believe science.  And what is amazing is they are our neighbors, bosses, friends, customers, co workers.  These idiots live among us.  They were conned into Iraq by Bush and they actually NEVER blamed Bush or the GOP for the collapse of our economy.  That's how brainwashed and dumb they are.  I wish for Jesus to come back and take them all home.



Hi Sealybobo and Boss:
Can we have an agreement NOT to generalize anyone on here
as a STEREOTYPE labeled either as a "God hater" or as a "brainwashed Conservative"

How can we hear what each other has to say if we have already pegged
each other in our minds, and use that as a filter to screen out or bias any information?

If you want the world to look all red, sure, put on your red glasses and all you
see will look red. But I thought you DIDN'T want that. If you DON'T want people
to act like Godhaters or act like brainwashed cult members, why project this image?

Can we please agree to put that to the side?

I would like to follow this conversation and sharing of ideas between
clearly intelligent discerning minds, but without the filters and biases blocking the signal.

I really want to hear what you have to say, clearly, as you represent yourselves
not as other people paint you where you waste time defending and reacting to that.

Thank you


----------



## emilynghiem

Hi Sealybobo: Science can also prove that spiritual healing is real and natural, and the procedure of exorcism or deliverance actually does work effectively to remove demonic obsessions that otherwise take over control of minds of patients (who might express their sickness as schizophrenia, multiple personalities, or other illnesses that have been cured if caused by generational phobias or addictions in the spirit which Christian prayer heals).

If you are serious about science, you might look into that area of medical research.

You are right, that the church and religious attachments to controlling conditions on faith HAS blocked science. Even Christians argue that who have been trying to promote knowledge of spiritual healing, but are equally blocked by fundamental religionists
as fundamental atheists who are both threatened by the notion of scientific proof.

Some of the fundamentalists are afraid that if science proves spiritual healing, then people will worship science and only believe what is proven. 

The fear and division is mutual. People who are not afraid of change, will welcome scientific proof of spiritual healing and the impact it will have on society.



sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That more and more people are waking up and not believing in fairytales.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Think what you want to but this isn't true.  95% of the human race believes in something greater than self. Only about 5% identify as Nihilists who believe in nothing. This statistic traces back to the origins of man.
> 
> Now, you'll find propaganda to show that membership in Christian churches are declining in America, or fewer people report attending regular religious services, etc. Religions come and go, trends also change with times, but the number of people who believe in something greater than self is not changing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We see since the internet more and more people are waking up and realizing there is no God.  Never before have we had the resources to go seek out all the facts.  Until the internet all you could do was
> 
> a.  Talk to a christian
> b. Talk to a priest
> c. Read the bible
> 
> Any of these choices are bad because christians are brainwashed, priests are either liars fools or brainwashed too and the bible was written 100 years after Jesus by a cult.
> 
> We also know why people are religious.  It's because we didn't know science.  God was the only way to explain away things we didn't understand.  Time to evolve.  God is dead or at least dying.  What, the other 998 religions are fake but yours is not?  And yesterday I saw a thing on Facebook about a new athiest church that is growing like crazy.  We are not afraid because we know if there is a God he isn't the Christian's, Jews or Muslim's version of God so we don't fear mocking you guys because we know 100% for sure you are fos.  If there is a God, he doesn't give a shit what you or I are typing.  Rediculous.  This was the church/kings way of controlling the people.  Gullible unevolved uneducated people.  It even took me a couple days with a true athiest to realize there is no God.  I used to say I don't believe the Christian's version but I do believe in God.  Then they educated me on why humans do that.  First off, I've been brainwashed since birth too.  I just woke up.  But don't you think I want to believe there is a heaven?  But it's just the most rediculous stories in the bible.  Anyone who takes those stories literally can't be that smart.  And the ones that don't, well they are really christians are they?  The church says yes to keep you as a member but the truly faithful say you either believe in miracles and fairytales or go to hell.  I know God wouldn't do that, if there was one.
Click to expand...


No, it's not believing in miracle or fairytales
but understanding forgiveness and healing that makes the difference
between heavenly peace and hellish suffering.

Forgiveness heals regardless if you are atheist and have no concept of God and Jesus.
Unforgiveness causes people to go through hell even if you are a Christian and believe in following God and Christ.

These are natural universal laws that apply to all people, because of our conscience
and human nature to learn by experience, carry issues, and project them until these are resolved, so we can study and understand the human process, relationships, and society.

Science will show how all people are affected equally.
Buddhists call this breaking the cycle of karma to find spiritual peace that is immaterial.
Christians call this breaking generational curses through Christ to receive healing grace
and find rebirth and new life in the spirit.

Either way, life is about the process of spiritual or social human development in stages.
Although the Bible represents this in religious symbols, it is still a universal process for all humanity to go through, individually and collectively as tribes, nations, and global society.
That is what the Bible outlines, where Christ Jesus represents universal fulfillment where all humanity reaches spiritual maturity and harmony through a unified understanding.

If there is any "miracle" it amazes me that each person can see life differently, unique to our experiences and expressions nobody else shares quite the same like our unique DNA,
but we can be united in understanding regardless of our differences that all have purpose.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Think what you want to but this isn't true.  95% of the human race believes in something greater than self. Only about 5% identify as Nihilists who believe in nothing. This statistic traces back to the origins of man.
> 
> Now, you'll find propaganda to show that membership in Christian churches are declining in America, or fewer people report attending regular religious services, etc. Religions come and go, trends also change with times, but the number of people who believe in something greater than self is not changing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your attitudes are stereotypical for a wide cross section of religious extremists who use their religion only to foment hate and derision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No sweetie, my attitudes are anything but stereotypical. I am a one-of-a-kind American original. I am not religious, although I am extremely spiritual, but I don't use religion or anything else to foment hate and derision. I often find myself defending religious arguments here against the likes of you God-haters, but I've had my share of disagreements with Christians and other religious people. My sister, who is devoutly religious, calls me her "Atheist Brother" and tells me I am destined for Hell. I'm not shook, I have a strong relationship with my God, and I believe if I were headed for Hell, my God would certainly let me know of this.
Click to expand...




Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I have said that God doesn't "care" or have human emotional attributes, and I gave a comparison of electricity in your wall socket not "caring" what you do with it, but more than willing to dole out the consequences for disrespecting it's power. If you wish to believe electricity doesn't exist because you can't see it, that's fine... it's still there in the outlet and available to benefit you, if you ever decide to accept it exists.
> 
> Now, you and I have conversations here daily... You tell me what you want me to hear, and I tell you what I want you to hear, and we argue our points back and forth, usually with me beating your brains in and causing you to act emotively in a pathetic attempt to save face... but the point is, you don't have any concern for what I am doing or about to do. I also have no interest in you whatsoever.... more interested in the fungus beneath my toenail, honestly. However, we do have what can be described as a 'relationship' here on this forum, under our respective screen names and avatars. Strange how that works, huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does electricity tell you what your future is?
> That is what you are saying your god will do regarding hell, right?
> As for emotive, that is your department. You are notorious for losing complete control of yourself and simply descending into swearing and other vulgarities. That is your bailiwick, not mine.
> I have repeatedly embarrassed you blah blah blah blah blah....(dream on!)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Electricity doesn't tell my future, but my knowledge that it exists is inspiration for me to plug in a lamp so I can see when the sun goes down, or plug in an electronic device and converse with you here on the Internet.
> 
> I don't think I've spoken much about Hell and what my God will do regarding it. One of the reasons I'm not a Christian is because I don't believe in the Christian incarnation of Heaven and Hell. (Not saying they are wrong, just not my personal belief.)
> 
> Now, I may be completely wrong, this is totally MY opinion, but I think there are various levels or planes of existence above and below where we currently reside in this physical presence and reality. Call them different dimensions if you will. Our souls or spirits are here for now, and depending on a myriad of factors regarding how we maintain our soul, it will either go to a higher plane or lower plane after our physical life here is over. This is why we are compelled to do "good" and seek "light" instead of dark, etc. Spiritual Nature is attempting to guide us on a positive path to something greater, a higher plane of awareness and existence in another dimension.
> 
> What we do is solely dependent on the strength of our spirit, and some of us have stronger spirits than others. It's not about your mind or religious beliefs, it's about your 'humanity' more than anything else I can describe. If you are purely an evil spirit, your soul is destined for the lowest rung of existence, which is probably not a pleasant place. However, if you have tried to obey your conscience and do as Spiritual Nature has guided you to do in your life, then perhaps you ascend to a higher level, maybe even to the highest level.
Click to expand...


The red part above shows where you talked about Hell and how your god will let you know if it's your destination.
You can't keep your posts straight within a couple of pages of each other.
You are incomprehensibly ridiculous.
The rest of your post is your masturbation about the after life.
No one really cares.


----------



## HUGGY

*Why do the God-haters persist? 
*

It's the only honest game left.

It is an argument of truth just for truth's sake.

It is the only argument that will not prostitute itself with false promises and other means of lying to trick people into believing what is clearly un believable.


----------



## orogenicman

booseman said:
			
		

> I have a strong relationship with my God, and I believe if I were headed for Hell, my God would certainly let me know of this.



On the other hand, I am mature enough to know whether or not I am naughty or nice. I don't need a bearded old guy in the sky (or one at the North Pole) to tell me the difference.


----------



## Boss

> The red part above shows where you talked about Hell and how your god will let you know if it's your destination.
> You can't keep your posts straight within a couple of pages of each other.
> You are incomprehensibly ridiculous.
> The rest of your post is your masturbation about the after life.
> No one really cares.



No, ass hat, my posts are straight, your inability to comprehend anything that I post in context is what is fucked in the head. Yes, if there is such place as Christians or other religionists define as "Hell" and I am headed there because I don't subscribe to some particular set of beliefs, I believe MY God would let me know about that. 

You asked about my God regarding Hell, so I assumed you cared. Nevertheless, your retarded ass doesn't speak for everyone else, no one I am seeing here put you in charge of deciding what they care about. But this is typical of little ass clowns like you who want to tell other people what to do because you think you speak for everybody. Trust me, you'll never be that damned important.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> The red part above shows where you talked about Hell and how your god will let you know if it's your destination.
> You can't keep your posts straight within a couple of pages of each other.
> You are incomprehensibly ridiculous.
> The rest of your post is your masturbation about the after life.
> No one really cares.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, ass hat, my posts are straight, your inability to comprehend anything that I post in context is what is fucked in the head. Yes, if there is such place as Christians or other religionists define as "Hell" and I am headed there because I don't subscribe to some particular set of beliefs, I believe MY God would let me know about that.
> 
> You asked about my God regarding Hell, so I assumed you cared. Nevertheless, your retarded ass doesn't speak for everyone else, no one I am seeing here put you in charge of deciding what they care about. But this is typical of little ass clowns like you who want to tell other people what to do because you think you speak for everybody. Trust me, you'll never be that damned important.
Click to expand...


The predictable unhinged rant we can always depend on when you are shown to be the intellectual disaster you consistently reveal.
I quoted your posts. In context.
You believe your god will let you know.
The one you say has no interest in you personally.
You stick with that.


----------



## Boss

> The predictable unhinged rant we can always depend on when you are shown to be the intellectual disaster you consistently reveal.
> You believe your god will let you know.
> The one you say has no interest in you personally.
> You stick with that.



Nothing unhinged whatsoever. I addressed an ass hat like an ass hat should be addressed. 

No intellectual disaster other than you trying to comprehend a fucking paragraph. 

Yes, I believe my God (Spiritual Nature) would let me know. 

No, I have not said that my God has no interest in me personally, and I've corrected you several times on this, but you stubbornly insist on repeating the lie. Now go stick your tongue in a light socket and see if the electricity has an interest in you personally, dimwit!


----------



## Boss

orogenicman said:


> booseman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a strong relationship with my God, and I believe if I were headed for Hell, my God would certainly let me know of this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand, I am mature enough to know whether or not I am naughty or nice. I don't need a bearded old guy in the sky (or one at the North Pole) to tell me the difference.
Click to expand...


On what basis do you determine what is naughty and nice? Isn't this kind of up to you to decide? And who are you accountable to if you're not nice? Is there any consequence to being naughty? Can you just make up your own moral rules as you go? Can't you rationalize a justification for pretty much anything you want to do? 

By the way, I also don't believe in an old guy in the sky or need him to tell me the difference. I am guided by spiritual conscious awareness of right and wrong. I am obedient to this intrinsic awareness because I've discovered it's better for me as a person than when I just make up my own rules as I go.


----------



## HUGGY

Boss said:


> The predictable unhinged rant we can always depend on when you are shown to be the intellectual disaster you consistently reveal.
> You believe your god will let you know.
> The one you say has no interest in you personally.
> You stick with that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing unhinged whatsoever. I addressed an ass hat like an ass hat should be addressed.
> 
> No intellectual disaster other than you trying to comprehend a fucking paragraph.
> 
> *Yes, I believe my God (Spiritual Nature) would let me know.*
> 
> No, I have not said that my God has no interest in me personally, and I've corrected you several times on this, but you stubbornly insist on repeating the lie. Now go stick your tongue in a light socket and see if the electricity has an interest in you personally, dimwit!
Click to expand...


Therin lays the problem with people like you that believe there is a god and that god speaks to them personally.

Bush Junior believed that god told him to invade Iraq.  

How did THAT work out for the rest of the world?

People that believe there is a god that speaks to them personally are the most dangerous creatures on the planet.

THAT alone is reason enough to attempt to reach out to people to show them the insanity of religion.

Freedom of religion has been a death sentence to many millions of innocent human beings just in my lifetime.

If enough people speak out against this madness it will be the most usefull discussion ever engaged in... in human history.


----------



## Boss

> Bush Junior believed that god told him to invade Iraq.
> How did THAT work out for the rest of the world?



Gosh, it doesn't seem to have fucking ENDED it, does it???


----------



## Boss

> THAT alone is reason enough to attempt to reach out to people to show them the insanity of religion.



But I'm NOT religious.... sooo????


----------



## Boss

> If enough people speak out against this madness it will be the most usefull discussion ever engaged in... in human history.



Well you're at 1 in 10 right now, so GOOD LUCK!


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> THAT alone is reason enough to attempt to reach out to people to show them the insanity of religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I'm NOT religious.... sooo????
Click to expand...


Right. Your appeals to gods have nothing to do with religion. You have invented some "new-wave" religion you call "spiritual nature". 

What a joke!


----------



## Boss

> Freedom of religion has been a death sentence to many millions of innocent human beings just in my lifetime.



Yes... Moral relativism where life means essentially nothing and there are no moral boundaries, is a MUCH better game plan!


----------



## orogenicman

Boss said:


> Freedom of religion has been a death sentence to many millions of innocent human beings just in my lifetime.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes... Moral relativism where life means essentially nothing and there are no moral boundaries, is a MUCH better game plan!
Click to expand...


No one dies.  Sounds like a better plan to me.


----------



## HUGGY

Boss said:


> If enough people speak out against this madness it will be the most usefull discussion ever engaged in... in human history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well you're at 1 in 10 right now, so GOOD LUCK!
Click to expand...


That may be so world wide.  BUT.. we in the US have been the instigators of the deadliest wars in my life and in all of human history.  Here we live in a democracy.

Reason only needs to lead the conversaton.  30% here in our country having the sense to reject the myth of a god would be plenty to keep the wingnuts out of controlling decisions.

I hope for a future where the words "I prayed and god told me to..." from a politician would prompt a mental examination.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> The predictable unhinged rant we can always depend on when you are shown to be the intellectual disaster you consistently reveal.
> You believe your god will let you know.
> The one you say has no interest in you personally.
> You stick with that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing unhinged whatsoever. I addressed an ass hat like an ass hat should be addressed.
> 
> No intellectual disaster other than you trying to comprehend a fucking paragraph.
> 
> Yes, I believe my God (Spiritual Nature) would let me know.
> 
> No, I have not said that my God has no interest in me personally, and I've corrected you several times on this, but you stubbornly insist on repeating the lie. Now go stick your tongue in a light socket and see if the electricity has an interest in you personally, dimwit!
Click to expand...


Now you are simply lying.
You have repeatedly said your god is not in any way involved with you personally.
Do you want me to post ten or so times you have said this?
Every time anyone over the age of 12 descends to simple vulgarity and vituperative rhetoric I always consider that unhinged.
Maybe the people you hang with are just as childish, or maybe you hang out on actual elementary school playgrounds.
Either way, it's an unhinged rant in the hands of an adult.


----------



## Jonnic

If you are an atheist you can't hate god since god doesn't exist. It is quite easy however to hate religion in general and particular religions in particular.  If your god is omnipotent and all knowing how could he possibly care about anything you do.  After all, he knew you were going to do it from the beginning of time?


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The predictable unhinged rant we can always depend on when you are shown to be the intellectual disaster you consistently reveal.
> You believe your god will let you know.
> The one you say has no interest in you personally.
> You stick with that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing unhinged whatsoever. I addressed an ass hat like an ass hat should be addressed.
> 
> No intellectual disaster other than you trying to comprehend a fucking paragraph.
> 
> Yes, I believe my God (Spiritual Nature) would let me know.
> 
> No, I have not said that my God has no interest in me personally, and I've corrected you several times on this, but you stubbornly insist on repeating the lie. Now go stick your tongue in a light socket and see if the electricity has an interest in you personally, dimwit!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you are simply lying.
> You have repeatedly said your god is not in any way involved with you personally.
> Do you want me to post ten or so times you have said this?
> .
Click to expand...


Yes, I want you to post the ten or so I times I have said that *"god is not in any way involved with me personally"* and I will demonstrate you are a lying fuck. I've never said that. You have interpreted that into something else I said that sounded similar to you, but in your retarded brain, you simply took out of context as you typically do here. So you run along now, find the posts where I said that exact thing, and post the links here so we can confirm it.


----------



## Boss

HUGGY said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If enough people speak out against this madness it will be the most usefull discussion ever engaged in... in human history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well you're at 1 in 10 right now, so GOOD LUCK!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That may be so world wide.  BUT.. we in the US have been the instigators of the deadliest wars in my life and in all of human history.  Here we live in a democracy.
> 
> Reason only needs to lead the conversaton.  30% here in our country having the sense to reject the myth of a god would be plenty to keep the wingnuts out of controlling decisions.
> 
> I hope for a future where the words "I prayed and god told me to..." from a politician would prompt a mental examination.
Click to expand...


LOL... *30% here in our country having the sense to reject the myth of a god would be plenty to keep the wingnuts out of controlling decisions.* NOT IF WE LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY, DIPSHIT! 

And where the hell do you get this 30% fantasy? You're not even close to half way yet! You may have 12~14% and that's counting the Agnostics who are too chicken shit to say they are Atheists!  PLUS... we have to subtract all these new Atheists who are forming churches according to sillybbob! Oh yeah, it's the "new thing" these days, haven't you heard???


----------



## Boss

orogenicman said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freedom of religion has been a death sentence to many millions of innocent human beings just in my lifetime.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes... Moral relativism where life means essentially nothing and there are no moral boundaries, is a MUCH better game plan!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one dies.  Sounds like a better plan to me.
Click to expand...


Too bad there isn't a time or place in history that we can test your theory and prove it's not true.


----------



## Boss

Boss said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> booseman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a strong relationship with my God, and I believe if I were headed for Hell, my God would certainly let me know of this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand, I am mature enough to know whether or not I am naughty or nice. I don't need a bearded old guy in the sky (or one at the North Pole) to tell me the difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On what basis do you determine what is naughty and nice? Isn't this kind of up to you to decide? And who are you accountable to if you're not nice? Is there any consequence to being naughty? Can you just make up your own moral rules as you go? Can't you rationalize a justification for pretty much anything you want to do?
> 
> By the way, I also don't believe in an old guy in the sky or need him to tell me the difference. I am guided by spiritual conscious awareness of right and wrong. I am obedient to this intrinsic awareness because I've discovered it's better for me as a person than when I just make up my own rules as I go.
Click to expand...


Hey Cootie Pendant... why did you avoid my questions here???


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing unhinged whatsoever. I addressed an ass hat like an ass hat should be addressed.
> 
> No intellectual disaster other than you trying to comprehend a fucking paragraph.
> 
> Yes, I believe my God (Spiritual Nature) would let me know.
> 
> No, I have not said that my God has no interest in me personally, and I've corrected you several times on this, but you stubbornly insist on repeating the lie. Now go stick your tongue in a light socket and see if the electricity has an interest in you personally, dimwit!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are simply lying.
> You have repeatedly said your god is not in any way involved with you personally.
> Do you want me to post ten or so times you have said this?
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I want you to post the ten or so I times I have said that *"god is not in any way involved with me personally"* and I will demonstrate you are a lying fuck. I've never said that. You have interpreted that into something else I said that sounded similar to you, but in your retarded brain, you simply took out of context as you typically do here. So you run along now, find the posts where I said that exact thing, and post the links here so we can confirm it.
Click to expand...


You don't need me to do that.
You know you are lying, and so does anyone else that has read your vomit for more than a day or two.
You are an emotionally stunted child that can't keep his arguments consistent for more than a page at a time.
You know it. I know it.
Everyone knows it, except the cretins that think you support them. They are too stupid to understand you think their religious ideas are ludicrous.
Do you want to now state that the "god" you believe in is personally interested in you? You want that on record in case you ever seem important enough to me to do the research to completely humiliate you?
Why would I bother?
You do such a good job of doing that all by yourself.


----------



## HUGGY

Boss said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well you're at 1 in 10 right now, so GOOD LUCK!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That may be so world wide.  BUT.. we in the US have been the instigators of the deadliest wars in my life and in all of human history.  Here we live in a democracy.
> 
> Reason only needs to lead the conversaton.  30% here in our country having the sense to reject the myth of a god would be plenty to keep the wingnuts out of controlling decisions.
> 
> I hope for a future where the words "I prayed and god told me to..." from a politician would prompt a mental examination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL... *30% here in our country having the sense to reject the myth of a god would be plenty to keep the wingnuts out of controlling decisions.* NOT IF WE LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY, DIPSHIT!
> 
> And where the hell do you get this 30% fantasy? You're not even close to half way yet! You may have 12~14% and that's counting the Agnostics who are too chicken shit to say they are Atheists!  PLUS... we have to subtract all these new Atheists who are forming churches according to sillybbob! Oh yeah, it's the "new thing" these days, haven't you heard???
Click to expand...


The Tea Baggers comprise less than 10% of the GOP.  They control the republican party and the minority republican party has handcuffed congress for 5 years.

You REALLY need to review how democracy really functions.


----------



## thanatos144

and yet we are to believe it is republicans who are the bigots LMAO


----------



## Boss

> You don't need me to do that.



You offered to do that when you made the allegation, so yes, I do need you to do that.

Or admit now that you are a lying little fuctard. Now, off you go!!


----------



## Boss

> The Tea Baggers comprise less than 10% of the GOP. They control the republican party and the minority republican party has handcuffed congress for 5 years.
> 
> You REALLY need to review how democracy really functions.



Yeah... I think you may need to look up "democracy" and review how it functions. 

As for the GOP, it seems to be Obama leading Boehner and McConnell around by the nose ring.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> You don't need me to do that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You offered to do that when you made the allegation, so yes, I do need you to do that.
> 
> Or admit now that you are a lying little fuctard. Now, off you go!!
Click to expand...


The liar is you.
You know full well that your description of your "god" repeatedly includes the idea that he is not involved with you personally. That he doesn't care about you individually. You have stated this repeatedly on here.
Do you want to declare now the opposite is true?


----------



## Steinlight

Atheists very clearly depressed and empty people for the most part, just look at this thread. What are they trying to prove?


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't need me to do that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You offered to do that when you made the allegation, so yes, I do need you to do that.
> 
> Or admit now that you are a lying little fuctard. Now, off you go!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The liar is you.
> You know full well that your description of your "god" repeatedly includes the idea that he is not involved with you personally. That he doesn't care about you individually. You have stated this repeatedly on here.
> Do you want to declare now the opposite is true?
Click to expand...


Where are the 10 or so statements? Thought that was going to be easy to find? Looks like you can't provide those like you claimed, huh? Guess that means you're a liar? Now you want to twist and distort your claim into some other claim that you didn't make but pretend like that's what you really meant. 

*"god is not in any way involved with me personally"*  ....You claimed I had said this and you could find the 10 or so times and post them here. You've not done that. This was your claim and I called you out for lying about it. 

Now suddenly you want to claim this is an "idea" that I conveyed through something else that I said, which is what I said you were doing all along... taking something else out of context because you're a retard. 

My God does not have humanistic emotions of "caring" and "feeling" for me. That does not mean that my God has "no involvement with me personally" by any means. God inspires me, motivates me, guides me, helps me to see things more clearly, keeps me on the right path, lets me know things and gives me strength, confidence and courage. My God is VERY involved with me personally, but there is no human emotional aspect to it. You can read a self-help book... does the book "care" about you? Is the book "concerned" with what you do or don't do? Is the book sad if you don't follow what it suggests? Will the book become angry if you ignore what it says? However, if you follow the advice of the book, is it not involved in your life, with you personally? You see, there's two different things happening here.... one is not related to the other. 

Sorry I derailed yet another of your attempts to catch me in a contradiction, but alas, you have failed again like the failing loser you are. I'm sure you are used to failing, you seem to be. You always bounce right back and aren't afraid to fail again, falling smack dab on your face for everyone to see. Gotta give you props for that, I'd get discouraged after a while, it would really start to eat me up inside.


----------



## HUGGY

Steinlight said:


> Atheists very clearly depressed and empty people for the most part, just look at this thread. What are they trying to prove?



The line has been moved way past the "trying" deep into the territory of lies and stupidity.

Exposing lies and stupidity is not depressing.  It is fulfilling and far from creating a feeling of emptiness it is very satisfying.  Sadly for people that live their lives surrounded by a web of fear and lies you will never know the joy of living with truth unless you are very young.  If you have been lying to yourself and others for too long the conflict of starting to tell the truth will just amplify your discomfort by reminding you of your own weakness.

I would recommend that you go on lying to yourself and others.  My words are not for you.  They are for the true victims that don't know any better and still have time to make the difficult switch to being honest.


----------



## Boss

HUGGY said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheists very clearly depressed and empty people for the most part, just look at this thread. What are they trying to prove?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The line has been moved way past the "trying" deep into the territory of lies and stupidity.
> 
> Exposing lies and stupidity is not depressing.  It is fulfilling and far from creating a feeling of emptiness it is very satisfying.  Sadly for people that live their lives surrounded by a web of fear and lies you will never know the joy of living with truth unless you are very young.  If you have been lying to yourself and others for too long the conflict of starting to tell the truth will just amplify your discomfort by reminding you of your own weakness.
> 
> I would recommend that you go on lying to yourself and others.  My words are not for you.  They are for the true victims that don't know any better and still have time to make the difficult switch to being honest.
Click to expand...


Honesty, being smart, not living a lie, not living in fear, all starts with the realization that man is a spiritually-connected being, always has been, always will be. You can reject religion and man-made dogma, you cannot reject human spirituality. It's an intrinsic part of who we are. Some people can live without acknowledging it by substituting worship of self or other materialist things but this almost always leads to dissatisfaction, the feeling that something is missing, some need is not being fulfilled. You then seek to fill that emptiness with pleasures of the flesh, drugs, alcohol, sex, pornography, adultery, promiscuity, indulgence, gluttony, even self-mutilation. And you can trick your mind into believing the emptiness is filled for many years, maybe even your entire lifetime. 

What you've deprived yourself of is not measurable in material worth or value. The person you could have been is never realized, the potential is wasted. Humanity will never know what you could have accomplished had you maintained spiritual fidelity. Regardless of any 'reward' awaiting in an afterlife, this is what the reality is. You've squandered the only life you're given out of blind and ignorant laziness, and ironically, think you were the smart one.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheists very clearly depressed and empty people for the most part, just look at this thread. What are they trying to prove?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The line has been moved way past the "trying" deep into the territory of lies and stupidity.
> 
> Exposing lies and stupidity is not depressing.  It is fulfilling and far from creating a feeling of emptiness it is very satisfying.  Sadly for people that live their lives surrounded by a web of fear and lies you will never know the joy of living with truth unless you are very young.  If you have been lying to yourself and others for too long the conflict of starting to tell the truth will just amplify your discomfort by reminding you of your own weakness.
> 
> I would recommend that you go on lying to yourself and others.  My words are not for you.  They are for the true victims that don't know any better and still have time to make the difficult switch to being honest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Honesty, being smart, not living a lie, not living in fear, all starts with the realization that man is a spiritually-connected being, always has been, always will be. You can reject religion and man-made dogma, you cannot reject human spirituality. It's an intrinsic part of who we are. Some people can live without acknowledging it by substituting worship of self or other materialist things but this almost always leads to dissatisfaction, the feeling that something is missing, some need is not being fulfilled. You then seek to fill that emptiness with pleasures of the flesh, drugs, alcohol, sex, pornography, adultery, promiscuity, indulgence, gluttony, even self-mutilation. And you can trick your mind into believing the emptiness is filled for many years, maybe even your entire lifetime.
> 
> What you've deprived yourself of is not measurable in material worth or value. The person you could have been is never realized, the potential is wasted. Humanity will never know what you could have accomplished had you maintained spiritual fidelity. Regardless of any 'reward' awaiting in an afterlife, this is what the reality is. You've squandered the only life you're given out of blind and ignorant laziness, and ironically, think you were the smart one.
Click to expand...


A zealot in need of a cult!


----------



## Boss

> A zealot in need of a cult!



Poor thing. At a loss for any argumentative point yet again. Resorting to her typical hate and derision. 

Sad.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> A zealot in need of a cult!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Poor thing. At a loss for any argumentative point yet again. Resorting to her typical hate and derision.
> 
> Sad.
Click to expand...


Dont be angry, Bossie. Just remember that for those like you who are the wannabe cult leaders of their own fetching designer religions, you have designed a worldview that is impervious to reason, rationality and knowledge.


----------



## HUGGY

Boss said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheists very clearly depressed and empty people for the most part, just look at this thread. What are they trying to prove?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The line has been moved way past the "trying" deep into the territory of lies and stupidity.
> 
> Exposing lies and stupidity is not depressing.  It is fulfilling and far from creating a feeling of emptiness it is very satisfying.  Sadly for people that live their lives surrounded by a web of fear and lies you will never know the joy of living with truth unless you are very young.  If you have been lying to yourself and others for too long the conflict of starting to tell the truth will just amplify your discomfort by reminding you of your own weakness.
> 
> I would recommend that you go on lying to yourself and others.  My words are not for you.  They are for the true victims that don't know any better and still have time to make the difficult switch to being honest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Honesty, being smart, not living a lie, not living in fear, all starts with the realization that man is a spiritually-connected being, always has been, always will be. You can reject religion and man-made dogma, you cannot reject human spirituality. It's an intrinsic part of who we are. Some people can live without acknowledging it by substituting worship of self or other materialist things but this almost always leads to dissatisfaction, the feeling that something is missing, some need is not being fulfilled. You then seek to fill that emptiness with pleasures of the flesh, drugs, alcohol, sex, pornography, adultery, promiscuity, indulgence, gluttony, even self-mutilation. And you can trick your mind into believing the emptiness is filled for many years, maybe even your entire lifetime.
> 
> *Nonsense.  You have no experience living with truth so just like those that have faith in the fairy tales of the bible you are basing those words off of someone else's ideas.  I have no need or desire to substitute for reality and truth.  Unlike what you say and appear to have convinced yourself I look forward to each day as knowledge unfolds the mysteries some others need to reject as they come in conflict of previously ingrained incorrect assumptions.*
> 
> What you've deprived yourself of is not measurable in material worth or value. The person you could have been is never realized, the potential is wasted. Humanity will never know what you could have accomplished had you maintained spiritual fidelity. Regardless of any 'reward' awaiting in an afterlife, this is what the reality is. You've squandered the only life you're given out of blind and ignorant laziness, and ironically, think you were the smart one.
Click to expand...


*Many things never materialize in life.  Like they say about winning the lottery "You can't win if you don't play".  As far as "squandered" opportunity goes there is far more to a life lived than such a negative glib descrption encompasses as choices made and energy used being neccessarily laziness or ignorance when things didn't work out how one may have envisioned with the best of intentions and effort.  This is usually true in everyone's life.  Much of life's dissappointments occur by something as simple as health...yours or someone elses.  Also we don't live in a vaccume.  We are affected by others choices especially when we are young and depend on decisions of our parents and siblings.  Lamenting about what could have been is entertaining as one has played a leading part in the drama or comedy but an active mind cannot afford to waste the moment with too much reverie.  

To be brief you are in error.  The only book that matters is the one you write for yourself.  There is no script already written for you and yours will never fit someone else.  As I mentioned before once you have lived long enough attempting to satisfy an idea like religion or realizing someone else's concept of spirituality you have already gone too far down the rabit hole and there is no retrieving your own path.  Certainly if we chose to live socially there are limits to our personal choices but what goes on between your ears is no ones business unless you are foolish enough to allow it.  *


----------



## Steven_R

Boss said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheists very clearly depressed and empty people for the most part, just look at this thread. What are they trying to prove?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The line has been moved way past the "trying" deep into the territory of lies and stupidity.
> 
> Exposing lies and stupidity is not depressing.  It is fulfilling and far from creating a feeling of emptiness it is very satisfying.  Sadly for people that live their lives surrounded by a web of fear and lies you will never know the joy of living with truth unless you are very young.  If you have been lying to yourself and others for too long the conflict of starting to tell the truth will just amplify your discomfort by reminding you of your own weakness.
> 
> I would recommend that you go on lying to yourself and others.  My words are not for you.  They are for the true victims that don't know any better and still have time to make the difficult switch to being honest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Honesty, being smart, not living a lie, not living in fear, all starts with the realization that man is a spiritually-connected being, always has been, always will be. You can reject religion and man-made dogma, you cannot reject human spirituality. It's an intrinsic part of who we are. Some people can live without acknowledging it by substituting worship of self or other materialist things but this almost always leads to dissatisfaction, the feeling that something is missing, some need is not being fulfilled. You then seek to fill that emptiness with pleasures of the flesh, drugs, alcohol, sex, pornography, adultery, promiscuity, indulgence, gluttony, even self-mutilation. And you can trick your mind into believing the emptiness is filled for many years, maybe even your entire lifetime.
> 
> What you've deprived yourself of is not measurable in material worth or value. The person you could have been is never realized, the potential is wasted. Humanity will never know what you could have accomplished had you maintained spiritual fidelity. Regardless of any 'reward' awaiting in an afterlife, this is what the reality is. You've squandered the only life you're given out of blind and ignorant laziness, and ironically, think you were the smart one.
Click to expand...


So it comes down to a choice: I can live in ignorance but have happy feelings or I can have knowledge of how the universe works and be empty inside?

I choose knowledge.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Think what you want to but this isn't true.  95% of the human race believes in something greater than self. Only about 5% identify as Nihilists who believe in nothing. This statistic traces back to the origins of man.
> 
> Now, you'll find propaganda to show that membership in Christian churches are declining in America, or fewer people report attending regular religious services, etc. Religions come and go, trends also change with times, but the number of people who believe in something greater than self is not changing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We see since the internet more and more people are waking up and realizing there is no God.  Never before have we had the resources to go seek out all the facts.  Until the internet all you could do was
> 
> a.  Talk to a christian
> b. Talk to a priest
> c. Read the bible
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you could go to the library and read many books on theology and atheism. You could take college courses. You could rent videos and buy tapes. You could go around and talk to other people, attend seminars and lectures, listen to the radio or watch television. You make it sound as if "before the internet" we lived in the age of the Flintstones.
> 
> You've still not proven this statement about "more and more people are waking up" because statistics don't bear this out. 9-out-of-10 people have some kind of spiritual belief.
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible was written over a span of several hundred years preceding Jesus and after his death by numerous authors. This sounds like something you may have read on that bastion of intelligent and unassailable information, The Internet! Yes... the good ol' Internet we used to not have, where all the actual TRUTH can be found on assorted blogs and websites constructed by morons like yourself. Whatever did we do without it to tell us what was good and bad?
> 
> 
> 
> This is also not true. Science predates the modern era. It came about somewhere around the 4th century BCE... well before Christianity. It probably dates back to the ancient Greeks, as science comes from Latin 'scientia', meaning "knowledge". So it's really difficult to believe that the Christian movement as well as most modern religions, emerged in the shadows of this glorious thing called science to where 90% of us still worship something greater than self and 10% of us are atheistic. But then, 'evolution' takes millions of years, right?
> 
> 
> 
> LMFAO... The God that doesn't exist???
> 
> 
> 
> Wait... so some of this 10% who claim to be Atheists actually believe there might be a God?  I had NO idea!! I thought you just said science was dispelling that myth, but now we have Atheists forming churches and believing there might be a God? Can't make up your minds?
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't sound like you know anything 100%. Sounds like there may be some doubts, if Atheists are forming churches and whatnot.
> 
> 
> 
> For the record, the God I believe in doesn't give a shit what you and I are typing. Just saying. And yes, I agree, religion has often been used by the powerful as a means of control over others. However, we part ways on the idea that people who are spiritually inclined are gullible, unevolved or uneducated. You do realize that almost to a fault, every person responsible for modern science coming to exist, was devoutly spiritual and believed in God, right? Yep, they may not have been particularly religious (although some were), but you'll be hard pressed to find any example of them categorizing a belief in God as "ridiculous". At best, they left the question open.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It even took me a couple days with a true athiest to realize there is no God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah.... so THAT's your problem... but you feel that others are "brainwashed" and not you? Yes, 90% of us are gullible, unevolved and uneducated brainwashed idiots, and you are among the 10% who are enlightened to the truth... but some of you are forming churches, just in case. lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I used to say I don't believe the Christian's version but I do believe in God.  Then they educated me on why humans do that.  First off, I've been brainwashed since birth too.  I just woke up.  But don't you think I want to believe there is a heaven?  But it's just the most rediculous stories in the bible.  Anyone who takes those stories literally can't be that smart.  And the ones that don't, well they are really christians are they?  The church says yes to keep you as a member but the truly faithful say you either believe in miracles and fairytales or go to hell.  I know God wouldn't do that, if there was one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's what has happened to you, moron. You've bought a bunch of hyperbolic nonsense from propagandists who are out to destroy God. You didn't "wake up" you became brainwashed into believing a lie. Humans, since the first human civilizations, have been intrinsically connected to something greater than self, beyond the physical. It is our most defining attribute as a species and 90% of us still retain the feature, in spite of science and the Internet. Even the 10% who claim to be Atheists are creating churches on the off-chance they may be wrong about the no-God thing.
> 
> Now, let me address Chrisitianity here.... It is a RELIGION. It may be right or wrong, I make no claims because I am not a Christian, but I do know a lot about their religion and beliefs. For instance, it is a religion of ACCEPTANCE. That means, no matter how much you want to believe it or how much they may wish it, you CANNOT be forced to be a Christian. You have to ACCEPT the Lord as your personal savior, there is no other way to become a Christian. No one can ever MAKE you do that, it's a matter of your personal faith and what is inside your heart.
> 
> That said, regardless of your belief regarding Christianity, it has nothing to do with whether or not Spiritual Nature exists. There CAN be a God without it being the Christian's God of Abraham.
Click to expand...


Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> You offered to do that when you made the allegation, so yes, I do need you to do that.
> 
> Or admit now that you are a lying little fuctard. Now, off you go!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The liar is you.
> You know full well that your description of your "god" repeatedly includes the idea that he is not involved with you personally. That he doesn't care about you individually. You have stated this repeatedly on here.
> Do you want to declare now the opposite is true?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where are the 10 or so statements? Thought that was going to be easy to find? Looks like you can't provide those like you claimed, huh? Guess that means you're a liar? Now you want to twist and distort your claim into some other claim that you didn't make but pretend like that's what you really meant.
> 
> *"god is not in any way involved with me personally"*  ....You claimed I had said this and you could find the 10 or so times and post them here. You've not done that. This was your claim and I called you out for lying about it.
> 
> Now suddenly you want to claim this is an "idea" that I conveyed through something else that I said, which is what I said you were doing all along... taking something else out of context because you're a retard.
> 
> My God does not have humanistic emotions of "caring" and "feeling" for me. That does not mean that my God has "no involvement with me personally" by any means. God inspires me, motivates me, guides me, helps me to see things more clearly, keeps me on the right path, lets me know things and gives me strength, confidence and courage. My God is VERY involved with me personally, but there is no human emotional aspect to it. You can read a self-help book... does the book "care" about you? Is the book "concerned" with what you do or don't do? Is the book sad if you don't follow what it suggests? Will the book become angry if you ignore what it says? However, if you follow the advice of the book, is it not involved in your life, with you personally? You see, there's two different things happening here.... one is not related to the other.
> 
> Sorry I derailed yet another of your attempts to catch me in a contradiction, but alas, you have failed again like the failing loser you are. I'm sure you are used to failing, you seem to be. You always bounce right back and aren't afraid to fail again, falling smack dab on your face for everyone to see. Gotta give you props for that, I'd get discouraged after a while, it would really start to eat me up inside.
Click to expand...


You aren't worth the research time. You have stated it so many times it's self-evident.
The book analogy is apt. The book has no interest in you at all. It is inert, and stays on the shelf until you invest your interpretation to it. The relationship is one sided. The author never knows you, never interacts with you, never tells you if you have interpreted the work in a totally bizarre way and gone off on an irrelevant tangent. Every example of this "relationship" you have invented is your involvement, not the other way around. The difference, of course, is there is no book to cite in your case, so the indifference to you is total. The only evidence you have ever shared for the "book" is the historic insecurities of man that have always led him to put a spiritual placeholder wherever the unknown appears. 
Oh, that and that you believe it, you "feel" it.
The only reason your god influences you is because it is your own invention. You have created a god that has the exact influence on you that you choose for it to justify and rationalize who and what you are.
Why you need a "god" to justify your constant childlike barrage of vulgarity is anyone's guess. To me that almost defines the absence of a deity of any kind.
You are right about one thing. There are two entirely different concepts at work. You being involved with your incarnation of the spirit nature, and the reality of what you are involved in and it's involvement with you. It is a one-sided conversation that is a product of your rationalization for purpose, your need for a facile answer.
You never get tired of being humiliated, and lean on the same sorry excuses every time. You have been taken out of context you tell us five times a day, even when the entirety of your posts get cited. You are caught tripping over yourself constantly, inventing words that don't exist, concocting phrases you attribute to psychology that the discipline is unfamiliar with, making self-defeating arguments that contradict previous ones, droning on and on about evidence that is readily available if only we would invest in the conclusion first.
You keep swearing at people and declaring victory. 
I will continue to let your poor thinking skills sink you again and again, letting you do the work of making my arguments for me.
You make it very easy.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss isn't a christian?  I love it!  He or she is going to hell!!!  LOL.  I heard it this weekend.  The guy I believe it was Kennith Copeland on sunday radio said Jesus said only through me can you enter into the kingdom of heaven, and something about having to be born again.  Now I've heard some christians say that muslims and jews will get a chance at the very end to repent and be saved, but that's about the biggest bunch of bullshit I've ever heard.  So I guess if there is a God he will give me a last second chance to repent and trust me, I will be sorry if I was wrong.  But I know that if there is a god, and no one knows, he isn't christian or muslim or mormon or jehova.  If god punishes the gullable and stupid, he will punish all of them for wasting their lives and being total hypocrites.  

Just the fact there are so many different spins on christianity proves it's all made up.


----------



## sealybobo

Why do we persist?  Because we want people to wake up.  Hey, how can so many people be wrong about UFO's?  Even though the closest planet is 700,000 light years away, they believe space men are here.  And we even have a lot of eye witness testimony.  Still want to trust people who say they saw jesus, a ghost, spirit, the devil or an angel?


----------



## sealybobo

48 Percent Of Americans Believe UFOs Could Be ET Visitations


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheists very clearly depressed and empty people for the most part, just look at this thread. What are they trying to prove?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The line has been moved way past the "trying" deep into the territory of lies and stupidity.
> 
> Exposing lies and stupidity is not depressing.  It is fulfilling and far from creating a feeling of emptiness it is very satisfying.  Sadly for people that live their lives surrounded by a web of fear and lies you will never know the joy of living with truth unless you are very young.  If you have been lying to yourself and others for too long the conflict of starting to tell the truth will just amplify your discomfort by reminding you of your own weakness.
> 
> I would recommend that you go on lying to yourself and others.  My words are not for you.  They are for the true victims that don't know any better and still have time to make the difficult switch to being honest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Honesty, being smart, not living a lie, not living in fear, all starts with the realization that man is a spiritually-connected being, always has been, always will be. You can reject religion and man-made dogma, you cannot reject human spirituality. It's an intrinsic part of who we are. Some people can live without acknowledging it by substituting worship of self or other materialist things but this almost always leads to dissatisfaction, the feeling that something is missing, some need is not being fulfilled. You then seek to fill that emptiness with pleasures of the flesh, drugs, alcohol, sex, pornography, adultery, promiscuity, indulgence, gluttony, even self-mutilation. And you can trick your mind into believing the emptiness is filled for many years, maybe even your entire lifetime.
> 
> What you've deprived yourself of is not measurable in material worth or value. The person you could have been is never realized, the potential is wasted. Humanity will never know what you could have accomplished had you maintained spiritual fidelity. Regardless of any 'reward' awaiting in an afterlife, this is what the reality is. You've squandered the only life you're given out of blind and ignorant laziness, and ironically, think you were the smart one.
Click to expand...

Once again you make my case for me. Your spirituality is a reaction to the fear people are responding to as they face their mortality and the unknown.
You, also, have tricked your mind to fill the void, to alleviate the fears, and created a god that will support your own vision of self.
Has anyone ever invented a god that rejects them with no hope of atonement, a fail safe get out of jail free card? With all the varieties of gods that have been invented over the millennia, where is that one?
It doesn't exist because it goes against the grain of the very purpose of the invention to begin with.
The allaying of fear.


----------



## BreezeWood

> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry I derailed yet another of your attempts to catch me in a contradiction...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can reject religion and man-made dogma, you cannot reject human spirituality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *OP:* We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



as pointed out before, it is you who misconstrue your posts as an attack against a Deity rather than causal responses to your interpretations the same as scriptural religions that are the source of animosity having nothing to do with the actual fact of the Deities existance.


Exmpl:



> *Boss:* You have to ACCEPT the Lord as your personal savior, there is no other way to become a Christian. No one can ever MAKE you do that, it's a matter of your personal faith and what is inside your heart.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Boss:* I guess you think calling people "angry fundamentalist" is supposed to upset them and make them run from their religious faith or something? Actually, it only serves to further marginalize you as an anti-religious intolerant who can't be conversed with civilly.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I do not accept JC as a savior nor that it would be required to be a Christian to do so. Scripturalist are the source of "hatred", your complicity with their writings rather than the  the truth in general is the reason for the same response to you that you as they deliberately illicit.

.


----------



## PostmodernProph

Steven_R said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> The line has been moved way past the "trying" deep into the territory of lies and stupidity.
> 
> Exposing lies and stupidity is not depressing.  It is fulfilling and far from creating a feeling of emptiness it is very satisfying.  Sadly for people that live their lives surrounded by a web of fear and lies you will never know the joy of living with truth unless you are very young.  If you have been lying to yourself and others for too long the conflict of starting to tell the truth will just amplify your discomfort by reminding you of your own weakness.
> 
> I would recommend that you go on lying to yourself and others.  My words are not for you.  They are for the true victims that don't know any better and still have time to make the difficult switch to being honest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Honesty, being smart, not living a lie, not living in fear, all starts with the realization that man is a spiritually-connected being, always has been, always will be. You can reject religion and man-made dogma, you cannot reject human spirituality. It's an intrinsic part of who we are. Some people can live without acknowledging it by substituting worship of self or other materialist things but this almost always leads to dissatisfaction, the feeling that something is missing, some need is not being fulfilled. You then seek to fill that emptiness with pleasures of the flesh, drugs, alcohol, sex, pornography, adultery, promiscuity, indulgence, gluttony, even self-mutilation. And you can trick your mind into believing the emptiness is filled for many years, maybe even your entire lifetime.
> 
> What you've deprived yourself of is not measurable in material worth or value. The person you could have been is never realized, the potential is wasted. Humanity will never know what you could have accomplished had you maintained spiritual fidelity. Regardless of any 'reward' awaiting in an afterlife, this is what the reality is. You've squandered the only life you're given out of blind and ignorant laziness, and ironically, think you were the smart one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So it comes down to a choice: I can live in ignorance but have happy feelings or I can have knowledge of how the universe works and be empty inside?
> 
> I choose knowledge.
Click to expand...


or, you could be living in ignorance and be empty inside.....


----------



## Hollie

PostmodernProph said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Honesty, being smart, not living a lie, not living in fear, all starts with the realization that man is a spiritually-connected being, always has been, always will be. You can reject religion and man-made dogma, you cannot reject human spirituality. It's an intrinsic part of who we are. Some people can live without acknowledging it by substituting worship of self or other materialist things but this almost always leads to dissatisfaction, the feeling that something is missing, some need is not being fulfilled. You then seek to fill that emptiness with pleasures of the flesh, drugs, alcohol, sex, pornography, adultery, promiscuity, indulgence, gluttony, even self-mutilation. And you can trick your mind into believing the emptiness is filled for many years, maybe even your entire lifetime.
> 
> What you've deprived yourself of is not measurable in material worth or value. The person you could have been is never realized, the potential is wasted. Humanity will never know what you could have accomplished had you maintained spiritual fidelity. Regardless of any 'reward' awaiting in an afterlife, this is what the reality is. You've squandered the only life you're given out of blind and ignorant laziness, and ironically, think you were the smart one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it comes down to a choice: I can live in ignorance but have happy feelings or I can have knowledge of how the universe works and be empty inside?
> 
> I choose knowledge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> or, you could be living in ignorance and be empty inside.....
Click to expand...


Free yourself from fear and superstition and will no longer have to live in ignorance and be empty inside.....


----------



## Newby

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> So it comes down to a choice: I can live in ignorance but have happy feelings or I can have knowledge of how the universe works and be empty inside?
> 
> I choose knowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or, you could be living in ignorance and be empty inside.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Free yourself from fear and superstition and will no longer* have to live in ignorance and be empty inside.....
Click to expand...


Sounds just like a preacher, doesn't she?


----------



## Hollie

Newby said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> or, you could be living in ignorance and be empty inside.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Free yourself from fear and superstition and will no longer* have to live in ignorance and be empty inside.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds just like a preacher, doesn't she?
Click to expand...


Actually, no. You lovely folks are the ones who instill and maintain fear and superstition.


----------



## Newby

Hollie said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Free yourself from fear and superstition and will no longer* have to live in ignorance and be empty inside.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds just like a preacher, doesn't she?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, no. You lovely folks are the ones who instill and maintain fear and superstition.
Click to expand...


Bullshit... you're clearly preaching...


----------



## Hollie

Newby said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds just like a preacher, doesn't she?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, no. You lovely folks are the ones who instill and maintain fear and superstition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit... you're clearly preaching...
Click to expand...


Ah. The "angry fundie " thing. That's so cute.


----------



## Newby

Hollie said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, no. You lovely folks are the ones who instill and maintain fear and superstition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit... you're clearly preaching...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah. The "angry fundie " thing. That's so cute.
Click to expand...


No more cute than the 'angry atheist' thing.   Mine has a better ring to it actually.

So, what makes me a 'fundamentalist', let alone an angry one?


----------



## thebrucebeat

Newby said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit... you're clearly preaching...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah. The "angry fundie " thing. That's so cute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No more cute than the 'angry atheist' thing.   Mine has a better ring to it actually.
> 
> So, what makes me a 'fundamentalist', let alone an angry one?
Click to expand...


I agree.
You don't resemble a Christian at all!


----------



## Hollie

Newby said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit... you're clearly preaching...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah. The "angry fundie " thing. That's so cute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No more cute than the 'angry atheist' thing.   Mine has a better ring to it actually.
> 
> So, what makes me a 'fundamentalist', let alone an angry one?
Click to expand...


If you duct tape Barton's book to your bible (a double wide, so to speak), you could do some serious thumpin'


----------



## Newby

Hollie said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah. The "angry fundie " thing. That's so cute.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No more cute than the 'angry atheist' thing.   Mine has a better ring to it actually.
> 
> So, what makes me a 'fundamentalist', let alone an angry one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you duct tape Barton's book to your bible (a double wide, so to speak), you could do some serious thumpin'
Click to expand...


Ah, I see, making ridiculous ASSinine ASSumptions that you can't back up yet AGAIN.. 

Do you even know what a fundamentalist is?  I bet you don't.


----------



## Newby

thebrucebeat said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah. The "angry fundie " thing. That's so cute.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No more cute than the 'angry atheist' thing.   Mine has a better ring to it actually.
> 
> So, what makes me a 'fundamentalist', let alone an angry one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree.
> You don't resemble a Christian at all!
Click to expand...


No, to you, I don't imagine I would. Funny that Hollie is so confused, isn't it??


----------



## Hollie

Newby said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> No more cute than the 'angry atheist' thing.   Mine has a better ring to it actually.
> 
> So, what makes me a 'fundamentalist', let alone an angry one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you duct tape Barton's book to your bible (a double wide, so to speak), you could do some serious thumpin'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, I see, making ridiculous ASSinine ASSumptions that you can't back up yet AGAIN..
Click to expand...


Lovely folks those angry fundies.


----------



## Newby

Hollie said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you duct tape Barton's book to your bible (a double wide, so to speak), you could do some serious thumpin'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, I see, making ridiculous ASSinine ASSumptions that you can't back up yet AGAIN..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lovely folks those angry fundies.
Click to expand...


Says the girl that doesn't even know what a 'fundie' is...


----------



## Hollie

Newby said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, I see, making ridiculous ASSinine ASSumptions that you can't back up yet AGAIN..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lovely folks those angry fundies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the girl that doesn't even know what a 'fundie' is...
Click to expand...


Give a fundie a little nudge and they go right to the gutter.


----------



## Newby

Hollie said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lovely folks those angry fundies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the girl that doesn't even know what a 'fundie' is...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give a fundie a little nudge and they go right to the gutter.
Click to expand...


You obviously don't know what a gutter is either ... poor girl...


----------



## Boss

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A zealot in need of a cult!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Poor thing. At a loss for any argumentative point yet again. Resorting to her typical hate and derision.
> 
> Sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dont be angry, Bossie. Just remember that for those like you who are the wannabe cult leaders of their own fetching designer religions, you have designed a worldview that is impervious to reason, rationality and knowledge.
Click to expand...


LMFAO... Yesterday I was "the archetype of angry fundamentalist" and today I am a maverick forging his own designer cult. Sounds like you may be the one losing reason and rationality instead of me. 

Not angry, sweetie. I am slightly bemused by what you wish to accomplish with your increasingly bizarre rantings here. You're the one who sounds angry, every post is dripping with vile hateful remarks intended to insult me and land an emotional blow, but you're swinging at ghosts. I sit here grinning from ear to ear as I read my posts and you struggling to find a reasoned response. 

I'm hitting my mark, and you know how I can tell I am hitting my mark? The responses are the same empty rhetoric from every one of you. My points leave you speechless, without any thoughtful retort other than to repeat the insults and denigrations you've become known for. I've turned you into caricatures. Laughing stocks full of huff and puff without any substance. I keep hoping that one day, one of you will attempt to engage me on an intellectual level, and you just keep disappointing me. 

From time to time, Breeze seems like he/she may be capable of intellectual thought, but then the posts seem to meander off into a vapor trail of incoherent thought that makes little sense to anyone but Breeze. Then there's Moonbat and his trusty sidekick Brucey, The Dynamic Duo of Distortion and Distraction, with their superpower of being able to take any statement or word completely out of context or replacing their questions after answers are given. They fancy themselves as word gymnasts, but at least they are being creative and entertaining, while you are just being a bore.


----------



## HUGGY

Funny how christians hijack the dictionary and reason and comon sense whenever it suits them but get all bent out of shape when others land on their own definitions.

There are many definitions of what a fundi is....  As many as there are questionable passages in your scriptures.  

If you believe anything in the bible new or old testiment that contradicts facts and physics you are a fundimentalist.

If you believe in a resurrection..burning bushes.. Ezeikiel.. parting oceans...tablets from god.. miracles.. literally hundreds of biblical myths.. you are a fundimentalist.

It does not matter if you don't like the label.  You are what you appear to be.  It's not YOUR call.


----------



## Boss

Steven_R said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> The line has been moved way past the "trying" deep into the territory of lies and stupidity.
> 
> Exposing lies and stupidity is not depressing.  It is fulfilling and far from creating a feeling of emptiness it is very satisfying.  Sadly for people that live their lives surrounded by a web of fear and lies you will never know the joy of living with truth unless you are very young.  If you have been lying to yourself and others for too long the conflict of starting to tell the truth will just amplify your discomfort by reminding you of your own weakness.
> 
> I would recommend that you go on lying to yourself and others.  My words are not for you.  They are for the true victims that don't know any better and still have time to make the difficult switch to being honest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Honesty, being smart, not living a lie, not living in fear, all starts with the realization that man is a spiritually-connected being, always has been, always will be. You can reject religion and man-made dogma, you cannot reject human spirituality. It's an intrinsic part of who we are. Some people can live without acknowledging it by substituting worship of self or other materialist things but this almost always leads to dissatisfaction, the feeling that something is missing, some need is not being fulfilled. You then seek to fill that emptiness with pleasures of the flesh, drugs, alcohol, sex, pornography, adultery, promiscuity, indulgence, gluttony, even self-mutilation. And you can trick your mind into believing the emptiness is filled for many years, maybe even your entire lifetime.
> 
> What you've deprived yourself of is not measurable in material worth or value. The person you could have been is never realized, the potential is wasted. Humanity will never know what you could have accomplished had you maintained spiritual fidelity. Regardless of any 'reward' awaiting in an afterlife, this is what the reality is. You've squandered the only life you're given out of blind and ignorant laziness, and ironically, think you were the smart one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So it comes down to a choice: I can live in ignorance but have happy feelings or I can have knowledge of how the universe works and be empty inside?
> 
> I choose knowledge.
Click to expand...


You poor fool. You will never know why the universe works or have all the knowledge. You can explain how some things happen while other things will forever remain a mystery to you and to science. True knowledge comes, as I said, with the understanding that humans are spiritually-connected creatures. Regardless of how things work, they work because God allows them to work in this universe. "God did it" has never been an explanation for how things work, it is an explanation for why they work, and is true whether you discover how or not.


----------



## Newby

HUGGY said:


> Funny how christians hijack the dictionary and reason and comon sense whenever it suits them but get all bent out of shape when others land on their own definitions.
> 
> There are many definitions of what a fundi is....  As many as there are questionable passages in your scriptures.
> 
> If you believe anything in the bible new or old testiment that contradicts facts and physics you are a fundimentalist.
> 
> If you believe in a resurrection..burning bushes.. Ezeikiel.. parting oceans...tablets from god.. miracles.. literally hundreds of biblical myths.. you are a fundimentalist.
> 
> It does not matter if you don't like the label.  You are what you appear to be.  It's not YOUR call.



Why do leftist atheists think the word is an insult?


----------



## HUGGY

Newby said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how christians hijack the dictionary and reason and comon sense whenever it suits them but get all bent out of shape when others land on their own definitions.
> 
> There are many definitions of what a fundi is....  As many as there are questionable passages in your scriptures.
> 
> If you believe anything in the bible new or old testiment that contradicts facts and physics you are a fundimentalist.
> 
> If you believe in a resurrection..burning bushes.. Ezeikiel.. parting oceans...tablets from god.. miracles.. literally hundreds of biblical myths.. you are a fundimentalist.
> 
> It does not matter if you don't like the label.  You are what you appear to be.  It's not YOUR call.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do leftist atheists think the word is an insult?
Click to expand...


What word?  Fundamentalist?  Why would I feel insulted by you being labeled a fundamentalist?  You all brag about believing in biblical nonsense.  Nobody is labeling me a fundi why should I care?


----------



## Newby

HUGGY said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how christians hijack the dictionary and reason and comon sense whenever it suits them but get all bent out of shape when others land on their own definitions.
> 
> There are many definitions of what a fundi is....  As many as there are questionable passages in your scriptures.
> 
> If you believe anything in the bible new or old testiment that contradicts facts and physics you are a fundimentalist.
> 
> If you believe in a resurrection..burning bushes.. Ezeikiel.. parting oceans...tablets from god.. miracles.. literally hundreds of biblical myths.. you are a fundimentalist.
> 
> It does not matter if you don't like the label.  You are what you appear to be.  It's not YOUR call.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do leftist atheists think the word is an insult?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What word?  Fundamentalist?  Why would I feel insulted by you being labeled a fundamentalist?  You all brag about believing in biblical nonsense.  Nobody is labeling me a fundi why should I care?
Click to expand...


Way to miss the point, Huggy... 

You can label me a fundamentalist all you want, it's not an insult.  Nor is it meaningful since you know nothing about me.


----------



## Boss

HUGGY said:


> Funny how christians hijack the dictionary and reason and comon sense whenever it suits them but get all bent out of shape when others land on their own definitions.
> 
> There are many definitions of what a fundi is....  As many as there are questionable passages in your scriptures.
> 
> If you believe anything in the bible new or old testiment that contradicts facts and physics you are a fundimentalist.
> 
> If you believe in a resurrection..burning bushes.. Ezeikiel.. parting oceans...tablets from god.. miracles.. literally hundreds of biblical myths.. you are a fundimentalist.
> 
> It does not matter if you don't like the label.  You are what you appear to be.  It's not YOUR call.



Well I have repeatedly stated that I am not a Christian. I know many of you find this hard to believe, but it doesn't matter to me if you believe me or not. I'm certainly not any kind of "fundamentalist" but when it comes to stories told in the translated scriptures we call The Bible, I have to take exception with what you are saying here. You see, back in the day, they didn't have printing presses and photography, they couldn't convey stories any other way than through spoken words. Since that was the only tool they could use, the stories were very often metaphorical and sometimes even embellished or exaggerated for effect. It doesn't mean they were totally false, but they weren't always literally true either. The stories are often presented to illustrate some important point or convey something fundamental. 

Christianity, in relation to human existence, is still a relatively new way of humans connecting to Spiritual Nature. This phenomenon has been happening in some incarnation for as long as man has existed on the planet. Every archeological dig confirms it, there is no question about it, humans have always been spiritually-connected to something greater than self. Are Christians right? I don't know for certain, but since Christianity is something created by man in an attempt to understand his spirituality, I would say that it's likely they aren't completely right or wrong. This is why I am not a Christian. Nor do I subscribe to any organized religious theocracy, I think they are all flawed because man is flawed. 

Still, I believe there is something greater than self. I humbly submit, I don't "believe" because I have "faith" but because I know this force exists. If I had no evidence for that, I couldn't believe it. So what should I do with that knowledge? Pretend it's not there? Pretend I don't know about it or feel it's presence? That doesn't seem to be a rational behavior to me. Besides, I gain tremendous benefit from embracing this force, it empowers me and gives me encouragement, inspires me and gives me hope. Why would I ever want to abandon that? To be more cool? To be liked by others? No, I will keep believing in what I know is truth, and you can keep disbelieving... it doesn't bother me in the least.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poor thing. At a loss for any argumentative point yet again. Resorting to her typical hate and derision.
> 
> Sad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont be angry, Bossie. Just remember that for those like you who are the wannabe cult leaders of their own fetching designer religions, you have designed a worldview that is impervious to reason, rationality and knowledge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMFAO... Yesterday I was "the archetype of angry fundamentalist" and today I am a maverick forging his own designer cult. Sounds like you may be the one losing reason and rationality instead of me.
> 
> Not angry, sweetie. I am slightly bemused by what you wish to accomplish with your increasingly bizarre rantings here. You're the one who sounds angry, every post is dripping with vile hateful remarks intended to insult me and land an emotional blow, but you're swinging at ghosts. I sit here grinning from ear to ear as I read my posts and you struggling to find a reasoned response.
> 
> I'm hitting my mark, and you know how I can tell I am hitting my mark? The responses are the same empty rhetoric from every one of you. My points leave you speechless, without any thoughtful retort other than to repeat the insults and denigrations you've become known for. I've turned you into caricatures. Laughing stocks full of huff and puff without any substance. I keep hoping that one day, one of you will attempt to engage me on an intellectual level, and you just keep disappointing me.
> 
> From time to time, Breeze seems like he/she may be capable of intellectual thought, but then the posts seem to meander off into a vapor trail of incoherent thought that makes little sense to anyone but Breeze. Then there's Moonbat and his trusty sidekick Brucey, The Dynamic Duo of Distortion and Distraction, with their superpower of being able to take any statement or word completely out of context or replacing their questions after answers are given. They fancy themselves as word gymnasts, but at least they are being creative and entertaining, while you are just being a bore.
Click to expand...


Now, bossie. You are a continued source of amusement. But really, pumpkin, it is interesting to see you assign such human-based attributes to the gods you have invented (the ones you converse with), and then alternately abandon those gods in favor of your designer spiritual nature

Youve recently decided that you have every confidence that string theory will open new realms and dimensions where these spirits / gods dwell. What you havent identified is the spirit worlds / gods of these new dimensions / realms will necessarily supplant the spirit worlds / gods of the current dimensions. Its a bit like you are inventing spirit worlds / gods for any occasion.   

Why such a hierarchy of gods when only a few are actually required?


----------



## Newby

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poor thing. At a loss for any argumentative point yet again. Resorting to her typical hate and derision.
> 
> Sad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont be angry, Bossie. Just remember that for those like you who are the wannabe cult leaders of their own fetching designer religions, you have designed a worldview that is impervious to reason, rationality and knowledge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMFAO... Yesterday I was "the archetype of angry fundamentalist" and today I am a maverick forging his own designer cult. Sounds like you may be the one losing reason and rationality instead of me.
> 
> Not angry, sweetie. I am slightly bemused by what you wish to accomplish with your increasingly bizarre rantings here. *You're the one who sounds angry, every post is dripping with vile hateful remarks intended to insult me and land an emotional blow, but you're swinging at ghosts. I sit here grinning from ear to ear as I read my posts and you struggling to find a reasoned response.*
> 
> I'm hitting my mark, and you know how I can tell I am hitting my mark? The responses are the same empty rhetoric from every one of you. My points leave you speechless, without any thoughtful retort other than to repeat the insults and denigrations you've become known for. I've turned you into caricatures. Laughing stocks full of huff and puff without any substance. I keep hoping that one day, one of you will attempt to engage me on an intellectual level, and you just keep disappointing me.
> 
> From time to time, Breeze seems like he/she may be capable of intellectual thought, but then the posts seem to meander off into a vapor trail of incoherent thought that makes little sense to anyone but Breeze. Then there's Moonbat and his trusty sidekick Brucey, The Dynamic Duo of Distortion and Distraction, with their superpower of being able to take any statement or word completely out of context or replacing their questions after answers are given. They fancy themselves as word gymnasts, but at least they are being creative and entertaining, while you are just being a bore.
Click to expand...


Hollie honey, he has you perfectly pegged, and he's right, you're highly amusing to 'watch'.


----------



## Hollie

Newby said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont be angry, Bossie. Just remember that for those like you who are the wannabe cult leaders of their own fetching designer religions, you have designed a worldview that is impervious to reason, rationality and knowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LMFAO... Yesterday I was "the archetype of angry fundamentalist" and today I am a maverick forging his own designer cult. Sounds like you may be the one losing reason and rationality instead of me.
> 
> Not angry, sweetie. I am slightly bemused by what you wish to accomplish with your increasingly bizarre rantings here. *You're the one who sounds angry, every post is dripping with vile hateful remarks intended to insult me and land an emotional blow, but you're swinging at ghosts. I sit here grinning from ear to ear as I read my posts and you struggling to find a reasoned response.*
> 
> I'm hitting my mark, and you know how I can tell I am hitting my mark? The responses are the same empty rhetoric from every one of you. My points leave you speechless, without any thoughtful retort other than to repeat the insults and denigrations you've become known for. I've turned you into caricatures. Laughing stocks full of huff and puff without any substance. I keep hoping that one day, one of you will attempt to engage me on an intellectual level, and you just keep disappointing me.
> 
> From time to time, Breeze seems like he/she may be capable of intellectual thought, but then the posts seem to meander off into a vapor trail of incoherent thought that makes little sense to anyone but Breeze. Then there's Moonbat and his trusty sidekick Brucey, The Dynamic Duo of Distortion and Distraction, with their superpower of being able to take any statement or word completely out of context or replacing their questions after answers are given. They fancy themselves as word gymnasts, but at least they are being creative and entertaining, while you are just being a bore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie honey, he has you perfectly pegged, and he's right, you're highly amusing to 'watch'.
Click to expand...


Tag team fundies? How cute - you're a couple.


----------



## BreezeWood

Boss said:


> I sit here grinning from ear to ear as I read my posts ...




good luck bossy but tell the truth, its while you are writing them - the OP as your first "snicker". 

sidekick included ... fundies of a feather, Christianity at its finest.

.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poor thing. At a loss for any argumentative point yet again. Resorting to her typical hate and derision.
> 
> Sad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont be angry, Bossie. Just remember that for those like you who are the wannabe cult leaders of their own fetching designer religions, you have designed a worldview that is impervious to reason, rationality and knowledge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMFAO... Yesterday I was "the archetype of angry fundamentalist" and today I am a maverick forging his own designer cult. Sounds like you may be the one losing reason and rationality instead of me.
> 
> Not angry, sweetie. I am slightly bemused by what you wish to accomplish with your increasingly bizarre rantings here. You're the one who sounds angry, every post is dripping with vile hateful remarks intended to insult me and land an emotional blow, but you're swinging at ghosts. I sit here grinning from ear to ear as I read my posts and you struggling to find a reasoned response.
> 
> I'm hitting my mark, and you know how I can tell I am hitting my mark? The responses are the same empty rhetoric from every one of you. My points leave you speechless, without any thoughtful retort other than to repeat the insults and denigrations you've become known for. I've turned you into caricatures. Laughing stocks full of huff and puff without any substance. I keep hoping that one day, one of you will attempt to engage me on an intellectual level, and you just keep disappointing me.
> 
> From time to time, Breeze seems like he/she may be capable of intellectual thought, but then the posts seem to meander off into a vapor trail of incoherent thought that makes little sense to anyone but Breeze. Then there's Moonbat and his trusty sidekick Brucey, The Dynamic Duo of Distortion and Distraction, with their superpower of being able to take any statement or word completely out of context or replacing their questions after answers are given. They fancy themselves as word gymnasts, but at least they are being creative and entertaining, while you are just being a bore.
Click to expand...


LOL!
The first " out of context" whine of the day!


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how christians hijack the dictionary and reason and comon sense whenever it suits them but get all bent out of shape when others land on their own definitions.
> 
> There are many definitions of what a fundi is....  As many as there are questionable passages in your scriptures.
> 
> If you believe anything in the bible new or old testiment that contradicts facts and physics you are a fundimentalist.
> 
> If you believe in a resurrection..burning bushes.. Ezeikiel.. parting oceans...tablets from god.. miracles.. literally hundreds of biblical myths.. you are a fundimentalist.
> 
> It does not matter if you don't like the label.  You are what you appear to be.  It's not YOUR call.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I have repeatedly stated that I am not a Christian. I know many of you find this hard to believe, but it doesn't matter to me if you believe me or not. I'm certainly not any kind of "fundamentalist" but when it comes to stories told in the translated scriptures we call The Bible, I have to take exception with what you are saying here. You see, back in the day, they didn't have printing presses and photography, they couldn't convey stories any other way than through spoken words. Since that was the only tool they could use, the stories were very often metaphorical and sometimes even embellished or exaggerated for effect. It doesn't mean they were totally false, but they weren't always literally true either. The stories are often presented to illustrate some important point or convey something fundamental.
> 
> Christianity, in relation to human existence, is still a relatively new way of humans connecting to Spiritual Nature. This phenomenon has been happening in some incarnation for as long as man has existed on the planet. Every archeological dig confirms it, there is no question about it, humans have always been spiritually-connected to something greater than self. Are Christians right? I don't know for certain, but since Christianity is something created by man in an attempt to understand his spirituality, I would say that it's likely they aren't completely right or wrong. This is why I am not a Christian. Nor do I subscribe to any organized religious theocracy, I think they are all flawed because man is flawed.
> 
> Still, I believe there is something greater than self. I humbly submit, I don't "believe" because I have "faith" but because I know this force exists. If I had no evidence for that, I couldn't believe it. So what should I do with that knowledge? Pretend it's not there? Pretend I don't know about it or feel it's presence? That doesn't seem to be a rational behavior to me. Besides, I gain tremendous benefit from embracing this force, it empowers me and gives me encouragement, inspires me and gives me hope. Why would I ever want to abandon that? To be more cool? To be liked by others? No, I will keep believing in what I know is truth, and you can keep disbelieving... it doesn't bother me in the least.
Click to expand...


You are very close to the truth my brother.  Keep thinking.  You are correct about the organized religions.  They are all just man's ATTEMPT to understand what we can not understand.  But just because for hundreds of thousands of years man has believed in a higher power that doesn't prove anything.  I use to think that too.  I use to say I don't buy Christianity but I believe there must be a God.  But my reasons are flawed.  And science tells us that it is because our brains evolved to be smart enough to be curious that our intelligent minds came up with God.  And this is funny to me because back then our intelligence is what made us come up with God but today I consider anyone who believes in God to be stupid.  Also funny is that there are very intelligent people who believe.  That doesn't matter why?  The validity of a claim, such as the existence of god, is not governed by the intelligence of the minds which hold it. Evidence and reason are the deciding factors.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how christians hijack the dictionary and reason and comon sense whenever it suits them but get all bent out of shape when others land on their own definitions.
> 
> There are many definitions of what a fundi is....  As many as there are questionable passages in your scriptures.
> 
> If you believe anything in the bible new or old testiment that contradicts facts and physics you are a fundimentalist.
> 
> If you believe in a resurrection..burning bushes.. Ezeikiel.. parting oceans...tablets from god.. miracles.. literally hundreds of biblical myths.. you are a fundimentalist.
> 
> It does not matter if you don't like the label.  You are what you appear to be.  It's not YOUR call.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I have repeatedly stated that I am not a Christian. I know many of you find this hard to believe, but it doesn't matter to me if you believe me or not. I'm certainly not any kind of "fundamentalist" but when it comes to stories told in the translated scriptures we call The Bible, I have to take exception with what you are saying here. You see, back in the day, they didn't have printing presses and photography, they couldn't convey stories any other way than through spoken words. Since that was the only tool they could use, the stories were very often metaphorical and sometimes even embellished or exaggerated for effect. It doesn't mean they were totally false, but they weren't always literally true either. The stories are often presented to illustrate some important point or convey something fundamental.
> 
> Christianity, in relation to human existence, is still a relatively new way of humans connecting to Spiritual Nature. This phenomenon has been happening in some incarnation for as long as man has existed on the planet. Every archeological dig confirms it, there is no question about it, humans have always been spiritually-connected to something greater than self. Are Christians right? I don't know for certain, but since Christianity is something created by man in an attempt to understand his spirituality, I would say that it's likely they aren't completely right or wrong. This is why I am not a Christian. Nor do I subscribe to any organized religious theocracy, I think they are all flawed because man is flawed.
> 
> Still, I believe there is something greater than self. I humbly submit, I don't "believe" because I have "faith" but because I know this force exists. If I had no evidence for that, I couldn't believe it. So what should I do with that knowledge? Pretend it's not there? Pretend I don't know about it or feel it's presence? That doesn't seem to be a rational behavior to me. Besides, I gain tremendous benefit from embracing this force, it empowers me and gives me encouragement, inspires me and gives me hope. Why would I ever want to abandon that? To be more cool? To be liked by others? No, I will keep believing in what I know is truth, and you can keep disbelieving... it doesn't bother me in the least.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are very close to the truth my brother.  Keep thinking.  You are correct about the organized religions.  They are all just man's ATTEMPT to understand what we can not understand.  But just because for hundreds of thousands of years man has believed in a higher power that doesn't prove anything.  I use to think that too.  I use to say I don't buy Christianity but I believe there must be a God.  But my reasons are flawed.  And science tells us that it is because our brains evolved to be smart enough to be curious that our intelligent minds came up with God.  And this is funny to me because back then our intelligence is what made us come up with God but today I consider anyone who believes in God to be stupid.  Also funny is that there are very intelligent people who believe.  That doesn't matter why?  The validity of a claim, such as the existence of god, is not governed by the intelligence of the minds which hold it. Evidence and reason are the deciding factors.
Click to expand...


First of all, we're not brothers. I didn't come from a monkey, I was created by God. Setting that issue aside, let me address some of your 'finer' points....

*But my reasons are flawed.  And science tells us that it is because our brains evolved to be smart enough to be curious that our intelligent minds came up with God.  And this is funny to me because back then our intelligence is what made us come up with God but today I consider anyone who believes in God to be stupid.  Also funny is that there are very intelligent people who believe.*​
So you figure we are SO intelligent that we had to create an imaginary placebo to console our fears of death and the unknown? As you say, this is "funny" in fact, it makes no rational sense whatsoever. Furthermore, that we (being as intelligent as we are) have mysteriously clung to this false belief for our entire existence in spite of knowledge and science. 

If these theories of man creating spiritual beliefs to console fears of mortality were true, we'd expect to see evidence in nature of the same thing happening with other species of life. Higher primates like chimps and great apes, would likely be mimicking some semblance of spirituality, trying to grapple with their mortality. Perhaps not to the degree of forming actual "religions" but at least performing ritual ceremonies and customs... we simply see no signs of this. It doesn't seem to be a big nagging and troublesome problem for other species to accept they are mortal. 

Rational thought says the reason man has these "fears of mortality" is because they are spiritually aware of something immortal. It is our spiritual connection which causes this fear, not the other way around. There are literally hundreds of thousands of ways humans have invented to comprehend and understand this intrinsic spiritual connection we have. This is the source of all religion. It is not because we "had to invent something" it's because we are intrinsically aware of something. 

Likewise, the meme of "man created religion to explain the unexplained" is also without rational basis. Man created SCIENCE to explain the unexplained. He created religion to explain his intrinsic awareness of something greater than self, his spiritual connection. 

*The validity of a claim, such as the existence of god, is not governed by the intelligence of the minds which hold it. Evidence and reason are the deciding factors.
*​
Precisely, but the "evidence" shows that humans have always had this intrinsic connection to something beyond the physical. Reason tells us there must be a purpose for this. If there  were, in fact, nothing to it and it's all in our heads, man would have abandoned it long ago like they have superstitions and mythological beliefs. Science has been around for centuries, explaining away all the great mysteries, but human spirituality has continued to flourish. Even through periods of brutal reprisal and persecution where millions of people have been killed in the name of their spiritual beliefs. It's something that simply cannot be stomped out of the hearts and minds of mankind, no matter how hard it is tried. We remain highly spiritual creatures with 90% of the species still believing in something greater than self. Even the most devout Darwinist would have to conclude there is a fundamental reason for the attribute to exist in humans.


----------



## Boss

HUGGY said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> The line has been moved way past the "trying" deep into the territory of lies and stupidity.
> 
> Exposing lies and stupidity is not depressing.  It is fulfilling and far from creating a feeling of emptiness it is very satisfying.  Sadly for people that live their lives surrounded by a web of fear and lies you will never know the joy of living with truth unless you are very young.  If you have been lying to yourself and others for too long the conflict of starting to tell the truth will just amplify your discomfort by reminding you of your own weakness.
> 
> I would recommend that you go on lying to yourself and others.  My words are not for you.  They are for the true victims that don't know any better and still have time to make the difficult switch to being honest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Honesty, being smart, not living a lie, not living in fear, all starts with the realization that man is a spiritually-connected being, always has been, always will be. You can reject religion and man-made dogma, you cannot reject human spirituality. It's an intrinsic part of who we are. Some people can live without acknowledging it by substituting worship of self or other materialist things but this almost always leads to dissatisfaction, the feeling that something is missing, some need is not being fulfilled. You then seek to fill that emptiness with pleasures of the flesh, drugs, alcohol, sex, pornography, adultery, promiscuity, indulgence, gluttony, even self-mutilation. And you can trick your mind into believing the emptiness is filled for many years, maybe even your entire lifetime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Nonsense.  You have no experience living with truth so just like those that have faith in the fairy tales of the bible you are basing those words off of someone else's ideas.  I have no need or desire to substitute for reality and truth.  Unlike what you say and appear to have convinced yourself I look forward to each day as knowledge unfolds the mysteries some others need to reject as they come in conflict of previously ingrained incorrect assumptions.*
Click to expand...


To the contrary, I have 54 years of experience which you simply know nothing about. My ideas are my own, based on my life experiences. You have deluded yourself into believing a lie and you are attempting to make it truth by proclaiming it a truth and condemning the truth as the lie. 

What you appear to look forward to each day is coming here to continue trying to tear down something you disdain and revile. You do this because you are not fulfilled, you need constant reassurance from people like yourself, and you find them here engaging in the same behavior day after day. It never seems to occur to you that you're getting nowhere, there are no minds being changed, you aren't winning anyone over to your side, and it's all a completely pointless endeavor. This proverbial banging of your head against a brick wall, only serves to pacify your need for validation. 



> What you've deprived yourself of is not measurable in material worth or value. The person you could have been is never realized, the potential is wasted. Humanity will never know what you could have accomplished had you maintained spiritual fidelity. Regardless of any 'reward' awaiting in an afterlife, this is what the reality is. You've squandered the only life you're given out of blind and ignorant laziness, and ironically, think you were the smart one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many things never materialize in life.  Like they say about winning the lottery "You can't win if you don't play".  As far as "squandered" opportunity goes there is far more to a life lived than such a negative glib descrption encompasses as choices made and energy used being neccessarily laziness or ignorance when things didn't work out how one may have envisioned with the best of intentions and effort.  This is usually true in everyone's life.  Much of life's dissappointments occur by something as simple as health...yours or someone elses.  Also we don't live in a vaccume.  We are affected by others choices especially when we are young and depend on decisions of our parents and siblings.  Lamenting about what could have been is entertaining as one has played a leading part in the drama or comedy but an active mind cannot afford to waste the moment with too much reverie.
Click to expand...


And here we find the heart of the matter for you. I am willing to bet that you grew up in a fairly "religious" family, perhaps with parents who made you attend church services regularly and expected you to behave in a moral and decent manner. Am I correct? The reason I say this is because of your comment about parents and siblings, and your continued references to "youth" and how those influences affect our choices and decisions in life. So what has happened here is resentful rebellion against your upbringing. You see your parents,  perhaps your siblings as well, as misguided and hypocritical. And here's the deal, you may be completely justified to have those feelings. Your parents and siblings may have been completely misguided religious hypocrites. That simply doesn't negate Spiritual Nature and God or mean it doesn't exist. 



> To be brief you are in error.  The only book that matters is the one you write for yourself.  There is no script already written for you and yours will never fit someone else.  As I mentioned before once you have lived long enough attempting to satisfy an idea like religion or realizing someone else's concept of spirituality you have already gone too far down the rabit hole and there is no retrieving your own path.  Certainly if we chose to live socially there are limits to our personal choices but what goes on between your ears is no ones business unless you are foolish enough to allow it.



Again, we see evidence that you are dealing with emotional repression and resentment over how you were raised. This has manifest itself into a complete distrust of all things spiritual, and that is YOUR error. Spiritual connection is deeply personal, no one can tell you how to best comprehend your intrinsic awareness of it. Some people adopt a religious faith, others like myself, maintain spiritual fidelity by embracing the power found inside us all. It's NEVER too late to do this, you can start this very moment. It is very easy to give up disbelief and begin down the path of truth. You don't have to subscribe to anyone's religious dogma, or even admit anything here in some confessional, you just need to come to the realization of truth personally in your own mind. Like you say, what goes on between your ears is no one's business unless you're foolish enough to allow it.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poor thing. At a loss for any argumentative point yet again. Resorting to her typical hate and derision.
> 
> Sad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont be angry, Bossie. Just remember that for those like you who are the wannabe cult leaders of their own fetching designer religions, you have designed a worldview that is impervious to reason, rationality and knowledge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMFAO... Yesterday I was "the archetype of angry fundamentalist" and today I am a maverick forging his own designer cult. Sounds like you may be the one losing reason and rationality instead of me.
> 
> Not angry, sweetie. I am slightly bemused by what you wish to accomplish with your increasingly bizarre rantings here. You're the one who sounds angry, every post is dripping with vile hateful remarks intended to insult me and land an emotional blow, but you're swinging at ghosts. I sit here grinning from ear to ear as I read my posts and you struggling to find a reasoned response.
> 
> I'm hitting my mark, and you know how I can tell I am hitting my mark? The responses are the same empty rhetoric from every one of you. My points leave you speechless, without any thoughtful retort other than to repeat the insults and denigrations you've become known for. I've turned you into caricatures. Laughing stocks full of huff and puff without any substance. I keep hoping that one day, one of you will attempt to engage me on an intellectual level, and you just keep disappointing me.
> 
> From time to time, Breeze seems like he/she may be capable of intellectual thought, but then the posts seem to meander off into a vapor trail of incoherent thought that makes little sense to anyone but Breeze. Then there's Moonbat and his trusty sidekick Brucey, The Dynamic Duo of Distortion and Distraction, with their superpower of being able to take any statement or word completely out of context or replacing their questions after answers are given. They fancy themselves as word gymnasts, but at least they are being creative and entertaining, while you are just being a bore.
Click to expand...


It's interesting that you repeatedly talk about others trying to insult you and being unable to find a reasoned response because of their anger, yet I've seen at least as many insults coming from you as any other poster in this thread.


----------



## Boss

> It's interesting that you repeatedly talk about others trying to insult you and being unable to find a reasoned response because of their anger, yet I've seen at least as many insults coming from you as any other poster in this thread.



Hey... I said you were creative and entertaining! That was a compliment.


----------



## HUGGY

Boss said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Honesty, being smart, not living a lie, not living in fear, all starts with the realization that man is a spiritually-connected being, always has been, always will be. You can reject religion and man-made dogma, you cannot reject human spirituality. It's an intrinsic part of who we are. Some people can live without acknowledging it by substituting worship of self or other materialist things but this almost always leads to dissatisfaction, the feeling that something is missing, some need is not being fulfilled. You then seek to fill that emptiness with pleasures of the flesh, drugs, alcohol, sex, pornography, adultery, promiscuity, indulgence, gluttony, even self-mutilation. And you can trick your mind into believing the emptiness is filled for many years, maybe even your entire lifetime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Nonsense.  You have no experience living with truth so just like those that have faith in the fairy tales of the bible you are basing those words off of someone else's ideas.  I have no need or desire to substitute for reality and truth.  Unlike what you say and appear to have convinced yourself I look forward to each day as knowledge unfolds the mysteries some others need to reject as they come in conflict of previously ingrained incorrect assumptions.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To the contrary, I have 54 years of experience which you simply know nothing about. My ideas are my own, based on my life experiences. You have deluded yourself into believing a lie and you are attempting to make it truth by proclaiming it a truth and condemning the truth as the lie.
> 
> What you appear to look forward to each day is coming here to continue trying to tear down something you disdain and revile. You do this because you are not fulfilled, you need constant reassurance from people like yourself, and you find them here engaging in the same behavior day after day. It never seems to occur to you that you're getting nowhere, there are no minds being changed, you aren't winning anyone over to your side, and it's all a completely pointless endeavor. This proverbial banging of your head against a brick wall, only serves to pacify your need for validation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many things never materialize in life.  Like they say about winning the lottery "You can't win if you don't play".  As far as "squandered" opportunity goes there is far more to a life lived than such a negative glib descrption encompasses as choices made and energy used being neccessarily laziness or ignorance when things didn't work out how one may have envisioned with the best of intentions and effort.  This is usually true in everyone's life.  Much of life's dissappointments occur by something as simple as health...yours or someone elses.  Also we don't live in a vaccume.  We are affected by others choices especially when we are young and depend on decisions of our parents and siblings.  Lamenting about what could have been is entertaining as one has played a leading part in the drama or comedy but an active mind cannot afford to waste the moment with too much reverie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And here we find the heart of the matter for you. I am willing to bet that you grew up in a fairly "religious" family, perhaps with parents who made you attend church services regularly and expected you to behave in a moral and decent manner. Am I correct? The reason I say this is because of your comment about parents and siblings, and your continued references to "youth" and how those influences affect our choices and decisions in life. So what has happened here is resentful rebellion against your upbringing. You see your parents,  perhaps your siblings as well, as misguided and hypocritical. And here's the deal, you may be completely justified to have those feelings. Your parents and siblings may have been completely misguided religious hypocrites. That simply doesn't negate Spiritual Nature and God or mean it doesn't exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be brief you are in error.  The only book that matters is the one you write for yourself.  There is no script already written for you and yours will never fit someone else.  As I mentioned before once you have lived long enough attempting to satisfy an idea like religion or realizing someone else's concept of spirituality you have already gone too far down the rabit hole and there is no retrieving your own path.  Certainly if we chose to live socially there are limits to our personal choices but what goes on between your ears is no ones business unless you are foolish enough to allow it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, we see evidence that you are dealing with emotional repression and resentment over how you were raised. This has manifest itself into a complete distrust of all things spiritual, and that is YOUR error. Spiritual connection is deeply personal, no one can tell you how to best comprehend your intrinsic awareness of it. Some people adopt a religious faith, others like myself, maintain spiritual fidelity by embracing the power found inside us all. It's NEVER too late to do this, you can start this very moment. It is very easy to give up disbelief and begin down the path of truth. You don't have to subscribe to anyone's religious dogma, or even admit anything here in some confessional, you just need to come to the realization of truth personally in your own mind. Like you say, what goes on between your ears is no one's business unless you're foolish enough to allow it.
Click to expand...


You are in error about my upbringing.  No matter.  I should have substituted the word "one" for "you" a couple of times as my response wasn't meant to be so personal as YOUR response indicated.  I have no way of knowing what you read or saw or heard as truth.  I assumed, which as usual, was a mistake that you understood the conteaxt being more generic.

To be more clear.  There is no spiritual connection.  You/one can convince your/one's self of ANYTHING as is simple to prove if under the influence of LSD or less chemically intrusive just normal dreams.  Perhaps you/someone came to some special realization when in a dream state that seemed too impressive to give one's self credit for it's generation.


----------



## Boss

> There is no spiritual connection.



I disagree, but more importantly, the history of human civilization also disagrees.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I have repeatedly stated that I am not a Christian. I know many of you find this hard to believe, but it doesn't matter to me if you believe me or not. I'm certainly not any kind of "fundamentalist" but when it comes to stories told in the translated scriptures we call The Bible, I have to take exception with what you are saying here. You see, back in the day, they didn't have printing presses and photography, they couldn't convey stories any other way than through spoken words. Since that was the only tool they could use, the stories were very often metaphorical and sometimes even embellished or exaggerated for effect. It doesn't mean they were totally false, but they weren't always literally true either. The stories are often presented to illustrate some important point or convey something fundamental.
> 
> Christianity, in relation to human existence, is still a relatively new way of humans connecting to Spiritual Nature. This phenomenon has been happening in some incarnation for as long as man has existed on the planet. Every archeological dig confirms it, there is no question about it, humans have always been spiritually-connected to something greater than self. Are Christians right? I don't know for certain, but since Christianity is something created by man in an attempt to understand his spirituality, I would say that it's likely they aren't completely right or wrong. This is why I am not a Christian. Nor do I subscribe to any organized religious theocracy, I think they are all flawed because man is flawed.
> 
> Still, I believe there is something greater than self. I humbly submit, I don't "believe" because I have "faith" but because I know this force exists. If I had no evidence for that, I couldn't believe it. So what should I do with that knowledge? Pretend it's not there? Pretend I don't know about it or feel it's presence? That doesn't seem to be a rational behavior to me. Besides, I gain tremendous benefit from embracing this force, it empowers me and gives me encouragement, inspires me and gives me hope. Why would I ever want to abandon that? To be more cool? To be liked by others? No, I will keep believing in what I know is truth, and you can keep disbelieving... it doesn't bother me in the least.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are very close to the truth my brother.  Keep thinking.  You are correct about the organized religions.  They are all just man's ATTEMPT to understand what we can not understand.  But just because for hundreds of thousands of years man has believed in a higher power that doesn't prove anything.  I use to think that too.  I use to say I don't buy Christianity but I believe there must be a God.  But my reasons are flawed.  And science tells us that it is because our brains evolved to be smart enough to be curious that our intelligent minds came up with God.  And this is funny to me because back then our intelligence is what made us come up with God but today I consider anyone who believes in God to be stupid.  Also funny is that there are very intelligent people who believe.  That doesn't matter why?  The validity of a claim, such as the existence of god, is not governed by the intelligence of the minds which hold it. Evidence and reason are the deciding factors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, we're not brothers. I didn't come from a monkey, I was created by God. Setting that issue aside, let me address some of your 'finer' points....
> 
> *But my reasons are flawed.  And science tells us that it is because our brains evolved to be smart enough to be curious that our intelligent minds came up with God.  And this is funny to me because back then our intelligence is what made us come up with God but today I consider anyone who believes in God to be stupid.  Also funny is that there are very intelligent people who believe.*​
> So you figure we are SO intelligent that we had to create an imaginary placebo to console our fears of death and the unknown? As you say, this is "funny" in fact, it makes no rational sense whatsoever. Furthermore, that we (being as intelligent as we are) have mysteriously clung to this false belief for our entire existence in spite of knowledge and science.
> 
> If these theories of man creating spiritual beliefs to console fears of mortality were true, we'd expect to see evidence in nature of the same thing happening with other species of life. Higher primates like chimps and great apes, would likely be mimicking some semblance of spirituality, trying to grapple with their mortality. Perhaps not to the degree of forming actual "religions" but at least performing ritual ceremonies and customs... we simply see no signs of this. It doesn't seem to be a big nagging and troublesome problem for other species to accept they are mortal.
> 
> Rational thought says the reason man has these "fears of mortality" is because they are spiritually aware of something immortal. It is our spiritual connection which causes this fear, not the other way around. There are literally hundreds of thousands of ways humans have invented to comprehend and understand this intrinsic spiritual connection we have. This is the source of all religion. It is not because we "had to invent something" it's because we are intrinsically aware of something.
> 
> Likewise, the meme of "man created religion to explain the unexplained" is also without rational basis. Man created SCIENCE to explain the unexplained. He created religion to explain his intrinsic awareness of something greater than self, his spiritual connection.
> 
> *The validity of a claim, such as the existence of god, is not governed by the intelligence of the minds which hold it. Evidence and reason are the deciding factors.
> *​
> Precisely, but the "evidence" shows that humans have always had this intrinsic connection to something beyond the physical. Reason tells us there must be a purpose for this. If there  were, in fact, nothing to it and it's all in our heads, man would have abandoned it long ago like they have superstitions and mythological beliefs. Science has been around for centuries, explaining away all the great mysteries, but human spirituality has continued to flourish. Even through periods of brutal reprisal and persecution where millions of people have been killed in the name of their spiritual beliefs. It's something that simply cannot be stomped out of the hearts and minds of mankind, no matter how hard it is tried. We remain highly spiritual creatures with 90% of the species still believing in something greater than self. Even the most devout Darwinist would have to conclude there is a fundamental reason for the attribute to exist in humans.
Click to expand...


I'm going to stop you right there.  No sir, apes and monkey's don't have brains big enough or enough intelligence to be religious, spiritual or superstitious.  

Yes you did come from a monkey.  Evolution is no longer a theory it's a fact.

So you believe in god, even though you have zero real hard evidence/proof and you know all the organized religions are made up, because you have a feeling he is real and because human's have from the beginning always believed?  I used to think the same way.  But now I think the opposite.  I think, "wait a minute, if men created.made up God long before the christians, jews and muslims and they basically ripped off those earlier religions, then basically unevolved/uneducated human's made up God and why would I believe just because they made it up?  You'll have to do better than that.  

The world is the way it is. Reality does not bend to our personal whim and facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. Our personal belief in something does not automatically make it real or true and, conversely, our lack of understanding of a topic does not make it false.

Until we understand something we do not know. Positing a god in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.


----------



## sealybobo

The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes.  Belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.


----------



## HUGGY

Boss said:


> There is no spiritual connection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree, but more importantly, the history of human civilization also disagrees.
Click to expand...


The invention of the philipps screw head was a change in history.  We must remember to not attempt to fasten it with the historically usefull flat blade scew driver.  Some people still do using the addage that the flat bladed screw driver has always worked thruout history.


----------



## HUGGY

sealybobo said:


> The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes.  Belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.



Gotta go with the "Bobo" on this one. AND.. Yes...we ARE descended from apes.  The genetics are clear on this point.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> There is no spiritual connection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree, but more importantly, the history of human civilization also disagrees.
Click to expand...


The standard of evidence required to prove a gods existence is more than any personal anecdote, witness testimony, ancient book or reported miracle.  None of these things can be considered reliable. 

Every conceivable argument, every imaginable piece of evidence for god is not without some fatal flaw or more likely explanation which precludes it from being used as definitive proof. 

What evidence would we believe?  God is what it would take to convince an atheist. An omniscient god would know the exact standard of evidence required to convince any atheist of its existence and, being omnipotent, it would also be able to immediately produce this evidence. If it wanted to, a god could conceivably change the brain chemistry of any individual in order to compel them to believe. It could even restructure the entire universe in such a way as to make non-belief impossible.

In short, a god actually proving its own existence is what would convince any atheist of said gods existence.

Doesn't seem like god is all knowing and all powerful.  The christian god seems jealous, petty, insecure, etc.  So obvious.  

At least you realize christians and muslims are full of shit.  Until a couple weeks ago I agreed with you.  I didn't buy into organized religion but I still had a personal relationship with God.  Ever since I've hung out with my athiest friends and watched the Cosmos and done my research, I know there is no god.  And even if there is, he wouldn't give a shit what I think or say, just like he doesn't care when you swat a fly or mosquito.  That is just man wishing he was more than what we are, which is nothing more than the smartest animals on this planet.  Is it amazing?  Sure is.  But does that prove god exists?  No.  And even if he does, he's not watching you jack off at night.  That I'm sure of.  Well actually I'm agnostic on it all because you can't prove or disprove something that isn't real.  Can you prove the boogy man doesn't exist?  So does that mean he does because people invented him in their minds?  How about Santa?


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> There is no spiritual connection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree, but more importantly, the history of human civilization also disagrees.
Click to expand...


Most importantly, your typically vacant "because I say so" commandment is hardly fit for grown up conversation.


----------



## HUGGY

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no spiritual connection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree, but more importantly, the history of human civilization also disagrees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The standard of evidence required to prove a gods existence is more than any personal anecdote, witness testimony, ancient book or reported miracle.  None of these things can be considered reliable.
> 
> Every conceivable argument, every imaginable piece of evidence for god is not without some fatal flaw or more likely explanation which precludes it from being used as definitive proof.
> 
> What evidence would we believe?  God is what it would take to convince an atheist. An omniscient god would know the exact standard of evidence required to convince any atheist of its existence and, being omnipotent, it would also be able to immediately produce this evidence. If it wanted to, a god could conceivably change the brain chemistry of any individual in order to compel them to believe. It could even restructure the entire universe in such a way as to make non-belief impossible.
> 
> In short, a god actually proving its own existence is what would convince any atheist of said gods existence.
> 
> Doesn't seem like god is all knowing and all powerful.  The christian god seems jealous, petty, insecure, etc.  So obvious.
> 
> At least you realize christians and muslims are full of shit.  Until a couple weeks ago I agreed with you.  I didn't buy into organized religion but I still had a personal relationship with God.  Ever since I've hung out with my athiest friends and watched the Cosmos and done my research, I know there is no god.  And even if there is, he wouldn't give a shit what I think or say, just like he doesn't care when you swat a fly or mosquito.  That is just man wishing he was more than what we are, which is nothing more than the smartest animals on this planet.  Is it amazing?  Sure is.  But does that prove god exists?  No.  And even if he does, he's not watching you jack off at night.  That I'm sure of.  Well actually I'm agnostic on it all because you can't prove or disprove something that isn't real.  Can you prove the boogy man doesn't exist?  So does that mean he does because people invented him in their minds?  How about Santa?
Click to expand...


Millions of children believe in Santa.  They have proof on the cards on their presents marked "from Santa".   It's unfortunate that all the millions of cards and tags were thrown out in the trash.  That makes a handwriting analysis impossible.  STILL... there were millions of witnesses that saw the hand written tags on the presents...


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> There is no spiritual connection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree, but more importantly, the history of human civilization also disagrees.
Click to expand...


No doubt the majority of humans are, without any good reasons, religious.  Muslims kids when they are born are told the lie just like we are told the lie.  The strange thing is so many of us at a certain age realize santa is not real because the story just doesn't add up.  But yet the same people don't use the same logic and reasoning with God.  Probably because everyone else around them believes in god.  Maybe not the christian God, like this guy we are arguing with realizes that all organized religion is bullshit yet he still believes in a higher power.  They say, "nothing can come from nothing", but then they are ok with a fairytale man in the sky coming from nothing.  They try to use logic when inventing an invisible man in the sky but they believe snakes talked, men lived to be 800 years old, mary had a virgin birth, etc.  And the ones who don't believe those stories to be literal need to have a conversation with their preachers and fellow church members because a lot of them say you have to believe all of it literally or you aren't a real christian.  I so wish they would force that issue so a lot of people would wake up.  I talked to a DOGMA Catholic the other day.  I told her I wished her church would draw a line in the sand and say either you believe all this shit literally or leave the church.  I WISH they would do that but they allow non believers to be members because they want their money!!!


----------



## sealybobo

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no spiritual connection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree, but more importantly, the history of human civilization also disagrees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most importantly, your typically vacant "because I say so" commandment is hardly fit for grown up conversation.
Click to expand...


He wants to forget that throughout history the church has punished science for their findings.  Galileo affair - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We've been forced to believe for almost 2000 years.  The enlightenment period was a huge step forward and out of the cave we came out of when we were uneducated primative cavement.


----------



## sealybobo

No offense to my grandmother with a 3rd grade education, but she is the kind of people that were brainwashed for almost 2000 years to believe in god.  I can remember her and my aunt trying to tell me what happened to all the billions of people who lived and died before the old testament.  OMG I can't believe the shit they believe.  She seems like a normal person in every other aspect yet here are these women who believe the unbelievable.  Maybe they never questioned it because they don't want to go to hell.  But anyone who believes the bible literally can't be all that smart.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> I'm going to stop you right there.  No sir, apes and monkey's don't have brains big enough or enough intelligence to be religious, spiritual or superstitious.



Intelligence? To invent a made-up fake thing that doesn't really exist so that we are consoled about our mortality? You think that took "intelligence" to do? I thought people who believed that were "stupid"?  lol... now it took intelligence! Make up your mind! 

The fact is, great apes have a larger brain than humans. Whales also have a larger brain and cerebral cortex. Chimps, dolphins and even crows have intelligence enough to learn things and rationalize thought. I would think if there were something to this theory, we'd see some inkling of evidence to support it elsewhere in nature, particularly if we're talking about "common ancestors" we supposedly evolved from. Bot nope... not a sign anywhere else in nature that other creatures are having a problem grappling with their mortality, it's only in humans. 



> Yes you did come from a monkey.  Evolution is no longer a theory it's a fact.



Well, no it's not a fact. You can say that all you like, it's not going to make it true. Some species have shown the ability to change and adapt to environment spawning new species, but others have been unable to adapt and became extinct. Still others have never evolved much at all from their prehistoric states. There has never been one recorded and documented incident of any species evolving into a totally new genus. Besides that, science does not deal in conclusions, it has absolutely no use for any concluded fact, it can't evaluate further or explore any more possibilities once a fact has been concluded. Whenever you have drawn conclusion from science or elsewhere, you have stopped practicing science and began practicing faith. Science simply is not faith in conclusions.  



> So you believe in god, even though you have zero real hard evidence/proof and you know all the organized religions are made up, because you have a feeling he is real and because human's have from the beginning always believed?  I used to think the same way.  But now I think the opposite.  I think, "wait a minute, if men created.made up God long before the christians, jews and muslims and they basically ripped off those earlier religions, then basically unevolved/uneducated human's made up God and why would I believe just because they made it up?  You'll have to do better than that.



I have plenty of evidence, it's all around me. God's Creation! It's all the evidence I need. Just because you reject my evidence or don't believe it, doesn't mean I don't have it. I've merely tried to get you to understand your science doesn't support the supposition that man invented spirituality. Religions? Sure. Spirituality? No. 



> The world is the way it is. Reality does not bend to our personal whim and facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. Our personal belief in something does not automatically make it real or true and, conversely, our lack of understanding of a topic does not make it false.
> 
> Until we understand something we do not know. Positing a god in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.



And this is the part I don't know why you and others can't understand. I am not positing God in place of admitting ignorance, I am aware of God in my everyday life. It simply does not matter to me if you believe in God or not. I'm not here to get you to believe in God, but many of you think that is the case. I can share my experience that life with God is certainly better than life was without God, but if you aren't willing to accept that, there is nothing I can do about it. I'm certainly not going to ever turn my back on what I know is the truth so you'll accept me or stop insulting me and calling me names. If I were unsure or didn't know God existed, perhaps I could see that happening, but it's not going to happen because I know God is real. 

Look... You know who your mother is, you know she exists and is real, correct? Well, what if I were here telling you that this is just a figment of imagination, that we tell ourselves we have mothers to console our fears of the unknown and help us cope with life? That mothers really don't exist and anyone who thinks they do are stupid and ignorant? Would that do a bit of good for you? Could I ever convince you that perhaps you're mother is not real and you've simply imagined her your whole life? The same applies to me with God.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> It's interesting that you repeatedly talk about others trying to insult you and being unable to find a reasoned response because of their anger, yet I've seen at least as many insults coming from you as any other poster in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey... I said you were creative and entertaining! That was a compliment.
Click to expand...


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no spiritual connection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree, but more importantly, the history of human civilization also disagrees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No doubt the majority of humans are, without any good reasons, religious.
Click to expand...


I'm not talking about religions. I am talking about human spirituality. Humans connecting with something greater than self. This was going on long before any human had the idea to organize into groups of like-minded "religious" belief. 



> Muslims kids when they are born are told the lie just like we are told the lie.  The strange thing is so many of us at a certain age realize santa is not real because the story just doesn't add up.  But yet the same people don't use the same logic and reasoning with God.



Yeah, isn't that curious.... seems as if humans realized there was nothing to it, they'd just abandon the idea, but they haven't and they won't. 



> Probably because everyone else around them believes in god.



Probably? You mean you're not certain why? Let me suggest it's probably because there is some beneficial aspect to worshiping God. 



> Maybe not the christian God, like this guy we are arguing with realizes that all organized religion is bullshit yet he still believes in a higher power.  They say, "nothing can come from nothing", but then they are ok with a fairytale man in the sky coming from nothing.



Well hold on, let's slow down a moment here and evaluate what you are saying. I don't know of any rational human who believes a physical man is living in the sky. When you say "comes from" do you mean "comes into existence"? We live in a physical universe comprised of material things. When we talk of things being "created" or coming into "existence" we are talking about the physical universe and material things. Obviously something CAN come from nothing because something is here. The question is, how did it come from nothing? Matter can't create matter or create itself. Logic says if there was no physical universe and something happened to create one, it wasn't something physical because physical didn't yet exist. God is not a physical property. Therefore, being that God is not a physical thing, it doesn't have to be created. So there is your answer to why people are okay with no explanation on what created God, and the same can apply to logic, gravity, space, time, electromagnetism, strong and weak nuclear force, dark matter and energy... even reality itself. What created those?  What existed before space and time? 



> They try to use logic when inventing an invisible man in the sky but they believe snakes talked, men lived to be 800 years old, mary had a virgin birth, etc.



Again, no one who I know of that is sane, believes there is an invisible man in the sky. Unless we're talking about an infant who doesn't know any better. This is a very child-like incarnation of God, and frankly I thought you had more intelligence than that. Surely you don't think that people believe in a physical man who lives in the sky and is invisible? If that is your idea of what God is, I don't blame you one bit for not believing in God, that's some really crazy stuff. 

God is a spiritual entity residing in a spiritual dimension. I say "entity" but perhaps "energy" is more appropriate, at least from MY perspective. It doesn't have a physical characteristic, therefore it is not visible. Now, there are plenty of real things in our universe that aren't visible, most notably dark matter and energy, which make up about 96% of the universe. So to laugh something off because it's invisible is really quite stupid. 



> And the ones who don't believe those stories to be literal need to have a conversation with their preachers and fellow church members because a lot of them say you have to believe all of it literally or you aren't a real christian.



Now you're getting back into an anti-religious rant, and this makes me think you are confusing spiritual with religious. I'm not a Christian, so I can't tell you what Christians say you have to believe to be one. I've heard that you have to accept Christ as your personal savior, but Breeze seems to think that is incorrect. Nevertheless, this has nothing to do with Spiritual Nature, which does exist in a spiritual dimension. I know that most of the Christians I know are Baptists, Southern Baptists to be specific, and they don't believe all those stories to be literal because I've spoken to pastors about them before. As I said earlier, many of the Biblical stories are old fables that were spoken and passed down through generations before being written and transcribed into the Scriptures. When people back then told stories, they had nothing but their words to convey meaning and context, so they often used metaphors and even created fictional scenarios to make a larger more profound point. Think of Spielberg making a movie of a "true story" and how the actual depiction in the movie might not be exactly verbatim how the event happened, but it is done to convey a meaning, to illustrate a point or capture your imagination. Now imagine people with no photography or illustration, no way to convey a story other than spoken words. Many things in the Bible that seem too fantastic to believe, are simply stories that have been told this way to convey a greater meaning. 

But I am getting sidetracked here, this is not about The Bible or Christian religion, it's about Spiritual Nature and God. Human spiritual connection predates Christianity by tens of thousands of years. It's something humans have had since the very beginning. Guess what? It's not going to change.


----------



## freedombecki

koshergrl said:


> They are abject failures, whose only joy in life is to attack people who are able to squeeze a modicom of happiness out of life.
> 
> They don't approve of happiness. That's why they want to kill babies, euthanise teh elderly, make everybody poor, and turn our health system into crap.


That about sums it up. 

 I ran across a George Washington quotation recently that summarizes the outcome of atheism, and I believe he had it right: "the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained." April 30, 1789, First Inaugural Address of President George Washington.







"The Prayer at Valley Forge" by Arnold Friberg
Read more at Religion and politics, together again​ Arnold Friberg's "The Prayer at Valley Forge"


----------



## Boss

freedombecki said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are abject failures, whose only joy in life is to attack people who are able to squeeze a modicom of happiness out of life.
> 
> They don't approve of happiness. That's why they want to kill babies, euthanise teh elderly, make everybody poor, and turn our health system into crap.
> 
> 
> 
> That about sums it up.
> 
> I ran across a George Washington quotation recently that summarizes the outcome of atheism, and I believe he had it right: "the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained." April 30, 1789, First Inaugural Address of President George Washington.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The Prayer at Valley Forge" by Arnold Friberg
> Read more at Religion and politics, together again​ Arnold Friberg's "The Prayer at Valley Forge"
Click to expand...


Yeah, but Washington didn't have all these 'super-intellectual' liberals around to tell him how there was a wall of separation between church and state and that we're a secular nation.


----------



## thanatos144

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are very close to the truth my brother.  Keep thinking.  You are correct about the organized religions.  They are all just man's ATTEMPT to understand what we can not understand.  But just because for hundreds of thousands of years man has believed in a higher power that doesn't prove anything.  I use to think that too.  I use to say I don't buy Christianity but I believe there must be a God.  But my reasons are flawed.  And science tells us that it is because our brains evolved to be smart enough to be curious that our intelligent minds came up with God.  And this is funny to me because back then our intelligence is what made us come up with God but today I consider anyone who believes in God to be stupid.  Also funny is that there are very intelligent people who believe.  That doesn't matter why?  The validity of a claim, such as the existence of god, is not governed by the intelligence of the minds which hold it. Evidence and reason are the deciding factors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, we're not brothers. I didn't come from a monkey, I was created by God. Setting that issue aside, let me address some of your 'finer' points....
> 
> *But my reasons are flawed.  And science tells us that it is because our brains evolved to be smart enough to be curious that our intelligent minds came up with God.  And this is funny to me because back then our intelligence is what made us come up with God but today I consider anyone who believes in God to be stupid.  Also funny is that there are very intelligent people who believe.*​
> So you figure we are SO intelligent that we had to create an imaginary placebo to console our fears of death and the unknown? As you say, this is "funny" in fact, it makes no rational sense whatsoever. Furthermore, that we (being as intelligent as we are) have mysteriously clung to this false belief for our entire existence in spite of knowledge and science.
> 
> If these theories of man creating spiritual beliefs to console fears of mortality were true, we'd expect to see evidence in nature of the same thing happening with other species of life. Higher primates like chimps and great apes, would likely be mimicking some semblance of spirituality, trying to grapple with their mortality. Perhaps not to the degree of forming actual "religions" but at least performing ritual ceremonies and customs... we simply see no signs of this. It doesn't seem to be a big nagging and troublesome problem for other species to accept they are mortal.
> 
> Rational thought says the reason man has these "fears of mortality" is because they are spiritually aware of something immortal. It is our spiritual connection which causes this fear, not the other way around. There are literally hundreds of thousands of ways humans have invented to comprehend and understand this intrinsic spiritual connection we have. This is the source of all religion. It is not because we "had to invent something" it's because we are intrinsically aware of something.
> 
> Likewise, the meme of "man created religion to explain the unexplained" is also without rational basis. Man created SCIENCE to explain the unexplained. He created religion to explain his intrinsic awareness of something greater than self, his spiritual connection.
> 
> *The validity of a claim, such as the existence of god, is not governed by the intelligence of the minds which hold it. Evidence and reason are the deciding factors.
> *​
> Precisely, but the "evidence" shows that humans have always had this intrinsic connection to something beyond the physical. Reason tells us there must be a purpose for this. If there  were, in fact, nothing to it and it's all in our heads, man would have abandoned it long ago like they have superstitions and mythological beliefs. Science has been around for centuries, explaining away all the great mysteries, but human spirituality has continued to flourish. Even through periods of brutal reprisal and persecution where millions of people have been killed in the name of their spiritual beliefs. It's something that simply cannot be stomped out of the hearts and minds of mankind, no matter how hard it is tried. We remain highly spiritual creatures with 90% of the species still believing in something greater than self. Even the most devout Darwinist would have to conclude there is a fundamental reason for the attribute to exist in humans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm going to stop you right there.  No sir, apes and monkey's don't have brains big enough or enough intelligence to be religious, spiritual or superstitious.
> 
> Yes you did come from a monkey.  Evolution is no longer a theory it's a fact.
> 
> So you believe in god, even though you have zero real hard evidence/proof and you know all the organized religions are made up, because you have a feeling he is real and because human's have from the beginning always believed?  I used to think the same way.  But now I think the opposite.  I think, "wait a minute, if men created.made up God long before the christians, jews and muslims and they basically ripped off those earlier religions, then basically unevolved/uneducated human's made up God and why would I believe just because they made it up?  You'll have to do better than that.
> 
> The world is the way it is. Reality does not bend to our personal whim and facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. Our personal belief in something does not automatically make it real or true and, conversely, our lack of understanding of a topic does not make it false.
> 
> Until we understand something we do not know. Positing a god in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.
Click to expand...


You're Lying. There is none and never will be any proof we came from any monkey or ape.


----------



## thanatos144

HUGGY said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes.  Belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gotta go with the "Bobo" on this one. AND.. Yes...we ARE descended from apes.  The genetics are clear on this point.
Click to expand...


You're lying as well.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are abject failures, whose only joy in life is to attack people who are able to squeeze a modicom of happiness out of life.
> 
> They don't approve of happiness. That's why they want to kill babies, euthanise teh elderly, make everybody poor, and turn our health system into crap.
> 
> 
> 
> That about sums it up.
> 
> I ran across a George Washington quotation recently that summarizes the outcome of atheism, and I believe he had it right: "the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained." April 30, 1789, First Inaugural Address of President George Washington.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The Prayer at Valley Forge" by Arnold Friberg
> Read more at Religion and politics, together again​ Arnold Friberg's "The Prayer at Valley Forge"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, but Washington didn't have all these 'super-intellectual' liberals around to tell him how there was a wall of separation between church and state and that we're a secular nation.
Click to expand...


As brain dead as your usual piffle. 

Nothing in the founding documents of this nation was framed to prevent people from believing as they wish. 

Identify a single element in the constitution, for example, that would prevent the self expression as identified in the painting.


----------



## orogenicman

thanatos144 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, we're not brothers. I didn't come from a monkey, I was created by God. Setting that issue aside, let me address some of your 'finer' points.... *But my reasons are flawed. And science tells us that it is because our brains evolved to be smart enough to be curious that our intelligent minds came up with God. And this is funny to me because back then our intelligence is what made us come up with God but today I consider anyone who believes in God to be stupid. Also funny is that there are very intelligent people who believe.*​So you figure we are SO intelligent that we had to create an imaginary placebo to console our fears of death and the unknown? As you say, this is "funny" in fact, it makes no rational sense whatsoever. Furthermore, that we (being as intelligent as we are) have mysteriously clung to this false belief for our entire existence in spite of knowledge and science.
> 
> If these theories of man creating spiritual beliefs to console fears of mortality were true, we'd expect to see evidence in nature of the same thing happening with other species of life. Higher primates like chimps and great apes, would likely be mimicking some semblance of spirituality, trying to grapple with their mortality. Perhaps not to the degree of forming actual "religions" but at least performing ritual ceremonies and customs... we simply see no signs of this. It doesn't seem to be a big nagging and troublesome problem for other species to accept they are mortal.
> 
> Rational thought says the reason man has these "fears of mortality" is because they are spiritually aware of something immortal. It is our spiritual connection which causes this fear, not the other way around. There are literally hundreds of thousands of ways humans have invented to comprehend and understand this intrinsic spiritual connection we have. This is the source of all religion. It is not because we "had to invent something" it's because we are intrinsically aware of something.
> 
> Likewise, the meme of "man created religion to explain the unexplained" is also without rational basis. Man created SCIENCE to explain the unexplained. He created religion to explain his intrinsic awareness of something greater than self, his spiritual connection.  *The validity of a claim, such as the existence of god, is not governed by the intelligence of the minds which hold it. Evidence and reason are the deciding factors.
> *​Precisely, but the "evidence" shows that humans have always had this intrinsic connection to something beyond the physical. Reason tells us there must be a purpose for this. If there were, in fact, nothing to it and it's all in our heads, man would have abandoned it long ago like they have superstitions and mythological beliefs. Science has been around for centuries, explaining away all the great mysteries, but human spirituality has continued to flourish. Even through periods of brutal reprisal and persecution where millions of people have been killed in the name of their spiritual beliefs. It's something that simply cannot be stomped out of the hearts and minds of mankind, no matter how hard it is tried. We remain highly spiritual creatures with 90% of the species still believing in something greater than self. Even the most devout Darwinist would have to conclude there is a fundamental reason for the attribute to exist in humans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to stop you right there. No sir, apes and monkey's don't have brains big enough or enough intelligence to be religious, spiritual or superstitious.
> 
> Yes you did come from a monkey. Evolution is no longer a theory it's a fact.
> 
> So you believe in god, even though you have zero real hard evidence/proof and you know all the organized religions are made up, because you have a feeling he is real and because human's have from the beginning always believed? I used to think the same way. But now I think the opposite. I think, "wait a minute, if men created.made up God long before the christians, jews and muslims and they basically ripped off those earlier religions, then basically unevolved/uneducated human's made up God and why would I believe just because they made it up? You'll have to do better than that.
> 
> The world is the way it is. Reality does not bend to our personal whim and facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. Our personal belief in something does not automatically make it real or true and, conversely, our lack of understanding of a topic does not make it false.
> 
> Until we understand something we &#8220;do not know&#8221;. Positing a &#8216;god&#8217; in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're Lying. There is none and never will be any proof we came from any monkey or ape.
Click to expand...


Translation: "There will never be any evidence that I will accept that shows that man is an anthropoid ape because it doesn't say so in the Bible."

Except that, whether or not you believe there is evidence , there, in fact, is evidence:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)


----------



## orogenicman

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> That about sums it up.
> 
> I ran across a George Washington quotation recently that summarizes the outcome of atheism, and I believe he had it right: "the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained." April 30, 1789, First Inaugural Address of President George Washington.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The Prayer at Valley Forge" by Arnold Friberg
> Read more at Religion and politics, together again​Arnold Friberg's "The Prayer at Valley Forge"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, but Washington didn't have all these 'super-intellectual' liberals around to tell him how there was a wall of separation between church and state and that we're a secular nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As brain dead as your usual piffle.
> 
> Nothing in the founding documents of this nation was framed to prevent people from believing as they wish.
> 
> Identify a single element in the constitution, for example, that would prevent the self expression as identified in the painting.
Click to expand...


Naw, he was just trying to find his wooden contact lens.


----------



## thanatos144

orogenicman said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to stop you right there. No sir, apes and monkey's don't have brains big enough or enough intelligence to be religious, spiritual or superstitious.
> 
> Yes you did come from a monkey. Evolution is no longer a theory it's a fact.
> 
> So you believe in god, even though you have zero real hard evidence/proof and you know all the organized religions are made up, because you have a feeling he is real and because human's have from the beginning always believed? I used to think the same way. But now I think the opposite. I think, "wait a minute, if men created.made up God long before the christians, jews and muslims and they basically ripped off those earlier religions, then basically unevolved/uneducated human's made up God and why would I believe just because they made it up? You'll have to do better than that.
> 
> The world is the way it is. Reality does not bend to our personal whim and facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. Our personal belief in something does not automatically make it real or true and, conversely, our lack of understanding of a topic does not make it false.
> 
> Until we understand something we do not know. Positing a god in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're Lying. There is none and never will be any proof we came from any monkey or ape.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Translation: "There will never be any evidence that I will accept that shows that man is an anthropoid ape because it doesn't say so in the Bible."
> 
> Except that, whether or not you believe there is evidence , there, in fact, is evidence:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)
Click to expand...


No dummy there will never be proof because we didn't come from monkeys ....


----------



## orogenicman

thanatos144 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're Lying. There is none and never will be any proof we came from any monkey or ape.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation: "There will never be any evidence that I will accept that shows that man is an anthropoid ape because it doesn't say so in the Bible."
> 
> Except that, whether or not you believe there is evidence , there, in fact, is evidence:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No dummy there will never be proof because we didn't come from monkeys ....
Click to expand...


 You are right, we didn't come from monkeys.  Monkeys are a different family of primates.  We are descended from a common ancestor of the great apes of Africa.  They aren't our ancestral brothers.  They are our ancestral cousins.


----------



## HUGGY

thanatos144 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes.  Belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gotta go with the "Bobo" on this one. AND.. Yes...we ARE descended from apes.  The genetics are clear on this point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're lying as well.
Click to expand...


No lie.  I swear on a stack of 2000 year old adventure novels.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to stop you right there.  No sir, apes and monkey's don't have brains big enough or enough intelligence to be religious, spiritual or superstitious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intelligence? To invent a made-up fake thing that doesn't really exist so that we are consoled about our mortality? You think that took "intelligence" to do? I thought people who believed that were "stupid"?  lol... now it took intelligence! Make up your mind!
> 
> The fact is, great apes have a larger brain than humans. Whales also have a larger brain and cerebral cortex. Chimps, dolphins and even crows have intelligence enough to learn things and rationalize thought. I would think if there were something to this theory, we'd see some inkling of evidence to support it elsewhere in nature, particularly if we're talking about "common ancestors" we supposedly evolved from. Bot nope... not a sign anywhere else in nature that other creatures are having a problem grappling with their mortality, it's only in humans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you did come from a monkey.  Evolution is no longer a theory it's a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, no it's not a fact. You can say that all you like, it's not going to make it true. Some species have shown the ability to change and adapt to environment spawning new species, but others have been unable to adapt and became extinct. Still others have never evolved much at all from their prehistoric states. There has never been one recorded and documented incident of any species evolving into a totally new genus. Besides that, science does not deal in conclusions, it has absolutely no use for any concluded fact, it can't evaluate further or explore any more possibilities once a fact has been concluded. Whenever you have drawn conclusion from science or elsewhere, you have stopped practicing science and began practicing faith. Science simply is not faith in conclusions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe in god, even though you have zero real hard evidence/proof and you know all the organized religions are made up, because you have a feeling he is real and because human's have from the beginning always believed?  I used to think the same way.  But now I think the opposite.  I think, "wait a minute, if men created.made up God long before the christians, jews and muslims and they basically ripped off those earlier religions, then basically unevolved/uneducated human's made up God and why would I believe just because they made it up?  You'll have to do better than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have plenty of evidence, it's all around me. God's Creation! It's all the evidence I need. Just because you reject my evidence or don't believe it, doesn't mean I don't have it. I've merely tried to get you to understand your science doesn't support the supposition that man invented spirituality. Religions? Sure. Spirituality? No.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The world is the way it is. Reality does not bend to our personal whim and facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. Our personal belief in something does not automatically make it real or true and, conversely, our lack of understanding of a topic does not make it false.
> 
> Until we understand something we do not know. Positing a god in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And this is the part I don't know why you and others can't understand. I am not positing God in place of admitting ignorance, I am aware of God in my everyday life. It simply does not matter to me if you believe in God or not. I'm not here to get you to believe in God, but many of you think that is the case. I can share my experience that life with God is certainly better than life was without God, but if you aren't willing to accept that, there is nothing I can do about it. I'm certainly not going to ever turn my back on what I know is the truth so you'll accept me or stop insulting me and calling me names. If I were unsure or didn't know God existed, perhaps I could see that happening, but it's not going to happen because I know God is real.
> 
> Look... You know who your mother is, you know she exists and is real, correct? Well, what if I were here telling you that this is just a figment of imagination, that we tell ourselves we have mothers to console our fears of the unknown and help us cope with life? That mothers really don't exist and anyone who thinks they do are stupid and ignorant? Would that do a bit of good for you? Could I ever convince you that perhaps you're mother is not real and you've simply imagined her your whole life? The same applies to me with God.
Click to expand...


Where to start.  First off, yes our brains as primitive as they were WERE also intelligent enough to be creative and have imaginations and come up with religion.  They didn't know what a comit or thunder was so their primitive but somewhat intelligent minds came up with the concept.  We were also smart enough to figure out how to rub sticks together and make fire.  But today that doesn't make you smart, right???  You do get that right???  So we were intelligent enough to come up with speech and tell stories.  That's it.  And how do you know dolfins don't believe in a God?  I suspect they don't but how do you know?  Crows and Dogs aren't smart enough and apes are a branch off of our ancestors.  If you gave them a 1000 years modern apes won't evolve into humans.  Science has explained all this but you don't believe or know the facts so whatever you want to think is fine with me but you have zero proof of your beliefs.  Nothing concrete science can use to verify.  Anecdote - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We don't know everything dolfins or whales know.  And who will eventually find out?  Scientists, the same ones who say there is no god.  Maybe the whales will tell us differently.  But then again, they better have proof.

And I don't buy life is better with god than without. I think we'd all be better off without it.  Look at those 300 girls who got kidnapped.  Those people want to impose Sharia law over there.  Religion if you ask me is the root of all evil.  Yes there are good religous people out there, but a lot more are not good.  They are hypocrites.  I was watching Louis CK last night and he said, "I drive a $50K infinity.  How many people died today so I can drive my car.  I could easily have a $20K ford focus but I choose to spend $30K more and I know that $30K would save a lot of starving people yet I go to sleep every night no problem".  If religious people were so fucking good, we wouldn't have all the poverty and death that we have.  How many people did you say believe in a higher power?  90%?  Are you suggesting all the raping, murder and thieves are athiests?   Think again buddy.  Look at how religous people are destroying the planet with carbon and plastic.  This planet will be a lot better off when Jesus comes and takes all the christians home and mohammad can come get their retarded muslim counterparts.  Praying 7 times a day to the east.  Fools.  Yea, they are much better off with religion.  Meanwhile my mom doesn't have a cure for Alzheimers because religious fools don't like killing seeds.  FOOLS!  I wish you all to heaven.  

P.S.  You have provided some interesting points but still no proof.  Just your faith and feelings and beliefs.  Not proof.  And boy what a cop out.  I believe in God but not any of the religions.  I know all the religions are completey made up but I still believe in God.  I told you Boss I thought the same way up until about a month ago.  That is not intelligent rational logical thought.  You believe despite having zero proof.  And that's ok.  It's a step in the right direction.


----------



## sealybobo

thanatos144 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're Lying. There is none and never will be any proof we came from any monkey or ape.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation: "There will never be any evidence that I will accept that shows that man is an anthropoid ape because it doesn't say so in the Bible."
> 
> Except that, whether or not you believe there is evidence , there, in fact, is evidence:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No dummy there will never be proof because we didn't come from monkeys ....
Click to expand...


Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming.


----------



## sealybobo

thanatos144 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're Lying. There is none and never will be any proof we came from any monkey or ape.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation: "There will never be any evidence that I will accept that shows that man is an anthropoid ape because it doesn't say so in the Bible."
> 
> Except that, whether or not you believe there is evidence , there, in fact, is evidence:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No dummy there will never be proof because we didn't come from monkeys ....
Click to expand...


If you have red hair your great great great great great x 10 granddaddy fucked a neanderdal 

Red hair a legacy of Neanderthal man


----------



## sealybobo

Boss is aware of God in his everyday life.  Really?  That's all the proof anyone should need that he's not looking at this from an intellectual fact based perspective.  This is all emotional stuff.  So chalk this up to magical thinking, credulity or misattribution


----------



## sealybobo

Personal revelation cannot be independently verified. They are usually emotional or perceptual and therefore unremarkable among the many cognitive processes that the brain exhibits, including dreams and hallucinations.  Spiritual and religious experiences are not only inconsistent among individuals but are attributed to different gods, aliens, spirits, rituals, hallucinations, meditation etc. The fact that medical conditions and other natural processes can induce these experiences is evidence they are produced by our brain.  So it doesn't matter if Boss feels god all around him.  So do 90% of the people out there according to Boss.  Doesn't mean they are right.  Doesn't matter if people believed for 100,000 years either.  Our ancestors being afraid of the unknown is why they invented God.  Its also why you beleive today.  That and we've been brainwashed since we were babies for thousands of years.  Science has also proved that being religious also helped pass on your gene.  For example, if every girl in America is a christian, if I want to pass on my gene I better be one too.  And how many of us believe or don't question because we don't want to go to hell?


----------



## BreezeWood

sealybobo said:


> We don't know everything dolfins or whales know.
> 
> That is not intelligent rational logical thought.





there is nothing living that does not have Spirituality ....









logical thought is not physiological nor absolute - the cherry tree does not have a central nervous center (brain) and though bossy & compy etc. disclaims the hierarchical intelligence - as fools, this example with no exception is appealing to something other than self. visualization is a proof where thought is the impediment.

.


----------



## Boss

> Where to start. First off, yes our brains as primitive as they were WERE also intelligent enough to be creative and have imaginations and come up with religion. They didn't know what a comit or thunder was so their primitive but somewhat intelligent minds came up with the concept. We were also smart enough to figure out how to rub sticks together and make fire. But today that doesn't make you smart, right??? You do get that right???



Yet new religions keep getting invented every day! You said yourself, even the Atheists are creating churches. Now I think we all know what causes thunder, some of us even know what "comets" are and how to spell it! lol 

Uh oh.... looks like your point was just totally demolished! Humans imagine and create religion to address their intrinsic awareness of something greater than self.


----------



## Boss

> And I don't buy life is better with god than without....
> You have provided some interesting points but still no proof.



Frankly, I don't care what you buy. For me, life is better with God than without. 
As I said, I have all the proof I need. You rejecting my proof doesn't mean it doesn't exist.


----------



## Boss

> Our ancestors being afraid of the unknown is why they invented God.



I already used science to demonstrate this is not true.


----------



## Boss

> there is nothing living that does not have Spirituality ....



Breezy's interesting theory that all life is spiritual. I can't argue with this, but doesn't it kind of shoot in the foot the idea that God doesn't exist? That it's all in our heads? That man invented God? I mean, if cherry blossoms are aware of God, what is their excuse? Are they afraid of the dark too?


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Our ancestors being afraid of the unknown is why they invented God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already used science to demonstrate this is not true.
Click to expand...


Wait, what?  You used science to demonstrate it isn't true?  I think I must have missed that....


----------



## HUGGY

sealybobo said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> translation: "there will never be any evidence that i will accept that shows that man is an anthropoid ape because it doesn't say so in the bible."
> 
> except that, whether or not you believe there is evidence , there, in fact, is evidence:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/chromosome_2_(human)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no dummy there will never be proof because we didn't come from monkeys ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if you have red hair your great great great great great x 10 granddaddy fucked a neanderdal
> 
> red hair a legacy of neanderthal man
Click to expand...


ewwww !!!

I'm sure THAT experience led to the invention of the jizz rag.


----------



## Clement

sealybobo said:


> If religious people were so fucking good, we wouldn't have all the poverty and death that we have.



If atheists did something besides bitch about us it would help, too. But if it comes down to whining about Christians and doing something, you know what their priority is.


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our ancestors being afraid of the unknown is why they invented God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already used science to demonstrate this is not true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait, what?  You used science to demonstrate it isn't true?  I think I must have missed that....
Click to expand...


Doesn't surprise me Moonbat, you miss a lot. 

Yep. Science. There is no indication found anywhere else in nature of any living species inventing a false fundamental behavioral attribute out of fear of the unknown, or for any other reason, for that matter. Therefore, this is not a natural phenomenon and not supported by science.


----------



## Boss

> *no dummy there will never be proof because we didn't come from monkeys ....*
> if you have red hair your great great great great great x 10 granddaddy fucked a neanderdal



Sorry, but _homo neanderthalis_ was part of the *hominid* genus. 

Not a monkey.


----------



## HUGGY

BreezeWood said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't know everything dolfins or whales know.
> 
> That is not intelligent rational logical thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there is nothing living that does not have Spirituality ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> logical thought is not physiological nor absolute - the cherry tree does not have a central nervous center (brain) and though bossy & compy etc. disclaims the hierarchical intelligence - as fools, this example with no exception is appealing to something other than self. visualization is a proof where thought is the impediment.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Nature evolved mechanisms to cast seeds in some plants by attracting the interest visually, by smell and providing food to insects, birds and other animals long before humans came onto the landscape.  Suggesting that the configuration of plant reproduction is for the purpose of entertaining human beings and their gods is childish.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> Where to start. First off, yes our brains as primitive as they were WERE also intelligent enough to be creative and have imaginations and come up with religion. They didn't know what a comit or thunder was so their primitive but somewhat intelligent minds came up with the concept. We were also smart enough to figure out how to rub sticks together and make fire. But today that doesn't make you smart, right??? You do get that right???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet new religions keep getting invented every day! You said yourself, even the Atheists are creating churches. Now I think we all know what causes thunder, some of us even know what "comets" are and how to spell it! lol
> 
> Uh oh.... looks like your point was just totally demolished! Humans imagine and create religion to address their intrinsic awareness of something greater than self.
Click to expand...


No. Nothing demolished at all.
They had a brain that allowed the creativity to find a rationalization for their fears. The development of "spiritual" memes was the need to cope with what was not understood.
Nothing has changed.


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where to start. First off, yes our brains as primitive as they were WERE also intelligent enough to be creative and have imaginations and come up with religion. They didn't know what a comit or thunder was so their primitive but somewhat intelligent minds came up with the concept. We were also smart enough to figure out how to rub sticks together and make fire. But today that doesn't make you smart, right??? You do get that right???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet new religions keep getting invented every day! You said yourself, even the Atheists are creating churches. Now I think we all know what causes thunder, some of us even know what "comets" are and how to spell it! lol
> 
> Uh oh.... looks like your point was just totally demolished! Humans imagine and create religion to address their intrinsic awareness of something greater than self.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. Nothing demolished at all.
> They had a brain that allowed the creativity to find a rationalization for their fears. The development of "spiritual" memes was the need to cope with what was not understood.
> Nothing has changed.
Click to expand...


See post #2383 above. False.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already used science to demonstrate this is not true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, what?  You used science to demonstrate it isn't true?  I think I must have missed that....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesn't surprise me Moonbat, you miss a lot.
> 
> Yep. Science. There is no indication found anywhere else in nature of any living species inventing a false fundamental behavioral attribute out of fear of the unknown, or for any other reason, for that matter. Therefore, this is not a natural phenomenon and not supported by science.
Click to expand...


Ah!  So you actually did nothing of the sort, got it. 

Sorry, saying that a trait is unique to humanity does not make it untrue, or unnatural for that matter.  There is no indication found anywhere else in nature of any living species using written language.  Does that mean it is not a natural phenomenon and not supported by science?

I imagine you'll now revert to the kind of excuses you've used before.  'Language isn't a behavioral trait, so it doesn't count' or something like that.  First of all, belief in god is not a universal human trait.  Beyond that, how can you know that no other animal has a belief in god?  Unless the human mind is the only one capable of understanding such a concept......in which case, of course, it would make perfect sense that humans would be the only animals to believe in gods as we'd be the only ones capable of it.

Thank you for not actually using science at all to do nothing but provide your counter opinion on the subject of why humans believe.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already used science to demonstrate this is not true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, what?  You used science to demonstrate it isn't true?  I think I must have missed that....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesn't surprise me Moonbat, you miss a lot.
> 
> Yep. Science. There is no indication found anywhere else in nature of any living species inventing a false fundamental behavioral attribute out of fear of the unknown, or for any other reason, for that matter. Therefore, this is not a natural phenomenon and not supported by science.
Click to expand...




Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet new religions keep getting invented every day! You said yourself, even the Atheists are creating churches. Now I think we all know what causes thunder, some of us even know what "comets" are and how to spell it! lol
> 
> Uh oh.... looks like your point was just totally demolished! Humans imagine and create religion to address their intrinsic awareness of something greater than self.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. Nothing demolished at all.
> They had a brain that allowed the creativity to find a rationalization for their fears. The development of "spiritual" memes was the need to cope with what was not understood.
> Nothing has changed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See post #2383 above. False.
Click to expand...


You can't identify differences between man's cognitive abilities and that of the star nosed mole?
Rationalizations are one of those particularities found in man. 
You actually think you proved something in #2383?


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, what?  You used science to demonstrate it isn't true?  I think I must have missed that....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't surprise me Moonbat, you miss a lot.
> 
> Yep. Science. There is no indication found anywhere else in nature of any living species inventing a false fundamental behavioral attribute out of fear of the unknown, or for any other reason, for that matter. Therefore, this is not a natural phenomenon and not supported by science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah!  So you actually did nothing of the sort, got it.
> 
> Sorry, saying that a trait is unique to humanity does not make it untrue, or unnatural for that matter.  There is no indication found anywhere else in nature of any living species using written language.  Does that mean it is not a natural phenomenon and not supported by science?
> 
> I imagine you'll now revert to the kind of excuses you've used before.  'Language isn't a behavioral trait, so it doesn't count' or something like that.  First of all, belief in god is not a universal human trait.  Beyond that, how can you know that no other animal has a belief in god?  Unless the human mind is the only one capable of understanding such a concept......in which case, of course, it would make perfect sense that humans would be the only animals to believe in gods as we'd be the only ones capable of it.
> 
> Thank you for not actually using science at all to do nothing but provide your counter opinion on the subject of why humans believe.
Click to expand...


Either way you want to take it, this destroys the argument that man invented a superfluous attribute to explain the unknown. If it's not an exclusively human trait, then it's not the creation of man's imagination. If it's not found anywhere else in nature then it's not something created to explain the unknown.  

Language is a beneficial and fundamental attribute. It isn't something fake, created or invented out of fear of the unknown. There are billions of examples of unique attributes across a wide range of species, all of which have a fundamental and beneficial element, or they wouldn't exist. There is no behavior of any living thing that is without reason and purpose to the species, nor is there any behavior the species falsely believes is beneficial and with purpose but actually isn't. 

Let's go through this again slowly... Humans did not invent spirituality, they are intrinsically connected spiritually. It is through that spiritual connection they were inspired to create written language, science and religion. Science was created by man to explain the unknown, religions were created to attempt comprehension of the intrinsic spiritual connection. Fear of mortality comes from the understanding of immortality through the comprehending of spiritual nature. 

If humans invented spirituality, we'd be able to see that in archeological discovery. We'd find civilizations which existed for so many years without any trace of human spirituality, then see where humans began to practice this "invention" they came up with. Instead, we find that every civilization dating back to the very first ones discovered, show that humans were practicing some form of spiritual belief. The attribute has been part of the species since our inception. To this day, with all the modern science explaining the great mysteries, 90% of the species retains this attribute. Darwinian theories of natural selection negate any possibility this is a superficial attribute. It completely contradicts science to draw such a conclusion.


----------



## BreezeWood

HUGGY said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't know everything dolfins or whales know.
> 
> That is not intelligent rational logical thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there is nothing living that does not have Spirituality ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> logical thought is not physiological nor absolute - the cherry tree does not have a central nervous center (brain) and though bossy & compy etc. disclaims the hierarchical intelligence - as fools, this example with no exception is appealing to something other than self. visualization is a proof where thought is the impediment.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nature evolved mechanisms to cast seeds in some plants by attracting the interest visually, by smell and providing food to insects, birds and other animals long before humans came onto the landscape.  Suggesting that the configuration of plant reproduction is for the purpose of entertaining human beings and their gods is childish.
Click to expand...




> *boss:* Breezy's interesting theory that all life is spiritual. I can't argue with this, but doesn't it kind of shoot in the foot the idea that God doesn't exist? That it's all in our heads? That man invented God? I mean, if cherry blossoms are aware of God, what is their excuse? Are they afraid of the dark too?




*if cherry blossoms are aware of God ...*


I just wonder if either of the above understand their is not a contrast in symmetry between Flora and Fauna and their awareness, not withstanding the stark distinctions of physiological evolution ... anotherwords to imply humanity is unique to a Deity is a baseless allegation. - 

and should be resolved, such as the rewrite of the Bible in hopes to advance to further understanding the process that may lead to our Spiritual imortality.

- - > eagles, cherry trees and lions are also a part of the Everlasting, only idiots would attempt to exclude them as Bossy.


* for the racist, monkeys are probably there too.

.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't surprise me Moonbat, you miss a lot.
> 
> Yep. Science. There is no indication found anywhere else in nature of any living species inventing a false fundamental behavioral attribute out of fear of the unknown, or for any other reason, for that matter. Therefore, this is not a natural phenomenon and not supported by science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah!  So you actually did nothing of the sort, got it.
> 
> Sorry, saying that a trait is unique to humanity does not make it untrue, or unnatural for that matter.  There is no indication found anywhere else in nature of any living species using written language.  Does that mean it is not a natural phenomenon and not supported by science?
> 
> I imagine you'll now revert to the kind of excuses you've used before.  'Language isn't a behavioral trait, so it doesn't count' or something like that.  First of all, belief in god is not a universal human trait.  Beyond that, how can you know that no other animal has a belief in god?  Unless the human mind is the only one capable of understanding such a concept......in which case, of course, it would make perfect sense that humans would be the only animals to believe in gods as we'd be the only ones capable of it.
> 
> Thank you for not actually using science at all to do nothing but provide your counter opinion on the subject of why humans believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Either way you want to take it, this destroys the argument that man invented a superfluous attribute to explain the unknown. If it's not an exclusively human trait, then it's not the creation of man's imagination. If it's not found anywhere else in nature then it's not something created to explain the unknown.
> 
> Language is a beneficial and fundamental attribute. It isn't something fake, created or invented out of fear of the unknown. There are billions of examples of unique attributes across a wide range of species, all of which have a fundamental and beneficial element, or they wouldn't exist. There is no behavior of any living thing that is without reason and purpose to the species, nor is there any behavior the species falsely believes is beneficial and with purpose but actually isn't.
> 
> Let's go through this again slowly... Humans did not invent spirituality, they are intrinsically connected spiritually. It is through that spiritual connection they were inspired to create written language, science and religion. Science was created by man to explain the unknown, religions were created to attempt comprehension of the intrinsic spiritual connection. Fear of mortality comes from the understanding of immortality through the comprehending of spiritual nature.
> 
> If humans invented spirituality, we'd be able to see that in archeological discovery. We'd find civilizations which existed for so many years without any trace of human spirituality, then see where humans began to practice this "invention" they came up with. Instead, we find that every civilization dating back to the very first ones discovered, show that humans were practicing some form of spiritual belief. The attribute has been part of the species since our inception. To this day, with all the modern science explaining the great mysteries, 90% of the species retains this attribute. Darwinian theories of natural selection negate any possibility this is a superficial attribute. It completely contradicts science to draw such a conclusion.
Click to expand...


Darwin's theory actually supports this idea. I have shown that to you before and you completely ignored it.
Not surprising.
Anterior insular cortex associated with human empathy
This is an area of the brain more highly developed than in lower animals, and that evolutionary advancement would be selected because it would allow people to see value in working together for a common goal. Tribalism.
It also would make people aware of the death of others and the loss of them, and thus the risk to themselves.
The birth of fear.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't surprise me Moonbat, you miss a lot.
> 
> Yep. Science. There is no indication found anywhere else in nature of any living species inventing a false fundamental behavioral attribute out of fear of the unknown, or for any other reason, for that matter. Therefore, this is not a natural phenomenon and not supported by science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah!  So you actually did nothing of the sort, got it.
> 
> Sorry, saying that a trait is unique to humanity does not make it untrue, or unnatural for that matter.  There is no indication found anywhere else in nature of any living species using written language.  Does that mean it is not a natural phenomenon and not supported by science?
> 
> I imagine you'll now revert to the kind of excuses you've used before.  'Language isn't a behavioral trait, so it doesn't count' or something like that.  First of all, belief in god is not a universal human trait.  Beyond that, how can you know that no other animal has a belief in god?  Unless the human mind is the only one capable of understanding such a concept......in which case, of course, it would make perfect sense that humans would be the only animals to believe in gods as we'd be the only ones capable of it.
> 
> Thank you for not actually using science at all to do nothing but provide your counter opinion on the subject of why humans believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Either way you want to take it, this destroys the argument that man invented a superfluous attribute to explain the unknown. If it's not an exclusively human trait, then it's not the creation of man's imagination. If it's not found anywhere else in nature then it's not something created to explain the unknown.
> 
> Language is a beneficial and fundamental attribute. It isn't something fake, created or invented out of fear of the unknown. There are billions of examples of unique attributes across a wide range of species, all of which have a fundamental and beneficial element, or they wouldn't exist. There is no behavior of any living thing that is without reason and purpose to the species, nor is there any behavior the species falsely believes is beneficial and with purpose but actually isn't.
> 
> Let's go through this again slowly... Humans did not invent spirituality, they are intrinsically connected spiritually. It is through that spiritual connection they were inspired to create written language, science and religion. Science was created by man to explain the unknown, religions were created to attempt comprehension of the intrinsic spiritual connection. Fear of mortality comes from the understanding of immortality through the comprehending of spiritual nature.
> 
> If humans invented spirituality, we'd be able to see that in archeological discovery. We'd find civilizations which existed for so many years without any trace of human spirituality, then see where humans began to practice this "invention" they came up with. Instead, we find that every civilization dating back to the very first ones discovered, show that humans were practicing some form of spiritual belief. The attribute has been part of the species since our inception. To this day, with all the modern science explaining the great mysteries, 90% of the species retains this attribute. Darwinian theories of natural selection negate any possibility this is a superficial attribute. It completely contradicts science to draw such a conclusion.
Click to expand...


How would anyone find "spirituality" in the archeological discovery? 

You do have a habit of making the most outrageous claims and not proving any support for those claims.

You falsely and dishonestly label "spiritual belief" in the hope of making some connection to your invented "spirit realms". Early people invented icons, representations of animals, objects found in nature, etc. to explain phenomenon they didn't understand.


Constellations: Frequently Asked Questions

Astronomers officially recognize 88 constellations covering the entire sky in the northern and southern hemispheres. Currently, 14 men and women, 9 birds, two insects, 19 land animals, 10 water creatures, two centaurs, one head of hair, a serpent, a dragon, a flying horse, a river and 29 inanimate objects are represented in the night sky (the total comes to more than 88 because some constellations include more than one creature.) 



More science and less Disney would make bossie a happy boy.


----------



## Boss

> Darwin's theory actually supports this idea. I have shown that to you before and you completely ignored it.
> Not surprising.
> Anterior insular cortex associated with human empathy
> This is an area of the brain more highly developed than in lower animals, and that evolutionary advancement would be selected because it would allow people to see value in working together for a common goal. Tribalism.
> It also would make people aware of the death of others and the loss of them, and thus the risk to themselves.
> The birth of fear.



Except that "working together/tribalism" is not spirituality. In fact, some have argued that spirituality has caused more deaths than anything ever known to man.... so much for that theory. Yet still, other species work in packs together and don't show any indication of spiritual awareness or need to worship. 

Other animals also mourn their dead... that's not spirituality. Other animals are also aware of risk to their life, again... not spirituality. So you keep coming up with examples of things we find all in nature, but not intrinsic spiritual connection. If you could explain away spiritual connection with ANY of these things, we'd see evidence of it elsewhere in nature, but we don't. (Breezy's examples not withstanding.)


----------



## Boss

> How would anyone find "spirituality" in the archeological discovery?



The indication of ritual ceremony and burial using red ochre.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Darwin's theory actually supports this idea. I have shown that to you before and you completely ignored it.
> Not surprising.
> Anterior insular cortex associated with human empathy
> This is an area of the brain more highly developed than in lower animals, and that evolutionary advancement would be selected because it would allow people to see value in working together for a common goal. Tribalism.
> It also would make people aware of the death of others and the loss of them, and thus the risk to themselves.
> The birth of fear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that "working together/tribalism" is not spirituality. In fact, some have argued that spirituality has caused more deaths than anything ever known to man.... so much for that theory. Yet still, other species work in packs together and don't show any indication of spiritual awareness or need to worship.
> 
> Other animals also mourn their dead... that's not spirituality. Other animals are also aware of risk to their life, again... not spirituality. So you keep coming up with examples of things we find all in nature, but not intrinsic spiritual connection. If you could explain away spiritual connection with ANY of these things, we'd see evidence of it elsewhere in nature, but we don't. (Breezy's examples not withstanding.)
Click to expand...


Because there is no such thing as your invented "intrinsic spiritual connection", we can dismiss your argument as silly.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> How would anyone find "spirituality" in the archeological discovery?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The indication of ritual ceremony and burial using red ochre.
Click to expand...


Which does nothing to support your invention of spirituality or "intrinsic spiritual connection".


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> Darwin's theory actually supports this idea. I have shown that to you before and you completely ignored it.
> Not surprising.
> Anterior insular cortex associated with human empathy
> This is an area of the brain more highly developed than in lower animals, and that evolutionary advancement would be selected because it would allow people to see value in working together for a common goal. Tribalism.
> It also would make people aware of the death of others and the loss of them, and thus the risk to themselves.
> The birth of fear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that "working together/tribalism" is not spirituality. In fact, some have argued that spirituality has caused more deaths than anything ever known to man.... so much for that theory. Yet still, other species work in packs together and don't show any indication of spiritual awareness or need to worship.
> 
> Other animals also mourn their dead... that's not spirituality. Other animals are also aware of risk to their life, again... not spirituality. So you keep coming up with examples of things we find all in nature, but not intrinsic spiritual connection. If you could explain away spiritual connection with ANY of these things, we'd see evidence of it elsewhere in nature, but we don't. (Breezy's examples not withstanding.)
Click to expand...


Rationalizations are what we don't see anywhere else. The empathy leads to the rationalizations that are a function of language.


----------



## Boss

> Rationalizations are what we don't see anywhere else.



Sorry but that is not any more true now than the last time you said it.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> Rationalizations are what we don't see anywhere else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but that is not any more true now than the last time you said it.
Click to expand...


We are talking about rationalizations, which by now you should know what the word means. False arguments intended to self-deceive.
Give me the example of that in nature.


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rationalizations are what we don't see anywhere else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but that is not any more true now than the last time you said it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are talking about rationalizations, which by now you should know what the word means. False arguments intended to self-deceive.
> Give me the example of that in nature.
Click to expand...


I presented videos the last time, you simply rejected the evidence, even with the scientist telling you that the crows rationalized. 

Here's an article about a Yale study on capuchin monkeys....
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/06/science/06tier.html

*False arguments intended to self-deceive.*

This is called cognitive dissonance, not rationalization. 
The example above, as well as the previous video of the crows, demonstrate cognitive dissonance in other animals. 

Here's a study on cognitive dissonance in pigeons:
http://www.uky.edu/~zentall/pdfs/justificationofeffort.pdf

Now please present for us *any credible biologist* stating that rationalization or cognitive dissonance is a uniquely human attribute?  If you can't provide this evidence, it proves that you are once again LYING to us, as you have become very comfortable doing.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't surprise me Moonbat, you miss a lot.
> 
> Yep. Science. There is no indication found anywhere else in nature of any living species inventing a false fundamental behavioral attribute out of fear of the unknown, or for any other reason, for that matter. Therefore, this is not a natural phenomenon and not supported by science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah!  So you actually did nothing of the sort, got it.
> 
> Sorry, saying that a trait is unique to humanity does not make it untrue, or unnatural for that matter.  There is no indication found anywhere else in nature of any living species using written language.  Does that mean it is not a natural phenomenon and not supported by science?
> 
> I imagine you'll now revert to the kind of excuses you've used before.  'Language isn't a behavioral trait, so it doesn't count' or something like that.  First of all, belief in god is not a universal human trait.  Beyond that, how can you know that no other animal has a belief in god?  Unless the human mind is the only one capable of understanding such a concept......in which case, of course, it would make perfect sense that humans would be the only animals to believe in gods as we'd be the only ones capable of it.
> 
> Thank you for not actually using science at all to do nothing but provide your counter opinion on the subject of why humans believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Either way you want to take it, this destroys the argument that man invented a superfluous attribute to explain the unknown. If it's not an exclusively human trait, then it's not the creation of man's imagination. If it's not found anywhere else in nature then it's not something created to explain the unknown.
> 
> Language is a beneficial and fundamental attribute. It isn't something fake, created or invented out of fear of the unknown. There are billions of examples of unique attributes across a wide range of species, all of which have a fundamental and beneficial element, or they wouldn't exist. There is no behavior of any living thing that is without reason and purpose to the species, nor is there any behavior the species falsely believes is beneficial and with purpose but actually isn't.
> 
> Let's go through this again slowly... Humans did not invent spirituality, they are intrinsically connected spiritually. It is through that spiritual connection they were inspired to create written language, science and religion. Science was created by man to explain the unknown, religions were created to attempt comprehension of the intrinsic spiritual connection. Fear of mortality comes from the understanding of immortality through the comprehending of spiritual nature.
> 
> If humans invented spirituality, we'd be able to see that in archeological discovery. We'd find civilizations which existed for so many years without any trace of human spirituality, then see where humans began to practice this "invention" they came up with. Instead, we find that every civilization dating back to the very first ones discovered, show that humans were practicing some form of spiritual belief. The attribute has been part of the species since our inception. To this day, with all the modern science explaining the great mysteries, 90% of the species retains this attribute. Darwinian theories of natural selection negate any possibility this is a superficial attribute. It completely contradicts science to draw such a conclusion.
Click to expand...


Can you point to the scientific law, principle, theory or hypothesis which states that if a trait is exclusively human it cannot be something created to explain the unknown?

What is or isn't beneficial can be subjective.  Certainly human religious and spiritual beliefs might be beneficial, but that in no way means they are based on the existence of an actual god.  This is especially true considering how many different beliefs mankind has held.  

Also, I don't believe that a trait must remain beneficial to continue within a species.  Certainly there's been plenty of argument on this board about whether homosexuality is beneficial or detrimental to a species.    There are certainly plenty of physical traits which are not beneficial yet continue within humanity.  Just using myself as an example, I have bad eyesight and suffer from acid reflux and psoriasis.  None of these are beneficial to my survival or the propagation of my genes, yet they have been passed on through multiple generations.  Is there any reason behaviors cannot be the same?

Natural selection in no way negates the possibility that the spiritual connection you believe in is imagined.  Such beliefs can be beneficial or neutral, evolutionarily speaking, to the species without being based on something real.  Drawing such a conclusion does not 'completely contradict science' nor does it completely contradict evolutionary theory.  I wonder if you even believe these statements trying to tie your spiritual nature beliefs to evolution or if you are just trolling. 

Spiritual nature and spiritual being(s) may be real, but I don't believe there is any particular aspect of science or scientific research which claims it to be so.


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but that is not any more true now than the last time you said it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are talking about rationalizations, which by now you should know what the word means. False arguments intended to self-deceive.
> Give me the example of that in nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I presented videos the last time, you simply rejected the evidence, even with the scientist telling you that the crows rationalized.
> 
> Here's an article about a Yale study on capuchin monkeys....
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/06/science/06tier.html
> 
> *False arguments intended to self-deceive.*
> 
> This is called cognitive dissonance, not rationalization.
> The example above, as well as the previous video of the crows, demonstrate cognitive dissonance in other animals.
> 
> Here's a study on cognitive dissonance in pigeons:
> http://www.uky.edu/~zentall/pdfs/justificationofeffort.pdf
> 
> Now please present for us *any credible biologist* stating that rationalization or cognitive dissonance is a uniquely human attribute?  If you can't provide this evidence, it proves that you are once again LYING to us, as you have become very comfortable doing.
Click to expand...

the above is a false argument....cognitive abilities in other animals is no evidence of god..


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but that is not any more true now than the last time you said it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are talking about rationalizations, which by now you should know what the word means. False arguments intended to self-deceive.
> Give me the example of that in nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I presented videos the last time, you simply rejected the evidence, even with the scientist telling you that the crows rationalized.
> 
> Here's an article about a Yale study on capuchin monkeys....
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/06/science/06tier.html
> 
> *False arguments intended to self-deceive.*
> 
> This is called cognitive dissonance, not rationalization.
> The example above, as well as the previous video of the crows, demonstrate cognitive dissonance in other animals.
> 
> Here's a study on cognitive dissonance in pigeons:
> http://www.uky.edu/~zentall/pdfs/justificationofeffort.pdf
> 
> Now please present for us *any credible biologist* stating that rationalization or cognitive dissonance is a uniquely human attribute?  If you can't provide this evidence, it proves that you are once again LYING to us, as you have become very comfortable doing.
Click to expand...


Do I really have to humiliate you AGAIN?
Showing clearly you have no exposure to psychology?
You are a total waste of bandwidth, you really are.
We are not talking about the ability to be rational.
We are talking about the psychological process of rationalization.
You know this, or you are far too stupid to cross the street alone.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but that is not any more true now than the last time you said it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are talking about rationalizations, which by now you should know what the word means. False arguments intended to self-deceive.
> Give me the example of that in nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I presented videos the last time, you simply rejected the evidence, even with the scientist telling you that the crows rationalized.
> 
> Here's an article about a Yale study on capuchin monkeys....
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/06/science/06tier.html
> 
> *False arguments intended to self-deceive.*
> 
> This is called cognitive dissonance, not rationalization.
> The example above, as well as the previous video of the crows, demonstrate cognitive dissonance in other animals.
> 
> Here's a study on cognitive dissonance in pigeons:
> http://www.uky.edu/~zentall/pdfs/justificationofeffort.pdf
> 
> Now please present for us *any credible biologist* stating that rationalization or cognitive dissonance is a uniquely human attribute?  If you can't provide this evidence, it proves that you are once again LYING to us, as you have become very comfortable doing.
Click to expand...


Cognitive dissonance is not the same as rationalization.  Cognitive dissonance is when someone has conflicting or contradictory beliefs.  Rationalization is one way people might deal with cognitive dissonance.  Your own link says this about cognitive dissonance at the beginning of the paper : "Cognitive dissonance occurs when there is a discrepancy
between ones beliefs and ones behavior. According to cogni-
tive dissonance theory (Festinger, 1957), such a perceived dis-
crepancy may result in an emotionally uncomfortable state, or
dissonance, that one will work to reduce. One way to reduce
such dissonance is to modify ones beliefs to account for or
justify ones behavior.".  

Clearly, any excuses for behavior are made after cognitive dissonance occurs.  

It's amazing how often you complain about other people twisting meaning and taking things out of context when you do it over and over yourself.


----------



## daws101

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are talking about rationalizations, which by now you should know what the word means. False arguments intended to self-deceive.
> Give me the example of that in nature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I presented videos the last time, you simply rejected the evidence, even with the scientist telling you that the crows rationalized.
> 
> Here's an article about a Yale study on capuchin monkeys....
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/06/science/06tier.html
> 
> *False arguments intended to self-deceive.*
> 
> This is called cognitive dissonance, not rationalization.
> The example above, as well as the previous video of the crows, demonstrate cognitive dissonance in other animals.
> 
> Here's a study on cognitive dissonance in pigeons:
> http://www.uky.edu/~zentall/pdfs/justificationofeffort.pdf
> 
> Now please present for us *any credible biologist* stating that rationalization or cognitive dissonance is a uniquely human attribute?  If you can't provide this evidence, it proves that you are once again LYING to us, as you have become very comfortable doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cognitive dissonance is not the same as rationalization.  Cognitive dissonance is when someone has conflicting or contradictory beliefs.  Rationalization is one way people might deal with cognitive dissonance.  Your own link says this about cognitive dissonance at the beginning of the paper : "Cognitive dissonance occurs when there is a discrepancy
> between one&#8217;s beliefs and one&#8217;s behavior. According to cogni-
> tive dissonance theory (Festinger, 1957), such a perceived dis-
> crepancy may result in an emotionally uncomfortable state, or
> dissonance, that one will work to reduce. One way to reduce
> such dissonance is to modify one&#8217;s beliefs to account for or
> justify one&#8217;s behavior.".
> 
> Clearly, any excuses for behavior are made after cognitive dissonance occurs.
> 
> It's amazing how often you complain about other people twisting meaning and taking things out of context when you do it over and over yourself.
Click to expand...

cognitive bias..


Cognitive bias

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 


A cognitive bias is a pattern of deviation in judgment, whereby inferences about other people and situations may be drawn in an illogical fashion.[1] Individuals create their own &#8220;subjective social reality&#8221; from their perception of the input.[2] An individual&#8217;s construction of social reality, not the objective input, may dictate their behavior in the social world.[3] Thus, cognitive biases may sometimes lead to perceptual distortion, inaccurate judgment, illogical interpretation, or what is broadly called irrationality.[4][5][6]

Some cognitive biases are presumably adaptive. Cognitive biases may lead to more effective actions in a given context.[7] Furthermore, cognitive biases enable faster decisions when timeliness is more valuable than accuracy, as illustrated in heuristics.[8] Other cognitive biases are a &#8220;by-product&#8221; of human processing limitations,[9] resulting from a lack of appropriate mental mechanisms (bounded rationality), or simply from a limited capacity for information processing.[10]
Cognitive bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> there is nothing living that does not have Spirituality ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Breezy's interesting theory that all life is spiritual. I can't argue with this, but doesn't it kind of shoot in the foot the idea that God doesn't exist? That it's all in our heads? That man invented God? I mean, if cherry blossoms are aware of God, what is their excuse? Are they afraid of the dark too?
Click to expand...


This is just nonsense.  I guess you can continue to believe a fairytale if you want.  At least you don't seem like the kind of person who would stop stem cell research because of your religion.  Like I said, I agreed with your beliefs up until about a month or two ago.  I was to the point I knew 100% all the organized religions were BS but I still believed in a God.  Then my athiest friends made me think it through and the only reason I thought that was because I wanted to, not for any solid hard concrete scientific reasons.  And no you guys did not use science to explain anything that matters and your belief that trees and frogs are spiritual is silly.  Triune brain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## sealybobo

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our ancestors being afraid of the unknown is why they invented God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already used science to demonstrate this is not true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait, what?  You used science to demonstrate it isn't true?  I think I must have missed that....
Click to expand...


No it just never happened.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already used science to demonstrate this is not true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, what?  You used science to demonstrate it isn't true?  I think I must have missed that....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesn't surprise me Moonbat, you miss a lot.
> 
> Yep. Science. There is no indication found anywhere else in nature of any living species inventing a false fundamental behavioral attribute out of fear of the unknown, or for any other reason, for that matter. Therefore, this is not a natural phenomenon and not supported by science.
Click to expand...


The same fear gene that makes the squirrels and birds that I feed everyday flee every time I come to the door and feed them is the same fear gene that made us come up with God.  It was a good thing to be afraid back then.  Back then being careful and afraid kept you alive.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't surprise me Moonbat, you miss a lot.
> 
> Yep. Science. There is no indication found anywhere else in nature of any living species inventing a false fundamental behavioral attribute out of fear of the unknown, or for any other reason, for that matter. Therefore, this is not a natural phenomenon and not supported by science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah!  So you actually did nothing of the sort, got it.
> 
> Sorry, saying that a trait is unique to humanity does not make it untrue, or unnatural for that matter.  There is no indication found anywhere else in nature of any living species using written language.  Does that mean it is not a natural phenomenon and not supported by science?
> 
> I imagine you'll now revert to the kind of excuses you've used before.  'Language isn't a behavioral trait, so it doesn't count' or something like that.  First of all, belief in god is not a universal human trait.  Beyond that, how can you know that no other animal has a belief in god?  Unless the human mind is the only one capable of understanding such a concept......in which case, of course, it would make perfect sense that humans would be the only animals to believe in gods as we'd be the only ones capable of it.
> 
> Thank you for not actually using science at all to do nothing but provide your counter opinion on the subject of why humans believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Either way you want to take it, this destroys the argument that man invented a superfluous attribute to explain the unknown. If it's not an exclusively human trait, then it's not the creation of man's imagination. If it's not found anywhere else in nature then it's not something created to explain the unknown.
> 
> Language is a beneficial and fundamental attribute. It isn't something fake, created or invented out of fear of the unknown. There are billions of examples of unique attributes across a wide range of species, all of which have a fundamental and beneficial element, or they wouldn't exist. There is no behavior of any living thing that is without reason and purpose to the species, nor is there any behavior the species falsely believes is beneficial and with purpose but actually isn't.
> 
> Let's go through this again slowly... Humans did not invent spirituality, they are intrinsically connected spiritually. It is through that spiritual connection they were inspired to create written language, science and religion. Science was created by man to explain the unknown, religions were created to attempt comprehension of the intrinsic spiritual connection. Fear of mortality comes from the understanding of immortality through the comprehending of spiritual nature.
> 
> If humans invented spirituality, we'd be able to see that in archeological discovery. We'd find civilizations which existed for so many years without any trace of human spirituality, then see where humans began to practice this "invention" they came up with. Instead, we find that every civilization dating back to the very first ones discovered, show that humans were practicing some form of spiritual belief. The attribute has been part of the species since our inception. To this day, with all the modern science explaining the great mysteries, 90% of the species retains this attribute. Darwinian theories of natural selection negate any possibility this is a superficial attribute. It completely contradicts science to draw such a conclusion.
Click to expand...


So if human's are the only animals that believe in God, that proves god exists and if other animals believe then that proves god exists too?  Can't have it both ways.  And neither proves anything.  If there were a god, he would have left a footprint.  And where's mom?  What did he do with mom?


----------



## koshergrl

Fear gene?

Pffft...and you want people to recognize you as the voice of reason?


----------



## Boss

*a pattern of deviation in judgment, whereby inferences about other people and situations may be drawn in an illogical fashion.*

is exactly the same thing as...

*False arguments intended to self-deceive.*

You are talking about "cognitive dissonance" and not rationalization. Nevertheless, you have presented absolutely no scientific resource to support your claim that only humans rationalize or have cognitive dissonance. This is proof that you are lying and/or are misinformed.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there is nothing living that does not have Spirituality ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Breezy's interesting theory that all life is spiritual. I can't argue with this, but doesn't it kind of shoot in the foot the idea that God doesn't exist? That it's all in our heads? That man invented God? I mean, if cherry blossoms are aware of God, what is their excuse? Are they afraid of the dark too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is just nonsense.  I guess you can continue to believe a fairytale if you want.  At least you don't seem like the kind of person who would stop stem cell research because of your religion.  Like I said, I agreed with your beliefs up until about a month or two ago.  I was to the point I knew 100% all the organized religions were BS but I still believed in a God.  Then my athiest friends made me think it through and the only reason I thought that was because I wanted to, not for any solid hard concrete scientific reasons.  And no you guys did not use science to explain anything that matters and your belief that trees and frogs are spiritual is silly.  Triune brain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


I would suggest maybe you take another month or so to evaluate the question further. Perhaps you will realize how faulty the arguments are that have been presented by the Atheists. I've given you hard core scientific reasons to at least question your atheistic theories of spiritualism being some invented meme to explain the unknown and console fear of mortality. I don't have any idea what you mean by trees and frogs being spiritual, I have not made that argument.


----------



## Boss

> The same fear gene that makes the squirrels and birds that I feed everyday flee every time I come to the door and feed them is the same fear gene that made us come up with God. It was a good thing to be afraid back then. Back then being careful and afraid kept you alive.



And yet today, as many humans are spiritual as they were back then, and still... no squirrels and birds at church services on Sunday. What you keep saying doesn't make logical sense. We see no natural evidence that any other creature has ever invented a meaningless behavior to cope with fear. We also see that humans have largely retained this supposedly "meaningless behavior" for all of their existence, in spite of science and knowledge explaining away all their fears of the unknown. So not only is your argument not based in any kind of actual biological science or knowledge, it doesn't even make logical or rational sense. It is thoughtless gobbledy-gook cobbled together by activists on a mission and nothing more. You have been duped. Brainwashed. Fooled into believing a falsehood.


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> Fear gene?
> 
> Pffft...and you want people to recognize you as the voice of reason?


'Fear Gene' Shown To Cause PTSD; Prevention Technique Could Be On The Horizon
love it when you get caught talking out your ass!


----------



## Boss

> If there were a god, he would have left a footprint. And where's mom? What did he do with mom?



Footprint? How does something spiritual in nature leave a physical footprint? 

Mom? Well where is gravity's mom? Where are logic and reason's mom? Maybe they are on a Mom's Night Out with God's mom???


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> Fear gene?
> 
> Pffft...and you want people to recognize you as the voice of reason?



The New American also publishes articles about economics (from a free-enterprise perspective of course!), culture, and history. It is published by American Opinion Publishing, a wholly owned subsidiary of The John Birch Society.


kosher hag doesn't let a little thing like zero credibility get in the way of her delusions ...


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> If there were a god, he would have left a footprint. And where's mom? What did he do with mom?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Footprint? How does something spiritual in nature leave a physical footprint?
> 
> Mom? Well where is gravity's mom? Where are logic and reason's mom? Maybe they are on a Mom's Night Out with God's mom???
Click to expand...

the same way it's incapable of communicating with creatures who can only sense through physical means. That's us...


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> *a pattern of deviation in judgment, whereby inferences about other people and situations may be drawn in an illogical fashion.*
> 
> is exactly the same thing as...
> 
> *False arguments intended to self-deceive.*
> 
> You are talking about "cognitive dissonance" and not rationalization. Nevertheless, you have presented absolutely no scientific resource to support your claim that only humans rationalize or have cognitive dissonance. This is proof that you are lying and/or are misinformed.



"Rationalization is a defense mechanism that involves explaining an unacceptable behavior or feeling in a rational or logical manner, avoiding the true reasons for the behavior. For example, a person who is turned down for a date might rationalize the situation by saying they were not attracted to the other person anyway, or a student might blame a poor exam score on the instructor rather than his or her lack of preparation.

Rationalization not only prevents anxiety, it may also protect self-esteem and self-concept. When confronted by success or failure, people tend to attribute achievement to their own qualities and skills while failures are blamed on other people or outside forces."
From About.com/Psychology


"What is RATIONALIZATION?
An explanation in which apparently logical reasons are given to justify unacceptable behavior. In psychoanalytical theory, such an outlook is regarded as a defense mechanism against feelings of guilt.
Psychology Dictionary: What is RATIONALIZATION? definition of RATIONALIZATION (Psychology Dictionary) "

Now give us a long dissertation about how different these concepts are from the "cognitive dissonance" you are trying to parse an argument over.
Such a twit you are.
Everyone is a liar. Everyone is misinformed.
Everyone, that is, except you, right?


----------



## BreezeWood

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there is nothing living that does not have Spirituality ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Breezy's interesting theory that all life is spiritual. I can't argue with this, but doesn't it kind of shoot in the foot the idea that God doesn't exist? That it's all in our heads? That man invented God? I mean, if cherry blossoms are aware of God, what is their excuse? Are they afraid of the dark too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is just nonsense.  I guess you can continue to believe a fairytale if you want.  At least you don't seem like the kind of person who would stop stem cell research because of your religion.  Like I said, I agreed with your beliefs up until about a month or two ago.  I was to the point I knew 100% all the organized religions were BS but I still believed in a God.  Then my athiest friends made me think it through and the only reason I thought that was because I wanted to, not for any solid hard concrete scientific reasons.  And no you guys did not use science to explain anything that matters and your belief that trees and frogs are spiritual is silly.  Triune brain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...





> The triune brain is a model of the evolution of the vertebrate forebrain and behavior proposed by the American physician and neuroscientist Paul D. MacLean. MacLean originally formulated his model in the 1960s and propounded it at length in his 1990 book The Triune Brain in Evolution.[1] The triune brain consists of the reptilian complex, the paleomammalian complex (limbic system), and the neomammalian complex (neocortex), viewed as structures sequentially added to the forebrain in the course of evolution. However, this hypothesis is not espoused by many comparative neuroscientists.




*... model of the evolution of the vertebrate forebrain*


the point of including Flora is they do not have a physiological "Brain" yet retain spirituality and all the emotives of Fauna, obviously concluding spirituality is not an elctro-chemical response - therefore the Spirit is not a physiological component of the living organism Fauna or Flora and may be detachable while retaining its fluency.


* if you do not get it, the Spirit may continue to exist after the physiology expires.

.


----------



## BreezeWood

Boss said:


> I don't have any idea what you mean by trees and frogs being spiritual, I have not made that argument.












that is because you are a Christian ... 

.


----------



## orogenicman




----------



## orogenicman




----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> *a pattern of deviation in judgment, whereby inferences about other people and situations may be drawn in an illogical fashion.*
> 
> is exactly the same thing as...
> 
> *False arguments intended to self-deceive.*
> 
> You are talking about "cognitive dissonance" and not rationalization. Nevertheless, you have presented absolutely no scientific resource to support your claim that only humans rationalize or have cognitive dissonance. This is proof that you are lying and/or are misinformed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Rationalization is a defense mechanism that involves explaining an unacceptable behavior or feeling in a rational or logical manner, avoiding the true reasons for the behavior. For example, a person who is turned down for a date might rationalize the situation by saying they were not attracted to the other person anyway, or a student might blame a poor exam score on the instructor rather than his or her lack of preparation.
> 
> Rationalization not only prevents anxiety, it may also protect self-esteem and self-concept. When confronted by success or failure, people tend to attribute achievement to their own qualities and skills while failures are blamed on other people or outside forces."
> From About.com/Psychology
> 
> 
> "What is RATIONALIZATION?
> An explanation in which apparently logical reasons are given to justify unacceptable behavior. In psychoanalytical theory, such an outlook is regarded as a defense mechanism against feelings of guilt.
> Psychology Dictionary: What is RATIONALIZATION? definition of RATIONALIZATION (Psychology Dictionary) "
> 
> Now give us a long dissertation about how different these concepts are from the "cognitive dissonance" you are trying to parse an argument over.
> Such a twit you are.
> Everyone is a liar. Everyone is misinformed.
> Everyone, that is, except you, right?
Click to expand...


No long dissertation required, you are simply presenting one of many different kinds of rationalization. You're not incorrect, you are just incomplete. These are examples of rationalization from cognitive dissonance, and while humans aren't the only creatures who do that, they tend to do it much more and to a greater degree than other animals. 

If I decide to put money in a savings account instead of spending it on a new car, that is a rationalization. I'm not rationalizing unacceptable behavior, but I am still rationalizing. Still... other animals DO rationalize _unacceptable_ behavior. Your dog may know full well that he is not supposed to get into the trash can, but he rationalizes that you are not watching and he smells something good in there, so he chooses to do the unacceptable behavior because he rationalized it. When you walk into the room and see the trash strewn all over, you don't have to say or do anything, you look at the dog and you can tell that he knows his behavior was unacceptable and he's in trouble.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> *a pattern of deviation in judgment, whereby inferences about other people and situations may be drawn in an illogical fashion.*
> 
> is exactly the same thing as...
> 
> *False arguments intended to self-deceive.*
> 
> You are talking about "cognitive dissonance" and not rationalization. Nevertheless, you have presented absolutely no scientific resource to support your claim that only humans rationalize or have cognitive dissonance. This is proof that you are lying and/or are misinformed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Rationalization is a defense mechanism that involves explaining an unacceptable behavior or feeling in a rational or logical manner, avoiding the true reasons for the behavior. For example, a person who is turned down for a date might rationalize the situation by saying they were not attracted to the other person anyway, or a student might blame a poor exam score on the instructor rather than his or her lack of preparation.
> 
> Rationalization not only prevents anxiety, it may also protect self-esteem and self-concept. When confronted by success or failure, people tend to attribute achievement to their own qualities and skills while failures are blamed on other people or outside forces."
> From About.com/Psychology
> 
> 
> "What is RATIONALIZATION?
> An explanation in which apparently logical reasons are given to justify unacceptable behavior. In psychoanalytical theory, such an outlook is regarded as a defense mechanism against feelings of guilt.
> Psychology Dictionary: What is RATIONALIZATION? definition of RATIONALIZATION (Psychology Dictionary) "
> 
> Now give us a long dissertation about how different these concepts are from the "cognitive dissonance" you are trying to parse an argument over.
> Such a twit you are.
> Everyone is a liar. Everyone is misinformed.
> Everyone, that is, except you, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No long dissertation required, you are simply presenting one of many different kinds of rationalization. You're not incorrect, you are just incomplete. These are examples of rationalization from cognitive dissonance, and while humans aren't the only creatures who do that, they tend to do it much more and to a greater degree than other animals.
> 
> If I decide to put money in a savings account instead of spending it on a new car, that is a rationalization. I'm not rationalizing unacceptable behavior, but I am still rationalizing. Still... other animals DO rationalize _unacceptable_ behavior. Your dog may know full well that he is not supposed to get into the trash can, but he rationalizes that you are not watching and he smells something good in there, so he chooses to do the unacceptable behavior because he rationalized it. When you walk into the room and see the trash strewn all over, you don't have to say or do anything, you look at the dog and you can tell that he knows his behavior was unacceptable and he's in trouble.
Click to expand...


You actually publicly posted this?
Amazing.


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> *a pattern of deviation in judgment, whereby inferences about other people and situations may be drawn in an illogical fashion.*
> 
> is exactly the same thing as...
> 
> *False arguments intended to self-deceive.*
> 
> You are talking about "cognitive dissonance" and not rationalization. Nevertheless, you have presented absolutely no scientific resource to support your claim that only humans rationalize or have cognitive dissonance. This is proof that you are lying and/or are misinformed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Rationalization is a defense mechanism that involves explaining an unacceptable behavior or feeling in a rational or logical manner, avoiding the true reasons for the behavior. For example, a person who is turned down for a date might rationalize the situation by saying they were not attracted to the other person anyway, or a student might blame a poor exam score on the instructor rather than his or her lack of preparation.
> 
> Rationalization not only prevents anxiety, it may also protect self-esteem and self-concept. When confronted by success or failure, people tend to attribute achievement to their own qualities and skills while failures are blamed on other people or outside forces."
> From About.com/Psychology
> 
> 
> "What is RATIONALIZATION?
> An explanation in which apparently logical reasons are given to justify unacceptable behavior. In psychoanalytical theory, such an outlook is regarded as a defense mechanism against feelings of guilt.
> Psychology Dictionary: What is RATIONALIZATION? definition of RATIONALIZATION (Psychology Dictionary) "
> 
> Now give us a long dissertation about how different these concepts are from the "cognitive dissonance" you are trying to parse an argument over.
> Such a twit you are.
> Everyone is a liar. Everyone is misinformed.
> Everyone, that is, except you, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No long dissertation required, you are simply presenting one of many different kinds of rationalization. You're not incorrect, you are just incomplete. These are examples of rationalization from cognitive dissonance, and while humans aren't the only creatures who do that, they tend to do it much more and to a greater degree than other animals.
> 
> If I decide to put money in a savings account instead of spending it on a new car, that is a rationalization. I'm not rationalizing unacceptable behavior, but I am still rationalizing. Still... other animals DO rationalize _unacceptable_ behavior. Your dog may know full well that he is not supposed to get into the trash can, but he rationalizes that you are not watching and he smells something good in there, so he chooses to do the unacceptable behavior because he rationalized it. When you walk into the room and see the trash strewn all over, you don't have to say or do anything, you look at the dog and you can tell that he knows his behavior was unacceptable and he's in trouble.
Click to expand...


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah!  So you actually did nothing of the sort, got it.
> 
> Sorry, saying that a trait is unique to humanity does not make it untrue, or unnatural for that matter.  There is no indication found anywhere else in nature of any living species using written language.  Does that mean it is not a natural phenomenon and not supported by science?
> 
> I imagine you'll now revert to the kind of excuses you've used before.  'Language isn't a behavioral trait, so it doesn't count' or something like that.  First of all, belief in god is not a universal human trait.  Beyond that, how can you know that no other animal has a belief in god?  Unless the human mind is the only one capable of understanding such a concept......in which case, of course, it would make perfect sense that humans would be the only animals to believe in gods as we'd be the only ones capable of it.
> 
> Thank you for not actually using science at all to do nothing but provide your counter opinion on the subject of why humans believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Either way you want to take it, this destroys the argument that man invented a superfluous attribute to explain the unknown. If it's not an exclusively human trait, then it's not the creation of man's imagination. If it's not found anywhere else in nature then it's not something created to explain the unknown.
> 
> Language is a beneficial and fundamental attribute. It isn't something fake, created or invented out of fear of the unknown. There are billions of examples of unique attributes across a wide range of species, all of which have a fundamental and beneficial element, or they wouldn't exist. There is no behavior of any living thing that is without reason and purpose to the species, nor is there any behavior the species falsely believes is beneficial and with purpose but actually isn't.
> 
> Let's go through this again slowly... Humans did not invent spirituality, they are intrinsically connected spiritually. It is through that spiritual connection they were inspired to create written language, science and religion. Science was created by man to explain the unknown, religions were created to attempt comprehension of the intrinsic spiritual connection. Fear of mortality comes from the understanding of immortality through the comprehending of spiritual nature.
> 
> If humans invented spirituality, we'd be able to see that in archeological discovery. We'd find civilizations which existed for so many years without any trace of human spirituality, then see where humans began to practice this "invention" they came up with. Instead, we find that every civilization dating back to the very first ones discovered, show that humans were practicing some form of spiritual belief. The attribute has been part of the species since our inception. To this day, with all the modern science explaining the great mysteries, 90% of the species retains this attribute. Darwinian theories of natural selection negate any possibility this is a superficial attribute. It completely contradicts science to draw such a conclusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you point to the scientific law, principle, theory or hypothesis which states that if a trait is exclusively human it cannot be something created to explain the unknown?
Click to expand...


I don't need to, that's not my argument. We created science to explain the unknown. God and spiritual nature does not explain the unknown, it's still a mystery. What you are actually trying to argue is that man created God so he didn't have to explain the unknown, but then, he wouldn't have created science. Nothing about this theory is making rational sense, we don't find evidence of other living things making up fake icons to worship because of fears. 



> What is or isn't beneficial can be subjective.  Certainly human religious and spiritual beliefs might be beneficial, but that in no way means they are based on the existence of an actual god.  This is especially true considering how many different beliefs mankind has held.



Well I am sorry if you thought my argument was proof of God. If there was any way that I could do that, we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we? The notion has been presented that human spirituality is a bunch of made-up nonsense that is meaningless and serves no purpose whatsoever. I argue that man didn't invent it and it's not made-up, but it does in fact have fundamental value to the species. It can't be "meaningless" and also "beneficial" because these contradict each other. Mankind has created a lot of different beliefs regarding their intrinsic spiritual connection, but that only proves they are actually making some kind of connection to something. They don't fully understand or comprehend what that is, but they are aware it's something important. 



> Also, I don't believe that a trait must remain beneficial to continue within a species.  Certainly there's been plenty of argument on this board about whether homosexuality is beneficial or detrimental to a species.    There are certainly plenty of physical traits which are not beneficial yet continue within humanity.  Just using myself as an example, I have bad eyesight and suffer from acid reflux and psoriasis.  None of these are beneficial to my survival or the propagation of my genes, yet they have been passed on through multiple generations.  Is there any reason behaviors cannot be the same?



But you are not talking about an intrinsic behavioral characteristic across the entire species. You're presenting anomalies and abnormalities. Some are due to corrupted genetic code and mutations which we see all throughout nature. 



> Natural selection in no way negates the possibility that the spiritual connection you believe in is imagined.  Such beliefs can be beneficial or neutral, evolutionarily speaking, to the species without being based on something real.  Drawing such a conclusion does not 'completely contradict science' nor does it completely contradict evolutionary theory.  I wonder if you even believe these statements trying to tie your spiritual nature beliefs to evolution or if you are just trolling.
> 
> Spiritual nature and spiritual being(s) may be real, but I don't believe there is any particular aspect of science or scientific research which claims it to be so.



Again, IF there was any way for me to prove God is real, we wouldn't be having this conversation. When we are examining this question, we have to remember that. All we are doing is talking about what we know, the evidence that is objectively there to evaluate. If humans gained no benefit from spiritually connecting, they would have abandoned it many years ago. Instead, they created thousands of various religions to try and comprehend it better. If it was all on our heads and imaginary, we wouldn't keep doing it and finding benefit from doing it. To argue that it is of no benefit and all a bunch of made-up nonsense, is a contradiction of science and what we know about nature. Including the very theories of Darwin himself. 

Now it's very obvious to me that our species has accomplished things that other species have been completely unable to do. Some people will argue that it's because of our brains or cerebral cortex, language, the ability to rationalize, or cognition... but to one degree or another, all these attributes are found elsewhere in nature. The correlation between our success and our ability to connect to some source of inspiration and power greater than self is unmistakable. If we are connecting to something that isn't real, it sure as hell has paid off for us.


----------



## orogenicman

> What you are actually trying to argue is that man created God so he didn't have to explain the unknown...


 
 Actually, man created god and the religions by which to worship it so he wouldn't feel so small and alone when faced with the unknown, and so he could control the masses.  It also is a good excuse to make a lot of money. Ask Pat Robertson.


----------



## Boss

orogenicman said:


> What you are actually trying to argue is that man created God so he didn't have to explain the unknown...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, man created god and the religions by which to worship it so he wouldn't feel so small and alone when faced with the unknown, and so he could control the masses.  It also is a good excuse to make a lot of money. Ask Pat Robertson.
Click to expand...


Actually, if you've kept up with the thread, I've already debunked the myth that man created God or spirituality. Religion is created by man to explain his spiritual connection to God and spiritual nature. 

The only time in history I can recall anyone attempting to "control the masses" they were executing the religious and discouraging spirituality.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you are actually trying to argue is that man created God so he didn't have to explain the unknown...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, man created god and the religions by which to worship it so he wouldn't feel so small and alone when faced with the unknown, and so he could control the masses.  It also is a good excuse to make a lot of money. Ask Pat Robertson.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, if you've kept up with the thread, I've already debunked the myth that man created God or spirituality. Religion is created by man to explain his spiritual connection to God and spiritual nature.
> 
> The only time in history I can recall anyone attempting to "control the masses" they were executing the religious and discouraging spirituality.
Click to expand...


Actually, keeping up with the thread has shown that your "... because I say so" weasel has debunked only your credibility.

All the gods that mankind has created were designed to explain natural phenomenon not understood. That's why all of the previously configured gods have been abandoned. 

Your invention of "spiritual nature" is simply yet another variation of appeals to fear and ignorance.

Not so long ago in human history, it was impossible to conceive of a world not managed/controlled by one or more gods, and now, it is apparent that the gods don't control anything we can identify. Not so long ago, It was inconceivable that there were not angels pushing the planets and the gods opened flowers and so on-- but now it is natural to know that these things have non-divine underpinnings. We are evolving! And we are evolving away from the superstition based tenets of religious dogma.

Look at the grandeur of the universe through the Hubble. Watch footage of man first landing on the moon. Watch the images from the Voyagers as they swept past the great gas planets in absolute silence, giving us vastly more sight than any so-called revelation from a superstitious doom-sayer. Yes, theists see "god's handiwork" when they look at these things, but the truth is, they would be blind to it if they relied on their gods -- it is technology and reason which brought that majesty to you.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you are actually trying to argue is that man created God so he didn't have to explain the unknown...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, man created god and the religions by which to worship it so he wouldn't feel so small and alone when faced with the unknown, and so he could control the masses.  It also is a good excuse to make a lot of money. Ask Pat Robertson.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, if you've kept up with the thread, I've already debunked the myth that man created God or spirituality. Religion is created by man to explain his spiritual connection to God and spiritual nature.
> 
> The only time in history I can recall anyone attempting to "control the masses" they were executing the religious and discouraging spirituality.
Click to expand...


I've kept up with the thread and watched you trip all over yourself. You have debunked nothing, except your claims of higher education.


----------



## koshergrl

Wrong. Boss's credibility has increased substantially in this thread...despite the parade of anti-Christian, anti-God loons that have by turns ridiculed, attacked, and trolled the thread.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Either way you want to take it, this destroys the argument that man invented a superfluous attribute to explain the unknown. If it's not an exclusively human trait, then it's not the creation of man's imagination. If it's not found anywhere else in nature then it's not something created to explain the unknown.
> 
> Language is a beneficial and fundamental attribute. It isn't something fake, created or invented out of fear of the unknown. There are billions of examples of unique attributes across a wide range of species, all of which have a fundamental and beneficial element, or they wouldn't exist. There is no behavior of any living thing that is without reason and purpose to the species, nor is there any behavior the species falsely believes is beneficial and with purpose but actually isn't.
> 
> Let's go through this again slowly... Humans did not invent spirituality, they are intrinsically connected spiritually. It is through that spiritual connection they were inspired to create written language, science and religion. Science was created by man to explain the unknown, religions were created to attempt comprehension of the intrinsic spiritual connection. Fear of mortality comes from the understanding of immortality through the comprehending of spiritual nature.
> 
> If humans invented spirituality, we'd be able to see that in archeological discovery. We'd find civilizations which existed for so many years without any trace of human spirituality, then see where humans began to practice this "invention" they came up with. Instead, we find that every civilization dating back to the very first ones discovered, show that humans were practicing some form of spiritual belief. The attribute has been part of the species since our inception. To this day, with all the modern science explaining the great mysteries, 90% of the species retains this attribute. Darwinian theories of natural selection negate any possibility this is a superficial attribute. It completely contradicts science to draw such a conclusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you point to the scientific law, principle, theory or hypothesis which states that if a trait is exclusively human it cannot be something created to explain the unknown?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't need to, that's not my argument. We created science to explain the unknown. God and spiritual nature does not explain the unknown, it's still a mystery. What you are actually trying to argue is that man created God so he didn't have to explain the unknown, but then, he wouldn't have created science. Nothing about this theory is making rational sense, we don't find evidence of other living things making up fake icons to worship because of fears.
> 
> 
> 
> Well I am sorry if you thought my argument was proof of God. If there was any way that I could do that, we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we? The notion has been presented that human spirituality is a bunch of made-up nonsense that is meaningless and serves no purpose whatsoever. I argue that man didn't invent it and it's not made-up, but it does in fact have fundamental value to the species. It can't be "meaningless" and also "beneficial" because these contradict each other. Mankind has created a lot of different beliefs regarding their intrinsic spiritual connection, but that only proves they are actually making some kind of connection to something. They don't fully understand or comprehend what that is, but they are aware it's something important.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also, I don't believe that a trait must remain beneficial to continue within a species.  Certainly there's been plenty of argument on this board about whether homosexuality is beneficial or detrimental to a species.    There are certainly plenty of physical traits which are not beneficial yet continue within humanity.  Just using myself as an example, I have bad eyesight and suffer from acid reflux and psoriasis.  None of these are beneficial to my survival or the propagation of my genes, yet they have been passed on through multiple generations.  Is there any reason behaviors cannot be the same?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you are not talking about an intrinsic behavioral characteristic across the entire species. You're presenting anomalies and abnormalities. Some are due to corrupted genetic code and mutations which we see all throughout nature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural selection in no way negates the possibility that the spiritual connection you believe in is imagined.  Such beliefs can be beneficial or neutral, evolutionarily speaking, to the species without being based on something real.  Drawing such a conclusion does not 'completely contradict science' nor does it completely contradict evolutionary theory.  I wonder if you even believe these statements trying to tie your spiritual nature beliefs to evolution or if you are just trolling.
> 
> Spiritual nature and spiritual being(s) may be real, but I don't believe there is any particular aspect of science or scientific research which claims it to be so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, IF there was any way for me to prove God is real, we wouldn't be having this conversation. When we are examining this question, we have to remember that. All we are doing is talking about what we know, the evidence that is objectively there to evaluate. If humans gained no benefit from spiritually connecting, they would have abandoned it many years ago. Instead, they created thousands of various religions to try and comprehend it better. If it was all on our heads and imaginary, we wouldn't keep doing it and finding benefit from doing it. To argue that it is of no benefit and all a bunch of made-up nonsense, is a contradiction of science and what we know about nature. Including the very theories of Darwin himself.
> 
> Now it's very obvious to me that our species has accomplished things that other species have been completely unable to do. Some people will argue that it's because of our brains or cerebral cortex, language, the ability to rationalize, or cognition... but to one degree or another, all these attributes are found elsewhere in nature. The correlation between our success and our ability to connect to some source of inspiration and power greater than self is unmistakable. If we are connecting to something that isn't real, it sure as hell has paid off for us.
Click to expand...


The red parts taken in order.
The fact that man uses spiritual placeholders to create an understanding of his surroundings does not mean it is a universally accepted concoction. People applying their rational brains have made discoveries throughout history that have required the adjustment of the prevailing myths. The need for one man to have facile, unsupportable answers to mysteries awakens the need in another to de-mystify those answers. Science is a reaction to the willingness of some to substitute imagination for investigation. It is an inevitable pushback against the unsupported claims of the mystic.
Second. Things most certainly can be untrue and useful. We have all known people who have great confidence in their abilities which they factually don't possess but who's confidence alone pushes them far beyond what is reasonable to expect. The Santa myth is useful in exerting certain types of control over children during the season. You yourself have said that the salvation doctrine is false in your opinion, yet I am positive you would make the case for its useful purpose in people's lives. The whole discussion of the use of rationalizations in humans is the discussion of the usefulness of self-deception in the maintenance of the ego. These may be absolutely pregnant with "meaning" to the individual while being entirely bereft of truth.
Third, whether or not it has "paid off" could be argued, but it is irrelevant, unless you are simply saying that whatever benefits a man defines it as true and good. Not sure you want to be making that argument.


----------



## koshergrl

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, man created god and the religions by which to worship it so he wouldn't feel so small and alone when faced with the unknown, and so he could control the masses.  It also is a good excuse to make a lot of money. Ask Pat Robertson.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, if you've kept up with the thread, I've already debunked the myth that man created God or spirituality. Religion is created by man to explain his spiritual connection to God and spiritual nature.
> 
> The only time in history I can recall anyone attempting to "control the masses" they were executing the religious and discouraging spirituality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've kept up with the thread and watched you trip all over yourself. You have debunked nothing, except your claims of higher education.
Click to expand...


Yes, it's obvious by the way you feel compelled to argue by claiming he's not really educated, thus should not be trusted.

Neither of which is true, and is evidence in and of itself that you have failed.


----------



## thebrucebeat

koshergrl said:


> Wrong. Boss's credibility has increased substantially in this thread...despite the parade of anti-Christian, anti-God loons that have by turns ridiculed, attacked, and trolled the thread.



His credibility is not increased by your support.
Quite the contrary.
Your credibility would be hurt by your post here, but you started with none, so there is no net change.
The thread started with an OP that was a trolling attack of unsupported nonsense. 
Was he expecting a pass?
Was his credibility increased for you when he made the profound argument that if things occur in the animal kingdom they support his theory but if they don't occur in the animal kingdom this supports his theory, too? Is this the razor sharp intellect you are admiring?
Then you are right to admire him.
It is all you can aspire to.


----------



## thebrucebeat

koshergrl said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, if you've kept up with the thread, I've already debunked the myth that man created God or spirituality. Religion is created by man to explain his spiritual connection to God and spiritual nature.
> 
> The only time in history I can recall anyone attempting to "control the masses" they were executing the religious and discouraging spirituality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've kept up with the thread and watched you trip all over yourself. You have debunked nothing, except your claims of higher education.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it's obvious by the way you feel compelled to argue by claiming he's not really educated, thus should not be trusted.
> 
> Neither of which is true, and is evidence in and of itself that you have failed.
Click to expand...

My arguments go far beyond that, which you avoid.
Just as well.
It is all very much beyond you.


----------



## BreezeWood

Boss said:


> The only time in history I can recall anyone attempting to "control the masses" they were executing the religious and discouraging spirituality.



your brazen shamelessness explains the perverse intent for your opening comment directed towards God rather than those who justly deserve the reprimand they as you rightfully deserve.

though koshergrl has a point in Bossy's favor he is otherwise a raving rightwing ideologue.

.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Either way you want to take it, this destroys the argument that man invented a superfluous attribute to explain the unknown. If it's not an exclusively human trait, then it's not the creation of man's imagination. If it's not found anywhere else in nature then it's not something created to explain the unknown.
> 
> Language is a beneficial and fundamental attribute. It isn't something fake, created or invented out of fear of the unknown. There are billions of examples of unique attributes across a wide range of species, all of which have a fundamental and beneficial element, or they wouldn't exist. There is no behavior of any living thing that is without reason and purpose to the species, nor is there any behavior the species falsely believes is beneficial and with purpose but actually isn't.
> 
> Let's go through this again slowly... Humans did not invent spirituality, they are intrinsically connected spiritually. It is through that spiritual connection they were inspired to create written language, science and religion. Science was created by man to explain the unknown, religions were created to attempt comprehension of the intrinsic spiritual connection. Fear of mortality comes from the understanding of immortality through the comprehending of spiritual nature.
> 
> If humans invented spirituality, we'd be able to see that in archeological discovery. We'd find civilizations which existed for so many years without any trace of human spirituality, then see where humans began to practice this "invention" they came up with. Instead, we find that every civilization dating back to the very first ones discovered, show that humans were practicing some form of spiritual belief. The attribute has been part of the species since our inception. To this day, with all the modern science explaining the great mysteries, 90% of the species retains this attribute. Darwinian theories of natural selection negate any possibility this is a superficial attribute. It completely contradicts science to draw such a conclusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you point to the scientific law, principle, theory or hypothesis which states that if a trait is exclusively human it cannot be something created to explain the unknown?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't need to, that's not my argument. We created science to explain the unknown. God and spiritual nature does not explain the unknown, it's still a mystery. What you are actually trying to argue is that man created God so he didn't have to explain the unknown, but then, he wouldn't have created science. Nothing about this theory is making rational sense, we don't find evidence of other living things making up fake icons to worship because of fears.
> 
> 
> 
> Well I am sorry if you thought my argument was proof of God. If there was any way that I could do that, we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we? The notion has been presented that human spirituality is a bunch of made-up nonsense that is meaningless and serves no purpose whatsoever. I argue that man didn't invent it and it's not made-up, but it does in fact have fundamental value to the species. It can't be "meaningless" and also "beneficial" because these contradict each other. Mankind has created a lot of different beliefs regarding their intrinsic spiritual connection, but that only proves they are actually making some kind of connection to something. They don't fully understand or comprehend what that is, but they are aware it's something important.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also, I don't believe that a trait must remain beneficial to continue within a species.  Certainly there's been plenty of argument on this board about whether homosexuality is beneficial or detrimental to a species.    There are certainly plenty of physical traits which are not beneficial yet continue within humanity.  Just using myself as an example, I have bad eyesight and suffer from acid reflux and psoriasis.  None of these are beneficial to my survival or the propagation of my genes, yet they have been passed on through multiple generations.  Is there any reason behaviors cannot be the same?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you are not talking about an intrinsic behavioral characteristic across the entire species. You're presenting anomalies and abnormalities. Some are due to corrupted genetic code and mutations which we see all throughout nature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural selection in no way negates the possibility that the spiritual connection you believe in is imagined.  Such beliefs can be beneficial or neutral, evolutionarily speaking, to the species without being based on something real.  Drawing such a conclusion does not 'completely contradict science' nor does it completely contradict evolutionary theory.  I wonder if you even believe these statements trying to tie your spiritual nature beliefs to evolution or if you are just trolling.
> 
> Spiritual nature and spiritual being(s) may be real, but I don't believe there is any particular aspect of science or scientific research which claims it to be so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, IF there was any way for me to prove God is real, we wouldn't be having this conversation. When we are examining this question, we have to remember that. All we are doing is talking about what we know, the evidence that is objectively there to evaluate. If humans gained no benefit from spiritually connecting, they would have abandoned it many years ago. Instead, they created thousands of various religions to try and comprehend it better. If it was all on our heads and imaginary, we wouldn't keep doing it and finding benefit from doing it. To argue that it is of no benefit and all a bunch of made-up nonsense, is a contradiction of science and what we know about nature. Including the very theories of Darwin himself.
> 
> Now it's very obvious to me that our species has accomplished things that other species have been completely unable to do. Some people will argue that it's because of our brains or cerebral cortex, language, the ability to rationalize, or cognition... but to one degree or another, all these attributes are found elsewhere in nature. The correlation between our success and our ability to connect to some source of inspiration and power greater than self is unmistakable. If we are connecting to something that isn't real, it sure as hell has paid off for us.
Click to expand...


What, exactly, is your argument?  Because you have said that if something is an exclusively human trait (specifically you said not found elsewhere in nature), it's not something created to explain the unknown.  You said you used science to show that spiritual belief/spirituality are not based on imagined gods, and that was part of your argument.  How is that not saying there is some scientific principle that states an exclusively human trait cannot be something created to explain the unknown?

I'm not trying to find proof of your god here.  You made a claim about showing that spiritual belief can not be based on imagination using science and I am pointing out that is a false claim.  At best you've tried to conflate your beliefs with evolutionary theory and done so poorly.

It doesn't matter if you are completely correct in your spiritual beliefs, if the god you believe in exists, etc.  That doesn't mean you have accurately used any sort of scientific principles or research to show that the various religious and spiritual beliefs of mankind cannot have been based on imagined beings.


----------



## Boss

> The fact that man uses spiritual placeholders to create an understanding of his surroundings does not mean it is a universally accepted concoction.



But man doesn't. That's YOUR argument and I have debunked it. The understanding of God doesn't explain anything or how it happens. You and others keep insisting that man invented God to explain the unknown, but belief in God doesn't explain the unknown. It's akin to saying man invented the color red to explain why donuts are so delicious. 



> People applying their rational brains have made discoveries throughout history that have required the adjustment of the prevailing myths.



True, but this applies to both religion AND science. 



> Science is a reaction to the willingness of some to substitute imagination for investigation. It is an inevitable pushback against the unsupported claims of the mystic.



Imagination LEADS to investigation. Science is a reaction to inspiration of gaining knowledge. It is not a pushback of anything because, again, spiritual beliefs do not explain the unknown. I posted a comprehensive list of the earliest scientists followed by a comprehensive list of contemporary scientists who believed in spiritual nature. It's frankly a brainless and stupid argument that science was invented to explain away spiritual faith because it has obviously done a piss poor job of that. 



> Things most certainly can be untrue and useful.



Not my argument... this is a distortion of my words to create an argument I never made. Propaganda is most certainly useful. There is no example of something that is "meaningless" and also "beneficial." 



> You yourself have said that the salvation doctrine is false in your opinion...



Again, you twist and distort things I say to make points I never made. I've never said the salvation doctrine is false, I said I don't believe in it. I don't know if it's true or false, I just don't believe in it.



> Third, whether or not it has "paid off" could be argued, but it is irrelevant, unless you are simply saying that whatever benefits a man defines it as true and good. Not sure you want to be making that argument.



It really can't be argued unless you are a moron who thinks man would be "better off" living in the trees in the jungle, competing with the great apes and other upper primates for survival. Now I can imagine a moron like you making that argument, but I will always disagree with you.


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> What, exactly, is your argument?  Because you have said that if something is an exclusively human trait (specifically you said not found elsewhere in nature), it's not something created to explain the unknown.  You said you used science to show that spiritual belief/spirituality are not based on imagined gods, and that was part of your argument.  How is that not saying there is some scientific principle that states an exclusively human trait cannot be something created to explain the unknown?
> 
> I'm not trying to find proof of your god here.  You made a claim about showing that spiritual belief can not be based on imagination using science and I am pointing out that is a false claim.  At best you've tried to conflate your beliefs with evolutionary theory and done so poorly.
> 
> It doesn't matter if you are completely correct in your spiritual beliefs, if the god you believe in exists, etc.  That doesn't mean you have accurately used any sort of scientific principles or research to show that the various religious and spiritual beliefs of mankind cannot have been based on imagined beings.



Look, I've presented my argument. You continue to try and parse my thoughts in distorted context to create false arguments you can defeat. It has become consistent with you and I guess some people think you're brilliant for having this ability, but I am not impressed. 

Religious beliefs are something totally different from intrinsic spiritual connection. You keep grouping the two together as if they are joined at the hip and inseparable, when we know that human spirituality predates any sort of religion by tens of thousands of years. Then you make this argument it was "invented by man" but that only applies to religious beliefs, it does not and cannot apply to spirituality. We did not invent our intrinsic spiritual connection, no matter how much you wish that were proven to be the case. It is evidenced to exist in man since the very first civilization and remains our most defining attribute as a species. 

Now I don't know about "imagined beings" ...what do you mean by "being" here? A physical manifestation of some kind? Is this your brain not being able to comprehend that which is spiritual? When we apply the word "being" it generally denotes a physical state of presence or "being in existence" in a physical sense. Spiritual nature is not physical nature. It is here where I can understand the god-deniers not being able to accept the existence of God, you simply can't rationalize a spiritual concept. Doesn't mean it isn't true, you just can't envision it. 

When we study the inherent behaviors of any living thing, we find that all inherent behaviors are present for a reason. We may not know what those reasons are at first, and it may take many years of research to even have an idea of why the behaviors exist, but we know that they do exist for a reason. _Why is that salmon working so hard to swim upstream?_ Is it because it's stupid and ignorant? Has it deluded itself into believing something is upstream that isn't really there? Is it because it's afraid of the unknown downstream? These are all silly excuses we could have come up with in denial of the fact that we know all inherent behavior has fundamental reason.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> The fact that man uses spiritual placeholders to create an understanding of his surroundings does not mean it is a universally accepted concoction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But man doesn't. That's YOUR argument and I have debunked it. The understanding of God doesn't explain anything or how it happens. You and others keep insisting that man invented God to explain the unknown, but belief in God doesn't explain the unknown. It's akin to saying man invented the color red to explain why donuts are so delicious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People applying their rational brains have made discoveries throughout history that have required the adjustment of the prevailing myths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True, but this applies to both religion AND science.
> 
> 
> 
> Imagination LEADS to investigation. Science is a reaction to inspiration of gaining knowledge. It is not a pushback of anything because, again, spiritual beliefs do not explain the unknown. I posted a comprehensive list of the earliest scientists followed by a comprehensive list of contemporary scientists who believed in spiritual nature. It's frankly a brainless and stupid argument that science was invented to explain away spiritual faith because it has obviously done a piss poor job of that.
> 
> 
> 
> Not my argument... this is a distortion of my words to create an argument I never made. Propaganda is most certainly useful. There is no example of something that is "meaningless" and also "beneficial."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You yourself have said that the salvation doctrine is false in your opinion...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you twist and distort things I say to make points I never made. I've never said the salvation doctrine is false, I said I don't believe in it. I don't know if it's true or false, I just don't believe in it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third, whether or not it has "paid off" could be argued, but it is irrelevant, unless you are simply saying that whatever benefits a man defines it as true and good. Not sure you want to be making that argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It really can't be argued unless you are a moron who thinks man would be "better off" living in the trees in the jungle, competing with the great apes and other upper primates for survival. Now I can imagine a moron like you making that argument, but I will always disagree with you.
Click to expand...


You said, "You and others keep insisting that man invented God to explain the unknown, but belief in God doesn't explain the unknown.'  Really???  Where do you go when you die?  Heaven?  Man invented god and heaven.  Fact is no one knows what happens when you die.  

The God Delusion is a 2006 best-selling,[1] non-fiction book by English biologist Richard Dawkins, professorial fellow of New College, Oxford,[2][3] and former holder of the Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford.

In The God Delusion, Dawkins contends that a supernatural creator almost certainly does not exist and that belief in a personal god qualifies as a delusion, which he defines as a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence.  When one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion"


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> What, exactly, is your argument?  Because you have said that if something is an exclusively human trait (specifically you said not found elsewhere in nature), it's not something created to explain the unknown.  You said you used science to show that spiritual belief/spirituality are not based on imagined gods, and that was part of your argument.  How is that not saying there is some scientific principle that states an exclusively human trait cannot be something created to explain the unknown?
> 
> I'm not trying to find proof of your god here.  You made a claim about showing that spiritual belief can not be based on imagination using science and I am pointing out that is a false claim.  At best you've tried to conflate your beliefs with evolutionary theory and done so poorly.
> 
> It doesn't matter if you are completely correct in your spiritual beliefs, if the god you believe in exists, etc.  That doesn't mean you have accurately used any sort of scientific principles or research to show that the various religious and spiritual beliefs of mankind cannot have been based on imagined beings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look, I've presented my argument. You continue to try and parse my thoughts in distorted context to create false arguments you can defeat. It has become consistent with you and I guess some people think you're brilliant for having this ability, but I am not impressed.
> 
> Religious beliefs are something totally different from intrinsic spiritual connection. You keep grouping the two together as if they are joined at the hip and inseparable, when we know that human spirituality predates any sort of religion by tens of thousands of years. Then you make this argument it was "invented by man" but that only applies to religious beliefs, it does not and cannot apply to spirituality. We did not invent our intrinsic spiritual connection, no matter how much you wish that were proven to be the case. It is evidenced to exist in man since the very first civilization and remains our most defining attribute as a species.
> 
> Now I don't know about "imagined beings" ...what do you mean by "being" here? A physical manifestation of some kind? Is this your brain not being able to comprehend that which is spiritual? When we apply the word "being" it generally denotes a physical state of presence or "being in existence" in a physical sense. Spiritual nature is not physical nature. It is here where I can understand the god-deniers not being able to accept the existence of God, you simply can't rationalize a spiritual concept. Doesn't mean it isn't true, you just can't envision it.
> 
> When we study the inherent behaviors of any living thing, we find that all inherent behaviors are present for a reason. We may not know what those reasons are at first, and it may take many years of research to even have an idea of why the behaviors exist, but we know that they do exist for a reason. _Why is that salmon working so hard to swim upstream?_ Is it because it's stupid and ignorant? Has it deluded itself into believing something is upstream that isn't really there? Is it because it's afraid of the unknown downstream? These are all silly excuses we could have come up with in denial of the fact that we know all inherent behavior has fundamental reason.
Click to expand...


"When we study"? Who is we? 

It is the science community that is doing the studying. We need to understand that the fundamentalist ministries are not doing any studies in the biological sciences that are available for peer review. Why dont you identify for us the studies performed by the Discotute that have been submitted for peer review?

What is preventing the IDiots, from presenting their reliable and supportable data in a manner that will resolve their credibility / reliability and accountability failures? If creationism / ID is as solidly defendable as its religious authorities claim, allow it to be subject to the same process of debate / scientific testing / peer review within the relevant scientific community. Enough of the phony Disco' tute green-screen labs. Why doesnt the creationist / ID / hyper-religious community do real science? While it is true that creationism / intelligent design pseudo-science is rejected by the vast majority of scientists, (especially those in geology/paleontology, biology, and physics); this group includes Christian scientists and other scientists who are also share theistic views. But, again, those rare scientists in biology, geology/paleontology that accept ID/creationism can step up to the plate and actively undertake the scientific experiments, actively publish in mainstream peer-review science journals, actively attend science seminars and symposiums, etc, to present their research / field study / peer-reviewed papers.


----------



## Boss

> You said, "You and others keep insisting that man invented God to explain the unknown, but belief in God doesn't explain the unknown.' Really??? Where do you go when you die? Heaven? Man invented god and heaven. Fact is no one knows what happens when you die.
> 
> The God Delusion is a 2006 best-selling,[1] non-fiction book by English biologist Richard Dawkins, professorial fellow of New College, Oxford,[2][3] and former holder of the Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford.
> 
> In The God Delusion, Dawkins contends that a supernatural creator almost certainly does not exist and that belief in a personal god qualifies as a delusion, which he defines as a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence. When one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion"



I don't know where you go when you die but it has nothing to do with whether humans spiritually connect to something greater than self. Or perhaps it does and I just don't understand that connection? Man invents incarnations of God and heaven because man is intrinsically connected to something greater than self that he cannot explain. 

It's anecdotal but nice to know that Dawkins contents it's *"almost certain"* that God doesn't exist.


----------



## Boss

> "When we study"? Who is we?



Human biologists and people who study science.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> The fact that man uses spiritual placeholders to create an understanding of his surroundings does not mean it is a universally accepted concoction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But man doesn't. That's YOUR argument and I have debunked it. The understanding of God doesn't explain anything or how it happens. You and others keep insisting that man invented God to explain the unknown, but belief in God doesn't explain the unknown. It's akin to saying man invented the color red to explain why donuts are so delicious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People applying their rational brains have made discoveries throughout history that have required the adjustment of the prevailing myths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True, but this applies to both religion AND science.
> 
> 
> 
> Imagination LEADS to investigation. Science is a reaction to inspiration of gaining knowledge. It is not a pushback of anything because, again, spiritual beliefs do not explain the unknown. I posted a comprehensive list of the earliest scientists followed by a comprehensive list of contemporary scientists who believed in spiritual nature. It's frankly a brainless and stupid argument that science was invented to explain away spiritual faith because it has obviously done a piss poor job of that.
> 
> 
> 
> Not my argument... this is a distortion of my words to create an argument I never made. Propaganda is most certainly useful. There is no example of something that is "meaningless" and also "beneficial."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You yourself have said that the salvation doctrine is false in your opinion...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you twist and distort things I say to make points I never made. I've never said the salvation doctrine is false, I said I don't believe in it. I don't know if it's true or false, I just don't believe in it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third, whether or not it has "paid off" could be argued, but it is irrelevant, unless you are simply saying that whatever benefits a man defines it as true and good. Not sure you want to be making that argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It really can't be argued unless you are a moron who thinks man would be "better off" living in the trees in the jungle, competing with the great apes and other upper primates for survival. Now I can imagine a moron like you making that argument, but I will always disagree with you.
Click to expand...


You said, "You and others keep insisting that man invented God to explain the unknown, but belief in God doesn't explain the unknown.'  Really???  Where do you go when you die?  Heaven?  Man invented god and heaven.  Fact is no one knows what happens when you die.  

The God Delusion is a 2006 best-selling,[1] non-fiction book by English biologist Richard Dawkins, professorial fellow of New College, Oxford,[2][3] and former holder of the Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford.

In The God Delusion, Dawkins contends that a supernatural creator almost certainly does not exist and that belief in a personal god qualifies as a delusion, which he defines as a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence.  When one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion"


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> "When we study"? Who is we?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Human biologists and people who study science.
Click to expand...


Human biologists as opposed to the non-human ones? What "people who study science" and affiliated with the Disco' tute are submitting "study papers" for peer review by the relevant science community? 

So, I'm still curious to know who "we" is in connection with "when we study".

What papers, studies, experiments have been performed by creation ministries and submitted to the relevant science community for peer review?


----------



## Boss

> Why doesn&#8217;t the creationist / ID / hyper-religious community do real science?



Well, ID theory does involve real science. But other than that, spiritual nature is not examinable by physical sciences at this time. Spiritual nature is not physical nature.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> What, exactly, is your argument?  Because you have said that if something is an exclusively human trait (specifically you said not found elsewhere in nature), it's not something created to explain the unknown.  You said you used science to show that spiritual belief/spirituality are not based on imagined gods, and that was part of your argument.  How is that not saying there is some scientific principle that states an exclusively human trait cannot be something created to explain the unknown?
> 
> I'm not trying to find proof of your god here.  You made a claim about showing that spiritual belief can not be based on imagination using science and I am pointing out that is a false claim.  At best you've tried to conflate your beliefs with evolutionary theory and done so poorly.
> 
> It doesn't matter if you are completely correct in your spiritual beliefs, if the god you believe in exists, etc.  That doesn't mean you have accurately used any sort of scientific principles or research to show that the various religious and spiritual beliefs of mankind cannot have been based on imagined beings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look, I've presented my argument. You continue to try and parse my thoughts in distorted context to create false arguments you can defeat. It has become consistent with you and I guess some people think you're brilliant for having this ability, but I am not impressed.
> 
> Religious beliefs are something totally different from intrinsic spiritual connection. You keep grouping the two together as if they are joined at the hip and inseparable, when we know that human spirituality predates any sort of religion by tens of thousands of years. Then you make this argument it was "invented by man" but that only applies to religious beliefs, it does not and cannot apply to spirituality. We did not invent our intrinsic spiritual connection, no matter how much you wish that were proven to be the case. It is evidenced to exist in man since the very first civilization and remains our most defining attribute as a species.
> 
> Now I don't know about "imagined beings" ...what do you mean by "being" here? A physical manifestation of some kind? Is this your brain not being able to comprehend that which is spiritual? When we apply the word "being" it generally denotes a physical state of presence or "being in existence" in a physical sense. Spiritual nature is not physical nature. It is here where I can understand the god-deniers not being able to accept the existence of God, you simply can't rationalize a spiritual concept. Doesn't mean it isn't true, you just can't envision it.
> 
> When we study the inherent behaviors of any living thing, we find that all inherent behaviors are present for a reason. We may not know what those reasons are at first, and it may take many years of research to even have an idea of why the behaviors exist, but we know that they do exist for a reason. _Why is that salmon working so hard to swim upstream?_ Is it because it's stupid and ignorant? Has it deluded itself into believing something is upstream that isn't really there? Is it because it's afraid of the unknown downstream? These are all silly excuses we could have come up with in denial of the fact that we know all inherent behavior has fundamental reason.
Click to expand...


You never stop doing exactly the things you accuse others of, do you?  

I have not, in any way, tried to prove that spiritual connection or religious belief or spirituality or any of that was invented.  What I've done, what I've clearly stated I am doing, is to show that you have not used science to show that man's spiritual connection cannot have been based on imagination.  I've even said that you can be correct about spirituality and that you still have not shown, using any kind of science, that it's not possible for spirituality to be based on imagination.  Yet here you are, assigning arguments to me that I not only have not made, but have specifically contradicted. 

I'm sorry if you find me asking for clarification of your argument, while providing your own words to show why I'm asking, so onerous.  

I group religious beliefs with spiritual connection because you have used religious belief as evidence of that spiritual connection.  Once again, you seem to have a problem with your own arguments being questioned.

Who is the 'we' that knows spiritual connection predates religion by tens of thousands of years?  What is the evidence that spiritual connection was a part of humanity tens of thousands of years before religion began?

In yet another example of your hypocrisy, you decide to take issue with my use of the word beings, when you have complained about others twisting meaning and focusing on minutiae.  I didn't say that beings denoted a physical being.  In fact, considering the context, it's pretty clear I was speaking of something else; the various gods humanity has believed in.  

You compare belief to behavior, but haven't you said those are different things in this very thread?  Anyway, the physical behavior of a salmon is not the same as the beliefs of a human.  You would need to compare the things people do because of their spiritual beliefs to the salmon swimming upstream, or compare the thoughts or beliefs of the salmon that lead it to swim upstream to human spiritual belief, to really have an accurate analogy.

One more time : I'm not trying to prove or disprove the basis for religion, spiritual belief or spirituality.  I'm not trying to get you to prove the existence of god.  I'm pointing out that your argument, that you have shown spiritual belief cannot be based on human imagining through some sort of science, is false.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Why doesnt the creationist / ID / hyper-religious community do real science?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, ID theory does involve real science. But other than that, spiritual nature is not examinable by physical sciences at this time. Spiritual nature is not physical nature.
Click to expand...


What papers, studies, experiments have been performed by the Disco 'tute and submitted to the relevant science community for peer review?

The 'tute is an "ID" syndicate, so please identify their works for us.


"Spiritual nature" is some invention of yours and yes, how convenient that it is "not examinable by physical sciences at this time".  Are there then "supernatural sciences" can be called into service to examine "spiritual nature"?


----------



## Steven_R

Boss said:


> Why doesnt the creationist / ID / hyper-religious community do real science?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, ID theory does involve real science.
Click to expand...




You do realize that the proponents of ID outright admit that they have a conclusion but no evidence? That in order for ID to be science, the rules of science have to be expanded to the point that astrology becomes an actual scientific discipline. That every point ID has made has been debunked, including Irreducible Complexity.


----------



## orogenicman

Boss said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you are actually trying to argue is that man created God so he didn't have to explain the unknown...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, man created god and the religions by which to worship it so he wouldn't feel so small and alone when faced with the unknown, and so he could control the masses. It also is a good excuse to make a lot of money. Ask Pat Robertson.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, if you've kept up with the thread, I've already debunked the myth that man created God or spirituality. Religion is created by man to explain his spiritual connection to God and spiritual nature.
> 
> The only time in history I can recall anyone attempting to "control the masses" they were executing the religious and discouraging spirituality.
Click to expand...


Do you honestly think that the first snake head idol, created some 70,000 years ago, and which is considered to be the oldest known religious symbol,  was created to explain man's spiritual connection to god?

 You've never hear of Jim Jones, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Jim Baker and Tammy Fay, about three or four dozen popes, Jesus Christ, Rev Sun Mying Moon, Buddha, etc., etc., etc.?  These people never attempted to control the masses?  Ever?


----------



## Steven_R

orogenicman said:


> Do you honestly think that the first snake head idol, created some 70,000 years ago...



Nonsense. The world is no older than 10,000 years. 

70,000 years old? 

Next you'll tell me that there wasn't a world wide flood that carved out the Grand Canyon. 

I'm on to you and your Satan-led ways.


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> What, exactly, is your argument?  Because you have said that if something is an exclusively human trait (specifically you said not found elsewhere in nature), it's not something created to explain the unknown.  You said you used science to show that spiritual belief/spirituality are not based on imagined gods, and that was part of your argument.  How is that not saying there is some scientific principle that states an exclusively human trait cannot be something created to explain the unknown?
> 
> I'm not trying to find proof of your god here.  You made a claim about showing that spiritual belief can not be based on imagination using science and I am pointing out that is a false claim.  At best you've tried to conflate your beliefs with evolutionary theory and done so poorly.
> 
> It doesn't matter if you are completely correct in your spiritual beliefs, if the god you believe in exists, etc.  That doesn't mean you have accurately used any sort of scientific principles or research to show that the various religious and spiritual beliefs of mankind cannot have been based on imagined beings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look, I've presented my argument. You continue to try and parse my thoughts in distorted context to create false arguments you can defeat. It has become consistent with you and I guess some people think you're brilliant for having this ability, but I am not impressed.
> 
> Religious beliefs are something totally different from intrinsic spiritual connection. You keep grouping the two together as if they are joined at the hip and inseparable, when we know that human spirituality predates any sort of religion by tens of thousands of years. Then you make this argument it was "invented by man" but that only applies to religious beliefs, it does not and cannot apply to spirituality. We did not invent our intrinsic spiritual connection, no matter how much you wish that were proven to be the case. It is evidenced to exist in man since the very first civilization and remains our most defining attribute as a species.
> 
> Now I don't know about "imagined beings" ...what do you mean by "being" here? A physical manifestation of some kind? Is this your brain not being able to comprehend that which is spiritual? When we apply the word "being" it generally denotes a physical state of presence or "being in existence" in a physical sense. Spiritual nature is not physical nature. It is here where I can understand the god-deniers not being able to accept the existence of God, you simply can't rationalize a spiritual concept. Doesn't mean it isn't true, you just can't envision it.
> 
> When we study the inherent behaviors of any living thing, we find that all inherent behaviors are present for a reason. We may not know what those reasons are at first, and it may take many years of research to even have an idea of why the behaviors exist, but we know that they do exist for a reason. _Why is that salmon working so hard to swim upstream?_ Is it because it's stupid and ignorant? Has it deluded itself into believing something is upstream that isn't really there? Is it because it's afraid of the unknown downstream? These are all silly excuses we could have come up with in denial of the fact that we know all inherent behavior has fundamental reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You never stop doing exactly the things you accuse others of, do you?
> 
> I have not, in any way, tried to prove that spiritual connection or religious belief or spirituality or any of that was invented.  What I've done, what I've clearly stated I am doing, is to show that you have not used science to show that man's spiritual connection cannot have been based on imagination.  I've even said that you can be correct about spirituality and that you still have not shown, using any kind of science, that it's not possible for spirituality to be based on imagination.  Yet here you are, assigning arguments to me that I not only have not made, but have specifically contradicted.
Click to expand...


But what you are doing is taking my response to that argument from someone else, then retroactively presenting your argument and pretending my response is to your argument instead. It has been argued that human spirituality is invented, made-up, imaginary, created by man to explain the unexplained and console fear of the unknown, etc. I am responding to THAT argument, and you are free to disagree with my response but you can't pretend it's a response to some other argument you'd like to make. 

And let me clarify, I have never intended to state that it's "not possible" for spirituality to be based on imagination, it's highly improbable and not scientifically supportable. 



> I'm sorry if you find me asking for clarification of your argument, while providing your own words to show why I'm asking, so onerous.



That's not what I find onerous. Having to go through and straighten out your mess of distorted context and meaning, having to restore my arguments to their original points being addressed, and having to deal with you retroactively trying to establish arguments not previously presented, are becoming very onerous and not worth my time. 



> I group religious beliefs with spiritual connection because you have used religious belief as evidence of that spiritual connection.  Once again, you seem to have a problem with your own arguments being questioned.



I don't have a problem with my own arguments or them being questioned. Religion is man made invention to better comprehend spiritual nature. It's like science and physical nature. If I stated that man invented science AND physical nature to explain the unexplained.... that would simply be an incorrect statement because man didn't invent physical nature. We can argue science all day long, we can't argue physical nature, it exists and is true.  



> Who is the 'we' that knows spiritual connection predates religion by tens of thousands of years?  What is the evidence that spiritual connection was a part of humanity tens of thousands of years before religion began?



Archeology. The oldest human civilizations ever unearthed reveal evidence of human spiritual belief through ceremonial rituals and burials. There is no other context for this other than spirituality. 



> In yet another example of your hypocrisy, you decide to take issue with my use of the word beings, when you have complained about others twisting meaning and focusing on minutiae.  I didn't say that beings denoted a physical being.  In fact, considering the context, it's pretty clear I was speaking of something else; the various gods humanity has believed in.


But that is my point, the various incarnations of "GOD" have taken on physical characteristics of physical beings and entities. This is because man has a difficult time imagining something "being" that isn't physical. The fact that no evidence exists to suggest a physical being called "God" existing physically in our universe, has nothing to do with human's intrinsic spiritual connection that can't be denied. It only serves to prove that man is connecting with something he doesn't understand or comprehend. 



> You compare belief to behavior, but haven't you said those are different things in this very thread?  Anyway, the physical behavior of a salmon is not the same as the beliefs of a human. You would need to compare the things people do because of their spiritual beliefs to the salmon swimming upstream, or compare the thoughts or beliefs of the salmon that lead it to swim upstream to human spiritual belief, to really have an accurate analogy.



I didn't say they were the same. But you are conflating "beliefs" with what caused the beliefs to happen. The "behavior" is human spiritual connection to something greater than self. The "beliefs" are assorted incarnations derived from that behavior. Perhaps a salmon "believes" it is going upstream to receive salvation? It doesn't matter, it has nothing to do with the reason the salmon has this behavioral characteristic.  



> One more time : I'm not trying to prove or disprove the basis for religion, spiritual belief or spirituality.  I'm not trying to get you to prove the existence of god.  I'm pointing out that your argument, that you have shown spiritual belief cannot be based on human imagining through some sort of science, is false.



Again, "beliefs" are the manifestation of a spiritual connection. I can't prove ANY belief. In science OR religion. Human spiritual connection is intrinsic and part of who we are. Science certainly demonstrates this intrinsic behavioral attribute is not superficial or imaginary. We find no such other examples in nature. "Beliefs" are a different matter, we see all kinds of "beliefs" manifested through spiritual connection. We also see beliefs manifested through imagination as well as science.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> You said, "You and others keep insisting that man invented God to explain the unknown, but belief in God doesn't explain the unknown.' Really??? Where do you go when you die? Heaven? Man invented god and heaven. Fact is no one knows what happens when you die.
> 
> The God Delusion is a 2006 best-selling,[1] non-fiction book by English biologist Richard Dawkins, professorial fellow of New College, Oxford,[2][3] and former holder of the Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford.
> 
> In The God Delusion, Dawkins contends that a supernatural creator almost certainly does not exist and that belief in a personal god qualifies as a delusion, which he defines as a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence. When one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know where you go when you die but it has nothing to do with whether humans spiritually connect to something greater than self. Or perhaps it does and I just don't understand that connection? Man invents incarnations of God and heaven because man is intrinsically connected to something greater than self that he cannot explain.
> 
> It's anecdotal but nice to know that Dawkins contents it's *"almost certain"* that God doesn't exist.
Click to expand...


That's because the proper position to have on this subject is agnostic athiesm.  But the fact is the existence or non existence of a god are not equally probably outcomes.  Belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims.  


No one can say 100% there is no god.  The people who say they are 100% certain are saying so because there is absolutely zero hard evidence.  All believers have is their faith and they are ignoring a whole lot of evidence that says they are talking to an imaginary/made up person in the sky.  Just the fact that all the organized religions are so full of shit is all the proof I need.  And IF there is a God, he doesn't care what you think or do, just as he doesn't care when a lion kills a deer, when you smash a mosquito or when a woman gets an abortion.  

Why would god hide from us?  Think about it.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> "When we study"? Who is we?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Human biologists and people who study science.
Click to expand...


By the way, the other day I said athiests are starting churches and you mocked the idea.  I don't think you understood.  In our church, the only thing not present is god.  But like religious people we would like a tax exempt organization where we can amass a lot of money and not have to pay uncle sam.  We would like to do good in the name of athiests.  AND, we would like to get together with people who think like we do, just like religious people like to get together and praise an imaginary man.  Like they talk about sinners, we will talk about the fools who believe in fairytales and how they want to impose their ideology on the rest of us and what can we do to stop them.  I guess then we would also like to lobby our politicians so they fear our vote the same way the GOP fears the so called moral majority.  

P.S.  Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color or not collecting stamps a hobby.  

Atheism is not a belief or claim that we know.  Instead it's the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism.  

Every human ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of god and must be indoctrinated with it.  

Atheism doesn't require faith, just like it doesn't take faith to not believe in Leprehauns.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, I've presented my argument. You continue to try and parse my thoughts in distorted context to create false arguments you can defeat. It has become consistent with you and I guess some people think you're brilliant for having this ability, but I am not impressed.
> 
> Religious beliefs are something totally different from intrinsic spiritual connection. You keep grouping the two together as if they are joined at the hip and inseparable, when we know that human spirituality predates any sort of religion by tens of thousands of years. Then you make this argument it was "invented by man" but that only applies to religious beliefs, it does not and cannot apply to spirituality. We did not invent our intrinsic spiritual connection, no matter how much you wish that were proven to be the case. It is evidenced to exist in man since the very first civilization and remains our most defining attribute as a species.
> 
> Now I don't know about "imagined beings" ...what do you mean by "being" here? A physical manifestation of some kind? Is this your brain not being able to comprehend that which is spiritual? When we apply the word "being" it generally denotes a physical state of presence or "being in existence" in a physical sense. Spiritual nature is not physical nature. It is here where I can understand the god-deniers not being able to accept the existence of God, you simply can't rationalize a spiritual concept. Doesn't mean it isn't true, you just can't envision it.
> 
> When we study the inherent behaviors of any living thing, we find that all inherent behaviors are present for a reason. We may not know what those reasons are at first, and it may take many years of research to even have an idea of why the behaviors exist, but we know that they do exist for a reason. _Why is that salmon working so hard to swim upstream?_ Is it because it's stupid and ignorant? Has it deluded itself into believing something is upstream that isn't really there? Is it because it's afraid of the unknown downstream? These are all silly excuses we could have come up with in denial of the fact that we know all inherent behavior has fundamental reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You never stop doing exactly the things you accuse others of, do you?
> 
> I have not, in any way, tried to prove that spiritual connection or religious belief or spirituality or any of that was invented.  What I've done, what I've clearly stated I am doing, is to show that you have not used science to show that man's spiritual connection cannot have been based on imagination.  I've even said that you can be correct about spirituality and that you still have not shown, using any kind of science, that it's not possible for spirituality to be based on imagination.  Yet here you are, assigning arguments to me that I not only have not made, but have specifically contradicted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But what you are doing is taking my response to that argument from someone else, then retroactively presenting your argument and pretending my response is to your argument instead. It has been argued that human spirituality is invented, made-up, imaginary, created by man to explain the unexplained and console fear of the unknown, etc. I am responding to THAT argument, and you are free to disagree with my response but you can't pretend it's a response to some other argument you'd like to make.
> 
> And let me clarify, I have never intended to state that it's "not possible" for spirituality to be based on imagination, it's highly improbable and not scientifically supportable.
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what I find onerous. Having to go through and straighten out your mess of distorted context and meaning, having to restore my arguments to their original points being addressed, and having to deal with you retroactively trying to establish arguments not previously presented, are becoming very onerous and not worth my time.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have a problem with my own arguments or them being questioned. Religion is man made invention to better comprehend spiritual nature. It's like science and physical nature. If I stated that man invented science AND physical nature to explain the unexplained.... that would simply be an incorrect statement because man didn't invent physical nature. We can argue science all day long, we can't argue physical nature, it exists and is true.
> 
> 
> 
> Archeology. The oldest human civilizations ever unearthed reveal evidence of human spiritual belief through ceremonial rituals and burials. There is no other context for this other than spirituality.
> 
> 
> But that is my point, the various incarnations of "GOD" have taken on physical characteristics of physical beings and entities. This is because man has a difficult time imagining something "being" that isn't physical. The fact that no evidence exists to suggest a physical being called "God" existing physically in our universe, has nothing to do with human's intrinsic spiritual connection that can't be denied. It only serves to prove that man is connecting with something he doesn't understand or comprehend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You compare belief to behavior, but haven't you said those are different things in this very thread?  Anyway, the physical behavior of a salmon is not the same as the beliefs of a human. You would need to compare the things people do because of their spiritual beliefs to the salmon swimming upstream, or compare the thoughts or beliefs of the salmon that lead it to swim upstream to human spiritual belief, to really have an accurate analogy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say they were the same. But you are conflating "beliefs" with what caused the beliefs to happen. The "behavior" is human spiritual connection to something greater than self. The "beliefs" are assorted incarnations derived from that behavior. Perhaps a salmon "believes" it is going upstream to receive salvation? It doesn't matter, it has nothing to do with the reason the salmon has this behavioral characteristic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One more time : I'm not trying to prove or disprove the basis for religion, spiritual belief or spirituality.  I'm not trying to get you to prove the existence of god.  I'm pointing out that your argument, that you have shown spiritual belief cannot be based on human imagining through some sort of science, is false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, "beliefs" are the manifestation of a spiritual connection. I can't prove ANY belief. In science OR religion. Human spiritual connection is intrinsic and part of who we are. Science certainly demonstrates this intrinsic behavioral attribute is not superficial or imaginary. We find no such other examples in nature. "Beliefs" are a different matter, we see all kinds of "beliefs" manifested through spiritual connection. We also see beliefs manifested through imagination as well as science.
Click to expand...


Here is where you seem to have a problem.  You are starting from the point that spiritual connection is an inherent human behavior, without actually defining it, then expecting others to accept that hypothesis.  Can you describe the behavior of spiritual connection?  Since you say that beliefs are a manifestation of spiritual connection, but spiritual connection is a human behavioral attribute, what exactly IS that attribute?  You keep saying humans have this connection, but what does that actually mean?  Do humans feel something with a sense we don't realize we have?  Is that sense a part of our physical bodies or some spiritual attribute in humans?  Does this connection mean the physical and the spiritual can interact, and if so, wouldn't that imply that it is possible for humans to at some point observe, test, and define the spiritual through physical scientific means?

You say that science demonstrates that spiritual connection is not superficial or imaginary but provide no actual scientific evidence of this.  You've attempted to connect evolution to your ill-defined behavioral attribute without actually sensibly following evolutionary theory.  Other than that, I haven't seen any kind of scientific research, law, principles, etc. to agree with your contention.  You have, in fact, dismissed questions about this with excuses about distortion and parsing words (things you have, as clearly shown, done yourself over and over in this thread) despite the questions being accompanied by your own statements.

So do you want to define this spiritual connection that you say is an inherent behavioral attribute of humanity, as demonstrated by some form of science?  Or should be just continue to argue about it without you explaining what it actually is?


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> The fact that man uses spiritual placeholders to create an understanding of his surroundings does not mean it is a universally accepted concoction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But man doesn't. That's YOUR argument and I have debunked it. The understanding of God doesn't explain anything or how it happens. You and others keep insisting that man invented God to explain the unknown, but belief in God doesn't explain the unknown. It's akin to saying man invented the color red to explain why donuts are so delicious.
> You have debunked nothing. Earliest religions specifically explained how things happened and attributed anything unknown to a god.your last sentence just announces you are a very, very stupid man.
> 
> 
> 
> People applying their rational brains have made discoveries throughout history that have required the adjustment of the prevailing myths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True, but this applies to both religion AND science.
> 
> 
> 
> Imagination LEADS to investigation. Science is a reaction to inspiration of gaining knowledge. It is not a pushback of anything because, again, spiritual beliefs do not explain the unknown. I posted a comprehensive list of the earliest scientists followed by a comprehensive list of contemporary scientists who believed in spiritual nature. It's frankly a brainless and stupid argument that science was invented to explain away spiritual faith because it has obviously done a piss poor job of that.
> If you can produce a comprehensive list then they are obviously in a very tiny minority.
> No one has said that science was invented to explain away religion. It was an inevitable result of curious minds seeking answers, not settling for facile ones.
> 
> 
> Not my argument... this is a distortion of my words to create an argument I never made. Propaganda is most certainly useful. There is no example of something that is "meaningless" and also "beneficial."
> No one has ever said religion is meaningless. It has great meaning for those that invest in it, just like any rationalization is clung to with great tenacity to protect the ego. The false can also be meaningful and beneficial. It doesn't make it true.
> No difference.
> 
> 
> 
> You yourself have said that the salvation doctrine is false in your opinion...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you twist and distort things I say to make points I never made. I've never said the salvation doctrine is false, I said I don't believe in it. I don't know if it's true or false, I just don't believe in it.
> which is another way to say you think it is false.
> 
> 
> 
> Third, whether or not it has "paid off" could be argued, but it is irrelevant, unless you are simply saying that whatever benefits a man defines it as true and good. Not sure you want to be making that argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It really can't be argued unless you are a moron who thinks man would be "better off" living in the trees in the jungle, competing with the great apes and other upper primates for survival. Now I can imagine a moron like you making that argument, but I will always disagree with you.
Click to expand...

This is too stupid to deserve a response.


----------



## sealybobo

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> You never stop doing exactly the things you accuse others of, do you?
> 
> I have not, in any way, tried to prove that spiritual connection or religious belief or spirituality or any of that was invented.  What I've done, what I've clearly stated I am doing, is to show that you have not used science to show that man's spiritual connection cannot have been based on imagination.  I've even said that you can be correct about spirituality and that you still have not shown, using any kind of science, that it's not possible for spirituality to be based on imagination.  Yet here you are, assigning arguments to me that I not only have not made, but have specifically contradicted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But what you are doing is taking my response to that argument from someone else, then retroactively presenting your argument and pretending my response is to your argument instead. It has been argued that human spirituality is invented, made-up, imaginary, created by man to explain the unexplained and console fear of the unknown, etc. I am responding to THAT argument, and you are free to disagree with my response but you can't pretend it's a response to some other argument you'd like to make.
> 
> And let me clarify, I have never intended to state that it's "not possible" for spirituality to be based on imagination, it's highly improbable and not scientifically supportable.
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what I find onerous. Having to go through and straighten out your mess of distorted context and meaning, having to restore my arguments to their original points being addressed, and having to deal with you retroactively trying to establish arguments not previously presented, are becoming very onerous and not worth my time.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have a problem with my own arguments or them being questioned. Religion is man made invention to better comprehend spiritual nature. It's like science and physical nature. If I stated that man invented science AND physical nature to explain the unexplained.... that would simply be an incorrect statement because man didn't invent physical nature. We can argue science all day long, we can't argue physical nature, it exists and is true.
> 
> 
> 
> Archeology. The oldest human civilizations ever unearthed reveal evidence of human spiritual belief through ceremonial rituals and burials. There is no other context for this other than spirituality.
> 
> 
> But that is my point, the various incarnations of "GOD" have taken on physical characteristics of physical beings and entities. This is because man has a difficult time imagining something "being" that isn't physical. The fact that no evidence exists to suggest a physical being called "God" existing physically in our universe, has nothing to do with human's intrinsic spiritual connection that can't be denied. It only serves to prove that man is connecting with something he doesn't understand or comprehend.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say they were the same. But you are conflating "beliefs" with what caused the beliefs to happen. The "behavior" is human spiritual connection to something greater than self. The "beliefs" are assorted incarnations derived from that behavior. Perhaps a salmon "believes" it is going upstream to receive salvation? It doesn't matter, it has nothing to do with the reason the salmon has this behavioral characteristic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One more time : I'm not trying to prove or disprove the basis for religion, spiritual belief or spirituality.  I'm not trying to get you to prove the existence of god.  I'm pointing out that your argument, that you have shown spiritual belief cannot be based on human imagining through some sort of science, is false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, "beliefs" are the manifestation of a spiritual connection. I can't prove ANY belief. In science OR religion. Human spiritual connection is intrinsic and part of who we are. Science certainly demonstrates this intrinsic behavioral attribute is not superficial or imaginary. We find no such other examples in nature. "Beliefs" are a different matter, we see all kinds of "beliefs" manifested through spiritual connection. We also see beliefs manifested through imagination as well as science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is where you seem to have a problem.  You are starting from the point that spiritual connection is an inherent human behavior, without actually defining it, then expecting others to accept that hypothesis.  Can you describe the behavior of spiritual connection?  Since you say that beliefs are a manifestation of spiritual connection, but spiritual connection is a human behavioral attribute, what exactly IS that attribute?  You keep saying humans have this connection, but what does that actually mean?  Do humans feel something with a sense we don't realize we have?  Is that sense a part of our physical bodies or some spiritual attribute in humans?  Does this connection mean the physical and the spiritual can interact, and if so, wouldn't that imply that it is possible for humans to at some point observe, test, and define the spiritual through physical scientific means?
> 
> You say that science demonstrates that spiritual connection is not superficial or imaginary but provide no actual scientific evidence of this.  You've attempted to connect evolution to your ill-defined behavioral attribute without actually sensibly following evolutionary theory.  Other than that, I haven't seen any kind of scientific research, law, principles, etc. to agree with your contention.  You have, in fact, dismissed questions about this with excuses about distortion and parsing words (things you have, as clearly shown, done yourself over and over in this thread) despite the questions being accompanied by your own statements.
> 
> So do you want to define this spiritual connection that you say is an inherent behavioral attribute of humanity, as demonstrated by some form of science?  Or should be just continue to argue about it without you explaining what it actually is?
Click to expand...


Here is the other thing for people who don't believe Jews, Christians or Muslims but they still believe in "God".  If you do not believe in the Christian or Muslim God but you believe "something" then your argument is even weaker.  Without the made up stories you really have zero reason to believe in God.


----------



## sealybobo

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> You never stop doing exactly the things you accuse others of, do you?
> 
> I have not, in any way, tried to prove that spiritual connection or religious belief or spirituality or any of that was invented.  What I've done, what I've clearly stated I am doing, is to show that you have not used science to show that man's spiritual connection cannot have been based on imagination.  I've even said that you can be correct about spirituality and that you still have not shown, using any kind of science, that it's not possible for spirituality to be based on imagination.  Yet here you are, assigning arguments to me that I not only have not made, but have specifically contradicted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But what you are doing is taking my response to that argument from someone else, then retroactively presenting your argument and pretending my response is to your argument instead. It has been argued that human spirituality is invented, made-up, imaginary, created by man to explain the unexplained and console fear of the unknown, etc. I am responding to THAT argument, and you are free to disagree with my response but you can't pretend it's a response to some other argument you'd like to make.
> 
> And let me clarify, I have never intended to state that it's "not possible" for spirituality to be based on imagination, it's highly improbable and not scientifically supportable.
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what I find onerous. Having to go through and straighten out your mess of distorted context and meaning, having to restore my arguments to their original points being addressed, and having to deal with you retroactively trying to establish arguments not previously presented, are becoming very onerous and not worth my time.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have a problem with my own arguments or them being questioned. Religion is man made invention to better comprehend spiritual nature. It's like science and physical nature. If I stated that man invented science AND physical nature to explain the unexplained.... that would simply be an incorrect statement because man didn't invent physical nature. We can argue science all day long, we can't argue physical nature, it exists and is true.
> 
> 
> 
> Archeology. The oldest human civilizations ever unearthed reveal evidence of human spiritual belief through ceremonial rituals and burials. There is no other context for this other than spirituality.
> 
> 
> But that is my point, the various incarnations of "GOD" have taken on physical characteristics of physical beings and entities. This is because man has a difficult time imagining something "being" that isn't physical. The fact that no evidence exists to suggest a physical being called "God" existing physically in our universe, has nothing to do with human's intrinsic spiritual connection that can't be denied. It only serves to prove that man is connecting with something he doesn't understand or comprehend.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say they were the same. But you are conflating "beliefs" with what caused the beliefs to happen. The "behavior" is human spiritual connection to something greater than self. The "beliefs" are assorted incarnations derived from that behavior. Perhaps a salmon "believes" it is going upstream to receive salvation? It doesn't matter, it has nothing to do with the reason the salmon has this behavioral characteristic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One more time : I'm not trying to prove or disprove the basis for religion, spiritual belief or spirituality.  I'm not trying to get you to prove the existence of god.  I'm pointing out that your argument, that you have shown spiritual belief cannot be based on human imagining through some sort of science, is false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, "beliefs" are the manifestation of a spiritual connection. I can't prove ANY belief. In science OR religion. Human spiritual connection is intrinsic and part of who we are. Science certainly demonstrates this intrinsic behavioral attribute is not superficial or imaginary. We find no such other examples in nature. "Beliefs" are a different matter, we see all kinds of "beliefs" manifested through spiritual connection. We also see beliefs manifested through imagination as well as science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is where you seem to have a problem.  You are starting from the point that spiritual connection is an inherent human behavior, without actually defining it, then expecting others to accept that hypothesis.  Can you describe the behavior of spiritual connection?  Since you say that beliefs are a manifestation of spiritual connection, but spiritual connection is a human behavioral attribute, what exactly IS that attribute?  You keep saying humans have this connection, but what does that actually mean?  Do humans feel something with a sense we don't realize we have?  Is that sense a part of our physical bodies or some spiritual attribute in humans?  Does this connection mean the physical and the spiritual can interact, and if so, wouldn't that imply that it is possible for humans to at some point observe, test, and define the spiritual through physical scientific means?
> 
> You say that science demonstrates that spiritual connection is not superficial or imaginary but provide no actual scientific evidence of this.  You've attempted to connect evolution to your ill-defined behavioral attribute without actually sensibly following evolutionary theory.  Other than that, I haven't seen any kind of scientific research, law, principles, etc. to agree with your contention.  You have, in fact, dismissed questions about this with excuses about distortion and parsing words (things you have, as clearly shown, done yourself over and over in this thread) despite the questions being accompanied by your own statements.
> 
> So do you want to define this spiritual connection that you say is an inherent behavioral attribute of humanity, as demonstrated by some form of science?  Or should be just continue to argue about it without you explaining what it actually is?
Click to expand...


I love these people who want to argue with science and fact.  Boss thinks people are born believing in god but the fact is we all start out as implicit atheists and have to be taught the concept of god.  Maybe if no one told you about god you might come up with it like our ancient ancestors did but most of your reasons would be flawed.  You may want to do good on a test so you might come up with an imaginary person who watches over you but I doubt it if no one ever told you God existed.  Or if you were in the ocean and sharks were swimming around you, if you were never told about God would you know to pray to a higher power or would you instead talk to the shark and beg him not to eat you?  Fact is, you are better off talking to the shark than to an imaginary lord.  

In the future Boss should say "I believe despite all the facts".  That at least I would respect because he would at least be acknowledging that it is a faith/hope of his and not a real reason to believe.  Lets put it this way.  If it could be proven one way or the other, I would bet all my money that there is no God and Boss would lose all his money.  But since it can't be proven I guess they can continue to remain ignorant but that's ok because it makes them feel better.  But just don't try to impose that fake ass shit on the rest of society.  Keep that hogwash to yourselves!


----------



## sealybobo

I would love to go back in time and see when man first invented god.  When he told his friends his concept didn't they look at him like he was crazy?  Maybe he was a person of power and influence and the smartest guy in the village so instead of telling people he didn't know he came up with god to explain droughts, floods, death, etc.  As George Carlin said it is the absolute greatest bullshit story ever invented.


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Here is where you seem to have a problem.  You are starting from the point that spiritual connection is an inherent human behavior, without actually defining it, then expecting others to accept that hypothesis.  Can you describe the behavior of spiritual connection?  Since you say that beliefs are a manifestation of spiritual connection, but spiritual connection is a human behavioral attribute, what exactly IS that attribute?  You keep saying humans have this connection, but what does that actually mean?  Do humans feel something with a sense we don't realize we have?  Is that sense a part of our physical bodies or some spiritual attribute in humans?  Does this connection mean the physical and the spiritual can interact, and if so, wouldn't that imply that it is possible for humans to at some point observe, test, and define the spiritual through physical scientific means?



Well I thought I had defined it way back in the OP or at least the first page, but let me do it again for clarification. Human spirituality is the intrinsic awareness humans have of something greater than self which can't be physically defined. So that's what it means and that's what it is. Because it's not physical in nature, humans have a hard time grasping it or comprehending it completely, so they create incarnations of "god" or various religions to help them better understand this thing they are connecting with. 

Yes, I very much do believe that we may one day be able to observe, test and define things that are "spiritual" through physical science. In fact, haven't we already done so in many instances? (Movement of the Sun and Moon, heliocentricity, rain, etc.) Currently, scientist are working on quantum physics and string theory, which involve the possibility of other universes and dimensions where our laws of physics and nature may not apply. Could be that "spiritual nature" is simply another dimension hovering just above our own plane of reality that we can't see or confirm physically? 



> You say that science demonstrates that spiritual connection is not superficial or imaginary but provide no actual scientific evidence of this.  You've attempted to connect evolution to your ill-defined behavioral attribute without actually sensibly following evolutionary theory.



But I did.  Our most advanced and sophisticated species has not very likely adopted some superficial and imaginary belief in something that isn't real for all of our existence, by which it has garnered inspiration and courage to do the otherwise impossible and achieve the things man has accomplished. If we have, it's the most exceptional and extraordinary mind fuck in the history of nature. Since we don't observe other species adopting similar superficial attributes which have no meaning yet cause great benefits, we have to conclude that's probably not what's happening with humans and spiritual connection. All I did was point out that even the Darwinian theories of natural selection can't support this argument of an 'imagined' spiritual connection without reason or fundamental purpose.


----------



## Boss

> You have debunked nothing. Earliest religions specifically explained how things happened and attributed anything unknown to a god.



They also attributed things known to a god, and they still do. God created the Sun, set the Earth in orbit around it, gave the Earth a Moon and seasons where we have tides and climates which enable life that God created. It doesn't matter if the "how" is explained by science, God still did it. 



> If you can produce a comprehensive list then they are obviously in a very tiny minority.


 WTF? 


> No one has said that science was invented to explain away religion.


Really? That hasn't been said in 50-gazillion different ways here??? What thread are you reading?



> No one has ever said religion is meaningless.



Really? Well let me be the first to say it then! Religions are meaningless! They are merely humans attempting to understand their intrinsic connection to spiritual nature. Now, spiritual nature is very real and important to human beings. 



> The false can also be meaningful and beneficial. It doesn't make it true.



You're confusing yourself again. If I could prove God is true, we wouldn't be discussing this. The argument was, can anything be "meaningless" and also be "beneficial"? The logical answer is NO.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> You have debunked nothing. Earliest religions specifically explained how things happened and attributed anything unknown to a god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They also attributed things known to a god, and they still do. God created the Sun, set the Earth in orbit around it, gave the Earth a Moon and seasons where we have tides and climates which enable life that God created. It doesn't matter if the "how" is explained by science, God still did it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you can produce a comprehensive list then they are obviously in a very tiny minority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WTF?
> 
> Really? That hasn't been said in 50-gazillion different ways here??? What thread are you reading?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one has ever said religion is meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? Well let me be the first to say it then! Religions are meaningless! They are merely humans attempting to understand their intrinsic connection to spiritual nature. Now, spiritual nature is very real and important to human beings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The false can also be meaningful and beneficial. It doesn't make it true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're confusing yourself again. If I could prove God is true, we wouldn't be discussing this. The argument was, can anything be "meaningless" and also be "beneficial"? The logical answer is NO.
Click to expand...


Ah, the "God did it, that settles it" defense.
Convincing!
If your list is comprehensive that means it includes all that believe.
I'm afraid I won't be able to do that with those that don't. It would take all the bandwidth the site has available.
No one has said science had the purpose of undermining faith. That was unequivocally the result (no more thunder god) but it wasn't the goal. Silly proposition.
Your spiritual connection, I'm sure, is very meaningful to you. Unfortunately, it doesn't make it real.
YOUR argument was about it being meaningful. You are arguing with yourself. No one else made that argument.
The rest of us are discussing whether or not it has any validity.
I actually think you may be insane.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is where you seem to have a problem.  You are starting from the point that spiritual connection is an inherent human behavior, without actually defining it, then expecting others to accept that hypothesis.  Can you describe the behavior of spiritual connection?  Since you say that beliefs are a manifestation of spiritual connection, but spiritual connection is a human behavioral attribute, what exactly IS that attribute?  You keep saying humans have this connection, but what does that actually mean?  Do humans feel something with a sense we don't realize we have?  Is that sense a part of our physical bodies or some spiritual attribute in humans?  Does this connection mean the physical and the spiritual can interact, and if so, wouldn't that imply that it is possible for humans to at some point observe, test, and define the spiritual through physical scientific means?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I thought I had defined it way back in the OP or at least the first page, but let me do it again for clarification. Human spirituality is the intrinsic awareness humans have of something greater than self which can't be physically defined. So that's what it means and that's what it is. Because it's not physical in nature, humans have a hard time grasping it or comprehending it completely, so they create incarnations of "god" or various religions to help them better understand this thing they are connecting with.
> 
> Yes, I very much do believe that we may one day be able to observe, test and define things that are "spiritual" through physical science. In fact, haven't we already done so in many instances? (Movement of the Sun and Moon, heliocentricity, rain, etc.) Currently, scientist are working on quantum physics and string theory, which involve the possibility of other universes and dimensions where our laws of physics and nature may not apply. Could be that "spiritual nature" is simply another dimension hovering just above our own plane of reality that we can't see or confirm physically?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say that science demonstrates that spiritual connection is not superficial or imaginary but provide no actual scientific evidence of this.  You've attempted to connect evolution to your ill-defined behavioral attribute without actually sensibly following evolutionary theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But I did.  Our most advanced and sophisticated species has not very likely adopted some superficial and imaginary belief in something that isn't real for all of our existence, by which it has garnered inspiration and courage to do the otherwise impossible and achieve the things man has accomplished. If we have, it's the most exceptional and extraordinary mind fuck in the history of nature. Since we don't observe other species adopting similar superficial attributes which have no meaning yet cause great benefits, we have to conclude that's probably not what's happening with humans and spiritual connection. All I did was point out that even the Darwinian theories of natural selection can't support this argument of an 'imagined' spiritual connection without reason or fundamental purpose.
Click to expand...


What is the sense we use to come by this awareness?  Is there a physical organ which provides our ability to sense the spiritual?  You say people have this inherent awareness despite the fact that the awareness takes many different forms and some don't seem to have it at all.  

Evolution is not a matter of becoming 'advanced'.  It is about survivability and propagation.  If a particular attribute is 'simpler' yet helps a creature reproduce, that attribute is more likely to continue within the species.  The idea that evolution is a linear path from simplistic life to advanced life is a common fallacy.

Why you continuously harp on the lack of spiritual beliefs in other animals I don't understand.  Of course we don't see other animals manifest those kinds of beliefs in response to spiritual nature, as you put it.  Those animals don't have complex language or ritual as humans do (that we know of) and don't have the intellectual capacity to understand the concepts involved.  In fact, I don't believe humanity has any evidence that any other species ascribes meaning to anything at all.  That is a human trait.  You've agreed that humans can think and reason in ways no other animal can, yet fail to see that our imagination is tied to our intelligence and, as such, leaves the possibility of creating meaning where none exists.  Since you have as much as said that religions are created by man, and since religion has existed for a large majority of our history, that strikes me as incongruous.  If man can imagine religion in such numbers, for so long, why could we not do the same for spiritual nature?  Again, I'm not even attempting to argue that spiritual nature doesn't exist, merely that the possibility that humanity has invented the various spiritual beliefs it has held is not contradicted by science or logic.  

There may be some kind of spiritual connection shared by all humanity, there may not.  Until and unless the spiritual can be clearly defined and understood, perhaps observed, that existence is as open to question as any incarnation of god.


----------



## GISMYS

BELIEVERS! know and expect to be attacked if you post GOD'S WORD=ETERNAL TRUTH. Unbelievers and false religious minions of satan hate GOD and GOD'S WORD = ETERNAL TRUTH. Against JESUS They screamed and gnashed their teeth crying ban him from the temple,then CRUCIFY HIM!!! CRUCIFY HIM!! Pilate knew JESUS was inocent but he wanted to please the people,so he washed his hands and said ," you crucify him but I find him inocent"!!! ==The world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. 19"If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you.. John  15:18=== JESUS says=='Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me. 21'He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne. 22'He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.'" Revelation 10:18-21


----------



## orogenicman

Steven_R said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you honestly think that the first snake head idol, created some 70,000 years ago...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. The world is no older than 10,000 years.
> 
> 70,000 years old?
> 
> Next you'll tell me that there wasn't a world wide flood that carved out the Grand Canyon.
> 
> I'm on to you and your Satan-led ways.
Click to expand...


----------



## orogenicman

sealybobo said:


> I would love to go back in time and see when man first invented god. When he told his friends his concept didn't they look at him like he was crazy? Maybe he was a person of power and influence and the smartest guy in the village so instead of telling people he didn't know he came up with god to explain droughts, floods, death, etc. As George Carlin said it is the absolute greatest bullshit story ever invented.



I am of the opinion that the belief in god is an emotional reaction to the innate primate fear of angry alpha males.


----------



## thanatos144

orogenicman said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would love to go back in time and see when man first invented god. When he told his friends his concept didn't they look at him like he was crazy? Maybe he was a person of power and influence and the smartest guy in the village so instead of telling people he didn't know he came up with god to explain droughts, floods, death, etc. As George Carlin said it is the absolute greatest bullshit story ever invented.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am of the opinion that the belief in god is an emotional reaction to the innate primate fear of angry alpha males.
Click to expand...


Your opinion is wrong.


----------



## GISMYS

God is programed into human DNA.Mankind worldwide for all time has known in his heart there is God. Man has all of creation,life as proof of God, you have no excuse!!!


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is where you seem to have a problem.  You are starting from the point that spiritual connection is an inherent human behavior, without actually defining it, then expecting others to accept that hypothesis.  Can you describe the behavior of spiritual connection?  Since you say that beliefs are a manifestation of spiritual connection, but spiritual connection is a human behavioral attribute, what exactly IS that attribute?  You keep saying humans have this connection, but what does that actually mean?  Do humans feel something with a sense we don't realize we have?  Is that sense a part of our physical bodies or some spiritual attribute in humans?  Does this connection mean the physical and the spiritual can interact, and if so, wouldn't that imply that it is possible for humans to at some point observe, test, and define the spiritual through physical scientific means?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I thought I had defined it way back in the OP or at least the first page, but let me do it again for clarification. Human spirituality is the intrinsic awareness humans have of something greater than self which can't be physically defined. So that's what it means and that's what it is. Because it's not physical in nature, humans have a hard time grasping it or comprehending it completely, so they create incarnations of "god" or various religions to help them better understand this thing they are connecting with.
> 
> Yes, I very much do believe that we may one day be able to observe, test and define things that are "spiritual" through physical science. In fact, haven't we already done so in many instances? (Movement of the Sun and Moon, heliocentricity, rain, etc.) Currently, scientist are working on quantum physics and string theory, which involve the possibility of other universes and dimensions where our laws of physics and nature may not apply. Could be that "spiritual nature" is simply another dimension hovering just above our own plane of reality that we can't see or confirm physically?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say that science demonstrates that spiritual connection is not superficial or imaginary but provide no actual scientific evidence of this.  You've attempted to connect evolution to your ill-defined behavioral attribute without actually sensibly following evolutionary theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But I did.  Our most advanced and sophisticated species has not very likely adopted some superficial and imaginary belief in something that isn't real for all of our existence, by which it has garnered inspiration and courage to do the otherwise impossible and achieve the things man has accomplished. If we have, it's the most exceptional and extraordinary mind fuck in the history of nature. Since we don't observe other species adopting similar superficial attributes which have no meaning yet cause great benefits, we have to conclude that's probably not what's happening with humans and spiritual connection. All I did was point out that even the Darwinian theories of natural selection can't support this argument of an 'imagined' spiritual connection without reason or fundamental purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is the sense we use to come by this awareness?  Is there a physical organ which provides our ability to sense the spiritual?  You say people have this inherent awareness despite the fact that the awareness takes many different forms and some don't seem to have it at all.
Click to expand...


The sense is awareness of spiritual nature. The physical organ involved is the brain, or more specifically, the conscious mind. The awareness itself doesn't take many different forms, the awareness causes creation of many various incarnations. Every human has it, some simply do not use it. Some humans can swim while others can't, but it doesn't mean they lack some attribute the swimmers have, it's just they have never learned how to swim. 



> Evolution is not a matter of becoming 'advanced'.  It is about survivability and propagation.  If a particular attribute is 'simpler' yet helps a creature reproduce, that attribute is more likely to continue within the species.  The idea that evolution is a linear path from simplistic life to advanced life is a common fallacy.



You're taking my argument out of context again. I mentioned our advancement because you wouldn't expect to find something as advanced over all other living things, doing something totally irrational and without reason. 



> Why you continuously harp on the lack of spiritual beliefs in other animals I don't understand.  Of course we don't see other animals manifest those kinds of beliefs in response to spiritual nature, as you put it.  Those animals don't have complex language or ritual as humans do (that we know of) and don't have the intellectual capacity to understand the concepts involved.  In fact, I don't believe humanity has any evidence that any other species ascribes meaning to anything at all.  That is a human trait.



I think you are wrong about a lot of this. Lots of animals have complex language and there are examples of ritual behavior as well. Even something as small as a lab rat understands and ascribes meaning to things. And let me clarify, I don't know if other animals have spiritual connection, they may have. If they do, it appears they deal with comprehending it much better than humans who feel compelled to create all kinds of religions and means of worshiping it. Perhaps the other animals are different from humans in humbleness and 'know what side the bread is buttered on' with regard to spiritual nature, and don't arrogantly think they know more than God? 



> You've agreed that humans can think and reason in ways no other animal can, yet fail to see that our imagination is tied to our intelligence and, as such, leaves the possibility of creating meaning where none exists.  Since you have as much as said that religions are created by man, and since religion has existed for a large majority of our history, that strikes me as incongruous.  If man can imagine religion in such numbers, for so long, why could we not do the same for spiritual nature?  Again, I'm not even attempting to argue that spiritual nature doesn't exist, merely that the possibility that humanity has invented the various spiritual beliefs it has held is not contradicted by science or logic.



I've never said we can't create meaning where none exists through imagination. However, it is very unlikely this is what we did with spiritual connection. The example I can relate this to for comparison is superstitions. While there are still people who are superstitious, most of us know that it's a novelty and not something profoundly fundamental. Once upon a time, superstitions were a very serious thing, people really believed and lived by them. As science advanced and dispelled the superstitions, fewer and fewer people took them seriously. With human spirituality, we don't see this happening. Humans remain devoutly connected spiritually to something greater than self. Humans continue to report tremendous benefit from inspiration and courage derived through their spiritual connection. 



> There may be some kind of spiritual connection shared by all humanity, there may not.  Until and unless the spiritual can be clearly defined and understood, perhaps observed, that existence is as open to question as any incarnation of god.



I agree that various incarnations of God are subject to disbelief. That humans are connecting to something greater than self, which we've defined as "spiritual" for now, is without question. Things simply do not have to be observed to be true or exist. I offer again, my Jupiter example... Did the planet Jupiter not exist until we observed it and confirmed it? Our inability to observe and confirm spiritual nature is insignificant, we have an intrinsic hard-wired connection to it.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> I agree that various incarnations of God are subject to disbelief. That humans are connecting to something greater than self, which we've defined as "spiritual" for now, is without question. Things simply do not have to be observed to be true or exist. I offer again, my Jupiter example... Did the planet Jupiter not exist until we observed it and confirmed it? Our inability to observe and confirm spiritual nature is insignificant, we have an intrinsic hard-wired connection to it.



Not in the least bit "without question".
You have just invested yourself in your belief, your need for relief from your own fears, doubts and worries.
This "spiritual nature" is your personal rationalization, and you are so completely invested in it you have decided to sell it as something "known".
It is, of course, nothing of the kind.


----------



## HUGGY

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that various incarnations of God are subject to disbelief. That humans are connecting to something greater than self, which we've defined as "spiritual" for now, *is without question*. Things simply do not have to be observed to be true or exist. I offer again, my Jupiter example... Did the planet Jupiter not exist until we observed it and confirmed it? Our inability to observe and confirm spiritual nature is insignificant, we have an intrinsic hard-wired connection to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> There are millions of human beings that would question your statements about hard wired spirituality.
> 
> You can say it all you want.  That does not make it so or that it goes without question.
> 
> Your using the discovery of Jupiter is lame.  Are you claiming that people were going around saying that there is no such planet as Jupiter before it was observed?  Once seen it's existance had to be explained.  Your spiritual existance has never been documented ...just imagined.  It isn't up to reason to explain YOUR imagination.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Boss

> This "spiritual nature" is your personal rationalization, and you are so completely invested in it you have decided to sell it as something "known".
> 
> There are millions of human beings that would question your statements about hard wired spirituality.



It IS known. Humans have been spiritually connecting from the very first civilization to now. There is no time in history where humans have not been spiritually connected to something greater than self. 

Millions of human beings question all kinds of things, true and false. The fact that people question or disbelieve has no relevance on whether something is true, real or exists.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> This "spiritual nature" is your personal rationalization, and you are so completely invested in it you have decided to sell it as something "known".
> 
> There are millions of human beings that would question your statements about hard wired spirituality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It IS known. Humans have been spiritually connecting from the very first civilization to now. There is no time in history where humans have not been spiritually connected to something greater than self.
> 
> Millions of human beings question all kinds of things, true and false. The fact that people question or disbelieve has no relevance on whether something is true, real or exists.
Click to expand...


You continue to insist that some invention of yours that you have labeled as a "spiritual connection" to some spirit realm exists, and has always existed, yet you seem to be the only one aware of it.

Is this "the voices" again?


----------



## HUGGY

Boss said:


> This "spiritual nature" is your personal rationalization, and you are so completely invested in it you have decided to sell it as something "known".
> 
> There are millions of human beings that would question your statements about hard wired spirituality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It IS known. Humans have been spiritually connecting from the very first civilization to now. There is no time in history where humans have not been spiritually connected to something greater than self.
> 
> Millions of human beings question all kinds of things, true and false. The fact that people question or disbelieve has no relevance on whether something is true, real or exists.
Click to expand...


Knowing is not equal to believing.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> This "spiritual nature" is your personal rationalization, and you are so completely invested in it you have decided to sell it as something "known".
> 
> There are millions of human beings that would question your statements about hard wired spirituality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It IS known. Humans have been spiritually connecting from the very first civilization to now. There is no time in history where humans have not been spiritually connected to something greater than self.
> 
> Millions of human beings question all kinds of things, true and false. The fact that people question or disbelieve has no relevance on whether something is true, real or exists.
Click to expand...


And neither does their believing in a thing constitute evidence of its existence.
People have dealt with their fears for all recorded time by inventing a solution for them. Your version is "spiritual nature".
Good for you!
It sooths you to create a catch-all that will absorb all iterations of man's fear removal techniques.
Enjoy it.
When you preach it as "fact" or as a "known" entity, that is when the giggling begins.


----------



## Boss

> Your version is "spiritual nature".



Not just me. Most all humans for all of history. a very slim minority of the species arrogantly proclaims to not believe in spiritual nature, and that has also always been the case throughout history.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> Your version is "spiritual nature".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not just me. Most all humans for all of history. a very slim minority of the species arrogantly proclaims to not believe in spiritual nature, and that has also always been the case throughout history.
Click to expand...


Already agreed most people create a rationalization for their fears and to explain what they can't. The simpler the tribe the more likely it is to invent the rationalization.
Arrogance? Simply your opinion, and not supported by any data. Just a whine.
It's ok. We're used to it.


----------



## orogenicman

thanatos144 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would love to go back in time and see when man first invented god. When he told his friends his concept didn't they look at him like he was crazy? Maybe he was a person of power and influence and the smartest guy in the village so instead of telling people he didn't know he came up with god to explain droughts, floods, death, etc. As George Carlin said it is the absolute greatest bullshit story ever invented.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am of the opinion that the belief in god is an emotional reaction to the innate primate fear of angry alpha males.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your opinion is wrong.
Click to expand...


According to your opinion...


----------



## HUGGY

orogenicman said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am of the opinion that the belief in god is an emotional reaction to the innate primate fear of angry alpha males.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your opinion is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to your opinion...
Click to expand...


Science and the scientific method is not a popularity contest.

There was a time not to too very long ago that the majority of human beings in the "known" world believed that if one sailed a boat out into the ocean that your craft would reach the edge of the world and fall off.


----------



## GISMYS

HUGGY said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your opinion is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to your opinion...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science and the scientific method is not a popularity contest.
> 
> There was a time not to too very long ago that the majority of human beings in the "known" world believed that if one sailed a boat out into the ocean that your craft would reach the edge of the world and fall off.
Click to expand...


too bad those people did not read and believe God's word written over 3000 years ago saying the earth is a sphere===ISAIAH 40;22==

Do you not know? Have you not heard?
Has it not been declared to you from the beginning?
Have you not understood from the foundations of the earth?

22 
It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,
Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain
And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.


----------



## HUGGY

GISMYS said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to your opinion...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science and the scientific method is not a popularity contest.
> 
> There was a time not to too very long ago that the majority of human beings in the "known" world believed that if one sailed a boat out into the ocean that your craft would reach the edge of the world and fall off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> too bad those people did not read and believe God's word written over 3000 years ago saying the earth is a sphere===ISAIAH 40;22==
> 
> Do you not know? Have you not heard?
> Has it not been declared to you from the beginning?
> Have you not understood from the foundations of the earth?
> 
> 22
> It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,
> And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,
> Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain
> And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.
Click to expand...


A circle is NOT a sphere.  Whn you gaze out towards the horizon and turn around you are seeing a circle of earth.  When you are high enough from your point of view to see people as grasshoppers then your "circle" is just larger.  There was no way to know that there was the remainder of a huge sphere beyond the view of ancient people.

More missinformation and lies from the godsquad.  

In fact ancient man believed the sun and the moon and all the stars all revolved around the known earth.

If your scribes of the bible wanted you to see it written as a "sphere" it would be written as such.  It IS a pretty important point don't you think?


----------



## GISMYS

HUGGY said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science and the scientific method is not a popularity contest.
> 
> There was a time not to too very long ago that the majority of human beings in the "known" world believed that if one sailed a boat out into the ocean that your craft would reach the edge of the world and fall off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> too bad those people did not read and believe God's word written over 3000 years ago saying the earth is a sphere===ISAIAH 40;22==
> 
> Do you not know? Have you not heard?
> Has it not been declared to you from the beginning?
> Have you not understood from the foundations of the earth?
> 
> 22
> It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,
> And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,
> Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain
> And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A circle is NOT a sphere.  Whn you gaze out towards the horizon and turn around you are seeing a circle of earth.  When you are high enough from your point of view to see people as grasshoppers then your "circle" is just larger.  There was no way to know that there was the remainder of a huge sphere beyond the view of ancient people.
> 
> More missinformation and lies from the godsquad.
> 
> In fact ancient man believed the sun and the moon and all the stars all revolved around the known earth.
> 
> If your scribes of the bible wanted you to see it written as a "sphere" it would be written as such.  It IS a pretty important point don't you think?
Click to expand...


Do some more research. God says when believers confess and repent our sins are buried as far as the east is from the west and how far is that? only on a round world would that scripture be true!!! think!


----------



## HUGGY

GISMYS said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> too bad those people did not read and believe God's word written over 3000 years ago saying the earth is a sphere===ISAIAH 40;22==
> 
> Do you not know? Have you not heard?
> Has it not been declared to you from the beginning?
> Have you not understood from the foundations of the earth?
> 
> 22
> It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,
> And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,
> Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain
> And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A circle is NOT a sphere.  Whn you gaze out towards the horizon and turn around you are seeing a circle of earth.  When you are high enough from your point of view to see people as grasshoppers then your "circle" is just larger.  There was no way to know that there was the remainder of a huge sphere beyond the view of ancient people.
> 
> More missinformation and lies from the godsquad.
> 
> In fact ancient man believed the sun and the moon and all the stars all revolved around the known earth.
> 
> If your scribes of the bible wanted you to see it written as a "sphere" it would be written as such.  It IS a pretty important point don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do some more research. God says when believers confess and repent our sins are buried as far as the east is from the west and how far is that? only on a round world would that scripture be true!!! think!
Click to expand...


You have officially lost your mind.  It is painfull to watch an adult struggle so poorly with truly basic material.  It might be endearing from a 5 year old... an adult...not so much.


----------



## GISMYS

HUGGY said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> A circle is NOT a sphere.  Whn you gaze out towards the horizon and turn around you are seeing a circle of earth.  When you are high enough from your point of view to see people as grasshoppers then your "circle" is just larger.  There was no way to know that there was the remainder of a huge sphere beyond the view of ancient people.
> 
> More missinformation and lies from the godsquad.
> 
> In fact ancient man believed the sun and the moon and all the stars all revolved around the known earth.
> 
> If your scribes of the bible wanted you to see it written as a "sphere" it would be written as such.  It IS a pretty important point don't you think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do some more research. God says when believers confess and repent our sins are buried as far as the east is from the west and how far is that? only on a round world would that scripture be true!!! think!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have officially lost your mind.
Click to expand...


SIMPLE! On a flat world you could know the distance from east to west but on a round world you cannot!!!! duh!!!  God said that truth over 3000 years ago!


----------



## HUGGY

GISMYS said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> too bad those people did not read and believe God's word written over 3000 years ago saying the earth is a sphere===ISAIAH 40;22==
> 
> Do you not know? Have you not heard?
> Has it not been declared to you from the beginning?
> Have you not understood from the foundations of the earth?
> 
> 22
> It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,
> And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,
> Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain
> And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A circle is NOT a sphere.  Whn you gaze out towards the horizon and turn around you are seeing a circle of earth.  When you are high enough from your point of view to see people as grasshoppers then your "circle" is just larger.  There was no way to know that there was the remainder of a huge sphere beyond the view of ancient people.
> 
> More missinformation and lies from the godsquad.
> 
> In fact ancient man believed the sun and the moon and all the stars all revolved around the known earth.
> 
> If your scribes of the bible wanted you to see it written as a "sphere" it would be written as such.  It IS a pretty important point don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do some more research. God says when believers confess and repent our sins are buried as far as the east is from the west and how far is that? only on a round world would that scripture be true!!! think!
Click to expand...


If you are not standing on a hill or a mountain...around 40 miles.  Most people cannot see more than 20 miles in any one direction without the aid of elevation.  You would do better to find a passage that gives you a distance for the surface of the earth.  Of course there is none in your bible...game over.


----------



## GISMYS

HUGGY said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> A circle is NOT a sphere.  Whn you gaze out towards the horizon and turn around you are seeing a circle of earth.  When you are high enough from your point of view to see people as grasshoppers then your "circle" is just larger.  There was no way to know that there was the remainder of a huge sphere beyond the view of ancient people.
> 
> More missinformation and lies from the godsquad.
> 
> In fact ancient man believed the sun and the moon and all the stars all revolved around the known earth.
> 
> If your scribes of the bible wanted you to see it written as a "sphere" it would be written as such.  It IS a pretty important point don't you think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do some more research. God says when believers confess and repent our sins are buried as far as the east is from the west and how far is that? only on a round world would that scripture be true!!! think!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are not standing on a hill or a mountain...around 40 miles.  Most people cannot see more than 20 miles in any one direction without the aid of elevation.  You would do better to find a passage that gives you a distance for the surface of the earth.  Of course there is none in your bible...game over.
Click to expand...


LOL!!! If the earth was flat you could see much futher!!! huh????


----------



## GISMYS

&#9668; Psalm 103:12 &#9658; 
As far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us. 
 Can't you understand what God is saying here????  you should if you know the earth is round as the creator would know!!


----------



## HUGGY

GISMYS said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do some more research. God says when believers confess and repent our sins are buried as far as the east is from the west and how far is that? only on a round world would that scripture be true!!! think!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are not standing on a hill or a mountain...around 40 miles.  Most people cannot see more than 20 miles in any one direction without the aid of elevation.  You would do better to find a passage that gives you a distance for the surface of the earth.  Of course there is none in your bible...game over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!!! If the earth was flat you could see much futher!!! huh????
Click to expand...


A point lost on ancient man.  What few theorized a spherical earth were usually executed.  

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RiU2T4Psyc]"Galileo" Indigo Girls - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## GISMYS

HUGGY said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you are not standing on a hill or a mountain...around 40 miles.  Most people cannot see more than 20 miles in any one direction without the aid of elevation.  You would do better to find a passage that gives you a distance for the surface of the earth.  Of course there is none in your bible...game over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!!! If the earth was flat you could see much futher!!! huh????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A point lost on ancient man.  What few theorized a spherical earth were usually executed.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RiU2T4Psyc]"Galileo" Indigo Girls - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


yes!! many ancient men did not believe GOD'S Word just as many are fools today!!!


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I thought I had defined it way back in the OP or at least the first page, but let me do it again for clarification. Human spirituality is the intrinsic awareness humans have of something greater than self which can't be physically defined. So that's what it means and that's what it is. Because it's not physical in nature, humans have a hard time grasping it or comprehending it completely, so they create incarnations of "god" or various religions to help them better understand this thing they are connecting with.
> 
> Yes, I very much do believe that we may one day be able to observe, test and define things that are "spiritual" through physical science. In fact, haven't we already done so in many instances? (Movement of the Sun and Moon, heliocentricity, rain, etc.) Currently, scientist are working on quantum physics and string theory, which involve the possibility of other universes and dimensions where our laws of physics and nature may not apply. Could be that "spiritual nature" is simply another dimension hovering just above our own plane of reality that we can't see or confirm physically?
> 
> 
> 
> But I did.  Our most advanced and sophisticated species has not very likely adopted some superficial and imaginary belief in something that isn't real for all of our existence, by which it has garnered inspiration and courage to do the otherwise impossible and achieve the things man has accomplished. If we have, it's the most exceptional and extraordinary mind fuck in the history of nature. Since we don't observe other species adopting similar superficial attributes which have no meaning yet cause great benefits, we have to conclude that's probably not what's happening with humans and spiritual connection. All I did was point out that even the Darwinian theories of natural selection can't support this argument of an 'imagined' spiritual connection without reason or fundamental purpose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is the sense we use to come by this awareness?  Is there a physical organ which provides our ability to sense the spiritual?  You say people have this inherent awareness despite the fact that the awareness takes many different forms and some don't seem to have it at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The sense is awareness of spiritual nature. The physical organ involved is the brain, or more specifically, the conscious mind. The awareness itself doesn't take many different forms, the awareness causes creation of many various incarnations. Every human has it, some simply do not use it. Some humans can swim while others can't, but it doesn't mean they lack some attribute the swimmers have, it's just they have never learned how to swim.
> 
> 
> 
> You're taking my argument out of context again. I mentioned our advancement because you wouldn't expect to find something as advanced over all other living things, doing something totally irrational and without reason.
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are wrong about a lot of this. Lots of animals have complex language and there are examples of ritual behavior as well. Even something as small as a lab rat understands and ascribes meaning to things. And let me clarify, I don't know if other animals have spiritual connection, they may have. If they do, it appears they deal with comprehending it much better than humans who feel compelled to create all kinds of religions and means of worshiping it. Perhaps the other animals are different from humans in humbleness and 'know what side the bread is buttered on' with regard to spiritual nature, and don't arrogantly think they know more than God?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've agreed that humans can think and reason in ways no other animal can, yet fail to see that our imagination is tied to our intelligence and, as such, leaves the possibility of creating meaning where none exists.  Since you have as much as said that religions are created by man, and since religion has existed for a large majority of our history, that strikes me as incongruous.  If man can imagine religion in such numbers, for so long, why could we not do the same for spiritual nature?  Again, I'm not even attempting to argue that spiritual nature doesn't exist, merely that the possibility that humanity has invented the various spiritual beliefs it has held is not contradicted by science or logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've never said we can't create meaning where none exists through imagination. However, it is very unlikely this is what we did with spiritual connection. The example I can relate this to for comparison is superstitions. While there are still people who are superstitious, most of us know that it's a novelty and not something profoundly fundamental. Once upon a time, superstitions were a very serious thing, people really believed and lived by them. As science advanced and dispelled the superstitions, fewer and fewer people took them seriously. With human spirituality, we don't see this happening. Humans remain devoutly connected spiritually to something greater than self. Humans continue to report tremendous benefit from inspiration and courage derived through their spiritual connection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There may be some kind of spiritual connection shared by all humanity, there may not.  Until and unless the spiritual can be clearly defined and understood, perhaps observed, that existence is as open to question as any incarnation of god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree that various incarnations of God are subject to disbelief. That humans are connecting to something greater than self, which we've defined as "spiritual" for now, is without question. Things simply do not have to be observed to be true or exist. I offer again, my Jupiter example... Did the planet Jupiter not exist until we observed it and confirmed it? Our inability to observe and confirm spiritual nature is insignificant, we have an intrinsic hard-wired connection to it.
Click to expand...


Awareness of spiritual connection is a sense?  That's kind of like me asking what sense you use for the awareness of your skin being in contact with an object, and instead of saying the sense of touch, you say that awareness of being in contact with an object is the sense.

What portion of the brain is used in this sense, what sort of signals does it receive?

Can someone lose or be born without this sense, as you can be blind or deaf?

Do animals often do anything for rational or irrational reasons in their own minds, or do they mostly run on instinct?  An ant may never act irrationally, but it also isn't thinking through it's actions.  

Lots of animals have complex languages?  I'd like to see some examples of these which come anywhere near human language.  I'm not talking about simple communication through sounds, I mean true complex language such as we use.

How do you have any idea if a lab rat ascribes meaning to anything?  How could you possibly know that without some form of complex communication between the two species?  

You seem to assume that many animals operate on a similar intellectual level as humans, despite the evidence to the contrary (and, if I remember correctly, an admission by you previously that they do not).

Is superstition not a manifestation of spiritual connection, like religion?  If not, why not?

Jupiter existed before we observed it.  The spiritual may as well.  However, the idea that that is not in question is simply ludicrous.  Of course it is, and should be, in question, especially if it is like your example of Jupiter.  Why should anyone have simply taken someone's word for the existence of Jupiter before there was evidence for it?  Before man could do more than look into the sky with his naked eye?


----------



## HUGGY

GISMYS said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!!! If the earth was flat you could see much futher!!! huh????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A point lost on ancient man.  What few theorized a spherical earth were usually executed.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RiU2T4Psyc]"Galileo" Indigo Girls - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes!! many ancient men did not believe GOD'S Word just as many are fools today!!!
Click to expand...


UMMmmm....  The man that threatened to execute Galileo was the then current Pope of Rome.

You would think he might have known the "words of god" better than you...


----------



## GISMYS

HUGGY said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> A point lost on ancient man.  What few theorized a spherical earth were usually executed.
> 
> "Galileo" Indigo Girls - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes!! many ancient men did not believe GOD'S Word just as many are fools today!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> UMMmmm....  The man that threatened to execute Galileo was the then current Pope of Rome.
> 
> You would think he might have known the "words of god" better than you...
Click to expand...


DUH!!! SO YOU THINK ALL POPES WERE GOOD BELIEVERS???? dream on and do some research. Being a church leader or church member does not mean you are a believer,or saved. WISE UP!!!


----------



## HUGGY

GISMYS said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes!! many ancient men did not believe GOD'S Word just as many are fools today!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UMMmmm....  The man that threatened to execute Galileo was the then current Pope of Rome.
> 
> You would think he might have known the "words of god" better than you...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DUH!!! SO YOU THINK ALL POPES WERE GOOD BELIEVERS???? dream on and do some research. Being a church leader or church member does not mean you are a believer,or saved. WISE UP!!!
Click to expand...


Impressive...Interesting ... Fascinating...that you feel you know god's words better than any one pope in history.  Does the Vatican have you on speed dial when they need to clear anything up?


----------



## GISMYS

HUGGY said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> UMMmmm....  The man that threatened to execute Galileo was the then current Pope of Rome.
> 
> You would think he might have known the "words of god" better than you...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DUH!!! SO YOU THINK ALL POPES WERE GOOD BELIEVERS???? dream on and do some research. Being a church leader or church member does not mean you are a believer,or saved. WISE UP!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Impressive...Interesting ... Fascinating...that you feel you know god's words better than any one pope in history.  Does the Vatican have you on speed dial when they need to clear anything up?
Click to expand...


LOL!!! TOO LAZY TO DO rsearch!!!huh?? yes! there has been many evil popes over the last 2000 years some burned JEWS at the stake!!! ps. JESUS IS A JEW!!!


----------



## HUGGY

GISMYS said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> DUH!!! SO YOU THINK ALL POPES WERE GOOD BELIEVERS???? dream on and do some research. Being a church leader or church member does not mean you are a believer,or saved. WISE UP!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Impressive...Interesting ... Fascinating...that you feel you know god's words better than any one pope in history.  Does the Vatican have you on speed dial when they need to clear anything up?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!!! TOO LAZY TO DO rsearch!!!huh?? yes! there has been many evil popes over the last 2000 years some burned JEWS at the stake!!! ps. JESUS IS A JEW!!!
Click to expand...


Not everyone is cut out to be a super sleuth for the jeebus.  It takes a very "special" person to walk YOUR path.


----------



## GISMYS

HUGGY said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Impressive...Interesting ... Fascinating...that you feel you know god's words better than any one pope in history.  Does the Vatican have you on speed dial when they need to clear anything up?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!!! TOO LAZY TO DO rsearch!!!huh?? yes! there has been many evil popes over the last 2000 years some burned JEWS at the stake!!! ps. JESUS IS A JEW!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not everyone is cut out to be a super sleuth for the jeebus.  It takes a very "special" person to walk YOUR path.
Click to expand...


YES!!! I am a son of GOD,You too can join the family.======================================HOW TO BE SAVED(BORN AGAIN) AND JOIN THE FAMILY OF GOD!!! Romans: Chapter 10 verse 9-10-13 GOD SAYS= 
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, 
and shalt believe in your heart that God hath raised him 
from the dead, thou shalt be Saved. For with the heart man 
believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession 
is made unto Salvation. For whosoever shall call upon the 
name of the Lord shall be Saved.................... 

---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------- 

AN EXAMPLE PRAYER IF YOU HAVE NEVER BEFORE TALKED TO GOD!......................... 
Heavenly Father:........................................... ............................... 
I come to you in prayer asking for the forgiveness of 
my Sins. I confess with my mouth and believe with my 
heart that Jesus is your Son, And that he died on the 
Cross at Calvary that I might be forgiven and have 
Eternal Life in the Kingdom of Heaven. Father, I believe 
that Jesus rose from the dead and I ask you right now 
to come in to my life and be my personal Lord and 
Savior. I repent of my Sins and will Worship you all the 
day's of my Life!. Because your word is truth, I confess 
with my mouth that I am Born Again and Cleansed 
by the Blood of Jesus! In Jesus Name, Amen


----------



## HUGGY

GISMYS said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!!! TOO LAZY TO DO rsearch!!!huh?? yes! there has been many evil popes over the last 2000 years some burned JEWS at the stake!!! ps. JESUS IS A JEW!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not everyone is cut out to be a super sleuth for the jeebus.  It takes a very "special" person to walk YOUR path.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YES!!! I am a son of GOD,You too can join the family.======================================HOW TO BE SAVED(BORN AGAIN) AND JOIN THE FAMILY OF GOD!!! Romans: Chapter 10 verse 9-10-13 GOD SAYS=
> That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus,
> and shalt believe in your heart that God hath raised him
> from the dead, thou shalt be Saved. For with the heart man
> believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession
> is made unto Salvation. For whosoever shall call upon the
> name of the Lord shall be Saved....................
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------
> 
> AN EXAMPLE PRAYER IF YOU HAVE NEVER BEFORE TALKED TO GOD!.........................
> Heavenly Father:........................................... ...............................
> I come to you in prayer asking for the forgiveness of
> my Sins. I confess with my mouth and believe with my
> heart that Jesus is your Son, And that he died on the
> Cross at Calvary that I might be forgiven and have
> Eternal Life in the Kingdom of Heaven. Father, I believe
> that Jesus rose from the dead and I ask you right now
> to come in to my life and be my personal Lord and
> Savior. I repent of my Sins and will Worship you all the
> day's of my Life!. Because your word is truth, I confess
> with my mouth that I am Born Again and Cleansed
> by the Blood of Jesus! In Jesus Name, Amen
Click to expand...


Ya..  Sure...  I'll get right on that...    I want you to know that I'm not easy though.

If you PM me a bank account # with $1,000,000 transferable to my account I'll say anything you want... With Conviction !!!  For REALS !!!!


----------



## GISMYS

HUGGY said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not everyone is cut out to be a super sleuth for the jeebus.  It takes a very "special" person to walk YOUR path.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YES!!! I am a son of GOD,You too can join the family.======================================HOW TO BE SAVED(BORN AGAIN) AND JOIN THE FAMILY OF GOD!!! Romans: Chapter 10 verse 9-10-13 GOD SAYS=
> That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus,
> and shalt believe in your heart that God hath raised him
> from the dead, thou shalt be Saved. For with the heart man
> believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession
> is made unto Salvation. For whosoever shall call upon the
> name of the Lord shall be Saved....................
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------
> 
> AN EXAMPLE PRAYER IF YOU HAVE NEVER BEFORE TALKED TO GOD!.........................
> Heavenly Father:........................................... ...............................
> I come to you in prayer asking for the forgiveness of
> my Sins. I confess with my mouth and believe with my
> heart that Jesus is your Son, And that he died on the
> Cross at Calvary that I might be forgiven and have
> Eternal Life in the Kingdom of Heaven. Father, I believe
> that Jesus rose from the dead and I ask you right now
> to come in to my life and be my personal Lord and
> Savior. I repent of my Sins and will Worship you all the
> day's of my Life!. Because your word is truth, I confess
> with my mouth that I am Born Again and Cleansed
> by the Blood of Jesus! In Jesus Name, Amen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ya..  Sure...  I'll get right on that...    I want you to know that I'm not easy though.
> 
> If you PM me a bank account # with $1,000,000 transferable to my account I'll say anything you want... With Conviction !!!  For REALS !!!!
Click to expand...


HEY!!! little guy if you want to choose to go to hell=go for it!!! no skin off my nose! I did my duty and gave you truth!!


----------



## HUGGY

GISMYS said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> YES!!! I am a son of GOD,You too can join the family.======================================HOW TO BE SAVED(BORN AGAIN) AND JOIN THE FAMILY OF GOD!!! Romans: Chapter 10 verse 9-10-13 GOD SAYS=
> That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus,
> and shalt believe in your heart that God hath raised him
> from the dead, thou shalt be Saved. For with the heart man
> believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession
> is made unto Salvation. For whosoever shall call upon the
> name of the Lord shall be Saved....................
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------
> 
> AN EXAMPLE PRAYER IF YOU HAVE NEVER BEFORE TALKED TO GOD!.........................
> Heavenly Father:........................................... ...............................
> I come to you in prayer asking for the forgiveness of
> my Sins. I confess with my mouth and believe with my
> heart that Jesus is your Son, And that he died on the
> Cross at Calvary that I might be forgiven and have
> Eternal Life in the Kingdom of Heaven. Father, I believe
> that Jesus rose from the dead and I ask you right now
> to come in to my life and be my personal Lord and
> Savior. I repent of my Sins and will Worship you all the
> day's of my Life!. Because your word is truth, I confess
> with my mouth that I am Born Again and Cleansed
> by the Blood of Jesus! In Jesus Name, Amen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ya..  Sure...  I'll get right on that...    I want you to know that I'm not easy though.
> 
> If you PM me a bank account # with $1,000,000 transferable to my account I'll say anything you want... With Conviction !!!  For REALS !!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HEY!!! little guy if you want to choose to go to hell=go for it!!! no skin off my nose! I did my duty and gave you truth!!
Click to expand...


Nonsense.  You gave up without venturing one thin dime.  If you REALLY wanted to save me what is stopping you?  A few measly bucks? And don't hand me that hogwash that the lord can't be bought.. Ask the mormans and the catholics.. A million is just chump change to those guys...  Put a million on the table or quit wasting my time.


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Awareness of spiritual connection is a sense?  That's kind of like me asking what sense you use for the awareness of your skin being in contact with an object, and instead of saying the sense of touch, you say that awareness of being in contact with an object is the sense.



Well what is the sense of touch? Isn't it the awareness of your skin being in contact with an object? The word "touch" is just a name we assigned to that sense of awareness. 



> What portion of the brain is used in this sense, what sort of signals does it receive?



It doesn't matter, this has nothing to do with the intrinsic spiritual connection itself. Your eyes are able to register reflection of light through your optic nerve to create an image your brain recognizes as our sense of sight, but this has nothing to do with literally trillions and trillions of things happening constantly in our universe that our eyes can't see. 



> Can someone lose or be born without this sense, as you can be blind or deaf?



Yep, you can be born retarded or severely mentally disabled, and not have the ability to comprehend spiritual connection. However, there are some people who have profound mental handicaps who have still managed to connect spiritually. 



> Do animals often do anything for rational or irrational reasons in their own minds, or do they mostly run on instinct?  An ant may never act irrationally, but it also isn't thinking through it's actions.



They mostly run on instinct. Correct, ants do not generally behave irrationally. How can you say ants are not thinking through their actions? They go obtain a piece of matter and deliver it where it is supposed to be. You're saying they don't have to think in order to do this? Their legs move and bodies come and go, and nothing is controlling that but instinct?



> Lots of animals have complex languages?  I'd like to see some examples of these which come anywhere near human language.  I'm not talking about simple communication through sounds, I mean true complex language such as we use.



Many animals have complexed language which is actually better than humans because it's universal across the entire species worldwide. They don't have the same sounds with different contextual meaning the way humans do with words. A crow warns of danger the same way in China as in America. 



> How do you have any idea if a lab rat ascribes meaning to anything?  How could you possibly know that without some form of complex communication between the two species?



Through observing their behavior, of course. 



> You seem to assume that many animals operate on a similar intellectual level as humans, despite the evidence to the contrary (and, if I remember correctly, an admission by you previously that they do not).



I've not said this. Our "intellectual level" is largely attributable to our ability to spiritually connect and become inspired to obtain greater wisdom of the universe around us. Still... Would you have any idea which flowers need pollinating if this responsibility fell on you tomorrow instead of the bees? We arrogantly presume our "intellectual level" is superior because of our perspective. 



> Is superstition not a manifestation of spiritual connection, like religion?  If not, why not?



It is, but just as some religions have become extinct, it's because of human misinterpretation of spiritual connection. It's amazing to me how the god-haters can point to all the failed spiritual beliefs through the ages and claim this somehow disproves spirituality, while ignoring the mountain of failed and disproved scientific theories. 



> Jupiter existed before we observed it.  The spiritual may as well.  However, the idea that that is not in question is simply ludicrous.  Of course it is, and should be, in question, especially if it is like your example of Jupiter.  Why should anyone have simply taken someone's word for the existence of Jupiter before there was evidence for it?  Before man could do more than look into the sky with his naked eye?



The point is, Jupiter did exist long before we discovered it was there. The fact that we didn't know it was there or couldn't see it, did not mean it didn't exist and wasn't there. No one should take anyone's word for anything, that's not the point I am making here. To bow up and proclaim that it's ludicrous to believe in Spiritual God because you can't see it or verify it exists, is no different than someone before the discovery of Jupiter making the same claim. _Why that's ridiculous, a planet 100x larger than Earth certainly doesn't exist or we would see it in the sky! ...Why that's absurd, if the Earth were round the water would run off the oceans!_ By the way, the later was actually an argument made against the theory of a round Earth. People are sometimes too 'smart' for their own good.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Awareness of spiritual connection is a sense?  That's kind of like me asking what sense you use for the awareness of your skin being in contact with an object, and instead of saying the sense of touch, you say that awareness of being in contact with an object is the sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well what is the sense of touch? Isn't it the awareness of your skin being in contact with an object? The word "touch" is just a name we assigned to that sense of awareness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What portion of the brain is used in this sense, what sort of signals does it receive?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter, this has nothing to do with the intrinsic spiritual connection itself. Your eyes are able to register reflection of light through your optic nerve to create an image your brain recognizes as our sense of sight, but this has nothing to do with literally trillions and trillions of things happening constantly in our universe that our eyes can't see.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, you can be born retarded or severely mentally disabled, and not have the ability to comprehend spiritual connection. However, there are some people who have profound mental handicaps who have still managed to connect spiritually.
> 
> 
> 
> They mostly run on instinct. Correct, ants do not generally behave irrationally. How can you say ants are not thinking through their actions? They go obtain a piece of matter and deliver it where it is supposed to be. You're saying they don't have to think in order to do this? Their legs move and bodies come and go, and nothing is controlling that but instinct?
> 
> 
> 
> Many animals have complexed language which is actually better than humans because it's universal across the entire species worldwide. They don't have the same sounds with different contextual meaning the way humans do with words. A crow warns of danger the same way in China as in America.
> 
> 
> 
> Through observing their behavior, of course.
> 
> 
> 
> I've not said this. Our "intellectual level" is largely attributable to our ability to spiritually connect and become inspired to obtain greater wisdom of the universe around us. Still... Would you have any idea which flowers need pollinating if this responsibility fell on you tomorrow instead of the bees? We arrogantly presume our "intellectual level" is superior because of our perspective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is superstition not a manifestation of spiritual connection, like religion?  If not, why not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is, but just as some religions have become extinct, it's because of human misinterpretation of spiritual connection. It's amazing to me how the god-haters can point to all the failed spiritual beliefs through the ages and claim this somehow disproves spirituality, while ignoring the mountain of failed and disproved scientific theories.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jupiter existed before we observed it.  The spiritual may as well.  However, the idea that that is not in question is simply ludicrous.  Of course it is, and should be, in question, especially if it is like your example of Jupiter.  Why should anyone have simply taken someone's word for the existence of Jupiter before there was evidence for it?  Before man could do more than look into the sky with his naked eye?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point is, Jupiter did exist long before we discovered it was there. The fact that we didn't know it was there or couldn't see it, did not mean it didn't exist and wasn't there. No one should take anyone's word for anything, that's not the point I am making here. To bow up and proclaim that it's ludicrous to believe in Spiritual God because you can't see it or verify it exists, is no different than someone before the discovery of Jupiter making the same claim. _Why that's ridiculous, a planet 100x larger than Earth certainly doesn't exist or we would see it in the sky! ...Why that's absurd, if the Earth were round the water would run off the oceans!_ By the way, the later was actually an argument made against the theory of a round Earth. People are sometimes too 'smart' for their own good.
Click to expand...


No one will ever accuse you of being too smart for your own good.
This post of yours is a low point.
Rambling, self-contradictory and complete hogwash.
You have succeeded in proving that there is nothing about your position that can be shown, supported or explained. The desperation of this post was your Waterloo.


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your version is "spiritual nature".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not just me. Most all humans for all of history. a very slim minority of the species arrogantly proclaims to not believe in spiritual nature, and that has also always been the case throughout history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Already agreed most people create a rationalization for their fears and to explain what they can't. The simpler the tribe the more likely it is to invent the rationalization.
> Arrogance? Simply your opinion, and not supported by any data. Just a whine.
> It's ok. We're used to it.
Click to expand...


Except that you've shown no logical evidence that humans created a rationalization for spiritual nature out of fear or for any other reason. This "theory" is not supported by any data including logic and rational thought.


----------



## orogenicman

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not just me. Most all humans for all of history. a very slim minority of the species arrogantly proclaims to not believe in spiritual nature, and that has also always been the case throughout history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Already agreed most people create a rationalization for their fears and to explain what they can't. The simpler the tribe the more likely it is to invent the rationalization.
> Arrogance? Simply your opinion, and not supported by any data. Just a whine.
> It's ok. We're used to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that you've shown no logical evidence that humans created a rationalization for spiritual nature out of fear or for any other reason. This "theory" is not supported by any data including logic and rational thought.
Click to expand...


People have blamed bumps in the night on ghosts from time immemorial, despite the fact that they are just bumps in the night.  The unexplained is not unexplainable.  But that hasn't stopped fearful people from rationalizing all kinds of crap when a simple explanation could have sufficed.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not just me. Most all humans for all of history. a very slim minority of the species arrogantly proclaims to not believe in spiritual nature, and that has also always been the case throughout history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Already agreed most people create a rationalization for their fears and to explain what they can't. The simpler the tribe the more likely it is to invent the rationalization.
> Arrogance? Simply your opinion, and not supported by any data. Just a whine.
> It's ok. We're used to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that you've shown no logical evidence that humans created a rationalization for spiritual nature out of fear or for any other reason. This "theory" is not supported by any data including logic and rational thought.
Click to expand...


How many books and papers stating the same thing shall I cite for you?
Dream on, child.
It is you that has never provided a single stick of evidence other than "I say so".


----------



## I.P.Freely

Sweden,Denmark and Norway are the three nations that are in the top five largest % atheist/agnostic of the population, in the world.They also have some of the best social welfare systems in the world.There must be a rational reason why they kicked god to the curb. 

Quality social health care, education and pensions are miraculous  things.


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Already agreed most people create a rationalization for their fears and to explain what they can't. The simpler the tribe the more likely it is to invent the rationalization.
> Arrogance? Simply your opinion, and not supported by any data. Just a whine.
> It's ok. We're used to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that you've shown no logical evidence that humans created a rationalization for spiritual nature out of fear or for any other reason. This "theory" is not supported by any data including logic and rational thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many books and papers stating the same thing shall I cite for you?
> Dream on, child.
> It is you that has never provided a single stick of evidence other than "I say so".
Click to expand...


You can cite as many books as you want to, for every one you cite, I can cite one with a counter-opinion. We don't base knowledge on what random people write in books. Present some fucking science here, or stop making your ridiculous claims. 

I want to see some real scientific data to suggest that humans invented a rationalization for spiritual nature out of fear (or for any other reason) and if you can't provide that evidence, it's fine for you to just admit this is a speculative OPINION. 

I'm not the one presenting "I say so" arguments, that is you and your ilk. Over and over again, as if you believe you can repeat it enough to make it true. I presented MY argument, backed it up with what we observe in nature and what Darwin says about natural selection. My "evidence" is over 100k years of human history and mankind's inseparable connection to spiritual nature. It's not ME saying it, it's literally billions and billions of testimonials from humans since the beginning of civilization, including some of the great scientists you hold near and dear. Your OPINION is in the vast and overwhelming minority.


----------



## Boss

I.P.Freely said:


> Sweden,Denmark and Norway are the three nations that are in the top five largest atheist/agnostic populations in the world.They also have some of the best social welfare systems in the world.There must be a rational reason why they kicked god to the curb.
> 
> Quality social health care, education and pensions are miraculous  things.



None of the countries you listed are majority Atheist. 

Sweden 34%
Denmark 24%
Norway 29%

In each of the three, the number who say they believe in God or a spiritual life force:

Sweden 63%
Denmark 75%
Norway 66%

Demographics of atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

.............Ruh-Roh!


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not just me. Most all humans for all of history. a very slim minority of the species arrogantly proclaims to not believe in spiritual nature, and that has also always been the case throughout history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Already agreed most people create a rationalization for their fears and to explain what they can't. The simpler the tribe the more likely it is to invent the rationalization.
> Arrogance? Simply your opinion, and not supported by any data. Just a whine.
> It's ok. We're used to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that you've shown no logical evidence that humans created a rationalization for spiritual nature out of fear or for any other reason. This "theory" is not supported by any data including logic and rational thought.
Click to expand...


Your invention of something you call "spiritual nature" simply calms an emotional requirement for belief in supernaturalism. 

What you consistently fail to do is make an honest acknowledgement that you have incorporated the various human assigned attributes shared by all gods into some god-amalgam you now call "spiritual nature".


----------



## I.P.Freely

Boss said:


> I.P.Freely said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sweden,Denmark and Norway are the three nations that are in the top five largest atheist/agnostic populations in the world.They also have some of the best social welfare systems in the world.There must be a rational reason why they kicked god to the curb.
> 
> Quality social health care, education and pensions are miraculous  things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of the countries you listed are majority Atheist.
> 
> Sweden 34%
> Denmark 24%
> Norway 29%
> 
> In each of the three, the number who say they believe in God or a spiritual life force:
> 
> Sweden 63%
> Denmark 75%
> Norway 66%
> 
> Demographics of atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> .............Ruh-Roh!
Click to expand...

learn to read twerp, "atheists/agnostics", and you quote Wiki
http://www.thechapmans.nl/news/Atheist.pdf


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> I.P.Freely said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sweden,Denmark and Norway are the three nations that are in the top five largest atheist/agnostic populations in the world.They also have some of the best social welfare systems in the world.There must be a rational reason why they kicked god to the curb.
> 
> Quality social health care, education and pensions are miraculous  things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of the countries you listed are majority Atheist.
> 
> Sweden 34%
> Denmark 24%
> Norway 29%
> 
> In each of the three, the number who say they believe in God or a spiritual life force:
> 
> Sweden 63%
> Denmark 75%
> Norway 66%
> 
> Demographics of atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> .............Ruh-Roh!
Click to expand...


You're not understanding what the data shows. Quite clearly, people are moving away from the current configuration of a monotheistic god. A simple examination of human history has shown that previous configurations of multiple, unionized gods have been replaced with a one-stop shopping god of convenience.  

As knowledge grows, religion withers-- we can see living proof of this as people liberalize their religions, or as they leave the religions they were born into to seek "answers" in other religions, "spiritual life forces" or as they abandon religion altogether, or as they "all of the above."


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except that you've shown no logical evidence that humans created a rationalization for spiritual nature out of fear or for any other reason. This "theory" is not supported by any data including logic and rational thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many books and papers stating the same thing shall I cite for you?
> Dream on, child.
> It is you that has never provided a single stick of evidence other than "I say so".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can cite as many books as you want to, for every one you cite, I can cite one with a counter-opinion. We don't base knowledge on what random people write in books. Present some fucking science here, or stop making your ridiculous claims.
> 
> I want to see some real scientific data to suggest that humans invented a rationalization for spiritual nature out of fear (or for any other reason) and if you can't provide that evidence, it's fine for you to just admit this is a speculative OPINION.
> 
> I'm not the one presenting "I say so" arguments, that is you and your ilk. Over and over again, as if you believe you can repeat it enough to make it true. I presented MY argument, backed it up with what we observe in nature and what Darwin says about natural selection. My "evidence" is over 100k years of human history and mankind's inseparable connection to spiritual nature. It's not ME saying it, it's literally billions and billions of testimonials from humans since the beginning of civilization, including some of the great scientists you hold near and dear. Your OPINION is in the vast and overwhelming minority.
Click to expand...


But it isn't the minority opinion among people that make science their lives. It isn't the minority opinion of people in MENSA. Education and intelligence cures your irrational need to rush in and fill in the blanks to quell your fears.
The "evidence" isn't a connection with some completely undefined spiritual nature. It is the "belief" in one. We have no disagreement about what the evidence actually is, only the conclusion you reach. You are taking anecdotal evidence as conclusive accurate proof of the claim, and of course it is nothing of the kind. The only other evidence you have ever presented is that you personally "know" spiritual nature exists. Given the poor intellectual judgment you have frequently shown, that has less weight than it would have in any case, which is essentially zero anyway.


----------



## Boss

I.P.Freely said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I.P.Freely said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sweden,Denmark and Norway are the three nations that are in the top five largest atheist/agnostic populations in the world.They also have some of the best social welfare systems in the world.There must be a rational reason why they kicked god to the curb.
> 
> Quality social health care, education and pensions are miraculous  things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of the countries you listed are majority Atheist.
> 
> Sweden 34%
> Denmark 24%
> Norway 29%
> 
> In each of the three, the number who say they believe in God or a spiritual life force:
> 
> Sweden 63%
> Denmark 75%
> Norway 66%
> 
> Demographics of atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> .............Ruh-Roh!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> learn to read twerp, "atheists/agnostics", and you quote Wiki
> http://www.thechapmans.nl/news/Atheist.pdf
Click to expand...


LMFAO... Since when do Atheists get to count agnostics as people who DO NOT believe in God? It's kind of like a democrat or republican claiming all the undecided and third party voters, isn't it? 

Also... TWERP... I didn't "quote" Wiki, I posted data compiled at Wiki, it is sourced.


----------



## Boss

> You're not understanding what the data shows. Quite clearly, people are moving away from the current configuration of a monotheistic god.



The data doesn't show that.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Awareness of spiritual connection is a sense?  That's kind of like me asking what sense you use for the awareness of your skin being in contact with an object, and instead of saying the sense of touch, you say that awareness of being in contact with an object is the sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well what is the sense of touch? Isn't it the awareness of your skin being in contact with an object? The word "touch" is just a name we assigned to that sense of awareness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What portion of the brain is used in this sense, what sort of signals does it receive?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter, this has nothing to do with the intrinsic spiritual connection itself. Your eyes are able to register reflection of light through your optic nerve to create an image your brain recognizes as our sense of sight, but this has nothing to do with literally trillions and trillions of things happening constantly in our universe that our eyes can't see.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, you can be born retarded or severely mentally disabled, and not have the ability to comprehend spiritual connection. However, there are some people who have profound mental handicaps who have still managed to connect spiritually.
> 
> 
> 
> They mostly run on instinct. Correct, ants do not generally behave irrationally. How can you say ants are not thinking through their actions? They go obtain a piece of matter and deliver it where it is supposed to be. You're saying they don't have to think in order to do this? Their legs move and bodies come and go, and nothing is controlling that but instinct?
> 
> 
> 
> Many animals have complexed language which is actually better than humans because it's universal across the entire species worldwide. They don't have the same sounds with different contextual meaning the way humans do with words. A crow warns of danger the same way in China as in America.
> 
> 
> 
> Through observing their behavior, of course.
> 
> 
> 
> I've not said this. Our "intellectual level" is largely attributable to our ability to spiritually connect and become inspired to obtain greater wisdom of the universe around us. Still... Would you have any idea which flowers need pollinating if this responsibility fell on you tomorrow instead of the bees? We arrogantly presume our "intellectual level" is superior because of our perspective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is superstition not a manifestation of spiritual connection, like religion?  If not, why not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is, but just as some religions have become extinct, it's because of human misinterpretation of spiritual connection. It's amazing to me how the god-haters can point to all the failed spiritual beliefs through the ages and claim this somehow disproves spirituality, while ignoring the mountain of failed and disproved scientific theories.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jupiter existed before we observed it.  The spiritual may as well.  However, the idea that that is not in question is simply ludicrous.  Of course it is, and should be, in question, especially if it is like your example of Jupiter.  Why should anyone have simply taken someone's word for the existence of Jupiter before there was evidence for it?  Before man could do more than look into the sky with his naked eye?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point is, Jupiter did exist long before we discovered it was there. The fact that we didn't know it was there or couldn't see it, did not mean it didn't exist and wasn't there. No one should take anyone's word for anything, that's not the point I am making here. To bow up and proclaim that it's ludicrous to believe in Spiritual God because you can't see it or verify it exists, is no different than someone before the discovery of Jupiter making the same claim. _Why that's ridiculous, a planet 100x larger than Earth certainly doesn't exist or we would see it in the sky! ...Why that's absurd, if the Earth were round the water would run off the oceans!_ By the way, the later was actually an argument made against the theory of a round Earth. People are sometimes too 'smart' for their own good.
Click to expand...


Just going to reply to a couple of points.

First, you said that humans connecting to something spiritual was without question, and used the Jupiter example to bolster that claim.  That is why I said what I did.  Whether or not you are correct, it is certainly not true that we connect to something spiritual without question.

Second, you not only did not provide a single example of an animal which uses a complex language anywhere close to on par with human language, you actually furthered your claim by saying that many animals have complex language which is the same across the world.  Do you have any specific examples?  Have we seen these animals teaching their young the language, or is it something they are born knowing?  Is much research being done to allow us to communicate with these animals, to learn their language?

I think you are mistaking all verbal communication for language.  The one does not have to be the other.


----------



## BreezeWood

Boss said:


> . My "evidence" is over 100k years of human history *and mankind's inseparable connection to spiritual nature.* It's not ME saying it, it's literally billions and billions of testimonials from humans since the beginning of civilization ...




*... and mankind's inseparable connection to spiritual nature.*


it may just be my opinion but of all the life forms on earth, humanity seems the less "conected" to spiritual nature than all the others life forms in existence, and in fact it is not being connected that seems to be the driving force and root cause for humanities insecurity.

whether being connected or not may be irrelevant to what is being connected to it certainly would explain the reason for creating myths and fables to explain what has to date not become a proven fact.

.


----------



## orogenicman

BreezeWood said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> . My "evidence" is over 100k years of human history *and mankind's inseparable connection to spiritual nature.* It's not ME saying it, it's literally billions and billions of testimonials from humans since the beginning of civilization ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *... and mankind's inseparable connection to spiritual nature.*
> 
> 
> it may just be my opinion but of all the life forms on earth, humanity seems the less "conected" to spiritual nature than all the others life forms in existence, and in fact it is not being connected that seems to be the driving force and root cause for humanities insecurity.
> 
> whether being connected or not may be irrelevant to what is being connected to it certainly would explain the reason for creating myths and fables to explain what has to date not become a proven fact.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


That and the innate fear of angry alpha males.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I thought I had defined it way back in the OP or at least the first page, but let me do it again for clarification. Human spirituality is the intrinsic awareness humans have of something greater than self which can't be physically defined. So that's what it means and that's what it is. Because it's not physical in nature, humans have a hard time grasping it or comprehending it completely, so they create incarnations of "god" or various religions to help them better understand this thing they are connecting with.
> 
> Yes, I very much do believe that we may one day be able to observe, test and define things that are "spiritual" through physical science. In fact, haven't we already done so in many instances? (Movement of the Sun and Moon, heliocentricity, rain, etc.) Currently, scientist are working on quantum physics and string theory, which involve the possibility of other universes and dimensions where our laws of physics and nature may not apply. Could be that "spiritual nature" is simply another dimension hovering just above our own plane of reality that we can't see or confirm physically?
> 
> 
> 
> But I did.  Our most advanced and sophisticated species has not very likely adopted some superficial and imaginary belief in something that isn't real for all of our existence, by which it has garnered inspiration and courage to do the otherwise impossible and achieve the things man has accomplished. If we have, it's the most exceptional and extraordinary mind fuck in the history of nature. Since we don't observe other species adopting similar superficial attributes which have no meaning yet cause great benefits, we have to conclude that's probably not what's happening with humans and spiritual connection. All I did was point out that even the Darwinian theories of natural selection can't support this argument of an 'imagined' spiritual connection without reason or fundamental purpose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is the sense we use to come by this awareness?  Is there a physical organ which provides our ability to sense the spiritual?  You say people have this inherent awareness despite the fact that the awareness takes many different forms and some don't seem to have it at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The sense is awareness of spiritual nature. The physical organ involved is the brain, or more specifically, the conscious mind. The awareness itself doesn't take many different forms, the awareness causes creation of many various incarnations. Every human has it, some simply do not use it. Some humans can swim while others can't, but it doesn't mean they lack some attribute the swimmers have, it's just they have never learned how to swim.
> 
> 
> 
> You're taking my argument out of context again. I mentioned our advancement because you wouldn't expect to find something as advanced over all other living things, doing something totally irrational and without reason.
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are wrong about a lot of this. Lots of animals have complex language and there are examples of ritual behavior as well. Even something as small as a lab rat understands and ascribes meaning to things. And let me clarify, I don't know if other animals have spiritual connection, they may have. If they do, it appears they deal with comprehending it much better than humans who feel compelled to create all kinds of religions and means of worshiping it. Perhaps the other animals are different from humans in humbleness and 'know what side the bread is buttered on' with regard to spiritual nature, and don't arrogantly think they know more than God?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've agreed that humans can think and reason in ways no other animal can, yet fail to see that our imagination is tied to our intelligence and, as such, leaves the possibility of creating meaning where none exists.  Since you have as much as said that religions are created by man, and since religion has existed for a large majority of our history, that strikes me as incongruous.  If man can imagine religion in such numbers, for so long, why could we not do the same for spiritual nature?  Again, I'm not even attempting to argue that spiritual nature doesn't exist, merely that the possibility that humanity has invented the various spiritual beliefs it has held is not contradicted by science or logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've never said we can't create meaning where none exists through imagination. However, it is very unlikely this is what we did with spiritual connection. The example I can relate this to for comparison is superstitions. While there are still people who are superstitious, most of us know that it's a novelty and not something profoundly fundamental. Once upon a time, superstitions were a very serious thing, people really believed and lived by them. As science advanced and dispelled the superstitions, fewer and fewer people took them seriously. With human spirituality, we don't see this happening. Humans remain devoutly connected spiritually to something greater than self. Humans continue to report tremendous benefit from inspiration and courage derived through their spiritual connection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There may be some kind of spiritual connection shared by all humanity, there may not.  Until and unless the spiritual can be clearly defined and understood, perhaps observed, that existence is as open to question as any incarnation of god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree that various incarnations of God are subject to disbelief. That humans are connecting to something greater than self, which we've defined as "spiritual" for now, is without question. Things simply do not have to be observed to be true or exist. I offer again, my Jupiter example... Did the planet Jupiter not exist until we observed it and confirmed it? Our inability to observe and confirm spiritual nature is insignificant, we have an intrinsic hard-wired connection to it.
Click to expand...


And until we know more the proper response is you don't know and agnostic atheism is the most rational position.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the sense we use to come by this awareness?  Is there a physical organ which provides our ability to sense the spiritual?  You say people have this inherent awareness despite the fact that the awareness takes many different forms and some don't seem to have it at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The sense is awareness of spiritual nature. The physical organ involved is the brain, or more specifically, the conscious mind. The awareness itself doesn't take many different forms, the awareness causes creation of many various incarnations. Every human has it, some simply do not use it. Some humans can swim while others can't, but it doesn't mean they lack some attribute the swimmers have, it's just they have never learned how to swim.
> 
> 
> 
> You're taking my argument out of context again. I mentioned our advancement because you wouldn't expect to find something as advanced over all other living things, doing something totally irrational and without reason.
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are wrong about a lot of this. Lots of animals have complex language and there are examples of ritual behavior as well. Even something as small as a lab rat understands and ascribes meaning to things. And let me clarify, I don't know if other animals have spiritual connection, they may have. If they do, it appears they deal with comprehending it much better than humans who feel compelled to create all kinds of religions and means of worshiping it. Perhaps the other animals are different from humans in humbleness and 'know what side the bread is buttered on' with regard to spiritual nature, and don't arrogantly think they know more than God?
> 
> 
> 
> I've never said we can't create meaning where none exists through imagination. However, it is very unlikely this is what we did with spiritual connection. The example I can relate this to for comparison is superstitions. While there are still people who are superstitious, most of us know that it's a novelty and not something profoundly fundamental. Once upon a time, superstitions were a very serious thing, people really believed and lived by them. As science advanced and dispelled the superstitions, fewer and fewer people took them seriously. With human spirituality, we don't see this happening. Humans remain devoutly connected spiritually to something greater than self. Humans continue to report tremendous benefit from inspiration and courage derived through their spiritual connection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There may be some kind of spiritual connection shared by all humanity, there may not.  Until and unless the spiritual can be clearly defined and understood, perhaps observed, that existence is as open to question as any incarnation of god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree that various incarnations of God are subject to disbelief. That humans are connecting to something greater than self, which we've defined as "spiritual" for now, is without question. Things simply do not have to be observed to be true or exist. I offer again, my Jupiter example... Did the planet Jupiter not exist until we observed it and confirmed it? Our inability to observe and confirm spiritual nature is insignificant, we have an intrinsic hard-wired connection to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And until we know more the proper response is you don't know and agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
Click to expand...

Far too late to wise up on judgment day!!! think!


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> I.P.Freely said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of the countries you listed are majority Atheist.
> 
> Sweden 34%
> Denmark 24%
> Norway 29%
> 
> In each of the three, the number who say they believe in God or a spiritual life force:
> 
> Sweden 63%
> Denmark 75%
> Norway 66%
> 
> Demographics of atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> .............Ruh-Roh!
> 
> 
> 
> learn to read twerp, "atheists/agnostics", and you quote Wiki
> http://www.thechapmans.nl/news/Atheist.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMFAO... Since when do Atheists get to count agnostics as people who DO NOT believe in God? It's kind of like a democrat or republican claiming all the undecided and third party voters, isn't it?
> 
> Also... TWERP... I didn't "quote" Wiki, I posted data compiled at Wiki, it is sourced.
Click to expand...


Most scientists who know that 99.999% chance their is no god also say the most rational position on god is to be an agnostic atheist.  You don't seem to be all that sharp.  I see people saying things to you like "agnostic" and you seem to be grasping for AHAH or GOTCHA moments but all you are showing us is that you do not understand or listen to what people say to you.  The definition of close minded.  Even an atheist can not say 100% sure there is no god just like we can't prove there are no leprechauns, devils angels or ghosts exists.  

So all the organized religions you understand to be bullshit yet you refuse to let go of the concept of god for some strange reason.  Because now all you have is a feeling, and the fact that primative man always believed in a higher power.  Maybe they saw aliens and thought they were gods?  Why not rule that possibility out?


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> The sense is awareness of spiritual nature. The physical organ involved is the brain, or more specifically, the conscious mind. The awareness itself doesn't take many different forms, the awareness causes creation of many various incarnations. Every human has it, some simply do not use it. Some humans can swim while others can't, but it doesn't mean they lack some attribute the swimmers have, it's just they have never learned how to swim.
> 
> 
> 
> You're taking my argument out of context again. I mentioned our advancement because you wouldn't expect to find something as advanced over all other living things, doing something totally irrational and without reason.
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are wrong about a lot of this. Lots of animals have complex language and there are examples of ritual behavior as well. Even something as small as a lab rat understands and ascribes meaning to things. And let me clarify, I don't know if other animals have spiritual connection, they may have. If they do, it appears they deal with comprehending it much better than humans who feel compelled to create all kinds of religions and means of worshiping it. Perhaps the other animals are different from humans in humbleness and 'know what side the bread is buttered on' with regard to spiritual nature, and don't arrogantly think they know more than God?
> 
> 
> 
> I've never said we can't create meaning where none exists through imagination. However, it is very unlikely this is what we did with spiritual connection. The example I can relate this to for comparison is superstitions. While there are still people who are superstitious, most of us know that it's a novelty and not something profoundly fundamental. Once upon a time, superstitions were a very serious thing, people really believed and lived by them. As science advanced and dispelled the superstitions, fewer and fewer people took them seriously. With human spirituality, we don't see this happening. Humans remain devoutly connected spiritually to something greater than self. Humans continue to report tremendous benefit from inspiration and courage derived through their spiritual connection.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that various incarnations of God are subject to disbelief. That humans are connecting to something greater than self, which we've defined as "spiritual" for now, is without question. Things simply do not have to be observed to be true or exist. I offer again, my Jupiter example... Did the planet Jupiter not exist until we observed it and confirmed it? Our inability to observe and confirm spiritual nature is insignificant, we have an intrinsic hard-wired connection to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And until we know more the proper response is you don't know and agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Far too late to wise up on judgment day!!! think!
Click to expand...


Because you have zero proof of your fake religion you use fear to spread the word.  Sorry but I'm too smart to buy into your cult.  No difference between christianity, mormons scientologists muslims and the 995 other religions than came before or after.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> The sense is awareness of spiritual nature. The physical organ involved is the brain, or more specifically, the conscious mind. The awareness itself doesn't take many different forms, the awareness causes creation of many various incarnations. Every human has it, some simply do not use it. Some humans can swim while others can't, but it doesn't mean they lack some attribute the swimmers have, it's just they have never learned how to swim.
> 
> You're taking my argument out of context again. I mentioned our advancement because you wouldn't expect to find something as advanced over all other living things, doing something totally irrational and without reason.
> 
> I think you are wrong about a lot of this. Lots of animals have complex language and there are examples of ritual behavior as well. Even something as small as a lab rat understands and ascribes meaning to things. And let me clarify, I don't know if other animals have spiritual connection, they may have. If they do, it appears they deal with comprehending it much better than humans who feel compelled to create all kinds of religions and means of worshiping it. Perhaps the other animals are different from humans in humbleness and 'know what side the bread is buttered on' with regard to spiritual nature, and don't arrogantly think they know more than God?
> 
> I've never said we can't create meaning where none exists through imagination. However, it is very unlikely this is what we did with spiritual connection. The example I can relate this to for comparison is superstitions. While there are still people who are superstitious, most of us know that it's a novelty and not something profoundly fundamental. Once upon a time, superstitions were a very serious thing, people really believed and lived by them. As science advanced and dispelled the superstitions, fewer and fewer people took them seriously. With human spirituality, we don't see this happening. Humans remain devoutly connected spiritually to something greater than self. Humans continue to report tremendous benefit from inspiration and courage derived through their spiritual connection.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that various incarnations of God are subject to disbelief. That humans are connecting to something greater than self, which we've defined as "spiritual" for now, is without question. Things simply do not have to be observed to be true or exist. I offer again, my Jupiter example... Did the planet Jupiter not exist until we observed it and confirmed it? Our inability to observe and confirm spiritual nature is insignificant, we have an intrinsic hard-wired connection to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And until we know more the proper response is you don't know and agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Far too late to wise up on judgment day!!! think!
Click to expand...


Do you realize that at best you are believing the word of 11 guys.  11 because Judas killed himself.  This is a cult.  And it wasn't like Jesus' 12 wrote the bible.  It was written 80 years or more later?  Then heavily altered by the church/kings.  The kings gave themselves divine authority so you wouldn't question them when they collected taxes.  So anyways, only a fool would hear the jesus story and still believe it beyond the 6th grade.  You guys believe in an imaginary man watching you and a bullshit story.  Wake the fuck up.  And please please don't push that bullshit story on us.  If it's believe your bullshit or burn in hell I guess I'll burn in hell.  And how come the devil was able to go to heaven and then be a rebel?  Maybe once I go to heaven I want to take over.  Do I have the free will to be a dick in heaven?  Funny that christians think they can be dicks here on earth and still go to heaven but they won't be dicks or themselves when they to go the pearly gates.  What a story.  Almost as dumb as scientology or the mormon stories.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And until we know more the proper response is you don't know and agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
> 
> 
> 
> Far too late to wise up on judgment day!!! think!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because you have zero proof of your fake religion you use fear to spread the word.  Sorry but I'm too smart to buy into your cult.  No difference between christianity, mormons scientologists muslims and the 995 other religions than came before or after.
Click to expand...


BELIEVERS have the entire universe and life as proof of God,how much more proof do fools need???


----------



## sealybobo

Bill Maher was right.  We keep the 10 commandments off the court steps because that would be favoring one religion over all the other religions and it makes us smart people who don't believe in god uncomfortable that our fate is in the hands of people who are insane.  The only 2 commandments that are laws are don't kill and don't steal.  The other 8 are not laws.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Most scientists who know that 99.999% chance their is no god also say the most rational position on god is to be an agnostic atheist.  You don't seem to be all that sharp.  I see people saying things to you like "agnostic" and you seem to be grasping for AHAH or GOTCHA moments but all you are showing us is that you do not understand or listen to what people say to you.  The definition of close minded.  Even an atheist can not say 100% sure there is no god just like we can't prove there are no leprechauns, devils angels or ghosts exists.
> 
> So all the organized religions you understand to be bullshit yet you refuse to let go of the concept of god for some strange reason.  Because now all you have is a feeling, and the fact that primative man always believed in a higher power.  Maybe they saw aliens and thought they were gods?  Why not rule that possibility out?



I'm sharp enough to know the difference between "atheist" and "agnostic" and don't run around like an idiot claiming they are one in the same. 

If you can't say 100% for sure there is no God, why do you all want to keep saying that? This is what doesn't make any sense to me. Here you admit that you're not 100% certain, but the thread is full of people denying any possibility whatsoever. 

I've never said that all the organized religions are "bullshit" only that I didn't subscribe to them. I think they are flawed because man is flawed. That doesn't mean they are bullshit, they have proven to be an effective method of man maintaining his spiritual connection. Also, I personally have more than a "feeling". As I've said, I connect with Spiritual God daily, and God connects with me. I realize great personal gain from this connection, so I have all the evidence I need to believe the connection is real. 

Now let me ask you, what am I supposed to do with that? Should I simply ignore what I know is the truth so I can fit in with the "cool" crowd here? Should I say that "I'm not sure" when I am certain? Should I refuse to acknowledge what I know is the truth and idiotically demand some sort of "physical" evidence to "prove" the spiritual? 

Sorry, but that ain't how I roll.


----------



## Boss

> Bill Maher was right.



 Arguably the dumbest thing ever posted on any forum!


----------



## Steven_R

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Far too late to wise up on judgment day!!! think!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because you have zero proof of your fake religion you use fear to spread the word.  Sorry but I'm too smart to buy into your cult.  No difference between christianity, mormons scientologists muslims and the 995 other religions than came before or after.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BELIEVERS have the entire universe and life as proof of God,how much more proof do fools need???
Click to expand...


Let's assume God exists. God knows exactly what it would take for me to be a believer, right? I may not even be consciously aware of what it would take, but presumably God does. Whatever it would take to turn me from a non-believer destined for an eternity of torment to someone who will receive grace and go to God. Let's call whatever that is, for lack of a better term, evidence. Yet, God hasn't put that evidence in front of me.

Why? Does God want me to go to Hell? Is God pacing Himself? Does God have an agenda that requires me to be a cynic and say, "okay, show me" and then not show me? Is God just a dick sometimes and this is one of those times?


----------



## orogenicman

Boss said:


> Bill Maher was right.
> 
> 
> 
> Arguably the dumbest thing ever posted on any forum!
Click to expand...


Don't just take his word for it:


----------



## Staidhup

So what is it with the atheists and their intolerance toward those who believe in GOD? What is it that they fear? Why is it that they require physical proof, is not the beauty of the creation enough? Walk outside, look  around you, experience the beauty of GOD. You have a choice and will be held in judgement for your actions and beliefs. Go ahead, choose not to believe, no one is forcing you. He has a plan, in total control, testing, and challenging you every day.


----------



## Steven_R

It's easy to see God in rainbows and daisies and puppies and the smiles of babies. It's a little harder to see God in birth defects and mudslides and cancer and crazy people and the sheer number of ways the universe can kill us.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most scientists who know that 99.999% chance their is no god also say the most rational position on god is to be an agnostic atheist.  You don't seem to be all that sharp.  I see people saying things to you like "agnostic" and you seem to be grasping for AHAH or GOTCHA moments but all you are showing us is that you do not understand or listen to what people say to you.  The definition of close minded.  Even an atheist can not say 100% sure there is no god just like we can't prove there are no leprechauns, devils angels or ghosts exists.
> 
> So all the organized religions you understand to be bullshit yet you refuse to let go of the concept of god for some strange reason.  Because now all you have is a feeling, and the fact that primative man always believed in a higher power.  Maybe they saw aliens and thought they were gods?  Why not rule that possibility out?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sharp enough to know the difference between "atheist" and "agnostic" and don't run around like an idiot claiming they are one in the same.
> 
> If you can't say 100% for sure there is no God, why do you all want to keep saying that? This is what doesn't make any sense to me. Here you admit that you're not 100% certain, but the thread is full of people denying any possibility whatsoever.
> 
> I've never said that all the organized religions are "bullshit" only that I didn't subscribe to them. I think they are flawed because man is flawed. That doesn't mean they are bullshit, they have proven to be an effective method of man maintaining his spiritual connection. *Also, I personally have more than a "feeling". As I've said, I connect with Spiritual God daily, and God connects with me. I realize great personal gain from this connection, so I have all the evidence I need to believe the connection is real. *
> 
> Now let me ask you, what am I supposed to do with that? Should I simply ignore what I know is the truth so I can fit in with the "cool" crowd here? Should I say that "I'm not sure" when I am certain? Should I refuse to acknowledge what I know is the truth and idiotically demand some sort of "physical" evidence to "prove" the spiritual?
> 
> Sorry, but that ain't how I roll.
Click to expand...


I'd like to comment on the section in bold.

I don't want this to be a denial of your experiences or your beliefs, but what you've said does almost automatically bring up the question in my mind of what that means for all the other people who believe they have a deep connection with their god?  Do you think that they are connection to the same god as you but are making incorrect assumptions or interpretations of that connection?  Can those people be correct in their beliefs and you correct in yours at the same time, and if not, do you think there is a particular reason you are more accurately able to understand the nature of god?

Again, I don't want to turn this into a, "You're wrong in your beliefs" sidetrack, I'm just curious what you think are the differences between your experience and understanding of god and those of other people, and why you think those differences exist.  That might give me some more insight into your overall beliefs.


----------



## orogenicman

Staidhup said:


> So what is it with the atheists and their intolerance toward those who believe in GOD? What is it that they fear? Why is it that they require physical proof, is not the beauty of the creation enough? Walk outside, look around you, experience the beauty of GOD. You have a choice and will be held in judgement for your actions and beliefs. Go ahead, choose not to believe, no one is forcing you. He has a plan, in total control, testing, and challenging you every day.


----------



## BreezeWood

Boss said:


> I personally have more than a "feeling". As I've said, I connect with Spiritual God daily, and God connects with me. I realize great personal gain from this connection, so I have all the evidence I need to believe the connection is real.
> 
> ...........
> 
> Should I refuse to acknowledge what I know is the truth and idiotically demand some sort of "physical" evidence to "prove" the spiritual?
> 
> Sorry, but that ain't how I roll.




*... and God connects with me.*


really, can you characterize a conversation you've recently had with the Almighty ??? - 

or just before posting have God declare an event before it happens and let us know what it is ... we'll know for sure then, the degree of your "sanity" - complete or just partially (disabled)  -     

good luck, Bossy ... 

.


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> I don't want this to be a denial of your experiences or your beliefs, but what you've said does almost automatically bring up the question in my mind of what that means for all the other people who believe they have a deep connection with their god?  Do you think that they are connection to the same god as you but are making incorrect assumptions or interpretations of that connection?  Can those people be correct in their beliefs and you correct in yours at the same time, and if not, do you think there is a particular reason you are more accurately able to understand the nature of god?
> 
> Again, I don't want to turn this into a, "You're wrong in your beliefs" sidetrack, I'm just curious what you think are the differences between your experience and understanding of god and those of other people, and why you think those differences exist.  That might give me some more insight into your overall beliefs.



I can't speak for the experiences or beliefs of other people. I personally believe that people make the same connection to the same spiritual thing, but they interpret that connection differently because of a myriad of other things. Whether this is an "intention" of God, I do not know, I've often wondered about that. I don't really believe God has "intention" per say. We have to envision a logical assumption that God does have intention, that God wants us to behave morally or whatever, and I can't say for certain this is not the case. It seems our spiritual connection does incline us to behave in a certain way, to comprehend "right from wrong" and move in the direction of the positive rather than negative, light rather than dark. Whether this is a deliberate intention of God or God just designed us to think this way, I can't say for sure. 

I've often tried to explain God in terms of energy, something most of us can comprehend. While it's not a flawless analogy, it comes as close as anything else I can find to relate it to. Now, we see with electricity, for example, people find different beneficial uses for the energy. Some people may use it to light their homes, someone else may use it to put criminals to death, others use it to weld things or create magnets. Is one of these "the right way" to use electricity? Does the electricity have an "intention" for how you use it? Does the electricity care if you acknowledge it exists or choose not to use it? Do people get electrocuted because they "disobeyed" electricity or made it "angry" at them?


----------



## Boss

BreezeWood said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I personally have more than a "feeling". As I've said, I connect with Spiritual God daily, and God connects with me. I realize great personal gain from this connection, so I have all the evidence I need to believe the connection is real.
> 
> ...........
> 
> Should I refuse to acknowledge what I know is the truth and idiotically demand some sort of "physical" evidence to "prove" the spiritual?
> 
> Sorry, but that ain't how I roll.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *... and God connects with me.*
> 
> really, can you characterize a conversation you've recently had with the Almighty ??? -
> 
> or just before posting have God declare an event before it happens and let us know what it is ... we'll know for sure then, the degree of your "sanity" - complete or just partially (disabled)  -
> 
> good luck, Bossy ...
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Nothing I tell you will be viewed without skepticism. God doesn't convey future events to me or provide psychic ability. God provides more of a guidance, inspiration, personal strength and courage. Whenever I encounter a problem, a decision, a choice, a moral dilemma, a crisis in my life... I can take it to God and gain insight as to how I should proceed, and to my recollection, God has never let me down. That's not to say I've never made a bad decision, sometimes I have failed to listen to my spiritual guidance and suffered the consequences. Sometimes I have been too lazy to follow my spiritual guidance, and again, I paid the price. It is through these repeated experiences I have developed a great amount of trust in how I am guided spiritually, and I always try to follow it.  Again.... what am I supposed to do with this? Abandon it so I can be one of the "cool" kids?


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want this to be a denial of your experiences or your beliefs, but what you've said does almost automatically bring up the question in my mind of what that means for all the other people who believe they have a deep connection with their god?  Do you think that they are connection to the same god as you but are making incorrect assumptions or interpretations of that connection?  Can those people be correct in their beliefs and you correct in yours at the same time, and if not, do you think there is a particular reason you are more accurately able to understand the nature of god?
> 
> Again, I don't want to turn this into a, "You're wrong in your beliefs" sidetrack, I'm just curious what you think are the differences between your experience and understanding of god and those of other people, and why you think those differences exist.  That might give me some more insight into your overall beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't speak for the experiences or beliefs of other people. I personally believe that people make the same connection to the same spiritual thing, but they interpret that connection differently because of a myriad of other things. Whether this is an "intention" of God, I do not know, I've often wondered about that. I don't really believe God has "intention" per say. We have to envision a logical assumption that God does have intention, that God wants us to behave morally or whatever, and I can't say for certain this is not the case. It seems our spiritual connection does incline us to behave in a certain way, to comprehend "right from wrong" and move in the direction of the positive rather than negative, light rather than dark. Whether this is a deliberate intention of God or God just designed us to think this way, I can't say for sure.
> 
> I've often tried to explain God in terms of energy, something most of us can comprehend. While it's not a flawless analogy, it comes as close as anything else I can find to relate it to. Now, we see with electricity, for example, people find different beneficial uses for the energy. Some people may use it to light their homes, someone else may use it to put criminals to death, others use it to weld things or create magnets. Is one of these "the right way" to use electricity? Does the electricity have an "intention" for how you use it? Does the electricity care if you acknowledge it exists or choose not to use it? Do people get electrocuted because they "disobeyed" electricity or made it "angry" at them?
Click to expand...


But based on other things you've said, would it be more accurate to say that your concept of god is of something intelligent but simply without concerns of a human nature?  That while god may have as little concern about most of what humanity does, god also is a highly intelligent entity with reasoning and purpose, simply beyond human comprehension?

I get the impression that, to use some common generalizations, you believe much more of a watchmaker god than the personal god of the Abrahamic religions.  When you talk about connecting with god, however, it muddles things somewhat.


----------



## Steven_R

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want this to be a denial of your experiences or your beliefs, but what you've said does almost automatically bring up the question in my mind of what that means for all the other people who believe they have a deep connection with their god?  Do you think that they are connection to the same god as you but are making incorrect assumptions or interpretations of that connection?  Can those people be correct in their beliefs and you correct in yours at the same time, and if not, do you think there is a particular reason you are more accurately able to understand the nature of god?
> 
> Again, I don't want to turn this into a, "You're wrong in your beliefs" sidetrack, I'm just curious what you think are the differences between your experience and understanding of god and those of other people, and why you think those differences exist.  That might give me some more insight into your overall beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't speak for the experiences or beliefs of other people. I personally believe that people make the same connection to the same spiritual thing, but they interpret that connection differently because of a myriad of other things. Whether this is an "intention" of God, I do not know, I've often wondered about that. I don't really believe God has "intention" per say. We have to envision a logical assumption that God does have intention, that God wants us to behave morally or whatever, and I can't say for certain this is not the case. It seems our spiritual connection does incline us to behave in a certain way, to comprehend "right from wrong" and move in the direction of the positive rather than negative, light rather than dark. Whether this is a deliberate intention of God or God just designed us to think this way, I can't say for sure.
> 
> I've often tried to explain God in terms of energy, something most of us can comprehend. While it's not a flawless analogy, it comes as close as anything else I can find to relate it to. Now, we see with electricity, for example, people find different beneficial uses for the energy. Some people may use it to light their homes, someone else may use it to put criminals to death, others use it to weld things or create magnets. Is one of these "the right way" to use electricity? Does the electricity have an "intention" for how you use it? Does the electricity care if you acknowledge it exists or choose not to use it? Do people get electrocuted because they "disobeyed" electricity or made it "angry" at them?
Click to expand...


The difference is I can understand how electricity works. We've studied it, built equations about it, can quantify it, get it to do things for us, and understand many of its secrets. I can even see proof electricity exists. Yes, there are things about electricity we don't understand yet, but we're working on answering those questions. 

We can't do any of those things with God.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Far too late to wise up on judgment day!!! think!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because you have zero proof of your fake religion you use fear to spread the word.  Sorry but I'm too smart to buy into your cult.  No difference between christianity, mormons scientologists muslims and the 995 other religions than came before or after.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BELIEVERS have the entire universe and life as proof of God,how much more proof do fools need???
Click to expand...


Pointing to the universe or to living things and saying that's your proof of God is very ignorant and not proof of a god at all.  This is a God of the Gaps approach.  Your lack of understanding concerning the universe does not mean god holds any explanatory value.  

P.S.  How do you look at the universe and come up with adam and eve, noah's ark, talking snakes, people who lived 800 years, etc?  You don't.  Man made all that stuff up soon after he invented the concept of god.  

What proof do atheists need?  A God actually proving its own existence is what would convince an atheist.  Why does he hide?  Seems pretty petty to me.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because you have zero proof of your fake religion you use fear to spread the word.  Sorry but I'm too smart to buy into your cult.  No difference between christianity, mormons scientologists muslims and the 995 other religions than came before or after.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BELIEVERS have the entire universe and life as proof of God,how much more proof do fools need???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pointing to the universe or to living things and saying that's your proof of God is very ignorant and not proof of a god at all.  This is a God of the Gaps approach.  Your lack of understanding concerning the universe does not mean god holds any explanatory value.
> 
> P.S.  How do you look at the universe and come up with adam and eve, noah's ark, talking snakes, people who lived 800 years, etc?  You don't.  Man made all that stuff up soon after he invented the concept of god.
> 
> What proof do atheists need?  A God actually proving its own existence is what would convince an atheist.  Why does he hide?  Seems pretty petty to me.
Click to expand...


HOW SAD!!! Must you feel the flames of eternal hell before you wise up????? Far too late then!!! think!


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I personally have more than a "feeling". As I've said, I connect with Spiritual God daily, and God connects with me. I realize great personal gain from this connection, so I have all the evidence I need to believe the connection is real.
> 
> ...........
> 
> Should I refuse to acknowledge what I know is the truth and idiotically demand some sort of "physical" evidence to "prove" the spiritual?
> 
> Sorry, but that ain't how I roll.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *... and God connects with me.*
> 
> really, can you characterize a conversation you've recently had with the Almighty ??? -
> 
> or just before posting have God declare an event before it happens and let us know what it is ... we'll know for sure then, the degree of your "sanity" - complete or just partially (disabled)  -
> 
> good luck, Bossy ...
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing I tell you will be viewed without skepticism. God doesn't convey future events to me or provide psychic ability. God provides more of a guidance, inspiration, personal strength and courage. Whenever I encounter a problem, a decision, a choice, a moral dilemma, a crisis in my life... I can take it to God and gain insight as to how I should proceed, and to my recollection, God has never let me down. That's not to say I've never made a bad decision, sometimes I have failed to listen to my spiritual guidance and suffered the consequences. Sometimes I have been too lazy to follow my spiritual guidance, and again, I paid the price. It is through these repeated experiences I have developed a great amount of trust in how I am guided spiritually, and I always try to follow it.  Again.... what am I supposed to do with this? Abandon it so I can be one of the "cool" kids?
Click to expand...


That's what I did.  I told you until about a month ago I thought the same way you did.  But the more debate and research I did the more I realized I'm talking to an imaginary person that I have no concrete reason in believing, and based on all the evidence, praying does nothing for anyone.  It may make you feel good but statistically prayers are just not answered.  One person says they were saved and it was a miracle but then the reason 1000 people died is because it was the lords will?  Silly.  And I guess we wouldn't care so much but you want to use your fantasies to wage wars, ban stem cell, fly planes into buildings, the spanish inquisition, burning people for being witches, trying to put prayer into school and our laws.  These are the reasons we object.

And I love my friends who say I don't want to believe.  Really?  Who wouldn't want to believe?  But WANT's got nothing to do with it.  I also wonder if you stopped believing in God and in the future talked to yourself instead of talking to an imaginary man, wouldn't you be able to help yourself out and give yourself good advice?  You really think it was the lord or your subconscience that you were talking to?


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> *... and God connects with me.*
> 
> really, can you characterize a conversation you've recently had with the Almighty ??? -
> 
> or just before posting have God declare an event before it happens and let us know what it is ... we'll know for sure then, the degree of your "sanity" - complete or just partially (disabled)  -
> 
> good luck, Bossy ...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing I tell you will be viewed without skepticism. God doesn't convey future events to me or provide psychic ability. God provides more of a guidance, inspiration, personal strength and courage. Whenever I encounter a problem, a decision, a choice, a moral dilemma, a crisis in my life... I can take it to God and gain insight as to how I should proceed, and to my recollection, God has never let me down. That's not to say I've never made a bad decision, sometimes I have failed to listen to my spiritual guidance and suffered the consequences. Sometimes I have been too lazy to follow my spiritual guidance, and again, I paid the price. It is through these repeated experiences I have developed a great amount of trust in how I am guided spiritually, and I always try to follow it.  Again.... what am I supposed to do with this? Abandon it so I can be one of the "cool" kids?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what I did.  I told you until about a month ago I thought the same way you did.  But the more debate and research I did the more I realized I'm talking to an imaginary person that I have no concrete reason in believing, and based on all the evidence, praying does nothing for anyone.  It may make you feel good but statistically prayers are just not answered.  One person says they were saved and it was a miracle but then the reason 1000 people died is because it was the lords will?  Silly.  And I guess we wouldn't care so much but you want to use your fantasies to wage wars, ban stem cell, fly planes into buildings, the spanish inquisition, burning people for being witches, trying to put prayer into school and our laws.  These are the reasons we object.
> 
> And I love my friends who say I don't want to believe.  Really?  Who wouldn't want to believe?  But WANT's got nothing to do with it.  I also wonder if you stopped believing in God and in the future talked to yourself instead of talking to an imaginary man, wouldn't you be able to help yourself out and give yourself good advice?  You really think it was the lord or your subconscience that you were talking to?
Click to expand...


GOD HAS WORDS FOR YOU!!====Only a fool would say to himself, There is no God. And why does he say it?Because of his wicked heart, his dark and evil deeds. His life is corroded with sin.PSALM 53:1


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> But based on other things you've said, would it be more accurate to say that your concept of god is of something intelligent but simply without concerns of a human nature?  That while god may have as little concern about most of what humanity does, god also is a highly intelligent entity with reasoning and purpose, simply beyond human comprehension?
> 
> I get the impression that, to use some common generalizations, you believe much more of a watchmaker god than the personal god of the Abrahamic religions.  When you talk about connecting with god, however, it muddles things somewhat.



I have said before that perhaps "intelligence" is not the right word to apply to God. Try to imagine a level beyond or above "intelligent" in our sense of comprehension. We humans can't really relate because there is nothing about ourselves or the nature around us to relate it to, so we assign this attribute of "intelligence" to God because that's the best fit from our perspective as humans. 

Reasoning and purpose, or "concern" are human attributes as well. We assign these to our various incarnations of God because we have no other basis of reference we can relate to. I believe we very much connect with God through spiritual awareness but our human minds grapple with trying to comprehend the magnitude. Therefore, it is our tendency to apply humanistic characteristics to God, which leads to various religious incarnations.


----------



## Boss

Steven_R said:


> The difference is I can understand how electricity works.



Exactly, and that has been my whole point. We understand how electricity works, that's the ONLY difference here. Now.... DID electricity still work the way it does before we discovered how it worked? Of course a rational mind will conclude that it certainly did, we just didn't understand it. The fact that we can't comprehend or understand something, doesn't mean it isn't real or doesn't exist. It just means we don't understand it. 

We don't understand spiritual nature. Perhaps one day we will? Theoretical Physics is now exploring the possibility of multiple universes and dimensions where our physical sciences are essentially worthless because they simply may not apply. That means the thing we call "logic" may also not apply in another universe or dimension. It's a completely mind-blowing thought, but very much on the white boards of science as we speak. 

Going back to electricity, or the physics property known as "electromagnetism" in specific... Can you explain to me WHY it exists in our universe? You see, you can explain HOW things work all day long, and that is great and wonderful, it leads to knowledge and wisdom of the universe around us, but you can't really ever explain WHY. What I am always left with in any debate with someone who doesn't believe in God or Spiritual Nature, is "just because!" That seems to suffice as the cure-all answer to everything..._* "It just so happens that _________."*_ To me, that is the complete and utter abandonment of the Scientific Method and an adoption of faith in disbelief.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> That's what I did.  I told you until about a month ago I thought the same way you did.  But the more debate and research I did the more I realized I'm talking to an imaginary person that I have no concrete reason in believing, and based on all the evidence, praying does nothing for anyone.  It may make you feel good but statistically prayers are just not answered.  One person says they were saved and it was a miracle but then the reason 1000 people died is because it was the lords will?  Silly.  And I guess we wouldn't care so much but you want to use your fantasies to wage wars, ban stem cell, fly planes into buildings, the spanish inquisition, burning people for being witches, trying to put prayer into school and our laws.  These are the reasons we object.
> 
> And I love my friends who say I don't want to believe.  Really?  Who wouldn't want to believe?  But WANT's got nothing to do with it.  I also wonder if you stopped believing in God and in the future talked to yourself instead of talking to an imaginary man, wouldn't you be able to help yourself out and give yourself good advice?  You really think it was the lord or your subconscience that you were talking to?



It sounds to me, in conversing with you these past days, that what has happened is a disillusionment in whatever religious teaching you were following. There are many reasons for such a thing, and honestly, there are reasons stemming from the religious dogma itself sometimes. As I said earlier, organized religions are flawed because man is flawed. That said, one of our biggest flaws is trying to rationalize God and what God allows, doesn't allow, lets happen, doesn't prevent from happening, etc. We imagine if WE were God, what WE would do, how things would be if WE were in charge. Well.... We're NOT GOD! 

You said something very interesting and introspective... _*Who wouldn't want to believe?*_ This tells me that you do understand we have some kind of hard-wired intrinsic awareness of something greater than ourselves. Of course you want to believe, it's part of your DNA. Do you honestly and truthfully believe you don't have a soul? A spirit and essence of who you are? That everything around you in this most amazing universe is completely without meaning or purpose and all a big cosmic accident? If you really DO believe that, I feel sad for you, really I do.


----------



## Steven_R

Boss said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is I can understand how electricity works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, and that has been my whole point. We understand how electricity works, that's the ONLY difference here. Now.... DID electricity still work the way it does before we discovered how it worked? Of course a rational mind will conclude that it certainly did, we just didn't understand it. The fact that we can't comprehend or understand something, doesn't mean it isn't real or doesn't exist. It just means we don't understand it.
> 
> We don't understand spiritual nature. Perhaps one day we will? Theoretical Physics is now exploring the possibility of multiple universes and dimensions where our physical sciences are essentially worthless because they simply may not apply. That means the thing we call "logic" may also not apply in another universe or dimension. It's a completely mind-blowing thought, but very much on the white boards of science as we speak.
> 
> Going back to electricity, or the physics property known as "electromagnetism" in specific... Can you explain to me WHY it exists in our universe? You see, you can explain HOW things work all day long, and that is great and wonderful, it leads to knowledge and wisdom of the universe around us, but you can't really ever explain WHY. What I am always left with in any debate with someone who doesn't believe in God or Spiritual Nature, is "just because!" That seems to suffice as the cure-all answer to everything..._* "It just so happens that _________."*_ To me, that is the complete and utter abandonment of the Scientific Method and an adoption of faith in disbelief.
Click to expand...


You're missing the point. I can understand electricity because it is demonstrable. I can observe it, measure it, quantify it, build a hypothesis around it, construct a falsifiable test to see if my hypothesis is correct, and then tell other people my results. I can do none of that with God. You can't use the scientific method to back up your belief in the supernatural. It isn't the same thing.

As far as science answering the question "why" the universe is laid out like it is, you're better off asking a philosopher. Science isn't interested in why, only how. We're interested in understanding the mechanism that ended up with gravity, EM, Strong and Weak nuclear, quantum physics, particles, black holes, space-time, and a gajillion other topics, but the universe is laid out how it's laid out.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> BELIEVERS have the entire universe and life as proof of God,how much more proof do fools need???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pointing to the universe or to living things and saying that's your proof of God is very ignorant and not proof of a god at all.  This is a God of the Gaps approach.  Your lack of understanding concerning the universe does not mean god holds any explanatory value.
> 
> P.S.  How do you look at the universe and come up with adam and eve, noah's ark, talking snakes, people who lived 800 years, etc?  You don't.  Man made all that stuff up soon after he invented the concept of god.
> 
> What proof do atheists need?  A God actually proving its own existence is what would convince an atheist.  Why does he hide?  Seems pretty petty to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HOW SAD!!! Must you feel the flames of eternal hell before you wise up????? Far too late then!!! think!
Click to expand...


Is that the best you got?  If I don't believe you cockameme story I'll burn in hell.  This is why we must keep religion out of our laws/government.  Fucking retards trying to impose their nonsensical American version of Sharia law on the rest of us.  Listen lady/buddy, you believe a fairy tale and the fact that all you have for a response is to try to scare me into blindly believing the bullshit you believe should tell you something, but I'm sure it doesn't.  You must know deep down the entire story you believe was made up to control you, because the rich people that have controlled our societies since the beginning have used religion to keep you under their control.  In fact I bet you that the rich are paying close attention to how many people are religious.  If the day comes where 51% of us are too smart to believe bullshit stories they will somewhat lose their control over us.  Although chnaces are all the smart people who become enlightened will most likely live in blue states and the red states in the bible belt will stay ignorant for another couple hundreds of years and that is how the rich will continue to control us, even when the majority of us are no longer brainwashed from birth to believe the unbelievable, which you do by the way.  

Notice there were other gods before the old testament?  And the old testament and new testament stole from those older religions.  Those older religions had virgin births and resurrections too.  They had a messiah who healed the sick and performed other miracles.  So your religion isn't even original.  And if all the other religions are bullshit, which I'm sure you agree with me they are, then why can't your's be bullshit too?  

The easy answer is "I'll burn in hell for even questioning".  That is what your pedophile priest or molesting minister wants you to believe.  If you even question them you will upset God because he's a jealous petty god and gives a fuck what you or I think.


----------



## koshergrl

So much hate packed into one post.

We're good with keeping religion out of laws.

We also want laws kept out of religion. That's what statist pigs don't get. You don't get to regulate our religion. So fuck off. And then die and enjoy your eternity.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what I did.  I told you until about a month ago I thought the same way you did.  But the more debate and research I did the more I realized I'm talking to an imaginary person that I have no concrete reason in believing, and based on all the evidence, praying does nothing for anyone.  It may make you feel good but statistically prayers are just not answered.  One person says they were saved and it was a miracle but then the reason 1000 people died is because it was the lords will?  Silly.  And I guess we wouldn't care so much but you want to use your fantasies to wage wars, ban stem cell, fly planes into buildings, the spanish inquisition, burning people for being witches, trying to put prayer into school and our laws.  These are the reasons we object.
> 
> And I love my friends who say I don't want to believe.  Really?  Who wouldn't want to believe?  But WANT's got nothing to do with it.  I also wonder if you stopped believing in God and in the future talked to yourself instead of talking to an imaginary man, wouldn't you be able to help yourself out and give yourself good advice?  You really think it was the lord or your subconscience that you were talking to?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It sounds to me, in conversing with you these past days, that what has happened is a disillusionment in whatever religious teaching you were following. There are many reasons for such a thing, and honestly, there are reasons stemming from the religious dogma itself sometimes. As I said earlier, organized religions are flawed because man is flawed. That said, one of our biggest flaws is trying to rationalize God and what God allows, doesn't allow, lets happen, doesn't prevent from happening, etc. We imagine if WE were God, what WE would do, how things would be if WE were in charge. Well.... We're NOT GOD!
> 
> You said something very interesting and introspective... _*Who wouldn't want to believe?*_ This tells me that you do understand we have some kind of hard-wired intrinsic awareness of something greater than ourselves. Of course you want to believe, it's part of your DNA. Do you honestly and truthfully believe you don't have a soul? A spirit and essence of who you are? That everything around you in this most amazing universe is completely without meaning or purpose and all a big cosmic accident? If you really DO believe that, I feel sad for you, really I do.
Click to expand...


LOL!!!
Who wouldn't want to believe?
Everyone has the same fears, doubts and wonders.
Who wouldn't want a facile answer that would wipe that all away?
Buddy, you've come to the right place!
Boss will throw you a life preserver.


----------



## Steven_R

koshergrl said:


> So much hate packed into one post.
> 
> We're good with keeping religion out of laws.
> 
> We also want laws kept out of religion. That's what statist pigs don't get. You don't get to regulate our religion. So fuck off. And then die and enjoy your eternity.



Who wants to? Believe what you want to, shout it from the street corners if you like, just don't use your God(s) to form laws, don't put it in classrooms, and don't use public resources to promote your religion.


----------



## orogenicman

koshergrl said:


> So much hate packed into one post.
> 
> We're good with keeping religion out of laws.


 
 No you aren't.  Evangelicals try to get religion into our laws all the time.



			
				not a kosher girl said:
			
		

> We also want laws kept out of religion.


 
 Actually, you people have been trying to make your religion the law.



			
				not a kosher girl said:
			
		

> That's what statist pigs don't get. You don't get to regulate our religion. So fuck off. And then die and enjoy your eternity.




 Actually, nothing would please me more than see the tax exempt status of religion taken away.  The rest of us have to pay our taxes.  You are no better than anyone else, so ante up.


----------



## Steven_R

orogenicman said:


> Actually, nothing would please me more than see the tax exempt status of religion taken away.  The rest of us have to pay our taxes.  You are no better than anyone else, so ante up.



I seem to remember somebody saying something about rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's. Ten internets to whoever can name that guy.


----------



## orogenicman

Steven_R said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, nothing would please me more than see the tax exempt status of religion taken away. The rest of us have to pay our taxes. You are no better than anyone else, so ante up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I seem to remember somebody saying something about rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's. Ten internets to whoever can name that guy.
Click to expand...


Jesus Christ, of course.


----------



## Montrovant

Steven_R said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, nothing would please me more than see the tax exempt status of religion taken away.  The rest of us have to pay our taxes.  You are no better than anyone else, so ante up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I seem to remember somebody saying something about rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's. Ten internets to whoever can name that guy.
Click to expand...


As I understand it, a religious organization doesn't automatically get tax exempt status, and non-religious organizations also can be tax exempt.  There are certain conditions, non-profit being the major one.

Is my understand incorrect?  I've only looked into it in the most superficial manner.


----------



## Boss

Steven_R said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is I can understand how electricity works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, and that has been my whole point. We understand how electricity works, that's the ONLY difference here. Now.... DID electricity still work the way it does before we discovered how it worked? Of course a rational mind will conclude that it certainly did, we just didn't understand it. The fact that we can't comprehend or understand something, doesn't mean it isn't real or doesn't exist. It just means we don't understand it.
> 
> We don't understand spiritual nature. Perhaps one day we will? Theoretical Physics is now exploring the possibility of multiple universes and dimensions where our physical sciences are essentially worthless because they simply may not apply. That means the thing we call "logic" may also not apply in another universe or dimension. It's a completely mind-blowing thought, but very much on the white boards of science as we speak.
> 
> Going back to electricity, or the physics property known as "electromagnetism" in specific... Can you explain to me WHY it exists in our universe? You see, you can explain HOW things work all day long, and that is great and wonderful, it leads to knowledge and wisdom of the universe around us, but you can't really ever explain WHY. What I am always left with in any debate with someone who doesn't believe in God or Spiritual Nature, is "just because!" That seems to suffice as the cure-all answer to everything..._* "It just so happens that _________."*_ To me, that is the complete and utter abandonment of the Scientific Method and an adoption of faith in disbelief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're missing the point. I can understand electricity because it is demonstrable. I can observe it, measure it, quantify it, build a hypothesis around it, construct a falsifiable test to see if my hypothesis is correct, and then tell other people my results. I can do none of that with God. You can't use the scientific method to back up your belief in the supernatural. It isn't the same thing.
> 
> As far as science answering the question "why" the universe is laid out like it is, you're better off asking a philosopher. Science isn't interested in why, only how. We're interested in understanding the mechanism that ended up with gravity, EM, Strong and Weak nuclear, quantum physics, particles, black holes, space-time, and a gajillion other topics, but the universe is laid out how it's laid out.
Click to expand...


No, you are missing the point. Before you (or man) knew how to observe it, measure it, quantify it, build a hypothesis or falsify tests around it, or tell others about it... it STILL existed, it STILL was real. The fact that at some point you (or man) discovered this, did not suddenly make it become a reality where it wasn't reality before. You're right, I can't use the scientific method to back up my believe in God or Spiritual Nature, just like if you went back in time, man could not use the scientific method to back up beliefs regarding electricity. Electricity was once considered very much a "supernatural" power. 

YES... *WHY?* Is very much a philosophical question and science can't answer it.


----------



## Boss

Steven_R said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> So much hate packed into one post.
> 
> We're good with keeping religion out of laws.
> 
> We also want laws kept out of religion. That's what statist pigs don't get. You don't get to regulate our religion. So fuck off. And then die and enjoy your eternity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who wants to? Believe what you want to, shout it from the street corners if you like, just don't use your God(s) to form laws, don't put it in classrooms, and don't use public resources to promote your religion.
Click to expand...


Sorry but we don't live under authoritarian atheist rule... yet. 

We have the freedom to exercise our religion, and that certainly includes whatever influence our religious beliefs have on our politics. We cannot divorce ourselves from our religious beliefs in the name of policy and still be exercising religious freedom. Religious people have just as much right to lobby for their views and use public resources as you do. You can't silence their political voice and still claim they have religious freedom. It's like telling black folks they can have "equal rights" but they just can't vote or hold public office.


----------



## Clement

orogenicman said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, nothing would please me more than see the tax exempt status of religion taken away.  The rest of us have to pay our taxes.  You are no better than anyone else, so ante up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like this plan. I will be able to say anything I want to say in the pulpit, endorse candidates for office, support or condemn political issues and causes, the possibilies are endless.
> 
> And there wouldn't be a damn thing you could do to stop me.
> 
> Go ahead, make my day.
Click to expand...


----------



## Hollie

Clement said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, nothing would please me more than see the tax exempt status of religion taken away.  The rest of us have to pay our taxes.  You are no better than anyone else, so ante up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like this plan. I will be able to say anything I want to say in the pulpit, endorse candidates for office, support or condemn political issues and causes, the possibilies are endless.
> 
> And there wouldn't be a damn thing you could do to stop me.
> 
> Go ahead, make my day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's nothing preventing you from doing that now.
> 
> Lose the creepy martyr complex. It's, well, creepy.
Click to expand...


----------



## orogenicman

orogenicman said:


> Actually, nothing would please me more than see the tax exempt status of religion taken away. The rest of us have to pay our taxes. You are no better than anyone else, so ante up.





			
				clement said:
			
		

> I like this plan. I will be able to say anything I want to say in the pulpit, endorse candidates for office, support or condemn political issues and causes, the possibilies are endless.




You mean like now?

Notice that I fixed the attribution that was messed up in your post.


----------



## Clement

Hollie said:


> Clement said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like this plan. I will be able to say anything I want to say in the pulpit, endorse candidates for office, support or condemn political issues and causes, the possibilies are endless.
> 
> And there wouldn't be a damn thing you could do to stop me.
> 
> Go ahead, make my day.
> 
> 
> 
> There's nothing preventing you from doing that now.
> 
> Lose the creepy martyr complex. It's, well, creepy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, there is something preventing me from doing it. Get a clue.
Click to expand...


----------



## BreezeWood

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who wants to? Believe what you want to, shout it from the street corners if you like, just don't use your God(s) to form laws, don't put it in classrooms, and don't use public resources to promote your religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but we don't live under authoritarian atheist rule... yet.
> 
> We have the freedom to exercise our religion, and that certainly includes whatever influence our religious beliefs have on our politics. We cannot divorce ourselves from our religious beliefs in the name of policy and still be exercising religious freedom. Religious people have just as much right to lobby for their views and use public resources as you do. You can't silence their political voice and still claim they have religious freedom. It's like telling black folks they can have "equal rights" but they just can't vote or hold public office.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ahh. The race card.
Click to expand...



*Sorry but we don't live under authoritarian atheist rule... yet.*

as though authoritarian religiosity isn't why the 1st amendment was written to separate church from State .... as an abatement from the brutality religion has inflicted throughout humanities existence.

.


----------



## Hollie

Clement said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clement said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's nothing preventing you from doing that now.
> 
> Lose the creepy martyr complex. It's, well, creepy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, there is something preventing me from doing it. Get a clue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Something like what? What is preventing you or blocking your ability to: "say anything I want to say in the pulpit, endorse candidates for office, support or condemn political issues and causes"
Click to expand...


----------



## Boss

BreezeWood said:


> *Sorry but we don't live under authoritarian atheist rule... yet.*
> 
> as though authoritarian religiosity isn't why the 1st amendment was written to separate church from State .... as an abatement from the brutality religion has inflicted throughout humanities existence.
> 
> .



The 1st Amendment wasn't written to separate church from state. It says nothing of the kind. _Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the exercise thereof._ If Congress can't prohibit the exercise, it can't disallow it in any way.... it especially can't erect a false wall to prohibit it. Congress cannot pass a law establishing a religion, anything short of that is perfectly acceptable under the 1st Amendment. 

You are relying on a 1947 interpretation of the Constitution by Hugo Black, which was WRONG!


----------



## orogenicman

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Sorry but we don't live under authoritarian atheist rule... yet.*
> 
> as though authoritarian religiosity isn't why the 1st amendment was written to separate church from State .... as an abatement from the brutality religion has inflicted throughout humanities existence.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 1st Amendment wasn't written to separate church from state. It says nothing of the kind. _Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the exercise thereof._ If Congress can't prohibit the exercise, it can't disallow it in any way.... it especially can't erect a false wall to prohibit it. Congress cannot pass a law establishing a religion, anything short of that is perfectly acceptable under the 1st Amendment.
> 
> You are relying on a 1947 interpretation of the Constitution by Hugo Black, which was WRONG!
Click to expand...


Since there are 650,000 churches, temples, synagogues, and Mosques in this country, it is quite obvious that the government is not preventing the free exercise of religion. However, the government is not involved in either of them, and by Constitutional law, Congress cannot make any law respecting the establishment of any religion. THAT IS THE WALL OF SEPARATION.

*"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."*

*- Thomas Jefferson*


----------



## HUGGY

Someday...certainly not in my lifetime the states will individually pass laws making it illegal to offer religious advice in stead of medical advice.

Slowly but surely the grip of the influence and fraud of religion will be understood by intelligent people and pushed back inside the walls of the churches where it belongs.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Clement said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clement said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's nothing preventing you from doing that now.
> 
> Lose the creepy martyr complex. It's, well, creepy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, there is something preventing me from doing it. Get a clue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No there isn't.
> You don't have to claim tax exempt status to be a church.
> It's a choice that has consequences. It restricts what you can do politically.
> The whining by the churches is simply their choosing mammon over message.
> You don't want to give up the money.
> There is nothing else to it.
Click to expand...


----------



## I.P.Freely

Clement said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clement said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's nothing preventing you from doing that now.
> 
> Lose the creepy martyr complex. It's, well, creepy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, there is something preventing me from doing it. Get a clue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> chlamydia, your on the run?
Click to expand...


----------



## I.P.Freely

Steven_R said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is I can understand how electricity works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, and that has been my whole point. We understand how electricity works, that's the ONLY difference here. Now.... DID electricity still work the way it does before we discovered how it worked? Of course a rational mind will conclude that it certainly did, we just didn't understand it. The fact that we can't comprehend or understand something, doesn't mean it isn't real or doesn't exist. It just means we don't understand it.
> 
> We don't understand spiritual nature. Perhaps one day we will? Theoretical Physics is now exploring the possibility of multiple universes and dimensions where our physical sciences are essentially worthless because they simply may not apply. That means the thing we call "logic" may also not apply in another universe or dimension. It's a completely mind-blowing thought, but very much on the white boards of science as we speak.
> 
> Going back to electricity, or the physics property known as "electromagnetism" in specific... Can you explain to me WHY it exists in our universe? You see, you can explain HOW things work all day long, and that is great and wonderful, it leads to knowledge and wisdom of the universe around us, but you can't really ever explain WHY. What I am always left with in any debate with someone who doesn't believe in God or Spiritual Nature, is "just because!" That seems to suffice as the cure-all answer to everything..._* "It just so happens that _________."*_ To me, that is the complete and utter abandonment of the Scientific Method and an adoption of faith in disbelief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're missing the point. I can understand electricity because it is demonstrable. I can observe it, measure it, quantify it, build a hypothesis around it, construct a falsifiable test to see if my hypothesis is correct, and then tell other people my results. I can do none of that with God. You can't use the scientific method to back up your belief in the supernatural. It isn't the same thing.
> 
> As far as science answering the question "why" the universe is laid out like it is, you're better off asking a philosopher. Science isn't interested in why, only how. We're interested in understanding the mechanism that ended up with gravity, EM, Strong and Weak nuclear, quantum physics, particles, black holes, space-time, and a gajillion other topics, but the universe is laid out how it's laid out.
Click to expand...

to quote Tesla "it might well have been said god has properties, he has not, only attributes and those are of man's making.

Time zones are a bugger but so I could not join in,it transpires that I was not needed for verily you tore the Boss a second one.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most scientists who know that 99.999% chance their is no god also say the most rational position on god is to be an agnostic atheist.  You don't seem to be all that sharp.  I see people saying things to you like "agnostic" and you seem to be grasping for AHAH or GOTCHA moments but all you are showing us is that you do not understand or listen to what people say to you.  The definition of close minded.  Even an atheist can not say 100% sure there is no god just like we can't prove there are no leprechauns, devils angels or ghosts exists.
> 
> So all the organized religions you understand to be bullshit yet you refuse to let go of the concept of god for some strange reason.  Because now all you have is a feeling, and the fact that primative man always believed in a higher power.  Maybe they saw aliens and thought they were gods?  Why not rule that possibility out?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sharp enough to know the difference between "atheist" and "agnostic" and don't run around like an idiot claiming they are one in the same.
> 
> If you can't say 100% for sure there is no God, why do you all want to keep saying that? This is what doesn't make any sense to me. Here you admit that you're not 100% certain, but the thread is full of people denying any possibility whatsoever.
> 
> I've never said that all the organized religions are "bullshit" only that I didn't subscribe to them. I think they are flawed because man is flawed. That doesn't mean they are bullshit, they have proven to be an effective method of man maintaining his spiritual connection. Also, I personally have more than a "feeling". As I've said, I connect with Spiritual God daily, and God connects with me. I realize great personal gain from this connection, so I have all the evidence I need to believe the connection is real.
> 
> Now let me ask you, what am I supposed to do with that? Should I simply ignore what I know is the truth so I can fit in with the "cool" crowd here? Should I say that "I'm not sure" when I am certain? Should I refuse to acknowledge what I know is the truth and idiotically demand some sort of "physical" evidence to "prove" the spiritual?
> 
> Sorry, but that ain't how I roll.
Click to expand...


No.
We know how you roll.
You will say absolutely anything at any given time and can't keep your arguments straight from one post to another. You trip over your shoelaces constantly.
You have said that the spiritual nature can't be known, but maybe it will be able to be proved one day.
Except, YOU know.
What makes man unique is his connection to the spiritual, unless you read another post of yours where you say the animal kingdom may connect, too.
If something exists in the animal kingdom, that proves your point, but if it doesn't, well, that proves your point, too.
There is plenty of evidence for spiritual nature if you just believe in it FIRST, but you are a big proponent of the scientific method.
You are Doctor Boss, or you are a high ranking double major preparing for his HR job.
You don't think Christians are wrong, you just don't believe in salvation or a personal intercessory god.
You think your god has no interest in you, but he will let you know if you are going to hell and all kinds of other personal interactions you claim.
You are not to be taken seriously in any way.
All people have to do is let you run your mouth and all the hard work is done. 
You will embarrass yourself every single time.
I have battled few people with more of a constant barrage of inconsistencies and logical gaffs as you are freely willing to serve up.
You always top it off with your vulgarity strewn sobs when caught with your pants around your ankles and lose all kind of semblance of adult conversation, always resorting to the lie of being taken out of context, even when your entire posts are quoted.
And that's how you roll.


----------



## Boss

orogenicman said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Sorry but we don't live under authoritarian atheist rule... yet.*
> 
> as though authoritarian religiosity isn't why the 1st amendment was written to separate church from State .... as an abatement from the brutality religion has inflicted throughout humanities existence.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 1st Amendment wasn't written to separate church from state. It says nothing of the kind. _Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the exercise thereof._ If Congress can't prohibit the exercise, it can't disallow it in any way.... it especially can't erect a false wall to prohibit it. Congress cannot pass a law establishing a religion, anything short of that is perfectly acceptable under the 1st Amendment.
> 
> You are relying on a 1947 interpretation of the Constitution by Hugo Black, which was WRONG!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since there are 650,000 churches, temples, synagogues, and Mosques in this country, it is quite obvious that the government is not preventing the free exercise of religion. However, the government is not involved in either of them, and by Constitutional law, Congress cannot make any law respecting the establishment of any religion. THAT IS THE WALL OF SEPARATION.
> 
> *"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."*
> 
> *- Thomas Jefferson*
Click to expand...


Yes, and that letter ended in a reciprocal prayer to the good Baptists of Danbury in his official capacity as President of the United States. Exemplifying there is no wall prohibiting government from respecting religion. His assurances were that US Federal government had no intentions of interfering with their religion OR favoring the State established religion of the time... oh yes, they had an official STATE religion back then, and it wasn't Baptist.


----------



## thanatos144

orogenicman said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Sorry but we don't live under authoritarian atheist rule... yet.*
> 
> as though authoritarian religiosity isn't why the 1st amendment was written to separate church from State .... as an abatement from the brutality religion has inflicted throughout humanities existence.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 1st Amendment wasn't written to separate church from state. It says nothing of the kind. _Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the exercise thereof._ If Congress can't prohibit the exercise, it can't disallow it in any way.... it especially can't erect a false wall to prohibit it. Congress cannot pass a law establishing a religion, anything short of that is perfectly acceptable under the 1st Amendment.
> 
> You are relying on a 1947 interpretation of the Constitution by Hugo Black, which was WRONG!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since there are 650,000 churches, temples, synagogues, and Mosques in this country, it is quite obvious that the government is not preventing the free exercise of religion. However, the government is not involved in either of them, and by Constitutional law, Congress cannot make any law respecting the establishment of any religion. THAT IS THE WALL OF SEPARATION.
> 
> *"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."*
> 
> *- Thomas Jefferson*
Click to expand...


That is NOT what the constitution says.


----------



## thanatos144

HUGGY said:


> Someday...certainly not in my lifetime the states will individually pass laws making it illegal to offer religious advice in stead of medical advice.
> 
> Slowly but surely the grip of the influence and fraud of religion will be understood by intelligent people and pushed back inside the walls of the churches where it belongs.



Who the fuck are you to tell others what they can and cant believe you fascist ?


----------



## Clement

thebrucebeat said:


> Clement said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, there is something preventing me from doing it. Get a clue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No there isn't.
> You don't have to claim tax exempt status to be a church.
> It's a choice that has consequences. It restricts what you can do politically.
> The whining by the churches is simply their choosing mammon over message.
> You don't want to give up the money.
> There is nothing else to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's another lie from Brucie: "The whining by the churches is simply their choosing mammon over message."
> 
> Everytime he sets pen to paper he offers some kind of logical fallacy, like the false dilemma above. We choose both, it's not one or the other. On one hand you need the money to keep the light and heat on, and you can still preach the Gospel. But if an oppressive government decides to revoke our tax exempt status I am all over that.
> 
> Anyway, watch for Brucie's twisted logic. He will offer you a false dilemma like the one above, and if you offer a third choice he wil stomp his feet and whine that you didn't answer his question, or that his false dilemma really isn't a false dilemma. Then he will declare himself the winner.
> 
> Ain't that right, Brucie? (This is where he attacks me personally, like he did Boss.)
Click to expand...


----------



## I.P.Freely

thanatos144 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Someday...certainly not in my lifetime the states will individually pass laws making it illegal to offer religious advice in stead of medical advice.
> 
> Slowly but surely the grip of the influence and fraud of religion will be understood by intelligent people and pushed back inside the walls of the churches where it belongs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who the fuck are you to tell others what they can and cant believe you fascist ?
Click to expand...

Who the fuck are you nachos to say he cant?


----------



## thanatos144

I.P.Freely said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Someday...certainly not in my lifetime the states will individually pass laws making it illegal to offer religious advice in stead of medical advice.
> 
> Slowly but surely the grip of the influence and fraud of religion will be understood by intelligent people and pushed back inside the walls of the churches where it belongs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who the fuck are you to tell others what they can and cant believe you fascist ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who the fuck are you nachos to say he cant?
Click to expand...


A free man.


----------



## I.P.Freely

thanatos144 said:


> I.P.Freely said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who the fuck are you to tell others what they can and cant believe you fascist ?
> 
> 
> 
> Who the fuck are you nachos to say he cant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A free man.
Click to expand...

nah lickspittle, you are just a map of religious woe.


----------



## Montrovant

Clement said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clement said:
> 
> 
> 
> No there isn't.
> You don't have to claim tax exempt status to be a church.
> It's a choice that has consequences. It restricts what you can do politically.
> The whining by the churches is simply their choosing mammon over message.
> You don't want to give up the money.
> There is nothing else to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's another lie from Brucie: "The whining by the churches is simply their choosing mammon over message."
> 
> Everytime he sets pen to paper he offers some kind of logical fallacy, like the false dilemma above. We choose both, it's not one or the other. On one hand you need the money to keep the light and heat on, and you can still preach the Gospel. But if an oppressive government decides to revoke our tax exempt status I am all over that.
> 
> Anyway, watch for Brucie's twisted logic. He will offer you a false dilemma like the one above, and if you offer a third choice he wil stomp his feet and whine that you didn't answer his question, or that his false dilemma really isn't a false dilemma. Then he will declare himself the winner.
> 
> Ain't that right, Brucie? (This is where he attacks me personally, like he did Boss.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait, the government is oppressive if a church is not tax exempt?
Click to expand...


----------



## thebrucebeat

Clement said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clement said:
> 
> 
> 
> No there isn't.
> You don't have to claim tax exempt status to be a church.
> It's a choice that has consequences. It restricts what you can do politically.
> The whining by the churches is simply their choosing mammon over message.
> You don't want to give up the money.
> There is nothing else to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's another lie from Brucie: "The whining by the churches is simply their choosing mammon over message."
> 
> Everytime he sets pen to paper he offers some kind of logical fallacy, like the false dilemma above. We choose both, it's not one or the other. On one hand you need the money to keep the light and heat on, and you can still preach the Gospel. But if an oppressive government decides to revoke our tax exempt status I am all over that.
> 
> Anyway, watch for Brucie's twisted logic. He will offer you a false dilemma like the one above, and if you offer a third choice he wil stomp his feet and whine that you didn't answer his question, or that his false dilemma really isn't a false dilemma. Then he will declare himself the winner.
> 
> Ain't that right, Brucie? (This is where he attacks me personally, like he did Boss.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you have to wait for the government to rescind you tax exempt status?
> You look forward to that but won't voluntarily refuse it.
> That is hypocritical.
> If it will ruin you financially why look forward to it by government fiat?
> If it won't why not do it yourself and gain your homilitic freedom that you pretend to covet?
> It's pretty simple.
> You don't have the courage of your convictions.
Click to expand...


----------



## Clement

thebrucebeat said:


> Clement said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's another lie from Brucie: "The whining by the churches is simply their choosing mammon over message."
> 
> Everytime he sets pen to paper he offers some kind of logical fallacy, like the false dilemma above. We choose both, it's not one or the other. On one hand you need the money to keep the light and heat on, and you can still preach the Gospel. But if an oppressive government decides to revoke our tax exempt status I am all over that.
> 
> Anyway, watch for Brucie's twisted logic. He will offer you a false dilemma like the one above, and if you offer a third choice he wil stomp his feet and whine that you didn't answer his question, or that his false dilemma really isn't a false dilemma. Then he will declare himself the winner.
> 
> Ain't that right, Brucie? (This is where he attacks me personally, like he did Boss.)
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you have to wait for the government to rescind you tax exempt status?
> You look forward to that but won't voluntarily refuse it.
> That is hypocritical.
> If it will ruin you financially why look forward to it by government fiat?
> If it won't why not do it yourself and gain your homilitic freedom that you pretend to covet?
> It's pretty simple.
> You don't have the courage of your convictions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I forgot, Brucie's other gambit is to make it about me, throwing in a few lies and half truths in the bargain.
> 
> If you had been a minister you'd know I don't live on an island. There is a huge organization behind me, and I am not in charge.
Click to expand...


----------



## thebrucebeat

Clement said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clement said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you have to wait for the government to rescind you tax exempt status?
> You look forward to that but won't voluntarily refuse it.
> That is hypocritical.
> If it will ruin you financially why look forward to it by government fiat?
> If it won't why not do it yourself and gain your homilitic freedom that you pretend to covet?
> It's pretty simple.
> You don't have the courage of your convictions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I forgot, Brucie's other gambit is to make it about me, throwing in a few lies and half truths in the bargain.
> 
> If you had been a minister you'd know I don't live on an island. There is a huge organization behind me, and I am not in charge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know nothing about your denomination.
> What I do know by your post is that the hypocrisy is systemic and not personal. The bowing to mammon happens on a denominational level.
> Your complicity is your membership in it.
> The organization is part of why I left.
> I wasn't willing to turn my faith into a business model.
Click to expand...


----------



## Newby

I.P.Freely said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I.P.Freely said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who the fuck are you nachos to say he cant?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A free man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nah lickspittle, you are just a map of religious woe.
Click to expand...


You just had your ass handed to you and whine like a little baby...


----------



## Newby

Clement said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> No there isn't.
> You don't have to claim tax exempt status to be a church.
> It's a choice that has consequences. It restricts what you can do politically.
> The whining by the churches is simply their choosing mammon over message.
> You don't want to give up the money.
> There is nothing else to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's another lie from Brucie: "The whining by the churches is simply their choosing mammon over message."
> 
> Everytime he sets pen to paper he offers some kind of logical fallacy, like the false dilemma above. We choose both, it's not one or the other. On one hand you need the money to keep the light and heat on, and you can still preach the Gospel. But if an oppressive government decides to revoke our tax exempt status I am all over that.
> 
> Anyway, watch for Brucie's twisted logic. He will offer you a false dilemma like the one above, and if you offer a third choice he wil stomp his feet and whine that you didn't answer his question, or that his false dilemma really isn't a false dilemma. Then he will declare himself the winner.
> 
> Ain't that right, Brucie? (This is where he attacks me personally, like he did Boss.)
Click to expand...


Bingo!!!


----------



## freedombecki

thebrucebeat said:


> Clement said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I forgot, Brucie's other gambit is to make it about me, throwing in a few lies and half truths in the bargain.
> 
> If you had been a minister you'd know I don't live on an island. There is a huge organization behind me, and I am not in charge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know nothing about your denomination.
> What I do know by your post is that the hypocrisy is systemic and not personal. The bowing to mammon happens on a denominational level.
> Your complicity is your membership in it.
> The organization is part of why I left.
> I wasn't willing to turn my faith into a business model.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Faith is of God. A business model is of Caesar's realm.
> You're conscious of that, and that is good.
> 
> Your debate opponent works within an organization of other people known as his church. He's willing to give and take in order to share his understanding of God with ordinary people who seek god, and that is good.
> 
> Somewhere in the book of Corinthians, it celebrates the differences of gifts of different believers. That is the best of all.
> 
> /Lectio Divinia of a seamstress
Click to expand...


----------



## Clement

thebrucebeat said:


> Clement said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I forgot, Brucie's other gambit is to make it about me, throwing in a few lies and half truths in the bargain.
> 
> If you had been a minister you'd know I don't live on an island. There is a huge organization behind me, and I am not in charge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know nothing about your denomination.
> What I do know by your post is that the hypocrisy is systemic and not personal. The bowing to mammon happens on a denominational level.
> Your complicity is your membership in it.
> The organization is part of why I left.
> I wasn't willing to turn my faith into a business model.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must have been a Baptist, they are the ones with the megachurches.
> 
> Most of our guys are retired. The ones who are still working serve the church and work at their day jobs, too. I paid for my own education, my own books, and my own vestments and if I have to go to an out of town clericus I pay for it. If anybody is taking a salary I don't know about it.
> 
> After all that we still have to pay the rent or mortgage on the buildings, keep the lights on, obtain office supplies, and still support whatever charities we are involved in. This truly is a labor of love because there isn't any mammon to be had, which is why I have never been able to understand why people talk about the "religion business", outside of the TV preachers that Gizmo probably listens to and the RCC.
> 
> What I do have is the best bunch of friends in the world, and that is worth more than gold.
Click to expand...


----------



## thebrucebeat

Clement said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clement said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know nothing about your denomination.
> What I do know by your post is that the hypocrisy is systemic and not personal. The bowing to mammon happens on a denominational level.
> Your complicity is your membership in it.
> The organization is part of why I left.
> I wasn't willing to turn my faith into a business model.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must have been a Baptist, they are the ones with the megachurches.
> 
> Most of our guys are retired. The ones who are still working serve the church and work at their day jobs, too. I paid for my own education, my own books, and my own vestments and if I have to go to an out of town clericus I pay for it. If anybody is taking a salary I don't know about it.
> 
> After all that we still have to pay the rent or mortgage on the buildings, keep the lights on, obtain office supplies, and still support whatever charities we are involved in. This truly is a labor of love because there isn't any mammon to be had, which is why I have never been able to understand why people talk about the "religion business", outside of the TV preachers that Gizmo probably listens to and the RCC.
> 
> What I do have is the best bunch of friends in the world, and that is worth more than gold.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So why are you hoping the government changes the law so you are taxed?
> You see, you are not being honest. You are praising government for giving you an economic break. You are more than happy to give up your political preaching for the financial benefit.
> These are choices.
> Where you place your treasure your heart will follow.
Click to expand...


----------



## Clement

thebrucebeat said:


> Clement said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> You must have been a Baptist, they are the ones with the megachurches.
> 
> Most of our guys are retired. The ones who are still working serve the church and work at their day jobs, too. I paid for my own education, my own books, and my own vestments and if I have to go to an out of town clericus I pay for it. If anybody is taking a salary I don't know about it.
> 
> After all that we still have to pay the rent or mortgage on the buildings, keep the lights on, obtain office supplies, and still support whatever charities we are involved in. This truly is a labor of love because there isn't any mammon to be had, which is why I have never been able to understand why people talk about the "religion business", outside of the TV preachers that Gizmo probably listens to and the RCC.
> 
> What I do have is the best bunch of friends in the world, and that is worth more than gold.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why are you hoping the government changes the law so you are taxed?
> You see, you are not being honest. You are praising government for giving you an economic break. You are more than happy to give up your political preaching for the financial benefit.
> These are choices.
> Where you place your treasure your heart will follow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right over your head. I will never understand why the left thinks they are smarter than we are.
Click to expand...


----------



## HUGGY

thanatos144 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Someday...certainly not in my lifetime the states will individually pass laws making it illegal to offer religious advice in stead of medical advice.
> 
> Slowly but surely the grip of the influence and fraud of religion will be understood by intelligent people and pushed back inside the walls of the churches where it belongs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who the fuck are you to tell others what they can and cant believe you fascist ?
Click to expand...


Amusing rant.  Clearly you are flailing in ignorance butchering the dictionary and history calling me a fascist. 

I belong to no special "club" receiving favors and a monopoly as are the religists with tax exempt status and forcing the newly elected politicians to swear allegience with a hand on MY book of magic. 

I unlike YOU am a free man with a mind of my own and an internet connection that gives me just as much right to say my piece as you and I don't have to swear to a sky fairy to do so.

That would be "who the fuck I am".


----------



## thebrucebeat

Newby said:


> Clement said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> No there isn't.
> You don't have to claim tax exempt status to be a church.
> It's a choice that has consequences. It restricts what you can do politically.
> The whining by the churches is simply their choosing mammon over message.
> You don't want to give up the money.
> There is nothing else to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's another lie from Brucie: "The whining by the churches is simply their choosing mammon over message."
> 
> Everytime he sets pen to paper he offers some kind of logical fallacy, like the false dilemma above. We choose both, it's not one or the other. On one hand you need the money to keep the light and heat on, and you can still preach the Gospel. But if an oppressive government decides to revoke our tax exempt status I am all over that.
> 
> Anyway, watch for Brucie's twisted logic. He will offer you a false dilemma like the one above, and if you offer a third choice he wil stomp his feet and whine that you didn't answer his question, or that his false dilemma really isn't a false dilemma. Then he will declare himself the winner.
> 
> Ain't that right, Brucie? (This is where he attacks me personally, like he did Boss.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bingo!!!
Click to expand...


You are the perfect wrestling fan.
You applaud wildly for something that is a complete farce.
No difference here.


----------



## sealybobo

koshergrl said:


> So much hate packed into one post.
> 
> We're good with keeping religion out of laws.
> 
> We also want laws kept out of religion. That's what statist pigs don't get. You don't get to regulate our religion. So fuck off. And then die and enjoy your eternity.



No hatred in this christians heart.    I would think a good person would hope that people who don't believe still get to go to heaven.  Only a dick would wish an eternity of hell just for doubting.  Only a sadistic cult would be based off a human sacrifice.  If it weren't for christians and muslims I'd still be religious or at least spiritual but you all drove us to agnostic atheism.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Clement said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clement said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why are you hoping the government changes the law so you are taxed?
> You see, you are not being honest. You are praising government for giving you an economic break. You are more than happy to give up your political preaching for the financial benefit.
> These are choices.
> Where you place your treasure your heart will follow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right over your head. I will never understand why the left thinks they are smarter than we are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So dumb you can't give a return argument.
> Your attempt to escape the discussion is duly noted.
Click to expand...


----------



## Clement

thebrucebeat said:


> Clement said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right over your head. I will never understand why the left thinks they are smarter than we are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So dumb you can't give a return argument.
> Your attempt to escape the discussion is duly noted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are certifiable, man. It sometimes aggrivates me when I think lefties are playing dumb, then I realize they really are that stupid. I just can't dumb it down enough for you people.
Click to expand...


----------



## koshergrl

sealybobo said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> So much hate packed into one post.
> 
> We're good with keeping religion out of laws.
> 
> We also want laws kept out of religion. That's what statist pigs don't get. You don't get to regulate our religion. So fuck off. And then die and enjoy your eternity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No hatred in this christians heart.  I would think a good person would hope that people who don't believe still get to go to heaven. Only a dick would wish an eternity of hell just for doubting. Only a sadistic cult would be based off a human sacrifice. If it weren't for christians and muslims I'd still be religious or at least spiritual but you all drove us to agnostic atheism.
Click to expand...

 
Says the goon who is pushing for state regulation of religion.


----------



## sealybobo

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most scientists who know that 99.999% chance their is no god also say the most rational position on god is to be an agnostic atheist.  You don't seem to be all that sharp.  I see people saying things to you like "agnostic" and you seem to be grasping for AHAH or GOTCHA moments but all you are showing us is that you do not understand or listen to what people say to you.  The definition of close minded.  Even an atheist can not say 100% sure there is no god just like we can't prove there are no leprechauns, devils angels or ghosts exists.
> 
> So all the organized religions you understand to be bullshit yet you refuse to let go of the concept of god for some strange reason.  Because now all you have is a feeling, and the fact that primative man always believed in a higher power.  Maybe they saw aliens and thought they were gods?  Why not rule that possibility out?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sharp enough to know the difference between "atheist" and "agnostic" and don't run around like an idiot claiming they are one in the same.
> 
> If you can't say 100% for sure there is no God, why do you all want to keep saying that? This is what doesn't make any sense to me. Here you admit that you're not 100% certain, but the thread is full of people denying any possibility whatsoever.
> 
> I've never said that all the organized religions are "bullshit" only that I didn't subscribe to them. I think they are flawed because man is flawed. That doesn't mean they are bullshit, they have proven to be an effective method of man maintaining his spiritual connection. Also, I personally have more than a "feeling". As I've said, I connect with Spiritual God daily, and God connects with me. I realize great personal gain from this connection, so I have all the evidence I need to believe the connection is real.
> 
> Now let me ask you, what am I supposed to do with that? Should I simply ignore what I know is the truth so I can fit in with the "cool" crowd here? Should I say that "I'm not sure" when I am certain? Should I refuse to acknowledge what I know is the truth and idiotically demand some sort of "physical" evidence to "prove" the spiritual?
> 
> Sorry, but that ain't how I roll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.
> We know how you roll.
> You will say absolutely anything at any given time and can't keep your arguments straight from one post to another. You trip over your shoelaces constantly.
> You have said that the spiritual nature can't be known, but maybe it will be able to be proved one day.
> Except, YOU know.
> What makes man unique is his connection to the spiritual, unless you read another post of yours where you say the animal kingdom may connect, too.
> If something exists in the animal kingdom, that proves your point, but if it doesn't, well, that proves your point, too.
> There is plenty of evidence for spiritual nature if you just believe in it FIRST, but you are a big proponent of the scientific method.
> You are Doctor Boss, or you are a high ranking double major preparing for his HR job.
> You don't think Christians are wrong, you just don't believe in salvation or a personal intercessory god.
> You think your god has no interest in you, but he will let you know if you are going to hell and all kinds of other personal interactions you claim.
> You are not to be taken seriously in any way.
> All people have to do is let you run your mouth and all the hard work is done.
> You will embarrass yourself every single time.
> I have battled few people with more of a constant barrage of inconsistencies and logical gaffs as you are freely willing to serve up.
> You always top it off with your vulgarity strewn sobs when caught with your pants around your ankles and lose all kind of semblance of adult conversation, always resorting to the lie of being taken out of context, even when your entire posts are quoted.
> And that's how you roll.
Click to expand...


Do you know that when someone arm is cut off and they feel the limb even when it is no longer there?  Scientists have proved that the human mind does this and it doesn't even matter if the human was born with that limb or not, the brain can feel an arm there even if one was never present.  In short, doesn't matter if god is real to these people.  They are primitive man less evolved.  Think about how much of our brain we do not use yet.  Clearly scientists use more of their brains than the rest of us and they all say god PROBABLY doesn't exist.  They can't say for sure because an intelligent person's position on such a claim should always be agnostic atheism.  We can't prove there is no santa clause, ghosts, devils, angels, leprechauns, saskwatches/yetti's/chuckacobre, ufo's from other planets.

One other thing I wanted to say about eye witness testimony.  We've all seen David Blane do magic and we do not know how he does it.  99% of us don't know how the trick is done.  But most of us are smart enough to realize he doesn't know magic.  It's a trick.  But you saw it with your own eyes, right?  That's what I think about eye witness testimonials to seeing exorcists or anything supernatural.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Clement said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clement said:
> 
> 
> 
> So dumb you can't give a return argument.
> Your attempt to escape the discussion is duly noted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are certifiable, man. It sometimes aggrivates me when I think lefties are playing dumb, then I realize they really are that stupid. I just can't dumb it down enough for you people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't hiding your inability to argue very well.
> You aren't responding to the argument, because there is no response to the argument that has you coming out well.
> My little Runaway.
> Run, run, run, run Runaway!
> (Thanks Del Shannon!)
Click to expand...


----------



## sealybobo

koshergrl said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> So much hate packed into one post.
> 
> We're good with keeping religion out of laws.
> 
> We also want laws kept out of religion. That's what statist pigs don't get. You don't get to regulate our religion. So fuck off. And then die and enjoy your eternity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No hatred in this christians heart.  I would think a good person would hope that people who don't believe still get to go to heaven. Only a dick would wish an eternity of hell just for doubting. Only a sadistic cult would be based off a human sacrifice. If it weren't for christians and muslims I'd still be religious or at least spiritual but you all drove us to agnostic atheism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the goon who is pushing for state regulation of religion.
Click to expand...


I never said anything about regulating religion on a state or federal level, but since you brought it up, first of all you are paranoid.  The politicians aren't going to go after the churches, at least not yet.  If 51% of the public one day insists on it during an election year it could happen.  They really don't deserve tax exempt status, but whatever I don't give it much thought.  It's a con/scam/gimmick/7000 year old way of controlling the masses.  Started out as a cult, supposedly happened.  Why do we know for sure because 11 people said so?  They were the only ones that believed or spread the word of Jesus and it took over 80 years to write the cults story book (bible).  So it may not even have happened.  Who cares the jews say he was a real man.  Their religion is a cult too.  They are all in on it together.  One can't call the other out because it would be calling your story out too.  And the jews say the same thing I do, that Jesus was just a man, not the son of God, not a messiah.  Just a man.  So they are basically saying all the miracle shit you guys say he did is BULLSHIT.  The Jews and christians for hundreds of years killed each other to squash the other's religion.  Learn your history.  Kings used religion to control the masses.  My grandparents and your grandparents.  Its time to wake up.  Want the human race to live forever, go with science.  Want to hope your soul lives for eternity in streets of gold where lions sleep with lambs?  Want to tell yourself a fairytale?  Go for it.  I can't.  I'm too smart.  Christians and Muslims are really dumb.  I think Jews all know there is no god.  They sure act like it.  LOL


----------



## sealybobo

Clement said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clement said:
> 
> 
> 
> So dumb you can't give a return argument.
> Your attempt to escape the discussion is duly noted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are certifiable, man. It sometimes aggrivates me when I think lefties are playing dumb, then I realize they really are that stupid. I just can't dumb it down enough for you people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Explain it to me from the beginning.  Why are you right and what is your position.
Click to expand...


----------



## sealybobo

Clement said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clement said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know nothing about your denomination.
> What I do know by your post is that the hypocrisy is systemic and not personal. The bowing to mammon happens on a denominational level.
> Your complicity is your membership in it.
> The organization is part of why I left.
> I wasn't willing to turn my faith into a business model.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must have been a Baptist, they are the ones with the megachurches.
> 
> Most of our guys are retired. The ones who are still working serve the church and work at their day jobs, too. I paid for my own education, my own books, and my own vestments and if I have to go to an out of town clericus I pay for it. If anybody is taking a salary I don't know about it.
> 
> After all that we still have to pay the rent or mortgage on the buildings, keep the lights on, obtain office supplies, and still support whatever charities we are involved in. This truly is a labor of love because there isn't any mammon to be had, which is why I have never been able to understand why people talk about the "religion business", outside of the TV preachers that Gizmo probably listens to and the RCC.
> 
> What I do have is the best bunch of friends in the world, and that is worth more than gold.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> a.  Notice just like a cult everyone works for free and no one knows exactly where all the money goes.
> b.  I love the point someone made where religion decided to take a tax break over getting political so it needs to shut the fuck up.  Great point whoever made it.
> c.  If you don't have enough members to fund your cult then let the free market decide it's fate.
> d.  Atheists are going to start a tax exempt church for non believers.  Like the word marriage you don't own the word church.  We want the tax breaks too.  We want to meet with like minded people who agree there is no god, most likely.  And we are 100% sure we won't burn in hell for not believing christians or muslims.  In return for the tax break we won't lobby our government or get involved in politics and like the current churches we will occasionally help someone but not nearly enough.
> e. Start companies and force catholics to have abortions because pregnant women hurt the bottom line.  Either get the abortion or you are fired.  But its covered under Obamacare.
Click to expand...


----------



## HUGGY

thebrucebeat said:


> Clement said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are certifiable, man. It sometimes aggrivates me when I think lefties are playing dumb, then I realize they really are that stupid. I just can't dumb it down enough for you people.
> 
> 
> 
> You aren't hiding your inability to argue very well.
> You aren't responding to the argument, because there is no response to the argument that has you coming out well.
> My little Runaway.
> Run, run, run, run Runaway!
> (Thanks Del Shannon!)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In response to your sig line.  A note worth noting...
> 
> Not everyone that rejects the myths and groupthink of religion came to this from some trauma encountered in youth or at the hand of relatives.  Some of us have just observed fairly and truly and come to the most rational conclusion we could.
> 
> The anger ...yes anger fueling mine and others argument is mostly from the defense of our well thought out position.  I just don't see any justice resulting from giving liars and fools a pass on something so fundamental.
Click to expand...


----------



## thebrucebeat

HUGGY said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clement said:
> 
> 
> 
> You aren't hiding your inability to argue very well.
> You aren't responding to the argument, because there is no response to the argument that has you coming out well.
> My little Runaway.
> Run, run, run, run Runaway!
> (Thanks Del Shannon!)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In response to your sig line.  A note worth noting...
> 
> Not everyone that rejects the myths and groupthink of religion came to this from some trauma encountered in youth or at the hand of relatives.  Some of us have just observed fairly and truly and come to the most rational conclusion we could.
> 
> The anger ...yes anger fueling mine and others argument is mostly from the defense of our well thought out position.  I just don't see any justice resulting from giving liars and fools a pass on something so fundamental.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The heart of his comment is about rejecting the childish notion of a personal god, as you do. Yet, he remains humble in the face of an awesome universe. There is much we don't, and will never, know. With that, he leaves the door open, if just a crack, and rejects those that don't.
Click to expand...


----------



## sealybobo

HUGGY said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clement said:
> 
> 
> 
> You aren't hiding your inability to argue very well.
> You aren't responding to the argument, because there is no response to the argument that has you coming out well.
> My little Runaway.
> Run, run, run, run Runaway!
> (Thanks Del Shannon!)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In response to your sig line.  A note worth noting...
> 
> Not everyone that rejects the myths and groupthink of religion came to this from some trauma encountered in youth or at the hand of relatives.  Some of us have just observed fairly and truly and come to the most rational conclusion we could.
> 
> The anger ...yes anger fueling mine and others argument is mostly from the defense of our well thought out position.  I just don't see any justice resulting from giving liars and fools a pass on something so fundamental.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My church proved to be foul when we were young and our parents stopped taking us other than easter maybe.  They still never told us there was no god in fact my dad is where I was a couple months ago.  He realizes christianity is man made but there must be a god.  I'm trying to explain to him there doesn't have to be a god.  If the universe couldn't be made on it's own then who made god, right?  Anyways, then we got older and my brother and I went looking for brides at church.  My brother scored a good one.  Good for him.  The church has done him well.  Good for him.  That doesn't mean god exists though.  And not believing hasn't done me any harm just like god hasn't hurt him.  But god does cause people to be evil and all religions are corrupt and made up and 99.999% chance there is no god and even if there is you are a mosquito to him.
> 
> Religions big mistake was saying they believe people lived to be 800 years old and when they said they take the arc, adam and eve and moses stories literally.  Man has evolved too far and science has debunked  your false claims too often.  In the future, when you say you are religious instead of most people agreeing with you most people in the room will look at you like you are stupid.  One day only atheists can be president.  No cult leaders or followers.
> 
> Anyways, my parents never discouraged us from the church but they also never said god was not real.  I came up with that on my own.  I wouldn't ever even tell my brother because he would freak out.  I don't want to offend him or challenge his religion.  That's why I come here to say he's as stupid as you guys.
Click to expand...


----------



## sealybobo

thebrucebeat said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> In response to your sig line.  A note worth noting...
> 
> Not everyone that rejects the myths and groupthink of religion came to this from some trauma encountered in youth or at the hand of relatives.  Some of us have just observed fairly and truly and come to the most rational conclusion we could.
> 
> The anger ...yes anger fueling mine and others argument is mostly from the defense of our well thought out position.  I just don't see any justice resulting from giving liars and fools a pass on something so fundamental.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The heart of his comment is about rejecting the childish notion of a personal god, as you do. Yet, he remains humble in the face of an awesome universe. There is much we don't, and will never, know. With that, he leaves the door open, if just a crack, and rejects those that don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agnostic Atheism is the most logical position to have.
Click to expand...


----------



## emilynghiem

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What proof do atheists need?  A God actually proving its own existence is what would convince an atheist.  Why does he hide?  Seems pretty petty to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HOW SAD!!! Must you feel the flames of eternal hell before you wise up????? Far too late then!!! think!
Click to expand...


No, GISMYS
1. hell is caused by UNFORGIVENESS
so if you do not forgive God for making atheists for his reasons,
you have your own issues to answer to before God

2. as for atheists, if God made them to view and question the world from a secular nontheistic perspective, I trust God's plans, purpose and process behind this.

Sealybobo seemed to be asking perfectly honest questions
and is no more in doubt than you are, since you do not have faith
that God has reasons for making atheists question this way
and you do not see the good purpose it serves!

Romans 8:28 all things work together for good for those who love God
and are called to his purpose

So GISMYS the more you understand God's will you would be more
forgiving and understanding of atheists, nontheists and secular gentiles
who are put on this earth and made the way they are for a reason, 
where God is in charge of all these things.

Be forgiving, be blessed, and you will open your mind to receive
greater understanding. The day you are THANKFUL for atheists
then you will understand the reasons why God created two separate folds of the flock.


----------



## sameech

Boss said:


> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.




Now a normal person who didn't believe in or have any interest in something would not seek it out.  I have no interest in NASCAR, and I certainly do not go out of my way to bombard people who do like it with negativity as that would be pointless.  What you are seeing is that these people are wound collectors which involves "... the conscious and systematic collection and preservation of transgressions, violations, social wrongs, grievances, injustice, unfair treatment, or slights of self and others, for the purpose of attenuating, nourishing, fortifying, or justifying a malignant ideology, furthering hatred, satisfying a pathology, or for exacting revenge." (Wound Collectors | Psychology Today).

Hope that helps answer your question.

Sam


----------



## emilynghiem

sealybobo said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> The heart of his comment is about rejecting the childish notion of a personal god, as you do. Yet, he remains humble in the face of an awesome universe. There is much we don't, and will never, know. With that, he leaves the door open, if just a crack, and rejects those that don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agnostic Atheism is the most logical position to have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The least biased most universal position would be like a "bilingual"
> person who can see through the perspective of both the
> believer using the language of Biblical and spiritual laws
> and the secular nontheist using science and natural laws.
> 
> If your position is already "biased" to EXCLUDE one side or the other,
> how can your system calculate fairly by accommodating equal input from both sources?
> 
> If you have one person using binary numbers, one person using decimals,
> one person using hex; wouldn't your system of logic need to be able to
> accommodate all these diverse systems in order to handle people equally?
> 
> At the very least, if there is no universal system that can translate between
> each person's individual logic or values; then we would need "translators"
> individually to align the different values so we can communicate between them
> relatively.
> 
> Note: I find that even having an emotional bias or division, putting one person or group above another, is enough to skew one's logic emotionally where it is not 100% objective.
> 
> The best way i know to counteract this is to pair up with people with the opposite bias.
> No one I have found is so perfectly objective that we keep our emotions or preferences
> aside. Everyone I know projects a little of our preferences. So it takes people of different biases to check and balance each other. No one is above or below anyone else; we all have equal strengths as weaknesses when considered in full perspective as a whole. We all need each other to catch us when we are not being perfectly fair or inclusive, but start imposing a bias.
> 
> Thank you, SB for being a fair minded person.
> even though none of us is perfect, it is clear you and others here are very high up on the scale, and with help of counterparts, yes, we can all be made "perfect" or "whole."
Click to expand...


----------



## thebrucebeat

sealybobo said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> The heart of his comment is about rejecting the childish notion of a personal god, as you do. Yet, he remains humble in the face of an awesome universe. There is much we don't, and will never, know. With that, he leaves the door open, if just a crack, and rejects those that don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agnostic Atheism is the most logical position to have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agnosticism certainly.
> Atheism, debateable.
> That was Einstein's point. He was too humble about what he knew, and what he perceived as being possible to know, to declare any kind of atheism.
> The whole concept of a god was beyond consideration to him.
> I happen to agree.
Click to expand...


----------



## emilynghiem

sameech said:


> Now a normal person who didn't believe in or have any interest in something would not seek it out.  I have no interest in NASCAR, and I certainly do not go out of my way to bombard people who do like it with negativity as that would be pointless.  What you are seeing is that these people are wound collectors which involves "... the conscious and systematic collection and preservation of transgressions, violations, social wrongs, grievances, injustice, unfair treatment, or slights of self and others, for the purpose of attenuating, nourishing, fortifying, or justifying a malignant ideology, furthering hatred, satisfying a pathology, or for exacting revenge." (Wound Collectors | Psychology Today).
> 
> Hope that helps answer your question.
> 
> Sam



Dear Sam: even those whose conscious intent is to confront for ill will or revenge,
there is an UNCONSCIOUS drive to seek healing and peace.

The serial rapist who is plagued by demonic chronic rages and self-hateful destruction
really wants to be freed of the obsession; but in the meantime, if this person does not get help, the rage will be taken out on victims, spreading and multiplying the demonic burden.
So this is both a twisted cry for help, and a pattern of cause and effect; that if we in society do not do more to find and help sick people in advance, then we find out about them after they create more innocent victims, so this motivates us to take action.

We would only multiply the wrongs by responding with ill will and retribution.

The way to break the cycle of ill will, abuse and dumping the sins of the past forward,
is to forgive and heal the root causes.

Until all people receive healing of body, mind and spirit, then this ill will is projected forward onto relationships and manifesting as more conflict and abuses.

We are either conscious of the need for healing, or we are not aware and run on the negative forces instead. But it is still driven by the process of seeking justice and peace.

We will see this suffering repeat as a sign that we need to do more to resolve the causes.
It is to motivate us to make the necessary changes and take the right steps.
Otherwise, if we keep repeating the same retribution, then we get nowhere.


----------



## emilynghiem

thebrucebeat said:


> The heart of his comment is about rejecting the childish notion of a personal god, as you do. Yet, he remains humble in the face of an awesome universe. There is much we don't, and will never, know. With that, he leaves the door open, if just a crack, and rejects those that don't.



Hi Bruce: What is wrong with being neutral?
Why can't a personal God be real for some people, and not necessary for others?
Why this need to reject 100%?

Note: by the natural laws that apply to all people, believers or not,
we still invoke the same reactions we impose on others.

So if we "reject" their views as false, they tend to "reject" our views as false.
Isn't the NEUTRAL objective position to hold the views equally?
So YOUR system is as valid for you (even with flaws if you aren't consistent with it) 
as MY system is valid for me, etc. (even with flaws if I contradict myself and need correction, too)

Isn't that more objective and universal? Isn't that better than "mutual rejection?"
(and still allows equal room for correction, by holding each person to their own system)


----------



## emilynghiem

HUGGY said:


> In response to your sig line.  A note worth noting...
> 
> Not everyone that rejects the myths and groupthink of religion came to this from some trauma encountered in youth or at the hand of relatives.  Some of us have just observed fairly and truly and come to the most rational conclusion we could.
> 
> The anger ...yes anger fueling mine and others argument is mostly from the defense of our well thought out position.  I just don't see any justice resulting from giving liars and fools a pass on something so fundamental.



Hi Huggy:
Yes a lot of people abuse either religious or political groups as cults.

But that doesn't mean these systems can't be used for good.

Lots of people use religious and political organizing for useful outreach
to help people otherwise abused.

I see religions as "languages" for the laws to organize ppl in groups.
So the right leaders can keep the members in line, similar to states in the
union under local laws of the counties and cities to reach all people and levels of society.

Also, Huggy the best way to check against religious abuses
is to work WITHIN that group using their language and laws.

When used correctly each system checks itself.
You are right, that all systems get abused by exploiting cult mentality,
fear and division. The best way to counteract is not to play on these fears and divisions,
and they can be overcome so ppl are no longer manipulated, not even us looking on.


----------



## thebrucebeat

emilynghiem said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> The heart of his comment is about rejecting the childish notion of a personal god, as you do. Yet, he remains humble in the face of an awesome universe. There is much we don't, and will never, know. With that, he leaves the door open, if just a crack, and rejects those that don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Bruce: What is wrong with being neutral?
> Why can't a personal God be real for some people, and not necessary for others?
> Why this need to reject 100%?
> 
> Note: by the natural laws that apply to all people, believers or not,
> we still invoke the same reactions we impose on others.
> 
> So if we "reject" their views as false, they tend to "reject" our views as false.
> Isn't the NEUTRAL objective position to hold the views equally?
> So YOUR system is as valid for you (even with flaws if you aren't consistent with it)
> as MY system is valid for me, etc. (even with flaws if I contradict myself and need correction, too)
> 
> Isn't that more objective and universal? Isn't that better than "mutual rejection?"
> (and still allows equal room for correction, by holding each person to their own system)
Click to expand...


Because what is "real" isn't a choice.
It simply is.
Einstein found the proposition of a personal god silly, and so do I.
Your goal is to find a way to bring all people together and not to find an objective reality. If that investigation causes friction you are philosophically against it, because you, too, have a goal, and that is to calm the beast.
The goal isn't universality for its own sake. That is philosophical, not investigative.
In my opinion, and Einstein's, the proposition of a personal god and the possibility of something undetermined and unknowable are not equal in the least. That may be neutral, but it isn't accurate.
As a scientist, that had primacy for Einstein.
Einstein found the evidence for a personal god childish and untenable. He replaces it with no system of his own, but an acknowledgment that some things are beyond knowing, and accepting the humility of that position. He makes peace with what he is ignorant of, but doesn't invent a solution for his ignorance, which is how he sees the idea of a personal god.
And so do I.


----------



## Montrovant

sameech said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now a normal person who didn't believe in or have any interest in something would not seek it out.  I have no interest in NASCAR, and I certainly do not go out of my way to bombard people who do like it with negativity as that would be pointless.  What you are seeing is that these people are wound collectors which involves "... the conscious and systematic collection and preservation of transgressions, violations, social wrongs, grievances, injustice, unfair treatment, or slights of self and others, for the purpose of attenuating, nourishing, fortifying, or justifying a malignant ideology, furthering hatred, satisfying a pathology, or for exacting revenge." (Wound Collectors | Psychology Today).
> 
> Hope that helps answer your question.
> 
> Sam
Click to expand...


Why would atheists not have any interest in religion?  Just because they don't believe in something doesn't mean they shouldn't question why others do, or worry about possible repercussions of people believing (think radical Islamic terrorism).

Your sports analogy is actually pretty funny to me, because it is, like religion and politics, a subject that many people actually do get aggressive and rude about when talking of sports they don't like.  There's been more than one thread on this board in that vein.


----------



## HUGGY

emilynghiem said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> In response to your sig line.  A note worth noting...
> 
> Not everyone that rejects the myths and groupthink of religion came to this from some trauma encountered in youth or at the hand of relatives.  Some of us have just observed fairly and truly and come to the most rational conclusion we could.
> 
> The anger ...yes anger fueling mine and others argument is mostly from the defense of our well thought out position.  I just don't see any justice resulting from giving liars and fools a pass on something so fundamental.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Huggy:
> Yes a lot of people abuse either religious or political groups as cults.
> 
> But that doesn't mean these systems can't be used for good.
> 
> Lots of people use religious and political organizing for useful outreach
> to help people otherwise abused.
> 
> I see religions as "languages" for the laws to organize ppl in groups.
> So the right leaders can keep the members in line, similar to states in the
> union under local laws of the counties and cities to reach all people and levels of society.
> 
> Also, Huggy the best way to check against religious abuses
> is to work WITHIN that group using their language and laws.
> 
> When used correctly each system checks itself.
> You are right, that all systems get abused by exploiting cult mentality,
> fear and division. The best way to counteract is not to play on these fears and divisions,
> and they can be overcome so ppl are no longer manipulated, not even us looking on.
Click to expand...


I view "working within" a group of people so totally vacant of personal responsibility in seeing the simple truth to be beyond creepy.

The communication gymnastics I would have to go through would give me a permanent headache.

Sure ... some of these organizations are capable of addressing some of the worlds problems ... especially if they can take advantage of others fears and just bad luck and recruit the needy to god as an entity that will solve all of their problems.

Maybe for some it makes more sense to at least get something to eat or a blanket after a flood or some disaster in exchange for the luxury of a free will.

We here in the USA are indeed a very special group of people that have the freedom to think and speak whatever we believe....or what we do not believe.


----------



## koshergrl

Time to smoke a bowl huggster.


----------



## HUGGY

koshergrl said:


> Time to smoke a bowl huggster.



Why do you think they call it dope?

Pot just makes me dumber than I already am... no thanks.


----------



## sameech

Montrovant said:


> Why would atheists not have any interest in religion?  Just because they don't believe in something doesn't mean they shouldn't question why others do, or worry about possible repercussions of people believing (think radical Islamic terrorism).
> 
> Your sports analogy is actually pretty funny to me, because it is, like religion and politics, a subject that many people actually do get aggressive and rude about when talking of sports they don't like.  There's been more than one thread on this board in that vein.



Because there is a difference between someone who is an atheist and someone who uses that as a curtain to hide behind in their compulsion to be hateful and obnoxious to others.

--Sam


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> Because what is "real" isn't a choice.
> It simply is.



But what is "real" is also not confined to only things that have been discovered through science. If that were true, we could simply pack up science and send her off to the Smithsonian. There is no more use for it if everything is known and all has been discovered and nothing else is "real" ...which IS your position. 

Whether it is "real" or not, or whether physical sciences can confirm and verify it, literally billions and billions of human beings profoundly believe they have connected with something beyond the physical. It is SO ingrained into who we are that a noted psychiatrist once said, "If God didn't exist, man would have to create Him." 

So is it not "real" because physical science (to date) hasn't confirmed it? Did Jupiter exist before we confirmed it? Did the principles of electromagnetism not exist until we discovered them? Was the fact that we considered it a "spiritual" thing a reason to dismiss it and not explore it further? You see, you have adopted this closed-minded and ignorant approach to spirituality. You want to dismiss it as impossible or not "real" because you don't have evidence right now. Thank GOD scientists from the past had more courage. 



> Einstein found the proposition of a personal god silly, and so do I.



You should shut up quoting (or rather, misquoting) Einstein. He never said or inferred that he believed the proposition of a personal god was silly. NEVER SAID IT! He very much left the question on the table and made NO judgement on the matter. IF he believed as you claim, he would have certainly never stated "God doesn't roll the dice!" It makes absolutely NO logical sense for someone to invoke the name of something they consider "silly" to support their theory. He also expressed regrets that his words had been taken out of context by idiots like you to claim he was some sort of Atheist. He was first and foremost a scientist, and as such, his objective view was agnostic from a science perspective and context. Now, for some odd reason, we seem to have a crop of morons here who want to combine "agnosticism" with "atheism" and claim some kind of Agnostic Atheism, which simply doesn't exist. ....In other words, it's not "real!"


----------



## Steven_R

Again, we could see evidence of all those things long before they were described in the literature. We could see Jupiter in the night sky. We could see lightning and felt a shock when touching doorknobs. Occasionally fishermen would bring up something strange. There was the evidence of something in front of us.

There is zero evidence for the supernatural or spiritual realm. There is literally nothing for us to examine, even if it does exist because it doesn't intersect with whatever naturalistic plane of existence the universe is a part of.


----------



## GISMYS

The knowledge of GOD is programed into our DNA, mankind all over the world have a natural knowing that there is GOD,But many allow satan to blind them to truth!!!and you??


----------



## Steven_R

GISMYS said:


> The knowledge of GOD is programed into our DNA, mankind all over the world have a natural knowing that there is GOD,But many allow satan to blind them to truth!!!and you??



Me? Waiting for concrete proof.

I brought a bagged lunch because I think I'll be waiting a while.


----------



## GISMYS

Steven_R said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> The knowledge of GOD is programed into our DNA, mankind all over the world have a natural knowing that there is GOD,But many allow satan to blind them to truth!!!and you??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me? Waiting for concrete proof.
> 
> I brought a bagged lunch because I think I'll be waiting a while.
Click to expand...


YOU DO HAVE  CONCRETE PROOF!! You have the entire universe and life as proof of GOD!!! What kind of blinded fool needs more??????


----------



## koshergrl

HUGGY said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Time to smoke a bowl huggster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think they call it dope?
> 
> Pot just makes me dumber than I already am... no thanks.
Click to expand...

 






Snoop's getting used to his little bro.


----------



## GISMYS

Could it be you choose to not believe in GOD because you love living in your sinful lifestyle and fear that when you find that GOD is real you know you will face judgment???????????===================BELIEVERS! know and expect to be attacked if you post GOD'S WORD=ETERNAL TRUTH. Unbelievers and false religious minions of satan hate GOD and GOD'S WORD = ETERNAL TRUTH. Against JESUS They screamed and gnashed their teeth crying ban him from the temple,then CRUCIFY HIM!!! CRUCIFY HIM!! Pilate knew JESUS was inocent but he wanted to please the people,so he washed his hands and said ," you crucify him but I find him inocent"!!! ==The world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. 19"If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you.. John  15:18


----------



## GISMYS

THIS post has the answer to ALL your problems!!!====HOW TO BE SAVED(BORN AGAIN) AND JOIN THE FAMILY OF GOD!!! Romans: Chapter 10 verse 9-10-13 GOD SAYS= 
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, 
and shalt believe in your heart that God hath raised him 
from the dead, thou shalt be Saved. For with the heart man 
believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession 
is made unto Salvation. For whosoever shall call upon the 
name of the Lord shall be Saved.................... 

---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------- 

AN EXAMPLE PRAYER IF YOU HAVE NEVER BEFORE TALKED TO GOD!......................... 
Heavenly Father:........................................... ............................... 
I come to you in prayer asking for the forgiveness of 
my Sins. I confess with my mouth and believe with my 
heart that Jesus is your Son, And that he died on the 
Cross at Calvary that I might be forgiven and have 
Eternal Life in the Kingdom of Heaven. Father, I believe 
that Jesus rose from the dead and I ask you right now 
to come in to my life and be my personal Lord and 
Savior. I repent of my Sins and will Worship you all the 
day's of my Life!. Because your word is truth, I confess 
with my mouth that I am Born Again and Cleansed 
by the Blood of Jesus! In Jesus Name, Amen


----------



## HUGGY

Gyssy

It is sad to see evidense of someone who's mind is so far gone that I can't think of anything usefull to recommend.

You have so very much personal baggage that at the very least I can offer you less involvement with my life and direction.

You need to understand that my decision upon much deliberation that no god exists is steadfast.

I see that for you to come to the same place would crush your psych so I will not say it would be beneficial in your case.

You need not display prayer primers for my use as I would hope any of my real friends would put a bullet in my skull if they ever caught me reading that tripe.


----------



## HUGGY

koshergrl said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Time to smoke a bowl huggster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think they call it dope?
> 
> Pot just makes me dumber than I already am... no thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Snoop's getting used to his little bro.
Click to expand...


The dog with the sweater in your avie has creepy alien glowing eyes

Just sayin...


----------



## Clement

sealybobo said:


> Clement said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are certifiable, man. It sometimes aggrivates me when I think lefties are playing dumb, then I realize they really are that stupid. I just can't dumb it down enough for you people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explain it to me from the beginning.  Why are you right and what is your position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have been feeling Brucie out because he says he went to seminary and was once a minister. He doesn't know squat about doctrine and all he does is mouh left wing talking points. He's a fraud.
Click to expand...


----------



## Clement

sealybobo said:


> Clement said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> You must have been a Baptist, they are the ones with the megachurches.
> 
> Most of our guys are retired. The ones who are still working serve the church and work at their day jobs, too. I paid for my own education, my own books, and my own vestments and if I have to go to an out of town clericus I pay for it. If anybody is taking a salary I don't know about it.
> 
> After all that we still have to pay the rent or mortgage on the buildings, keep the lights on, obtain office supplies, and still support whatever charities we are involved in. This truly is a labor of love because there isn't any mammon to be had, which is why I have never been able to understand why people talk about the "religion business", outside of the TV preachers that Gizmo probably listens to and the RCC.
> 
> What I do have is the best bunch of friends in the world, and that is worth more than gold.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a.  *Notice just like a cult everyone works for free and no one knows exactly where all the money goes.*
> b.  I love the point someone made where religion decided to take a tax break over getting political so it needs to shut the fuck up.  Great point whoever made it.
> c.  If you don't have enough members to fund your cult then let the free market decide it's fate.
> d.  Atheists are going to start a tax exempt church for non believers.  Like the word marriage you don't own the word church.  We want the tax breaks too.  We want to meet with like minded people who agree there is no god, most likely.  And we are 100% sure we won't burn in hell for not believing christians or muslims.  In return for the tax break we won't lobby our government or get involved in politics and like the current churches we will occasionally help someone but not nearly enough.
> e. Start companies and force catholics to have abortions because pregnant women hurt the bottom line.  Either get the abortion or you are fired.  But its covered under Obamacare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What an asshole.
> 
> I know "where the money goes". I was in the financial meeting not long ago.
> 
> But it's funny, Brucie thinks we are only in it for the money, you whine about us working for free. This is why talking to assholes is a waste of time.
Click to expand...


----------



## HUGGY

Clement said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clement said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain it to me from the beginning.  Why are you right and what is your position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have been feeling Brucie out because he says he went to seminary and was once a minister. He doesn't know squat about doctrine and all he does is mouh left wing talking points. He's a fraud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would love to see a pic of your godsquad decoder ring.
> 
> You have wicked awesome skills.
> 
> I would never have broken the code to make Bruce as an entrenched agent for the hated "liberals".
> 
> Good work!  You do god proud.
Click to expand...


----------



## Clement

thebrucebeat said:


> Clement said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are certifiable, man. It sometimes aggrivates me when I think lefties are playing dumb, then I realize they really are that stupid. I just can't dumb it down enough for you people.
> 
> 
> 
> You aren't hiding your inability to argue very well.
> You aren't responding to the argument, because there is no response to the argument that has you coming out well.
> My little Runaway.
> Run, run, run, run Runaway!
> (Thanks Del Shannon!)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whatever, go argue with Gizmo, he's your intellectual equal.
Click to expand...


----------



## Boss

Steven_R said:


> Again, we could see evidence of all those things long before they were described in the literature. We could see Jupiter in the night sky. We could see lightning and felt a shock when touching doorknobs. Occasionally fishermen would bring up something strange. There was the evidence of something in front of us.
> 
> There is zero evidence for the supernatural or spiritual realm. There is literally nothing for us to examine, even if it does exist because it doesn't intersect with whatever naturalistic plane of existence the universe is a part of.



Sorry, but all you could see in the sky were random stars. Little twinkly lights in the sky weren't evidence of anything but spiritual creation. Yep, lighting shocked people and we interpreted it as a powerful spiritual force. 

Humans DO obtain something real from spiritual connection. We even came up with a specific word to describe it... Blessings. Billions and billions of humans from now back to the beginning of human history... all professing spiritual connection to something greater than self. 

Now... It is true that we can "see" Jupiter (now)... but what if humans lacked the sense of sight? Would Jupiter still exist? It's kind of like the tree falling in the forest analogy. And let me ask you this... Is dark energy and dark matter "supernatural" or "real?" It exists, it makes up about 96% of the universe, as a matter of fact. But we can't "see" it and we can't really determine what it is. It defies all properties of physics which has caused us to have to rethink everything and come up with a completely new calculus in an attempt to explain it. It occupies space and has gravity but it's not physical matter in an atomic sense.

Maybe science is making spiritual connection and we should simply dismiss the phenomenon as impossible and not real? ...I'm being sarcastic, of course.

The point is, there is a LOT of shit that we simply do not KNOW about our own universe... and not to mention, OTHER universes and dimensions yet to be discovered. You and I have five very limited senses, other creatures on our own planet have better senses than ours... dogs see, hear and smell better... ants communicate through telepathic electric impulses... crabs can detect the slightest change in gravitational forces from the moon... bees know which flowers need pollinating... birds can navigate thousands of miles and return to the exact place they were born... on and on and on. But we rely on five limited senses to evaluate the physical universe around us, and that's great... BUT... who is to say there may not be HUNDREDS of various "senses" in the cosmos that humans simply aren't aware of? And IF we had them, maybe we would clearly realize spiritual nature? To just naively presume your five limited sense are ALL there is and nothing more can exist, is pure arrogance and ignorance.


----------



## emilynghiem

1. 





thebrucebeat said:


> Because what is "real" isn't a choice.
> It simply is.



Hi Bruce: Thanks for your thoughtful replies.
1. Do you also understand that for people who experience spiritual insights in terms of a "personal God" who speaks to them in this way
is also "not a choice" but their reality.

I cannot choose to be anyone other than Emily Nghiem.
That is not a choice I can change.
And neither is someone who relates to life through a personal connection
which is expressed through God or Jesus. If that is the manner in which
their understanding and perception is shaped and manifested, that is "simply how it is."

2. As for your perception of my approach:


			
				tbb said:
			
		

> The goal isn't universality for its own sake. That is philosophical, not investigative.



2. Yes and yes, it is both, not either/or.
I have investigated how people operate, and what makes communications/relations
work and what makes them fail.

I always find it best to accept each person's own perspective/perception and path/process which is unique to that person. Where this fails is where people cannot forgive and work with each other's differences. where it succeeds is where we embrace where we are coming from, what we are given, and find where we agree in common as workable.

We don't have to agree, in face, none of us agree 100%; the point is to deal with how we see and say things, and include that in the equations when we address and solve problems.

So yes, I am operating out of my own philosophy of equal concern for all people.

And yes, I am seeking a universal approach that allows equal inclusion of all views,
given the uniqueness and diversity of each person in the mix.



			
				tbb said:
			
		

> Your goal is to find a way to bring all people together and not to find an objective reality.


Again yes, and yes.

By including all people and working out our differences,
then we can distinguish what is objective reality from what is subjective or projected.

One is the means and the other is the end result. I trust in the process to get us there,
similar to trusting in the scientific method or the elimination process of trial and error.



			
				tbb said:
			
		

> Einstein found the proposition of a personal god silly, and so do I.
> ... If that investigation causes friction you are philosophically against it, because you, too, have a goal, and that is to calm the beast.



No, I am not conflict or friction in itself as a bad thing to be "suppressed/avoided/squashed" -- but it is part of the process to find out where our differences are, and either resolve what can be, or accept and work around differences that are NATURAL (ie NOT caused by misinformation, unforgiven/unresolved projection etc)

There is a DIFFERENCE between naturally occurring differences in healthy relationships,
and abuse of conflicts to stir up ill will and destroy relationships.

Your statement underlined above is an example of a misperception of my intent
that WOULD cause unnecessary conflict.

Your nontheistic viewpoint is NOT a problem that necessarily needs correction.

Do you see the difference? Between unnatural conflicts that need correction so they don't cause unnecessary clashing; versus differences that are natural to people, and if they cause some miscommunication issues, that is to be expected and can be worked with.

3. As for your points about Einstein:



			
				tbb said:
			
		

> Einstein found the proposition of a personal god silly, and so do I.
> ...
> In my opinion, and Einstein's, the proposition of a personal god and the possibility of something undetermined and unknowable are not equal in the least. That may be neutral, but it isn't accurate.
> 
> As a scientist, that had primacy for Einstein.
> 
> Einstein found the evidence for a personal god childish and untenable. He replaces it with no system of his own, but an acknowledgment that some things are beyond knowing, and accepting the humility of that position. He makes peace with what he is ignorant of, but doesn't invent a solution for his ignorance, which is how he sees the idea of a personal god. And so do I.



3. To each his own. It's all "relative" isn't it?

When I want to study science and laws that Einstein specialized in, I would of course ask him or other students of his work and research. I would not ask Bible scholars who study Hebrew history, culture, and language (or Buddhist scholars who study ancient scriptures 11 times the volume of the Bible) who might think the work of scientists like Einstein is "meaningless" compared with what they see going on with spiritual laws of humanity.

When I want to study art, I would not ask Einstein -- I would study the work of Masters and people who love each of those particular genres and can express the full meaning that each art piece represents, in terms of the historic movements in society.

Otherwise, any of the abstract art in history books looks "silly" like a child's fingerpainting
and the meaning is completely lost of events going on in society that gave it lasting impact!

It may seem "silly" to pay millions of dollars for a painting or sculpture that looks like trash you couldn't sell at a garage sale.

But to someone else, that is serious art! It can mean something world shaking to them!

As Einstein and his followers made the theory of relativity a mainstream term,
I would say that concept of "relativity" applies to a lot more in life.

God may be "silly" to one person, but prayer to God and Jesus has saved lives and minds of people
who believe they owe their lives and their children, their sanity, and everything they have to God, 
so that doesn't seem 'silly' to them when they could have been dead and never enjoyed anything in life.


----------



## emilynghiem

Steven_R said:


> Again, we could see evidence of all those things long before they were described in the literature. We could see Jupiter in the night sky. We could see lightning and felt a shock when touching doorknobs. Occasionally fishermen would bring up something strange. There was the evidence of something in front of us.
> 
> There is zero evidence for the supernatural or spiritual realm. There is literally nothing for us to examine, even if it does exist because it doesn't intersect with whatever naturalistic plane of existence the universe is a part of.



I disagree.

I believe we can prove scientifically that there are CHANGES in the brain and body
that correlate with "spiritual changes" reported by patients and/or observed by attending physicians.

If you look up Scott Peck's books on "Glimpses of the Devil" and "People of the Lie" -- after he studied the mindsets and patterns of people with 'evil' thinking, he found certain steps that went into the problem and also stages to solving the problem and restoring the person's mind back to normal.

The sickness in some of the schizophrenic patients was exhibited visibly as "demonic" personality, voices, verbal and physical attacks on people; so that the curing of the cause of the mental sickness correlated with the removal of these symptoms and the return of the patient back to a normal mindset.

This process of diagnosis, treatment, management of therapy and cure
CAN be documented and repeat studies done to show correlation statistically.

We may not be able to prove the SOURCE of the demonic/spiritual process of phenomena,
but we can show the process follows predictable stages, by applying the scientific method,
as Dr. Peck recommended to future medical professionals in formal research in this field.


----------



## emilynghiem

sameech said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would atheists not have any interest in religion?  Just because they don't believe in something doesn't mean they shouldn't question why others do, or worry about possible repercussions of people believing (think radical Islamic terrorism).
> 
> Your sports analogy is actually pretty funny to me, because it is, like religion and politics, a subject that many people actually do get aggressive and rude about when talking of sports they don't like.  There's been more than one thread on this board in that vein.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because there is a difference between someone who is an atheist and someone who uses that as a curtain to hide behind in their compulsion to be hateful and obnoxious to others.
> 
> --Sam
Click to expand...


I would say there is a difference between nontheists (including Buddhists who are generally focused inward and not encouraged to incite others except with some "political" followers)
VS. "anti-theists" who are more against Christian or religious BELIEVERS as their focus.

To be fair, there are as many Christians who come across as "anti-Christ" for how they focus on judging and rejecting others. 

I find the theists and nontheists can get along where we forgive our differences.

Anyone else who can't forgive past issues or conflicts, will project them outward and cause problems with others, regardless if they are Christian believers or secular nontheists.


----------



## sealybobo

HUGGY said:


> Clement said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have been feeling Brucie out because he says he went to seminary and was once a minister. He doesn't know squat about doctrine and all he does is mouh left wing talking points. He's a fraud.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would love to see a pic of your godsquad decoder ring.
> 
> You have wicked awesome skills.
> 
> I would never have broken the code to make Bruce as an entrenched agent for the hated "liberals".
> 
> Good work!  You do god proud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except for I didn't write that.  Even though it is quoted under my name, I didn't write that.
Click to expand...


----------



## Clement

sealybobo said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clement said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would love to see a pic of your godsquad decoder ring.
> 
> You have wicked awesome skills.
> 
> I would never have broken the code to make Bruce as an entrenched agent for the hated "liberals".
> 
> Good work!  You do god proud.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except for I didn't write that.  Even though it is quoted under my name, I didn't write that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My mistake.
Click to expand...


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> Could it be you choose to not believe in GOD because you love living in your sinful lifestyle and fear that when you find that GOD is real you know you will face judgment???????????===================BELIEVERS! know and expect to be attacked if you post GOD'S WORD=ETERNAL TRUTH. Unbelievers and false religious minions of satan hate GOD and GOD'S WORD = ETERNAL TRUTH. Against JESUS They screamed and gnashed their teeth crying ban him from the temple,then CRUCIFY HIM!!! CRUCIFY HIM!! Pilate knew JESUS was inocent but he wanted to please the people,so he washed his hands and said ," you crucify him but I find him inocent"!!! ==The world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. 19"If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you.. John  15:18



You are delusional.  If you look you will see prisons are filled with god fearing people.  Atheists are generally good liberal progressive thinking people.  For years I associated atheism with the devil but it has nothing to do with the devil, because there isn't one.  We don't rape and murder and steal because there is no god.  Maybe that is what you would do if you one day realized god is made up, but not us.  

We don't hate gods word.  We hate it that the people who ruled 2000-7000 years ago made all that shit up to control the masses and people are still clinging to this cult mentality still even though science has basically killed god.  At least the idea.  It is completely unnecessary.  In fact most of you god lovers are the biggest assholes on the planet so I don't see the point.  In fact you guys use god to be assholes.  You think you can do every sin in the book *(except gay sex) and you will still go to heaven because you believe a story your corrupt church told you.  How stupid are you?  This is why I don't debate Republicans anymore.  They believe things that couldn't possibly be true but does that stop them?  Of course fucking not.


----------



## sealybobo

Clement said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except for I didn't write that.  Even though it is quoted under my name, I didn't write that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now I did write this yet somehow it's quoted under Huggy?
Click to expand...


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Could it be you choose to not believe in GOD because you love living in your sinful lifestyle and fear that when you find that GOD is real you know you will face judgment???????????===================BELIEVERS! know and expect to be attacked if you post GOD'S WORD=ETERNAL TRUTH. Unbelievers and false religious minions of satan hate GOD and GOD'S WORD = ETERNAL TRUTH. Against JESUS They screamed and gnashed their teeth crying ban him from the temple,then CRUCIFY HIM!!! CRUCIFY HIM!! Pilate knew JESUS was inocent but he wanted to please the people,so he washed his hands and said ," you crucify him but I find him inocent"!!! ==The world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. 19"If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you.. John  15:18
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are delusional.  If you look you will see prisons are filled with god fearing people.  Atheists are generally good liberal progressive thinking people.  For years I associated atheism with the devil but it has nothing to do with the devil, because there isn't one.  We don't rape and murder and steal because there is no god.  Maybe that is what you would do if you one day realized god is made up, but not us.
> 
> We don't hate gods word.  We hate it that the people who ruled 2000-7000 years ago made all that shit up to control the masses and people are still clinging to this cult mentality still even though science has basically killed god.  At least the idea.  It is completely unnecessary.  In fact most of you god lovers are the biggest assholes on the planet so I don't see the point.  In fact you guys use god to be assholes.  You think you can do every sin in the book *(except gay sex) and you will still go to heaven because you believe a story your corrupt church told you.  How stupid are you?  This is why I don't debate Republicans anymore.  They believe things that couldn't possibly be true but does that stop them?  Of course fucking not.
Click to expand...


 WOW!!! Satan got you cheap! huh?? take another look at the real GOD==== God loved the world so much that he gave his only Son so that anyone who believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.  17 God did not send his Son into the world to condemn it, but to save it.

18 There is no eternal doom awaiting those who trust him to save them. But those who dont trust him have already been tried and condemned for not believing in the only Son of God.  19 Their sentence is based on this fact: that the Light from heaven came into the world, but they loved the darkness more than the Light, for their deeds were evil.  20 They hated the heavenly Light because they wanted to sin in the darkness. They stayed away from that Light for fear their sins would be exposed and they would be punished.  21 But those doing right come gladly to the Light to let everyone see that they are doing what God wants them to.
 JOHN 3:16-21


----------



## sameech

emilynghiem said:


> I would say there is a difference between nontheists (including Buddhists who are generally focused inward and not encouraged to incite others except with some "political" followers)
> VS. "anti-theists" who are more against Christian or religious BELIEVERS as their focus.
> 
> To be fair, there are as many Christians who come across as "anti-Christ" for how they focus on judging and rejecting others.
> 
> I find the theists and nontheists can get along where we forgive our differences.
> 
> Anyone else who can't forgive past issues or conflicts, will project them outward and cause problems with others, regardless if they are Christian believers or secular nontheists.



I guess you and I have a different view of the world.  I can and have sat with people of other faiths in fellowship, letting them discuss their religion with me, without feeling a need to judge them or their religion or their adherence to the principles they espouse. 

As an example, some Muslims invited me to a dinner and we sat around for several hours discussing religion and politics.  Not once did I feel a need to remind them that selling beer and cigarettes, extending credit at interest, and such at their stores might be in conflict with their faith.  They are on a different path than I am- and perhaps my being there and the evening they provided furthered one or both sides on their way-I do not feel a need to try to throw them over a religious cliff which is what these wound collectors try to do IMO.


---Sam


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Could it be you choose to not believe in GOD because you love living in your sinful lifestyle and fear that when you find that GOD is real you know you will face judgment???????????===================BELIEVERS! know and expect to be attacked if you post GOD'S WORD=ETERNAL TRUTH. Unbelievers and false religious minions of satan hate GOD and GOD'S WORD = ETERNAL TRUTH. Against JESUS They screamed and gnashed their teeth crying ban him from the temple,then CRUCIFY HIM!!! CRUCIFY HIM!! Pilate knew JESUS was inocent but he wanted to please the people,so he washed his hands and said ," you crucify him but I find him inocent"!!! ==The world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. 19"If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you.. John  15:18
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are delusional.  If you look you will see prisons are filled with god fearing people.  Atheists are generally good liberal progressive thinking people.  For years I associated atheism with the devil but it has nothing to do with the devil, because there isn't one.  We don't rape and murder and steal because there is no god.  Maybe that is what you would do if you one day realized god is made up, but not us.
> 
> We don't hate gods word.  We hate it that the people who ruled 2000-7000 years ago made all that shit up to control the masses and people are still clinging to this cult mentality still even though science has basically killed god.  At least the idea.  It is completely unnecessary.  In fact most of you god lovers are the biggest assholes on the planet so I don't see the point.  In fact you guys use god to be assholes.  You think you can do every sin in the book *(except gay sex) and you will still go to heaven because you believe a story your corrupt church told you.  How stupid are you?  This is why I don't debate Republicans anymore.  They believe things that couldn't possibly be true but does that stop them?  Of course fucking not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WOW!!! Satan got you cheap! huh?? take another look at the real GOD==== God loved the world so much that he gave his only Son so that anyone who believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.  17 God did not send his Son into the world to condemn it, but to save it.
> 
> 18 There is no eternal doom awaiting those who trust him to save them. But those who dont trust him have already been tried and condemned for not believing in the only Son of God.  19 Their sentence is based on this fact: that the Light from heaven came into the world, but they loved the darkness more than the Light, for their deeds were evil.  20 They hated the heavenly Light because they wanted to sin in the darkness. They stayed away from that Light for fear their sins would be exposed and they would be punished.  21 But those doing right come gladly to the Light to let everyone see that they are doing what God wants them to.
> JOHN 3:16-21
Click to expand...


That is not a fact.  Do you know what a fact is?  You are fucking crazy.


----------



## HUGGY

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are delusional.  If you look you will see prisons are filled with god fearing people.  Atheists are generally good liberal progressive thinking people.  For years I associated atheism with the devil but it has nothing to do with the devil, because there isn't one.  We don't rape and murder and steal because there is no god.  Maybe that is what you would do if you one day realized god is made up, but not us.
> 
> We don't hate gods word.  We hate it that the people who ruled 2000-7000 years ago made all that shit up to control the masses and people are still clinging to this cult mentality still even though science has basically killed god.  At least the idea.  It is completely unnecessary.  In fact most of you god lovers are the biggest assholes on the planet so I don't see the point.  In fact you guys use god to be assholes.  You think you can do every sin in the book *(except gay sex) and you will still go to heaven because you believe a story your corrupt church told you.  How stupid are you?  This is why I don't debate Republicans anymore.  They believe things that couldn't possibly be true but does that stop them?  Of course fucking not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WOW!!! Satan got you cheap! huh?? take another look at the real GOD==== God loved the world so much that he gave his only Son so that anyone who believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.  17 God did not send his Son into the world to condemn it, but to save it.
> 
> 18 There is no eternal doom awaiting those who trust him to save them. But those who dont trust him have already been tried and condemned for not believing in the only Son of God.  19 Their sentence is based on this fact: that the Light from heaven came into the world, but they loved the darkness more than the Light, for their deeds were evil.  20 They hated the heavenly Light because they wanted to sin in the darkness. They stayed away from that Light for fear their sins would be exposed and they would be punished.  21 But those doing right come gladly to the Light to let everyone see that they are doing what God wants them to.
> JOHN 3:16-21
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not a fact.  Do you know what a fact is?  You are fucking crazy.
Click to expand...


Now THAT is a fact Jack !


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Could it be you choose to not believe in GOD because you love living in your sinful lifestyle and fear that when you find that GOD is real you know you will face judgment???????????===================BELIEVERS! know and expect to be attacked if you post GOD'S WORD=ETERNAL TRUTH. Unbelievers and false religious minions of satan hate GOD and GOD'S WORD = ETERNAL TRUTH. Against JESUS They screamed and gnashed their teeth crying ban him from the temple,then CRUCIFY HIM!!! CRUCIFY HIM!! Pilate knew JESUS was inocent but he wanted to please the people,so he washed his hands and said ," you crucify him but I find him inocent"!!! ==The world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. 19"If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you.. John  15:18
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are delusional.  If you look you will see prisons are filled with god fearing people.  Atheists are generally good liberal progressive thinking people.  For years I associated atheism with the devil but it has nothing to do with the devil, because there isn't one.  We don't rape and murder and steal because there is no god.  Maybe that is what you would do if you one day realized god is made up, but not us.
> 
> We don't hate gods word.  We hate it that the people who ruled 2000-7000 years ago made all that shit up to control the masses and people are still clinging to this cult mentality still even though science has basically killed god.  At least the idea.  It is completely unnecessary.  In fact most of you god lovers are the biggest assholes on the planet so I don't see the point.  In fact you guys use god to be assholes.  You think you can do every sin in the book *(except gay sex) and you will still go to heaven because you believe a story your corrupt church told you.  How stupid are you?  This is why I don't debate Republicans anymore.  They believe things that couldn't possibly be true but does that stop them?  Of course fucking not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WOW!!! Satan got you cheap! huh?? take another look at the real GOD==== God loved the world so much that he gave his only Son so that anyone who believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.  17 God did not send his Son into the world to condemn it, but to save it.
> 
> 18 There is no eternal doom awaiting those who trust him to save them. But those who dont trust him have already been tried and condemned for not believing in the only Son of God.  19 Their sentence is based on this fact: that the Light from heaven came into the world, but they loved the darkness more than the Light, for their deeds were evil.  20 They hated the heavenly Light because they wanted to sin in the darkness. They stayed away from that Light for fear their sins would be exposed and they would be punished.  21 But those doing right come gladly to the Light to let everyone see that they are doing what God wants them to.
> JOHN 3:16-21
Click to expand...


There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible concerning the existence of a god. Any evidence proposed by theists to support the Bibles various historical and supernatural claims is non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.

The Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many religious texts. Like those others, it itself constitutes no evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful content do not legitimize it nor distinguish it from other ancient works of literature.

The Bible is historically inaccurate, factually incorrect, inconsistent and contradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time.


----------



## GISMYS

EVERYTHING to gain and nothing to lose but hell!!!!===God loved the world so much that he gave his only Son so that anyone who believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 God did not send his Son into the world to condemn it, but to save it.

18 &#8220;There is no eternal doom awaiting those who trust him to save them. But those who don&#8217;t trust him have already been tried and condemned for not believing in the only Son of God. 19 Their sentence is based on this fact: that the Light from heaven came into the world, but they loved the darkness more than the Light, for their deeds were evil. 20 They hated the heavenly Light because they wanted to sin in the darkness. They stayed away from that Light for fear their sins would be exposed and they would be punished. 21 But those doing right come gladly to the Light to let everyone see that they are doing what God wants them to.&#8221;
JOHN 3:16-21


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Could it be you choose to not believe in GOD because you love living in your sinful lifestyle and fear that when you find that GOD is real you know you will face judgment???????????===================BELIEVERS! know and expect to be attacked if you post GOD'S WORD=ETERNAL TRUTH. Unbelievers and false religious minions of satan hate GOD and GOD'S WORD = ETERNAL TRUTH. Against JESUS They screamed and gnashed their teeth crying ban him from the temple,then CRUCIFY HIM!!! CRUCIFY HIM!! Pilate knew JESUS was inocent but he wanted to please the people,so he washed his hands and said ," you crucify him but I find him inocent"!!! ==The world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. 19"If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you.. John  15:18
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are delusional.  If you look you will see prisons are filled with god fearing people.  Atheists are generally good liberal progressive thinking people.  For years I associated atheism with the devil but it has nothing to do with the devil, because there isn't one.  We don't rape and murder and steal because there is no god.  Maybe that is what you would do if you one day realized god is made up, but not us.
> 
> We don't hate gods word.  We hate it that the people who ruled 2000-7000 years ago made all that shit up to control the masses and people are still clinging to this cult mentality still even though science has basically killed god.  At least the idea.  It is completely unnecessary.  In fact most of you god lovers are the biggest assholes on the planet so I don't see the point.  In fact you guys use god to be assholes.  You think you can do every sin in the book *(except gay sex) and you will still go to heaven because you believe a story your corrupt church told you.  How stupid are you?  This is why I don't debate Republicans anymore.  They believe things that couldn't possibly be true but does that stop them?  Of course fucking not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WOW!!! Satan got you cheap! huh?? take another look at the real GOD==== God loved the world so much that he gave his only Son so that anyone who believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.  17 God did not send his Son into the world to condemn it, but to save it.
> 
> 18 There is no eternal doom awaiting those who trust him to save them. But those who dont trust him have already been tried and condemned for not believing in the only Son of God.  19 Their sentence is based on this fact: that the Light from heaven came into the world, but they loved the darkness more than the Light, for their deeds were evil.  20 They hated the heavenly Light because they wanted to sin in the darkness. They stayed away from that Light for fear their sins would be exposed and they would be punished.  21 But those doing right come gladly to the Light to let everyone see that they are doing what God wants them to.
> JOHN 3:16-21
Click to expand...


There is no contemporary evidence for Jesus existence or the Bibles account of his life; no artefacts, dwellings, works of carpentry, self-written manuscripts, court records, eyewitness testimony, official diaries, birth records, re&#64258;ections on his significance or written disputes about his teachings. Nothing survives from the time in which he is said to have lived.

All historical references to Jesus derive from hearsay accounts written decades or centuries after his supposed death. These historical references generally refer to early Christians rather than a historical Jesus and, in some cases, directly contradict the Gospels or were deliberately manufactured.

The Gospels themselves contradict one-another [2] on many key events and were constructed by unknown authors up to a century after the events they describe are said to have occurred. They are not eyewitness accounts. The New Testament, as a whole, contains many internal inconsistencies as a result of its piecemeal construction and is factually incorrect on several historical claims, such as the early existence of Nazareth, the reign of Herod and the Roman census. Like the Old Testament, it too has had entire books and sections redacted.

The Biblical account of Jesus has striking similarities with other mythologies and texts and many of his supposed teachings existed prior to his time. It is likely the character was either partly or entirely invented [2] by competing first century messianic cults from an amalgamation of Greco-Roman, Egyptian and Judeo-Apocalyptic myths and prophecies.

Even if Jesus existence could be established, this would in no way validate Christian theology or any element of the story portrayed in the Bible, such as the performance of miracles or the resurrection. Simply because it is conceivable a heretical Jewish preacher named Yeshua lived circa 30 AD, had followers and was executed, does not imply the son of a god walked the Earth at that time.

Why there is no god


----------



## GISMYS

YES!!! THOSE WHO CHOOSE NOT TO BELIEVE TRUTH WILL BELIEVE  satan's lies!!!!   Here is a link to proof of jesus outside the BIBLE===http://beginningandend.com/jesus-exist-historical-evidence-jesus-christ/


----------



## Clement

sealybobo said:


> Clement said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> My mistake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now I did write this yet somehow it's quoted under Huggy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, I just hit the quote button.
Click to expand...


----------



## Clement

Clement said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clement said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now I did write this yet somehow it's quoted under Huggy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, I just hit the quote button.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now it's saying I said it.
Click to expand...


----------



## Montrovant

sameech said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would atheists not have any interest in religion?  Just because they don't believe in something doesn't mean they shouldn't question why others do, or worry about possible repercussions of people believing (think radical Islamic terrorism).
> 
> Your sports analogy is actually pretty funny to me, because it is, like religion and politics, a subject that many people actually do get aggressive and rude about when talking of sports they don't like.  There's been more than one thread on this board in that vein.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because there is a difference between someone who is an atheist and someone who uses that as a curtain to hide behind in their compulsion to be hateful and obnoxious to others.
> 
> --Sam
Click to expand...


Yes, but that's true of anyone, whatever their beliefs.  People will use religion, politics, nationalism, race, even sports as a vehicle to be hateful and obnoxious.  Just about everyone is hateful and obnoxious some of the time, and it seems to be much more common on anonymous message boards such as this.

Regarding the OP, however, I continue to wonder how one determines that a person is not truly an atheist simply because they are hateful and obnoxious, which is a simplified summation of where this thread started.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because what is "real" isn't a choice.
> It simply is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But what is "real" is also not confined to only things that have been discovered through science. If that were true, we could simply pack up science and send her off to the Smithsonian. There is no more use for it if everything is known and all has been discovered and nothing else is "real" ...which IS your position.
> 
> Whether it is "real" or not, or whether physical sciences can confirm and verify it, literally billions and billions of human beings profoundly believe they have connected with something beyond the physical. It is SO ingrained into who we are that a noted psychiatrist once said, "If God didn't exist, man would have to create Him."
> So is it not "real" because physical science (to date) hasn't confirmed it? Did Jupiter exist before we confirmed it? Did the principles of electromagnetism not exist until we discovered them? Was the fact that we considered it a "spiritual" thing a reason to dismiss it and not explore it further? You see, you have adopted this closed-minded and ignorant approach to spirituality. You want to dismiss it as impossible or not "real" because you don't have evidence right now. Thank GOD scientists from the past had more courage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Einstein found the proposition of a personal god silly, and so do I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should shut up quoting (or rather, misquoting) Einstein. He never said or inferred that he believed the proposition of a personal god was silly. NEVER SAID IT! He very much left the question on the table and made NO judgement on the matter. IF he believed as you claim, he would have certainly never stated "God doesn't roll the dice!" It makes absolutely NO logical sense for someone to invoke the name of something they consider "silly" to support their theory. He also expressed regrets that his words had been taken out of context by idiots like you to claim he was some sort of Atheist. He was first and foremost a scientist, and as such, his objective view was agnostic from a science perspective and context. Now, for some odd reason, we seem to have a crop of morons here who want to combine "agnosticism" with "atheism" and claim some kind of Agnostic Atheism, which simply doesn't exist. ....In other words, it's not "real!"
Click to expand...


Oh, Bossy.
Another abortion of a post.
First of all, the quote from Einstein is my signature, and in it he calls the idea of a personal god "childish". Where the quote came from is also cited. Go look it up. He agrees with you, that the idea of a personal god is ludicrous, as you have frequently described your god as completely disinterested in you.
Who could blame him?
You try to make the case that I called Einstein an atheist and I have never done anything of the kind. If you think I have, quote me. I won't hold my breath.
As for "agnostic atheism" it is a common term that is well known and understood.
Not by you of course, but that is par for the course. Simple words that have common definitions mystify you, like "rationalization". Other times you make up words altogether and then accuse the people of pointing out that English seems to remain a second language for you are "grammar nazis". In reality, they are simply basically literate.
I have never suggested that all things real can be determined by physical science. I have said that there is no proof or certainty of the spiritual nature that you are married to. I have given a perfectly understandable alternative to the popularity of spiritualism of all kinds, and shown that its wide spread appeal is not necessarily connected to the authenticity of the experience.
The red part highlighted above is, in fact, exactly what happened. Man needed a god to cope with his fears, so he made one.
He's had one ever since.
The fear never leaves, because people still die, and they know it is coming.
And they just don't want to accept it.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Clement said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clement said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain it to me from the beginning.  Why are you right and what is your position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have been feeling Brucie out because he says he went to seminary and was once a minister. He doesn't know squat about doctrine and all he does is mouh left wing talking points. He's a fraud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you are avoiding the argument by simply switching to personal attacks.
> You still have not provided any counter-argument to mine.
> You just keep running and running.
> As for doctrine, I know all of it and reject just about as much. If you want me to be preaching for your team as I once did, you have a very long wait ahead of you.
> Your cowardly retreat is simply getting more and more extreme and obvious.
> Your accusation shows that your faith won't keep you from lying some more out of a broken sense of pride.
> You are sinking into the abyss of Christian hypocrisy.
Click to expand...


----------



## thebrucebeat

Clement said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clement said:
> 
> 
> 
> You aren't hiding your inability to argue very well.
> You aren't responding to the argument, because there is no response to the argument that has you coming out well.
> My little Runaway.
> Run, run, run, run Runaway!
> (Thanks Del Shannon!)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever, go argue with Gizmo, he's your intellectual equal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You certainly aren't.
Click to expand...


----------



## Clement

thebrucebeat said:


> Clement said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have been feeling Brucie out because he says he went to seminary and was once a minister. He doesn't know squat about doctrine and all he does is mouh left wing talking points. He's a fraud.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are avoiding the argument by simply switching to personal attacks.
> You still have not provided any counter-argument to mine.
> You just keep running and running.
> As for doctrine, I know all of it and reject just about as much. If you want me to be preaching for your team as I once did, you have a very long wait ahead of you.
> Your cowardly retreat is simply getting more and more extreme and obvious.
> Your accusation shows that your faith won't keep you from lying some more out of a broken sense of pride.
> You are sinking into the abyss of Christian hypocrisy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still stealing bandwidth from your employer, Brucie? Pathetic.
Click to expand...


----------



## thebrucebeat

emilynghiem said:


> 1.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because what is "real" isn't a choice.
> It simply is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Bruce: Thanks for your thoughtful replies.
> 1. Do you also understand that for people who experience spiritual insights in terms of a "personal God" who speaks to them in this way
> is also "not a choice" but their reality.
> 
> I cannot choose to be anyone other than Emily Nghiem.
> That is not a choice I can change.
> And neither is someone who relates to life through a personal connection
> which is expressed through God or Jesus. If that is the manner in which
> their understanding and perception is shaped and manifested, that is "simply how it is."
> What people subjectively find that motivates them and forms their paradigm is not what I am referring to. You are describing a subjective reality. I am talking about what is real outside of our perceptions, needs, creations or fantasies that no doubt sustain us. These are the rationalizations I frequently refer Boss to that people are 100% invested in. What is truth is not influenced by any of it.
> 2. As for your perception of my approach:
> 
> 
> 
> tbb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The goal isn't universality for its own sake. That is philosophical, not investigative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 2. Yes and yes, it is both, not either/or.
> I have investigated how people operate, and what makes communications/relations
> work and what makes them fail.
> 
> I always find it best to accept each person's own perspective/perception and path/process which is unique to that person. Where this fails is where people cannot forgive and work with each other's differences. where it succeeds is where we embrace where we are coming from, what we are given, and find where we agree in common as workable.
> 
> We don't have to agree, in face, none of us agree 100%; the point is to deal with how we see and say things, and include that in the equations when we address and solve problems.
> 
> So yes, I am operating out of my own philosophy of equal concern for all people.
> 
> And yes, I am seeking a universal approach that allows equal inclusion of all views,
> given the uniqueness and diversity of each person in the mix.
> 
> With all due respect, your investigation into the workings of communication and what makes them work and fail is not having the slightest influence on these boards. Your desire to have everyone come together and find a common baseline is not one iota closer than when you came here, and your belief that you know how to accomplish this is clearly just your delusion. You may have a bead on why others fail, but you are clueless as to why you do.
> Again yes, and yes.
> 
> By including all people and working out our differences,
> then we can distinguish what is objective reality from what is subjective or projected.
> 
> One is the means and the other is the end result. I trust in the process to get us there,
> similar to trusting in the scientific method or the elimination process of trial and error.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tbb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Einstein found the proposition of a personal god silly, and so do I.
> ... If that investigation causes friction you are philosophically against it, because you, too, have a goal, and that is to calm the beast.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I am not conflict or friction in itself as a bad thing to be "suppressed/avoided/squashed" -- but it is part of the process to find out where our differences are, and either resolve what can be, or accept and work around differences that are NATURAL (ie NOT caused by misinformation, unforgiven/unresolved projection etc)
> people are not prone to identifying these things in themselves. What you claim as misinformation is another man's gospel and you will not shake them from their beliefs. If these threads are a testimony to anything they are a testimony to that hard truth.
> There is a DIFFERENCE between naturally occurring differences in healthy relationships,
> and abuse of conflicts to stir up ill will and destroy relationships.
> 
> Your statement underlined above is an example of a misperception of my intent
> that WOULD cause unnecessary conflict.
> You have shown your willingness to foment that same unnecessary conflict when describing Bush and Obama as Satan and anti-Christ, respectively. You won't see it that way, which to me will be a very bad misperception on your part.
> Your nontheistic viewpoint is NOT a problem that necessarily needs correction.
> My viewpoint is not non-theistic.
> Do you see the difference? Between unnatural conflicts that need correction so they don't cause unnecessary clashing; versus differences that are natural to people, and if they cause some miscommunication issues, that is to be expected and can be worked with.
> 
> 3. As for your points about Einstein:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tbb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Einstein found the proposition of a personal god silly, and so do I.
> ...
> In my opinion, and Einstein's, the proposition of a personal god and the possibility of something undetermined and unknowable are not equal in the least. That may be neutral, but it isn't accurate.
> 
> As a scientist, that had primacy for Einstein.
> 
> Einstein found the evidence for a personal god childish and untenable. He replaces it with no system of his own, but an acknowledgment that some things are beyond knowing, and accepting the humility of that position. He makes peace with what he is ignorant of, but doesn't invent a solution for his ignorance, which is how he sees the idea of a personal god. And so do I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 3. To each his own. It's all "relative" isn't it?
> 
> When I want to study science and laws that Einstein specialized in, I would of course ask him or other students of his work and research. I would not ask Bible scholars who study Hebrew history, culture, and language (or Buddhist scholars who study ancient scriptures 11 times the volume of the Bible) who might think the work of scientists like Einstein is "meaningless" compared with what they see going on with spiritual laws of humanity.
> 
> When I want to study art, I would not ask Einstein -- I would study the work of Masters and people who love each of those particular genres and can express the full meaning that each art piece represents, in terms of the historic movements in society.
> 
> Otherwise, any of the abstract art in history books looks "silly" like a child's fingerpainting
> and the meaning is completely lost of events going on in society that gave it lasting impact!
> 
> It may seem "silly" to pay millions of dollars for a painting or sculpture that looks like trash you couldn't sell at a garage sale.
> 
> But to someone else, that is serious art! It can mean something world shaking to them!
> 
> As Einstein and his followers made the theory of relativity a mainstream term,
> I would say that concept of "relativity" applies to a lot more in life.
> 
> God may be "silly" to one person, but prayer to God and Jesus has saved lives and minds of people
> who believe they owe their lives and their children, their sanity, and everything they have to God,
> so that doesn't seem 'silly' to them when they could have been dead and never enjoyed anything in life.
Click to expand...


Einstein nor I ever concluded that a personal god wasn't useful to those that invest in it. Not the argument at all. Rationalizations are a critical part of the survival of the ego.
That doesn't suddenly make them true.
Completely different arguments.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Clement said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clement said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are avoiding the argument by simply switching to personal attacks.
> You still have not provided any counter-argument to mine.
> You just keep running and running.
> As for doctrine, I know all of it and reject just about as much. If you want me to be preaching for your team as I once did, you have a very long wait ahead of you.
> Your cowardly retreat is simply getting more and more extreme and obvious.
> Your accusation shows that your faith won't keep you from lying some more out of a broken sense of pride.
> You are sinking into the abyss of Christian hypocrisy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still stealing bandwidth from your employer, Brucie? Pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Talk to me when you have an argument.
> The avoidance is just humiliating you.
Click to expand...


----------



## I.P.Freely

Clement said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clement said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are avoiding the argument by simply switching to personal attacks.
> You still have not provided any counter-argument to mine.
> You just keep running and running.
> As for doctrine, I know all of it and reject just about as much. If you want me to be preaching for your team as I once did, you have a very long wait ahead of you.
> Your cowardly retreat is simply getting more and more extreme and obvious.
> Your accusation shows that your faith won't keep you from lying some more out of a broken sense of pride.
> You are sinking into the abyss of Christian hypocrisy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still stealing bandwidth from your employer, Brucie? Pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you really are a very superficial,ignorant, unweighing, clay-brained, pule.
Click to expand...


----------



## I.P.Freely

Newby said:


> I.P.Freely said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A free man.
> 
> 
> 
> nah lickspittle, you are just a map of religious woe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just had your ass handed to you and whine like a little baby...
Click to expand...

strange I felt nothing.....now get back in the bushes you churlish hedge-born turd and wait for a dog to sniff you.


----------



## I.P.Freely

Time zones are a bastard, every thing I want to say has been said ( more eloquently than I could). So just incase I am not here on the 25th Dec

 clic on pic to make bigger.


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because what is "real" isn't a choice.
> It simply is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But what is "real" is also not confined to only things that have been discovered through science. If that were true, we could simply pack up science and send her off to the Smithsonian. There is no more use for it if everything is known and all has been discovered and nothing else is "real" ...which IS your position.
> 
> Whether it is "real" or not, or whether physical sciences can confirm and verify it, literally billions and billions of human beings profoundly believe they have connected with something beyond the physical. It is SO ingrained into who we are that a noted psychiatrist once said, "If God didn't exist, man would have to create Him."
> So is it not "real" because physical science (to date) hasn't confirmed it? Did Jupiter exist before we confirmed it? Did the principles of electromagnetism not exist until we discovered them? Was the fact that we considered it a "spiritual" thing a reason to dismiss it and not explore it further? You see, you have adopted this closed-minded and ignorant approach to spirituality. You want to dismiss it as impossible or not "real" because you don't have evidence right now. Thank GOD scientists from the past had more courage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Einstein found the proposition of a personal god silly, and so do I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should shut up quoting (or rather, misquoting) Einstein. He never said or inferred that he believed the proposition of a personal god was silly. NEVER SAID IT! He very much left the question on the table and made NO judgement on the matter. IF he believed as you claim, he would have certainly never stated "God doesn't roll the dice!" It makes absolutely NO logical sense for someone to invoke the name of something they consider "silly" to support their theory. He also expressed regrets that his words had been taken out of context by idiots like you to claim he was some sort of Atheist. He was first and foremost a scientist, and as such, his objective view was agnostic from a science perspective and context. Now, for some odd reason, we seem to have a crop of morons here who want to combine "agnosticism" with "atheism" and claim some kind of Agnostic Atheism, which simply doesn't exist. ....In other words, it's not "real!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, Bossy.
> Another abortion of a post.
> First of all, the quote from Einstein is my signature, and in it he calls the idea of a personal god "childish". Where the quote came from is also cited. Go look it up. He agrees with you, that the idea of a personal god is ludicrous, as you have frequently described your god as completely disinterested in you.
Click to expand...


Well you're simply LYING again, this time, about your own signature line that everyone can read beneath every post you make. Amazing! 

Here's what he said: _"...my opinion the idea of a personal God is a *childlike* one."_ Not "childish" but "childlike." He does NOT state that it is "ludicrous" at all. (Neither have I.) He says: _"You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth."_  Very clearly, this means he does NOT agree with YOU! Very clearly he is making the point I am making with the OP, that "god-haters" are people on a mission to destroy belief in a God they claim doesn't exist. He's not in that camp, he says: "I prefer an attitude of humility." If you need help with the word "humility" go look it up! It certainly doesn't describe what you are displaying here. 



> As for "agnostic atheism" it is a common term that is well known and understood.



No it's not, it's an idiotic and nonsensical term devised by Atheists who want to bolster their numbers to include people who still have a doubt that no God exists. 



> Simple words that have common definitions mystify you, like "rationalization".



No, they mystify YOU because you can't seem to grasp that words have different contextual meaning. 



> I have never suggested that all things real can be determined by physical science.



No, you've gone a step worse and claimed things that can't currently be explained by physical science are not "real" and cannot exist. Not only have you closed the door to any possible future knowledge being unlocked by science, you ridicule the notion that science doesn't already know everything. 



> The red part highlighted above is, in fact, exactly what happened. Man needed a god to cope with his fears, so he made one.



But you've presented NO EVIDENCE to support this supposition, while I have dismantled it with loads of actual science in the field of animal behavior and Darwinian theory itself.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> But what is "real" is also not confined to only things that have been discovered through science. If that were true, we could simply pack up science and send her off to the Smithsonian. There is no more use for it if everything is known and all has been discovered and nothing else is "real" ...which IS your position.
> 
> Whether it is "real" or not, or whether physical sciences can confirm and verify it, literally billions and billions of human beings profoundly believe they have connected with something beyond the physical. It is SO ingrained into who we are that a noted psychiatrist once said, "If God didn't exist, man would have to create Him."
> So is it not "real" because physical science (to date) hasn't confirmed it? Did Jupiter exist before we confirmed it? Did the principles of electromagnetism not exist until we discovered them? Was the fact that we considered it a "spiritual" thing a reason to dismiss it and not explore it further? You see, you have adopted this closed-minded and ignorant approach to spirituality. You want to dismiss it as impossible or not "real" because you don't have evidence right now. Thank GOD scientists from the past had more courage.
> 
> 
> 
> You should shut up quoting (or rather, misquoting) Einstein. He never said or inferred that he believed the proposition of a personal god was silly. NEVER SAID IT! He very much left the question on the table and made NO judgement on the matter. IF he believed as you claim, he would have certainly never stated "God doesn't roll the dice!" It makes absolutely NO logical sense for someone to invoke the name of something they consider "silly" to support their theory. He also expressed regrets that his words had been taken out of context by idiots like you to claim he was some sort of Atheist. He was first and foremost a scientist, and as such, his objective view was agnostic from a science perspective and context. Now, for some odd reason, we seem to have a crop of morons here who want to combine "agnosticism" with "atheism" and claim some kind of Agnostic Atheism, which simply doesn't exist. ....In other words, it's not "real!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, Bossy.
> Another abortion of a post.
> First of all, the quote from Einstein is my signature, and in it he calls the idea of a personal god "childish". Where the quote came from is also cited. Go look it up. He agrees with you, that the idea of a personal god is ludicrous, as you have frequently described your god as completely disinterested in you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you're simply LYING again, this time, about your own signature line that everyone can read beneath every post you make. Amazing!
> 
> Here's what he said: _"...my opinion the idea of a personal God is a *childlike* one."_ Not "childish" but "childlike." He does NOT state that it is "ludicrous" at all. (Neither have I.) He says: _"You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth."_  Very clearly, this means he does NOT agree with YOU! Very clearly he is making the point I am making with the OP, that "god-haters" are people on a mission to destroy belief in a God they claim doesn't exist. He's not in that camp, he says: "I prefer an attitude of humility." If you need help with the word "humility" go look it up! It certainly doesn't describe what you are displaying here.
> 
> He is clearly making the case for the naiveté of the idea of a personal god.If you cited my entire post you would see that the point I made is that Einstein's faith was rooted in his humility of what he didn't know and believed couldn't been known.
> 
> No it's not, it's an idiotic and nonsensical term devised by Atheists who want to bolster their numbers to include people who still have a doubt that no God exists.
> This is just a continuation of your tortured relationship with English and a poor education. Nothing more. Not here to teach remedial English.
> 
> 
> No, they mystify YOU because you can't seem to grasp that words have different contextual meaning.
> The context was never in question when I used it. If anyone is too stupid to understand context you have clearly shown it is you.
> 
> 
> 
> I have never suggested that all things real can be determined by physical science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you've gone a step worse and claimed things that can't currently be explained by physical science are not "real" and cannot exist. Not only have you closed the door to any possible future knowledge being unlocked by science, you ridicule the notion that science doesn't already know everything.
> you will have a very hard time showing that I have said this anywhere. Why? Because it isn't my position nor have I ever stated this.
> 
> 
> 
> The red part highlighted above is, in fact, exactly what happened. Man needed a god to cope with his fears, so he made one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you've presented NO EVIDENCE to support this supposition, while I have dismantled it with loads of actual science in the field of animal behavior and Darwinian theory itself.
Click to expand...


you actually have done nothing of the kind. You have tripped all over yourself making contradictory suppositions about the animal kingdom with zero support. You have made yourself into a ridiculous caricature, complete with repeatedly childish avatar illustrations.


----------



## emilynghiem

HUGGY said:


> I view "working within" a group of people so totally vacant of personal responsibility in seeing the simple truth to be beyond creepy.
> 
> The communication gymnastics I would have to go through would give me a permanent headache.



Yes, some people say the same about working with liberals or the Democrat Party.

To each, his own. Not everyone can work with everyone.
We do have to pick our battles or challenges we can do something about.
But overall, I find it is better to work with or within, rather than bitch back and forth from the outside which doesn't change or help anything, and just annoys both sides.

Either do something constructive to work toward change, or go focus elsewhere.



			
				Huggy said:
			
		

> Sure ... some of these organizations are capable of addressing some of the worlds problems ... especially if they can take advantage of others fears and just bad luck and recruit the needy to god as an entity that will solve all of their problems.
> 
> Maybe for some it makes more sense to at least get something to eat or a blanket after a flood or some disaster in exchange for the luxury of a free will.
> 
> We here in the USA are indeed a very special group of people that have the freedom to think and speak whatever we believe....or what we do not believe.



I find each group has weaknesses and strengths.
For example the Jehovah's Witnesses reject Govt, other Christian groups, spiritual healing, blood procedures, etc. But they are good about setting up an internal system of enforcing their own standard policies among their own members, about education on the dangers of witchcraft/occult/spiritism. So they serve as a good model on some points.

Every group is like that. Every person, also, has good points and bad points.

So why not align on the good points, and get more done that way?

If we reject everyone for our bad points, we wouldn't have anyone left to work with.

So that's why the world is in the situation we are today; we have an abundance of resources, but are divided from each other by "condition" -- people segregated mentally socially and physically by barriers based on religious or political lines we refuse to cross, so we abridge our own rights to redress grievances, solve problems, and work more efficiently with the resources we do have. The flow of resources is obstructed, where the have's and have not's are separated by a backlog of bureaucracy and unresolved issues.

We could solve our problems freely and voluntarily if we were better organized, and quit
rejecting and limiting each other based on what people or groups we refuse to work with!

As long as only the criminals are greedy enough to get what they want to "cross over" lines and conspire with others, then the evil in the world can still get done; while the good conscientious people who are "offended" at mistakes or problems with others REFUSE to forgive and find ways to achieve common goals, then these goals take longer to achieve.

I've seen this in politics and the peace and justice movement -- where people are so busy pushing for their own causes, they can't always align with others, so they stay divided fighting separate battles. In the meantime, this keeps us vulnerable to others with more resources or power getting their way while the majority of people are divided in opposition.

If "not all people can work with all groups," it is even MORE important to organize a system BY groups, so each can represent themselves, and still form coalitions and partnerships.

I can see a system similar to the "United States" under one network, but organizing people by political party, religious affiliations or other civic or professional/academic associations.

Instead of competing with each other, the point is to collaborate and bring it all together.


----------



## emilynghiem

Dear Sealybobo:
If you understand "Jesus" as representing the spirit of "Justice with Mercy"
or "Restorative Justice" universal for all humanity,
then you do not need to believe or need proof of any historical Jesus
to follow this process of "Justice" being established among men by
agreement in truth and by good faith relations among humanity.

this process of Justice for All is universal,
and does not depend on believing or proving anything in the Bible as a "condition."

it can be proven by simply following the process in one's own life
and in relationships with others. All life, all humans and relations
follow this spiritual process and path to Justice anyway. You can CHOOSE to use the Bible to represent it,
but it is not necessary. (I, for one, did not come to my current understanding of Jesus/God/Christianity/Bible
using the Bible, but got the concept by following life and forgiving past conflicts so I could see where the process was going in life.
Once I understood this same process was happening for all individuals in different ways, and collectively as humanity universally,
THEN I understood the spiritual process and stages of human development is what is symbolized in Buddhism, the Bible, and all religious teachings.
So the process exists and operates independently, and any person can describe it in their own way and it's still the same thing.)

whatever God/Jesus represents by definition must be universal for all humanity to be true;
so that cannot "depend on the Bible" which isn't universal to all people.

the Bible REFLECTS this universal truth and process, but is NOT a condition.




sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are delusional.  If you look you will see prisons are filled with god fearing people.  Atheists are generally good liberal progressive thinking people.  For years I associated atheism with the devil but it has nothing to do with the devil, because there isn't one.  We don't rape and murder and steal because there is no god.  Maybe that is what you would do if you one day realized god is made up, but not us.
> 
> We don't hate gods word.  We hate it that the people who ruled 2000-7000 years ago made all that shit up to control the masses and people are still clinging to this cult mentality still even though science has basically killed god.  At least the idea.  It is completely unnecessary.  In fact most of you god lovers are the biggest assholes on the planet so I don't see the point.  In fact you guys use god to be assholes.  You think you can do every sin in the book *(except gay sex) and you will still go to heaven because you believe a story your corrupt church told you.  How stupid are you?  This is why I don't debate Republicans anymore.  They believe things that couldn't possibly be true but does that stop them?  Of course fucking not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WOW!!! Satan got you cheap! huh?? take another look at the real GOD==== God loved the world so much that he gave his only Son so that anyone who believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.  17 God did not send his Son into the world to condemn it, but to save it.
> 
> 18 &#8220;There is no eternal doom awaiting those who trust him to save them. But those who don&#8217;t trust him have already been tried and condemned for not believing in the only Son of God.  19 Their sentence is based on this fact: that the Light from heaven came into the world, but they loved the darkness more than the Light, for their deeds were evil.  20 They hated the heavenly Light because they wanted to sin in the darkness. They stayed away from that Light for fear their sins would be exposed and they would be punished.  21 But those doing right come gladly to the Light to let everyone see that they are doing what God wants them to.&#8221;
> JOHN 3:16-21
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no contemporary evidence for Jesus&#8217; existence or the Bible&#8217;s account of his life; no artefacts, dwellings, works of carpentry, self-written manuscripts, court records, eyewitness testimony, official diaries, birth records, re&#64258;ections on his significance or written disputes about his teachings. Nothing survives from the time in which he is said to have lived.
> 
> All historical references to Jesus derive from hearsay accounts written decades or centuries after his supposed death. These historical references generally refer to early Christians rather than a historical Jesus and, in some cases, directly contradict the Gospels or were deliberately manufactured.
> 
> The Gospels themselves contradict one-another [2] on many key events and were constructed by unknown authors up to a century after the events they describe are said to have occurred. They are not eyewitness accounts. The New Testament, as a whole, contains many internal inconsistencies as a result of its piecemeal construction and is factually incorrect on several historical claims, such as the early existence of Nazareth, the reign of Herod and the Roman census. Like the Old Testament, it too has had entire books and sections redacted.
> 
> The Biblical account of Jesus has striking similarities with other mythologies and texts and many of his supposed teachings existed prior to his time. It is likely the character was either partly or entirely invented [2] by competing first century messianic cults from an amalgamation of Greco-Roman, Egyptian and Judeo-Apocalyptic myths and prophecies.
> 
> Even if Jesus&#8217; existence could be established, this would in no way validate Christian theology or any element of the story portrayed in the Bible, such as the performance of miracles or the resurrection. Simply because it is conceivable a heretical Jewish preacher named Yeshua lived circa 30 AD, had followers and was executed, does not imply the son of a god walked the Earth at that time.
> 
> Why there is no god
Click to expand...


[Secular Gentiles, especially, tend to understand life through "natural laws and nontheistic" approaches,
and tend NOT to relate to the Bible and path of the religious believers who communicate using scripture and personifying God/Jesus.

There is one universal process all humanity goes through to reach spiritual maturity and unified understanding,
but not everyone is going to understand or express their part in this process using God/Jesus/Bible etc.
I certainly never got it that way, and it still amazes me to this day that ANYONE can communicate at all given our differences in language and perception.
To me, the Bible is like a foreign "second language," and I always find it better to consult with a "native speaker" because I come from a secular background.

I prefer to communicate using secular or Constitutional terms, which I believe are more common to more people than, say, Buddhism or Christianity which is
for specific audiences, and even then I interpret and apply Constitutional terms more figuratively to reflect "natural laws for all people"
in contrast with most people who only cite concepts in Constitutional laws literally to apply to US govt, not natural laws in general.

Under both scriptural laws and natural/secular laws, there is a common factor of seeking truth and establishing justice by agreement.
I find by sticking with that process of resolving conflicts or redressing grievances, then all other issues can be worked out in turn.
It takes mutual forgiveness and correction, so that what the Bible reflects overall -- the stages and process humanity goes through individually and collectively to correct wrongs and establish truth.]


----------



## GISMYS

emilynghiem said:


> Dear Sealybobo:
> If you understand "Jesus" as representing the spirit of "Justice with Mercy"
> or "Restorative Justice" universal for all humanity,
> then you do not need to believe or need proof of any historical Jesus
> to follow this process of "Justice" being established among men by
> agreement in truth and by good faith relations among humanity.
> 
> this process of Justice for All is universal,
> and does not depend on believing or proving anything in the Bible as a "condition."
> 
> it can be proven by simply following the process in one's own life
> and in relationships with others. All life, all humans and relations
> follow this spiritual process and path to Justice anyway. You can CHOOSE to use the Bible to represent it,
> but it is not necessary. (I, for one, did not come to my current understanding of Jesus/God/Christianity/Bible
> using the Bible, but got the concept by following life and forgiving past conflicts so I could see where the process was going in life.
> Once I understood this same process was happening for all individuals in different ways, and collectively as humanity universally,
> THEN I understood the spiritual process and stages of human development is what is symbolized in Buddhism, the Bible, and all religious teachings.
> So the process exists and operates independently, and any person can describe it in their own way and it's still the same thing.)
> 
> whatever God/Jesus represents by definition must be universal for all humanity to be true;
> so that cannot "depend on the Bible" which isn't universal to all people.
> 
> the Bible REFLECTS this universal truth and process, but is NOT a condition.
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> WOW!!! Satan got you cheap! huh?? take another look at the real GOD==== God loved the world so much that he gave his only Son so that anyone who believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.  17 God did not send his Son into the world to condemn it, but to save it.
> 
> 18 &#8220;There is no eternal doom awaiting those who trust him to save them. But those who don&#8217;t trust him have already been tried and condemned for not believing in the only Son of God.  19 Their sentence is based on this fact: that the Light from heaven came into the world, but they loved the darkness more than the Light, for their deeds were evil.  20 They hated the heavenly Light because they wanted to sin in the darkness. They stayed away from that Light for fear their sins would be exposed and they would be punished.  21 But those doing right come gladly to the Light to let everyone see that they are doing what God wants them to.&#8221;
> JOHN 3:16-21
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no contemporary evidence for Jesus&#8217; existence or the Bible&#8217;s account of his life; no artefacts, dwellings, works of carpentry, self-written manuscripts, court records, eyewitness testimony, official diaries, birth records, re&#64258;ections on his significance or written disputes about his teachings. Nothing survives from the time in which he is said to have lived.
> 
> All historical references to Jesus derive from hearsay accounts written decades or centuries after his supposed death. These historical references generally refer to early Christians rather than a historical Jesus and, in some cases, directly contradict the Gospels or were deliberately manufactured.
> 
> The Gospels themselves contradict one-another [2] on many key events and were constructed by unknown authors up to a century after the events they describe are said to have occurred. They are not eyewitness accounts. The New Testament, as a whole, contains many internal inconsistencies as a result of its piecemeal construction and is factually incorrect on several historical claims, such as the early existence of Nazareth, the reign of Herod and the Roman census. Like the Old Testament, it too has had entire books and sections redacted.
> 
> The Biblical account of Jesus has striking similarities with other mythologies and texts and many of his supposed teachings existed prior to his time. It is likely the character was either partly or entirely invented [2] by competing first century messianic cults from an amalgamation of Greco-Roman, Egyptian and Judeo-Apocalyptic myths and prophecies.
> 
> Even if Jesus&#8217; existence could be established, this would in no way validate Christian theology or any element of the story portrayed in the Bible, such as the performance of miracles or the resurrection. Simply because it is conceivable a heretical Jewish preacher named Yeshua lived circa 30 AD, had followers and was executed, does not imply the son of a god walked the Earth at that time.
> 
> Why there is no god
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


BOTTOMLINE= Only a fool would say to himself, &#8220;There is no God.&#8221; And why does he say it? Because of his wicked heart, his dark and evil deeds. His life is corroded with sin.Psalm 53:1


----------



## holston

They persist because the Zionist media has indoctrinated them to believe that being a scoffer is "kool" and that Secular Humanism with Judaic overtones is all the rage. 

 People got to be "puttin' on the style".


----------



## holston

Psalms 1:1

Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.


----------



## HUGGY

emilynghiem said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> I view "working within" a group of people so totally vacant of personal responsibility in seeing the simple truth to be beyond creepy.
> 
> The communication gymnastics I would have to go through would give me a permanent headache.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, some people say the same about working with liberals or the Democrat Party.
> 
> To each, his own. Not everyone can work with everyone.
> We do have to pick our battles or challenges we can do something about.
> But overall, I find it is better to work with or within, rather than bitch back and forth from the outside which doesn't change or help anything, and just annoys both sides.
> 
> Either do something constructive to work toward change, or go focus elsewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure ... some of these organizations are capable of addressing some of the worlds problems ... especially if they can take advantage of others fears and just bad luck and recruit the needy to god as an entity that will solve all of their problems.
> 
> Maybe for some it makes more sense to at least get something to eat or a blanket after a flood or some disaster in exchange for the luxury of a free will.
> 
> We here in the USA are indeed a very special group of people that have the freedom to think and speak whatever we believe....or what we do not believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find each group has weaknesses and strengths.
> For example the Jehovah's Witnesses reject Govt, other Christian groups, spiritual healing, blood procedures, etc. But they are good about setting up an internal system of enforcing their own standard policies among their own members, about education on the dangers of witchcraft/occult/spiritism. So they serve as a good model on some points.
> 
> Every group is like that. Every person, also, has good points and bad points.
> 
> So why not align on the good points, and get more done that way?
> 
> If we reject everyone for our bad points, we wouldn't have anyone left to work with.
> 
> So that's why the world is in the situation we are today; we have an abundance of resources, but are divided from each other by "condition" -- people segregated mentally socially and physically by barriers based on religious or political lines we refuse to cross, so we abridge our own rights to redress grievances, solve problems, and work more efficiently with the resources we do have. The flow of resources is obstructed, where the have's and have not's are separated by a backlog of bureaucracy and unresolved issues.
> 
> We could solve our problems freely and voluntarily if we were better organized, and quit
> rejecting and limiting each other based on what people or groups we refuse to work with!
> 
> As long as only the criminals are greedy enough to get what they want to "cross over" lines and conspire with others, then the evil in the world can still get done; while the good conscientious people who are "offended" at mistakes or problems with others REFUSE to forgive and find ways to achieve common goals, then these goals take longer to achieve.
> 
> I've seen this in politics and the peace and justice movement -- where people are so busy pushing for their own causes, they can't always align with others, so they stay divided fighting separate battles. In the meantime, this keeps us vulnerable to others with more resources or power getting their way while the majority of people are divided in opposition.
> 
> If "not all people can work with all groups," it is even MORE important to organize a system BY groups, so each can represent themselves, and still form coalitions and partnerships.
> 
> I can see a system similar to the "United States" under one network, but organizing people by political party, religious affiliations or other civic or professional/academic associations.
> 
> Instead of competing with each other, the point is to collaborate and bring it all together.
Click to expand...


Allow me to back up to the OP and it's title * "Why do the God-haters persist?"*

It is an insult from the start and an attempt to troll and bait those that do not believe in a god.

Atheists do not threaten the believers with damnation for participating in worship of god.

Atheists simply point out #1 factual information of the evils religists have imposed on humanity over the centuries and millineum...and #2 the obvious unbelievability of the religions in the stories and myths....including the existance of a god.

Atheists do not "hate" good works done by religists per se.  

Atheists have a problem with religions and the lies they are built upon.

I don't see how a persistance in seeking truth and rejecting nonsense make me at odds with doing good works.  They are seperate issues.  

I have volunteered many hours at one of the local food banks.  I do so at this one because there is no attempt by the staff to sell religion as part of the offering of free food to the very poor.  This is the exception in charity as many of the soup kitchens push prayer and preaching as a component to handing out some pretty crappy food to starving homeless people.  The place I volunteer provides and excellent selection of food items.  Whole turkeys..steaks..roasts...salmon ... milk... cheese ...canned foods...excellent produce.. practically anything one might want to buy at a decent grocery store.

The religists hand out a crappy cheese or peanut butter and jelly sandwich and some lame weak soup and a cup of coffee and think they have actually done something.

The food bank I am associated with gives hundreds of individuals or families under financial stress the equivalant of up to $200 worth of nutrition and even fun stuff like cakes and pies and donuts just for showing up and stuffing a car full of great balanced nutrition.

All this true charity without a scrap of literature or any members of the god squad hanging around to attempt to sell god and jesus.

Oh...we also provide toiletries tp, soaps ..detergent for laundry and an assortment of free stuff like clothing and shoes...books ..games for kids etc..

So it's not like taking a personal stand against the lying and nonsense of religion precludes anyone from seeking out ways to give back to one's community ..at least where I live.

I have also spoken on behalf of my favorite food at city and county meetings.  I did so because they were considering budget details involving giving a small piece of the pie to worthy recipients such as the Ballard Food Bank.

I have also volunteered to drive trucks and assist loading and unloading food items as well as providing rides for other volunteers.

I'm not trying to toot my own horn here as much as refuting the much over used idea that without religion no one in society would ever do good works.  Nonsense.

I don't need a god or jusus to be a compass in finding how or where to do good things.  Nobody does.  It's up to the individual.

True SOME religists try to do purely good works but the fact that they do these things built on a foundation of lies is troubling to me.  

Take this wingnut GYSMO..  the dude is obviously mentally ill.  He needs a mental health evaluation.  He threatens damnation for all that don't believe his bullshit.  MANY religists are just as bad as he in that regard.  He threatens people in the name of jesus and god and how many of you all just tell him to shut the fuck up?  No one.  THAT is pretty fucked up.  As long as there are people like him in YOUR camp I have no problem pointing out how truly evil your lies are.


----------



## GISMYS

HUGGY said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> I view "working within" a group of people so totally vacant of personal responsibility in seeing the simple truth to be beyond creepy.
> 
> The communication gymnastics I would have to go through would give me a permanent headache.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, some people say the same about working with liberals or the Democrat Party.
> 
> To each, his own. Not everyone can work with everyone.
> We do have to pick our battles or challenges we can do something about.
> But overall, I find it is better to work with or within, rather than bitch back and forth from the outside which doesn't change or help anything, and just annoys both sides.
> 
> Either do something constructive to work toward change, or go focus elsewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure ... some of these organizations are capable of addressing some of the worlds problems ... especially if they can take advantage of others fears and just bad luck and recruit the needy to god as an entity that will solve all of their problems.
> 
> Maybe for some it makes more sense to at least get something to eat or a blanket after a flood or some disaster in exchange for the luxury of a free will.
> 
> We here in the USA are indeed a very special group of people that have the freedom to think and speak whatever we believe....or what we do not believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find each group has weaknesses and strengths.
> For example the Jehovah's Witnesses reject Govt, other Christian groups, spiritual healing, blood procedures, etc. But they are good about setting up an internal system of enforcing their own standard policies among their own members, about education on the dangers of witchcraft/occult/spiritism. So they serve as a good model on some points.
> 
> Every group is like that. Every person, also, has good points and bad points.
> 
> So why not align on the good points, and get more done that way?
> 
> If we reject everyone for our bad points, we wouldn't have anyone left to work with.
> 
> So that's why the world is in the situation we are today; we have an abundance of resources, but are divided from each other by "condition" -- people segregated mentally socially and physically by barriers based on religious or political lines we refuse to cross, so we abridge our own rights to redress grievances, solve problems, and work more efficiently with the resources we do have. The flow of resources is obstructed, where the have's and have not's are separated by a backlog of bureaucracy and unresolved issues.
> 
> We could solve our problems freely and voluntarily if we were better organized, and quit
> rejecting and limiting each other based on what people or groups we refuse to work with!
> 
> As long as only the criminals are greedy enough to get what they want to "cross over" lines and conspire with others, then the evil in the world can still get done; while the good conscientious people who are "offended" at mistakes or problems with others REFUSE to forgive and find ways to achieve common goals, then these goals take longer to achieve.
> 
> I've seen this in politics and the peace and justice movement -- where people are so busy pushing for their own causes, they can't always align with others, so they stay divided fighting separate battles. In the meantime, this keeps us vulnerable to others with more resources or power getting their way while the majority of people are divided in opposition.
> 
> If "not all people can work with all groups," it is even MORE important to organize a system BY groups, so each can represent themselves, and still form coalitions and partnerships.
> 
> I can see a system similar to the "United States" under one network, but organizing people by political party, religious affiliations or other civic or professional/academic associations.
> 
> Instead of competing with each other, the point is to collaborate and bring it all together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Allow me to back up to the OP and it's title * "Why do the God-haters persist?"*
> 
> It is an insult from the start and an attempt to troll and bait those that do not believe in a god.
> 
> Atheists do not threaten the believers with damnation for participating in worship of god.
> 
> Atheists simply point out #1 factual information of the evils religists have imposed on humanity over the centuries and millineum...and #2 the obvious unbelievability of the religions in the stories and myths....including the existance of a god.
> 
> Atheists do not "hate" good works done by religists per se.
> 
> Atheists have a problem with religions and the lies they are built upon.
> 
> I don't see how a persistance in seeking truth and rejecting nonsense make me at odds with doing good works.  They are seperate issues.
> 
> I have volunteered many hours at one of the local food banks.  I do so at this one because there is no attempt by the staff to sell religion as part of the offering of free food to the very poor.  This is the exception in charity as many of the soup kitchens push prayer and preaching as a component to handing out some pretty crappy food to starving homeless people.  The place I volunteer provides and excellent selection of food items.  Whole turkeys..steaks..roasts...salmon ... milk... cheese ...canned foods...excellent produce.. practically anything one might want to buy at a decent grocery store.
> 
> The religists hand out a crappy cheese or peanut butter and jelly sandwich and some lame weak soup and a cup of coffee and think they have actually done something.
> 
> The food bank I am associated with gives hundreds of individuals or families under financial stress the equivalant of up to $200 worth of nutrition and even fun stuff like cakes and pies and donuts just for showing up and stuffing a car full of great balanced nutrition.
> 
> All this true charity without a scrap of literature or any members of the god squad hanging around to attempt to sell god and jesus.
> 
> Oh...we also provide toiletries tp, soaps ..detergent for laundry and an assortment of free stuff like clothing and shoes...books ..games for kids etc..
> 
> So it's not like taking a personal stand against the lying and nonsense of religion precludes anyone from seeking out ways to give back to one's community ..at least where I live.
> 
> I have also spoken on behalf of my favorite food at city and county meetings.  I did so because they were considering budget details involving giving a small piece of the pie to worthy recipients such as the Ballard Food Bank.
> 
> I have also volunteered to drive trucks and assist loading and unloading food items as well as providing rides for other volunteers.
> 
> I'm not trying to toot my own horn here as much as refuting the much over used idea that without religion no one in society would ever do good works.  Nonsense.
> 
> I don't need a god or jusus to be a compass in finding how or where to do good things.  Nobody does.  It's up to the individual.
> 
> True SOME religists try to do purely good works but the fact that they do these things built on a foundation of lies is troubling to me.
> 
> Take this wingnut GYSMO..  the dude is obviously mentally ill.  He needs a mental health evaluation.  He threatens damnation for all that don't believe his bullshit.  MANY religists are just as bad as he in that regard.  He threatens people in the name of jesus and god and how many of you all just tell him to shut the fuck up?  No one.  THAT is pretty fucked up.  As long as there are people like him in YOUR camp I have no problem pointing out how truly evil your lies are.
Click to expand...


MORE PERSONAL ATTACKS???? so you don't like the TRUTH I post,MY POSTING STYLE,GOD AND GOD'S Word???? ===== TOUGH!


----------



## HUGGY

GISMYS said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Take this wingnut GYSMO..  the dude is obviously mentally ill.  He needs a mental health evaluation.  He threatens damnation for all that don't believe his bullshit.  MANY religists are just as bad as he in that regard.  He threatens people in the name of jesus and god and how many of you all just tell him to shut the fuck up?  No one.  THAT is pretty fucked up.  As long as there are people like him in YOUR camp I have no problem pointing out how truly evil your lies are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MORE PERSONAL ATTACKS???? so you don't like the TRUTH I post,MY POSTING STYLE,GOD AND GOD'S Word???? ===== TOUGH!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't consider my suggestion that you seek a mental health evaluation as a personal attack.
> 
> I see it as doing the right thing.
> 
> Face it dude ..you are several sandwiches short of a picnic.
> 
> You exhibit several of the symptoms of someone that has serious mental health issues.
> 
> 
> Symptoms
> By Mayo Clinic Staff
> 
> 
> Signs and symptoms of mental illness can vary, depending on the particular disorder, circumstances and other factors. Mental illness symptoms can affect emotions, thoughts and behaviors.
> 
> Examples of signs and symptoms include:
> &#8226;Feeling sad or down
> &#8226;Confused thinking or reduced ability to concentrate
> &#8226;Excessive fears or worries, or extreme feelings of guilt
> &#8226;Extreme mood changes of highs and lows
> &#8226;Withdrawal from friends and activities
> &#8226;Significant tiredness, low energy or problems sleeping
> &#8226;Detachment from reality (delusions), paranoia or hallucinations
> &#8226;Inability to cope with daily problems or stress
> &#8226;Trouble understanding and relating to situations and to people
> &#8226;Alcohol or drug abuse
> &#8226;Major changes in eating habits
> &#8226;Sex drive changes
> &#8226;Excessive anger, hostility or violence
> &#8226;Suicidal thinking
> 
> 
> http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/mental-illness/basics/symptoms/con-20033813
Click to expand...


----------



## GISMYS

HUGGY said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> MORE PERSONAL ATTACKS???? so you don't like the TRUTH I post,MY POSTING STYLE,GOD AND GOD'S Word???? ===== TOUGH!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't consider my suggestion that you seek a mental health evaluation as a personal attack.
> 
> I see it as doing the right thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NO WORRIES!!! AS A son of GOD Icould not feel better,there is NO downside to living my life as a son  of ALMIGHTY GOD!!!and you??
Click to expand...


----------



## HUGGY

GISMYS said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't consider my suggestion that you seek a mental health evaluation as a personal attack.
> 
> I see it as doing the right thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO WORRIES!!! AS A son of GOD Icould not feel better,there is NO downside to living my life as a son  of ALMIGHTY GOD!!!and you??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe you COULD feel better with medication for your *Schizophrenia.
> 
> Me?  There is no reason for me to fear your make believe god.
Click to expand...


----------



## JakeStarkey

*Why do the God-haters persist?*

Because some people simply can't accept a loving God who creates hell and torture.


----------



## emilynghiem

Dear [MENTION=37754]Hollie[/MENTION]: If you object to the term "spiritual nature" what do you call this level?

In psychology the terms "superego/ego/id"
correlate to "spirit/mind/body"
or "spiritual/mental/physical"

I understand some people do not call the top level "spiritual"

Are you okay with a "collective" level of humanity?

Individual level / level of relationships with others / collective level of society

is that more how you divide the spectrum of human experience in life?

that's fine, if you call it different terms as most people do;
I find that the three levels "still align" even if we assign different values to the levels.

I am just asking to align our terms, not try to change what each other uses or thinks like.



Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Already agreed most people create a rationalization for their fears and to explain what they can't. The simpler the tribe the more likely it is to invent the rationalization.
> Arrogance? Simply your opinion, and not supported by any data. Just a whine.
> It's ok. We're used to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that you've shown no logical evidence that humans created a rationalization for spiritual nature out of fear or for any other reason. This "theory" is not supported by any data including logic and rational thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your invention of something you call "spiritual nature" simply calms an emotional requirement for belief in supernaturalism.
> 
> What you consistently fail to do is make an honest acknowledgement that you have incorporated the various human assigned attributes shared by all gods into some god-amalgam you now call "spiritual nature".
Click to expand...


----------



## emilynghiem

JakeStarkey said:


> *Why do the God-haters persist?*
> 
> Because some people simply can't accept a loving God who creates hell and torture.



or forgive people who keep teaching God in this way.

especially people who claim NOT to believe in this God,
but insist on "teaching God this way," blaming OTHER PEOPLE for spreading this perception....

Once people are unforgiving, it is hard to forgive that.
So we end up with a bunch of people blaming and hating on each other,
due to unforgiveness going in circles.


----------



## emilynghiem

GISMYS said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't consider my suggestion that you seek a mental health evaluation as a personal attack.
> 
> I see it as doing the right thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO WORRIES!!! AS A son of GOD Icould not feel better,there is NO downside to living my life as a son  of ALMIGHTY GOD!!!and you??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, [MENTION=42952]GISMYS[/MENTION], you could feel even better if you had even more of God's Grace
> and less negative judgment filling up space in your spirit.
> 
> GISMYS any negative thought or energy at all is taking space away from God's grace and blessings that could be moving through you instead,
> surrounding you, and uplifting all your relationship with others.
> 
> If you feel GREAT already, you will feel even more and more abundance of blessings
> the more the negative thoughts you have toward others are replaced with positive goodness.
> 
> Philippians 4:8
> *
> 8 Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable&#8212;if anything is excellent or praiseworthy&#8212;think about such things*
> 
> GISMYS the more we love God "with ALL our heart mind and soul"
> there is nothing but goodness and no room for anything negative.
> 
> You will feel better and better with the positive flow of God's will.
> Thank you and God Bless you in continuing abundance and remove any things to the contrary from your path.
Click to expand...


----------



## emilynghiem

???? where did you get the impression that I "judge people for their religions?"

I was saying the issue is whether people are forgiving or not.
That is independent of religion.



sameech said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would say there is a difference between nontheists (including Buddhists who are generally focused inward and not encouraged to incite others except with some "political" followers)
> VS. "anti-theists" who are more against Christian or religious BELIEVERS as their focus.
> 
> To be fair, there are as many Christians who come across as "anti-Christ" for how they focus on judging and rejecting others.
> 
> I find the theists and nontheists can get along where we forgive our differences.
> 
> Anyone else who can't forgive past issues or conflicts, will project them outward and cause problems with others, regardless if they are Christian believers or secular nontheists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you and I have a different view of the world.  I can and have sat with people of other faiths in fellowship, letting them discuss their religion with me, without feeling a need to judge them or their religion or their adherence to the principles they espouse.
> 
> As an example, some Muslims invited me to a dinner and we sat around for several hours discussing religion and politics.  Not once did I feel a need to remind them that selling beer and cigarettes, extending credit at interest, and such at their stores might be in conflict with their faith.  They are on a different path than I am- and perhaps my being there and the evening they provided furthered one or both sides on their way-I do not feel a need to try to throw them over a religious cliff which is what these wound collectors try to do IMO.
> 
> ---Sam
Click to expand...


Yes, I do the same thing and work with people given their different systems.
It is like talking with people using their "native language" which is especially important for sensitive personal issues, to speak from personal experience, perception and understanding.

If there is something conflicting, it can be addressed by applying their own system to correct itself. Again, the only time things can't be resolved is where people "can't forgive" something so it gets stuck emotionally and that blocks rational steps from solving problems.


----------



## GISMYS

emilynghiem said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> NO WORRIES!!! AS A son of GOD Icould not feel better,there is NO downside to living my life as a son  of ALMIGHTY GOD!!!and you??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, [MENTION=42952]GISMYS[/MENTION], you could feel even better if you had even more of God's Grace
> and less negative judgment filling up space in your spirit.
> 
> GISMYS any negative thought or energy at all is taking space away from God's grace and blessings that could be moving through you instead,
> surrounding you, and uplifting all your relationship with others.
> 
> If you feel GREAT already, you will feel even more and more abundance of blessings
> the more the negative thoughts you have toward others are replaced with positive goodness.
> 
> Philippians 4:8
> *
> 8 Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirableif anything is excellent or praiseworthythink about such things*
> 
> GISMYS the more we love God "with ALL our heart mind and soul"
> there is nothing but goodness and no room for anything negative.
> 
> You will feel better and better with the positive flow of God's will.
> Thank you and God Bless you in continuing abundance and remove any things to the contrary from your path.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YES!!! I am happy to get and have all GOD'S grace that I CAN. YES!!! HELL is very negative but know it IS JESUS that has the most to say about sin and hell as recorded in the BIBLE!!
Click to expand...


----------



## sameech

emilynghiem said:


> ???? where did you get the impression that I "judge people for their religions?"....
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> To be fair, there are as many Christians who come across as "anti-Christ" for how they focus on judging and rejecting others.
Click to expand...


That is the basis for my belief.  I don't feel a need to judge Christians, Muslims, or anybody else as being anti one of the disciplines of their faith in practice.  If a Witness wants to put up a Christmas Tree, more power to them.


----------



## Boss

> Here's what he said: "...my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one." Not "childish" but "childlike." He does NOT state that it is "ludicrous" at all. (Neither have I.) He says: "You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth." Very clearly, this means he does NOT agree with YOU! Very clearly he is making the point I am making with the OP, that "god-haters" are people on a mission to destroy belief in a God they claim doesn't exist. He's not in that camp, he says: "I prefer an attitude of humility." If you need help with the word "humility" go look it up! It certainly doesn't describe what you are displaying here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He is clearly making the case for the naiveté of the idea of a personal god.If you cited my entire post you would see that the point I made is that Einstein's faith was rooted in his humility of what he didn't know and believed couldn't been known.
Click to expand...


Uhm... NO... he clearly is making NO such case. He does not say it is "naive" or "childish" or "ludicrous" anywhere in the quotation. You've simply not demonstrated the man said this. You continue to LIE and MISLEAD, insisting that you know what he said when the words are right there for all to read. He specifically states he does NOT share the crusading spirit of atheists who he views as people trying to liberate themselves from youthful religious indoctrination. 

Yes, he says he prefers an attitude of humility, (not rejection and ridicule.) Humility is the act of being humble, not placing one's self or opinion above others. Is THAT a proper description of what you are displaying here? If so, you're doing a really piss poor job of being humble! 



> No it's not, it's an idiotic and nonsensical term devised by Atheists who want to bolster their numbers to include people who still have a doubt that no God exists.
> 
> 
> 
> This is just a continuation of your tortured relationship with English and a poor education. Nothing more. Not here to teach remedial English.
Click to expand...


I'm not the one having a problem with English here, you are. There is no such thing as "Agnostic Atheists" you are either an Atheist or an Agnostic. You either believe God *doesn't* exist, or you believe God *could* exist and you're not certain. You can't have *BOTH* beliefs at the same time. 



> No, they mystify YOU because you can't seem to grasp that words have different contextual meaning.
> 
> 
> 
> The context was never in question when I used it. If anyone is too stupid to understand context you have clearly shown it is you.
Click to expand...


Oh yes, the context of "rationalization" is very much in question when you use it, because you fail to acknowledge the word has NUMEROUS meanings. A person can rationalize bad behavior but that is not the only kind of rationalization a person can have. People make positive rationalizations all the time and I gave you several examples of that. Still, you want to stubbornly insist there is only one meaning of the word. 



> No, you've gone a step worse and claimed things that can't currently be explained by physical science are not "real" and cannot exist. Not only have you closed the door to any possible future knowledge being unlocked by science, you ridicule the notion that science doesn't already know everything.
> 
> 
> 
> you will have a very hard time showing that I have said this anywhere. Why? Because it isn't my position nor have I ever stated this.
Click to expand...


Yes, in essence that is your entire argument. God isn't "real" because physical science can't provide evidence at this time. You continue to present this stupid argument in every way imaginable and ridicule anyone who challenges it. 



> *Man needed a god to cope with his fears, so he made one.*
> But you've presented NO EVIDENCE to support this supposition, while I have dismantled it with loads of actual science in the field of animal behavior and Darwinian theory itself.
> 
> 
> 
> you actually have done nothing of the kind. You have tripped all over yourself making contradictory suppositions about the animal kingdom with zero support. You have made yourself into a ridiculous caricature, complete with repeatedly childish avatar illustrations.
Click to expand...


Yet another arrogant post where you offer NO evidence to support your original supposition and continue to belittle me for challenging that fact. Making fun of my avatar is hardly support for your claim. It's just more petty and vindictive spite being spewed by an intellectual lightweight. 

I'm still waiting to see your evidence to show that man created God to cope with anything. If you don't have any evidence, that's fine, just admit this is YOUR OPINION and you have no evidence to support it. I've presented MY opinion and backed it up with science, history and the study of animal behavior. I readilly admit it's MY OPINION and not an established fact, and people are free to agree or disagree. You, on the other hand, want to state your opinion as irrefutable fact without any supporting evidence, and then ridicule those who challenge it. That game plan obviously isn't working for you.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Here's what he said: "...my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one." Not "childish" but "childlike." He does NOT state that it is "ludicrous" at all. (Neither have I.) He says: "You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth." Very clearly, this means he does NOT agree with YOU! Very clearly he is making the point I am making with the OP, that "god-haters" are people on a mission to destroy belief in a God they claim doesn't exist. He's not in that camp, he says: "I prefer an attitude of humility." If you need help with the word "humility" go look it up! It certainly doesn't describe what you are displaying here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He is clearly making the case for the naiveté of the idea of a personal god.If you cited my entire post you would see that the point I made is that Einstein's faith was rooted in his humility of what he didn't know and believed couldn't been known.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uhm... NO... he clearly is making NO such case. He does not say it is "naive" or "childish" or "ludicrous" anywhere in the quotation. You've simply not demonstrated the man said this. You continue to LIE and MISLEAD, insisting that you know what he said when the words are right there for all to read. He specifically states he does NOT share the crusading spirit of atheists who he views as people trying to liberate themselves from youthful religious indoctrination.
> 
> Yes, he says he prefers an attitude of humility, (not rejection and ridicule.) Humility is the act of being humble, not placing one's self or opinion above others. Is THAT a proper description of what you are displaying here? If so, you're doing a really piss poor job of being humble!
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not the one having a problem with English here, you are. There is no such thing as "Agnostic Atheists" you are either an Atheist or an Agnostic. You either believe God *doesn't* exist, or you believe God *could* exist and you're not certain. You can't have *BOTH* beliefs at the same time.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yes, the context of "rationalization" is very much in question when you use it, because you fail to acknowledge the word has NUMEROUS meanings. A person can rationalize bad behavior but that is not the only kind of rationalization a person can have. People make positive rationalizations all the time and I gave you several examples of that. Still, you want to stubbornly insist there is only one meaning of the word.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, in essence that is your entire argument. God isn't "real" because physical science can't provide evidence at this time. You continue to present this stupid argument in every way imaginable and ridicule anyone who challenges it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Man needed a god to cope with his fears, so he made one.*
> But you've presented NO EVIDENCE to support this supposition, while I have dismantled it with loads of actual science in the field of animal behavior and Darwinian theory itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you actually have done nothing of the kind. You have tripped all over yourself making contradictory suppositions about the animal kingdom with zero support. You have made yourself into a ridiculous caricature, complete with repeatedly childish avatar illustrations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet another arrogant post where you offer NO evidence to support your original supposition and continue to belittle me for challenging that fact. Making fun of my avatar is hardly support for your claim. It's just more petty and vindictive spite being spewed by an intellectual lightweight.
> 
> I'm still waiting to see your evidence to show that man created God to cope with anything. If you don't have any evidence, that's fine, just admit this is YOUR OPINION and you have no evidence to support it. I've presented MY opinion and backed it up with science, history and the study of animal behavior. I readilly admit it's MY OPINION and not an established fact, and people are free to agree or disagree. You, on the other hand, want to state your opinion as irrefutable fact without any supporting evidence, and then ridicule those who challenge it. That game plan obviously isn't working for you.
Click to expand...


How can you complain in the same post about rationalization having more than one meaning yet also try to use a very narrow, specific definition of both agnostic and atheist?


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> Here's what he said: "...my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one." Not "childish" but "childlike." He does NOT state that it is "ludicrous" at all. (Neither have I.) He says: "You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth." Very clearly, this means he does NOT agree with YOU! Very clearly he is making the point I am making with the OP, that "god-haters" are people on a mission to destroy belief in a God they claim doesn't exist. He's not in that camp, he says: "I prefer an attitude of humility." If you need help with the word "humility" go look it up! It certainly doesn't describe what you are displaying here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He is clearly making the case for the naiveté of the idea of a personal god.If you cited my entire post you would see that the point I made is that Einstein's faith was rooted in his humility of what he didn't know and believed couldn't been known.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uhm... NO... he clearly is making NO such case. He does not say it is "naive" or "childish" or "ludicrous" anywhere in the quotation. You've simply not demonstrated the man said this. You continue to LIE and MISLEAD, insisting that you know what he said when the words are right there for all to read. He specifically states he does NOT share the crusading spirit of atheists who he views as people trying to liberate themselves from youthful religious indoctrination.
> 
> Yes, he says he prefers an attitude of humility, (not rejection and ridicule.) Humility is the act of being humble, not placing one's self or opinion above others. Is THAT a proper description of what you are displaying here? If so, you're doing a really piss poor job of being humble!
> 
> this isn't about me. A personal god is the product of a childlike mind, according to Einstein. He prefers the humility of someone who knows all the answers aren't available, and likely never will be. What is your argument with this? You seem to agree.
> 
> I'm not the one having a problem with English here, you are. There is no such thing as "Agnostic Atheists" you are either an Atheist or an Agnostic. You either believe God *doesn't* exist, or you believe God *could* exist and you're not certain. You can't have *BOTH* beliefs at the same time.
> 
> No, it really is you.
> Agnosticism isn't about what one believes, either theistic or non, but whether or not the answers can be known. A gnostic, like yourself, thinks it can be known. An agnostic may not believe, but accepts the truth can never be known. So, once again, you simply have a very limited understanding of the words, but an arrogant assurance that you do.
> There are both agnostic atheists and agnostic believers.
> And there are some very stupid Gnostics.
> 
> Oh yes, the context of "rationalization" is very much in question when you use it, because you fail to acknowledge the word has NUMEROUS meanings. A person can rationalize bad behavior but that is not the only kind of rationalization a person can have. People make positive rationalizations all the time and I gave you several examples of that. Still, you want to stubbornly insist there is only one meaning of the word.
> 
> The fact that there are secondary definitions are why your ignoring the very obvious context that I used the word in is so pathetic.the context I used it in was never in question by anyone reading my posts.
> Except you, who had been humiliated by not understanding the context and when exposed made up the term "false rationalization" which is not to be found anywhere. It was something you tried to fool the gullible with to save face. It simply wound up humiliating you further, revealing you as a a fraud in regards to your psychology credentials.
> 
> Yes, in essence that is your entire argument. God isn't "real" because physical science can't provide evidence at this time. You continue to present this stupid argument in every way imaginable and ridicule anyone who challenges it.
> Find where I made that argument and quote it. Second time you've been asked to that.
> Or I will accept your apology.
> Your choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Man needed a god to cope with his fears, so he made one.*
> But you've presented NO EVIDENCE to support this supposition, while I have dismantled it with loads of actual science in the field of animal behavior and Darwinian theory itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you actually have done nothing of the kind. You have tripped all over yourself making contradictory suppositions about the animal kingdom with zero support. You have made yourself into a ridiculous caricature, complete with repeatedly childish avatar illustrations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet another arrogant post where you offer NO evidence to support your original supposition and continue to belittle me for challenging that fact. Making fun of my avatar is hardly support for your claim. It's just more petty and vindictive spite being spewed by an intellectual lightweight.
> 
> I'm still waiting to see your evidence to show that man created God to cope with anything. If you don't have any evidence, that's fine, just admit this is YOUR OPINION and you have no evidence to support it. I've presented MY opinion and backed it up with science, history and the study of animal behavior. I readilly admit it's MY OPINION and not an established fact, and people are free to agree or disagree. You, on the other hand, want to state your opinion as irrefutable fact without any supporting evidence, and then ridicule those who challenge it. That game plan obviously isn't working for you.
Click to expand...


You have tripped over yourself repeatedly, saying a lack of spirituality in animals proves your point, and then saying maybe they do have spirituality and THAT will prove your point.
Do you think people don't notice your constant intellectual implosions?


----------



## I.P.Freely

GISMYS said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, [MENTION=42952]GISMYS[/MENTION], you could feel even better if you had even more of God's Grace
> and less negative judgment filling up space in your spirit.
> 
> GISMYS any negative thought or energy at all is taking space away from God's grace and blessings that could be moving through you instead,
> surrounding you, and uplifting all your relationship with others.
> 
> If you feel GREAT already, you will feel even more and more abundance of blessings
> the more the negative thoughts you have toward others are replaced with positive goodness.
> 
> Philippians 4:8
> *
> 8 Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirableif anything is excellent or praiseworthythink about such things*
> 
> GISMYS the more we love God "with ALL our heart mind and soul"
> there is nothing but goodness and no room for anything negative.
> 
> You will feel better and better with the positive flow of God's will.
> Thank you and God Bless you in continuing abundance and remove any things to the contrary from your path.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YES!!! I am happy to get and have all GOD'S grace that I CAN. YES!!! HELL is very negative but know it IS JESUS that has the most to say about sin and hell as recorded in the BIBLE!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gismys may I be so bold as to ask you a personal question, do you have a job outside your religious activities ?
Click to expand...


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> YES!!! THOSE WHO CHOOSE NOT TO BELIEVE TRUTH WILL BELIEVE  satan's lies!!!!   Here is a link to proof of jesus outside the BIBLE===http://beginningandend.com/jesus-exist-historical-evidence-jesus-christ/



I spoke to a so called chrisian today.  She like me when I was a christian, and I think most rational christians don't take the bible literally.  She said to me today, "I don't understand why religion and science have to be in conflict with each other" and I said because with science most people come to understand there is a 99.999999% chance there is no god.  And with science comes logic and reasoning and a thought process that doesn't allow us to believe the unbelievable.  Maybe our brains have evolved because that is the direction we seem to be going.  Less dumb average poor Americans believing in the churches bullshit when it doesn't make sense.  Especially when their parents don't brainwash them like ours did by taking us to church from 1-17 years old.  Talk about a brainwashing.  If God wants to convince us, let him do something to convince us.  We' re not going to believe a 2000-5000 year old lie.  Like the Greek gods dies, so will the muslim and christian and jewish gods.  

My friend also agrees that god would reward a person like me for being smart enough to buy into your cult.  This is another christian.  I know people from Iran who are free to become christians or muslims here in America and they know religion is bullshit.  How many arabs would wake up if it didn't mean off with their heads.  In America we want religion out of our schools and courts because its a scam.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> YES!!! THOSE WHO CHOOSE NOT TO BELIEVE TRUTH WILL BELIEVE  satan's lies!!!!   Here is a link to proof of jesus outside the BIBLE===http://beginningandend.com/jesus-exist-historical-evidence-jesus-christ/



Except for there is no devil.  What proof do you have of this creature?


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> YES!!! THOSE WHO CHOOSE NOT TO BELIEVE TRUTH WILL BELIEVE  satan's lies!!!!   Here is a link to proof of jesus outside the BIBLE===http://beginningandend.com/jesus-exist-historical-evidence-jesus-christ/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except for there is no devil.  What proof do you have of this creature?
Click to expand...


YOUR UNBELIEF IS PROOF. Where do you think doubt and unbelief come from? Satan is on earth to kill and destroy,he is a liar and the father of liars!!! and you??


----------



## orogenicman

GISMYS said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't consider my suggestion that you seek a mental health evaluation as a personal attack.
> 
> I see it as doing the right thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO WORRIES!!! AS A son of GOD Icould not feel better,there is NO downside to living my life as a son of ALMIGHTY GOD!!!and you??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What?  You are Jesus' brother?  IT'S A FRIGGIN MIRACLE!!!
Click to expand...


----------



## Montrovant

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> YES!!! THOSE WHO CHOOSE NOT TO BELIEVE TRUTH WILL BELIEVE  satan's lies!!!!   Here is a link to proof of jesus outside the BIBLE===http://beginningandend.com/jesus-exist-historical-evidence-jesus-christ/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I spoke to a so called chrisian today.  She like me when I was a christian, and I think most rational christians don't take the bible literally.  She said to me today, "I don't understand why religion and science have to be in conflict with each other" and I said because with science most people come to understand there is a 99.999999% chance there is no god.  And with science comes logic and reasoning and a thought process that doesn't allow us to believe the unbelievable.  Maybe our brains have evolved because that is the direction we seem to be going.  Less dumb average poor Americans believing in the churches bullshit when it doesn't make sense.  Especially when their parents don't brainwash them like ours did by taking us to church from 1-17 years old.  Talk about a brainwashing.  If God wants to convince us, let him do something to convince us.  We' re not going to believe a 2000-5000 year old lie.  Like the Greek gods dies, so will the muslim and christian and jewish gods.
> 
> My friend also agrees that god would reward a person like me for being smart enough to buy into your cult.  This is another christian.  I know people from Iran who are free to become christians or muslims here in America and they know religion is bullshit.  How many arabs would wake up if it didn't mean off with their heads.  In America we want religion out of our schools and courts because its a scam.
Click to expand...


While scientific discovery may cast doubt on certain iterations or aspects of god(s), it certainly does not disprove god, which is what your 99.9% claim is basically saying.  God is generally described as being outside of current scientific endeavor; rarely is god defined in such a way as to be easily studied through any scientific branch, if such study is possible at all.

I don't believe in any god, but I'm not so arrogant as to claim that current science precludes the possibility of any god existing.


----------



## sealybobo

Montrovant said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> YES!!! THOSE WHO CHOOSE NOT TO BELIEVE TRUTH WILL BELIEVE  satan's lies!!!!   Here is a link to proof of jesus outside the BIBLE===http://beginningandend.com/jesus-exist-historical-evidence-jesus-christ/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I spoke to a so called chrisian today.  She like me when I was a christian, and I think most rational christians don't take the bible literally.  She said to me today, "I don't understand why religion and science have to be in conflict with each other" and I said because with science most people come to understand there is a 99.999999% chance there is no god.  And with science comes logic and reasoning and a thought process that doesn't allow us to believe the unbelievable.  Maybe our brains have evolved because that is the direction we seem to be going.  Less dumb average poor Americans believing in the churches bullshit when it doesn't make sense.  Especially when their parents don't brainwash them like ours did by taking us to church from 1-17 years old.  Talk about a brainwashing.  If God wants to convince us, let him do something to convince us.  We' re not going to believe a 2000-5000 year old lie.  Like the Greek gods dies, so will the muslim and christian and jewish gods.
> 
> My friend also agrees that god would reward a person like me for being smart enough to buy into your cult.  This is another christian.  I know people from Iran who are free to become christians or muslims here in America and they know religion is bullshit.  How many arabs would wake up if it didn't mean off with their heads.  In America we want religion out of our schools and courts because its a scam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While scientific discovery may cast doubt on certain iterations or aspects of god(s), it certainly does not disprove god, which is what your 99.9% claim is basically saying.  God is generally described as being outside of current scientific endeavor; rarely is god defined in such a way as to be easily studied through any scientific branch, if such study is possible at all.
> 
> I don't believe in any god, but I'm not so arrogant as to claim that current science precludes the possibility of any god existing.
Click to expand...


I agree.  That's why I say the most logical position is agnostic atheism.  

But now think about what you are saying.  This "GOD" is hiding from us?  He's outside of science?  Magical?  Mysterious?  Just silly.  Not one footprint?  Certainly he isn't the petty god christians jews and muslims talk about.  So why is he hiding from us, right?

And I love the dope who thinks satan is real.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> YES!!! THOSE WHO CHOOSE NOT TO BELIEVE TRUTH WILL BELIEVE  satan's lies!!!!   Here is a link to proof of jesus outside the BIBLE===http://beginningandend.com/jesus-exist-historical-evidence-jesus-christ/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except for there is no devil.  What proof do you have of this creature?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOUR UNBELIEF IS PROOF. Where do you think doubt and unbelief come from? Satan is on earth to kill and destroy,he is a liar and the father of liars!!! and you??
Click to expand...


Where does doubt and disbelief come from?  It comes from someone taking an honest look at your cult to realize nothing you say is true.  It takes an evolved brain.  Maybe that's why conservatives don't believe in evolution.  They basically haven't for 2000 years.  Still as dumb as they were when their cult was first founded.  Anyone smart was burned at the stake.  

I can't even take you seriously.  Pray for me.  Meanwhile you are probably the worst person on the planet, but yet you think you are going to heaven through jesus all mighty hallaluya, praise god, blabla.


----------



## Montrovant

sealybobo said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I spoke to a so called chrisian today.  She like me when I was a christian, and I think most rational christians don't take the bible literally.  She said to me today, "I don't understand why religion and science have to be in conflict with each other" and I said because with science most people come to understand there is a 99.999999% chance there is no god.  And with science comes logic and reasoning and a thought process that doesn't allow us to believe the unbelievable.  Maybe our brains have evolved because that is the direction we seem to be going.  Less dumb average poor Americans believing in the churches bullshit when it doesn't make sense.  Especially when their parents don't brainwash them like ours did by taking us to church from 1-17 years old.  Talk about a brainwashing.  If God wants to convince us, let him do something to convince us.  We' re not going to believe a 2000-5000 year old lie.  Like the Greek gods dies, so will the muslim and christian and jewish gods.
> 
> My friend also agrees that god would reward a person like me for being smart enough to buy into your cult.  This is another christian.  I know people from Iran who are free to become christians or muslims here in America and they know religion is bullshit.  How many arabs would wake up if it didn't mean off with their heads.  In America we want religion out of our schools and courts because its a scam.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While scientific discovery may cast doubt on certain iterations or aspects of god(s), it certainly does not disprove god, which is what your 99.9% claim is basically saying.  God is generally described as being outside of current scientific endeavor; rarely is god defined in such a way as to be easily studied through any scientific branch, if such study is possible at all.
> 
> I don't believe in any god, but I'm not so arrogant as to claim that current science precludes the possibility of any god existing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree.  That's why I say the most logical position is agnostic atheism.
> 
> But now think about what you are saying.  This "GOD" is hiding from us?  He's outside of science?  Magical?  Mysterious?  Just silly.  Not one footprint?  Certainly he isn't the petty god christians jews and muslims talk about.  So why is he hiding from us, right?
> 
> And I love the dope who thinks satan is real.
Click to expand...


Magical and mysterious?  Sure.  However, usually that is because god is described as being above or beyond the physical universe we are part of; an entity with so much power or of such a different nature than man that god can do the unexplainable.

God wouldn't need to be hiding.  It would be more a matter of our not yet having the capability to see.


----------



## HUGGY

Montrovant said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> YES!!! THOSE WHO CHOOSE NOT TO BELIEVE TRUTH WILL BELIEVE  satan's lies!!!!   Here is a link to proof of jesus outside the BIBLE===http://beginningandend.com/jesus-exist-historical-evidence-jesus-christ/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I spoke to a so called chrisian today.  She like me when I was a christian, and I think most rational christians don't take the bible literally.  She said to me today, "I don't understand why religion and science have to be in conflict with each other" and I said because with science most people come to understand there is a 99.999999% chance there is no god.  And with science comes logic and reasoning and a thought process that doesn't allow us to believe the unbelievable.  Maybe our brains have evolved because that is the direction we seem to be going.  Less dumb average poor Americans believing in the churches bullshit when it doesn't make sense.  Especially when their parents don't brainwash them like ours did by taking us to church from 1-17 years old.  Talk about a brainwashing.  If God wants to convince us, let him do something to convince us.  We' re not going to believe a 2000-5000 year old lie.  Like the Greek gods dies, so will the muslim and christian and jewish gods.
> 
> My friend also agrees that god would reward a person like me for being smart enough to buy into your cult.  This is another christian.  I know people from Iran who are free to become christians or muslims here in America and they know religion is bullshit.  How many arabs would wake up if it didn't mean off with their heads.  In America we want religion out of our schools and courts because its a scam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While scientific discovery may cast doubt on certain iterations or aspects of god(s), it certainly does not disprove god, which is what your 99.9% claim is basically saying.  God is generally described as being outside of current scientific endeavor; rarely is god defined in such a way as to be easily studied through any scientific branch, if such study is possible at all.
> 
> I don't believe in any god, but I'm not so arrogant as to claim that current science precludes the possibility of any god existing.
Click to expand...


And therein lies one of the biggest problems dealing with the religists.  They are like cocroaches... if you leave them even the tiniest crack they find it and scrunch their bodies through with their nonsense.  For the sake of a rational debate one must plug evey hole completely so to not appear to offer even the most miniscule opportunity for them to have an out.  To them a .00000001% chance that god is real means GOD IS REAL !!!!


----------



## GISMYS

IF you were ever a real believer you would still be a real believer!!! why try to fool yourself?


----------



## Montrovant

HUGGY said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I spoke to a so called chrisian today.  She like me when I was a christian, and I think most rational christians don't take the bible literally.  She said to me today, "I don't understand why religion and science have to be in conflict with each other" and I said because with science most people come to understand there is a 99.999999% chance there is no god.  And with science comes logic and reasoning and a thought process that doesn't allow us to believe the unbelievable.  Maybe our brains have evolved because that is the direction we seem to be going.  Less dumb average poor Americans believing in the churches bullshit when it doesn't make sense.  Especially when their parents don't brainwash them like ours did by taking us to church from 1-17 years old.  Talk about a brainwashing.  If God wants to convince us, let him do something to convince us.  We' re not going to believe a 2000-5000 year old lie.  Like the Greek gods dies, so will the muslim and christian and jewish gods.
> 
> My friend also agrees that god would reward a person like me for being smart enough to buy into your cult.  This is another christian.  I know people from Iran who are free to become christians or muslims here in America and they know religion is bullshit.  How many arabs would wake up if it didn't mean off with their heads.  In America we want religion out of our schools and courts because its a scam.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While scientific discovery may cast doubt on certain iterations or aspects of god(s), it certainly does not disprove god, which is what your 99.9% claim is basically saying.  God is generally described as being outside of current scientific endeavor; rarely is god defined in such a way as to be easily studied through any scientific branch, if such study is possible at all.
> 
> I don't believe in any god, but I'm not so arrogant as to claim that current science precludes the possibility of any god existing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And therein lies one of the biggest problems dealing with the religists.  They are like cocroaches... if you leave them even the tiniest crack they find it and scrunch their bodies through with their nonsense.  For the sake of a rational debate one must plug evey hole completely so to not appear to offer even the most miniscule opportunity for them to have an out.  To them a .00000001% chance that god is real means GOD IS REAL !!!!
Click to expand...


The problem is that there is no real way to quantify the chance that a god exists.

You can argue about particular religious beliefs, perhaps using that to argue against the existence of a particular version of god, but the idea of a being of vast, almost unimaginable power and knowledge that created the universe?  There is no real way to put a % on the chance that is true.


----------



## Boss

> there is a 99.999999% chance there is no god.
> which is what your 99.9% claim is basically saying.



*What is your scientific basis for these statistics? *

Surely you have some, right? In order to definitively establish such a certainty, you ought to have some pretty compelling scientific evidence, correct? So where is it? Why are we not seeing it presented? Are we just supposed to accept your word for this? 

I would argue the number is more like 50% at best, if we are being completely objective here. There is a 50% chance God is real, and a 50% chance God is not real. Unless there is some observable, testable and falsifiable evidence I am not aware of, that should be the odds....50/50. 

You see, it would be just as easy for me to proclaim there is a 99.9999% chance God is real. As long as there is no criteria where actual evidence has to be objectively evaluated, anyone can make any claim they please with regard to the possibility. What does it mean? Isn't this just a subjective opinion?

We've had two threads going here for months, and countless other similar threads, but I have simply never seen ANY scientific evidence to suggest God doesn't exist. Now, when one has made his/her mind up to 99.9999% certainty without ANY evidence whatsoever... what pray tell is THAT called? Hmmm... seems we do have a word for it, don't we?


----------



## GISMYS

IF YOU REALLY WANTED TO SEEK AND FIND GOD, you would read his living eternal word ans say,"God if you are real show me,talk to me through your word,let me know if you are real,I WANT TO KNOW" GOD WOULD 100% SURE!


----------



## HUGGY

Boss said:


> there is a 99.999999% chance there is no god.
> which is what your 99.9% claim is basically saying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What is your scientific basis for these statistics? *
> 
> Surely you have some, right? In order to definitively establish such a certainty, you ought to have some pretty compelling scientific evidence, correct? So where is it? Why are we not seeing it presented? Are we just supposed to accept your word for this?
> 
> I would argue the number is more like 50% at best, if we are being completely objective here. There is a 50% chance God is real, and a 50% chance God is not real. Unless there is some observable, testable and falsifiable evidence I am not aware of, that should be the odds....50/50.
> 
> You see, it would be just as easy for me to proclaim there is a 99.9999% chance God is real. As long as there is no criteria where actual evidence has to be objectively evaluated, anyone can make any claim they please with regard to the possibility. What does it mean? Isn't this just a subjective opinion?
> 
> We've had two threads going here for months, and countless other similar threads, but I have simply never seen ANY scientific evidence to suggest God doesn't exist. Now, when one has made his/her mind up to 99.9999% certainty without ANY evidence whatsoever... what pray tell is THAT called? Hmmm... seems we do have a word for it, don't we?
Click to expand...


There may have been a time in human developement many thousands of years ago when there was so little education and only the handfulls of those that had any real power compared to the average man or woman that most people believed as they were told as information was passed down explaining floods and droughts and volcanos and earthquakes that the majority of the so-callled societies conceeded gods controlled events clearly out of the control of humans and even the every day simple relationships were affected by ones favor with lesser gods that influenced human health and happiness.

It wasn't much of a leap when the failure of the multitudes of gods failed to produce event outcomes favorable to people or more specifically the leaders and those charged with fighting battles.  Back then losing a war would be disasterous what with all the looting and rape and murder and slavery for the losers.  

Christianity itself hung in the balance as the roman leader took it for a test drive with positive results in a few important battles.

Soon it was the flavor of the millinium and wars were persecuted just to ensure that popes maintained power.  

Quickly as science was just in infantcy observations that contradicted desired outcomes or previous christian proclaimations the bright observers and mathmaticians were threatened to adjust their projections to include only conclusions favorable to the vatican's interpretations.  To not comply was death.  Very few people were in any position to reach independant discoveries.  The telescope was invented not to find answers to the heavens mysteries.  

Since the death penalty for scientific discovery contrary to christian teachings has been lifted god has batted a goose egg and science has beaten back many thousands of so called miracles into nothingness.

Science hasn't refuted EVERY christian faith based assertion.  BUT science hasn't lost any arguments either.  

You cannot take credit for every unsolved mystery and place it in the god wins collumn.

In fact you have the right to take credit for zero unsolved mysteries.  

Science has won the argument in many THOUSANDS of questions solved.  

Based on the track record of science religists have a zero % of any wins.  

Based on science's track record the eventual solving of every important scientific question including the possibility of a god there is a 100 % chance science will eventually win that one too against the favor of the religists. It isn't IF..only when.

The only way to prevent that happening is to put religist's back in charge of governments and justice systems where they can murder their way to a desired outcome as they used to do.


----------



## GISMYS

MOST PHD,S IN SCIENCE admit (only in secrete) that there must be GOD, the universe,life are to well designed and complex to be just accidents of time and chance!!!


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> there is a 99.999999% chance there is no god.
> which is what your 99.9% claim is basically saying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What is your scientific basis for these statistics? *
> 
> Surely you have some, right? In order to definitively establish such a certainty, you ought to have some pretty compelling scientific evidence, correct? So where is it? Why are we not seeing it presented? Are we just supposed to accept your word for this?
> 
> I would argue the number is more like 50% at best, if we are being completely objective here. There is a 50% chance God is real, and a 50% chance God is not real. Unless there is some observable, testable and falsifiable evidence I am not aware of, that should be the odds....50/50.
> 
> You see, it would be just as easy for me to proclaim there is a 99.9999% chance God is real. As long as there is no criteria where actual evidence has to be objectively evaluated, anyone can make any claim they please with regard to the possibility. What does it mean? Isn't this just a subjective opinion?
> 
> We've had two threads going here for months, and countless other similar threads, but I have simply never seen ANY scientific evidence to suggest God doesn't exist. Now, when one has made his/her mind up to 99.9999% certainty without ANY evidence whatsoever... what pray tell is THAT called? Hmmm... seems we do have a word for it, don't we?
Click to expand...


Hey, I said the 99.9999% thing didn't make sense!


----------



## thebrucebeat

GISMYS said:


> MOST PHD,S IN SCIENCE admit (only in secrete) that there must be GOD, the universe,life are to well designed and complex to be just accidents of time and chance!!!



So a lot of scientists tell you their secrets, do they?
Why do I find that so hard to believe?


----------



## GISMYS

The reality of God's existence is the most important question, since it has eternal consequences. The evidence for God's existence comes primarily from the design of the universe. It is virtually impossible that all the physical laws would just happen to be tightly constrained by chance in order for stars and galaxies to exist.


----------



## GISMYS

Complexity of Life
Everyone has witnessed explosions. Have you ever seen one that was orderly? Or one that created a watch or a clock? Or one that produced a single thing of exquisite design&#8212;instead of the certain result of chaos and destruction? If you threw a million hand grenades, you would see them produce chaos and destruction a million times! There would never be an exception.

Consider the following quotes, involving the likelihood of an explosion creating the entire natural realm of life all around us on earth&#8212;let alone the beautiful magnificence and order seen no matter how far one looks out into space.

Dr. B. G. Ranganathan said, &#8220;&#8230;the probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop&#8221; (Origins?, p. 15). And this only speaks to the likelihood of any life at all, rather than the most highly complex forms such as large animals or human beings&#8212;let alone all the different kinds of life that exist today.


----------



## orogenicman

GISMYS said:


> The reality of God's existence is the most important question, since it has eternal consequences. The evidence for God's existence comes primarily from the design of the universe. It is virtually impossible that all the physical laws would just happen to be tightly constrained by chance in order for stars and galaxies to exist.



I always thought his love and mercy was supposed to be what was important.  I must have missed that in catechism before I became an atheist.  

 Sorry, boo boo, the universe is not finely tuned, and certainly is not here for us.


----------



## orogenicman

GISMYS said:


> Complexity of Life
> Everyone has witnessed explosions. Have you ever seen one that was orderly? Or one that created a watch or a clock? Or one that produced a single thing of exquisite design&#8212;instead of the certain result of chaos and destruction? If you threw a million hand grenades, you would see them produce chaos and destruction a million times! There would never be an exception.
> 
> Consider the following quotes, involving the likelihood of an explosion creating the entire natural realm of life all around us on earth&#8212;let alone the beautiful magnificence and order seen no matter how far one looks out into space.
> 
> Dr. B. G. Ranganathan said, &#8220;&#8230;the probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop&#8221; (Origins?, p. 15). And this only speaks to the likelihood of any life at all, rather than the most highly complex forms such as large animals or human beings&#8212;let alone all the different kinds of life that exist today.



The watchmaker analogy, and the finely tuned universe argument are philosophical arguments, not scientific arguments, and both have been refuted. Try to keep up.


----------



## emilynghiem

GISMYS said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, [MENTION=42952]GISMYS[/MENTION], you could feel even better if you had even more of God's Grace
> and less negative judgment filling up space in your spirit.
> 
> GISMYS any negative thought or energy at all is taking space away from God's grace and blessings that could be moving through you instead,
> surrounding you, and uplifting all your relationship with others.
> 
> If you feel GREAT already, you will feel even more and more abundance of blessings
> the more the negative thoughts you have toward others are replaced with positive goodness.
> 
> Philippians 4:8
> *
> 8 Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirableif anything is excellent or praiseworthythink about such things*
> 
> GISMYS the more we love God "with ALL our heart mind and soul"
> there is nothing but goodness and no room for anything negative.
> 
> You will feel better and better with the positive flow of God's will.
> Thank you and God Bless you in continuing abundance and remove any things to the contrary from your path.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YES!!! I am happy to get and have all GOD'S grace that I CAN. YES!!! HELL is very negative but know it IS JESUS that has the most to say about sin and hell as recorded in the BIBLE!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great! I am in full agreement with you
> To receive God's grace in abundance.
> I pray the voice of Jesus which is pure divine
> Justice with Mercy speaks through all of us here.
> That Gods perfect wisdom love and will
> Guide all our thoughts words perceptions and actions
> And be received in all relations lifted to the highest
> Potential and purpose. Thank you GISMYS
> and Jesus joining us all in prayer
> That we may be perfect as our Father in heaven
> Is perfect, Amen!
Click to expand...


----------



## thebrucebeat

thebrucebeat said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because what is "real" isn't a choice.
> It simply is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Bruce: Thanks for your thoughtful replies.
> 1. Do you also understand that for people who experience spiritual insights in terms of a "personal God" who speaks to them in this way
> is also "not a choice" but their reality.
> 
> I cannot choose to be anyone other than Emily Nghiem.
> That is not a choice I can change.
> And neither is someone who relates to life through a personal connection
> which is expressed through God or Jesus. If that is the manner in which
> their understanding and perception is shaped and manifested, that is "simply how it is."
> What people subjectively find that motivates them and forms their paradigm is not what I am referring to. You are describing a subjective reality. I am talking about what is real outside of our perceptions, needs, creations or fantasies that no doubt sustain us. These are the rationalizations I frequently refer Boss to that people are 100% invested in. What is truth is not influenced by any of it.
> 2. As for your perception of my approach:
> 
> 
> 2. Yes and yes, it is both, not either/or.
> I have investigated how people operate, and what makes communications/relations
> work and what makes them fail.
> 
> I always find it best to accept each person's own perspective/perception and path/process which is unique to that person. Where this fails is where people cannot forgive and work with each other's differences. where it succeeds is where we embrace where we are coming from, what we are given, and find where we agree in common as workable.
> 
> We don't have to agree, in face, none of us agree 100%; the point is to deal with how we see and say things, and include that in the equations when we address and solve problems.
> 
> So yes, I am operating out of my own philosophy of equal concern for all people.
> 
> And yes, I am seeking a universal approach that allows equal inclusion of all views,
> given the uniqueness and diversity of each person in the mix.
> 
> With all due respect, your investigation into the workings of communication and what makes them work and fail is not having the slightest influence on these boards. Your desire to have everyone come together and find a common baseline is not one iota closer than when you came here, and your belief that you know how to accomplish this is clearly just your delusion. You may have a bead on why others fail, but you are clueless as to why you do.
> Again yes, and yes.
> 
> By including all people and working out our differences,
> then we can distinguish what is objective reality from what is subjective or projected.
> 
> One is the means and the other is the end result. I trust in the process to get us there,
> similar to trusting in the scientific method or the elimination process of trial and error.
> 
> 
> 
> No, I am not conflict or friction in itself as a bad thing to be "suppressed/avoided/squashed" -- but it is part of the process to find out where our differences are, and either resolve what can be, or accept and work around differences that are NATURAL (ie NOT caused by misinformation, unforgiven/unresolved projection etc)
> people are not prone to identifying these things in themselves. What you claim as misinformation is another man's gospel and you will not shake them from their beliefs. If these threads are a testimony to anything they are a testimony to that hard truth.
> There is a DIFFERENCE between naturally occurring differences in healthy relationships,
> and abuse of conflicts to stir up ill will and destroy relationships.
> 
> Your statement underlined above is an example of a misperception of my intent
> that WOULD cause unnecessary conflict.
> You have shown your willingness to foment that same unnecessary conflict when describing Bush and Obama as Satan and anti-Christ, respectively. You won't see it that way, which to me will be a very bad misperception on your part.
> Your nontheistic viewpoint is NOT a problem that necessarily needs correction.
> My viewpoint is not non-theistic.
> Do you see the difference? Between unnatural conflicts that need correction so they don't cause unnecessary clashing; versus differences that are natural to people, and if they cause some miscommunication issues, that is to be expected and can be worked with.
> 
> 3. As for your points about Einstein:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tbb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Einstein found the proposition of a personal god silly, and so do I.
> ...
> In my opinion, and Einstein's, the proposition of a personal god and the possibility of something undetermined and unknowable are not equal in the least. That may be neutral, but it isn't accurate.
> 
> As a scientist, that had primacy for Einstein.
> 
> Einstein found the evidence for a personal god childish and untenable. He replaces it with no system of his own, but an acknowledgment that some things are beyond knowing, and accepting the humility of that position. He makes peace with what he is ignorant of, but doesn't invent a solution for his ignorance, which is how he sees the idea of a personal god. And so do I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 3. To each his own. It's all "relative" isn't it?
> 
> When I want to study science and laws that Einstein specialized in, I would of course ask him or other students of his work and research. I would not ask Bible scholars who study Hebrew history, culture, and language (or Buddhist scholars who study ancient scriptures 11 times the volume of the Bible) who might think the work of scientists like Einstein is "meaningless" compared with what they see going on with spiritual laws of humanity.
> 
> When I want to study art, I would not ask Einstein -- I would study the work of Masters and people who love each of those particular genres and can express the full meaning that each art piece represents, in terms of the historic movements in society.
> 
> Otherwise, any of the abstract art in history books looks "silly" like a child's fingerpainting
> and the meaning is completely lost of events going on in society that gave it lasting impact!
> 
> It may seem "silly" to pay millions of dollars for a painting or sculpture that looks like trash you couldn't sell at a garage sale.
> 
> But to someone else, that is serious art! It can mean something world shaking to them!
> 
> As Einstein and his followers made the theory of relativity a mainstream term,
> I would say that concept of "relativity" applies to a lot more in life.
> 
> God may be "silly" to one person, but prayer to God and Jesus has saved lives and minds of people
> who believe they owe their lives and their children, their sanity, and everything they have to God,
> so that doesn't seem 'silly' to them when they could have been dead and never enjoyed anything in life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Einstein nor I ever concluded that a personal god wasn't useful to those that invest in it. Not the argument at all. Rationalizations are a critical part of the survival of the ego.
> That doesn't suddenly make them true.
> Completely different arguments.
Click to expand...


No response, emily?


----------



## Boss

> Since the death penalty for scientific discovery contrary to christian teachings has been lifted god has batted a goose egg and science has beaten back many thousands of so called miracles into nothingness.



I must disagree with you on several things here. First of all, the "death penalty for scientific discovery" is ignorance, just as it has always been. This includes the ignorance of proclaiming things 99.9999% proven without any evidence. Science never draws conclusion, on any question. Even when science is relatively certain, it leaves the door open for the possibility it could be wrong. Guess what? That has proven to be wise because it has been wrong on many things. 

Next is miracles. Contrary to what you say, they are still happening today. Things science has no explanation for whatsoever. Cancer Treatment Centers of America includes "spiritual therapy" as part of the treatment process because science has found that (for whatever unexplainable scientific reason) the presence of strong spiritual faith has proven itself with positive and miraculous results. Science doesn't care whether or not you believe in God, it is only concerned with observable results. 

Finally, there is what science does versus what science cannot do. Science can explain how things work but it can't really explain why. All of the so-called "miracles" you believe science has explained away, it has only explained how they happened, not why. You can't explain WHY gravity is present in our universe. You can't explain WHY the bonding of two hydrogen atoms to one oxygen atom is water. You can't explain why some subatomic particles become electrically charged producing electromagnetic fields. You can explain how, you can't explain why. For every question of how you answer, the question of why remains and will forever remain unanswered.


----------



## sealybobo

Montrovant said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> While scientific discovery may cast doubt on certain iterations or aspects of god(s), it certainly does not disprove god, which is what your 99.9% claim is basically saying.  God is generally described as being outside of current scientific endeavor; rarely is god defined in such a way as to be easily studied through any scientific branch, if such study is possible at all.
> 
> I don't believe in any god, but I'm not so arrogant as to claim that current science precludes the possibility of any god existing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.  That's why I say the most logical position is agnostic atheism.
> 
> But now think about what you are saying.  This "GOD" is hiding from us?  He's outside of science?  Magical?  Mysterious?  Just silly.  Not one footprint?  Certainly he isn't the petty god christians jews and muslims talk about.  So why is he hiding from us, right?
> 
> And I love the dope who thinks satan is real.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Magical and mysterious?  Sure.  However, usually that is because god is described as being above or beyond the physical universe we are part of; an entity with so much power or of such a different nature than man that god can do the unexplainable.
> 
> God wouldn't need to be hiding.  It would be more a matter of our not yet having the capability to see.
Click to expand...


Science would say if that were true then what would make you think you are any more special to this god than a mosquito, ant or Tardigrade?


----------



## Steven_R

Boss said:


> I must disagree with you on several things here. First of all, the "death penalty for scientific discovery" is ignorance, just as it has always been.



Giordano Bruno might disagree with you...


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> IF YOU REALLY WANTED TO SEEK AND FIND GOD, you would read his living eternal word ans say,"God if you are real show me,talk to me through your word,let me know if you are real,I WANT TO KNOW" GOD WOULD 100% SURE!



I did this.  He did not speak back.  He didn't curse me and he didn't bless me.  They told me to read the bible and I did and it did nothing.  I guess you have to read it before you start doubting.  If you go into it suspicious then you'll never swallow what you are reading.  I find it funny when I watdh televangelists read the most mundane things and people are shaking their heads or nodding like some big revelation has come over them.  I'm like yea so what.  Religion allows bad people to fee good about themselves and makes them think they are better than everyone else when they are the problem with our society.


----------



## hazlnut

Depending on which conception of God you mean -- the invisible man in the sky is one hateful sick fuck.

Old Testament -- pissy old man wondering the desert, then clicks "Clear History" on humanity and starts over with Noah's family--making us all the children of incest.  Vindictive and petty, supports slavery, polygamy, child abuse and spousal abuse.

New Testament -- prefers to remain in the background, communication via Proxy and his unlucky son (who has magic X-Men powers that seem to not work when he needs them most)

Scientology -- an extraterrestrial, Zenu.



The problem is individuals relying on others or organized ritual groups (religions) to explain God.  Religion can offer a good starting point -- but the Spiritual path, the Road less traveled is the only way IMO to really know God.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> there is a 99.999999% chance there is no god.
> which is what your 99.9% claim is basically saying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What is your scientific basis for these statistics? *
> 
> Surely you have some, right? In order to definitively establish such a certainty, you ought to have some pretty compelling scientific evidence, correct? So where is it? Why are we not seeing it presented? Are we just supposed to accept your word for this?
> 
> I would argue the number is more like 50% at best, if we are being completely objective here. There is a 50% chance God is real, and a 50% chance God is not real. Unless there is some observable, testable and falsifiable evidence I am not aware of, that should be the odds....50/50.
> 
> You see, it would be just as easy for me to proclaim there is a 99.9999% chance God is real. As long as there is no criteria where actual evidence has to be objectively evaluated, anyone can make any claim they please with regard to the possibility. What does it mean? Isn't this just a subjective opinion?
> 
> We've had two threads going here for months, and countless other similar threads, but I have simply never seen ANY scientific evidence to suggest God doesn't exist. Now, when one has made his/her mind up to 99.9999% certainty without ANY evidence whatsoever... what pray tell is THAT called? Hmmm... seems we do have a word for it, don't we?
Click to expand...


This is called an argument from ignorance.  A common attempt to shift the burden of proof.  The failure to disprove the existence of something does not constitute proof of its existence.  Belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims because all such claims would need to be believed implicitly. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.  The burden of proof is on the person or party asserting the claim; in this case, the theist.

I just leaped out of my body and flew through the computer into your home and I watched you for about 5 seconds and then I was flown back into my body all of the sudden.  Do you believe this?  Is there a 50% chance I'm telling the truth?


----------



## sealybobo

hazlnut said:


> Depending on which conception of God you mean -- the invisible man in the sky is one hateful sick fuck.
> 
> Old Testament -- pissy old man wondering the desert, then clicks "Clear History" on humanity and starts over with Noah's family--making us all the children of incest.  Vindictive and petty, supports slavery, polygamy, child abuse and spousal abuse.
> 
> New Testament -- prefers to remain in the background, communication via Proxy and his unlucky son (who has magic X-Men powers that seem to not work when he needs them most)
> 
> Scientology -- an extraterrestrial, Zenu.
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is individuals relying on others or organized ritual groups (religions) to explain God.  Religion can offer a good starting point -- but the Spiritual path, the Road less traveled is the only way IMO to really know God.



If there is a god, and 99% chance there isn't one, he doesn't know you any more than  you know a minnow in the ocean.


----------



## emilynghiem

Hi Bruce thanks for your reply.
Sorry im on my cell phone. Pls use @ to signal msg
So i can keep up with you and your replies.  sorry.

That is cool you are NOT nontheistic 
Maybe you are more like my bf who believes in some
God or creator that is not like the Christian personal
God through Jesus. I believe this approach is importajt
To understand, and more and more ppl will come forth
Who normally aren't heard next to the Christians
Who preach publicly.

I still believe it is the same God and all our
Perceptions are different.

To you, you have seen no proof this can all be reconciled.
To me all i have seen shows me these things can be worked out.

As for Obama and Bush, i deal with ppl from all views.
Sorry you cannot tell when i am making fun of the issues
But thats what most of humor focuses on.

You see that ppl cannot deal with each other.
I see that the problems are mutual and can forgive
The ppl on both sides. Of course you are right where
Ppl cannot forgive they stay stuck in division.

If you look where ppl choose to.forgive and expand
Their perception to consider where others are coming
From that is where change happens. 
This is on an internal level of healing and change in
Perception. It isnt always immediate or.visible.

But that is where change happens first
Before it manifests or expresses outwardly.

Yes it happens, is universal, and mutual.
It is a constant process bruce like the force of life.

Sorry you cant see it from your viewpoint
But where i focus its constant change.

Thanks bruce ill reply when i can type 
And answer your points better than this sorry!

E=thebrucebeat;9106196]





thebrucebeat said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.
> 
> Hi Bruce: Thanks for your thoughtful replies.
> 1. Do you also understand that for people who experience spiritual insights in terms of a "personal God" who speaks to them in this way
> is also "not a choice" but their reality.
> 
> I cannot choose to be anyone other than Emily Nghiem.
> That is not a choice I can change.
> And neither is someone who relates to life through a personal connection
> which is expressed through God or Jesus. If that is the manner in which
> their understanding and perception is shaped and manifested, that is "simply how it is."
> What people subjectively find that motivates them and forms their paradigm is not what I am referring to. You are describing a subjective reality. I am talking about what is real outside of our perceptions, needs, creations or fantasies that no doubt sustain us. These are the rationalizations I frequently refer Boss to that people are 100% invested in. What is truth is not influenced by any of it.
> 2. As for your perception of my approach:
> 
> 
> 2. Yes and yes, it is both, not either/or.
> I have investigated how people operate, and what makes communications/relations
> work and what makes them fail.
> 
> I always find it best to accept each person's own perspective/perception and path/process which is unique to that person. Where this fails is where people cannot forgive and work with each other's differences. where it succeeds is where we embrace where we are coming from, what we are given, and find where we agree in common as workable.
> 
> We don't have to agree, in face, none of us agree 100%; the point is to deal with how we see and say things, and include that in the equations when we address and solve problems.
> 
> So yes, I am operating out of my own philosophy of equal concern for all people.
> 
> And yes, I am seeking a universal approach that allows equal inclusion of all views,
> given the uniqueness and diversity of each person in the mix.
> 
> With all due respect, your investigation into the workings of communication and what makes them work and fail is not having the slightest influence on these boards. Your desire to have everyone come together and find a common baseline is not one iota closer than when you came here, and your belief that you know how to accomplish this is clearly just your delusion. You may have a bead on why others fail, but you are clueless as to why you do.
> Again yes, and yes.
> 
> By including all people and working out our differences,
> then we can distinguish what is objective reality from what is subjective or projected.
> 
> One is the means and the other is the end result. I trust in the process to get us there,
> similar to trusting in the scientific method or the elimination process of trial and error.
> 
> 
> 
> No, I am not conflict or friction in itself as a bad thing to be "suppressed/avoided/squashed" -- but it is part of the process to find out where our differences are, and either resolve what can be, or accept and work around differences that are NATURAL (ie NOT caused by misinformation, unforgiven/unresolved projection etc)
> people are not prone to identifying these things in themselves. What you claim as misinformation is another man's gospel and you will not shake them from their beliefs. If these threads are a testimony to anything they are a testimony to that hard truth.
> There is a DIFFERENCE between naturally occurring differences in healthy relationships,
> and abuse of conflicts to stir up ill will and destroy relationships.
> 
> Your statement underlined above is an example of a misperception of my intent
> that WOULD cause unnecessary conflict.
> You have shown your willingness to foment that same unnecessary conflict when describing Bush and Obama as Satan and anti-Christ, respectively. You won't see it that way, which to me will be a very bad misperception on your part.
> Your nontheistic viewpoint is NOT a problem that necessarily needs correction.
> My viewpoint is not non-theistic.
> Do you see the difference? Between unnatural conflicts that need correction so they don't cause unnecessary clashing; versus differences that are natural to people, and if they cause some miscommunication issues, that is to be expected and can be worked with.
> 
> 3. As for your points about Einstein:
> 
> 
> 
> 3. To each his own. It's all "relative" isn't it?
> 
> When I want to study science and laws that Einstein specialized in, I would of course ask him or other students of his work and research. I would not ask Bible scholars who study Hebrew history, culture, and language (or Buddhist scholars who study ancient scriptures 11 times the volume of the Bible) who might think the work of scientists like Einstein is "meaningless" compared with what they see going on with spiritual laws of humanity.
> 
> When I want to study art, I would not ask Einstein -- I would study the work of Masters and people who love each of those particular genres and can express the full meaning that each art piece represents, in terms of the historic movements in society.
> 
> Otherwise, any of the abstract art in history books looks "silly" like a child's fingerpainting
> and the meaning is completely lost of events going on in society that gave it lasting impact!
> 
> It may seem "silly" to pay millions of dollars for a painting or sculpture that looks like trash you couldn't sell at a garage sale.
> 
> But to someone else, that is serious art! It can mean something world shaking to them!
> 
> As Einstein and his followers made the theory of relativity a mainstream term,
> I would say that concept of "relativity" applies to a lot more in life.
> 
> God may be "silly" to one person, but prayer to God and Jesus has saved lives and minds of people
> who believe they owe their lives and their children, their sanity, and everything they have to God,
> so that doesn't seem 'silly' to them when they could have been dead and never enjoyed anything in life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Einstein nor I ever concluded that a personal god wasn't useful to those that invest in it. Not the argument at all. Rationalizations are a critical part of the survival of the ego.
> That doesn't suddenly make them true.
> Completely different arguments.
Click to expand...


No response, emily?[/QUOTE]


----------



## emilynghiem

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> IF YOU REALLY WANTED TO SEEK AND FIND GOD, you would read his living eternal word ans say,"God if you are real show me,talk to me through your word,let me know if you are real,I WANT TO KNOW" GOD WOULD 100% SURE!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did this.  He did not speak back.  He didn't curse me and he didn't bless me.  They told me to read the bible and I did and it did nothing.  I guess you have to read it before you start doubting.  If you go into it suspicious then you'll never swallow what you are reading.  I find it funny when I watdh televangelists read the most mundane things and people are shaking their heads or nodding like some big revelation has come over them.  I'm like yea so what.  Religion allows bad people to fee good about themselves and makes them think they are better than everyone else when they are the problem with our society.
Click to expand...


If you are secular gentile on the path of following natural laws
By conscience, you may not relate to God and life the same way.

Look at how Buddha found wisdom and understanding
Of interconnected laws in life- by letting go, not
By attaching to any religious condition. 

This is a valid path also. Leads to the same
Pool of universal laws but by conscience and reason
Not religious conditions and striving.


----------



## sealybobo

emilynghiem said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> IF YOU REALLY WANTED TO SEEK AND FIND GOD, you would read his living eternal word ans say,"God if you are real show me,talk to me through your word,let me know if you are real,I WANT TO KNOW" GOD WOULD 100% SURE!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did this.  He did not speak back.  He didn't curse me and he didn't bless me.  They told me to read the bible and I did and it did nothing.  I guess you have to read it before you start doubting.  If you go into it suspicious then you'll never swallow what you are reading.  I find it funny when I watdh televangelists read the most mundane things and people are shaking their heads or nodding like some big revelation has come over them.  I'm like yea so what.  Religion allows bad people to fee good about themselves and makes them think they are better than everyone else when they are the problem with our society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are secular gentile on the path of following natural laws
> By conscience, you may not relate to God and life the same way.
> 
> Look at how Buddha found wisdom and understanding
> Of interconnected laws in life- by letting go, not
> By attaching to any religious condition.
> 
> This is a valid path also. Leads to the same
> Pool of universal laws but by conscience and reason
> Not religious conditions and striving.
Click to expand...


I use to feel special that I got it that organized religion was bullshit but I had a personal relationship with god.  Then I met some atheists and they got me to realize I was just about as naive as the people who believe the christian, muslim or jewish stories.  

And I don't feel bad or guilty because I know if there is a god he isn't the petty god these religious nuts claim him to be.  No hell for not believing a corrupt hypocritical society or the churches in them.  I say a real god would punish the stupid, if there is one, and common sense says there isn't one.  Imagine you are a god to the fish in the pond you fish in.  They worship you.  You feed them.  You supposedly love them.  Every once in awhile you hook one and you eat it.  They say "oh it is god's will and he works in mysterious ways and don't question god or you'll go to hell".


----------



## BreezeWood

> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Science can explain how things work but it can't really explain why.
> *
> You can explain how, you can't explain why. For every question of how you answer, the question of why remains and will forever remain unanswered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Boss: Why do the God-haters persist?* ... To put it in simple terms, they fear God.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...




nothing new when a religionist answers the question "why" while denying the same for Science that must only have the ability to understand how - 

how is it possible to know with certainty how without answering why?

.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Next is miracles. Contrary to what you say, they are still happening today. Things science has no explanation for whatsoever. Cancer Treatment Centers of America includes "spiritual therapy" as part of the treatment process because science has found that (for whatever unexplainable scientific reason) the presence of strong spiritual faith has proven itself with positive and miraculous results. Science doesn't care whether or not you believe in God, it is only concerned with observable results.



Miracles are still happening today?

Identify one.


----------



## Hollie

BreezeWood said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Science can explain how things work but it can't really explain why.
> *
> You can explain how, you can't explain why. For every question of how you answer, the question of why remains and will forever remain unanswered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Boss: Why do the God-haters persist?* ... To put it in simple terms, they fear God.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nothing new when a religionist answers the question "why" while denying the same for Science that must only have the ability to understand how -
> 
> how is it possible to know with certainty how without answering why?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Science does have a burden not shared by religionists / supernaturalists. 

Science is held to a standard of demonstration where religionists / supernaturalists resolve all issues, questions, paradoxes with:  "The Gods Did It... because I say so"


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> Since the death penalty for scientific discovery contrary to christian teachings has been lifted god has batted a goose egg and science has beaten back many thousands of so called miracles into nothingness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I must disagree with you on several things here. First of all, the "death penalty for scientific discovery" is ignorance, just as it has always been. This includes the ignorance of proclaiming things 99.9999% proven without any evidence. Science never draws conclusion, on any question. Even when science is relatively certain, it leaves the door open for the possibility it could be wrong. Guess what? That has proven to be wise because it has been wrong on many things.
> 
> Next is miracles. Contrary to what you say, they are still happening today. Things science has no explanation for whatsoever. Cancer Treatment Centers of America includes "spiritual therapy" as part of the treatment process because science has found that (for whatever unexplainable scientific reason) the presence of strong spiritual faith has proven itself with positive and miraculous results. Science doesn't care whether or not you believe in God, it is only concerned with observable results.
> 
> Finally, there is what science does versus what science cannot do. Science can explain how things work but it can't really explain why. All of the so-called "miracles" you believe science has explained away, it has only explained how they happened, not why. You can't explain WHY gravity is present in our universe. You can't explain WHY the bonding of two hydrogen atoms to one oxygen atom is water. You can't explain why some subatomic particles become electrically charged producing electromagnetic fields. You can explain how, you can't explain why. For every question of how you answer, the question of why remains and will forever remain unanswered.
Click to expand...


Science does leave the door open.  That's why we give god a .00009 chance of being real.  And what you said in another post is silly.  We fear god?  Come on now!  It is the people who believe in god that are in fear of him.  They even say it on the sunday shows.  So don't be ignorant.  We wish there was a god and a heaven but the most probable thing is neither exist and telling us we will burn in hell won't change our minds because that is silly too.  Maybe that worked on us until we got into middle school maybe.  

Miracles have not been demonstrated to occur.  Even if a miracle could be demonstrated it would not immediately imply the existence of a god as unknown natural processes or agents could still be at work.  Most alleged miracles can be explained as statistically unlikely occurrences.  In the absence of any empirical evidence, all other claims can be dismissed as the result of magical thinking, misattribution, credulity, hearsay and anecdote. Eye-witness testimony and anecdotal accounts are, by themselves, not reliable or definitive forms of proof for such extraordinary claims either.  Divine intervention claims most often concern systems and events for which we have poor predictive capabilities.  Miracle claims are rarely made in relation to those things we can accurately predict and test like the motion of celestial bodies, boiling point of water and pull of gravity. If a god is constantly intervening in the universe it supposedly created, then it is with such ambiguity as to appear completely indistinguishable from normal background chance.  Want to show me a miracle?  Show me a limb grow back overnight.  A priest putting his hands on 100,000 people and one of them with a brain tumor is cured is not a miracle.  Show me a priest who can cure every person with a brain tumor then well talk.  

Why there is no god


----------



## sealybobo

Hollie said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nothing new when a religionist answers the question "why" while denying the same for Science that must only have the ability to understand how -
> 
> how is it possible to know with certainty how without answering why?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science does have a burden not shared by religionists / supernaturalists.
> 
> Science is held to a standard of demonstration where religionists / supernaturalists resolve all issues, questions, paradoxes with:  "The Gods Did It... because I say so"
Click to expand...


Did you see they made the one pedophile pope a saint and said he performed one miracle?  I looked into it and he supposedly cured some kid of a brain tumor.  Just one kid?  I guess I'm going to go to the hospital and put my hands on every person with cancer and everyone of them that is cured is my doing and I'm a saint and I performed a miracle.  The Catholic church making those last two pope's into saints is another thing that pushed me over the edge on realizing all organized religion is fucked up, immoral, corrupt bullshit.  Saints.  Sure.  What a PR move.  They got to do something to win all the people they lost back.  That's why they picked a pope who said "who am I to judge" when asked about gays.  Great answer, too bad your flock doesn't feel that way.  

Oh yea, and why are christians so concerned with gays?  Why don't they worry about the 7 deadly sins they commit every day?  Gay is not one of them.  But being fat and greedy are two of them.  Christians need to focus on themselves.  Be good people then maybe we'll want to join your cult.


----------



## Montrovant

sealybobo said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.  That's why I say the most logical position is agnostic atheism.
> 
> But now think about what you are saying.  This "GOD" is hiding from us?  He's outside of science?  Magical?  Mysterious?  Just silly.  Not one footprint?  Certainly he isn't the petty god christians jews and muslims talk about.  So why is he hiding from us, right?
> 
> And I love the dope who thinks satan is real.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Magical and mysterious?  Sure.  However, usually that is because god is described as being above or beyond the physical universe we are part of; an entity with so much power or of such a different nature than man that god can do the unexplainable.
> 
> God wouldn't need to be hiding.  It would be more a matter of our not yet having the capability to see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science would say if that were true then what would make you think you are any more special to this god than a mosquito, ant or Tardigrade?
Click to expand...


First, 'science' wouldn't say anything.  Perhaps there is a certain branch or principle of science which would lead to that question.

And it's not a question I have an answer to.  If an intelligence created our universe, there's no reason why I should be more special to that intelligence than anything else.  

My point was simply that any being which could create the entire universe likely is one humanity does not yet have the capability to observe or understand.  I might compare it to the difference between humanity before and after the invention of the microscope.  It's possible that, if some sort of god does exist, humans have not yet discovered or created a way to observe that entity.

I get the feeling you are mixing denial of specific religious belief and denial of the idea of god(s).  Saying agnostic atheism is the only rational choice doesn't mesh with saying there is a 99.9999% chance there is no god.


----------



## koshergrl

sealybobo said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> nothing new when a religionist answers the question "why" while denying the same for Science that must only have the ability to understand how -
> 
> how is it possible to know with certainty how without answering why?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science does have a burden not shared by religionists / supernaturalists.
> 
> Science is held to a standard of demonstration where religionists / supernaturalists resolve all issues, questions, paradoxes with: "The Gods Did It... because I say so"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you see they made the one pedophile pope a saint and said he performed one miracle? I looked into it and he supposedly cured some kid of a brain tumor. Just one kid? I guess I'm going to go to the hospital and put my hands on every person with cancer and everyone of them that is cured is my doing and I'm a saint and I performed a miracle. The Catholic church making those last two pope's into saints is another thing that pushed me over the edge on realizing all organized religion is fucked up, immoral, corrupt bullshit. Saints. Sure. What a PR move. They got to do something to win all the people they lost back. That's why they picked a pope who said "who am I to judge" when asked about gays. Great answer, too bad your flock doesn't feel that way.
> 
> Oh yea, and why are christians so concerned with gays? Why don't they worry about the 7 deadly sins they commit every day? Gay is not one of them. But being fat and greedy are two of them. Christians need to focus on themselves. Be good people then maybe we'll want to join your cult.
Click to expand...

 
Sounds to me like you're the one preoccupied with deviant sex.

Not Christians.


----------



## sealybobo

koshergrl said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science does have a burden not shared by religionists / supernaturalists.
> 
> Science is held to a standard of demonstration where religionists / supernaturalists resolve all issues, questions, paradoxes with: "The Gods Did It... because I say so"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you see they made the one pedophile pope a saint and said he performed one miracle? I looked into it and he supposedly cured some kid of a brain tumor. Just one kid? I guess I'm going to go to the hospital and put my hands on every person with cancer and everyone of them that is cured is my doing and I'm a saint and I performed a miracle. The Catholic church making those last two pope's into saints is another thing that pushed me over the edge on realizing all organized religion is fucked up, immoral, corrupt bullshit. Saints. Sure. What a PR move. They got to do something to win all the people they lost back. That's why they picked a pope who said "who am I to judge" when asked about gays. Great answer, too bad your flock doesn't feel that way.
> 
> Oh yea, and why are christians so concerned with gays? Why don't they worry about the 7 deadly sins they commit every day? Gay is not one of them. But being fat and greedy are two of them. Christians need to focus on themselves. Be good people then maybe we'll want to join your cult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds to me like you're the one preoccupied with deviant sex.
> 
> Not Christians.
Click to expand...


I don't hate god its hypocritical religious people who think they know him I don't like.  I don't hate anyone but boy would I love for that story to come true where jesus comes and takes all you believers to heaven and leaves the rest of us here.  Man I hope that happens.  Then we'll have heaven on earth with you guys gone.


----------



## sealybobo

Montrovant said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Magical and mysterious?  Sure.  However, usually that is because god is described as being above or beyond the physical universe we are part of; an entity with so much power or of such a different nature than man that god can do the unexplainable.
> 
> God wouldn't need to be hiding.  It would be more a matter of our not yet having the capability to see.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science would say if that were true then what would make you think you are any more special to this god than a mosquito, ant or Tardigrade?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, 'science' wouldn't say anything.  Perhaps there is a certain branch or principle of science which would lead to that question.
> 
> And it's not a question I have an answer to.  If an intelligence created our universe, there's no reason why I should be more special to that intelligence than anything else.
> 
> My point was simply that any being which could create the entire universe likely is one humanity does not yet have the capability to observe or understand.  I might compare it to the difference between humanity before and after the invention of the microscope.  It's possible that, if some sort of god does exist, humans have not yet discovered or created a way to observe that entity.
> 
> I get the feeling you are mixing denial of specific religious belief and denial of the idea of god(s).  Saying agnostic atheism is the only rational choice doesn't mesh with saying there is a 99.9999% chance there is no god.
Click to expand...


What is the probability that such a god exists?  Very low.  The fact that this god has not left one fingerprint tells us something.  And the fact that humans have created this crazy idea of god in their minds tells me that there is no reason other than our imaginations to believe in a god other than our ancestors made it up.  

And agnostic atheism makes perfect sense.  We believe there is much more a chance that god doesn't exist.  But we leave the door open a crack, because who knows.  Anyone who claims to know is crazy.  And christians and muslims claim to know.   

Oh yea, and I'm sorry, but if the Christian's definition of god is bullshit and the muslim's claim to own god is a lie and if the mormon's are just a big cult, then I'm sorry, but you do not get to redefine god.  God as we know it is either the christian or muslim god or maybe god came down and talked to both of them.  But most thinking people know this is a lie.  SO, you do not get to redefine God as something that you can't explain, blablabla.  At least the christians and muslims were good enough to make up a fake ass story to sell us.  All you have is phylisophical think.  LOL.


----------



## MaryL

God, WHY does this thread persist?


----------



## HUGGY

I for one am dissappointed this conversation did not entertain MaryL.



This little nitch topic of those that believe in god and those that don't would be more usefull if it covered something more important.


----------



## Montrovant

sealybobo said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science would say if that were true then what would make you think you are any more special to this god than a mosquito, ant or Tardigrade?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, 'science' wouldn't say anything.  Perhaps there is a certain branch or principle of science which would lead to that question.
> 
> And it's not a question I have an answer to.  If an intelligence created our universe, there's no reason why I should be more special to that intelligence than anything else.
> 
> My point was simply that any being which could create the entire universe likely is one humanity does not yet have the capability to observe or understand.  I might compare it to the difference between humanity before and after the invention of the microscope.  It's possible that, if some sort of god does exist, humans have not yet discovered or created a way to observe that entity.
> 
> I get the feeling you are mixing denial of specific religious belief and denial of the idea of god(s).  Saying agnostic atheism is the only rational choice doesn't mesh with saying there is a 99.9999% chance there is no god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is the probability that such a god exists?  Very low.  The fact that this god has not left one fingerprint tells us something.  And the fact that humans have created this crazy idea of god in their minds tells me that there is no reason other than our imaginations to believe in a god other than our ancestors made it up.
> 
> And agnostic atheism makes perfect sense.  We believe there is much more a chance that god doesn't exist.  But we leave the door open a crack, because who knows.  Anyone who claims to know is crazy.  And christians and muslims claim to know.
> 
> Oh yea, and I'm sorry, but if the Christian's definition of god is bullshit and the muslim's claim to own god is a lie and if the mormon's are just a big cult, then I'm sorry, but you do not get to redefine god.  God as we know it is either the christian or muslim god or maybe god came down and talked to both of them.  But most thinking people know this is a lie.  SO, you do not get to redefine God as something that you can't explain, blablabla.  At least the christians and muslims were good enough to make up a fake ass story to sell us.  All you have is phylisophical think.  LOL.
Click to expand...


Agnostic atheism does not make perfect sense if there is a 99.9999% chance that no god exists.  

You clearly are hung up on particular religious beliefs.  There is a vast difference between the mere concept of god(s) and a particular religion.  Humans have believed in many, many different religions with many different gods.  If they are all wrong, that does not mean that there is no sort of god.

Who are 'most thinking people'?  You say 'god as we know it is either the Christian or Muslim god'.  I would argue that 'most thinking people' wouldn't post such an asinine statement. 

If you want to argue against Christianity or Islam, fine.  That is not the same as arguing against the entire concept of a god, a thing which is basically impossible to prove or disprove.  It is also something to which assigning probability is a fool's errand.

Maybe you missed it, but I'm not a believer.  I don't like religion.  Not believing in any religion and thinking they are wrong is not the same as assigning some arbitrary percentage of probability for the existence of any type of god, though.  Put another way, making shit up to argue against made up shit is silly.


----------



## sealybobo

Montrovant said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, 'science' wouldn't say anything.  Perhaps there is a certain branch or principle of science which would lead to that question.
> 
> And it's not a question I have an answer to.  If an intelligence created our universe, there's no reason why I should be more special to that intelligence than anything else.
> 
> My point was simply that any being which could create the entire universe likely is one humanity does not yet have the capability to observe or understand.  I might compare it to the difference between humanity before and after the invention of the microscope.  It's possible that, if some sort of god does exist, humans have not yet discovered or created a way to observe that entity.
> 
> I get the feeling you are mixing denial of specific religious belief and denial of the idea of god(s).  Saying agnostic atheism is the only rational choice doesn't mesh with saying there is a 99.9999% chance there is no god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is the probability that such a god exists?  Very low.  The fact that this god has not left one fingerprint tells us something.  And the fact that humans have created this crazy idea of god in their minds tells me that there is no reason other than our imaginations to believe in a god other than our ancestors made it up.
> 
> And agnostic atheism makes perfect sense.  We believe there is much more a chance that god doesn't exist.  But we leave the door open a crack, because who knows.  Anyone who claims to know is crazy.  And christians and muslims claim to know.
> 
> Oh yea, and I'm sorry, but if the Christian's definition of god is bullshit and the muslim's claim to own god is a lie and if the mormon's are just a big cult, then I'm sorry, but you do not get to redefine god.  God as we know it is either the christian or muslim god or maybe god came down and talked to both of them.  But most thinking people know this is a lie.  SO, you do not get to redefine God as something that you can't explain, blablabla.  At least the christians and muslims were good enough to make up a fake ass story to sell us.  All you have is phylisophical think.  LOL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agnostic atheism does not make perfect sense if there is a 99.9999% chance that no god exists.
> 
> You clearly are hung up on particular religious beliefs.  There is a vast difference between the mere concept of god(s) and a particular religion.  Humans have believed in many, many different religions with many different gods.  If they are all wrong, that does not mean that there is no sort of god.
> 
> Who are 'most thinking people'?  You say 'god as we know it is either the Christian or Muslim god'.  I would argue that 'most thinking people' wouldn't post such an asinine statement.
> 
> If you want to argue against Christianity or Islam, fine.  That is not the same as arguing against the entire concept of a god, a thing which is basically impossible to prove or disprove.  It is also something to which assigning probability is a fool's errand.
> 
> Maybe you missed it, but I'm not a believer.  I don't like religion.  Not believing in any religion and thinking they are wrong is not the same as assigning some arbitrary percentage of probability for the existence of any type of god, though.  Put another way, making shit up to argue against made up shit is silly.
Click to expand...


Google whynogod and educate yourself.  Most scientists are agnostic atheists because they know there is almost without question NO GOD, but they leave the door open.  Would you be happier if i said there is 98% chance there is no god?  Sorry I can't though because the chances of god being real are even smaller.  Bottom line if you look at all the facts and use logic there is only one logical conclusion and that is god doesn't exist.  We made it up.  No fingerprint.  Science even knows why the human brain came up with the concept.  So when you look into it deep enough the only reason you believe there is a god is because you want to.  No other reason.  Sorry.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> Since the death penalty for scientific discovery contrary to christian teachings has been lifted god has batted a goose egg and science has beaten back many thousands of so called miracles into nothingness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Next is miracles. Contrary to what you say, they are still happening today. Things science has no explanation for whatsoever. Cancer Treatment Centers of America includes "spiritual therapy" as part of the treatment process because science has found that (for whatever unexplainable scientific reason) the presence of strong spiritual faith has proven itself with positive and miraculous results. Science doesn't care whether or not you believe in God, it is only concerned with observable results.
Click to expand...


Miracles have not been demonstrated to occur.  Even if a miracle could be demonstrated it would not immediately imply the existence of a god as unknown natural processes or agents could still be at work.  Most alleged miracles can be explained as statistically unlikely occurrences.  In the absence of any empirical evidence, all other claims can be dismissed as the result of magical thinking, misattribution, credulity, hearsay and anecdote. Eye-witness testimony and anecdotal accounts are, by themselves, not reliable or definitive forms of proof for such extraordinary claims either.  Divine intervention claims most often concern systems and events for which we have poor predictive capabilities.  Miracle claims are rarely made in relation to those things we can accurately predict and test like the motion of celestial bodies, boiling point of water and pull of gravity. If a god is constantly intervening in the universe it supposedly created, then it is with such ambiguity as to appear completely indistinguishable from normal background chance.  Want to show me a miracle?  Show me a limb grow back overnight.  A priest putting his hands on 100,000 people and one of them with a brain tumor is cured is not a miracle.  Show me a priest who can cure every person with a brain tumor then well talk.


----------



## sealybobo

Odd that some people understand all the organized religions are completely made up and yet they still believe in a god.  The only evidence we supposedly have is the lies christians muslims and jews have passed down to us for thousands of years.  Without their fake stories we have absolutely zero evidence of a god.


----------



## sealybobo

Redefining something as god tells us nothing. To use the word god implies a host of other attributes and if you dont intend to apply those attributes, using the word is intentionally misleading.


----------



## sealybobo

Proposing a non-physical explanation for an observed or imagined/fabricated phenomena is not a testable hypothesis and is therefore unworthy of serious consideration.


----------



## sealybobo

Montrovant said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, 'science' wouldn't say anything.  Perhaps there is a certain branch or principle of science which would lead to that question.
> 
> And it's not a question I have an answer to.  If an intelligence created our universe, there's no reason why I should be more special to that intelligence than anything else.
> 
> My point was simply that any being which could create the entire universe likely is one humanity does not yet have the capability to observe or understand.  I might compare it to the difference between humanity before and after the invention of the microscope.  It's possible that, if some sort of god does exist, humans have not yet discovered or created a way to observe that entity.
> 
> I get the feeling you are mixing denial of specific religious belief and denial of the idea of god(s).  Saying agnostic atheism is the only rational choice doesn't mesh with saying there is a 99.9999% chance there is no god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is the probability that such a god exists?  Very low.  The fact that this god has not left one fingerprint tells us something.  And the fact that humans have created this crazy idea of god in their minds tells me that there is no reason other than our imaginations to believe in a god other than our ancestors made it up.
> 
> And agnostic atheism makes perfect sense.  We believe there is much more a chance that god doesn't exist.  But we leave the door open a crack, because who knows.  Anyone who claims to know is crazy.  And christians and muslims claim to know.
> 
> Oh yea, and I'm sorry, but if the Christian's definition of god is bullshit and the muslim's claim to own god is a lie and if the mormon's are just a big cult, then I'm sorry, but you do not get to redefine god.  God as we know it is either the christian or muslim god or maybe god came down and talked to both of them.  But most thinking people know this is a lie.  SO, you do not get to redefine God as something that you can't explain, blablabla.  At least the christians and muslims were good enough to make up a fake ass story to sell us.  All you have is phylisophical think.  LOL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agnostic atheism does not make perfect sense if there is a 99.9999% chance that no god exists.
> 
> You clearly are hung up on particular religious beliefs.  There is a vast difference between the mere concept of god(s) and a particular religion.  Humans have believed in many, many different religions with many different gods.  If they are all wrong, that does not mean that there is no sort of god.
> 
> Who are 'most thinking people'?  You say 'god as we know it is either the Christian or Muslim god'.  I would argue that 'most thinking people' wouldn't post such an asinine statement.
> 
> If you want to argue against Christianity or Islam, fine.  That is not the same as arguing against the entire concept of a god, a thing which is basically impossible to prove or disprove.  It is also something to which assigning probability is a fool's errand.
> 
> Maybe you missed it, but I'm not a believer.  I don't like religion.  Not believing in any religion and thinking they are wrong is not the same as assigning some arbitrary percentage of probability for the existence of any type of god, though.  Put another way, making shit up to argue against made up shit is silly.
Click to expand...


Weak atheism is a lack of belief in any gods. Unlike strong atheism, there is no positive assertion that no god exists. Weak atheism is occasionally called negative atheism, negative meaning it makes no positive claims.

Strong atheism implies certainty, perhaps even beyond the scientific certainty with which we regard scientific theories such as gravity or germs. 

A strong atheist would argue that the idea of a god is logically contradictory and therefore cannot exist as most theists define the word. The Christian god is defined as an omniscient, omnipotent, intelligent, aware being which created and was responsible for the universe. The problem of evil is one example of a logical impossibility that comes from believing that the god is also omnibenevolent, this can be avoided by relaxing the requirements on God's qualities.

If there were in fact a deity delivering the divinely inspired word of the one true religion to the human race then it would be expected that all religions would converge on the same answers, yet that is not what we see. There are so many different religions with vastly different beliefs that one should question whether there really is an intelligence behind it all. Since religions diverge rather than converge, this should count as evidence against the proposition of a Theistic deity.

50 reasons to believe in God - Iron Chariots Wiki


----------



## Hollie

sealybobo said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you see they made the one pedophile pope a saint and said he performed one miracle? I looked into it and he supposedly cured some kid of a brain tumor. Just one kid? I guess I'm going to go to the hospital and put my hands on every person with cancer and everyone of them that is cured is my doing and I'm a saint and I performed a miracle. The Catholic church making those last two pope's into saints is another thing that pushed me over the edge on realizing all organized religion is fucked up, immoral, corrupt bullshit. Saints. Sure. What a PR move. They got to do something to win all the people they lost back. That's why they picked a pope who said "who am I to judge" when asked about gays. Great answer, too bad your flock doesn't feel that way.
> 
> Oh yea, and why are christians so concerned with gays? Why don't they worry about the 7 deadly sins they commit every day? Gay is not one of them. But being fat and greedy are two of them. Christians need to focus on themselves. Be good people then maybe we'll want to join your cult.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds to me like you're the one preoccupied with deviant sex.
> 
> Not Christians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't hate god its hypocritical religious people who think they know him I don't like.  I don't hate anyone but boy would I love for that story to come true where jesus comes and takes all you believers to heaven and leaves the rest of us here.  Man I hope that happens.  Then we'll have heaven on earth with you guys gone.
Click to expand...


That's a bit harsh. Who would be left for the true believers to hate, other than themselves and each other?


----------



## Montrovant

sealybobo said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the probability that such a god exists?  Very low.  The fact that this god has not left one fingerprint tells us something.  And the fact that humans have created this crazy idea of god in their minds tells me that there is no reason other than our imaginations to believe in a god other than our ancestors made it up.
> 
> And agnostic atheism makes perfect sense.  We believe there is much more a chance that god doesn't exist.  But we leave the door open a crack, because who knows.  Anyone who claims to know is crazy.  And christians and muslims claim to know.
> 
> Oh yea, and I'm sorry, but if the Christian's definition of god is bullshit and the muslim's claim to own god is a lie and if the mormon's are just a big cult, then I'm sorry, but you do not get to redefine god.  God as we know it is either the christian or muslim god or maybe god came down and talked to both of them.  But most thinking people know this is a lie.  SO, you do not get to redefine God as something that you can't explain, blablabla.  At least the christians and muslims were good enough to make up a fake ass story to sell us.  All you have is phylisophical think.  LOL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agnostic atheism does not make perfect sense if there is a 99.9999% chance that no god exists.
> 
> You clearly are hung up on particular religious beliefs.  There is a vast difference between the mere concept of god(s) and a particular religion.  Humans have believed in many, many different religions with many different gods.  If they are all wrong, that does not mean that there is no sort of god.
> 
> Who are 'most thinking people'?  You say 'god as we know it is either the Christian or Muslim god'.  I would argue that 'most thinking people' wouldn't post such an asinine statement.
> 
> If you want to argue against Christianity or Islam, fine.  That is not the same as arguing against the entire concept of a god, a thing which is basically impossible to prove or disprove.  It is also something to which assigning probability is a fool's errand.
> 
> Maybe you missed it, but I'm not a believer.  I don't like religion.  Not believing in any religion and thinking they are wrong is not the same as assigning some arbitrary percentage of probability for the existence of any type of god, though.  Put another way, making shit up to argue against made up shit is silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Google whynogod and educate yourself.  Most scientists are agnostic atheists because they know there is almost without question NO GOD, but they leave the door open.  Would you be happier if i said there is 98% chance there is no god?  Sorry I can't though because the chances of god being real are even smaller.  Bottom line if you look at all the facts and use logic there is only one logical conclusion and that is god doesn't exist.  We made it up.  No fingerprint.  Science even knows why the human brain came up with the concept.  So when you look into it deep enough the only reason you believe there is a god is because you want to.  No other reason.  Sorry.
Click to expand...


You make a lot of statements as though they are fact without backing them up.

You seem to think you can speak for 'most scientists'.  That's a fairly bold thing to do, considering both the number of scientists in the world and the various fields they may belong to.

There is no real way for you to assign a percentage to the probability a god exists.  How do you do it?  What are the variables involved?  What criteria or data are you using to come up with your percentage?  Throwing your 99.9999% number around is meaningless.  Where does it come from?  If a believer comes on and says there is a 99.9999% chance there is a god, they have provided just as much reasoning and evidence for their probability number as you have.

It doesn't matter if a person believes in god or not.  That has no real bearing on whether there is a way to determine the probability of a god existing.

You don't sound at all like an agnostic atheist.  You actually come off more as the kind of militant atheist Boss started this ridiculous thread about in the first place.  Yes, you say you 'leave the door open' to the possibility of a god, but when you then quantify that as a 0.0001% chance, you are basically saying there is no chance.  Especially when you go on to say the only logical conclusion is that there is no god.

So no, saying there is a 98% chance a god exists wouldn't make me happier.  Nor would a 90% chance, or a 50% chance, or a 1% chance.  The whole idea of assigning a numeric probability to the possibility a god exists is, IMO, ridiculous.  It would be ridiculous enough to do with any particular incarnation of god; it is beyond foolish when talking about the possibility of any kind of god.


----------



## sealybobo

Montrovant said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agnostic atheism does not make perfect sense if there is a 99.9999% chance that no god exists.
> 
> You clearly are hung up on particular religious beliefs.  There is a vast difference between the mere concept of god(s) and a particular religion.  Humans have believed in many, many different religions with many different gods.  If they are all wrong, that does not mean that there is no sort of god.
> 
> Who are 'most thinking people'?  You say 'god as we know it is either the Christian or Muslim god'.  I would argue that 'most thinking people' wouldn't post such an asinine statement.
> 
> If you want to argue against Christianity or Islam, fine.  That is not the same as arguing against the entire concept of a god, a thing which is basically impossible to prove or disprove.  It is also something to which assigning probability is a fool's errand.
> 
> Maybe you missed it, but I'm not a believer.  I don't like religion.  Not believing in any religion and thinking they are wrong is not the same as assigning some arbitrary percentage of probability for the existence of any type of god, though.  Put another way, making shit up to argue against made up shit is silly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Google whynogod and educate yourself.  Most scientists are agnostic atheists because they know there is almost without question NO GOD, but they leave the door open.  Would you be happier if i said there is 98% chance there is no god?  Sorry I can't though because the chances of god being real are even smaller.  Bottom line if you look at all the facts and use logic there is only one logical conclusion and that is god doesn't exist.  We made it up.  No fingerprint.  Science even knows why the human brain came up with the concept.  So when you look into it deep enough the only reason you believe there is a god is because you want to.  No other reason.  Sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You make a lot of statements as though they are fact without backing them up.
> 
> You seem to think you can speak for 'most scientists'.  That's a fairly bold thing to do, considering both the number of scientists in the world and the various fields they may belong to.
> 
> There is no real way for you to assign a percentage to the probability a god exists.  How do you do it?  What are the variables involved?  What criteria or data are you using to come up with your percentage?  Throwing your 99.9999% number around is meaningless.  Where does it come from?  If a believer comes on and says there is a 99.9999% chance there is a god, they have provided just as much reasoning and evidence for their probability number as you have.
> 
> It doesn't matter if a person believes in god or not.  That has no real bearing on whether there is a way to determine the probability of a god existing.
> 
> You don't sound at all like an agnostic atheist.  You actually come off more as the kind of militant atheist Boss started this ridiculous thread about in the first place.  Yes, you say you 'leave the door open' to the possibility of a god, but when you then quantify that as a 0.0001% chance, you are basically saying there is no chance.  Especially when you go on to say the only logical conclusion is that there is no god.
> 
> So no, saying there is a 98% chance a god exists wouldn't make me happier.  Nor would a 90% chance, or a 50% chance, or a 1% chance.  The whole idea of assigning a numeric probability to the possibility a god exists is, IMO, ridiculous.  It would be ridiculous enough to do with any particular incarnation of god; it is beyond foolish when talking about the possibility of any kind of god.
Click to expand...


The only thing that is ridiculous is believing in something when you have absolutely zero hard evidence.  Yes we give it a .000001% chance because you never know.  There is also a slim chance that space men from other planets have visited earth.  What percent chance do you think there is of that?  That's right, about .00001% chance.  So without any evidence I/We are 99.9999% sure there is no god.  There is no evidence, the claim is ridiculous, science has explained how/when/why humans came up with the notion, and yes any thinking rational open minded person would have to agree there is probably no god.  But of course our brains are hard wired to want to believe and we've been brainwashed since birth and they say its in our dna to believe in a god but other than all that there is no evidence.  If you are a scientist and you use science as your basis for thinking then you must rationally conclude there is probably no god.


----------



## sealybobo

Montrovant said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agnostic atheism does not make perfect sense if there is a 99.9999% chance that no god exists.
> 
> You clearly are hung up on particular religious beliefs.  There is a vast difference between the mere concept of god(s) and a particular religion.  Humans have believed in many, many different religions with many different gods.  If they are all wrong, that does not mean that there is no sort of god.
> 
> Who are 'most thinking people'?  You say 'god as we know it is either the Christian or Muslim god'.  I would argue that 'most thinking people' wouldn't post such an asinine statement.
> 
> If you want to argue against Christianity or Islam, fine.  That is not the same as arguing against the entire concept of a god, a thing which is basically impossible to prove or disprove.  It is also something to which assigning probability is a fool's errand.
> 
> Maybe you missed it, but I'm not a believer.  I don't like religion.  Not believing in any religion and thinking they are wrong is not the same as assigning some arbitrary percentage of probability for the existence of any type of god, though.  Put another way, making shit up to argue against made up shit is silly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Google whynogod and educate yourself.  Most scientists are agnostic atheists because they know there is almost without question NO GOD, but they leave the door open.  Would you be happier if i said there is 98% chance there is no god?  Sorry I can't though because the chances of god being real are even smaller.  Bottom line if you look at all the facts and use logic there is only one logical conclusion and that is god doesn't exist.  We made it up.  No fingerprint.  Science even knows why the human brain came up with the concept.  So when you look into it deep enough the only reason you believe there is a god is because you want to.  No other reason.  Sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You make a lot of statements as though they are fact without backing them up.
> 
> You seem to think you can speak for 'most scientists'.  That's a fairly bold thing to do, considering both the number of scientists in the world and the various fields they may belong to.
> 
> There is no real way for you to assign a percentage to the probability a god exists.  How do you do it?  What are the variables involved?  What criteria or data are you using to come up with your percentage?  Throwing your 99.9999% number around is meaningless.  Where does it come from?  If a believer comes on and says there is a 99.9999% chance there is a god, they have provided just as much reasoning and evidence for their probability number as you have.
> 
> It doesn't matter if a person believes in god or not.  That has no real bearing on whether there is a way to determine the probability of a god existing.
> 
> You don't sound at all like an agnostic atheist.  You actually come off more as the kind of militant atheist Boss started this ridiculous thread about in the first place.  Yes, you say you 'leave the door open' to the possibility of a god, but when you then quantify that as a 0.0001% chance, you are basically saying there is no chance.  Especially when you go on to say the only logical conclusion is that there is no god.
> 
> So no, saying there is a 98% chance a god exists wouldn't make me happier.  Nor would a 90% chance, or a 50% chance, or a 1% chance.  The whole idea of assigning a numeric probability to the possibility a god exists is, IMO, ridiculous.  It would be ridiculous enough to do with any particular incarnation of god; it is beyond foolish when talking about the possibility of any kind of god.
Click to expand...


There is no evidence god doesnt exist, so belief is as justified or as valid as non-belief.

Argument from ignorance.

A common attempt to shift the burden of proof or make room for a god. Represents a type of false dichotomy that excludes the fact that there is insufficient investigation and the proposition has not yet been proven either true or false.

The failure to disprove the existence of something does not constitute proof of its existence.

Belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims because all such claims would need to be believed implicitly. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

Note: It is possible to gather evidence of absence and disprove specific claims about and definitions of a god.


----------



## sealybobo

Montrovant said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agnostic atheism does not make perfect sense if there is a 99.9999% chance that no god exists.
> 
> You clearly are hung up on particular religious beliefs.  There is a vast difference between the mere concept of god(s) and a particular religion.  Humans have believed in many, many different religions with many different gods.  If they are all wrong, that does not mean that there is no sort of god.
> 
> Who are 'most thinking people'?  You say 'god as we know it is either the Christian or Muslim god'.  I would argue that 'most thinking people' wouldn't post such an asinine statement.
> 
> If you want to argue against Christianity or Islam, fine.  That is not the same as arguing against the entire concept of a god, a thing which is basically impossible to prove or disprove.  It is also something to which assigning probability is a fool's errand.
> 
> Maybe you missed it, but I'm not a believer.  I don't like religion.  Not believing in any religion and thinking they are wrong is not the same as assigning some arbitrary percentage of probability for the existence of any type of god, though.  Put another way, making shit up to argue against made up shit is silly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Google whynogod and educate yourself.  Most scientists are agnostic atheists because they know there is almost without question NO GOD, but they leave the door open.  Would you be happier if i said there is 98% chance there is no god?  Sorry I can't though because the chances of god being real are even smaller.  Bottom line if you look at all the facts and use logic there is only one logical conclusion and that is god doesn't exist.  We made it up.  No fingerprint.  Science even knows why the human brain came up with the concept.  So when you look into it deep enough the only reason you believe there is a god is because you want to.  No other reason.  Sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You make a lot of statements as though they are fact without backing them up.
> 
> You seem to think you can speak for 'most scientists'.  That's a fairly bold thing to do, considering both the number of scientists in the world and the various fields they may belong to.
> 
> There is no real way for you to assign a percentage to the probability a god exists.  How do you do it?  What are the variables involved?  What criteria or data are you using to come up with your percentage?  Throwing your 99.9999% number around is meaningless.  Where does it come from?  If a believer comes on and says there is a 99.9999% chance there is a god, they have provided just as much reasoning and evidence for their probability number as you have.
> 
> It doesn't matter if a person believes in god or not.  That has no real bearing on whether there is a way to determine the probability of a god existing.
> 
> You don't sound at all like an agnostic atheist.  You actually come off more as the kind of militant atheist Boss started this ridiculous thread about in the first place.  Yes, you say you 'leave the door open' to the possibility of a god, but when you then quantify that as a 0.0001% chance, you are basically saying there is no chance.  Especially when you go on to say the only logical conclusion is that there is no god.
> 
> So no, saying there is a 98% chance a god exists wouldn't make me happier.  Nor would a 90% chance, or a 50% chance, or a 1% chance.  The whole idea of assigning a numeric probability to the possibility a god exists is, IMO, ridiculous.  It would be ridiculous enough to do with any particular incarnation of god; it is beyond foolish when talking about the possibility of any kind of god.
Click to expand...


The existence of one or more deities and relationship between science and religion has been debated for thousands of years.

Some claims about the existence of gods or about their actions may be shown false - such as the claim that Helios pulls the sun across the sky.

Other beliefs can not be proven in the negative.


----------



## HUGGY

Hollie said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds to me like you're the one preoccupied with deviant sex.
> 
> Not Christians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't hate god its hypocritical religious people who think they know him I don't like.  I don't hate anyone but boy would I love for that story to come true where jesus comes and takes all you believers to heaven and leaves the rest of us here.  Man I hope that happens.  Then we'll have heaven on earth with you guys gone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a bit harsh. Who would be left for the true believers to hate, other than themselves and each other?
Click to expand...


It is a silly daydream.  I discourage scenerios that include the symptoms of the schitzophrenic hallucinations comon to religist myth.

Death is final.  There is nothing after the blood stops flowing to the brain except a few seconds of dream as the last remaining oxygen is consumed.  I even have a pretty good theory for the "bright white light".  It goes like this.  When man was evolving accidental death was comon, drowning being one of the many reasons.  Calming down in the last moments of such a crisis and attempting to swim towards the sun probably saved some of the victims and over time grew into the lexicon and fable as a "truth".  The drowning people that made no attempt to "find a way to survive by swimming towards the light" obviously just died.  Those that stopped flailing and applied thier brains over their terror obviously stood a better chance of coming back from the brink of death to talk about it.
This theory would have been especially useful for victims falling through the ice using the reference of the sun to find a way to safety.


----------



## sealybobo

Ask Morgan Freeman: When TheWrap asked the man with the magnificent voice about one of the coming episodes, titled "Did we invent God?," the distinguished actor didn't hold back.

Yes [...] Well, here's a scientific question: Has anybody ever seen hard evidence? What we get is theories from our earlier prophets.   My belief system doesn't support a creator as such, as we can call God, who created us in His/Her/Its image.
Freeman said answering whether he was an atheist or agnostic was "hard" because the actor thinks "we invented God."

"So if I believe in God, and I do, it's because I think I'm God," he said.


----------



## HUGGY

Montrovant said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agnostic atheism does not make perfect sense if there is a 99.9999% chance that no god exists.
> 
> You clearly are hung up on particular religious beliefs.  There is a vast difference between the mere concept of god(s) and a particular religion.  Humans have believed in many, many different religions with many different gods.  If they are all wrong, that does not mean that there is no sort of god.
> 
> Who are 'most thinking people'?  You say 'god as we know it is either the Christian or Muslim god'.  I would argue that 'most thinking people' wouldn't post such an asinine statement.
> 
> If you want to argue against Christianity or Islam, fine.  That is not the same as arguing against the entire concept of a god, a thing which is basically impossible to prove or disprove.  It is also something to which assigning probability is a fool's errand.
> 
> Maybe you missed it, but I'm not a believer.  I don't like religion.  Not believing in any religion and thinking they are wrong is not the same as assigning some arbitrary percentage of probability for the existence of any type of god, though.  Put another way, making shit up to argue against made up shit is silly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Google whynogod and educate yourself.  Most scientists are agnostic atheists because they know there is almost without question NO GOD, but they leave the door open.  Would you be happier if i said there is 98% chance there is no god?  Sorry I can't though because the chances of god being real are even smaller.  Bottom line if you look at all the facts and use logic there is only one logical conclusion and that is god doesn't exist.  We made it up.  No fingerprint.  Science even knows why the human brain came up with the concept.  So when you look into it deep enough the only reason you believe there is a god is because you want to.  No other reason.  Sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You make a lot of statements as though they are fact without backing them up.
> 
> You seem to think you can speak for 'most scientists'.  That's a fairly bold thing to do, considering both the number of scientists in the world and the various fields they may belong to.
> 
> There is no real way for you to assign a percentage to the probability a god exists.  How do you do it?  What are the variables involved?  What criteria or data are you using to come up with your percentage?  Throwing your 99.9999% number around is meaningless.  Where does it come from?  If a believer comes on and says there is a 99.9999% chance there is a god, they have provided just as much reasoning and evidence for their probability number as you have.
> 
> *It doesn't matter if a person believes in god or not*.  That has no real bearing on whether there is a way to determine the probability of a god existing.
> 
> You don't sound at all like an agnostic atheist.  You actually come off more as the kind of militant atheist Boss started this ridiculous thread about in the first place.  Yes, you say you 'leave the door open' to the possibility of a god, but when you then quantify that as a 0.0001% chance, you are basically saying there is no chance.  Especially when you go on to say the only logical conclusion is that there is no god.
> 
> So no, saying there is a 98% chance a god exists wouldn't make me happier.  Nor would a 90% chance, or a 50% chance, or a 1% chance.  The whole idea of assigning a numeric probability to the possibility a god exists is, IMO, ridiculous.  It would be ridiculous enough to do with any particular incarnation of god; it is beyond foolish when talking about the possibility of any kind of god.
Click to expand...


*It doesn't matter if a person believes in god or not*

I dissagree.  People that assist the continuation of the big lie add to human ignorance and diffuse intelligent use of resources and worthy goals.

Evey little bit of ignorance when added up times several billion people amounts to an incredibly stupid population.  

I would prefer that human beings were smarter than not as thier opinions sooner or later are transfered into votes or support of our leaders.  Being right matters.


----------



## Montrovant

HUGGY said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Google whynogod and educate yourself.  Most scientists are agnostic atheists because they know there is almost without question NO GOD, but they leave the door open.  Would you be happier if i said there is 98% chance there is no god?  Sorry I can't though because the chances of god being real are even smaller.  Bottom line if you look at all the facts and use logic there is only one logical conclusion and that is god doesn't exist.  We made it up.  No fingerprint.  Science even knows why the human brain came up with the concept.  So when you look into it deep enough the only reason you believe there is a god is because you want to.  No other reason.  Sorry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You make a lot of statements as though they are fact without backing them up.
> 
> You seem to think you can speak for 'most scientists'.  That's a fairly bold thing to do, considering both the number of scientists in the world and the various fields they may belong to.
> 
> There is no real way for you to assign a percentage to the probability a god exists.  How do you do it?  What are the variables involved?  What criteria or data are you using to come up with your percentage?  Throwing your 99.9999% number around is meaningless.  Where does it come from?  If a believer comes on and says there is a 99.9999% chance there is a god, they have provided just as much reasoning and evidence for their probability number as you have.
> 
> *It doesn't matter if a person believes in god or not*.  That has no real bearing on whether there is a way to determine the probability of a god existing.
> 
> You don't sound at all like an agnostic atheist.  You actually come off more as the kind of militant atheist Boss started this ridiculous thread about in the first place.  Yes, you say you 'leave the door open' to the possibility of a god, but when you then quantify that as a 0.0001% chance, you are basically saying there is no chance.  Especially when you go on to say the only logical conclusion is that there is no god.
> 
> So no, saying there is a 98% chance a god exists wouldn't make me happier.  Nor would a 90% chance, or a 50% chance, or a 1% chance.  The whole idea of assigning a numeric probability to the possibility a god exists is, IMO, ridiculous.  It would be ridiculous enough to do with any particular incarnation of god; it is beyond foolish when talking about the possibility of any kind of god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *It doesn't matter if a person believes in god or not*
> 
> I dissagree.  People that assist the continuation of the big lie add to human ignorance and diffuse intelligent use of resources and worthy goals.
> 
> Evey little bit of ignorance when added up times several billion people amounts to an incredibly stupid population.
> 
> I would prefer that human beings were smarter than not as thier opinions sooner or later are transfered into votes or support of our leaders.  Being right matters.
Click to expand...


Belief in god is not ignorance.  That is, in fact, an ignorant statement; if you were aware of the definition of ignorance, that being an absence of knowledge, you would realize that belief in a god is possible no matter a person's knowledge or education.  You also equated ignorance to stupidity, which is also incorrect; ignorance is about knowledge while stupidity is about intelligence.

Beyond which, if you took the statement in context and continued to the very next sentence, you'd see that I was saying that belief or lack of belief isn't important in regards to assigning a percentage to the probability some sort of god exists.

So now we have sealybobo making things up to try and show that something is made up, and now you are using ignorant statements to try and show something is ignorant.  And you both seem to be people that I mostly agree with as far as the existence of god is concerned.


----------



## Montrovant

sealybobo said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Google whynogod and educate yourself.  Most scientists are agnostic atheists because they know there is almost without question NO GOD, but they leave the door open.  Would you be happier if i said there is 98% chance there is no god?  Sorry I can't though because the chances of god being real are even smaller.  Bottom line if you look at all the facts and use logic there is only one logical conclusion and that is god doesn't exist.  We made it up.  No fingerprint.  Science even knows why the human brain came up with the concept.  So when you look into it deep enough the only reason you believe there is a god is because you want to.  No other reason.  Sorry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You make a lot of statements as though they are fact without backing them up.
> 
> You seem to think you can speak for 'most scientists'.  That's a fairly bold thing to do, considering both the number of scientists in the world and the various fields they may belong to.
> 
> There is no real way for you to assign a percentage to the probability a god exists.  How do you do it?  What are the variables involved?  What criteria or data are you using to come up with your percentage?  Throwing your 99.9999% number around is meaningless.  Where does it come from?  If a believer comes on and says there is a 99.9999% chance there is a god, they have provided just as much reasoning and evidence for their probability number as you have.
> 
> It doesn't matter if a person believes in god or not.  That has no real bearing on whether there is a way to determine the probability of a god existing.
> 
> You don't sound at all like an agnostic atheist.  You actually come off more as the kind of militant atheist Boss started this ridiculous thread about in the first place.  Yes, you say you 'leave the door open' to the possibility of a god, but when you then quantify that as a 0.0001% chance, you are basically saying there is no chance.  Especially when you go on to say the only logical conclusion is that there is no god.
> 
> So no, saying there is a 98% chance a god exists wouldn't make me happier.  Nor would a 90% chance, or a 50% chance, or a 1% chance.  The whole idea of assigning a numeric probability to the possibility a god exists is, IMO, ridiculous.  It would be ridiculous enough to do with any particular incarnation of god; it is beyond foolish when talking about the possibility of any kind of god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no evidence god doesnt exist, so belief is as justified or as valid as non-belief.
> 
> Argument from ignorance.
> 
> A common attempt to shift the burden of proof or make room for a god. Represents a type of false dichotomy that excludes the fact that there is insufficient investigation and the proposition has not yet been proven either true or false.
> 
> The failure to disprove the existence of something does not constitute proof of its existence.
> 
> Belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims because all such claims would need to be believed implicitly. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
> 
> Note: It is possible to gather evidence of absence and disprove specific claims about and definitions of a god.
Click to expand...


This has what, exactly, to do with my post?

I didn't claim that there is an equal chance a god exists as that no god exists.  What I've said, multiple times now, is that trying to quantify the probability is impossible.  God must first be clearly defined, then some sort of criteria for what makes the existence of a god probable or not addressed.  It is further complicated by man's ignorance of much of the universe.

So while you can certainly point out contradictions or fallacies in any particular religious belief, none of that means a thing when trying to determine the probability of the existence of god(s).

Unless you can show how you come to your 99.9999% probability, all you are really doing is pulling the number out of your ass.


----------



## sealybobo

Montrovant said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agnostic atheism does not make perfect sense if there is a 99.9999% chance that no god exists.
> 
> You clearly are hung up on particular religious beliefs.  There is a vast difference between the mere concept of god(s) and a particular religion.  Humans have believed in many, many different religions with many different gods.  If they are all wrong, that does not mean that there is no sort of god.
> 
> Who are 'most thinking people'?  You say 'god as we know it is either the Christian or Muslim god'.  I would argue that 'most thinking people' wouldn't post such an asinine statement.
> 
> If you want to argue against Christianity or Islam, fine.  That is not the same as arguing against the entire concept of a god, a thing which is basically impossible to prove or disprove.  It is also something to which assigning probability is a fool's errand.
> 
> Maybe you missed it, but I'm not a believer.  I don't like religion.  Not believing in any religion and thinking they are wrong is not the same as assigning some arbitrary percentage of probability for the existence of any type of god, though.  Put another way, making shit up to argue against made up shit is silly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Google whynogod and educate yourself.  Most scientists are agnostic atheists because they know there is almost without question NO GOD, but they leave the door open.  Would you be happier if i said there is 98% chance there is no god?  Sorry I can't though because the chances of god being real are even smaller.  Bottom line if you look at all the facts and use logic there is only one logical conclusion and that is god doesn't exist.  We made it up.  No fingerprint.  Science even knows why the human brain came up with the concept.  So when you look into it deep enough the only reason you believe there is a god is because you want to.  No other reason.  Sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You make a lot of statements as though they are fact without backing them up.
> 
> You seem to think you can speak for 'most scientists'.  That's a fairly bold thing to do, considering both the number of scientists in the world and the various fields they may belong to.
> 
> There is no real way for you to assign a percentage to the probability a god exists.  How do you do it?  What are the variables involved?  What criteria or data are you using to come up with your percentage?  Throwing your 99.9999% number around is meaningless.  Where does it come from?  If a believer comes on and says there is a 99.9999% chance there is a god, they have provided just as much reasoning and evidence for their probability number as you have.
> 
> It doesn't matter if a person believes in god or not.  That has no real bearing on whether there is a way to determine the probability of a god existing.
> 
> You don't sound at all like an agnostic atheist.  You actually come off more as the kind of militant atheist Boss started this ridiculous thread about in the first place.  Yes, you say you 'leave the door open' to the possibility of a god, but when you then quantify that as a 0.0001% chance, you are basically saying there is no chance.  Especially when you go on to say the only logical conclusion is that there is no god.
> 
> So no, saying there is a 98% chance a god exists wouldn't make me happier.  Nor would a 90% chance, or a 50% chance, or a 1% chance.  The whole idea of assigning a numeric probability to the possibility a god exists is, IMO, ridiculous.  It would be ridiculous enough to do with any particular incarnation of god; it is beyond foolish when talking about the possibility of any kind of god.
Click to expand...


&#8202; In recent years scientists specializing in the mind have begun to unravel religion's "DNA." They have produced robust theories, backed by empirical evidence (including "imaging" studies of the brain at work), that support the conclusion that it was humans who created God, not the other way around.  Science and religion: God didn't make man; man made gods - Los Angeles Times


----------



## sealybobo

Montrovant said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> You make a lot of statements as though they are fact without backing them up.
> 
> You seem to think you can speak for 'most scientists'.  That's a fairly bold thing to do, considering both the number of scientists in the world and the various fields they may belong to.
> 
> There is no real way for you to assign a percentage to the probability a god exists.  How do you do it?  What are the variables involved?  What criteria or data are you using to come up with your percentage?  Throwing your 99.9999% number around is meaningless.  Where does it come from?  If a believer comes on and says there is a 99.9999% chance there is a god, they have provided just as much reasoning and evidence for their probability number as you have.
> 
> It doesn't matter if a person believes in god or not.  That has no real bearing on whether there is a way to determine the probability of a god existing.
> 
> You don't sound at all like an agnostic atheist.  You actually come off more as the kind of militant atheist Boss started this ridiculous thread about in the first place.  Yes, you say you 'leave the door open' to the possibility of a god, but when you then quantify that as a 0.0001% chance, you are basically saying there is no chance.  Especially when you go on to say the only logical conclusion is that there is no god.
> 
> So no, saying there is a 98% chance a god exists wouldn't make me happier.  Nor would a 90% chance, or a 50% chance, or a 1% chance.  The whole idea of assigning a numeric probability to the possibility a god exists is, IMO, ridiculous.  It would be ridiculous enough to do with any particular incarnation of god; it is beyond foolish when talking about the possibility of any kind of god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence god doesnt exist, so belief is as justified or as valid as non-belief.
> 
> Argument from ignorance.
> 
> A common attempt to shift the burden of proof or make room for a god. Represents a type of false dichotomy that excludes the fact that there is insufficient investigation and the proposition has not yet been proven either true or false.
> 
> The failure to disprove the existence of something does not constitute proof of its existence.
> 
> Belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims because all such claims would need to be believed implicitly. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
> 
> Note: It is possible to gather evidence of absence and disprove specific claims about and definitions of a god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This has what, exactly, to do with my post?
> 
> I didn't claim that there is an equal chance a god exists as that no god exists.  What I've said, multiple times now, is that trying to quantify the probability is impossible.  God must first be clearly defined, then some sort of criteria for what makes the existence of a god probable or not addressed.  It is further complicated by man's ignorance of much of the universe.
> 
> So while you can certainly point out contradictions or fallacies in any particular religious belief, none of that means a thing when trying to determine the probability of the existence of god(s).
> 
> Unless you can show how you come to your 99.9999% probability, all you are really doing is pulling the number out of your ass.
Click to expand...


Science says we made up the idea of god.  And since you have zero evidence of god, I guess I'm just being nice by saying there is a 1% chance god exists.  The only reason I give you 1% is because I can't see what is on the other side of the moon or what's inside a black hole.  It may be god sitting around playing cards with my grandfathers.  What are the chances of that?  Would it be more or less than .00001%?  Exactly!!!!


----------



## sealybobo

Montrovant said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> You make a lot of statements as though they are fact without backing them up.
> 
> You seem to think you can speak for 'most scientists'.  That's a fairly bold thing to do, considering both the number of scientists in the world and the various fields they may belong to.
> 
> There is no real way for you to assign a percentage to the probability a god exists.  How do you do it?  What are the variables involved?  What criteria or data are you using to come up with your percentage?  Throwing your 99.9999% number around is meaningless.  Where does it come from?  If a believer comes on and says there is a 99.9999% chance there is a god, they have provided just as much reasoning and evidence for their probability number as you have.
> 
> *It doesn't matter if a person believes in god or not*.  That has no real bearing on whether there is a way to determine the probability of a god existing.
> 
> You don't sound at all like an agnostic atheist.  You actually come off more as the kind of militant atheist Boss started this ridiculous thread about in the first place.  Yes, you say you 'leave the door open' to the possibility of a god, but when you then quantify that as a 0.0001% chance, you are basically saying there is no chance.  Especially when you go on to say the only logical conclusion is that there is no god.
> 
> So no, saying there is a 98% chance a god exists wouldn't make me happier.  Nor would a 90% chance, or a 50% chance, or a 1% chance.  The whole idea of assigning a numeric probability to the possibility a god exists is, IMO, ridiculous.  It would be ridiculous enough to do with any particular incarnation of god; it is beyond foolish when talking about the possibility of any kind of god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *It doesn't matter if a person believes in god or not*
> 
> I dissagree.  People that assist the continuation of the big lie add to human ignorance and diffuse intelligent use of resources and worthy goals.
> 
> Evey little bit of ignorance when added up times several billion people amounts to an incredibly stupid population.
> 
> I would prefer that human beings were smarter than not as thier opinions sooner or later are transfered into votes or support of our leaders.  Being right matters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Belief in god is not ignorance.  That is, in fact, an ignorant statement; if you were aware of the definition of ignorance, that being an absence of knowledge, you would realize that belief in a god is possible no matter a person's knowledge or education.  You also equated ignorance to stupidity, which is also incorrect; ignorance is about knowledge while stupidity is about intelligence.
> 
> Beyond which, if you took the statement in context and continued to the very next sentence, you'd see that I was saying that belief or lack of belief isn't important in regards to assigning a percentage to the probability some sort of god exists.
> 
> So now we have sealybobo making things up to try and show that something is made up, and now you are using ignorant statements to try and show something is ignorant.  And you both seem to be people that I mostly agree with as far as the existence of god is concerned.
Click to expand...


Symantics


----------



## Montrovant

sealybobo said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> *It doesn't matter if a person believes in god or not*
> 
> I dissagree.  People that assist the continuation of the big lie add to human ignorance and diffuse intelligent use of resources and worthy goals.
> 
> Evey little bit of ignorance when added up times several billion people amounts to an incredibly stupid population.
> 
> I would prefer that human beings were smarter than not as thier opinions sooner or later are transfered into votes or support of our leaders.  Being right matters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Belief in god is not ignorance.  That is, in fact, an ignorant statement; if you were aware of the definition of ignorance, that being an absence of knowledge, you would realize that belief in a god is possible no matter a person's knowledge or education.  You also equated ignorance to stupidity, which is also incorrect; ignorance is about knowledge while stupidity is about intelligence.
> 
> Beyond which, if you took the statement in context and continued to the very next sentence, you'd see that I was saying that belief or lack of belief isn't important in regards to assigning a percentage to the probability some sort of god exists.
> 
> So now we have sealybobo making things up to try and show that something is made up, and now you are using ignorant statements to try and show something is ignorant.  And you both seem to be people that I mostly agree with as far as the existence of god is concerned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Symantics
Click to expand...


Semantics


----------



## Montrovant

sealybobo said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence god doesnt exist, so belief is as justified or as valid as non-belief.
> 
> Argument from ignorance.
> 
> A common attempt to shift the burden of proof or make room for a god. Represents a type of false dichotomy that excludes the fact that there is insufficient investigation and the proposition has not yet been proven either true or false.
> 
> The failure to disprove the existence of something does not constitute proof of its existence.
> 
> Belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims because all such claims would need to be believed implicitly. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
> 
> Note: It is possible to gather evidence of absence and disprove specific claims about and definitions of a god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This has what, exactly, to do with my post?
> 
> I didn't claim that there is an equal chance a god exists as that no god exists.  What I've said, multiple times now, is that trying to quantify the probability is impossible.  God must first be clearly defined, then some sort of criteria for what makes the existence of a god probable or not addressed.  It is further complicated by man's ignorance of much of the universe.
> 
> So while you can certainly point out contradictions or fallacies in any particular religious belief, none of that means a thing when trying to determine the probability of the existence of god(s).
> 
> Unless you can show how you come to your 99.9999% probability, all you are really doing is pulling the number out of your ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science says we made up the idea of god.  And since you have zero evidence of god, I guess I'm just being nice by saying there is a 1% chance god exists.  The only reason I give you 1% is because I can't see what is on the other side of the moon or what's inside a black hole.  It may be god sitting around playing cards with my grandfathers.  What are the chances of that?  Would it be more or less than .00001%?  Exactly!!!!
Click to expand...


You can avoid this all you want.  I'm not looking for you to increase your probability numbers.  I'm saying that there is no way to come up with an accurate number as to the probability of god(s) existing.

And again, 'science' doesn't say humanity made up the idea of god.  There is some research which may point to that being the case, but your continued use of science as some sort of catch-all is silly.

I agree there is little to no evidence of god.  However, the whole agnostic part of agnostic atheism is saying that any god, if it exists, is likely unknowable by humans.  So I'll be happy to admit that I don't believe in the gods of the human religions I've seen, but not dismiss the possibility that there may be a kernel of truth to them, that some intelligence may have created the universe.  And I'm not going to be so arrogant as to think I can assign a number to the probability that such a thing is true.  That would require me to believe I know most everything there is to know about the universe.


----------



## HUGGY

Montrovant said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> You make a lot of statements as though they are fact without backing them up.
> 
> You seem to think you can speak for 'most scientists'.  That's a fairly bold thing to do, considering both the number of scientists in the world and the various fields they may belong to.
> 
> There is no real way for you to assign a percentage to the probability a god exists.  How do you do it?  What are the variables involved?  What criteria or data are you using to come up with your percentage?  Throwing your 99.9999% number around is meaningless.  Where does it come from?  If a believer comes on and says there is a 99.9999% chance there is a god, they have provided just as much reasoning and evidence for their probability number as you have.
> 
> *It doesn't matter if a person believes in god or not*.  That has no real bearing on whether there is a way to determine the probability of a god existing.
> 
> You don't sound at all like an agnostic atheist.  You actually come off more as the kind of militant atheist Boss started this ridiculous thread about in the first place.  Yes, you say you 'leave the door open' to the possibility of a god, but when you then quantify that as a 0.0001% chance, you are basically saying there is no chance.  Especially when you go on to say the only logical conclusion is that there is no god.
> 
> So no, saying there is a 98% chance a god exists wouldn't make me happier.  Nor would a 90% chance, or a 50% chance, or a 1% chance.  The whole idea of assigning a numeric probability to the possibility a god exists is, IMO, ridiculous.  It would be ridiculous enough to do with any particular incarnation of god; it is beyond foolish when talking about the possibility of any kind of god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *It doesn't matter if a person believes in god or not*
> 
> I dissagree.  People that assist the continuation of the big lie add to human ignorance and diffuse intelligent use of resources and worthy goals.
> 
> Evey little bit of ignorance when added up times several billion people amounts to an incredibly stupid population.
> 
> I would prefer that human beings were smarter than not as thier opinions sooner or later are transfered into votes or support of our leaders.  Being right matters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Belief in god is not ignorance.  That is, in fact, an ignorant statement; if you were aware of the definition of ignorance, that being an absence of knowledge, you would realize that belief in a god is possible no matter a person's knowledge or education.  You also equated ignorance to stupidity, which is also incorrect; ignorance is about knowledge while stupidity is about intelligence.
> 
> Beyond which, if you took the statement in context and continued to the very next sentence, you'd see that I was saying that belief or lack of belief isn't important in regards to assigning a percentage to the probability some sort of god exists.
> 
> So now we have sealybobo making things up to try and show that something is made up, and now you are using ignorant statements to try and show something is ignorant.  And you both seem to be people that I mostly agree with as far as the existence of god is concerned.
Click to expand...


OK... How about WILLFULL IGNORANCE?

Clinging desperately to a position that cannot be supported by fact for well over 3,000 years is evidense of mass stupidity.

The possibility of other alternatives, as time unfolded the science of astronomy, was brutally beat down in favor of the least likely truth.

The only hope for human kind is our ability to learn as we go.  We must concede our past ignorance in view of the knowledge we encounter along the way into the future.

All we need to do is look skyward at the moon and it's many craters to see that enemies abound that could spell a very violent end to our existance.

It may very well come down to an extraordinary effort of correct thinking and action on our part and total commitment and co-operation to plan for and execute a survival strategy.

We won't have time to fight off the ignorant viewpoints and still focus on what may even with our best efforts an impossible task.

In the last few thousand years we have lived luckily in a time span of relative safety but that is clearly to any but fools not the way things have happened in the long term.  

We have NOT learned from the past but wallowed in willfull ignorance and whether you like it or not that is stupid.


----------



## Montrovant

HUGGY said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> *It doesn't matter if a person believes in god or not*
> 
> I dissagree.  People that assist the continuation of the big lie add to human ignorance and diffuse intelligent use of resources and worthy goals.
> 
> Evey little bit of ignorance when added up times several billion people amounts to an incredibly stupid population.
> 
> I would prefer that human beings were smarter than not as thier opinions sooner or later are transfered into votes or support of our leaders.  Being right matters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Belief in god is not ignorance.  That is, in fact, an ignorant statement; if you were aware of the definition of ignorance, that being an absence of knowledge, you would realize that belief in a god is possible no matter a person's knowledge or education.  You also equated ignorance to stupidity, which is also incorrect; ignorance is about knowledge while stupidity is about intelligence.
> 
> Beyond which, if you took the statement in context and continued to the very next sentence, you'd see that I was saying that belief or lack of belief isn't important in regards to assigning a percentage to the probability some sort of god exists.
> 
> So now we have sealybobo making things up to try and show that something is made up, and now you are using ignorant statements to try and show something is ignorant.  And you both seem to be people that I mostly agree with as far as the existence of god is concerned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK... How about WILLFULL IGNORANCE?
> 
> Clinging desperately to a position that cannot be supported by fact for well over 3,000 years is evidense of mass stupidity.
> 
> The possibility of other alternatives, as time unfolded the science of astronomy, was brutally beat down in favor of the least likely truth.
> 
> The only hope for human kind is our ability to learn as we go.  We must concede our past ignorance in view of the knowledge we encounter along the way into the future.
> 
> All we need to do is look skyward at the moon and it's many craters to see that enemies abound that could spell a very violent end to our existance.
> 
> It may very well come down to an extraordinary effort of correct thinking and action on our part and total commitment and co-operation to plan for and execute a survival strategy.
> 
> We won't have time to fight off the ignorant viewpoints and still focus on what may even with our best efforts an impossible task.
> 
> In the last few thousand years we have lived luckily in a time span of relative safety but that is clearly to any but fools not the way things have happened in the long term.
> 
> We have NOT learned from the past but wallowed in willfull ignorance and whether you like it or not that is stupid.
Click to expand...


So religion is going to prevent us from finding a way to keep meteors from hitting Earth?  You make that argument while saying the religious are ignorant and stupid?  

Look, as I've said, I don't believe in any religion.  They tend to be contradictory and based on very little in the way of evidence IMO.  I think they are, in large part, a combination of environment (raised into religious belief, seeing religious belief around you in your formative years, etc.), habit and a search for comfort.  On the other hand, I don't think that necessarily is bad.  As with most anything, there are good and bad aspects to religious belief.  

Religious belief has changed many times in history.  So one could say that we have been learning as we go.  I'm not sure why you think people must follow your timetable for changing their beliefs.


----------



## HUGGY

Montrovant said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Belief in god is not ignorance.  That is, in fact, an ignorant statement; if you were aware of the definition of ignorance, that being an absence of knowledge, you would realize that belief in a god is possible no matter a person's knowledge or education.  You also equated ignorance to stupidity, which is also incorrect; ignorance is about knowledge while stupidity is about intelligence.
> 
> Beyond which, if you took the statement in context and continued to the very next sentence, you'd see that I was saying that belief or lack of belief isn't important in regards to assigning a percentage to the probability some sort of god exists.
> 
> So now we have sealybobo making things up to try and show that something is made up, and now you are using ignorant statements to try and show something is ignorant.  And you both seem to be people that I mostly agree with as far as the existence of god is concerned.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK... How about WILLFULL IGNORANCE?
> 
> Clinging desperately to a position that cannot be supported by fact for well over 3,000 years is evidense of mass stupidity.
> 
> The possibility of other alternatives, as time unfolded the science of astronomy, was brutally beat down in favor of the least likely truth.
> 
> The only hope for human kind is our ability to learn as we go.  We must concede our past ignorance in view of the knowledge we encounter along the way into the future.
> 
> All we need to do is look skyward at the moon and it's many craters to see that enemies abound that could spell a very violent end to our existance.
> 
> It may very well come down to an extraordinary effort of correct thinking and action on our part and total commitment and co-operation to plan for and execute a survival strategy.
> 
> We won't have time to fight off the ignorant viewpoints and still focus on what may even with our best efforts an impossible task.
> 
> In the last few thousand years we have lived luckily in a time span of relative safety but that is clearly to any but fools not the way things have happened in the long term.
> 
> We have NOT learned from the past but wallowed in willfull ignorance and whether you like it or not that is stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So religion is going to prevent us from finding a way to keep meteors from hitting Earth?  You make that argument while saying the religious are ignorant and stupid?
> 
> Look, as I've said, I don't believe in any religion.  They tend to be contradictory and based on very little in the way of evidence IMO.  I think they are, in large part, a combination of environment (raised into religious belief, seeing religious belief around you in your formative years, etc.), habit and a search for comfort.  On the other hand, I don't think that necessarily is bad.  As with most anything, there are good and bad aspects to religious belief.
> 
> Religious belief has changed many times in history.  So one could say that we have been learning as we go.  I'm not sure why you think people must follow your timetable for changing their beliefs.
Click to expand...


I don't have any set timetable.  

And... asteroid impact is just one of many possibilities that could be our undoing.  Maybe nothing so dramatic is going to threaten earth and/or it's inhabitants.  It could be something as simple and insideous as a disease .... a pathogen for which there is no cure.  Maybe it is something created by a religious based government from which we in the US have no control over.

The problem with religion is certainly not just christian vs atheist in this country.  The problem if human caused is more about right and wrong..truth and lies .. even if the lies are honestly believed.  

Do you think the maniacs that flew the planes into the twin towers thought they were doing right or wrong?  

One individual will never be much of a threat to mankind.  It would take some kind of organization to start a nuclear exchange.  It would take a rogue government probably a government run by religious fundamentalists bent on taking down the devils in the West..us.  

Maybe your attitude of laughing at the potential for religion to be at the heart of some act precipitating a war or preventing us from saving ourselves is so remote that it makes no difference if religion survives on for another several thousand years or not.

Your sceptism could be right.  I for one don't put ANYTHING past man's ability to twist religion into some devastating action on a scale not yet envisioned after seeing those towers collapsing.  Maybe it's just me but since 9/11 I look at religion as something a lot 
more threatening than the day before that horrible day.

Religion and the mass hypnosis and the believing of the lies on a level of millions or billions of people decieved may amount to nothing.  It is possibly the only mechanism within human control that could make us pay for ignoring it's potential for evil and miss use aside from the stockpile of nuclear bombs still waiting for some crazy fuckers wanting to martyr themselves and "serving god" by sending us all to hell.  It's not religion that kills people... it's the crazy fuckers that believe in religion that kills people.


----------



## Montrovant

HUGGY said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK... How about WILLFULL IGNORANCE?
> 
> Clinging desperately to a position that cannot be supported by fact for well over 3,000 years is evidense of mass stupidity.
> 
> The possibility of other alternatives, as time unfolded the science of astronomy, was brutally beat down in favor of the least likely truth.
> 
> The only hope for human kind is our ability to learn as we go.  We must concede our past ignorance in view of the knowledge we encounter along the way into the future.
> 
> All we need to do is look skyward at the moon and it's many craters to see that enemies abound that could spell a very violent end to our existance.
> 
> It may very well come down to an extraordinary effort of correct thinking and action on our part and total commitment and co-operation to plan for and execute a survival strategy.
> 
> We won't have time to fight off the ignorant viewpoints and still focus on what may even with our best efforts an impossible task.
> 
> In the last few thousand years we have lived luckily in a time span of relative safety but that is clearly to any but fools not the way things have happened in the long term.
> 
> We have NOT learned from the past but wallowed in willfull ignorance and whether you like it or not that is stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So religion is going to prevent us from finding a way to keep meteors from hitting Earth?  You make that argument while saying the religious are ignorant and stupid?
> 
> Look, as I've said, I don't believe in any religion.  They tend to be contradictory and based on very little in the way of evidence IMO.  I think they are, in large part, a combination of environment (raised into religious belief, seeing religious belief around you in your formative years, etc.), habit and a search for comfort.  On the other hand, I don't think that necessarily is bad.  As with most anything, there are good and bad aspects to religious belief.
> 
> Religious belief has changed many times in history.  So one could say that we have been learning as we go.  I'm not sure why you think people must follow your timetable for changing their beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have any set timetable.
> 
> And... asteroid impact is just one of many possibilities that could be our undoing.  Maybe nothing so dramatic is going to threaten earth and/or it's inhabitants.  It could be something as simple and insideous as a disease .... a pathogen for which there is no cure.  Maybe it is something created by a religious based government from which we in the US have no control over.
> 
> The problem with religion is certainly not just christian vs atheist in this country.  The problem if human caused is more about right and wrong..truth and lies .. even if the lies are honestly believed.
> 
> Do you think the maniacs that flew the planes into the twin towers thought they were doing right or wrong?
> 
> One individual will never be much of a threat to mankind.  It would take some kind of organization to start a nuclear exchange.  It would take a rogue government probably a government run by religious fundamentalists bent on taking down the devils in the West..us.
> 
> Maybe your attitude of laughing at the potential for religion to be at the heart of some act precipitating a war or preventing us from saving ourselves is so remote that it makes no difference if religion survives on for another several thousand years or not.
> 
> Your sceptism could be right.  I for one don't put ANYTHING past man's ability to twist religion into some devastating action on a scale not yet envisioned after seeing those towers collapsing.  Maybe it's just me but since 9/11 I look at religion as something a lot
> more threatening than the day before that horrible day.
> 
> Religion and the mass hypnosis and the believing of the lies on a level of millions or billions of people decieved may amount to nothing.  It is possibly the only mechanism within human control that could make us pay for ignoring it's potential for evil and miss use aside from the stockpile of nuclear bombs still waiting for some crazy fuckers wanting to martyr themselves and "serving god" by sending us all to hell.  It's not religion that kills people... it's the crazy fuckers that believe in religion that kills people.
Click to expand...


Sure, people have done some terrible things in the name of religion.  Of course, the closest we've probably come to a nuclear exchange was between the secular United States and the communist Soviet Union, certainly nothing close to religious driven conflict.

And yes, the current Islamic fundamentalists are doing some horrible things.  I'm not saying that religion cannot be used to justify all manner of atrocity.  If you think that without religion, humanity would somehow stop doing the horrible things we do, you are being naive.  Nationalism, race, political affiliation.....people will find reasons to try and kill other people.  

I'd be happy if religion were to fade away because I've almost always found religious belief perplexing.  To me, there's just no good reason to believe.  But this idea that religion is holding us back in some way is as without evidence as religions themselves.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Science says we made up the idea of god.  And since you have zero evidence of god, I guess I'm just being nice by saying there is a 1% chance god exists.  The only reason I give you 1% is because I can't see what is on the other side of the moon or what's inside a black hole.  It may be god sitting around playing cards with my grandfathers.  What are the chances of that?  Would it be more or less than .00001%?  Exactly!!!!



I'm sorry, but when did "science" say anything? Science doesn't say that because science doesn't speak with one voice and with definitive conclusion... on anything. 

In fact, that would be anathema to science. You vanquished science the instant you drew conclusion. When you believe something without proof it is called Faith, not Science. 

If you have no evidence there's not a God and they have no evidence there is a God, then the odds are 50-50. Until you come up with something to disprove God, you can't disprove God. Therefore, we are still at 50-50. The 99-to-1 odds are based on your faith and has no supporting scientific evidence. It's as good as my odds of 99-to-1 in favor of God. In fact, if we're going by the criteria of just throwing out odds with no basis in science, then I'll say 100-to-0 that there is a God!


----------



## HUGGY

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science says we made up the idea of god.  And since you have zero evidence of god, I guess I'm just being nice by saying there is a 1% chance god exists.  The only reason I give you 1% is because I can't see what is on the other side of the moon or what's inside a black hole.  It may be god sitting around playing cards with my grandfathers.  What are the chances of that?  Would it be more or less than .00001%?  Exactly!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but when did "science" say anything? Science doesn't say that because science doesn't speak with one voice and with definitive conclusion... on anything.
> 
> In fact, that would be anathema to science. You vanquished science the instant you drew conclusion. When you believe something without proof it is called Faith, not Science.
> 
> If you have no evidence there's not a God and they have no evidence there is a God, then the odds are 50-50. Until you come up with something to disprove God, you can't disprove God. Therefore, we are still at 50-50. The 99-to-1 odds are based on your faith and has no supporting scientific evidence. It's as good as my odds of 99-to-1 in favor of God. In fact, if we're going by the criteria of just throwing out odds with no basis in science, then I'll say 100-to-0 that there is a God!
Click to expand...


Well then...    That settles it.

With THAT kind of logic the earth must be no more than 3,000 or so years old.  Since there is little to no recorded history more than that in age... certainly no calenders to prove earth is older than that then there must be at least a 50-50 chance the earth MUST be just a few thousand years old.  I mean...carbon dating has some flaws... we can certainly throw that "theory" baby out with the bath water.  

The great flood of Noah?  Hells bells... why not?  Never mind all the different types of variations of human beings..  Black skinned...slant eyed... I guess we can just rack that up to evolution..whoops !!! Can't be.. So Noah got a couple of negros..a couple of Chinese..etc...a couple of South American Indians to walk or swim 20,000 miles to catch his boat before it sailed ... and THAT explains where THEY came from...not to mention that they had to walk and swim BACK to where they came from ...  No problem..!!! Thank GOD they didn't mind going to that effort to keep THAT story intact.. 

Sorry.. the rabbit holes are being filled up faster than you crazies can dig them now.  If it takes looking under every rock in the universe to find your god then so be it.  If that what it takes to rid the place of this insane fairy tale then that is what we need to do to erradicate the scourge of religion and god from ours and all other worlds. 

Seems like an impossible job proving that god isn't camped out in some little cubby hole a trillion light years away in some cave not yet discovered before it will be enough "proof" to satisfy some people.

Lots to do...lets get crackin...


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science says we made up the idea of god.  And since you have zero evidence of god, I guess I'm just being nice by saying there is a 1% chance god exists.  The only reason I give you 1% is because I can't see what is on the other side of the moon or what's inside a black hole.  It may be god sitting around playing cards with my grandfathers.  What are the chances of that?  Would it be more or less than .00001%?  Exactly!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but when did "science" say anything? Science doesn't say that because science doesn't speak with one voice and with definitive conclusion... on anything.
> 
> In fact, that would be anathema to science. You vanquished science the instant you drew conclusion. When you believe something without proof it is called Faith, not Science.
> 
> If you have no evidence there's not a God and they have no evidence there is a God, then the odds are 50-50. Until you come up with something to disprove God, you can't disprove God. Therefore, we are still at 50-50. The 99-to-1 odds are based on your faith and has no supporting scientific evidence. It's as good as my odds of 99-to-1 in favor of God. In fact, if we're going by the criteria of just throwing out odds with no basis in science, then I'll say 100-to-0 that there is a God!
Click to expand...


Ahh. "Bossy logic".

Well, it's not logic at all, it's just a way of pontification abd hoping no one catches the errors and logical contradictions. Sorry, but at at the grown-up table things aren't as likely to exist as not until disproved. You're reciting nonsense right out of the religious extremist playbook.

I'm afraid your "50-50" slight of hand is yet another of your shams. The historical accuracy of any one collection of gods vs. another is only believable to those with a predisposition to one particular set of gods vs. another as a function of familial ties and geographic location. The earlier existence of asserted gods vs. the currently asserted gods vs. no gods is not a majority rules issue. You don't get a vote and supernaturalists  attempting to rewrite any meaningful statement of contingent history and objective reality disassembles itself. 

In all discussions of "chance", per your "50-50" slight of hand, one must remember that the question of whether or not a given product of any process arose by chance or by intent only becomes significant if _it can be shown_ that the product was the goal of that process, and not merely a result of the process.


----------



## BreezeWood

Life began on Earth and whatever its cause will someday be answered by a combination of both Religion and Science.

the rigidity and fallacy of Scriptural religions will fall by the wayside when real progress in answering the question of Life will be discovered.  

.


----------



## GISMYS

WISE UP!!! What "science" said was truth yesterday science says they have proof today is wrong and now we have "new" truth and fact UNTIL TOMORROW!!!! ROFLMAO!!


----------



## Boss

> Ahh. "Bossy logic".



Actually, it's silly boobs logic, I am only borrowing it. If there is no criteria for having to support our predicted odds, then I say it's 100% chance God is real. That's as valid as his prediction of 99:1 for no God.  Of course, if we go by the actual evidence to support our suppositions, then the odds are 50/50.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Ahh. "Bossy logic".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it's silly boobs logic, I am only borrowing it. If there is no criteria for having to support our predicted odds, then I say it's 100% chance God is real. That's as valid as his prediction of 99:1 for no God.  Of course, if we go by the actual evidence to support our suppositions, then the odds are 50/50.
Click to expand...


There actually is a criteria and it's described by science and the human quest for knowledge. Your goofy 50/50 gamble is pointless and irrevelant. 

Here's a quick calculation you can do at home. Take a conservative number of 10,000 as the number of gods invented by mankind inclusive of your gods. How many of those gods have been shown to exist? 

Correct. Exactly 0. 

Here's your homework assignment. Solve this equation:

Zero divided by 10,000 equals what?


Given the history of human endeavor, we have time and again reached barriers of information within the rational (natural) world and we have gone further and found that there are reasons and explanations we had no yet been able to see. Ok, so now we have the knowledge that Newtonian physics breaks down -- but does that preclude the idea there is a unified theory as to completely natural origins? No, it does not. The hyper-religious cranks choose to proceed no further than: "the gods did it", but so far, no matter which direction you go in, there is no evidence that "the gods did it" suffices. And, if this is the answer, then humanity is precluded from truly ever knowing and understanding.


----------



## Boss

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh. "Bossy logic".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it's silly boobs logic, I am only borrowing it. If there is no criteria for having to support our predicted odds, then I say it's 100% chance God is real. That's as valid as his prediction of 99:1 for no God.  Of course, if we go by the actual evidence to support our suppositions, then the odds are 50/50.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There actually is a criteria and it's described by science and the human quest for knowledge. Your goofy 50/50 gamble is pointless and irrevelant.
> 
> Here's a quick calculation you can do at home. Take a conservative number of 10,000 as the number of gods invented by mankind inclusive of your gods. How many of those gods have been shown to exist?
> 
> Correct. Exactly 0.
> 
> Here's your homework assignment. Solve this equation:
> 
> Zero divided by 10,000 equals what?
> 
> 
> Given the history of human endeavor, we have time and again reached barriers of information within the rational (natural) world and we have gone further and found that there are reasons and explanations we had no yet been able to see. Ok, so now we have the knowledge that Newtonian physics breaks down -- but does that preclude the idea there is a unified theory as to completely natural origins? No, it does not. The hyper-religious cranks choose to proceed no further than: "the gods did it", but so far, no matter which direction you go in, there is no evidence that "the gods did it" suffices. And, if this is the answer, then humanity is precluded from truly ever knowing and understanding.
Click to expand...


Doesn't matter... We can do the same exact experiment on evidence God *doesn't* exist and get the exact same results. Back at 50/50 odds. Got anything else?


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it's silly boobs logic, I am only borrowing it. If there is no criteria for having to support our predicted odds, then I say it's 100% chance God is real. That's as valid as his prediction of 99:1 for no God.  Of course, if we go by the actual evidence to support our suppositions, then the odds are 50/50.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There actually is a criteria and it's described by science and the human quest for knowledge. Your goofy 50/50 gamble is pointless and irrevelant.
> 
> Here's a quick calculation you can do at home. Take a conservative number of 10,000 as the number of gods invented by mankind inclusive of your gods. How many of those gods have been shown to exist?
> 
> Correct. Exactly 0.
> 
> Here's your homework assignment. Solve this equation:
> 
> Zero divided by 10,000 equals what?
> 
> 
> Given the history of human endeavor, we have time and again reached barriers of information within the rational (natural) world and we have gone further and found that there are reasons and explanations we had no yet been able to see. Ok, so now we have the knowledge that Newtonian physics breaks down -- but does that preclude the idea there is a unified theory as to completely natural origins? No, it does not. The hyper-religious cranks choose to proceed no further than: "the gods did it", but so far, no matter which direction you go in, there is no evidence that "the gods did it" suffices. And, if this is the answer, then humanity is precluded from truly ever knowing and understanding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter... We can do the same exact experiment on evidence God *doesn't* exist and get the exact same results. Back at 50/50 odds. Got anything else?
Click to expand...


It does matter. You didn't do your homework assignment. The evidence any one god doesn't exist is overwhelming.

You're back at 0.


----------



## Boss

> *Moonbat:* So religion is going to prevent us from finding a way to keep meteors from hitting Earth?



I read this and thought... don't underestimate the power of spirituality. How is it you KNOW our collective spiritual energy is not translating some way to what we perceive as 'fortune' of event? In other words... We see on the news, a bridge collapsed and 17 people plunged to their death in the icy waters below... Okay, how do you know this wasn't some sort of cosmic spiritual intervention from some force greater than our own? And say there was this fella who was getting ready to go to work that day and he spilled coffee on his tie, causing him to be just minutes away from being on that bridge at the time it collapsed... How do you KNOW that there wasn't some cosmic intervention? 

Several years back, I was traveling across south Georgia with a friend who was driving. Now, anyone who has travelled across south Georgia knows what it's like, there are nothing but pig trails, no interstate or major highways. To make a long story short, the driver came upon what she thought to be one of several 4-way stops along our route, but it was actually where we had to cross a major US Highway traveling north and south. They had no stop sign, only a 55 mph speed limit. But the driver thought she had the right of way after she arrived at the intersection first, so we proceeded across the highway, right in front of a northbound 18-wheeler who wasn't aware of this arrangement. I can remember seeing the front grill of the truck in my peripheral vision to the right, as I braced for certain impact. At best he would strike the rear of our car, there was no way to avoid it... but... he missed us. 

To this day, I can not explain that. It's almost as if something froze time for a moment and allowed us to clear the oncoming truck. Science doesn't explain it, I saw the grill of the truck in my right door panel. We should have been dead, right there. She pulled over and said a prayer to God, thanking Him for saving us. And it's not the first such instance in my life, I can think of at least two more. I can tell you about those experiences as well, but same story... it was a miracle that I didn't die. 

Was it random luck? I guess you can make yourself believe that, but I can't. I have to think something was looking out for me, and saved me from certain death. WHAT IS THAT? I don't know for certain, but I am obeying it.


----------



## Boss

HollieAirhead said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HollieAirhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> There actually is a criteria and it's described by science and the human quest for knowledge. Your goofy 50/50 gamble is pointless and irrevelant.
> 
> Here's a quick calculation you can do at home. Take a conservative number of 10,000 as the number of gods invented by mankind inclusive of your gods. How many of those gods have been shown to exist?
> 
> Correct. Exactly 0.
> 
> Here's your homework assignment. Solve this equation:
> 
> Zero divided by 10,000 equals what?
> 
> 
> Given the history of human endeavor, we have time and again reached barriers of information within the rational (natural) world and we have gone further and found that there are reasons and explanations we had no yet been able to see. Ok, so now we have the knowledge that Newtonian physics breaks down -- but does that preclude the idea there is a unified theory as to completely natural origins? No, it does not. The hyper-religious cranks choose to proceed no further than: "the gods did it", but so far, no matter which direction you go in, there is no evidence that "the gods did it" suffices. And, if this is the answer, then humanity is precluded from truly ever knowing and understanding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter... We can do the same exact experiment on evidence God *doesn't* exist and get the exact same results. Back at 50/50 odds. Got anything else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It does matter. You didn't do your homework assignment. The evidence any one god doesn't exist is overwhelming.
> 
> You're back at 0.
Click to expand...


And YOU are at zero too. Where is your evidence ANYTHING doesn't exist? What YOU have, is a FAITH that something doesn't exist. You can't support your faith with science. 

We're both still at zero. Odds are still 50/50. 

Here's a homework assignment for you, toots... Find a coin... one of those shiny things in daddy's pocket... On one side is a 'head' of someone famous, the other side usually has a building or bird or something else... it's the 'tail' side. Flip it in the air... you may need to get help with this... and make a call as it flips in the air... heads or tails... one is "God is real" and the other is "God is not real" and let's see how you come out? No cheating!


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> *Moonbat:* So religion is going to prevent us from finding a way to keep meteors from hitting Earth?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I read this and thought... don't underestimate the power of spirituality. How is it you KNOW our collective spiritual energy is not translating some way to what we perceive as 'fortune' of event? In other words... We see on the news, a bridge collapsed and 17 people plunged to their death in the icy waters below... Okay, how do you know this wasn't some sort of cosmic spiritual intervention from some force greater than our own? And say there was this fella who was getting ready to go to work that day and he spilled coffee on his tie, causing him to be just minutes away from being on that bridge at the time it collapsed... How do you KNOW that there wasn't some cosmic intervention?
> 
> Several years back, I was traveling across south Georgia with a friend who was driving. Now, anyone who has travelled across south Georgia knows what it's like, there are nothing but pig trails, no interstate or major highways. To make a long story short, the driver came upon what she thought to be one of several 4-way stops along our route, but it was actually where we had to cross a major US Highway traveling north and south. They had no stop sign, only a 55 mph speed limit. But the driver thought she had the right of way after she arrived at the intersection first, so we proceeded across the highway, right in front of a northbound 18-wheeler who wasn't aware of this arrangement. I can remember seeing the front grill of the truck in my peripheral vision to the right, as I braced for certain impact. At best he would strike the rear of our car, there was no way to avoid it... but... he missed us.
> 
> To this day, I can not explain that. It's almost as if something froze time for a moment and allowed us to clear the oncoming truck. Science doesn't explain it, I saw the grill of the truck in my right door panel. We should have been dead, right there. She pulled over and said a prayer to God, thanking Him for saving us. And it's not the first such instance in my life, I can think of at least two more. I can tell you about those experiences as well, but same story... it was a miracle that I didn't die.
> 
> Was it random luck? I guess you can make yourself believe that, but I can't. I have to think something was looking out for me, and saved me from certain death. WHAT IS THAT? I don't know for certain, but I am obeying it.
Click to expand...


Why would you use my quote to start this post?  I was arguing against the idea that religious belief would prevent mankind from stopping a meteor strike.  Is this just a horrible, nonsensical segue?


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> HollieAirhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter... We can do the same exact experiment on evidence God *doesn't* exist and get the exact same results. Back at 50/50 odds. Got anything else?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It does matter. You didn't do your homework assignment. The evidence any one god doesn't exist is overwhelming.
> 
> You're back at 0.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And YOU are at zero too. Where is your evidence ANYTHING doesn't exist? What YOU have, is a FAITH that something doesn't exist. You can't support your faith with science.
> 
> We're both still at zero. Odds are still 50/50.
> 
> Here's a homework assignment for you, toots... Find a coin... one of those shiny things in daddy's pocket... On one side is a 'head' of someone famous, the other side usually has a building or bird or something else... it's the 'tail' side. Flip it in the air... you may need to get help with this... and make a call as it flips in the air... heads or tails... one is "God is real" and the other is "God is not real" and let's see how you come out? No cheating!
Click to expand...


Where is my evidence ANYTHING doesn't exist? 

Oh, Bossy. This has been addressed for you many times.

I do have proof your gods don't exist. 

Where is you proof I don't? So, we can agree your gods don't exist. 

You never completed your homework assignment. 

What is 0 divided by 10,000?


----------



## HUGGY

Montrovant said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> So religion is going to prevent us from finding a way to keep meteors from hitting Earth?  You make that argument while saying the religious are ignorant and stupid?
> 
> Look, as I've said, I don't believe in any religion.  They tend to be contradictory and based on very little in the way of evidence IMO.  I think they are, in large part, a combination of environment (raised into religious belief, seeing religious belief around you in your formative years, etc.), habit and a search for comfort.  On the other hand, I don't think that necessarily is bad.  As with most anything, there are good and bad aspects to religious belief.
> 
> Religious belief has changed many times in history.  So one could say that we have been learning as we go.  I'm not sure why you think people must follow your timetable for changing their beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have any set timetable.
> 
> And... asteroid impact is just one of many possibilities that could be our undoing.  Maybe nothing so dramatic is going to threaten earth and/or it's inhabitants.  It could be something as simple and insideous as a disease .... a pathogen for which there is no cure.  Maybe it is something created by a religious based government from which we in the US have no control over.
> 
> The problem with religion is certainly not just christian vs atheist in this country.  The problem if human caused is more about right and wrong..truth and lies .. even if the lies are honestly believed.
> 
> Do you think the maniacs that flew the planes into the twin towers thought they were doing right or wrong?
> 
> One individual will never be much of a threat to mankind.  It would take some kind of organization to start a nuclear exchange.  It would take a rogue government probably a government run by religious fundamentalists bent on taking down the devils in the West..us.
> 
> Maybe your attitude of laughing at the potential for religion to be at the heart of some act precipitating a war or preventing us from saving ourselves is so remote that it makes no difference if religion survives on for another several thousand years or not.
> 
> Your sceptism could be right.  I for one don't put ANYTHING past man's ability to twist religion into some devastating action on a scale not yet envisioned after seeing those towers collapsing.  Maybe it's just me but since 9/11 I look at religion as something a lot
> more threatening than the day before that horrible day.
> 
> Religion and the mass hypnosis and the believing of the lies on a level of millions or billions of people decieved may amount to nothing.  It is possibly the only mechanism within human control that could make us pay for ignoring it's potential for evil and miss use aside from the stockpile of nuclear bombs still waiting for some crazy fuckers wanting to martyr themselves and "serving god" by sending us all to hell.  It's not religion that kills people... it's the crazy fuckers that believe in religion that kills people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, people have done some terrible things in the name of religion.  Of course, the closest we've probably come to a nuclear exchange was between the secular United States and the communist Soviet Union, certainly nothing close to religious driven conflict.
> 
> And yes, the current Islamic fundamentalists are doing some horrible things.  I'm not saying that religion cannot be used to justify all manner of atrocity.  If you think that without religion, humanity would somehow stop doing the horrible things we do, you are being naive.  Nationalism, race, political affiliation.....people will find reasons to try and kill other people.
> 
> I'd be happy if religion were to fade away because I've almost always found religious belief perplexing.  To me, there's just no good reason to believe. * But this idea that religion is holding us back in some way is as without evidence as religions themselves*.
Click to expand...


That is simply not true... just two examples.. the religists attempting to dilute the quality of education in America insisting on ID being inserted in science classes.. and most recently the 200 young girls abducted in Africa because muslims hate women getting any kind of western ideas in their education.  Two clear examples of religists FORCING stupidity in the world right here ..right now.


----------



## GISMYS

Will you be left behind for this judgment on a sin,evil loving, GOD rejecting world???The first sounded, and there came hail and fire, mixed with blood, and they were thrown to the earth; and a third of the earth was burned up, and a third of the trees were burned up, and all the green grass was burned up. 8The second angel sounded, and something like a great mountain burning with fire was thrown into the sea; and a third of the sea became blood, 9and a third of the creatures which were in the sea and had life, died; and a third of the ships were destroyed.&#8230; Revelation 8:7-9


----------



## Montrovant

HUGGY said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have any set timetable.
> 
> And... asteroid impact is just one of many possibilities that could be our undoing.  Maybe nothing so dramatic is going to threaten earth and/or it's inhabitants.  It could be something as simple and insideous as a disease .... a pathogen for which there is no cure.  Maybe it is something created by a religious based government from which we in the US have no control over.
> 
> The problem with religion is certainly not just christian vs atheist in this country.  The problem if human caused is more about right and wrong..truth and lies .. even if the lies are honestly believed.
> 
> Do you think the maniacs that flew the planes into the twin towers thought they were doing right or wrong?
> 
> One individual will never be much of a threat to mankind.  It would take some kind of organization to start a nuclear exchange.  It would take a rogue government probably a government run by religious fundamentalists bent on taking down the devils in the West..us.
> 
> Maybe your attitude of laughing at the potential for religion to be at the heart of some act precipitating a war or preventing us from saving ourselves is so remote that it makes no difference if religion survives on for another several thousand years or not.
> 
> Your sceptism could be right.  I for one don't put ANYTHING past man's ability to twist religion into some devastating action on a scale not yet envisioned after seeing those towers collapsing.  Maybe it's just me but since 9/11 I look at religion as something a lot
> more threatening than the day before that horrible day.
> 
> Religion and the mass hypnosis and the believing of the lies on a level of millions or billions of people decieved may amount to nothing.  It is possibly the only mechanism within human control that could make us pay for ignoring it's potential for evil and miss use aside from the stockpile of nuclear bombs still waiting for some crazy fuckers wanting to martyr themselves and "serving god" by sending us all to hell.  It's not religion that kills people... it's the crazy fuckers that believe in religion that kills people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, people have done some terrible things in the name of religion.  Of course, the closest we've probably come to a nuclear exchange was between the secular United States and the communist Soviet Union, certainly nothing close to religious driven conflict.
> 
> And yes, the current Islamic fundamentalists are doing some horrible things.  I'm not saying that religion cannot be used to justify all manner of atrocity.  If you think that without religion, humanity would somehow stop doing the horrible things we do, you are being naive.  Nationalism, race, political affiliation.....people will find reasons to try and kill other people.
> 
> I'd be happy if religion were to fade away because I've almost always found religious belief perplexing.  To me, there's just no good reason to believe. * But this idea that religion is holding us back in some way is as without evidence as religions themselves*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is simply not true... just two examples.. the religists attempting to dilute the quality of education in America insisting on ID being inserted in science classes.. and most recently the 200 young girls abducted in Africa because muslims hate women getting any kind of western ideas in their education.  Two clear examples of religists FORCING stupidity in the world right here ..right now.
Click to expand...


In your first example, which has some merit, there are religious people opposed to ID being taught in science classrooms, and it is not something that has been adopted widely despite the fact that the vast majority of the US identifies as having some sort of religious belief.

In your second example, while certainly people do stupid shit in the name of religion, that isn't really holding back a society.  It's a tragedy, certainly, but not analogous to your 'stopping a meteor' hypothetical.  Besides which, people without religious beliefs have also done horrible shit.

In order to really have evidence that religion is holding back society or the world, we'd need to see non-religious societies doing better than religious ones.  Since we don't see that, it's hard to show causation.


----------



## Boss

> I do have proof your gods don't exist. Where is you proof I don't?



Well, my proof you don't is the fact that you're not posting it. 

...Can we grow up now?


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> I do have proof your gods don't exist. Where is you proof I don't?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, my proof you don't is the fact that you're not posting it.
> 
> ...Can we grow up now?
Click to expand...


How strange bossy man. You expect others to post proof your gods don't exist yet you exempt yourself from posting proof your gods do exist.

You now see the failure of your argument,  right?


----------



## sealybobo

Montrovant said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> This has what, exactly, to do with my post?
> 
> I didn't claim that there is an equal chance a god exists as that no god exists.  What I've said, multiple times now, is that trying to quantify the probability is impossible.  God must first be clearly defined, then some sort of criteria for what makes the existence of a god probable or not addressed.  It is further complicated by man's ignorance of much of the universe.
> 
> So while you can certainly point out contradictions or fallacies in any particular religious belief, none of that means a thing when trying to determine the probability of the existence of god(s).
> 
> Unless you can show how you come to your 99.9999% probability, all you are really doing is pulling the number out of your ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science says we made up the idea of god.  And since you have zero evidence of god, I guess I'm just being nice by saying there is a 1% chance god exists.  The only reason I give you 1% is because I can't see what is on the other side of the moon or what's inside a black hole.  It may be god sitting around playing cards with my grandfathers.  What are the chances of that?  Would it be more or less than .00001%?  Exactly!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can avoid this all you want.  I'm not looking for you to increase your probability numbers.  I'm saying that there is no way to come up with an accurate number as to the probability of god(s) existing.
> 
> And again, 'science' doesn't say humanity made up the idea of god.  There is some research which may point to that being the case, but your continued use of science as some sort of catch-all is silly.
> 
> I agree there is little to no evidence of god.  However, the whole agnostic part of agnostic atheism is saying that any god, if it exists, is likely unknowable by humans.  So I'll be happy to admit that I don't believe in the gods of the human religions I've seen, but not dismiss the possibility that there may be a kernel of truth to them, that some intelligence may have created the universe.  And I'm not going to be so arrogant as to think I can assign a number to the probability that such a thing is true.  That would require me to believe I know most everything there is to know about the universe.
Click to expand...


Lets just say that with all the evidence so far I'd put it at a > 1% chance a god exists.  But I do get where you are coming from now.  Yes, I agree.  I like that scene in Family Guy where it pans out from them to the planet to the other planets to past our solar system to beyond the universe and it ended up being in some kids snow globe toy in his room.  Who knows what is on the other side of worm holes and black holes.  

Here is my point I guess.  We have zero evidence of any gods.  That's it.

Oh yea and I was thinking about Santa vs. Jesus this weekend.  People can't comprehend how an entire society could be brainwashed, but then just look at what we do to our kids.  We tell them this incredible story that couldn't possibly be true and then one day they get old enough to question the stories and figure out it isn't true.  So how come the same citizens don't do the same thing with religion?  Because they are brainwashed and guilt'ed into not doubting.  No one ever said "doubt santa and go to hell".  Just if you doubt him the toys will stop coming.  Amazing the similarities.  I wonder if the Santa story is bad for christianity or does it help soften up people for later when they get older to be faithful.  I say telling kids one bullshit story is not smart.  You know the saying fool me once shame on you but fool me twice shame on me?


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> I do have proof your gods don't exist. Where is you proof I don't?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, my proof you don't is the fact that you're not posting it.
> 
> ...Can we grow up now?
Click to expand...


This is all any sane, rational, sensible & smart person should ever need:

Why there is no god


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> Will you be left behind for this judgment on a sin,evil loving, GOD rejecting world???The first sounded, and there came hail and fire, mixed with blood, and they were thrown to the earth; and a third of the earth was burned up, and a third of the trees were burned up, and all the green grass was burned up. 8The second angel sounded, and something like a great mountain burning with fire was thrown into the sea; and a third of the sea became blood, 9and a third of the creatures which were in the sea and had life, died; and a third of the ships were destroyed. Revelation 8:7-9



I would love to wake up one morning to see that I survived this event.  The planet would grow back stronger and better with less humans on it especially the righties.  I love it that we know Jesus is coming to take you all away.  Other species will evolve and take over the planet and the food chain will restore itself.  Maybe we'll have to go through hell and an ice age to get back to where we need to be but it'll be worth it.  We won't let religion flourish again.  We'll be too smart for that next time.


----------



## GISMYS

LOL!!! ALL THE UNIVERSE AND LIFE IS PROOF OF GOD!! What kind fool needs more proof????????????? and you???====That man is a fool who says to himself, &#8220;There is no God!&#8221; Anyone who talks like that is warped and evil and cannot really be a good person at all.Psalm 14:1===Only a fool would say to himself, &#8220;There is no God.&#8221; And why does he say it? Because of his wicked heart, his dark and evil deeds. His life is corroded with sin. PSALM 53:1 and you???


----------



## sealybobo

Montrovant said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Belief in god is not ignorance.  That is, in fact, an ignorant statement; if you were aware of the definition of ignorance, that being an absence of knowledge, you would realize that belief in a god is possible no matter a person's knowledge or education.  You also equated ignorance to stupidity, which is also incorrect; ignorance is about knowledge while stupidity is about intelligence.
> 
> Beyond which, if you took the statement in context and continued to the very next sentence, you'd see that I was saying that belief or lack of belief isn't important in regards to assigning a percentage to the probability some sort of god exists.
> 
> So now we have sealybobo making things up to try and show that something is made up, and now you are using ignorant statements to try and show something is ignorant.  And you both seem to be people that I mostly agree with as far as the existence of god is concerned.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK... How about WILLFULL IGNORANCE?
> 
> Clinging desperately to a position that cannot be supported by fact for well over 3,000 years is evidense of mass stupidity.
> 
> The possibility of other alternatives, as time unfolded the science of astronomy, was brutally beat down in favor of the least likely truth.
> 
> The only hope for human kind is our ability to learn as we go.  We must concede our past ignorance in view of the knowledge we encounter along the way into the future.
> 
> All we need to do is look skyward at the moon and it's many craters to see that enemies abound that could spell a very violent end to our existance.
> 
> It may very well come down to an extraordinary effort of correct thinking and action on our part and total commitment and co-operation to plan for and execute a survival strategy.
> 
> We won't have time to fight off the ignorant viewpoints and still focus on what may even with our best efforts an impossible task.
> 
> In the last few thousand years we have lived luckily in a time span of relative safety but that is clearly to any but fools not the way things have happened in the long term.
> 
> We have NOT learned from the past but wallowed in willfull ignorance and whether you like it or not that is stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So religion is going to prevent us from finding a way to keep meteors from hitting Earth?  You make that argument while saying the religious are ignorant and stupid?
> 
> Look, as I've said, I don't believe in any religion.  They tend to be contradictory and based on very little in the way of evidence IMO.  I think they are, in large part, a combination of environment (raised into religious belief, seeing religious belief around you in your formative years, etc.), habit and a search for comfort.  On the other hand, I don't think that necessarily is bad.  As with most anything, there are good and bad aspects to religious belief.
> 
> Religious belief has changed many times in history.  So one could say that we have been learning as we go.  I'm not sure why you think people must follow your timetable for changing their beliefs.
Click to expand...


You argue for the other side an awful lot for someone who doesn't believe.  And if you don't see how religion is hurting society, then maybe you aren't as smart as you think.  All the wars, the tax scam while not helping the poor or sick, they use god to ban stem cell and abortion and even birth control.  And what gets me is they want their religion to be the official religion of the country.  Like Sharia law only with christians.  I could go on and on but I won't.  I think you get it that religion keeps people ignorant.  Denying global warming and evolution?  What is wrong with you?


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science says we made up the idea of god.  And since you have zero evidence of god, I guess I'm just being nice by saying there is a 1% chance god exists.  The only reason I give you 1% is because I can't see what is on the other side of the moon or what's inside a black hole.  It may be god sitting around playing cards with my grandfathers.  What are the chances of that?  Would it be more or less than .00001%?  Exactly!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but when did "science" say anything? Science doesn't say that because science doesn't speak with one voice and with definitive conclusion... on anything.
> 
> In fact, that would be anathema to science. You vanquished science the instant you drew conclusion. When you believe something without proof it is called Faith, not Science.
> 
> If you have no evidence there's not a God and they have no evidence there is a God, then the odds are 50-50. Until you come up with something to disprove God, you can't disprove God. Therefore, we are still at 50-50. The 99-to-1 odds are based on your faith and has no supporting scientific evidence. It's as good as my odds of 99-to-1 in favor of God. In fact, if we're going by the criteria of just throwing out odds with no basis in science, then I'll say 100-to-0 that there is a God!
Click to expand...


Science disagrees with you.  So are you smarter than science?  

A common attempt to shift the burden of proof or make room for a god. Represents a type of false dichotomy that excludes the fact that there is insufficient investigation and the proposition has not yet been proven either true or false.

The failure to disprove the existence of something does not constitute proof of its existence.

Belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims because all such claims would need to be believed implicitly. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.


----------



## sealybobo

HUGGY said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science says we made up the idea of god.  And since you have zero evidence of god, I guess I'm just being nice by saying there is a 1% chance god exists.  The only reason I give you 1% is because I can't see what is on the other side of the moon or what's inside a black hole.  It may be god sitting around playing cards with my grandfathers.  What are the chances of that?  Would it be more or less than .00001%?  Exactly!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but when did "science" say anything? Science doesn't say that because science doesn't speak with one voice and with definitive conclusion... on anything.
> 
> In fact, that would be anathema to science. You vanquished science the instant you drew conclusion. When you believe something without proof it is called Faith, not Science.
> 
> If you have no evidence there's not a God and they have no evidence there is a God, then the odds are 50-50. Until you come up with something to disprove God, you can't disprove God. Therefore, we are still at 50-50. The 99-to-1 odds are based on your faith and has no supporting scientific evidence. It's as good as my odds of 99-to-1 in favor of God. In fact, if we're going by the criteria of just throwing out odds with no basis in science, then I'll say 100-to-0 that there is a God!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well then...    That settles it.
> 
> With THAT kind of logic the earth must be no more than 3,000 or so years old.  Since there is little to no recorded history more than that in age... certainly no calenders to prove earth is older than that then there must be at least a 50-50 chance the earth MUST be just a few thousand years old.  I mean...carbon dating has some flaws... we can certainly throw that "theory" baby out with the bath water.
> 
> The great flood of Noah?  Hells bells... why not?  Never mind all the different types of variations of human beings..  Black skinned...slant eyed... I guess we can just rack that up to evolution..whoops !!! Can't be.. So Noah got a couple of negros..a couple of Chinese..etc...a couple of South American Indians to walk or swim 20,000 miles to catch his boat before it sailed ... and THAT explains where THEY came from...not to mention that they had to walk and swim BACK to where they came from ...  No problem..!!! Thank GOD they didn't mind going to that effort to keep THAT story intact..
> 
> Sorry.. the rabbit holes are being filled up faster than you crazies can dig them now.  If it takes looking under every rock in the universe to find your god then so be it.  If that what it takes to rid the place of this insane fairy tale then that is what we need to do to erradicate the scourge of religion and god from ours and all other worlds.
> 
> Seems like an impossible job proving that god isn't camped out in some little cubby hole a trillion light years away in some cave not yet discovered before it will be enough "proof" to satisfy some people.
> 
> Lots to do...lets get crackin...
Click to expand...


Have you heard about this MERS sickness that is killing people?  Look who these science haters run to when they need a cure.  I say they should only be able to go to church for their cure if they want to hate on scientists.


----------



## sealybobo

Ever see Dallas Buyers Club?  If you get aids, cancer or alzheimers and you hate science you should run to the pope or one of those healers who can supposedly do miracles and cure people.

If that recent pope who just was made a saint could cure people with a touch and he only did it one time then he is a sadistic fuck not a saint.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but when did "science" say anything? Science doesn't say that because science doesn't speak with one voice and with definitive conclusion... on anything.
> 
> In fact, that would be anathema to science. You vanquished science the instant you drew conclusion. When you believe something without proof it is called Faith, not Science.
> 
> If you have no evidence there's not a God and they have no evidence there is a God, then the odds are 50-50. Until you come up with something to disprove God, you can't disprove God. Therefore, we are still at 50-50. The 99-to-1 odds are based on your faith and has no supporting scientific evidence. It's as good as my odds of 99-to-1 in favor of God. In fact, if we're going by the criteria of just throwing out odds with no basis in science, then I'll say 100-to-0 that there is a God!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well then...    That settles it.
> 
> With THAT kind of logic the earth must be no more than 3,000 or so years old.  Since there is little to no recorded history more than that in age... certainly no calenders to prove earth is older than that then there must be at least a 50-50 chance the earth MUST be just a few thousand years old.  I mean...carbon dating has some flaws... we can certainly throw that "theory" baby out with the bath water.
> 
> The great flood of Noah?  Hells bells... why not?  Never mind all the different types of variations of human beings..  Black skinned...slant eyed... I guess we can just rack that up to evolution..whoops !!! Can't be.. So Noah got a couple of negros..a couple of Chinese..etc...a couple of South American Indians to walk or swim 20,000 miles to catch his boat before it sailed ... and THAT explains where THEY came from...not to mention that they had to walk and swim BACK to where they came from ...  No problem..!!! Thank GOD they didn't mind going to that effort to keep THAT story intact..
> 
> Sorry.. the rabbit holes are being filled up faster than you crazies can dig them now.  If it takes looking under every rock in the universe to find your god then so be it.  If that what it takes to rid the place of this insane fairy tale then that is what we need to do to erradicate the scourge of religion and god from ours and all other worlds.
> 
> Seems like an impossible job proving that god isn't camped out in some little cubby hole a trillion light years away in some cave not yet discovered before it will be enough "proof" to satisfy some people.
> 
> Lots to do...lets get crackin...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you heard about this MERS sickness that is killing people?  Look who these science haters run to when they need a cure.  I say they should only be able to go to church for their cure if they want to hate on scientists.
Click to expand...


YES!!! BLESS THE LORD oh my soul,the LORD who heals all my sickness.  i went to a doctor LAST TIME  in 1967 for a stuffy nose problem,I wasted my time and money!!!


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> LOL!!! ALL THE UNIVERSE AND LIFE IS PROOF OF GOD!! What kind fool needs more proof????????????? and you???====That man is a fool who says to himself, There is no God! Anyone who talks like that is warped and evil and cannot really be a good person at all.Psalm 14:1===Only a fool would say to himself, There is no God. And why does he say it? Because of his wicked heart, his dark and evil deeds. His life is corroded with sin. PSALM 53:1 and you???



This site debunks every argument you have  

Morality is a cultural concept with a basis in evolutionary psychology and game theory. Species whose members were predisposed to cooperate were more likely to survive and pass on their genes. Reciprocacy, altruism and other so-called moral characteristics are evident in many species. The neurochemical thought to regulate morality and empathy is oxytocin.

Religious texts are simply part of many early attempts to codify moral precepts. Secular law, flexible with the shifting moral zeitgeist, has long since superseded religion as a source of moral directives for the majority of developed societies. Secular ethics offers a number of competing moral frameworks which do not derive from a purported supernatural source.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> LOL!!! ALL THE UNIVERSE AND LIFE IS PROOF OF GOD!! What kind fool needs more proof????????????? and you???====That man is a fool who says to himself, There is no God! Anyone who talks like that is warped and evil and cannot really be a good person at all.Psalm 14:1===Only a fool would say to himself, There is no God. And why does he say it? Because of his wicked heart, his dark and evil deeds. His life is corroded with sin. PSALM 53:1 and you???



Why there is no god

Just because something is perceived as having good consequences if it is true, does not actually make it true.

The fact that religiously free societies with a proportionally large number of atheists are generally more peaceful than otherwise is evidence this perception is incorrect.

And you christians are sick stupid fucks so don't claim the higher moral ground here, you racist war mongering pricks.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!!! ALL THE UNIVERSE AND LIFE IS PROOF OF GOD!! What kind fool needs more proof????????????? and you???====That man is a fool who says to himself, There is no God! Anyone who talks like that is warped and evil and cannot really be a good person at all.Psalm 14:1===Only a fool would say to himself, There is no God. And why does he say it? Because of his wicked heart, his dark and evil deeds. His life is corroded with sin. PSALM 53:1 and you???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This site debunks every argument you have
> 
> Morality is a cultural concept with a basis in evolutionary psychology and game theory. Species whose members were predisposed to cooperate were more likely to survive and pass on their genes. Reciprocacy, altruism and other so-called moral characteristics are evident in many species. The neurochemical thought to regulate morality and empathy is oxytocin.
> 
> Religious texts are simply part of many early attempts to codify moral precepts. Secular law, flexible with the shifting moral zeitgeist, has long since superseded religion as a source of moral directives for the majority of developed societies. Secular ethics offers a number of competing moral frameworks which do not derive from a purported supernatural source.
Click to expand...


ROFLMAO!!! Satan is a liar and the father of liars!!!and you????


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well then...    That settles it.
> 
> With THAT kind of logic the earth must be no more than 3,000 or so years old.  Since there is little to no recorded history more than that in age... certainly no calenders to prove earth is older than that then there must be at least a 50-50 chance the earth MUST be just a few thousand years old.  I mean...carbon dating has some flaws... we can certainly throw that "theory" baby out with the bath water.
> 
> The great flood of Noah?  Hells bells... why not?  Never mind all the different types of variations of human beings..  Black skinned...slant eyed... I guess we can just rack that up to evolution..whoops !!! Can't be.. So Noah got a couple of negros..a couple of Chinese..etc...a couple of South American Indians to walk or swim 20,000 miles to catch his boat before it sailed ... and THAT explains where THEY came from...not to mention that they had to walk and swim BACK to where they came from ...  No problem..!!! Thank GOD they didn't mind going to that effort to keep THAT story intact..
> 
> Sorry.. the rabbit holes are being filled up faster than you crazies can dig them now.  If it takes looking under every rock in the universe to find your god then so be it.  If that what it takes to rid the place of this insane fairy tale then that is what we need to do to erradicate the scourge of religion and god from ours and all other worlds.
> 
> Seems like an impossible job proving that god isn't camped out in some little cubby hole a trillion light years away in some cave not yet discovered before it will be enough "proof" to satisfy some people.
> 
> Lots to do...lets get crackin...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you heard about this MERS sickness that is killing people?  Look who these science haters run to when they need a cure.  I say they should only be able to go to church for their cure if they want to hate on scientists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YES!!! BLESS THE LORD oh my soul,the LORD who heals all my sickness.  i went to a doctor LAST TIME  in 1967 for a stuffy nose problem,I wasted my time and money!!!
Click to expand...


I agree.  Healthcare is a big business.  They don't want to cure cancer.  A lot of doctors are rich and that makes them into conservatives and then they start thinking with their wallets and not their brains.  

I go to lifetime fitness and sit in the steamroom and I haven't got broncitus in years.  Use to get it every year 2 times a year sometimes.  All I needed was a good schvitz those money hungry fucks.  I also saw them have my relative who had cancer come in just to see how they were fucking doing, then you'd get a $1000 bill for that visit.  Bet if she didn't have great insurance they would have cut down on the appointments.  So fuck them too I agree.  Like I said, watch Dallas Buyers club.  Big Pharma fights oversea drugs that are working because if they can't have the patent fuck you and die.  And I bet a lot of them are christians too and believe in jesus.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!!! ALL THE UNIVERSE AND LIFE IS PROOF OF GOD!! What kind fool needs more proof????????????? and you???====That man is a fool who says to himself, There is no God! Anyone who talks like that is warped and evil and cannot really be a good person at all.Psalm 14:1===Only a fool would say to himself, There is no God. And why does he say it? Because of his wicked heart, his dark and evil deeds. His life is corroded with sin. PSALM 53:1 and you???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This site debunks every argument you have
> 
> Morality is a cultural concept with a basis in evolutionary psychology and game theory. Species whose members were predisposed to cooperate were more likely to survive and pass on their genes. Reciprocacy, altruism and other so-called moral characteristics are evident in many species. The neurochemical thought to regulate morality and empathy is oxytocin.
> 
> Religious texts are simply part of many early attempts to codify moral precepts. Secular law, flexible with the shifting moral zeitgeist, has long since superseded religion as a source of moral directives for the majority of developed societies. Secular ethics offers a number of competing moral frameworks which do not derive from a purported supernatural source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO!!! Satan is a liar and the father of liars!!!and you????
Click to expand...


Whatever church lady.  What proof do you have of satan other than that sci fi book you call a bible?  And where are these fucking preachers who can heal the sick.  If they aren't in hospitals 7 days a week touching people them they are murderers.  But I suspect they are just liars and con men.  

And let me ask you can I do what I want in heaven?  So what if I want to be a dick when I get to heaven like Satan did?  do I have the choice?  People say no more bad feelings or sin in heaven.  If that is true, how did satan get jealous?  Isn't that a sin?  So can I go to heaven and be a dick like satan?  And if even satan is burning in hell but he can come here why doesn't he stay here?  If it isn't hot to him then what kind of punishment is that?  Sounds like he got to be #2 and be a bad boy and have his own place.  Tell me what heaven is like.


----------



## Montrovant

sealybobo said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK... How about WILLFULL IGNORANCE?
> 
> Clinging desperately to a position that cannot be supported by fact for well over 3,000 years is evidense of mass stupidity.
> 
> The possibility of other alternatives, as time unfolded the science of astronomy, was brutally beat down in favor of the least likely truth.
> 
> The only hope for human kind is our ability to learn as we go.  We must concede our past ignorance in view of the knowledge we encounter along the way into the future.
> 
> All we need to do is look skyward at the moon and it's many craters to see that enemies abound that could spell a very violent end to our existance.
> 
> It may very well come down to an extraordinary effort of correct thinking and action on our part and total commitment and co-operation to plan for and execute a survival strategy.
> 
> We won't have time to fight off the ignorant viewpoints and still focus on what may even with our best efforts an impossible task.
> 
> In the last few thousand years we have lived luckily in a time span of relative safety but that is clearly to any but fools not the way things have happened in the long term.
> 
> We have NOT learned from the past but wallowed in willfull ignorance and whether you like it or not that is stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So religion is going to prevent us from finding a way to keep meteors from hitting Earth?  You make that argument while saying the religious are ignorant and stupid?
> 
> Look, as I've said, I don't believe in any religion.  They tend to be contradictory and based on very little in the way of evidence IMO.  I think they are, in large part, a combination of environment (raised into religious belief, seeing religious belief around you in your formative years, etc.), habit and a search for comfort.  On the other hand, I don't think that necessarily is bad.  As with most anything, there are good and bad aspects to religious belief.
> 
> Religious belief has changed many times in history.  So one could say that we have been learning as we go.  I'm not sure why you think people must follow your timetable for changing their beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You argue for the other side an awful lot for someone who doesn't believe.  And if you don't see how religion is hurting society, then maybe you aren't as smart as you think.  All the wars, the tax scam while not helping the poor or sick, they use god to ban stem cell and abortion and even birth control.  And what gets me is they want their religion to be the official religion of the country.  Like Sharia law only with christians.  I could go on and on but I won't.  I think you get it that religion keeps people ignorant.  Denying global warming and evolution?  What is wrong with you?
Click to expand...


First of all, I'm not arguing 'for the other side'.  I'm arguing against what I consider foolish statements.  But if you think I'm just a religious believer pretending not to believe or something, I can direct you to a video of me getting a trifixion carved in my back.  That at least indicates I'm not Christian.  

You and Huggy both seem to be missing my point.  I don't think religion is the disease, rather it is a symptom.  Get rid of religion and people will simply find some other justification for their actions.  As foolish as it often is, as much as it is used to justify evil acts, I don't think religion is the one thing holding humanity back from achieving some sort of greatness.  If it is, there's no actual evidence that is the case, as we haven't had a non-religious society achieving more than the rest of the world to use as a comparison.  

As to Christians wanting their religion to be the official religion of the US, I'd say that's a small minority.  Something like 70% of Americans identify as Christian, and the vast majority of them do not seem to want to make their religion a state religion. Abortion has not been banned, birth control has not been banned, stem cell research has not been banned.  While I tend to also feel that tax-exempt status for churches is a bad idea, it's not just churches or religious institutions which qualify.

What is wrong with me?  I guess what's wrong is that I don't lump all followers of religion together with whatever extremists I want to look at.  You, on the other hand, appear to be doing just that, while making a bunch of claims that are demonstrably false.


----------



## GISMYS

TOTAL FOOLS try to argue and fight against ALMIGHTY GOD! Your little peanut brain is not up to the job,best you learn your place in GOD'S creation!!!


----------



## thebrucebeat

GISMYS said:


> TOTAL FOOLS try to argue and fight against ALMIGHTY GOD! Your little peanut brain is not up to the job,best you learn your place in GOD'S creation!!!



No one is fighting god.
They are fighting you.


----------



## GISMYS

thebrucebeat said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> TOTAL FOOLS try to argue and fight against ALMIGHTY GOD! Your little peanut brain is not up to the job,best you learn your place in GOD'S creation!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one is fighting god.
> They are fighting you.
Click to expand...


OH REALLY!!! SO YOU believe in GOD?? You have confessed and repented of sin??? You have accepted JESUS as your Lord and Savior??? if not you are fighting against GOD and you lose BIG TIME!!!


----------



## HUGGY

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This site debunks every argument you have
> 
> Morality is a cultural concept with a basis in evolutionary psychology and game theory. Species whose members were predisposed to cooperate were more likely to survive and pass on their genes. Reciprocacy, altruism and other so-called moral characteristics are evident in many species. The neurochemical thought to regulate morality and empathy is oxytocin.
> 
> Religious texts are simply part of many early attempts to codify moral precepts. Secular law, flexible with the shifting moral zeitgeist, has long since superseded religion as a source of moral directives for the majority of developed societies. Secular ethics offers a number of competing moral frameworks which do not derive from a purported supernatural source.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO!!! Satan is a liar and the father of liars!!!and you????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whatever church lady.  What proof do you have of satan other than that sci fi book you call a bible?  And where are these fucking preachers who can heal the sick.  If they aren't in hospitals 7 days a week touching people them they are murderers.  But I suspect they are just liars and con men.
> 
> And let me ask you can I do what I want in heaven?  So what if I want to be a dick when I get to heaven like Satan did?  do I have the choice?  People say no more bad feelings or sin in heaven.  If that is true, how did satan get jealous?  Isn't that a sin?  So can I go to heaven and be a dick like satan?  And if even satan is burning in hell but he can come here why doesn't he stay here?  If it isn't hot to him then what kind of punishment is that?  Sounds like he got to be #2 and be a bad boy and have his own place.  Tell me what heaven is like.
Click to expand...


I can't imagine a worse place than heaven.  If it is chock full of the wackamos that speak of it the most often like Jizzmo I would get such a headache my brain would explode.    Hell doesn't sound all that bad as that is apparently where all the interesting people go... and as for the "heat"...  it's not really a problem cuz as they say  "it's not the heat...it's the humidity"    You never hear anything bad in the *buy*bal about the humidity.


----------



## HUGGY

GISMYS said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> TOTAL FOOLS try to argue and fight against ALMIGHTY GOD! Your little peanut brain is not up to the job,best you learn your place in GOD'S creation!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one is fighting god.
> They are fighting you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OH REALLY!!! SO YOU believe in GOD?? You have confessed and repented of sin??? You have accepted JESUS as your Lord and Savior??? if not you are fighting against GOD and you lose BIG TIME!!!
Click to expand...


Can you imagine a heaven with this fruitcake jizzmo on board?  I would go so out of my mind that I might even have to sock jeebuss in his pie hole just to get a fast train to hell to get away from that wackjob.


----------



## GISMYS

HUGGY said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO!!! Satan is a liar and the father of liars!!!and you????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever church lady.  What proof do you have of satan other than that sci fi book you call a bible?  And where are these fucking preachers who can heal the sick.  If they aren't in hospitals 7 days a week touching people them they are murderers.  But I suspect they are just liars and con men.
> 
> And let me ask you can I do what I want in heaven?  So what if I want to be a dick when I get to heaven like Satan did?  do I have the choice?  People say no more bad feelings or sin in heaven.  If that is true, how did satan get jealous?  Isn't that a sin?  So can I go to heaven and be a dick like satan?  And if even satan is burning in hell but he can come here why doesn't he stay here?  If it isn't hot to him then what kind of punishment is that?  Sounds like he got to be #2 and be a bad boy and have his own place.  Tell me what heaven is like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't imagine a worse place than heaven.  If it is chock full of the wackamos that speak of it the most often like Jizzmo I would get such a headache my brain would explode.    Hell doesn't sound all that bad as that is apparently where all the interesting people go... and as for the "heat"...  it's not really a problem cuz as they say  "it's not the heat...it's the humidity"    You never hear anything bad in the *buy*bal about the humidity.
Click to expand...


WHY show the world your IGNORANCE?? ====
 Corinthians 2:9 &#9658;
However, as it is written: "What no eye has seen, what no ear has heard, and what no human mind has conceived" -- the things God has prepared for those who love him--


----------



## thebrucebeat

GISMYS said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> TOTAL FOOLS try to argue and fight against ALMIGHTY GOD! Your little peanut brain is not up to the job,best you learn your place in GOD'S creation!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one is fighting god.
> They are fighting you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OH REALLY!!! SO YOU believe in GOD?? You have confessed and repented of sin??? You have accepted JESUS as your Lord and Savior??? if not you are fighting against GOD and you lose BIG TIME!!!
Click to expand...


To fight god one has to believe in him.
They don't.
They are fighting you.


----------



## GISMYS

thebrucebeat said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one is fighting god.
> They are fighting you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OH REALLY!!! SO YOU believe in GOD?? You have confessed and repented of sin??? You have accepted JESUS as your Lord and Savior??? if not you are fighting against GOD and you lose BIG TIME!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To fight god one has to believe in him.
> They don't.
> They are fighting you.
Click to expand...


IS there no limit to your IGNORANCE???


----------



## thebrucebeat

HUGGY said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO!!! Satan is a liar and the father of liars!!!and you????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever church lady.  What proof do you have of satan other than that sci fi book you call a bible?  And where are these fucking preachers who can heal the sick.  If they aren't in hospitals 7 days a week touching people them they are murderers.  But I suspect they are just liars and con men.
> 
> And let me ask you can I do what I want in heaven?  So what if I want to be a dick when I get to heaven like Satan did?  do I have the choice?  People say no more bad feelings or sin in heaven.  If that is true, how did satan get jealous?  Isn't that a sin?  So can I go to heaven and be a dick like satan?  And if even satan is burning in hell but he can come here why doesn't he stay here?  If it isn't hot to him then what kind of punishment is that?  Sounds like he got to be #2 and be a bad boy and have his own place.  Tell me what heaven is like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't imagine a worse place than heaven.  If it is chock full of the wackamos that speak of it the most often like Jizzmo I would get such a headache my brain would explode.    Hell doesn't sound all that bad as that is apparently where all the interesting people go... and as for the "heat"...  it's not really a problem cuz as they say  "it's not the heat...it's the humidity"    You never hear anything bad in the *buy*bal about the humidity.
Click to expand...


George Bernard Shaw said you go to heaven for the climate, but to hell for the conversation.


----------



## HUGGY

GISMYS said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> OH REALLY!!! SO YOU believe in GOD?? You have confessed and repented of sin??? You have accepted JESUS as your Lord and Savior??? if not you are fighting against GOD and you lose BIG TIME!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To fight god one has to believe in him.
> They don't.
> They are fighting you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IS there no limit to your IGNORANCE???
Click to expand...


Maybe there is something as a ressurection.... 

...you seem to talk a lot for someone that just got knocked stone cold out...


----------



## thebrucebeat

GISMYS said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> OH REALLY!!! SO YOU believe in GOD?? You have confessed and repented of sin??? You have accepted JESUS as your Lord and Savior??? if not you are fighting against GOD and you lose BIG TIME!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To fight god one has to believe in him.
> They don't.
> They are fighting you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IS there no limit to your IGNORANCE???
Click to expand...


What did I say that you can't understand?


----------



## RandomVariable

HUGGY said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one is fighting god.
> They are fighting you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OH REALLY!!! SO YOU believe in GOD?? You have confessed and repented of sin??? You have accepted JESUS as your Lord and Savior??? if not you are fighting against GOD and you lose BIG TIME!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you imagine a heaven with this fruitcake jizzmo on board?  I would go so out of my mind that I might even have to sock jeebuss in his pie hole just to get a fast train to hell to get away from that wackjob.
Click to expand...


While I have not followed "fruitcake" long I have never heard him speak of how it is on the other side. Nor have I heard him speak of the condition of this side except to say how this side has far to go to pass through the doorway he describes.


----------



## GISMYS

For centuries men have clenched their fists and gritted their teeth in the face of God, and they do it today. They pit their own will against the will of God. Solomon stated how futile it was in Proverbs 21:30. These are the words that he said: "There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the Lord." And what he meant by that was anybody who goes against God is a fool. There's no wisdom in that. That shows you don't understand and there's no wise counsel in that. Nothing can stand against God and yet men foolishly slam their own wills against the will of God like shattering eggs against granite and all you have is the strewn refuse of lives broken against a God that cannot be violated.

Men have always tried to fight God. That isn't anything new. It's not just common to our age, although it is common to our age.


----------



## RandomVariable

GISMYS said:


> For centuries men have clenched their fists and gritted their teeth in the face of God, and they do it today. They pit their own will against the will of God. Solomon stated how futile it was in Proverbs 21:30. These are the words that he said: "There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the Lord." And what he meant by that was anybody who goes against God is a fool. There's no wisdom in that. That shows you don't understand and there's no wise counsel in that. Nothing can stand against God and yet men foolishly slam their own wills against the will of God like shattering eggs against granite and all you have is the strewn refuse of lives broken against a God that cannot be violated.
> 
> Men have always tried to fight God. That isn't anything new. It's not just common to our age, although it is common to our age.



It it but a recent event however that so many have built up ill will against God. There are there class of people, so to speak, those who have accepted God, those who are indifferent to God, and those who hate God. If the time has indeed come for man to be judged then the Shepard is asking all his sheep to come to Him for the wolves are circling closer.


----------



## sealybobo

Montrovant said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> So religion is going to prevent us from finding a way to keep meteors from hitting Earth?  You make that argument while saying the religious are ignorant and stupid?
> 
> Look, as I've said, I don't believe in any religion.  They tend to be contradictory and based on very little in the way of evidence IMO.  I think they are, in large part, a combination of environment (raised into religious belief, seeing religious belief around you in your formative years, etc.), habit and a search for comfort.  On the other hand, I don't think that necessarily is bad.  As with most anything, there are good and bad aspects to religious belief.
> 
> Religious belief has changed many times in history.  So one could say that we have been learning as we go.  I'm not sure why you think people must follow your timetable for changing their beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You argue for the other side an awful lot for someone who doesn't believe.  And if you don't see how religion is hurting society, then maybe you aren't as smart as you think.  All the wars, the tax scam while not helping the poor or sick, they use god to ban stem cell and abortion and even birth control.  And what gets me is they want their religion to be the official religion of the country.  Like Sharia law only with christians.  I could go on and on but I won't.  I think you get it that religion keeps people ignorant.  Denying global warming and evolution?  What is wrong with you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and Huggy both seem to be missing my point.  I don't think religion is the disease, rather it is a symptom.  Get rid of religion and people will simply find some other justification for their actions.  As foolish as it often is, as much as it is used to justify evil acts, I don't think religion is the one thing holding humanity back from achieving some sort of greatness.  If it is, there's no actual evidence that is the case, as we haven't had a non-religious society achieving more than the rest of the world to use as a comparison.
> 
> As to Christians wanting their religion to be the official religion of the US, I'd say that's a small minority.  Something like 70% of Americans identify as Christian, and the vast majority of them do not seem to want to make their religion a state religion. Abortion has not been banned, birth control has not been banned, stem cell research has not been banned.  While I tend to also feel that tax-exempt status for churches is a bad idea, it's not just churches or religious institutions which qualify.
> 
> What is wrong with me?  I guess what's wrong is that I don't lump all followers of religion together with whatever extremists I want to look at.  You, on the other hand, appear to be doing just that, while making a bunch of claims that are demonstrably false.
Click to expand...


You seem to want "evidence" for the obvious.  When Bush denied 8 years of stem cell research and you need more proof that religion hasn't held us back?  My mom might not be dying of Alzheimers if it weren't for those pricks.  But then again maybe the person that would have invented the cure was aborted.  LOL.

The GOP in every state they run has severely limited abortion rights.  Do you not know this?  Its like your asking me to prove that water is wet.  I can't know how little you know.  Do I have to prove to you that heat is hot?  

And did you forget catholic run insurance companies don't want to cover birth control.


----------



## hobelim

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well then...    That settles it.
> 
> With THAT kind of logic the earth must be no more than 3,000 or so years old.  Since there is little to no recorded history more than that in age... certainly no calenders to prove earth is older than that then there must be at least a 50-50 chance the earth MUST be just a few thousand years old.  I mean...carbon dating has some flaws... we can certainly throw that "theory" baby out with the bath water.
> 
> The great flood of Noah?  Hells bells... why not?  Never mind all the different types of variations of human beings..  Black skinned...slant eyed... I guess we can just rack that up to evolution..whoops !!! Can't be.. So Noah got a couple of negros..a couple of Chinese..etc...a couple of South American Indians to walk or swim 20,000 miles to catch his boat before it sailed ... and THAT explains where THEY came from...not to mention that they had to walk and swim BACK to where they came from ...  No problem..!!! Thank GOD they didn't mind going to that effort to keep THAT story intact..
> 
> Sorry.. the rabbit holes are being filled up faster than you crazies can dig them now.  If it takes looking under every rock in the universe to find your god then so be it.  If that what it takes to rid the place of this insane fairy tale then that is what we need to do to erradicate the scourge of religion and god from ours and all other worlds.
> 
> Seems like an impossible job proving that god isn't camped out in some little cubby hole a trillion light years away in some cave not yet discovered before it will be enough "proof" to satisfy some people.
> 
> Lots to do...lets get crackin...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you heard about this MERS sickness that is killing people?  Look who these science haters run to when they need a cure.  I say they should only be able to go to church for their cure if they want to hate on scientists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YES!!! BLESS THE LORD oh my soul,the LORD who heals all my sickness.  i went to a doctor LAST TIME  in 1967 for a stuffy nose problem,I wasted my time and money!!!
Click to expand...


lol 

......a few million gibbering posts ago,  you said that you went to a doctor for a stuffy ear. You can't even be honest about such a trivial pointless claim.....


is there anything good inside of you?


----------



## GISMYS

hobelim said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you heard about this MERS sickness that is killing people?  Look who these science haters run to when they need a cure.  I say they should only be able to go to church for their cure if they want to hate on scientists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YES!!! BLESS THE LORD oh my soul,the LORD who heals all my sickness.  i went to a doctor LAST TIME  in 1967 for a stuffy nose problem,I wasted my time and money!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol
> 
> ......a few million gibbering posts ago,  you said that you went to a doctor for a stuffy ear. You can't even be honest about such a trivial pointless claim.....
> 
> 
> is there anything good inside of you?
Click to expand...

DUH!!! DO you not know the passage from the  nose and throat leads to the ear????


----------



## hobelim

GISMYS said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> YES!!! BLESS THE LORD oh my soul,the LORD who heals all my sickness.  i went to a doctor LAST TIME  in 1967 for a stuffy nose problem,I wasted my time and money!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol
> 
> ......a few million gibbering posts ago,  you said that you went to a doctor for a stuffy ear. You can't even be honest about such a trivial pointless claim.....
> 
> 
> is there anything good inside of you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> DUH!!! DO you not know the passage from the  nose and throught leads to the ear????
Click to expand...


I know that the nose bone is connected to the head bone and the knee bone is connected to the thigh bone and I also know that you must have never received a good education or if you did you lacked the mental ability to absorb anything given that hell is all *to* real, God* revieled* himself, and your passage from the nose and *throught....
*

DUH yourself.

You are quite the schlemiel...


----------



## GISMYS

hobelim said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol
> 
> ......a few million gibbering posts ago,  you said that you went to a doctor for a stuffy ear. You can't even be honest about such a trivial pointless claim.....
> 
> 
> is there anything good inside of you?
> 
> 
> 
> DUH!!! DO you not know the passage from the  nose and throught leads to the ear????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know that the nose bone is connected to the head bone and the knee bone is connected to the thigh bone and I also know that you must have never received a good education or if you did you lacked the mental ability to absorb anything given that hell is all *to* real, God* revieled* himself, and your passage from the nose and *throught....
> *
> 
> DUH yourself.
> 
> You are quite the schlemiel...
Click to expand...


SO YOU TOO KNOW YOU ARE JUST A SILLY,BLINDED WASTE OF TIME FOOL!! ===For centuries men have clenched their fists and gritted their teeth in the face of God, and they do it today. They pit their own will against the will of God. Solomon stated how futile it was in Proverbs 21:30. These are the words that he said: "There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the Lord." And what he meant by that was anybody who goes against God is a fool. There's no wisdom in that. That shows you don't understand and there's no wise counsel in that. Nothing can stand against God and yet men foolishly slam their own wills against the will of God like shattering eggs against granite and all you have is the strewn refuse of lives broken against a God that cannot be violated.

Men have always tried to fight God. That isn't anything new. It's not just common to our age, although it is common to our age.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> TOTAL FOOLS try to argue and fight against ALMIGHTY GOD! Your little peanut brain is not up to the job,best you learn your place in GOD'S creation!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one is fighting god.
> They are fighting you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OH REALLY!!! SO YOU believe in GOD?? You have confessed and repented of sin??? You have accepted JESUS as your Lord and Savior??? if not you are fighting against GOD and you lose BIG TIME!!!
Click to expand...


But you will be a sinner until the day you die.  So that isn't even necessary.  You guys think you can sin with impunity because you've been born again and believe in Jesus.  What a cult.  No wonder you aren't good people.  It isn't required.  

To know how far we ave come all you have to look at is how we don't even take your threats of eternal damnation seriously.  20 years ago that would have been your sides only come back.  Today at least the god defenders on this board aren't trying to defend the jesus or mohammad or mormom god because it is indefensible.  Your stories are as believable as Santa Clause visiting every chimney.  But I guess since he has supernatural powers it's arguable, right idiot?


----------



## hunarcy

sealybobo said:


> You seem to want "evidence" for the obvious.  When Bush denied 8 years of stem cell research and you need more proof that religion hasn't held us back?  My mom might not be dying of Alzheimers if it weren't for those pricks.  But then again maybe the person that would have invented the cure was aborted.  LOL.
> 
> The GOP in every state they run has severely limited abortion rights.  Do you not know this?  Its like your asking me to prove that water is wet.  I can't know how little you know.  Do I have to prove to you that heat is hot?
> 
> And did you forget catholic run insurance companies don't want to cover birth control.



You're an idiot.  Bush didn't "deny 8 years of stem cell research, you mouth breathing buffoon.  He may have banned public money in 2001, but he didn't prevent anyone else from paying for the research!


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> DUH!!! DO you not know the passage from the  nose and throught leads to the ear????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know that the nose bone is connected to the head bone and the knee bone is connected to the thigh bone and I also know that you must have never received a good education or if you did you lacked the mental ability to absorb anything given that hell is all *to* real, God* revieled* himself, and your passage from the nose and *throught....
> *
> 
> DUH yourself.
> 
> You are quite the schlemiel...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SO YOU TOO KNOW YOU ARE JUST A SILLY,BLINDED WASTE OF TIME FOOL!! ===For centuries men have clenched their fists and gritted their teeth in the face of God, and they do it today. They pit their own will against the will of God. Solomon stated how futile it was in Proverbs 21:30. These are the words that he said: "There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the Lord." And what he meant by that was anybody who goes against God is a fool. There's no wisdom in that. That shows you don't understand and there's no wise counsel in that. Nothing can stand against God and yet men foolishly slam their own wills against the will of God like shattering eggs against granite and all you have is the strewn refuse of lives broken against a God that cannot be violated.
> 
> Men have always tried to fight God. That isn't anything new. It's not just common to our age, although it is common to our age.
Click to expand...


No surprise that from the minute primitive uneducated man invented god that the smartest monkeys in the tribe called bullshit.  

Remember I said the rich invented god to control the masses?  Who was Solomon?  

Solomon was a king of Israel and the son of David.  The conventional dates of Solomon's reign are circa 970 to 931 BC. He is described as the third king of the United Monarchy, and the final king before the northern Kingdom of Israel and the southern Kingdom of Judah split. Following the split, his patrilineal descendants ruled over Judah alone.

According to the Talmud, Solomon is one of the 48 prophets.  In the Qur'an, he is considered a major prophet, and Muslims generally refer to him by the Arabic variant Sulayman, son of David.

The Hebrew Bible credits Solomon as the builder of the First Temple in Jerusalem[3] and portrays him as great in wisdom, wealth, and power, but ultimately as a king whose sin, including idolatry and turning away from Yahweh, leads to the kingdom's being torn in two during the reign of his son Rehoboam.  Solomon is the subject of many other later references and legends, most notably in the 1st-century apocryphal work known as the Testament of Solomon. In later years, Solomon also came to be known as a magician and an exorcist, with numerous amulets and medallion seals dating from the Hellenistic period invoking his name.

Ultimately who cares what he said.  What does Neal Degrass Tyson or someone smart today say?  Time to let this hokus pokus taboo voodoo shit go.


----------



## hobelim

GISMYS said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> DUH!!! DO you not know the passage from the  nose and throught leads to the ear????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know that the nose bone is connected to the head bone and the knee bone is connected to the thigh bone and I also know that you must have never received a good education or if you did you lacked the mental ability to absorb anything given that hell is all *to* real, God* revieled* himself, and your passage from the nose and *throught....
> *
> 
> DUH yourself.
> 
> You are quite the schlemiel...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SO YOU TOO KNOW YOU ARE JUST A SILLY,BLINDED WASTE OF TIME FOOL!! ===For centuries men have clenched their fists and gritted their teeth in the face of God, and they do it today. .
Click to expand...

 

 The only one CLENCHING THEIR FISTS AND GRINDING THEIR TEETH is you dimwit.

And as has been said many times, no one is fighting God they are fighting you and your stupid, ignorant, superstitious and delusional proclamations of knowing truth and receiving salvation based on an acceptance of a literal interpretation of what amount to children's fairy tales that went way over your stuffy head.


----------



## sealybobo

hunarcy said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to want "evidence" for the obvious.  When Bush denied 8 years of stem cell research and you need more proof that religion hasn't held us back?  My mom might not be dying of Alzheimers if it weren't for those pricks.  But then again maybe the person that would have invented the cure was aborted.  LOL.
> 
> The GOP in every state they run has severely limited abortion rights.  Do you not know this?  Its like your asking me to prove that water is wet.  I can't know how little you know.  Do I have to prove to you that heat is hot?
> 
> And did you forget catholic run insurance companies don't want to cover birth control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're an idiot.  Bush didn't "deny 8 years of stem cell research, you mouth breathing buffoon.  He may have banned public money in 2001, but he didn't prevent anyone else from paying for the research!
Click to expand...


That's holding us back.  Most of the cures we have today come from government funding because corporations don't like paying for R&D.  No money in it.  So if you don't grasp what I'm saying don't say I'm an idiot just because you are too stupid to know reality.  But I guess that goes with the territory of believing in fairtytales.  What you suckers don't realize is the Illuminati that Bush belongs to doesn't believe in God.  Ayn Rand doesn't believe in God.  So your politics and religion don't makes sense together but its ok because dumb religious Americans will vote against themselves financially over god gays and guns.  This is why they have used religion from the beginning of societies to control the masses, just like I said before.


----------



## sealybobo

hobelim said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know that the nose bone is connected to the head bone and the knee bone is connected to the thigh bone and I also know that you must have never received a good education or if you did you lacked the mental ability to absorb anything given that hell is all *to* real, God* revieled* himself, and your passage from the nose and *throught....
> *
> 
> DUH yourself.
> 
> You are quite the schlemiel...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SO YOU TOO KNOW YOU ARE JUST A SILLY,BLINDED WASTE OF TIME FOOL!! ===For centuries men have clenched their fists and gritted their teeth in the face of God, and they do it today. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The only one CLENCHING THEIR FISTS AND GRINDING THEIR TEETH is you dimwit.
> 
> And as has been said many times, no one is fighting God they are fighting you and your stupid, ignorant, superstitious and delusional proclamations of knowing truth and receiving salvation based on an acceptance of a literal interpretation of what amount to children's fairy tales that went way over your stuffy head.
Click to expand...


OMG exactly!!!!


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science says we made up the idea of god.  And since you have zero evidence of god, I guess I'm just being nice by saying there is a 1% chance god exists.  The only reason I give you 1% is because I can't see what is on the other side of the moon or what's inside a black hole.  It may be god sitting around playing cards with my grandfathers.  What are the chances of that?  Would it be more or less than .00001%?  Exactly!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but when did "science" say anything? Science doesn't say that because science doesn't speak with one voice and with definitive conclusion... on anything.
> 
> In fact, that would be anathema to science. You vanquished science the instant you drew conclusion. When you believe something without proof it is called Faith, not Science.
> 
> If you have no evidence there's not a God and they have no evidence there is a God, then the odds are 50-50. Until you come up with something to disprove God, you can't disprove God. Therefore, we are still at 50-50. The 99-to-1 odds are based on your faith and has no supporting scientific evidence. It's as good as my odds of 99-to-1 in favor of God. In fact, if we're going by the criteria of just throwing out odds with no basis in science, then I'll say 100-to-0 that there is a God!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science disagrees with you.  So are you smarter than science?
> 
> A common attempt to shift the burden of proof or make room for a god. Represents a type of false dichotomy that excludes the fact that there is insufficient investigation and the proposition has not yet been proven either true or false.
> 
> The failure to disprove the existence of something does not constitute proof of its existence.
> 
> Belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims because all such claims would need to be believed implicitly. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
Click to expand...


IF science disagrees with me, I must be smarter than science. 

You've presented exactly ZERO evidence there is no God. Failure to disprove doesn't constitute proof of existence, it also doesn't confirm non-existence. Now, how about we set aside the grandiose proclamations... "everybody knows... it's 99.999% proven... science has pretty much concluded this..." and let's start churning out these "facts" that disprove God? Quotes like "science disagrees with you" mean nothing to me, they are empty words until you show me the science which disagrees. 

Belief... now there is an important word to raise in this debate. Belief is when you have faith in something that isn't proven. Like the faith that God exists, or the faith God doesn't. We continue through page after page of people expressing their passionate faiths. The people who believe in God are fine with that, but the people who don't believe in God simply won't admit that is their faith, they run hide behind Science. They want to pretend that Science has somehow answered this question without answering it. But everyone knows that is preposterous. Silly boob, you know you're in trouble when Moonbat starts raising his eyebrow at your arguments.


----------



## sealybobo

hobelim said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you heard about this MERS sickness that is killing people?  Look who these science haters run to when they need a cure.  I say they should only be able to go to church for their cure if they want to hate on scientists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YES!!! BLESS THE LORD oh my soul,the LORD who heals all my sickness.  i went to a doctor LAST TIME  in 1967 for a stuffy nose problem,I wasted my time and money!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol
> 
> ......a few million gibbering posts ago,  you said that you went to a doctor for a stuffy ear. You can't even be honest about such a trivial pointless claim.....
> 
> 
> is there anything good inside of you?
Click to expand...


But its ok to lie as long as you are lying for the lord.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> YES!!! BLESS THE LORD oh my soul,the LORD who heals all my sickness.  i went to a doctor LAST TIME  in 1967 for a stuffy nose problem,I wasted my time and money!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol
> 
> ......a few million gibbering posts ago,  you said that you went to a doctor for a stuffy ear. You can't even be honest about such a trivial pointless claim.....
> 
> 
> is there anything good inside of you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But its ok to lie as long as you are lying for the lord.
Click to expand...


STUFFY EAR AND OR  STUFFY NOSE , HE DID RUN A AIR HOSE UP MY NOSE INTO MY EAR. LOL!!!  YOU SILLY WASTE OF TIME tards!!!


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but when did "science" say anything? Science doesn't say that because science doesn't speak with one voice and with definitive conclusion... on anything.
> 
> In fact, that would be anathema to science. You vanquished science the instant you drew conclusion. When you believe something without proof it is called Faith, not Science.
> 
> If you have no evidence there's not a God and they have no evidence there is a God, then the odds are 50-50. Until you come up with something to disprove God, you can't disprove God. Therefore, we are still at 50-50. The 99-to-1 odds are based on your faith and has no supporting scientific evidence. It's as good as my odds of 99-to-1 in favor of God. In fact, if we're going by the criteria of just throwing out odds with no basis in science, then I'll say 100-to-0 that there is a God!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science disagrees with you.  So are you smarter than science?
> 
> A common attempt to shift the burden of proof or make room for a god. Represents a type of false dichotomy that excludes the fact that there is insufficient investigation and the proposition has not yet been proven either true or false.
> 
> The failure to disprove the existence of something does not constitute proof of its existence.
> 
> Belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims because all such claims would need to be believed implicitly. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IF science disagrees with me, I must be smarter than science.
> 
> You've presented exactly ZERO evidence there is no God. Failure to disprove doesn't constitute proof of existence, it also doesn't confirm non-existence. Now, how about we set aside the grandiose proclamations... "everybody knows... it's 99.999% proven... science has pretty much concluded this..." and let's start churning out these "facts" that disprove God? Quotes like "science disagrees with you" mean nothing to me, they are empty words until you show me the science which disagrees.
> 
> Belief... now there is an important word to raise in this debate. Belief is when you have faith in something that isn't proven. Like the faith that God exists, or the faith God doesn't. We continue through page after page of people expressing their passionate faiths. The people who believe in God are fine with that, but the people who don't believe in God simply won't admit that is their faith, they run hide behind Science. They want to pretend that Science has somehow answered this question without answering it. But everyone knows that is preposterous. Silly boob, you know you're in trouble when Moonbat starts raising his eyebrow at your arguments.
Click to expand...


Simply because you or the scientific community lack a complete understanding of something does not imply a theistic explanation carries any value. Even if there exists some topic on which science can never speak, any understanding could potentially evade us forever  supernatural or metaphysical speculation would not automatically be correct. Uncertainty is the most legitimate position.

Lightning, earthquakes, volcanos, disease, mental illness, speciation, planetary orbits and numerous other phenomena have been historically labelled supernatural only to later be more thoroughly and elegantly explained by science. In fact, every mystery ever demonstrably solved has had a non-supernatural explanation. To suggest that science cannot or will not explain a phenomena, and that only theism can, is hubris of the highest order.

Using god to explain something explains nothing. Gods supposed powers and how they work are a mystery. An explanation is intended to clarify and extend knowledge. Attributing a phenomenon to the magical powers of a supernatural being does neither. Worse still, this presumption acts to prevent any deeper investigation, being little more than a form of blissful ignorance.

Note: By using god to fill gaps in their knowledge theists inadvertently provide a shrinking role for their god as science advances. They also predicate gods existence on a lack of knowledge, not on any positive argument or evidence.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but when did "science" say anything? Science doesn't say that because science doesn't speak with one voice and with definitive conclusion... on anything.
> 
> In fact, that would be anathema to science. You vanquished science the instant you drew conclusion. When you believe something without proof it is called Faith, not Science.
> 
> If you have no evidence there's not a God and they have no evidence there is a God, then the odds are 50-50. Until you come up with something to disprove God, you can't disprove God. Therefore, we are still at 50-50. The 99-to-1 odds are based on your faith and has no supporting scientific evidence. It's as good as my odds of 99-to-1 in favor of God. In fact, if we're going by the criteria of just throwing out odds with no basis in science, then I'll say 100-to-0 that there is a God!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science disagrees with you.  So are you smarter than science?
> 
> A common attempt to shift the burden of proof or make room for a god. Represents a type of false dichotomy that excludes the fact that there is insufficient investigation and the proposition has not yet been proven either true or false.
> 
> The failure to disprove the existence of something does not constitute proof of its existence.
> 
> Belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims because all such claims would need to be believed implicitly. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IF science disagrees with me, I must be smarter than science.
> 
> You've presented exactly ZERO evidence there is no God. Failure to disprove doesn't constitute proof of existence, it also doesn't confirm non-existence. Now, how about we set aside the grandiose proclamations... "everybody knows... it's 99.999% proven... science has pretty much concluded this..." and let's start churning out these "facts" that disprove God? Quotes like "science disagrees with you" mean nothing to me, they are empty words until you show me the science which disagrees.
> 
> Belief... now there is an important word to raise in this debate. Belief is when you have faith in something that isn't proven. Like the faith that God exists, or the faith God doesn't. We continue through page after page of people expressing their passionate faiths. The people who believe in God are fine with that, but the people who don't believe in God simply won't admit that is their faith, they run hide behind Science. They want to pretend that Science has somehow answered this question without answering it. But everyone knows that is preposterous. Silly boob, you know you're in trouble when Moonbat starts raising his eyebrow at your arguments.
Click to expand...


Science observes the physical universe, makes models of how it works and then refines those models through further observation. When something interacts with the physical universe, such as through light, motion, sound, heat, mass or gravity, it becomes a natural phenomena and thus open to scientific inquiry. If it does not interact with the physical universe then it cannot be said to exist in any meaningful or perceivable way. 

Proposing the existence of an entity or phenomena that can never be investigated via empirical, experimental or reproducible means moves it from the realm of reality and into the realm of unfalsifiable speculation. The inability of science to investigate or disprove such a hypothesis is not the same as proving it true and neither does it automatically lend credence to any metaphysical or theological argument. If such reasoning were actually permissible then one could claim anything imaginable to be real or true if only because it could not be proven false.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but when did "science" say anything? Science doesn't say that because science doesn't speak with one voice and with definitive conclusion... on anything.
> 
> In fact, that would be anathema to science. You vanquished science the instant you drew conclusion. When you believe something without proof it is called Faith, not Science.
> 
> If you have no evidence there's not a God and they have no evidence there is a God, then the odds are 50-50. Until you come up with something to disprove God, you can't disprove God. Therefore, we are still at 50-50. The 99-to-1 odds are based on your faith and has no supporting scientific evidence. It's as good as my odds of 99-to-1 in favor of God. In fact, if we're going by the criteria of just throwing out odds with no basis in science, then I'll say 100-to-0 that there is a God!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science disagrees with you.  So are you smarter than science?
> 
> A common attempt to shift the burden of proof or make room for a god. Represents a type of false dichotomy that excludes the fact that there is insufficient investigation and the proposition has not yet been proven either true or false.
> 
> The failure to disprove the existence of something does not constitute proof of its existence.
> 
> Belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims because all such claims would need to be believed implicitly. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IF science disagrees with me, I must be smarter than science.
> 
> You've presented exactly ZERO evidence there is no God. Failure to disprove doesn't constitute proof of existence, it also doesn't confirm non-existence. Now, how about we set aside the grandiose proclamations... "everybody knows... it's 99.999% proven... science has pretty much concluded this..." and let's start churning out these "facts" that disprove God? Quotes like "science disagrees with you" mean nothing to me, they are empty words until you show me the science which disagrees.
> 
> Belief... now there is an important word to raise in this debate. Belief is when you have faith in something that isn't proven. Like the faith that God exists, or the faith God doesn't. We continue through page after page of people expressing their passionate faiths. The people who believe in God are fine with that, but the people who don't believe in God simply won't admit that is their faith, they run hide behind Science. They want to pretend that Science has somehow answered this question without answering it. But everyone knows that is preposterous. Silly boob, you know you're in trouble when Moonbat starts raising his eyebrow at your arguments.
Click to expand...


I'm sick of repeating this:  A common attempt to shift the burden of proof or make room for a god. Represents a type of false dichotomy that excludes the fact that there is insufficient investigation and the proposition has not yet been proven either true or false.

The failure to disprove the existence of something does not constitute proof of its existence.

Belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims because all such claims would need to be believed implicitly. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.


----------



## sealybobo

hunarcy said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to want "evidence" for the obvious.  When Bush denied 8 years of stem cell research and you need more proof that religion hasn't held us back?  My mom might not be dying of Alzheimers if it weren't for those pricks.  But then again maybe the person that would have invented the cure was aborted.  LOL.
> 
> The GOP in every state they run has severely limited abortion rights.  Do you not know this?  Its like your asking me to prove that water is wet.  I can't know how little you know.  Do I have to prove to you that heat is hot?
> 
> And did you forget catholic run insurance companies don't want to cover birth control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're an idiot.  Bush didn't "deny 8 years of stem cell research, you mouth breathing buffoon.  He may have banned public money in 2001, but he didn't prevent anyone else from paying for the research!
Click to expand...


Watch Dallas Buyers Club and wake up to the fact that our government, corporations and the FDA are big business and if a cure comes from overseas they won't let it in because they want to make the profits.  So people were dying in the 80's of aids and people dying had to go to mexico and europe and asia to find medicines and the FDA would go in and confiscate the medicines not because they were unsafe because the fact is the main character lived 7 years and the doctor told him he had 30 days to live.  Stop defending the government.  I'm guessing if you are defending Bush you hate the government so don't try to defend them now.


----------



## Boss

> *SillyBoob:* Simply because you or the scientific community lack a complete understanding of something does not imply...



Hold on skippy, I didn't say something was implied. YOU did! You implied Science has 99.999% proven there is no God. I'm asking for that evidence, and you are telling me you don't have any. Then you are making this into an excuse for not having the evidence to support your claim. Now it's not my fault you don't have evidence to back up your claim, I can't do a thing about that. I shortened your quote because it really doesn't matter what it *doesn't* imply, it's what it *DOES* imply, implicitly... you don't have evidence there is no God. 



> *...any understanding could potentially evade us forever...*


Exactly! So to be making these off-the-wall prognostications of God without any further knowledge is kind of stupid, isn't it? 



> Lightning, earthquakes, volcanos, disease, mental illness, speciation, planetary orbits and numerous other phenomena have been historically labelled &#8216;supernatural&#8217; only to later be more thoroughly and elegantly explained by science.



Right.... and every one of those things has indication of something amazingly "designed" to function a particular way, with particular and predictable, almost 'watchlike' order. The more we discover about the ways our universe works, the more we are amazed at The Masters Design. Science seeks to discover HOW things in the universe work, the question as to WHY is still up for grabs. 



> Using &#8216;god&#8217; to explain something explains nothing.



Exactly! Which is why I find it so difficult to believe the species who sent itself to to the moon would do such a thing for the entirety of it's existence to any overwhelming degree. Inventing a God to ultimately explain nothing seems like a really pointless idea, someone must have pointed that out. 



> God&#8217;s supposed powers and how they work are a mystery.



Here's where we get to the point you are missing. To those who believe in God's powers, they are *NOT* a mystery. They are not "supposed" but very "real." Let's state this for the record, *YOU* are the one who is in the dark when it comes to God's 'mysterious' powers. But instead of just admitting you don't know, you like to proclaim that it's 99.9999% certain and science backs you up.  



> ....Worse still, this presumption acts to prevent any deeper investigation, being little more than a form of blissful ignorance.



Brilliant... So we can agree that making presumptions act to prevent deeper investigations? Is it really a lot of fun to be blissfully ignorant of God, just curious?


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> *SillyBoob:* Simply because you or the scientific community lack a complete understanding of something does not imply...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hold on skippy, I didn't say something was implied. YOU did! You implied Science has 99.999% proven there is no God. I'm asking for that evidence, and you are telling me you don't have any. Then you are making this into an excuse for not having the evidence to support your claim. Now it's not my fault you don't have evidence to back up your claim, I can't do a thing about that. I shortened your quote because it really doesn't matter what it *doesn't* imply, it's what it *DOES* imply, implicitly... you don't have evidence there is no God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *...any understanding could potentially evade us forever...*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly! So to be making these off-the-wall prognostications of God without any further knowledge is kind of stupid, isn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> Right.... and every one of those things has indication of something amazingly "designed" to function a particular way, with particular and predictable, almost 'watchlike' order. The more we discover about the ways our universe works, the more we are amazed at The Masters Design. Science seeks to discover HOW things in the universe work, the question as to WHY is still up for grabs.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly! Which is why I find it so difficult to believe the species who sent itself to to the moon would do such a thing for the entirety of it's existence to any overwhelming degree. Inventing a God to ultimately explain nothing seems like a really pointless idea, someone must have pointed that out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gods supposed powers and how they work are a mystery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's where we get to the point you are missing. To those who believe in God's powers, they are *NOT* a mystery. They are not "supposed" but very "real." Let's state this for the record, *YOU* are the one who is in the dark when it comes to God's 'mysterious' powers. But instead of just admitting you don't know, you like to proclaim that it's 99.9999% certain and science backs you up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ....Worse still, this presumption acts to prevent any deeper investigation, being little more than a form of blissful ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Brilliant... So we can agree that making presumptions act to prevent deeper investigations? Is it really a lot of fun to be blissfully ignorant of God, just curious?
Click to expand...


Blissfully ignorant of what god(s). All your pontificating does nothing to make any case for your imagined gods.


----------



## GISMYS

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *SillyBoob:* Simply because you or the scientific community lack a complete understanding of something does not imply...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hold on skippy, I didn't say something was implied. YOU did! You implied Science has 99.999% proven there is no God. I'm asking for that evidence, and you are telling me you don't have any. Then you are making this into an excuse for not having the evidence to support your claim. Now it's not my fault you don't have evidence to back up your claim, I can't do a thing about that. I shortened your quote because it really doesn't matter what it *doesn't* imply, it's what it *DOES* imply, implicitly... you don't have evidence there is no God.
> 
> 
> Exactly! So to be making these off-the-wall prognostications of God without any further knowledge is kind of stupid, isn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> Right.... and every one of those things has indication of something amazingly "designed" to function a particular way, with particular and predictable, almost 'watchlike' order. The more we discover about the ways our universe works, the more we are amazed at The Masters Design. Science seeks to discover HOW things in the universe work, the question as to WHY is still up for grabs.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly! Which is why I find it so difficult to believe the species who sent itself to to the moon would do such a thing for the entirety of it's existence to any overwhelming degree. Inventing a God to ultimately explain nothing seems like a really pointless idea, someone must have pointed that out.
> 
> 
> 
> Here's where we get to the point you are missing. To those who believe in God's powers, they are *NOT* a mystery. They are not "supposed" but very "real." Let's state this for the record, *YOU* are the one who is in the dark when it comes to God's 'mysterious' powers. But instead of just admitting you don't know, you like to proclaim that it's 99.9999% certain and science backs you up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ....Worse still, this presumption acts to prevent any deeper investigation, being little more than a form of blissful ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Brilliant... So we can agree that making presumptions act to prevent deeper investigations? Is it really a lot of fun to be blissfully ignorant of God, just curious?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blissfully ignorant of what god(s). All your pontificating does nothing to make any case for your imagined gods.
Click to expand...


For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not [n]honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools. Romans 1:18-22


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Science observes the physical universe, makes models of how it works and then refines those models through further observation. When something interacts with the physical universe, such as through light, motion, sound, heat, mass or gravity, it becomes a natural phenomena and thus open to scientific inquiry. If it does not interact with the physical universe then it cannot be said to exist in any meaningful or perceivable way.
> 
> Proposing the existence of an entity or phenomena that can never be investigated via empirical, experimental or reproducible means moves it from the realm of reality and into the realm of unfalsifiable speculation. The inability of science to investigate or disprove such a hypothesis is not the same as proving it true and neither does it automatically lend credence to any metaphysical or theological argument. If such reasoning were actually permissible then one could claim anything imaginable to be real or true if only because it could not be proven false.



Okay, so you do know that God is a spiritual and not a physical entity and concept, correct? And with this short dissertation on what physical science can and can't do, you still want to continue attempting to argue that science is 99.9999% certain there is no God? You still want to demand that I present you with a kind of evidence you admit cannot exist? How far off you're rocker are you going to get? 



> If it does not interact with the physical universe then it cannot be said to exist in any meaningful or perceivable way.



I think God interacts with the physical universe. In a spiritual sense, God very much exists in a meaningful and perceivable way, for myself and billions upon billions of other humans as well. The problem here is, you only want to recognize the physical realm of existence. This is why the notion of God seems foolish to you, because you can't wrap your mind around any concept other than physical. This is what is "meaningful/perceivable" to you, but the really ironic and funny thing is... Everything about your perception of reality is based on "time/space" ...something non-physical. Think about everything that has transpired from the Big Bang until now, all the 'evolution' and life... from the start to now... that reality experience is simply the universe expanding. Not only is it expanding, it is accelerating. Faster than the speed of light. All of our principles... physics... logic... particles... elements... sub-atomic particles... it exists in timespace. 

At some point, our universe will end. Concepts of time to humans will not matter anymore, we will have long been swept away by our decaying sun or a gamma ray burst... A new universe will emerge in the cosmos somewhere. Perhaps there will be life with perception of time again? And maybe... that life will inevitably look up into the universe and realize the magnitude of God?


----------



## GISMYS

The unbeliever DOES NOT UNDERSTSAND the realality of the spiritual universe is far more real than the reality of the physical universe. the spiritual reality is eternal.=========Now when the attendant of the man of God had risen early and gone out, behold, an army with horses and chariots was circling the city. And his servant said to him, "Alas, my master! What shall we do?" 16So he answered, "Do not fear, for those who are with us are more than those who are with them." 17Then Elisha prayed and said, "O LORD, I pray, open his eyes that he may see." And the LORD opened the servant's eyes and he saw; and behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire all around Elisha.&#8230; 2 kings 6:15-17


----------



## GISMYS

The unbeliever DOES NOT UNDERSTSAND the realality of the spiritual universe is far more real than the reality of the physical universe. the spiritual reality is eternal.=========Now when the attendant of the man of God had risen early and gone out, behold, an army with horses and chariots was circling the city. And his servant said to him, "Alas, my master! What shall we do?" 16So he answered, "Do not fear, for those who are with us are more than those who are with them." 17Then Elisha prayed and said, "O LORD, I pray, open his eyes that he may see." And the LORD opened the servant's eyes and he saw; and behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire all around Elisha. 2 kings 6:15-17


----------



## orogenicman

Booseyman said:
			
		

> Okay, so you do know that God is a spiritual and not a physical entity and concept, correct?



Is this an argument from authority or an argument from consensus? Either way, it is a poorly formulated argument.



			
				Booseyman said:
			
		

> And with this short dissertation on what physical science can and can't do, you still want to continue attempting to argue that science is 99.9999% certain there is no God?



Can you show us even 0.0001% of the scientific evidence that supports your belief in?



			
				Booseyman said:
			
		

> ...I think God interacts with the physical universe...The problem here is, you only want to recognize the physical realm of existence.



God of the gaps argument: 'If you can't see him, it's because he's somewhere else or else you are blind.' By the way, if your god interacts with the physical universe, then he should be detectable by science. Got any of that evidence?


----------



## Youwerecreated

sealybobo said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> YES!!! BLESS THE LORD oh my soul,the LORD who heals all my sickness.  i went to a doctor LAST TIME  in 1967 for a stuffy nose problem,I wasted my time and money!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol
> 
> ......a few million gibbering posts ago,  you said that you went to a doctor for a stuffy ear. You can't even be honest about such a trivial pointless claim.....
> 
> 
> is there anything good inside of you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But its ok to lie as long as you are lying for the lord.
Click to expand...


Looks like you need some new material.


----------



## Youwerecreated

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science disagrees with you.  So are you smarter than science?
> 
> A common attempt to shift the burden of proof or make room for a god. Represents a type of false dichotomy that excludes the fact that there is insufficient investigation and the proposition has not yet been proven either true or false.
> 
> The failure to disprove the existence of something does not constitute proof of its existence.
> 
> Belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims because all such claims would need to be believed implicitly. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IF science disagrees with me, I must be smarter than science.
> 
> You've presented exactly ZERO evidence there is no God. Failure to disprove doesn't constitute proof of existence, it also doesn't confirm non-existence. Now, how about we set aside the grandiose proclamations... "everybody knows... it's 99.999% proven... science has pretty much concluded this..." and let's start churning out these "facts" that disprove God? Quotes like "science disagrees with you" mean nothing to me, they are empty words until you show me the science which disagrees.
> 
> Belief... now there is an important word to raise in this debate. Belief is when you have faith in something that isn't proven. Like the faith that God exists, or the faith God doesn't. We continue through page after page of people expressing their passionate faiths. The people who believe in God are fine with that, but the people who don't believe in God simply won't admit that is their faith, they run hide behind Science. They want to pretend that Science has somehow answered this question without answering it. But everyone knows that is preposterous. Silly boob, you know you're in trouble when Moonbat starts raising his eyebrow at your arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simply because you or the scientific community lack a complete understanding of something does not imply a theistic explanation carries any value. Even if there exists some topic on which science can never speak, any understanding could potentially evade us forever  supernatural or metaphysical speculation would not automatically be correct. Uncertainty is the most legitimate position.
> 
> Lightning, earthquakes, volcanos, disease, mental illness, speciation, planetary orbits and numerous other phenomena have been historically labelled supernatural only to later be more thoroughly and elegantly explained by science. In fact, every mystery ever demonstrably solved has had a non-supernatural explanation. To suggest that science cannot or will not explain a phenomena, and that only theism can, is hubris of the highest order.
> 
> Using god to explain something explains nothing. Gods supposed powers and how they work are a mystery. An explanation is intended to clarify and extend knowledge. Attributing a phenomenon to the magical powers of a supernatural being does neither. Worse still, this presumption acts to prevent any deeper investigation, being little more than a form of blissful ignorance.
> 
> Note: By using god to fill gaps in their knowledge theists inadvertently provide a shrinking role for their god as science advances. They also predicate gods existence on a lack of knowledge, not on any positive argument or evidence.
Click to expand...


You use time to fill the gaps not to mention many miracles


----------



## GISMYS

Youwerecreated said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> IF science disagrees with me, I must be smarter than science.
> 
> You've presented exactly ZERO evidence there is no God. Failure to disprove doesn't constitute proof of existence, it also doesn't confirm non-existence. Now, how about we set aside the grandiose proclamations... "everybody knows... it's 99.999% proven... science has pretty much concluded this..." and let's start churning out these "facts" that disprove God? Quotes like "science disagrees with you" mean nothing to me, they are empty words until you show me the science which disagrees.
> 
> Belief... now there is an important word to raise in this debate. Belief is when you have faith in something that isn't proven. Like the faith that God exists, or the faith God doesn't. We continue through page after page of people expressing their passionate faiths. The people who believe in God are fine with that, but the people who don't believe in God simply won't admit that is their faith, they run hide behind Science. They want to pretend that Science has somehow answered this question without answering it. But everyone knows that is preposterous. Silly boob, you know you're in trouble when Moonbat starts raising his eyebrow at your arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simply because you or the scientific community lack a complete understanding of something does not imply a theistic explanation carries any value. Even if there exists some topic on which science can never speak, any understanding could potentially evade us forever  supernatural or metaphysical speculation would not automatically be correct. Uncertainty is the most legitimate position.
> 
> Lightning, earthquakes, volcanos, disease, mental illness, speciation, planetary orbits and numerous other phenomena have been historically labelled supernatural only to later be more thoroughly and elegantly explained by science. In fact, every mystery ever demonstrably solved has had a non-supernatural explanation. To suggest that science cannot or will not explain a phenomena, and that only theism can, is hubris of the highest order.
> 
> Using god to explain something explains nothing. Gods supposed powers and how they work are a mystery. An explanation is intended to clarify and extend knowledge. Attributing a phenomenon to the magical powers of a supernatural being does neither. Worse still, this presumption acts to prevent any deeper investigation, being little more than a form of blissful ignorance.
> 
> Note: By using god to fill gaps in their knowledge theists inadvertently provide a shrinking role for their god as science advances. They also predicate gods existence on a lack of knowledge, not on any positive argument or evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You use time to fill the gaps not to mention many miracles
Click to expand...


Too bad you don't know GOD.============The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools. Romans 1:18-22


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Boss said:


> I do have proof your gods don't exist. Where is you proof I don't?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, my proof you don't is the fact that you're not posting it.
> 
> ...Can we grow up now?
Click to expand...


Did you check the Science forum?


----------



## GISMYS

Luddly Neddite said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do have proof your gods don't exist. Where is you proof I don't?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, my proof you don't is the fact that you're not posting it.
> 
> ...Can we grow up now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you check the Science forum?
Click to expand...


Did you miss THIS SCRIPTURE written to you??===Too bad you don't know GOD.============The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools. Romans 1:18-22


----------



## thebrucebeat

Youwerecreated said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol
> 
> ......a few million gibbering posts ago,  you said that you went to a doctor for a stuffy ear. You can't even be honest about such a trivial pointless claim.....
> 
> 
> is there anything good inside of you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But its ok to lie as long as you are lying for the lord.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Looks like you need some new material.
Click to expand...


Not when the old material still applies.


----------



## Montrovant

sealybobo said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You argue for the other side an awful lot for someone who doesn't believe.  And if you don't see how religion is hurting society, then maybe you aren't as smart as you think.  All the wars, the tax scam while not helping the poor or sick, they use god to ban stem cell and abortion and even birth control.  And what gets me is they want their religion to be the official religion of the country.  Like Sharia law only with christians.  I could go on and on but I won't.  I think you get it that religion keeps people ignorant.  Denying global warming and evolution?  What is wrong with you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You and Huggy both seem to be missing my point.  I don't think religion is the disease, rather it is a symptom.  Get rid of religion and people will simply find some other justification for their actions.  As foolish as it often is, as much as it is used to justify evil acts, I don't think religion is the one thing holding humanity back from achieving some sort of greatness.  If it is, there's no actual evidence that is the case, as we haven't had a non-religious society achieving more than the rest of the world to use as a comparison.
> 
> As to Christians wanting their religion to be the official religion of the US, I'd say that's a small minority.  Something like 70% of Americans identify as Christian, and the vast majority of them do not seem to want to make their religion a state religion. Abortion has not been banned, birth control has not been banned, stem cell research has not been banned.  While I tend to also feel that tax-exempt status for churches is a bad idea, it's not just churches or religious institutions which qualify.
> 
> What is wrong with me?  I guess what's wrong is that I don't lump all followers of religion together with whatever extremists I want to look at.  You, on the other hand, appear to be doing just that, while making a bunch of claims that are demonstrably false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to want "evidence" for the obvious.  When Bush denied 8 years of stem cell research and you need more proof that religion hasn't held us back?  My mom might not be dying of Alzheimers if it weren't for those pricks.  But then again maybe the person that would have invented the cure was aborted.  LOL.
> 
> The GOP in every state they run has severely limited abortion rights.  Do you not know this?  Its like your asking me to prove that water is wet.  I can't know how little you know.  Do I have to prove to you that heat is hot?
> 
> And did you forget catholic run insurance companies don't want to cover birth control.
Click to expand...


Has embryonic stem cell research been government funded since Bush left office, and if so, what breakthroughs has it attained?  Is the US the only country capable of doing stem cell research?  The last I remember reading anything about it, the research was actually moving away from embryonic stem cells somewhat because of new possibilities with adult stem cells.  And to be clear, I am all for using the embryonic cells that are available rather than simply destroying them.

Define 'severely limited' abortion rights.  More, explain how the GOP doing something equates to religion; since the vast majority of people identify with some sort of religious belief, most Dems as well as Repubs are going to be religious.  So party affiliation is not an indicator of religious belief, at best it may be an indicator of the type of religious belief.

I didn't 'forget' that Catholic run insurance companies don't want to cover birth control.  I don't really care.  There's no reason I have to use a Catholic insurance company, or even use insurance to get birth control.

None of these are bans on either abortion, stem cell research (and you must mean embryonic stem cell research), or birth control.

You are trying to make your dislike of religion, something we share, into more than it actually is.  Religion has done bad and good in the world.  Many, perhaps most, of the greatest inventions and scientific breakthroughs in human history have been made by people with religious belief.  While it's possible that those things would have happened faster, that mankind would have progressed further, without religion, there is no evidence of it.  

As I said before, you can easily argue that certain types or iterations of religious belief have been detrimental and held society back, but to try and say that all religious belief does so is backed by nothing.


----------



## Youwerecreated

GISMYS said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simply because you or the scientific community lack a complete understanding of something does not imply a theistic explanation carries any value. Even if there exists some topic on which science can never speak, any understanding could potentially evade us forever  supernatural or metaphysical speculation would not automatically be correct. Uncertainty is the most legitimate position.
> 
> Lightning, earthquakes, volcanos, disease, mental illness, speciation, planetary orbits and numerous other phenomena have been historically labelled supernatural only to later be more thoroughly and elegantly explained by science. In fact, every mystery ever demonstrably solved has had a non-supernatural explanation. To suggest that science cannot or will not explain a phenomena, and that only theism can, is hubris of the highest order.
> 
> Using god to explain something explains nothing. Gods supposed powers and how they work are a mystery. An explanation is intended to clarify and extend knowledge. Attributing a phenomenon to the magical powers of a supernatural being does neither. Worse still, this presumption acts to prevent any deeper investigation, being little more than a form of blissful ignorance.
> 
> Note: By using god to fill gaps in their knowledge theists inadvertently provide a shrinking role for their god as science advances. They also predicate gods existence on a lack of knowledge, not on any positive argument or evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You use time to fill the gaps not to mention many miracles
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too bad you don't know GOD.============The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools. Romans 1:18-22
Click to expand...


Not sure why you quoted me  I happen to believe the scriptures.


----------



## Youwerecreated

thebrucebeat said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> But its ok to lie as long as you are lying for the lord.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like you need some new material.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not when the old material still applies.
Click to expand...


All I see is empty rhetoric, but believe as you wish.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> *SillyBoob:* Simply because you or the scientific community lack a complete understanding of something does not imply...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hold on skippy, I didn't say something was implied. YOU did! You implied Science has 99.999% proven there is no God. I'm asking for that evidence, and you are telling me you don't have any. Then you are making this into an excuse for not having the evidence to support your claim. Now it's not my fault you don't have evidence to back up your claim, I can't do a thing about that. I shortened your quote because it really doesn't matter what it *doesn't* imply, it's what it *DOES* imply, implicitly... you don't have evidence there is no God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *...any understanding could potentially evade us forever...*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly! So to be making these off-the-wall prognostications of God without any further knowledge is kind of stupid, isn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> Right.... and every one of those things has indication of something amazingly "designed" to function a particular way, with particular and predictable, almost 'watchlike' order. The more we discover about the ways our universe works, the more we are amazed at The Masters Design. Science seeks to discover HOW things in the universe work, the question as to WHY is still up for grabs.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly! Which is why I find it so difficult to believe the species who sent itself to to the moon would do such a thing for the entirety of it's existence to any overwhelming degree. Inventing a God to ultimately explain nothing seems like a really pointless idea, someone must have pointed that out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gods supposed powers and how they work are a mystery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's where we get to the point you are missing. To those who believe in God's powers, they are *NOT* a mystery. They are not "supposed" but very "real." Let's state this for the record, *YOU* are the one who is in the dark when it comes to God's 'mysterious' powers. But instead of just admitting you don't know, you like to proclaim that it's 99.9999% certain and science backs you up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ....Worse still, this presumption acts to prevent any deeper investigation, being little more than a form of blissful ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Brilliant... So we can agree that making presumptions act to prevent deeper investigations? Is it really a lot of fun to be blissfully ignorant of God, just curious?
Click to expand...


I give up on you.  You win.  Praise jesus.


----------



## sealybobo

Montrovant said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> You and Huggy both seem to be missing my point.  I don't think religion is the disease, rather it is a symptom.  Get rid of religion and people will simply find some other justification for their actions.  As foolish as it often is, as much as it is used to justify evil acts, I don't think religion is the one thing holding humanity back from achieving some sort of greatness.  If it is, there's no actual evidence that is the case, as we haven't had a non-religious society achieving more than the rest of the world to use as a comparison.
> 
> As to Christians wanting their religion to be the official religion of the US, I'd say that's a small minority.  Something like 70% of Americans identify as Christian, and the vast majority of them do not seem to want to make their religion a state religion. Abortion has not been banned, birth control has not been banned, stem cell research has not been banned.  While I tend to also feel that tax-exempt status for churches is a bad idea, it's not just churches or religious institutions which qualify.
> 
> What is wrong with me?  I guess what's wrong is that I don't lump all followers of religion together with whatever extremists I want to look at.  You, on the other hand, appear to be doing just that, while making a bunch of claims that are demonstrably false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to want "evidence" for the obvious.  When Bush denied 8 years of stem cell research and you need more proof that religion hasn't held us back?  My mom might not be dying of Alzheimers if it weren't for those pricks.  But then again maybe the person that would have invented the cure was aborted.  LOL.
> 
> The GOP in every state they run has severely limited abortion rights.  Do you not know this?  Its like your asking me to prove that water is wet.  I can't know how little you know.  Do I have to prove to you that heat is hot?
> 
> And did you forget catholic run insurance companies don't want to cover birth control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Has embryonic stem cell research been government funded since Bush left office, and if so, what breakthroughs has it attained?  Is the US the only country capable of doing stem cell research?  The last I remember reading anything about it, the research was actually moving away from embryonic stem cells somewhat because of new possibilities with adult stem cells.  And to be clear, I am all for using the embryonic cells that are available rather than simply destroying them.
> 
> Define 'severely limited' abortion rights.  More, explain how the GOP doing something equates to religion; since the vast majority of people identify with some sort of religious belief, most Dems as well as Repubs are going to be religious.  So party affiliation is not an indicator of religious belief, at best it may be an indicator of the type of religious belief.
> 
> I didn't 'forget' that Catholic run insurance companies don't want to cover birth control.  I don't really care.  There's no reason I have to use a Catholic insurance company, or even use insurance to get birth control.
> 
> None of these are bans on either abortion, stem cell research (and you must mean embryonic stem cell research), or birth control.
> 
> You are trying to make your dislike of religion, something we share, into more than it actually is.  Religion has done bad and good in the world.  Many, perhaps most, of the greatest inventions and scientific breakthroughs in human history have been made by people with religious belief.  While it's possible that those things would have happened faster, that mankind would have progressed further, without religion, there is no evidence of it.
> 
> As I said before, you can easily argue that certain types or iterations of religious belief have been detrimental and held society back, but to try and say that all religious belief does so is backed by nothing.
Click to expand...


I think we all know the religious right held up stem cell research progress for 8 years.  Did you forget Terry Shaivo the brain dead person they tried to keep alive because of their religious beliefs?  I have seen the suffering of terminal people and the hospital's can't end their suffering because our laws won't allow it.  Those bullshit laws are because of religious views.  Why else can't Kavorkian help assist in a suicide?  So don't tell me religion hasn't held us back in many areas, or done great harm.  How many religious wars have occured?  Weren't the 9-11 hyjackers religious?  The spanish inquisition, etc.  But I'm sure you will argue more because you seem to argue something no matter what.  You said earlier that you don't believe in God, right?  So stfu then.  LOL.  Why you got to bust my balls?  OMG you are annoying.  JK.  

I don't care what other countries were doing stem cell, we should have been doing it too.  I don't care if private organizations with private donations were doing it.  Not enough.  People are dying and suffering and religious people are holding us back and slowing us down.  If you don't see it I'm sorry.  Maybe you need to do a little more research.  How old are you that you don't know these things.  Maybe I'm talking to a teenager?    

The US Government usually plays an important role in r&d and cures, but not for 8 years when Bush was in office.  Have things changed much?  I believe the dems have reversed that position but I could be wrong.  Perhaps they couldn't get it past the filabuster which the GOP have used a record amount of times since Obama took office.  

The GOP represent the religious right.  They call the left the Godless party, remember?  And don't forget you can't even be president unless you say you believe in Jesus.  Sad huh?  

Don't try to tell me the GOP aren't going after abortion and other things Proof of the GOP War on Women 

Religion has held us back AT LEAST 350 years.  After 350 Years, Vatican Says Galileo Was Right - It Moves - NYTimes.com

AT LEAST!  99% I'm right.  No, 99.87546% not .000001% more. Jesus


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to want "evidence" for the obvious.  When Bush denied 8 years of stem cell research and you need more proof that religion hasn't held us back?  My mom might not be dying of Alzheimers if it weren't for those pricks.  But then again maybe the person that would have invented the cure was aborted.  LOL.
> 
> The GOP in every state they run has severely limited abortion rights.  Do you not know this?  Its like your asking me to prove that water is wet.  I can't know how little you know.  Do I have to prove to you that heat is hot?
> 
> And did you forget catholic run insurance companies don't want to cover birth control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Has embryonic stem cell research been government funded since Bush left office, and if so, what breakthroughs has it attained?  Is the US the only country capable of doing stem cell research?  The last I remember reading anything about it, the research was actually moving away from embryonic stem cells somewhat because of new possibilities with adult stem cells.  And to be clear, I am all for using the embryonic cells that are available rather than simply destroying them.
> 
> Define 'severely limited' abortion rights.  More, explain how the GOP doing something equates to religion; since the vast majority of people identify with some sort of religious belief, most Dems as well as Repubs are going to be religious.  So party affiliation is not an indicator of religious belief, at best it may be an indicator of the type of religious belief.
> 
> I didn't 'forget' that Catholic run insurance companies don't want to cover birth control.  I don't really care.  There's no reason I have to use a Catholic insurance company, or even use insurance to get birth control.
> 
> None of these are bans on either abortion, stem cell research (and you must mean embryonic stem cell research), or birth control.
> 
> You are trying to make your dislike of religion, something we share, into more than it actually is.  Religion has done bad and good in the world.  Many, perhaps most, of the greatest inventions and scientific breakthroughs in human history have been made by people with religious belief.  While it's possible that those things would have happened faster, that mankind would have progressed further, without religion, there is no evidence of it.
> 
> As I said before, you can easily argue that certain types or iterations of religious belief have been detrimental and held society back, but to try and say that all religious belief does so is backed by nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think we all know the religious right held up stem cell research progress for 8 years.  Did you forget Terry Shaivo the brain dead person they tried to keep alive because of their religious beliefs?  I have seen the suffering of terminal people and the hospital's can't end their suffering because our laws won't allow it.  Those bullshit laws are because of religious views.  Why else can't Kavorkian help assist in a suicide?  So don't tell me religion hasn't held us back in many areas, or done great harm.  How many religious wars have occured?  Weren't the 9-11 hyjackers religious?  The spanish inquisition, etc.  But I'm sure you will argue more because you seem to argue something no matter what.  You said earlier that you don't believe in God, right?  So stfu then.  LOL.  Why you got to bust my balls?  OMG you are annoying.  JK.
> 
> I don't care what other countries were doing stem cell, we should have been doing it too.  I don't care if private organizations with private donations were doing it.  Not enough.  People are dying and suffering and religious people are holding us back and slowing us down.  If you don't see it I'm sorry.  Maybe you need to do a little more research.  How old are you that you don't know these things.  Maybe I'm talking to a teenager?
> 
> The US Government usually plays an important role in r&d and cures, but not for 8 years when Bush was in office.  Have things changed much?  I believe the dems have reversed that position but I could be wrong.  Perhaps they couldn't get it past the filabuster which the GOP have used a record amount of times since Obama took office.
> 
> The GOP represent the religious right.  They call the left the Godless party, remember?  And don't forget you can't even be president unless you say you believe in Jesus.  Sad huh?
> 
> Don't try to tell me the GOP aren't going after abortion and other things Proof of the GOP War on Women
> 
> Religion has held us back AT LEAST 350 years.  After 350 Years, Vatican Says Galileo Was Right - It Moves - NYTimes.com
> 
> AT LEAST!  99% I'm right.  No, 99.87546% not .000001% more. Jesus
Click to expand...


Why are you allowing satan to use you as his puppet,tool,fool???? best you count the cost!!!


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, my proof you don't is the fact that you're not posting it.
> 
> ...Can we grow up now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you check the Science forum?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you miss THIS SCRIPTURE written to you??===Too bad you don't know GOD.============The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools. Romans 1:18-22
Click to expand...


Translation:  I feel sorry for you that you don't believe the fairytales I believe.  They make me feel good about myself.  Ignorance is bliss.  If you don't know god, then god isn't in you, and that's sad, so you will go to hell if you can't feel god, because he is real and he loves you, but if you don't feel him you will go to hell for eternity, because he's also a sadistic fuck.  If he's so powerful, then close hell and stop being a total dick head.  And if he is all powerful, show yourself to us just like you did Noah, Abraham, Jesus and Moses.  For he provith himselfith beforith soith heith shouldith doith itith once again for the modern world.  And ifith you can'tith, maybe you don't existith sayith the smart sumarian.  P.S.  Questioning you evil pricks and the pedophiles that run your church isn't turning my heart dark.  I feel better not believing a fucking lie.  And all you are saying above is to not question your elders.  Fuck that.  Look how often in history they have proven to be wrong.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you check the Science forum?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you miss THIS SCRIPTURE written to you??===Too bad you don't know GOD.============The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools. Romans 1:18-22
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Translation:  I feel sorry for you that you don't believe the fairytales I believe.  They make me feel good about myself.  Ignorance is bliss.  If you don't know god, then god isn't in you, and that's sad, so you will go to hell if you can't feel god, because he is real and he loves you, but if you don't feel him you will go to hell for eternity, because he's also a sadistic fuck.  If he's so powerful, then close hell and stop being a total dick head.  And if he is all powerful, show yourself to us just like you did Noah, Abraham, Jesus and Moses.  For he provith himselfith beforith soith heith shouldith doith itith once again for the modern world.  And ifith you can'tith, maybe you don't existith sayith the smart sumarian.  P.S.  Questioning you evil pricks and the pedophiles that run your church isn't turning my heart dark.  I feel better not believing a fucking lie.  And all you are saying above is to not question your elders.  Fuck that.  Look how often in history they have proven to be wrong.
Click to expand...


read SLOWLY!!!=Did you miss THIS SCRIPTURE written to you??===Too bad you don't know GOD.============The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools. Romans 1:18-22  GOD KNOWS YOU WELL!!! HUH???


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has embryonic stem cell research been government funded since Bush left office, and if so, what breakthroughs has it attained?  Is the US the only country capable of doing stem cell research?  The last I remember reading anything about it, the research was actually moving away from embryonic stem cells somewhat because of new possibilities with adult stem cells.  And to be clear, I am all for using the embryonic cells that are available rather than simply destroying them.
> 
> Define 'severely limited' abortion rights.  More, explain how the GOP doing something equates to religion; since the vast majority of people identify with some sort of religious belief, most Dems as well as Repubs are going to be religious.  So party affiliation is not an indicator of religious belief, at best it may be an indicator of the type of religious belief.
> 
> I didn't 'forget' that Catholic run insurance companies don't want to cover birth control.  I don't really care.  There's no reason I have to use a Catholic insurance company, or even use insurance to get birth control.
> 
> None of these are bans on either abortion, stem cell research (and you must mean embryonic stem cell research), or birth control.
> 
> You are trying to make your dislike of religion, something we share, into more than it actually is.  Religion has done bad and good in the world.  Many, perhaps most, of the greatest inventions and scientific breakthroughs in human history have been made by people with religious belief.  While it's possible that those things would have happened faster, that mankind would have progressed further, without religion, there is no evidence of it.
> 
> As I said before, you can easily argue that certain types or iterations of religious belief have been detrimental and held society back, but to try and say that all religious belief does so is backed by nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think we all know the religious right held up stem cell research progress for 8 years.  Did you forget Terry Shaivo the brain dead person they tried to keep alive because of their religious beliefs?  I have seen the suffering of terminal people and the hospital's can't end their suffering because our laws won't allow it.  Those bullshit laws are because of religious views.  Why else can't Kavorkian help assist in a suicide?  So don't tell me religion hasn't held us back in many areas, or done great harm.  How many religious wars have occured?  Weren't the 9-11 hyjackers religious?  The spanish inquisition, etc.  But I'm sure you will argue more because you seem to argue something no matter what.  You said earlier that you don't believe in God, right?  So stfu then.  LOL.  Why you got to bust my balls?  OMG you are annoying.  JK.
> 
> I don't care what other countries were doing stem cell, we should have been doing it too.  I don't care if private organizations with private donations were doing it.  Not enough.  People are dying and suffering and religious people are holding us back and slowing us down.  If you don't see it I'm sorry.  Maybe you need to do a little more research.  How old are you that you don't know these things.  Maybe I'm talking to a teenager?
> 
> The US Government usually plays an important role in r&d and cures, but not for 8 years when Bush was in office.  Have things changed much?  I believe the dems have reversed that position but I could be wrong.  Perhaps they couldn't get it past the filabuster which the GOP have used a record amount of times since Obama took office.
> 
> The GOP represent the religious right.  They call the left the Godless party, remember?  And don't forget you can't even be president unless you say you believe in Jesus.  Sad huh?
> 
> Don't try to tell me the GOP aren't going after abortion and other things Proof of the GOP War on Women
> 
> Religion has held us back AT LEAST 350 years.  After 350 Years, Vatican Says Galileo Was Right - It Moves - NYTimes.com
> 
> AT LEAST!  99% I'm right.  No, 99.87546% not .000001% more. Jesus
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you allowing satan to use you as his puppet,tool,fool???? best you count the cost!!!
Click to expand...


So me Satin and Jesus were having an orgy.....I don't believe in Satin or that Jesus did miracles.  In fact that whole lie AT BEST came from 11 guys.  Think about it.  Judas killed himself.  So this whole Jesus thing started as a cult.  It just grew to be the biggest cult.  Then Muslims, then Jews.  I've seen the whole history on how christianity spread.  What a joke.  

And get this.  It gets worse!!!!  The 11 didn't fucking write the bible.  Someone else wrote it 80 years later.  So the Jesus myth isn't even first fucking hand knowledge.  God knows who really wrote the gospils.  And then the churches altered the bible.  Just google whynogod and it's all right there.  You are in a big cult.  

And there is no god.  Maybe there is but so far there is zero evidence, and we don't have to prove something not real is not real.  It is on you to prove an outragious claim.  Oh wait, a god just visited me and said you should all worship me.  You can't prove it didn't happen.  You know what?  I'm going to write a new bible and tell everyone what god told me.  He said sacrafice GISMYS


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you miss THIS SCRIPTURE written to you??===Too bad you don't know GOD.============The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools. Romans 1:18-22
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation:  I feel sorry for you that you don't believe the fairytales I believe.  They make me feel good about myself.  Ignorance is bliss.  If you don't know god, then god isn't in you, and that's sad, so you will go to hell if you can't feel god, because he is real and he loves you, but if you don't feel him you will go to hell for eternity, because he's also a sadistic fuck.  If he's so powerful, then close hell and stop being a total dick head.  And if he is all powerful, show yourself to us just like you did Noah, Abraham, Jesus and Moses.  For he provith himselfith beforith soith heith shouldith doith itith once again for the modern world.  And ifith you can'tith, maybe you don't existith sayith the smart sumarian.  P.S.  Questioning you evil pricks and the pedophiles that run your church isn't turning my heart dark.  I feel better not believing a fucking lie.  And all you are saying above is to not question your elders.  Fuck that.  Look how often in history they have proven to be wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> read SLOWLY!!!=Did you miss THIS SCRIPTURE written to you??===Too bad you don't know GOD.============The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools. Romans 1:18-22  GOD KNOWS YOU WELL!!! HUH???
Click to expand...


That means nothing to me.  

Ezekiel 25:17


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has embryonic stem cell research been government funded since Bush left office, and if so, what breakthroughs has it attained?  Is the US the only country capable of doing stem cell research?  The last I remember reading anything about it, the research was actually moving away from embryonic stem cells somewhat because of new possibilities with adult stem cells.  And to be clear, I am all for using the embryonic cells that are available rather than simply destroying them.
> 
> Define 'severely limited' abortion rights.  More, explain how the GOP doing something equates to religion; since the vast majority of people identify with some sort of religious belief, most Dems as well as Repubs are going to be religious.  So party affiliation is not an indicator of religious belief, at best it may be an indicator of the type of religious belief.
> 
> I didn't 'forget' that Catholic run insurance companies don't want to cover birth control.  I don't really care.  There's no reason I have to use a Catholic insurance company, or even use insurance to get birth control.
> 
> None of these are bans on either abortion, stem cell research (and you must mean embryonic stem cell research), or birth control.
> 
> You are trying to make your dislike of religion, something we share, into more than it actually is.  Religion has done bad and good in the world.  Many, perhaps most, of the greatest inventions and scientific breakthroughs in human history have been made by people with religious belief.  While it's possible that those things would have happened faster, that mankind would have progressed further, without religion, there is no evidence of it.
> 
> As I said before, you can easily argue that certain types or iterations of religious belief have been detrimental and held society back, but to try and say that all religious belief does so is backed by nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think we all know the religious right held up stem cell research progress for 8 years.  Did you forget Terry Shaivo the brain dead person they tried to keep alive because of their religious beliefs?  I have seen the suffering of terminal people and the hospital's can't end their suffering because our laws won't allow it.  Those bullshit laws are because of religious views.  Why else can't Kavorkian help assist in a suicide?  So don't tell me religion hasn't held us back in many areas, or done great harm.  How many religious wars have occured?  Weren't the 9-11 hyjackers religious?  The spanish inquisition, etc.  But I'm sure you will argue more because you seem to argue something no matter what.  You said earlier that you don't believe in God, right?  So stfu then.  LOL.  Why you got to bust my balls?  OMG you are annoying.  JK.
> 
> I don't care what other countries were doing stem cell, we should have been doing it too.  I don't care if private organizations with private donations were doing it.  Not enough.  People are dying and suffering and religious people are holding us back and slowing us down.  If you don't see it I'm sorry.  Maybe you need to do a little more research.  How old are you that you don't know these things.  Maybe I'm talking to a teenager?
> 
> The US Government usually plays an important role in r&d and cures, but not for 8 years when Bush was in office.  Have things changed much?  I believe the dems have reversed that position but I could be wrong.  Perhaps they couldn't get it past the filabuster which the GOP have used a record amount of times since Obama took office.
> 
> The GOP represent the religious right.  They call the left the Godless party, remember?  And don't forget you can't even be president unless you say you believe in Jesus.  Sad huh?
> 
> Don't try to tell me the GOP aren't going after abortion and other things Proof of the GOP War on Women
> 
> Religion has held us back AT LEAST 350 years.  After 350 Years, Vatican Says Galileo Was Right - It Moves - NYTimes.com
> 
> AT LEAST!  99% I'm right.  No, 99.87546% not .000001% more. Jesus
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you allowing satan to use you as his puppet,tool,fool???? best you count the cost!!!
Click to expand...


Great song.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Translation:  I feel sorry for you that you don't believe the fairytales I believe.  They make me feel good about myself.  Ignorance is bliss.  If you don't know god, then god isn't in you, and that's sad, so you will go to hell if you can't feel god, because he is real and he loves you, but if you don't feel him you will go to hell for eternity, because he's also a sadistic fuck.  If he's so powerful, then close hell and stop being a total dick head.  And if he is all powerful, show yourself to us just like you did Noah, Abraham, Jesus and Moses.  For he provith himselfith beforith soith heith shouldith doith itith once again for the modern world.  And ifith you can'tith, maybe you don't existith sayith the smart sumarian.  P.S.  Questioning you evil pricks and the pedophiles that run your church isn't turning my heart dark.  I feel better not believing a fucking lie.  And all you are saying above is to not question your elders.  Fuck that.  Look how often in history they have proven to be wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> read SLOWLY!!!=Did you miss THIS SCRIPTURE written to you??===Too bad you don't know GOD.============The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools. Romans 1:18-22  GOD KNOWS YOU WELL!!! HUH???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That means nothing to me.
> 
> Ezekiel 25:17
Click to expand...


 That which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you miss THIS SCRIPTURE written to you??===Too bad you don't know GOD.============The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools. Romans 1:18-22
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation:  I feel sorry for you that you don't believe the fairytales I believe.  They make me feel good about myself.  Ignorance is bliss.  If you don't know god, then god isn't in you, and that's sad, so you will go to hell if you can't feel god, because he is real and he loves you, but if you don't feel him you will go to hell for eternity, because he's also a sadistic fuck.  If he's so powerful, then close hell and stop being a total dick head.  And if he is all powerful, show yourself to us just like you did Noah, Abraham, Jesus and Moses.  For he provith himselfith beforith soith heith shouldith doith itith once again for the modern world.  And ifith you can'tith, maybe you don't existith sayith the smart sumarian.  P.S.  Questioning you evil pricks and the pedophiles that run your church isn't turning my heart dark.  I feel better not believing a fucking lie.  And all you are saying above is to not question your elders.  Fuck that.  Look how often in history they have proven to be wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> read SLOWLY!!!=Did you miss THIS SCRIPTURE written to you??===Too bad you don't know GOD.============The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools. Romans 1:18-22  GOD KNOWS YOU WELL!!! HUH???
Click to expand...


You have to understand.  I may be 99% sure there is no god but I am 100% sure if he exists he isn't the god you believe in.  So I can mock you and your fake ass god all I want, because I'm 100% sure he doesn't exist.  If a god exists, he won't care if I mock you or your corrupt churches.  So I'll continue to be good to people around me and live out my life to it's fullest because once you die that's it brother.    No hell, nothign but worms eating your corpse and like when a dog dies you just die man.  A mosquito has feelings too but when he dies he doesn't go to an imaginary place.

Oh  yea, someone earlier pondered why we are the only animals to come up with god and they thought that suggested we were special.  What a joke.  We are the only animals on this planet with minds that can imagine and create characters.  At least as far as we know dolphins didn't come up with gods or maybe they think we are gods.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> read SLOWLY!!!=Did you miss THIS SCRIPTURE written to you??===Too bad you don't know GOD.============The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools. Romans 1:18-22  GOD KNOWS YOU WELL!!! HUH???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That means nothing to me.
> 
> Ezekiel 25:17
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
Click to expand...


This is exactly what someone would say if they made up a religion and wanted to scare people into believing.  

OMG is that Roman 1:20 that's my favorite part of the bible.  Listen stupid, I think that book is a fraud, fake, made up by men to control the stupid so stop using it on me.  You can't use the fake book to prove to me the book isn't fake.  I told you, all you got is to try and scare or guilt people into believing your made up stories.  I'm too smart so you can quote stupid fucking scripture all you want.  You are almost encouraging me to do it so I think the lord is going to smite you for shoving quotes in my face instead of logic and reason.  

You have no logic and reasoning skills.  Just a brainwashed dumb fucker I'm always talking about.  Praise Jesus YOU"RE GOING TO HELL.  


You remind me of Denero 1:20 in


----------



## Montrovant

sealybobo said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to want "evidence" for the obvious.  When Bush denied 8 years of stem cell research and you need more proof that religion hasn't held us back?  My mom might not be dying of Alzheimers if it weren't for those pricks.  But then again maybe the person that would have invented the cure was aborted.  LOL.
> 
> The GOP in every state they run has severely limited abortion rights.  Do you not know this?  Its like your asking me to prove that water is wet.  I can't know how little you know.  Do I have to prove to you that heat is hot?
> 
> And did you forget catholic run insurance companies don't want to cover birth control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Has embryonic stem cell research been government funded since Bush left office, and if so, what breakthroughs has it attained?  Is the US the only country capable of doing stem cell research?  The last I remember reading anything about it, the research was actually moving away from embryonic stem cells somewhat because of new possibilities with adult stem cells.  And to be clear, I am all for using the embryonic cells that are available rather than simply destroying them.
> 
> Define 'severely limited' abortion rights.  More, explain how the GOP doing something equates to religion; since the vast majority of people identify with some sort of religious belief, most Dems as well as Repubs are going to be religious.  So party affiliation is not an indicator of religious belief, at best it may be an indicator of the type of religious belief.
> 
> I didn't 'forget' that Catholic run insurance companies don't want to cover birth control.  I don't really care.  There's no reason I have to use a Catholic insurance company, or even use insurance to get birth control.
> 
> None of these are bans on either abortion, stem cell research (and you must mean embryonic stem cell research), or birth control.
> 
> You are trying to make your dislike of religion, something we share, into more than it actually is.  Religion has done bad and good in the world.  Many, perhaps most, of the greatest inventions and scientific breakthroughs in human history have been made by people with religious belief.  While it's possible that those things would have happened faster, that mankind would have progressed further, without religion, there is no evidence of it.
> 
> As I said before, you can easily argue that certain types or iterations of religious belief have been detrimental and held society back, but to try and say that all religious belief does so is backed by nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think we all know the religious right held up stem cell research progress for 8 years.  Did you forget Terry Shaivo the brain dead person they tried to keep alive because of their religious beliefs?  I have seen the suffering of terminal people and the hospital's can't end their suffering because our laws won't allow it.  Those bullshit laws are because of religious views.  Why else can't Kavorkian help assist in a suicide?  So don't tell me religion hasn't held us back in many areas, or done great harm.  How many religious wars have occured?  Weren't the 9-11 hyjackers religious?  The spanish inquisition, etc.  But I'm sure you will argue more because you seem to argue something no matter what.  You said earlier that you don't believe in God, right?  So stfu then.  LOL.  Why you got to bust my balls?  OMG you are annoying.  JK.
> 
> I don't care what other countries were doing stem cell, we should have been doing it too.  I don't care if private organizations with private donations were doing it.  Not enough.  People are dying and suffering and religious people are holding us back and slowing us down.  If you don't see it I'm sorry.  Maybe you need to do a little more research.  How old are you that you don't know these things.  Maybe I'm talking to a teenager?
> 
> The US Government usually plays an important role in r&d and cures, but not for 8 years when Bush was in office.  Have things changed much?  I believe the dems have reversed that position but I could be wrong.  Perhaps they couldn't get it past the filabuster which the GOP have used a record amount of times since Obama took office.
> 
> The GOP represent the religious right.  They call the left the Godless party, remember?  And don't forget you can't even be president unless you say you believe in Jesus.  Sad huh?
> 
> Don't try to tell me the GOP aren't going after abortion and other things Proof of the GOP War on Women
> 
> Religion has held us back AT LEAST 350 years.  After 350 Years, Vatican Says Galileo Was Right - It Moves - NYTimes.com
> 
> AT LEAST!  99% I'm right.  No, 99.87546% not .000001% more. Jesus
Click to expand...


I 'bust your balls', as you put it, because you keep making false statements, moving goalposts, and blaming all of religion for the actions of a few.  And because it's pointless to argue with someone as far gone as GISMYS.

Do you think that there are no atheists who would try to keep a Terry Schiavo alive?

Do you think there are no atheists who oppose assisted suicide?

Do you think there have been no wars outside of those based on religion?

I already said I'm all for *embryonic* stem cell research (you seem to have a problem adding that word, which is important, since all stem cell research funding was not halted I don't believe).  However, I don't know that 8 years without government funding for new lines of cells has held back the research that much.  And even if it has, that was not the fault of all religion.

I'm 39, I know the things you are talking about.  I disagree with the conclusions you draw from them.

The GOP is not a religious organization.  The Democrats are not an atheist organization.  Just because a bad policy comes from the GOP doesn't indict all religious belief.  

So, because the Catholic church waited 350 years to make a statement about Galileo, that is representative of all people and all religion?

Here's the thing you seem to be not grasping.  I know that people have done stupid, evil, horrible things in the name of religion.  I don't deny it at all.  I also don't like religion.  Belief in religion seems silly to me.  But just because I don't like it doesn't mean I can't see the good people have done in the name of religion, or separate a particular brand of crazy such as the Islamic fundamentalism of the 9/11 terrorists from the billions of people who believe around the world.  Most importantly, I also believe that people would likely find some other reason to do many of the terrible things they do if they didn't have religious belief.

So again, it's possible that you are right and a world without religion would be better, happier, more technologically advanced, whatever benchmark you are setting.  You don't have any direct evidence of that, however, unless you can point to a single atheistic society in the history of humanity which was/is ahead of the rest of the world in that benchmark.  Without that, you simply have speculation.  That's fine, but don't try to pass it off as fact or based on some kind of conclusive evidence.

Oh, and you didn't say 'the GOP is going after abortion and other things'.  You said religion uses god to ban stem cells, abortion and birth control.


----------



## sealybobo

Montrovant said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> You and Huggy both seem to be missing my point.  I don't think religion is the disease, rather it is a symptom.  Get rid of religion and people will simply find some other justification for their actions.  As foolish as it often is, as much as it is used to justify evil acts, I don't think religion is the one thing holding humanity back from achieving some sort of greatness.  If it is, there's no actual evidence that is the case, as we haven't had a non-religious society achieving more than the rest of the world to use as a comparison.
> 
> As to Christians wanting their religion to be the official religion of the US, I'd say that's a small minority.  Something like 70% of Americans identify as Christian, and the vast majority of them do not seem to want to make their religion a state religion. Abortion has not been banned, birth control has not been banned, stem cell research has not been banned.  While I tend to also feel that tax-exempt status for churches is a bad idea, it's not just churches or religious institutions which qualify.
> 
> What is wrong with me?  I guess what's wrong is that I don't lump all followers of religion together with whatever extremists I want to look at.  You, on the other hand, appear to be doing just that, while making a bunch of claims that are demonstrably false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to want "evidence" for the obvious.  When Bush denied 8 years of stem cell research and you need more proof that religion hasn't held us back?  My mom might not be dying of Alzheimers if it weren't for those pricks.  But then again maybe the person that would have invented the cure was aborted.  LOL.
> 
> The GOP in every state they run has severely limited abortion rights.  Do you not know this?  Its like your asking me to prove that water is wet.  I can't know how little you know.  Do I have to prove to you that heat is hot?
> 
> And did you forget catholic run insurance companies don't want to cover birth control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Has embryonic stem cell research been government funded since Bush left office, and if so, what breakthroughs has it attained?  Is the US the only country capable of doing stem cell research?  The last I remember reading anything about it, the research was actually moving away from embryonic stem cells somewhat because of new possibilities with adult stem cells.  And to be clear, I am all for using the embryonic cells that are available rather than simply destroying them.
> 
> Define 'severely limited' abortion rights.  More, explain how the GOP doing something equates to religion; since the vast majority of people identify with some sort of religious belief, most Dems as well as Repubs are going to be religious.  So party affiliation is not an indicator of religious belief, at best it may be an indicator of the type of religious belief.
> 
> I didn't 'forget' that Catholic run insurance companies don't want to cover birth control.  I don't really care.  There's no reason I have to use a Catholic insurance company, or even use insurance to get birth control.
> 
> None of these are bans on either abortion, stem cell research (and you must mean embryonic stem cell research), or birth control.
> 
> You are trying to make your dislike of religion, something we share, into more than it actually is.  Religion has done bad and good in the world.  Many, perhaps most, of the greatest inventions and scientific breakthroughs in human history have been made by people with religious belief.  While it's possible that those things would have happened faster, that mankind would have progressed further, without religion, there is no evidence of it.
> 
> As I said before, you can easily argue that certain types or iterations of religious belief have been detrimental and held society back, but to try and say that all religious belief does so is backed by nothing.
Click to expand...


I had a day off and saw two stories that made me think of you.  One was on how stem cell is going to help spinal cord injuries.  On behalf of all spinal cord patients, you and your god can go fuck yourselves.  

And I thought this might interest you: Americans Would Rather Vote For A Philandering, Pot-Smoking President Than An Atheist One


----------



## emilynghiem

Montrovant said:


> You and Huggy both seem to be missing my point.  I don't think religion is the disease, rather it is a symptom.  Get rid of religion and people will simply find some other justification for their actions.  As foolish as it often is, as much as it is used to justify evil acts, I don't think religion is the one thing holding humanity back from achieving some sort of greatness.  If it is, there's no actual evidence that is the case, as we haven't had a non-religious society achieving more than the rest of the world to use as a comparison.
> 
> As to Christians wanting their religion to be the official religion of the US, I'd say that's a small minority.  Something like 70% of Americans identify as Christian, and the vast majority of them do not seem to want to make their religion a state religion. Abortion has not been banned, birth control has not been banned, stem cell research has not been banned.  While I tend to also feel that tax-exempt status for churches is a bad idea, it's not just churches or religious institutions which qualify.
> 
> What is wrong with me?  I guess what's wrong is that I don't lump all followers of religion together with whatever extremists I want to look at.  You, on the other hand, appear to be doing just that, while making a bunch of claims that are demonstrably false.



Hi Montrovant: I also find the common issue is "abuse" of authority and of relationships to coerce people or impose. This is equally found in politics as religion. The problem is using bullying tactics, and group/mob mentality to overrule or dominate over others; instead of investing time and effort to understand and resolve conflicts to avoid impositions and stop repeating the same problems.

Where faith comes in: is if people HAVE faith that
* conflicts CAN be resolved mutually
* ills CAN be healed and wrongs corrected by forgiveness and responsible restitution owed
* solutions CAN be derived by working inclusively and collaboratively together instead of
blaming projecting and rejecting

Otherwise, it goes in a cycle.

If people can't forgive past problems or conflicts, this causes division in groups, competing to project blame back and forth.

If people can take steps to forgive and correct problems, we can build a positive cycle of restructuring, corrections and growth in more sustainable directions to invest in the future.

So it is just a matter of time before people see more examples of how correcting and resolving conflicts can build relationship and partnerships, to invest resources in solutions instead of wasting time and energy fighting over past problems and who to blame more.


----------



## sealybobo

Americans would more likely support a philandering presidential candidate than an atheist one -- by an 18 percent margin -- according to a Pew poll.  35 percent of respondents said they would be less likely to support a presidential candidate who had an extramarital affair, 53 percent of Americans indicated that not believing in God -- the trait viewed most negatively of the 16 tested -- would make them unsupportive of a candidate.  Hey, its only 53%.  We can improve on that.  BUT, another survey found atheists to be the most disliked and distrusted minority group in the nation, only 5 percent of respondents said they would be MORE likely to vote for someone who is an atheist.  While 70 percent of Republicans and 42 percent of Democrats expressed opposition to an atheist candidate, 49 percent of Democrats viewed a potential candidates atheism as irrelevant.  In addition to the 71 percent of Protestants and the 48 percent of Catholics who would be less likely to favor an atheist candidate, almost a quarter of the religiously unaffiliated, 24 percent, indicated they would be more likely to reject an atheist contender.

What do I see in these numbers?  That a hell of a lot of people are still ignorant.  In fact I saw another article the other day explaining how the rich/GOP keep the poorest people in the poorest red states voting GOP.  God, racism, foreigners, communism, gays, guns are how they do it.  

This is why we persist.  People use god to con the ignorant, divide us and keep us from solving poverty and high unemployment which means crime goes up.  We all know the rich like the poor to stay poor.  Low wages and all.  I don't think you can be a truly good person and be a republican.  Too selfish or too stupid.


----------



## emilynghiem

sealybobo said:


> You have to understand.  I may be 99% sure there is no god but I am 100% sure if he exists he isn't the god you believe in.  So I can mock you and your fake ass god all I want, because I'm 100% sure he doesn't exist.  If a god exists, he won't care if I mock you or your corrupt churches.  So I'll continue to be good to people around me and live out my life to it's fullest because once you die that's it brother.    No hell, nothign but worms eating your corpse and like when a dog dies you just die man.  A mosquito has feelings too but when he dies he doesn't go to an imaginary place.
> 
> Oh  yea, someone earlier pondered why we are the only animals to come up with god and they thought that suggested we were special.  What a joke.  We are the only animals on this planet with minds that can imagine and create characters.  At least as far as we know dolphins didn't come up with gods or maybe they think we are gods.



1. I would assume God already understands the choices and perceptions we have in life. And thus would forgive whatever we say, do, believe in, or don't, or mock because that is our natural response given our learning curve in life. If God created man and our free will, then all that comes with it is part of that, and not something we created or chose.

2. However, given our choices, if God exists as a father caring for all people, OF COURSE God cares that we do not keep making choices that cause ourselves and others SUFFERING. God as a father would want all children to ENJOY life and make the most of it.

3. so yes, there is forgiveness and not condemnation or judgment (which makes no sense if God created man and has supreme control over all things) but also there is right or wrong, there is what brings peace harmony and balance vs. what causes suffering pain
and stress and sickness.

The whole issue of how much we enjoy life
and make the most of our relationships with others
is how much we can forgive so we can receive greater understanding.

If we block the process with negative judgment punishment and rejection
this detracts from our relations, our positive energy, focus, and actions
and investing in more effective use of our words, time, energy, resources and lives.

When we care about each other equally, then we will strive to seek more
effective and positive ways of interacting, and not waste as much on negativity
that just attracts more of the same. We learn what works best, and choose that.

To choose what is better for the common good or good will of ourselves equally as others, that is synonymous with choosing to follow God's will or God's love instead of selfish ill will.


----------



## GISMYS

GOD loves to prosper his family and bless the poor.===== Beloved, I pray that you may prosper in all things and be in health, just as your soul prospers.  3 For I rejoiced greatly when brethren came and testified of the truth that is in you, just as you walk in the truth.  4 I have no greater joy than to hear that my children walk in truth. 3 john 1:2


----------



## sealybobo

Montrovant said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thing you seem to be not grasping.  I know that people have done stupid, evil, horrible things in the name of religion.  I don't deny it at all.  I also don't like religion.  Belief in religion seems silly to me.  But just because I don't like it doesn't mean I can't see the good people have done in the name of religion, or separate a particular brand of crazy such as the Islamic fundamentalism of the 9/11 terrorists from the billions of people who believe around the world.  Most importantly, I also believe that people would likely find some other reason to do many of the terrible things they do if they didn't have religious belief.
> 
> So again, it's possible that you are right and a world without religion would be better, happier, more technologically advanced, whatever benchmark you are setting.  You don't have any direct evidence of that, however, unless you can point to a single atheistic society in the history of humanity which was/is ahead of the rest of the world in that benchmark.  Without that, you simply have speculation.  That's fine, but don't try to pass it off as fact or based on some kind of conclusive evidence.
> 
> Oh, and you didn't say 'the GOP is going after abortion and other things'.  You said religion uses god to ban stem cells, abortion and birth control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, I too see my brother and how religion hasn't hurt him or his family in fact it has made him a better person, blabla.  I get all that.  But why assume he would not be a good person without religion?  I have a feeling religion played a big part in him being a good person but maybe in the new world we'll have gatherings like churches only without the fairytales?  I heard an atheist say the other day, "I find it insulting that you think us human's can't be civilized and good without a made up story".  I'm paraphrasing.  And just look at the history of man under jew, christian and muslim rule.  Tell me they're doing a good job?
> 
> Then the atheist I was listening to said that all the smart scientists who are atheists and do such great things find it insulting and ironic that all those great people are doing such great things and they don't believe while religion peddles it's lies to the poor and dumb.
> 
> A lot of great scientific theories are not conclusive, yet.  But we can measure this.  We see people are moving away from god.  But unfortunately as the survey I posted earlier shows you can't be president unless you believe in a fairytale.  That alone is all the proof I need religion is holding us back.  Can you believe it???  You MUST believe in a fairytale or you can't lead any nation on earth.  Fucked up.
Click to expand...


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thing you seem to be not grasping.  I know that people have done stupid, evil, horrible things in the name of religion.  I don't deny it at all.  I also don't like religion.  Belief in religion seems silly to me.  But just because I don't like it doesn't mean I can't see the good people have done in the name of religion, or separate a particular brand of crazy such as the Islamic fundamentalism of the 9/11 terrorists from the billions of people who believe around the world.  Most importantly, I also believe that people would likely find some other reason to do many of the terrible things they do if they didn't have religious belief.
> 
> So again, it's possible that you are right and a world without religion would be better, happier, more technologically advanced, whatever benchmark you are setting.  You don't have any direct evidence of that, however, unless you can point to a single atheistic society in the history of humanity which was/is ahead of the rest of the world in that benchmark.  Without that, you simply have speculation.  That's fine, but don't try to pass it off as fact or based on some kind of conclusive evidence.
> 
> Oh, and you didn't say 'the GOP is going after abortion and other things'.  You said religion uses god to ban stem cells, abortion and birth control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, I too see my brother and how religion hasn't hurt him or his family in fact it has made him a better person, blabla.  I get all that.  But why assume he would not be a good person without religion?  I have a feeling religion played a big part in him being a good person but maybe in the new world we'll have gatherings like churches only without the fairytales?  I heard an atheist say the other day, "I find it insulting that you think us human's can't be civilized and good without a made up story".  I'm paraphrasing.  And just look at the history of man under jew, christian and muslim rule.  Tell me they're doing a good job?
> 
> Then the atheist I was listening to said that all the smart scientists who are atheists and do such great things find it insulting and ironic that all those great people are doing such great things and they don't believe while religion peddles it's lies to the poor and dumb.
> 
> A lot of great scientific theories are not conclusive, yet.  But we can measure this.  We see people are moving away from god.  But unfortunately as the survey I posted earlier shows you can't be president unless you believe in a fairytale.  That alone is all the proof I need religion is holding us back.  Can you believe it???  You MUST believe in a fairytale or you can't lead any nation on earth.  Fucked up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WHY IS TRHE USA A GREAT NATION??? BECAUSE IN GOD WE TRUST, ONE NATION UNDER GOD with liberty and justice for all!!!PTL AND BECAUSE THE usa HAS SUPPORTED TINY israel.
Click to expand...


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> GOD loves to prosper his family and bless the poor.===== Beloved, I pray that you may prosper in all things and be in health, just as your soul prospers.  3 For I rejoiced greatly when brethren came and testified of the truth that is in you, just as you walk in the truth.  4 I have no greater joy than to hear that my children walk in truth. 3 john 1:2



When you post these thing, please follow up with the translation.  Seems all over the board to me.  But the last part tells me that god will reward me for being smart enough to not believe your stories. 

Hey, how much does your car cost?  Louis CK has a funny bit where he says he drives a $50K infinity when he could drive a $20K car and save how many lives with the $30K?  You christians, muslims and jews have done a HORRIBLE job.  No wonder everyone's waking up to the fact you're just a big cult.  

Now go put your nike sneakers on and go kill yourselves and go to jesus, oh yea, you don't get to go to heaven if you kill yourself, no matter how much you are suffering.  God hates ending suffering.  He wants to see you suffer for 2 more weeks, sadistic lord.

Do you think Tardigrade's think we are gods?  At least they can see us.  Your god is hiding from us.  Why?


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, I too see my brother and how religion hasn't hurt him or his family in fact it has made him a better person, blabla.  I get all that.  But why assume he would not be a good person without religion?  I have a feeling religion played a big part in him being a good person but maybe in the new world we'll have gatherings like churches only without the fairytales?  I heard an atheist say the other day, "I find it insulting that you think us human's can't be civilized and good without a made up story".  I'm paraphrasing.  And just look at the history of man under jew, christian and muslim rule.  Tell me they're doing a good job?
> 
> Then the atheist I was listening to said that all the smart scientists who are atheists and do such great things find it insulting and ironic that all those great people are doing such great things and they don't believe while religion peddles it's lies to the poor and dumb.
> 
> A lot of great scientific theories are not conclusive, yet.  But we can measure this.  We see people are moving away from god.  But unfortunately as the survey I posted earlier shows you can't be president unless you believe in a fairytale.  That alone is all the proof I need religion is holding us back.  Can you believe it???  You MUST believe in a fairytale or you can't lead any nation on earth.  Fucked up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHY IS TRHE USA A GREAT NATION??? BECAUSE IN GOD WE TRUST, ONE NATION UNDER GOD with liberty and justice for all!!!PTL AND BECAUSE THE usa HAS SUPPORTED TINY israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At least you have stopped calling us the "greatest nation".  Now just great?  How great?  What are we number one in?  How many things were we number one in but no longer?  I bet you don't know shit praise the lord.
Click to expand...


----------



## emilynghiem

GISMYS said:


> GOD loves to prosper his family and bless the poor.===== Beloved, I pray that you may prosper in all things and be in health, just as your soul prospers.  3 For I rejoiced greatly when brethren came and testified of the truth that is in you, just as you walk in the truth.  4 I have no greater joy than to hear that my children walk in truth. 3 john 1:2



Lovely prayer GISMYS

Can we think of people who are "poor" in understanding of each other's words and ways,
and in place of judging and condemning others, ask for God's BLESSINGS
that the poor may receive greater insights and understanding in abundance?

Can we ask for God's mercy and pray for those empty gaps or missing holes
in our communications and perceptions to be filled with wisdom and clarity?

Thank you, GISMYS

I believe that love that is patient, kind and charitable
can sometimes move mountains that the strongest wrath cannot sway.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, I too see my brother and how religion hasn't hurt him or his family in fact it has made him a better person, blabla.  I get all that.  But why assume he would not be a good person without religion?  I have a feeling religion played a big part in him being a good person but maybe in the new world we'll have gatherings like churches only without the fairytales?  I heard an atheist say the other day, "I find it insulting that you think us human's can't be civilized and good without a made up story".  I'm paraphrasing.  And just look at the history of man under jew, christian and muslim rule.  Tell me they're doing a good job?
> 
> Then the atheist I was listening to said that all the smart scientists who are atheists and do such great things find it insulting and ironic that all those great people are doing such great things and they don't believe while religion peddles it's lies to the poor and dumb.
> 
> A lot of great scientific theories are not conclusive, yet.  But we can measure this.  We see people are moving away from god.  But unfortunately as the survey I posted earlier shows you can't be president unless you believe in a fairytale.  That alone is all the proof I need religion is holding us back.  Can you believe it???  You MUST believe in a fairytale or you can't lead any nation on earth.  Fucked up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHY IS TRHE USA A GREAT NATION??? BECAUSE IN GOD WE TRUST, ONE NATION UNDER GOD with liberty and justice for all!!!PTL AND BECAUSE THE usa HAS SUPPORTED TINY israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck Israel.  Why are they the only country allowed to lobby our government?  We need to distance ourselves from Israel.  This is an unholy alliance.  Look at how Joe Lieberman was more loyal to Israel than he was to his constituents.
Click to expand...


----------



## sealybobo

emilynghiem said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> GOD loves to prosper his family and bless the poor.===== Beloved, I pray that you may prosper in all things and be in health, just as your soul prospers.  3 For I rejoiced greatly when brethren came and testified of the truth that is in you, just as you walk in the truth.  4 I have no greater joy than to hear that my children walk in truth. 3 john 1:2
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lovely prayer GISMYS
> 
> Can we think of people who are "poor" in understanding of each other's words and ways,
> and in place of judging and condemning others, ask for God's BLESSINGS
> that the poor may receive greater insights and understanding in abundance?
> 
> Can we ask for God's mercy and pray for those empty gaps or missing holes
> in our communications and perceptions to be filled with wisdom and clarity?
> 
> Thank you, GISMYS
> 
> I believe that love that is patient, kind and charitable
> can sometimes move mountains that the strongest wrath cannot sway.
Click to expand...


So true.  If all we got from black people was Malcomb X that would have been a problem.  They needed a MLK type leader too.  You be our MLK and I'll be the Malcomb X on these fools.


----------



## emilynghiem

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHY IS TRHE USA A GREAT NATION??? BECAUSE IN GOD WE TRUST, ONE NATION UNDER GOD with liberty and justice for all!!!PTL AND BECAUSE THE usa HAS SUPPORTED TINY israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least you have stopped calling us the "greatest nation".  Now just great?  How great?  What are we number one in?  How many things were we number one in but no longer?  I bet you don't know shit praise the lord.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi SB: America is the only nation I know that is founded on a combination of
> Christian principles in church history and natural laws in Constitutional/govt history.
> 
> There are two folds of the one flock governed by Jesus or Divine Justice:
> the sacred scriptures authority and laws of the Churched people
> the natural laws of the secular Gentiles
> 
> Where America has the best of both worlds in our culture.
> We have the free speech and press necessary to educate ourselves
> and resolve conflicts with each other to reconcile the truth expressed through
> these laws, both through the church and the state.
> 
> This is in our design, our destiny and our calling. To whom much is given, there is greater responsibility to use those resources to better ourselves and humanity as a whole.
> 
> That is the process we are going through, using the gifts, advantages and blessings we have as a nation to master and share with others.
Click to expand...


----------



## GISMYS

emilynghiem said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> At least you have stopped calling us the "greatest nation".  Now just great?  How great?  What are we number one in?  How many things were we number one in but no longer?  I bet you don't know shit praise the lord.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi SB: America is the only nation I know that is founded on a combination of
> Christian principles in church history and natural laws in Constitutional/govt history.
> 
> There are two folds of the one flock governed by Jesus or Divine Justice:
> the sacred scriptures authority and laws of the Churched people
> the natural laws of the secular Gentiles
> 
> Where America has the best of both worlds in our culture.
> We have the free speech and press necessary to educate ourselves
> and resolve conflicts with each other to reconcile the truth expressed through
> these laws, both through the church and the state.
> 
> This is in our design, our destiny and our calling. To whom much is given, there is greater responsibility to use those resources to better ourselves and humanity as a whole.
> 
> That is the process we are going through, using the gifts, advantages and blessings we have as a nation to master and share with others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YES!! AS MORE AND MORE AMERICANS CHOSE TO reject GOD and GOD'S love and forgivness and chose to live in open sin,America gets weaker and weaker.
Click to expand...


----------



## emilynghiem

Thank you, Brother

*My favorite quote attributed to Malcolm X* (drawn from other sources?):
Until all of us are free, none of us are free.
Until all of us are fed, all of us are hungry.

-- from a song by Tchiya Amet, TCHIYA AMET PORTAL ENTRANCE

*My favorite quote from Dr. King, Jr:*
"Men often hate each other because they fear each other; they fear each other because they don't know each other; they don't know each other because they can not communicate; they can not communicate because they are separated."

-- from workshop by Center for Healing of Racism Center For The Healing Of Racism | Internalize Oneness - Home



sealybobo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> GOD loves to prosper his family and bless the poor.===== Beloved, I pray that you may prosper in all things and be in health, just as your soul prospers.  3 For I rejoiced greatly when brethren came and testified of the truth that is in you, just as you walk in the truth.  4 I have no greater joy than to hear that my children walk in truth. 3 john 1:2
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lovely prayer GISMYS
> 
> Can we think of people who are "poor" in understanding of each other's words and ways,
> and in place of judging and condemning others, ask for God's BLESSINGS
> that the poor may receive greater insights and understanding in abundance?
> 
> Can we ask for God's mercy and pray for those empty gaps or missing holes
> in our communications and perceptions to be filled with wisdom and clarity?
> 
> Thank you, GISMYS
> 
> I believe that love that is patient, kind and charitable
> can sometimes move mountains that the strongest wrath cannot sway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So true.  If all we got from black people was Malcomb X that would have been a problem.  They needed a MLK type leader too.  You be our MLK and I'll be the Malcomb X on these fools.
Click to expand...


Malcolm X also had some very good points about embracing humanity that were missed and censored. I think the movement got hijacked and kicked him out so they could run with the more militant Black Power, which stabbed him in the back for political gain.

All of us need to bring out our better sides, and need help to hold our extremes in check.
We need to help each other be more like MLK and try to be inclusive and universal.

My favorite quote attributed to Malcolm X (drawn from other sources?):
_Until all of us are free, none of us is free.
Until all of us are fed, all of us are hungry._

My favorite quote from Dr. King, Jr:
_Men often hate each other because they fear each other; they fear each other because they don't know each other; they don't know each other because they can not communicate; they can not communicate because they are separated._

These quotes remind me that
whatever change we choose to make within ourselves,
this affects our relationships with others,
and then changes the world.

"Perfect love casts out all fear"

Whenever I get stuck in life, I try to find "what am I not forgiving"
and when I ask help to forgive and overcome that thing so it can be corrected,
then things start to change.


----------



## emilynghiem

GISMYS said:


> YES!! AS MORE AND MORE AMERICANS CHOSE TO reject GOD and GOD'S love and forgivness and chose to live in open sin,America gets weaker and weaker.



Dear GISMYS: and likewise as more people learn the difference between the two paths,
which one wins out?

Who does not choose love over fear?
Who does not choose the liberation of truth vs. enslavement by false thinking?

Nobody wants to be stuck someplace negative.

The only fear stopping us is the fear of change.
We FEAR someone must be wrong in order to be right; we FEAR we must blame others or else that means blaming us.
How do we conquer these fears and bring in truth and love that knows no fear, shame or blame?

So GISMYS how can be better stewards and neighbors
and cast out the fear of change that prevents us from moving and growing
in positive directions as a nation? How can we get rid of fear dividing us
that is defeating our own sacred purpose?

How can we increase the love and forgiveness
and dispel the fear?

Do we not increase these things by practicing them in all our relations?
How do we INVITE more love and forgiveness so there is no room for negativity?


----------



## emilynghiem

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHY IS TRHE USA A GREAT NATION??? BECAUSE IN GOD WE TRUST, ONE NATION UNDER GOD with liberty and justice for all!!!PTL AND BECAUSE THE usa HAS SUPPORTED TINY israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck Israel.  Why are they the only country allowed to lobby our government?  We need to distance ourselves from Israel.  This is an unholy alliance.  Look at how Joe Lieberman was more loyal to Israel than he was to his constituents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is good and bad in all people, all parties, all nations.
> 
> SB, the corporations and special interests and political parties "lobby" all the time, not just Israel.
> 
> What we "hate" about any group we blame as bullies or selfishly pushing their interests,
> we "hate" in ourselves. We cannot solve the problem by ignoring or avoiding it, as we have the same thing within ourselves. We all have this potential; we all have biases and fight for what we want. No collective group or party is more to blame than any other doing this.
> 
> We just have to help each other prevent abuses of the power and influence we ALL have as humans, as individuals or collectively in groups. We all have to be careful to work in concert, not in conflict.
> 
> How can we bring out the best strengths and good in each person or group
> that is beneficial to share with the world? If we focus on that, wouldn't the bad points take care of themselves, because another person or group can fix it with their part of the solution?
> 
> Are we not like an orchestra, with specialized instruments and sections,
> each given a part to play necessary for the whole?
> 
> As such, how do we play in harmony? How do we play our parts CORRECTLY so they blend and make a perfect masterpiece? how do we listen, check and balance with each other's parts and purpose?
> 
> We cannot do this by threatening to kick whole sections out of the band.
> We need all of us to put the big picture together, or the score is incomplete.
> 
> How can we help each other to orchestrate the symphony in harmony and avoid chaos?
Click to expand...


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi SB: America is the only nation I know that is founded on a combination of
> Christian principles in church history and natural laws in Constitutional/govt history.
> 
> There are two folds of the one flock governed by Jesus or Divine Justice:
> the sacred scriptures authority and laws of the Churched people
> the natural laws of the secular Gentiles
> 
> Where America has the best of both worlds in our culture.
> We have the free speech and press necessary to educate ourselves
> and resolve conflicts with each other to reconcile the truth expressed through
> these laws, both through the church and the state.
> 
> This is in our design, our destiny and our calling. To whom much is given, there is greater responsibility to use those resources to better ourselves and humanity as a whole.
> 
> That is the process we are going through, using the gifts, advantages and blessings we have as a nation to master and share with others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YES!! AS MORE AND MORE AMERICANS CHOSE TO reject GOD and GOD'S love and forgivness and chose to live in open sin,America gets weaker and weaker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Christians all possess anywhere from 1-7 of the 7 deadly sins.  What sin do you guys not have that the rest of us have?  Abortion and gays?  You need to worry about your own sins my friend.  Wake up and realize gays and abortion are just issues drummed up to get stupid middle class and poor voters like you to vote against their own financial interests.
Click to expand...


----------



## sealybobo

emilynghiem said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck Israel.  Why are they the only country allowed to lobby our government?  We need to distance ourselves from Israel.  This is an unholy alliance.  Look at how Joe Lieberman was more loyal to Israel than he was to his constituents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is good and bad in all people, all parties, all nations.
> 
> SB, the corporations and special interests and political parties "lobby" all the time, not just Israel.
> 
> What we "hate" about any group we blame as bullies or selfishly pushing their interests,
> we "hate" in ourselves. We cannot solve the problem by ignoring or avoiding it, as we have the same thing within ourselves. We all have this potential; we all have biases and fight for what we want. No collective group or party is more to blame than any other doing this.
> 
> We just have to help each other prevent abuses of the power and influence we ALL have as humans, as individuals or collectively in groups. We all have to be careful to work in concert, not in conflict.
> 
> How can we bring out the best strengths and good in each person or group
> that is beneficial to share with the world? If we focus on that, wouldn't the bad points take care of themselves, because another person or group can fix it with their part of the solution?
> 
> Are we not like an orchestra, with specialized instruments and sections,
> each given a part to play necessary for the whole?
> 
> As such, how do we play in harmony? How do we play our parts CORRECTLY so they blend and make a perfect masterpiece? how do we listen, check and balance with each other's parts and purpose?
> 
> We cannot do this by threatening to kick whole sections out of the band.
> We need all of us to put the big picture together, or the score is incomplete.
> 
> How can we help each other to orchestrate the symphony in harmony and avoid chaos?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit you are wrong.  Look it up.  No other country in the world is allowed to lobby the way Israel has a lobby.  Maybe they have it established as a "religious" lobby because Saudi Arabia and Iran can not grease the palms of our politicians like the jews get to.  Fact.
Click to expand...


----------



## sealybobo

emilynghiem said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck Israel.  Why are they the only country allowed to lobby our government?  We need to distance ourselves from Israel.  This is an unholy alliance.  Look at how Joe Lieberman was more loyal to Israel than he was to his constituents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is good and bad in all people, all parties, all nations.
> 
> SB, the corporations and special interests and political parties "lobby" all the time, not just Israel.
> 
> What we "hate" about any group we blame as bullies or selfishly pushing their interests,
> we "hate" in ourselves. We cannot solve the problem by ignoring or avoiding it, as we have the same thing within ourselves. We all have this potential; we all have biases and fight for what we want. No collective group or party is more to blame than any other doing this.
> 
> We just have to help each other prevent abuses of the power and influence we ALL have as humans, as individuals or collectively in groups. We all have to be careful to work in concert, not in conflict.
> 
> How can we bring out the best strengths and good in each person or group
> that is beneficial to share with the world? If we focus on that, wouldn't the bad points take care of themselves, because another person or group can fix it with their part of the solution?
> 
> Are we not like an orchestra, with specialized instruments and sections,
> each given a part to play necessary for the whole?
> 
> As such, how do we play in harmony? How do we play our parts CORRECTLY so they blend and make a perfect masterpiece? how do we listen, check and balance with each other's parts and purpose?
> 
> We cannot do this by threatening to kick whole sections out of the band.
> We need all of us to put the big picture together, or the score is incomplete.
> 
> How can we help each other to orchestrate the symphony in harmony and avoid chaos?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I learned a long time ago that an injustice to one person is an injustice to everyone.  So, when they pick on women, gays, blacks and immigrants I know that if I don't say anything when it's not me, who should speak up when it is finally me?  You all need to realize that they use color, religion, race, sex, $ & guns to divide us.
Click to expand...


----------



## Uncensored2008

sealybobo said:


> I had a day off and saw two stories that made me think of you.  One was on how stem cell is going to help spinal cord injuries.  On behalf of all spinal cord patients, you and your god can go fuck yourselves.



Adult stem cells - no one uses infant stem cells anymore - there was never a medical reason for them.

What are Stem Cells?

On behalf of everyone with an IQ above 20 - fuck you and your abject ignorance.



> And I thought this might interest you: Americans Would Rather Vote For A Philandering, Pot-Smoking President Than An Atheist One



The world has not done well with Atheists.

Lenin
Stalin
Mao
Pol Pot
Ho
Kim

In all, Atheists have slaughtered about 200 million peace time civilians.  And yeah, that does make them bad people...

Oh, all the religions combined reach about 3 million.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi SB: America is the only nation I know that is founded on a combination of
> Christian principles in church history and natural laws in Constitutional/govt history.
> 
> There are two folds of the one flock governed by Jesus or Divine Justice:
> the sacred scriptures authority and laws of the Churched people
> the natural laws of the secular Gentiles
> 
> Where America has the best of both worlds in our culture.
> We have the free speech and press necessary to educate ourselves
> and resolve conflicts with each other to reconcile the truth expressed through
> these laws, both through the church and the state.
> 
> This is in our design, our destiny and our calling. To whom much is given, there is greater responsibility to use those resources to better ourselves and humanity as a whole.
> 
> That is the process we are going through, using the gifts, advantages and blessings we have as a nation to master and share with others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YES!! AS MORE AND MORE AMERICANS CHOSE TO reject GOD and GOD'S love and forgivness and chose to live in open sin,America gets weaker and weaker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The people who live in this part of America are very religious.  Why are they so poor and stupid?
> 
> If Republican Led 'Real America' Was a Country It Would Be the 3rd Poorest on Earth
Click to expand...


----------



## Uncensored2008

sealybobo said:


> The people who live in this part of America are very religious.  Why are they so poor and stupid?
> 
> If Republican Led 'Real America' Was a Country It Would Be the 3rd Poorest on Earth



Of course it would, Comrade.

It's not like you're an agenda driven, lying hack or something...


----------



## sealybobo

Uncensored2008 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had a day off and saw two stories that made me think of you.  One was on how stem cell is going to help spinal cord injuries.  On behalf of all spinal cord patients, you and your god can go fuck yourselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Adult stem cells - no one uses infant stem cells anymore - there was never a medical reason for them.
> 
> What are Stem Cells?
> 
> On behalf of everyone with an IQ above 20 - fuck you and your abject ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I thought this might interest you: Americans Would Rather Vote For A Philandering, Pot-Smoking President Than An Atheist One
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The world has not done well with Atheists.
> 
> Lenin
> Stalin
> Mao
> Pol Pot
> Ho
> Kim
> 
> In all, Atheists have slaughtered about 200 million peace time civilians.  And yeah, that does make them bad people...
> 
> Oh, all the religions combined reach about 3 million.
Click to expand...


Compared to how many human's have christians murdered?  Starting with the million that died over Iraq.  

Pol Pot.  He wasn't an atheist.  He once said he thought heaven/destiny wanted him to guide Cambodia.  

Hitler didn't advocate for state atheism and in 1930 said christianity was the foundation of German morality.  BOOM THAT JUST HAPPENED!  

Hitler was a member of the catholic church till he committed suicide.

Goebbels wrote that Hitler was deeply religious but entirely anti christianity.  

Hitler was into Goth and Mysticism.  Modern day atheists laugh at that stuff.  That's closer to religious thought.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had a day off and saw two stories that made me think of you.  One was on how stem cell is going to help spinal cord injuries.  On behalf of all spinal cord patients, you and your god can go fuck yourselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Adult stem cells - no one uses infant stem cells anymore - there was never a medical reason for them.
> 
> What are Stem Cells?
> 
> On behalf of everyone with an IQ above 20 - fuck you and your abject ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I thought this might interest you: Americans Would Rather Vote For A Philandering, Pot-Smoking President Than An Atheist One
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The world has not done well with Atheists.
> 
> Lenin
> Stalin
> Mao
> Pol Pot
> Ho
> Kim
> 
> In all, Atheists have slaughtered about 200 million peace time civilians.  And yeah, that does make them bad people...
> 
> Oh, all the religions combined reach about 3 million.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Compared to how many human's have christians murdered?  Starting with the million that died over Iraq.
> 
> Pol Pot.  He wasn't an atheist.  He once said he thought heaven/destiny wanted him to guide Cambodia.
> 
> Hitler didn't advocate for state atheism and in 1930 said christianity was the foundation of German morality.  BOOM THAT JUST HAPPENED!
> 
> Hitler was a member of the catholic church till he committed suicide.
> 
> Goebbels wrote that Hitler was deeply religious but entirely anti christianity.
> 
> Hitler was into Goth and Mysticism.  Modern day atheists laugh at that stuff.  That's closer to religious thought.
Click to expand...


SATAN IS A LIAR and the father of liars!!! and you?? Best you count the cost of being a puppet,tool fool of satan!!


----------



## Uncensored2008

sealybobo said:


> Compared to how many human's have christians murdered?



Stalin murdered more people in an average week than were killed in 500 YEARS of Inquisition. 



> Starting with the million that died over Iraq.



Number of peace time civilians killed by Christian rulers in Iraq - that would be zero, sploogy.

You may be a bigot, but you're not real bright...



> Pol Pot.  He wasn't an atheist.  He once said he thought heaven/destiny wanted him to guide Cambodia.



If history doesn't fit, just fabricate what suits you.

I've used the phrase "heaven knows" despite having no belief in Heaven. Sar was a dedicated Marxist with a bitter hatred of religion. 



> Hitler didn't advocate for state atheism and in 1930 said christianity was the foundation of German morality.  BOOM THAT JUST HAPPENED!



Holy fuck but you're stupid.



> Hitler was a member of the catholic church till he committed suicide.



I'm sure he was less active afterwards, but I suspect he was still a member.



> Goebbels wrote that Hitler was deeply religious but entirely anti christianity.
> 
> Hitler was into Goth and Mysticism.  Modern day atheists laugh at that stuff.  That's closer to religious thought.



All irrelevant to the point that Atheists killed 200 million PEACE TIME civilians.


----------



## Uncensored2008

GISMYS said:


> SATAN IS A LIAR and the father of liars!!! and you?? Best you count the cost of being a puppet,tool fool of satan!!



Satan is a myth, and you need to be on meds.

Sadly, the Atheists are even worse than people like you are.


----------



## GISMYS

Uncensored2008 said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> SATAN IS A LIAR and the father of liars!!! and you?? Best you count the cost of being a puppet,tool fool of satan!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Satan is a myth, and you need to be on meds.
> 
> Sadly, the Atheists are even worse than people like you are.
Click to expand...


lol!!! Satan sur got you on the cheap!!! He is playing you for a fool and using you as his puppet and tool!!!


----------



## Montrovant

sealybobo said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to want "evidence" for the obvious.  When Bush denied 8 years of stem cell research and you need more proof that religion hasn't held us back?  My mom might not be dying of Alzheimers if it weren't for those pricks.  But then again maybe the person that would have invented the cure was aborted.  LOL.
> 
> The GOP in every state they run has severely limited abortion rights.  Do you not know this?  Its like your asking me to prove that water is wet.  I can't know how little you know.  Do I have to prove to you that heat is hot?
> 
> And did you forget catholic run insurance companies don't want to cover birth control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Has embryonic stem cell research been government funded since Bush left office, and if so, what breakthroughs has it attained?  Is the US the only country capable of doing stem cell research?  The last I remember reading anything about it, the research was actually moving away from embryonic stem cells somewhat because of new possibilities with adult stem cells.  And to be clear, I am all for using the embryonic cells that are available rather than simply destroying them.
> 
> Define 'severely limited' abortion rights.  More, explain how the GOP doing something equates to religion; since the vast majority of people identify with some sort of religious belief, most Dems as well as Repubs are going to be religious.  So party affiliation is not an indicator of religious belief, at best it may be an indicator of the type of religious belief.
> 
> I didn't 'forget' that Catholic run insurance companies don't want to cover birth control.  I don't really care.  There's no reason I have to use a Catholic insurance company, or even use insurance to get birth control.
> 
> None of these are bans on either abortion, stem cell research (and you must mean embryonic stem cell research), or birth control.
> 
> You are trying to make your dislike of religion, something we share, into more than it actually is.  Religion has done bad and good in the world.  Many, perhaps most, of the greatest inventions and scientific breakthroughs in human history have been made by people with religious belief.  While it's possible that those things would have happened faster, that mankind would have progressed further, without religion, there is no evidence of it.
> 
> As I said before, you can easily argue that certain types or iterations of religious belief have been detrimental and held society back, but to try and say that all religious belief does so is backed by nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I had a day off and saw two stories that made me think of you.  One was on how stem cell is going to help spinal cord injuries.  On behalf of all spinal cord patients, you and your god can go fuck yourselves.
> 
> And I thought this might interest you: Americans Would Rather Vote For A Philandering, Pot-Smoking President Than An Atheist One
Click to expand...


Clearly you are going to argue based on whatever strawman or prejudice you want, rather than argue with what I say.

I don't have a god.  I've told you multiple times I am not a believer.  You seem to find it impossible to accept that a person could not believe yet also not blame religion for all of man's ills.

Here, as I said earlier, this is a video of me having a trifixion carved into my back :
[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYdGYEdjViQ"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYdGYEdjViQ[/ame]

But you'll probably continue to assume I'm a Christian, or at least a believer in one of the Abrahamic religions, right?

Oh, and I also said that I'm all for using the embryonic stem cells from discarded embryos rather than simply destroying them.

Care to rethink your attempted insult?


----------



## Montrovant

sealybobo said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to want "evidence" for the obvious.  When Bush denied 8 years of stem cell research and you need more proof that religion hasn't held us back?  My mom might not be dying of Alzheimers if it weren't for those pricks.  But then again maybe the person that would have invented the cure was aborted.  LOL.
> 
> The GOP in every state they run has severely limited abortion rights.  Do you not know this?  Its like your asking me to prove that water is wet.  I can't know how little you know.  Do I have to prove to you that heat is hot?
> 
> And did you forget catholic run insurance companies don't want to cover birth control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Has embryonic stem cell research been government funded since Bush left office, and if so, what breakthroughs has it attained?  Is the US the only country capable of doing stem cell research?  The last I remember reading anything about it, the research was actually moving away from embryonic stem cells somewhat because of new possibilities with adult stem cells.  And to be clear, I am all for using the embryonic cells that are available rather than simply destroying them.
> 
> Define 'severely limited' abortion rights.  More, explain how the GOP doing something equates to religion; since the vast majority of people identify with some sort of religious belief, most Dems as well as Repubs are going to be religious.  So party affiliation is not an indicator of religious belief, at best it may be an indicator of the type of religious belief.
> 
> I didn't 'forget' that Catholic run insurance companies don't want to cover birth control.  I don't really care.  There's no reason I have to use a Catholic insurance company, or even use insurance to get birth control.
> 
> None of these are bans on either abortion, stem cell research (and you must mean embryonic stem cell research), or birth control.
> 
> You are trying to make your dislike of religion, something we share, into more than it actually is.  Religion has done bad and good in the world.  Many, perhaps most, of the greatest inventions and scientific breakthroughs in human history have been made by people with religious belief.  While it's possible that those things would have happened faster, that mankind would have progressed further, without religion, there is no evidence of it.
> 
> As I said before, you can easily argue that certain types or iterations of religious belief have been detrimental and held society back, but to try and say that all religious belief does so is backed by nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I had a day off and saw two stories that made me think of you.  One was on how stem cell is going to help spinal cord injuries.  On behalf of all spinal cord patients, you and your god can go fuck yourselves.
> 
> And I thought this might interest you: Americans Would Rather Vote For A Philandering, Pot-Smoking President Than An Atheist One
Click to expand...


I've long thought it unfortunate that religious belief seems to be a requirement for the presidency.  However, considering my cynicism when it comes to politicians, I don't actually think it's holding us back in any way.


----------



## Montrovant

sealybobo said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thing you seem to be not grasping.  I know that people have done stupid, evil, horrible things in the name of religion.  I don't deny it at all.  I also don't like religion.  Belief in religion seems silly to me.  But just because I don't like it doesn't mean I can't see the good people have done in the name of religion, or separate a particular brand of crazy such as the Islamic fundamentalism of the 9/11 terrorists from the billions of people who believe around the world.  Most importantly, I also believe that people would likely find some other reason to do many of the terrible things they do if they didn't have religious belief.
> 
> So again, it's possible that you are right and a world without religion would be better, happier, more technologically advanced, whatever benchmark you are setting.  You don't have any direct evidence of that, however, unless you can point to a single atheistic society in the history of humanity which was/is ahead of the rest of the world in that benchmark.  Without that, you simply have speculation.  That's fine, but don't try to pass it off as fact or based on some kind of conclusive evidence.
> 
> Oh, and you didn't say 'the GOP is going after abortion and other things'.  You said religion uses god to ban stem cells, abortion and birth control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, I too see my brother and how religion hasn't hurt him or his family in fact it has made him a better person, blabla.  I get all that.  But why assume he would not be a good person without religion?  I have a feeling religion played a big part in him being a good person but maybe in the new world we'll have gatherings like churches only without the fairytales?  I heard an atheist say the other day, "I find it insulting that you think us human's can't be civilized and good without a made up story".  I'm paraphrasing.  And just look at the history of man under jew, christian and muslim rule.  Tell me they're doing a good job?
> 
> Then the atheist I was listening to said that all the smart scientists who are atheists and do such great things find it insulting and ironic that all those great people are doing such great things and they don't believe while religion peddles it's lies to the poor and dumb.
> 
> A lot of great scientific theories are not conclusive, yet.  But we can measure this.  We see people are moving away from god.  But unfortunately as the survey I posted earlier shows you can't be president unless you believe in a fairytale.  That alone is all the proof I need religion is holding us back.  Can you believe it???  You MUST believe in a fairytale or you can't lead any nation on earth.  Fucked up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not assuming your brother, or anyone else, can't be good without religion.  What I'm saying is that there's no evidence he or most anyone else would be better without religion, which is a pretty good paraphrase of your argument.
Click to expand...


----------



## GISMYS

Montrovant said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, I too see my brother and how religion hasn't hurt him or his family in fact it has made him a better person, blabla.  I get all that.  But why assume he would not be a good person without religion?  I have a feeling religion played a big part in him being a good person but maybe in the new world we'll have gatherings like churches only without the fairytales?  I heard an atheist say the other day, "I find it insulting that you think us human's can't be civilized and good without a made up story".  I'm paraphrasing.  And just look at the history of man under jew, christian and muslim rule.  Tell me they're doing a good job?
> 
> Then the atheist I was listening to said that all the smart scientists who are atheists and do such great things find it insulting and ironic that all those great people are doing such great things and they don't believe while religion peddles it's lies to the poor and dumb.
> 
> A lot of great scientific theories are not conclusive, yet.  But we can measure this.  We see people are moving away from god.  But unfortunately as the survey I posted earlier shows you can't be president unless you believe in a fairytale.  That alone is all the proof I need religion is holding us back.  Can you believe it???  You MUST believe in a fairytale or you can't lead any nation on earth.  Fucked up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not assuming your brother, or anyone else, can't be good without religion.  What I'm saying is that there's no evidence he or most anyone else would be better without religion, which is a pretty good paraphrase of your argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SEEK TO KNOW GOD not religion,satan loves "false religions" there are thousdands worldwide but there is only ONE TRUE GOD and your purpose in life is to seek to know GOD!!!
Click to expand...


----------



## Uncensored2008

GISMYS said:


> lol!!! Satan sur got you on the cheap!!! He is playing you for a fool and using you as his puppet and tool!!!



Kewl;

What does he get out of the deal?


----------



## GISMYS

Uncensored2008 said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol!!! Satan sur got you on the cheap!!! He is playing you for a fool and using you as his puppet and tool!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kewl;
> 
> What does he get out of the deal?
Click to expand...


Satan WANTED TO BE GOD and he was cast out of heaven and now awaits final judgment,satan hates GOD and is here to kill and destroy GOD'S CREATION =MANKIND!!! Why help him??


----------



## Uncensored2008

GISMYS said:


> Satan WANTED TO BE GOD



So, if he gets me, then he is god?

Then that makes me the god maker - thus more powerful than god? 



> and he was cast out of heaven and now awaits final judgment,satan hates GOD and is here to kill and destroy GOD'S CREATION =MANKIND!!! Why help him??



I've never killed anyone. I was just condemning the Atheists because they murder hundreds of millions.


----------



## Montrovant

Uncensored2008 said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> SATAN IS A LIAR and the father of liars!!! and you?? Best you count the cost of being a puppet,tool fool of satan!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Satan is a myth, and you need to be on meds.
> 
> Sadly, the Atheists are even worse than people like you are.
Click to expand...


So atheism is worse than crazy?


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not assuming your brother, or anyone else, can't be good without religion.  What I'm saying is that there's no evidence he or most anyone else would be better without religion, which is a pretty good paraphrase of your argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SEEK TO KNOW GOD not religion,satan loves "false religions" there are thousdands worldwide but there is only ONE TRUE GOD and your purpose in life is to seek to know GOD!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says who?  What a stupid waste of time chasing a fantasy.  Wake up.  My purpose in life is to live life to the fullest and be a positive influence on people and maybe hopefully leave this planet better off than it was when I came in.
Click to expand...


----------



## sealybobo

Uncensored2008 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Compared to how many human's have christians murdered?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stalin murdered more people in an average week than were killed in 500 YEARS of Inquisition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Starting with the million that died over Iraq.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Number of peace time civilians killed by Christian rulers in Iraq - that would be zero, sploogy.
> 
> You may be a bigot, but you're not real bright...
> 
> 
> 
> If history doesn't fit, just fabricate what suits you.
> 
> I've used the phrase "heaven knows" despite having no belief in Heaven. Sar was a dedicated Marxist with a bitter hatred of religion.
> 
> 
> 
> Holy fuck but you're stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hitler was a member of the catholic church till he committed suicide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure he was less active afterwards, but I suspect he was still a member.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Goebbels wrote that Hitler was deeply religious but entirely anti christianity.
> 
> Hitler was into Goth and Mysticism.  Modern day atheists laugh at that stuff.  That's closer to religious thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All irrelevant to the point that Atheists killed 200 million PEACE TIME civilians.
Click to expand...


Why do Christians use Stalin, Pol Pot and others to denounce atheism? 
the argument is invalid. none of those people committed those crimes in the name of atheism, they did it to for political reasons. religious people commit their crimes in the name of god. if you are referring to an absence of morals in atheists then look at the horrible acts christians have comitted: crusades, inquisition, slavery(estimated 60 million), slaughter of the native americans, and Hitler was a christian for those who deny it.


----------



## sealybobo

Uncensored2008 said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Satan WANTED TO BE GOD
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, if he gets me, then he is god?
> 
> Then that makes me the god maker - thus more powerful than god?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and he was cast out of heaven and now awaits final judgment,satan hates GOD and is here to kill and destroy GOD'S CREATION =MANKIND!!! Why help him??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've never killed anyone. I was just condemning the Atheists because they murder hundreds of millions.
Click to expand...


What are you besides stupid?  Do you believe in god or not?


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not assuming your brother, or anyone else, can't be good without religion.  What I'm saying is that there's no evidence he or most anyone else would be better without religion, which is a pretty good paraphrase of your argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SEEK TO KNOW GOD not religion,satan loves "false religions" there are thousdands worldwide but there is only ONE TRUE GOD and your purpose in life is to seek to know GOD!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yea, and one day maybe you'll realize christianity is just another one of them.  It isn't any more believable than the other made up religions.  Don't you think if you were born in Saudi Arabia instead of being a stupid chrstian you'd just be a dumb muslim?
Click to expand...


----------



## sealybobo

Montrovant said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, I too see my brother and how religion hasn't hurt him or his family in fact it has made him a better person, blabla.  I get all that.  But why assume he would not be a good person without religion?  I have a feeling religion played a big part in him being a good person but maybe in the new world we'll have gatherings like churches only without the fairytales?  I heard an atheist say the other day, "I find it insulting that you think us human's can't be civilized and good without a made up story".  I'm paraphrasing.  And just look at the history of man under jew, christian and muslim rule.  Tell me they're doing a good job?
> 
> Then the atheist I was listening to said that all the smart scientists who are atheists and do such great things find it insulting and ironic that all those great people are doing such great things and they don't believe while religion peddles it's lies to the poor and dumb.
> 
> A lot of great scientific theories are not conclusive, yet.  But we can measure this.  We see people are moving away from god.  But unfortunately as the survey I posted earlier shows you can't be president unless you believe in a fairytale.  That alone is all the proof I need religion is holding us back.  Can you believe it???  You MUST believe in a fairytale or you can't lead any nation on earth.  Fucked up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not assuming your brother, or anyone else, can't be good without religion.  What I'm saying is that there's no evidence he or most anyone else would be better without religion, which is a pretty good paraphrase of your argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is proof everywhere you look.  Just like religious people say, "if ye look ye shall find".
Click to expand...


----------



## sealybobo

Montrovant said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has embryonic stem cell research been government funded since Bush left office, and if so, what breakthroughs has it attained?  Is the US the only country capable of doing stem cell research?  The last I remember reading anything about it, the research was actually moving away from embryonic stem cells somewhat because of new possibilities with adult stem cells.  And to be clear, I am all for using the embryonic cells that are available rather than simply destroying them.
> 
> Define 'severely limited' abortion rights.  More, explain how the GOP doing something equates to religion; since the vast majority of people identify with some sort of religious belief, most Dems as well as Repubs are going to be religious.  So party affiliation is not an indicator of religious belief, at best it may be an indicator of the type of religious belief.
> 
> I didn't 'forget' that Catholic run insurance companies don't want to cover birth control.  I don't really care.  There's no reason I have to use a Catholic insurance company, or even use insurance to get birth control.
> 
> None of these are bans on either abortion, stem cell research (and you must mean embryonic stem cell research), or birth control.
> 
> You are trying to make your dislike of religion, something we share, into more than it actually is.  Religion has done bad and good in the world.  Many, perhaps most, of the greatest inventions and scientific breakthroughs in human history have been made by people with religious belief.  While it's possible that those things would have happened faster, that mankind would have progressed further, without religion, there is no evidence of it.
> 
> As I said before, you can easily argue that certain types or iterations of religious belief have been detrimental and held society back, but to try and say that all religious belief does so is backed by nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I had a day off and saw two stories that made me think of you.  One was on how stem cell is going to help spinal cord injuries.  On behalf of all spinal cord patients, you and your god can go fuck yourselves.
> 
> And I thought this might interest you: Americans Would Rather Vote For A Philandering, Pot-Smoking President Than An Atheist One
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've long thought it unfortunate that religious belief seems to be a requirement for the presidency.  However, considering my cynicism when it comes to politicians, I don't actually think it's holding us back in any way.
Click to expand...


What do you mean?  I think our corrupt and religious politicians is a great example of how maybe we'd be better off if we weren't run by a bunch of greedy ignorant stupid fools.  Look at every greedy ignorant politician and what do they all have in common?  Democrat or Republican.  What is the ONE thing they all have in common.  They all believe in Jesus and 99% of them are christians.  Do you think they are good people who should be leading our nation?  I didn't think so.

I'm not going to argue it anymore with you.  You're an atheist who defends how christians have run the world the last 2000 years?


----------



## sealybobo

Montrovant said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has embryonic stem cell research been government funded since Bush left office, and if so, what breakthroughs has it attained?  Is the US the only country capable of doing stem cell research?  The last I remember reading anything about it, the research was actually moving away from embryonic stem cells somewhat because of new possibilities with adult stem cells.  And to be clear, I am all for using the embryonic cells that are available rather than simply destroying them.
> 
> Define 'severely limited' abortion rights.  More, explain how the GOP doing something equates to religion; since the vast majority of people identify with some sort of religious belief, most Dems as well as Repubs are going to be religious.  So party affiliation is not an indicator of religious belief, at best it may be an indicator of the type of religious belief.
> 
> I didn't 'forget' that Catholic run insurance companies don't want to cover birth control.  I don't really care.  There's no reason I have to use a Catholic insurance company, or even use insurance to get birth control.
> 
> None of these are bans on either abortion, stem cell research (and you must mean embryonic stem cell research), or birth control.
> 
> You are trying to make your dislike of religion, something we share, into more than it actually is.  Religion has done bad and good in the world.  Many, perhaps most, of the greatest inventions and scientific breakthroughs in human history have been made by people with religious belief.  While it's possible that those things would have happened faster, that mankind would have progressed further, without religion, there is no evidence of it.
> 
> As I said before, you can easily argue that certain types or iterations of religious belief have been detrimental and held society back, but to try and say that all religious belief does so is backed by nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I had a day off and saw two stories that made me think of you.  One was on how stem cell is going to help spinal cord injuries.  On behalf of all spinal cord patients, you and your god can go fuck yourselves.
> 
> And I thought this might interest you: Americans Would Rather Vote For A Philandering, Pot-Smoking President Than An Atheist One
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly you are going to argue based on whatever strawman or prejudice you want, rather than argue with what I say.
> 
> I don't have a god.  I've told you multiple times I am not a believer.  You seem to find it impossible to accept that a person could not believe yet also not blame religion for all of man's ills.
> 
> Here, as I said earlier, this is a video of me having a trifixion carved into my back :
> [ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYdGYEdjViQ"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYdGYEdjViQ[/ame]
> 
> But you'll probably continue to assume I'm a Christian, or at least a believer in one of the Abrahamic religions, right?
> 
> Oh, and I also said that I'm all for using the embryonic stem cells from discarded embryos rather than simply destroying them.
> 
> Care to rethink your attempted insult?
Click to expand...


The argument goes something like, of course atheism is bad for the world, just look at what Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot did in the name of atheism.

The conclusion does not follow from the premises, and this is why:
It assumes factually that these three personalities were indeed atheists, that they were indeed evil, and that their evil was informed by their atheism. Even if the first two of these sub premises were agreed upon, and it seems reasonable to do so, there is no reason to believe that their atheism informed their evil actions. In fact, there is ample evidence to suggest that at least two of the three personalities were significantly influenced by religion, specifically Christianity, early in their lives.

As an ad hominem argument, the Hitler/Stalin/Pot argument is typically a you too, made in response to the claim that religion is responsible for the deaths of millions through the inquisition, Crusades, genocides, New World invasion, etc.
Never has a causal effect been demonstrated by any historian (much less a theist in a debate) between atheism and the actions of, say, Stalin. Stalin ordered the deaths of thousands because he deemed them a threat to his government.  Indeed, on could easily argue that Stalins position was that he replaced God and inserted himself as the national deity with statues and portraits in all public (and many private) lands and buildings. Those that carried out his death warrants did so because they believed in Stalin because they worshiped him.

There are no gulags or concentration camps in recorded history that were designed to fulfill a lack of belief in something, which is what atheism is. None were constructed to destroy lives out of reason or rational thought, which is what informs the atheistic conclusion.

Myths of Atheism: Hitler/Stalin/Pot Were Evil Because of Atheism | Breaking Spells

I'll give you this though.  It wouldn't surprise me if a lot of the politicians were really not christians and just say they are because you have to in order to get elected.  I think a lot of illuminati don't believe in god.  Ayn Rand is a god to republicans.  She didn't believe in god.  This is why I think it's odd that the right's economics don't mesh with their religion at all.  Feed the poor?  Fuck no.  Heal the sick?  Only if they have insurance.


----------



## sealybobo

Uncensored2008 said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> SATAN IS A LIAR and the father of liars!!! and you?? Best you count the cost of being a puppet,tool fool of satan!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Satan is a myth, and you need to be on meds.
> 
> Sadly, the Atheists are even worse than people like you are.
Click to expand...


Why are we worse?


----------



## emilynghiem

Hi sealybobo:
1. RE: 





			
				M said:
			
		

> I'm not assuming your brother, or anyone else, can't be good without religion. What I'm saying is that there's no evidence he or most anyone else would be better without religion, which is a pretty good paraphrase of your argument.





			
				SB said:
			
		

> There is proof everywhere you look. Just like religious people say, "if ye look ye shall find".



1. For those who think "religions" do more harm than good,
I think this might change if people understood the process of "spiritual healing" which is natural and can be studied scientifically.

For one, the Christian prayers for deliverance from "demonic" voices and severely damaging and dangerous criminal addiction and mental and physical sickness
have saved lives that could not be helped with "just medicine alone" but required
a change in the person's ability to heal and to receive or comply with treatment. 

If you count the people whose lives are saved, whose relationships and the good they can do for the world when they not only regain function but prosper in serving others,
I believe that would exceed the damages injustice and abuses caused by LACK of conscience.

For the negative consequences of abuse, these have an end because people cannot tolerate suffering and injustice, and will work and fight for change to correct the problems.

For the positive repercussions, these continue to multiply; whatever good is derived is then invested in the next person, relationship, generation or stage of growth, so that humanity improves and advances.

So I have more faith in the good that comes from things, while the bad is finite and has an end.



sealybobo said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had a day off and saw two stories that made me think of you.  One was on how stem cell is going to help spinal cord injuries.  On behalf of all spinal cord patients, you and your god can go fuck yourselves.
> 
> And I thought this might interest you: Americans Would Rather Vote For A Philandering, Pot-Smoking President Than An Atheist One
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've long thought it unfortunate that religious belief seems to be a requirement for the presidency.  However, considering my cynicism when it comes to politicians, I don't actually think it's holding us back in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you mean?  I think our corrupt and religious politicians is a great example of how maybe we'd be better off if we weren't run by a bunch of greedy ignorant stupid fools.  Look at every greedy ignorant politician and what do they all have in common?  Democrat or Republican.  What is the ONE thing they all have in common.  They all believe in Jesus and 99% of them are christians.  Do you think they are good people who should be leading our nation?  I didn't think so.
> 
> I'm not going to argue it anymore with you.  You're an atheist who defends how christians have run the world the last 2000 years?
Click to expand...


2. Hey don't forget me. I am Christian by faith, and I work with a lot of good people who are trying to combine efforts to overcome the problems of abuses and waste going on now. Many of my Christian friends are the ones with faith to forgive and keep working on corrections. I know a LOT of people who would make great public officials and leaders, but first we have to organize the teamwork and groundwork, so by the time they serve on higher levels of govt, they don't fall into cracks or traps over divisive issues that should be resolved first before building public policy, reforms and programs.

As for the Christians who may be bad examples of corrupt politicians,
as long as they commit to follow the laws, then when it comes time for rebuke and correction IN PERSON, these followers will respond and there can be justice.

I have no problem working things out with people who commit with faith to the laws.
But most of the successful work to correct problems is done in person, not in public in front of others. (for example, when Herman Cain was addressed IN PERSON about statements he made about Muslims that were unfair, he accepted the correction and apologized; so did Ted Nugent when his peers sought to correct him, he accepted their advice and apologized in public, explaining how these were better people helping him. But when these same people are 'attacked by opponents in the public media' then they don't respond. So of course they look like hypocrites.)

Most of the problems come from bullying over conflicts "in public" to make a show.

So if you remove all that pecking order "alpha male/head of the pack" mentality,
and start treating people as equal peers with equal responsibility to fix problems
together, as partners or in teams, then you get different response and output.

if we rewarded, hired, and elected people to mediate, coordinate, and SOLVE problems then maybe
the Christian leaders with faith that issues and relations can be reconciled would get to demonstrate those skills.
People without unifying faith would not even believe in the process or positive outcome, much less leading it.


----------



## emilynghiem

sealybobo said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> SATAN IS A LIAR and the father of liars!!! and you?? Best you count the cost of being a puppet,tool fool of satan!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Satan is a myth, and you need to be on meds.
> 
> Sadly, the Atheists are even worse than people like you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are we worse?
Click to expand...


I think it depends on the person, not the label.

I know Atheists who are very forgiving and committed to understanding and fairness,
so they are easy to work with to resolve things truthfully and justly
compared with religious people who are NOT forgiving and run into conflicts they aren't willing to work to resolve.

If you look at the forgiveness factor, that is what determines if people can deal
with biases and differences, or if certain issues get projected and blamed externally.

For those who "have to explain things in terms of Jesus Christ as the only way to God"
then FORGIVENESS is that factor that is the determining key in saving people/relations.


----------



## sealybobo

emilynghiem said:


> Hi sealybobo:
> 1. RE:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not assuming your brother, or anyone else, can't be good without religion. What I'm saying is that there's no evidence he or most anyone else would be better without religion, which is a pretty good paraphrase of your argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is proof everywhere you look. Just like religious people say, "if ye look ye shall find".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. For those who think "religions" do more harm than good,
> I think this might change if people understood the process of "spiritual healing" which is natural and can be studied scientifically.
> 
> For one, the Christian prayers for deliverance from "demonic" voices and severely damaging and dangerous criminal addiction and mental and physical sickness
> have saved lives that could not be helped with "just medicine alone" but required
> a change in the person's ability to heal and to receive or comply with treatment.
> 
> If you count the people whose lives are saved, whose relationships and the good they can do for the world when they not only regain function but prosper in serving others,
> I believe that would exceed the damages injustice and abuses caused by LACK of conscience.
> 
> For the negative consequences of abuse, these have an end because people cannot tolerate suffering and injustice, and will work and fight for change to correct the problems.
> 
> For the positive repercussions, these continue to multiply; whatever good is derived is then invested in the next person, relationship, generation or stage of growth, so that humanity improves and advances.
> 
> So I have more faith in the good that comes from things, while the bad is finite and has an end.
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've long thought it unfortunate that religious belief seems to be a requirement for the presidency.  However, considering my cynicism when it comes to politicians, I don't actually think it's holding us back in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you mean?  I think our corrupt and religious politicians is a great example of how maybe we'd be better off if we weren't run by a bunch of greedy ignorant stupid fools.  Look at every greedy ignorant politician and what do they all have in common?  Democrat or Republican.  What is the ONE thing they all have in common.  They all believe in Jesus and 99% of them are christians.  Do you think they are good people who should be leading our nation?  I didn't think so.
> 
> I'm not going to argue it anymore with you.  You're an atheist who defends how christians have run the world the last 2000 years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 2. Hey don't forget me. I am Christian by faith, and I work with a lot of good people who are trying to combine efforts to overcome the problems of abuses and waste going on now. Many of my Christian friends are the ones with faith to forgive and keep working on corrections. I know a LOT of people who would make great public officials and leaders, but first we have to organize the teamwork and groundwork, so by the time they serve on higher levels of govt, they don't fall into cracks or traps over divisive issues that should be resolved first before building public policy, reforms and programs.
> 
> As for the Christians who may be bad examples of corrupt politicians,
> as long as they commit to follow the laws, then when it comes time for rebuke and correction IN PERSON, these followers will respond and there can be justice.
> 
> I have no problem working things out with people who commit with faith to the laws.
> But most of the successful work to correct problems is done in person, not in public in front of others. (for example, when Herman Cain was addressed IN PERSON about statements he made about Muslims that were unfair, he accepted the correction and apologized; so did Ted Nugent when his peers sought to correct him, he accepted their advice and apologized in public, explaining how these were better people helping him. But when these same people are 'attacked by opponents in the public media' then they don't respond. So of course they look like hypocrites.)
> 
> Most of the problems come from bullying over conflicts "in public" to make a show.
> 
> So if you remove all that pecking order "alpha male/head of the pack" mentality,
> and start treating people as equal peers with equal responsibility to fix problems
> together, as partners or in teams, then you get different response and output.
> 
> if we rewarded, hired, and elected people to mediate, coordinate, and SOLVE problems then maybe
> the Christian leaders with faith that issues and relations can be reconciled would get to demonstrate those skills.
> People without unifying faith would not even believe in the process or positive outcome, much less leading it.
Click to expand...


Placebo's work too.  Just because some good has come from a lie doesn't mean we should continue telling the lie.  And did you know that when you stub your toe yelling FUCK GOD DAMN will actually make you feel better?  Cursing can actually override pain.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi sealybobo:
> 1. RE:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not assuming your brother, or anyone else, can't be good without religion. What I'm saying is that there's no evidence he or most anyone else would be better without religion, which is a pretty good paraphrase of your argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. For those who think "religions" do more harm than good,
> I think this might change if people understood the process of "spiritual healing" which is natural and can be studied scientifically.
> 
> For one, the Christian prayers for deliverance from "demonic" voices and severely damaging and dangerous criminal addiction and mental and physical sickness
> have saved lives that could not be helped with "just medicine alone" but required
> a change in the person's ability to heal and to receive or comply with treatment.
> 
> If you count the people whose lives are saved, whose relationships and the good they can do for the world when they not only regain function but prosper in serving others,
> I believe that would exceed the damages injustice and abuses caused by LACK of conscience.
> 
> For the negative consequences of abuse, these have an end because people cannot tolerate suffering and injustice, and will work and fight for change to correct the problems.
> 
> For the positive repercussions, these continue to multiply; whatever good is derived is then invested in the next person, relationship, generation or stage of growth, so that humanity improves and advances.
> 
> So I have more faith in the good that comes from things, while the bad is finite and has an end.
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean?  I think our corrupt and religious politicians is a great example of how maybe we'd be better off if we weren't run by a bunch of greedy ignorant stupid fools.  Look at every greedy ignorant politician and what do they all have in common?  Democrat or Republican.  What is the ONE thing they all have in common.  They all believe in Jesus and 99% of them are christians.  Do you think they are good people who should be leading our nation?  I didn't think so.
> 
> I'm not going to argue it anymore with you.  You're an atheist who defends how christians have run the world the last 2000 years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 2. Hey don't forget me. I am Christian by faith, and I work with a lot of good people who are trying to combine efforts to overcome the problems of abuses and waste going on now. Many of my Christian friends are the ones with faith to forgive and keep working on corrections. I know a LOT of people who would make great public officials and leaders, but first we have to organize the teamwork and groundwork, so by the time they serve on higher levels of govt, they don't fall into cracks or traps over divisive issues that should be resolved first before building public policy, reforms and programs.
> 
> As for the Christians who may be bad examples of corrupt politicians,
> as long as they commit to follow the laws, then when it comes time for rebuke and correction IN PERSON, these followers will respond and there can be justice.
> 
> I have no problem working things out with people who commit with faith to the laws.
> But most of the successful work to correct problems is done in person, not in public in front of others. (for example, when Herman Cain was addressed IN PERSON about statements he made about Muslims that were unfair, he accepted the correction and apologized; so did Ted Nugent when his peers sought to correct him, he accepted their advice and apologized in public, explaining how these were better people helping him. But when these same people are 'attacked by opponents in the public media' then they don't respond. So of course they look like hypocrites.)
> 
> Most of the problems come from bullying over conflicts "in public" to make a show.
> 
> So if you remove all that pecking order "alpha male/head of the pack" mentality,
> and start treating people as equal peers with equal responsibility to fix problems
> together, as partners or in teams, then you get different response and output.
> 
> if we rewarded, hired, and elected people to mediate, coordinate, and SOLVE problems then maybe
> the Christian leaders with faith that issues and relations can be reconciled would get to demonstrate those skills.
> People without unifying faith would not even believe in the process or positive outcome, much less leading it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Placebo's work too.  Just because some good has come from a lie doesn't mean we should continue telling the lie.  And did you know that when you stub your toe yelling FUCK GOD DAMN will actually make you feel better?  Cursing can actually override pain.
Click to expand...


A little pain now OR ETERNAL HELL!!!


----------



## Montrovant

sealybobo said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had a day off and saw two stories that made me think of you.  One was on how stem cell is going to help spinal cord injuries.  On behalf of all spinal cord patients, you and your god can go fuck yourselves.
> 
> And I thought this might interest you: Americans Would Rather Vote For A Philandering, Pot-Smoking President Than An Atheist One
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've long thought it unfortunate that religious belief seems to be a requirement for the presidency.  However, considering my cynicism when it comes to politicians, I don't actually think it's holding us back in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you mean?  I think our corrupt and religious politicians is a great example of how maybe we'd be better off if we weren't run by a bunch of greedy ignorant stupid fools.  Look at every greedy ignorant politician and what do they all have in common?  Democrat or Republican.  What is the ONE thing they all have in common.  They all believe in Jesus and 99% of them are christians.  Do you think they are good people who should be leading our nation?  I didn't think so.
> 
> I'm not going to argue it anymore with you.  You're an atheist who defends how christians have run the world the last 2000 years?
Click to expand...


*sigh*

What I am saying, what seems so obvious to me, is that corruption is not exclusive to any religion, or to the religious.  What I am saying is that I question the professed faith of many politicians; because it is important to voters to show faith, the politicians do, but I would guess quite a few of them simply mouth the words without meaning it.  What I am saying is that greed, ignorance and stupidity have nothing to do with religious belief.

I would also say that Christians have not run the world for the last 2000 years.  That you think they have shows your own ignorance as well as your bias and provincial thought process.  I would also say that we have plenty of examples of purportedly atheist leaders committing terrible atrocities in recent history, so how has lack of religion prevented human greed, corruption or stupidity exactly?

I would say that even if believing in religion is an ignorant or stupid thing to do, that a person being ignorant or even stupid in regards to one thing does not necessarily speak to the entirety of that person.  I'm confident that there are plenty of people who are, overall, very intelligent that you might find some particular views of theirs to be ignorant or stupid.

Finally, I would say that the more you post on this topic, the more you give the impression that you simply think anyone who doesn't agree with you about a subject with no definite answers must be an idiot.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol!!! Satan sur got you on the cheap!!! He is playing you for a fool and using you as his puppet and tool!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kewl;
> 
> What does he get out of the deal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Satan WANTED TO BE GOD and he was cast out of heaven and now awaits final judgment,satan hates GOD and is here to kill and destroy GOD'S CREATION =MANKIND!!! Why help him??
Click to expand...


There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible concerning the existence of a god. Any evidence proposed by theists to support the Bibles various historical and supernatural claims is non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.

The Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many religious texts. Like those others, it itself constitutes no evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful content do not legitimise it nor distinguish it from other ancient works of literature.

The Bible is historically inaccurate, factually incorrect, inconsistent and contradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time.

I prayed for answers and this is what god told me.  Don't get mad.  This is exactly what god told Joseph Smith when he prayed in 1800 asking god what church he should join.  God told him not to join any of them.  "They are all shit" he said.  He told him to start his own church.  Do you believe that?  You better or you'll go to hell.


----------



## sealybobo

Montrovant said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've long thought it unfortunate that religious belief seems to be a requirement for the presidency.  However, considering my cynicism when it comes to politicians, I don't actually think it's holding us back in any way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not going to argue it anymore with you.  You're an atheist who defends how christians have run the world the last 2000 years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *sigh*
> 
> What I am saying, what seems so obvious to me, is that corruption is not exclusive to any religion, or to the religious.  What I am saying is that I question the professed faith of many politicians; because it is important to voters to show faith, the politicians do, but I would guess quite a few of them simply mouth the words without meaning it.  What I am saying is that greed, ignorance and stupidity have nothing to do with religious belief.
> 
> I would also say that Christians have not run the world for the last 2000 years.  That you think they have shows your own ignorance as well as your bias and provincial thought process.  I would also say that we have plenty of examples of purportedly atheist leaders committing terrible atrocities in recent history, so how has lack of religion prevented human greed, corruption or stupidity exactly?
> 
> I would say that even if believing in religion is an ignorant or stupid thing to do, that a person being ignorant or even stupid in regards to one thing does not necessarily speak to the entirety of that person.  I'm confident that there are plenty of people who are, overall, very intelligent that you might find some particular views of theirs to be ignorant or stupid.
> 
> Finally, I would say that the more you post on this topic, the more you give the impression that you simply think anyone who doesn't agree with you about a subject with no definite answers must be an idiot.
Click to expand...


1.  No I guess jews, muslims and atheists can all be evil, stupid and corrupt.  True.
2.  Christianity became common to all of Europe starting in the 5th century.  Excuse the fuck out of me.  1600 fucking years not 2000.  To be petty about points like this make me not want to reply to you anymore.  Pathetic.
3. What nation is still being run by atheists?  None.  Looks like religion won.  So how are those nations doing today?  Fact is, and you don't seem to want to admit it, religion has been used in a lot of bad ways.  Want some examples?  Read my past posts.  
4.  I know a lot of smart people believe in God.  The validity of a claim, such as the existence of god, is not governed by the intelligence of the minds which hold it. Evidence and reason are the deciding factors.


----------



## emilynghiem

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> YES!! AS MORE AND MORE AMERICANS CHOSE TO reject GOD and GOD'S love and forgivness and chose to live in open sin,America gets weaker and weaker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christians all possess anywhere from 1-7 of the 7 deadly sins.  What sin do you guys not have that the rest of us have?  Abortion and gays?  You need to worry about your own sins my friend.  Wake up and realize gays and abortion are just issues drummed up to get stupid middle class and poor voters like you to vote against their own financial interests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again SB it's NOT about external labels. it's about our internal ability to forgive and correct ourselves, and NOT project our issues outward as "ill will" to harm ourselves, our relations, others and society.
> 
> There are as many Christians who forgive as Atheists who forgive, and that's what saves us.
> 
> There are as many Christians who DON'T forgive and fall off the right path, as Atheists or Muslim or Buddhists. All people can get divided from each other and lose our common way.
> 
> What makes Jesus the center of faith is representing the collective and central process of forgiveness and correcting, to reach agreement on truth, for ALL PEOPLE universally.
> 
> So yes, that role is unique.
> 
> But at the same time, because this connection includes ALL humanity in all our diversity,
> then all tribes, all people of all views and ways of perception and perspective in life,
> may ALL express this SAME UNIVERSAL connection we have to one another
> "in different ways." The truth that guides all humanity is both absolute, while it is expressed relatively and differently for each person.
> 
> So that is why we CANNOT judge by external labels or "association/affiliation" --
> what we are on the outside, what we "call ourselves by group" is NOT what saves us.
> What matters is the spirit in how we live and do things, which determines if we are acting as "neighbors in Christ" or not.
> So atheists can have this, and be acting as the Good Samaritan in the right spirit, while some Christians may be missing it.
> 
> What we forgive and correct on the inside is what determines how we stand with
> the laws of truth and justice that govern all humanity. our language for these
> laws may vary with our culture and tradition.
> 
> What matters is how we stand and work WITH the spirit of the laws and the process
> that governs all humanity, as human nature is universal.
> 
> If we are working WITH the direction of conscience toward truth and justice
> that is WITH CHRIST as neighbors in the spirit of restorative justice with mercy for all.
> 
> if we work AGAINST the direction of truth and justice by conscience,
> that is where we fall out in division, corruption and abuses
> and need to correct these in order to restore agreement and relations
> in good faith and good will.
> 
> If your intent and purpose is for good will, good faith relations, charity and compassion for all, that is universal and one with humanity joined in Christ or by conscience.
> 
> If you have ill will or any unforgiveness or negativity, that part is not of God and will be removed or corrected in the process of seeking peace by perfect truth love and justice.
Click to expand...


----------



## sealybobo

I'm thinking about my friend who was bashing radical islam here in America.  He was mistaking muslims and radical islam.  Why?  Because Bush, the Christian coalition and his foul ass church planted that in his head. 

Today thank gosh we can doubt the existence of god without being murdered and we aren't so stupid that we allow our corrupt leaders to persecute muslim americans after 9-11 the same way we did japanese american's during ww2 after pearl harbor.


----------



## emilynghiem

sealybobo said:


> Placebo's work too.  Just because some good has come from a lie doesn't mean we should continue telling the lie.  And did you know that when you stub your toe yelling FUCK GOD DAMN will actually make you feel better?  Cursing can actually override pain.



No, placebos do not work in place of true forgiveness and the power and transformation that it brings in life. those changes are so deep, they cannot be faked. 

NOBODY I know can fake or force "forgiveness" which is the key to the process working. 
Forgiveness is only real and only works when it is "freely chosen."
The healing it brings is on a spiritual level that we do not control, we can only receive it as a natural process.

If you look up and compare studies on healing prayer,
there was a study done at Harvard that did NOT find any positive results; in fact, some of the people who participated in "intercessory prayer" ended up with worse results than none at all.
They were only studying the process on the outside, so this is like a placebo, where the internal work and process was not factored in.

Then look up the teachings about the healing process written, published and taught by successful practictioners like Dr. Francis MacNutt and Dr. Phillip Goldfedder who work on very deep levels.

The key factor is FORGIVENESS and letting go of all negativity attached to UNFORGIVEN conflicts or even past generations.

If you SKIP that step, the prayer and healing can easily fail!

So placebo praying in "words or actions only" DOES NOT WORK.
Dr. MacNutt explains this clearly in his book on HEALING why the process fails if
steps are skipped, such as by not identifying the root cause and making sure that is forgiven and resolved.

You have to do the deep spiritual work to receive forgiveness, on all levels,
to unblock the obstructions in order for mind body and spirit to heal naturally in full.

Nobody I know could ever fake curing people of demonic voices, but that is one application of spiritual healing that has succeeded where other methods fail.

So if you really want to study the most profound application of 
Christian spiritual healing and why it has authority that other prayers don't have,
look at the books published and the studies or research on deliverance, exorcism, healing generational curses or strongholds.
You won't find people substituting other things as "placebos" where only concentrated prayers in the authority of Christ can overcome these ills.

I believe this field is where science can prove the process going on,
and show that it "correlates" unforgiveness with sickness
and forgiveness with healing (even if we cannot prove where this process is coming from)

For the truly seriously sick people that medicine cannot cure,
no amount of faking it is going to work. The healing has to be real
to handle the serious cases where people's spiritual blockages
are preventing the other levels of treatment from being applied or working.

This cannot be faked, because it will not bring healing but leave the person stuck
if they do not truly let go and receive full healing and forgiveness.

You can just look at the difference with people not truly over their addictions,
for example, and see where "faking it" leads to relapses. Only the people who
truly forgive and heal on all levels causing or contributing to their addiction can beat it.

Anything less and the problem comes back!
I've never known anyone who could fake that with a "placebo."


----------



## sealybobo

Montrovant said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've long thought it unfortunate that religious belief seems to be a requirement for the presidency.  However, considering my cynicism when it comes to politicians, I don't actually think it's holding us back in any way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean?  I think our corrupt and religious politicians is a great example of how maybe we'd be better off if we weren't run by a bunch of greedy ignorant stupid fools.  Look at every greedy ignorant politician and what do they all have in common?  Democrat or Republican.  What is the ONE thing they all have in common.  They all believe in Jesus and 99% of them are christians.  Do you think they are good people who should be leading our nation?  I didn't think so.
> 
> I'm not going to argue it anymore with you.  You're an atheist who defends how christians have run the world the last 2000 years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *sigh*
> 
> What I am saying, what seems so obvious to me, is that corruption is not exclusive to any religion, or to the religious.  What I am saying is that I question the professed faith of many politicians; because it is important to voters to show faith, the politicians do, but I would guess quite a few of them simply mouth the words without meaning it.  What I am saying is that greed, ignorance and stupidity have nothing to do with religious belief.
> 
> I would also say that Christians have not run the world for the last 2000 years.  That you think they have shows your own ignorance as well as your bias and provincial thought process.  I would also say that we have plenty of examples of purportedly atheist leaders committing terrible atrocities in recent history, so how has lack of religion prevented human greed, corruption or stupidity exactly?
> 
> I would say that even if believing in religion is an ignorant or stupid thing to do, that a person being ignorant or even stupid in regards to one thing does not necessarily speak to the entirety of that person.  I'm confident that there are plenty of people who are, overall, very intelligent that you might find some particular views of theirs to be ignorant or stupid.
> 
> Finally, I would say that the more you post on this topic, the more you give the impression that you simply think anyone who doesn't agree with you about a subject with no definite answers must be an idiot.
Click to expand...


I guess I shouldn't generalize if I don't want it happening to me.  But in general:


Atheists are not a homogeneous group. There is no formal moral code resulting from a lack of belief.  Atheists generally derive their sense of right and wrong from an innate and reasoned understanding of which actions contribute towards a society most hospitable to continual well-being and personal fulfillment. They are accountable to their own conscience and to society at large.
Atheists ethics are not derived from some reward or punishment after death, but from a rational consideration of the consequences in this life.  Impulsive desires are compassionately, empathetically and intelligently weighed against long term personal and social goals.  

As social animals that have evolved to want and give love, to have freedom and security, we have learned that we are safer, stronger and more prosperous in a successful group. Crimes are inherently anti-social behaviors that introduce needless risk and are antithetical to the long-term needs and goals of a happy, stable society.


----------



## sealybobo

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.  Richard Dawkins


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi sealybobo:
> 1. RE:
> 
> 
> 1. For those who think "religions" do more harm than good,
> I think this might change if people understood the process of "spiritual healing" which is natural and can be studied scientifically.
> 
> For one, the Christian prayers for deliverance from "demonic" voices and severely damaging and dangerous criminal addiction and mental and physical sickness
> have saved lives that could not be helped with "just medicine alone" but required
> a change in the person's ability to heal and to receive or comply with treatment.
> 
> If you count the people whose lives are saved, whose relationships and the good they can do for the world when they not only regain function but prosper in serving others,
> I believe that would exceed the damages injustice and abuses caused by LACK of conscience.
> 
> For the negative consequences of abuse, these have an end because people cannot tolerate suffering and injustice, and will work and fight for change to correct the problems.
> 
> For the positive repercussions, these continue to multiply; whatever good is derived is then invested in the next person, relationship, generation or stage of growth, so that humanity improves and advances.
> 
> So I have more faith in the good that comes from things, while the bad is finite and has an end.
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Hey don't forget me. I am Christian by faith, and I work with a lot of good people who are trying to combine efforts to overcome the problems of abuses and waste going on now. Many of my Christian friends are the ones with faith to forgive and keep working on corrections. I know a LOT of people who would make great public officials and leaders, but first we have to organize the teamwork and groundwork, so by the time they serve on higher levels of govt, they don't fall into cracks or traps over divisive issues that should be resolved first before building public policy, reforms and programs.
> 
> As for the Christians who may be bad examples of corrupt politicians,
> as long as they commit to follow the laws, then when it comes time for rebuke and correction IN PERSON, these followers will respond and there can be justice.
> 
> I have no problem working things out with people who commit with faith to the laws.
> But most of the successful work to correct problems is done in person, not in public in front of others. (for example, when Herman Cain was addressed IN PERSON about statements he made about Muslims that were unfair, he accepted the correction and apologized; so did Ted Nugent when his peers sought to correct him, he accepted their advice and apologized in public, explaining how these were better people helping him. But when these same people are 'attacked by opponents in the public media' then they don't respond. So of course they look like hypocrites.)
> 
> Most of the problems come from bullying over conflicts "in public" to make a show.
> 
> So if you remove all that pecking order "alpha male/head of the pack" mentality,
> and start treating people as equal peers with equal responsibility to fix problems
> together, as partners or in teams, then you get different response and output.
> 
> if we rewarded, hired, and elected people to mediate, coordinate, and SOLVE problems then maybe
> the Christian leaders with faith that issues and relations can be reconciled would get to demonstrate those skills.
> People without unifying faith would not even believe in the process or positive outcome, much less leading it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Placebo's work too.  Just because some good has come from a lie doesn't mean we should continue telling the lie.  And did you know that when you stub your toe yelling FUCK GOD DAMN will actually make you feel better?  Cursing can actually override pain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A little pain now OR ETERNAL HELL!!!
Click to expand...


I've already told you that you can not scare me into believing your fairytale

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.  Charles Darwin

Or your confidence that jesus is real is laughable.  You have added zero to this conversation other than proving people who believe in god are really stupid for doing so.  Don't you need real hard evidence or proof or you will you just continue to believe a 2000 year fucking superstition/story.  Your priest is dumb at best a liar at worse.


----------



## GISMYS

GOD'S WORD teaches you how you can have eternal life.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi sealybobo:
> 1. RE:
> 
> 
> 1. For those who think "religions" do more harm than good,
> I think this might change if people understood the process of "spiritual healing" which is natural and can be studied scientifically.
> 
> For one, the Christian prayers for deliverance from "demonic" voices and severely damaging and dangerous criminal addiction and mental and physical sickness
> have saved lives that could not be helped with "just medicine alone" but required
> a change in the person's ability to heal and to receive or comply with treatment.
> 
> If you count the people whose lives are saved, whose relationships and the good they can do for the world when they not only regain function but prosper in serving others,
> I believe that would exceed the damages injustice and abuses caused by LACK of conscience.
> 
> For the negative consequences of abuse, these have an end because people cannot tolerate suffering and injustice, and will work and fight for change to correct the problems.
> 
> For the positive repercussions, these continue to multiply; whatever good is derived is then invested in the next person, relationship, generation or stage of growth, so that humanity improves and advances.
> 
> So I have more faith in the good that comes from things, while the bad is finite and has an end.
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Hey don't forget me. I am Christian by faith, and I work with a lot of good people who are trying to combine efforts to overcome the problems of abuses and waste going on now. Many of my Christian friends are the ones with faith to forgive and keep working on corrections. I know a LOT of people who would make great public officials and leaders, but first we have to organize the teamwork and groundwork, so by the time they serve on higher levels of govt, they don't fall into cracks or traps over divisive issues that should be resolved first before building public policy, reforms and programs.
> 
> As for the Christians who may be bad examples of corrupt politicians,
> as long as they commit to follow the laws, then when it comes time for rebuke and correction IN PERSON, these followers will respond and there can be justice.
> 
> I have no problem working things out with people who commit with faith to the laws.
> But most of the successful work to correct problems is done in person, not in public in front of others. (for example, when Herman Cain was addressed IN PERSON about statements he made about Muslims that were unfair, he accepted the correction and apologized; so did Ted Nugent when his peers sought to correct him, he accepted their advice and apologized in public, explaining how these were better people helping him. But when these same people are 'attacked by opponents in the public media' then they don't respond. So of course they look like hypocrites.)
> 
> Most of the problems come from bullying over conflicts "in public" to make a show.
> 
> So if you remove all that pecking order "alpha male/head of the pack" mentality,
> and start treating people as equal peers with equal responsibility to fix problems
> together, as partners or in teams, then you get different response and output.
> 
> if we rewarded, hired, and elected people to mediate, coordinate, and SOLVE problems then maybe
> the Christian leaders with faith that issues and relations can be reconciled would get to demonstrate those skills.
> People without unifying faith would not even believe in the process or positive outcome, much less leading it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Placebo's work too.  Just because some good has come from a lie doesn't mean we should continue telling the lie.  And did you know that when you stub your toe yelling FUCK GOD DAMN will actually make you feel better?  Cursing can actually override pain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A little pain now OR ETERNAL HELL!!!
Click to expand...


What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.  Christopher Hitchens

Hey, god told me you are the devil, wrong and to not listen to you.


----------



## sealybobo

Proposing the existence of an entity or phenomena that can never be investigated via empirical, experimental or reproducible means moves it from the realm of reality and into the realm of unfalsifiable speculation. The inability of science to investigate or disprove such a hypothesis is not the same as proving it true and neither does it automatically lend credence to any metaphysical or theological argument. If such reasoning were actually permissible then one could claim anything imaginable to be real or true if only because it could not be proven false.

Relying on supernatural explanations is a cop-out or a dead-end to deepening our understanding of reality. If a natural cause for something is not known, the scientific approach is to say I dont know yet and keep on looking, not to presume an answer which makes us comfortable.


----------



## GISMYS

BELIEVING IN GOD IS THE FIRST AND MOST IMPORTANT STEP IN FINDING WISDOM,TRUTH,LIGHT, LOVE AND ETERNAL LIFE!   Go for it!!!


----------



## thebrucebeat

GISMYS said:


> GOD'S WORD teaches you how you can have eternal life.



More evidence that the root of religion is the fear of death.


----------



## GISMYS

thebrucebeat said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> GOD'S WORD teaches you how you can have eternal life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More evidence that the root of religion is the fear of death.
Click to expand...


fear of death????????????? NOT IF YOU ARE A BELIEVER,we believbers have GOD'S promise of a happy blessed life now and eternal life!!!


----------



## thebrucebeat

GISMYS said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> GOD'S WORD teaches you how you can have eternal life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More evidence that the root of religion is the fear of death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> fear of death????????????? NOT IF YOU ARE A BELIEVER,we believbers have GOD'S promise of a happy blessed life now and eternal life!!!
Click to expand...


You aren't very bright, are you?
I said the root of religion is the fear of death. It is a creation to avoid that fear. You have overcome the natural fear of death by creating a fiction that pretends death is not your destiny.
It is why you believe. You constantly talk about your dodging death by believing. It is your reason to believe. 
Man has always feared death, and always created a spiritual entity to avoid that fear. You are the perfect example.


----------



## thebrucebeat

GISMYS said:


> BELIEVING IN GOD IS THE FIRST AND MOST IMPORTANT STEP IN FINDING WISDOM,TRUTH,LIGHT, LOVE AND ETERNAL LIFE!   Go for it!!!



More evidence of the need to avoid death and create a way to defeat it.


----------



## BreezeWood

GISMYS said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> GOD'S WORD teaches you how you can have eternal life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More evidence that the root of religion is the fear of death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> fear of death????????????? NOT IF YOU ARE A BELIEVER,we believbers have GOD'S promise of a happy blessed life now and eternal life!!!
Click to expand...



there is no such promise, those admitted to the Everlasting are not themselves guaranteed with certainty an eternal life - be happy with an extension.

.


----------



## Montrovant

sealybobo said:


> 1.  No I guess jews, muslims and atheists can all be evil, stupid and corrupt.  True.
> 2.  Christianity became common to all of Europe starting in the 5th century.  Excuse the fuck out of me.  1600 fucking years not 2000.  To be petty about points like this make me not want to reply to you anymore.  Pathetic.
> 3. What nation is still being run by atheists?  None.  Looks like religion won.  So how are those nations doing today?  Fact is, and you don't seem to want to admit it, religion has been used in a lot of bad ways.  Want some examples?  Read my past posts.
> 4.  I know a lot of smart people believe in God.  The validity of a claim, such as the existence of god, is not governed by the intelligence of the minds which hold it. Evidence and reason are the deciding factors.



1. 
2. If Europe were the world, you'd have a point.  What's pathetic is your inability to see that the world consists of more than Christian majority countries, or the West, or whatever it is that you think constitutes the world.  That you ignore multiple continents with your ridiculous statements is pathetic.
3. If religion is the one thing holding humanity back, wouldn't states run by atheists thrive and flourish?  If they have not, doesn't that contradict your point?
I have said more than once that religion has been used in bad ways.  You, on the other hand, seem to want to ignore any possibility it is also used in good ways.  You also don't seem to think that the bad things done in the name of religions would be done without religion, which again, while possible, is not backed by any evidence.
4. I never made any claim about the existence of god being true.  I've said again and again I do not believe in god.  What I said was your harping on believers being ignorant and stupid is not necessarily indicative of the entirety of that person; that believers may be ignorant and stupid in their religious belief but otherwise quite intelligent.  I was countering the point that you have made about the intelligence and/or ignorance of believers.

Care to throw out any more mistaken or incorrect tidbits?

You are sounding as bad as Boss, arguing your point with a bare minimum of evidence, when there is any at all, as though it is indisputable.


----------



## Montrovant

sealybobo said:


> Proposing the existence of an entity or phenomena that can never be investigated via empirical, experimental or reproducible means moves it from the realm of reality and into the realm of unfalsifiable speculation. The inability of science to investigate or disprove such a hypothesis is not the same as proving it true and neither does it automatically lend credence to any metaphysical or theological argument. If such reasoning were actually permissible then one could claim anything imaginable to be real or true if only because it could not be proven false.
> 
> Relying on supernatural explanations is a cop-out or a dead-end to deepening our understanding of reality. If a natural cause for something is not known, the scientific approach is to say I dont know yet and keep on looking, not to presume an answer which makes us comfortable.



If you're going to quote a website you should provide a link or at least an acknowledgement.


----------



## HUGGY

GISMYS said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> GOD'S WORD teaches you how you can have eternal life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More evidence that the root of religion is the fear of death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> fear of death????????????? NOT IF YOU ARE A BELIEVER,we believbers have GOD'S promise of a happy blessed life now and eternal life!!!
Click to expand...


You may think you will be happy in the afterlife but I'm pretty sure that unless YOUR little slice of heaven involves a padded room I'm certain the other heaven's occupant's bliss won't be what was promised in the brochures...


----------



## GISMYS

HUGGY said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> More evidence that the root of religion is the fear of death.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fear of death????????????? NOT IF YOU ARE A BELIEVER,we believbers have GOD'S promise of a happy blessed life now and eternal life!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You may think you will be happy in the afterlife but I'm pretty sure that unless YOUR little slice of heaven involves a padded room I'm certain the other heaven's occupant's bliss won't be what was promised in the brochures...
Click to expand...


I BELIEVE GOD'S WORD!! What little man thinks -zero!!


----------



## Boss

> *silly boob:* 4. I know a lot of smart people believe in God. The validity of a claim, such as the existence of god, is not governed by the intelligence of the minds which hold it. Evidence and reason are the deciding factors.



Too funny.... first silly boob tries to argue that only stupid people believe in God. When proven wrong, he claims that it doesn't matter, intelligence isn't the issue. He claimed those who believe in God are evil, then has to admit there are also evil Atheists. Now he's saying it's all bout "evidence and reason" but there has been no evidence to disprove God that I am aware of.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> *silly boob:* 4. I know a lot of smart people believe in God. The validity of a claim, such as the existence of god, is not governed by the intelligence of the minds which hold it. Evidence and reason are the deciding factors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too funny.... first silly boob tries to argue that only stupid people believe in God. When proven wrong, he claims that it doesn't matter, intelligence isn't the issue. He claimed those who believe in God are evil, then has to admit there are also evil Atheists. Now he's saying it's all bout "evidence and reason" but there has been no evidence to disprove God that I am aware of.
Click to expand...


You're aware of very little. It's been explained to you repeatedly and tediously that the "prove it isn't" nonsense is pointless. 

There's no evidence to disprove your gods are false gods as compared to the Hindu gods. Therefore, the Hindu gods are proven until you disprove them.

Thanks.


----------



## DriftingSand

koshergrl said:


> One wonders why so-called atheists get so angry at people who believe in God.
> 
> The anger is palpable in this thread.



It's seems to me that it's got to be super difficult for atheists to literally HATE a God they don't even believe exists and yet they head to the religious forum day after day after day after day after day to spew their vitriol and their anger, resentment, and hatred for God.  They're consumed with an obsession to PROVE that God doesn't exist and yet they're never able to fulfill their fantasy. 

*2 Timothy 3:7, "Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth."*


----------



## Boss

HollieAirhead said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *silly boob:* 4. I know a lot of smart people believe in God. The validity of a claim, such as the existence of god, is not governed by the intelligence of the minds which hold it. Evidence and reason are the deciding factors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too funny.... first silly boob tries to argue that only stupid people believe in God. When proven wrong, he claims that it doesn't matter, intelligence isn't the issue. He claimed those who believe in God are evil, then has to admit there are also evil Atheists. Now he's saying it's all bout "evidence and reason" but there has been no evidence to disprove God that I am aware of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're aware of very little. It's been explained to you repeatedly and tediously that the "prove it isn't" nonsense is pointless.
> 
> There's no evidence to disprove your gods are false gods as compared to the Hindu gods. Therefore, the Hindu gods are proven until you disprove them.
> 
> Thanks.
Click to expand...


I never claimed Hindu gods were disproven. The statement was made, belief in God depended on "evidence and reason" and I pointed out there is no evidence. If you can't prove gods are false, you can't claim evidence and reason.


----------



## GISMYS

BOTTOMLINE TRUTH====ALMIGHTY GOD IS THE ONLY TRUE GOD ALL OTHER gods are false and demon inspired lies of satan and evil man.


----------



## Boss

> *silly boob:* Proposing the existence of an entity or phenomena that can *never* be investigated via empirical, experimental or reproducible means moves it from the realm of reality and into the realm of unfalsifiable speculation.



Quick question... when you say "never" here, are you referring to the remaining time in our spacetime continuum of this universe or the greater cosmos? 

You should really be cautious about making "never can" predictions regarding science. You know, it was only about 150-160 years ago, our doctors didn't realize they should wash their hands between digging in cadavers and operating. The first guy who suggested they do so was locked away in the nut house. It was 20 years after his death, someone with the educational acumen came along and discovered he was right. He didn't know how to "scientifically" explain it when he discovered it, and so everyone thought, as they do here... well, he has no scientific credibility, he's just a nutball. But the guy was right! 

Now this is a case where actual "scientific community" hindered scientific progress. But I digress.

The "realm of reality" is one of the key factors in this debate, and deserves more mention than it tends to get. What you actually have is a perception of reality. You experience reality in a unique way from every other being who is also able to experience that reality. Your reality is completely different than mine, since we've never met and have probably not ever been in close proximity to each other, I would say our perceptions of reality are vastly different. So we understand, this thing called "reality" isn't a universal, and it's not simply what one individual imagines it to be. It differs from person to person, from place to place, all of us experiencing different perceptions of reality. 

What enables our perceptions of reality is time. If you comprehend physics, you know that time is distance. More specifically, the distance the universe expands. Ergo: Reality is the universe expanding. Our concept of time is a temporary condition of our ever-expanding universe and will one day end. 

Now what I'd like to know is, whenever our universe, concepts of time and "realm-o-reality" is over, will the Immortal Creator do it all over again in six days? ...Trick question there, btw.


----------



## GISMYS

Scriptures say that no mere man has ever seen, heard, or even imagined what wonderful things God has ready for those who love the Lord.  10 But we know about these things because God has sent his Spirit to tell us, and his Spirit searches out and shows us all of God&#8217;s deepest secrets.  11 No one can really know what anyone else is thinking or what he is really like except that person himself. And no one can know God&#8217;s thoughts except God&#8217;s own Spirit.  12 And God has actually given us his Spirit (not the world&#8217;s spirit) to tell us about the wonderful free gifts of grace and blessing that God has given us.  13 In telling you about these gifts we have even used the very words given to us by the Holy Spirit, not words that we as men might choose. So we use the Holy Spirit&#8217;s words to explain the Holy Spirit&#8217;s facts.  14 But the man who isn&#8217;t a Christian can&#8217;t understand and can&#8217;t accept these thoughts from God, which the Holy Spirit teaches us. They sound foolish to him because only those who have the Holy Spirit within them can understand what the Holy Spirit means. Others just can&#8217;t take it in.  15 But the spiritual man has insight into everything, and that bothers and baffles the man of the world, who can&#8217;t understand him at all.  16 How could he? For certainly he has never been one to know the Lord&#8217;s thoughts, or to discuss them with him, or to move the hands of God by prayer. But, strange as it seems, we Christians actually do have within us a portion of the very thoughts and mind of Christ. 1 Corinthians 2:9-16


----------



## emilynghiem

sealybobo said:


> long emily quote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can we help each other to orchestrate the symphony in harmony and avoid chaos?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I learned a long time ago that an injustice to one person is an injustice to everyone.  So, when they pick on women, gays, blacks and immigrants I know that if I don't say anything when it's not me, who should speak up when it is finally me?  *You* all need to realize that *they* use color, religion, race, sex, $ & guns to divide *us.*
Click to expand...


Agreed, yes, all these targets are abused to divide people.
But ALL sides are doing this, it isn't "them vs. us" but we are caught in the same net.

Look at your own words in bold -- that's how these tactics win by dividing people as
"You" "They" "Us."  Your words already show how this gets implanted in OUR thinking.

The way to defeat the "divide and conquer" strategy is to rise above differences,
EMBRACE and address one another as "WE" -- when "WE" share responsibility for no longer
playing into these divisions, but correcting the problems together, then we no longer fall victim to them.

In this spirit WE can hear each other, WE can redress each other's grievances and act in concert.

We can no longer be manipulated when we start thinking and acting on more inclusive terms -- nothing can come between us and divide us, much less play sides against the other.
We cannot afford to live in houses divided against each other, parties or nations, or the whole world is divided and nobody wins -- we all lose while our resources are wasted on conflict.
We cannot afford to play off these conflicts, either politically or emotionally, in a vicious cycle that cannot sustain.

How can "WE" do more to overcome these divisions so we aren't victimized any longer?
How do we stop the "them vs. us" mentality and start enforcing laws on greater terms?
Once we overcome these barriers, how much better can our ideas, resources and relationships be coordinated to develop cost-effective lasting solutions?
how do we get to there from here?


----------



## GISMYS

emilynghiem said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> long emily quote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can we help each other to orchestrate the symphony in harmony and avoid chaos?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I learned a long time ago that an injustice to one person is an injustice to everyone.  So, when they pick on women, gays, blacks and immigrants I know that if I don't say anything when it's not me, who should speak up when it is finally me?  *You* all need to realize that *they* use color, religion, race, sex, $ & guns to divide *us.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed, yes, all these targets are abused to divide people.
> But ALL sides are doing this, it isn't "them vs. us" but we are caught in the same net.
> 
> Look at your own words in bold -- that's how these tactics win by dividing people as
> "You" "They" "Us."  Your words already show how this gets implanted in OUR thinking.
> 
> The way to defeat the "divide and conquer" strategy is to rise above differences,
> EMBRACE and address one another as "WE" -- when "WE" share responsibility for no longer
> playing into these divisions, but correcting the problems together, then we no longer fall victim to them.
> 
> In this spirit WE can hear each other, WE can redress each other's grievances and act in concert.
> 
> We can no longer be manipulated when we start thinking and acting on more inclusive terms -- nothing can come between us and divide us, much less play sides against the other.
> We cannot afford to live in houses divided against each other, parties or nations, or the whole world is divided and nobody wins -- we all lose while our resources are wasted on conflict.
> We cannot afford to play off these conflicts, either politically or emotionally, in a vicious cycle that cannot sustain.
> 
> How can "WE" do more to overcome these divisions so we aren't victimized any longer?
> How do we stop the "them vs. us" mentality and start enforcing laws on greater terms?
> Once we overcome these barriers, how much better can our ideas, resources and relationships be coordinated to develop cost-effective lasting solutions?
> how do we get to there from here?
Click to expand...


The anti-christ will have the answer=one world goverment,one world religion. Billions will believe his lies.


----------



## emilynghiem

Yes, man and our minds being finite and linear in perception
cannot possible conceive of or contain infinite universal knowledge and
understanding of all things that God represents over all time and space and humanity.

We can see glimpses, representations or "relationships" to understand our part,
but the whole of God by definition is beyond man's limited and biased scope.

That is why it takes all of us to put our knowledge together that we DO have
so at least we can appreciate a comprehensive representation of the many
facet, applications and reflections of God in our world in the realm we CAN understand.

GISMYS it is amazing that we can communicate and understand at all.
People complain about religious and political differences, but of course that is going to happen. The points and concepts/principles where we agree and align are even that much more precious where we find these.

The path of destruction is broad, where we think others are wrong and we are right; which everyone is prone to by our experiences we know are true for us.

The path of righteousness is narrow, where we actually align and agree in truth.
Those places where we agree set us free from the areas of strife and conflicts that can be resolved in the spirit of truth and justice, where we agree to follow this together.

We cannot know all things, but the parts we can know and agree on as central and universal, these are enough to save us and our relationships from stumbling over conflict.

GISMYS I continue to pray for all of us to be uplifted and receive greater wisdom, insight, clarity and understanding, and improve our communications to share with one another for mutual benefit and growth. In this way may we help each other prepare to receive even greater blessings and clear direction as to where our country is going, as the spirit of truth and justice serves to establish order and harmony among all people worldwide.

May the Kingdom of God be received among us where the very best in life is multiplied and replicated to uplift every person, every nation, every group and institution on the planet to align and serve the highest purpose for the greatest good for all. In Jesus name Amen.



GISMYS said:


> Scriptures say that no mere man has ever seen, heard, or even imagined what wonderful things God has ready for those who love the Lord.  10 But we know about these things because God has sent his Spirit to tell us, and his Spirit searches out and shows us all of Gods deepest secrets.  11 No one can really know what anyone else is thinking or what he is really like except that person himself. And no one can know Gods thoughts except Gods own Spirit.  12 And God has actually given us his Spirit (not the worlds spirit) to tell us about the wonderful free gifts of grace and blessing that God has given us.  13 In telling you about these gifts we have even used the very words given to us by the Holy Spirit, not words that we as men might choose. So we use the Holy Spirits words to explain the Holy Spirits facts.  14 But the man who isnt a Christian cant understand and cant accept these thoughts from God, which the Holy Spirit teaches us. They sound foolish to him because only those who have the Holy Spirit within them can understand what the Holy Spirit means. Others just cant take it in.  15 But the spiritual man has insight into everything, and that bothers and baffles the man of the world, who cant understand him at all.  16 How could he? For certainly he has never been one to know the Lords thoughts, or to discuss them with him, or to move the hands of God by prayer. But, strange as it seems, we Christians actually do have within us a portion of the very thoughts and mind of Christ. 1 Corinthians 2:9-16


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> GOD'S WORD teaches you how you can have eternal life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More evidence that the root of religion is the fear of death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> fear of death????????????? NOT IF YOU ARE A BELIEVER,we believbers have GOD'S promise of a happy blessed life now and eternal life!!!
Click to expand...


First off Gismys, how can you have eternal life?  By believing a fairytale?  One that isn't even original?  You do know prior religions all had human sacrafices, virgin births, miracles, etc.  All those other religions were fake but not yours?  Come on.  A true god would reward the rest of us for not following your cult.  Its like a giraffe caring about the mosquitos.  Yea, god sits around worrying about you.  

I believe in karma and good vibrations too brother.  Live and let live.  Be kind to your neighbors.  Don't fuck his wife.  Don't steal or kill.  The only two laws in the 10 commandments actually.  But beyond that you're just wildly speculating.  But I get you brother.  Piece.  John Lennon imagined there's no religion why can't you?  Why can't you even admit that there is a possibility 11 guys made up the story around 2000 years ago and the religion flourished because people were dumb.  You sound dumb.  Or are you just afraid.  That I understand.  One of the reasons human's cling to religion.  Makes them feel good.  I get that.  What a scam.  Tax free and all you sell is the promise of eternal life and socialization with other dumb people in your community?  I get it.  I wouldn't want to hang out with a bunch of stupid born agains or catholics.  They are wasting their lives, but if it makes them feel good, go for it.  Just don't push those ideas on the rest of us.  You are free to be religious or a kkk member or both in America. 

You guys say, "read the bible and come back and talk to me then".  Well I have.  Now you read all this and then tell me how you still believe the unbelievable.  Google whynogod and read it, brother.  Jesus told  you to go spread the word, well I was somehow told to spread this word.  Wake up!


----------



## hunarcy

sealybobo said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to want "evidence" for the obvious.  When Bush denied 8 years of stem cell research and you need more proof that religion hasn't held us back?  My mom might not be dying of Alzheimers if it weren't for those pricks.  But then again maybe the person that would have invented the cure was aborted.  LOL.
> 
> The GOP in every state they run has severely limited abortion rights.  Do you not know this?  Its like your asking me to prove that water is wet.  I can't know how little you know.  Do I have to prove to you that heat is hot?
> 
> And did you forget catholic run insurance companies don't want to cover birth control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're an idiot.  Bush didn't "deny 8 years of stem cell research, you mouth breathing buffoon.  He may have banned public money in 2001, but he didn't prevent anyone else from paying for the research!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's holding us back.  Most of the cures we have today come from government funding because corporations don't like paying for R&D.  No money in it.  So if you don't grasp what I'm saying don't say I'm an idiot just because you are too stupid to know reality.  But I guess that goes with the territory of believing in fairtytales.  What you suckers don't realize is the Illuminati that Bush belongs to doesn't believe in God.  Ayn Rand doesn't believe in God.  So your politics and religion don't makes sense together but its ok because dumb religious Americans will vote against themselves financially over god gays and guns.  This is why they have used religion from the beginning of societies to control the masses, just like I said before.
Click to expand...


First, it was "DENY" and then when you're shown to be wrong, it become "HOLDING US BACK" and then you go on some rant about faitytales (sic) and religion.  You can't debate, you can't be bothered with telling the truth and you're not clever enough to lie effectively.  That's why you're an idiot.


----------



## emilynghiem

GISMYS said:


> The anti-christ will have the answer=one world goverment,one world religion. Billions will believe his lies.



Dear GISMYS: Please help by distinguishing the difference between
false government imposed by totalitarian oppression and coercion
vs.
TRUE agreement established universally by free will, reason and good conscience.

There is nothing wrong with establishing one agreement on law for all people,
but it has to be done in the right spirit, by individual and collective consent, not by political force of one group over another.

The difference between 
AntiChrist and Christ is
* Retributive Justice based on Unforgiveness and negative ill will toward others
* Restorative Justice based on Forgiveness and correction that includes people as equals, for good will for all, which is one with God's will.

What is wrong with imposing "one law" is if this is done OPPRESSIVELY to ABUSE authority, for selfish political gain.
These two are clearly separate and not to be confused with each other.

The correct way to establish law for all people is for the people to come to this agreement by informed consent and democratic process, where the laws and systems REPRESENT the body of people united.
If people come together naturally to agree on truth and how to administer justice freely by consensus, this is a good thing, this is God's perfect will; there is no way to corrupt it where it is done in the right spirit,  which is where Christ Jesus represents the "only intermediary" for universal Justice and central authority over all laws to be established for all people.

There is nothing wrong or evil about that. This is the fulfillment of all laws which Jesus as Divine Justice is supposed to do -- to bring on the Kingdom of God that all people will receive and be made whole.


----------



## GISMYS

emilynghiem said:


> Yes, man and our minds being finite and linear in perception
> cannot possible conceive of or contain infinite universal knowledge and
> understanding of all things that God represents over all time and space and humanity.
> 
> We can see glimpses, representations or "relationships" to understand our part,
> but the whole of God by definition is beyond man's limited and biased scope.
> 
> That is why it takes all of us to put our knowledge together that we DO have
> so at least we can appreciate a comprehensive representation of the many
> facet, applications and reflections of God in our world in the realm we CAN understand.
> 
> GISMYS it is amazing that we can communicate and understand at all.
> People complain about religious and political differences, but of course that is going to happen. The points and concepts/principles where we agree and align are even that much more precious where we find these.
> 
> The path of destruction is broad, where we think others are wrong and we are right; which everyone is prone to by our experiences we know are true for us.
> 
> The path of righteousness is narrow, where we actually align and agree in truth.
> Those places where we agree set us free from the areas of strife and conflicts that can be resolved in the spirit of truth and justice, where we agree to follow this together.
> 
> We cannot know all things, but the parts we can know and agree on as central and universal, these are enough to save us and our relationships from stumbling over conflict.
> 
> GISMYS I continue to pray for all of us to be uplifted and receive greater wisdom, insight, clarity and understanding, and improve our communications to share with one another for mutual benefit and growth. In this way may we help each other prepare to receive even greater blessings and clear direction as to where our country is going, as the spirit of truth and justice serves to establish order and harmony among all people worldwide.
> 
> May the Kingdom of God be received among us where the very best in life is multiplied and replicated to uplift every person, every nation, every group and institution on the planet to align and serve the highest purpose for the greatest good for all. In Jesus name Amen.
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scriptures say that no mere man has ever seen, heard, or even imagined what wonderful things God has ready for those who love the Lord.  10 But we know about these things because God has sent his Spirit to tell us, and his Spirit searches out and shows us all of Gods deepest secrets.  11 No one can really know what anyone else is thinking or what he is really like except that person himself. And no one can know Gods thoughts except Gods own Spirit.  12 And God has actually given us his Spirit (not the worlds spirit) to tell us about the wonderful free gifts of grace and blessing that God has given us.  13 In telling you about these gifts we have even used the very words given to us by the Holy Spirit, not words that we as men might choose. So we use the Holy Spirits words to explain the Holy Spirits facts.  14 But the man who isnt a Christian cant understand and cant accept these thoughts from God, which the Holy Spirit teaches us. They sound foolish to him because only those who have the Holy Spirit within them can understand what the Holy Spirit means. Others just cant take it in.  15 But the spiritual man has insight into everything, and that bothers and baffles the man of the world, who cant understand him at all.  16 How could he? For certainly he has never been one to know the Lords thoughts, or to discuss them with him, or to move the hands of God by prayer. But, strange as it seems, we Christians actually do have within us a portion of the very thoughts and mind of Christ. 1 Corinthians 2:9-16
Click to expand...


We believers who have God's word as our source for truth not man's silly,evil,ideas and opinions=====we Christians actually do have within us a portion of the very thoughts and mind of Christ. 1 Corinthians 2:9-16


----------



## sealybobo

Montrovant said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  No I guess jews, muslims and atheists can all be evil, stupid and corrupt.  True.
> 2.  Christianity became common to all of Europe starting in the 5th century.  Excuse the fuck out of me.  1600 fucking years not 2000.  To be petty about points like this make me not want to reply to you anymore.  Pathetic.
> 3. What nation is still being run by atheists?  None.  Looks like religion won.  So how are those nations doing today?  Fact is, and you don't seem to want to admit it, religion has been used in a lot of bad ways.  Want some examples?  Read my past posts.
> 4.  I know a lot of smart people believe in God.  The validity of a claim, such as the existence of god, is not governed by the intelligence of the minds which hold it. Evidence and reason are the deciding factors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.
> 2. If Europe were the world, you'd have a point.  What's pathetic is your inability to see that the world consists of more than Christian majority countries, or the West, or whatever it is that you think constitutes the world.  That you ignore multiple continents with your ridiculous statements is pathetic.
> 3. If religion is the one thing holding humanity back, wouldn't states run by atheists thrive and flourish?  If they have not, doesn't that contradict your point?
> I have said more than once that religion has been used in bad ways.  You, on the other hand, seem to want to ignore any possibility it is also used in good ways.  You also don't seem to think that the bad things done in the name of religions would be done without religion, which again, while possible, is not backed by any evidence.
> 4. I never made any claim about the existence of god being true.  I've said again and again I do not believe in god.  What I said was your harping on believers being ignorant and stupid is not necessarily indicative of the entirety of that person; that believers may be ignorant and stupid in their religious belief but otherwise quite intelligent.  I was countering the point that you have made about the intelligence and/or ignorance of believers.
> 
> Care to throw out any more mistaken or incorrect tidbits?
> 
> You are sounding as bad as Boss, arguing your point with a bare minimum of evidence, when there is any at all, as though it is indisputable.
Click to expand...


1.  

2.  Who rules the world or has for 1600 years?  Christians.  Rome, England, USA.  You want to argue petty points that mean nothing.  Derailing the actual topic.  What is your position please so I can pick it apart.  Lets start with you.  Why do god haters persist?

3.  Any athiest country would have to go up against, deal with, trade with, war with all the other religious countries.  Until religion thinking is gone who knows?  Did you ever hear the guys on Star Trek talk about religion?  In the future it doesn't exist and neither does war, hopefully.  Much smarter people in the future.  If not we won't be here.  Who says so?  Scientists.  

4.  I've agreed with you on this point.  Smart person X believes in god or You are not qualified.

Ad hominem + Argument from Authority.

Invisible pink unicorns exist. Youre not an expert in them, so you cant say they dont.

The validity of a claim, such as the existence of god, is not governed by the intelligence of the minds which hold it. Evidence and reason are the deciding factors.

Sir Isaac Newton, one of historys greatest scientists, was not only intensely religious but also believed in alchemical transmutation. Alchemy is, however, fully incorrect given our modern understanding of chemistry, the atom and nucleosynthysis.

The fact that an intelligent person holds an irrational belief is simply evidence that our brains are able to compartmentalise world-views and models from one another, usually in order to maintain a state of ignorant bliss and escape the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  No I guess jews, muslims and atheists can all be evil, stupid and corrupt.  True.
> 2.  Christianity became common to all of Europe starting in the 5th century.  Excuse the fuck out of me.  1600 fucking years not 2000.  To be petty about points like this make me not want to reply to you anymore.  Pathetic.
> 3. What nation is still being run by atheists?  None.  Looks like religion won.  So how are those nations doing today?  Fact is, and you don't seem to want to admit it, religion has been used in a lot of bad ways.  Want some examples?  Read my past posts.
> 4.  I know a lot of smart people believe in God.  The validity of a claim, such as the existence of god, is not governed by the intelligence of the minds which hold it. Evidence and reason are the deciding factors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.
> 2. If Europe were the world, you'd have a point.  What's pathetic is your inability to see that the world consists of more than Christian majority countries, or the West, or whatever it is that you think constitutes the world.  That you ignore multiple continents with your ridiculous statements is pathetic.
> 3. If religion is the one thing holding humanity back, wouldn't states run by atheists thrive and flourish?  If they have not, doesn't that contradict your point?
> I have said more than once that religion has been used in bad ways.  You, on the other hand, seem to want to ignore any possibility it is also used in good ways.  You also don't seem to think that the bad things done in the name of religions would be done without religion, which again, while possible, is not backed by any evidence.
> 4. I never made any claim about the existence of god being true.  I've said again and again I do not believe in god.  What I said was your harping on believers being ignorant and stupid is not necessarily indicative of the entirety of that person; that believers may be ignorant and stupid in their religious belief but otherwise quite intelligent.  I was countering the point that you have made about the intelligence and/or ignorance of believers.
> 
> Care to throw out any more mistaken or incorrect tidbits?
> 
> You are sounding as bad as Boss, arguing your point with a bare minimum of evidence, when there is any at all, as though it is indisputable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.
> 
> 2.  Who rules the world or has for 1600 years?  Christians.  Rome, England, USA.  You want to argue petty points that mean nothing.  Derailing the actual topic.  What is your position please so I can pick it apart.  Lets start with you.  Why do god haters persist?
> 
> 3.  Any athiest country would have to go up against, deal with, trade with, war with all the other religious countries.  Until religion thinking is gone who knows?  Did you ever hear the guys on Star Trek talk about religion?  In the future it doesn't exist and neither does war, hopefully.  Much smarter people in the future.  If not we won't be here.  Who says so?  Scientists.
> 
> 4.  I've agreed with you on this point.  Smart person X believes in god or You are not qualified.
> 
> Ad hominem + Argument from Authority.
> 
> Invisible pink unicorns exist. Youre not an expert in them, so you cant say they dont.
> 
> The validity of a claim, such as the existence of god, is not governed by the intelligence of the minds which hold it. Evidence and reason are the deciding factors.
> 
> Sir Isaac Newton, one of historys greatest scientists, was not only intensely religious but also believed in alchemical transmutation. Alchemy is, however, fully incorrect given our modern understanding of chemistry, the atom and nucleosynthysis.
> 
> The fact that an intelligent person holds an irrational belief is simply evidence that our brains are able to compartmentalise world-views and models from one another, usually in order to maintain a state of ignorant bliss and escape the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.
Click to expand...


TRY TO THINK!!! It takes far more than calling yourself"christian" to be a CHRISTIAN.


----------



## sealybobo

hunarcy said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're an idiot.  Bush didn't "deny 8 years of stem cell research, you mouth breathing buffoon.  He may have banned public money in 2001, but he didn't prevent anyone else from paying for the research!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's holding us back.  Most of the cures we have today come from government funding because corporations don't like paying for R&D.  No money in it.  So if you don't grasp what I'm saying don't say I'm an idiot just because you are too stupid to know reality.  But I guess that goes with the territory of believing in fairtytales.  What you suckers don't realize is the Illuminati that Bush belongs to doesn't believe in God.  Ayn Rand doesn't believe in God.  So your politics and religion don't makes sense together but its ok because dumb religious Americans will vote against themselves financially over god gays and guns.  This is why they have used religion from the beginning of societies to control the masses, just like I said before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, it was "DENY" and then when you're shown to be wrong, it become "HOLDING US BACK" and then you go on some rant about faitytales (sic) and religion.  You can't debate, you can't be bothered with telling the truth and you're not clever enough to lie effectively.  That's why you're an idiot.
Click to expand...


I don't know what you think I'm denying.  Perhaps we need to start fresh or remind me what the point is you caught me lying/wrong about?  

This is a debate our smartest scientists/atheists have actually had with your kooky religious leaders and I'm sure you guys feel like your side won the debates after it is over but you have not.  Just like the earth only being 10,000 years old, you are a joke.  Its all spin.  Just like with politics, you guys never admit any of our points.  So lets just start over.  God doesn't exist.  There is no proof of it.  Never talked to us through snakes, talked to noah or jesus or moses.  The smartest people in the world say so.  Not all of them, but a lot of the atheists you see are much more intelligent than the average hick in the bible belt.  And we've/you've been brainwashed.  My reason for persisting is because I don't want a christian nation or a shiite sunni or jewish nation.  More and more people every day are waking up and when you wake up you either laugh when people talk about god or you feel like pointing out there isn't any evidence of a supreme being.  

I never lie.  I come here to be honest.  I lie to people around me who are religious because you can't even be president if you don't believe the fairytale.  Talk about intimidation.  

Did you see 7 years a slave.  The white master taught it to his slaves to keep them in line.  Doesn't that tell you anything?  Of course not, you're not a slave.


----------



## emilynghiem

sealybobo said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to want "evidence" for the obvious.  When Bush denied 8 years of stem cell research and you need more proof that religion hasn't held us back?  My mom might not be dying of Alzheimers if it weren't for those pricks.  But then again maybe the person that would have invented the cure was aborted.  LOL.
> 
> The GOP in every state they run has severely limited abortion rights.  Do you not know this?  Its like your asking me to prove that water is wet.  I can't know how little you know.  Do I have to prove to you that heat is hot?
> 
> And did you forget catholic run insurance companies don't want to cover birth control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're an idiot.  Bush didn't "deny 8 years of stem cell research, you mouth breathing buffoon.  He may have banned public money in 2001, but he didn't prevent anyone else from paying for the research!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's holding us back.  Most of the cures we have today come from government funding because corporations don't like paying for R&D.  No money in it.  So if you don't grasp what I'm saying don't say I'm an idiot just because you are too stupid to know reality.  But I guess that goes with the territory of believing in fairtytales.  What you suckers don't realize is the Illuminati that Bush belongs to doesn't believe in God.  Ayn Rand doesn't believe in God.  So your politics and religion don't makes sense together but its ok because dumb religious Americans will vote against themselves financially over god gays and guns.  This is why they have used religion from the beginning of societies to control the masses, just like I said before.
Click to expand...


Not to worry, sealybobo
By the time the activists unite who want health care reform AND drug policy reform,
all this corporate crap profiting off useless medications instead of focusing on cures
will come out.

Instead of just focusing researching on marijuana to prove political arguments,
we could be researching free and natural healing methods even more effective
than cannibis and without risks of side effects.

I agree we can do a lot more with our resources in medical research to cut the costs of waste through our govt and health care systems, along with reforming our wasteful prison and legal systems that profit off crime and conflicts instead of reducing costs to the public.

All these areas need reform. By teaming up around solutions, instead of fighting separate political and religious battles issue by issue, we can make more progress in the future.

I can see more leaders and members of different parties coming together for collaboration.
We just can't afford to waste resources in conflict over costly problems going unchecked.

Out of pure necessity, people are figuring it out.


----------



## Uncensored2008

sealybobo said:


> Why are we worse?



200 million dead in a single century - NO ONE slaughters innocents the way Atheists do.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.
> 2. If Europe were the world, you'd have a point.  What's pathetic is your inability to see that the world consists of more than Christian majority countries, or the West, or whatever it is that you think constitutes the world.  That you ignore multiple continents with your ridiculous statements is pathetic.
> 3. If religion is the one thing holding humanity back, wouldn't states run by atheists thrive and flourish?  If they have not, doesn't that contradict your point?
> I have said more than once that religion has been used in bad ways.  You, on the other hand, seem to want to ignore any possibility it is also used in good ways.  You also don't seem to think that the bad things done in the name of religions would be done without religion, which again, while possible, is not backed by any evidence.
> 4. I never made any claim about the existence of god being true.  I've said again and again I do not believe in god.  What I said was your harping on believers being ignorant and stupid is not necessarily indicative of the entirety of that person; that believers may be ignorant and stupid in their religious belief but otherwise quite intelligent.  I was countering the point that you have made about the intelligence and/or ignorance of believers.
> 
> Care to throw out any more mistaken or incorrect tidbits?
> 
> You are sounding as bad as Boss, arguing your point with a bare minimum of evidence, when there is any at all, as though it is indisputable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.
> 
> 2.  Who rules the world or has for 1600 years?  Christians.  Rome, England, USA.  You want to argue petty points that mean nothing.  Derailing the actual topic.  What is your position please so I can pick it apart.  Lets start with you.  Why do god haters persist?
> 
> 3.  Any athiest country would have to go up against, deal with, trade with, war with all the other religious countries.  Until religion thinking is gone who knows?  Did you ever hear the guys on Star Trek talk about religion?  In the future it doesn't exist and neither does war, hopefully.  Much smarter people in the future.  If not we won't be here.  Who says so?  Scientists.
> 
> 4.  I've agreed with you on this point.  Smart person X believes in god or You are not qualified.
> 
> Ad hominem + Argument from Authority.
> 
> Invisible pink unicorns exist. Youre not an expert in them, so you cant say they dont.
> 
> The validity of a claim, such as the existence of god, is not governed by the intelligence of the minds which hold it. Evidence and reason are the deciding factors.
> 
> Sir Isaac Newton, one of historys greatest scientists, was not only intensely religious but also believed in alchemical transmutation. Alchemy is, however, fully incorrect given our modern understanding of chemistry, the atom and nucleosynthysis.
> 
> The fact that an intelligent person holds an irrational belief is simply evidence that our brains are able to compartmentalise world-views and models from one another, usually in order to maintain a state of ignorant bliss and escape the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> TRY TO THINK!!! It takes far more than calling yourself"christian" to be a CHRISTIAN.
Click to expand...


What does it take?  Because I've talked to born agains, jehovas, mormons, catholics, presbyterians, lutherans, protestants and they all say something different.  

And it sure doesn't take feeding the poor or healing the sick.  Look at how we cut off food stamps to give the rich tax breaks and how they fight giving us all great universal healthcare like every other country gives their citizens.


----------



## sealybobo

emilynghiem said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're an idiot.  Bush didn't "deny 8 years of stem cell research, you mouth breathing buffoon.  He may have banned public money in 2001, but he didn't prevent anyone else from paying for the research!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's holding us back.  Most of the cures we have today come from government funding because corporations don't like paying for R&D.  No money in it.  So if you don't grasp what I'm saying don't say I'm an idiot just because you are too stupid to know reality.  But I guess that goes with the territory of believing in fairtytales.  What you suckers don't realize is the Illuminati that Bush belongs to doesn't believe in God.  Ayn Rand doesn't believe in God.  So your politics and religion don't makes sense together but its ok because dumb religious Americans will vote against themselves financially over god gays and guns.  This is why they have used religion from the beginning of societies to control the masses, just like I said before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not to worry, sealybobo
> By the time the activists unite who want health care reform AND drug policy reform,
> all this corporate crap profiting off useless medications instead of focusing on cures
> will come out.
> 
> Instead of just focusing researching on marijuana to prove political arguments,
> we could be researching free and natural healing methods even more effective
> than cannibis and without risks of side effects.
> 
> I agree we can do a lot more with our resources in medical research to cut the costs of waste through our govt and health care systems, along with reforming our wasteful prison and legal systems that profit off crime and conflicts instead of reducing costs to the public.
> 
> All these areas need reform. By teaming up around solutions, instead of fighting separate political and religious battles issue by issue, we can make more progress in the future.
> 
> I can see more leaders and members of different parties coming together for collaboration.
> We just can't afford to waste resources in conflict over costly problems going unchecked.
> 
> Out of pure necessity, people are figuring it out.
Click to expand...


I miss the days before reagan and the gop figured out how to win over the moral majority by being the god loving party and portraying the democrats as godless.  I hope one day people return to keeping that shit to themselves.  I'm Greek Orthodox.  You don't see us walking around trying to convert people.  And being Greek I know a lot of the men in that church are only there because their wives and kids are there.  They wish they were golfing.  

And I remember taking offense to them calling us godless.  I'd say "hey wait a minute I'm a liberal and I believe in god too".  Funny that now I don't.  Google whynogod and see for yourself.


----------



## emilynghiem

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> A little pain now OR ETERNAL HELL!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've already told you that you can not scare me into believing your fairytale
> 
> &#8220;Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.&#8221; &#8211; Charles Darwin
> 
> Or your confidence that jesus is real is laughable.  You have added zero to this conversation other than proving people who believe in god are really stupid for doing so.  Don't you need real hard evidence or proof or you will you just continue to believe a 2000 year fucking superstition/story.  Your priest is dumb at best a liar at worse.
Click to expand...


Hi sealybobo: 

Just because a parent or teacher fails to teach math to kids by "spanking or scolding them" and  threatening to punish them, doesn't mean "math is false."

I agree this isn't the best way to teach it, and has caused kids to reject math
out of "math anxiety" so it causes more damage and has the opposite effect.
Same with the message in religions that is lost because of this.

As for Jesus, the concept of Divine Justice is real, but does require faith to believe in it and act on it where this has never been proven to exist in real life. All faith based.

Nobody has seen "Justice established equally for all people"
and yes, you can say this is a "fairytale"
It is idealistic and naive, where you would have to think like an innocent child to believe that all people are inherently good.
The Bible explains that people must become like little children to enter into the Kingdom of God which seems impossible, a make believe fantasy compared with the reality in the world.

But how can we strive for Equal Justice for All if we have no concept or faith that it can exist?

Of course, faith in Justice is necessary so we CAN take steps in that direction.
Same with faith in Jesus -- this is the same process, requires faith in advance,
in order to take steps toward establishing universal truth and justice in all relationships.

this process is real, but people have diverse perceptions of how successful we are at it.
we lose our faith in Justice because of injustice we experience on a daily basis,
but that doesn't mean Justice isn't a real concept, universal to all people and driving us by conscience to achieve it.


----------



## sealybobo

Uncensored2008 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are we worse?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 200 million dead in a single century - NO ONE slaughters innocents the way Atheists do.
Click to expand...


They may not have believed in god but we don't claim them.  They didn't kill in the name of atheism like christians have.  Just look at how your forefathers mass murdered the indians.  You make me laugh.

The Unknown Hitler: Nazi Roots in the Occult - Crystalinks

Hitler was fucking crazy.  He was into the occult.  

The occult is "knowledge of the hidden.  "knowledge of the paranormal", as opposed to "knowledge of the measurable".  sometimes taken to mean knowledge that "is meant only for certain people

Didn't Bush say god talked to him?  Didn't George Washington?  How come god always talks to presidents name George?  

And remember, you've been brainwashed by the rich people that run this country.  They want to war with Russia what are they going to call them?  Atheists, socialists, communists!!!  You must not understand what atheists are all about.  Very simple, we don't believe there is a god.  No proof.  We need proof.  That's it.  Doesn't take faith to not believe in something.  Just need more evidence.


----------



## Uncensored2008

sealybobo said:


> I'm thinking about my friend who was bashing radical islam here in America.  He was mistaking muslims and radical islam.  Why?  Because Bush, the Christian coalition and his foul ass church planted that in his head.



BOOOOOSSSSSSHHHH - huh?

The dude who called Islam "the religion of peace?" 

Uh yeah, let's just say that your credibility is waning.



> Today thank gosh we can doubt the existence of god without being murdered and we aren't so stupid that we allow our corrupt leaders to persecute muslim americans after 9-11 the same way we did japanese american's during ww2 after pearl harbor.



Doubting the existence of god is agnosticism. Atheism is a fanatical religion in it's own right - at war with the Christian god - though fully supportive of Allah, the Muslim god.

No group is as aggressive in proselytizing as the Atheists, who have established their religion as the national church, declaring competing faiths to be heretics and using federal officials to silence competing ideas.

I don't believe in the Christian god - therefor, when others pray to him, it's no different than kids talking about Superman, who cares?

Ah but the Atheist is thrown into a rage - like their Muslim allies - they froth at the mouth at the blasphemy of a little girl saying a prayer at a football game.

You claim you don't believe in god, but I don't believe you - we do not fight against that which we don't believe in, we don't wage war on mythical beings.

Agnostics don't care what anyone else believes, as long as those beliefs don't involve physical violence or coercion. 

Atheists demand that ALL bow to their beliefs, and seek to use physical violence and coercion to enforce their demands.


----------



## Uncensored2008

sealybobo said:


> I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.  Richard Dawkins



Dawkins is the most radical religious fanatic on Earth. The Ayatollah Khomeini was open minded and rational compared to that fuckwad Dawkins.


----------



## sealybobo

emilynghiem said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> A little pain now OR ETERNAL HELL!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've already told you that you can not scare me into believing your fairytale
> 
> Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.  Charles Darwin
> 
> Or your confidence that jesus is real is laughable.  You have added zero to this conversation other than proving people who believe in god are really stupid for doing so.  Don't you need real hard evidence or proof or you will you just continue to believe a 2000 year fucking superstition/story.  Your priest is dumb at best a liar at worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi sealybobo:
> 
> Just because a parent or teacher fails to teach math to kids by "spanking or scolding them" and  threatening to punish them, doesn't mean "math is false."
> 
> I agree this isn't the best way to teach it, and has caused kids to reject math
> out of "math anxiety" so it causes more damage and has the opposite effect.
> Same with the message in religions that is lost because of this.
> 
> As for Jesus, the concept of Divine Justice is real, but does require faith to believe in it and act on it where this has never been proven to exist in real life. All faith based.
> 
> Nobody has seen "Justice established equally for all people"
> and yes, you can say this is a "fairytale"
> It is idealistic and naive, where you would have to think like an innocent child to believe that all people are inherently good.
> The Bible explains that people must become like little children to enter into the Kingdom of God which seems impossible, a make believe fantasy compared with the reality in the world.
> 
> But how can we strive for Equal Justice for All if we have no concept or faith that it can exist?
> 
> Of course, faith in Justice is necessary so we CAN take steps in that direction.
> Same with faith in Jesus -- this is the same process, requires faith in advance,
> in order to take steps toward establishing universal truth and justice in all relationships.
> 
> this process is real, but people have diverse perceptions of how successful we are at it.
> we lose our faith in Justice because of injustice we experience on a daily basis,
> but that doesn't mean Justice isn't a real concept, universal to all people and driving us by conscience to achieve it.
Click to expand...


I have listened to insight from good christians, hindus, mormons, jews, muslims, jehovas, etc.  I like the things you are saying.  But none of it would ever get me to believe the jesus story because that very same corrupt society is the one that invented it.  If you like parts of it like feed the poor and heal the sick that is great.  If a wise hindu tells you something you've never heard in the bible before, take it and use it.  But I don't believe the people who are telling me that jesus said only through him can you enter the kingdom of heaven.  That is a story written 80 years after the fact.  And the only people who claim he did miracles or was the messiah were 11 men.  Judas killed himself.  Just google whynogod and then pick another religion, or become spiritual without picking one religion, but bottom line is you don't need a god to be a good person.  A lot of good people have said to do good things.  You should take their advice.  But if they say only through them can you go to heaven or god talked to them, RUN!


----------



## DriftingSand

Uncensored2008 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are we worse?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 200 million dead in a single century - NO ONE slaughters innocents the way Atheists do.
Click to expand...


Shhhhh.  Don't want to call them on their own hypocrisy.  You might hurt their feelings and their egos.


----------



## Uncensored2008

DriftingSand said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> One wonders why so-called atheists get so angry at people who believe in God.
> 
> The anger is palpable in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's seems to me that it's got to be super difficult for atheists to literally HATE a God they don't even believe exists and yet they head to the religious forum day after day after day after day after day to spew their vitriol and their anger, resentment, and hatred for God.  They're consumed with an obsession to PROVE that God doesn't exist and yet they're never able to fulfill their fantasy.
> 
> *2 Timothy 3:7, "Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth."*
Click to expand...



Hatred is not a sign of disbelief - apathy is. Sealybobo and Richard Dawkins are anything but apathetic about the war they wage on Christianity.


----------



## sealybobo

Uncensored2008 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.  Richard Dawkins
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dawkins is the most radical religious fanatic on Earth. The Ayatollah Khomeini was open minded and rational compared to that fuckwad Dawkins.
Click to expand...


Bet you miss the days where you could ruin his life for saying such things or even tar and feather/murder him, huh?  Because that is what god would want you to do.  

I talk to a lot of people about this stuff.  I'll usually feel them out first or get to know them for awhile but eventually ask them if they believe in god and you wouldn't believe either

a.  How many don't.
b.  How many say they do because they've never thought it through they were just brainwashed from birth so they never gave it much thought and just always assumed god was real and so was the jesus story.  I was one of them for a long time.  Thank you internet for allowing me to fully research the subject.  google whynogod and see.


----------



## emilynghiem

sealybobo said:


> I miss the days before reagan and the gop figured out how to win over the moral majority by being the god loving party and portraying the democrats as godless.  I hope one day people return to keeping that shit to themselves.  I'm Greek Orthodox.  You don't see us walking around trying to convert people.  And being Greek I know a lot of the men in that church are only there because their wives and kids are there.  They wish they were golfing.
> 
> And I remember taking offense to them calling us godless.  I'd say "hey wait a minute I'm a liberal and I believe in god too".  Funny that now I don't.  Google whynogod and see for yourself.



I have a lot of respect for the Greek community leadership which I do run across among the Democrats. Maybe it's a common respect for "natural laws" but I notice you and I might have an easier time connecting on common, despite our differences, where this takes a bit more work with other people on here. (Please do not give up because I do believe the rational approach is what is going to agreement on truth in religion first, and then in politics as a consequence.) I believe there is an important legacy to fulfill from the Greek history in teaching democratic principles, the Greeks as the Gentiles in the Bible, and the Greek ethics that were reconciled with church teachings.

It's not that the Democrats are godless it's that the party is set up to "react" in opposition to the Republicans. The principles talk about holding the Republican Party in check but don't mention fellow Democrats. So it comes across as reactionary; where the "white conservatives" are pegged as the "default class in power" and everyone else is "reacting" to that and trying to fight for equality in relationship to that.

What I find missing among Democrats is invoking authority directly from the Constitution, but depending instead on going through party to get political force and power. Again it comes across as reactionary, where the lobbying and mobilization is done "in response to" the right/Republican/conservatives.

What happened to enforcing laws and principles directly for their own sake?

That is what I was trying to address, but I found my fellow neighbors coworkers and Democrats did not even understand what due process was, what the difference was between state local and federal govt and process of representation, etc. Everything is lobbied in relation to what the Republicans are pushing. So that is why the Democrats
come across as making government their God and Church through which they get anything done; in "reaction" to how Conservatives and Christians organize through churches and businesses to do things they don't want to depend on govt for, the liberals flock to government, party, and media to push their agenda to counteract those influences.

I don't find a lot of fellow liberals/progressives who invoke authority for self-government directly from the laws without depending on party to act as their authority.

the Christians invoke authority directly from the laws in the Bible (and the church got in trouble where people depended on church authority instead of checking against religious abuse directly by enforcing principles in the Bible)

I see more Libertarians and Conservatives/Republicans invoking Constitutional laws and authority directly from the source and not depending on party or govt to do so.

Where are Constitutional laws and govt taught through the Democrats to help members to become more independent and work toward self-govt? That is what I was trying to push for, and ran into a bunch of political caucusing that only focused on who was electable.

Sorry to stray, but I believe the SAME PROCESS of establishing the spirit of the laws
for Equal Justice happens through the churches with religions and with govt laws as well.

It is a parallel process, where state goes through a similar "Reformation" movement as the church did, but minus the bloodshed if we use civil democratic process to reform our govt.

It is still the process of establishing "equal justice under law" for all people. I believe the gentiles will accomplish this through the natural laws and Constitutional principles that are universal language for all people. Universal Justice or Jesus by any name is the same.


----------



## sealybobo

Uncensored2008 said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> One wonders why so-called atheists get so angry at people who believe in God.
> 
> The anger is palpable in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's seems to me that it's got to be super difficult for atheists to literally HATE a God they don't even believe exists and yet they head to the religious forum day after day after day after day after day to spew their vitriol and their anger, resentment, and hatred for God.  They're consumed with an obsession to PROVE that God doesn't exist and yet they're never able to fulfill their fantasy.
> 
> *2 Timothy 3:7, "Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hatred is not a sign of disbelief - apathy is. Sealybobo and Richard Dawkins are anything but apathetic about the war they wage on Christianity.
Click to expand...


You want us to be apathetic while you try to push your religion on the rest of us?  Forget it.  If you kept it to yourselves then we would be apathetic.  The fact is, a pew research poll said people would rather vote for a cheating pot smoker than an atheist.  So don't try to cry and play the fucking victims here.  We see how "they" use religion to control the dumb masses and FINALLY after over 2000 years we can finally speak up and not be burned at the stake.  You guys want to cry about Pol Pot and Stalin?  Rubber and glue bitches!  We all know the murderous history of christians killing for the lord.  It's ok if its for the lord, remember?  Do you think GW Bush would have invaded a christian country?  Fuck no.


----------



## Uncensored2008

sealybobo said:


> They may not have believed in god but we don't claim them.



Well, how mighty convenient.



> They didn't kill in the name of atheism like christians have.



Lying does not help your case.



> Just look at how your forefathers mass murdered the indians.  You make me laugh.



Small pox is my forfather?

ROFL

You religious fanatics are an ignorant bunch..



> Hitler was fucking crazy.  He was into the occult.



Ohh, a straw man, how fun.

I'm sure it will support your fucked up religion...



> The occult is "knowledge of the hidden.  "knowledge of the paranormal", as opposed to "knowledge of the measurable".  sometimes taken to mean knowledge that "is meant only for certain people
> 
> Didn't Bush say god talked to him?  Didn't George Washington?  How come god always talks to presidents name George?
> 
> And remember, you've been brainwashed by the rich people that run this country.  They want to war with Russia what are they going to call them?  Atheists, socialists, communists!!!  You must not understand what atheists are all about.  Very simple, we don't believe there is a god.  No proof.  We need proof.  That's it.  Doesn't take faith to not believe in something.  Just need more evidence.



I'm not sure the talking points you get from what ever Atheist hate site you use serve you well; you sort of ramble from topic to topic and never make much of a point. Sort of a feral baboon flinging shit, and hoping some will stick..


----------



## sealybobo

emilynghiem said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I miss the days before reagan and the gop figured out how to win over the moral majority by being the god loving party and portraying the democrats as godless.  I hope one day people return to keeping that shit to themselves.  I'm Greek Orthodox.  You don't see us walking around trying to convert people.  And being Greek I know a lot of the men in that church are only there because their wives and kids are there.  They wish they were golfing.
> 
> And I remember taking offense to them calling us godless.  I'd say "hey wait a minute I'm a liberal and I believe in god too".  Funny that now I don't.  Google whynogod and see for yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a lot of respect for the Greek community leadership which I do run across among the Democrats. Maybe it's a common respect for "natural laws" but I notice you and I might have an easier time connecting on common, despite our differences, where this takes a bit more work with other people on here. (Please do not give up because I do believe the rational approach is what is going to agreement on truth in religion first, and then in politics as a consequence.) I believe there is an important legacy to fulfill from the Greek history in teaching democratic principles, the Greeks as the Gentiles in the Bible, and the Greek ethics that were reconciled with church teachings.
> 
> It's not that the Democrats are godless it's that the party is set up to "react" in opposition to the Republicans. The principles talk about holding the Republican Party in check but don't mention fellow Democrats. So it comes across as reactionary; where the "white conservatives" are pegged as the "default class in power" and everyone else is "reacting" to that and trying to fight for equality in relationship to that.
> 
> What I find missing among Democrats is invoking authority directly from the Constitution, but depending instead on going through party to get political force and power. Again it comes across as reactionary, where the lobbying and mobilization is done "in response to" the right/Republican/conservatives.
> 
> What happened to enforcing laws and principles directly for their own sake?
> 
> That is what I was trying to address, but I found my fellow neighbors coworkers and Democrats did not even understand what due process was, what the difference was between state local and federal govt and process of representation, etc. Everything is lobbied in relation to what the Republicans are pushing. So that is why the Democrats
> come across as making government their God and Church through which they get anything done; in "reaction" to how Conservatives and Christians organize through churches and businesses to do things they don't want to depend on govt for, the liberals flock to government, party, and media to push their agenda to counteract those influences.
> 
> I don't find a lot of fellow liberals/progressives who invoke authority for self-government directly from the laws without depending on party to act as their authority.
> 
> the Christians invoke authority directly from the laws in the Bible (and the church got in trouble where people depended on church authority instead of checking against religious abuse directly by enforcing principles in the Bible)
> 
> I see more Libertarians and Conservatives/Republicans invoking Constitutional laws and authority directly from the source and not depending on party or govt to do so.
> 
> Where are Constitutional laws and govt taught through the Democrats to help members to become more independent and work toward self-govt? That is what I was trying to push for, and ran into a bunch of political caucusing that only focused on who was electable.
> 
> Sorry to stray, but I believe the SAME PROCESS of establishing the spirit of the laws
> for Equal Justice happens through the churches with religions and with govt laws as well.
> 
> It is a parallel process, where state goes through a similar "Reformation" movement as the church did, but minus the bloodshed if we use civil democratic process to reform our govt.
> 
> It is still the process of establishing "equal justice under law" for all people. I believe the gentiles will accomplish this through the natural laws and Constitutional principles that are universal language for all people. Universal Justice or Jesus by any name is the same.
Click to expand...


Yes more stupid lazy Americans need to vote.  I believe in the General Welfare Clause and that the libertarian way would destroy the middle class and be a windfall for the rich.  We need regulations.  Sorry but our government is the referee.  Without a referee the team with the most money will win every time.


----------



## sealybobo

Uncensored2008 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> They may not have believed in god but we don't claim them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, how mighty convenient.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They didn't kill in the name of atheism like christians have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lying does not help your case.
> 
> 
> 
> Small pox is my forfather?
> 
> ROFL
> 
> You religious fanatics are an ignorant bunch..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hitler was fucking crazy.  He was into the occult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ohh, a straw man, how fun.
> 
> I'm sure it will support your fucked up religion...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The occult is "knowledge of the hidden.  "knowledge of the paranormal", as opposed to "knowledge of the measurable".  sometimes taken to mean knowledge that "is meant only for certain people
> 
> Didn't Bush say god talked to him?  Didn't George Washington?  How come god always talks to presidents name George?
> 
> And remember, you've been brainwashed by the rich people that run this country.  They want to war with Russia what are they going to call them?  Atheists, socialists, communists!!!  You must not understand what atheists are all about.  Very simple, we don't believe there is a god.  No proof.  We need proof.  That's it.  Doesn't take faith to not believe in something.  Just need more evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure the talking points you get from what ever Atheist hate site you use serve you well; you sort of ramble from topic to topic and never make much of a point. Sort of a feral baboon flinging shit, and hoping some will stick..
Click to expand...


I was going to say based on your reply you missed every point I made.


----------



## Uncensored2008

sealybobo said:


> Bet you miss the days where you could ruin his life for saying such things or even tar and feather/murder him, huh?  Because that is what god would want you to do.



Because you are a bigot, you respond to all things through bigotry.

In this case, you appear an utter fool - despite knowing that I have no "god," you are forced to spew the idiocy above, because you lack the wits to construct any thought outside of your mindless bigotry.

You are an apt disciple of that pile of shit Dawkins, you emulate your little pope very well.



> I talk to a lot of people about this stuff.  I'll usually feel them out first or get to know them for awhile but eventually ask them if they believe in god and you wouldn't believe either



Yes, like a Jehovah's Witness shoving the Watchtower in the face of strangers, you are compelled to force your foolish religion on all.

Atheists are aggressive in proselytizing. 



> a.  How many don't.
> b.  How many say they do because they've never thought it through they were just brainwashed from birth so they never gave it much thought and just always assumed god was real and so was the jesus story.  I was one of them for a long time.  Thank you internet for allowing me to fully research the subject.  google whynogod and see.



Will you be rewarded for the souls you save?


----------



## sealybobo

DriftingSand said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are we worse?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 200 million dead in a single century - NO ONE slaughters innocents the way Atheists do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shhhhh.  Don't want to call them on their own hypocrisy.  You might hurt their feelings and their egos.
Click to expand...


Oh fuck you.  There is no atheist nation.  Oh, and by the way, I'm going to claim Hitler as an atheist for a minute to make a point.  First of all, if it were truly an atheist society then when did they all turn back to god?  Because isn't Germany a christian nation?  Show me the history of their atheism. 

And just because hitler hated organized religion and the church, he was still a catholic.  In fact the christian church helped Hitler.  Anyways, yes I am off point now.

Back to my point.  Look at how Hitler almost conquered the world with science.  If he wasn't crazy and on drugs he might have pulled it off.  If he wasn't crazy.  Anyways, wasn't it them who invented the atom bomb and first rocket plains?  Maybe Hitler and the 3rd Reich are a good example of how without religion we could maybe do some great things.  In fact the church held hitler back.  He didn't want to piss them off so he went along in fear of he might lose control of his citizens who did believe in god.  See people will fight and die for country and god.  This is proof they use religion to control us.  Wake up.  

And I'm being a little silly here, but yes the Nazi's did a lot without science.  

And funny because you'd think that a godless middle east country might be the one to nuke israel but it'll most likely be a radical religious muslim.  You guys need to claim the 9-11 hijackers.  They might not believe in your god but they believe in god alright.  And notice your bullshit story isn't much better than theirs.  Talking snakes vs. 47 virgins?  I'll take the virgins.


----------



## sealybobo

Uncensored2008 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bet you miss the days where you could ruin his life for saying such things or even tar and feather/murder him, huh?  Because that is what god would want you to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because you are a bigot, you respond to all things through bigotry.
> 
> In this case, you appear an utter fool - despite knowing that I have no "god," you are forced to spew the idiocy above, because you lack the wits to construct any thought outside of your mindless bigotry.
> 
> You are an apt disciple of that pile of shit Dawkins, you emulate your little pope very well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I talk to a lot of people about this stuff.  I'll usually feel them out first or get to know them for awhile but eventually ask them if they believe in god and you wouldn't believe either
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, like a Jehovah's Witness shoving the Watchtower in the face of strangers, you are compelled to force your foolish religion on all.
> 
> Atheists are aggressive in proselytizing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a.  How many don't.
> b.  How many say they do because they've never thought it through they were just brainwashed from birth so they never gave it much thought and just always assumed god was real and so was the jesus story.  I was one of them for a long time.  Thank you internet for allowing me to fully research the subject.  google whynogod and see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Will you be rewarded for the souls you save?
Click to expand...


Aren't you an atheist?

I hate libertarians.  They try to pretend to be different/better than conservatives but in some ways libertarians are the worse.  Sometimes I think its conservatives, then libertarians and some days I think tea partiers are the worse.  You all suck if you ask me.  

Will you be rewarded for the dicks you sucked?


----------



## Montrovant

Uncensored2008 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm thinking about my friend who was bashing radical islam here in America.  He was mistaking muslims and radical islam.  Why?  Because Bush, the Christian coalition and his foul ass church planted that in his head.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BOOOOOSSSSSSHHHH - huh?
> 
> The dude who called Islam "the religion of peace?"
> 
> Uh yeah, let's just say that your credibility is waning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Today thank gosh we can doubt the existence of god without being murdered and we aren't so stupid that we allow our corrupt leaders to persecute muslim americans after 9-11 the same way we did japanese american's during ww2 after pearl harbor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doubting the existence of god is agnosticism. Atheism is a fanatical religion in it's own right - at war with the Christian god - though fully supportive of Allah, the Muslim god.
> 
> No group is as aggressive in proselytizing as the Atheists, who have established their religion as the national church, declaring competing faiths to be heretics and using federal officials to silence competing ideas.
> 
> I don't believe in the Christian god - therefor, when others pray to him, it's no different than kids talking about Superman, who cares?
> 
> Ah but the Atheist is thrown into a rage - like their Muslim allies - they froth at the mouth at the blasphemy of a little girl saying a prayer at a football game.
> 
> You claim you don't believe in god, but I don't believe you - we do not fight against that which we don't believe in, we don't wage war on mythical beings.
> 
> Agnostics don't care what anyone else believes, as long as those beliefs don't involve physical violence or coercion.
> 
> Atheists demand that ALL bow to their beliefs, and seek to use physical violence and coercion to enforce their demands.
Click to expand...


----------



## sealybobo

Uncensored2008 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bet you miss the days where you could ruin his life for saying such things or even tar and feather/murder him, huh?  Because that is what god would want you to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because you are a bigot, you respond to all things through bigotry.
> 
> In this case, you appear an utter fool - despite knowing that I have no "god," you are forced to spew the idiocy above, because you lack the wits to construct any thought outside of your mindless bigotry.
> 
> You are an apt disciple of that pile of shit Dawkins, you emulate your little pope very well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I talk to a lot of people about this stuff.  I'll usually feel them out first or get to know them for awhile but eventually ask them if they believe in god and you wouldn't believe either
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, like a Jehovah's Witness shoving the Watchtower in the face of strangers, you are compelled to force your foolish religion on all.
> 
> Atheists are aggressive in proselytizing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a.  How many don't.
> b.  How many say they do because they've never thought it through they were just brainwashed from birth so they never gave it much thought and just always assumed god was real and so was the jesus story.  I was one of them for a long time.  Thank you internet for allowing me to fully research the subject.  google whynogod and see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Will you be rewarded for the souls you save?
Click to expand...



Do you really call a person who hates racists, stupid & greedy people a bigot?  Ok I'm a bigot.


----------



## HUGGY

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> More evidence that the root of religion is the fear of death.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fear of death????????????? NOT IF YOU ARE A BELIEVER,we believbers have GOD'S promise of a happy blessed life now and eternal life!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First off Gismys, how can you have eternal life?  By believing a fairytale?  One that isn't even original?  You do know prior religions all had human sacrafices, virgin births, miracles, etc.  All those other religions were fake but not yours?  Come on.  A true god would reward the rest of us for not following your cult.  Its like a giraffe caring about the mosquitos.  Yea, god sits around worrying about you.
> 
> I believe in karma and good vibrations too brother.  Live and let live.  Be kind to your neighbors.  Don't fuck his wife.  Don't steal or kill.  The only two laws in the 10 commandments actually.  But beyond that you're just wildly speculating.  But I get you brother.  Piece.  John Lennon imagined there's no religion why can't you?  Why can't you even admit that there is a possibility 11 guys made up the story around 2000 years ago and the religion flourished because people were dumb.  You sound dumb.  Or are you just afraid.  That I understand.  One of the reasons human's cling to religion.  Makes them feel good.  I get that.  What a scam.  Tax free and all you sell is the promise of eternal life and socialization with other dumb people in your community?  I get it.  I wouldn't want to hang out with a bunch of stupid born agains or catholics.  They are wasting their lives, but if it makes them feel good, go for it.  Just don't push those ideas on the rest of us.  You are free to be religious or a kkk member or both in America.
> 
> You guys say, "read the bible and come back and talk to me then".  Well I have.  Now you read all this and then tell me how you still believe the unbelievable.  Google whynogod and read it, brother.  Jesus told  you to go spread the word, well I was somehow told to spread this word.  Wake up!
Click to expand...


Seriously...  Ya gotta jump through all the hoops to get to "heaven" and your big reward is an eternity with Jizzmo??  EEE GADS !!!  I would rather take white hot ice picks and jam them in my eye balls. !!!!


----------



## sealybobo

Montrovant said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm thinking about my friend who was bashing radical islam here in America.  He was mistaking muslims and radical islam.  Why?  Because Bush, the Christian coalition and his foul ass church planted that in his head.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BOOOOOSSSSSSHHHH - huh?
> 
> The dude who called Islam "the religion of peace?"
> 
> Uh yeah, let's just say that your credibility is waning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Today thank gosh we can doubt the existence of god without being murdered and we aren't so stupid that we allow our corrupt leaders to persecute muslim americans after 9-11 the same way we did japanese american's during ww2 after pearl harbor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doubting the existence of god is agnosticism. Atheism is a fanatical religion in it's own right - at war with the Christian god - though fully supportive of Allah, the Muslim god.
> 
> No group is as aggressive in proselytizing as the Atheists, who have established their religion as the national church, declaring competing faiths to be heretics and using federal officials to silence competing ideas.
> 
> I don't believe in the Christian god - therefor, when others pray to him, it's no different than kids talking about Superman, who cares?
> 
> Ah but the Atheist is thrown into a rage - like their Muslim allies - they froth at the mouth at the blasphemy of a little girl saying a prayer at a football game.
> 
> You claim you don't believe in god, but I don't believe you - we do not fight against that which we don't believe in, we don't wage war on mythical beings.
> 
> Agnostics don't care what anyone else believes, as long as those beliefs don't involve physical violence or coercion.
> 
> Atheists demand that ALL bow to their beliefs, and seek to use physical violence and coercion to enforce their demands.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


We're making up for lost time.  We couldn't say anything for 7000 years and now finally we get to wake people up from the brainwashing.  You got a 7000 year head start and now you are crying because we're cathing up.  Boo fucking  hoo.


----------



## Montrovant

sealybobo said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  No I guess jews, muslims and atheists can all be evil, stupid and corrupt.  True.
> 2.  Christianity became common to all of Europe starting in the 5th century.  Excuse the fuck out of me.  1600 fucking years not 2000.  To be petty about points like this make me not want to reply to you anymore.  Pathetic.
> 3. What nation is still being run by atheists?  None.  Looks like religion won.  So how are those nations doing today?  Fact is, and you don't seem to want to admit it, religion has been used in a lot of bad ways.  Want some examples?  Read my past posts.
> 4.  I know a lot of smart people believe in God.  The validity of a claim, such as the existence of god, is not governed by the intelligence of the minds which hold it. Evidence and reason are the deciding factors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.
> 2. If Europe were the world, you'd have a point.  What's pathetic is your inability to see that the world consists of more than Christian majority countries, or the West, or whatever it is that you think constitutes the world.  That you ignore multiple continents with your ridiculous statements is pathetic.
> 3. If religion is the one thing holding humanity back, wouldn't states run by atheists thrive and flourish?  If they have not, doesn't that contradict your point?
> I have said more than once that religion has been used in bad ways.  You, on the other hand, seem to want to ignore any possibility it is also used in good ways.  You also don't seem to think that the bad things done in the name of religions would be done without religion, which again, while possible, is not backed by any evidence.
> 4. I never made any claim about the existence of god being true.  I've said again and again I do not believe in god.  What I said was your harping on believers being ignorant and stupid is not necessarily indicative of the entirety of that person; that believers may be ignorant and stupid in their religious belief but otherwise quite intelligent.  I was countering the point that you have made about the intelligence and/or ignorance of believers.
> 
> Care to throw out any more mistaken or incorrect tidbits?
> 
> You are sounding as bad as Boss, arguing your point with a bare minimum of evidence, when there is any at all, as though it is indisputable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.
> 
> 2.  Who rules the world or has for 1600 years?  Christians.  Rome, England, USA.  You want to argue petty points that mean nothing.  Derailing the actual topic.  What is your position please so I can pick it apart.  Lets start with you.  Why do god haters persist?
> 
> 3.  Any athiest country would have to go up against, deal with, trade with, war with all the other religious countries.  Until religion thinking is gone who knows?  Did you ever hear the guys on Star Trek talk about religion?  In the future it doesn't exist and neither does war, hopefully.  Much smarter people in the future.  If not we won't be here.  Who says so?  Scientists.
> 
> 4.  I've agreed with you on this point.  Smart person X believes in god or You are not qualified.
> 
> Ad hominem + Argument from Authority.
> 
> Invisible pink unicorns exist. Youre not an expert in them, so you cant say they dont.
> 
> The validity of a claim, such as the existence of god, is not governed by the intelligence of the minds which hold it. Evidence and reason are the deciding factors.
> 
> Sir Isaac Newton, one of historys greatest scientists, was not only intensely religious but also believed in alchemical transmutation. Alchemy is, however, fully incorrect given our modern understanding of chemistry, the atom and nucleosynthysis.
> 
> The fact that an intelligent person holds an irrational belief is simply evidence that our brains are able to compartmentalise world-views and models from one another, usually in order to maintain a state of ignorant bliss and escape the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.
Click to expand...


You think it is petty that I am unwilling to concede Europe and the US as the entirety of the world?  No one has ruled the world for 1600 years.  It's a big world, lots of people, lots of places, no one has ruled it all.  That you continue to make such a claim highlights how little thought you are putting into this.

If you'd read this thread from the beginning, you'd see that I've been arguing against the OP premise since the beginning.  

So now any religion in the world holds back the entire world?  Your goalposts have wheels.

Star Trek?  You're using Star Trek as some sort of evidence of the future?  

Are you claiming that scientists say humanity won't exist in the future if religious belief does?

You continue to use quotes from others without providing acknowledgements.


----------



## emilynghiem

GISMYS said:


> We believers who have God's word as our source for truth not man's silly,evil,ideas and opinions=====we Christians actually do have within us a portion of the very thoughts and mind of Christ. 1 Corinthians 2:9-16



Yes, so let's put together all those parts of the truth from all of us,
assemble them in Christ where all is reconciled, and establish one truth universal for all.
Agreed?

Note: I believe the secular Gentiles are not only part of this process, but one of the major participants to make sure natural laws are established by science and rational understanding.

I believe it helps establish truth with two independent witnesses both in agreement.

I believe even the conversations here are part of that process of eliminating or resolving conflict, threshing the wheat, and getting to the universal essential points agreed as true.


----------



## sealybobo

I notice no one is trying anymore to prove god exists.  So it is established, you have to believe without evidence.  IE have faith.  Now it's just attack me and change the subject and some people are re defining what god is.  Sorry guys.  God is either who the christians say he is or he's the one the muslim's say he is.  If neither of them are right then you have to think it is possible the whole thing is made up.  Zero evidence.  Science has even discovered the part of the brain that made it up.  Without evidence all we can say is we don't know.  Agnostic Atheism is the best position to have.


----------



## DriftingSand

sealybobo said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's seems to me that it's got to be super difficult for atheists to literally HATE a God they don't even believe exists and yet they head to the religious forum day after day after day after day after day to spew their vitriol and their anger, resentment, and hatred for God.  They're consumed with an obsession to PROVE that God doesn't exist and yet they're never able to fulfill their fantasy.
> 
> *2 Timothy 3:7, "Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hatred is not a sign of disbelief - apathy is. Sealybobo and Richard Dawkins are anything but apathetic about the war they wage on Christianity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want us to be apathetic while you try to push your religion on the rest of us?  Forget it.  If you kept it to yourselves then we would be apathetic.  The fact is, a pew research poll said people would rather vote for a cheating pot smoker than an atheist.  So don't try to cry and play the fucking victims here.  We see how "they" use religion to control the dumb masses and FINALLY after over 2000 years we can finally speak up and not be burned at the stake.  You guys want to cry about Pol Pot and Stalin?  Rubber and glue bitches!  We all know the murderous history of christians killing for the lord.  It's ok if its for the lord, remember?  Do you think GW Bush would have invaded a christian country?  Fuck no.
Click to expand...


Why shouldn't we voice our opinions concerning our religion?  You push your religion on us as a matter of routine ("you" meaning God haters in general). Please note that our nation was founded by Christians so that their posterity could live in religious peace and freedom.  Take a look at my signature line and the link to the Library of Congress.  Thanks to our Christian founders who fought, bled, and died for YOUR freedom to speak.


----------



## Montrovant

sealybobo said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> BOOOOOSSSSSSHHHH - huh?
> 
> The dude who called Islam "the religion of peace?"
> 
> Uh yeah, let's just say that your credibility is waning.
> 
> 
> 
> Doubting the existence of god is agnosticism. Atheism is a fanatical religion in it's own right - at war with the Christian god - though fully supportive of Allah, the Muslim god.
> 
> No group is as aggressive in proselytizing as the Atheists, who have established their religion as the national church, declaring competing faiths to be heretics and using federal officials to silence competing ideas.
> 
> I don't believe in the Christian god - therefor, when others pray to him, it's no different than kids talking about Superman, who cares?
> 
> Ah but the Atheist is thrown into a rage - like their Muslim allies - they froth at the mouth at the blasphemy of a little girl saying a prayer at a football game.
> 
> You claim you don't believe in god, but I don't believe you - we do not fight against that which we don't believe in, we don't wage war on mythical beings.
> 
> Agnostics don't care what anyone else believes, as long as those beliefs don't involve physical violence or coercion.
> 
> Atheists demand that ALL bow to their beliefs, and seek to use physical violence and coercion to enforce their demands.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're making up for lost time.  We couldn't say anything for 7000 years and now finally we get to wake people up from the brainwashing.  You got a 7000 year head start and now you are crying because we're cathing up.  Boo fucking  hoo.
Click to expand...


You responded to my post with this because?


----------



## emilynghiem

Montrovant said:


> SB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Who rules the world or has for 1600 years?  Christians.  Rome, England, USA.  You want to argue petty points that mean nothing.  Derailing the actual topic.  What is your position please so I can pick it apart.  Lets start with you.  Why do god haters persist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think it is petty that I am unwilling to concede Europe and the US as the entirety of the world?  No one has ruled the world for 1600 years.  It's a big world, lots of people, lots of places, no one has ruled it all.  That you continue to make such a claim highlights how little thought you are putting into this.
Click to expand...


Dear Montrovant:
Do you believe that the power of good will is greater than ill will?
Love is greater than fear?
Forgiveness more powerful than unforgiveness?
Truth conquers falsehood?
Justice prevails over injustice?
Charity has more impact than greed?

If so, that is what it means to have faith that "God's will" is greater
than the negative ills, forces or obstacles that stand in its way.
If you believe that the force and drive of good will for all
is greater and can eventually overcome any setbacks working against it.

So this good will, this drive in the human conscience to better ourselves and
humanity, is the ultimate governing force that motivates the changes in the world.
The counter forces are part of our learning and development process,
as we strive for mastery and maturity as a society. The negative problems will
not last, but are there so we can study how to correct and prevent them in the future.

This process to learn and improve is driven by a positive force of love of truth,
justice and humanity. if you focus on the negatives it is harder to see; but if
you compare with cases where positive outcomes overcame the negative setbacks,
you can see how the entire process was motivated by keeping a positive faith and drive.


----------



## Uncensored2008

sealybobo said:


> You want us to be apathetic while you try to push your religion on the rest of us?



The one pushing religion is you.

You alone use the implied force of arms of the Federal Government to impose your faith on others. You alone demand that others be silenced for fear that it may spark doubt in the faith you promote.



> Forget it.  If you kept it to yourselves then we would be apathetic.



I am an agnostic, a non-believer. Christ is no more to me than Bugs Bunny is. I feel no need to silence Daffy Duck - ah but you - you must crush Christ.

So tell me again that you don't believe? You fear what you claim not to believe - which is irrational.

All religion is irrational, but none is quite as irrational as Atheism.



> The fact is, a pew research poll said people would rather vote for a cheating pot smoker than an atheist.  So don't try to cry and play the fucking victims here.  We see how "they" use religion to control the dumb masses and FINALLY after over 2000 years we can finally speak up and not be burned at the stake.  You guys want to cry about Pol Pot and Stalin?  Rubber and glue bitches!  We all know the murderous history of christians killing for the lord.  It's ok if its for the lord, remember?  Do you think GW Bush would have invaded a christian country?  Fuck no.



Atheists are irrational, and aggressive - shoving their beliefs down the throat of all. Seeking to use force and violence to force others to follow their faith.

It makes you unpopular. The difference between Atheists and the Taliban is...

Uh...

I got nothing...


----------



## Uncensored2008

sealybobo said:


> Aren't you an atheist?



No, I belong to no religion. 

I have no care for what others believe. I only care that all are free to believe what they will.



> I hate libertarians.



No surprise there, most Atheists are Marxists - the two are strongly intertwined. An aggressive leaning toward totalitarianism and dictatorship is inherent in Atheism.



> They try to pretend to be different/better than conservatives but in some ways libertarians are the worse.  Sometimes I think its conservatives, then libertarians and some days I think tea partiers are the worse.  You all suck if you ask me.



I oppose Authoritarianism - thus I am an obstacle to your goals.



> Will you be rewarded for the dicks you sucked?



What's sad is that really is the best you can do.

Dawkins has created a cult of the dullest wits to be found.


----------



## emilynghiem

sealybobo said:


> You want us to be apathetic while you try to push your religion on the rest of us?  Forget it.  If you kept it to yourselves then we would be apathetic.  The fact is, a pew research poll said people would rather vote for a cheating pot smoker than an atheist.  So don't try to cry and play the fucking victims here.  We see how "they" use religion to control the dumb masses and FINALLY after over 2000 years we can finally speak up and not be burned at the stake.  You guys want to cry about Pol Pot and Stalin?  Rubber and glue bitches!  We all know the murderous history of christians killing for the lord.  It's ok if its for the lord, remember?  Do you think GW Bush would have invaded a christian country?  Fuck no.



NO it's NOT okay for any person or nation to abuse religion or laws to oppress or impose war on people politically.

The difference is that when you rebuke Christians by their laws, whether using the Bible or the Constitution, then you hold people in check by the principles they commit to follow by conscience.

So there is a system of invoking Justice where people accept responsibility for living by the laws by conscience, and respond to rebukes from peers in the spirit of enforcing the laws.

People who do not make this commitment pass the buck to someone else.
People who commit to embody the laws by conscience, this is what it means to be one with Christ.

Sealybobo -- what makes me most curious is that in your answers your spirit is clearly committed to upholding the natural laws of Justice. I see you as following this same role that other Christian believers do. You don't depend on outside parties to authorize or tell you what is right and wrong, but you invoke this directly yourself, which is the same process Christians use invoking Jesus authority by conscience.

is the problem that you have no faith in or support for rebuking fellow Christians using their own sysetm to correct abuses of their own religious and church leaders? 
So that you are attacking and criticizing the whole Christian faith as the problem? instead of rebuking members and leaders WITHIN those bodies to correct the problems by enforcing the laws?

is that where the conflict is coming from?

You seem to have the same commitment as I do as a Christian believer.
I am against the same abuses as you protest. I align with you on enforcing natural laws 
where I related to secular language and laws better than Biblical laws which are like a second language to me and not native.

So the only difference I can see is that I have more success and experience
approaching fellow Christians to enforce their own laws consistently, as given,
to address these wrongs and abuses as responsible citizens and members of society.

I do not discount or discredit the entire faith, but seek to enforce the true principles
in a spirit consistent with the laws, in order to correct the abuses of religion and authority.
I find this works well to correct problems from within, instead of attacking or rejecting from outside
which more often results in defensive reactions and mutual rejection that doesn't stop the abuses but makes them worse.

Is this the main difference between us?
That you do not have faith these problems can be corrected from within
by enforcing the true laws to expose and correct the wrongs that have been done?

I agree with you that what is wrong is wrong, regardless.
I just don't blame the Christian faith but the ABUSE of it to commit those wrongs.
Instead of following the laws as given to correct and prevent them in the future
which is the true practice of Christianity. Like a math problem, it helps to correct
the errors by comparing the right answers, not just rejecting math entirely because it's hard to get it right!

Thank you sealybobo, I really feel you have the mindset and gifted ability to discern and articulate 
what is wrong and what needs to be corrected, where the problems with religious and political abuse CAN be broken down and solved without rejecting whole groups of people.

Maybe you still hold onto personal problems with forgiving wrongful abuses from the past, as GISMYS has difficulty forgiving unresolved issues with atheists and rejecting atheism for that. instead of blaming and rejecting whole groups, why not correct the specific problems?


----------



## Uncensored2008

sealybobo said:


> Do you really call a person who hates racists, stupid & greedy people a bigot?  Ok I'm a bigot.



It's clear that hatred is the foundation of your life.

It's also clear that you have no idea what the word "bigot" means.

And yes, you are the epitome of bigotry.


----------



## Montrovant

emilynghiem said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Who rules the world or has for 1600 years?  Christians.  Rome, England, USA.  You want to argue petty points that mean nothing.  Derailing the actual topic.  What is your position please so I can pick it apart.  Lets start with you.  Why do god haters persist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think it is petty that I am unwilling to concede Europe and the US as the entirety of the world?  No one has ruled the world for 1600 years.  It's a big world, lots of people, lots of places, no one has ruled it all.  That you continue to make such a claim highlights how little thought you are putting into this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Montrovant:
> Do you believe that the power of good will is greater than ill will?
> Love is greater than fear?
> Forgiveness more powerful than unforgiveness?
> Truth conquers falsehood?
> Justice prevails over injustice?
> Charity has more impact than greed?
> 
> If so, that is what it means to have faith that "God's will" is greater
> than the negative ills, forces or obstacles that stand in its way.
> If you believe that the force and drive of good will for all
> is greater and can eventually overcome any setbacks working against it.
> 
> So this good will, this drive in the human conscience to better ourselves and
> humanity, is the ultimate governing force that motivates the changes in the world.
> The counter forces are part of our learning and development process,
> as we strive for mastery and maturity as a society. The negative problems will
> not last, but are there so we can study how to correct and prevent them in the future.
> 
> This process to learn and improve is driven by a positive force of love of truth,
> justice and humanity. if you focus on the negatives it is harder to see; but if
> you compare with cases where positive outcomes overcame the negative setbacks,
> you can see how the entire process was motivated by keeping a positive faith and drive.
Click to expand...


No, I do not believe 'good' is more powerful than 'bad' or anything of the sort.


----------



## emilynghiem

GISMYS said:


> TRY TO THINK!!! It takes far more than calling yourself"christian" to be a CHRISTIAN.



Yes I agree. Curiously, I see that Sealybobo has the convictions and commitment to truth and justice by conscience as a Christian does, but appears to relate to the secular gentile path of natural laws to express these principles of what is right and wrong in the world.

So the spirit and conviction is there, as true to the faith in justice as a Christian believer,
but the expression is coming out in terms of natural laws and secular experience and understanding of the world.

I believe any conflicts we have can be resolved in this common spirit and conviction to truth and justice that we share by conscience. We just have some language and perceptions to align, but the principles are one and the same. The same good things are still right, and the same abuses are still wrong. 

We just don't agree where to place the blame and how to go about fixing the abuses.
But that can be worked out since at least we agree we do not want wrongs to continue.
We agree that things should change to correct these problems, so the issue is how do we fix those things?


----------



## emilynghiem

Montrovant said:


> No, I do not believe 'good' is more powerful than 'bad' or anything of the sort.



You don't believe that given equal choices,
if someone can get what they want and it does good for others,
or get what they want where it causes some bad to happen,
their conscience wouldn't try to seek what offers more good to more people?

You don't think the power of good and love is
a greater influence over negative conflicting forces?


----------



## Montrovant

Uncensored2008 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want us to be apathetic while you try to push your religion on the rest of us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The one pushing religion is you.
> 
> You alone use the implied force of arms of the Federal Government to impose your faith on others. You alone demand that others be silenced for fear that it may spark doubt in the faith you promote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Forget it.  If you kept it to yourselves then we would be apathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am an agnostic, a non-believer. Christ is no more to me than Bugs Bunny is. I feel no need to silence Daffy Duck - ah but you - you must crush Christ.
> 
> So tell me again that you don't believe? You fear what you claim not to believe - which is irrational.
> 
> All religion is irrational, but none is quite as irrational as Atheism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is, a pew research poll said people would rather vote for a cheating pot smoker than an atheist.  So don't try to cry and play the fucking victims here.  We see how "they" use religion to control the dumb masses and FINALLY after over 2000 years we can finally speak up and not be burned at the stake.  You guys want to cry about Pol Pot and Stalin?  Rubber and glue bitches!  We all know the murderous history of christians killing for the lord.  It's ok if its for the lord, remember?  Do you think GW Bush would have invaded a christian country?  Fuck no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheists are irrational, and aggressive - shoving their beliefs down the throat of all. Seeking to use force and violence to force others to follow their faith.
> 
> It makes you unpopular. The difference between Atheists and the Taliban is...
> 
> Uh...
> 
> I got nothing...
Click to expand...


You should probably be clear as to your definition of atheism.  

Of course, even going with a definition of a person who actively denies the possibility of any god existing, your views are pretty out there.


----------



## Montrovant

emilynghiem said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I do not believe 'good' is more powerful than 'bad' or anything of the sort.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't believe that given equal choices,
> if someone can get what they want and it does good for others,
> or get what they want where it causes some bad to happen,
> their conscience wouldn't try to seek what offers more good to more people?
> 
> You don't think the power of good and love is
> a greater influence over negative conflicting forces?
Click to expand...


I think that, first of all, what is good or bad is vague and subjective.

Given entirely equal choices between what a person considers good and bad, yes, they will choose the good.  Whether that seems good to others is, of course, important.  

Beyond that, I think it is very rare to have a situation where you get a choice that is entirely equal except for whether it does good or bad.  Life is generally far more complex than that.

I don't think that good and love are a greater influence on people inherently.


----------



## emilynghiem

Uncensored2008 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really call a person who hates racists, stupid & greedy people a bigot?  Ok I'm a bigot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's clear that hatred is the foundation of your life.
> 
> It's also clear that you have no idea what the word "bigot" means.
> 
> And yes, you are the epitome of bigotry.
Click to expand...


I think the hostility is directed toward a particular group or practice
of abusing Christian faith to target, oppress or control people politically.

I don't think it is generalized hatred, but specific to injustices that
can and should be addressed and corrected.

Why not focus on how to address this particular level of abuse,
and what can be done to resolve the problem locally and globally?

Of course there is natural hatred for this type of injustice; anyone of conscience would be aware this is wrongful. So how to direct that passion toward constructive change?


----------



## emilynghiem

Montrovant said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I do not believe 'good' is more powerful than 'bad' or anything of the sort.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't believe that given equal choices,
> if someone can get what they want and it does good for others,
> or get what they want where it causes some bad to happen,
> their conscience wouldn't try to seek what offers more good to more people?
> 
> You don't think the power of good and love is
> a greater influence over negative conflicting forces?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that, first of all, what is good or bad is vague and subjective.
> 
> Given entirely equal choices between what a person considers good and bad, yes, they will choose the good.  Whether that seems good to others is, of course, important.
> 
> Beyond that, I think it is very rare to have a situation where you get a choice that is entirely equal except for whether it does good or bad.  Life is generally far more complex than that.
> 
> I don't think that good and love are a greater influence on people inherently.
Click to expand...


Yes of course what is good or bad is relative to the people in the situation.
So we seem to agree generally that people's conscience or will
tends toward "that which they believe is good for them."

Even where this is relative or subjective,
this still points to the natural mechanism in the human conscience that seeks
what is good/pleasurable/satisfying and tries to avoid what is painful/stressful/negative/feared.

We will choose what we love over what we fear.
So this mechanism in human nature is part of the "natural laws" that already exist.

Where you may focus on this being a subjective or relative process,
I focus on the overall trend that humanity tends toward greater good and justice.

When I see things like people in the World Trade Center choosing to stay and die
so that someone else didn't get left behind and die alone, things like that tell me that
there is a greater good or love that motivates people more than physical benefits.

People will even choose love and compassion for others over their own life. 
So I see some greater force there that motivates people consciously or unconsciously.

(as for the opposite, people who are so criminal sick they put their own addictive pleasures over the life of others they kill to satisfy their urges, I did research to find the cause of these sicknesses can be identified and cured so these are not permanent states of mind but can be changed with early enough intervention and treatment. the forgiveness therapy it takes to heal people of inborn criminal mental or physical illness also cures a lot of other ill conditions; so this also tells me the power of forgiveness, love and healing is greater than any evil ill will or sickness that otherwise blocks the natural flow of life and energy.)

If I didn't know people personally who have cured people of all kinds of illness, mental and physical,
maybe I wouldn't believe these things can be overcome. But I am fortunate to know people with
real life experience and testimony, so when I read books on this methods, I could relate to them as a real and natural process that can
be studied and documented statistically by science to show the effects.


----------



## Hollie

DriftingSand said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hatred is not a sign of disbelief - apathy is. Sealybobo and Richard Dawkins are anything but apathetic about the war they wage on Christianity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want us to be apathetic while you try to push your religion on the rest of us?  Forget it.  If you kept it to yourselves then we would be apathetic.  The fact is, a pew research poll said people would rather vote for a cheating pot smoker than an atheist.  So don't try to cry and play the fucking victims here.  We see how "they" use religion to control the dumb masses and FINALLY after over 2000 years we can finally speak up and not be burned at the stake.  You guys want to cry about Pol Pot and Stalin?  Rubber and glue bitches!  We all know the murderous history of christians killing for the lord.  It's ok if its for the lord, remember?  Do you think GW Bush would have invaded a christian country?  Fuck no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why shouldn't we voice our opinions concerning our religion?  You push your religion on us as a matter of routine ("you" meaning God haters in general). Please note that our nation was founded by Christians so that their posterity could live in religious peace and freedom.  Take a look at my signature line and the link to the Library of Congress.  Thanks to our Christian founders who fought, bled, and died for YOUR freedom to speak.
Click to expand...

Thank the gawds that the Founding Fathers understood that Christianity (like all religions), needed a choke collar.


----------



## sealybobo

DriftingSand said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hatred is not a sign of disbelief - apathy is. Sealybobo and Richard Dawkins are anything but apathetic about the war they wage on Christianity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want us to be apathetic while you try to push your religion on the rest of us?  Forget it.  If you kept it to yourselves then we would be apathetic.  The fact is, a pew research poll said people would rather vote for a cheating pot smoker than an atheist.  So don't try to cry and play the fucking victims here.  We see how "they" use religion to control the dumb masses and FINALLY after over 2000 years we can finally speak up and not be burned at the stake.  You guys want to cry about Pol Pot and Stalin?  Rubber and glue bitches!  We all know the murderous history of christians killing for the lord.  It's ok if its for the lord, remember?  Do you think GW Bush would have invaded a christian country?  Fuck no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why shouldn't we voice our opinions concerning our religion?  You push your religion on us as a matter of routine ("you" meaning God haters in general). Please note that our nation was founded by Christians so that their posterity could live in religious peace and freedom.  Take a look at my signature line and the link to the Library of Congress.  Thanks to our Christian founders who fought, bled, and died for YOUR freedom to speak.
Click to expand...


Don't forget to thank the jewish, agnostic and atheist founders too who said keep your religion to yourself or at least away from our state.  IE seperation of church and state.  

And right back at you.  Why shouldn't we voice our opinions, especially when we are right.


----------



## sealybobo

emilynghiem said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Who rules the world or has for 1600 years?  Christians.  Rome, England, USA.  You want to argue petty points that mean nothing.  Derailing the actual topic.  What is your position please so I can pick it apart.  Lets start with you.  Why do god haters persist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think it is petty that I am unwilling to concede Europe and the US as the entirety of the world?  No one has ruled the world for 1600 years.  It's a big world, lots of people, lots of places, no one has ruled it all.  That you continue to make such a claim highlights how little thought you are putting into this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Montrovant:
> Do you believe that the power of good will is greater than ill will?
> Love is greater than fear?
> Forgiveness more powerful than unforgiveness?
> Truth conquers falsehood?
> Justice prevails over injustice?
> Charity has more impact than greed?
> 
> If so, that is what it means to have faith that "God's will" is greater
> than the negative ills, forces or obstacles that stand in its way.
> If you believe that the force and drive of good will for all
> is greater and can eventually overcome any setbacks working against it.
> 
> So this good will, this drive in the human conscience to better ourselves and
> humanity, is the ultimate governing force that motivates the changes in the world.
> The counter forces are part of our learning and development process,
> as we strive for mastery and maturity as a society. The negative problems will
> not last, but are there so we can study how to correct and prevent them in the future.
> 
> This process to learn and improve is driven by a positive force of love of truth,
> justice and humanity. if you focus on the negatives it is harder to see; but if
> you compare with cases where positive outcomes overcame the negative setbacks,
> you can see how the entire process was motivated by keeping a positive faith and drive.
Click to expand...


What proof do you have of all this?  What church do you belong to?  The only difference between a church and cult is the number of members.  We all know or hope that eventually love concurs evil but that doesn't prove anything.  How many jews died in Germany before love concurred evil?  Why is god so slow?  

Oxytocin, Serotonin and Dopamine.

Affection, empathy and peer bonding increase social cohesion and lead to higher survival chances for offspring.


----------



## Montrovant

sealybobo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think it is petty that I am unwilling to concede Europe and the US as the entirety of the world?  No one has ruled the world for 1600 years.  It's a big world, lots of people, lots of places, no one has ruled it all.  That you continue to make such a claim highlights how little thought you are putting into this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Montrovant:
> Do you believe that the power of good will is greater than ill will?
> Love is greater than fear?
> Forgiveness more powerful than unforgiveness?
> Truth conquers falsehood?
> Justice prevails over injustice?
> Charity has more impact than greed?
> 
> If so, that is what it means to have faith that "God's will" is greater
> than the negative ills, forces or obstacles that stand in its way.
> If you believe that the force and drive of good will for all
> is greater and can eventually overcome any setbacks working against it.
> 
> So this good will, this drive in the human conscience to better ourselves and
> humanity, is the ultimate governing force that motivates the changes in the world.
> The counter forces are part of our learning and development process,
> as we strive for mastery and maturity as a society. The negative problems will
> not last, but are there so we can study how to correct and prevent them in the future.
> 
> This process to learn and improve is driven by a positive force of love of truth,
> justice and humanity. if you focus on the negatives it is harder to see; but if
> you compare with cases where positive outcomes overcame the negative setbacks,
> you can see how the entire process was motivated by keeping a positive faith and drive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What proof do you have of all this?  What church do you belong to?  The only difference between a church and cult is the number of members.  We all know or hope that eventually love concurs evil but that doesn't prove anything.  How many jews died in Germany before love concurred evil?  Why is god so slow?
> 
> Oxytocin, Serotonin and Dopamine.
> 
> Affection, empathy and peer bonding increase social cohesion and lead to higher survival chances for offspring.
Click to expand...


Do love and evil concur?


----------



## sealybobo

emilynghiem said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want us to be apathetic while you try to push your religion on the rest of us?  Forget it.  If you kept it to yourselves then we would be apathetic.  The fact is, a pew research poll said people would rather vote for a cheating pot smoker than an atheist.  So don't try to cry and play the fucking victims here.  We see how "they" use religion to control the dumb masses and FINALLY after over 2000 years we can finally speak up and not be burned at the stake.  You guys want to cry about Pol Pot and Stalin?  Rubber and glue bitches!  We all know the murderous history of christians killing for the lord.  It's ok if its for the lord, remember?  Do you think GW Bush would have invaded a christian country?  Fuck no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO it's NOT okay for any person or nation to abuse religion or laws to oppress or impose war on people politically.
> 
> The difference is that when you rebuke Christians by their laws, whether using the Bible or the Constitution, then you hold people in check by the principles they commit to follow by conscience.
> 
> So there is a system of invoking Justice where people accept responsibility for living by the laws by conscience, and respond to rebukes from peers in the spirit of enforcing the laws.
> 
> People who do not make this commitment pass the buck to someone else.
> People who commit to embody the laws by conscience, this is what it means to be one with Christ.
> 
> Sealybobo -- what makes me most curious is that in your answers your spirit is clearly committed to upholding the natural laws of Justice. I see you as following this same role that other Christian believers do. You don't depend on outside parties to authorize or tell you what is right and wrong, but you invoke this directly yourself, which is the same process Christians use invoking Jesus authority by conscience.
> 
> is the problem that you have no faith in or support for rebuking fellow Christians using their own sysetm to correct abuses of their own religious and church leaders?
> So that you are attacking and criticizing the whole Christian faith as the problem? instead of rebuking members and leaders WITHIN those bodies to correct the problems by enforcing the laws?
> 
> is that where the conflict is coming from?
> 
> You seem to have the same commitment as I do as a Christian believer.
> I am against the same abuses as you protest. I align with you on enforcing natural laws
> where I related to secular language and laws better than Biblical laws which are like a second language to me and not native.
> 
> So the only difference I can see is that I have more success and experience
> approaching fellow Christians to enforce their own laws consistently, as given,
> to address these wrongs and abuses as responsible citizens and members of society.
> 
> I do not discount or discredit the entire faith, but seek to enforce the true principles
> in a spirit consistent with the laws, in order to correct the abuses of religion and authority.
> I find this works well to correct problems from within, instead of attacking or rejecting from outside
> which more often results in defensive reactions and mutual rejection that doesn't stop the abuses but makes them worse.
> 
> Is this the main difference between us?
> That you do not have faith these problems can be corrected from within
> by enforcing the true laws to expose and correct the wrongs that have been done?
> 
> I agree with you that what is wrong is wrong, regardless.
> I just don't blame the Christian faith but the ABUSE of it to commit those wrongs.
> Instead of following the laws as given to correct and prevent them in the future
> which is the true practice of Christianity. Like a math problem, it helps to correct
> the errors by comparing the right answers, not just rejecting math entirely because it's hard to get it right!
> 
> Thank you sealybobo, I really feel you have the mindset and gifted ability to discern and articulate
> what is wrong and what needs to be corrected, where the problems with religious and political abuse CAN be broken down and solved without rejecting whole groups of people.
> 
> Maybe you still hold onto personal problems with forgiving wrongful abuses from the past, as GISMYS has difficulty forgiving unresolved issues with atheists and rejecting atheism for that. instead of blaming and rejecting whole groups, why not correct the specific problems?
Click to expand...


I have friends who are christians, muslims and jews.  If my opinions offend them we just don't talk politics.  And yes I can work with them.  I'm not as angry as I come off.  I'm passionately debating my side.  There is no god.  Anyone who thinks there is is just hoping.  

And these christians who say I'm so angry, that's funny because I have never unfriended a friend because of their christian bullshit, but I have been unfriended by a catholic and jewish friend.  They get FURIOUS if I even try to suggest there is no god.  Why so defensive?  Hard to discuss with someone who's so brainwashed they are even scared to discuss facts like no virgin can get pregnant.


----------



## sealybobo

Uncensored2008 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really call a person who hates racists, stupid & greedy people a bigot?  Ok I'm a bigot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's clear that hatred is the foundation of your life.
> 
> It's also clear that you have no idea what the word "bigot" means.
> 
> And yes, you are the epitome of bigotry.
Click to expand...


You fool I'm the nicest person you could ever meet.  I run a music school where parents and children come in and say all the time, "boy you sure are passionate about music".  

I work with a real quiet musician who's really good at teaching but he's a dick.  He hates loud happy funny guys like me and everyone else thinks it's funny.  I'm the kind of guy who you either love me or hate me.  95% love me and 5% hate me.  Usually alpha dogs because I'm short but I am certainly the top dog in the room wherever I go.  

I'm not surprised religious christians hate me.  Fuck them.  I don't sit around worrying about this stuff.  I'm on a message board talking to a bunch of dopes who think an invisible man cares about them.  I'm just trying to kill all religions because they suck and are unnecessary.  Certainly not deserving of a tax break.  But I'm not angry.  And don't argue with me that they do some good.  So fucking what.  Just because a lie makes you feel better doesn't mean you shouldn't hear the truth.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really call a person who hates racists, stupid & greedy people a bigot?  Ok I'm a bigot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's clear that hatred is the foundation of your life.
> 
> It's also clear that you have no idea what the word "bigot" means.
> 
> And yes, you are the epitome of bigotry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You fool I'm the nicest person you could ever meet.  I run a music school where parents and children come in and say all the time, "boy you sure are passionate about music".
> 
> I work with a real quiet musician who's really good at teaching but he's a dick.  He hates loud happy funny guys like me and everyone else thinks it's funny.  I'm the kind of guy who you either love me or hate me.  95% love me and 5% hate me.  Usually alpha dogs because I'm short but I am certainly the top dog in the room wherever I go.
> 
> I'm not surprised religious christians hate me.  Fuck them.  I don't sit around worrying about this stuff.  I'm on a message board talking to a bunch of dopes who think an invisible man cares about them.  I'm just trying to kill all religions because they suck and are unnecessary.  Certainly not deserving of a tax break.  But I'm not angry.  And don't argue with me that they do some good.  So fucking what.  Just because a lie makes you feel better doesn't mean you shouldn't hear the truth.
Click to expand...


ALLOWING satan to use you as his tool,fool,puppet has the highest of cost=your eternity!!! TRY TO THINK!


----------



## sealybobo

Montrovant said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Montrovant:
> Do you believe that the power of good will is greater than ill will?
> Love is greater than fear?
> Forgiveness more powerful than unforgiveness?
> Truth conquers falsehood?
> Justice prevails over injustice?
> Charity has more impact than greed?
> 
> If so, that is what it means to have faith that "God's will" is greater
> than the negative ills, forces or obstacles that stand in its way.
> If you believe that the force and drive of good will for all
> is greater and can eventually overcome any setbacks working against it.
> 
> So this good will, this drive in the human conscience to better ourselves and
> humanity, is the ultimate governing force that motivates the changes in the world.
> The counter forces are part of our learning and development process,
> as we strive for mastery and maturity as a society. The negative problems will
> not last, but are there so we can study how to correct and prevent them in the future.
> 
> This process to learn and improve is driven by a positive force of love of truth,
> justice and humanity. if you focus on the negatives it is harder to see; but if
> you compare with cases where positive outcomes overcame the negative setbacks,
> you can see how the entire process was motivated by keeping a positive faith and drive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What proof do you have of all this?  What church do you belong to?  The only difference between a church and cult is the number of members.  We all know or hope that eventually love concurs evil but that doesn't prove anything.  How many jews died in Germany before love concurred evil?  Why is god so slow?
> 
> Oxytocin, Serotonin and Dopamine.
> 
> Affection, empathy and peer bonding increase social cohesion and lead to higher survival chances for offspring.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do love and evil concur?
Click to expand...


The god character of the Bible is a misogynistic tyrant that condones and even orders the practice of slavery, rape of women and murder of children. The moment you disagree with a single instruction of the Bible, such as the command to kill any bride who is not a virgin or any child who disrespects their parents, then you acknowledge that there exists a superior standard by which to judge moral action and thus no need to rely on an ancient, primitive and barbaric fantasy.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What proof do you have of all this?  What church do you belong to?  The only difference between a church and cult is the number of members.  We all know or hope that eventually love concurs evil but that doesn't prove anything.  How many jews died in Germany before love concurred evil?  Why is god so slow?
> 
> Oxytocin, Serotonin and Dopamine.
> 
> Affection, empathy and peer bonding increase social cohesion and lead to higher survival chances for offspring.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do love and evil concur?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The god character of the Bible is a misogynistic tyrant that condones and even orders the practice of slavery, rape of women and murder of children. The moment you disagree with a single instruction of the Bible, such as the command to kill any bride who is not a virgin or any child who disrespects their parents, then you acknowledge that there exists a superior standard by which to judge moral action and thus no need to rely on an ancient, primitive and barbaric fantasy.
Click to expand...


ONLY A TOTAL BLINDED NON-THINKING FOOL WOULD TRY to argue and fight against ALMIGHTY GOD!!! AND YOU???


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's clear that hatred is the foundation of your life.
> 
> It's also clear that you have no idea what the word "bigot" means.
> 
> And yes, you are the epitome of bigotry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You fool I'm the nicest person you could ever meet.  I run a music school where parents and children come in and say all the time, "boy you sure are passionate about music".
> 
> I work with a real quiet musician who's really good at teaching but he's a dick.  He hates loud happy funny guys like me and everyone else thinks it's funny.  I'm the kind of guy who you either love me or hate me.  95% love me and 5% hate me.  Usually alpha dogs because I'm short but I am certainly the top dog in the room wherever I go.
> 
> I'm not surprised religious christians hate me.  Fuck them.  I don't sit around worrying about this stuff.  I'm on a message board talking to a bunch of dopes who think an invisible man cares about them.  I'm just trying to kill all religions because they suck and are unnecessary.  Certainly not deserving of a tax break.  But I'm not angry.  And don't argue with me that they do some good.  So fucking what.  Just because a lie makes you feel better doesn't mean you shouldn't hear the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ALLOWING satan to use you as his tool,fool,puppet has the highest of cost=your eternity!!! TRY TO THINK!
Click to expand...


Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?  Epicurus


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do love and evil concur?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The god character of the Bible is a misogynistic tyrant that condones and even orders the practice of slavery, rape of women and murder of children. The moment you disagree with a single instruction of the Bible, such as the command to kill any bride who is not a virgin or any child who disrespects their parents, then you acknowledge that there exists a superior standard by which to judge moral action and thus no need to rely on an ancient, primitive and barbaric fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ONLY A TOTAL BLINDED NON-THINKING FOOL WOULD TRY to argue and fight against ALMIGHTY GOD!!! AND YOU???
Click to expand...


I don't argue with something that doesn't exist.  And if he existed, he would let himself be known, not make me have to believe fools like you and your red neck ancestors.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You fool I'm the nicest person you could ever meet.  I run a music school where parents and children come in and say all the time, "boy you sure are passionate about music".
> 
> I work with a real quiet musician who's really good at teaching but he's a dick.  He hates loud happy funny guys like me and everyone else thinks it's funny.  I'm the kind of guy who you either love me or hate me.  95% love me and 5% hate me.  Usually alpha dogs because I'm short but I am certainly the top dog in the room wherever I go.
> 
> I'm not surprised religious christians hate me.  Fuck them.  I don't sit around worrying about this stuff.  I'm on a message board talking to a bunch of dopes who think an invisible man cares about them.  I'm just trying to kill all religions because they suck and are unnecessary.  Certainly not deserving of a tax break.  But I'm not angry.  And don't argue with me that they do some good.  So fucking what.  Just because a lie makes you feel better doesn't mean you shouldn't hear the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ALLOWING satan to use you as his tool,fool,puppet has the highest of cost=your eternity!!! TRY TO THINK!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
> Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
> Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
> Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?  Epicurus
Click to expand...


GOD created man with free will,you are free to reject GOD and live in sin,GOD will not force you to accept His love and forgivness. you are free to chose eternal hell!!!! BUT WHY????


----------



## jillian

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> ALLOWING satan to use you as his tool,fool,puppet has the highest of cost=your eternity!!! TRY TO THINK!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> &#8220;Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
> Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
> Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
> Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?&#8221; &#8211; Epicurus
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> GOD created man with free will,you are free to reject GOD and live in sin,GOD will not force you to accept His love and forgivness. you are free to chose eternal hell!!!! BUT WHY????
Click to expand...


G-d wants you to stop talking for Him because you seem to forget the whole judge not... thing.

there's also no such thing as hell.


----------



## GISMYS

jillian said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
> Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
> Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
> Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?  Epicurus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GOD created man with free will,you are free to reject GOD and live in sin,GOD will not force you to accept His love and forgivness. you are free to chose eternal hell!!!! BUT WHY????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> G-d wants you to stop talking for Him because you seem to forget the whole judge not... thing.
> 
> there's also no such thing as hell.
Click to expand...


""IF"" You love others, you will give them TRUTH,YOU WILL WARN THEM of the cost of sin!!!and you??


----------



## sealybobo

The claim that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.

Atheism is correlated with better scientific literacy, lower poverty rates, higher literacy rates, higher average incomes, less violence, lower divorce rates, lower teen pregnancy rates, lower STD infection rates, lower crime rates and lower homicide rates. It correlates highly with the well-being of individuals and societies by almost every possible measure.

Studies on happiness outside of predominantly religious countries (eg. the United States) find little to no correlation between happiness and religious belief. This corresponds with evidence which shows social and community bonding, rather than spiritual engagement, explains why religious people report greater satisfaction with life. Atheists, by comparison, may simply be unhappy with the level of distrust and persecution they receive from their compatriots.  Maybe we'd be happier with an church for atheists???


----------



## thanatos144

jillian said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
> Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
> Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
> Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?  Epicurus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GOD created man with free will,you are free to reject GOD and live in sin,GOD will not force you to accept His love and forgivness. you are free to chose eternal hell!!!! BUT WHY????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> G-d wants you to stop talking for Him because you seem to forget the whole judge not... thing.
> 
> there's also no such thing as hell.
Click to expand...


Pot meet kettle


----------



## Steven_R

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> ALLOWING satan to use you as his tool,fool,puppet has the highest of cost=your eternity!!! TRY TO THINK!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
> Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
> Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
> Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?  Epicurus
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> GOD created man with free will,you are free to reject GOD and live in sin,GOD will not force you to accept His love and forgivness. you are free to chose eternal hell!!!! BUT WHY????
Click to expand...


Hey humanity, here's Free Will, but use it and I'll spank you.

Some gift.


----------



## GISMYS

thanatos144 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> GOD created man with free will,you are free to reject GOD and live in sin,GOD will not force you to accept His love and forgivness. you are free to chose eternal hell!!!! BUT WHY????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G-d wants you to stop talking for Him because you seem to forget the whole judge not... thing.
> 
> there's also no such thing as hell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pot meet kettle
Click to expand...


HELL is all too real but some will not wise up until they feel the flames==FAR FAR TOO LATE THEN!!!


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> ALLOWING satan to use you as his tool,fool,puppet has the highest of cost=your eternity!!! TRY TO THINK!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
> Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
> Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
> Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?  Epicurus
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> GOD created man with free will,you are free to reject GOD and live in sin,GOD will not force you to accept His love and forgivness. you are free to chose eternal hell!!!! BUT WHY????
Click to expand...


1.  How do you know a god created man?
2.  I do have free will to reject fools and liars.  If god made me this way thanks god.
3.  Who told this story of god and sin?  It wasn't jesus.  He didn't write the bible.  It wasn't even his 12 apostles.  It was 80 plus years later.  Some of the bible was written over 100 years after jesus died.  Who were these people that wrote/altered the bible and why do you believe anything they say?  
4.  That's what a cult leader would say to a new potential member.  Don't believe me you will go to hell.  If you were in front of me I'd punch you in the fucking face.  Fuck you.  Everyone you love will end up in hell because they were in a cult.  No god told any of your ancestors anything.  The greeks first translated the bible for you red necks so don't tell me what is in it.  How do you know we didn't just fuck with you and translate it wrong.  You dumb asses wouldn't know because you can't read hebrew.   I said too much.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
> Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
> Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
> Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?  Epicurus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GOD created man with free will,you are free to reject GOD and live in sin,GOD will not force you to accept His love and forgivness. you are free to chose eternal hell!!!! BUT WHY????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.  How do you know a god created man?
> 2.  I do have free will to reject fools and liars.  If god made me this way thanks god.
> 3.  Who told this story of god and sin?  It wasn't jesus.  He didn't write the bible.  It wasn't even his 12 apostles.  It was 80 plus years later.  Some of the bible was written over 100 years after jesus died.  Who were these people that wrote/altered the bible and why do you believe anything they say?
> 4.  That's what a cult leader would say to a new potential member.  Don't believe me you will go to hell.  If you were in front of me I'd punch you in the fucking face.  Fuck you.  Everyone you love will end up in hell because they were in a cult.  No god told any of your ancestors anything.  The greeks first translated the bible for you red necks so don't tell me what is in it.  How do you know we didn't just fuck with you and translate it wrong.  You dumb asses wouldn't know because you can't read hebrew.   I said too much.
Click to expand...


Satan is a liar and the father of liars!!! YOU are brought here to read my posts about the love of GOD but yes!!! you are free to reject GOD and GOD'S love. NOW on your final judgment day you will have NO EXCUSE!!! So if you end up in hell ,you will have no one to blame but yourself!!!! THINK ON THAT TRUTH========== While I take my afternoon walk!!!  back in about 1 hr. Gw.


----------



## Montrovant

sealybobo said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What proof do you have of all this?  What church do you belong to?  The only difference between a church and cult is the number of members.  We all know or hope that eventually love concurs evil but that doesn't prove anything.  How many jews died in Germany before love concurred evil?  Why is god so slow?
> 
> Oxytocin, Serotonin and Dopamine.
> 
> Affection, empathy and peer bonding increase social cohesion and lead to higher survival chances for offspring.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do love and evil concur?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The god character of the Bible is a misogynistic tyrant that condones and even orders the practice of slavery, rape of women and murder of children. The moment you disagree with a single instruction of the Bible, such as the command to kill any bride who is not a virgin or any child who disrespects their parents, then you acknowledge that there exists a superior standard by which to judge moral action and thus no need to rely on an ancient, primitive and barbaric fantasy.
Click to expand...


You clearly missed that I was poking fun of your use of the word concur when you should have used conquer.


----------



## Montrovant

sealybobo said:


> The claim that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.
> 
> Atheism is correlated with better scientific literacy, lower poverty rates, higher literacy rates, higher average incomes, less violence, lower divorce rates, lower teen pregnancy rates, lower STD infection rates, lower crime rates and lower homicide rates. It correlates highly with the well-being of individuals and societies by almost every possible measure.
> 
> Studies on happiness outside of predominantly religious countries (eg. the United States) find little to no correlation between happiness and religious belief. This corresponds with evidence which shows social and community bonding, rather than spiritual engagement, explains why religious people report greater satisfaction with life. Atheists, by comparison, may simply be unhappy with the level of distrust and persecution they receive from their compatriots.  Maybe we'd be happier with an church for atheists???



It really would be nice if you'd stop using other people's words without acknowledging it.


----------



## jillian

GISMYS said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> G-d wants you to stop talking for Him because you seem to forget the whole judge not... thing.
> 
> there's also no such thing as hell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pot meet kettle
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HELL is all too real but some will not wise up until they feel the flames==FAR FAR TOO LATE THEN!!!
Click to expand...


There is no hell. And no pot meets kettle.  I'd probably feel badly that your mind has become so twisted if you weren't so aggressively lunatic.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Montrovant said:


> You should probably be clear as to your definition of atheism.
> 
> Of course, even going with a definition of a person who actively denies the possibility of any god existing, your views are pretty out there.



While the Atheist had only butchered 199 million peace time civilians, I might have agreed with you - but once they hit 200..

Fact, Atheism is the most deadly "ism" in human history.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Hollie said:


> Thank the gawds that the Founding Fathers understood that Christianity (like all religions), needed a choke collar.



You don't have a hint of a clue what the founding fathers thought.

I'll give you a clue for free - it isn't even close to what you claim. You've never read the Jefferson letter to the Danbury Baptists - neither has Rachel Maddow.


----------



## HUGGY

thanatos144 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> GOD created man with free will,you are free to reject GOD and live in sin,GOD will not force you to accept His love and forgivness. you are free to chose eternal hell!!!! BUT WHY????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G-d wants you to stop talking for Him because you seem to forget the whole judge not... thing.
> 
> there's also no such thing as hell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pot meet kettle
Click to expand...


You mean... big huge burnt out pot meet tiny teaspoon.

One small interjected opinion is certainly NOT equal to the HUNDREDS of mindless rants offered by Jizzy.


----------



## sealybobo

Montrovant said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do love and evil concur?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The god character of the Bible is a misogynistic tyrant that condones and even orders the practice of slavery, rape of women and murder of children. The moment you disagree with a single instruction of the Bible, such as the command to kill any bride who is not a virgin or any child who disrespects their parents, then you acknowledge that there exists a superior standard by which to judge moral action and thus no need to rely on an ancient, primitive and barbaric fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You clearly missed that I was poking fun of your use of the word concur when you should have used conquer.
Click to expand...


No I got it.  Did you think I would waste my time replying back?  I almost didn't reply back to this one, but I'll kill two birds with one stone.  

For all the people who say I'm angry or hateful or a bigot or going to hell, I just realized, this is just another attempt by you guys to get emotional about the topic.  Yes I call you stupid.  You believe in fairytales for fuck sakes.  What else would you call it?  You can't tactfully tell someone they've been brainwashed.  Sometimes you have to him them over the head with a brick.

You don't know how hard I tried to hang on to the notion that all religions are bullshit but I still believe in god.  My atheist friends couldn't find a better way to say it other than if you believe that then you aren't that smart.  Because its unbelievable.  Who you gonna believe, science or bullshit religion?  Then I did my own investigating research and now I can't pray to god because I know that's about as smart as a fish in my goldfish bowl praying to me.  Actually the fish is smarter because he can actually see me.  People who prayed to the sun god I understand.  People who pray to an invisible man who is jealous and petty just like humans are and who mass murdered humans in a flood all to re populate the planet with even worse assholes.     

Anyays, 996 gods have come and gone.  The jewish, christian, muslim, mormon gods are next and good riddance.


----------



## sealybobo

Uncensored2008 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank the gawds that the Founding Fathers understood that Christianity (like all religions), needed a choke collar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have a hint of a clue what the founding fathers thought.
> 
> I'll give you a clue for free - it isn't even close to what you claim. You've never read the Jefferson letter to the Danbury Baptists - neither has Rachel Maddow.
Click to expand...


I could show you quote after quote where the founding fathers warned us about religion so stfu.  And you act as if they had a collective brain.  Not all founding fathers agreed on all issues.  Fact is they knew to keep religion out of politics.


----------



## sealybobo

Uncensored2008 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should probably be clear as to your definition of atheism.
> 
> Of course, even going with a definition of a person who actively denies the possibility of any god existing, your views are pretty out there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While the Atheist had only butchered 199 million peace time civilians, I might have agreed with you - but once they hit 200..
> 
> Fact, Atheism is the most deadly "ism" in human history.
Click to expand...


And no coincidence christianity and insanity both end with anity.


----------



## Uncensored2008

sealybobo said:


> *You fool I'm the nicest person you could ever meet.*  I run a music school where parents and children come in and say all the time, "boy you sure are passionate about music".
> 
> I work with a real quiet musician who's really good at teaching but he's a dick.  He hates loud happy funny guys like me and everyone else thinks it's funny.  I'm the kind of guy who you either love me or hate me.  95% love me and 5% hate me.  Usually alpha dogs because I'm short but I am certainly the top dog in the room wherever I go.
> 
> I*'m not surprised religious christians hate me.  Fuck them. * I don't sit around worrying about this stuff.  I'm on a message board talking to a bunch of dopes who think an invisible man cares about them.  I'm just trying to kill all religions because they suck and are unnecessary.  Certainly not deserving of a tax break.  But I'm not angry.  And don't argue with me that they do some good.  So fucking what.  Just because a lie makes you feel better doesn't mean you shouldn't hear the truth.



Well yeah, I see your point... 

The first rise of Atheists came about in the French Revolution, where the Atheists proceeded to murder thousands, in 2 years slaughtering dozens of times more than 500 years of inquisition.

Atheism went down hill from there.


----------



## thebrucebeat

emilynghiem said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  Who rules the world or has for 1600 years?  Christians.  Rome, England, USA.  You want to argue petty points that mean nothing.  Derailing the actual topic.  What is your position please so I can pick it apart.  Lets start with you.  Why do god haters persist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think it is petty that I am unwilling to concede Europe and the US as the entirety of the world?  No one has ruled the world for 1600 years.  It's a big world, lots of people, lots of places, no one has ruled it all.  That you continue to make such a claim highlights how little thought you are putting into this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Montrovant:
> Do you believe that the power of good will is greater than ill will?
> Love is greater than fear?
> Forgiveness more powerful than unforgiveness?
> Truth conquers falsehood?
> Justice prevails over injustice?
> Charity has more impact than greed?
> 
> If so, that is what it means to have faith that "God's will" is greater
> than the negative ills, forces or obstacles that stand in its way.
> If you believe that the force and drive of good will for all
> is greater and can eventually overcome any setbacks working against it.
> 
> So this good will, this drive in the human conscience to better ourselves and
> humanity, is the ultimate governing force that motivates the changes in the world.
> The counter forces are part of our learning and development process,
> as we strive for mastery and maturity as a society. The negative problems will
> not last, but are there so we can study how to correct and prevent them in the future.
> 
> This process to learn and improve is driven by a positive force of love of truth,
> justice and humanity. if you focus on the negatives it is harder to see; but if
> you compare with cases where positive outcomes overcame the negative setbacks,
> you can see how the entire process was motivated by keeping a positive faith and drive.
Click to expand...


Your post suggests that all the qualities you list eventually win.
There is simply no evidence at this time to support your claims.
If you stated that they have some inherent quality that is "better", I could entertain the argument, but to suggest that charity has more impact than greed, human history has a  very different story to tell. Truth conquers falsehood? We have a political system and an advertising industry that begs to differ. Does the power of good will seem greater than the power of ill? A history that includes no universal peacetime seems to indicate otherwise.
Maybe these things are all more noble or aspirational, but to think they are more influential will take a great deal more evidence to support the argument.


----------



## Uncensored2008

jillian said:


> G-d wants you to stop talking for Him because you seem to forget the whole judge not... thing.



Jack McCoy wants you to stop pretending to be a lawyer on the interwebz and be content eating bon bons in your trailer...



> there's also no such thing as hell.



Unless you count the VA hospitals under Obama....


----------



## Uncensored2008

GISMYS said:


> HELL is all too real but some will not wise up until they feel the flames==FAR FAR TOO LATE THEN!!!



Your god is an evil megalomaniac.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Uncensored2008 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should probably be clear as to your definition of atheism.
> 
> Of course, even going with a definition of a person who actively denies the possibility of any god existing, your views are pretty out there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While the Atheist had only butchered 199 million peace time civilians, I might have agreed with you - but once they hit 200..
> 
> Fact, Atheism is the most deadly "ism" in human history.
Click to expand...


Not true.
Extremism takes that accolade, and whether it is an extremism that includes faith or rejects it, it is the inability to be inclusive of the variety of human experience that leads down the same destructive path that every "true Scotsman" will take you down, no matter the foundational beliefs.
Hubris is the killer.


----------



## sealybobo

Uncensored2008 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> G-d wants you to stop talking for Him because you seem to forget the whole judge not... thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jack McCoy wants you to stop pretending to be a lawyer on the interwebz and be content eating bon bons in your trailer...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there's also no such thing as hell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless you count the VA hospitals under Obama....
Click to expand...


Oh yea Walter Reed was a well oiled machine under Bush.  Hey we're broke.  What do you want to do, borrow the money?  Add to the debt?  How about we take back the tax breaks we gave the rich the last 14 years?  How bout we roll back the taxes to Clinton era levels so we can fund the va hospitals?  How about we don't fucking send kids to get blown up for oil so we don't need all these va hospitals that are filled with amputees all because bush got hit on 9-11.  So keep crying about benghazi


----------



## Hollie

Uncensored2008 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank the gawds that the Founding Fathers understood that Christianity (like all religions), needed a choke collar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have a hint of a clue what the founding fathers thought.
> 
> I'll give you a clue for free - it isn't even close to what you claim. You've never read the Jefferson letter to the Danbury Baptists - neither has Rachel Maddow.
Click to expand...


I have many clues. Here, I'll loan you a few of them.

Firstly, Jefferson was not the only Founding Father. The FF's knew that religions propagate and they knew that once in control, religious tenets are biased towards themselves and poorly disposed towards competitive beliefs systems. We don't have to assume their intent regarding a throttle on state endorsement of religion, the intent is clear: the state is precluded from dictating any and all religious conscience to any free people. Hence, the First Amendment. Simple, really.

Secondly, we know some of the FF's had direct experiance with the a theocratic state, ie: the Anglican Church. Similarly, the FF's knew the history of the earlier colonial settlers and the sectarian hatreds that divided them. The various sects of Christianity were completely at odds with one another as colonial states. Catholics couldn't live in one state, Quakers were executed if they went to another, Protestants were reviled in still others, and so on. These documents still exist. Take a few minutes, go to the library, or even here on the Net (the library is better because you can know for sure that the documents are for real) and research the laws of the original 13 colonies. You'll be surprised at what you'll learn. 

The long range vision of the FF's clearly indicates they did not think such a growth would ever end (and 220 some years later, it still has not) and so the fundamental documents of law restricting the government's rights to the liberty and freedom of conscience of the people was worded to ensure neutrality regardless of which religious belief is in the majority.


----------



## Montrovant

sealybobo said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The god character of the Bible is a misogynistic tyrant that condones and even orders the practice of slavery, rape of women and murder of children. The moment you disagree with a single instruction of the Bible, such as the command to kill any bride who is not a virgin or any child who disrespects their parents, then you acknowledge that there exists a superior standard by which to judge moral action and thus no need to rely on an ancient, primitive and barbaric fantasy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You clearly missed that I was poking fun of your use of the word concur when you should have used conquer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I got it.  Did you think I would waste my time replying back?  I almost didn't reply back to this one, but I'll kill two birds with one stone.
> 
> For all the people who say I'm angry or hateful or a bigot or going to hell, I just realized, this is just another attempt by you guys to get emotional about the topic.  Yes I call you stupid.  You believe in fairytales for fuck sakes.  What else would you call it?  You can't tactfully tell someone they've been brainwashed.  Sometimes you have to him them over the head with a brick.
> 
> You don't know how hard I tried to hang on to the notion that all religions are bullshit but I still believe in god.  My atheist friends couldn't find a better way to say it other than if you believe that then you aren't that smart.  Because its unbelievable.  Who you gonna believe, science or bullshit religion?  Then I did my own investigating research and now I can't pray to god because I know that's about as smart as a fish in my goldfish bowl praying to me.  Actually the fish is smarter because he can actually see me.  People who prayed to the sun god I understand.  People who pray to an invisible man who is jealous and petty just like humans are and who mass murdered humans in a flood all to re populate the planet with even worse assholes.
> 
> Anyays, 996 gods have come and gone.  The jewish, christian, muslim, mormon gods are next and good riddance.
Click to expand...


OK, let me ask this then : is there a particular reason you are quoting my posts but replying to something completely different?


----------



## Montrovant

Uncensored2008 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> G-d wants you to stop talking for Him because you seem to forget the whole judge not... thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jack McCoy wants you to stop pretending to be a lawyer on the interwebz and be content eating bon bons in your trailer...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there's also no such thing as hell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless you count the VA hospitals under Obama....
Click to expand...


Why under Obama?

From what I've heard/read, the VA hospitals have been hell since before Obama became president.  It seems to be a long-ongoing tragedy.


----------



## Uncensored2008

sealybobo said:


> I could show you quote after quote where the founding fathers warned us about religion so stfu.  And you act as if they had a collective brain.  Not all founding fathers agreed on all issues.  Fact is they knew to keep religion out of politics.



What you mean is that you can post bullshit talking points from Atheist hate sites. 

To claim that the "founding fathers were atheist" is the level of ignorance I've come to expect from Atheists.

You are an uneducated lot, spewing bigotry as if it were fact.

"It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." - Thomas Jefferson.


----------



## Uncensored2008

sealybobo said:


> And no coincidence christianity and insanity both end with anity.



Your bigotry does not alter the fact that Atheism has murdered more people than any other cause in human history.

Your ignorance does not change reality.


----------



## Hollie

Uncensored2008 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should probably be clear as to your definition of atheism.
> 
> Of course, even going with a definition of a person who actively denies the possibility of any god existing, your views are pretty out there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While the Atheist had only butchered 199 million peace time civilians, I might have agreed with you - but once they hit 200..
> 
> Fact, Atheism is the most deadly "ism" in human history.
Click to expand...


You toss around "fact" without being able to define the term. Atheism had nothing to do with the atrocities of the socialist/communist/Maoist regimes. Those were political ideologies helmed by true megalomaniacs. When did any of the regimes noted above ever commit an act of horror to the accompaniment of "god _is not_ on our side". 

Sorry, but killing in the name of a deity (or a religious brand), has had far greater consequence and it continues today. You can do this at home - take a  look at the conflicts / skirmishes around the globe today. Overwhelming, they are being waged by the religious entities and especially, an angry component of the Abrahamic faith.


----------



## Uncensored2008

thebrucebeat said:


> Not true.



Defending your religion...



> Extremism takes that accolade, and whether it is an extremism that includes faith or rejects it, it is the inability to be inclusive of the variety of human experience that leads down the same destructive path that every "true Scotsman" will take you down, no matter the foundational beliefs.
> Hubris is the killer.



Then I guess that Atheism is the most pure form of extremism, since no movement in human history has resulted in anywhere near the peace time, civilian slaughter that Atheism has engaged in.


----------



## sealybobo

Uncensored2008 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You fool I'm the nicest person you could ever meet.*  I run a music school where parents and children come in and say all the time, "boy you sure are passionate about music".
> 
> I work with a real quiet musician who's really good at teaching but he's a dick.  He hates loud happy funny guys like me and everyone else thinks it's funny.  I'm the kind of guy who you either love me or hate me.  95% love me and 5% hate me.  Usually alpha dogs because I'm short but I am certainly the top dog in the room wherever I go.
> 
> I*'m not surprised religious christians hate me.  Fuck them. * I don't sit around worrying about this stuff.  I'm on a message board talking to a bunch of dopes who think an invisible man cares about them.  I'm just trying to kill all religions because they suck and are unnecessary.  Certainly not deserving of a tax break.  But I'm not angry.  And don't argue with me that they do some good.  So fucking what.  Just because a lie makes you feel better doesn't mean you shouldn't hear the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well yeah, I see your point...
> 
> The first rise of Atheists came about in the French Revolution, where the Atheists proceeded to murder thousands, in 2 years slaughtering dozens of times more than 500 years of inquisition.
> 
> Atheism went down hill from there.
Click to expand...


I'm reading about the French Revolution.  Pretty interesting stuff.  They should have went after the catholic church like that when we found out that they were covering up for pedophile priests.  And knowing the history of the catholic church, I kind of have a hard time blaming France for wanting to do away with christianity.  I didn't know this history existed.  

Victims of the Reign of Terror totaled somewhere between 20,000 and 40,000. According to one estimate, among those condemned by the revolutionary tribunals, about 8 percent were aristocrats, 6 percent clergy, 14 percent middle class, and 70 percent were workers or peasants accused of hoarding, evading the draft, desertion, rebellion, and other purported crimes.

Waaaah!!!  Tell it to the American Indians.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Hollie said:


> You toss around "fact" without being able to define the term. Atheism had nothing to do with the atrocities of the socialist/communist/Maoist regimes.



Zealots defending their religion come up with the most fascinating distortions.



> Those were political ideologies helmed by true megalomaniacs. When did any of the regimes noted above ever commit an act of horror to the accompaniment of "god _is not_ on our side".



Or whilst standing on one foot using a kazoo - so your religion MUST be blameless.



> Sorry, but killing in the name of a deity (or a religious brand), has had far greater consequence and it continues today. You can do this at home - take a  look at the conflicts / skirmishes around the globe today. Overwhelming, they are being waged by the religious entities and especially, an angry component of the Abrahamic faith.



200 million peace time civilians.

I condemn the Muzzie Beasts and the terrorism they perpetrate, but they are amateurs in contrast to you Atheists. No one mass murders on the scale you do.

Fact.


----------



## sealybobo

Uncensored2008 said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Defending your religion...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Extremism takes that accolade, and whether it is an extremism that includes faith or rejects it, it is the inability to be inclusive of the variety of human experience that leads down the same destructive path that every "true Scotsman" will take you down, no matter the foundational beliefs.
> Hubris is the killer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then I guess that Atheism is the most pure form of extremism, since no movement in human history has resulted in anywhere near the peace time, civilian slaughter that Atheism has engaged in.
Click to expand...


What about native American indians?  Were the pilgrims on the mayflower atheists?  Were Louis & Clark or the men who came after them and slaughtered all the indians not christians?  What about signing treaties and then renigging on them and then murdering them?  What a hoot you are.  

Like China said about America, you guys think you have the moral high ground to preach to people about espionage?  Like Russia said to us, you think you have the right to tell us not to invade another country after you invaded Iraq?  And now here your forefathers murdered the indians to steal their land and you think god blesses America and you?


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Defending your religion...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Extremism takes that accolade, and whether it is an extremism that includes faith or rejects it, it is the inability to be inclusive of the variety of human experience that leads down the same destructive path that every "true Scotsman" will take you down, no matter the foundational beliefs.
> Hubris is the killer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then I guess that Atheism is the most pure form of extremism, since no movement in human history has resulted in anywhere near the peace time, civilian slaughter that Atheism has engaged in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about native American indians?  Were the pilgrims on the mayflower atheists?  Were Louis & Clark or the men who came after them and slaughtered all the indians not christians?  What about signing treaties and then renigging on them and then murdering them?  What a hoot you are.
> 
> Like China said about America, you guys think you have the moral high ground to preach to people about espionage?  Like Russia said to us, you think you have the right to tell us not to invade another country after you invaded Iraq?  And now here your forefathers murdered the indians to steal their land and you think god blesses America and you?
Click to expand...


What did your forefathers do????


----------



## sealybobo

Uncensored2008 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You toss around "fact" without being able to define the term. Atheism had nothing to do with the atrocities of the socialist/communist/Maoist regimes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zealots defending their religion come up with the most fascinating distortions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those were political ideologies helmed by true megalomaniacs. When did any of the regimes noted above ever commit an act of horror to the accompaniment of "god _is not_ on our side".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or whilst standing on one foot using a kazoo - so your religion MUST be blameless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but killing in the name of a deity (or a religious brand), has had far greater consequence and it continues today. You can do this at home - take a  look at the conflicts / skirmishes around the globe today. Overwhelming, they are being waged by the religious entities and especially, an angry component of the Abrahamic faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 200 million peace time civilians.
> 
> I condemn the Muzzie Beasts and the terrorism they perpetrate, but they are amateurs in contrast to you Atheists. No one mass murders on the scale you do.
> 
> Fact.
Click to expand...


Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.  Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. 

It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods.  

Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.

Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organization or church. It fulfills none of the criteria that define a religion. 

Common among many atheists is an appreciation for secularism, rationalism, humanism, skepticism, naturalism, materialism and freethinking  none of which are implicit or derived from atheism, nor necessary in order to lack belief.

To say that atheism requires faith is as dim-witted as saying that disbelief in pixies or leprechauns takes faith. Even if Einstein himself told me there was an elf on my shoulder, I would still ask for proof and I wouldnt be wrong to ask.  Geoff Mather


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Defending your religion...
> 
> 
> 
> Then I guess that Atheism is the most pure form of extremism, since no movement in human history has resulted in anywhere near the peace time, civilian slaughter that Atheism has engaged in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about native American indians?  Were the pilgrims on the mayflower atheists?  Were Louis & Clark or the men who came after them and slaughtered all the indians not christians?  What about signing treaties and then renigging on them and then murdering them?  What a hoot you are.
> 
> Like China said about America, you guys think you have the moral high ground to preach to people about espionage?  Like Russia said to us, you think you have the right to tell us not to invade another country after you invaded Iraq?  And now here your forefathers murdered the indians to steal their land and you think god blesses America and you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What did your forefathers do????
Click to expand...


We were enslaved by the turks for 500 years.  Then the nazi's invaded Greece during ww2 and my family ended up coming to America.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about native American indians?  Were the pilgrims on the mayflower atheists?  Were Louis & Clark or the men who came after them and slaughtered all the indians not christians?  What about signing treaties and then renigging on them and then murdering them?  What a hoot you are.
> 
> Like China said about America, you guys think you have the moral high ground to preach to people about espionage?  Like Russia said to us, you think you have the right to tell us not to invade another country after you invaded Iraq?  And now here your forefathers murdered the indians to steal their land and you think god blesses America and you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What did your forefathers do????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We were enslaved by the turks for 500 years.  Then the nazi's invaded Greece during ww2 and my family ended up coming to America.
Click to expand...

WONDER WHY  they would want to come here???? FREEDOM,JUSTICE,IN GOD WE TRUST!!!!


----------



## Hollie

Hollie said:


> You toss around "fact" without being able to define the term. Atheism had nothing to do with the atrocities of the socialist/communist/Maoist regimes.





Uncensored2008 said:


> Zealots defending their religion come up with the most fascinating distortions.


I can understand you're angry at being challenged to defend your specious claims, but be prepared to be support your arguments, especially when your arguments are built around the ".... because I say so" crap.



> Those were political ideologies helmed by true megalomaniacs. When did any of the regimes noted above ever commit an act of horror to the accompaniment of "god _is not_ on our side".





> Or whilst standing on one foot using a kazoo - so your religion MUST be blameless.


I understand, you're befuddled and can't compose a coherent comment. 



> Sorry, but killing in the name of a deity (or a religious brand), has had far greater consequence and it continues today. You can do this at home - take a  look at the conflicts / skirmishes around the globe today. Overwhelming, they are being waged by the religious entities and especially, an angry component of the Abrahamic faith.





Uncensored2008 said:


> 200 million peace time civilians.
> 
> I condemn the Muzzie Beasts and the terrorism they perpetrate, but they are amateurs in contrast to you Atheists. No one mass murders on the scale you do.
> 
> Fact.


How strange that you toss "fact" around and you're unable to support your "fact" with anything but ".... because I say so."

Your "fact" is not fact at all. Either you're too lazy or too fact-less to offer any comparable numbers for review.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> What did your forefathers do????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We were enslaved by the turks for 500 years.  Then the nazi's invaded Greece during ww2 and my family ended up coming to America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WONDER WHY  they would want to come here???? FREEDOM,JUSTICE,IN GOD WE TRUST!!!!
Click to expand...


Financial opportunity.  Do you think rich people in Greece don't feel free?  And by the way, where should black people in America go to get those things?


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> gismys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> we were enslaved by the turks for 500 years.  Then the nazi's invaded greece during ww2 and my family ended up coming to america.
> 
> 
> 
> wonder why  they would want to come here???? Freedom,justice,in god we trust!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> financial opportunity.  Do you think rich people in greece don't feel free?  And by the way, where should black people in america go to get those things?
Click to expand...


get a job!!!


----------



## sealybobo

Hollie said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You toss around "fact" without being able to define the term. Atheism had nothing to do with the atrocities of the socialist/communist/Maoist regimes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Zealots defending their religion come up with the most fascinating distortions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can understand you're angry at being challenged to defend your specious claims, but be prepared to be support your arguments, especially when your arguments are built around the ".... because I say so" crap.
> I understand, you're befuddled and can't compose a coherent comment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but killing in the name of a deity (or a religious brand), has had far greater consequence and it continues today. You can do this at home - take a  look at the conflicts / skirmishes around the globe today. Overwhelming, they are being waged by the religious entities and especially, an angry component of the Abrahamic faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 200 million peace time civilians.
> 
> I condemn the Muzzie Beasts and the terrorism they perpetrate, but they are amateurs in contrast to you Atheists. No one mass murders on the scale you do.
> 
> Fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How strange that you toss "fact" around and you're unable to support your "fact" with anything but ".... because I say so."
> 
> Your "fact" is not fact at all. Either you're too lazy or too fact-less to offer any comparable numbers for review.
Click to expand...


I looked into the French revolution and it was 20-40,000 people, not 200 million.


----------



## sealybobo

Uncensored2008 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You toss around "fact" without being able to define the term. Atheism had nothing to do with the atrocities of the socialist/communist/Maoist regimes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zealots defending their religion come up with the most fascinating distortions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those were political ideologies helmed by true megalomaniacs. When did any of the regimes noted above ever commit an act of horror to the accompaniment of "god _is not_ on our side".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or whilst standing on one foot using a kazoo - so your religion MUST be blameless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but killing in the name of a deity (or a religious brand), has had far greater consequence and it continues today. You can do this at home - take a  look at the conflicts / skirmishes around the globe today. Overwhelming, they are being waged by the religious entities and especially, an angry component of the Abrahamic faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 200 million peace time civilians.
> 
> I condemn the Muzzie Beasts and the terrorism they perpetrate, but they are amateurs in contrast to you Atheists. No one mass murders on the scale you do.
> 
> Fact.
Click to expand...


Haven't atheists killed more people in the name of atheism than religious theists have killed in the name of their religion? No, because atheism isn't a philosophy or ideology.

How can that be? After all, millions and millions of people died in Russia and China under communist governments  and those governments were both secular and atheistic. So weren't all of those people killed because of atheism  even in the name of atheism and secularism? No, that conclusion does not follow. Atheism itself isn't a principle, cause, philosophy, or belief system which people fight, die, or kill for. Being killed by an atheist is no more being killed in the name of atheism than being killed by a tall person is being killed in the name of tallness.


----------



## sealybobo

Uncensored2008 said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Defending your religion...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Extremism takes that accolade, and whether it is an extremism that includes faith or rejects it, it is the inability to be inclusive of the variety of human experience that leads down the same destructive path that every "true Scotsman" will take you down, no matter the foundational beliefs.
> Hubris is the killer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then I guess that Atheism is the most pure form of extremism, since no movement in human history has resulted in anywhere near the peace time, civilian slaughter that Atheism has engaged in.
Click to expand...


The truth is that German Christians supported the Nazis because they believed that Adolf Hitler was a gift to the German people from God. Hitler frequently referenced God and Christianity both in public and private. The Nazi Party Program explicitly endorsed and promoted Christianity in the party platform. Millions of Christians in Germany not only enthusiastically supported and endorsed Hitler and the Nazis, but did so on the basis of common Christian beliefs and attitudes. 

Even if Hitler didn't believe in god, he used god to con the stupid masses, just like the churches do today.


----------



## sealybobo

A common complaint made by theists, typically those of the fundamentalist variety, is that atheism and/or humanism are essentially socialist or communist in nature. Thus, atheism and humanism should be rejected since socialism and communism are evil. Evidence indicates that bigotry and prejudice towards atheists in America is due in no small part to anti-communist activism by conservatives Christians in America, so this claimed connection has had serious consequences for American atheists.

I've even heard fools on this board make these claims.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Uncensored2008 said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Defending your religion...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Extremism takes that accolade, and whether it is an extremism that includes faith or rejects it, it is the inability to be inclusive of the variety of human experience that leads down the same destructive path that every "true Scotsman" will take you down, no matter the foundational beliefs.
> Hubris is the killer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then I guess that Atheism is the most pure form of extremism, since no movement in human history has resulted in anywhere near the peace time, civilian slaughter that Atheism has engaged in.
Click to expand...


The examples you folks always like to give were not atheist movements but rather dictatorial regimes. The only reason atheism was involved was because religion had the capacity to undermine the absolute authority of the regime, just like the intellectuals, poets and artists did who were also targeted for persecution or elimination.
It was the extremism that was the killer. Atheism was simply  a tool to create absolute authority. In and of itself it was completely irrelevant.
But you guys never understand that.
The Taliban has the same absolute authority mindset, and so did Christian Rome.


----------



## sealybobo

Religious believers, mostly Christians, are responding to atheistic critiques of religion by claiming that vocal, unapologetic atheists are analogous to religious terrorists and that criticism of religion is a form of religious intolerance. The implication is that believers shouldn't have to be faced with criticism. This is wrong: religion and theism aren't owed any deference or respect.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Defending your religion...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Extremism takes that accolade, and whether it is an extremism that includes faith or rejects it, it is the inability to be inclusive of the variety of human experience that leads down the same destructive path that every "true Scotsman" will take you down, no matter the foundational beliefs.
> Hubris is the killer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then I guess that Atheism is the most pure form of extremism, since no movement in human history has resulted in anywhere near the peace time, civilian slaughter that Atheism has engaged in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The truth is that German Christians supported the Nazis because they believed that Adolf Hitler was a gift to the German people from God. Hitler frequently referenced God and Christianity both in public and private. The Nazi Party Program explicitly endorsed and promoted Christianity in the party platform. Millions of Christians in Germany not only enthusiastically supported and endorsed Hitler and the Nazis, but did so on the basis of common Christian beliefs and attitudes.
> 
> Even if Hitler didn't believe in god, he used god to con the stupid masses, just like the churches do today.
Click to expand...


why come here to try to fight against ALMIGHTY GOD?? ALMIGHTY GOD who you say don't believe in,how IGNORANT AND FOOLISH,Why waste your time???? SINPLE ANSWER=YOU know GOD is real but you want to live in your pet sins and hope GOD is not real=HELL BOUND FOOL!!!


----------



## sealybobo

thebrucebeat said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Defending your religion...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Extremism takes that accolade, and whether it is an extremism that includes faith or rejects it, it is the inability to be inclusive of the variety of human experience that leads down the same destructive path that every "true Scotsman" will take you down, no matter the foundational beliefs.
> Hubris is the killer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then I guess that Atheism is the most pure form of extremism, since no movement in human history has resulted in anywhere near the peace time, civilian slaughter that Atheism has engaged in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The examples you folks always like to give were not atheist movements but rather dictatorial regimes. The only reason atheism was involved was because religion had the capacity to undermine the absolute authority of the regime, just like the intellectuals, poets and artists did who were also targeted for persecution or elimination.
> It was the extremism that was the killer. Atheism was simply  a tool to create absolute authority. In and of itself it was completely irrelevant.
> But you guys never understand that.
> The Taliban has the same absolute authority mindset, and so did Christian Rome.
Click to expand...


----------



## Steven_R

The claim that atheism killed more than anything else conveniently forgets the role technology played. 8 million Europeans were slaughtered during the 30 Years War. Cromwell starved a million Catholics to death in Ireland. God alone only knows how many people in the New World were put to death by the Church and the Conquistadores to save them from themselves. Were those people somehow less dead because the Christians doing the killing didn't understand how to make Zyklon-B?


----------



## thebrucebeat

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Defending your religion...
> 
> 
> 
> Then I guess that Atheism is the most pure form of extremism, since no movement in human history has resulted in anywhere near the peace time, civilian slaughter that Atheism has engaged in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is that German Christians supported the Nazis because they believed that Adolf Hitler was a gift to the German people from God. Hitler frequently referenced God and Christianity both in public and private. The Nazi Party Program explicitly endorsed and promoted Christianity in the party platform. Millions of Christians in Germany not only enthusiastically supported and endorsed Hitler and the Nazis, but did so on the basis of common Christian beliefs and attitudes.
> 
> Even if Hitler didn't believe in god, he used god to con the stupid masses, just like the churches do today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> why come here to try to fight against ALMIGHTY GOD?? ALMIGHTY GOD who you say don't believe in,how IGNORANT AND FOOLISH,Why waste your time???? SINPLE ANSWER=YOU know GOD is real but you want to live in your pet sins and hope GOD is not real=HELL BOUND FOOL!!!
Click to expand...


No one here is fighting god.
They are fighting you.
How many times does this have to be explained to you?


----------



## GISMYS

thebrucebeat said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is that German Christians supported the Nazis because they believed that Adolf Hitler was a gift to the German people from God. Hitler frequently referenced God and Christianity both in public and private. The Nazi Party Program explicitly endorsed and promoted Christianity in the party platform. Millions of Christians in Germany not only enthusiastically supported and endorsed Hitler and the Nazis, but did so on the basis of common Christian beliefs and attitudes.
> 
> Even if Hitler didn't believe in god, he used god to con the stupid masses, just like the churches do today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why come here to try to fight against ALMIGHTY GOD?? ALMIGHTY GOD who you say don't believe in,how IGNORANT AND FOOLISH,Why waste your time???? SINPLE ANSWER=YOU know GOD is real but you want to live in your pet sins and hope GOD is not real=HELL BOUND FOOL!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one here is fighting god.
> They are fighting you.
> How many times does this have to be explained to you?
Click to expand...


ROFLMAO!!!Why be a common liar for so little????


----------



## Uncensored2008

sealybobo said:


> I'm reading about the French Revolution.  Pretty interesting stuff.  They should have went after the catholic church like that when we found out that they were covering up for pedophile priests.



You are an Atheist, so murder is your passion.

Say, read that on a per capita basis, acts of molestation are 37 times more prevalent in public schools. 

But hey, your an Atheist, blood lust and bigotry define you...



> And knowing the history of the catholic church, I kind of have a hard time blaming France for wanting to do away with christianity.  I didn't know this history existed.



Of course, you Atheists just love mass murder.



> Victims of the Reign of Terror totaled somewhere between 20,000 and 40,000. According to one estimate, among those condemned by the revolutionary tribunals, about 8 percent were aristocrats, 6 percent clergy, 14 percent middle class, and 70 percent were workers or peasants accused of hoarding, evading the draft, desertion, rebellion, and other purported crimes.



And how many died in 500 years of Inquisition?



> Waaaah!!!  Tell it to the American Indians.



You're flailing.

Stupidly.


----------



## thebrucebeat

GISMYS said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> why come here to try to fight against ALMIGHTY GOD?? ALMIGHTY GOD who you say don't believe in,how IGNORANT AND FOOLISH,Why waste your time???? SINPLE ANSWER=YOU know GOD is real but you want to live in your pet sins and hope GOD is not real=HELL BOUND FOOL!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one here is fighting god.
> They are fighting you.
> How many times does this have to be explained to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO!!!Why be a common liar for so little????
Click to expand...


Would you care to point out the lie?
Or are you happy enough using acronyms for vulgarity?
Even the believers on here fight you.
You embarrass them.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Uncensored2008 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm reading about the French Revolution.  Pretty interesting stuff.  They should have went after the catholic church like that when we found out that they were covering up for pedophile priests.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are an Atheist, so murder is your passion.
> 
> Say, read that on a per capita basis, acts of molestation at 37 times more prevalent in public schools.
> 
> But hey, your an Atheist, blood lust and bigotry define you...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And knowing the history of the catholic church, I kind of have a hard time blaming France for wanting to do away with christianity.  I didn't know this history existed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, you Atheists just love mass murder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Victims of the Reign of Terror totaled somewhere between 20,000 and 40,000. According to one estimate, among those condemned by the revolutionary tribunals, about 8 percent were aristocrats, 6 percent clergy, 14 percent middle class, and 70 percent were workers or peasants accused of hoarding, evading the draft, desertion, rebellion, and other purported crimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how many died in 500 years of Inquisition?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Waaaah!!!  Tell it to the American Indians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're flailing.
> 
> Stupidly.
Click to expand...


Atheists love blood lust and bigotry and mass murder?
And HE is flailing?
You are a cartoon.


----------



## GISMYS

thebrucebeat said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one here is fighting god.
> They are fighting you.
> How many times does this have to be explained to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO!!!Why be a common liar for so little????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would you care to point out the lie?
> Or are you happy enough using acronyms for vulgarity?
Click to expand...


ALL unbelievers spend their lives trying to argue and fight against GOD! WHY ELSE ARE YOU POSTING HERE????????


----------



## thebrucebeat

GISMYS said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO!!!Why be a common liar for so little????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you care to point out the lie?
> Or are you happy enough using acronyms for vulgarity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ALL unbelievers spend their lives trying to argue and fight against GOD! WHY ELSE ARE YOU POSTING HERE????????
Click to expand...


Personally, I come here to point out poor argumentation and intellectual fraud.
Do you think it is coincidence that I wind up responding to you so often?


----------



## GISMYS

thebrucebeat said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you care to point out the lie?
> Or are you happy enough using acronyms for vulgarity?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ALL unbelievers spend their lives trying to argue and fight against GOD! WHY ELSE ARE YOU POSTING HERE????????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Personally, I come here to point out poor argumentation and intellectual fraud.
> Do you think it is coincidence that I wind up responding to you so often?
Click to expand...


ROFLMAO!!!! THINK AGAIN!! IMHO GOD brings you here to read my posts and learn some truth!!!


----------



## Uncensored2008

sealybobo said:


> Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.  Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more.
> 
> It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods.
> 
> Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.
> 
> Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organization or church. It fulfills none of the criteria that define a religion.
> 
> Common among many atheists is an appreciation for secularism, rationalism, humanism, skepticism, naturalism, materialism and freethinking  none of which are implicit or derived from atheism, nor necessary in order to lack belief.
> 
> To say that atheism requires faith is as dim-witted as saying that disbelief in pixies or leprechauns takes faith. Even if Einstein himself told me there was an elf on my shoulder, I would still ask for proof and I wouldnt be wrong to ask.  Geoff Mather



You confuse agnosticism with the fanatical religion of Atheism.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Hollie said:


> How strange that you toss "fact" around and you're unable to support your "fact" with anything but ".... because I say so."
> 
> Your "fact" is not fact at all. Either you're too lazy or too fact-less to offer any comparable numbers for review.



200 million dead - not by war, but by genocide - perpetrated by your religion. That you are a fanatic doesn't alter reality - 200 million dead.


----------



## Uncensored2008

sealybobo said:


> I looked into the French revolution and it was 20-40,000 people, not 200 million.



You must have forgotten the great Atheists, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Ho, Kim, Pot...

Atheism - the most deadly ism in human history - nothing else even comes close.


----------



## Uncensored2008

sealybobo said:


> The truth is that German Christians supported the Nazis because they believed that Adolf Hitler was a gift to the German people from God. Hitler frequently referenced God and Christianity both in public and private. The Nazi Party Program explicitly endorsed and promoted Christianity in the party platform. Millions of Christians in Germany not only enthusiastically supported and endorsed Hitler and the Nazis, but did so on the basis of common Christian beliefs and attitudes.
> 
> Even if Hitler didn't believe in god, he used god to con the stupid masses, just like the churches do today.



Even if we accept your nonsense as true, you have 14 versus 200.

But then, you said Hitler was an occultist...


----------



## Hollie

Uncensored2008 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> How strange that you toss "fact" around and you're unable to support your "fact" with anything but ".... because I say so."
> 
> Your "fact" is not fact at all. Either you're too lazy or too fact-less to offer any comparable numbers for review.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 200 million dead - not by war, but by genocide - perpetrated by your religion. That you are a fanatic doesn't alter reality - 200 million dead.
Click to expand...


You're reality challenged. It's stereotypical of sweaty, chest-heaving loons to parrot absurdities as you do.

It's been explained to you that your continued confusion with atheism as a religion is false and unsupportable. You're just a slow learner?


----------



## Steven_R

Uncensored2008 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I looked into the French revolution and it was 20-40,000 people, not 200 million.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must have forgotten the great Atheists, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Ho, Kim, Pot...
> 
> Atheism - the most deadly ism in human history - nothing else even comes close.
Click to expand...


_Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius._


----------



## Uncensored2008

thebrucebeat said:


> The examples you folks always like to give were not atheist movements but rather dictatorial regimes.



Got it, because the Inquisition was under a popular Republican government....



> The only reason atheism was involved was because religion had the capacity to undermine the absolute authority of the regime, just like the intellectuals, poets and artists did who were also targeted for persecution or elimination.



Ahm that must be why religion was never found in the European monarchies - it undermind absolute authority....



> It was the extremism that was the killer. Atheism was simply  a tool to create absolute authority. In and of itself it was completely irrelevant.
> But you guys never understand that.
> The Taliban has the same absolute authority mindset, and so did Christian Rome.



In some ways you have a point - but where you jump off track is in failing to grasp that Atheism is extremism by nature.


----------



## thebrucebeat

GISMYS said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> ALL unbelievers spend their lives trying to argue and fight against GOD! WHY ELSE ARE YOU POSTING HERE????????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I come here to point out poor argumentation and intellectual fraud.
> Do you think it is coincidence that I wind up responding to you so often?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO!!!! THINK AGAIN!! IMHO GOD brings you here to read my posts and learn some truth!!!
Click to expand...


More acronyms for vulgarity.
I don't really think I am going to go to your posts for wisdom.
Your arrogance not withstanding.


----------



## Hollie

Uncensored2008 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I looked into the French revolution and it was 20-40,000 people, not 200 million.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must have forgotten the great Atheists, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Ho, Kim, Pot...
> 
> Atheism - the most deadly ism in human history - nothing else even comes close.
Click to expand...


You haven't forgotten, just never learned, that Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Ho, Kim, Pot, furthered political ideologies and /or goals of self aggrandizement. 

I suppose it offends your tender sensibilities to have your slogans and cliches dismissed as pointless.


----------



## Montrovant

Uncensored2008 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I looked into the French revolution and it was 20-40,000 people, not 200 million.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must have forgotten the great Atheists, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Ho, Kim, Pot...
> 
> Atheism - the most deadly ism in human history - nothing else even comes close.
Click to expand...


thebrucebeat pointed out extremism.  I'll add nationalism.  Even where religion or atheism were involved, how many wars or atrocities have been committed because clashes between nations, or a requirement for devotion to same?

The important point, I think, is that trying to pin religion or atheism with the blame for every death caused by a religious or atheistic regime is foolish.


----------



## Hollie

Uncensored2008 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.  Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more.
> 
> It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods.
> 
> Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.
> 
> Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organization or church. It fulfills none of the criteria that define a religion.
> 
> Common among many atheists is an appreciation for secularism, rationalism, humanism, skepticism, naturalism, materialism and freethinking  none of which are implicit or derived from atheism, nor necessary in order to lack belief.
> 
> To say that atheism requires faith is as dim-witted as saying that disbelief in pixies or leprechauns takes faith. Even if Einstein himself told me there was an elf on my shoulder, I would still ask for proof and I wouldnt be wrong to ask.  Geoff Mather
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You confuse agnosticism with the fanatical religion of Atheism.
Click to expand...


You were just schooled on how ineffectual and blatantly absurd your comments are.


----------



## Montrovant

Uncensored2008 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.  Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more.
> 
> It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods.
> 
> Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.
> 
> Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organization or church. It fulfills none of the criteria that define a religion.
> 
> Common among many atheists is an appreciation for secularism, rationalism, humanism, skepticism, naturalism, materialism and freethinking  none of which are implicit or derived from atheism, nor necessary in order to lack belief.
> 
> To say that atheism requires faith is as dim-witted as saying that disbelief in pixies or leprechauns takes faith. Even if Einstein himself told me there was an elf on my shoulder, I would still ask for proof and I wouldnt be wrong to ask.  Geoff Mather
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You confuse agnosticism with the fanatical religion of Atheism.
Click to expand...


It is not a matter of confusion.  Atheism has more than one definition.  

You, for example, use a definition that seems to include love of murder rather than a simple disbelief in god(s).


----------



## thebrucebeat

Uncensored2008 said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> The examples you folks always like to give were not atheist movements but rather dictatorial regimes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got it, because the Inquisition was under a popular Republican government....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only reason atheism was involved was because religion had the capacity to undermine the absolute authority of the regime, just like the intellectuals, poets and artists did who were also targeted for persecution or elimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ahm that must be why religion was never found in the European monarchies - it undermind absolute authority....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was the extremism that was the killer. Atheism was simply  a tool to create absolute authority. In and of itself it was completely irrelevant.
> But you guys never understand that.
> The Taliban has the same absolute authority mindset, and so did Christian Rome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In some ways you have a point - but where you jump off track is in failing to grasp that Atheism is extremism by nature.
Click to expand...


I can't help but think you don't know many atheists.
Most of them think our entire conversation is a hilarious waste of time.
They couldn't care less, and are the least extreme elements of society because they are simply not engaged in this at all.
You have created a vision of the lack of belief in a deity morphing into blood lust and murder fantasies, and it is an insane self-created fantasy.


----------



## Uncensored2008

sealybobo said:


> Religious believers, mostly Christians, are responding to atheistic critiques of religion by claiming that vocal, unapologetic atheists are analogous to religious terrorists and that criticism of religion is a form of religious intolerance. The implication is that believers shouldn't have to be faced with criticism. This is wrong: religion and theism aren't owed any deference or respect.



I'm not a theist by any stretch of the imagination, but I see the bigotry and religious intolerance perpetrated by the left as an assault on fundamental liberty. I adamantly defend the right of men to say there is no god, without fear of prison or censure from the state. I defend their right to say this in the public square and on the court house steps.

But you demand that those who say there is a god should be silenced by force of arms from stating their beliefs. It makes no difference to me if a little girl prays to Bugs Bunny before a football game, why would it. But you demand that men with guns must stop a little girl from praying to Christ on what you see has holy ground, owned by the beloved state who is above all men.

I oppose you not because I have faith in the god of the Christians, I most certainly do not, I oppose you because you promote tyranny.


----------



## emilynghiem

1. I do not see you as angry at all. All your objections seem to be based on content, not rejecting for the sake of rejecting. You seem to present yourself in a evenly keeled good natured tone.

I understand you have reasons for distrusting, criticizing and rejecting "politicized Christianity" but that is separate from the true meaning message and practice.

That seems a natural reaction that doesn't impede you too much from interacting and seeking to share with others.
You seem to stay rationally minded about this, so I would peg you as one of the "righteous gentiles" who naturally follows the law by conscience.
This path is still governed by the same spirit of truth and justice that God and Jesus represent, while gentiles using natural laws share from a secular perspective of seeing and saying things.

If you have a bias against the concept of a god, I think it is natural for you, and not just an emotional reaction against other people or views.

So I think this is workable with. Everyone has limits, conditions, boundaries and biases.
We all have cultural differences that make our perception and experiences come out different and unique to each of us.
There is no reason to make this a stumbling block when everyone is going to have differences, and some of these are going to conflict directly. that's just life and how people are.

2. I would compare your view of Christian politicians as very similar to why people distrust the Democrat party and liberals "as a group" and do not have faith that abuses of power can be corrected.

Instead of seeking to work with people within the party, opponents just attack the whole group, pointing out the corruption and wrongs done by party leaders and politics in the name of elections and votes, and the complete denial and refusal to address these issues.

So this is similar to how opponents reject Christianity where members seem to totally overlook wrongs and seem to push their own agenda for selfish reasons, so it's abusive
The abuses of Christianity are then used to discredit the practice and its practitioners as a whole.

Sealybobo it is interesting to me that you and I can forgive the problems with Democrats falling to corrupt politicians abusing the party for votes and power; I share the faith that people WITHIN the party have sincere ideals and commitment, even if the system of power has been hijacked by those with more influence financially, politically and with the media.

I do not throw out all the other members, and principles, just because of the corrupt Democrat leaders, practices and history that have completely gone against these goals.
In fact, I try even HARDER to correct the problems by standing up for these principles,
and working toward corrections, solutions and restitution invested from past abuses. I think that is the very least owed, for all the exploitation of minorities and politics in the past.

So when I take this same self-correctional approach with Christianity, enforcing the principles among peers in order to hold each other to the standards we agree to follow, to correct abuses,
I find that not all people can do that. Christians may have faith that other Christians can be held to account this way; but opponents attacking from outside do not. The parties are equally bad if not worse.

GISMYS may be able to forgive the wrongs committed in the name of Christianity because he puts the good and true purpose first; 
but when it comes to groups he opposes, then all the dirt and past wrongs come out to discredit that group and people associated with it.
Same with political parties.

(One of my friends is so dependent on the Democrat party to represent his disdain for conservative Christian Republicans, that he will not come forward and talk about his opposition to ACA because he doesn't want to align or get used by the other party.)

SB if you also favor the liberal Democrats over the conservative Republicans, if you can forgive the problems and exploitation in the history of the Democrat party, and seek instead to focus on humanitarian principles and purposes that are good to defend, and can be used to OVERCOME and correct the problems that Democrats have long been blamed for.

Isn't that similar to how Christians defend the good principles and purpose in the faith, 
and forgive historic wrongs and abuses while seeking to correct these? Instead of rejecting the whole thing as problematic?



sealybobo said:


> I have friends who are christians, muslims and jews.  If my opinions offend them we just don't talk politics.  And yes I can work with them.  I'm not as angry as I come off.  I'm passionately debating my side.  There is no god.  Anyone who thinks there is is just hoping.
> 
> And these christians who say I'm so angry, that's funny because I have never unfriended a friend because of their christian bullshit, but I have been unfriended by a catholic and jewish friend.  They get FURIOUS if I even try to suggest there is no god.  Why so defensive?  Hard to discuss with someone who's so brainwashed they are even scared to discuss facts like no virgin can get pregnant.



3. my understanding of the concept of immaculate birth of Christ
is that it represents Jesus carrying no karma from physical family as other people do,
and thus no debts that his actions had to repay for his own conscience sake.

So the sacrifice of Christ was not to pay for anything he did or owed which was nothing,
and so it represents paying off and breaking the cycle of karma for all humanity.
Collectively it was for all other people, by nature of his divine role in this process,
and was not for him personally.

Everything is paid forward to help others, and none of it is for working off debts owed in the past, as symbolized by Jesus born free of sin/karma normally inherited from the past.

That is what it symbolizes, but the storytelling and explanation of it makes no sense.
If Mary had to be 100% pure for him to be pure, then so would her parents etc. etc. etc.
That is taking it too literally.

The point is about spiritual purity and lack of conditions.
All other people carry conditions and biases where we do not treat people equally
but favor some more than others. what Jesus represents as God's love or justice
is unconditional, where all people are loved and included equally, which only God can do.
the rest of us are imperfect and biased by material conditions or "sin/karma" passed down.


----------



## Uncensored2008

thebrucebeat said:


> Atheists love blood lust and bigotry and mass murder?
> And HE is flailing?
> You are a cartoon.



So, he wants to murder Catholic Priests - but where is molestation more likely to occur, in a Catholic Church, or a public school?

Blood Lust is one of the defining characteristics of Atheists, as is bigotry.


----------



## Uncensored2008

thebrucebeat said:


> Personally, I come here to point out poor argumentation and intellectual fraud.



Ironic post is ironic..



> Do you think it is coincidence that I wind up responding to you so often?



I find very little difference in the reasoning abilities or tactics of GISMYS and SealyBobo. They have differing faiths, but both are fanatics without a hint of reason...


----------



## thebrucebeat

Uncensored2008 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religious believers, mostly Christians, are responding to atheistic critiques of religion by claiming that vocal, unapologetic atheists are analogous to religious terrorists and that criticism of religion is a form of religious intolerance. The implication is that believers shouldn't have to be faced with criticism. This is wrong: religion and theism aren't owed any deference or respect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a theist by any stretch of the imagination, but I see the bigotry and religious intolerance perpetrated by the left as an assault on fundamental liberty. I adamantly defend the right of men to say there is no god, without fear of prison or censure from the state. I defend their right to say this in the public square and on the court house steps.
> 
> But you demand that those who say there is a god should be silenced by force of arms from stating their beliefs. It makes no difference to me if a little girl prays to Bugs Bunny before a football game, why would it. But you demand that men with guns must stop a little girl from praying to Christ on what you see has holy ground, owned by the beloved state who is above all men.
> 
> I oppose you not because I have faith in the god of the Christians, I most certainly do not, I oppose you because you promote tyranny.
Click to expand...


Silly argument on its face.
No one tries to silence little girls praying at gunpoint. What in the world kind of fantasy are you creating?
What non-believers are proactive about is not letting the state become a conduit for religious faith. The girl is free to pray anywhere she likes. She is not free to use the state's infrastructure to promote her prayers to everyone else.
Why would the faithful need the state to promote their ideals? Are they not capable of presenting these ideas on their own?


----------



## GISMYS

Uncensored2008 said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I come here to point out poor argumentation and intellectual fraud.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ironic post is ironic..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think it is coincidence that I wind up responding to you so often?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find very little difference in the reasoning abilities or tactics of GISMYS and SealyBobo. They have differing faiths, but both are fanatics without a hint of reason...
Click to expand...


YES!! I HAVE FOUND ETERNAL LIVING TRUTH and I love to share!!! I take no joy in seeing you chose hell!!


----------



## thebrucebeat

Uncensored2008 said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheists love blood lust and bigotry and mass murder?
> And HE is flailing?
> You are a cartoon.
> 
> 
> 
> Blood Lust is one of the defining characteristics of Atheists, as is bigotry.
Click to expand...


Where do you get this insane idea?
What evidence do you have of that? What do you base this on?


----------



## HUGGY

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> What did your forefathers do????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We were enslaved by the turks for 500 years.  Then the nazi's invaded Greece during ww2 and my family ended up coming to America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WONDER WHY  they would want to come here???? FREEDOM,JUSTICE,IN GOD WE TRUST!!!!
Click to expand...


God wasn't inserted into the pledge of allegiance until 1954 you fucking dimwit.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Hollie said:


> You're reality challenged.



So your answer is to lie?

Well, isn't that clever.

200 million victims of Atheist genocide - regardless of whether you lie for your faith.



> It's stereotypical of sweaty, chest-heaving loons to parrot absurdities as you do.
> 
> It's been explained to you that your continued confusion with atheism as a religion is false and unsupportable. You're just a slow learner?



Yet here you are, shoving your faith down the throat of everyone else.

See, I support your right to believe any damned thing you want. We clash because you deny that right to others.


----------



## GISMYS

And the men, instead of having normal sex relationships with women, burned with lust for each other, men doing shameful things with other men and, as a result, getting paid within their own souls with the penalty they so richly deserved.


----------



## emilynghiem

GISMYS said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO!!!Why be a common liar for so little????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you care to point out the lie?
> Or are you happy enough using acronyms for vulgarity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ALL unbelievers spend their lives trying to argue and fight against GOD! WHY ELSE ARE YOU POSTING HERE????????
Click to expand...


No, people are fighting against other people imposing unfair generalizations that offend or conflict with them.

Yes, we seek and are driven by a sense of truth and justice by conscience.
That is common. If you want to call that God and Jesus, I agree those align.

But people who don't call or personify the source of truth and justice as "God and Jesus"
are going to just use that to argue that you are imposing your religious views on them.

Why not agree that we are motivated by the same universal principles,
and just present or represent these in different ways?

Isn't the spirit/meaning of God/Christ the same whether we personify these or not? Does it matter what term or concept we use as long as we are talking about the same thing?

Why pick fights with people who just don't see or call it the same things? How long can this go on, not solving issues with how we say things, before trying a different way that might?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Montrovant said:


> It is not a matter of confusion.  Atheism has more than one definition.
> 
> You, for example, use a definition that seems to include love of murder rather than a simple disbelief in god(s).



Atheism is the certainty that there is no supernatural and can be no supernatural. Such a position is based purely on faith, there is no empirical evidence to support such a notion.

I do not find that faith superior to the Christians, and given the aggressive opposition to liberty by the Atheists, I find them far more dangerous than Christians. History supports my view.


----------



## emilynghiem

GISMYS said:


> And the men, instead of having normal sex relationships with women, burned with lust for each other, men doing shameful things with other men and, as a result, getting paid within their own souls with the penalty they so richly deserved.



Well, on here, I see a lot of useless masturbation
instead of meaningful fulfilling intercourse that leads to some kind of consummation.


----------



## GISMYS

emilynghiem said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you care to point out the lie?
> Or are you happy enough using acronyms for vulgarity?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ALL unbelievers spend their lives trying to argue and fight against GOD! WHY ELSE ARE YOU POSTING HERE????????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, people are fighting against other people imposing unfair generalizations that offend or conflict with them.
> 
> Yes, we seek and are driven by a sense of truth and justice by conscience.
> That is common. If you want to call that God and Jesus, I agree those align.
> 
> But people who don't call or personify the source of truth and justice as "God and Jesus"
> are going to just use that to argue that you are imposing your religious views on them.
> 
> Why not agree that we are motivated by the same universal principles,
> and just present or represent these in different ways?
> 
> Isn't the spirit/meaning of God/Christ the same whether we personify these or not? Does it matter what term or concept we use as long as we are talking about the same thing?
> 
> Why pick fights with people who just don't see or call it the same things? How long can this go on, not solving issues with how we say things, before trying a different way that might?
Click to expand...


WOW!!! Satan could not have said that better!! OR DID HE??????????


----------



## Montrovant

Uncensored2008 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a matter of confusion.  Atheism has more than one definition.
> 
> You, for example, use a definition that seems to include love of murder rather than a simple disbelief in god(s).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is the certainty that there is no supernatural and can be no supernatural. Such a position is based purely on faith, there is no empirical evidence to support such a notion.
> 
> I do not find that faith superior to the Christians, and given the aggressive opposition to liberty by the Atheists, I find them far more dangerous than Christians. History supports my view.
Click to expand...


It seems clear to me that you and those you are arguing with are operating under different definitions of the word atheist.  I am pretty sure they are using the definition not believing in a god or gods.  It would be more along the lines of agnosticism the way you are using the terms.

I would argue that history does not support your view of atheists.


----------



## emilynghiem

sealybobo said:


> I use to feel special that I got it that organized religion was bullshit but I had a personal relationship with god.  Then I met some atheists and they got me to realize I was just about as naive as the people who believe the christian, muslim or jewish stories.
> 
> And I don't feel bad or guilty because I know if there is a god he isn't the petty god these religious nuts claim him to be.  No hell for not believing a corrupt hypocritical society or the churches in them.  I say a real god would punish the stupid, if there is one, and common sense says there isn't one.  Imagine you are a god to the fish in the pond you fish in.  They worship you.  You feed them.  You supposedly love them.  Every once in awhile you hook one and you eat it.  They say "oh it is god's will and he works in mysterious ways and don't question god or you'll go to hell".



Because you are generally not reactionary, not motivated to OPPOSE others, 
the impression I get from you is that you are naturally secular in your ways.

If you were involved in religion, it was NOT because it was the natural way for you to express and relate. If it was for the wrong reasons, for some external sense of validation and benefits, then of course that will fall apart. Buddha also found nothing by following these other religious traditions and trying every which way to come to understanding of universal truth; none of the external or material conditions is going to help.

I see nothing wrong with secular gentiles following natural laws by conscience
being included in salvation as neighbors in Christ.

Where we agree in  the universal spirit of truth and justice for all people, of course,
all people of all tribes should be included, by the definition of "universal."

What keeps people from building a full and all inclusive agreement is
division, rejection, and exclusion of each other, by individuals or whole groups.

So as long as you don't cut other people out, you won't find yourself cut out of the process.

Where we all have limits or biases and can't work with all people, that is where other people step in who can bridge some of those gaps. None of us is perfectly unbiased and all inclusive in our approach. So that is why we need to help each other where we fall short.

I believe this process takes people from all walks and viewpoints to cover all the ground. There are members in every group who take a "universal inclusion" approach. I think this may be symbolized in the Bible by the 144,000 elders that will be called first from each tribe. That doesn't mean only those will reach heaven, but the agreements established among the tribal members will pave the way for all others to follow in turn. So that is why there are people called from all the different tribes or approaches to life, to include all.


----------



## HUGGY

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Defending your religion...
> 
> 
> 
> Then I guess that Atheism is the most pure form of extremism, since no movement in human history has resulted in anywhere near the peace time, civilian slaughter that Atheism has engaged in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is that German Christians supported the Nazis because they believed that Adolf Hitler was a gift to the German people from God. Hitler frequently referenced God and Christianity both in public and private. The Nazi Party Program explicitly endorsed and promoted Christianity in the party platform. Millions of Christians in Germany not only enthusiastically supported and endorsed Hitler and the Nazis, but did so on the basis of common Christian beliefs and attitudes.
> 
> Even if Hitler didn't believe in god, he used god to con the stupid masses, just like the churches do today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> why come here to try to fight against ALMIGHTY GOD?? ALMIGHTY GOD who you say don't believe in,how IGNORANT AND FOOLISH,Why waste your time???? SINPLE ANSWER=YOU know GOD is real but you want to live in your pet sins and hope GOD is not real=HELL BOUND FOOL!!!
Click to expand...


I would accuse you of having robotlike responses but that would be an insult to robotics.  Who would go to all the trouble to design and build a robot as stupid as you?  A Robot released out in public spouting what you spew would cause someone to take a sledge hammer to it to shut it up.  

In fact the more I see your posts the more I feel inspired to start an anti-christian-robot religion and build a church..and maybe take over a country and maybe rid the world of christian robots.


----------



## Hollie

Hollie said:


> You're reality challenged.





			
				Uncensored2008 said:
			
		

> So your answer is to lie?
> 
> Well, isn't that clever.
> 
> 200 million victims of Atheist genocide - regardless of whether you lie for your faith.


Nothing but slogans? I can understand that your slogans and cliches are drenched in melodrama because your silly claims otherwise lack credibility. However, just realize such behavior doesn't lend credibility to your bankrupt arguments.



> It's stereotypical of sweaty, chest-heaving loons to parrot absurdities as you do.
> 
> It's been explained to you that your continued confusion with atheism as a religion is false and unsupportable. You're just a slow learner?





			
				Uncensored2008 said:
			
		

> Yet here you are, shoving your faith down the throat of everyone else.
> 
> See, I support your right to believe any damned thing you want. We clash because you deny that right to others.



Atheism isn't a faith. Here you are, making desperate attempts to salvage another bankrupt claim.

What rights have I denied anyone? Such pompous behavior does nothing but make you appear quite desperate.


----------



## Uncensored2008

thebrucebeat said:


> I can't help but think you don't know many atheists.



I've run into far more than I wish I had.

The first phase - shown early in this thread - is the Atheist missionary will demand that I am an Atheist. Like the Catholic church of the dark ages, the modern Atheist feels empowered to coerce the faith of those who hold disbelief in the goat herder gods to their own cause.

I then clash with the Atheist missionary - and EVERY FUCKING ATHEIST is a missionary, shouting down all reason to force their fucknut faith on you. 

I explain that I've seen nothing that suggests a god as defined by the Bible, but that I've seen signs of intelligence in quarks and branes. There is no definitive evidence of a god or gods, nor any evidence precluding such. 

Then the missionary will launch into attacks on the Bible, as if I give a fuck. That the goat herder god is false has no bearing on whether there is intelligence in the fabric of the universe.

Then the missionary will become angry that I am not accepting his faith, and engage in ad hom - the stage we are at now.

So you see Bruce, I know Atheists all too well.



> Most of them think our entire conversation is a hilarious waste of time.
> They couldn't care less, and are the least extreme elements of society because they are simply not engaged in this at all.



Sure, but never will one pass up the chance to force a conversion.



> You have created a vision of the lack of belief in a deity morphing into blood lust and murder fantasies, and it is an insane self-created fantasy.



Right, the killing fields and purges never happened - it's just a fantasy created by heretics to keep people from the true faith of Atheism..


----------



## emilynghiem

GISMYS said:


> WOW!!! Satan could not have said that better!! OR DID HE??????????



No, Satan was seeking to divide by fear and selfish will.

The point of these statements is to align people in the spirit of truth
even if we are created under different realms of laws for a reason.
That do not mean we need to be divided against each other out of fear.

GISMYS the difference is whether
we speak the truth with love and selfless concern for others as equals
or we speak out of fear or conflict with others we are "competing" with.

I am not trying to compete with SB, but include both Jews and Gentiles
in a unifying spirit.

The spirit of Satan is fear based and uses opposition to try to divide for control.

I am trying to counteract the damage done by that approach,
by removing fear and division from the equation, so there is nothing to be manipulated by.


----------



## HUGGY

Uncensored2008 said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> The examples you folks always like to give were not atheist movements but rather dictatorial regimes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got it, because the Inquisition was under a popular Republican government....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only reason atheism was involved was because religion had the capacity to undermine the absolute authority of the regime, just like the intellectuals, poets and artists did who were also targeted for persecution or elimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ahm that must be why religion was never found in the European monarchies - it undermind absolute authority....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was the extremism that was the killer. Atheism was simply  a tool to create absolute authority. In and of itself it was completely irrelevant.
> But you guys never understand that.
> The Taliban has the same absolute authority mindset, and so did Christian Rome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In some ways you have a point - but where you *jump off track *is in failing to grasp that Atheism is extremism by nature.
Click to expand...


religists = crazy train



It has been explained to you.  You still cling desperately to your totally wrong ideas concerning what atheism is.  Your learning imparement is unfortunate but it is YOUR problem.  Try shutting your ignorant pie hole about atheists untill your pea brain gets it figured out.


----------



## Uncensored2008

thebrucebeat said:


> Silly argument on its face.



Religious liberty is "silly."

Of course.



> No one tries to silence little girls praying at gunpoint. What in the world kind of fantasy are you creating?



The fuck they are not.

{ Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000)

Facts:
In Santa Fe, Texas, students were elected by their classmates to give pre-game prayers at high school football games over the public address system. A number of students sued, arguing that such solemnizing statements or prayers constituted an endorsement of religion, violating the Establishment Clause. The district countered that the pre-game invocations were a long-standing tradition in Texas communities. Moreover, the prayer came from a student, thus making it student speech and not state-sponsored speech. }

First Amendment Schools: The Five Freedoms - Court Case



> What non-believers are proactive about is not letting the state become a conduit for religious faith. The girl is free to pray anywhere she likes. She is not free to use the state's infrastructure to promote her prayers to everyone else.



What Atheists demand is that no view may be express except their own.

While I defend your right to say there is no god - Atheists used the implied force of the federal government to prohibit people like GISMYS from saying there is one.

I find GISMYS to be irrational, but then I find sealybobo equally irrational. Why should one be permitted to express their beliefs, but the other prohibited? Because the beliefs of sealybobo are the established religion of the government, is the reason.



> Why would the faithful need the state to promote their ideals? Are they not capable of presenting these ideas on their own?



A little girl on a mic at a football game is not the state - she is a little girl. Atheism finds her prayer to be blasphemy against their religion - which is the state religion - so men with guns ensure she is silent.


----------



## emilynghiem

Hi Bruce [MENTION=48205]thebrucebeat[/MENTION]:
I finally got back to your previous msg I wanted to explore more.
Thanks for replying where I can understand and appreciate where you
are coming from. I think if we can communicate using just our natural
language and how we normally perceive and describe things, we
can discuss all the same principles in religion minus any symbolic hocus pocus stuff.

About objectivity:



thebrucebeat said:


> What people subjectively find that motivates them and forms their paradigm is not what I am referring to. You are describing a subjective reality. I am talking about what is real outside of our perceptions, needs, creations or fantasies that no doubt sustain us. These are the rationalizations I frequently refer Boss to that people are 100% invested in. What is truth is not influenced by any of it.



Aren't all your objections and viewpoints, based on your perceptions, memories and experiences in life, also subjective to you?

So if absolute objective truth by definition does not depend on any of this,
doesn't that also go for all the things you perceive as real that motivate you?

Note: I also believe there are both levels. What I am saying is that by aligning our "subjective/relative" realities, by our ways of seeing and saying things, this "reflects"
a microcosm of the greater truth, laws, and relationships that are universal to all people.

This is like working out the math values, and using "variables" to communicate and work out the proof; but understanding the concepts, laws and relationships "do not depend" on those "variables" we are using as tools. We just happen to use or align variables that we agree help us to set things up accurately and communicate clearly how the values or principles relate to each other.

Is this okay?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Hollie said:


> Nothing but slogans? I can understand that your slogans and cliches are drenched in melodrama because your silly claims otherwise lack credibility. However, just realize such behavior doesn't lend credibility to your bankrupt arguments.



200 million slaughtered are not "slogans," they are genocide.



> Atheism isn't a faith. Here you are, making desperate attempts to salvage another bankrupt claim.



You have empirical evidence that there can be no god?

Well do present it....

Atheism is purely based on faith.



> What rights have I denied anyone? Such pompous behavior does nothing but make you appear quite desperate.



Atheism in America fights against freedom of speech and freedom of religion.


----------



## emilynghiem

Instead of criticizing each other for using atheism to mean contrary things,
why not spell out the choices for what it can mean to different people/contexts.

And go through the lists and AGREE which people are talking about which approach:
17 Kinds of Atheism

Behold, the six types of atheists ? CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs

Just because people mean different things does not make one person right and others wrong.

God means different things in different religions, too.
God as Wisdom is different from God as Love or God as Creation.

Why not decide what we mean, and stick to those concepts, so there is no conflict or confusion by using one terms to mean too many different things?

C'mon guys, with the collective intelligence we have on here, let's use some of it!



HUGGY said:


> It has been explained to you.  You still cling desperately to your totally wrong ideas concerning what atheism is.  Your learning imparement is unfortunate but it is YOUR problem.  Try shutting your ignorant pie hole about atheists untill your pea brain gets it figured out.



Note: I'm searching for another list of types of atheism that someone else posted.
I thought there was a list of the equivalent of "different denominations" or degrees of atheism.
I found this, but it isn't the quote I was looking for: http://forums.backpage.com/showthread.php?p=674766&highlight=forms+atheism#post674766

"In practical, or pragmatic, atheism, also known as apatheism, individuals live as if there are no gods and explain natural phenomena without resorting to the divine. 

The existence of gods is not denied, but may be designated unnecessary or useless; gods neither provide purpose to life, nor influence everyday life, according to this view. 

Practical atheism can take various forms:

Absence of religious motivation&#8212;belief in gods does not motivate moral action, religious action, or any other form of action;

Active exclusion of the problem of gods and religion from intellectual pursuit and practical action;

Indifference&#8212;the absence of any interest in the problems of gods and religion; or

Unawareness of the concept of a deity"
__________________


----------



## g4racer

Several different aspects of a problem are being discussed; but the attitude of "I am right so you must be wrong".  The assumption that if someone is an atheist they must be bad can never be supported and I know several atheists that are better defined as good people than many claiming to be Christians.
On occasion I have commented that "many will not do the right thing just because it is the right thing to do".
How many of you can honestly say the politicians you support will never lie or bear false whitness.  Our Founding Fathers" made sure they be held libal for lying.  Most of them lacked honesty and ethics anyway.  
Claiming Christianity does not mean a person is good and denying the existance of God does not make a person bad.


----------



## GISMYS

g4racer said:


> Several different aspects of a problem are being discussed; but the attitude of "I am right so you must be wrong".  The assumption that if someone is an atheist they must be bad can never be supported and I know several atheists that are better defined as good people than many claiming to be Christians.
> On occasion I have commented that "many will not do the right thing just because it is the right thing to do".
> How many of you can honestly say the politicians you support will never lie or bear false whitness.  Our Founding Fathers" made sure they be held libal for lying.  Most of them lacked honesty and ethics anyway.
> Claiming Christianity does not mean a person is good and denying the existance of God does not make a person bad.



GOD says=That man is a fool who says to himself, There is no God! Anyone who talks like that is warped and evil and cannot really be a good person at all.Psalm 14:1===Only a fool would say to himself, There is no God. And why does he say it? Because of his wicked heart, his dark and evil deeds. His life is corroded with sin. PSALM 53:1 and you???


----------



## jillian

HUGGY said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> G-d wants you to stop talking for Him because you seem to forget the whole judge not... thing.
> 
> there's also no such thing as hell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pot meet kettle
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean... big huge burnt out pot meet tiny teaspoon.
> 
> One small interjected opinion is certainly NOT equal to the HUNDREDS of mindless rants offered by Jizzy.
Click to expand...


yeah, but he's  deranged loon.so not surprising reality would confuse him


----------



## jillian

emilynghiem said:


> Instead of criticizing each other for using atheism to mean contrary things,
> why not spell out the choices for what it can mean to different people/contexts



i can't speak for anyone else, but i'm not an atheist. 

which doesn't make the o/p any less a loon


----------



## emilynghiem

Uncensored2008 said:


> You have empirical evidence that there can be no god?
> 
> Well do present it....
> 
> Atheism is purely based on faith.


it depends
1. if it ASSUMES there is no god, yes that is a belief and it is faith based
2. if it is just "the lack of faith" then atheism describes that condition;
but technically you are right that if a person has no belief one way or another
they would be neutral and more likely agnostic where it could be either way.



			
				U said:
			
		

> Atheism in America fights against freedom of speech and freedom of religion.


it depends on the atheist
There are Christians who are tolerant and universally inclusive 
vs. those that are fundamentalistic and fight to exclude others.

You cannot say all Christians are like that, and neither so with Atheists

I personally know an Atheist activist who is about as inclusive as you can get.
The only time I've seen him hit a limit and refuse to include something was where it involved fundamentalists who were being exclusive. He couldn't deal with that type.

So it seems clear the "exclusive fundamental types" cannot deal with each other,
and that's what messes things up for everyone else who is trying to be tolerant.

If those types would quit reacting against each other, maybe more groups COULD work together and not freak out over long established religious or political differences but find ways to correct problems DESPITE our different beliefs and approaches. Why not?


----------



## Hollie

Hollie said:


> Nothing but slogans? I can understand that your slogans and cliches are drenched in melodrama because your silly claims otherwise lack credibility. However, just realize such behavior doesn't lend credibility to your bankrupt arguments.





> 200 million slaughtered are not "slogans," they are genocide.



A slogan for every occasion. Like a typical zealot, you parrot slogans in the hope that if you repeat it often enough, someone as "less than discriminating" as yourself may buy into it.

Well sorry, but you have failed at every opportunity to connect your slogans with disbelief in the gods you apparently hope to defend.

So, please do make some effort to support your nonsensical claim. To date, you gave offered only slogans and cliches.



> Atheism isn't a faith. Here you are, making desperate attempts to salvage another bankrupt claim.





			
				Uncensored2008 said:
			
		

> You have empirical evidence that there can be no god?
> 
> Well do present it....
> 
> Atheism is purely based on faith.


That was quite the sidestep on your part. Defending your gods with frantic attacks on those "Evilutionist atheists" makes you just another screaming, hair-on-fire, zealots who has a desperate need to force his beliefs on others.




> What rights have I denied anyone? Such pompous behavior does nothing but make you appear quite desperate.





> Atheism in America fights against freedom of speech and freedom of religion.


Actually, no. It's simply a defense against zealots such as yourself.


----------



## sealybobo

HUGGY said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is that German Christians supported the Nazis because they believed that Adolf Hitler was a gift to the German people from God. Hitler frequently referenced God and Christianity both in public and private. The Nazi Party Program explicitly endorsed and promoted Christianity in the party platform. Millions of Christians in Germany not only enthusiastically supported and endorsed Hitler and the Nazis, but did so on the basis of common Christian beliefs and attitudes.
> 
> Even if Hitler didn't believe in god, he used god to con the stupid masses, just like the churches do today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why come here to try to fight against ALMIGHTY GOD?? ALMIGHTY GOD who you say don't believe in,how IGNORANT AND FOOLISH,Why waste your time???? SINPLE ANSWER=YOU know GOD is real but you want to live in your pet sins and hope GOD is not real=HELL BOUND FOOL!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would accuse you of having robotlike responses but that would be an insult to robotics.  Who would go to all the trouble to design and build a robot as stupid as you?  A Robot released out in public spouting what you spew would cause someone to take a sledge hammer to it to shut it up.
> 
> In fact the more I see your posts the more I feel inspired to start an anti-christian-robot religion and build a church..and maybe take over a country and maybe rid the world of christian robots.
Click to expand...


No doubt!  It was christians that made me anti religion.  It didn't help that muslims jews and mormons were all just as dumb but in slightly different ways telling similar yet just as unbelievable stories.  

And don't tell me to not judge god based on humans, because it is those very same human's who want me to believe their fairytales.  

You are right, this person is an idiot.  What is it he says to me that came from a song?  OMG I can't remember but it makes me so sick when he says it.  Oh yea, "count the cost".  I can imagine the hicks that run the church he grew up in, taking his poor ass families last dollar in church on sunday.  But it gave them a sense of community and makes them feel better about their shitty lives because this life is temporary, heaven is eternal.

Even the black group Arrestive Development sang about this.  They sang "baptists teach you to cope, not to change the situation you are in for the better, because religion is used to keep the masses in check.  So obvious to me.


----------



## emilynghiem

jillian said:


> there's also no such thing as hell.



hell is relative. 
war is hell.
some people would say drug addiction sent them through hell.

any suffering caused by unforgiven conflicts or negative karma
collectively can be called hell on a spiritual level of human experience

as there are different levels of heavenly peace
there are different levels or realms of hellish suffering

just because we can overcome hell instead of subjecting or sending people there
does not mean it isn't real. it depends on the context what you are talking about.


----------



## GISMYS

emilynghiem said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have empirical evidence that there can be no god?
> 
> Well do present it....
> 
> Atheism is purely based on faith.
> 
> 
> 
> it depends
> 1. if it ASSUMES there is no god, yes that is a belief and it is faith based
> 2. if it is just "the lack of faith" then atheism describes that condition;
> but technically you are right that if a person has no belief one way or another
> they would be neutral and more likely agnostic where it could be either way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism in America fights against freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it depends on the atheist
> There are Christians who are tolerant and universally inclusive
> vs. those that are fundamentalistic and fight to exclude others.
> 
> You cannot say all Christians are like that, and neither so with Atheists
> 
> I personally know an Atheist activist who is about as inclusive as you can get.
> The only time I've seen him hit a limit and refuse to include something was where it involved fundamentalists who were being exclusive. He couldn't deal with that type.
> 
> So it seems clear the "exclusive fundamental types" cannot deal with each other,
> and that's what messes things up for everyone else who is trying to be tolerant.
> 
> If those types would quit reacting against each other, maybe more groups COULD work together and not freak out over long established religious or political differences but find ways to correct problems DESPITE our different beliefs and approaches. Why not?
Click to expand...


"" COULD work together and not freak out over long established religious or political differences but find ways to correct problems DESPITE our different beliefs and approaches. Why not? 
"" LETS JUST ALL GET ALONG!!!HUH??  DON'T WORRY about truth.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Uncensored2008 said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Silly argument on its face.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Religious liberty is "silly."
> 
> Of course.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one tries to silence little girls praying at gunpoint. What in the world kind of fantasy are you creating?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fuck they are not.
> 
> { Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000)
> 
> Facts:
> In Santa Fe, Texas, students were elected by their classmates to give pre-game prayers at high school football games over the public address system. A number of students sued, arguing that such solemnizing statements or prayers constituted an endorsement of religion, violating the Establishment Clause. The district countered that the pre-game invocations were a long-standing tradition in Texas communities. Moreover, the prayer came from a student, thus making it student speech and not state-sponsored speech. }
> 
> First Amendment Schools: The Five Freedoms - Court Case
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What non-believers are proactive about is not letting the state become a conduit for religious faith. The girl is free to pray anywhere she likes. She is not free to use the state's infrastructure to promote her prayers to everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What Atheists demand is that no view may be express except their own.
> 
> While I defend your right to say there is no god - Atheists used the implied force of the federal government to prohibit people like GISMYS from saying there is one.
> 
> I find GISMYS to be irrational, but then I find sealybobo equally irrational. Why should one be permitted to express their beliefs, but the other prohibited? Because the beliefs of sealybobo are the established religion of the government, is the reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would the faithful need the state to promote their ideals? Are they not capable of presenting these ideas on their own?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A little girl on a mic at a football game is not the state - she is a little girl. Atheism finds her prayer to be blasphemy against their religion - which is the state religion - so men with guns ensure she is silent.
Click to expand...


Using the public address system is an edorsement by the state of a specific religious belief.
You don't see atheists trying to take the mike and starting the game with a diatribe about the absurdity of Christianity, now do you? Why should the little girl have that right?
There is no state religion.
There is a commitment to secularism.
It is the opposite of a state religion.


----------



## jillian

emilynghiem said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have empirical evidence that there can be no god?
> 
> Well do present it....
> 
> Atheism is purely based on faith.
> 
> 
> 
> it depends
> 1. if it ASSUMES there is no god, yes that is a belief and it is faith based
> 2. if it is just "the lack of faith" then atheism describes that condition;
> but technically you are right that if a person has no belief one way or another
> they would be neutral and more likely agnostic where it could be either way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism in America fights against freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it depends on the atheist
> There are Christians who are tolerant and universally inclusive
> vs. those that are fundamentalistic and fight to exclude others.
> 
> You cannot say all Christians are like that, and neither so with Atheists
> 
> I personally know an Atheist activist who is about as inclusive as you can get.
> The only time I've seen him hit a limit and refuse to include something was where it involved fundamentalists who were being exclusive. He couldn't deal with that type.
> 
> So it seems clear the "exclusive fundamental types" cannot deal with each other,
> and that's what messes things up for everyone else who is trying to be tolerant.
> 
> If those types would quit reacting against each other, maybe more groups COULD work together and not freak out over long established religious or political differences but find ways to correct problems DESPITE our different beliefs and approaches. Why not?
Click to expand...


it assumes nothing except that he is obsessed with breathing fire and brimstone and disrespecting everyone else.

his obsession isn't healthy.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Hollie said:


> A slogan for every occasion. Like a typical zealot, you parrot slogans in the hope that if you repeat it often enough, someone as "less than discriminating" as yourself may buy into it.



If the dead bodies were not piled high, you sophomoric response would be stupid, but at least rational.

The holocaust is no a 'slogan," it's a reality, it happened. The genocide by the Atheist left in the 20th century is not a "slogan,' it's an irrefutable fact.


> Well sorry, but you have failed at every opportunity to connect your slogans with disbelief in the gods you apparently hope to defend.
> 
> So, please do make some effort to support your nonsensical claim. To date, you gave offered only slogans and cliches.



That you are a fanatic does not alter reality. 

What gods exactly do I defend?



Bigots tend to be dumb, but funny.



> That was quite the sidestep on your part. Defending your gods with frantic attacks on those "Evilutionist atheists" makes you just another screaming, hair-on-fire, zealots who has a desperate need to force his beliefs on others.



Because you are a bigot, you can only respond to the caricature that your fiath creates.



> Actually, no. It's simply a defense against zealots such as yourself.



I zealously defend the right of any person to hold any belief - where you seek to force all to accept your belief alone.


----------



## emilynghiem

sealybobo said:


> No doubt!  It was christians that made me anti religion.  It didn't help that muslims jews and mormons were all just as dumb but in slightly different ways telling similar yet just as unbelievable stories.
> 
> And don't tell me to not judge god based on humans, because it is those very same human's who want me to believe their fairytales.
> 
> You are right, this person is an idiot.  What is it he says to me that came from a song?  OMG I can't remember but it makes me so sick when he says it.  Oh yea, "count the cost".  I can imagine the hicks that run the church he grew up in, taking his poor ass families last dollar in church on sunday.  But it gave them a sense of community and makes them feel better about their shitty lives because this life is temporary, heaven is eternal.
> 
> Even the black group Arrestive Development sang about this.  They sang "baptists teach you to cope, not to change the situation you are in for the better, because religion is used to keep the masses in check.  So obvious to me.



That's how "forgiveness" is ABUSED and not the real meaning or purpose.

The real process of forgiveness is to heal and not suffer emotionally from the wrongs of other people. 
it is NOT to condone, tolerate, ENABLE or overlook injustice and "let it happen"

as for "life being temporal and heaven being eternal"
this is NOT the true meaning of focusing on the positive and not depending on material conditions

The point of focusing on the spiritual value is to enjoy life and ALL things in it, not neglect these things, by putting things in holistic perspective. NOT basing happiness and satisfaction on "meeting material conditions" where your security DEPENDS on controlling everything in life.

Just because you let go and enjoy life, does not mean you either neglect responsibilities,
or let bad things happen "because it doesn't matter anyway"

it just means not to become so emotionally and mentally ATTACHED to physical and material conditions that you miss the good in life.

I think you are looking at extreme cases where these teachings are ABUSED
to justify wrongs.

the real meaning is something positive, like natural wisdom in life.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> g4racer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Several different aspects of a problem are being discussed; but the attitude of "I am right so you must be wrong".  The assumption that if someone is an atheist they must be bad can never be supported and I know several atheists that are better defined as good people than many claiming to be Christians.
> On occasion I have commented that "many will not do the right thing just because it is the right thing to do".
> How many of you can honestly say the politicians you support will never lie or bear false whitness.  Our Founding Fathers" made sure they be held libal for lying.  Most of them lacked honesty and ethics anyway.
> Claiming Christianity does not mean a person is good and denying the existance of God does not make a person bad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GOD says=That man is a fool who says to himself, There is no God! Anyone who talks like that is warped and evil and cannot really be a good person at all.Psalm 14:1===Only a fool would say to himself, There is no God. And why does he say it? Because of his wicked heart, his dark and evil deeds. His life is corroded with sin. PSALM 53:1 and you???
Click to expand...


This isn't true about us and so this is just more proof that your bible is full of lies.  We say there is no god because if there were, and he were what you say he was, there would be some evidence.  He talked to adam, noah, jesus but since we started recording history he has disappeared?  Funny in the bible he proved he existed a lot but won't prove it to us.  We have to have blind faith.  

This is exactly what a false story would say.  

Stop using the bible because we don't believe it to be true.  Try using something else to prove the bible is real.  You don't get to use the bible to prove the bible is real jackass.

Count the cost.  

How do you explain that:  There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible concerning the existence of a god. Any evidence proposed by theists to support the Bibles various historical and supernatural claims is non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.

The Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many religious texts. Like those others, it itself constitutes no evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful content do not legitimize it nor distinguish it from other ancient works of literature.

The Bible is historically inaccurate, factually incorrect, inconsistent and contradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time.


----------



## sealybobo

thebrucebeat said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Silly argument on its face.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Religious liberty is "silly."
> 
> Of course.
> 
> 
> 
> The fuck they are not.
> 
> { Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000)
> 
> Facts:
> In Santa Fe, Texas, students were elected by their classmates to give pre-game prayers at high school football games over the public address system. A number of students sued, arguing that such solemnizing statements or prayers constituted an endorsement of religion, violating the Establishment Clause. The district countered that the pre-game invocations were a long-standing tradition in Texas communities. Moreover, the prayer came from a student, thus making it student speech and not state-sponsored speech. }
> 
> First Amendment Schools: The Five Freedoms - Court Case
> 
> 
> 
> What Atheists demand is that no view may be express except their own.
> 
> While I defend your right to say there is no god - Atheists used the implied force of the federal government to prohibit people like GISMYS from saying there is one.
> 
> I find GISMYS to be irrational, but then I find sealybobo equally irrational. Why should one be permitted to express their beliefs, but the other prohibited? Because the beliefs of sealybobo are the established religion of the government, is the reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would the faithful need the state to promote their ideals? Are they not capable of presenting these ideas on their own?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A little girl on a mic at a football game is not the state - she is a little girl. Atheism finds her prayer to be blasphemy against their religion - which is the state religion - so men with guns ensure she is silent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Using the public address system is an edorsement by the state of a specific religious belief.
> You don't see atheists trying to take the mike and starting the game with a diatribe about the absurdity of Christianity, now do you? Why should the little girl have that right?
> There is no state religion.
> There is a commitment to secularism.
> It is the opposite of a state religion.
Click to expand...


I watch all the crazy religious shows on tv and wonder when atheists are going to get a show.  Same way if a city is going to have a christian nativity scene at city hall they have to be open to having an atheist pole and a jewish manora and a muslim whatever they want to display.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g4racer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Several different aspects of a problem are being discussed; but the attitude of "I am right so you must be wrong".  The assumption that if someone is an atheist they must be bad can never be supported and I know several atheists that are better defined as good people than many claiming to be Christians.
> On occasion I have commented that "many will not do the right thing just because it is the right thing to do".
> How many of you can honestly say the politicians you support will never lie or bear false whitness.  Our Founding Fathers" made sure they be held libal for lying.  Most of them lacked honesty and ethics anyway.
> Claiming Christianity does not mean a person is good and denying the existance of God does not make a person bad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GOD says=That man is a fool who says to himself, There is no God! Anyone who talks like that is warped and evil and cannot really be a good person at all.Psalm 14:1===Only a fool would say to himself, There is no God. And why does he say it? Because of his wicked heart, his dark and evil deeds. His life is corroded with sin. PSALM 53:1 and you???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This isn't true about us and so this is just more proof that your bible is full of lies.  We say there is no god because if there were, and he were what you say he was, there would be some evidence.  He talked to adam, noah, jesus but since we started recording history he has disappeared?  Funny in the bible he proved he existed a lot but won't prove it to us.  We have to have blind faith.
> 
> This is exactly what a false story would say.
> 
> Stop using the bible because we don't believe it to be true.  Try using something else to prove the bible is real.  You don't get to use the bible to prove the bible is real jackass.
> 
> Count the cost.
> 
> How do you explain that:  There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible concerning the existence of a god. Any evidence proposed by theists to support the Bibles various historical and supernatural claims is non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.
> 
> The Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many religious texts. Like those others, it itself constitutes no evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful content do not legitimize it nor distinguish it from other ancient works of literature.
> 
> The Bible is historically inaccurate, factually incorrect, inconsistent and contradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time.
Click to expand...


YES!!! Satan nis a liar and the father of liars!!!and you????======= 
GOD says=That man is a fool who says to himself, There is no God! Anyone who talks like that is warped and evil and cannot really be a good person at all.Psalm 14:1===Only a fool would say to himself, There is no God. And why does he say it? Because of his wicked heart, his dark and evil deeds. His life is corroded with sin. PSALM 53:1 and you???


----------



## emilynghiem

Uncensored2008 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> How strange that you toss "fact" around and you're unable to support your "fact" with anything but ".... because I say so."
> 
> Your "fact" is not fact at all. Either you're too lazy or too fact-less to offer any comparable numbers for review.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 200 million dead - not by war, but by genocide - perpetrated by your religion. That you are a fanatic doesn't alter reality - 200 million dead.
Click to expand...


????

If I was going to make a generalization about what kills people historically,
it's retribution and unforgiveness.

There are as many members of any religion or group, whether blamed on atheism or on theism, guilty of unforgiveness, projecting blame outside on another person and group,
and justifying killing, war, genocide, oppression, any number of ways to 
kill people
kill RELATIONSHIPS
kill people's spirit or will
etc.

Anyone can be guilty of murderous anger and rage, out of ignorance, hatred, jealousy.

No one subgroup has a monopoly on that.

If you want to blame "all humanity" for falling to selfish motivations,
that sounds like how Christianity acknowledges all people are prone to sin
and material desire.

P.S. even if you take one case of genocide, like Hitler,
as many people will blame one group or label for what they affiliate with Hitler.
If you watch the footage of the concentration camps, there is a video
of the people running the death camps taking a break to sing hymnals like in church choir.
I've heard people blame the Holocaust equally on religion and lack of religion, when it was clearly politically for control, regardless what religious views were abused to justify it.
All the jihadists attacks are also political for control, independent of whatever religion is abused to foment people in military rebellion.

All selfish and FEAR based.
If FEAR is the common factor, again, no one "label" has a monopoly on exploiting that.


----------



## sealybobo

Uncensored2008 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> A slogan for every occasion. Like a typical zealot, you parrot slogans in the hope that if you repeat it often enough, someone as "less than discriminating" as yourself may buy into it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the dead bodies were not piled high, you sophomoric response would be stupid, but at least rational.
> 
> The holocaust is no a 'slogan," it's a reality, it happened. The genocide by the Atheist left in the 20th century is not a "slogan,' it's an irrefutable fact.
> 
> 
> 
> Well sorry, but you have failed at every opportunity to connect your slogans with disbelief in the gods you apparently hope to defend.
> 
> So, please do make some effort to support your nonsensical claim. To date, you gave offered only slogans and cliches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That you are a fanatic does not alter reality.
> 
> What gods exactly do I defend?
> 
> 
> 
> Bigots tend to be dumb, but funny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was quite the sidestep on your part. Defending your gods with frantic attacks on those "Evilutionist atheists" makes you just another screaming, hair-on-fire, zealots who has a desperate need to force his beliefs on others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because you are a bigot, you can only respond to the caricature that your fiath creates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, no. It's simply a defense against zealots such as yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I zealously defend the right of any person to hold any belief - where you seek to force all to accept your belief alone.
Click to expand...


The atheist left as appose to the religious right?  Well I'm part of the American Atheist left and I can tell you we don't want to kill you.  Do you think Neal Degrass Tyson wants to murder you?  No he does not.  In fact he gave his position on religion and he said he's just too busy to give it much thought.  He clearly doesn't believe in god but he isn't militant like I'm coming off.  This is a message board.  This is where you are suppose to come and spout off your thoughts, uninhibited.  I'll be honest.  I don't give a crap if people want to be religious.  I don't like it when they try to push it on us.  I don't like it when they try to pass laws based on it like anti abortion or anti gay marriage.  And I really don't like it that people are so unevolved still that they'd prefer to vote for a pot smoking cheater than an atheist.  

I myself for the longest time thought of satin when I heard the word atheist.  Not true.  It just means we don't believe there is a god.  We are still good people.  I would say smarter and more open minded than religious people because at least we can grasp the idea that religion was invented by man, not the other way around.  God didn't make you, you made up god.


----------



## thebrucebeat

emilynghiem said:


> Hi Bruce [MENTION=48205]thebrucebeat[/MENTION]:
> I finally got back to your previous msg I wanted to explore more.
> Thanks for replying where I can understand and appreciate where you
> are coming from. I think if we can communicate using just our natural
> language and how we normally perceive and describe things, we
> can discuss all the same principles in religion minus any symbolic hocus pocus stuff.
> 
> About objectivity:
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> What people subjectively find that motivates them and forms their paradigm is not what I am referring to. You are describing a subjective reality. I am talking about what is real outside of our perceptions, needs, creations or fantasies that no doubt sustain us. These are the rationalizations I frequently refer Boss to that people are 100% invested in. What is truth is not influenced by any of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aren't all your objections and viewpoints, based on your perceptions, memories and experiences in life, also subjective to you?
> 
> So if absolute objective truth by definition does not depend on any of this,
> doesn't that also go for all the things you perceive as real that motivate you?
> It absolutely applies to me. That is why I have no discernible beliefs to stand on or support. I have no idea of any of the attributes of a god that may or may not exist. I bring no explanations or answers. I find them all equally arbitrary.
> Note: I also believe there are both levels. What I am saying is that by aligning our "subjective/relative" realities, by our ways of seeing and saying things, this "reflects"
> a microcosm of the greater truth, laws, and relationships that are universal to all people.
> And I find you imagining some kind of universality to be just as arbitrary as all the specific theological suppositions that others carry with them, or at least if that universality exists it is unknowable.
> This is like working out the math values, and using "variables" to communicate and work out the proof; but understanding the concepts, laws and relationships "do not depend" on those "variables" we are using as tools. We just happen to use or align variables that we agree help us to set things up accurately and communicate clearly how the values or principles relate to each other.
> 
> Is this okay?
Click to expand...


It's fun, but not really analagous. The math formula has a specific answer that can be ascertained with certainty. What you seek can not be.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> A slogan for every occasion. Like a typical zealot, you parrot slogans in the hope that if you repeat it often enough, someone as "less than discriminating" as yourself may buy into it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the dead bodies were not piled high, you sophomoric response would be stupid, but at least rational.
> 
> The holocaust is no a 'slogan," it's a reality, it happened. The genocide by the Atheist left in the 20th century is not a "slogan,' it's an irrefutable fact.
> 
> 
> That you are a fanatic does not alter reality.
> 
> What gods exactly do I defend?
> 
> 
> 
> Bigots tend to be dumb, but funny.
> 
> 
> 
> Because you are a bigot, you can only respond to the caricature that your fiath creates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, no. It's simply a defense against zealots such as yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I zealously defend the right of any person to hold any belief - where you seek to force all to accept your belief alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The atheist left as appose to the religious right?  Well I'm part of the American Atheist left and I can tell you we don't want to kill you.  Do you think Neal Degrass Tyson wants to murder you?  No he does not.  In fact he gave his position on religion and he said he's just too busy to give it much thought.  He clearly doesn't believe in god but he isn't militant like I'm coming off.  This is a message board.  This is where you are suppose to come and spout off your thoughts, uninhibited.  I'll be honest.  I don't give a crap if people want to be religious.  I don't like it when they try to push it on us.  I don't like it when they try to pass laws based on it like anti abortion or anti gay marriage.  And I really don't like it that people are so unevolved still that they'd prefer to vote for a pot smoking cheater than an atheist.
> 
> I myself for the longest time thought of satin when I heard the word atheist.  Not true.  It just means we don't believe there is a god.  We are still good people.  I would say smarter and more open minded than religious people because at least we can grasp the idea that religion was invented by man, not the other way around.  God didn't make you, you made up god.
Click to expand...


GOD KNOWS YOU!!!!====That man is a fool who says to himself, There is no God! Anyone who talks like that is warped and evil and cannot really be a good person at all.Psalm 14:1===Only a fool would say to himself, There is no God. And why does he say it? Because of his wicked heart, his dark and evil deeds. His life is corroded with sin. PSALM 53:1 and you???


----------



## Hollie

Hollie said:


> A slogan for every occasion. Like a typical zealot, you parrot slogans in the hope that if you repeat it often enough, someone as "less than discriminating" as yourself may buy into it.





			
				Uncensored2008 said:
			
		

> If the dead bodies were not piled high, you sophomoric response would be stupid, but at least rational.
> 
> The holocaust is no a 'slogan," it's a reality, it happened. The genocide by the Atheist left in the 20th century is not a "slogan,' it's an irrefutable fact.


You're getting quite frantic. You are a bit reality challenged in that you are unable to connect disbelief in gods with the actions of political ideologies and megalomaniacs. 

Your "irrefutable fact" is not a fact at all but the ranting of someone who has not studied the facts.

It's tragically comical that you hope to blame the atheist left for the Holocaust. Try learning a bit of history so you don't make yourself the village idiot. 

Hitler's SS wore the inscription "Gott mit uns" on their belt buckles. Do a web search for what that translation.





> Well sorry, but you have failed at every opportunity to connect your slogans with disbelief in the gods you apparently hope to defend.
> 
> So, please do make some effort to support your nonsensical claim. To date, you gave offered only slogans and cliches.







			
				Uncensored2008 said:
			
		

> That you are a fanatic does not alter reality.
> 
> What gods exactly do I defend?
> 
> 
> 
> Bigots tend to be dumb, but funny.


That's a shame. Your tender sensibilities are offended so you launch the "bigot", slogan. It seems that anyone who refutes your specious claims is automatically penned with the "bigot", label. 

When you're not emotionally and intellectually prepared to deal with refutations to your pointless charges, you should avoid posting.



> That was quite the sidestep on your part. Defending your gods with frantic attacks on those "Evilutionist atheists" makes you just another screaming, hair-on-fire, zealots who has a desperate need to force his beliefs on others.







			
				Uncensored2008 said:
			
		

> Because you are a bigot, you can only respond to the caricature that your fiath creates.


Ignorance on your part does make being clueless so much easier.





> Actually, no. It's simply a defense against zealots such as yourself.





			
				Uncensored2008 said:
			
		

> zealously defend the right of any person to hold any belief - where you seek to force all to accept your belief alone.


Does that come with a Jingle?

Your application for martyrdom is rejected. You weren't quite pompous enough. I am prepared however, to make you Queen for a Day.


----------



## g4racer

Why do the God-haters persist? Why don't we ask, "Why do God accepters persist?  I can never remember having an atheist banging on my door.  I have had many "Christians"  bang on my door and ask "Have you accepted Jesus as your Lord and Saviour?"  If we have have freedom of religion then we must have freedom from it.  The push from non believers that I see has come about because of the birth control and abortion issues which should not be political.  Brith control was just having information available and it is up to the people whether to use it or not.
I agree that the universe is billions of years old.  I do not believe the earth is 5500 years old.  I also believe most people considering themselves Christians agree with me.
If you push don't complain when someone pushes back.


----------



## GISMYS

GET REAL!!!  YOU JUST WANT TO LIVE IN YOUR LIFE OF SIN and hope GOD is not real,no matter if the bible said the earth is 15 billion years old you would just move to another fake excuse to try not to believe THUS YOUR TYPE PROVE THAT HELL IS THE ONLY RIGHT PLACE FOR YOU!!!


----------



## sealybobo

Hollie said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> A slogan for every occasion. Like a typical zealot, you parrot slogans in the hope that if you repeat it often enough, someone as "less than discriminating" as yourself may buy into it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the dead bodies were not piled high, you sophomoric response would be stupid, but at least rational.
> 
> The holocaust is no a 'slogan," it's a reality, it happened. The genocide by the Atheist left in the 20th century is not a "slogan,' it's an irrefutable fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're getting quite frantic. You are a bit reality challenged in that you are unable to connect disbelief in gods with the actions of political ideologies and megalomaniacs.
> 
> Your "irrefutable fact" is not a fact at all but the ranting of someone who has not studied the facts.
> 
> It's tragically comical that you hope to blame the atheist left for the Holocaust. Try learning a bit of history so you don't make yourself the village idiot.
> 
> Hitler's SS wore the inscription "Gott mit uns" on their belt buckles. Do a web search for what that translation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a shame. Your tender sensibilities are offended so you launch the "bigot", slogan. It seems that anyone who refutes your specious claims is automatically penned with the "bigot", label.
> 
> When you're not emotionally and intellectually prepared to deal with refutations to your pointless charges, you should avoid posting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ignorance on your part does make being clueless so much easier.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, no. It's simply a defense against zealots such as yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zealously defend the right of any person to hold any belief - where you seek to force all to accept your belief alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does that come with a Jingle?
> 
> Your application for martyrdom is rejected. You weren't quite pompous enough. I am prepared however, to make you Queen for a Day.
Click to expand...


So true.  I was shocked when he called me a bigot.  I keep asking them to take emotion out of the conversation.  Fuck telling me I'll go to hell, that's not going to work.  And trying to silence me/us for questioning or doubting their fairytales by calling me a bigot is basically just telling me to stop picking on the poor christians who basically choose to believe a story that couldn't possibly be true.  

Do these people know how much smarter we are than just 2 generations ago?  My grandmother with a 3rd grade education may have swallowed these stories but I seriously doubt the people in the future are going to continue believing this nonsense.  This is why they want it taught in school.  They know they are losing their grip.  Well just like the don't want sex ed taught in school because they as parents will handle that, leave religion out of school too.  If you want to brainwash your child and make him as ignorant as your great grandpappy was, go for it.  But don't force that uneducation on my children.  They will grow up just find without it if not better, because they won't discriminate against muslims and gays.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> GET REAL!!!  YOU JUST WANT TO LIVE IN YOUR LIFE OF SIN and hope GOD is not real,no matter if the bible said the earth is 15 billion years old you would just move to another fake excuse to try not to believe THUS YOUR TYPE PROVE THAT HELL IS THE ONLY RIGHT PLACE FOR YOU!!!



You got it backward.  You lying, murdering, raping, racist christians think you can do whatever you want and go to heaven just because you are a member of the club.  Trust me, if god exists, he aint rewarding your hypocricy or ignorance.  

Atheists, at least me, are good people.  Not because we are afraid of hell.  They tell that to weak people who would be even worse if it weren't for religion.  

You also got it backward on the 5000 year earth thing.  Don't blame us that there is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible concerning the existence of a god. Any evidence proposed by theists to support the Bibles various historical and supernatural claims is non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.

The Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many religious texts. Like those others, it itself constitutes no evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful content do not legitimize it nor distinguish it from other ancient works of literature.

The Bible is historically inaccurate, factually incorrect, inconsistent  and contradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time.

And yes, this isn't the only reason we don't believe in god or your cult.  As soon as you blow off the fact your church has been proven wrong on this issue, yes we will move on to all the other reasons we know you are in a bullshit religion.  Too strong?  Get over it.  Being subtle doesn't seem to work with you freaks.  Got to hit you over the head with it.  GOD DOESN"T EXIST.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> GET REAL!!!  YOU JUST WANT TO LIVE IN YOUR LIFE OF SIN and hope GOD is not real,no matter if the bible said the earth is 15 billion years old you would just move to another fake excuse to try not to believe THUS YOUR TYPE PROVE THAT HELL IS THE ONLY RIGHT PLACE FOR YOU!!!



But the bible doesn't say the earth is 15 billion years old, because it was written by common yet nutty men 2000 years ago.  They believed in witches too.  Do you believe in them too?  

So the men who wrote the bible 2000 years ago should have been more careful.  Now their bible is outdated.  They tried to squash science from exposing them but eventually civilization advanced enough to where it's ok to point out just how stupid old superstitions are.  I'm surprised it took so long but look at how no amount of fact will change you because not only did your parents brainwash you but their parents brainwashed them and their neighbors were brainwashed too and eventually everyone was telling their kids the same lie, just like the muslim parents are all telling their children their lie about god.


----------



## thebrucebeat

GISMYS said:


> GET REAL!!!  YOU JUST WANT TO LIVE IN YOUR LIFE OF SIN and hope GOD is not real,no matter if the bible said the earth is 15 billion years old you would just move to another fake excuse to try not to believe THUS YOUR TYPE PROVE THAT HELL IS THE ONLY RIGHT PLACE FOR YOU!!!



I can feel the Christian love!


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> GET REAL!!!  YOU JUST WANT TO LIVE IN YOUR LIFE OF SIN and hope GOD is not real,no matter if the bible said the earth is 15 billion years old you would just move to another fake excuse to try not to believe THUS YOUR TYPE PROVE THAT HELL IS THE ONLY RIGHT PLACE FOR YOU!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You got it backward.  You lying, murdering, raping, racist christians think you can do whatever you want and go to heaven just because you are a member of the club.  Trust me, if god exists, he aint rewarding your hypocricy or ignorance.
> 
> Atheists, at least me, are good people.  Not because we are afraid of hell.  They tell that to weak people who would be even worse if it weren't for religion.
> 
> You also got it backward on the 5000 year earth thing.  Don't blame us that there is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible concerning the existence of a god. Any evidence proposed by theists to support the Bibles various historical and supernatural claims is non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.
> 
> The Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many religious texts. Like those others, it itself constitutes no evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful content do not legitimize it nor distinguish it from other ancient works of literature.
> 
> The Bible is historically inaccurate, factually incorrect, inconsistent  and contradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time.
> 
> And yes, this isn't the only reason we don't believe in god or your cult.  As soon as you blow off the fact your church has been proven wrong on this issue, yes we will move on to all the other reasons we know you are in a bullshit religion.  Too strong?  Get over it.  Being subtle doesn't seem to work with you freaks.  Got to hit you over the head with it.  GOD DOESN"T EXIST.
Click to expand...


BOTTOMLINE = YOU ARE A FOOL!!! GOD SAY so!!!!


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> GET REAL!!!  YOU JUST WANT TO LIVE IN YOUR LIFE OF SIN and hope GOD is not real,no matter if the bible said the earth is 15 billion years old you would just move to another fake excuse to try not to believe THUS YOUR TYPE PROVE THAT HELL IS THE ONLY RIGHT PLACE FOR YOU!!!



This is why religious people deny evolution:

The motivation for belief in a divine, salvational Jesus breaks down when you accept evolution: Original sin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now, if the book of Genesis is an allegory, then sin is an allegory, the Fall is an allegory and the need for a Savior is an allegory  but if we are all descendants of an allegory, where does that leave us? It destroys the foundation of all Christian doctrineit destroys the foundation of the gospel. - Ken Ham


----------



## HUGGY

emilynghiem said:


> Instead of criticizing each other for using atheism to mean contrary things,
> why not spell out the choices for what it can mean to different people/contexts.
> 
> And go through the lists and AGREE which people are talking about which approach:
> 17 Kinds of Atheism
> 
> Behold, the six types of atheists ? CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs
> 
> Just because people mean different things does not make one person right and others wrong.
> 
> God means different things in different religions, too.
> God as Wisdom is different from God as Love or God as Creation.
> 
> Why not decide what we mean, and stick to those concepts, so there is no conflict or confusion by using one terms to mean too many different things?
> 
> C'mon guys, with the collective intelligence we have on here, let's use some of it!
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has been explained to you.  You still cling desperately to your totally wrong ideas concerning what atheism is.  Your learning imparement is unfortunate but it is YOUR problem.  Try shutting your ignorant pie hole about atheists untill your pea brain gets it figured out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note: I'm searching for another list of types of atheism that someone else posted.
> I thought there was a list of the equivalent of "different denominations" or degrees of atheism.
> I found this, but it isn't the quote I was looking for: Something to think about. - Page 31 - Evil Empire Forums
> 
> "In practical, or pragmatic, atheism, also known as apatheism, individuals live as if there are no gods and explain natural phenomena without resorting to the divine.
> 
> The existence of gods is not denied, but may be designated unnecessary or useless; gods neither provide purpose to life, nor influence everyday life, according to this view.
> 
> Practical atheism can take various forms:
> 
> Absence of religious motivationbelief in gods does not motivate moral action, religious action, or any other form of action;
> 
> Active exclusion of the problem of gods and religion from intellectual pursuit and practical action;
> 
> Indifferencethe absence of any interest in the problems of gods and religion; or
> 
> Unawareness of the concept of a deity"
> __________________
Click to expand...


Nothing in your list of definitions supports your durrogatory opinions and conclusions concerning atheism.

Attempting to associate atheism and atheists with Hitler, Stalin, Communism...etc... is offensive.

If anything atheists are typically a-political and tend NOT to join groups especially any that would require some form of statement of allegience other than where it may concern the country.

Obviously I would find it more comfortable if we could drop the added god reference installed in 1955 to the pledge of allegience.  It was added stupidly as a knee jerk reaction to the threat of communism.  As if THAT would prevent a communist subversive from being a subversive.  

As an ACTUAL conservative I have MORE right to disbelieve that which is NOT SUPPORTED by evidense than someone who CLAIMS they are a conservative believing in something without factual evidense.

You who CLAIM to believe in things with no evidense to support these things are by definition NOT conservative.  You take "LIBERTIES" with reality therefore are at heart pure liberal at your cores.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> GET REAL!!!  YOU JUST WANT TO LIVE IN YOUR LIFE OF SIN and hope GOD is not real,no matter if the bible said the earth is 15 billion years old you would just move to another fake excuse to try not to believe THUS YOUR TYPE PROVE THAT HELL IS THE ONLY RIGHT PLACE FOR YOU!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You got it backward.  You lying, murdering, raping, racist christians think you can do whatever you want and go to heaven just because you are a member of the club.  Trust me, if god exists, he aint rewarding your hypocricy or ignorance.
> 
> Atheists, at least me, are good people.  Not because we are afraid of hell.  They tell that to weak people who would be even worse if it weren't for religion.
> 
> You also got it backward on the 5000 year earth thing.  Don't blame us that there is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible concerning the existence of a god. Any evidence proposed by theists to support the Bibles various historical and supernatural claims is non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.
> 
> The Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many religious texts. Like those others, it itself constitutes no evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful content do not legitimize it nor distinguish it from other ancient works of literature.
> 
> The Bible is historically inaccurate, factually incorrect, inconsistent  and contradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time.
> 
> And yes, this isn't the only reason we don't believe in god or your cult.  As soon as you blow off the fact your church has been proven wrong on this issue, yes we will move on to all the other reasons we know you are in a bullshit religion.  Too strong?  Get over it.  Being subtle doesn't seem to work with you freaks.  Got to hit you over the head with it.  GOD DOESN"T EXIST.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BOTTOMLINE = YOU ARE A FOOL!!! GOD SAY so!!!!
Click to expand...


So no one thinks I'm a fool?  Because god doesn't exist.  

Or are you god?  Because you say so?  

Hey, if something had to create the earth, something had to create god.  Who or what created god?  You can't have it both ways.  You can't say something MUST HAVE created us but nothing had to create god.  So if you can fathom that god could have been created out of nothing, and you have zero proof there is even a god  then why can't you accept that you and the universe came from nothing?  Or at least admit you don't know.  That's the only real truth.  We don't know.  But I do know your stories aren't true because we have studied man, history, other religions, bible thumper mentality, and I can tell you right now your god doesn't exist.  If there is a god he will reward me for not being stupid like you.  No way god is a fan of churches.  They take in all that money tax free and do very little to help anyone but themselves.  

Louis CK said it best.  What kind of car do you drive?  If its not a $20K ford focus and instead it's a $30-$100K car, then how many people are you killing because you choose to drive a car that cost $10K or more MORE?  Do you get the truth in the joke?  I drive a $30K car.  How about you?  So look at us all.  We say we care but instead of spending that money on helping the poor and just driving a focus, we instead drive mustangs and corvettes and mercedes and we pretend to care.  We don't give a shit.  Neither does the universe.  And when you die that's it.  So what?  BFD.  Enjoy the time while you have it.  Don't sit around worrying about something you have no control over.  And when you are dead that's it.  No heaven but at least there isn't any hell.  Man made that up when we were cavemen.  You are not evolved my brother.  No biggy.  I'm sure you aren't winning over any new members with your schtick.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You got it backward.  You lying, murdering, raping, racist christians think you can do whatever you want and go to heaven just because you are a member of the club.  Trust me, if god exists, he aint rewarding your hypocricy or ignorance.
> 
> Atheists, at least me, are good people.  Not because we are afraid of hell.  They tell that to weak people who would be even worse if it weren't for religion.
> 
> You also got it backward on the 5000 year earth thing.  Don't blame us that there is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible concerning the existence of a god. Any evidence proposed by theists to support the Bibles various historical and supernatural claims is non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.
> 
> The Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many religious texts. Like those others, it itself constitutes no evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful content do not legitimize it nor distinguish it from other ancient works of literature.
> 
> The Bible is historically inaccurate, factually incorrect, inconsistent  and contradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time.
> 
> And yes, this isn't the only reason we don't believe in god or your cult.  As soon as you blow off the fact your church has been proven wrong on this issue, yes we will move on to all the other reasons we know you are in a bullshit religion.  Too strong?  Get over it.  Being subtle doesn't seem to work with you freaks.  Got to hit you over the head with it.  GOD DOESN"T EXIST.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BOTTOMLINE = YOU ARE A FOOL!!! GOD SAY so!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So no one thinks I'm a fool?  Because god doesn't exist.
> 
> Or are you god?  Because you say so?
> 
> Hey, if something had to create the earth, something had to create god.  Who or what created god?  You can't have it both ways.  You can't say something MUST HAVE created us but nothing had to create god.  So if you can fathom that god could have been created out of nothing, and you have zero proof there is even a god  then why can't you accept that you and the universe came from nothing?  Or at least admit you don't know.  That's the only real truth.  We don't know.  But I do know your stories aren't true because we have studied man, history, other religions, bible thumper mentality, and I can tell you right now your god doesn't exist.  If there is a god he will reward me for not being stupid like you.  No way god is a fan of churches.  They take in all that money tax free and do very little to help anyone but themselves.
> 
> Louis CK said it best.  What kind of car do you drive?  If its not a $20K ford focus and instead it's a $30-$100K car, then how many people are you killing because you choose to drive a car that cost $10K or more MORE?  Do you get the truth in the joke?  I drive a $30K car.  How about you?  So look at us all.  We say we care but instead of spending that money on helping the poor and just driving a focus, we instead drive mustangs and corvettes and mercedes and we pretend to care.  We don't give a shit.  Neither does the universe.  And when you die that's it.  So what?  BFD.  Enjoy the time while you have it.  Don't sit around worrying about something you have no control over.  And when you are dead that's it.  No heaven but at least there isn't any hell.  Man made that up when we were cavemen.  You are not evolved my brother.  No biggy.  I'm sure you aren't winning over any new members with your schtick.
Click to expand...


GOD SAYS!!==That man is a fool who says to himself, There is no God! Anyone who talks like that is warped and evil and cannot really be a good person at all.Psalm 14:1===Only a fool would say to himself, There is no God. And why does he say it? Because of his wicked heart, his dark and evil deeds. His life is corroded with sin. PSALM 53:1 and you???


----------



## GISMYS

GOD IS OUTSIDE TIME!!! THERE WAS NEVER ANYTIME WHEN GOD WAS NOT!!! THIS TRUTH is way,way over your little peanut brain thinking!!!HUH??? ROFLMAO!!!


----------



## HUGGY

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> BOTTOMLINE = YOU ARE A FOOL!!! GOD SAY so!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So no one thinks I'm a fool?  Because god doesn't exist.
> 
> Or are you god?  Because you say so?
> 
> Hey, if something had to create the earth, something had to create god.  Who or what created god?  You can't have it both ways.  You can't say something MUST HAVE created us but nothing had to create god.  So if you can fathom that god could have been created out of nothing, and you have zero proof there is even a god  then why can't you accept that you and the universe came from nothing?  Or at least admit you don't know.  That's the only real truth.  We don't know.  But I do know your stories aren't true because we have studied man, history, other religions, bible thumper mentality, and I can tell you right now your god doesn't exist.  If there is a god he will reward me for not being stupid like you.  No way god is a fan of churches.  They take in all that money tax free and do very little to help anyone but themselves.
> 
> Louis CK said it best.  What kind of car do you drive?  If its not a $20K ford focus and instead it's a $30-$100K car, then how many people are you killing because you choose to drive a car that cost $10K or more MORE?  Do you get the truth in the joke?  I drive a $30K car.  How about you?  So look at us all.  We say we care but instead of spending that money on helping the poor and just driving a focus, we instead drive mustangs and corvettes and mercedes and we pretend to care.  We don't give a shit.  Neither does the universe.  And when you die that's it.  So what?  BFD.  Enjoy the time while you have it.  Don't sit around worrying about something you have no control over.  And when you are dead that's it.  No heaven but at least there isn't any hell.  Man made that up when we were cavemen.  You are not evolved my brother.  No biggy.  I'm sure you aren't winning over any new members with your schtick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> GOD SAYS!!==*That man is a fool who says to himself, There is no God! *Anyone who talks like that is warped and evil and cannot really be a good person at all.Psalm 14:1===Only a fool would say to himself, There is no God. And why does he say it? Because of his wicked heart, his dark and evil deeds. His life is corroded with sin. PSALM 53:1 and you???
Click to expand...


A tad self serving?

And NOW that we have the means to RECORD voices your god is so conveniently absent?  

What a remarkable co-incidense.


----------



## sealybobo

HUGGY said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of criticizing each other for using atheism to mean contrary things,
> why not spell out the choices for what it can mean to different people/contexts.
> 
> And go through the lists and AGREE which people are talking about which approach:
> 17 Kinds of Atheism
> 
> Behold, the six types of atheists ? CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs
> 
> Just because people mean different things does not make one person right and others wrong.
> 
> God means different things in different religions, too.
> God as Wisdom is different from God as Love or God as Creation.
> 
> Why not decide what we mean, and stick to those concepts, so there is no conflict or confusion by using one terms to mean too many different things?
> 
> C'mon guys, with the collective intelligence we have on here, let's use some of it!
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has been explained to you.  You still cling desperately to your totally wrong ideas concerning what atheism is.  Your learning imparement is unfortunate but it is YOUR problem.  Try shutting your ignorant pie hole about atheists untill your pea brain gets it figured out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note: I'm searching for another list of types of atheism that someone else posted.
> I thought there was a list of the equivalent of "different denominations" or degrees of atheism.
> I found this, but it isn't the quote I was looking for: Something to think about. - Page 31 - Evil Empire Forums
> 
> "In practical, or pragmatic, atheism, also known as apatheism, individuals live as if there are no gods and explain natural phenomena without resorting to the divine.
> 
> The existence of gods is not denied, but may be designated unnecessary or useless; gods neither provide purpose to life, nor influence everyday life, according to this view.
> 
> Practical atheism can take various forms:
> 
> Absence of religious motivationbelief in gods does not motivate moral action, religious action, or any other form of action;
> 
> Active exclusion of the problem of gods and religion from intellectual pursuit and practical action;
> 
> Indifferencethe absence of any interest in the problems of gods and religion; or
> 
> Unawareness of the concept of a deity"
> __________________
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing in your list of definitions supports your durrogatory opinions and conclusions concerning atheism.
> 
> Attempting to associate atheism and atheists with Hitler, Stalin, Communism...etc... is offensive.
> 
> If anything atheists are typically a-political and tend NOT to join groups especially any that would require some form of statement of allegience other than where it may concern the country.
> 
> Obviously I would find it more comfortable if we could drop the added god reference installed in 1955 to the pledge of allegience.  It was added stupidly as a knee jerk reaction to the threat of communism.  As if THAT would prevent a communist subversive from being a subversive.
> 
> As an ACTUAL conservative I have MORE right to disbelieve that which is NOT SUPPORTED by evidense than someone who CLAIMS they are a conservative believing in something without factual evidense.
> 
> You who CLAIM to believe in things with no evidense to support these things are by definition NOT conservative.  You take "LIBERTIES" with reality therefore are at heart pure liberal at your cores.
Click to expand...


I liked everything you said until you said that liberals take liberties with reality.  

How about when Bush was leaving office, the economy was going down the drain and because McCain and Romney couldn't admit that bush really blew it, McCain said the fundamentals of our economy were strong and Romney said Michigan was in a one state recession.  They knew he sucked and the economy was crashing but they couldn't say the economy sucked until Obama was president.  Or when they would admit the economy wasn't good they blamed Reed, Pelosi and Freddy & Fanny Mac.  

You know the only people who were completely not at fault for the great recession were the republicans.  Now that is taking liberty with reality.  

Anyways, don't tell me conservatives don't take liberties with reality.


----------



## GISMYS

HUGGY said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So no one thinks I'm a fool?  Because god doesn't exist.
> 
> Or are you god?  Because you say so?
> 
> Hey, if something had to create the earth, something had to create god.  Who or what created god?  You can't have it both ways.  You can't say something MUST HAVE created us but nothing had to create god.  So if you can fathom that god could have been created out of nothing, and you have zero proof there is even a god  then why can't you accept that you and the universe came from nothing?  Or at least admit you don't know.  That's the only real truth.  We don't know.  But I do know your stories aren't true because we have studied man, history, other religions, bible thumper mentality, and I can tell you right now your god doesn't exist.  If there is a god he will reward me for not being stupid like you.  No way god is a fan of churches.  They take in all that money tax free and do very little to help anyone but themselves.
> 
> Louis CK said it best.  What kind of car do you drive?  If its not a $20K ford focus and instead it's a $30-$100K car, then how many people are you killing because you choose to drive a car that cost $10K or more MORE?  Do you get the truth in the joke?  I drive a $30K car.  How about you?  So look at us all.  We say we care but instead of spending that money on helping the poor and just driving a focus, we instead drive mustangs and corvettes and mercedes and we pretend to care.  We don't give a shit.  Neither does the universe.  And when you die that's it.  So what?  BFD.  Enjoy the time while you have it.  Don't sit around worrying about something you have no control over.  And when you are dead that's it.  No heaven but at least there isn't any hell.  Man made that up when we were cavemen.  You are not evolved my brother.  No biggy.  I'm sure you aren't winning over any new members with your schtick.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GOD SAYS!!==*That man is a fool who says to himself, There is no God! *Anyone who talks like that is warped and evil and cannot really be a good person at all.Psalm 14:1===Only a fool would say to himself, There is no God. And why does he say it? Because of his wicked heart, his dark and evil deeds. His life is corroded with sin. PSALM 53:1 and you???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A tad self serving?
> 
> And NOW that we have the means to RECORD voices your god is so conveniently absent?
> 
> What a remarkable co-incidense.
> 
> ROFLMAO!!! little guy, your brain is toooooooooo small to argue with ALMIGHTY GOD!!! Compared to GOD,you are less than a germ on a worm on a germ.
Click to expand...


----------



## sealybobo

HUGGY said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So no one thinks I'm a fool?  Because god doesn't exist.
> 
> Or are you god?  Because you say so?
> 
> Hey, if something had to create the earth, something had to create god.  Who or what created god?  You can't have it both ways.  You can't say something MUST HAVE created us but nothing had to create god.  So if you can fathom that god could have been created out of nothing, and you have zero proof there is even a god  then why can't you accept that you and the universe came from nothing?  Or at least admit you don't know.  That's the only real truth.  We don't know.  But I do know your stories aren't true because we have studied man, history, other religions, bible thumper mentality, and I can tell you right now your god doesn't exist.  If there is a god he will reward me for not being stupid like you.  No way god is a fan of churches.  They take in all that money tax free and do very little to help anyone but themselves.
> 
> Louis CK said it best.  What kind of car do you drive?  If its not a $20K ford focus and instead it's a $30-$100K car, then how many people are you killing because you choose to drive a car that cost $10K or more MORE?  Do you get the truth in the joke?  I drive a $30K car.  How about you?  So look at us all.  We say we care but instead of spending that money on helping the poor and just driving a focus, we instead drive mustangs and corvettes and mercedes and we pretend to care.  We don't give a shit.  Neither does the universe.  And when you die that's it.  So what?  BFD.  Enjoy the time while you have it.  Don't sit around worrying about something you have no control over.  And when you are dead that's it.  No heaven but at least there isn't any hell.  Man made that up when we were cavemen.  You are not evolved my brother.  No biggy.  I'm sure you aren't winning over any new members with your schtick.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GOD SAYS!!==*That man is a fool who says to himself, There is no God! *Anyone who talks like that is warped and evil and cannot really be a good person at all.Psalm 14:1===Only a fool would say to himself, There is no God. And why does he say it? Because of his wicked heart, his dark and evil deeds. His life is corroded with sin. PSALM 53:1 and you???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A tad self serving?
> 
> And NOW that we have the means to RECORD voices your god is so conveniently absent?
> 
> What a remarkable co-incidense.
Click to expand...


Wow, I never thought atheism would bring me in agreement with a conservative.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> GOD SAYS!!==*That man is a fool who says to himself, There is no God! *Anyone who talks like that is warped and evil and cannot really be a good person at all.Psalm 14:1===Only a fool would say to himself, There is no God. And why does he say it? Because of his wicked heart, his dark and evil deeds. His life is corroded with sin. PSALM 53:1 and you???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A tad self serving?
> 
> And NOW that we have the means to RECORD voices your god is so conveniently absent?
> 
> What a remarkable co-incidense.
> 
> ROFLMAO!!! little guy, your brain is toooooooooo small to argue with ALMIGHTY GOD!!! Compared to GOD,you are less than a germ on a worm on a germ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do Tardagrades go to heaven?
Click to expand...


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> GOD SAYS!!==*That man is a fool who says to himself, There is no God! *Anyone who talks like that is warped and evil and cannot really be a good person at all.Psalm 14:1===Only a fool would say to himself, There is no God. And why does he say it? Because of his wicked heart, his dark and evil deeds. His life is corroded with sin. PSALM 53:1 and you???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A tad self serving?
> 
> And NOW that we have the means to RECORD voices your god is so conveniently absent?
> 
> What a remarkable co-incidense.
> 
> ROFLMAO!!! little guy, your brain is toooooooooo small to argue with ALMIGHTY GOD!!! Compared to GOD,you are less than a germ on a worm on a germ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG no kidding right?  I've watched both comedians and atheists pick apart these things.  How does anybody still believe?
> 
> And if you are a conservative, I'm curious what your opinion is of how the republicans were able to win over the moral majority.  I guess you probably love it because it helps you win elections but how do you feel that the bible thumping fundamentalists typically tend to belong to the GOP.  Does it bother you or will you take the votes no matter how you can get them.  I can respect that.
Click to expand...


----------



## HUGGY

sealybobo said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of criticizing each other for using atheism to mean contrary things,
> why not spell out the choices for what it can mean to different people/contexts.
> 
> And go through the lists and AGREE which people are talking about which approach:
> 17 Kinds of Atheism
> 
> Behold, the six types of atheists ? CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs
> 
> Just because people mean different things does not make one person right and others wrong.
> 
> God means different things in different religions, too.
> God as Wisdom is different from God as Love or God as Creation.
> 
> Why not decide what we mean, and stick to those concepts, so there is no conflict or confusion by using one terms to mean too many different things?
> 
> C'mon guys, with the collective intelligence we have on here, let's use some of it!
> 
> 
> 
> Note: I'm searching for another list of types of atheism that someone else posted.
> I thought there was a list of the equivalent of "different denominations" or degrees of atheism.
> I found this, but it isn't the quote I was looking for: Something to think about. - Page 31 - Evil Empire Forums
> 
> "In practical, or pragmatic, atheism, also known as apatheism, individuals live as if there are no gods and explain natural phenomena without resorting to the divine.
> 
> The existence of gods is not denied, but may be designated unnecessary or useless; gods neither provide purpose to life, nor influence everyday life, according to this view.
> 
> Practical atheism can take various forms:
> 
> Absence of religious motivationbelief in gods does not motivate moral action, religious action, or any other form of action;
> 
> Active exclusion of the problem of gods and religion from intellectual pursuit and practical action;
> 
> Indifferencethe absence of any interest in the problems of gods and religion; or
> 
> Unawareness of the concept of a deity"
> __________________
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing in your list of definitions supports your durrogatory opinions and conclusions concerning atheism.
> 
> Attempting to associate atheism and atheists with Hitler, Stalin, Communism...etc... is offensive.
> 
> If anything atheists are typically a-political and tend NOT to join groups especially any that would require some form of statement of allegience other than where it may concern the country.
> 
> Obviously I would find it more comfortable if we could drop the added god reference installed in 1955 to the pledge of allegience.  It was added stupidly as a knee jerk reaction to the threat of communism.  As if THAT would prevent a communist subversive from being a subversive.
> 
> As an ACTUAL conservative I have MORE right to disbelieve that which is NOT SUPPORTED by evidense than someone who CLAIMS they are a conservative believing in something without factual evidense.
> 
> You who CLAIM to believe in things with no evidense to support these things are by definition NOT conservative.  You take "LIBERTIES" with reality therefore are at heart pure liberal at your cores.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I liked everything you said until you said that liberals take liberties with reality.*
> 
> How about when Bush was leaving office, the economy was going down the drain and because McCain and Romney couldn't admit that bush really blew it, McCain said the fundamentals of our economy were strong and Romney said Michigan was in a one state recession.  They knew he sucked and the economy was crashing but they couldn't say the economy sucked until Obama was president.  Or when they would admit the economy wasn't good they blamed Reed, Pelosi and Freddy & Fanny Mac.
> 
> You know the only people who were completely not at fault for the great recession were the republicans.  Now that is taking liberty with reality.
> 
> Anyways, don't tell me conservatives don't take liberties with reality.
Click to expand...


That's not what I said.  WHAT I said is more in line to your last sentence.


----------



## HUGGY

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> A tad self serving?
> 
> And NOW that we have the means to RECORD voices your god is so conveniently absent?
> 
> What a remarkable co-incidense.
> 
> ROFLMAO!!! little guy, your brain is toooooooooo small to argue with ALMIGHTY GOD!!! Compared to GOD,you are less than a germ on a worm on a germ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OMG no kidding right?  I've watched both comedians and atheists pick apart these things.  How does anybody still believe?
> 
> And if you are a conservative, I'm curious what your opinion is of how the republicans were able to win over the moral majority.  I guess you probably love it because it helps you win elections but how do you feel that the bible thumping fundamentalists typically tend to belong to the GOP.  Does it bother you or will you take the votes no matter how you can get them.  I can respect that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe christian fundamentalists are conservative.  They stole that name just as they did the republican party so they would have a platform to lie from and project the christian political agenda.  You are correct that the "new christofascistconservatives" will do and say anything to get votes.  Allowing the religists into the power structure of the republican party was the dumbest thing they could have done for the party and the most dangerous thing for the country.  As it turns out they are nothing less than political terrorists.  Dwight Eisenhower and Barry Goldwater are rolling over in their graves.
> 
> Note how Bush was told by god to invade Iraq and then he and Cheney conspired to blame 9/11 0n the Iraqis and worked tirelessly to make the country believe that WE HAD TO INVADE and NOW they work just as hard blaming the dems that THEY also voted to support invasion as if the dems came up with the idea and were behind it all along.
Click to expand...


----------



## Hollie

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> GET REAL!!!  YOU JUST WANT TO LIVE IN YOUR LIFE OF SIN and hope GOD is not real,no matter if the bible said the earth is 15 billion years old you would just move to another fake excuse to try not to believe THUS YOUR TYPE PROVE THAT HELL IS THE ONLY RIGHT PLACE FOR YOU!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is why religious people deny evolution:
> 
> The motivation for belief in a divine, salvational Jesus breaks down when you accept evolution: Original sin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Now, if the book of Genesis is an allegory, then sin is an allegory, the Fall is an allegory and the need for a Savior is an allegory  but if we are all descendants of an allegory, where does that leave us? It destroys the foundation of all Christian doctrineit destroys the foundation of the gospel. - Ken Ham
Click to expand...


Ken has it right. That's the slippery slope of religious dogma. Once anyone begins to subdivide the bibles into the "yeah, that's absolutely true" parts from the "well, that's kinda' true", parts, it becomes a convoluted mess of contradictory suppositions and personal preferences. 

Religious dogma has a goal that cannot be swayed, and that is to bolster your faith -- not your knowledge, because knowledge and faith are different. True knowledge would be for you to contemplate, with objectivity, countering proposals. Knowledge is not asked for in the salvation paradigm, unquestioning faith is. There is an underlying misology (hatred of knowledge) in the bibleknowledge of good and evil is the original sin, after all. Before they sinned, A & E were ignorant. Knowledge to god is sin-- because knowledge would preclude faith. According to the paradigm, god prefers unquestioning belief, but will allow you to choose knowledge. The price of which is eternal hell of course.

So, back to the convoluted mess.


----------



## Hollie

HUGGY said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> OMG no kidding right?  I've watched both comedians and atheists pick apart these things.  How does anybody still believe?
> 
> And if you are a conservative, I'm curious what your opinion is of how the republicans were able to win over the moral majority.  I guess you probably love it because it helps you win elections but how do you feel that the bible thumping fundamentalists typically tend to belong to the GOP.  Does it bother you or will you take the votes no matter how you can get them.  I can respect that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe christian fundamentalists are conservative.  They stole that name just as they did the republican party so they would have a platform to lie from and project the christian political agenda.  You are correct that the "new christofascistconservatives" will do and say anything to get votes.  Allowing the religists into the power structure of the republican party was the dumbest thing they could have done for the party and the most dangerous thing for the country.  As it turns out they are nothing less than political terrorists.  Dwight Eisenhower and Barry Goldwater are rolling over in their graves.
> 
> Note how Bush was told by god to invade Iraq and then he and Cheney conspired to blame 9/11 0n the Iraqis and worked tirelessly to make the country believe that WE HAD TO INVADE and NOW they work just as hard blaming the dems that THEY also voted to support invasion as if the dems came up with the idea and were behind it all along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep. The religious right wants to legislate morality along the lines of fundamentalist Christian precepts but fortunately, are less coalesced now as they were during the years of the rabid Bushites. I'd be way more concerned with the Southern Baptist voter block than with the <snicker> Communist party or the Nazis. C'mon, you add up all the lunatic leftists and they are a tiny block of people. You add up the religious right and you get in a legislative block which is a shill for Falwell and Robertson, who wanted to push through a moronic, ill thought out and totally unconstitutional give-away called the Faith Initiative. Anyone remember the Bushite "Faith Initiative"?
> 
> In my opinion, Bush screwed the pooch right out of the gate with that stupid faith initiative -- showing himself to be a shill for the religious right (I love that there was outrage at Nation of Islam demanding their slice -- and Christians pissed at Wiccans wanting theirs-- each group does community service work and therefore deserved a slice.). His administration was dull and trying to drum up issues based on his perception of morality and so on, and not having a clue at the consequences of such morality-pushing showed me he was fairly naive about the very Constitution he swore to uphold.
Click to expand...


----------



## HUGGY

Hollie said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe christian fundamentalists are conservative.  They stole that name just as they did the republican party so they would have a platform to lie from and project the christian political agenda.  You are correct that the "new christofascistconservatives" will do and say anything to get votes.  Allowing the religists into the power structure of the republican party was the dumbest thing they could have done for the party and the most dangerous thing for the country.  As it turns out they are nothing less than political terrorists.  Dwight Eisenhower and Barry Goldwater are rolling over in their graves.
> 
> Note how Bush was told by god to invade Iraq and then he and Cheney conspired to blame 9/11 0n the Iraqis and worked tirelessly to make the country believe that WE HAD TO INVADE and NOW they work just as hard blaming the dems that THEY also voted to support invasion as if the dems came up with the idea and were behind it all along.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. The religious right wants to legislate morality along the lines of fundamentalist Christian precepts but fortunately, are less coalesced now as they were during the years of the rabid Bushites. I'd be way more concerned with the Southern Baptist voter block than with the <snicker> Communist party or the Nazis. C'mon, you add up all the lunatic leftists and they are a tiny block of people. You add up the religious right and you get in a legislative block which is a shill for Falwell and Robertson, who wanted to push through a moronic, ill thought out and totally unconstitutional give-away called the Faith Initiative. Anyone remember the Bushite "Faith Initiative"?
> 
> In my opinion, Bush screwed the pooch right out of the gate with that stupid faith initiative -- showing himself to be a shill for the religious right (I love that there was outrage at Nation of Islam demanding their slice -- and Christians pissed at Wiccans wanting theirs-- each group does community service work and therefore deserved a slice.). His administration was dull and trying to drum up issues based on his perception of morality and so on, and not having a clue at the consequences of such morality-pushing showed me he was fairly naive about the very Constitution he swore to uphold.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly right.  That FBI was partially why the response to Katrina was so disjointed.  Not only were funds being diverted to Bush's popular church organizations but many of the appointments to critical components of our countries reaction to disaster response such as FEMA became targets of Bush abuse of office.
> 
> The Faith Based Initiative blew up in Bushes face when he discovered that other non profits logically sought funding through the only chanels available.  His attempt to redistribute the wealth to his own christian supporters and at the same time dry up funding to others wouldn't fly.
Click to expand...


----------



## Gadawg73

HUGGY said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of criticizing each other for using atheism to mean contrary things,
> why not spell out the choices for what it can mean to different people/contexts.
> 
> And go through the lists and AGREE which people are talking about which approach:
> 17 Kinds of Atheism
> 
> Behold, the six types of atheists ? CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs
> 
> Just because people mean different things does not make one person right and others wrong.
> 
> God means different things in different religions, too.
> God as Wisdom is different from God as Love or God as Creation.
> 
> Why not decide what we mean, and stick to those concepts, so there is no conflict or confusion by using one terms to mean too many different things?
> 
> C'mon guys, with the collective intelligence we have on here, let's use some of it!
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has been explained to you.  You still cling desperately to your totally wrong ideas concerning what atheism is.  Your learning imparement is unfortunate but it is YOUR problem.  Try shutting your ignorant pie hole about atheists untill your pea brain gets it figured out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note: I'm searching for another list of types of atheism that someone else posted.
> I thought there was a list of the equivalent of "different denominations" or degrees of atheism.
> I found this, but it isn't the quote I was looking for: Something to think about. - Page 31 - Evil Empire Forums
> 
> "In practical, or pragmatic, atheism, also known as apatheism, individuals live as if there are no gods and explain natural phenomena without resorting to the divine.
> 
> The existence of gods is not denied, but may be designated unnecessary or useless; gods neither provide purpose to life, nor influence everyday life, according to this view.
> 
> Practical atheism can take various forms:
> 
> Absence of religious motivationbelief in gods does not motivate moral action, religious action, or any other form of action;
> 
> Active exclusion of the problem of gods and religion from intellectual pursuit and practical action;
> 
> Indifferencethe absence of any interest in the problems of gods and religion; or
> 
> Unawareness of the concept of a deity"
> __________________
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing in your list of definitions supports your durrogatory opinions and conclusions concerning atheism.
> 
> Attempting to associate atheism and atheists with Hitler, Stalin, Communism...etc... is offensive.
> 
> If anything atheists are typically a-political and tend NOT to join groups especially any that would require some form of statement of allegience other than where it may concern the country.
> 
> Obviously I would find it more comfortable if we could drop the added god reference installed in 1955 to the pledge of allegience.  It was added stupidly as a knee jerk reaction to the threat of communism.  As if THAT would prevent a communist subversive from being a subversive.
> 
> As an ACTUAL conservative I have MORE right to disbelieve that which is NOT SUPPORTED by evidense than someone who CLAIMS they are a conservative believing in something without factual evidense.
> 
> You who CLAIM to believe in things with no evidense to support these things are by definition NOT conservative.  You take "LIBERTIES" with reality therefore are at heart pure liberal at your cores.
Click to expand...


In 1981 I bought 12 acres north of Atlanta in a rural community. The suburbs have now caught up with us. My neighbor is an atheist. I never knew until a few years after I met him. When there is someone is need in the neighborhood, there is a fallen tree across someone's driveway or whatever he is the first to help. Great guy. 
So what if I do not agree with his religious beliefs or lack of them. 
Jesus loves atheists too!


----------



## emilynghiem

Gadawg73 said:


> In 1981 I bought 12 acres north of Atlanta in a rural community. The suburbs have now caught up with us. My neighbor is an atheist. I never knew until a few years after I met him. When there is someone is need in the neighborhood, there is a fallen tree across someone's driveway or whatever he is the first to help. Great guy.
> So what if I do not agree with his religious beliefs or lack of them.
> Jesus loves atheists too!




Yes, it just makes sense to me that if Christians believe God's plan and will is in charge of all things, wouldn't it be part of God's plan and purpose to create people as atheists?
The Bible says that the Lord has authority over all authorities, and all things are created and work for God's purpose. So surely there is a good purpose for all the ways God has given and created for man to be in life. Jesus is supposed to govern all these ways.

No one can be left out of God's plan or will, or it isn't universal, all encompassing,
all powerful and all knowing. Just because we don't understand doesn't mean there isn't some higher positive purpose for every person of every religion and why God has those.


----------



## emilynghiem

HI [MENTION=18867]HUGGY[/MENTION]: Not sure who you are addressing here by "you/your"???

but I agree there is nothing derogatory about nontheists/atheists who are naturally secular, and anything negative
about those fundamentalists who may harbor "ill will" to cause division and rejection in deleterious/retributive ways can also be said about theists and Christians who can also be unforgiving and retributive.

As I said before it's not our label or affiliation that causes problems but the SPIRIT in which we do things and whether we include or exclude our neighbors that shows wheher we are joined in the SPIRIT of Christ or divided against each other where we fall short of receiving "universal" truth and understanding that
does not leave anyone or anything out.

It's the unforgiveness, ill will, and retributive factor that is antichrist. This applies to everyone of us.
People of any tribe or denomination can have this antichrist attitude toward others. We can either work to overcome it, or multiply it and make it worse.

What truly determines if someone is walking with Christ is how we take corrections,
whether we react out of retribution and project blame back on others, or we seek
to make the necessary changes to grow closer and "more perfect" in truth and justice.

That tells me, more than anything, if people are "humble and righteous" whether
Christian, Atheists, Buddhist, Muslim, Constitutionalist, feminist : do we respond to correction and work with others to solve problems or do we blame and divide by labels?
Whoever can overcome that habit that all people are prone to, that is the spirit of Christ.



HUGGY said:


> Nothing in your list of definitions supports your durrogatory opinions and conclusions concerning atheism.
> 
> Attempting to associate atheism and atheists with Hitler, Stalin, Communism...etc... is offensive.
> 
> If anything atheists are typically a-political and tend NOT to join groups especially any that would require some form of statement of allegience other than where it may concern the country.
> 
> Obviously I would find it more comfortable if we could drop the added god reference installed in 1955 to the pledge of allegience.  It was added stupidly as a knee jerk reaction to the threat of communism.  As if THAT would prevent a communist subversive from being a subversive.
> 
> As an ACTUAL conservative I have MORE right to disbelieve that which is NOT SUPPORTED by evidense than someone who CLAIMS they are a conservative believing in something without factual evidense.
> 
> You who CLAIM to believe in things with no evidense to support these things are by definition NOT conservative.  You take "LIBERTIES" with reality therefore are at heart pure liberal at your cores.



I would "offer" an alternative pledge or version of these
that substitutes "public good" for God, or some other secular concept
that means relatively the same or similar thing in each context.

Good will
greater good for humanity
public good
etc.

If communities "offer" ballots and other printed materials in other languages,
why not accommodate atheists and other people who are not included in this
God/Jesus language and offer alternatives that use generic terms such
as Truth, Justice etc.

Instead of expensive lawsuits, these foundations can pay for the printing of
additional literature that offers these alternatives as an equal option.
So people take responsibility for the cost and consequences of religious differences
and don't dump that on the public either, it should go both ways.


----------



## emilynghiem

Yes of course we cannot know because we weren't there, so of course this is all faith based. Bingo

As for whether God has a beginning or God is infinite with no beginning or no end,
since we do not know and weren't there when all this started,
the way to be "unconditional" and leave it OPEN either way,
is to let people believe it is or it isn't one way or another (or none of these things)
and don't DEPEND on that being true or false or perfect.

We can still discuss and compare our understanding and knowledge of
universal laws, whether laws of science, nature, etc. in addition to how universal
laws are expressed in religions as well.

We don't have to agree on all things about what God is or isn't
for us to agree on what the laws and principles/concepts mean universal to all systems
even nontheist/atheist views of the world through natural science.

We have merely to agree to forgive our differences in order to focus
on what we can work out and come to constructive conclsions that help us in life.



sealybobo said:


> Hey, if something had to create the earth, something had to create god.  Who or what created god?  You can't have it both ways.  You can't say something MUST HAVE created us but nothing had to create god.  So if you can fathom that god could have been created out of nothing, and you have zero proof there is even a god  then why can't you accept that you and the universe came from nothing?  Or at least admit you don't know.  That's the only real truth.  We don't know.



P.s I am perfectly OK with seeing God as infinite,
where if something created that God, then THAT becomes the source
or starting point, and if something created THAT, then THAT point
is the source, etc. ad infinitum

or to believe that things may have always existed and there was no starting point

that is valid also to take the whole of creation/universe/all things in existence
and just call all that God as the whole collective of all energy/life/truth/experiences etc.

Any of these are fine. And we can still discuss the laws WITHIN this system
that we understand and how this applies to us, our relationships and society.

We don't have to agree on all things we cannot prove, or we'd never get anywhere in life


----------



## emilynghiem

HUGGY said:


> A tad self serving?
> 
> And NOW that we have the means to RECORD voices your god is so conveniently absent?
> 
> What a remarkable co-incidense.



1. a friend of mine who studies TESLA science especially analog vs. digital told me there were studies done that showed the voices in people's heads were showing up as measurable noise

2. if you read Scott Peck's Glimpses of the Devil, he observed two patients with severe schizophrenic disorder and demonic voices/personalities undergo deliverance/exorcism
and noted the changes in the patients that were observable and quantifiable as following patterns of disruption and of successful treatment and cure in stages.

So he concluded that even if it can never be proven what level these patients were experiencing demonic voices, the methods WORKED in an orderly way to follow
patterns and stages, so these could be documented and streamlined by science
as a formal process for diagnosing, treating, curing and monitoring patients with this type of illness. Not all schizophrenia is caused related or has these symptoms, but
for the ones who do, he saw for himself that the exorcism/deliverance process worked
to get rid of the obsessions and "demonic" psersonality so the patients regained free minds and could undergo treatment as normal where they could not be treated before.


----------



## emilynghiem

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> GET REAL!!!  YOU JUST WANT TO LIVE IN YOUR LIFE OF SIN and hope GOD is not real,no matter if the bible said the earth is 15 billion years old you would just move to another fake excuse to try not to believe THUS YOUR TYPE PROVE THAT HELL IS THE ONLY RIGHT PLACE FOR YOU!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is why religious people deny evolution:
> 
> The motivation for belief in a divine, salvational Jesus breaks down when you accept evolution: Original sin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Now, if the book of Genesis is an allegory, then sin is an allegory, the Fall is an allegory and the need for a Savior is an allegory  but if we are all descendants of an allegory, where does that leave us? It destroys the foundation of all Christian doctrineit destroys the foundation of the gospel. - Ken Ham
Click to expand...


????

This is extremist fundamental fear of change.

The previous Pope and many people believe we can have BOTH
evolution and creation without conflict!

My bf who is nonChristian even believes BOTH have been proven.

get rid of the division and fear,
and there is no problem accommodating BOTH.

God can create a human being, and we still go through
stages of development in life and change as we go.

Those changes can be part of the laws of life and how the system works.
Big deal.

You can write a perfectly orchestrated symphony
and leave room for some ad libbed improvisations by the soloists.

those can be part of the plan. there doesn't need to be fear and division
or rejection over this.

People have different forms of music, art, comedy, writing
and we don't have to diss each other's genres. It can all be part of
creative process and expression and not worry about conflicting with each other.

People need to grow up and quit nitpicking at things as an excuse to divide and reject
and blame others. gee whiz!!!


----------



## DriftingSand

emilynghiem said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In 1981 I bought 12 acres north of Atlanta in a rural community. The suburbs have now caught up with us. My neighbor is an atheist. I never knew until a few years after I met him. When there is someone is need in the neighborhood, there is a fallen tree across someone's driveway or whatever he is the first to help. Great guy.
> So what if I do not agree with his religious beliefs or lack of them.
> Jesus loves atheists too!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it just makes sense to me that if Christians believe God's plan and will is in charge of all things, wouldn't it be part of God's plan and purpose to create people as atheists?
> The Bible says that the Lord has authority over all authorities, and all things are created and work for God's purpose. So surely there is a good purpose for all the ways God has given and created for man to be in life. Jesus is supposed to govern all these ways.
> 
> No one can be left out of God's plan or will, or it isn't universal, all encompassing,
> all powerful and all knowing. Just because we don't understand doesn't mean there isn't some higher positive purpose for every person of every religion and why God has those.
Click to expand...


Just a few verses that reveal God's plan. You mentioned "Christians" in your post so I'm proposing a Christian point of view from the Christian text - the Bible:

*Matthew 22:14*_*, "For many are called, but few are chosen."*_

(Note in the following verse the "them" vs. God's "faithful." The "Lamb" is Jesus Christ)

*Revelation 17:14*_*, "They will wage war against the Lamb, but the Lamb will triumph over them  because he is Lord of lords and King of kings--and with him will be his  called, chosen and faithful followers."

*_*Matthew 7:13-14*_*, "Enter ye in at the  strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to  destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."*_

I agree that there is a "purpose" for non-believing, deniers of Christ.  I believe that our time on earth is a time of testing ones faith.  There will be many, many stumbling stones in our path but Christians are called to navigate around those stones and learn lessons as they go. Satan and his followers (deniers of Christ for the name "Satan" literally means "adversary") are just some of the stumbling stones by which Christians can strengthen their faith in Christ. 

Here's a good indication of what I mean:

*Matthew 5:10-12*_*, "Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.*__* Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you."*_

God knows that there are men who deny Him and He knows that these folks will persecute His followers.  In the above passage God is telling us to be prepared for such persecution and to remain faithful during said persecution.

But does God intend to bring all humans into His Heavenly fold?  Not according to this next passage:

*Matthew 13:38-43*_*, "*__*The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;  The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels. As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.  The  Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of  his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear."*_


----------



## GISMYS

DriftingSand said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In 1981 I bought 12 acres north of Atlanta in a rural community. The suburbs have now caught up with us. My neighbor is an atheist. I never knew until a few years after I met him. When there is someone is need in the neighborhood, there is a fallen tree across someone's driveway or whatever he is the first to help. Great guy.
> So what if I do not agree with his religious beliefs or lack of them.
> Jesus loves atheists too!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it just makes sense to me that if Christians believe God's plan and will is in charge of all things, wouldn't it be part of God's plan and purpose to create people as atheists?
> The Bible says that the Lord has authority over all authorities, and all things are created and work for God's purpose. So surely there is a good purpose for all the ways God has given and created for man to be in life. Jesus is supposed to govern all these ways.
> 
> No one can be left out of God's plan or will, or it isn't universal, all encompassing,
> all powerful and all knowing. Just because we don't understand doesn't mean there isn't some higher positive purpose for every person of every religion and why God has those.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just a few verses that reveal God's plan. You mentioned "Christians" in your post so I'm proposing a Christian point of view from the Christian text - the Bible:
> 
> *Matthew 22:14*_*, "For many are called, but few are chosen."*_
> 
> (Note in the following verse the "them" vs. God's "faithful." The "Lamb" is Jesus Christ)
> 
> *Revelation 17:14*_*, "They will wage war against the Lamb, but the Lamb will triumph over them  because he is Lord of lords and King of kings--and with him will be his  called, chosen and faithful followers."
> 
> *_*Matthew 7:13-14*_*, "Enter ye in at the  strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to  destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."*_
> 
> I agree that there is a "purpose" for non-believing, deniers of Christ.  I believe that our time on earth is a time of testing ones faith.  There will be many, many stumbling stones in our path but Christians are called to navigate around those stones and learn lessons as they go. Satan and his followers (deniers of Christ for the name "Satan" literally means "adversary") are just some of the stumbling stones by which Christians can strengthen their faith in Christ.
> 
> Here's a good indication of what I mean:
> 
> *Matthew 5:10-12*_*, "Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.*__* Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you."*_
> 
> God knows that there are men who deny Him and He knows that these folks will persecute His followers.  In the above passage God is telling us to be prepared for such persecution and to remain faithful during said persecution.
> 
> But does God intend to bring all humans into His Heavenly fold?  Not according to this next passage:
> 
> *Matthew 13:38-43*_*, "*__*The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;  The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels. As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.  The  Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of  his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear."*_
Click to expand...


YES!!! THE ONLY PLACE IN ETERNITY FOR any and all evil is HELL.


----------



## thanatos144

GISMYS said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it just makes sense to me that if Christians believe God's plan and will is in charge of all things, wouldn't it be part of God's plan and purpose to create people as atheists?
> The Bible says that the Lord has authority over all authorities, and all things are created and work for God's purpose. So surely there is a good purpose for all the ways God has given and created for man to be in life. Jesus is supposed to govern all these ways.
> 
> No one can be left out of God's plan or will, or it isn't universal, all encompassing,
> all powerful and all knowing. Just because we don't understand doesn't mean there isn't some higher positive purpose for every person of every religion and why God has those.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just a few verses that reveal God's plan. You mentioned "Christians" in your post so I'm proposing a Christian point of view from the Christian text - the Bible:
> 
> *Matthew 22:14*_*, "For many are called, but few are chosen."*_
> 
> (Note in the following verse the "them" vs. God's "faithful." The "Lamb" is Jesus Christ)
> 
> *Revelation 17:14*_*, "They will wage war against the Lamb, but the Lamb will triumph over them  because he is Lord of lords and King of kings--and with him will be his  called, chosen and faithful followers."
> 
> *_*Matthew 7:13-14*_*, "Enter ye in at the  strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to  destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."*_
> 
> I agree that there is a "purpose" for non-believing, deniers of Christ.  I believe that our time on earth is a time of testing ones faith.  There will be many, many stumbling stones in our path but Christians are called to navigate around those stones and learn lessons as they go. Satan and his followers (deniers of Christ for the name "Satan" literally means "adversary") are just some of the stumbling stones by which Christians can strengthen their faith in Christ.
> 
> Here's a good indication of what I mean:
> 
> *Matthew 5:10-12*_*, "Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.*__* Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you."*_
> 
> God knows that there are men who deny Him and He knows that these folks will persecute His followers.  In the above passage God is telling us to be prepared for such persecution and to remain faithful during said persecution.
> 
> But does God intend to bring all humans into His Heavenly fold?  Not according to this next passage:
> 
> *Matthew 13:38-43*_*, "*__*The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;  The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels. As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.  The  Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of  his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear."*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YES!!! THE ONLY PLACE IN ETERNITY FOR any and all evil is HELL.
Click to expand...


I think you seem to miss a lot of the teachings of the Christ because you seem awfully angry at people who foolishly deny his grace.


----------



## sealybobo

Hollie said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> GET REAL!!!  YOU JUST WANT TO LIVE IN YOUR LIFE OF SIN and hope GOD is not real,no matter if the bible said the earth is 15 billion years old you would just move to another fake excuse to try not to believe THUS YOUR TYPE PROVE THAT HELL IS THE ONLY RIGHT PLACE FOR YOU!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is why religious people deny evolution:
> 
> The motivation for belief in a divine, salvational Jesus breaks down when you accept evolution: Original sin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Now, if the book of Genesis is an allegory, then sin is an allegory, the Fall is an allegory and the need for a Savior is an allegory  but if we are all descendants of an allegory, where does that leave us? It destroys the foundation of all Christian doctrineit destroys the foundation of the gospel. - Ken Ham
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ken has it right. That's the slippery slope of religious dogma. Once anyone begins to subdivide the bibles into the "yeah, that's absolutely true" parts from the "well, that's kinda' true", parts, it becomes a convoluted mess of contradictory suppositions and personal preferences.
> 
> Religious dogma has a goal that cannot be swayed, and that is to bolster your faith -- not your knowledge, because knowledge and faith are different. True knowledge would be for you to contemplate, with objectivity, countering proposals. Knowledge is not asked for in the salvation paradigm, unquestioning faith is. There is an underlying misology (hatred of knowledge) in the bibleknowledge of good and evil is the original sin, after all. Before they sinned, A & E were ignorant. Knowledge to god is sin-- because knowledge would preclude faith. According to the paradigm, god prefers unquestioning belief, but will allow you to choose knowledge. The price of which is eternal hell of course.
> 
> So, back to the convoluted mess.
Click to expand...


This nice/good catholic came into my business and I asked her what she thought about the new pope.  She and I agreed he was a good guy and acts and says things all priests should say.  Another lady was in the waiting room.  I didn't see her there.  She came storming in

THAT'S BECAUSE HE DOESN'T FOLLOW DOGMA, DOGMA!  After the nice catholic left I said to the bitch, "I'm glad you are the way you are.  I don't like fake christians who want to redefine and forgive or ignore dogma.  If you believe you have to believe it all.  And if you don't, then you shouldn't be a christian"  

I wish the church didn't change with the times.  Then people would have abandoned it long ago and moved towards truth and science and not been played for pawns on issues like abortion, birth control, war, global warming, civil rights or gay rights.  Most catholic women take birth control and a lot of them have had abortions.  If you take birth control you should be forced to leave the catholic church.

But instead religion will keep redefining itself every time science or logic proves them wrong again and again.  But whatever.  Most of the people who are religious now either haven't heard the truth or are too far gone to wake up.  But eventually their kids and their neighbors will stop being religious and I have not "proof" of it, but watch how much better society becomes when we put that bullshit behind us.  Or people will just be quietly spiritual or religious.  If you want to research it and you want to believe and go worship, cool.  But don't push the issue too much with the rest of us because we all know it's not real.  It'd be like me reading about the Greek gods and believing in Zeus.  How come no one believes that shit?  Because it's too old of a story.  Well so is the bible.  It's full of errors and was quite possibly made up 80 years after jesus died so it wasn't even the 11 guys who saw it who wrote the bible.  I call BULLSHIT.  Happy Friday.


----------



## sealybobo

Hollie said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe christian fundamentalists are conservative.  They stole that name just as they did the republican party so they would have a platform to lie from and project the christian political agenda.  You are correct that the "new christofascistconservatives" will do and say anything to get votes.  Allowing the religists into the power structure of the republican party was the dumbest thing they could have done for the party and the most dangerous thing for the country.  As it turns out they are nothing less than political terrorists.  Dwight Eisenhower and Barry Goldwater are rolling over in their graves.
> 
> Note how Bush was told by god to invade Iraq and then he and Cheney conspired to blame 9/11 0n the Iraqis and worked tirelessly to make the country believe that WE HAD TO INVADE and NOW they work just as hard blaming the dems that THEY also voted to support invasion as if the dems came up with the idea and were behind it all along.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. The religious right wants to legislate morality along the lines of fundamentalist Christian precepts but fortunately, are less coalesced now as they were during the years of the rabid Bushites. I'd be way more concerned with the Southern Baptist voter block than with the <snicker> Communist party or the Nazis. C'mon, you add up all the lunatic leftists and they are a tiny block of people. You add up the religious right and you get in a legislative block which is a shill for Falwell and Robertson, who wanted to push through a moronic, ill thought out and totally unconstitutional give-away called the Faith Initiative. Anyone remember the Bushite "Faith Initiative"?
> 
> In my opinion, Bush screwed the pooch right out of the gate with that stupid faith initiative -- showing himself to be a shill for the religious right (I love that there was outrage at Nation of Islam demanding their slice -- and Christians pissed at Wiccans wanting theirs-- each group does community service work and therefore deserved a slice.). His administration was dull and trying to drum up issues based on his perception of morality and so on, and not having a clue at the consequences of such morality-pushing showed me he was fairly naive about the very Constitution he swore to uphold.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My concern is not only did bush pass a bunch of laws for the religious right, currently all over the country states with GOP run legislatures are passing not only anti abortion laws but pro gun, pro ALEC, pro corporation, heck even in Michigan a blue state Snyder made us a right to work state.  The woman running here for the GOP Terry Lynn Land would ban abortion even in cases of rape or incest.
> 
> And dumb poor/middle class independents and democrats only vote every 4 years.  And a lot of them vote against themselves because of god gays guns and racism.  So the GOP will probably always keep their majorities until poor and middle class people wake the fuck up.  Then we need to get our version of the tea party only not crazy people and we need to lean on democrats to stop being GOP light.  Tax the rich, pro union, pay people a living wage, make healthcare affordable, jesus christ.
> 
> So even when we have the white house and senate the gop are still pushing their agenda.  They will even hold up the economy to get their way.  And can you believe they are expected to win seats in November?  What the fuck is wrong with Americans?  Maybe they will prove me wrong and show up for these midterms.  They didn't in 2010.
> 
> Midterms are the GOP's secret weapon.  That and gerrymandering.
Click to expand...


----------



## sealybobo

Gadawg73 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of criticizing each other for using atheism to mean contrary things,
> why not spell out the choices for what it can mean to different people/contexts.
> 
> And go through the lists and AGREE which people are talking about which approach:
> 17 Kinds of Atheism
> 
> Behold, the six types of atheists ? CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs
> 
> Just because people mean different things does not make one person right and others wrong.
> 
> God means different things in different religions, too.
> God as Wisdom is different from God as Love or God as Creation.
> 
> Why not decide what we mean, and stick to those concepts, so there is no conflict or confusion by using one terms to mean too many different things?
> 
> C'mon guys, with the collective intelligence we have on here, let's use some of it!
> 
> 
> 
> Note: I'm searching for another list of types of atheism that someone else posted.
> I thought there was a list of the equivalent of "different denominations" or degrees of atheism.
> I found this, but it isn't the quote I was looking for: Something to think about. - Page 31 - Evil Empire Forums
> 
> "In practical, or pragmatic, atheism, also known as apatheism, individuals live as if there are no gods and explain natural phenomena without resorting to the divine.
> 
> The existence of gods is not denied, but may be designated unnecessary or useless; gods neither provide purpose to life, nor influence everyday life, according to this view.
> 
> Practical atheism can take various forms:
> 
> Absence of religious motivationbelief in gods does not motivate moral action, religious action, or any other form of action;
> 
> Active exclusion of the problem of gods and religion from intellectual pursuit and practical action;
> 
> Indifferencethe absence of any interest in the problems of gods and religion; or
> 
> Unawareness of the concept of a deity"
> __________________
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing in your list of definitions supports your durrogatory opinions and conclusions concerning atheism.
> 
> Attempting to associate atheism and atheists with Hitler, Stalin, Communism...etc... is offensive.
> 
> If anything atheists are typically a-political and tend NOT to join groups especially any that would require some form of statement of allegience other than where it may concern the country.
> 
> Obviously I would find it more comfortable if we could drop the added god reference installed in 1955 to the pledge of allegience.  It was added stupidly as a knee jerk reaction to the threat of communism.  As if THAT would prevent a communist subversive from being a subversive.
> 
> As an ACTUAL conservative I have MORE right to disbelieve that which is NOT SUPPORTED by evidense than someone who CLAIMS they are a conservative believing in something without factual evidense.
> 
> You who CLAIM to believe in things with no evidense to support these things are by definition NOT conservative.  You take "LIBERTIES" with reality therefore are at heart pure liberal at your cores.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In 1981 I bought 12 acres north of Atlanta in a rural community. The suburbs have now caught up with us. My neighbor is an atheist. I never knew until a few years after I met him. When there is someone is need in the neighborhood, there is a fallen tree across someone's driveway or whatever he is the first to help. Great guy.
> So what if I do not agree with his religious beliefs or lack of them.
> Jesus loves atheists too!
Click to expand...


Thanks buddy.  And I'm sure if jesus exists he wouldn't blame us one bit for doubting this societies story.  First of all, Jesus didn't write the bible.  So if he existed and if he was a profit or the messiah, he should have had someone take notes.  But the 11 who survived that claim he rose from the dead didn't write it down either.  They should have.  Instead they just went around telling people the story and 80 years later people starting writing the story/legend.  The jews say he was just a man.  Only 11 say he was special.  Why are you so sure the story is real or true?  What about all the other religions before the abraham religions that also had virgin births and ressurections?  Are you gullible?

But thank you because besides me arguing politics and religion, I'm seriously one of the nicest people you could ever meet.  Like your neighbor, I'm just not buying it.  

And like I said, Jesus wouldn't blame me.  Remember he overturned the table of the money changers in church because he was disgusted?  Yea, he would be disgusted with christians today I'm sure too.  But I'm sure christians don't want to hear that.  That they are no better than the jews jesus was preaching to and telling them they have all lost their way.  American christians seem to think they are good yet the rest of the world doesn't think so.  But we think we have the moral high ground.  Like crying when China hacks our computers, as if we don't do that too.  Or we cry when Russia invades another country after we did it in Iraq.  Russia didn't stop us, so how can we stop them now?


----------



## sealybobo

emilynghiem said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> GET REAL!!!  YOU JUST WANT TO LIVE IN YOUR LIFE OF SIN and hope GOD is not real,no matter if the bible said the earth is 15 billion years old you would just move to another fake excuse to try not to believe THUS YOUR TYPE PROVE THAT HELL IS THE ONLY RIGHT PLACE FOR YOU!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is why religious people deny evolution:
> 
> The motivation for belief in a divine, salvational Jesus breaks down when you accept evolution: Original sin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Now, if the book of Genesis is an allegory, then sin is an allegory, the Fall is an allegory and the need for a Savior is an allegory  but if we are all descendants of an allegory, where does that leave us? It destroys the foundation of all Christian doctrineit destroys the foundation of the gospel. - Ken Ham
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ????
> 
> This is extremist fundamental fear of change.
> 
> The previous Pope and many people believe we can have BOTH
> evolution and creation without conflict!
> 
> My bf who is nonChristian even believes BOTH have been proven.
> 
> get rid of the division and fear,
> and there is no problem accommodating BOTH.
> 
> God can create a human being, and we still go through
> stages of development in life and change as we go.
> 
> Those changes can be part of the laws of life and how the system works.
> Big deal.
> 
> You can write a perfectly orchestrated symphony
> and leave room for some ad libbed improvisations by the soloists.
> 
> those can be part of the plan. there doesn't need to be fear and division
> or rejection over this.
> 
> People have different forms of music, art, comedy, writing
> and we don't have to diss each other's genres. It can all be part of
> creative process and expression and not worry about conflicting with each other.
> 
> People need to grow up and quit nitpicking at things as an excuse to divide and reject
> and blame others. gee whiz!!!
Click to expand...


I never cared if someone was a muslim, mormon, jew, catholic or atheist until the GOP made religion a political football.  

Come talk to me the day an atheist/non believer can be president.  Until then, we are the ones being picked on/misjudged/bullied or whatever you want to call it.  

And forgive us as we fight back when the church makes people believe atheism ='s satin.

Or when the church tries to ban abortion.  I would say abortion is a necessary evil but human life isn't so precious that it's evil to have an abortion.  Maybe if there was a god but there isn't.  It may be a shame or sad or too bad but some people shouldn't have children and/or some people aren't ready to be parents and besides we already have too many people on this planet.  Think about all the women who don't want a child being forced to have them because abortion isn't legal.  Just consider all the horrible mothers in Detroit who aren't doing a good job raising their kids.  Now add thousands of other unwanted kids to the streets of Detroit, because that is what you are going to get if you ban abortion.  Thank GOD some women are smart enough to know they can't raise a human being.  So in the future when religious thinking isn't an issue women who don't want to be parents yet but get pregnant won't be made to feel guilty because it was just a seed and life isn't that precious.


----------



## sealybobo

emilynghiem said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> GET REAL!!!  YOU JUST WANT TO LIVE IN YOUR LIFE OF SIN and hope GOD is not real,no matter if the bible said the earth is 15 billion years old you would just move to another fake excuse to try not to believe THUS YOUR TYPE PROVE THAT HELL IS THE ONLY RIGHT PLACE FOR YOU!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is why religious people deny evolution:
> 
> The motivation for belief in a divine, salvational Jesus breaks down when you accept evolution: Original sin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Now, if the book of Genesis is an allegory, then sin is an allegory, the Fall is an allegory and the need for a Savior is an allegory  but if we are all descendants of an allegory, where does that leave us? It destroys the foundation of all Christian doctrineit destroys the foundation of the gospel. - Ken Ham
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ????
> 
> This is extremist fundamental fear of change.
> 
> The previous Pope and many people believe we can have BOTH
> evolution and creation without conflict!
> 
> My bf who is nonChristian even believes BOTH have been proven.
> 
> get rid of the division and fear,
> and there is no problem accommodating BOTH.
> 
> God can create a human being, and we still go through
> stages of development in life and change as we go.
> 
> Those changes can be part of the laws of life and how the system works.
> Big deal.
> 
> You can write a perfectly orchestrated symphony
> and leave room for some ad libbed improvisations by the soloists.
> 
> those can be part of the plan. there doesn't need to be fear and division
> or rejection over this.
> 
> People have different forms of music, art, comedy, writing
> and we don't have to diss each other's genres. It can all be part of
> creative process and expression and not worry about conflicting with each other.
> 
> People need to grow up and quit nitpicking at things as an excuse to divide and reject
> and blame others. gee whiz!!!
Click to expand...


Why do religion haters persist?  First of all, we don't really hate.  We are the ones that are hated.  So forgive us if we fight back.  Want proof?  

Americans Would Rather Vote For A Philandering, Pot-Smoking President Than An Atheist One


----------



## emilynghiem

sealybobo said:


> Or when the church tries to ban abortion.  I would say abortion is a necessary evil but human life isn't so precious that it's evil to have an abortion.  Maybe if there was a god but there isn't.  It may be a shame or sad or too bad but some people shouldn't have children and/or some people aren't ready to be parents and besides we already have too many people on this planet.  Think about all the women who don't want a child being forced to have them because abortion isn't legal.  Just consider all the horrible mothers in Detroit who aren't doing a good job raising their kids.  Now add thousands of other unwanted kids to the streets of Detroit, because that is what you are going to get if you ban abortion.  Thank GOD some women are smart enough to know they can't raise a human being.  So in the future when religious thinking isn't an issue women who don't want to be parents yet but get pregnant won't be made to feel guilty because it was just a seed and life isn't that precious.



Hi sealybobo: When I approach my prolife friends with Constitutional explanations not to impose faith-based beliefs or arguments through govt, this generally is not refuted.
(same with respecting and including views both for or against gay marriage, by treating the BELIEFS as "equally protected by law," or beliefs for or against the death penalty, regardless if we agree or not.)

There is nothing wrong with defending choice, which aligns with religious freedom that conservatives believe in.

The problem they have is with "pushing abortion," so as long as  you don't "push abortion," but just defend choice that is neutral as govt and laws ought to be.

I also point out that all the prolife activists, movements and outreach 
are all done by FREE CHOICE and not required by law.

So this proves that it does not have to be banned to prevent abortion.
People can CHOOSE to be as educated and proactively against abortion
as prolife people who do so BY CHOICE not by "force of law" -- 
they serve as proof we can avoid abortion by our own choices without making it illegal.

The key is to have equal respect, defense and protection for prolife views equally 
as prochoice views, if you want to enforce Constitutional principles CONSISTENTLY.

When I take this approach, I have no problem working with both prochoice and prolife people.

Only where one side attacks or rejects the other, this starts the whole business of fighting to defend beliefs of one OVER the other or in REACTION. So if we treat them both equally as protected by law, then we don't have this problem!


----------



## emilynghiem

sealybobo said:


> Why do religion haters persist?  First of all, we don't really hate.  We are the ones that are hated.  So forgive us if we fight back.  Want proof?
> 
> Americans Would Rather Vote For A Philandering, Pot-Smoking President Than An Atheist One



I think the division and distrust is pretty mutual.

I think you are good at staying moderate and rational about your objections
compared with some people who go fundamentalistic to extremes and WON'T forgive.

When you and GISMYS both calm down, and come to accept that the world needs both theists and nontheists, traditional Christians and traditional secularists
to cover all the knowledge and realms of understanding truth and working together in life, in order to meet all needs and serve greater purposes,

then maybe I'll believe that humanity is really ready to receive the full coming of Justice to be established by agreement in truth across all systems and groups. We are closer than we think, but still some work to be done to let go of our old ways and accept that the process is bigger than what we imagined.

GISMYS claims to be ready, but if he thinks the right answers leave out atheists and others just because of secular thinking, that is still missing what this process is about. It is about  bringing together ALL the knowledge wisdom and understanding combined as one.

If we reject each other, we are like puzzle pieces crammed in wrong ways or mismatched
and not organized to form the whole puzzle. If we accept and receive each other, we can figure out how our ins and outs all fit together perfectly to form the bigger picture.

GISMYS is right that we are closer than ever.
what goes on here, among us, is a microcosm or reflection of the larger collective process of humanity figuring it out simultaneously. So if we can get it, how we can work together and not conflict or divide over our differences, so can the rest of the world figure it out.

We are close, but still fussing because the different pieces are not where they should be, or some pieces are still upside down. All the pieces fit if we coordinate correctly.

Thank you both, and everyone here, for being part of this process. It is very interesting and rewarding to work out all these issues otherwise preventing it from full realization.

I believe GISMYS intuition is right, but the actual process will be more involved than just magically done by God. there is deep internal work to resolve all our judgment issues.


----------



## thebrucebeat

emilynghiem said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do religion haters persist?  First of all, we don't really hate.  We are the ones that are hated.  So forgive us if we fight back.  Want proof?
> 
> Americans Would Rather Vote For A Philandering, Pot-Smoking President Than An Atheist One
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the division and distrust is pretty mutual.
> 
> I think you are good at staying moderate and rational about your objections
> compared with some people who go fundamentalistic to extremes and WON'T forgive.
> 
> When you and GISMYS both calm down, and come to accept that the world needs both theists and nontheists, traditional Christians and traditional secularists
> to cover all the knowledge and realms of understanding truth and working together in life, in order to meet all needs and serve greater purposes,
> 
> then maybe I'll believe that humanity is really ready to receive the full coming of Justice to be established by agreement in truth across all systems and groups. We are closer than we think, but still some work to be done to let go of our old ways and accept that the process is bigger than what we imagined.
> 
> GISMYS claims to be ready, but if he thinks the right answers leave out atheists and others just because of secular thinking, that is still missing what this process is about. It is about  bringing together ALL the knowledge wisdom and understanding combined as one.
> 
> If we reject each other, we are like puzzle pieces crammed in wrong ways or mismatched
> and not organized to form the whole puzzle. If we accept and receive each other, we can figure out how our ins and outs all fit together perfectly to form the bigger picture.
> 
> GISMYS is right that we are closer than ever.
> what goes on here, among us, is a microcosm or reflection of the larger collective process of humanity figuring it out simultaneously. So if we can get it, how we can work together and not conflict or divide over our differences, so can the rest of the world figure it out.
> 
> We are close, but still fussing because the different pieces are not where they should be, or some pieces are still upside down. All the pieces fit if we coordinate correctly.
> 
> Thank you both, and everyone here, for being part of this process. It is very interesting and rewarding to work out all these issues otherwise preventing it from full realization.
> 
> I believe GISMYS intuition is right, but the actual process will be more involved than just magically done by God. there is deep internal work to resolve all our judgment issues.
Click to expand...


It is somewhat hilarious at this point to watch your posts that have the attitude that we are all on the same path, that you have identified that proper path, and all roads will lead to Rome if only we will let them.
And to try to sell the idea that great progress is being made toward that end.
No evidence I see on here or out in the real world indicate your fantasy is on the way to fruition.
I am positive you mean well, but your vision is as arbitrary as everyone elses, and you aren't building a strong following.
But I wish you the best of luck.


----------



## emilynghiem

Hi DriftingSand and thanks for your posts and prayers!

There are still two meanings of Christian.

There is Christian by external label or affiliation or tradition.
There is Christian by faith internally.

I find there are "neighbors called in Christ" who are of other traditions.
So when the few come forward, it may be surprising to find that some of the 
true "Christians" were Muslim, Buddhist or other gentiles, called from other tribes.

We can still receive Christ and follow Christ.

When Jesus made the parable about the Good Samaritan, the Samaritans were rejected as the most unholy people, and yet that is the example Jesus used to explain that the one who acts as our "neighbor" in Christ may not be of the affiliation we expect them to be.

I believe the people still on this thread, who haven't given up  but care about
establishing truth and correcting error ARE acting as neighbors in Christ.

We are a combination of nontheists and even atheists on here, mixed with Christians or other Deists/theists on here, but the spirit of truth that is calling us, people are answering
and trying to resolve and reconcile. So those are the people answering to Christ, by conscience.

I am like a member of both folds, so I can relate to people under either one.
Where we join and agree in spirit, that is where Christ governs our relationship.
Through that, we can correct any problems that otherwise might divide us where we lose that connection in truth and by Conscience which is where Christ works through us.

Thank you DriftingSand
and please continue praying for all the people here
to be united by conscience where we fulfill the meaning and message of Christ.



DriftingSand said:


> Just a few verses that reveal God's plan. You mentioned "Christians" in your post so I'm proposing a Christian point of view from the Christian text - the Bible:
> 
> *Matthew 22:14*_*, "For many are called, but few are chosen."*_
> 
> (Note in the following verse the "them" vs. God's "faithful." The "Lamb" is Jesus Christ)
> 
> *Revelation 17:14*_*, "They will wage war against the Lamb, but the Lamb will triumph over them  because he is Lord of lords and King of kings--and with him will be his  called, chosen and faithful followers."
> 
> *_*Matthew 7:13-14*_*, "Enter ye in at the  strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to  destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."*_
> 
> I agree that there is a "purpose" for non-believing, deniers of Christ.  I believe that our time on earth is a time of testing ones faith.  There will be many, many stumbling stones in our path but Christians are called to navigate around those stones and learn lessons as they go. Satan and his followers (deniers of Christ for the name "Satan" literally means "adversary") are just some of the stumbling stones by which Christians can strengthen their faith in Christ.
> 
> Here's a good indication of what I mean:
> 
> *Matthew 5:10-12*_*, "Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.*__* Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you."*_
> 
> God knows that there are men who deny Him and He knows that these folks will persecute His followers.  In the above passage God is telling us to be prepared for such persecution and to remain faithful during said persecution.
> 
> But does God intend to bring all humans into His Heavenly fold?  Not according to this next passage:
> 
> *Matthew 13:38-43*_*, "*__*The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;  The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels. As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.  The  Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of  his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear."*_



RE: path of destruction vs. gate of righteousness
most people take the popular path of "i am right you are wrong"
"we are right, they are the cause of the problem to blame"
This is the cause of all unresolved conflicts and war in the world.
most people take this path, it is filled with lots of traffic as the most common route.

how many people take the route of
"I am right on this point, you are right about that one"
"I was wrong here, but so were you on that one"
"I don't like it when you do X, you don't like it when I do Z"

So we are equal under God, with equal strengths and weaknesses as others,
but all in different areas.

How can we take the best of what each of us has to offer?
and use that for good? while helping each other to correct the faults or
limitation on our knowledge and understanding that others have more than we do?

How can we take the path that brings out the truth
and best purpose and good in ALL of us, while correcting the flaws and problems?

Surely that path where we agree and align is a very fine line, very few points.
But aren't those points the key principles that matter most? How do we focus there?


----------



## emilynghiem

thebrucebeat said:


> It is somewhat hilarious at this point to watch your posts that have the attitude that we are all on the same path, that you have identified that proper path, and all roads will lead to Rome if only we will let them.
> And to try to sell the idea that great progress is being made toward that end.
> No evidence I see on here or out in the real world indicate your fantasy is on the way to fruition.
> I am positive you mean well, but your vision is as arbitrary as everyone elses, and you aren't building a strong following.
> But I wish you the best of luck.



Yes and no. Obviously all our paths are different, and as unique as each of us.

What I'm saying is the process we go through to reconcile our differences
is one universal process, all humanity goes through the same basic steps.

It's similar to the grief process.
When we go through a trauma, run into conflict, or face greater change than we
can handle.

We react, and go through stages, of denial/depression, anger/projection of blame,
bargaining and conflict resolution, and some level of acceptance and peace.

All people go through this.
Fowler also wrote out stages of religious or spiritual development
from liberal to fundamentalistic to moderate, so that's another way to define the map.

Recently, I read a book by Russ Whitney that defined the stages in life as the
athlete (self-focused), warrior (fighting battles), statesman (helping others), and spirit (connecting and working on an even higher plane).

Of course NONE of our paths are the same.

But we all want freedom from what we DON'T want,
and we want better things in life that we DO want.
Whatever steps or changes we have to go through to get there
follows basic patterns and is influenced by the same system of
positive loves and fulfillment in solutions that work, 
and negative fears and stress from conflicts and problems that don't.

BTW [MENTION=48205]thebrucebeat[/MENTION] I like your attitude
I appreciate and respect the people on here more and more
and can see a lot more good and broader understanding come
from these interactions. thank you and keep it up, don't stop. it helps and is working to bring about constructive change.


----------



## thebrucebeat

emilynghiem said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is somewhat hilarious at this point to watch your posts that have the attitude that we are all on the same path, that you have identified that proper path, and all roads will lead to Rome if only we will let them.
> And to try to sell the idea that great progress is being made toward that end.
> No evidence I see on here or out in the real world indicate your fantasy is on the way to fruition.
> I am positive you mean well, but your vision is as arbitrary as everyone elses, and you aren't building a strong following.
> But I wish you the best of luck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and no. Obviously all our paths are different, and as unique as each of us.
> 
> What I'm saying is the process we go through to reconcile our differences
> is one universal process, all humanity goes through the same basic steps.
> 
> It's similar to the grief process.
> When we go through a trauma, run into conflict, or face greater change than we
> can handle.
> 
> We react, and go through stages, of denial/depression, anger/projection of blame,
> bargaining and conflict resolution, and some level of acceptance and peace.
> 
> All people go through this.
> Fowler also wrote out stages of religious or spiritual development
> from liberal to fundamentalistic to moderate, so that's another way to define the map.
> 
> Recently, I read a book by Russ Whitney that defined the stages in life as the
> athlete (self-focused), warrior (fighting battles), statesman (helping others), and spirit (connecting and working on an even higher plane).
> 
> Of course NONE of our paths are the same.
> 
> But we all want freedom from what we DON'T want,
> and we want better things in life that we DO want.
> Whatever steps or changes we have to go through to get there
> follows basic patterns and is influenced by the same system of
> positive loves and fulfillment in solutions that work,
> and negative fears and stress from conflicts and problems that don't.
> 
> BTW [MENTION=48205]thebrucebeat[/MENTION] I like your attitude
> I appreciate and respect the people on here more and more
> and can see a lot more good and broader understanding come
> from these interactions. thank you and keep it up, don't stop. it helps and is working to bring about constructive change.
Click to expand...


So you say.
I see no evidence of this, but if it gives you hope it serves its purpose.


----------



## sealybobo

emilynghiem said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or when the church tries to ban abortion.  I would say abortion is a necessary evil but human life isn't so precious that it's evil to have an abortion.  Maybe if there was a god but there isn't.  It may be a shame or sad or too bad but some people shouldn't have children and/or some people aren't ready to be parents and besides we already have too many people on this planet.  Think about all the women who don't want a child being forced to have them because abortion isn't legal.  Just consider all the horrible mothers in Detroit who aren't doing a good job raising their kids.  Now add thousands of other unwanted kids to the streets of Detroit, because that is what you are going to get if you ban abortion.  Thank GOD some women are smart enough to know they can't raise a human being.  So in the future when religious thinking isn't an issue women who don't want to be parents yet but get pregnant won't be made to feel guilty because it was just a seed and life isn't that precious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi sealybobo: When I approach my prolife friends with Constitutional explanations not to impose faith-based beliefs or arguments through govt, this generally is not refuted.
> (same with respecting and including views both for or against gay marriage, by treating the BELIEFS as "equally protected by law," or beliefs for or against the death penalty, regardless if we agree or not.)
> 
> There is nothing wrong with defending choice, which aligns with religious freedom that conservatives believe in.
> 
> The problem they have is with "pushing abortion," so as long as  you don't "push abortion," but just defend choice that is neutral as govt and laws ought to be.
> 
> I also point out that all the prolife activists, movements and outreach
> are all done by FREE CHOICE and not required by law.
> 
> So this proves that it does not have to be banned to prevent abortion.
> People can CHOOSE to be as educated and proactively against abortion
> as prolife people who do so BY CHOICE not by "force of law" --
> they serve as proof we can avoid abortion by our own choices without making it illegal.
> 
> The key is to have equal respect, defense and protection for prolife views equally
> as prochoice views, if you want to enforce Constitutional principles CONSISTENTLY.
> 
> When I take this approach, I have no problem working with both prochoice and prolife people.
> 
> Only where one side attacks or rejects the other, this starts the whole business of fighting to defend beliefs of one OVER the other or in REACTION. So if we treat them both equally as protected by law, then we don't have this problem!
Click to expand...



1.	 Depends on your interpretation of the constitution.  Seems Libertarians, conservatives and liberals dont agree 100% on even the constitution.  Example would be Obama is a constitutional scholar and the cons think everything he does is unconstitutional.  
2.	Its ok if gays make you feel icky.  Doesnt mean your state can pass laws that the federal government deems unconstitutional or discriminatory.
3.	Government isnt neutral.  Government is the referee.  Without government the game is even more rigged than it is now.  The rich love Libertarianism or parts of it because its every man for himself and zero regulations.  
4.	Their position is ban abortion.  I respect their feelings but sorry no.
5.	Us on the left have said many times we want to solve the problems that lead to people needing abortions.  No one wants other people to get abortions but we see the necessity for them.  You are right.  Pay people at Burger King and Walmart a living wage so if they do get pregnant they can afford to have it.  This was why people in the old days kept the baby.  They could go out and get a job that would support 3 people.  Good luck with that today right out of high school.  
6.  People who are anti abortion are usually also anti sex ed in schools.  Sex ed lowers the number of unwanted pregnancies.  So do rubbers and birth control but the catholics hate those things too.  Hard to negotiate with terrorists.


----------



## sealybobo

thebrucebeat said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is somewhat hilarious at this point to watch your posts that have the attitude that we are all on the same path, that you have identified that proper path, and all roads will lead to Rome if only we will let them.
> And to try to sell the idea that great progress is being made toward that end.
> No evidence I see on here or out in the real world indicate your fantasy is on the way to fruition.
> I am positive you mean well, but your vision is as arbitrary as everyone elses, and you aren't building a strong following.
> But I wish you the best of luck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and no. Obviously all our paths are different, and as unique as each of us.
> 
> What I'm saying is the process we go through to reconcile our differences
> is one universal process, all humanity goes through the same basic steps.
> 
> It's similar to the grief process.
> When we go through a trauma, run into conflict, or face greater change than we
> can handle.
> 
> We react, and go through stages, of denial/depression, anger/projection of blame,
> bargaining and conflict resolution, and some level of acceptance and peace.
> 
> All people go through this.
> Fowler also wrote out stages of religious or spiritual development
> from liberal to fundamentalistic to moderate, so that's another way to define the map.
> 
> Recently, I read a book by Russ Whitney that defined the stages in life as the
> athlete (self-focused), warrior (fighting battles), statesman (helping others), and spirit (connecting and working on an even higher plane).
> 
> Of course NONE of our paths are the same.
> 
> But we all want freedom from what we DON'T want,
> and we want better things in life that we DO want.
> Whatever steps or changes we have to go through to get there
> follows basic patterns and is influenced by the same system of
> positive loves and fulfillment in solutions that work,
> and negative fears and stress from conflicts and problems that don't.
> 
> BTW [MENTION=48205]thebrucebeat[/MENTION] I like your attitude
> I appreciate and respect the people on here more and more
> and can see a lot more good and broader understanding come
> from these interactions. thank you and keep it up, don't stop. it helps and is working to bring about constructive change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you say.
> I see no evidence of this, but if it gives you hope it serves its purpose.
Click to expand...


This guy is too deep for me too.  One thing I read that made sense was how people go from not believing in god, then they run into a born again or jehova or whatever and they become an extreme christian and they annoy everyone and it is true that I know people who were like this and eventually they chill the fuck out and keep it to themselves, which is what everyone should do.  

But of course the cult called christianity said go out and spread the word.  I mean god said to go out and spread the word.    or


----------



## sealybobo

thebrucebeat said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do religion haters persist?  First of all, we don't really hate.  We are the ones that are hated.  So forgive us if we fight back.  Want proof?
> 
> Americans Would Rather Vote For A Philandering, Pot-Smoking President Than An Atheist One
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the division and distrust is pretty mutual.
> 
> I think you are good at staying moderate and rational about your objections
> compared with some people who go fundamentalistic to extremes and WON'T forgive.
> 
> When you and GISMYS both calm down, and come to accept that the world needs both theists and nontheists, traditional Christians and traditional secularists
> to cover all the knowledge and realms of understanding truth and working together in life, in order to meet all needs and serve greater purposes,
> 
> then maybe I'll believe that humanity is really ready to receive the full coming of Justice to be established by agreement in truth across all systems and groups. We are closer than we think, but still some work to be done to let go of our old ways and accept that the process is bigger than what we imagined.
> 
> GISMYS claims to be ready, but if he thinks the right answers leave out atheists and others just because of secular thinking, that is still missing what this process is about. It is about  bringing together ALL the knowledge wisdom and understanding combined as one.
> 
> If we reject each other, we are like puzzle pieces crammed in wrong ways or mismatched
> and not organized to form the whole puzzle. If we accept and receive each other, we can figure out how our ins and outs all fit together perfectly to form the bigger picture.
> 
> GISMYS is right that we are closer than ever.
> what goes on here, among us, is a microcosm or reflection of the larger collective process of humanity figuring it out simultaneously. So if we can get it, how we can work together and not conflict or divide over our differences, so can the rest of the world figure it out.
> 
> We are close, but still fussing because the different pieces are not where they should be, or some pieces are still upside down. All the pieces fit if we coordinate correctly.
> 
> Thank you both, and everyone here, for being part of this process. It is very interesting and rewarding to work out all these issues otherwise preventing it from full realization.
> 
> I believe GISMYS intuition is right, but the actual process will be more involved than just magically done by God. there is deep internal work to resolve all our judgment issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is somewhat hilarious at this point to watch your posts that have the attitude that we are all on the same path, that you have identified that proper path, and all roads will lead to Rome if only we will let them.
> And to try to sell the idea that great progress is being made toward that end.
> No evidence I see on here or out in the real world indicate your fantasy is on the way to fruition.
> I am positive you mean well, but your vision is as arbitrary as everyone elses, and you aren't building a strong following.
> But I wish you the best of luck.
Click to expand...


OMG you just summed up my feelings on this person PEFECTLY.  Seems like a nice fellow but if he has something he sure aint explaining it well.  I think he's a libertarian and he's trying to tie his libertarianism into his spirituality.  I mean if it makes sense politically it must be on a higher level a great approach to everything.  Maybe Libertarian's will be the next Buddists.


----------



## sealybobo

emilynghiem said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or when the church tries to ban abortion.  I would say abortion is a necessary evil but human life isn't so precious that it's evil to have an abortion.  Maybe if there was a god but there isn't.  It may be a shame or sad or too bad but some people shouldn't have children and/or some people aren't ready to be parents and besides we already have too many people on this planet.  Think about all the women who don't want a child being forced to have them because abortion isn't legal.  Just consider all the horrible mothers in Detroit who aren't doing a good job raising their kids.  Now add thousands of other unwanted kids to the streets of Detroit, because that is what you are going to get if you ban abortion.  Thank GOD some women are smart enough to know they can't raise a human being.  So in the future when religious thinking isn't an issue women who don't want to be parents yet but get pregnant won't be made to feel guilty because it was just a seed and life isn't that precious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi sealybobo: When I approach my prolife friends with Constitutional explanations not to impose faith-based beliefs or arguments through govt, this generally is not refuted.
> (same with respecting and including views both for or against gay marriage, by treating the BELIEFS as "equally protected by law," or beliefs for or against the death penalty, regardless if we agree or not.)
> 
> There is nothing wrong with defending choice, which aligns with religious freedom that conservatives believe in.
> 
> The problem they have is with "pushing abortion," so as long as  you don't "push abortion," but just defend choice that is neutral as govt and laws ought to be.
> 
> I also point out that all the prolife activists, movements and outreach
> are all done by FREE CHOICE and not required by law.
> 
> So this proves that it does not have to be banned to prevent abortion.
> People can CHOOSE to be as educated and proactively against abortion
> as prolife people who do so BY CHOICE not by "force of law" --
> they serve as proof we can avoid abortion by our own choices without making it illegal.
> 
> The key is to have equal respect, defense and protection for prolife views equally
> as prochoice views, if you want to enforce Constitutional principles CONSISTENTLY.
> 
> When I take this approach, I have no problem working with both prochoice and prolife people.
> 
> Only where one side attacks or rejects the other, this starts the whole business of fighting to defend beliefs of one OVER the other or in REACTION. So if we treat them both equally as protected by law, then we don't have this problem!
Click to expand...


While you are kindly debating pro lifers who you think agree with you

House Republicans Pass Sweeping Anti-Abortion Bill

And that's just on the federal level.  Check out the anti abortion legislation state governments are passing in any states that have GOP run legislatures.  

Why Have So Many States Banned Abortions? - ABC News

I think if you asked most people they would want abortion to remain legal and safe yet here we have republicans passing laws like this country is anti abortion.


----------



## hunarcy

sealybobo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or when the church tries to ban abortion.  I would say abortion is a necessary evil but human life isn't so precious that it's evil to have an abortion.  Maybe if there was a god but there isn't.  It may be a shame or sad or too bad but some people shouldn't have children and/or some people aren't ready to be parents and besides we already have too many people on this planet.  Think about all the women who don't want a child being forced to have them because abortion isn't legal.  Just consider all the horrible mothers in Detroit who aren't doing a good job raising their kids.  Now add thousands of other unwanted kids to the streets of Detroit, because that is what you are going to get if you ban abortion.  Thank GOD some women are smart enough to know they can't raise a human being.  So in the future when religious thinking isn't an issue women who don't want to be parents yet but get pregnant won't be made to feel guilty because it was just a seed and life isn't that precious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi sealybobo: When I approach my prolife friends with Constitutional explanations not to impose faith-based beliefs or arguments through govt, this generally is not refuted.
> (same with respecting and including views both for or against gay marriage, by treating the BELIEFS as "equally protected by law," or beliefs for or against the death penalty, regardless if we agree or not.)
> 
> There is nothing wrong with defending choice, which aligns with religious freedom that conservatives believe in.
> 
> The problem they have is with "pushing abortion," so as long as  you don't "push abortion," but just defend choice that is neutral as govt and laws ought to be.
> 
> I also point out that all the prolife activists, movements and outreach
> are all done by FREE CHOICE and not required by law.
> 
> So this proves that it does not have to be banned to prevent abortion.
> People can CHOOSE to be as educated and proactively against abortion
> as prolife people who do so BY CHOICE not by "force of law" --
> they serve as proof we can avoid abortion by our own choices without making it illegal.
> 
> The key is to have equal respect, defense and protection for prolife views equally
> as prochoice views, if you want to enforce Constitutional principles CONSISTENTLY.
> 
> When I take this approach, I have no problem working with both prochoice and prolife people.
> 
> Only where one side attacks or rejects the other, this starts the whole business of fighting to defend beliefs of one OVER the other or in REACTION. So if we treat them both equally as protected by law, then we don't have this problem!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While you are kindly debating pro lifers who you think agree with you
> 
> House Republicans Pass Sweeping Anti-Abortion Bill
> 
> And that's just on the federal level.  Check out the anti abortion legislation state governments are passing in any states that have GOP run legislatures.
> 
> Why Have So Many States Banned Abortions? - ABC News
> 
> I think if you asked most people they would want abortion to remain legal and safe yet here we have republicans passing laws like this country is anti abortion.
Click to expand...


But, if you asked most people if they want to pay for someone else's abortion, they'd say no.


----------



## sealybobo

hunarcy said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi sealybobo: When I approach my prolife friends with Constitutional explanations not to impose faith-based beliefs or arguments through govt, this generally is not refuted.
> (same with respecting and including views both for or against gay marriage, by treating the BELIEFS as "equally protected by law," or beliefs for or against the death penalty, regardless if we agree or not.)
> 
> There is nothing wrong with defending choice, which aligns with religious freedom that conservatives believe in.
> 
> The problem they have is with "pushing abortion," so as long as  you don't "push abortion," but just defend choice that is neutral as govt and laws ought to be.
> 
> I also point out that all the prolife activists, movements and outreach
> are all done by FREE CHOICE and not required by law.
> 
> So this proves that it does not have to be banned to prevent abortion.
> People can CHOOSE to be as educated and proactively against abortion
> as prolife people who do so BY CHOICE not by "force of law" --
> they serve as proof we can avoid abortion by our own choices without making it illegal.
> 
> The key is to have equal respect, defense and protection for prolife views equally
> as prochoice views, if you want to enforce Constitutional principles CONSISTENTLY.
> 
> When I take this approach, I have no problem working with both prochoice and prolife people.
> 
> Only where one side attacks or rejects the other, this starts the whole business of fighting to defend beliefs of one OVER the other or in REACTION. So if we treat them both equally as protected by law, then we don't have this problem!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While you are kindly debating pro lifers who you think agree with you
> 
> House Republicans Pass Sweeping Anti-Abortion Bill
> 
> And that's just on the federal level.  Check out the anti abortion legislation state governments are passing in any states that have GOP run legislatures.
> 
> Why Have So Many States Banned Abortions? - ABC News
> 
> I think if you asked most people they would want abortion to remain legal and safe yet here we have republicans passing laws like this country is anti abortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But, if you asked most people if they want to pay for someone else's abortion, they'd say no.
Click to expand...


Well if you asked them like that sure they'd say no.  But if you asked them if they'd rather pay $500 for a crack heads abortion or $20K in welfare for the next 18 years I'm sure even the pro lifers would say abort it.  If they were being honest that is.  Yea I'm sure the pro lifers want inner city mothers having more not less kids.  Or their position is they want the kid to be born but once he or she is born fuck them they are on their own.  Survival of the richest I mean fittest.


----------



## HUGGY

The religists want it both or more ways.

As someone pointed out they fight all forms of birth control then scream like banshees when an unwanted pregnancy occurs and the woman/girl has to end it.

THAT is what makes me believe they are lying about abortion.  If they truly wanted fewer abortions they would help women/girls from getting pregnant in the first place.

To just tell people to not have sex is a stupid position.  It just proves how out of touch with reality these people really are.

THEN they wonder in complete amazement why rational people don't take them seriously.

The truth appears that they don't want to solve conflict.  They want to profit from it. 

They set people against each other in the most basic human situations as in human sexuality then act like THEY have the ONLY solution for the conflict...which of course is to come to jesus and all problems will be solved or at least forgiven.

I am a simple person.  I believe people are either honest or they are not.  I don't believe the religists are honest..therefore they are liars.  It is THAT simple for me.

If they truly want fewer abortions the obvious simple solution is to work towards fewer pregnancies.  Are the religists honestly trying to work towards fewer pregnancies?  Clearly not.  They know full well human beings are going to have sexual relations and do everything they can to stand in the way of birth control methods.

Sorry religists.. you can't paint people into a corner then accuse them of bad planning.

This is just one more way religion harms society.  This is just one more reason responsible citizens must persist in pushing back against religion.


----------



## sealybobo

We as a society would also like to pay for their birth control rather than have them not take birth control because they can't afford it and then they have kids they can't take care of.  Everyone with a brain understands the importance and value in this.  But notice the GOP are using the Catholic position of anti birth control to divide us?  I know not even the majority of catholics are anti birth control but that doesn't matter.  It still riles up the base.  The extremists.  And it's just one of many issues.  Next they move on and rile up the people who hate foreigners, muslims, blacks, gays, gun legislation.  Just another wedge issue they use to con the stupid poor and middle class into voting republican.  This is why I hate religion.  It makes people stupid.


----------



## sealybobo

thebrucebeat said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do religion haters persist?  First of all, we don't really hate.  We are the ones that are hated.  So forgive us if we fight back.  Want proof?
> 
> Americans Would Rather Vote For A Philandering, Pot-Smoking President Than An Atheist One
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the division and distrust is pretty mutual.
> 
> I think you are good at staying moderate and rational about your objections
> compared with some people who go fundamentalistic to extremes and WON'T forgive.
> 
> When you and GISMYS both calm down, and come to accept that the world needs both theists and nontheists, traditional Christians and traditional secularists
> to cover all the knowledge and realms of understanding truth and working together in life, in order to meet all needs and serve greater purposes,
> 
> then maybe I'll believe that humanity is really ready to receive the full coming of Justice to be established by agreement in truth across all systems and groups. We are closer than we think, but still some work to be done to let go of our old ways and accept that the process is bigger than what we imagined.
> 
> GISMYS claims to be ready, but if he thinks the right answers leave out atheists and others just because of secular thinking, that is still missing what this process is about. It is about  bringing together ALL the knowledge wisdom and understanding combined as one.
> 
> If we reject each other, we are like puzzle pieces crammed in wrong ways or mismatched
> and not organized to form the whole puzzle. If we accept and receive each other, we can figure out how our ins and outs all fit together perfectly to form the bigger picture.
> 
> GISMYS is right that we are closer than ever.
> what goes on here, among us, is a microcosm or reflection of the larger collective process of humanity figuring it out simultaneously. So if we can get it, how we can work together and not conflict or divide over our differences, so can the rest of the world figure it out.
> 
> We are close, but still fussing because the different pieces are not where they should be, or some pieces are still upside down. All the pieces fit if we coordinate correctly.
> 
> Thank you both, and everyone here, for being part of this process. It is very interesting and rewarding to work out all these issues otherwise preventing it from full realization.
> 
> I believe GISMYS intuition is right, but the actual process will be more involved than just magically done by God. there is deep internal work to resolve all our judgment issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is somewhat hilarious at this point to watch your posts that have the attitude that we are all on the same path, that you have identified that proper path, and all roads will lead to Rome if only we will let them.
> And to try to sell the idea that great progress is being made toward that end.
> No evidence I see on here or out in the real world indicate your fantasy is on the way to fruition.
> I am positive you mean well, but your vision is as arbitrary as everyone elses, and you aren't building a strong following.
> But I wish you the best of luck.
Click to expand...


When I read this person's posts it reminds me of #16 on whynogod.com

God is the universe/love/laws of physics.

We already have names for these things. Redefining something as god tells us nothing. To use the word god implies a host of other attributes and if you dont intend to apply those attributes, using the word is intentionally misleading.

To call the world God is not to explain it; it is only to enrich our language with a superfluous synonym for the word world.  Arthur Schopenhauer

So if god isn't the invisible man who literally created adam, flooded the earth after tipping noah off, went down and impregnated mary all so he could grow up to be crucified, and he isn't the one the mormons or muslim's say he is or the jewish god, then who is he?  In some ways people who know organized religions are a scam but still believe in god are even dumber than bible thumpers because at least they have an excuse.  They believe a lie.  You don't believe the lie so you have even less reason to believe in a god.  

If something must have created the universe, something must have created god.  Can't have that argument both ways.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the division and distrust is pretty mutual.
> 
> I think you are good at staying moderate and rational about your objections
> compared with some people who go fundamentalistic to extremes and WON'T forgive.
> 
> When you and GISMYS both calm down, and come to accept that the world needs both theists and nontheists, traditional Christians and traditional secularists
> to cover all the knowledge and realms of understanding truth and working together in life, in order to meet all needs and serve greater purposes,
> 
> then maybe I'll believe that humanity is really ready to receive the full coming of Justice to be established by agreement in truth across all systems and groups. We are closer than we think, but still some work to be done to let go of our old ways and accept that the process is bigger than what we imagined.
> 
> GISMYS claims to be ready, but if he thinks the right answers leave out atheists and others just because of secular thinking, that is still missing what this process is about. It is about  bringing together ALL the knowledge wisdom and understanding combined as one.
> 
> If we reject each other, we are like puzzle pieces crammed in wrong ways or mismatched
> and not organized to form the whole puzzle. If we accept and receive each other, we can figure out how our ins and outs all fit together perfectly to form the bigger picture.
> 
> GISMYS is right that we are closer than ever.
> what goes on here, among us, is a microcosm or reflection of the larger collective process of humanity figuring it out simultaneously. So if we can get it, how we can work together and not conflict or divide over our differences, so can the rest of the world figure it out.
> 
> We are close, but still fussing because the different pieces are not where they should be, or some pieces are still upside down. All the pieces fit if we coordinate correctly.
> 
> Thank you both, and everyone here, for being part of this process. It is very interesting and rewarding to work out all these issues otherwise preventing it from full realization.
> 
> I believe GISMYS intuition is right, but the actual process will be more involved than just magically done by God. there is deep internal work to resolve all our judgment issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is somewhat hilarious at this point to watch your posts that have the attitude that we are all on the same path, that you have identified that proper path, and all roads will lead to Rome if only we will let them.
> And to try to sell the idea that great progress is being made toward that end.
> No evidence I see on here or out in the real world indicate your fantasy is on the way to fruition.
> I am positive you mean well, but your vision is as arbitrary as everyone elses, and you aren't building a strong following.
> But I wish you the best of luck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When I read this person's posts it reminds me of #16 on whynogod.com
> 
> God is the universe/love/laws of physics.
> 
> We already have names for these things. Redefining something as god tells us nothing. To use the word god implies a host of other attributes and if you dont intend to apply those attributes, using the word is intentionally misleading.
> 
> To call the world God is not to explain it; it is only to enrich our language with a superfluous synonym for the word world.  Arthur Schopenhauer
> 
> So if god isn't the invisible man who literally created adam, flooded the earth after tipping noah off, went down and impregnated mary all so he could grow up to be crucified, and he isn't the one the mormons or muslim's say he is or the jewish god, then who is he?  In some ways people who know organized religions are a scam but still believe in god are even dumber than bible thumpers because at least they have an excuse.  They believe a lie.  You don't believe the lie so you have even less reason to believe in a god.
> 
> If something must have created the universe, something must have created god.  Can't have that argument both ways.
Click to expand...


The world has no need for more sinners living lives of sin. Jesus will return very soon and all evil and sin will be destroyed,the world and all creation will be re-newed back to pergection for eternity!!! TL.


----------



## HUGGY

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is somewhat hilarious at this point to watch your posts that have the attitude that we are all on the same path, that you have identified that proper path, and all roads will lead to Rome if only we will let them.
> And to try to sell the idea that great progress is being made toward that end.
> No evidence I see on here or out in the real world indicate your fantasy is on the way to fruition.
> I am positive you mean well, but your vision is as arbitrary as everyone elses, and you aren't building a strong following.
> But I wish you the best of luck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I read this person's posts it reminds me of #16 on whynogod.com
> 
> God is the universe/love/laws of physics.
> 
> We already have names for these things. Redefining something as god tells us nothing. To use the word god implies a host of other attributes and if you dont intend to apply those attributes, using the word is intentionally misleading.
> 
> To call the world God is not to explain it; it is only to enrich our language with a superfluous synonym for the word world.  Arthur Schopenhauer
> 
> So if god isn't the invisible man who literally created adam, flooded the earth after tipping noah off, went down and impregnated mary all so he could grow up to be crucified, and he isn't the one the mormons or muslim's say he is or the jewish god, then who is he?  In some ways people who know organized religions are a scam but still believe in god are even dumber than bible thumpers because at least they have an excuse.  They believe a lie.  You don't believe the lie so you have even less reason to believe in a god.
> 
> If something must have created the universe, something must have created god.  Can't have that argument both ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The world has no need for more sinners living lives of sin. Jesus will return very soon and all evil and sin will be destroyed,the world and all creation will be re-newed back to pergection for eternity!!! TL.
Click to expand...


Your posts make it seem that you are desperate.  Each one is more of a last gasp than the one before it.  My guess is that your brain will explode eventually.  Do the board a favor and when you are having your last big annurism please hit the "send" button half sentence into one of your rants so we will know your brain is imploding and we can all have a good laugh.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is somewhat hilarious at this point to watch your posts that have the attitude that we are all on the same path, that you have identified that proper path, and all roads will lead to Rome if only we will let them.
> And to try to sell the idea that great progress is being made toward that end.
> No evidence I see on here or out in the real world indicate your fantasy is on the way to fruition.
> I am positive you mean well, but your vision is as arbitrary as everyone elses, and you aren't building a strong following.
> But I wish you the best of luck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I read this person's posts it reminds me of #16 on whynogod.com
> 
> God is the universe/love/laws of physics.
> 
> We already have names for these things. Redefining something as god tells us nothing. To use the word god implies a host of other attributes and if you dont intend to apply those attributes, using the word is intentionally misleading.
> 
> To call the world God is not to explain it; it is only to enrich our language with a superfluous synonym for the word world.  Arthur Schopenhauer
> 
> So if god isn't the invisible man who literally created adam, flooded the earth after tipping noah off, went down and impregnated mary all so he could grow up to be crucified, and he isn't the one the mormons or muslim's say he is or the jewish god, then who is he?  In some ways people who know organized religions are a scam but still believe in god are even dumber than bible thumpers because at least they have an excuse.  They believe a lie.  You don't believe the lie so you have even less reason to believe in a god.
> 
> If something must have created the universe, something must have created god.  Can't have that argument both ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The world has no need for more sinners living lives of sin. Jesus will return very soon and all evil and sin will be destroyed,the world and all creation will be re-newed back to pergection for eternity!!! TL.
Click to expand...


Are you suggesting you don't sin?

Wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, and gluttony.

Its not even a sin to not believe in god.  Notice intelligence isn't a sin?  

Who said Jesus would return?  11 people?  I don't know why our ancestors believed or passed on this story but it seems if you study history that there were other religions/cults that were competing and christianity just won.  Probably because the kings finally decided to adopt it so they could use their divine authority to collect taxes.  A lot harder to say no to paying taxes when the church and state are one and the same.  Don't pay and guess what happens?  You go to hell!!!  Count the cost.


----------



## sealybobo

HUGGY said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I read this person's posts it reminds me of #16 on whynogod.com
> 
> God is the universe/love/laws of physics.
> 
> We already have names for these things. Redefining something as god tells us nothing. To use the word god implies a host of other attributes and if you dont intend to apply those attributes, using the word is intentionally misleading.
> 
> To call the world God is not to explain it; it is only to enrich our language with a superfluous synonym for the word world.  Arthur Schopenhauer
> 
> So if god isn't the invisible man who literally created adam, flooded the earth after tipping noah off, went down and impregnated mary all so he could grow up to be crucified, and he isn't the one the mormons or muslim's say he is or the jewish god, then who is he?  In some ways people who know organized religions are a scam but still believe in god are even dumber than bible thumpers because at least they have an excuse.  They believe a lie.  You don't believe the lie so you have even less reason to believe in a god.
> 
> If something must have created the universe, something must have created god.  Can't have that argument both ways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The world has no need for more sinners living lives of sin. Jesus will return very soon and all evil and sin will be destroyed,the world and all creation will be re-newed back to pergection for eternity!!! TL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your posts make it seem that you are desperate.  Each one is more of a last gasp than the one before it.  My guess is that your brain will explode eventually.  Do the board a favor and when you are having your last big annurism please hit the "send" button half sentence into one of your rants so we will know your brain is imploding and we can all have a good laugh.
Click to expand...


One day my friend quoted something from the bible on facebook and I asked him what it was supposed to mean or tell me.  What was so profound about what he said.  It's like slowly brainwashing people with god said this and god said that and god said this until eventually you start believing in this god person.  How come god doesn't say anything today?  Why is he hiding on the other side of the moon?  

I have one for GISMYS:  Galatians 5:12

I wish those who unsettle you would castrate themselves!


----------



## hunarcy

sealybobo said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> While you are kindly debating pro lifers who you think agree with you
> 
> House Republicans Pass Sweeping Anti-Abortion Bill
> 
> And that's just on the federal level.  Check out the anti abortion legislation state governments are passing in any states that have GOP run legislatures.
> 
> Why Have So Many States Banned Abortions? - ABC News
> 
> I think if you asked most people they would want abortion to remain legal and safe yet here we have republicans passing laws like this country is anti abortion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But, if you asked most people if they want to pay for someone else's abortion, they'd say no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well if you asked them like that sure they'd say no.  But if you asked them if they'd rather pay $500 for a crack heads abortion or $20K in welfare for the next 18 years I'm sure even the pro lifers would say abort it.  If they were being honest that is.  Yea I'm sure the pro lifers want inner city mothers having more not less kids.  Or their position is they want the kid to be born but once he or she is born fuck them they are on their own.  Survival of the richest I mean fittest.
Click to expand...


At least you were honest enough to admit they'd say no.  And, that's all the Republican bill said, that tax money would not go to paying for abortions.  No one said people couldn't pay for their own abortions, just that tax money wouldn't be used.  Abortions cost an average of $451 in the first trimester...people can afford that.


----------



## sealybobo

hunarcy said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, if you asked most people if they want to pay for someone else's abortion, they'd say no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well if you asked them like that sure they'd say no.  But if you asked them if they'd rather pay $500 for a crack heads abortion or $20K in welfare for the next 18 years I'm sure even the pro lifers would say abort it.  If they were being honest that is.  Yea I'm sure the pro lifers want inner city mothers having more not less kids.  Or their position is they want the kid to be born but once he or she is born fuck them they are on their own.  Survival of the richest I mean fittest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At least you were honest enough to admit they'd say no.  And, that's all the Republican bill said, that tax money would not go to paying for abortions.  No one said people couldn't pay for their own abortions, just that tax money wouldn't be used.  Abortions cost an average of $451 in the first trimester...people can afford that.
Click to expand...


No they can't afford it.  So they will have the kids and then we will have to pay for it for 18 years.  This is why we pay for abortions.  Saves us money in the long run.  

So we pay $451 now so we don't have to pay for it the next 18 years.  

And since you can't cut off hungry innocent babies, you have no choice but to at least pay food stamps.  Unless you are suggesting cutting that off too?  I'd love to see the party of jesus do away with food stamps.  They already say fuck no to healing the sick if they are poor.  Next they will show us they don't really follow anything Jesus said.  Why?  Because you don't have to be a good person to get into heaven.  All you have to do is believe the mythical story about jesus and christians think they are in.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well if you asked them like that sure they'd say no.  But if you asked them if they'd rather pay $500 for a crack heads abortion or $20K in welfare for the next 18 years I'm sure even the pro lifers would say abort it.  If they were being honest that is.  Yea I'm sure the pro lifers want inner city mothers having more not less kids.  Or their position is they want the kid to be born but once he or she is born fuck them they are on their own.  Survival of the richest I mean fittest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least you were honest enough to admit they'd say no.  And, that's all the Republican bill said, that tax money would not go to paying for abortions.  No one said people couldn't pay for their own abortions, just that tax money wouldn't be used.  Abortions cost an average of $451 in the first trimester...people can afford that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they can't afford it.  So they will have the kids and then we will have to pay for it for 18 years.  This is why we pay for abortions.  Saves us money in the long run.
> 
> So we pay $451 now so we don't have to pay for it the next 18 years.
> 
> And since you can't cut off hungry innocent babies, you have no choice but to at least pay food stamps.  Unless you are suggesting cutting that off too?  I'd love to see the party of jesus do away with food stamps.  They already say fuck no to healing the sick if they are poor.  Next they will show us they don't really follow anything Jesus said.  Why?  Because you don't have to be a good person to get into heaven.  All you have to do is believe the mythical story about jesus and christians think they are in.
Click to expand...

WHY don't you give up your life and allow a baby to live????


----------



## sealybobo

hunarcy said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, if you asked most people if they want to pay for someone else's abortion, they'd say no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well if you asked them like that sure they'd say no.  But if you asked them if they'd rather pay $500 for a crack heads abortion or $20K in welfare for the next 18 years I'm sure even the pro lifers would say abort it.  If they were being honest that is.  Yea I'm sure the pro lifers want inner city mothers having more not less kids.  Or their position is they want the kid to be born but once he or she is born fuck them they are on their own.  Survival of the richest I mean fittest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At least you were honest enough to admit they'd say no.  And, that's all the Republican bill said, that tax money would not go to paying for abortions.  No one said people couldn't pay for their own abortions, just that tax money wouldn't be used.  Abortions cost an average of $451 in the first trimester...people can afford that.
Click to expand...


Someone working at Walmart who is already on public assistance because walmart doesn't pay for shit can not afford that.  This is why we pay for their abortions.  If they can't afford $451 then they certainly can't afford to have a kid so they are going to be on public assistance EVEN MORE if they have children, so we pay for it.  

The only reason we wouldn't is because of religion.  Again, another example of how this fairytale is holding us back.  Paying for poor people's abortions makes perfect sense in a rational/logical non religious society.  So we'll pay for it for 18 years instead.  Dummy.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> At least you were honest enough to admit they'd say no.  And, that's all the Republican bill said, that tax money would not go to paying for abortions.  No one said people couldn't pay for their own abortions, just that tax money wouldn't be used.  Abortions cost an average of $451 in the first trimester...people can afford that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they can't afford it.  So they will have the kids and then we will have to pay for it for 18 years.  This is why we pay for abortions.  Saves us money in the long run.
> 
> So we pay $451 now so we don't have to pay for it the next 18 years.
> 
> And since you can't cut off hungry innocent babies, you have no choice but to at least pay food stamps.  Unless you are suggesting cutting that off too?  I'd love to see the party of jesus do away with food stamps.  They already say fuck no to healing the sick if they are poor.  Next they will show us they don't really follow anything Jesus said.  Why?  Because you don't have to be a good person to get into heaven.  All you have to do is believe the mythical story about jesus and christians think they are in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WHY don't you give up your life and allow a baby to live????
Click to expand...


It's not a baby just like my scrambled eggs isn't a chicken.


----------



## HUGGY

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> At least you were honest enough to admit they'd say no.  And, that's all the Republican bill said, that tax money would not go to paying for abortions.  No one said people couldn't pay for their own abortions, just that tax money wouldn't be used.  Abortions cost an average of $451 in the first trimester...people can afford that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they can't afford it.  So they will have the kids and then we will have to pay for it for 18 years.  This is why we pay for abortions.  Saves us money in the long run.
> 
> So we pay $451 now so we don't have to pay for it the next 18 years.
> 
> And since you can't cut off hungry innocent babies, you have no choice but to at least pay food stamps.  Unless you are suggesting cutting that off too?  I'd love to see the party of jesus do away with food stamps.  They already say fuck no to healing the sick if they are poor.  Next they will show us they don't really follow anything Jesus said.  Why?  Because you don't have to be a good person to get into heaven.  All you have to do is believe the mythical story about jesus and christians think they are in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WHY don't you give up your life and allow a baby to live????
Click to expand...


If your god is all you say he is he could easily save every embryo and baby and child.  Why does your god allow them to die?  It's your god that allows it..not humans.  He could wiggle his nose just like on "bewitched" and save them all. Don't come bawling to human beings when you have such a close relationship with the only one capable of fixing the problem.


----------



## Montrovant

sealybobo said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well if you asked them like that sure they'd say no.  But if you asked them if they'd rather pay $500 for a crack heads abortion or $20K in welfare for the next 18 years I'm sure even the pro lifers would say abort it.  If they were being honest that is.  Yea I'm sure the pro lifers want inner city mothers having more not less kids.  Or their position is they want the kid to be born but once he or she is born fuck them they are on their own.  Survival of the richest I mean fittest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least you were honest enough to admit they'd say no.  And, that's all the Republican bill said, that tax money would not go to paying for abortions.  No one said people couldn't pay for their own abortions, just that tax money wouldn't be used.  Abortions cost an average of $451 in the first trimester...people can afford that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Someone working at Walmart who is already on public assistance because walmart doesn't pay for shit can not afford that.  This is why we pay for their abortions.  If they can't afford $451 then they certainly can't afford to have a kid so they are going to be on public assistance EVEN MORE if they have children, so we pay for it.
> 
> *The only reason we wouldn't is because of religion*.  Again, another example of how this fairytale is holding us back.  Paying for poor people's abortions makes perfect sense in a rational/logical non religious society.  So we'll pay for it for 18 years instead.  Dummy.
Click to expand...


That is just untrue.  Religion is not required to consider abortion to be murder, or immoral.  It certainly helps, but I've seen non-religious people argue against abortion.  

It also doesn't require religion to not want tax dollars to pay for abortion.  You are mixing political views and religious views without seeming to realize it.  That you think it is the rational or logical course does not mean that anyone who disagrees with you does so because they believe in god(s).

The vast majority of people who are anti-abortion are religious, yes.  However, since the vast majority of people, period, self-identify with some religious or spiritual belief, that's hardly unexpected.

So yes, many religious beliefs may be opposed to abortion, but being anti-abortion doesn't make one automatically religious.


----------



## HUGGY

If you FORCE women to carry to the birth of a child then YOU are responsible for the maintenance of the child.

On a purely economic basis early abortions or better yet comprehensive birth control education costs by far the least.

You cannot FORCE women into grinding poverty by giving birth.

The solution is simple.  Stop impeding birth control.  Stop impeding early abortions.  Mind YOUR OWN BUSINESS ... OR take full responsibility for the raising of unwanted children.

Me personally religists ... I vote that you mind YOUR OWN BUSINESS.


----------



## g4racer

GISMYS said:


> g4racer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Several different aspects of a problem are being discussed; but the attitude of "I am right so you must be wrong".  The assumption that if someone is an atheist they must be bad can never be supported and I know several atheists that are better defined as good people than many claiming to be Christians.
> On occasion I have commented that "many will not do the right thing just because it is the right thing to do".
> How many of you can honestly say the politicians you support will never lie or bear false whitness.  Our Founding Fathers" made sure they be held libal for lying.  Most of them lacked honesty and ethics anyway.
> Claiming Christianity does not mean a person is good and denying the existance of God does not make a person bad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GOD says=That man is a fool who says to himself, There is no God! Anyone who talks like that is warped and evil and cannot really be a good person at all.Psalm 14:1===Only a fool would say to himself, There is no God. And why does he say it? Because of his wicked heart, his dark and evil deeds. His life is corroded with sin. PSALM 53:1 and you???
Click to expand...


Why do the Fundamentalist Christians insist on using Verses from the Bible which have nothing to do with the subject they are commenting on?  As a  Fundamentalist Christian wouldn't it be better to take the Biblical references you use from the NT?  Do you have any idea what I believe or which I follow?  The only thing you know for sure is that we do not look at things the same way and that I am wrong and you are right.  Consider that I might be correct and you are wrong.  I'll quote a NT verse which you will not be willing to take literally and I'm pretty sure you won't hear in your church as an action to take.
Matthew 19:19  
Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Matthew 19:20
The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?
Matthew 19:21
Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
If you are one who claims to be a literalist your going to have a difficult time with the attitude required with these verses.


----------



## DriftingSand

sealybobo said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> While you are kindly debating pro lifers who you think agree with you
> 
> House Republicans Pass Sweeping Anti-Abortion Bill
> 
> And that's just on the federal level.  Check out the anti abortion legislation state governments are passing in any states that have GOP run legislatures.
> 
> Why Have So Many States Banned Abortions? - ABC News
> 
> I think if you asked most people they would want abortion to remain legal and safe yet here we have republicans passing laws like this country is anti abortion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But, if you asked most people if they want to pay for someone else's abortion, they'd say no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well if you asked them like that sure they'd say no.  But if you asked them if they'd rather pay $500 for a crack heads abortion or $20K in welfare for the next 18 years I'm sure even the pro lifers would say abort it.  If they were being honest that is.  Yea I'm sure the pro lifers want inner city mothers having more not less kids.  Or their position is they want the kid to be born but once he or she is born fuck them they are on their own.  Survival of the richest I mean fittest.
Click to expand...


I'm personally pro-life regardless of the situation or set of circumstances but more than being pro-life I'm pro-personal-responsibility. I believe that a society runs most smoothly when everyone within that society lives by a set standard or code of ethics. If parents as well as teachers were teaching an agreed upon set of standards and emphasizing the consequences for bad actions (as well as good actions) then perhaps teenage girls wouldn't be getting pregnant in the first place.

If inner city crack heads as well as boozed up/coked up female, corporate heads would keep their promiscuous legs closed then there wouldn't be any "unwanted" babies to begin with.  Personal responsibility trumps abortion. But if these women just HAVE to do it with the first dude that gives them a wink and a smile and they get pregnant as a result then they need to step up to the plate and take on their new responsibility -- a baby.  Again -- personal responsibility.


----------



## thebrucebeat

DriftingSand said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, if you asked most people if they want to pay for someone else's abortion, they'd say no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well if you asked them like that sure they'd say no.  But if you asked them if they'd rather pay $500 for a crack heads abortion or $20K in welfare for the next 18 years I'm sure even the pro lifers would say abort it.  If they were being honest that is.  Yea I'm sure the pro lifers want inner city mothers having more not less kids.  Or their position is they want the kid to be born but once he or she is born fuck them they are on their own.  Survival of the richest I mean fittest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm personally pro-life regardless of the situation or set of circumstances but more than being pro-life I'm pro-personal-responsibility. I believe that a society runs most smoothly when everyone within that society lives by a set standard or code of ethics. If parents as well as teachers were teaching an agreed upon set of standards and emphasizing the consequences for bad actions (as well as good actions) then perhaps teenage girls wouldn't be getting pregnant in the first place.
> 
> If inner city crack heads as well as boozed up/coked up female, corporate heads would keep their promiscuous legs closed then there wouldn't be any "unwanted" babies to begin with.  Personal responsibility trumps abortion. But if these women just HAVE to do it with the first dude that gives them a wink and a smile and they get pregnant as a result then they need to step up to the plate and take on their new responsibility -- a baby.  Again -- personal responsibility.
Click to expand...


Be careful.
Your misogyny is showing.


----------



## Hollie

DriftingSand said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, if you asked most people if they want to pay for someone else's abortion, they'd say no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well if you asked them like that sure they'd say no.  But if you asked them if they'd rather pay $500 for a crack heads abortion or $20K in welfare for the next 18 years I'm sure even the pro lifers would say abort it.  If they were being honest that is.  Yea I'm sure the pro lifers want inner city mothers having more not less kids.  Or their position is they want the kid to be born but once he or she is born fuck them they are on their own.  Survival of the richest I mean fittest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm personally pro-life regardless of the situation or set of circumstances but more than being pro-life I'm pro-personal-responsibility. I believe that a society runs most smoothly when everyone within that society lives by a set standard or code of ethics. If parents as well as teachers were teaching an agreed upon set of standards and emphasizing the consequences for bad actions (as well as good actions) then perhaps teenage girls wouldn't be getting pregnant in the first place.
> 
> If inner city crack heads as well as boozed up/coked up female, corporate heads would keep their promiscuous legs closed then there wouldn't be any "unwanted" babies to begin with.  Personal responsibility trumps abortion. But if these women just HAVE to do it with the first dude that gives them a wink and a smile and they get pregnant as a result then they need to step up to the plate and take on their new responsibility -- a baby.  Again -- personal responsibility.
Click to expand...

That's typically one-sided and naive, but in keeping with religious fundamentalism.

You forget that teaching which comes from the Vatican via those men sporting big, funny hats condemns birth control as against doctrine - hey, they need a supply of fresh recruits to fill the collection plates. 

Unless you're suggesting that good Christians never have unwanted pregnancy, you may need to bang your head against a wall to knock some sense into that thick skull of yours.


----------



## Youwerecreated

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they can't afford it.  So they will have the kids and then we will have to pay for it for 18 years.  This is why we pay for abortions.  Saves us money in the long run.
> 
> So we pay $451 now so we don't have to pay for it the next 18 years.
> 
> And since you can't cut off hungry innocent babies, you have no choice but to at least pay food stamps.  Unless you are suggesting cutting that off too?  I'd love to see the party of jesus do away with food stamps.  They already say fuck no to healing the sick if they are poor.  Next they will show us they don't really follow anything Jesus said.  Why?  Because you don't have to be a good person to get into heaven.  All you have to do is believe the mythical story about jesus and christians think they are in.
> 
> 
> 
> WHY don't you give up your life and allow a baby to live????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not a baby just like my scrambled eggs isn't a chicken.
Click to expand...


If you possessed the understanding of the true complexity and precise happenings of reproduction, you might have a better understanding and respect for what the zygote really is, and see your comment was a comment of ignorance.


----------



## sealybobo

Youwerecreated said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHY don't you give up your life and allow a baby to live????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a baby just like my scrambled eggs isn't a chicken.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you possessed the understanding of the true complexity and precise happenings of reproduction, you might have a better understanding and respect for what the zygote really is, and see your comment was a comment of ignorance.
Click to expand...


I completely understand.  Life isn't so precious that you can't suck out a baby when it's the size of a seed in the womb.  If you don't want to get an abortion don't but leave that decision to us.  You don't worry or do anything about the people starving every day.  When you solve that problem then maybe we can work on lowering the number of girls who have abortions.  Maybe if walmart and mcd's paid a living wage those women wouldn't need to get abortions.


----------



## Youwerecreated

thebrucebeat said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well if you asked them like that sure they'd say no.  But if you asked them if they'd rather pay $500 for a crack heads abortion or $20K in welfare for the next 18 years I'm sure even the pro lifers would say abort it.  If they were being honest that is.  Yea I'm sure the pro lifers want inner city mothers having more not less kids.  Or their position is they want the kid to be born but once he or she is born fuck them they are on their own.  Survival of the richest I mean fittest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm personally pro-life regardless of the situation or set of circumstances but more than being pro-life I'm pro-personal-responsibility. I believe that a society runs most smoothly when everyone within that society lives by a set standard or code of ethics. If parents as well as teachers were teaching an agreed upon set of standards and emphasizing the consequences for bad actions (as well as good actions) then perhaps teenage girls wouldn't be getting pregnant in the first place.
> 
> If inner city crack heads as well as boozed up/coked up female, corporate heads would keep their promiscuous legs closed then there wouldn't be any "unwanted" babies to begin with.  Personal responsibility trumps abortion. But if these women just HAVE to do it with the first dude that gives them a wink and a smile and they get pregnant as a result then they need to step up to the plate and take on their new responsibility -- a baby.  Again -- personal responsibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Be careful.
> Your misogyny is showing.
Click to expand...


Truly ethics scare the heck out of some.


----------



## sealybobo

DriftingSand said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, if you asked most people if they want to pay for someone else's abortion, they'd say no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well if you asked them like that sure they'd say no.  But if you asked them if they'd rather pay $500 for a crack heads abortion or $20K in welfare for the next 18 years I'm sure even the pro lifers would say abort it.  If they were being honest that is.  Yea I'm sure the pro lifers want inner city mothers having more not less kids.  Or their position is they want the kid to be born but once he or she is born fuck them they are on their own.  Survival of the richest I mean fittest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm personally pro-life regardless of the situation or set of circumstances but more than being pro-life I'm pro-personal-responsibility. I believe that a society runs most smoothly when everyone within that society lives by a set standard or code of ethics. If parents as well as teachers were teaching an agreed upon set of standards and emphasizing the consequences for bad actions (as well as good actions) then perhaps teenage girls wouldn't be getting pregnant in the first place.
> 
> If inner city crack heads as well as boozed up/coked up female, corporate heads would keep their promiscuous legs closed then there wouldn't be any "unwanted" babies to begin with.  Personal responsibility trumps abortion. But if these women just HAVE to do it with the first dude that gives them a wink and a smile and they get pregnant as a result then they need to step up to the plate and take on their new responsibility -- a baby.  Again -- personal responsibility.
Click to expand...


But they won't.  Instead they'll be horrible parents and they'll breed horrible citizens that you and I have to pay for.  Sorry, abortion is a necessary evil.  And you are not pro life.  Everyone is pro life.  What you are is anti choice.  Sorry, the condom broke.  That doesn't mean I have to raise a human being for 18 years.  It's funny you have to take a test and get a licences to do so many other things but to have a child all you have to do is fuck.  Not everyone should be parents.  Do you know that crime went down 20 years after roe v wade?  That's because a lot of criminals were aborted.  Those women did the right thing because they would not have raised those kids properly.  And it would have cost us a fortune in welfare or in prison costs.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm personally pro-life regardless of the situation or set of circumstances but more than being pro-life I'm pro-personal-responsibility. I believe that a society runs most smoothly when everyone within that society lives by a set standard or code of ethics. If parents as well as teachers were teaching an agreed upon set of standards and emphasizing the consequences for bad actions (as well as good actions) then perhaps teenage girls wouldn't be getting pregnant in the first place.
> 
> If inner city crack heads as well as boozed up/coked up female, corporate heads would keep their promiscuous legs closed then there wouldn't be any "unwanted" babies to begin with.  Personal responsibility trumps abortion. But if these women just HAVE to do it with the first dude that gives them a wink and a smile and they get pregnant as a result then they need to step up to the plate and take on their new responsibility -- a baby.  Again -- personal responsibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Be careful.
> Your misogyny is showing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Truly ethics scare the heck out of some.
Click to expand...

Not when they're as one-sided as depicted by the hateful zealot. In that case, they're just chauvinistic and in keeping with attitudes of extremists.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Youwerecreated said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm personally pro-life regardless of the situation or set of circumstances but more than being pro-life I'm pro-personal-responsibility. I believe that a society runs most smoothly when everyone within that society lives by a set standard or code of ethics. If parents as well as teachers were teaching an agreed upon set of standards and emphasizing the consequences for bad actions (as well as good actions) then perhaps teenage girls wouldn't be getting pregnant in the first place.
> 
> If inner city crack heads as well as boozed up/coked up female, corporate heads would keep their promiscuous legs closed then there wouldn't be any "unwanted" babies to begin with.  Personal responsibility trumps abortion. But if these women just HAVE to do it with the first dude that gives them a wink and a smile and they get pregnant as a result then they need to step up to the plate and take on their new responsibility -- a baby.  Again -- personal responsibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Be careful.
> Your misogyny is showing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Truly ethics scare the heck out of some.
Click to expand...


And others think only women are responsible when two people have sex.
The women are "promiscuous", while the guys never get a mention.
You folks don't even realize how programmed you are to a paternal mindset.
Very sad.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Be careful.
> Your misogyny is showing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truly ethics scare the heck out of some.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not when they're as one-sided as depicted by the hateful zealot. In that case, they're just chauvinistic and in keeping with attitudes of extremists.
Click to expand...


I for one am against abortion and many other things our society allows, but that said,I also believe people should be allowed to make their own choices. God gave us in my view freewill. But you sleep in the bed you made for yourself. Your conscience is there to guide you if you ignore that conscience it's no ones blame but your own if you make bad choices.

I am hardly a zealot or extremist.


----------



## sealybobo

HUGGY said:


> If you FORCE women to carry to the birth of a child then YOU are responsible for the maintenance of the child.
> 
> On a purely economic basis early abortions or better yet comprehensive birth control education costs by far the least.
> 
> You cannot FORCE women into grinding poverty by giving birth.
> 
> The solution is simple.  Stop impeding birth control.  Stop impeding early abortions.  Mind YOUR OWN BUSINESS ... OR take full responsibility for the raising of unwanted children.
> 
> Me personally religists ... I vote that you mind YOUR OWN BUSINESS.



And that is why abortion is now legal and safe.


----------



## Youwerecreated

thebrucebeat said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Be careful.
> Your misogyny is showing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truly ethics scare the heck out of some.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And others think only women are responsible when two people have sex.
> The women are "promiscuous", while the guys never get a mention.
> You folks don't even realize how programmed you are to a paternal mindset.
> Very sad.
Click to expand...


Because someone does not live up to their responsibility just shows what kind of person that is. Some of these dead beats should pay for their fun if not financially they lose their freedom. Sorry I just feel a code of ethics is the answer. The thing is we already have that code of ethics in place we just don't enforce it. We have that conscience constantly speaking to us to help us with what is right and wrong.


----------



## BreezeWood

DriftingSand said:


> I'm personally pro-life regardless of the situation or set of circumstances but more than being pro-life I'm pro-personal-responsibility.



can you explain how a person can be "Pro", "regardless of the situation or set of circumstances" ???? - glad also you are "pro" personal-responsibility.

... no thought in that soul.

.


----------



## sealybobo

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Truly ethics scare the heck out of some.
> 
> 
> 
> Not when they're as one-sided as depicted by the hateful zealot. In that case, they're just chauvinistic and in keeping with attitudes of extremists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I for one am against abortion and many other things our society allows, but that said,I also believe people should be allowed to make their own choices. God gave us in my view freewill. But you sleep in the bed you made for yourself. Your conscience is there to guide you if you ignore that conscience it's no ones blame but your own if you make bad choices.
> 
> I am hardly a zealot or extremist.
Click to expand...


I think most women who get abortions feel bad about it after but if they had it all to do over again most of them would do it again.  Also a lot of the women who picket abortion clinics have themselves had abortions and they are trying to make up for it by busting other people's balls.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Truly ethics scare the heck out of some.
> 
> 
> 
> Not when they're as one-sided as depicted by the hateful zealot. In that case, they're just chauvinistic and in keeping with attitudes of extremists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I for one am against abortion and many other things our society allows, but that said,I also believe people should be allowed to make their own choices. God gave us in my view freewill. But you sleep in the bed you made for yourself. Your conscience is there to guide you if you ignore that conscience it's no ones blame but your own if you make bad choices.
> 
> I am hardly a zealot or extremist.
Click to expand...


You completely avoid the issue of the misogynistic attitude you and your pal are promoting. You think you are a champion of ethics when you support the idea that pregnancy is the result of wanton women needing sexual release and giving men a complete pass on their equal responsibility.


----------



## sealybobo

BreezeWood said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm personally pro-life regardless of the situation or set of circumstances but more than being pro-life I'm pro-personal-responsibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> can you explain how a person can be "Pro", "regardless of the situation or set of circumstances" ???? - glad also you are "pro" personal-responsibility.
> 
> ... no thought in that soul.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


If she was raped by her father a priest and they found out the baby would be severely retarded she would keep the baby?


----------



## Youwerecreated

I think my tax dollars should be going towards benefiting humanity not destroying it. Schools,the unfortunate,highways,healthcare and way to defend our way of life. If need be protect others who can't protect themselves.

We are not gonna have a perfect rule by man and that is being proven. man does not have the answers only one does.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Youwerecreated said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Truly ethics scare the heck out of some.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And others think only women are responsible when two people have sex.
> The women are "promiscuous", while the guys never get a mention.
> You folks don't even realize how programmed you are to a paternal mindset.
> Very sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because someone does not live up to their responsibility just shows what kind of person that is. Some of these dead beats should pay for their fun if not financially they lose their freedom. Sorry I just feel a code of ethics is the answer. The thing is we already have that code of ethics in place we just don't enforce it. We have that conscience constantly speaking to us to help us with what is right and wrong.
Click to expand...


And still you don't reject the misogynistic mindset you are promoting.
Your conscience is broken.


----------



## sealybobo

Youwerecreated said:


> I think my tax dollars should be going towards benefiting humanity not destroying it. Schools,the unfortunate,highways,healthcare and way to defend our way of life. If need be protect others who can't protect themselves.
> 
> We are not gonna have a perfect rule by man and that is being proven. man does not have the answers only one does.


----------



## Youwerecreated

sealybobo said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not when they're as one-sided as depicted by the hateful zealot. In that case, they're just chauvinistic and in keeping with attitudes of extremists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I for one am against abortion and many other things our society allows, but that said,I also believe people should be allowed to make their own choices. God gave us in my view freewill. But you sleep in the bed you made for yourself. Your conscience is there to guide you if you ignore that conscience it's no ones blame but your own if you make bad choices.
> 
> I am hardly a zealot or extremist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think most women who get abortions feel bad about it after but if they had it all to do over again most of them would do it again.  Also a lot of the women who picket abortion clinics have themselves had abortions and they are trying to make up for it by busting other people's balls.
Click to expand...


Both male and female need to be responsible or abstain.


----------



## Youwerecreated

sealybobo said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think my tax dollars should be going towards benefiting humanity not destroying it. Schools,the unfortunate,highways,healthcare and way to defend our way of life. If need be protect others who can't protect themselves.
> 
> We are not gonna have a perfect rule by man and that is being proven. man does not have the answers only one does.
Click to expand...


You don't think tax dollars should be going towards benefiting humanity ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

thebrucebeat said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not when they're as one-sided as depicted by the hateful zealot. In that case, they're just chauvinistic and in keeping with attitudes of extremists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I for one am against abortion and many other things our society allows, but that said,I also believe people should be allowed to make their own choices. God gave us in my view freewill. But you sleep in the bed you made for yourself. Your conscience is there to guide you if you ignore that conscience it's no ones blame but your own if you make bad choices.
> 
> I am hardly a zealot or extremist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You completely avoid the issue of the misogynistic attitude you and your pal are promoting. You think you are a champion of ethics when you support the idea that pregnancy is the result of wanton women needing sexual release and giving men a complete pass on their equal responsibility.
Click to expand...


Women keep your legs closed and men keep your zipper up or you will face the consequence of your actions. They should both be forced to face the consequence how is that a misogynistic attitude ?


----------



## sealybobo

Youwerecreated said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I for one am against abortion and many other things our society allows, but that said,I also believe people should be allowed to make their own choices. God gave us in my view freewill. But you sleep in the bed you made for yourself. Your conscience is there to guide you if you ignore that conscience it's no ones blame but your own if you make bad choices.
> 
> I am hardly a zealot or extremist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think most women who get abortions feel bad about it after but if they had it all to do over again most of them would do it again.  Also a lot of the women who picket abortion clinics have themselves had abortions and they are trying to make up for it by busting other people's balls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both male and female need to be responsible or abstain.
Click to expand...


But if they don't and they don't want to have a baby, they should be legally allowed to abort.  Sorry but that is our final position and we aren't going to budge one bit.  

Abortions unfortunately do benefit society.  We don't need more people on this planet we need less.  I actually hope for the rapture to come and take all the bible thumpers away.  The planet will be much better off.  I feel sorry for heaven when all those hypocritical assholes arrive.


----------



## sealybobo

Youwerecreated said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I for one am against abortion and many other things our society allows, but that said,I also believe people should be allowed to make their own choices. God gave us in my view freewill. But you sleep in the bed you made for yourself. Your conscience is there to guide you if you ignore that conscience it's no ones blame but your own if you make bad choices.
> 
> I am hardly a zealot or extremist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You completely avoid the issue of the misogynistic attitude you and your pal are promoting. You think you are a champion of ethics when you support the idea that pregnancy is the result of wanton women needing sexual release and giving men a complete pass on their equal responsibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Women keep your legs closed and men keep your zipper up or you will face the consequence of your actions. They should both be forced to face the consequence how is that a misogynistic attitude ?
Click to expand...


Yea!  Keep your legs crossed and your pecker in your pants or you will have to suffer the consequences, which would be having to get an abortion.  At least that's one option/choice.


----------



## Youwerecreated

sealybobo said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> You completely avoid the issue of the misogynistic attitude you and your pal are promoting. You think you are a champion of ethics when you support the idea that pregnancy is the result of wanton women needing sexual release and giving men a complete pass on their equal responsibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Women keep your legs closed and men keep your zipper up or you will face the consequence of your actions. They should both be forced to face the consequence how is that a misogynistic attitude ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yea!  Keep your legs crossed and your pecker in your pants or you will have to suffer the consequences, which would be having to get an abortion.  At least that's one option/choice.
Click to expand...


It's called personal responsibility. We should allow an evil to happen just because two people can't control themselves ? this comes back to ethics. I believe the only time abortion should be allowed if it's life threatening to the mother,rape or incest.


----------



## Youwerecreated

sealybobo said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think most women who get abortions feel bad about it after but if they had it all to do over again most of them would do it again.  Also a lot of the women who picket abortion clinics have themselves had abortions and they are trying to make up for it by busting other people's balls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both male and female need to be responsible or abstain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But if they don't and they don't want to have a baby, they should be legally allowed to abort.  Sorry but that is our final position and we aren't going to budge one bit.
> 
> Abortions unfortunately do benefit society.  We don't need more people on this planet we need less.  I actually hope for the rapture to come and take all the bible thumpers away.  The planet will be much better off.  I feel sorry for heaven when all those hypocritical assholes arrive.
Click to expand...


Do you know the total population this planet can safely support ? people like you are dangerous to humanity. You sound like a little communist.

You have problems with people that disagree with your views,Got it.


----------



## Youwerecreated

sealybobo said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think most women who get abortions feel bad about it after but if they had it all to do over again most of them would do it again.  Also a lot of the women who picket abortion clinics have themselves had abortions and they are trying to make up for it by busting other people's balls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both male and female need to be responsible or abstain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But if they don't and they don't want to have a baby, they should be legally allowed to abort.  Sorry but that is our final position and we aren't going to budge one bit.
> 
> Abortions unfortunately do benefit society.  We don't need more people on this planet we need less.  I actually hope for the rapture to come and take all the bible thumpers away.  The planet will be much better off.  I feel sorry for heaven when all those hypocritical assholes arrive.
Click to expand...


If you don't want a child what should you do ?


----------



## Crick

The state and the community should educate you regarding birth control and safe sex.

You should take all possible precautions.

If you became pregnant against your desires, you should be able to consider abortion as one of several alternatives.  Keep in mind that better options regarding child care for working parents, generous maternity and paternity leave and requirements for employers to give greater consideration to parenting needs could go a long ways towards making child rearing a more acceptable alternative.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Youwerecreated said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I for one am against abortion and many other things our society allows, but that said,I also believe people should be allowed to make their own choices. God gave us in my view freewill. But you sleep in the bed you made for yourself. Your conscience is there to guide you if you ignore that conscience it's no ones blame but your own if you make bad choices.
> 
> I am hardly a zealot or extremist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You completely avoid the issue of the misogynistic attitude you and your pal are promoting. You think you are a champion of ethics when you support the idea that pregnancy is the result of wanton women needing sexual release and giving men a complete pass on their equal responsibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Women keep your legs closed and men keep your zipper up or you will face the consequence of your actions. They should both be forced to face the consequence how is that a misogynistic attitude ?
Click to expand...


Because the post you were supporting only blamed the woman.
If you didn't know that then you should be more careful of the positions you promote.


----------



## sealybobo

Youwerecreated said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both male and female need to be responsible or abstain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But if they don't and they don't want to have a baby, they should be legally allowed to abort.  Sorry but that is our final position and we aren't going to budge one bit.
> 
> Abortions unfortunately do benefit society.  We don't need more people on this planet we need less.  I actually hope for the rapture to come and take all the bible thumpers away.  The planet will be much better off.  I feel sorry for heaven when all those hypocritical assholes arrive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know the total population this planet can safely support ? people like you are dangerous to humanity. You sound like a little communist.
> 
> You have problems with people that disagree with your views,Got it.
Click to expand...


All you need to know is look at all the cars in Europe, India, China, Mexico, Russia and America.  We are like rats or rabbits multiplying.  How many people were on this planet 20 years ago compared to today?  Not overpopulated yet?  Just give it another 20 or 60 or 100 years and see.  

This planet would be better off with less humans not more.  Just look at all the plastic in the oceans.  Yea, we need to double the populations.  That'll be real good


----------



## sealybobo

Youwerecreated said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both male and female need to be responsible or abstain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But if they don't and they don't want to have a baby, they should be legally allowed to abort.  Sorry but that is our final position and we aren't going to budge one bit.
> 
> Abortions unfortunately do benefit society.  We don't need more people on this planet we need less.  I actually hope for the rapture to come and take all the bible thumpers away.  The planet will be much better off.  I feel sorry for heaven when all those hypocritical assholes arrive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you don't want a child what should you do ?
Click to expand...


Don't fuck is not an option.

1.  Put a condom on.
2. Take birth control
3.  Have an abortion
4. Have the child and give it up for adoption

In that order too.  If I didn't want to have the child I'd have an abortion before I would have the child and put it up for adoption.  

I don't human life as being so precious that you can't abort when the baby is still a seed.  

I was in high school and the first girl I ever had sex with said she was pregnant.  I told her to have an abortion.  I'm 43 now.  If I got a woman pregnant today I'd want the kid.  But if I was back in high school or college and got a girl pregnant I would give her the same advice I did back in the 80's, abort it.


----------



## sealybobo

Why do we persist?  Because of this:  Americans Would Rather Vote For A Philandering, Pot-Smoking President Than An Atheist One


----------



## hunarcy

sealybobo said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well if you asked them like that sure they'd say no.  But if you asked them if they'd rather pay $500 for a crack heads abortion or $20K in welfare for the next 18 years I'm sure even the pro lifers would say abort it.  If they were being honest that is.  Yea I'm sure the pro lifers want inner city mothers having more not less kids.  Or their position is they want the kid to be born but once he or she is born fuck them they are on their own.  Survival of the richest I mean fittest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least you were honest enough to admit they'd say no.  And, that's all the Republican bill said, that tax money would not go to paying for abortions.  No one said people couldn't pay for their own abortions, just that tax money wouldn't be used.  Abortions cost an average of $451 in the first trimester...people can afford that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they can't afford it.  So they will have the kids and then we will have to pay for it for 18 years.  This is why we pay for abortions.  Saves us money in the long run.
> 
> So we pay $451 now so we don't have to pay for it the next 18 years.
> 
> And since you can't cut off hungry innocent babies, you have no choice but to at least pay food stamps.  Unless you are suggesting cutting that off too?  I'd love to see the party of jesus do away with food stamps.  They already say fuck no to healing the sick if they are poor.  Next they will show us they don't really follow anything Jesus said.  Why?  Because you don't have to be a good person to get into heaven.  All you have to do is believe the mythical story about jesus and christians think they are in.
Click to expand...



If you truly believe that, you ARE   and it's a waste of time to read your drivel.


----------



## HUGGY

hunarcy said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> At least you were honest enough to admit they'd say no.  And, that's all the Republican bill said, that tax money would not go to paying for abortions.  No one said people couldn't pay for their own abortions, just that tax money wouldn't be used.  Abortions cost an average of $451 in the first trimester...people can afford that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they can't afford it.  So they will have the kids and then we will have to pay for it for 18 years.  This is why we pay for abortions.  Saves us money in the long run.
> 
> So we pay $451 now so we don't have to pay for it the next 18 years.
> 
> And since you can't cut off hungry innocent babies, you have no choice but to at least pay food stamps.  Unless you are suggesting cutting that off too?  I'd love to see the party of jesus do away with food stamps.  They already say fuck no to healing the sick if they are poor.  Next they will show us they don't really follow anything Jesus said.  Why?  Because you don't have to be a good person to get into heaven.  All you have to do is believe the mythical story about jesus and christians think they are in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you truly believe that, you ARE   and it's a waste of time to read your drivel.
Click to expand...


Many people believe that and more.  I believe unwanted children fall victim to emotional problems and are more likely than children that are wanted and planned to acting out and ending up in trouble with the law.  I believe unwanted children are more likely to be abused.  I believe women that are not forced to have an unwanted child will have a better opportunity to get educated and succeed in creating an environment where someday she will be more desireable to end up in a stable marraige or relationship and eventually be a better parent.


----------



## HUGGY

Youwerecreated said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I for one am against abortion and many other things our society allows, but that said,I also believe people should be allowed to make their own choices. God gave us in my view freewill. But you sleep in the bed you made for yourself. Your conscience is there to guide you if you ignore that conscience it's no ones blame but your own if you make bad choices.
> 
> I am hardly a zealot or extremist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You completely avoid the issue of the misogynistic attitude you and your pal are promoting. You think you are a champion of ethics when you support the idea that pregnancy is the result of wanton women needing sexual release and giving men a complete pass on their equal responsibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Women keep your legs closed and men keep your zipper up or you will face the consequence of your actions. They should both be forced to face the consequence how is that a misogynistic attitude ?
Click to expand...


Maybe you should face up to the notion that some things are just none of your business.


----------



## hunarcy

HUGGY said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> You completely avoid the issue of the misogynistic attitude you and your pal are promoting. You think you are a champion of ethics when you support the idea that pregnancy is the result of wanton women needing sexual release and giving men a complete pass on their equal responsibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Women keep your legs closed and men keep your zipper up or you will face the consequence of your actions. They should both be forced to face the consequence how is that a misogynistic attitude ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe you should face up to the notion that some things are just none of your business.
Click to expand...


When you demand that tax money be used to pay for abortions, you make it his business.


----------



## HUGGY

hunarcy said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Women keep your legs closed and men keep your zipper up or you will face the consequence of your actions. They should both be forced to face the consequence how is that a misogynistic attitude ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should face up to the notion that some things are just none of your business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you demand that tax money be used to pay for abortions, you make it his business.
Click to expand...


You don't get to pick and choose what taxes are spent on.  If you are holding up congress's state and federal because as a minority you are not getting your religist agenda passed into law then your are just political terrorists.

Face THIS fact.  Society does not have to bend to your religion.


----------



## Boss

HUGGY said:


> If you FORCE women to carry to the birth of a child then YOU are responsible for the maintenance of the child.
> 
> On a purely economic basis early abortions or better yet comprehensive birth control education costs by far the least.
> 
> You cannot FORCE women into grinding poverty by giving birth.
> 
> The solution is simple.  Stop impeding birth control.  Stop impeding early abortions.  Mind YOUR OWN BUSINESS ... OR take full responsibility for the raising of unwanted children.
> 
> Me personally religists ... I vote that you mind YOUR OWN BUSINESS.



Mind your own business... that's what thugs say when you pass the alley where they are beating up some poor victim. No, we have a civic duty to NOT mind our own business here, because the innocent victims in this case are the unborn children. Your sob stories about their inevitable lives of poverty are sickening to me. It's "better" in your mind that they are terminated rather than to live poor. This conscious value of materialism over life is often seen in people who lack belief in anything greater than self. 

I grew up poor. I can tell you stories about it you wouldn't believe, but in my adulthood, where I am at today, I would not trade that upbringing for anything in this world. It taught me a LOT of lessons and made me who I am. In fact, you will find this is the story for many great achievers, they started with humble beginnings. Sometimes their condition was so bad that it became the driving force behind their motivations to succeed. From every field, business, entertainment, sports, science... there is a superstar who emerged from "grinding" poverty to become exceptional. 

As for a "woman's choice" ...I am ALL for that! But you see, this all begins with their choices, so we need to address that. Not to get too technical for you, but when two humans engage in sexual intercourse it can produce a fetus. If you are mature enough to understand this, you should also be mature enough to accept responsibility for what might happen. There has been legal birth control in all 50 states for as long as my old ass can remember, and despite whatever outrageous hyperbolic claims you may overhear at liberal kook blogosphere, this is not going to change. So the woman has many options here and can choose many ways to go. 

Now I understand having sex with other humans is fun, I get that part. But if you are mature enough to understand babies come from having sex with other humans, you should be able to see how any baby produced would be your responsibility. Are you following so far? 

So if you took the chance, as a mature, thinking adult, and made the choice to have sex with another human, you knew this was a possibility. If you lack the maturity to grasp this, you should stick to having sex with yourself. 

Now we're getting into the "second choices" of women. After the first possibly bad choice, how many OTHER choices do women get? Because we may need to think about this "woman's right to choose" thing a little more. I mean, maybe she gets the right to choose taking a ball-peen hammer to my head while I sleep because I came home drunk? 

Okay, so there are numerous ways a woman could potentially find herself pregnant without having the real opportunity to choice in the matter. Rape, incest, drunk/drugged... etc. So here is where I part with many on the 'religious right' on abortion, but I am willing to give the woman a mulligan on the first choice, you get to have that choice regardless of your judgement because I can't put myself in your shoes, I don't know what went down. And now you're pregnant. 

As someone mature enough to have sex and make a baby, you have to understand within a few weeks, that thing inside you is another living human being. It is going to me morally and ethically wrong to kill it and you know it will be. No amount of word gymnastics is going to change what you know is the truth here. And the longer you wait to kill it, the worse and more wrong it becomes. So the responsible and mature thing to do is own this and deal with it. If you're not ready for a child, there is always adoption. Many choices for women!


----------



## HUGGY

Boss said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you FORCE women to carry to the birth of a child then YOU are responsible for the maintenance of the child.
> 
> On a purely economic basis early abortions or better yet comprehensive birth control education costs by far the least.
> 
> You cannot FORCE women into grinding poverty by giving birth.
> 
> The solution is simple.  Stop impeding birth control.  Stop impeding early abortions.  Mind YOUR OWN BUSINESS ... OR take full responsibility for the raising of unwanted children.
> 
> Me personally religists ... I vote that you mind YOUR OWN BUSINESS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mind your own business... that's what thugs say when you pass the alley where they are beating up some poor victim. No, we have a civic duty to NOT mind our own business here, because the innocent victims in this case are the unborn children. Your sob stories about their inevitable lives of poverty are sickening to me. It's "better" in your mind that they are terminated rather than to live poor. This conscious value of materialism over life is often seen in people who lack belief in anything greater than self.
> 
> I grew up poor. I can tell you stories about it you wouldn't believe, but in my adulthood, where I am at today, I would not trade that upbringing for anything in this world. It taught me a LOT of lessons and made me who I am. In fact, you will find this is the story for many great achievers, they started with humble beginnings. Sometimes their condition was so bad that it became the driving force behind their motivations to succeed. From every field, business, entertainment, sports, science... there is a superstar who emerged from "grinding" poverty to become exceptional.
> 
> As for a "woman's choice" ...I am ALL for that! But you see, this all begins with their choices, so we need to address that. Not to get too technical for you, but when two humans engage in sexual intercourse it can produce a fetus. If you are mature enough to understand this, you should also be mature enough to accept responsibility for what might happen. There has been legal birth control in all 50 states for as long as my old ass can remember, and despite whatever outrageous hyperbolic claims you may overhear at liberal kook blogosphere, this is not going to change. So the woman has many options here and can choose many ways to go.
> 
> Now I understand having sex with other humans is fun, I get that part. But if you are mature enough to understand babies come from having sex with other humans, you should be able to see how any baby produced would be your responsibility. Are you following so far?
> 
> So if you took the chance, as a mature, thinking adult, and made the choice to have sex with another human, you knew this was a possibility. If you lack the maturity to grasp this, you should stick to having sex with yourself.
> 
> Now we're getting into the "second choices" of women. After the first possibly bad choice, how many OTHER choices do women get? Because we may need to think about this "woman's right to choose" thing a little more. I mean, maybe she gets the right to choose taking a ball-peen hammer to my head while I sleep because I came home drunk?
> 
> Okay, so there are numerous ways a woman could potentially find herself pregnant without having the real opportunity to choice in the matter. Rape, incest, drunk/drugged... etc. So here is where I part with many on the 'religious right' on abortion, but I am willing to give the woman a mulligan on the first choice, you get to have that choice regardless of your judgement because I can't put myself in your shoes, I don't know what went down. And now you're pregnant.
> 
> As someone mature enough to have sex and make a baby, you have to understand within a few weeks, that thing inside you is another living human being. It is going to me morally and ethically wrong to kill it and you know it will be. No amount of word gymnastics is going to change what you know is the truth here. And the longer you wait to kill it, the worse and more wrong it becomes. So the responsible and mature thing to do is own this and deal with it. If you're not ready for a child, there is always adoption. Many choices for women!
Click to expand...


A zygot is not a baby.  You FORCE people to take chances by fighting tooth and nail to restrict birth control and teaching birth control in schools.

The amount of time it takes for an embryo to develope into a baby is already established and law.  You will NEVER make it law that will stand up in appelate court that a zygot or an embryo is a baby.  You waste the proccess continuing to change that which will not be changed.  Give it up.  You have lost that fight.  This is one major reason we will persist in educating the public about the fraud you call god.


----------



## GISMYS

huggy said:


> boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> huggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> if you force women to carry to the birth of a child then you are responsible for the maintenance of the child.
> 
> On a purely economic basis early abortions or better yet comprehensive birth control education costs by far the least.
> 
> You cannot force women into grinding poverty by giving birth.
> 
> The solution is simple.  Stop impeding birth control.  Stop impeding early abortions.  Mind your own business ... Or take full responsibility for the raising of unwanted children.
> 
> Me personally religists ... I vote that you mind your own business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mind your own business... That's what thugs say when you pass the alley where they are beating up some poor victim. No, we have a civic duty to not mind our own business here, because the innocent victims in this case are the unborn children. Your sob stories about their inevitable lives of poverty are sickening to me. It's "better" in your mind that they are terminated rather than to live poor. This conscious value of materialism over life is often seen in people who lack belief in anything greater than self.
> 
> I grew up poor. I can tell you stories about it you wouldn't believe, but in my adulthood, where i am at today, i would not trade that upbringing for anything in this world. It taught me a lot of lessons and made me who i am. In fact, you will find this is the story for many great achievers, they started with humble beginnings. Sometimes their condition was so bad that it became the driving force behind their motivations to succeed. From every field, business, entertainment, sports, science... There is a superstar who emerged from "grinding" poverty to become exceptional.
> 
> As for a "woman's choice" ...i am all for that! But you see, this all begins with their choices, so we need to address that. Not to get too technical for you, but when two humans engage in sexual intercourse it can produce a fetus. If you are mature enough to understand this, you should also be mature enough to accept responsibility for what might happen. There has been legal birth control in all 50 states for as long as my old ass can remember, and despite whatever outrageous hyperbolic claims you may overhear at liberal kook blogosphere, this is not going to change. So the woman has many options here and can choose many ways to go.
> 
> Now i understand having sex with other humans is fun, i get that part. But if you are mature enough to understand babies come from having sex with other humans, you should be able to see how any baby produced would be your responsibility. Are you following so far?
> 
> So if you took the chance, as a mature, thinking adult, and made the choice to have sex with another human, you knew this was a possibility. If you lack the maturity to grasp this, you should stick to having sex with yourself.
> 
> Now we're getting into the "second choices" of women. After the first possibly bad choice, how many other choices do women get? Because we may need to think about this "woman's right to choose" thing a little more. I mean, maybe she gets the right to choose taking a ball-peen hammer to my head while i sleep because i came home drunk?
> 
> Okay, so there are numerous ways a woman could potentially find herself pregnant without having the real opportunity to choice in the matter. Rape, incest, drunk/drugged... Etc. So here is where i part with many on the 'religious right' on abortion, but i am willing to give the woman a mulligan on the first choice, you get to have that choice regardless of your judgement because i can't put myself in your shoes, i don't know what went down. And now you're pregnant.
> 
> As someone mature enough to have sex and make a baby, you have to understand within a few weeks, that thing inside you is another living human being. It is going to me morally and ethically wrong to kill it and you know it will be. No amount of word gymnastics is going to change what you know is the truth here. And the longer you wait to kill it, the worse and more wrong it becomes. So the responsible and mature thing to do is own this and deal with it. If you're not ready for a child, there is always adoption. Many choices for women!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> a zygot is not a baby.  You force people to take chances by fighting tooth and nail to restrict birth control and teaching birth control in schools.
> 
> The amount of time it takes for an embryo to develope into a baby is already established and law.  You will never make it law that will stand up in appelate court that a zygot or an embryo is a baby.  You waste the proccess continuing to change that which will not be changed.  Give it up.  You have lost that fight.  This is one major reason we will persist in educating the public about the fraud you call god.
Click to expand...


"unborn child" is an unborn child!!! Duh!!! Don't be a silly demon inspired tard!!!


----------



## Boss

HUGGY said:


> A zygot is not a baby.  You FORCE people to take chances by fighting tooth and nail to restrict birth control and teaching birth control in schools.



I'm not fighting to restrict birth control, and as I said, birth control has been legal in all 50 states for very many years, it's not going to be outlawed. I am opposed to teaching abortion as birth control. A zygote begins as fused gamete cells and becomes a living organism, it can't be anything other than human if produced by human gamete cells. 



> The amount of time it takes for an embryo to develope into a baby is already established and law.



There is no "amount of time" it takes, in biology a criteria has to be met. Once cells begin reproducing and an organism exists, it is a living organism from then until it dies. All you can haggle over is what phase the living organism is in, but that too has criteria. 

Established law is not the issue here. Did you think I was arguing that abortion is not legal? I understand what the law says, the law also once said that black people were property. The law can be wrong and it can be changed. 



> You will NEVER make it law that will stand up in appelate court that a zygot or an embryo is a baby.  You waste the proccess continuing to change that which will not be changed.  Give it up.  You have lost that fight.  This is one major reason we will persist in educating the public about the fraud you call god.



I'd be careful what I predicted here. Courts aren't scientists or biologists, that's not who determines when life exists. The court made a ruling a few decades ago to legalize abortion in America, and a good many people oppose that ruling. The fight is not going to be given up or over until you stop killing babies. 

Atheists are amazing, they spend so much time trying to convince people that you don't need God to be moral, then they line up to support killing babies and making up excuses for why that's okay.


----------



## BreezeWood

Boss said:


> I'm not fighting to restrict birth control, and as I said, birth control has been legal in all 50 states for very many years, it's not going to be outlawed.
> 
> .................
> 
> I'd be careful what I predicted here. Courts aren't scientists or biologists, that's not who determines when life exists. The court made a ruling a few decades ago to legalize abortion in America, and a good many people oppose that ruling. *The fight is not going to be given up or over until you stop killing babies.
> *
> 
> 
> Atheists are amazing, they spend so much time trying to convince people that you don't need God to be moral, then they line up to support killing babies and making up excuses for why that's okay.





*B: The fight is not going to be given up or over until you stop killing babies.*


Bossy, can you explain how using a condom is not an abortion or "killing babies" ? -

* not for men anyway ....

.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> A zygot is not a baby.  You FORCE people to take chances by fighting tooth and nail to restrict birth control and teaching birth control in schools.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not fighting to restrict birth control, and as I said, birth control has been legal in all 50 states for very many years, it's not going to be outlawed. I am opposed to teaching abortion as birth control. A zygote begins as fused gamete cells and becomes a living organism, it can't be anything other than human if produced by human gamete cells.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The amount of time it takes for an embryo to develope into a baby is already established and law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no "amount of time" it takes, in biology a criteria has to be met. Once cells begin reproducing and an organism exists, it is a living organism from then until it dies. All you can haggle over is what phase the living organism is in, but that too has criteria.
> 
> Established law is not the issue here. Did you think I was arguing that abortion is not legal? I understand what the law says, the law also once said that black people were property. The law can be wrong and it can be changed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You will NEVER make it law that will stand up in appelate court that a zygot or an embryo is a baby.  You waste the proccess continuing to change that which will not be changed.  Give it up.  You have lost that fight.  This is one major reason we will persist in educating the public about the fraud you call god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd be careful what I predicted here. Courts aren't scientists or biologists, that's not who determines when life exists. The court made a ruling a few decades ago to legalize abortion in America, and a good many people oppose that ruling. The fight is not going to be given up or over until you stop killing babies.
> 
> Atheists are amazing, they spend so much time trying to convince people that you don't need God to be moral, then they line up to support killing babies and making up excuses for why that's okay.
Click to expand...


Here as usual, religious zealots such as boss presume a right to force their fundamentalist views on others.

The extremist religious nutters on one end of the spectrum mewl that a single fertilized cell is a person and advocate that the State seize control of the womb at that point. On the other end, there are those would have it that personhood is not achieved until birth and the State should have no dominion until then. The vast majority of rational Americans recognize that personhood evolves during gestation as brain waves are first evidenced and independent viability achieved. Thus, Roe vs Wade is a reasonable compromise.

I&#8217;m actually comfortable with Roe v. Wade as a reasonable compromise. Roe v. Wade has nothing to say about "life" nor the definitive timetable under which 'viability' occurs. It's arguing the circumstances under which the state can claim to possess a compelling interest which over-rides the privacy rights of the mother- nothing more. It neither requires them enforce or concede those interests, nor does it limit the circumstances in which a state may have an interest in those.

The section regarding the second trimester dictates the point in which the state's interest in the mother's health can override her unrestrained privacy rights. Essentially, it represents the point at which the state can regulate certain aspects of abortion to protect the mother from herself.

The viability issue is completely separate- it represents the point at which the state's interest in protecting fetus's rights can be argued to override the mother's. Although the third trimester is generally held up as the benchmark for this, it was a compromise- the medical definition of viability clearly out-weighs any artificial timeline, and, given sufficiently advanced medical technology, can clearly kick in before the state's interest in the mother- i.e. if it became medically routine for a fetus to live outside the womb at the age of two weeks, that would be the new test for when the state could, but not necessarily must, impose its interests in protecting the fetus over the privacy rights of the mother. The viability issue would then render the interests in the mother&#8217;s health moot, if the state chose to peruse it.


----------



## GISMYS

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> A zygot is not a baby.  You FORCE people to take chances by fighting tooth and nail to restrict birth control and teaching birth control in schools.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not fighting to restrict birth control, and as I said, birth control has been legal in all 50 states for very many years, it's not going to be outlawed. I am opposed to teaching abortion as birth control. A zygote begins as fused gamete cells and becomes a living organism, it can't be anything other than human if produced by human gamete cells.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no "amount of time" it takes, in biology a criteria has to be met. Once cells begin reproducing and an organism exists, it is a living organism from then until it dies. All you can haggle over is what phase the living organism is in, but that too has criteria.
> 
> Established law is not the issue here. Did you think I was arguing that abortion is not legal? I understand what the law says, the law also once said that black people were property. The law can be wrong and it can be changed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You will NEVER make it law that will stand up in appelate court that a zygot or an embryo is a baby.  You waste the proccess continuing to change that which will not be changed.  Give it up.  You have lost that fight.  This is one major reason we will persist in educating the public about the fraud you call god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd be careful what I predicted here. Courts aren't scientists or biologists, that's not who determines when life exists. The court made a ruling a few decades ago to legalize abortion in America, and a good many people oppose that ruling. The fight is not going to be given up or over until you stop killing babies.
> 
> Atheists are amazing, they spend so much time trying to convince people that you don't need God to be moral, then they line up to support killing babies and making up excuses for why that's okay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here as usual, religious zealots such as boss presume a right to force their fundamentalist views on others.
> 
> The extremist religious nutters on one end of the spectrum mewl that a single fertilized cell is a person and advocate that the State seize control of the womb at that point. On the other end, there are those would have it that personhood is not achieved until birth and the State should have no dominion until then. The vast majority of rational Americans recognize that personhood evolves during gestation as brain waves are first evidenced and independent viability achieved. Thus, Roe vs Wade is a reasonable compromise.
> 
> Im actually comfortable with Roe v. Wade as a reasonable compromise. Roe v. Wade has nothing to say about "life" nor the definitive timetable under which 'viability' occurs. It's arguing the circumstances under which the state can claim to possess a compelling interest which over-rides the privacy rights of the mother- nothing more. It neither requires them enforce or concede those interests, nor does it limit the circumstances in which a state may have an interest in those.
> 
> The section regarding the second trimester dictates the point in which the state's interest in the mother's health can override her unrestrained privacy rights. Essentially, it represents the point at which the state can regulate certain aspects of abortion to protect the mother from herself.
> 
> The viability issue is completely separate- it represents the point at which the state's interest in protecting fetus's rights can be argued to override the mother's. Although the third trimester is generally held up as the benchmark for this, it was a compromise- the medical definition of viability clearly out-weighs any artificial timeline, and, given sufficiently advanced medical technology, can clearly kick in before the state's interest in the mother- i.e. if it became medically routine for a fetus to live outside the womb at the age of two weeks, that would be the new test for when the state could, but not necessarily must, impose its interests in protecting the fetus over the privacy rights of the mother. The viability issue would then render the interests in the mothers health moot, if the state chose to peruse it.
Click to expand...


CAN WE  expect GOD to bless and protect the USA when we murder over 40,000,000 of our own unborn children???


----------



## Hollie

gismys said:


> hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> i'm not fighting to restrict birth control, and as i said, birth control has been legal in all 50 states for very many years, it's not going to be outlawed. I am opposed to teaching abortion as birth control. A zygote begins as fused gamete cells and becomes a living organism, it can't be anything other than human if produced by human gamete cells.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no "amount of time" it takes, in biology a criteria has to be met. Once cells begin reproducing and an organism exists, it is a living organism from then until it dies. All you can haggle over is what phase the living organism is in, but that too has criteria.
> 
> Established law is not the issue here. Did you think i was arguing that abortion is not legal? I understand what the law says, the law also once said that black people were property. The law can be wrong and it can be changed.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be careful what i predicted here. Courts aren't scientists or biologists, that's not who determines when life exists. The court made a ruling a few decades ago to legalize abortion in america, and a good many people oppose that ruling. The fight is not going to be given up or over until you stop killing babies.
> 
> Atheists are amazing, they spend so much time trying to convince people that you don't need god to be moral, then they line up to support killing babies and making up excuses for why that's okay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> here as usual, religious zealots such as boss presume a right to force their fundamentalist views on others.
> 
> The extremist religious nutters on one end of the spectrum mewl that a single fertilized cell is a person and advocate that the state seize control of the womb at that point. On the other end, there are those would have it that personhood is not achieved until birth and the state should have no dominion until then. The vast majority of rational americans recognize that personhood evolves during gestation as brain waves are first evidenced and independent viability achieved. Thus, roe vs wade is a reasonable compromise.
> 
> Im actually comfortable with roe v. Wade as a reasonable compromise. Roe v. Wade has nothing to say about "life" nor the definitive timetable under which 'viability' occurs. It's arguing the circumstances under which the state can claim to possess a compelling interest which over-rides the privacy rights of the mother- nothing more. It neither requires them enforce or concede those interests, nor does it limit the circumstances in which a state may have an interest in those.
> 
> The section regarding the second trimester dictates the point in which the state's interest in the mother's health can override her unrestrained privacy rights. Essentially, it represents the point at which the state can regulate certain aspects of abortion to protect the mother from herself.
> 
> The viability issue is completely separate- it represents the point at which the state's interest in protecting fetus's rights can be argued to override the mother's. Although the third trimester is generally held up as the benchmark for this, it was a compromise- the medical definition of viability clearly out-weighs any artificial timeline, and, given sufficiently advanced medical technology, can clearly kick in before the state's interest in the mother- i.e. If it became medically routine for a fetus to live outside the womb at the age of two weeks, that would be the new test for when the state could, but not necessarily must, impose its interests in protecting the fetus over the privacy rights of the mother. The viability issue would then render the interests in the mothers health moot, if the state chose to peruse it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> can we  expect god to bless and protect the usa when we murder over 40,000,000 of our own unborn children???
Click to expand...


repent now sinner. The end of the world is near and time is short.

And you?


----------



## hunarcy

HUGGY said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should face up to the notion that some things are just none of your business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you demand that tax money be used to pay for abortions, you make it his business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't get to pick and choose what taxes are spent on.  If you are holding up congress's state and federal because as a minority you are not getting your religist agenda passed into law then your are just political terrorists.
> 
> Face THIS fact.  Society does not have to bend to your religion.
Click to expand...


Face THIS fact.  If taxpayers pay for abortions, then the taxpayers have a right to have a say in the process.


----------



## GISMYS

hollie said:


> gismys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> here as usual, religious zealots such as boss presume a right to force their fundamentalist views on others.
> 
> The extremist religious nutters on one end of the spectrum mewl that a single fertilized cell is a person and advocate that the state seize control of the womb at that point. On the other end, there are those would have it that personhood is not achieved until birth and the state should have no dominion until then. The vast majority of rational americans recognize that personhood evolves during gestation as brain waves are first evidenced and independent viability achieved. Thus, roe vs wade is a reasonable compromise.
> 
> Im actually comfortable with roe v. Wade as a reasonable compromise. Roe v. Wade has nothing to say about "life" nor the definitive timetable under which 'viability' occurs. It's arguing the circumstances under which the state can claim to possess a compelling interest which over-rides the privacy rights of the mother- nothing more. It neither requires them enforce or concede those interests, nor does it limit the circumstances in which a state may have an interest in those.
> 
> The section regarding the second trimester dictates the point in which the state's interest in the mother's health can override her unrestrained privacy rights. Essentially, it represents the point at which the state can regulate certain aspects of abortion to protect the mother from herself.
> 
> The viability issue is completely separate- it represents the point at which the state's interest in protecting fetus's rights can be argued to override the mother's. Although the third trimester is generally held up as the benchmark for this, it was a compromise- the medical definition of viability clearly out-weighs any artificial timeline, and, given sufficiently advanced medical technology, can clearly kick in before the state's interest in the mother- i.e. If it became medically routine for a fetus to live outside the womb at the age of two weeks, that would be the new test for when the state could, but not necessarily must, impose its interests in protecting the fetus over the privacy rights of the mother. The viability issue would then render the interests in the mothers health moot, if the state chose to peruse it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> can we  expect god to bless and protect the usa when we murder over 40,000,000 of our own unborn children???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> repent now sinner. The end of the world is near and time is short.
> 
> And you?
Click to expand...


guilt and shame weigh heavy.huh???


----------



## Hollie

GISMYS said:


> hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gismys said:
> 
> 
> 
> can we  expect god to bless and protect the usa when we murder over 40,000,000 of our own unborn children???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> repent now sinner. The end of the world is near and time is short.
> 
> And you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> guilt and shame weigh heavy.huh???
Click to expand...


Just a bit of comic relief. 

Isn't it about time for you to dump yet another silly "endtimes are upon on us", thread? Hasn't it been 24 hours since your last one?

Come on, grab your chickens feet and magic potions and thrill us.


----------



## GISMYS

Hollie said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> repent now sinner. The end of the world is near and time is short.
> 
> And you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guilt and shame weigh heavy.huh???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just a bit of comic relief.
> 
> Isn't it about time for you to dump yet another silly "endtimes are upon on us", thread? Hasn't it been 24 hours since your last one?
> 
> Come on, grab your chickens feet and magic potions and thrill us.
Click to expand...


GOD SAYS== Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, 4 and saying, Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation. 5 For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, 6 through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. 7 But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

8 But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. 9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.
2 Peter 3:3-9


----------



## HUGGY

hunarcy said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you demand that tax money be used to pay for abortions, you make it his business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't get to pick and choose what taxes are spent on.  If you are holding up congress's state and federal because as a minority you are not getting your religist agenda passed into law then your are just political terrorists.
> 
> Face THIS fact.  Society does not have to bend to your religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Face THIS fact.  If taxpayers pay for abortions, then the taxpayers have a right to have a say in the process.
Click to expand...


Taxpayers have the right to expect that the laws of the land are upheld.  We pay many hundreds of thousands times more on law enforcement than on medical procedures related to abortions.

Abortion issues have become settled in the courts ad nauseum.  Unless something new comes up that changes the facts you people are just wasting time and money better spent elsewhere. 

Throwing the spectre of your made up sky fairy god in the face of the public to make some kind of point is getting old.


----------



## Uncensored2008

emilynghiem said:


> ????
> 
> If I was going to make a generalization about what kills people historically,
> it's retribution and unforgiveness.



That may be, but the fact remains that the Atheist rulers in the 20th century slaughtered more peace time civilians under their rule than all the religions in history combined.

In fact, all the religions in history don't even reach 10% of what the Atheists did - even if you absurdly toss Hitler into the "religion" bucket.

Atheism is the most deadly belief system in recorded history.


----------



## Uncensored2008

sealybobo said:


> The atheist left as appose to the religious right?



If we look at nations where theocracy exists, you can hardly call it "right." Iran has a managed economy, centrally planned by the state. Hardly "right wing."



> Well I'm part of the American Atheist left and I can tell you we don't want to kill you.



The left advocates for authoritarianism. The American left agitates for the dissolution of the Republican form of government authorized by the Constitution in favor a central, authoritarian state.

The American left seeks rigid control by the central authority over economic activity, seeking central planning and direct involvement of rulers over the market. While most of the totalitarian demands of the left involve economic issues, there is a strong current of social regimentation, which you exemplify here.

You lack the ability to march people like GISMYS off to reeducation camps, but is it accurate to say that you lack the desire to do so?



> Do you think Neal Degrass Tyson wants to murder you?  No he does not.



What an absurd straw man.



> In fact he gave his position on religion and he said he's just too busy to give it much thought.



Which would make him an agnostic, rather than an Atheist Crusader dedicated to stamping out Christianity, the way you are.

Since Tyson is an agnostic, and I am agnostic, why would there be conflict?



> He clearly doesn't believe in god but he isn't militant like I'm coming off.  This is a message board.  This is where you are suppose to come and spout off your thoughts, uninhibited.  I'll be honest.  I don't give a crap if people want to be religious.  I don't like it when they try to push it on us.  I don't like it when they try to pass laws based on it like anti abortion or anti gay marriage.  And I really don't like it that people are so unevolved still that they'd prefer to vote for a pot smoking cheater than an atheist.



No one tries to push their beliefs on me personally quite the way Atheists do. Atheist missionaries - and ALL ATHEISTS ARE MISSIONARIES - constantly tell me what I can or cannot believe. Atheists are worse than Jehovah's Witnesses and Scientologists.


> I myself for the longest time thought of satin when I heard the word atheist.



I associate satin more with porn stars.



> Not true.  It just means we don't believe there is a god.



You go a bit further than that - you DEMAND there is no god and seek to and DO use the government to silence those with differing views.



> We are still good people.



Especially Joe Stalin - he was the model Atheist! 



> I would say smarter and more open minded than religious people because at least we can grasp the idea that religion was invented by man, not the other way around.  God didn't make you, you made up god.



I made god? Kewl, then he must do my bidding.

Is that what you mean by "smart?"


----------



## Uncensored2008

Hollie said:


> You're getting quite frantic. You are a bit reality challenged in that you are unable to connect disbelief in gods with the actions of political ideologies and megalomaniacs.
> 
> Your "irrefutable fact" is not a fact at all but the ranting of someone who has not studied the facts.



Oh my, well then we'll have to inform the victims of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, et al. that they really are not dead after all - a whackjob internet troll has declared that her religion is flawless and therefore their genocide is hereby revoked..


ROFL

You're a joke, sparky - though the subject isn't really funny.

I mean, you DO realize that you are every bit as fanatical and irrational as GISMYS, don't you?



> It's tragically comical that you hope to blame the atheist left for the Holocaust. Try learning a bit of history so you don't make yourself the village idiot.
> 
> Hitler's SS wore the inscription "Gott mit uns" on their belt buckles. Do a web search for what that translation.



I suspect you failed to complete your education through the sixth grade, but grown ups are aware that as abominable as the slaughter of 14 million by Hitler was, it is dwarfed by the 200 million slaughtered by Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Ho, Pot, Kim. et al.

Junior High really would have helped you...



> That's a shame. Your tender sensibilities are offended so you launch the "bigot", slogan. It seems that anyone who refutes your specious claims is automatically penned with the "bigot", label.
> 
> When you're not emotionally and intellectually prepared to deal with refutations to your pointless charges, you should avoid posting.



Yet all you can spew is mindless bigotry.  




> Ignorance on your part does make being clueless so much easier.



I'm not the one ignorantly denying the slaughter of 200 million people, sploogy.



> Does that come with a Jingle?
> 
> Your application for martyrdom is rejected. You weren't quite pompous enough. I am prepared however, to make you Queen for a Day.



You're not the sharpest marshmallow in the bag, are you?


----------



## Boss

BreezeWood said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not fighting to restrict birth control, and as I said, birth control has been legal in all 50 states for very many years, it's not going to be outlawed.
> 
> .................
> 
> I'd be careful what I predicted here. Courts aren't scientists or biologists, that's not who determines when life exists. The court made a ruling a few decades ago to legalize abortion in America, and a good many people oppose that ruling. *The fight is not going to be given up or over until you stop killing babies.
> *
> 
> Atheists are amazing, they spend so much time trying to convince people that you don't need God to be moral, then they line up to support killing babies and making up excuses for why that's okay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *B: The fight is not going to be given up or over until you stop killing babies.*
> 
> Bossy, can you explain how using a condom is not an abortion or "killing babies" ? -
> 
> * not for men anyway ....
Click to expand...


I thought we already covered the birds and bees?  

A male gamete cell known as the sperm is released during ejaculation while having intercourse with a female, who has a gamete egg cell. Until the two gamete cells fuse and reproduce cells, there is no unique human organism. The condom prevents the sperm from reaching the egg and creating a baby. But it isn't 100% effective, no birth control is, other than abstinence. Women take birth control pills which render the egg invalid, taking one of the gamete cells needed for reproduction out of the equation, so... no baby. 

Now I realize some religions don't condone birth control, and some oppose you teaching our kids about such things without the expressed consent of the parent. Some people just don't like the idea of their tax money paying for birth control. But they are all lumped together as this big bad boogie-man who is going to somehow BAN contraception. Why do liberal idiots use such weak and pitiful conjecture to scare folks? No one is ever going to take away birth control.


----------



## sealybobo

HUGGY said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they can't afford it.  So they will have the kids and then we will have to pay for it for 18 years.  This is why we pay for abortions.  Saves us money in the long run.
> 
> So we pay $451 now so we don't have to pay for it the next 18 years.
> 
> And since you can't cut off hungry innocent babies, you have no choice but to at least pay food stamps.  Unless you are suggesting cutting that off too?  I'd love to see the party of jesus do away with food stamps.  They already say fuck no to healing the sick if they are poor.  Next they will show us they don't really follow anything Jesus said.  Why?  Because you don't have to be a good person to get into heaven.  All you have to do is believe the mythical story about jesus and christians think they are in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you truly believe that, you ARE   and it's a waste of time to read your drivel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many people believe that and more.  I believe unwanted children fall victim to emotional problems and are more likely than children that are wanted and planned to acting out and ending up in trouble with the law.  I believe unwanted children are more likely to be abused.  I believe women that are not forced to have an unwanted child will have a better opportunity to get educated and succeed in creating an environment where someday she will be more desireable to end up in a stable marraige or relationship and eventually be a better parent.
Click to expand...


And if Hunacy doesn't understand this then he/she is a waste of our time.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not fighting to restrict birth control, and as I said, birth control has been legal in all 50 states for very many years, it's not going to be outlawed.
> 
> .................
> 
> I'd be careful what I predicted here. Courts aren't scientists or biologists, that's not who determines when life exists. The court made a ruling a few decades ago to legalize abortion in America, and a good many people oppose that ruling. *The fight is not going to be given up or over until you stop killing babies.
> *
> 
> Atheists are amazing, they spend so much time trying to convince people that you don't need God to be moral, then they line up to support killing babies and making up excuses for why that's okay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *B: The fight is not going to be given up or over until you stop killing babies.*
> 
> Bossy, can you explain how using a condom is not an abortion or "killing babies" ? -
> 
> * not for men anyway ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought we already covered the birds and bees?
> 
> A male gamete cell known as the sperm is released during ejaculation while having intercourse with a female, who has a gamete egg cell. Until the two gamete cells fuse and reproduce cells, there is no unique human organism. The condom prevents the sperm from reaching the egg and creating a baby. But it isn't 100% effective, no birth control is, other than abstinence. Women take birth control pills which render the egg invalid, taking one of the gamete cells needed for reproduction out of the equation, so... no baby.
> 
> Now I realize some religions don't condone birth control, and some oppose you teaching our kids about such things without the expressed consent of the parent. Some people just don't like the idea of their tax money paying for birth control. But they are all lumped together as this big bad boogie-man who is going to somehow BAN contraception. Why do liberal idiots use such weak and pitiful conjecture to scare folks? No one is ever going to take away birth control.
Click to expand...


We need to pay for it.  Poor women who shouldn't be having kids but can't afford birth control if it isn't covered will end up getting pregnant and society will end up paying for it.  We already had this debate and settled this argument a long time ago.  But now catholics are acting like they are offended that they have to provide birth control.

No you aren't banning it.  You're just making it unaffordable for the people we need it the most.  It's like in red states who closed all abortion clinics but one in the state.  So people have to drive 2-5 hours go get an abortion.  Then the lying fucks say "see, we didn't ban abortion, what are you liberals talking about


----------



## sealybobo

Uncensored2008 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The atheist left as appose to the religious right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we look at nations where theocracy exists, you can hardly call it "right." Iran has a managed economy, centrally planned by the state. Hardly "right wing."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I'm part of the American Atheist left and I can tell you we don't want to kill you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The left advocates for authoritarianism. The American left agitates for the dissolution of the Republican form of government authorized by the Constitution in favor a central, authoritarian state.
> 
> The American left seeks rigid control by the central authority over economic activity, seeking central planning and direct involvement of rulers over the market. While most of the totalitarian demands of the left involve economic issues, there is a strong current of social regimentation, which you exemplify here.
> 
> You lack the ability to march people like GISMYS off to reeducation camps, but is it accurate to say that you lack the desire to do so?
> 
> 
> 
> What an absurd straw man.
> 
> 
> 
> Which would make him an agnostic, rather than an Atheist Crusader dedicated to stamping out Christianity, the way you are.
> 
> Since Tyson is an agnostic, and I am agnostic, why would there be conflict?
> 
> 
> 
> No one tries to push their beliefs on me personally quite the way Atheists do. Atheist missionaries - and ALL ATHEISTS ARE MISSIONARIES - constantly tell me what I can or cannot believe. Atheists are worse than Jehovah's Witnesses and Scientologists.
> 
> 
> I associate satin more with porn stars.
> 
> 
> 
> You go a bit further than that - you DEMAND there is no god and seek to and DO use the government to silence those with differing views.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are still good people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Especially Joe Stalin - he was the model Atheist!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would say smarter and more open minded than religious people because at least we can grasp the idea that religion was invented by man, not the other way around.  God didn't make you, you made up god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I made god? Kewl, then he must do my bidding.
> 
> Is that what you mean by "smart?"
Click to expand...


Did you see Americans would rather vote for a pot smoking cheater than they would an atheist?  Once that is not true anymore, I'll get less militant.  I really don't care unless I think that ignorant view is holding me or society back, which I do.  Stem cell & the way the Catholic church treated Galileo are just two of many examples.


----------



## Boss

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> A zygot is not a baby.  You FORCE people to take chances by fighting tooth and nail to restrict birth control and teaching birth control in schools.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not fighting to restrict birth control, and as I said, birth control has been legal in all 50 states for very many years, it's not going to be outlawed. I am opposed to teaching abortion as birth control. A zygote begins as fused gamete cells and becomes a living organism, it can't be anything other than human if produced by human gamete cells.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no "amount of time" it takes, in biology a criteria has to be met. Once cells begin reproducing and an organism exists, it is a living organism from then until it dies. All you can haggle over is what phase the living organism is in, but that too has criteria.
> 
> Established law is not the issue here. Did you think I was arguing that abortion is not legal? I understand what the law says, the law also once said that black people were property. The law can be wrong and it can be changed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You will NEVER make it law that will stand up in appelate court that a zygot or an embryo is a baby.  You waste the proccess continuing to change that which will not be changed.  Give it up.  You have lost that fight.  This is one major reason we will persist in educating the public about the fraud you call god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd be careful what I predicted here. Courts aren't scientists or biologists, that's not who determines when life exists. The court made a ruling a few decades ago to legalize abortion in America, and a good many people oppose that ruling. The fight is not going to be given up or over until you stop killing babies.
> 
> Atheists are amazing, they spend so much time trying to convince people that you don't need God to be moral, then they line up to support killing babies and making up excuses for why that's okay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here as usual, religious zealots such as boss presume a right to force their fundamentalist views on others.
> 
> The extremist religious nutters on one end of the spectrum mewl that a single fertilized cell is a person and advocate that the State seize control of the womb at that point.
Click to expand...


Hold on there, toots... can't let you get away with this. I don't have a "fundamentalist" view on abortion. My "political" solution to the issue of abortion is to allow states to determine the law for themselves. 

My viewpoints are from a humanitarian and biological perspective and involve ethics, which you probably know little about. Human life begins at a successful conception, when the fused sperm/egg zygote produces another cell. Biology is very clear on this, and there is no other way to get around it. A unique human being has come to exist, and we all began like this. In order to have any kind of meaningful dialogue with the subject of abortion, this has to be established first. 



> On the other end, there are those would have it that personhood is not achieved until birth and the State should have no dominion until then. The vast majority of rational Americans recognize that personhood evolves during gestation as brain waves are first evidenced and independent viability achieved. Thus, Roe vs Wade is a reasonable compromise.



There is no such thing as "personhood" it's a made-up word to get around killing human beings in the womb. If brain waves are the criteria for it, you're in real trouble, toots. Human beings develop all kinds of different abilities, some things may take well into adulthood to develop. And we all develop at different rates at different times. None of these things qualify us as human beings. There is no arbitrary "time" at which we become human beings, we are what we are from point of conception. 



> Im actually comfortable with Roe v. Wade as a reasonable compromise. Roe v. Wade has nothing to say about "life" nor the definitive timetable under which 'viability' occurs. It's arguing the circumstances under which the state can claim to possess a compelling interest which over-rides the privacy rights of the mother- nothing more.



Well, I am not comfortable with Roe because it ignores the right of the unborn. They ARE human beings residing in the United States... they weren't "born" here (yet) but like illegal immigrants, they still should have some constitutional protections. The state does have a compelling interest to protect the human rights of the unborn, but if the state doesn't, the people certainly should.


----------



## Uncensored2008

sealybobo said:


> Did you see Americans would rather vote for a pot smoking cheater than they would an atheist?  Once that is not true anymore, I'll get less militant.  I really don't care unless I think that ignorant view is holding me or society back, which I do.  Stem cell & the way the Catholic church treated Galileo are just two of many examples.



200 million dead in Atheist genocide, makes reasonable people not trust you... 


Oh and fetal stem cells were a bust, the stem cells used in ALL research is the last decade are harvested from adults. The ignorance appears to be on the part of those promoting non-viable technology. 

Oh, and the AGW morons are the new Catholics, demanding "consensus" as a substitute for science.


----------



## Hollie

Uncensored2008 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're getting quite frantic. You are a bit reality challenged in that you are unable to connect disbelief in gods with the actions of political ideologies and megalomaniacs.
> 
> Your "irrefutable fact" is not a fact at all but the ranting of someone who has not studied the facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my, well then we'll have to inform the victims of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, et al. that they really are not dead after all - a whackjob internet troll has declared that her religion is flawless and therefore their genocide is hereby revoked..
> 
> 
> ROFL
> 
> You're a joke, sparky - though the subject isn't really funny.
> 
> I mean, you DO realize that you are every bit as fanatical and irrational as GISMYS, don't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's tragically comical that you hope to blame the atheist left for the Holocaust. Try learning a bit of history so you don't make yourself the village idiot.
> 
> Hitler's SS wore the inscription "Gott mit uns" on their belt buckles. Do a web search for what that translation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suspect you failed to complete your education through the sixth grade, but grown ups are aware that as abominable as the slaughter of 14 million by Hitler was, it is dwarfed by the 200 million slaughtered by Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Ho, Pot, Kim. et al.
> 
> Junior High really would have helped you...
> 
> 
> 
> Yet all you can spew is mindless bigotry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ignorance on your part does make being clueless so much easier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the one ignorantly denying the slaughter of 200 million people, sploogy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does that come with a Jingle?
> 
> Your application for martyrdom is rejected. You weren't quite pompous enough. I am prepared however, to make you Queen for a Day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not the sharpest marshmallow in the bag, are you?
Click to expand...


My goodness, but you do know your slogans and cliches. 

Aside from your pointless, invented claims of "atheist killers", you never seem to be able to understand that Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Ho, Pot, Kim. et al. furthered political ideologies. Lack of religious affiliation was not the cause of their atrocities.

As usual, you're too lazy or too dishonest to actually compare the numbers killed by your religious heroes.


----------



## Hollie

Uncensored2008 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you see Americans would rather vote for a pot smoking cheater than they would an atheist?  Once that is not true anymore, I'll get less militant.  I really don't care unless I think that ignorant view is holding me or society back, which I do.  Stem cell & the way the Catholic church treated Galileo are just two of many examples.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 200 million dead in Atheist genocide, makes reasonable people not trust you...
> 
> 
> Oh and fetal stem cells were a bust, the stem cells used in ALL research is the last decade are harvested from adults. The ignorance appears to be on the part of those promoting non-viable technology.
> 
> Oh, and the AGW morons are the new Catholics, demanding "consensus" as a substitute for science.
Click to expand...


What atheist genocide? My, but you're an angry little boy.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Hollie said:


> What atheist genocide? My, but you're an angry little boy.



I realize that you are a zealot protecting your religion, but if you truly are unaware of the 200 million people slaughtered in the 20th century by Atheist dictators, then you are far too fucking stupid to bother with.

You probably think you're clever, but trust me, you're not....


----------



## Hollie

Hollie said:
			
		

> Here as usual, religious zealots such as boss presume a right to force their fundamentalist views on others.
> 
> The extremist religious nutters on one end of the spectrum mewl that a single fertilized cell is a person and advocate that the State seize control of the womb at that point.





Boss said:


> Hold on there, toots... can't let you get away with this. I don't have a "fundamentalist" view on abortion. My "political" solution to the issue of abortion is to allow states to determine the law for themselves.
> 
> My viewpoints are from a humanitarian and biological perspective and involve ethics, which you probably know little about. Human life begins at a successful conception, when the fused sperm/egg zygote produces another cell. Biology is very clear on this, and there is no other way to get around it. A unique human being has come to exist, and we all began like this. In order to have any kind of meaningful dialogue with the subject of abortion, this has to be established first.


Hold on, fundie zealot. As usual, your nonsensical "... because I say so", comments are false and basically pointless. A fused sperm/egg zygote is not a "baby".

Out-of-the-wallet-and-into-the-womb zealots appear hypocritical from my perspective. Most folks do not support State womb control before that stage of gestation where personhood has developed, and few believe in the extremist "instant baby" notion where conception produces a person instantaneously. 

People can believe whatever they choose to believe, but to evoke the coercive power of the State to impose their personal impression upon others is antithetical to the libertarian ideal.

Your extremist view and your desire to impose it upon others via state coercion is not the moral position of most Americans. If and when a fetus achieves a stage of development where it is sentient and viable, it is recognized as a person and entitled to legal protection. Before that stage, a person does not yet exist. and the State must respect the prerogatives of the individual upon whom the developing entity is dependent.




			
				HollieOn the other end said:
			
		

> boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as "personhood" it's a made-up word to get around killing human beings in the womb. If brain waves are the criteria for it, you're in real trouble, toots. Human beings develop all kinds of different abilities, some things may take well into adulthood to develop. And we all develop at different rates at different times. None of these things qualify us as human beings. There is no arbitrary "time" at which we become human beings, we are what we are from point of conception.
> 
> 
> 
> This has already been addressed in Roe v. Wade.
> 
> You can pretend that an acorn is an oak tree because it suits your fundamentalist agenda, but no rational person equates a microscopic, insentient human zygote with an actual person as you contrive to do. You would advocate maximal Statist intervention in the most personal of decisions.
> 
> Allowing governments such a tyrannical purview permits forced abortions for population control or to eliminate undesirable racial stock, and other such abuses. The presumption that a woman possesses both the moral dimension and vastly superior awareness of her own circumstances to make a superior decision to an impersonal State in such a profoundly personal matter is entirely reasonable; a moral conviction held by most Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Im actually comfortable with Roe v. Wade as a reasonable compromise. Roe v. Wade has nothing to say about "life" nor the definitive timetable under which 'viability' occurs. It's arguing the circumstances under which the state can claim to possess a compelling interest which over-rides the privacy rights of the mother- nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I am not comfortable with Roe because it ignores the right of the unborn. They ARE human beings residing in the United States... they weren't "born" here (yet) but like illegal immigrants, they still should have some constitutional protections. The state does have a compelling interest to protect the human rights of the unborn, but if the state doesn't, the people certainly should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Such stark simplicity does not pertain in such a complex matter. A fetus gradually becomes a human being, as we generally understand that term, during gestation.
> 
> During pregnancy there is a unique biological dependency of the fetus upon the woman. When the fetus achieves a stage of development that is no longer biologically depends upon the woman, a significant stage is achieved that informs regarding the matter. Her unique role significantly diminishes when that biological independence occurs. At an earlier stage, brain waves are, of course, an essential element of personhood.
> 
> It's clear to me that your wish is that your fundamentalist views be imposed by government upon women, whether they share your view or not. But recognize that extremists, particular males like you with negative view of women for whom the situation does not arise, who would dictate and force their personal belief upon women who are personally affected.
Click to expand...


----------



## Hollie

Uncensored2008 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What atheist genocide? My, but you're an angry little boy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I realize that you are a zealot protecting your religion, but if you truly are unaware of the 200 million people slaughtered in the 20th century by Atheist dictators, then you are far too fucking stupid to bother with.
> 
> You probably think you're clever, but trust me, you're not....
Click to expand...


Trust me, angry little man, protecting your religious beliefs with your nonsensical claims is a waste of time.


----------



## sealybobo

Hollie said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you see Americans would rather vote for a pot smoking cheater than they would an atheist?  Once that is not true anymore, I'll get less militant.  I really don't care unless I think that ignorant view is holding me or society back, which I do.  Stem cell & the way the Catholic church treated Galileo are just two of many examples.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 200 million dead in Atheist genocide, makes reasonable people not trust you...
> 
> 
> Oh and fetal stem cells were a bust, the stem cells used in ALL research is the last decade are harvested from adults. The ignorance appears to be on the part of those promoting non-viable technology.
> 
> Oh, and the AGW morons are the new Catholics, demanding "consensus" as a substitute for science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What atheist genocide? My, but you're an angry little boy.
Click to expand...


Maybe he's counting abortions?  All I know is life isn't so precious that we can't have abortions.  It's also not so precious that terminal people have to suffer.  That is another bone I have to pick with religion.  Another reason why I seem militant.  Because one day I could be laying in a hospital dying and I ask for a fatal dose of morphine and religious cock suckers get in my way and make me suffer needlessly because they say you can't take your own fucking life.  Why?  Because of an imaginary fucking guy in the sky?


----------



## Boss

sillyboob said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> *B: The fight is not going to be given up or over until you stop killing babies.*
> 
> Bossy, can you explain how using a condom is not an abortion or "killing babies" ? -
> 
> * not for men anyway ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought we already covered the birds and bees?
> 
> A male gamete cell known as the sperm is released during ejaculation while having intercourse with a female, who has a gamete egg cell. Until the two gamete cells fuse and reproduce cells, there is no unique human organism. The condom prevents the sperm from reaching the egg and creating a baby. But it isn't 100% effective, no birth control is, other than abstinence. Women take birth control pills which render the egg invalid, taking one of the gamete cells needed for reproduction out of the equation, so... no baby.
> 
> Now I realize some religions don't condone birth control, and some oppose you teaching our kids about such things without the expressed consent of the parent. Some people just don't like the idea of their tax money paying for birth control. But they are all lumped together as this big bad boogie-man who is going to somehow BAN contraception. Why do liberal idiots use such weak and pitiful conjecture to scare folks? No one is ever going to take away birth control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We need to pay for it.  Poor women who shouldn't be having kids but can't afford birth control if it isn't covered will end up getting pregnant and society will end up paying for it.  We already had this debate and settled this argument a long time ago.  But now catholics are acting like they are offended that they have to provide birth control.
> 
> No you aren't banning it.  You're just making it unaffordable for the people we need it the most.  It's like in red states who closed all abortion clinics but one in the state.  So people have to drive 2-5 hours go get an abortion.  Then the lying fucks say "see, we didn't ban abortion, what are you liberals talking about
Click to expand...


Who the fuck died and made you King? Save the "poor women" spiel, they are obviously too ignorant and uneducated to understand how making poor decisions about having sex and making babies is not good for them or society. Right? I mean, that's why you're arguing I should give a shit, right? Margaret Sanger was onto something when she made those "just a step higher than the chimpanzee with little sexual control" comments? 

Catholics shouldn't be forced to pay for or provide something they don't agree with. I personally don't think we should be forced to pay for anything we don't want. Reason # 1,287 Obamacare is a total clusterfuck. 

THEN... we suddenly jump from birth control (still legal in all 50 states, btw)... and we're on to ABORTION!  ....Abortion: The Leading Choice in Liberal Contraception! ...Yes, we have to rid the world of these "step above a chimp" people when they spawn their offspring.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> sillyboob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought we already covered the birds and bees?
> 
> A male gamete cell known as the sperm is released during ejaculation while having intercourse with a female, who has a gamete egg cell. Until the two gamete cells fuse and reproduce cells, there is no unique human organism. The condom prevents the sperm from reaching the egg and creating a baby. But it isn't 100% effective, no birth control is, other than abstinence. Women take birth control pills which render the egg invalid, taking one of the gamete cells needed for reproduction out of the equation, so... no baby.
> 
> Now I realize some religions don't condone birth control, and some oppose you teaching our kids about such things without the expressed consent of the parent. Some people just don't like the idea of their tax money paying for birth control. But they are all lumped together as this big bad boogie-man who is going to somehow BAN contraception. Why do liberal idiots use such weak and pitiful conjecture to scare folks? No one is ever going to take away birth control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We need to pay for it.  Poor women who shouldn't be having kids but can't afford birth control if it isn't covered will end up getting pregnant and society will end up paying for it.  We already had this debate and settled this argument a long time ago.  But now catholics are acting like they are offended that they have to provide birth control.
> 
> No you aren't banning it.  You're just making it unaffordable for the people we need it the most.  It's like in red states who closed all abortion clinics but one in the state.  So people have to drive 2-5 hours go get an abortion.  Then the lying fucks say "see, we didn't ban abortion, what are you liberals talking about
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who the fuck died and made you King? Save the "poor women" spiel, they are obviously too ignorant and uneducated to understand how making poor decisions about having sex and making babies is not good for them or society. Right? I mean, that's why you're arguing I should give a shit, right? Margaret Sanger was onto something when she made those "just a step higher than the chimpanzee with little sexual control" comments?
> 
> Catholics shouldn't be forced to pay for or provide something they don't agree with. I personally don't think we should be forced to pay for anything we don't want. Reason # 1,287 Obamacare is a total clusterfuck.
> 
> THEN... we suddenly jump from birth control (still legal in all 50 states, btw)... and we're on to ABORTION!  ....Abortion: The Leading Choice in Liberal Contraception! ...Yes, we have to rid the world of these "step above a chimp" people when they spawn their offspring.
Click to expand...


Well, not paying for anything we don't want is pretty much impossible.  There will always be people not wanting to pay for basic services that government really should be doing, like maintaining roads, paying for the military, etc.

I understand your argument, but it's a matter of degree rather than as black and white as 'if you don't want it, don't pay for it' IMO.

I think abortion should remain legal up to a certain point, but I'm fine with keeping government funds out of it.

And how the hell did we start arguing about abortion here?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Hollie said:


> Trust me, angry little man, protecting your religious beliefs with your nonsensical claims is a waste of time.



You should have finished 4th grade.

Seriously....


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> sillyboob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought we already covered the birds and bees?
> 
> A male gamete cell known as the sperm is released during ejaculation while having intercourse with a female, who has a gamete egg cell. Until the two gamete cells fuse and reproduce cells, there is no unique human organism. The condom prevents the sperm from reaching the egg and creating a baby. But it isn't 100% effective, no birth control is, other than abstinence. Women take birth control pills which render the egg invalid, taking one of the gamete cells needed for reproduction out of the equation, so... no baby.
> 
> Now I realize some religions don't condone birth control, and some oppose you teaching our kids about such things without the expressed consent of the parent. Some people just don't like the idea of their tax money paying for birth control. But they are all lumped together as this big bad boogie-man who is going to somehow BAN contraception. Why do liberal idiots use such weak and pitiful conjecture to scare folks? No one is ever going to take away birth control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We need to pay for it.  Poor women who shouldn't be having kids but can't afford birth control if it isn't covered will end up getting pregnant and society will end up paying for it.  We already had this debate and settled this argument a long time ago.  But now catholics are acting like they are offended that they have to provide birth control.
> 
> No you aren't banning it.  You're just making it unaffordable for the people we need it the most.  It's like in red states who closed all abortion clinics but one in the state.  So people have to drive 2-5 hours go get an abortion.  Then the lying fucks say "see, we didn't ban abortion, what are you liberals talking about
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who the fuck died and made you King? Save the "poor women" spiel, they are obviously too ignorant and uneducated to understand how making poor decisions about having sex and making babies is not good for them or society. Right? I mean, that's why you're arguing I should give a shit, right? Margaret Sanger was onto something when she made those "just a step higher than the chimpanzee with little sexual control" comments?
> 
> Catholics shouldn't be forced to pay for or provide something they don't agree with. I personally don't think we should be forced to pay for anything we don't want. Reason # 1,287 Obamacare is a total clusterfuck.
> 
> THEN... we suddenly jump from birth control (still legal in all 50 states, btw)... and we're on to ABORTION!  ....Abortion: The Leading Choice in Liberal Contraception! ...Yes, we have to rid the world of these "step above a chimp" people when they spawn their offspring.
Click to expand...


Do us a favor, bossie. Make a list of the things you and Catholics shouldn't be "forced" to pay for.


----------



## Uncensored2008

sealybobo said:


> Maybe he's counting abortions?  All I know is life isn't so precious that we can't have abortions.  It's also not so precious that terminal people have to suffer.  That is another bone I have to pick with religion.  Another reason why I seem militant.  Because one day I could be laying in a hospital dying and I ask for a fatal dose of morphine and religious cock suckers get in my way and make me suffer needlessly because they say you can't take your own fucking life.  Why?  Because of an imaginary fucking guy in the sky?



I'm curious, do you think that ignoring reality will alter it? I've run into you holocaust deniers before, but I don't grasp your utter stupidity. Do you think lying about history will rewrite it.

Murder By Government--Democide

I don't see you as having much credibility to start with, giving the bigotry you display with your anti-Christian rants - but when you deny the slaughter of the Kulaks, the purges, the killing fields, the cultural revolution, etc., well, you can't really claim to be sane, now can you?


----------



## Hollie

Uncensored2008 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trust me, angry little man, protecting your religious beliefs with your nonsensical claims is a waste of time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should have finished 4th grade.
> 
> Seriously....
Click to expand...


Short man complex?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Hollie said:


> Short man complex?



Is Atheism a religion for stupid people? Or are you "special?"


----------



## Hollie

Uncensored2008 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Short man complex?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is Atheism a religion for stupid people? Or are you "special?"
Click to expand...


Agreed, you're suffering from the debilitating disease of short man complex.


----------



## Boss

HollieAirhead said:


> Hold on, fundie zealot. As usual, your nonsensical "... because I say so", comments are false and basically pointless. A fused sperm/egg zygote is not a "baby".
> 
> ..... that _*stage of gestation where personhood has developed*_, and few believe in the extremist "instant baby" notion where conception produces a person instantaneously.
> 
> If and when a fetus *achieves a stage of development where it is sentient and viable*, it is recognized as a person and entitled to legal protection. Before that stage, a person does not yet exist. and the State must respect the prerogatives of the individual upon whom the developing entity is dependent.
> 
> During pregnancy there is a unique biological dependency of the fetus upon the woman. When the fetus *achieves a stage of development that is no longer biologically depends upon the woman*, a significant stage is achieved that informs regarding the matter. Her unique role significantly diminishes when that biological independence occurs. At an earlier stage, brain waves are, of course, an essential element of personhood.
> 
> You can pretend that an acorn is an oak tree because it suits your fundamentalist agenda, but no rational person equates a microscopic, insentient human zygote with an actual person as you contrive to do.



Okay, it looks like you've established a double criteria here. This undefined "thing" or "clump-o-cells" has grown and developed into something that clearly resembles a small infant baby of a human being... but it has to meet a couple more "criteria" to qualify, in your mind? Now this is really rich... it has to be "sentient" but you're not "sentient" half the time here! And then it has to possess "viability" as well, whatever that is supposed to mean. 

Seems I was about 12 or 13 before I felt confident enough to declare my independence from Mom. If being dependent of the host organism is the criteria, maybe moms have the right to terminate those pesky annoying pre-teens? 

But I am curious... before this "clump" has accomplished "personhood" what kind of organism is it? Because it seems as if we're talking about the same living human organism, which does exist already in state of being, so... human being. Now, what stage of development that human has achieved is a different matter, and I understand the point you were trying to make. 



> People can believe whatever they choose to believe



That's right, and if you choose to believe something is okay because you've devised a word to make it be that way, that's your prerogative as well. Unfortunately, there are many women in this country who are talked into abortion with "personhood" type rhetoric, only to realize what a morally horrible thing they did. The abortion mills don't tell them about that part. Living with yourself afterward.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Hollie said:


> Agreed,



What are you agreeing with? The voices in your head? 




> you're suffering from the debilitating disease of short man complex.



What's sad is this really is the best you can do.. 

So, were you born retarded, or did you suffer severe brain trauma?

I'm just curious.....


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> HollieAirhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hold on, fundie zealot. As usual, your nonsensical "... because I say so", comments are false and basically pointless. A fused sperm/egg zygote is not a "baby".
> 
> ..... that _*stage of gestation where personhood has developed*_, and few believe in the extremist "instant baby" notion where conception produces a person instantaneously.
> 
> If and when a fetus *achieves a stage of development where it is sentient and viable*, it is recognized as a person and entitled to legal protection. Before that stage, a person does not yet exist. and the State must respect the prerogatives of the individual upon whom the developing entity is dependent.
> 
> During pregnancy there is a unique biological dependency of the fetus upon the woman. When the fetus *achieves a stage of development that is no longer biologically depends upon the woman*, a significant stage is achieved that informs regarding the matter. Her unique role significantly diminishes when that biological independence occurs. At an earlier stage, brain waves are, of course, an essential element of personhood.
> 
> You can pretend that an acorn is an oak tree because it suits your fundamentalist agenda, but no rational person equates a microscopic, insentient human zygote with an actual person as you contrive to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, it looks like you've established a double criteria here. This undefined "thing" or "clump-o-cells" has grown and developed into something that clearly resembles a small infant baby of a human being... but it has to meet a couple more "criteria" to qualify, in your mind? Now this is really rich... it has to be "sentient" but you're not "sentient" half the time here! And then it has to possess "viability" as well, whatever that is supposed to mean.
> 
> Seems I was about 12 or 13 before I felt confident enough to declare my independence from Mom. If being dependent of the host organism is the criteria, maybe moms have the right to terminate those pesky annoying pre-teens?
> 
> But I am curious... before this "clump" has accomplished "personhood" what kind of organism is it? Because it seems as if we're talking about the same living human organism, which does exist already in state of being, so... human being. Now, what stage of development that human has achieved is a different matter, and I understand the point you were trying to make.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People can believe whatever they choose to believe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's right, and if you choose to believe something is okay because you've devised a word to make it be that way, that's your prerogative as well. Unfortunately, there are many women in this country who are talked into abortion with "personhood" type rhetoric, only to realize what a morally horrible thing they did. The abortion mills don't tell them about that part. Living with yourself afterward.
Click to expand...


Sorry, bossie. Your whining has already been presented by arguments previously made by extremists. 

Read the decision surrounding Roe v. Wade


----------



## Hollie

Uncensored2008 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are you agreeing with? The voices in your head?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you're suffering from the debilitating disease of short man complex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's sad is this really is the best you can do..
> 
> So, were you born retarded, or did you suffer severe brain trauma?
> 
> I'm just curious.....
Click to expand...


You can get help for the emotional damage you inflict on yourself due to short man complex.


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Well, not paying for anything we don't want is pretty much impossible.  There will always be people not wanting to pay for basic services that government really should be doing, like maintaining roads, paying for the military, etc.
> 
> I understand your argument, but it's a matter of degree rather than as black and white as 'if you don't want it, don't pay for it' IMO.
> 
> I think abortion should remain legal up to a certain point, but I'm fine with keeping government funds out of it.
> 
> And how the hell did we start arguing about abortion here?



I just meant in the philosophical sense, humans should have freedom to decide what they will or will not pay for. I don't have a problem with basic services from government but I think that should be determined by the people and more at the state and local level. Washington D.C. has way too much control on our freedoms. 

Why are we talking abortion? She reared her ugly head as always.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Hollie said:


> You can get help for the emotional damage you inflict on yourself due to short man complex.



I take it you go to a special school on a short bus?

And this folks, is the epitome to the intellect of the left....


----------



## HUGGY

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, not paying for anything we don't want is pretty much impossible.  There will always be people not wanting to pay for basic services that government really should be doing, like maintaining roads, paying for the military, etc.
> 
> I understand your argument, but it's a matter of degree rather than as black and white as 'if you don't want it, don't pay for it' IMO.
> 
> I think abortion should remain legal up to a certain point, but I'm fine with keeping government funds out of it.
> 
> And how the hell did we start arguing about abortion here?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just meant in the philosophical sense, humans should have freedom to decide what they will or will not pay for. I don't have a problem with basic services from government but I think that should be determined by the people and more at the state and local level. Washington D.C. has way too much control on our freedoms.
> 
> Why are we talking abortion? She reared her ugly head as always.
Click to expand...


I don't like giving religists tax exempt status.  How much would the government collect each year if religions had to pay the same taxes as the rest of us?  How about we have a box in tax forms where fundis can opt out of paying for abortions and those that don't object can pay for them.  I'm certain there would be plenty of money for abortions.


----------



## HUGGY

Uncensored2008 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can get help for the emotional damage you inflict on yourself due to short man complex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I take it you go to a special school on a short bus?
> 
> And this folks, is the epitome to the intellect of the left....
Click to expand...


Intelligent people don't make up fairy tales to explain things that are not fully understood.


----------



## Hollie

Uncensored2008 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can get help for the emotional damage you inflict on yourself due to short man complex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I take it you go to a special school on a short bus?
> 
> And this folks, is the epitome to the intellect of the left....
Click to expand...


Such anger from such a shortstop.


----------



## Uncensored2008

HUGGY said:


> Intelligent people don't make up fairy tales to explain things that are not fully understood.



Be honest, how much pot have you smoked today?

You don't even know what the subject is, Rev. Jim - much less what the answer is...


----------



## Uncensored2008

Hollie said:


> Such anger from such a shortstop.



You're too stupid to be fun - no point in trouncing you...


----------



## Hollie

Uncensored2008 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Intelligent people don't make up fairy tales to explain things that are not fully understood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Be honest, how much pot have you smoked today?
> 
> You don't even know what the subject is, Rev. Jim - much less what the answer is...
Click to expand...


Commenting on what you know nothing of actually defines your nonsensical babbling.


----------



## Hollie

Uncensored2008 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Such anger from such a shortstop.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're too stupid to be fun - no point in trouncing you...
Click to expand...


Ah. An internet tough guy. Pretty typical for those with short man complex.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

HUGGY said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can get help for the emotional damage you inflict on yourself due to short man complex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I take it you go to a special school on a short bus?
> 
> And this folks, is the epitome to the intellect of the left....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Intelligent people don't make up fairy tales to explain things that are not fully understood.
Click to expand...


True.


----------



## HUGGY

Uncensored2008 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Intelligent people don't make up fairy tales to explain things that are not fully understood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Be honest, how much pot have you smoked today?
> 
> You don't even know what the subject is, Rev. Jim - much less what the answer is...
Click to expand...


I don't consume illegal drugs.. or pot.  Your feeble attempt to hijack this thread with lame insults won't work.


----------



## Hollie

HUGGY said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can get help for the emotional damage you inflict on yourself due to short man complex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I take it you go to a special school on a short bus?
> 
> And this folks, is the epitome to the intellect of the left....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Intelligent people don't make up fairy tales to explain things that are not fully understood.
Click to expand...


Making up supernatural entities to explain things that were not fully understood defines most every religion ever invented.

What is an effective way to get someone to believe as you wish for them to? FEAR. Scare the hell out of him. Tell the people that evilutionists are on a paved road to hell...., tell people that leaving the faith will cause god(s) to abandon them (and back up those threats with Mafioso enforcers), and you will deter them (for a time) until they LEARN better.


----------



## GISMYS

WE HAVE ENOUGH PROOF,YOU CAN STOP POSTING MORE PROOF!!!=-==ALMIGHTY GOD says atheist are FOOLS!!! 

That man is a fool who says to himself, &#8220;There is no God!&#8221; Anyone who talks like that is warped and evil and cannot really be a good person at all.Psalm 14:1===Only a fool would say to himself, &#8220;There is no God.&#8221; And why does he say it? Because of his wicked heart, his dark and evil deeds. His life is corroded with sin. PSALM 53:1 and you???


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sillyboob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought we already covered the birds and bees?
> 
> A male gamete cell known as the sperm is released during ejaculation while having intercourse with a female, who has a gamete egg cell. Until the two gamete cells fuse and reproduce cells, there is no unique human organism. The condom prevents the sperm from reaching the egg and creating a baby. But it isn't 100% effective, no birth control is, other than abstinence. Women take birth control pills which render the egg invalid, taking one of the gamete cells needed for reproduction out of the equation, so... no baby.
> 
> Now I realize some religions don't condone birth control, and some oppose you teaching our kids about such things without the expressed consent of the parent. Some people just don't like the idea of their tax money paying for birth control. But they are all lumped together as this big bad boogie-man who is going to somehow BAN contraception. Why do liberal idiots use such weak and pitiful conjecture to scare folks? No one is ever going to take away birth control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We need to pay for it.  Poor women who shouldn't be having kids but can't afford birth control if it isn't covered will end up getting pregnant and society will end up paying for it.  We already had this debate and settled this argument a long time ago.  But now catholics are acting like they are offended that they have to provide birth control.
> 
> No you aren't banning it.  You're just making it unaffordable for the people we need it the most.  It's like in red states who closed all abortion clinics but one in the state.  So people have to drive 2-5 hours go get an abortion.  Then the lying fucks say "see, we didn't ban abortion, what are you liberals talking about
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who the fuck died and made you King? Save the "poor women" spiel, they are obviously too ignorant and uneducated to understand how making poor decisions about having sex and making babies is not good for them or society. Right? I mean, that's why you're arguing I should give a shit, right? Margaret Sanger was onto something when she made those "just a step higher than the chimpanzee with little sexual control" comments?
> 
> Catholics shouldn't be forced to pay for or provide something they don't agree with. I personally don't think we should be forced to pay for anything we don't want. Reason # 1,287 Obamacare is a total clusterfuck.
> 
> THEN... we suddenly jump from birth control (still legal in all 50 states, btw)... and we're on to ABORTION!  ....Abortion: The Leading Choice in Liberal Contraception! ...Yes, we have to rid the world of these "step above a chimp" people when they spawn their offspring.
Click to expand...


Sorry you hate it but it's a necessary evil.  I'm sure you sleep just fine at night after babies get aborted just like you sleep just fine as thousands of people die of hunger every day yet you drive a car that cost how much?  Why not instead of you driving a $50K car why don't you buy a $20K car and give the $30K to poor people?  Until you are ready to do that, shut the fuck up.  That's all poor people have is dicks and pussies.  They got nothing else to do so they fuck.  And sometimes they don't even have enough money for a rubber.  Do you want these fools having babies?  Doesn't matter what you want.  Society wants abortion to be an option for them.  If you can't understand that, keep your brain out of your ass.  They'll keep their dicks in their pants when you pull your head out of your ass.  

And yes we do want to pay for abortions.  This is just you guys trying to chip away at what society has already decided.  This is what people get.  They voted Democrat in 2008 and 2012 but they didn't show up for midterms and they allowed Republicans to become governors of their states.  But did anyone ask them to start chipping away at Roe V Wade?  Not enough of us, yet they act like they have a mandate.  If the GOP really cared what people thought they'd put it on a ballot initiative but they don't.  Instead they are sneaking that shit in.  Slimy bastards.

Sorry Catholic churches/hospitals but if you want to be in the healthcare game you have to pay for rubbers and birth control.


----------



## sealybobo

Uncensored2008 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe he's counting abortions?  All I know is life isn't so precious that we can't have abortions.  It's also not so precious that terminal people have to suffer.  That is another bone I have to pick with religion.  Another reason why I seem militant.  Because one day I could be laying in a hospital dying and I ask for a fatal dose of morphine and religious cock suckers get in my way and make me suffer needlessly because they say you can't take your own fucking life.  Why?  Because of an imaginary fucking guy in the sky?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm curious, do you think that ignoring reality will alter it? I've run into you holocaust deniers before, but I don't grasp your utter stupidity. Do you think lying about history will rewrite it.
> 
> Murder By Government--Democide
> 
> I don't see you as having much credibility to start with, giving the bigotry you display with your anti-Christian rants - but when you deny the slaughter of the Kulaks, the purges, the killing fields, the cultural revolution, etc., well, you can't really claim to be sane, now can you?
Click to expand...


Go fucking ask some German's if the German society during ww1 or 2 was Christian or Atheist.  If they say they were an atheist society then I'll admit I was wrong.  If they were all christians, and they were, then you can suck satans dick, ok?


----------



## GISMYS

YES!!!=" Society wants abortion to be an option for them" BUT THE WANTS OF SOCIETY OR NOT RIGHTS,WHO  is protecting the rights of the unborn little baby?


----------



## sealybobo

Uncensored2008 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Short man complex?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is Atheism a religion for stupid people? Or are you "special?"
Click to expand...


Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.  Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. 

It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods.  

Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.

Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organisation or church. It fulfills none of the criteria that define a religion. 

Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism, including any supernatural elements unrelated to a god. Common among many atheists, however, is an appreciation for secularism, rationalism, humanism, skepticism, naturalism, materialism and freethinking  none of which are implicit or derived from atheism, nor necessary in order to lack belief.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> YES!!!=" Society wants abortion to be an option for them" BUT THE WANTS OF SOCIETY OR NOT RIGHTS,WHO  is protecting the rights of the unborn little baby?



We're just putting them on the fast track to heaven.  What do they want to come to this shit hole when heaven is awaiting?


----------



## sealybobo

Uncensored2008 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Intelligent people don't make up fairy tales to explain things that are not fully understood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Be honest, how much pot have you smoked today?
> 
> You don't even know what the subject is, Rev. Jim - much less what the answer is...
Click to expand...


I love pot.  3 j's a day


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> YES!!!=" Society wants abortion to be an option for them" BUT THE WANTS OF SOCIETY OR NOT RIGHTS,WHO  is protecting the rights of the unborn little baby?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're just putting them on the fast track to heaven.  What do they want to come to this shit hole when heaven is awaiting?
Click to expand...


why are you still here???


----------



## sealybobo

HUGGY said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can get help for the emotional damage you inflict on yourself due to short man complex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I take it you go to a special school on a short bus?
> 
> And this folks, is the epitome to the intellect of the left....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Intelligent people don't make up fairy tales to explain things that are not fully understood.
Click to expand...


People say, "People a lot smarter that you believe in god!"

The validity of a claim, such as the existence of god, is not governed by the intelligence of the minds which hold it. Evidence and reason are the deciding factors.

Sir Isaac Newton, one of historys greatest scientists, was not only intensely religious but also believed in alchemical transmutation. Alchemy is, however, fully incorrect given our modern understanding of chemistry, the atom and nucleosynthysis.

The fact that an intelligent person holds an irrational belief is simply evidence that our brains are able to compartmentalise world-views and models from one another, usually in order to maintain a state of ignorant bliss and escape the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.


----------



## Boss

> it's a necessary evil...They got nothing else to do so they fuck...Do you want these fools having babies? They'll keep their dicks in their pants when you pull your head out of your ass.



Sorry you have such negative regard for poor people. No, they won't keep dicks in pants if I change my viewpoint, you've already determined they are poor, therefore fools who can't possibly control themselves. So they will still be doing it, with condoms I paid for and they forgot to wear.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> YES!!!=" Society wants abortion to be an option for them" BUT THE WANTS OF SOCIETY OR NOT RIGHTS,WHO  is protecting the rights of the unborn little baby?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're just putting them on the fast track to heaven.  What do they want to come to this shit hole when heaven is awaiting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> why are you still here???
Click to expand...


Because my parents didn't abort and because I don't believe there is a heaven.  I also don't believe that life is so precious that we can't abort.  If there is no heaven who gives a fuck if you abort a seed before they are born?


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're just putting them on the fast track to heaven.  What do they want to come to this shit hole when heaven is awaiting?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why are you still here???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because my parents didn't abort and because I don't believe there is a heaven.  I also don't believe that life is so precious that we can't abort.  If there is no heaven who gives a fuck if you abort a seed before they are born?
Click to expand...


IT IS NOT TOO LATE!!! Why not do what you suport?? The food you ate today could have gone to someone much more worthy!!!


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> why are you still here???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because my parents didn't abort and because I don't believe there is a heaven.  I also don't believe that life is so precious that we can't abort.  If there is no heaven who gives a fuck if you abort a seed before they are born?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IT IS NOT TOO LATE!!! Why not do what you suport?? The food you ate today could have gone to someone much more worthy!!!
Click to expand...


Worthy has nothing to do with it.  In fact, if there was a god, he'd take guys like me and leave the little aborted babies alone.  But he doesn't, because there is no god.  Who lives and who dies is determined randomly by what country they are born in, how much money their parents have, if they have healthcare, war, etc.  People die every day.  I feel bad about that.  But I don't feel bad about seeds being aborted in the first trimester.  BFD.  Like squashing a mosquito.

But I am a living human being.  I do value human living life.  If you are a human on this planet, you shouldn't suffer or be in poverty or die of a disease that should be curable if you only had money.  But you christians let people die needlessly every day.  Count to 3.  Someone just died of starvation.  Count to 3 again.  Someone was just aborted.  BFD.  If there is no god, so what?  Too many people on this planet to begin with.  Like I said, I wish the rapture/end of days would come and take all you christians to heaven/jesus.  Bye bye!


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because my parents didn't abort and because I don't believe there is a heaven.  I also don't believe that life is so precious that we can't abort.  If there is no heaven who gives a fuck if you abort a seed before they are born?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IT IS NOT TOO LATE!!! Why not do what you suport?? The food you ate today could have gone to someone much more worthy!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Worthy has nothing to do with it.  In fact, if there was a god, he'd take guys like me and leave the little aborted babies alone.  But he doesn't, because there is no god.  Who lives and who dies is determined randomly by what country they are born in, how much money their parents have, if they have healthcare, war, etc.  People die every day.  I feel bad about that.  But I don't feel bad about seeds being aborted in the first trimester.  BFD.  Like squashing a mosquito.
> 
> But I am a living human being.  I do value human living life.  If you are a human on this planet, you shouldn't suffer or be in poverty or die of a disease that should be curable if you only had money.  But you christians let people die needlessly every day.  Count to 3.  Someone just died of starvation.  Count to 3 again.  Someone was just aborted.  BFD.  If there is no god, so what?  Too many people on this planet to begin with.  Like I said, I wish the rapture/end of days would come and take all you christians to heaven/jesus.  Bye bye!
Click to expand...


ONLY FOOLS SAY THERE IS NO GOD!!!AND YOU?? GOD DID NOT TAKE THE LIFE OF THE UNBORN, evil man did that and you supported it!!! There was no suffering hunger,proverty,sickness and death until evil man chose to reject God and GOD'S LOVE and live in his sins!!


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> IT IS NOT TOO LATE!!! Why not do what you suport?? The food you ate today could have gone to someone much more worthy!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Worthy has nothing to do with it.  In fact, if there was a god, he'd take guys like me and leave the little aborted babies alone.  But he doesn't, because there is no god.  Who lives and who dies is determined randomly by what country they are born in, how much money their parents have, if they have healthcare, war, etc.  People die every day.  I feel bad about that.  But I don't feel bad about seeds being aborted in the first trimester.  BFD.  Like squashing a mosquito.
> 
> But I am a living human being.  I do value human living life.  If you are a human on this planet, you shouldn't suffer or be in poverty or die of a disease that should be curable if you only had money.  But you christians let people die needlessly every day.  Count to 3.  Someone just died of starvation.  Count to 3 again.  Someone was just aborted.  BFD.  If there is no god, so what?  Too many people on this planet to begin with.  Like I said, I wish the rapture/end of days would come and take all you christians to heaven/jesus.  Bye bye!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ONLY FOOLS SAY THERE IS NO GOD!!!AND YOU?? GOD DID NOT TAKE THE LIFE OF THE UNBORN, evil man did that and you supported it!!! There was no suffering hunger,proverty,sickness and death until evil man chose to reject God and GOD'S LOVE and live in his sins!!
Click to expand...


Some of the smartest men on earth (agnostic atheist scientists) say based on all the evidence there is probably no god.  99.9% sure.  100% sure your god is fake.  

You guys like to say that tornado's and hurricanes happen to people in Blue states because we are godless well every time I see tornado's and hurricane's wrecking christian lives in red states I wonder what you guys did to make god so mad.  

There has always been suffering, hunger, sickness and death.  When we were just monkey's that shit happened.  Long before we invented religion.  In fact these are the reasons why we invented religion.  They said it was paradise on earth until we sinned and then god gave us disease, sickness, death, murder, rape, etc.  He's a sick fuck huh?


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Worthy has nothing to do with it.  In fact, if there was a god, he'd take guys like me and leave the little aborted babies alone.  But he doesn't, because there is no god.  Who lives and who dies is determined randomly by what country they are born in, how much money their parents have, if they have healthcare, war, etc.  People die every day.  I feel bad about that.  But I don't feel bad about seeds being aborted in the first trimester.  BFD.  Like squashing a mosquito.
> 
> But I am a living human being.  I do value human living life.  If you are a human on this planet, you shouldn't suffer or be in poverty or die of a disease that should be curable if you only had money.  But you christians let people die needlessly every day.  Count to 3.  Someone just died of starvation.  Count to 3 again.  Someone was just aborted.  BFD.  If there is no god, so what?  Too many people on this planet to begin with.  Like I said, I wish the rapture/end of days would come and take all you christians to heaven/jesus.  Bye bye!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ONLY FOOLS SAY THERE IS NO GOD!!!AND YOU?? GOD DID NOT TAKE THE LIFE OF THE UNBORN, evil man did that and you supported it!!! There was no suffering hunger,proverty,sickness and death until evil man chose to reject God and GOD'S LOVE and live in his sins!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some of the smartest men on earth (agnostic atheist scientists) say based on all the evidence there is probably no god.  99.9% sure.  100% sure your god is fake.
> 
> You guys like to say that tornado's and hurricanes happen to people in Blue states because we are godless well every time I see tornado's and hurricane's wrecking christian lives in red states I wonder what you guys did to make god so mad.
> 
> There has always been suffering, hunger, sickness and death.  When we were just monkey's that shit happened.  Long before we invented religion.  In fact these are the reasons why we invented religion.  They said it was paradise on earth until we sinned and then god gave us disease, sickness, death, murder, rape, etc.  He's a sick fuck huh?
Click to expand...


WRONG AGAIN!!! SATAN is on earth to kill and destroy, NOT GOD. Sickness,pain,death is the ""RESULT"" OF SIN, NOT GOD!!!


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> ONLY FOOLS SAY THERE IS NO GOD!!!AND YOU?? GOD DID NOT TAKE THE LIFE OF THE UNBORN, evil man did that and you supported it!!! There was no suffering hunger,proverty,sickness and death until evil man chose to reject God and GOD'S LOVE and live in his sins!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of the smartest men on earth (agnostic atheist scientists) say based on all the evidence there is probably no god.  99.9% sure.  100% sure your god is fake.
> 
> You guys like to say that tornado's and hurricanes happen to people in Blue states because we are godless well every time I see tornado's and hurricane's wrecking christian lives in red states I wonder what you guys did to make god so mad.
> 
> There has always been suffering, hunger, sickness and death.  When we were just monkey's that shit happened.  Long before we invented religion.  In fact these are the reasons why we invented religion.  They said it was paradise on earth until we sinned and then god gave us disease, sickness, death, murder, rape, etc.  He's a sick fuck huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WRONG AGAIN!!! SATAN is on earth to kill and destroy, NOT GOD. Sickness,pain,death is the ""RESULT"" OF SIN, NOT GOD!!!
Click to expand...


I saw a baby seal suffering/starving/dying of a desease.  What sin did that baby seal do?  Sickness, pain and death are just a part of life.  When you are dead it's over.  No heaven.

Didn't Bush start the Iraq war?  How many died?  So satin is in control of Bush?  I thought he was a christian?  Is Satin the master of stupid because if he is he's definately in control of you.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some of the smartest men on earth (agnostic atheist scientists) say based on all the evidence there is probably no god.  99.9% sure.  100% sure your god is fake.
> 
> You guys like to say that tornado's and hurricanes happen to people in Blue states because we are godless well every time I see tornado's and hurricane's wrecking christian lives in red states I wonder what you guys did to make god so mad.
> 
> There has always been suffering, hunger, sickness and death.  When we were just monkey's that shit happened.  Long before we invented religion.  In fact these are the reasons why we invented religion.  They said it was paradise on earth until we sinned and then god gave us disease, sickness, death, murder, rape, etc.  He's a sick fuck huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WRONG AGAIN!!! SATAN is on earth to kill and destroy, NOT GOD. Sickness,pain,death is the ""RESULT"" OF SIN, NOT GOD!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I saw a baby seal suffering/starving/dying of a desease.  What sin did that baby seal do?  Sickness, pain and death are just a part of life.  When you are dead it's over.  No heaven.
> 
> Didn't Bush start the Iraq war?  How many died?  So satin is in control of Bush?  I thought he was a christian?  Is Satin the master of stupid because if he is he's definately in control of you.
Click to expand...


MUST I TELL YOU EVERYTHING???????????? ALL CREATION WAS RUINED BY MAN'S CHOICE TO LIVE IN SIN AND REJECT GOD'S LOVE!!! GOD SAYS EVEN THE EARTH MOANS UNDER THE LOAD OF SIN NOW ON EARTH!!! Now wise up!!!


----------



## hotpotato

I wonder who created Satan?


----------



## GISMYS

hotpotato said:


> I wonder who created Satan?



SATAN WAS CREATED AS A ANGEL but he let his desire for power AND HIS PRIDE cause him to reject GOD and try to take GOD'S PLACE.


----------



## hotpotato

God's fault then! Bit of poor angel making!


----------



## GISMYS

hotpotato said:


> God's fault then! Bit of poor angel making!



non-thinker!!! you would not look so ignorant if you did not try to debate what you know nothing about!!!! GOD CREATED ANGELS AND MEN WITH FREE WILL, GOD WILL NOT FORCE YOU TO ACCEPT HIS LOVE,BLESSINGS,PROTECTION, YOU ARE FREE to chose hell!!!


----------



## hotpotato

GISMYS said:


> hotpotato said:
> 
> 
> 
> God's fault then! Bit of poor angel making!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> non-thinker!!! you would not look so ignorant if you did not try to debate what you know nothing about!!!! GOD CREATED ANGELS AND MEN WITH FREE WILL, GOD WILL NOT FORCE YOU TO ACCEPT HIS LOVE,BLESSINGS,PROTECTION, YOU ARE FREE to chose hell!!!
Click to expand...


God created both man and angels with free will! Like I said gods fault!


----------



## HUGGY

Here is a scary thought....

There are elected officials in our congress that believe in the exact same way as Jizzmo.

If there ever was a reason to stop electing christian fundamentalists..

It is all within Jizzy's posts.

If there ever was a reason to resist and persist...


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> WRONG AGAIN!!! SATAN is on earth to kill and destroy, NOT GOD. Sickness,pain,death is the ""RESULT"" OF SIN, NOT GOD!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I saw a baby seal suffering/starving/dying of a desease.  What sin did that baby seal do?  Sickness, pain and death are just a part of life.  When you are dead it's over.  No heaven.
> 
> Didn't Bush start the Iraq war?  How many died?  So satin is in control of Bush?  I thought he was a christian?  Is Satin the master of stupid because if he is he's definately in control of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> MUST I TELL YOU EVERYTHING???????????? ALL CREATION WAS RUINED BY MAN'S CHOICE TO LIVE IN SIN AND REJECT GOD'S LOVE!!! GOD SAYS EVEN THE EARTH MOANS UNDER THE LOAD OF SIN NOW ON EARTH!!! Now wise up!!!
Click to expand...


That is the story our ancestors told sitting around a camp fire 7000 years ago when they just evolved from apes and you still believe?  You are the argument against evolution.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> hotpotato said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder who created Satan?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SATAN WAS CREATED AS A ANGEL but he let his desire for power AND HIS PRIDE cause him to reject GOD and try to take GOD'S PLACE.
Click to expand...


How many angels are there?  What are their names?  What do they do all day?  Do they fly around the earth and save people?  Why doesn't god create more of them?  Why did he create any of them?  Where do they live?  On earth along with the rest of us when they aren't saving the faithful?  What kind of sick game is god playing?  Can you or I become an angel?  What is the difference between angels and people in heaven?  What can they do that the rest can't?  So it's paradise for us but angels have to fly around saving dumb asses from their fate?  Did you ever see an angel?  How come this shit isn't taught in school?  Because it's BULLSHIT.  

Sorry to burst your bubble


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hotpotato said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder who created Satan?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SATAN WAS CREATED AS A ANGEL but he let his desire for power AND HIS PRIDE cause him to reject GOD and try to take GOD'S PLACE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many angels are there?  What are their names?  What do they do all day?  Do they fly around the earth and save people?  Why doesn't god create more of them?  Why did he create any of them?  Where do they live?  On earth along with the rest of us when they aren't saving the faithful?  What kind of sick game is god playing?  Can you or I become an angel?  What is the difference between angels and people in heaven?  What can they do that the rest can't?  So it's paradise for us but angels have to fly around saving dumb asses from their fate?  Did you ever see an angel?  How come this shit isn't taught in school?  Because it's BULLSHIT.
> 
> Sorry to burst your bubble
Click to expand...


LOL!!! YOU GOT A LOT TO LEARN!!! HUH??? What effort have you made to learn?? Do you just ask ignorant questions and expect others to do the work??


----------



## sealybobo

HUGGY said:


> Here is a scary thought....
> 
> There are elected officials in our congress that believe in the exact same way as Jizzmo.
> 
> If there ever was a reason to stop electing christian fundamentalists..
> 
> It is all within Jizzy's posts.
> 
> If there ever was a reason to resist and persist...



This is why I push their buttons.  Like Tom Cruise did to Jack Nicholson in a few good men.  I want them to say what they really mean.  No sugarcoating it, which is what Christy, Jeb Bush, Rubio, Paul Ryan and Rick Snyder are doing.  They haven't changed their positions, just the way they say things.  

So either you believe abortion is murder or you do not.  The reason I bring this up is because the other day a con tried to say they weren't trying to ban abortion, just not pay for it.  

Besides that being stupid because if they don't pay then they'll pay welfare and foodstamps and they clearly don't want to pay for that so abortion is a necessary evil because of their conservative philosophy on how to deal with the poor.  Note their approach would/does/is also leading to increased crime because we can't afford the number of police we need to police Detroit.


----------



## Mad_Cabbie

Why would people hate something that they don't believe in?


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> SATAN WAS CREATED AS A ANGEL but he let his desire for power AND HIS PRIDE cause him to reject GOD and try to take GOD'S PLACE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many angels are there?  What are their names?  What do they do all day?  Do they fly around the earth and save people?  Why doesn't god create more of them?  Why did he create any of them?  Where do they live?  On earth along with the rest of us when they aren't saving the faithful?  What kind of sick game is god playing?  Can you or I become an angel?  What is the difference between angels and people in heaven?  What can they do that the rest can't?  So it's paradise for us but angels have to fly around saving dumb asses from their fate?  Did you ever see an angel?  How come this shit isn't taught in school?  Because it's BULLSHIT.
> 
> Sorry to burst your bubble
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!!! YOU GOT A LOT TO LEARN!!! HUH??? What effort have you made to learn?? Do you just ask ignorant questions and expect others to do the work??
Click to expand...


I asked those stupid questions so maybe you would realize just how silly it is to believe in god, devils, angels, ghosts, witches, leprechauns, spirits, demons,


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a scary thought....
> 
> There are elected officials in our congress that believe in the exact same way as Jizzmo.
> 
> If there ever was a reason to stop electing christian fundamentalists..
> 
> It is all within Jizzy's posts.
> 
> If there ever was a reason to resist and persist...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is why I push their buttons.  Like Tom Cruise did to Jack Nicholson in a few good men.  I want them to say what they really mean.  No sugarcoating it, which is what Christy, Jeb Bush, Rubio, Paul Ryan and Rick Snyder are doing.  They haven't changed their positions, just the way they say things.
> 
> So either you believe abortion is murder or you do not.  The reason I bring this up is because the other day a con tried to say they weren't trying to ban abortion, just not pay for it.
> 
> Besides that being stupid because if they don't pay then they'll pay welfare and foodstamps and they clearly don't want to pay for that so abortion is a necessary evil because of their conservative philosophy on how to deal with the poor.  Note their approach would/does/is also leading to increased crime because we can't afford the number of police we need to police Detroit.
Click to expand...


YES!!! ABORTION IS MURDER!!!! WHERE WOULD YOU BE NOW IF YOUR MOTHER HAD ABORTED YOU? would the world be a better place??


----------



## sealybobo

Mad_Cabbie said:


> Why would people hate something that they don't believe in?



Exactly.  We hate it that so many people truly believe in fairy tales.  We don't hate any of the characters in their story.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a scary thought....
> 
> There are elected officials in our congress that believe in the exact same way as Jizzmo.
> 
> If there ever was a reason to stop electing christian fundamentalists..
> 
> It is all within Jizzy's posts.
> 
> If there ever was a reason to resist and persist...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is why I push their buttons.  Like Tom Cruise did to Jack Nicholson in a few good men.  I want them to say what they really mean.  No sugarcoating it, which is what Christy, Jeb Bush, Rubio, Paul Ryan and Rick Snyder are doing.  They haven't changed their positions, just the way they say things.
> 
> So either you believe abortion is murder or you do not.  The reason I bring this up is because the other day a con tried to say they weren't trying to ban abortion, just not pay for it.
> 
> Besides that being stupid because if they don't pay then they'll pay welfare and foodstamps and they clearly don't want to pay for that so abortion is a necessary evil because of their conservative philosophy on how to deal with the poor.  Note their approach would/does/is also leading to increased crime because we can't afford the number of police we need to police Detroit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YES!!! ABORTION IS MURDER!!!! WHERE WOULD YOU BE NOW IF YOUR MOTHER HAD ABORTED YOU? would the world be a better place??
Click to expand...


In a perfect world no pregnancy would be aborted but this isn't a perfect world.  Make it one and watch the number of abortions go down.  Anyways, this is the line I like you drawing so women out there realize that your side wants to ban abortion.  

Most women who tell me they are pro life I ask them a few questions and you quickly find that they want abortion to remain safe and legal.  VERY QUICKLY.  So they think they are pro life because THEY at the place they are in right now in life they would have the child, but all you have to do is run a few what if's by them and they quickly admit they would want that decision to be there's.  The one I always use is what if you were a senior in high school summer and you got a full ride to UofM basketball and you got knocked up one night and it was too late to take the morning after pill but it was under a month and you could either stay home and raise a kid or go to UofM on a full scholarship and most women admit they would abort, because they deep down know it's not murder.

But you keep insisting it is, because this is why a lot of people don't vote GOP.  That and they are only the party for the rich.  This is why they use wedge issues like god, gays, guns and racism.  It divides the masses like they got you with god.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is why I push their buttons.  Like Tom Cruise did to Jack Nicholson in a few good men.  I want them to say what they really mean.  No sugarcoating it, which is what Christy, Jeb Bush, Rubio, Paul Ryan and Rick Snyder are doing.  They haven't changed their positions, just the way they say things.
> 
> So either you believe abortion is murder or you do not.  The reason I bring this up is because the other day a con tried to say they weren't trying to ban abortion, just not pay for it.
> 
> Besides that being stupid because if they don't pay then they'll pay welfare and foodstamps and they clearly don't want to pay for that so abortion is a necessary evil because of their conservative philosophy on how to deal with the poor.  Note their approach would/does/is also leading to increased crime because we can't afford the number of police we need to police Detroit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YES!!! ABORTION IS MURDER!!!! WHERE WOULD YOU BE NOW IF YOUR MOTHER HAD ABORTED YOU? would the world be a better place??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In a perfect world no pregnancy would be aborted but this isn't a perfect world.  Make it one and watch the number of abortions go down.  Anyways, this is the line I like you drawing so women out there realize that your side wants to ban abortion.
> 
> Most women who tell me they are pro life I ask them a few questions and you quickly find that they want abortion to remain safe and legal.  VERY QUICKLY.  So they think they are pro life because THEY at the place they are in right now in life they would have the child, but all you have to do is run a few what if's by them and they quickly admit they would want that decision to be there's.  The one I always use is what if you were a senior in high school summer and you got a full ride to UofM basketball and you got knocked up one night and it was too late to take the morning after pill but it was under a month and you could either stay home and raise a kid or go to UofM on a full scholarship and most women admit they would abort, because they deep down know it's not murder.
> 
> But you keep insisting it is, because this is why a lot of people don't vote GOP.  That and they are only the party for the rich.  This is why they use wedge issues like god, gays, guns and racism.  It divides the masses like they got you with god.
Click to expand...


AFRAID TO ANSWER??????????YES!!! ABORTION IS MURDER!!!! WHERE WOULD YOU BE NOW IF YOUR MOTHER HAD ABORTED YOU? would the world be a better place??


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, not paying for anything we don't want is pretty much impossible.  There will always be people not wanting to pay for basic services that government really should be doing, like maintaining roads, paying for the military, etc.
> 
> I understand your argument, but it's a matter of degree rather than as black and white as 'if you don't want it, don't pay for it' IMO.
> 
> I think abortion should remain legal up to a certain point, but I'm fine with keeping government funds out of it.
> 
> And how the hell did we start arguing about abortion here?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just meant in the philosophical sense, humans should have freedom to decide what they will or will not pay for. I don't have a problem with basic services from government but I think that should be determined by the people and more at the state and local level. Washington D.C. has way too much control on our freedoms.
> 
> Why are we talking abortion? She reared her ugly head as always.
Click to expand...


Are you a republican or person who leans right?  Do you agree or disagree with gismys that abortion is murder?  Would you ban abortion if you could?  Just curious.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> YES!!! ABORTION IS MURDER!!!! WHERE WOULD YOU BE NOW IF YOUR MOTHER HAD ABORTED YOU? would the world be a better place??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a perfect world no pregnancy would be aborted but this isn't a perfect world.  Make it one and watch the number of abortions go down.  Anyways, this is the line I like you drawing so women out there realize that your side wants to ban abortion.
> 
> Most women who tell me they are pro life I ask them a few questions and you quickly find that they want abortion to remain safe and legal.  VERY QUICKLY.  So they think they are pro life because THEY at the place they are in right now in life they would have the child, but all you have to do is run a few what if's by them and they quickly admit they would want that decision to be there's.  The one I always use is what if you were a senior in high school summer and you got a full ride to UofM basketball and you got knocked up one night and it was too late to take the morning after pill but it was under a month and you could either stay home and raise a kid or go to UofM on a full scholarship and most women admit they would abort, because they deep down know it's not murder.
> 
> But you keep insisting it is, because this is why a lot of people don't vote GOP.  That and they are only the party for the rich.  This is why they use wedge issues like god, gays, guns and racism.  It divides the masses like they got you with god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AFRAID TO ANSWER??????????YES!!! ABORTION IS MURDER!!!! WHERE WOULD YOU BE NOW IF YOUR MOTHER HAD ABORTED YOU? would the world be a better place??
Click to expand...


I would like to think the world will be a better place because I was in it but that is my opinion.  I seem to have a lot of people that love and respect me.  I don't tell a lot of them this stuff because they couldn't handle it.  A lot of them are just as dumb as you when it comes to god.  But they don't go to church or do anything other than say they are christians, they've been baptized and they live and let live.  I wish I could say I believe but I just don't.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> In a perfect world no pregnancy would be aborted but this isn't a perfect world.  Make it one and watch the number of abortions go down.  Anyways, this is the line I like you drawing so women out there realize that your side wants to ban abortion.
> 
> Most women who tell me they are pro life I ask them a few questions and you quickly find that they want abortion to remain safe and legal.  VERY QUICKLY.  So they think they are pro life because THEY at the place they are in right now in life they would have the child, but all you have to do is run a few what if's by them and they quickly admit they would want that decision to be there's.  The one I always use is what if you were a senior in high school summer and you got a full ride to UofM basketball and you got knocked up one night and it was too late to take the morning after pill but it was under a month and you could either stay home and raise a kid or go to UofM on a full scholarship and most women admit they would abort, because they deep down know it's not murder.
> 
> But you keep insisting it is, because this is why a lot of people don't vote GOP.  That and they are only the party for the rich.  This is why they use wedge issues like god, gays, guns and racism.  It divides the masses like they got you with god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AFRAID TO ANSWER??????????YES!!! ABORTION IS MURDER!!!! WHERE WOULD YOU BE NOW IF YOUR MOTHER HAD ABORTED YOU? would the world be a better place??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would like to think the world will be a better place because I was in it but that is my opinion.  I seem to have a lot of people that love and respect me.  I don't tell a lot of them this stuff because they couldn't handle it.  A lot of them are just as dumb as you when it comes to god.  But they don't go to church or do anything other than say they are christians, they've been baptized and they live and let live.  I wish I could say I believe but I just don't.
Click to expand...


The only reason you say you don't believe is that is your choice. BELIEF IS A CHOICE!!! A CHOICE that changes your life now and for all eternity!!!


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> AFRAID TO ANSWER??????????YES!!! ABORTION IS MURDER!!!! WHERE WOULD YOU BE NOW IF YOUR MOTHER HAD ABORTED YOU? would the world be a better place??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to think the world will be a better place because I was in it but that is my opinion.  I seem to have a lot of people that love and respect me.  I don't tell a lot of them this stuff because they couldn't handle it.  A lot of them are just as dumb as you when it comes to god.  But they don't go to church or do anything other than say they are christians, they've been baptized and they live and let live.  I wish I could say I believe but I just don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only reason you say you don't believe is that is your choice. BELIEF IS A CHOICE!!! A CHOICE that changes your life now and for all eternity!!!
Click to expand...


I don't believe because there is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible concerning the existence of a god. Any evidence proposed to support the Bibles various historical and supernatural claims is non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.  The Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many religious texts. Like those others, it itself constitutes no evidence for the existence of a god. 

The Bible is historically inaccurate, factually incorrect, inconsistent and contradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time.

This is how dumb you and your story are.  I'm 99% sure there is no god but 100% sure your god is not the real god.  I can't believe anybody believes your religion beyond middle school.  Well I take that back.  I considered myself a christian for many years then many years I believed in god for no good reason but abandoned christianity because I knew it was complete and utter bullshit and just recently I went full blown atheist.  But the right position to take is agnostic atheist because I can't pretend to know everything.  I just know bullshit when I hear it and that is your religion, the muslim religion, mormon and jewish and jehovas too.  Even you agree with me the others are bullshit right?  So that's a start.  Now you just need to realize yours is too.


----------



## Uncensored2008

sealybobo said:


> Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.  Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more.



Repeating stupid slogans is like repeating stupid slogans.

Atheism is a belief system - a very rigid one that engages in aggressive proselytizing 



> It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods.



If the Atheism you shove down the throats of all is so great, why must you dishonestly pretend to be agnostics?

For the same reason Jehovah's Witnesses pretend to be Christians, of course...



> Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.



Funny, I've never seen an infant shriek that prayers at dinner must be stopped because they offend the precious faith of the little darling.

You know, the way Atheists do EVERY FUCKING TIME, intolerant motherfuckers that they are....



> Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organisation or church. It fulfills none of the criteria that define a religion.



Is that from the gospel according to Richard Dawkins?

You should give book and verse when quoting scripture!



> Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism, including any supernatural elements unrelated to a god. Common among many atheists, however, is an appreciation for secularism, rationalism, humanism, skepticism, naturalism, materialism and freethinking &#8211; none of which are implicit or derived from atheism, nor necessary in order to lack belief.




What an utterly stupid statement - where are you cutting and pasting these scriptures from?

A Buddhist is by definition not an Atheist, and vice versa.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> AFRAID TO ANSWER??????????YES!!! ABORTION IS MURDER!!!! WHERE WOULD YOU BE NOW IF YOUR MOTHER HAD ABORTED YOU? would the world be a better place??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to think the world will be a better place because I was in it but that is my opinion.  I seem to have a lot of people that love and respect me.  I don't tell a lot of them this stuff because they couldn't handle it.  A lot of them are just as dumb as you when it comes to god.  But they don't go to church or do anything other than say they are christians, they've been baptized and they live and let live.  I wish I could say I believe but I just don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only reason you say you don't believe is that is your choice. BELIEF IS A CHOICE!!! A CHOICE that changes your life now and for all eternity!!!
Click to expand...


If you are right 

a.  Are mormon's going to hell?  They say jesus visited joseph smith in 1800 and he told them your religion was bullshit and to start a new church.  But you guys voted for Romney because at least like you he believes in a fairy tale.  

b.  Why don't you believe what the jehova's believe?  Did you look into it?  Because I'm pretty sure they don't think non jehova's are going to heaven.  Are you a jehova?  Well they say you're going to hell.

c.  Why don't you believe what the muslims say?  Is the only reason BELIEF IS A CHOICE!!! A CHOICE that changes your life now and for all eternity!!  Does that scare you into becoming a muslim?  Well then why would you telling me this scare me into joining your cult?  Your story isn't any more believable than theirs.


----------



## Uncensored2008

sealybobo said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Intelligent people don't make up fairy tales to explain things that are not fully understood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Be honest, how much pot have you smoked today?
> 
> You don't even know what the subject is, Rev. Jim - much less what the answer is...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love pot.  3 j's a day
Click to expand...


It shows - seriously...


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to think the world will be a better place because I was in it but that is my opinion.  I seem to have a lot of people that love and respect me.  I don't tell a lot of them this stuff because they couldn't handle it.  A lot of them are just as dumb as you when it comes to god.  But they don't go to church or do anything other than say they are christians, they've been baptized and they live and let live.  I wish I could say I believe but I just don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only reason you say you don't believe is that is your choice. BELIEF IS A CHOICE!!! A CHOICE that changes your life now and for all eternity!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are right
> 
> a.  Are mormon's going to hell?  They say jesus visited joseph smith in 1800 and he told them your religion was bullshit and to start a new church.  But you guys voted for Romney because at least like you he believes in a fairy tale.
> 
> b.  Why don't you believe what the jehova's believe?  Did you look into it?  Because I'm pretty sure they don't think non jehova's are going to heaven.  Are you a jehova?  Well they say you're going to hell.
> 
> c.  Why don't you believe what the muslims say?  Is the only reason BELIEF IS A CHOICE!!! A CHOICE that changes your life now and for all eternity!!  Does that scare you into becoming a muslim?  Well then why would you telling me this scare me into joining your cult?  Your story isn't any more believable than theirs.
Click to expand...


YES!!! THERE ARE MANY FALSE "religions" and silly ideas of man. seek TRUTH=GOD in HIS WORD!!!


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, not paying for anything we don't want is pretty much impossible.  There will always be people not wanting to pay for basic services that government really should be doing, like maintaining roads, paying for the military, etc.
> 
> I understand your argument, but it's a matter of degree rather than as black and white as 'if you don't want it, don't pay for it' IMO.
> 
> I think abortion should remain legal up to a certain point, but I'm fine with keeping government funds out of it.
> 
> And how the hell did we start arguing about abortion here?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just meant in the philosophical sense, humans should have freedom to decide what they will or will not pay for. I don't have a problem with basic services from government but I think that should be determined by the people and more at the state and local level. Washington D.C. has way too much control on our freedoms.
> 
> Why are we talking abortion? She reared her ugly head as always.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you a republican or person who leans right?  Do you agree or disagree with gismys that abortion is murder?  Would you ban abortion if you could?  Just curious.
Click to expand...


I pretty much stated my position on abortion here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/9165420-post3220.html

My political leanings should have nothing to do with a debate over whether something is right or wrong, unless you are a brainwashed ideologue. I don't know if I agree or disagree with someone else, but yes... I think in some cases, abortion is legalized murder. Would I ban abortion entirely? No, but it would be greatly restricted and limited, not used as "Final Solution" birth control!


----------



## Uncensored2008

hotpotato said:


> I wonder who created Satan?



Probably the Babylonians. I saw a decent documentary that illustrated that the Hebrews had no devil prior to the first Babylonian captivity, but came back with the tales of Satan. Afterwards. the tales of war in heaven and the casting out of Satan came about. It makes no sense either, if God is all powerful as the Hebrews had believed, then no dark being could contest him.

It just shows how myths from one culture corrupted the myths of another, where contact was made.


----------



## sealybobo

Uncensored2008 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.  Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Repeating stupid slogans is like repeating stupid slogans.
> 
> Atheism is a belief system - a very rigid one that engages in aggressive proselytizing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the Atheism you shove down the throats of all is so great, why must you dishonestly pretend to be agnostics?
> 
> For the same reason Jehovah's Witnesses pretend to be Christians, of course...
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, I've never seen an infant shriek that prayers at dinner must be stopped because they offend the precious faith of the little darling.
> 
> You know, the way Atheists do EVERY FUCKING TIME, intolerant motherfuckers that they are....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organisation or church. It fulfills none of the criteria that define a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that from the gospel according to Richard Dawkins?
> 
> You should give book and verse when quoting scripture!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism, including any supernatural elements unrelated to a god. Common among many atheists, however, is an appreciation for secularism, rationalism, humanism, skepticism, naturalism, materialism and freethinking  none of which are implicit or derived from atheism, nor necessary in order to lack belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What an utterly stupid statement - where are you cutting and pasting these scriptures from?
> 
> A Buddhist is by definition not an Atheist, and vice versa.
Click to expand...


Why there is no god

Shove it down our throats?  OMG I can turn on the tv 24 hours a day and I even found some religious stations.  Show me the fucking atheist station!  Those are public airwaves.  I can't wait for the day we finally get a show.  The Cosmos was a good start but hardly equal to the brainwashing and shoving down our throats those tv preachers brainwashing and milking stupid americans of their hard earned dollars.  Dopes.

I am agnostic bitch.  I don't know what's on the other side of black holes.  It could be anything including god.  But the logical position to have is I DON"T FUCKING KNOW and keep on looking, not to presume an answer which makes us comfortable.

Note: This claim often represents a deep discomfort with uncertainty or ambiguity, demonstrating a lack of critical thinking or poor understanding of a topic. It usually coincides with credulity, which is the tendency to believe in propositions unsupported by evidence. See also: gullibility.

And I never stop someone from praying.  I just make fun of them in my mind.  I never talk about this with religious people.  They can't handle it.  I've lost friends over it.  Pussies.  I don't disown religious people.  I don't say I wouldn't marry someone unless they are an atheist too.  But I bet you wouldn't marry an atheist so stop crying the victim/martyr.


----------



## Uncensored2008

HUGGY said:


> Here is a scary thought....
> 
> There are elected officials in our congress that believe in the exact same way as Jizzmo.



Here is a scarier thought, there are some that think like you do, Rev. Jim. 

Say, your little tin god Obama CLAIMS to believe what GISMYS believes..

Is that okay because you know Obama is a fucking liar?



> If there ever was a reason to stop electing christian fundamentalists..
> 
> It is all within Jizzy's posts.
> 
> If there ever was a reason to resist and persist...



When was the last fundamentalist in power?


----------



## Uncensored2008

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> SATAN WAS CREATED AS A ANGEL but he let his desire for power AND HIS PRIDE cause him to reject GOD and try to take GOD'S PLACE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many angels are there?  What are their names?  What do they do all day?  Do they fly around the earth and save people?  Why doesn't god create more of them?  Why did he create any of them?  Where do they live?  On earth along with the rest of us when they aren't saving the faithful?  What kind of sick game is god playing?  Can you or I become an angel?  What is the difference between angels and people in heaven?  What can they do that the rest can't?  So it's paradise for us but angels have to fly around saving dumb asses from their fate?  Did you ever see an angel?  How come this shit isn't taught in school?  Because it's BULLSHIT.
> 
> Sorry to burst your bubble
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!!! YOU GOT A LOT TO LEARN!!! HUH??? What effort have you made to learn?? Do you just ask ignorant questions and expect others to do the work??
Click to expand...


For God so hated the world, that he gave his only begotten bastard Son, that whosoever not believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting torture in hell.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Mad_Cabbie said:


> Why would people hate something that they don't believe in?



None of the Atheists will answer that.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just meant in the philosophical sense, humans should have freedom to decide what they will or will not pay for. I don't have a problem with basic services from government but I think that should be determined by the people and more at the state and local level. Washington D.C. has way too much control on our freedoms.
> 
> Why are we talking abortion? She reared her ugly head as always.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you a republican or person who leans right?  Do you agree or disagree with gismys that abortion is murder?  Would you ban abortion if you could?  Just curious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I pretty much stated my position on abortion here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/9165420-post3220.html
> 
> My political leanings should have nothing to do with a debate over whether something is right or wrong, unless you are a brainwashed ideologue. I don't know if I agree or disagree with someone else, but yes... I think in some cases, abortion is legalized murder. Would I ban abortion entirely? No, but it would be greatly restricted and limited, not used as "Final Solution" birth control!
Click to expand...


If its murder then you want to ban it from being an option unless NECESSARY.  Please tell women that.  That if they make a mistake, under GOP rule they would be forced to have the baby.  At least be honest.  Basically unless rape or incest you would ban abortion. Be honest.  You would take the option off the table.  See, I hate republicans who try to be slick and slowly move us towards their position knowing that if we knew their real position up front we would have never went along. 

And if I am wrong about your position, please explain to gismys why you would keep abortion legal.


----------



## Uncensored2008

sealybobo said:


> Why there is no god
> 
> Shove it down our throats?  OMG I can turn on the tv 24 hours a day and I even found some religious stations.  Show me the fucking atheist station!  Those are public airwaves.  I can't wait for the day we finally get a show.  The Cosmos was a good start but hardly equal to the brainwashing and shoving down our throats those tv preachers brainwashing and milking stupid americans of their hard earned dollars.  Dopes.
> 
> I am agnostic bitch.  I don't know what's on the other side of black holes.  It could be anything including god.  But the logical position to have is I DON"T FUCKING KNOW and keep on looking, not to presume an answer which makes us comfortable.
> 
> Note: This claim often represents a deep discomfort with uncertainty or ambiguity, demonstrating a lack of critical thinking or poor understanding of a topic. It usually coincides with credulity, which is the tendency to believe in propositions unsupported by evidence. See also: gullibility.
> 
> And I never stop someone from praying.  I just make fun of them in my mind.  I never talk about this with religious people.  They can't handle it.  I've lost friends over it.  Pussies.  I don't disown religious people.  I don't say I wouldn't marry someone unless they are an atheist too.  But I bet you wouldn't marry an atheist so stop crying the victim/martyr.



Dawkins is such a stupid cocksucker - I can always tell when you missionaries are quoting his gospels...


----------



## sealybobo

Uncensored2008 said:


> Mad_Cabbie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would people hate something that they don't believe in?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of the Atheists will answer that.
Click to expand...


I already did cock sucker.  I don't hate any character in any book.  I don't even hate the character satin.  If I were the character god though I'll tell you I would run things a whole lot better than he's doing things.  And I'd snap my fingers and satin would be gone.  I wouldn't be such a dick.  And I wouldn't have flooded the planet and killed everyone.  I wouldn't have sent my son to be sacrificed for a bunch of assholes.  And I would show myself.  Why am I hiding for christ sakes?


----------



## sealybobo

Uncensored2008 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why there is no god
> 
> Shove it down our throats?  OMG I can turn on the tv 24 hours a day and I even found some religious stations.  Show me the fucking atheist station!  Those are public airwaves.  I can't wait for the day we finally get a show.  The Cosmos was a good start but hardly equal to the brainwashing and shoving down our throats those tv preachers brainwashing and milking stupid americans of their hard earned dollars.  Dopes.
> 
> I am agnostic bitch.  I don't know what's on the other side of black holes.  It could be anything including god.  But the logical position to have is I DON"T FUCKING KNOW and keep on looking, not to presume an answer which makes us comfortable.
> 
> Note: This claim often represents a deep discomfort with uncertainty or ambiguity, demonstrating a lack of critical thinking or poor understanding of a topic. It usually coincides with credulity, which is the tendency to believe in propositions unsupported by evidence. See also: gullibility.
> 
> And I never stop someone from praying.  I just make fun of them in my mind.  I never talk about this with religious people.  They can't handle it.  I've lost friends over it.  Pussies.  I don't disown religious people.  I don't say I wouldn't marry someone unless they are an atheist too.  But I bet you wouldn't marry an atheist so stop crying the victim/martyr.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dawkins is such a stupid cocksucker - I can always tell when you missionaries are quoting his gospels...
Click to expand...


And where is mom?  What did god do with mom?  I'm a little worried about mom.  Louis CK


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you a republican or person who leans right?  Do you agree or disagree with gismys that abortion is murder?  Would you ban abortion if you could?  Just curious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I pretty much stated my position on abortion here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/9165420-post3220.html
> 
> My political leanings should have nothing to do with a debate over whether something is right or wrong, unless you are a brainwashed ideologue. I don't know if I agree or disagree with someone else, but yes... I think in some cases, abortion is legalized murder. Would I ban abortion entirely? No, but it would be greatly restricted and limited, not used as "Final Solution" birth control!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If its murder then you want to ban it from being an option unless NECESSARY.  Please tell women that.  That if they make a mistake, under GOP rule they would be forced to have the baby.  At least be honest.  Basically unless rape or incest you would ban abortion. Be honest.  You would take the option off the table.  See, I hate republicans who try to be slick and slowly move us towards their position knowing that if we knew their real position up front we would have never went along.
> 
> And if I am wrong about your position, please explain to gismys why you would keep abortion legal.
Click to expand...


our nation  allows  ABORTION,SEXUAL PERVERSION,GAY MARRAGE,AND ALL OTHER SIN BECAUSE our people REJECTED GOD AND choose to live in sin they have allowed satan to blind them to TRUTH!


----------



## sealybobo

Uncensored2008 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why there is no god
> 
> Shove it down our throats?  OMG I can turn on the tv 24 hours a day and I even found some religious stations.  Show me the fucking atheist station!  Those are public airwaves.  I can't wait for the day we finally get a show.  The Cosmos was a good start but hardly equal to the brainwashing and shoving down our throats those tv preachers brainwashing and milking stupid americans of their hard earned dollars.  Dopes.
> 
> I am agnostic bitch.  I don't know what's on the other side of black holes.  It could be anything including god.  But the logical position to have is I DON"T FUCKING KNOW and keep on looking, not to presume an answer which makes us comfortable.
> 
> Note: This claim often represents a deep discomfort with uncertainty or ambiguity, demonstrating a lack of critical thinking or poor understanding of a topic. It usually coincides with credulity, which is the tendency to believe in propositions unsupported by evidence. See also: gullibility.
> 
> And I never stop someone from praying.  I just make fun of them in my mind.  I never talk about this with religious people.  They can't handle it.  I've lost friends over it.  Pussies.  I don't disown religious people.  I don't say I wouldn't marry someone unless they are an atheist too.  But I bet you wouldn't marry an atheist so stop crying the victim/martyr.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dawkins is such a stupid cocksucker - I can always tell when you missionaries are quoting his gospels...
Click to expand...


You blow off all the great points he/we make and instead believe corrupt churches and pedophile priests and your parents/grandparents who were brainwashed by their ancestors/forefathers too.  Wake up!!!!  Dawkins is smarter than you.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I pretty much stated my position on abortion here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/9165420-post3220.html
> 
> My political leanings should have nothing to do with a debate over whether something is right or wrong, unless you are a brainwashed ideologue. I don't know if I agree or disagree with someone else, but yes... I think in some cases, abortion is legalized murder. Would I ban abortion entirely? No, but it would be greatly restricted and limited, not used as "Final Solution" birth control!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If its murder then you want to ban it from being an option unless NECESSARY.  Please tell women that.  That if they make a mistake, under GOP rule they would be forced to have the baby.  At least be honest.  Basically unless rape or incest you would ban abortion. Be honest.  You would take the option off the table.  See, I hate republicans who try to be slick and slowly move us towards their position knowing that if we knew their real position up front we would have never went along.
> 
> And if I am wrong about your position, please explain to gismys why you would keep abortion legal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> our nation  allows  ABORTION,SEXUAL PERVERSION,GAY MARRAGE,AND ALL OTHER SIN BECAUSE our people REJECTED GOD AND choose to live in sin they have allowed satan to blind them to TRUTH!
Click to expand...


At least you admit/agree/understand this is not a judao christian nation.  Thanks for admitting it.


----------



## sealybobo

Uncensored2008 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why there is no god
> 
> Shove it down our throats?  OMG I can turn on the tv 24 hours a day and I even found some religious stations.  Show me the fucking atheist station!  Those are public airwaves.  I can't wait for the day we finally get a show.  The Cosmos was a good start but hardly equal to the brainwashing and shoving down our throats those tv preachers brainwashing and milking stupid americans of their hard earned dollars.  Dopes.
> 
> I am agnostic bitch.  I don't know what's on the other side of black holes.  It could be anything including god.  But the logical position to have is I DON"T FUCKING KNOW and keep on looking, not to presume an answer which makes us comfortable.
> 
> Note: This claim often represents a deep discomfort with uncertainty or ambiguity, demonstrating a lack of critical thinking or poor understanding of a topic. It usually coincides with credulity, which is the tendency to believe in propositions unsupported by evidence. See also: gullibility.
> 
> And I never stop someone from praying.  I just make fun of them in my mind.  I never talk about this with religious people.  They can't handle it.  I've lost friends over it.  Pussies.  I don't disown religious people.  I don't say I wouldn't marry someone unless they are an atheist too.  But I bet you wouldn't marry an atheist so stop crying the victim/martyr.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dawkins is such a stupid cocksucker - I can always tell when you missionaries are quoting his gospels...
Click to expand...


Oh, and when you guys post something and I say it's bullshit, I explain a little why it's bullshit.  You saying "oh dawkins sucks", doesn't make it a fact.  Care to go to that link and pick apart the points it makes?  Because it lays it all out for you.  Almost every argument any of you god lovers ever make is on there and the response to your claims.  Yes, I would consider it the bible for battling god believers.

And we don't like religion because 

1.  The rich use it to divide us.
2. Ban stem cell, anti abortion, anti birth control, anti gay, anti black and white marriage, wars.
3.  Americans would rather vote for a cheating pot smoker than a atheist.  
4.  Religion fought science for so long.


----------



## Uncensored2008

sealybobo said:


> I already did cock sucker.



Yes you did, when you posted about why you hate Christians but support Muslims..

You don't remember, do you? Pot has eaten away your short term memory...

I haven't smoked pot in 30+ years; back in my day, smoking a joint was about equivalent to drinking a 6 pack of beer, though I understand that the pot is a lot more potent now.

Either way, you saying you smoke 3 joints a day is like someone bragging about drinking 3 six packs a day - yeah, that makes you an alcoholic...



> I don't hate any character in any book.



Have you ever read a book? You don't strike me as the kind that would have.... I'm guessing you more for the Cartoon Network type.



> I don't even hate the character satin.



My sister has a cat named Satin - very silky fur. 

I'm kind of fond of satin myself;









> If I were the character god though I'll tell you I would run things a whole lot better than he's doing things.  And I'd snap my fingers and satin would be gone.  I wouldn't be such a dick.  And I wouldn't have flooded the planet and killed everyone.  I wouldn't have sent my son to be sacrificed for a bunch of assholes.  And I would show myself.  Why am I hiding for christ sakes?



You sit around smoking dope in your moms basement - if you were god, you'd sit around smoking dope in moms basement...


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you a republican or person who leans right?  Do you agree or disagree with gismys that abortion is murder?  Would you ban abortion if you could?  Just curious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I pretty much stated my position on abortion here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/9165420-post3220.html
> 
> My political leanings should have nothing to do with a debate over whether something is right or wrong, unless you are a brainwashed ideologue. I don't know if I agree or disagree with someone else, but yes... I think in some cases, abortion is legalized murder. Would I ban abortion entirely? No, but it would be greatly restricted and limited, not used as "Final Solution" birth control!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If its murder then you want to ban it from being an option unless NECESSARY.  Please tell women that.  That if they make a mistake, under GOP rule they would be forced to have the baby.  At least be honest.  Basically unless rape or incest you would ban abortion. Be honest.  You would take the option off the table.  See, I hate republicans who try to be slick and slowly move us towards their position knowing that if we knew their real position up front we would have never went along.
> 
> And if I am wrong about your position, please explain to gismys why you would keep abortion legal.
Click to expand...


You keep insinuating I represent the GOP, but I am a registered Independent. My politics have little to do with this issue, it's all a matter of ethics for me. It becomes a life at successful conception, and if you are going to kill it after that, it is ending a human life. You can make up all kinds of rationalizations and justifications, it's basic biology. 

All I ask for is that we "be honest" here, but you refuse to cooperate. You want to pretend we are discussing something other than a human life here, and this is because you know that it's wrong to take a human life. But biology is clear on this matter, you can call it whatever you please, abortion is the willing termination of human life. If we can all come to agreement on that, I have no problem with reasonable discussions on when it's acceptable to do this. 

One of the reasons I oppose abortion on demand is because of the psychological damage it is doing to millions of women. You see, they get talked into abortion by nitwits like you who convince them the fetus is a meaningless "clump of cells" but they have felt the fetus move, react to being startled, things that "clumps of cells" don't do. Afterward, they have to deal with what they did. All the word gymnastics in the world can't change that.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I pretty much stated my position on abortion here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/9165420-post3220.html
> 
> My political leanings should have nothing to do with a debate over whether something is right or wrong, unless you are a brainwashed ideologue. I don't know if I agree or disagree with someone else, but yes... I think in some cases, abortion is legalized murder. Would I ban abortion entirely? No, but it would be greatly restricted and limited, not used as "Final Solution" birth control!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If its murder then you want to ban it from being an option unless NECESSARY.  Please tell women that.  That if they make a mistake, under GOP rule they would be forced to have the baby.  At least be honest.  Basically unless rape or incest you would ban abortion. Be honest.  You would take the option off the table.  See, I hate republicans who try to be slick and slowly move us towards their position knowing that if we knew their real position up front we would have never went along.
> 
> And if I am wrong about your position, please explain to gismys why you would keep abortion legal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep insinuating I represent the GOP, but I am a registered Independent. My politics have little to do with this issue, it's all a matter of ethics for me. It becomes a life at successful conception, and if you are going to kill it after that, it is ending a human life. You can make up all kinds of rationalizations and justifications, it's basic biology.
> 
> All I ask for is that we "be honest" here, but you refuse to cooperate. You want to pretend we are discussing something other than a human life here, and this is because you know that it's wrong to take a human life. But biology is clear on this matter, you can call it whatever you please, abortion is the willing termination of human life. If we can all come to agreement on that, I have no problem with reasonable discussions on when it's acceptable to do this.
> 
> One of the reasons I oppose abortion on demand is because of the psychological damage it is doing to millions of women. You see, they get talked into abortion by nitwits like you who convince them the fetus is a meaningless "clump of cells" but they have felt the fetus move, react to being startled, things that "clumps of cells" don't do. Afterward, they have to deal with what they did. All the word gymnastics in the world can't change that.
Click to expand...


I'll admit it if you admit life isn't so precious at 2 weeks or a month in that someone shouldn't be able to terminate.

No, the fetus is not a human.  Can it live on its own?  Then it's not a human yet.  Do you have to have a full funeral if you have a miscarrage?  Why not?  Because no one died.  The seed didn't even have a name yet.

But I admit it is a life waiting to happen.  It is a shame.  Too bad its a necessary evil.  I wish the world was perfect but its not.  Don't like abortions don't get one.  If you really care about life, stop cutting off foodstamps and welfare.  Sorry, you want them to have the kids, you are responsible once they are born that they don't starve to death and that they have heat and healthcare regardless of the parents finances.  Or do you care so fucking much about the seed but fuck the baby?  

Don't give me that independent shit.  Either you are a tea bagger, libertarian or conservative.  Admit it.  

Oh, and if there is no god, which there is not, then killing a little seed is not a big deal.  I walk up to a birds nest and crack all the eggs.  Big deal.  OMG that life is precious!  NOT.  But, I will give you this.  See, here is where I am open minded and willing to discuss and/or change my mind.  I don't just go kill birds or squash eggs.  I do understand that life is precious and what a waste/shame someone has to get an abortion, but taking that all into account, I still say abortion should be safe and legal.  Even if it's just because you chose not to wear a condom and you are not ready for a baby.  No I'm not going to put it up for adoption.  No I'm not going to raise it, if I'm not ready.  If I don't want to.  If I'm not capable or prepared or interested in having a baby.  I will abort and yes feel sad about what might have been or who that kid might have been.  But every night I put on a condom or jack off instead of bang my old lady is a day of might have been.  Maybe the next Lebron James or Einstein just went into my sock.  Whatever.  There is no god so I guess it is sad that baby didn't get to live out its life, but a million more humans will follow.  Maybe I'll have a kid next year or in 10 years.  I wonder what the one I aborted would have looked like?  Do you guys understand, we totally get you.  It's horrible.  We will try to be careful.  But if it happens and we aren't ready, leave us the fuck alone we want to get an abortion.  No one is using abortion as birth control.  1 in a million.  And fact is many of you anti abortion people are ready or want kids now in your stage in life, so fuck you for telling others they have to go through with the pregnancy.  If it was back in your youth, you'd probably get the abortion too, and many anti abortion people have had abortions, which is why they are so guilty and passionate about the issue.

I want kids.  I would not have an abortion today.  But in my teens or 20's I would have had I knocked some chick up in college.  Glad abortions are still legal.  Vote Democratic if you want them to remain safe and legal.


----------



## Steven_R

sealybobo said:


> No, the fetus is not a human. Can it live on its own?



Neither can infants and toddlers. If the cut off point for stopping abortion is the ability to live physically independently of the mother, then can we kill unwanted 6 month olds? Call it a 5th trimester termination?


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If its murder then you want to ban it from being an option unless NECESSARY.  Please tell women that.  That if they make a mistake, under GOP rule they would be forced to have the baby.  At least be honest.  Basically unless rape or incest you would ban abortion. Be honest.  You would take the option off the table.  See, I hate republicans who try to be slick and slowly move us towards their position knowing that if we knew their real position up front we would have never went along.
> 
> And if I am wrong about your position, please explain to gismys why you would keep abortion legal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep insinuating I represent the GOP, but I am a registered Independent. My politics have little to do with this issue, it's all a matter of ethics for me. It becomes a life at successful conception, and if you are going to kill it after that, it is ending a human life. You can make up all kinds of rationalizations and justifications, it's basic biology.
> 
> All I ask for is that we "be honest" here, but you refuse to cooperate. You want to pretend we are discussing something other than a human life here, and this is because you know that it's wrong to take a human life. But biology is clear on this matter, you can call it whatever you please, abortion is the willing termination of human life. If we can all come to agreement on that, I have no problem with reasonable discussions on when it's acceptable to do this.
> 
> One of the reasons I oppose abortion on demand is because of the psychological damage it is doing to millions of women. You see, they get talked into abortion by nitwits like you who convince them the fetus is a meaningless "clump of cells" but they have felt the fetus move, react to being startled, things that "clumps of cells" don't do. Afterward, they have to deal with what they did. All the word gymnastics in the world can't change that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll admit it if you admit life isn't so precious at 2 weeks or a month in that someone shouldn't be able to terminate.
> 
> No, the fetus is not a human.  Can it live on its own?  Then it's not a human yet.  Do you have to have a full funeral if you have a miscarrage?  Why not?  Because no one died.  The seed didn't even have a name yet.
> 
> But I admit it is a life waiting to happen.  It is a shame.  Too bad its a necessary evil.  I wish the world was perfect but its not.  Don't like abortions don't get one.  If you really care about life, stop cutting off foodstamps and welfare.  Sorry, you want them to have the kids, you are responsible once they are born that they don't starve to death and that they have heat and healthcare regardless of the parents finances.  Or do you care so fucking much about the seed but fuck the baby?
> 
> Don't give me that independent shit.  Either you are a tea bagger, libertarian or conservative.  Admit it.
> 
> Oh, and if there is no god, which there is not, then killing a little seed is not a big deal.  I walk up to a birds nest and crack all the eggs.  Big deal.  OMG that life is precious!  NOT.  But, I will give you this.  See, here is where I am open minded and willing to discuss and/or change my mind.  I don't just go kill birds or squash eggs.  I do understand that life is precious and what a waste/shame someone has to get an abortion, but taking that all into account, I still say abortion should be safe and legal.  Even if it's just because you chose not to wear a condom and you are not ready for a baby.  No I'm not going to put it up for adoption.  No I'm not going to raise it, if I'm not ready.  If I don't want to.  If I'm not capable or prepared or interested in having a baby.  I will abort and yes feel sad about what might have been or who that kid might have been.  But every night I put on a condom or jack off instead of bang my old lady is a day of might have been.  Maybe the next Lebron James or Einstein just went into my sock.  Whatever.  There is no god so I guess it is sad that baby didn't get to live out its life, but a million more humans will follow.  Maybe I'll have a kid next year or in 10 years.  I wonder what the one I aborted would have looked like?  Do you guys understand, we totally get you.  It's horrible.  We will try to be careful.  But if it happens and we aren't ready, leave us the fuck alone we want to get an abortion.  No one is using abortion as birth control.  1 in a million.  And fact is many of you anti abortion people are ready or want kids now in your stage in life, so fuck you for telling others they have to go through with the pregnancy.  If it was back in your youth, you'd probably get the abortion too, and many anti abortion people have had abortions, which is why they are so guilty and passionate about the issue.
> 
> I want kids.  I would not have an abortion today.  But in my teens or 20's I would have had I knocked some chick up in college.  Glad abortions are still legal.  Vote Democratic if you want them to remain safe and legal.
Click to expand...


you want to live in sin and THEN HAVE THE BABY PAY WITH IT'S LIFE!!! WHAT A #@%$#@#@@#


----------



## sealybobo

Steven_R said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the fetus is not a human. Can it live on its own?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither can infants and toddlers. If the cut off point for stopping abortion is the ability to live physically independently of the mother, then can we kill unwanted 6 month olds? Call it a 5th trimester termination?
Click to expand...


But you can lay there and breath on your own even 1 day old.

I'd be ok with cutting the deadline off to 1 or 2 months.  If some women find out later than 1 month then make it 2 months, but no more than that.  At that point it's a little baby inside your stomach.  

But also, if I find out my kid is going to be severely retarded and it's 8 months in, abort it.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep insinuating I represent the GOP, but I am a registered Independent. My politics have little to do with this issue, it's all a matter of ethics for me. It becomes a life at successful conception, and if you are going to kill it after that, it is ending a human life. You can make up all kinds of rationalizations and justifications, it's basic biology.
> 
> All I ask for is that we "be honest" here, but you refuse to cooperate. You want to pretend we are discussing something other than a human life here, and this is because you know that it's wrong to take a human life. But biology is clear on this matter, you can call it whatever you please, abortion is the willing termination of human life. If we can all come to agreement on that, I have no problem with reasonable discussions on when it's acceptable to do this.
> 
> One of the reasons I oppose abortion on demand is because of the psychological damage it is doing to millions of women. You see, they get talked into abortion by nitwits like you who convince them the fetus is a meaningless "clump of cells" but they have felt the fetus move, react to being startled, things that "clumps of cells" don't do. Afterward, they have to deal with what they did. All the word gymnastics in the world can't change that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll admit it if you admit life isn't so precious at 2 weeks or a month in that someone shouldn't be able to terminate.
> 
> No, the fetus is not a human.  Can it live on its own?  Then it's not a human yet.  Do you have to have a full funeral if you have a miscarrage?  Why not?  Because no one died.  The seed didn't even have a name yet.
> 
> But I admit it is a life waiting to happen.  It is a shame.  Too bad its a necessary evil.  I wish the world was perfect but its not.  Don't like abortions don't get one.  If you really care about life, stop cutting off foodstamps and welfare.  Sorry, you want them to have the kids, you are responsible once they are born that they don't starve to death and that they have heat and healthcare regardless of the parents finances.  Or do you care so fucking much about the seed but fuck the baby?
> 
> Don't give me that independent shit.  Either you are a tea bagger, libertarian or conservative.  Admit it.
> 
> Oh, and if there is no god, which there is not, then killing a little seed is not a big deal.  I walk up to a birds nest and crack all the eggs.  Big deal.  OMG that life is precious!  NOT.  But, I will give you this.  See, here is where I am open minded and willing to discuss and/or change my mind.  I don't just go kill birds or squash eggs.  I do understand that life is precious and what a waste/shame someone has to get an abortion, but taking that all into account, I still say abortion should be safe and legal.  Even if it's just because you chose not to wear a condom and you are not ready for a baby.  No I'm not going to put it up for adoption.  No I'm not going to raise it, if I'm not ready.  If I don't want to.  If I'm not capable or prepared or interested in having a baby.  I will abort and yes feel sad about what might have been or who that kid might have been.  But every night I put on a condom or jack off instead of bang my old lady is a day of might have been.  Maybe the next Lebron James or Einstein just went into my sock.  Whatever.  There is no god so I guess it is sad that baby didn't get to live out its life, but a million more humans will follow.  Maybe I'll have a kid next year or in 10 years.  I wonder what the one I aborted would have looked like?  Do you guys understand, we totally get you.  It's horrible.  We will try to be careful.  But if it happens and we aren't ready, leave us the fuck alone we want to get an abortion.  No one is using abortion as birth control.  1 in a million.  And fact is many of you anti abortion people are ready or want kids now in your stage in life, so fuck you for telling others they have to go through with the pregnancy.  If it was back in your youth, you'd probably get the abortion too, and many anti abortion people have had abortions, which is why they are so guilty and passionate about the issue.
> 
> I want kids.  I would not have an abortion today.  But in my teens or 20's I would have had I knocked some chick up in college.  Glad abortions are still legal.  Vote Democratic if you want them to remain safe and legal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you want to live in sin and THEN HAVE THE BABY PAY WITH IT'S LIFE!!! WHAT A #@%$#@#@@#
Click to expand...


It's not a baby.  Stop calling them babies.  Definition:  a very young child, especially one newly or recently born.

Ha!  Has to be born first.


----------



## Boss

> I'll admit it if you admit life isn't so precious at 2 weeks or a month in that someone shouldn't be able to terminate.
> 
> No, the fetus is not a human.



Wow, that didn't last long, did it? 

Yes, the fetus IS a human, and until you can accept that it IS a human and we're talking about terminating a human life, then we can't have a rational discussion with you on this issue because you are denying biological facts. I have no problem discussing whether this human being has gained enough 'sentience' or 'awareness' to qualify for protection of constitutional rights or whatever, but we're going to have to go with the biological definition of what it is, a human life. 

If the organism isn't human, what species is it? If the organism isn't living, why would it need aborting? It is a unique living human organism in the state of being, therefore, a human being. Quite simple.

Again.... Let me explain why you and so many people like you, feel compelled to propagate this argument that a fetus is not a human being.... it is because you know that it is ethically wrong to kill an innocent human being. Therefore, you simply MUST define parameters here around this notion of the fetus as something that is not a human being. Even when you know science and biology simply don't support you on this. The fetus became a unique living human organism in state of being the moment conception was a success, and it will be a "human being" until something happens to end it's life. It began as a zygote, and has had several stages before reaching "fetus" status, it will go on to become an infant, adolescent, adult, geriatric... The fetus is a stage of a human being's life cycle. 

Now whenever you want to discuss when it might be appropriate to kill innocent human beings, we can have that rational discussion. I am willing to hear your ideas on this. I'm particularly fond of the 'brain activity' criteria for being a "viable" human being... some of you might not make the cut though. Can't be the heartbeat, that starts really early, if I'm not mistaken. Nervous system too, that's some of the first stuff a human being develops. So I am not sure where we draw the line on human life, when it comes down to it, especially the most innocent of any human life. 

One thing is for certain, the longer after point of conception, the more unethical and wrong it becomes. We are to the sickening point in this country of dragging the fetus out of the womb to kill it partially born with a saline injection to the brain, like a bunch of barbarians. We would not tolerate DOGS being treated this way! 

I am pro life. I'm sorry if that offends you or women. I think abortion is NOT a woman's "right to choose" when it involves the life of another human being. Under certain unusual conditions, abortions should be allowed after consultation and with great deliberation by both patient and doctor. This should have to be done very early in a pregnancy, earlier than 1st trimester. Only abortions after that would be to save the life of the mother. I am opposed to a complete and total BAN on all abortions. I think that is a wrongheaded viewpoint but I appreciate that some people hold that view. We live in a society of many, and not everyone has the same moral viewpoint on abortion. This is why I believe the States should have the authority to establish their own limited parameters on abortion procedures through ballot initiative. Let the flaming begin!


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> I'll admit it if you admit life isn't so precious at 2 weeks or a month in that someone shouldn't be able to terminate.
> 
> No, the fetus is not a human.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, that didn't last long, did it?
> 
> Yes, the fetus IS a human, and until you can accept that it IS a human and we're talking about terminating a human life, then we can't have a rational discussion with you on this issue because you are denying biological facts. I have no problem discussing whether this human being has gained enough 'sentience' or 'awareness' to qualify for protection of constitutional rights or whatever, but we're going to have to go with the biological definition of what it is, a human life.
> 
> If the organism isn't human, what species is it? If the organism isn't living, why would it need aborting? It is a unique living human organism in the state of being, therefore, a human being. Quite simple.
> 
> Again.... Let me explain why you and so many people like you, feel compelled to propagate this argument that a fetus is not a human being.... it is because you know that it is ethically wrong to kill an innocent human being. Therefore, you simply MUST define parameters here around this notion of the fetus as something that is not a human being. Even when you know science and biology simply don't support you on this. The fetus became a unique living human organism in state of being the moment conception was a success, and it will be a "human being" until something happens to end it's life. It began as a zygote, and has had several stages before reaching "fetus" status, it will go on to become an infant, adolescent, adult, geriatric... The fetus is a stage of a human being's life cycle.
> 
> Now whenever you want to discuss when it might be appropriate to kill innocent human beings, we can have that rational discussion. I am willing to hear your ideas on this. I'm particularly fond of the 'brain activity' criteria for being a "viable" human being... some of you might not make the cut though. Can't be the heartbeat, that starts really early, if I'm not mistaken. Nervous system too, that's some of the first stuff a human being develops. So I am not sure where we draw the line on human life, when it comes down to it, especially the most innocent of any human life.
> 
> One thing is for certain, the longer after point of conception, the more unethical and wrong it becomes. We are to the sickening point in this country of dragging the fetus out of the womb to kill it partially born with a saline injection to the brain, like a bunch of barbarians. We would not tolerate DOGS being treated this way!
> 
> I am pro life. I'm sorry if that offends you or women. I think abortion is NOT a woman's "right to choose" when it involves the life of another human being. Under certain unusual conditions, abortions should be allowed after consultation and with great deliberation by both patient and doctor. This should have to be done very early in a pregnancy, earlier than 1st trimester. Only abortions after that would be to save the life of the mother. I am opposed to a complete and total BAN on all abortions. I think that is a wrongheaded viewpoint but I appreciate that some people hold that view. We live in a society of many, and not everyone has the same moral viewpoint on abortion. This is why I believe the States should have the authority to establish their own limited parameters on abortion procedures through ballot initiative. Let the flaming begin!
Click to expand...


No Boss, the truth never offends me.  This is why I come here.  I want to get my enemies inside secrets, so I enrage you guys into saying the truth.  I have hardly read your post but let me tell you weren't you one of the guys who denied being a republican?  You are the worst kind.  A traitor to your class.  You are a one wedge issue voter.  Doesn't matter how bad the gop fuck the middle class, abortion is your one issue that keeps you voting for reagan, bush, bush, dole, mccain, romney, bush 3.  Dumb ass.

I was thinking about this on the way home.  You guys use to say gay isn't natural, then we found other animals that did it.  Then you said we'll we aren't animals and we are better than that.  Are we?  I think there is no god and we are just the top of the food chain.  Lions will kill baby lions to thin down the herd.  Wolves kill Fox and Coyote in Yellowstone and guess what?  The food chain was restored to it's proper balance.

One good thing this Bush recession did for us is for 5 years the birth rate went down.  But FUCK today I see birth rates are up.  The economy and EVERYTHING is back to normal despite the cries from the lying GOP.  Thanks Obama.  Compared to Bush you are my Messiah.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> I'll admit it if you admit life isn't so precious at 2 weeks or a month in that someone shouldn't be able to terminate.
> 
> No, the fetus is not a human.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, that didn't last long, did it?
> 
> Yes, the fetus IS a human, and until you can accept that it IS a human and we're talking about terminating a human life, then we can't have a rational discussion with you on this issue because you are denying biological facts. I have no problem discussing whether this human being has gained enough 'sentience' or 'awareness' to qualify for protection of constitutional rights or whatever, but we're going to have to go with the biological definition of what it is, a human life.
> 
> If the organism isn't human, what species is it? If the organism isn't living, why would it need aborting? It is a unique living human organism in the state of being, therefore, a human being. Quite simple.
> 
> Again.... Let me explain why you and so many people like you, feel compelled to propagate this argument that a fetus is not a human being.... it is because you know that it is ethically wrong to kill an innocent human being. Therefore, you simply MUST define parameters here around this notion of the fetus as something that is not a human being. Even when you know science and biology simply don't support you on this. The fetus became a unique living human organism in state of being the moment conception was a success, and it will be a "human being" until something happens to end it's life. It began as a zygote, and has had several stages before reaching "fetus" status, it will go on to become an infant, adolescent, adult, geriatric... The fetus is a stage of a human being's life cycle.
> 
> Now whenever you want to discuss when it might be appropriate to kill innocent human beings, we can have that rational discussion. I am willing to hear your ideas on this. I'm particularly fond of the 'brain activity' criteria for being a "viable" human being... some of you might not make the cut though. Can't be the heartbeat, that starts really early, if I'm not mistaken. Nervous system too, that's some of the first stuff a human being develops. So I am not sure where we draw the line on human life, when it comes down to it, especially the most innocent of any human life.
> 
> One thing is for certain, the longer after point of conception, the more unethical and wrong it becomes. We are to the sickening point in this country of dragging the fetus out of the womb to kill it partially born with a saline injection to the brain, like a bunch of barbarians. We would not tolerate DOGS being treated this way!
> 
> I am pro life. I'm sorry if that offends you or women. I think abortion is NOT a woman's "right to choose" when it involves the life of another human being. Under certain unusual conditions, abortions should be allowed after consultation and with great deliberation by both patient and doctor. This should have to be done very early in a pregnancy, earlier than 1st trimester. Only abortions after that would be to save the life of the mother. I am opposed to a complete and total BAN on all abortions. I think that is a wrongheaded viewpoint but I appreciate that some people hold that view. We live in a society of many, and not everyone has the same moral viewpoint on abortion. This is why I believe the States should have the authority to establish their own limited parameters on abortion procedures through ballot initiative. Let the flaming begin!
Click to expand...


After reading your post completely:

In response to your first point.  Who cares?  Ok, so its a human life, or a dog, wolf, bat, snake, turkey, dolphin, ape, lion.  Ok, so its the start of life.  YES OK.  So what?  Yes it is an organism that came from an orgasm.  

Getting an abortion within the first couple months is not the same thing as going out and killing your neighbor.  Can you admit that?

I love it you used science to prove me wrong.  Excellent, now believe science when they tell you there is no god.  What possible proof do you have of a god or the jesus/muslim/jewish stories?  So I guess life isnt so precious that we make women have babies when they dont want them.  I guess that must mean we arent a Christian nation because the bible says IT DOESNT MATTER WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS!    

When can you kill a fetus?  What does the law say?  It was decided long ago and I dont think peoples positions have changed.  The GOP is counting on is apathy from voters.  They hope they will get away with it.  They should put it on the ballot in 2016 and see.  Come on GOP.  Take the countries temperature.  Gamble and lose again waging your war on women I beg you.    

I say if the kid is retarded you can kill it at birth but my family is from Sparta.  

What was that about not letting dogs be treated this way?  Dogs cant choose if they have their babies, human women get to.     

We dont care if you are ok with allowing abortion in rare circumstances.  Thank you so much SIR.  Isnt it more important what the women think?  Theyre the ones who have to go through with it.  And why?  Because YOU believe in god?  Ah and finally states rights.  Thats what the republicans in red states fall back on every time they want to discriminate or ban something or do something that isnt good for the rest of the country.  And you say you arent a republican.  Well we dont claim you.  

And notice your side wont admit they are waging a war on women.  They dont explain themselves because it is true.  Instead Terri Lynn Land in MI is waging a war on women and all she does is run mocking ads saying she isnt waging a war on women, all while she is.  Women want the choice to be theirs and you want to take it away.  When most women understand that, you lose.  Thats why you guys are being very subtle about it.  Oh, this also proves the media isnt liberal or itd be explaining this to women.  The media stays silent.  And will voters throw out a governor whos anti choice?  Probably not.  At least not in a midterm.  Not in a blue state like Michigan.  Not that important to most people.  But it is that important to you guys.  So its up to us to explain to voters what the GOP are doing.  God I wish the liberal media would help.  America people are stupid and lazy and that includes women.  Our secret weapon is Hillary.


----------



## sealybobo

I also love it when righties admit you have to believe in jesus or burn in hell.  That everyone else in the world doesn't get to go to heaven.  And I hate it when christians have a different twist on it and say that muslims and jews get to go to heaven too.  COME ON CHRISTIANS!  That's NOT what god said.  He said only through him can you enter the kingdom of heaven.  And you have to be born again and saved.  Don't change.  The more you water it down the more people continue to accept it.  DOGMA!  I love people who follow DOGMA.  No one buys into their shit.  Probably if a DOGMA couple has 3 kids, 2 of those kids will grow up to leave the church or at least go find a softer/kinder/nicer church that doesn't preach fire and brimstone.  See the church has had to adapt as society has evolved and I can't believe people still take the adam and eve, noah, moses stories literally.  I think you should have to or don't call yourself a christian.  I used to call myself a christian but why?  Just because I was born into it?  My parents were brainwashed by ignorant immigrants with 3rd grade educations.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> I also love it when righties admit you have to believe in jesus or burn in hell.  That everyone else in the world doesn't get to go to heaven.  And I hate it when christians have a different twist on it and say that muslims and jews get to go to heaven too.  COME ON CHRISTIANS!  That's NOT what god said.  He said only through him can you enter the kingdom of heaven.  And you have to be born again and saved.  Don't change.  The more you water it down the more people continue to accept it.  DOGMA!  I love people who follow DOGMA.  No one buys into their shit.  Probably if a DOGMA couple has 3 kids, 2 of those kids will grow up to leave the church or at least go find a softer/kinder/nicer church that doesn't preach fire and brimstone.  See the church has had to adapt as society has evolved and I can't believe people still take the adam and eve, noah, moses stories literally.  I think you should have to or don't call yourself a christian.  I used to call myself a christian but why?  Just because I was born into it?  My parents were brainwashed by ignorant immigrants with 3rd grade educations.



YES! GOD'S Word says that in the last days many shall depart from the faith and believe the lies of satan and we see many "churches" that do not preach and teach or even believe in GOD'S Word=== proof there are the last days!!!  Will you soon meet JESUS as your LORD and SAVIOR or as your final JUDGE??? You must choose. Choose wisely!!


----------



## HUGGY

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll admit it if you admit life isn't so precious at 2 weeks or a month in that someone shouldn't be able to terminate.
> 
> No, the fetus is not a human.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, that didn't last long, did it?
> 
> Yes, the fetus IS a human, and until you can accept that it IS a human and we're talking about terminating a human life, then we can't have a rational discussion with you on this issue because you are denying biological facts. I have no problem discussing whether this human being has gained enough 'sentience' or 'awareness' to qualify for protection of constitutional rights or whatever, but we're going to have to go with the biological definition of what it is, a human life.
> 
> If the organism isn't human, what species is it? If the organism isn't living, why would it need aborting? It is a unique living human organism in the state of being, therefore, a human being. Quite simple.
> 
> Again.... Let me explain why you and so many people like you, feel compelled to propagate this argument that a fetus is not a human being.... it is because you know that it is ethically wrong to kill an innocent human being. Therefore, you simply MUST define parameters here around this notion of the fetus as something that is not a human being. Even when you know science and biology simply don't support you on this. The fetus became a unique living human organism in state of being the moment conception was a success, and it will be a "human being" until something happens to end it's life. It began as a zygote, and has had several stages before reaching "fetus" status, it will go on to become an infant, adolescent, adult, geriatric... The fetus is a stage of a human being's life cycle.
> 
> Now whenever you want to discuss when it might be appropriate to kill innocent human beings, we can have that rational discussion. I am willing to hear your ideas on this. I'm particularly fond of the 'brain activity' criteria for being a "viable" human being... some of you might not make the cut though. Can't be the heartbeat, that starts really early, if I'm not mistaken. Nervous system too, that's some of the first stuff a human being develops. So I am not sure where we draw the line on human life, when it comes down to it, especially the most innocent of any human life.
> 
> One thing is for certain, the longer after point of conception, the more unethical and wrong it becomes. We are to the sickening point in this country of dragging the fetus out of the womb to kill it partially born with a saline injection to the brain, like a bunch of barbarians. We would not tolerate DOGS being treated this way!
> 
> I am pro life. I'm sorry if that offends you or women. I think abortion is NOT a woman's "right to choose" when it involves the life of another human being. Under certain unusual conditions, abortions should be allowed after consultation and with great deliberation by both patient and doctor. This should have to be done very early in a pregnancy, earlier than 1st trimester. Only abortions after that would be to save the life of the mother. I am opposed to a complete and total BAN on all abortions. I think that is a wrongheaded viewpoint but I appreciate that some people hold that view. We live in a society of many, and not everyone has the same moral viewpoint on abortion. This is why I believe the States should have the authority to establish their own limited parameters on abortion procedures through ballot initiative. Let the flaming begin!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After reading your post completely:
> 
> In response to your first point.  Who cares?  Ok, so its a human life, or a dog, wolf, bat, snake, turkey, dolphin, ape, lion.  Ok, so its the start of life.  YES OK.  So what?  Yes it is an organism that came from an orgasm.
> 
> Getting an abortion within the first couple months is not the same thing as going out and killing your neighbor.  Can you admit that?
> 
> I love it you used science to prove me wrong.  Excellent, now believe science when they tell you there is no god.  What possible proof do you have of a god or the jesus/muslim/jewish stories?  So I guess life isnt so precious that we make women have babies when they dont want them.  I guess that must mean we arent a Christian nation because the bible says IT DOESNT MATTER WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS!
> 
> When can you kill a fetus?  What does the law say?  It was decided long ago and I dont think peoples positions have changed.  The GOP is counting on is apathy from voters.  They hope they will get away with it.  They should put it on the ballot in 2016 and see.  Come on GOP.  Take the countries temperature.  Gamble and lose again waging your war on women I beg you.
> 
> I say if the kid is retarded you can kill it at birth but my family is from Sparta.
> 
> What was that about not letting dogs be treated this way?  Dogs cant choose if they have their babies, human women get to.
> 
> We dont care if you are ok with allowing abortion in rare circumstances.  Thank you so much SIR.  Isnt it more important what the women think?  Theyre the ones who have to go through with it.  And why?  Because YOU believe in god?  Ah and finally states rights.  Thats what the republicans in red states fall back on every time they want to discriminate or ban something or do something that isnt good for the rest of the country.  And you say you arent a republican.  Well we dont claim you.
> 
> And notice your side wont admit they are waging a war on women.  They dont explain themselves because it is true.  Instead Terri Lynn Land in MI is waging a war on women and all she does is run mocking ads saying she isnt waging a war on women, all while she is.  Women want the choice to be theirs and you want to take it away.  When most women understand that, you lose.  Thats why you guys are being very subtle about it.  Oh, this also proves the media isnt liberal or itd be explaining this to women.  The media stays silent.  And will voters throw out a governor whos anti choice?  Probably not.  At least not in a midterm.  Not in a blue state like Michigan.  Not that important to most people.  But it is that important to you guys.  So its up to us to explain to voters what the GOP are doing.  God I wish the liberal media would help.  America people are stupid and lazy and that includes women.  Our secret weapon is Hillary.
Click to expand...


*"Getting an abortion within the first couple months is not the same thing as going out and killing your neighbor.  Can you admit that?"
*

They call it MURDER.

If it is MURDER then it MUST be first degree MURDER.  After all it is pre meditated MURDER.

The woman is only complicit in the MURDER.  It is the doctor in the proceedure that is the actual MURDERER.  

Since there is no statute of limitations on MURDER and they claim hundreds of millions of MURDERS then I guess if the religists had their way and got the law changed to make early abortions legally MURDER then probably 1/4 to 1/3 of the population of the U S all women would need to be prosecuted for MURDER and spend the rest of their lives in prison.  Making all those MURDERS retroactive may be the only way to right things with god.

I'm betting Jizzmo would be happy with sending most of America's women to prison for MURDER.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I also love it when righties admit you have to believe in jesus or burn in hell.  That everyone else in the world doesn't get to go to heaven.  And I hate it when christians have a different twist on it and say that muslims and jews get to go to heaven too.  COME ON CHRISTIANS!  That's NOT what god said.  He said only through him can you enter the kingdom of heaven.  And you have to be born again and saved.  Don't change.  The more you water it down the more people continue to accept it.  DOGMA!  I love people who follow DOGMA.  No one buys into their shit.  Probably if a DOGMA couple has 3 kids, 2 of those kids will grow up to leave the church or at least go find a softer/kinder/nicer church that doesn't preach fire and brimstone.  See the church has had to adapt as society has evolved and I can't believe people still take the adam and eve, noah, moses stories literally.  I think you should have to or don't call yourself a christian.  I used to call myself a christian but why?  Just because I was born into it?  My parents were brainwashed by ignorant immigrants with 3rd grade educations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YES! GOD'S Word says that in the last days many shall depart from the faith and believe the lies of satan and we see many "churches" that do not preach and teach or even believe in GOD'S Word=== proof there are the last days!!!  Will you soon meet JESUS as your LORD and SAVIOR or as your final JUDGE??? You must choose. Choose wisely!!
Click to expand...


Please tell me what years between 1 and 2014 when man was not departing from the faith and sinning.  When were the golden years of christianity.  I want to study that history.  Remember to include massacring the native American indians, slavery and remember all the german christians in ww2 who went along with murdering jews.  

Or was it the 1600's or 1500's?  When weren't we living in the end days.  Every fucking generation of stupid brainwashed cult followers claim this.  Put on your nike's and take a sip of the coolaid.  Or please jesus come get these freaks out of here if that's how it's going to go down.  Superstitious pricks.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I also love it when righties admit you have to believe in jesus or burn in hell.  That everyone else in the world doesn't get to go to heaven.  And I hate it when christians have a different twist on it and say that muslims and jews get to go to heaven too.  COME ON CHRISTIANS!  That's NOT what god said.  He said only through him can you enter the kingdom of heaven.  And you have to be born again and saved.  Don't change.  The more you water it down the more people continue to accept it.  DOGMA!  I love people who follow DOGMA.  No one buys into their shit.  Probably if a DOGMA couple has 3 kids, 2 of those kids will grow up to leave the church or at least go find a softer/kinder/nicer church that doesn't preach fire and brimstone.  See the church has had to adapt as society has evolved and I can't believe people still take the adam and eve, noah, moses stories literally.  I think you should have to or don't call yourself a christian.  I used to call myself a christian but why?  Just because I was born into it?  My parents were brainwashed by ignorant immigrants with 3rd grade educations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YES! GOD'S Word says that in the last days many shall depart from the faith and believe the lies of satan and we see many "churches" that do not preach and teach or even believe in GOD'S Word=== proof there are the last days!!!  Will you soon meet JESUS as your LORD and SAVIOR or as your final JUDGE??? You must choose. Choose wisely!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please tell me what years between 1 and 2014 when man was not departing from the faith and sinning.  When were the golden years of christianity.  I want to study that history.  Remember to include massacring the native American indians, slavery and remember all the german christians in ww2 who went along with murdering jews.
> 
> Or was it the 1600's or 1500's?  When weren't we living in the end days.  Every fucking generation of stupid brainwashed cult followers claim this.  Put on your nike's and take a sip of the coolaid.  Or please jesus come get these freaks out of here if that's how it's going to go down.  Superstitious pricks.
Click to expand...


YES!!! TODAY many "churches" deny the TRUTH of God's Word.====But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron. 1 TIMOTHY 4:1-2 === YES!!! TODAY WE SEE THIS SCRIPTURE COME TRUE!!!


----------



## HUGGY

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I also love it when righties admit you have to believe in jesus or burn in hell.  That everyone else in the world doesn't get to go to heaven.  And I hate it when christians have a different twist on it and say that muslims and jews get to go to heaven too.  COME ON CHRISTIANS!  That's NOT what god said.  He said only through him can you enter the kingdom of heaven.  And you have to be born again and saved.  Don't change.  The more you water it down the more people continue to accept it.  DOGMA!  I love people who follow DOGMA.  No one buys into their shit.  Probably if a DOGMA couple has 3 kids, 2 of those kids will grow up to leave the church or at least go find a softer/kinder/nicer church that doesn't preach fire and brimstone.  See the church has had to adapt as society has evolved and I can't believe people still take the adam and eve, noah, moses stories literally.  I think you should have to or don't call yourself a christian.  I used to call myself a christian but why?  Just because I was born into it?  My parents were brainwashed by ignorant immigrants with 3rd grade educations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YES! GOD'S Word says that in the last days many shall depart from the faith and believe the lies of satan and we see many "churches" that do not preach and teach or even believe in GOD'S Word=== proof there are the last days!!!  Will you soon meet JESUS as your LORD and SAVIOR or as your final JUDGE??? You must choose. Choose wisely!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please tell me what years between 1 and 2014 when man was not departing from the faith and sinning.  When were the golden years of christianity.  I want to study that history.  Remember to include *massacring the native American indians*, slavery and remember all the german christians in ww2 who went along with murdering jews.
> 
> Or was it the 1600's or 1500's?  When weren't we living in the end days.  Every fucking generation of stupid brainwashed cult followers claim this.  Put on your nike's and take a sip of the coolaid.  Or please jesus come get these freaks out of here if that's how it's going to go down.  Superstitious pricks.
Click to expand...


I was especially impressed with the swindles of native Americans of much of what was left of their SW American land by the Mormans.  Before their VERY christian like theft the Mormans were almost entirely thought of as purely a cult.  Makes one wonder WHEN the cult status was lifted....and WHY.


----------



## sealybobo

HUGGY said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, that didn't last long, did it?
> 
> Yes, the fetus IS a human, and until you can accept that it IS a human and we're talking about terminating a human life, then we can't have a rational discussion with you on this issue because you are denying biological facts. I have no problem discussing whether this human being has gained enough 'sentience' or 'awareness' to qualify for protection of constitutional rights or whatever, but we're going to have to go with the biological definition of what it is, a human life.
> 
> If the organism isn't human, what species is it? If the organism isn't living, why would it need aborting? It is a unique living human organism in the state of being, therefore, a human being. Quite simple.
> 
> Again.... Let me explain why you and so many people like you, feel compelled to propagate this argument that a fetus is not a human being.... it is because you know that it is ethically wrong to kill an innocent human being. Therefore, you simply MUST define parameters here around this notion of the fetus as something that is not a human being. Even when you know science and biology simply don't support you on this. The fetus became a unique living human organism in state of being the moment conception was a success, and it will be a "human being" until something happens to end it's life. It began as a zygote, and has had several stages before reaching "fetus" status, it will go on to become an infant, adolescent, adult, geriatric... The fetus is a stage of a human being's life cycle.
> 
> Now whenever you want to discuss when it might be appropriate to kill innocent human beings, we can have that rational discussion. I am willing to hear your ideas on this. I'm particularly fond of the 'brain activity' criteria for being a "viable" human being... some of you might not make the cut though. Can't be the heartbeat, that starts really early, if I'm not mistaken. Nervous system too, that's some of the first stuff a human being develops. So I am not sure where we draw the line on human life, when it comes down to it, especially the most innocent of any human life.
> 
> One thing is for certain, the longer after point of conception, the more unethical and wrong it becomes. We are to the sickening point in this country of dragging the fetus out of the womb to kill it partially born with a saline injection to the brain, like a bunch of barbarians. We would not tolerate DOGS being treated this way!
> 
> I am pro life. I'm sorry if that offends you or women. I think abortion is NOT a woman's "right to choose" when it involves the life of another human being. Under certain unusual conditions, abortions should be allowed after consultation and with great deliberation by both patient and doctor. This should have to be done very early in a pregnancy, earlier than 1st trimester. Only abortions after that would be to save the life of the mother. I am opposed to a complete and total BAN on all abortions. I think that is a wrongheaded viewpoint but I appreciate that some people hold that view. We live in a society of many, and not everyone has the same moral viewpoint on abortion. This is why I believe the States should have the authority to establish their own limited parameters on abortion procedures through ballot initiative. Let the flaming begin!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After reading your post completely:
> 
> In response to your first point.  Who cares?  Ok, so its a human life, or a dog, wolf, bat, snake, turkey, dolphin, ape, lion.  Ok, so its the start of life.  YES OK.  So what?  Yes it is an organism that came from an orgasm.
> 
> Getting an abortion within the first couple months is not the same thing as going out and killing your neighbor.  Can you admit that?
> 
> I love it you used science to prove me wrong.  Excellent, now believe science when they tell you there is no god.  What possible proof do you have of a god or the jesus/muslim/jewish stories?  So I guess life isnt so precious that we make women have babies when they dont want them.  I guess that must mean we arent a Christian nation because the bible says IT DOESNT MATTER WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS!
> 
> When can you kill a fetus?  What does the law say?  It was decided long ago and I dont think peoples positions have changed.  The GOP is counting on is apathy from voters.  They hope they will get away with it.  They should put it on the ballot in 2016 and see.  Come on GOP.  Take the countries temperature.  Gamble and lose again waging your war on women I beg you.
> 
> I say if the kid is retarded you can kill it at birth but my family is from Sparta.
> 
> What was that about not letting dogs be treated this way?  Dogs cant choose if they have their babies, human women get to.
> 
> We dont care if you are ok with allowing abortion in rare circumstances.  Thank you so much SIR.  Isnt it more important what the women think?  Theyre the ones who have to go through with it.  And why?  Because YOU believe in god?  Ah and finally states rights.  Thats what the republicans in red states fall back on every time they want to discriminate or ban something or do something that isnt good for the rest of the country.  And you say you arent a republican.  Well we dont claim you.
> 
> And notice your side wont admit they are waging a war on women.  They dont explain themselves because it is true.  Instead Terri Lynn Land in MI is waging a war on women and all she does is run mocking ads saying she isnt waging a war on women, all while she is.  Women want the choice to be theirs and you want to take it away.  When most women understand that, you lose.  Thats why you guys are being very subtle about it.  Oh, this also proves the media isnt liberal or itd be explaining this to women.  The media stays silent.  And will voters throw out a governor whos anti choice?  Probably not.  At least not in a midterm.  Not in a blue state like Michigan.  Not that important to most people.  But it is that important to you guys.  So its up to us to explain to voters what the GOP are doing.  God I wish the liberal media would help.  America people are stupid and lazy and that includes women.  Our secret weapon is Hillary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"Getting an abortion within the first couple months is not the same thing as going out and killing your neighbor.  Can you admit that?"
> *
> 
> They call it MURDER.
> 
> If it is MURDER then it MUST be first degree MURDER.  After all it is pre meditated MURDER.
> 
> The woman is only complicit in the MURDER.  It is the doctor in the proceedure that is the actual MURDERER.
> 
> Since there is no statute of limitations on MURDER and they claim hundreds of millions of MURDERS then I guess if the religists had their way and got the law changed to make early abortions legally MURDER then probably 1/4 to 1/3 of the population of the U S all women would need to be prosecuted for MURDER and spend the rest of their lives in prison.  Making all those MURDERS retroactive may be the only way to right things with god.
> 
> I'm betting Jizzmo would be happy with sending most of America's women to prison for MURDER.
Click to expand...


And I guess this is why us "god haters" persist.  Science, history, stare decisis the constitution, most doctors and reality say that life isn't so precious that a woman should be forced to carry a baby to term.  Not in America.  Don't love it leave it.   

Religion/GOP/The Rich/The church/White People/Corporate America use religion as wedge issues to sucker fools into voting against themselves financially.  I wish they would move on to the 7 deadly sins they commit and move on from abortion and gays but they are such effective issues with the dumb religious vote.  Hypocrisy should be the deadliest of sins.  If you are are anti abortion and have had an abortion yourself then you should burn in hell for being anti abortion.  That amount of retarded thinking is your hell.

More than 90% of all living organisms that lived on earth are now extinct.  If there was a god, how precious is life to him?  

The only reason we don't do stem cell, do assisted suicides, discriminate, were conned into the iraq war is because we are dumb enough to believe in a fairy tale.  Meanwhile who comes up with the cures and weapons?  Atheist scientists who the fools wouldn't even vote for because he/she doesn't believe in god.  But they run to them in emergencies.  But when science says there is no god then science is stupid.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> YES! GOD'S Word says that in the last days many shall depart from the faith and believe the lies of satan and we see many "churches" that do not preach and teach or even believe in GOD'S Word=== proof there are the last days!!!  Will you soon meet JESUS as your LORD and SAVIOR or as your final JUDGE??? You must choose. Choose wisely!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please tell me what years between 1 and 2014 when man was not departing from the faith and sinning.  When were the golden years of christianity.  I want to study that history.  Remember to include massacring the native American indians, slavery and remember all the german christians in ww2 who went along with murdering jews.
> 
> Or was it the 1600's or 1500's?  When weren't we living in the end days.  Every fucking generation of stupid brainwashed cult followers claim this.  Put on your nike's and take a sip of the coolaid.  Or please jesus come get these freaks out of here if that's how it's going to go down.  Superstitious pricks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YES!!! TODAY many "churches" deny the TRUTH of God's Word.====But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron. 1 TIMOTHY 4:1-2 === YES!!! TODAY WE SEE THIS SCRIPTURE COME TRUE!!!
Click to expand...


1.  Of course a guy making up a cult as he goes along would say that. 

2.  They've been saying that since the beginning of religion.  Great prediction.  How about predict a miracle and have that miracle actually happen, in the future.  I predict the sun will eventually burn out or a meteor will end man.  Probably when that event happens you'll think it's jesus coming but the scientists know better.  We'll go to them to come up with a solution to maybe stop that event in the future.  You pray for us all.  

3.  Your quote is not deep.  You are not deep.  Monkey.


----------



## sealybobo

And we should never avoid a subject or stop looking for the truth no matter how uncomfortable it makes us.  It is a scientists job to question.  This is why religion hates science because science picks apart the religion story and won't accept unbelievable answers.  Religious people do, so you see how politicians use it to control voters.  Even smart people are religious but they most certainly use religion to con the dumb poor and middle class suckers into voting against themselves.  

Anyways, just because your church, community, friends and family all tell you if you don't believe you will go to hell, isn't enough that you shouldn't question things that can't possibly be true.  Google whynogod and look at all the arguments and then let me know if you believe in an invisible man that is watching you, cares about you but will send you to hell if you don't follow his rules.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please tell me what years between 1 and 2014 when man was not departing from the faith and sinning.  When were the golden years of christianity.  I want to study that history.  Remember to include massacring the native American indians, slavery and remember all the german christians in ww2 who went along with murdering jews.
> 
> Or was it the 1600's or 1500's?  When weren't we living in the end days.  Every fucking generation of stupid brainwashed cult followers claim this.  Put on your nike's and take a sip of the coolaid.  Or please jesus come get these freaks out of here if that's how it's going to go down.  Superstitious pricks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YES!!! TODAY many "churches" deny the TRUTH of God's Word.====But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron. 1 TIMOTHY 4:1-2 === YES!!! TODAY WE SEE THIS SCRIPTURE COME TRUE!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.  Of course a guy making up a cult as he goes along would say that.
> 
> 2.  They've been saying that since the beginning of religion.  Great prediction.  How about predict a miracle and have that miracle actually happen, in the future.  I predict the sun will eventually burn out or a meteor will end man.  Probably when that event happens you'll think it's jesus coming but the scientists know better.  We'll go to them to come up with a solution to maybe stop that event in the future.  You pray for us all.
> 
> 3.  Your quote is not deep.  You are not deep.  Monkey.
Click to expand...


I like this one= GOD said ISRAEL WOULD BE DESTROYED AS A NATION over 2000 years ago but in the last days GOD SAID he would bring the JEWISH people back to their old homeland===AFTER 2011 YEARS ISRAEL ON MAY 15 1948 BECAME A NATION AGAIN and the JEWS are still in the process of returning today!!!! WOW!!!! PTL. GOD'S WORD IS TRUE!!!


----------



## sealybobo

Uncensored2008 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why there is no god
> 
> Shove it down our throats?  OMG I can turn on the tv 24 hours a day and I even found some religious stations.  Show me the fucking atheist station!  Those are public airwaves.  I can't wait for the day we finally get a show.  The Cosmos was a good start but hardly equal to the brainwashing and shoving down our throats those tv preachers brainwashing and milking stupid americans of their hard earned dollars.  Dopes.
> 
> I am agnostic bitch.  I don't know what's on the other side of black holes.  It could be anything including god.  But the logical position to have is I DON"T FUCKING KNOW and keep on looking, not to presume an answer which makes us comfortable.
> 
> Note: This claim often represents a deep discomfort with uncertainty or ambiguity, demonstrating a lack of critical thinking or poor understanding of a topic. It usually coincides with credulity, which is the tendency to believe in propositions unsupported by evidence. See also: gullibility.
> 
> And I never stop someone from praying.  I just make fun of them in my mind.  I never talk about this with religious people.  They can't handle it.  I've lost friends over it.  Pussies.  I don't disown religious people.  I don't say I wouldn't marry someone unless they are an atheist too.  But I bet you wouldn't marry an atheist so stop crying the victim/martyr.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dawkins is such a stupid cocksucker - I can always tell when you missionaries are quoting his gospels...
Click to expand...


Every priest, cleric, rabbi, bishop, pope & minister is a stupid cocksucker.  I can always tell when one of their missionaries are quoting their gospels.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> YES!!! TODAY many "churches" deny the TRUTH of God's Word.====But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron. 1 TIMOTHY 4:1-2 === YES!!! TODAY WE SEE THIS SCRIPTURE COME TRUE!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  Of course a guy making up a cult as he goes along would say that.
> 
> 2.  They've been saying that since the beginning of religion.  Great prediction.  How about predict a miracle and have that miracle actually happen, in the future.  I predict the sun will eventually burn out or a meteor will end man.  Probably when that event happens you'll think it's jesus coming but the scientists know better.  We'll go to them to come up with a solution to maybe stop that event in the future.  You pray for us all.
> 
> 3.  Your quote is not deep.  You are not deep.  Monkey.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I like this one= GOD said ISRAEL WOULD BE DESTROYED AS A NATION over 2000 years ago but in the last days GOD SAID he would bring the JEWISH people back to their old homeland===AFTER 2011 YEARS ISRAEL ON MAY 15 1948 BECAME A NATION AGAIN and the JEWS are still in the process of returning today!!!! WOW!!!! PTL. GOD'S WORD IS TRUE!!!
Click to expand...


I'm sure the jews and christians of 1947 used that as justification for taking the land from the Palistinians.


----------



## sealybobo

And I know some very good priests.  Doesn't mean it's right they pedal their lies.  Or they may believe so they aren't lying but that doesn't mean it's right they spread something that isn't true never was and never will be.


----------



## sealybobo

I don't doubt most priests sincerity just like I'm sure Gismys sincerely believes the fairy tales he was told as a baby too.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  Of course a guy making up a cult as he goes along would say that.
> 
> 2.  They've been saying that since the beginning of religion.  Great prediction.  How about predict a miracle and have that miracle actually happen, in the future.  I predict the sun will eventually burn out or a meteor will end man.  Probably when that event happens you'll think it's jesus coming but the scientists know better.  We'll go to them to come up with a solution to maybe stop that event in the future.  You pray for us all.
> 
> 3.  Your quote is not deep.  You are not deep.  Monkey.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like this one= GOD said ISRAEL WOULD BE DESTROYED AS A NATION over 2000 years ago but in the last days GOD SAID he would bring the JEWISH people back to their old homeland===AFTER 2011 YEARS ISRAEL ON MAY 15 1948 BECAME A NATION AGAIN and the JEWS are still in the process of returning today!!!! WOW!!!! PTL. GOD'S WORD IS TRUE!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure the jews and christians of 1947 used that as justification for taking the land from the Palistinians.
Click to expand...


DO SOME RESEARCH,STUDY HISTORY!!! IT WAS BRITIAN AND THE UN NATIONS THAT VOTED TO GIVE THE jewish people back their nation that was destroyed 2011 years ago!!!  WONDER HOW THE writers of the BIBLE would kmow about tiny ISRAEL 2011 years into the future????? anything but GOD!!!! HUH???


----------



## Montrovant

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll admit it if you admit life isn't so precious at 2 weeks or a month in that someone shouldn't be able to terminate.
> 
> No, the fetus is not a human.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, that didn't last long, did it?
> 
> Yes, the fetus IS a human, and until you can accept that it IS a human and we're talking about terminating a human life, then we can't have a rational discussion with you on this issue because you are denying biological facts. I have no problem discussing whether this human being has gained enough 'sentience' or 'awareness' to qualify for protection of constitutional rights or whatever, but we're going to have to go with the biological definition of what it is, a human life.
> 
> If the organism isn't human, what species is it? If the organism isn't living, why would it need aborting? It is a unique living human organism in the state of being, therefore, a human being. Quite simple.
> 
> Again.... Let me explain why you and so many people like you, feel compelled to propagate this argument that a fetus is not a human being.... it is because you know that it is ethically wrong to kill an innocent human being. Therefore, you simply MUST define parameters here around this notion of the fetus as something that is not a human being. Even when you know science and biology simply don't support you on this. The fetus became a unique living human organism in state of being the moment conception was a success, and it will be a "human being" until something happens to end it's life. It began as a zygote, and has had several stages before reaching "fetus" status, it will go on to become an infant, adolescent, adult, geriatric... The fetus is a stage of a human being's life cycle.
> 
> Now whenever you want to discuss when it might be appropriate to kill innocent human beings, we can have that rational discussion. I am willing to hear your ideas on this. I'm particularly fond of the 'brain activity' criteria for being a "viable" human being... some of you might not make the cut though. Can't be the heartbeat, that starts really early, if I'm not mistaken. Nervous system too, that's some of the first stuff a human being develops. So I am not sure where we draw the line on human life, when it comes down to it, especially the most innocent of any human life.
> 
> One thing is for certain, the longer after point of conception, the more unethical and wrong it becomes. We are to the sickening point in this country of dragging the fetus out of the womb to kill it partially born with a saline injection to the brain, like a bunch of barbarians. We would not tolerate DOGS being treated this way!
> 
> I am pro life. I'm sorry if that offends you or women. I think abortion is NOT a woman's "right to choose" when it involves the life of another human being. Under certain unusual conditions, abortions should be allowed after consultation and with great deliberation by both patient and doctor. This should have to be done very early in a pregnancy, earlier than 1st trimester. Only abortions after that would be to save the life of the mother. I am opposed to a complete and total BAN on all abortions. I think that is a wrongheaded viewpoint but I appreciate that some people hold that view. We live in a society of many, and not everyone has the same moral viewpoint on abortion. This is why I believe the States should have the authority to establish their own limited parameters on abortion procedures through ballot initiative. Let the flaming begin!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After reading your post completely:
> 
> In response to your first point.  Who cares?  Ok, so its a human life, or a dog, wolf, bat, snake, turkey, dolphin, ape, lion.  Ok, so its the start of life.  YES OK.  So what?  Yes it is an organism that came from an orgasm.
> 
> Getting an abortion within the first couple months is not the same thing as going out and killing your neighbor.  Can you admit that?
> 
> I love it you used science to prove me wrong.  Excellent, now believe science when they tell you there is no god.  What possible proof do you have of a god or the jesus/muslim/jewish stories?  So I guess life isnt so precious that we make women have babies when they dont want them.  I guess that must mean we arent a Christian nation because the bible says IT DOESNT MATTER WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS!
> 
> When can you kill a fetus?  What does the law say?  It was decided long ago and I dont think peoples positions have changed.  The GOP is counting on is apathy from voters.  They hope they will get away with it.  They should put it on the ballot in 2016 and see.  Come on GOP.  Take the countries temperature.  Gamble and lose again waging your war on women I beg you.
> 
> I say if the kid is retarded you can kill it at birth but my family is from Sparta.
> 
> What was that about not letting dogs be treated this way?  Dogs cant choose if they have their babies, human women get to.
> 
> We dont care if you are ok with allowing abortion in rare circumstances.  Thank you so much SIR.  Isnt it more important what the women think?  Theyre the ones who have to go through with it.  And why?  Because YOU believe in god?  Ah and finally states rights.  Thats what the republicans in red states fall back on every time they want to discriminate or ban something or do something that isnt good for the rest of the country.  And you say you arent a republican.  Well we dont claim you.
> 
> And notice your side wont admit they are waging a war on women.  They dont explain themselves because it is true.  Instead Terri Lynn Land in MI is waging a war on women and all she does is run mocking ads saying she isnt waging a war on women, all while she is.  Women want the choice to be theirs and you want to take it away.  When most women understand that, you lose.  Thats why you guys are being very subtle about it.  Oh, this also proves the media isnt liberal or itd be explaining this to women.  The media stays silent.  And will voters throw out a governor whos anti choice?  Probably not.  At least not in a midterm.  Not in a blue state like Michigan.  Not that important to most people.  But it is that important to you guys.  So its up to us to explain to voters what the GOP are doing.  God I wish the liberal media would help.  America people are stupid and lazy and that includes women.  Our secret weapon is Hillary.
Click to expand...


Science doesn't say there is no god.  That is just untrue.  Science, for the most part, doesn't even make any attempts to weigh in on god; it's simply outside the purview of most scientific study.

Now, perhaps there are scientists who say there is no god, but that is not the same thing.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like this one= GOD said ISRAEL WOULD BE DESTROYED AS A NATION over 2000 years ago but in the last days GOD SAID he would bring the JEWISH people back to their old homeland===AFTER 2011 YEARS ISRAEL ON MAY 15 1948 BECAME A NATION AGAIN and the JEWS are still in the process of returning today!!!! WOW!!!! PTL. GOD'S WORD IS TRUE!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure the jews and christians of 1947 used that as justification for taking the land from the Palistinians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DO SOME RESEARCH,STUDY HISTORY!!! IT WAS BRITIAN AND THE UN NATIONS THAT VOTED TO GIVE THE jewish people back their nation that was destroyed 2011 years ago!!!  WONDER HOW THE writers of the BIBLE would kmow about tiny ISRAEL 2011 years into the future????? anything but GOD!!!! HUH???
Click to expand...


So what it was led by England & the UN.  I'm sure the church was behind it too.  

Hey, I was doing some research on muslim and omg they sound just as dumb as you.  Here is their twist:

Islam regards itself, not as a subsequent faith to Judaism and Christianity, but as the primordial religion, the faith from which Judaism and Christianity are subsequent developments. In the Quran we read that Abraham was not a Jew nor a Christian, but he was a monotheist, a Muslim (Âl 'Imran 3:66). So it is Muslims, and not Christians or Jews, who are the true representatives of the faith of Abraham to the world today. (Al-Baqarah 2:135)

The Biblical prophets were all Muslims

Many prophets of the past received the one religion of Islam. (Ash-Shura 42:13) Who were these previous prophets? According to Al-Anam 6:85-87 they include Ibrahim (Abraham), Ishaq (Issac), Yaqub (Jacob), Nuh (Noah), Dawud (David), Sulaiman (Solomon), Ayyub (Job), Yusuf (Joseph), Musa (Moses), Harun (Aaron), Zakariyya (Zachariah), Yahya (John the Baptist), Isa (Jesus), Ilyas, Ishmael, Al-Yasha (Elisha), Yunus (Jonah) and Lut (Lot).

The Muslim Isa (Jesus)

There are two main sources for Isa, the Muslim Jesus. The Quran gives a history of his life, whilst the Hadith collections  recollections of Muhammads words and deeds  establish his place in the Muslim understanding of the future.

The Quran

Isa, was a prophet of Islam

Jesus true name, according to the Quran, was Isa. His message was pure Islam, surrender to Allah. (Âl 'Imran 3:84) Like all the Muslim prophets before him, and like Muhammad after him, Isa was a lawgiver, and Christians should submit to his law. (Âl 'Imran 3:50; Al-Maidah 5:48) Isas original disciples were also true Muslims, for they said We believe. Bear witness that we have surrendered. We are Muslims. (Al-Maidah 5:111)

The Books

Like other messengers of Islam before him, Isa received his revelation of Islam in the form of a book. (Al-Anam 6:90) Isas book is called the Injil or gospel. (Al-Maidah 5:46) The Torah was Moses book, and the Zabur (Psalms) were Davids book. So Jews and Christians are people of the Book. The one religion revealed in these books was Islam. (Âl 'Imran 3:18)

As with previous prophets, Isas revelation verified previous prophets revelations. (Âl 'Imran 3:49,84; Al-Maidah 5:46; As-Saff 61:6) Muhammad himself verified all previous revelations, including the revelation to Isa (An-Nisa 4:47), and so Muslims must believe in the revelation which Isa received. (Al-Baqarah 2:136) However, after Isa the Injil was lost in its original form. Today the Quran is the only sure guide to Isas teaching.

Does this look or sound familiar fool?  Oh there whole religion is made up and bullshit but yours is not?


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure the jews and christians of 1947 used that as justification for taking the land from the Palistinians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DO SOME RESEARCH,STUDY HISTORY!!! IT WAS BRITIAN AND THE UN NATIONS THAT VOTED TO GIVE THE jewish people back their nation that was destroyed 2011 years ago!!!  WONDER HOW THE writers of the BIBLE would kmow about tiny ISRAEL 2011 years into the future????? anything but GOD!!!! HUH???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what it was led by England & the UN.  I'm sure the church was behind it too.
> 
> Hey, I was doing some research on muslim and omg they sound just as dumb as you.  Here is their twist:
> 
> Islam regards itself, not as a subsequent faith to Judaism and Christianity, but as the primordial religion, the faith from which Judaism and Christianity are subsequent developments. In the Quran we read that Abraham was not a Jew nor a Christian, but he was a monotheist, a Muslim (Âl 'Imran 3:66). So it is Muslims, and not Christians or Jews, who are the true representatives of the faith of Abraham to the world today. (Al-Baqarah 2:135)
> 
> The Biblical prophets were all Muslims
> 
> Many prophets of the past received the one religion of Islam. (Ash-Shura 42:13) Who were these previous prophets? According to Al-Anam 6:85-87 they include Ibrahim (Abraham), Ishaq (Issac), Yaqub (Jacob), Nuh (Noah), Dawud (David), Sulaiman (Solomon), Ayyub (Job), Yusuf (Joseph), Musa (Moses), Harun (Aaron), Zakariyya (Zachariah), Yahya (John the Baptist), Isa (Jesus), Ilyas, Ishmael, Al-Yasha (Elisha), Yunus (Jonah) and Lut (Lot).
> 
> The Muslim Isa (Jesus)
> 
> There are two main sources for Isa, the Muslim Jesus. The Quran gives a history of his life, whilst the Hadith collections  recollections of Muhammads words and deeds  establish his place in the Muslim understanding of the future.
> 
> The Quran
> 
> Isa, was a prophet of Islam
> 
> Jesus true name, according to the Quran, was Isa. His message was pure Islam, surrender to Allah. (Âl 'Imran 3:84) Like all the Muslim prophets before him, and like Muhammad after him, Isa was a lawgiver, and Christians should submit to his law. (Âl 'Imran 3:50; Al-Maidah 5:48) Isas original disciples were also true Muslims, for they said We believe. Bear witness that we have surrendered. We are Muslims. (Al-Maidah 5:111)
> 
> The Books
> 
> Like other messengers of Islam before him, Isa received his revelation of Islam in the form of a book. (Al-Anam 6:90) Isas book is called the Injil or gospel. (Al-Maidah 5:46) The Torah was Moses book, and the Zabur (Psalms) were Davids book. So Jews and Christians are people of the Book. The one religion revealed in these books was Islam. (Âl 'Imran 3:18)
> 
> As with previous prophets, Isas revelation verified previous prophets revelations. (Âl 'Imran 3:49,84; Al-Maidah 5:46; As-Saff 61:6) Muhammad himself verified all previous revelations, including the revelation to Isa (An-Nisa 4:47), and so Muslims must believe in the revelation which Isa received. (Al-Baqarah 2:136) However, after Isa the Injil was lost in its original form. Today the Quran is the only sure guide to Isas teaching.
> 
> Does this look or sound familiar fool?  Oh there whole religion is made up and bullshit but yours is not?
Click to expand...


quran= a 6th century RE-WRITE of the HOLYBIBLE BY A ARAB that did not like what the BIBLE has to say about the JEWISH PEOPLE,ISRAEL AND WOMEN!!!! BEWARE!!!


----------



## sealybobo

Montrovant said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, that didn't last long, did it?
> 
> Yes, the fetus IS a human, and until you can accept that it IS a human and we're talking about terminating a human life, then we can't have a rational discussion with you on this issue because you are denying biological facts. I have no problem discussing whether this human being has gained enough 'sentience' or 'awareness' to qualify for protection of constitutional rights or whatever, but we're going to have to go with the biological definition of what it is, a human life.
> 
> If the organism isn't human, what species is it? If the organism isn't living, why would it need aborting? It is a unique living human organism in the state of being, therefore, a human being. Quite simple.
> 
> Again.... Let me explain why you and so many people like you, feel compelled to propagate this argument that a fetus is not a human being.... it is because you know that it is ethically wrong to kill an innocent human being. Therefore, you simply MUST define parameters here around this notion of the fetus as something that is not a human being. Even when you know science and biology simply don't support you on this. The fetus became a unique living human organism in state of being the moment conception was a success, and it will be a "human being" until something happens to end it's life. It began as a zygote, and has had several stages before reaching "fetus" status, it will go on to become an infant, adolescent, adult, geriatric... The fetus is a stage of a human being's life cycle.
> 
> Now whenever you want to discuss when it might be appropriate to kill innocent human beings, we can have that rational discussion. I am willing to hear your ideas on this. I'm particularly fond of the 'brain activity' criteria for being a "viable" human being... some of you might not make the cut though. Can't be the heartbeat, that starts really early, if I'm not mistaken. Nervous system too, that's some of the first stuff a human being develops. So I am not sure where we draw the line on human life, when it comes down to it, especially the most innocent of any human life.
> 
> One thing is for certain, the longer after point of conception, the more unethical and wrong it becomes. We are to the sickening point in this country of dragging the fetus out of the womb to kill it partially born with a saline injection to the brain, like a bunch of barbarians. We would not tolerate DOGS being treated this way!
> 
> I am pro life. I'm sorry if that offends you or women. I think abortion is NOT a woman's "right to choose" when it involves the life of another human being. Under certain unusual conditions, abortions should be allowed after consultation and with great deliberation by both patient and doctor. This should have to be done very early in a pregnancy, earlier than 1st trimester. Only abortions after that would be to save the life of the mother. I am opposed to a complete and total BAN on all abortions. I think that is a wrongheaded viewpoint but I appreciate that some people hold that view. We live in a society of many, and not everyone has the same moral viewpoint on abortion. This is why I believe the States should have the authority to establish their own limited parameters on abortion procedures through ballot initiative. Let the flaming begin!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After reading your post completely:
> 
> In response to your first point.  Who cares?  Ok, so its a human life, or a dog, wolf, bat, snake, turkey, dolphin, ape, lion.  Ok, so its the start of life.  YES OK.  So what?  Yes it is an organism that came from an orgasm.
> 
> Getting an abortion within the first couple months is not the same thing as going out and killing your neighbor.  Can you admit that?
> 
> I love it you used science to prove me wrong.  Excellent, now believe science when they tell you there is no god.  What possible proof do you have of a god or the jesus/muslim/jewish stories?  So I guess life isnt so precious that we make women have babies when they dont want them.  I guess that must mean we arent a Christian nation because the bible says IT DOESNT MATTER WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS!
> 
> When can you kill a fetus?  What does the law say?  It was decided long ago and I dont think peoples positions have changed.  The GOP is counting on is apathy from voters.  They hope they will get away with it.  They should put it on the ballot in 2016 and see.  Come on GOP.  Take the countries temperature.  Gamble and lose again waging your war on women I beg you.
> 
> I say if the kid is retarded you can kill it at birth but my family is from Sparta.
> 
> What was that about not letting dogs be treated this way?  Dogs cant choose if they have their babies, human women get to.
> 
> We dont care if you are ok with allowing abortion in rare circumstances.  Thank you so much SIR.  Isnt it more important what the women think?  Theyre the ones who have to go through with it.  And why?  Because YOU believe in god?  Ah and finally states rights.  Thats what the republicans in red states fall back on every time they want to discriminate or ban something or do something that isnt good for the rest of the country.  And you say you arent a republican.  Well we dont claim you.
> 
> And notice your side wont admit they are waging a war on women.  They dont explain themselves because it is true.  Instead Terri Lynn Land in MI is waging a war on women and all she does is run mocking ads saying she isnt waging a war on women, all while she is.  Women want the choice to be theirs and you want to take it away.  When most women understand that, you lose.  Thats why you guys are being very subtle about it.  Oh, this also proves the media isnt liberal or itd be explaining this to women.  The media stays silent.  And will voters throw out a governor whos anti choice?  Probably not.  At least not in a midterm.  Not in a blue state like Michigan.  Not that important to most people.  But it is that important to you guys.  So its up to us to explain to voters what the GOP are doing.  God I wish the liberal media would help.  America people are stupid and lazy and that includes women.  Our secret weapon is Hillary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science doesn't say there is no god.  That is just untrue.  Science, for the most part, doesn't even make any attempts to weigh in on god; it's simply outside the purview of most scientific study.
> 
> Now, perhaps there are scientists who say there is no god, but that is not the same thing.
Click to expand...


True.  But it isn't a surprise that a lot of scientists are atheists, agnostics or agnostic atheists which is the most rational position to take.  The honest answer is no one knows.  But what we do know from a logical standpoint is that there is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible concerning the existence of a god. Any evidence proposed by theists to support the Bibles various historical and supernatural claims is non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.

I bet you very few scientists take the stories in the bible literally.  I wish dogma christians would reject members who deny the stories of adam, noah, moses and jesus as being literal.  No jesus didn't rise from the dead and his mom wasn't a virgin and god didn't impregnate her.  So if none of that is really true, what is?  If Jesus was a real man he was just a really nice guy according to everyone but his 11 cult followers.  Judas doesn't count because he killed himself.  So we are taking the word of 11 men, who didn't even write the bible until 80 years after?  And people lived to be 800?  

So depends on what you ask the scientist.  Do you believe in God?  So what.  The validity of a claim, such as the existence of god, is not governed by the intelligence of the minds which hold it. Evidence and reason are the deciding factors.  The fact that an intelligent person holds an irrational belief is simply evidence that our brains are able to compartmentalise world-views and models from one another, usually in order to maintain a state of ignorant bliss and escape the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> After reading your post completely:
> 
> In response to your first point.  Who cares?  Ok, so its a human life, or a dog, wolf, bat, snake, turkey, dolphin, ape, lion.  Ok, so its the start of life.  YES OK.  So what?  Yes it is an organism that came from an orgasm.
> 
> Getting an abortion within the first couple months is not the same thing as going out and killing your neighbor.  Can you admit that?
> 
> I love it you used science to prove me wrong.  Excellent, now believe science when they tell you there is no god.  What possible proof do you have of a god or the jesus/muslim/jewish stories?  So I guess life isnt so precious that we make women have babies when they dont want them.  I guess that must mean we arent a Christian nation because the bible says IT DOESNT MATTER WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS!
> 
> When can you kill a fetus?  What does the law say?  It was decided long ago and I dont think peoples positions have changed.  The GOP is counting on is apathy from voters.  They hope they will get away with it.  They should put it on the ballot in 2016 and see.  Come on GOP.  Take the countries temperature.  Gamble and lose again waging your war on women I beg you.
> 
> I say if the kid is retarded you can kill it at birth but my family is from Sparta.
> 
> What was that about not letting dogs be treated this way?  Dogs cant choose if they have their babies, human women get to.
> 
> We dont care if you are ok with allowing abortion in rare circumstances.  Thank you so much SIR.  Isnt it more important what the women think?  Theyre the ones who have to go through with it.  And why?  Because YOU believe in god?  Ah and finally states rights.  Thats what the republicans in red states fall back on every time they want to discriminate or ban something or do something that isnt good for the rest of the country.  And you say you arent a republican.  Well we dont claim you.
> 
> And notice your side wont admit they are waging a war on women.  They dont explain themselves because it is true.  Instead Terri Lynn Land in MI is waging a war on women and all she does is run mocking ads saying she isnt waging a war on women, all while she is.  Women want the choice to be theirs and you want to take it away.  When most women understand that, you lose.  Thats why you guys are being very subtle about it.  Oh, this also proves the media isnt liberal or itd be explaining this to women.  The media stays silent.  And will voters throw out a governor whos anti choice?  Probably not.  At least not in a midterm.  Not in a blue state like Michigan.  Not that important to most people.  But it is that important to you guys.  So its up to us to explain to voters what the GOP are doing.  God I wish the liberal media would help.  America people are stupid and lazy and that includes women.  Our secret weapon is Hillary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science doesn't say there is no god.  That is just untrue.  Science, for the most part, doesn't even make any attempts to weigh in on god; it's simply outside the purview of most scientific study.
> 
> Now, perhaps there are scientists who say there is no god, but that is not the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True.  But it isn't a surprise that a lot of scientists are atheists, agnostics or agnostic atheists which is the most rational position to take.  The honest answer is no one knows.  But what we do know from a logical standpoint is that there is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible concerning the existence of a god. Any evidence proposed by theists to support the Bibles various historical and supernatural claims is non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.
> 
> I bet you very few scientists take the stories in the bible literally.  I wish dogma christians would reject members who deny the stories of adam, noah, moses and jesus as being literal.  No jesus didn't rise from the dead and his mom wasn't a virgin and god didn't impregnate her.  So if none of that is really true, what is?  If Jesus was a real man he was just a really nice guy according to everyone but his 11 cult followers.  Judas doesn't count because he killed himself.  So we are taking the word of 11 men, who didn't even write the bible until 80 years after?  And people lived to be 800?
> 
> So depends on what you ask the scientist.  Do you believe in God?  So what.  The validity of a claim, such as the existence of god, is not governed by the intelligence of the minds which hold it. Evidence and reason are the deciding factors.  The fact that an intelligent person holds an irrational belief is simply evidence that our brains are able to compartmentalise world-views and models from one another, usually in order to maintain a state of ignorant bliss and escape the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.
Click to expand...


LOL!!!! MAN HAS THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE as proof GOD IS REAL!!! WHAT KIND OF FOOL needs more??????????????????


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> DO SOME RESEARCH,STUDY HISTORY!!! IT WAS BRITIAN AND THE UN NATIONS THAT VOTED TO GIVE THE jewish people back their nation that was destroyed 2011 years ago!!!  WONDER HOW THE writers of the BIBLE would kmow about tiny ISRAEL 2011 years into the future????? anything but GOD!!!! HUH???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what it was led by England & the UN.  I'm sure the church was behind it too.
> 
> Hey, I was doing some research on muslim and omg they sound just as dumb as you.  Here is their twist:
> 
> Islam regards itself, not as a subsequent faith to Judaism and Christianity, but as the primordial religion, the faith from which Judaism and Christianity are subsequent developments. In the Quran we read that Abraham was not a Jew nor a Christian, but he was a monotheist, a Muslim (Âl 'Imran 3:66). So it is Muslims, and not Christians or Jews, who are the true representatives of the faith of Abraham to the world today. (Al-Baqarah 2:135)
> 
> The Biblical prophets were all Muslims
> 
> Many prophets of the past received the one religion of Islam. (Ash-Shura 42:13) Who were these previous prophets? According to Al-Anam 6:85-87 they include Ibrahim (Abraham), Ishaq (Issac), Yaqub (Jacob), Nuh (Noah), Dawud (David), Sulaiman (Solomon), Ayyub (Job), Yusuf (Joseph), Musa (Moses), Harun (Aaron), Zakariyya (Zachariah), Yahya (John the Baptist), Isa (Jesus), Ilyas, Ishmael, Al-Yasha (Elisha), Yunus (Jonah) and Lut (Lot).
> 
> The Muslim Isa (Jesus)
> 
> There are two main sources for Isa, the Muslim Jesus. The Quran gives a history of his life, whilst the Hadith collections  recollections of Muhammads words and deeds  establish his place in the Muslim understanding of the future.
> 
> The Quran
> 
> Isa, was a prophet of Islam
> 
> Jesus true name, according to the Quran, was Isa. His message was pure Islam, surrender to Allah. (Âl 'Imran 3:84) Like all the Muslim prophets before him, and like Muhammad after him, Isa was a lawgiver, and Christians should submit to his law. (Âl 'Imran 3:50; Al-Maidah 5:48) Isas original disciples were also true Muslims, for they said We believe. Bear witness that we have surrendered. We are Muslims. (Al-Maidah 5:111)
> 
> The Books
> 
> Like other messengers of Islam before him, Isa received his revelation of Islam in the form of a book. (Al-Anam 6:90) Isas book is called the Injil or gospel. (Al-Maidah 5:46) The Torah was Moses book, and the Zabur (Psalms) were Davids book. So Jews and Christians are people of the Book. The one religion revealed in these books was Islam. (Âl 'Imran 3:18)
> 
> As with previous prophets, Isas revelation verified previous prophets revelations. (Âl 'Imran 3:49,84; Al-Maidah 5:46; As-Saff 61:6) Muhammad himself verified all previous revelations, including the revelation to Isa (An-Nisa 4:47), and so Muslims must believe in the revelation which Isa received. (Al-Baqarah 2:136) However, after Isa the Injil was lost in its original form. Today the Quran is the only sure guide to Isas teaching.
> 
> Does this look or sound familiar fool?  Oh there whole religion is made up and bullshit but yours is not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> quran= a 6th century RE-WRITE of the HOLYBIBLE BY A ARAB that did not like what the BIBLE has to say about the JEWISH PEOPLE,ISRAEL AND WOMEN!!!! BEWARE!!!
Click to expand...


The Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many religious texts. Like those others, it itself constitutes no evidence for the existence of a god.  The Bible is historically inaccurate, factually incorrect, inconsistent and contradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time.

For over a century, various authors have drawn a number of parallels between the Christian views of Jesus and other religious.  These include Greco-Roman and Eqyptian myths involving cross-cultural patterns of dying and rising gods.

The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory) is the proposition that Jesus of Nazareth never existed, or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity and the accounts in the gospels.  Many proponents use a three-fold argument first developed in the 19th century that the New Testament has no historical value, there are no non-Christian references to Jesus Christ from the first century, and that Christianity had pagan and mythical roots.

If previous religions that christianity stole from were fake, maybe so was christianity.

Many early Christians celebrated Jesus' birthday on JAN-6.  In Alexandria, in what is now Egypt, the birthday of their god-man, Aion, was also celebrated on JAN-6.

Christians and most Pagans eventually celebrated the birthday of their god-man on DEC-25.
According to an ancient Christian tradition, Christ died on MAR-23 and resurrected on MAR-25. These dates agree precisely with the death and resurrection of Attis.

Baptism was a principal ritual; it washed away a person's sins. 

The most important sacrament was a ritual meal of bread and wine which symbolize the god-man's body and blood. 

Early Christians initiated converts in March and April by baptism. Mithraism initiated their new members at this time as well.

Early Christians were naked when they were baptized. After immersion, they then put on white clothing and a crown. They carried a candle and walked in a procession to a basilica. Followers of Mithra were also baptized naked, put on white clothing and a crown, and walked in a procession to the temple. However, they carried torches.

At Pentecost, the followers of Jesus were recorded as speaking in tongues. At Trophonius and Delos, the Pagan priestesses also spoke in tongues: 

An inscription to Mithras reads: "He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so that he will be made on with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation."

The Bible records that Jesus was crucified between two thieves. One went to heaven and the other to hell. In the Mithras mysteries, a common image showed Mithras flanked by two torchbearers, one on either side. One held a torch pointed upwards, the other downwards. This symbolized ascent to heaven or descent to hell.

In Attis, a bull was slaughtered while on a perforated platform. The animal's blood flowed down over an initiate who stood in a pit under the platform. The believer was then considered to have been "born again." Poor people could only afford a sheep, and so were literally washed in the blood of the lamb. This practice was interpreted symbolically by Christians.

There were many additional points of similarity between Mithraism and Christianity. 2 St. Augustine even declared that the priests of Mithraism worshiped the same God as he did:

Followers of both religions celebrated a ritual meal involving bread. It was called a missa in Latin or mass in English.

Both the Catholic church and Mithraism had a total of seven sacraments.

Epiphany, JAN-6, was originally the festival in which the followers of Mithra celebrated the visit of the Magi to their newborn god-man. The Christian Church took it over in the 9th century.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science doesn't say there is no god.  That is just untrue.  Science, for the most part, doesn't even make any attempts to weigh in on god; it's simply outside the purview of most scientific study.
> 
> Now, perhaps there are scientists who say there is no god, but that is not the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True.  But it isn't a surprise that a lot of scientists are atheists, agnostics or agnostic atheists which is the most rational position to take.  The honest answer is no one knows.  But what we do know from a logical standpoint is that there is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible concerning the existence of a god. Any evidence proposed by theists to support the Bibles various historical and supernatural claims is non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.
> 
> I bet you very few scientists take the stories in the bible literally.  I wish dogma christians would reject members who deny the stories of adam, noah, moses and jesus as being literal.  No jesus didn't rise from the dead and his mom wasn't a virgin and god didn't impregnate her.  So if none of that is really true, what is?  If Jesus was a real man he was just a really nice guy according to everyone but his 11 cult followers.  Judas doesn't count because he killed himself.  So we are taking the word of 11 men, who didn't even write the bible until 80 years after?  And people lived to be 800?
> 
> So depends on what you ask the scientist.  Do you believe in God?  So what.  The validity of a claim, such as the existence of god, is not governed by the intelligence of the minds which hold it. Evidence and reason are the deciding factors.  The fact that an intelligent person holds an irrational belief is simply evidence that our brains are able to compartmentalise world-views and models from one another, usually in order to maintain a state of ignorant bliss and escape the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!!!! MAN HAS THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE as proof GOD IS REAL!!! WHAT KIND OF FOOL needs more??????????????????
Click to expand...


So if/when they ever prove there is life on another planet, will you then admit there is no god or will you just move the goal post like you guys have for 2000 years every time we prove something you think is god is not?  

I suspect even if we find life on another planet, that won't stop you from believing in god.  So "man has the entire universe" first of all isn't true nor does it prove there is a god.  

And if you were being honest you would admit besides the stories you believe you really don't know.  So without proof, why should a hypothetical cause be god?  Why rule out all other possible explanations?

It is fundamentally a god of the gaps approach. Our current lack of understanding concerning the Universes origins does not automatically mean god holds any explanatory value. Metaphysical and theistic speculation are not immediately justified or correct simply because we lack a comprehensive scientific model. Uncertainty is the most valid position and one can honestly say We just dont know yet.


----------



## GISMYS

YES!! GOD CREATED MANY WORLDS!!!2For by it the men of old gained approval. 3By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible. hebrewa 11:3


----------



## sealybobo

I love it how little push back I'm getting from all the people who say they really believe in god.  Probably they are quiet because there is no justifying it.  They don't believe it.  They want to believe it.  They hope it.  And if that's the truth then life really isn't so precious we can't have abortions.  Hard to argue against abortion on a god denier thread.  And we don't hate god just like I don't hate the heroine in any other book and I don't even hate the villain in the story "the devil".  He's a very interesting character for sure.  Some people get scared when they read a scary book.  I know fiction when I read it.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> YES!! GOD CREATED MANY WORLDS!!!2For by it the men of old gained approval. 3By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible. hebrewa 11:3



That was the best explanation they could come up with?  I've already told you a million times if you don't know the answers better to say you don't know than to say it must be god.  

1.  What do you mean he created many worlds?  Do people live in those worlds?  See what I mean?  The bible say so many things it can't possibly ever be wrong.  All you have to do is find the appropriate verse and I'm sure you'll find it when a cult leader rambles on a creates such a big book and MULTIPLE books I guess god said just about something for every occasion.  Well which is it?  Are we alone or are their other living beings out there in the universe?  Decide and if you are proven wrong AGAIN maybe this time you'll admit you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.  

What did they mean when they wrote:  For by it the men of old gained approval.


----------



## Hollie

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> True.  But it isn't a surprise that a lot of scientists are atheists, agnostics or agnostic atheists which is the most rational position to take.  The honest answer is no one knows.  But what we do know from a logical standpoint is that there is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible concerning the existence of a god. Any evidence proposed by theists to support the Bibles various historical and supernatural claims is non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.
> 
> I bet you very few scientists take the stories in the bible literally.  I wish dogma christians would reject members who deny the stories of adam, noah, moses and jesus as being literal.  No jesus didn't rise from the dead and his mom wasn't a virgin and god didn't impregnate her.  So if none of that is really true, what is?  If Jesus was a real man he was just a really nice guy according to everyone but his 11 cult followers.  Judas doesn't count because he killed himself.  So we are taking the word of 11 men, who didn't even write the bible until 80 years after?  And people lived to be 800?
> 
> So depends on what you ask the scientist.  Do you believe in God?  So what.  The validity of a claim, such as the existence of god, is not governed by the intelligence of the minds which hold it. Evidence and reason are the deciding factors.  The fact that an intelligent person holds an irrational belief is simply evidence that our brains are able to compartmentalise world-views and models from one another, usually in order to maintain a state of ignorant bliss and escape the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!!!! MAN HAS THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE as proof GOD IS REAL!!! WHAT KIND OF FOOL needs more??????????????????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if/when they ever prove there is life on another planet, will you then admit there is no god or will you just move the goal post like you guys have for 2000 years every time we prove something you think is god is not?
> 
> I suspect even if we find life on another planet, that won't stop you from believing in god.  So "man has the entire universe" first of all isn't true nor does it prove there is a god.
> 
> And if you were being honest you would admit besides the stories you believe you really don't know.  So without proof, why should a hypothetical cause be god?  Why rule out all other possible explanations?
> 
> It is fundamentally a god of the gaps approach. Our current lack of understanding concerning the Universes origins does not automatically mean god holds any explanatory value. Metaphysical and theistic speculation are not immediately justified or correct simply because we lack a comprehensive scientific model. Uncertainty is the most valid position and one can honestly say We just dont know yet.
Click to expand...


Your point in the first paragraph above is a good one. The Christian fundamentalist revulsion for science is precisely because of the exploration being undertaken by science. Science has reduced the job requirements for gawds. Where once it was believed that gawds opened every flower petal and oversaw every human endeavor. Now the gawds are relegated to sitting on thrones and paper shuffling.

The likely discovery of life elsewhere in the solar system is going to be utterly devastating to the religious articles. Life as we know it on this planet per christianity is a very earthly product of gawds and miracles and supernaturalism and supermagicalism. Life elsewhere will prove irresolvable for the gawds model.

Although, life discovered elsewhere off this planet will cause the religionists to re-interpret some verse and "discover" a new bible prophesy, like magic!


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> YES!! GOD CREATED MANY WORLDS!!!2For by it the men of old gained approval. 3By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible. hebrewa 11:3
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was the best explanation they could come up with?  I've already told you a million times if you don't know the answers better to say you don't know than to say it must be god.
> 
> 1.  What do you mean he created many worlds?  Do people live in those worlds?  See what I mean?  The bible say so many things it can't possibly ever be wrong.  All you have to do is find the appropriate verse and I'm sure you'll find it when a cult leader rambles on a creates such a big book and MULTIPLE books I guess god said just about something for every occasion.  Well which is it?  Are we alone or are their other living beings out there in the universe?  Decide and if you are proven wrong AGAIN maybe this time you'll admit you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.
> 
> What did they mean when they wrote:  For by it the men of old gained approval.
Click to expand...

FAITH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What is faith? It is the confident assurance that something we want is going to happen. It is the certainty that what we hope for is waiting for us, even though we cannot see it up ahead.  2 Men of God in days of old were famous for their faith.

3 By faithby believing Godwe know that the world and the starsin fact, all thingswere made at Gods command; and that they were all made from things that cant be seen.[a]

4 It was by faith that Abel obeyed God and brought an offering that pleased God more than Cains offering did. God accepted Abel and proved it by accepting his gift; and though Abel is long dead, we can still learn lessons from him about trusting God.

5 Enoch trusted God too, and that is why God took him away to heaven without dying; suddenly he was gone because God took him. Before this happened God had said how pleased he was with Enoch.  6 You can never please God without faith, without depending on him. Anyone who wants to come to God must believe that there is a God and that he rewards those who sincerely look for him.
hebrews 11:1-6


----------



## Hollie

GISMYS said:


> YES!! GOD CREATED MANY WORLDS!!!2For by it the men of old gained approval. 3By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible. hebrewa 11:3



4 by magic.  _hebrewa 11:3(a)_


----------



## GISMYS

Hollie said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> YES!! GOD CREATED MANY WORLDS!!!2For by it the men of old gained approval. 3By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible. hebrewa 11:3
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4 by magic.  _hebrewa 11:3(a)_
Click to expand...


YES!!! POWER!!! AWESOME POWER!!!! GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE WITH JUST WORDS,GOD SPOKE CREATION INTO BEING!!! PRETTY AWESOME!!! huh???


----------



## Hollie

GISMYS said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> YES!! GOD CREATED MANY WORLDS!!!2For by it the men of old gained approval. 3By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible. hebrewa 11:3
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4 by magic.  _hebrewa 11:3(a)_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YES!!! POWER!!! AWESOME POWER!!!! GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE WITH JUST WORDS,GOD SPOKE CREATION INTO BEING!!! PRETTY AWESOME!!! huh???
Click to expand...


Why would the gods need to speak when they have the ability to 
perform magic???  <---- note the multiple question marks. 

PRETTY AWESOME!!! huh??  <---- note the multiple question marks and exclamation points.


----------



## GISMYS

Hollie said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4 by magic.  _hebrewa 11:3(a)_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YES!!! POWER!!! AWESOME POWER!!!! GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE WITH JUST WORDS,GOD SPOKE CREATION INTO BEING!!! PRETTY AWESOME!!! huh???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would the gods need to speak when they have the ability to
> perform magic???  <---- note the multiple question marks.
> 
> PRETTY AWESOME!!! huh??  <---- note the multiple question marks and exclamation points.
Click to expand...


magic is demon power and not awesome at all but fools fall into that trap!!!and you??


----------



## Hollie

GISMYS said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> YES!!! POWER!!! AWESOME POWER!!!! GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE WITH JUST WORDS,GOD SPOKE CREATION INTO BEING!!! PRETTY AWESOME!!! huh???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would the gods need to speak when they have the ability to
> perform magic???  <---- note the multiple question marks.
> 
> PRETTY AWESOME!!! huh??  <---- note the multiple question marks and exclamation points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> magic is demon power and not awesome at all but fools fall into that trap!!!and you??
Click to expand...


Santeria is the only true religion absent demon power.

AND YOU??


----------



## Boss

> They call it MURDER.



What else can you call the willful taking of human life? 



> If it is MURDER then it MUST be first degree MURDER. After all it is pre meditated MURDER.



It's not because abortion is a legal form of murder. 



> Making all those MURDERS retroactive...



Sorry, but you can't do that. Most people with an 8th grade education understand how the system of justice works. You can't pass a law making something illegal, then retroactively prosecute people. And it simply doesn't matter how many redneck bible-thumping republicans want to do it.


----------



## GISMYS

Hollie said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would the gods need to speak when they have the ability to
> perform magic???  <---- note the multiple question marks.
> 
> PRETTY AWESOME!!! huh??  <---- note the multiple question marks and exclamation points.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> magic is demon power and not awesome at all but fools fall into that trap!!!and you??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Santeria is the only true religion absent demon power.
> 
> AND YOU??
Click to expand...


oh!!! PLEASE!!! YOU WASTE YOU LIFE ANF LIFE IS SOOOO SHORT!!! WISE UP!!! WHY ALLOW satan to use you as his tool,fool,puppet??????


----------



## Boss

> "Getting an abortion within the first couple months is not the same thing as going out and killing your neighbor. Can you admit that?"



You're going to need to explain why it's not the same thing. I actually think it could be worse. Your neighbor might be a terrible person who deserved to die... maybe they molested your child or pulled a knife on you? The fetus is totally innocent, hasn't hurt anyone or done anything wrong. They are human beings completely devoid of sin, the most innocent of all human life. 

I've explained what I am willing to admit... that we live in a society with different moral values when it comes to human life. I'm willing to compromise and establish sensible parameters of when abortion is acceptable within the first few weeks. As I said, the longer after point of conception, the more unethical and morally wrong it becomes. Women should have a limited right to choose, and if they didn't choose to have sex and become pregnant, they should have the option to abort within a few weeks after conception. This covers rape and incest victims. Life of the mother is another exception that I can tolerate. What I can't tolerate is the system we currently have, and I'm not going to ever tolerate it. 

I understand what the law says, this isn't about what is legal. For a century, it was legal to own black people, that didn't mean it was right.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> They call it MURDER.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What else can you call the willful taking of human life?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it is MURDER then it MUST be first degree MURDER. After all it is pre meditated MURDER.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not because abortion is a legal form of murder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Making all those MURDERS retroactive...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but you can't do that. Most people with an 8th grade education understand how the system of justice works. You can't pass a law making something illegal, then retroactively prosecute people. And it simply doesn't matter how many redneck bible-thumping republicans want to do it.
Click to expand...


I'd hope you would seek an 8th grade education. Your absolutist position is ill-informed and not according to law. It's a shame your extremist beliefs don't allow you to see beyond your own prejudices. However, it's fortunate that the law protects me from you. 


Roe v. Wade | LII / Legal Information Institute

_Although the results are divided, most of these courts have agreed that the right of privacy, however based, is broad enough to cover the abortion decision; that the right, nonetheless, is not absolute, and is subject to some limitations; and that, at some point, the state interests as to protection of health, medical standards, and prenatal life, become dominant. We agree with this approach.
_

Feel free to round up your fundie cohorts and storm the Supreme Court.


----------



## GISMYS

SOME WISE BUT SOME NEVER DO!!! AND YOU???======
Welcome to Roe No More Ministry
The Pro-Life Outreach of Norma McCorvey
"Jane Roe" of Roe v. Wade

After her dramatic conversion in 1995, Norma McCorvey spent two years working with the pro-life activist organization Operation Rescue. In the summer of 1997, with the assistance of her friend, Ronda Mackey, Norma decided that it was time to start her own pro-life ministry.


----------



## sealybobo

Hollie said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!!!! MAN HAS THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE as proof GOD IS REAL!!! WHAT KIND OF FOOL needs more??????????????????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if/when they ever prove there is life on another planet, will you then admit there is no god or will you just move the goal post like you guys have for 2000 years every time we prove something you think is god is not?
> 
> I suspect even if we find life on another planet, that won't stop you from believing in god.  So "man has the entire universe" first of all isn't true nor does it prove there is a god.
> 
> And if you were being honest you would admit besides the stories you believe you really don't know.  So without proof, why should a hypothetical cause be god?  Why rule out all other possible explanations?
> 
> It is fundamentally a god of the gaps approach. Our current lack of understanding concerning the Universes origins does not automatically mean god holds any explanatory value. Metaphysical and theistic speculation are not immediately justified or correct simply because we lack a comprehensive scientific model. Uncertainty is the most valid position and one can honestly say We just dont know yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your point in the first paragraph above is a good one. The Christian fundamentalist revulsion for science is precisely because of the exploration being undertaken by science. Science has reduced the job requirements for gawds. Where once it was believed that gawds opened every flower petal and oversaw every human endeavor. Now the gawds are relegated to sitting on thrones and paper shuffling.
> 
> The likely discovery of life elsewhere in the solar system is going to be utterly devastating to the religious articles. Life as we know it on this planet per christianity is a very earthly product of gawds and miracles and supernaturalism and supermagicalism. Life elsewhere will prove irresolvable for the gawds model.
> 
> Although, life discovered elsewhere off this planet will cause the religionists to re-interpret some verse and "discover" a new bible prophesy, like magic!
Click to expand...


Exactly.  There are like 200 other planets that look to be in the goldilocks zone.  In other words they look like they are not too far or too close to their star that they probably have life on them.  Do you know how far the closest one is?  Something like 700,000 light years away.  

But you are right.  That won't debunk their lies, even though they did say at one time we were all alone.  Gawd as you call him told them so.  Science is going to prove him wrong again.  P.S.  Where is mom?  What did gawd do to mom?  I'm a little confused.  Gawd lovers say it takes a man and a woman to produce.  Who did god fuck?


----------



## GISMYS

YES!! GOD CREATED MANY WORLDS!!!2For by it the men of old gained approval. 3By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible. Hebrews 11:3==== IN ETERNITY US BELIEVERS WILL HAVE SOOOOOOOOOOO MUCH FUN AND ADVENTURE!!! but you?????


----------



## Boss

> Where is mom? What did gawd do to mom? I'm a little confused. Gawd lovers say it takes a man and a woman to produce.



I think most people who understand basic biology agree that it takes a male and female human to reproduce... not just Gawd lovers. This biology can only apply to God if God is a human being, which God is not. God existed before time and space, before we had perception of physical existence at all. Okay, so wrap your little mind around that for a moment and ponder, how can something "be created" when nothing physical exists? God doesn't require creation because God is not physical. 

God created the universe by which the expansion creates something called "spacetime" in which we experience material reality. It's only a persistent illusion caused by an ever-expanding universe. To God, time means absolutely nothing.


----------



## Hollie

sealybobo said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if/when they ever prove there is life on another planet, will you then admit there is no god or will you just move the goal post like you guys have for 2000 years every time we prove something you think is god is not?
> 
> I suspect even if we find life on another planet, that won't stop you from believing in god.  So "man has the entire universe" first of all isn't true nor does it prove there is a god.
> 
> And if you were being honest you would admit besides the stories you believe you really don't know.  So without proof, why should a hypothetical cause be god?  Why rule out all other possible explanations?
> 
> It is fundamentally a god of the gaps approach. Our current lack of understanding concerning the Universes origins does not automatically mean god holds any explanatory value. Metaphysical and theistic speculation are not immediately justified or correct simply because we lack a comprehensive scientific model. Uncertainty is the most valid position and one can honestly say We just dont know yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your point in the first paragraph above is a good one. The Christian fundamentalist revulsion for science is precisely because of the exploration being undertaken by science. Science has reduced the job requirements for gawds. Where once it was believed that gawds opened every flower petal and oversaw every human endeavor. Now the gawds are relegated to sitting on thrones and paper shuffling.
> 
> The likely discovery of life elsewhere in the solar system is going to be utterly devastating to the religious articles. Life as we know it on this planet per christianity is a very earthly product of gawds and miracles and supernaturalism and supermagicalism. Life elsewhere will prove irresolvable for the gawds model.
> 
> Although, life discovered elsewhere off this planet will cause the religionists to re-interpret some verse and "discover" a new bible prophesy, like magic!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly.  There are like 200 other planets that look to be in the goldilocks zone.  In other words they look like they are not too far or too close to their star that they probably have life on them.  Do you know how far the closest one is?  Something like 700,000 light years away.
> 
> But you are right.  That won't debunk their lies, even though they did say at one time we were all alone.  Gawd as you call him told them so.  Science is going to prove him wrong again.  P.S.  Where is mom?  What did gawd do to mom?  I'm a little confused.  Gawd lovers say it takes a man and a woman to produce.  Who did god fuck?
Click to expand...


Hmmm. Not sure about Mrs. Gawd. Maybe Mr. Gawd has her down in the basement.

"It rubs the lotion on its skin"

-_Silence of the lambs_


----------



## Boss

> The likely discovery of life elsewhere in the solar system is going to be utterly devastating to the religious articles.



I've heard this chortle from Atheists for years and never have understood it. God can create life anywhere God wants life to be. Since we know the universe is comprised of the same stuff, it stands to reason the building blocks of life have come to fruition elsewhere. I don't understand how that negates God. 

Some smart ass Atheist once popped off at me... Well what are you going to do when we discover life on another planet and they don't believe in God? I asked, what are YOU going to do if we discover life on another planet who DO believe in God?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Hollie said:


> Santeria is the only true religion absent demon power.
> 
> AND YOU??



I don't practice Santeria, I don't got no crystal ball, I had a million dollars, but I spent it all....


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> The likely discovery of life elsewhere in the solar system is going to be utterly devastating to the religious articles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've heard this chortle from Atheists for years and never have understood it. God can create life anywhere God wants life to be. Since we know the universe is comprised of the same stuff, it stands to reason the building blocks of life have come to fruition elsewhere. I don't understand how that negates God.
> 
> Some smart ass Atheist once popped off at me... Well what are you going to do when we discover life on another planet and they don't believe in God? I asked, what are YOU going to do if we discover life on another planet who DO believe in God?
Click to expand...


It's actually comedy gold to see fundamentalists stick their gods into a cosmic spackle bucket and trowel them into every corner, nook and cranny.


----------



## Uncensored2008




----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> SOME WISE BUT SOME NEVER DO!!! AND YOU???======
> Welcome to Roe No More Ministry
> The Pro-Life Outreach of Norma McCorvey
> "Jane Roe" of Roe v. Wade
> 
> After her dramatic conversion in 1995, Norma McCorvey spent two years working with the pro-life activist organization Operation Rescue. In the summer of 1997, with the assistance of her friend, Ronda Mackey, Norma decided that it was time to start her own pro-life ministry.



Goes along with my theory that most of the people picketing abortion clinics are people who themselves have gotten abortions and they feel guilty about it now so they want to impose their morals and guilt on others.  

But if they had to do it all over again, they would abort again.  AND, even if they wouldn't, they would still like that choice to be their not yours.

Just like with assisted suicide.  We would be able to end suffering of the terminally sick if it wasn't for your perverted sick corrupt lie that there is a god.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> gismys said:
> 
> 
> 
> some wise but some never do!!! And you???======
> welcome to roe no more ministry
> the pro-life outreach of norma mccorvey
> "jane roe" of roe v. Wade
> 
> after her dramatic conversion in 1995, norma mccorvey spent two years working with the pro-life activist organization operation rescue. In the summer of 1997, with the assistance of her friend, ronda mackey, norma decided that it was time to start her own pro-life ministry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> goes along with my theory that most of the people picketing abortion clinics are people who themselves have gotten abortions and they feel guilty about it now so they want to impose their morals and guilt on others.
> 
> But if they had to do it all over again, they would abort again.  And, even if they wouldn't, they would still like that choice to be their not yours.
> 
> Just like with assisted suicide.  We would be able to end suffering of the terminally sick if it wasn't for your perverted sick corrupt lie that there is a god.
Click to expand...


yes!! Some wise but some never do!!! And you???======


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> IN ETERNITY US BELIEVERS WILL HAVE SOOOOOOOOOOO MUCH FUN AND ADVENTURE!!! but you?????



If believing that makes you feel better


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> IN ETERNITY US BELIEVERS WILL HAVE SOOOOOOOOOOO MUCH FUN AND ADVENTURE!!! but you?????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If believing that makes you feel better
Click to expand...




&#9668; 1 Corinthians 2:9      It is written: "What no eye has seen, what no ear has heard, and what no human mind has conceived" -- the things God has prepared for those who love him-- 
AND YOU??


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> The likely discovery of life elsewhere in the solar system is going to be utterly devastating to the religious articles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've heard this chortle from Atheists for years and never have understood it. God can create life anywhere God wants life to be. Since we know the universe is comprised of the same stuff, it stands to reason the building blocks of life have come to fruition elsewhere. I don't understand how that negates God.
> 
> Some smart ass Atheist once popped off at me... Well what are you going to do when we discover life on another planet and they don't believe in God? I asked, what are YOU going to do if we discover life on another planet who DO believe in God?
Click to expand...


Because religion said that we are the only life anywhere.  Are you going to say now in advance of discovering life somewhere else that they were wrong about that too?  Imagine what else they are wrong about, such as the existence of a god.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> IN ETERNITY US BELIEVERS WILL HAVE SOOOOOOOOOOO MUCH FUN AND ADVENTURE!!! but you?????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If believing that makes you feel better
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> &#9668; 1 Corinthians 2:9      It is written: "What no eye has seen, what no ear has heard, and what no human mind has conceived" -- the things God has prepared for those who love him--
> AND YOU??
Click to expand...


If there is a god then I can't wait to see him and heaven.  But I don't have to believe you and your stupid ancestorial lies to go to heaven.  If you are right that there is a god, it's dumb luck because you have zero proof.  But again, it must make you feel good to believe in paradise after you die.  I wish I could but that's just fantasy.


----------



## hotpotato

[/QUOTE] &#9668; 1 Corinthians 2:9     "What no eye has seen, what no ear has heard, and what no human mind has conceived" -- the things God has prepared for those who love him-- 
AND YOU??[/QUOTE]

Well that was until they found out that some of gods messengers were child abusers! Did god prepare those experiences for the children who loved him?
 Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these."


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> IN ETERNITY US BELIEVERS WILL HAVE SOOOOOOOOOOO MUCH FUN AND ADVENTURE!!! but you?????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If believing that makes you feel better
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> &#9668; 1 Corinthians 2:9      It is written: "What no eye has seen, what no ear has heard, and what no human mind has conceived" -- the things God has prepared for those who love him--
> AND YOU??
Click to expand...


Why do you quote a fiction book?  

There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible concerning the existence of a god. Any evidence proposed by theists to support the Bibles various historical and supernatural claims is non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.

The Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many religious texts. Like those others, it itself constitutes no evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful content do not legitimise it nor distinguish it from other ancient works of literature.

The Bible is historically inaccurate, factually incorrect, inconsistent and contradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time.

So stop quoting it.  It only makes me hate jesus, god and you more.  So you basically have no proof and you believe whatever you are told.  I'm going to find me a nice chistian girl and tell her over and over god said suck my dick or burn in hell.  She will most likely eventually believe it without any proof.  If she is a stupid christian.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If believing that makes you feel better
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> &#9668; 1 Corinthians 2:9      It is written: "What no eye has seen, what no ear has heard, and what no human mind has conceived" -- the things God has prepared for those who love him--
> AND YOU??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you quote a fiction book?
> 
> There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible concerning the existence of a god. Any evidence proposed by theists to support the Bibles various historical and supernatural claims is non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.
> 
> The Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many religious texts. Like those others, it itself constitutes no evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful content do not legitimise it nor distinguish it from other ancient works of literature.
> 
> The Bible is historically inaccurate, factually incorrect, inconsistent and contradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time.
> 
> So stop quoting it.  It only makes me hate jesus, god and you more.  So you basically have no proof and you believe whatever you are told.  I'm going to find me a nice chistian girl and tell her over and over god said suck my dick or burn in hell.  She will most likely eventually believe it without any proof.  If she is a stupid christian.
Click to expand...


GOD SAYS YOU ARE A FOOL AND I AGREE 100% !! You will believe GOD'S Word or satan's lies!!! your choice!


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> &#9668; 1 Corinthians 2:9      It is written: "What no eye has seen, what no ear has heard, and what no human mind has conceived" -- the things God has prepared for those who love him--
> AND YOU??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you quote a fiction book?
> 
> There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible concerning the existence of a god. Any evidence proposed by theists to support the Bibles various historical and supernatural claims is non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.
> 
> The Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many religious texts. Like those others, it itself constitutes no evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful content do not legitimise it nor distinguish it from other ancient works of literature.
> 
> The Bible is historically inaccurate, factually incorrect, inconsistent and contradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time.
> 
> So stop quoting it.  It only makes me hate jesus, god and you more.  So you basically have no proof and you believe whatever you are told.  I'm going to find me a nice chistian girl and tell her over and over god said suck my dick or burn in hell.  She will most likely eventually believe it without any proof.  If she is a stupid christian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> GOD SAYS YOU ARE A FOOL AND I AGREE 100% !! You will believe GOD'S Word or satan's lies!!! your choice!
Click to expand...


I'm assuming, unless you are just stupid and wrong that you are lying.  So you must be satan.  And your lies are gods words.  Same thing.  So I won't believe your lies which amount to gods word.


----------



## sealybobo

&#9668; 1 Corinthians 2:9     "What no eye has seen, what no ear has heard, and what no human mind has conceived" -- the things God has prepared for those who love him-- 
AND YOU??[/QUOTE]

Well that was until they found out that some of gods messengers were child abusers! Did god prepare those experiences for the children who loved him?
 Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these."[/QUOTE]

Does Shaq love his father?  No he does not because that man abandoned him when he was a baby.  So why should I love god who I've never seen, he never wrote me a note.  In fact, the people who tell me god is my father have never met him either.  So how can I love or believe in someone who won't even come visit me on holidays?


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> &#9668; 1 Corinthians 2:9     "What no eye has seen, what no ear has heard, and what no human mind has conceived" -- the things God has prepared for those who love him--
> AND YOU??



Well that was until they found out that some of gods messengers were child abusers! Did god prepare those experiences for the children who loved him?
 Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these."[/QUOTE]

Does Shaq love his father?  No he does not because that man abandoned him when he was a baby.  So why should I love god who I've never seen, he never wrote me a note.  In fact, the people who tell me god is my father have never met him either.  So how can I love or believe in someone who won't even come visit me on holidays?[/QUOTE]

SO YOU do not know ALL mankind are sinners???? they all need Jesus as our Lord and Savior!!!


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> The likely discovery of life elsewhere in the solar system is going to be utterly devastating to the religious articles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've heard this chortle from Atheists for years and never have understood it. God can create life anywhere God wants life to be. Since we know the universe is comprised of the same stuff, it stands to reason the building blocks of life have come to fruition elsewhere. I don't understand how that negates God.
> 
> Some smart ass Atheist once popped off at me... Well what are you going to do when we discover life on another planet and they don't believe in God? I asked, what are YOU going to do if we discover life on another planet who DO believe in God?
Click to expand...


The Scriptures do not directly address the question of alien beings. The Bible does not explicitly confirm or deny the existence of intelligent life from other planets. Although the subject is not addressed explicitly, the Bible teaches implicitly that the only things He created with intelligence are the angels, man, and the animals.  

It is important to remember that the stars and planets were not created billions of years before Earth. According to the Bible, Earth is not the result of billions of years of stellar evolution during which many other planets were created. Earth was created before any other planet or star existed. Earth came into existence on the first day of Creation (Genesis 1:1). God withheld the creation of the Sun, Moon and stars until the fourth day (Genesis 1:14-19). Earth is unique and holds center stage in God's Creation.

Furthermore, the Bible clearly indicates that the fate of the universe (every other planet and star) is forever linked to God's timetable for mankind and the Earth. One day, Christ will return to Earth and complete the final act of man's redemption (2 Peter 3:9-10). He will destroy this present universe and create a new heavens and Earth (2 Peter 3:7,10; Revelations 21:1). All the stars and planets will be destroyed, along with the Earth.

What bearing does this have on the question of extraterrestrial life? The timetable (and the whole reason) for this destruction and re-creation clearly seems to be based on God's plan for us Earthlings. If God had created intelligent life on other worlds, it is hard to imagine that their lives would be calibrated by the failures of Earth's inhabitants. It seems unlikely and unfair that their distant planets would be destroyed by God because of His plan for Earth. The implication of Scripture is that there are no other intelligent beings besides man, animals, and the angels.

Why will God destroy the planets and stars along with Earth? When Adam sinned, ALL of creation was affectedthe entire universe. Romans 8:18-22 teaches that all creation was subjected to futility. Although we are all familiar with the fact that God made man the ruler of Earth (Genesis 1:28), Scripture suggests that even the heavens are subject to mankind.


----------



## GISMYS

YES!! GOD CREATED MANY WORLDS!!!2For by it the men of old gained approval. 3By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible. hebrewa 11:3==YES!!! POWER!!! AWESOME POWER!!!! GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE WITH JUST WORDS,GOD SPOKE CREATION INTO BEING!!! PRETTY AWESOME!!! huh???


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> YES!! GOD CREATED MANY WORLDS!!!2For by it the men of old gained approval. 3By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible. hebrewa 11:3==YES!!! POWER!!! AWESOME POWER!!!! GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE WITH JUST WORDS,GOD SPOKE CREATION INTO BEING!!! PRETTY AWESOME!!! huh???



He made one mistake.  The story is totally unbelievable.  Why would he make it so going to heaven or hell is contingent on believing a story that is quite possibly man made and unbelievable?  Yes it takes dumb faith to believe what you believe.  Pretty gullible huh?


1. Faith is believing the unbelievable.  It takes faith to believe in gods.  Blind faith.  Despite all the evidence.   None if it is true.  What a scam.  Believe what we tell you despite logic and common sense.  And you still believe?  Wow!  Amazing someone could tell you an unbelievable story and you would buy it out of fear.  But I understand.  Youve been brainwashed since birth and you think thinking will send you to hell.  A real god would reward intelligence, not believing your dumb ignorant uneducated ancestors who also thought the world was flat.  
2.  Men of old were famous for their blind faith because they didn't know science.  In fact anyone who was a thinker was crucified or tarred and feathered.
3.  You don't know that god exists remember, you have blind faith.  So you don't KNOW anything.  If you know provide us with concrete evidence.
4.  The adam and eve story is unbelievable so why believe the Cain and Abel story?
5.  How come god doesn't take you away without dying?  You believe.  Who did god tell that he was proud of Enoch?  Really you believe this?  If there is a god he wouldn't reward your stupidity.  
6.  Of course a cult would say the only way to go to heaven is to believe in their god and their fake stories.  Not buying it and I think you are a retard for doing so.  They made that stuff up and you need to let it go.  The bible is fake.  You are wasting your life.  And just because it makes you feel better about yourself doesn't mean we should continue to spread the lie.  I think the truth is the best, no matter how uncomfortable it makes you.  Just because ignorance is bliss doesn't mean you should remain ignorant.  
7.  If god existed he wouldn't be hiding or petty.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> YES!! GOD CREATED MANY WORLDS!!!2For by it the men of old gained approval. 3By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible. hebrewa 11:3==YES!!! POWER!!! AWESOME POWER!!!! GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE WITH JUST WORDS,GOD SPOKE CREATION INTO BEING!!! PRETTY AWESOME!!! huh???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He made one mistake.  The story is totally unbelievable.  Why would he make it so going to heaven or hell is contingent on believing a story that is quite possibly man made and unbelievable?  Yes it takes dumb faith to believe what you believe.  Pretty gullible huh?
> 
> 
> 1. Faith is believing the unbelievable.  It takes faith to believe in gods.  Blind faith.  Despite all the evidence.   None if it is true.  What a scam.  Believe what we tell you despite logic and common sense.  And you still believe?  Wow!  Amazing someone could tell you an unbelievable story and you would buy it out of fear.  But I understand.  Youve been brainwashed since birth and you think thinking will send you to hell.  A real god would reward intelligence, not believing your dumb ignorant uneducated ancestors who also thought the world was flat.
> 2.  Men of old were famous for their blind faith because they didn't know science.  In fact anyone who was a thinker was crucified or tarred and feathered.
> 3.  You don't know that god exists remember, you have blind faith.  So you don't KNOW anything.  If you know provide us with concrete evidence.
> 4.  The adam and eve story is unbelievable so why believe the Cain and Abel story?
> 5.  How come god doesn't take you away without dying?  You believe.  Who did god tell that he was proud of Enoch?  Really you believe this?  If there is a god he wouldn't reward your stupidity.
> 6.  Of course a cult would say the only way to go to heaven is to believe in their god and their fake stories.  Not buying it and I think you are a retard for doing so.  They made that stuff up and you need to let it go.  The bible is fake.  You are wasting your life.  And just because it makes you feel better about yourself doesn't mean we should continue to spread the lie.  I think the truth is the best, no matter how uncomfortable it makes you.  Just because ignorance is bliss doesn't mean you should remain ignorant.
> 7.  If god existed he wouldn't be hiding or petty.
Click to expand...


LOL!!! FACE THE REAL TRUTH!!! YOU don't want to believe in GOD because you love your sins too much and you dream that GOD is not real hoping you can avoid your judgment day!!!! DREAM ON!!!


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> YES!! GOD CREATED MANY WORLDS!!!2For by it the men of old gained approval. 3By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible. hebrewa 11:3==YES!!! POWER!!! AWESOME POWER!!!! GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE WITH JUST WORDS,GOD SPOKE CREATION INTO BEING!!! PRETTY AWESOME!!! huh???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He made one mistake.  The story is totally unbelievable.  Why would he make it so going to heaven or hell is contingent on believing a story that is quite possibly man made and unbelievable?  Yes it takes dumb faith to believe what you believe.  Pretty gullible huh?
> 
> 
> 1. Faith is believing the unbelievable.  It takes faith to believe in gods.  Blind faith.  Despite all the evidence.   None if it is true.  What a scam.  Believe what we tell you despite logic and common sense.  And you still believe?  Wow!  Amazing someone could tell you an unbelievable story and you would buy it out of fear.  But I understand.  Youve been brainwashed since birth and you think thinking will send you to hell.  A real god would reward intelligence, not believing your dumb ignorant uneducated ancestors who also thought the world was flat.
> 2.  Men of old were famous for their blind faith because they didn't know science.  In fact anyone who was a thinker was crucified or tarred and feathered.
> 3.  You don't know that god exists remember, you have blind faith.  So you don't KNOW anything.  If you know provide us with concrete evidence.
> 4.  The adam and eve story is unbelievable so why believe the Cain and Abel story?
> 5.  How come god doesn't take you away without dying?  You believe.  Who did god tell that he was proud of Enoch?  Really you believe this?  If there is a god he wouldn't reward your stupidity.
> 6.  Of course a cult would say the only way to go to heaven is to believe in their god and their fake stories.  Not buying it and I think you are a retard for doing so.  They made that stuff up and you need to let it go.  The bible is fake.  You are wasting your life.  And just because it makes you feel better about yourself doesn't mean we should continue to spread the lie.  I think the truth is the best, no matter how uncomfortable it makes you.  Just because ignorance is bliss doesn't mean you should remain ignorant.
> 7.  If god existed he wouldn't be hiding or petty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!!! FACE THE REAL TRUTH!!! YOU don't want to believe in GOD because you love your sins too much and you dream that GOD is not real hoping you can avoid your judgment day!!!! DREAM ON!!!
Click to expand...


You've already suggested that before and I told you it wasn't true.  If you guys could give me one shred of good evidence but you can't because you believe in a fairy tale.  

If it were the real truth it would't be so hard to see. 

Matter of fact, god had a head start on the truth.  I was brainwashed from birth just like you.  I'm just too smart to keep believing.  I wish I could but I can't.  No offense to god, but if he wants me to believe he has to show me something.  I can't believe god damn fools like you.

Me and my atheist friends sit around and talk about this stuff when we watch the Cosmos and our really stupid christian friend whenever we ask him anything, all he has to say is "you'll burn in hell".  He reminds me of you.  He can't even think he is so brainwashed.  At least you admit all you have is blind faith and you are trusting that book you are reading isn't a lie, which it is.  It was made up 80 years after christ, redacted, edited, inconsistent and full of impossible stories.  How does anyone believe still is beyond me.  Like I said you are the argument against evolution because you are just as unevolved as men were 2000 years ago.  They thought they were deep and profound but they were barely smarter than apes.  They were superstitious not deep thinkers, again like you.


----------



## Montrovant

sealybobo said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if/when they ever prove there is life on another planet, will you then admit there is no god or will you just move the goal post like you guys have for 2000 years every time we prove something you think is god is not?
> 
> I suspect even if we find life on another planet, that won't stop you from believing in god.  So "man has the entire universe" first of all isn't true nor does it prove there is a god.
> 
> And if you were being honest you would admit besides the stories you believe you really don't know.  So without proof, why should a hypothetical cause be god?  Why rule out all other possible explanations?
> 
> It is fundamentally a god of the gaps approach. Our current lack of understanding concerning the Universes origins does not automatically mean god holds any explanatory value. Metaphysical and theistic speculation are not immediately justified or correct simply because we lack a comprehensive scientific model. Uncertainty is the most valid position and one can honestly say We just dont know yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your point in the first paragraph above is a good one. The Christian fundamentalist revulsion for science is precisely because of the exploration being undertaken by science. Science has reduced the job requirements for gawds. Where once it was believed that gawds opened every flower petal and oversaw every human endeavor. Now the gawds are relegated to sitting on thrones and paper shuffling.
> 
> The likely discovery of life elsewhere in the solar system is going to be utterly devastating to the religious articles. Life as we know it on this planet per christianity is a very earthly product of gawds and miracles and supernaturalism and supermagicalism. Life elsewhere will prove irresolvable for the gawds model.
> 
> Although, life discovered elsewhere off this planet will cause the religionists to re-interpret some verse and "discover" a new bible prophesy, like magic!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly.  There are like 200 other planets that look to be in the goldilocks zone.  In other words they look like they are not too far or too close to their star that they probably have life on them.  Do you know how far the closest one is?  Something like 700,000 light years away.
> 
> But you are right.  That won't debunk their lies, even though they did say at one time we were all alone.  Gawd as you call him told them so.  Science is going to prove him wrong again.  P.S.  Where is mom?  What did gawd do to mom?  I'm a little confused.  Gawd lovers say it takes a man and a woman to produce.  Who did god fuck?
Click to expand...


You keep making these ridiculous statements.  It's frustrating when you seem to be arguing from close to my own views that you continue to make such incorrect statements.

The Goldilocks Zone does not mean that life is probable on such planets, only that it is possible because those planets likely can have liquid water.

The closest planet we have found in the Goldilocks Zone isn't even vaguely close to 700,000 light years away.  700,000 light years?  That would be in a distant galaxy; The Milky Way is only estimated at around 100,000 light years in diameter.

Here's a couple of Goldilocks Zone planets :

Earth 2.0? Astronomers reveal Kepler-186f, the latest planet in a habitable 'Goldilocks zone' - Science - News - The Independent

Five Planets Around Nearby Star Tau Ceti; One in Habitable Zone

The second planet, you'll note, is only 12 light years away.  Not quite 700,000.  

I don't think we are that far off in our beliefs, but you do a poor job articulating or arguing for yours.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The likely discovery of life elsewhere in the solar system is going to be utterly devastating to the religious articles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've heard this chortle from Atheists for years and never have understood it. God can create life anywhere God wants life to be. Since we know the universe is comprised of the same stuff, it stands to reason the building blocks of life have come to fruition elsewhere. I don't understand how that negates God.
> 
> Some smart ass Atheist once popped off at me... Well what are you going to do when we discover life on another planet and they don't believe in God? I asked, what are YOU going to do if we discover life on another planet who DO believe in God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because religion said that we are the only life anywhere.  Are you going to say now in advance of discovering life somewhere else that they were wrong about that too?  Imagine what else they are wrong about, such as the existence of a god.
Click to expand...


Well, no... Religion is inanimate, it doesn't say anything. I honestly have no idea what you're talking about, you come across as about 12 or 13 years old, to be honest.


----------



## GISMYS

God told us 2000 years ago that earth was not the only world he created!!!===YES!! GOD CREATED MANY WORLDS!!!2For by it(faith) the men of old gained approval. 3By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible. hebrewa 11:3


----------



## sealybobo

Montrovant said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your point in the first paragraph above is a good one. The Christian fundamentalist revulsion for science is precisely because of the exploration being undertaken by science. Science has reduced the job requirements for gawds. Where once it was believed that gawds opened every flower petal and oversaw every human endeavor. Now the gawds are relegated to sitting on thrones and paper shuffling.
> 
> The likely discovery of life elsewhere in the solar system is going to be utterly devastating to the religious articles. Life as we know it on this planet per christianity is a very earthly product of gawds and miracles and supernaturalism and supermagicalism. Life elsewhere will prove irresolvable for the gawds model.
> 
> Although, life discovered elsewhere off this planet will cause the religionists to re-interpret some verse and "discover" a new bible prophesy, like magic!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  There are like 200 other planets that look to be in the goldilocks zone.  In other words they look like they are not too far or too close to their star that they probably have life on them.  Do you know how far the closest one is?  Something like 700,000 light years away.
> 
> But you are right.  That won't debunk their lies, even though they did say at one time we were all alone.  Gawd as you call him told them so.  Science is going to prove him wrong again.  P.S.  Where is mom?  What did gawd do to mom?  I'm a little confused.  Gawd lovers say it takes a man and a woman to produce.  Who did god fuck?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep making these ridiculous statements.  It's frustrating when you seem to be arguing from close to my own views that you continue to make such incorrect statements.
> 
> The Goldilocks Zone does not mean that life is probable on such planets, only that it is possible because those planets likely can have liquid water.
> 
> The closest planet we have found in the Goldilocks Zone isn't even vaguely close to 700,000 light years away.  700,000 light years?  That would be in a distant galaxy; The Milky Way is only estimated at around 100,000 light years in diameter.
> 
> Here's a couple of Goldilocks Zone planets :
> 
> Earth 2.0? Astronomers reveal Kepler-186f, the latest planet in a habitable 'Goldilocks zone' - Science - News - The Independent
> 
> Five Planets Around Nearby Star Tau Ceti; One in Habitable Zone
> 
> The second planet, you'll note, is only 12 light years away.  Not quite 700,000.
> 
> I don't think we are that far off in our beliefs, but you do a poor job articulating or arguing for yours.
Click to expand...


I read where it would take us with the technology we have today 81,000 years to travel 4.3 light years at universetoday.com

What else do you not like?


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've heard this chortle from Atheists for years and never have understood it. God can create life anywhere God wants life to be. Since we know the universe is comprised of the same stuff, it stands to reason the building blocks of life have come to fruition elsewhere. I don't understand how that negates God.
> 
> Some smart ass Atheist once popped off at me... Well what are you going to do when we discover life on another planet and they don't believe in God? I asked, what are YOU going to do if we discover life on another planet who DO believe in God?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because religion said that we are the only life anywhere.  Are you going to say now in advance of discovering life somewhere else that they were wrong about that too?  Imagine what else they are wrong about, such as the existence of a god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, no... Religion is inanimate, it doesn't say anything. I honestly have no idea what you're talking about, you come across as about 12 or 13 years old, to be honest.
Click to expand...


The bible said god created the earth first then....bottom line is the bible has been wrong so many times no wonder it has been so heavily edited over time. 

Hey, I saw a special last night on the Pope's effectiveness on bringing cafeteria catholics back into the church.  He is inclusive.  However, he can not force the dogma cardinals and bishops and priests into going along.  A lot of catholics left because of their position on things like birth control.  The woman still wants to be a catholic and receives communion even though the priest says if they take birth control or are ok with gay marriage they shouldn't.  

There are a lot of cafeteria christians in America.  Slowly people are waking up.  It isn't that much of a leap once you stop taking the bible literally before you can possibly fathom that there may not even be a god.  There is no proof.  Christianity doesn't provide any proof.  I'll say it again.  

There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible concerning the existence of a god. Any evidence proposed by theists to support the Bibles various historical and supernatural claims is non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.

The Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many religious texts. Like those others, it itself constitutes no evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful content do not legitimise it nor distinguish it from other ancient works of literature.

The Bible is historically inaccurate, factually incorrect, inconsistent and contradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time.

I am 12.  I should stay away from your priests.


----------



## sealybobo

What happened to the people who claimed Hitler was an atheist?  I asked them to show me when exactly all the German people in the 1930's converted to atheism and when exactly did Germany move back to a christian nation exactly?  This is history I don't know about.  I'm assuming 90% of the Germans were christians in the 30's and 40's so saying atheists killed the jews or started ww2 is rather rediculous.  

To people who believe in god(s), hitler and the nazi's were either christians or worse.  The Nazi Party reportedly grew out of several occult groups that sprang up in the late 19th century.  These groups spoke of the coming of a new Messiah that would save Germany. Hitler developed the notion that perhaps he was the chosen one to save the German people.


----------



## Montrovant

sealybobo said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  There are like 200 other planets that look to be in the goldilocks zone.  In other words they look like they are not too far or too close to their star that they probably have life on them.  Do you know how far the closest one is?  Something like 700,000 light years away.
> 
> But you are right.  That won't debunk their lies, even though they did say at one time we were all alone.  Gawd as you call him told them so.  Science is going to prove him wrong again.  P.S.  Where is mom?  What did gawd do to mom?  I'm a little confused.  Gawd lovers say it takes a man and a woman to produce.  Who did god fuck?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep making these ridiculous statements.  It's frustrating when you seem to be arguing from close to my own views that you continue to make such incorrect statements.
> 
> The Goldilocks Zone does not mean that life is probable on such planets, only that it is possible because those planets likely can have liquid water.
> 
> The closest planet we have found in the Goldilocks Zone isn't even vaguely close to 700,000 light years away.  700,000 light years?  That would be in a distant galaxy; The Milky Way is only estimated at around 100,000 light years in diameter.
> 
> Here's a couple of Goldilocks Zone planets :
> 
> Earth 2.0? Astronomers reveal Kepler-186f, the latest planet in a habitable 'Goldilocks zone' - Science - News - The Independent
> 
> Five Planets Around Nearby Star Tau Ceti; One in Habitable Zone
> 
> The second planet, you'll note, is only 12 light years away.  Not quite 700,000.
> 
> I don't think we are that far off in our beliefs, but you do a poor job articulating or arguing for yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read where it would take us with the technology we have today 81,000 years to travel 4.3 light years at universetoday.com
> 
> What else do you not like?
Click to expand...


There are plenty of things I do not like.

How about seemingly nonsensical responses to my posts?


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> God told us 2000 years ago that earth was not the only world he created!!!===YES!! GOD CREATED MANY WORLDS!!!2For by it(faith) the men of old gained approval. 3By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible. hebrewa 11:3




Who or what created god?, Why should a hypothetical cause have any of the common attributes of a god?, Why is the cause a specific god?, Why cant the universe be causeless too? and, most importantly, Why rule out all other possible explanations?

It is fundamentally a god of the gaps approach. Our current lack of understanding concerning the Universes origins does not mean god holds any explanatory value. Metaphysical and theistic speculation are not justified or correct simply because we lack a comprehensive scientific model. Uncertainty is the most valid position and one can honestly say We just dont know yet.

In fact, something can come from nothing and we are able to observe it in the form of virtual particles and quantum vacuum fluctuations. They explain why the early universe lacked uniformity and provided the seeds for the emergence of structure. These quantum phenomena are also causeless in the sense that they are objectively and irreducibly random, a fact confirmed by tests of non-local realism and Bells Theorem.


----------



## sealybobo

Montrovant said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep making these ridiculous statements.  It's frustrating when you seem to be arguing from close to my own views that you continue to make such incorrect statements.
> 
> The Goldilocks Zone does not mean that life is probable on such planets, only that it is possible because those planets likely can have liquid water.
> 
> The closest planet we have found in the Goldilocks Zone isn't even vaguely close to 700,000 light years away.  700,000 light years?  That would be in a distant galaxy; The Milky Way is only estimated at around 100,000 light years in diameter.
> 
> Here's a couple of Goldilocks Zone planets :
> 
> Earth 2.0? Astronomers reveal Kepler-186f, the latest planet in a habitable 'Goldilocks zone' - Science - News - The Independent
> 
> Five Planets Around Nearby Star Tau Ceti; One in Habitable Zone
> 
> The second planet, you'll note, is only 12 light years away.  Not quite 700,000.
> 
> I don't think we are that far off in our beliefs, but you do a poor job articulating or arguing for yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I read where it would take us with the technology we have today 81,000 years to travel 4.3 light years at universetoday.com
> 
> What else do you not like?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are plenty of things I do not like.
> 
> How about seemingly nonsensical responses to my posts?
Click to expand...


Well you let me know when I do it again buddy.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> God told us 2000 years ago that earth was not the only world he created!!!===YES!! GOD CREATED MANY WORLDS!!!2For by it(faith) the men of old gained approval. 3By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible. hebrewa 11:3
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who or what created god?, Why should a hypothetical cause have any of the common attributes of a god?, Why is the cause a specific god?, Why cant the universe be causeless too? and, most importantly, Why rule out all other possible explanations?
> 
> It is fundamentally a god of the gaps approach. Our current lack of understanding concerning the Universes origins does not mean god holds any explanatory value. Metaphysical and theistic speculation are not justified or correct simply because we lack a comprehensive scientific model. Uncertainty is the most valid position and one can honestly say We just dont know yet.
> 
> In fact, something can come from nothing and we are able to observe it in the form of virtual particles and quantum vacuum fluctuations. They explain why the early universe lacked uniformity and provided the seeds for the emergence of structure. These quantum phenomena are also causeless in the sense that they are objectively and irreducibly random, a fact confirmed by tests of non-local realism and Bells Theorem.
Click to expand...


GOD is outside time. Time was created for man. There was never a time when GOD was not, gow was,is and will be for eternity, He is the alpha and omega=the beginning and the end!!!  ALMIGHTY GOD IS AWESOME FAR BEYOND YOUR PEANUT BRAIN non-thinking!!!HUH???


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because religion said that we are the only life anywhere.  Are you going to say now in advance of discovering life somewhere else that they were wrong about that too?  Imagine what else they are wrong about, such as the existence of a god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, no... Religion is inanimate, it doesn't say anything. I honestly have no idea what you're talking about, you come across as about 12 or 13 years old, to be honest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The bible said god created the earth first then....bottom line is the bible has been wrong so many times no wonder it has been so heavily edited over time.
> 
> Hey, I saw a special last night on the Pope's effectiveness on bringing cafeteria catholics back into the church.  He is inclusive.  However, he can not force the dogma cardinals and bishops and priests into going along.  A lot of catholics left because of their position on things like birth control.  The woman still wants to be a catholic and receives communion even though the priest says if they take birth control or are ok with gay marriage they shouldn't.
> 
> There are a lot of cafeteria christians in America.  Slowly people are waking up.  It isn't that much of a leap once you stop taking the bible literally before you can possibly fathom that there may not even be a god.  There is no proof.  Christianity doesn't provide any proof.  I'll say it again.
> 
> There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible concerning the existence of a god. Any evidence proposed by theists to support the Bibles various historical and supernatural claims is non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.
> 
> The Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many religious texts. Like those others, it itself constitutes no evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful content do not legitimise it nor distinguish it from other ancient works of literature.
> 
> The Bible is historically inaccurate, factually incorrect, inconsistent and contradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time.
> 
> I am 12.  I should stay away from your priests.
Click to expand...


12? That's about what I figured. You should find other ways to enjoy your youth. This is not the place for you. Most of us are grown ups who have completed high school at least, many of us have been to university. We have experienced life as adults, we've learned a lot of lessons in life since we were 12. This place is basically about opinions, and your opinion simply doesn't have much value here. 

Now I could take you under my wing and teach you things, but you're not interested in learning, you believe that you already know it all. Each of your points about the Bible can be addressed and explained by people who study the Bible. But The Bible is not what we were discussing... 

*"religion said that we are the only life anywhere"*

This is your quote. When I challenged that, you respond with: _The bible said god created the earth first then...._  Now that is quite a distance from "religion said we are the only life anywhere" don't you think? So you have not shown me where "religion says" that we are the only life anywhere. The Bible doesn't say it, that's for sure. 

We can discuss the order in which The Bible says things happened, but in order to do this we have to comprehend that what the Bible says is not a first-hand account of the events. There was no 'journalist' documenting God's steps for the book. Everything is being told from the imagined perspective of God. The reason for the story being told, is to establish WHO God is, WHAT God did, WHY God is worthy of our worship. It is not intended to be a documentary to outline the specific steps God took in proper sequence. No one was here but God, so no one really knows but God. Many verses of the Bible have been translated, many interpretations exist from the variations on translations, etc. But now we are into some of the reasons I am not a Christian. 

I notice in your anti-religious commentary, you like to pick on Christians and Catholics. You continue to make it clear that you do not believe in THEIR God. But do you honestly believe that the only way a God can possibly exist is in accordance with Christian doctrine?


----------



## Boss

> *Who or what created god?*, Why should a hypothetical &#8216;cause&#8217; have any of the common attributes of a god?, Why is the &#8216;cause&#8217; a specific god?, *Why can&#8217;t the universe be causeless too?* and, most importantly, *Why rule out all other possible explanations?*



*Who or what created god?*

What do you mean by "create"?  All of the things humans can perceive in reality of a material world are existing because of an ever-expanding universe that God created. Time is the biggest "proof" for God that you have. The existence of Time makes everything else possible in your reality. God created Time. Creation is a concept we understand as part of a physical material universe that is ever-expanding, creating time to realize creations. Nothing can be physically created without Time. 

It is MY belief that a higher spiritual nature precedes physical nature and physical existence. This is a truly Immortal nature with no origin or end. It is not OF our dimension, it CREATED our dimension and all others. And it creates Time, a physical material experience and reality. So you can now see how your question is silly and nonsensical.  

*Why can&#8217;t the universe be causeless too?*

It _could_ be, but it would contradict just about everything we know of nature in our universe. Science has found very few things to be "causeless" or without a reason. Even bacteria and viruses exist because of something, and to do something. So we are talking about the idea that all of this, and not just life, but the environment of this planet, the nature of physics and principle laws of gravity and motion, thermodynamics, electromagnetism, ALL of this, is without any purpose or reason? Do you really believe this or are you simply trying to convince yourself you believe this? 

*Why rule out all other possible explanations?*

No one that I know of has ruled out any other possible explanation. It quite simply comes down to basic logic, there is no other explanation. You can't explain a physical material reality existing in spacetime of an ever-expanding universe by using physical evaluations. Something physical couldn't have created itself. We have to objectively explore possibilities outside the physical for an answer. You don't seem to want to do this because you get bogged down in the animosity you have for religion.


----------



## HUGGY

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, no... Religion is inanimate, it doesn't say anything. I honestly have no idea what you're talking about, you come across as about 12 or 13 years old, to be honest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The bible said god created the earth first then....bottom line is the bible has been wrong so many times no wonder it has been so heavily edited over time.
> 
> Hey, I saw a special last night on the Pope's effectiveness on bringing cafeteria catholics back into the church.  He is inclusive.  However, he can not force the dogma cardinals and bishops and priests into going along.  A lot of catholics left because of their position on things like birth control.  The woman still wants to be a catholic and receives communion even though the priest says if they take birth control or are ok with gay marriage they shouldn't.
> 
> There are a lot of cafeteria christians in America.  Slowly people are waking up.  It isn't that much of a leap once you stop taking the bible literally before you can possibly fathom that there may not even be a god.  There is no proof.  Christianity doesn't provide any proof.  I'll say it again.
> 
> There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible concerning the existence of a god. Any evidence proposed by theists to support the Bibles various historical and supernatural claims is non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.
> 
> The Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many religious texts. Like those others, it itself constitutes no evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful content do not legitimise it nor distinguish it from other ancient works of literature.
> 
> The Bible is historically inaccurate, factually incorrect, inconsistent and contradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time.
> 
> I am 12.  I should stay away from your priests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 12? That's about what I figured. You should find other ways to enjoy your youth. This is not the place for you. Most of us are grown ups who have completed high school at least, many of us have been to university. We have experienced life as adults, we've learned a lot of lessons in life since we were 12. This place is basically about opinions, and your opinion simply doesn't have much value here.
> 
> Now I could take you under my wing and teach you things, but you're not interested in learning, you believe that you already know it all. Each of your points about the Bible can be addressed and explained by people who study the Bible. But The Bible is not what we were discussing...
> 
> *"religion said that we are the only life anywhere"*
> 
> This is your quote. When I challenged that, you respond with: _The bible said god created the earth first then...._  Now that is quite a distance from "religion said we are the only life anywhere" don't you think? So you have not shown me where "religion says" that we are the only life anywhere. The Bible doesn't say it, that's for sure.
> 
> We can discuss the order in which The Bible says things happened, but in order to do this we have to comprehend that what the Bible says is not a first-hand account of the events. There was no 'journalist' documenting God's steps for the book. Everything is being told from the imagined perspective of God. The reason for the story being told, is to establish WHO God is, WHAT God did, WHY God is worthy of our worship. It is not intended to be a documentary to outline the specific steps God took in proper sequence. No one was here but God, so no one really knows but God. Many verses of the Bible have been translated, many interpretations exist from the variations on translations, etc. But now we are into some of the reasons I am not a Christian.
> 
> I notice in your anti-religious commentary, you like to pick on Christians and Catholics. You continue to make it clear that you do not believe in THEIR God. *But do you honestly believe that the only way a God can possibly exist is in accordance with Christian doctrine*?
Click to expand...


The vast majority of christians do.  So do even a greater percentage of muslims in a round about way.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> God told us 2000 years ago that earth was not the only world he created!!!===YES!! GOD CREATED MANY WORLDS!!!2For by it(faith) the men of old gained approval. 3By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible. hebrewa 11:3
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who or what created god?, Why should a hypothetical cause have any of the common attributes of a god?, Why is the cause a specific god?, Why cant the universe be causeless too? and, most importantly, Why rule out all other possible explanations?
> 
> It is fundamentally a god of the gaps approach. Our current lack of understanding concerning the Universes origins does not mean god holds any explanatory value. Metaphysical and theistic speculation are not justified or correct simply because we lack a comprehensive scientific model. Uncertainty is the most valid position and one can honestly say We just dont know yet.
> 
> In fact, something can come from nothing and we are able to observe it in the form of virtual particles and quantum vacuum fluctuations. They explain why the early universe lacked uniformity and provided the seeds for the emergence of structure. These quantum phenomena are also causeless in the sense that they are objectively and irreducibly random, a fact confirmed by tests of non-local realism and Bells Theorem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> GOD is outside time. Time was created for man. There was never a time when GOD was not, gow was,is and will be for eternity, He is the alpha and omega=the beginning and the end!!!  ALMIGHTY GOD IS AWESOME FAR BEYOND YOUR PEANUT BRAIN non-thinking!!!HUH???
Click to expand...


My brain isn't big enough to invent a god?  First of all, you didn't invent god, someone else did and sold you a ball of lies.  Think about it.  These ancient stories of how god said this or that.  How come he's in hiding?  What evidence/proof do you use to determine that god is outside of time or that he created time for us?  

How come you can't grasp the fact that a universe could be causeless and eternal?  Instead the imaginary man in the sky you made up is causeless and eternal.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who or what created god?, Why should a hypothetical cause have any of the common attributes of a god?, Why is the cause a specific god?, Why cant the universe be causeless too? and, most importantly, Why rule out all other possible explanations?
> 
> It is fundamentally a god of the gaps approach. Our current lack of understanding concerning the Universes origins does not mean god holds any explanatory value. Metaphysical and theistic speculation are not justified or correct simply because we lack a comprehensive scientific model. Uncertainty is the most valid position and one can honestly say We just dont know yet.
> 
> In fact, something can come from nothing and we are able to observe it in the form of virtual particles and quantum vacuum fluctuations. They explain why the early universe lacked uniformity and provided the seeds for the emergence of structure. These quantum phenomena are also causeless in the sense that they are objectively and irreducibly random, a fact confirmed by tests of non-local realism and Bells Theorem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GOD is outside time. Time was created for man. There was never a time when GOD was not, gow was,is and will be for eternity, He is the alpha and omega=the beginning and the end!!!  ALMIGHTY GOD IS AWESOME FAR BEYOND YOUR PEANUT BRAIN non-thinking!!!HUH???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My brain isn't big enough to invent a god?  First of all, you didn't invent god, someone else did and sold you a ball of lies.  Think about it.  These ancient stories of how god said this or that.  How come he's in hiding?  What evidence/proof do you use to determine that god is outside of time or that he created time for us?
> 
> How come you can't grasp the fact that a universe could be causeless and eternal?  Instead the imaginary man in the sky you made up is causeless and eternal.
Click to expand...


OPEN YOUR EYES LOOK AROUND YOU WILL SEE DESIGN AND COMPLEXITY. ATOMS HAVE BEEN DESIGNED,THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE HAS DESIGN. THINK!!! NO big bang creates design or complexity.   DUH!!!


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, no... Religion is inanimate, it doesn't say anything. I honestly have no idea what you're talking about, you come across as about 12 or 13 years old, to be honest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The bible said god created the earth first then....bottom line is the bible has been wrong so many times no wonder it has been so heavily edited over time.
> 
> Hey, I saw a special last night on the Pope's effectiveness on bringing cafeteria catholics back into the church.  He is inclusive.  However, he can not force the dogma cardinals and bishops and priests into going along.  A lot of catholics left because of their position on things like birth control.  The woman still wants to be a catholic and receives communion even though the priest says if they take birth control or are ok with gay marriage they shouldn't.
> 
> There are a lot of cafeteria christians in America.  Slowly people are waking up.  It isn't that much of a leap once you stop taking the bible literally before you can possibly fathom that there may not even be a god.  There is no proof.  Christianity doesn't provide any proof.  I'll say it again.
> 
> There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible concerning the existence of a god. Any evidence proposed by theists to support the Bibles various historical and supernatural claims is non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.
> 
> The Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many religious texts. Like those others, it itself constitutes no evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful content do not legitimise it nor distinguish it from other ancient works of literature.
> 
> The Bible is historically inaccurate, factually incorrect, inconsistent and contradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time.
> 
> I am 12.  I should stay away from your priests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 12? That's about what I figured. You should find other ways to enjoy your youth. This is not the place for you. Most of us are grown ups who have completed high school at least, many of us have been to university. We have experienced life as adults, we've learned a lot of lessons in life since we were 12. This place is basically about opinions, and your opinion simply doesn't have much value here.
> 
> Now I could take you under my wing and teach you things, but you're not interested in learning, you believe that you already know it all. Each of your points about the Bible can be addressed and explained by people who study the Bible. But The Bible is not what we were discussing...
> 
> *"religion said that we are the only life anywhere"*
> 
> This is your quote. When I challenged that, you respond with: _The bible said god created the earth first then...._  Now that is quite a distance from "religion said we are the only life anywhere" don't you think? So you have not shown me where "religion says" that we are the only life anywhere. The Bible doesn't say it, that's for sure.
> 
> We can discuss the order in which The Bible says things happened, but in order to do this we have to comprehend that what the Bible says is not a first-hand account of the events. There was no 'journalist' documenting God's steps for the book. Everything is being told from the imagined perspective of God. The reason for the story being told, is to establish WHO God is, WHAT God did, WHY God is worthy of our worship. It is not intended to be a documentary to outline the specific steps God took in proper sequence. No one was here but God, so no one really knows but God. Many verses of the Bible have been translated, many interpretations exist from the variations on translations, etc. But now we are into some of the reasons I am not a Christian.
> 
> I notice in your anti-religious commentary, you like to pick on Christians and Catholics. You continue to make it clear that you do not believe in THEIR God. But do you honestly believe that the only way a God can possibly exist is in accordance with Christian doctrine?
Click to expand...


Now you know that religious people think we are the only ones in the universe.  Do I really go have to dig to prove that.  It would rock a lot of them if we ever found intelligent life on another planet.  But ok, you got me.  I don't know exactly what they say but does that really matter anyways?  

No they are all made up.  I just pick on christians because that's who's typically here.  I actually use other religions when I'm discussing with christians the topic of religion.  They agree other religions are silly and insane but can't see their story is impossible too.  At least highly improbable since I wasn't there and I can't say for sure there is no god.  I can only say 99.9% there probably is no god.  What proof do you have?  

There were 999 religions before and after christianity.  Christianity is no different.  And when you really study all the religions you know that it's all made up, there isn't one shred of credible scientific measurable evidence of a god.  

We even know why/how/when the mind came up with religion.  Made us feel better about the noises in the night.  We weren't completely alone in the dark with a god watching over us.  

Theists often fail to adequately apportion blame when claims of their particular gods infinite mercy or omnibenevolence involve sparing a few lives in a disaster, or recovery from a debilitating disease  all of which their god would ultimately be responsible for inflicting if it existed.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bible said god created the earth first then....bottom line is the bible has been wrong so many times no wonder it has been so heavily edited over time.
> 
> Hey, I saw a special last night on the Pope's effectiveness on bringing cafeteria catholics back into the church.  He is inclusive.  However, he can not force the dogma cardinals and bishops and priests into going along.  A lot of catholics left because of their position on things like birth control.  The woman still wants to be a catholic and receives communion even though the priest says if they take birth control or are ok with gay marriage they shouldn't.
> 
> There are a lot of cafeteria christians in America.  Slowly people are waking up.  It isn't that much of a leap once you stop taking the bible literally before you can possibly fathom that there may not even be a god.  There is no proof.  Christianity doesn't provide any proof.  I'll say it again.
> 
> There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible concerning the existence of a god. Any evidence proposed by theists to support the Bibles various historical and supernatural claims is non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.
> 
> The Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many religious texts. Like those others, it itself constitutes no evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful content do not legitimise it nor distinguish it from other ancient works of literature.
> 
> The Bible is historically inaccurate, factually incorrect, inconsistent and contradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time.
> 
> I am 12.  I should stay away from your priests.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 12? That's about what I figured. You should find other ways to enjoy your youth. This is not the place for you. Most of us are grown ups who have completed high school at least, many of us have been to university. We have experienced life as adults, we've learned a lot of lessons in life since we were 12. This place is basically about opinions, and your opinion simply doesn't have much value here.
> 
> Now I could take you under my wing and teach you things, but you're not interested in learning, you believe that you already know it all. Each of your points about the Bible can be addressed and explained by people who study the Bible. But The Bible is not what we were discussing...
> 
> *"religion said that we are the only life anywhere"*
> 
> This is your quote. When I challenged that, you respond with: _The bible said god created the earth first then...._  Now that is quite a distance from "religion said we are the only life anywhere" don't you think? So you have not shown me where "religion says" that we are the only life anywhere. The Bible doesn't say it, that's for sure.
> 
> We can discuss the order in which The Bible says things happened, but in order to do this we have to comprehend that what the Bible says is not a first-hand account of the events. There was no 'journalist' documenting God's steps for the book. Everything is being told from the imagined perspective of God. The reason for the story being told, is to establish WHO God is, WHAT God did, WHY God is worthy of our worship. It is not intended to be a documentary to outline the specific steps God took in proper sequence. No one was here but God, so no one really knows but God. Many verses of the Bible have been translated, many interpretations exist from the variations on translations, etc. But now we are into some of the reasons I am not a Christian.
> 
> I notice in your anti-religious commentary, you like to pick on Christians and Catholics. You continue to make it clear that you do not believe in THEIR God. But do you honestly believe that the only way a God can possibly exist is in accordance with Christian doctrine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you know that religious people think we are the only ones in the universe.  Do I really go have to dig to prove that.  It would rock a lot of them if we ever found intelligent life on another planet.  But ok, you got me.  I don't know exactly what they say but does that really matter anyways?
> 
> No they are all made up.  I just pick on christians because that's who's typically here.  I actually use other religions when I'm discussing with christians the topic of religion.  They agree other religions are silly and insane but can't see their story is impossible too.  At least highly improbable since I wasn't there and I can't say for sure there is no god.  I can only say 99.9% there probably is no god.  What proof do you have?
> 
> There were 999 religions before and after christianity.  Christianity is no different.  And when you really study all the religions you know that it's all made up, there isn't one shred of credible scientific measurable evidence of a god.
> 
> We even know why/how/when the mind came up with religion.  Made us feel better about the noises in the night.  We weren't completely alone in the dark with a god watching over us.
> 
> Theists often fail to adequately apportion blame when claims of their particular gods infinite mercy or omnibenevolence involve sparing a few lives in a disaster, or recovery from a debilitating disease  all of which their god would ultimately be responsible for inflicting if it existed.
Click to expand...


LOL!!! YOU HAVE LESS WISDOM AND UNDERSTANDING than a peanut!!!


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> GOD is outside time. Time was created for man. There was never a time when GOD was not, gow was,is and will be for eternity, He is the alpha and omega=the beginning and the end!!!  ALMIGHTY GOD IS AWESOME FAR BEYOND YOUR PEANUT BRAIN non-thinking!!!HUH???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My brain isn't big enough to invent a god?  First of all, you didn't invent god, someone else did and sold you a ball of lies.  Think about it.  These ancient stories of how god said this or that.  How come he's in hiding?  What evidence/proof do you use to determine that god is outside of time or that he created time for us?
> 
> How come you can't grasp the fact that a universe could be causeless and eternal?  Instead the imaginary man in the sky you made up is causeless and eternal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OPEN YOUR EYES LOOK AROUND YOU WILL SEE DESIGN AND COMPLEXITY. ATOMS HAVE BEEN DESIGNED,THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE HAS DESIGN. THINK!!! NO big bang creates design or complexity.   DUH!!!
Click to expand...


Our current lack of understanding concerning the Universes origins does not automatically mean god holds any explanatory value. Theistic speculation is not justified or correct simply because we lack a comprehensive scientific model. Uncertainty is the most valid position and one can honestly say We just dont know yet.

Theists often state God is outside of time. This claim does not actually make their speculation correct. Instead, it brings with it a whole host of problems and may be immediately dismissed as being without basis and a type fallacy known as special pleading.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 12? That's about what I figured. You should find other ways to enjoy your youth. This is not the place for you. Most of us are grown ups who have completed high school at least, many of us have been to university. We have experienced life as adults, we've learned a lot of lessons in life since we were 12. This place is basically about opinions, and your opinion simply doesn't have much value here.
> 
> Now I could take you under my wing and teach you things, but you're not interested in learning, you believe that you already know it all. Each of your points about the Bible can be addressed and explained by people who study the Bible. But The Bible is not what we were discussing...
> 
> *"religion said that we are the only life anywhere"*
> 
> This is your quote. When I challenged that, you respond with: _The bible said god created the earth first then...._  Now that is quite a distance from "religion said we are the only life anywhere" don't you think? So you have not shown me where "religion says" that we are the only life anywhere. The Bible doesn't say it, that's for sure.
> 
> We can discuss the order in which The Bible says things happened, but in order to do this we have to comprehend that what the Bible says is not a first-hand account of the events. There was no 'journalist' documenting God's steps for the book. Everything is being told from the imagined perspective of God. The reason for the story being told, is to establish WHO God is, WHAT God did, WHY God is worthy of our worship. It is not intended to be a documentary to outline the specific steps God took in proper sequence. No one was here but God, so no one really knows but God. Many verses of the Bible have been translated, many interpretations exist from the variations on translations, etc. But now we are into some of the reasons I am not a Christian.
> 
> I notice in your anti-religious commentary, you like to pick on Christians and Catholics. You continue to make it clear that you do not believe in THEIR God. But do you honestly believe that the only way a God can possibly exist is in accordance with Christian doctrine?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you know that religious people think we are the only ones in the universe.  Do I really go have to dig to prove that.  It would rock a lot of them if we ever found intelligent life on another planet.  But ok, you got me.  I don't know exactly what they say but does that really matter anyways?
> 
> No they are all made up.  I just pick on christians because that's who's typically here.  I actually use other religions when I'm discussing with christians the topic of religion.  They agree other religions are silly and insane but can't see their story is impossible too.  At least highly improbable since I wasn't there and I can't say for sure there is no god.  I can only say 99.9% there probably is no god.  What proof do you have?
> 
> There were 999 religions before and after christianity.  Christianity is no different.  And when you really study all the religions you know that it's all made up, there isn't one shred of credible scientific measurable evidence of a god.
> 
> We even know why/how/when the mind came up with religion.  Made us feel better about the noises in the night.  We weren't completely alone in the dark with a god watching over us.
> 
> Theists often fail to adequately apportion blame when claims of their particular gods infinite mercy or omnibenevolence involve sparing a few lives in a disaster, or recovery from a debilitating disease  all of which their god would ultimately be responsible for inflicting if it existed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!!! YOU HAVE LESS WISDOM AND UNDERSTANDING than a peanut!!!
Click to expand...


I'm trying to specifically explain to you the problem with your argument.  You said "god is outside of time".  That's called "Special pleading" (also known as stacking the deck, ignoring the counter evidence, slanting, and one-sided assessment) Essentially, this involves someone attempting to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception.

You have no proof there is a god let alone that he lives outside time yet you say it like its a fucking fact.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you know that religious people think we are the only ones in the universe.  Do I really go have to dig to prove that.  It would rock a lot of them if we ever found intelligent life on another planet.  But ok, you got me.  I don't know exactly what they say but does that really matter anyways?
> 
> No they are all made up.  I just pick on christians because that's who's typically here.  I actually use other religions when I'm discussing with christians the topic of religion.  They agree other religions are silly and insane but can't see their story is impossible too.  At least highly improbable since I wasn't there and I can't say for sure there is no god.  I can only say 99.9% there probably is no god.  What proof do you have?
> 
> There were 999 religions before and after christianity.  Christianity is no different.  And when you really study all the religions you know that it's all made up, there isn't one shred of credible scientific measurable evidence of a god.
> 
> We even know why/how/when the mind came up with religion.  Made us feel better about the noises in the night.  We weren't completely alone in the dark with a god watching over us.
> 
> Theists often fail to adequately apportion blame when claims of their particular gods infinite mercy or omnibenevolence involve sparing a few lives in a disaster, or recovery from a debilitating disease  all of which their god would ultimately be responsible for inflicting if it existed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!!! YOU HAVE LESS WISDOM AND UNDERSTANDING than a peanut!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm trying to specifically explain to you the problem with your argument.  You said "god is outside of time".  That's called "Special pleading" (also known as stacking the deck, ignoring the counter evidence, slanting, and one-sided assessment) Essentially, this involves someone attempting to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception.
> 
> You have no proof there is a god let alone that he lives outside time yet you say it like its a fucking fact.
Click to expand...


In Psalm 90:4, Moses used a simple yet profound analogy in describing the timelessness of God: For a thousand years in Your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night. The eternity of God is contrasted with the temporality of man. Our lives are but short and frail, but God does not weaken or fail with the passage of time.


----------



## Steven_R

GISMYS said:


> but God does not weaken or fail with the passage of time.



Except for that whole being fatigued and needing rest after six days thing you mean.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!!! YOU HAVE LESS WISDOM AND UNDERSTANDING than a peanut!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm trying to specifically explain to you the problem with your argument.  You said "god is outside of time".  That's called "Special pleading" (also known as stacking the deck, ignoring the counter evidence, slanting, and one-sided assessment) Essentially, this involves someone attempting to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception.
> 
> You have no proof there is a god let alone that he lives outside time yet you say it like its a fucking fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In Psalm 90:4, Moses used a simple yet profound analogy in describing the timelessness of God: For a thousand years in Your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night. The eternity of God is contrasted with the temporality of man. Our lives are but short and frail, but God does not weaken or fail with the passage of time.
Click to expand...


Neither do you if you make it to heaven right?  Right?   RIGHT?  Fact is you don't know anymore than anyone else.  All you got is hope.  What a great business model.  All they do is provide you a place to get together once a week with like minded dopes and make you feel better about yourselves and make you feel like you can wash away your sins but really they don't have a product.  You just come hang out and get salvation.  BRILLIANT!  I'm going to start a church for atheists.


----------



## sealybobo

Steven_R said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> but God does not weaken or fail with the passage of time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except for that whole being fatigued and needing rest after six days thing you mean.
Click to expand...


And all you have to do to join him for eternity is believe stories that can't possibly be true.   So god only wants stupid people in heaven.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm trying to specifically explain to you the problem with your argument.  You said "god is outside of time".  That's called "Special pleading" (also known as stacking the deck, ignoring the counter evidence, slanting, and one-sided assessment) Essentially, this involves someone attempting to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception.
> 
> You have no proof there is a god let alone that he lives outside time yet you say it like its a fucking fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In Psalm 90:4, Moses used a simple yet profound analogy in describing the timelessness of God: For a thousand years in Your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night. The eternity of God is contrasted with the temporality of man. Our lives are but short and frail, but God does not weaken or fail with the passage of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither do you if you make it to heaven right?  Right?   RIGHT?  Fact is you don't know anymore than anyone else.  All you got is hope.  What a great business model.  All they do is provide you a place to get together once a week with like minded dopes and make you feel better about yourselves and make you feel like you can wash away your sins but really they don't have a product.  You just come hang out and get salvation.  BRILLIANT!  I'm going to start a church for atheists.
Click to expand...


BELIEVERS LIVE THEIR LIVES AS sons OF GOD. WE have GOD'S word,GOD'S promise to us of blessings and joy now and eternal life later!! PTL.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Whether sealbobo is a more insane fanatic than GISMYS is impossible to determine, but watching these two go at it is no end of entertainment....


----------



## GISMYS

Uncensored2008 said:


> Whether sealbobo is a more insane fanatic than GISMYS is impossible to determine, but watching these two go at it is no end of entertainment....



WOW!!! GET A LIFE!! little guy!


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who or what created god?, Why should a hypothetical cause have any of the common attributes of a god?, Why is the cause a specific god?, Why cant the universe be causeless too? and, most importantly, Why rule out all other possible explanations?
> 
> It is fundamentally a god of the gaps approach. Our current lack of understanding concerning the Universes origins does not mean god holds any explanatory value. Metaphysical and theistic speculation are not justified or correct simply because we lack a comprehensive scientific model. Uncertainty is the most valid position and one can honestly say We just dont know yet.
> 
> In fact, something can come from nothing and we are able to observe it in the form of virtual particles and quantum vacuum fluctuations. They explain why the early universe lacked uniformity and provided the seeds for the emergence of structure. These quantum phenomena are also causeless in the sense that they are objectively and irreducibly random, a fact confirmed by tests of non-local realism and Bells Theorem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GOD is outside time. Time was created for man. There was never a time when GOD was not, gow was,is and will be for eternity, He is the alpha and omega=the beginning and the end!!!  ALMIGHTY GOD IS AWESOME FAR BEYOND YOUR PEANUT BRAIN non-thinking!!!HUH???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My brain isn't big enough to invent a god?  First of all, you didn't invent god, someone else did and sold you a ball of lies.  Think about it.  These ancient stories of how god said this or that.  How come he's in hiding?  What evidence/proof do you use to determine that god is outside of time or that he created time for us?
> 
> How come you can't grasp the fact that a universe could be causeless and eternal?  Instead the imaginary man in the sky you made up is causeless and eternal.
Click to expand...


Scripture reveals that God lives outside the bounds of time as we know it (Isaiah 57:15). Our destiny was planned before the beginning of time (2 Timothy 1:9; Titus 1:2) and before the creation of the world (Ephesians 1:4; 1 Peter 1:20). By faith we understand that the universe was formed at Gods command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible (Hebrews 11:3). In other words, the physical universe we see, hear, feel and experience was created not from existing matter, but from a source independent of the physical dimensions we can perceive. 

God is spirit (John 4:24), and, correspondingly, God is timeless rather than being eternally in time or being beyond time. Time was simply created by God as a limited part of His creation for accommodating the workings of His purpose in His disposable universe (see 2 Peter 3:10-12). 

 Upon the completion of His creation activity, including the creation of time, what did God conclude? God saw all that he had made, and it was very good (Gen 1:31). Indeed, God is spirit in the realm of timelessness, rather than flesh in the sphere of time. 

 As believers, we have a deep sense of comfort knowing that God, though timeless and eternal, is in time with us right now; He is not unreachably transcendent, but right here in this moment with us. And because Hes in this moment, He can respond to our needs and prayers.


----------



## sealybobo

Uncensored2008 said:


> Whether sealbobo is a more insane fanatic than GISMYS is impossible to determine, but watching these two go at it is no end of entertainment....



Did you know that miracles have not been demonstrated to occur?  The existence of a miracle would pose logical problems for belief in a god which can supposedly see the future and began the universe with a set of predefined laws. Even if a miracle could be demonstrated it would not immediately imply the existence of a god, much less any particular one, as unknown natural processes or agents could still be at work.

Most alleged miracles can be explained as statistically unlikely occurrences. For example, one child surviving a plane crash that kills two hundred others is not a miracle, just as one person winning the lottery is not. In the absence of any empirical evidence, all other claims can be dismissed as the result of magical thinking, misattribution, credulity, hearsay and anecdote. Eye-witness testimony and anecdotal accounts are, by themselves, not reliable or definitive forms of proof either for such extraordinary claims.

Such claims are rarely made in relation to those things we can accurately predict and test eg. the motion of celestial bodies, boiling point of water and pull of gravity. If a god is constantly intervening in the universe it supposedly created, then it is with such ambiguity as to appear completely indistinguishable from normal background chance.

Note: Theists often fail to adequately apportion blame when claims of their particular gods infinite mercy or omnibenevolence involve sparing a few lives in a disaster, or recovery from a debilitating disease  all of which their god would ultimately be responsible for inflicting if it existed.  See also cherry picking.

Why wont god heal amputees? 

Elite athletes make first place and thank god, strange shapes appear on toast and some people narrowly escape death, but amputated limbs never regrow, mountains never move and food never spontaneously appears in front of the hundreds of children that starve to death each hour.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> GOD is outside time. Time was created for man. There was never a time when GOD was not, gow was,is and will be for eternity, He is the alpha and omega=the beginning and the end!!!  ALMIGHTY GOD IS AWESOME FAR BEYOND YOUR PEANUT BRAIN non-thinking!!!HUH???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My brain isn't big enough to invent a god?  First of all, you didn't invent god, someone else did and sold you a ball of lies.  Think about it.  These ancient stories of how god said this or that.  How come he's in hiding?  What evidence/proof do you use to determine that god is outside of time or that he created time for us?
> 
> How come you can't grasp the fact that a universe could be causeless and eternal?  Instead the imaginary man in the sky you made up is causeless and eternal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scripture reveals that God lives outside the bounds of time as we know it (Isaiah 57:15). Our destiny was planned before the beginning of time (2 Timothy 1:9; Titus 1:2) and before the creation of the world (Ephesians 1:4; 1 Peter 1:20). By faith we understand that the universe was formed at Gods command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible (Hebrews 11:3). In other words, the physical universe we see, hear, feel and experience was created not from existing matter, but from a source independent of the physical dimensions we can perceive.
> 
> God is spirit (John 4:24), and, correspondingly, God is timeless rather than being eternally in time or being beyond time. Time was simply created by God as a limited part of His creation for accommodating the workings of His purpose in His disposable universe (see 2 Peter 3:10-12).
> 
> Upon the completion of His creation activity, including the creation of time, what did God conclude? God saw all that he had made, and it was very good (Gen 1:31). Indeed, God is spirit in the realm of timelessness, rather than flesh in the sphere of time.
> 
> As believers, we have a deep sense of comfort knowing that God, though timeless and eternal, is in time with us right now; He is not unreachably transcendent, but right here in this moment with us. And because Hes in this moment, He can respond to our needs and prayers.
Click to expand...


If I tell you christianity is a scam you don't get to use their book to argue it's not.  It's a fucking fairy tale.  Only difference is a fairy tale happened "a long time ago in a place far far away".  Your story supposedly happened 2000 years ago in the middle east.  SUPPOSEDLY.  

Again, only 11 guys said he performed miracles.  Only 11 guys, who couldn't possibly know, say Mary was a virgin when god impregnated her.  Sure that's what happened.  Back then she had to tell that story or her husband would have killed her.  Try telling your husband today that god knocked you up and see if he believes you.


----------



## HUGGY

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> My brain isn't big enough to invent a god?  First of all, you didn't invent god, someone else did and sold you a ball of lies.  Think about it.  These ancient stories of how god said this or that.  How come he's in hiding?  What evidence/proof do you use to determine that god is outside of time or that he created time for us?
> 
> How come you can't grasp the fact that a universe could be causeless and eternal?  Instead the imaginary man in the sky you made up is causeless and eternal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scripture reveals that God lives outside the bounds of time as we know it (Isaiah 57:15). Our destiny was planned before the beginning of time (2 Timothy 1:9; Titus 1:2) and before the creation of the world (Ephesians 1:4; 1 Peter 1:20). By faith we understand that the universe was formed at Gods command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible (Hebrews 11:3). In other words, the physical universe we see, hear, feel and experience was created not from existing matter, but from a source independent of the physical dimensions we can perceive.
> 
> God is spirit (John 4:24), and, correspondingly, God is timeless rather than being eternally in time or being beyond time. Time was simply created by God as a limited part of His creation for accommodating the workings of His purpose in His disposable universe (see 2 Peter 3:10-12).
> 
> Upon the completion of His creation activity, including the creation of time, what did God conclude? God saw all that he had made, and it was very good (Gen 1:31). Indeed, God is spirit in the realm of timelessness, rather than flesh in the sphere of time.
> 
> As believers, we have a deep sense of comfort knowing that God, though timeless and eternal, is in time with us right now; He is not unreachably transcendent, but right here in this moment with us. And because Hes in this moment, He can respond to our needs and prayers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I tell you christianity is a scam you don't get to use their book to argue it's not.  It's a fucking fairy tale.  Only difference is a fairy tale happened "a long time ago in a place far far away".  Your story supposedly happened 2000 years ago in the middle east.  SUPPOSEDLY.
> 
> Again, only 11 guys said he performed miracles.  Only 11 guys, who couldn't possibly know, say Mary was a virgin when god impregnated her.  *Sure that's what happened.  Back then she had to tell that story or her husband would have killed her.  Try telling your husband today that god knocked you up and see if he believes you*.
Click to expand...


Yup.  Mary told her stupid husband that god was baby's daddy.  This LIE told and retold is where the "son of god" lie got started.  All this because Mary was tring to avoid certain stoning until dead.  Gosh ya think she had something to gain for sticking with THAT lie?

Now in the here and now these nitwits are just as stupid as Joseph.  All this because Mary was a slut.


----------



## GISMYS

HUGGY said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scripture reveals that God lives outside the bounds of time as we know it (Isaiah 57:15). Our destiny was planned before the beginning of time (2 Timothy 1:9; Titus 1:2) and before the creation of the world (Ephesians 1:4; 1 Peter 1:20). By faith we understand that the universe was formed at Gods command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible (Hebrews 11:3). In other words, the physical universe we see, hear, feel and experience was created not from existing matter, but from a source independent of the physical dimensions we can perceive.
> 
> God is spirit (John 4:24), and, correspondingly, God is timeless rather than being eternally in time or being beyond time. Time was simply created by God as a limited part of His creation for accommodating the workings of His purpose in His disposable universe (see 2 Peter 3:10-12).
> 
> Upon the completion of His creation activity, including the creation of time, what did God conclude? God saw all that he had made, and it was very good (Gen 1:31). Indeed, God is spirit in the realm of timelessness, rather than flesh in the sphere of time.
> 
> As believers, we have a deep sense of comfort knowing that God, though timeless and eternal, is in time with us right now; He is not unreachably transcendent, but right here in this moment with us. And because Hes in this moment, He can respond to our needs and prayers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I tell you christianity is a scam you don't get to use their book to argue it's not.  It's a fucking fairy tale.  Only difference is a fairy tale happened "a long time ago in a place far far away".  Your story supposedly happened 2000 years ago in the middle east.  SUPPOSEDLY.
> 
> Again, only 11 guys said he performed miracles.  Only 11 guys, who couldn't possibly know, say Mary was a virgin when god impregnated her.  *Sure that's what happened.  Back then she had to tell that story or her husband would have killed her.  Try telling your husband today that god knocked you up and see if he believes you*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup.  Mary told her stupid husband that god was baby's daddy.  This LIE told and retold is where the "son of god" lie got started.  All this because Mary was tring to avoid certain stoning until dead.  Gosh ya think she had something to gain for sticking with THAT lie?
> 
> Now in the here and now these nitwits are just as stupid as Joseph.  All this because Mary was a slut.
Click to expand...


 WOW!!! DO YOU REALLY THINK YOU CAN TELL THAT LIE ABOUT MARY AND NOT BE JUDGED??? WHY ALLOW SATAN TO PLAY YOU FOR A FOOL USE YOU AS his tool?? puppet??


----------



## MaryL

All atheist have one prayer: That they be proven wrong. And for  all the Christian Jewish Muslim mumbo jumbo, theists  just want to  find the truth in their own way....Let's just shake hands, hug and admit we don't have a bloody clue why we are here and get on with it. This thin little patina of life and reality is wonderful and it vanishes so quickly. God will it, and if there isn't a god, what does it matter?


----------



## Avatar4321

Haven't been to this thread a while. I scrolled by and saw the question. And as I did the answer popped into my head.

They hate God because they don't know Him. That's also why some professed believers hate their fellow man. Because they don't know God.

I invite all of you believer and non-believer to humble yourselves before your Creator and seek Him out in Truth and sincerity. He is tour Father and mine. And He loves you unconditionally. Seek Him and you will find Him


----------



## Avatar4321

MaryL said:


> All atheist have one prayer: That they be proven wrong. And for  all the Christian Jewish Muslim mumbo jumbo, theists  just want to  find the truth in their own way....Let's just shake hands, hug and admit we don't have a bloody clue why we are here and get on with it. This thin little patina of life and reality is wonderful and it vanishes so quickly. God will it, and if there isn't a god, what does it matter?



I can't "admit" that I don't have a bloody clue. Because that would be a lie. The Holy Spirit has revealed to me that Jesus is the Christ. And I cannot and dare not deny it. I know it. And I know God knows that I know it. So why should I lie and say otherwise?


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Now you know that religious people think we are the only ones in the universe.  Do I really go have to dig to prove that.  It would rock a lot of them if we ever found intelligent life on another planet.  But ok, you got me.  I don't know exactly what they say but does that really matter anyways?



Well I know a lot of Christians and I've never known of one who believed life on another planet disproves God, or believed God said this is the only place He created life.  



> No they are all made up.  I just pick on christians because that's who's typically here.  I actually use other religions when I'm discussing with christians the topic of religion.  They agree other religions are silly and insane but can't see their story is impossible too.  At least highly improbable since I wasn't there and I can't say for sure there is no god.  I can only say 99.9% there probably is no god.  What proof do you have?



I already told you, Time. Everything you perceive as reality is happening in spacetime continuum of a universe that continues to expand. Time=Distance. Without this expansion of the universe happening, nothing you can comprehend as "reality" exists. There is no spacetime for it to exist. Science and physics means absolutely nothing if Time= 0. God created the universe and spacetime for your reality to exist in. How do I know? Because physical nature couldn't have created it... physical nature can't exist until there is spacetime. It's impossible for physical science to explain the origin of the universe. Physical science can't exist without spacetime. This means we can be 100% certain a physical explanation is impossible. 



> There were 999 religions before and after christianity.  Christianity is no different.  And when you really study all the religions you know that it's all made up, there isn't one shred of credible scientific measurable evidence of a god.



I'm not a fan of organized religion, I am a spiritualist. I can't defend mankind's flawed incarnations of a spiritual energy he doesn't understand. It only serves to validate my claim that humans are spiritually connected. They are certainly connecting to something powerful to cause them to create millions of religious beliefs. But men are flawed, and therefore, religion is flawed. 

I've already explained why we find no "scientific evidence" of God. Science can't exist until God creates a universe with time and reality. 



> We even know why/how/when the mind came up with religion.  Made us feel better about the noises in the night.  We weren't completely alone in the dark with a god watching over us.



I've dispelled these myths many times. The archeological evidence does not show man inventing spiritual belief. From the very oldest human civilization ever uncovered, we see signs of ritual ceremony and burial, indicating the civilization had some sort of spiritual belief. Not only that, but all over the planet in various places where humans had migrated and established civilizations, they ALL had spiritual beliefs. There is simply no evidence that man 'invented' spirituality.-- Religion? Sure! But not spiritual belief. 

Then there is the biological sciences of species behaviors. We find no evidence anywhere in nature of a species inventing an imaginary idol out of fear. Certainly nothing in nature has ever invented something imaginary that worked to ward off danger. But okay, humans have an imagination, so let's say they DID invent spiritual connection for this reason... If there is no God and it's meaningless, they would have soon discovered it was no use believing in God to save them. After their imaginary playmate failed to protect them from the bumps in the night a few times, they would have wised up... this is according to Darwin, not me. Humans would not have retained an attribute of behavior if it caused detriment to the species. 88% of humans are spiritual, btw, and this statistic pretty much follows the history of man. 



> Theists often fail to adequately apportion blame when claims of their particular gods infinite mercy or omnibenevolence involve sparing a few lives in a disaster, or recovery from a debilitating disease  all of which their god would ultimately be responsible for inflicting if it existed.



Again... You are living in a reality that exists because of an ever-expanding universe. Disasters, diseases, crazy people, death... it all happens in a reality made possible by an expanding universe. God doesn't have much intervention into what happens within that spacetime continuum which enables our reality. But some humans have found that God does intervene in their reality. Let me ask you this about the last disaster/disease/catastrophe... what IF every human on the planet had prayed for God to intervene? Are you sure nothing would have happened to change the events? Perhaps there isn't enough collective 'spiritual energy' from the human race, and that's why these terrible things happen? Do you have proof that isn't the case? How do you know?


----------



## Montrovant

Because science cannot explain the origins of the universe (which ignores various theories about that) it means there must be a god?  That's some human arrogance right there.  Is science 'done' now?  There are no new discoveries to be made?  

Where you get the idea that it is impossible for there to be a scientific explanation for the origin of the universe I don't know.


----------



## BreezeWood

Boss said:


> ... what IF every human on the planet had prayed for God to intervene? Are you sure nothing would have happened to change the events? Perhaps there isn't enough collective 'spiritual energy' from the human race, and that's why these terrible things happen? Do you have proof that isn't the case? How do you know?



[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=G8GwT7ZotCg"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=G8GwT7ZotCg[/ame]

praise be forever ...

.


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Because science cannot explain the origins of the universe (which ignores various theories about that) it means there must be a god?  That's some human arrogance right there.  Is science 'done' now?  There are no new discoveries to be made?
> 
> *Where you get the idea that it is impossible for there to be a scientific explanation for the origin of the universe I don't know.*



Follow me slowly... Science is the study of physical nature. Physical nature exists in time created by an expanding universe. Before the Big Bang (or whatever set the universe in motion) there was no time, therefore, no physical nature for physical science to apply. There can be no physical scientific explanation of something that precedes physical nature. 

Science isn't done, there are plenty of new scientific discoveries to be made, but science can only apply to the physical universe as a result of time created by an expanding universe. Without the expanding universe, there is no time and no reality, which have to exist for science to apply.


----------



## Boss

BreezeWood said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... what IF every human on the planet had prayed for God to intervene? Are you sure nothing would have happened to change the events? Perhaps there isn't enough collective 'spiritual energy' from the human race, and that's why these terrible things happen? Do you have proof that isn't the case? How do you know?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=G8GwT7ZotCg"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=G8GwT7ZotCg[/ame]
> 
> praise be forever ...
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Guess you couldn't answer my question?


----------



## GISMYS

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... what IF every human on the planet had prayed for God to intervene? Are you sure nothing would have happened to change the events? Perhaps there isn't enough collective 'spiritual energy' from the human race, and that's why these terrible things happen? Do you have proof that isn't the case? How do you know?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=G8GwT7ZotCg"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=G8GwT7ZotCg[/ame]
> 
> praise be forever ...
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guess you couldn't answer my question?
Click to expand...


""terrible things happen"" BECAUSE OF MAN'S CHOICE TO REJECT GOD AND LIVE IN SIN.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you know that religious people think we are the only ones in the universe.  Do I really go have to dig to prove that.  It would rock a lot of them if we ever found intelligent life on another planet.  But ok, you got me.  I don't know exactly what they say but does that really matter anyways?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I know a lot of Christians and I've never known of one who believed life on another planet disproves God, or believed God said this is the only place He created life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they are all made up.  I just pick on christians because that's who's typically here.  I actually use other religions when I'm discussing with christians the topic of religion.  They agree other religions are silly and insane but can't see their story is impossible too.  At least highly improbable since I wasn't there and I can't say for sure there is no god.  I can only say 99.9% there probably is no god.  What proof do you have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already told you, Time. Everything you perceive as reality is happening in spacetime continuum of a universe that continues to expand. Time=Distance. Without this expansion of the universe happening, nothing you can comprehend as "reality" exists. There is no spacetime for it to exist. Science and physics means absolutely nothing if Time= 0. God created the universe and spacetime for your reality to exist in. How do I know? Because physical nature couldn't have created it... physical nature can't exist until there is spacetime. It's impossible for physical science to explain the origin of the universe. Physical science can't exist without spacetime. This means we can be 100% certain a physical explanation is impossible.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a fan of organized religion, I am a spiritualist. I can't defend mankind's flawed incarnations of a spiritual energy he doesn't understand. It only serves to validate my claim that humans are spiritually connected. They are certainly connecting to something powerful to cause them to create millions of religious beliefs. But men are flawed, and therefore, religion is flawed.
> 
> I've already explained why we find no "scientific evidence" of God. Science can't exist until God creates a universe with time and reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We even know why/how/when the mind came up with religion.  Made us feel better about the noises in the night.  We weren't completely alone in the dark with a god watching over us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've dispelled these myths many times. The archeological evidence does not show man inventing spiritual belief. From the very oldest human civilization ever uncovered, we see signs of ritual ceremony and burial, indicating the civilization had some sort of spiritual belief. Not only that, but all over the planet in various places where humans had migrated and established civilizations, they ALL had spiritual beliefs. There is simply no evidence that man 'invented' spirituality.-- Religion? Sure! But not spiritual belief.
> 
> Then there is the biological sciences of species behaviors. We find no evidence anywhere in nature of a species inventing an imaginary idol out of fear. Certainly nothing in nature has ever invented something imaginary that worked to ward off danger. But okay, humans have an imagination, so let's say they DID invent spiritual connection for this reason... If there is no God and it's meaningless, they would have soon discovered it was no use believing in God to save them. After their imaginary playmate failed to protect them from the bumps in the night a few times, they would have wised up... this is according to Darwin, not me. Humans would not have retained an attribute of behavior if it caused detriment to the species. 88% of humans are spiritual, btw, and this statistic pretty much follows the history of man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theists often fail to adequately apportion blame when claims of their particular gods infinite mercy or omnibenevolence involve sparing a few lives in a disaster, or recovery from a debilitating disease  all of which their god would ultimately be responsible for inflicting if it existed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again... You are living in a reality that exists because of an ever-expanding universe. Disasters, diseases, crazy people, death... it all happens in a reality made possible by an expanding universe. God doesn't have much intervention into what happens within that spacetime continuum which enables our reality. But some humans have found that God does intervene in their reality. Let me ask you this about the last disaster/disease/catastrophe... what IF every human on the planet had prayed for God to intervene? Are you sure nothing would have happened to change the events? Perhaps there isn't enough collective 'spiritual energy' from the human race, and that's why these terrible things happen? Do you have proof that isn't the case? How do you know?
Click to expand...


How do you/we know physical nature couldn't have created the universe?  Is that a fact?  It may be but it doesnt prove a god exists.  Just because we cant yet explain everything  yet doesnt give your theory of a god any credibility.  I dont even know if This means we can be 100% certain a physical explanation is impossible is true but I do know that this doesnt prove there is a god.  And a lot of very smart agnostic atheists would probably argue with you.  
  God created/caused the universe.
The First Cause Argument is internally contradictory and raises the following questions: Who or what created god?, Why should a hypothetical cause have any of the common attributes of a god?, Why is the cause a specific god?, Why cant the universe be causeless too? and, most importantly, Why rule out all other possible explanations?
It is fundamentally a god of the gaps approach. Our current lack of understanding concerning the Universes origins does not automatically mean god holds any explanatory value. Metaphysical and theistic speculation are not immediately justified or correct simply because we lack a comprehensive scientific model. Uncertainty is the most valid position and one can honestly say We just dont know yet.
The argument ignores the fact that our everyday understanding of causality has been arrived at via a posteriori inductive reasoning  which means it might not apply to everything. Time, for instance, appears to have begun with the Big Bang, so there might not have been any cause for the Universe to be an effect of since there was probably no time for a cause to exist in. Applying concepts like time and causality to the Big Bang might be comparable to asking What is north of the North Pole?  ultimately nonsensical and incoherent. Furthermore, even if causality could be established it would not immediately imply the existence of a god, much less any particular one, as the properties and nature of the cause could forever remain a mystery or be naturalistic.
In fact, something can come from nothing and we are able to observe it in the form of virtual particles and quantum vacuum fluctuations. They explain why the early universe lacked uniformity and provided the seeds for the emergence of structure [2][3]. These quantum phenomena are also causeless in the sense that they are objectively and irreducibly random, a fact confirmed by tests of non-local realism and Bells Theorem.
Note 1: Theists often state God is outside of time. This claim does not actually make their speculation correct. Instead, it brings with it a whole host of problems and may be immediately dismissed as being without basis and a type fallacy known as special pleading.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=G8GwT7ZotCg
> 
> praise be forever ...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guess you couldn't answer my question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ""terrible things happen"" BECAUSE OF MAN'S CHOICE TO REJECT GOD AND LIVE IN SIN.
Click to expand...


Why do terrible things happen to people who accept god and don't live in sin?


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because science cannot explain the origins of the universe (which ignores various theories about that) it means there must be a god?  That's some human arrogance right there.  Is science 'done' now?  There are no new discoveries to be made?
> 
> *Where you get the idea that it is impossible for there to be a scientific explanation for the origin of the universe I don't know.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Follow me slowly... Science is the study of physical nature. Physical nature exists in time created by an expanding universe. Before the Big Bang (or whatever set the universe in motion) there was no time, therefore, no physical nature for physical science to apply. There can be no physical scientific explanation of something that precedes physical nature.
> 
> Science isn't done, there are plenty of new scientific discoveries to be made, but science can only apply to the physical universe as a result of time created by an expanding universe. Without the expanding universe, there is no time and no reality, which have to exist for science to apply.
Click to expand...


I think the big bang that created our universe might be that we are the other end of a black hole.  And there are probably billions of black holes so probably billions of other universes.  OMG it's amazing.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guess you couldn't answer my question?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ""terrible things happen"" BECAUSE OF MAN'S CHOICE TO REJECT GOD AND LIVE IN SIN.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do terrible things happen to people who accept god and don't live in sin?
Click to expand...


I just told you. YOUR SIN HAS AN AFFECT ON EVERYONE AROUND YOU.  THE SIN OF ADAM BROUGHT RUIN and death TO THE ENTIRE CREATION. BUT JESUS WILL VERY SOON RE-NEW ALL CREATION BACK TO PERFECTION.  WILL YOU BE HERE OR in hell??? your choice today.


----------



## sealybobo

Avatar4321 said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> All atheist have one prayer: That they be proven wrong. And for  all the Christian Jewish Muslim mumbo jumbo, theists  just want to  find the truth in their own way....Let's just shake hands, hug and admit we don't have a bloody clue why we are here and get on with it. This thin little patina of life and reality is wonderful and it vanishes so quickly. God will it, and if there isn't a god, what does it matter?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't "admit" that I don't have a bloody clue. Because that would be a lie. The Holy Spirit has revealed to me that Jesus is the Christ. And I cannot and dare not deny it. I know it. And I know God knows that I know it. So why should I lie and say otherwise?
Click to expand...


It wasn't a holy spirit you dope.  It was your parents, church, neighbors.  It was your entire society.  If you were born in Saudi Arabia Mohammad would have revealed to you that Allah is the one god.  

And of course you can't/won't deny it.  They all told you you'd go to hell if you did.  

You shouldn't lie.  You should tell yourself the truth that you believe a lie.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> ""terrible things happen"" BECAUSE OF MAN'S CHOICE TO REJECT GOD AND LIVE IN SIN.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do terrible things happen to people who accept god and don't live in sin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just told you. YOUR SIN HAS AN AFFECT ON EVERYONE AROUND YOU.  THE SIN OF ADAM BROUGHT RUIN and death TO THE ENTIRE CREATION. BUT JESUS WILL VERY SOON RE-NEW ALL CREATION BACK TO PERFECTION.  WILL YOU BE HERE OR in hell??? your choice today.
Click to expand...


So Adam's kids had incest with each other?  Sick.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you know that religious people think we are the only ones in the universe.  Do I really go have to dig to prove that.  It would rock a lot of them if we ever found intelligent life on another planet.  But ok, you got me.  I don't know exactly what they say but does that really matter anyways?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I know a lot of Christians and I've never known of one who believed life on another planet disproves God, or believed God said this is the only place He created life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they are all made up.  I just pick on christians because that's who's typically here.  I actually use other religions when I'm discussing with christians the topic of religion.  They agree other religions are silly and insane but can't see their story is impossible too.  At least highly improbable since I wasn't there and I can't say for sure there is no god.  I can only say 99.9% there probably is no god.  What proof do you have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already told you, Time. Everything you perceive as reality is happening in spacetime continuum of a universe that continues to expand. Time=Distance. Without this expansion of the universe happening, nothing you can comprehend as "reality" exists. There is no spacetime for it to exist. Science and physics means absolutely nothing if Time= 0. God created the universe and spacetime for your reality to exist in. How do I know? Because physical nature couldn't have created it... physical nature can't exist until there is spacetime. It's impossible for physical science to explain the origin of the universe. Physical science can't exist without spacetime. This means we can be 100% certain a physical explanation is impossible.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a fan of organized religion, I am a spiritualist. I can't defend mankind's flawed incarnations of a spiritual energy he doesn't understand. It only serves to validate my claim that humans are spiritually connected. They are certainly connecting to something powerful to cause them to create millions of religious beliefs. But men are flawed, and therefore, religion is flawed.
> 
> I've already explained why we find no "scientific evidence" of God. Science can't exist until God creates a universe with time and reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We even know why/how/when the mind came up with religion.  Made us feel better about the noises in the night.  We weren't completely alone in the dark with a god watching over us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've dispelled these myths many times. The archeological evidence does not show man inventing spiritual belief. From the very oldest human civilization ever uncovered, we see signs of ritual ceremony and burial, indicating the civilization had some sort of spiritual belief. Not only that, but all over the planet in various places where humans had migrated and established civilizations, they ALL had spiritual beliefs. There is simply no evidence that man 'invented' spirituality.-- Religion? Sure! But not spiritual belief.
> 
> Then there is the biological sciences of species behaviors. We find no evidence anywhere in nature of a species inventing an imaginary idol out of fear. Certainly nothing in nature has ever invented something imaginary that worked to ward off danger. But okay, humans have an imagination, so let's say they DID invent spiritual connection for this reason... If there is no God and it's meaningless, they would have soon discovered it was no use believing in God to save them. After their imaginary playmate failed to protect them from the bumps in the night a few times, they would have wised up... this is according to Darwin, not me. Humans would not have retained an attribute of behavior if it caused detriment to the species. 88% of humans are spiritual, btw, and this statistic pretty much follows the history of man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theists often fail to adequately apportion blame when claims of their particular gods infinite mercy or omnibenevolence involve sparing a few lives in a disaster, or recovery from a debilitating disease  all of which their god would ultimately be responsible for inflicting if it existed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again... You are living in a reality that exists because of an ever-expanding universe. Disasters, diseases, crazy people, death... it all happens in a reality made possible by an expanding universe. God doesn't have much intervention into what happens within that spacetime continuum which enables our reality. But some humans have found that God does intervene in their reality. Let me ask you this about the last disaster/disease/catastrophe... what IF every human on the planet had prayed for God to intervene? Are you sure nothing would have happened to change the events? Perhaps there isn't enough collective 'spiritual energy' from the human race, and that's why these terrible things happen? Do you have proof that isn't the case? How do you know?
Click to expand...


According to Ecclesiastes 1:5 the sun actually goes around the earth--as, of course, it must, since, according to Ps 93:1, Ps 96:10, and 1 Chr 16:30, the earth does not move. And the earth cannot move because, according to 1 Samuel 2:8 and Ps 75:3, it is placed on pillars. And because it is placed on pillars, it has an underside and an upper side, as confirmed by Isaiah 40:22 which indicates that the earth is a flat disk. 

Also, the stars in the biblical cosmos are just lights set in the firmament. As mere lights in the sky, they will fall to the earth in the Last Days (Matt 24:29), something that is ridiculous considering the actual stars are other suns and many times larger than the earth.

So, according to the Bible the earth is a flat, immovable disk, supported by pillars and covered with a solid vault of heaven, the rim of which is is resting on the perimeter of the disk of the earth, and the stars are just lights set in the vault of heaven. 

It is therefore the height of geocentric idiocy to think that the whole universe was created merely for the sake of the earth and its inhabitants. All of which goes to show that the Bible cannot be considered the word of God. 

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110117190647AApGgAS


----------



## Boss

> How do you/we know physical nature couldn't have created the universe? Is that a fact? It may be but it doesn&#8217;t prove a god exists. Just because we can&#8217;t yet explain everything yet doesn&#8217;t give your theory of a god any credibility. I don&#8217;t even know if &#8220;This means we can be 100% certain a physical explanation is impossible&#8221; is true but I do know that this doesn&#8217;t prove there is a god. And a lot of very smart agnostic atheists would probably argue with you.
> &#8226; God created/caused the universe.
> The First Cause Argument is internally contradictory and raises the following questions: Who or what created god?



Yeah, yeah... you're going into a repeat of the claptrap you've read on some blog again. We know that physical nature didn't create the universe because physical nature can't exist without time. What we perceive as physical nature is through a reality that is enabled by an expanding universe. How could physical nature create the thing that created it? 

I've explained the "who created God? question a couple of times, but you keep ignoring me. When we say something is "created" it means it has come into a physical existence by creation. God is not physical, so what do you mean by "create?" You see, what is happening here is your mind is unable to comprehend anything beyond physical existence, but something created physical existence. Now, what IS physical existence? It's the perception of reality happening in a spacetime continuum of an ever-expanding universe. Without an ever-expanding universe, time equals zero, there is no physical reality.


----------



## thanatos144

God even loves liberals and Jew hating libertarians 

tapatalk post


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because science cannot explain the origins of the universe (which ignores various theories about that) it means there must be a god?  That's some human arrogance right there.  Is science 'done' now?  There are no new discoveries to be made?
> 
> *Where you get the idea that it is impossible for there to be a scientific explanation for the origin of the universe I don't know.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Follow me slowly... Science is the study of physical nature. Physical nature exists in time created by an expanding universe. Before the Big Bang (or whatever set the universe in motion) there was no time, therefore, no physical nature for physical science to apply. There can be no physical scientific explanation of something that precedes physical nature.
> 
> Science isn't done, there are plenty of new scientific discoveries to be made, but science can only apply to the physical universe as a result of time created by an expanding universe. Without the expanding universe, there is no time and no reality, which have to exist for science to apply.
Click to expand...


You are basing this on a number of assumptions.

First, that you know the Big Bang theory or something similar is true and before our universe began there was no time.

Second, that science will always be unable to observe or study whatever existed when there was no time (assuming the word existed even applies).

Third, that there cannot be a physical reality based explanation for the Big Bang or similar beginning to the universe.

Current science may not be up to the task, but that doesn't mean that it will always be the case.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because science cannot explain the origins of the universe (which ignores various theories about that) it means there must be a god?  That's some human arrogance right there.  Is science 'done' now?  There are no new discoveries to be made?
> 
> *Where you get the idea that it is impossible for there to be a scientific explanation for the origin of the universe I don't know.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Follow me slowly... Science is the study of physical nature. Physical nature exists in time created by an expanding universe. Before the Big Bang (or whatever set the universe in motion) there was no time, therefore, no physical nature for physical science to apply. There can be no physical scientific explanation of something that precedes physical nature.
> 
> Science isn't done, there are plenty of new scientific discoveries to be made, but science can only apply to the physical universe as a result of time created by an expanding universe. Without the expanding universe, there is no time and no reality, which have to exist for science to apply.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the big bang that created our universe might be that we are the other end of a black hole.  And there are probably billions of black holes so probably billions of other universes.  OMG it's amazing.
Click to expand...


And you may be correct, this is a prevailing theory at this time. Furthermore, each of the other universes may have unique laws of physics, reality may be completely different from our own. Maybe there is no gravity? Maybe the energy forces are not like our own? Perhaps there are even energy forces we may think of as "spiritual"? 

Here's another aspect.. Higgs boson confirmed our standard model, which means we understand the complete set of properties operating in our own physical dimensions. But we know there are other dimensions. Everything we can comprehend is related in terms of a 4-dimensional universe. Theorists predict there could be as many as 11 dimensions, within our own universe. This means there could be multiple "realities" happening all at the same "time" or "spacetime" within the same universe. Just hovering a frequency different from our own, which we can't experience. Makes you wonder, doesn't it?


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because science cannot explain the origins of the universe (which ignores various theories about that) it means there must be a god?  That's some human arrogance right there.  Is science 'done' now?  There are no new discoveries to be made?
> 
> *Where you get the idea that it is impossible for there to be a scientific explanation for the origin of the universe I don't know.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Follow me slowly... Science is the study of physical nature. Physical nature exists in time created by an expanding universe. Before the Big Bang (or whatever set the universe in motion) there was no time, therefore, no physical nature for physical science to apply. There can be no physical scientific explanation of something that precedes physical nature.
> 
> Science isn't done, there are plenty of new scientific discoveries to be made, but science can only apply to the physical universe as a result of time created by an expanding universe. Without the expanding universe, there is no time and no reality, which have to exist for science to apply.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are basing this on a number of assumptions.
> 
> First, that you know the Big Bang theory or something similar is true and before our universe began there was no time.
> 
> Second, that science will always be unable to observe or study whatever existed when there was no time (assuming the word existed even applies).
> 
> Third, that there cannot be a physical reality based explanation for the Big Bang or similar beginning to the universe.
> 
> Current science may not be up to the task, but that doesn't mean that it will always be the case.
Click to expand...


There is no assumption, we've known for years that Time=Distance. Something set the universe in motion because it is expanding, in some cases faster than the speed of light. It is this expansion of the universe which creates time. Without time, created by an expanding universe, nothing you can imagine as a science or principle of science means anything. What does gravity mean if T=0? How can atoms bond or split if there is no time space for that to happen? Logic no longer remains valid either. Everything you have as a perception of reality means nothing without time, created by a universe that continues to expand. 

Now Sicence is great, don't get me wrong. It can tell us all kinds of things about the physical universe and reality we're experiencing in it. But it simply can't explain physically what created physical. Before there was a Big Bang or something to create an expanding universe where time is a dimension. Try to wrap your head around this if you can, you are trying to explain something that can't be explained with physical science. This is absolute truth. 

Now let's talk about current science... currently they are talking about the possibility of multiple universes. The M-verse Theory, if you care to look it up. Now... if Time=Distance, like in our universe... what if another universe is traveling faster or slower than ours? What if their time space is completely different? Or what if completely different laws of physics apply because of completely different atomic and subatomic particles? We can't possibly predict something we know virtually nothing about, but it stands to reason if our universe operates on a set of principles dependent upon physics and universal laws, motion, gravity, etc. probably other universes do as well. 

Stephen Hawking had an interesting Q&A recently when he pontificated on the possibility that universes could be like cells of a greater organism. He cautioned about projects like SETI, where we're sending signals out into space to try and contact extraterrestrial life. He likened this to cells in the body sending signals to the brain that infection is present. What happens? The brain sends out antibodies to kill the infection.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Follow me slowly... Science is the study of physical nature. Physical nature exists in time created by an expanding universe. Before the Big Bang (or whatever set the universe in motion) there was no time, therefore, no physical nature for physical science to apply. There can be no physical scientific explanation of something that precedes physical nature.
> 
> Science isn't done, there are plenty of new scientific discoveries to be made, but science can only apply to the physical universe as a result of time created by an expanding universe. Without the expanding universe, there is no time and no reality, which have to exist for science to apply.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are basing this on a number of assumptions.
> 
> First, that you know the Big Bang theory or something similar is true and before our universe began there was no time.
> 
> Second, that science will always be unable to observe or study whatever existed when there was no time (assuming the word existed even applies).
> 
> Third, that there cannot be a physical reality based explanation for the Big Bang or similar beginning to the universe.
> 
> Current science may not be up to the task, but that doesn't mean that it will always be the case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no assumption, we've known for years that Time=Distance. Something set the universe in motion because it is expanding, in some cases faster than the speed of light. It is this expansion of the universe which creates time. Without time, created by an expanding universe, nothing you can imagine as a science or principle of science means anything. What does gravity mean if T=0? How can atoms bond or split if there is no time space for that to happen? Logic no longer remains valid either. Everything you have as a perception of reality means nothing without time, created by a universe that continues to expand.
> 
> Now Sicence is great, don't get me wrong. It can tell us all kinds of things about the physical universe and reality we're experiencing in it. But it simply can't explain physically what created physical. Before there was a Big Bang or something to create an expanding universe where time is a dimension. Try to wrap your head around this if you can, you are trying to explain something that can't be explained with physical science. This is absolute truth.
> 
> Now let's talk about current science... currently they are talking about the possibility of multiple universes. The M-verse Theory, if you care to look it up. Now... if Time=Distance, like in our universe... what if another universe is traveling faster or slower than ours? What if their time space is completely different? Or what if completely different laws of physics apply because of completely different atomic and subatomic particles? We can't possibly predict something we know virtually nothing about, but it stands to reason if our universe operates on a set of principles dependent upon physics and universal laws, motion, gravity, etc. probably other universes do as well.
> 
> Stephen Hawking had an interesting Q&A recently when he pontificated on the possibility that universes could be like cells of a greater organism. He cautioned about projects like SETI, where we're sending signals out into space to try and contact extraterrestrial life. He likened this to cells in the body sending signals to the brain that infection is present. What happens? The brain sends out antibodies to kill the infection.
Click to expand...


In fact, something can come from nothing and we are able to observe it in the form of virtual particles and quantum vacuum fluctuations. They explain why the early universe lacked uniformity and provided the seeds for the emergence of structure. These quantum phenomena are also causeless in the sense that they are objectively and irreducibly random, a fact confirmed by tests of non-local realism and Bells Theorem.


----------



## thanatos144

Arrogance.  That is what it boils down to. To arrogant to believe their might be a God who is superior to them 

tapatalk post


----------



## sealybobo

thanatos144 said:


> Arrogance.  That is wheat it boils down to. To arrogant to believe their might be a God who is superior to them
> 
> tapatalk post



Hey, you'll go to heaven if you suck my dick.  And if you don't, it's out of ignorance and arrogance and you will burn in hell if you don't believe me.  Need proof?  God said not to ask for proof.  Just do it.  God wants us to believe our ignorant ancestors bullshit stories without proof?  That's what it takes to go to heaven?  To believe a story that can't possibly be true?  Go fuck yourself you stupid bastard.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arrogance.  That is wheat it boils down to. To arrogant to believe their might be a God who is superior to them
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, you'll go to heaven if you suck my dick.  And if you don't, it's out of ignorance and arrogance and you will burn in hell if you don't believe me.  Need proof?  God said not to ask for proof.  Just do it.  God wants us to believe our ignorant ancestors bullshit stories without proof?  That's what it takes to go to heaven?  To believe a story that can't possibly be true?  Go fuck yourself you stupid bastard.
Click to expand...


 ONLY A FOOL WILL TRY TO ARGUE AND FIGHT AGAINST GOD!!!and you???======That man is a fool who says to himself, There is no God! Anyone who talks like that is warped and evil and cannot really be a good person at all.Psalm 14:1===Only a fool would say to himself, There is no God. And why does he say it? Because of his wicked heart, his dark and evil deeds. His life is corroded with sin. PSALM 53:1 and you???


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Follow me slowly... Science is the study of physical nature. Physical nature exists in time created by an expanding universe. Before the Big Bang (or whatever set the universe in motion) there was no time, therefore, no physical nature for physical science to apply. There can be no physical scientific explanation of something that precedes physical nature.
> 
> Science isn't done, there are plenty of new scientific discoveries to be made, but science can only apply to the physical universe as a result of time created by an expanding universe. Without the expanding universe, there is no time and no reality, which have to exist for science to apply.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are basing this on a number of assumptions.
> 
> First, that you know the Big Bang theory or something similar is true and before our universe began there was no time.
> 
> Second, that science will always be unable to observe or study whatever existed when there was no time (assuming the word existed even applies).
> 
> Third, that there cannot be a physical reality based explanation for the Big Bang or similar beginning to the universe.
> 
> Current science may not be up to the task, but that doesn't mean that it will always be the case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no assumption, we've known for years that Time=Distance. Something set the universe in motion because it is expanding, in some cases faster than the speed of light. It is this expansion of the universe which creates time. Without time, created by an expanding universe, nothing you can imagine as a science or principle of science means anything. What does gravity mean if T=0? How can atoms bond or split if there is no time space for that to happen? Logic no longer remains valid either. Everything you have as a perception of reality means nothing without time, created by a universe that continues to expand.
> 
> Now Sicence is great, don't get me wrong. It can tell us all kinds of things about the physical universe and reality we're experiencing in it. But it simply can't explain physically what created physical. Before there was a Big Bang or something to create an expanding universe where time is a dimension. Try to wrap your head around this if you can, you are trying to explain something that can't be explained with physical science. This is absolute truth.
> 
> Now let's talk about current science... currently they are talking about the possibility of multiple universes. The M-verse Theory, if you care to look it up. Now... if Time=Distance, like in our universe... what if another universe is traveling faster or slower than ours? What if their time space is completely different? Or what if completely different laws of physics apply because of completely different atomic and subatomic particles? We can't possibly predict something we know virtually nothing about, but it stands to reason if our universe operates on a set of principles dependent upon physics and universal laws, motion, gravity, etc. probably other universes do as well.
> 
> Stephen Hawking had an interesting Q&A recently when he pontificated on the possibility that universes could be like cells of a greater organism. He cautioned about projects like SETI, where we're sending signals out into space to try and contact extraterrestrial life. He likened this to cells in the body sending signals to the brain that infection is present. What happens? The brain sends out antibodies to kill the infection.
Click to expand...


There is, actually, assumption.

You assumed, with your previous post, that either the Big Bang is true, or some other similar beginning to the universe.

You assumed that science will never be able to observe or study a reality without time.  That may be true now, but who knows what may be possible in the future?  Perhaps some sort of accurate modeling, at least, may be possible at some point.

Why can there not have been a physical answer to the creation of the universe?  What about the Big Bang/Big Crunch idea?

This entire discussion is, in large part, in the realm of hypothesis and speculation at this point.  I'm simply questioning why you are discussion such things as though they are established fact.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arrogance.  That is wheat it boils down to. To arrogant to believe their might be a God who is superior to them
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, you'll go to heaven if you suck my dick.  And if you don't, it's out of ignorance and arrogance and you will burn in hell if you don't believe me.  Need proof?  God said not to ask for proof.  Just do it.  God wants us to believe our ignorant ancestors bullshit stories without proof?  That's what it takes to go to heaven?  To believe a story that can't possibly be true?  Go fuck yourself you stupid bastard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ONLY A FOOL WILL TRY TO ARGUE AND FIGHT AGAINST GOD!!!and you???======That man is a fool who says to himself, There is no God! Anyone who talks like that is warped and evil and cannot really be a good person at all.Psalm 14:1===Only a fool would say to himself, There is no God. And why does he say it? Because of his wicked heart, his dark and evil deeds. His life is corroded with sin. PSALM 53:1 and you???
Click to expand...


Right.  It'd be like trying to fight the boogy man.  He doesn't exist.  If god is real he needs to reveal himself or you need to shut the fuck up.  Dick in your psalm 14:4


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, you'll go to heaven if you suck my dick.  And if you don't, it's out of ignorance and arrogance and you will burn in hell if you don't believe me.  Need proof?  God said not to ask for proof.  Just do it.  God wants us to believe our ignorant ancestors bullshit stories without proof?  That's what it takes to go to heaven?  To believe a story that can't possibly be true?  Go fuck yourself you stupid bastard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ONLY A FOOL WILL TRY TO ARGUE AND FIGHT AGAINST GOD!!!and you???======That man is a fool who says to himself, There is no God! Anyone who talks like that is warped and evil and cannot really be a good person at all.Psalm 14:1===Only a fool would say to himself, There is no God. And why does he say it? Because of his wicked heart, his dark and evil deeds. His life is corroded with sin. PSALM 53:1 and you???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right.  It'd be like trying to fight the boogy man.  He doesn't exist.  If god is real he needs to reveal himself or you need to shut the fuck up.  Dick in your psalm 14:4
Click to expand...


GOD gave HIS Word to mankind,GOD is revealed in His word.   you too fat and lazy to read???


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> ONLY A FOOL WILL TRY TO ARGUE AND FIGHT AGAINST GOD!!!and you???======That man is a fool who says to himself, There is no God! Anyone who talks like that is warped and evil and cannot really be a good person at all.Psalm 14:1===Only a fool would say to himself, There is no God. And why does he say it? Because of his wicked heart, his dark and evil deeds. His life is corroded with sin. PSALM 53:1 and you???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right.  It'd be like trying to fight the boogy man.  He doesn't exist.  If god is real he needs to reveal himself or you need to shut the fuck up.  Dick in your psalm 14:4
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> GOD gave HIS Word to mankind,GOD is revealed in His word.   you too fat and lazy to read???
Click to expand...


I would read anything god wrote.  Show me something ANYTHING he or Jesus wrote.  Nothing?  Then maybe you're swallowing a fairy tale?  

Name me one person on earth today that tells you "you have to believe their ancient fairy tale or go to hell".  Why do you believe them?  What proof do they have?  

Remember the Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many religious texts. Like those others, it itself constitutes no evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful content do not legitimise it nor distinguish it from other ancient works of literature.

The Bible is historically inaccurate, factually incorrect, inconsistent and contradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> ONLY A FOOL WILL TRY TO ARGUE AND FIGHT AGAINST GOD!!!and you???======That man is a fool who says to himself, There is no God! Anyone who talks like that is warped and evil and cannot really be a good person at all.Psalm 14:1===Only a fool would say to himself, There is no God. And why does he say it? Because of his wicked heart, his dark and evil deeds. His life is corroded with sin. PSALM 53:1 and you???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right.  It'd be like trying to fight the boogy man.  He doesn't exist.  If god is real he needs to reveal himself or you need to shut the fuck up.  Dick in your psalm 14:4
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> GOD gave HIS Word to mankind,GOD is revealed in His word.   you too fat and lazy to read???
Click to expand...


Does god approve of you calling me fat?  Oh you already asked for forgiveness and he gave it?  Or it doesn't matter because christians can sin as much as they want.  As long as they believe the jesus lie they are going to heaven.  What a fucking fool you are.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right.  It'd be like trying to fight the boogy man.  He doesn't exist.  If god is real he needs to reveal himself or you need to shut the fuck up.  Dick in your psalm 14:4
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GOD gave HIS Word to mankind,GOD is revealed in His word.   you too fat and lazy to read???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would read anything god wrote.  Show me something ANYTHING he or Jesus wrote.  Nothing?  Then maybe you're swallowing a fairy tale?
> 
> Name me one person on earth today that tells you "you have to believe their ancient fairy tale or go to hell".  Why do you believe them?  What proof do they have?
> 
> Remember the Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many religious texts. Like those others, it itself constitutes no evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful content do not legitimise it nor distinguish it from other ancient works of literature.
> 
> The Bible is historically inaccurate, factually incorrect, inconsistent and contradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time.
Click to expand...


LOL!!! TO KNOW GOD YOU MUST SEEK GOD,YOU CAN FIND GOD IN HIS ETERNAL,LIVING WORD!!! read it!!!


----------



## BreezeWood

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... what IF every human on the planet had prayed for God to intervene? Are you sure nothing would have happened to change the events? Perhaps there isn't enough collective 'spiritual energy' from the human race, and that's why these terrible things happen? Do you have proof that isn't the case? How do you know?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=G8GwT7ZotCg"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=G8GwT7ZotCg[/ame]
> 
> praise be forever ...
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guess you couldn't answer my question?
Click to expand...



no, it is you who chooses differently for a God of convenience to fit whichever post or thought fits the occasion ... so derived to facilitate fundamental religionist social stereotypical divisions.

.


----------



## thanatos144

What kind of fool doesn't see the evidence of God everywhere?  Probably the same people who think abortion is just a choice 

tapatalk post


----------



## sealybobo

thanatos144 said:


> What kind of fool doesn't see the evidence of God everywhere?  Probably the same people who think abortion is just a choice
> 
> tapatalk post



Abortion is having a pregnancy terminated.  The definition is not "a choice".  But what do you mean when you say people who think abortion is "just a choice".  Isn't it?  You either choose to have one or you choose not to.  Same way you either choose to believe a fairy tale (religion) or you choose not to.


----------



## sealybobo

thanatos144 said:


> What kind of fool doesn't see the evidence of God everywhere?  Probably the same people who think abortion is just a choice
> 
> tapatalk post



Science has explained how/when/why humans invented god.

A result of our naturally evolved neurology, made hypersensitive to purpose (an unseen actor) because of the large social groups humans have and the way the brain associates pattern with intent.

Humans have evolved a variety of cognitive shortcuts to deal with the mass of information provided by our senses. In particular, we tend to filter sensory input according to a set of expectations built on prior beliefs and past experiences, impart meaning to ambiguous input even when there is no real meaning behind it and infer causal relationships where none exist.

Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.

Ignores and does not eliminate the fact that something can seem incredible or unlikely and still be true, or appear to be obvious or likely and yet still be false.

The world is the way it is. Reality does not bend to our personal whim and facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. Our personal belief in something does not automatically make it real or true and, conversely, our lack of understanding of a topic does not make it false.

Until we understand something we do not know. Positing a god in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.

The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.


----------



## thanatos144

sealybobo said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of fool doesn't see the evidence of God everywhere?  Probably the same people who think abortion is just a choice
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion is having a pregnancy terminated.  The definition is not "a choice".  But what do you mean when you say people who think abortion is "just a choice".  Isn't it?  You either choose to have one or you choose not to.  Same way you either choose to believe a fairy tale (religion) or you choose not to.
Click to expand...


Killing a innocent baby isn't a choice it is a horrid act 

tapatalk post


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> GOD gave HIS Word to mankind,GOD is revealed in His word.   you too fat and lazy to read???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would read anything god wrote.  Show me something ANYTHING he or Jesus wrote.  Nothing?  Then maybe you're swallowing a fairy tale?
> 
> Name me one person on earth today that tells you "you have to believe their ancient fairy tale or go to hell".  Why do you believe them?  What proof do they have?
> 
> Remember the Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many religious texts. Like those others, it itself constitutes no evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful content do not legitimise it nor distinguish it from other ancient works of literature.
> 
> The Bible is historically inaccurate, factually incorrect, inconsistent and contradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!!! TO KNOW GOD YOU MUST SEEK GOD,YOU CAN FIND GOD IN HIS ETERNAL,LIVING WORD!!! read it!!!
Click to expand...


YOU'LL BURN IN HELL!  does not actually argue in support of the existence of a god, rather, it simply attempts to coerce insincere worship. There are several issues with this approach:

Multiple inconsistent and contradictory revelations (Which god/hell?)
Hell is incompatible with an omnibenevolent god.
A god could reward reasoning/skepticism.
An omniscient god would see through feigned belief as a result of coercion.
If a god wanted everyone to believe and knew exactly what was needed to convince people, then why are there atheists at all? Is god unable to prevent transgression of his will?
Infallible foreknowledge is incompatible with free will (Are atheists predestined for hell?)
Most people adhere to the religion they were born into, they have not examined all other religions.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> GOD gave HIS Word to mankind,GOD is revealed in His word.   you too fat and lazy to read???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would read anything god wrote.  Show me something ANYTHING he or Jesus wrote.  Nothing?  Then maybe you're swallowing a fairy tale?
> 
> Name me one person on earth today that tells you "you have to believe their ancient fairy tale or go to hell".  Why do you believe them?  What proof do they have?
> 
> Remember the Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many religious texts. Like those others, it itself constitutes no evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful content do not legitimise it nor distinguish it from other ancient works of literature.
> 
> The Bible is historically inaccurate, factually incorrect, inconsistent and contradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!!! TO KNOW GOD YOU MUST SEEK GOD,YOU CAN FIND GOD IN HIS ETERNAL,LIVING WORD!!! read it!!!
Click to expand...


And when you said "we don't want to believe"  There is truth and reality independent of our desires. Faith simply reinforces your belief in what you would like to be true, rather than what really is.

In order to better understand this reality and discover the truth we must look for evidence outside ourselves.

Faith isnt a virtue; it is the glorification of voluntary ignorance.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would read anything god wrote.  Show me something ANYTHING he or Jesus wrote.  Nothing?  Then maybe you're swallowing a fairy tale?
> 
> Name me one person on earth today that tells you "you have to believe their ancient fairy tale or go to hell".  Why do you believe them?  What proof do they have?
> 
> Remember the Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many religious texts. Like those others, it itself constitutes no evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful content do not legitimise it nor distinguish it from other ancient works of literature.
> 
> The Bible is historically inaccurate, factually incorrect, inconsistent and contradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!!! TO KNOW GOD YOU MUST SEEK GOD,YOU CAN FIND GOD IN HIS ETERNAL,LIVING WORD!!! read it!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOU'LL BURN IN HELL!  does not actually argue in support of the existence of a god, rather, it simply attempts to coerce insincere worship. There are several issues with this approach:
> 
> Multiple inconsistent and contradictory revelations (Which god/hell?)
> Hell is incompatible with an omnibenevolent god.
> A god could reward reasoning/skepticism.
> An omniscient god would see through feigned belief as a result of coercion.
> If a god wanted everyone to believe and knew exactly what was needed to convince people, then why are there atheists at all? Is god unable to prevent transgression of his will?
> Infallible foreknowledge is incompatible with free will (Are atheists predestined for hell?)
> Most people adhere to the religion they were born into, they have not examined all other religions.
Click to expand...


HELL WAS CREATED FOR satan and demons but you are free to mreject GOD'S love and join satan in eternal hell!!! IT IS ALL YOUR CHOICE!!!


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.



Because religion has been, and continues to be, responsible for countless horrors throughout human history. Religiously motivated animosity, violence and oppression and discrimination.
For all the problems we face as a society, many theists choose not only to do nothing to help, but actually engage in sabotage by actively preventing solutions from being instigated, usually by supporting irrational political positions e.g. stem-cell research, contraception, womens rights, sexual equality and even global warming.
Because belief in a god taps into mankinds natural tendency to defer moral decision making to authority figures (including priests, prophets, holy books, popes, ayatollahs and imams). Acting out Gods plan or Gods will is a sure-fire way to absolve ones-self of responsibility for ones actions. 
Because as a functional member of society it benefits everyone if your decision making process is founded on evidence and reason, not on superstition. Faith isnt a virtue; it is the glorification of voluntary ignorance.
Because religious superstition erects an absolute monarchy in a persons mind. It teaches them to be satisfied with not understanding the world and represents a surrendering to ignorance under the pretension of divine knowledge. Many of the greatest thinkers in human history have been repressed, sometimes forcefully, by those with faith. It is not skeptics or explorers but fanatics and ideologues who menace decency and progress. See also: Hypatia, Galileo Galilei, Giordano Bruno,


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because religion has been, and continues to be, responsible for countless horrors throughout human history. Religiously motivated animosity, violence and oppression and discrimination.
> For all the problems we face as a society, many theists choose not only to do nothing to help, but actually engage in sabotage by actively preventing solutions from being instigated, usually by supporting irrational political positions e.g. stem-cell research, contraception, womens rights, sexual equality and even global warming.
> Because belief in a god taps into mankinds natural tendency to defer moral decision making to authority figures (including priests, prophets, holy books, popes, ayatollahs and imams). Acting out Gods plan or Gods will is a sure-fire way to absolve ones-self of responsibility for ones actions.
> Because as a functional member of society it benefits everyone if your decision making process is founded on evidence and reason, not on superstition. Faith isnt a virtue; it is the glorification of voluntary ignorance.
> Because religious superstition erects an absolute monarchy in a persons mind. It teaches them to be satisfied with not understanding the world and represents a surrendering to ignorance under the pretension of divine knowledge. Many of the greatest thinkers in human history have been repressed, sometimes forcefully, by those with faith. It is not skeptics or explorers but fanatics and ideologues who menace decency and progress. See also: Hypatia, Galileo Galilei, Giordano Bruno,
Click to expand...


YOU ALLOW SATAN TO USE YOU AS HIS TOOL,FOOL,PUPPET!!!   GOD'S WORD SAYS LOVE ONE ANOTHER,HELP THE POOR, GIVE THE WORLD THE GOOD NEWS =GOD LOVES THEM.  GOD IS NOT WILLING THAT ANYONE PERISH BUT THAT ALL HAVE ETERNAL LIFE butyou must choose!!


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because religion has been, and continues to be, responsible for countless horrors throughout human history. Religiously motivated animosity, violence and oppression and discrimination.
> For all the problems we face as a society, many theists choose not only to do nothing to help, but actually engage in sabotage by actively preventing solutions from being instigated, usually by supporting irrational political positions e.g. stem-cell research, contraception, womens rights, sexual equality and even global warming.
> Because belief in a god taps into mankinds natural tendency to defer moral decision making to authority figures (including priests, prophets, holy books, popes, ayatollahs and imams). Acting out Gods plan or Gods will is a sure-fire way to absolve ones-self of responsibility for ones actions.
> Because as a functional member of society it benefits everyone if your decision making process is founded on evidence and reason, not on superstition. Faith isnt a virtue; it is the glorification of voluntary ignorance.
> Because religious superstition erects an absolute monarchy in a persons mind. It teaches them to be satisfied with not understanding the world and represents a surrendering to ignorance under the pretension of divine knowledge. Many of the greatest thinkers in human history have been repressed, sometimes forcefully, by those with faith. It is not skeptics or explorers but fanatics and ideologues who menace decency and progress. See also: Hypatia, Galileo Galilei, Giordano Bruno,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOU ALLOW SATAN TO USE YOU AS HIS TOOL,FOOL,PUPPET!!!   GOD'S WORD SAYS LOVE ONE ANOTHER,HELP THE POOR, GIVE THE WORLD THE GOOD NEWS =GOD LOVES THEM.  GOD IS NOT WILLING THAT ANYONE PERISH BUT THAT ALL HAVE ETERNAL LIFE butyou must choose!!
Click to expand...


Maybe you christians need to start doing a better job representing christianity.  God or no god if your cult wasn't full of so many hypocrites and liars maybe some of us would join.  But I can't see hanging out with you assholes and fools once a week or spreading your impossible story.  I don't know how any believes as an adult really.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because religion has been, and continues to be, responsible for countless horrors throughout human history. Religiously motivated animosity, violence and oppression and discrimination.
> For all the problems we face as a society, many theists choose not only to do nothing to help, but actually engage in sabotage by actively preventing solutions from being instigated, usually by supporting irrational political positions e.g. stem-cell research, contraception, womens rights, sexual equality and even global warming.
> Because belief in a god taps into mankinds natural tendency to defer moral decision making to authority figures (including priests, prophets, holy books, popes, ayatollahs and imams). Acting out Gods plan or Gods will is a sure-fire way to absolve ones-self of responsibility for ones actions.
> Because as a functional member of society it benefits everyone if your decision making process is founded on evidence and reason, not on superstition. Faith isnt a virtue; it is the glorification of voluntary ignorance.
> Because religious superstition erects an absolute monarchy in a persons mind. It teaches them to be satisfied with not understanding the world and represents a surrendering to ignorance under the pretension of divine knowledge. Many of the greatest thinkers in human history have been repressed, sometimes forcefully, by those with faith. It is not skeptics or explorers but fanatics and ideologues who menace decency and progress. See also: Hypatia, Galileo Galilei, Giordano Bruno,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU ALLOW SATAN TO USE YOU AS HIS TOOL,FOOL,PUPPET!!!   GOD'S WORD SAYS LOVE ONE ANOTHER,HELP THE POOR, GIVE THE WORLD THE GOOD NEWS =GOD LOVES THEM.  GOD IS NOT WILLING THAT ANYONE PERISH BUT THAT ALL HAVE ETERNAL LIFE butyou must choose!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe you christians need to start doing a better job representing christianity.  God or no god if your cult wasn't full of so many hypocrites and liars maybe some of us would join.  But I can't see hanging out with you assholes and fools once a week or spreading your impossible story.  I don't know how any believes as an adult really.
Click to expand...


THEN YOU CHOOSE HELL!!! OK!! NOW WHY DO YOU HANG AROUND DAY AFTER DAY SCREAMING THAT GOD IS NOT REAL????? NO ONE WILL EVER FORCE YOU TO ACCEPT GOD'S LOVE AND BLESSINGS=JUST BEGONE TO HELL,NO SKIN OFF ANY BELIEVER'S NOSE!!!! JUST DON'T TRY TO BLAME GOD FOR YOUR BEING A TOTAL FOOL!!! Now begone!


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOU ALLOW SATAN TO USE YOU AS HIS TOOL,FOOL,PUPPET!!!   GOD'S WORD SAYS LOVE ONE ANOTHER,HELP THE POOR, GIVE THE WORLD THE GOOD NEWS =GOD LOVES THEM.  GOD IS NOT WILLING THAT ANYONE PERISH BUT THAT ALL HAVE ETERNAL LIFE butyou must choose!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you christians need to start doing a better job representing christianity.  God or no god if your cult wasn't full of so many hypocrites and liars maybe some of us would join.  But I can't see hanging out with you assholes and fools once a week or spreading your impossible story.  I don't know how any believes as an adult really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> THEN YOU CHOOSE HELL!!! OK!! NOW WHY DO YOU HANG AROUND DAY AFTER DAY SCREAMING THAT GOD IS NOT REAL????? NO ONE WILL EVER FORCE YOU TO ACCEPT GOD'S LOVE AND BLESSINGS=JUST BEGONE TO HELL,NO SKIN OFF ANY BELIEVER'S NOSE!!!! JUST DON'T TRY TO BLAME GOD FOR YOUR BEING A TOTAL FOOL!!! Now begone!
Click to expand...


The thread is why do god haters persist.  We've told you a million times the reasons we persist.  Stop trying to force your beliefs on the rest of society.  And if it is no skin off your nose, shut the fuck up then.  

And a loving god would not punish me for not believing you or your cult.  

When I die, if I find out he is real, I will repent.

If one truly changes their mind and comes to God, what difference when it happens? Since one sin will as surely keep someone out of heaven as a lifetime of sins, Gods forgiveness is on his terms regardless of how many sins one has committed. Since we are not saved because of our own merits but because of Gods mercy, the number of sins we have committed or how long we have done so does not have any bearing on salvation. At least two passages apply.
Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive. Because he considereth, ant turneth away from all his transgressions that he hath committed, he shall surely live, he shall not die. (Ezekiel 18:27-28)
Read also Matthew 20:1-16. That is a parable about a man who decided to pay those that had worked for only one hour the same as he had contracted with those who worked all day. The conclusion is that if God chooses to save those who come to him at the last minute, that is Gods choice to make.
And what about someone who comes to God thinking they have many years yet to live, but dies the next day? Is that any different than one who, expecting to die soon, chooses to follow God? Would it be unfair for God to save that person? No more so than to save the person who waited until they thought they knew they would die.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOU ALLOW SATAN TO USE YOU AS HIS TOOL,FOOL,PUPPET!!!   GOD'S WORD SAYS LOVE ONE ANOTHER,HELP THE POOR, GIVE THE WORLD THE GOOD NEWS =GOD LOVES THEM.  GOD IS NOT WILLING THAT ANYONE PERISH BUT THAT ALL HAVE ETERNAL LIFE butyou must choose!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you christians need to start doing a better job representing christianity.  God or no god if your cult wasn't full of so many hypocrites and liars maybe some of us would join.  But I can't see hanging out with you assholes and fools once a week or spreading your impossible story.  I don't know how any believes as an adult really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> THEN YOU CHOOSE HELL!!! OK!! NOW WHY DO YOU HANG AROUND DAY AFTER DAY SCREAMING THAT GOD IS NOT REAL????? NO ONE WILL EVER FORCE YOU TO ACCEPT GOD'S LOVE AND BLESSINGS=JUST BEGONE TO HELL,NO SKIN OFF ANY BELIEVER'S NOSE!!!! JUST DON'T TRY TO BLAME GOD FOR YOUR BEING A TOTAL FOOL!!! Now begone!
Click to expand...


I don't think anyone chooses hell.  We just don't believe your stupid made up story.  How fucking stupid.  Believe my unbelievable lie or you choose hell.  Ok fuck face.    I choose hell!!!!


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you christians need to start doing a better job representing christianity.  God or no god if your cult wasn't full of so many hypocrites and liars maybe some of us would join.  But I can't see hanging out with you assholes and fools once a week or spreading your impossible story.  I don't know how any believes as an adult really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THEN YOU CHOOSE HELL!!! OK!! NOW WHY DO YOU HANG AROUND DAY AFTER DAY SCREAMING THAT GOD IS NOT REAL????? NO ONE WILL EVER FORCE YOU TO ACCEPT GOD'S LOVE AND BLESSINGS=JUST BEGONE TO HELL,NO SKIN OFF ANY BELIEVER'S NOSE!!!! JUST DON'T TRY TO BLAME GOD FOR YOUR BEING A TOTAL FOOL!!! Now begone!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think anyone chooses hell.  We just don't believe your stupid made up story.  How fucking stupid.  Believe my unbelievable lie or you choose hell.  Ok fuck face.    I choose hell!!!!
Click to expand...


WHY DO YOU COME HERE AND SCREAM THAT GODIS NOT REAL  IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD?  WHY WASTE YOUR TIME??? OR IS IT YOU JUST HOPE THERE IS NO GOD because you fear judgment and want to live in your pet sin??


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> THEN YOU CHOOSE HELL!!! OK!! NOW WHY DO YOU HANG AROUND DAY AFTER DAY SCREAMING THAT GOD IS NOT REAL????? NO ONE WILL EVER FORCE YOU TO ACCEPT GOD'S LOVE AND BLESSINGS=JUST BEGONE TO HELL,NO SKIN OFF ANY BELIEVER'S NOSE!!!! JUST DON'T TRY TO BLAME GOD FOR YOUR BEING A TOTAL FOOL!!! Now begone!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think anyone chooses hell.  We just don't believe your stupid made up story.  How fucking stupid.  Believe my unbelievable lie or you choose hell.  Ok fuck face.    I choose hell!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WHY DO YOU COME HERE AND SCREAM THAT GODIS NOT REAL  IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD?  WHY WASTE YOUR TIME??? OR IS IT YOU JUST HOPE THERE IS NO GOD because you fear judgment and want to live in your pet sin??
Click to expand...


Are you a fucking retard or do you not read what I write to you?

Because religion has been, and continues to be, responsible for countless horrors throughout human history. Religiously motivated animosity, violence and oppression and discrimination.
For all the problems we face as a society, many theists choose not only to do nothing to help, but actually engage in sabotage by actively preventing solutions from being instigated, usually by supporting irrational political positions e.g. stem-cell research, contraception, womens rights, sexual equality and even global warming.
Because belief in a god taps into mankinds natural tendency to defer moral decision making to authority figures (including priests, prophets, holy books, popes, ayatollahs and imams). Acting out Gods plan or Gods will is a sure-fire way to absolve ones-self of responsibility for ones actions. 
Because as a functional member of society it benefits everyone if your decision making process is founded on evidence and reason, not on superstition. Faith isnt a virtue; it is the glorification of voluntary ignorance.
Because religious superstition erects an absolute monarchy in a persons mind. It teaches them to be satisfied with not understanding the world and represents a surrendering to ignorance under the pretension of divine knowledge. Many of the greatest thinkers in human history have been repressed, sometimes forcefully, by those with faith. It is not skeptics or explorers but fanatics and ideologues who menace decency and progress. See also: Hypatia, Galileo Galilei, Giordano Bruno,


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think anyone chooses hell.  We just don't believe your stupid made up story.  How fucking stupid.  Believe my unbelievable lie or you choose hell.  Ok fuck face.    I choose hell!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHY DO YOU COME HERE AND SCREAM THAT GODIS NOT REAL  IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD?  WHY WASTE YOUR TIME??? OR IS IT YOU JUST HOPE THERE IS NO GOD because you fear judgment and want to live in your pet sin??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you a fucking retard or do you not read what I write to you?
> 
> Because religion has been, and continues to be, responsible for countless horrors throughout human history. Religiously motivated animosity, violence and oppression and discrimination.
> For all the problems we face as a society, many theists choose not only to do nothing to help, but actually engage in sabotage by actively preventing solutions from being instigated, usually by supporting irrational political positions e.g. stem-cell research, contraception, womens rights, sexual equality and even global warming.
> Because belief in a god taps into mankinds natural tendency to defer moral decision making to authority figures (including priests, prophets, holy books, popes, ayatollahs and imams). Acting out Gods plan or Gods will is a sure-fire way to absolve ones-self of responsibility for ones actions.
> Because as a functional member of society it benefits everyone if your decision making process is founded on evidence and reason, not on superstition. Faith isnt a virtue; it is the glorification of voluntary ignorance.
> Because religious superstition erects an absolute monarchy in a persons mind. It teaches them to be satisfied with not understanding the world and represents a surrendering to ignorance under the pretension of divine knowledge. Many of the greatest thinkers in human history have been repressed, sometimes forcefully, by those with faith. It is not skeptics or explorers but fanatics and ideologues who menace decency and progress. See also: Hypatia, Galileo Galilei, Giordano Bruno,
Click to expand...


YES!!! EVIL MAN HAS DONE MUCH HARM IN THE NAME OF RELIGION BUT ATHIEST HAS DONE FAR MORE EVIL!!! ============RELIGION IS NOT THE POINT!!!!   YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH ALMIGHTY GOD IS WHAT IS ""ALL"" IMPORTANT!!!! THERE IS NO DOWNSIDE TO LIVING A HAPPY,BLESSED LIFE AS A son OF ALMIGHTY GOD!!!


----------



## BreezeWood

GISMYS said:


> Are you a fucking retard or do you not read what I write to you?
> 
> 
> 
> YES!!! EVIL MAN HAS DONE MUCH HARM IN THE NAME OF RELIGION BUT ATHIEST HAS DONE FAR MORE EVIL!!! ============RELIGION IS NOT THE POINT!!!!   YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH ALMIGHTY GOD IS WHAT IS ""ALL"" IMPORTANT!!!! THERE IS NO DOWNSIDE TO LIVING A HAPPY,BLESSED LIFE AS A son OF ALMIGHTY GOD!!!








> *sealy:* If one truly changes their mind and comes to God, what difference when it happens?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - "No one comes to the Father except through me".
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...




*YES!!! EVIL MAN HAS DONE MUCH HARM IN THE NAME OF RELIGION ...*


not in the name of religion but by those who claim the scriptural religion of the desert religions is the inerrant representation of humanities creator - ("No one comes to the Father except through me").

Gismo, when are you going to stop sinning (Bible) and find God ?

.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHY DO YOU COME HERE AND SCREAM THAT GODIS NOT REAL  IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD?  WHY WASTE YOUR TIME??? OR IS IT YOU JUST HOPE THERE IS NO GOD because you fear judgment and want to live in your pet sin??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you a fucking retard or do you not read what I write to you?
> 
> Because religion has been, and continues to be, responsible for countless horrors throughout human history. Religiously motivated animosity, violence and oppression and discrimination.
> For all the problems we face as a society, many theists choose not only to do nothing to help, but actually engage in sabotage by actively preventing solutions from being instigated, usually by supporting irrational political positions e.g. stem-cell research, contraception, womens rights, sexual equality and even global warming.
> Because belief in a god taps into mankinds natural tendency to defer moral decision making to authority figures (including priests, prophets, holy books, popes, ayatollahs and imams). Acting out Gods plan or Gods will is a sure-fire way to absolve ones-self of responsibility for ones actions.
> Because as a functional member of society it benefits everyone if your decision making process is founded on evidence and reason, not on superstition. Faith isnt a virtue; it is the glorification of voluntary ignorance.
> Because religious superstition erects an absolute monarchy in a persons mind. It teaches them to be satisfied with not understanding the world and represents a surrendering to ignorance under the pretension of divine knowledge. Many of the greatest thinkers in human history have been repressed, sometimes forcefully, by those with faith. It is not skeptics or explorers but fanatics and ideologues who menace decency and progress. See also: Hypatia, Galileo Galilei, Giordano Bruno,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YES!!! EVIL MAN HAS DONE MUCH HARM IN THE NAME OF RELIGION BUT ATHIEST HAS DONE FAR MORE EVIL!!! ============RELIGION IS NOT THE POINT!!!!   YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH ALMIGHTY GOD IS WHAT IS ""ALL"" IMPORTANT!!!! THERE IS NO DOWNSIDE TO LIVING A HAPPY,BLESSED LIFE AS A son OF ALMIGHTY GOD!!!
Click to expand...


Why is it now that we have developed rational inquiry we hear only a deafening silence from a god who once supposedly engaged regularly in human affairs? Why does god not simply speak to us or appear before us as he supposedly used to? Why are we the losers in the dice roll of time? If a god places such a high value on us worshipping and believing then why not simply make its existence obvious to us?  If one accepts the prevailing scientific understanding of the development of the universe, yet also believes in one of the major religions, then presumably a god sat idle for 13.7 billion years

If Jesus is God then presumably he is omniscient. If this is true, then when he allowed himself to be sacrificed, didnt he do this with the knowledge that he was immortal? If so, then how exactly was it a sacrifice for him? What did he sacrifice?


----------



## sealybobo

sealybobo said:


> What happened to the people who claimed Hitler was an atheist?  I asked them to show me when exactly all the German people in the 1930's converted to atheism and when exactly did Germany move back to a christian nation exactly?  This is history I don't know about.  I'm assuming 90% of the Germans were christians in the 30's and 40's so saying atheists killed the jews or started ww2 is rather rediculous.
> 
> To people who believe in god(s), hitler and the nazi's were either christians or worse.  The Nazi Party reportedly grew out of several occult groups that sprang up in the late 19th century.  These groups spoke of the coming of a new Messiah that would save Germany. Hitler developed the notion that perhaps he was the chosen one to save the German people.



Of course sealybobo those people know all those Nazi's were christians.  That's why they don't reply.  

 
Atheism inspired Nazism is not true.  An ad hominem deflection which demonstrates a failure to understand that atheism is simply a lack of belief in god(s), with no inherit moral, political or philosophical baggage, and thus no line can be drawn from it to the aforementioned ideologies. In the same vein, democracy could be called atheistic.  
Hitler was religious and publicly decried atheism.  Stalinism and Communism exercised gosateizm (state atheism) based on the ideology of Marxism-Leninism. Atheism was a means to an end, not a cause.   Social Darwinism and Eugenics supplant actual natural selection with an unobjective personal perception of fitness. They are based on bad biology (genetic variability is actually very important for a species) and are completely independent of atheism.
Darwin observed and described evolution the same way Newton did for gravity. It was simply a discovery of a fact about the world  not an engineered philosophy on how to behave. Just as we do not blame Newton for the fact that gravity is used as a tool in the deployment of bombs, we cannot blame Darwin for individually misguided applications of natural selection.


----------



## sealybobo

We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.  Adolf Hitler


----------



## sealybobo

Religious people say, "Believers are persecuted by atheists."  Really?  Look at the Blue Laws. Anti-atheist laws. Discrimination against atheists. The written penalty for apostasy (leaving a religion) in most religions is death.
Believers claim the victim and imply that non-theists gang up on them, or rally against them. 

The bar theists set for perceived atheist hostility appears to be anyone simply voicing a dissenting opinion or mentioning an inclination towards non-belief. Claiming persecution is simply a deflection for theists who are unwilling or unable to deal with open criticism.
When Atheists arent considered the least trustworthy group and when we comprise more than 70% of the population, then well talk about persecution.

1.	Why cant atheists just leave theists alone?	Because religion has been, and continues to be, responsible for countless horrors throughout human history. 
2. For all the problems we face as a society, many theists choose not only to do nothing to help, but actually engage in sabotage by actively preventing solutions from being instigated, usually by supporting irrational political positions e.g. stem-cell research, contraception, womens rights, sexual equality and even global warming.
3. Because belief in a god taps into mankinds natural tendency to defer moral decision making to authority figures (including priests, prophets, holy books, popes, ayatollahs and imams). Acting out Gods plan or Gods will is a sure-fire way to absolve ones-self of responsibility for ones actions. 
4. Because as a functional member of society it benefits everyone if your decision making process is founded on evidence and reason, not on superstition. Faith isnt a virtue; it is the glorification of voluntary ignorance.
5.Because religious superstition erects an absolute monarchy in a persons mind. It teaches them to be satisfied with with not understanding the world and represents a surrendering to ignorance under the pretension of divine knowledge. Many of the greatest thinkers in human history have been repressed, sometimes forcefully, by those with faith. It is not skeptics or explorers but fanatics and ideologues who menace decency and progress.


----------



## GISMYS

FEELING VANQUISHED??? LIVING IN FEAR??? WHY DO YOU COME HERE AND SCREAM THAT GODIS NOT REAL IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD? WHY WASTE YOUR TIME??? OR IS IT YOU JUST HOPE THERE IS NO GOD because you fear judgment and want to live in your pet sin??


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you a fucking retard or do you not read what I write to you?
> 
> Because religion has been, and continues to be, responsible for countless horrors throughout human history. Religiously motivated animosity, violence and oppression and discrimination.
> For all the problems we face as a society, many theists choose not only to do nothing to help, but actually engage in sabotage by actively preventing solutions from being instigated, usually by supporting irrational political positions e.g. stem-cell research, contraception, womens rights, sexual equality and even global warming.
> Because belief in a god taps into mankinds natural tendency to defer moral decision making to authority figures (including priests, prophets, holy books, popes, ayatollahs and imams). Acting out Gods plan or Gods will is a sure-fire way to absolve ones-self of responsibility for ones actions.
> Because as a functional member of society it benefits everyone if your decision making process is founded on evidence and reason, not on superstition. Faith isnt a virtue; it is the glorification of voluntary ignorance.
> Because religious superstition erects an absolute monarchy in a persons mind. It teaches them to be satisfied with not understanding the world and represents a surrendering to ignorance under the pretension of divine knowledge. Many of the greatest thinkers in human history have been repressed, sometimes forcefully, by those with faith. It is not skeptics or explorers but fanatics and ideologues who menace decency and progress. See also: Hypatia, Galileo Galilei, Giordano Bruno,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YES!!! EVIL MAN HAS DONE MUCH HARM IN THE NAME OF RELIGION BUT ATHIEST HAS DONE FAR MORE EVIL!!! ============RELIGION IS NOT THE POINT!!!!   YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH ALMIGHTY GOD IS WHAT IS ""ALL"" IMPORTANT!!!! THERE IS NO DOWNSIDE TO LIVING A HAPPY,BLESSED LIFE AS A son OF ALMIGHTY GOD!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is it now that we have developed rational inquiry we hear only a deafening silence from a god who once supposedly engaged regularly in human affairs? Why does god not simply speak to us or appear before us as he supposedly used to? Why are we the losers in the dice roll of time? If a god places such a high value on us worshipping and believing then why not simply make its existence obvious to us?  If one accepts the prevailing scientific understanding of the development of the universe, yet also believes in one of the major religions, then presumably a god sat idle for 13.7 billion years
> 
> If Jesus is God then presumably he is omniscient. If this is true, then when he allowed himself to be sacrificed, didnt he do this with the knowledge that he was immortal? If so, then how exactly was it a sacrifice for him? What did he sacrifice?
Click to expand...


is it difficult for you to imagine that for a creating deity, the sacrifice didn't begin on the cross.....it began when he chose to incarnate himself in the fragile vessel of a mere human being......the sacrifice began at Bethlehem, not Calvary.....


----------



## Hollie

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> YES!!! EVIL MAN HAS DONE MUCH HARM IN THE NAME OF RELIGION BUT ATHIEST HAS DONE FAR MORE EVIL!!! ============RELIGION IS NOT THE POINT!!!!   YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH ALMIGHTY GOD IS WHAT IS ""ALL"" IMPORTANT!!!! THERE IS NO DOWNSIDE TO LIVING A HAPPY,BLESSED LIFE AS A son OF ALMIGHTY GOD!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it now that we have developed rational inquiry we hear only a deafening silence from a god who once supposedly engaged regularly in human affairs? Why does god not simply speak to us or appear before us as he supposedly used to? Why are we the losers in the dice roll of time? If a god places such a high value on us worshipping and believing then why not simply make its existence obvious to us?  If one accepts the prevailing scientific understanding of the development of the universe, yet also believes in one of the major religions, then presumably a god sat idle for 13.7 billion years
> 
> If Jesus is God then presumably he is omniscient. If this is true, then when he allowed himself to be sacrificed, didnt he do this with the knowledge that he was immortal? If so, then how exactly was it a sacrifice for him? What did he sacrifice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> is it difficult for you to imagine that for a creating deity, the sacrifice didn't begin on the cross.....it began when he chose to incarnate himself in the fragile vessel of a mere human being......the sacrifice began at Bethlehem, not Calvary.....
Click to expand...


The myth of god incarnate.

PROBLEMS WITH THE INCARNATION or THE MYTH OF GOD INCARNATE I am God and not man


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Why is it now that we have developed rational inquiry we hear only a deafening silence from a god who once supposedly engaged regularly in human affairs? Why does god not simply speak to us or appear before us as he supposedly used to? Why are we the losers in the dice roll of time? If a god places such a high value on us worshipping and believing then why not simply make its existence obvious to us?  If one accepts the prevailing scientific understanding of the development of the universe, yet also believes in one of the major religions, then presumably a god sat idle for 13.7 billion years
> 
> If Jesus is God then presumably he is omniscient. If this is true, then when he allowed himself to be sacrificed, didnt he do this with the knowledge that he was immortal? If so, then how exactly was it a sacrifice for him? What did he sacrifice?



Let me pose some questions for you to ponder here... What does time mean to something which resides outside the spacetime continuum we experience in our universe? Why would an omnipotent and immortal entity have "wants and desires" or place "value" on anything? 

Try to wrap your mind around it, God is not a physical entity. God does not exist as part of a physical reality we experience through time. There is no invisible man sitting on a cloud. Until you can grasp the concept of what a spiritual entity is, you can't rationalize any of this because it makes no sense. 

People worship and believe in God not because God commands it, but because they feel it will please God for them to do so. But does God experience pleasure? You see, everything we try and relate to God simply doesn't apply to God. We create an incarnation of something that is like humans, has human attributes and emotions, is effected by time, has desires, needs, wants, gets angry or shows compassion... these are humanistic attributes that do not apply to a spiritual entity. But since we can't comprehend it, we create these things to supposedly help us better understand it. We're flawed... totally fucked up creatures. Sometimes our worst adversary is our own minds.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it now that we have developed rational inquiry we hear only a deafening silence from a god who once supposedly engaged regularly in human affairs? Why does god not simply speak to us or appear before us as he supposedly used to? Why are we the losers in the dice roll of time? If a god places such a high value on us worshipping and believing then why not simply make its existence obvious to us?  If one accepts the prevailing scientific understanding of the development of the universe, yet also believes in one of the major religions, then presumably a god sat idle for 13.7 billion years
> 
> If Jesus is God then presumably he is omniscient. If this is true, then when he allowed himself to be sacrificed, didnt he do this with the knowledge that he was immortal? If so, then how exactly was it a sacrifice for him? What did he sacrifice?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me pose some questions for you to ponder here... What does time mean to something which resides outside the spacetime continuum we experience in our universe? Why would an omnipotent and immortal entity have "wants and desires" or place "value" on anything?
> 
> Try to wrap your mind around it, God is not a physical entity. God does not exist as part of a physical reality we experience through time. There is no invisible man sitting on a cloud. Until you can grasp the concept of what a spiritual entity is, you can't rationalize any of this because it makes no sense.
> 
> People worship and believe in God not because God commands it, but because they feel it will please God for them to do so. But does God experience pleasure? You see, everything we try and relate to God simply doesn't apply to God. We create an incarnation of something that is like humans, has human attributes and emotions, is effected by time, has desires, needs, wants, gets angry or shows compassion... these are humanistic attributes that do not apply to a spiritual entity. But since we can't comprehend it, we create these things to supposedly help us better understand it. We're flawed... totally fucked up creatures. Sometimes our worst adversary is our own minds.
Click to expand...


"We're flawed... totally fucked up creatures."

The above is a hallmark of Christian mythology. Man is evil and base and in need of salvation through Hey-zeus. The christian cannot withstand a world wherein humans are the final owners of our destiny. Our acts need to be watched over and adjudicated by an angry father figure from on high (and never seen), and that human progress is inherently hindered, impossible without guidance from the father figure. Finally, the Christian is in a psychological dilemma of superiority/inferiority -- they are so vaunted by their gods that the entire realm of existence was created exclusively for them, but they are so unworthy that they are nothing in the sight of their deities. That is a prescription for a maladjusted personality, and again, it's evident by the self-hate and virulent anger that theistic belief has whipped up time and time again.


----------



## jillian

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it now that we have developed rational inquiry we hear only a deafening silence from a god who once supposedly engaged regularly in human affairs? Why does god not simply speak to us or appear before us as he supposedly used to? Why are we the losers in the dice roll of time? If a god places such a high value on us worshipping and believing then why not simply make its existence obvious to us?  If one accepts the prevailing scientific understanding of the development of the universe, yet also believes in one of the major religions, then presumably a god sat idle for 13.7 billion years
> 
> If Jesus is God then presumably he is omniscient. If this is true, then when he allowed himself to be sacrificed, didnt he do this with the knowledge that he was immortal? If so, then how exactly was it a sacrifice for him? What did he sacrifice?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me pose some questions for you to ponder here... What does time mean to something which resides outside the spacetime continuum we experience in our universe? Why would an omnipotent and immortal entity have "wants and desires" or place "value" on anything?
> 
> Try to wrap your mind around it, God is not a physical entity. God does not exist as part of a physical reality we experience through time. There is no invisible man sitting on a cloud. Until you can grasp the concept of what a spiritual entity is, you can't rationalize any of this because it makes no sense.
> 
> People worship and believe in God not because God commands it, but because they feel it will please God for them to do so. But does God experience pleasure? You see, everything we try and relate to God simply doesn't apply to God. We create an incarnation of something that is like humans, has human attributes and emotions, is effected by time, has desires, needs, wants, gets angry or shows compassion... these are humanistic attributes that do not apply to a spiritual entity. But since we can't comprehend it, we create these things to supposedly help us better understand it. We're flawed... totally fucked up creatures. Sometimes our worst adversary is our own minds.
Click to expand...


If G-d has no wants and desires, then why does he care what you do?


----------



## GISMYS

"" humans are the final owners of our destiny. "" you are free to choose to believe in GOD AND ACCEPT HIS LOVE,BLESSINGS AND FORGIVNESS OR YOU CAN CHOSE TO REJECT GOD AND GO TO HELL!!! ALL YOUR CHOICE!


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it now that we have developed rational inquiry we hear only a deafening silence from a god who once supposedly engaged regularly in human affairs? Why does god not simply speak to us or appear before us as he supposedly used to? Why are we the losers in the dice roll of time? If a god places such a high value on us worshipping and believing then why not simply make its existence obvious to us?  If one accepts the prevailing scientific understanding of the development of the universe, yet also believes in one of the major religions, then presumably a god sat idle for 13.7 billion years
> 
> If Jesus is God then presumably he is omniscient. If this is true, then when he allowed himself to be sacrificed, didnt he do this with the knowledge that he was immortal? If so, then how exactly was it a sacrifice for him? What did he sacrifice?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me pose some questions for you to ponder here... What does time mean to something which resides outside the spacetime continuum we experience in our universe? Why would an omnipotent and immortal entity have "wants and desires" or place "value" on anything?
> 
> Try to wrap your mind around it, God is not a physical entity. God does not exist as part of a physical reality we experience through time. There is no invisible man sitting on a cloud. Until you can grasp the concept of what a spiritual entity is, you can't rationalize any of this because it makes no sense.
> 
> People worship and believe in God not because God commands it, but because they feel it will please God for them to do so. But does God experience pleasure? You see, everything we try and relate to God simply doesn't apply to God. We create an incarnation of something that is like humans, has human attributes and emotions, is effected by time, has desires, needs, wants, gets angry or shows compassion... these are humanistic attributes that do not apply to a spiritual entity. But since we can't comprehend it, we create these things to supposedly help us better understand it. We're flawed... totally fucked up creatures. Sometimes our worst adversary is our own minds.
Click to expand...


The use of burial rituals is evidence of religious activity, but there is no other evidence that religion existed in human culture before humans reached behavioral modernity.

In this set of theories, the religious mind is one consequence of a brain that is large enough to formulate religious and philosophical ideas.  During human evolution, the hominid brain tripled in size, peaking 500,000 years ago. Much of the brain's expansion took place in the neocortex. This part of the brain is involved in processing higher order cognitive functions that are connected with human religiosity.

More than half of adult Americans report they have had a spiritual experience that changed their lives. Now, scientists from universities like Harvard, Pennsylvania and Johns Hopkins are using new technologies to analyze the brains of people who claim they have touched the spiritual  from Christians who speak in tongues to Buddhist monks to people who claim to have had near-death experiences. Hear what they have discovered in this controversial field, as the science of spirituality continues to evolve.  Is This Your Brain On God? : NPR

The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organisation and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply god.

Using god to explain something explains nothing. Gods supposed powers and how they work are a mystery. An explanation is intended to clarify and extend knowledge. Attributing a phenomenon to the magical powers of a supernatural being does neither. Worse still, this presumption acts to prevent any deeper investigation, being little more than a form of blissful ignorance.

Note: By using god to fill gaps in their knowledge theists inadvertently provide a shrinking role for their god as science advances. They also predicate gods existence on a lack of knowledge, not on any positive argument or evidence.

Until we understand something we do not know. Positing a god in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.

The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

There is a truth and reality independent of our desires. Faith simply reinforces your belief in what you would like to be true, rather than what really is.  In order to better under understand this reality and discover the truth we must look for evidence outside ourselves.  Faith isnt a virtue; it is the glorification of voluntary ignorance.
Being open-minded does not mean accepting claims outright, it means demonstrating the willingness to consider new ones. An open-minded person is receptive to new ideas, opinions and arguments and wants to discover their real truth-value before accepting them. Atheists are generally very open-minded.

Unjustified belief in the supernatural does not automatically make someone open-minded and, conversely, disbelief  pending further evidence  does not automatically make someone close-minded.

Athiests simply do not usually exhibit gullibility or credulity. They maintain a standard of evidence proportional to the extraordinary nature of certain claims. They are usually open to the idea of god, but so far unconvinced by any evidence or argument put forward to support it.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> "" humans are the final owners of our destiny. "" you are free to choose to believe in GOD AND ACCEPT HIS LOVE,BLESSINGS AND FORGIVNESS OR YOU CAN CHOSE TO REJECT GOD AND GO TO HELL!!! ALL YOUR CHOICE!



I dont want to go to hell/You will go to hell.

Pascals Wager does not actually argue in support of the existence of a god, rather, it simply attempts to coerce insincere worship. There are several issues with this approach:

    Multiple inconsistent and contradictory revelations (Which god/hell?)
    Hell is incompatible with an omnibenevolent god.

    A god could reward reasoning/skepticism.

    An omniscient god would see through feigned belief as a result of coercion.

    If a god wanted everyone to believe and knew exactly what was needed to convince people, then why are there atheists at all? Is god unable to prevent transgression of his will?

    Infallible foreknowledge is incompatible with free will (Are atheists predestined for hell?)

    Most people adhere to the religion they were born into, they have not examined all other religions.
    What is the fate of the unlearned? What happens to people who have not encountered the specific religion in which hell is an issue.


----------



## Hollie

GISMYS said:


> "" humans are the final owners of our destiny. "" you are free to choose to believe in GOD AND ACCEPT HIS LOVE,BLESSINGS AND FORGIVNESS OR YOU CAN CHOSE TO REJECT GOD AND GO TO HELL!!! ALL YOUR CHOICE!



Ah. "Make him an offer he can't refuse".

Is your god a mafia capo?

AND YOU??????


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> "" humans are the final owners of our destiny. "" you are free to choose to believe in GOD AND ACCEPT HIS LOVE,BLESSINGS AND FORGIVNESS OR YOU CAN CHOSE TO REJECT GOD AND GO TO HELL!!! ALL YOUR CHOICE!



You really are stupid.  

I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking. The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which theres little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.  Carl Sagan

I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it. - Mark Twain


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> "" humans are the final owners of our destiny. "" you are free to choose to believe in GOD AND ACCEPT HIS LOVE,BLESSINGS AND FORGIVNESS OR YOU CAN CHOSE TO REJECT GOD AND GO TO HELL!!! ALL YOUR CHOICE!



The significance of our lives and our fragile planet is determined only by our own wisdom and courage. We are the custodians of lifes meaning. We long for a Parent to care for us, to forgive us our errors, to save us from our childish mistakes. But knowledge is preferable to ignorance. Better by far to embrace the hard truth than a reassuring fable. If we crave some cosmic purpose, then let us find ourselves a worthy goal.  Carl Sagan


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> "" humans are the final owners of our destiny. "" you are free to choose to believe in GOD AND ACCEPT HIS LOVE,BLESSINGS AND FORGIVNESS OR YOU CAN CHOSE TO REJECT GOD AND GO TO HELL!!! ALL YOUR CHOICE!



When I became convinced that the universe was natural, that all the ghosts and gods were myths, there entered into my brain, into my soul, into every drop of my blood, the sense, the feeling, the joy of freedom. The walls of my prison crumbled and fell. The dungeon was flooded with light and all the bolts and bars and manacles turned to dust. I was no longer a servant, a serf, or a slave. There was for me no master in all the wide world, not even in infinite space.

I was free to think. Free to express my thoughts, free to live in my own ideal. Free to live for myself and those I loved. Free to use all my faculties, all my senses. Free to spread imaginations wings, free to investigate, to guess, and dream and hope. Free to judge and determine for myself. Free to reject all ignorant and cruel creeds, all the inspired books that savages have produced, and the barbarous legends of the past. Free from sanctified mistakes and holy lies. Free from the fear of eternal pain, free from the winged monsters of the night. Free from devils, ghosts and gods. For the first time I was free.

There were no prohibited places in all of the realm of thought. No error, no space where fancy could not spread her painted wings. No chains for my limbs. No lashes for my back. No flames for my flesh. No Masters frown or threat, no following in anothers steps. No need to bow or cringe or crawl, or utter lying words. I was free; I stood erect and fearlessly, joyously faced all worlds.

My heart was filled with gratitude, with thankfulness, and went out in love to all the heros, the thinkers who gave their lives for liberty of hand and brain, for the freedom of labor and thought to those who fell on the fierce fields of war. To those who died in dungeons, bound in chains, to those by fire consumed, to all the wise, the good, the brave of every land whose thoughts and deeds have given freedom to the sons of men. And then, I vowed to grasp the torch that they held, and hold it high, That light might conquer darkness still.

-Robert Green Ingersoll (1833-1899)


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> "" humans are the final owners of our destiny. "" you are free to choose to believe in GOD AND ACCEPT HIS LOVE,BLESSINGS AND FORGIVNESS OR YOU CAN CHOSE TO REJECT GOD AND GO TO HELL!!! ALL YOUR CHOICE!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really are stupid.
> 
> I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking. The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which theres little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.  Carl Sagan
> 
> I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it. - Mark Twain
Click to expand...


YOU TELL ME WHAT carl sagan and mark twain said,WHILE I TELL YOU WHAT ALMIGHTY GOD SAYS!!!  GOD SAYS,"BELIEVER AND HAVE FAITH!!! YOU ALL READY HAVE ALL YOU NEED=YOU SALL READY GOT IT!!!===http://www.awmi.net/tv/this_week


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it now that we have developed rational inquiry we hear only a deafening silence from a god who once supposedly engaged regularly in human affairs? Why does god not simply speak to us or appear before us as he supposedly used to? Why are we the losers in the dice roll of time? If a god places such a high value on us worshipping and believing then why not simply make its existence obvious to us?  If one accepts the prevailing scientific understanding of the development of the universe, yet also believes in one of the major religions, then presumably a god sat idle for 13.7 billion years
> 
> If Jesus is God then presumably he is omniscient. If this is true, then when he allowed himself to be sacrificed, didnt he do this with the knowledge that he was immortal? If so, then how exactly was it a sacrifice for him? What did he sacrifice?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me pose some questions for you to ponder here... What does time mean to something which resides outside the spacetime continuum we experience in our universe? Why would an omnipotent and immortal entity have "wants and desires" or place "value" on anything?
> 
> Try to wrap your mind around it, God is not a physical entity. God does not exist as part of a physical reality we experience through time. There is no invisible man sitting on a cloud. Until you can grasp the concept of what a spiritual entity is, you can't rationalize any of this because it makes no sense.
> 
> People worship and believe in God not because God commands it, but because they feel it will please God for them to do so. But does God experience pleasure? You see, everything we try and relate to God simply doesn't apply to God. We create an incarnation of something that is like humans, has human attributes and emotions, is effected by time, has desires, needs, wants, gets angry or shows compassion... these are humanistic attributes that do not apply to a spiritual entity. But since we can't comprehend it, we create these things to supposedly help us better understand it. We're flawed... totally fucked up creatures. Sometimes our worst adversary is our own minds.
Click to expand...


Couple of things I wanted to respond to here.

I tend to agree that, if there is a god that created the universe, is not affected by time as we are, etc.....we likely could not understand the behavior or motivations of such a being.  That doesn't mean it would not have desires or wants, or not have human-like emotions.  It means there's no real way for us to know or predict what such a being is like.

I find it strange that you call humans flawed, totally fucked up creatures, yet used an expectation of rational behavior as one of your reasons that religion cannot be based on human imaginings.  Why couldn't such flawed, fucked up creatures go on believing in what amounts to a fairy tale, even if doing so is irrational?


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> "" humans are the final owners of our destiny. "" you are free to choose to believe in GOD AND ACCEPT HIS LOVE,BLESSINGS AND FORGIVNESS OR YOU CAN CHOSE TO REJECT GOD AND GO TO HELL!!! ALL YOUR CHOICE!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really are stupid.
> 
> I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking. The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which theres little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.  Carl Sagan
> 
> I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it. - Mark Twain
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOU TELL ME WHAT carl sagan and mark twain said,WHILE I TELL YOU WHAT ALMIGHTY GOD SAYS!!!  GOD SAYS,"BELIEVER AND HAVE FAITH!!! YOU ALL READY HAVE ALL YOU NEED=YOU SALL READY GOT IT!!!===http://www.awmi.net/tv/this_week
Click to expand...


There is no god and even if there is, he never talked to anyone on earth except for ancient superstitious stories from 2000 years ago or wack jobs in evangelical churches.  No exorcisms, witches, ghosts, angels or god.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Isn't this like asking why we still have poor people?


----------



## Hollie

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really are stupid.
> 
> I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking. The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which theres little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.  Carl Sagan
> 
> I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it. - Mark Twain
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU TELL ME WHAT carl sagan and mark twain said,WHILE I TELL YOU WHAT ALMIGHTY GOD SAYS!!!  GOD SAYS,"BELIEVER AND HAVE FAITH!!! YOU ALL READY HAVE ALL YOU NEED=YOU SALL READY GOT IT!!!===http://www.awmi.net/tv/this_week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no god and even if there is, he never talked to anyone on earth except for ancient superstitious stories from 2000 years ago or wack jobs in evangelical churches.  No exorcisms, witches, ghosts, angels or god.
Click to expand...


Well really, dude. Without traumatizing children with lurid stories of searing flesh, sacrificial lambs blood being smeared on doors, death by drowning, eternal damnation due to fruit theft, burning in hell, gods wiping most of humanity from the planet because they were a disappointment, etc., how else do you you teach children about love and kindness?


----------



## GISMYS

Hollie said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOU TELL ME WHAT carl sagan and mark twain said,WHILE I TELL YOU WHAT ALMIGHTY GOD SAYS!!!  GOD SAYS,"BELIEVER AND HAVE FAITH!!! YOU ALL READY HAVE ALL YOU NEED=YOU SALL READY GOT IT!!!===http://www.awmi.net/tv/this_week
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no god and even if there is, he never talked to anyone on earth except for ancient superstitious stories from 2000 years ago or wack jobs in evangelical churches.  No exorcisms, witches, ghosts, angels or god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well really, dude. Without traumatizing children with lurid stories of searing flesh, sacrificial lambs blood being smeared on doors, death by drowning, eternal damnation due to fruit theft, burning in hell, gods wiping most of humanity from the planet because they were a disappointment, etc., how else do you you teach children about love and kindness?
Click to expand...


That man is a fool who says to himself, There is no God! Anyone who talks like that is warped and evil and cannot really be a good person at all.Psalm 14:1===Only a fool would say to himself, There is no God. And why does he say it? Because of his wicked heart, his dark and evil deeds. His life is corroded with sin. PSALM 53:1 and you???


----------



## Hollie

GISMYS said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no god and even if there is, he never talked to anyone on earth except for ancient superstitious stories from 2000 years ago or wack jobs in evangelical churches.  No exorcisms, witches, ghosts, angels or god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well really, dude. Without traumatizing children with lurid stories of searing flesh, sacrificial lambs blood being smeared on doors, death by drowning, eternal damnation due to fruit theft, burning in hell, gods wiping most of humanity from the planet because they were a disappointment, etc., how else do you you teach children about love and kindness?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That man is a fool who says to himself, There is no God! Anyone who talks like that is warped and evil and cannot really be a good person at all.Psalm 14:1===Only a fool would say to himself, There is no God. And why does he say it? Because of his wicked heart, his dark and evil deeds. His life is corroded with sin. PSALM 53:1 and you???
Click to expand...


Your quote is incorrect.

That man is a fool who says to himself, There is no God but Zeus! 


AND YOU?????????


----------



## GISMYS

Hollie said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well really, dude. Without traumatizing children with lurid stories of searing flesh, sacrificial lambs blood being smeared on doors, death by drowning, eternal damnation due to fruit theft, burning in hell, gods wiping most of humanity from the planet because they were a disappointment, etc., how else do you you teach children about love and kindness?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That man is a fool who says to himself, There is no God! Anyone who talks like that is warped and evil and cannot really be a good person at all.Psalm 14:1===Only a fool would say to himself, There is no God. And why does he say it? Because of his wicked heart, his dark and evil deeds. His life is corroded with sin. PSALM 53:1 and you???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your quote is incorrect.
> 
> That man is a fool who says to himself, There is no God but Zeus!
> 
> 
> AND YOU?????????
Click to expand...


ZEUS????? DON'T HEAR MUCH ABOUT THAT FALSE god these days or the fools that followed that demon. and you??


----------



## Hollie

gismys said:


> hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gismys said:
> 
> 
> 
> that man is a fool who says to himself, &#8220;there is no god!&#8221; anyone who talks like that is warped and evil and cannot really be a good person at all.psalm 14:1===only a fool would say to himself, &#8220;there is no god.&#8221; and why does he say it? Because of his wicked heart, his dark and evil deeds. His life is corroded with sin. Psalm 53:1 and you???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> your quote is incorrect.
> 
> That man is a fool who says to himself, &#8220;there is no god but zeus!&#8221;
> 
> 
> and you?????????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> zeus????? Don't hear much about that false god these days or the fools that followed that demon. And you??
Click to expand...


zeus is the true god!!!!!!!

Your gods are posers!!!!!!!!  Time to repent or else!!!!!!


And you?????????


----------



## GISMYS

Hollie said:


> gismys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> your quote is incorrect.
> 
> That man is a fool who says to himself, there is no god but zeus!
> 
> 
> and you?????????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zeus????? Don't hear much about that false god these days or the fools that followed that demon. And you??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> zeus is the true god!!!!!!!
> 
> Your gods are posers!!!!!!!!  Time to repent or else!!!!!!
> 
> 
> And you?????????
Click to expand...


ROFLMAO!!! zeus????? proven to be a demon inspired false god. WHAT GREAT NATION OR PEOPLE believe in zeus today????? IN THE USA= THE WORLD'S ONLY REAL SUPERPOWER= IN GOD WE TRUST!!!


----------



## Hollie

gismys said:


> hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gismys said:
> 
> 
> 
> zeus????? Don't hear much about that false god these days or the fools that followed that demon. And you??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zeus is the true god!!!!!!!
> 
> Your gods are posers!!!!!!!!  Time to repent or else!!!!!!
> 
> 
> And you?????????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> roflmao!!! Zeus????? Proven to be a demon inspired false god. What great nation or people believe in zeus today????? In the usa= the world's only real superpower= in god we trust!!!
Click to expand...


in zeus we trust!!!

And you??????


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no god and even if there is, he never talked to anyone on earth except for ancient superstitious stories from 2000 years ago or wack jobs in evangelical churches.  No exorcisms, witches, ghosts, angels or god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well really, dude. Without traumatizing children with lurid stories of searing flesh, sacrificial lambs blood being smeared on doors, death by drowning, eternal damnation due to fruit theft, burning in hell, gods wiping most of humanity from the planet because they were a disappointment, etc., how else do you you teach children about love and kindness?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That man is a fool who says to himself, There is no God! Anyone who talks like that is warped and evil and cannot really be a good person at all.Psalm 14:1===Only a fool would say to himself, There is no God. And why does he say it? Because of his wicked heart, his dark and evil deeds. His life is corroded with sin. PSALM 53:1 and you???
Click to expand...


You've already said that a million times **** lips.  Do the Boss' of USMB get to go to heaven because they believe in god but not jesus?


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gismys said:
> 
> 
> 
> zeus????? Don't hear much about that false god these days or the fools that followed that demon. And you??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zeus is the true god!!!!!!!
> 
> Your gods are posers!!!!!!!!  Time to repent or else!!!!!!
> 
> 
> And you?????????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO!!! zeus????? proven to be a demon inspired false god. WHAT GREAT NATION OR PEOPLE believe in zeus today????? IN THE USA= THE WORLD'S ONLY REAL SUPERPOWER= IN GOD WE TRUST!!!
Click to expand...


Yes eventually we wised up to the fable and killed Zeus and Jesus is next along with Allah.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well really, dude. Without traumatizing children with lurid stories of searing flesh, sacrificial lambs blood being smeared on doors, death by drowning, eternal damnation due to fruit theft, burning in hell, gods wiping most of humanity from the planet because they were a disappointment, etc., how else do you you teach children about love and kindness?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That man is a fool who says to himself, There is no God! Anyone who talks like that is warped and evil and cannot really be a good person at all.Psalm 14:1===Only a fool would say to himself, There is no God. And why does he say it? Because of his wicked heart, his dark and evil deeds. His life is corroded with sin. PSALM 53:1 and you???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've already said that a million times **** lips.  Do the Boss' of USMB get to go to heaven because they believe in god but not jesus?
Click to expand...


GOD IS JESUS!!! JESUS IS GOD!!!  duh!!!


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> That man is a fool who says to himself, There is no God! Anyone who talks like that is warped and evil and cannot really be a good person at all.Psalm 14:1===Only a fool would say to himself, There is no God. And why does he say it? Because of his wicked heart, his dark and evil deeds. His life is corroded with sin. PSALM 53:1 and you???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've already said that a million times **** lips.  Do the Boss' of USMB get to go to heaven because they believe in god but not jesus?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> GOD IS JESUS!!! JESUS IS GOD!!!  duh!!!
Click to expand...


So muslims who believe in god go to heaven too?

That man is a fool who says to himself, There is no Zeus Anyone who talks like that is warped and evil and cannot really be a good person at all.  Only a fool would say to himself, There is no Zeus. And why does he say it? Because of his wicked heart, his dark and evil deeds. His life is corroded with sin.  

And you **** lips?


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've already said that a million times **** lips.  Do the Boss' of USMB get to go to heaven because they believe in god but not jesus?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GOD IS JESUS!!! JESUS IS GOD!!!  duh!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So muslims who believe in god go to heaven too?
> 
> That man is a fool who says to himself, There is no Zeus Anyone who talks like that is warped and evil and cannot really be a good person at all.  Only a fool would say to himself, There is no Zeus. And why does he say it? Because of his wicked heart, his dark and evil deeds. His life is corroded with sin.
> 
> And you **** lips?
Click to expand...


wow!!! such ignorance!!!  The muslim god  is not GOD!!! The muslim god has no SON.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've already said that a million times **** lips.  Do the Boss' of USMB get to go to heaven because they believe in god but not jesus?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GOD IS JESUS!!! JESUS IS GOD!!!  duh!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So muslims who believe in god go to heaven too?
> 
> That man is a fool who says to himself, There is no Zeus Anyone who talks like that is warped and evil and cannot really be a good person at all.  Only a fool would say to himself, There is no Zeus. And why does he say it? Because of his wicked heart, his dark and evil deeds. His life is corroded with sin.
> 
> And you **** lips?
Click to expand...


ALLAH  is a false god invented by a seventh century Arabian psychopath who's name was Mohammad.  Muhammad is buried at a mosque located in Medina, Saudi Arabia.  The Qur'an (Koran) teaches  that Muhammad awaits in his grave for Jesus' judgment. The Koran affirms that Jesus is alive with God. So, it is that Islam's "prophet" Muhammad is dead and Jesus, the world's Messiah, is still alive. (ayah 3,55; 19,33-34).  Details at  "Islam-101 tells what the Koran teaches about Jesus."

Islam's existing historical records paint a picture of the possessed  Muhammad as being  a psychopathic liar, rapist,  warlord, bandit, murderer, slave owner, pedophile, sexually obsessed, possessing concubines, and many wives, including his own daughter-in-law.  The Hadith records his weird ideas and weird behavior.

In our times, he would be described a person with such extensive record of debauchery as a mentally disturbed,  international criminal,  who was guilty of countless human rights violations.  

Followers of his evil, invented religion are enslaved by it for life, with death sentences for renouncing Islam. Islam is a prison with invisible walls that are guarded by the killers of its apostates.  Its 750,000,000  women are in bondage by which they are dominated by men as their slaves.  (Ayah 4:34)


----------



## Hollie

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> GOD IS JESUS!!! JESUS IS GOD!!!  duh!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So muslims who believe in god go to heaven too?
> 
> That man is a fool who says to himself, There is no Zeus Anyone who talks like that is warped and evil and cannot really be a good person at all.  Only a fool would say to himself, There is no Zeus. And why does he say it? Because of his wicked heart, his dark and evil deeds. His life is corroded with sin.
> 
> And you **** lips?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ALLAH  is a false god invented by a seventh century Arabian psychopath who's name was Mohammad.  Muhammad is buried at a mosque located in Medina, Saudi Arabia.  The Qur'an (Koran) teaches  that Muhammad awaits in his grave for Jesus' judgment. The Koran affirms that Jesus is alive with God. So, it is that Islam's "prophet" Muhammad is dead and Jesus, the world's Messiah, is still alive. (ayah 3,55; 19,33-34).  Details at  "Islam-101 tells what the Koran teaches about Jesus."
> 
> Islam's existing historical records paint a picture of the possessed  Muhammad as being  a psychopathic liar, rapist,  warlord, bandit, murderer, slave owner, pedophile, sexually obsessed, possessing concubines, and many wives, including his own daughter-in-law.  The Hadith records his weird ideas and weird behavior.
> 
> In our times, he would be described a person with such extensive record of debauchery as a mentally disturbed,  international criminal,  who was guilty of countless human rights violations.
> 
> Followers of his evil, invented religion are enslaved by it for life, with death sentences for renouncing Islam. Islam is a prison with invisible walls that are guarded by the killers of its apostates.  Its 750,000,000  women are in bondage by which they are dominated by men as their slaves.  (Ayah 4:34)
Click to expand...


The god of Mohammed perfected your religion. Mohammed said so, therefore it's true. 

CONVERT TO THE UPDATED AND CORRECTED VERSION OF CHRISTIANITY. ITS CALLED ISLAM.


AND YOU???????


----------



## GISMYS

Hollie said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So muslims who believe in god go to heaven too?
> 
> That man is a fool who says to himself, There is no Zeus Anyone who talks like that is warped and evil and cannot really be a good person at all.  Only a fool would say to himself, There is no Zeus. And why does he say it? Because of his wicked heart, his dark and evil deeds. His life is corroded with sin.
> 
> And you **** lips?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ALLAH  is a false god invented by a seventh century Arabian psychopath who's name was Mohammad.  Muhammad is buried at a mosque located in Medina, Saudi Arabia.  The Qur'an (Koran) teaches  that Muhammad awaits in his grave for Jesus' judgment. The Koran affirms that Jesus is alive with God. So, it is that Islam's "prophet" Muhammad is dead and Jesus, the world's Messiah, is still alive. (ayah 3,55; 19,33-34).  Details at  "Islam-101 tells what the Koran teaches about Jesus."
> 
> Islam's existing historical records paint a picture of the possessed  Muhammad as being  a psychopathic liar, rapist,  warlord, bandit, murderer, slave owner, pedophile, sexually obsessed, possessing concubines, and many wives, including his own daughter-in-law.  The Hadith records his weird ideas and weird behavior.
> 
> In our times, he would be described a person with such extensive record of debauchery as a mentally disturbed,  international criminal,  who was guilty of countless human rights violations.
> 
> Followers of his evil, invented religion are enslaved by it for life, with death sentences for renouncing Islam. Islam is a prison with invisible walls that are guarded by the killers of its apostates.  Its 750,000,000  women are in bondage by which they are dominated by men as their slaves.  (Ayah 4:34)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The god of Mohammed perfected your religion. Mohammed said so, therefore it's true.
> 
> CONVERT TO THE UPDATED AND CORRECTED VERSION OF CHRISTIANITY. ITS CALLED ISLAM.
> 
> 
> AND YOU???????
Click to expand...


AND YOU??? YOU ARE A SILLY IGNORANT waste of time!!! begone!!!


----------



## Steven_R

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> zeus is the true god!!!!!!!
> 
> Your gods are posers!!!!!!!!  Time to repent or else!!!!!!
> 
> 
> And you?????????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO!!! zeus????? proven to be a demon inspired false god. WHAT GREAT NATION OR PEOPLE believe in zeus today????? IN THE USA= THE WORLD'S ONLY REAL SUPERPOWER= IN GOD WE TRUST!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes eventually we wised up to the fable and killed Zeus and Jesus is next along with Allah.
Click to expand...


You know who else killed their gods? Klingons, that's who.

Do you really want to be like the Klingons? Me neither. And that's why I worship Pan, the Goat God.

Don't be like the Klingons.


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it now that we have developed rational inquiry we hear only a deafening silence from a god who once supposedly engaged regularly in human affairs? Why does god not simply speak to us or appear before us as he supposedly used to? Why are we the losers in the dice roll of time? If a god places such a high value on us worshipping and believing then why not simply make its existence obvious to us?  If one accepts the prevailing scientific understanding of the development of the universe, yet also believes in one of the major religions, then presumably a god sat idle for 13.7 billion years
> 
> If Jesus is God then presumably he is omniscient. If this is true, then when he allowed himself to be sacrificed, didnt he do this with the knowledge that he was immortal? If so, then how exactly was it a sacrifice for him? What did he sacrifice?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me pose some questions for you to ponder here... What does time mean to something which resides outside the spacetime continuum we experience in our universe? Why would an omnipotent and immortal entity have "wants and desires" or place "value" on anything?
> 
> Try to wrap your mind around it, God is not a physical entity. God does not exist as part of a physical reality we experience through time. There is no invisible man sitting on a cloud. Until you can grasp the concept of what a spiritual entity is, you can't rationalize any of this because it makes no sense.
> 
> People worship and believe in God not because God commands it, but because they feel it will please God for them to do so. But does God experience pleasure? You see, everything we try and relate to God simply doesn't apply to God. We create an incarnation of something that is like humans, has human attributes and emotions, is effected by time, has desires, needs, wants, gets angry or shows compassion... these are humanistic attributes that do not apply to a spiritual entity. But since we can't comprehend it, we create these things to supposedly help us better understand it. We're flawed... totally fucked up creatures. Sometimes our worst adversary is our own minds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Couple of things I wanted to respond to here.
> 
> I tend to agree that, if there is a god that created the universe, is not affected by time as we are, etc.....we likely could not understand the behavior or motivations of such a being.  That doesn't mean it would not have desires or wants, or not have human-like emotions.  It means there's no real way for us to know or predict what such a being is like.
> 
> I find it strange that you call humans flawed, totally fucked up creatures, yet used an expectation of rational behavior as one of your reasons that religion cannot be based on human imaginings.  Why couldn't such flawed, fucked up creatures go on believing in what amounts to a fairy tale, even if doing so is irrational?
Click to expand...


Religion is not spiritual connection, how many times must I correct the other side on this? Man created religions, he did not create spiritual connection. Religions are all based on human imagination relating to the spiritual nature they connect with. 

God doesn't have humanistic attributes because why would God need them? Desire and want is what humans have because we're not omnipotent and immortal. Any "desire" God might have could be immediately fulfilled by God. IF God wanted everyone on the planet to worship Him, you would have no choice in the matter... not worshiping God would be like not breathing air. 



> If G-d has no wants and desires, then why does he care what you do?



God doesn't "care" what you do, caring is a human emotion. God is a spiritual energy force, to put it in a way you can understand and relate. Now think about an energy force within the physical, like electricity... does it "care" what you do with it? You better be fucking careful with it, that's for sure. But does it "care" one way or the other? You can plug a lamp in the outlet and "tap into" the energy to gain benefit... same with God, you can maintain spiritual fidelity with God and gain benefit from it. You can receive guidance from God, inspiration, courage and strength. God doesn't care if you do this or not. Just as electricity doesn't care there are Amish people.


----------



## GISMYS

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me pose some questions for you to ponder here... What does time mean to something which resides outside the spacetime continuum we experience in our universe? Why would an omnipotent and immortal entity have "wants and desires" or place "value" on anything?
> 
> Try to wrap your mind around it, God is not a physical entity. God does not exist as part of a physical reality we experience through time. There is no invisible man sitting on a cloud. Until you can grasp the concept of what a spiritual entity is, you can't rationalize any of this because it makes no sense.
> 
> People worship and believe in God not because God commands it, but because they feel it will please God for them to do so. But does God experience pleasure? You see, everything we try and relate to God simply doesn't apply to God. We create an incarnation of something that is like humans, has human attributes and emotions, is effected by time, has desires, needs, wants, gets angry or shows compassion... these are humanistic attributes that do not apply to a spiritual entity. But since we can't comprehend it, we create these things to supposedly help us better understand it. We're flawed... totally fucked up creatures. Sometimes our worst adversary is our own minds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Couple of things I wanted to respond to here.
> 
> I tend to agree that, if there is a god that created the universe, is not affected by time as we are, etc.....we likely could not understand the behavior or motivations of such a being.  That doesn't mean it would not have desires or wants, or not have human-like emotions.  It means there's no real way for us to know or predict what such a being is like.
> 
> I find it strange that you call humans flawed, totally fucked up creatures, yet used an expectation of rational behavior as one of your reasons that religion cannot be based on human imaginings.  Why couldn't such flawed, fucked up creatures go on believing in what amounts to a fairy tale, even if doing so is irrational?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religion is not spiritual connection, how many times must I correct the other side on this? Man created religions, he did not create spiritual connection. Religions are all based on human imagination relating to the spiritual nature they connect with.
> 
> God doesn't have humanistic attributes because why would God need them? Desire and want is what humans have because we're not omnipotent and immortal. Any "desire" God might have could be immediately fulfilled by God. IF God wanted everyone on the planet to worship Him, you would have no choice in the matter... not worshiping God would be like not breathing air.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If G-d has no wants and desires, then why does he care what you do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God doesn't "care" what you do, caring is a human emotion. God is a spiritual energy force, to put it in a way you can understand and relate. Now think about an energy force within the physical, like electricity... does it "care" what you do with it? You better be fucking careful with it, that's for sure. But does it "care" one way or the other? You can plug a lamp in the outlet and "tap into" the energy to gain benefit... same with God, you can maintain spiritual fidelity with God and gain benefit from it. You can receive guidance from God, inspiration, courage and strength. God doesn't care if you do this or not. Just as electricity doesn't care there are Amish people.
Click to expand...


GOD loves his creation and he wants to see you live and not perish but GOD will not force you to accept his love and blessings,you are free to reject GOD and chose hell!


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me pose some questions for you to ponder here... What does time mean to something which resides outside the spacetime continuum we experience in our universe? Why would an omnipotent and immortal entity have "wants and desires" or place "value" on anything?
> 
> Try to wrap your mind around it, God is not a physical entity. God does not exist as part of a physical reality we experience through time. There is no invisible man sitting on a cloud. Until you can grasp the concept of what a spiritual entity is, you can't rationalize any of this because it makes no sense.
> 
> People worship and believe in God not because God commands it, but because they feel it will please God for them to do so. But does God experience pleasure? You see, everything we try and relate to God simply doesn't apply to God. We create an incarnation of something that is like humans, has human attributes and emotions, is effected by time, has desires, needs, wants, gets angry or shows compassion... these are humanistic attributes that do not apply to a spiritual entity. But since we can't comprehend it, we create these things to supposedly help us better understand it. We're flawed... totally fucked up creatures. Sometimes our worst adversary is our own minds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Couple of things I wanted to respond to here.
> 
> I tend to agree that, if there is a god that created the universe, is not affected by time as we are, etc.....we likely could not understand the behavior or motivations of such a being.  That doesn't mean it would not have desires or wants, or not have human-like emotions.  It means there's no real way for us to know or predict what such a being is like.
> 
> I find it strange that you call humans flawed, totally fucked up creatures, yet used an expectation of rational behavior as one of your reasons that religion cannot be based on human imaginings.  Why couldn't such flawed, fucked up creatures go on believing in what amounts to a fairy tale, even if doing so is irrational?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religion is not spiritual connection, how many times must I correct the other side on this? Man created religions, he did not create spiritual connection. Religions are all based on human imagination relating to the spiritual nature they connect with.
> 
> God doesn't have humanistic attributes because why would God need them? Desire and want is what humans have because we're not omnipotent and immortal. Any "desire" God might have could be immediately fulfilled by God. IF God wanted everyone on the planet to worship Him, you would have no choice in the matter... not worshiping God would be like not breathing air.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If G-d has no wants and desires, then why does he care what you do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God doesn't "care" what you do, caring is a human emotion. God is a spiritual energy force, to put it in a way you can understand and relate. Now think about an energy force within the physical, like electricity... does it "care" what you do with it? You better be fucking careful with it, that's for sure. But does it "care" one way or the other? You can plug a lamp in the outlet and "tap into" the energy to gain benefit... same with God, you can maintain spiritual fidelity with God and gain benefit from it. You can receive guidance from God, inspiration, courage and strength. God doesn't care if you do this or not. Just as electricity doesn't care there are Amish people.
Click to expand...


Religion may not be spiritual connection, but you've used religion as evidence the spiritual exists.  You have said, and I'm paraphrasing, that religion must be based on a real spiritual connection because there's no way humanity would continue to hold such beliefs if they were based on nothing real.  So again, if humans are such flawed, fucked up creatures, why can't we have made up the various religions of the world without them being based on a real spiritual connection?

Why do you feel you are able to understand the nature of god, this being so far beyond human comprehension, while the vast majority of others do not?

Do you think god has intelligence?  You've compared god to electricity on more than one occasion, but if god did anything like create the universe, that would imply intelligence.  If there is an intelligence, what reason is there to assume there are no emotions, no desires, no needs?  Could they not just be things we don't understand but desires and needs nonetheless?


----------



## Boss

> GOD loves his creation and he wants to see you live and not perish but GOD will not force you to accept his love and blessings,you are free to reject GOD and chose hell!



Well sorry, but that is why I am not a Christian. I don't believe God "loves" because God is a spiritual energy. I believe if your soul should do something to disrupt the positive flow of God's spiritual energy, you will pay the consequences... just as you would pay the consequences for sticking a butter knife into an outlet, except to a much greater degree... we're talking about your immortal soul here. When our physical lives are over, our souls will pass to another dimension, possibly in this same universe or on this same planet. Our "reality" experience will be whatever God has in store next, I don't know that. 

Don't take this the wrong way, I don't think God is "unintelligent" or incapable of anything, God knows all and is capable of all. You don't have to confess your sins, God knows about them, God knew before you you sinned. God also knows most of the Atheists here are lying and they do believe in God, they are just angry at religion.


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Couple of things I wanted to respond to here.
> 
> I tend to agree that, if there is a god that created the universe, is not affected by time as we are, etc.....we likely could not understand the behavior or motivations of such a being.  That doesn't mean it would not have desires or wants, or not have human-like emotions.  It means there's no real way for us to know or predict what such a being is like.
> 
> I find it strange that you call humans flawed, totally fucked up creatures, yet used an expectation of rational behavior as one of your reasons that religion cannot be based on human imaginings.  Why couldn't such flawed, fucked up creatures go on believing in what amounts to a fairy tale, even if doing so is irrational?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Religion is not spiritual connection, how many times must I correct the other side on this? Man created religions, he did not create spiritual connection. Religions are all based on human imagination relating to the spiritual nature they connect with.
> 
> God doesn't have humanistic attributes because why would God need them? Desire and want is what humans have because we're not omnipotent and immortal. Any "desire" God might have could be immediately fulfilled by God. IF God wanted everyone on the planet to worship Him, you would have no choice in the matter... not worshiping God would be like not breathing air.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If G-d has no wants and desires, then why does he care what you do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God doesn't "care" what you do, caring is a human emotion. God is a spiritual energy force, to put it in a way you can understand and relate. Now think about an energy force within the physical, like electricity... does it "care" what you do with it? You better be fucking careful with it, that's for sure. But does it "care" one way or the other? You can plug a lamp in the outlet and "tap into" the energy to gain benefit... same with God, you can maintain spiritual fidelity with God and gain benefit from it. You can receive guidance from God, inspiration, courage and strength. God doesn't care if you do this or not. Just as electricity doesn't care there are Amish people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religion may not be spiritual connection, but you've used religion as evidence the spiritual exists.  You have said, and I'm paraphrasing, that religion must be based on a real spiritual connection because there's no way humanity would continue to hold such beliefs if they were based on nothing real.  So again, if humans are such flawed, fucked up creatures, why can't we have made up the various religions of the world without them being based on a real spiritual connection?
Click to expand...


Because as flawed and fucked up as we are, humans do learn and gain wisdom. For instance, leaches... For many-a-year, doctors believed illness was due to bad blood in the body, and leaches were prescribed to draw the bad blood out, to help the patient recover. But as science progressed, we learned this was a terrible idea, and we stopped the practice. 

If spirituality were created to explain the unknown, as science came along and explained things, humans would have abandoned spirituality. They haven't. If spirituality were created to console fear, same deal... hey look, the lions are still eating our people at night, in spite of our spiritual worship, this shit ain't working! So none of these dreamed up rationalizations for why humans are intrinsically spiritual is supportable. If spiritual connection were superficial and insignificant, it would have died out a long time ago. 

Yes... flawed and fucked up man has invented some flawed and fucked up religions, in their flawed and fucked up attempts to comprehend something out of their realm of comprehending. Religions collectively serve as evidence humans DO spiritually connect. 



> Why do you feel you are able to understand the nature of god, this being so far beyond human comprehension, while the vast majority of others do not?



I don't know... guess I am blessed. 



> Do you think god has intelligence?  You've compared god to electricity on more than one occasion, but if god did anything like create the universe, that would imply intelligence.  If there is an intelligence, what reason is there to assume there are no emotions, no desires, no needs?  Could they not just be things we don't understand but desires and needs nonetheless?



I compare God to electricity in order to convey the concept of energy versus 'being'.  I have actually stated that I don't know if "intelligence" is the appropriate word to apply to God, perhaps we don't have a word to define it? We use "intelligence" because that is the closest 'grunting noise' we can make to what God actually has. We're chimps trying to figure out something so far beyond us that we can't even imagine it appropriately. 

When I say God "knows" ...again, that is a humanistic concept, to know... Electricity doesn't "know" things, so how does that work? Well again, we lack the vocabulary to define parameters for God, we can't even properly imagine God. In order to convey any kind of rational concept from one human to another, we are confined to our vocabulary and what we can relate to as humans.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religion is not spiritual connection, how many times must I correct the other side on this? Man created religions, he did not create spiritual connection. Religions are all based on human imagination relating to the spiritual nature they connect with.
> 
> God doesn't have humanistic attributes because why would God need them? Desire and want is what humans have because we're not omnipotent and immortal. Any "desire" God might have could be immediately fulfilled by God. IF God wanted everyone on the planet to worship Him, you would have no choice in the matter... not worshiping God would be like not breathing air.
> 
> All anthropomorphic musings about something you claim has no human characteristics, while claiming you are trying to describe an entity beyond understanding yet claim to understand it.
> 
> God doesn't "care" what you do, caring is a human emotion. God is a spiritual energy force, to put it in a way you can understand and relate. Now think about an energy force within the physical, like electricity... does it "care" what you do with it? You better be fucking careful with it, that's for sure. But does it "care" one way or the other? You can plug a lamp in the outlet and "tap into" the energy to gain benefit... same with God, you can maintain spiritual fidelity with God and gain benefit from it. You can receive guidance from God, inspiration, courage and strength. God doesn't care if you do this or not. Just as electricity doesn't care there are Amish people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What courage or strength can be gained from an entity you claim is beyond your understanding? For all you know this force is malevolent and intends great suffering for you and to have you perceived as a gaseous blowhard. Possible, right? You have no real understanding of this force. You apply human language to describe it, but admit these words are simply analogous placeholders for what is beyond your comprehension.
> 
> Religion may not be spiritual connection, but you've used religion as evidence the spiritual exists.  You have said, and I'm paraphrasing, that religion must be based on a real spiritual connection because there's no way humanity would continue to hold such beliefs if they were based on nothing real.  So again, if humans are such flawed, fucked up creatures, why can't we have made up the various religions of the world without them being based on a real spiritual connection?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because as flawed and fucked up as we are, humans do learn and gain wisdom. For instance, leaches... For many-a-year, doctors believed illness was due to bad blood in the body, and leaches were prescribed to draw the bad blood out, to help the patient recover. But as science progressed, we learned this was a terrible idea, and we stopped the practice.
> 
> If spirituality were created to explain the unknown, as science came along and explained things, humans would have abandoned spirituality. They haven't. If spirituality were created to console fear, same deal... hey look, the lions are still eating our people at night, in spite of our spiritual worship, this shit ain't working! So none of these dreamed up rationalizations for why humans are intrinsically spiritual is supportable. If spiritual connection were superficial and insignificant, it would have died out a long time ago.
> 
> Yes... flawed and fucked up man has invented some flawed and fucked up religions, in their flawed and fucked up attempts to comprehend something out of their realm of comprehending. Religions collectively serve as evidence humans DO spiritually connect.
> 
> spirituality is a reaction to the unknown and to the fear of mortality, and it never goes away because the unknown NEVER goes away and we all have a 100% mortality rate, and that never changes. We pray, not to stop the lions from eating us, but because we know they will.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you feel you are able to understand the nature of god, this being so far beyond human comprehension, while the vast majority of others do not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know... guess I am blessed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think god has intelligence?  You've compared god to electricity on more than one occasion, but if god did anything like create the universe, that would imply intelligence.  If there is an intelligence, what reason is there to assume there are no emotions, no desires, no needs?  Could they not just be things we don't understand but desires and needs nonetheless?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I compare God to electricity in order to convey the concept of energy versus 'being'.  I have actually stated that I don't know if "intelligence" is the appropriate word to apply to God, perhaps we don't have a word to define it? We use "intelligence" because that is the closest 'grunting noise' we can make to what God actually has. We're chimps trying to figure out something so far beyond us that we can't even imagine it appropriately.
> 
> When I say God "knows" ...again, that is a humanistic concept, to know... Electricity doesn't "know" things, so how does that work? Well again, we lack the vocabulary to define parameters for God, we can't even properly imagine God. In order to convey any kind of rational concept from one human to another, we are confined to our vocabulary and what we can relate to as humans.
Click to expand...


You spend great deals of bandwidth describing god and spiritual nature, all the while claiming that this force is something "...we can't even properly imagine", while stating you you just happen to be blessed to understand it all.
All fairly comical.


----------



## Boss

> All anthropomorphic musings about something you claim has no human characteristics, while claiming you are trying to describe an entity beyond understanding yet claim to understand it.



If you walked outside one night and looked up to the sky to see the northern lights, having no understanding of science, would you be able to adequately describe what you saw? Would your description likely be anywhere remotely close to the scientific explanation for the phenomenon, or is it more likely you'd describe it using terms and phrases you could relate to? We can certainly experience things we don't understand and we can certainly describe those things in our own way, even without fully understanding them. 



> What courage or strength can be gained from an entity you claim is beyond your understanding? For all you know this force is malevolent and intends great suffering for you and to have you perceived as a gaseous blowhard. Possible, right? You have no real understanding of this force. You apply human language to describe it, but admit these words are simply analogous placeholders for what is beyond your comprehension.



I think you are jumping context a bit here. I never said God was totally beyond understanding. If that were the case, we wouldn't know of God. We struggle trying to understand something we can't comprehend. In our attempts to relate what we experience from one human to another, we are confined to words and definitions we've established as humans. If a monkey plays with a computer and makes it do something, he jumps up and down clapping his hands and squealing in excitement. He can go back and perhaps share the experience with his monkey friends, but he probably won't be telling them about CPUs and hard drives because he lacks our vocabulary and understanding. Far from being a computer tech, the monkey did have an experience and understood something in his own monkey way. 

As for God being malevolent, I don't think this is possible. Mankind has been gaining courage and strength from the spiritual since we began to walk upright, according to archeology. This is largely why the attribute of human spirituality is so persistent in our history. 



> spirituality is a reaction to the unknown and to the fear of mortality, and it never goes away because the unknown NEVER goes away and we all have a 100% mortality rate, and that never changes. We pray, not to stop the lions from eating us, but because we know they will.



Again, you spew nonsense you've read on some Atheists blog. To scientifically state that humans "invented" spirituality, you need to find the point in human history that happened. You can't, because from the very oldest civilizations we are aware of, humans already had spirituality. What you are doing is speculating from the point of disbelief. God can't be real so humans must have invented spirituality. 

You don't seem to understand how you just refuted your own argument here... if the unknown never goes away, then what was the point of creating something imaginary to explain it, which doesn't actually explain anything? Seems a bit ridiculous to me. And why the hell would 88% of the species still believe in something spiritual? 

Mortality is also not a very sound rationalization. No other species we know of has even understood mortality, much less had a fear of it that couldn't be dealt with. Man only comprehends mortality because he is aware of spiritual immortality. So you have your cart ahead of your horse here. It is through our spiritual connection to the immortal that we developed fears regarding our own mortality. 

But somehow... some way... we're supposed to accept that humans, for 100k years or more, have believed in some false spiritual connection which (if false) can provide no tangible benefits, all because it doesn't explain the unknown or rectify what we fear? This doesn't even make rational sense.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religion is not spiritual connection, how many times must I correct the other side on this? Man created religions, he did not create spiritual connection. Religions are all based on human imagination relating to the spiritual nature they connect with.
> 
> God doesn't have humanistic attributes because why would God need them? Desire and want is what humans have because we're not omnipotent and immortal. Any "desire" God might have could be immediately fulfilled by God. IF God wanted everyone on the planet to worship Him, you would have no choice in the matter... not worshiping God would be like not breathing air.
> 
> 
> 
> God doesn't "care" what you do, caring is a human emotion. God is a spiritual energy force, to put it in a way you can understand and relate. Now think about an energy force within the physical, like electricity... does it "care" what you do with it? You better be fucking careful with it, that's for sure. But does it "care" one way or the other? You can plug a lamp in the outlet and "tap into" the energy to gain benefit... same with God, you can maintain spiritual fidelity with God and gain benefit from it. You can receive guidance from God, inspiration, courage and strength. God doesn't care if you do this or not. Just as electricity doesn't care there are Amish people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Religion may not be spiritual connection, but you've used religion as evidence the spiritual exists.  You have said, and I'm paraphrasing, that religion must be based on a real spiritual connection because there's no way humanity would continue to hold such beliefs if they were based on nothing real.  So again, if humans are such flawed, fucked up creatures, why can't we have made up the various religions of the world without them being based on a real spiritual connection?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because as flawed and fucked up as we are, humans do learn and gain wisdom. For instance, leaches... For many-a-year, doctors believed illness was due to bad blood in the body, and leaches were prescribed to draw the bad blood out, to help the patient recover. But as science progressed, we learned this was a terrible idea, and we stopped the practice.
> 
> If spirituality were created to explain the unknown, as science came along and explained things, humans would have abandoned spirituality. They haven't. If spirituality were created to console fear, same deal... hey look, the lions are still eating our people at night, in spite of our spiritual worship, this shit ain't working! So none of these dreamed up rationalizations for why humans are intrinsically spiritual is supportable. If spiritual connection were superficial and insignificant, it would have died out a long time ago.
> 
> Yes... flawed and fucked up man has invented some flawed and fucked up religions, in their flawed and fucked up attempts to comprehend something out of their realm of comprehending. Religions collectively serve as evidence humans DO spiritually connect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you feel you are able to understand the nature of god, this being so far beyond human comprehension, while the vast majority of others do not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know... guess I am blessed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think god has intelligence?  You've compared god to electricity on more than one occasion, but if god did anything like create the universe, that would imply intelligence.  If there is an intelligence, what reason is there to assume there are no emotions, no desires, no needs?  Could they not just be things we don't understand but desires and needs nonetheless?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I compare God to electricity in order to convey the concept of energy versus 'being'.  I have actually stated that I don't know if "intelligence" is the appropriate word to apply to God, perhaps we don't have a word to define it? We use "intelligence" because that is the closest 'grunting noise' we can make to what God actually has. We're chimps trying to figure out something so far beyond us that we can't even imagine it appropriately.
> 
> When I say God "knows" ...again, that is a humanistic concept, to know... Electricity doesn't "know" things, so how does that work? Well again, we lack the vocabulary to define parameters for God, we can't even properly imagine God. In order to convey any kind of rational concept from one human to another, we are confined to our vocabulary and what we can relate to as humans.
Click to expand...


Humanity is neither without fear nor without ignorance.  So how is it you can claim that religion, if it wasn't based on a real spiritual connection, would have gone away by now because humanity has explained things and allayed fear?  We still have innumerable fears and plenty is still unknown, and in fact some fears revolve around the unknown!  Death, by itself, has been and likely will remain enough of a fear and (potentially) unknown to cause religious belief. 

You really do seem to know a lot about god when you say god is, in many ways, unknowable.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> All anthropomorphic musings about something you claim has no human characteristics, while claiming you are trying to describe an entity beyond understanding yet claim to understand it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you walked outside one night and looked up to the sky to see the northern lights, having no understanding of science, would you be able to adequately describe what you saw? Would your description likely be anywhere remotely close to the scientific explanation for the phenomenon, or is it more likely you'd describe it using terms and phrases you could relate to? We can certainly experience things we don't understand and we can certainly describe those things in our own way, even without fully understanding them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What courage or strength can be gained from an entity you claim is beyond your understanding? For all you know this force is malevolent and intends great suffering for you and to have you perceived as a gaseous blowhard. Possible, right? You have no real understanding of this force. You apply human language to describe it, but admit these words are simply analogous placeholders for what is beyond your comprehension.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you are jumping context a bit here. I never said God was totally beyond understanding. If that were the case, we wouldn't know of God. We struggle trying to understand something we can't comprehend. In our attempts to relate what we experience from one human to another, we are confined to words and definitions we've established as humans. If a monkey plays with a computer and makes it do something, he jumps up and down clapping his hands and squealing in excitement. He can go back and perhaps share the experience with his monkey friends, but he probably won't be telling them about CPUs and hard drives because he lacks our vocabulary and understanding. Far from being a computer tech, the monkey did have an experience and understood something in his own monkey way.
> 
> As for God being malevolent, I don't think this is possible. Mankind has been gaining courage and strength from the spiritual since we began to walk upright, according to archeology. This is largely why the attribute of human spirituality is so persistent in our history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> spirituality is a reaction to the unknown and to the fear of mortality, and it never goes away because the unknown NEVER goes away and we all have a 100% mortality rate, and that never changes. We pray, not to stop the lions from eating us, but because we know they will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you spew nonsense you've read on some Atheists blog. To scientifically state that humans "invented" spirituality, you need to find the point in human history that happened. You can't, because from the very oldest civilizations we are aware of, humans already had spirituality. What you are doing is speculating from the point of disbelief. God can't be real so humans must have invented spirituality.
> 
> You don't seem to understand how you just refuted your own argument here... if the unknown never goes away, then what was the point of creating something imaginary to explain it, which doesn't actually explain anything? Seems a bit ridiculous to me. And why the hell would 88% of the species still believe in something spiritual?
> 
> Mortality is also not a very sound rationalization. No other species we know of has even understood mortality, much less had a fear of it that couldn't be dealt with. Man only comprehends mortality because he is aware of spiritual immortality. So you have your cart ahead of your horse here. It is through our spiritual connection to the immortal that we developed fears regarding our own mortality.
> 
> But somehow... some way... we're supposed to accept that humans, for 100k years or more, have believed in some false spiritual connection which (if false) can provide no tangible benefits, all because it doesn't explain the unknown or rectify what we fear? This doesn't even make rational sense.
Click to expand...


A quick comment : The point of creating something to explain the unknown, even if the explanation is as vague as 'god did it', is to give a person a sense they are not ignorant.  This is particularly helpful when the unknown is tied to fear.  So when a person contemplates death, when they wonder if it is the end of everything or if they might continue on after death, religious belief can both provide an answer and comfort fear.

This is not saying that religion must all be based on imagination, rather it is countering your argument that it wouldn't make sense for that to be the case.


----------



## Boss

> Humanity is neither without fear nor without ignorance. So how is it you can claim that religion, if it wasn't based on a real spiritual connection, would have gone away by now because humanity has explained things and allayed fear? We still have innumerable fears and plenty is still unknown, and in fact some fears revolve around the unknown! Death, by itself, has been and likely will remain enough of a fear and (potentially) unknown to cause religious belief.
> 
> You really do seem to know a lot about god when you say god is, in many ways, unknowable.



First of all, I have never said that God is unknowable. I said we have a difficulty comprehending God. Religions HAVE come and gone, through the ages there have been all sorts of religious beliefs. Many no longer exist, perhaps science dispelled their validity? This is why it's so important to distinguish between religion and human spirituality, they are two completely different things. Religion IS invented by man, it is our way of trying to comprehend spiritual connection. The connection must be real, we keep inventing new incarnations called "religions" to try and comprehend this connection we are experiencing. 

Now let's talk about death... do you believe a lion or bear contemplates what happens to him after he dies? We don't see indication that other animals adopt spiritually moral behaviors over their animalistic instincts, so we have to assume they don't worry much about an afterlife. Humans do this because we are intrinsically aware of something greater than self, beyond the physical, beyond mortality. 

All of the perceived rationalizations atheists come up with to explain why humans supposedly created spirituality, fail the test of observable science in nature. Some fail so obviously I am astonished they still present them with objective reasoning. We invented something to console our fears but it's not real and doesn't protect us from what we fear? We invented it to console this nagging fear of our own mortality that nothing else seems to have a problem with, and our invention doesn't change a thing regarding how mortal we are? 



> A quick comment : The point of creating something to explain the unknown, even if the explanation is as vague as 'god did it', is to give a person a sense they are not ignorant. This is particularly helpful when the unknown is tied to fear. So when a person contemplates death, when they wonder if it is the end of everything or if they might continue on after death, religious belief can both provide an answer and comfort fear.
> 
> This is not saying that religion must all be based on imagination, rather it is countering your argument that it wouldn't make sense for that to be the case.



Humans don't seem to have a problem sensing they are not ignorant. Until dolphins and apes start sending their species into space, I think an argument can be made that humans are anything BUT ignorant. Fear of the unknown... what purpose does a fake and imaginary notion serve here? No answer is provided, we still have fear and we still have the unknown. Belief in God doesn't change that dynamic. It also doesn't provide answers to anything... "God did it" applies to everything, regardless of whether science can explain how or not. 

Now, one could argue that the opposite of fear is courage, and the greatest way to overcome the unknown is through inspiration. This is the key to why humans have advanced so greatly over all other species. Our spiritual connection enables us to have courage and inspiration. Everything we've done as a species is because we are motivated by our spiritual connection which gives us courage and inspiration to strive for greatness. 

If you believe in no God, and you think humans simply evolved into being from other creatures, then you must have some explanation for where we gained this attribute. We don't see other animals inventing fake things to inspire them or give them courage. Where did this come from? It's clear to me that we have the capacity to connect with something greater than self, outside the physical, which provides this driving inspiration and human spirit. You might think, well... we're "more evolved" but that doesn't make sense because we know that homo sapiens are relatively new to the animal kingdom. Things were evolving way before humans came on the scene, so why haven't any of them developed spirituality? 

Here's the bottom line: For whatever reason, humans are given the ability to connect spiritually. It is through that connection we have become everything we are, and why we are so much different than everything else. Science cannot explain this, and all the rationalizing in the world of Atheists can't explain it. There is no definable point of origin for human spirituality, it has existed as long as humans have. Religions? Sure! We can pinpoint when just about every religion was created, but these are man-made creations in an attempt to comprehend his spiritual connection which has always existed.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Humanity is neither without fear nor without ignorance. So how is it you can claim that religion, if it wasn't based on a real spiritual connection, would have gone away by now because humanity has explained things and allayed fear? We still have innumerable fears and plenty is still unknown, and in fact some fears revolve around the unknown! Death, by itself, has been and likely will remain enough of a fear and (potentially) unknown to cause religious belief.
> 
> You really do seem to know a lot about god when you say god is, in many ways, unknowable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, I have never said that God is unknowable. I said we have a difficulty comprehending God. Religions HAVE come and gone, through the ages there have been all sorts of religious beliefs. Many no longer exist, perhaps science dispelled their validity? This is why it's so important to distinguish between religion and human spirituality, they are two completely different things. Religion IS invented by man, it is our way of trying to comprehend spiritual connection. The connection must be real, we keep inventing new incarnations called "religions" to try and comprehend this connection we are experiencing.
> 
> Now let's talk about death... do you believe a lion or bear contemplates what happens to him after he dies? We don't see indication that other animals adopt spiritually moral behaviors over their animalistic instincts, so we have to assume they don't worry much about an afterlife. Humans do this because we are intrinsically aware of something greater than self, beyond the physical, beyond mortality.
> 
> All of the perceived rationalizations atheists come up with to explain why humans supposedly created spirituality, fail the test of observable science in nature. Some fail so obviously I am astonished they still present them with objective reasoning. We invented something to console our fears but it's not real and doesn't protect us from what we fear? We invented it to console this nagging fear of our own mortality that nothing else seems to have a problem with, and our invention doesn't change a thing regarding how mortal we are?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A quick comment : The point of creating something to explain the unknown, even if the explanation is as vague as 'god did it', is to give a person a sense they are not ignorant. This is particularly helpful when the unknown is tied to fear. So when a person contemplates death, when they wonder if it is the end of everything or if they might continue on after death, religious belief can both provide an answer and comfort fear.
> 
> This is not saying that religion must all be based on imagination, rather it is countering your argument that it wouldn't make sense for that to be the case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Humans don't seem to have a problem sensing they are not ignorant. Until dolphins and apes start sending their species into space, I think an argument can be made that humans are anything BUT ignorant. Fear of the unknown... what purpose does a fake and imaginary notion serve here? No answer is provided, we still have fear and we still have the unknown. Belief in God doesn't change that dynamic. It also doesn't provide answers to anything... "God did it" applies to everything, regardless of whether science can explain how or not.
> 
> Now, one could argue that the opposite of fear is courage, and the greatest way to overcome the unknown is through inspiration. This is the key to why humans have advanced so greatly over all other species. Our spiritual connection enables us to have courage and inspiration. Everything we've done as a species is because we are motivated by our spiritual connection which gives us courage and inspiration to strive for greatness.
> 
> If you believe in no God, and you think humans simply evolved into being from other creatures, then you must have some explanation for where we gained this attribute. We don't see other animals inventing fake things to inspire them or give them courage. Where did this come from? It's clear to me that we have the capacity to connect with something greater than self, outside the physical, which provides this driving inspiration and human spirit. You might think, well... we're "more evolved" but that doesn't make sense because we know that homo sapiens are relatively new to the animal kingdom. Things were evolving way before humans came on the scene, so why haven't any of them developed spirituality?
> 
> Here's the bottom line: For whatever reason, humans are given the ability to connect spiritually. It is through that connection we have become everything we are, and why we are so much different than everything else. Science cannot explain this, and all the rationalizing in the world of Atheists can't explain it. There is no definable point of origin for human spirituality, it has existed as long as humans have. Religions? Sure! We can pinpoint when just about every religion was created, but these are man-made creations in an attempt to comprehend his spiritual connection which has always existed.
Click to expand...


We've been through this before.  Humans are, so far as we're aware, the only animals really capable of the kinds of thinking required to contemplate death the way we do.  What you attribute to a spiritual connection is easily explained by human intelligence and imagination.  

The opposite of fear is not courage.  Courage is the ability to overcome fear; fear is a requirement for courage.

The greatest way to overcome the unknown is to make it known.  

Our physical characteristics, in particular our brains, can just as easily explain the things you credit to spiritual connection, and can do so with observable evidence.  As usual, while you may be correct in your beliefs, the evidence does not clearly point to it.


----------



## HUGGY

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humanity is neither without fear nor without ignorance. So how is it you can claim that religion, if it wasn't based on a real spiritual connection, would have gone away by now because humanity has explained things and allayed fear? We still have innumerable fears and plenty is still unknown, and in fact some fears revolve around the unknown! Death, by itself, has been and likely will remain enough of a fear and (potentially) unknown to cause religious belief.
> 
> You really do seem to know a lot about god when you say god is, in many ways, unknowable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, I have never said that God is unknowable. I said we have a difficulty comprehending God. Religions HAVE come and gone, through the ages there have been all sorts of religious beliefs. Many no longer exist, perhaps science dispelled their validity? This is why it's so important to distinguish between religion and human spirituality, they are two completely different things. Religion IS invented by man, it is our way of trying to comprehend spiritual connection. The connection must be real, we keep inventing new incarnations called "religions" to try and comprehend this connection we are experiencing.
> 
> Now let's talk about death... do you believe a lion or bear contemplates what happens to him after he dies? We don't see indication that other animals adopt spiritually moral behaviors over their animalistic instincts, so we have to assume they don't worry much about an afterlife. Humans do this because we are intrinsically aware of something greater than self, beyond the physical, beyond mortality.
> 
> All of the perceived rationalizations atheists come up with to explain why humans supposedly created spirituality, fail the test of observable science in nature. Some fail so obviously I am astonished they still present them with objective reasoning. We invented something to console our fears but it's not real and doesn't protect us from what we fear? We invented it to console this nagging fear of our own mortality that nothing else seems to have a problem with, and our invention doesn't change a thing regarding how mortal we are?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A quick comment : The point of creating something to explain the unknown, even if the explanation is as vague as 'god did it', is to give a person a sense they are not ignorant. This is particularly helpful when the unknown is tied to fear. So when a person contemplates death, when they wonder if it is the end of everything or if they might continue on after death, religious belief can both provide an answer and comfort fear.
> 
> This is not saying that religion must all be based on imagination, rather it is countering your argument that it wouldn't make sense for that to be the case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Humans don't seem to have a problem sensing they are not ignorant. Until dolphins and apes start sending their species into space, I think an argument can be made that humans are anything BUT ignorant. Fear of the unknown... what purpose does a fake and imaginary notion serve here? No answer is provided, we still have fear and we still have the unknown. Belief in God doesn't change that dynamic. It also doesn't provide answers to anything... "God did it" applies to everything, regardless of whether science can explain how or not.
> 
> Now, one could argue that the opposite of fear is courage, and the greatest way to overcome the unknown is through inspiration. This is the key to why humans have advanced so greatly over all other species. Our spiritual connection enables us to have courage and inspiration. Everything we've done as a species is because we are motivated by our spiritual connection which gives us courage and inspiration to strive for greatness.
> 
> If you believe in no God, and you think humans simply evolved into being from other creatures, then you must have some explanation for where we gained this attribute. We don't see other animals inventing fake things to inspire them or give them courage. Where did this come from? It's clear to me that we have the capacity to connect with something greater than self, outside the physical, which provides this driving inspiration and human spirit. You might think, well... we're "more evolved" but that doesn't make sense because we know that homo sapiens are relatively new to the animal kingdom. Things were evolving way before humans came on the scene, so why haven't any of them developed spirituality?
> 
> Here's the bottom line: For whatever reason, humans are given the ability to connect spiritually. It is through that connection we have become everything we are, and why we are so much different than everything else. Science cannot explain this, and all the rationalizing in the world of Atheists can't explain it. There is no definable point of origin for human spirituality, it has existed as long as humans have. Religions? Sure! We can pinpoint when just about every religion was created, but these are man-made creations in an attempt to comprehend his spiritual connection which has always existed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We've been through this before.  Humans are, so far as we're aware, the only animals really capable of the kinds of thinking required to contemplate death the way we do.  What you attribute to a spiritual connection is easily explained by human intelligence and imagination.
> 
> The opposite of fear is not courage.  Courage is the ability to overcome fear; fear is a requirement for courage.
> 
> The greatest way to overcome the unknown is to make it known.
> 
> Our physical characteristics, in particular our brains, can just as easily explain the things you credit to spiritual connection, and can do so with observable evidence.  As usual, while you may be correct in your beliefs, the evidence does not clearly point to it.
Click to expand...


Ya....what he said.

Furthermone science doesn't set out to dissprove god.  Science works on problems that benefit humanity or problems that hurt humanity.  

Dissproving god has no clear benefit other than stopping people from wasting time and solving certain medical advances.

We won't get the government to chip in on a dissproving god research program for obvious reasons.

That means only a private company would even bother and there would need to be a cost benefit.  Of course the uproar would be deafening and the company would be boycotted and probably be forced out of business just like Donald Sterling.


----------



## GISMYS

So you=have a wicked heart, and dark and evil deeds. YOUR  life is corroded with sin. PSALM 53:1 and you??? 
=That man is a fool who says to himself, &#8220;There is no God!&#8221; Anyone who talks like that is warped and evil and cannot really be a good person at all.Psalm 14:1===Only a fool would say to himself, &#8220;There is no God.&#8221; And why does he say it? Because of his wicked heart, his dark and evil deeds. His life is corroded with sin. PSALM 53:1 and you???


----------



## Steven_R

Menelaus spoke first. "Why," said he, "my dear brother, are you thus arming? Are you going to send any of our comrades to exploit the Trojans? I greatly fear that no one will do you this service, and spy upon the enemy alone in the dead of night. It will be a deed of great daring." 
-Homer, _The Iliad_, Book X


----------



## HUGGY

Boss has god on speed dial .... strangely enough God has Jizzmos number blocked..


----------



## Hollie

HUGGY said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, I have never said that God is unknowable. I said we have a difficulty comprehending God. Religions HAVE come and gone, through the ages there have been all sorts of religious beliefs. Many no longer exist, perhaps science dispelled their validity? This is why it's so important to distinguish between religion and human spirituality, they are two completely different things. Religion IS invented by man, it is our way of trying to comprehend spiritual connection. The connection must be real, we keep inventing new incarnations called "religions" to try and comprehend this connection we are experiencing.
> 
> Now let's talk about death... do you believe a lion or bear contemplates what happens to him after he dies? We don't see indication that other animals adopt spiritually moral behaviors over their animalistic instincts, so we have to assume they don't worry much about an afterlife. Humans do this because we are intrinsically aware of something greater than self, beyond the physical, beyond mortality.
> 
> All of the perceived rationalizations atheists come up with to explain why humans supposedly created spirituality, fail the test of observable science in nature. Some fail so obviously I am astonished they still present them with objective reasoning. We invented something to console our fears but it's not real and doesn't protect us from what we fear? We invented it to console this nagging fear of our own mortality that nothing else seems to have a problem with, and our invention doesn't change a thing regarding how mortal we are?
> 
> 
> 
> Humans don't seem to have a problem sensing they are not ignorant. Until dolphins and apes start sending their species into space, I think an argument can be made that humans are anything BUT ignorant. Fear of the unknown... what purpose does a fake and imaginary notion serve here? No answer is provided, we still have fear and we still have the unknown. Belief in God doesn't change that dynamic. It also doesn't provide answers to anything... "God did it" applies to everything, regardless of whether science can explain how or not.
> 
> Now, one could argue that the opposite of fear is courage, and the greatest way to overcome the unknown is through inspiration. This is the key to why humans have advanced so greatly over all other species. Our spiritual connection enables us to have courage and inspiration. Everything we've done as a species is because we are motivated by our spiritual connection which gives us courage and inspiration to strive for greatness.
> 
> If you believe in no God, and you think humans simply evolved into being from other creatures, then you must have some explanation for where we gained this attribute. We don't see other animals inventing fake things to inspire them or give them courage. Where did this come from? It's clear to me that we have the capacity to connect with something greater than self, outside the physical, which provides this driving inspiration and human spirit. You might think, well... we're "more evolved" but that doesn't make sense because we know that homo sapiens are relatively new to the animal kingdom. Things were evolving way before humans came on the scene, so why haven't any of them developed spirituality?
> 
> Here's the bottom line: For whatever reason, humans are given the ability to connect spiritually. It is through that connection we have become everything we are, and why we are so much different than everything else. Science cannot explain this, and all the rationalizing in the world of Atheists can't explain it. There is no definable point of origin for human spirituality, it has existed as long as humans have. Religions? Sure! We can pinpoint when just about every religion was created, but these are man-made creations in an attempt to comprehend his spiritual connection which has always existed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We've been through this before.  Humans are, so far as we're aware, the only animals really capable of the kinds of thinking required to contemplate death the way we do.  What you attribute to a spiritual connection is easily explained by human intelligence and imagination.
> 
> The opposite of fear is not courage.  Courage is the ability to overcome fear; fear is a requirement for courage.
> 
> The greatest way to overcome the unknown is to make it known.
> 
> Our physical characteristics, in particular our brains, can just as easily explain the things you credit to spiritual connection, and can do so with observable evidence.  As usual, while you may be correct in your beliefs, the evidence does not clearly point to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ya....what he said.
> 
> Furthermone science doesn't set out to dissprove god.  Science works on problems that benefit humanity or problems that hurt humanity.
> 
> Dissproving god has no clear benefit other than stopping people from wasting time and solving certain medical advances.
> 
> We won't get the government to chip in on a dissproving god research program for obvious reasons.
> 
> That means only a private company would even bother and there would need to be a cost benefit.  Of course the uproar would be deafening and the company would be boycotted and probably be forced out of business just like Donald Sterling.
Click to expand...


Eyup. What they said. 

Science has no interest in disproving any gods. There are simply too many of them and science has mechanism to examine the supernatural.  And very clearly, why is anyone expected to disprove something that religionists have never made a rational argument for? That's ridiculous.


----------



## GISMYS

Hollie said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've been through this before.  Humans are, so far as we're aware, the only animals really capable of the kinds of thinking required to contemplate death the way we do.  What you attribute to a spiritual connection is easily explained by human intelligence and imagination.
> 
> The opposite of fear is not courage.  Courage is the ability to overcome fear; fear is a requirement for courage.
> 
> The greatest way to overcome the unknown is to make it known.
> 
> Our physical characteristics, in particular our brains, can just as easily explain the things you credit to spiritual connection, and can do so with observable evidence.  As usual, while you may be correct in your beliefs, the evidence does not clearly point to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ya....what he said.
> 
> Furthermone science doesn't set out to dissprove god.  Science works on problems that benefit humanity or problems that hurt humanity.
> 
> Dissproving god has no clear benefit other than stopping people from wasting time and solving certain medical advances.
> 
> We won't get the government to chip in on a dissproving god research program for obvious reasons.
> 
> That means only a private company would even bother and there would need to be a cost benefit.  Of course the uproar would be deafening and the company would be boycotted and probably be forced out of business just like Donald Sterling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Eyup. What they said.
> 
> Science has no interest in disproving any gods. There are simply too many of them and science has mechanism to examine the supernatural.  And very clearly, why is anyone expected to disprove something that religionists have never made a rational argument for? That's ridiculous.
Click to expand...


I WILL GIVE YOU SOME HELP!!! THERE IS ONLY ONE TRUE ALMIGHTY GOD AND ALL others are demon inspired false so called gods!!!!


----------



## Hollie

GISMYS said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ya....what he said.
> 
> Furthermone science doesn't set out to dissprove god.  Science works on problems that benefit humanity or problems that hurt humanity.
> 
> Dissproving god has no clear benefit other than stopping people from wasting time and solving certain medical advances.
> 
> We won't get the government to chip in on a dissproving god research program for obvious reasons.
> 
> That means only a private company would even bother and there would need to be a cost benefit.  Of course the uproar would be deafening and the company would be boycotted and probably be forced out of business just like Donald Sterling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eyup. What they said.
> 
> Science has no interest in disproving any gods. There are simply too many of them and science has mechanism to examine the supernatural.  And very clearly, why is anyone expected to disprove something that religionists have never made a rational argument for? That's ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I WILL GIVE YOU SOME HELP!!! THERE IS ONLY ONE TRUE ALMIGHTY GOD AND ALL others are demon inspired false so called gods!!!!
Click to expand...


Whatever you say, dear.


----------



## GISMYS

Hollie said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eyup. What they said.
> 
> Science has no interest in disproving any gods. There are simply too many of them and science has mechanism to examine the supernatural.  And very clearly, why is anyone expected to disprove something that religionists have never made a rational argument for? That's ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I WILL GIVE YOU SOME HELP!!! THERE IS ONLY ONE TRUE ALMIGHTY GOD AND ALL others are demon inspired false so called gods!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whatever you say, dear.
Click to expand...


GET off your lasy fat &%$ and seek the real truth,there is no good reason to remain so ignorant all your life. Life and time are very short now!!!


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> We've been through this before.  Humans are, so far as we're aware, the only animals really capable of the kinds of thinking required to contemplate death the way we do.  What you attribute to a spiritual connection is easily explained by human intelligence and imagination.



Oh, I see how easily it is explained all the time by Atheists, trouble is, just because you easily explain it doesn't make your explanation correct. _"...the kinds of thinking required to contemplate death the way we do..."_ What kind of thinking? The kind that creates fake placebos for fear and the unknown and continues to worship them for all their existence in spite of there being absolutely nothing to it? Doesn't sound like that takes any kind of "special thinking." Or maybe you mean the kind of thinking that considers our human spirit may live on after our physical life is over? I agree with you on this, we do seem to have that kind of thinking, but I believe it is because we comprehend a spiritual connection to something greater than self. 



> The opposite of fear is not courage.  Courage is the ability to overcome fear; fear is a requirement for courage.



Well I am truly sorry you want to play the word parsing game here again, I am not interested in that kind of discussion at this time. Courage doesn't require fear, and if you honestly think that, you are a moron. 



> The greatest way to overcome the unknown is to make it known.



Right... and so how does man creating a fake and imaginary spiritual connection do that? Like I said, the explanation that this is why man invented spirituality doesn't comport with logic or common sense. We created something imaginary to explain the unknown, which doesn't actually explain anything... yet we are supposed to have "special thinking?" 



> Our physical characteristics, in particular our brains, can just as easily explain the things you credit to spiritual connection, and can do so with observable evidence.  As usual, while you may be correct in your beliefs, the evidence does not clearly point to it.



Again, we can "easily say" all kinds of things, it doesn't make them correct. There is nothing special about our physical characteristics. Some animals are stronger, faster, see better, smell better, hear better... some creatures have larger brains and cerebral cortexes. And some animals have been around and evolving longer than us. What makes us unique among all animals is our ability to spiritually connect and realize something greater than self. It is through that attribute alone, we have gained the inspiration and courage to do what we couldn't do without it. 



> Science has no interest in disproving any gods.



Well this is a good thing since Science will never be able to do so!


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've been through this before.  Humans are, so far as we're aware, the only animals really capable of the kinds of thinking required to contemplate death the way we do.  What you attribute to a spiritual connection is easily explained by human intelligence and imagination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I see how easily it is explained all the time by Atheists, trouble is, just because you easily explain it doesn't make your explanation correct. _"...the kinds of thinking required to contemplate death the way we do..."_ What kind of thinking? The kind that creates fake placebos for fear and the unknown and continues to worship them for all their existence in spite of there being absolutely nothing to it? Doesn't sound like that takes any kind of "special thinking." Or maybe you mean the kind of thinking that considers our human spirit may live on after our physical life is over? I agree with you on this, we do seem to have that kind of thinking, but I believe it is because we comprehend a spiritual connection to something greater than self.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The opposite of fear is not courage.  Courage is the ability to overcome fear; fear is a requirement for courage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I am truly sorry you want to play the word parsing game here again, I am not interested in that kind of discussion at this time. Courage doesn't require fear, and if you honestly think that, you are a moron.
> 
> 
> 
> Right... and so how does man creating a fake and imaginary spiritual connection do that? Like I said, the explanation that this is why man invented spirituality doesn't comport with logic or common sense. We created something imaginary to explain the unknown, which doesn't actually explain anything... yet we are supposed to have "special thinking?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our physical characteristics, in particular our brains, can just as easily explain the things you credit to spiritual connection, and can do so with observable evidence.  As usual, while you may be correct in your beliefs, the evidence does not clearly point to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, we can "easily say" all kinds of things, it doesn't make them correct. There is nothing special about our physical characteristics. Some animals are stronger, faster, see better, smell better, hear better... some creatures have larger brains and cerebral cortexes. And some animals have been around and evolving longer than us. What makes us unique among all animals is our ability to spiritually connect and realize something greater than self. It is through that attribute alone, we have gained the inspiration and courage to do what we couldn't do without it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science has no interest in disproving any gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well this is a good thing since Science will never be able to do so!
Click to expand...


You continue to downplay human intelligence, implying it is similar to other animals, when that is not the case based on observed evidence.  

You say it doesn't take special thinking to create placebos to downplay fears and the unknown, but since humanity is the only creature to do so, it would appear that is exactly what it takes.  Even if other animals do that kind of thing, since they don't appear to have the complex languages that humanity does (yet another unique human achievement attributable to our intelligence), it would be hard to be certain of it.  Maybe our intelligence is the result of our supposed spiritual connection, but why do you insist on treating that intelligence, whatever the source, as merely a minor difference between humans and other animals?

You are insistent that the only thing 'special' about humanity, the only thing which differentiates us from other animals, is spiritual connection.  This flies in the face of all observable evidence.  Even if spiritual connection is the impetus behind our language, writing, and every bit of technology ever created, our medicine, our understanding of the universe, our contemplation of philosophy and the unknown, all those things we see in humans that we don't see in other species, those things are all still unique to humanity, so far as we know, on this planet.  And while perhaps they are an outgrowth of spiritual connection, they absolutely could be attributable to human intelligence and reasoning and imagination.

As to courage....how is one courageous without overcoming fear?  That's the whole point of courage; doing something despite the danger or fear involved.  Perhaps you don't want to 'play the word parsing game' because you are operating under some personal definition of courage.  

There is no reason to assume people will use logic or common sense in their beliefs.  If there were, there would be no war, no murder, no strife.  In the real world, people both ignore logic and common sense, and have different ideas about what those words entail.
Besides, religion does provide answers to the unknown.  What happens when you die?  You go to some sort of afterlife, you are reincarnated, etc.  How was the universe created?  God did it.  How should I live, what should I teach my children?  Here, read this sacred text and follow these rules.  Even if it's all untrue, to the believer it is not, so it has the same effect.

I've repeatedly said that you may be correct, the point is that even if you are, the evidence for that is far, far from conclusive.


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> You continue to downplay human intelligence, implying it is similar to other animals, when that is not the case based on observed evidence.
> 
> You say it doesn't take special thinking to create placebos to downplay fears and the unknown, but since humanity is the only creature to do so, it would appear that is exactly what it takes.



But you are basing this on the assumption there is no God or spiritual nature to connect to. No... it takes real fucking moronic idiots to imagine something that isn't there in order to console fear and the unknown, and then do that their entire existence. They would have to completely abandon rational thought to do so. This is primarily why I don't believe that's what happened. 



> Even if other animals do that kind of thing, since they don't appear to have the complex languages that humanity does (yet another unique human achievement attributable to our intelligence), it would be hard to be certain of it.



We are certain that most mammals and primates DO have language and communicate. Crows have over 250 calls in their vocabulary and regional dialect. They can communicate to other crows about hostile humans and the other crows can recognize said humans without ever having seen them before, and this information is passed down generationally. Ants and bees communicate without language at all and do so to peak efficiency. Whales can communicate with each other for miles under the ocean... you tried doing that lately? 



> Maybe our intelligence is the result of our supposed spiritual connection, but why do you insist on treating that intelligence, whatever the source, as merely a minor difference between humans and other animals?



Because our actual "intelligence" is not that different. Some animals are more intelligent than us on certain things... do you know which flowers to pollinate and when? Do you know when there is a fire in the forest? Can you smell food 5 miles away? Can you put your body into a state of hibernation for the winter? Other animals do all kinds of amazing things with their intelligence, but they are not spiritually connected to something greater than self. They can't find inspirational motivation to push the limits of imagination and take their species where it's never gone before. Humans do this because we are spiritually connected. 



> You are insistent that the only thing 'special' about humanity, the only thing which differentiates us from other animals, is spiritual connection.  This flies in the face of all observable evidence.  Even if spiritual connection is the impetus behind our language, writing, and every bit of technology ever created, our medicine, our understanding of the universe, our contemplation of philosophy and the unknown, all those things we see in humans that we don't see in other species, those things are all still unique to humanity, so far as we know, on this planet.  And while perhaps they are an outgrowth of spiritual connection, they absolutely could be attributable to human intelligence and reasoning and imagination.



And this is where you're just flat out wrong on numerous levels. The "observable evidence" is humanity, and how it is vastly different from everything including our supposed common ancestors. Spirituality was not invented and it didn't evolve into man. We humans didn't just pop onto the scene 100k years ago and start doing what no other creature before humans could do because of our superior brains. If that were so, we'd see other species evolving with similar characteristics, especially those who have been evolving much longer than humans. Why aren't the great apes at least developing language and chiseling out wheels from stone? The "observable evidence" suggests that humans have something the other animals don't, and that something is an intrinsic spiritual connection with something greater than self. 



> As to courage....how is one courageous without overcoming fear?  That's the whole point of courage; doing something despite the danger or fear involved.  Perhaps you don't want to 'play the word parsing game' because you are operating under some personal definition of courage.



You said that courage *requires* fear. Now you are saying courage *overcomes* fear. If it overcomes it, then it can't require it. Courage is the *opposite* of fear, and if you want to pretend that isn't true or there is some other antonym we can apply, then so be it. I am *NOT PLAYING!* 



> There is no reason to assume people will use logic or common sense in their beliefs.  If there were, there would be no war, no murder, no strife.  In the real world, people both ignore logic and common sense, and have different ideas about what those words entail.



I don't know why you think there would be no wars, murder or strife if everyone used logic and common sense. But okay, sometimes people do ignore common sense and logic, this thread is a good example of that. 88% of the fucking species hasn't ignored logic and common sense for all of our existence, unless we're all retards. 



> Besides, religion does provide answers to the unknown.  What happens when you die?  You go to some sort of afterlife, you are reincarnated, etc.  How was the universe created?  God did it.  How should I live, what should I teach my children?  Here, read this sacred text and follow these rules.  Even if it's all untrue, to the believer it is not, so it has the same effect.



Hold on a minute... What happens when you die? Your physical organism stops living, but what happens to your spirit? This is unknown and no religion or science can provide evidence. How was the universe created? Science and religion don't have an answer. "God did it" doesn't answer the question. How did God do it? We don't know. How do I live, what do I teach my children... well what's wrong with teaching them to live like animals in the wild and survival of the fittest? Kill or be killed? That's how other animals deal with that question, it's not an unknown at all. 

You're not presenting very good reasons for mankind to invent some imaginary thing that isn't real in order to answer questions that it either can't answer or doesn't need to answer. It makes no rational sense whatsoever. 



> I've repeatedly said that you may be correct, the point is that even if you are, the evidence for that is far, far from conclusive.



Well let's be clear, if anyone here had what we could all agree is "conclusive evidence" ...for ANYTHING... we would probably not be having this conversation. Maybe that point eludes you?


----------



## Mephisto

GISMYS said:


> I WILL GIVE YOU SOME HELP!!! THERE IS ONLY ONE TRUE ALMIGHTY GOD AND ALL others are demon inspired false so called gods!!!!



Which God is that?  Jehovah, Allah, Buddah, Odin...

There are many gods, the Christian god is just one of many.


----------



## BreezeWood

Mephisto said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> I WILL GIVE YOU SOME HELP!!! THERE IS ONLY ONE TRUE ALMIGHTY GOD AND ALL others are demon inspired false so called gods!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which God is that?  Jehovah, Allah, Buddah, Odin...
> 
> There are many gods, the Christian god is just one of many.
Click to expand...



Christianity is correct there is only one Almighty who rules the Everlasting - otherwise the Deity is the same as all other beings. 

anyone may someday become a god.

.


----------



## sealybobo

Mephisto said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> I WILL GIVE YOU SOME HELP!!! THERE IS ONLY ONE TRUE ALMIGHTY GOD AND ALL others are demon inspired false so called gods!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which God is that?  Jehovah, Allah, Buddah, Odin...
> 
> There are many gods, the Christian god is just one of many.
Click to expand...


My catholic friend is sure all the other christian denominations will one day join the catholic church because it is the one true church.  The born agains say the catholics have it all wrong because they are baptized at birth, not as adults so they never actually decided for themselves and got baptized.  Our parents forced it on us, we did not go do it.  In my 20's and 30's I might have gone and done it but now I would not go get baptized.  Silly.  That's how sure I am it isn't necessary.  That's how sure I am GISMYS is wrong.  I don't care about the other people who although they know all religions are bullshit and still believe in a god.  I don't think that kind of thought is damaging.  Of course unless the people who rule the god fearers continue to use god to divide us.  Look at it from our side.  We accept you guys even though you believe in an invisible man who loves us but sends us to hell for not believing in him when he has been in hiding for 2014 years.  Come home dad!  God is a dead beat dad.  That's why he said in the 10 commandments honor your parents no matter how bad they are to you.  Because he's the worse.  I want my child support!


----------



## Uncensored2008

HUGGY said:


> Boss has god on speed dial .... strangely enough God has Jizzmos number blocked..



Huggy dropped acid and listened go Black Sabbath at 78 - but still didn't see god...


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> I WILL GIVE YOU SOME HELP!!! THERE IS ONLY ONE TRUE ALMIGHTY GOD AND ALL others are demon inspired false so called gods!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which God is that?  Jehovah, Allah, Buddah, Odin...
> 
> There are many gods, the Christian god is just one of many.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My catholic friend is sure all the other christian denominations will one day join the catholic church because it is the one true church.  The born agains say the catholics have it all wrong because they are baptized at birth, not as adults so they never actually decided for themselves and got baptized.  Our parents forced it on us, we did not go do it.  In my 20's and 30's I might have gone and done it but now I would not go get baptized.  Silly.  That's how sure I am it isn't necessary.  That's how sure I am GISMYS is wrong.  I don't care about the other people who although they know all religions are bullshit and still believe in a god.  I don't think that kind of thought is damaging.  Of course unless the people who rule the god fearers continue to use god to divide us.  Look at it from our side.  We accept you guys even though you believe in an invisible man who loves us but sends us to hell for not believing in him when he has been in hiding for 2014 years.  Come home dad!  God is a dead beat dad.  That's why he said in the 10 commandments honor your parents no matter how bad they are to you.  Because he's the worse.  I want my child support!
Click to expand...


ALMIGHTY GOD says atheist are FOOLS!!! 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That man is a fool who says to himself, There is no God! Anyone who talks like that is warped and evil and cannot really be a good person at all.Psalm 14:1===Only a fool would say to himself, There is no God. And why does he say it? Because of his wicked heart, his dark and evil deeds. His life is corroded with sin. PSALM 53:1 and you???


----------



## Mephisto

BreezeWood said:


> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> I WILL GIVE YOU SOME HELP!!! THERE IS ONLY ONE TRUE ALMIGHTY GOD AND ALL others are demon inspired false so called gods!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which God is that?  Jehovah, Allah, Buddah, Odin...
> 
> There are many gods, the Christian god is just one of many.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Christianity is only correct that there is only one Almighty, that rules the Everlasting though is a product of the Everlasting as are all other beings.
> 
> anyone may someday become a god.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Expect for Islam...Allah; there is no god but Allah, the Ever Living, the Eternal One. Neither slumber nor sleep overtakes Him. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. He is the Most Exalted, the Most Great. [The Holy Qur'an, Surah 2:255]


----------



## Uncensored2008

Mephisto said:


> Expect for Islam...Allah; there is no god but Allah, the Ever Living, the Eternal One. Neither slumber nor sleep overtakes Him. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. He is the Most Exalted, the Most Great. [The Holy Qur'an, Surah 2:255]



Can we get an MMA fight between God and Allah? I bet it would be BIG on pay per view.... Allah has to leave his pitchfork at home, though...


----------



## BreezeWood

Mephisto said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which God is that?  Jehovah, Allah, Buddah, Odin...
> 
> There are many gods, the Christian god is just one of many.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christianity is only correct that there is only one Almighty, that rules the Everlasting though is a product of the Everlasting as are all other beings.
> 
> anyone may someday become a god.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Expect for Islam...Allah; there is no god but Allah, the Ever Living, the Eternal One. Neither slumber nor sleep overtakes Him. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. He is the Most Exalted, the Most Great. [The Holy Qur'an, Surah 2:255]
Click to expand...




those three religions when put together and deciphered - then rewritten to include all the other religions make for a reasonable explanation for life after death.

.


----------



## Mephisto

BreezeWood said:


> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christianity is only correct that there is only one Almighty, that rules the Everlasting though is a product of the Everlasting as are all other beings.
> 
> anyone may someday become a god.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Expect for Islam...Allah; there is no god but Allah, the Ever Living, the Eternal One. Neither slumber nor sleep overtakes Him. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. He is the Most Exalted, the Most Great. [The Holy Qur'an, Surah 2:255]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> those three religions when put together and deciphered - then rewritten to include all the other religions make for a reasonable explanation for life after death.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

of course.  People need a positive spin on their lift.  They don;t want to hear...you die and turn into worm food.  They want to know that if they're good they get into heaven and all the wicked people go to hell.


----------



## sealybobo

Mephisto said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Expect for Islam...Allah; there is no god but Allah, the Ever Living, the Eternal One. Neither slumber nor sleep overtakes Him. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. He is the Most Exalted, the Most Great. [The Holy Qur'an, Surah 2:255]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> those three religions when put together and deciphered - then rewritten to include all the other religions make for a reasonable explanation for life after death.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> of course.  People need a positive spin on their lift.  They don;t want to hear...you die and turn into worm food.  They want to know that if they're good they get into heaven and all the wicked people go to hell.
Click to expand...


The question of lifes meaning and purpose is made no less important to an individual by not believing in a god. However, instead of asking What is the meaning of life" an atheist might ask What meaning, if any, can I give to my life?.
Most things in life are worth doing for their own sake, they do not require a god.  Satisfying curiosity, experiencing love and friendship, acting charitably, delighting our senses and achieving personal goals all provide an inherit sense of gratification and purpose. Conversely, religion deprives life of any personal meaning by turning it into a form of serfdom, in which our only goal is to appease the whims of a supposed creator and follow its plan. Any impetus to seek knowledge and explore is removed because all the supposed answers are provided.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which God is that?  Jehovah, Allah, Buddah, Odin...
> 
> There are many gods, the Christian god is just one of many.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My catholic friend is sure all the other christian denominations will one day join the catholic church because it is the one true church.  The born agains say the catholics have it all wrong because they are baptized at birth, not as adults so they never actually decided for themselves and got baptized.  Our parents forced it on us, we did not go do it.  In my 20's and 30's I might have gone and done it but now I would not go get baptized.  Silly.  That's how sure I am it isn't necessary.  That's how sure I am GISMYS is wrong.  I don't care about the other people who although they know all religions are bullshit and still believe in a god.  I don't think that kind of thought is damaging.  Of course unless the people who rule the god fearers continue to use god to divide us.  Look at it from our side.  We accept you guys even though you believe in an invisible man who loves us but sends us to hell for not believing in him when he has been in hiding for 2014 years.  Come home dad!  God is a dead beat dad.  That's why he said in the 10 commandments honor your parents no matter how bad they are to you.  Because he's the worse.  I want my child support!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ALMIGHTY GOD says atheist are FOOLS!!!
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> That man is a fool who says to himself, There is no God! Anyone who talks like that is warped and evil and cannot really be a good person at all.Psalm 14:1===Only a fool would say to himself, There is no God. And why does he say it? Because of his wicked heart, his dark and evil deeds. His life is corroded with sin. PSALM 53:1 and you???
Click to expand...


Lifes purpose is what we make it.  I would suggest that ones purpose is to foster an environment in which the species can survive, either by passing on genes or stop global warming.  Buddhism, which is fully compatible with atheism, suggests it is to focus on the human potential to overcome suffering and achieve peacefulness.   Within each of our trillion cells we carry a genetic heritage, unbroken, stretching back over 4 billion years.  The Universe, in its silent dwarfing beauty, may not care about human life  but we do. So our brief and improbable time here may best be spent experiencing its wonders together, not in indentured servitude to an imaginary celestial dictator.


----------



## Mephisto

sealybobo said:


> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> those three religions when put together and deciphered - then rewritten to include all the other religions make for a reasonable explanation for life after death.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> of course.  People need a positive spin on their lift.  They don;t want to hear...you die and turn into worm food.  They want to know that if they're good they get into heaven and all the wicked people go to hell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The question of lifes meaning and purpose is made no less important to an individual by not believing in a god. However, instead of asking What is the meaning of life" an atheist might ask What meaning, if any, can I give to my life?.
> Most things in life are worth doing for their own sake, they do not require a god.  Satisfying curiosity, experiencing love and friendship, acting charitably, delighting our senses and achieving personal goals all provide an inherit sense of gratification and purpose. Conversely, religion deprives life of any personal meaning by turning it into a form of serfdom, in which our only goal is to appease the whims of a supposed creator and follow its plan. Any impetus to seek knowledge and explore is removed because all the supposed answers are provided.
Click to expand...


In other words, followers of slaves to God.


----------



## sealybobo

Mephisto said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> of course.  People need a positive spin on their lift.  They don;t want to hear...you die and turn into worm food.  They want to know that if they're good they get into heaven and all the wicked people go to hell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The question of lifes meaning and purpose is made no less important to an individual by not believing in a god. However, instead of asking What is the meaning of life" an atheist might ask What meaning, if any, can I give to my life?.
> Most things in life are worth doing for their own sake, they do not require a god.  Satisfying curiosity, experiencing love and friendship, acting charitably, delighting our senses and achieving personal goals all provide an inherit sense of gratification and purpose. Conversely, religion deprives life of any personal meaning by turning it into a form of serfdom, in which our only goal is to appease the whims of a supposed creator and follow its plan. Any impetus to seek knowledge and explore is removed because all the supposed answers are provided.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words, followers of slaves to God.
Click to expand...


What happened to the "Why do we fight science" thread?  I think this topic goes hand in hand with that.  We fight science because of religion.  

This is why we persist.  Science has demonstrably produced the most accurate and reliable models of the universe that mankind has ever known and it is upon these models that all modern technology, medicine and industry are based.  Science keeps changing because the tools used to perform science keep improving.  There are no absolute truths in science; all laws, theories and conclusions can become obsolete if they are found in contradiction with new evidence. However, as scientific theory is the highest honor any scientific principle can obtain, for they comprise all the evidence, laws and models relevant to an observed phenomena.   The scientific method is not a single recipe: it requires intelligence, intuition, and creativity. It is an ongoing cycle, constantly developing more useful, accurate and comprehensive models and methods, but not necessarily discarding old ones.  Unlike religious dogma, which presumes the truth, the scientific method is a self correcting process, an ever sharpening blade.  The models used by science to explain observations and make predictions are simply the most correct at the time. The greatest skepticism should always be reserved for inflexible positions whose proponents insist that they and their unbelievable assertions are above question and examination.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which God is that?  Jehovah, Allah, Buddah, Odin...
> 
> There are many gods, the Christian god is just one of many.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My catholic friend is sure all the other christian denominations will one day join the catholic church because it is the one true church.  The born agains say the catholics have it all wrong because they are baptized at birth, not as adults so they never actually decided for themselves and got baptized.  Our parents forced it on us, we did not go do it.  In my 20's and 30's I might have gone and done it but now I would not go get baptized.  Silly.  That's how sure I am it isn't necessary.  That's how sure I am GISMYS is wrong.  I don't care about the other people who although they know all religions are bullshit and still believe in a god.  I don't think that kind of thought is damaging.  Of course unless the people who rule the god fearers continue to use god to divide us.  Look at it from our side.  We accept you guys even though you believe in an invisible man who loves us but sends us to hell for not believing in him when he has been in hiding for 2014 years.  Come home dad!  God is a dead beat dad.  That's why he said in the 10 commandments honor your parents no matter how bad they are to you.  Because he's the worse.  I want my child support!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ALMIGHTY GOD says atheist are FOOLS!!!
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> That man is a fool who says to himself, There is no God! Anyone who talks like that is warped and evil and cannot really be a good person at all.Psalm 14:1===Only a fool would say to himself, There is no God. And why does he say it? Because of his wicked heart, his dark and evil deeds. His life is corroded with sin. PSALM 53:1 and you???
Click to expand...


The greatest skepticism should always be for inflexible positions whose proponents insist that they and their unbelievable assertions are above question and examination.


----------



## sealybobo

Faith is absolute trust or confidence in a belief. Conversely, scientific theories are inherently falsifiable  meaning they can be proven wrong.  Faith is an unjustified belief based on fantasy, superstition and wishful thinking.
Science converges on the truth via questioning. Its solutions and explanations do not differ between nations or cultures because they can be tested by anyone, anywhere, anytime. Whatever knowledge science produces is valid everywhere. Religion, on the other handIf all knowledge of science was lost, someone could potentially figure it out again. Conversely, if every trace of religion were wiped out and nothing were passed on, it would never be created in exactly the same way again.  Science is the pursuit of truth, not the presumption of it.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> You continue to downplay human intelligence, implying it is similar to other animals, when that is not the case based on observed evidence.
> 
> You say it doesn't take special thinking to create placebos to downplay fears and the unknown, but since humanity is the only creature to do so, it would appear that is exactly what it takes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you are basing this on the assumption there is no God or spiritual nature to connect to. No... it takes real fucking moronic idiots to imagine something that isn't there in order to console fear and the unknown, and then do that their entire existence. They would have to completely abandon rational thought to do so. This is primarily why I don't believe that's what happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if other animals do that kind of thing, since they don't appear to have the complex languages that humanity does (yet another unique human achievement attributable to our intelligence), it would be hard to be certain of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are certain that most mammals and primates DO have language and communicate. Crows have over 250 calls in their vocabulary and regional dialect. They can communicate to other crows about hostile humans and the other crows can recognize said humans without ever having seen them before, and this information is passed down generationally. Ants and bees communicate without language at all and do so to peak efficiency. Whales can communicate with each other for miles under the ocean... you tried doing that lately?
> 
> 
> 
> Because our actual "intelligence" is not that different. Some animals are more intelligent than us on certain things... do you know which flowers to pollinate and when? Do you know when there is a fire in the forest? Can you smell food 5 miles away? Can you put your body into a state of hibernation for the winter? Other animals do all kinds of amazing things with their intelligence, but they are not spiritually connected to something greater than self. They can't find inspirational motivation to push the limits of imagination and take their species where it's never gone before. Humans do this because we are spiritually connected.
> 
> 
> 
> And this is where you're just flat out wrong on numerous levels. The "observable evidence" is humanity, and how it is vastly different from everything including our supposed common ancestors. Spirituality was not invented and it didn't evolve into man. We humans didn't just pop onto the scene 100k years ago and start doing what no other creature before humans could do because of our superior brains. If that were so, we'd see other species evolving with similar characteristics, especially those who have been evolving much longer than humans. Why aren't the great apes at least developing language and chiseling out wheels from stone? The "observable evidence" suggests that humans have something the other animals don't, and that something is an intrinsic spiritual connection with something greater than self.
> 
> 
> 
> You said that courage *requires* fear. Now you are saying courage *overcomes* fear. If it overcomes it, then it can't require it. Courage is the *opposite* of fear, and if you want to pretend that isn't true or there is some other antonym we can apply, then so be it. I am *NOT PLAYING!*
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why you think there would be no wars, murder or strife if everyone used logic and common sense. But okay, sometimes people do ignore common sense and logic, this thread is a good example of that. 88% of the fucking species hasn't ignored logic and common sense for all of our existence, unless we're all retards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Besides, religion does provide answers to the unknown.  What happens when you die?  You go to some sort of afterlife, you are reincarnated, etc.  How was the universe created?  God did it.  How should I live, what should I teach my children?  Here, read this sacred text and follow these rules.  Even if it's all untrue, to the believer it is not, so it has the same effect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hold on a minute... What happens when you die? Your physical organism stops living, but what happens to your spirit? This is unknown and no religion or science can provide evidence. How was the universe created? Science and religion don't have an answer. "God did it" doesn't answer the question. How did God do it? We don't know. How do I live, what do I teach my children... well what's wrong with teaching them to live like animals in the wild and survival of the fittest? Kill or be killed? That's how other animals deal with that question, it's not an unknown at all.
> 
> You're not presenting very good reasons for mankind to invent some imaginary thing that isn't real in order to answer questions that it either can't answer or doesn't need to answer. It makes no rational sense whatsoever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've repeatedly said that you may be correct, the point is that even if you are, the evidence for that is far, far from conclusive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well let's be clear, if anyone here had what we could all agree is "conclusive evidence" ...for ANYTHING... we would probably not be having this conversation. Maybe that point eludes you?
Click to expand...


Even if there is a spiritual connection, it causes thinking in humanity we don't see anywhere else.  Therefore, that would be 'special thinking' in this context.

If it takes 'real fucking moronic idiots to imagine something that isn't there in order to console fear and the unknown, and then do that their entire existence', and you don't believe that any religions are correct, then you are saying that is exactly what humanity has done, at the same time you say you don't believe they have done it.  Perhaps the religions were created to try and explain spiritual connection, but they would still be made up.

Two things.  First, communication and language are not the same thing.  Humans can communicate without language, but out language allows the exchange of very complex ideas which we have not observed in other animals.  250 calls for crows?  For animals, that's pretty impressive.  How many different words are there in any given human language?  Oh, and whales can communicate for miles?  What the hell does that have to do with complex language?

There is a difference between instinct and reasoning.  Do you think that each individual bee reasons its way to pick flowers?  Is the sense of smell suddenly an outgrowth of intelligence; are animals with low intelligence unable to smell as well?  Is hibernation based on intelligence, on the hibernating animal's ability to reason out the correct way to deal with winter?  Other animals can do amazing things, but few of those things appear to be based on intelligence and reasoning or imagination.  Why you are conflating every action or ability of a creature with its intelligence I have no idea.

Why would we see other species evolve the same intelligence as humanity?  That assumes a direction behind evolution; some intelligence sees that human ingenuity works, and so will provide the same for another animal.  You all too often make claims about evolution which, even with just a layman's understanding, are obviously untrue.

The observable evidence shows that humans have something other animals don't, we agree.  You diverge from the observable evidence with your hypothesis that it is spiritual connection, whereas human intelligence, reasoning and imagination are things we have observed to work differently than in other animals.

Yes, courage requires fear.  There must be fear if it is to be overcome!  Without fear, how can one be courageous and overcome that fear?  Feel free to continue to reply about it while claiming to not play.  

Based on your own beliefs, a large percentage of humanity has ignored logic and common sense in believing the various religions, which you have said you think are false.  Oh, but wait, believing in falsehoods makes perfect sense so long as you can relate it to spiritual connection, right?

You post as though fear of death, questions about the possibility of the afterlife, the creation of the universe and life, etc. are either already answered or not important enough for people to search out answers and comfort about.  Are you serious?  You say god did it isn't an answer....yet people have been satisfied with that as an answer to numerous questions throughout human history.  Clearly, what you consider inadequate most people have disagreed with you on.  On this issue you appear to be in agreement with the atheists and agnostics of the world.

The point about conclusive evidence doesn't elude me.  You are the one who continues to make statements as though they are obvious facts without providing any real evidence of them.  That's pretty much the theme of this entire thread.


----------



## Mephisto

sealybobo said:


> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question of lifes meaning and purpose is made no less important to an individual by not believing in a god. However, instead of asking What is the meaning of life" an atheist might ask What meaning, if any, can I give to my life?.
> Most things in life are worth doing for their own sake, they do not require a god.  Satisfying curiosity, experiencing love and friendship, acting charitably, delighting our senses and achieving personal goals all provide an inherit sense of gratification and purpose. Conversely, religion deprives life of any personal meaning by turning it into a form of serfdom, in which our only goal is to appease the whims of a supposed creator and follow its plan. Any impetus to seek knowledge and explore is removed because all the supposed answers are provided.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, followers of slaves to God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What happened to the "Why do we fight science" thread?  I think this topic goes hand in hand with that.  We fight science because of religion.
> 
> This is why we persist.  Science has demonstrably produced the most accurate and reliable models of the universe that mankind has ever known and it is upon these models that all modern technology, medicine and industry are based.  Science keeps changing because the tools used to perform science keep improving.  There are no absolute truths in science; all laws, theories and conclusions can become obsolete if they are found in contradiction with new evidence. However, as scientific theory is the highest honor any scientific principle can obtain, for they comprise all the evidence, laws and models relevant to an observed phenomena.   The scientific method is not a single recipe: it requires intelligence, intuition, and creativity. It is an ongoing cycle, constantly developing more useful, accurate and comprehensive models and methods, but not necessarily discarding old ones.  Unlike religious dogma, which presumes the truth, the scientific method is a self correcting process, an ever sharpening blade.  The models used by science to explain observations and make predictions are simply the most correct at the time. The greatest skepticism should always be reserved for inflexible positions whose proponents insist that they and their unbelievable assertions are above question and examination.
Click to expand...


Indeed.

Beliefs should conform to our best scientific understanding of the world. We should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit our beliefs.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> My catholic friend is sure all the other christian denominations will one day join the catholic church because it is the one true church.  The born agains say the catholics have it all wrong because they are baptized at birth, not as adults so they never actually decided for themselves and got baptized.  Our parents forced it on us, we did not go do it.  In my 20's and 30's I might have gone and done it but now I would not go get baptized.  Silly.  That's how sure I am it isn't necessary.  That's how sure I am GISMYS is wrong.  I don't care about the other people who although they know all religions are bullshit and still believe in a god.  I don't think that kind of thought is damaging.  Of course unless the people who rule the god fearers continue to use god to divide us.  Look at it from our side.  We accept you guys even though you believe in an invisible man who loves us but sends us to hell for not believing in him when he has been in hiding for 2014 years.  Come home dad!  God is a dead beat dad.  That's why he said in the 10 commandments honor your parents no matter how bad they are to you.  Because he's the worse.  I want my child support!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ALMIGHTY GOD says atheist are FOOLS!!!
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> That man is a fool who says to himself, There is no God! Anyone who talks like that is warped and evil and cannot really be a good person at all.Psalm 14:1===Only a fool would say to himself, There is no God. And why does he say it? Because of his wicked heart, his dark and evil deeds. His life is corroded with sin. PSALM 53:1 and you???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The greatest skepticism should always be for inflexible positions whose proponents insist that they and their unbelievable assertions are above question and examination.
Click to expand...


EXAMIN ALL YOU LIKE BUT FACE THE TRUTH= AL,IGHTY GOD SAYS atheist are FOOLS!!! AND YOU?? I CHOSE TO BELIEVE GOD!!!


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> ALMIGHTY GOD says atheist are FOOLS!!!
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> That man is a fool who says to himself, There is no God! Anyone who talks like that is warped and evil and cannot really be a good person at all.Psalm 14:1===Only a fool would say to himself, There is no God. And why does he say it? Because of his wicked heart, his dark and evil deeds. His life is corroded with sin. PSALM 53:1 and you???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The greatest skepticism should always be for inflexible positions whose proponents insist that they and their unbelievable assertions are above question and examination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> EXAMIN ALL YOU LIKE BUT FACE THE TRUTH= AL,IGHTY GOD SAYS atheist are FOOLS!!! AND YOU?? I CHOSE TO BELIEVE GOD!!!
Click to expand...


Why do you believe despite the fact that any evidence proposed by theists to support the Bibles various historical and supernatural claims are non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.  The Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many religious texts.  The Bible is historically inaccurate, factually incorrect, inconsistent and contradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time. 

And you do know if you were born in Saudi Arabia you would not believe the jesus story, right?  Your parents would have brainwashed you with the mohammad/allah story and you'd be a muslim retard instead of a christian one like you are today.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The greatest skepticism should always be for inflexible positions whose proponents insist that they and their unbelievable assertions are above question and examination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EXAMIN ALL YOU LIKE BUT FACE THE TRUTH= AL,IGHTY GOD SAYS atheist are FOOLS!!! AND YOU?? I CHOSE TO BELIEVE GOD!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you believe despite the fact that any evidence proposed by theists to support the Bibles various historical and supernatural claims are non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.  The Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many religious texts.  The Bible is historically inaccurate, factually incorrect, inconsistent and contradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time.
> 
> And you do know if you were born in Saudi Arabia you would not believe the jesus story, right?  Your parents would have brainwashed you with the mohammad/allah story and you'd be a muslim retard instead of a christian one like you are today.
Click to expand...


ROFLMAO!!! WHAT ELSE DOES ANYONE EXPECT FROM A FOOL'S POST????????? THE HOLYBIBLE IS GOD INSPIRED(GOD BREATHED) AND IS " self-authenticating". Bible prophecy is a great proof that the bible is GOD'S TRUTH. NO MAN overv 2000 years ago could tell us about the future in such detail and be 100% RIGHT ON!!! THINK!!!!


----------



## Mephisto

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> EXAMIN ALL YOU LIKE BUT FACE THE TRUTH= AL,IGHTY GOD SAYS atheist are FOOLS!!! AND YOU?? I CHOSE TO BELIEVE GOD!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you believe despite the fact that any evidence proposed by theists to support the Bibles various historical and supernatural claims are non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.  The Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many religious texts.  The Bible is historically inaccurate, factually incorrect, inconsistent and contradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time.
> 
> And you do know if you were born in Saudi Arabia you would not believe the jesus story, right?  Your parents would have brainwashed you with the mohammad/allah story and you'd be a muslim retard instead of a christian one like you are today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO!!! WHAT ELSE DOES ANYONE EXPECT FROM A FOOL'S POST????????? THE HOLYBIBLE IS GOD INSPIRED(GOD BREATHED) AND IS " self-authenticating". Bible prophecy is a great proof that the bible is GOD'S TRUTH. NO MAN overv 2000 years ago could tell us about the future in such detail and be 100% RIGHT ON!!! THINK!!!!
Click to expand...


Well...what did the bible predict?


----------



## GISMYS

Mephisto said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you believe despite the fact that any evidence proposed by theists to support the Bibles various historical and supernatural claims are non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.  The Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many religious texts.  The Bible is historically inaccurate, factually incorrect, inconsistent and contradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time.
> 
> And you do know if you were born in Saudi Arabia you would not believe the jesus story, right?  Your parents would have brainwashed you with the mohammad/allah story and you'd be a muslim retard instead of a christian one like you are today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO!!! WHAT ELSE DOES ANYONE EXPECT FROM A FOOL'S POST????????? THE HOLYBIBLE IS GOD INSPIRED(GOD BREATHED) AND IS " self-authenticating". Bible prophecy is a great proof that the bible is GOD'S TRUTH. NO MAN overv 2000 years ago could tell us about the future in such detail and be 100% RIGHT ON!!! THINK!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well...what did the bible predict?
Click to expand...


""Well...what did the bible predict?"" WOW!!!  THE BIBLE TELLS US THE FUTURE EVENTS IN GREAT DETAIL. THE NEXT BIG EVENTS ARE WWIII,THE RAPTURE,THE 31/2 YEARS OF THE GREAT TRIBULATION, THE RETURN OF JESUS TO EARTHND THE START OF ETERNITY ON A RE-NEWED TO PERFECTION EARTH AND CREATION GIVEN TO US IN GREAT DETAIL


----------



## Steven_R

I've been bandying words with you, but truth be told, I can't decide if you're playing a caricature of the stereotypical religious nut or if you actually believe this stuff you're spouting.


----------



## Mephisto

GISMYS said:


> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO!!! WHAT ELSE DOES ANYONE EXPECT FROM A FOOL'S POST????????? THE HOLYBIBLE IS GOD INSPIRED(GOD BREATHED) AND IS " self-authenticating". Bible prophecy is a great proof that the bible is GOD'S TRUTH. NO MAN overv 2000 years ago could tell us about the future in such detail and be 100% RIGHT ON!!! THINK!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well...what did the bible predict?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ""Well...what did the bible predict?"" WOW!!!  THE BIBLE TELLS US THE FUTURE EVENTS IN GREAT DETAIL. THE NEXT BIG EVENTS ARE WWIII,THE RAPTURE,THE 31/2 YEARS OF THE GREAT TRIBULATION, THE RETURN OF JESUS TO EARTHND THE START OF ETERNITY ON A RE-NEWED TO PERFECTION EARTH AND CREATION GIVEN TO US IN GREAT DETAIL
Click to expand...


And none of this has come to happen yet.  2014 years and, not a single prediction has come true.

Did you not say that the rapture would soon be at hand...in 2013?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Steven_R said:


> I've been bandying words with you, but truth be told, I can't decide if you're playing a caricature of the stereotypical religious nut or if you actually believe this stuff you're spouting.



I'm right with you, I suspect that GISMYS is the Westboro baptist of the board - his intent is to defame Christians by acting insane.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> EXAMIN ALL YOU LIKE BUT FACE THE TRUTH= AL,IGHTY GOD SAYS atheist are FOOLS!!! AND YOU?? I CHOSE TO BELIEVE GOD!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you believe despite the fact that any evidence proposed by theists to support the Bibles various historical and supernatural claims are non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.  The Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many religious texts.  The Bible is historically inaccurate, factually incorrect, inconsistent and contradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time.
> 
> And you do know if you were born in Saudi Arabia you would not believe the jesus story, right?  Your parents would have brainwashed you with the mohammad/allah story and you'd be a muslim retard instead of a christian one like you are today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO!!! WHAT ELSE DOES ANYONE EXPECT FROM A FOOL'S POST????????? THE HOLYBIBLE IS GOD INSPIRED(GOD BREATHED) AND IS " self-authenticating". Bible prophecy is a great proof that the bible is GOD'S TRUTH. NO MAN overv 2000 years ago could tell us about the future in such detail and be 100% RIGHT ON!!! THINK!!!!
Click to expand...


What about Nostradamus?  

And this is the problem with religion.  Why stop polluting?  What does it matter?  The lord has a plan for us.  No point even trying to do the right thing.  In fact, the bible thumpers seem to be pushing for war with Iran, China and Russia.  They want us to go to war with the middle east over Isreal, rather than try to work out piece.  No sense in trying that because god says the end times are upon us.  

Now I see why you guys hate science.  Motivation for belief in a divine, salvational Jesus breaks down when you accept evolution:

Darwin did not set out to undermine the grand narrative of Christianity, but his theory of evolution through natural selection led to conclusions that were diametrically opposite to those that Christians traditionally believed and proclaimed. The research carried out under the paradigm of evolution brought to light that Augustines convictions on 'original sin' and death could no longer be held. However, conservative theologians and church members are reluctant to acknowledge this.  Nevertheless, a change in traditional theology is a prerequisite for any meaningful dialogue between religion and science.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO!!! WHAT ELSE DOES ANYONE EXPECT FROM A FOOL'S POST????????? THE HOLYBIBLE IS GOD INSPIRED(GOD BREATHED) AND IS " self-authenticating". Bible prophecy is a great proof that the bible is GOD'S TRUTH. NO MAN overv 2000 years ago could tell us about the future in such detail and be 100% RIGHT ON!!! THINK!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well...what did the bible predict?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ""Well...what did the bible predict?"" WOW!!!  THE BIBLE TELLS US THE FUTURE EVENTS IN GREAT DETAIL. THE NEXT BIG EVENTS ARE WWIII,THE RAPTURE,THE 31/2 YEARS OF THE GREAT TRIBULATION, THE RETURN OF JESUS TO EARTHND THE START OF ETERNITY ON A RE-NEWED TO PERFECTION EARTH AND CREATION GIVEN TO US IN GREAT DETAIL
Click to expand...


Wow, the bible predicts a big war, around this time.  Go figure.  What century hasn't there been a big war?  And aren't you getting ahead of yourself assuming the bible accurately predicted the rapture or the 31/2 years of tribulation?  

I just love it that 50 years ago all these members at USMB would have probably agreed with you.  Today a lot of people are waking up to the fact that christianity is just another bullshit man made religion.  Christians don't know what the fuck they are talking about and you are about as dumb as they cum.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well...what did the bible predict?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ""Well...what did the bible predict?"" WOW!!!  THE BIBLE TELLS US THE FUTURE EVENTS IN GREAT DETAIL. THE NEXT BIG EVENTS ARE WWIII,THE RAPTURE,THE 31/2 YEARS OF THE GREAT TRIBULATION, THE RETURN OF JESUS TO EARTHND THE START OF ETERNITY ON A RE-NEWED TO PERFECTION EARTH AND CREATION GIVEN TO US IN GREAT DETAIL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, the bible predicts a big war, around this time.  Go figure.  What century hasn't there been a big war?  And aren't you getting ahead of yourself assuming the bible accurately predicted the rapture or the 31/2 years of tribulation?
> 
> I just love it that 50 years ago all these members at USMB would have probably agreed with you.  Today a lot of people are waking up to the fact that christianity is just another bullshit man made religion.  Christians don't know what the fuck they are talking about and you are about as dumb as they cum.
Click to expand...


""Wow, the bible predicts a big war, around this time.  Go figure."" YES!!! THE BIBLE TELLS US WHAT NATIONS WILL FIGHT,WHERE AND WHY THE WAR STARTS,WHO THE WINNER IS ,WHAT THE NUMBER OF DEAD WILL BE!!!  AND HOW LONG TO BURY THE DEAD. PRETTY AWESOME FOR A BOOK WRITTEN OVER 2000 YEARS AGO!!! HUH???


----------



## Mephisto

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> ""Well...what did the bible predict?"" WOW!!!  THE BIBLE TELLS US THE FUTURE EVENTS IN GREAT DETAIL. THE NEXT BIG EVENTS ARE WWIII,THE RAPTURE,THE 31/2 YEARS OF THE GREAT TRIBULATION, THE RETURN OF JESUS TO EARTHND THE START OF ETERNITY ON A RE-NEWED TO PERFECTION EARTH AND CREATION GIVEN TO US IN GREAT DETAIL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, the bible predicts a big war, around this time.  Go figure.  What century hasn't there been a big war?  And aren't you getting ahead of yourself assuming the bible accurately predicted the rapture or the 31/2 years of tribulation?
> 
> I just love it that 50 years ago all these members at USMB would have probably agreed with you.  Today a lot of people are waking up to the fact that christianity is just another bullshit man made religion.  Christians don't know what the fuck they are talking about and you are about as dumb as they cum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ""Wow, the bible predicts a big war, around this time.  Go figure."" YES!!! THE BIBLE TELLS US WHAT NATIONS WILL FIGHT,WHERE AND WHY THE WAR STARTS,WHO THE WINNER IS ,WHAT THE NUMBER OF DEAD WILL BE!!!  AND HOW LONG TO BURY THE DEAD. PRETTY AWESOME FOR A BOOK WRITTEN OVER 2000 YEARS AGO!!! HUH???
Click to expand...


Who wins?  Does the US get the three-peat?


----------



## GISMYS

mephisto said:


> gismys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> wow, the bible predicts a big war, around this time.  Go figure.  What century hasn't there been a big war?  And aren't you getting ahead of yourself assuming the bible accurately predicted the rapture or the 31/2 years of tribulation?
> 
> I just love it that 50 years ago all these members at usmb would have probably agreed with you.  Today a lot of people are waking up to the fact that christianity is just another bullshit man made religion.  Christians don't know what the fuck they are talking about and you are about as dumb as they cum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ""wow, the bible predicts a big war, around this time.  Go figure."" yes!!! The bible tells us what nations will fight,where and why the war starts,who the winner is ,what the number of dead will be!!!  And how long to bury the dead. Pretty awesome for a book written over 2000 years ago!!! Huh???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> who wins?  Does the us get the three-peat?
Click to expand...


iran,syria and other muslim nations backed by russia fight against tiny israel and are defeated  5/6 of their army are killed and  it takes seven months for the jewish people to bury them.


----------



## Mephisto

GISMYS said:


> mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gismys said:
> 
> 
> 
> ""wow, the bible predicts a big war, around this time.  Go figure."" yes!!! The bible tells us what nations will fight,where and why the war starts,who the winner is ,what the number of dead will be!!!  And how long to bury the dead. Pretty awesome for a book written over 2000 years ago!!! Huh???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> who wins?  Does the us get the three-peat?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> iran,syria and other muslim nations backed by russia fight against tiny israel and are defeated  5/6 of their army are killed and  it takes seven months for the jewish people to bury them.
Click to expand...



wait...so no one comes to the aid of Israel?


----------



## GISMYS

Mephisto said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> who wins?  Does the us get the three-peat?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iran,syria and other muslim nations backed by russia fight against tiny israel and are defeated  5/6 of their army are killed and  it takes seven months for the jewish people to bury them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> wait...so no one comes to the aid of Israel?
Click to expand...


ALMIGHTY GOD FIGHTS FOR ISRAEL, NO OTHER HELP IS NEEDED!!! Israel shall know it was GOD that saved them and they will turn to GOD!!!!


----------



## Mephisto

GISMYS said:


> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> iran,syria and other muslim nations backed by russia fight against tiny israel and are defeated  5/6 of their army are killed and  it takes seven months for the jewish people to bury them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wait...so no one comes to the aid of Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ALMIGHTY GOD FIGHTS FOR ISRAEL, NO OTHER HELP IS NEEDED!!! Israel shall know it was GOD that saved them and they will turn to GOD!!!!
Click to expand...


I'm sure that makes Israel sleep better at night.  Well let's pull our aid from them since god fights for them.


----------



## GISMYS

Mephisto said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> wait...so no one comes to the aid of Israel?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ALMIGHTY GOD FIGHTS FOR ISRAEL, NO OTHER HELP IS NEEDED!!! Israel shall know it was GOD that saved them and they will turn to GOD!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure that makes Israel sleep better at night.  Well let's pull our aid from them since god fights for them.
Click to expand...


YES!!! NO MAN OR NATION THAT HAS GOD FIGHTING FOR THEM HAS ANY NEED FOR help from little man!


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> ""Well...what did the bible predict?"" WOW!!!  THE BIBLE TELLS US THE FUTURE EVENTS IN GREAT DETAIL. THE NEXT BIG EVENTS ARE WWIII,THE RAPTURE,THE 31/2 YEARS OF THE GREAT TRIBULATION, THE RETURN OF JESUS TO EARTHND THE START OF ETERNITY ON A RE-NEWED TO PERFECTION EARTH AND CREATION GIVEN TO US IN GREAT DETAIL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, the bible predicts a big war, around this time.  Go figure.  What century hasn't there been a big war?  And aren't you getting ahead of yourself assuming the bible accurately predicted the rapture or the 31/2 years of tribulation?
> 
> I just love it that 50 years ago all these members at USMB would have probably agreed with you.  Today a lot of people are waking up to the fact that christianity is just another bullshit man made religion.  Christians don't know what the fuck they are talking about and you are about as dumb as they cum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ""Wow, the bible predicts a big war, around this time.  Go figure."" YES!!! THE BIBLE TELLS US WHAT NATIONS WILL FIGHT,WHERE AND WHY THE WAR STARTS,WHO THE WINNER IS ,WHAT THE NUMBER OF DEAD WILL BE!!!  AND HOW LONG TO BURY THE DEAD. PRETTY AWESOME FOR A BOOK WRITTEN OVER 2000 YEARS AGO!!! HUH???
Click to expand...


Show me where they predicted these things and were proven right.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, the bible predicts a big war, around this time.  Go figure.  What century hasn't there been a big war?  And aren't you getting ahead of yourself assuming the bible accurately predicted the rapture or the 31/2 years of tribulation?
> 
> I just love it that 50 years ago all these members at USMB would have probably agreed with you.  Today a lot of people are waking up to the fact that christianity is just another bullshit man made religion.  Christians don't know what the fuck they are talking about and you are about as dumb as they cum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ""Wow, the bible predicts a big war, around this time.  Go figure."" YES!!! THE BIBLE TELLS US WHAT NATIONS WILL FIGHT,WHERE AND WHY THE WAR STARTS,WHO THE WINNER IS ,WHAT THE NUMBER OF DEAD WILL BE!!!  AND HOW LONG TO BURY THE DEAD. PRETTY AWESOME FOR A BOOK WRITTEN OVER 2000 YEARS AGO!!! HUH???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me where they predicted these things and were proven right.
Click to expand...


show you????????????? SHOW YOURSELF,READ GOD'S WORD. NOT ONE BIBLE PROPHECY HAS EVER FAILED!!!


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> ALMIGHTY GOD FIGHTS FOR ISRAEL, NO OTHER HELP IS NEEDED!!! Israel shall know it was GOD that saved them and they will turn to GOD!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure that makes Israel sleep better at night.  Well let's pull our aid from them since god fights for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YES!!! NO MAN OR NATION THAT HAS GOD FIGHTING FOR THEM HAS ANY NEED FOR help from little man!
Click to expand...


You should pray to Nastrodaumus dumbass.  

He predicted a lot too and a lot of it came true.  What say you?


----------



## Mephisto

GISMYS said:


> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> ALMIGHTY GOD FIGHTS FOR ISRAEL, NO OTHER HELP IS NEEDED!!! Israel shall know it was GOD that saved them and they will turn to GOD!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure that makes Israel sleep better at night.  Well let's pull our aid from them since god fights for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YES!!! NO MAN OR NATION THAT HAS GOD FIGHTING FOR THEM HAS ANY NEED FOR help from little man!
Click to expand...


Aside from the fact that revelations is written about the Roman empire...


----------



## GISMYS

Mephisto said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure that makes Israel sleep better at night.  Well let's pull our aid from them since god fights for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YES!!! NO MAN OR NATION THAT HAS GOD FIGHTING FOR THEM HAS ANY NEED FOR help from little man!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aside from the fact that revelations is written about the Roman empire...
Click to expand...


LOL!!! YOUR IGNORANCE KNOWS NO BOUNDS!!!! but why show the world???


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Even if there is a spiritual connection, it causes thinking in humanity we don't see anywhere else.  Therefore, that would be 'special thinking' in this context.



Well now you're being totally ridiculous. Spirituality caused special thinking that enables us to think up Spirituality???   A bit of circular logic there. 

I do agree, our human spiritual connection does cause us to think differently, spawning all kinds of other attributes not found in other species. The argument is over whether the connection is real or false, and I maintain it must be real. A false connection would not have yielded these results and humans would have abandoned spirituality if there were nothing to it. From a totally rational perspective, one must consider either mankind believes they are making a spiritual connection, or they actually are making one. 



> If it takes 'real fucking moronic idiots to imagine something that isn't there in order to console fear and the unknown, and then do that their entire existence', and you don't believe that any religions are correct, then you are saying that is exactly what humanity has done, at the same time you say you don't believe they have done it.  Perhaps the religions were created to try and explain spiritual connection, but they would still be made up.



Well no... Religions are based on something real, a spiritual connection. They are our way of trying to comprehend that connection. We didn't make up the spiritual connection and then create all these religions to comprehend what we made up for all of our existence, believing that it gave us great benefits and warded off dangers, console fears, etc. That just makes no sense whatsoever. 



> Two things.  First, communication and language are not the same thing.  Humans can communicate without language, but out language allows the exchange of very complex ideas which we have not observed in other animals.  250 calls for crows?  For animals, that's pretty impressive.  How many different words are there in any given human language?  Oh, and whales can communicate for miles?  What the hell does that have to do with complex language?



Language is a form of communication. We observe animals communicating all the time, some have 'languages' and some don't. The reason we have very complex ideas that need exchanging is because we are spiritually inspired creatures. This is what other animals lack that we have. 



> There is a difference between instinct and reasoning.  Do you think that each individual bee reasons its way to pick flowers?  Is the sense of smell suddenly an outgrowth of intelligence; are animals with low intelligence unable to smell as well?  Is hibernation based on intelligence, on the hibernating animal's ability to reason out the correct way to deal with winter?  Other animals can do amazing things, but few of those things appear to be based on intelligence and reasoning or imagination.  Why you are conflating every action or ability of a creature with its intelligence I have no idea.



I'm just making the point that other animals have knowledge of things we don't have. Perhaps it is through better senses or instincts? Our capabilities are exemplary because we are spiritually connected creatures. We have a source of power to draw from that other animals don't have. 



> Why would we see other species evolve the same intelligence as humanity?  That assumes a direction behind evolution; some intelligence sees that human ingenuity works, and so will provide the same for another animal.  You all too often make claims about evolution which, even with just a layman's understanding, are obviously untrue.



Stands to reason if inventing imaginary playmates to ward off fears or console in the unknown works for humans, that other animals would do it. Maybe not to the same degree, but at least to some degree, one example in a billion or something. The thing is, this meme has no basis of support in anything we've observed in nature. Other animals don't grapple with mortality or fear the unknown. They certainly don't create fake placebos and adopt meaningless rituals to console themselves, and then do that for all their existence even though there is no real benefit. 



> The observable evidence shows that humans have something other animals don't, we agree.  You diverge from the observable evidence with your hypothesis that it is spiritual connection, whereas *human intelligence, reasoning and imagination* are things we have observed to work differently than in other animals.



And all of those things come through our spiritual inspiration as spiritually connected creatures. We obviously didn't gain these attributes through evolution or we'd see signs of it in our common ancestors. 



> Based on your own beliefs, a large percentage of humanity has ignored logic and common sense in believing the various religions, which you have said you think are false.  Oh, but wait, believing in falsehoods makes perfect sense so long as you can relate it to spiritual connection, right?



I've not said any religion is "false". I have said they are flawed because they were created by man and man is flawed. 



> You post as though fear of death, questions about the possibility of the afterlife, the creation of the universe and life, etc. are either already answered or not important enough for people to search out answers and comfort about.  Are you serious?  You say god did it isn't an answer....yet people have been satisfied with that as an answer to numerous questions throughout human history.



Well, no they haven't been satisfied with that. They created Science! They've also created new religions and modified old ones. My point was that no other species is concerned with mortality or afterlife, they aren't spiritually aware of anything beyond the physical. We have these 'important' questions because we are aware, we are spiritually connected to something greater than self. 



> Clearly, what you consider inadequate most people have disagreed with you on.  On this issue you appear to be in agreement with the atheists and agnostics of the world.
> 
> The point about conclusive evidence doesn't elude me.  You are the one who continues to make statements as though they are obvious facts without providing any real evidence of them.  That's pretty much the theme of this entire thread.



I don't care who disagrees with me. Some people do. They live for acceptance and being liked by others. For me, I couldn't care less. Now I think I have supported all of my viewpoints with compelling arguments, whether you acknowledge my evidence or not, is really irrelevant to me. I've shot down the various memes to explain away spirituality in humans and destroyed those arguments. I can't prove anything to you, and I'm probably never going to change your mind, but I bet I've made you think. That's all I'm really after here.


----------



## Mephisto

GISMYS said:


> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> YES!!! NO MAN OR NATION THAT HAS GOD FIGHTING FOR THEM HAS ANY NEED FOR help from little man!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aside from the fact that revelations is written about the Roman empire...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!!! YOUR IGNORANCE KNOWS NO BOUNDS!!!! but why show the world???
Click to expand...


Revelation is an anti-Roman tract and a piece of war propaganda wrapped in one. The message: God would return and destroy the Romans who had destroyed Jerusalem.


----------



## GISMYS

Mephisto said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aside from the fact that revelations is written about the Roman empire...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!!! YOUR IGNORANCE KNOWS NO BOUNDS!!!! but why show the world???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Revelation is an anti-Roman tract and a piece of war propaganda wrapped in one. The message: God would return and destroy the Romans who had destroyed Jerusalem.
Click to expand...


YOU REALLY LOOK IGNORANT WHEN YOU TRY TO DEBATE WHAT YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT!!! Why do that????


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even if there is a spiritual connection, it causes thinking in humanity we don't see anywhere else.  Therefore, that would be 'special thinking' in this context.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well now you're being totally ridiculous. Spirituality caused special thinking that enables us to think up Spirituality???   A bit of circular logic there.
> 
> I do agree, our human spiritual connection does cause us to think differently, spawning all kinds of other attributes not found in other species. The argument is over whether the connection is real or false, and I maintain it must be real. A false connection would not have yielded these results and humans would have abandoned spirituality if there were nothing to it. From a totally rational perspective, one must consider either mankind believes they are making a spiritual connection, or they actually are making one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it takes 'real fucking moronic idiots to imagine something that isn't there in order to console fear and the unknown, and then do that their entire existence', and you don't believe that any religions are correct, then you are saying that is exactly what humanity has done, at the same time you say you don't believe they have done it.  Perhaps the religions were created to try and explain spiritual connection, but they would still be made up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well no... Religions are based on something real, a spiritual connection. They are our way of trying to comprehend that connection. We didn't make up the spiritual connection and then create all these religions to comprehend what we made up for all of our existence, believing that it gave us great benefits and warded off dangers, console fears, etc. That just makes no sense whatsoever.
> 
> 
> 
> Language is a form of communication. We observe animals communicating all the time, some have 'languages' and some don't. The reason we have very complex ideas that need exchanging is because we are spiritually inspired creatures. This is what other animals lack that we have.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just making the point that other animals have knowledge of things we don't have. Perhaps it is through better senses or instincts? Our capabilities are exemplary because we are spiritually connected creatures. We have a source of power to draw from that other animals don't have.
> 
> 
> 
> Stands to reason if inventing imaginary playmates to ward off fears or console in the unknown works for humans, that other animals would do it. Maybe not to the same degree, but at least to some degree, one example in a billion or something. The thing is, this meme has no basis of support in anything we've observed in nature. Other animals don't grapple with mortality or fear the unknown. They certainly don't create fake placebos and adopt meaningless rituals to console themselves, and then do that for all their existence even though there is no real benefit.
> 
> 
> 
> And all of those things come through our spiritual inspiration as spiritually connected creatures. We obviously didn't gain these attributes through evolution or we'd see signs of it in our common ancestors.
> 
> 
> 
> I've not said any religion is "false". I have said they are flawed because they were created by man and man is flawed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You post as though fear of death, questions about the possibility of the afterlife, the creation of the universe and life, etc. are either already answered or not important enough for people to search out answers and comfort about.  Are you serious?  You say god did it isn't an answer....yet people have been satisfied with that as an answer to numerous questions throughout human history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, no they haven't been satisfied with that. They created Science! They've also created new religions and modified old ones. My point was that no other species is concerned with mortality or afterlife, they aren't spiritually aware of anything beyond the physical. We have these 'important' questions because we are aware, we are spiritually connected to something greater than self.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly, what you consider inadequate most people have disagreed with you on.  On this issue you appear to be in agreement with the atheists and agnostics of the world.
> 
> The point about conclusive evidence doesn't elude me.  You are the one who continues to make statements as though they are obvious facts without providing any real evidence of them.  That's pretty much the theme of this entire thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't care who disagrees with me. Some people do. They live for acceptance and being liked by others. For me, I couldn't care less. Now I think I have supported all of my viewpoints with compelling arguments, whether you acknowledge my evidence or not, is really irrelevant to me. I've shot down the various memes to explain away spirituality in humans and destroyed those arguments. I can't prove anything to you, and I'm probably never going to change your mind, but I bet I've made you think. That's all I'm really after here.
Click to expand...


You said humans would have abandoned spirituality if there were nothing to it.  A.  Not necessarily and B.  Who says we arent moving that way?  

You then said we didn't make up the spiritual connection and then create all these religions to comprehend what we made up for all of our existence.  Yes we did.

You said the reason we have very complex ideas that need exchanging is because we are spiritually inspired creatures.  Not a fact.

Our capabilities are exemplary because we are spiritually connected creatures.  Another thing you say as fact that isnt fact.

No other animals has a brain big/smart enough to have an imagination or come up with the concept of god.  That doesnt make god real or men smart.  It just makes us the smartest animal on this planet capable of imagination.  What other animals sit around and imagine fairy tales?  A lot of your conclusions are incorrect.  Youve also said you experienced god.  Science has explained that too.  Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.  Actually, that isnt 100% true because if man made up god thousands of years ago we could presumably make it up again.  But without the thousands of years of brainwashing weve gotten from the god believers and with the science we have today, I doubt the concept would catch on today like it did back then.  No one is killing you for doubting today.  And if you did make it up today, you wouldn't have come up with the noah, adam and eve, moses stories unless either someone told you those stories and you believed them or if god himself told you.  Today we rely on our churches and parents to brainwash us with religion.  Even if you one day wise up and doubt christianity, you are the perfect example of someone who believes despite all the facts.  

Here is science telling you your hunch is wrong:  Morality is a cultural concept with a basis in evolutionary psychology and game theory. Species whose members were predisposed to cooperate were more likely to survive and pass on their genes. Reciprocacy, altruism and other so-called moral characteristics are evident in many species. The neurochemical thought to regulate morality and empathy is oxytocin.  Religious texts are simply part of many early attempts to codify moral precepts. Secular law, flexible with the shifting moral zeitgeist, has long since superseded religion as a source of moral directives for the majority of developed societies. Secular ethics offers a number of competing moral frameworks which do not derive from a purported supernatural source.
Question?  How did Buddhists come up with the concept that there is no god?  If they came up with it it must be true, just like you say god is true because we instinctively invented one.  Nontheism plays a significant roles in Buddhism and Hinduism. While many approaches to religion exclude nontheism by definition, there are some inclusive definitions that show how religious practice and belief do not depend on the presence of god(s). For example: "religion can be defined as a relatively-bounded system of beliefs, symbols and practices that addresses the nature of existence, and in which communion with others and Otherness is lived as if it both takes in and spiritually transcends socially-grounded ontologies of time, space, embodiment and knowing".


----------



## Mephisto

GISMYS said:


> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!!! YOUR IGNORANCE KNOWS NO BOUNDS!!!! but why show the world???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Revelation is an anti-Roman tract and a piece of war propaganda wrapped in one. The message: God would return and destroy the Romans who had destroyed Jerusalem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOU REALLY LOOK IGNORANT WHEN YOU TRY TO DEBATE WHAT YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT!!! Why do that????
Click to expand...


oh the irony of your statement


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> As for God being malevolent, I don't think this is possible. Mankind has been gaining courage and strength from the spiritual since we began to walk upright, according to archeology. This is largely why the attribute of human spirituality is so persistent in our history.
> 
> Here's where we finally agree. Human spirituality is largely attributable to mankind gaining something from it, getting courage and strength from it, and not because of any actual connection to a Spiritual Nature. You just made my case for me perfectly. Well done!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> spirituality is a reaction to the unknown and to the fear of mortality, and it never goes away because the unknown NEVER goes away and we all have a 100% mortality rate, and that never changes. We pray, not to stop the lions from eating us, but because we know they will.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you spew nonsense you've read on some Atheists blog. To scientifically state that humans "invented" spirituality, you need to find the point in human history that happened. You can't, because from the very oldest civilizations we are aware of, humans already had spirituality. What you are doing is speculating from the point of disbelief. God can't be real so humans must have invented spirituality.
> 
> Never been to an atheist blog. Sorry to disappoint you.
> My argument gets a lot closer to a scientific one than yours does. I am using a far simpler explanation than inventing a completely unseen, unknowable entity.
> Spirituality wasn't "invented", as the term implies an intention to create something preconceived. Spirituality, as you said, is largely a result of man needing to cope and reacting to that need spontaneously. As natural as a mother's love.
> I am not "speculating from the point of disbelief" as I don't have disbelief. I have no data. I am not an atheist. I have told you this many times. Your choosing to ignore this tells us you prefer to argue from your preconceived notions rather than what you actually know.
> Which is a character thing.
> 
> You don't seem to understand how you just refuted your own argument here... if the unknown never goes away, then what was the point of creating something imaginary to explain it, which doesn't actually explain anything? Seems a bit ridiculous to me. And why the hell would 88% of the species still believe in something spiritual?
> 
> No refutation at all, but I think you already know this. If the unknown never goes away, neither does the need to cope with it. The spiritual solution arbitrarily satisfies this need and creates a solution that not only can't be verified, but doesn't require the believer to do so. 88% of the population find this comfort far more compelling than facing any kind of unpleasantness.
> 
> Mortality is also not a very sound rationalization. No other species we know of has even understood mortality, much less had a fear of it that couldn't be dealt with. Man only comprehends mortality because he is aware of spiritual immortality. So you have your cart ahead of your horse here. It is through our spiritual connection to the immortal that we developed fears regarding our own mortality.
> 
> More silly! Man has the intellectual capacity to understand that when his buddy keels over and croaks, he can extrapolate that the same thing is likely to happen to him. Your crows don't get this. No spiritual connection necessary. He fears the abyss.
> 
> But somehow... some way... we're supposed to accept that humans, for 100k years or more, have believed in some false spiritual connection which (if false) can provide no tangible benefits, all because it doesn't explain the unknown or rectify what we fear? This doesn't even make rational sense.
Click to expand...


Au contraire! The spiritual connection has great benefits to the believer in comfort and fear reduction. The object of the connection is irrelevant. The reality of the object is irrelevant. Only the belief is necessary to accomplish the goal of fear reduction. As you so eloquently put it, "Mankind has been gaining courage and strength from the spiritual since we began to walk upright, according to archeology. This is largely why the attribute of human spirituality is so persistent in our history."
Psychology 101 talks about the absolute necessity of rationalizations for the protection of the psyche in man. It is a staple, a knee-jerk reaction to coping with our own failings and shortcomings. I am not talking about crows figuring out how to do a task, so please don't drag out that derailment again. I am talking about the psychological term that describes the use of a false narrative to explain a dubious behavior. This is man's exlusive domain. It has not been documented in the animal world.
So to imagine this would continue throughout the history of man isn't shocking, it is expected. 
It is what we do.


----------



## HUGGY

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even if there is a spiritual connection, it causes thinking in humanity we don't see anywhere else.  Therefore, that would be 'special thinking' in this context.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well now you're being totally ridiculous. Spirituality caused special thinking that enables us to think up Spirituality???   A bit of circular logic there.
> 
> I do agree, our human spiritual connection does cause us to think differently, spawning all kinds of other attributes not found in other species. The argument is over whether the connection is real or false, and I maintain it must be real. A false connection would not have yielded these results and humans would have abandoned spirituality if there were nothing to it. From a totally rational perspective, one must consider either mankind believes they are making a spiritual connection, or they actually are making one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it takes 'real fucking moronic idiots to imagine something that isn't there in order to console fear and the unknown, and then do that their entire existence', and you don't believe that any religions are correct, then you are saying that is exactly what humanity has done, at the same time you say you don't believe they have done it.  Perhaps the religions were created to try and explain spiritual connection, but they would still be made up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well no... Religions are based on something real, a spiritual connection. They are our way of trying to comprehend that connection. We didn't make up the spiritual connection and then create all these religions to comprehend what we made up for all of our existence, believing that it gave us great benefits and warded off dangers, console fears, etc. That just makes no sense whatsoever.
> 
> 
> 
> Language is a form of communication. We observe animals communicating all the time, some have 'languages' and some don't. The reason we have very complex ideas that need exchanging is because we are spiritually inspired creatures. This is what other animals lack that we have.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just making the point that other animals have knowledge of things we don't have. Perhaps it is through better senses or instincts? Our capabilities are exemplary because we are spiritually connected creatures. We have a source of power to draw from that other animals don't have.
> 
> 
> 
> Stands to reason if inventing imaginary playmates to ward off fears or console in the unknown works for humans, that other animals would do it. Maybe not to the same degree, but at least to some degree, one example in a billion or something. The thing is, this meme has no basis of support in anything we've observed in nature. Other animals don't grapple with mortality or fear the unknown. They certainly don't create fake placebos and adopt meaningless rituals to console themselves, and then do that for all their existence even though there is no real benefit.
> 
> 
> 
> And all of those things come through our spiritual inspiration as spiritually connected creatures. We obviously didn't gain these attributes through evolution or we'd see signs of it in our common ancestors.
> 
> 
> 
> I've not said any religion is "false". I have said they are flawed because they were created by man and man is flawed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You post as though fear of death, questions about the possibility of the afterlife, the creation of the universe and life, etc. are either already answered or not important enough for people to search out answers and comfort about.  Are you serious?  You say god did it isn't an answer....yet people have been satisfied with that as an answer to numerous questions throughout human history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, no they haven't been satisfied with that. They created Science! They've also created new religions and modified old ones. My point was that no other species is concerned with mortality or afterlife, they aren't spiritually aware of anything beyond the physical. We have these 'important' questions because we are aware, we are spiritually connected to something greater than self.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly, what you consider inadequate most people have disagreed with you on.  On this issue you appear to be in agreement with the atheists and agnostics of the world.
> 
> The point about conclusive evidence doesn't elude me.  You are the one who continues to make statements as though they are obvious facts without providing any real evidence of them.  That's pretty much the theme of this entire thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't care who disagrees with me. Some people do. They live for acceptance and being liked by others. For me, I couldn't care less.
> 
> *Do you seriously think atheists base their conclusions on a need for an individual's popularity?  *
> 
> Now I think I have supported all of my viewpoints with compelling arguments, whether you acknowledge my evidence or not, is really irrelevant to me.
> 
> *Interesting and amusing disclaimer.  *
> 
> I've shot down the various memes to explain away spirituality in humans and destroyed those arguments. I can't prove anything to you, and I'm probably never going to change your mind
> 
> * As in most of your offerings ... self serving and patently untrue .. It isn't about YOU ..it is your words that don't convince *
> 
> , but I bet I've made you think. That's all I'm really after here.
Click to expand...


*What most theists and in your case "spiritualists" assume incorrectly is that typical atheists haven't thought out their positions on the existance of a god before laying out an argument on a forum like USMB. 

Atheists do not need to convince ourselves of the non existance of a god.  We do not need to conjur up some "faith" to fall back on when arguing our thoughts about god and religion.  Try not to take it personally when you discover that you will not be the one to convince an atheist that we are wrong and you are right.

The religists have had several thousands of years to come up with a convincing story and have failed.*


----------



## MaryL

Why do god haters persist? Why is it God never shows up when ya need him? Never ever, pray, beg, cry, plead. Nothing. Really? Why is it you always hear about miracles, or when someone down the street gets cured of cancer. It's God's grace. When YOU don't get that same grace, it's god's will.  OH, so mysterious. So full of shit.


----------



## MaxGrit

MaryL said:


> Why do god haters persist? Why is it God never shows up when ya need him? Never ever, pray, beg, cry, plead. Nothing. Really? Why is it you always hear about miracles, or when someone down the street gets cured of cancer. It's God's grace. When YOU don't get that same grace, it's god's will.  OH, so mysterious. So full of shit.



What is the distinction between God's grace and God's will?

Or are you too stupid to know what you are talking about?


----------



## Rockland

GISMYS said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> I WILL GIVE YOU SOME HELP!!! THERE IS ONLY ONE TRUE ALMIGHTY GOD AND ALL others are demon inspired false so called gods!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever you say, dear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> GET off your lasy fat &%$ {blah blah blah}
Click to expand...


Somehow I doubt God ever said "GET off your lasy fat &%$."  If he did, your god is an even bigger asshole than I thought.


----------



## Boss

> HuggyBear: What most theists and in your case "spiritualists" assume incorrectly is that typical atheists haven't thought out their positions on the existance (sic) of a god before laying out an argument on a forum like USMB.
> 
> Atheists do not need to convince ourselves of the non existance of a god. We do not need to conjur up some "faith" to fall back on when arguing our thoughts about god and religion. Try not to take it personally when you discover that you will not be the one to convince an atheist that we are wrong and you are right.
> 
> The religists have had several thousands of years to come up with a convincing story and have failed.



This is too hilarious not to respond to. First of all, you are incorrect, I have assumed no such thing. I think Atheists have thought out their positions, they are just really stupid people. They form arguments which are full of illogical and irrational points without any basis in science or observable nature, then parade those around as if they are facts. When challenged, they look down their snooty nose and recite some mantra from their Atheist heroes, toss out a few insults at religion and think they've "won" a debate. 

As for FAITH, the Atheists are the people who have more actual FAITH than any religious person I know. It takes an enormous amount of faith to disbelieve what humans have known since we climbed out of the trees. To be so sure of yourself, to be so absolutely certain you are right... takes enormous amounts of sheer faith. Blind faith at that. To chalk everything you see around you up to happenstance and random chance, to reject man's inseparable connection to something spiritual for all our existence, to ignore that nearly 90% of us believe in something spiritual and always have.... Loads of faith! While people who have religious beliefs at least have some relevant documentation and history. 

As I stated in the post before, and apparently you were too dumb to comprehend, I don't really care if you agree with me personally. I don't fool myself into thinking I am going to change your mind, maybe you are the kind of fool who thinks that, but not me. I don't state arguments to support or endorse religions, or to "prove" religious dogma. My arguments are purely from a rational point of view from someone who has a distinct advantage over you. You see, I already know the truth here, I am aware of a spiritual nature that you don't realize. That's why I can shoot holes in all your "theories" about Man and God.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> HuggyBear: What most theists and in your case "spiritualists" assume incorrectly is that typical atheists haven't thought out their positions on the existance (sic) of a god before laying out an argument on a forum like USMB.
> 
> Atheists do not need to convince ourselves of the non existance of a god. We do not need to conjur up some "faith" to fall back on when arguing our thoughts about god and religion. Try not to take it personally when you discover that you will not be the one to convince an atheist that we are wrong and you are right.
> 
> The religists have had several thousands of years to come up with a convincing story and have failed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is too hilarious not to respond to. First of all, you are incorrect, I have assumed no such thing. I think Atheists have thought out their positions, they are just really stupid people. They form arguments which are full of illogical and irrational points without any basis in science or observable nature, then parade those around as if they are facts. When challenged, they look down their snooty nose and recite some mantra from their Atheist heroes, toss out a few insults at religion and think they've "won" a debate.
> 
> As for FAITH, the Atheists are the people who have more actual FAITH than any religious person I know. It takes an enormous amount of faith to disbelieve what humans have known since we climbed out of the trees. To be so sure of yourself, to be so absolutely certain you are right... takes enormous amounts of sheer faith. Blind faith at that. To chalk everything you see around you up to happenstance and random chance, to reject man's inseparable connection to something spiritual for all our existence, to ignore that nearly 90% of us believe in something spiritual and always have.... Loads of faith! While people who have religious beliefs at least have some relevant documentation and history.
> 
> As I stated in the post before, and apparently you were too dumb to comprehend, I don't really care if you agree with me personally. I don't fool myself into thinking I am going to change your mind, maybe you are the kind of fool who thinks that, but not me. I don't state arguments to support or endorse religions, or to "prove" religious dogma. My arguments are purely from a rational point of view from someone who has a distinct advantage over you. You see, I already know the truth here, I am aware of a spiritual nature that you don't realize. That's why I can shoot holes in all your "theories" about Man and God.
Click to expand...


The typical slathering from a religious zealot. Anyone who doesn't agree with their inventions of spirit worlds and supernatural reals is "dumb". 

And as we see, boss "knows" truth about his spirit realms, thus his self-assessed superiority becomes "fact".


----------



## DriftingSand

Mephisto said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure that makes Israel sleep better at night.  Well let's pull our aid from them since god fights for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YES!!! NO MAN OR NATION THAT HAS GOD FIGHTING FOR THEM HAS ANY NEED FOR help from little man!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aside from the fact that revelations is written about the Roman empire...
Click to expand...


You've clearly never read the book of Revelation (singular ... not plural).  It actually discusses several kingdoms.  Preterists believe that the events discussed in that book have already taken place. Historicists believe that the events are ongoing and that some have taken place while others are yet to come. Futurists believe that the book foretells strictly future events.  But it covers a LOT more than just the Roman Empire.


----------



## DriftingSand

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HuggyBear: What most theists and in your case "spiritualists" assume incorrectly is that typical atheists haven't thought out their positions on the existance (sic) of a god before laying out an argument on a forum like USMB.
> 
> Atheists do not need to convince ourselves of the non existance of a god. We do not need to conjur up some "faith" to fall back on when arguing our thoughts about god and religion. Try not to take it personally when you discover that you will not be the one to convince an atheist that we are wrong and you are right.
> 
> The religists have had several thousands of years to come up with a convincing story and have failed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is too hilarious not to respond to. First of all, you are incorrect, I have assumed no such thing. I think Atheists have thought out their positions, they are just really stupid people. They form arguments which are full of illogical and irrational points without any basis in science or observable nature, then parade those around as if they are facts. When challenged, they look down their snooty nose and recite some mantra from their Atheist heroes, toss out a few insults at religion and think they've "won" a debate.
> 
> As for FAITH, the Atheists are the people who have more actual FAITH than any religious person I know. It takes an enormous amount of faith to disbelieve what humans have known since we climbed out of the trees. To be so sure of yourself, to be so absolutely certain you are right... takes enormous amounts of sheer faith. Blind faith at that. To chalk everything you see around you up to happenstance and random chance, to reject man's inseparable connection to something spiritual for all our existence, to ignore that nearly 90% of us believe in something spiritual and always have.... Loads of faith! While people who have religious beliefs at least have some relevant documentation and history.
> 
> As I stated in the post before, and apparently you were too dumb to comprehend, I don't really care if you agree with me personally. I don't fool myself into thinking I am going to change your mind, maybe you are the kind of fool who thinks that, but not me. I don't state arguments to support or endorse religions, or to "prove" religious dogma. My arguments are purely from a rational point of view from someone who has a distinct advantage over you. You see, I already know the truth here, I am aware of a spiritual nature that you don't realize. That's why I can shoot holes in all your "theories" about Man and God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The typical slathering from a religious zealot. Anyone who doesn't agree with their inventions of spirit worlds and supernatural reals is "dumb".
> 
> And as we see, boss "knows" truth about his spirit realms, thus his self-assessed superiority becomes "fact".
Click to expand...


And why does Hollie "know" more than anyone else?  In fact, why don't you tell us what you KNOW to be the way things really are.  The fact of the matter is that your little mind is no more enlightened than the hundreds of millions of other little minds on planet earth. The foundation upon which you stand is built upon your personal opinions.


----------



## DriftingSand

Mephisto said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aside from the fact that revelations is written about the Roman empire...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!!! YOUR IGNORANCE KNOWS NO BOUNDS!!!! but why show the world???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Revelation is an anti-Roman tract and a piece of war propaganda wrapped in one. The message: God would return and destroy the Romans who had destroyed Jerusalem.
Click to expand...


Again ... if you ever read Revelation you will find that the events are global in nature and not limited to a little section of Europe.


----------



## DriftingSand

MaryL said:


> Why do god haters persist? Why is it God never shows up when ya need him? Never ever, pray, beg, cry, plead. Nothing. Really? Why is it you always hear about miracles, or when someone down the street gets cured of cancer. It's God's grace. When YOU don't get that same grace, it's god's will.  OH, so mysterious. So full of shit.



If you ever decide to read the Bible you'll find that prayers required belief and faith.  God isn't a housecarl who just leaps to attention when someone snaps their fingers.  He isn't an errand boy who runs around making people rich or buying them cars when they demand it.

The Bible also makes it clear that our prayer requests must be within the scope of God's will. In other words, even if I believe and have strong faith I can't expect God to answer a prayer that falls outside of His will. 

To know what God's will for us is under the New Covenant in Christ we have to understand the New Covenant. That requires reading the Bible.


----------



## Mephisto

DriftingSand said:


> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!!! YOUR IGNORANCE KNOWS NO BOUNDS!!!! but why show the world???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Revelation is an anti-Roman tract and a piece of war propaganda wrapped in one. The message: God would return and destroy the Romans who had destroyed Jerusalem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again ... if you ever read Revelation you will find that the events are global in nature and not limited to a little section of Europe.
Click to expand...


Judea is in Europe?

Fact: The book was written about the roman Empire and Nero.  It's a war propaganda about how god will have his revenage on the Romans for what they did to his 'people'.

I do find it funny that Jews are God's chosen people.  Does than mean if you're not Jewish that God doesn't give a fuck about you?  if so...Christians are screwed


----------



## Mephisto

DriftingSand said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do god haters persist? Why is it God never shows up when ya need him? Never ever, pray, beg, cry, plead. Nothing. Really? Why is it you always hear about miracles, or when someone down the street gets cured of cancer. It's God's grace. When YOU don't get that same grace, it's god's will.  OH, so mysterious. So full of shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you ever decide to read the Bible you'll find that prayers required belief and faith.  God isn't a housecarl who just leaps to attention when someone snaps their fingers.  He isn't an errand boy who runs around making people rich or buying them cars when they demand it.
> 
> The Bible also makes it clear that our prayer requests must be within the scope of God's will. In other words, even if I believe and have strong faith I can't expect God to answer a prayer that falls outside of His will.
> 
> To know what God's will for us is under the New Covenant in Christ we have to understand the New Covenant. That requires reading the Bible.
Click to expand...


So god can do whatever the fuck he wants...but his followers can't.  IOW, god is a hypocrite.


----------



## Hollie

DriftingSand said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is too hilarious not to respond to. First of all, you are incorrect, I have assumed no such thing. I think Atheists have thought out their positions, they are just really stupid people. They form arguments which are full of illogical and irrational points without any basis in science or observable nature, then parade those around as if they are facts. When challenged, they look down their snooty nose and recite some mantra from their Atheist heroes, toss out a few insults at religion and think they've "won" a debate.
> 
> As for FAITH, the Atheists are the people who have more actual FAITH than any religious person I know. It takes an enormous amount of faith to disbelieve what humans have known since we climbed out of the trees. To be so sure of yourself, to be so absolutely certain you are right... takes enormous amounts of sheer faith. Blind faith at that. To chalk everything you see around you up to happenstance and random chance, to reject man's inseparable connection to something spiritual for all our existence, to ignore that nearly 90% of us believe in something spiritual and always have.... Loads of faith! While people who have religious beliefs at least have some relevant documentation and history.
> 
> As I stated in the post before, and apparently you were too dumb to comprehend, I don't really care if you agree with me personally. I don't fool myself into thinking I am going to change your mind, maybe you are the kind of fool who thinks that, but not me. I don't state arguments to support or endorse religions, or to "prove" religious dogma. My arguments are purely from a rational point of view from someone who has a distinct advantage over you. You see, I already know the truth here, I am aware of a spiritual nature that you don't realize. That's why I can shoot holes in all your "theories" about Man and God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The typical slathering from a religious zealot. Anyone who doesn't agree with their inventions of spirit worlds and supernatural reals is "dumb".
> 
> And as we see, boss "knows" truth about his spirit realms, thus his self-assessed superiority becomes "fact".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And why does Hollie "know" more than anyone else?  In fact, why don't you tell us what you KNOW to be the way things really are.  The fact of the matter is that your little mind is no more enlightened than the hundreds of millions of other little minds on planet earth. The foundation upon which you stand is built upon your personal opinions.
Click to expand...

My, such an angry DriftingSand. 

You apparently missed it by my comments regarding various conceptions of gods and the folks those gods are in charge of are typically concerned with the believers making a rational case for their gods. 

I have no personal opinions supporting the existence of your gods vs. others and their claims to gods. 

It's a simple question that confounds all the believers in competing versions of gods/supernatural entities: why are your gods true and others are not?


----------



## GISMYS

""why are your gods true and others are not? ""  ?? TRY TO THINK!!! THERE IS ONLY TRUTH AND EVERYTHING ELSE  ARE LIES.


----------



## Mephisto

GISMYS said:


> ""why are your gods true and others are not? ""  ?? TRY TO THINK!!! THERE IS ONLY TRUTH AND EVERYTHING ELSE  ARE LIES.



For Jews and Christians their god is the only truth.  for Muslims Allah is the only truth...so which is it?  Who's god is THE god?  

Answer...no one's.  First off Jews, Christians and Muslims are all decedents of Abraham, and are fighting over which child god likes more.  It's quite funny.


----------



## GISMYS

Mephisto said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> ""why are your gods true and others are not? ""  ?? TRY TO THINK!!! THERE IS ONLY TRUTH AND EVERYTHING ELSE  ARE LIES.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For Jews and Christians their god is the only truth.  for Muslims Allah is the only truth...so which is it?  Who's god is THE god?
> 
> Answer...no one's.  First off Jews, Christians and Muslims are all decedents of Abraham, and are fighting over which child god likes more.  It's quite funny.
Click to expand...


GET OFF YOUR FAT LAZY #%@ AND SEEK TRUTH. TO SEEK AND KNOW TRUTH AND TO SHARE THAT TRUTH WITH OTHERS IS THE REASON AND PURPOSE OF LIFE!! think!


----------



## Mephisto

GISMYS said:


> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> ""why are your gods true and others are not? ""  ?? TRY TO THINK!!! THERE IS ONLY TRUTH AND EVERYTHING ELSE  ARE LIES.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For Jews and Christians their god is the only truth.  for Muslims Allah is the only truth...so which is it?  Who's god is THE god?
> 
> Answer...no one's.  First off Jews, Christians and Muslims are all decedents of Abraham, and are fighting over which child god likes more.  It's quite funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> GET OFF YOUR FAT LAZY #%@ AND SEEK TRUTH. TO SEEK AND KNOW TRUTH AND TO SHARE THAT TRUTH WITH OTHERS IS THE REASON AND PURPOSE OF LIFE!! think!
Click to expand...


Why are you yelling?  I just want to know which god is the ultimate god?  Jews, Christians or Muslims, after all it's all the same god that you folk are slaves for.


----------



## GISMYS

Mephisto said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> For Jews and Christians their god is the only truth.  for Muslims Allah is the only truth...so which is it?  Who's god is THE god?
> 
> Answer...no one's.  First off Jews, Christians and Muslims are all decedents of Abraham, and are fighting over which child god likes more.  It's quite funny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GET OFF YOUR FAT LAZY #%@ AND SEEK TRUTH. TO SEEK AND KNOW TRUTH AND TO SHARE THAT TRUTH WITH OTHERS IS THE REASON AND PURPOSE OF LIFE!! think!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you yelling?  I just want to know which god is the ultimate god?  Jews, Christians or Muslims, after all it's all the same god that you folk are slaves for.
Click to expand...


why would you believe the word of man???GET OFF YOUR FAT LAZY #%@ AND SEEK TRUTH. TO SEEK AND KNOW TRUTH AND TO SHARE THAT TRUTH WITH OTHERS IS THE REASON AND PURPOSE OF LIFE!! think![/


----------



## Mephisto

GISMYS said:


> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> GET OFF YOUR FAT LAZY #%@ AND SEEK TRUTH. TO SEEK AND KNOW TRUTH AND TO SHARE THAT TRUTH WITH OTHERS IS THE REASON AND PURPOSE OF LIFE!! think!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you yelling?  I just want to know which god is the ultimate god?  Jews, Christians or Muslims, after all it's all the same god that you folk are slaves for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> why would you believe the word of man???GET OFF YOUR FAT LAZY #%@ AND SEEK TRUTH. TO SEEK AND KNOW TRUTH AND TO SHARE THAT TRUTH WITH OTHERS IS THE REASON AND PURPOSE OF LIFE!! think![/
Click to expand...


That's not how god has intended it now is it?  You as Christians are suppose to go out and spread the good news.  For me to seek the truth would be counter productive to what god wants from his slaves.


----------



## GISMYS

The prayer GOD will answer 100%=== "GOD! If you are real, show me as I am seeking truth,help me find truth." God will hear and answer that prayer but you must do your part, you cannot just sit there and expect to be spoon fed like a baby. READ GOD'S INSPIRED(GOD BREATHED)WORD= THE HOLYBIBLE , START IN THE BOOK OF MATTHEW,THEN READ ROMANS,EPHESIANS, GALATIONS, THOSE NEW TESTMENT BOOKS WILL GIVE YOU A STRONG BASE OF TRUTH, THEN READ AND STUDY ""ALL"" OF GOD'S WORD. GOD WILL SHOW YOU  TRUTH.


----------



## Mephisto

GISMYS said:


> The prayer GOD will answer 100%=== "GOD! If you are real, show me as I am seeking truth,help me find truth." God will hear and answer that prayer but you must do your part, you cannot just sit there and expect to be spoon fed like a baby. READ GOD'S INSPIRED(GOD BREATHED)WORD= THE HOLYBIBLE , START IN THE BOOK OF MATTHEW,THEN READ ROMANS,EPHESIANS, GALATIONS, THOSE NEW TESTMENT BOOKS WILL GIVE YOU A STRONG BASE OF TRUTH, THEN READ AND STUDY ""ALL"" OF GOD'S WORD. GOD WILL SHOW YOU  TRUTH.



How can I pry to a god that i do not believe in?  Do you pray to Odin?


----------



## GISMYS

Mephisto said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> The prayer GOD will answer 100%=== "GOD! If you are real, show me as I am seeking truth,help me find truth." God will hear and answer that prayer but you must do your part, you cannot just sit there and expect to be spoon fed like a baby. READ GOD'S INSPIRED(GOD BREATHED)WORD= THE HOLYBIBLE , START IN THE BOOK OF MATTHEW,THEN READ ROMANS,EPHESIANS, GALATIONS, THOSE NEW TESTMENT BOOKS WILL GIVE YOU A STRONG BASE OF TRUTH, THEN READ AND STUDY ""ALL"" OF GOD'S WORD. GOD WILL SHOW YOU  TRUTH.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can I pry to a god that i do not believe in?  Do you pray to Odin?
Click to expand...


I JUST TOLD YOU IN THE ABOVE POST,I GAVE YOU IN DETAIL HOW TO SEEK AND FIND TRUTH. Duh!!!


----------



## GISMYS

The prayer GOD will answer 100%=== "GOD! If you are real, show me as I am seeking truth,help me find truth." God will hear and answer that prayer but you must do your part, you cannot just sit there and expect to be spoon fed like a baby. READ GOD'S INSPIRED(GOD BREATHED)WORD= THE HOLYBIBLE , START IN THE BOOK OF MATTHEW,THEN READ ROMANS,EPHESIANS, GALATIONS, THOSE NEW TESTMENT BOOKS WILL GIVE YOU A STRONG BASE OF TRUTH, THEN READ AND STUDY ""ALL"" OF GOD'S WORD. GOD WILL SHOW YOU TRUTH.====GOD SAYS HE IS UNWILLING THAT ANY PERISH,SO WHY CHOSE HELL?====GOD'S WILL IS THAT NONE PERISH BUT THAT ALL CONFESS AND REPENT OF SIN,BELIEVE AND ACCEPT JESUS AS THEIR LORD AND SAVIOR!! HOW TO BE SAVED(BORN AGAIN) AND JOIN THE FAMILY OF GOD!!! Romans: Chapter 10 verse 9-10-13 GOD SAYS= 
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, 
and shalt believe in your heart that God hath raised him 
from the dead, thou shalt be Saved. For with the heart man 
believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession 
is made unto Salvation. For whosoever shall call upon the 
name of the Lord shall be Saved.................... 

---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------- 

AN EXAMPLE PRAYER IF YOU HAVE NEVER BEFORE TALKED TO GOD!......................... 
Heavenly Father:........................................... ............................... 
I come to you in prayer asking for the forgiveness of 
my Sins. I confess with my mouth and believe with my 
heart that Jesus is your Son, And that he died on the 
Cross at Calvary that I might be forgiven and have 
Eternal Life in the Kingdom of Heaven. Father, I believe 
that Jesus rose from the dead and I ask you right now 
to come in to my life and be my personal Lord and 
Savior. I repent of my Sins and will Worship you all the 
day's of my Life!. Because your word is truth, I confess 
with my mouth that I am Born Again and Cleansed 
by the Blood of Jesus! In Jesus Name, Amen
SEEMS ALMOST TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE!!! HUH??? ==whosoever shall call upon the 
name of the Lord shall be Saved....................


----------



## Mephisto

GISMYS said:


> The prayer GOD will answer 100%=== "GOD! If you are real, show me as I am seeking truth,help me find truth." God will hear and answer that prayer but you must do your part, you cannot just sit there and expect to be spoon fed like a baby. READ GOD'S INSPIRED(GOD BREATHED)WORD= THE HOLYBIBLE , START IN THE BOOK OF MATTHEW,THEN READ ROMANS,EPHESIANS, GALATIONS, THOSE NEW TESTMENT BOOKS WILL GIVE YOU A STRONG BASE OF TRUTH, THEN READ AND STUDY ""ALL"" OF GOD'S WORD. GOD WILL SHOW YOU TRUTH.====GOD SAYS HE IS UNWILLING THAT ANY PERISH,SO WHY CHOSE HELL?====GOD'S WILL IS THAT NONE PERISH BUT THAT ALL CONFESS AND REPENT OF SIN,BELIEVE AND ACCEPT JESUS AS THEIR LORD AND SAVIOR!! HOW TO BE SAVED(BORN AGAIN) AND JOIN THE FAMILY OF GOD!!! Romans: Chapter 10 verse 9-10-13 GOD SAYS=
> That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus,
> and shalt believe in your heart that God hath raised him
> from the dead, thou shalt be Saved. For with the heart man
> believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession
> is made unto Salvation. For whosoever shall call upon the
> name of the Lord shall be Saved....................
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------
> 
> AN EXAMPLE PRAYER IF YOU HAVE NEVER BEFORE TALKED TO GOD!.........................
> Heavenly Father:........................................... ...............................
> I come to you in prayer asking for the forgiveness of
> my Sins. I confess with my mouth and believe with my
> heart that Jesus is your Son, And that he died on the
> Cross at Calvary that I might be forgiven and have
> Eternal Life in the Kingdom of Heaven. Father, I believe
> that Jesus rose from the dead and I ask you right now
> to come in to my life and be my personal Lord and
> Savior. I repent of my Sins and will Worship you all the
> day's of my Life!. Because your word is truth, I confess
> with my mouth that I am Born Again and Cleansed
> by the Blood of Jesus! In Jesus Name, Amen
> SEEMS ALMOST TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE!!! HUH??? ==whosoever shall call upon the
> name of the Lord shall be Saved....................



typically when things are too good to be true...they're never true.  such as the case with god.

Again, how can I repent my sins to something that I do not believe in nor consider what i am doing as sinful?


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> You continue to downplay human intelligence, implying it is similar to other animals, when that is not the case based on observed evidence.
> 
> You say it doesn't take special thinking to create placebos to downplay fears and the unknown, but since humanity is the only creature to do so, it would appear that is exactly what it takes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you are basing this on the assumption there is no God or spiritual nature to connect to. No... it takes real fucking moronic idiots to imagine something that isn't there in order to console fear and the unknown, and then do that their entire existence. They would have to completely abandon rational thought to do so. This is primarily why I don't believe that's what happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if other animals do that kind of thing, since they don't appear to have the complex languages that humanity does (yet another unique human achievement attributable to our intelligence), it would be hard to be certain of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are certain that most mammals and primates DO have language and communicate. Crows have over 250 calls in their vocabulary and regional dialect. They can communicate to other crows about hostile humans and the other crows can recognize said humans without ever having seen them before, and this information is passed down generationally. Ants and bees communicate without language at all and do so to peak efficiency. Whales can communicate with each other for miles under the ocean... you tried doing that lately?
> 
> 
> 
> Because our actual "intelligence" is not that different. Some animals are more intelligent than us on certain things... do you know which flowers to pollinate and when? Do you know when there is a fire in the forest? Can you smell food 5 miles away? Can you put your body into a state of hibernation for the winter? Other animals do all kinds of amazing things with their intelligence, but they are not spiritually connected to something greater than self. They can't find inspirational motivation to push the limits of imagination and take their species where it's never gone before. Humans do this because we are spiritually connected.
> 
> 
> 
> And this is where you're just flat out wrong on numerous levels. The "observable evidence" is humanity, and how it is vastly different from everything including our supposed common ancestors. Spirituality was not invented and it didn't evolve into man. We humans didn't just pop onto the scene 100k years ago and start doing what no other creature before humans could do because of our superior brains. If that were so, we'd see other species evolving with similar characteristics, especially those who have been evolving much longer than humans. Why aren't the great apes at least developing language and chiseling out wheels from stone? The "observable evidence" suggests that humans have something the other animals don't, and that something is an intrinsic spiritual connection with something greater than self.
> 
> 
> 
> You said that courage *requires* fear. Now you are saying courage *overcomes* fear. If it overcomes it, then it can't require it. Courage is the *opposite* of fear, and if you want to pretend that isn't true or there is some other antonym we can apply, then so be it. I am *NOT PLAYING!*
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why you think there would be no wars, murder or strife if everyone used logic and common sense. But okay, sometimes people do ignore common sense and logic, this thread is a good example of that. 88% of the fucking species hasn't ignored logic and common sense for all of our existence, unless we're all retards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Besides, religion does provide answers to the unknown.  What happens when you die?  You go to some sort of afterlife, you are reincarnated, etc.  How was the universe created?  God did it.  How should I live, what should I teach my children?  Here, read this sacred text and follow these rules.  Even if it's all untrue, to the believer it is not, so it has the same effect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hold on a minute... What happens when you die? Your physical organism stops living, but what happens to your spirit? This is unknown and no religion or science can provide evidence. How was the universe created? Science and religion don't have an answer. "God did it" doesn't answer the question. How did God do it? We don't know. How do I live, what do I teach my children... well what's wrong with teaching them to live like animals in the wild and survival of the fittest? Kill or be killed? That's how other animals deal with that question, it's not an unknown at all.
> 
> You're not presenting very good reasons for mankind to invent some imaginary thing that isn't real in order to answer questions that it either can't answer or doesn't need to answer. It makes no rational sense whatsoever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've repeatedly said that you may be correct, the point is that even if you are, the evidence for that is far, far from conclusive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well let's be clear, if anyone here had what we could all agree is "conclusive evidence" ...for ANYTHING... we would probably not be having this conversation. Maybe that point eludes you?
Click to expand...


Scientists specializing in the mind have begun to unravel religion's DNA.  They have produced robust theories, backed by empirical evidence including studies of the brain at work.  These theories conclude that it was probably humans who created God, not the other way around.   The psychological mechanisms behind faith evolved over the eons through natural selection. They helped our ancestors work in small groups and survive and reproduce.  We are born with a powerful need for attachment. Individual survival was enhanced by protectors, beginning with our mothers. Attachment is reinforced physiologically through brain chemistry, and we evolved and retain neural networks completely dedicated to it. We easily expand that inborn need for protectors to authority figures of any sort, including religious leaders and gods. God becomes a super parent, able to protect us and care for us even when our more corporeal support systems disappear, through death or distance.  Scientists have so far identified about 20 hard-wired, evolved "adaptations" as the building blocks of religion. Like attachment, they are mechanisms that underlie human interactions: Brain-imaging studies showed that when test subjects were read statements about religion and asked to agree or disagree, the same brain networks that process human social behavior our ability to negotiate relationships with others were engaged.  
Among the psychological adaptations related to religion are our need for reciprocity, our tendency to attribute unknown events to human agency, our capacity for romantic love, our fierce "out-group" hatreds and just as fierce loyalties to the in groups of kin and allies. Religion hijacks these traits. The rivalry between Sunni and Shiite Muslims or the doctrinal battles between Protestant and Catholic reflect our "groupish" tendencies.  In addition to these adaptations, humans have developed the remarkable ability to think about what goes on in other people's minds and create and rehearse complex interactions with an unseen other. In our minds we can de-couple cognition from time, place and circumstance. We consider what someone else might do in our place; we project future scenarios; we replay past events. It's an easy jump to say, conversing with the dead or to conjuring gods and praying to them.  Morality, which some see as imposed by gods or religion on savage humans, science sees as yet another adaptive strategy handed down to us by natural selection.

Science says you are wrong.  If Im wrong about that, post your link to where science agrees with your theories.  Ive done a little research and your argument seem to come from right wing sources.  Since science isn't exact, you use flawed reasoning but think it's ok because science isn't perfect either.  Only problem is your premises and conclusions are wrong.  And you know that science says the odds are way better on my side that there is no god.  It's not 50/50.  More like 99.999% there isn't.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> The prayer GOD will answer 100%=== "GOD! If you are real, show me as I am seeking truth,help me find truth." God will hear and answer that prayer but you must do your part, you cannot just sit there and expect to be spoon fed like a baby. READ GOD'S INSPIRED(GOD BREATHED)WORD= THE HOLYBIBLE , START IN THE BOOK OF MATTHEW,THEN READ ROMANS,EPHESIANS, GALATIONS, THOSE NEW TESTMENT BOOKS WILL GIVE YOU A STRONG BASE OF TRUTH, THEN READ AND STUDY ""ALL"" OF GOD'S WORD. GOD WILL SHOW YOU TRUTH.====GOD SAYS HE IS UNWILLING THAT ANY PERISH,SO WHY CHOSE HELL?====GOD'S WILL IS THAT NONE PERISH BUT THAT ALL CONFESS AND REPENT OF SIN,BELIEVE AND ACCEPT JESUS AS THEIR LORD AND SAVIOR!! HOW TO BE SAVED(BORN AGAIN) AND JOIN THE FAMILY OF GOD!!! Romans: Chapter 10 verse 9-10-13 GOD SAYS=
> That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus,
> and shalt believe in your heart that God hath raised him
> from the dead, thou shalt be Saved. For with the heart man
> believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession
> is made unto Salvation. For whosoever shall call upon the
> name of the Lord shall be Saved....................
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------
> 
> AN EXAMPLE PRAYER IF YOU HAVE NEVER BEFORE TALKED TO GOD!.........................
> Heavenly Father:........................................... ...............................
> I come to you in prayer asking for the forgiveness of
> my Sins. I confess with my mouth and believe with my
> heart that Jesus is your Son, And that he died on the
> Cross at Calvary that I might be forgiven and have
> Eternal Life in the Kingdom of Heaven. Father, I believe
> that Jesus rose from the dead and I ask you right now
> to come in to my life and be my personal Lord and
> Savior. I repent of my Sins and will Worship you all the
> day's of my Life!. Because your word is truth, I confess
> with my mouth that I am Born Again and Cleansed
> by the Blood of Jesus! In Jesus Name, Amen
> SEEMS ALMOST TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE!!! HUH??? ==whosoever shall call upon the
> name of the Lord shall be Saved....................



I have read them.  BORING.  And I get the message.  I also realize that I'm reading a book from a cult that wants to brainwash me.  

I can just see poor little GISMYS growing up having these bible verses drilled into her head.  Yea, we get it dummy.  The bible says a lot of things:  

a.  Be a good person.  We get that.  Makes sense if you are starting a cult.
b.  Don't kill.  Makes sense.
c.  Have faith in the imaginary man or go to hell.  What a hook!!! 
d. All you have to do is believe and you get to go to heaven.
e. Come hang out every Sunday with other retards just as stupid as you.  And there are women there.  Stupid women who have been told that their husband is the master.  I LOVE IT!  
f. But god is terrible with money.  He always needs more money.  
g. Honor your parents no matter how bad they are to you.  This way you will never challenge authority later in life.  You'll bend over and take whatever the king does to you.  Or today whatever the GOP, Corporations, Churches do to you.  
h. Don't fuck your neighbors wife

When you analyze the bible you realize it is outdated and totally man made.  Who would believe this shit?  It was 11 guys who spread this cult.  11 because Judas killed himself.  Everyone else said the jesus story was bullshit.  Why do people believe what "supposedly" 11 guys said especially when it was written 80 years after the fact by god knows who???  Really???

You are just brainwashed, stupid and/or afraid you will go to hell, otherwise you would realize or admit your religion is a joke.  Or at least it is possible it was all made up?  If you choose to believe it was not all made up, that's cool, but don't try to push this shit on anyone else.  Keep it in your family.  Now when I hear people say we need god in school I get pissed because no we do not need to brainwash the next generation of citizens to think they should go to war and destroy the planet with global warming because jesus is coming soon.  Fucking retards.  You religious people are why I woke up.  Remember when Jesus overturned the tables and went around preaching to the jews that they were all hypocrites?  You think today's christian American's are good people?  You are just as bad.  Maybe god needs to send another flood to wipe this planet clean again.  Only this time maybe let Noah invite a few other families so the planet isn't repopulated with Noah's imbred stupid fucking kids and grandkids, huh?


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> ""why are your gods true and others are not? ""  ?? TRY TO THINK!!! THERE IS ONLY TRUTH AND EVERYTHING ELSE  ARE LIES.



Where are the history books from the year Jesus died?  The answer is that that Roman historians had little interest in the comings and goings of minor cults and were far more concerned about Emperors and Kings. Jesus made a very small splash while he was alive and there was no reason for Roman historians to notice him.

See Gismys???  You are sooo sure of yourself when quite probably 11 people made up the entire story.  Sure it caught on.  So what?  Look at how other cults catch on too.  What does that prove?  At least you can say you were brainwashed from birth.  I can't imagine one of the 11 coming up to me and telling me the story of Jesus and me believing that shit.  But hey, look at how many mormons believe what they believe.  When you look at mormons or muslims you should realize you are basically looking in a mirror.  Maybe it's a fun house mirror so what you are seeing isn't exactly the same but it's still you right?


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> ""why are your gods true and others are not? ""  ?? TRY TO THINK!!! THERE IS ONLY TRUTH AND EVERYTHING ELSE  ARE LIES.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where are the history books from the year Jesus died?  The answer is that that Roman historians had little interest in the comings and goings of minor cults and were far more concerned about Emperors and Kings. Jesus made a very small splash while he was alive and there was no reason for Roman historians to notice him.
> 
> See Gismys???  You are sooo sure of yourself when quite probably 11 people made up the entire story.  Sure it caught on.  So what?  Look at how other cults catch on too.  What does that prove?  At least you can say you were brainwashed from birth.  I can't imagine one of the 11 coming up to me and telling me the story of Jesus and me believing that shit.  But hey, look at how many mormons believe what they believe.  When you look at mormons or muslims you should realize you are basically looking in a mirror.  Maybe it's a fun house mirror so what you are seeing isn't exactly the same but it's still you right?
Click to expand...

 Why [post such ignorant posts??
WE MARK YEARS OF TIME BEFORE JESUS =BC AND AFTER JESUS =AD= 2014 =THE YEAR OF OUR LORD!!!!


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> ""why are your gods true and others are not? ""  ?? TRY TO THINK!!! THERE IS ONLY TRUTH AND EVERYTHING ELSE  ARE LIES.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where are the history books from the year Jesus died?  The answer is that that Roman historians had little interest in the comings and goings of minor cults and were far more concerned about Emperors and Kings. Jesus made a very small splash while he was alive and there was no reason for Roman historians to notice him.
> 
> See Gismys???  You are sooo sure of yourself when quite probably 11 people made up the entire story.  Sure it caught on.  So what?  Look at how other cults catch on too.  What does that prove?  At least you can say you were brainwashed from birth.  I can't imagine one of the 11 coming up to me and telling me the story of Jesus and me believing that shit.  But hey, look at how many mormons believe what they believe.  When you look at mormons or muslims you should realize you are basically looking in a mirror.  Maybe it's a fun house mirror so what you are seeing isn't exactly the same but it's still you right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why [post such ignorant posts??
> WE MARK YEARS OF TIME BEFORE JESUS =BC AND AFTER JESUS =AD= 2014 =THE YEAR OF OUR LORD!!!!
Click to expand...


Congrats,  your cult caught on.  Know why?  The kings decided instead of fighting it they embraced it.  Easier to collect taxes when the king has divine rights.  

Even Muslims go by BC and AD.  So what?  They don't believe.  And I wonder, why do you think the Muslims don't convert to christianity with all the compelling  sorry, with all the compelling evidence you have of this "truth"?  Why can't they see it?  Ah forget it.  If you were born in Iraq you'd just be a Muslim retard.


----------



## Mephisto

GISMYS said:


> Why [post such ignorant posts??
> WE MARK YEARS OF TIME BEFORE JESUS =BC AND AFTER JESUS =AD= 2014 =THE YEAR OF OUR LORD!!!!



This is why...
The Anno Domini dating system was devised in 525 by Dionysius Exiguus to enumerate the years in his Easter table. His system was to replace the Diocletian era that had been used in an old Easter table because he did not wish to continue the memory of a tyrant who persecuted Christians.

On the continent of Europe, Anno Domini was introduced as the era of choice of the Carolingian Renaissance by Alcuin. Its endorsement by Emperor Charlemagne and his successors popularizing the usage of the epoch and spreading it throughout the Carolingian Empire

In 1627, the French Jesuit theologian Denis Pétau (Dionysius Petavius in Latin), with his work De doctrina temporum, popularized the usage ante Christum (Latin for "Before Christ") to mark years prior to AD


----------



## GISMYS

Article VII of the U.S. Constitution: "Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth." (Interesting that this includes both the religiously linked dating and the utterly secular age of the nation itself.)

 Some four score and seven years later, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation is dated "on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three."


----------



## Uncensored2008

sealybobo said:


> You should pray to Nastrodaumus dumbass.
> 
> He predicted a lot too and a lot of it came true.  What say you?



Have you sacrificed your dick to Gaia yet? Your carbon sins DEMAND a sacrifice, you must give the burnt offering TODAY, lest the goddess become enraged and melt the polar caps - like you fuckwad morons said would happen by the year 2000..


Or perhaps she will be angry and melt the Himalayas flooding Bangladesh as your Shamans claimed would happen in your fuckwad nutjob bible, the IPCC report - oh wait - turns out your shaman who wrote that was a fraud - I mean all you fuckwad cult morons are frauds - but he was publicly exposed.


----------



## Mephisto

GISMYS said:


> Article VII of the U.S. Constitution: "Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth." (Interesting that this includes both the religiously linked dating and the utterly secular age of the nation itself.)
> 
> Some four score and seven years later, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation is dated "on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three."



Yes, that is because that's how people talked and wrote back then.. Do we still do that, no.

Interesting that you do not understand that society changes through the years.


----------



## GISMYS

Mephisto said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Article VII of the U.S. Constitution: "Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth." (Interesting that this includes both the religiously linked dating and the utterly secular age of the nation itself.)
> 
> Some four score and seven years later, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation is dated "on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that is because that's how people talked and wrote back then.. Do we still do that, no.
> 
> Interesting that you do not understand that society changes through the years.
Click to expand...


WHAT ROCK DO YOU LIVE UNDER???? YES!!! SATAN AND DEMONS hate that each year is AD=the year of our LORD!!!! PTL.


----------



## Mephisto

GISMYS said:


> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Article VII of the U.S. Constitution: "Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth." (Interesting that this includes both the religiously linked dating and the utterly secular age of the nation itself.)
> 
> Some four score and seven years later, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation is dated "on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that is because that's how people talked and wrote back then.. Do we still do that, no.
> 
> Interesting that you do not understand that society changes through the years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WHAT ROCK DO YOU LIVE UNDER???? YES!!! SATAN AND DEMONS hate that each year is AD=the year of our LORD!!!! PTL.
Click to expand...


I'll ask him that tonight when I converse with him.  we're BFF's


----------



## GISMYS

Mephisto said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that is because that's how people talked and wrote back then.. Do we still do that, no.
> 
> Interesting that you do not understand that society changes through the years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHAT ROCK DO YOU LIVE UNDER???? YES!!! SATAN AND DEMONS hate that each year is AD=the year of our LORD!!!! PTL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll ask him that tonight when I converse with him.  we're BFF's
Click to expand...


WHAT A LIFE!!!!==Now there was a large herd of swine feeding nearby on the mountain. 12The demons implored Him, saying, "Send us into the swine so that we may enter them." 13Jesus gave them permission. And coming out, the unclean spirits entered the swine; and the herd rushed down the steep bank into the sea, about two thousand of them; and they were drowned in the sea.


----------



## thebrucebeat

DriftingSand said:


> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!!! YOUR IGNORANCE KNOWS NO BOUNDS!!!! but why show the world???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Revelation is an anti-Roman tract and a piece of war propaganda wrapped in one. The message: God would return and destroy the Romans who had destroyed Jerusalem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again ... if you ever read Revelation you will find that the events are global in nature and not limited to a little section of Europe.
Click to expand...


If you understood that Revelation is an example of apocalyptic literature in the Hebrew tradition, you would know it is simply a message of hope to the believers being persecuted in Rome. It isn't prophesy or premonition. It is a coded message of hope.


----------



## GISMYS

thebrucebeat said:


> driftingsand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> revelation is an anti-roman tract and a piece of war propaganda wrapped in one. The message: God would return and destroy the romans who had destroyed jerusalem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> again ... If you ever read revelation you will find that the events are global in nature and not limited to a little section of europe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if you understood that revelation is an example of apocalyptic literature in the hebrew tradition, you would know it is simply a message of hope to the believers being persecuted in rome. It isn't prophesy or premonition. It is a coded message of hope.
Click to expand...


Revelations is a book giving us a warning of the very soon years of the great tribulation =God's judgments on an evil,sin loving world and a book reveiling Jesus as King of Kings,Lord of Lords returning to earth to destroy all evil  and set up His kingdom on earth.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> Article VII of the U.S. Constitution: "Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth." (Interesting that this includes both the religiously linked dating and the utterly secular age of the nation itself.)
> 
> Some four score and seven years later, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation is dated "on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three."



And this is why we need god taken out of every public square and school.  No peddling that bullshit nonsense on to the next generations.  No more brainwashed mind fucks who like sheep go to slaughter in Iraq for the lord, the year of our lord, oh lord.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Article VII of the U.S. Constitution: "Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth." (Interesting that this includes both the religiously linked dating and the utterly secular age of the nation itself.)
> 
> Some four score and seven years later, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation is dated "on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this is why we need god taken out of every public square and school.  No peddling that bullshit nonsense on to the next generations.  No more brainwashed mind fucks who like sheep go to slaughter in Iraq for the lord, the year of our lord, oh lord.
Click to expand...


YES!!!! IN GOD WE TRUST=ONE NATION UNDER GOD WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL = THE USA AS LONG AS WE HONOR GOD WE CAN LIVE IN HIS BLESSINGS,IF WE DENY GOD THEN WE TAKE OURSELF OUT FROM GOD'S PROTECTION!!= Not smart!


----------



## Mephisto

GISMYS said:


> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHAT ROCK DO YOU LIVE UNDER???? YES!!! SATAN AND DEMONS hate that each year is AD=the year of our LORD!!!! PTL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll ask him that tonight when I converse with him.  we're BFF's
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WHAT A LIFE!!!!==Now there was a large herd of swine feeding nearby on the mountain. 12The demons implored Him, saying, "Send us into the swine so that we may enter them." 13Jesus gave them permission. And coming out, the unclean spirits entered the swine; and the herd rushed down the steep bank into the sea, about two thousand of them; and they were drowned in the sea.
Click to expand...


Why did Jesus kill someone pigs?


----------



## GISMYS

Mephisto said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll ask him that tonight when I converse with him.  we're BFF's
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHAT A LIFE!!!!==Now there was a large herd of swine feeding nearby on the mountain. 12The demons implored Him, saying, "Send us into the swine so that we may enter them." 13Jesus gave them permission. And coming out, the unclean spirits entered the swine; and the herd rushed down the steep bank into the sea, about two thousand of them; and they were drowned in the sea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why did Jesus kill someone pigs?
Click to expand...


CAN'T YOU READ??UNDERSTAND??=== the herd rushed down the steep bank into the sea, about two thousand of them; and they were drowned in the sea.=DEMON SUICIDE!!


----------



## Uncensored2008

Mephisto said:


> Why did Jesus kill someone pigs?



He was hankering for some bacon?


----------



## Mephisto

GISMYS said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> driftingsand said:
> 
> 
> 
> again ... If you ever read revelation you will find that the events are global in nature and not limited to a little section of europe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if you understood that revelation is an example of apocalyptic literature in the hebrew tradition, you would know it is simply a message of hope to the believers being persecuted in rome. It isn't prophesy or premonition. It is a coded message of hope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Revelations is a book giving us a warning of the very soon years of the great tribulation =God's judgments on an evil,sin loving world and a book reveiling Jesus as King of Kings,Lord of Lords returning to earth to destroy all evil  and set up His kingdom on earth.
Click to expand...


False, it's a book about the Hebrew people having hope that the Romans will get God's revenge.  Which never happened.

Judea was held by the Romans and then Byzantine empires until the Muslim conquest in 636.


----------



## Uncensored2008

sealybobo said:


> And this is why we need god taken out of every public square and school.  No peddling that bullshit nonsense on to the next generations.  No more brainwashed mind fucks who like sheep go to slaughter in Iraq for the lord, the year of our lord, oh lord.



Have you sacrificed your dick to Gaia yet, to atone for your carbon sins?

Get to chopping and burning, before she gets angry and destroys the world - voodoo volcano gods aren't known for patience!


----------



## Mephisto

GISMYS said:


> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHAT A LIFE!!!!==Now there was a large herd of swine feeding nearby on the mountain. 12The demons implored Him, saying, "Send us into the swine so that we may enter them." 13Jesus gave them permission. And coming out, the unclean spirits entered the swine; and the herd rushed down the steep bank into the sea, about two thousand of them; and they were drowned in the sea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why did Jesus kill someone pigs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> CAN'T YOU READ??UNDERSTAND??=== the herd rushed down the steep bank into the sea, about two thousand of them; and they were drowned in the sea.=DEMON SUICIDE!!
Click to expand...


False, you can not kill a demon.  You can cast them out or bind them...they do not die.


----------



## Uncensored2008

GISMYS said:


> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHAT A LIFE!!!!==Now there was a large herd of swine feeding nearby on the mountain. 12The demons implored Him, saying, "Send us into the swine so that we may enter them." 13Jesus gave them permission. And coming out, the unclean spirits entered the swine; and the herd rushed down the steep bank into the sea, about two thousand of them; and they were drowned in the sea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why did Jesus kill someone pigs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> CAN'T YOU READ??UNDERSTAND??=== the herd rushed down the steep bank into the sea, about two thousand of them; and they were drowned in the sea.=DEMON SUICIDE!!
Click to expand...


Why were there pigs in Hebrew lands, when Hebrews were forbidden to eat pork?


----------



## GISMYS

Mephisto said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why did Jesus kill someone pigs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CAN'T YOU READ??UNDERSTAND??=== the herd rushed down the steep bank into the sea, about two thousand of them; and they were drowned in the sea.=DEMON SUICIDE!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False, you can not kill a demon.  You can cast them out or bind them...they do not die.
Click to expand...


YES!!! THE FATE OF DEMONS AND SIN,LOVING,GOD REJECTING MAN IS ETERNAL HELL!!! AND YOU??? the same!!


----------



## Mephisto

GISMYS said:


> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> CAN'T YOU READ??UNDERSTAND??=== the herd rushed down the steep bank into the sea, about two thousand of them; and they were drowned in the sea.=DEMON SUICIDE!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False, you can not kill a demon.  You can cast them out or bind them...they do not die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YES!!! THE FATE OF DEMONS AND SIN,LOVING,GOD REJECTING MAN IS ETERNAL HELL!!! AND YOU??? the same!!
Click to expand...


Thanks for agreeing demons don't die.  Now, explain your demon suicide scripture.  Since demons, by your account, can not be killed...how can they commit suicide?


----------



## thebrucebeat

GISMYS said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> driftingsand said:
> 
> 
> 
> again ... If you ever read revelation you will find that the events are global in nature and not limited to a little section of europe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if you understood that revelation is an example of apocalyptic literature in the hebrew tradition, you would know it is simply a message of hope to the believers being persecuted in rome. It isn't prophesy or premonition. It is a coded message of hope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Revelations is a book giving us a warning of the very soon years of the great tribulation =God's judgments on an evil,sin loving world and a book reveiling Jesus as King of Kings,Lord of Lords returning to earth to destroy all evil  and set up His kingdom on earth.
Click to expand...


The book is called "Revelation", not "Revelations", and you have fallen into a terrible trap set for you by a 19th century preacher who misinterpreted the book and came to America to spread the lie.
And you bought it, hook, line and sinker.


----------



## GISMYS

thebrucebeat said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> if you understood that revelation is an example of apocalyptic literature in the hebrew tradition, you would know it is simply a message of hope to the believers being persecuted in rome. It isn't prophesy or premonition. It is a coded message of hope.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Revelations is a book giving us a warning of the very soon years of the great tribulation =God's judgments on an evil,sin loving world and a book reveiling Jesus as King of Kings,Lord of Lords returning to earth to destroy all evil  and set up His kingdom on earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The book is called "Revelation", not "Revelations", and you have fallen into a terrible trap set for you by a 19th century preacher who misinterpreted the book and came to America to spread the lie.
> And you bought it, hook, line and sinker.
Click to expand...


BEFORE YOU TRY TO DEBATE WHAT THE BOOK OF REVELATION SAYS YOU NEED TO READ IT,YOUR POSTS PROVE YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT IT SAYS!!! Wise up!!!


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Article VII of the U.S. Constitution: "Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth." (Interesting that this includes both the religiously linked dating and the utterly secular age of the nation itself.)
> 
> Some four score and seven years later, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation is dated "on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this is why we need god taken out of every public square and school.  No peddling that bullshit nonsense on to the next generations.  No more brainwashed mind fucks who like sheep go to slaughter in Iraq for the lord, the year of our lord, oh lord.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> THE USA AS LONG AS WE HONOR GOD WE CAN LIVE IN HIS BLESSINGS,IF WE DENY GOD THEN WE TAKE OURSELF OUT FROM GOD'S PROTECTION!!= Not smart!
Click to expand...


Really?  Because from what I see he's doing a horrible job.  Look at all the drought and famine and wildfires and mudslides and tornados and cancer.  It's not because people don't believe in god.  From survey's most of them do believe in god.  So are you saying we'll never be perfect but until we are perfect god is going to keep on punishing us?  You know they did a study and besides making people feel better, praying doesn't work?  

You've been told if you don't believe a bad story you'll go to hell.  Otherwise you wouldn't be so dumb.  Imagine if I told you a story and told you it all started 2000 years ago and only 11 guys saw it.


----------



## thebrucebeat

GISMYS said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> driftingsand said:
> 
> 
> 
> again ... If you ever read revelation you will find that the events are global in nature and not limited to a little section of europe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if you understood that revelation is an example of apocalyptic literature in the hebrew tradition, you would know it is simply a message of hope to the believers being persecuted in rome. It isn't prophesy or premonition. It is a coded message of hope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Revelations is a book giving us a warning of the very soon years of the great tribulation =God's judgments on an evil,sin loving world and a book reveiling Jesus as King of Kings,Lord of Lords returning to earth to destroy all evil  and set up His kingdom on earth.
Click to expand...


An obvious misinterpretation, because nothing of the kind happened in the "very soon years".


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And this is why we need god taken out of every public square and school.  No peddling that bullshit nonsense on to the next generations.  No more brainwashed mind fucks who like sheep go to slaughter in Iraq for the lord, the year of our lord, oh lord.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THE USA AS LONG AS WE HONOR GOD WE CAN LIVE IN HIS BLESSINGS,IF WE DENY GOD THEN WE TAKE OURSELF OUT FROM GOD'S PROTECTION!!= Not smart!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Because from what I see he's doing a horrible job.  Look at all the drought and famine and wildfires and mudslides and tornados and cancer.  It's not because people don't believe in god.  From survey's most of them do believe in god.  So are you saying we'll never be perfect but until we are perfect god is going to keep on punishing us?  You know they did a study and besides making people feel better, praying doesn't work?
> 
> You've been told if you don't believe a bad story you'll go to hell.  Otherwise you wouldn't be so dumb.  Imagine if I told you a story and told you it all started 2000 years ago and only 11 guys saw it.
Click to expand...


We tell GOD He is not wanted or needed,we take prayer out of schools we kill the unborn,we ok gay marrage and sexual perversion, then we cry when we find we are no longer under GOD'S PROTECTION!!!= FOOLS!!!


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> HuggyBear: What most theists and in your case "spiritualists" assume incorrectly is that typical atheists haven't thought out their positions on the existance (sic) of a god before laying out an argument on a forum like USMB.
> 
> Atheists do not need to convince ourselves of the non existance of a god. We do not need to conjur up some "faith" to fall back on when arguing our thoughts about god and religion. Try not to take it personally when you discover that you will not be the one to convince an atheist that we are wrong and you are right.
> 
> The religists have had several thousands of years to come up with a convincing story and have failed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is too hilarious not to respond to. First of all, you are incorrect, I have assumed no such thing. I think Atheists have thought out their positions, they are just really stupid people. They form arguments which are full of illogical and irrational points without any basis in science or observable nature, then parade those around as if they are facts. When challenged, they look down their snooty nose and recite some mantra from their Atheist heroes, toss out a few insults at religion and think they've "won" a debate.
> 
> As for FAITH, the Atheists are the people who have more actual FAITH than any religious person I know. It takes an enormous amount of faith to disbelieve what humans have known since we climbed out of the trees. To be so sure of yourself, to be so absolutely certain you are right... takes enormous amounts of sheer faith. Blind faith at that. To chalk everything you see around you up to happenstance and random chance, to reject man's inseparable connection to something spiritual for all our existence, to ignore that nearly 90% of us believe in something spiritual and always have.... Loads of faith! While people who have religious beliefs at least have some relevant documentation and history.
> 
> As I stated in the post before, and apparently you were too dumb to comprehend, I don't really care if you agree with me personally. I don't fool myself into thinking I am going to change your mind, maybe you are the kind of fool who thinks that, but not me. I don't state arguments to support or endorse religions, or to "prove" religious dogma. My arguments are purely from a rational point of view from someone who has a distinct advantage over you. You see, I already know the truth here, I am aware of a spiritual nature that you don't realize. That's why I can shoot holes in all your "theories" about Man and God.
Click to expand...


----------



## Mephisto

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> THE USA AS LONG AS WE HONOR GOD WE CAN LIVE IN HIS BLESSINGS,IF WE DENY GOD THEN WE TAKE OURSELF OUT FROM GOD'S PROTECTION!!= Not smart!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Because from what I see he's doing a horrible job.  Look at all the drought and famine and wildfires and mudslides and tornados and cancer.  It's not because people don't believe in god.  From survey's most of them do believe in god.  So are you saying we'll never be perfect but until we are perfect god is going to keep on punishing us?  You know they did a study and besides making people feel better, praying doesn't work?
> 
> You've been told if you don't believe a bad story you'll go to hell.  Otherwise you wouldn't be so dumb.  Imagine if I told you a story and told you it all started 2000 years ago and only 11 guys saw it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We tell GOD He is not wanted or needed,we take prayer out of schools we kill the unborn,we ok gay marrage and sexual perversion, then we cry when we find we are no longer under GOD'S PROTECTION!!!= FOOLS!!!
Click to expand...


We're not a theocracy, there for religion has zero place in our laws.


----------



## GISMYS

mephisto said:


> gismys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> really?  Because from what i see he's doing a horrible job.  Look at all the drought and famine and wildfires and mudslides and tornados and cancer.  It's not because people don't believe in god.  From survey's most of them do believe in god.  So are you saying we'll never be perfect but until we are perfect god is going to keep on punishing us?  You know they did a study and besides making people feel better, praying doesn't work?
> 
> You've been told if you don't believe a bad story you'll go to hell.  Otherwise you wouldn't be so dumb.  Imagine if i told you a story and told you it all started 2000 years ago and only 11 guys saw it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> we tell god he is not wanted or needed,we take prayer out of schools we kill the unborn,we ok gay marrage and sexual perversion, then we cry when we find we are no longer under god's protection!!!= fools!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> we're not a theocracy, there for religion has zero place in our laws.
Click to expand...

""In God we trust"" I have seen that somewhere!!!! Lol!!!


----------



## Uncensored2008

GISMYS said:


> ""In God we trust"" I have seen that somewhere!!!! Lol!!!



Personally, I don't trust in your god, nor in the primitive god that Sealybobo worships.

A motto on coins compels me in no way, I have no issue with it, but it certainly is not law.


----------



## Mephisto

GISMYS said:


> mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gismys said:
> 
> 
> 
> we tell god he is not wanted or needed,we take prayer out of schools we kill the unborn,we ok gay marrage and sexual perversion, then we cry when we find we are no longer under god's protection!!!= fools!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> we're not a theocracy, there for religion has zero place in our laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ""In God we trust"" I have seen that somewhere!!!! Lol!!!
Click to expand...


n 1956, the nation was at a particularly tense time in the Cold War, and the United States wanted to distinguish itself from the Soviet Union, which promoted state atheism.[17] As a result, the 84th Congress passed a joint resolution "declaring IN GOD WE TRUST the national motto of the United States

Not because we believe in God, but because we wanted to be different than the Soviets.


----------



## GISMYS

Mephisto said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> we're not a theocracy, there for religion has zero place in our laws.
> 
> 
> 
> ""In God we trust"" I have seen that somewhere!!!! Lol!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> n 1956, the nation was at a particularly tense time in the Cold War, and the United States wanted to distinguish itself from the Soviet Union, which promoted state atheism.[17] As a result, the 84th Congress passed a joint resolution "declaring IN GOD WE TRUST the national motto of the United States
> 
> Not because we believe in God, but because we wanted to be different than the Soviets.
Click to expand...


By 1778, George Washington had so often witnessed God's intervention that on August 20, he wrote Thomas Nelson that:


The Hand of providence has been so conspicuous in all this, that he must be worse than an infidel that lacks faith, and more than wicked, that has not gratitude enough to acknowledge his obligations.


----------



## Mephisto

GISMYS said:


> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> ""In God we trust"" I have seen that somewhere!!!! Lol!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> n 1956, the nation was at a particularly tense time in the Cold War, and the United States wanted to distinguish itself from the Soviet Union, which promoted state atheism.[17] As a result, the 84th Congress passed a joint resolution "declaring IN GOD WE TRUST the national motto of the United States
> 
> Not because we believe in God, but because we wanted to be different than the Soviets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By 1778, George Washington had so often witnessed God's intervention that on August 20, he wrote Thomas Nelson that:
> 
> 
> The Hand of providence has been so conspicuous in all this, that he must be worse than an infidel that lacks faith, and more than wicked, that has not gratitude enough to acknowledge his obligations.
Click to expand...


What does that have to do with anything?  

we're not nor ever will be a religious nation.  The first amendment protects us from that every happening.


----------



## GISMYS

Mephisto said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> n 1956, the nation was at a particularly tense time in the Cold War, and the United States wanted to distinguish itself from the Soviet Union, which promoted state atheism.[17] As a result, the 84th Congress passed a joint resolution "declaring IN GOD WE TRUST the national motto of the United States
> 
> Not because we believe in God, but because we wanted to be different than the Soviets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By 1778, George Washington had so often witnessed God's intervention that on August 20, he wrote Thomas Nelson that:
> 
> 
> The Hand of providence has been so conspicuous in all this, that he must be worse than an infidel that lacks faith, and more than wicked, that has not gratitude enough to acknowledge his obligations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with anything?
> 
> we're not nor ever will be a religious nation.  The first amendment protects us from that every happening.
Click to expand...


ROFLMAO!!! IN GOD WE TRUST=ONE NATION UNDER GOD WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!ALMIGHTY GOD says atheist are FOOLS!!! 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That man is a fool who says to himself, There is no God! Anyone who talks like that is warped and evil and cannot really be a good person at all.Psalm 14:1===Only a fool would say to himself, There is no God. And why does he say it? Because of his wicked heart, his dark and evil deeds. His life is corroded with sin. PSALM 53:1 and you???


----------



## thebrucebeat

GISMYS said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Revelations is a book giving us a warning of the very soon years of the great tribulation =God's judgments on an evil,sin loving world and a book reveiling Jesus as King of Kings,Lord of Lords returning to earth to destroy all evil  and set up His kingdom on earth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The book is called "Revelation", not "Revelations", and you have fallen into a terrible trap set for you by a 19th century preacher who misinterpreted the book and came to America to spread the lie.
> And you bought it, hook, line and sinker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BEFORE YOU TRY TO DEBATE WHAT THE BOOK OF REVELATION SAYS YOU NEED TO READ IT,YOUR POSTS PROVE YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT IT SAYS!!! Wise up!!!
Click to expand...


Read it many times. Studied it with Mickey Seifert out of Duke University. Fascinating stuff.
Your capitalization doesn't make an argument, it just makes you look petulant and childish. You have much to learn about your scriptures.
The sad thing is, it's a safe bet you never will.


----------



## Mephisto

GISMYS said:


> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> By 1778, George Washington had so often witnessed God's intervention that on August 20, he wrote Thomas Nelson that:
> 
> 
> The Hand of providence has been so conspicuous in all this, that he must be worse than an infidel that lacks faith, and more than wicked, that has not gratitude enough to acknowledge his obligations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with anything?
> 
> we're not nor ever will be a religious nation.  The first amendment protects us from that every happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO!!! IN GOD WE TRUST=ONE NATION UNDER GOD WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!ALMIGHTY GOD says atheist are FOOLS!!!
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> That man is a fool who says to himself, There is no God! Anyone who talks like that is warped and evil and cannot really be a good person at all.Psalm 14:1===Only a fool would say to himself, There is no God. And why does he say it? Because of his wicked heart, his dark and evil deeds. His life is corroded with sin. PSALM 53:1 and you???
Click to expand...


Those are phrases, not laws.

We have zero laws based on Biblical law. Now a nation like Saudi Arabia is a religious nation as the Koran is the law of the land.

last I check the bible is not the law of the land in the US.


----------



## GISMYS

Founding Father and educator Noah Webster (1758-1843) had this to say: "The moral principles and precepts contained in the scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws. All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery, and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible.

Declaration FlickrCom.jpg So it was natural for the early Americans to turn to the Bible for guidance as to how to make civil law.


----------



## sealybobo

Mephisto said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with anything?
> 
> we're not nor ever will be a religious nation.  The first amendment protects us from that every happening.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO!!! IN GOD WE TRUST=ONE NATION UNDER GOD WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!ALMIGHTY GOD says atheist are FOOLS!!!
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> That man is a fool who says to himself, There is no God! Anyone who talks like that is warped and evil and cannot really be a good person at all.Psalm 14:1===Only a fool would say to himself, There is no God. And why does he say it? Because of his wicked heart, his dark and evil deeds. His life is corroded with sin. PSALM 53:1 and you???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those are phrases, not laws.
> 
> We have zero laws based on Biblical law. Now a nation like Saudi Arabia is a religious nation as the Koran is the law of the land.
> 
> last I check the bible is not the law of the land in the US.
Click to expand...


And of the 10 commandments, only 2 are laws.  Don't kill and don't steal.  The rest are  just suggestions.  Proof we are not a christian nation.  Now take out in god we trust out of everything government.  Not all of us agree there is a god.  Only in America.  It is what makes us great.  Us and Europe.  The Enlightenment Period.


----------



## Boss

> *Silly boob:* These theories conclude that it was probably humans who created God, not the other way around... Science says you are wrong.



I thought we already covered this... Science doesn't "say" things, just as Religion doesn't "say" things. You may read things and interpret them as saying something, but that is you forming an opinion. Furthermore, I know of very little that Science or Religions have collectively agreed on, and certainly they haven't formed consensus on the most compelling question ever. So Science doesn't say I am wrong, YOU say that I am wrong based on what you've interpreted. 

I love to read "theories conclude that it was probably" because I need to laugh a bit. Theories do not "conclude" things, they "theorize" possibility. Also, when something is concluded it is not "probably" it is concluded. You can't "conclude something is probably" because that's not conclusion, that is a speculation. Again, YOU are drawing a conclusion from a speculation. 

Man has invented all kinds of incarnations of God(s), generally surrounded by created religions. Now a thinking and rational person might ask, why do humans continue to invent new incarnations of this "God" thing? All throughout human history, the evidence shows this is what we've done. This is where the philosophical principle known as Occam's Razor comes in to play. The simplest explanation is that man is connecting (or believes he's connecting) to a spiritual nature, something greater than self. 

Science doesn't refute this, nor can it.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO!!! IN GOD WE TRUST=ONE NATION UNDER GOD WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!ALMIGHTY GOD says atheist are FOOLS!!!
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> That man is a fool who says to himself, There is no God! Anyone who talks like that is warped and evil and cannot really be a good person at all.Psalm 14:1===Only a fool would say to himself, There is no God. And why does he say it? Because of his wicked heart, his dark and evil deeds. His life is corroded with sin. PSALM 53:1 and you???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those are phrases, not laws.
> 
> We have zero laws based on Biblical law. Now a nation like Saudi Arabia is a religious nation as the Koran is the law of the land.
> 
> last I check the bible is not the law of the land in the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And of the 10 commandments, only 2 are laws.  Don't kill and don't steal.  The rest are  just suggestions.  Proof we are not a christian nation.  Now take out in god we trust out of everything government.  Not all of us agree there is a god.  Only in America.  It is what makes us great.  Us and Europe.  The Enlightenment Period.
Click to expand...


TRUTH MAY HURT!!!Founding Father and educator Noah Webster (1758-1843) had this to say: "The moral principles and precepts contained in the scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws. All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery, and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible.

Declaration FlickrCom.jpg So it was natural for the early Americans to turn to the Bible for guidance as to how to make civil law.


----------



## sealybobo

thebrucebeat said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> The book is called "Revelation", not "Revelations", and you have fallen into a terrible trap set for you by a 19th century preacher who misinterpreted the book and came to America to spread the lie.
> And you bought it, hook, line and sinker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BEFORE YOU TRY TO DEBATE WHAT THE BOOK OF REVELATION SAYS YOU NEED TO READ IT,YOUR POSTS PROVE YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT IT SAYS!!! Wise up!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read it many times. Studied it with Mickey Seifert out of Duke University. Fascinating stuff.
> Your capitalization doesn't make an argument, it just makes you look petulant and childish. You have much to learn about your scriptures.
> The sad thing is, it's a safe bet you never will.
Click to expand...


The validity of a claim, such as the existence of god, is not governed by the intelligence of the minds which hold it. Evidence and reason are the deciding factors.

Sir Isaac Newton, one of historys greatest scientists, was not only intensely religious but also believed in alchemical transmutation. Alchemy is, however, fully incorrect given our modern understanding of chemistry, the atom and nucleosynthysis.

The fact that an intelligent person holds an irrational belief is simply evidence that our brains are able to compartmentalise world-views and models from one another, usually in order to maintain a state of ignorant bliss and escape the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those are phrases, not laws.
> 
> We have zero laws based on Biblical law. Now a nation like Saudi Arabia is a religious nation as the Koran is the law of the land.
> 
> last I check the bible is not the law of the land in the US.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And of the 10 commandments, only 2 are laws.  Don't kill and don't steal.  The rest are  just suggestions.  Proof we are not a christian nation.  Now take out in god we trust out of everything government.  Not all of us agree there is a god.  Only in America.  It is what makes us great.  Us and Europe.  The Enlightenment Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> TRUTH MAY HURT!!!Founding Father and educator Noah Webster (1758-1843) had this to say: "The moral principles and precepts contained in the scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws. All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery, and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible.
> 
> Declaration FlickrCom.jpg So it was natural for the early Americans to turn to the Bible for guidance as to how to make civil law.
Click to expand...


Big deal most Americans were Christians.  Did you think they were jews, atheists or muslims that came over on the Mayflower?  But a lot of them fled Europe to start their own versions of christianity and some of our founding fathers were atheists and agnostics.  

One of the greatest things our founding fathers did was to seperate church and state.  Does that truth hurt?


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> BEFORE YOU TRY TO DEBATE WHAT THE BOOK OF REVELATION SAYS YOU NEED TO READ IT,YOUR POSTS PROVE YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT IT SAYS!!! Wise up!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read it many times. Studied it with Mickey Seifert out of Duke University. Fascinating stuff.
> Your capitalization doesn't make an argument, it just makes you look petulant and childish. You have much to learn about your scriptures.
> The sad thing is, it's a safe bet you never will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The validity of a claim, such as the existence of god, is not governed by the intelligence of the minds which hold it. Evidence and reason are the deciding factors.
> 
> Sir Isaac Newton, one of historys greatest scientists, was not only intensely religious but also believed in alchemical transmutation. Alchemy is, however, fully incorrect given our modern understanding of chemistry, the atom and nucleosynthysis.
> 
> The fact that an intelligent person holds an irrational belief is simply evidence that our brains are able to compartmentalise world-views and models from one another, usually in order to maintain a state of ignorant bliss and escape the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.
Click to expand...


IF YOU "HAD" READ Revelation you would have seen the prophecy there recorded over 2000 years ago proves it is true.


----------



## Uncensored2008

sealybobo said:


> And of the 10 commandments, only 2 are laws.  Don't kill and don't steal.  The rest are  just suggestions.  Proof we are not a christian nation.  Now take out in god we trust out of everything government.  Not all of us agree there is a god.  Only in America.  It is what makes us great.  Us and Europe.  The Enlightenment Period.



You need to cut your dick off and burn it, as sacrifice to Gaia for your carbon sins. Gaia demands a burnt offering.

IF you do not, we will be punished with melting ice caps and rising oceans - so say your sacred shamans, so says the fuckwad nutjob IPCC bible.

Do it now bobo, you not only hold your own fate, but the fate of the entire planet in your hands. The shamans are in consensus that YOU have committed carbon sins, and only SACRIFICE can appease the volcano god.

Cut your dick off and burn it, or the world ends...


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> *Silly boob:* These theories conclude that it was probably humans who created God, not the other way around... Science says you are wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought we already covered this... Science doesn't "say" things, just as Religion doesn't "say" things. You may read things and interpret them as saying something, but that is you forming an opinion. Furthermore, I know of very little that Science or Religions have collectively agreed on, and certainly they haven't formed consensus on the most compelling question ever. So Science doesn't say I am wrong, YOU say that I am wrong based on what you've interpreted.
> 
> I love to read "theories conclude that it was probably" because I need to laugh a bit. Theories do not "conclude" things, they "theorize" possibility. Also, when something is concluded it is not "probably" it is concluded. You can't "conclude something is probably" because that's not conclusion, that is a speculation. Again, YOU are drawing a conclusion from a speculation.
> 
> Man has invented all kinds of incarnations of God(s), generally surrounded by created religions. Now a thinking and rational person might ask, why do humans continue to invent new incarnations of this "God" thing? All throughout human history, the evidence shows this is what we've done. This is where the philosophical principle known as Occam's Razor comes in to play. The simplest explanation is that man is connecting (or believes he's connecting) to a spiritual nature, something greater than self.
> 
> Science doesn't refute this, nor can it.
Click to expand...


I've already shown you science has figured out exactly when/how/why the human brain came up with religion.  And yes, it can be concluded that PROBABLY there is no god.  Based on all the evidence.  Of course we can't say we know everything so that gives you a 0000.0001% chance of being right.

A particular standard of evidence is required to prove any claim. Since gods existence is an extraordinary claim, perhaps the most extraordinary claim, proving it requires equally extraordinary evidence.

The standard of evidence required to prove a gods existence is immediately more than any personal anecdote, witness testimony, ancient book or reported miracle  none of which can be considered extraordinarily reliable. The human mind is also highly susceptible to being fooled and even fooling itself. One could be suffering from an hallucination or a form of undiagnosed schizophrenia, hysteria or psychosis, ruling out even our own senses as reliable evidence gathering mechanisms in this case. As strange as it sounds, misunderstood aliens might even be attempting to interact with us using extremely advanced technology. In fact, reality itself could be a computer simulation which we unknowingly inhabit.

Every conceivable argument, every imaginable piece of evidence for god is not without some fatal flaw or more likely explanation which precludes it from being used as definitive proof. 

God is what it would take to convince an atheist/scientist. An omniscient god would know the exact standard of evidence required to convince any atheist/scientist of its existence and, being omnipotent, it would also be able to immediately produce this evidence. If it wanted to, a god could conceivably change the brain chemistry of any individual in order to compel them to believe. It could even restructure the entire universe in such a way as to make non-belief impossible.

In short, a god actually proving its own existence is what would convince any atheist/scientist of said gods existence.


----------



## GISMYS

HOW CAN YOU BE SO IGNORANT???====That man is a fool who says to himself, &#8220;There is no God!&#8221; Anyone who talks like that is warped and evil and cannot really be a good person at all.Psalm 14:1===Only a fool would say to himself, &#8220;There is no God.&#8221; And why does he say it? Because of his wicked h eart, his dark and evil deeds. His life is corroded with sin. PSALM 53:1 and you???  GOD HAS GIVEN YOU THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE AND LIFE AS PROOF HE IS REAL,WHAT KIND OF FOOL NEEDS MORE PROOF?????????????


----------



## sealybobo

Uncensored2008 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And of the 10 commandments, only 2 are laws.  Don't kill and don't steal.  The rest are  just suggestions.  Proof we are not a christian nation.  Now take out in god we trust out of everything government.  Not all of us agree there is a god.  Only in America.  It is what makes us great.  Us and Europe.  The Enlightenment Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to cut your dick off and burn it, as sacrifice to Gaia for your carbon sins. Gaia demands a burnt offering.
> 
> IF you do not, we will be punished with melting ice caps and rising oceans - so say your sacred shamans, so says the fuckwad nutjob IPCC bible.
> 
> Do it now bobo, you not only hold your own fate, but the fate of the entire planet in your hands. The shamans are in consensus that YOU have committed carbon sins, and only SACRIFICE can appease the volcano god.
> 
> Cut your dick off and burn it, or the world ends...
Click to expand...


This is like the second time you've sent this to me.  You are weird.  What do you believe? 

I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking. The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which theres little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.  Carl Sagan

I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it. - Mark Twain


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> HOW CAN YOU BE SO IGNORANT???====That man is a fool who says to himself, There is no God! Anyone who talks like that is warped and evil and cannot really be a good person at all.Psalm 14:1===Only a fool would say to himself, There is no God. And why does he say it? Because of his wicked h eart, his dark and evil deeds. His life is corroded with sin. PSALM 53:1 and you???  GOD HAS GIVEN YOU THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE AND LIFE AS PROOF HE IS REAL,WHAT KIND OF FOOL NEEDS MORE PROOF?????????????



God told me if you repeat that quote one more time you are going to hell and he and satin are going to run a train on your ass.

When I became convinced that the universe was natural, that all the ghosts and gods were myths, there entered into my brain, into my soul, into every drop of my blood, the sense, the feeling, the joy of freedom. The walls of my prison crumbled and fell. The dungeon was flooded with light and all the bolts and bars and manacles turned to dust. I was no longer a servant, a serf, or a slave. There was for me no master in all the wide world, not even in infinite space.

I was free to think. Free to express my thoughts, free to live in my own ideal. Free to live for myself and those I loved. Free to use all my faculties, all my senses. Free to spread imaginations wings, free to investigate, to guess, and dream and hope. Free to judge and determine for myself. Free to reject all ignorant and cruel creeds, all the inspired books that savages have produced, and the barbarous legends of the past. Free from sanctified mistakes and holy lies. Free from the fear of eternal pain, free from the winged monsters of the night. Free from devils, ghosts and gods. For the first time I was free.

There were no prohibited places in all of the realm of thought. No error, no space where fancy could not spread her painted wings. No chains for my limbs. No lashes for my back. No flames for my flesh. No Masters frown or threat, no following in anothers steps. No need to bow or cringe or crawl, or utter lying words. I was free; I stood erect and fearlessly, joyously faced all worlds.

My heart was filled with gratitude, with thankfulness, and went out in love to all the heros, the thinkers who gave their lives for liberty of hand and brain, for the freedom of labor and thought to those who fell on the fierce fields of war. To those who died in dungeons, bound in chains, to those by fire consumed, to all the wise, the good, the brave of every land whose thoughts and deeds have given freedom to the sons of men. And then, I vowed to grasp the torch that they held, and hold it high, That light might conquer darkness still.

-Robert Green Ingersoll (1833-1899)


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And of the 10 commandments, only 2 are laws.  Don't kill and don't steal.  The rest are  just suggestions.  Proof we are not a christian nation.  Now take out in god we trust out of everything government.  Not all of us agree there is a god.  Only in America.  It is what makes us great.  Us and Europe.  The Enlightenment Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to cut your dick off and burn it, as sacrifice to Gaia for your carbon sins. Gaia demands a burnt offering.
> 
> IF you do not, we will be punished with melting ice caps and rising oceans - so say your sacred shamans, so says the fuckwad nutjob IPCC bible.
> 
> Do it now bobo, you not only hold your own fate, but the fate of the entire planet in your hands. The shamans are in consensus that YOU have committed carbon sins, and only SACRIFICE can appease the volcano god.
> 
> Cut your dick off and burn it, or the world ends...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is like the second time you've sent this to me.  You are weird.  What do you believe?
> 
> I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking. The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which theres little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.  Carl Sagan
> 
> I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it. - Mark Twain
Click to expand...


YOU QUOTE SILLY LITTLE MAN WHILE I QUOTE ALMIGHTY GOD'S WORD !!! DUH!!!who should we believe????


----------



## thebrucebeat

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read it many times. Studied it with Mickey Seifert out of Duke University. Fascinating stuff.
> Your capitalization doesn't make an argument, it just makes you look petulant and childish. You have much to learn about your scriptures.
> The sad thing is, it's a safe bet you never will.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The validity of a claim, such as the existence of god, is not governed by the intelligence of the minds which hold it. Evidence and reason are the deciding factors.
> 
> Sir Isaac Newton, one of historys greatest scientists, was not only intensely religious but also believed in alchemical transmutation. Alchemy is, however, fully incorrect given our modern understanding of chemistry, the atom and nucleosynthysis.
> 
> The fact that an intelligent person holds an irrational belief is simply evidence that our brains are able to compartmentalise world-views and models from one another, usually in order to maintain a state of ignorant bliss and escape the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IF YOU "HAD" READ Revelation you would have seen the prophecy there recorded over 2000 years ago proves it is true.
Click to expand...


You are a sorry, deluded troll.
I know you don't mean to be. You are utterly lost in your delusion and can't get out.
But it is terribly sad to watch.
Now you are calling me a liar after I told you I have read it many times and in fact studied it with one of the most respected teachers from Duke's seminary. Your delusions allow you to make unfounded accusations and undermine any godliness you might hope to aspire to.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> I've already shown you science has figured out exactly when/how/why the human brain came up with religion.



You've not shown anything but a lack of comprehension for the most basic things. First of all, we're not arguing about Religion. I agree, man invented Religion. Science doesn't need to figure it out, we have archeological evidence of when the first religions were created. Religions are the product of *human spirituality* which man didn't invent. 



> And yes, it can be concluded that PROBABLY there is no god.  Based on all the evidence.  Of course we can't say we know everything so that gives you a 0000.0001% chance of being right.



Nonsense. You are vomiting an oxymoron, like "agnostic atheist". You simply cannot CONCLUDE something PROBABLY! If something is PROBABLE, it is NOT CONCLUDED!

Based on WHAT fucking evidence? Science can't evaluate the spiritual! There is NO evidence to evaluate. This is about as stupid as including "0000" before ".0001" Do you think those extra zeroes are more impressive? 



> A particular standard of evidence is required to prove any claim. Since gods existence is an extraordinary claim, perhaps the most extraordinary claim, proving it requires equally extraordinary evidence.



The evidence required to prove a spiritual entity is spiritual evidence, which you ignore. 



> The standard of evidence required to prove a gods existence is immediately more than any personal anecdote, witness testimony, ancient book or reported miracle  none of which can be considered extraordinarily reliable. The human mind is also highly susceptible to being fooled and even fooling itself.



Not for all it's entire existence as a species. I don't know about books or reported miracles, those are from religions which were created to comprehend the spiritual connection. What I know is, humans have been spiritually connecting to something for as long as they've been humans. This is what the archeological evidence shows. 

You seem to keep thinking there should be some kind of physical proof for the thing that created physical existence. It's like going to Mona Lisa and asking her who painted her, expecting her to answer and tell you! 



> One could be suffering from an hallucination or a form of undiagnosed schizophrenia, hysteria or psychosis, ruling out even our own senses as reliable evidence gathering mechanisms in this case. As strange as it sounds, misunderstood aliens might even be attempting to interact with us using extremely advanced technology. In fact, reality itself could be a computer simulation which we unknowingly inhabit.



Yes, I think definitely someone is suffering from undiagnosed schizophrenia, hysteria and psychosis here. Haven't you signed up for your Obamacare yet? I can recommend some really good psychiatrists. 

Reality, as I have explained in another thread, is merely our perception of what is happening during the expanding of our universe. The expansion creates time, or spacetime, in which reality can happen. Your reality and mine are distinctly unique. 



> Every conceivable argument, every imaginable piece of evidence for god is not without some fatal flaw or more likely explanation which precludes it from being used as definitive proof.



The same is true for every argument for NO god. 



> God is what it would take to convince an atheist/scientist.



I doubt that. 



> An omniscient god would know the exact standard of evidence required to convince any atheist/scientist of its existence and, being omnipotent, it would also be able to immediately produce this evidence. If it wanted to, a god could conceivably change the brain chemistry of any individual in order to compel them to believe. It could even restructure the entire universe in such a way as to make non-belief impossible.



I've made this exact same point. If God wanted everyone to believe, you'd have no choice, it would be like breathing. God is a spiritual energy that doesn't "care" what humans do. It doesn't have humanistic emotions or needs. It doesn't care what you do with the spacetime continuum it has afforded you, that's entirely up to you. Now if your personal spirit is hellbent (pardon the pun) on destroying positive spiritual energy, I suspect your soul will ultimately pay the price for that when your time comes. Your afterlife is going to really suck balls.


----------



## Uncensored2008

sealybobo said:


> This is like the second time you've sent this to me.  You are weird.  What do you believe?



I believe that the "Volcano God Scam" is the oldest one in the book.

The scam is basically, the village sees smoke rising from the mountain. The village shaman tells the villagers that the volcano god is angry at them for their sins. Only through sacrifice of their crops and virgin daughters can the god be appeased, otherwise he will spit fire and lava to destroy the village.

A few things, the volcano is real. Of course the activity has not a fucking thing to do with sins on the part of the villagers, and the shaman SURE the fuck has no power to alter the events. He is simply taking advantage so he can rape and murder some little girls, and live high on the hog from the best the villagers can produce.

This is Anthropogenic Global Warming, top to bottom. It's just a modern incarnation of the volcano hoax. Shamans like Michael Mann and Algore demand sacrifice in payment for carbon sins, comply or the world will end. It's amusing the hundreds of failed predictions and the dozens of exposed frauds, yet the villagers still believe.. Gore and Mann get filthy rich, yet the villagers faith never waivers..

For you to mock GISMYS is the height of chutzpah, yours is the most primitive of of religions, and the most foolish. 

So I laugh at you.


----------



## Uncensored2008

GISMYS said:


> YOU QUOTE SILLY LITTLE MAN WHILE I QUOTE ALMIGHTY GOD'S WORD !!! DUH!!!who should we believe????



What if his goddess Gaia is more powerful than your god?

We should arrange a mud wrestling match to sort this out...


----------



## GISMYS

Uncensored2008 said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOU QUOTE SILLY LITTLE MAN WHILE I QUOTE ALMIGHTY GOD'S WORD !!! DUH!!!who should we believe????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What if his goddess Gaia is more powerful than your god?
> 
> We should arrange a mud wrestling match to sort this out...
Click to expand...


That Callange has been made long ago 3000 years ago.====Then Elijah talked to them. How long are you going to waver between two opinions? he asked the people. If the Lord is God,follow him! But if Baal is God, then follow him!

22 Then Elijah spoke again. I am the only prophet of the Lord who is left, he told them, but Baal has 450 prophets.  23 Now bring two young bulls. The prophets of Baal may choose whichever one they wish and cut it into pieces and lay it on the wood of their altar, but without putting any fire under the wood; and I will prepare the other young bull and lay it on the wood on the Lords altar, with no fire under it.  24 Then pray to your god, and I will pray to the Lord; and the god who answers by sending fire to light the wood is the true God! And all the people agreed to this test.

25 Then Elijah turned to the prophets of Baal. You first, he said, for there are many of you; choose one of the bulls and prepare it and call to your god; but dont put any fire under the wood.

26 So they prepared one of the young bulls and placed it on the altar; and they called to Baal all morning, shouting, O Baal, hear us! But there was no reply of any kind. Then they began to dance around the altar.  27 About noontime, Elijah began mocking them.

Youll have to shout louder than that, he scoffed, to catch the attention of your god! Perhaps he is talking to someone, or is out sitting on the toilet, or maybe he is away on a trip, or is asleep and needs to be wakened!

28 So they shouted louder and, as was their custom, cut themselves with knives and swords until the blood gushed out.  29 They raved all afternoon until the time of the evening sacrifice, but there was no reply, no voice, no answer.

30 Then Elijah called to the people, Come over here.

And they all crowded around him as he repaired the altar of the Lord that had been torn down.  31 He took twelve stones, one to represent each of the tribes of Israel,*  32 and used the stones to rebuild the Lords altar. Then he dug a trench about three feet wide[c] around the altar.  33 He piled wood upon the altar and cut the young bull into pieces and laid the pieces on the wood.

Fill four barrels with water, he said, and pour the water over the carcass and the wood.

After they had done this he said,  34 Do it again. And they did.

Now, do it once more! And they did;  35 and the water ran off the altar and filled the trench.

36 At the customary time for offering the evening sacrifice, Elijah walked up to the altar and prayed, O Lord God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, prove today that you are the God of Israel and that I am your servant; prove that I have done all this at your command.  37 O Lord, answer me! Answer me so these people will know that you are God and that you have brought them back to yourself.

38 Then, suddenly, fire flashed down from heaven and burned up the young bull, the wood, the stones, the dust, and even evaporated all the water in the ditch!

39 And when the people saw it, they fell to their faces upon the ground shouting, Jehovah is God! Jehovah is God!*


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> I've made this exact same point. If God wanted everyone to believe, you'd have no choice, it would be like breathing. God is a spiritual energy that doesn't "care" what humans do. It doesn't have humanistic emotions or needs. It doesn't care what you do with the spacetime continuum it has afforded you, that's entirely up to you. Now if your personal spirit is hellbent (pardon the pun) on destroying positive spiritual energy, I suspect your soul will ultimately pay the price for that when your time comes. Your afterlife is going to really suck balls.



Wait.  If god doesn't care what a person does, why do you 'suspect your soul will ultimately pay the price for that when your time comes.'?  Is there some other spiritual being, one which does care about what we do, that is in charge of the afterlife?


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> *Silly boob:* These theories conclude that it was probably humans who created God, not the other way around... Science says you are wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought we already covered this... Science doesn't "say" things, just as Religion doesn't "say" things. You may read things and interpret them as saying something, but that is you forming an opinion. Furthermore, I know of very little that Science or Religions have collectively agreed on, and certainly they haven't formed consensus on the most compelling question ever. So Science doesn't say I am wrong, YOU say that I am wrong based on what you've interpreted.
> 
> I love to read "theories conclude that it was probably" because I need to laugh a bit. Theories do not "conclude" things, they "theorize" possibility. Also, when something is concluded it is not "probably" it is concluded. You can't "conclude something is probably" because that's not conclusion, that is a speculation. Again, YOU are drawing a conclusion from a speculation.
> 
> Man has invented all kinds of incarnations of God(s), generally surrounded by created religions. Now a thinking and rational person might ask, why do humans continue to invent new incarnations of this "God" thing? All throughout human history, the evidence shows this is what we've done. This is where the philosophical principle known as Occam's Razor comes in to play. The simplest explanation is that man is connecting (or believes he's connecting) to a spiritual nature, something greater than self.
> 
> Science doesn't refute this, nor can it.
Click to expand...


Why is that the simplest explanation?  What about man is comforted by the idea of god(s)?  Your 'simple' explanation requires not only a being which exists in a reality we cannot directly perceive, but also that mankind can inherently sense that being through some unknown means and not only continually misinterprets that sensing, but does so en masse.


----------



## GISMYS

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Silly boob:* These theories conclude that it was probably humans who created God, not the other way around... Science says you are wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought we already covered this... Science doesn't "say" things, just as Religion doesn't "say" things. You may read things and interpret them as saying something, but that is you forming an opinion. Furthermore, I know of very little that Science or Religions have collectively agreed on, and certainly they haven't formed consensus on the most compelling question ever. So Science doesn't say I am wrong, YOU say that I am wrong based on what you've interpreted.
> 
> I love to read "theories conclude that it was probably" because I need to laugh a bit. Theories do not "conclude" things, they "theorize" possibility. Also, when something is concluded it is not "probably" it is concluded. You can't "conclude something is probably" because that's not conclusion, that is a speculation. Again, YOU are drawing a conclusion from a speculation.
> 
> Man has invented all kinds of incarnations of God(s), generally surrounded by created religions. Now a thinking and rational person might ask, why do humans continue to invent new incarnations of this "God" thing? All throughout human history, the evidence shows this is what we've done. This is where the philosophical principle known as Occam's Razor comes in to play. The simplest explanation is that man is connecting (or believes he's connecting) to a spiritual nature, something greater than self.
> 
> Science doesn't refute this, nor can it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is that the simplest explanation?  What about man is comforted by the idea of god(s)?  Your 'simple' explanation requires not only a being which exists in a reality we cannot directly perceive, but also that mankind can inherently sense that being through some unknown means and not only continually misinterprets that sensing, but does so en masse.
Click to expand...


YES!!! GOD'S THINKING is way over little man understanding!!! Little man is like a tiny ant in a little boy's ant farm.he climbs up on a little rock and shakes his fist and dares the boy to SQUISH HIM!!! OOPS!!


----------



## Mephisto

Boss said:


> I've made this exact same point. If God wanted everyone to believe, you'd have no choice, it would be like breathing. God is a spiritual energy that doesn't "care" what humans do. It doesn't have humanistic emotions or needs. It doesn't care what you do with the spacetime continuum it has afforded you, that's entirely up to you. Now if your personal spirit is hellbent (pardon the pun) on destroying positive spiritual energy, I suspect your soul will ultimately pay the price for that when your time comes. Your afterlife is going to really suck balls.



So god does not care what you do with our time on this rock, but if you do things that god does not like then we'll be punished.

How can god punish us for doing things if he does not care what we do?


----------



## HUGGY

Boss said:


> I've made this exact same point. If God wanted everyone to believe, you'd have no choice, it would be like breathing. God is a spiritual energy that doesn't "care" what humans do. It doesn't have humanistic emotions or needs. It doesn't care what you do with the spacetime continuum it has afforded you, that's entirely up to you. Now if your personal spirit is hellbent (pardon the pun) on destroying positive spiritual energy, I suspect your soul will ultimately pay the price for that when your time comes. Your afterlife is going to really suck balls.



Small problem.  There is no afterlife.....Not even the realization of the nothingness.


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've made this exact same point. If God wanted everyone to believe, you'd have no choice, it would be like breathing. God is a spiritual energy that doesn't "care" what humans do. It doesn't have humanistic emotions or needs. It doesn't care what you do with the spacetime continuum it has afforded you, that's entirely up to you. Now if your personal spirit is hellbent (pardon the pun) on destroying positive spiritual energy, I suspect your soul will ultimately pay the price for that when your time comes. Your afterlife is going to really suck balls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait.  If god doesn't care what a person does, why do you 'suspect your soul will ultimately pay the price for that when your time comes.'?  Is there some other spiritual being, one which does care about what we do, that is in charge of the afterlife?
Click to expand...


Again, go back to my comparison of God with electricity... does electricity care if you stick your finger in the socket? Now your spirit functions in a dimension other than time, and where you stick your finger in a socket, the consequence is immediate in terms of time, your soul and spirit are immortal, so time doesn't matter. The consequence comes after your physical experience is over. This is why I think spiritual nature leads us on a path to goodness, or as religious folk may say, "righteousness."

Now... Judgement... maybe this is another word that we apply because we have no other word to define it? Perhaps this is more of a "criteria" your soul must meet to pass on to a greater place in afterlife? Could be that Atheists actually get to experience a life where everyone in existence around them are haters of God?


----------



## Mephisto

Boss said:


> Again, go back to my comparison of God with electricity... does electricity care if you stick your finger in the socket? Now your spirit functions in a dimension other than time, and where you stick your finger in a socket, the consequence is immediate in terms of time, your soul and spirit are immortal, so time doesn't matter. The consequence comes after your physical experience is over. This is why I think spiritual nature leads us on a path to goodness, or as religious folk may say, "righteousness."
> 
> Now... Judgement... maybe this is another word that we apply because we have no other word to define it? Perhaps this is more of a "criteria" your soul must meet to pass on to a greater place in afterlife? Could be that Atheists actually get to experience a life where everyone in existence around them are haters of God?



How can an atheist experience an afterlife, if they do not believe in such a thing?


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Silly boob:* These theories conclude that it was probably humans who created God, not the other way around... Science says you are wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought we already covered this... Science doesn't "say" things, just as Religion doesn't "say" things. You may read things and interpret them as saying something, but that is you forming an opinion. Furthermore, I know of very little that Science or Religions have collectively agreed on, and certainly they haven't formed consensus on the most compelling question ever. So Science doesn't say I am wrong, YOU say that I am wrong based on what you've interpreted.
> 
> I love to read "theories conclude that it was probably" because I need to laugh a bit. Theories do not "conclude" things, they "theorize" possibility. Also, when something is concluded it is not "probably" it is concluded. You can't "conclude something is probably" because that's not conclusion, that is a speculation. Again, YOU are drawing a conclusion from a speculation.
> 
> Man has invented all kinds of incarnations of God(s), generally surrounded by created religions. Now a thinking and rational person might ask, why do humans continue to invent new incarnations of this "God" thing? All throughout human history, the evidence shows this is what we've done. This is where the philosophical principle known as Occam's Razor comes in to play. The simplest explanation is that man is connecting (or believes he's connecting) to a spiritual nature, something greater than self.
> 
> Science doesn't refute this, nor can it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is that the simplest explanation?  What about man is comforted by the idea of god(s)?  Your 'simple' explanation requires not only a being which exists in a reality we cannot directly perceive, but also that mankind can inherently sense that being through some unknown means and not only continually misinterprets that sensing, but does so en masse.
Click to expand...


Because man is never comforted by a fake idea for very long. My explanation doesn't "require" anything, I am giving an explanation for what you claim is "required." Your mind has become so convoluted over this, you are beginning to depart from rationality. There is no "unknown means" ...every human is intrinsically hard-wired to be spiritual and make spiritual connection. Some people have simply convinced themselves they can't do this. 

Religion is man's way of trying to comprehend spiritual nature, I never said he "misinterprets" anything. There is a marked difference between failing to fully comprehend something and misinterpreting it.


----------



## Boss

Mephisto said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, go back to my comparison of God with electricity... does electricity care if you stick your finger in the socket? Now your spirit functions in a dimension other than time, and where you stick your finger in a socket, the consequence is immediate in terms of time, your soul and spirit are immortal, so time doesn't matter. The consequence comes after your physical experience is over. This is why I think spiritual nature leads us on a path to goodness, or as religious folk may say, "righteousness."
> 
> Now... Judgement... maybe this is another word that we apply because we have no other word to define it? Perhaps this is more of a "criteria" your soul must meet to pass on to a greater place in afterlife? Could be that Atheists actually get to experience a life where everyone in existence around them are haters of God?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can an atheist experience an afterlife, if they do not believe in such a thing?
Click to expand...


How can a person experience death if they don't believe in such a thing? How can man be eaten by lions in the jungle if they don't believe in such a thing? How can you be electrocuted if you don't believe in such a thing? You really have some strong faith in disbelief if you think that disbelief means you won't experience what is real.


----------



## Boss

HUGGY said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've made this exact same point. If God wanted everyone to believe, you'd have no choice, it would be like breathing. God is a spiritual energy that doesn't "care" what humans do. It doesn't have humanistic emotions or needs. It doesn't care what you do with the spacetime continuum it has afforded you, that's entirely up to you. Now if your personal spirit is hellbent (pardon the pun) on destroying positive spiritual energy, I suspect your soul will ultimately pay the price for that when your time comes. Your afterlife is going to really suck balls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Small problem.  There is no afterlife.....Not even the realization of the nothingness.
Click to expand...


There is no afterlife in a physical sense. At least as far as we know. And I can respect that you have an opinion there is no afterlife for our spirits and souls, but you've offered no evidence to support this claim. I believe our spirits and souls are not physical, and therefore, live on after our physical existence.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought we already covered this... Science doesn't "say" things, just as Religion doesn't "say" things. You may read things and interpret them as saying something, but that is you forming an opinion. Furthermore, I know of very little that Science or Religions have collectively agreed on, and certainly they haven't formed consensus on the most compelling question ever. So Science doesn't say I am wrong, YOU say that I am wrong based on what you've interpreted.
> 
> I love to read "theories conclude that it was probably" because I need to laugh a bit. Theories do not "conclude" things, they "theorize" possibility. Also, when something is concluded it is not "probably" it is concluded. You can't "conclude something is probably" because that's not conclusion, that is a speculation. Again, YOU are drawing a conclusion from a speculation.
> 
> Man has invented all kinds of incarnations of God(s), generally surrounded by created religions. Now a thinking and rational person might ask, why do humans continue to invent new incarnations of this "God" thing? All throughout human history, the evidence shows this is what we've done. This is where the philosophical principle known as Occam's Razor comes in to play. The simplest explanation is that man is connecting (or believes he's connecting) to a spiritual nature, something greater than self.
> 
> Science doesn't refute this, nor can it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is that the simplest explanation?  What about man is comforted by the idea of god(s)?  Your 'simple' explanation requires not only a being which exists in a reality we cannot directly perceive, but also that mankind can inherently sense that being through some unknown means and not only continually misinterprets that sensing, but does so en masse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because man is never comforted by a fake idea for very long. My explanation doesn't "require" anything, I am giving an explanation for what you claim is "required." Your mind has become so convoluted over this, you are beginning to depart from rationality. There is no "unknown means" ...every human is intrinsically hard-wired to be spiritual and make spiritual connection. Some people have simply convinced themselves they can't do this.
> 
> Religion is man's way of trying to comprehend spiritual nature, I never said he "misinterprets" anything. There is a marked difference between failing to fully comprehend something and misinterpreting it.
Click to expand...


What makes you say man is never comforted by a fake idea for very long?  Which fake ideas are you referring to?  

If the means for sensing the spiritual are known, explain them.  It's 'hard-wired' into every human?  What organ or organs function as spiritual receiver?  You say the means are known, but have failed to provide those means.

I'm sorry, I must have missed the words in parenthesis where you add that man creates religion because he *believes* he's connection to something greater than self.  That somewhat obviates my point, but it also has its own issue.  You basically said that man creates a belief in a connection to something greater to self because he believes he is connecting to something greater than self. 

If religions were generally open-ended, if they didn't claim to have the answers and instead merely said there is something out there greater than you, but it cannot be explained or understood, you might have a point about failing to comprehend rather than misinterpreting.  However, if we use your stated beliefs as the benchmark, then religions nearly always create rules and claim truths that are merely imagination.  That would seem to fit under the term misinterpretation to me.


----------



## sealybobo

thebrucebeat said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The validity of a claim, such as the existence of god, is not governed by the intelligence of the minds which hold it. Evidence and reason are the deciding factors.
> 
> Sir Isaac Newton, one of historys greatest scientists, was not only intensely religious but also believed in alchemical transmutation. Alchemy is, however, fully incorrect given our modern understanding of chemistry, the atom and nucleosynthysis.
> 
> The fact that an intelligent person holds an irrational belief is simply evidence that our brains are able to compartmentalise world-views and models from one another, usually in order to maintain a state of ignorant bliss and escape the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IF YOU "HAD" READ Revelation you would have seen the prophecy there recorded over 2000 years ago proves it is true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a sorry, deluded troll.
> I know you don't mean to be. You are utterly lost in your delusion and can't get out.
> But it is terribly sad to watch.
> Now you are calling me a liar after I told you I have read it many times and in fact studied it with one of the most respected teachers from Duke's seminary. Your delusions allow you to make unfounded accusations and undermine any godliness you might hope to aspire to.
Click to expand...


Another person on another thread said I didn't read it with an open mind.  I read it with skepticism and evil in my heart.  Yea, that's why I didn't get it.  

Maybe I should have prayed more for a sign.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> IF YOU "HAD" READ Revelation you would have seen the prophecy there recorded over 2000 years ago proves it is true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a sorry, deluded troll.
> I know you don't mean to be. You are utterly lost in your delusion and can't get out.
> But it is terribly sad to watch.
> Now you are calling me a liar after I told you I have read it many times and in fact studied it with one of the most respected teachers from Duke's seminary. Your delusions allow you to make unfounded accusations and undermine any godliness you might hope to aspire to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another person on another thread said I didn't read it with an open mind.  I read it with skepticism and evil in my heart.  Yea, that's why I didn't get it.
> 
> Maybe I should have prayed more for a sign.
Click to expand...

DUKE should refund your money if they taught you revelation is about Rome. MOST OF Revelation is prophecy for the end days!!


----------



## sealybobo

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is that the simplest explanation?  What about man is comforted by the idea of god(s)?  Your 'simple' explanation requires not only a being which exists in a reality we cannot directly perceive, but also that mankind can inherently sense that being through some unknown means and not only continually misinterprets that sensing, but does so en masse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because man is never comforted by a fake idea for very long. My explanation doesn't "require" anything, I am giving an explanation for what you claim is "required." Your mind has become so convoluted over this, you are beginning to depart from rationality. There is no "unknown means" ...every human is intrinsically hard-wired to be spiritual and make spiritual connection. Some people have simply convinced themselves they can't do this.
> 
> Religion is man's way of trying to comprehend spiritual nature, I never said he "misinterprets" anything. There is a marked difference between failing to fully comprehend something and misinterpreting it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes you say man is never comforted by a fake idea for very long?  Which fake ideas are you referring to?
> 
> If religions were generally open-ended, if they didn't claim to have the answers and instead merely said there is something out there greater than you, but it cannot be explained or understood, you might have a point about failing to comprehend rather than misinterpreting.  However, if we use your stated beliefs as the benchmark, then religions nearly always create rules and claim truths that are merely imagination.  That would seem to fit under the term misinterpretation to me.
Click to expand...


I agree.  If religion admitted they didn't know 100% for sure either, I'd be open to being spiritual.  Most people who say they are atheists say so because we don't believe in the jewish, muslim, christian, mormon gods.  We say we are 100% sure those gods don't exist but who can say for sure there is no god?  But one things for sure.  Based on all the facts, the probability of there being NO god is a lot higher than there being a god.  A god would have revealed himself to us.  No need to hide from us to test us.  That's just  or


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because man is never comforted by a fake idea for very long. My explanation doesn't "require" anything, I am giving an explanation for what you claim is "required." Your mind has become so convoluted over this, you are beginning to depart from rationality. There is no "unknown means" ...every human is intrinsically hard-wired to be spiritual and make spiritual connection. Some people have simply convinced themselves they can't do this.
> 
> Religion is man's way of trying to comprehend spiritual nature, I never said he "misinterprets" anything. There is a marked difference between failing to fully comprehend something and misinterpreting it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you say man is never comforted by a fake idea for very long?  Which fake ideas are you referring to?
> 
> If religions were generally open-ended, if they didn't claim to have the answers and instead merely said there is something out there greater than you, but it cannot be explained or understood, you might have a point about failing to comprehend rather than misinterpreting.  However, if we use your stated beliefs as the benchmark, then religions nearly always create rules and claim truths that are merely imagination.  That would seem to fit under the term misinterpretation to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree.  If religion admitted they didn't know 100% for sure either, I'd be open to being spiritual.  Most people who say they are atheists say so because we don't believe in the jewish, muslim, christian, mormon gods.  We say we are 100% sure those gods don't exist but who can say for sure there is no god?  But one things for sure.  Based on all the facts, the probability of there being NO god is a lot higher than there being a god.  A god would have revealed himself to us.  No need to hide from us to test us.  That's just  or
Click to expand...


YES!!! THERE IS THOUSANDS OF FALSE gods but only ONE TRUE GOD ALMIGHTY!! SEEK TO KNOW HIM AND LIVE!!


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a sorry, deluded troll.
> I know you don't mean to be. You are utterly lost in your delusion and can't get out.
> But it is terribly sad to watch.
> Now you are calling me a liar after I told you I have read it many times and in fact studied it with one of the most respected teachers from Duke's seminary. Your delusions allow you to make unfounded accusations and undermine any godliness you might hope to aspire to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another person on another thread said I didn't read it with an open mind.  I read it with skepticism and evil in my heart.  Yea, that's why I didn't get it.
> 
> Maybe I should have prayed more for a sign.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> DUKE should refund your money if they taught you revelation is about Rome. MOST OF Revelation is prophecy for the end days!!
Click to expand...


That wasn't me who went to Duke.  

Hey, I have a father in my Greek Orthodox church who goes to monestaries in Greece and Turkey and they study the original bible and greek's are actually the ones who translated the bible from hebrew to greek then eventually english.  Anyways, they are still debating the meaning in the bible to this very day.  I look at him and can't believe his whole life is a lie.  I wouldn't dare tell him.  He's a good man.  But I still don't think a lie is good to tell no matter how much good it does.  He can find another job once he realizes there is no god or enough of his flock wake up and stop going to church.  That'll end the lie.  And that is what is happening.  They used to have churches in every city.  Now they have 5 spread around metro Detroit.  A couple more generations and god will no longer be christian, jewish or muslim.  Just god.  And people will just be good and spiritual and they will believe science more than priests.  THE FUTURE!


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you say man is never comforted by a fake idea for very long?  Which fake ideas are you referring to?
> 
> If religions were generally open-ended, if they didn't claim to have the answers and instead merely said there is something out there greater than you, but it cannot be explained or understood, you might have a point about failing to comprehend rather than misinterpreting.  However, if we use your stated beliefs as the benchmark, then religions nearly always create rules and claim truths that are merely imagination.  That would seem to fit under the term misinterpretation to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.  If religion admitted they didn't know 100% for sure either, I'd be open to being spiritual.  Most people who say they are atheists say so because we don't believe in the jewish, muslim, christian, mormon gods.  We say we are 100% sure those gods don't exist but who can say for sure there is no god?  But one things for sure.  Based on all the facts, the probability of there being NO god is a lot higher than there being a god.  A god would have revealed himself to us.  No need to hide from us to test us.  That's just  or
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YES!!! THERE IS THOUSANDS OF FALSE gods but only ONE TRUE GOD ALMIGHTY!! SEEK TO KNOW HIM AND LIVE!!
Click to expand...


It wasn't sad before you were born and it won't be a big deal when you are ready.  This is it.  Enjoy because there is nothing after this, just like there was nothing for you before your parents had you.  Lucky they didn't abort your sorry ass.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another person on another thread said I didn't read it with an open mind.  I read it with skepticism and evil in my heart.  Yea, that's why I didn't get it.
> 
> Maybe I should have prayed more for a sign.
> 
> 
> 
> DUKE should refund your money if they taught you revelation is about Rome. MOST OF Revelation is prophecy for the end days!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That wasn't me who went to Duke.
> 
> Hey, I have a father in my Greek Orthodox church who goes to monestaries in Greece and Turkey and they study the original bible and greek's are actually the ones who translated the bible from hebrew to greek then eventually english.  Anyways, they are still debating the meaning in the bible to this very day.  I look at him and can't believe his whole life is a lie.  I wouldn't dare tell him.  He's a good man.  But I still don't think a lie is good to tell no matter how much good it does.  He can find another job once he realizes there is no god or enough of his flock wake up and stop going to church.  That'll end the lie.  And that is what is happening.  They used to have churches in every city.  Now they have 5 spread around metro Detroit.  A couple more generations and god will no longer be christian, jewish or muslim.  Just god.  And people will just be good and spiritual and they will believe science more than priests.  THE FUTURE!
Click to expand...


JESUS SAYS=Satan is a liar and the father of liars. and you??


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you say man is never comforted by a fake idea for very long?  Which fake ideas are you referring to?
> 
> If religions were generally open-ended, if they didn't claim to have the answers and instead merely said there is something out there greater than you, but it cannot be explained or understood, you might have a point about failing to comprehend rather than misinterpreting.  However, if we use your stated beliefs as the benchmark, then religions nearly always create rules and claim truths that are merely imagination.  That would seem to fit under the term misinterpretation to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.  If religion admitted they didn't know 100% for sure either, I'd be open to being spiritual.  Most people who say they are atheists say so because we don't believe in the jewish, muslim, christian, mormon gods.  We say we are 100% sure those gods don't exist but who can say for sure there is no god?  But one things for sure.  Based on all the facts, the probability of there being NO god is a lot higher than there being a god.  A god would have revealed himself to us.  No need to hide from us to test us.  That's just  or
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YES!!! THERE IS THOUSANDS OF FALSE gods but only ONE TRUE GOD ALMIGHTY!! SEEK TO KNOW HIM AND LIVE!!
Click to expand...


Did the bible foresee global warming or all the shootings going on at schools?


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.  If religion admitted they didn't know 100% for sure either, I'd be open to being spiritual.  Most people who say they are atheists say so because we don't believe in the jewish, muslim, christian, mormon gods.  We say we are 100% sure those gods don't exist but who can say for sure there is no god?  But one things for sure.  Based on all the facts, the probability of there being NO god is a lot higher than there being a god.  A god would have revealed himself to us.  No need to hide from us to test us.  That's just  or
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YES!!! THERE IS THOUSANDS OF FALSE gods but only ONE TRUE GOD ALMIGHTY!! SEEK TO KNOW HIM AND LIVE!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did the bible foresee global warming or all the shootings going on at schools?
Click to expand...


Real global warming is on the way!!!==========7And I heard "Yes, O Lord God, the Almighty, true and righteous are Your judgments." 8The fourth angel poured out his bowl upon the sun, and it was given to it to scorch men with fire. 9Men were scorched with fierce heat; and they blasphemed the name of God who has the power over these plagues, and they did not repent so as to give Him glory. Revelation 16:8


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> YES!!! THERE IS THOUSANDS OF FALSE gods but only ONE TRUE GOD ALMIGHTY!! SEEK TO KNOW HIM AND LIVE!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did the bible foresee global warming or all the shootings going on at schools?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Real global warming is on the way!!!==========7And I heard "Yes, O Lord God, the Almighty, true and righteous are Your judgments." 8The fourth angel poured out his bowl upon the sun, and it was given to it to scorch men with fire. 9Men were scorched with fierce heat; and they blasphemed the name of God who has the power over these plagues, and they did not repent so as to give Him glory. Revelation 16:8
Click to expand...


Well if you love god you will love/respect his planet but you and your christian nation and the corporations that own you don't.  If jesus walked into your church he would overturn the tables in disgust.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> YES!!! THERE IS THOUSANDS OF FALSE gods but only ONE TRUE GOD ALMIGHTY!! SEEK TO KNOW HIM AND LIVE!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did the bible foresee global warming or all the shootings going on at schools?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Real global warming is on the way!!!==========7And I heard "Yes, O Lord God, the Almighty, true and righteous are Your judgments." 8The fourth angel poured out his bowl upon the sun, and it was given to it to scorch men with fire. 9Men were scorched with fierce heat; and they blasphemed the name of God who has the power over these plagues, and they did not repent so as to give Him glory. Revelation 16:8
Click to expand...


I don't care if tomorrow everyone dies because I too will be dead and so what do I care if it is also everyone else's last day?  In fact this planet will be better off.  The lions and bears and wolves will restore order at the top of the food chain.  The beavers will turn deserts into green fields with deep rivers.  The fish population will come back.  The whales, dolphins and sharks will be save to rule the oceans again.  This planet will be paradise without us and it will go on until the sun burns out, another supervolcano comes or a big meteor.  No jesus but you can call that big rock coming at you whatever you want.

The last people to have it right are the people who thought the sun was their god.  At least they could see their god.  Their god provided them with life.  I seem to live just fine without your god but I can't do without the sun.  Oh yea the spirit after life, pergatory, heaven, hell, blablabla.  Fool.  God didn't make us, we invented him.


----------



## RKMBrown

Boss said:


> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.



A very large % of the god haters are ex-Catholics.  The rest are victims of religious commandos, such as gay bashers, women bashers, etc..


----------



## GISMYS

RKMBrown said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A very large % of the god haters are ex-Catholics.  The rest are victims of religious commandos, such as gay bashers, women bashers, etc..
Click to expand...


NO!!! THEY ARE PEOPLE THAT ALLOW SATAN TO USE THEM AS his TOOLS,FOOLS,PUPPETS!!!


----------



## RKMBrown

GISMYS said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A very large % of the god haters are ex-Catholics.  The rest are victims of religious commandos, such as gay bashers, women bashers, etc..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NO!!! THEY ARE PEOPLE THAT ALLOW SATAN TO USE THEM AS his TOOLS,FOOLS,PUPPETS!!!
Click to expand...


Why do you think ex-Catholics and victims of religious commandos can't allow satan to use them as his tools, fools , and puppets?


----------



## GISMYS

RKMBrown said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> A very large % of the god haters are ex-Catholics.  The rest are victims of religious commandos, such as gay bashers, women bashers, etc..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO!!! THEY ARE PEOPLE THAT ALLOW SATAN TO USE THEM AS his TOOLS,FOOLS,PUPPETS!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you think ex-Catholics and victims of religious commandos can't allow satan to use them as his tools, fools , and puppets?
Click to expand...


Anyone CAN CHOOSE TO ALLOW satan to use them but beware the price!!!


----------



## RKMBrown

GISMYS said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> NO!!! THEY ARE PEOPLE THAT ALLOW SATAN TO USE THEM AS his TOOLS,FOOLS,PUPPETS!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think ex-Catholics and victims of religious commandos can't allow satan to use them as his tools, fools , and puppets?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyone CAN CHOOSE TO ALLOW satan to use them but beware the price!!!
Click to expand...

And that goes for the self sanctified religious right as well.


----------



## sealybobo

RKMBrown said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A very large % of the god haters are ex-Catholics.  The rest are victims of religious commandos, such as gay bashers, women bashers, etc..
Click to expand...


I was born Greek Orthodox, a branch off of Catholicism.  I think since Socrates and Galleleo a lot of Greeks have probably questioned/doubted the existence of god.  And I think our church is beautiful.  They aren't hung up on abortion and gays.  But I bet you a lot of famous greek philosophers were atheists.  

Category:Atheist philosophers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## GISMYS

RKMBrown said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think ex-Catholics and victims of religious commandos can't allow satan to use them as his tools, fools , and puppets?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone CAN CHOOSE TO ALLOW satan to use them but beware the price!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that goes for the self sanctified religious right as well.
Click to expand...


YES!!! BELIEVE IN GOD,CONFESS AND REPENT OF SIN AND ACCEPT JESUS AS YOUR LORD AND SAVIOR AND YOU CAN LIVE YOUR LIFE AS A HAPPY,BLESSED son OF GOD!!!


----------



## Mephisto

Boss said:


> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, go back to my comparison of God with electricity... does electricity care if you stick your finger in the socket? Now your spirit functions in a dimension other than time, and where you stick your finger in a socket, the consequence is immediate in terms of time, your soul and spirit are immortal, so time doesn't matter. The consequence comes after your physical experience is over. This is why I think spiritual nature leads us on a path to goodness, or as religious folk may say, "righteousness."
> 
> Now... Judgement... maybe this is another word that we apply because we have no other word to define it? Perhaps this is more of a "criteria" your soul must meet to pass on to a greater place in afterlife? Could be that Atheists actually get to experience a life where everyone in existence around them are haters of God?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can an atheist experience an afterlife, if they do not believe in such a thing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can a person experience death if they don't believe in such a thing? How can man be eaten by lions in the jungle if they don't believe in such a thing? How can you be electrocuted if you don't believe in such a thing? You really have some strong faith in disbelief if you think that disbelief means you won't experience what is real.
Click to expand...

lion, death and electrocution is real.  These are things we can see everyday.  No one has seen the afterlife.


----------



## GISMYS

mephisto said:


> boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> how can an atheist experience an afterlife, if they do not believe in such a thing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how can a person experience death if they don't believe in such a thing? How can man be eaten by lions in the jungle if they don't believe in such a thing? How can you be electrocuted if you don't believe in such a thing? You really have some strong faith in disbelief if you think that disbelief means you won't experience what is real.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lion, death and electrocution is real.  These are things we can see everyday.  No one has seen the afterlife.
Click to expand...


no worries!!! You will see the afterlife!!! The question is where with god or in hell!!????


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone CAN CHOOSE TO ALLOW satan to use them but beware the price!!!
> 
> 
> 
> And that goes for the self sanctified religious right as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YES!!! BELIEVE IN GOD,CONFESS AND REPENT OF SIN AND ACCEPT JESUS AS YOUR LORD AND SAVIOR AND YOU CAN LIVE YOUR LIFE AS A HAPPY,BLESSED son OF GOD!!!
Click to expand...


Because ignorance is bliss.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> gismys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rkmbrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> and that goes for the self sanctified religious right as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes!!! Believe in god,confess and repent of sin and accept jesus as your lord and savior and you can live your life as a happy,blessed son of god!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> because ignorance is bliss.
Click to expand...

 no!! As you must know as God says you are a fool!!! I agree with God 10000%


----------



## Mephisto

sealybobo said:


> I was born Greek Orthodox, a branch off of Catholicism.  I think since Socrates and Galleleo a lot of Greeks have probably questioned/doubted the existence of god.  And I think our church is beautiful.  They aren't hung up on abortion and gays.  But I bet you a lot of famous greek philosophers were atheists.
> 
> Category:Atheist philosophers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



I was also born Greek Orthodox


----------



## GISMYS

Mephisto said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was born Greek Orthodox, a branch off of Catholicism.  I think since Socrates and Galleleo a lot of Greeks have probably questioned/doubted the existence of god.  And I think our church is beautiful.  They aren't hung up on abortion and gays.  But I bet you a lot of famous greek philosophers were atheists.
> 
> Category:Atheist philosophers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was also born Greek Orthodox
Click to expand...


IF YOU DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD THEN 100% YOU ARE LOST,AND AS JESUS SAYS,"NO ONE COMES TO THE FATHER BUT BY ME"!! ACCEPT JESUS AS YOUR LORD AND SAVIOR AND BE BORN AGHAIN AS A son of GOD!!


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gismys said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes!!! Believe in god,confess and repent of sin and accept jesus as your lord and savior and you can live your life as a happy,blessed son of god!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> because ignorance is bliss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no!! As you must know as God says you are a fool!!! I agree with God 10000%
Click to expand...


no!!  As you clearly don't know, there is no god.  God never said anything.  Men 1900 years ago made that up, just like the old testament was made up 3000 years ago at the same time the pagan religion was invented.  

Why is god hiding?  What's he afraid of?  Look at the universe.  What does he have to prove?  Why does he hide and then insist we believe human's who could have just made it up?  What a fucking deadbeat dad.  Like the kid who's father leaves when he's not even 1 year old.  But dad left a cross for you and all you have to go on is mom's word?  

Mom says dad was great and he loved you so much and he was over 6 feet tall, he could walk on water, he was a saint, in fact he never sinned.  One day you might find out your mom was a slut and fucked a sailor and made all that up just to make you feel good and to keep you from growing up like your loser father.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> gismys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> because ignorance is bliss.
> 
> 
> 
> no!! As you must know as god says you are a fool!!! I agree with god 10000%
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no!!  As you clearly don't know, there is no god.  God never said anything.  Men 1900 years ago made that up, just like the old testament was made up 3000 years ago at the same time the pagan religion was invented.
> 
> Why is god hiding?  What's he afraid of?  Look at the universe.  What does he have to prove?  Why does he hide and then insist we believe human's who could have just made it up?  What a fucking deadbeat dad.  Like the kid who's father leaves when he's not even 1 year old.  But dad left a cross for you and all you have to go on is mom's word?
> 
> Mom says dad was great and he loved you so much and he was over 6 feet tall, he could walk on water, he was a saint, in fact he never sinned.  One day you might find out your mom was a slut and fucked a sailor and made all that up just to make you feel good and to keep you from growing up like your loser father.
Click to expand...


Why do you come here day after day and prove God is right when God says you are a fool????????????? I get it!!! No need for more proof!!! Now!!! Brgone fool!!!


----------



## Mephisto

GISMYS said:


> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was born Greek Orthodox, a branch off of Catholicism.  I think since Socrates and Galleleo a lot of Greeks have probably questioned/doubted the existence of god.  And I think our church is beautiful.  They aren't hung up on abortion and gays.  But I bet you a lot of famous greek philosophers were atheists.
> 
> Category:Atheist philosophers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was also born Greek Orthodox
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IF YOU DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD THEN 100% YOU ARE LOST,AND AS JESUS SAYS,"NO ONE COMES TO THE FATHER BUT BY ME"!! ACCEPT JESUS AS YOUR LORD AND SAVIOR AND BE BORN AGHAIN AS A son of GOD!!
Click to expand...


Nah, I'm good


----------



## GISMYS

Mephisto said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was also born Greek Orthodox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IF YOU DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD THEN 100% YOU ARE LOST,AND AS JESUS SAYS,"NO ONE COMES TO THE FATHER BUT BY ME"!! ACCEPT JESUS AS YOUR LORD AND SAVIOR AND BE BORN AGHAIN AS A son of GOD!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah, I'm good
Click to expand...


MUST YOU FEEL THE FLAMES OF HELL BEFORE YOU THINK CLEARLY???much too late then!  Why not think now???


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gismys said:
> 
> 
> 
> no!! As you must know as god says you are a fool!!! I agree with god 10000%
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no!!  As you clearly don't know, there is no god.  God never said anything.  Men 1900 years ago made that up, just like the old testament was made up 3000 years ago at the same time the pagan religion was invented.
> 
> Why is god hiding?  What's he afraid of?  Look at the universe.  What does he have to prove?  Why does he hide and then insist we believe human's who could have just made it up?  What a fucking deadbeat dad.  Like the kid who's father leaves when he's not even 1 year old.  But dad left a cross for you and all you have to go on is mom's word?
> 
> Mom says dad was great and he loved you so much and he was over 6 feet tall, he could walk on water, he was a saint, in fact he never sinned.  One day you might find out your mom was a slut and fucked a sailor and made all that up just to make you feel good and to keep you from growing up like your loser father.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you come here day after day and prove God is right when God says you are a fool????????????? I get it!!! No need for more proof!!! Now!!! Brgone fool!!!
Click to expand...


Why do you still believe despite the facts that there is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible concerning the existence of a god. Any evidence proposed by theists to support the Bibles various historical and supernatural claims is non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.  The Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many religious texts. Like those others, it itself constitutes no evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful content do not legitimise it nor distinguish it from other ancient works of literature.  The Bible is historically inaccurate, factually incorrect, inconsistent and contradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time.


----------



## Mephisto

GISMYS said:


> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> IF YOU DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD THEN 100% YOU ARE LOST,AND AS JESUS SAYS,"NO ONE COMES TO THE FATHER BUT BY ME"!! ACCEPT JESUS AS YOUR LORD AND SAVIOR AND BE BORN AGHAIN AS A son of GOD!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, I'm good
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> MUST YOU FEEL THE FLAMES OF HELL BEFORE YOU THINK CLEARLY???much too late then!  Why not think now???
Click to expand...


The day I left the church was the day I began thinking clearly.  There's a reason why you're called 'flock" because you're all sheep instead of thinking for yourself you hold true that there is a man in teh sky overseeing everything.  LOL


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> IF YOU DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD THEN 100% YOU ARE LOST,AND AS JESUS SAYS,"NO ONE COMES TO THE FATHER BUT BY ME"!! ACCEPT JESUS AS YOUR LORD AND SAVIOR AND BE BORN AGHAIN AS A son of GOD!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, I'm good
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> MUST YOU FEEL THE FLAMES OF HELL BEFORE YOU THINK CLEARLY???much too late then!  Why not think now???
Click to expand...


Just like David Koresh & Joseph Smith couldn't convince us that their lies were true, you can't get us to believe the unbelievable without more proof.  The fact that you accept stories as fact tells me you are a little bit retarded.  If you can't even fathom that men 1900 years ago made it up just like every other religion then I guess your god rewards the stupid.


----------



## sealybobo

Mephisto said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, I'm good
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MUST YOU FEEL THE FLAMES OF HELL BEFORE YOU THINK CLEARLY???much too late then!  Why not think now???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The day I left the church was the day I began thinking clearly.  There's a reason why you're called 'flock" because you're all sheep instead of thinking for yourself you hold true that there is a man in teh sky overseeing everything.  LOL
Click to expand...


I know a lot of greek guys who don't really believe in christianity.  We go to church to meet greek women.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> MUST YOU FEEL THE FLAMES OF HELL BEFORE YOU THINK CLEARLY???much too late then!  Why not think now???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The day I left the church was the day I began thinking clearly.  There's a reason why you're called 'flock" because you're all sheep instead of thinking for yourself you hold true that there is a man in teh sky overseeing everything.  LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know a lot of greek guys who don't really believe in christianity.  We go to church to meet greek women.
Click to expand...


LOL!!! ALL I NEED DO IS LOOK AT YOUR LIFE,THEN LOOK AT MY LIFE,LIVED AS A blessed,happy  son of GOD.


----------



## Mephisto

sealybobo said:


> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> MUST YOU FEEL THE FLAMES OF HELL BEFORE YOU THINK CLEARLY???much too late then!  Why not think now???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The day I left the church was the day I began thinking clearly.  There's a reason why you're called 'flock" because you're all sheep instead of thinking for yourself you hold true that there is a man in teh sky overseeing everything.  LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know a lot of greek guys who don't really believe in christianity.  We go to church to meet greek women.
Click to expand...


I'm actually Italian, Polish and Russian.  However it was the church that my grandfather went to and the church my parents go married in.  So we went.  I still remember us leaving mass becasue it was like on the 2nd hour of the service LOL.


----------



## AltamontRules

Boss said:


> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.



I'm atheist and in total agreement with you. Excellent explanation.


----------



## GISMYS

AltamontRules said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm atheist and in total agreement with you. Excellent explanation.
Click to expand...


JUST REMEMBER TO COUNT THE COST,SIN HAS A VERY HIGH price!!!


----------



## AltamontRules

GISMYS said:


> AltamontRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm atheist and in total agreement with you. Excellent explanation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> JUST REMEMBER TO COUNT THE COST,SIN HAS A VERY HIGH price!!!
Click to expand...


You know that 'sin' is a purely theological concept, don't you? Yours is a malformed argument to an atheist. Also, your caps lock: stop beating it to death son, it didn't do you no harm.


----------



## GISMYS

AltamontRules said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AltamontRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm atheist and in total agreement with you. Excellent explanation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JUST REMEMBER TO COUNT THE COST,SIN HAS A VERY HIGH price!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know that 'sin' is a purely theological concept, don't you? Yours is a malformed argument to an atheist. Also, your caps lock: stop beating it to death son, it didn't do you no harm.
Click to expand...


SIN IS EVIL,EVIL IS SIN! SATAN WAS THE FIRST SINNER AND THE CREATOR OF EVIL!!! AND HE WILL PAY AN ETERNAL PRICE,WHY join him????


----------



## Boss

Mephisto said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can an atheist experience an afterlife, if they do not believe in such a thing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can a person experience death if they don't believe in such a thing? How can man be eaten by lions in the jungle if they don't believe in such a thing? How can you be electrocuted if you don't believe in such a thing? You really have some strong faith in disbelief if you think that disbelief means you won't experience what is real.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lion, death and electrocution is real.  These are things we can see everyday.  No one has seen the afterlife.
Click to expand...

Where is your evidence no one has seen the afterlife? What do you mean by "real"? Part of physical reality in our spacetime continuum caused by the expanding universe? Again, spiritual things are not "real" in a physical sense, and this is where you have trouble comprehending it. You assume that if it's not physically a part of reality, it isn't real. However, you are aware of dreams, thoughts, ideas, and other things that aren't physically real. How do you explain that? How can things exist that aren't physically real? 

Your spirit, your soul, the essence of who you are, your personality... these are not components of your physical makeup. What happens to these elements after you die is unknown. You can have the opinion these things "die" with the physical body, but you've not established this is a fact.


----------



## AltamontRules

GISMYS said:


> AltamontRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> JUST REMEMBER TO COUNT THE COST,SIN HAS A VERY HIGH price!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know that 'sin' is a purely theological concept, don't you? Yours is a malformed argument to an atheist. Also, your caps lock: stop beating it to death son, it didn't do you no harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SIN IS EVIL,EVIL IS SIN! SATAN WAS THE FIRST SINNER AND THE CREATOR OF EVIL!!! AND HE WILL PAY AN ETERNAL PRICE,WHY join him????
Click to expand...


*backs away slowly* Err, Okay. You go ahead & let it all out, son. Why so angry? That stuff will rule your life, ya know... Take care.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> The day I left the church was the day I began thinking clearly.  There's a reason why you're called 'flock" because you're all sheep instead of thinking for yourself you hold true that there is a man in teh sky overseeing everything.  LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know a lot of greek guys who don't really believe in christianity.  We go to church to meet greek women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!!! ALL I NEED DO IS LOOK AT YOUR LIFE,THEN LOOK AT MY LIFE,LIVED AS A blessed,happy  son of GOD.
Click to expand...


Are you really?  I doubt that.


----------



## sealybobo

Mephisto said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> The day I left the church was the day I began thinking clearly.  There's a reason why you're called 'flock" because you're all sheep instead of thinking for yourself you hold true that there is a man in teh sky overseeing everything.  LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know a lot of greek guys who don't really believe in christianity.  We go to church to meet greek women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm actually Italian, Polish and Russian.  However it was the church that my grandfather went to and the church my parents go married in.  So we went.  I still remember us leaving mass becasue it was like on the 2nd hour of the service LOL.
Click to expand...


That's when I finally stopped going.  Sit, stand, sit, stand.  I don't go anywhere to be tortured.  Churches better figure it out or their going ot lose members.  

There is even a Everyone Loves Raymond episode about this.  He realized his father and brother were having a good time outside at the front door being ushers and collecting the money.  He couldn't stand being in the pews for so long.  But being out with the guys running the collection plate was fun.


----------



## sealybobo

AltamontRules said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AltamontRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know that 'sin' is a purely theological concept, don't you? Yours is a malformed argument to an atheist. Also, your caps lock: stop beating it to death son, it didn't do you no harm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SIN IS EVIL,EVIL IS SIN! SATAN WAS THE FIRST SINNER AND THE CREATOR OF EVIL!!! AND HE WILL PAY AN ETERNAL PRICE,WHY join him????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *backs away slowly* Err, Okay. You go ahead & let it all out, son. Why so angry? That stuff will rule your life, ya know... Take care.
Click to expand...


And Gismys says she's happy.  No one with such religious feelings is really happy.  Fearful, angry, worried, guilty yes but happy no.  And no one could possibly be 100% of a bullshit fairy tale so I suspect gismys shits herself at the thought of there being no heaven or god.

Or she thinks, "I have nothing to lose by believeing, even though deep down I know it can't be true, but just in case...."  

I can't live my life like that.  If its not true then fuck believing a lie no matter how "happy" is supposedly makes you.

She can't be happy if she's here telling everyone they'll go to hell if they don't believe.  I am happy despite my passion that there is no god.  I think believing in god is holding people back and keeping us ignorant.  I'm not mad, just disappointed in my fellow man.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> The day I left the church was the day I began thinking clearly.  There's a reason why you're called 'flock" because you're all sheep instead of thinking for yourself you hold true that there is a man in teh sky overseeing everything.  LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know a lot of greek guys who don't really believe in christianity.  We go to church to meet greek women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!!! ALL I NEED DO IS LOOK AT YOUR LIFE,THEN LOOK AT MY LIFE,LIVED AS A blessed,happy  son of GOD.
Click to expand...


The claim that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.

Atheism is correlated with better scientific literacy, lower poverty rates, higher literacy rates, higher average incomes, less violence, lower divorce rates, lower teen pregnancy rates, lower STD infection rates, lower crime rates and lower homicide rates. It correlates highly with the well-being of individuals and societies by almost every possible measure.

Studies on happiness outside of predominantly religious countries (eg. the United States) find little to no correlation between happiness and religious belief. This corresponds with evidence which shows social and community bonding, rather than spiritual engagement, explains why religious people report greater satisfaction with life. Atheists, by comparison, may also simply be unhappy with the level of distrust and persecution they receive from their compatriots.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> gismys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> i know a lot of greek guys who don't really believe in christianity.  We go to church to meet greek women.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol!!! All i need do is look at your life,then look at my life,lived as a blessed,happy  son of god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the claim that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.
> 
> Atheism is correlated with better scientific literacy, lower poverty rates, higher literacy rates, higher average incomes, less violence, lower divorce rates, lower teen pregnancy rates, lower std infection rates, lower crime rates and lower homicide rates. It correlates highly with the well-being of individuals and societies by almost every possible measure.
> 
> Studies on happiness outside of predominantly religious countries (eg. The united states) find little to no correlation between happiness and religious belief. This corresponds with evidence which shows social and community bonding, rather than spiritual engagement, explains why religious people report greater satisfaction with life. Atheists, by comparison, may also simply be unhappy with the level of distrust and persecution they receive from their compatriots.
Click to expand...


i have god's promise,i have god's blessings and gifts=health,wealth family, and eternal life!! I want for nothing!!!and you???


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can a person experience death if they don't believe in such a thing? How can man be eaten by lions in the jungle if they don't believe in such a thing? How can you be electrocuted if you don't believe in such a thing? You really have some strong faith in disbelief if you think that disbelief means you won't experience what is real.
> 
> 
> 
> lion, death and electrocution is real.  These are things we can see everyday.  No one has seen the afterlife.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where is your evidence no one has seen the afterlife? What do you mean by "real"? Part of physical reality in our spacetime continuum caused by the expanding universe? Again, spiritual things are not "real" in a physical sense, and this is where you have trouble comprehending it. You assume that if it's not physically a part of reality, it isn't real. However, you are aware of dreams, thoughts, ideas, and other things that aren't physically real. How do you explain that? How can things exist that aren't physically real?
> 
> Your spirit, your soul, the essence of who you are, your personality... these are not components of your physical makeup. What happens to these elements after you die is unknown. You can have the opinion these things "die" with the physical body, but you've not established this is a fact.
Click to expand...


There is no evidence god doesnt exist, so belief is as justified or as valid as non-belief.

Argument from ignorance.

A common attempt to shift the burden of proof or make room for a god. Represents a type of false dichotomy that excludes the fact that there is insufficient investigation and the proposition has not yet been proven either true or false.

The failure to disprove the existence of something does not constitute proof of its existence.

Belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims because all such claims would need to be believed implicitly. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gismys said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol!!! All i need do is look at your life,then look at my life,lived as a blessed,happy  son of god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the claim that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.
> 
> Atheism is correlated with better scientific literacy, lower poverty rates, higher literacy rates, higher average incomes, less violence, lower divorce rates, lower teen pregnancy rates, lower std infection rates, lower crime rates and lower homicide rates. It correlates highly with the well-being of individuals and societies by almost every possible measure.
> 
> Studies on happiness outside of predominantly religious countries (eg. The united states) find little to no correlation between happiness and religious belief. This corresponds with evidence which shows social and community bonding, rather than spiritual engagement, explains why religious people report greater satisfaction with life. Atheists, by comparison, may also simply be unhappy with the level of distrust and persecution they receive from their compatriots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i have god's promise,i have god's blessings and gifts=health,wealth family, and eternal life!! I want for nothing!!!and you???
Click to expand...


You have wealth?  Give it away!!!

It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God."

I have everything you have and more.  Next!  

The only thing is if I'm floating alone in the ocean and sharks are circling me, and same for you 10 miles away, you are not alone, I am.


----------



## AltamontRules

sealybobo said:


> AltamontRules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> SIN IS EVIL,EVIL IS SIN! SATAN WAS THE FIRST SINNER AND THE CREATOR OF EVIL!!! AND HE WILL PAY AN ETERNAL PRICE,WHY join him????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *backs away slowly* Err, Okay. You go ahead & let it all out, son. Why so angry? That stuff will rule your life, ya know... Take care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And Gismys says she's happy.  No one with such religious feelings is really happy.  Fearful, angry, worried, guilty yes but happy no.  And no one could possibly be 100% of a bullshit fairy tale so I suspect gismys shits herself at the thought of there being no heaven or god.
> 
> Or she thinks, "I have nothing to lose by believeing, even though deep down I know it can't be true, but just in case...."
> 
> I can't live my life like that.  If its not true then fuck believing a lie no matter how "happy" is supposedly makes you.
> 
> She can't be happy if she's here telling everyone they'll go to hell if they don't believe.  I am happy despite my passion that there is no god.  I think believing in god is holding people back and keeping us ignorant.  I'm not mad, just disappointed in my fellow man.
Click to expand...


Fair point, but to me there seems so much more constructive stuff to be disappointed about. Some believers are truly devout. Others use religion simply to be assholes. Sadly, I experience far more of the latter than the former these days. 

The self-proclaimed pious aren't any different from the rest of us (just don't ask them) and they have egos too (which they usually deny).


----------



## GISMYS

THERE IS NO DOWNSIDE TO LIVING LIFE AS A son OF ALMIGHTY GOD!!! MY LIFE IS PROOF!!!and you??


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> lion, death and electrocution is real.  These are things we can see everyday.  No one has seen the afterlife.
> 
> 
> 
> Where is your evidence no one has seen the afterlife? What do you mean by "real"? Part of physical reality in our spacetime continuum caused by the expanding universe? Again, spiritual things are not "real" in a physical sense, and this is where you have trouble comprehending it. You assume that if it's not physically a part of reality, it isn't real. However, you are aware of dreams, thoughts, ideas, and other things that aren't physically real. How do you explain that? How can things exist that aren't physically real?
> 
> Your spirit, your soul, the essence of who you are, your personality... these are not components of your physical makeup. What happens to these elements after you die is unknown. You can have the opinion these things "die" with the physical body, but you've not established this is a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no evidence god doesnt exist, so belief is as justified or as valid as non-belief.
> 
> Argument from ignorance.
> 
> A common attempt to shift the burden of proof or make room for a god. Represents a type of false dichotomy that excludes the fact that there is insufficient investigation and the proposition has not yet been proven either true or false.
> 
> The failure to disprove the existence of something does not constitute proof of its existence.
> 
> Belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims because all such claims would need to be believed implicitly. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
Click to expand...


Again, there is no such thing as "agnostic atheism" and you continue to look like a fool for using the term. You are either and atheist who doesn't believe in god, or an agnostic who isn't sure about god. You can't be both at the same time. 

As for "evidence" and "proof" we've been over this a thousand times. There can't be physical evidence or proof of a spiritual thing. It's impossible, because as soon as you had any physical evidence, it would no longer be spiritual. Now maybe one day we'll discover physical evidence and render the spiritual physical, but as of now, we have no such information. The spiritual remains apart from the physical, and as such, can't be evaluated with physical sciences. That does not mean it isn't "real" or doesn't "exist" or there is no evidence. There is tons of evidence but it's spiritual evidence. 

I'm not trying to shift burden of proof or argue from ignorance here, I have merely presented my ideas and opinions. It does not make any rational sense to me that mankind has held this intrinsic connection to the spiritual for all of our existence and there's not anything to that. Forget about Christianity and other religious incarnations, that's not the argument. Is there something greater than the physical realm? Has mankind been able to tap into that and gain inspiration, courage, ambition, etc.? Every time you witness a human doing something that no human has ever done before, it's because of a spiritual inspiration, something greater than self which the individual summoned to accomplish the feat. Sorry if you disagree with me, but this is evidence in my book.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> THERE IS NO DOWNSIDE TO LIVING LIFE AS A son OF ALMIGHTY GOD!!! MY LIFE IS PROOF!!!and you??



Pascal's Wager is an argument that humans all bet with their lives either that God exists or does not exist. Given the possibility that God actually does exist and assuming the infinite gain or loss associated with belief in God or with unbelief, a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.).  So there is a down side.  You are wasting your time and if you put money in the plate at church you are wasting your money.  But I guess that's a gamble you are willing to take just to be safe, right?  

Pascals Wager does not actually argue in support of the existence of a god, rather, it simply attempts to coerce insincere worship. There are several issues with this approach:

    Multiple inconsistent and contradictory revelations (Which god?)
    Hell is incompatible with an omnibenevolent god.

    A god could reward reasoning/skepticism.

    An omniscient god would see through feigned belief as a result of coercion.

    If a god wanted everyone to believe and knew exactly what was needed to convince people, then why are there atheists at all? Is god unable to prevent transgression of his will?

    Infallible foreknowledge is incompatible with free will (Are atheists predestined for hell?)

    Most people adhere to the religion they were born into, they have not examined all other religions.

Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.

We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes.  Gene Roddenberry


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> gismys said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is no downside to living life as a son of almighty god!!! My life is proof!!!and you??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pascal's wager is an argument that humans all bet with their lives either that god exists or does not exist. Given the possibility that god actually does exist and assuming the infinite gain or loss associated with belief in god or with unbelief, a rational person should live as though god exists and seek to believe in god. If god does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.).  So there is a down side.  You are wasting your time and if you put money in the plate at church you are wasting your money.  But i guess that's a gamble you are willing to take just to be safe, right?
> 
> Pascal&#8217;s wager does not actually argue in support of the existence of a god, rather, it simply attempts to coerce insincere worship. There are several issues with this approach:
> 
> Multiple inconsistent and contradictory revelations (which god?)
> hell is incompatible with an omnibenevolent god.
> 
> A god could reward reasoning/skepticism.
> 
> An omniscient god would see through feigned belief as a result of coercion.
> 
> If a god wanted everyone to believe and knew exactly what was needed to convince people, then why are there atheists at all? Is god unable to prevent transgression of his will?
> 
> Infallible foreknowledge is incompatible with free will (are atheists predestined for hell?)
> 
> most people adhere to the religion they were born into, they have not examined all other religions.
> 
> &#8220;live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.&#8221;
> 
> &#8220;we must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful god, who creates faulty humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes.&#8221; &#8211; gene roddenberry
Click to expand...


yes!!! Some people use the brain power God gave them while others are just fools!!! Your choice!


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is your evidence no one has seen the afterlife? What do you mean by "real"? Part of physical reality in our spacetime continuum caused by the expanding universe? Again, spiritual things are not "real" in a physical sense, and this is where you have trouble comprehending it. You assume that if it's not physically a part of reality, it isn't real. However, you are aware of dreams, thoughts, ideas, and other things that aren't physically real. How do you explain that? How can things exist that aren't physically real?
> 
> Your spirit, your soul, the essence of who you are, your personality... these are not components of your physical makeup. What happens to these elements after you die is unknown. You can have the opinion these things "die" with the physical body, but you've not established this is a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence god doesnt exist, so belief is as justified or as valid as non-belief.
> 
> Argument from ignorance.
> 
> A common attempt to shift the burden of proof or make room for a god. Represents a type of false dichotomy that excludes the fact that there is insufficient investigation and the proposition has not yet been proven either true or false.
> 
> The failure to disprove the existence of something does not constitute proof of its existence.
> 
> Belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims because all such claims would need to be believed implicitly. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, there is no such thing as "agnostic atheism" and you continue to look like a fool for using the term. You are either and atheist who doesn't believe in god, or an agnostic who isn't sure about god. You can't be both at the same time.
> 
> As for "evidence" and "proof" we've been over this a thousand times. There can't be physical evidence or proof of a spiritual thing. It's impossible, because as soon as you had any physical evidence, it would no longer be spiritual. Now maybe one day we'll discover physical evidence and render the spiritual physical, but as of now, we have no such information. The spiritual remains apart from the physical, and as such, can't be evaluated with physical sciences. That does not mean it isn't "real" or doesn't "exist" or there is no evidence. There is tons of evidence but it's spiritual evidence.
> 
> I'm not trying to shift burden of proof or argue from ignorance here, I have merely presented my ideas and opinions. It does not make any rational sense to me that mankind has held this intrinsic connection to the spiritual for all of our existence and there's not anything to that. Forget about Christianity and other religious incarnations, that's not the argument. Is there something greater than the physical realm? Has mankind been able to tap into that and gain inspiration, courage, ambition, etc.? Every time you witness a human doing something that no human has ever done before, it's because of a spiritual inspiration, something greater than self which the individual summoned to accomplish the feat. Sorry if you disagree with me, but this is evidence in my book.
Click to expand...


I love it how you tell me what I can and can't believe.  Listen to me one more time.  I am 99% certain there is no god, but what do I know, right?  I'm just basing my assumption on all the facts that we have.  As far as I can see/tell, there is no god.  But how do I know?  We could be in one of those xmas snow globes sitting on god's kid's dresser for all I know.  But I doubt it.

I'll explain it one more time for you.  Until we understand something we do not know. Positing a god in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.

The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is your evidence no one has seen the afterlife? What do you mean by "real"? Part of physical reality in our spacetime continuum caused by the expanding universe? Again, spiritual things are not "real" in a physical sense, and this is where you have trouble comprehending it. You assume that if it's not physically a part of reality, it isn't real. However, you are aware of dreams, thoughts, ideas, and other things that aren't physically real. How do you explain that? How can things exist that aren't physically real?
> 
> Your spirit, your soul, the essence of who you are, your personality... these are not components of your physical makeup. What happens to these elements after you die is unknown. You can have the opinion these things "die" with the physical body, but you've not established this is a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence god doesnt exist, so belief is as justified or as valid as non-belief.
> 
> Argument from ignorance.
> 
> A common attempt to shift the burden of proof or make room for a god. Represents a type of false dichotomy that excludes the fact that there is insufficient investigation and the proposition has not yet been proven either true or false.
> 
> The failure to disprove the existence of something does not constitute proof of its existence.
> 
> Belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims because all such claims would need to be believed implicitly. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, there is no such thing as "agnostic atheism" and you continue to look like a fool for using the term. You are either and atheist who doesn't believe in god, or an agnostic who isn't sure about god. You can't be both at the same time.
> 
> As for "evidence" and "proof" we've been over this a thousand times. There can't be physical evidence or proof of a spiritual thing. It's impossible, because as soon as you had any physical evidence, it would no longer be spiritual. Now maybe one day we'll discover physical evidence and render the spiritual physical, but as of now, we have no such information. The spiritual remains apart from the physical, and as such, can't be evaluated with physical sciences. That does not mean it isn't "real" or doesn't "exist" or there is no evidence. There is tons of evidence but it's spiritual evidence.
> 
> I'm not trying to shift burden of proof or argue from ignorance here, I have merely presented my ideas and opinions. It does not make any rational sense to me that mankind has held this intrinsic connection to the spiritual for all of our existence and there's not anything to that. Forget about Christianity and other religious incarnations, that's not the argument. Is there something greater than the physical realm? Has mankind been able to tap into that and gain inspiration, courage, ambition, etc.? Every time you witness a human doing something that no human has ever done before, it's because of a spiritual inspiration, something greater than self which the individual summoned to accomplish the feat. Sorry if you disagree with me, but this is evidence in my book.
Click to expand...


Funny my atheist friend got mad at me when I told him Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.  But then I explained to him that just like religious people, we don't know everything either.  So for us to say 100% there is no god would make us just as ignorant as people who claim to believe 100% there is a god.  That can't be true.  How can you believe something that for 1 isn't believable and 2 you have no proof of?  

And your bad logic/reasoning doesn't count.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence god doesnt exist, so belief is as justified or as valid as non-belief.
> 
> Argument from ignorance.
> 
> A common attempt to shift the burden of proof or make room for a god. Represents a type of false dichotomy that excludes the fact that there is insufficient investigation and the proposition has not yet been proven either true or false.
> 
> The failure to disprove the existence of something does not constitute proof of its existence.
> 
> Belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims because all such claims would need to be believed implicitly. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, there is no such thing as "agnostic atheism" and you continue to look like a fool for using the term. You are either and atheist who doesn't believe in god, or an agnostic who isn't sure about god. You can't be both at the same time.
> 
> As for "evidence" and "proof" we've been over this a thousand times. There can't be physical evidence or proof of a spiritual thing. It's impossible, because as soon as you had any physical evidence, it would no longer be spiritual. Now maybe one day we'll discover physical evidence and render the spiritual physical, but as of now, we have no such information. The spiritual remains apart from the physical, and as such, can't be evaluated with physical sciences. That does not mean it isn't "real" or doesn't "exist" or there is no evidence. There is tons of evidence but it's spiritual evidence.
> 
> I'm not trying to shift burden of proof or argue from ignorance here, I have merely presented my ideas and opinions. It does not make any rational sense to me that mankind has held this intrinsic connection to the spiritual for all of our existence and there's not anything to that. Forget about Christianity and other religious incarnations, that's not the argument. Is there something greater than the physical realm? Has mankind been able to tap into that and gain inspiration, courage, ambition, etc.? Every time you witness a human doing something that no human has ever done before, it's because of a spiritual inspiration, something greater than self which the individual summoned to accomplish the feat. Sorry if you disagree with me, but this is evidence in my book.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love it how you tell me what I can and can't believe.  Listen to me one more time.  I am 99% certain there is no god, but what do I know, right?  I'm just basing my assumption on all the facts that we have.  As far as I can see/tell, there is no god.  But how do I know?  We could be in one of those xmas snow globes sitting on god's kid's dresser for all I know.  But I doubt it.
> 
> I'll explain it one more time for you.  Until we understand something we do not know. Positing a god in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.
> 
> The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
Click to expand...


99% sure????? no where near worth the risk as to lose is eternal hell and YOU WILL LOSE 100% SURE!


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gismys said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is no downside to living life as a son of almighty god!!! My life is proof!!!and you??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pascal's wager is an argument that humans all bet with their lives either that god exists or does not exist. Given the possibility that god actually does exist and assuming the infinite gain or loss associated with belief in god or with unbelief, a rational person should live as though god exists and seek to believe in god. If god does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.).  So there is a down side.  You are wasting your time and if you put money in the plate at church you are wasting your money.  But i guess that's a gamble you are willing to take just to be safe, right?
> 
> Pascals wager does not actually argue in support of the existence of a god, rather, it simply attempts to coerce insincere worship. There are several issues with this approach:
> 
> Multiple inconsistent and contradictory revelations (which god?)
> hell is incompatible with an omnibenevolent god.
> 
> A god could reward reasoning/skepticism.
> 
> An omniscient god would see through feigned belief as a result of coercion.
> 
> If a god wanted everyone to believe and knew exactly what was needed to convince people, then why are there atheists at all? Is god unable to prevent transgression of his will?
> 
> Infallible foreknowledge is incompatible with free will (are atheists predestined for hell?)
> 
> most people adhere to the religion they were born into, they have not examined all other religions.
> 
> live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.
> 
> we must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful god, who creates faulty humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes.  gene roddenberry
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes!!! Some people use the brain power God gave them while others are just fools!!! Your choice!
Click to expand...


Atheism is correlated with higher intelligence

File:LynnHarveyNyborg-CountryBelieveGod-Intelligence.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Religiosity and intelligence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Intelligent people 'less likely to believe in God' - Telegraph

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B19...3LWJlNzUtN2UwOGViOGI0YjNi/edit?hl=en_US&pli=1

https://docs.google.com/file/d/1D3Q...Rsmn3WSHk0I3QzI84e-fl4u5H29r/edit?hl=en&pli=1

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B19...3LWE3ZTUtZTRmMTNhZGQyZmM5/edit?hl=en_US&pli=1

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B19...1LWFjZGItNmEyN2QzM2U0MmI2/edit?hl=en_US&pli=1

Intelligent people tend to be more religious.


Science says I'm smarter than you.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, there is no such thing as "agnostic atheism" and you continue to look like a fool for using the term. You are either and atheist who doesn't believe in god, or an agnostic who isn't sure about god. You can't be both at the same time.
> 
> As for "evidence" and "proof" we've been over this a thousand times. There can't be physical evidence or proof of a spiritual thing. It's impossible, because as soon as you had any physical evidence, it would no longer be spiritual. Now maybe one day we'll discover physical evidence and render the spiritual physical, but as of now, we have no such information. The spiritual remains apart from the physical, and as such, can't be evaluated with physical sciences. That does not mean it isn't "real" or doesn't "exist" or there is no evidence. There is tons of evidence but it's spiritual evidence.
> 
> I'm not trying to shift burden of proof or argue from ignorance here, I have merely presented my ideas and opinions. It does not make any rational sense to me that mankind has held this intrinsic connection to the spiritual for all of our existence and there's not anything to that. Forget about Christianity and other religious incarnations, that's not the argument. Is there something greater than the physical realm? Has mankind been able to tap into that and gain inspiration, courage, ambition, etc.? Every time you witness a human doing something that no human has ever done before, it's because of a spiritual inspiration, something greater than self which the individual summoned to accomplish the feat. Sorry if you disagree with me, but this is evidence in my book.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love it how you tell me what I can and can't believe.  Listen to me one more time.  I am 99% certain there is no god, but what do I know, right?  I'm just basing my assumption on all the facts that we have.  As far as I can see/tell, there is no god.  But how do I know?  We could be in one of those xmas snow globes sitting on god's kid's dresser for all I know.  But I doubt it.
> 
> I'll explain it one more time for you.  Until we understand something we do not know. Positing a god in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.
> 
> The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 99% sure????? no where near worth the risk as to lose is eternal hell and YOU WILL LOSE 100% SURE!
Click to expand...


100% sure your god isn't real.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> gismys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> i love it how you tell me what i can and can't believe.  Listen to me one more time.  I am 99% certain there is no god, but what do i know, right?  I'm just basing my assumption on all the facts that we have.  As far as i can see/tell, there is no god.  But how do i know?  We could be in one of those xmas snow globes sitting on god's kid's dresser for all i know.  But i doubt it.
> 
> I'll explain it one more time for you.  Until we understand something we &#8220;do not know&#8221;. Positing a &#8216;god&#8217; in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.
> 
> The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 99% sure????? No where near worth the risk as to lose is eternal hell and you will lose 100% sure!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 100% sure your god isn't real.:d
Click to expand...


Well share your proof that God is not real and the proof you risk all your eternity on!!!


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> I love it how you tell me what I can and can't believe.  Listen to me one more time.  I am 99% certain there is no god, but what do I know, right?  I'm just basing my assumption on all the facts that we have.  As far as I can see/tell, there is no god.  But how do I know?  We could be in one of those xmas snow globes sitting on god's kid's dresser for all I know.  But I doubt it.



Then you are an agnostic and not an atheist. An atheist is 100% certain there is no God.

You're not basing anything on "facts we have" since there is no evidence either way. You're basing an opinion on what you believe the facts are, but can't support with science. The only real "evidence" you have is the fact that science can't prove God. But then, science can't prove anything that it can't evaluate and observe. Even with the physical, science has to be careful not to draw conclusions because things aren't always as the appear. 



> I'll explain it one more time for you.  Until we understand something we &#8220;do not know&#8221;. Positing a &#8216;god&#8217; in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.



You can explain it 50 billion more times, it won't make a difference. I'm not positing a God in place of admitting ignorance. I am fully aware of and connected to a spiritual energy force that gives me great benefit in life. Am I supposed to ignore that so I can see your point? You don't understand so you don't know... I get that... I agree! But because you don't understand and know, doesn't mean that every one else doesn't understand or know. 



> The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.



Damn straight they're not equally probable outcomes, God is real, God exists, there is no question in my mind that is the truth. Belief is the ONLY valid position. Skepticism is baseless and founded on the silly notion that physical science can't prove something spiritual. 

Agnostic atheism is something retarded idiots say and think they sound smart. Have you not noticed you are the only person on this forum using this term?


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is your evidence no one has seen the afterlife? What do you mean by "real"? Part of physical reality in our spacetime continuum caused by the expanding universe? Again, spiritual things are not "real" in a physical sense, and this is where you have trouble comprehending it. You assume that if it's not physically a part of reality, it isn't real. However, you are aware of dreams, thoughts, ideas, and other things that aren't physically real. How do you explain that? How can things exist that aren't physically real?
> 
> Your spirit, your soul, the essence of who you are, your personality... these are not components of your physical makeup. What happens to these elements after you die is unknown. You can have the opinion these things "die" with the physical body, but you've not established this is a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence god doesn&#8217;t exist, so belief is as justified or as valid as non-belief.
> 
> Argument from ignorance.
> 
> A common attempt to shift the burden of proof or &#8216;make room&#8217; for a god. Represents a type of false dichotomy that excludes the fact that there is insufficient investigation and the proposition has not yet been proven either true or false.
> 
> The failure to disprove the existence of something does not constitute proof of its existence.
> 
> Belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims because all such claims would need to be believed implicitly. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, there is no such thing as "agnostic atheism" and you continue to look like a fool for using the term. You are either and atheist who doesn't believe in god, or an agnostic who isn't sure about god. You can't be both at the same time.
Click to expand...


Agnostic atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You are the gift that keeps on giving. You really are.


----------



## Hollie

boss said:
			
		

> Damn straight they're not equally probable outcomes, God is real, God exists, there is no question in my mind that is the truth. Belief is the ONLY valid position. Skepticism is baseless and founded on the silly notion that physical science can't prove something spiritual.



Wait for it.  Here it comes....

"..... because I say so"


----------



## GISMYS

Hollie said:


> boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damn straight they're not equally probable outcomes, God is real, God exists, there is no question in my mind that is the truth. Belief is the ONLY valid position. Skepticism is baseless and founded on the silly notion that physical science can't prove something spiritual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait for it.  Here it comes....
> 
> "..... because I say so"
Click to expand...


I bet you wonder why GOD says you are a FOOL!!!


----------



## Mephisto

Boss said:


> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can a person experience death if they don't believe in such a thing? How can man be eaten by lions in the jungle if they don't believe in such a thing? How can you be electrocuted if you don't believe in such a thing? You really have some strong faith in disbelief if you think that disbelief means you won't experience what is real.
> 
> 
> 
> lion, death and electrocution is real.  These are things we can see everyday.  No one has seen the afterlife.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where is your evidence no one has seen the afterlife? What do you mean by "real"? Part of physical reality in our spacetime continuum caused by the expanding universe? Again, spiritual things are not "real" in a physical sense, and this is where you have trouble comprehending it. You assume that if it's not physically a part of reality, it isn't real. However, you are aware of dreams, thoughts, ideas, and other things that aren't physically real. How do you explain that? How can things exist that aren't physically real?
> 
> Your spirit, your soul, the essence of who you are, your personality... these are not components of your physical makeup. What happens to these elements after you die is unknown. You can have the opinion these things "die" with the physical body, but you've not established this is a fact.
Click to expand...


Nor have you disproved it.  God does not exist, the only reason people think he exist is because they believe it to be true.  My 5 year old believe Santa Clause is real and comes to our house Dec 25th each year.  That's pretty much what your belief of god is like.  As made up as Santa Clause, created by man.


----------



## GISMYS

mephisto said:


> boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> lion, death and electrocution is real.  These are things we can see everyday.  No one has seen the afterlife.
> 
> 
> 
> where is your evidence no one has seen the afterlife? What do you mean by "real"? Part of physical reality in our spacetime continuum caused by the expanding universe? Again, spiritual things are not "real" in a physical sense, and this is where you have trouble comprehending it. You assume that if it's not physically a part of reality, it isn't real. However, you are aware of dreams, thoughts, ideas, and other things that aren't physically real. How do you explain that? How can things exist that aren't physically real?
> 
> Your spirit, your soul, the essence of who you are, your personality... These are not components of your physical makeup. What happens to these elements after you die is unknown. You can have the opinion these things "die" with the physical body, but you've not established this is a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> nor have you disproved it.  God does not exist, the only reason people think he exist is because they believe it to be true.  My 5 year old believe santa clause is real and comes to our house dec 25th each year.  That's pretty much what your belief of god is like.  As made up as santa clause, created by man.
Click to expand...


you poor lost,blinded fool!!! God have mercy on your soul!


----------



## Boss

Mephisto said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> lion, death and electrocution is real.  These are things we can see everyday.  No one has seen the afterlife.
> 
> 
> 
> Where is your evidence no one has seen the afterlife? What do you mean by "real"? Part of physical reality in our spacetime continuum caused by the expanding universe? Again, spiritual things are not "real" in a physical sense, and this is where you have trouble comprehending it. You assume that if it's not physically a part of reality, it isn't real. However, you are aware of dreams, thoughts, ideas, and other things that aren't physically real. How do you explain that? How can things exist that aren't physically real?
> 
> Your spirit, your soul, the essence of who you are, your personality... these are not components of your physical makeup. What happens to these elements after you die is unknown. You can have the opinion these things "die" with the physical body, but you've not established this is a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nor have you disproved it.  God does not exist, the only reason people think he exist is because they believe it to be true.  My 5 year old believe Santa Clause is real and comes to our house Dec 25th each year.  That's pretty much what your belief of god is like.  As made up as Santa Clause, created by man.
Click to expand...


Again, for the hard headed... you cannot say God does not exist. You can say that you don't believe God exists, but you have no evidence to prove God doesn't exist. Whenever you believe something without evidence it is called "faith" and you have faith in your belief that God doesn't exist. 

We've been through the comparisons with Santa Claus... humans would not have endured thousands of years of persecution and death for the sake of believing in Santa. Since the very inception of "Santa Claus" everyone knew it was not a real entity. So you are drawing a parallel with something that simply doesn't belong in this conversation.


----------



## HUGGY

Boss said:


> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is your evidence no one has seen the afterlife? What do you mean by "real"? Part of physical reality in our spacetime continuum caused by the expanding universe? Again, spiritual things are not "real" in a physical sense, and this is where you have trouble comprehending it. You assume that if it's not physically a part of reality, it isn't real. However, you are aware of dreams, thoughts, ideas, and other things that aren't physically real. How do you explain that? How can things exist that aren't physically real?
> 
> Your spirit, your soul, the essence of who you are, your personality... these are not components of your physical makeup. What happens to these elements after you die is unknown. You can have the opinion these things "die" with the physical body, but you've not established this is a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nor have you disproved it.  God does not exist, the only reason people think he exist is because they believe it to be true.  My 5 year old believe Santa Clause is real and comes to our house Dec 25th each year.  That's pretty much what your belief of god is like.  As made up as Santa Clause, created by man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, for the hard headed... you cannot say God does not exist. You can say that you don't believe God exists, but you have no evidence to prove God doesn't exist. Whenever you believe something without evidence it is called "faith" and you have faith in your belief that God doesn't exist.
> 
> We've been through the comparisons with Santa Claus... humans would not have endured thousands of years of persecution and death for the sake of believing in Santa. Since the very inception of "Santa Claus" everyone knew it was not a real entity. So you are drawing a parallel with something that simply doesn't belong in this conversation.
Click to expand...


False equivilancy.   We do not know EXACTLY how gravity works.  There is clear evidense that something we call gravity is in operation but no "proof" as to what it is.  Not believing in a god is not the same as believing in a god.  There is no way to put an exact probability on the possibility of the existance of a god.  BUT it is certainly very low like one in a billion compared to the likelyhood that there is NO god wich has a certainty upwards of say 99.9999999% or better as understood by most of the revered scientific leaders.

You say that humans have a long history of gravitating towards a spirituality which you claim is based on the "fact" that there must be something god-like in nature which instilled this gravitation in us and not in other animal species.

I underget your observation but it is not unlike most other "faith based religions" in that you CONCEED a "being/god" based on what you have determined is overwhelming circumstantial evidence.  

What many atheists dispute is that this so called circumstance is in fact nothing more or less than just that.  I have no inherant need to assign worth to a crumb or a pile of crumbs..or a mountain of crumbs.  Unless one of these crumbs is stamped "made by god in heaven" I'm gonna look in a billion places before I ASSUME these crumbs have any devine origin.


----------



## Mephisto

Boss said:


> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is your evidence no one has seen the afterlife? What do you mean by "real"? Part of physical reality in our spacetime continuum caused by the expanding universe? Again, spiritual things are not "real" in a physical sense, and this is where you have trouble comprehending it. You assume that if it's not physically a part of reality, it isn't real. However, you are aware of dreams, thoughts, ideas, and other things that aren't physically real. How do you explain that? How can things exist that aren't physically real?
> 
> Your spirit, your soul, the essence of who you are, your personality... these are not components of your physical makeup. What happens to these elements after you die is unknown. You can have the opinion these things "die" with the physical body, but you've not established this is a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nor have you disproved it.  God does not exist, the only reason people think he exist is because they believe it to be true.  My 5 year old believe Santa Clause is real and comes to our house Dec 25th each year.  That's pretty much what your belief of god is like.  As made up as Santa Clause, created by man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, for the hard headed... you cannot say God does not exist. You can say that you don't believe God exists, but you have no evidence to prove God doesn't exist. Whenever you believe something without evidence it is called "faith" and you have faith in your belief that God doesn't exist.
> 
> We've been through the comparisons with Santa Claus... humans would not have endured thousands of years of persecution and death for the sake of believing in Santa. Since the very inception of "Santa Claus" everyone knew it was not a real entity. So you are drawing a parallel with something that simply doesn't belong in this conversation.
Click to expand...


Thanks for telling me what I can and not not say.  God does not exist.  there is no physical proof of his existence, nor can you give any physical proof that he does exist.

I do not have faith, I have science behind me.  Religious folks have faith, because they have no evidence for their claims.

Adults know that Santa is not real.  Ask a child that's around age 5 if Santa is real...


----------



## BreezeWood

Mephisto said:


> Thanks for telling me what I can and not not say.  God does not exist.  there is no physical proof of his existence, nor can you give any physical proof that he does exist.



proof of physiology on Earth exists - no physiology has been the same from 700 + million years and will not be for all eternity is proof of Spiritualism whether in need of physiology or not, no life exists without it - despite the efforts of religionists (Bossy) to proclaim otherwise. 

from whence comes the core is the Everlasting and its guidance by the Almighty.

.


----------



## Boss

Mephisto said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nor have you disproved it.  God does not exist, the only reason people think he exist is because they believe it to be true.  My 5 year old believe Santa Clause is real and comes to our house Dec 25th each year.  That's pretty much what your belief of god is like.  As made up as Santa Clause, created by man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, for the hard headed... you cannot say God does not exist. You can say that you don't believe God exists, but you have no evidence to prove God doesn't exist. Whenever you believe something without evidence it is called "faith" and you have faith in your belief that God doesn't exist.
> 
> We've been through the comparisons with Santa Claus... humans would not have endured thousands of years of persecution and death for the sake of believing in Santa. Since the very inception of "Santa Claus" everyone knew it was not a real entity. So you are drawing a parallel with something that simply doesn't belong in this conversation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for telling me what I can and not not say.  God does not exist.  there is no physical proof of his existence, nor can you give any physical proof that he does exist.
> 
> I do not have faith, I have science behind me.  Religious folks have faith, because they have no evidence for their claims.
> 
> Adults know that Santa is not real.  Ask a child that's around age 5 if Santa is real...
Click to expand...


You're welcome, someone needs to correct you when you're wrong. You can't say God does not exist, you have no evidence that God does not exist. You do not have science behind you. You've presented ZERO scientific evidence to support your FAITH that God doesn't exist. 90% of adults say God is real, and they've been saying this for all of human existence.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, for the hard headed... you cannot say God does not exist. You can say that you don't believe God exists, but you have no evidence to prove God doesn't exist. Whenever you believe something without evidence it is called "faith" and you have faith in your belief that God doesn't exist.
> 
> We've been through the comparisons with Santa Claus... humans would not have endured thousands of years of persecution and death for the sake of believing in Santa. Since the very inception of "Santa Claus" everyone knew it was not a real entity. So you are drawing a parallel with something that simply doesn't belong in this conversation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for telling me what I can and not not say.  God does not exist.  there is no physical proof of his existence, nor can you give any physical proof that he does exist.
> 
> I do not have faith, I have science behind me.  Religious folks have faith, because they have no evidence for their claims.
> 
> Adults know that Santa is not real.  Ask a child that's around age 5 if Santa is real...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're welcome, someone needs to correct you when you're wrong. You can't say God does not exist, you have no evidence that God does not exist. You do not have science behind you. You've presented ZERO scientific evidence to support your FAITH that God doesn't exist. 90% of adults say God is real, and they've been saying this for all of human existence.
Click to expand...


What adults choose to say is also not evidence and useless as argument in this conversation.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gismys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 99% sure????? No where near worth the risk as to lose is eternal hell and you will lose 100% sure!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 100% sure your god isn't real.:d
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well share your proof that God is not real and the proof you risk all your eternity on!!!
Click to expand...


Your bogus religion is my proof.  Lets talk rationally here.  Pretend I'm standing right in front of you.  Assume we've known each other for years, you know me to be a nice kind good neighbor and after all this time you find out I'm an atheist.  You do know a lot of atheists are good people, right?  We just don't believe there is a god.  Why does that have to be evil?  Why do we have to have an alterior motive?  You guys have a motive in having blind faith.  You think it'll cost you heaven or hell.  We don't believe that.  Has nothing to do with being evil or wanting to sin without repercussions.  In fact, you guys are the ones who think you have a get out of hell free card on sin, right?  You can sin all you want as long as you believe in Jesus.  That allows you guys to be horrible humans.  This is why your religion came up with that bullshit.  Otherwise once you sinned after being born again, you'd go to hell.  So they made it up that sin doesn't exclude you from hell.  How convienent.  

Can't you see if we believed your story even a little we would be open to the idea?  We are not close minded.  We are just unconvinced.  You are convinced, so who's close minded?  

If there was a god he would not punish modern people for not believing an unbelievable ancient fable passed on by corrupt churches and ignorant people.  Do you believe everything you read?  Apparently you do if it is written in the bible.


----------



## Mephisto

Boss said:


> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, for the hard headed... you cannot say God does not exist. You can say that you don't believe God exists, but you have no evidence to prove God doesn't exist. Whenever you believe something without evidence it is called "faith" and you have faith in your belief that God doesn't exist.
> 
> We've been through the comparisons with Santa Claus... humans would not have endured thousands of years of persecution and death for the sake of believing in Santa. Since the very inception of "Santa Claus" everyone knew it was not a real entity. So you are drawing a parallel with something that simply doesn't belong in this conversation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for telling me what I can and not not say.  God does not exist.  there is no physical proof of his existence, nor can you give any physical proof that he does exist.
> 
> I do not have faith, I have science behind me.  Religious folks have faith, because they have no evidence for their claims.
> 
> Adults know that Santa is not real.  Ask a child that's around age 5 if Santa is real...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're welcome, someone needs to correct you when you're wrong. You can't say God does not exist, you have no evidence that God does not exist. You do not have science behind you. You've presented ZERO scientific evidence to support your FAITH that God doesn't exist. 90% of adults say God is real, and they've been saying this for all of human existence.
Click to expand...


The evidence of god not existing is all over the place.  I do have science behind me, science has not proven that god exist. I highly suggest you read the book God: The Failed Hypothesis-How Science Shows God Does Not Exist.

Where is your support for this 90% number from...I'm interested in seeing that poll.

Also 90% of children believe Santa Clause exist


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, for the hard headed... you cannot say God does not exist. You can say that you don't believe God exists, but you have no evidence to prove God doesn't exist. Whenever you believe something without evidence it is called "faith" and you have faith in your belief that God doesn't exist.
> 
> We've been through the comparisons with Santa Claus... humans would not have endured thousands of years of persecution and death for the sake of believing in Santa. Since the very inception of "Santa Claus" everyone knew it was not a real entity. So you are drawing a parallel with something that simply doesn't belong in this conversation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for telling me what I can and not not say.  God does not exist.  there is no physical proof of his existence, nor can you give any physical proof that he does exist.
> 
> I do not have faith, I have science behind me.  Religious folks have faith, because they have no evidence for their claims.
> 
> Adults know that Santa is not real.  Ask a child that's around age 5 if Santa is real...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're welcome, someone needs to correct you when you're wrong. You can't say God does not exist, you have no evidence that God does not exist. You do not have science behind you. You've presented ZERO scientific evidence to support your FAITH that God doesn't exist. 90% of adults say God is real, and they've been saying this for all of human existence.
Click to expand...


Just think about how uneducated people were 2000 years ago.  They didn't even know what science was back then. 

What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.  Christopher Hitchens


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, for the hard headed... you cannot say God does not exist. You can say that you don't believe God exists, but you have no evidence to prove God doesn't exist. Whenever you believe something without evidence it is called "faith" and you have faith in your belief that God doesn't exist.
> 
> We've been through the comparisons with Santa Claus... humans would not have endured thousands of years of persecution and death for the sake of believing in Santa. Since the very inception of "Santa Claus" everyone knew it was not a real entity. So you are drawing a parallel with something that simply doesn't belong in this conversation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for telling me what I can and not not say.  God does not exist.  there is no physical proof of his existence, nor can you give any physical proof that he does exist.
> 
> I do not have faith, I have science behind me.  Religious folks have faith, because they have no evidence for their claims.
> 
> Adults know that Santa is not real.  Ask a child that's around age 5 if Santa is real...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're welcome, someone needs to correct you when you're wrong. You can't say God does not exist, you have no evidence that God does not exist. You do not have science behind you. You've presented ZERO scientific evidence to support your FAITH that God doesn't exist. 90% of adults say God is real, and they've been saying this for all of human existence.
Click to expand...



There is no evidence god doesnt exist, so belief is as justified or as valid as non-belief.

Argument from ignorance.

A common attempt to shift the burden of proof or make room for a god. Represents a type of false dichotomy that excludes the fact that there is insufficient investigation and the proposition has not yet been proven either true or false.

The failure to disprove the existence of something does not constitute proof of its existence.

Belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims because all such claims would need to be believed implicitly. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

Note: It is possible to gather evidence of absence and disprove specific claims about and definitions of a god. [Video]

See also: Putting faith in its place (a must watch), A Lack of Belief in Gods, Critical Thinking.

Why there is no god


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, for the hard headed... you cannot say God does not exist. You can say that you don't believe God exists, but you have no evidence to prove God doesn't exist. Whenever you believe something without evidence it is called "faith" and you have faith in your belief that God doesn't exist.
> 
> We've been through the comparisons with Santa Claus... humans would not have endured thousands of years of persecution and death for the sake of believing in Santa. Since the very inception of "Santa Claus" everyone knew it was not a real entity. So you are drawing a parallel with something that simply doesn't belong in this conversation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for telling me what I can and not not say.  God does not exist.  there is no physical proof of his existence, nor can you give any physical proof that he does exist.
> 
> I do not have faith, I have science behind me.  Religious folks have faith, because they have no evidence for their claims.
> 
> Adults know that Santa is not real.  Ask a child that's around age 5 if Santa is real...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're welcome, someone needs to correct you when you're wrong. You can't say God does not exist, you have no evidence that God does not exist. You do not have science behind you. You've presented ZERO scientific evidence to support your FAITH that God doesn't exist. 90% of adults say God is real, and they've been saying this for all of human existence.
Click to expand...



Atheists should prove god doesnt exist.

Russells teapot.

The burden of proof is on the person or party asserting the claim; in this case, the theist.

See also: The Dragon in my Garage by Carl Sagan, Invisible Pink Unicorn and Flying Spaghetti Monster.


----------



## sealybobo

HUGGY said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nor have you disproved it.  God does not exist, the only reason people think he exist is because they believe it to be true.  My 5 year old believe Santa Clause is real and comes to our house Dec 25th each year.  That's pretty much what your belief of god is like.  As made up as Santa Clause, created by man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, for the hard headed... you cannot say God does not exist. You can say that you don't believe God exists, but you have no evidence to prove God doesn't exist. Whenever you believe something without evidence it is called "faith" and you have faith in your belief that God doesn't exist.
> 
> We've been through the comparisons with Santa Claus... humans would not have endured thousands of years of persecution and death for the sake of believing in Santa. Since the very inception of "Santa Claus" everyone knew it was not a real entity. So you are drawing a parallel with something that simply doesn't belong in this conversation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False equivilancy.   We do not know EXACTLY how gravity works.  There is clear evidense that something we call gravity is in operation but no "proof" as to what it is.  Not believing in a god is not the same as believing in a god.  There is no way to put an exact probability on the possibility of the existance of a god.  BUT it is certainly very low like one in a billion compared to the likelyhood that there is NO god wich has a certainty upwards of say 99.9999999% or better as understood by most of the revered scientific leaders.
> 
> You say that humans have a long history of gravitating towards a spirituality which you claim is based on the "fact" that there must be something god-like in nature which instilled this gravitation in us and not in other animal species.
> 
> I underget your observation but it is not unlike most other "faith based religions" in that you CONCEED a "being/god" based on what you have determined is overwhelming circumstantial evidence.
> 
> What many atheists dispute is that this so called circumstance is in fact nothing more or less than just that.  I have no inherant need to assign worth to a crumb or a pile of crumbs..or a mountain of crumbs.  Unless one of these crumbs is stamped "made by god in heaven" I'm gonna look in a billion places before I ASSUME these crumbs have any devine origin.
Click to expand...


It is fundamentally a god of the gaps approach. Our current lack of understanding concerning the Universes origins does not automatically mean god holds any explanatory value. Metaphysical and theistic speculation are not immediately justified or correct simply because we lack a comprehensive scientific model. Uncertainty is the most valid position and one can honestly say We just dont know yet.

The argument ignores the fact that our everyday understanding of causality has been arrived at via a posteriori inductive reasoning  which means it might not apply to everything. Time, for instance, appears to have begun with the Big Bang, so there might not have been any cause for the Universe to be an effect of since there was probably no time for a cause to exist in. Applying concepts like time and causality to the Big Bang might be comparable to asking What is north of the North Pole?  ultimately nonsensical and incoherent. Furthermore, even if causality could be established it would not immediately imply the existence of a god, much less any particular one, as the properties and nature of the cause could forever remain a mystery or be naturalistic.

Theists often state God is outside of time. This claim does not actually make their speculation correct. Instead, it brings with it a whole host of problems and may be immediately dismissed as being without basis and a type fallacy known as special pleading.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, for the hard headed... you cannot say God does not exist. You can say that you don't believe God exists, but you have no evidence to prove God doesn't exist. Whenever you believe something without evidence it is called "faith" and you have faith in your belief that God doesn't exist.
> 
> We've been through the comparisons with Santa Claus... humans would not have endured thousands of years of persecution and death for the sake of believing in Santa. Since the very inception of "Santa Claus" everyone knew it was not a real entity. So you are drawing a parallel with something that simply doesn't belong in this conversation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False equivilancy.   We do not know EXACTLY how gravity works.  There is clear evidense that something we call gravity is in operation but no "proof" as to what it is.  Not believing in a god is not the same as believing in a god.  There is no way to put an exact probability on the possibility of the existance of a god.  BUT it is certainly very low like one in a billion compared to the likelyhood that there is NO god wich has a certainty upwards of say 99.9999999% or better as understood by most of the revered scientific leaders.
> 
> You say that humans have a long history of gravitating towards a spirituality which you claim is based on the "fact" that there must be something god-like in nature which instilled this gravitation in us and not in other animal species.
> 
> I underget your observation but it is not unlike most other "faith based religions" in that you CONCEED a "being/god" based on what you have determined is overwhelming circumstantial evidence.
> 
> What many atheists dispute is that this so called circumstance is in fact nothing more or less than just that.  I have no inherant need to assign worth to a crumb or a pile of crumbs..or a mountain of crumbs.  Unless one of these crumbs is stamped "made by god in heaven" I'm gonna look in a billion places before I ASSUME these crumbs have any devine origin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is fundamentally a god of the gaps approach. Our current lack of understanding concerning the Universes origins does not automatically mean god holds any explanatory value. Metaphysical and theistic speculation are not immediately justified or correct simply because we lack a comprehensive scientific model. Uncertainty is the most valid position and one can honestly say We just dont know yet.
> 
> The argument ignores the fact that our everyday understanding of causality has been arrived at via a posteriori inductive reasoning  which means it might not apply to everything. Time, for instance, appears to have begun with the Big Bang, so there might not have been any cause for the Universe to be an effect of since there was probably no time for a cause to exist in. Applying concepts like time and causality to the Big Bang might be comparable to asking What is north of the North Pole?  ultimately nonsensical and incoherent. Furthermore, even if causality could be established it would not immediately imply the existence of a god, much less any particular one, as the properties and nature of the cause could forever remain a mystery or be naturalistic.
> 
> Theists often state God is outside of time. This claim does not actually make their speculation correct. Instead, it brings with it a whole host of problems and may be immediately dismissed as being without basis and a type fallacy known as special pleading.
Click to expand...


YES!!! GOD CREATED TIME FOR MANKIND,GOD SAYS A 1000 DAYS TO HIM AERE AS 1 DAY AND 1 DAY AS 1000 DAYS,GOD IS THE BEGINNING AND THE END. aand you little guy???


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> False equivilancy.   We do not know EXACTLY how gravity works.  There is clear evidense that something we call gravity is in operation but no "proof" as to what it is.  Not believing in a god is not the same as believing in a god.  There is no way to put an exact probability on the possibility of the existance of a god.  BUT it is certainly very low like one in a billion compared to the likelyhood that there is NO god wich has a certainty upwards of say 99.9999999% or better as understood by most of the revered scientific leaders.
> 
> You say that humans have a long history of gravitating towards a spirituality which you claim is based on the "fact" that there must be something god-like in nature which instilled this gravitation in us and not in other animal species.
> 
> I underget your observation but it is not unlike most other "faith based religions" in that you CONCEED a "being/god" based on what you have determined is overwhelming circumstantial evidence.
> 
> What many atheists dispute is that this so called circumstance is in fact nothing more or less than just that.  I have no inherant need to assign worth to a crumb or a pile of crumbs..or a mountain of crumbs.  Unless one of these crumbs is stamped "made by god in heaven" I'm gonna look in a billion places before I ASSUME these crumbs have any devine origin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is fundamentally a god of the gaps approach. Our current lack of understanding concerning the Universes origins does not automatically mean god holds any explanatory value. Metaphysical and theistic speculation are not immediately justified or correct simply because we lack a comprehensive scientific model. Uncertainty is the most valid position and one can honestly say We just dont know yet.
> 
> The argument ignores the fact that our everyday understanding of causality has been arrived at via a posteriori inductive reasoning  which means it might not apply to everything. Time, for instance, appears to have begun with the Big Bang, so there might not have been any cause for the Universe to be an effect of since there was probably no time for a cause to exist in. Applying concepts like time and causality to the Big Bang might be comparable to asking What is north of the North Pole?  ultimately nonsensical and incoherent. Furthermore, even if causality could be established it would not immediately imply the existence of a god, much less any particular one, as the properties and nature of the cause could forever remain a mystery or be naturalistic.
> 
> Theists often state God is outside of time. This claim does not actually make their speculation correct. Instead, it brings with it a whole host of problems and may be immediately dismissed as being without basis and a type fallacy known as special pleading.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YES!!! GOD CREATED TIME FOR MANKIND,GOD SAYS A 1000 DAYS TO HIM AERE AS 1 DAY AND 1 DAY AS 1000 DAYS,GOD IS THE BEGINNING AND THE END. aand you little guy???
Click to expand...


You must be the biggest loser.  I sometimes come here in the am and sometimes in the pm and you are always on.  Get a fucking life.  You know what?  You need jesus.  I'll stop ruining it for you.  I feel sorry for you.  You're probably a 600 lb woman who can't even leave the house.  I'll pray for you.


----------



## Boss

Mephisto said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for telling me what I can and not not say.  God does not exist.  there is no physical proof of his existence, nor can you give any physical proof that he does exist.
> 
> I do not have faith, I have science behind me.  Religious folks have faith, because they have no evidence for their claims.
> 
> Adults know that Santa is not real.  Ask a child that's around age 5 if Santa is real...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're welcome, someone needs to correct you when you're wrong. You can't say God does not exist, you have no evidence that God does not exist. You do not have science behind you. You've presented ZERO scientific evidence to support your FAITH that God doesn't exist. 90% of adults say God is real, and they've been saying this for all of human existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The evidence of god not existing is all over the place.  I do have science behind me, science has not proven that god exist. I highly suggest you read the book God: The Failed Hypothesis-How Science Shows God Does Not Exist.
> 
> Where is your support for this 90% number from...I'm interested in seeing that poll.
> 
> Also 90% of children believe Santa Clause exist
Click to expand...


Well, IF you have some evidence, show it motherfucker! Or shut your piehole. Science has not proven God doesn't exist. A book you want me to read is not going to prove God doesn't exist any more than your opinion. 

It doesn't matter how many children believe in Santa, us adults who created Santa know he doesn't exist, and we've always known he didn't exist. 90% of humans believe in something greater than self. About 5% are Nihilists who believe in nothing and the rest are Atheists. Go research the worldwide data and see for yourself, if I am off by more than 5%, I'll apologize, but I am pretty sure this is accurate. Not only that, but this trend follows man back to his beginnings. Humans have ALWAYS been spiritually connected. A scant few miscreants such as yourself, CLAIM you don't believe in God. There are more fucking gay people on the planet than people like you. 

Now you can sit here and run your fucking trash mouth all day and night, it's not going to change the fact that you have ZERO evidence that God does not exist. What YOU have is a FAITH-BASED belief that God doesn't exist. You are no different than some fucking holy roller. Find yourself a funny looking hat and develop a hymnal, and you'll have a religious cult!


----------



## Boss

> Just think about how uneducated people were 2000 years ago. They didn't even know what science was back then.



Yes, and isn't it fucking astonishing that humans, by-and-large, still believe in something greater than self? 

Science has not disproved God, it can't disprove God. There are more humans believing in God on the planet today than anytime before in history. Per capita, the numbers are overwhelming, and they always have been... always will be. No civilization has ever managed to survive more than 50 years without spirituality.


----------



## Clement

> Just think about how uneducated people were 2000 years ago.  They didn't even know what science was back then.



Ever hear of the Greeks?


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Well, IF you have some evidence, show it motherfucker! Or shut your piehole. Science has not proven God doesn't exist. A book you want me to read is not going to prove God doesn't exist any more than your opinion.



Typical nonsense where boss stumbles over his own argument.

Science has not proven The Easterbunny, Tarzan, Bigfoot, Nessie and any number of other entities don't  exist. Therefore, The Easterbunny, Tarzan, Bigfoot, Nessie and any number of other entities are just as likely to exist as your gods.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Just think about how uneducated people were 2000 years ago. They didn't even know what science was back then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and isn't it fucking astonishing that humans, by-and-large, still believe in something greater than self?
> 
> Science has not disproved God, it can't disprove God. There are more humans believing in God on the planet today than anytime before in history. Per capita, the numbers are overwhelming, and they always have been... always will be. No civilization has ever managed to survive more than 50 years without spirituality.
Click to expand...


And at one time, virtually all people believed the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth. Per capita, the numbers were overwhelming.

Thanks. As long as most people believe it, it must be true. 

Thanks again,


----------



## GISMYS

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just think about how uneducated people were 2000 years ago. They didn't even know what science was back then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and isn't it fucking astonishing that humans, by-and-large, still believe in something greater than self?
> 
> Science has not disproved God, it can't disprove God. There are more humans believing in God on the planet today than anytime before in history. Per capita, the numbers are overwhelming, and they always have been... always will be. No civilization has ever managed to survive more than 50 years without spirituality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And at one time, virtually all people believed the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth. Per capita, the numbers were overwhelming.
> 
> Thanks. As long as most people believe it, it must be true.
> 
> Thanks again,
Click to expand...

GOD'S WORD TOLD US THE EARTH WAS NOT FLAT FROM ETERNITY!!!===GOD=It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,
Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,
And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in. ISAIAH 40:22


----------



## Boss

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, IF you have some evidence, show it motherfucker! Or shut your piehole. Science has not proven God doesn't exist. A book you want me to read is not going to prove God doesn't exist any more than your opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typical nonsense where boss stumbles over his own argument.
> 
> Science has not proven The Easterbunny, Tarzan, Bigfoot, Nessie and any number of other entities don't  exist. Therefore, The Easterbunny, Tarzan, Bigfoot, Nessie and any number of other entities are just as likely to exist as your gods.
Click to expand...


Do the overwhelming majority of humans believe in these, and have an overwhelming majority believed this since the inception of mankind? If not, we can't compare. Sorry.


----------



## Boss

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just think about how uneducated people were 2000 years ago. They didn't even know what science was back then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and isn't it fucking astonishing that humans, by-and-large, still believe in something greater than self?
> 
> Science has not disproved God, it can't disprove God. There are more humans believing in God on the planet today than anytime before in history. Per capita, the numbers are overwhelming, and they always have been... always will be. No civilization has ever managed to survive more than 50 years without spirituality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And at one time, virtually all people believed the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth. Per capita, the numbers were overwhelming.
> 
> Thanks. As long as most people believe it, it must be true.
> 
> Thanks again,
Click to expand...


Do people still overwhelmingly believe the earth is flat? 

Yah... thanks again is right. Buh-bye!


----------



## Boss

> Typical nonsense where boss stumbles over his own argument.



Typical nonsensical retort from the airheaded hag who can't formulate a coherent argument.


----------



## GISMYS

&#9668; Psalm 103:12 &#9658;
As far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us. 
 THIS VERSE AGAIN TELL ANY "THINKING" PERSON GOD'S WORD SAYS THE EARTH IS ROUND OVER 3000 YEARS AGO!!!


----------



## Boss

> Typical nonsense where boss stumbles over his own argument.



Typical nonsensical retort from the airheaded hag who can't formulate a coherent argument.


----------



## GISMYS

GOD'S WORD TOLD US THE EARTH WAS NOT FLAT FROM ETERNITY!!!===GOD=It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,
Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,
And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in. ISAIAH 40:22 
&#9668; Psalm 103:12 &#9658;
As far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us. 
THIS VERSE AGAIN TELLS ANY "THINKING" PERSON GOD'S WORD SAYS THE EARTH IS ROUND OVER 3000 YEARS AGO!!!


----------



## HUGGY

GISMYS said:


> GOD'S WORD TOLD US THE EARTH WAS NOT FLAT FROM ETERNITY!!!===GOD=It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,
> And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,
> Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,
> And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in. ISAIAH 40:22
> &#9668; Psalm 103:12 &#9658;
> As far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us.
> THIS VERSE AGAIN TELLS ANY "THINKING" PERSON GOD'S WORD SAYS THE EARTH IS ROUND OVER 3000 YEARS AGO!!!



A circle is not a sphere.


----------



## GISMYS

huggy said:


> gismys said:
> 
> 
> 
> god's word told us the earth was not flat from eternity!!!===god=it is he who sits above the circle of the earth,
> and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,
> who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,
> and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in. Isaiah 40:22
> &#9668; psalm 103:12 &#9658;
> as far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us.
> This verse again tells any "thinking" person god's word says the earth is round over 3000 years ago!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a circle is not a sphere.
Click to expand...


lol!!!  Anything but truth!!!huh???  On a round world how far is east to west???? On a flat world that measurment can be made!!!


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and isn't it fucking astonishing that humans, by-and-large, still believe in something greater than self?
> 
> Science has not disproved God, it can't disprove God. There are more humans believing in God on the planet today than anytime before in history. Per capita, the numbers are overwhelming, and they always have been... always will be. No civilization has ever managed to survive more than 50 years without spirituality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And at one time, virtually all people believed the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth. Per capita, the numbers were overwhelming.
> 
> Thanks. As long as most people believe it, it must be true.
> 
> Thanks again,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do people still overwhelmingly believe the earth is flat?
> 
> Yah... thanks again is right. Buh-bye!
Click to expand...


Do people still overwhelmingly believe in Zeus, Isis, Amun Ra, etc., etc., 

No.... thanks again is right. Just as virtually all those other gods have been abandoned as just quaint human inventions to explain phenomenon the natural world not then understood, so it will be for your invented gods.

Yah... wave buh-bye to your particular inventions of gods.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Typical nonsense where boss stumbles over his own argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typical nonsensical retort from the airheaded hag who can't formulate a coherent argument.
Click to expand...


Twelve year olds typically resort to name-calling when they're scolded for bad behavior.


----------



## GISMYS

GOD'S WORD TOLD US THE EARTH WAS NOT FLAT FROM ETERNITY!!!===GOD=It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,
Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,
And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in. ISAIAH 40:22 
&#9668; Psalm 103:12 &#9658;
As far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us. 
THIS VERSE AGAIN TELLS ANY "THINKING" PERSON GOD'S WORD SAYS THE EARTH IS ROUND OVER 3000 YEARS AGO!!!==On a round world how far is east to west???? On a flat world that measurment can be made!!!


----------



## Boss

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> And at one time, virtually all people believed the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth. Per capita, the numbers were overwhelming.
> 
> Thanks. As long as most people believe it, it must be true.
> 
> Thanks again,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do people still overwhelmingly believe the earth is flat?
> 
> Yah... thanks again is right. Buh-bye!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do people still overwhelmingly believe in Zeus, Isis, Amun Ra, etc., etc.,
> 
> No.... thanks again is right. Just as virtually all those other gods have been abandoned as just quaint human inventions to explain phenomenon the natural world not then understood, so it will be for your invented gods.
> 
> Yah... wave buh-bye to your particular inventions of gods.
Click to expand...


I don't suspect there is anyone alive from back then, or they probably would. Man has changed his incarnations but spirituality remains inherent in man. I don't have any invented Gods, I only have the one who I communicate with daily. That one is real and you're not going to ever make it unreal with your blather.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do people still overwhelmingly believe the earth is flat?
> 
> Yah... thanks again is right. Buh-bye!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do people still overwhelmingly believe in Zeus, Isis, Amun Ra, etc., etc.,
> 
> No.... thanks again is right. Just as virtually all those other gods have been abandoned as just quaint human inventions to explain phenomenon the natural world not then understood, so it will be for your invented gods.
> 
> Yah... wave buh-bye to your particular inventions of gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't suspect there is anyone alive from back then, or they probably would. Man has changed his incarnations but spirituality remains inherent in man. I don't have any invented Gods, I only have the one who I communicate with daily. That one is real and you're not going to ever make it unreal with your blather.
Click to expand...


Not so. Your "spiritual connections" with "spirit realms" has not been the "spiritually connecting" you blather on about.

Mankind has invented all manner of boogeymen, ogres, beasts, etc., for many reasons, but not to "spiritually connect" with them.

As to your daily communications with one or more gods, is that the whiskey talking?


----------



## GISMYS

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do people still overwhelmingly believe in Zeus, Isis, Amun Ra, etc., etc.,
> 
> No.... thanks again is right. Just as virtually all those other gods have been abandoned as just quaint human inventions to explain phenomenon the natural world not then understood, so it will be for your invented gods.
> 
> Yah... wave buh-bye to your particular inventions of gods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't suspect there is anyone alive from back then, or they probably would. Man has changed his incarnations but spirituality remains inherent in man. I don't have any invented Gods, I only have the one who I communicate with daily. That one is real and you're not going to ever make it unreal with your blather.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not so. You "spiritual connections" with "spirit realms" has not been the "spiritually connecting" you blather on about.
> 
> Mankind has invented all manner of boogeymen, ogres, beasts, etc., for many reasons, but not to "spiritually connect" with them.
> 
> As to your daily communications with one or more gods, is that the whiskey talking?
Click to expand...


"IF" YOU really want to hear GOD'S VOICE=READ HIS WORD.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, IF you have some evidence, show it motherfucker! Or shut your piehole. Science has not proven God doesn't exist. A book you want me to read is not going to prove God doesn't exist any more than your opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typical nonsense where boss stumbles over his own argument.
> 
> Science has not proven The Easterbunny, Tarzan, Bigfoot, Nessie and any number of other entities don't  exist. Therefore, The Easterbunny, Tarzan, Bigfoot, Nessie and any number of other entities are just as likely to exist as your gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do the overwhelming majority of humans believe in these, and have an overwhelming majority believed this since the inception of mankind? If not, we can't compare. Sorry.
Click to expand...


They compare, sorry. As I already noted, Ogres, beasts, boogeymen have all shared time in the inventions of mankind. 

And bear in mind (to borrow one of your pointless arguments), science has not disproven Ogres, beasts, boogeymen, Leprechauns etc., so as extant entities, they are equally as viable as your gods. 

Thanks.

What's interesting in the history of mankind's creations of gods, not only were the Romans completely tolerant of other nation's gods, they actually assumed that the other gods were also true. Admittedly, they found the Egyptian gods more than a little weird, but they still considered them ancient, powerful and real. 

As Rome became a multinational empire and Rome the city became an international city, many foreign gods and goddesses had their own shrines built in the capital city itself. Roman citizens could worship any national gods they chose, but it remained commonly accepted that gods were most powerful in their own countries, or their own small geographies. For example even in Rome itself, Jupiter, _Optimus Maximus _ could not supersede the influence of the local gods (Lares) that each governed their own crossroads, or family hearth. While public worship of the borrowed Greek pantheon was a community exercise, each family reserved the inside of their homes for private worship of their own family gods. 

And in a spectacular admission of the incompleteness of their knowledge, the Romans also worshiped the unknown god. This was essentially praying to whom it may concern, or "the gods to be announced at a later date" in the explicit knowledge that nobody had exclusive or complete knowledge of the real nature of the godhead. Admittedly, this idea was borrowed (along with the formal state pantheon) from the earlier Greeks. The Greeks even built a temple in Athens to this: _Agnostos Theos_. 

This is what I call civilized.


The ancient Romans were among the most transcendently superstitious people in human history, ever more so than you. That is, of course, damning our own society with faint praise. We are also profoundly superstitious as a people. But we (for some inexplicable reasons) call our preferred superstitions "religions" and assign them a certain deference that it is not clear they deserve.

Yet, the Romans had no less faith in the auspices found in lighting from a clear sky or the conformation of the entrails of a goat than you have in prayer. Go figure.


----------



## GISMYS

TO THE UNKNOWN GOD.

Therefore, the One whom you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you:  24 &#8220;God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands.  25 Nor is He worshiped with men&#8217;s hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things.  26 And He has made from one blood[c] every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings,  27 so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;  28 for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, &#8216;For we are also His offspring.&#8217;  29 Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man&#8217;s devising.  30 Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent,  31 because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.&#8221;
ACTS 17:23-31


----------



## HUGGY

GISMYS said:


> TO THE UNKNOWN GOD.
> 
> Therefore, the One whom you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you:  24 God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands.  25 Nor is He worshiped with mens hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things.  26 And He has made from one blood[c] every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings,  27 so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;  28 for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, For we are also His offspring.  29 Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and mans devising.  30 Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent,  31 because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.
> ACTS 17:23-31



"to whom it may concern"...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJ9oJhphEEI]Big Stuff - Jean Knight - Lyrics - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Boss

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do people still overwhelmingly believe in Zeus, Isis, Amun Ra, etc., etc.,
> 
> No.... thanks again is right. Just as virtually all those other gods have been abandoned as just quaint human inventions to explain phenomenon the natural world not then understood, so it will be for your invented gods.
> 
> Yah... wave buh-bye to your particular inventions of gods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't suspect there is anyone alive from back then, or they probably would. Man has changed his incarnations but spirituality remains inherent in man. I don't have any invented Gods, I only have the one who I communicate with daily. That one is real and you're not going to ever make it unreal with your blather.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Not so.* Your "spiritual connections" with "spirit realms" has not been the "spiritually connecting" you blather on about.
> 
> Mankind has invented all manner of boogeymen, ogres, beasts, etc., for many reasons, but not to "spiritually connect" with them.
> 
> As to your daily communications with one or more gods, is that the whiskey talking?
Click to expand...


Wow... this sounds an awful lot like a "because I say so" argument. I guess we can add hypocrite to the despicable things you are?


----------



## Boss

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Typical nonsense where boss stumbles over his own argument.
> 
> Science has not proven The Easterbunny, Tarzan, Bigfoot, Nessie and any number of other entities don't  exist. Therefore, The Easterbunny, Tarzan, Bigfoot, Nessie and any number of other entities are just as likely to exist as your gods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do the overwhelming majority of humans believe in these, and have an overwhelming majority believed this since the inception of mankind? If not, we can't compare. Sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They compare, sorry. As I already noted, Ogres, beasts, boogeymen have all shared time in the inventions of mankind.
> 
> And bear in mind (to borrow one of your pointless arguments), science has not disproven Ogres, beasts, boogeymen, Leprechauns etc., so as extant entities, they are equally as viable as your gods.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> What's interesting in the history of mankind's creations of gods, not only were the Romans completely tolerant of other nation's gods, they actually assumed that the other gods were also true. Admittedly, they found the Egyptian gods more than a little weird, but they still considered them ancient, powerful and real.
> 
> As Rome became a multinational empire and Rome the city became an international city, many foreign gods and goddesses had their own shrines built in the capital city itself. Roman citizens could worship any national gods they chose, but it remained commonly accepted that gods were most powerful in their own countries, or their own small geographies. For example even in Rome itself, Jupiter, _Optimus Maximus _ could not supersede the influence of the local gods (Lares) that each governed their own crossroads, or family hearth. While public worship of the borrowed Greek pantheon was a community exercise, each family reserved the inside of their homes for private worship of their own family gods.
> 
> And in a spectacular admission of the incompleteness of their knowledge, the Romans also worshiped the unknown god. This was essentially praying to whom it may concern, or "the gods to be announced at a later date" in the explicit knowledge that nobody had exclusive or complete knowledge of the real nature of the godhead. Admittedly, this idea was borrowed (along with the formal state pantheon) from the earlier Greeks. The Greeks even built a temple in Athens to this: _Agnostos Theos_.
> 
> This is what I call civilized.
> 
> 
> The ancient Romans were among the most transcendently superstitious people in human history, ever more so than you. That is, of course, damning our own society with faint praise. We are also profoundly superstitious as a people. But we (for some inexplicable reasons) call our preferred superstitions "religions" and assign them a certain deference that it is not clear they deserve.
> 
> Yet, the Romans had no less faith in the auspices found in lighting from a clear sky or the conformation of the entrails of a goat than you have in prayer. Go figure.
Click to expand...


Again, another "because I say so" argument. 

*And bear in mind (to borrow one of your pointless arguments), science has not disproven Ogres, beasts, boogeymen, Leprechauns etc., so as extant entities, they are equally as viable as your gods.* 

The only way they could be equally viable is if humans had predominately worshiped these over the course of human history. They haven't, so... nope. Still, you are correct, science can't disprove their existence so science can't say they don't exist. Curiously, we don't see a lot of you people on these boards fighting tooth and nail to disprove ogres and leprechauns. 

But hey... thank you for pointing out some of the rich human history with regard to spirituality. It's just more evidence of a clear human spiritual connection which can't be denied. A connection that follows man back to his origins and has always been present.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't suspect there is anyone alive from back then, or they probably would. Man has changed his incarnations but spirituality remains inherent in man. I don't have any invented Gods, I only have the one who I communicate with daily. That one is real and you're not going to ever make it unreal with your blather.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Not so.* Your "spiritual connections" with "spirit realms" has not been the "spiritually connecting" you blather on about.
> 
> Mankind has invented all manner of boogeymen, ogres, beasts, etc., for many reasons, but not to "spiritually connect" with them.
> 
> As to your daily communications with one or more gods, is that the whiskey talking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow... this sounds an awful lot like a "because I say so" argument. I guess we can add hypocrite to the despicable things you are?
Click to expand...


Oh my. The boss is angry. Why is it that the hyper-religious react like petulant children scolded for bad behavior when their alleged gods are critiqued in a public debate forum? Really, bossy, did you expect a requirement that everyone must accept your utterly unsupported and outrageous claims to spirit realms, communications with the gods, etc., would be accepted with slacked-jawed enthusiasm?

So tell us boss, how has humanity been "spiritually connecting" with boogeymen, ogres, beasts, etc., when those entities are no less inventions of mankind than all the gods invented prior to the invention of your gods?


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do the overwhelming majority of humans believe in these, and have an overwhelming majority believed this since the inception of mankind? If not, we can't compare. Sorry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They compare, sorry. As I already noted, Ogres, beasts, boogeymen have all shared time in the inventions of mankind.
> 
> And bear in mind (to borrow one of your pointless arguments), science has not disproven Ogres, beasts, boogeymen, Leprechauns etc., so as extant entities, they are equally as viable as your gods.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> What's interesting in the history of mankind's creations of gods, not only were the Romans completely tolerant of other nation's gods, they actually assumed that the other gods were also true. Admittedly, they found the Egyptian gods more than a little weird, but they still considered them ancient, powerful and real.
> 
> As Rome became a multinational empire and Rome the city became an international city, many foreign gods and goddesses had their own shrines built in the capital city itself. Roman citizens could worship any national gods they chose, but it remained commonly accepted that gods were most powerful in their own countries, or their own small geographies. For example even in Rome itself, Jupiter, _Optimus Maximus _ could not supersede the influence of the local gods (Lares) that each governed their own crossroads, or family hearth. While public worship of the borrowed Greek pantheon was a community exercise, each family reserved the inside of their homes for private worship of their own family gods.
> 
> And in a spectacular admission of the incompleteness of their knowledge, the Romans also worshiped the unknown god. This was essentially praying to whom it may concern, or "the gods to be announced at a later date" in the explicit knowledge that nobody had exclusive or complete knowledge of the real nature of the godhead. Admittedly, this idea was borrowed (along with the formal state pantheon) from the earlier Greeks. The Greeks even built a temple in Athens to this: _Agnostos Theos_.
> 
> This is what I call civilized.
> 
> 
> The ancient Romans were among the most transcendently superstitious people in human history, ever more so than you. That is, of course, damning our own society with faint praise. We are also profoundly superstitious as a people. But we (for some inexplicable reasons) call our preferred superstitions "religions" and assign them a certain deference that it is not clear they deserve.
> 
> Yet, the Romans had no less faith in the auspices found in lighting from a clear sky or the conformation of the entrails of a goat than you have in prayer. Go figure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, another "because I say so" argument.
> 
> *And bear in mind (to borrow one of your pointless arguments), science has not disproven Ogres, beasts, boogeymen, Leprechauns etc., so as extant entities, they are equally as viable as your gods.*
> 
> The only way they could be equally viable is if humans had predominately worshiped these over the course of human history. They haven't, so... nope. Still, you are correct, science can't disprove their existence so science can't say they don't exist. Curiously, we don't see a lot of you people on these boards fighting tooth and nail to disprove ogres and leprechauns.
> 
> But hey... thank you for pointing out some of the rich human history with regard to spirituality. It's just more evidence of a clear human spiritual connection which can't be denied. A connection that follows man back to his origins and has always been present.
Click to expand...


Really bossy, I wouldn't define human inventions of bogeymen, ogres, beasts, etc., as especially demonstrative of "rich human history". You seem to forget that gods of natural disasters have been worshipped along with the gods of the sun, the moon and other "innocuous" gods. So it seems you once again (or as usual), refute your own argument. If seems the "spiritually connecting" that you claim man has done "back to his origins", has been done out of fear and ignorance of the processes that govern the natural world. Where is the "spiritual connection" with the various Greek gods? Is Hercules still lopping off the heads hydras and tossing boulders from mount Olympus? I suppose Benny Hinn (through his "spiritually connecting" with the gods), really is curing disease, making the blind see again an allowing the crippled to walk.

Praise jeebus.


----------



## Boss

Hollie said:


> Oh my. The boss is angry. Why is it that the hyper-religious react like petulant children scolded for bad behavior when their alleged gods are critiqued in a public debate forum? Really, bossy, did you expect a requirement that everyone must accept your utterly unsupported and outrageous claims to spirit realms, communications with the gods, etc., would be accepted with slacked-jawed enthusiasm?
> 
> So tell us boss, how has humanity been "spiritually connecting" with boogeymen, ogres, beasts, etc., when those entities are no less inventions of mankind than all the gods invented prior to the invention of your gods?



Oh puleeze! I'm not hyper-religious, I am NON religious. YOU are the one behaving like a petulant child who needs scolding. I've supported every argument I've made with factual evidence, and you have yet to make ANY argument that is supported with ANY evidence other than your opinion... yet you continue to deride others for "because I say so" arguments. 

I do not expect everyone to accept there is a spiritual realm, I suspect about 88-90% will tell you there IS a spiritual realm, regardless of what I say or what you blather about. I don't know about "slack-jawed enthusiasm" you're the only slack-jawed hag in these parts, so I'll leave that up to you. 

Let's see, why do humans not spiritually connect to creations of folklore? I don't know, maybe because those are not spiritual entities? That's why we don't see the Holy Church of the Leprechaun! (Sorry Notre Dame fans) 

So what other superflous nonsense do you have to throw out there? Because my time is too valuable to waste on a washed-up and burned-out old hag who can't seem to formulate a coherent argument.


----------



## Boss

> Really bossy, I wouldn't define human inventions of bogeymen, ogres, beasts, etc., as especially demonstrative of "rich human history". You seem to forget that gods of natural disasters have been worshipped along with the gods of the sun, the moon and other "innocuous" gods. So it seems you once again (or as usual), refute your own argument.



I wasn't talking about folklore, that was your straw man. I was referring to the Romans and Greeks recognizing a vast array of human spiritual beliefs. You see, man has always had a problem maintaining civilized society without spirituality. Seems that when we abandon spiritual connection, society breaks down and descends into chaos and anarchy. This is why you have no examples of vibrant Atheist societies, they cannot exist for long. Humans are animals, basically apes. When you remove spirituality, they essentially return to being apes and behaving as such. You are a classic example.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do the overwhelming majority of humans believe in these, and have an overwhelming majority believed this since the inception of mankind? If not, we can't compare. Sorry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They compare, sorry. As I already noted, Ogres, beasts, boogeymen have all shared time in the inventions of mankind.
> 
> And bear in mind (to borrow one of your pointless arguments), science has not disproven Ogres, beasts, boogeymen, Leprechauns etc., so as extant entities, they are equally as viable as your gods.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> What's interesting in the history of mankind's creations of gods, not only were the Romans completely tolerant of other nation's gods, they actually assumed that the other gods were also true. Admittedly, they found the Egyptian gods more than a little weird, but they still considered them ancient, powerful and real.
> 
> As Rome became a multinational empire and Rome the city became an international city, many foreign gods and goddesses had their own shrines built in the capital city itself. Roman citizens could worship any national gods they chose, but it remained commonly accepted that gods were most powerful in their own countries, or their own small geographies. For example even in Rome itself, Jupiter, _Optimus Maximus _ could not supersede the influence of the local gods (Lares) that each governed their own crossroads, or family hearth. While public worship of the borrowed Greek pantheon was a community exercise, each family reserved the inside of their homes for private worship of their own family gods.
> 
> And in a spectacular admission of the incompleteness of their knowledge, the Romans also worshiped the unknown god. This was essentially praying to whom it may concern, or "the gods to be announced at a later date" in the explicit knowledge that nobody had exclusive or complete knowledge of the real nature of the godhead. Admittedly, this idea was borrowed (along with the formal state pantheon) from the earlier Greeks. The Greeks even built a temple in Athens to this: _Agnostos Theos_.
> 
> This is what I call civilized.
> 
> 
> The ancient Romans were among the most transcendently superstitious people in human history, ever more so than you. That is, of course, damning our own society with faint praise. We are also profoundly superstitious as a people. But we (for some inexplicable reasons) call our preferred superstitions "religions" and assign them a certain deference that it is not clear they deserve.
> 
> Yet, the Romans had no less faith in the auspices found in lighting from a clear sky or the conformation of the entrails of a goat than you have in prayer. Go figure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, another "because I say so" argument.
> 
> *And bear in mind (to borrow one of your pointless arguments), science has not disproven Ogres, beasts, boogeymen, Leprechauns etc., so as extant entities, they are equally as viable as your gods.*
> 
> The only way they could be equally viable is if humans had predominately worshiped these over the course of human history. They haven't, so... nope. Still, you are correct, science can't disprove their existence so science can't say they don't exist. Curiously, we don't see a lot of you people on these boards fighting tooth and nail to disprove ogres and leprechauns.
> 
> But hey... thank you for pointing out some of the rich human history with regard to spirituality. It's just more evidence of a clear human spiritual connection which can't be denied. A connection that follows man back to his origins and has always been present.
Click to expand...

This follows your own "because I say so" argument of talking to your own personal vision of god and having communication with it that is real, though you have also said it has no particular interest in you.
The only thing that can not be denied is man has always had the need to fill in the blanks where his knowledge has failed him. You believe that indicates a spiritual connection, but there is no indication that you or anyone else is connecting to anything that is actually there. All that can be confirmed is the need, not the object of the need.
You are descending into your typically ugly rhetoric of name calling which always makes me wonder what higher plain your god challenges you to attain.


----------



## GISMYS

KNOWLEDGE THAT THERE IS GOD IS PROGRAMED INTO HUMAN DNA. FOR ALL TIME PEOPLE ALL OVER THE WORLD KNOW GOD IS!!! MAN'S BIG PROBLEM IS HE WANTED TO LIVE IN SIN AND REJECTED THE ONE TRUE GOD and chose to invent and follow demon inspired false gods!!


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Really bossy, I wouldn't define human inventions of bogeymen, ogres, beasts, etc., as especially demonstrative of "rich human history". You seem to forget that gods of natural disasters have been worshipped along with the gods of the sun, the moon and other "innocuous" gods. So it seems you once again (or as usual), refute your own argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't talking about folklore, that was your straw man. I was referring to the Romans and Greeks recognizing a vast array of human spiritual beliefs. You see, man has always had a problem maintaining civilized society without spirituality. Seems that when we abandon spiritual connection, society breaks down and descends into chaos and anarchy. This is why you have no examples of vibrant Atheist societies, they cannot exist for long. Humans are animals, basically apes. When you remove spirituality, they essentially return to being apes and behaving as such. You are a classic example.
Click to expand...


Actually, you _were_ talking about folklore. There is nothing that separates bogeymen, ogres, beasts, etc., from conceptions of gods. They all represent human inventions that appeal to fear and superstition. 

It's not surprising that your so-called "spiritual connecting" is just a burqa enshrouding the human capacity to assign dark and mysterious images to phenomenon they didn't understand. 

What's not surprising is your assignment of self-hating and negative attributes to humanity just as Christianity does. Man is evil and base and in need of salvation through one or more gods. What is obvious is that mankind still, somehow, managed to survive and even build cultures well before the invention of your gods. In spite of the gods that may be needed to keep you under control, mankind still managed to avoid self-destruction from the base attributes to assign to it. 

Take gods away tomorrow and humans would behave pretty much like they do with gods in place. We are a mixture of selfishness and cooperation and it serves us pretty well. Most people do behave morally.


----------



## Mephisto

Boss said:


> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're welcome, someone needs to correct you when you're wrong. You can't say God does not exist, you have no evidence that God does not exist. You do not have science behind you. You've presented ZERO scientific evidence to support your FAITH that God doesn't exist. 90% of adults say God is real, and they've been saying this for all of human existence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence of god not existing is all over the place.  I do have science behind me, science has not proven that god exist. I highly suggest you read the book God: The Failed Hypothesis-How Science Shows God Does Not Exist.
> 
> Where is your support for this 90% number from...I'm interested in seeing that poll.
> 
> Also 90% of children believe Santa Clause exist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, IF you have some evidence, show it motherfucker! Or shut your piehole. Science has not proven God doesn't exist. A book you want me to read is not going to prove God doesn't exist any more than your opinion.
> 
> It doesn't matter how many children believe in Santa, us adults who created Santa know he doesn't exist, and we've always known he didn't exist. 90% of humans believe in something greater than self. About 5% are Nihilists who believe in nothing and the rest are Atheists. Go research the worldwide data and see for yourself, if I am off by more than 5%, I'll apologize, but I am pretty sure this is accurate. Not only that, but this trend follows man back to his beginnings. Humans have ALWAYS been spiritually connected. A scant few miscreants such as yourself, CLAIM you don't believe in God. There are more fucking gay people on the planet than people like you.
> 
> Now you can sit here and run your fucking trash mouth all day and night, it's not going to change the fact that you have ZERO evidence that God does not exist. What YOU have is a FAITH-BASED belief that God doesn't exist. You are no different than some fucking holy roller. Find yourself a funny looking hat and develop a hymnal, and you'll have a religious cult!
Click to expand...


Again...please post the link where you got this 90% number from.  I'm interested in reading about it.  If you are pretty sure it's accurate then you'll have no problem posting the link to the study.

I never said I don't believe in god...I said god does not exist...there's a difference. When you believe something you hold it at as true.   I'm open to god proving me wrong, if he does in fact exist.


----------



## GISMYS

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really bossy, I wouldn't define human inventions of bogeymen, ogres, beasts, etc., as especially demonstrative of "rich human history". You seem to forget that gods of natural disasters have been worshipped along with the gods of the sun, the moon and other "innocuous" gods. So it seems you once again (or as usual), refute your own argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't talking about folklore, that was your straw man. I was referring to the Romans and Greeks recognizing a vast array of human spiritual beliefs. You see, man has always had a problem maintaining civilized society without spirituality. Seems that when we abandon spiritual connection, society breaks down and descends into chaos and anarchy. This is why you have no examples of vibrant Atheist societies, they cannot exist for long. Humans are animals, basically apes. When you remove spirituality, they essentially return to being apes and behaving as such. You are a classic example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, you _were_ talking about folklore. There is nothing that separates bogeymen, ogres, beasts, etc., from conceptions of gods. They all represent human inventions that appeal to fear and superstition.
> 
> It's not surprising that your so-called "spiritual connecting" is just a burqa enshrouding the human capacity to assign dark and mysterious images to phenomenon they didn't understand.
> 
> What's not surprising is your assignment of self-hating and negative attributes to humanity just as Christianity does. Man is evil and base and in need of salvation through one or more gods. What is obvious is that mankind still, somehow, managed to survive and even build cultures well before the invention of your gods. In spite of the gods that may be needed to keep you under control, mankind still managed to avoid self-destruction from the base attributes to assign to it.
> 
> Take gods away tomorrow and humans would behave pretty much like they do with gods in place. We are a mixture of selfishness and cooperation and it serves us pretty well. Most people do behave morally.
Click to expand...


OH!!!! WHAT EARLY MAN DO YOU KNOW OF THAT DID NOT KNOW THERE WAS GOD???? THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD IS PROGRAMED INTO HUMAN DNA!!   you have no excuse, confess your sins and repent!!!


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my. The boss is angry. Why is it that the hyper-religious react like petulant children scolded for bad behavior when their alleged gods are critiqued in a public debate forum? Really, bossy, did you expect a requirement that everyone must accept your utterly unsupported and outrageous claims to spirit realms, communications with the gods, etc., would be accepted with slacked-jawed enthusiasm?
> 
> So tell us boss, how has humanity been "spiritually connecting" with boogeymen, ogres, beasts, etc., when those entities are no less inventions of mankind than all the gods invented prior to the invention of your gods?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh puleeze! I'm not hyper-religious, I am NON religious. YOU are the one behaving like a petulant child who needs scolding. I've supported every argument I've made with factual evidence, and you have yet to make ANY argument that is supported with ANY evidence other than your opinion... yet you continue to deride others for "because I say so" arguments.
> 
> I do not expect everyone to accept there is a spiritual realm, I suspect about 88-90% will tell you there IS a spiritual realm, regardless of what I say or what you blather about. I don't know about "slack-jawed enthusiasm" you're the only slack-jawed hag in these parts, so I'll leave that up to you.
> 
> Let's see, why do humans not spiritually connect to creations of folklore? I don't know, maybe because those are not spiritual entities? That's why we don't see the Holy Church of the Leprechaun! (Sorry Notre Dame fans)
> 
> So what other superflous nonsense do you have to throw out there? Because my time is too valuable to waste on a washed-up and burned-out old hag who can't seem to formulate a coherent argument.
Click to expand...


Sorry, bossie. Incorporation of gods makes you religious. 

Further, I found it to be comical when you wrote: "I've supported every argument I've made with factual evidence..." 

I must have missed that "factual evidence" of gods, spirit realms, etc., that you insist you have provided "factual evidence" for. So don't leave me believing that you have falsified your comment. Where can I find this "factual evidence"?


----------



## Mephisto

GISMYS said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't talking about folklore, that was your straw man. I was referring to the Romans and Greeks recognizing a vast array of human spiritual beliefs. You see, man has always had a problem maintaining civilized society without spirituality. Seems that when we abandon spiritual connection, society breaks down and descends into chaos and anarchy. This is why you have no examples of vibrant Atheist societies, they cannot exist for long. Humans are animals, basically apes. When you remove spirituality, they essentially return to being apes and behaving as such. You are a classic example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you _were_ talking about folklore. There is nothing that separates bogeymen, ogres, beasts, etc., from conceptions of gods. They all represent human inventions that appeal to fear and superstition.
> 
> It's not surprising that your so-called "spiritual connecting" is just a burqa enshrouding the human capacity to assign dark and mysterious images to phenomenon they didn't understand.
> 
> What's not surprising is your assignment of self-hating and negative attributes to humanity just as Christianity does. Man is evil and base and in need of salvation through one or more gods. What is obvious is that mankind still, somehow, managed to survive and even build cultures well before the invention of your gods. In spite of the gods that may be needed to keep you under control, mankind still managed to avoid self-destruction from the base attributes to assign to it.
> 
> Take gods away tomorrow and humans would behave pretty much like they do with gods in place. We are a mixture of selfishness and cooperation and it serves us pretty well. Most people do behave morally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OH!!!! WHAT EARLY MAN DO YOU KNOW OF THAT DID NOT KNOW THERE WAS GOD???? THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD IS PROGRAMED INTO HUMAN DNA!!   you have no excuse, confess your sins and repent!!!
Click to expand...


Our ancestors like chimps and gorillas.


----------



## GISMYS

Mephisto said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you _were_ talking about folklore. There is nothing that separates bogeymen, ogres, beasts, etc., from conceptions of gods. They all represent human inventions that appeal to fear and superstition.
> 
> It's not surprising that your so-called "spiritual connecting" is just a burqa enshrouding the human capacity to assign dark and mysterious images to phenomenon they didn't understand.
> 
> What's not surprising is your assignment of self-hating and negative attributes to humanity just as Christianity does. Man is evil and base and in need of salvation through one or more gods. What is obvious is that mankind still, somehow, managed to survive and even build cultures well before the invention of your gods. In spite of the gods that may be needed to keep you under control, mankind still managed to avoid self-destruction from the base attributes to assign to it.
> 
> Take gods away tomorrow and humans would behave pretty much like they do with gods in place. We are a mixture of selfishness and cooperation and it serves us pretty well. Most people do behave morally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OH!!!! WHAT EARLY MAN DO YOU KNOW OF THAT DID NOT KNOW THERE WAS GOD???? THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD IS PROGRAMED INTO HUMAN DNA!!   you have no excuse, confess your sins and repent!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our ancestors like chimps and gorillas.
Click to expand...


YOUR "ancestors  chimps and gorillas"!!! Really!!!   I AM A son OF ALMIGHTY GOD!!! PTL.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Mephisto said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you _were_ talking about folklore. There is nothing that separates bogeymen, ogres, beasts, etc., from conceptions of gods. They all represent human inventions that appeal to fear and superstition.
> 
> It's not surprising that your so-called "spiritual connecting" is just a burqa enshrouding the human capacity to assign dark and mysterious images to phenomenon they didn't understand.
> 
> What's not surprising is your assignment of self-hating and negative attributes to humanity just as Christianity does. Man is evil and base and in need of salvation through one or more gods. What is obvious is that mankind still, somehow, managed to survive and even build cultures well before the invention of your gods. In spite of the gods that may be needed to keep you under control, mankind still managed to avoid self-destruction from the base attributes to assign to it.
> 
> Take gods away tomorrow and humans would behave pretty much like they do with gods in place. We are a mixture of selfishness and cooperation and it serves us pretty well. Most people do behave morally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OH!!!! WHAT EARLY MAN DO YOU KNOW OF THAT DID NOT KNOW THERE WAS GOD???? THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD IS PROGRAMED INTO HUMAN DNA!!   you have no excuse, confess your sins and repent!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our ancestors like chimps and gorillas.
Click to expand...


First you have to prove they are our ancestors, good luck with that.

Why is it that only humans believe in and worship a God they have never seen but few do not worship this God ? Is this a product of evolution ?

Why do so few humans want to be with the same sex but thank God most do not because if we were all gay what would happen to the species ?


----------



## HUGGY

GISMYS said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't suspect there is anyone alive from back then, or they probably would. Man has changed his incarnations but spirituality remains inherent in man. I don't have any invented Gods, I only have the one who I communicate with daily. That one is real and you're not going to ever make it unreal with your blather.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not so. You "spiritual connections" with "spirit realms" has not been the "spiritually connecting" you blather on about.
> 
> Mankind has invented all manner of boogeymen, ogres, beasts, etc., for many reasons, but not to "spiritually connect" with them.
> 
> As to your daily communications with one or more gods, is that the whiskey talking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "IF" YOU really want to hear GOD'S VOICE=READ HIS WORD.
Click to expand...


I don't know for sure if phsychiatric care is covered by my health plan.  I believe that if I was "hearing" god's words I might be a little stressed out about my mental health...and the cost of seeing a shrink.


----------



## Youwerecreated

HUGGY said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not so. You "spiritual connections" with "spirit realms" has not been the "spiritually connecting" you blather on about.
> 
> Mankind has invented all manner of boogeymen, ogres, beasts, etc., for many reasons, but not to "spiritually connect" with them.
> 
> As to your daily communications with one or more gods, is that the whiskey talking?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "IF" YOU really want to hear GOD'S VOICE=READ HIS WORD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know for sure if phsychiatric care is covered by my health plan.  I believe that if I was "hearing" god's words I might be a little stressed out about my mental health...and the cost of seeing a shrink.
Click to expand...


What if your shrink believes in the creator ?


----------



## Mephisto

Youwerecreated said:


> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> OH!!!! WHAT EARLY MAN DO YOU KNOW OF THAT DID NOT KNOW THERE WAS GOD???? THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD IS PROGRAMED INTO HUMAN DNA!!   you have no excuse, confess your sins and repent!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our ancestors like chimps and gorillas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First you have to prove they are our ancestors, good luck with that.
> 
> Why is it that only humans believe in and worship a God they have never seen but few do not worship this God ? Is this a product of evolution ?
> 
> Why do so few humans want to be with the same sex but thank God most do not because if were to all be gay what would happen to the species ?
Click to expand...


Chimps and humans come from the Hominin tribe where we're split into the genus of Homo(humans) and Pan(chimps)









> Ever since researchers sequenced the chimp genome in 2005, they have known that humans share about 99% of our DNA with chimpanzees, making them our closest living relatives


Bonobos Join Chimps as Closest Human Relatives | Science/AAAS | News


----------



## Youwerecreated

Mephisto said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our ancestors like chimps and gorillas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First you have to prove they are our ancestors, good luck with that.
> 
> Why is it that only humans believe in and worship a God they have never seen but few do not worship this God ? Is this a product of evolution ?
> 
> Why do so few humans want to be with the same sex but thank God most do not because if were to all be gay what would happen to the species ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chimps and humans come from the Hominin tribe where we're split into the genus of Homo(humans) and Pan(chimps)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ever since researchers sequenced the chimp genome in 2005, they have known that humans share about 99% of our DNA with chimpanzees, making them our closest living relatives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bonobos Join Chimps as Closest Human Relatives | Science/AAAS | News
Click to expand...


Similarities prove they are our ancestors,really ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> "IF" YOU really want to hear GOD'S VOICE=READ HIS WORD.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know for sure if phsychiatric care is covered by my health plan.  I believe that if I was "hearing" god's words I might be a little stressed out about my mental health...and the cost of seeing a shrink.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What if your shrink believes in the creator ?
Click to expand...


Which "creator"? You have never made any case for any creator being needed


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> First you have to prove they are our ancestors, good luck with that.
> 
> Why is it that only humans believe in and worship a God they have never seen but few do not worship this God ? Is this a product of evolution ?
> 
> Why do so few humans want to be with the same sex but thank God most do not because if were to all be gay what would happen to the species ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chimps and humans come from the Hominin tribe where we're split into the genus of Homo(humans) and Pan(chimps)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ever since researchers sequenced the chimp genome in 2005, they have known that humans share about 99% of our DNA with chimpanzees, making them our closest living relatives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bonobos Join Chimps as Closest Human Relatives | Science/AAAS | News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Similarities prove they are our ancestors,really ?
Click to expand...


Had you been exposed to a science curriculum in middle school, you would have known that the science of evolution involves more than similarities.

Shouldn't you make some effort to understand the various, cooperating sciences supporting evolution before you argue against it ?


----------



## Mephisto

Youwerecreated said:


> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> First you have to prove they are our ancestors, good luck with that.
> 
> Why is it that only humans believe in and worship a God they have never seen but few do not worship this God ? Is this a product of evolution ?
> 
> Why do so few humans want to be with the same sex but thank God most do not because if were to all be gay what would happen to the species ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chimps and humans come from the Hominin tribe where we're split into the genus of Homo(humans) and Pan(chimps)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ever since researchers sequenced the chimp genome in 2005, they have known that humans share about 99% of our DNA with chimpanzees, making them our closest living relatives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bonobos Join Chimps as Closest Human Relatives | Science/AAAS | News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Similarities prove they are our ancestors,really ?
Click to expand...


Ancestor: :  a progenitor of a more recent or existing species or group
Ancestor - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Similar" almost the same as someone or something else
Similarly - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Lions, tigers and house cats share 95% the same DNA, yet we consider them all similar.
Humans and Chimps share 98% the same DNA, yet we're not similar?

Much like the the 125 S(the car built by Enzo Ferrari) is the ancestor to today's  458 Spider.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Mephisto said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our ancestors like chimps and gorillas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First you have to prove they are our ancestors, good luck with that.
> 
> Why is it that only humans believe in and worship a God they have never seen but few do not worship this God ? Is this a product of evolution ?
> 
> Why do so few humans want to be with the same sex but thank God most do not because if were to all be gay what would happen to the species ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chimps and humans come from the Hominin tribe where we're split into the genus of Homo(humans) and Pan(chimps)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ever since researchers sequenced the chimp genome in 2005, they have known that humans share about 99% of our DNA with chimpanzees, making them our closest living relatives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bonobos Join Chimps as Closest Human Relatives | Science/AAAS | News
Click to expand...


There is only 125 million DNA differences between chimps and humans, and looking at the current mutation rate, that is a problem for the major mechanism of evolution.

Now how do you explain the Cambrian explosion and the evidence of sudden appearance of species ? the theory is punctuated equilibrium.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Mephisto said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chimps and humans come from the Hominin tribe where we're split into the genus of Homo(humans) and Pan(chimps)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonobos Join Chimps as Closest Human Relatives | Science/AAAS | News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Similarities prove they are our ancestors,really ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ancestor: :  a progenitor of a more recent or existing species or group
> Ancestor - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
> 
> Similar" almost the same as someone or something else
> Similarly - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
> 
> Lions, tigers and house cats share 95% the same DNA, yet we consider them all similar.
> Humans and Chimps share 98% the same DNA, yet we're not similar?
> 
> Much like the the 125 S(the car built by Enzo Ferrari) is the ancestor to today's  458 Spider.
Click to expand...


The correct Genome numbers for Dna similarity between chimps and humans has been adjusted to 4% this comes from the Genome project. That does not sound like much but if you consider 3 billion base pairs of Dna that is a huge difference.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chimps and humans come from the Hominin tribe where we're split into the genus of Homo(humans) and Pan(chimps)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonobos Join Chimps as Closest Human Relatives | Science/AAAS | News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Similarities prove they are our ancestors,really ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Had you been exposed to a science curriculum in middle school, you would have known that the science of evolution involves more than similarities.
> 
> Shouldn't you make some effort to understand the various, cooperating sciences supporting evolution before you argue against it ?
Click to expand...


Start with the insults already . I hold a degree in Molecular Biology from the University of Arizona and you ? I have also worked in mutation and cell research for 11 years.

To graduate from middle school and High School you have to pass science.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> First you have to prove they are our ancestors, good luck with that.
> 
> Why is it that only humans believe in and worship a God they have never seen but few do not worship this God ? Is this a product of evolution ?
> 
> Why do so few humans want to be with the same sex but thank God most do not because if were to all be gay what would happen to the species ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chimps and humans come from the Hominin tribe where we're split into the genus of Homo(humans) and Pan(chimps)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ever since researchers sequenced the chimp genome in 2005, they have known that humans share about 99% of our DNA with chimpanzees, making them our closest living relatives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bonobos Join Chimps as Closest Human Relatives | Science/AAAS | News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is only 125 million DNA differences between chimps and humans, and looking at the current mutation rate, that is a problem for the major mechanism of evolution.
> 
> Now how do you explain the Cambrian explosion and the evidence of sudden appearance of species ? the theory is punctuated equilibrium.
Click to expand...


You just take up this nonsense as you go along. 

The real issue you are unable to resolve is that science has shown there is no requirement for your gods or any gods to account for the diversity of life on the planet.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Similarities prove they are our ancestors,really ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Had you been exposed to a science curriculum in middle school, you would have known that the science of evolution involves more than similarities.
> 
> Shouldn't you make some effort to understand the various, cooperating sciences supporting evolution before you argue against it ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Start with the insults already . I hold a degree in Molecular Biology from the University of Arizona and you ? I have also worked in mutation and cell research for 11 years.
> 
> To graduate from middle school and High School you have to pass science.
Click to expand...


So you claim. However, your utter lack of a science vocabulary suggests you have invented an online persona.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chimps and humans come from the Hominin tribe where we're split into the genus of Homo(humans) and Pan(chimps)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bonobos Join Chimps as Closest Human Relatives | Science/AAAS | News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is only 125 million DNA differences between chimps and humans, and looking at the current mutation rate, that is a problem for the major mechanism of evolution.
> 
> Now how do you explain the Cambrian explosion and the evidence of sudden appearance of species ? the theory is punctuated equilibrium.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just take up this nonsense as you go along.
> 
> The real issue you are unable to resolve is that science has shown there is no requirement for your gods or any gods to account for the diversity of life on the planet.
Click to expand...


I just provided some very big hurdles for you to respond to. This is the easy stuff,not having to deal with the origins question yet.


----------



## Mephisto

Youwerecreated said:


> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> First you have to prove they are our ancestors, good luck with that.
> 
> Why is it that only humans believe in and worship a God they have never seen but few do not worship this God ? Is this a product of evolution ?
> 
> Why do so few humans want to be with the same sex but thank God most do not because if were to all be gay what would happen to the species ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chimps and humans come from the Hominin tribe where we're split into the genus of Homo(humans) and Pan(chimps)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ever since researchers sequenced the chimp genome in 2005, they have known that humans share about 99% of our DNA with chimpanzees, making them our closest living relatives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bonobos Join Chimps as Closest Human Relatives | Science/AAAS | News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is only 125 million DNA differences between chimps and humans, and looking at the current mutation rate, that is a problem for the major mechanism of evolution.
> 
> Now how do you explain the Cambrian explosion and the evidence of sudden appearance of species ? the theory is punctuated equilibrium.
Click to expand...


The presence of Precambrian animals somewhat dampens the "bang" of the explosion: not only was the appearance of animals gradual, but their evolutionary radiation ("diversification") may also not have been as rapid as once thought. Indeed, statistical analysis shows that the Cambrian explosion was no faster than any of the other radiations in animals' history
 Lieberman, B. (2003). "Taking the Pulse of the Cambrian Radiation". Integrative and Comparative Biology 43 (1): 229237. doi:10.1093/icb/43.1.229. PMID 21680426.

The analysis considered the bioprovinciality of trilobite lineages, as well as their evolutionary rate


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Had you been exposed to a science curriculum in middle school, you would have known that the science of evolution involves more than similarities.
> 
> Shouldn't you make some effort to understand the various, cooperating sciences supporting evolution before you argue against it ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Start with the insults already . I hold a degree in Molecular Biology from the University of Arizona and you ? I have also worked in mutation and cell research for 11 years.
> 
> To graduate from middle school and High School you have to pass science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you claim. However, your utter lack of a science vocabulary suggests you have invented an online persona.
Click to expand...


I am nothing like you hollie, if I am wrong with your extensive background, you should be able to respond to questions without having to run off to wiki or talk origins.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is only 125 million DNA differences between chimps and humans, and looking at the current mutation rate, that is a problem for the major mechanism of evolution.
> 
> Now how do you explain the Cambrian explosion and the evidence of sudden appearance of species ? the theory is punctuated equilibrium.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just take up this nonsense as you go along.
> 
> The real issue you are unable to resolve is that science has shown there is no requirement for your gods or any gods to account for the diversity of life on the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just provided some very big hurdles for you to respond to. This is the easy stuff,not having to deal with the origins question yet.
Click to expand...


What hurdles?

As to the origins question, yes, you do have insurmountable problems with claims to a 6,000 year old earth.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Start with the insults already . I hold a degree in Molecular Biology from the University of Arizona and you ? I have also worked in mutation and cell research for 11 years.
> 
> To graduate from middle school and High School you have to pass science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you claim. However, your utter lack of a science vocabulary suggests you have invented an online persona.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am nothing like you hollie, if I am wrong with your extensive background, you should be able to respond to questions without having to run off to wiki or talk origins.
Click to expand...


Oh you poor dear. Your feel an entitlement to cut and paste from Harun Yahya and demand that no countering, peer reviewed science documents are allowed in refutation.


----------



## Mephisto

Youwerecreated said:


> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Similarities prove they are our ancestors,really ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ancestor: :  a progenitor of a more recent or existing species or group
> Ancestor - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
> 
> Similar" almost the same as someone or something else
> Similarly - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
> 
> Lions, tigers and house cats share 95% the same DNA, yet we consider them all similar.
> Humans and Chimps share 98% the same DNA, yet we're not similar?
> 
> Much like the the 125 S(the car built by Enzo Ferrari) is the ancestor to today's  458 Spider.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The correct Genome numbers for Dna similarity between chimps and humans has been adjusted to 4% this comes from the Genome project. That does not sound like much but if you consider 3 billion base pairs of Dna that is a huge difference.
Click to expand...


Human and chimpanzee chromosomes are very similar. The primary difference is that humans have one fewer pair of chromosomes than do other great apes. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes and other great apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes. In the human evolutionary lineage, two ancestral ape chromosomes fused at their telomeres producing human chromosome 2
De Grouchy J (August 1987). "Chromosome phylogenies of man, great apes, and Old World monkeys". Genetica 73 (12): 3752. PMID 3333352.

In December 2003, a preliminary analysis of 7600 genes shared between the two genomes confirmed that certain genes such as the forkhead-box P2 transcription factor, which is involved in speech development, are different in the human lineage. Several genes involved in hearing were also found to have changed during human evolution, suggesting selection involving human language-related behavior

By comparing human and chimp genes to the genes of other mammals, it has been found that genes coding for transcription factors, such as forkhead-box P2 (FOXP2), have often evolved faster in the human relative to chimp; relatively small changes in these genes may account for the morphological differences between humans and chimps. A set of 348 transcription factor genes code for proteins with an average of about 50 percent more amino acid changes in the human lineage than in the chimp lineage.

*The results of the chimpanzee genome project suggest that when ancestral chromosomes 2A and 2B fused to produce human chromosome 2, no genes were lost from the fused ends of 2A and 2B.*


----------



## Boss

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> They compare, sorry. As I already noted, Ogres, beasts, boogeymen have all shared time in the inventions of mankind.
> 
> And bear in mind (to borrow one of your pointless arguments), science has not disproven Ogres, beasts, boogeymen, Leprechauns etc., so as extant entities, they are equally as viable as your gods.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> What's interesting in the history of mankind's creations of gods, not only were the Romans completely tolerant of other nation's gods, they actually assumed that the other gods were also true. Admittedly, they found the Egyptian gods more than a little weird, but they still considered them ancient, powerful and real.
> 
> As Rome became a multinational empire and Rome the city became an international city, many foreign gods and goddesses had their own shrines built in the capital city itself. Roman citizens could worship any national gods they chose, but it remained commonly accepted that gods were most powerful in their own countries, or their own small geographies. For example even in Rome itself, Jupiter, _Optimus Maximus _ could not supersede the influence of the local gods (Lares) that each governed their own crossroads, or family hearth. While public worship of the borrowed Greek pantheon was a community exercise, each family reserved the inside of their homes for private worship of their own family gods.
> 
> And in a spectacular admission of the incompleteness of their knowledge, the Romans also worshiped the unknown god. This was essentially praying to whom it may concern, or "the gods to be announced at a later date" in the explicit knowledge that nobody had exclusive or complete knowledge of the real nature of the godhead. Admittedly, this idea was borrowed (along with the formal state pantheon) from the earlier Greeks. The Greeks even built a temple in Athens to this: _Agnostos Theos_.
> 
> This is what I call civilized.
> 
> 
> The ancient Romans were among the most transcendently superstitious people in human history, ever more so than you. That is, of course, damning our own society with faint praise. We are also profoundly superstitious as a people. But we (for some inexplicable reasons) call our preferred superstitions "religions" and assign them a certain deference that it is not clear they deserve.
> 
> Yet, the Romans had no less faith in the auspices found in lighting from a clear sky or the conformation of the entrails of a goat than you have in prayer. Go figure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, another "because I say so" argument.
> 
> *And bear in mind (to borrow one of your pointless arguments), science has not disproven Ogres, beasts, boogeymen, Leprechauns etc., so as extant entities, they are equally as viable as your gods.*
> 
> The only way they could be equally viable is if humans had predominately worshiped these over the course of human history. They haven't, so... nope. Still, you are correct, science can't disprove their existence so science can't say they don't exist. Curiously, we don't see a lot of you people on these boards fighting tooth and nail to disprove ogres and leprechauns.
> 
> But hey... thank you for pointing out some of the rich human history with regard to spirituality. It's just more evidence of a clear human spiritual connection which can't be denied. A connection that follows man back to his origins and has always been present.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This follows your own "because I say so" argument of talking to your own personal vision of god and having communication with it that is real, though you have also said it has no particular interest in you.
> The only thing that can not be denied is man has always had the need to fill in the blanks where his knowledge has failed him. You believe that indicates a spiritual connection, but there is no indication that you or anyone else is connecting to anything that is actually there. All that can be confirmed is the need, not the object of the need.
> You are descending into your typically ugly rhetoric of name calling which always makes me wonder what higher plain your god challenges you to attain.
Click to expand...


My personal connection to God is not a "because I say so" argument because all but a slim minority of humans have always spiritually connected. I've not said that God had no particular interest in me, I don't know if God has interests. I do know if I follow spiritual guidance from God, I receive great benefits and blessings from it. This is not always easy but it's well worth my efforts. 

You want to again introduce your "god of gaps" meme, and we've been over this already. Believing in God doesn't fill in any gaps of knowledge. It doesn't answer unanswered questions or rectify the unknown. Now, if that is why you claim man invented God, then we'd have realized how stupid that was very quickly, because it doesn't do what you claim it's supposed to do. Furthermore, when we invented Science to explain the unknown and fill in the gaps of knowledge, people would have realized they didn't need God anymore for that, Science was better at it, and we'd have completely abandoned God. That hasn't happened. 

*but there is no indication that you or anyone else is connecting to anything that is actually there.*

And it's because you idiotically continue to look for material physical evidence of God, a spiritual entity. Sometimes you indicate that you understand science can only evaluate physical evidence, and other times you act as if science should be able to do more. 

Let me pose this analogy... We use the telephone to communicate with others... would there be a telephone in almost every home if they didn't work, if you weren't actually able to communicate with others on it? What if some moron came along and said... _"LOOK! There is no human in your phone speaking to you, it's all in your head, you are imagining you make connection because you want to believe it so badly!"_ Knowing that was ridiculous, what would you say about that? You see, just as humans overwhelmingly use the telephone to communicate to each other, humans have also (for much longer) used their ability to spiritually connect to talk to God.


----------



## Boss

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really bossy, I wouldn't define human inventions of bogeymen, ogres, beasts, etc., as especially demonstrative of "rich human history". You seem to forget that gods of natural disasters have been worshipped along with the gods of the sun, the moon and other "innocuous" gods. So it seems you once again (or as usual), refute your own argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't talking about folklore, that was your straw man. I was referring to the Romans and Greeks recognizing a vast array of human spiritual beliefs. You see, man has always had a problem maintaining civilized society without spirituality. Seems that when we abandon spiritual connection, society breaks down and descends into chaos and anarchy. This is why you have no examples of vibrant Atheist societies, they cannot exist for long. Humans are animals, basically apes. When you remove spirituality, they essentially return to being apes and behaving as such. You are a classic example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, you _were_ talking about folklore. There is nothing that separates bogeymen, ogres, beasts, etc., from conceptions of gods. They all represent human inventions that appeal to fear and superstition.
Click to expand...


No, concepts of God are different. They come from our intrinsic spiritual connection. 



> It's not surprising that your so-called "spiritual connecting" is just a burqa enshrouding the human capacity to assign dark and mysterious images to phenomenon they didn't understand.



Again, this argument has been dispelled in my previous posts. If spiritual connection or God were invented to explain the mysterious unknown, the advent of science would have killed it. Or at least diminished it greatly. Fact is, as many people are spiritual now as when science was invented. So that argument is defeated, but you continue to repeat it. 



> What's not surprising is your assignment of self-hating and negative attributes to humanity just as Christianity does. Man is evil and base and in need of salvation through one or more gods. What is obvious is that mankind still, somehow, managed to survive and even build cultures well before the invention of your gods. In spite of the gods that may be needed to keep you under control, mankind still managed to avoid self-destruction from the base attributes to assign to it.
> 
> Take gods away tomorrow and humans would behave pretty much like they do with gods in place. We are a mixture of selfishness and cooperation and it serves us pretty well. Most people do behave morally.



I've never said that you need salvation. There is no evidence of ANY human civilization from the past which existed without spirituality. You cannot show evidence of ANY culture which predates human spirituality, it doesn't exist. 

It is through human spirituality we created morality. You can have your opinions, but without human spirituality in any form, humans would last about a couple of generations before moral constructs began to break down and we returned to being instinct-driven animals in the wild. Most people behave morally because society is highly moral due to spiritual connection. Those without spiritual connection are often the misfits in society who push back against morality and attempt to live immorally. Take away God and society would crumble into immoral chaos.


----------



## Boss

> Had you been exposed to a science curriculum in middle school, you would have known that the science of evolution involves more than similarities.



Well then why aren't any of these things being introduced here? Why is it, every time one of these arguments break out, we are inundated with nothing but similarities which are supposed to suggest something? Did most of you not finish middle school?  

Hate to burst your little bubble here, but there is no special "science of evolution" where the rules and criteria of normal science is suspended so you can make wild ass conclusions about things you don't know.


----------



## Mephisto

Boss said:


> Had you been exposed to a science curriculum in middle school, you would have known that the science of evolution involves more than similarities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well then why aren't any of these things being introduced here? Why is it, every time one of these arguments break out, we are inundated with nothing but similarities which are supposed to suggest something? Did most of you not finish middle school?
> 
> Hate to burst your little bubble here, but there is no special "science of evolution" where the rules and criteria of normal science is suspended so you can make wild ass conclusions about things you don't know.
Click to expand...


yes there is...it's called creationism


----------



## Boss

Mephisto said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Had you been exposed to a science curriculum in middle school, you would have known that the science of evolution involves more than similarities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well then why aren't any of these things being introduced here? Why is it, every time one of these arguments break out, we are inundated with nothing but similarities which are supposed to suggest something? Did most of you not finish middle school?
> 
> Hate to burst your little bubble here, but there is no special "science of evolution" where the rules and criteria of normal science is suspended so you can make wild ass conclusions about things you don't know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes there is...it's called creationism
Click to expand...


Well no, creationism doesn't claim to be science. It's an explanation for origin which, frankly, science is lacking. For any science to work, something had to create the parameters. Such as time, gravity, electromagnetism, physics, etc. So no "special science" just the common sense that things don't create themselves, therefore the physical also didn't create itself.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Mephisto said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ancestor: :  a progenitor of a more recent or existing species or group
> Ancestor - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
> 
> Similar" almost the same as someone or something else
> Similarly - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
> 
> Lions, tigers and house cats share 95% the same DNA, yet we consider them all similar.
> Humans and Chimps share 98% the same DNA, yet we're not similar?
> 
> Much like the the 125 S(the car built by Enzo Ferrari) is the ancestor to today's  458 Spider.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The correct Genome numbers for Dna similarity between chimps and humans has been adjusted to 4% this comes from the Genome project. That does not sound like much but if you consider 3 billion base pairs of Dna that is a huge difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Human and chimpanzee chromosomes are very similar. The primary difference is that humans have one fewer pair of chromosomes than do other great apes. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes and other great apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes. In the human evolutionary lineage, two ancestral ape chromosomes fused at their telomeres producing human chromosome 2
> De Grouchy J (August 1987). "Chromosome phylogenies of man, great apes, and Old World monkeys". Genetica 73 (12): 3752. PMID 3333352.
> 
> In December 2003, a preliminary analysis of 7600 genes shared between the two genomes confirmed that certain genes such as the forkhead-box P2 transcription factor, which is involved in speech development, are different in the human lineage. Several genes involved in hearing were also found to have changed during human evolution, suggesting selection involving human language-related behavior
> 
> By comparing human and chimp genes to the genes of other mammals, it has been found that genes coding for transcription factors, such as forkhead-box P2 (FOXP2), have often evolved faster in the human relative to chimp; relatively small changes in these genes may account for the morphological differences between humans and chimps. A set of 348 transcription factor genes code for proteins with an average of about 50 percent more amino acid changes in the human lineage than in the chimp lineage.
> 
> *The results of the chimpanzee genome project suggest that when ancestral chromosomes 2A and 2B fused to produce human chromosome 2, no genes were lost from the fused ends of 2A and 2B.*
Click to expand...


From now on ,please provide your source.

I am not talking about the supposed chromosome fusing from ape to human. I am talking about the Genome being mapped. They use to claim 1% to 2% genetic difference and it is now at a 4% difference. It could go higher because they also found that Junk Dna is no longer considered junk Dna, it has a function.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well then why aren't any of these things being introduced here? Why is it, every time one of these arguments break out, we are inundated with nothing but similarities which are supposed to suggest something? Did most of you not finish middle school?
> 
> Hate to burst your little bubble here, but there is no special "science of evolution" where the rules and criteria of normal science is suspended so you can make wild ass conclusions about things you don't know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes there is...it's called creationism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well no, creationism doesn't claim to be science. It's an explanation for origin which, frankly, science is lacking. For any science to work, something had to create the parameters. Such as time, gravity, electromagnetism, physics, etc. So no "special science" just the common sense that things don't create themselves, therefore the physical also didn't create itself.
Click to expand...

Umm, wrong as usual. The more notorious creation ministries actually do claim to be science based. 

Fortunately, the courts have repeatedly struck down attempts by creation science phonies to introduce their religious agenda into the public schools. Obviously you missed the many scams perpetrated by creation ministries whereby they attempted to change the label of Christian fundamentalism to "creation science".

Your lack of a science background causes you make mistakes common among Christian fundamentalists. The tools that science uses to discriminate between viable theories and religious claims to supernaturalism are twofold; _reason_ and evidence. A theory that has substantial evidence for its support, and also makes useful predictions or retrodictions is called a robust theory. A theory with less evidence or no evidence at all, is at the least less robust, and therefore deserves less allegiance than the better supported theory.

And can you guess how it is we (those of us in the rational, natural world), discriminate between competing theories - theories based on reason and rationality vs. contradictory religious claims to supernaturalism?  What discriminates are the tools of evidence and reason that allow any objective analyst to study the data and reach rational conclusions. You preference is based (as you admit here) purely on which religious claim best fits your _a priori_ religious commitment.


----------



## GISMYS

GOD SAYS TEACH YOUR CHILDREN ABOUT HIS WORD! You shall teach them to your sons, talking of them when you sit in your house and when you walk along the road and when you lie down and when you rise up. Deuteronomy 11:19


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Had you been exposed to a science curriculum in middle school, you would have known that the science of evolution involves more than similarities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well then why aren't any of these things being introduced here? Why is it, every time one of these arguments break out, we are inundated with nothing but similarities which are supposed to suggest something? Did most of you not finish middle school?
> 
> Hate to burst your little bubble here, but there is no special "science of evolution" where the rules and criteria of normal science is suspended so you can make wild ass conclusions about things you don't know.
Click to expand...


You actually confirmed that you have not had any real exposure to a science curriculum. 

If you had, you would have been able to confirm, as I indicated earlier, that evolution is confirmed by various science disciplines. On the contrary, Christian fundies and "spiritual connectors" seem to believe themselves to be in the process of overthrowing modern biology, astronomy, physics, geology, paleontology, anthropology, archaeology, oceanography, cosmology, and other fields of science. Anything that doesn't conform to their interpretation of Bibles and "spirit realms" is suspect and in need of correction / alignment with their subjective interpretations. Creationists have a siege mentality. Even in the face of evidence long ago refuting their claims to supernaturalism and magic, they will maintain their ignorance because to admit biblical error is to admit that their entire argument rests on false claims. And as we see, with no reliable mechanism for correcting errors in creationist dogma, the errors are passed along from creation ministry to "spirit realm'ists to fundie whack job.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, another "because I say so" argument.
> 
> *And bear in mind (to borrow one of your pointless arguments), science has not disproven Ogres, beasts, boogeymen, Leprechauns etc., so as extant entities, they are equally as viable as your gods.*
> 
> The only way they could be equally viable is if humans had predominately worshiped these over the course of human history. They haven't, so... nope. Still, you are correct, science can't disprove their existence so science can't say they don't exist. Curiously, we don't see a lot of you people on these boards fighting tooth and nail to disprove ogres and leprechauns.
> 
> But hey... thank you for pointing out some of the rich human history with regard to spirituality. It's just more evidence of a clear human spiritual connection which can't be denied. A connection that follows man back to his origins and has always been present.
> 
> 
> 
> This follows your own "because I say so" argument of talking to your own personal vision of god and having communication with it that is real, though you have also said it has no particular interest in you.
> The only thing that can not be denied is man has always had the need to fill in the blanks where his knowledge has failed him. You believe that indicates a spiritual connection, but there is no indication that you or anyone else is connecting to anything that is actually there. All that can be confirmed is the need, not the object of the need.
> You are descending into your typically ugly rhetoric of name calling which always makes me wonder what higher plain your god challenges you to attain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My personal connection to God is not a "because I say so" argument because all but a slim minority of humans have always spiritually connected. I've not said that God had no particular interest in me, I don't know if God has interests. I do know if I follow spiritual guidance from God, I receive great benefits and blessings from it. This is not always easy but it's well worth my efforts.
> 
> You want to again introduce your "god of gaps" meme, and we've been over this already. Believing in God doesn't fill in any gaps of knowledge. It doesn't answer unanswered questions or rectify the unknown. Now, if that is why you claim man invented God, then we'd have realized how stupid that was very quickly, because it doesn't do what you claim it's supposed to do. Furthermore, when we invented Science to explain the unknown and fill in the gaps of knowledge, people would have realized they didn't need God anymore for that, Science was better at it, and we'd have completely abandoned God. That hasn't happened.
> 
> *but there is no indication that you or anyone else is connecting to anything that is actually there.*
> 
> And it's because you idiotically continue to look for material physical evidence of God, a spiritual entity. Sometimes you indicate that you understand science can only evaluate physical evidence, and other times you act as if science should be able to do more.
> 
> Let me pose this analogy... We use the telephone to communicate with others... would there be a telephone in almost every home if they didn't work, if you weren't actually able to communicate with others on it? What if some moron came along and said... _"LOOK! There is no human in your phone speaking to you, it's all in your head, you are imagining you make connection because you want to believe it so badly!"_ Knowing that was ridiculous, what would you say about that? You see, just as humans overwhelmingly use the telephone to communicate to each other, humans have also (for much longer) used their ability to spiritually connect to talk to God.
Click to expand...


Your alleged hearing of voices from some "spirit realm" is best described as a pathology.


----------



## Mephisto

Youwerecreated said:


> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The correct Genome numbers for Dna similarity between chimps and humans has been adjusted to 4% this comes from the Genome project. That does not sound like much but if you consider 3 billion base pairs of Dna that is a huge difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Human and chimpanzee chromosomes are very similar. The primary difference is that humans have one fewer pair of chromosomes than do other great apes. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes and other great apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes. In the human evolutionary lineage, two ancestral ape chromosomes fused at their telomeres producing human chromosome 2
> De Grouchy J (August 1987). "Chromosome phylogenies of man, great apes, and Old World monkeys". Genetica 73 (1&#8211;2): 37&#8211;52. PMID 3333352.
> 
> In December 2003, a preliminary analysis of 7600 genes shared between the two genomes confirmed that certain genes such as the forkhead-box P2 transcription factor, which is involved in speech development, are different in the human lineage. Several genes involved in hearing were also found to have changed during human evolution, suggesting selection involving human language-related behavior
> 
> By comparing human and chimp genes to the genes of other mammals, it has been found that genes coding for transcription factors, such as forkhead-box P2 (FOXP2), have often evolved faster in the human relative to chimp; relatively small changes in these genes may account for the morphological differences between humans and chimps. A set of 348 transcription factor genes code for proteins with an average of about 50 percent more amino acid changes in the human lineage than in the chimp lineage.
> 
> *The results of the chimpanzee genome project suggest that when ancestral chromosomes 2A and 2B fused to produce human chromosome 2, no genes were lost from the fused ends of 2A and 2B.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From now on ,please provide your source.
> 
> I am not talking about the supposed chromosome fusing from ape to human. I am talking about the Genome being mapped. They use to claim 1% to 2% genetic difference and it is now at a 4% difference. It could go higher because they also found that Junk Dna is no longer considered junk Dna, it has a function.
Click to expand...


There ya go princess...

Chimp Genome Assembled; Draft Sequence Aligned With Human Genome -- ScienceDaily

Chimpanzees are the most closely related species to humans. Consequently, comparative analysis of the human and chimp genomes can reveal unique types of information impossible to obtain from comparing the human genome with the genomes of other animals. For more on the scientific rationale for sequencing the chimp genome, go to: http://www.genome.gov/Pages/Research/Sequencing/SeqProposals/ChimpGenome2.pdf. For more on comparative genomic analysis, go to: http://www.genome.gov/10005835.

Google...it's your friend.


----------



## Boss

> Chimpanzees are the most closely related species to humans. Consequently, comparative analysis of the human and chimp genomes can reveal unique types of information impossible to obtain from comparing the human genome with the genomes of other animals.



And yet another example of "similarity" passed off as if it's conclusive scientific evidence of something. 

Hey Einstein... we also have two eyes like a frog, does that mean we're related to them too? Well, what a silly question.... if everything living emerged from a single cell organism, of course we are! 

You people have NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE to refute God's creation. NONE! All you have is speculation heaped upon more speculation, passed of as conclusion and fact when it's simply NOT!


----------



## Mephisto

Boss said:


> Chimpanzees are the most closely related species to humans. Consequently, comparative analysis of the human and chimp genomes can reveal unique types of information impossible to obtain from comparing the human genome with the genomes of other animals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet another example of "similarity" passed off as if it's conclusive scientific evidence of something.
> 
> Hey Einstein... we also have two eyes like a frog, does that mean we're related to them too? Well, what a silly question.... if everything living emerged from a single cell organism, of course we are!
> 
> You people have NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE to refute God's creation. NONE! All you have is speculation heaped upon more speculation, passed of as conclusion and fact when it's simply NOT!
Click to expand...

The the beauty of science...it's a fact till its proved wrong.  The earth was flat till it was proved wrong.  The earth was the center till it was proved wrong.

chimps and humans are related until it's proved wrong.  The bible is not a scientific book.


----------



## GISMYS

Mephisto said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chimpanzees are the most closely related species to humans. Consequently, comparative analysis of the human and chimp genomes can reveal unique types of information impossible to obtain from comparing the human genome with the genomes of other animals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet another example of "similarity" passed off as if it's conclusive scientific evidence of something.
> 
> Hey Einstein... we also have two eyes like a frog, does that mean we're related to them too? Well, what a silly question.... if everything living emerged from a single cell organism, of course we are!
> 
> You people have NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE to refute God's creation. NONE! All you have is speculation heaped upon more speculation, passed of as conclusion and fact when it's simply NOT!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The the beauty of science...it's a fact till its proved wrong.  The earth was flat till it was proved wrong.  The earth was the center till it was proved wrong.
> 
> chimps and humans are related until it's proved wrong.  The bible is not a scientific book.
Click to expand...


"SCIENCE" so called facts change almost day to day!!! THE BIG BANG THEORY IS IN QUESTION NOW. THE THEORY THAT LIFE STARTING IN OCEAN SLIM IS IN QUESTION NOW AS NOW THE THEORY IS THAT FIRST LIFE CAME HERE ON ROCKS FROM OUTER SPACE(NOT EVEN A THEORY WHERE THAT LIFE STARTED OR HOW) WHAT A JOKE!!! JUST BELIEVE GOD'S WORD!! REAL WISDOM STARTS THERE!!!


----------



## Boss

Mephisto said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chimpanzees are the most closely related species to humans. Consequently, comparative analysis of the human and chimp genomes can reveal unique types of information impossible to obtain from comparing the human genome with the genomes of other animals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet another example of "similarity" passed off as if it's conclusive scientific evidence of something.
> 
> Hey Einstein... we also have two eyes like a frog, does that mean we're related to them too? Well, what a silly question.... if everything living emerged from a single cell organism, of course we are!
> 
> You people have NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE to refute God's creation. NONE! All you have is speculation heaped upon more speculation, passed of as conclusion and fact when it's simply NOT!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The the beauty of science...it's a fact till its proved wrong.  The earth was flat till it was proved wrong.  The earth was the center till it was proved wrong.
> 
> chimps and humans are related until it's proved wrong.  The bible is not a scientific book.
Click to expand...


That's where you are just fundamentally wrong, bucko. NOTHING in science is fact! That's why science calls it's predictions of probability "theories" and not "facts!" The earth was flat was NEVER a scientific theory. The earth was the center, never a scientific theory. Chimps and humans being related is a scientific theory, not a concluded FACT! But you aptly demonstrate the basis of your FAITH in disbelief. You ignorantly think that science theory is fact when it's NOT FACT!


----------



## Mephisto

Boss said:


> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet another example of "similarity" passed off as if it's conclusive scientific evidence of something.
> 
> Hey Einstein... we also have two eyes like a frog, does that mean we're related to them too? Well, what a silly question.... if everything living emerged from a single cell organism, of course we are!
> 
> You people have NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE to refute God's creation. NONE! All you have is speculation heaped upon more speculation, passed of as conclusion and fact when it's simply NOT!
> 
> 
> 
> The the beauty of science...it's a fact till its proved wrong.  The earth was flat till it was proved wrong.  The earth was the center till it was proved wrong.
> 
> chimps and humans are related until it's proved wrong.  The bible is not a scientific book.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's where you are just fundamentally wrong, bucko. NOTHING in science is fact! That's why science calls it's predictions of probability "theories" and not "facts!" The earth was flat was NEVER a scientific theory. The earth was the center, never a scientific theory. Chimps and humans being related is a scientific theory, not a concluded FACT! But you aptly demonstrate the basis of your FAITH in disbelief. You ignorantly think that science theory is fact when it's NOT FACT!
Click to expand...


In science, a "fact" is a careful observation or measurement, also called empirical evidence. Facts are central to building scientific theories. Various forms of observation and measurement lead to fundamental questions about the scientific method, and the scope and validity of scientific reasoning.

In the most basic sense, a s*cientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation,* in contrast with *a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts*.

 Gower, Barry (1997). Scientific Method: A Historical and Philosophical Introduction. Routledge. ISBN 0-415-12282-1.

But please...go on.


----------



## GISMYS

"SCIENCE" so called facts change almost day to day!!! THE BIG BANG THEORY IS IN QUESTION NOW. THE THEORY THAT LIFE STARTING IN OCEAN SLIM IS IN QUESTION NOW, AS NOW THE THEORY IS THAT FIRST LIFE CAME HERE ON ROCKS FROM OUTER SPACE(NOT EVEN A THEORY WHERE THAT LIFE STARTED OR HOW) WHAT A JOKE!!! JUST BELIEVE GOD'S WORD!! REAL WISDOM STARTS THERE AND IGNORE AND LAUGH AT MAN'S SILLY IDEAS AND OPINIONS!!   I DO!!! LOL!


----------



## HUGGY

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, another "because I say so" argument.
> 
> *And bear in mind (to borrow one of your pointless arguments), science has not disproven Ogres, beasts, boogeymen, Leprechauns etc., so as extant entities, they are equally as viable as your gods.*
> 
> The only way they could be equally viable is if humans had predominately worshiped these over the course of human history. They haven't, so... nope. Still, you are correct, science can't disprove their existence so science can't say they don't exist. Curiously, we don't see a lot of you people on these boards fighting tooth and nail to disprove ogres and leprechauns.
> 
> But hey... thank you for pointing out some of the rich human history with regard to spirituality. It's just more evidence of a clear human spiritual connection which can't be denied. A connection that follows man back to his origins and has always been present.
> 
> 
> 
> This follows your own "because I say so" argument of talking to your own personal vision of god and having communication with it that is real, though you have also said it has no particular interest in you.
> The only thing that can not be denied is man has always had the need to fill in the blanks where his knowledge has failed him. You believe that indicates a spiritual connection, but there is no indication that you or anyone else is connecting to anything that is actually there. All that can be confirmed is the need, not the object of the need.
> You are descending into your typically ugly rhetoric of name calling which always makes me wonder what higher plain your god challenges you to attain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My personal connection to God is not a "because I say so" argument because all but a slim minority of humans have always spiritually connected. I've not said that God had no particular interest in me, I don't know if God has interests. I do know if I follow spiritual guidance from God, I receive great benefits and blessings from it. This is not always easy but it's well worth my efforts.
> 
> You want to again introduce your "god of gaps" meme, and we've been over this already. Believing in God doesn't fill in any gaps of knowledge. It doesn't answer unanswered questions or rectify the unknown. Now, if that is why you claim man invented God, then we'd have realized how stupid that was very quickly, because it doesn't do what you claim it's supposed to do. Furthermore, when we invented Science to explain the unknown and fill in the gaps of knowledge, people would have realized they didn't need God anymore for that, Science was better at it, and we'd have completely abandoned God. That hasn't happened.
> 
> *but there is no indication that you or anyone else is connecting to anything that is actually there.*
> 
> And it's because you idiotically continue to look for material physical evidence of God, a spiritual entity. Sometimes you indicate that you understand science can only evaluate physical evidence, and other times you act as if science should be able to do more.
> 
> *Let me pose this analogy... We use the telephone to communicate with others... would there be a telephone in almost every home if they didn't work, if you weren't actually able to communicate with others on it? What if some moron came along and said... "LOOK! There is no human in your phone speaking to you, it's all in your head, you are imagining you make connection because you want to believe it so badly!" Knowing that was ridiculous, what would you say about that? You see, just as humans overwhelmingly use the telephone to communicate to each other, humans have also (for much longer) used their ability to spiritually connect to talk to God*.
Click to expand...


Ya...JUST LIKE !!!  HaHaHaHa.... you make me laugh longtime...


----------



## Boss

Mephisto said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> The the beauty of science...it's a fact till its proved wrong.  The earth was flat till it was proved wrong.  The earth was the center till it was proved wrong.
> 
> chimps and humans are related until it's proved wrong.  The bible is not a scientific book.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's where you are just fundamentally wrong, bucko. NOTHING in science is fact! That's why science calls it's predictions of probability "theories" and not "facts!" The earth was flat was NEVER a scientific theory. The earth was the center, never a scientific theory. Chimps and humans being related is a scientific theory, not a concluded FACT! But you aptly demonstrate the basis of your FAITH in disbelief. You ignorantly think that science theory is fact when it's NOT FACT!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In science, a "fact" is a careful observation or measurement, also called empirical evidence. Facts are central to building scientific theories. Various forms of observation and measurement lead to fundamental questions about the scientific method, and the scope and validity of scientific reasoning.
> 
> In the most basic sense, a s*cientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation,* in contrast with *a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts*.
> 
> Gower, Barry (1997). Scientific Method: A Historical and Philosophical Introduction. Routledge. ISBN 0-415-12282-1.
> 
> But please...go on.
Click to expand...


The instant you conclude something is proven fact... science ceases to be of any value or relevance. Science can only examine, ponder or investigate possibilities. It can't do a thing with a "concluded fact." Once a "concluded fact" has been established, there is no more science involved from that point onward. There can't be, there is nothing else science can ever do because all other possibility is eliminated and a fact has been determined. Once this "concluded fact" has become that, the thing you must rely on instead of science is called "faith." You must adhere to faith in your belief that [whatever] is indeed a fact.

Now "faith" is a fine thing to have, I think we all rely on faith, even when it comes to science. We faithfully depend on the properties of physics to work tomorrow as they did today and yesterday. We have faith that gravity will predictably function as well. It's justified for us to have this kind of faith because we have pretty good evidence to support our faith, but it still remains faith. 

When we move to the spiritual from the physical we find that people have faith there as well. And again, their faith is based upon pretty good evidence from their perspective. You don't accept their evidence because it's spiritual and not physical, but that's why you can't have their same faith. However, their faith is no different than yours, it's just about a different thing.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, another "because I say so" argument.
> 
> *And bear in mind (to borrow one of your pointless arguments), science has not disproven Ogres, beasts, boogeymen, Leprechauns etc., so as extant entities, they are equally as viable as your gods.*
> 
> The only way they could be equally viable is if humans had predominately worshiped these over the course of human history. They haven't, so... nope. Still, you are correct, science can't disprove their existence so science can't say they don't exist. Curiously, we don't see a lot of you people on these boards fighting tooth and nail to disprove ogres and leprechauns.
> 
> But hey... thank you for pointing out some of the rich human history with regard to spirituality. It's just more evidence of a clear human spiritual connection which can't be denied. A connection that follows man back to his origins and has always been present.
> 
> 
> 
> This follows your own "because I say so" argument of talking to your own personal vision of god and having communication with it that is real, though you have also said it has no particular interest in you.
> The only thing that can not be denied is man has always had the need to fill in the blanks where his knowledge has failed him. You believe that indicates a spiritual connection, but there is no indication that you or anyone else is connecting to anything that is actually there. All that can be confirmed is the need, not the object of the need.
> You are descending into your typically ugly rhetoric of name calling which always makes me wonder what higher plain your god challenges you to attain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My personal connection to God is not a "because I say so" argument because all but a slim minority of humans have always spiritually connected. I've not said that God had no particular interest in me, I don't know if God has interests. I do know if I follow spiritual guidance from God, I receive great benefits and blessings from it. This is not always easy but it's well worth my efforts.
> 
> You have REPEATEDLY stated your vision of god has no personal interest in you. Then you repeatedly tell us how interactive your relationship is. It's this continuous intellectual disconnect you have. One of many.
> 
> You want to again introduce your "god of gaps" meme, and we've been over this already. Believing in God doesn't fill in any gaps of knowledge. It doesn't answer unanswered questions or rectify the unknown. Now, if that is why you claim man invented God, then we'd have realized how stupid that was very quickly, because it doesn't do what you claim it's supposed to do. Furthermore, when we invented Science to explain the unknown and fill in the gaps of knowledge, people would have realized they didn't need God anymore for that, Science was better at it, and we'd have completely abandoned God. That hasn't happened.
> 
> Not at all. The gap appears in the "why" questions, not the scientific "what's" and "how's". These are where man feels unfulfilled and imagines the spiritual to find comfort. Science never touches these questions so has no effect on the fears that prey on man's heart. The essence of that fear is that there may be no "why".
> 
> *but there is no indication that you or anyone else is connecting to anything that is actually there.*
> 
> And it's because you idiotically continue to look for material physical evidence of God, a spiritual entity. Sometimes you indicate that you understand science can only evaluate physical evidence, and other times you act as if science should be able to do more.
> 
> Let me pose this analogy... We use the telephone to communicate with others... would there be a telephone in almost every home if they didn't work, if you weren't actually able to communicate with others on it? What if some moron came along and said... _"LOOK! There is no human in your phone speaking to you, it's all in your head, you are imagining you make connection because you want to believe it so badly!"_ Knowing that was ridiculous, what would you say about that? You see, just as humans overwhelmingly use the telephone to communicate to each other, humans have also (for much longer) used their ability to spiritually connect to talk to God.
Click to expand...

 With all due respect, which is very little, your analogy sucks.
No one is saying that the majority of people don't cope with the "why" by imagining that they have connected to that answer, and no one is saying that the belief isn't a useful tool or doesn't have psychic benefits. That is the very nature, the purpose of rationalizations. They help us cope with what we can't face.
The telephone actually connects two entities that can actually be determined.
You are talking on a toy phone that is not plugged in the wall.


----------



## BreezeWood

Boss said:


> *Those without spiritual connection* are often the misfits in society who push back against morality and *attempt to live immorally*. Take away God and society would crumble into immoral chaos.




*Those without spiritual connection (are often the misfits in society) ... attempt to live immorally.*


*Take away (God) and society would crumble into immoral chaos.*


truly remarkable statements considering whoever requires written scriptures to formulate their (God), being the majority are "Those without spiritual connection" who do live immorally - and but for the "few" with Spiritual connection, society "would crumble into immoral chaos" ... the Land of Sinners.

.


----------



## GISMYS

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.  2 He was in the beginning with God.  3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.  4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.  5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. JOHN 1:1-5


----------



## Mr. H.

I don't hate "God" - whatever that may be, but I am becoming increasingly displeased the GYBLET.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Mr. H. said:


> I don't hate "God" - whatever that may be, but I am becoming increasingly displeased the GYBLET.



AKA Jism Eyes.


----------



## Mephisto

Boss said:


> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's where you are just fundamentally wrong, bucko. NOTHING in science is fact! That's why science calls it's predictions of probability "theories" and not "facts!" The earth was flat was NEVER a scientific theory. The earth was the center, never a scientific theory. Chimps and humans being related is a scientific theory, not a concluded FACT! But you aptly demonstrate the basis of your FAITH in disbelief. You ignorantly think that science theory is fact when it's NOT FACT!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In science, a "fact" is a careful observation or measurement, also called empirical evidence. Facts are central to building scientific theories. Various forms of observation and measurement lead to fundamental questions about the scientific method, and the scope and validity of scientific reasoning.
> 
> In the most basic sense, a s*cientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation,* in contrast with *a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts*.
> 
> Gower, Barry (1997). Scientific Method: A Historical and Philosophical Introduction. Routledge. ISBN 0-415-12282-1.
> 
> But please...go on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The instant you conclude something is proven fact... science ceases to be of any value or relevance. Science can only examine, ponder or investigate possibilities. It can't do a thing with a "concluded fact." Once a "concluded fact" has been established, there is no more science involved from that point onward. There can't be, there is nothing else science can ever do because all other possibility is eliminated and a fact has been determined. Once this "concluded fact" has become that, the thing you must rely on instead of science is called "faith." You must adhere to faith in your belief that [whatever] is indeed a fact.
> 
> Now "faith" is a fine thing to have, I think we all rely on faith, even when it comes to science. We faithfully depend on the properties of physics to work tomorrow as they did today and yesterday. We have faith that gravity will predictably function as well. It's justified for us to have this kind of faith because we have pretty good evidence to support our faith, but it still remains faith.
> 
> When we move to the spiritual from the physical we find that people have faith there as well. And again, their faith is based upon pretty good evidence from their perspective. You don't accept their evidence because it's spiritual and not physical, but that's why you can't have their same faith. However, their faith is no different than yours, it's just about a different thing.
Click to expand...


So do you have faith that gravity work? Of course not it's a scientific fact that what goes up must come down.  

I don;t accept their faith, because it's not a fact that can be proven by the science. Mainly because...*a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation,* Religion is about as far from objective as you can get.


----------



## Boss

> it's a scientific fact that what goes up must come down.



If this were true, we'd have never been able to launch a rocket into space. I don't believe Voyager has ever came down, it certainly went up though. So it's not a scientific fact that what goes up must come down.


----------



## Boss

> a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation



No it's not. An objective and verifiable observation may support a predicted probability, it doesn't mean it's fact. 

You guys are swinging and missing with this one, go read a Science 101 textbook and get back to me. Science doesn't determine FACTS. Science predicts probability. That's all science can ever do. YOU have determined something is a "fact" because you have "FAITH" in an observation.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> it's a scientific fact that what goes up must come down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If this were true, we'd have never been able to launch a rocket into space. I don't believe Voyager has ever came down, it certainly went up though. So it's not a scientific fact that what goes up must come down.
Click to expand...


You announce your limitations regarding science with every silly blunder you introduce.

This will get you started on definitions of theory and fact:

Evolution Resources from the National Academies


----------



## Boss

> You have REPEATEDLY stated your vision of god has no personal interest in you. Then you repeatedly tell us how interactive your relationship is. It's this continuous intellectual disconnect you have. One of many.



I have NEVER stated God has no personal interest in me. That said, I don't believe God has personal interests. God is not a human, it's a spiritual energy. It guides me on the path I need to follow to attain benefit. Does it "care" if I follow it? Nope.... it's not a human, it doesn't care. Now... does the electric outlet "care" if you stick your finger in there? Nope... it's not a human, it doesn't care. BUT... there is a consequence to pay... not because the electricity cares one way or the other, but because that is the nature of electricity and grounded human beings. The same with the soul, God doesn't care one way or the other, but if you don't maintain spiritual fidelity and follow the path of positive spiritual energy, your soul will pay the consequence when you die. 



> Not at all. The gap appears in the "why" questions, not the scientific "what's" and "how's". These are where man feels unfulfilled and imagines the spiritual to find comfort. Science never touches these questions so has no effect on the fears that prey on man's heart. The essence of that fear is that there may be no "why".



Now you are trying to change the goal posts. Man feels unfulfilled because he has an intrinsic awareness of something greater than self. There is no "gap" here, other than the one between your ears. 



> With all due respect, which is very little, your analogy sucks.
> No one is saying that the majority of people don't cope with the "why" by imagining that they have connected to that answer, and no one is saying that the belief isn't a useful tool or doesn't have psychic benefits. That is the very nature, the purpose of rationalizations. They help us cope with what we can't face.
> The telephone actually connects two entities that can actually be determined.
> You are talking on a toy phone that is not plugged in the wall.



With all due respect, you can fuck right off. My analogy nailed it and now you're sputtering. LOL... "psychic benefits?" Man... talk about doing a tapdance on the head of a pin to keep from acknowledging spirituality, that's a good one! 

What humans can't face is a reality where nothing greater than self exists. It's because they intrinsically are aware that something greater does exist. This is why you don't see other creatures having nervous breakdowns over coping with what they can't face. 

The telephone does connect two entities, so does human spiritual nature. That's why most people have a telephone and most people are spiritual. Again, the spiritual connection can easily be determined by those who make the connection, they will testify to you all day long about it. You don't accept their testimony, the same as someone who would ignorantly claim there isn't a "magic person" inside the telephone and it's all in your head. It is totally ridiculous to someone who is making the connection.


----------



## Hollie

Mr. H. said:


> I don't hate "God" - whatever that may be, but I am becoming increasingly displeased the GYBLET.



Go easy on the boy. An outlet such as a message board has some potential benefits. Thrashing away at his keyboard keeps him in a confined space and isolated from the public.


----------



## Boss

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it's a scientific fact that what goes up must come down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If this were true, we'd have never been able to launch a rocket into space. I don't believe Voyager has ever came down, it certainly went up though. So it's not a scientific fact that what goes up must come down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You announce your limitations regarding science with every silly blunder you introduce.
> 
> This will get you started on definitions of theory and fact:
> 
> Evolution Resources from the National Academies
Click to expand...


Sorry but that's not a definition of theory and fact. That is explaining how evolution is considered a fact, but again... once a fact is established you rely on FAITH in the supposed fact that was established, there is no more science can do. Now, nas.edu should probably turn their website over to someone who comprehends this and stop trying to lobby for their faith. What they are trying to do is tap dance around the reason science calls things "theory" instead of "fact." If you read their explanation, you realize they say quite clearly that "scientific facts" are things that have been tested and observed so many times they "can be considered" facts. They do not state that science establishes a fact, but that a fact "can be considered" by humans evaluating the evidence. Once you've "considered something fact" then science is done, it can do no more. Science can only evaluate possibility, and if there is a fact established, all other possibility is gone.


----------



## Boss

BreezeWood said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Those without spiritual connection* are often the misfits in society who push back against morality and *attempt to live immorally*. Take away God and society would crumble into immoral chaos.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Those without spiritual connection (are often the misfits in society) ... attempt to live immorally.*
> 
> 
> *Take away (God) and society would crumble into immoral chaos.*
> 
> 
> truly remarkable statements considering whoever requires written scriptures to formulate their (God), being the majority are "Those without spiritual connection" who do live immorally - and but for the "few" with Spiritual connection, society "would crumble into immoral chaos" ... the Land of Sinners.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Don't know about the Land of Sinners. I just know that self-appointed morality is useless because humans will rationalize whatever behavior they please because they can. If there is no accountability whatsoever, then moral boundaries mean nothing. Yep... without some spiritual foundation (a condition we'll never realize as humans) then society would collapse into immoral chaos in a matter of a few generations.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> If this were true, we'd have never been able to launch a rocket into space. I don't believe Voyager has ever came down, it certainly went up though. So it's not a scientific fact that what goes up must come down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You announce your limitations regarding science with every silly blunder you introduce.
> 
> This will get you started on definitions of theory and fact:
> 
> Evolution Resources from the National Academies
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry but that's not a definition of theory and fact. That is explaining how evolution is considered a fact, but again... once a fact is established you rely on FAITH in the supposed fact that was established, there is no more science can do. Now, nas.edu should probably turn their website over to someone who comprehends this and stop trying to lobby for their faith. What they are trying to do is tap dance around the reason science calls things "theory" instead of "fact." If you read their explanation, you realize they say quite clearly that "scientific facts" are things that have been tested and observed so many times they "can be considered" facts. They do not state that science establishes a fact, but that a fact "can be considered" by humans evaluating the evidence. Once you've "considered something fact" then science is done, it can do no more. Science can only evaluate possibility, and if there is a fact established, all other possibility is gone.
Click to expand...


You were obviously not paying attention. The article clearly describes the use of terms such as fact, theory and hypothesis in the context of scientific inquiry you are having such difficulty with. 

Most people don't conclude gravity as merely a theory of science. 

I was hoping you could give us a workable "Theory of The Gods" that could be tested and held to the same standards you hold science to. But how many times have you been told to do that only to demand that your gods have special exceptions because, well, they're the gods and special pleadings are required.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Those without spiritual connection* are often the misfits in society who push back against morality and *attempt to live immorally*. Take away God and society would crumble into immoral chaos.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Those without spiritual connection (are often the misfits in society) ... attempt to live immorally.*
> 
> 
> *Take away (God) and society would crumble into immoral chaos.*
> 
> 
> truly remarkable statements considering whoever requires written scriptures to formulate their (God), being the majority are "Those without spiritual connection" who do live immorally - and but for the "few" with Spiritual connection, society "would crumble into immoral chaos" ... the Land of Sinners.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't know about the Land of Sinners. I just know that self-appointed morality is useless because humans will rationalize whatever behavior they please because they can. If there is no accountability whatsoever, then moral boundaries mean nothing. Yep... without some spiritual foundation (a condition we'll never realize as humans) then society would collapse into immoral chaos in a matter of a few generations.
Click to expand...


Human history clearly refutes your nonsensical comments. The fact is, civilizations have risen and fallen without the use nor any requirement for your particular gawds or the gawds of others. 

We also know that civilizations have risen and fallen in spite of them having gawds. It seems that even the benefit of having one or many gawds is not an indication that alleged gawd-given "morality" is going to further success of any civilization.

BTW, I was disappointed you didn't entertain us with a litany of slogans including, but not limited to: spiritually connect, spiritual nature, intrinsically connected, intrinsically spiritually connected, and my favorite, ".... because I say so".


----------



## GISMYS

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Those without spiritual connection (are often the misfits in society) ... attempt to live immorally.*
> 
> 
> *Take away (God) and society would crumble into immoral chaos.*
> 
> 
> truly remarkable statements considering whoever requires written scriptures to formulate their (God), being the majority are "Those without spiritual connection" who do live immorally - and but for the "few" with Spiritual connection, society "would crumble into immoral chaos" ... the Land of Sinners.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't know about the Land of Sinners. I just know that self-appointed morality is useless because humans will rationalize whatever behavior they please because they can. If there is no accountability whatsoever, then moral boundaries mean nothing. Yep... without some spiritual foundation (a condition we'll never realize as humans) then society would collapse into immoral chaos in a matter of a few generations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Human history clearly refutes your nonsensical comments. The fact is, civilizations have risen and fallen without the use nor any requirement for your particular gawds or the gawds of others.
> 
> We also know that civilizations have risen and fallen in spite of them having gawds. It seems that even the benefit of having one or many gawds is not an indication that alleged gawd-given "morality" is going to further success of any civilization.
> 
> BTW, I was disappointed you didn't entertain us with a litany of slogans including, but not limited to: spiritually connect, spiritual nature, intrinsically connected, intrinsically spiritually connected, and my favorite, ".... because I say so".
Click to expand...


YES!!! THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF FALSE gods but only ONE TRUE ALMIGHTY GOD!!! NOW! WISE UP!!


----------



## Youwerecreated

Mephisto said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Human and chimpanzee chromosomes are very similar. The primary difference is that humans have one fewer pair of chromosomes than do other great apes. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes and other great apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes. In the human evolutionary lineage, two ancestral ape chromosomes fused at their telomeres producing human chromosome 2
> De Grouchy J (August 1987). "Chromosome phylogenies of man, great apes, and Old World monkeys". Genetica 73 (12): 3752. PMID 3333352.
> 
> In December 2003, a preliminary analysis of 7600 genes shared between the two genomes confirmed that certain genes such as the forkhead-box P2 transcription factor, which is involved in speech development, are different in the human lineage. Several genes involved in hearing were also found to have changed during human evolution, suggesting selection involving human language-related behavior
> 
> By comparing human and chimp genes to the genes of other mammals, it has been found that genes coding for transcription factors, such as forkhead-box P2 (FOXP2), have often evolved faster in the human relative to chimp; relatively small changes in these genes may account for the morphological differences between humans and chimps. A set of 348 transcription factor genes code for proteins with an average of about 50 percent more amino acid changes in the human lineage than in the chimp lineage.
> 
> *The results of the chimpanzee genome project suggest that when ancestral chromosomes 2A and 2B fused to produce human chromosome 2, no genes were lost from the fused ends of 2A and 2B.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From now on ,please provide your source.
> 
> I am not talking about the supposed chromosome fusing from ape to human. I am talking about the Genome being mapped. They use to claim 1% to 2% genetic difference and it is now at a 4% difference. It could go higher because they also found that Junk Dna is no longer considered junk Dna, it has a function.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There ya go princess...
> 
> Chimp Genome Assembled; Draft Sequence Aligned With Human Genome -- ScienceDaily
> 
> Chimpanzees are the most closely related species to humans. Consequently, comparative analysis of the human and chimp genomes can reveal unique types of information impossible to obtain from comparing the human genome with the genomes of other animals. For more on the scientific rationale for sequencing the chimp genome, go to: http://www.genome.gov/Pages/Research/Sequencing/SeqProposals/ChimpGenome2.pdf. For more on comparative genomic analysis, go to: Background on Comparative Genomic Analysis.
> 
> Google...it's your friend.
Click to expand...


You see, you were trying to suggest , that the genetic differences come from the difference in chromosomes contained in humans and chimps.

By your reasoning because the European hare,large bentwing bat and the Grevy's zebra have the same amount of chromosomes as humans so we must be closer related.

If you use google here provide the link because many have tried to pass their copy and paste as their own words.


----------



## Mephisto

Youwerecreated said:


> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> From now on ,please provide your source.
> 
> I am not talking about the supposed chromosome fusing from ape to human. I am talking about the Genome being mapped. They use to claim 1% to 2% genetic difference and it is now at a 4% difference. It could go higher because they also found that Junk Dna is no longer considered junk Dna, it has a function.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There ya go princess...
> 
> Chimp Genome Assembled; Draft Sequence Aligned With Human Genome -- ScienceDaily
> 
> Chimpanzees are the most closely related species to humans. Consequently, comparative analysis of the human and chimp genomes can reveal unique types of information impossible to obtain from comparing the human genome with the genomes of other animals. For more on the scientific rationale for sequencing the chimp genome, go to: http://www.genome.gov/Pages/Research/Sequencing/SeqProposals/ChimpGenome2.pdf. For more on comparative genomic analysis, go to: Background on Comparative Genomic Analysis.
> 
> Google...it's your friend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You see, you were trying to suggest , that the genetic differences come from the difference in chromosomes contained in humans and chimps.
> 
> By your reasoning because the European hare,large bentwing bat and the Grevy's zebra have the same amount of chromosomes as humans so we must be closer related.
> 
> If you use google here provide the link because many have tried to pass their copy and paste as their own words.
Click to expand...


links to the study are quoted..read them if you want.


----------



## HUGGY

Mephisto said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> In science, a "fact" is a careful observation or measurement, also called empirical evidence. Facts are central to building scientific theories. Various forms of observation and measurement lead to fundamental questions about the scientific method, and the scope and validity of scientific reasoning.
> 
> In the most basic sense, a s*cientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation,* in contrast with *a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts*.
> 
> Gower, Barry (1997). Scientific Method: A Historical and Philosophical Introduction. Routledge. ISBN 0-415-12282-1.
> 
> But please...go on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The instant you conclude something is proven fact... science ceases to be of any value or relevance. Science can only examine, ponder or investigate possibilities. It can't do a thing with a "concluded fact." Once a "concluded fact" has been established, there is no more science involved from that point onward. There can't be, there is nothing else science can ever do because all other possibility is eliminated and a fact has been determined. Once this "concluded fact" has become that, the thing you must rely on instead of science is called "faith." You must adhere to faith in your belief that [whatever] is indeed a fact.
> 
> Now "faith" is a fine thing to have, I think we all rely on faith, even when it comes to science. We faithfully depend on the properties of physics to work tomorrow as they did today and yesterday. We have faith that gravity will predictably function as well. It's justified for us to have this kind of faith because we have pretty good evidence to support our faith, but it still remains faith.
> 
> When we move to the spiritual from the physical we find that people have faith there as well. And again, their faith is based upon pretty good evidence from their perspective. You don't accept their evidence because it's spiritual and not physical, but that's why you can't have their same faith. However, their faith is no different than yours, it's just about a different thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So do you have faith that gravity work? Of course not it's a scientific fact that what goes up must come down.
> 
> I don;t accept their faith, because it's not a fact that can be proven by the science. Mainly because...*a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation,* Religion is about as far from objective as you can get.
Click to expand...


You just wait till somebody teaches their pet snake to talk.  Then the shit is gonna hit the fan.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Mephisto said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> There ya go princess...
> 
> Chimp Genome Assembled; Draft Sequence Aligned With Human Genome -- ScienceDaily
> 
> Chimpanzees are the most closely related species to humans. Consequently, comparative analysis of the human and chimp genomes can reveal unique types of information impossible to obtain from comparing the human genome with the genomes of other animals. For more on the scientific rationale for sequencing the chimp genome, go to: http://www.genome.gov/Pages/Research/Sequencing/SeqProposals/ChimpGenome2.pdf. For more on comparative genomic analysis, go to: Background on Comparative Genomic Analysis.
> 
> Google...it's your friend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You see, you were trying to suggest , that the genetic differences come from the difference in chromosomes contained in humans and chimps.
> 
> By your reasoning because the European hare,large bentwing bat and the Grevy's zebra have the same amount of chromosomes as humans so we must be closer related.
> 
> If you use google here provide the link because many have tried to pass their copy and paste as their own words.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> links to the study are quoted..read them if you want.
Click to expand...


 I have read from their site that conducted the work. I have also read other scientists response to their findings.

You are arguing a one sided opinion.


----------



## Youwerecreated

HUGGY said:


> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> The instant you conclude something is proven fact... science ceases to be of any value or relevance. Science can only examine, ponder or investigate possibilities. It can't do a thing with a "concluded fact." Once a "concluded fact" has been established, there is no more science involved from that point onward. There can't be, there is nothing else science can ever do because all other possibility is eliminated and a fact has been determined. Once this "concluded fact" has become that, the thing you must rely on instead of science is called "faith." You must adhere to faith in your belief that [whatever] is indeed a fact.
> 
> Now "faith" is a fine thing to have, I think we all rely on faith, even when it comes to science. We faithfully depend on the properties of physics to work tomorrow as they did today and yesterday. We have faith that gravity will predictably function as well. It's justified for us to have this kind of faith because we have pretty good evidence to support our faith, but it still remains faith.
> 
> When we move to the spiritual from the physical we find that people have faith there as well. And again, their faith is based upon pretty good evidence from their perspective. You don't accept their evidence because it's spiritual and not physical, but that's why you can't have their same faith. However, their faith is no different than yours, it's just about a different thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So do you have faith that gravity work? Of course not it's a scientific fact that what goes up must come down.
> 
> I don;t accept their faith, because it's not a fact that can be proven by the science. Mainly because...*a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation,* Religion is about as far from objective as you can get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just wait till somebody teaches their pet snake to talk.  Then the shit is gonna hit the fan.
Click to expand...


This is what keeps me returning


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> Just think about how uneducated people were 2000 years ago. They didn't even know what science was back then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and isn't it fucking astonishing that humans, by-and-large, still believe in something greater than self?
> 
> Science has not disproved God, it can't disprove God. There are more humans believing in God on the planet today than anytime before in history. Per capita, the numbers are overwhelming, and they always have been... always will be. No civilization has ever managed to survive more than 50 years without spirituality.
Click to expand...



Argument from ignorance.  A common attempt to shift the burden of proof.  The failure to disprove the existence of something does not constitute proof of its existence.  

Belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims because all such claims would need to be believed implicitly. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

It is possible to gather evidence of absence and disprove specific claims about and definitions of a god.

Why there is no god


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Those without spiritual connection* are often the misfits in society who push back against morality and *attempt to live immorally*. Take away God and society would crumble into immoral chaos.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Those without spiritual connection (are often the misfits in society) ... attempt to live immorally.*
> 
> 
> *Take away (God) and society would crumble into immoral chaos.*
> 
> 
> truly remarkable statements considering whoever requires written scriptures to formulate their (God), being the majority are "Those without spiritual connection" who do live immorally - and but for the "few" with Spiritual connection, society "would crumble into immoral chaos" ... the Land of Sinners.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't know about the Land of Sinners. I just know that self-appointed morality is useless because humans will rationalize whatever behavior they please because they can. If there is no accountability whatsoever, then moral boundaries mean nothing. Yep... without some spiritual foundation (a condition we'll never realize as humans) then society would collapse into immoral chaos in a matter of a few generations.
Click to expand...


I'm glad you said that.  I was watching this jesus show late saturday night and the black woman dr./preacher was screaming out everything from be patient, take care of your kids, turn the other cheek, jesus said this, god said that, yelling and going in and out of speaking in tongues and I am convinced religion is one of the ways the rich keep the rest of us down.  First of all, its a big business.  The whole time the lady was talking about calling in and donating to them.  So maybe we need it because without it what would all those preachers do for a living?  Is that why we need it?  Or is the the poor souls that are miserable who need something?  Because I get that.  There is a lot of community in churches.  What would those people do without sunday gatherings?  I don't know.  Maybe they would start another club, like a science club.  

I think we would probably be better off without it.  Remember species whose members are predisposed to cooperate are more likely to survive and pass on their genes. Reciprocacy, altruism and other so-called moral characteristics are evident in many species. The neurochemical thought to regulate morality and empathy is oxytocin.

Religious texts are simply part of many early attempts to codify moral precepts. Secular law, flexible with the shifting moral zeitgeist, has long since superseded religion as a source of moral directives for the majority of developed societies. Secular ethics offers a number of competing moral frameworks which do not derive from a purported supernatural source.


----------



## sealybobo

The god character of the Bible is a misogynistic tyrant that condones and even orders the practice of slavery, rape of women and murder of children. The moment you disagree with a single instruction of the Bible, such as the command to kill any bride who is not a virgin or any child who disrespects their parents, then you acknowledge that there exists a superior standard by which to judge moral action and thus no need to rely on an ancient, primitive and barbaric fantasy.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> The god character of the Bible is a misogynistic tyrant that condones and even orders the practice of slavery, rape of women and murder of children. The moment you disagree with a single instruction of the Bible, such as the command to kill any bride who is not a virgin or any child who disrespects their parents, then you acknowledge that there exists a superior standard by which to judge moral action and thus no need to rely on an ancient, primitive and barbaric fantasy.



COUNT THE COST OF ALLOWING SATAN TO USE YOU AS HIS TOOL,FOOL,PUPPET=A RUINED LIFE OF SIN AND GUILT,DEATH AND HELL!!! But you are free to go for it!!!


----------



## sealybobo

Just because something is perceived as having good consequences if it is true, does not actually make it true.  I also don't think it is necessary.  Smarter people won't put up with, for example, what the GOP did to the poor and middle class.  But because the GOP has the anti gay and abortion voters locked down, they continue to give all the tax breaks to the rich, cut spending on the poor, defund ss and medicare which we are all going to need, all because people are religious/stupid.  

The fact that religiously free societies with a proportionally large number of atheists (OR GAYS) are generally more peaceful proves Boss incorrect.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The god character of the Bible is a misogynistic tyrant that condones and even orders the practice of slavery, rape of women and murder of children. The moment you disagree with a single instruction of the Bible, such as the command to kill any bride who is not a virgin or any child who disrespects their parents, then you acknowledge that there exists a superior standard by which to judge moral action and thus no need to rely on an ancient, primitive and barbaric fantasy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> COUNT THE COST OF ALLOWING SATAN TO USE YOU AS HIS TOOL,FOOL,PUPPET=A RUINED LIFE OF SIN AND GUILT,DEATH AND HELL!!! But you are free to go for it!!!
Click to expand...


I thought of you while watching that crazy religious show late Saturday.  Do you like it that I thought about you late night while watching a crazy religious show?  I won't tell you anymore.  Use your imagination.  They were speaking in tongues and praising jesus like they knew something.  She just keep going and going and going and it was maddening.  How do you buy into that?  Sure every christian church is different but regardless of how stupid the preacher is acting, how do you buy into it?  Do you talk to your fellow church goers about what we say to you?  Do you point out to them that technically there is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible concerning the existence of a god. Any evidence proposed by theists to support the Bibles various historical and supernatural claims is non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.

The Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many religious texts. Like those others, it itself constitutes no evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful content do not legitimise it nor distinguish it from other ancient works of literature.

The Bible is historically inaccurate, factually incorrect, inconsistent and contradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time.

My Catholic friend told his priest about the conversations we have.  His priest basically said he could provide no proof, I would just have to have faith.

Well I do have faith that your religion is wrong.  If there is a god, he aint saving anybody.  It'd be like you caring about one Tardigrade.  Do you?  To them you probably seem like a god.  The people who invented religion didn't even know about Tardigrades.

Oh yea, and I thought about how god didn't tell us how to come up with cures for diseases but instead if what religions arch enemy science that figured it out.  Way to go science.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The god character of the Bible is a misogynistic tyrant that condones and even orders the practice of slavery, rape of women and murder of children. The moment you disagree with a single instruction of the Bible, such as the command to kill any bride who is not a virgin or any child who disrespects their parents, then you acknowledge that there exists a superior standard by which to judge moral action and thus no need to rely on an ancient, primitive and barbaric fantasy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> COUNT THE COST OF ALLOWING SATAN TO USE YOU AS HIS TOOL,FOOL,PUPPET=A RUINED LIFE OF SIN AND GUILT,DEATH AND HELL!!! But you are free to go for it!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought of you while watching that crazy religious show late Saturday.  Do you like it that I thought about you late night while watching a crazy religious show?  I won't tell you anymore.  Use your imagination.  They were speaking in tongues and praising jesus like they knew something.  She just keep going and going and going and it was maddening.  How do you buy into that?  Sure every christian church is different but regardless of how stupid the preacher is acting, how do you buy into it?  Do you talk to your fellow church goers about what we say to you?  Do you point out to them that technically there is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible concerning the existence of a god. Any evidence proposed by theists to support the Bibles various historical and supernatural claims is non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.
> 
> The Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many religious texts. Like those others, it itself constitutes no evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful content do not legitimise it nor distinguish it from other ancient works of literature.
> 
> The Bible is historically inaccurate, factually incorrect, inconsistent and contradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time.
> 
> My Catholic friend told his priest about the conversations we have.  His priest basically said he could provide no proof, I would just have to have faith.
> 
> Well I do have faith that your religion is wrong.  If there is a god, he aint saving anybody.  It'd be like you caring about one Tardigrade.  Do you?  To them you probably seem like a god.  The people who invented religion didn't even know about Tardigrades.
> 
> Oh yea, and I thought about how god didn't tell us how to come up with cures for diseases but instead if what religions arch enemy science that figured it out.  Way to go science.
Click to expand...


HOW SAD TO SEE YOU ALLOW SATAN TO USE YOU AS HIS TOOL,FOOL,PUPPET!!! BUT YOUR CHOICE,JUST DON'T TRY TO BLAME GOD!!! Think!


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> COUNT THE COST OF ALLOWING SATAN TO USE YOU AS HIS TOOL,FOOL,PUPPET=A RUINED LIFE OF SIN AND GUILT,DEATH AND HELL!!! But you are free to go for it!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought of you while watching that crazy religious show late Saturday.  Do you like it that I thought about you late night while watching a crazy religious show?  I won't tell you anymore.  Use your imagination.  They were speaking in tongues and praising jesus like they knew something.  She just keep going and going and going and it was maddening.  How do you buy into that?  Sure every christian church is different but regardless of how stupid the preacher is acting, how do you buy into it?  Do you talk to your fellow church goers about what we say to you?  Do you point out to them that technically there is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible concerning the existence of a god. Any evidence proposed by theists to support the Bibles various historical and supernatural claims is non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.
> 
> The Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many religious texts. Like those others, it itself constitutes no evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful content do not legitimise it nor distinguish it from other ancient works of literature.
> 
> The Bible is historically inaccurate, factually incorrect, inconsistent and contradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time.
> 
> My Catholic friend told his priest about the conversations we have.  His priest basically said he could provide no proof, I would just have to have faith.
> 
> Well I do have faith that your religion is wrong.  If there is a god, he aint saving anybody.  It'd be like you caring about one Tardigrade.  Do you?  To them you probably seem like a god.  The people who invented religion didn't even know about Tardigrades.
> 
> Oh yea, and I thought about how god didn't tell us how to come up with cures for diseases but instead if what religions arch enemy science that figured it out.  Way to go science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HOW SAD TO SEE YOU ALLOW SATAN TO USE YOU AS HIS TOOL,FOOL,PUPPET!!! BUT YOUR CHOICE,JUST DON'T TRY TO BLAME GOD!!! Think!
Click to expand...


Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Those without spiritual connection* are often the misfits in society who push back against morality and *attempt to live immorally*. Take away God and society would crumble into immoral chaos.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Those without spiritual connection (are often the misfits in society) ... attempt to live immorally.*
> 
> 
> *Take away (God) and society would crumble into immoral chaos.*
> 
> 
> truly remarkable statements considering whoever requires written scriptures to formulate their (God), being the majority are "Those without spiritual connection" who do live immorally - and but for the "few" with Spiritual connection, society "would crumble into immoral chaos" ... the Land of Sinners.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't know about the Land of Sinners. I just know that self-appointed morality is useless because humans will rationalize whatever behavior they please because they can. If there is no accountability whatsoever, then moral boundaries mean nothing. Yep... without some spiritual foundation (a condition we'll never realize as humans) then society would collapse into immoral chaos in a matter of a few generations.
Click to expand...


But Christians think they can sin and still go to heaven and muslims think killing them for allah will get them a seat in heaven?  

Also wanted to share this with you.  I was watching another show about ancient Egypt and then it made me think, doesnt anyone else find it interesting that during the same time god was talking to Moses, the ancestors of modern day jews and christians, the Greeks, Chinese, Egyptians and Pagans were all completely making up their religions?  And I think even you admit that the old testament is not real, so isn't that flawed reasoning for you to say that just because human's all around 3000 bc made up god, that is proof that god must exist?   

So we know exactly why/how/who and when religion was made up.  The Egyptians religion, for example, was an effort to provide for the gods and gain their favor from famine and drought.  Average life span was 22 years old.  Death was all around them every day.  Formal religious practice centered on the pharaoh.  Although a human, the Pharaoh was believed to be descended from the gods. He acted as the intermediary between his people and the gods, and was obligated to sustain the gods through rituals and offerings so that they could maintain order in the universe. The state dedicated enormous resources to Egyptian rituals and to the construction of the temples.

But you want to say that because they made up god that is proof of god?  That is ridiculous.  When you look at exactly when/how/why/who invented gods, you see it is a tool that they used to control the masses and they continue to use it today.  Wake up people.


----------



## Boss

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You announce your limitations regarding science with every silly blunder you introduce.
> 
> This will get you started on definitions of theory and fact:
> 
> Evolution Resources from the National Academies
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but that's not a definition of theory and fact. That is explaining how evolution is considered a fact, but again... once a fact is established you rely on FAITH in the supposed fact that was established, there is no more science can do. Now, nas.edu should probably turn their website over to someone who comprehends this and stop trying to lobby for their faith. What they are trying to do is tap dance around the reason science calls things "theory" instead of "fact." If you read their explanation, you realize they say quite clearly that "scientific facts" are things that have been tested and observed so many times they "can be considered" facts. They do not state that science establishes a fact, but that a fact "can be considered" by humans evaluating the evidence. Once you've "considered something fact" then science is done, it can do no more. Science can only evaluate possibility, and if there is a fact established, all other possibility is gone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You were obviously not paying attention. The article clearly describes the use of terms such as fact, theory and hypothesis in the context of scientific inquiry you are having such difficulty with.
> 
> Most people don't conclude gravity as merely a theory of science.
> 
> I was hoping you could give us a workable "Theory of The Gods" that could be tested and held to the same standards you hold science to. But how many times have you been told to do that only to demand that your gods have special exceptions because, well, they're the gods and special pleadings are required.
Click to expand...


No, I paid attention and gave a rational response. The article is very misleading and shame on nas.edu for posting it. On the question of whether evolution is fact or theory, the article clearly states "both" and that is a dodge of the question, first off, and secondly, it's incorrect. Evolution is a theory, as is most everything in science. Once something is determined to be a fact, science can no longer examine it, there is nothing for science to do. Science can only explore possibility and predict probabilities, it can't do anything with a fact. 

I can't give you a workable "theory of the Gods" because science can't evaluate that which is not physical in nature. No special pleading, it's just the limitations of science. I'm sorry if you are too ignorant to grasp that, I can't do anything about your incompetence. 

*Most people don't conclude gravity as merely a theory of science.*

Well the debate isn't about what most people conclude, is it? If that's the case, we can settle the God issue real easy, most people conclude there is one. The question was, what does "science" conclude, and the appropriate answer is nothing. Even the laws of gravity are theory, as a matter of fact, we've recently discovered the laws of gravity do not necessarily always work as we believed. Dark matter has gravitational properties it shouldn't have, according to physics. If we've determined gravity is a fact, then dark matter contradicts a fact of reality, which it can't do.


----------



## Boss

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Those without spiritual connection (are often the misfits in society) ... attempt to live immorally.*
> 
> 
> *Take away (God) and society would crumble into immoral chaos.*
> 
> 
> truly remarkable statements considering whoever requires written scriptures to formulate their (God), being the majority are "Those without spiritual connection" who do live immorally - and but for the "few" with Spiritual connection, society "would crumble into immoral chaos" ... the Land of Sinners.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't know about the Land of Sinners. I just know that self-appointed morality is useless because humans will rationalize whatever behavior they please because they can. If there is no accountability whatsoever, then moral boundaries mean nothing. Yep... without some spiritual foundation (a condition we'll never realize as humans) then society would collapse into immoral chaos in a matter of a few generations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Human history clearly refutes your nonsensical comments. The fact is, civilizations have risen and fallen without the use nor any requirement for your particular gawds or the gawds of others.
> 
> We also know that civilizations have risen and fallen in spite of them having gawds. It seems that even the benefit of having one or many gawds is not an indication that alleged gawd-given "morality" is going to further success of any civilization.
> 
> BTW, I was disappointed you didn't entertain us with a litany of slogans including, but not limited to: spiritually connect, spiritual nature, intrinsically connected, intrinsically spiritually connected, and my favorite, ".... because I say so".
Click to expand...


Human history is that man has always been spiritual. From the very first civilization to today. No civilization has ever risen without spirituality, nor has one ever existed for very long in absence of spirituality. Nobody has claimed spirituality is a guarantee a civilization will survive. It is a guarantee they will collapse without it. This is why you can't name a civilization that has existed without spirituality, there isn't one.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just think about how uneducated people were 2000 years ago. They didn't even know what science was back then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and isn't it fucking astonishing that humans, by-and-large, still believe in something greater than self?
> 
> Science has not disproved God, it can't disprove God. There are more humans believing in God on the planet today than anytime before in history. Per capita, the numbers are overwhelming, and they always have been... always will be. No civilization has ever managed to survive more than 50 years without spirituality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Argument from ignorance.  A common attempt to shift the burden of proof.  The failure to disprove the existence of something does not constitute proof of its existence.
> 
> Belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims because all such claims would need to be believed implicitly. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
> 
> It is possible to gather evidence of absence and disprove specific claims about and definitions of a god.
> 
> Why there is no god
Click to expand...


Okay.... So please show me where I've ever stated that God is proven fact? I am arguing against those who want to claim NO GOD is a proven fact, when that's inaccurate. Your blog post doesn't change that. Belief is always a valid position if there is evidence for your faith in the belief. Those who are spiritually connected have all the evidence they need to support their faith. You can holler "unsupportable/unfalsifiable" all day long, it doesn't change this fact. God isn't physical nature, therefore, it can't be evaluated with physical science. How many times do I have to repeat this? Seems I've typed it about a thousand times in this thread, and it keeps flying comfortably over your pinhead. 

If I didn't believe in anything other than physical nature, then I would be skeptical of God too. I can see no possibility of God in a physical sense. There is no physical evidence to suggest a God in a physical sense. However, I am aware of something beyond the physical, a spiritual energy that courses through this universe and humans are able to connect with. Science is of no use because it can't evaluate that which is not physical.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> I think we would probably be better off without it.  Remember species whose members are predisposed to cooperate are more likely to survive and pass on their genes.



Yes, this is why we find every creature that hasn't gone extinct has intrinsic spiritual awareness and connection. Except... that's not true, is it? So what we see in nature is no need for animals to create fake idols to worship so they can cooperate and survive. Another meme bites the dust...bump bump!


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Just because something is perceived as having good consequences if it is true, does not actually make it true.  I also don't think it is necessary.  Smarter people won't put up with, for example, what the GOP did to the poor and middle class.  But because the GOP has the anti gay and abortion voters locked down, they continue to give all the tax breaks to the rich, cut spending on the poor, defund ss and medicare which we are all going to need, all because people are religious/stupid.
> 
> The fact that religiously free societies with a proportionally large number of atheists (OR GAYS) are generally more peaceful proves Boss incorrect.



Now you're really showing what a fucking moron you are. The poor and middle class are much worse off under Obama than they ever have been under ANY GOP president. Your Democrats have had ample opportunities to raise taxes and eliminate tax breaks, why haven't they done so? And hate to break the news to ya, but Obama took $700 billion from Medicare to fund Obamacare. The Democrats have done absolutely NOTHING on social security reform, they are perfectly content with allowing the program to continue on the path of insolvency, apparently so morons like you can blame the failure on Republicans when it goes tits up in another 20 years. 

Oh... and I've yet to see an example of a free society which is predominately atheist. Got any examples you wish to share or is this just more of you shooting off your big mouth?


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and isn't it fucking astonishing that humans, by-and-large, still believe in something greater than self?
> 
> Science has not disproved God, it can't disprove God. There are more humans believing in God on the planet today than anytime before in history. Per capita, the numbers are overwhelming, and they always have been... always will be. No civilization has ever managed to survive more than 50 years without spirituality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Argument from ignorance.  A common attempt to shift the burden of proof.  The failure to disprove the existence of something does not constitute proof of its existence.
> 
> Belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims because all such claims would need to be believed implicitly. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
> 
> It is possible to gather evidence of absence and disprove specific claims about and definitions of a god.
> 
> Why there is no god
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay.... So please show me where I've ever stated that God is proven fact? I am arguing against those who want to claim NO GOD is a proven fact, when that's inaccurate. Your blog post doesn't change that. Belief is always a valid position if there is evidence for your faith in the belief. Those who are spiritually connected have all the evidence they need to support their faith. You can holler "unsupportable/unfalsifiable" all day long, it doesn't change this fact. God isn't physical nature, therefore, it can't be evaluated with physical science. How many times do I have to repeat this? Seems I've typed it about a thousand times in this thread, and it keeps flying comfortably over your pinhead.
> 
> If I didn't believe in anything other than physical nature, then I would be skeptical of God too. I can see no possibility of God in a physical sense. There is no physical evidence to suggest a God in a physical sense. However, I am aware of something beyond the physical, a spiritual energy that courses through this universe and humans are able to connect with. Science is of no use because it can't evaluate that which is not physical.
Click to expand...


As long as you realize your arguments are unsupportable/unfalsifiable, that's all I need.  You are correct I can't prove there is no god and I/We don't know everything so as long as you aren't acting like Gismys like you know for a fact.

But, you should know that this/your argument is # 19 at Why there is no god

You can't say that god has a non physical component because how can you prove it?

There have been numerous claims of the supernatural, none of which have ever been demonstrated to be true. Furthermore, these claims are often mutually contradictory, and people who believe in one form of supernatural or paranormal activity will usually not believe in others due to cognitive bias and wishful thinking.

Proposing a non-physical explanation for an observed or imagined/fabricated phenomena is not a testable hypothesis and is therefore unworthy of serious consideration. It precludes any deeper insight or understanding and offers no means of distinction from any other possible supernatural claim.

There are many as yet unexplained phenomena and anomalies in nature. The scientific approach to these is to say I dont know yet and keep on looking, not to presume an answer which makes us comfortable.

This claim often represents a discomfort with uncertainty or ambiguity, demonstrating a lack of critical thinking or poor understanding of a topic. It usually coincides with credulity, which is the tendency to believe in propositions unsupported by evidence. See also: gullibility.

What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.  Christopher Hitchens

I dont feel frightened by not knowing things, I think its much more interesting that way  I have approximate answers, and possible beliefs, and different degrees of certainty about different things, but Im not absolutely sure of anything. I might think about it a little, but if I cant figure it out, then I go to something else. It doesnt frighten me.  Richard Feynman


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because something is perceived as having good consequences if it is true, does not actually make it true.  I also don't think it is necessary.  Smarter people won't put up with, for example, what the GOP did to the poor and middle class.  But because the GOP has the anti gay and abortion voters locked down, they continue to give all the tax breaks to the rich, cut spending on the poor, defund ss and medicare which we are all going to need, all because people are religious/stupid.
> 
> The fact that religiously free societies with a proportionally large number of atheists (OR GAYS) are generally more peaceful proves Boss incorrect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're really showing what a fucking moron you are. The poor and middle class are much worse off under Obama than they ever have been under ANY GOP president. Your Democrats have had ample opportunities to raise taxes and eliminate tax breaks, why haven't they done so? And hate to break the news to ya, but Obama took $700 billion from Medicare to fund Obamacare. The Democrats have done absolutely NOTHING on social security reform, they are perfectly content with allowing the program to continue on the path of insolvency, apparently so morons like you can blame the failure on Republicans when it goes tits up in another 20 years.
> 
> Oh... and I've yet to see an example of a free society which is predominately atheist. Got any examples you wish to share or is this just more of you shooting off your big mouth?
Click to expand...


#21 

I cant believe/understand a world without God OR No god is too unlikely.

Argument from incredulity / Lack of imagination and Argumentum ad Ignorantiam. Ignores and does not eliminate the fact that something can seem incredible or unlikely and still be true, or appear to be obvious or likely and yet still be false.

The world is the way it is. Reality does not bend to our personal whim and facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. Our personal belief in something does not automatically make it real or true and, conversely, our lack of understanding of a topic does not make it false.

Until we understand something we do not know. Positing a god in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.

The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

Why there is no god


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because something is perceived as having good consequences if it is true, does not actually make it true.  I also don't think it is necessary.  Smarter people won't put up with, for example, what the GOP did to the poor and middle class.  But because the GOP has the anti gay and abortion voters locked down, they continue to give all the tax breaks to the rich, cut spending on the poor, defund ss and medicare which we are all going to need, all because people are religious/stupid.
> 
> The fact that religiously free societies with a proportionally large number of atheists (OR GAYS) are generally more peaceful proves Boss incorrect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're really showing what a fucking moron you are. The poor and middle class are much worse off under Obama than they ever have been under ANY GOP president. Your Democrats have had ample opportunities to raise taxes and eliminate tax breaks, why haven't they done so? And hate to break the news to ya, but Obama took $700 billion from Medicare to fund Obamacare. The Democrats have done absolutely NOTHING on social security reform, they are perfectly content with allowing the program to continue on the path of insolvency, apparently so morons like you can blame the failure on Republicans when it goes tits up in another 20 years.
> 
> Oh... and I've yet to see an example of a free society which is predominately atheist. Got any examples you wish to share or is this just more of you shooting off your big mouth?
Click to expand...


Everyone who is hurting right now is still being fucked by Bushanomics.  Ask the tea baggers and Mitch McConnell why Obama hasn't done a better job.  But he's done a "heck of a job" considering the GOP obstruction.

If you have to ask why he hasn't done better, either you've ignored all the GOP shinanigans over the past 6 years because you a right wing schmuck or you are truly stupid and don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

Oh and Boss, now all you republicans know why I don't argue politics with you anymore.  Just like religion, it doesn't matter if you have no evidence or it doesn't matter if your evidence is bad, you are going to believe whatever the fuck you want to believe.  Just like Bush, he believed on Wednesday the same thing he believed on Monday DESPITE what he learned on Tuesday.  

Mitch met with the GOP when Obama was being sworn in and they vowed to make him a one term president.  They obstructed the job recovery, insisted on cuts when we should have been spending to stimulate the economy, just like Bush and Reagan were allowed, but you wouldn't let the black president do what every other president was able to do.  So you tied one hand behind his back and he still got us out of the mess the GOP got us in.

Yes asshole it was the GOP from 2000-2008 that fucked us.  Nancy Pelosi and Reed didn't do shit from 2006-2008, eat a fucking dick you right wing little bitch.  If you believe that, well of course you do because you voted McCain/Romney and now you want Jeb/Christy/Jindal/Paul Ryan/Ron Paul or Herman Cain.  

I can tell you it is your right wing brain that makes you believe in god.  I'm surprised you are able to even admit that jesus is bullshit.  You do know the people you vote for think you're going to hell, right?


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't know about the Land of Sinners. I just know that self-appointed morality is useless because humans will rationalize whatever behavior they please because they can. If there is no accountability whatsoever, then moral boundaries mean nothing. Yep... without some spiritual foundation (a condition we'll never realize as humans) then society would collapse into immoral chaos in a matter of a few generations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Human history clearly refutes your nonsensical comments. The fact is, civilizations have risen and fallen without the use nor any requirement for your particular gawds or the gawds of others.
> 
> We also know that civilizations have risen and fallen in spite of them having gawds. It seems that even the benefit of having one or many gawds is not an indication that alleged gawd-given "morality" is going to further success of any civilization.
> 
> BTW, I was disappointed you didn't entertain us with a litany of slogans including, but not limited to: spiritually connect, spiritual nature, intrinsically connected, intrinsically spiritually connected, and my favorite, ".... because I say so".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Human history is that man has always been spiritual. From the very first civilization to today. No civilization has ever risen without spirituality, nor has one ever existed for very long in absence of spirituality. Nobody has claimed spirituality is a guarantee a civilization will survive. It is a guarantee they will collapse without it. This is why you can't name a civilization that has existed without spirituality, there isn't one.
Click to expand...


Has any civilization ever really existed without spirituality?  Even those recent regimes which have tried to outlaw religious beliefs have not, I think, succeeded in that task.

I would say, instead, that religious/spiritual belief has been so prevalent in human history that we have yet to really see a society (and may never see one) in which the large majority have no such beliefs.  

One could say that having a society with spiritual beliefs is a guarantee that society will collapse, as other than the current societies, every society with such beliefs has ended.

In other words, your own argument that humanity has an inherent spiritual connection makes the idea of a non-spiritual society pretty unlikely, so there's not much evidence to go on to say what would happen with such a society one way or another.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't know about the Land of Sinners. I just know that self-appointed morality is useless because humans will rationalize whatever behavior they please because they can. If there is no accountability whatsoever, then moral boundaries mean nothing. Yep... without some spiritual foundation (a condition we'll never realize as humans) then society would collapse into immoral chaos in a matter of a few generations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Human history clearly refutes your nonsensical comments. The fact is, civilizations have risen and fallen without the use nor any requirement for your particular gawds or the gawds of others.
> 
> We also know that civilizations have risen and fallen in spite of them having gawds. It seems that even the benefit of having one or many gawds is not an indication that alleged gawd-given "morality" is going to further success of any civilization.
> 
> BTW, I was disappointed you didn't entertain us with a litany of slogans including, but not limited to: spiritually connect, spiritual nature, intrinsically connected, intrinsically spiritually connected, and my favorite, ".... because I say so".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Human history is that man has always been spiritual. From the very first civilization to today. No civilization has ever risen without spirituality, nor has one ever existed for very long in absence of spirituality. Nobody has claimed spirituality is a guarantee a civilization will survive. It is a guarantee they will collapse without it. This is why you can't name a civilization that has existed without spirituality, there isn't one.
Click to expand...


I know you desperately want to believe that but littering your posts with repeated falsehoods won't make those falsehoods true.

As I already pointed out to you, civilizations have risen and fallen with and without gawds. Most of humanity has come and gone without the invention of your gods. So quite clearly, your gawds or other conceptions of gawds are not a requirement for success or failure of civilizations or cultures. This is why you cannot identify a single culture or civilization that "collapsed" specifically because they didn't have gods.

Many cultures and civilizations have created images and icons that represent occurrences in nature as a way of explaining things they didn't understand but that is not implying they "spiritually connect", that they worshipped gods of "spiritual nature", or "intrinsically connected, were "intrinsically spiritually connected" or any other goofy cliche' you dump in most threads.

If we examine your nonsensical claim that cultures and civilizations without "spiritual nature", or "intrinsically connected, or "intrinsically spiritually connected" is a guarantee they will collapse without it, you need to identify why all the cultures/civilizations you insist had "spiritual nature", or "intrinsically connected, or "intrinsically spiritually connected" eventually failed anyway.

So tell us then, oh sage of "spiritual nature", "intrinsically connected, and "intrinsically spiritually connected", why did the Roman, Greek, Mayan civilizations fail when they had more gawds, "spiritual nature", were, "intrinsically connected, and were "intrinsically spiritually connected"? 

Why didn't their gawds, "spiritual nature", "intrinsic connection", and "intrinsically spiritual connection" saved them?


----------



## sealybobo

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Human history clearly refutes your nonsensical comments. The fact is, civilizations have risen and fallen without the use nor any requirement for your particular gawds or the gawds of others.
> 
> We also know that civilizations have risen and fallen in spite of them having gawds. It seems that even the benefit of having one or many gawds is not an indication that alleged gawd-given "morality" is going to further success of any civilization.
> 
> BTW, I was disappointed you didn't entertain us with a litany of slogans including, but not limited to: spiritually connect, spiritual nature, intrinsically connected, intrinsically spiritually connected, and my favorite, ".... because I say so".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Human history is that man has always been spiritual. From the very first civilization to today. No civilization has ever risen without spirituality, nor has one ever existed for very long in absence of spirituality. Nobody has claimed spirituality is a guarantee a civilization will survive. It is a guarantee they will collapse without it. This is why you can't name a civilization that has existed without spirituality, there isn't one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Has any civilization ever really existed without spirituality?  Even those recent regimes which have tried to outlaw religious beliefs have not, I think, succeeded in that task.
> 
> I would say, instead, that religious/spiritual belief has been so prevalent in human history that we have yet to really see a society (and may never see one) in which the large majority have no such beliefs.
> 
> One could say that having a society with spiritual beliefs is a guarantee that society will collapse, as other than the current societies, every society with such beliefs has ended.
> 
> In other words, your own argument that humanity has an inherent spiritual connection makes the idea of a non-spiritual society pretty unlikely, so there's not much evidence to go on to say what would happen with such a society one way or another.
Click to expand...


I talk to a lot of people in their 20's-50's who don't believe in god or if they do they don't go to church at all.  Their parents or their grandparents went to church and taught them growing up about god but parents today aren't taking their kids to church.  The number of Kids raised by catholic parents who take them to church every week is dwindling.  Same for almost every other denomination too.  Maybe only the people in the bible belt will remain overwhelmingly religious for the next couple hundred years or so but a lot of people in liberal/progressive America are starting to listen to scientists over preachers.  The more right wing the church gets the more people are going to leave.  And no matter how nice the new pope is, once someone realizes organized religion is a joke, its too late.  They may call themselves catholic but the church needs people showing up on Sunday to put money in the pot and that's over.


----------



## daws101

this thread is still alive? 
got to give bossy points for tenacity....


----------



## sealybobo

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Human history clearly refutes your nonsensical comments. The fact is, civilizations have risen and fallen without the use nor any requirement for your particular gawds or the gawds of others.
> 
> We also know that civilizations have risen and fallen in spite of them having gawds. It seems that even the benefit of having one or many gawds is not an indication that alleged gawd-given "morality" is going to further success of any civilization.
> 
> BTW, I was disappointed you didn't entertain us with a litany of slogans including, but not limited to: spiritually connect, spiritual nature, intrinsically connected, intrinsically spiritually connected, and my favorite, ".... because I say so".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Human history is that man has always been spiritual. From the very first civilization to today. No civilization has ever risen without spirituality, nor has one ever existed for very long in absence of spirituality. Nobody has claimed spirituality is a guarantee a civilization will survive. It is a guarantee they will collapse without it. This is why you can't name a civilization that has existed without spirituality, there isn't one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know you desperately want to believe that but littering your posts with repeated falsehoods won't make those falsehoods true.
> 
> As I already pointed out to you, civilizations have risen and fallen with and without gawds. Most of humanity has come and gone without the invention of your gods. So quite clearly, your gawds or other conceptions of gawds are not a requirement for success or failure of civilizations or cultures. This is why you cannot identify a single culture or civilization that "collapsed" specifically because they didn't have gods.
> 
> Many cultures and civilizations have created images and icons that represent occurrences in nature as a way of explaining things they didn't understand but that is not implying they "spiritually connect", that they worshipped gods of "spiritual nature", or "intrinsically connected, were "intrinsically spiritually connected" or any other goofy cliche' you dump in most threads.
> 
> If we examine your nonsensical claim that cultures and civilizations without "spiritual nature", or "intrinsically connected, or "intrinsically spiritually connected" is a guarantee they will collapse without it, you need to identify why all the cultures/civilizations you insist had "spiritual nature", or "intrinsically connected, or "intrinsically spiritually connected" eventually failed anyway.
> 
> So tell us then, oh sage of "spiritual nature", "intrinsically connected, and "intrinsically spiritually connected", why did the Roman, Greek, Mayan civilizations fail when they had more gawds, "spiritual nature", were, "intrinsically connected, and were "intrinsically spiritually connected"?
> 
> Why didn't their gawds, "spiritual nature", "intrinsic connection", and "intrinsically spiritual connection" saved them?
Click to expand...


Because the lord moves in mysterious ways.

And I showed him earlier how/when/why the Egyptian Pharoh's of Eqypt used god to keep their people in line.  They were slaves and the average life span was 22 years old.  The king had to come up with something or else the citizens might revolt and kill him.  So he gave them god so they would cope with being his slaves.  Don't worry about this life.  You can't do anything about this life.  But if you work hard and pay your taxes then you will make god happy and you'll go to heaven.  Very clever.


----------



## GISMYS

HOW MUCH MONEY IN TAXES DO TRIBES OF PEOPLE IN THE JUNGLES ALL OVER THE WORLD PAY? NO!!! KNOWLEDGE OF GOD IS PROGRAMED INTO HUMAN DNA!!! ONLY the fools deny that tgruth!


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Argument from ignorance.  A common attempt to shift the burden of proof.  The failure to disprove the existence of something does not constitute proof of its existence.
> 
> Belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims because all such claims would need to be believed implicitly. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
> 
> It is possible to gather evidence of absence and disprove specific claims about and definitions of a god.
> 
> Why there is no god
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay.... So please show me where I've ever stated that God is proven fact? I am arguing against those who want to claim NO GOD is a proven fact, when that's inaccurate. Your blog post doesn't change that. Belief is always a valid position if there is evidence for your faith in the belief. Those who are spiritually connected have all the evidence they need to support their faith. You can holler "unsupportable/unfalsifiable" all day long, it doesn't change this fact. God isn't physical nature, therefore, it can't be evaluated with physical science. How many times do I have to repeat this? Seems I've typed it about a thousand times in this thread, and it keeps flying comfortably over your pinhead.
> 
> If I didn't believe in anything other than physical nature, then I would be skeptical of God too. I can see no possibility of God in a physical sense. There is no physical evidence to suggest a God in a physical sense. However, I am aware of something beyond the physical, a spiritual energy that courses through this universe and humans are able to connect with. Science is of no use because it can't evaluate that which is not physical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As long as you realize your arguments are unsupportable/unfalsifiable, that's all I need.  You are correct I can't prove there is no god and I/We don't know everything so as long as you aren't acting like Gismys like you know for a fact.
Click to expand...


I never said my arguments are unsupportable or unfalsifiable, I wouldn't make them if that were the case. Human are, and have always been, spiritually connected. This is supportable through archeological finding. Humans continue to be spiritually connected in spite of science explaining away the great unknowns, this is falsifiable. 

I DO know for a fact that God exists, I can't prove it to you because you refuse to accept spiritual evidence and spiritual evidence is all that can verify God. So I've not claimed that I have proved God exists, but I do know that God does exist. 



> But, you should know that this/your argument is # 19 at Why there is no god
> 
> You can't say that god has a non physical component because how can you prove it?



I can't. But I've never said that God doesn't have a physical component. Certainly, God does have a physical component and it's physical nature itself. God created it. The reality which exists in the spacetime continuum we experience physical nature, was a creation of God. This includes science, physics, and everything in physical reality of existence. God itself is not physical, it can't be... else it couldn't have created physical nature. Nothing can create itself, it's a logical dichotomy. God is spiritual energy which existed before physical nature. 



> There have been numerous claims of the supernatural, none of which have ever been demonstrated to be true. Furthermore, these claims are often mutually contradictory, and people who believe in one form of supernatural or paranormal activity will usually not believe in others due to cognitive bias and wishful thinking.



There is nothing "supernatural" about spiritual nature. It's perfectly natural, just not part of physical nature. It's not paranormal, it's spiritual nature. Humans have been connecting with it for all their existence in some form or another. 



> Proposing a non-physical explanation for an observed or imagined/fabricated phenomena is not a testable hypothesis and is therefore unworthy of serious consideration. It precludes any deeper insight or understanding and offers no means of distinction from any other possible supernatural claim.



This is what you call an argument from ignorance. You are ignoring there is something beyond physical nature. You are pretending that ONLY physical nature exists and if we can't explain something with physical science it must not exist. Therefore, black holes must not exist... they defy physical science. Physics says nothing travels faster than the speed of light, but that's precisely what is the makeup of a black hole, something travelling faster than the speed of light. Dark energy and dark matter, completely contradict all known physics. This is why we had to invent quantum physics, to explain what physical science couldn't explain. By the way, dark energy and dark matter comprise 96% of our universe. 

What "precludes deeper insight" is to ignorantly assume there is no possibility outside of physical nature as currently defined. Science and an open mind has to consider the possibility there may be something more, something we don't yet understand with physical science. 



> There are many as yet unexplained phenomena and anomalies in nature. The scientific approach to these is to say I dont know yet and keep on looking, not to presume an answer which makes us comfortable.



Exactly, so when I hear idiots like you proclaiming God is "supernatural" or doesn't exist, instead of admitting you don't know, then I have to call you out for that. You see, you've stopped looking, you've concluded that God can't exist because physical nature can't explain God.


----------



## emilynghiem

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> They compare, sorry. As I already noted, Ogres, beasts, boogeymen have all shared time in the inventions of mankind.
> 
> *And bear in mind (to borrow one of your pointless arguments), science has not disproven Ogres, beasts, boogeymen, Leprechauns etc., so as extant entities, they are equally as viable as your gods.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, another "because I say so" argument.
> 
> *And bear in mind (to borrow one of your pointless arguments), science has not disproven Ogres, beasts, boogeymen, Leprechauns etc., so as extant entities, they are equally as viable as your gods.*
> 
> The only way they could be equally viable is if humans had predominately worshiped these over the course of human history. They haven't, so... nope. Still, you are correct, science can't disprove their existence so science can't say they don't exist. Curiously, we don't see a lot of you people on these boards fighting tooth and nail to disprove ogres and leprechauns.
> 
> But hey... thank you for pointing out some of the rich human history with regard to spirituality. It's just more evidence of a clear human spiritual connection which can't be denied. A connection that follows man back to his origins and has always been present.
Click to expand...


Dear Hollie and Boss:
Some things Science could prove:

A. Deliverance prayer invoking the authority of Christ Jesus
has a different effect and perhaps a different "energy level" than other forms of prayer
that are not able to heal people of demonic sickness or addictions as Exorcism can.

With more sensitive technological equipment, the "difference" between spiritual healing energy and prayer (versus the negative energy in witchcraft, voodoo, sorcery, occult, spiritism, curses and spells) could potentially be measured, as well as documenting the effects of healing on cancer, mental illness, etc. to show a "CORRELATION"

Cause/Effect may be difficult if not impossible to prove, but at least statistical results could show consistent correlation between the levels of forgiveness with healing of ills, and unforgiveness with unresolved conflicts and diseased conditions.

B. a Correlation between
1. belief in God with believing in Truth, Wisdom, Love, Good Will, Universal laws of life and creation
2. belief in Jesus with believing in Justice (where religious rejection correlates with Retributive Justice while religious conciliation and inclusion correlates with Restorative Justice)

Hollie: you mention ogres, beasts and bogey men
but fail to specify what MEANINGS these symbols REPRESENT.

So these are NOT the same as God and Jesus as personified beings.

You could align believing in beasts with demons, antichrist and NEGATIVE energy/entities.

Using statistics, we could document the ability of people to ALIGN the meanings with the various symbols, and prove that the INTERPRETATIONS tend to reconcile.

If people ARE able to align their TERMINOLOGY for these abstract CONCEPTS,
the statistics can show that successful alignment/reconciliation correlates with forgiveness,
while failure to reconcile correlates with level of unforgiveness between people and groups. So even THAT can be measured statistically and proven scientifically.

It is not so much the issue of WHICH terms are used to represent the concepts,
but what the symbols and concepts REFER to and how to align these with what
"values or principles" people already believe in as a reference in real life.

We have to compare apples with apples, and oranges with oranges
to make any sense of these concepts and the symbols assigned to them.


----------



## emilynghiem

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Human history clearly refutes your nonsensical comments. The fact is, civilizations have risen and fallen without the use nor any requirement for your particular gawds or the gawds of others.
> 
> We also know that civilizations have risen and fallen in spite of them having gawds. It seems that even the benefit of having one or many gawds is not an indication that alleged gawd-given "morality" is going to further success of any civilization.
> 
> BTW, I was disappointed you didn't entertain us with a litany of slogans including, but not limited to: spiritually connect, spiritual nature, intrinsically connected, intrinsically spiritually connected, and my favorite, ".... because I say so".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Human history is that man has always been spiritual. From the very first civilization to today. No civilization has ever risen without spirituality, nor has one ever existed for very long in absence of spirituality. Nobody has claimed spirituality is a guarantee a civilization will survive. It is a guarantee they will collapse without it. This is why you can't name a civilization that has existed without spirituality, there isn't one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know you desperately want to believe that but littering your posts with repeated falsehoods won't make those falsehoods true.
> 
> As I already pointed out to you, civilizations have risen and fallen with and without gawds. Most of humanity has come and gone without the invention of your gods. So quite clearly, your gawds or other conceptions of gawds are not a requirement for success or failure of civilizations or cultures. This is why you cannot identify a single culture or civilization that "collapsed" specifically because they didn't have gods.
> 
> Many cultures and civilizations have created images and icons that represent occurrences in nature as a way of explaining things they didn't understand but that is not implying they "spiritually connect", that they worshipped gods of "spiritual nature", or "intrinsically connected, were "intrinsically spiritually connected" or any other goofy cliche' you dump in most threads.
> 
> If we examine your nonsensical claim that cultures and civilizations without "spiritual nature", or "intrinsically connected, or "intrinsically spiritually connected" is a guarantee they will collapse without it, you need to identify why all the cultures/civilizations you insist had "spiritual nature", or "intrinsically connected, or "intrinsically spiritually connected" eventually failed anyway.
> 
> So tell us then, oh sage of "spiritual nature", "intrinsically connected, and "intrinsically spiritually connected", why did the Roman, Greek, Mayan civilizations fail when they had more gawds, "spiritual nature", were, "intrinsically connected, and were "intrinsically spiritually connected"?
> 
> Why didn't their gawds, "spiritual nature", "intrinsic connection", and "intrinsically spiritual connection" saved them?
Click to expand...


Dear Hollie: As long as humanity is DIVIDED by tribes/nations
and we do not agree on universal principles that INCLUDE all people/tribes equally,
that is why we fall apart, over and over, and each time try to rebuild by INCLUDING
the lessons of the past and growing bigger and better by learning from that.

It is a process of reaching full maturity, which INCLUDES all knowledge.
So this is what is meant by a collective spiritual or UNIVERSAL process.

Hollie, even our ability to assess and include "knowledge of the past" relies on
our conscience and is faith based/spiritual in INTERPRETATION on some level!

You and I and others were not physically present when all this history happened,
so what we interpret is based on our CONSCIENCE.

This isn't entirely fact based or empirical but depends on our INTERPRETATION.
Whatever subjective/intuitive level that is on,
that is what is meant by spiritual/conscience, it is beyond what we can prove physically.

I think you must call it something else besides spiritual.

Whatever is "collective knowledge, understanding or perception" beyond our physical empirical senses
requires something other than our physical perception and immediate environment.

If you can tell me what you call this level, that is probably the equivalent in your system
of what Boss is calling spiritual nature. Everyone calls this different things, for that mechanism in the human
conscience that goes beyond just physical perception and factors in our immediate present.


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay.... So please show me where I've ever stated that God is proven fact? I am arguing against those who want to claim NO GOD is a proven fact, when that's inaccurate. Your blog post doesn't change that. Belief is always a valid position if there is evidence for your faith in the belief. Those who are spiritually connected have all the evidence they need to support their faith. You can holler "unsupportable/unfalsifiable" all day long, it doesn't change this fact. God isn't physical nature, therefore, it can't be evaluated with physical science. How many times do I have to repeat this? Seems I've typed it about a thousand times in this thread, and it keeps flying comfortably over your pinhead.
> 
> If I didn't believe in anything other than physical nature, then I would be skeptical of God too. I can see no possibility of God in a physical sense. There is no physical evidence to suggest a God in a physical sense. However, I am aware of something beyond the physical, a spiritual energy that courses through this universe and humans are able to connect with. Science is of no use because it can't evaluate that which is not physical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As long as you realize your arguments are unsupportable/unfalsifiable, that's all I need.  You are correct I can't prove there is no god and I/We don't know everything so as long as you aren't acting like Gismys like you know for a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said my arguments are unsupportable or unfalsifiable, I wouldn't make them if that were the case. Human are, and have always been, spiritually connected. This is supportable through archeological finding. Humans continue to be spiritually connected in spite of science explaining away the great unknowns, this is falsifiable.
> 
> I DO know for a fact that God exists, I can't prove it to you because you refuse to accept spiritual evidence and spiritual evidence is all that can verify God. So I've not claimed that I have proved God exists, but I do know that God does exist.
> 
> 
> 
> I can't. But I've never said that God doesn't have a physical component. Certainly, God does have a physical component and it's physical nature itself. God created it. The reality which exists in the spacetime continuum we experience physical nature, was a creation of God. This includes science, physics, and everything in physical reality of existence. God itself is not physical, it can't be... else it couldn't have created physical nature. Nothing can create itself, it's a logical dichotomy. God is spiritual energy which existed before physical nature.
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing "supernatural" about spiritual nature. It's perfectly natural, just not part of physical nature. It's not paranormal, it's spiritual nature. Humans have been connecting with it for all their existence in some form or another.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Proposing a non-physical explanation for an observed or imagined/fabricated phenomena is not a testable hypothesis and is therefore unworthy of serious consideration. It precludes any deeper insight or understanding and offers no means of distinction from any other possible supernatural claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is what you call an argument from ignorance. You are ignoring there is something beyond physical nature. You are pretending that ONLY physical nature exists and if we can't explain something with physical science it must not exist. Therefore, black holes must not exist... they defy physical science. Physics says nothing travels faster than the speed of light, but that's precisely what is the makeup of a black hole, something travelling faster than the speed of light. Dark energy and dark matter, completely contradict all known physics. This is why we had to invent quantum physics, to explain what physical science couldn't explain. By the way, dark energy and dark matter comprise 96% of our universe.
> 
> What "precludes deeper insight" is to ignorantly assume there is no possibility outside of physical nature as currently defined. Science and an open mind has to consider the possibility there may be something more, something we don't yet understand with physical science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are many as yet unexplained phenomena and anomalies in nature. The scientific approach to these is to say I dont know yet and keep on looking, not to presume an answer which makes us comfortable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly, so when I hear idiots like you proclaiming God is "supernatural" or doesn't exist, instead of admitting you don't know, then I have to call you out for that. You see, you've stopped looking, you've concluded that God can't exist because physical nature can't explain God.
Click to expand...

false! there is nothing outside nature god is either part of nature or imaginary.
then again, imagination is a part of nature..
the scientific approach is  not I don't know .
it is however : "until there is  evidence one way or the other one should not presume either.


----------



## Boss

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Human history clearly refutes your nonsensical comments. The fact is, civilizations have risen and fallen without the use nor any requirement for your particular gawds or the gawds of others.
> 
> We also know that civilizations have risen and fallen in spite of them having gawds. It seems that even the benefit of having one or many gawds is not an indication that alleged gawd-given "morality" is going to further success of any civilization.
> 
> BTW, I was disappointed you didn't entertain us with a litany of slogans including, but not limited to: spiritually connect, spiritual nature, intrinsically connected, intrinsically spiritually connected, and my favorite, ".... because I say so".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Human history is that man has always been spiritual. From the very first civilization to today. No civilization has ever risen without spirituality, nor has one ever existed for very long in absence of spirituality. Nobody has claimed spirituality is a guarantee a civilization will survive. It is a guarantee they will collapse without it. This is why you can't name a civilization that has existed without spirituality, there isn't one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know you desperately want to believe that but littering your posts with repeated falsehoods won't make those falsehoods true.
> 
> As I already pointed out to you, civilizations have risen and fallen with and without gawds. Most of humanity has come and gone without the invention of your gods. So quite clearly, your gawds or other conceptions of gawds are not a requirement for success or failure of civilizations or cultures. This is why you cannot identify a single culture or civilization that "collapsed" specifically because they didn't have gods.
> 
> Many cultures and civilizations have created images and icons that represent occurrences in nature as a way of explaining things they didn't understand but that is not implying they "spiritually connect", that they worshipped gods of "spiritual nature", or "intrinsically connected, were "intrinsically spiritually connected" or any other goofy cliche' you dump in most threads.
> 
> If we examine your nonsensical claim that cultures and civilizations without "spiritual nature", or "intrinsically connected, or "intrinsically spiritually connected" is a guarantee they will collapse without it, you need to identify why all the cultures/civilizations you insist had "spiritual nature", or "intrinsically connected, or "intrinsically spiritually connected" eventually failed anyway.
> 
> So tell us then, oh sage of "spiritual nature", "intrinsically connected, and "intrinsically spiritually connected", why did the Roman, Greek, Mayan civilizations fail when they had more gawds, "spiritual nature", were, "intrinsically connected, and were "intrinsically spiritually connected"?
> 
> Why didn't their gawds, "spiritual nature", "intrinsic connection", and "intrinsically spiritual connection" saved them?
Click to expand...


You should try reading the entire post instead of knee-jerk reacting like some kind of autobot. I clearly stated: *Nobody has claimed spirituality is a guarantee a civilization will survive.*



> This is why you cannot identify a single culture or civilization that "collapsed" specifically because they didn't have gods.



There are none that have ever risen to any great prominence without spirituality. It's kind of a 'prerequisite' for human civilization. There are numerous examples of civilizations which started with spirituality and tried to abandon it then failed miserably. The great Roman Empire collapsed when they perverted their spirituality into nationalism. The Soviet Union nearly collapsed because of state mandated Atheism and banning of religion, until they realized the people needed it and reformed. China is another example, and there are countless others. Societies and civilizations don't thrive very well without human spirituality, they never have and never will.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Human history is that man has always been spiritual. From the very first civilization to today. No civilization has ever risen without spirituality, nor has one ever existed for very long in absence of spirituality. Nobody has claimed spirituality is a guarantee a civilization will survive. It is a guarantee they will collapse without it. This is why you can't name a civilization that has existed without spirituality, there isn't one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know you desperately want to believe that but littering your posts with repeated falsehoods won't make those falsehoods true.
> 
> As I already pointed out to you, civilizations have risen and fallen with and without gawds. Most of humanity has come and gone without the invention of your gods. So quite clearly, your gawds or other conceptions of gawds are not a requirement for success or failure of civilizations or cultures. This is why you cannot identify a single culture or civilization that "collapsed" specifically because they didn't have gods.
> 
> Many cultures and civilizations have created images and icons that represent occurrences in nature as a way of explaining things they didn't understand but that is not implying they "spiritually connect", that they worshipped gods of "spiritual nature", or "intrinsically connected, were "intrinsically spiritually connected" or any other goofy cliche' you dump in most threads.
> 
> If we examine your nonsensical claim that cultures and civilizations without "spiritual nature", or "intrinsically connected, or "intrinsically spiritually connected" is a guarantee they will collapse without it, you need to identify why all the cultures/civilizations you insist had "spiritual nature", or "intrinsically connected, or "intrinsically spiritually connected" eventually failed anyway.
> 
> So tell us then, oh sage of "spiritual nature", "intrinsically connected, and "intrinsically spiritually connected", why did the Roman, Greek, Mayan civilizations fail when they had more gawds, "spiritual nature", were, "intrinsically connected, and were "intrinsically spiritually connected"?
> 
> Why didn't their gawds, "spiritual nature", "intrinsic connection", and "intrinsically spiritual connection" saved them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should try reading the entire post instead of knee-jerk reacting like some kind of autobot. I clearly stated: *Nobody has claimed spirituality is a guarantee a civilization will survive.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is why you cannot identify a single culture or civilization that "collapsed" specifically because they didn't have gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are none that have ever risen to any great prominence without spirituality. It's kind of a 'prerequisite' for human civilization. There are numerous examples of civilizations which started with spirituality and tried to abandon it then failed miserably. The great Roman Empire collapsed when they perverted their spirituality into nationalism. The Soviet Union nearly collapsed because of state mandated Atheism and banning of religion, until they realized the people needed it and reformed. China is another example, and there are countless others. Societies and civilizations don't thrive very well without human spirituality, they never have and never will.
Click to expand...


That was quite a waffle. 


Here it is again: can you identify a single culture or civilization that "collapsed" specifically because they didn't have gods?


----------



## emilynghiem

sealybobo said:


> You can't say that god has a non physical component because how can you prove it?



by definition of what God is used to represent.

if God means the highest level of All things, all knowledge, all energy, all events, all laws,
and/or the creation/cause of all these things,
then this goes beyond man's finite physical perception into a higher level beyond what
we can PROVE is in our IMMEDIATE physical world.

The minute something is beyond our IMMEDIATE empirical perception,
it is outside the physical level and on a level of abstract perception.


----------



## daws101

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know you desperately want to believe that but littering your posts with repeated falsehoods won't make those falsehoods true.
> 
> As I already pointed out to you, civilizations have risen and fallen with and without gawds. Most of humanity has come and gone without the invention of your gods. So quite clearly, your gawds or other conceptions of gawds are not a requirement for success or failure of civilizations or cultures. This is why you cannot identify a single culture or civilization that "collapsed" specifically because they didn't have gods.
> 
> Many cultures and civilizations have created images and icons that represent occurrences in nature as a way of explaining things they didn't understand but that is not implying they "spiritually connect", that they worshipped gods of "spiritual nature", or "intrinsically connected, were "intrinsically spiritually connected" or any other goofy cliche' you dump in most threads.
> 
> If we examine your nonsensical claim that cultures and civilizations without "spiritual nature", or "intrinsically connected, or "intrinsically spiritually connected" is a guarantee they will collapse without it, you need to identify why all the cultures/civilizations you insist had "spiritual nature", or "intrinsically connected, or "intrinsically spiritually connected" eventually failed anyway.
> 
> So tell us then, oh sage of "spiritual nature", "intrinsically connected, and "intrinsically spiritually connected", why did the Roman, Greek, Mayan civilizations fail when they had more gawds, "spiritual nature", were, "intrinsically connected, and were "intrinsically spiritually connected"?
> 
> Why didn't their gawds, "spiritual nature", "intrinsic connection", and "intrinsically spiritual connection" saved them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should try reading the entire post instead of knee-jerk reacting like some kind of autobot. I clearly stated: *Nobody has claimed spirituality is a guarantee a civilization will survive.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is why you cannot identify a single culture or civilization that "collapsed" specifically because they didn't have gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are none that have ever risen to any great prominence without spirituality. It's kind of a 'prerequisite' for human civilization. There are numerous examples of civilizations which started with spirituality and tried to abandon it then failed miserably. The great Roman Empire collapsed when they perverted their spirituality into nationalism. The Soviet Union nearly collapsed because of state mandated Atheism and banning of religion, until they realized the people needed it and reformed. China is another example, and there are countless others. Societies and civilizations don't thrive very well without human spirituality, they never have and never will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was quite a waffle.
> 
> 
> Here it is again: can you identify a single culture or civilization that "collapsed" specifically because they didn't have gods?
Click to expand...

Atlantis?


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> HOW MUCH MONEY IN TAXES DO TRIBES OF PEOPLE IN THE JUNGLES ALL OVER THE WORLD PAY? NO!!! KNOWLEDGE OF GOD IS PROGRAMED INTO HUMAN DNA!!! ONLY the fools deny that tgruth!



Is that why for hundreds of years we sent missionaries all around the world to spread the word/lie?


----------



## Boss

> false! there is nothing outside nature god is either part of nature or imaginary.



Sheer ignorance of the universe. There was a Big Bang... when it happened, it created time and therefore, physical reality. Nothing physical caused it because nothing physical existed. There was no time space for anything physical to exist in. Without time, there is no physical reality or existence, it means nothing. Time is created by the expanding physical universe. 

God is part of nature, God is spiritual nature. Not physical. God can't be physical nature because God created physical nature and things can't create themselves... logical impossibility. Your ignorance is in presuming there is nothing other than physical nature, when we know this can't be true because something had to cause the creation of physical nature for it to exist.


----------



## daws101

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> HOW MUCH MONEY IN TAXES DO TRIBES OF PEOPLE IN THE JUNGLES ALL OVER THE WORLD PAY? NO!!! KNOWLEDGE OF GOD IS PROGRAMED INTO HUMAN DNA!!! ONLY the fools deny that tgruth!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that why for hundreds of years we sent missionaries all around the world to spread the word/lie?
Click to expand...

yes ,the problem is the missionaries either didn't know it was false or did not care...


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> HOW MUCH MONEY IN TAXES DO TRIBES OF PEOPLE IN THE JUNGLES ALL OVER THE WORLD PAY? NO!!! KNOWLEDGE OF GOD IS PROGRAMED INTO HUMAN DNA!!! ONLY the fools deny that tgruth!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that why for hundreds of years we sent missionaries all around the world to spread the word/lie?
Click to expand...


MANKIND LEFT ON HIS OWN ARE OPEN TO DEMON INSPIRED FALSE gods,they need to be given TRUTH!!!


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> false! there is nothing outside nature god is either part of nature or imaginary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sheer ignorance of the universe. There was a Big Bang... when it happened, it created time and therefore, physical reality. Nothing physical caused it because nothing physical existed. There was no time space for anything physical to exist in. Without time, there is no physical reality or existence, it means nothing. Time is created by the expanding physical universe.
> 
> God is part of nature, God is spiritual nature. Not physical. God can't be physical nature because God created physical nature and things can't create themselves... logical impossibility. Your ignorance is in presuming there is nothing other than physical nature, when we know this can't be true because something had to cause the creation of physical nature for it to exist.
Click to expand...


----------



## Boss

> Here it is again: can you identify a single culture or civilization that "collapsed" specifically because they didn't have gods?



And here it is again, airhead... There has been NO culture or civilization devoid of spirituality. It's difficult to give you an example of something collapsing that never has existed to begin with.


----------



## emilynghiem

Hollie said:


> That was quite a waffle.
> 
> Here it is again: can you identify a single culture or civilization that "collapsed" specifically because they didn't have gods?



Why is there an assumption equating spirituality with gods?

Religions are languages used to represent concepts and relationships, like other laws.

The cultures we KNOW ABOUT are from whatever they left behind in terms of symbols or relics to COMMUNICATE about their culture.

So these relics, religions or symbols FOLLOW whatever they experiences or expressed in life as REFLECTIONS and means of COMMUNICATION. But these do not CREATE spirituality.

I don't think this is a CAUSE/EFFECT relationship.

I think you are talking about things that CORRELATE.

Humanity and cultures involve RELATIONSHIPS so religions express those relationships.
So what.

Humans still have tribal issues, and we are still working through our RELATIONSHIP issues today. This is all a continuous process.

Hollie I just think you call the human process something different other than spiritual.
Do you believe in a collective human process of learning from the past and making progress?

Is "Collective" or "global/societal" a better term to use for this level of humanity?


----------



## daws101

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> HOW MUCH MONEY IN TAXES DO TRIBES OF PEOPLE IN THE JUNGLES ALL OVER THE WORLD PAY? NO!!! KNOWLEDGE OF GOD IS PROGRAMED INTO HUMAN DNA!!! ONLY the fools deny that tgruth!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that why for hundreds of years we sent missionaries all around the world to spread the word/lie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> MANKIND LEFT ON HIS OWN ARE OPEN TO DEMON INSPIRED FALSE gods,they need to be given TRUTH!!!
Click to expand...

there is just as much evidence for demons as there is for god..
that is to say none.....


----------



## sealybobo

emilynghiem said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't say that god has a non physical component because how can you prove it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> by definition of what God is used to represent.
> 
> if God means the highest level of All things, all knowledge, all energy, all events, all laws,
> and/or the creation/cause of all these things,
> then this goes beyond man's finite physical perception into a higher level beyond what
> we can PROVE is in our IMMEDIATE physical world.
> 
> The minute something is beyond our IMMEDIATE empirical perception,
> it is outside the physical level and on a level of abstract perception.
Click to expand...


Well just don't expect any thinking person to swallow what you are trying to sell reverend.

A particular standard of evidence is required to prove any claim.  Since gods existence is an extraordinary claim, perhaps the most extraordinary claim, proving it requires equally extraordinary evidence.

The standard of evidence required to prove a gods existence is immediately more than any personal anecdote, witness testimony, ancient book or reported miracle  none of which can be considered extraordinarily reliable. The human mind is also highly susceptible to being fooled and even fooling itself. One could be suffering from an hallucination or a form of undiagnosed schizophrenia, hysteria or psychosis, ruling out even our own senses as reliable evidence gathering mechanisms in this case. As strange as it sounds, misunderstood aliens might even be attempting to interact with us using extremely advanced technology. In fact, reality itself could be a computer simulation which we unknowingly inhabit.

Every conceivable argument, every imaginable piece of evidence for god is not without some fatal flaw or more likely explanation which precludes it from being used as definitive proof. 

There is, however, a simple answer to the question what proof would an atheist accept and the answer is: God is what it would take to convince an atheist. An omniscient god would know the exact standard of evidence required to convince any atheist of its existence and, being omnipotent, it would also be able to immediately produce this evidence. If it wanted to, a god could conceivably change the brain chemistry of any individual in order to compel them to believe. It could even restructure the entire universe in such a way as to make non-belief impossible.

In short, a god actually proving its own existence is what would convince any atheist of said gods existence.


----------



## emilynghiem

God by being infinite, ultimate, and absolute would exceed any definition by man
much less any proof.

What we could "prove" is a statistical correlation of various MEANINGS or APPLICATIONS
that God "represents"

For example, statistically we can "prove" that people who believe in God and believe
in Universal Truth can align and reconcile their communications and language/terminology,
or people who believe in God and Universal Wisdom,
or God and Life, Love, supreme Good will, etc. can ALIGN their values/principles
and communicate/reconcile across religious or secular terms.

So we may not be able to prove what God is in full,
but we could prove that people AGREE that the CONCEPTS we MEAN by God align
and are pointing to the same source, even if the whole collective is beyond us.




sealybobo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't say that god has a non physical component because how can you prove it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> by definition of what God is used to represent.
> 
> if God means the highest level of All things, all knowledge, all energy, all events, all laws,
> and/or the creation/cause of all these things,
> then this goes beyond man's finite physical perception into a higher level beyond what
> we can PROVE is in our IMMEDIATE physical world.
> 
> The minute something is beyond our IMMEDIATE empirical perception,
> it is outside the physical level and on a level of abstract perception.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well just don't expect any thinking person to swallow what you are trying to sell reverend.
> 
> A particular standard of evidence is required to prove any claim.  Since gods existence is an extraordinary claim, perhaps the most extraordinary claim, proving it requires equally extraordinary evidence.
> 
> The standard of evidence required to prove a gods existence is immediately more than any personal anecdote, witness testimony, ancient book or reported miracle  none of which can be considered extraordinarily reliable. The human mind is also highly susceptible to being fooled and even fooling itself. One could be suffering from an hallucination or a form of undiagnosed schizophrenia, hysteria or psychosis, ruling out even our own senses as reliable evidence gathering mechanisms in this case. As strange as it sounds, misunderstood aliens might even be attempting to interact with us using extremely advanced technology. In fact, reality itself could be a computer simulation which we unknowingly inhabit.
> 
> Every conceivable argument, every imaginable piece of evidence for god is not without some fatal flaw or more likely explanation which precludes it from being used as definitive proof.
> 
> There is, however, a simple answer to the question what proof would an atheist accept and the answer is: God is what it would take to convince an atheist. An omniscient god would know the exact standard of evidence required to convince any atheist of its existence and, being omnipotent, it would also be able to immediately produce this evidence. If it wanted to, a god could conceivably change the brain chemistry of any individual in order to compel them to believe. It could even restructure the entire universe in such a way as to make non-belief impossible.
> 
> In short, a god actually proving its own existence is what would convince any atheist of said gods existence.
Click to expand...


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> HOW MUCH MONEY IN TAXES DO TRIBES OF PEOPLE IN THE JUNGLES ALL OVER THE WORLD PAY? NO!!! KNOWLEDGE OF GOD IS PROGRAMED INTO HUMAN DNA!!! ONLY the fools deny that tgruth!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that why for hundreds of years we sent missionaries all around the world to spread the word/lie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> MANKIND LEFT ON HIS OWN ARE OPEN TO DEMON INSPIRED FALSE gods,they need to be given TRUTH!!!
Click to expand...


You contradict yourself.  First you say, "If left on his own man is open to demon inspired false gods" but then earlier you said knowledge of god is programmed into our dna. 

Make up your mind.  And by the way, if god existed and were all that you say he is, he could program us so that doubt isn't even an option.  Why does he hide and make me have to rely on pedophiles and fools like you?  

So I have to believe flawed man or burn in hell forever?  Fuck him and you bitch.


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> Here it is again: can you identify a single culture or civilization that "collapsed" specifically because they didn't have gods?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here it is again, airhead... There has been NO culture or civilization devoid of spirituality. It's difficult to give you an example of something collapsing that never has existed to begin with.
Click to expand...

hold on! your definition of spirituality is razor thin.
you are ignoring the elephant in the room.. more cultures have collapsed OR been destroyed  BECAUSE OF SPIRTUALITY than all the other causes combined.
since no culture has ever been spirituality free.. there is no way to know  if it would collapse or not.


----------



## sealybobo

emilynghiem said:


> God by being infinite, ultimate, and absolute would exceed any definition by man
> much less any proof.
> 
> What we could "prove" is a statistical correlation of various MEANINGS or APPLICATIONS
> that God "represents"
> 
> For example, statistically we can "prove" that people who believe in God and believe
> in Universal Truth can align and reconcile their communications and language/terminology,
> or people who believe in God and Universal Wisdom,
> or God and Life, Love, supreme Good will, etc. can ALIGN their values/principles
> and communicate/reconcile across religious or secular terms.
> 
> So we may not be able to prove what God is in full,
> but we could prove that people AGREE that the CONCEPTS we MEAN by God align
> and are pointing to the same source, even if the whole collective is beyond us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> by definition of what God is used to represent.
> 
> if God means the highest level of All things, all knowledge, all energy, all events, all laws,
> and/or the creation/cause of all these things,
> then this goes beyond man's finite physical perception into a higher level beyond what
> we can PROVE is in our IMMEDIATE physical world.
> 
> The minute something is beyond our IMMEDIATE empirical perception,
> it is outside the physical level and on a level of abstract perception.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well just don't expect any thinking person to swallow what you are trying to sell reverend.
> 
> A particular standard of evidence is required to prove any claim.  Since gods existence is an extraordinary claim, perhaps the most extraordinary claim, proving it requires equally extraordinary evidence.
> 
> The standard of evidence required to prove a gods existence is immediately more than any personal anecdote, witness testimony, ancient book or reported miracle  none of which can be considered extraordinarily reliable. The human mind is also highly susceptible to being fooled and even fooling itself. One could be suffering from an hallucination or a form of undiagnosed schizophrenia, hysteria or psychosis, ruling out even our own senses as reliable evidence gathering mechanisms in this case. As strange as it sounds, misunderstood aliens might even be attempting to interact with us using extremely advanced technology. In fact, reality itself could be a computer simulation which we unknowingly inhabit.
> 
> Every conceivable argument, every imaginable piece of evidence for god is not without some fatal flaw or more likely explanation which precludes it from being used as definitive proof.
> 
> There is, however, a simple answer to the question what proof would an atheist accept and the answer is: God is what it would take to convince an atheist. An omniscient god would know the exact standard of evidence required to convince any atheist of its existence and, being omnipotent, it would also be able to immediately produce this evidence. If it wanted to, a god could conceivably change the brain chemistry of any individual in order to compel them to believe. It could even restructure the entire universe in such a way as to make non-belief impossible.
> 
> In short, a god actually proving its own existence is what would convince any atheist of said gods existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Any god that was infinite, ultimate, and absolute would not have to hide.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> God by being infinite, ultimate, and absolute would exceed any definition by man
> much less any proof.
> 
> What we could "prove" is a statistical correlation of various MEANINGS or APPLICATIONS
> that God "represents"
> 
> For example, statistically we can "prove" that people who believe in God and believe
> in Universal Truth can align and reconcile their communications and language/terminology,
> or people who believe in God and Universal Wisdom,
> or God and Life, Love, supreme Good will, etc. can ALIGN their values/principles
> and communicate/reconcile across religious or secular terms.
> 
> So we may not be able to prove what God is in full,
> but we could prove that people AGREE that the CONCEPTS we MEAN by God align
> and are pointing to the same source, even if the whole collective is beyond us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well just don't expect any thinking person to swallow what you are trying to sell reverend.
> 
> A particular standard of evidence is required to prove any claim.  Since gods existence is an extraordinary claim, perhaps the most extraordinary claim, proving it requires equally extraordinary evidence.
> 
> The standard of evidence required to prove a gods existence is immediately more than any personal anecdote, witness testimony, ancient book or reported miracle  none of which can be considered extraordinarily reliable. The human mind is also highly susceptible to being fooled and even fooling itself. One could be suffering from an hallucination or a form of undiagnosed schizophrenia, hysteria or psychosis, ruling out even our own senses as reliable evidence gathering mechanisms in this case. As strange as it sounds, misunderstood aliens might even be attempting to interact with us using extremely advanced technology. In fact, reality itself could be a computer simulation which we unknowingly inhabit.
> 
> Every conceivable argument, every imaginable piece of evidence for god is not without some fatal flaw or more likely explanation which precludes it from being used as definitive proof.
> 
> There is, however, a simple answer to the question what proof would an atheist accept and the answer is: God is what it would take to convince an atheist. An omniscient god would know the exact standard of evidence required to convince any atheist of its existence and, being omnipotent, it would also be able to immediately produce this evidence. If it wanted to, a god could conceivably change the brain chemistry of any individual in order to compel them to believe. It could even restructure the entire universe in such a way as to make non-belief impossible.
> 
> In short, a god actually proving its own existence is what would convince any atheist of said gods existence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any god that was infinite, ultimate, and absolute would not have to hide.
Click to expand...


YOU HAVE THE PROOF GOD IS REAL!!!==For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,  19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.  20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. ROMANS 1:18


----------



## emilynghiem

daws101 said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that why for hundreds of years we sent missionaries all around the world to spread the word/lie?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MANKIND LEFT ON HIS OWN ARE OPEN TO DEMON INSPIRED FALSE gods,they need to be given TRUTH!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is just as much evidence for demons as there is for god..
> that is to say none.....
Click to expand...


Have you ever witnessed people who have demon voices or entities speaking or operating through them?

Scott Peck did not believe in these either, until he studied schizophrenic patients firsthand, where the demon voices verbally attacked him using knowledge that did not come from his patients. he could not prove these were spiritual entities because that is beyond physical.
But he could show that the steps of sickness, treatment and cure "correlated" or followed a set process that COULD Be quantified and measured, similar to diagnosing and treating stages of cancer by observing the symptoms and changes.

Whether or not the demons were real or delusional constructs in the patients, 
the patients still responded to treatment, so the therapy to remove the "demonic infestations" still worked. You can read Peck's observations in his books on "People of the Lie" and "Glimpses of the Devil" where these patients "changed his mind" and convinced him that there were demonic and satanic forces operating as independent entities.

He couldn't prove it but he believed it after two interviews with patients with demonic voices.


----------



## sealybobo

daws101 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here it is again: can you identify a single culture or civilization that "collapsed" specifically because they didn't have gods?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here it is again, airhead... There has been NO culture or civilization devoid of spirituality. It's difficult to give you an example of something collapsing that never has existed to begin with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hold on! your definition of spirituality is razor thin.
> you are ignoring the elephant in the room.. more cultures have collapsed OR been destroyed  BECAUSE OF SPIRTUALITY than all the other causes combined.
> since no culture has ever been spirituality free.. there is no way to know  if it would collapse or not.
Click to expand...


Atheism is correlated with better scientific literacy, lower poverty rates, higher literacy rates, higher average incomes, less violence, lower divorce rates, lower teen pregnancy rates, lower STD infection rates, lower crime rates and lower homicide rates. It correlates highly with the well-being of individuals and societies by almost every possible measure.

Studies on happiness outside of predominantly religious countries (eg. the United States) find little to no correlation between happiness and religious belief. 

The only reason religious people are happier is the social bonding they get at church.  That and ignorance is bliss.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> And here it is again, airhead... There has been NO culture or civilization devoid of spirituality. It's difficult to give you an example of something collapsing that never has existed to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> hold on! your definition of spirituality is razor thin.
> you are ignoring the elephant in the room.. more cultures have collapsed OR been destroyed  BECAUSE OF SPIRTUALITY than all the other causes combined.
> since no culture has ever been spirituality free.. there is no way to know  if it would collapse or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheism is correlated with better scientific literacy, lower poverty rates, higher literacy rates, higher average incomes, less violence, lower divorce rates, lower teen pregnancy rates, lower STD infection rates, lower crime rates and lower homicide rates. It correlates highly with the well-being of individuals and societies by almost every possible measure.
> 
> Studies on happiness outside of predominantly religious countries (eg. the United States) find little to no correlation between happiness and religious belief.
> 
> The only reason religious people are happier is the social bonding they get at church.  That and ignorance is bliss.
Click to expand...


Atheism is correlated WITH BEING A FOOL!!==YOU HAVE THE PROOF GOD IS REAL!!!==For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. ROMANS 1:18


----------



## emilynghiem

GISMYS said:


> YOU HAVE THE PROOF GOD IS REAL!!!==For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,  19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.  20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. ROMANS 1:18



HI GISMYS
Jesus did not scream this way at Thomas when he asked to see proof.
He allowed and encouraged Thomas to touch and examine the wound himself.

In the end, this made Thomas a better witness to others who needed more detailed description and explanation than just taking and teaching things on faith.

The secular gentiles and scientists use scientific study in this way, to record the process and effects, so people can learn from sharing experiences and seeing the common patterns. 

This is not against God to use science to understand, but is part of God's plan and why there are secular gentiles under natural laws as the second fold of the one flock.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> God by being infinite, ultimate, and absolute would exceed any definition by man
> much less any proof.
> 
> What we could "prove" is a statistical correlation of various MEANINGS or APPLICATIONS
> that God "represents"
> 
> For example, statistically we can "prove" that people who believe in God and believe
> in Universal Truth can align and reconcile their communications and language/terminology,
> or people who believe in God and Universal Wisdom,
> or God and Life, Love, supreme Good will, etc. can ALIGN their values/principles
> and communicate/reconcile across religious or secular terms.
> 
> So we may not be able to prove what God is in full,
> but we could prove that people AGREE that the CONCEPTS we MEAN by God align
> and are pointing to the same source, even if the whole collective is beyond us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any god that was infinite, ultimate, and absolute would not have to hide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOU HAVE THE PROOF GOD IS REAL!!!==For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,  19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.  20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. ROMANS 1:18
Click to expand...


Just like the crazies on tv at night, you make no sense.  Whatever you just said is not proof.  Please clarify.  What I have is every day I become more and more sure god doesn't exist.  You are doing a HORRIBLE job representing god.  He should smite you.


----------



## daws101

sealybobo said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> And here it is again, airhead... There has been NO culture or civilization devoid of spirituality. It's difficult to give you an example of something collapsing that never has existed to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> hold on! your definition of spirituality is razor thin.
> you are ignoring the elephant in the room.. more cultures have collapsed OR been destroyed  BECAUSE OF SPIRTUALITY than all the other causes combined.
> since no culture has ever been spirituality free.. there is no way to know  if it would collapse or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheism is correlated with better scientific literacy, lower poverty rates, higher literacy rates, higher average incomes, less violence, lower divorce rates, lower teen pregnancy rates, lower STD infection rates, lower crime rates and lower homicide rates. It correlates highly with the well-being of individuals and societies by almost every possible measure.
> 
> Studies on happiness outside of predominantly religious countries (eg. the United States) find little to no correlation between happiness and religious belief.
> 
> The only reason religious people are happier is the social bonding they get at church.  That and ignorance is bliss.
Click to expand...

I've never been happier !


----------



## GISMYS

emilynghiem said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOU HAVE THE PROOF GOD IS REAL!!!==For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,  19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.  20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. ROMANS 1:18
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HI GISMYS
> Jesus did not scream this way at Thomas when he asked to see proof.
> He allowed and encouraged Thomas to touch and examine the wound himself.
> 
> In the end, this made Thomas a better witness to others who needed more detailed description and explanation than just taking and teaching things on faith.
> 
> The secular gentiles and scientists use scientific study in this way, to record the process and effects, so people can learn from sharing experiences and seeing the common patterns.
> 
> This is not against God to use science to understand, but is part of God's plan and why there are secular gentiles under natural laws as the second fold of the one flock.
Click to expand...


BELIEVE JESUS'SC WORDS,"NO ONE COMES TO THE FATHER BUT BY ME"!!! PTL. Believe!!


----------



## daws101

emilynghiem said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> MANKIND LEFT ON HIS OWN ARE OPEN TO DEMON INSPIRED FALSE gods,they need to be given TRUTH!!!
> 
> 
> 
> there is just as much evidence for demons as there is for god..
> that is to say none.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you ever witnessed people who have demon voices or entities speaking or operating through them?
> 
> Scott Peck did not believe in these either, until he studied schizophrenic patients firsthand, where the demon voices verbally attacked him using knowledge that did not come from his patients. he could not prove these were spiritual entities because that is beyond physical.
> But he could show that the steps of sickness, treatment and cure "correlated" or followed a set process that COULD Be quantified and measured, similar to diagnosing and treating stages of cancer by observing the symptoms and changes.
> 
> Whether or not the demons were real or delusional constructs in the patients,
> the patients still responded to treatment, so the therapy to remove the "demonic infestations" still worked. You can read Peck's observations in his books on "People of the Lie" and "Glimpses of the Devil" where these patients "changed his mind" and convinced him that there were demonic and satanic forces operating as independent entities.
> 
> He couldn't prove it but he believed it after two interviews with patients with demonic voices.
Click to expand...


----------



## GISMYS

emilynghiem said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOU HAVE THE PROOF GOD IS REAL!!!==For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,  19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.  20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. ROMANS 1:18
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HI GISMYS
> Jesus did not scream this way at Thomas when he asked to see proof.
> He allowed and encouraged Thomas to touch and examine the wound himself.
> 
> In the end, this made Thomas a better witness to others who needed more detailed description and explanation than just taking and teaching things on faith.
> 
> The secular gentiles and scientists use scientific study in this way, to record the process and effects, so people can learn from sharing experiences and seeing the common patterns.
> 
> This is not against God to use science to understand, but is part of God's plan and why there are secular gentiles under natural laws as the second fold of the one flock.
Click to expand...


BELIEVE JESUS'S WORDS,"NO ONE COMES TO THE FATHER BUT BY ME"!!! PTL. Believe!!


----------



## emilynghiem

GISMYS said:


> Atheism is correlated WITH BEING A FOOL!!==YOU HAVE THE PROOF GOD IS REAL!!!==For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. ROMANS 1:18



Not just atheists but anyone who thinks they know it all already is acting foolish.
And will be humbled and corrected.

GISMYS this applies to theists and believers also!

The wisest most judicious people I know never call anyone foolish.
They are usually too busy focusing on what wisdom can be brought out and shared,
not lashing out but correcting the faults that everyone has here and there.

Nobody is more righteous than others, only the Lord/Law is perfectly righteous 
And the rest of us are equal followers submitting one to another under the Law.

None of us is "omniscient" and do not have full knowledge of law or justice.
So we are all prone to biases in our judgments that will appear as foolish to others!

GISMYS remember that we are equal as humans where the Law is above us all.
Not one of us can point out a flaw in others without others pointing out equal flaws in us.


----------



## Boss

silly boob said:


> Atheism is correlated with better scientific literacy, lower poverty rates, higher literacy rates, higher average incomes, less violence, lower divorce rates, lower teen pregnancy rates, lower STD infection rates, lower crime rates and lower homicide rates. It correlates highly with the well-being of individuals and societies by almost every possible measure.
> 
> Studies on happiness outside of predominantly religious countries (eg. the United States) find little to no correlation between happiness and religious belief.
> 
> The only reason religious people are happier is the social bonding they get at church.  That and ignorance is bliss.



Nonsense. You have yet to cite a single solitary example of a predominantly Atheist country or society. These visions of Utopian Atheist society are delusions running around in your empty little head that do not exist and never have.


----------



## GISMYS

emilynghiem said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is correlated WITH BEING A FOOL!!==YOU HAVE THE PROOF GOD IS REAL!!!==For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. ROMANS 1:18
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not just atheists but anyone who thinks they know it all already is acting foolish.
> And will be humbled and corrected.
> 
> GISMYS this applies to theists and believers also!
> 
> The wisest most judicious people I know never call anyone foolish.
> They are usually too busy focusing on what wisdom can be brought out and shared,
> not lashing out but correcting the faults that everyone has here and there.
> 
> Nobody is more righteous than others, only the Lord/Law is perfectly righteous
> And the rest of us are equal followers submitting one to another under the Law.
> 
> None of us is "omniscient" and do not have full knowledge of law or justice.
> So we are all prone to biases in our judgments that will appear as foolish to others!
> 
> GISMYS remember that we are equal as humans where the Law is above us all.
> Not one of us can point out a flaw in others without others pointing out equal in us.
Click to expand...


you will live your life as a son of GOD or as a son of satan. JESUS SAID THR "religious"PHARISEE TYPES WERE CHILDREN OF SATAN!!! AND YOU???


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> false! there is nothing outside nature god is either part of nature or imaginary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sheer ignorance of the universe. There was a Big Bang... when it happened, it created time and therefore, physical reality. Nothing physical caused it because nothing physical existed. There was no time space for anything physical to exist in. Without time, there is no physical reality or existence, it means nothing. Time is created by the expanding physical universe.
> 
> God is part of nature, God is spiritual nature. Not physical. God can't be physical nature because God created physical nature and things can't create themselves... logical impossibility. Your ignorance is in presuming there is nothing other than physical nature, when we know this can't be true because something had to cause the creation of physical nature for it to exist.
Click to expand...


Sorry, bossy. Wrong again/as usual. The Big Bang was preceded by the singularity as far as science has determined. The singularity was a physical object.

It's actually comical to read your comments as they immediately self- refute.

You opine/whine: "god can't be physical nature because God created physical nature and things can't create themselves... logical impossibility. "

If things can't create themselves, what created your gawds? 

It's an old argument that leads the supernaturalist to screech, "the gawds are eternal and un-created". So just revise your whining to revise "god can't be physical nature because God created physical nature and things can't create themselves... logical impossibility. ".... Excepting that the gawds get special dispensations because they're supernatural, magical and....because I say so"


----------



## emilynghiem

sealybobo said:


> Atheism is correlated with better scientific literacy, lower poverty rates, higher literacy rates, higher average incomes, less violence, lower divorce rates, lower teen pregnancy rates, lower STD infection rates, lower crime rates and lower homicide rates. It correlates highly with the well-being of individuals and societies by almost every possible measure.
> 
> Studies on happiness outside of predominantly religious countries (eg. the United States) find little to no correlation between happiness and religious belief.
> 
> The only reason religious people are happier is the social bonding they get at church.  That and ignorance is bliss.



Hi Sealybobo:

Your assessment leaves out the key issue of FORGIVENESS. 
* Forgiveness has been shown to correlate with more stable health of mind, body and relationships.
* Unforgiveness has been studied as causing or correlating with over 80% of illness.

If you focus on this factor, that is more specific than just labeling people by religion or nonreligion.

Also: I have never heard of any Atheists being able to heal people of demonic addictions, or problems from witchcraft, voodoo, or occult spells. The testimonies of people healed by spiritual healing prayer and deliverance are all over the place; I can cite two nonprofit ministries with 30-40 years of experience healing people for FREE without problems. They both use Christian prayer, as the one authority that can counteract and overcome the demonic level of sickness that affects these people and their generational lineages connected by conscience.

Sealybobo: How many people have you helped to heal with Atheism?
Have you saved anyone's lives from cancer, schizophrenia, rheumatoid arthritis, liver disease, diabetes, alcoholism or other drug addiction, or sexual abuse? I have friends who have saved people from suicide, multiple personalities, organ failure, even pedophile addiction using Christian deliverance and forgiveness prayer to heal generational sickness.

I have never seen that done with Atheism.

Even people who use nontheistic Buddhist meditation and past-life regression
rely on faith-based prayer and intervention to complete the process and do not 
accomplish liberation by just the mind alone. 

Each person is mind, body and spirit, so all levels require support, not just the mind.


----------



## GISMYS

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> false! there is nothing outside nature god is either part of nature or imaginary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sheer ignorance of the universe. There was a Big Bang... when it happened, it created time and therefore, physical reality. Nothing physical caused it because nothing physical existed. There was no time space for anything physical to exist in. Without time, there is no physical reality or existence, it means nothing. Time is created by the expanding physical universe.
> 
> God is part of nature, God is spiritual nature. Not physical. God can't be physical nature because God created physical nature and things can't create themselves... logical impossibility. Your ignorance is in presuming there is nothing other than physical nature, when we know this can't be true because something had to cause the creation of physical nature for it to exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, bossy. Wrong again/as usual. The Big Bang was preceded by the singularity as far as science has determined. The singularity was a physical object.
> 
> It's actually comical to read your comments as they immediately self- refute.
> 
> You opine/whine: "god can't be physical nature because God created physical nature and things can't create themselves... logical impossibility. "
> 
> If things can't create themselves, what created your gawds?
> 
> It's an old argument that leads the supernaturalist to screech, "the gawds are eternal and un-created". So just revise your whining to revise "god can't be physical nature because God created physical nature and things can't create themselves... logical impossibility. ".... Excepting that the gawds get special dispensations because they're supernatural, magical and....because I say so"
Click to expand...


I SEE WHY GOD SAYS HE LAUGHS AT THE "wisdom" OF MAN!!!!


----------



## emilynghiem

GISMYS said:


> you will live your life as a son of GOD or as a son of satan. JESUS SAID THR "religious"PHARISEE TYPES WERE CHILDREN OF SATAN!!! AND YOU???



I think you are speaking into a mirror and need to read your own words of wisdom,
which God has given you for this purpose. Divine wisdom at work! Amen and be well!


----------



## GISMYS

For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, &#8220;He catches the wise in their own craftiness&#8221;;   20 and again, &#8220;The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile. 1 CORINTHIANS 3:19


----------



## GISMYS

&#8220;Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men&#8217;s bones and all uncleanness.  28 Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.

29 &#8220;Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous,  30 and say, &#8216;If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.&#8217;

31 &#8220;Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets.  32 Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers&#8217; guilt.  33 Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell? 
MATTHEW 23:27-32


----------



## emilynghiem

sealybobo said:


> Any god that was infinite, ultimate, and absolute would not have to hide.



The hiding is on the side of people's perceptions.
Where we divide and don't forgive conflicts,
we muddle our perception and judgment with emotionally charged biases.

So we "cloud" our judgment this way. We stay caught up in the past, and cannot see past that to see farther into the future when these conflicts are resolved.
We must resolve our conflicts first, then we can see clearly what steps to take in the present to achieve those goals in the future.
We cannot see these steps if we are too busy fighting with other neighbors and groups and blocking the process.

Thus it is said that when the Law or Lord is revealed,
it is like coming through the clouds.

We will uncloud our judgment so we can see clearly.
But in fact, the laws were in operation constantly around us.
We will just be able to see them without negative biases blocking our view.


----------



## emilynghiem

Hollie said:


> Sorry, bossy. Wrong again/as usual. The Big Bang was preceded by the singularity as far as science has determined. The singularity was a physical object.
> 
> It's actually comical to read your comments as they immediately self- refute.
> 
> You opine/whine: "god can't be physical nature because God created physical nature and things can't create themselves... logical impossibility. "
> 
> If things can't create themselves, what created your gawds?
> 
> It's an old argument that leads the supernaturalist to screech, "the gawds are eternal and un-created". So just revise your whining to revise "god can't be physical nature because God created physical nature and things can't create themselves... logical impossibility. ".... Excepting that the gawds get special dispensations because they're supernatural, magical and....because I say so"



Hi Hollie:
Can you please clarify by making a distinction between
A. the Universal Laws that "God" represents (which exceeds human capacity) versus
B. the local laws or rules that lesser "gods or authorities" represent on a human level

The part that man makes up, and tends to "worship idols or authorities" 
is level B the local level of laws and languages for laws

The part that man DID NOT MAKE UP are the naturally self-existent
laws of nature and the universe. (so B "attempts to represent" A but B is limited and finite
so of course this is flawed and falls short of what A really is which is beyond man's ability)

For these, we could debate day and night if the knowledge/laws in A were
* created by something
* always existent without beginning point

(of course the level of B WAS created by man so this has a beginning point and history we can examine)

Please do not keep arguing about A versus B, which are clearly distinct.
These are two different levels, and this will go in circles in conflicts.
Thank you!


----------



## Hollie

emilynghiem said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, bossy. Wrong again/as usual. The Big Bang was preceded by the singularity as far as science has determined. The singularity was a physical object.
> 
> It's actually comical to read your comments as they immediately self- refute.
> 
> You opine/whine: "god can't be physical nature because God created physical nature and things can't create themselves... logical impossibility. "
> 
> If things can't create themselves, what created your gawds?
> 
> It's an old argument that leads the supernaturalist to screech, "the gawds are eternal and un-created". So just revise your whining to revise "god can't be physical nature because God created physical nature and things can't create themselves... logical impossibility. ".... Excepting that the gawds get special dispensations because they're supernatural, magical and....because I say so"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Hollie:
> Can you please clarify by making a distinction between
> A. the Universal Laws that "God" represents (which exceeds human capacity) versus
> B. the local laws or rules that lesser "gods or authorities" represent on a human level
> 
> The part that man makes up, and tends to "worship idols or authorities"
> is level B the local level of laws and languages for laws
> 
> The part that man DID NOT MAKE UP are the naturally self-existent
> laws of nature and the universe. (so B "attempts to represent" A but B is limited and finite
> so of course this is flawed and falls short of what A really is which is beyond man's ability)
> 
> For these, we could debate day and night if the knowledge/laws in A were
> * created by something
> * always existent without beginning point
> 
> (of course the level of B WAS created by man so this has a beginning point and history we can examine)
> 
> Please do not keep arguing about A versus B, which are clearly distinct.
> These are two different levels, and this will go in circles in conflicts.
> Thank you!
Click to expand...


Emily, 

I make no distinction at all between your items A and B noted above. 

I know of no universal laws created by any gods. For that matter, I recognize no gods. Why do you believe there are universal laws made by one of more gods?


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Here it is again: can you identify a single culture or civilization that "collapsed" specifically because they didn't have gods?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here it is again, airhead... There has been NO culture or civilization devoid of spirituality. It's difficult to give you an example of something collapsing that never has existed to begin with.
Click to expand...


But if no civilization has existed devoid of spirituality (which seems very likely to me) then how can you have any idea that a civilization without spirituality is guaranteed to collapse?  You have no experience, no data, to base that claim on.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> silly boob said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is correlated with better scientific literacy, lower poverty rates, higher literacy rates, higher average incomes, less violence, lower divorce rates, lower teen pregnancy rates, lower STD infection rates, lower crime rates and lower homicide rates. It correlates highly with the well-being of individuals and societies by almost every possible measure.
> 
> Studies on happiness outside of predominantly religious countries (eg. the United States) find little to no correlation between happiness and religious belief.
> 
> The only reason religious people are happier is the social bonding they get at church.  That and ignorance is bliss.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. You have yet to cite a single solitary example of a predominantly Atheist country or society. These visions of Utopian Atheist society are delusions running around in your empty little head that do not exist and never have.
Click to expand...


I didn't say predominately atheist societies, since there aren't any.  I said societies with a large number of atheists.

Studies on happiness outside of predominantly religious countries (eg. the United States) find little to no correlation between happiness and religious belief. 

Atheism is correlated with better scientific literacy [2][3], lower poverty rates, higher literacy rates, higher average incomes, less violence, lower divorce rates, lower teen pregnancy rates, lower STD infection rates, lower crime rates and lower homicide rates. It correlates highly with the well-being of individuals and societies by almost every possible measure.

Nature, "Leading scientists still reject God"* July 23, 1998

https://docs.google.com/file/d/1BbD...OEq0O0pevF6Xoi65pfJcPlV1FVFTAorsXb/edit?pli=1

http://sharecuriosity.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/ReadingLevelByReligion.png

Atheism and Secularity [2 volumes] - Google Books

Epiphenom: Atheist nations are more peaceful

New Zealand came top this year. Hmm, New Zealand is a pretty non-religious country. In fact, if you eyeball the rankings, the top few countries are all pretty non-religious.

What I've done in the figures here is to take data from the World Values Survey on the percentage of people in each country who say they are a committed atheist, and also on the percentage of people who say that they go to a religious service at least once a month.

Then I split the sample into two equal groups, based on their score on the Global Peace Index. The ones in the 'Peaceful' group are countries with a GPI score less than 1.8.

Sure enough, peaceful countries have more atheists and fewer regular worshippers. The difference is highly statistically significant (P=0.001 or less) - in other words it's real, not just a chance finding.

I could go on and on, but I'll stop right here. bitch.


----------



## sealybobo

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here it is again: can you identify a single culture or civilization that "collapsed" specifically because they didn't have gods?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here it is again, airhead... There has been NO culture or civilization devoid of spirituality. It's difficult to give you an example of something collapsing that never has existed to begin with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But if no civilization has existed devoid of spirituality (which seems very likely to me) then how can you have any idea that a civilization without spirituality is guaranteed to collapse?  You have no experience, no data, to base that claim on.
Click to expand...


I have data that shows he is wrong.  Societies that are less religious are better in every way.  The more people your country has praying the worse your country is, in every category.  Sorry boss.


----------



## Mad_Cabbie

GISMYS said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't know about the Land of Sinners. I just know that self-appointed morality is useless because humans will rationalize whatever behavior they please because they can. If there is no accountability whatsoever, then moral boundaries mean nothing. Yep... without some spiritual foundation (a condition we'll never realize as humans) then society would collapse into immoral chaos in a matter of a few generations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Human history clearly refutes your nonsensical comments. The fact is, civilizations have risen and fallen without the use nor any requirement for your particular gawds or the gawds of others.
> 
> We also know that civilizations have risen and fallen in spite of them having gawds. It seems that even the benefit of having one or many gawds is not an indication that alleged gawd-given "morality" is going to further success of any civilization.
> 
> BTW, I was disappointed you didn't entertain us with a litany of slogans including, but not limited to: spiritually connect, spiritual nature, intrinsically connected, intrinsically spiritually connected, and my favorite, ".... because I say so".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YES!!! THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF FALSE gods but only ONE TRUE ALMIGHTY GOD!!! NOW! WISE UP!!
Click to expand...


How do we know that Jesus's dad isn't a FALSE GOD===???


----------



## sealybobo

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here it is again: can you identify a single culture or civilization that "collapsed" specifically because they didn't have gods?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here it is again, airhead... There has been NO culture or civilization devoid of spirituality. It's difficult to give you an example of something collapsing that never has existed to begin with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But if no civilization has existed devoid of spirituality (which seems very likely to me) then how can you have any idea that a civilization without spirituality is guaranteed to collapse?  You have no experience, no data, to base that claim on.
Click to expand...


https://docs.google.com/file/d/1eh1...S0P9TIdVDNJy7SiSSM8KKrh9-jH-/edit?hl=en&pli=1

It correlates highly with the well-being of individuals and societies by almost every possible measure.

Religion is for losers.  We'd be better off if it went away.


----------



## sealybobo

Mad_Cabbie said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Human history clearly refutes your nonsensical comments. The fact is, civilizations have risen and fallen without the use nor any requirement for your particular gawds or the gawds of others.
> 
> We also know that civilizations have risen and fallen in spite of them having gawds. It seems that even the benefit of having one or many gawds is not an indication that alleged gawd-given "morality" is going to further success of any civilization.
> 
> BTW, I was disappointed you didn't entertain us with a litany of slogans including, but not limited to: spiritually connect, spiritual nature, intrinsically connected, intrinsically spiritually connected, and my favorite, ".... because I say so".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YES!!! THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF FALSE gods but only ONE TRUE ALMIGHTY GOD!!! NOW! WISE UP!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do we know that Jesus's dad isn't a FALSE GOD===???
Click to expand...


He is.

There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible concerning the existence of a god. Any evidence proposed by theists to support the Bibles various historical and supernatural claims is non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.

The Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many religious texts. Like those others, it itself constitutes no evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful content do not legitimise it nor distinguish it from other ancient works of literature.

The Bible is historically inaccurate, factually incorrect, inconsistent and contradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time.

Properly read, the bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.  Isaac Asimov

There is no contemporary evidence for Jesus existence or the Bibles account of his life; no artefacts, dwellings, works of carpentry, self-written manuscripts, court records, eyewitness testimony, official diaries, birth records, re&#64258;ections on his significance or written disputes about his teachings. Nothing survives from the time in which he is said to have lived.

All historical references to Jesus derive from hearsay accounts written decades or centuries after his supposed death. These historical references generally refer to early Christians rather than a historical Jesus and, in some cases, directly contradict the Gospels or were deliberately manufactured.

The Gospels themselves contradict one-another  on many key events and were constructed by unknown authors up to a century after the events they describe are said to have occurred. They are not eyewitness accounts. The New Testament, as a whole, contains many internal inconsistencies as a result of its piecemeal construction and is factually incorrect on several historical claims, such as the early existence of Nazareth, the reign of Herod and the Roman census. Like the Old Testament, it too has had entire books and sections redacted.

The Biblical account of Jesus has striking similarities with other mythologies and texts and many of his supposed teachings existed prior to his time. It is likely the character was either partly or entirely invented by competing first century messianic cults from an amalgamation of Greco-Roman, Egyptian and Judeo-Apocalyptic myths and prophecies.

Even if Jesus existence could be established, this would in no way validate Christian theology or any element of the story portrayed in the Bible, such as the performance of miracles or the resurrection. Simply because it is conceivable a heretical Jewish preacher named Yeshua lived circa 30 AD, had followers and was executed, does not imply the son of a god walked the Earth at that time.

The motivation for belief in a divine, salvational Jesus breaks down when you accept evolution:

Now, if the book of Genesis is an allegory, then sin is an allegory, the Fall is an allegory and the need for a Savior is an allegory  but if we are all descendants of an allegory, where does that leave us? It destroys the foundation of all Christian doctrineit destroys the foundation of the gospel. - Ken Ham


----------



## sealybobo

Hollie said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, bossy. Wrong again/as usual. The Big Bang was preceded by the singularity as far as science has determined. The singularity was a physical object.
> 
> It's actually comical to read your comments as they immediately self- refute.
> 
> You opine/whine: "god can't be physical nature because God created physical nature and things can't create themselves... logical impossibility. "
> 
> If things can't create themselves, what created your gawds?
> 
> It's an old argument that leads the supernaturalist to screech, "the gawds are eternal and un-created". So just revise your whining to revise "god can't be physical nature because God created physical nature and things can't create themselves... logical impossibility. ".... Excepting that the gawds get special dispensations because they're supernatural, magical and....because I say so"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Hollie:
> Can you please clarify by making a distinction between
> A. the Universal Laws that "God" represents (which exceeds human capacity) versus
> B. the local laws or rules that lesser "gods or authorities" represent on a human level
> 
> The part that man makes up, and tends to "worship idols or authorities"
> is level B the local level of laws and languages for laws
> 
> The part that man DID NOT MAKE UP are the naturally self-existent
> laws of nature and the universe. (so B "attempts to represent" A but B is limited and finite
> so of course this is flawed and falls short of what A really is which is beyond man's ability)
> 
> For these, we could debate day and night if the knowledge/laws in A were
> * created by something
> * always existent without beginning point
> 
> (of course the level of B WAS created by man so this has a beginning point and history we can examine)
> 
> Please do not keep arguing about A versus B, which are clearly distinct.
> These are two different levels, and this will go in circles in conflicts.
> Thank you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Emily,
> 
> I make no distinction at all between your items A and B noted above.
> 
> I know of no universal laws created by any gods. For that matter, I recognize no gods. Why do you believe there are universal laws made by one of more gods?
Click to expand...



Theistic arguments which assume gods existence are logically valid.

Simply because a logically valid argument can be constructed does not imply a true premise or true conclusion.

All cups are green.
Socrates is a cup.
Therefore, Socrates is green.

Although the above argument is logically valid, neither its premise nor conclusion are actually true. An argument is only sound if it is valid and its premise and conclusions are true.

See also: False Premise.  Sorry Emily


----------



## sealybobo

emilynghiem said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any god that was infinite, ultimate, and absolute would not have to hide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The hiding is on the side of people's perceptions.
> Where we divide and don't forgive conflicts,
> we muddle our perception and judgment with emotionally charged biases.
> 
> So we "cloud" our judgment this way. We stay caught up in the past, and cannot see past that to see farther into the future when these conflicts are resolved.
> We must resolve our conflicts first, then we can see clearly what steps to take in the present to achieve those goals in the future.
> We cannot see these steps if we are too busy fighting with other neighbors and groups and blocking the process.
> 
> Thus it is said that when the Law or Lord is revealed,
> it is like coming through the clouds.
> 
> We will uncloud our judgment so we can see clearly.
> But in fact, the laws were in operation constantly around us.
> We will just be able to see them without negative biases blocking our view.
Click to expand...


We already have names for these things. Redefining something as god tells us nothing. To use the word god implies a host of other attributes and if you dont intend to apply those attributes, using the word is intentionally misleading.

To call the world God is not to explain it; it is only to enrich our language with a superfluous synonym for the word world.  Arthur Schopenhauer


----------



## Boss

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> false! there is nothing outside nature god is either part of nature or imaginary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sheer ignorance of the universe. There was a Big Bang... when it happened, it created time and therefore, physical reality. Nothing physical caused it because nothing physical existed. There was no time space for anything physical to exist in. Without time, there is no physical reality or existence, it means nothing. Time is created by the expanding physical universe.
> 
> God is part of nature, God is spiritual nature. Not physical. God can't be physical nature because God created physical nature and things can't create themselves... logical impossibility. Your ignorance is in presuming there is nothing other than physical nature, when we know this can't be true because something had to cause the creation of physical nature for it to exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, bossy. Wrong again/as usual. The Big Bang was preceded by the singularity as far as science has determined. The singularity was a physical object.
> 
> It's actually comical to read your comments as they immediately self- refute.
> 
> You opine/whine: "god can't be physical nature because God created physical nature and things can't create themselves... logical impossibility. "
> 
> If things can't create themselves, what created your gawds?
> 
> It's an old argument that leads the supernaturalist to screech, "the gawds are eternal and un-created". So just revise your whining to revise "god can't be physical nature because God created physical nature and things can't create themselves... logical impossibility. ".... Excepting that the gawds get special dispensations because they're supernatural, magical and....because I say so"
Click to expand...


Sorry, but nope... not wrong. There could be no physical object before the Big Bang created the time space for a physical object to exist. Physical is a state which requires time to exist. Without time, nothing physical can exist or be real because there is no physical reality. 

Nothing had to create God. Creation is something which applies to physical things. The spiritual isn't created, it doesn't exist physically so there is no need for it to be created. You're trying to apply physical standards to something spiritual and when I correct your error, you're screaming "special dispensation!" Your brain is unable to comprehend something beyond physical nature, even though you should rationally know that something must have created physical nature and it couldn't be physical.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> silly boob said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is correlated with better scientific literacy, lower poverty rates, higher literacy rates, higher average incomes, less violence, lower divorce rates, lower teen pregnancy rates, lower STD infection rates, lower crime rates and lower homicide rates. It correlates highly with the well-being of individuals and societies by almost every possible measure.
> 
> Studies on happiness outside of predominantly religious countries (eg. the United States) find little to no correlation between happiness and religious belief.
> 
> The only reason religious people are happier is the social bonding they get at church.  That and ignorance is bliss.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. You have yet to cite a single solitary example of a predominantly Atheist country or society. These visions of Utopian Atheist society are delusions running around in your empty little head that do not exist and never have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say predominately atheist societies, since there aren't any.  I said societies with a large number of atheists.
Click to expand...


Then you are still talking about predominately spiritual nations. Case closed.


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here it is again: can you identify a single culture or civilization that "collapsed" specifically because they didn't have gods?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here it is again, airhead... There has been NO culture or civilization devoid of spirituality. It's difficult to give you an example of something collapsing that never has existed to begin with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But if no civilization has existed devoid of spirituality (which seems very likely to me) then how can you have any idea that a civilization without spirituality is guaranteed to collapse?  You have no experience, no data, to base that claim on.
Click to expand...


Because every civilization which has abandoned spirituality has failed in short order.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> And here it is again, airhead... There has been NO culture or civilization devoid of spirituality. It's difficult to give you an example of something collapsing that never has existed to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But if no civilization has existed devoid of spirituality (which seems very likely to me) then how can you have any idea that a civilization without spirituality is guaranteed to collapse?  You have no experience, no data, to base that claim on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because every civilization which has abandoned spirituality has failed in short order.
Click to expand...


Then you are saying there have been civilizations devoid of spirituality.

These contradictory statements do not help make your point.

Or are you only talking about spirituality promoted by the state?


----------



## BreezeWood

Boss said:


> ... even though you should rationally know that something must have created physical nature and it couldn't be physical.



the forces of the Everlasting are what determine physical nature, whether physical or spiritual they may both be the same.

.


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> But if no civilization has existed devoid of spirituality (which seems very likely to me) then how can you have any idea that a civilization without spirituality is guaranteed to collapse?  You have no experience, no data, to base that claim on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because every civilization which has abandoned spirituality has failed in short order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you are saying there have been civilizations devoid of spirituality.
> 
> These contradictory statements do not help make your point.
> 
> Or are you only talking about spirituality promoted by the state?
Click to expand...


Is it possible for you to post once without being an obtuse ass? No, there have never been civilizations devoid of spirituality, that's why none of you have ever named a single one. The closest thing to that has been civilizations which abandoned spirituality, and they failed in short order. Now would like some crayons or a jello cup, maybe a dose of Ritalin?


----------



## Boss

BreezeWood said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... even though you should rationally know that something must have created physical nature and it couldn't be physical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the forces of the Everlasting are what determine physical nature, whether physical or spiritual they may both be the same.
> 
> .
Click to expand...



Except that the physical, we know, is finite and not everlasting.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sheer ignorance of the universe. There was a Big Bang... when it happened, it created time and therefore, physical reality. Nothing physical caused it because nothing physical existed. There was no time space for anything physical to exist in. Without time, there is no physical reality or existence, it means nothing. Time is created by the expanding physical universe.
> 
> God is part of nature, God is spiritual nature. Not physical. God can't be physical nature because God created physical nature and things can't create themselves... logical impossibility. Your ignorance is in presuming there is nothing other than physical nature, when we know this can't be true because something had to cause the creation of physical nature for it to exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, bossy. Wrong again/as usual. The Big Bang was preceded by the singularity as far as science has determined. The singularity was a physical object.
> 
> It's actually comical to read your comments as they immediately self- refute.
> 
> You opine/whine: "god can't be physical nature because God created physical nature and things can't create themselves... logical impossibility. "
> 
> If things can't create themselves, what created your gawds?
> 
> It's an old argument that leads the supernaturalist to screech, "the gawds are eternal and un-created". So just revise your whining to revise "god can't be physical nature because God created physical nature and things can't create themselves... logical impossibility. ".... Excepting that the gawds get special dispensations because they're supernatural, magical and....because I say so"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but nope... not wrong. There could be no physical object before the Big Bang created the time space for a physical object to exist. Physical is a state which requires time to exist. Without time, nothing physical can exist or be real because there is no physical reality.
> 
> Nothing had to create God. Creation is something which applies to physical things. The spiritual isn't created, it doesn't exist physically so there is no need for it to be created. You're trying to apply physical standards to something spiritual and when I correct your error, you're screaming "special dispensation!" Your brain is unable to comprehend something beyond physical nature, even though you should rationally know that something must have created physical nature and it couldn't be physical.
Click to expand...


You're not paying attention. Obviously something existed before the Big Bang and that _something_ was a singularity. 

And as expected, you continue to require special pleadings for your gods because you feel that supernaturalism and magic are except from the standards of reason and rationality.  

As usual, boss has to invoke "special dispensations" for his argument -- i.e., one must assume as true the point that boss is trying to make, which is there is a supernatural cause behind all of this, to support the assertion that there is a supernatural cause behind all of this. Once again, begging the question already destroys the argument, because one must demonstrate the existence of the supernatural before one can appeal to it to supply a rationale for something to be in effect.

But hey, boss, why let facts and evidence cloud your decision making.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because every civilization which has abandoned spirituality has failed in short order.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you are saying there have been civilizations devoid of spirituality.
> 
> These contradictory statements do not help make your point.
> 
> Or are you only talking about spirituality promoted by the state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it possible for you to post once without being an obtuse ass? No, there have never been civilizations devoid of spirituality, that's why none of you have ever named a single one. The closest thing to that has been civilizations which abandoned spirituality, and they failed in short order. Now would like some crayons or a jello cup, maybe a dose of Ritalin?
Click to expand...


Such an angry boss. You're continually confused. You confuse fear and superstition with your inventions of "spiritual nature". As it had been pointed out to you, some civilizations and cultures invented various conceptions of natural objects representing their fears and superstitions regarding events and circumstances they didn't understand.

Anthropologists would call this _sympathetic magic_, which is the ascription of magical properties to everyday acts and objects in an effort to control ones environment.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> And here it is again, airhead... There has been NO culture or civilization devoid of spirituality. It's difficult to give you an example of something collapsing that never has existed to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But if no civilization has existed devoid of spirituality (which seems very likely to me) then how can you have any idea that a civilization without spirituality is guaranteed to collapse?  You have no experience, no data, to base that claim on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because every civilization which has abandoned spirituality has failed in short order.
Click to expand...


Identify those civilizations for us. And, make sure you identify a direct cause and affect relationship between abandoning "spirituality" and the failure "in short order" of that civilization.


----------



## Mephisto

sealybobo said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> And here it is again, airhead... There has been NO culture or civilization devoid of spirituality. It's difficult to give you an example of something collapsing that never has existed to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> hold on! your definition of spirituality is razor thin.
> you are ignoring the elephant in the room.. more cultures have collapsed OR been destroyed  BECAUSE OF SPIRTUALITY than all the other causes combined.
> since no culture has ever been spirituality free.. there is no way to know  if it would collapse or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheism is correlated with better scientific literacy, lower poverty rates, higher literacy rates, higher average incomes, less violence, lower divorce rates, lower teen pregnancy rates, lower STD infection rates, lower crime rates and lower homicide rates. It correlates highly with the well-being of individuals and societies by almost every possible measure.
> 
> Studies on happiness outside of predominantly religious countries (eg. the United States) find little to no correlation between happiness and religious belief.
> 
> The only reason religious people are happier is the social bonding they get at church.  That and ignorance is bliss.
Click to expand...


I grew up Catholic, wife grew up Luthern.  I did 12 years of CCD...have not stepped foot in a church for mass since our wedding.


----------



## GISMYS

Mephisto said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> hold on! your definition of spirituality is razor thin.
> you are ignoring the elephant in the room.. more cultures have collapsed OR been destroyed  BECAUSE OF SPIRTUALITY than all the other causes combined.
> since no culture has ever been spirituality free.. there is no way to know  if it would collapse or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is correlated with better scientific literacy, lower poverty rates, higher literacy rates, higher average incomes, less violence, lower divorce rates, lower teen pregnancy rates, lower STD infection rates, lower crime rates and lower homicide rates. It correlates highly with the well-being of individuals and societies by almost every possible measure.
> 
> Studies on happiness outside of predominantly religious countries (eg. the United States) find little to no correlation between happiness and religious belief.
> 
> The only reason religious people are happier is the social bonding they get at church.  That and ignorance is bliss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I grew up Catholic, wife grew up Luthern.  I did 12 years of CCD...have not stepped foot in a church for mass since our wedding.
Click to expand...


YES!!! SATAN IS A LIAR AN THE FATHER OF LIARD! and you??


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because every civilization which has abandoned spirituality has failed in short order.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you are saying there have been civilizations devoid of spirituality.
> 
> These contradictory statements do not help make your point.
> 
> Or are you only talking about spirituality promoted by the state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it possible for you to post once without being an obtuse ass? No, there have never been civilizations devoid of spirituality, that's why none of you have ever named a single one. The closest thing to that has been civilizations which abandoned spirituality, and they failed in short order. Now would like some crayons or a jello cup, maybe a dose of Ritalin?
Click to expand...


Perhaps if you made a little bit of sense, these kinds of issues wouldn't arise.

So if a society abandons spirituality, that society still has spirituality?  So what, exactly, do you mean when you say societies have abandoned spirituality?  They gave up spirituality, but kept spirituality?  Do you mean to say they gave up outward acknowledgement of spirituality?

You said this : 


Boss said:


> Human history is that man has always been spiritual. From the very first civilization to today. No civilization has ever risen without spirituality, nor has one ever existed for very long in absence of spirituality. Nobody has claimed spirituality is a guarantee a civilization will survive. It is a guarantee they will collapse without it. This is why you can't name a civilization that has existed without spirituality, there isn't one.



Notice that you say no civilization has existed long in the absence of spirituality, which means that there have been civilizations without spirituality for at least some time.

So we have you saying civilizations have existed without spirituality, then saying no civilization has ever been devoid of spirituality, then saying civilizations have abandoned spirituality, but not been devoid of spirituality, and you think I'm the one being obtuse?


----------



## Boss

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, bossy. Wrong again/as usual. The Big Bang was preceded by the singularity as far as science has determined. The singularity was a physical object.
> 
> It's actually comical to read your comments as they immediately self- refute.
> 
> You opine/whine: "god can't be physical nature because God created physical nature and things can't create themselves... logical impossibility. "
> 
> If things can't create themselves, what created your gawds?
> 
> It's an old argument that leads the supernaturalist to screech, "the gawds are eternal and un-created". So just revise your whining to revise "god can't be physical nature because God created physical nature and things can't create themselves... logical impossibility. ".... Excepting that the gawds get special dispensations because they're supernatural, magical and....because I say so"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but nope... not wrong. There could be no physical object before the Big Bang created the time space for a physical object to exist. Physical is a state which requires time to exist. Without time, nothing physical can exist or be real because there is no physical reality.
> 
> Nothing had to create God. Creation is something which applies to physical things. The spiritual isn't created, it doesn't exist physically so there is no need for it to be created. You're trying to apply physical standards to something spiritual and when I correct your error, you're screaming "special dispensation!" Your brain is unable to comprehend something beyond physical nature, even though you should rationally know that something must have created physical nature and it couldn't be physical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not paying attention. Obviously something existed before the Big Bang and that _something_ was a singularity.
> 
> And as expected, you continue to require special pleadings for your gods because you feel that supernaturalism and magic are except from the standards of reason and rationality.
> 
> As usual, boss has to invoke "special dispensations" for his argument -- i.e., one must assume as true the point that boss is trying to make, which is there is a supernatural cause behind all of this, to support the assertion that there is a supernatural cause behind all of this. Once again, begging the question already destroys the argument, because one must demonstrate the existence of the supernatural before one can appeal to it to supply a rationale for something to be in effect.
> 
> But hey, boss, why let facts and evidence cloud your decision making.
Click to expand...


Obviously something existed that wasn't physical because physical things did not have a universe in which to exist or a time space. You keep yammering about "singularity" like you know what you're talking about, but you are an ignoramus. Singularity theorem posits the Big Bang *began* as singularity. This did not exist *before* the Big Bang, nor has it ever been theorized by any source I am familiar with. The correct answer from a science perspective is, we don't know what existed *before* the Big Bang because science can only deal with physical nature, which didn't yet exist. What we know is, whatever existed couldn't be physical. 

It's just a little cray-cray to be asking me to demonstrate the physical existence of something that could not physically exist. As you said, it's obvious something existed before the Big Bang, and we can be certain it wasn't physical because physical did not yet exist.


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you are saying there have been civilizations devoid of spirituality.
> 
> These contradictory statements do not help make your point.
> 
> Or are you only talking about spirituality promoted by the state?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it possible for you to post once without being an obtuse ass? No, there have never been civilizations devoid of spirituality, that's why none of you have ever named a single one. The closest thing to that has been civilizations which abandoned spirituality, and they failed in short order. Now would like some crayons or a jello cup, maybe a dose of Ritalin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps if you made a little bit of sense, these kinds of issues wouldn't arise.
> 
> So if a society abandons spirituality, that society still has spirituality?  So what, exactly, do you mean when you say societies have abandoned spirituality?  They gave up spirituality, but kept spirituality?  Do you mean to say they gave up outward acknowledgement of spirituality?
> 
> You said this :
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Human history is that man has always been spiritual. From the very first civilization to today. No civilization has ever risen without spirituality, nor has one ever existed for very long in absence of spirituality. Nobody has claimed spirituality is a guarantee a civilization will survive. It is a guarantee they will collapse without it. This is why you can't name a civilization that has existed without spirituality, there isn't one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Notice that you say no civilization has existed long in the absence of spirituality, which means that there have been civilizations without spirituality for at least some time.
> 
> So we have you saying civilizations have existed without spirituality, then saying no civilization has ever been devoid of spirituality, then saying civilizations have abandoned spirituality, but not been devoid of spirituality, and you think I'm the one being obtuse?
Click to expand...


Yes, you are being obtuse. Trying to muddy the water with nonsense and pretending you don't understand what I have said. Name a civilization devoid of spirituality, or shut the fuck up. If you can't name one, we have to presume you don't have a legitimate argument. 

Can humans live under water? No... but technically, you could throw a human under water and before they drowned, they would be living under water. This does not change the statement that humans cannot live under water. It's an obtuse, and franky immature way, of avoiding a fact. Grow the fuck up and debate like an adult please.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. You have yet to cite a single solitary example of a predominantly Atheist country or society. These visions of Utopian Atheist society are delusions running around in your empty little head that do not exist and never have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say predominately atheist societies, since there aren't any.  I said societies with a large number of atheists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you are still talking about predominately spiritual nations. Case closed.
Click to expand...


For those of you who said Hitler was an atheist.  First of all, you all shut up when I asked you for proof that German's in 1940 were majority atheists.  Anyways, I was reading something and I saw this:

Having lived in Germany and extensively interviewed many (now elderly) former members of Hitler's Nazi Party for a book I was writing on the religion of the Nazis, I can say categorically that Hitler had (or at least his people believed he had) a Vision. It was a vision of a world at peace (for 1000 years, no less), a world purified of disruptive or "undesirable" people, a world united in what Hitler called "A New Christianity," a world where things worked smoothly and people were happy because of "strong, steady leadership" (even during times of change), a world guided by a leader who held tenaciously to a singular vision.

  Trust me, people do not need to believe in god(s).  Completely unnecessary.  In fact I would argue harmful.  The Kings 5000 years ago made that shit up to tell their slaves.  Did you see 12 years a slave?  Watch it.  The Master is reading the bible to his slaves and the messages he was trying to get to sink in was honor/respect your master.  The Pharoh/Slave Master/Kings were our gods back then.  They made it up.  Or they took the idea that people 1000's of years earlier made up and refined it/tweeked it to suit their purposes. 

Same as the old testament.  They didn't buy into the Egyptian religion, they made their own up.  The greeks made up Hercules and Zeus.  If you want to say your proof of god is the fact that we instinctively made it up, well we made up a lot of things that don't exist.  Ghosts for example or demons or angels or witches or vampires.  Yea that's it.  There must be a Dracula because we couldn't have made that up.  

The old testament has too many holes so religion had to evolve with the times so it was time to come up with the new testament.  I don't know how the jews stay with the old testament.  Actually they don't.  They eat shellfish and they don't do eye for an eye anymore.  

The Greek gods and the Egyptian gods didn't last forever.  Neither did Rome.  Neither will America and neither will christianity  Europe is enlightened and I don't know how America will continue to keep the red states so damn ignorant.  But I see there are always religious shows on tv.  Crazy preachers, ministers and rabbi's.  They'll keep trying and I'm sure there will always be people who want religion.  Probably the majority like always will be the masses.  And maybe we do need god to keep them from starting a revolution.  Maybe I should shut up about the fact that there probably is no god. 

P.S.  I did say sorry to god today if he exists.  I said I would come here and admit it.  My brain says there is no god but if there is, I don't want to disrespect him.  Just people who claim to know him.  He don't know you!  That'd be like a whale in the ocean caring about a Tardigrade.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but nope... not wrong. There could be no physical object before the Big Bang created the time space for a physical object to exist. Physical is a state which requires time to exist. Without time, nothing physical can exist or be real because there is no physical reality.
> 
> Nothing had to create God. Creation is something which applies to physical things. The spiritual isn't created, it doesn't exist physically so there is no need for it to be created. You're trying to apply physical standards to something spiritual and when I correct your error, you're screaming "special dispensation!" Your brain is unable to comprehend something beyond physical nature, even though you should rationally know that something must have created physical nature and it couldn't be physical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're not paying attention. Obviously something existed before the Big Bang and that _something_ was a singularity.
> 
> And as expected, you continue to require special pleadings for your gods because you feel that supernaturalism and magic are except from the standards of reason and rationality.
> 
> As usual, boss has to invoke "special dispensations" for his argument -- i.e., one must assume as true the point that boss is trying to make, which is there is a supernatural cause behind all of this, to support the assertion that there is a supernatural cause behind all of this. Once again, begging the question already destroys the argument, because one must demonstrate the existence of the supernatural before one can appeal to it to supply a rationale for something to be in effect.
> 
> But hey, boss, why let facts and evidence cloud your decision making.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously something existed that wasn't physical because physical things did not have a universe in which to exist or a time space.
> 
> the existence of something that could not physically exist.
> 
> something existed before the Big Bang, and we can be certain it wasn't physical because physical did not yet exist.
Click to expand...


Why does it have to be a god?  And are you 100% sure we can be certain about that boss?  Provide the scientific proof that science is in agreement that we can be certain of this.  

Your argument ignores the fact that our everyday understanding of causality has been arrived at via a posteriori inductive reasoning which means it might not apply to everything. Time, for instance, appears to have begun with the Big Bang, so there might not have been any cause for the Universe to be an effect of since there was probably no time for a cause to exist in. Applying concepts like time and causality to the Big Bang might be comparable to asking What is north of the North Pole?


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is correlated with better scientific literacy, lower poverty rates, higher literacy rates, higher average incomes, less violence, lower divorce rates, lower teen pregnancy rates, lower STD infection rates, lower crime rates and lower homicide rates. It correlates highly with the well-being of individuals and societies by almost every possible measure.
> 
> Studies on happiness outside of predominantly religious countries (eg. the United States) find little to no correlation between happiness and religious belief.
> 
> The only reason religious people are happier is the social bonding they get at church.  That and ignorance is bliss.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I grew up Catholic, wife grew up Luthern.  I did 12 years of CCD...have not stepped foot in a church for mass since our wedding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YES!!! SATAN IS A LIAR AN THE FATHER OF LIARD! and you??
Click to expand...


Oh if it only weren't true.  Atheists are better people than you christians, in every measurement.  You guys think you have a get out of hell free card just because you believe and/or have been saved/born again, whatever.  

I even heard a preacher say it last night.  Yes I get a kick out of watching religions on tv.  Remember you said that's where I get my information?  You are correct.  Do you think I would step foot in each of those churches?  Go seek out that crazy woman who was speaking in tongues?  NO WAY.  Glad they have her on tv for me to watch/study/analyze.  And she's not the only one.  They have lots of religious shows on 24/7.  We need an atheist/science channel.  

You are no different than a stupid muslim man in saudi arabia.  In fact I wish you were in Saudi Arabia because god told them women are 2nd class citizens/property.  Now did he really tell them that or is that just the arabic version of religion/god?  Do you see how it was clearly made up by arabic men 800 years ago?  Well your religion was made up by lighter arabs 2000 years ago.  And your story is just as stupid as theirs.  Maybe not the new testament, but the old is.  And the new testament is just a new spin on religion because lots of people were not buying the old testament anymore.  So 11 guys made up a new cult and it caught on.  BFD.


----------



## sealybobo

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> But if no civilization has existed devoid of spirituality (which seems very likely to me) then how can you have any idea that a civilization without spirituality is guaranteed to collapse?  You have no experience, no data, to base that claim on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because every civilization which has abandoned spirituality has failed in short order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Identify those civilizations for us. And, make sure you identify a direct cause and affect relationship between abandoning "spirituality" and the failure "in short order" of that civilization.
Click to expand...


That's too easy for them.  I'll answer for them.  

1Sodom & Gamora.  

2.  America.  It's happening today they say.  

It couldn't possibly be the lack of opportunity and shipping millions of good paying manufacturing jobs overseas and now our biggest employer in America is Walmart not GM.  That is the reason our society if falling apart, not because people aren't religious.  Or college is too expensive.  So if you make college unaffordable for a young man and he has no opportunity, he's going to rob, steal and kill.  Look at how crime went  up after the Bush Great Recession of 2007


----------



## Boss

Dracula was an 1897 novel by Bram Stoker, based loosely on 15th-century Romanian general and Wallachian Prince Vlad III the Impaler. So Dracula was never based on any human spiritual connection. 

Now you've presented some examples of rulers, masters or nations which sought to use religion in order to control others. However, in virtually none of those cases was the religious belief originally established for that reason. If you'd like to pretend that is the case, then you're not very smart. 

You can also argue that we'd all be better off without God, but you have no basis for that belief. There is certainly no proof to support your belief. When we believe in things without proof, what is that called?


----------



## Boss

> Why does it have to be a god? And are you 100% sure we can be certain about that boss? Provide the scientific proof that science is in agreement that we can be certain of this.
> 
> Your argument ignores the fact that our everyday understanding of causality has been arrived at via a posteriori inductive reasoning which means it might not apply to everything. Time, for instance, appears to have begun with the Big Bang, so there might not have been any &#8217;cause&#8217; for the Universe to be an &#8216;effect&#8217; of since there was probably no time for a &#8217;cause&#8217; to exist in. Applying concepts like time and causality to the Big Bang might be comparable to asking &#8220;What is north of the North Pole?



Certainly there is no physical cause. Time doesn't "appear to have begun" with the Big Bang. Time exists as a result of an expanding universe. There is no "appear" to that, it's proven science.... see Einstein. There is no physical reality without time, so you can't examine things in a physical sense before time, they didn't exist as physical reality didn't exist. 

Now I don't know about what's north of the North Pole, but there's no physical explanation for why the universe exists, yet it does exist. It did have a beginning and it will have an end. What existed before the universe and what will exist after the universe, cannot be anything physical.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it possible for you to post once without being an obtuse ass? No, there have never been civilizations devoid of spirituality, that's why none of you have ever named a single one. The closest thing to that has been civilizations which abandoned spirituality, and they failed in short order. Now would like some crayons or a jello cup, maybe a dose of Ritalin?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps if you made a little bit of sense, these kinds of issues wouldn't arise.
> 
> So if a society abandons spirituality, that society still has spirituality?  So what, exactly, do you mean when you say societies have abandoned spirituality?  They gave up spirituality, but kept spirituality?  Do you mean to say they gave up outward acknowledgement of spirituality?
> 
> You said this :
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Human history is that man has always been spiritual. From the very first civilization to today. No civilization has ever risen without spirituality, nor has one ever existed for very long in absence of spirituality. Nobody has claimed spirituality is a guarantee a civilization will survive. It is a guarantee they will collapse without it. This is why you can't name a civilization that has existed without spirituality, there isn't one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Notice that you say no civilization has existed long in the absence of spirituality, which means that there have been civilizations without spirituality for at least some time.
> 
> So we have you saying civilizations have existed without spirituality, then saying no civilization has ever been devoid of spirituality, then saying civilizations have abandoned spirituality, but not been devoid of spirituality, and you think I'm the one being obtuse?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you are being obtuse. Trying to muddy the water with nonsense and pretending you don't understand what I have said. Name a civilization devoid of spirituality, or shut the fuck up. If you can't name one, we have to presume you don't have a legitimate argument.
> 
> Can humans live under water? No... but technically, you could throw a human under water and before they drowned, they would be living under water. This does not change the statement that humans cannot live under water. It's an obtuse, and franky immature way, of avoiding a fact. Grow the fuck up and debate like an adult please.
Click to expand...


Read your post and see how adult your post sounds.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Civilizations do not completely abandon spirituality and their God. What causes the fall of empires is it's leadership. I think there are several reasons the leadership has caused the destruction of their empire and those are arrogance,departing from God,bad economics,and abandoning their ethics.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Let me be more precise about abandoning God. Abandoning the one true God, not the many false gods that have been created by civilizations. The god of this system is not the one true God but the god satan who set up and use civilizations for his own evil agenda.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it possible for you to post once without being an obtuse ass? No, there have never been civilizations devoid of spirituality, that's why none of you have ever named a single one. The closest thing to that has been civilizations which abandoned spirituality, and they failed in short order. Now would like some crayons or a jello cup, maybe a dose of Ritalin?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps if you made a little bit of sense, these kinds of issues wouldn't arise.
> 
> So if a society abandons spirituality, that society still has spirituality?  So what, exactly, do you mean when you say societies have abandoned spirituality?  They gave up spirituality, but kept spirituality?  Do you mean to say they gave up outward acknowledgement of spirituality?
> 
> You said this :
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Human history is that man has always been spiritual. From the very first civilization to today. No civilization has ever risen without spirituality, nor has one ever existed for very long in absence of spirituality. Nobody has claimed spirituality is a guarantee a civilization will survive. It is a guarantee they will collapse without it. This is why you can't name a civilization that has existed without spirituality, there isn't one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Notice that you say no civilization has existed long in the absence of spirituality, which means that there have been civilizations without spirituality for at least some time.
> 
> So we have you saying civilizations have existed without spirituality, then saying no civilization has ever been devoid of spirituality, then saying civilizations have abandoned spirituality, but not been devoid of spirituality, and you think I'm the one being obtuse?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you are being obtuse. Trying to muddy the water with nonsense and pretending you don't understand what I have said. Name a civilization devoid of spirituality, or shut the fuck up. If you can't name one, we have to presume you don't have a legitimate argument.
> 
> Can humans live under water? No... but technically, you could throw a human under water and before they drowned, they would be living under water. This does not change the statement that humans cannot live under water. It's an obtuse, and franky immature way, of avoiding a fact. Grow the fuck up and debate like an adult please.
Click to expand...


Read your post and see how adult your post sounds.


----------



## Boss

> Read your post and see how adult your post sounds.



If there is something about my post you'd like to point out, then have the balls to do so and stop fawning for attention from your teammates. I know most of you must come here to get your ego stroked or to do some stroking of your own, but you could be less obvious about it. 

My statement was that no civilization has existed without spirituality. I probably should have stated that no civilization has ever survived devoid of spirituality. In fact, I think I have also put it that way. I've tried as best I can to define my viewpoints so there is no misunderstanding by anyone as to what I am stating, but it seems there are people here who like to parse and pick until they find some minor detail to criticize. 

Humans are spiritual. Every human civilization that has ever lasted more than 50 years or so, every society and culture as well, have included a spiritual element. If you can show me I am wrong about that, go to town! Let's see your list of examples that prove me wrong! Don't waste my time sitting here nitpicking over silly nonsense, trying to catch me in some kind of 'word faux pas.'


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> Read your post and see how adult your post sounds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If there is something about my post you'd like to point out, then have the balls to do so and stop fawning for attention from your teammates. I know most of you must come here to get your ego stroked or to do some stroking of your own, but you could be less obvious about it.
> 
> My statement was that no civilization has existed without spirituality. I probably should have stated that no civilization has ever survived devoid of spirituality. In fact, I think I have also put it that way. I've tried as best I can to define my viewpoints so there is no misunderstanding by anyone as to what I am stating, but it seems there are people here who like to parse and pick until they find some minor detail to criticize.
> 
> Humans are spiritual. Every human civilization that has ever lasted more than 50 years or so, every society and culture as well, have included a spiritual element. If you can show me I am wrong about that, go to town! Let's see your list of examples that prove me wrong! Don't waste my time sitting here nitpicking over silly nonsense, trying to catch me in some kind of 'word faux pas.'
Click to expand...


Nothing to catch.
We see a child swearing at people and losing control of himself repeatedly. It's embarrassing for you, and you just repeatedly do it. 
If humans are spiritual, why are you such a rude dude?


----------



## Tuatara

Boss said:


> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God.


Are you saying the religious have never attacked the non-believers or mocked them or ridiculed them. Do you not remember all the hateful tweets after Christopher Hitchens died? In fact in a recent survey Atheists were considered worse than rapists.




> They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead.


Atheist and proud of it.


> Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh?


 We don't believe in that super-force so that comment is moot.



> But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief.


We attack their beliefs, not the people.



> If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them.


 There is nothing amusing about someone who takes their beliefs and tries to impose them on the entire population through political and societal customs and laws.



> In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him.




Again if belivers of Santa were trying to shove there beliefs down my throat or trying to change laws because of that belief then yes we would show the errors of your ridiculous belief.  





> Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.


See above


> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.


 So what you are saying here is evidence and logic mean nothing to you.



> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different.


Again, atheists are not god-haters. We do not believe in him or any other god. Do you hate Zeus or any other god you don't belive in?



> Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him.


 You will have to explain why.




> To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.


To quote Spock, "Highly illogical"



> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices.


Absoloutley not. The center around a lack of evidence.



> They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors.


Religious people are no more moral than non-religious people and religious people do not get their morals from the bible or their religion. Period.



> As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences.


Yes we do as we please and we please not to hurt, kill or rape others.



> It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.


 So what you are saying is people are not going to do bad things unless they have an audience. Maybe like an invisible sky-daddy who is always watching them.



> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.


In many places around the world atheists are persecuted. Actually persecuted and not this pretend persecution that christians claim every christmas. Atheists are not here to recruit others. They are here to explain the why and what's of their non-beliefs.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Read your post and see how adult your post sounds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If there is something about my post you'd like to point out, then have the balls to do so and stop fawning for attention from your teammates. I know most of you must come here to get your ego stroked or to do some stroking of your own, but you could be less obvious about it.
> 
> My statement was that no civilization has existed without spirituality. I probably should have stated that no civilization has ever survived devoid of spirituality. In fact, I think I have also put it that way. I've tried as best I can to define my viewpoints so there is no misunderstanding by anyone as to what I am stating, but it seems there are people here who like to parse and pick until they find some minor detail to criticize.
> 
> Humans are spiritual. Every human civilization that has ever lasted more than 50 years or so, every society and culture as well, have included a spiritual element. If you can show me I am wrong about that, go to town! Let's see your list of examples that prove me wrong! Don't waste my time sitting here nitpicking over silly nonsense, trying to catch me in some kind of 'word faux pas.'
Click to expand...


I'm trying to muddy the water, yet you admit here that you made contradictory statements, which is exactly what I was pointing out to you.  Was that so difficult?

So you are saying that some civilizations have existed without spirituality, but not for long.  Which civilizations are those, are you talking about the beliefs of the people or the strictures of the state, and what is your evidence that they were no longer spiritual before their collapses?


----------



## Boss

> *Boss:* Obviously something existed that wasn't physical because physical things did not have a universe in which to exist or a time space.
> 
> the existence of something that could not physically exist.
> 
> something existed before the Big Bang, and we can be certain it wasn't physical because physical did not yet exist.
> 
> 
> 
> *Silly boob:* Why does it have to be a god? And are you 100% sure we can be certain about that boss? Provide the scientific proof that science is in agreement that we can be certain of this.
Click to expand...


I didn't say it had to be a god. I said it couldn't be physical because physical didn't exist yet. You need time and space for physical reality to exist and that wasn't here yet. We are certain that you need time and space for physical reality to exist because of e=mc2. So science is in agreement on this, we've known it for years.

So we know the universe began and will end, and we know that the universe expanding creates time or spacetime, which enables a physical reality perception to happen. Within this perception of physical reality, we have concocted "science" or the study of physical reality. Whenever we hear people demanding scientific explanations for the origin of the universe it is a bit like someone demanding their Excel document explain how their computer exists. It's beyond the capability of science, which only exists as part of a physical reality to study physical phenomenon. 

Now... back to the God question... I have repeatedly stated that I am not Christian, and I don't believe God is a "deity" in accordance to any organized religious doctrine. Whenever I use the word "God", and I often do, it is referencing what I believe is Spiritual Energy or Spiritual Nature. It is NOT something humanistic with human characteristics. It is not something definable by physical parameters. Some will mistakenly refer to this as "supernatural" but I don't believe it is because it is part of nature itself, it created physical nature. Sometimes I may even call God "He" but again, I don't believe God has gender or is even an individually-definable entity. For the sake of common parlance and to have conversations with others about God, I will replace what I actually believe with these kinds of terms, including "God."


----------



## daws101

GISMYS said:


> Mephisto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is correlated with better scientific literacy, lower poverty rates, higher literacy rates, higher average incomes, less violence, lower divorce rates, lower teen pregnancy rates, lower STD infection rates, lower crime rates and lower homicide rates. It correlates highly with the well-being of individuals and societies by almost every possible measure.
> 
> Studies on happiness outside of predominantly religious countries (eg. the United States) find little to no correlation between happiness and religious belief.
> 
> The only reason religious people are happier is the social bonding they get at church.  That and ignorance is bliss.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I grew up Catholic, wife grew up Luthern.  I did 12 years of CCD...have not stepped foot in a church for mass since our wedding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YES!!! SATAN IS A LIAR AN THE FATHER OF LIARD! and you??
Click to expand...

ah jiss...what's liard?


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> *Boss:* Obviously something existed that wasn't physical because physical things did not have a universe in which to exist or a time space.
> 
> the existence of something that could not physically exist.
> 
> something existed before the Big Bang, and we can be certain it wasn't physical because physical did not yet exist.
> 
> 
> 
> *Silly boob:* Why does it have to be a god? And are you 100% sure we can be certain about that boss? Provide the scientific proof that science is in agreement that we can be certain of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say it had to be a god. I said it couldn't be physical because physical didn't exist yet. You need time and space for physical reality to exist and that wasn't here yet. We are certain that you need time and space for physical reality to exist because of e=mc2. So science is in agreement on this, we've known it for years.
> 
> So we know the universe began and will end, and we know that the universe expanding creates time or spacetime, which enables a physical reality perception to happen. Within this perception of physical reality, we have concocted "science" or the study of physical reality. Whenever we hear people demanding scientific explanations for the origin of the universe it is a bit like someone demanding their Excel document explain how their computer exists. It's beyond the capability of science, which only exists as part of a physical reality to study physical phenomenon.
> 
> Now... back to the God question... I have repeatedly stated that I am not Christian, and I don't believe God is a "deity" in accordance to any organized religious doctrine. Whenever I use the word "God", and I often do, it is referencing what I believe is Spiritual Energy or Spiritual Nature. It is NOT something humanistic with human characteristics. It is not something definable by physical parameters. Some will mistakenly refer to this as "supernatural" but I don't believe it is because it is part of nature itself, it created physical nature. Sometimes I may even call God "He" but again, I don't believe God has gender or is even an individually-definable entity. For the sake of common parlance and to have conversations with others about God, I will replace what I actually believe with these kinds of terms, including "God."
Click to expand...


You have also stated that god CAN'T be part of nature because something physical can't create something physical.
You are a total train wreck, but you are utterly dependable.


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> Dracula was an 1897 novel by Bram Stoker, based loosely on 15th-century Romanian general and Wallachian Prince Vlad III the Impaler. So Dracula was never based on any human spiritual connection.
> 
> Now you've presented some examples of rulers, masters or nations which sought to use religion in order to control others. However, in virtually none of those cases was the religious belief originally established for that reason. If you'd like to pretend that is the case, then you're not very smart.
> 
> You can also argue that we'd all be better off without God, but you have no basis for that belief. There is certainly no proof to support your belief. When we believe in things without proof, what is that called?


bullshit vlad  was a Christian and by extension so was s Bram stokers Dracula.
stoker himself was a Christian the whole novel is crammed full of  Christian imagery.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Let me be more precise about abandoning God. Abandoning the one true God, not the many false gods that have been created by civilizations. The god of this system is not the one true God but the god satan who set up and use civilizations for his own evil agenda.


there is no evidence for one true god or many gods. you as always are speaking from self-imposed ignorance...


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> Dracula was an 1897 novel by Bram Stoker, based loosely on 15th-century Romanian general and Wallachian Prince Vlad III the Impaler. So Dracula was never based on any human spiritual connection.
> 
> Now you've presented some examples of rulers, masters or nations which sought to use religion in order to control others. However, in virtually none of those cases was the religious belief originally established for that reason. If you'd like to pretend that is the case, then you're not very smart.
> 
> You can also argue that we'd all be better off without God, but you have no basis for that belief. There is certainly no proof to support your belief. When we believe in things without proof, what is that called?



I showed you evidence we'd be better off without god:  Atheism is correlated with better scientific literacy, lower poverty rates, higher literacy rates, higher average incomes, less violence, lower divorce rates, lower teen pregnancy rates, lower STD infection rates, lower crime rates and lower homicide rates. It correlates highly with the well-being of individuals and societies by almost every possible measure.  Why there is no god

I also showed you that through millions of years of evolution, we instinctively looked up to authority figures including one when our parents were just eaten by polar bear.  That's why our ancestors came up with god.  They said "son, if/when we die, you can know that we'll be looking down on you from heaven and god is watching out for you".  We made it up so give it up.


----------



## daws101




----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> *Boss:* Obviously something existed that wasn't physical because physical things did not have a universe in which to exist or a time space.
> 
> the existence of something that could not physically exist.
> 
> something existed before the Big Bang, and we can be certain it wasn't physical because physical did not yet exist.
> 
> 
> 
> *Silly boob:* Why does it have to be a god? And are you 100% sure we can be certain about that boss? Provide the scientific proof that science is in agreement that we can be certain of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say it had to be a god. I said it couldn't be physical because physical didn't exist yet. You need time and space for physical reality to exist and that wasn't here yet. We are certain that you need time and space for physical reality to exist because of e=mc2. So science is in agreement on this, we've known it for years.
> 
> So we know the universe began and will end, and we know that the universe expanding creates time or spacetime, which enables a physical reality perception to happen. Within this perception of physical reality, we have concocted "science" or the study of physical reality. Whenever we hear people demanding scientific explanations for the origin of the universe it is a bit like someone demanding their Excel document explain how their computer exists. It's beyond the capability of science, which only exists as part of a physical reality to study physical phenomenon.
> 
> Now... back to the God question... I have repeatedly stated that I am not Christian, and I don't believe God is a "deity" in accordance to any organized religious doctrine. Whenever I use the word "God", and I often do, it is referencing what I believe is Spiritual Energy or Spiritual Nature. It is NOT something humanistic with human characteristics. It is not something definable by physical parameters. Some will mistakenly refer to this as "supernatural" but I don't believe it is because it is part of nature itself, it created physical nature. Sometimes I may even call God "He" but again, I don't believe God has gender or is even an individually-definable entity. For the sake of common parlance and to have conversations with others about God, I will replace what I actually believe with these kinds of terms, including "God."
Click to expand...


Redefining something as god tells us nothing. To use the word god implies a host of attributes (created man, cares about us, created the earth for us, is all knowing, all powerful intelligently designed this planet, etc.  

If you dont intend to apply those attributes, using the word is intentionally misleading.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.



Just in case I never said this before (it's a very long thread and I don't recall if I pointed this out) there are a number of regulars to the conspiracy theory forum that would strongly disagree with you.  They have claimed, on numerous occasions, that certain posters follow them around, hounding them, insulting them, and telling them their conspiracy theories are wrong.


----------



## daws101

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just in case I never said this before (it's a very long thread and I don't recall if I pointed this out) there are a number of regulars to the conspiracy theory forum that would strongly disagree with you.  They have claimed, on numerous occasions, that certain posters follow them around, hounding them, insulting them, and telling them their conspiracy theories are wrong.
Click to expand...

not to worry, bossy likes all the attention.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but nope... not wrong. There could be no physical object before the Big Bang created the time space for a physical object to exist. Physical is a state which requires time to exist. Without time, nothing physical can exist or be real because there is no physical reality.
> 
> Nothing had to create God. Creation is something which applies to physical things. The spiritual isn't created, it doesn't exist physically so there is no need for it to be created. You're trying to apply physical standards to something spiritual and when I correct your error, you're screaming "special dispensation!" Your brain is unable to comprehend something beyond physical nature, even though you should rationally know that something must have created physical nature and it couldn't be physical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're not paying attention. Obviously something existed before the Big Bang and that _something_ was a singularity.
> 
> And as expected, you continue to require special pleadings for your gods because you feel that supernaturalism and magic are except from the standards of reason and rationality.
> 
> As usual, boss has to invoke "special dispensations" for his argument -- i.e., one must assume as true the point that boss is trying to make, which is there is a supernatural cause behind all of this, to support the assertion that there is a supernatural cause behind all of this. Once again, begging the question already destroys the argument, because one must demonstrate the existence of the supernatural before one can appeal to it to supply a rationale for something to be in effect.
> 
> But hey, boss, why let facts and evidence cloud your decision making.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously something existed that wasn't physical because physical things did not have a universe in which to exist or a time space. You keep yammering about "singularity" like you know what you're talking about, but you are an ignoramus. Singularity theorem posits the Big Bang *began* as singularity. This did not exist *before* the Big Bang, nor has it ever been theorized by any source I am familiar with. The correct answer from a science perspective is, we don't know what existed *before* the Big Bang because science can only deal with physical nature, which didn't yet exist. What we know is, whatever existed couldn't be physical.
> 
> It's just a little cray-cray to be asking me to demonstrate the physical existence of something that could not physically exist. As you said, it's obvious something existed before the Big Bang, and we can be certain it wasn't physical because physical did not yet exist.
Click to expand...


Why is it you insist "something existed that wasn't physical because physical things did not have a universe in which to exist or a time space."

I understand you want to posit your gawds were the "something existed that wasn't physical", but you've made no case for that.


----------



## daws101

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're not paying attention. Obviously something existed before the Big Bang and that _something_ was a singularity.
> 
> And as expected, you continue to require special pleadings for your gods because you feel that supernaturalism and magic are except from the standards of reason and rationality.
> 
> As usual, boss has to invoke "special dispensations" for his argument -- i.e., one must assume as true the point that boss is trying to make, which is there is a supernatural cause behind all of this, to support the assertion that there is a supernatural cause behind all of this. Once again, begging the question already destroys the argument, because one must demonstrate the existence of the supernatural before one can appeal to it to supply a rationale for something to be in effect.
> 
> But hey, boss, why let facts and evidence cloud your decision making.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously something existed that wasn't physical because physical things did not have a universe in which to exist or a time space. You keep yammering about "singularity" like you know what you're talking about, but you are an ignoramus. Singularity theorem posits the Big Bang *began* as singularity. This did not exist *before* the Big Bang, nor has it ever been theorized by any source I am familiar with. The correct answer from a science perspective is, we don't know what existed *before* the Big Bang because science can only deal with physical nature, which didn't yet exist. What we know is, whatever existed couldn't be physical.
> 
> It's just a little cray-cray to be asking me to demonstrate the physical existence of something that could not physically exist. As you said, it's obvious something existed before the Big Bang, and we can be certain it wasn't physical because physical did not yet exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is it you insist "something existed that wasn't physical because physical things did not have a universe in which to exist or a time space."
> 
> I understand you want to posit your gawds were the "something existed that wasn't physical", but you've made no case for that.
Click to expand...

bossy has a hard time with concepts like every thing has a physical component ..


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me be more precise about abandoning God. Abandoning the one true God, not the many false gods that have been created by civilizations. The god of this system is not the one true God but the god satan who set up and use civilizations for his own evil agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> there is no evidence for one true god or many gods. you as always are speaking from self-imposed ignorance...
Click to expand...


You say self imposed ignorance when you have no explanation as to how life came in to existence.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Daws by the way were you banned or did you finally pay your internet bill ?


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me be more precise about abandoning God. Abandoning the one true God, not the many false gods that have been created by civilizations. The god of this system is not the one true God but the god satan who set up and use civilizations for his own evil agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> there is no evidence for one true god or many gods. you as always are speaking from self-imposed ignorance...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You say self imposed ignorance when you have no explanation as to how life came in to existence.
Click to expand...

false! I and many others have explained  it to you. 

Atheists don't define themselves by having answers to this question, so why ask. 
 Mainstream science is the body of knowledge that addresses such questions, however there are no conclusive answers to this question currently. 

 Mainstream science makes NO CLAIMS about where life originated, indeed it makes no claims about anything, as it only describes the natural world. However what it does describe is VERIFIABLE.. 

 Offering a "god of the gaps" argument where the scientific knowledge is as yet undiscovered is the argument of an infantile intellect and wilful scientific illiteracy, however these gaps are shrinking daily as science marches ever forward, leaving behind your stagnant bronze age religious dogmas where they belong, in ancient history.. 

Only you thumpers have an explanation and it's false....

  Your argument is scientifically illiterate, ill informed, infantile and dishonest.


----------



## sealybobo

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me be more precise about abandoning God. Abandoning the one true God, not the many false gods that have been created by civilizations. The god of this system is not the one true God but the god satan who set up and use civilizations for his own evil agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> there is no evidence for one true god or many gods. you as always are speaking from self-imposed ignorance...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You say self imposed ignorance when you have no explanation as to how life came in to existence.
Click to expand...


We may not know how it started but we know how life here on earth started and when.  Science figured it out.  Until science we thought god waved his hand and built the earth first and the sun revolved around the earth and the earth was flat and...

Basically we came up with god when we didn't know shit.  

What we do know is the adam and eve, noah, mosus and Jesus stories are not to be taken literally but that's exactly what people do.  Silly don't you think?


----------



## Boss

> I showed you evidence we'd be better off without god: Atheism is correlated with better scientific literacy, lower poverty rates, higher literacy rates, higher average incomes, less violence, lower divorce rates, lower teen pregnancy rates, lower STD infection rates, lower crime rates and lower homicide rates.



Uhm... no, you showed me some stats from countries with a supposedly high number of Atheists among the population. They were still predominately spiritual nations. You can't claim a nation is "Atheist" because 20% of the people claim to be atheist. Until you have a majority Atheist nation to cite, you should just keep your mouth closed and not make such bold claims.


----------



## Boss

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're not paying attention. Obviously something existed before the Big Bang and that _something_ was a singularity.
> 
> And as expected, you continue to require special pleadings for your gods because you feel that supernaturalism and magic are except from the standards of reason and rationality.
> 
> As usual, boss has to invoke "special dispensations" for his argument -- i.e., one must assume as true the point that boss is trying to make, which is there is a supernatural cause behind all of this, to support the assertion that there is a supernatural cause behind all of this. Once again, begging the question already destroys the argument, because one must demonstrate the existence of the supernatural before one can appeal to it to supply a rationale for something to be in effect.
> 
> But hey, boss, why let facts and evidence cloud your decision making.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously something existed that wasn't physical because physical things did not have a universe in which to exist or a time space. You keep yammering about "singularity" like you know what you're talking about, but you are an ignoramus. Singularity theorem posits the Big Bang *began* as singularity. This did not exist *before* the Big Bang, nor has it ever been theorized by any source I am familiar with. The correct answer from a science perspective is, we don't know what existed *before* the Big Bang because science can only deal with physical nature, which didn't yet exist. What we know is, whatever existed couldn't be physical.
> 
> It's just a little cray-cray to be asking me to demonstrate the physical existence of something that could not physically exist. As you said, it's obvious something existed before the Big Bang, and we can be certain it wasn't physical because physical did not yet exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is it you insist "something existed that wasn't physical because physical things did not have a universe in which to exist or a time space."
> 
> I understand you want to posit your gawds were the "something existed that wasn't physical", but you've made no case for that.
Click to expand...


Well because we know what creates physical reality is time and space for physical reality to exist, and we know this is created by the universe expanding because of e=mc2. Before the universe began expanding, there was no physical existence of any kind, it's impossible. If there was no physical nature, the only force which could have created the universe is spiritual. Unless there is some force even greater than spiritual nature that we don't know about yet.... that's also a possibility. What is not possible is for physical nature to create itself.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously something existed that wasn't physical because physical things did not have a universe in which to exist or a time space. You keep yammering about "singularity" like you know what you're talking about, but you are an ignoramus. Singularity theorem posits the Big Bang *began* as singularity. This did not exist *before* the Big Bang, nor has it ever been theorized by any source I am familiar with. The correct answer from a science perspective is, we don't know what existed *before* the Big Bang because science can only deal with physical nature, which didn't yet exist. What we know is, whatever existed couldn't be physical.
> 
> It's just a little cray-cray to be asking me to demonstrate the physical existence of something that could not physically exist. As you said, it's obvious something existed before the Big Bang, and we can be certain it wasn't physical because physical did not yet exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it you insist "something existed that wasn't physical because physical things did not have a universe in which to exist or a time space."
> 
> I understand you want to posit your gawds were the "something existed that wasn't physical", but you've made no case for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well because we know what creates physical reality is time and space for physical reality to exist, and we know this is created by the universe expanding because of e=mc2. Before the universe began expanding, there was no physical existence of any kind, it's impossible. If there was no physical nature, the only force which could have created the universe is spiritual. Unless there is some force even greater than spiritual nature that we don't know about yet.... that's also a possibility. What is not possible is for physical nature to create itself.
Click to expand...


My understanding is that the Big Bang theory posits the universe coming from a singularity, something with infinite density but zero volume.  I don't recall seeing that the singularity is not supposed to be physical; all the laws of physics, particularly relativity, may not apply, but that doesn't necessarily equate to a non-physical existence.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is no evidence for one true god or many gods. you as always are speaking from self-imposed ignorance...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say self imposed ignorance when you have no explanation as to how life came in to existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> false! I and many others have explained  it to you.
> 
> Atheists don't define themselves by having answers to this question, so why ask.
> Mainstream science is the body of knowledge that addresses such questions, however there are no conclusive answers to this question currently.
> 
> Mainstream science makes NO CLAIMS about where life originated, indeed it makes no claims about anything, as it only describes the natural world. However what it does describe is VERIFIABLE..
> 
> Offering a "god of the gaps" argument where the scientific knowledge is as yet undiscovered is the argument of an infantile intellect and wilful scientific illiteracy, however these gaps are shrinking daily as science marches ever forward, leaving behind your stagnant bronze age religious dogmas where they belong, in ancient history..
> 
> Only you thumpers have an explanation and it's false....
> 
> Your argument is scientifically illiterate, ill informed, infantile and dishonest.
Click to expand...


But daws you say my views are based on self imposed ignorance. I can assume because looking at nature that the evidence shows deliberate design to everything's existence but you on the other hand, want to think no designer was needed defying known laws and have no clue as how we came in to existence,ignoring the mathematical impossibility that a non-directed natural process produced all we see and giving us everything from protection mechanisms,a brain to reason,the organs and everything else required for life.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You say self imposed ignorance when you have no explanation as to how life came in to existence.
> 
> 
> 
> false! I and many others have explained  it to you.
> 
> Atheists don't define themselves by having answers to this question, so why ask.
> Mainstream science is the body of knowledge that addresses such questions, however there are no conclusive answers to this question currently.
> 
> Mainstream science makes NO CLAIMS about where life originated, indeed it makes no claims about anything, as it only describes the natural world. However what it does describe is VERIFIABLE..
> 
> Offering a "god of the gaps" argument where the scientific knowledge is as yet undiscovered is the argument of an infantile intellect and wilful scientific illiteracy, however these gaps are shrinking daily as science marches ever forward, leaving behind your stagnant bronze age religious dogmas where they belong, in ancient history..
> 
> Only you thumpers have an explanation and it's false....
> 
> Your argument is scientifically illiterate, ill informed, infantile and dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But daws you say my views are based on self imposed ignorance. I can assume because looking at nature that the evidence shows deliberate design to everything's existence but you on the other hand, want to think no designer was needed defying known laws and have no clue as how we came in to existence,ignoring the mathematical impossibility that a non-directed natural process produced all we see and giving us everything from protection mechanisms,a brain to reason,the organs and everything else required for life.
Click to expand...


Just plain ignorance at its worst. 

1. There is no evidence that shows design in nature. 

2. There no such thing as a "mathematical impossibility that a non-directed natural process ..."

Posting these absurdities you steal from Harun Yahya is a waste of bandwidth.


----------



## HUGGY

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously something existed that wasn't physical because physical things did not have a universe in which to exist or a time space. You keep yammering about "singularity" like you know what you're talking about, but you are an ignoramus. Singularity theorem posits the Big Bang *began* as singularity. This did not exist *before* the Big Bang, nor has it ever been theorized by any source I am familiar with. The correct answer from a science perspective is, we don't know what existed *before* the Big Bang because science can only deal with physical nature, which didn't yet exist. What we know is, whatever existed couldn't be physical.
> 
> It's just a little cray-cray to be asking me to demonstrate the physical existence of something that could not physically exist. As you said, it's obvious something existed before the Big Bang, and we can be certain it wasn't physical because physical did not yet exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it you insist "something existed that wasn't physical because physical things did not have a universe in which to exist or a time space."
> 
> I understand you want to posit your gawds were the "something existed that wasn't physical", but you've made no case for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well because we know what creates physical reality is time and space for physical reality to exist, and we know this is created by the universe expanding because of e=mc2. Before the universe began expanding, there was no physical existence of any kind, it's impossible. If there was no physical nature, *the only force which could have created the universe is spiritual*. Unless there is some force even greater than spiritual nature that we don't know about yet.... that's also a possibility. What is not possible is for physical nature to create itself.
Click to expand...


That is a silly statement.  You persist in throwing the term "create" around like everything came from nothing.  Worse... you add in some spiritual element from whence this nothing was assembled like a cosmic clock maker was seperate from the nothingness and allowed/demanded all the stuff of the universe to spring forth... with the apparent motive to build a home for homo sapiens.  

One one the many problems with your theory is that creation begets creation in an endless cycle of chicken and egg demanding an answer to the inevitable questions as to where did your god/spirit come from and the creator of that god/spirit and on and on... 

Glib statements about WHEN time started don't help your theory.  We don't know when the clock started.  We may have theories about WHEN this universe's clock started but obviously there was something that existed to have evolved into a big bang.  

What we do know about matter is that the cosmos is almost entirely made up of nearly infinite space between particles and removing all of the space explains the size of the cosmos before the great expansion and apparent volume we see at this point in the configuration of matter.

From what we DO know by observing some parts of the universe, specifically black holes, a lot of "stuff" can be condensed into relatively small places.  That doesn't mean the stuff swallowed into a black hole is GONE or has evaporated into nothingness requiring some magical creature to come along and make the stuff squished into a black hole into something you would recognise.

It might be helpfull to keep in mind that we are limited beings.  It isn't so much that your estimated power of spirituality is great but in truth OUR powers are weak.  

Revisiting my example of the black hole why isn't it more probable that in a previous incarnation of OUR universe we can speculate that black holes ate everything until there was nothing left but one super black hole with nothing left to devour and at the point of singularity and all the space was gone the whole shebang reversed AKA the Big Bang and the spaces between the particles was again formed in the expansion and so on and so forth until once again the expansion reaches a point of reversal and eventually all the particles are crushed into a small ball and the proccess continues.

What I find more believable than a creator is getting over the concept of a start and an end to the universe.  This whole idea of a creator is juvenile.  It is purely a human need.  All life "creates" offspring so OBVIOUSLY EVERYTHING MUST be modeled after our example of procreation.

Poppycock.


----------



## sealybobo

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You say self imposed ignorance when you have no explanation as to how life came in to existence.
> 
> 
> 
> false! I and many others have explained  it to you.
> 
> Atheists don't define themselves by having answers to this question, so why ask.
> Mainstream science is the body of knowledge that addresses such questions, however there are no conclusive answers to this question currently.
> 
> Mainstream science makes NO CLAIMS about where life originated, indeed it makes no claims about anything, as it only describes the natural world. However what it does describe is VERIFIABLE..
> 
> Offering a "god of the gaps" argument where the scientific knowledge is as yet undiscovered is the argument of an infantile intellect and wilful scientific illiteracy, however these gaps are shrinking daily as science marches ever forward, leaving behind your stagnant bronze age religious dogmas where they belong, in ancient history..
> 
> Only you thumpers have an explanation and it's false....
> 
> Your argument is scientifically illiterate, ill informed, infantile and dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But daws you say my views are based on self imposed ignorance. I can assume because looking at nature that the evidence shows deliberate design to everything's existence but you on the other hand, want to think no designer was needed defying known laws and have no clue as how we came in to existence,ignoring the mathematical impossibility that a non-directed natural process produced all we see and giving us everything from protection mechanisms,a brain to reason,the organs and everything else required for life.
Click to expand...


Atheists/scientists who also happen to be scientists have debated this issue and what you are saying may make sense in your own head but whatever you just said is not proof of a god.  

The First Cause Argument, or Cosmological Argument, is internally contradictory and raises the following questions: Who or what created god?, Why should a hypothetical cause have any of the common attributes of a god?, Why is the cause a specific god?, Why cant the universe be causeless too? and, most importantly, Why rule out all other possible explanations?

It is fundamentally a god of the gaps approach. Our current lack of understanding concerning the Universes origins does not automatically mean god holds any explanatory value. Metaphysical and theistic speculation are not justified or correct simply because we lack a comprehensive scientific model. Uncertainty is the most valid position and one can honestly say We just dont know yet.

I can see Boss doing a bong hit and being so sure his theory is correct and you know what?  It might be.  He might actually be right.  How many great minds were laughed at and doubted until one day, long after they died someone proves their theory right.  

Then he'll be able to rest in piece.  Actually it does him no good when he's dead.  He's not a ghost like Patrick Swazy.  He's not an angel watching from heaven.  He's actually rotting in pieces in the earth.  Ashes to ashes, dust to dust.  It's life.  Enjoy it while you can.  You only live once, PROBABLY.  But to tell me to believe in the Jesus cult made up by 11 guys or go to hell?


----------



## sealybobo

I want to start a thread that gets the All you have to do is believe in Jesus Christians arguing with the you'll go to hell if you are gay or jack off Christians.

Or get the people who take the bible literally arguing with the ones that don't.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.



Lets start over, from the beginning.  Let me see if Boss has evolved at all.  Oh, it looks like he has.  This post says Boss believes if you don't believe you'll go to hell.  He said it himself.  Now today he claims not to be a christian but still someone, without any proof still believes there must be a god.  Despite all the people who have tried to explain it to him that he is just putting god in place of where he should be saying I DON'T KNOW.  Instead he argues he knows it must be god.  And what proof does he have?  Our ignorant unevolved primative superstitious ancestors made it up.  Because those apes believed in/made up god, that is his solid Parry Mason PROOF of god.  

But at least he's no longer talking like Gismys.  When he started this that was his position.  Says it right above.  

And it seems you are the one playing it safe.  You would feel too much guilt/shame saying out loud THERE IS NO GOD.  I take all emotion out of it when I am trying to figure out what is real and what is not.  You need to be able to do that.  Look at the facts.  There probably is no god.  99.999%  But who knows so I'm an agnostic atheist.  I don't know everything but I do know man probably made up god, not the other way around.  Deal with it.

Also, you said true atheists have no reason???  Are you fucking kidding me you stupid little bitch?  Didn't you see recently that American's would rather vote for a cheating pot smoker than they would an atheist?  I believe people who have been long time atheists have just figured why bother.  But I think differently.  I think a little push in the right direction might help speed up the process.  Religion ='s Ignorance.  I know you think it does a lot of good but we can do better without it.  I'm agnostic about that comment too actually.  I believe that is right but who knows.  Would society break down into lawlessness without Jesus or Mohammad?  Somehow I doubt it.  The rich use religion to keep the poor and middle class down.  Without it we'll all do better.  Look at how Jesus George Bush fucked up.  Now look at how put your cigar up Monica's pussy Bill did.  God didn't help poor george, but he did speak to him.  Remember?


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously something existed that wasn't physical because physical things did not have a universe in which to exist or a time space. You keep yammering about "singularity" like you know what you're talking about, but you are an ignoramus. Singularity theorem posits the Big Bang *began* as singularity. This did not exist *before* the Big Bang, nor has it ever been theorized by any source I am familiar with. The correct answer from a science perspective is, we don't know what existed *before* the Big Bang because science can only deal with physical nature, which didn't yet exist. What we know is, whatever existed couldn't be physical.
> 
> It's just a little cray-cray to be asking me to demonstrate the physical existence of something that could not physically exist. As you said, it's obvious something existed before the Big Bang, and we can be certain it wasn't physical because physical did not yet exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it you insist "something existed that wasn't physical because physical things did not have a universe in which to exist or a time space."
> 
> I understand you want to posit your gawds were the "something existed that wasn't physical", but you've made no case for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well because we know what creates physical reality is time and space for physical reality to exist, and we know this is created by the universe expanding because of e=mc2. Before the universe began expanding, there was no physical existence of any kind, it's impossible. If there was no physical nature, the only force which could have created the universe is spiritual. Unless there is some force even greater than spiritual nature that we don't know about yet.... that's also a possibility. What is not possible is for physical nature to create itself.
Click to expand...


Yet, you grant special dispensation to your gods for creating themselves,  (an endless hierarchy of super gods creating subordinate gods),  or your gods get a special dispensation for being created by nothing.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> I showed you evidence we'd be better off without god: Atheism is correlated with better scientific literacy, lower poverty rates, higher literacy rates, higher average incomes, less violence, lower divorce rates, lower teen pregnancy rates, lower STD infection rates, lower crime rates and lower homicide rates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uhm... no, you showed me some stats from countries with a supposedly high number of Atheists among the population. They were still predominately spiritual nations. You can't claim a nation is "Atheist" because 20% of the people claim to be atheist. Until you have a majority Atheist nation to cite, you should just keep your mouth closed and not make such bold claims.
Click to expand...


Yea but countries with less religion do better than countries with more religion.  That's the only point I tried to make here.  

PS.  I want to add to my comment on your insane original post.  First off let me say based on the original post, you think no different than Gismys.  The only difference is she doesn't deny jesus like you.  You seem to think that is ok but denying any god will send you to hell.  So to you Muslims and Jews are Mormons are all safe.  Got it.  Retard.  

Come on boss.  We fear god?  Really?  You think I'd fuck with a god if I thought for a minute there was one?  Even if there is one, he isn't watching you.  That's man's ego/arrogance nothing more.  Made in our image.  HA!  

We are afraid god will become bigger.  You are right there.  We think god keeps poor and stupid people down.  That's why the kings and pharohs used it and that's why the GOP uses it today.  Keep god out of government please.  Make room for atheist senators and one day a president who doesn't believe in fairy tales.  And notice we don't scream this to you at the office.  Seems the only place we can vent is USMB.  God bless the internet.    

You said "Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices."  So not true.  I'm a good guy, don't steal, cheat, lie any more or less than any christian or muslim.  And I certainly don't do bad things and just want to believe that there are no consequences because I believe in Karma.  I don't worry about being punished in the afterlife.  I worry about being paid back now in this life.  I don't need a god or big brother watching over me 24/7.  Do you?  

Know why we stopped believing in gods?  First of all, we grew up.  Second of all, just look at you people who believe in god.  You're so ignorant/fucked up. 

Yes we are trying to recruit just like your cults do.  Are you afraid of us?  And we are not mad.  We are just passionate.  It took a passionate atheist to wake me up.  After 42 years of being brainwashed it wasn't easy but My Eyes Have Seen The GLORY of the fact there is no lord.


----------



## Uncensored2008

sealybobo said:


> \We may not know how it started but we know how life here on earth started and when.  Science figured it out.  Until science we thought god waved his hand and built the earth first and the sun revolved around the earth and the earth was flat and...
> 
> Basically we came up with god when we didn't know shit.
> 
> What we do know is the adam and eve, noah, mosus and Jesus stories are not to be taken literally but that's exactly what people do.  Silly don't you think?



SillyBonobo, you have less grasp of biology than the average 4th grader, and you have zero grasp of the scientific method. You think the mindless shit you read on the hate sites is a substitute for actual knowledge - it isn't.

No, we don't know how life on Earth started. There are dozens of competing hypotheses regarding it, ranging from the ever popular primordial soup, to the also popular hitch hiking microbes (where microbes on an asteroid that crashed into the planet are the basis of life) and every point in between.  We have a solid gauge of age or the Earth due to radio decay, but life is far more tricky, we are at best in a range of a hundred million years for when life started.

In short, you are as ever, ignorant, uneducated, and talking shit you don't know anything about.


----------



## sealybobo

Uncensored2008 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> \We may not know how it started but we know how life here on earth started and when.  Science figured it out.  Until science we thought god waved his hand and built the earth first and the sun revolved around the earth and the earth was flat and...
> 
> Basically we came up with god when we didn't know shit.
> 
> What we do know is the adam and eve, noah, mosus and Jesus stories are not to be taken literally but that's exactly what people do.  Silly don't you think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SillyBonobo, you have less grasp of biology than the average 4th grader, and you have zero grasp of the scientific method. You think the mindless shit you read on the hate sites is a substitute for actual knowledge - it isn't.
> 
> No, we don't know how life on Earth started. There are dozens of competing hypotheses regarding it, ranging from the ever popular primordial soup, to the also popular hitch hiking microbes (where microbes on an asteroid that crashed into the planet are the basis of life) and every point in between.  We have a solid gauge of age or the Earth due to radio decay, but life is far more tricky, we are at best in a range of a hundred million years for when life started.
> 
> In short, you are as ever, ignorant, uneducated, and talking shit you don't know anything about.
Click to expand...


Wow that's a great point.  We don't know what started the big bang and we don't know for sure how life started here on earth.  Scientists thank god have a few good theories.  It certainly wasn't a god and wasn't done in 7 days, right?


----------



## BreezeWood

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You say self imposed ignorance when you have no explanation as to how life came in to existence.
> 
> 
> 
> false! I and many others have explained  it to you.
> 
> Atheists don't define themselves by having answers to this question, so why ask.
> Mainstream science is the body of knowledge that addresses such questions, however there are no conclusive answers to this question currently.
> 
> Mainstream science makes NO CLAIMS about where life originated, indeed it makes no claims about anything, as it only describes the natural world. However what it does describe is VERIFIABLE..
> 
> Offering a "god of the gaps" argument where the scientific knowledge is as yet undiscovered is the argument of an infantile intellect and wilful scientific illiteracy, however these gaps are shrinking daily as science marches ever forward, leaving behind your stagnant bronze age religious dogmas where they belong, in ancient history..
> 
> Only you thumpers have an explanation and it's false....
> 
> Your argument is scientifically illiterate, ill informed, infantile and dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But daws you say my views are based on self imposed ignorance.* I can assume because looking at nature that the evidence shows deliberate design to everything's existence* but you on the other hand, want to think no designer was needed defying known laws and have no clue as how we came in to existence,ignoring the mathematical impossibility that a non-directed natural process produced all we see and giving us everything from protection mechanisms,a brain to reason,the organs and everything else required for life.
Click to expand...



*YWC: I can assume because looking at nature that the evidence shows deliberate design to everything's existence ...*


not everything, only nature demonstrates design and besides nature what else on any heavenly body displays evidence of design - nothing. most planets are lifeless with vast expanses without even simple shapes.

if it were not the forces of the Everlasting responsible for biological life why hasn't the Deity built any other structures to demonstrate the same design capabilities if for no other reason than to show variety in workmanship ? 

show us what else (your) Biblical God has designed on any heavenly body to demonstrate his capabilities or presence.

.


----------



## sealybobo

Uncensored2008 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> \We may not know how it started but we know how life here on earth started and when.  Science figured it out.  Until science we thought god waved his hand and built the earth first and the sun revolved around the earth and the earth was flat and...
> 
> Basically we came up with god when we didn't know shit.
> 
> What we do know is the adam and eve, noah, mosus and Jesus stories are not to be taken literally but that's exactly what people do.  Silly don't you think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SillyBonobo, you have less grasp of biology than the average 4th grader, and you have zero grasp of the scientific method. You think the mindless shit you read on the hate sites is a substitute for actual knowledge - it isn't.
> 
> No, we don't know how life on Earth started. There are dozens of competing hypotheses regarding it, ranging from the ever popular primordial soup, to the also popular hitch hiking microbes (where microbes on an asteroid that crashed into the planet are the basis of life) and every point in between.  We have a solid gauge of age or the Earth due to radio decay, but life is far more tricky, we are at best in a range of a hundred million years for when life started.
> 
> In short, you are as ever, ignorant, uneducated, and talking shit you don't know anything about.
Click to expand...


This is what I meant:  Recognize that the very molecules that make up your body, the atoms that construct the molecules, are traceable to the crucibles that were once the centers of high mass stars that exploded their chemically rich guts into the galaxy, enriching pristine gas clouds with the chemistry of life. So that we are all connected to each other biologically, to the earth chemically and to the rest of the universe atomically. Thats kinda cool! That makes me smile and I actually feel quite large at the end of that. Its not that we are better than the universe, we are part of the universe. We are in the universe and the universe is in us.
&#8213; Neil deGrasse Tyson


----------



## sealybobo

Uncensored2008 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> \We may not know how it started but we know how life here on earth started and when.  Science figured it out.  Until science we thought god waved his hand and built the earth first and the sun revolved around the earth and the earth was flat and...
> 
> Basically we came up with god when we didn't know shit.
> 
> What we do know is the adam and eve, noah, mosus and Jesus stories are not to be taken literally but that's exactly what people do.  Silly don't you think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SillyBonobo, you have less grasp of biology than the average 4th grader, and you have zero grasp of the scientific method. You think the mindless shit you read on the hate sites is a substitute for actual knowledge - it isn't.
> 
> No, we don't know how life on Earth started. There are dozens of competing hypotheses regarding it, ranging from the ever popular primordial soup, to the also popular hitch hiking microbes (where microbes on an asteroid that crashed into the planet are the basis of life) and every point in between.  We have a solid gauge of age or the Earth due to radio decay, but life is far more tricky, we are at best in a range of a hundred million years for when life started.
> 
> In short, you are as ever, ignorant, uneducated, and talking shit you don't know anything about.
Click to expand...


The knowledge that the atoms that comprise life on earth - the atoms that make up the human body, are traceable to the crucibles that cooked light elements into heavy elements in their core under extreme temperatures and pressures. These stars- the high mass ones among them- went unstable in their later years- they collapsed and then exploded- scattering their enriched guts across the galaxy- guts made of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and all the fundamental ingredients of life itself. These ingredients become part of gas clouds that condense, collapse, form the next generation of solar systems- stars with orbiting planets. And those planets now have the ingredients for life itself. So that when I look up at the night sky, and I know that yes we are part of this universe, we are in this universe, but perhaps more important than both of those facts is that the universe is in us. When I reflect on that fact, I look up- many people feel small, cause their small and the universe is big. But I feel big because my atoms came from those stars.
&#8213; Neil deGrasse Tyson


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it you insist "something existed that wasn't physical because physical things did not have a universe in which to exist or a time space."
> 
> I understand you want to posit your gawds were the "something existed that wasn't physical", but you've made no case for that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well because we know what creates physical reality is time and space for physical reality to exist, and we know this is created by the universe expanding because of e=mc2. Before the universe began expanding, there was no physical existence of any kind, it's impossible. If there was no physical nature, the only force which could have created the universe is spiritual. Unless there is some force even greater than spiritual nature that we don't know about yet.... that's also a possibility. What is not possible is for physical nature to create itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My understanding is that the Big Bang theory posits the universe coming from a singularity, something with infinite density but zero volume.  I don't recall seeing that the singularity is not supposed to be physical; all the laws of physics, particularly relativity, may not apply, but that doesn't necessarily equate to a non-physical existence.
Click to expand...


You've read the universe came from a Big Bang which *began* with singularity. What was *before* the Big Bang is not known. If the laws of physics do not exist, then "physical" does not exist. That's what "physical" means, in essence. For "physical" to exist, you must have time created by the expanding universe, which obviously didn't exist before the Big Bang. So, no time or physical reality for physical to exist. What does that leave? 

Now there can be all kinds of theories and opinions, we don't really know for certain.... but we do know it couldn't have been something physical because physical didn't exist. Those who completely reject spiritual nature have no answer to the question and never will. Those who believe in only physical nature, can't wrap their minds around the question and never will. Something non-physical caused the universe to happen, there is no other explanation.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> I showed you evidence we'd be better off without god: Atheism is correlated with better scientific literacy, lower poverty rates, higher literacy rates, higher average incomes, less violence, lower divorce rates, lower teen pregnancy rates, lower STD infection rates, lower crime rates and lower homicide rates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uhm... no, you showed me some stats from countries with a supposedly high number of Atheists among the population. They were still predominately spiritual nations. You can't claim a nation is "Atheist" because 20% of the people claim to be atheist. Until you have a majority Atheist nation to cite, you should just keep your mouth closed and not make such bold claims.
Click to expand...


I'll type slow so I don't lose you.  Societies with higher number of atheists are better than societies where the masses are all religious.  Saudi Arabia, Yemen, the Sudan, India, Mexico all shit holes with the masses being very religious.  Places like Europe or in cities in the USA where liberals, scientists and atheists collect great things happen.  Cures for sicknesses praying won't help, equal rights, civil rights, labor laws, higher wages, etc all where we hang out.  We don't believe we should just cope and take it and wait for the after life and heaven.  That's a joke.  

Think of the deep red neck hick stupid south.  Very religious.  No smart scientific math philosophical thinkers coming out of the south but you do have a lot of religious poor people who go to church at churches that were built by slave plantation owners who used religion to keep the blacks in line.  Poor inner city blacks in America are very religious.  What is it they know that I don't know?  They don't know shit.  They are brainwashed dumb sheep.  The masses.  Yea, that's what I think about the masses.  Please jesus come and take them away!!!


----------



## sealybobo

BreezeWood said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> false! I and many others have explained  it to you.
> 
> Atheists don't define themselves by having answers to this question, so why ask.
> Mainstream science is the body of knowledge that addresses such questions, however there are no conclusive answers to this question currently.
> 
> Mainstream science makes NO CLAIMS about where life originated, indeed it makes no claims about anything, as it only describes the natural world. However what it does describe is VERIFIABLE..
> 
> Offering a "god of the gaps" argument where the scientific knowledge is as yet undiscovered is the argument of an infantile intellect and wilful scientific illiteracy, however these gaps are shrinking daily as science marches ever forward, leaving behind your stagnant bronze age religious dogmas where they belong, in ancient history..
> 
> Only you thumpers have an explanation and it's false....
> 
> Your argument is scientifically illiterate, ill informed, infantile and dishonest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But daws you say my views are based on self imposed ignorance.* I can assume because looking at nature that the evidence shows deliberate design to everything's existence* but you on the other hand, want to think no designer was needed defying known laws and have no clue as how we came in to existence,ignoring the mathematical impossibility that a non-directed natural process produced all we see and giving us everything from protection mechanisms,a brain to reason,the organs and everything else required for life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *YWC: I can assume because looking at nature that the evidence shows deliberate design to everything's existence ...*
> 
> 
> not everything, only nature demonstrates design and besides nature what else on any heavenly body displays evidence of design - nothing. most planets are lifeless with vast expanses without even simple shapes.
> 
> if it were not the forces of the Everlasting responsible for biological life why hasn't the Deity built any other structures to demonstrate the same design capabilities if for no other reason than to show variety in workmanship ?
> 
> show us what else (your) Biblical God has designed on any heavenly body to demonstrate his capabilities or presence.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Yea


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You say self imposed ignorance when you have no explanation as to how life came in to existence.
> 
> 
> 
> false! I and many others have explained  it to you.
> 
> Atheists don't define themselves by having answers to this question, so why ask.
> Mainstream science is the body of knowledge that addresses such questions, however there are no conclusive answers to this question currently.
> 
> Mainstream science makes NO CLAIMS about where life originated, indeed it makes no claims about anything, as it only describes the natural world. However what it does describe is VERIFIABLE..
> 
> Offering a "god of the gaps" argument where the scientific knowledge is as yet undiscovered is the argument of an infantile intellect and wilful scientific illiteracy, however these gaps are shrinking daily as science marches ever forward, leaving behind your stagnant bronze age religious dogmas where they belong, in ancient history..
> 
> Only you thumpers have an explanation and it's false....
> 
> Your argument is scientifically illiterate, ill informed, infantile and dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But daws you say my views are based on self imposed ignorance. I can assume because looking at nature that the evidence shows deliberate design to everything's existence but you on the other hand, want to think no designer was needed defying known laws and have no clue as how we came in to existence,ignoring the mathematical impossibility that a non-directed natural process produced all we see and giving us everything from protection mechanisms,a brain to reason,the organs and everything else required for life.
Click to expand...

this post just highlights that ignorance....
your assumptions are just that, assumptions. 
so again : Your argument is scientifically illiterate, ill informed, infantile and dishonest


----------



## Boss

> Yea but countries with less religion do better than countries with more religion. That's the only point I tried to make here.



You failed to make any point. Perhaps it's the other way around? Countries which do better have less religion because people don't feel the need for religious beliefs, life is good. 



> PS. I want to add to my comment on your insane original post. First off let me say based on the original post, you think no different than Gismys. The only difference is she doesn't deny jesus like you. You seem to think that is ok but denying any god will send you to hell. So to you Muslims and Jews are Mormons are all safe. Got it. Retard.



I haven't made a religious argument. You people continue to try and conflate religion with spirituality and I keep on trying to get you back on track, but you just keep derailing. You want desperately for me to be espousing religious philosophy here so you can attack it, and I get that, but you're being completely dishonest about the conversation. I believe all organized man-made religions are flawed, but they are evidence that man does spiritually connect to something greater than self and always has. 



> You said "Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices." So not true. I'm a good guy, don't steal, cheat, lie any more or less than any christian or muslim. And I certainly don't do bad things and just want to believe that there are no consequences because I believe in Karma. I don't worry about being punished in the afterlife. I worry about being paid back now in this life. I don't need a god or big brother watching over me 24/7. Do you?



What is Karma? Do you have any physical evidence it exists? Can it be tested and falsified? I believe in Karma too, but you must realize this is a spiritual concept, not a physical one. Most people don't believe they do bad things or are bad people. Even someone like Hitler believed he was doing good and was a good person. I've never met another human who admitted, I am a bad person who does bad terrible things! What we do is rationalize our behavior whether others see it as good or bad. 



> Know why we stopped believing in gods? First of all, we grew up.



So nearly 90% of the human race is not grown up? Only roughly 10% of us are grown ups? That's odd. What you're doing here is rationalizing your disbelief by viewing your disbelief as a sign of maturity. You have absolutely nothing to base this on, it's mere speculative opinion or rationalization of your disbelief.


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> Yea but countries with less religion do better than countries with more religion. That's the only point I tried to make here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You failed to make any point. Perhaps it's the other way around? Countries which do better have less religion because people don't feel the need for religious beliefs, life is good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PS. I want to add to my comment on your insane original post. First off let me say based on the original post, you think no different than Gismys. The only difference is she doesn't deny jesus like you. You seem to think that is ok but denying any god will send you to hell. So to you Muslims and Jews are Mormons are all safe. Got it. Retard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I haven't made a religious argument. You people continue to try and conflate religion with spirituality and I keep on trying to get you back on track, but you just keep derailing. You want desperately for me to be espousing religious philosophy here so you can attack it, and I get that, but you're being completely dishonest about the conversation. I believe all organized man-made religions are flawed, but they are evidence that man does spiritually connect to something greater than self and always has.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said "Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices." So not true. I'm a good guy, don't steal, cheat, lie any more or less than any christian or muslim. And I certainly don't do bad things and just want to believe that there are no consequences because I believe in Karma. I don't worry about being punished in the afterlife. I worry about being paid back now in this life. I don't need a god or big brother watching over me 24/7. Do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is Karma? Do you have any physical evidence it exists? Can it be tested and falsified? I believe in Karma too, but you must realize this is a spiritual concept, not a physical one. Most people don't believe they do bad things or are bad people. Even someone like Hitler believed he was doing good and was a good person. I've never met another human who admitted, I am a bad person who does bad terrible things! What we do is rationalize our behavior whether others see it as good or bad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Know why we stopped believing in gods? First of all, we grew up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So nearly 90% of the human race is not grown up? Only roughly 10% of us are grown ups? That's odd. What you're doing here is rationalizing your disbelief by viewing your disbelief as a sign of maturity. You have absolutely nothing to base this on, it's mere speculative opinion or rationalization of your disbelief.
Click to expand...

really? so the tooth fairy the Easter bunny and saint nick are all real?


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I showed you evidence we'd be better off without god: Atheism is correlated with better scientific literacy, lower poverty rates, higher literacy rates, higher average incomes, less violence, lower divorce rates, lower teen pregnancy rates, lower STD infection rates, lower crime rates and lower homicide rates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uhm... no, you showed me some stats from countries with a supposedly high number of Atheists among the population. They were still predominately spiritual nations. You can't claim a nation is "Atheist" because 20% of the people claim to be atheist. Until you have a majority Atheist nation to cite, you should just keep your mouth closed and not make such bold claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll type slow so I don't lose you.  Societies with higher number of atheists are better than societies where the masses are all religious.  Saudi Arabia, Yemen, the Sudan, India, Mexico all shit holes with the masses being very religious.  Places like Europe or in cities in the USA where liberals, scientists and atheists collect great things happen.  Cures for sicknesses praying won't help, equal rights, civil rights, labor laws, higher wages, etc all where we hang out.  We don't believe we should just cope and take it and wait for the after life and heaven.  That's a joke.
> 
> Think of the deep red neck hick stupid south.  Very religious.  No smart scientific math philosophical thinkers coming out of the south but you do have a lot of religious poor people who go to church at churches that were built by slave plantation owners who used religion to keep the blacks in line.  Poor inner city blacks in America are very religious.  What is it they know that I don't know?  They don't know shit.  They are brainwashed dumb sheep.  The masses.  Yea, that's what I think about the masses.  Please jesus come and take them away!!!
Click to expand...


All you are doing is spewing a bunch of stereotypes and showing your complete and total bigotry and prejudice. This is common among those who don't believe in anything greater than themselves. It's what makes Atheists so dangerous to civilization. 

Again, anywhere you find that humanity needs hope you will find strong spirituality. The better off a country is, the less the people feel a need for religion or spirituality. You've twisted that around into another rationalization for disbelief. 

All I can say for your interjection of politics, liberals and atheists doing all these great and wonderful things, is that you are obviously delusional. Almost every great scientist you can name past or present, has/had some degree of spiritual belief. The institution of slavery would have never been ended if it were not for Quaker ministers who founded the abolitionist movement. Civil Rights was LED by a Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. He wasn't a fucking atheist!


----------



## Boss

> really? so the tooth fairy the Easter bunny and saint nick are all real?



I realize you were banned for a while and probably haven't kept up with this thread, but all of those things were addressed a few pages back and I don't feel the need to go through it all again. You can navigate back and read what was posted re: Easter bunny and Santa. Bottom line, these are things humans created that never were believed to be real, never worshiped spiritually, and do not fall into the same category.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uhm... no, you showed me some stats from countries with a supposedly high number of Atheists among the population. They were still predominately spiritual nations. You can't claim a nation is "Atheist" because 20% of the people claim to be atheist. Until you have a majority Atheist nation to cite, you should just keep your mouth closed and not make such bold claims.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll type slow so I don't lose you.  Societies with higher number of atheists are better than societies where the masses are all religious.  Saudi Arabia, Yemen, the Sudan, India, Mexico all shit holes with the masses being very religious.  Places like Europe or in cities in the USA where liberals, scientists and atheists collect great things happen.  Cures for sicknesses praying won't help, equal rights, civil rights, labor laws, higher wages, etc all where we hang out.  We don't believe we should just cope and take it and wait for the after life and heaven.  That's a joke.
> 
> Think of the deep red neck hick stupid south.  Very religious.  No smart scientific math philosophical thinkers coming out of the south but you do have a lot of religious poor people who go to church at churches that were built by slave plantation owners who used religion to keep the blacks in line.  Poor inner city blacks in America are very religious.  What is it they know that I don't know?  They don't know shit.  They are brainwashed dumb sheep.  The masses.  Yea, that's what I think about the masses.  Please jesus come and take them away!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All you are doing is spewing a bunch of stereotypes and showing your complete and total bigotry and prejudice. This is common among those who don't believe in anything greater than themselves. It's what makes Atheists so dangerous to civilization.
> 
> Again, anywhere you find that humanity needs hope you will find strong spirituality. The better off a country is, the less the people feel a need for religion or spirituality. You've twisted that around into another rationalization for disbelief.
> 
> All I can say for your interjection of politics, liberals and atheists doing all these great and wonderful things, is that you are obviously delusional. Almost every great scientist you can name past or present, has/had some degree of spiritual belief. The institution of slavery would have never been ended if it were not for Quaker ministers who founded the abolitionist movement. Civil Rights was LED by a Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. He wasn't a fucking atheist!
Click to expand...


Atheists want to fund stem cell research so we can cure cancer and alzheimers.  We like abortion because the planet is already over populated.  We like euthenasia because we don't think terminal people should suffer.  Tell me what beliefs atheists have that are "dangerous to civilization"?  Don't say abortion because abortion is a necessary evil.  When will the oceans be out of fish?  2050?  Too many humans.      

I believe in things that are greater than myself.  The sun, the universe, the earth, black holes.  Amazing stuff.  

The validity of a claim, such as the existence of god, is not governed by the intelligence of the minds which hold it. Evidence and reason are the deciding factors.

Sir Isaac Newton, one of historys greatest scientists, was not only intensely religious but also believed in alchemical transmutation. Alchemy is, however, fully incorrect given our modern understanding of chemistry, the atom and nucleosynthysis.

The fact that an intelligent person holds an irrational belief is simply evidence that our brains are able to compartmentalize world-views and models from one another, usually in order to maintain a state of ignorant bliss and escape the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> really? so the tooth fairy the Easter bunny and saint nick are all real?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I realize you were banned for a while and probably haven't kept up with this thread, but all of those things were addressed a few pages back and I don't feel the need to go through it all again. You can navigate back and read what was posted re: Easter bunny and Santa. Bottom line, these are things humans created that never were believed to be real, never worshiped spiritually, and do not fall into the same category.
Click to expand...


By the way Peter, basically I assess from your original post that the only difference between you and Gismys is you have denied jesus Gismys has not.  Luke 22:13 bitch!


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> really? so the tooth fairy the Easter bunny and saint nick are all real?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I realize you were banned for a while and probably haven't kept up with this thread, but all of those things were addressed a few pages back and I don't feel the need to go through it all again. You can navigate back and read what was posted re: Easter bunny and Santa. Bottom line, these are things humans created that never were believed to be real, never worshiped spiritually, and do not fall into the same category.
Click to expand...


Confidently asserting that a theory or hypothesis is true even though the theory cannot possibly be contradicted by an observation or the outcome of any physical experiment, usually without strong evidence or good reasons.

Making unfalsifiable claims is a way to leave the realm of rational discourse, since unfalsifiable claims are often faith-based, and not founded on evidence and reason.

All unfalsifiable claims are not fallacious; they are just unfalsifiable.  As long as proper skepticism is retained and proper evidence is given, it could be a legitimate form of reasoning.

Tip: Never assume you must be right simply because you cant be proven wrong.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well because we know what creates physical reality is time and space for physical reality to exist, and we know this is created by the universe expanding because of e=mc2. Before the universe began expanding, there was no physical existence of any kind, it's impossible. If there was no physical nature, the only force which could have created the universe is spiritual. Unless there is some force even greater than spiritual nature that we don't know about yet.... that's also a possibility. What is not possible is for physical nature to create itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My understanding is that the Big Bang theory posits the universe coming from a singularity, something with infinite density but zero volume.  I don't recall seeing that the singularity is not supposed to be physical; all the laws of physics, particularly relativity, may not apply, but that doesn't necessarily equate to a non-physical existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've read the universe came from a Big Bang which *began* with singularity. What was *before* the Big Bang is not known. If the laws of physics do not exist, then "physical" does not exist. That's what "physical" means, in essence. For "physical" to exist, you must have time created by the expanding universe, which obviously didn't exist before the Big Bang. So, no time or physical reality for physical to exist. What does that leave?
> 
> Now there can be all kinds of theories and opinions, we don't really know for certain.... but we do know it couldn't have been something physical because physical didn't exist. Those who completely reject spiritual nature have no answer to the question and never will. Those who believe in only physical nature, can't wrap their minds around the question and never will. Something non-physical caused the universe to happen, there is no other explanation.
Click to expand...


Not all the laws of physics are necessarily abandoned in a singularity.  Apparently this is an example of where quantum physics come into play.  The important point, from what I gather, is that general relativity does not apply in the singularity.

It's funny that you say there can be all kinds of theories and opinions, we really don't know....then immediately claim we do know there couldn't have been anything physical before the Big Bang.

That you or I have no explanation for how something physical could have existed prior to the BB does not mean it couldn't have.  From what little I've read, those with much more education in this area and likely more intelligence than both of us believe it very well may have been some sort of physical existence before the BB occurred.  Again, this may be explained through quantum physics.

You may be right that something non-physical created the physical universe.  It leaves the question of what created that non-physical thing, or how it created the physical universe, but that's not really important here.  Even if you are correct, however, stating or implying that the math or science behind the Big Bang theory conclusively proves there was nothing physical before the BB occurred seems to be either disingenuous or an outright lie.

Perhaps my limited understanding is the problem, but at this point I don't believe so.


----------



## Uncensored2008

sealybobo said:


> Wow that's a great point.  We don't know what started the big bang and we don't know for sure how life started here on earth.  Scientists thank god have a few good theories.  It certainly wasn't a god and wasn't done in 7 days, right?



So, you think the big bang started life on Earth? 

You have no fucking idea what scientists think, you are an uneducated chimp.

Oh, and stupid, we DO know what triggered the big bang - gravity. The forces compacted mass/energy so tightly that it reacted with explosive force.


----------



## Boss

> It leaves the question of what created that non-physical thing..



No, it really doesn't, because what do you mean when you say "created"?  A creation is something that happens in the physical realm of existence or reality. It's actually short for "physical creation" and only applies to physical things. Non-physical things do not require creation, they aren't physical. 



> It's funny that you say there can be all kinds of theories and opinions, we really don't know....then immediately claim we do know there couldn't have been anything physical before the Big Bang.



It's because we know what creates physical reality and existence. It is the expanding of our universe and time which is caused by it. If you don't have an expanding universe, you don't have time, and there is no place for anything physical to exist. So this is the one thing we know did not create the universe. 

Now... there may have been another universe, there may be many universes now, we don't know. However, since we know that physics operate under established principles and properties of elements in this universe, we can presume they probably would in other universes as well, but what makes the physics and elements behave as they do in our physical reality? Time and space, created by an expanding universe. We have no way of knowing if another universe would have the same rate of expansion, the same physics parameters or even the same behavior of elements. Reality in another universe could be dramatically different than our own. Even things like the rules of logic may not apply. (Sorry, Spock!)


----------



## Uncensored2008

sealybobo said:


> This is what I meant:  Recognize that the very molecules that make up your body, the atoms that construct the molecules, are traceable to the crucibles that were once the centers of high mass stars that exploded their chemically rich guts into the galaxy, enriching pristine gas clouds with the chemistry of life. So that we are all connected to each other biologically, to the earth chemically and to the rest of the universe atomically. Thats kinda cool! That makes me smile and I actually feel quite large at the end of that. Its not that we are better than the universe, we are part of the universe. We are in the universe and the universe is in us.
> &#8213; Neil deGrasse Tyson



I'm glad you watch Cosmos, it's a fairly good show. Bummer you lack the intellect grasp what is presented. But then, it IS on a 6th grade level, so well beyond your education.


----------



## Boss

> Atheists want to fund stem cell research so we can cure cancer and alzheimers. We like abortion because the planet is already over populated. We like euthenasia because we don't think terminal people should suffer. Tell me what beliefs atheists have that are "dangerous to civilization"?



Based on your rant, I would say the #1 thing is respect for life.


----------



## Uncensored2008

daws101 said:


> this post just highlights that ignorance....
> your assumptions are just that, assumptions.
> so again : Your argument is scientifically illiterate, ill informed, infantile and dishonest



Wow, Duhs and SillyBonobo in the same thread... You two work together and you MIGHT be able to pass a 2nd grade science quiz...

Nah, probably not... but your odds improve...


----------



## daws101

Uncensored2008 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> this post just highlights that ignorance....
> your assumptions are just that, assumptions.
> so again : Your argument is scientifically illiterate, ill informed, infantile and dishonest
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, Duhs and SillyBonobo in the same thread... You two work together and you MIGHT be able to pass a 2nd grade science quiz...
> 
> Nah, probably not... but your odds improve...
Click to expand...

must be a slow day !


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> It leaves the question of what created that non-physical thing..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it really doesn't, because what do you mean when you say "created"?  A creation is something that happens in the physical realm of existence or reality. It's actually short for "physical creation" and only applies to physical things. Non-physical things do not require creation, they aren't physical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny that you say there can be all kinds of theories and opinions, we really don't know....then immediately claim we do know there couldn't have been anything physical before the Big Bang.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's because we know what creates physical reality and existence. It is the expanding of our universe and time which is caused by it. If you don't have an expanding universe, you don't have time, and there is no place for anything physical to exist. So this is the one thing we know did not create the universe.
> 
> Now... there may have been another universe, there may be many universes now, we don't know. However, since we know that physics operate under established principles and properties of elements in this universe, we can presume they probably would in other universes as well, but what makes the physics and elements behave as they do in our physical reality? Time and space, created by an expanding universe. We have no way of knowing if another universe would have the same rate of expansion, the same physics parameters or even the same behavior of elements. Reality in another universe could be dramatically different than our own. Even things like the rules of logic may not apply. (Sorry, Spock!)
Click to expand...


How do you know these non-physical things do not require creation?  You make a lot of claims about the properties of the spiritual with little to no explanation how you come by such knowledge.

If you can show me where the mathematicians and scientists behind the current versions of the Big Bang theory say that there could not have been a physical reality prior to the Big Bang, that's fine.  As I have said, what little I've read on the subject makes no such claim.  I've yet to read anything about the theoretical singularity being non-physical, or that only within our universe post-BB is any physical reality possible.


----------



## Boss

> How do you know these non-physical things do not require creation?


Because of what "creation" is and what it means. 



> You make a lot of claims about the properties of the spiritual with little to no explanation how you come by such knowledge.



I've made no claims about the properties of spiritual nature other than it's not physical nature. 



> I've yet to read anything about the theoretical singularity being non-physical...



It's because theoretical singularity is physical. It is the point where physical begins with the Big Bang. What preceded that is unknown, but it can't be physical since physical didn't yet exist. In order to have physical existence, you must have an expanding universe with spacetime continuum. This includes physical reality and time. 



> If you can show me where the mathematicians and scientists behind the current versions of the Big Bang theory say that there could not have been a physical reality prior to the Big Bang, that's fine.



Einstein's Theory of Relativity basically says just that. You're a smart guy, can you explain to me how physical reality can exist without time?


----------



## Boss

> &#8220;Recognize that the very molecules that make up your body, the atoms that construct the molecules, are traceable to the crucibles that were once the centers of high mass stars that exploded their chemically rich guts into the galaxy, enriching pristine gas clouds with the chemistry of life. So that we are all connected to each other biologically, to the earth chemically and to the rest of the universe atomically. That&#8217;s kinda cool! That makes me smile and I actually feel quite large at the end of that. It&#8217;s not that we are better than the universe, we are part of the universe. We are in the universe and the universe is in us.&#8221;
> &#8213; Neil deGrasse Tyson



I wish I could ask Neil why he thinks this is so profound? Is there any question that we might be comprised of molecules not found anywhere else in the universe? Yes, God used common materials of the universe when He created us, He didn't use special matter that doesn't exist elsewhere.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Recognize that the very molecules that make up your body, the atoms that construct the molecules, are traceable to the crucibles that were once the centers of high mass stars that exploded their chemically rich guts into the galaxy, enriching pristine gas clouds with the chemistry of life. So that we are all connected to each other biologically, to the earth chemically and to the rest of the universe atomically. Thats kinda cool! That makes me smile and I actually feel quite large at the end of that. Its not that we are better than the universe, we are part of the universe. We are in the universe and the universe is in us.
> &#8213; Neil deGrasse Tyson
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wish I could ask Neil why he thinks this is so profound? Is there any question that we might be comprised of molecules not found anywhere else in the universe? Yes, God used common materials of the universe when He created us, He didn't use special matter that doesn't exist elsewhere.
Click to expand...


"..... because I say so."

You speak with such authority on behalf of the gods. I'll require that you present a certified letter, signed by the gods, authorizing you as their official spokesboss. 

Your testimony to daily communications with the gods is fine, and so is your commanding of the French forces at Waterloo, but run along now and take your meds.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> Recognize that the very molecules that make up your body, the atoms that construct the molecules, are traceable to the crucibles that were once the centers of high mass stars that exploded their chemically rich guts into the galaxy, enriching pristine gas clouds with the chemistry of life. So that we are all connected to each other biologically, to the earth chemically and to the rest of the universe atomically. Thats kinda cool! That makes me smile and I actually feel quite large at the end of that. Its not that we are better than the universe, we are part of the universe. We are in the universe and the universe is in us.
> &#8213; Neil deGrasse Tyson
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wish I could ask Neil why he thinks this is so profound? Is there any question that we might be comprised of molecules not found anywhere else in the universe? Yes, God used common materials of the universe when He created us, He didn't use special matter that doesn't exist elsewhere.
Click to expand...


Yea, he's not deep, you are boss man.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> Recognize that the very molecules that make up your body, the atoms that construct the molecules, are traceable to the crucibles that were once the centers of high mass stars that exploded their chemically rich guts into the galaxy, enriching pristine gas clouds with the chemistry of life. So that we are all connected to each other biologically, to the earth chemically and to the rest of the universe atomically. Thats kinda cool! That makes me smile and I actually feel quite large at the end of that. Its not that we are better than the universe, we are part of the universe. We are in the universe and the universe is in us.
> &#8213; Neil deGrasse Tyson
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wish I could ask Neil why he thinks this is so profound? Is there any question that we might be comprised of molecules not found anywhere else in the universe? Yes, God used common materials of the universe when He created us, He didn't use special matter that doesn't exist elsewhere.
Click to expand...


Oops.  That wasn't the quote I wanted to show you.  So now are you going to make fun of this guy too?  Typical conservative thing to do.  No matter who we quote, just belittle the person I quote as if they are not a credible source.  I can think of a million examples.  Ed Schultz, Randi Rhodes, Thom Hartmann, Elizabeth Warren, Michael Moore.  

It's a slimy tactics Republicans use to avoid the actual content or subject.  Poo Poo the facts because you don't like the source.  Well get what asshole?  No fucking retard you read or listen to is going to tell you the truth, so if you just keep blowing off the people who tell you the truth, well guess what that makes you?  A close minded tool.  

You just did it to Neal Degrasse Tyson, which makes you a fucking joke.  So now you are smarter than him too?  Wow.  You're the smartest guy who spends all day on USMB, fucking retard.

Every atom in your body came from a star that exploded. And, the atoms in your left hand probably came from a different star than your right hand. It really is the most poetic thing I know about physics: You are all stardust. You couldnt be here if stars hadnt exploded, because the elements - the carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, iron, all the things that matter for evolution and for life - werent created at the beginning of time. They were created in the nuclear furnaces of stars, and the only way for them to get into your body is if those stars were kind enough to explode. So, forget Jesus. The stars died so that you could be here today.
&#8213; Lawrence M. Krauss


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> Recognize that the very molecules that make up your body, the atoms that construct the molecules, are traceable to the crucibles that were once the centers of high mass stars that exploded their chemically rich guts into the galaxy, enriching pristine gas clouds with the chemistry of life. So that we are all connected to each other biologically, to the earth chemically and to the rest of the universe atomically. Thats kinda cool! That makes me smile and I actually feel quite large at the end of that. Its not that we are better than the universe, we are part of the universe. We are in the universe and the universe is in us.
> &#8213; Neil deGrasse Tyson
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wish I could ask Neil why he thinks this is so profound? Is there any question that we might be comprised of molecules not found anywhere else in the universe? Yes, God used common materials of the universe when He created us, He didn't use special matter that doesn't exist elsewhere.
Click to expand...


all the things that matter for evolution and for life - werent created at the beginning of time. 

Do you know what this tell us stupid?  That god didn't cause the big bang to invent people.  Because billions of years went by after the big bang and no human's.  If we took the start of the universe to today and put it all on a 1 year calendar human's would only be on the calendar for 1 day of that entire year.  December 31st.  Where were we the rest of the year?  What the fuck was god doing all that time?  Didn't he have anything better to do?  Are you insane?


----------



## sealybobo

Hell, human's may only account for the last hour on December 31st.  We probably don't even account for a whole day.  What took god so long?  Were we the first toy he ever invented?  What did he do for the infinite amount of time that took place before the big bang?  If you believe in god you probably aren't smart enough to grasp this so....


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> How do you know these non-physical things do not require creation?
> 
> 
> 
> Because of what "creation" is and what it means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You make a lot of claims about the properties of the spiritual with little to no explanation how you come by such knowledge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've made no claims about the properties of spiritual nature other than it's not physical nature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've yet to read anything about the theoretical singularity being non-physical...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's because theoretical singularity is physical. It is the point where physical begins with the Big Bang. What preceded that is unknown, but it can't be physical since physical didn't yet exist. In order to have physical existence, you must have an expanding universe with spacetime continuum. This includes physical reality and time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you can show me where the mathematicians and scientists behind the current versions of the Big Bang theory say that there could not have been a physical reality prior to the Big Bang, that's fine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Einstein's Theory of Relativity basically says just that. You're a smart guy, can you explain to me how physical reality can exist without time?
Click to expand...


That you have your own personal definition of the word creation (and other words, as evidenced through this thread) is not conducive to discussion.  The word creation is not dependent on physical reality.  We only see creation in physical reality because, quite simply, that is all we see.  However, if someone says that, as an example, god created angels, would that not be a non-physical entity creating more non-physical entities?  Is there any reason, outside of your own unexplained definition of the word, that one cannot say a greater, yet still non-physical, god created the god our our universe?  You complain over and over about people nit-picking your word use, but that's because you have your own definitions for things!

I can't even explain how time can not exist.  However, as I already stated, my reading on the Big Bang theory and the singularity which preceded it has described the conditions within the singularity as not following general relativity.  Therefore, any appeal to the tenets of relativity is pointless; they don't apply.

Oh, and if what preceded the singularity is unknown (assuming that anything at all preceded it, and that the term preceded even applies) then what preceded it being non-physical isn't known.


----------



## Merchant_of_Meh

Very late to this party, but I'll throw my 2 cents in anyway.

I keep my beliefs to myself 97% of the time, the other 3% comes from folks actively inquiring about my spiritual beliefs. Some don't mind my answer, some do. That's not my problem and I feel no shame or guilt. However, I do not and have not ever slighted any religion or belittled any believers. I consider that very disrespectful. 

Nonetheless,  I do not shy away from debates with believers as well, but I only discuss it with those who can actually carry on a measured, respectful discussion on the matter. If it gets out of control, I disengage.


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know these non-physical things do not require creation?
> 
> 
> 
> Because of what "creation" is and what it means.
> 
> 
> 
> I've made no claims about the properties of spiritual nature other than it's not physical nature.
> 
> 
> 
> It's because theoretical singularity is physical. It is the point where physical begins with the Big Bang. What preceded that is unknown, but it can't be physical since physical didn't yet exist. In order to have physical existence, you must have an expanding universe with spacetime continuum. This includes physical reality and time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you can show me where the mathematicians and scientists behind the current versions of the Big Bang theory say that there could not have been a physical reality prior to the Big Bang, that's fine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Einstein's Theory of Relativity basically says just that. You're a smart guy, can you explain to me how physical reality can exist without time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That you have your own personal definition of the word creation (and other words, as evidenced through this thread) is not conducive to discussion.  The word creation is not dependent on physical reality.  We only see creation in physical reality because, quite simply, that is all we see.  However, if someone says that, as an example, god created angels, would that not be a non-physical entity creating more non-physical entities?  Is there any reason, outside of your own unexplained definition of the word, that one cannot say a greater, yet still non-physical, god created the god our our universe?  You complain over and over about people nit-picking your word use, but that's because you have your own definitions for things!
Click to expand...


I don't have my own definition. Create: to bring into existence. God is immortal and eternal and always existed.  

*We only see creation in physical reality because, quite simply, that is all we see.*

All that we are aware of. I can create a vacuum, you can't see it yet it exists. Still, it is a word we apply to physical creation. I don't know about God creating angels, if I ever see God create an angel, I'll believe that is a possibility. As for now, it's wild speculation that spiritual nature has spiritual creation or that the word can apply to spiritual things. 



> I can't even explain how time can not exist.  However, as I already stated, my reading on the Big Bang theory and the singularity which preceded it...



Hold on, you need correcting again. Theorized singularity does not "precede" the Big Bang. It is the point where the Big Bang *begins*. Nothing physical can exist prior to this, there is no time or space for physical to exist. 



> ...has described the conditions within the singularity as not following general relativity.  Therefore, any appeal to the tenets of relativity is pointless; they don't apply.



General relativity applies to our universe, time, space, and perception of physical reality. Without an expanding universe, there is no time and subsequently, no physical reality. As you said, you can't even explain how time cannot exist. Yet, before the Big Bang created the universe (including singularity), time did not exist. If time can't exist, the physical can't exist.



> Oh, and if what preceded the singularity is unknown (assuming that anything at all preceded it, and that the term preceded even applies) then what preceded it being non-physical isn't known.



Well since we do know that time creates physical reality, we know that before time there couldn't have been physical reality. Singularity is the beginning of the Big Bang, it doesn't precede it. It's like claiming the dropping of the green flag in NASCAR is an event preceding the race, it is not. It is the event that begins the race. 

Long before man knew ANY of this stuff, we had an intrinsic connection to something greater than ourselves, something greater than physical nature. We are aware of this by design. We could have never accomplished what we've done without this intrinsic connection and awareness of something greater.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because of what "creation" is and what it means.
> 
> 
> 
> I've made no claims about the properties of spiritual nature other than it's not physical nature.
> 
> 
> 
> It's because theoretical singularity is physical. It is the point where physical begins with the Big Bang. What preceded that is unknown, but it can't be physical since physical didn't yet exist. In order to have physical existence, you must have an expanding universe with spacetime continuum. This includes physical reality and time.
> 
> 
> 
> Einstein's Theory of Relativity basically says just that. You're a smart guy, can you explain to me how physical reality can exist without time?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That you have your own personal definition of the word creation (and other words, as evidenced through this thread) is not conducive to discussion.  The word creation is not dependent on physical reality.  We only see creation in physical reality because, quite simply, that is all we see.  However, if someone says that, as an example, god created angels, would that not be a non-physical entity creating more non-physical entities?  Is there any reason, outside of your own unexplained definition of the word, that one cannot say a greater, yet still non-physical, god created the god our our universe?  You complain over and over about people nit-picking your word use, but that's because you have your own definitions for things!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have my own definition. Create: to bring into existence. God is immortal and eternal and always existed.
> 
> *We only see creation in physical reality because, quite simply, that is all we see.*
> 
> All that we are aware of. I can create a vacuum, you can't see it yet it exists. Still, it is a word we apply to physical creation. I don't know about God creating angels, if I ever see God create an angel, I'll believe that is a possibility. As for now, it's wild speculation that spiritual nature has spiritual creation or that the word can apply to spiritual things.
> 
> 
> 
> Hold on, you need correcting again. Theorized singularity does not "precede" the Big Bang. It is the point where the Big Bang *begins*. Nothing physical can exist prior to this, there is no time or space for physical to exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...has described the conditions within the singularity as not following general relativity.  Therefore, any appeal to the tenets of relativity is pointless; they don't apply.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> General relativity applies to our universe, time, space, and perception of physical reality. Without an expanding universe, there is no time and subsequently, no physical reality. As you said, you can't even explain how time cannot exist. Yet, before the Big Bang created the universe (including singularity), time did not exist. If time can't exist, the physical can't exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, and if what preceded the singularity is unknown (assuming that anything at all preceded it, and that the term preceded even applies) then what preceded it being non-physical isn't known.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well since we do know that time creates physical reality, we know that before time there couldn't have been physical reality. Singularity is the beginning of the Big Bang, it doesn't precede it. It's like claiming the dropping of the green flag in NASCAR is an event preceding the race, it is not. It is the event that begins the race.
> 
> Long before man knew ANY of this stuff, we had an intrinsic connection to something greater than ourselves, something greater than physical nature. We are aware of this by design. We could have never accomplished what we've done without this intrinsic connection and awareness of something greater.
Click to expand...


You continue to make little sense.  You have already used the word create in reference to non-physical things in your post.  It doesn't matter if god is capable of creating angels or not, all that matters is that the word is correct in that context.  The definition of create you provided, 'to bring into existence', does not require the physical.

I think you have a mistaken impression of the concept of the singularity from which the Big Bang sprang.  Normal physics, general relativity, these things did not function within the singularity.  Only after the explosion creating the universe occurred did those things begin.  However, the singularity is not, that I am aware of, considered non-physical.


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> That you have your own personal definition of the word creation (and other words, as evidenced through this thread) is not conducive to discussion.  The word creation is not dependent on physical reality.  We only see creation in physical reality because, quite simply, that is all we see.  However, if someone says that, as an example, god created angels, would that not be a non-physical entity creating more non-physical entities?  Is there any reason, outside of your own unexplained definition of the word, that one cannot say a greater, yet still non-physical, god created the god our our universe?  You complain over and over about people nit-picking your word use, but that's because you have your own definitions for things!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have my own definition. Create: to bring into existence. God is immortal and eternal and always existed.
> 
> *We only see creation in physical reality because, quite simply, that is all we see.*
> 
> All that we are aware of. I can create a vacuum, you can't see it yet it exists. Still, it is a word we apply to physical creation. I don't know about God creating angels, if I ever see God create an angel, I'll believe that is a possibility. As for now, it's wild speculation that spiritual nature has spiritual creation or that the word can apply to spiritual things.
> 
> 
> 
> Hold on, you need correcting again. Theorized singularity does not "precede" the Big Bang. It is the point where the Big Bang *begins*. Nothing physical can exist prior to this, there is no time or space for physical to exist.
> 
> 
> 
> General relativity applies to our universe, time, space, and perception of physical reality. Without an expanding universe, there is no time and subsequently, no physical reality. As you said, you can't even explain how time cannot exist. Yet, before the Big Bang created the universe (including singularity), time did not exist. If time can't exist, the physical can't exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, and if what preceded the singularity is unknown (assuming that anything at all preceded it, and that the term preceded even applies) then what preceded it being non-physical isn't known.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well since we do know that time creates physical reality, we know that before time there couldn't have been physical reality. Singularity is the beginning of the Big Bang, it doesn't precede it. It's like claiming the dropping of the green flag in NASCAR is an event preceding the race, it is not. It is the event that begins the race.
> 
> Long before man knew ANY of this stuff, we had an intrinsic connection to something greater than ourselves, something greater than physical nature. We are aware of this by design. We could have never accomplished what we've done without this intrinsic connection and awareness of something greater.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You continue to make little sense.  You have already used the word create in reference to non-physical things in your post.  It doesn't matter if god is capable of creating angels or not, all that matters is that the word is correct in that context.  The definition of create you provided, 'to bring into existence', does not require the physical.
> 
> I think you have a mistaken impression of the concept of the singularity from which the Big Bang sprang.  Normal physics, general relativity, these things did not function within the singularity.  Only after the explosion creating the universe occurred did those things begin.  However, the singularity is not, that I am aware of, considered non-physical.
Click to expand...


Existence. What is meant by this? Are you not talking about *physical* existence? When we use the word "create" it means to bring into physical existence. It can have no other meaning unless it's a philosophical speculation of something not known. 

The Big Bang did not "spring from" singularity. Again, theorized singularity is the beginning of the Big Bang. If normal physics did not function within the singularity it wasn't physical because that's what physics entails. I don't profess to know if singularity is physical or non-physical, I presume it is physical if it happened in our physical universe and reality. Nevertheless, whatever preceded singularity is not physical and cannot be physical. 

Now you want to argue that it's not known whether anything existed before singularity, and I can agree that surely nothing physical existed, but the notion that nothing created something is a contradiction of basic logic. It's "magic" on a higher order than any God man has ever imagined. Certainly something did cause the Big Bang, and certainly it wasn't physical.


----------



## Boss

silly boob said:


> all the things that matter for evolution and for life - werent created at the beginning of time.
> 
> Do you know what this tell us stupid?



That you are likely to fail any high school science class when you get there? That you are a totally incompetent and silly boob who should avoid topics on science? That you must believe in magical fairies who created things that matter for evolution and life?  

Matter doesn't create matter. Every element for evolution and life has always been in the universe. 



> That god didn't cause the big bang to invent people.  Because billions of years went by after the big bang and no human's.  If we took the start of the universe to today and put it all on a 1 year calendar human's would only be on the calendar for 1 day of that entire year.  December 31st.  Where were we the rest of the year?  What the fuck was god doing all that time?  Didn't he have anything better to do?  Are you insane?  ...Hell, human's may only account for the last hour on December 31st.  We probably don't even account for a whole day.  What took god so long?  Were we the first toy he ever invented?  What did he do for the infinite amount of time that took place before the big bang?  If you believe in god you probably aren't smart enough to grasp this so....



You seem to be hung up on time, and time is something that simply makes no difference to God. Millions of years or billions of years, is just our measurement of the effects caused by an expanding universe. Every second of reality you experience is caused by the expanding of the universe, creating a spacetime continuum in which physical reality exists. The entire lifespan of our universe, as well as a million more like it, have no bearing on God in terms of time. While billions of years have passed for us, no time has passed for God. 

*What did he do for the infinite amount of time that took place before the big bang?*

First of all, time is not infinite. It is very much finite. We believe the universe began billions of  years ago and will eventually end, and so will time. Before the Big Bang there was no time. The perception of time is created by the expanding universe. So there is no "infinite amount of time before the Big Bang" since time did not yet exist. 

*What took god so long?*

Again, your mind is having a problem grasping what time is. You have some kind of concept that time exited before the universe, and God somehow is confined to a human's perception of time. Go read some books on time and what it is. You'll find it is a dimension which exists in our universe, and simply put, is a measurement of the expansion of said universe. God is outside of the universe even though God is a part of the universe. Time was created by God with the creation of an expanding universe. The only significance time has is in respect to the material physical reality we experience.


----------



## Boss

Merchant_of_Meh said:


> Very late to this party, but I'll throw my 2 cents in anyway.
> 
> I keep my beliefs to myself 97% of the time, the other 3% comes from folks actively inquiring about my spiritual beliefs. Some don't mind my answer, some do. That's not my problem and I feel no shame or guilt. However, I do not and have not ever slighted any religion or belittled any believers. I consider that very disrespectful.
> 
> Nonetheless,  I do not shy away from debates with believers as well, but I only discuss it with those who can actually carry on a measured, respectful discussion on the matter. If it gets out of control, I disengage.



In real life, I am much the same way. I keep my personal spirituality to myself and don't disparage others over what they believe. I find myself in an interesting scenario here over the past 6 months or so, because I am engaging in debate with predominantly atheists over the existence of God. From their perspective, I am some sort of "religious fundamentalist" but I repeatedly reject the claims of being religious. I am not religious. 

I challenge the atheists on their arguments because they are weak and superfluous arguments. They like to attempt perverting science to promote atheism, and I call them on it. Now I could probably just as easily seek out a Christian forum and pick on Christians for their beliefs, but it's no fun for me to pick on Christians. I had much rather razz on atheists. 

I am a Spiritualist. I don't simply "believe" in God, I am spiritually connected to God. It's not the God of the Bible or the Christian God, in fact, it has no humanistic attributes of Abrahamic religion or any other organized religion. It's spiritual energy, a guiding spiritual force that I know exists because I connect with it. Don't really care if anyone believes it, not trying to "win souls over" for God. It's just my personal spiritual foundation. 

I have respect for most religious people, I believe they are honestly and earnestly attempting to understand a real spiritual connection. I respect what I've read and understand of the Bible and the teachings of Jesus, I think there is a lot of wisdom there for leading a good spiritual life. I don't believe it is The Word of God or Jesus is The Son of God, but it is a great inspirational book of guidance for many, and I can appreciate that.

My argument and point of contention is with atheists who reject human spirituality. Even though the evidence shows humans have been spiritually connecting for all their existence and there is no scientific evidence to disprove spiritual nature. In fact, the scientific evidence very much suggests that spiritual nature created physical nature and reality.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> false! I and many others have explained  it to you.
> 
> Atheists don't define themselves by having answers to this question, so why ask.
> Mainstream science is the body of knowledge that addresses such questions, however there are no conclusive answers to this question currently.
> 
> Mainstream science makes NO CLAIMS about where life originated, indeed it makes no claims about anything, as it only describes the natural world. However what it does describe is VERIFIABLE..
> 
> Offering a "god of the gaps" argument where the scientific knowledge is as yet undiscovered is the argument of an infantile intellect and wilful scientific illiteracy, however these gaps are shrinking daily as science marches ever forward, leaving behind your stagnant bronze age religious dogmas where they belong, in ancient history..
> 
> Only you thumpers have an explanation and it's false....
> 
> Your argument is scientifically illiterate, ill informed, infantile and dishonest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But daws you say my views are based on self imposed ignorance. I can assume because looking at nature that the evidence shows deliberate design to everything's existence but you on the other hand, want to think no designer was needed defying known laws and have no clue as how we came in to existence,ignoring the mathematical impossibility that a non-directed natural process produced all we see and giving us everything from protection mechanisms,a brain to reason,the organs and everything else required for life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just plain ignorance at its worst.
> 
> 1. There is no evidence that shows design in nature.
> 
> 2. There no such thing as a "mathematical impossibility that a non-directed natural process ..."
> 
> Posting these absurdities you steal from Harun Yahya is a waste of bandwidth.
Click to expand...


Anyone who denies the overwhelming evidence of design is just simply in denial. Of course there are mathematical impossibilities just as there are mathematical possibilities you dimwit.

So what is the purpose of mathematics


----------



## Youwerecreated

sealybobo said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> false! I and many others have explained  it to you.
> 
> Atheists don't define themselves by having answers to this question, so why ask.
> Mainstream science is the body of knowledge that addresses such questions, however there are no conclusive answers to this question currently.
> 
> Mainstream science makes NO CLAIMS about where life originated, indeed it makes no claims about anything, as it only describes the natural world. However what it does describe is VERIFIABLE..
> 
> Offering a "god of the gaps" argument where the scientific knowledge is as yet undiscovered is the argument of an infantile intellect and wilful scientific illiteracy, however these gaps are shrinking daily as science marches ever forward, leaving behind your stagnant bronze age religious dogmas where they belong, in ancient history..
> 
> Only you thumpers have an explanation and it's false....
> 
> Your argument is scientifically illiterate, ill informed, infantile and dishonest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But daws you say my views are based on self imposed ignorance. I can assume because looking at nature that the evidence shows deliberate design to everything's existence but you on the other hand, want to think no designer was needed defying known laws and have no clue as how we came in to existence,ignoring the mathematical impossibility that a non-directed natural process produced all we see and giving us everything from protection mechanisms,a brain to reason,the organs and everything else required for life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheists/scientists who also happen to be scientists have debated this issue and what you are saying may make sense in your own head but whatever you just said is not proof of a god.
> 
> The First Cause Argument, or Cosmological Argument, is internally contradictory and raises the following questions: Who or what created god?, Why should a hypothetical cause have any of the common attributes of a god?, Why is the cause a specific god?, Why cant the universe be causeless too? and, most importantly, Why rule out all other possible explanations?
> 
> It is fundamentally a god of the gaps approach. Our current lack of understanding concerning the Universes origins does not automatically mean god holds any explanatory value. Metaphysical and theistic speculation are not justified or correct simply because we lack a comprehensive scientific model. Uncertainty is the most valid position and one can honestly say We just dont know yet.
> 
> I can see Boss doing a bong hit and being so sure his theory is correct and you know what?  It might be.  He might actually be right.  How many great minds were laughed at and doubted until one day, long after they died someone proves their theory right.
> 
> Then he'll be able to rest in piece.  Actually it does him no good when he's dead.  He's not a ghost like Patrick Swazy.  He's not an angel watching from heaven.  He's actually rotting in pieces in the earth.  Ashes to ashes, dust to dust.  It's life.  Enjoy it while you can.  You only live once, PROBABLY.  But to tell me to believe in the Jesus cult made up by 11 guys or go to hell?
Click to expand...


The real problem is because scientists can't prove the creators existence, they will not support the evidence of design even with it biting them in the butt. Once again, because they can't prove God exists they will ignore the evidence of design and just plead ignorance concerning the origins of life question.


----------



## Youwerecreated

sealybobo said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> \We may not know how it started but we know how life here on earth started and when.  Science figured it out.  Until science we thought god waved his hand and built the earth first and the sun revolved around the earth and the earth was flat and...
> 
> Basically we came up with god when we didn't know shit.
> 
> What we do know is the adam and eve, noah, mosus and Jesus stories are not to be taken literally but that's exactly what people do.  Silly don't you think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SillyBonobo, you have less grasp of biology than the average 4th grader, and you have zero grasp of the scientific method. You think the mindless shit you read on the hate sites is a substitute for actual knowledge - it isn't.
> 
> No, we don't know how life on Earth started. There are dozens of competing hypotheses regarding it, ranging from the ever popular primordial soup, to the also popular hitch hiking microbes (where microbes on an asteroid that crashed into the planet are the basis of life) and every point in between.  We have a solid gauge of age or the Earth due to radio decay, but life is far more tricky, we are at best in a range of a hundred million years for when life started.
> 
> In short, you are as ever, ignorant, uneducated, and talking shit you don't know anything about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow that's a great point.  We don't know what started the big bang and we don't know for sure how life started here on earth.  Scientists thank god have a few good theories.  It certainly wasn't a god and wasn't done in 7 days, right?
Click to expand...


How do you know it was not God ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

BreezeWood said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> false! I and many others have explained  it to you.
> 
> Atheists don't define themselves by having answers to this question, so why ask.
> Mainstream science is the body of knowledge that addresses such questions, however there are no conclusive answers to this question currently.
> 
> Mainstream science makes NO CLAIMS about where life originated, indeed it makes no claims about anything, as it only describes the natural world. However what it does describe is VERIFIABLE..
> 
> Offering a "god of the gaps" argument where the scientific knowledge is as yet undiscovered is the argument of an infantile intellect and wilful scientific illiteracy, however these gaps are shrinking daily as science marches ever forward, leaving behind your stagnant bronze age religious dogmas where they belong, in ancient history..
> 
> Only you thumpers have an explanation and it's false....
> 
> Your argument is scientifically illiterate, ill informed, infantile and dishonest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But daws you say my views are based on self imposed ignorance.* I can assume because looking at nature that the evidence shows deliberate design to everything's existence* but you on the other hand, want to think no designer was needed defying known laws and have no clue as how we came in to existence,ignoring the mathematical impossibility that a non-directed natural process produced all we see and giving us everything from protection mechanisms,a brain to reason,the organs and everything else required for life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *YWC: I can assume because looking at nature that the evidence shows deliberate design to everything's existence ...*
> 
> 
> not everything, only nature demonstrates design and besides nature what else on any heavenly body displays evidence of design - nothing. most planets are lifeless with vast expanses without even simple shapes.
> 
> if it were not the forces of the Everlasting responsible for biological life why hasn't the Deity built any other structures to demonstrate the same design capabilities if for no other reason than to show variety in workmanship ?
> 
> show us what else (your) Biblical God has designed on any heavenly body to demonstrate his capabilities or presence.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


You will have to take that up with the creator. The planets and their orbit and alignments plays an important role for life on this unique planet,This cannot be denied.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> But daws you say my views are based on self imposed ignorance. I can assume because looking at nature that the evidence shows deliberate design to everything's existence but you on the other hand, want to think no designer was needed defying known laws and have no clue as how we came in to existence,ignoring the mathematical impossibility that a non-directed natural process produced all we see and giving us everything from protection mechanisms,a brain to reason,the organs and everything else required for life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just plain ignorance at its worst.
> 
> 1. There is no evidence that shows design in nature.
> 
> 2. There no such thing as a "mathematical impossibility that a non-directed natural process ..."
> 
> Posting these absurdities you steal from Harun Yahya is a waste of bandwidth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyone who denies the overwhelming evidence of design is just simply in denial. Of course there are mathematical impossibilities just as there are mathematical possibilities you dimwit.
> 
> So what is the purpose of mathematics
Click to expand...


Where is this "overwhelming evidence of design"?

You make nonsensical claims which you refuse to support.


----------



## Youwerecreated

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I showed you evidence we'd be better off without god: Atheism is correlated with better scientific literacy, lower poverty rates, higher literacy rates, higher average incomes, less violence, lower divorce rates, lower teen pregnancy rates, lower STD infection rates, lower crime rates and lower homicide rates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uhm... no, you showed me some stats from countries with a supposedly high number of Atheists among the population. They were still predominately spiritual nations. You can't claim a nation is "Atheist" because 20% of the people claim to be atheist. Until you have a majority Atheist nation to cite, you should just keep your mouth closed and not make such bold claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll type slow so I don't lose you.  Societies with higher number of atheists are better than societies where the masses are all religious.  Saudi Arabia, Yemen, the Sudan, India, Mexico all shit holes with the masses being very religious.  Places like Europe or in cities in the USA where liberals, scientists and atheists collect great things happen.  Cures for sicknesses praying won't help, equal rights, civil rights, labor laws, higher wages, etc all where we hang out.  We don't believe we should just cope and take it and wait for the after life and heaven.  That's a joke.
> 
> Think of the deep red neck hick stupid south.  Very religious.  No smart scientific math philosophical thinkers coming out of the south but you do have a lot of religious poor people who go to church at churches that were built by slave plantation owners who used religion to keep the blacks in line.  Poor inner city blacks in America are very religious.  What is it they know that I don't know?  They don't know shit.  They are brainwashed dumb sheep.  The masses.  Yea, that's what I think about the masses.  Please jesus come and take them away!!!
Click to expand...


This is the most ignorant and biased comment, I think I have ever wasted my time reading in all my visits to this forum.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> false! I and many others have explained  it to you.
> 
> Atheists don't define themselves by having answers to this question, so why ask.
> Mainstream science is the body of knowledge that addresses such questions, however there are no conclusive answers to this question currently.
> 
> Mainstream science makes NO CLAIMS about where life originated, indeed it makes no claims about anything, as it only describes the natural world. However what it does describe is VERIFIABLE..
> 
> Offering a "god of the gaps" argument where the scientific knowledge is as yet undiscovered is the argument of an infantile intellect and wilful scientific illiteracy, however these gaps are shrinking daily as science marches ever forward, leaving behind your stagnant bronze age religious dogmas where they belong, in ancient history..
> 
> Only you thumpers have an explanation and it's false....
> 
> Your argument is scientifically illiterate, ill informed, infantile and dishonest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But daws you say my views are based on self imposed ignorance. I can assume because looking at nature that the evidence shows deliberate design to everything's existence but you on the other hand, want to think no designer was needed defying known laws and have no clue as how we came in to existence,ignoring the mathematical impossibility that a non-directed natural process produced all we see and giving us everything from protection mechanisms,a brain to reason,the organs and everything else required for life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> this post just highlights that ignorance....
> your assumptions are just that, assumptions.
> so again : Your argument is scientifically illiterate, ill informed, infantile and dishonest
Click to expand...


So now you are saying assumptions are just that, assumptions. That is what theories begin with opinions and assumptions,derived from the observation of evidence.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea but countries with less religion do better than countries with more religion. That's the only point I tried to make here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You failed to make any point. Perhaps it's the other way around? Countries which do better have less religion because people don't feel the need for religious beliefs, life is good.
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't made a religious argument. You people continue to try and conflate religion with spirituality and I keep on trying to get you back on track, but you just keep derailing. You want desperately for me to be espousing religious philosophy here so you can attack it, and I get that, but you're being completely dishonest about the conversation. I believe all organized man-made religions are flawed, but they are evidence that man does spiritually connect to something greater than self and always has.
> 
> 
> 
> What is Karma? Do you have any physical evidence it exists? Can it be tested and falsified? I believe in Karma too, but you must realize this is a spiritual concept, not a physical one. Most people don't believe they do bad things or are bad people. Even someone like Hitler believed he was doing good and was a good person. I've never met another human who admitted, I am a bad person who does bad terrible things! What we do is rationalize our behavior whether others see it as good or bad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Know why we stopped believing in gods? First of all, we grew up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So nearly 90% of the human race is not grown up? Only roughly 10% of us are grown ups? That's odd. What you're doing here is rationalizing your disbelief by viewing your disbelief as a sign of maturity. You have absolutely nothing to base this on, it's mere speculative opinion or rationalization of your disbelief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> really? so the tooth fairy the Easter bunny and saint nick are all real?
Click to expand...


None of these are mentioned in the bible your point ?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> SillyBonobo, you have less grasp of biology than the average 4th grader, and you have zero grasp of the scientific method. You think the mindless shit you read on the hate sites is a substitute for actual knowledge - it isn't.
> 
> No, we don't know how life on Earth started. There are dozens of competing hypotheses regarding it, ranging from the ever popular primordial soup, to the also popular hitch hiking microbes (where microbes on an asteroid that crashed into the planet are the basis of life) and every point in between.  We have a solid gauge of age or the Earth due to radio decay, but life is far more tricky, we are at best in a range of a hundred million years for when life started.
> 
> In short, you are as ever, ignorant, uneducated, and talking shit you don't know anything about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow that's a great point.  We don't know what started the big bang and we don't know for sure how life started here on earth.  Scientists thank god have a few good theories.  It certainly wasn't a god and wasn't done in 7 days, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you know it was not God ?
Click to expand...


Because it was Zeus.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> You failed to make any point. Perhaps it's the other way around? Countries which do better have less religion because people don't feel the need for religious beliefs, life is good.
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't made a religious argument. You people continue to try and conflate religion with spirituality and I keep on trying to get you back on track, but you just keep derailing. You want desperately for me to be espousing religious philosophy here so you can attack it, and I get that, but you're being completely dishonest about the conversation. I believe all organized man-made religions are flawed, but they are evidence that man does spiritually connect to something greater than self and always has.
> 
> 
> 
> What is Karma? Do you have any physical evidence it exists? Can it be tested and falsified? I believe in Karma too, but you must realize this is a spiritual concept, not a physical one. Most people don't believe they do bad things or are bad people. Even someone like Hitler believed he was doing good and was a good person. I've never met another human who admitted, I am a bad person who does bad terrible things! What we do is rationalize our behavior whether others see it as good or bad.
> 
> 
> 
> So nearly 90% of the human race is not grown up? Only roughly 10% of us are grown ups? That's odd. What you're doing here is rationalizing your disbelief by viewing your disbelief as a sign of maturity. You have absolutely nothing to base this on, it's mere speculative opinion or rationalization of your disbelief.
> 
> 
> 
> really? so the tooth fairy the Easter bunny and saint nick are all real?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of these are mentioned in the bible your point ?
Click to expand...


None of the individual species of dinosaurs herded onto Noah's Ark are mentioned in the bibles.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just plain ignorance at its worst.
> 
> 1. There is no evidence that shows design in nature.
> 
> 2. There no such thing as a "mathematical impossibility that a non-directed natural process ..."
> 
> Posting these absurdities you steal from Harun Yahya is a waste of bandwidth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who denies the overwhelming evidence of design is just simply in denial. Of course there are mathematical impossibilities just as there are mathematical possibilities you dimwit.
> 
> So what is the purpose of mathematics
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where is this "overwhelming evidence of design"?
> 
> You make nonsensical claims which you refuse to support.
Click to expand...


Then you have responded to many of my posts without reading the entire post.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow that's a great point.  We don't know what started the big bang and we don't know for sure how life started here on earth.  Scientists thank god have a few good theories.  It certainly wasn't a god and wasn't done in 7 days, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know it was not God ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because it was Zeus.
Click to expand...


IS zeus a god ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> really? so the tooth fairy the Easter bunny and saint nick are all real?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of these are mentioned in the bible your point ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of the individual species of dinosaurs herded onto Noah's Ark are mentioned in the bibles.
Click to expand...


Wrong,it states all land living kinds were represented on the Ark.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who denies the overwhelming evidence of design is just simply in denial. Of course there are mathematical impossibilities just as there are mathematical possibilities you dimwit.
> 
> So what is the purpose of mathematics
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is this "overwhelming evidence of design"?
> 
> You make nonsensical claims which you refuse to support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you have responded to many of my posts without reading the entire post.
Click to expand...


I've read your posts. They're nonsensical.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of these are mentioned in the bible your point ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of the individual species of dinosaurs herded onto Noah's Ark are mentioned in the bibles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong,it states all land living kinds were represented on the Ark.
Click to expand...


There were many species of land living dinosaurs. All of them co-existed with humans just a few thousand years ago. Why did none survive the cruise?


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know it was not God ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it was Zeus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IS zeus a god ?
Click to expand...


One of many. He hired your gods but later fired them for cause.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Uncensored2008 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow that's a great point.  We don't know what started the big bang and we don't know for sure how life started here on earth.  Scientists thank god have a few good theories.  It certainly wasn't a god and wasn't done in 7 days, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you think the big bang started life on Earth?
> 
> You have no fucking idea what scientists think, you are an uneducated chimp.
> 
> Oh, and stupid, we DO know what triggered the big bang - gravity. The forces compacted mass/energy so tightly that it reacted with explosive force.
Click to expand...


Morning, respectfully uncensored. We are back to square one, origins. Where did gravity come from ? are you suggesting all elements Involved in the big bang were eternal ?

I am not denying the big bang.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of the individual species of dinosaurs herded onto Noah's Ark are mentioned in the bibles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong,it states all land living kinds were represented on the Ark.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There were many species of land living dinosaurs. All of them co-existed with humans just a few thousand years ago. Why did none survive the cruise?
Click to expand...


They must have survived the cruise because they were mentioned not just by the bible but by many cultures. They went extinct because of the most famous mechanism of species going extinct,natural selection.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong,it states all land living kinds were represented on the Ark.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There were many species of land living dinosaurs. All of them co-existed with humans just a few thousand years ago. Why did none survive the cruise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They must have survived the cruise because they were mentioned not just by the bible but by many cultures. They went extinct because of the most famous mechanism of species going extinct,natural selection.
Click to expand...


They all went extinct in just the last few thousand years?


----------



## GISMYS

SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS KNEW ALL ABOUT DINOS JUST 1000 YEARS AGO==NOT MILLIONS OF YEARS===============  Ancient Dinosaur Depictions | Genesis Park


----------



## Hollie

GISMYS said:


> SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS KNEW ALL ABOUT DINOS JUST 1000 YEARS AGO==NOT MILLIONS OF YEARS===============  Ancient Dinosaur Depictions | Genesis Park



Funny stuff. 

Now, go take your meds.


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> What did he do for the infinite amount of time that took place before the big bang?



karaoke?.....


----------



## thanatos144

This thread should have shut down awhile ago. We already see the irrational fear of God by the God haters and know why. They dont wish God to exist. Well go for it. He still loves you anyway. He isn't forcing you to live a life he wants there are just consequences to living a life in sin. Live how you want people. I will live in the light of the lord.


----------



## Boss

> Funny stuff.
> 
> Now, go take your meds.



Yes guys, go take your meds and stop being funny. Everyone knows that hagette Hollie knows everything. Silly boob pointed out that if time the universe has existed were a year, man's existence in it would be less than a day... but in this short amount of time, airheads like Hollie have figured out everything and answered all the questions of the universe. Any challenge to what she knows will be met with stubborn opposition along with a healthy dose of crude ridicule and insult. No need in trying to teach her any more, she's figured all of it out. Now, if some smarter monkey like Algore comes along and tells her man is making the planet get warmer, that's a different story. What you guys need to do is abandon God and Religion and start talking about gay sex and killing babies, and I bet she'll listen to what you have to say!


----------



## Uncensored2008

Hollie said:


> "..... because I say so."
> 
> You speak with such authority on behalf of the gods.




And that should be reserved for the fuckwad nutjob AGW cultists.  Silly Bonobo warns that Gaia is angry and will destroy the world by melting the ice caps. REPENT your carbon sins, SACRIFICE to  Algore the magnificent (a wholly owned subsidiary of Al Jazeera) all that you have, lest the world end....


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have my own definition. Create: to bring into existence. God is immortal and eternal and always existed.
> 
> *We only see creation in physical reality because, quite simply, that is all we see.*
> 
> All that we are aware of. I can create a vacuum, you can't see it yet it exists. Still, it is a word we apply to physical creation. I don't know about God creating angels, if I ever see God create an angel, I'll believe that is a possibility. As for now, it's wild speculation that spiritual nature has spiritual creation or that the word can apply to spiritual things.
> 
> 
> 
> Hold on, you need correcting again. Theorized singularity does not "precede" the Big Bang. It is the point where the Big Bang *begins*. Nothing physical can exist prior to this, there is no time or space for physical to exist.
> 
> 
> 
> General relativity applies to our universe, time, space, and perception of physical reality. Without an expanding universe, there is no time and subsequently, no physical reality. As you said, you can't even explain how time cannot exist. Yet, before the Big Bang created the universe (including singularity), time did not exist. If time can't exist, the physical can't exist.
> 
> 
> 
> Well since we do know that time creates physical reality, we know that before time there couldn't have been physical reality. Singularity is the beginning of the Big Bang, it doesn't precede it. It's like claiming the dropping of the green flag in NASCAR is an event preceding the race, it is not. It is the event that begins the race.
> 
> Long before man knew ANY of this stuff, we had an intrinsic connection to something greater than ourselves, something greater than physical nature. We are aware of this by design. We could have never accomplished what we've done without this intrinsic connection and awareness of something greater.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You continue to make little sense.  You have already used the word create in reference to non-physical things in your post.  It doesn't matter if god is capable of creating angels or not, all that matters is that the word is correct in that context.  The definition of create you provided, 'to bring into existence', does not require the physical.
> 
> I think you have a mistaken impression of the concept of the singularity from which the Big Bang sprang.  Normal physics, general relativity, these things did not function within the singularity.  Only after the explosion creating the universe occurred did those things begin.  However, the singularity is not, that I am aware of, considered non-physical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Existence. What is meant by this? Are you not talking about *physical* existence? When we use the word "create" it means to bring into physical existence. It can have no other meaning unless it's a philosophical speculation of something not known.
> 
> The Big Bang did not "spring from" singularity. Again, theorized singularity is the beginning of the Big Bang. If normal physics did not function within the singularity it wasn't physical because that's what physics entails. I don't profess to know if singularity is physical or non-physical, I presume it is physical if it happened in our physical universe and reality. Nevertheless, whatever preceded singularity is not physical and cannot be physical.
> 
> Now you want to argue that it's not known whether anything existed before singularity, and I can agree that surely nothing physical existed, but the notion that nothing created something is a contradiction of basic logic. It's "magic" on a higher order than any God man has ever imagined. Certainly something did cause the Big Bang, and certainly it wasn't physical.
Click to expand...


Existence does not require the physical.  While we do not have any proof that the non-physical exists, since we are limited to the physical in our perception, that doesn't mean that the word cannot be used to describe something non-physical.  Just as with creation, the words are perfectly valid to describe concepts, theories, or even fiction.  So again, while a Christian might make the argument that a non-physical god created non-physical angels, it doesn't matter that I believe in neither angels nor god.  The use of the word created is still perfectly acceptable.

That normal physics may not have applied to the singularity does not mean it wasn't physical.  Quantum physics are believed to be the way to explain the singularity from everything I've read.

There are many ideas about what may have come 'before' the singularity, assuming such a concept even applies if there was no time.  There is hardly conclusive proof that there was nothing physical prior to the Big Bang, and there have been ideas about physical explanations, such as the Big Bang/Crunch or other previous universes, from physicists.  So why you insist that 'we know' there was nothing physical before the Big Bang is baffling to me.  Maybe you think you know that, but who else you include in that use of 'we' I'm unclear on.


----------



## daws101

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Recognize that the very molecules that make up your body, the atoms that construct the molecules, are traceable to the crucibles that were once the centers of high mass stars that exploded their chemically rich guts into the galaxy, enriching pristine gas clouds with the chemistry of life. So that we are all connected to each other biologically, to the earth chemically and to the rest of the universe atomically. Thats kinda cool! That makes me smile and I actually feel quite large at the end of that. Its not that we are better than the universe, we are part of the universe. We are in the universe and the universe is in us.
> &#8213; Neil deGrasse Tyson
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wish I could ask Neil why he thinks this is so profound? Is there any question that we might be comprised of molecules not found anywhere else in the universe? Yes, God used common materials of the universe when He created us, He didn't use special matter that doesn't exist elsewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yea, he's not deep, you are boss man.
Click to expand...

bossy is deep like an abyss and just as empty .


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> Merchant_of_Meh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very late to this party, but I'll throw my 2 cents in anyway.
> 
> I keep my beliefs to myself 97% of the time, the other 3% comes from folks actively inquiring about my spiritual beliefs. Some don't mind my answer, some do. That's not my problem and I feel no shame or guilt. However, I do not and have not ever slighted any religion or belittled any believers. I consider that very disrespectful.
> 
> Nonetheless,  I do not shy away from debates with believers as well, but I only discuss it with those who can actually carry on a measured, respectful discussion on the matter. If it gets out of control, I disengage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In real life, I am much the same way. I keep my personal spirituality to myself and don't disparage others over what they believe. I find myself in an interesting scenario here over the past 6 months or so, because I am engaging in debate with predominantly atheists over the existence of God. From their perspective, I am some sort of "religious fundamentalist" but I repeatedly reject the claims of being religious. I am not religious.
> 
> I challenge the atheists on their arguments because they are weak and superfluous arguments. They like to attempt perverting science to promote atheism, and I call them on it. Now I could probably just as easily seek out a Christian forum and pick on Christians for their beliefs, but it's no fun for me to pick on Christians. I had much rather razz on atheists.
> 
> I am a Spiritualist. I don't simply "believe" in God, I am spiritually connected to God. It's not the God of the Bible or the Christian God, in fact, it has no humanistic attributes of Abrahamic religion or any other organized religion. It's spiritual energy, a guiding spiritual force that I know exists because I connect with it. Don't really care if anyone believes it, not trying to "win souls over" for God. It's just my personal spiritual foundation.
> 
> I have respect for most religious people, I believe they are honestly and earnestly attempting to understand a real spiritual connection. I respect what I've read and understand of the Bible and the teachings of Jesus, I think there is a lot of wisdom there for leading a good spiritual life. I don't believe it is The Word of God or Jesus is The Son of God, but it is a great inspirational book of guidance for many, and I can appreciate that.
> 
> My argument and point of contention is with atheists who reject human spirituality. Even though the evidence shows humans have been spiritually connecting for all their existence and there is no scientific evidence to disprove spiritual nature. In fact, the scientific evidence very much suggests that spiritual nature created physical nature and reality.
Click to expand...

I tried very hard not to do this but bossy's shit is getting so deep I just had too
if you're offended don't look....


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> But daws you say my views are based on self imposed ignorance. I can assume because looking at nature that the evidence shows deliberate design to everything's existence but you on the other hand, want to think no designer was needed defying known laws and have no clue as how we came in to existence,ignoring the mathematical impossibility that a non-directed natural process produced all we see and giving us everything from protection mechanisms,a brain to reason,the organs and everything else required for life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just plain ignorance at its worst.
> 
> 1. There is no evidence that shows design in nature.
> 
> 2. There no such thing as a "mathematical impossibility that a non-directed natural process ..."
> 
> Posting these absurdities you steal from Harun Yahya is a waste of bandwidth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyone who denies the overwhelming evidence of design is just simply in denial. Of course there are mathematical impossibilities just as there are mathematical possibilities you dimwit.
> 
> So what is the purpose of mathematics
Click to expand...

how does someone deny what not there? 

and as always you are attempting a false equivalence ..Mathematical impossibilities. It is sometimes said that in the 1800s problems such as trisecting angles, squaring the circle, solving quintics, and integrating functions like Exp[x^2] were proved mathematically impossible. But what was actually done was just to show that these problems could not be solved in terms of particular levels of mathematical constructs - say square roots (as in ruler and compass constructions discussed on page 1135), arbitrary roots, or elementary transcendental functions. And in each case higher mathematical constructs that seem in some sense no less implementable immediately allow the problems to be solved. Yet with undecidability one believes that there is absolutely no construct that can explicitly exist in our universe that allows the problem to be solved in any finite way. And unlike traditional mathematical impossibilities, undecidability is normally formulated purely in terms of ordinary integers - making it in a sense necessary to collapse basic distinctions between finite and infinite quantities if any higher-level constructs are to be included. 
Stephen Wolfram: A New Kind of Science

do us a favor slapdick and use concepts you know something about.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> SillyBonobo, you have less grasp of biology than the average 4th grader, and you have zero grasp of the scientific method. You think the mindless shit you read on the hate sites is a substitute for actual knowledge - it isn't.
> 
> No, we don't know how life on Earth started. There are dozens of competing hypotheses regarding it, ranging from the ever popular primordial soup, to the also popular hitch hiking microbes (where microbes on an asteroid that crashed into the planet are the basis of life) and every point in between.  We have a solid gauge of age or the Earth due to radio decay, but life is far more tricky, we are at best in a range of a hundred million years for when life started.
> 
> In short, you are as ever, ignorant, uneducated, and talking shit you don't know anything about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow that's a great point.  We don't know what started the big bang and we don't know for sure how life started here on earth.  Scientists thank god have a few good theories.  It certainly wasn't a god and wasn't done in 7 days, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you know it was not God ?
Click to expand...

how do you know it was ? were you there?
(that one I took from your playbook)


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Funny stuff.
> 
> Now, go take your meds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes guys, go take your meds and stop being funny. Everyone knows that hagette Hollie knows everything. Silly boob pointed out that if time the universe has existed were a year, man's existence in it would be less than a day... but in this short amount of time, airheads like Hollie have figured out everything and answered all the questions of the universe. Any challenge to what she knows will be met with stubborn opposition along with a healthy dose of crude ridicule and insult. No need in trying to teach her any more, she's figured all of it out. Now, if some smarter monkey like Algore comes along and tells her man is making the planet get warmer, that's a different story. What you guys need to do is abandon God and Religion and start talking about gay sex and killing babies, and I bet she'll listen to what you have to say!
Click to expand...


You're such a class act, bossy.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> But daws you say my views are based on self imposed ignorance.* I can assume because looking at nature that the evidence shows deliberate design to everything's existence* but you on the other hand, want to think no designer was needed defying known laws and have no clue as how we came in to existence,ignoring the mathematical impossibility that a non-directed natural process produced all we see and giving us everything from protection mechanisms,a brain to reason,the organs and everything else required for life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *YWC: I can assume because looking at nature that the evidence shows deliberate design to everything's existence ...*
> 
> 
> not everything, only nature demonstrates design and besides nature what else on any heavenly body displays evidence of design - nothing. most planets are lifeless with vast expanses without even simple shapes.
> 
> if it were not the forces of the Everlasting responsible for biological life why hasn't the Deity built any other structures to demonstrate the same design capabilities if for no other reason than to show variety in workmanship ?
> 
> show us what else (your) Biblical God has designed on any heavenly body to demonstrate his capabilities or presence.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You will have to take that up with the creator. The planets and their orbit and alignments plays an important role for life on this unique planet,This cannot be denied.
Click to expand...

Einstein expressed his skepticism regarding an anthropomorphic deity, often describing it as "naïve" and "childlike". He stated, "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously.


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> But daws you say my views are based on self imposed ignorance. I can assume because looking at nature that the evidence shows deliberate design to everything's existence but you on the other hand, want to think no designer was needed defying known laws and have no clue as how we came in to existence,ignoring the mathematical impossibility that a non-directed natural process produced all we see and giving us everything from protection mechanisms,a brain to reason,the organs and everything else required for life.
> 
> 
> 
> this post just highlights that ignorance....
> your assumptions are just that, assumptions.
> so again : Your argument is scientifically illiterate, ill informed, infantile and dishonest
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So now you are saying assumptions are just that, assumptions. That is what theories begin with opinions and assumptions,derived from the observation of evidence.
Click to expand...

false! slappy o slapdick.
I did not say all assumptions, I said "your" (you personally)  make assumptions constantly that are false...   

 Your argument is scientifically illiterate, ill informed, infantile and dishonest


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> You failed to make any point. Perhaps it's the other way around? Countries which do better have less religion because people don't feel the need for religious beliefs, life is good.
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't made a religious argument. You people continue to try and conflate religion with spirituality and I keep on trying to get you back on track, but you just keep derailing. You want desperately for me to be espousing religious philosophy here so you can attack it, and I get that, but you're being completely dishonest about the conversation. I believe all organized man-made religions are flawed, but they are evidence that man does spiritually connect to something greater than self and always has.
> 
> 
> 
> What is Karma? Do you have any physical evidence it exists? Can it be tested and falsified? I believe in Karma too, but you must realize this is a spiritual concept, not a physical one. Most people don't believe they do bad things or are bad people. Even someone like Hitler believed he was doing good and was a good person. I've never met another human who admitted, I am a bad person who does bad terrible things! What we do is rationalize our behavior whether others see it as good or bad.
> 
> 
> 
> So nearly 90% of the human race is not grown up? Only roughly 10% of us are grown ups? That's odd. What you're doing here is rationalizing your disbelief by viewing your disbelief as a sign of maturity. You have absolutely nothing to base this on, it's mere speculative opinion or rationalization of your disbelief.
> 
> 
> 
> really? so the tooth fairy the Easter bunny and saint nick are all real?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of these are mentioned in the bible your point ?
Click to expand...

neither are most all of the ones mentioned in the bible.....


----------



## daws101

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of these are mentioned in the bible your point ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of the individual species of dinosaurs herded onto Noah's Ark are mentioned in the bibles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong,it states all land living kinds were represented on the Ark.
Click to expand...


bullshit "Dinosaurs were not mentioned in the bible, contrary to popular Christian mythology. When Christians mistakenly refer to the book of Job, he speaks of a "behemoth" which is mentioned to eat grass like an ox. There are plenty of meat-eating dinosaurs. 

 Those who mention a "dragon" in the book of revelation which concludes the bible after all the events of Christ, it refers to it as Satan. Do you expect people to believe that all dinosaur skeletons that are found are all Satan? Also, why have no dinosaur skeletons been found that date under 2000 years old? Even if God created Adam/Eve before, why do we not find human skeletons dating prior to dinosaurs? 

 Lastly, as far as using the term "leviathan," it's referred in a metaphoric sense. As common as they were, it would have been mentioned a lot more. Since they do not mention meat-eating dinosaurs, why would they battle a creature that eats grass in the first place?  

Why are dinosaurs not mentioned in the Bible


----------



## daws101

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What did he do for the infinite amount of time that took place before the big bang?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> karaoke?.....
Click to expand...

good one!
I was gonna say crossword puzzles


----------



## Hollie

Boss'ism Alert!



			
				Boss said:
			
		

> I challenge the atheists on their arguments because they are weak and superfluous arguments. They like to attempt perverting science to promote atheism, and I call them on it. Now I could probably just as easily seek out a Christian forum and pick on Christians for their beliefs, but it's no fun for me to pick on Christians. I had much rather razz on atheists.



I though the above typifies so much of bossies arguments: ill-conceived, confused and mis-directed.

Firstly, I don't see bossie as challenging the arguments of anyone. Consistently, his arguments  have been an insistence of spirit realms&#8482;, ruled by spiritual entities&#8482; (which bossie claims to communicate with on a daily basis) and spiritual connections&#8482; to spirit realms that bossie insists are imbued in all cultures and civilizations. With all this, bossie insists that it is Atheists who are perverting science.

All of atheism tends to be a critique of theistic assertions. Even the Big Bang doesn't address god issues. Atheism is really a philosophical rejection of the assertions of theism as undemonstrated and fallacious, nothing more. If anyone steps back and objectively observes the comparisons that bossie is trying to make, you will see that the "spirit realm'ists" will reject the natural explanations over and over in favor of the supernatural assertions (they are hardly explanations), and they will always apply special pleadings when doing so despite clear evidence of various religions building themselves up on fraudulant terms and despite clear examples of such chicanery with people who are alive today who are doing it and culling the gullible. Think about it bossis -- _every_ religion and _every god(s)_ competing with your gods you must consider fraudulant else why aren't you a believer in them?).


----------



## Boss

> Einstein expressed his skepticism regarding an anthropomorphic deity, often describing it as "naïve" and "childlike". He stated, "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously.



Grossly misquoting Einstein. First of all, he NEVER stated belief in God was childlike. He said his personal belief was like that of a child. A child is curious, naive, unknowing in their understanding of things. You've taken his words completely out of their context to make your erroneous point. The idea of an "anthropological" God is the idea of a human-like God. I respect that because it's also MY view of God. I can't take seriously the idea of a human-like invisible man sitting on a cloud with a Charleton Heston voice and long white beard. He NEVER said that he did not believe in God.


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> You continue to make little sense.  You have already used the word create in reference to non-physical things in your post.  It doesn't matter if god is capable of creating angels or not, all that matters is that the word is correct in that context.  The definition of create you provided, 'to bring into existence', does not require the physical.
> 
> I think you have a mistaken impression of the concept of the singularity from which the Big Bang sprang.  Normal physics, general relativity, these things did not function within the singularity.  Only after the explosion creating the universe occurred did those things begin.  However, the singularity is not, that I am aware of, considered non-physical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Existence. What is meant by this? Are you not talking about *physical* existence? When we use the word "create" it means to bring into physical existence. It can have no other meaning unless it's a philosophical speculation of something not known.
> 
> The Big Bang did not "spring from" singularity. Again, theorized singularity is the beginning of the Big Bang. If normal physics did not function within the singularity it wasn't physical because that's what physics entails. I don't profess to know if singularity is physical or non-physical, I presume it is physical if it happened in our physical universe and reality. Nevertheless, whatever preceded singularity is not physical and cannot be physical.
> 
> Now you want to argue that it's not known whether anything existed before singularity, and I can agree that surely nothing physical existed, but the notion that nothing created something is a contradiction of basic logic. It's "magic" on a higher order than any God man has ever imagined. Certainly something did cause the Big Bang, and certainly it wasn't physical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Existence does not require the physical.
Click to expand...


You're absolutely correct, existence can also be spiritual or metaphysical. It is good to know you now seem to comprehend that. I've tried to make this point numerous times to no avail. Thanks for confirming you do comprehend spiritual existence. 



> While we do not have any proof that the non-physical exists, since we are limited to the physical in our perception, that doesn't mean that the word cannot be used to describe something non-physical.  Just as with creation, the words are perfectly valid to describe concepts, theories, or even fiction.  So again, while a Christian might make the argument that a non-physical god created non-physical angels, it doesn't matter that I believe in neither angels nor god.  The use of the word created is still perfectly acceptable.



Again... "Creation" is something we generally apply to things that are physical in existence. I'm not even clear on how 'spiritual' creating 'spiritual' would work. How would you determine if something spiritual created something else spiritual? What does spiritual creation look like? Doesn't follow the same parameters of physical creation, or it wouldn't seem. But perhaps you have some insight into the spiritual realm that I don't know about?  



> That normal physics may not have applied to the singularity does not mean it wasn't physical.  Quantum physics are believed to be the way to explain the singularity from everything I've read.



Well quantum physics are still physics which apply to the physical universe. As I said, I don't know if singularity is physical or non-physical. I presume if it existed in the physical universe at the beginning of the Big Bang, it has to be physical, but perhaps it's spiritual? 



> There are many ideas about what may have come 'before' the singularity, assuming such a concept even applies if there was no time.  There is hardly conclusive proof that there was nothing physical prior to the Big Bang, and there have been ideas about physical explanations, such as the Big Bang/Crunch or other previous universes, from physicists.  So why you insist that 'we know' there was nothing physical before the Big Bang is baffling to me.  Maybe you think you know that, but who else you include in that use of 'we' I'm unclear on.



Well we know there was no time because time is created by an expanding universe. That's pretty conclusive proof there was no "physical" since physical nature requires time and physical reality to exist. I use "we" in context of scientific consensus. E=mc2 is a fairly widely accepted principle. You've not posed a theory on how "physical" can exist without time. Until you show me that, I cannot accept that physical existed before physical existence.


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> Einstein expressed his skepticism regarding an anthropomorphic deity, often describing it as "naïve" and "childlike". He stated, "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grossly misquoting Einstein. First of all, he NEVER stated belief in God was childlike. He said his personal belief was like that of a child. A child is curious, naive, unknowing in their understanding of things. You've taken his words completely out of their context to make your erroneous point. The idea of an "anthropological" God is the idea of a human-like God. I respect that because it's also MY view of God. I can't take seriously the idea of a human-like invisible man sitting on a cloud with a Charleton Heston voice and long white beard. He NEVER said that he did not believe in God.
Click to expand...

false! you ignorant fuck ..

Albert Einstein: God, Religion & Theology
Explaining Einstein's understanding of God as the Universe / Reality 

Albert Einstein: Theology, Philosophy of Religion Quotations knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. (Albert Einstein)

I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)
thanks for once again proving you total ignorance...


----------



## Boss

daws101 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Einstein expressed his skepticism regarding an anthropomorphic deity, often describing it as "naïve" and "childlike". He stated, "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grossly misquoting Einstein. First of all, he NEVER stated belief in God was childlike. He said his personal belief was like that of a child. A child is curious, naive, unknowing in their understanding of things. You've taken his words completely out of their context to make your erroneous point. The idea of an "anthropological" God is the idea of a human-like God. I respect that because it's also MY view of God. I can't take seriously the idea of a human-like invisible man sitting on a cloud with a Charleton Heston voice and long white beard. He NEVER said that he did not believe in God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> false! you ignorant fuck ..
> 
> Albert Einstein: God, Religion & Theology
> Explaining Einstein's understanding of God as the Universe / Reality
> 
> Albert Einstein: Theology, Philosophy of Religion Quotations *knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate*, of the manifestations of the *profoundest reason* and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, *I am a deeply religious man.* (Albert Einstein)
> 
> I do not believe in *a personal* God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)
> 
> *I believe in Spinoza's God* who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)
> thanks for once again proving you total ignorance...
Click to expand...


Thanks for the confirmation Einstein wasn't an atheist and what I said was correct.


----------



## thebrucebeat

Boss said:


> Einstein expressed his skepticism regarding an anthropomorphic deity, often describing it as "naïve" and "childlike". He stated, "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grossly misquoting Einstein. First of all, he NEVER stated belief in God was childlike. He said his personal belief was like that of a child. A child is curious, naive, unknowing in their understanding of things. You've taken his words completely out of their context to make your erroneous point. The idea of an "anthropological" God is the idea of a human-like God. I respect that because it's also MY view of God. I can't take seriously the idea of a human-like invisible man sitting on a cloud with a Charleton Heston voice and long white beard. He NEVER said that he did not believe in God.
Click to expand...


Yes, he categorically DID say that belief was childlike.
See my signature.
Stop making an ass of yourself.


----------



## Goddess_Ashtara

Throw the Jew down the well...!
So my country can be free...!
You must grab him by the horns
And we'll have a big party :-D


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Grossly misquoting Einstein. First of all, he NEVER stated belief in God was childlike. He said his personal belief was like that of a child. A child is curious, naive, unknowing in their understanding of things. You've taken his words completely out of their context to make your erroneous point. The idea of an "anthropological" God is the idea of a human-like God. I respect that because it's also MY view of God. I can't take seriously the idea of a human-like invisible man sitting on a cloud with a Charleton Heston voice and long white beard. He NEVER said that he did not believe in God.
> 
> 
> 
> false! you ignorant fuck ..
> 
> Albert Einstein: God, Religion & Theology
> Explaining Einstein's understanding of God as the Universe / Reality
> 
> Albert Einstein: Theology, Philosophy of Religion Quotations *knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate*, of the manifestations of the *profoundest reason* and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, *I am a deeply religious man.* (Albert Einstein)
> 
> I do not believe in *a personal* God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)
> 
> *I believe in Spinoza's God* who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)
> thanks for once again proving you total ignorance...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for the confirmation Einstein wasn't an atheist and what I said was correct.
Click to expand...

 he never said so but....."I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature. (Albert Einstein, The World as I See It) 

 It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954, The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press)"

  odd that if he wasn't, he sure talked like an atheist.....someone is full of shit and it's not me or Einstein.


----------



## daws101

and then there's this


----------



## Hollie

boss said:
			
		

> You're absolutely correct, existence can also be spiritual or metaphysical.



".... because I say so".


So then, you can give us a testable example of spiritual or metaphysical existence, no?


----------



## Tuatara

Boss said:


> Einstein expressed his skepticism regarding an anthropomorphic deity, often describing it as "naïve" and "childlike". He stated, "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grossly misquoting Einstein. First of all, he NEVER stated belief in God was childlike. He said his personal belief was like that of a child. A child is curious, naive, unknowing in their understanding of things. You've taken his words completely out of their context to make your erroneous point. The idea of an "anthropological" God is the idea of a human-like God. I respect that because it's also MY view of God. I can't take seriously the idea of a human-like invisible man sitting on a cloud with a Charleton Heston voice and long white beard. He NEVER said that he did not believe in God.
Click to expand...

Wrong! This is from Einstein himself
 " It was of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal god and I have never denied this and have expressed it clearly."

-from Albert Einstein, the Human Side, New Glimpses from His Archives, 1979 Page 43.


----------



## BreezeWood

> Chain Reaction: From Einstein to the Atomic Bomb | DiscoverMagazine.com
> 
> 
> * From Einstein to the Atomic Bomb*
> 
> In the popular imagination, Albert Einstein is intimately associated with the atom bomb. A few months after the weapon was used against Japan in 1945, Time put him on its cover with an explosion mushrooming behind him that had E = mc2 emblazoned on it.
> 
> ......................
> 
> Newsweek, likewise, did a cover on him, with the headline The Man Who Started It All. This was a perception fostered by the U.S. government. It had released an official history of the atom bomb project that assigned great weight to a letter Einstein had written to President Franklin Roosevelt warning of the destructive potential of an atomic chain reaction.
> 
> All of this troubled Einstein. Had I known that the Germans would not succeed in producing an atomic bomb, he told Newsweek, I never would have lifted a finger. He pointed out, correctly, that he had never actually worked on the bomb project. And he claimed to a Japanese publication, My participation in the production of the atom bomb consisted in a single act: I signed a letter to President Roosevelt.
> 
> Neither the public image nor the personal protests capture the true, complex story of Einstein and the bomb. Contrary to common belief, Einstein knew little about the nuclear particle physics underlying the bomb. On the other hand, as the archives show, Einstein did not merely sign the letter to Roosevelt. He was deeply involved in writing it, revising it, and deciding how to get it to the president.




*On the other hand, as the archives show, Einstein did not merely sign the letter to Roosevelt. He was deeply involved in writing it, revising it, and deciding how to get it to the president.*


in the midst of a World War, the (that) scientist introduces an Atomic Bomb - philosophy enough for such a person, obviously scriptural by nature. 

.


----------



## Boss

Tuatara said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Einstein expressed his skepticism regarding an anthropomorphic deity, often describing it as "naïve" and "childlike". He stated, "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grossly misquoting Einstein. First of all, he NEVER stated belief in God was childlike. He said his personal belief was like that of a child. A child is curious, naive, unknowing in their understanding of things. You've taken his words completely out of their context to make your erroneous point. The idea of an "anthropological" God is the idea of a human-like God. I respect that because it's also MY view of God. I can't take seriously the idea of a human-like invisible man sitting on a cloud with a Charleton Heston voice and long white beard. He NEVER said that he did not believe in God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong! This is from Einstein himself
> " It was of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal god and I have never denied this and have expressed it clearly."
> 
> -from Albert Einstein, the Human Side, New Glimpses from His Archives, 1979 Page 43.
Click to expand...


Okay, let me straighten you morons out here... I never claimed that Einstein was a CHRISTIAN!  ....Can you all get that through your thick craniums?  I stated that Einstein never said he didn't believe in God. So far, no one has offered a statement of any kind from Einstein, saying he did not believe in any God. Statements that he did not believe in a *PERSONAL* God are NOT statements that he does not believe in *ANY* God. 

Now, I am VERY familiar with ALL the quotes from Einstein on his religious beliefs. I have read them thousands of times. NONE OF THEM state that he is Atheist or does not believe in ANY God. You are deliberately taking what Einstein actually said out of context to pretend Einstein was an Atheist, and he simply never said that.


----------



## midcan5




----------



## BreezeWood

Boss said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Grossly misquoting Einstein. First of all, he NEVER stated belief in God was childlike. He said his personal belief was like that of a child. A child is curious, naive, unknowing in their understanding of things. You've taken his words completely out of their context to make your erroneous point. The idea of an "anthropological" God is the idea of a human-like God. I respect that because it's also MY view of God. I can't take seriously the idea of a human-like invisible man sitting on a cloud with a Charleton Heston voice and long white beard. He NEVER said that he did not believe in God.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong! This is from Einstein himself
> " It was of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal god and I have never denied this and have expressed it clearly."
> 
> -from Albert Einstein, the Human Side, New Glimpses from His Archives, 1979 Page 43.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, let me straighten you morons out here... *I never claimed that Einstein was a CHRISTIAN! * ....Can you all get that through your thick craniums?  I stated that Einstein never said he didn't believe in God. So far, no one has offered a statement of any kind from Einstein, saying he did not believe in any God. Statements that he did not believe in a *PERSONAL* God are NOT statements that he does not believe in *ANY* God.
> 
> Now, I am VERY familiar with ALL the quotes from Einstein on his religious beliefs. I have read them thousands of times. NONE OF THEM state that he is Atheist or does not believe in ANY God. You are deliberately taking what Einstein actually said out of context to pretend Einstein was an Atheist, and he simply never said that.
Click to expand...



*BoBo: I never claimed that Einstein was a CHRISTIAN! *


he was Jewish, dumbass - funny how that worked. Hitler did not care for the Bomb yet Einstein was instrumental in its "creation", was he working for your God ?

.


----------



## GISMYS

BreezeWood said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong! This is from Einstein himself
> " It was of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal god and I have never denied this and have expressed it clearly."
> 
> -from Albert Einstein, the Human Side, New Glimpses from His Archives, 1979 Page 43.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, let me straighten you morons out here... *I never claimed that Einstein was a CHRISTIAN! * ....Can you all get that through your thick craniums?  I stated that Einstein never said he didn't believe in God. So far, no one has offered a statement of any kind from Einstein, saying he did not believe in any God. Statements that he did not believe in a *PERSONAL* God are NOT statements that he does not believe in *ANY* God.
> 
> Now, I am VERY familiar with ALL the quotes from Einstein on his religious beliefs. I have read them thousands of times. NONE OF THEM state that he is Atheist or does not believe in ANY God. You are deliberately taking what Einstein actually said out of context to pretend Einstein was an Atheist, and he simply never said that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *BoBo: I never claimed that Einstein was a CHRISTIAN! *
> 
> 
> he was Jewish, dumbass - funny how that worked. Hitler did not care for the Bomb yet Einstein was instrumental in its "creation", was he working for your God ?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Most science PHD'S today know GOD is very real but to say so in public would cost them more than most are willing to pay!!! SAD!!


----------



## Hollie

GISMYS said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, let me straighten you morons out here... *I never claimed that Einstein was a CHRISTIAN! * ....Can you all get that through your thick craniums?  I stated that Einstein never said he didn't believe in God. So far, no one has offered a statement of any kind from Einstein, saying he did not believe in any God. Statements that he did not believe in a *PERSONAL* God are NOT statements that he does not believe in *ANY* God.
> 
> Now, I am VERY familiar with ALL the quotes from Einstein on his religious beliefs. I have read them thousands of times. NONE OF THEM state that he is Atheist or does not believe in ANY God. You are deliberately taking what Einstein actually said out of context to pretend Einstein was an Atheist, and he simply never said that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *BoBo: I never claimed that Einstein was a CHRISTIAN! *
> 
> 
> he was Jewish, dumbass - funny how that worked. Hitler did not care for the Bomb yet Einstein was instrumental in its "creation", was he working for your God ?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most science PHD'S today know GOD is very real but to say so in public would cost them more than most are willing to pay!!! SAD!!
Click to expand...


Somehow, I don't see most PhD's seeking you out as their spokesman.


----------



## GISMYS

Hollie said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> *BoBo: I never claimed that Einstein was a CHRISTIAN! *
> 
> 
> he was Jewish, dumbass - funny how that worked. Hitler did not care for the Bomb yet Einstein was instrumental in its "creation", was he working for your God ?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most science PHD'S today know GOD is very real but to say so in public would cost them more than most are willing to pay!!! SAD!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Somehow, I don't see most PhD's seeking you out as their spokesman.
Click to expand...


YES!!! SOME ARE SMARTER THAN OTHERS!!! BUT YOU?? duh!


----------



## GISMYS

Satan is a defeated enemy. He's headed for hell, a place created specifically for him and his cohorts. It is Satan's destiny to bow down before Jesus Christ, and to confess that Jesus is Lord.===JESUS=KING OF KINGS,LORD OF LORDS WILL VERY SOON DESTROY ALL EVIL!!!In the Old Testament, when the people had turned fully from God, they came to the point of sacrificing their own children to their new demon gods. (Jeremiah 7:30-31) It's hard to imagine such a thing happening in America. But in those same forty-odd years since my book came out, Americans have sacrificed more than 54 million children on the altar of promiscuity and convenience. =ABORTION.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> silly boob said:
> 
> 
> 
> all the things that matter for evolution and for life - werent created at the beginning of time.
> 
> Do you know what this tell us stupid?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That you are likely to fail any high school science class when you get there? That you are a totally incompetent and silly boob who should avoid topics on science? That you must believe in magical fairies who created things that matter for evolution and life?
> 
> Matter doesn't create matter. Every element for evolution and life has always been in the universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That god didn't cause the big bang to invent people.  Because billions of years went by after the big bang and no human's.  If we took the start of the universe to today and put it all on a 1 year calendar human's would only be on the calendar for 1 day of that entire year.  December 31st.  Where were we the rest of the year?  What the fuck was god doing all that time?  Didn't he have anything better to do?  Are you insane?  ...Hell, human's may only account for the last hour on December 31st.  We probably don't even account for a whole day.  What took god so long?  Were we the first toy he ever invented?  What did he do for the infinite amount of time that took place before the big bang?  If you believe in god you probably aren't smart enough to grasp this so....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to be hung up on time, and time is something that simply makes no difference to God. Millions of years or billions of years, is just our measurement of the effects caused by an expanding universe. Every second of reality you experience is caused by the expanding of the universe, creating a spacetime continuum in which physical reality exists. The entire lifespan of our universe, as well as a million more like it, have no bearing on God in terms of time. While billions of years have passed for us, no time has passed for God.
> 
> *What did he do for the infinite amount of time that took place before the big bang?*
> 
> First of all, time is not infinite. It is very much finite. We believe the universe began billions of  years ago and will eventually end, and so will time. Before the Big Bang there was no time. The perception of time is created by the expanding universe. So there is no "infinite amount of time before the Big Bang" since time did not yet exist.
> 
> *What took god so long?*
> 
> Again, your mind is having a problem grasping what time is. You have some kind of concept that time exited before the universe, and God somehow is confined to a human's perception of time. Go read some books on time and what it is. You'll find it is a dimension which exists in our universe, and simply put, is a measurement of the expansion of said universe. God is outside of the universe even though God is a part of the universe. Time was created by God with the creation of an expanding universe. The only significance time has is in respect to the material physical reality we experience.
Click to expand...


What existed before the universe?  Are we the only universe?  How do you know all this about god?  Are you published?  

And originally you said if we don't believe in God we'd burn in hell.  Is that still your belief?  What proof of that do you have?  The fact that god is a dick and sends people to hell.  Because we made that up it must be true?  Satin is real?  The Devil is real Boss?  You seem to be on the fence about this but you claim not to be a Christian?  So are Christians right that you'll go to hell for doubting the jesus story or do you believe you just have to believe in generic god and you're safe?  Well what makes you think that?  Because people made up the jesus story, it has to be true, right?  But that means so is the Mormon, Jehova, Jew and Muslim stories.  They must be true.  At least the main premise is true that a god exists.  So what else is all bullshit, the rest of it?  No, because you believe in hell.  Maybe you aren't doing enough to go to heaven.  Maybe you need to be a mormon or Jehova or born again.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> Satan is a defeated enemy. He's headed for hell, a place created specifically for him and his cohorts. It is Satan's destiny to bow down before Jesus Christ, and to confess that Jesus is Lord.===JESUS=KING OF KINGS,LORD OF LORDS WILL VERY SOON DESTROY ALL EVIL!!!In the Old Testament, when the people had turned fully from God, they came to the point of sacrificing their own children to their new demon gods. (Jeremiah 7:30-31) It's hard to imagine such a thing happening in America. But in those same forty-odd years since my book came out, Americans have sacrificed more than 54 million children on the altar of promiscuity and convenience. =ABORTION.



I blow a wad of kids away every night on my girlfriends back and in her hair.  

Maybe if the inventors of your religion didn't have it end with a human sacrifice we all wouldn't be such monsters.  Forget the ending.  Throw it out.  Just say God fucked Mary and she had Jesus and he grew up to teach people to be good.  

And if god is so powerful and good, why did he tempt/fuck with Adam and Eve and then flood the planet instead of just making everyone good and then later send himself the all mighty all powerful god in the form of jesus to suffer on the cross?  Why didn't he instead reveal himself as god and tell them to stop and write this down and tell them all in person what rules he wants us to follow.  Instead he told Mosus when Mosus was alone on a mountain doing payote.  Instead he only talked to Noah.  Instead he only talked to Jesus' 11 deciples.  Why did he only talk to Joseph Smith?  

Why doesn't he come talk to a whole fucking city of people now that we have video tapes and cameras?  Dumb fucking people!!!


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> silly boob said:
> 
> 
> 
> all the things that matter for evolution and for life - weren&#8217;t created at the beginning of time.
> 
> Do you know what this tell us stupid?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That you are likely to fail any high school science class when you get there? That you are a totally incompetent and silly boob who should avoid topics on science? That you must believe in magical fairies who created things that matter for evolution and life?
> 
> Matter doesn't create matter. Every element for evolution and life has always been in the universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That god didn't cause the big bang to invent people.  Because billions of years went by after the big bang and no human's.  If we took the start of the universe to today and put it all on a 1 year calendar human's would only be on the calendar for 1 day of that entire year.  December 31st.  Where were we the rest of the year?  What the fuck was god doing all that time?  Didn't he have anything better to do?  Are you insane?  ...Hell, human's may only account for the last hour on December 31st.  We probably don't even account for a whole day.  What took god so long?  Were we the first toy he ever invented?  What did he do for the infinite amount of time that took place before the big bang?  If you believe in god you probably aren't smart enough to grasp this so....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to be hung up on time, and time is something that simply makes no difference to God. Millions of years or billions of years, is just our measurement of the effects caused by an expanding universe. Every second of reality you experience is caused by the expanding of the universe, creating a spacetime continuum in which physical reality exists. The entire lifespan of our universe, as well as a million more like it, have no bearing on God in terms of time. While billions of years have passed for us, no time has passed for God.
> 
> *What did he do for the infinite amount of time that took place before the big bang?*
> 
> First of all, time is not infinite. It is very much finite. We believe the universe began billions of  years ago and will eventually end, and so will time. Before the Big Bang there was no time. The perception of time is created by the expanding universe. So there is no "infinite amount of time before the Big Bang" since time did not yet exist.
> 
> *What took god so long?*
> 
> Again, your mind is having a problem grasping what time is. You have some kind of concept that time exited before the universe, and God somehow is confined to a human's perception of time. Go read some books on time and what it is. You'll find it is a dimension which exists in our universe, and simply put, is a measurement of the expansion of said universe. God is outside of the universe even though God is a part of the universe. Time was created by God with the creation of an expanding universe. The only significance time has is in respect to the material physical reality we experience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What existed before the universe?  Are we the only universe?  How do you know all this about god?  Are you published?
> 
> And originally you said if we don't believe in God we'd burn in hell.  Is that still your belief?  What proof of that do you have?  The fact that god is a dick and sends people to hell.  Because we made that up it must be true?  Satin is real?  The Devil is real Boss?  You seem to be on the fence about this but you claim not to be a Christian?  So are Christians right that you'll go to hell for doubting the jesus story or do you believe you just have to believe in generic god and you're safe?  Well what makes you think that?  Because people made up the jesus story, it has to be true, right?  But that means so is the Mormon, Jehova, Jew and Muslim stories.  They must be true.  At least the main premise is true that a god exists.  So what else is all bullshit, the rest of it?  No, because you believe in hell.  Maybe you aren't doing enough to go to heaven.  Maybe you need to be a mormon or Jehova or born again.
Click to expand...


IT IS HARD TO POST TO FOOLS AS THEY HAVE little understanding!!!  God CREATED HELL FOR SATAN,DEMONS AND ALL EVIL,IF YOU GO TO HELL IT WILL BE BECAUSE YOU LOVE YOUR SIN AND REJECT GOD AND GOD'S LOVE.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, let me straighten you morons out here... *I never claimed that Einstein was a CHRISTIAN! * ....Can you all get that through your thick craniums?  I stated that Einstein never said he didn't believe in God. So far, no one has offered a statement of any kind from Einstein, saying he did not believe in any God. Statements that he did not believe in a *PERSONAL* God are NOT statements that he does not believe in *ANY* God.
> 
> Now, I am VERY familiar with ALL the quotes from Einstein on his religious beliefs. I have read them thousands of times. NONE OF THEM state that he is Atheist or does not believe in ANY God. You are deliberately taking what Einstein actually said out of context to pretend Einstein was an Atheist, and he simply never said that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *BoBo: I never claimed that Einstein was a CHRISTIAN! *
> 
> 
> he was Jewish, dumbass - funny how that worked. Hitler did not care for the Bomb yet Einstein was instrumental in its "creation", was he working for your God ?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most science PHD'S today know GOD is very real but to say so in public would cost them more than most are willing to pay!!! SAD!!
Click to expand...


Show me anything that explains how belief in god costs PHD's.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> *BoBo: I never claimed that Einstein was a CHRISTIAN! *
> 
> 
> he was Jewish, dumbass - funny how that worked. Hitler did not care for the Bomb yet Einstein was instrumental in its "creation", was he working for your God ?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most science PHD'S today know GOD is very real but to say so in public would cost them more than most are willing to pay!!! SAD!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me anything that explains how belief in god costs PHD's.
Click to expand...


POSTING TO FOOLS IS A WASTE OF TIME!!! begone!!!


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> silly boob said:
> 
> 
> 
> all the things that matter for evolution and for life - werent created at the beginning of time.
> 
> Do you know what this tell us stupid?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That you are likely to fail any high school science class when you get there? That you are a totally incompetent and silly boob who should avoid topics on science? That you must believe in magical fairies who created things that matter for evolution and life?
> 
> Matter doesn't create matter. Every element for evolution and life has always been in the universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That god didn't cause the big bang to invent people.  Because billions of years went by after the big bang and no human's.  If we took the start of the universe to today and put it all on a 1 year calendar human's would only be on the calendar for 1 day of that entire year.  December 31st.  Where were we the rest of the year?  What the fuck was god doing all that time?  Didn't he have anything better to do?  Are you insane?  ...Hell, human's may only account for the last hour on December 31st.  We probably don't even account for a whole day.  What took god so long?  Were we the first toy he ever invented?  What did he do for the infinite amount of time that took place before the big bang?  If you believe in god you probably aren't smart enough to grasp this so....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to be hung up on time, and time is something that simply makes no difference to God. Millions of years or billions of years, is just our measurement of the effects caused by an expanding universe. Every second of reality you experience is caused by the expanding of the universe, creating a spacetime continuum in which physical reality exists. The entire lifespan of our universe, as well as a million more like it, have no bearing on God in terms of time. While billions of years have passed for us, no time has passed for God.
> 
> *What did he do for the infinite amount of time that took place before the big bang?*
> 
> First of all, time is not infinite. It is very much finite. We believe the universe began billions of  years ago and will eventually end, and so will time. Before the Big Bang there was no time. The perception of time is created by the expanding universe. So there is no "infinite amount of time before the Big Bang" since time did not yet exist.
> 
> *What took god so long?*
> 
> Again, your mind is having a problem grasping what time is. You have some kind of concept that time exited before the universe, and God somehow is confined to a human's perception of time. Go read some books on time and what it is. You'll find it is a dimension which exists in our universe, and simply put, is a measurement of the expansion of said universe. God is outside of the universe even though God is a part of the universe. Time was created by God with the creation of an expanding universe. The only significance time has is in respect to the material physical reality we experience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What existed before the universe?  Are we the only universe?  How do you know all this about god?  Are you published?
> 
> And originally you said if we don't believe in God we'd burn in hell.  Is that still your belief?  What proof of that do you have?  The fact that god is a dick and sends people to hell.  Because we made that up it must be true?  Satin is real?  The Devil is real Boss?  You seem to be on the fence about this but you claim not to be a Christian?  So are Christians right that you'll go to hell for doubting the jesus story or do you believe you just have to believe in generic god and you're safe?  Well what makes you think that?  Because people made up the jesus story, it has to be true, right?  But that means so is the Mormon, Jehova, Jew and Muslim stories.  They must be true.  At least the main premise is true that a god exists.  So what else is all bullshit, the rest of it?  No, because you believe in hell.  Maybe you aren't doing enough to go to heaven.  Maybe you need to be a mormon or Jehova or born again.
Click to expand...


I have NEVER said that anyone was going to "burn in hell" and I would appreciate it if you'd STOP the goddamn lying about what I've said. It's getting old. You continue to try and twist this into a RELIGIOUS debate, even though I have REPEATEDLY stated that I am non-religious. Why are you doing that? Do you really believe I am not going to call you out on this? 

God existing, does not mean that heaven or hell also must exist, or that God has to conform to Christian belief, or Mormon belief, or Muslim belief. What part of that are you having trouble comprehending? God can exist without being the manifestation of ANY organized religion. Certainly God can exist without being the manifestation from your fucked up head.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> That you are likely to fail any high school science class when you get there? That you are a totally incompetent and silly boob who should avoid topics on science? That you must believe in magical fairies who created things that matter for evolution and life?
> 
> Matter doesn't create matter. Every element for evolution and life has always been in the universe.
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be hung up on time, and time is something that simply makes no difference to God. Millions of years or billions of years, is just our measurement of the effects caused by an expanding universe. Every second of reality you experience is caused by the expanding of the universe, creating a spacetime continuum in which physical reality exists. The entire lifespan of our universe, as well as a million more like it, have no bearing on God in terms of time. While billions of years have passed for us, no time has passed for God.
> 
> *What did he do for the infinite amount of time that took place before the big bang?*
> 
> First of all, time is not infinite. It is very much finite. We believe the universe began billions of  years ago and will eventually end, and so will time. Before the Big Bang there was no time. The perception of time is created by the expanding universe. So there is no "infinite amount of time before the Big Bang" since time did not yet exist.
> 
> *What took god so long?*
> 
> Again, your mind is having a problem grasping what time is. You have some kind of concept that time exited before the universe, and God somehow is confined to a human's perception of time. Go read some books on time and what it is. You'll find it is a dimension which exists in our universe, and simply put, is a measurement of the expansion of said universe. God is outside of the universe even though God is a part of the universe. Time was created by God with the creation of an expanding universe. The only significance time has is in respect to the material physical reality we experience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What existed before the universe?  Are we the only universe?  How do you know all this about god?  Are you published?
> 
> And originally you said if we don't believe in God we'd burn in hell.  Is that still your belief?  What proof of that do you have?  The fact that god is a dick and sends people to hell.  Because we made that up it must be true?  Satin is real?  The Devil is real Boss?  You seem to be on the fence about this but you claim not to be a Christian?  So are Christians right that you'll go to hell for doubting the jesus story or do you believe you just have to believe in generic god and you're safe?  Well what makes you think that?  Because people made up the jesus story, it has to be true, right?  But that means so is the Mormon, Jehova, Jew and Muslim stories.  They must be true.  At least the main premise is true that a god exists.  So what else is all bullshit, the rest of it?  No, because you believe in hell.  Maybe you aren't doing enough to go to heaven.  Maybe you need to be a mormon or Jehova or born again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IT IS HARD TO POST TO FOOLS AS THEY HAVE little understanding!!!  God CREATED HELL FOR SATAN,DEMONS AND ALL EVIL,IF YOU GO TO HELL IT WILL BE BECAUSE YOU LOVE YOUR SIN AND REJECT GOD AND GOD'S LOVE.
Click to expand...


I would never reject love.  I am grateful for my life and the people that love me.  If that is god doing that, thanks god.  I thought it was the people in my life and the choices I made that gave me what I consider heaven on earth.  

I don't feel guilty like you guys about anything.  I notice most over the top religious people are/were usually the biggest sinners and they feel guilty and they assume everyone else must feel the same way well they are wrong.  

Do you know what?  None of the people I respect in life ever tried to talk to me about god?  The ones that did never turned out to be good, fun, smart, worthwhile people.  How can they be when they are focused on fairy tales, right?  Any of the hard core born agans or hard core catholics in my life that tried to tell me they knew that they were going to heaven but for some reason were not happy here and now.  They certainly can't be too smart if they believe a story that was made up 2000 years ago by 11 guys in robes and long hair.

So anyways,


----------



## GISMYS

""God can exist without being the manifestation of ANY organized religion."" BUT THINK!!!  THE ONE TRUE ALMIGHTY GOD THAT LOVES HIS CREATION would want to reveil himself and have fellowship with them and want the very best for them and want to warn them of the cost of evil and GOD HAS. GOD CAUSED GODLY MEN OF OLD TO RECORD HIS INSPIRED(GOD BREATHED) WORDS TO MANKIND.


----------



## Goddess_Ashtara

In my country there is problem...


----------



## Goddess_Ashtara

And that problem is the Jew...


----------



## Goddess_Ashtara

They take everybody money


----------



## Goddess_Ashtara

And they never give it back


----------



## thebrucebeat

GISMYS said:


> ""God can exist without being the manifestation of ANY organized religion."" BUT THINK!!!  THE ONE TRUE ALMIGHTY GOD THAT LOVES HIS CREATION would want to reveil himself and have fellowship with them and want the very best for them and want to warn them of the cost of evil and GOD HAS. GOD CAUSED GODLY MEN OF OLD TO RECORD HIS INSPIRED(GOD BREATHED) WORDS TO MANKIND.



Do you mean "revile", "reveal", or maybe you think god is the boogy-woogy bugle boy blowing "reveille".
"Reveil" is not a word. I've pointed this out to you twice before. Are you unable to learn?


----------



## GISMYS

GOD SAYS TO THE JEWISH NATION ISRAEL==I will make you a great nation;
I will bless you
And make your name great;
And you shall be a blessing.
3 
I will bless those who bless you,
And I will curse him who curses you;
And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.&#8221; GENESIS 12:2-3


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh?
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief.
> 
> ...who fully understand the power of God
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.



Your words not mine.  Oh, and what about newly converted atheists?  This is why I'm here.  Just like someone who just found jesus, it's liberating and I want to share this new insight.  Got a problem with that?  

And I do see the harm in religion.  You don't?  Wake up.

And I too heard Neal Degrasse Tyson say he hasn't the time nor the energy to argue with religion.  That's his polite way to say no matter how dumb people can believe whatever they want. 

You think we fully understand the power of god even though we don't even believe god exists?  So what you are saying is you believe the stories that a god is sitting, watching and caring what you do?  But he didn't come down and start Christianity or the Muslim faith?  All that is made up but the part about a god caring about you and sending you to hell is real?  I love it how everyone who's religious has their own definition.  Some say non christians will go to hell, some christians disagree.  Some muslims think only they go to heaven, some disagree.  Forget about what the Jews, mormons and jehovas believe.  

Know what I believe?  I don't believe any of them or you.  I can't put my faith in your logic.    

Yes this is like therapy.  Once you realize man made up god you want to tell everyone.  At least you don't think it's Satan making me do it.  Or do you?  Please clarify.  Your opening comment suggests you believe in hell.  What's up with that?  Very hard to talk intelligently with someone who believes in fairy tales.  You pretend not to be a christian but then talk about hell?  Don't deny Jesus 3 times stupid!!!  Better to be safe.  Why don't you convert to all the religions.  Devote your whole life to religion.  Waste your time.  

Now if you do good things with your time like feed the poor and cure the sick then cool, but that doesn't mean god is real.  It just means a lie got you to be good.  Just like Santa.  He knows who's been naughty and who's been nice, fucking retards.


----------



## Boss

> What existed before the universe? Are we the only universe? How do you know all this about god? Are you published?



Nothing could exist physically, there was no time or space for such a thing. Physical existence is something that happens in our universe as a result of time created by the expanding of the universe. Physical reality cannot exist without time. 

Theoretical physicists believe we are not the only universe. There could be many. AND... there could be as many as 11 dimensions in our universe alone. Now, what is a "dimension" and what does that mean? Well, let's draw you an analogy so you can try and wrap your retarded brain around this.... Imagine that life and reality as we know it, is a track on a record album. Lift the needle and move it to another place on the spinning album, and you get a completely different song. Eleven dimensions means there are 11 songs on the album... we reside inside one track. (Actually 4... the 3-D spacial awareness and time.) What this essentially means is, there could be alternate realities happening at the same time. While you and I are arguing here on a message board in our reality, there is another reality happening that we're not aware of. If a record player had 11 needles, it could play 11 songs at the same time, but it doesn't. 

Perhaps... and this is just my own wild speculation... in another reality happening at this very moment in our same spacetime continuum, on this planet in this universe, the entities in that reality are experiencing euphoria and bliss, while in another separate reality happening also at the same time, the entities are experiencing misery and suffering. Maybe when our physical lives end, our souls either ascend to the 'better' place or descend to the 'awful' place? A reality as we are experiencing here, still happens, we're just not in the same place. Heaven and Hell? Not impossible, according to the theoretical  physics which predict multiple dimensions in our own universe.


----------



## sealybobo

Maybe our expanding universe might one day come across another expanding universe and both of our universes are moving into NO SPACE/TIME.  How do we know what is 1 million trillion light years beyond our expanding universe?  Just because no space and time existed in the spot you or Mars are in back then doesn't mean there was no time/space anywhere ever.  Like a lava rock things are constantly changing.  Where there was no lava a minute ago there is lava now but where there was lava now there was water there a minute ago.  What happened?  And if there was a god he can exist anywhere and no where.  He may be sitting over there where there is no time or space while he is creating our universe.  

But what proof do I have of this god?  What came first the chicken or the egg?  Doesn't god have any brothers or sisters?  Boring!


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> What existed before the universe? Are we the only universe? How do you know all this about god? Are you published?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing could exist physically, there was no time or space for such a thing. Physical existence is something that happens in our universe as a result of time created by the expanding of the universe. Physical reality cannot exist without time.
> 
> Theoretical physicists believe we are not the only universe. There could be many. AND... there could be as many as 11 dimensions in our universe alone. Now, what is a "dimension" and what does that mean? Well, let's draw you an analogy so you can try and wrap your retarded brain around this.... Imagine that life and reality as we know it, is a track on a record album. Lift the needle and move it to another place on the spinning album, and you get a completely different song. Eleven dimensions means there are 11 songs on the album... we reside inside one track. (Actually 4... the 3-D spacial awareness and time.) What this essentially means is, there could be alternate realities happening at the same time. While you and I are arguing here on a message board in our reality, there is another reality happening that we're not aware of. If a record player had 11 needles, it could play 11 songs at the same time, but it doesn't.
> 
> Perhaps... and this is just my own wild speculation... in another reality happening at this very moment in our same spacetime continuum, on this planet in this universe, the entities in that reality are experiencing euphoria and bliss, while in another separate reality happening also at the same time, the entities are experiencing misery and suffering. Maybe when our physical lives end, our souls either ascend to the 'better' place or descend to the 'awful' place? A reality as we are experiencing here, still happens, we're just not in the same place. Heaven and Hell? Not impossible, according to the theoretical  physics which predict multiple dimensions in our own universe.
Click to expand...


Do you believe in hell and the devil yes or no?


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh?
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief.
> 
> ...who fully understand the power of God
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your words not mine.  Oh, and what about newly converted atheists?  This is why I'm here.  Just like someone who just found jesus, it's liberating and I want to share this new insight.  Got a problem with that?
> 
> And I do see the harm in religion.  You don't?  Wake up.
> 
> And I too heard Neal Degrasse Tyson say he hasn't the time nor the energy to argue with religion.  That's his polite way to say no matter how dumb people can believe whatever they want.
> 
> You think we fully understand the power of god even though we don't even believe god exists?  So what you are saying is you believe the stories that a god is sitting, watching and caring what you do?  But he didn't come down and start Christianity or the Muslim faith?  All that is made up but the part about a god caring about you and sending you to hell is real?  I love it how everyone who's religious has their own definition.  Some say non christians will go to hell, some christians disagree.  Some muslims think only they go to heaven, some disagree.  Forget about what the Jews, mormons and jehovas believe.
> 
> Know what I believe?  I don't believe any of them or you.  I can't put my faith in your logic.
> 
> Yes this is like therapy.  Once you realize man made up god you want to tell everyone.  At least you don't think it's Satan making me do it.  Or do you?  Please clarify.  Your opening comment suggests you believe in hell.  What's up with that?  Very hard to talk intelligently with someone who believes in fairy tales.  You pretend not to be a christian but then talk about hell?  Don't deny Jesus 3 times stupid!!!  Better to be safe.  Why don't you convert to all the religions.  Devote your whole life to religion.  Waste your time.
> 
> Now if you do good things with your time like feed the poor and cure the sick then cool, but that doesn't mean god is real.  It just means a lie got you to be good.  Just like Santa.  He knows who's been naughty and who's been nice, fucking retards.
Click to expand...


I am well aware of my words, there is nothing in there about burning in hell. So we see that your lack of honesty is directly related to your lack of moral foundation. You don't have a problem with lying about other people, as long as it serves your selfish purpose. We can then juxtapose your failure to uphold a moral standard here with any number of other moral standards you will abandon to suit your own self interests. This is the problem with Atheism. You are ultimately accountable to only yourself, and as 'good' as you believe you can be, you are a fucked up and flawed human being, who will rationalize ANY behavior to satisfy your own self indulgence. And why not? You own the candy store!


----------



## Boss

> Do you believe in hell and the devil yes or no?



In the Christian incarnation? No.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> Do you believe in hell and the devil yes or no?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the Christian incarnation? No.
Click to expand...


What version of hell do you believe in and what is your justification for that belief?  Is it the same argument you have for believing in god?  Because human's made it up it must be true on some level?


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe in hell and the devil yes or no?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the Christian incarnation? No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What version of hell do you believe in and what is your justification for that belief?  Is it the same argument you have for believing in god?  Because human's made it up it must be true on some level?
Click to expand...


BELIEVE GOD'S WORD or you will believe satan's lies!!! your choice!


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Maybe our expanding universe might one day come across another expanding universe and both of our universes are moving into NO SPACE/TIME.  How do we know what is 1 million trillion light years beyond our expanding universe?  Just because no space and time existed in the spot you or Mars are in back then doesn't mean there was no time/space anywhere ever.  Like a lava rock things are constantly changing.  Where there was no lava a minute ago there is lava now but where there was lava now there was water there a minute ago.  What happened?  And if there was a god he can exist anywhere and no where.  He may be sitting over there where there is no time or space while he is creating our universe.
> 
> But what proof do I have of this god?  What came first the chicken or the egg?  Doesn't god have any brothers or sisters?  Boring!



*How do we know what is 1 million trillion light years beyond our expanding universe?*

Again, what the hell are you talking about? TIME is the measure of our universe expanding.  When you say "light years" you are speaking in terms of time. The expanding universe is what creates perception of time and reality. Your question simply makes no sense. There are no "light years" beyond our expanding universe, time exists within our expanding universe. 

I believe the biggest proof for God we have is time. And no, God doesn't have brothers and sisters, God is not a physical entity.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe in hell and the devil yes or no?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the Christian incarnation? No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What version of hell do you believe in and what is your justification for that belief?  Is it the same argument you have for believing in god?  Because human's made it up it must be true on some level?
Click to expand...


I just explained it to you. If you'll stop rapid-fire posting and try reading the responses, you might learn something about what I believe. I can't talk over you.


----------



## Boss

> Just because no space and time existed in the spot you or Mars are in back then doesn't mean there was no time/space anywhere ever.



The spot Mars and I are in did not exist back then. We know for a fact, it has been physically proven, that time and space are created by an expanding universe. Furthermore, Mars and I are not in the same spot as we were just a nanosecond ago. The entire universe, and every atom and molecule in it, is expanding constantly, faster than the speed of light in some places. Every character you type on your keyboard, your body has travelled thousands of miles from where it was. Time = Distance. E=MC2.


----------



## daws101

GISMYS said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, let me straighten you morons out here... *I never claimed that Einstein was a CHRISTIAN! * ....Can you all get that through your thick craniums?  I stated that Einstein never said he didn't believe in God. So far, no one has offered a statement of any kind from Einstein, saying he did not believe in any God. Statements that he did not believe in a *PERSONAL* God are NOT statements that he does not believe in *ANY* God.
> 
> Now, I am VERY familiar with ALL the quotes from Einstein on his religious beliefs. I have read them thousands of times. NONE OF THEM state that he is Atheist or does not believe in ANY God. You are deliberately taking what Einstein actually said out of context to pretend Einstein was an Atheist, and he simply never said that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *BoBo: I never claimed that Einstein was a CHRISTIAN! *
> 
> 
> he was Jewish, dumbass - funny how that worked. Hitler did not care for the Bomb yet Einstein was instrumental in its "creation", was he working for your God ?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most science PHD'S today know GOD is very real but to say so in public would cost them more than most are willing to pay!!! SAD!!
Click to expand...


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> What existed before the universe? Are we the only universe? How do you know all this about god? Are you published?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing could exist physically, there was no time or space for such a thing. Physical existence is something that happens in our universe as a result of time created by the expanding of the universe. Physical reality cannot exist without time.
> 
> Theoretical physicists believe we are not the only universe. There could be many. AND... there could be as many as 11 dimensions in our universe alone. Now, what is a "dimension" and what does that mean? Well, let's draw you an analogy so you can try and wrap your retarded brain around this.... Imagine that life and reality as we know it, is a track on a record album. Lift the needle and move it to another place on the spinning album, and you get a completely different song. Eleven dimensions means there are 11 songs on the album... we reside inside one track. (Actually 4... the 3-D spacial awareness and time.) What this essentially means is, there could be alternate realities happening at the same time. While you and I are arguing here on a message board in our reality, there is another reality happening that we're not aware of. If a record player had 11 needles, it could play 11 songs at the same time, but it doesn't.
> 
> Perhaps... and this is just my own wild speculation... in another reality happening at this very moment in our same spacetime continuum, on this planet in this universe, the entities in that reality are experiencing euphoria and bliss, while in another separate reality happening also at the same time, the entities are experiencing misery and suffering. Maybe when our physical lives end, our souls either ascend to the 'better' place or descend to the 'awful' place? A reality as we are experiencing here, still happens, we're just not in the same place. Heaven and Hell? Not impossible, according to the theoretical  physics which predict multiple dimensions in our own universe.
Click to expand...



nothing means nothing and since spirituality to exist must have an energy source. Energy is physical


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> Just because no space and time existed in the spot you or Mars are in back then doesn't mean there was no time/space anywhere ever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The spot Mars and I are in did not exist back then. We know for a fact, it has been physically proven, that time and space are created by an expanding universe. Furthermore, Mars and I are not in the same spot as we were just a nanosecond ago. The entire universe, and every atom and molecule in it, is expanding constantly, faster than the speed of light in some places. Every character you type on your keyboard, your body has travelled thousands of miles from where it was. Time = Distance. E=MC2.
Click to expand...

false use of  e=mc2.

E represents units of energy, m represents units of mass, and c2 is the speed of light squared, or multiplied by itself. (See relativity.)


Because the speed of light is a very large number and is multiplied by itself, this equation points out how a small amount of matter can release a huge amount of energy, as in a nuclear reaction.


Read more: E = mc2: Definition from Answers.com


bossy again proves his mathematical ignorance .
that formula is a calculation for estimating energy conversion from mass.
it has nothing at all to do with calculation distance in space or anywhere else..


----------



## Boss

> nothing means nothing and since spirituality to exist must have an energy source. Energy is physical



*Physical* energy IS physical.


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> nothing means nothing and since spirituality to exist must have an energy source. Energy is physical
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Physical* energy IS physical.
Click to expand...

 bullshit! energy is energy there is NO DISTICTION BETWEEN  physical AND SO CALLED SPRITUAL energy.

your answer does not excuse your ignorance of physics....


----------



## Boss

> bossy again proves his mathematical ignorance .
> that formula is a calculation for estimating energy conversion from mass.
> it has nothing at all to do with calculation distance in space or anywhere else..



So the speed of light is not a calculation distance in space? That's peculiar, dawsy. 

Time is a dimensional perception created as the universe expands. We humans have several ways of measuring time, all are dependent on distance. Could be the distance Earth travels in a 24 hr. period we define as a day. Could be the distance light travels in a year. But basically, time=distance. Prior to the Big Bang, or whatever event began the universe expanding, there was no time. Without time, there can be no physical reality because there is no place for physical reality to exist. Nothing you perceive as physical means anything without time space for it to exist in. Time created by the ever-expanding universe.


----------



## Boss

daws101 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nothing means nothing and since spirituality to exist must have an energy source. Energy is physical
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Physical* energy IS physical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> bullshit! energy is energy *there is NO DISTICTION BETWEEN  physical AND SO CALLED SPRITUAL energy.*
> 
> your answer does not excuse your ignorance of physics....
Click to expand...


Well, certainly there is. Where did you disprove this?


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Physical* energy IS physical.
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit! energy is energy *there is NO DISTICTION BETWEEN  physical AND SO CALLED SPRITUAL energy.*
> 
> your answer does not excuse your ignorance of physics....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, certainly there is. Where did you disprove this?
Click to expand...


Typical boss ".... because I say so", argument.

There's no requirement for anyone to disprove something you have never made an affirmative argument for.

How does anyone disprove your silly "spiritual energy" claim when there is no evidence for it and and you offer no argument in support of it other than ".... because I say so".


----------



## Boss

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit! energy is energy *there is NO DISTICTION BETWEEN  physical AND SO CALLED SPRITUAL energy.*
> 
> your answer does not excuse your ignorance of physics....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, certainly there is. Where did you disprove this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical boss ".... because I say so", argument.
> 
> There's no requirement for anyone to disprove something you have never made an affirmative argument for.
> 
> How does anyone disprove your silly "spiritual energy" claim when there is no evidence for it and and you offer no argument in support of it other than ".... because I say so".
Click to expand...


Well, unless you can believe that something sprang from nothing, then spiritual energy must have created physical nature. So you believe "magic" happened?


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, certainly there is. Where did you disprove this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typical boss ".... because I say so", argument.
> 
> There's no requirement for anyone to disprove something you have never made an affirmative argument for.
> 
> How does anyone disprove your silly "spiritual energy" claim when there is no evidence for it and and you offer no argument in support of it other than ".... because I say so".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, unless you can believe that something sprang from nothing, then spiritual energy must have created physical nature. So you believe "magic" happened?
Click to expand...


Existence as we know it didn't spring from "nothing". This has been explained to you repeatedly so it's concerning that you continually need this to be reinforced. 

As you believe the gods created existence, you need to make a case for how your gods magically came into existence - from nothing. Or, can you explain the hierarchy of subordinate gods magically created by super-supernatural gods, magically created by super-super-supernatural gods, and so on.


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> bossy again proves his mathematical ignorance .
> that formula is a calculation for estimating energy conversion from mass.
> it has nothing at all to do with calculation distance in space or anywhere else..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the speed of light is not a calculation distance in space? That's peculiar, dawsy.
> 
> Time is a dimensional perception created as the universe expands. We humans have several ways of measuring time, all are dependent on distance. Could be the distance Earth travels in a 24 hr. period we define as a day. Could be the distance light travels in a year. But basically, time=distance. Prior to the Big Bang, or whatever event began the universe expanding, there was no time. Without time, there can be no physical reality because there is no place for physical reality to exist. Nothing you perceive as physical means anything without time space for it to exist in. Time created by the ever-expanding universe.
Click to expand...

yes it is but e=mc2 is not used for that purpose,
this is :    

 The Speed of Light in Minutes
find out the speed of light in one year, you first need to convert the speed of light per second to the speed of light per hour. If the speed of light is 186,282 miles per second, and there are 60 seconds in a minute, you will multiply 186,282 by 60 to get the speed of light per minute.

186,282 X 60 = 11,176,920

The speed of light per minute is 11,176,920. That is, light travels at a speed of 11,176,920 miles every minute.


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Physical* energy IS physical.
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit! energy is energy *there is NO DISTICTION BETWEEN  physical AND SO CALLED SPRITUAL energy.*
> 
> your answer does not excuse your ignorance of physics....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, certainly there is. Where did you disprove this?
Click to expand...

sorry bossy it's you who has to prove there is a difference.
 physics say there is none.
so wow us with your math acumen and re write those laws .


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe our expanding universe might one day come across another expanding universe and both of our universes are moving into NO SPACE/TIME.  How do we know what is 1 million trillion light years beyond our expanding universe?  Just because no space and time existed in the spot you or Mars are in back then doesn't mean there was no time/space anywhere ever.  Like a lava rock things are constantly changing.  Where there was no lava a minute ago there is lava now but where there was lava now there was water there a minute ago.  What happened?  And if there was a god he can exist anywhere and no where.  He may be sitting over there where there is no time or space while he is creating our universe.
> 
> But what proof do I have of this god?  What came first the chicken or the egg?  Doesn't god have any brothers or sisters?  Boring!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *How do we know what is 1 million trillion light years beyond our expanding universe?*
> 
> Again, what the hell are you talking about? TIME is the measure of our universe expanding.  When you say "light years" you are speaking in terms of time. The expanding universe is what creates perception of time and reality. Your question simply makes no sense. There are no "light years" beyond our expanding universe, time exists within our expanding universe.
> 
> I believe the biggest proof for God we have is time. And no, God doesn't have brothers and sisters, God is not a physical entity.
Click to expand...


God can move through time and space even when none exists, remember?  He's not physical so he can like, do whatever man.  Have another hit from the bong but stop drinking the bong water.


----------



## sealybobo

daws101 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What existed before the universe? Are we the only universe? How do you know all this about god? Are you published?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing could exist physically, there was no time or space for such a thing. Physical existence is something that happens in our universe as a result of time created by the expanding of the universe. Physical reality cannot exist without time.
> 
> Theoretical physicists believe we are not the only universe. There could be many. AND... there could be as many as 11 dimensions in our universe alone. Now, what is a "dimension" and what does that mean? Well, let's draw you an analogy so you can try and wrap your retarded brain around this.... Imagine that life and reality as we know it, is a track on a record album. Lift the needle and move it to another place on the spinning album, and you get a completely different song. Eleven dimensions means there are 11 songs on the album... we reside inside one track. (Actually 4... the 3-D spacial awareness and time.) What this essentially means is, there could be alternate realities happening at the same time. While you and I are arguing here on a message board in our reality, there is another reality happening that we're not aware of. If a record player had 11 needles, it could play 11 songs at the same time, but it doesn't.
> 
> Perhaps... and this is just my own wild speculation... in another reality happening at this very moment in our same spacetime continuum, on this planet in this universe, the entities in that reality are experiencing euphoria and bliss, while in another separate reality happening also at the same time, the entities are experiencing misery and suffering. Maybe when our physical lives end, our souls either ascend to the 'better' place or descend to the 'awful' place? A reality as we are experiencing here, still happens, we're just not in the same place. Heaven and Hell? Not impossible, according to the theoretical  physics which predict multiple dimensions in our own universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> nothing means nothing and since spirituality to exist must have an energy source. Energy is physical
Click to expand...


Maybe that empty space that didn't exist before the big bang, maybe that's what hell is.  Because before the big bang, you said it yourself, there was nothing.  And for spirituality to exist there has to be an energy source you said.  So before the big bang, there was no god either.  And don't you mean for spirituality to exist you need a human?  Because without human's there is no spirituality.  The sun was here billions of years ago before any animals were on earth and there was no spirituality.  And when we were apes there was no spirituality.  After humans are gone, the earth and all the other animals will go on but spirituality will die with humans.  So I guess you are right.  Since human's need the sun's energy I guess your comment is a NO SHIT comment that spirituality needs energy.  

Oh you said there must be a source to our spirituality?  For years it was the sun.  Then it was greek gods.  And yes we need the energy in our brains to come up with such clever notions.


----------



## sealybobo

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit! energy is energy *there is NO DISTICTION BETWEEN  physical AND SO CALLED SPRITUAL energy.*
> 
> your answer does not excuse your ignorance of physics....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, certainly there is. Where did you disprove this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical boss ".... because I say so", argument.
> 
> There's no requirement for anyone to disprove something you have never made an affirmative argument for.
> 
> How does anyone disprove your silly "spiritual energy" claim when there is no evidence for it and and you offer no argument in support of it other than ".... because I say so".
Click to expand...


Spiritual energy is no less real than any other energy, like electricity for example, but is vastly more important. Spiritual energy is prana (also known as &#8220;universal life force&#8221; or &#8220;qi&#8221 carried by pure love.

Holy Fuck I think Boss is a member of this cult

The Aetherius Society is an international spiritual organization dedicated to spreading, and acting upon, the teachings of advanced extraterrestrial intelligences.

I googled spiritual energy and this is what came up.  Who knows what he believes.

http://www.aetherius.org/overview/


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, certainly there is. Where did you disprove this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typical boss ".... because I say so", argument.
> 
> There's no requirement for anyone to disprove something you have never made an affirmative argument for.
> 
> How does anyone disprove your silly "spiritual energy" claim when there is no evidence for it and and you offer no argument in support of it other than ".... because I say so".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, unless you can believe that something sprang from nothing, then spiritual energy must have created physical nature. So you believe "magic" happened?
Click to expand...


Why didn't you tell us you were a Aetherius?  Are you embarrassed about it?  And if you are not you should join because they are all about spiritual energy, you fucking jack ass.  

The Aetherius Society is a millenarian, New Age, UFO religion.  It was founded by George King in the mid-1950s [6][7][8] as the result of what King claimed were contacts with extraterrestrial intelligences, whom he referred to as Cosmic Masters.  Regarded as firmly based in Theosophy,the Aetherius Society combines UFO claims, yoga, and ideas from various world religions, notably Hinduism, Buddhism, and Christianity.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> nothing means nothing and since spirituality to exist must have an energy source. Energy is physical
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Physical* energy IS physical.
Click to expand...


m sorry if my insensitivity towards your beliefs offends you. But guess what  your religious wars, jihads, crusades, inquisitions, censoring of free speech, brainwashing of children, forcing girls into underage marriages, female genital mutilation, stoning, pederasty, homophobia and rejection of science and reason offend me. So I guess were even.


----------



## Boss

daws101 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit! energy is energy *there is NO DISTICTION BETWEEN  physical AND SO CALLED SPRITUAL energy.*
> 
> your answer does not excuse your ignorance of physics....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, certainly there is. Where did you disprove this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sorry bossy it's you who has to prove there is a difference.
> physics say there is none.
> so wow us with your math acumen and re write those laws .
Click to expand...


Physics says no such thing. If so, give us the formula which disproves spiritual energy.


----------



## Boss

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Typical boss ".... because I say so", argument.
> 
> There's no requirement for anyone to disprove something you have never made an affirmative argument for.
> 
> How does anyone disprove your silly "spiritual energy" claim when there is no evidence for it and and you offer no argument in support of it other than ".... because I say so".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, unless you can believe that something sprang from nothing, then spiritual energy must have created physical nature. So you believe "magic" happened?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Existence as we know it didn't spring from "nothing". This has been explained to you repeatedly so it's concerning that you continually need this to be reinforced.
> 
> As you believe the gods created existence, you need to make a case for how your gods magically came into existence - from nothing. Or, can you explain the hierarchy of subordinate gods magically created by super-supernatural gods, magically created by super-super-supernatural gods, and so on.
Click to expand...


Well, if existence didn't spring from nothing, and physical nature didn't yet exist, there is only one other possibility. 

I do not need to make a case for physical existence of God. If I did so, it would completely contradict the fact that God is spiritual. If God were physical, I would need to explain what created it.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Typical boss ".... because I say so", argument.
> 
> There's no requirement for anyone to disprove something you have never made an affirmative argument for.
> 
> How does anyone disprove your silly "spiritual energy" claim when there is no evidence for it and and you offer no argument in support of it other than ".... because I say so".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, unless you can believe that something sprang from nothing, then spiritual energy must have created physical nature. So you believe "magic" happened?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why didn't you tell us you were a Aetherius?  Are you embarrassed about it?  And if you are not you should join because they are all about spiritual energy, you fucking jack ass.
> 
> The Aetherius Society is a millenarian, New Age, UFO religion.  It was founded by George King in the mid-1950s [6][7][8] as the result of what King claimed were contacts with extraterrestrial intelligences, whom he referred to as Cosmic Masters.  Regarded as firmly based in Theosophy,the Aetherius Society combines UFO claims, yoga, and ideas from various world religions, notably Hinduism, Buddhism, and Christianity.
Click to expand...


I have no idea what that is. If you want to call me names, we can end our conversation now. I have no interest in letting you get your rocks off hurling insults at me today.


----------



## Boss

daws101 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bossy again proves his mathematical ignorance .
> that formula is a calculation for estimating energy conversion from mass.
> it has nothing at all to do with calculation distance in space or anywhere else..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the speed of light is not a calculation distance in space? That's peculiar, dawsy.
> 
> Time is a dimensional perception created as the universe expands. We humans have several ways of measuring time, all are dependent on distance. Could be the distance Earth travels in a 24 hr. period we define as a day. Could be the distance light travels in a year. But basically, time=distance. Prior to the Big Bang, or whatever event began the universe expanding, there was no time. Without time, there can be no physical reality because there is no place for physical reality to exist. Nothing you perceive as physical means anything without time space for it to exist in. Time created by the ever-expanding universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes it is but e=mc2 is not used for that purpose,
> this is :
> 
> The Speed of Light in Minutes
> find out the speed of light in one year, you first need to convert the speed of light per second to the speed of light per hour. If the speed of light is 186,282 miles per second, and there are 60 seconds in a minute, you will multiply 186,282 by 60 to get the speed of light per minute.
> 
> 186,282 X 60 = 11,176,920
> 
> The speed of light per minute is 11,176,920. That is, light travels at a speed of 11,176,920 miles every minute.
Click to expand...


e=mc2 is used for *all kinds* of purposes. There is a book by Stephen Hawking you should read. _A Breif History of Time_

You are obviously somewhere out in left field with your understanding of time, and perhaps Dr. Hawking can get you straightened out? Einstein's Relativity has a great deal to do with time, as well as space, mass and energy. Before Einstein, we believed Time was a static constant. We called it Newtonian Time. What Einstein discovered is Time slows down when you approach the speed of light. So Time is not a static constant. Time is relative to an expanding universe. Time=Distance.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Maybe that empty space that didn't exist before the big bang, maybe that's what hell is.  Because before the big bang, you said it yourself, there was nothing.  And for spirituality to exist there has to be an energy source you said.



Please start using the 'QUOTE' feature to show where I said things. You have repeatedly attempted to LIE YOUR ASS OFF about things I supposedly said. I'm fed up with this. I have NEVER said that for spirituality to exist there had to be an energy source. Spiritual nature and spiritual energy are NOT physical. They do not require physical creation or physical energy to exist. 



> So before the big bang, there was no god either.



God created the Big Bang. 



> And don't you mean for spirituality to exist you need a human?  Because without human's there is no spirituality.  The sun was here billions of years ago before any animals were on earth and there was no spirituality.  And when we were apes there was no spirituality.  After humans are gone, the earth and all the other animals will go on but spirituality will die with humans.



Well, spirituality is the human connection to spiritual nature. We can use your formula here, but guess what happens to science, physics, time, and every fucking thing else? Without humans to acknowledge it and realize it, what purpose does it serve?


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, unless you can believe that something sprang from nothing, then spiritual energy must have created physical nature. So you believe "magic" happened?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Existence as we know it didn't spring from "nothing". This has been explained to you repeatedly so it's concerning that you continually need this to be reinforced.
> 
> As you believe the gods created existence, you need to make a case for how your gods magically came into existence - from nothing. Or, can you explain the hierarchy of subordinate gods magically created by super-supernatural gods, magically created by super-super-supernatural gods, and so on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if existence didn't spring from nothing, and physical nature didn't yet exist, there is only one other possibility.
> 
> I do not need to make a case for physical existence of God. If I did so, it would completely contradict the fact that God is spiritual. If God were physical, I would need to explain what created it.
Click to expand...


That's convenient. Make your argument utterly pointless and then claim you don't need to explain your pointless claims.

Nicely done.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe that empty space that didn't exist before the big bang, maybe that's what hell is.  Because before the big bang, you said it yourself, there was nothing.  And for spirituality to exist there has to be an energy source you said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please start using the 'QUOTE' feature to show where I said things. You have repeatedly attempted to LIE YOUR ASS OFF about things I supposedly said. I'm fed up with this. I have NEVER said that for spirituality to exist there had to be an energy source. Spiritual nature and spiritual energy are NOT physical. They do not require physical creation or physical energy to exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So before the big bang, there was no god either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God created the Big Bang.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And don't you mean for spirituality to exist you need a human?  Because without human's there is no spirituality.  The sun was here billions of years ago before any animals were on earth and there was no spirituality.  And when we were apes there was no spirituality.  After humans are gone, the earth and all the other animals will go on but spirituality will die with humans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, spirituality is the human connection to spiritual nature. We can use your formula here, but guess what happens to science, physics, time, and every fucking thing else? Without humans to acknowledge it and realize it, what purpose does it serve?
Click to expand...


It's all explained by magic, "... because I say so."


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe that empty space that didn't exist before the big bang, maybe that's what hell is.  Because before the big bang, you said it yourself, there was nothing.  And for spirituality to exist there has to be an energy source you said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please start using the 'QUOTE' feature to show where I said things. You have repeatedly attempted to LIE YOUR ASS OFF about things I supposedly said. I'm fed up with this. I have NEVER said that for spirituality to exist there had to be an energy source. Spiritual nature and spiritual energy are NOT physical. They do not require physical creation or physical energy to exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So before the big bang, there was no god either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God created the Big Bang.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And don't you mean for spirituality to exist you need a human?  Because without human's there is no spirituality.  The sun was here billions of years ago before any animals were on earth and there was no spirituality.  And when we were apes there was no spirituality.  After humans are gone, the earth and all the other animals will go on but spirituality will die with humans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, spirituality is the human connection to spiritual nature. We can use your formula here, but guess what happens to science, physics, time, and every fucking thing else? Without humans to acknowledge it and realize it, what purpose does it serve?
Click to expand...


Didn't you say this in an earlier post?  "for spirituality to exist must have an energy source. Energy is physical"

But you are saying god isn't physical.  But then you say god is spirituality.  Which is it?  Not being a smart ass.  I think you  contradicted yourself.  One time you say for spirituality to exist we must have an energy source but god is non physical and he is the energy source?

And you should look into the Aetherius.  They agree with a lot of your thoughts.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, certainly there is. Where did you disprove this?
> 
> 
> 
> sorry bossy it's you who has to prove there is a difference.
> physics say there is none.
> so wow us with your math acumen and re write those laws .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Physics says no such thing. If so, give us the formula which disproves spiritual energy.
Click to expand...


You have never made an effort to support your silly claims to something you call "spiritual energy".

How does anyone disprove something you can't define, defend or offer any evidence for?


----------



## Hollie

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe that empty space that didn't exist before the big bang, maybe that's what hell is.  Because before the big bang, you said it yourself, there was nothing.  And for spirituality to exist there has to be an energy source you said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please start using the 'QUOTE' feature to show where I said things. You have repeatedly attempted to LIE YOUR ASS OFF about things I supposedly said. I'm fed up with this. I have NEVER said that for spirituality to exist there had to be an energy source. Spiritual nature and spiritual energy are NOT physical. They do not require physical creation or physical energy to exist.
> 
> 
> 
> God created the Big Bang.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And don't you mean for spirituality to exist you need a human?  Because without human's there is no spirituality.  The sun was here billions of years ago before any animals were on earth and there was no spirituality.  And when we were apes there was no spirituality.  After humans are gone, the earth and all the other animals will go on but spirituality will die with humans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, spirituality is the human connection to spiritual nature. We can use your formula here, but guess what happens to science, physics, time, and every fucking thing else? Without humans to acknowledge it and realize it, what purpose does it serve?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't you say this in an earlier post?  "for spirituality to exist must have an energy source. Energy is physical"
> 
> But you are saying god isn't physical.  But then you say god is spirituality.  Which is it?  Not being a smart ass.  I think you  contradicted yourself.  One time you say for spirituality to exist we must have an energy source but god is non physical and he is the energy source?
> 
> And you should look into the Aetherius.  They agree with a lot of your thoughts.
Click to expand...


I suspect boss is a card carrying member of Aetherius. He splits his time there and as the High Mucky Muck at the Flat Earth Society


----------



## sealybobo

Hollie said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please start using the 'QUOTE' feature to show where I said things. You have repeatedly attempted to LIE YOUR ASS OFF about things I supposedly said. I'm fed up with this. I have NEVER said that for spirituality to exist there had to be an energy source. Spiritual nature and spiritual energy are NOT physical. They do not require physical creation or physical energy to exist.
> 
> God created the Big Bang.
> 
> Well, spirituality is the human connection to spiritual nature. We can use your formula here, but guess what happens to science, physics, time, and every fucking thing else? Without humans to acknowledge it and realize it, what purpose does it serve?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't you say this in an earlier post?  "for spirituality to exist must have an energy source. Energy is physical"
> 
> But you are saying god isn't physical.  But then you say god is spirituality.  Which is it?  Not being a smart ass.  I think you  contradicted yourself.  One time you say for spirituality to exist we must have an energy source but god is non physical and he is the energy source?
> 
> And you should look into the Aetherius.  They agree with a lot of your thoughts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suspect boss is a card carrying member of Aetherius. He splits his time there and as the High Mucky Muck at the Flat Earth Society
Click to expand...


One thing is for sure he's a right wing tool.  That's ok though because Gismys says if he doesn't believe in Jesus, and I don't think he does, then he's going to hell too so I guess when you and I see him in hell we can say sup.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe that empty space that didn't exist before the big bang, maybe that's what hell is.  Because before the big bang, you said it yourself, there was nothing.  And for spirituality to exist there has to be an energy source you said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please start using the 'QUOTE' feature to show where I said things. You have repeatedly attempted to LIE YOUR ASS OFF about things I supposedly said. I'm fed up with this. I have NEVER said that for spirituality to exist there had to be an energy source. Spiritual nature and spiritual energy are NOT physical. They do not require physical creation or physical energy to exist.
> 
> 
> 
> God created the Big Bang.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And don't you mean for spirituality to exist you need a human?  Because without human's there is no spirituality.  The sun was here billions of years ago before any animals were on earth and there was no spirituality.  And when we were apes there was no spirituality.  After humans are gone, the earth and all the other animals will go on but spirituality will die with humans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, spirituality is the human connection to spiritual nature. We can use your formula here, but guess what happens to science, physics, time, and every fucking thing else? Without humans to acknowledge it and realize it, what purpose does it serve?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't you say this in an earlier post?  "for spirituality to exist must have an energy source. Energy is physical"
Click to expand...


No. I never said anything remotely close to that. I said physical energy is physical. 



> But you are saying god isn't physical.



God is spiritual.



> But then you say god is spirituality.



No. Spirituality is something humans possess. God is spiritual. Human's ability to connect to spiritual nature is called "spirituality." 



> Which is it?  Not being a smart ass.  I think you  contradicted yourself.  One time you say for spirituality to exist we must have an energy source but god is non physical and he is the energy source?



Well, I've never said what you've claimed I said. God is spiritual, or spiritual energy, but spiritual energy is not physical energy and does not physically exist. 

There has been no contradiction on my part. If you've misunderstood something, that is YOU, not ME. From now on, you need to use the 'QUOTE' feature when referencing something you believe I have said. I don't have the time or patience to sit here and correct every post you make where you misquote me. That is all you seem to want to do, whether it's sheer dishonesty or just stupidity, I have no way of knowing, but it's getting real old.


----------



## Hollie

boss said:
			
		

> Well, I've never said what you've claimed I said. God is spiritual, or spiritual energy, but spiritual energy is not physical energy and does not physically exist.



I suppose "spiritual energy" is magical energy existing only in your mind.

Can you disprove it?


----------



## Boss

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> sorry bossy it's you who has to prove there is a difference.
> physics say there is none.
> so wow us with your math acumen and re write those laws .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Physics says no such thing. If so, give us the formula which disproves spiritual energy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have never made an effort to support your silly claims to something you call "spiritual energy".
> 
> How does anyone disprove something you can't define, defend or offer any evidence for?
Click to expand...


The "evidence" is physical nature and the universe. These exist. They didn't create themselves. You admit that something can't come from nothing. If physical nature can't create itself, and it does exist, and it did come to exist at some point, then the only thing that can explain it's coming to exist is spiritual nature. 

No, I can't offer physical evidence of spiritual nature. I can give you plenty of spiritual evidence for spiritual nature, but you seem to want to reject that. What if I were demanding you present some spiritual evidence for physical nature? Could you provide that?


----------



## Boss

Hollie said:


> boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I've never said what you've claimed I said. God is spiritual, or spiritual energy, but spiritual energy is not physical energy and does not physically exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose "spiritual energy" is magical energy existing only in your mind.
> 
> Can you disprove it?
Click to expand...


You can "suppose" whatever you like. It's still a free country. 

You're the only one who believes in "magic" here.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Physics says no such thing. If so, give us the formula which disproves spiritual energy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have never made an effort to support your silly claims to something you call "spiritual energy".
> 
> How does anyone disprove something you can't define, defend or offer any evidence for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "evidence" is physical nature and the universe. These exist. They didn't create themselves. You admit that something can't come from nothing. If physical nature can't create itself, and it does exist, and it did come to exist at some point, then the only thing that can explain it's coming to exist is spiritual nature.
> 
> No, I can't offer physical evidence of spiritual nature. I can give you plenty of spiritual evidence for spiritual nature, but you seem to want to reject that. What if I were demanding you present some spiritual evidence for physical nature? Could you provide that?
Click to expand...


Ahh. I see. Physical nature and the universe provide evidence for something that exists only in your alleged spirit realms, the spirit realms that you can't provide evidence for because spiritual energy is not physical energy and does not physically exist. 

Have you yet realized that your explanations for these spirit realms you dwell in are a total train wreck?


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I've never said what you've claimed I said. God is spiritual, or spiritual energy, but spiritual energy is not physical energy and does not physically exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose "spiritual energy" is magical energy existing only in your mind.
> 
> Can you disprove it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can "suppose" whatever you like. It's still a free country.
> 
> You're the only one who believes in "magic" here.
Click to expand...


Reality doesn't require magical inventions of "spirit realms" or things not existing, such as your invention of "spiritual energy".


----------



## HUGGY

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Physics says no such thing. If so, give us the formula which disproves spiritual energy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have never made an effort to support your silly claims to something you call "spiritual energy".
> 
> How does anyone disprove something you can't define, defend or offer any evidence for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "evidence" is physical nature and the universe. These exist. They didn't create themselves. You admit that something can't come from nothing. If physical nature can't create itself, and it does exist, and it did come to exist at some point, then the only thing that can explain it's coming to exist is spiritual nature.
> 
> No, I can't offer physical evidence of spiritual nature. I can give you plenty of spiritual evidence for spiritual nature, but you seem to want to reject that. What if I were demanding you present some spiritual evidence for physical nature? Could you provide that?
Click to expand...


Why do you keep insisting that the universe was "created" from nothing?  You do not know that.  Based on this juvenile assumption you think you can claim the universe for your god or some spirit?  

Hogwash.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Physics says no such thing. If so, give us the formula which disproves spiritual energy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have never made an effort to support your silly claims to something you call "spiritual energy".
> 
> How does anyone disprove something you can't define, defend or offer any evidence for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "evidence" is physical nature and the universe. These exist. They didn't create themselves. You admit that something can't come from nothing. If physical nature can't create itself, and it does exist, and it did come to exist at some point, then the only thing that can explain it's coming to exist is spiritual nature.
> 
> No, I can't offer physical evidence of spiritual nature. I can give you plenty of spiritual evidence for spiritual nature, but you seem to want to reject that. What if I were demanding you present some spiritual evidence for physical nature? Could you provide that?
Click to expand...


The physical may have always existed, just as you claim of the spiritual.

Perhaps there is some way for something to come from nothing, assuming nothing is what existed prior to the Big Bang.  You continue to assert knowledge of the beginning of the universe as though it is indisputable fact.

You have said, many times, you can offer spiritual evidence of spiritual nature, but as always do a poor job defining those terms.  'Not of the physical world' is vague, could potentially encompass an infinite variety of things, doesn't really describe the nature of this spiritual nature, etc. 

We've been through this before.  It's easy enough to make claims about something that one must believe in before one can experience any evidence for it.


----------



## Boss

HUGGY said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have never made an effort to support your silly claims to something you call "spiritual energy".
> 
> How does anyone disprove something you can't define, defend or offer any evidence for?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "evidence" is physical nature and the universe. These exist. They didn't create themselves. You admit that something can't come from nothing. If physical nature can't create itself, and it does exist, and it did come to exist at some point, then the only thing that can explain it's coming to exist is spiritual nature.
> 
> No, I can't offer physical evidence of spiritual nature. I can give you plenty of spiritual evidence for spiritual nature, but you seem to want to reject that. What if I were demanding you present some spiritual evidence for physical nature? Could you provide that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you keep insisting that the universe was "created" from nothing?  You do not know that.  Based on this juvenile assumption you think you can claim the universe for your god or some spirit?
> 
> Hogwash.
Click to expand...


Where did I make such a claim?  

I think the universe was created from spiritual nature.


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have never made an effort to support your silly claims to something you call "spiritual energy".
> 
> How does anyone disprove something you can't define, defend or offer any evidence for?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "evidence" is physical nature and the universe. These exist. They didn't create themselves. You admit that something can't come from nothing. If physical nature can't create itself, and it does exist, and it did come to exist at some point, then the only thing that can explain it's coming to exist is spiritual nature.
> 
> No, I can't offer physical evidence of spiritual nature. I can give you plenty of spiritual evidence for spiritual nature, but you seem to want to reject that. What if I were demanding you present some spiritual evidence for physical nature? Could you provide that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The physical may have always existed, just as you claim of the spiritual.
> 
> Perhaps there is some way for something to come from nothing, assuming nothing is what existed prior to the Big Bang.  You continue to assert knowledge of the beginning of the universe as though it is indisputable fact.
> 
> You have said, many times, you can offer spiritual evidence of spiritual nature, but as always do a poor job defining those terms.  'Not of the physical world' is vague, could potentially encompass an infinite variety of things, doesn't really describe the nature of this spiritual nature, etc.
> 
> We've been through this before.  It's easy enough to make claims about something that one must believe in before one can experience any evidence for it.
Click to expand...


Well no... We've already determined where physical reality comes from. It didn't exist until a physical universe existed and time and space for physical things to exist in existed. If you have some other theory, you need to explain it and support it with science. 

I don't understand how it's vague to say something is not of the physical world. You can comprehend that something physical can't exist if there is no time space for it to exist. If it's not physical, it's non-physical... seems pretty logical to me. 

And I have told you before, I don't really give two good shits what you believe in. That doesn't change evidence. I could just argue that I don't accept physical evidence for things and then how would you explain anything physical to me? See how that works? The fact that you refuse to accept the evidence doesn't mean it's not there.


----------



## Boss

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose "spiritual energy" is magical energy existing only in your mind.
> 
> Can you disprove it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can "suppose" whatever you like. It's still a free country.
> 
> You're the only one who believes in "magic" here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reality doesn't require magical inventions of "spirit realms" or things not existing, such as your invention of "spiritual energy".
Click to expand...


No, but reality does require an expanding universe which provides space and time for reality to exist. There is nothing "magical" about spiritual nature. It may seem that way to you because you don't understand it, but it's a part of nature just like physical nature. It created the physical universe, physical existence, and physical reality.


----------



## Boss

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have never made an effort to support your silly claims to something you call "spiritual energy".
> 
> How does anyone disprove something you can't define, defend or offer any evidence for?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "evidence" is physical nature and the universe. These exist. They didn't create themselves. You admit that something can't come from nothing. If physical nature can't create itself, and it does exist, and it did come to exist at some point, then the only thing that can explain it's coming to exist is spiritual nature.
> 
> No, I can't offer physical evidence of spiritual nature. I can give you plenty of spiritual evidence for spiritual nature, but you seem to want to reject that. What if I were demanding you present some spiritual evidence for physical nature? Could you provide that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ahh. I see. Physical nature and the universe provide evidence for something that exists only in your alleged spirit realms, the spirit realms that you can't provide evidence for because spiritual energy is not physical energy and does not physically exist.
> 
> Have you yet realized that your explanations for these spirit realms you dwell in are a total train wreck?
Click to expand...


Don't understand what you think is a train wreck. It's really very simple. Spiritual nature created physical reality and physical nature. I can provide spiritual evidence for spiritual nature, or you can evaluate it yourself if you accept that spiritual nature exists. I've never said that I couldn't provide evidence, just that it's not physical evidence because spiritual nature isn't physical.


----------



## Tuatara

Boss said:


> Don't understand what you think is a train wreck. It's really very simple. Spiritual nature created physical reality and physical nature. I can provide spiritual evidence for spiritual nature, or you can evaluate it yourself if you accept that spiritual nature exists. I've never said that I couldn't provide evidence, just that it's not physical evidence because spiritual nature isn't physical.


Translation : I can provide zero evidence because I just made up the term Spiritual Nature.


----------



## Boss

Tuatara said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't understand what you think is a train wreck. It's really very simple. Spiritual nature created physical reality and physical nature. I can provide spiritual evidence for spiritual nature, or you can evaluate it yourself if you accept that spiritual nature exists. I've never said that I couldn't provide evidence, just that it's not physical evidence because spiritual nature isn't physical.
> 
> 
> 
> Translation : I can provide zero evidence because I just made up the term Spiritual Nature.
Click to expand...


May have merit if history didn't show man has been spiritual since man walked upright.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "evidence" is physical nature and the universe. These exist. They didn't create themselves. You admit that something can't come from nothing. If physical nature can't create itself, and it does exist, and it did come to exist at some point, then the only thing that can explain it's coming to exist is spiritual nature.
> 
> No, I can't offer physical evidence of spiritual nature. I can give you plenty of spiritual evidence for spiritual nature, but you seem to want to reject that. What if I were demanding you present some spiritual evidence for physical nature? Could you provide that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The physical may have always existed, just as you claim of the spiritual.
> 
> Perhaps there is some way for something to come from nothing, assuming nothing is what existed prior to the Big Bang.  You continue to assert knowledge of the beginning of the universe as though it is indisputable fact.
> 
> You have said, many times, you can offer spiritual evidence of spiritual nature, but as always do a poor job defining those terms.  'Not of the physical world' is vague, could potentially encompass an infinite variety of things, doesn't really describe the nature of this spiritual nature, etc.
> 
> We've been through this before.  It's easy enough to make claims about something that one must believe in before one can experience any evidence for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well no... We've already determined where physical reality comes from. It didn't exist until a physical universe existed and time and space for physical things to exist in existed. If you have some other theory, you need to explain it and support it with science.
> 
> I don't understand how it's vague to say something is not of the physical world. You can comprehend that something physical can't exist if there is no time space for it to exist. If it's not physical, it's non-physical... seems pretty logical to me.
> 
> And I have told you before, I don't really give two good shits what you believe in. That doesn't change evidence. I could just argue that I don't accept physical evidence for things and then how would you explain anything physical to me? See how that works? The fact that you refuse to accept the evidence doesn't mean it's not there.
Click to expand...


Neither you nor I knows for sure what the beginning of our universe entailed, nor what may or may not have come before.  So there may well have been physical reality before our universe.  I've already pointed out that I have never seen the singularity which is believed to have contained all of what is in our universe described as other than physical, and that the usual rules of physics are thought to have not applied within it.  As such, neither time nor space may have existed, yet contained all the matter of the universe.  

I've already mentioned one idea, although it's fallen out of favor, which hypothesized a physical universe which could have existed before ours : the Big Crunch/Big Bang.  

Saying something is not of the physical world doesn't say what that thing is, only what it is not.  Your descriptions of spiritual nature do not truly define it, merely point out what it is not and that it cannot be sensed with the physical senses humanity knows.  Saying that an ill-defined something exists, but can only be sensed through something non-physical and therefore not observable, is an argument that cannot be refuted, because there's nothing substantive or objective to refute.  Nor does it explain how you come by such knowledge about this spiritual nature, especially considering almost no one else has this knowledge.

You could argue that you don't accept physical evidence, sure.  But unless you are blind, deaf, and cannot taste, smell or feel through touch, you will experience such things.  What sense is it that I and others who have not experienced spiritual nature are missing?  Is it a physical sense that you can point to the organ responsible, or is it a spiritual sense, therefore you cannot point to anything responsible yet can claim that it's there and I simply can't know it until I believe in spiritual evidence?


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Neither you nor I knows for sure what the beginning of our universe entailed, nor what may or may not have come before.  So there may well have been physical reality before our universe.



If there was an expanding universe somewhere, there could have been physical reality. Or maybe in that universe there was spiritual reality and spirit morons argued on message boards about the impossibility of physical nature? 



> I've already pointed out that I have never seen the singularity which is believed to have contained all of what is in our universe described as other than physical, and that the usual rules of physics are thought to have not applied within it.  As such, neither time nor space may have existed, yet contained all the matter of the universe.



Well if time and space didn't exist, neither did physical reality. Perhaps you are correct and singularity is metaphysical rather than physical? I won't argue that, I don't know. 



> I've already mentioned one idea, although it's fallen out of favor, which hypothesized a physical universe which could have existed before ours : the Big Crunch/Big Bang.



Great... so you have a debunked theory? lol 



> Saying something is not of the physical world doesn't say what that thing is, only what it is not.  Your descriptions of spiritual nature do not truly define it, merely point out what it is not and that it cannot be sensed with the physical senses humanity knows.  Saying that an ill-defined something exists, but can only be sensed through something non-physical and therefore not observable, is an argument that cannot be refuted, because there's nothing substantive or objective to refute.  Nor does it explain how you come by such knowledge about this spiritual nature, especially considering almost no one else has this knowledge.



Well humans define things so we can have conversations. Something that is not physical is defined as metaphysical, spiritual or non-physical. It can't be both physical and not physical at the same time. Lots of things are not observable, even in physics. For instance, you can't observe my thoughts. You can maybe tell if I am having a thought by observing brain wave data, but you can't observe the thought itself. Gravity is another thing you can't observe. You can observe the effects of gravity so you know it exists. 

I've explained numerous times how I come by my knowledge. I spiritually connect. I suspect other humans do this as well, since it has been happening since the advent of man. You're just completely wrong here, billions upon billions have this awareness. 



> You could argue that you don't accept physical evidence, sure.  But unless you are blind, deaf, and cannot taste, smell or feel through touch, you will experience such things.



Maybe I believe my experience is spiritual and that's all there is? 



> What sense is it that I and others who have not experienced spiritual nature are missing?  Is it a physical sense that you can point to the organ responsible, or is it a spiritual sense, therefore you cannot point to anything responsible yet can claim that it's there and I simply can't know it until I believe in spiritual evidence?



I don't know what sense you're missing. As I've said, man has been spiritually connecting for all our existence. The evidence is all around you, time and reality are the biggest clues. Of course, if you've convinced yourself that spiritual nature cannot exist, it's no different than if I convinced myself physical nature doesn't exist. You can explain physical things to me all day long, if I don't accept physical nature you're pissing in the wind. It doesn't change physical evidence, but to accept that I have to believe it can exist.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "evidence" is physical nature and the universe. These exist. They didn't create themselves. You admit that something can't come from nothing. If physical nature can't create itself, and it does exist, and it did come to exist at some point, then the only thing that can explain it's coming to exist is spiritual nature.
> 
> No, I can't offer physical evidence of spiritual nature. I can give you plenty of spiritual evidence for spiritual nature, but you seem to want to reject that. What if I were demanding you present some spiritual evidence for physical nature? Could you provide that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh. I see. Physical nature and the universe provide evidence for something that exists only in your alleged spirit realms, the spirit realms that you can't provide evidence for because spiritual energy is not physical energy and does not physically exist.
> 
> Have you yet realized that your explanations for these spirit realms you dwell in are a total train wreck?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't understand what you think is a train wreck. It's really very simple. Spiritual nature created physical reality and physical nature. I can provide spiritual evidence for spiritual nature, or you can evaluate it yourself if you accept that spiritual nature exists. I've never said that I couldn't provide evidence, just that it's not physical evidence because spiritual nature isn't physical.
Click to expand...


That's so silly. I must accept your "because I say so " claim is true in order to be able to evaluate your "because I say so " claim.

Clearly, there are no methods external or independent of the _Cult of Spiritual Nature_ through which your cult's claims can be assessed. That is, the "grounds" for belief in the _Cult of Spiritual Nature_ are dependent upon acceptance of supernatural processes that are not physically demonstrable but somehow "revealed" once one joins the cult.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't understand what you think is a train wreck. It's really very simple. Spiritual nature created physical reality and physical nature. I can provide spiritual evidence for spiritual nature, or you can evaluate it yourself if you accept that spiritual nature exists. I've never said that I couldn't provide evidence, just that it's not physical evidence because spiritual nature isn't physical.
> 
> 
> 
> Translation : I can provide zero evidence because I just made up the term Spiritual Nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> May have merit if history didn't show man has been spiritual since man walked upright.
Click to expand...

History doesn't show that "man has been spiritual since man walked upright."


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can "suppose" whatever you like. It's still a free country.
> 
> You're the only one who believes in "magic" here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reality doesn't require magical inventions of "spirit realms" or things not existing, such as your invention of "spiritual energy".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, but reality does require an expanding universe which provides space and time for reality to exist. There is nothing "magical" about spiritual nature. It may seem that way to you because you don't understand it, but it's a part of nature just like physical nature. It created the physical universe, physical existence, and physical reality.
Click to expand...


".... because I say so".

As usual, we're left with you insisting that something you call "spiritual nature" exists, yet you offer no evidence to support your claim. 

Sorry, but "by magic" is not an answer.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Physics says no such thing. If so, give us the formula which disproves spiritual energy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have never made an effort to support your silly claims to something you call "spiritual energy".
> 
> How does anyone disprove something you can't define, defend or offer any evidence for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "evidence" is physical nature and the universe. These exist. They didn't create themselves. You admit that something can't come from nothing. If physical nature can't create itself, and it does exist, and it did come to exist at some point, then the only thing that can explain it's coming to exist is spiritual nature.
> 
> No, I can't offer physical evidence of spiritual nature. I can give you plenty of spiritual evidence for spiritual nature, but you seem to want to reject that. What if I were demanding you present some spiritual evidence for physical nature? Could you provide that?
Click to expand...


How come when I watch these religious shows on this creepy christian tv channel tct I think it's called, why don't they explain this to us?  How come all they ever say is jesus said this and jesus said that?  So none of the billions of people that are christians, muslims or jews are teaching what you are saying.  This is only your theory/concept, no?  Or did you hear this from someone else?  Did a preacher or minister or shaman teach learn you this?


----------



## sealybobo

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reality doesn't require magical inventions of "spirit realms" or things not existing, such as your invention of "spiritual energy".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, but reality does require an expanding universe which provides space and time for reality to exist. There is nothing "magical" about spiritual nature. It may seem that way to you because you don't understand it, but it's a part of nature just like physical nature. It created the physical universe, physical existence, and physical reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ".... because I say so".
> 
> As usual, we're left with you insisting that something you call "spiritual nature" exists, yet you offer no evidence to support your claim.
> 
> Sorry, but "by magic" is not an answer.
Click to expand...


Good morning Hollie.  Have you ever seen this channel or one like it?  TCT Network

And I don't think it's the only one.  And they have white serious catholic shows with mass or sometimes nuns talking.  Sometimes it's black's screaming jesus and speaking in tongues.  Sometimes its very white, lame and for kids.  You should have seen the show today.  Teaching about Mr. Doubter, the nasty old man who doesn't believe.  They said "all you have to do is open your heart to jesus and he will come".  

Well I opened my heart and my mind and I honestly see no god.  I'm not sad or mean or bad because of it.  I still do good things and love and hope and think and honest to (no) god Hollie I think we are better people than they are.  A stupid lie isn't necessary to make people good.  Telling them a lie makes them stupid.  I can think of a million reasons not to lie, cheat, steal, rape or pollute even without god.  What about my family and friends?  My legacy.  Karma.  I do believe in Karma.  Don't pretend to know but I do believe if you bad bad eventually gonna get you.  Ju Ju.    Ok we're all a little nuts.  But at least I know it.  These people believe gods watching and talking to them and he can't wait for them to come to heaven.  Oh boy 

The brainwashing that I saw on tv today made me sick.  We need an atheist channel.  Its only fair.  And a muslim channel.  The religious channels I'm seeing are on free tv.  Instead of channel 20 they are on channels like 18.2 or 20.2.  Give us atheists 20.3 god damn it!  We need to wake people up in the middle of the night like religion is brainwashing people.  Lets have a public debate about it too.  That will get people thinking.  When leading atheists go to Washington and testify for why its only fair we get a channel too.  Push the issue.  Make people realize there is no proof of this jesus story so keep it out of our government and if you are going to give them that much time on free tv, atheists want a channel too.  We need to explain how/why religious is unnecessary and how they use it to divide the masses/stupid with bullshit wedge issues like gays and abortion.  

And look at how they don't believe in global warming or care that pollution is destroying this planet because it's all been proficized.    It's a sign of the end times.  Nothing we can do about it.

The fact that we are overpopulating this planet to a dangerous level and they are anti abortion is all I need to know they are fucking nuts.  We should be encouraging less people not more.  Instead of 2 kids have 1 for fuck sakes.  

Sorry I'm off on a tangent.  That tv show I saw this morning really pissed me off.  They say, "just open your heart".  They never say think.  And if they don't feel jesus that would be sad, right?  So I bet a lot of people don't feel shit but it's hard to deny jesus when they just told you if you do you'll go to hell.  And they are telling this to kids?  This is what the FCC should be closing down not Howard Stern.  They are breeding a nation of idiots!


----------



## hobelim

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have never made an effort to support your silly claims to something you call "spiritual energy".
> 
> How does anyone disprove something you can't define, defend or offer any evidence for?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "evidence" is physical nature and the universe. These exist. They didn't create themselves. You admit that something can't come from nothing. If physical nature can't create itself, and it does exist, and it did come to exist at some point, then the only thing that can explain it's coming to exist is spiritual nature.
> 
> No, I can't offer physical evidence of spiritual nature. I can give you plenty of spiritual evidence for spiritual nature, but you seem to want to reject that. What if I were demanding you present some spiritual evidence for physical nature? Could you provide that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How come when I watch these religious shows on this creepy christian tv channel
Click to expand...



I hope you just watch for laughs when your drunk or stoned or something... If not and you are just bored you should BEWARE and find another hobby otherwise you might lose your mind too, turn into a GISM, act like a jackass as an expression of faith, and babble incoherently for the rest of your life...

"HELL IS AL TO REAL" "THE END IS NEAR" "BUY GOLD" "JESUS IS COMING" "TIME FOR TENNIS" "GOD REVEILED HIMSELF" and all that crap......


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't understand what you think is a train wreck. It's really very simple. Spiritual nature created physical reality and physical nature. I can provide spiritual evidence for spiritual nature, or you can evaluate it yourself if you accept that spiritual nature exists. I've never said that I couldn't provide evidence, just that it's not physical evidence because spiritual nature isn't physical.
> 
> 
> 
> Translation : I can provide zero evidence because I just made up the term Spiritual Nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> May have merit if history didn't show man has been spiritual since man walked upright.
Click to expand...


You do know that at one time this planet was covered with trees so our ancestors were still monkeys and then the trees thinned out so they were forced to walk on the ground from tree to tree, where the lions and crocs were.  We were scared running from tree to tree.  When Jane got eaten by a tiger tarzan told boy that she in better place in the sky.  One day we join her.  Until then eat.  And son, if elephant kill tarzan don't worry god look over you.  Who?  From there they made up all kinds of stories from Eqyptian religion to Zeus, Mohammad, the Mormons, Christians, Jews.   

The stories just keeps getting better and better, even though today god never shows up.  And this is why you believe.  Because primitive man made it up?  Even though none of the modern or former religions are right about any of their impossible claims?  I can't call them unbelievable anymore because someone pointed out that many people do believe.  Yes, you all believe the unbelievable.  Sad really.  Says something about humans.  Not good.  Not smart.  Truly makes me sad that people are so stupid and blind.  No wonder the rich so easily control us all.  This is why god haters persist.  Wake up people.  

I can't believe we care more about profit than curing the sick.

I can't believe we pollute this planet so much

I can't believe many Americans have to work for under poverty rates.

I can't believe we still go to war.

I can't believe we have such a sick gun culture.

I can't believe we don't do more to help the inner city kids.

I can't believe the system isn't set up to help an ex con go straight.

I can't believe we let corporations buy our elections.

This is all shit that is done by a nation of people who believe in god?


----------



## sealybobo

hobelim said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "evidence" is physical nature and the universe. These exist. They didn't create themselves. You admit that something can't come from nothing. If physical nature can't create itself, and it does exist, and it did come to exist at some point, then the only thing that can explain it's coming to exist is spiritual nature.
> 
> No, I can't offer physical evidence of spiritual nature. I can give you plenty of spiritual evidence for spiritual nature, but you seem to want to reject that. What if I were demanding you present some spiritual evidence for physical nature? Could you provide that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How come when I watch these religious shows on this creepy christian tv channel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you just watch for laughs when your drunk or stoned or something... If not and you are just bored you should BEWARE and find another hobby otherwise you might lose your mind too, turn into a GISM, act like a jackass as an expression of faith, and babble incoherently for the rest of your life...
> 
> "HELL IS AL TO REAL" "THE END IS NEAR" "BUY GOLD" "JESUS IS COMING" "TIME FOR TENNIS" "GOD REVEILED HIMSELF" and all that crap......
Click to expand...


Not a chance.  I've had friends and relatives find jesus or be born again and they tried pushing that crap on me.  I always said, "listen dude, I'm Greek Orthodox, we translated the bible so your english hick white trash red neck ass could read it so please don't tell me what it means".  Just like every other person I thought my church was the one true church.  I didn't give much thought to other religions but I knew we split from the Catholic church because they worship a pope we worship Jesus.  Then I started getting interested in religion in general and the differences and how can they all be right then I realized what if they are all wrong.  Then I ran into other people who knew more than me, had seen all the atheists on the web and turned me onto them and now I see clearly the scam that is religion.  No guilt.  If there is a god, he cares about us as much as Gismys cares about a Tardigrade.  

My evolution started very young.  I remember my grandmother or aunt telling me the stupid stories of noah and moses and jesus and I think even from a very young age I was skeptical.  Does that mean the devil is/was in me?  Hell no.  I was adorable.    But over time I came to realize its all made up.  I didn't lose my wife in a car accident.  I don't lead a bad/mean/evil life.  

You know what?  All the overly religious people I ever met had one thing in common.  Extreme guilt about their past.  And just like an ex smoker is the worst, so is someone who had an abortion and feels really guilty about it.  So is someone who is bi sexual and has been taught to hate the thoughts that god put in their head in the first place.  

God says put your money in the collection plate.  That's all I need to know about organized religion.


----------



## sealybobo

You know what pushed me over the top?  It was that all the people I knew that were/are overly religious had one thing in common.  They all watch/love Fox News.  That's when I realized how much the people who own America use religion to control the masses.  Then I dug deeper and saw how the slave masters used it on their slaves.  The Pharaoh's used it to control their slaves too.  Weren't the jews slaves?  Yea, I see a pattern here.  And so why would I believe the modern day churches?  

Religious people want to blow off the fact that the modern day churches may not be perfect, but they just blow that off and say that's human's not god.  Well what were our ancestors?  They were humans.  They were not perfect.  Do you not think they had corrupt rulers back then?  Not possible religion was made up?  I think it is obvious.  It keeps the masses down.  Imagine where we'd be without it.  Maybe no one would be homeless or no one would ever go hungry.  Capitalism uses religion to keep us ignorant.  Corporations.  The rich.  The churches are all corrupt business'.  They must know they are making it up as they go along.  They have to.  I wonder how many preachers/reverands/televangelists/rabbi's know its made up but make money doing it?


----------



## hobelim

sealybobo said:


> You know what pushed me over the top?  It was that all the people I knew that were/are overly religious had one thing in common.  They all watch/love Fox News.  That's when I realized how much the people who own America use religion to control the masses.  Then I dug deeper and saw how the slave masters used it on their slaves.  The Pharaoh's used it to control their slaves too.  Weren't the jews slaves?  Yea, I see a pattern here.  And so why would I believe the modern day churches?
> 
> Religious people want to blow off the fact that the modern day churches may not be perfect, but they just blow that off and say that's human's not god.  Well what were our ancestors?  They were humans.  They were not perfect.  Do you not think they had corrupt rulers back then?  Not possible religion was made up?  I think it is obvious.  It keeps the masses down.  Imagine where we'd be without it.  Maybe no one would be homeless or no one would ever go hungry.  Capitalism uses religion to keep us ignorant.  Corporations.  The rich.  The churches are all corrupt business'.  They must know they are making it up as they go along.  They have to.  I wonder how many preachers/reverands/televangelists/rabbi's know its made up but make money doing it?



Yes, and that is why Boss's claim that spiritual beliefs are proof of spiritual reality is absurd.. In the past if a person refused to worship one god or another they and their entire families were killed which would result in a population of people either too feeble minded or too afraid to not worship one god or another which is not proof of anything except that some people will do anything to survive....


----------



## Boss

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh. I see. Physical nature and the universe provide evidence for something that exists only in your alleged spirit realms, the spirit realms that you can't provide evidence for because spiritual energy is not physical energy and does not physically exist.
> 
> Have you yet realized that your explanations for these spirit realms you dwell in are a total train wreck?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't understand what you think is a train wreck. It's really very simple. Spiritual nature created physical reality and physical nature. I can provide spiritual evidence for spiritual nature, or you can evaluate it yourself if you accept that spiritual nature exists. I've never said that I couldn't provide evidence, just that it's not physical evidence because spiritual nature isn't physical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's so silly. I must accept your "because I say so " claim is true in order to be able to evaluate your "because I say so " claim.
> 
> Clearly, there are no methods external or independent of the _Cult of Spiritual Nature_ through which your cult's claims can be assessed. That is, the "grounds" for belief in the _Cult of Spiritual Nature_ are dependent upon acceptance of supernatural processes that are not physically demonstrable but somehow "revealed" once one joins the cult.
Click to expand...


You don't have to accept anything and it's not "because I say so" at all. You're clearly the cultist here. 88% of humans are spiritual and always have been. Spiritual nature isn't proved with physical nature just as physical nature isn't proved with spiritual. And it doesn't matter what we're talking about, it can't be proven to you if you don't believe it's real. 

All I've tried to do is rationally show you that there has to be something more than physical nature because something caused physical nature to exist. You agree that something cannot come from nothing, and the physical didn't create itself. The only other possibilities remaining are metaphysical/spiritual or "magic" and apparently you believe in the later.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have never made an effort to support your silly claims to something you call "spiritual energy".
> 
> How does anyone disprove something you can't define, defend or offer any evidence for?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "evidence" is physical nature and the universe. These exist. They didn't create themselves. You admit that something can't come from nothing. If physical nature can't create itself, and it does exist, and it did come to exist at some point, then the only thing that can explain it's coming to exist is spiritual nature.
> 
> No, I can't offer physical evidence of spiritual nature. I can give you plenty of spiritual evidence for spiritual nature, but you seem to want to reject that. What if I were demanding you present some spiritual evidence for physical nature? Could you provide that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How come when I watch these religious shows on this creepy christian tv channel tct I think it's called, why don't they explain this to us?  How come all they ever say is jesus said this and jesus said that?  So none of the billions of people that are christians, muslims or jews are teaching what you are saying.  This is only your theory/concept, no?  Or did you hear this from someone else?  Did a preacher or minister or shaman teach learn you this?
Click to expand...


You're conflating religion with spirituality. Religions were created to try and comprehend the spiritual connection man makes. They are proof that man does make a real connection with something greater than self, not of the physical world. But man is flawed, thus any religions he creates are also flawed. 

You can certainly be spiritual and not be religious. For tens of thousands of years, humans were spiritual without religion. Your problem is, you've thrown the baby out with the bathwater. However, in speaking with you, I get the feeling you do believe there is something greater than self. You said you believed in Karma. Well, Karma is a spiritual concept, not physical. 

It is very difficult for a human to completely reject all spirituality. We are intrinsically hard-wired to spiritually connect to something greater than self. This is why only about 12% of the population is able to make their claims of Atheism. I found it interesting, the survey they did in Denmark a while back. It's one of the most Atheistic countries on the planet with nearly 34% claiming Atheism. However, when asked specifically if they believed in absolutely no possibility of any kind of spiritual existence, only 13% would go that far.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow that's a great point.  We don't know what started the big bang and we don't know for sure how life started here on earth.  Scientists thank god have a few good theories.  It certainly wasn't a god and wasn't done in 7 days, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know it was not God ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how do you know it was ? were you there?
> (that one I took from your playbook)
Click to expand...


I can easily assume that everything in existence, didn't simply happen by chance and can see the deliberate design in nature.

What do you think when you look at nature and wonder how it could have possibly happened absent of a designer ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> *YWC: I can assume because looking at nature that the evidence shows deliberate design to everything's existence ...*
> 
> 
> not everything, only nature demonstrates design and besides nature what else on any heavenly body displays evidence of design - nothing. most planets are lifeless with vast expanses without even simple shapes.
> 
> if it were not the forces of the Everlasting responsible for biological life why hasn't the Deity built any other structures to demonstrate the same design capabilities if for no other reason than to show variety in workmanship ?
> 
> show us what else (your) Biblical God has designed on any heavenly body to demonstrate his capabilities or presence.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You will have to take that up with the creator. The planets and their orbit and alignments plays an important role for life on this unique planet,This cannot be denied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Einstein expressed his skepticism regarding an anthropomorphic deity, often describing it as "naïve" and "childlike". He stated, "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously.
Click to expand...


And you cling to that as support for your views ? Look what he said about your side using him as your argument against the existence of God. Not a glowing endorsement for your views.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> this post just highlights that ignorance....
> your assumptions are just that, assumptions.
> so again : Your argument is scientifically illiterate, ill informed, infantile and dishonest
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So now you are saying assumptions are just that, assumptions. That is what theories begin with opinions and assumptions,derived from the observation of evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> false! slappy o slapdick.
> I did not say all assumptions, I said "your" (you personally)  make assumptions constantly that are false...
> 
> Your argument is scientifically illiterate, ill informed, infantile and dishonest
Click to expand...


Oh dawsy, what do you know concerning science other then what you regurgitate from wiki or talk origins.

Looks like you are well on your way to being banned again. You are not capable of a reasonable discussion.

Just go away you bitter child.


----------



## Youwerecreated

thebrucebeat said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Einstein expressed his skepticism regarding an anthropomorphic deity, often describing it as "naïve" and "childlike". He stated, "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grossly misquoting Einstein. First of all, he NEVER stated belief in God was childlike. He said his personal belief was like that of a child. A child is curious, naive, unknowing in their understanding of things. You've taken his words completely out of their context to make your erroneous point. The idea of an "anthropological" God is the idea of a human-like God. I respect that because it's also MY view of God. I can't take seriously the idea of a human-like invisible man sitting on a cloud with a Charleton Heston voice and long white beard. He NEVER said that he did not believe in God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, he categorically DID say that belief was childlike.
> See my signature.
> Stop making an ass of yourself.
Click to expand...


People like you Einstein was angry with. Look at my signature.


----------



## Youwerecreated

daws101 said:


> and then there's this



I am no fan of organized religion either,your point ?


----------



## thanatos144

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> and then there's this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am no fan of organized religion either,your point ?
Click to expand...


It isn't all about you.  

tapatalk post


----------



## Youwerecreated

HUGGY said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have never made an effort to support your silly claims to something you call "spiritual energy".
> 
> How does anyone disprove something you can't define, defend or offer any evidence for?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "evidence" is physical nature and the universe. These exist. They didn't create themselves. You admit that something can't come from nothing. If physical nature can't create itself, and it does exist, and it did come to exist at some point, then the only thing that can explain it's coming to exist is spiritual nature.
> 
> No, I can't offer physical evidence of spiritual nature. I can give you plenty of spiritual evidence for spiritual nature, but you seem to want to reject that. What if I were demanding you present some spiritual evidence for physical nature? Could you provide that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you keep insisting that the universe was "created" from nothing?  You do not know that.  Based on this juvenile assumption you think you can claim the universe for your god or some spirit?
> 
> Hogwash.
Click to expand...


Prove matter is eternal


----------



## Youwerecreated

thanatos144 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> and then there's this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am no fan of organized religion either,your point ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It isn't all about you.
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


I am sorry my post went over your head. Never said it was about me. I am a believer and agree with Einstein.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "evidence" is physical nature and the universe. These exist. They didn't create themselves. You admit that something can't come from nothing. If physical nature can't create itself, and it does exist, and it did come to exist at some point, then the only thing that can explain it's coming to exist is spiritual nature.
> 
> No, I can't offer physical evidence of spiritual nature. I can give you plenty of spiritual evidence for spiritual nature, but you seem to want to reject that. What if I were demanding you present some spiritual evidence for physical nature? Could you provide that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How come when I watch these religious shows on this creepy christian tv channel tct I think it's called, why don't they explain this to us?  How come all they ever say is jesus said this and jesus said that?  So none of the billions of people that are christians, muslims or jews are teaching what you are saying.  This is only your theory/concept, no?  Or did you hear this from someone else?  Did a preacher or minister or shaman teach learn you this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're conflating religion with spirituality. Religions were created to try and comprehend the spiritual connection man makes. They are proof that man does make a real connection with something greater than self, not of the physical world. But man is flawed, thus any religions he creates are also flawed.
> 
> You can certainly be spiritual and not be religious. For tens of thousands of years, humans were spiritual without religion. Your problem is, you've thrown the baby out with the bathwater. However, in speaking with you, I get the feeling you do believe there is something greater than self. You said you believed in Karma. Well, Karma is a spiritual concept, not physical.
> 
> It is very difficult for a human to completely reject all spirituality. We are intrinsically hard-wired to spiritually connect to something greater than self. This is why only about 12% of the population is able to make their claims of Atheism. I found it interesting, the survey they did in Denmark a while back. It's one of the most Atheistic countries on the planet with nearly 34% claiming Atheism. However, when asked specifically if they believed in absolutely no possibility of any kind of spiritual existence, only 13% would go that far.
Click to expand...


And yet you feel confident that you, unlike most or all of the rest of humanity, does not have a flawed understanding of the spiritual connection you believe in.  

Humans were spiritual without religion for tens of thousands of years?  Which humans were these, and what is your evidence they were spiritual without religion?  Perhaps I should ask you to define those two words first, since you so often seem to use your own personal definitions of things.

If humans are 'hard-wired' to connect to something greater than self, can you show the mechanism which accounts for this?  Or, again, do I need to ask you to define hard-wired so that I can know what you are talking about?

Atheism has multiple definitions.  Some consider it a rejection of all possibility of god, others simply not believing in any god.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't understand what you think is a train wreck. It's really very simple. Spiritual nature created physical reality and physical nature. I can provide spiritual evidence for spiritual nature, or you can evaluate it yourself if you accept that spiritual nature exists. I've never said that I couldn't provide evidence, just that it's not physical evidence because spiritual nature isn't physical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's so silly. I must accept your "because I say so " claim is true in order to be able to evaluate your "because I say so " claim.
> 
> Clearly, there are no methods external or independent of the _Cult of Spiritual Nature_ through which your cult's claims can be assessed. That is, the "grounds" for belief in the _Cult of Spiritual Nature_ are dependent upon acceptance of supernatural processes that are not physically demonstrable but somehow "revealed" once one joins the cult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't have to accept anything and it's not "because I say so" at all. You're clearly the cultist here. 88% of humans are spiritual and always have been. Spiritual nature isn't proved with physical nature just as physical nature isn't proved with spiritual. And it doesn't matter what we're talking about, it can't be proven to you if you don't believe it's real.
> 
> All I've tried to do is rationally show you that there has to be something more than physical nature because something caused physical nature to exist. You agree that something cannot come from nothing, and the physical didn't create itself. The only other possibilities remaining are metaphysical/spiritual or "magic" and apparently you believe in the later.
Click to expand...


You have made the rational assessment that "because I say so", serves the naive and basically pointless aims of your argument. 

You're really just a pedestrian "gods of the gap'ist". Like so many fundamentalists, you seize upon any gap in scientific knowledge as a place to jam your gods into. Spackling your inventions of spirit realms, gods and magical entities into gaps of knowledge only serves to promote your fears and superstitions.


----------



## sealybobo

hobelim said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know what pushed me over the top?  It was that all the people I knew that were/are overly religious had one thing in common.  They all watch/love Fox News.  That's when I realized how much the people who own America use religion to control the masses.  Then I dug deeper and saw how the slave masters used it on their slaves.  The Pharaoh's used it to control their slaves too.  Weren't the jews slaves?  Yea, I see a pattern here.  And so why would I believe the modern day churches?
> 
> Religious people want to blow off the fact that the modern day churches may not be perfect, but they just blow that off and say that's human's not god.  Well what were our ancestors?  They were humans.  They were not perfect.  Do you not think they had corrupt rulers back then?  Not possible religion was made up?  I think it is obvious.  It keeps the masses down.  Imagine where we'd be without it.  Maybe no one would be homeless or no one would ever go hungry.  Capitalism uses religion to keep us ignorant.  Corporations.  The rich.  The churches are all corrupt business'.  They must know they are making it up as they go along.  They have to.  I wonder how many preachers/reverands/televangelists/rabbi's know its made up but make money doing it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and that is why Boss's claim that spiritual beliefs are proof of spiritual reality is absurd.. In the past if a person refused to worship one god or another they and their entire families were killed which would result in a population of people either too feeble minded or too afraid to not worship one god or another which is not proof of anything except that some people will do anything to survive....
Click to expand...


So he is too stupid or brainwashed to understand this but then tries to use logic and reasoning to prove god exists?  Sorry boss, if you are too stupid to understand when and why men invented god then you are probably not smart enough to even be having this conversation.  Similar to Gismys.  That fool hasn't said one insightful thing.  The only thing she ever says is "ONLY A FOOL WOULD DOUBT GOD...." but the fact is, only a fool would believe a stupid virgin priest in a robe who needs 10% of your earnings and tells you they can't provide proof, you have to have faith and if you don't you'll burn in hell.  Fuck you priest.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Grossly misquoting Einstein. First of all, he NEVER stated belief in God was childlike. He said his personal belief was like that of a child. A child is curious, naive, unknowing in their understanding of things. You've taken his words completely out of their context to make your erroneous point. The idea of an "anthropological" God is the idea of a human-like God. I respect that because it's also MY view of God. I can't take seriously the idea of a human-like invisible man sitting on a cloud with a Charleton Heston voice and long white beard. He NEVER said that he did not believe in God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, he categorically DID say that belief was childlike.
> See my signature.
> Stop making an ass of yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People like you Einstein was angry with. Look at my signature.
Click to expand...


It makes no difference if Einstein believed in one, many or no gods. His belief does nothing to support the existence of the Christian gods which he clearly identified.


----------



## sealybobo

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know it was not God ?
> 
> 
> 
> how do you know it was ? were you there?
> (that one I took from your playbook)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can easily assume that everything in existence, didn't simply happen by chance and can see the deliberate design in nature.
> 
> What do you think when you look at nature and wonder how it could have possibly happened absent of a designer ?
Click to expand...


You can assume but that doesn't make you right. 

And there is no deliberate design.  The earth was a hot ball of fire and no life could exist for billions of years.  Finally life took hold but it got wiped out 4 times before.  Life has evolved and adapted to live here on earth.  

If god intelligently designed the earth he is not very intelligent. 

The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all species are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.  Richard Dawkins


----------



## sealybobo

Youwerecreated said:


> thebrucebeat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Grossly misquoting Einstein. First of all, he NEVER stated belief in God was childlike. He said his personal belief was like that of a child. A child is curious, naive, unknowing in their understanding of things. You've taken his words completely out of their context to make your erroneous point. The idea of an "anthropological" God is the idea of a human-like God. I respect that because it's also MY view of God. I can't take seriously the idea of a human-like invisible man sitting on a cloud with a Charleton Heston voice and long white beard. He NEVER said that he did not believe in God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, he categorically DID say that belief was childlike.
> See my signature.
> Stop making an ass of yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People like you Einstein was angry with. Look at my signature.
Click to expand...


The validity of a claim, such as the existence of god, is not governed by the intelligence of the minds which hold it. Evidence and reason are the deciding factors.

Sir Isaac Newton, one of historys greatest scientists, was not only intensely religious but also believed in alchemical transmutation. Alchemy is, however, fully incorrect given our modern understanding of chemistry, the atom and nucleosynthysis.

The fact that an intelligent person holds an irrational belief is simply evidence that our brains are able to compartmentalise world-views and models from one another, usually in order to maintain a state of ignorant bliss and escape the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.


----------



## sealybobo

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know it was not God ?
> 
> 
> 
> how do you know it was ? were you there?
> (that one I took from your playbook)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can easily assume that everything in existence, didn't simply happen by chance and can see the deliberate design in nature.
> 
> What do you think when you look at nature and wonder how it could have possibly happened absent of a designer ?
Click to expand...


The honest answer would be we just don't know.  But to put god in the blanks where you don't know the answers is just stupid.  1000 years ago god did the thunder and lightening.  Today we know that's not god.  For thousands of years we said it must be god whenever we didn't know the answer.  But every time we find an answer, it's never god.  So god is getting smaller and smaller the more we know/learn.  

This reminds me of the puddle of water.  It filled up the hole perfectly.  So the puddle of water says, "oh my god, look at how perfectly I fit in this hole.  This hole must have been made for me, by a god.  

This planet wasn't and isn't perfect.  All animals have adapted/evolved to live here.  If they live in the cold they developed thick skin.  If they live in the hot desert they have darker skin.  God didn't make black people dark so they could live in Africa.  God didn't make Eskimo's thick skinned so they could live in the cold.  The Eskemo's evolved over time to suit their environment.


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> How come when I watch these religious shows on this creepy christian tv channel tct I think it's called, why don't they explain this to us?  How come all they ever say is jesus said this and jesus said that?  So none of the billions of people that are christians, muslims or jews are teaching what you are saying.  This is only your theory/concept, no?  Or did you hear this from someone else?  Did a preacher or minister or shaman teach learn you this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're conflating religion with spirituality. Religions were created to try and comprehend the spiritual connection man makes. They are proof that man does make a real connection with something greater than self, not of the physical world. But man is flawed, thus any religions he creates are also flawed.
> 
> You can certainly be spiritual and not be religious. For tens of thousands of years, humans were spiritual without religion. Your problem is, you've thrown the baby out with the bathwater. However, in speaking with you, I get the feeling you do believe there is something greater than self. You said you believed in Karma. Well, Karma is a spiritual concept, not physical.
> 
> It is very difficult for a human to completely reject all spirituality. We are intrinsically hard-wired to spiritually connect to something greater than self. This is why only about 12% of the population is able to make their claims of Atheism. I found it interesting, the survey they did in Denmark a while back. It's one of the most Atheistic countries on the planet with nearly 34% claiming Atheism. However, when asked specifically if they believed in absolutely no possibility of any kind of spiritual existence, only 13% would go that far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet you feel confident that you, unlike most or all of the rest of humanity, does not have a flawed understanding of the spiritual connection you believe in.
> 
> Humans were spiritual without religion for tens of thousands of years?  Which humans were these, and what is your evidence they were spiritual without religion?  Perhaps I should ask you to define those two words first, since you so often seem to use your own personal definitions of things.
> 
> If humans are 'hard-wired' to connect to something greater than self, can you show the mechanism which accounts for this?  Or, again, do I need to ask you to define hard-wired so that I can know what you are talking about?
> 
> Atheism has multiple definitions.  Some consider it a rejection of all possibility of god, others simply not believing in any god.
Click to expand...


This thread has over 4,100 posts. I can't imagine that I haven't already covered your questions several times. Is one more time going to do it? Let's see? 

1. From the oldest human civilization we have ever unearthed, there is evidence of ritual ceremony and burial using red ochre. They weren't simply being "festive" here, the use of red ochre is well documented as part of human spiritual ritual. 

2. These archeological findings predate any religion by at least 20k years or more. So long before any religion, humans were spiritually worshiping something. 

3. Psychologists studying human behavior have determined that humans have an inherent inclination to be spiritual. Sigmund Freud noted (maybe from Voltaire), "If God did not exist, humans would have to invent Him." Simply meaning, we could not be humans without spirituality. It is ingrained in who we are as humans.

Yes, atheism has wide ranging definition... still... in the most atheistic country on the planet, the majority of atheists will not say there is no possibility of anything spiritual existing. I have argued that some Atheists I know of are bigger believers in God than some Christians I know.


----------



## Boss

> The honest answer would be we just don't know.



But that's not what you've said all throughout this thread. You've claimed that you DO know, and that God doesn't exist, and that it's silly and stupid and uneducated to believe God does exist.  So are you admitting here that you've been dishonest? Seems like it to me.


----------



## Youwerecreated

sealybobo said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> how do you know it was ? were you there?
> (that one I took from your playbook)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can easily assume that everything in existence, didn't simply happen by chance and can see the deliberate design in nature.
> 
> What do you think when you look at nature and wonder how it could have possibly happened absent of a designer ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can assume but that doesn't make you right.
> 
> And there is no deliberate design.  The earth was a hot ball of fire and no life could exist for billions of years.  Finally life took hold but it got wiped out 4 times before.  Life has evolved and adapted to live here on earth.
> 
> If god intelligently designed the earth he is not very intelligent.
> 
> The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all species are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.  Richard Dawkins
Click to expand...


No one has all the answers and I am ok with that. Some of my views are gonna be wrong, I am sure of it ,but I don't have a problem with being corrected.

Some here think they have all the answers and mock others because their views are different. That is the very thing I have against organized religion when they force their doctrines on others and that goes for the science community not admitting some of their views being taught are views that are faith based and conjecture, not making that clear to the students.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> The honest answer would be we just don't know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that's not what you've said all throughout this thread. You've claimed that you DO know, and that God doesn't exist, and that it's silly and stupid and uneducated to believe God does exist.  So are you admitting here that you've been dishonest? Seems like it to me.
Click to expand...


No, I'll say it again for you.  Maybe it will sink in this time.  

The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

This comes right from the website called Why there is no god

So atheists aren't saying they know anything Boss.  YOU ARE.  You don't know jack shit.  You've been brainwashed like the rest of them.

If you take all the evidence the probability of there being a god is lesson than 1%.  But us atheists will give you that.  .000001% chance.  Who knows what's on the other side of a black hole.  Certainly not you.  

Sorry sometimes when I call you names.  It just makes me feel better.  Do you know that swearing can actually over ride pain?  Try it next time you bang your elbow or toe.  Say FUCK!  So the brain is an amazing thing Boss.  Scientists are unlocking secrets every day.  They have even determined that we made up god, not the other way around.  Probably of course.  No one is sure except for you bible thumpers, and on very very very shaky evidence.


----------



## sealybobo

Youwerecreated said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can easily assume that everything in existence, didn't simply happen by chance and can see the deliberate design in nature.
> 
> What do you think when you look at nature and wonder how it could have possibly happened absent of a designer ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can assume but that doesn't make you right.
> 
> And there is no deliberate design.  The earth was a hot ball of fire and no life could exist for billions of years.  Finally life took hold but it got wiped out 4 times before.  Life has evolved and adapted to live here on earth.
> 
> If god intelligently designed the earth he is not very intelligent.
> 
> The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all species are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.  Richard Dawkins
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one has all the answers and I am ok with that. Some of my views are gonna be wrong, I am sure of it ,but I don't have a problem with being corrected.
> 
> Some here think they have all the answers and mock others because their views are different. That is the very thing I have against organized religion when they force their doctrines on others and that goes for the science community not admitting some of their views being taught are views that are faith based and conjecture, not making that clear to the students.
Click to expand...


Argument from incredulity / Lack of imagination and Argumentum ad Ignorantiam. Ignores and does not eliminate the fact that something can seem incredible or unlikely and still be true, or appear to be obvious or likely and yet still be false.

The world is the way it is. Reality does not bend to our personal whim and facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. Our personal belief in something does not automatically make it real or true and, conversely, our lack of understanding of a topic does not make it false.

Until we understand something we do not know. Positing a god in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.


----------



## Hollie

Youwerecreated said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can easily assume that everything in existence, didn't simply happen by chance and can see the deliberate design in nature.
> 
> What do you think when you look at nature and wonder how it could have possibly happened absent of a designer ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can assume but that doesn't make you right.
> 
> And there is no deliberate design.  The earth was a hot ball of fire and no life could exist for billions of years.  Finally life took hold but it got wiped out 4 times before.  Life has evolved and adapted to live here on earth.
> 
> If god intelligently designed the earth he is not very intelligent.
> 
> The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all species are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.  Richard Dawkins
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one has all the answers and I am ok with that. Some of my views are gonna be wrong, I am sure of it ,but I don't have a problem with being corrected.
> 
> Some here think they have all the answers and mock others because their views are different. That is the very thing I have against organized religion when they force their doctrines on others and that goes for the science community not admitting some of their views being taught are views that are faith based and conjecture, not making that clear to the students.
Click to expand...


What, exactly, in science is "faith based"? Be specific and provide relevant examples.


What, exactly, in science requires belief in unsupported dogma or consignment to everlasting torture?


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're conflating religion with spirituality. Religions were created to try and comprehend the spiritual connection man makes. They are proof that man does make a real connection with something greater than self, not of the physical world. But man is flawed, thus any religions he creates are also flawed.
> 
> You can certainly be spiritual and not be religious. For tens of thousands of years, humans were spiritual without religion. Your problem is, you've thrown the baby out with the bathwater. However, in speaking with you, I get the feeling you do believe there is something greater than self. You said you believed in Karma. Well, Karma is a spiritual concept, not physical.
> 
> It is very difficult for a human to completely reject all spirituality. We are intrinsically hard-wired to spiritually connect to something greater than self. This is why only about 12% of the population is able to make their claims of Atheism. I found it interesting, the survey they did in Denmark a while back. It's one of the most Atheistic countries on the planet with nearly 34% claiming Atheism. However, when asked specifically if they believed in absolutely no possibility of any kind of spiritual existence, only 13% would go that far.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you feel confident that you, unlike most or all of the rest of humanity, does not have a flawed understanding of the spiritual connection you believe in.
> 
> Humans were spiritual without religion for tens of thousands of years?  Which humans were these, and what is your evidence they were spiritual without religion?  Perhaps I should ask you to define those two words first, since you so often seem to use your own personal definitions of things.
> 
> If humans are 'hard-wired' to connect to something greater than self, can you show the mechanism which accounts for this?  Or, again, do I need to ask you to define hard-wired so that I can know what you are talking about?
> 
> Atheism has multiple definitions.  Some consider it a rejection of all possibility of god, others simply not believing in any god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This thread has over 4,100 posts. I can't imagine that I haven't already covered your questions several times. Is one more time going to do it? Let's see?
> 
> 1. From the oldest human civilization we have ever unearthed, there is evidence of ritual ceremony and burial using red ochre. They weren't simply being "festive" here, the use of red ochre is well documented as part of human spiritual ritual.
> 
> 2. These archeological findings predate any religion by at least 20k years or more. So long before any religion, humans were spiritually worshiping something.
> 
> 3. Psychologists studying human behavior have determined that humans have an inherent inclination to be spiritual. Sigmund Freud noted (maybe from Voltaire), "If God did not exist, humans would have to invent Him." Simply meaning, we could not be humans without spirituality. It is ingrained in who we are as humans.
> 
> Yes, atheism has wide ranging definition... still... in the most atheistic country on the planet, the majority of atheists will not say there is no possibility of anything spiritual existing. I have argued that some Atheists I know of are bigger believers in God than some Christians I know.
Click to expand...


How many times have I explained to you that Agnostic atheism is the most rational position yet you refuse to let it sink in.

My mom says the same thing you do.  She says from the beginning of time men looked up and believed in god(s).  

That's pretty deep but not enough proof to prove god exists.  It's a point.  We will give you that.  Now Boss, what else do you have?  Yes, you have drilled in two points that is for sure.

God is outside of the physical & men have always believed in god(s).  We understand Boss.  What else?


----------



## sealybobo

Youwerecreated said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can easily assume that everything in existence, didn't simply happen by chance and can see the deliberate design in nature.
> 
> What do you think when you look at nature and wonder how it could have possibly happened absent of a designer ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can assume but that doesn't make you right.
> 
> And there is no deliberate design.  The earth was a hot ball of fire and no life could exist for billions of years.  Finally life took hold but it got wiped out 4 times before.  Life has evolved and adapted to live here on earth.
> 
> If god intelligently designed the earth he is not very intelligent.
> 
> The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all species are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.  Richard Dawkins
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one has all the answers and I am ok with that. Some of my views are gonna be wrong, I am sure of it ,but I don't have a problem with being corrected.
> 
> Some here think they have all the answers and mock others because their views are different. That is the very thing I have against organized religion when they force their doctrines on others and that goes for the science community not admitting some of their views being taught are views that are faith based and conjecture, not making that clear to the students.
Click to expand...


Darwin observed and described evolution the same way Newton did for gravity. It was simply a discovery of a fact about the world  not an engineered philosophy on how to behave.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The honest answer would be we just don't know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that's not what you've said all throughout this thread. You've claimed that you DO know, and that God doesn't exist, and that it's silly and stupid and uneducated to believe God does exist.  So are you admitting here that you've been dishonest? Seems like it to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'll say it again for you.  Maybe it will sink in this time.
> 
> The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
> 
> This comes right from the website called [url removed]
> 
> So atheists aren't saying they know anything Boss.  YOU ARE.  You don't know jack shit.  You've been brainwashed like the rest of them.
> 
> If you take all the evidence the probability of there being a god is lesson than 1%.  But us atheists will give you that.  .000001% chance.  Who knows what's on the other side of a black hole.  Certainly not you.
> 
> Sorry sometimes when I call you names.  It just makes me feel better.  Do you know that swearing can actually over ride pain?  Try it next time you bang your elbow or toe.  Say FUCK!  So the brain is an amazing thing Boss.  Scientists are unlocking secrets every day.  They have even determined that we made up god, not the other way around.  Probably of course.  No one is sure except for you bible thumpers, and on very very very shaky evidence.
Click to expand...



"The honest answer is we just don't know." ~You

There is your quote, yet what you are "explaining" to me is a profound disbelief in God... not that you "just don't know." I do find it cute that you claim to believe in Karma, a spiritual concept... and you repeatedly claim to be an "Agnostic Atheist" whatever the fuck that is supposed to be. It tells me that in your heart of hearts you do know there is a higher power. 

You can make up fake statistics all day long, you can't show us science that has determined man invented spirituality. You can claim that, but you're simply lying. It can be your opinion, but it is baseless. What you've adopted is a *faith-based* disbelief.

Now, I am not the type of person who can accept things on blind faith. For me, I need evidence to believe anything. This is why I cannot be a Christian. That said, I do connect with a spiritual power greater than self on a daily basis. I've been doing this for most of my adult life and I have gained great benefit personally from that. To me, that is all the "evidence" I need to believe in God. I can't believe it's all in my head and a figment of imagination any more than you could believe that about your own mother if I were here saying it.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> But that's not what you've said all throughout this thread. You've claimed that you DO know, and that God doesn't exist, and that it's silly and stupid and uneducated to believe God does exist.  So are you admitting here that you've been dishonest? Seems like it to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'll say it again for you.  Maybe it will sink in this time.
> 
> The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
> 
> This comes right from the website called [url removed]
> 
> So atheists aren't saying they know anything Boss.  YOU ARE.  You don't know jack shit.  You've been brainwashed like the rest of them.
> 
> If you take all the evidence the probability of there being a god is lesson than 1%.  But us atheists will give you that.  .000001% chance.  Who knows what's on the other side of a black hole.  Certainly not you.
> 
> Sorry sometimes when I call you names.  It just makes me feel better.  Do you know that swearing can actually over ride pain?  Try it next time you bang your elbow or toe.  Say FUCK!  So the brain is an amazing thing Boss.  Scientists are unlocking secrets every day.  They have even determined that we made up god, not the other way around.  Probably of course.  No one is sure except for you bible thumpers, and on very very very shaky evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "The honest answer is we just don't know." ~You
> 
> There is your quote, yet what you are "explaining" to me is a profound disbelief in God... not that you "just don't know." I do find it cute that you claim to believe in Karma, a spiritual concept... and you repeatedly claim to be an "Agnostic Atheist" whatever the fuck that is supposed to be. It tells me that in your heart of hearts you do know there is a higher power.
> 
> You can make up fake statistics all day long, you can't show us science that has determined man invented spirituality. You can claim that, but you're simply lying. It can be your opinion, but it is baseless. What you've adopted is a *faith-based* disbelief.
> 
> Now, I am not the type of person who can accept things on blind faith. For me, I need evidence to believe anything. This is why I cannot be a Christian. That said, I do connect with a spiritual power greater than self on a daily basis. I've been doing this for most of my adult life and I have gained great benefit personally from that. To me, that is all the "evidence" I need to believe in God. I can't believe it's all in my head and a figment of imagination any more than you could believe that about your own mother if I were here saying it.
Click to expand...


The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. 

You are right, like you, I don't know if there is a god or not.

What it should tell you is that in my mind I know there is no god and in your heart you want there to be a god.

I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking. The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which theres little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.  Carl Sagan

You have no evidence.

I cant believe/understand a world without God OR No god is too unlikely.

Argument from incredulity / Lack of imagination and Argumentum ad Ignorantiam. Ignores and does not eliminate the fact that something can seem incredible or unlikely and still be true, or appear to be obvious or likely and yet still be false.

The world is the way it is. Reality does not bend to our personal whim and facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. Our personal belief in something does not automatically make it real or true and, conversely, our lack of understanding of a topic does not make it false.

Until we understand something we do not know. Positing a god in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.


----------



## sealybobo

It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.  Carl Sagan

God is an ever-receding pocket of ignorance thats getting smaller and smaller as time goes on.- Neil deGrasse Tyson


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're conflating religion with spirituality. Religions were created to try and comprehend the spiritual connection man makes. They are proof that man does make a real connection with something greater than self, not of the physical world. But man is flawed, thus any religions he creates are also flawed.
> 
> You can certainly be spiritual and not be religious. For tens of thousands of years, humans were spiritual without religion. Your problem is, you've thrown the baby out with the bathwater. However, in speaking with you, I get the feeling you do believe there is something greater than self. You said you believed in Karma. Well, Karma is a spiritual concept, not physical.
> 
> It is very difficult for a human to completely reject all spirituality. We are intrinsically hard-wired to spiritually connect to something greater than self. This is why only about 12% of the population is able to make their claims of Atheism. I found it interesting, the survey they did in Denmark a while back. It's one of the most Atheistic countries on the planet with nearly 34% claiming Atheism. However, when asked specifically if they believed in absolutely no possibility of any kind of spiritual existence, only 13% would go that far.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you feel confident that you, unlike most or all of the rest of humanity, does not have a flawed understanding of the spiritual connection you believe in.
> 
> Humans were spiritual without religion for tens of thousands of years?  Which humans were these, and what is your evidence they were spiritual without religion?  Perhaps I should ask you to define those two words first, since you so often seem to use your own personal definitions of things.
> 
> If humans are 'hard-wired' to connect to something greater than self, can you show the mechanism which accounts for this?  Or, again, do I need to ask you to define hard-wired so that I can know what you are talking about?
> 
> Atheism has multiple definitions.  Some consider it a rejection of all possibility of god, others simply not believing in any god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This thread has over 4,100 posts. I can't imagine that I haven't already covered your questions several times. Is one more time going to do it? Let's see?
> 
> 1. From the oldest human civilization we have ever unearthed, there is evidence of ritual ceremony and burial using red ochre. They weren't simply being "festive" here, the use of red ochre is well documented as part of human spiritual ritual.
> 
> 2. These archeological findings predate any religion by at least 20k years or more. So long before any religion, humans were spiritually worshiping something.
> 
> 3. Psychologists studying human behavior have determined that humans have an inherent inclination to be spiritual. Sigmund Freud noted (maybe from Voltaire), "If God did not exist, humans would have to invent Him." Simply meaning, we could not be humans without spirituality. It is ingrained in who we are as humans.
> 
> Yes, atheism has wide ranging definition... still... in the most atheistic country on the planet, the majority of atheists will not say there is no possibility of anything spiritual existing. I have argued that some Atheists I know of are bigger believers in God than some Christians I know.
Click to expand...


How do you know those findings are spiritual but not religious?  Why couldn't they have been part of religious ceremony?  You say the findings predate any religion without explaining how you or anyone knows this to be the case.  Perhaps, rather than these findings predating any religion, they are evidence of religion(s) we didn't know about.

I find it hilarious that you would use a quote which, by your own posts in this thread, makes no sense.  You have said, repeatedly, that the idea of humans creating god is ridiculous.


----------



## sealybobo

We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.  Adolf Hitler


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'll say it again for you.  Maybe it will sink in this time.
> 
> The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
> 
> This comes right from the website called [url removed]
> 
> So atheists aren't saying they know anything Boss.  YOU ARE.  You don't know jack shit.  You've been brainwashed like the rest of them.
> 
> If you take all the evidence the probability of there being a god is lesson than 1%.  But us atheists will give you that.  .000001% chance.  Who knows what's on the other side of a black hole.  Certainly not you.
> 
> Sorry sometimes when I call you names.  It just makes me feel better.  Do you know that swearing can actually over ride pain?  Try it next time you bang your elbow or toe.  Say FUCK!  So the brain is an amazing thing Boss.  Scientists are unlocking secrets every day.  They have even determined that we made up god, not the other way around.  Probably of course.  No one is sure except for you bible thumpers, and on very very very shaky evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The honest answer is we just don't know." ~You
> 
> There is your quote, yet what you are "explaining" to me is a profound disbelief in God... not that you "just don't know." I do find it cute that you claim to believe in Karma, a spiritual concept... and you repeatedly claim to be an "Agnostic Atheist" whatever the fuck that is supposed to be. It tells me that in your heart of hearts you do know there is a higher power.
> 
> You can make up fake statistics all day long, you can't show us science that has determined man invented spirituality. You can claim that, but you're simply lying. It can be your opinion, but it is baseless. What you've adopted is a *faith-based* disbelief.
> 
> Now, I am not the type of person who can accept things on blind faith. For me, I need evidence to believe anything. This is why I cannot be a Christian. That said, I do connect with a spiritual power greater than self on a daily basis. I've been doing this for most of my adult life and I have gained great benefit personally from that. To me, that is all the "evidence" I need to believe in God. I can't believe it's all in my head and a figment of imagination any more than you could believe that about your own mother if I were here saying it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims.
> 
> You are right, like you, I don't know if there is a god or not.
> 
> What it should tell you is that in my mind I know there is no god and in your heart you want there to be a god.
> 
> I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking. The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which theres little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.  Carl Sagan
> 
> You have no evidence.
> 
> I cant believe/understand a world without God OR No god is too unlikely.
> 
> Argument from incredulity / Lack of imagination and Argumentum ad Ignorantiam. Ignores and does not eliminate the fact that something can seem incredible or unlikely and still be true, or appear to be obvious or likely and yet still be false.
> 
> The world is the way it is. Reality does not bend to our personal whim and facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. Our personal belief in something does not automatically make it real or true and, conversely, our lack of understanding of a topic does not make it false.
> 
> Until we understand something we do not know. Positing a god in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.
Click to expand...


You're right, it's not an equally probable outcome. It's most likely there is a God and belief in God is the most rational. That's why the overwhelming majority of humans have always believed in something greater than self. 

I guess you didn't bother to read my post... Let's try this... Silly boob, your momma is not real! She is a figment of your imagination. You were afraid of the unknown as a baby so you created a "momma" to help you cope with being alone. You cannot prove to me that your momma exists. Any "evidence" you may claim to have is anecdotal and subjective. You are silly, stupid and uneducated if you believe in your momma. 

What is your opinion of my assessment?


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you feel confident that you, unlike most or all of the rest of humanity, does not have a flawed understanding of the spiritual connection you believe in.
> 
> Humans were spiritual without religion for tens of thousands of years?  Which humans were these, and what is your evidence they were spiritual without religion?  Perhaps I should ask you to define those two words first, since you so often seem to use your own personal definitions of things.
> 
> If humans are 'hard-wired' to connect to something greater than self, can you show the mechanism which accounts for this?  Or, again, do I need to ask you to define hard-wired so that I can know what you are talking about?
> 
> Atheism has multiple definitions.  Some consider it a rejection of all possibility of god, others simply not believing in any god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This thread has over 4,100 posts. I can't imagine that I haven't already covered your questions several times. Is one more time going to do it? Let's see?
> 
> 1. From the oldest human civilization we have ever unearthed, there is evidence of ritual ceremony and burial using red ochre. They weren't simply being "festive" here, the use of red ochre is well documented as part of human spiritual ritual.
> 
> 2. These archeological findings predate any religion by at least 20k years or more. So long before any religion, humans were spiritually worshiping something.
> 
> 3. Psychologists studying human behavior have determined that humans have an inherent inclination to be spiritual. Sigmund Freud noted (maybe from Voltaire), "If God did not exist, humans would have to invent Him." Simply meaning, we could not be humans without spirituality. It is ingrained in who we are as humans.
> 
> Yes, atheism has wide ranging definition... still... in the most atheistic country on the planet, the majority of atheists will not say there is no possibility of anything spiritual existing. I have argued that some Atheists I know of are bigger believers in God than some Christians I know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you know those findings are spiritual but not religious?  Why couldn't they have been part of religious ceremony?  You say the findings predate any religion without explaining how you or anyone knows this to be the case.  Perhaps, rather than these findings predating any religion, they are evidence of religion(s) we didn't know about.
> 
> I find it hilarious that you would use a quote which, by your own posts in this thread, makes no sense.  You have said, repeatedly, that the idea of humans creating god is ridiculous.
Click to expand...


Well all we can go by is what we have evidence for. The oldest organized and written religion is Hinduism. Although it is speculated that loosely-organized "religious" beliefs predate Hinduism by perhaps 10k years or so. (Animism) Of course, according to The Bible, religion began with Adam and Eve and the creation. 

You can find whatever you want hilarious, you obviously misinterpreted the quote like you've often misinterpreted things here. I did not say man invented God or that it wasn't ridiculous to believe that. The quote is a testament to how profoundly and intrinsically man is connected to something spiritual.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The honest answer is we just don't know." ~You
> 
> There is your quote, yet what you are "explaining" to me is a profound disbelief in God... not that you "just don't know." I do find it cute that you claim to believe in Karma, a spiritual concept... and you repeatedly claim to be an "Agnostic Atheist" whatever the fuck that is supposed to be. It tells me that in your heart of hearts you do know there is a higher power.
> 
> You can make up fake statistics all day long, you can't show us science that has determined man invented spirituality. You can claim that, but you're simply lying. It can be your opinion, but it is baseless. What you've adopted is a *faith-based* disbelief.
> 
> Now, I am not the type of person who can accept things on blind faith. For me, I need evidence to believe anything. This is why I cannot be a Christian. That said, I do connect with a spiritual power greater than self on a daily basis. I've been doing this for most of my adult life and I have gained great benefit personally from that. To me, that is all the "evidence" I need to believe in God. I can't believe it's all in my head and a figment of imagination any more than you could believe that about your own mother if I were here saying it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims.
> 
> You are right, like you, I don't know if there is a god or not.
> 
> What it should tell you is that in my mind I know there is no god and in your heart you want there to be a god.
> 
> I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking. The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which theres little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.  Carl Sagan
> 
> You have no evidence.
> 
> I cant believe/understand a world without God OR No god is too unlikely.
> 
> Argument from incredulity / Lack of imagination and Argumentum ad Ignorantiam. Ignores and does not eliminate the fact that something can seem incredible or unlikely and still be true, or appear to be obvious or likely and yet still be false.
> 
> The world is the way it is. Reality does not bend to our personal whim and facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. Our personal belief in something does not automatically make it real or true and, conversely, our lack of understanding of a topic does not make it false.
> 
> Until we understand something we do not know. Positing a god in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right, it's not an equally probable outcome. It's most likely there is a God and belief in God is the most rational. That's why the overwhelming majority of humans have always believed in something greater than self.
> 
> I guess you didn't bother to read my post... Let's try this... Silly boob, your momma is not real! She is a figment of your imagination. You were afraid of the unknown as a baby so you created a "momma" to help you cope with being alone. You cannot prove to me that your momma exists. Any "evidence" you may claim to have is anecdotal and subjective. You are silly, stupid and uneducated if you believe in your momma.
> 
> What is your opinion of my assessment?
Click to expand...


Belief in gods is clearly not rational. The human inventions of gods, by their human attributes of being incomprehensible, supernatural, etc., makes them irrational.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The honest answer is we just don't know." ~You
> 
> There is your quote, yet what you are "explaining" to me is a profound disbelief in God... not that you "just don't know." I do find it cute that you claim to believe in Karma, a spiritual concept... and you repeatedly claim to be an "Agnostic Atheist" whatever the fuck that is supposed to be. It tells me that in your heart of hearts you do know there is a higher power.
> 
> You can make up fake statistics all day long, you can't show us science that has determined man invented spirituality. You can claim that, but you're simply lying. It can be your opinion, but it is baseless. What you've adopted is a *faith-based* disbelief.
> 
> Now, I am not the type of person who can accept things on blind faith. For me, I need evidence to believe anything. This is why I cannot be a Christian. That said, I do connect with a spiritual power greater than self on a daily basis. I've been doing this for most of my adult life and I have gained great benefit personally from that. To me, that is all the "evidence" I need to believe in God. I can't believe it's all in my head and a figment of imagination any more than you could believe that about your own mother if I were here saying it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims.
> 
> You are right, like you, I don't know if there is a god or not.
> 
> What it should tell you is that in my mind I know there is no god and in your heart you want there to be a god.
> 
> I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking. The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which theres little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.  Carl Sagan
> 
> You have no evidence.
> 
> I cant believe/understand a world without God OR No god is too unlikely.
> 
> Argument from incredulity / Lack of imagination and Argumentum ad Ignorantiam. Ignores and does not eliminate the fact that something can seem incredible or unlikely and still be true, or appear to be obvious or likely and yet still be false.
> 
> The world is the way it is. Reality does not bend to our personal whim and facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. Our personal belief in something does not automatically make it real or true and, conversely, our lack of understanding of a topic does not make it false.
> 
> Until we understand something we do not know. Positing a god in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right, it's not an equally probable outcome. It's most likely there is a God and belief in God is the most rational. That's why the overwhelming majority of humans have always believed in something greater than self.
> 
> I guess you didn't bother to read my post... Let's try this... Silly boob, your momma is not real! She is a figment of your imagination. You were afraid of the unknown as a baby so you created a "momma" to help you cope with being alone. You cannot prove to me that your momma exists. Any "evidence" you may claim to have is anecdotal and subjective. You are silly, stupid and uneducated if you believe in your momma.
> 
> What is your opinion of my assessment?
Click to expand...


I can show you pictures of my mom.  I can video tape her and me talking and show it to you.  You can come over and I can introduce you so you can see for yourself.  

This argument was once used by theologians and philosophers, but has fallen out of favor among those who know what they are talking about. The reason is that this is not simply a flawed argument but can also be a logical fallacy.
The basic version argues that belief in some sort of god is innate or instinctive and has existed consciously in nearly the whole of humanity throughout history. The best way to explain this, or so the argument goes, is to assume that some sort of god really does exist after all. Belief in a god wouldnt be so popular or pervasive if some god didnt exist, therefore some god must exist.
There is no good, factual basis to assume that belief in a god is indeed innate and instinctive. It cannot be innate because it is not present at birth.  Someone has to tell you about god.  And what about atheists?  We dont instinctively believe.  And it cannot be innate in the sense that it is a belief that we are predisposed to acquire, because there is no reason to think that all children will automatically acquire it without specific instruction or indoctrination.
The second objection is to the idea that there is any necessary logical connection between the widespread existence of a belief and in the existence of the object of that belief. Just because trillions of people believe a thing doesnt make it true  this is a logical fallacy.  Truth is not decided by majority vote. Besides, it is possible to explain the persistence of theism without the existence of a god - for example, by arguing that it has had survival value for the human species.
The idea that we all really have such a yearning but simply deny it wont work. This is similar to the common Christian claim that an atheist really believes in a god, but is in denial. No one not intimately familiar with a person can reasonably claim that that person is in denial of anything, much less of something as significant as a god. To try and claim this anyway is one of the most arrogant and presumptuous attitudes that atheists have to deal with.
Moreover, even if such an innate yearning existed, that does not automatically mean that a real object of that yearning must exist. Once again, this yearning might have evolutionary survival value regardless of the truth of the matter. Or perhaps there is instead a yearning for security or justice which can indeed exist, but we transfer this yearning to an all-encompassing god which does not exist. The claim that a yearning logically necessitates an object for that yearning is invalid  it is an assumption, and an unsupported one at that.
Thus we see that the Argument from Common Consent fails to make the existence of a god more likely or the belief in a god more reasonable. The premises upon which it relies are questionable at best and often incorrect. The conclusions it attempts to draw do not follow necessarily from the premises, even if they were true.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The honest answer is we just don't know." ~You
> 
> There is your quote, yet what you are "explaining" to me is a profound disbelief in God... not that you "just don't know." I do find it cute that you claim to believe in Karma, a spiritual concept... and you repeatedly claim to be an "Agnostic Atheist" whatever the fuck that is supposed to be. It tells me that in your heart of hearts you do know there is a higher power.
> 
> You can make up fake statistics all day long, you can't show us science that has determined man invented spirituality. You can claim that, but you're simply lying. It can be your opinion, but it is baseless. What you've adopted is a *faith-based* disbelief.
> 
> Now, I am not the type of person who can accept things on blind faith. For me, I need evidence to believe anything. This is why I cannot be a Christian. That said, I do connect with a spiritual power greater than self on a daily basis. I've been doing this for most of my adult life and I have gained great benefit personally from that. To me, that is all the "evidence" I need to believe in God. I can't believe it's all in my head and a figment of imagination any more than you could believe that about your own mother if I were here saying it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims.
> 
> You are right, like you, I don't know if there is a god or not.
> 
> What it should tell you is that in my mind I know there is no god and in your heart you want there to be a god.
> 
> I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking. The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which theres little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.  Carl Sagan
> 
> You have no evidence.
> 
> I cant believe/understand a world without God OR No god is too unlikely.
> 
> Argument from incredulity / Lack of imagination and Argumentum ad Ignorantiam. Ignores and does not eliminate the fact that something can seem incredible or unlikely and still be true, or appear to be obvious or likely and yet still be false.
> 
> The world is the way it is. Reality does not bend to our personal whim and facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. Our personal belief in something does not automatically make it real or true and, conversely, our lack of understanding of a topic does not make it false.
> 
> Until we understand something we do not know. Positing a god in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right, it's not an equally probable outcome. It's most likely there is a God and belief in God is the most rational.
Click to expand...


An argument is circular if its conclusion is among its premises if it assumes what it is trying to prove.  A circular argument fails as a proof because it will only be judged to be sound by those who already accept its conclusion.  Anyone who accepts all of the arguments premises already accepts the arguments conclusion, so cant be said to have been persuaded by the argument. In neither case, then, will the argument be successful.
Example
(1) The Bible affirms that it is inerrant.
(2) Whatever the Bible says is true.
Therefore:
(3) The Bible is inerrant.
This argument is circular because its conclusionThe Bible is inerrantis the same as its second premiseWhatever the Bible says is true. Anyone who would reject the arguments conclusion should also reject its second premise, and, along with it, the argument as a whole.


----------



## sealybobo

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims.
> 
> You are right, like you, I don't know if there is a god or not.
> 
> What it should tell you is that in my mind I know there is no god and in your heart you want there to be a god.
> 
> I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking. The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which theres little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.  Carl Sagan
> 
> You have no evidence.
> 
> I cant believe/understand a world without God OR No god is too unlikely.
> 
> Argument from incredulity / Lack of imagination and Argumentum ad Ignorantiam. Ignores and does not eliminate the fact that something can seem incredible or unlikely and still be true, or appear to be obvious or likely and yet still be false.
> 
> The world is the way it is. Reality does not bend to our personal whim and facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. Our personal belief in something does not automatically make it real or true and, conversely, our lack of understanding of a topic does not make it false.
> 
> Until we understand something we do not know. Positing a god in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're right, it's not an equally probable outcome. It's most likely there is a God and belief in God is the most rational. That's why the overwhelming majority of humans have always believed in something greater than self.
> 
> I guess you didn't bother to read my post... Let's try this... Silly boob, your momma is not real! She is a figment of your imagination. You were afraid of the unknown as a baby so you created a "momma" to help you cope with being alone. You cannot prove to me that your momma exists. Any "evidence" you may claim to have is anecdotal and subjective. You are silly, stupid and uneducated if you believe in your momma.
> 
> What is your opinion of my assessment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Belief in gods is clearly not rational. The human inventions of gods, by their human attributes of being incomprehensible, supernatural, etc., makes them irrational.
Click to expand...


How do you reason with someone who argues the probability of an imaginary god in the heavens is more likely and probable than there not being one?  

At least honest christians admit you just have to have faith.  Boss in some ways is even worse because he thinks he has proof.


----------



## Boss

> I can show you pictures of my mom. I can video tape her and me talking and show it to you. You can come over and I can introduce you so you can see for yourself.



Anecdotal and circumstantial evidence. It could be anyone. Again, you have NO PROOF your momma exists and it's irrational and foolish to claim she does. (See how this is working?)


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims.
> 
> You are right, like you, I don't know if there is a god or not.
> 
> What it should tell you is that in my mind I know there is no god and in your heart you want there to be a god.
> 
> I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking. The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which theres little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.  Carl Sagan
> 
> You have no evidence.
> 
> I cant believe/understand a world without God OR No god is too unlikely.
> 
> Argument from incredulity / Lack of imagination and Argumentum ad Ignorantiam. Ignores and does not eliminate the fact that something can seem incredible or unlikely and still be true, or appear to be obvious or likely and yet still be false.
> 
> The world is the way it is. Reality does not bend to our personal whim and facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. Our personal belief in something does not automatically make it real or true and, conversely, our lack of understanding of a topic does not make it false.
> 
> Until we understand something we do not know. Positing a god in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're right, it's not an equally probable outcome. It's most likely there is a God and belief in God is the most rational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An argument is circular if its conclusion is among its premises if it assumes what it is trying to prove.  A circular argument fails as a proof because it will only be judged to be sound by those who already accept its conclusion.  Anyone who accepts all of the arguments premises already accepts the arguments conclusion, so cant be said to have been persuaded by the argument. In neither case, then, will the argument be successful.
> Example
> (1) The Bible affirms that it is inerrant.
> (2) Whatever the Bible says is true.
> Therefore:
> (3) The Bible is inerrant.
> This argument is circular because its conclusionThe Bible is inerrantis the same as its second premiseWhatever the Bible says is true. Anyone who would reject the arguments conclusion should also reject its second premise, and, along with it, the argument as a whole.
Click to expand...


Where did I mention the Bible? It is not a part of MY argument. 

My argument is quite simple and not circular at all... I know God exists because I connect with God daily. I admitted back on Page 1 that I could not prove to you that God exists. That hasn't changed. I'll also predict that I will never be able to convince you God exists.


----------



## TheJedi

Dear OP,

We are not hateful. We do not hate God. We simply want you to stop pushing your faith on us. If you stop trying to push your faith on us, we will stop pushing back.

This is a very basic scientific principal. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Stop promoting legislation that enforces your religious values and we will stop fighting back. You started this war a long time ago. Atheists were burned at the stake as far back as the dark ages.

What I personally find so hypocritical, is that your political party of choice is all about freedom and liberty and upholding the Constitution. Yet everyday you fight to curtail the liberties of people who do not believe in what you believe in. You seek to make these people into second class citizens. Whether it be homosexuals, blacks, hispanics, non-Christians, liberals.....it's really an epic case of utter hypocrisy.

I have no problems with Christians per say. I just have problems with some of the assholes in your group. Many of my closest friends are Christian they just do not lecture me about how I have to find God. They are rational Christians who also believe that our government should be religion neutral and the 14th Amendment nullifies any state ban on gay marriage because it DOES. This is another case where people who believe in the Constitution do not understand how it works. When they are told how it works, they say well we should still outlaw gays and gay marriage because......Jesus. How the f**k does one argue with that kind of mentality?

Let me be the first to apologize for the assholes in my group of Atheist, Agnostic and nones because, let's face it, there are assholes in every group. One thing is certain, we are here to stay and there is nothing you can or will ever do about it. Freedom is freedom so you are either for it or against it. You can't have it both ways.

On religious freedom, this is a vicious circle. According to many of the faithful, religious freedom means the right to discriminate as in to deny freedoms to those outside of your faith and moral values but this goes against the grain of what our founding fathers had in mind. In the end, you have no choice but to tolerate because, the Law of the Land trumps the laws of god in every case imaginable in this country. This will never change either. In 50 years, religion will fade into political obscurity as future generations are more and more tolerant of an ever-changing, always evolving society. Multi-culturalism will supplant all other cultures as more races and religions intermarry and have kids. This is unavoidable.

One last thing, non-believers are the fastest growing segment in society. There are many studies that show this and I would link them but, alas, I have yet to reach awesome level 1 and cannot post links. We can thank education for this which is probably why the extreme right wants to dumb down the country. Stupid people are easy to fool.


----------



## GISMYS

TheJedi said:


> Dear OP,
> 
> We are not hateful. We do not hate God. We simply want you to stop pushing your faith on us. If you stop trying to push your faith on us, we will stop pushing back.
> 
> This is a very basic scientific principal. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Stop promoting legislation that enforces your religious values and we will stop fighting back. You started this war a long time ago. Atheists were burned at the stake as far back as the dark ages.
> 
> What I personally find so hypocritical, is that your political party of choice is all about freedom and liberty and upholding the Constitution. Yet everyday you fight to curtail the liberties of people who do not believe in what you believe in. You seek to make these people into second class citizens. Whether it be homosexuals, blacks, hispanics, non-Christians, liberals.....it's really an epic case of utter hypocrisy.
> 
> I have no problems with Christians per say. I just have problems with some of the assholes in your group. Many of my closest friends are Christian they just do not lecture me about how I have to find God. They are rational Christians who also believe that our government should be religion neutral and the 14th Amendment nullifies any state ban on gay marriage because it DOES. This is another case where people who believe in the Constitution do not understand how it works. When they are told how it works, they say well we should still outlaw gays and gay marriage because......Jesus. How the f**k does one argue with that kind of mentality?
> 
> Let me be the first to apologize for the assholes in my group of Atheist, Agnostic and nones because, let's face it, there are assholes in every group. One thing is certain, we are here to stay and there is nothing you can or will ever do about it. Freedom is freedom so you are either for it or against it. You can't have it both ways.
> 
> On religious freedom, this is a vicious circle. According to many of the faithful, religious freedom means the right to discriminate as in to deny freedoms to those outside of your faith and moral values but this goes against the grain of what our founding fathers had in mind. In the end, you have no choice but to tolerate because, the Law of the Land trumps the laws of god in every case imaginable in this country. This will never change either. In 50 years, religion will fade into political obscurity as future generations are more and more tolerant of an ever-changing, always evolving society. Multi-culturalism will supplant all other cultures as more races and religions intermarry and have kids. This is unavoidable.
> 
> One last thing, non-believers are the fastest growing segment in society. There are many studies that show this and I would link them but, alas, I have yet to reach awesome level 1 and cannot post links. We can thank education for this which is probably why the extreme right wants to dumb down the country. Stupid people are easy to fool.



JESUS SENDS OUT HIS FOLLOWERS TO ALL THE WORLD WITH THE GOOD NEWS THAT GOD LOVES THEM AND IS NOT WILLING THAT ANY PERISH BUT THAT ALL BELIEVE,CONFESS AND REPENT OF SIN AND HAVE ETERNAL LIFE!!! YOUR CHOICE!!! BUT KNOW! YOU NOW WILL HAVE NO EXCUSE ON YOUR VERY NEAR FINAL JUDGMENT DAY!!! Think!


----------



## TheJedi

GISMYS said:


> TheJedi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear OP,
> 
> We are not hateful. We do not hate God. We simply want you to stop pushing your faith on us. If you stop trying to push your faith on us, we will stop pushing back.
> 
> This is a very basic scientific principal. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Stop promoting legislation that enforces your religious values and we will stop fighting back. You started this war a long time ago. Atheists were burned at the stake as far back as the dark ages.
> 
> What I personally find so hypocritical, is that your political party of choice is all about freedom and liberty and upholding the Constitution. Yet everyday you fight to curtail the liberties of people who do not believe in what you believe in. You seek to make these people into second class citizens. Whether it be homosexuals, blacks, hispanics, non-Christians, liberals.....it's really an epic case of utter hypocrisy.
> 
> I have no problems with Christians per say. I just have problems with some of the assholes in your group. Many of my closest friends are Christian they just do not lecture me about how I have to find God. They are rational Christians who also believe that our government should be religion neutral and the 14th Amendment nullifies any state ban on gay marriage because it DOES. This is another case where people who believe in the Constitution do not understand how it works. When they are told how it works, they say well we should still outlaw gays and gay marriage because......Jesus. How the f**k does one argue with that kind of mentality?
> 
> Let me be the first to apologize for the assholes in my group of Atheist, Agnostic and nones because, let's face it, there are assholes in every group. One thing is certain, we are here to stay and there is nothing you can or will ever do about it. Freedom is freedom so you are either for it or against it. You can't have it both ways.
> 
> On religious freedom, this is a vicious circle. According to many of the faithful, religious freedom means the right to discriminate as in to deny freedoms to those outside of your faith and moral values but this goes against the grain of what our founding fathers had in mind. In the end, you have no choice but to tolerate because, the Law of the Land trumps the laws of god in every case imaginable in this country. This will never change either. In 50 years, religion will fade into political obscurity as future generations are more and more tolerant of an ever-changing, always evolving society. Multi-culturalism will supplant all other cultures as more races and religions intermarry and have kids. This is unavoidable.
> 
> One last thing, non-believers are the fastest growing segment in society. There are many studies that show this and I would link them but, alas, I have yet to reach awesome level 1 and cannot post links. We can thank education for this which is probably why the extreme right wants to dumb down the country. Stupid people are easy to fool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JESUS SENDS OUT HIS FOLLOWERS TO ALL THE WORLD WITH THE GOOD NEWS THAT GOD LOVES THEM AND IS NOT WILLING THAT ANY PERISH BUT THAT ALL BELIEVE,CONFESS AND REPENT OF SIN AND HAVE ETERNAL LIFE!!! YOUR CHOICE!!! BUT KNOW! YOU NOW WILL HAVE NO EXCUSE ON YOUR VERY NEAR FINAL JUDGMENT DAY!!! Think!
Click to expand...


You are one entertaining dude.


----------



## GISMYS

TheJedi said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheJedi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear OP,
> 
> We are not hateful. We do not hate God. We simply want you to stop pushing your faith on us. If you stop trying to push your faith on us, we will stop pushing back.
> 
> This is a very basic scientific principal. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Stop promoting legislation that enforces your religious values and we will stop fighting back. You started this war a long time ago. Atheists were burned at the stake as far back as the dark ages.
> 
> What I personally find so hypocritical, is that your political party of choice is all about freedom and liberty and upholding the Constitution. Yet everyday you fight to curtail the liberties of people who do not believe in what you believe in. You seek to make these people into second class citizens. Whether it be homosexuals, blacks, hispanics, non-Christians, liberals.....it's really an epic case of utter hypocrisy.
> 
> I have no problems with Christians per say. I just have problems with some of the assholes in your group. Many of my closest friends are Christian they just do not lecture me about how I have to find God. They are rational Christians who also believe that our government should be religion neutral and the 14th Amendment nullifies any state ban on gay marriage because it DOES. This is another case where people who believe in the Constitution do not understand how it works. When they are told how it works, they say well we should still outlaw gays and gay marriage because......Jesus. How the f**k does one argue with that kind of mentality?
> 
> Let me be the first to apologize for the assholes in my group of Atheist, Agnostic and nones because, let's face it, there are assholes in every group. One thing is certain, we are here to stay and there is nothing you can or will ever do about it. Freedom is freedom so you are either for it or against it. You can't have it both ways.
> 
> On religious freedom, this is a vicious circle. According to many of the faithful, religious freedom means the right to discriminate as in to deny freedoms to those outside of your faith and moral values but this goes against the grain of what our founding fathers had in mind. In the end, you have no choice but to tolerate because, the Law of the Land trumps the laws of god in every case imaginable in this country. This will never change either. In 50 years, religion will fade into political obscurity as future generations are more and more tolerant of an ever-changing, always evolving society. Multi-culturalism will supplant all other cultures as more races and religions intermarry and have kids. This is unavoidable.
> 
> One last thing, non-believers are the fastest growing segment in society. There are many studies that show this and I would link them but, alas, I have yet to reach awesome level 1 and cannot post links. We can thank education for this which is probably why the extreme right wants to dumb down the country. Stupid people are easy to fool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JESUS SENDS OUT HIS FOLLOWERS TO ALL THE WORLD WITH THE GOOD NEWS THAT GOD LOVES THEM AND IS NOT WILLING THAT ANY PERISH BUT THAT ALL BELIEVE,CONFESS AND REPENT OF SIN AND HAVE ETERNAL LIFE!!! YOUR CHOICE!!! BUT KNOW! YOU NOW WILL HAVE NO EXCUSE ON YOUR VERY NEAR FINAL JUDGMENT DAY!!! Think!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are one entertaining dude.
Click to expand...


WHY DO PEOPLE WASTE THEIR LIFE TRYING TO ARGUE AND FIGHT AGAINST GOD? GOD LOVES YOU,GOD IS NOT WILLING THAT ANY PERISH, WHY NOT JUST BELIEVE,CONFESS AND REPENT, ACCEPT JESUS AS YOUR LORD AND SAVIOR AND BECOME A son OF ALMIGHTY GOD? THERE IS NO DOWNSIDE TO LIVING YOUR LIFE AS A son OF ALMIGHTY GOD!!!! =====The Bible is not just a good book, it is our life line. As we apply it in our lives, we 
grow spiritually and can reign in life through Jesus Christ as the Bible says in 
Roman 5:17. We must study to show ourselves approved to God, a workman that 
needs not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. You must submit 
yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you (James 4:
7). We have to guard our heart as we are told in Proverbs 4:20-23 My son, attend 
to my words, incline your ear to my sayings. Let them not depart from your eyes, 
keep them in the midst of your heart. For they are life to those that find them, and 
health to all their flesh. Keep your heart with all diligence, for out of it are the 
issues of life.

The Bible tells us over 300 times to fear not; fear is what the devil uses to draw 
you away from God and keep you under his domain. Jesus tells us how to live 
triumphantly in John 15:1-5, the key is abiding in Him, in the word.


----------



## Boss

TheJedi said:


> Dear OP,
> 
> We are not hateful. We do not hate God. We simply want you to stop pushing your faith on us. If you stop trying to push your faith on us, we will stop pushing back.
> 
> This is a very basic scientific principal. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Stop promoting legislation that enforces your religious values and we will stop fighting back. You started this war a long time ago. Atheists were burned at the stake as far back as the dark ages.



I will gladly stand up for you and defend you if anyone in this country attempts to burn you at the stake, I promise. No one is ever going to stop proposing legislation based on their religious moral values. People who have religious moral values have just as much right to a political voice as you do. We do not discriminate in this country based on race or religion. 

I'm not a religious person, I am not Christian. However, I live in a dry county in Alabama where alcohol sales are prohibited. Luckily, I can drive 15 minutes to the next county and buy whatever I want. But I am okay with that because it's what the people of my county voted for. If it bothered me to any great extent, I would move out of this county. If it comes up on the ballot, I'll vote to sell alcohol. But I respect the rights of others to establish laws for their community through ballot initiatives because I think that's how freedom should work. 



> What I personally find so hypocritical, is that your political party of choice is all about freedom and liberty and upholding the Constitution. Yet everyday you fight to curtail the liberties of people who do not believe in what you believe in. You seek to make these people into second class citizens. Whether it be homosexuals, blacks, hispanics, non-Christians, liberals.....it's really an epic case of utter hypocrisy.



No one that I am aware of has made anyone a "second class citizen." Conservatives reject the notion of class, we are all Americans who have the same equal rights under the Constitution. What we observe is the left purposely constructing these issues as anti-this and anti-that, when it's clearly not the case. Opposition to gay marriage is not about "equal rights" because no one is allowed to marry someone of the same sex, gay or straight. Opposition to illegal immigration isn't hatred for Hispanics. Being opposed to welfare is not being prejudiced against blacks. These are memes developed and nurtured by the left, and the conservative right is inept at countering. 



> I have no problems with Christians per say. I just have problems with some of the assholes in your group.



Again... I don't have a "group" and don't affiliate with ANY organized religion. But I know something about assholes, and guess what? Your "group" has them as well. 



> Many of my closest friends are Christian they just do not lecture me about how I have to find God. They are rational Christians who also believe that our government should be religion neutral and the 14th Amendment nullifies any state ban on gay marriage because it DOES. This is another case where people who believe in the Constitution do not understand how it works. When they are told how it works, they say well we should still outlaw gays and gay marriage because......Jesus. How the f**k does one argue with that kind of mentality?



Well, I've read the 14th Amendment and it doesn't mention gay marriage. In fact, I can find nothing in the entire Constitution that condones or permits gay marriage. The term itself is an oxymoron. Marriage is the union of a male and female. The same exact "equal rights" argument could be made for pedophilia or beastality. We do not change the definition of words so that we can get to do whatever we please. Now, I have NEVER met anyone who advocated banning homosexuality. I know people who are opposed to it, and think it's wrong. I've never known of any political initiative or action calling for any such thing. Yet your mentality seems to think this is the case... how the fuck do we argue with THAT? 

As for how to handle Christians who bug you about becoming a Christian, here is what to do: Remind said Christian that his/her religion is a religion of acceptance. In order for you to become a Christian, you must accept that Jesus Christ is your Lord and Savior. Since you do not accept this, it's not possible for you to ever be a Christian and it doesn't matter how much they want you to be. 



> Let me be the first to apologize for the assholes in my group of Atheist, Agnostic and nones because, let's face it, there are assholes in every group. One thing is certain, we are here to stay and there is nothing you can or will ever do about it. Freedom is freedom so you are either for it or against it. You can't have it both ways.



And I can appreciate your right to have a political voice, it's what America is all about. What you need to do is extend this same courtesy to the religious right whom you so deeply despise. They are also here to stay and nothing you can or will ever do about that. They will have a voice in politics, they will try to establish laws based on their religious convictions, and that is how our system is supposed to work. If you don't like that, seek a country without religious freedom. 



> On religious freedom, this is a vicious circle. According to many of the faithful, religious freedom means the right to discriminate as in to deny freedoms to those outside of your faith and moral values but this goes against the grain of what our founding fathers had in mind. In the end, you have no choice but to tolerate because, the Law of the Land trumps the laws of god in every case imaginable in this country. This will never change either. In 50 years, religion will fade into political obscurity as future generations are more and more tolerant of an ever-changing, always evolving society. Multi-culturalism will supplant all other cultures as more races and religions intermarry and have kids. This is unavoidable.
> 
> One last thing, non-believers are the fastest growing segment in society. There are many studies that show this and I would link them but, alas, I have yet to reach awesome level 1 and cannot post links. We can thank education for this which is probably why the extreme right wants to dumb down the country. Stupid people are easy to fool.



You have no idea of what our founding fathers had in mind. Your brain is so polluted with the hate-filled rhetoric of the liberal left... dumb you down? That would take some mighty effort! 

Non-spiritual people make up less that 10% in this country. You have a LONG LONG way to go before you start making bold predictions of the future, ace.


----------



## BreezeWood

Bossy said:


> You have no idea of what our founding fathers had in mind.






> *TJ:* ... "the Law of the Land trumps the laws of god in every case imaginable in this country".




Bossy, to bad they did not write the document, for your kind.

.


----------



## HUGGY

TheJedi said:


> Dear OP,
> 
> *We are not hateful*. We do not hate God. We simply want you to stop pushing your faith on us. If you stop trying to push your faith on us, we will stop pushing back.
> 
> This is a very basic scientific principal. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Stop promoting legislation that enforces your religious values and we will stop fighting back. You started this war a long time ago. Atheists were burned at the stake as far back as the dark ages.
> 
> What I personally find so hypocritical, is that your political party of choice is all about freedom and liberty and upholding the Constitution. Yet everyday you fight to curtail the liberties of people who do not believe in what you believe in. You seek to make these people into second class citizens. Whether it be homosexuals, blacks, hispanics, non-Christians, liberals.....it's really an epic case of utter hypocrisy.
> 
> I have no problems with Christians per say. I just have problems with some of the assholes in your group. Many of my closest friends are Christian they just do not lecture me about how I have to find God. They are rational Christians who also believe that our government should be religion neutral and the 14th Amendment nullifies any state ban on gay marriage because it DOES. This is another case where people who believe in the Constitution do not understand how it works. When they are told how it works, they say well we should still outlaw gays and gay marriage because......Jesus. How the f**k does one argue with that kind of mentality?
> 
> Let me be the first to apologize for the assholes in my group of Atheist, Agnostic and nones because, let's face it, there are assholes in every group. One thing is certain, we are here to stay and there is nothing you can or will ever do about it. Freedom is freedom so you are either for it or against it. You can't have it both ways.
> 
> On religious freedom, this is a vicious circle. According to many of the faithful, religious freedom means the right to discriminate as in to deny freedoms to those outside of your faith and moral values but this goes against the grain of what our founding fathers had in mind. In the end, you have no choice but to tolerate because, the Law of the Land trumps the laws of god in every case imaginable in this country. This will never change either. In 50 years, religion will fade into political obscurity as future generations are more and more tolerant of an ever-changing, always evolving society. Multi-culturalism will supplant all other cultures as more races and religions intermarry and have kids. This is unavoidable.
> 
> One last thing, non-believers are the fastest growing segment in society. There are many studies that show this and I would link them but, alas, I have yet to reach awesome level 1 and cannot post links. We can thank education for this which is probably why the extreme right wants to dumb down the country. Stupid people are easy to fool.



*"We are not hateful"*

Speak for yourself.  These wackamos have had several thousand years to figure out that what they push is pure bullshit.

They have murdered and stolen from every society on the globe in the name of their stupid religion.

And THEY call atheists "hatefull" ?  

Blow it out your poop shooter.  Damned skippy I'm hatefull.

These moronic psychopathes have caused imeasurable harm death and mayhem and then come around saying THAT was when christians where like THEN and they take no responsibility for any of that bad stuff.  Well ... pilgrim...last time I checked murder has no statute of limitations.  

THEY and their churches ARE responsible for what they did to gain all that wealth and influence in our lives.

You can stand there like an imbecile and tell these evil fucks that YOU forgive and forget but NOT I.


----------



## TheJedi

?Nones? on the Rise | Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project

"In 2007 Pew Research Center surveys, 15.3% of U.S. adults answered a question about their current religion by saying they were atheist, agnostic or nothing in particular. The number of religiously unaffiliated respondents has ticked up each year since, and now stands at 19.6%."


----------



## emilynghiem

sealybobo said:


> Any god that was infinite, ultimate, and absolute would not have to hide.



Hi  [MENTION=11281]sealybobo[/MENTION]
I thought of two good examples, where God's truth "doesn't have to hide"
but can be hiding "in plain sight" and we just can't see it yet

A. I can't find the post where  [MENTION=48205]thebrucebeat[/MENTION] first said it
but when I posted that "Jesus means Justice" he automatically
retorted NO those two things have nothing in common, or something like that

When I share this same concept (that Jesus means Justice)
with Christian friends at different times and places, they responded differently, too:
a1. one of the friends took several minutes to realize this made sense to her.
that Jesus WAS Justice, but didn't get it at first. It took thinking about before she agreed.
a2. another friend at work IMMEDIATELY agreed of course, Jesus means Justice.
he did not have to think about it because he already understood this
a3. another friend was criticizing Christian fundamentalists for being unforgiving and hateful. once I explained the difference between Retributive Justice and Restorative Justice, he understood the division between the Christians who judge vs ones who forgive.
EVEN among believing Christians, this understanding of Jesus as Justice is HIDDEN or obscured.
It isn't obvious to all people, even though the concept is what it is; it is out there, not hidden, yet
we don't all see it, at first, or at all.

With Bruce who is secular and does not believe in using Biblical language or symbols
to ENFORCE positive things about justice, but only to ATTACK negative injustice,
I don't think he SEES that Jesus aligns with Justice.

So he is "blind" to this, it is HIDDEN from him.
He outright REJECTED any connection between Jesus with Justice.
He aligns Christian dogma with injustice, so this is FOREIGN that it is SUPPOSED
to mean Justice with Mercy, establishing Truth through Justice, etc.

B. the other example of hiding knowledge in plain public sight:
the science and studies on spiritual healing, and the effect of forgiveness and
deliverance on healing deep rooted sickness, addiction and abuse,
have already been established FOR THOSE WHO LOOK INTO THIS RESEARCH.

For those who want to keep reinforcing REJECTION of the natural science of healing,
this knowledge is OFF LIMITS, inaccessible, or Nonexistence.

it might as well be FRAUD with the malpractice and abuse of religion that is heard in the news.

The SUCCESSFUL testimonies, case studies and research is also out there.
But it is "hidden in plain sight"

People are too busy fighting over religious division between faith and science.
Not all people are ready to see that science can prove these methods of healing work naturally.

So that is a prime example, which I find fascinating,
but TRAGIC that lives could be saved by these methods that are censored due to 
religious rejection of anything to do with Christian prayer, practice and healing process.

All accessible to the public, yet not accessible and cut off by division and rejection.
Like having "water everywhere" and "not a drop to drink."


----------



## emilynghiem

Boss said:


> No one that I am aware of has made anyone a "second class citizen." Conservatives reject the notion of class, we are all Americans who have the same equal rights under the Constitution.



areas where people are not equal, but prone to oppression
1. inequality in ownership of land
as long as we live under taxation by govt
then we are not equal
we would all have to be equal owners of land or property
similar to churches that don't pay taxes
or cities that manage their own property taxes
in order to be fully equal with all others

2. inequality in authority of law
as long as we do not have equal consent or input
in decision making, then the current monopoly
on the legal and legislative system makes us unequal.
we do NOT have equal defense or representation
as long  as the process is skewed by money, by lawyers/judges, by officials
in govt who can pass laws or mandates without consent of the people affected

3. inequality in freedom of speech and press and right to petition to redress grievances
Not all people have free and equal access to media
as we do here.
so we are not equal in the ability to defend and represent our interests
using resources that support our freedom of speech, press, right to petition,
and access to democratic/due process
we would have to organize resources and networks to reach ALL people,
provide media and computer literacy and access, and assistance with communication and mediating
conflicts, in order to ensure "equal representation" and "redress of grievances" for all people equally.

4. one area that is unequal that we CAN do something about:
we are not all equal in our knowledge and experience with
healing past injustice or wrong, and breaking the cycle of "abuse" of relationships and power

if we understand the power of "forgiveness" in healing and corrections,
then we have more power than those without this concept on a "spiritual" or "psychological" level.

this area of unequal empowerment CAN be rectified:
once we understand this power of influence in relationships, of forgiveness and correction,
we can address all the other areas of inequality, and restore
free and equal access to all people, so we can govern and defend our own interests
without fear of oppression, discrimination, domination, coercion or exclusion by others.

We must forgive conflicts, injustices, and differences first, in order to heal and rebuild on a stable foundation.
then we can go about correcting them and restore equal respect in relations and society.


----------



## Boss

> We must forgive conflicts, injustices, and differences first, in order to heal and rebuild on a stable foundation.
> then we can go about correcting them and restore equal respect in relations and society.



In theory, I respect much of what you are saying. In practicality, it is impossible to achieve. The world and life is not "fair" and will never be "equal" in all respects. It can't be. It's impossible to achieve and you don't want to achieve it. 

Break this down logically and think about it. The very first and foremost step to true equality is equal education. So let's say that we somehow manage to educate every person equally... not sure how you do that because some people are smart and some people are dumb... but hypothetically, let's say we figured out how to do this and did it. Okay, so now we all have the exact same education. What "value" does that education have? There are jobs out there shoveling shit and jobs playing the piano... but we all have the same education, so who will shovel shit and who will play the piano? If we all have the same education, someone who gets stuck shoveling shit is not going to like it. But someone has to do that job. And if everything is "equal" they will make the same amount of money whether they do a shit job or a dream job. They'll also get paid whether their work is sub-par or exceptional, so what do you think most people will be motivated to do? 

What happens in the "dream world" of Utopianism, is everything descends to the lowest common denominator. There is no more human motivation because there is no reason for it. It doesn't matter what effort you put in, if the results are the same no matter what. True FREEDOM means there is not equality and fairness. It's impossible to maintain BOTH. Now, I agree that our OPPORTUNITIES should be equal and fair. But from there, FREEDOM enables the individual to achieve, to gain more than others through their accomplishment and effort. This means certain 'inequality' is necessary and necessarily part of a FREE society. We can't ALL be the piano player, some of us have to shovel the shit. It's NOT fair, it's NOT equal, but that's LIFE!


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> I can show you pictures of my mom. I can video tape her and me talking and show it to you. You can come over and I can introduce you so you can see for yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anecdotal and circumstantial evidence. It could be anyone. Again, you have NO PROOF your momma exists and it's irrational and foolish to claim she does. (See how this is working?)
Click to expand...


No because I can show you pictures of her, get a dna test, I look just like her etc.  HORRIBLE try but try again.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> We must forgive conflicts, injustices, and differences first, in order to heal and rebuild on a stable foundation.
> then we can go about correcting them and restore equal respect in relations and society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In theory, I respect much of what you are saying. In practicality, it is impossible to achieve. The world and life is not "fair" and will never be "equal" in all respects. It can't be. It's impossible to achieve and you don't want to achieve it.
> 
> Break this down logically and think about it. The very first and foremost step to true equality is equal education. So let's say that we somehow manage to educate every person equally... not sure how you do that because some people are smart and some people are dumb... but hypothetically, let's say we figured out how to do this and did it. Okay, so now we all have the exact same education. What "value" does that education have? There are jobs out there shoveling shit and jobs playing the piano... but we all have the same education, so who will shovel shit and who will play the piano? If we all have the same education, someone who gets stuck shoveling shit is not going to like it. But someone has to do that job. And if everything is "equal" they will make the same amount of money whether they do a shit job or a dream job. They'll also get paid whether their work is sub-par or exceptional, so what do you think most people will be motivated to do?
> 
> What happens in the "dream world" of Utopianism, is everything descends to the lowest common denominator. There is no more human motivation because there is no reason for it. It doesn't matter what effort you put in, if the results are the same no matter what. True FREEDOM means there is not equality and fairness. It's impossible to maintain BOTH. Now, I agree that our OPPORTUNITIES should be equal and fair. But from there, FREEDOM enables the individual to achieve, to gain more than others through their accomplishment and effort. This means certain 'inequality' is necessary and necessarily part of a FREE society. We can't ALL be the piano player, some of us have to shovel the shit. It's NOT fair, it's NOT equal, but that's LIFE!
Click to expand...


No offense but boy are you dumb sometimes.  No one said educate everyone equally.  You sure say a lot of stupid things.  How about you give inner city kids access to the same quality education that we give to kids in the suburbs?  Right now each black kid in the inner city in Detroit gets $3K less a year than their white counterparts.  How about this Boss?  How about we just collect the school taxes the same way we do based on the $ in your area, pool it all together and then divide it equally among all the kids in the state.  So kids in Beverly Hills don't have such a huge advantage over inner city kids.  Simple solution.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can show you pictures of my mom. I can video tape her and me talking and show it to you. You can come over and I can introduce you so you can see for yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anecdotal and circumstantial evidence. It could be anyone. Again, you have NO PROOF your momma exists and it's irrational and foolish to claim she does. (See how this is working?)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No because I can show you pictures of her, get a dna test, I look just like her etc.  HORRIBLE try but try again.
Click to expand...


Again... this person you claim is your mother could be anyone. DNA tests (I doubt you've had one done on you and mom) are not conclusive proof, and neither are looks. You've simply fooled yourself into believing these things out of fear and because that's what others have done. We can keep going back and forth with this as long as you like, I refuse to accept that your mother exists. It doesn't matter what "evidence" you show me, I will reject it because I don't believe in the premise. Furthermore, I believe you are weak and foolish to believe in your mother, and I plan to constantly berate you and insult you for professing such belief. I will gather like-minded individuals such as myself to join me in belittling you and making you feel inadequate however we can. We'll make up statistics on how "smart" people simply don't believe your nonsense about your mother, and it's only really stupid people who believe in such things. We'll laugh and chortle with each other over your silliness and post little cute cartoons depicting your foolishness, thanking each other's posts along the way. Nothing you can ever say or do is going to change our opinion, minds are made up. Your mother doesn't exist, you invented her because of fear, and you're an idiot for believing in her existence.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> No offense but boy are you dumb sometimes.  No one said educate everyone equally.  You sure say a lot of stupid things.  How about you give inner city kids access to the same quality education that we give to kids in the suburbs?  Right now each black kid in the inner city in Detroit gets $3K less a year than their white counterparts.  How about this Boss?  How about we just collect the school taxes the same way we do based on the $ in your area, pool it all together and then divide it equally among all the kids in the state.  So kids in Beverly Hills don't have such a huge advantage over inner city kids.  Simple solution.



My parents walked 5 miles a day to school without shoes on their feet. There was no school tax. Students shared textbooks and got by the best they could with resources available. Both graduated high school, worked part time jobs to pay their way through college and became educated through hard work and determination. No student loans, no help from government. 

My grandmother wasn't able to attend school, she had to stay home to help her mother take care of the kids while she picked cotton. She was in her 20s before she learned to read. At age 40, she became a school teacher. Again, she did this with no help from government and without anything more than self-determination and will to succeed. 

Money is not what educates people. You gain education through your own devotion and hard work. There are people who have educated themselves to the point they could earn a degree and there are people who have squandered thousands of dollars only to flunk out of school and never make anything of themselves.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anecdotal and circumstantial evidence. It could be anyone. Again, you have NO PROOF your momma exists and it's irrational and foolish to claim she does. (See how this is working?)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No because I can show you pictures of her, get a dna test, I look just like her etc.  HORRIBLE try but try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again... this person you claim is your mother could be anyone. DNA tests (I doubt you've had one done on you and mom) are not conclusive proof, and neither are looks. You've simply fooled yourself into believing these things out of fear and because that's what others have done. We can keep going back and forth with this as long as you like, I refuse to accept that your mother exists. It doesn't matter what "evidence" you show me, I will reject it because I don't believe in the premise. Furthermore, I believe you are weak and foolish to believe in your mother, and I plan to constantly berate you and insult you for professing such belief. I will gather like-minded individuals such as myself to join me in belittling you and making you feel inadequate however we can. We'll make up statistics on how "smart" people simply don't believe your nonsense about your mother, and it's only really stupid people who believe in such things. We'll laugh and chortle with each other over your silliness and post little cute cartoons depicting your foolishness, thanking each other's posts along the way. Nothing you can ever say or do is going to change our opinion, minds are made up. Your mother doesn't exist, you invented her because of fear, and you're an idiot for believing in her existence.
Click to expand...


Well at least I can see her and I never said her mom was a virgin who god fucked or that she healed the sick or died and 3 days later came back.  Those are extraordinary claims.  Oh, and my grandparents watched me come out of my mom's vajayjay.  

It is possible I was adopted so you could be right, just like I could be right because you've never seen or talked to god.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Well at least I can see her and I never said her mom was a virgin who god fucked or that she healed the sick or died and 3 days later came back.  Those are extraordinary claims.  Oh, and my grandparents watched me come out of my mom's vajayjay.
> 
> It is possible I was adopted so you could be right, just like I could be right because you've never seen or talked to god.



Doesn't matter, you could claim whatever you like about your fictitious mother. Doesn't matter what lies your grandparents told you. Science has proven your mother isn't real, she is something you invented to cope with fears. There's only a .00001% chance she is real. Everyone who is smart, knows your mother is not real. Only dummies and idiots believe in Moms.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No offense but boy are you dumb sometimes.  No one said educate everyone equally.  You sure say a lot of stupid things.  How about you give inner city kids access to the same quality education that we give to kids in the suburbs?  Right now each black kid in the inner city in Detroit gets $3K less a year than their white counterparts.  How about this Boss?  How about we just collect the school taxes the same way we do based on the $ in your area, pool it all together and then divide it equally among all the kids in the state.  So kids in Beverly Hills don't have such a huge advantage over inner city kids.  Simple solution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My parents walked 5 miles a day to school without shoes on their feet. There was no school tax. Students shared textbooks and got by the best they could with resources available. Both graduated high school, worked part time jobs to pay their way through college and became educated through hard work and determination. No student loans, no help from government.
> 
> My grandmother wasn't able to attend school, she had to stay home to help her mother take care of the kids while she picked cotton. She was in her 20s before she learned to read. At age 40, she became a school teacher. Again, she did this with no help from government and without anything more than self-determination and will to succeed.
> 
> Money is not what educates people. You gain education through your own devotion and hard work. There are people who have educated themselves to the point they could earn a degree and there are people who have squandered thousands of dollars only to flunk out of school and never make anything of themselves.
Click to expand...


You bring up another great point that us liberals make all the time.  Me and Thom Hartmann brag all the time how we were able to put ourselves through college by working part time.  Try doing that today.  You can't.  $8 hr. jobs vs. $10K or more a year for school?  

Anyways, I don't even think education is important.  Not for the masses.  This country was great when high school kids could graduate and go get jobs at Steel Mills or the Big 3 and they would start off at wages that would be equal to $17 hr.  Compare that today the kids graduating high school would be lucky to find a $10 hr. job.

This country is/was great when it had a big fat successful middle class.  Those jobs went overseas.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well at least I can see her and I never said her mom was a virgin who god fucked or that she healed the sick or died and 3 days later came back.  Those are extraordinary claims.  Oh, and my grandparents watched me come out of my mom's vajayjay.
> 
> It is possible I was adopted so you could be right, just like I could be right because you've never seen or talked to god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter, you could claim whatever you like about your fictitious mother. Doesn't matter what lies your grandparents told you. Science has proven your mother isn't real, she is something you invented to cope with fears. There's only a .00001% chance she is real. Everyone who is smart, knows your mother is not real. Only dummies and idiots believe in Moms.
Click to expand...


Bad example.  Science has not proven that about my mom and neither have you.  You are claiming you KNOW there is a god who you claim is outside of our physical realm 

And the basis of your argument is that our ape ancestors made it up and they couldn't have possibly made that up.  

I'll pray maybe one day you'll admit you don't know what you are talking about.  Your theories are all revolved around wishful thinking no more or less.  But that's cool.


----------



## Boss

> Your theories are all revolved around wishful thinking no more or less.



So are your theories about your mom.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> Your theories are all revolved around wishful thinking no more or less.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So are your theories about your mom.
Click to expand...


And I'm not trying to get you to believe in my mom or worship her.  I keep my belief in my mom to myself.  I don't think belief in my mom is necessary for society, we've never started a war in the name of my mom and I never said my mom could part the red seas, flood the earth, impregnate a virgin, rise from the dead, cure the sick.  If you don't believe in my mom you won't go to hell.  

At least as far as I know.  Maybe if you deny my mom 3 times you will go to hell.  I can't prove that to you you'll just have to have faith.

Anyways, you got nothing so if this is the best you got I'll assume you agree with me that you got nothing.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No offense but boy are you dumb sometimes.  No one said educate everyone equally.  You sure say a lot of stupid things.  How about you give inner city kids access to the same quality education that we give to kids in the suburbs?  Right now each black kid in the inner city in Detroit gets $3K less a year than their white counterparts.  How about this Boss?  How about we just collect the school taxes the same way we do based on the $ in your area, pool it all together and then divide it equally among all the kids in the state.  So kids in Beverly Hills don't have such a huge advantage over inner city kids.  Simple solution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My parents walked 5 miles a day to school without shoes on their feet. There was no school tax. Students shared textbooks and got by the best they could with resources available. Both graduated high school, worked part time jobs to pay their way through college and became educated through hard work and determination. No student loans, no help from government.
> 
> My grandmother wasn't able to attend school, she had to stay home to help her mother take care of the kids while she picked cotton. She was in her 20s before she learned to read. At age 40, she became a school teacher. Again, she did this with no help from government and without anything more than self-determination and will to succeed.
> 
> Money is not what educates people. You gain education through your own devotion and hard work. There are people who have educated themselves to the point they could earn a degree and there are people who have squandered thousands of dollars only to flunk out of school and never make anything of themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You bring up another great point that us liberals make all the time.  Me and Thom Hartmann brag all the time how we were able to put ourselves through college by working part time.  Try doing that today.  You can't.  $8 hr. jobs vs. $10K or more a year for school?
> 
> Anyways, I don't even think education is important.  Not for the masses.  This country was great when high school kids could graduate and go get jobs at Steel Mills or the Big 3 and they would start off at wages that would be equal to $17 hr.  Compare that today the kids graduating high school would be lucky to find a $10 hr. job.
> 
> This country is/was great when it had a big fat successful middle class.  Those jobs went overseas.
Click to expand...


Well the reason the good paying jobs went overseas is because it's cheaper. Liberals caused this by pushing for more and more "fair wages" through union demands. Education, likewise... Liberals demanded that government do something about the cost of education, so we started doling out student loans, the institutions just kept raising the price because of that. So now, all your "good paying jobs" are gone, and no one can afford college. 

The country was great before liberals started trying to make everything "fair and equal" with their stupid short-sighted liberal policies that didn't work.


----------



## TheJedi

HUGGY said:


> TheJedi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear OP,
> 
> *We are not hateful*. We do not hate God. We simply want you to stop pushing your faith on us. If you stop trying to push your faith on us, we will stop pushing back.
> 
> This is a very basic scientific principal. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Stop promoting legislation that enforces your religious values and we will stop fighting back. You started this war a long time ago. Atheists were burned at the stake as far back as the dark ages.
> 
> What I personally find so hypocritical, is that your political party of choice is all about freedom and liberty and upholding the Constitution. Yet everyday you fight to curtail the liberties of people who do not believe in what you believe in. You seek to make these people into second class citizens. Whether it be homosexuals, blacks, hispanics, non-Christians, liberals.....it's really an epic case of utter hypocrisy.
> 
> I have no problems with Christians per say. I just have problems with some of the assholes in your group. Many of my closest friends are Christian they just do not lecture me about how I have to find God. They are rational Christians who also believe that our government should be religion neutral and the 14th Amendment nullifies any state ban on gay marriage because it DOES. This is another case where people who believe in the Constitution do not understand how it works. When they are told how it works, they say well we should still outlaw gays and gay marriage because......Jesus. How the f**k does one argue with that kind of mentality?
> 
> Let me be the first to apologize for the assholes in my group of Atheist, Agnostic and nones because, let's face it, there are assholes in every group. One thing is certain, we are here to stay and there is nothing you can or will ever do about it. Freedom is freedom so you are either for it or against it. You can't have it both ways.
> 
> On religious freedom, this is a vicious circle. According to many of the faithful, religious freedom means the right to discriminate as in to deny freedoms to those outside of your faith and moral values but this goes against the grain of what our founding fathers had in mind. In the end, you have no choice but to tolerate because, the Law of the Land trumps the laws of god in every case imaginable in this country. This will never change either. In 50 years, religion will fade into political obscurity as future generations are more and more tolerant of an ever-changing, always evolving society. Multi-culturalism will supplant all other cultures as more races and religions intermarry and have kids. This is unavoidable.
> 
> One last thing, non-believers are the fastest growing segment in society. There are many studies that show this and I would link them but, alas, I have yet to reach awesome level 1 and cannot post links. We can thank education for this which is probably why the extreme right wants to dumb down the country. Stupid people are easy to fool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"We are not hateful"*
> 
> Speak for yourself.  These wackamos have had several thousand years to figure out that what they push is pure bullshit.
> 
> They have murdered and stolen from every society on the globe in the name of their stupid religion.
> 
> And THEY call atheists "hatefull" ?
> 
> Blow it out your poop shooter.  Damned skippy I'm hatefull.
> 
> These moronic psychopathes have caused imeasurable harm death and mayhem and then come around saying THAT was when christians where like THEN and they take no responsibility for any of that bad stuff.  Well ... pilgrim...last time I checked murder has no statute of limitations.
> 
> THEY and their churches ARE responsible for what they did to gain all that wealth and influence in our lives.
> 
> You can stand there like an imbecile and tell these evil fucks that YOU forgive and forget but NOT I.
Click to expand...


So you are one of the one I apologized for. If we are ever going to live together peacefully, we need to embrace the spirit of tolerance.

Live and let live. Seems like a core Christian tenet that is often ignored by the religious right. If they would just embrace this, we would be fine.

Here is an example of being rational and extending a hand to fellow Americans who are believers:

Creationism is not science but I have no problem allowing it in public schools so long as it is taught as a philosophy or part of history and keep teaching evolution in science class. As much as I would prefer that creationism stay out of public schools because it is based solely on religious doctrine, I am willing to compromise in the spirit of tolerance.

That wasn't hard.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> And I'm not trying to get you to believe in my mom or worship her.  I keep my belief in my mom to myself.  I don't think belief in my mom is necessary for society, we've never started a war in the name of my mom and I never said my mom could part the red seas, flood the earth, impregnate a virgin, rise from the dead, cure the sick.  If you don't believe in my mom you won't go to hell.
> 
> At least as far as I know.  Maybe if you deny my mom 3 times you will go to hell.  I can't prove that to you you'll just have to have faith.
> 
> Anyways, you got nothing so if this is the best you got I'll assume you agree with me that you got nothing.



Really? Looks like you made several attempts to get me to believe in your mom. Can you show me some post in this thread where someone has tried to get you to worship something? I'm not seeing it. As for the rest of your claims, I've never made any of those, and I've certainly never started a war over God. All I've said was that God is real. I know God is real just like you know your mom is real. It doesn't matter what you say about that, it can't ever change my mind.


----------



## HUGGY

TheJedi said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheJedi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear OP,
> 
> *We are not hateful*. We do not hate God. We simply want you to stop pushing your faith on us. If you stop trying to push your faith on us, we will stop pushing back.
> 
> This is a very basic scientific principal. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Stop promoting legislation that enforces your religious values and we will stop fighting back. You started this war a long time ago. Atheists were burned at the stake as far back as the dark ages.
> 
> What I personally find so hypocritical, is that your political party of choice is all about freedom and liberty and upholding the Constitution. Yet everyday you fight to curtail the liberties of people who do not believe in what you believe in. You seek to make these people into second class citizens. Whether it be homosexuals, blacks, hispanics, non-Christians, liberals.....it's really an epic case of utter hypocrisy.
> 
> I have no problems with Christians per say. I just have problems with some of the assholes in your group. Many of my closest friends are Christian they just do not lecture me about how I have to find God. They are rational Christians who also believe that our government should be religion neutral and the 14th Amendment nullifies any state ban on gay marriage because it DOES. This is another case where people who believe in the Constitution do not understand how it works. When they are told how it works, they say well we should still outlaw gays and gay marriage because......Jesus. How the f**k does one argue with that kind of mentality?
> 
> Let me be the first to apologize for the assholes in my group of Atheist, Agnostic and nones because, let's face it, there are assholes in every group. One thing is certain, we are here to stay and there is nothing you can or will ever do about it. Freedom is freedom so you are either for it or against it. You can't have it both ways.
> 
> On religious freedom, this is a vicious circle. According to many of the faithful, religious freedom means the right to discriminate as in to deny freedoms to those outside of your faith and moral values but this goes against the grain of what our founding fathers had in mind. In the end, you have no choice but to tolerate because, the Law of the Land trumps the laws of god in every case imaginable in this country. This will never change either. In 50 years, religion will fade into political obscurity as future generations are more and more tolerant of an ever-changing, always evolving society. Multi-culturalism will supplant all other cultures as more races and religions intermarry and have kids. This is unavoidable.
> 
> One last thing, non-believers are the fastest growing segment in society. There are many studies that show this and I would link them but, alas, I have yet to reach awesome level 1 and cannot post links. We can thank education for this which is probably why the extreme right wants to dumb down the country. Stupid people are easy to fool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"We are not hateful"*
> 
> Speak for yourself.  These wackamos have had several thousand years to figure out that what they push is pure bullshit.
> 
> They have murdered and stolen from every society on the globe in the name of their stupid religion.
> 
> And THEY call atheists "hatefull" ?
> 
> Blow it out your poop shooter.  Damned skippy I'm hatefull.
> 
> These moronic psychopathes have caused imeasurable harm death and mayhem and then come around saying THAT was when christians where like THEN and they take no responsibility for any of that bad stuff.  Well ... pilgrim...last time I checked murder has no statute of limitations.
> 
> THEY and their churches ARE responsible for what they did to gain all that wealth and influence in our lives.
> 
> You can stand there like an imbecile and tell these evil fucks that YOU forgive and forget but NOT I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are one of the one I apologized for. If we are ever going to live together peacefully, we need to embrace the spirit of tolerance.
> 
> Live and let live. Seems like a core Christian tenet that is often ignored by the religious right. If they would just embrace this, we would be fine.
> 
> Here is an example of being rational and extending a hand to fellow Americans who are believers:
> 
> Creationism is not science but I have no problem allowing it in public schools so long as it is taught as a philosophy or part of history and keep teaching evolution in science class. As much as I would prefer that creationism stay out of public schools because it is based solely on religious doctrine, I am willing to compromise in the spirit of tolerance.
> 
> That wasn't hard.
Click to expand...


Hell to the no-no.

I don't need or want you speaking for or apologizing for what I bring to USMB.  I don't give a rat's ass if we live together peacefully or not if you say the price is dumbing down to the level of the discussion by agreeing that any religion's sky fairies have a place in public education.  There is just so much time available to teach so many important lessons.  

I Don't give a rat's ass what the core tenents of a fraud are.  

Thankfully there is a growing segment of the U S population that believe you and people like you are fools.  We believe in right and wrong.  Truth and lies.  It doesn't matter how NICE the lie is served up ... it is still a lie.

I'm not trying to "get along" with nice, stupid people.  Didn't you ever learn that it isn't "nice" to lie?

AS far as I'm concerned even just keeping their lies in the confines of their churches is wrong as long as there are children involved.  It requires that we ignore child abuse in the form of the forced teaching of lies to kids that have no choice in the matter.  

We point our hypocritical fingers at Muslims and the Taliban and are shocked how THEY can propangandize their populations to believe a made up religion and a false god and many if not most of our own population is doing the same exact thing.

If you CLAIM to be an atheist you had probably better examine WHY you believe you are an atheist and act accordingly true to what you believe to be truth and falsehoods and stop trying to prostrate yourself to liars and frauds... You will certainly be wasting your time trying to get me to acquiesce to these liars.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I'm not trying to get you to believe in my mom or worship her.  I keep my belief in my mom to myself.  I don't think belief in my mom is necessary for society, we've never started a war in the name of my mom and I never said my mom could part the red seas, flood the earth, impregnate a virgin, rise from the dead, cure the sick.  If you don't believe in my mom you won't go to hell.
> 
> At least as far as I know.  Maybe if you deny my mom 3 times you will go to hell.  I can't prove that to you you'll just have to have faith.
> 
> Anyways, you got nothing so if this is the best you got I'll assume you agree with me that you got nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Looks like you made several attempts to get me to believe in your mom. Can you show me some post in this thread where someone has tried to get you to worship something? I'm not seeing it. As for the rest of your claims, I've never made any of those, and I've certainly never started a war over God. All I've said was that God is real. I know God is real just like you know your mom is real. It doesn't matter what you say about that, it can't ever change my mind.
Click to expand...


Have you ever seen god?  Never mind, I'm done with your stupid theories.  I know no matter what I say you'll still persist so   Bye


----------



## sealybobo

HUGGY said:


> TheJedi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"We are not hateful"*
> 
> Speak for yourself.  These wackamos have had several thousand years to figure out that what they push is pure bullshit.
> 
> They have murdered and stolen from every society on the globe in the name of their stupid religion.
> 
> And THEY call atheists "hatefull" ?
> 
> Blow it out your poop shooter.  Damned skippy I'm hatefull.
> 
> These moronic psychopathes have caused imeasurable harm death and mayhem and then come around saying THAT was when christians where like THEN and they take no responsibility for any of that bad stuff.  Well ... pilgrim...last time I checked murder has no statute of limitations.
> 
> THEY and their churches ARE responsible for what they did to gain all that wealth and influence in our lives.
> 
> You can stand there like an imbecile and tell these evil fucks that YOU forgive and forget but NOT I.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are one of the one I apologized for. If we are ever going to live together peacefully, we need to embrace the spirit of tolerance.
> 
> Live and let live. Seems like a core Christian tenet that is often ignored by the religious right. If they would just embrace this, we would be fine.
> 
> Here is an example of being rational and extending a hand to fellow Americans who are believers:
> 
> Creationism is not science but I have no problem allowing it in public schools so long as it is taught as a philosophy or part of history and keep teaching evolution in science class. As much as I would prefer that creationism stay out of public schools because it is based solely on religious doctrine, I am willing to compromise in the spirit of tolerance.
> 
> That wasn't hard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hell to the no-no.
> 
> I don't need or want you speaking for or apologizing for what I bring to USMB.  I don't give a rat's ass if we live together peacefully or not if you say the price is dumbing down to the level of the discussion by agreeing that any religion's sky fairies have a place in public education.  There is just so much time available to teach so many important lessons.
> 
> I Don't give a rat's ass what the core tenents of a fraud are.
> 
> Thankfully there is a growing segment of the U S population that believe you and people like you are fools.  We believe in right and wrong.  Truth and lies.  It doesn't matter how NICE the lie is served up ... it is still a lie.
> 
> I'm not trying to "get along" with nice, stupid people.  Didn't you ever learn that it isn't "nice" to lie?
> 
> AS far as I'm concerned even just keeping their lies in the confines of their churches is wrong as long as there are children involved.  It requires that we ignore child abuse in the form of the forced teaching of lies to kids that have no choice in the matter.
> 
> We point our hypocritical fingers at Muslims and the Taliban and are shocked how THEY can propangandize their populations to believe a made up religion and a false god and many if not most of our own population is doing the same exact thing.
> 
> If you CLAIM to be an atheist you had probably better examine WHY you believe you are an atheist and act accordingly true to what you believe to be truth and falsehoods and stop trying to prostrate yourself to liars and frauds... You will certainly be wasting your time trying to get me to acquiesce to these liars.
Click to expand...


Bravo!   

I watch these fucked up christian shows on this channel TCT Network  and you are right.  They are brainwashing whoever is watching with BULLSHIT nonsense.  They tell them that if they open their hearts jesus will enter.  Well either one of two things will happen.  Either you say YES I feel it or you feel bad because you don't feel him/it.  I suspect most intelligent kids don't feel it and the other half are either really gullable and fall for it or some say they feel it because they don't want to be the one who goes to hell.

They have these shows were the actors are really cheesy and they talk about Mr. Doubter or Mr. Unfaithful and he's unhappy and negative and if he would only open up his heart and ask jesus blablabla 

I sit and I watch in amazement that anyone can believe what they are saying and even when I was very young this mumbo jumbo never really made much sense to me. 

They say jesus said this and jesus said that.  None of those stupid fucking kids ever ask any questions or none of them doubt what the adults are saying.  I doubted born agains when I was a kid and they could never give me enough good answers for me to swallow the idea there is an imaginary asshole in the sky that is watching me and will either send me to heaven if I believe in him with no proof or send me to hell if I don't buy the bullshit story.

Christians and Muslims, you can all suck my dick you stupid cock suckers.  I hope god comes  and takes you wherever the fuck you think you are going when you die.  Sounds nice so why stick around here?  Go home to jesus!


----------



## sealybobo

Religious person says: Jesus loves you
Me: Who?
Religious person: Jesus Christ, Jesus of Nazarine.
Me. Who is that?
Them: He died on a cross for our sins, then they tell me the whole story....
Me: What proof do you have of this?
Them:  11 guys saw it.  12 actually but one of them turned Jesus in so he killed himself.  They spread the word.  They said he walked on water, cured the sick magically, his mom was a virgin and he died and came back after 3 days of being dead.  No record of him in the history books.  To the Romans he was just a cult leader.  
Me: What proof do you have of this?  
Them:  None, you have to have faith.  
Me:   Sorry NOT.


----------



## HUGGY

sealybobo said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheJedi said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are one of the one I apologized for. If we are ever going to live together peacefully, we need to embrace the spirit of tolerance.
> 
> Live and let live. Seems like a core Christian tenet that is often ignored by the religious right. If they would just embrace this, we would be fine.
> 
> Here is an example of being rational and extending a hand to fellow Americans who are believers:
> 
> Creationism is not science but I have no problem allowing it in public schools so long as it is taught as a philosophy or part of history and keep teaching evolution in science class. As much as I would prefer that creationism stay out of public schools because it is based solely on religious doctrine, I am willing to compromise in the spirit of tolerance.
> 
> That wasn't hard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hell to the no-no.
> 
> I don't need or want you speaking for or apologizing for what I bring to USMB.  I don't give a rat's ass if we live together peacefully or not if you say the price is dumbing down to the level of the discussion by agreeing that any religion's sky fairies have a place in public education.  There is just so much time available to teach so many important lessons.
> 
> I Don't give a rat's ass what the core tenents of a fraud are.
> 
> Thankfully there is a growing segment of the U S population that believe you and people like you are fools.  We believe in right and wrong.  Truth and lies.  It doesn't matter how NICE the lie is served up ... it is still a lie.
> 
> I'm not trying to "get along" with nice, stupid people.  Didn't you ever learn that it isn't "nice" to lie?
> 
> AS far as I'm concerned even just keeping their lies in the confines of their churches is wrong as long as there are children involved.  It requires that we ignore child abuse in the form of the forced teaching of lies to kids that have no choice in the matter.
> 
> We point our hypocritical fingers at Muslims and the Taliban and are shocked how THEY can propangandize their populations to believe a made up religion and a false god and many if not most of our own population is doing the same exact thing.
> 
> If you CLAIM to be an atheist you had probably better examine WHY you believe you are an atheist and act accordingly true to what you believe to be truth and falsehoods and stop trying to prostrate yourself to liars and frauds... You will certainly be wasting your time trying to get me to acquiesce to these liars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bravo!
> 
> I watch these fucked up christian shows on this channel TCT Network  and you are right.  They are brainwashing whoever is watching with BULLSHIT nonsense.  They tell them that if they open their hearts jesus will enter.  Well either one of two things will happen.  Either you say YES I feel it or you feel bad because you don't feel him/it.  I suspect most intelligent kids don't feel it and the other half are either really gullable and fall for it or some say they feel it because they don't want to be the one who goes to hell.
> 
> They have these shows were the actors are really cheesy and they talk about Mr. Doubter or Mr. Unfaithful and he's unhappy and negative and if he would only open up his heart and ask jesus blablabla
> 
> I sit and I watch in amazement that anyone can believe what they are saying and even when I was very young this mumbo jumbo never really made much sense to me.
> 
> They say jesus said this and jesus said that.  None of those stupid fucking kids ever ask any questions or none of them doubt what the adults are saying.  I doubted born agains when I was a kid and they could never give me enough good answers for me to swallow the idea there is an imaginary asshole in the sky that is watching me and will either send me to heaven if I believe in him with no proof or send me to hell if I don't buy the bullshit story.
> 
> Christians and Muslims, you can all suck my dick you stupid cock suckers.  *I hope god comes  and takes you wherever the fuck you think you are going when you die*.  Sounds nice so why stick around here?  Go home to jesus!
Click to expand...


That is the sickest part of this whole scam.  When the light switch gets turned off there is nothing.  We can't even gloat that they for even one tiny instant get that there is nothing after death.  The get to keep dangling the carrot for their fraud and there are NO witnesses to tell on them.  It is truly the perfect crime.


----------



## TheJedi

HUGGY said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is the sickest part of this whole scam.  When the light switch gets turned off there is nothing.  We can't even gloat that they for even one tiny instant get that there is nothing after death.  The get to keep dangling the carrot for their fraud and there are NO witnesses to tell on them.  It is truly the perfect crime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So basically, you are lumping every believer into lunatic cultists. While the lunatic fringe has a very loud voice, they are also a very small segment of the Christian population. Most Christians I know do not believe in creationism at all and would prefer that Evolution be the standard for public schools and they also believe in a secular government so why would I want to tread on their beliefs and ideals when they clearly are not trying to impose their beliefs on me?
> 
> It's no different than the extreme right-wing lumping in every Democrat into the stinking liberal, tree-hugging, vegan, baby-killing, eco-terrorist category.
> 
> At some point we need to put this childish nonsense behind us so we can move forward as a society.
Click to expand...


----------



## Boss

> We can't even gloat that they for even one tiny instant get that there is nothing after death.



Yeah, funny you can't disprove afterlife, ain't it? 



> Most Christians I know do not believe in creationism at all and would prefer that Evolution be the standard for public schools...



Hold on a minute. Evolution doesn't have a thing to do with the origin of life. I have no problem with teaching evolution, but it doesn't explain origin. Creationism (the theory that life was created) is about origin. It's not scientific, so it shouldn't be taught as science, but to teach that it is one of the theories of origin is not a problem for me. I think children should be taught about everything.


----------



## HUGGY

TheJedi said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is the sickest part of this whole scam.  When the light switch gets turned off there is nothing.  We can't even gloat that they for even one tiny instant get that there is nothing after death.  The get to keep dangling the carrot for their fraud and there are NO witnesses to tell on them.  It is truly the perfect crime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So basically, you are lumping every believer into lunatic cultists. While the lunatic fringe has a very loud voice, they are also a very small segment of the Christian population. Most Christians I know do not believe in creationism at all and would prefer that Evolution be the standard for public schools and they also believe in a secular government so why would I want to tread on their beliefs and ideals when they clearly are not trying to impose their beliefs on me?
> 
> It's no different than the extreme right-wing lumping in every Democrat into the stinking liberal, tree-hugging, vegan, baby-killing, eco-terrorist category.
> 
> At some point we need to put this childish nonsense behind us so we can move forward as a society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I apologize.  I mistakenly thought I read where you are an atheist.  My bad.
> 
> If someone claims to be an atheist then it means you do not believe in dieties.
> 
> If someone does not believe in a deity then it does not matter where the idea of the deity resides.
> 
> Once the individual has been told that their belief in a deity is incorrect then to continue to believe is a choice that individual has made to believe a lie.  There is no grey area.
> 
> If you accept that what someone else believes is truth even when you know it is not then you are not an atheist.  Again I admit I was wrong.  Please stop attempting to speak for atheists.
Click to expand...


----------



## HUGGY

Boss said:


> We can't even gloat that they for even one tiny instant get that there is nothing after death.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, funny you can't disprove afterlife, ain't it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Christians I know do not believe in creationism at all and would prefer that Evolution be the standard for public schools...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hold on a minute. Evolution doesn't have a thing to do with the origin of life. I have no problem with teaching evolution, but it doesn't explain origin. Creationism (the theory that life was created) is about origin. It's not scientific, so it shouldn't be taught as science, but to teach that it is one of the theories of origin is not a problem for me. I think children should be taught about everything.
Click to expand...


There is good theory available to explain possible origin of life.  Many if not all of the conditions neccesary to spark life have been shown to have existed.

There has never been a single bit of evidense shown to prove a creator ever existed.  

One of the more comon deceptions of the religist is to lump all theories together as if they all are constructed out of thin air as in the case of the religions.

Evolution is not supposed to explain the beginning of life.  All it shows is parts of the path life has taken.  As most of living organisms were and are of soft tissues constructed from various organizations of cells we will never find all of the bits to trace life back to it's absolute origins. By "constructed" I do not mean CREATED by some deity but by the random application of survival of the conditions at the time these organized cells existed.  It is a false question to place such a burden of proof on evolution. 

At best we can duplicate the supposed conditions that sprung life which we have yet to do completely and exactly.  There is no way to know every aspect of premordial earth.  Due to the actions of plate techtonics and the folding back into the mantle of all early earth crust the evidense has long ago been lost.

Again ALL speculation is not the same.  Glib statements about sky fairies is not in the same catagory and weight of scientific research and modeling.


----------



## Boss

> Many if not all of the conditions neccesary to spark life have been shown to have existed.


Nonsense. Whatever you may THINK the process was, it has NEVER been replicated. 

Life comes from Life. It's called Biogenesis, Einstein.


----------



## Boss

> Evolution is not supposed to explain the beginning of life.



And Creationism IS. So stop trying to draw comparison between the two. There is none.


----------



## Boss

> At best we can duplicate the supposed conditions that sprung life which *we have yet to do completely and exactly.*



We've yet to do it at all, period!


----------



## Boss

> Again ALL speculation is not the same.



 *LMFAO!!*   Yeah... go with THAT! LOL!


----------



## PostmodernProph

HUGGY said:


> Many if not all of the conditions neccesary to spark life have been shown to have existed.



and yet none of the "conditions necessary to spark life" have ever been demonstrated to actually be conditions necessary to spark life, because science has never sparked life under those or any other conditions........


----------



## PostmodernProph

Boss said:


> Again ALL speculation is not the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *LMFAO!!*   Yeah... go with THAT! LOL!
Click to expand...


no, he really means it......for the seculars here, the speculation they partake in is actually science.....its the new scientific method......if its plausible, it is scientifically proven.....


----------



## TheJedi

I am an atheist. I do not believe in God in the least but I also accept that there are people who do believe and that throwing nonsensical insults at one another solves nothing.

I am not going to debate creationism vs evolution in this thread as this is not the topic, That said watch the below video. I wish all believers and non-believers can have dialogue like this:

A Debate Between An Atheist And A Christian Has Quite A Surprising Result


----------



## Boss

> creationism vs evolution



Dallas Cowboys vs. NY Yankees.


----------



## HUGGY

Boss said:


> Many if not all of the conditions neccesary to spark life have been shown to have existed.
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. Whatever you may THINK the process was, it has NEVER been replicated.
> 
> Life comes from Life. It's called Biogenesis, Einstein.
Click to expand...


The components of life comes from the death and explosions of stars Einstein.


----------



## HUGGY

TheJedi said:


> I am an atheist. I do not believe in God in the least but I also accept that there are people who do believe and that throwing nonsensical insults at one another solves nothing.
> 
> I am not going to debate creationism vs evolution in this thread as this is not the topic, That said watch the below video. I wish all believers and non-believers can have dialogue like this:
> 
> A Debate Between An Atheist And A Christian Has Quite A Surprising Result



"Why do the god haters persist" is the topic.  It covers as many sub topics as there are reasons to persist.

It is you that is off topic as the title DOES NOT cover reasons why Atheists should get along with theists.


----------



## HUGGY

PostmodernProph said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again ALL speculation is not the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *LMFAO!!*   Yeah... go with THAT! LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no, he really means it......for the seculars here, the speculation they partake in is actually science.....its the new scientific method......if its plausible, it is scientifically proven.....
Click to expand...


What if anything written in the bible is plausible?


----------



## HUGGY

Boss said:


> At best we can duplicate the supposed conditions that sprung life which *we have yet to do completely and exactly.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We've yet to do it at all, period!
Click to expand...


One of the components it may be impossible to duplicate is physically replicate the time it took for the genesis of life to occur.  Life is merely the ability of the chemicals to replicate.  The need to adapt to survive explains everything else after that.


----------



## Boss

HUGGY said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many if not all of the conditions neccesary to spark life have been shown to have existed.
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. Whatever you may THINK the process was, it has NEVER been replicated.
> 
> Life comes from Life. It's called Biogenesis, Einstein.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The components of life comes from the death and explosions of stars Einstein.
Click to expand...


LOL... So do the components of anything created or existing in the physical realm. Was there someplace else you thought the components might have come from? 

Biogenesis... Look it up!


----------



## Boss

HUGGY said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At best we can duplicate the supposed conditions that sprung life which *we have yet to do completely and exactly.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We've yet to do it at all, period!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One of the components it may be impossible to duplicate is physically replicate the time it took for the genesis of life to occur.  Life is merely the ability of the chemicals to replicate.  The need to adapt to survive explains everything else after that.
Click to expand...


Now you are making excuses for the fact that science can't replicate your theory. In the religious world, they call this FAITH.


----------



## HUGGY

Boss said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've yet to do it at all, period!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the components it may be impossible to duplicate is physically replicate the time it took for the genesis of life to occur.  Life is merely the ability of the chemicals to replicate.  The need to adapt to survive explains everything else after that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you are making excuses for the fact that science can't replicate your theory. In the religious world, they call this FAITH.
Click to expand...


It's not MY theory.  Scientific theory is based on honest documented inquiry.

Faith is not a theory.  Faith is based on dishonest undocumented speculation.


----------



## Boss

> It's not MY theory. Scientific theory is based on honest documented inquiry.
> 
> Faith is not a theory. *Faith is based on dishonest undocumented speculation.*



Which is basically what you are presenting. 

Theory that life originated from chemical reaction.... dishonest undocumented speculation.


----------



## Boss

> The need to adapt to survive explains everything else after that.



This is incorrect "dishonest  undocumented speculation" as well. There has never been any example of cross-genus evolution. Everything living that has ever been known to evolve has evolved within it's own genus classification.


----------



## PostmodernProph

HUGGY said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> *LMFAO!!*   Yeah... go with THAT! LOL!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no, he really means it......for the seculars here, the speculation they partake in is actually science.....its the new scientific method......if its plausible, it is scientifically proven.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What if anything written in the bible is plausible?
Click to expand...


what about abiogenesis is plausible?......


----------



## PostmodernProph

HUGGY said:


> Life is merely the ability of the chemicals to replicate.



actually no....science can clearly tell you that if chemicals replicate you get chemicals, not life....if you want to replicate life you have to begin with life....

rep·li·cate  (rpl-kt)
v. rep·li·cat·ed, rep·li·cat·ing, rep·li·cates
v.tr.
1. To duplicate, copy, reproduce, or repeat.
2. Biology To reproduce or make an exact copy or copies of (genetic material, a cell, or an organism).
3. To fold over or bend back.
v.intr.
To become replicated; undergo replication.
n. (-kt)
A repetition of an experiment or procedure.
adj. replicate (-kt) also rep·li·cat·ed (-ktd)
Folded over or bent back upon itself: a replicate leaf.


----------



## sealybobo

TheJedi said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is the sickest part of this whole scam.  When the light switch gets turned off there is nothing.  We can't even gloat that they for even one tiny instant get that there is nothing after death.  The get to keep dangling the carrot for their fraud and there are NO witnesses to tell on them.  It is truly the perfect crime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So basically, you are lumping every believer into lunatic cultists. While the lunatic fringe has a very loud voice, they are also a very small segment of the Christian population. Most Christians I know do not believe in creationism at all and would prefer that Evolution be the standard for public schools and they also believe in a secular government so why would I want to tread on their beliefs and ideals when they clearly are not trying to impose their beliefs on me?
> 
> It's no different than the extreme right-wing lumping in every Democrat into the stinking liberal, tree-hugging, vegan, baby-killing, eco-terrorist category.
> 
> At some point we need to put this childish nonsense behind us so we can move forward as a society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe Reagan & Bush should have thought about that before they decided to use religion as a wedge issue.  Had they not done that I wouldn't even be anti religion.  I thank them for opening my eyes.
> 
> It was Reagan who started the Immoral Minority and they are the ones who got GW elected and you see where that got us.  Today the GOP all around the country is pushing anti abortion and anti gay legislation to cater to these religious nuts.
> 
> And if you are voting GOP then you my friend are part of the religious extremist wacko lunatic movement.  Maybe you aren't as extreme but close enough.  What other reason would you have to vote GOP?  Either  you are rich or you are voting GOP because of god, gays, guns or racism.  OR, maybe just maybe you believe the bullshit they've been saying for the last 20 years.  Smaller government, less regulations and taxes will spur small business growth blablabla.  Either you are a nut or dumb or rich.  If you vote GOP you have to pick one.
Click to expand...


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> The need to adapt to survive explains everything else after that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is incorrect "dishonest  undocumented speculation" as well. There has never been any example of cross-genus evolution. Everything living that has ever been known to evolve has evolved within it's own genus classification.
Click to expand...


So what?  

You do know human's one time lived under water, right?  In fact our eyes have not evolved or improved since we crawled out of the water and so that is why our eye sight is not perfect.  Our eyes are meant to be seeing under water.

I know I'm not explaining it right but you would know this if you watched the Cosmos.  You didn't because you don't trust/believe science.  You'd rather believe god made us.  

So we were fish, then we crawled out of the water, then we were little mammals and then apes and then modern day man.  You got a problem with this?  Still in the same genus, right?  Even when we were little fish were we still in the same genus?


----------



## sealybobo

HUGGY said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the components it may be impossible to duplicate is physically replicate the time it took for the genesis of life to occur.  Life is merely the ability of the chemicals to replicate.  The need to adapt to survive explains everything else after that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are making excuses for the fact that science can't replicate your theory. In the religious world, they call this FAITH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not MY theory.  Scientific theory is based on honest documented inquiry.
> 
> Faith is not a theory.  Faith is based on dishonest undocumented speculation.
Click to expand...


Lets compare our theories to Boss'.

We say: the theory of evolution proposes that it arose spontaneously out of the inert chemicals of planet Earth perhaps 4 billion years ago.  If you ever read How Cells Work, you can see that even a primitive cell like an E. coli bacteria -- one of the simplest life forms in existence today -- is amazingly complex.

Boss says an imaginary man did it.


----------



## sealybobo

HUGGY said:


> TheJedi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> So basically, you are lumping every believer into lunatic cultists. While the lunatic fringe has a very loud voice, they are also a very small segment of the Christian population. Most Christians I know do not believe in creationism at all and would prefer that Evolution be the standard for public schools and they also believe in a secular government so why would I want to tread on their beliefs and ideals when they clearly are not trying to impose their beliefs on me?
> 
> It's no different than the extreme right-wing lumping in every Democrat into the stinking liberal, tree-hugging, vegan, baby-killing, eco-terrorist category.
> 
> At some point we need to put this childish nonsense behind us so we can move forward as a society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I apologize.  I mistakenly thought I read where you are an atheist.  My bad.
> 
> If someone claims to be an atheist then it means you do not believe in dieties.
> 
> If someone does not believe in a deity then it does not matter where the idea of the deity resides.
> 
> Once the individual has been told that their belief in a deity is incorrect then to continue to believe is a choice that individual has made to believe a lie.  There is no grey area.
> 
> If you accept that what someone else believes is truth even when you know it is not then you are not an atheist.  Again I admit I was wrong.  Please stop attempting to speak for atheists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That person is right though.  The GOP needs to stop using god gays and abortion as wedge issues.  Those things don't matter.  Those are just issues to distract us from the real issues.
> 
> 1.  Corporations have taken over our government and they are pitting the American Middle Class against third world labor.
> 
> 2.  Corporations and cars and plastic are destroying this planet but corporations want to continue because the clean up will cost them.  All they care about are profits.  But religious people blow off global warming because they are brainwashed to defend the GOP on every issue including NOT feeling the poor and NOT healing the sick.  Funny that their politics trump the two most important things Jesus said, huh?
> 
> Those are just two examples.  There are many more.  But the Jeti is right.  We need to stop bickering over religion.  If you are religious, keep that shit to yourself.  But the GOP figured out a way to rally the overly religious with wedge issues.
> 
> But Jeti needs to realize that just like with the debt ceiling issue, it is not that both sides need to act better.  Us liberals/democrats/progressives didn't start this religious fight.
> 
> This is what makes me mad about the American voter.  They don't pay attention enough and the GOP counts on that.  In fact they were counting on that in 2012.  They thought Obama would get blamed for the dysfunctional government.  They were wrong.
> 
> But people will not show up for midterms and that is how the GOP keeps their power.  American people need to wake up, get out and vote and start voting Democratic.
> 
> But what we see from Jeti's reply is the American people don't get it.  They keep voting GOP.
> 
> When are the poor in red states going to stop voting GOP?  I wonder if they even count their votes, because I can't believe the southern strategy has been so affective.  Those hicks hate blacks and atheists and commies so much they vote against themselves financially for over 60 years.  Fucking redneck retards.  Goobers.  When I think of southerners I think of that imbred banjo player on Deliverance.  Dueling Banjos.
Click to expand...


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> The need to adapt to survive explains everything else after that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is incorrect "dishonest  undocumented speculation" as well. There has never been any example of cross-genus evolution. Everything living that has ever been known to evolve has evolved within it's own genus classification.
Click to expand...


Thus proof of a literal biblical tale of the flood.


----------



## Hollie

sealybobo said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are making excuses for the fact that science can't replicate your theory. In the religious world, they call this FAITH.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not MY theory.  Scientific theory is based on honest documented inquiry.
> 
> Faith is not a theory.  Faith is based on dishonest undocumented speculation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lets compare our theories to Boss'.
> 
> We say: the theory of evolution proposes that it arose spontaneously out of the inert chemicals of planet Earth perhaps 4 billion years ago.  If you ever read How Cells Work, you can see that even a primitive cell like an E. coli bacteria -- one of the simplest life forms in existence today -- is amazingly complex.
> 
> Boss says an imaginary man did it.
Click to expand...


All gaps in scientific knowledges are stuffed full of gawds.


----------



## Hollie

PostmodernProph said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> no, he really means it......for the seculars here, the speculation they partake in is actually science.....its the new scientific method......if its plausible, it is scientifically proven.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What if anything written in the bible is plausible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what about abiogenesis is plausible?......
Click to expand...


You thumpers will never get it. The theory and testable examples of evolution are independent of any beginning of life argument.

The natural mechanisms that sparked life will be subject to repeatable tests. 

How does anyone test the supernatural environments of Zeus, the true god?


----------



## GISMYS

ROFLMAO!!! EVOLUTION IDIOTS WANT TO BELIEVE LIFE EVOLVED BY TIME AND CHANCE OUT OF POND SCUM (OR NOW THE NEWEST CRAZY IDEA FROM SPACE ROCKS) WITHOUT ANY PLAN,DESIGN OR INTELLIGENCE NEEDED!!!! ROFLMAO!!! YET little man can not create one bug,worm or even one living cell  even with perfect conditions and the aid of supercomputers.


----------



## HUGGY

*Why do the God-haters persist? *

Because Bush believed god told him to run for president and attack Iraq.


----------



## HUGGY

*Why do the God-haters persist? *

Because the Mormans believe god will send a man on a white horse to become the president which is what Romney thought he was doing.


----------



## HUGGY

*Why do the God-haters persist? *

Because believing in god makes people crazy and they attempt to rule people.

Crazy people have no business in positions of power.


----------



## HUGGY

sealybobo said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are making excuses for the fact that science can't replicate your theory. In the religious world, they call this FAITH.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not MY theory.  Scientific theory is based on honest documented inquiry.
> 
> Faith is not a theory.  Faith is based on dishonest undocumented speculation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lets compare our theories to Boss'.
> 
> We say: the theory of evolution proposes that it arose spontaneously out of the inert chemicals of planet Earth perhaps 4 billion years ago.  If you ever read How Cells Work, you can see that even a primitive cell like an E. coli bacteria -- one of the simplest life forms in existence today -- is amazingly complex.
> 
> *Boss says an imaginary man did it.*
Click to expand...


The truly frightening thing is that Boss and people like him BELIEVE this nonsnse and are constantly attempting to get into positions of power so they can force the population to accept these ideas.


----------



## Boss

> You do know human's one time lived under water, right?


 

Talk about a strange and bizarre theology?


----------



## HUGGY

It is clearly stated in Boss's avatar.  He wants to be "in charge".  Do we really want people that believe these insane ideas to be "in charge"?  How did it work out with Bush?  Iraq is now imploding and this would have never happened with Saddam.  Saddam should have kept his mouth shut when Bush's daddy invaded his country and never threatened him publicly.

Bush believed that god talked to him ... look what happens when crazy people that believe they are in communication with dieties and spirits gain power.

Lives become secondary to their insane beliefs.  Beware of these religions.


----------



## Boss

So the left wing liberal intellectualist arguments on God and Science are rebuked, and the consensus response it to attack Bush, lament on Iraq, and hurl insults? Why am I not surprised?


----------



## HUGGY

Boss said:


> So the left wing liberal intellectualist arguments on God and Science are rebuked, and the consensus response it to attack Bush, lament on Iraq, and hurl insults? Why am I not surprised?



Ah..  Again the "Boss" is in error.

I am not left wing.

I am an ex republican with an axe to grind about the religious fundis taking over my old party.

NOW the wacked out thieves have no plea to the charges so they attempt to muddy the waters by calling everyone that brings to light their crimes "left wing" or "liberal"....making use of Newt Gingrich's campaign to villify those words which they hurl at anyone that points out how truly evil they, the new republicans, really are.  

I am the religious fundamentalists worst nightmare.  I will not lay down and get drunk like the native Americans robbed by the Mormans.  

There is ample reason to persist in attacking religion and those that push it's lies on America.


----------



## Boss

> I am an ex republican with an axe to grind about the religious fundis taking over my old party.



Well, sorry, but you don't have your own party in this country. The "religious fundies" are citizens with constitutional rights just like you are, and they have every right to a political voice that you have. If you don't like what they promote, find like minded people and defeat them at the ballot box. What you seem to want is a strong arm fascist regime that will enforce your personal viewpoint on the rest of society. You're a little Mussolini. 

We live in a country with a two-party democratic system. One of two parties is going to be in charge. Now you might not like either one, they may both be equally deplorable, but the fact remains, at the end of the day, one of the two are going to control power in this country, and there is not a damn thing your yammering on a message board will change about that. Being a belligerent prick to religious people is not going to make religious people go away. I can see no useful purpose in what you're doing other than possibly giving you some temporary satisfaction of getting things off your chest. Is that really helping you much? I can't imagine you believe it is, but whatever.


----------



## Boss

> I am not left wing.



When you abandon the topic to start yammering about Bush and Iraq, and become a Saddam apologist, that's exactly how you come across.... like a left wing radical retard.


----------



## HUGGY

Boss said:


> I am not left wing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you abandon the topic to start yammering about Bush and Iraq, and become a Saddam apologist, that's exactly how you come across.... like a left wing radical retard.
Click to expand...


You can whine about it till the cows come home but I am not off topic.  There are MANY good reasons to persist in hating "god"....

I can only speak to my own reasons.  If that offends you...then good... My efforts are not without reward.


----------



## Boss

HUGGY said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not left wing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you abandon the topic to start yammering about Bush and Iraq, and become a Saddam apologist, that's exactly how you come across.... like a left wing radical retard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can whine about it till the cows come home but I am not off topic.  There are MANY good reasons to persist in hating "god"....
> 
> I can only speak to my own reasons.  If that offends you...then good... My efforts are not without reward.
Click to expand...


Well yes, you are completely off-topic, the thread has nothing to do with Bush or Iraq. 

If your "reward" is offending others, guess what that makes you, by definition?


----------



## PostmodernProph

HUGGY said:


> We say: the theory of evolution proposes that it arose spontaneously out of the inert chemicals of planet Earth perhaps 4 billion years ago.


and yet there are still people here who will argue that the theory of evolution has nothing to do with origin......we keep trying to tell them that the average bobo on the street isn't sophisticated enough about science to tell the difference but they deny it......


----------



## HUGGY

Boss said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you abandon the topic to start yammering about Bush and Iraq, and become a Saddam apologist, that's exactly how you come across.... like a left wing radical retard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can whine about it till the cows come home but I am not off topic.  There are MANY good reasons to persist in hating "god"....
> 
> I can only speak to my own reasons.  If that offends you...then good... My efforts are not without reward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well yes, you are completely off-topic, the thread has nothing to do with Bush or Iraq.
> 
> If your "reward" is offending others, guess what that makes you, by definition?
Click to expand...


Ni**a please..  We have endured literally hundreds of posts from you that have absolutely nothing to do with why "god haters persist" expounding on your lame ideas about the non existant difference between religists and spiritualists.

As hard as you have tried to hijack this thread all you have only shown by example not content why god haters have ample reason to feel the way they do.

Your attempted theft of  * Why do the God-haters persist? * is NOT a green light for you to expound on your inept difference between religion, god and some non existant spirit you claim runs everything.  It proves only that you are just like all the fairy worshipers in that you are ignorant of all you engage in and insist that your way is the only way in spite of the rules of the road that clearly state otherwise.

Maybe you could explain why your little "spirit" hasn't told you that * Why do the God-haters persist? *isn't the best forum for you to spend hours telling everyone that came here to hear why the god haters persist had to edure your nonsense about you and your little spirit.

It's clear you THINK you are in charge... but sadly for you...it isn't true..


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> ROFLMAO!!! EVOLUTION IDIOTS WANT TO BELIEVE LIFE EVOLVED BY TIME AND CHANCE OUT OF POND SCUM (OR NOW THE NEWEST CRAZY IDEA FROM SPACE ROCKS) WITHOUT ANY PLAN,DESIGN OR INTELLIGENCE NEEDED!!!! ROFLMAO!!! YET little man can not create one bug,worm or even one living cell  even with perfect conditions and the aid of supercomputers.



Our current lack of understanding concerning the Universes origins does not automatically mean god holds any explanatory value. Metaphysical and theistic speculation are not justified or correct simply because we lack a comprehensive scientific model. Uncertainty is the most valid position and one can honestly say We just dont know yet.

Something can come from nothing and we are able to observe it in the form of virtual particles and quantum vacuum fluctuations.  But I don't suspect you understand any of that.  They explain why the early universe lacked uniformity and provided the seeds for the emergence of structure. These quantum phenomena are also causeless in the sense that they are objectively and irreducibly random, a fact confirmed by tests of non-local realism and Bells Theorem.

Theists often state God is outside of time. This claim does not actually make their speculation correct. Instead, it brings with it a whole host of problems and may be immediately dismissed as being without basis and a type fallacy known as special pleading.

Hate to burst your bubble but you've been told a lie.  You don't need to admit it to me that you understand this is a possibility.  I know you are too afraid to even let your mind go there.  That's ok.  We'll work on the next generation.  I'd rather teach my kids how to recycle instead of how to pray to an imaginary person.  I can teach them right and wrong and how to be good without god.  Look at you.  Are you good?  Clearly not.  If there is a god he'd be embarrassed that you represent him, just like all those fake preachers I watch on tv.

Oh yea, yesterday I watched a jewish show on you can donate $3000 and get these poor old jews back to Israel from Russia where they are being picked on apparently.  What a scam.  How much money do the jews have collectively?  They could fly every jew back to Isreal in a heartbeat but they are too cheap.

Then they had the guy from the 700 club come on and say how we need to help them because god said to or something like that.  OMG insanity! 

P.S.  How come Americans don't want Muslim nations but it's ok that Israel is a Jewish country?  I wouldn't want America to be a Christian country.  How come the jews get to be a religious country?  Does anyone think they are any less crazy than all the other religions?  We need to distance ourselves from Israel.  The American Christians think god said we need to protect the jews until Armageddon or the Rapture comes or something like that.  The Jews don't take offense to the story because if it means the Christians will always come to their defense, so be it.  Bizarre relationship for sure.


----------



## sealybobo

HUGGY said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not MY theory.  Scientific theory is based on honest documented inquiry.
> 
> Faith is not a theory.  Faith is based on dishonest undocumented speculation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lets compare our theories to Boss'.
> 
> We say: the theory of evolution proposes that it arose spontaneously out of the inert chemicals of planet Earth perhaps 4 billion years ago.  If you ever read How Cells Work, you can see that even a primitive cell like an E. coli bacteria -- one of the simplest life forms in existence today -- is amazingly complex.
> 
> *Boss says an imaginary man did it.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The truly frightening thing is that Boss and people like him BELIEVE this nonsnse and are constantly attempting to get into positions of power so they can force the population to accept these ideas.
Click to expand...


At least Boss has denied jesus.  More than 3 times mind you.  That's a step.  

I guess if someone only wants to believe that "something must have created us" then that's kind of harmless don't you think?  It's all the other stuff.  The hell, the anti abortion anti gay, the molestation being a sin but not a crime according to the Vadican't.  

The anti muslim, pro pollution, let bush lie us to war because at least he's anti abortion.  

Is Boss suggesting we put the 10 commandments up in our courts and schools?  Is he pro prayer in school?  If he is the F him.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO!!! EVOLUTION IDIOTS WANT TO BELIEVE LIFE EVOLVED BY TIME AND CHANCE OUT OF POND SCUM (OR NOW THE NEWEST CRAZY IDEA FROM SPACE ROCKS) WITHOUT ANY PLAN,DESIGN OR INTELLIGENCE NEEDED!!!! ROFLMAO!!! YET little man can not create one bug,worm or even one living cell  even with perfect conditions and the aid of supercomputers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our current lack of understanding concerning the Universes origins does not automatically mean god holds any explanatory value. Metaphysical and theistic speculation are not justified or correct simply because we lack a comprehensive scientific model. Uncertainty is the most valid position and one can honestly say We just dont know yet.
> 
> Something can come from nothing and we are able to observe it in the form of virtual particles and quantum vacuum fluctuations.  But I don't suspect you understand any of that.  They explain why the early universe lacked uniformity and provided the seeds for the emergence of structure. These quantum phenomena are also causeless in the sense that they are objectively and irreducibly random, a fact confirmed by tests of non-local realism and Bells Theorem.
> 
> Theists often state God is outside of time. This claim does not actually make their speculation correct. Instead, it brings with it a whole host of problems and may be immediately dismissed as being without basis and a type fallacy known as special pleading.
> 
> Hate to burst your bubble but you've been told a lie.  You don't need to admit it to me that you understand this is a possibility.  I know you are too afraid to even let your mind go there.  That's ok.  We'll work on the next generation.  I'd rather teach my kids how to recycle instead of how to pray to an imaginary person.  I can teach them right and wrong and how to be good without god.  Look at you.  Are you good?  Clearly not.  If there is a god he'd be embarrassed that you represent him, just like all those fake preachers I watch on tv.
> 
> Oh yea, yesterday I watched a jewish show on you can donate $3000 and get these poor old jews back to Israel from Russia where they are being picked on apparently.  What a scam.  How much money do the jews have collectively?  They could fly every jew back to Isreal in a heartbeat but they are too cheap.
> 
> Then they had the guy from the 700 club come on and say how we need to help them because god said to or something like that.  OMG insanity!
> 
> P.S.  How come Americans don't want Muslim nations but it's ok that Israel is a Jewish country?  I wouldn't want America to be a Christian country.  How come the jews get to be a religious country?  Does anyone think they are any less crazy than all the other religions?  We need to distance ourselves from Israel.  The American Christians think god said we need to protect the jews until Armageddon or the Rapture comes or something like that.  The Jews don't take offense to the story because if it means the Christians will always come to their defense, so be it.  Bizarre relationship for sure.
Click to expand...


YOU HAVE THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE AS PROOF GOD IS REAL!!! ONLY A TOTAL FOOL CAN LOOK AT LIFE AND THE UNIVERSE AND THINK THERE IS NO PLAN,NO DESIGNER ,NO INTELLIGENCE THAT CREATED IT,TIME AND CHANCE DESIGN NOTHING!!! YOUR POSTS PROVE GOD'S WORD TRUE, GOD SAYS==That man is a fool who says to himself, There is no God! Anyone who talks like that is warped and evil and cannot really be a good person at all.Psalm 14:1===Only a fool would say to himself, There is no God. And why does he say it? Because of his wicked heart, his dark and evil deeds. His life is corroded with sin. PSALM 53:1 and you???


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> So the left wing liberal intellectualist arguments on God and Science are rebuked, and the consensus response it to attack Bush, lament on Iraq, and hurl insults? Why am I not surprised?



You don't see the connection?  I told you the reason we persist is because just like the Pharaoh's, Kings and Slave Masters used religion to control/manipulate the masses, so did Reagan and Bush.

Don't tell me you don't know this history?  Moral Majority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is how the GOP get stupid middle class and poor people to vote for them.  

Another way is racism.  Don't you know this history Boss?  Southern strategy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO!!! EVOLUTION IDIOTS WANT TO BELIEVE LIFE EVOLVED BY TIME AND CHANCE OUT OF POND SCUM (OR NOW THE NEWEST CRAZY IDEA FROM SPACE ROCKS) WITHOUT ANY PLAN,DESIGN OR INTELLIGENCE NEEDED!!!! ROFLMAO!!! YET little man can not create one bug,worm or even one living cell  even with perfect conditions and the aid of supercomputers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our current lack of understanding concerning the Universes origins does not automatically mean god holds any explanatory value. Metaphysical and theistic speculation are not justified or correct simply because we lack a comprehensive scientific model. Uncertainty is the most valid position and one can honestly say We just dont know yet.
> 
> Something can come from nothing and we are able to observe it in the form of virtual particles and quantum vacuum fluctuations.  But I don't suspect you understand any of that.  They explain why the early universe lacked uniformity and provided the seeds for the emergence of structure. These quantum phenomena are also causeless in the sense that they are objectively and irreducibly random, a fact confirmed by tests of non-local realism and Bells Theorem.
> 
> Theists often state God is outside of time. This claim does not actually make their speculation correct. Instead, it brings with it a whole host of problems and may be immediately dismissed as being without basis and a type fallacy known as special pleading.
> 
> Hate to burst your bubble but you've been told a lie.  You don't need to admit it to me that you understand this is a possibility.  I know you are too afraid to even let your mind go there.  That's ok.  We'll work on the next generation.  I'd rather teach my kids how to recycle instead of how to pray to an imaginary person.  I can teach them right and wrong and how to be good without god.  Look at you.  Are you good?  Clearly not.  If there is a god he'd be embarrassed that you represent him, just like all those fake preachers I watch on tv.
> 
> Oh yea, yesterday I watched a jewish show on you can donate $3000 and get these poor old jews back to Israel from Russia where they are being picked on apparently.  What a scam.  How much money do the jews have collectively?  They could fly every jew back to Isreal in a heartbeat but they are too cheap.
> 
> Then they had the guy from the 700 club come on and say how we need to help them because god said to or something like that.  OMG insanity!
> 
> P.S.  How come Americans don't want Muslim nations but it's ok that Israel is a Jewish country?  I wouldn't want America to be a Christian country.  How come the jews get to be a religious country?  Does anyone think they are any less crazy than all the other religions?  We need to distance ourselves from Israel.  The American Christians think god said we need to protect the jews until Armageddon or the Rapture comes or something like that.  The Jews don't take offense to the story because if it means the Christians will always come to their defense, so be it.  Bizarre relationship for sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOU HAVE THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE AS PROOF GOD IS REAL!!! ONLY A TOTAL FOOL CAN LOOK AT LIFE AND THE UNIVERSE AND THINK THERE IS NO PLAN,NO DESIGNER ,NO INTELLIGENCE THAT CREATED IT,TIME AND CHANCE DESIGN NOTHING!!! YOUR POSTS PROVE GOD'S WORD TRUE, GOD SAYS==That man is a fool who says to himself, There is no God! Anyone who talks like that is warped and evil and cannot really be a good person at all.Psalm 14:1===Only a fool would say to himself, There is no God. And why does he say it? Because of his wicked heart, his dark and evil deeds. His life is corroded with sin. PSALM 53:1 and you???
Click to expand...


The people who believe me are smarter than the people that believe you.

So only a fool would believe your fairy tale.  What makes your church any different from any of the other cults?  If theirs was made it up, maybe so was yours.  The stories are very hard to believe or take on faith.  

Studies say we are smarter than you guys

http://sharecuriosity.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/ReadingLevelByReligion.png

Nature, "Leading scientists still reject God"* July 23, 1998


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> gismys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> our current lack of understanding concerning the universes origins does not automatically mean god holds any explanatory value. Metaphysical and theistic speculation are not justified or correct simply because we lack a comprehensive scientific model. Uncertainty is the most valid position and one can honestly say we just dont know yet.
> 
> Something can come from nothing and we are able to observe it in the form of virtual particles and quantum vacuum fluctuations.  But i don't suspect you understand any of that.  They explain why the early universe lacked uniformity and provided the seeds for the emergence of structure. These quantum phenomena are also causeless in the sense that they are objectively and irreducibly random, a fact confirmed by tests of non-local realism and bells theorem.
> 
> Theists often state god is outside of time. This claim does not actually make their speculation correct. Instead, it brings with it a whole host of problems and may be immediately dismissed as being without basis and a type fallacy known as special pleading.
> 
> Hate to burst your bubble but you've been told a lie.  You don't need to admit it to me that you understand this is a possibility.  I know you are too afraid to even let your mind go there.  That's ok.  We'll work on the next generation.  I'd rather teach my kids how to recycle instead of how to pray to an imaginary person.  I can teach them right and wrong and how to be good without god.  Look at you.  Are you good?  Clearly not.  If there is a god he'd be embarrassed that you represent him, just like all those fake preachers i watch on tv.
> 
> Oh yea, yesterday i watched a jewish show on you can donate $3000 and get these poor old jews back to israel from russia where they are being picked on apparently.  What a scam.  How much money do the jews have collectively?  They could fly every jew back to isreal in a heartbeat but they are too cheap.
> 
> Then they had the guy from the 700 club come on and say how we need to help them because god said to or something like that.  Omg insanity!
> 
> P.s.  How come americans don't want muslim nations but it's ok that israel is a jewish country?  I wouldn't want america to be a christian country.  How come the jews get to be a religious country?  Does anyone think they are any less crazy than all the other religions?  We need to distance ourselves from israel.  The american christians think god said we need to protect the jews until armageddon or the rapture comes or something like that.  The jews don't take offense to the story because if it means the christians will always come to their defense, so be it.  Bizarre relationship for sure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you have the entire universe as proof god is real!!! Only a total fool can look at life and the universe and think there is no plan,no designer ,no intelligence that created it,time and chance design nothing!!! Your posts prove god's word true, god says==that man is a fool who says to himself, there is no god! anyone who talks like that is warped and evil and cannot really be a good person at all.psalm 14:1===only a fool would say to himself, there is no god. and why does he say it? Because of his wicked heart, his dark and evil deeds. His life is corroded with sin. Psalm 53:1 and you???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the people who believe me are smarter than the people that believe you.
> 
> So only a fool would believe your fairy tale.  What makes your church any different from any of the other cults?  If theirs was made it up, maybe so was yours.  The stories are very hard to believe or take on faith.
> 
> Studies say we are smarter than you guys
> 
> http://sharecuriosity.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/readinglevelbyreligion.png
> 
> nature, "leading scientists still reject god"* july 23, 1998
Click to expand...


i post about god's word not what some "church" may say!!! Church membership will not save you, put your faith and trust in god and god's word only!!!


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> So the left wing liberal intellectualist arguments on God and Science are rebuked, and the consensus response it to attack Bush, lament on Iraq, and hurl insults? Why am I not surprised?



Hey boss.  You and Gismys are sure there is a god but most scientists disagree.  You smarter than them too?  

The latest survey found disbelief is greater than ever.  In 1914  58% of US scientists expressed disbelief, this year a mere 7% believe in god.  They attributed the higher level of disbelief and doubt among greater scientists to their superior knowledge, understanding, and experience.  I don't think you can be a real scientist in the deepest sense of the word and still believe in god. 

Most of the rest were agnostics.  They found the highest percentage of belief among mathematicians (14.3% in God, 15.0% in immortality). Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality).

But I will give it to you that the validity of a claim, such as the existence of god, is not governed by the intelligence of the minds which hold it. Evidence and reason are the deciding factors.  The fact that an intelligent person holds an irrational belief is simply evidence that our brains are able to compartmentalize world-views and models from one another, usually in order to maintain a state of ignorant bliss and escape the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gismys said:
> 
> 
> 
> you have the entire universe as proof god is real!!! Only a total fool can look at life and the universe and think there is no plan,no designer ,no intelligence that created it,time and chance design nothing!!! Your posts prove god's word true, god says==that man is a fool who says to himself, there is no god! anyone who talks like that is warped and evil and cannot really be a good person at all.psalm 14:1===only a fool would say to himself, there is no god. and why does he say it? Because of his wicked heart, his dark and evil deeds. His life is corroded with sin. Psalm 53:1 and you???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the people who believe me are smarter than the people that believe you.
> 
> So only a fool would believe your fairy tale.  What makes your church any different from any of the other cults?  If theirs was made it up, maybe so was yours.  The stories are very hard to believe or take on faith.
> 
> Studies say we are smarter than you guys
> 
> http://sharecuriosity.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/readinglevelbyreligion.png
> 
> nature, "leading scientists still reject god"* july 23, 1998
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i post about god's word not what some "church" may say!!! Church membership will not save you, put your faith and trust in god and god's word only!!!
Click to expand...


Who told you what god said?  A church did honey.  So sad.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> the people who believe me are smarter than the people that believe you.
> 
> So only a fool would believe your fairy tale.  What makes your church any different from any of the other cults?  If theirs was made it up, maybe so was yours.  The stories are very hard to believe or take on faith.
> 
> Studies say we are smarter than you guys
> 
> http://sharecuriosity.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/readinglevelbyreligion.png
> 
> nature, "leading scientists still reject god"* july 23, 1998
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i post about god's word not what some "church" may say!!! Church membership will not save you, put your faith and trust in god and god's word only!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who told you what god said?  A church did honey.  So sad.
Click to expand...


THE HOLY INSPIRED(GOD BREATHED) WORD OF GOD IS GOD'S WORD TO MANKIND!!!! Wise up!!! why be a blinded tool,fool,puppet for satan???


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> This is how the GOP get stupid middle class and poor people to vote for them.



actually, the left got the middle and lower class to vote for the GOP by putting Carter in office and giving us double digit inflation......


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> P.S.  How come Americans don't want Muslim nations but it's ok that Israel is a Jewish country?



it isn't being a Muslim nation that's a problem....its being a nation that stones women to death for being raped and imprisons people for owning a Bible......


----------



## Boss

silly boob said:


> Our current lack of understanding concerning the Universe&#8217;s origins does not automatically mean &#8216;god&#8217; holds any explanatory value. Metaphysical and theistic speculation are not justified or correct simply because we lack a comprehensive scientific model. Uncertainty is the most valid position and one can honestly say We just don&#8217;t know yet&#8221;.
> 
> Something can come from nothing and we are able to observe it in the form of virtual particles and quantum vacuum fluctuations.  But I don't suspect you understand any of that.  They explain why the early universe lacked uniformity and provided the seeds for the emergence of structure. These quantum phenomena are also causeless in the sense that they are objectively and irreducibly random, a fact confirmed by tests of non-local realism and Bell&#8217;s Theorem.
> 
> Theists often state &#8220;God is outside of time&#8221;. This claim does not actually make their speculation correct. Instead, it brings with it a whole host of problems and may be immediately dismissed as being without basis and a type fallacy known as special pleading.
> 
> Hate to burst your bubble but you've been told a lie.  You don't need to admit it to me that you understand this is a possibility.  I know you are too afraid to even let your mind go there.  That's ok.  We'll work on the next generation.  I'd rather teach my kids how to recycle instead of how to pray to an imaginary person.  I can teach them right and wrong and how to be good without god.  Look at you.  Are you good?  Clearly not.  If there is a god he'd be embarrassed that you represent him, just like all those fake preachers I watch on tv.
> 
> Oh yea, yesterday I watched a jewish show on you can donate $3000 and get these poor old jews back to Israel from Russia where they are being picked on apparently.  What a scam.  How much money do the jews have collectively?  They could fly every jew back to Isreal in a heartbeat but they are too cheap.
> 
> Then they had the guy from the 700 club come on and say how we need to help them because god said to or something like that.  OMG insanity!
> 
> P.S.  How come Americans don't want Muslim nations but it's ok that Israel is a Jewish country?  I wouldn't want America to be a Christian country.  How come the jews get to be a religious country?  Does anyone think they are any less crazy than all the other religions?  We need to distance ourselves from Israel.  The American Christians think god said we need to protect the jews until Armageddon or the Rapture comes or something like that.  The Jews don't take offense to the story because if it means the Christians will always come to their defense, so be it.  Bizarre relationship for sure.



If anyone would ever like to study how idiots convince themselves of their mindless hubris, they should study one of silly boob's posts. Here, we can clearly see how the cycle evolves. 

In paragraph #1, there seems to almost be some hope for silly boob. Forced to face the fact that science cannot answer some of the toughest questions, the boob admits, "we just don't know!" But just because science can't answer the questions doesn't mean the questions can't be answered. 

In paragraph #2, we seem to take a completely different course, now suddenly, science is answering all these questions it couldn't answer and we just did not know in the last paragraph. By paragraph #3, it is clear that science has pretty much answered all questions and virtually all scientists agree. When we get to paragraph #4, we see that anything contradicting paragraphs #2 and #3 are lies, and anyone who dares to do so is a fool. 

Paragraph #5 is devoted to bashing religious beliefs. Departing from any scientific argument, the boob has worked himself into a froth over various religious dogma, and the final couple of paragraphs are devoted to his visceral anti semitic views of Jews. 

An exquisite example of the idiot mind at work. The processing and devolution of thought to lower and lower denominators. Us normal folk wonder, how can an idiot become so far removed from rationality, and here we see a prime example of that happening before our very eyes. Form "we just don't know" to "all Jews are evil," in just a few short paragraphs.


----------



## hazlnut

Boss said:


> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God.




I have yet to see a "God-hater" here or anywhere else for that matter.


I do see a boat load of hypocrites who profess to follow Jesus while bitching about the "takers" and the notion of caring for the least of us.


----------



## Boss

> I have yet to see a "God-hater" here or anywhere else for that matter.



Haters seldom see their own hatred. Bigots seldom see their own bigotry. I have never met a habitual liar who said, "don't believe a word I say because I am a habitual liar!" I've never met a cheater who admits they cheat.


----------



## thanatos144

My mother yesterday went back to God. Miss her and Love her.


----------



## Boss

> Hey boss. You and Gismys are sure there is a god but most scientists disagree. You smarter than them too?



Not sure where your statistics come from or how they are derived, but most theoretical physicists are spiritual. Are you smarter than a theoretical physicist? (Of course, this is rhetorical... you aren't even smarter than an average Rhesus monkey.)


----------



## Boss

thanatos144 said:


> My mother yesterday went back to God. Miss her and Love her.



My sympathies, thanatos. I am currently dealing with my mother battling stage 4 cancer and I know that her remaining time is short. We lost my dad 6 years ago, and as hard as that was, I know that losing mom will be much more difficult. All I can say is thank God our family has spiritual faith.


----------



## Boss

HUGGY said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can whine about it till the cows come home but I am not off topic.  There are MANY good reasons to persist in hating "god"....
> 
> I can only speak to my own reasons.  If that offends you...then good... My efforts are not without reward.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well yes, you are completely off-topic, the thread has nothing to do with Bush or Iraq.
> 
> If your "reward" is offending others, guess what that makes you, by definition?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ni**a please..  We have endured literally hundreds of posts from you that have absolutely nothing to do with why "god haters persist" expounding on your lame ideas about the non existant difference between religists and spiritualists.
> 
> As hard as you have tried to hijack this thread all you have only shown by example not content why god haters have ample reason to feel the way they do.
> 
> Your attempted theft of  * Why do the God-haters persist? * is NOT a green light for you to expound on your inept difference between religion, god and some non existant spirit you claim runs everything.  It proves only that you are just like all the fairy worshipers in that you are ignorant of all you engage in and insist that your way is the only way in spite of the rules of the road that clearly state otherwise.
> 
> Maybe you could explain why your little "spirit" hasn't told you that * Why do the God-haters persist? *isn't the best forum for you to spend hours telling everyone that came here to hear why the god haters persist had to edure your nonsense about you and your little spirit.
> 
> It's clear you THINK you are in charge... but sadly for you...it isn't true..
Click to expand...


Well Huggy, I hardly see how I could've hijacked and stolen my own thread. The purpose of which is to explain why some people claiming to be atheists are actually god-haters with an agenda. Over 4,000 posts are now documented evidence to support the OP. I could not be more thrilled with the success of this thread. 

Over and over here, I have been called a "religist" and people much more clever than you have tried to cajole me into some kind of religious extremist box, as they lash out at fundamentalist beliefs and denounce the God they fully know is real, but hate with every fiber of their being. 

Now, I have tried to reasonably explain that the God which you hate and denounce is not the God I believe in. But since you do believe in that God, I can't seem to convince you. My arguments seem to fall on deaf ears because you feel this hatred must never let up. That's fine, I have no problem with your behavior, I don't know if you'll experience a sensation of burning in hell for your actions or not. I do know that you're certainly not promoting spiritual harmony, and your soul will ultimately pay the price for that choice. You know this too, but like someone on a suicide mission, the days of giving a shit have long passed.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My mother yesterday went back to God. Miss her and Love her.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My sympathies, thanatos. I am currently dealing with my mother battling stage 4 cancer and I know that her remaining time is short. We lost my dad 6 years ago, and as hard as that was, I know that losing mom will be much more difficult. All I can say is thank God our family has spiritual faith.
Click to expand...


I am very sorry to hear that Boss.  

My mother just got through chemo for lymphoma and at the same time we found out she has Alzheimers.  

People are constantly asking me how I'm taking it.  Do you know what I tell them?  I say, "I had 43 good years with my mother.  She had 70 good years.  In all that time we never asked why so now that things are going bad I'm not going to ask why.  It's life."

People have said I have a great attitude about it.  I don't tell them I don't believe in god(s).  Yes I remember thinking/talking/saying how gramma is in heaven now or my grandfather is looking down on me.....  Unfortunately I don't believe that now.  But it isn't any harder dealing with a dying person when you are an atheist.  I don't think a lot of us are worried about the after life.  Just like I didn't worry the billions of years before I was born, I think I'll be ok the billions of years when I'm gone.

But again, I am very sorry about your mom.  

And hey, I don't even need to worry about my mom because she doesn't even exist!!!


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well yes, you are completely off-topic, the thread has nothing to do with Bush or Iraq.
> 
> If your "reward" is offending others, guess what that makes you, by definition?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ni**a please..  We have endured literally hundreds of posts from you that have absolutely nothing to do with why "god haters persist" expounding on your lame ideas about the non existant difference between religists and spiritualists.
> 
> As hard as you have tried to hijack this thread all you have only shown by example not content why god haters have ample reason to feel the way they do.
> 
> Your attempted theft of  * Why do the God-haters persist? * is NOT a green light for you to expound on your inept difference between religion, god and some non existant spirit you claim runs everything.  It proves only that you are just like all the fairy worshipers in that you are ignorant of all you engage in and insist that your way is the only way in spite of the rules of the road that clearly state otherwise.
> 
> Maybe you could explain why your little "spirit" hasn't told you that * Why do the God-haters persist? *isn't the best forum for you to spend hours telling everyone that came here to hear why the god haters persist had to edure your nonsense about you and your little spirit.
> 
> It's clear you THINK you are in charge... but sadly for you...it isn't true..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well Huggy, I hardly see how I could've hijacked and stolen my own thread. The purpose of which is to explain why some people claiming to be atheists are actually god-haters with an agenda. Over 4,000 posts are now documented evidence to support the OP. I could not be more thrilled with the success of this thread.
> 
> Over and over here, I have been called a "religist" and people much more clever than you have tried to cajole me into some kind of religious extremist box, as they lash out at fundamentalist beliefs and denounce the God they fully know is real, but hate with every fiber of their being.
> 
> Now, I have tried to reasonably explain that the God which you hate and denounce is not the God I believe in. But since you do believe in that God, I can't seem to convince you. My arguments seem to fall on deaf ears because you feel this hatred must never let up. That's fine, I have no problem with your behavior, I don't know if you'll experience a sensation of burning in hell for your actions or not. I do know that you're certainly not promoting spiritual harmony, and your soul will ultimately pay the price for that choice. You know this too, but like someone on a suicide mission, the days of giving a shit have long passed.
Click to expand...


Please show me a link to anyone that agrees with your theories or are you all alone in the universe on this?    I think you are all alone.  That makes you less than a cult.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> Hey boss. You and Gismys are sure there is a god but most scientists disagree. You smarter than them too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure where your statistics come from or how they are derived, but most theoretical physicists are spiritual. Are you smarter than a theoretical physicist? (Of course, this is rhetorical... you aren't even smarter than an average Rhesus monkey.)
Click to expand...


Why are so many theoretical physicists atheists | Is It Normal? | http://isitnormal.com

I propose that spirituality should be viewed as a branch of knowledge alongside biology, astronomy, chemistry, etc. It is a branch of knowledge concerning an essence of our being and our consciousness that transcends physical matter. Many scientists would simply deny that there is such a thing, but that is opinion and dogma masquerading as fact. Since present day science does not study anything other than the physical, it has nothing valid to say about whatever non-physical realities may exist which can be called spiritual.

One can study spirituality without religion, and indeed I propose that ultimately one will not need the "middleman" of religion to study the laws of spirituality (whatever they may be) any more than one needs a religion of physics to study physics. Both the historical legacy and the present day practice of religion have a mixed record. Religion has often been used to exploit, conquer and slaughter, which of course is grossly contradictory to genuine spirituality.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> Hey boss. You and Gismys are sure there is a god but most scientists disagree. You smarter than them too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure where your statistics come from or how they are derived, but most theoretical physicists are spiritual. Are you smarter than a theoretical physicist? (Of course, this is rhetorical... you aren't even smarter than an average Rhesus monkey.)
Click to expand...


Much of the hostility of science toward God is a reaction against religious dogmatism and outright persecution of rational thinkers in centuries past, such as Galileo and Giordano Bruno. But there is also a sense in science that understanding of the ways the world and the Universe work has been one of steady progress, systematically replacing mythology with genuine knowledge.


----------



## Boss

*Professor:* If God is real, God is evil. If God created all, then God also created evil. Therefore, God must be evil. 
*Student:* I disagree. 
*Professor:* Can you explain why? 
*Student:* Evil does not exist.
*Professor:* What do you mean, of course it does. 
*Student:* No, it doesn't.  Does cold exist? 
*Professor:* Yes, of course it does!
*Student:* No sir, cold is the absence of heat. Science tells us this.  Does darkness exist?
*Professor:* Well of course darkness exists!
*Student:* No sir, darkness is the absence of light. Science can measure light, it cannot measure darkness. Evil is like cold and darkness, it doesn't exist, it is what is present in the absence of God's love. 

The Student? Albert Einstein.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey boss. You and Gismys are sure there is a god but most scientists disagree. You smarter than them too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure where your statistics come from or how they are derived, but most theoretical physicists are spiritual. Are you smarter than a theoretical physicist? (Of course, this is rhetorical... you aren't even smarter than an average Rhesus monkey.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Much of the hostility of science toward God is a reaction against religious dogmatism and outright persecution of rational thinkers in centuries past, such as Galileo and Giordano Bruno. But there is also a sense in science that understanding of the ways the world and the Universe work has been one of steady progress, systematically replacing mythology with genuine knowledge.
Click to expand...


ROFLMAO!!!!"genuine knowledge" ROFLMAO!!!  YOUR GENUINE KNOWLEDGE IS PROVED WRONG ALMOPST EVERYDAY!!! SUCH AS= EARTH'S WATER CAME FROM COMETS=BUNK!!! BIG BANG THEORY = BUNK,LIFE STARTED IN POND SCUM=BUNK ,NOW THE THEORY IS LIFECAME TO EARTH ON SPACE ROCKS!!!  FACE THE TRUTH MAN WITHOUT GOD IS CLUELESS!!!


----------



## Boss

> Much of the hostility of science toward God....



Let me stop you right here. Science is not "hostile" toward anything. Science is the human study of physical phenomenon. What you mean to say is MEN who attempt to USE science as an offensive weapon of hostility.

We are a Type 0 civilization.  We are currently moving toward being a Type I civilization. If you are unfamiliar with the terminology, this is called the Kardashev scale. A Type 0 civilization extracts its energy, information, raw-materials from crude organic-based sources. A Type I civilization uses all available resources impinging on its home planet, Type II harnesses all the energy of its star, and Type III of its galaxy. However, the implications run deeper than energy, by extension, they apply culturally to humanity or intelligence and information as well. The Internet is a Type I telephone system. 

The most dangerous period is the transition from a Type 0 to Type I civilization. Because we are both primitive and also have the power of nuclear weapons. Religious fanaticism, unbeknownst to it's purveyors, seeks to keep us a Type 0 civilization and prevent us becoming a Type I civilization. A prime example would be radical Islamic fundamentalists. Earth's humans will eventually either become a Type I civilization or they will destroy themselves. If we survive long enough to see interstellar travel, we will probably find many remnants of failed Type 0 civilizations who never made the transition. 

A Type I civilization is still in danger of extinction, even a Type II or Type III may be vulnerable, but by the time you reach Type IV civilization, there is immortality. A Type &#8547; civilization extracts energy, information, and raw materials from all possible galaxies; it is effectively immortal and omnipotent with universal-scale influence, possessing the ability of theoretical time travel and instantaneous matter-energy transformation and teleportation (their apparent abilities may include moving entire asteroid belts and stars, creating alternate timelines, and affecting universal states of nature such as the gravitational constant); in fiction, these civilizations may be perceived as omnipresence/omnipotent gods.

Of course, most of this is "science fiction" at the moment, but science fiction is merely a standard deviation from science fact.


----------



## HUGGY

Boss said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well yes, you are completely off-topic, the thread has nothing to do with Bush or Iraq.
> 
> If your "reward" is offending others, guess what that makes you, by definition?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ni**a please..  We have endured literally hundreds of posts from you that have absolutely nothing to do with why "god haters persist" expounding on your lame ideas about the non existant difference between religists and spiritualists.
> 
> As hard as you have tried to hijack this thread all you have only shown by example not content why god haters have ample reason to feel the way they do.
> 
> Your attempted theft of  * Why do the God-haters persist? * is NOT a green light for you to expound on your inept difference between religion, god and some non existant spirit you claim runs everything.  It proves only that you are just like all the fairy worshipers in that you are ignorant of all you engage in and insist that your way is the only way in spite of the rules of the road that clearly state otherwise.
> 
> Maybe you could explain why your little "spirit" hasn't told you that * Why do the God-haters persist? *isn't the best forum for you to spend hours telling everyone that came here to hear why the god haters persist had to edure your nonsense about you and your little spirit.
> 
> It's clear you THINK you are in charge... but sadly for you...it isn't true..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well Huggy, I hardly see how I could've hijacked and stolen my own thread. The purpose of which is to explain why some people claiming to be atheists are actually god-haters with an agenda. Over 4,000 posts are now documented evidence to support the OP. I could not be more thrilled with the success of this thread.
> 
> Over and over here, I have been called a "religist" and people much more clever than you have tried to cajole me into some kind of religious extremist box, as they lash out at fundamentalist beliefs and denounce the God they fully know is real, but hate with every fiber of their being.
> 
> Now, I have tried to reasonably explain that the God which you hate and denounce is not the God I believe in. But since you do believe in that God, I can't seem to convince you. My arguments seem to fall on deaf ears because you feel this hatred must never let up. That's fine, I have no problem with your behavior, I don't know if you'll experience a sensation of burning in hell for your actions or not. I do know that you're certainly not promoting spiritual harmony, and your soul will ultimately pay the price for that choice. You know this too, but like someone on a suicide mission, the days of giving a shit have long passed.
Click to expand...


You must be confused.

The "topic" isn't your original post.

The title you chose is the "topic" you seldom stayed on.

My so called soul does not exist.  That is just jibberish and part of the scam to ensnare fools into feeling some reason to care about the fraud you and all christian type games you people attempt to run on the weak minded.

You don't have a soul either.  The sad part is that there will be no last instant of clarity ... an "oh shit" moment as your brain loses the last supply of oxygen.  There will be no justice for your crimes of deceit ...just nothing.  Good reason to persist in hating all things god.


----------



## BreezeWood

HUGGY said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ni**a please..  We have endured literally hundreds of posts from you that have absolutely nothing to do with why "god haters persist" expounding on your lame ideas about the non existant difference between religists and spiritualists.
> 
> As hard as you have tried to hijack this thread all you have only shown by example not content why god haters have ample reason to feel the way they do.
> 
> Your attempted theft of  * Why do the God-haters persist? * is NOT a green light for you to expound on your inept difference between religion, god and some non existant spirit you claim runs everything.  It proves only that you are just like all the fairy worshipers in that you are ignorant of all you engage in and insist that your way is the only way in spite of the rules of the road that clearly state otherwise.
> 
> Maybe you could explain why your little "spirit" hasn't told you that * Why do the God-haters persist? *isn't the best forum for you to spend hours telling everyone that came here to hear why the god haters persist had to edure your nonsense about you and your little spirit.
> 
> It's clear you THINK you are in charge... but sadly for you...it isn't true..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well Huggy, I hardly see how I could've hijacked and stolen my own thread. The purpose of which is to explain why some people claiming to be atheists are actually god-haters with an agenda. Over 4,000 posts are now documented evidence to support the OP. I could not be more thrilled with the success of this thread.
> 
> Over and over here, I have been called a "religist" and people much more clever than you have tried to cajole me into some kind of religious extremist box, as they lash out at fundamentalist beliefs and denounce the God they fully know is real, but hate with every fiber of their being.
> 
> Now, I have tried to reasonably explain that the God which you hate and denounce is not the God I believe in. But since you do believe in that God, I can't seem to convince you. My arguments seem to fall on deaf ears because you feel this hatred must never let up. That's fine, I have no problem with your behavior, I don't know if you'll experience a sensation of burning in hell for your actions or not. I do know that you're certainly not promoting spiritual harmony, and your soul will ultimately pay the price for that choice. You know this too, but like someone on a suicide mission, the days of giving a shit have long passed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must be confused.
> 
> The "topic" isn't your original post.
> 
> The title you chose is the "topic" you seldom stayed on.
> 
> My so called soul does not exist.  That is just jibberish and part of the scam to ensnare fools into feeling some reason to care about the fraud you and all christian type games you people attempt to run on the weak minded.
> 
> You don't have a soul either.  The sad part is that there will be no last instant of clarity ... an "oh shit" moment as your brain loses the last supply of oxygen.  There will be no justice for your crimes of deceit ...just nothing.  Good reason to persist in hating all things god.
Click to expand...





> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief.












HUGGY must not have read the "I say so" memo from the "bait and switch" - OP.

.


----------



## Boss

HUGGY said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ni**a please..  We have endured literally hundreds of posts from you that have absolutely nothing to do with why "god haters persist" expounding on your lame ideas about the non existant difference between religists and spiritualists.
> 
> As hard as you have tried to hijack this thread all you have only shown by example not content why god haters have ample reason to feel the way they do.
> 
> Your attempted theft of  * Why do the God-haters persist? * is NOT a green light for you to expound on your inept difference between religion, god and some non existant spirit you claim runs everything.  It proves only that you are just like all the fairy worshipers in that you are ignorant of all you engage in and insist that your way is the only way in spite of the rules of the road that clearly state otherwise.
> 
> Maybe you could explain why your little "spirit" hasn't told you that * Why do the God-haters persist? *isn't the best forum for you to spend hours telling everyone that came here to hear why the god haters persist had to edure your nonsense about you and your little spirit.
> 
> It's clear you THINK you are in charge... but sadly for you...it isn't true..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well Huggy, I hardly see how I could've hijacked and stolen my own thread. The purpose of which is to explain why some people claiming to be atheists are actually god-haters with an agenda. Over 4,000 posts are now documented evidence to support the OP. I could not be more thrilled with the success of this thread.
> 
> Over and over here, I have been called a "religist" and people much more clever than you have tried to cajole me into some kind of religious extremist box, as they lash out at fundamentalist beliefs and denounce the God they fully know is real, but hate with every fiber of their being.
> 
> Now, I have tried to reasonably explain that the God which you hate and denounce is not the God I believe in. But since you do believe in that God, I can't seem to convince you. My arguments seem to fall on deaf ears because you feel this hatred must never let up. That's fine, I have no problem with your behavior, I don't know if you'll experience a sensation of burning in hell for your actions or not. I do know that you're certainly not promoting spiritual harmony, and your soul will ultimately pay the price for that choice. You know this too, but like someone on a suicide mission, the days of giving a shit have long passed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must be confused.
> 
> The "topic" isn't your original post.
> 
> The title you chose is the "topic" you seldom stayed on.
> 
> My so called soul does not exist.  That is just jibberish and part of the scam to ensnare fools into feeling some reason to care about the fraud you and all christian type games you people attempt to run on the weak minded.
> 
> You don't have a soul either.  The sad part is that there will be no last instant of clarity ... an "oh shit" moment as your brain loses the last supply of oxygen.  There will be no justice for your crimes of deceit ...just nothing.  Good reason to persist in hating all things god.
Click to expand...


I always love it when my adversaries prove what kind of shallow minded idiots they are. Of course the topic is the OP and the title is simply what I decided to call the OP. The fact that you lack the mental competence to grasp that, speaks for itself. 

It's good to know that you don't believe you have a soul. Although, you are among a very small sliver of society who will admit that. But you are right, you'll never see any justice for your disbelief. You'll spend your entire life hating God and not ever realizing how your time and efforts were wasted. Your feeble undernourished soul will simply descend to the next lower level of conscious awareness without ever experiencing the "oh shit" moment. Perhaps in the next life it will be paired with a vibrant mind which will acknowledge and appreciate it? 

I like to be optimistic.


----------



## HUGGY

Boss said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well Huggy, I hardly see how I could've hijacked and stolen my own thread. The purpose of which is to explain why some people claiming to be atheists are actually god-haters with an agenda. Over 4,000 posts are now documented evidence to support the OP. I could not be more thrilled with the success of this thread.
> 
> Over and over here, I have been called a "religist" and people much more clever than you have tried to cajole me into some kind of religious extremist box, as they lash out at fundamentalist beliefs and denounce the God they fully know is real, but hate with every fiber of their being.
> 
> Now, I have tried to reasonably explain that the God which you hate and denounce is not the God I believe in. But since you do believe in that God, I can't seem to convince you. My arguments seem to fall on deaf ears because you feel this hatred must never let up. That's fine, I have no problem with your behavior, I don't know if you'll experience a sensation of burning in hell for your actions or not. I do know that you're certainly not promoting spiritual harmony, and your soul will ultimately pay the price for that choice. You know this too, but like someone on a suicide mission, the days of giving a shit have long passed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must be confused.
> 
> The "topic" isn't your original post.
> 
> The title you chose is the "topic" you seldom stayed on.
> 
> My so called soul does not exist.  That is just jibberish and part of the scam to ensnare fools into feeling some reason to care about the fraud you and all christian type games you people attempt to run on the weak minded.
> 
> You don't have a soul either.  The sad part is that there will be no last instant of clarity ... an "oh shit" moment as your brain loses the last supply of oxygen.  There will be no justice for your crimes of deceit ...just nothing.  Good reason to persist in hating all things god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I always love it when my adversaries prove what kind of shallow minded idiots they are. Of course the topic is the OP and the title is simply what I decided to call the OP. The fact that you lack the mental competence to grasp that, speaks for itself.
> 
> It's good to know that you don't believe you have a soul. Although, you are among a very small sliver of society who will admit that. But you are right, you'll never see any justice for your disbelief. You'll spend your entire life hating God and not ever realizing how your time and efforts were wasted. Your feeble undernourished soul will simply descend to the next lower level of conscious awareness without ever experiencing the "oh shit" moment. Perhaps in the next life it will be paired with a vibrant mind which will acknowledge and appreciate it?
> 
> I like to be optimistic.
Click to expand...


Of course you claim to be clever.

That is the American way.  The road is paved with those that thought they were smarter than anyone else.

Your observation that I have a shallow mind is not totally untrue.

I am a simple man.  It is harder to fool a simple minded person than someone who is curious.  I have to admit that being a simple minded man that I never read your first post.

I don't care what was in it.

All that interested me was the title of the thread.  That's all I had the interest to respond to.

Being simple....I have simple needs.

I look for titles in the religious forum to use to attack religion.  

I don't need to waste time trying to understand why anyone would believe any form of nonsense associated with spirituality, faith or scripture based beliefs.

It's all bunk....hokum..  poppycock.  

It's my mission to help people come to rational conclusions concerning all forms of spirituality so they don't waste their time and money falling for this fraud.

Fraud is a crime.  Good people don't assist in crime.  Good people stand between crime and unwitting fools.

It's simple really.


----------



## HUGGY

^^^^  What he said !!! ^^^^


----------



## indiajo

sealybobo said:


> I propose that spirituality should be viewed as a branch of knowledge alongside biology, astronomy, chemistry, etc. It is a branch of knowledge concerning an essence of our being and our consciousness that transcends physical matter. Many scientists would simply deny that there is such a thing, but that is opinion and dogma masquerading as fact. Since present day science does not study anything other than the physical, it has nothing valid to say about whatever non-physical realities may exist which can be called spiritual.
> 
> One can study spirituality without religion, and indeed I propose that ultimately one will not need the "middleman" of religion to study the laws of spirituality (whatever they may be) any more than one needs a religion of physics to study physics. Both the historical legacy and the present day practice of religion have a mixed record. Religion has often been used to exploit, conquer and slaughter, which of course is grossly contradictory to genuine spirituality.



I think that spirituality is only a pathetic word for letting your thoughts go wild.
Or, more scientifically, to open the borders between your brain areas which are dedicated to certain functions. They are connected anyway, but kind of channeled to maintain the structured functionality.
We have in the west no real conection to that, it is more endemic to asian cultures. Even there most of it is garbage or varieté, but some are really into it.

What I do not see is anything supernatural in spirituality. And I want to make clear that I do not want spirituality to be confused wit superstition. It has nothing to do with the belief in virtual friends in heaven.


----------



## GISMYS

indiajo said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I propose that spirituality should be viewed as a branch of knowledge alongside biology, astronomy, chemistry, etc. It is a branch of knowledge concerning an essence of our being and our consciousness that transcends physical matter. Many scientists would simply deny that there is such a thing, but that is opinion and dogma masquerading as fact. Since present day science does not study anything other than the physical, it has nothing valid to say about whatever non-physical realities may exist which can be called spiritual.
> 
> One can study spirituality without religion, and indeed I propose that ultimately one will not need the "middleman" of religion to study the laws of spirituality (whatever they may be) any more than one needs a religion of physics to study physics. Both the historical legacy and the present day practice of religion have a mixed record. Religion has often been used to exploit, conquer and slaughter, which of course is grossly contradictory to genuine spirituality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that spirituality is only a pathetic word for letting your thoughts go wild.
> Or, more scientifically, to open the borders between your brain areas which are dedicated to certain functions. They are connected anyway, but kind of channeled to maintain the structured functionality.
> We have in the west no real conection to that, it is more endemic to asian cultures. Even there most of it is garbage or varieté, but some are really into it.
> 
> What I do not see is anything supernatural in spirituality. And I want to make clear that I do not want spirituality to be confused wit superstition. It has nothing to do with the belief in virtual friends in heaven.
Click to expand...


LOL!!!!!==ALMIGHTY GOD says atheist are FOOLS!!! 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That man is a fool who says to himself, There is no God! Anyone who talks like that is warped and evil and cannot really be a good person at all.Psalm 14:1===Only a fool would say to himself, There is no God. And why does he say it? Because of his wicked heart, his dark and evil deeds. His life is corroded with sin. PSALM 53:1 and you???


----------



## sealybobo

emilynghiem said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any god that was infinite, ultimate, and absolute would not have to hide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi  [MENTION=11281]sealybobo[/MENTION]
> I thought of two good examples, where God's truth "doesn't have to hide"
> but can be hiding "in plain sight" and we just can't see it yet
> 
> A. I can't find the post where  [MENTION=48205]thebrucebeat[/MENTION] first said it
> but when I posted that "Jesus means Justice" he automatically
> retorted NO those two things have nothing in common, or something like that
> 
> When I share this same concept (that Jesus means Justice)
> with Christian friends at different times and places, they responded differently, too:
> a1. one of the friends took several minutes to realize this made sense to her.
> that Jesus WAS Justice, but didn't get it at first. It took thinking about before she agreed.
> a2. another friend at work IMMEDIATELY agreed of course, Jesus means Justice.
> he did not have to think about it because he already understood this
> a3. another friend was criticizing Christian fundamentalists for being unforgiving and hateful. once I explained the difference between Retributive Justice and Restorative Justice, he understood the division between the Christians who judge vs ones who forgive.
> EVEN among believing Christians, this understanding of Jesus as Justice is HIDDEN or obscured.
> It isn't obvious to all people, even though the concept is what it is; it is out there, not hidden, yet
> we don't all see it, at first, or at all.
> 
> With Bruce who is secular and does not believe in using Biblical language or symbols
> to ENFORCE positive things about justice, but only to ATTACK negative injustice,
> I don't think he SEES that Jesus aligns with Justice.
> 
> So he is "blind" to this, it is HIDDEN from him.
> He outright REJECTED any connection between Jesus with Justice.
> He aligns Christian dogma with injustice, so this is FOREIGN that it is SUPPOSED
> to mean Justice with Mercy, establishing Truth through Justice, etc.
> 
> B. the other example of hiding knowledge in plain public sight:
> the science and studies on spiritual healing, and the effect of forgiveness and
> deliverance on healing deep rooted sickness, addiction and abuse,
> have already been established FOR THOSE WHO LOOK INTO THIS RESEARCH.
> 
> For those who want to keep reinforcing REJECTION of the natural science of healing,
> this knowledge is OFF LIMITS, inaccessible, or Nonexistence.
> 
> it might as well be FRAUD with the malpractice and abuse of religion that is heard in the news.
> 
> The SUCCESSFUL testimonies, case studies and research is also out there.
> But it is "hidden in plain sight"
> 
> People are too busy fighting over religious division between faith and science.
> Not all people are ready to see that science can prove these methods of healing work naturally.
> 
> So that is a prime example, which I find fascinating,
> but TRAGIC that lives could be saved by these methods that are censored due to
> religious rejection of anything to do with Christian prayer, practice and healing process.
> 
> All accessible to the public, yet not accessible and cut off by division and rejection.
> Like having "water everywhere" and "not a drop to drink."
Click to expand...



Bruce is right.  To say God is the universe/love/laws of physics/patience/kindness/justice.

We already have names for these things. Redefining something as god tells us nothing. To use the word god implies a host of other attributes and if you dont intend to apply those attributes, using the word is intentionally misleading.

To call the world God is not to explain it; it is only to enrich our language with a superfluous synonym for the word world.  Arthur Schopenhauer

If Jesus is the son of god, but also god himself, then he supposedly sacrificed himself to himself to save what he created from himself. He also, therefore, prayed to himself and begged himself not to require himself be crucified in order to appease himself and save the world from the wrath of himself.  Anonymous

Theres no hell mentioned in the Old Testament. The punishment of the dead is not specified there. Its only with gentle Jesus, meek and mild, that the idea of eternal torture for minor transgressions is introduced.  Christopher Hitchens

Now, if the book of Genesis is an allegory, then sin is an allegory, the Fall is an allegory and the need for a Savior is an allegory  but if we are all descendants of an allegory, where does that leave us? It destroys the foundation of all Christian doctrineit destroys the foundation of the gospel. - Ken Ham


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any god that was infinite, ultimate, and absolute would not have to hide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi  [MENTION=11281]sealybobo[/MENTION]
> I thought of two good examples, where God's truth "doesn't have to hide"
> but can be hiding "in plain sight" and we just can't see it yet
> 
> A. I can't find the post where  [MENTION=48205]thebrucebeat[/MENTION] first said it
> but when I posted that "Jesus means Justice" he automatically
> retorted NO those two things have nothing in common, or something like that
> 
> When I share this same concept (that Jesus means Justice)
> with Christian friends at different times and places, they responded differently, too:
> a1. one of the friends took several minutes to realize this made sense to her.
> that Jesus WAS Justice, but didn't get it at first. It took thinking about before she agreed.
> a2. another friend at work IMMEDIATELY agreed of course, Jesus means Justice.
> he did not have to think about it because he already understood this
> a3. another friend was criticizing Christian fundamentalists for being unforgiving and hateful. once I explained the difference between Retributive Justice and Restorative Justice, he understood the division between the Christians who judge vs ones who forgive.
> EVEN among believing Christians, this understanding of Jesus as Justice is HIDDEN or obscured.
> It isn't obvious to all people, even though the concept is what it is; it is out there, not hidden, yet
> we don't all see it, at first, or at all.
> 
> With Bruce who is secular and does not believe in using Biblical language or symbols
> to ENFORCE positive things about justice, but only to ATTACK negative injustice,
> I don't think he SEES that Jesus aligns with Justice.
> 
> So he is "blind" to this, it is HIDDEN from him.
> He outright REJECTED any connection between Jesus with Justice.
> He aligns Christian dogma with injustice, so this is FOREIGN that it is SUPPOSED
> to mean Justice with Mercy, establishing Truth through Justice, etc.
> 
> B. the other example of hiding knowledge in plain public sight:
> the science and studies on spiritual healing, and the effect of forgiveness and
> deliverance on healing deep rooted sickness, addiction and abuse,
> have already been established FOR THOSE WHO LOOK INTO THIS RESEARCH.
> 
> For those who want to keep reinforcing REJECTION of the natural science of healing,
> this knowledge is OFF LIMITS, inaccessible, or Nonexistence.
> 
> it might as well be FRAUD with the malpractice and abuse of religion that is heard in the news.
> 
> The SUCCESSFUL testimonies, case studies and research is also out there.
> But it is "hidden in plain sight"
> 
> People are too busy fighting over religious division between faith and science.
> Not all people are ready to see that science can prove these methods of healing work naturally.
> 
> So that is a prime example, which I find fascinating,
> but TRAGIC that lives could be saved by these methods that are censored due to
> religious rejection of anything to do with Christian prayer, practice and healing process.
> 
> All accessible to the public, yet not accessible and cut off by division and rejection.
> Like having "water everywhere" and "not a drop to drink."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Bruce is right.  To say God is the universe/love/laws of physics/patience/kindness/justice.
> 
> We already have names for these things. Redefining something as god tells us nothing. To use the word god implies a host of other attributes and if you dont intend to apply those attributes, using the word is intentionally misleading.
> 
> To call the world God is not to explain it; it is only to enrich our language with a superfluous synonym for the word world.  Arthur Schopenhauer
> 
> If Jesus is the son of god, but also god himself, then he supposedly sacrificed himself to himself to save what he created from himself. He also, therefore, prayed to himself and begged himself not to require himself be crucified in order to appease himself and save the world from the wrath of himself.  Anonymous
> 
> Theres no hell mentioned in the Old Testament. The punishment of the dead is not specified there. Its only with gentle Jesus, meek and mild, that the idea of eternal torture for minor transgressions is introduced.  Christopher Hitchens
> 
> Now, if the book of Genesis is an allegory, then sin is an allegory, the Fall is an allegory and the need for a Savior is an allegory  but if we are all descendants of an allegory, where does that leave us? It destroys the foundation of all Christian doctrineit destroys the foundation of the gospel. - Ken Ham
Click to expand...


YOUR IGNORANCE KNOWS NO BOUNDS!! BEFORE YOU TRY TO DEBATE WHAT GOD'S WORD SAYS YOU NEED TO READ IT!!!duh!!


----------



## sealybobo

HUGGY said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> You must be confused.
> 
> The "topic" isn't your original post.
> 
> The title you chose is the "topic" you seldom stayed on.
> 
> My so called soul does not exist.  That is just jibberish and part of the scam to ensnare fools into feeling some reason to care about the fraud you and all christian type games you people attempt to run on the weak minded.
> 
> You don't have a soul either.  The sad part is that there will be no last instant of clarity ... an "oh shit" moment as your brain loses the last supply of oxygen.  There will be no justice for your crimes of deceit ...just nothing.  Good reason to persist in hating all things god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I always love it when my adversaries prove what kind of shallow minded idiots they are. Of course the topic is the OP and the title is simply what I decided to call the OP. The fact that you lack the mental competence to grasp that, speaks for itself.
> 
> It's good to know that you don't believe you have a soul. Although, you are among a very small sliver of society who will admit that. But you are right, you'll never see any justice for your disbelief. You'll spend your entire life hating God and not ever realizing how your time and efforts were wasted. Your feeble undernourished soul will simply descend to the next lower level of conscious awareness without ever experiencing the "oh shit" moment. Perhaps in the next life it will be paired with a vibrant mind which will acknowledge and appreciate it?
> 
> I like to be optimistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you claim to be clever.
> 
> That is the American way.  The road is paved with those that thought they were smarter than anyone else.
> 
> Your observation that I have a shallow mind is not totally untrue.
> 
> I am a simple man.  It is harder to fool a simple minded person than someone who is curious.  I have to admit that being a simple minded man that I never read your first post.
> 
> I don't care what was in it.
> 
> All that interested me was the title of the thread.  That's all I had the interest to respond to.
> 
> Being simple....I have simple needs.
> 
> I look for titles in the religious forum to use to attack religion.
> 
> I don't need to waste time trying to understand why anyone would believe any form of nonsense associated with spirituality, faith or scripture based beliefs.
> 
> It's all bunk....hokum..  poppycock.
> 
> It's my mission to help people come to rational conclusions concerning all forms of spirituality so they don't waste their time and money falling for this fraud.
> 
> Fraud is a crime.  Good people don't assist in crime.  Good people stand between crime and unwitting fools.
> 
> It's simple really.
Click to expand...




1.  First of all, I don't think the pro's outweigh the cons.  I know a lot of religious people do a lot of good things, but so do good citizens who aren't religious.  Maybe instead of giving churches tax breaks we give charities all the tax breaks so at least the church's main focus will then be charity and not gold ceilings.  

2.  Keep it to yourselves.  And stop mixing religion and politics.  Stop making gays and abortion rights wedge issues.  I think they use religion to divide us.  Hey everyone.  I asked my doctor for viagra.  He asked if I was married and I said no.  He said come back to me for pills when you are married.  His religion doesn't approve of pre marital sex.  

3.  I don't want to break up their little groups/clubs but when you donate to the GOP and push to have the 10 commandments and creationalism taught in school???

4.   If their religion wasn't unconstitutional and unamerican maybe I'd feel different, but all religions say they should be able to discriminate against segments of our American population.  Next who will it be us atheists?  Seperation of church and state.

5.  Sorry, I liked your post so much it got me thinking/rambling.

6.  Boss is an asshole.  We don't HATE god.  We just don't like what religion is and that is a lie.  The only think we are angry about is his ignorance.  Like a young child talking back to an adult.  

7.  I wish one day Boss would admit that his "faith" in their being a god means believing despite the fact that you have no hard concrete proof.  Trust me Boss, if christians could prove there is a god they would have done it 2000 years ago.  Oh yea, supposedly he did but won't do it for us today.  Oh yea, but Boss doesn't even believe that story.  He has his own ideas about who/what/why god does exist.  So he does see that man can create a very fascinating story about who/what/how/when god is but he thinks there must be a god because superstitious frightened uneducated homosapians couldn't have possibly invented it.  They couldn't even write and had no civilizations yet.  They buried their dead and feared the afterlife and the comits and the sun and rains and animals and made them all gods until they figured out none of them were god.  Now god hides somewhere inside the black holes.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi  [MENTION=11281]sealybobo[/MENTION]
> I thought of two good examples, where God's truth "doesn't have to hide"
> but can be hiding "in plain sight" and we just can't see it yet
> 
> A. I can't find the post where  [MENTION=48205]thebrucebeat[/MENTION] first said it
> but when I posted that "Jesus means Justice" he automatically
> retorted NO those two things have nothing in common, or something like that
> 
> When I share this same concept (that Jesus means Justice)
> with Christian friends at different times and places, they responded differently, too:
> a1. one of the friends took several minutes to realize this made sense to her.
> that Jesus WAS Justice, but didn't get it at first. It took thinking about before she agreed.
> a2. another friend at work IMMEDIATELY agreed of course, Jesus means Justice.
> he did not have to think about it because he already understood this
> a3. another friend was criticizing Christian fundamentalists for being unforgiving and hateful. once I explained the difference between Retributive Justice and Restorative Justice, he understood the division between the Christians who judge vs ones who forgive.
> EVEN among believing Christians, this understanding of Jesus as Justice is HIDDEN or obscured.
> It isn't obvious to all people, even though the concept is what it is; it is out there, not hidden, yet
> we don't all see it, at first, or at all.
> 
> With Bruce who is secular and does not believe in using Biblical language or symbols
> to ENFORCE positive things about justice, but only to ATTACK negative injustice,
> I don't think he SEES that Jesus aligns with Justice.
> 
> So he is "blind" to this, it is HIDDEN from him.
> He outright REJECTED any connection between Jesus with Justice.
> He aligns Christian dogma with injustice, so this is FOREIGN that it is SUPPOSED
> to mean Justice with Mercy, establishing Truth through Justice, etc.
> 
> B. the other example of hiding knowledge in plain public sight:
> the science and studies on spiritual healing, and the effect of forgiveness and
> deliverance on healing deep rooted sickness, addiction and abuse,
> have already been established FOR THOSE WHO LOOK INTO THIS RESEARCH.
> 
> For those who want to keep reinforcing REJECTION of the natural science of healing,
> this knowledge is OFF LIMITS, inaccessible, or Nonexistence.
> 
> it might as well be FRAUD with the malpractice and abuse of religion that is heard in the news.
> 
> The SUCCESSFUL testimonies, case studies and research is also out there.
> But it is "hidden in plain sight"
> 
> People are too busy fighting over religious division between faith and science.
> Not all people are ready to see that science can prove these methods of healing work naturally.
> 
> So that is a prime example, which I find fascinating,
> but TRAGIC that lives could be saved by these methods that are censored due to
> religious rejection of anything to do with Christian prayer, practice and healing process.
> 
> All accessible to the public, yet not accessible and cut off by division and rejection.
> Like having "water everywhere" and "not a drop to drink."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bruce is right.  To say God is the universe/love/laws of physics/patience/kindness/justice.
> 
> We already have names for these things. Redefining something as god tells us nothing. To use the word god implies a host of other attributes and if you dont intend to apply those attributes, using the word is intentionally misleading.
> 
> To call the world God is not to explain it; it is only to enrich our language with a superfluous synonym for the word world.  Arthur Schopenhauer
> 
> If Jesus is the son of god, but also god himself, then he supposedly sacrificed himself to himself to save what he created from himself. He also, therefore, prayed to himself and begged himself not to require himself be crucified in order to appease himself and save the world from the wrath of himself.  Anonymous
> 
> Theres no hell mentioned in the Old Testament. The punishment of the dead is not specified there. Its only with gentle Jesus, meek and mild, that the idea of eternal torture for minor transgressions is introduced.  Christopher Hitchens
> 
> Now, if the book of Genesis is an allegory, then sin is an allegory, the Fall is an allegory and the need for a Savior is an allegory  but if we are all descendants of an allegory, where does that leave us? It destroys the foundation of all Christian doctrineit destroys the foundation of the gospel. - Ken Ham
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOUR IGNORANCE KNOWS NO BOUNDS!! BEFORE YOU TRY TO DEBATE WHAT GOD'S WORD SAYS YOU NEED TO READ IT!!!duh!!
Click to expand...


I already did.  Now what? 

The Biblical account of Jesus has striking similarities with other mythologies and texts and many of his supposed teachings existed prior to his time. It is likely the character was either partly or entirely invented [2] by competing first century messianic cults from an amalgamation of Greco-Roman, Egyptian and Judeo-Apocalyptic myths and prophecies.

The Gospels themselves contradict one-another [2] on many key events and were constructed by unknown authors up to a century after the events they describe are said to have occurred. They are not eyewitness accounts. The New Testament, as a whole, contains many internal inconsistencies as a result of its piecemeal construction and is factually incorrect on several historical claims, such as the early existence of Nazareth, the reign of Herod and the Roman census. Like the Old Testament, it too has had entire books and sections redacted.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi  [MENTION=11281]sealybobo[/MENTION]
> I thought of two good examples, where God's truth "doesn't have to hide"
> but can be hiding "in plain sight" and we just can't see it yet
> 
> A. I can't find the post where  [MENTION=48205]thebrucebeat[/MENTION] first said it
> but when I posted that "Jesus means Justice" he automatically
> retorted NO those two things have nothing in common, or something like that
> 
> When I share this same concept (that Jesus means Justice)
> with Christian friends at different times and places, they responded differently, too:
> a1. one of the friends took several minutes to realize this made sense to her.
> that Jesus WAS Justice, but didn't get it at first. It took thinking about before she agreed.
> a2. another friend at work IMMEDIATELY agreed of course, Jesus means Justice.
> he did not have to think about it because he already understood this
> a3. another friend was criticizing Christian fundamentalists for being unforgiving and hateful. once I explained the difference between Retributive Justice and Restorative Justice, he understood the division between the Christians who judge vs ones who forgive.
> EVEN among believing Christians, this understanding of Jesus as Justice is HIDDEN or obscured.
> It isn't obvious to all people, even though the concept is what it is; it is out there, not hidden, yet
> we don't all see it, at first, or at all.
> 
> With Bruce who is secular and does not believe in using Biblical language or symbols
> to ENFORCE positive things about justice, but only to ATTACK negative injustice,
> I don't think he SEES that Jesus aligns with Justice.
> 
> So he is "blind" to this, it is HIDDEN from him.
> He outright REJECTED any connection between Jesus with Justice.
> He aligns Christian dogma with injustice, so this is FOREIGN that it is SUPPOSED
> to mean Justice with Mercy, establishing Truth through Justice, etc.
> 
> B. the other example of hiding knowledge in plain public sight:
> the science and studies on spiritual healing, and the effect of forgiveness and
> deliverance on healing deep rooted sickness, addiction and abuse,
> have already been established FOR THOSE WHO LOOK INTO THIS RESEARCH.
> 
> For those who want to keep reinforcing REJECTION of the natural science of healing,
> this knowledge is OFF LIMITS, inaccessible, or Nonexistence.
> 
> it might as well be FRAUD with the malpractice and abuse of religion that is heard in the news.
> 
> The SUCCESSFUL testimonies, case studies and research is also out there.
> But it is "hidden in plain sight"
> 
> People are too busy fighting over religious division between faith and science.
> Not all people are ready to see that science can prove these methods of healing work naturally.
> 
> So that is a prime example, which I find fascinating,
> but TRAGIC that lives could be saved by these methods that are censored due to
> religious rejection of anything to do with Christian prayer, practice and healing process.
> 
> All accessible to the public, yet not accessible and cut off by division and rejection.
> Like having "water everywhere" and "not a drop to drink."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bruce is right.  To say God is the universe/love/laws of physics/patience/kindness/justice.
> 
> We already have names for these things. Redefining something as god tells us nothing. To use the word god implies a host of other attributes and if you dont intend to apply those attributes, using the word is intentionally misleading.
> 
> To call the world God is not to explain it; it is only to enrich our language with a superfluous synonym for the word world.  Arthur Schopenhauer
> 
> If Jesus is the son of god, but also god himself, then he supposedly sacrificed himself to himself to save what he created from himself. He also, therefore, prayed to himself and begged himself not to require himself be crucified in order to appease himself and save the world from the wrath of himself.  Anonymous
> 
> Theres no hell mentioned in the Old Testament. The punishment of the dead is not specified there. Its only with gentle Jesus, meek and mild, that the idea of eternal torture for minor transgressions is introduced.  Christopher Hitchens
> 
> Now, if the book of Genesis is an allegory, then sin is an allegory, the Fall is an allegory and the need for a Savior is an allegory  but if we are all descendants of an allegory, where does that leave us? It destroys the foundation of all Christian doctrineit destroys the foundation of the gospel. - Ken Ham
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOUR IGNORANCE KNOWS NO BOUNDS!! BEFORE YOU TRY TO DEBATE WHAT GOD'S WORD SAYS YOU NEED TO READ IT!!!duh!!
Click to expand...


I read it and all the other religious books of the world and I found that the Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many religious texts. The Bible is historically inaccurate, factually incorrect, inconsistent and contradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bruce is right.  To say God is the universe/love/laws of physics/patience/kindness/justice.
> 
> We already have names for these things. Redefining something as &#8216;god&#8217; tells us nothing. To use the word &#8216;god&#8217; implies a host of other attributes and if you don&#8217;t intend to apply those attributes, using the word is intentionally misleading.
> 
> &#8220;To call the world God is not to explain it; it is only to enrich our language with a superfluous synonym for the word &#8216;world&#8217;.&#8221; &#8211; Arthur Schopenhauer
> 
> &#8220;If Jesus is the son of god, but also god himself, then he supposedly sacrificed himself to himself to save what he created from himself. He also, therefore, prayed to himself and begged himself not to require himself be crucified in order to appease himself and save the world from the wrath of himself.&#8221; &#8211; Anonymous
> 
> There&#8217;s no hell mentioned in the Old Testament. The punishment of the dead is not specified there. It&#8217;s only with gentle Jesus, meek and mild, that the idea of eternal torture for minor transgressions is introduced.&#8221; &#8211; Christopher Hitchens
> 
> &#8220;Now, if the book of Genesis is an allegory, then sin is an allegory, the Fall is an allegory and the need for a Savior is an allegory &#8211; but if we are all descendants of an allegory, where does that leave us? It destroys the foundation of all Christian doctrine&#8212;it destroys the foundation of the gospel.&#8221; - Ken Ham
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOUR IGNORANCE KNOWS NO BOUNDS!! BEFORE YOU TRY TO DEBATE WHAT GOD'S WORD SAYS YOU NEED TO READ IT!!!duh!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already did.  Now what?
> 
> The Biblical account of Jesus has striking similarities with other mythologies and texts and many of his supposed teachings existed prior to his time. It is likely the character was either partly or entirely invented [2] by competing first century messianic cults from an amalgamation of Greco-Roman, Egyptian and Judeo-Apocalyptic myths and prophecies.
> 
> The Gospels themselves contradict one-another [2] on many key events and were constructed by unknown authors up to a century after the events they describe are said to have occurred. They are not eyewitness accounts. The New Testament, as a whole, contains many internal inconsistencies as a result of its piecemeal construction and is factually incorrect on several historical claims, such as the early existence of Nazareth, the reign of Herod and the Roman census. Like the Old Testament, it too has had entire books and sections redacted.
Click to expand...


YOU HAVE NO UNDERSTANDING ABOUT GOD'S ETERNAL LIVING WORD!!! GOD IS OUTSIDE TIME, GOD'S WORD WAS BEFORE CREATION. AND ALL YOUR DOUBTS ABOUT THE BIBLE ARE DEMON INSPIRED AND THE RESULTS YOUR IGNORANCE!!!      =====HEY!!! almost my tennis time!!!


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi  [MENTION=11281]sealybobo[/MENTION]
> I thought of two good examples, where God's truth "doesn't have to hide"
> but can be hiding "in plain sight" and we just can't see it yet
> 
> A. I can't find the post where  [MENTION=48205]thebrucebeat[/MENTION] first said it
> but when I posted that "Jesus means Justice" he automatically
> retorted NO those two things have nothing in common, or something like that
> 
> When I share this same concept (that Jesus means Justice)
> with Christian friends at different times and places, they responded differently, too:
> a1. one of the friends took several minutes to realize this made sense to her.
> that Jesus WAS Justice, but didn't get it at first. It took thinking about before she agreed.
> a2. another friend at work IMMEDIATELY agreed of course, Jesus means Justice.
> he did not have to think about it because he already understood this
> a3. another friend was criticizing Christian fundamentalists for being unforgiving and hateful. once I explained the difference between Retributive Justice and Restorative Justice, he understood the division between the Christians who judge vs ones who forgive.
> EVEN among believing Christians, this understanding of Jesus as Justice is HIDDEN or obscured.
> It isn't obvious to all people, even though the concept is what it is; it is out there, not hidden, yet
> we don't all see it, at first, or at all.
> 
> With Bruce who is secular and does not believe in using Biblical language or symbols
> to ENFORCE positive things about justice, but only to ATTACK negative injustice,
> I don't think he SEES that Jesus aligns with Justice.
> 
> So he is "blind" to this, it is HIDDEN from him.
> He outright REJECTED any connection between Jesus with Justice.
> He aligns Christian dogma with injustice, so this is FOREIGN that it is SUPPOSED
> to mean Justice with Mercy, establishing Truth through Justice, etc.
> 
> B. the other example of hiding knowledge in plain public sight:
> the science and studies on spiritual healing, and the effect of forgiveness and
> deliverance on healing deep rooted sickness, addiction and abuse,
> have already been established FOR THOSE WHO LOOK INTO THIS RESEARCH.
> 
> For those who want to keep reinforcing REJECTION of the natural science of healing,
> this knowledge is OFF LIMITS, inaccessible, or Nonexistence.
> 
> it might as well be FRAUD with the malpractice and abuse of religion that is heard in the news.
> 
> The SUCCESSFUL testimonies, case studies and research is also out there.
> But it is "hidden in plain sight"
> 
> People are too busy fighting over religious division between faith and science.
> Not all people are ready to see that science can prove these methods of healing work naturally.
> 
> So that is a prime example, which I find fascinating,
> but TRAGIC that lives could be saved by these methods that are censored due to
> religious rejection of anything to do with Christian prayer, practice and healing process.
> 
> All accessible to the public, yet not accessible and cut off by division and rejection.
> Like having "water everywhere" and "not a drop to drink."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bruce is right.  To say God is the universe/love/laws of physics/patience/kindness/justice.
> 
> We already have names for these things. Redefining something as god tells us nothing. To use the word god implies a host of other attributes and if you dont intend to apply those attributes, using the word is intentionally misleading.
> 
> To call the world God is not to explain it; it is only to enrich our language with a superfluous synonym for the word world.  Arthur Schopenhauer
> 
> If Jesus is the son of god, but also god himself, then he supposedly sacrificed himself to himself to save what he created from himself. He also, therefore, prayed to himself and begged himself not to require himself be crucified in order to appease himself and save the world from the wrath of himself.  Anonymous
> 
> Theres no hell mentioned in the Old Testament. The punishment of the dead is not specified there. Its only with gentle Jesus, meek and mild, that the idea of eternal torture for minor transgressions is introduced.  Christopher Hitchens
> 
> Now, if the book of Genesis is an allegory, then sin is an allegory, the Fall is an allegory and the need for a Savior is an allegory  but if we are all descendants of an allegory, where does that leave us? It destroys the foundation of all Christian doctrineit destroys the foundation of the gospel. - Ken Ham
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOUR IGNORANCE KNOWS NO BOUNDS!! BEFORE YOU TRY TO DEBATE WHAT GOD'S WORD SAYS YOU NEED TO READ IT!!!duh!!
Click to expand...


You aren't even capable of reading the bible.  You had to rely on the Greeks who 

a.  Translated it from the old written language to Greek so ultimately red neck hillbilly Kintucke or Tenese cifering hicks like you could understand what it meant.  

b.  Greek priests are still to this day debating the meaning(s) throughout.  So its funny your televangelist preacher/reverand/minister cult leader is so sure about the meanings.

c.  Funny my priest never even mentioned gays.  He's always reading the bible and he never once talks about gays.  He has talked about the 7 deadly sins though, GISMYS!  Quit fingering yourself why you post.  THat's why she goes all caps.  Easier with one hand occupied.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOUR IGNORANCE KNOWS NO BOUNDS!! BEFORE YOU TRY TO DEBATE WHAT GOD'S WORD SAYS YOU NEED TO READ IT!!!duh!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already did.  Now what?
> 
> The Biblical account of Jesus has striking similarities with other mythologies and texts and many of his supposed teachings existed prior to his time. It is likely the character was either partly or entirely invented [2] by competing first century messianic cults from an amalgamation of Greco-Roman, Egyptian and Judeo-Apocalyptic myths and prophecies.
> 
> The Gospels themselves contradict one-another [2] on many key events and were constructed by unknown authors up to a century after the events they describe are said to have occurred. They are not eyewitness accounts. The New Testament, as a whole, contains many internal inconsistencies as a result of its piecemeal construction and is factually incorrect on several historical claims, such as the early existence of Nazareth, the reign of Herod and the Roman census. Like the Old Testament, it too has had entire books and sections redacted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOU HAVE NO UNDERSTANDING ABOUT GOD'S ETERNAL LIVING WORD!!! GOD IS OUTSIDE TIME, GOD'S WORD WAS BEFORE CREATION. AND ALL YOUR DOUBTS ABOUT THE BIBLE ARE DEMON INSPIRED AND THE RESULTS YOUR IGNORANCE!!!      =====HEY!!! almost my tennis time!!!
Click to expand...


If there is a god he don't care about me or you.  Have fun at tennis stupid.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOUR IGNORANCE KNOWS NO BOUNDS!! BEFORE YOU TRY TO DEBATE WHAT GOD'S WORD SAYS YOU NEED TO READ IT!!!duh!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already did.  Now what?
> 
> The Biblical account of Jesus has striking similarities with other mythologies and texts and many of his supposed teachings existed prior to his time. It is likely the character was either partly or entirely invented [2] by competing first century messianic cults from an amalgamation of Greco-Roman, Egyptian and Judeo-Apocalyptic myths and prophecies.
> 
> The Gospels themselves contradict one-another [2] on many key events and were constructed by unknown authors up to a century after the events they describe are said to have occurred. They are not eyewitness accounts. The New Testament, as a whole, contains many internal inconsistencies as a result of its piecemeal construction and is factually incorrect on several historical claims, such as the early existence of Nazareth, the reign of Herod and the Roman census. Like the Old Testament, it too has had entire books and sections redacted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOU HAVE NO UNDERSTANDING ABOUT GOD'S ETERNAL LIVING WORD!!! GOD IS OUTSIDE TIME, GOD'S WORD WAS BEFORE CREATION. AND ALL YOUR DOUBTS ABOUT THE BIBLE ARE DEMON INSPIRED AND THE RESULTS YOUR IGNORANCE!!!      =====HEY!!! almost my tennis time!!!
Click to expand...


Do they have tennis courts in the prison yard?  Seems like you are on USMB 24/7 this is the first time you've said you had somewhere to go.  Do they let you out for 1 hour a day?  2-3pm?  See you at 3:15 after you shower with Crazy Eyes.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bruce is right.  To say God is the universe/love/laws of physics/patience/kindness/justice.
> 
> We already have names for these things. Redefining something as god tells us nothing. To use the word god implies a host of other attributes and if you dont intend to apply those attributes, using the word is intentionally misleading.
> 
> To call the world God is not to explain it; it is only to enrich our language with a superfluous synonym for the word world.  Arthur Schopenhauer
> 
> If Jesus is the son of god, but also god himself, then he supposedly sacrificed himself to himself to save what he created from himself. He also, therefore, prayed to himself and begged himself not to require himself be crucified in order to appease himself and save the world from the wrath of himself.  Anonymous
> 
> Theres no hell mentioned in the Old Testament. The punishment of the dead is not specified there. Its only with gentle Jesus, meek and mild, that the idea of eternal torture for minor transgressions is introduced.  Christopher Hitchens
> 
> Now, if the book of Genesis is an allegory, then sin is an allegory, the Fall is an allegory and the need for a Savior is an allegory  but if we are all descendants of an allegory, where does that leave us? It destroys the foundation of all Christian doctrineit destroys the foundation of the gospel. - Ken Ham
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOUR IGNORANCE KNOWS NO BOUNDS!! BEFORE YOU TRY TO DEBATE WHAT GOD'S WORD SAYS YOU NEED TO READ IT!!!duh!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You aren't even capable of reading the bible.  You had to rely on the Greeks who
> 
> a.  Translated it from the old written language to Greek so ultimately red neck hillbilly Kintucke or Tenese cifering hicks like you could understand what it meant.
> 
> b.  Greek priests are still to this day debating the meaning(s) throughout.  So its funny your televangelist preacher/reverand/minister cult leader is so sure about the meanings.
> 
> c.  Funny my priest never even mentioned gays.  He's always reading the bible and he never once talks about gays.  He has talked about the 7 deadly sins though, GISMYS!  Quit fingering yourself why you post.  THat's why she goes all caps.  Easier with one hand occupied.
Click to expand...



John 1:1-5 Before anything else existed, there was "THE WORD" Christ,* with God. He has always been alive and is himself God.  3 He created everything there isnothing exists that he didnt make.  4 Eternal life is in him, and this life gives light to all mankind.  5 His life is the light that shines through the darknessand the darkness can never extinguish it.
John 1:1-5


----------



## Boss

> Bruce is right. To say God is the universe/love/laws of physics/patience/kindness/justice.
> 
> We already have names for these things. Redefining something as &#8216;god&#8217; tells us nothing.



You act as if God is some new idea we just recently came up with. A word we invented to "redefine" things. Sorry, but God precedes all those things, including language and thought as well as humans.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> Bruce is right. To say God is the universe/love/laws of physics/patience/kindness/justice.
> 
> We already have names for these things. Redefining something as god tells us nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You act as if God is some new idea we just recently came up with. A word we invented to "redefine" things. Sorry, but God precedes all those things, including language and thought as well as humans.
Click to expand...


John 1:1-5 Before anything else existed, there was "THE WORD" Christ,* with God. He has always been alive and is himself God. 3 He created everything there isnothing exists that he didnt make. 4 Eternal life is in him, and this life gives light to all mankind. 5 His life is the light that shines through the darknessand the darkness can never extinguish it.
John 1:1-5


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bruce is right. To say God is the universe/love/laws of physics/patience/kindness/justice.
> 
> We already have names for these things. Redefining something as god tells us nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You act as if God is some new idea we just recently came up with. A word we invented to "redefine" things. Sorry, but God precedes all those things, including language and thought as well as humans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> John 1:1-5 Before anything else existed, there was "THE WORD" Christ,* with God. He has always been alive and is himself God. 3 He created everything there isnothing exists that he didnt make. 4 Eternal life is in him, and this life gives light to all mankind. 5 His life is the light that shines through the darknessand the darkness can never extinguish it.
> John 1:1-5
Click to expand...


Why are you quoting a religious text you don't believe in to make your point? Does that not strike you as just a little bit on the stupid side? 

Let's go back to rudimentary science and what we know from observable evidence. The physical universe exists. It came to exist as the result of a cosmic "Big Bang" which created physical reality, time and space. God is the spiritual force which made that happen. It is impossible for the universe to have happened any other way. Physical nature cannot create itself because energy doesn't spontaneously create itself. E=mc2. Newton's Laws of Motion tells us things do not put themselves into motion. If the universe is in motion, it had to be put in motion by something, and if physical reality did not exist, it couldn't have been physical.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> You act as if God is some new idea we just recently came up with. A word we invented to "redefine" things. Sorry, but God precedes all those things, including language and thought as well as humans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John 1:1-5 Before anything else existed, there was "THE WORD" Christ,* with God. He has always been alive and is himself God. 3 He created everything there isnothing exists that he didnt make. 4 Eternal life is in him, and this life gives light to all mankind. 5 His life is the light that shines through the darknessand the darkness can never extinguish it.
> John 1:1-5
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you quoting a religious text you don't believe in to make your point? Does that not strike you as just a little bit on the stupid side?
> 
> Let's go back to rudimentary science and what we know from observable evidence. The physical universe exists. It came to exist as the result of a cosmic "Big Bang" which created physical reality, time and space. God is the spiritual force which made that happen. It is impossible for the universe to have happened any other way. Physical nature cannot create itself because energy doesn't spontaneously create itself. E=mc2. Newton's Laws of Motion tells us things do not put themselves into motion. If the universe is in motion, it had to be put in motion by something, and if physical reality did not exist, it couldn't have been physical.
Click to expand...


That was Gismys' quote.  

While non-human primates are not religious, they do exhibit some traits that would have been necessary for the evolution of religion. These traits include high intelligence, a capacity for symbolic communication, a sense of social norms, realization of "self" and a concept of continuity.   

The use of burial rituals is evidence of religious activity, but there is no other evidence that religion existed in human culture before humans reached behavioral modernity.

Behavioral modernity refers to a set of traits that distinguish present day humans and their recent ancestors from both other living primates and other extinct hominid lineages. It is the point at which Homo sapiens began to demonstrate an ability to use complex symbolic thought and express cultural creativity. These developments are often thought to be associated with the origin of language. Elements of behavioral modernity include finely-made tools, fishing, long-distance exchange or barter among groups, self-ornamentation, figurative art, games, music, cooking and burial.

The religious mind is one consequence of a brain that is large enough to formulate religious and philosophical ideas. During human evolution, the hominid brain tripled in size, peaking 500,000 years ago. Much of the brain's expansion took place in the neocortex. This part of the brain is involved in processing higher order cognitive functions that are connected with human religiosity. The neocortex is associated with self-consciousness, language and emotion.  The neocortex size of any species correlates with the level of social complexity of the particular species. The neocortex size correlates with a number of social variables that include social group size and complexity of mating behaviors. In chimpanzees the neocortex occupies 50% of the brain, whereas in modern humans it occupies 80% of the brain.

The critical event in the evolution of the neocortex took place at the speciation of archaic homo sapiens about 500,000 years ago.  Only after the speciation event is the neocortex large enough to process complex social phenomena such as language and religion. 

So when our brains got big enough to have an imagination, that's when we invented god.  But you say this is proof of a god?  No it is not.  They were only 1 step out of the cave.  Just look at how ignorant/back woods/uneducated our grandfathers were.  Now go back 30 generations.


----------



## Boss

You're all over the board with your speculations and theories here. Brain size has little to do with anything at all. Dinosaurs had brains considerably larger than humans. Whales and great apes have a neocortex larger than humans. You've never shown a "speciation event" to have happened. This is a theory, a speculation. So are all the assorted assumptions you are making about how humans "invented" God. 

Religions were invented. Spirituality was not. For whatever reason, humans have ALWAYS had the intrinsic ability to spiritually connect to something greater than self. Whether God designed us this way originally or God bestowed this upon us after we evolved into being, doesn't really matter. From the start, it distinguished humans from all other animals. This is very difficult to explain naturally, given the facts we know to be true. All behavioral attributes in nature are traceable to common ancestry. Spirituality is not. So we have this relatively new species arriving 500k years ago, achieving unprecedented levels of accomplishment, mind boggling achievement and knowledge, and we also just so happen to have this behavioral attribute found nowhere else in nature. We must consider these are connected fundamentally, and they are.


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> Just look at how ignorant/back woods/uneducated our grandfathers were.



reminds me of an interesting story.....I was baptized in a small Iowa country church.....I was the first child baptized by a young minister fresh out of the seminary....he went on to become the chairman of our entire denomination spanning all of North America.....5,000+ congregations....I heard him speak at his retirement celebration.....

he spoke about his first church.....he said he was getting ready for a consistory meeting....one of the matters up for discussion was about a controversial doctrinal matter....he was worried the elders were going to put him on the spot about the teachings of the church on the matter so he spent days preparing, researching, crafting arguments and counter arguments.....

he said when the meeting began the elders, all Iowa farmers, started discussing the teachings of Calvin regarding the issue and reached a conclusion without even asking him a question, covering everything he had diligently studied from their own memories of Calvin's writings.....

one of those elders was my "ignorant" grandfather......


----------



## HUGGY

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> John 1:1-5 Before anything else existed, there was "THE WORD" Christ,* with God. He has always been alive and is himself God. 3 He created everything there isnothing exists that he didnt make. 4 Eternal life is in him, and this life gives light to all mankind. 5 His life is the light that shines through the darknessand the darkness can never extinguish it.
> John 1:1-5
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you quoting a religious text you don't believe in to make your point? Does that not strike you as just a little bit on the stupid side?
> 
> Let's go back to rudimentary science and what we know from observable evidence. The physical universe exists. It came to exist as the result of a cosmic "Big Bang" which created physical reality, time and space. God is the spiritual force which made that happen. It is impossible for the universe to have happened any other way. Physical nature cannot create itself because energy doesn't spontaneously create itself. E=mc2. Newton's Laws of Motion tells us things do not put themselves into motion. If the universe is in motion, it had to be put in motion by something, and if physical reality did not exist, it couldn't have been physical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was Gismys' quote.
> 
> While non-human primates are not religious, they do exhibit some traits that would have been necessary for the evolution of religion. These traits include high intelligence, a capacity for symbolic communication, a sense of social norms, realization of "self" and a concept of continuity.
> 
> The use of burial rituals is evidence of religious activity, but there is no other evidence that religion existed in human culture before humans reached behavioral modernity.
> 
> Behavioral modernity refers to a set of traits that distinguish present day humans and their recent ancestors from both other living primates and other extinct hominid lineages. It is the point at which Homo sapiens began to demonstrate an ability to use complex symbolic thought and express cultural creativity. These developments are often thought to be associated with the origin of language. Elements of behavioral modernity include finely-made tools, fishing, long-distance exchange or barter among groups, self-ornamentation, figurative art, games, music, cooking and burial.
> 
> The religious mind is one consequence of a brain that is large enough to formulate religious and philosophical ideas. During human evolution, the hominid brain tripled in size, peaking 500,000 years ago. Much of the brain's expansion took place in the neocortex. This part of the brain is involved in processing higher order cognitive functions that are connected with human religiosity. The neocortex is associated with self-consciousness, language and emotion.  The neocortex size of any species correlates with the level of social complexity of the particular species. The neocortex size correlates with a number of social variables that include social group size and complexity of mating behaviors. In chimpanzees the neocortex occupies 50% of the brain, whereas in modern humans it occupies 80% of the brain.
> 
> The critical event in the evolution of the neocortex took place at the speciation of archaic homo sapiens about 500,000 years ago.  Only after the speciation event is the neocortex large enough to process complex social phenomena such as language and religion.
> 
> So when our brains got big enough to have an imagination, that's when we invented god.  But you say this is proof of a god?  No it is not.  They were only 1 step out of the cave.  Just look at how ignorant/back woods/uneducated our grandfathers were.  Now go back 30 generations.
Click to expand...


A human reproductive generation is around 20 years.  A Israelite generation is said to be 40 years as that is the length of time they wandered through the desert.  Some say 100 years.. 

Some claim a generation is as long as it takes a society to "get" a new way of being or understanding the latest circumstance and the lessons it forces us to go through.

Examples..the WWI generation..the WWII generation including the invention of the atomic bomb.  The Viet Nam generation including the protests and divide created among us.  There was a generation created that witnessed the Kennedy assacination and the lack of trust in the powers that be.  There was a generation started with 9/11.  

At best a generation is a vague measurement.


----------



## Boss

Here is a prolific thought to ponder. What really exists? People will say God doesn't exist because they see no evidence, but in actuality, what does exist?  Can we say the past exists? It's in the past. The things that have been written here earlier this day, or yesterday, last week, a month ago... no longer exist in reality, they are past events. At one time, they were reality. Do the events of the future exist? Well, not yet. They will exist in reality the moment they happen, then they will become the past and no longer exist. However, we are not sure if they will ever actually exist, the universe could abruptly end before you finish reading this sentence. Whew... it didn't, but the point is, it could have. You are now experiencing a totally different reality than when you began reading this paragraph, and that moment when you began reading is now the past and no longer part of reality. 

Our perception of reality is but a fleeting moment in time. It is constantly moving, every second, every nanosecond, what was real is gone forever, part of the past and what was real at one time. There is no way to stop this process or reverse it. At least, not as of now. The present is all that is real and all that exists. Reality is not the future or past, it is the present. It is in constant state of change. 

Just something to think about when discussing what is real, what exists, and reality.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> Here is a prolific thought to ponder. What really exists? People will say God doesn't exist because they see no evidence, but in actuality, what does exist?  Can we say the past exists? It's in the past. The things that have been written here earlier this day, or yesterday, last week, a month ago... no longer exist in reality, they are past events. At one time, they were reality. Do the events of the future exist? Well, not yet. They will exist in reality the moment they happen, then they will become the past and no longer exist. However, we are not sure if they will ever actually exist, the universe could abruptly end before you finish reading this sentence. Whew... it didn't, but the point is, it could have. You are now experiencing a totally different reality than when you began reading this paragraph, and that moment when you began reading is now the past and no longer part of reality.
> 
> Our perception of reality is but a fleeting moment in time. It is constantly moving, every second, every nanosecond, what was real is gone forever, part of the past and what was real at one time. There is no way to stop this process or reverse it. At least, not as of now. The present is all that is real and all that exists. Reality is not the future or past, it is the present. It is in constant state of change.
> 
> Just something to think about when discussing what is real, what exists, and reality.



Yea yea the old if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, does it make a noise routine.  Who's on second?  No, THIRD BASE.

You're assuming god talked to adam, noah & moses.  He didn't.  If he did in "the past" then I would say god exists or at least existed.  But since that's all made up all you have is wishful thinking.  

Because our barely smarter than ape ancestors invented god you believe.  They also invented the idea that the earth was flat.  They were wrong.


----------



## sealybobo

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just look at how ignorant/back woods/uneducated our grandfathers were.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> reminds me of an interesting story.....I was baptized in a small Iowa country church.....I was the first child baptized by a young minister fresh out of the seminary....he went on to become the chairman of our entire denomination spanning all of North America.....5,000+ congregations....I heard him speak at his retirement celebration.....
> 
> he spoke about his first church.....he said he was getting ready for a consistory meeting....one of the matters up for discussion was about a controversial doctrinal matter....he was worried the elders were going to put him on the spot about the teachings of the church on the matter so he spent days preparing, researching, crafting arguments and counter arguments.....
> 
> he said when the meeting began the elders, all Iowa farmers, started discussing the teachings of Calvin regarding the issue and reached a conclusion without even asking him a question, covering everything he had diligently studied from their own memories of Calvin's writings.....
> 
> one of those elders was my "ignorant" grandfather......
Click to expand...


What's your point?  As far as science goes your grandparents were probably just as ignorant as mine.  AND, your grandfather, just like you and I, was brainwashed from birth to believe in god.  

Don't take it personally.  80% of the world believes in god.  That doesn't mean its right.  Us humans are still pretty unevolved/primative.  How much of our brains do we use?  There is still a lot to learn.  Yes, our ancestors were stupid and they passed on a lie to us.  Not their fault.  They were told the fables when they were children so of course they told them to you.  We've been doing it since men wrote the bible around 1900 years ago.  Its time we stop telling the lie.  At least keep it to yourselves.  Don't try to push that shit on us in school or in our government.


----------



## Boss

> Yea yea the old if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, does it make a noise routine.



Not at all. Regardless of who hears what, once the tree falls the event is part of the past and no longer reality. It may be the last time a tree ever falls, the universe can end at any time. Reality is only what is experienced for the instant it happens. You can't hold the past or experience the past again, it's gone forever. You may remember it, but the experience was only the instant it happened. It no longer exists in reality. It will never exist again in reality.


----------



## GISMYS

Boss said:


> Yea yea the old if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, does it make a noise routine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all. Regardless of who hears what, once the tree falls the event is part of the past and no longer reality. It may be the last time a tree ever falls, the universe can end at any time. Reality is only what is experienced for the instant it happens. You can't hold the past or experience the past again, it's gone forever. You may remember it, but the experience was only the instant it happened. It no longer exists in reality. It will never exist again in reality.
Click to expand...


UNLESS YOU WERE GOD,GOD SEES THE BEGINNING TO THE END OF THE AGE NOW!!!=TODAY!!! GOD IS THE ALPHA AND OMEGA=GOD IS OUTSIDE TIME!!! Wow!!!


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just look at how ignorant/back woods/uneducated our grandfathers were.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> reminds me of an interesting story.....I was baptized in a small Iowa country church.....I was the first child baptized by a young minister fresh out of the seminary....he went on to become the chairman of our entire denomination spanning all of North America.....5,000+ congregations....I heard him speak at his retirement celebration.....
> 
> he spoke about his first church.....he said he was getting ready for a consistory meeting....one of the matters up for discussion was about a controversial doctrinal matter....he was worried the elders were going to put him on the spot about the teachings of the church on the matter so he spent days preparing, researching, crafting arguments and counter arguments.....
> 
> he said when the meeting began the elders, all Iowa farmers, started discussing the teachings of Calvin regarding the issue and reached a conclusion without even asking him a question, covering everything he had diligently studied from their own memories of Calvin's writings.....
> 
> one of those elders was my "ignorant" grandfather......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's your point?
Click to expand...


/shrugs....my point is, my grandfather was less ignorant than you...../


----------



## HUGGY

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> *reminds me of an interesting story*.....I was baptized in a small Iowa country church.....I was the first child baptized by a young minister fresh out of the seminary....he went on to become the chairman of our entire denomination spanning all of North America.....5,000+ congregations....I heard him speak at his retirement celebration.....
> 
> he spoke about his first church.....he said he was getting ready for a consistory meeting....one of the matters up for discussion was about a controversial doctrinal matter....he was worried the elders were going to put him on the spot about the teachings of the church on the matter so he spent days preparing, researching, crafting arguments and counter arguments.....
> 
> he said when the meeting began the elders, all Iowa farmers, started discussing the teachings of Calvin regarding the issue and reached a conclusion without even asking him a question, covering everything he had diligently studied from their own memories of Calvin's writings.....
> 
> one of those elders was my "ignorant" grandfather......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> /shrugs....my point is, my grandfather was less ignorant than you...../
Click to expand...


*"reminds me of an interesting story"*.....

This family reprise seems not as "interesting" as you might imagine... 

In it's own small way another reason to hate god?


----------



## Boss

Huggy, let me say that I am truly sorry for whatever has happened in your life to cause such visceral hate and hostility toward your fellow man. If there were any way for myself or anyone to take that pain away and restore love in your heart, I would gladly do it. For your sake, I wish that I could tell you how this expression of hate and revile for God is going to ultimately make things better for you, but it will not. I know that you don't get that right now, but I will pray you one day come to that realization. It honestly troubles me to see someone so miserable and in anguish, and I hope you can overcome that some day.


----------



## PostmodernProph

HUGGY said:


> In it's own small way another reason to hate god?



perhaps, if there is a strange twist in your psyche.....


----------



## GISMYS

PostmodernProph said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> In it's own small way another reason to hate god?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> perhaps, if there is a strange twist in your psyche.....
Click to expand...


TYPICAL IGNORANT little sin loving man wants to hate the only one that could help him.


----------



## BreezeWood

GISMYS said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> In it's own small way another reason to hate god?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> perhaps, if there is a strange twist in your psyche.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> TYPICAL IGNORANT little sin loving man* wants to hate the only one that could help him.
Click to expand...



*TYPICAL IGNORANT little sin loving man ...*


good play on the OP, however it is a stretch to accuse HUGGY of being a Scripturalist ...

.


----------



## GISMYS

GOD OFFERS MANKIND LOVE,FORGIVNESS AND LIFE ETERNAL, WHY DO SO MANY CHOSE SIN AND DEATH?? YOU CANNOT BLAME GOD,THE CHOICE IS ALL YOURS!!! Choose wisely!!!


----------



## HUGGY

Boss said:


> Huggy, let me say that I am truly sorry for whatever has happened in your life to cause such visceral hate and hostility toward your fellow man. If there were any way for myself or anyone to take that pain away and restore love in your heart, I would gladly do it. For your sake, I wish that I could tell you how this expression of hate and revile for God is going to ultimately make things better for you, but it will not. I know that you don't get that right now, but I will pray you one day come to that realization. It honestly troubles me to see someone so miserable and in anguish, and I hope you can overcome that some day.



I have no doubt you are sincere.  

I see people every day that seem sincere and still are as wrong as is possible without a clue.

Even today I was heading home from the Ballard machine shop I have recently been working at to suppliment my income.  I was in fairly heavy traffic on an arterial with three lanes in either direction and a turn lane in the middle.  There was a big new 4X4 waiting to turn onto a cross street in front of me and as I sat there waitng for my light to go green a few cars ahead I had left the big black truck plenty of room to make his ill advised turn.  Finally my traffic started to pull ahead in front of me and I had to go.  As I passed the driver of the truck his window and mine were down and he said to me loudly and clearly..."THAT was stupid" !!!" as if his now impossible turn against traffic was MY FAULT.

I could tell from the tone of his insult that he truly believed he was in the right and the fact that I had to move with traffic was in his mind "stupid".

One block up and one block down this impatient driver could have done whatever he wanted with a traffic light to gaurantee his progress.  

But no... I was "stupid".  

I'm not absolutely sure but I think I saw one of those Jesus Fishes on his tailgate as I drove past him and absorbed his complaint.  

You, Boss, remind me a little of Mr Right I encountered today.  

You could not be more wrong about my general disposition and state of personal well being.

It is true that for a while my health...specifically pain in my back, hip and leg were a concern and frankly a serious impediment to normal activity...sleep etc...

That has finally been corrected to a major degree with good pain meds and I couldn't be happier with progress in that regard.

My contribution to these religious threads does not reflect any special hatefull attitude towards life or people in general.

I have never been personally abused by religious people as I developed my attitude and disbelief very early on..by around age 5-6 I was pretty sure religion was nonsense.  I have never allowed myself to be put in a position where people like that had any power over me.  

That didn't stop me from reading the bibles and the Koran and the BofM and many other religious writings.  The more I read the more I was convinced my first impressions were confirmed.

Sometimes I like to have fun with it and attempt to show a more aggressive hatefull display but that is just here on this forum.  Just for fun.. sort of an equal "faith" and passion as what I am up against.  I rarely get real worked up..seldom curse or get personal with insults.

So to keep it short...   Don't you lose any sleep over me.  I don't lose any over you or the others that are far more fanatic like Jizzy.  If I were you I would be far more concerned about HIS mental health..


----------



## HUGGY

PostmodernProph said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> In it's own small way another reason to hate god?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> perhaps, if there is a strange twist in your psyche.....
Click to expand...


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbK0C9AYMd8]Chubby Checker - The Twist - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Boss

> That didn't stop me from reading the bibles and the Koran and the BofM and many other religious writings. The more I read the more I was convinced my first impressions were confirmed.



Everything you have indicated in this thread confirms a deep-seated hatred and disdain for religion. Repeatedly, you revert to banal rants about various religious beliefs or religious people in general. It is as if your mind cannot comprehend a spiritual God that is not affiliated with religion. In this latest rant, you show us how your mind immediately casts a judgement on someone in a truck because they had a religious symbol on the bumper. The source of all your bitterness and animosity is clearly religion. 

Now I don't know you personally, I have no idea of what the people around you think of you, or how you handle day to day choices of a moral nature. However, for someone who honestly believes they have no soul, there can be no foundational basis for a belief in good and bad. It all becomes completely subjective and based on whatever your mind decides is best in the moment. Because you believe you have no soul and no accountability for it, you can establish your own perspectives and give yourself the right to cast judgement on others. For all intents and purposes, you have become your own God. 

While this seems to suit you just fine, we can clearly see there is a problem. Here you are, venting and ranting against a God you claim you don't believe in. Saying whatever clever things you can think of to hurt others and disparage their beliefs any way you can. The reason is, you are empty inside. Your soul is not content with yourself as God. You feel that you can shake this emptiness if you can log into USMB and verbally abuse some Christians. That seems to make you feel better for the moment, in fact, you're proud of it and you believe it will all be okay. But it won't be okay. Eventually this will no longer satisfy you. You'll feel the need to hurt Christians in a more direct way, and you'll justify it when the time comes. Your mind will continue to hold your soul hostage, all because you can't mentally envision a God not affiliated with religion.


----------



## HUGGY

Boss said:


> That didn't stop me from reading the bibles and the Koran and the BofM and many other religious writings. The more I read the more I was convinced my first impressions were confirmed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything you have indicated in this thread confirms a deep-seated hatred and disdain for religion. Repeatedly, you revert to banal rants about various religious beliefs or religious people in general. It is as if your mind cannot comprehend a spiritual God that is not affiliated with religion. In this latest rant, you show us how your mind immediately casts a judgement on someone in a truck because they had a religious symbol on the bumper. The source of all your bitterness and animosity is clearly religion.
> 
> Now I don't know you personally, I have no idea of what the people around you think of you, or how you handle day to day choices of a moral nature. However, for someone who honestly believes they have no soul, there can be no foundational basis for a belief in good and bad. It all becomes completely subjective and based on whatever your mind decides is best in the moment. Because you believe you have no soul and no accountability for it, you can establish your own perspectives and give yourself the right to cast judgement on others. For all intents and purposes, you have become your own God.
> 
> While this seems to suit you just fine, we can clearly see there is a problem. Here you are, venting and ranting against a God you claim you don't believe in. Saying whatever clever things you can think of to hurt others and disparage their beliefs any way you can. The reason is, you are empty inside. Your soul is not content with yourself as God. You feel that you can shake this emptiness if you can log into USMB and verbally abuse some Christians. That seems to make you feel better for the moment, in fact, you're proud of it and you believe it will all be okay. But it won't be okay. Eventually this will no longer satisfy you. You'll feel the need to hurt Christians in a more direct way, and you'll justify it when the time comes. Your mind will continue to hold your soul hostage, all because you can't mentally envision a God not affiliated with religion.
Click to expand...


You paint a pretty gloomy picture there Bub.  

PS...  I might have imagined the part about the fish on the back of the wrong guy's pickup..


----------



## BreezeWood

HUGGY said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That didn't stop me from reading the bibles and the Koran and the BofM and many other religious writings. The more I read the more I was convinced my first impressions were confirmed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything you have indicated in this thread confirms a deep-seated hatred and disdain for religion. Repeatedly, you revert to banal rants about various religious beliefs or religious people in general. It is as if your mind cannot comprehend a spiritual God that is not affiliated with religion. In this latest rant, you show us how your mind immediately casts a judgement on someone in a truck because they had a religious symbol on the bumper. The source of all your bitterness and animosity is clearly religion.
> 
> Now I don't know you personally, I have no idea of what the people around you think of you, or how you handle day to day choices of a moral nature. However, for someone who honestly believes they have no soul, there can be no foundational basis for a belief in good and bad. It all becomes completely subjective and based on whatever your mind decides is best in the moment. Because you believe you have no soul and no accountability for it, you can establish your own perspectives and give yourself the right to cast judgement on others. For all intents and purposes, you have become your own God.
> 
> While this seems to suit you just fine, we can clearly see there is a problem. Here you are, venting and ranting against a God you claim you don't believe in. Saying whatever clever things you can think of to hurt others and disparage their beliefs any way you can. The reason is, you are empty inside. Your soul is not content with yourself as God. You feel that you can shake this emptiness if you can log into USMB and verbally abuse some Christians. That seems to make you feel better for the moment, in fact, you're proud of it and you believe it will all be okay. But it won't be okay. Eventually this will no longer satisfy you. You'll feel the need to hurt Christians in a more direct way, and you'll justify it when the time comes. Your mind will continue to hold your soul hostage, all because you can't mentally envision a God not affiliated with religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You paint a pretty gloomy picture there Bub.
> 
> PS...  I might have imagined the part about the fish on the back of the wrong guy's pickup..
Click to expand...



*It is as if your mind cannot comprehend a spiritual God that is not affiliated with religion.*


"pot meets kettle" -


actually, it is the proper religion defining the Spiritual path for Admission the Scripturalist are unable to comprehend as the true pursuit not yet accomplished.

.


----------



## Boss

BreezeWood said:


> *It is as if your mind cannot comprehend a spiritual God that is not affiliated with religion.*
> 
> "pot meets kettle" -
> 
> actually, it is the proper religion defining the Spiritual path for Admission the Scripturalist are unable to comprehend as the true pursuit not yet accomplished.



Easy there, Mr. Everlasting... the man with no soul shouldn't need your help.


----------



## Boss

> *silly boob:* You're assuming god talked to adam, noah & moses. He didn't. If he did in "the past" then I would say god exists or at least existed. But since that's all made up all you have is wishful thinking.
> 
> Because our barely smarter than ape ancestors invented god you believe. They also invented the idea that the earth was flat. They were wrong.



Why do you continue to attempt steering the argument back to a religious belief in the God of Abraham, which I've repeatedly denied having belief in? Is this because the only way you've learned to argue against God is if God is the God of Abraham depicted in The Bible? I've assumed nothing about Adam, Noah or Moses... haven't mentioned them. 

Our "barely smarter than ape ancestors," presuming you mean the ones from 500k years ago when homo sapiens first arrived on the scene, did not invent the God of Adam, Noah or Moses. In fact, I suspect if you went back a mere 4-5k years, no one would know who the hell you were talking about. Yet those very ancestors were spiritually worshiping something greater than self, at least the ones who's bones we've dug up were. The oldest civilizations we've unearthed show clear indication of human spiritual worship, and it wasn't Christian worship. So... If our "barely smarter than ape ancestors" were intrinsically inclined to worship a power greater than self, what does this say about your intelligence level? 

Science must remain consistently focused on facts and results, observable evidence. It can't make determinations based on prejudice and bias toward specific religious beliefs. When we look at the history of homo sapiens, there is a very real and profound attribute that has been predominate in humans from the beginning, and that is human spirituality. Long before virtually any accomplishment of significance by man, there was human spirituality. There is also no indication this attribute was acquired through an evolution process, because no other living thing indicates any evidence of such attribute in all of nature. It is entirely exclusive to humans. 

In order for you to claim this was "invented" by man, you must indicate the timeline. What we need to see is a period of time where homo sapiens existed with no apparent spirituality whatsoever, and then find the point at which this began. You can't do that because the evidence shows it has always existed in man. It's not vestigial because there is no evidence that anything else in nature has ever been spiritual.  So you have no evidence it is invented or that it evolved into man, and it apparently has always been an attribute of homo sapiens... therefore, the beliefs you have are simply "faith-based" beliefs. Faith is the belief in something not in evidence. That's really all you have.


----------



## HUGGY

Boss said:


> That didn't stop me from reading the bibles and the Koran and the BofM and many other religious writings. The more I read the more I was convinced my first impressions were confirmed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything you have indicated in this thread confirms a deep-seated hatred and disdain for religion. Repeatedly, you revert to banal rants about various religious beliefs or religious people in general. It is as if your mind cannot comprehend a spiritual God that is not affiliated with religion. In this latest rant, you show us how your mind immediately casts a judgement on someone in a truck because they had a religious symbol on the bumper. The source of all your bitterness and animosity is clearly religion.
> 
> Now I don't know you personally, I have no idea of what the people around you think of you, or how you handle day to day choices of a moral nature. However, for someone who honestly believes they have no soul, there can be no foundational basis for a belief in good and bad. It all becomes completely subjective and based on whatever your mind decides is best in the moment. Because you believe you have no soul and no accountability for it, you can establish your own perspectives and give yourself the right to cast judgement on others. For all intents and purposes, you have become your own God.
> 
> While this seems to suit you just fine, we can clearly see there is a problem. Here you are, venting and ranting against a God you claim you don't believe in. Saying whatever clever things you can think of to hurt others and disparage their beliefs any way you can. The reason is, you are empty inside. Your soul is not content with yourself as God. You feel that you can shake this emptiness if you can log into USMB and verbally abuse some Christians. That seems to make you feel better for the moment, in fact, you're proud of it and you believe it will all be okay. But it won't be okay. Eventually this will no longer satisfy you. You'll feel the need to hurt Christians in a more direct way, and you'll justify it when the time comes. Your mind will continue to hold your soul hostage, all because you can't mentally envision a God not affiliated with religion.
Click to expand...


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3qgmVb4-kU]Mick Jagger - Memo From Turner - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> Yea yea the old if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, does it make a noise routine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all. Regardless of who hears what, once the tree falls the event is part of the past and no longer reality. It may be the last time a tree ever falls, the universe can end at any time. Reality is only what is experienced for the instant it happens. You can't hold the past or experience the past again, it's gone forever. You may remember it, but the experience was only the instant it happened. It no longer exists in reality. It will never exist again in reality.
Click to expand...


You just blew your own mind.  

Hey, I thought about something this weekend when I was high as hell watching the fireworks on the lake.  Someone said something last week and it made a lot of sense to me.  They asked gismys how could a god punish us for not believing something we just can't believe?  If we need proof and we can't accept your virtually impossible stories then

a.  Should we fake it?  

b.  Why would a god do this?

I think you would admit that the need to believe in a god is something man made up.  If not you are just as loony as they are.  I can't tell with you.  You seem to understand christianity is made up but I seem to recall you saying we are scared of death or hell.  Can you clarify?  Do you think people who don't believe in god all go to hell?

P.S.  I was watching a bunch of funny religious shows this weekend.  OMG I'm sorry if you think it is rude to make fun but jesus h christ it is so obvious that these people are all either con artists or retards to be that into it.  And I'm sorry it doesn't seem to be producing good results.  Maybe if it wasn't such a scam.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> *silly boob:* You're assuming god talked to adam, noah & moses. He didn't. If he did in "the past" then I would say god exists or at least existed. But since that's all made up all you have is wishful thinking.
> 
> Because our barely smarter than ape ancestors invented god you believe. They also invented the idea that the earth was flat. They were wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you continue to attempt steering the argument back to a religious belief in the God of Abraham, which I've repeatedly denied having belief in? Is this because the only way you've learned to argue against God is if God is the God of Abraham depicted in The Bible? I've assumed nothing about Adam, Noah or Moses... haven't mentioned them.
> 
> Our "barely smarter than ape ancestors," presuming you mean the ones from 500k years ago when homo sapiens first arrived on the scene, did not invent the God of Adam, Noah or Moses. In fact, I suspect if you went back a mere 4-5k years, no one would know who the hell you were talking about. Yet those very ancestors were spiritually worshiping something greater than self, at least the ones who's bones we've dug up were. The oldest civilizations we've unearthed show clear indication of human spiritual worship, and it wasn't Christian worship. So... If our "barely smarter than ape ancestors" were intrinsically inclined to worship a power greater than self, what does this say about your intelligence level?
> 
> Science must remain consistently focused on facts and results, observable evidence. It can't make determinations based on prejudice and bias toward specific religious beliefs. When we look at the history of homo sapiens, there is a very real and profound attribute that has been predominate in humans from the beginning, and that is human spirituality. Long before virtually any accomplishment of significance by man, there was human spirituality. There is also no indication this attribute was acquired through an evolution process, because no other living thing indicates any evidence of such attribute in all of nature. It is entirely exclusive to humans.
> 
> In order for you to claim this was "invented" by man, you must indicate the timeline. What we need to see is a period of time where homo sapiens existed with no apparent spirituality whatsoever, and then find the point at which this began. You can't do that because the evidence shows it has always existed in man. It's not vestigial because there is no evidence that anything else in nature has ever been spiritual.  So you have no evidence it is invented or that it evolved into man, and it apparently has always been an attribute of homo sapiens... therefore, the beliefs you have are simply "faith-based" beliefs. Faith is the belief in something not in evidence. That's really all you have.
Click to expand...


They thought the sun was a god.  Is it?  Then they were WRONG from the start.  They first made it up 223,000 years ago.  Timeline of religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Neadertals too.  How did that work out for him?  

As a scientists if you look at the world and the universe 

Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god.  Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer (Aliens?). Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.

The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organization and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply god.


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> They thought the sun was a god.
> 
> Neadertals too.  How did that work out for him?



I'm certain worshipping the sun never solved anyone's problems.....


----------



## GISMYS

FACE THE TRUTH!! THOSE THAT CHOOSE TO REJECT GOD HAVE NO EXCUSE!!!!==Rom 1:18 But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people who suppress the truth by their wickedness. 

Rom 1:19 They know the truth about God because he has made it obvious to them. 

Rom 1:20 For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities&#8212;his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God. 

Rom 1:21 Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn't worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. As a result, their minds became dark and confused. 

Rom 1:22 Claiming to be wise, they instead became utter fools


----------



## sealybobo

HUGGY said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That didn't stop me from reading the bibles and the Koran and the BofM and many other religious writings. The more I read the more I was convinced my first impressions were confirmed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ....cannot comprehend a spiritual God that is not affiliated with religion. In this latest rant, you show us how your mind immediately casts a judgement on someone in a truck because they had a religious symbol on the bumper. The source of all your bitterness and animosity is clearly religion.
> 
> Now I don't know you personally, I have no idea of what the people around you think of you, or how you handle day to day choices of a moral nature. However, for someone who honestly believes they have no soul, there can be no foundational basis for a belief in good and bad. It all becomes completely subjective and based on whatever your mind decides is best in the moment. Because you believe you have no soul and no accountability for it, you can establish your own perspectives and give yourself the right to cast judgement on others. For all intents and purposes, you have become your own God.
> 
> While this seems to suit you just fine, we can clearly see there is a problem. Here you are, venting and ranting against a God you claim you don't believe in. Saying whatever clever things you can think of to hurt others and disparage their beliefs any way you can. The reason is, you are empty inside. Your soul is not content with yourself as God. You feel that you can shake this emptiness if you can log into USMB and verbally abuse some Christians. That seems to make you feel better for the moment, in fact, you're proud of it and you believe it will all be okay. But it won't be okay. Eventually this will no longer satisfy you. You'll feel the need to hurt Christians in a more direct way, and you'll justify it when the time comes. Your mind will continue to hold your soul hostage, all because you can't mentally envision a God not affiliated with religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You paint a pretty gloomy picture there Bub.
> 
> PS...  I might have imagined the part about the fish on the back of the wrong guy's pickup..
Click to expand...


Boss says we can't imagine a spiritual god that isn't affiliated with religion but that is exactly what I believed for over 10 years when I decided chrstianity was fake.  It never even dawned on me that there was no god.  That's how brainwashed I was.  Same as everybody else.  

It wasn't until an atheist friend pointed out to me just how stupid believing in god is.  For awhile I still believed even though I knew I had zero proof.  But recently I was able to not fear hell at all and admit that god is made up.  And even if there is some god out there, he isn't watching me jack off.  That's just stupid.  

And since I have completely woken up, I have spoken to many people who think like boss.  They still believe in a god, even though they admit no organized religions are real but they just can't believe there is no god.  

Is that any proof or reason to believe something?  So I guess it would be nice if Boss would just admit that he wants to believe in a god or can't believe in a world without one.  But the fact is, if you look at the universe and nature, the way thing are suggests no god.  

I cant believe/understand a world without God OR No god is too unlikely.

Argument from incredulity / Lack of imagination and Argumentum ad Ignorantiam. Ignores and does not eliminate the fact that something can seem incredible or unlikely and still be true, or appear to be obvious or likely and yet still be false.

The world is the way it is. Reality does not bend to our personal whim and facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. Our personal belief in something does not automatically make it real or true and, conversely, our lack of understanding of a topic does not make it false.

Until we understand something we do not know. Positing a god in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.

The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

See also: Critical thinking (a must watch), Richard Feynman on Doubt and Uncertainty (a must watch).

It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.  Carl Sagan

God is an ever-receding pocket of ignorance thats getting smaller and smaller as time goes on.- Neil deGrasse Tyson


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> FACE THE TRUTH!! THOSE THAT CHOOSE TO REJECT GOD HAVE NO EXCUSE!!!!==Rom 1:18 But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people who suppress the truth by their wickedness.
> 
> Rom 1:19 They know the truth about God because he has made it obvious to them.
> 
> Rom 1:20 For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualitieshis eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God.
> 
> Rom 1:21 Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn't worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. As a result, their minds became dark and confused.
> 
> Rom 1:22 Claiming to be wise, they instead became utter fools



I am facing the truth.  Your religion is not the truth.  And I can't fake belief.  I call BULLSHIT on your religion.  Maybe I'll take a look at the Muslims, Jews or Mormons or even Scientologists next.  But yours?  Not a chance that's real.  Sorry.  I can't believe you believe that shit.  So funny.  I stay up late watching your crooked pastors brainwashing the stupid sheep that make up your church.  What a joke.  Is that satan telling me that?     Stupid people.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> FACE THE TRUTH!! THOSE THAT CHOOSE TO REJECT GOD HAVE NO EXCUSE!!!!==Rom 1:18 But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people who suppress the truth by their wickedness.
> 
> Rom 1:19 They know the truth about God because he has made it obvious to them.
> 
> Rom 1:20 For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualitieshis eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God.
> 
> Rom 1:21 Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn't worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. As a result, their minds became dark and confused.
> 
> Rom 1:22 Claiming to be wise, they instead became utter fools
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am facing the truth.  Your religion is not the truth.  And I can't fake belief.  I call BULLSHIT on your religion.  Maybe I'll take a look at the Muslims, Jews or Mormons or even Scientologists next.  But yours?  Not a chance that's real.  Sorry.  I can't believe you believe that shit.  So funny.  I stay up late watching your crooked pastors brainwashing the stupid sheep that make up your church.  What a joke.  Is that satan telling me that?     Stupid people.
Click to expand...


TO BELIEVE OR NOT BELIEVE IS "ALL YOUR CHOICE" YOU CAN CHOSE TO BELIEVE ANYTHING YOU WANT TO BELIEVE,THE QUESTION YOU NEED TO FACE IS DO YOU WANT TO BELIEVE???? OR DO YOU WANT TO LIVE IN YOUR PET SINS MORE????? Truth please!!!


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> FACE THE TRUTH!! THOSE THAT CHOOSE TO REJECT GOD HAVE NO EXCUSE!!!!==Rom 1:18 But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people who suppress the truth by their wickedness.
> 
> Rom 1:19 They know the truth about God because he has made it obvious to them.
> 
> Rom 1:20 For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualitieshis eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God.
> 
> Rom 1:21 Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn't worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. As a result, their minds became dark and confused.
> 
> Rom 1:22 Claiming to be wise, they instead became utter fools
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am facing the truth.  Your religion is not the truth.  And I can't fake belief.  I call BULLSHIT on your religion.  Maybe I'll take a look at the Muslims, Jews or Mormons or even Scientologists next.  But yours?  Not a chance that's real.  Sorry.  I can't believe you believe that shit.  So funny.  I stay up late watching your crooked pastors brainwashing the stupid sheep that make up your church.  What a joke.  Is that satan telling me that?     Stupid people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> TO BELIEVE OR NOT BELIEVE IS "ALL YOUR CHOICE" YOU CAN CHOSE TO BELIEVE ANYTHING YOU WANT TO BELIEVE,THE QUESTION YOU NEED TO FACE IS DO YOU WANT TO BELIEVE???? OR DO YOU WANT TO LIVE IN YOUR PET SINS MORE????? Truth please!!!
Click to expand...


For me it isn't about either I choose your religion or I choose to live in sin.  I don't think I sin any more/less than you do gismys.  

So I guess the only choice here is either I believe your story about jesus or I don't.  I don't.

It isn't either I believe you or burn in hell.  It's either I believe you or I don't.  I don't.

Or the Dot head from india who came over here and found christianity.  He's a born again.  I didn't want to freak him out because he's a customer so instead of telling him I'm an atheist I told him I'm Greek Orthodox and he flat out said us and Catholics need to be born again or we won't go to heaven.  I don't believe him either Gismys.  He's a fool like you.  If it makes you/him feel better great but I don't think it is good for people to believe a stupid lie and I will do my best to spread the word that religion is the root of all evil.  

You for example seem like a very evil person.  If you are what god is all about I reject god because I certainly reject everything you have ever written.  In fact I wouldn't be surprised if you were possessed with a demon and so was every other preacher I see on tv.  Fools and liars.  No fucking way!


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> FACE THE TRUTH!! THOSE THAT CHOOSE TO REJECT GOD HAVE NO EXCUSE!!!!==Rom 1:18 But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people who suppress the truth by their wickedness.
> 
> Rom 1:19 They know the truth about God because he has made it obvious to them.
> 
> Rom 1:20 For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualitieshis eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God.
> 
> Rom 1:21 Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn't worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. As a result, their minds became dark and confused.
> 
> Rom 1:22 Claiming to be wise, they instead became utter fools
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am facing the truth.  Your religion is not the truth.  And I can't fake belief.  I call BULLSHIT on your religion.  Maybe I'll take a look at the Muslims, Jews or Mormons or even Scientologists next.  But yours?  Not a chance that's real.  Sorry.  I can't believe you believe that shit.  So funny.  I stay up late watching your crooked pastors brainwashing the stupid sheep that make up your church.  What a joke.  Is that satan telling me that?     Stupid people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> TO BELIEVE OR NOT BELIEVE IS "ALL YOUR CHOICE" YOU CAN CHOSE TO BELIEVE ANYTHING YOU WANT TO BELIEVE,THE QUESTION YOU NEED TO FACE IS DO YOU WANT TO BELIEVE???? OR DO YOU WANT TO LIVE IN YOUR PET SINS MORE????? Truth please!!!
Click to expand...


Oh I want to believe.  I want to believe so bad I believed for 40 years without any proof.  I just can't anymore.  Too smart.  

New song "My eyes have seen the glory of the fact there is no lord you guys made it all up fo sho you're all suck fucking terds, I can't take you serious no more you're all too fucking dumb the truth is there's no god.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am facing the truth.  Your religion is not the truth.  And I can't fake belief.  I call BULLSHIT on your religion.  Maybe I'll take a look at the Muslims, Jews or Mormons or even Scientologists next.  But yours?  Not a chance that's real.  Sorry.  I can't believe you believe that shit.  So funny.  I stay up late watching your crooked pastors brainwashing the stupid sheep that make up your church.  What a joke.  Is that satan telling me that?     Stupid people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TO BELIEVE OR NOT BELIEVE IS "ALL YOUR CHOICE" YOU CAN CHOSE TO BELIEVE ANYTHING YOU WANT TO BELIEVE,THE QUESTION YOU NEED TO FACE IS DO YOU WANT TO BELIEVE???? OR DO YOU WANT TO LIVE IN YOUR PET SINS MORE????? Truth please!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For me it isn't about either I choose your religion or I choose to live in sin.  I don't think I sin any more/less than you do gismys.
> 
> So I guess the only choice here is either I believe your story about jesus or I don't.  I don't.
> 
> It isn't either I believe you or burn in hell.  It's either I believe you or I don't.  I don't.
> 
> Or the Dot head from india who came over here and found christianity.  He's a born again.  I didn't want to freak him out because he's a customer so instead of telling him I'm an atheist I told him I'm Greek Orthodox and he flat out said us and Catholics need to be born again or we won't go to heaven.  I don't believe him either Gismys.  He's a fool like you.  If it makes you/him feel better great but I don't think it is good for people to believe a stupid lie and I will do my best to spread the word that religion is the root of all evil.
> 
> You for example seem like a very evil person.  If you are what god is all about I reject god because I certainly reject everything you have ever written.  In fact I wouldn't be surprised if you were possessed with a demon and so was every other preacher I see on tv.  Fools and liars.  No fucking way!
Click to expand...


YES!! BUT FACE THE TRUTH AS TO WHY YOU CHOOSE TO NOT BELIEVE= YOU ALLOW SATAN TO BLIND YOU,YOU LOVE YOUR PET SINS AND YOU DREAM AND HOPE GOD IS NOT REAL SO YOU WON'T HAVE TO FACE YOUR FINAL JUDGMENT!!WELL!!! DREAM ON!!! Dream on!


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *silly boob:* You're assuming god talked to adam, noah & moses. He didn't. If he did in "the past" then I would say god exists or at least existed. But since that's all made up all you have is wishful thinking.
> 
> Because our barely smarter than ape ancestors invented god you believe. They also invented the idea that the earth was flat. They were wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you continue to attempt steering the argument back to a religious belief in the God of Abraham, which I've repeatedly denied having belief in? Is this because the only way you've learned to argue against God is if God is the God of Abraham depicted in The Bible? I've assumed nothing about Adam, Noah or Moses... haven't mentioned them.
> 
> Our "barely smarter than ape ancestors," presuming you mean the ones from 500k years ago when homo sapiens first arrived on the scene, did not invent the God of Adam, Noah or Moses. In fact, I suspect if you went back a mere 4-5k years, no one would know who the hell you were talking about. Yet those very ancestors were spiritually worshiping something greater than self, at least the ones who's bones we've dug up were. The oldest civilizations we've unearthed show clear indication of human spiritual worship, and it wasn't Christian worship. So... If our "barely smarter than ape ancestors" were intrinsically inclined to worship a power greater than self, what does this say about your intelligence level?
> 
> Science must remain consistently focused on facts and results, observable evidence. It can't make determinations based on prejudice and bias toward specific religious beliefs. When we look at the history of homo sapiens, there is a very real and profound attribute that has been predominate in humans from the beginning, and that is human spirituality. Long before virtually any accomplishment of significance by man, there was human spirituality. There is also no indication this attribute was acquired through an evolution process, because no other living thing indicates any evidence of such attribute in all of nature. It is entirely exclusive to humans.
> 
> In order for you to claim this was "invented" by man, you must indicate the timeline. What we need to see is a period of time where homo sapiens existed with no apparent spirituality whatsoever, and then find the point at which this began. You can't do that because the evidence shows it has always existed in man. It's not vestigial because there is no evidence that anything else in nature has ever been spiritual.  So you have no evidence it is invented or that it evolved into man, and it apparently has always been an attribute of homo sapiens... therefore, the beliefs you have are simply "faith-based" beliefs. Faith is the belief in something not in evidence. That's really all you have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They thought the sun was a god.  Is it?  Then they were WRONG from the start.  They first made it up 223,000 years ago.  Timeline of religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Neadertals too.  How did that work out for him?
> 
> As a scientists if you look at the world and the universe
> 
> Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god.  Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer (Aliens?). Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.
> 
> The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organization and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply god.
Click to expand...


Your showing me where man invented religion is NOT showing where man invented human spirituality. Again... oldest bones of humans we've ever uncovered, shows signs of human spiritual belief. There is NO time period where humans did not have this attribute. Forget about complexity and design, I haven't mentioned it here. I am arguing from the perspective of rational observable evidence that cannot be disputed. You keep wanting to morph the argument back into some religious incarnation you feel comfortable attacking, and I won't let you do that. 

Neanderthals were not spiritual. There is some evidence that isolated groups of later Neanderthals in Europe, tried to practice human spirituality, but it is believed this was "too little, too late" to save the species and they became extinct. Yes, early humans worshiped the Sun because that is how they interpreted their intrinsic spiritual connection that was real and was experienced. You continue to present evidence that humans spiritually connect in an attempt to refute the point that humans spiritually connect. It's amazing.


----------



## Boss

> Maybe I'll take a look at the Muslims, Jews or Mormons or even Scientologists next. But yours? Not a chance that's real.



Why would you feel so compelled if you don't believe there is anything to the whole "God" thing? This makes no sense to me. The TRUTH which you seem to want to avoid here is, you DO believe in something greater than self. You are completely lost in understanding what that is, but deep inside, you have this intrinsic connection and belief that you can't ignore. Once before you slipped up and admitted you believe in "Karma" but that's a spiritual concept. If you believe in "Karma" you believe in forces beyond the physical, something greater than self. Why is it so difficult for you to just admit that? 

Are you afraid of rejection by your "atheist agnostic" friends? Are you fearful someone might turn you into a Krishtun? Or are you just trying to sound like a pompous asshole to those who have religious faith? I just wonder, since when does being completely aloof and uncertain in what you believe, mean that you are being smart and intelligent? You're coming across as an absolute idiot who doesn't know what he believes, telling other people what they believe is not true.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> TO BELIEVE OR NOT BELIEVE IS "ALL YOUR CHOICE" YOU CAN CHOSE TO BELIEVE ANYTHING YOU WANT TO BELIEVE,THE QUESTION YOU NEED TO FACE IS DO YOU WANT TO BELIEVE???? OR DO YOU WANT TO LIVE IN YOUR PET SINS MORE????? Truth please!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For me it isn't about either I choose your religion or I choose to live in sin.  I don't think I sin any more/less than you do gismys.
> 
> So I guess the only choice here is either I believe your story about jesus or I don't.  I don't.
> 
> It isn't either I believe you or burn in hell.  It's either I believe you or I don't.  I don't.
> 
> Or the Dot head from india who came over here and found christianity.  He's a born again.  I didn't want to freak him out because he's a customer so instead of telling him I'm an atheist I told him I'm Greek Orthodox and he flat out said us and Catholics need to be born again or we won't go to heaven.  I don't believe him either Gismys.  He's a fool like you.  If it makes you/him feel better great but I don't think it is good for people to believe a stupid lie and I will do my best to spread the word that religion is the root of all evil.
> 
> You for example seem like a very evil person.  If you are what god is all about I reject god because I certainly reject everything you have ever written.  In fact I wouldn't be surprised if you were possessed with a demon and so was every other preacher I see on tv.  Fools and liars.  No fucking way!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YES!! BUT FACE THE TRUTH AS TO WHY YOU CHOOSE TO NOT BELIEVE= YOU ALLOW SATAN TO BLIND YOU,YOU LOVE YOUR PET SINS AND YOU DREAM AND HOPE GOD IS NOT REAL SO YOU WON'T HAVE TO FACE YOUR FINAL JUDGMENT!!WELL!!! DREAM ON!!! Dream on!
Click to expand...


No.  It's because I think like you all christians are either stupid, crazy, dumb or liars.  I don't think you are a liar.  I know you truly believe the shit you type.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> For me it isn't about either I choose your religion or I choose to live in sin.  I don't think I sin any more/less than you do gismys.
> 
> So I guess the only choice here is either I believe your story about jesus or I don't.  I don't.
> 
> It isn't either I believe you or burn in hell.  It's either I believe you or I don't.  I don't.
> 
> Or the Dot head from india who came over here and found christianity.  He's a born again.  I didn't want to freak him out because he's a customer so instead of telling him I'm an atheist I told him I'm Greek Orthodox and he flat out said us and Catholics need to be born again or we won't go to heaven.  I don't believe him either Gismys.  He's a fool like you.  If it makes you/him feel better great but I don't think it is good for people to believe a stupid lie and I will do my best to spread the word that religion is the root of all evil.
> 
> You for example seem like a very evil person.  If you are what god is all about I reject god because I certainly reject everything you have ever written.  In fact I wouldn't be surprised if you were possessed with a demon and so was every other preacher I see on tv.  Fools and liars.  No fucking way!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YES!! BUT FACE THE TRUTH AS TO WHY YOU CHOOSE TO NOT BELIEVE= YOU ALLOW SATAN TO BLIND YOU,YOU LOVE YOUR PET SINS AND YOU DREAM AND HOPE GOD IS NOT REAL SO YOU WON'T HAVE TO FACE YOUR FINAL JUDGMENT!!WELL!!! DREAM ON!!! Dream on!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  It's because I think like you all christians are either stupid, crazy, dumb or liars.  I don't think you are a liar.  I know you truly believe the shit you type.
Click to expand...


THEN WHY ALLOW SATAN TO USE YOU AS HIS TOOL,FOOL,PUPPET???????????? WISE UP little guy!!!WISE UP!!! YOU COULD BE LIVING YOUR LIFE AS A son OF ALMIGHTY GOD!!


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you continue to attempt steering the argument back to a religious belief in the God of Abraham, which I've repeatedly denied having belief in? Is this because the only way you've learned to argue against God is if God is the God of Abraham depicted in The Bible? I've assumed nothing about Adam, Noah or Moses... haven't mentioned them.
> 
> Our "barely smarter than ape ancestors," presuming you mean the ones from 500k years ago when homo sapiens first arrived on the scene, did not invent the God of Adam, Noah or Moses. In fact, I suspect if you went back a mere 4-5k years, no one would know who the hell you were talking about. Yet those very ancestors were spiritually worshiping something greater than self, at least the ones who's bones we've dug up were. The oldest civilizations we've unearthed show clear indication of human spiritual worship, and it wasn't Christian worship. So... If our "barely smarter than ape ancestors" were intrinsically inclined to worship a power greater than self, what does this say about your intelligence level?
> 
> Science must remain consistently focused on facts and results, observable evidence. It can't make determinations based on prejudice and bias toward specific religious beliefs. When we look at the history of homo sapiens, there is a very real and profound attribute that has been predominate in humans from the beginning, and that is human spirituality. Long before virtually any accomplishment of significance by man, there was human spirituality. There is also no indication this attribute was acquired through an evolution process, because no other living thing indicates any evidence of such attribute in all of nature. It is entirely exclusive to humans.
> 
> In order for you to claim this was "invented" by man, you must indicate the timeline. What we need to see is a period of time where homo sapiens existed with no apparent spirituality whatsoever, and then find the point at which this began. You can't do that because the evidence shows it has always existed in man. It's not vestigial because there is no evidence that anything else in nature has ever been spiritual.  So you have no evidence it is invented or that it evolved into man, and it apparently has always been an attribute of homo sapiens... therefore, the beliefs you have are simply "faith-based" beliefs. Faith is the belief in something not in evidence. That's really all you have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They thought the sun was a god.  Is it?  Then they were WRONG from the start.  They first made it up 223,000 years ago.  Timeline of religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Neadertals too.  How did that work out for him?
> 
> As a scientists if you look at the world and the universe
> 
> Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god.  Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer (Aliens?). Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.
> 
> The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organization and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your showing me where man invented religion is NOT showing where man invented human spirituality. Again... oldest bones of humans we've ever uncovered, shows signs of human spiritual belief. There is NO time period where humans did not have this attribute. Forget about complexity and design, I haven't mentioned it here. I am arguing from the perspective of rational observable evidence that cannot be disputed. You keep wanting to morph the argument back into some religious incarnation you feel comfortable attacking, and I won't let you do that.
> 
> Neanderthals were not spiritual. There is some evidence that isolated groups of later Neanderthals in Europe, tried to practice human spirituality, but it is believed this was "too little, too late" to save the species and they became extinct. Yes, early humans worshiped the Sun because that is how they interpreted their intrinsic spiritual connection that was real and was experienced. You continue to present evidence that humans spiritually connect in an attempt to refute the point that humans spiritually connect. It's amazing.
Click to expand...


And if I'm going to worship anything it's going to be the sun.  I can see it.  It provides us with life.  It is worth worshiping.  

Sun of God wasn't long before our ape ancestors turned it into the SON of god.  But that proves there is a god?


----------



## emilynghiem

Yes, [MENTION=11281]sealybobo[/MENTION]
You remind me of Carlton Pearson, Gospel of Inclusion, who also came to the same conclusion about God, or else the message contradicts itself!
He changed the entire direction and focus of his ministry once he realized it made no sense for God to be punitive and condemn people to hell.
God's love and will being perfect, then of course God would get his way which is that no soul be lost; thus, he agreed there must be Universal Salvation.

The way I explain it, if God made humans to have free will, so that we learn by mistakes by trial and error, how can you judge someone for making mistakes out of ignorance?

The truth I discovered was that God was not inflicting punishment,
but that we suffer our own ill will when we do not CHOOSE to ask help with forgiveness.

Now, I see there is NO WAY to "blame people" for not asking for help when they didn't know things could be helped or changed by forgiveness. Of course that makes zero sense!

For people to receive healing and forgiveness, it must be offered freely in a way they have no reason to fear or reject it.

It makes no sense to judge people for "not being able to forgive"
if the reason they cannot put aside pain and fear to forgive it is they are unable to forgive!

The point is NOT to judge anyone in any such situation.
Only through compassion, acceptance and inclusion can people let go their own fears and suffering and receive healing naturally in the process. It cannot be forced,
especially not by judgment or punishment!

Think how ridiculous and futile: if you threaten to punish someone for "not forgiving" something hurtful or wrong they see in life, aren't you going to force the opposite effect?
And make them even more resentful and unforgiving? Of course!

There are many ways of saying similar concepts:
* If God's will is perfect and has supreme dominion, then aren't all things by God's will
* If God made humans imperfect with free will, 
isn't it God's responsibility when this goes wrong?
* If only God knows and understands God's truth and laws,
how is it man's fault for not knowing or understanding what we cannot or do not know?
* If mistakes are made out of ignorance or imperfection, isn't it the fault of the ignorance and imperfection so that all things are forgiveable on some level because we aren't perfect

And that leads to the idea that the one unforgiveable sin is "unforgiveness"
which becomes a catch-22. if people are so hurt they can't forgive, how is it their fault?



sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea yea the old if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, does it make a noise routine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all. Regardless of who hears what, once the tree falls the event is part of the past and no longer reality. It may be the last time a tree ever falls, the universe can end at any time. Reality is only what is experienced for the instant it happens. You can't hold the past or experience the past again, it's gone forever. You may remember it, but the experience was only the instant it happened. It no longer exists in reality. It will never exist again in reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just blew your own mind.
> 
> Hey, I thought about something this weekend when I was high as hell watching the fireworks on the lake.  Someone said something last week and it made a lot of sense to me.  They asked gismys how could a god punish us for not believing something we just can't believe?  If we need proof and we can't accept your virtually impossible stories then
> 
> a.  Should we fake it?
> 
> b.  Why would a god do this?
> 
> I think you would admit that the need to believe in a god is something man made up.  If not you are just as loony as they are.  I can't tell with you.  You seem to understand christianity is made up but I seem to recall you saying we are scared of death or hell.  Can you clarify?  Do you think people who don't believe in god all go to hell?
> 
> P.S.  I was watching a bunch of funny religious shows this weekend.  OMG I'm sorry if you think it is rude to make fun but jesus h christ it is so obvious that these people are all either con artists or retards to be that into it.  And I'm sorry it doesn't seem to be producing good results.  Maybe if it wasn't such a scam.
Click to expand...


----------



## emilynghiem

sealybobo said:


> And if I'm going to worship anything it's going to be the sun.  I can see it.  It provides us with life.  It is worth worshiping.
> 
> Sun of God wasn't long before our ape ancestors turned it into the SON of god.  But that proves there is a god?



Do we need to see proof of Justice and Truth to believe in these abstract things?

If we demand proof/agreement on facts to establish what is Truth, what is Justice, isn't that the same process,
as having faith in God/Jesus to establish unified agreement? For sake of "Truth/Justice" which God/Jesus symbolize collectively. 

Does it matter what we call a rose, as long as we agree what we are talking about?


----------



## emilynghiem

GISMYS said:


> THEN WHY ALLOW SATAN TO USE YOU AS HIS TOOL,FOOL,PUPPET???????????? WISE UP little guy!!!WISE UP!!! YOU COULD BE LIVING YOUR LIFE AS A son OF ALMIGHTY GOD!!



Yes, some people could become even more effective "righteous gentiles"
and receive rebuke with thanks and wisdom, as equal neighbors in Christ.

*As opposed to being "clanging cymbals"
or "hypocrites on street corners preaching in public"*

http://biblehub.com/matthew/6-5.htm
Matthew 6:5
5"When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men.

http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/13-1.htm
1 Corinthians 13:1
If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> YES!! BUT FACE THE TRUTH AS TO WHY YOU CHOOSE TO NOT BELIEVE= YOU ALLOW SATAN TO BLIND YOU,YOU LOVE YOUR PET SINS AND YOU DREAM AND HOPE GOD IS NOT REAL SO YOU WON'T HAVE TO FACE YOUR FINAL JUDGMENT!!WELL!!! DREAM ON!!! Dream on!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  It's because I think like you all christians are either stupid, crazy, dumb or liars.  I don't think you are a liar.  I know you truly believe the shit you type.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> THEN WHY ALLOW SATAN TO USE YOU AS HIS TOOL,FOOL,PUPPET???????????? WISE UP little guy!!!WISE UP!!! YOU COULD BE LIVING YOUR LIFE AS A son OF ALMIGHTY GOD!!
Click to expand...


Do you/he want me to fake it?  I can't believe.  Sorry.  Maybe if you told a better story.


----------



## sealybobo

emilynghiem said:


> Yes, [MENTION=11281]sealybobo[/MENTION]
> You remind me of Carlton Pearson, Gospel of Inclusion, who also came to the same conclusion about God, or else the message contradicts itself!
> He changed the entire direction and focus of his ministry once he realized it made no sense for God to be punitive and condemn people to hell.
> God's love and will being perfect, then of course God would get his way which is that no soul be lost; thus, he agreed there must be Universal Salvation.
> 
> The way I explain it, if God made humans to have free will, so that we learn by mistakes by trial and error, how can you judge someone for making mistakes out of ignorance?
> 
> The truth I discovered was that God was not inflicting punishment,
> but that we suffer our own ill will when we do not CHOOSE to ask help with forgiveness.
> 
> Now, I see there is NO WAY to "blame people" for not asking for help when they didn't know things could be helped or changed by forgiveness. Of course that makes zero sense!
> 
> For people to receive healing and forgiveness, it must be offered freely in a way they have no reason to fear or reject it.
> 
> It makes no sense to judge people for "not being able to forgive"
> if the reason they cannot put aside pain and fear to forgive it is they are unable to forgive!
> 
> The point is NOT to judge anyone in any such situation.
> Only through compassion, acceptance and inclusion can people let go their own fears and suffering and receive healing naturally in the process. It cannot be forced,
> especially not by judgment or punishment!
> 
> Think how ridiculous and futile: if you threaten to punish someone for "not forgiving" something hurtful or wrong they see in life, aren't you going to force the opposite effect?
> And make them even more resentful and unforgiving? Of course!
> 
> There are many ways of saying similar concepts:
> * If God's will is perfect and has supreme dominion, then aren't all things by God's will
> * If God made humans imperfect with free will,
> isn't it God's responsibility when this goes wrong?
> * If only God knows and understands God's truth and laws,
> how is it man's fault for not knowing or understanding what we cannot or do not know?
> * If mistakes are made out of ignorance or imperfection, isn't it the fault of the ignorance and imperfection so that all things are forgiveable on some level because we aren't perfect
> 
> And that leads to the idea that the one unforgiveable sin is "unforgiveness"
> which becomes a catch-22. if people are so hurt they can't forgive, how is it their fault?
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all. Regardless of who hears what, once the tree falls the event is part of the past and no longer reality. It may be the last time a tree ever falls, the universe can end at any time. Reality is only what is experienced for the instant it happens. You can't hold the past or experience the past again, it's gone forever. You may remember it, but the experience was only the instant it happened. It no longer exists in reality. It will never exist again in reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just blew your own mind.
> 
> Hey, I thought about something this weekend when I was high as hell watching the fireworks on the lake.  Someone said something last week and it made a lot of sense to me.  They asked gismys how could a god punish us for not believing something we just can't believe?  If we need proof and we can't accept your virtually impossible stories then
> 
> a.  Should we fake it?
> 
> b.  Why would a god do this?
> 
> I think you would admit that the need to believe in a god is something man made up.  If not you are just as loony as they are.  I can't tell with you.  You seem to understand christianity is made up but I seem to recall you saying we are scared of death or hell.  Can you clarify?  Do you think people who don't believe in god all go to hell?
> 
> P.S.  I was watching a bunch of funny religious shows this weekend.  OMG I'm sorry if you think it is rude to make fun but jesus h christ it is so obvious that these people are all either con artists or retards to be that into it.  And I'm sorry it doesn't seem to be producing good results.  Maybe if it wasn't such a scam.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


For awhile I decided to follow jesus' teachings as a good man.  I read the Red Letter Bible and I didn't see anything wrong with anything I read.  I certainly didn't read him saying anything that Gismys says. 

But just because something is perceived as having good consequences if it is true, does not actually make it true.  It also doesn't mean we should continue to tell a lie if we know it is a lie, regardless of the consequences.  I also don't think admitting there is no god would have negative effects on society.   You guys think people can't or won't know right from wrong without god.  I and many other atheists are proof that is not true.  

The fact that religiously free societies with a proportionally large number of atheists are generally more peaceful than otherwise is evidence this perception is incorrect.

See also: Atheism, Secularity, and Well-Being (a must read).

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.  Steven Weinberg


----------



## sealybobo

emilynghiem said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if I'm going to worship anything it's going to be the sun.  I can see it.  It provides us with life.  It is worth worshiping.
> 
> Sun of God wasn't long before our ape ancestors turned it into the SON of god.  But that proves there is a god?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do we need to see proof of Justice and Truth to believe in these abstract things?
> 
> If we demand proof/agreement on facts to establish what is Truth, what is Justice, isn't that the same process,
> as having faith in God/Jesus to establish unified agreement? For sake of "Truth/Justice" which God/Jesus symbolize collectively.
> 
> Does it matter what we call a rose, as long as we agree what we are talking about?
Click to expand...


God is the universe/love/laws of physics/truth/justice/etc.

We already have names for these things. Redefining something as god tells us nothing. To use the word god implies a host of other attributes and if you dont intend to apply those attributes, using the word is intentionally misleading.

To call the world God is not to explain it; it is only to enrich our language with a superfluous synonym for the word world.  Arthur Schopenhauer


----------



## GISMYS

BEFORE YOU START READING GOD'S WORD SAY TO GOD," GOD IF YOU ARE REAL SHOWME,SPEAK TO ME THROUGH YOUR WORD,I WANT TO KNOW IF YOU ARE REAL" GOD WILL HONOR THOSE WORDS IF YOU MEAN WHAT YOU SAY!!! 1000%  Ask!!!


----------



## emilynghiem

You can be a "righteous gentile," who naturally follows the law by conscience,
and not be as a church member under the religious authority.

The Bible explains there will be gentiles who become a law unto themselves,
in a separate fold of the same flock.

What makes a difference is if these two folds can FORGIVE each other's different ways.
As long as there is forgiveness and understanding between them, they can be in harmony in Christ Jesus, where the two folds are one flock, they follow the same standards on truth and justice, but expressed in different ways using their respective laws (sacred / natural).

What is the problem is if people REJECT the other way as false, then there is conflict.
Both ways are true when they are used to express truth;
both ways are false when they are abused to spread misperception and division.

Anyone of any cultural background or religious tribe (even secular science/natural laws)
can reach "agreement on truth" as "neighbors in Christ," regardless of denomination or language used to communicate that agreement on universal concepts and principles.



sealybobo said:


> For awhile I decided to follow jesus' teachings as a good man.  I read the Red Letter Bible and I didn't see anything wrong with anything I read.  I certainly didn't read him saying anything that Gismys says.
> 
> But just because something is perceived as having good consequences if it is true, does not actually make it true.  It also doesn't mean we should continue to tell a lie if we know it is a lie, regardless of the consequences.  I also don't think admitting there is no god would have negative effects on society.   You guys think people can't or won't know right from wrong without god.  I and many other atheists are proof that is not true.
> 
> The fact that religiously free societies with a proportionally large number of atheists are generally more peaceful than otherwise is evidence this perception is incorrect.
> 
> See also: Atheism, Secularity, and Well-Being (a must read).
> 
> With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. *But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.*  Steven Weinberg



do "politics" and "media" count as a "religion"
don't you mean "abuse of collective influence"
that global abuse isn't just limited to religion, 
but govt, POLITICAL PARTIES, corporations, nonprofits that commit fraud, etc.

Can't any "large group" lose accountability and start oppressing individual consent?

 [MENTION=11281]sealybobo[/MENTION] why this insistence on blaming religion?

compare what damage Buddhism has done as a religion
compared to a large corporation or political parties that abuse their power?

isn't the issue "collective abuse" without check and balance by the people affected?


----------



## emilynghiem

sealybobo said:


> I am facing the truth.  Your religion is not the truth.  And I can't fake belief.  I call BULLSHIT on your religion.  Maybe I'll take a look at the Muslims, Jews or Mormons or even Scientologists next.  But yours?  Not a chance that's real.  Sorry.  I can't believe you believe that shit.  So funny.  I stay up late watching your crooked pastors brainwashing the stupid sheep that make up your church.  What a joke.  Is that satan telling me that?     Stupid people.



Hi  [MENTION=11281]sealybobo[/MENTION] since you come from a secular perspective, which is my background also,
I can give you sources that make sense to me where the others do not.
The judgment/hell approach to God didn't make sense, nor did the idea that if Buddha taught enlightenment then why wasn't everyone enlightened after that?

1. For Christianity, to understand Universal Salvation -- Carlton Pearson might make sense to you. I believe hell is real and is overcome; he teaches there is no hell, but I disagree.
Just because it can be prevented and overcome doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

to understanding forgiveness bringing healing, new life and transforming people from dying to health, read HEALING by Francis MacNutt that explains this process in natural terms.

2. For secular and natural laws:
Buddhism
Constitutional laws and process/govt foundations

Scientology borrows spiritual concepts and process from both Buddhism and Christianity.
If you minus the cultish rules and monetary aspects, the actual process is effective of "auditing" one's mind and perceptions to be free of attachments that hinder your success.

The cultish division and rejection of other groups
is problematic in any groups, secular religious political or social.

So as long as you forgive any faults you find in any group or cultural system,
then you can benefit from the positive principles and process taught there.

The three that work best for me are
Buddhism
Christianity
Constitutionalism

* Buddhism is best for letting go so you can understand Truth or God without imposed biases or conflicts attached, and just focus on natural laws and process of life
* Christianity is best for healing through mutual forgiveness and correction to restore health in relations, body, mind, and spirit or collective level of humanity
* Constitutionalism is best for moderating "due process" and "petitioning" (using free speech and press) to redress grievances and establish law and order by consent in practice.

You might also relate to the 
7 principles in Unitarian Universalism
(though I believe the trinity is a universal recurring theme in all religions and laws, and the Unitarians don't believe in teaching God as a Trinity. I believe "body/mind/spirit" represents human nature, and man is made in the image of God, so God/Christ/HolySpirit are symbols on a collective scale, meaning the individual is connected to the collective level by CONSCIENCE, so all three levels join in harmony)


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> BEFORE YOU START READING GOD'S WORD SAY TO GOD," GOD IF YOU ARE REAL SHOWME,SPEAK TO ME THROUGH YOUR WORD,I WANT TO KNOW IF YOU ARE REAL" GOD WILL HONOR THOSE WORDS IF YOU MEAN WHAT YOU SAY!!! 1000%  Ask!!!



I did and he didn't speak back.  Maybe he did to you because you are simple minded and gullible and wanted it so bad your mind heard what you wanted to hear.  I don't know, but he didn't speak back to me and I asked him honestly and for a long long time.  

Just like the early morning preacher who was selling holy water.  Telling people if they call and order it they will get whatever they want/ask for.  Liars.


----------



## sealybobo

emilynghiem said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am facing the truth.  Your religion is not the truth.  And I can't fake belief.  I call BULLSHIT on your religion.  Maybe I'll take a look at the Muslims, Jews or Mormons or even Scientologists next.  But yours?  Not a chance that's real.  Sorry.  I can't believe you believe that shit.  So funny.  I stay up late watching your crooked pastors brainwashing the stupid sheep that make up your church.  What a joke.  Is that satan telling me that?     Stupid people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi  [MENTION=11281]sealybobo[/MENTION] since you come from a secular perspective, which is my background also,
> I can give you sources that make sense to me where the others do not.
> The judgment/hell approach to God didn't make sense, nor did the idea that if Buddha taught enlightenment then why wasn't everyone enlightened after that?
> 
> 1. For Christianity, to understand Universal Salvation -- Carlton Pearson might make sense to you. I believe hell is real and is overcome; he teaches there is no hell, but I disagree.
> Just because it can be prevented and overcome doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
> 
> to understanding forgiveness bringing healing, new life and transforming people from dying to health, read HEALING by Francis MacNutt that explains this process in natural terms.
> 
> 2. For secular and natural laws:
> Buddhism
> Constitutional laws and process/govt foundations
> 
> Scientology borrows spiritual concepts and process from both Buddhism and Christianity.
> If you minus the cultish rules and monetary aspects, the actual process is effective of "auditing" one's mind and perceptions to be free of attachments that hinder your success.
> 
> The cultish division and rejection of other groups
> is problematic in any groups, secular religious political or social.
> 
> So as long as you forgive any faults you find in any group or cultural system,
> then you can benefit from the positive principles and process taught there.
> 
> The three that work best for me are
> Buddhism
> Christianity
> Constitutionalism
> 
> * Buddhism is best for letting go so you can understand Truth or God without imposed biases or conflicts attached, and just focus on natural laws and process of life
> * Christianity is best for healing through mutual forgiveness and correction to restore health in relations, body, mind, and spirit or collective level of humanity
> * Constitutionalism is best for moderating "due process" and "petitioning" (using free speech and press) to redress grievances and establish law and order by consent in practice.
> 
> You might also relate to the
> 7 principles in Unitarian Universalism
> (though I believe the trinity is a universal recurring theme in all religions and laws, and the Unitarians don't believe in teaching God as a Trinity. I believe "body/mind/spirit" represents human nature, and man is made in the image of God, so God/Christ/HolySpirit are symbols on a collective scale, meaning the individual is connected to the collective level by CONSCIENCE, so all three levels join in harmony)
Click to expand...


So you believe the story that satan was a jealous angel and god cast him down to hell?  You believe that story literally?  If not, you are just making stuff up.  What you like you accept and what you don't you disguard.

I think you can be spiritual and leave the christianity out of it.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> BEFORE YOU START READING GOD'S WORD SAY TO GOD," GOD IF YOU ARE REAL SHOWME,SPEAK TO ME THROUGH YOUR WORD,I WANT TO KNOW IF YOU ARE REAL" GOD WILL HONOR THOSE WORDS IF YOU MEAN WHAT YOU SAY!!! 1000%  Ask!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did and he didn't speak back.  Maybe he did to you because you are simple minded and gullible and wanted it so bad your mind heard what you wanted to hear.  I don't know, but he didn't speak back to me and I asked him honestly and for a long long time.
> 
> Just like the early morning preacher who was selling holy water.  Telling people if they call and order it they will get whatever they want/ask for.  Liars.
Click to expand...


WOULD A little guy LIE ABOUT READING GOD'S WORD AND PRAYING,WOULD HE SINK THAT LOW???


----------



## Boss

> I think you would admit that the need to believe in a god is something man made up. If not you are just as loony as they are. I can't tell with you. You seem to understand christianity is made up but I seem to recall you saying we are scared of death or hell. Can you clarify? Do you think people who don't believe in god all go to hell?



I don't admit the need to believe in God is something man made up. I believe the need to believe in God is intrinsic spiritual awareness that we have as humans. If we are scared of death or hell it is because of our intrinsic spiritual awareness and absolute knowledge that something greater than self exists outside the physical. 

I don't believe in "heaven and hell" per say. I believe there are numerous dimensions outside the physical dimension we experience. In those dimensions, time may or may not be a concept. Our spirits are immortal, they will exist after our physical bodies expire and our reality experience here is over. Because our spiritual inclination is directing us in the way of "good" as opposed to evil, I believe what happens to our spirit must be associated with how our spirit performs in this existence. Our next experience might be predicated on how we live this life, how well we adhere to our intrinsic spiritual nature to be "good" as opposed to evil. "Hell" might be simply re-living your physical existence here in another incarnation. Or perhaps in a less desirable dimension happening at the same time within our own reality experience. "Heaven" might be ascendence to a higher level of dimensional existence with more euphoria, also happening at the same time in this universe. I don't know any of this, I just have to follow my spiritual consciousness and try to be "good" because that is what my spirit inclines me to be. 



> I also don't think admitting there is no god would have negative effects on society. You guys think people can't or won't know right from wrong without god. I and many other atheists are proof that is not true.



Well I disagree. I don't think you or any Atheist has proven this in any substantial way. Pointing to meaningless statistics of countries that are overwhelmingly spiritual and trying to take credit because there are a high concentration of non-believers, is a cheap attempt to cash in on what you haven't contributed to. Give us an example of a vibrant moral society devoid of human spirituality, and I'll buy your argument. Fact is, you have no such example and I predict you never will. 

The problem is, when you have no moral accountability, you can simply establish your own parameters of morality, rationalizing and justifying your actions as you go. You are the proverbial kid in a candy store that you own, arguing that you can run the store without any supervision. Inevitably, your personal desires for pleasure trump your commitment to pragmatism. We see this throughout the Atheist community. You don't see Atheists speaking out against abortion, or any other moral issue. They've justified immoral behavior in every respect and will continue to do so. This declines civilizations, as history has repeatedly proven.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> BEFORE YOU START READING GOD'S WORD SAY TO GOD," GOD IF YOU ARE REAL SHOWME,SPEAK TO ME THROUGH YOUR WORD,I WANT TO KNOW IF YOU ARE REAL" GOD WILL HONOR THOSE WORDS IF YOU MEAN WHAT YOU SAY!!! 1000%  Ask!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did and he didn't speak back.  Maybe he did to you because you are simple minded and gullible and wanted it so bad your mind heard what you wanted to hear.  I don't know, but he didn't speak back to me and I asked him honestly and for a long long time.
> 
> Just like the early morning preacher who was selling holy water.  Telling people if they call and order it they will get whatever they want/ask for.  Liars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WOULD A little guy LIE ABOUT READING GOD'S WORD AND PRAYING,WOULD HE SINK THAT LOW???
Click to expand...


He or I wouldn't.  Why would I need to lie to you?  Either I am a normal American person who just doesn't believe in god or I'm possessed by the devil.  You figure out which is the truth.  You seem to be soooo good at figuring out what is fact and what is fiction I guess if what I am saying goes against your good book you will be sure it must be satan who's controlling me.

Fact is, and I think even you can understand this point Gismys.  Why would god punish me or anyone else for not believing you or your church?  Just because you have faith in and believe in your church doesn't make it right.  A lot of muslims in Saudi Arabia and Iran and Iraq have just as much faith their religion is real and they think you are going to hell.  Fuck them, right?  Exactly, which is why I tell people like you to fuck off too.  No offense.  If you can agree with me the Muslims are full of shit when they say you are going to hell, then at least a small part of that tiny brain of yours must admit what possible reason would I have to believe your fairy tales other than you trying to scare me into believing.  You say don't accept Jesus and go to hell.  Muslims say don't accept Mohammad and go to hell.  I say you can all go to hell.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> I think you would admit that the need to believe in a god is something man made up. If not you are just as loony as they are. I can't tell with you. You seem to understand christianity is made up but I seem to recall you saying we are scared of death or hell. Can you clarify? Do you think people who don't believe in god all go to hell?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't admit the need to believe in God is something man made up. I believe the need to believe in God is intrinsic spiritual awareness that we have as humans. If we are scared of death or hell it is because of our intrinsic spiritual awareness and absolute knowledge that something greater than self exists outside the physical.
> 
> I don't believe in "heaven and hell" per say. I believe there are numerous dimensions outside the physical dimension we experience. In those dimensions, time may or may not be a concept. Our spirits are immortal, they will exist after our physical bodies expire and our reality experience here is over. Because our spiritual inclination is directing us in the way of "good" as opposed to evil, I believe what happens to our spirit must be associated with how our spirit performs in this existence. Our next experience might be predicated on how we live this life, how well we adhere to our intrinsic spiritual nature to be "good" as opposed to evil. "Hell" might be simply re-living your physical existence here in another incarnation. Or perhaps in a less desirable dimension happening at the same time within our own reality experience. "Heaven" might be ascendence to a higher level of dimensional existence with more euphoria, also happening at the same time in this universe. I don't know any of this, I just have to follow my spiritual consciousness and try to be "good" because that is what my spirit inclines me to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I also don't think admitting there is no god would have negative effects on society. You guys think people can't or won't know right from wrong without god. I and many other atheists are proof that is not true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I disagree. I don't think you or any Atheist has proven this in any substantial way. Pointing to meaningless statistics of countries that are overwhelmingly spiritual and trying to take credit because there are a high concentration of non-believers, is a cheap attempt to cash in on what you haven't contributed to. Give us an example of a vibrant moral society devoid of human spirituality, and I'll buy your argument. Fact is, you have no such example and I predict you never will.
> 
> The problem is, when you have no moral accountability, you can simply establish your own parameters of morality, rationalizing and justifying your actions as you go. You are the proverbial kid in a candy store that you own, arguing that you can run the store without any supervision. Inevitably, your personal desires for pleasure trump your commitment to pragmatism. We see this throughout the Atheist community. You don't see Atheists speaking out against abortion, or any other moral issue. They've justified immoral behavior in every respect and will continue to do so. This declines civilizations, as history has repeatedly proven.
Click to expand...


Atheists cant know the difference between right and wrong.

Note: The following answer is a generalization. Atheists are not a homogeneous group. There is no formal moral code resulting from a lack of belief. Atheists can and do subscribe to any number of ethical systems, or may simply decide such things for themselves.

Atheists generally derive their sense of right and wrong from an innate and reasoned understanding of which actions contribute towards a society most hospitable to continual well-being and personal fulfilment. They are accountable to their own conscience and to society at large. They do not require an absolute standard in order to make distinctions between the possible effects of their actions.

Atheists are attuned to the here and now. Their ethics are not derived from some reward or punishment after death, but from a rational consideration of the consequences in this life.  Impulsive desires are compassionately, empathetically and intelligently weighed against long term personal and social goals.

As social animals that have evolved to want and give love, to have freedom and security, we have learned that we are safer, stronger and more prosperous in a successful group. Crimes are inherently anti-social behaviours that introduce needless risk and are antithetical to the long-term needs and goals of a happy, stable society.

Note: Essentially all theists unknowingly exercise their innate morality or conscience by picking and choosing which parts of their religion to follow.

I have no need for religion, I have a conscience.  Anonymous


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> I think you would admit that the need to believe in a god is something man made up. If not you are just as loony as they are. I can't tell with you. You seem to understand christianity is made up but I seem to recall you saying we are scared of death or hell. Can you clarify? Do you think people who don't believe in god all go to hell?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't admit the need to believe in God is something man made up. I believe the need to believe in God is intrinsic spiritual awareness that we have as humans. If we are scared of death or hell it is because of our intrinsic spiritual awareness and absolute knowledge that something greater than self exists outside the physical.
> 
> I don't believe in "heaven and hell" per say. I believe there are numerous dimensions outside the physical dimension we experience. In those dimensions, time may or may not be a concept. Our spirits are immortal, they will exist after our physical bodies expire and our reality experience here is over. Because our spiritual inclination is directing us in the way of "good" as opposed to evil, I believe what happens to our spirit must be associated with how our spirit performs in this existence. Our next experience might be predicated on how we live this life, how well we adhere to our intrinsic spiritual nature to be "good" as opposed to evil. "Hell" might be simply re-living your physical existence here in another incarnation. Or perhaps in a less desirable dimension happening at the same time within our own reality experience. "Heaven" might be ascendence to a higher level of dimensional existence with more euphoria, also happening at the same time in this universe. I don't know any of this, I just have to follow my spiritual consciousness and try to be "good" because that is what my spirit inclines me to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I also don't think admitting there is no god would have negative effects on society. You guys think people can't or won't know right from wrong without god. I and many other atheists are proof that is not true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I disagree. I don't think you or any Atheist has proven this in any substantial way. Pointing to meaningless statistics of countries that are overwhelmingly spiritual and trying to take credit because there are a high concentration of non-believers, is a cheap attempt to cash in on what you haven't contributed to. Give us an example of a vibrant moral society devoid of human spirituality, and I'll buy your argument. Fact is, you have no such example and I predict you never will.
> 
> The problem is, when you have no moral accountability, you can simply establish your own parameters of morality, rationalizing and justifying your actions as you go. You are the proverbial kid in a candy store that you own, arguing that you can run the store without any supervision. Inevitably, your personal desires for pleasure trump your commitment to pragmatism. We see this throughout the Atheist community. You don't see Atheists speaking out against abortion, or any other moral issue. They've justified immoral behavior in every respect and will continue to do so. This declines civilizations, as history has repeatedly proven.
Click to expand...


You are one of the people we talk about who picks and chooses what he/she wants to believe.  

People need to believe in god / Without god people will do bad things.

Argument from adverse consequences [2].

Just because something is perceived as having good consequences if it is true, does not actually make it true.


----------



## Boss

> But the fact is, if you look at the universe and nature, the way thing are suggests no god.



I disagree. I think the opposite is true. It's not possible the physical universe created itself and it certainly does exist and something set it into motion. It's not possible that life created itself because we know that life only comes from other life. We know of nothing in our reality that created itself, it defies all logic and reason. The ONLY rational explanation is something beyond physical nature is at play. This is why rational human beings with brains and neocortex have pretty much all been spiritually connected, it's almost impossible to rationalize there is no God. Now, you've demonstrated a good effort to do that here, but even you admitted you believe in "Karma" and you claim you are willing to ponder various other religious teachings for some rational reason. I can only surmise you have intrinsic awareness there is something else besides physical nature. 

Perhaps you've convinced yourself that you can simply deny what you are aware of, and pretend that you don't have this intrinsic awareness at all, but why do you feel so compelled to come here and spend so much time bolstering your disbelief? If you were certain of these things, this would be a major and colossal waste of time.  If you were totally comfortable in what you claimed to believe, there would be no need for you to come here and defend/support your beliefs. What you are demonstrating is that you really DON'T believe what you claim and you are trying desperately to convince yourself. Newsflash: That isn't going to ever work. 



> Do you/he want me to fake it? I can't believe. Sorry. Maybe if you told a better story.



You can't fake it. You can pretend that you don't really believe in any power greater than self, but you're not very convincing to me. I believe that you reject Christianity and the dogma of Christian religion. But you have somehow decided that nullifies God and renders such belief useless. It doesn't. I think that you believe what you are doing here is pulling people away from Christianity by testifying profusely about your conversion to "atheist agnosticism" but even this profession denotes hesitance to completely disavow God. You can't fake it, you're failing to convince me just as you are failing to convince yourself.

You have somehow convinced yourself that you can be an ethical and moral person without spirituality, but you see, you are flawed and fucked up because you aren't greater than self. You're putting all your stock in a faulty vessel and you know this, but you can't seem to stop yourself. This will eventually come back to bite you in the ass, and myself and USMB will probably be a distant memory in the past by then, but you will remember this conversation. Obedience to your spiritual consciousness is the only way to true enlightenment and peace for your soul. You can't fake it.


----------



## thanatos144

Atheism is a cruel and stupid religion.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> But the fact is, if you look at the universe and nature, the way thing are suggests no god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree. I think the opposite is true. It's not possible the physical universe created itself and it certainly does exist and something set it into motion. It's not possible that life created itself because we know that life only comes from other life. We know of nothing in our reality that created itself, it defies all logic and reason. The ONLY rational explanation is something beyond physical nature is at play. This is why rational human beings with brains and neocortex have pretty much all been spiritually connected, it's almost impossible to rationalize there is no God. Now, you've demonstrated a good effort to do that here, but even you admitted you believe in "Karma" and you claim you are willing to ponder various other religious teachings for some rational reason. I can only surmise you have intrinsic awareness there is something else besides physical nature.
> 
> Perhaps you've convinced yourself that you can simply deny what you are aware of, and pretend that you don't have this intrinsic awareness at all, but why do you feel so compelled to come here and spend so much time bolstering your disbelief? If you were certain of these things, this would be a major and colossal waste of time.  If you were totally comfortable in what you claimed to believe, there would be no need for you to come here and defend/support your beliefs. What you are demonstrating is that you really DON'T believe what you claim and you are trying desperately to convince yourself. Newsflash: That isn't going to ever work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you/he want me to fake it? I can't believe. Sorry. Maybe if you told a better story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't fake it. You can pretend that you don't really believe in any power greater than self, but you're not very convincing to me. I believe that you reject Christianity and the dogma of Christian religion. But you have somehow decided that nullifies God and renders such belief useless. It doesn't. I think that you believe what you are doing here is pulling people away from Christianity by testifying profusely about your conversion to "atheist agnosticism" but even this profession denotes hesitance to completely disavow God. You can't fake it, you're failing to convince me just as you are failing to convince yourself.
> 
> You have somehow convinced yourself that you can be an ethical and moral person without spirituality, but you see, you are flawed and fucked up because you aren't greater than self. You're putting all your stock in a faulty vessel and you know this, but you can't seem to stop yourself. This will eventually come back to bite you in the ass, and myself and USMB will probably be a distant memory in the past by then, but you will remember this conversation. Obedience to your spiritual consciousness is the only way to true enlightenment and peace for your soul. You can't fake it.
Click to expand...


Come on Boss you calling the scientific consensus wrong?  Last night I was watching a bible show when I got home, and I was thinking about you guys on the ride home too by the way, and was feeling a little guilty when people said things like "boy something bad must have happened to me" or "boy you must be an unhappy blabla" or why do I care so much.  To be honest, if there is a god, and I thought there was a few months ago, I do live my life to not be embarrassed or shamed in front of him.  But as an atheist I just say, "what would my parents/brother/girlfriend/friends think.  This is enough to keep people in check.  But I'm watching all these bible shows and listening to all of you and it is quite maddening all the different opinions and beliefs.  This alone suggests it's all made up.  You however think that just because everyone is spiritual, even with no real guidance other than the human brain, that is somehow enough.  I know I'm rambling but I'm just typing as I'm thinking.  The guy said last night, who you gonna believe, someone else or this book of god.  And the truth is, I'm going to believe science, logic and reason and facts.  Everything else is just speculation.  

And I noticed last night not one of those talk shows talked one bit about feeding the poor or healing the sick.  They only said BELIEVE and you will be rewarded.  Send in money and you will get your wish.  God said this and god said that.  Come on Boss.  You admit that's all made up, right?  Oh yea, you are a half breed.  You believe in hell but not any of the organized religions.  But because we invented hell in our minds it must be true.  Same with the boogy man and my mom.  

Anyways, you guys ask why we persist.  Why we seem so angry?  I've told you before, we don't think religion is harmless.    

Stalinism and Communism exercised gosateizm (state atheism) based on the ideology of Marxism-Leninism. Atheism was a means to an end, not a cause.


----------



## sealybobo

thanatos144 said:


> Atheism is a cruel and stupid religion.



No, it's not. There are no calls for slavery, rape or murder in the atheist holy book.

Atheists are most often called militant when they passionately defend reason and advocate critical thinking. The bar theists set for perceived hostility appears to be any atheist simply voicing an opinion in dissent of religious belief. In contrast, the bar atheists set for perceived theistic hostility is any form of religiously motivated violence or oppression.

Atheism does not preclude someone from being argumentative or insensitive; those things are simply seen as being preferable to killing one another over an imaginary friend.

A militant atheist will debate in a University theatre or appeal for the separation of religion and government. A militant theist will kill doctors, stone women to death, incite religious war, restrict sexual and gender equality and convince children they are flawed and worthless  all under the instruction of their imagined god or holy book.

It can be argued that there is no such thing as a militant atheist, that the term is itself a misnomer, because there is simply no ideology or philosophy in atheism to be militant about. If an atheist is someone who lacks belief in gods, then a militant atheist is apparently someone who passionately lacks a belief in gods. All other possible beliefs and ideologies  including any desire to oppress theism  come from outside atheism. This is in contrast to religious belief, which often includes a set of laws and commandments purportedly derived from a supernatural source about which one can be militant.

Note: Militant atheism is most often confused with gosateizm (state atheism), which was based on the ideology of Marxism-Leninism. It was this ideology which was responsible for the oppression and murder of theists under several 20th century communist regimes. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods with no inherit moral, political or philosophical baggage.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the fact is, if you look at the universe and nature, the way thing are suggests no god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree. I think the opposite is true. It's not possible the physical universe created itself and it certainly does exist and something set it into motion. It's not possible that life created itself because we know that life only comes from other life. We know of nothing in our reality that created itself, it defies all logic and reason. The ONLY rational explanation is something beyond physical nature is at play. This is why rational human beings with brains and neocortex have pretty much all been spiritually connected, it's almost impossible to rationalize there is no God. Now, you've demonstrated a good effort to do that here, but even you admitted you believe in "Karma" and you claim you are willing to ponder various other religious teachings for some rational reason. I can only surmise you have intrinsic awareness there is something else besides physical nature.
> 
> Perhaps you've convinced yourself that you can simply deny what you are aware of, and pretend that you don't have this intrinsic awareness at all, but why do you feel so compelled to come here and spend so much time bolstering your disbelief? If you were certain of these things, this would be a major and colossal waste of time.  If you were totally comfortable in what you claimed to believe, there would be no need for you to come here and defend/support your beliefs. What you are demonstrating is that you really DON'T believe what you claim and you are trying desperately to convince yourself. Newsflash: That isn't going to ever work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you/he want me to fake it? I can't believe. Sorry. Maybe if you told a better story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't fake it. You can pretend that you don't really believe in any power greater than self, but you're not very convincing to me. I believe that you reject Christianity and the dogma of Christian religion. But you have somehow decided that nullifies God and renders such belief useless. It doesn't. I think that you believe what you are doing here is pulling people away from Christianity by testifying profusely about your conversion to "atheist agnosticism" but even this profession denotes hesitance to completely disavow God. You can't fake it, you're failing to convince me just as you are failing to convince yourself.
> 
> You have somehow convinced yourself that you can be an ethical and moral person without spirituality, but you see, you are flawed and fucked up because you aren't greater than self. You're putting all your stock in a faulty vessel and you know this, but you can't seem to stop yourself. This will eventually come back to bite you in the ass, and myself and USMB will probably be a distant memory in the past by then, but you will remember this conversation. Obedience to your spiritual consciousness is the only way to true enlightenment and peace for your soul. You can't fake it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Come on Boss you calling the scientific consensus wrong?  Last night I was watching a bible show when I got home, and I was thinking about you guys on the ride home too by the way, and was feeling a little guilty when people said things like "boy something bad must have happened to me" or "boy you must be an unhappy blabla" or why do I care so much.  To be honest, if there is a god, and I thought there was a few months ago, I do live my life to not be embarrassed or shamed in front of him.  But as an atheist I just say, "what would my parents/brother/girlfriend/friends think.  This is enough to keep people in check.  But I'm watching all these bible shows and listening to all of you and it is quite maddening all the different opinions and beliefs.  This alone suggests it's all made up.  You however think that just because everyone is spiritual, even with no real guidance other than the human brain, that is somehow enough.  I know I'm rambling but I'm just typing as I'm thinking.  The guy said last night, who you gonna believe, someone else or this book of god.  And the truth is, I'm going to believe science, logic and reason and facts.  Everything else is just speculation.
> 
> And I noticed last night not one of those talk shows talked one bit about feeding the poor or healing the sick.  They only said BELIEVE and you will be rewarded.  Send in money and you will get your wish.  God said this and god said that.  Come on Boss.  You admit that's all made up, right?  Oh yea, you are a half breed.  You believe in hell but not any of the organized religions.  But because we invented hell in our minds it must be true.  Same with the boogy man and my mom.
> 
> Anyways, you guys ask why we persist.  Why we seem so angry?  I've told you before, we don't think religion is harmless.
> 
> Stalinism and Communism exercised gosateizm (state atheism) based on the ideology of Marxism-Leninism. Atheism was a means to an end, not a cause.
Click to expand...


BOTTOMLINE= YOU CHOOSE TO TRY NOT TO BELIEVE IN GOD BECAUSE YOU LOVE YOUR SIN AND YOU KNOW YOU WILL FACE YOUR FINAL JUDGMENT DAY IF YOU FACE THE TRUTH=ALMIGHTY GOD IS ALMIGHTY GOD!!!  That is the BOTTOMLINE!


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> But the fact is, if you look at the universe and nature, the way thing are suggests no god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree. I think the opposite is true. It's not possible the physical universe created itself and it certainly does exist and something set it into motion. It's not possible that life created itself because we know that life only comes from other life. We know of nothing in our reality that created itself, it defies all logic and reason. The ONLY rational explanation is something beyond physical nature is at play. This is why rational human beings with brains and neocortex have pretty much all been spiritually connected, it's almost impossible to rationalize there is no God. Now, you've demonstrated a good effort to do that here, but even you admitted you believe in "Karma" and you claim you are willing to ponder various other religious teachings for some rational reason. I can only surmise you have intrinsic awareness there is something else besides physical nature.
> 
> Perhaps you've convinced yourself that you can simply deny what you are aware of, and pretend that you don't have this intrinsic awareness at all, but why do you feel so compelled to come here and spend so much time bolstering your disbelief? If you were certain of these things, this would be a major and colossal waste of time.  *If you were totally comfortable in what you claimed to believe, there would be no need for you to come here and defend/support your beliefs. What you are demonstrating is that you really DON'T believe what you claim and you are trying desperately to convince yourself. Newsflash: That isn't going to ever work.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Do you/he want me to fake it? I can't believe. Sorry. Maybe if you told a better story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't fake it. You can pretend that you don't really believe in any power greater than self, but you're not very convincing to me. I believe that you reject Christianity and the dogma of Christian religion. But you have somehow decided that nullifies God and renders such belief useless. It doesn't. I think that you believe what you are doing here is pulling people away from Christianity by testifying profusely about your conversion to "atheist agnosticism" but even this profession denotes hesitance to completely disavow God. You can't fake it, you're failing to convince me just as you are failing to convince yourself.
> 
> You have somehow convinced yourself that you can be an ethical and moral person without spirituality, but you see, you are flawed and fucked up because you aren't greater than self. You're putting all your stock in a faulty vessel and you know this, but you can't seem to stop yourself. This will eventually come back to bite you in the ass, and myself and USMB will probably be a distant memory in the past by then, but you will remember this conversation. Obedience to your spiritual consciousness is the only way to true enlightenment and peace for your soul. You can't fake it.
Click to expand...


Based on the section in bold, can we assume that you are not totally comfortable with what you believe and really DON'T believe in spiritual nature, but are trying desperately to convince yourself?


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree. I think the opposite is true. It's not possible the physical universe created itself and it certainly does exist and something set it into motion. It's not possible that life created itself because we know that life only comes from other life. We know of nothing in our reality that created itself, it defies all logic and reason. The ONLY rational explanation is something beyond physical nature is at play. This is why rational human beings with brains and neocortex have pretty much all been spiritually connected, it's almost impossible to rationalize there is no God. Now, you've demonstrated a good effort to do that here, but even you admitted you believe in "Karma" and you claim you are willing to ponder various other religious teachings for some rational reason. I can only surmise you have intrinsic awareness there is something else besides physical nature.
> 
> Perhaps you've convinced yourself that you can simply deny what you are aware of, and pretend that you don't have this intrinsic awareness at all, but why do you feel so compelled to come here and spend so much time bolstering your disbelief? If you were certain of these things, this would be a major and colossal waste of time.  If you were totally comfortable in what you claimed to believe, there would be no need for you to come here and defend/support your beliefs. What you are demonstrating is that you really DON'T believe what you claim and you are trying desperately to convince yourself. Newsflash: That isn't going to ever work.
> 
> 
> 
> You can't fake it. You can pretend that you don't really believe in any power greater than self, but you're not very convincing to me. I believe that you reject Christianity and the dogma of Christian religion. But you have somehow decided that nullifies God and renders such belief useless. It doesn't. I think that you believe what you are doing here is pulling people away from Christianity by testifying profusely about your conversion to "atheist agnosticism" but even this profession denotes hesitance to completely disavow God. You can't fake it, you're failing to convince me just as you are failing to convince yourself.
> 
> You have somehow convinced yourself that you can be an ethical and moral person without spirituality, but you see, you are flawed and fucked up because you aren't greater than self. You're putting all your stock in a faulty vessel and you know this, but you can't seem to stop yourself. This will eventually come back to bite you in the ass, and myself and USMB will probably be a distant memory in the past by then, but you will remember this conversation. Obedience to your spiritual consciousness is the only way to true enlightenment and peace for your soul. You can't fake it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Come on Boss you calling the scientific consensus wrong?  Last night I was watching a bible show when I got home, and I was thinking about you guys on the ride home too by the way, and was feeling a little guilty when people said things like "boy something bad must have happened to me" or "boy you must be an unhappy blabla" or why do I care so much.  To be honest, if there is a god, and I thought there was a few months ago, I do live my life to not be embarrassed or shamed in front of him.  But as an atheist I just say, "what would my parents/brother/girlfriend/friends think.  This is enough to keep people in check.  But I'm watching all these bible shows and listening to all of you and it is quite maddening all the different opinions and beliefs.  This alone suggests it's all made up.  You however think that just because everyone is spiritual, even with no real guidance other than the human brain, that is somehow enough.  I know I'm rambling but I'm just typing as I'm thinking.  The guy said last night, who you gonna believe, someone else or this book of god.  And the truth is, I'm going to believe science, logic and reason and facts.  Everything else is just speculation.
> 
> And I noticed last night not one of those talk shows talked one bit about feeding the poor or healing the sick.  They only said BELIEVE and you will be rewarded.  Send in money and you will get your wish.  God said this and god said that.  Come on Boss.  You admit that's all made up, right?  Oh yea, you are a half breed.  You believe in hell but not any of the organized religions.  But because we invented hell in our minds it must be true.  Same with the boogy man and my mom.
> 
> Anyways, you guys ask why we persist.  Why we seem so angry?  I've told you before, we don't think religion is harmless.
> 
> Stalinism and Communism exercised gosateizm (state atheism) based on the ideology of Marxism-Leninism. Atheism was a means to an end, not a cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BOTTOMLINE= YOU CHOOSE TO TRY NOT TO BELIEVE IN GOD BECAUSE YOU LOVE YOUR SIN AND YOU KNOW YOU WILL FACE YOUR FINAL JUDGMENT DAY IF YOU FACE THE TRUTH=ALMIGHTY GOD IS ALMIGHTY GOD!!!  That is the BOTTOMLINE!
Click to expand...


No.  What you say makes no sense.  If I thought for a minute you were right I'd repent.  Do you think I would choose to burn fall all eternity?  The fact is I don't believe you and THAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE.


----------



## sealybobo

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the fact is, if you look at the universe and nature, the way thing are suggests no god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree. I think the opposite is true. It's not possible the physical universe created itself and it certainly does exist and something set it into motion. It's not possible that life created itself because we know that life only comes from other life. We know of nothing in our reality that created itself, it defies all logic and reason. The ONLY rational explanation is something beyond physical nature is at play. This is why rational human beings with brains and neocortex have pretty much all been spiritually connected, it's almost impossible to rationalize there is no God. Now, you've demonstrated a good effort to do that here, but even you admitted you believe in "Karma" and you claim you are willing to ponder various other religious teachings for some rational reason. I can only surmise you have intrinsic awareness there is something else besides physical nature.
> 
> Perhaps you've convinced yourself that you can simply deny what you are aware of, and pretend that you don't have this intrinsic awareness at all, but why do you feel so compelled to come here and spend so much time bolstering your disbelief? If you were certain of these things, this would be a major and colossal waste of time.  *If you were totally comfortable in what you claimed to believe, there would be no need for you to come here and defend/support your beliefs. What you are demonstrating is that you really DON'T believe what you claim and you are trying desperately to convince yourself. Newsflash: That isn't going to ever work.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Do you/he want me to fake it? I can't believe. Sorry. Maybe if you told a better story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't fake it. You can pretend that you don't really believe in any power greater than self, but you're not very convincing to me. I believe that you reject Christianity and the dogma of Christian religion. But you have somehow decided that nullifies God and renders such belief useless. It doesn't. I think that you believe what you are doing here is pulling people away from Christianity by testifying profusely about your conversion to "atheist agnosticism" but even this profession denotes hesitance to completely disavow God. You can't fake it, you're failing to convince me just as you are failing to convince yourself.
> 
> You have somehow convinced yourself that you can be an ethical and moral person without spirituality, but you see, you are flawed and fucked up because you aren't greater than self. You're putting all your stock in a faulty vessel and you know this, but you can't seem to stop yourself. This will eventually come back to bite you in the ass, and myself and USMB will probably be a distant memory in the past by then, but you will remember this conversation. Obedience to your spiritual consciousness is the only way to true enlightenment and peace for your soul. You can't fake it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Based on the section in bold, can we assume that you are not totally comfortable with what you believe and really DON'T believe in spiritual nature, but are trying desperately to convince yourself?
Click to expand...


Of course that's what it is.  Here is the facts.  Boss is at least smart enough not to be a bible thumper.  He knows all organized religions are indefensible but like my dad, he just can't get himself to admit that the likelihood of their being a god is virtually slim to nill.  At least as far as our definition of god, an all knowing guy who created us in his image, flooded the earth on purpose, knocked up mary.  Boss is smart enough that he doesn't try to defend these stories but he can't go that one last step and admit that god doesn't exist.  If he did he certainly wouldn't be hiding from us.  What a stupid story.  So he picks and chooses what nonsense to believe.


----------



## The Irish Ram

If every church on earth is corrupted by man, how does that equate to there not being a God?  
God was sitting on a mt. when man was right below Him melting gold for an idol to worship.  Don't blame God for man's inadequacies. We screw up everything. 
Thank Him for loving us in spite of our infirmities.


----------



## BreezeWood

> *I R:* God was sitting on a mt. when man was right below Him melting gold for an idol to worship.



whose fault was that ? - maybe G should come down from the mt., (for those who doubt).

.


----------



## The Irish Ram

BreezeWood said:


> *I R:* God was sitting on a mt. when man was right below Him melting gold for an idol to worship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whose fault was that ? - maybe G should come down from the mt., (for those who doubt).
> 
> .
Click to expand...


He'd rather sit on High and draw His children near to Him, where He belongs, where we belong.
 Keep in mind that during the day He was shade in the desert.  At night He was the fire that warmed them, the one that forgave them while they were sinning, and the one providing all of the food and water for the trip. 

 It's called grace, unmerited favor.  That you require more is your fault, not His.  
Christ is our portion.


----------



## BreezeWood

The Irish Ram said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I R:* God was sitting on a mt. when man was right below Him melting gold for an idol to worship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whose fault was that ? - maybe G should come down from the mt., (for those who doubt).
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He'd rather sit on High and draw His children near to Him, where He belongs, where we belong.
> Keep in mind that during the day He was shade in the desert.  At night He was the fire that warmed them, the one that forgave them while they were sinning, and the one providing all of the food and water for the trip.
> 
> It's called grace, unmerited favor.  That you require more is your fault, not His.
> Christ is our portion.
Click to expand...



- and coming down from the mt. for those who do not know for the better ...

.


----------



## Boss

> Come on Boss you calling the scientific consensus wrong?



Well here we go again, one minute you admit that "we simply don't know" then it evolves into scientific consensus! IF there is a scientific consensus that God doesn't exist, present their evidence. I've never seen this, I know of NO scientist who has ever proclaimed this. I think it's a consensus that science doesn't know and can't answer this question. However, I am willing to hear any evidence you think makes this a scientific consensus. 



> can we assume that you are not totally comfortable with what you believe and really DON'T believe in spiritual nature, but are trying desperately to convince yourself?



Well no. Because I have never stated that my viewpoint is a scientific consensus, or that I am even absolutely right in my beliefs. I have repeatedly stated that I "believe" in spiritual nature because I connect with it daily. If I didn't have that connection, I would be skeptical. I am skeptical about religion and religious claims, I've not been convinced they are true. Again, I don't know they aren't, I've not claimed they aren't. I just don't happen to believe in religious doctrines and I've stated why.


----------



## Boss

> But I'm watching all these bible shows and listening to all of you and it is quite maddening all the different opinions and beliefs. This alone suggests it's all made up.



Let's imagine for a moment, you have been dispatched to a small village in Africa to investigate a report of a UFO. You set up camp and begin to interview the villagers. One by one, they tell you their story. One man saw three red lights in the sky, another man saw three white lights. One woman heard a noise and saw a glow in the sky, another woman heard no noise but saw the same glow. One man says he saw the spaceship itself, another man saw it hovering over the village, yet another saw it fly by quickly and vanish without a trace. In the end, nearly all the villagers reported seeing something they couldn't explain, only a couple saw and heard nothing. 

Now since their stories all differed in what they supposedly saw, do you conclude they imagined this and it wasn't real? Or is it more than likely they DID see something and their stories simply differ because perceptions are different in eyewitness testimony? 

The fact that 88% of the human species believes (and always have) that they make a real spiritual connection, is much more significant than the fact they experience these connections differently and have different perspective of what they experience. The fact that perspectives of an experience differ from person to person does NOT suggest the experience did not happen. This is not supported by science or logic, and it's not even a rational conclusion.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Come on Boss you calling the scientific consensus wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well here we go again, one minute you admit that "we simply don't know" then it evolves into scientific consensus! IF there is a scientific consensus that God doesn't exist, present their evidence. I've never seen this, I know of NO scientist who has ever proclaimed this. I think it's a consensus that science doesn't know and can't answer this question. However, I am willing to hear any evidence you think makes this a scientific consensus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> can we assume that you are not totally comfortable with what you believe and really DON'T believe in spiritual nature, but are trying desperately to convince yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well no. Because I have never stated that my viewpoint is a scientific consensus, or that I am even absolutely right in my beliefs. I have repeatedly stated that I "believe" in spiritual nature because I connect with it daily. If I didn't have that connection, I would be skeptical. I am skeptical about religion and religious claims, I've not been convinced they are true. Again, I don't know they aren't, I've not claimed they aren't. I just don't happen to believe in religious doctrines and I've stated why.
Click to expand...


Ah.  Has sealybobo said that he is absolutely right in his beliefs? 

Whatever the case may be for that, the post I quoted didn't say that only those who think they are absolutely right in their beliefs are not totally comfortable etc.  And while I disagree with how adamant sealy comes across that there is no god, you have certainly presented your case as though you feel absolutely confident in your beliefs.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> Come on Boss you calling the scientific consensus wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well here we go again, one minute you admit that "we simply don't know" then it evolves into scientific consensus! IF there is a scientific consensus that God doesn't exist, present their evidence. I've never seen this, I know of NO scientist who has ever proclaimed this. I think it's a consensus that science doesn't know and can't answer this question. However, I am willing to hear any evidence you think makes this a scientific consensus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> can we assume that you are not totally comfortable with what you believe and really DON'T believe in spiritual nature, but are trying desperately to convince yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well no. Because I have never stated that my viewpoint is a scientific consensus, or that I am even absolutely right in my beliefs. I have repeatedly stated that I "believe" in spiritual nature because I connect with it daily. If I didn't have that connection, I would be skeptical. I am skeptical about religion and religious claims, I've not been convinced they are true. Again, I don't know they aren't, I've not claimed they aren't. I just don't happen to believe in religious doctrines and I've stated why.
Click to expand...


Apologetics Press - "Evolution is the Scientific Consensus?So You Should Believe It!?

God is an ever-receding pocket of ignorance thats getting smaller and smaller as time goes on.- Neil deGrasse Tyson


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> But I'm watching all these bible shows and listening to all of you and it is quite maddening all the different opinions and beliefs. This alone suggests it's all made up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's imagine for a moment, you have been dispatched to a small village in Africa to investigate a report of a UFO. You set up camp and begin to interview the villagers. One by one, they tell you their story. One man saw three red lights in the sky, another man saw three white lights. One woman heard a noise and saw a glow in the sky, another woman heard no noise but saw the same glow. One man says he saw the spaceship itself, another man saw it hovering over the village, yet another saw it fly by quickly and vanish without a trace. In the end, nearly all the villagers reported seeing something they couldn't explain, only a couple saw and heard nothing.
> 
> Now since their stories all differed in what they supposedly saw, do you conclude they imagined this and it wasn't real? Or is it more than likely they DID see something and their stories simply differ because perceptions are different in eyewitness testimony?
> 
> The fact that 88% of the human species believes (and always have) that they make a real spiritual connection, is much more significant than the fact they experience these connections differently and have different perspective of what they experience. The fact that perspectives of an experience differ from person to person does NOT suggest the experience did not happen. This is not supported by science or logic, and it's not even a rational conclusion.
Click to expand...


Those people in Africa don't know what they saw.  If they said it was god and didn't have any proof, I would not immediately believe them and even if I did believe they saw something I wouldn't believe they saw god or a UFO.  

Eye-witness testimony and anecdotal accounts are, by themselves, not reliable or definitive forms of proof for such extraordinary claims.


----------



## sealybobo

The Irish Ram said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I R:* God was sitting on a mt. when man was right below Him melting gold for an idol to worship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whose fault was that ? - maybe G should come down from the mt., (for those who doubt).
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He'd rather sit on High and draw His children near to Him, where He belongs, where we belong.
> Keep in mind that during the day He was shade in the desert.  At night He was the fire that warmed them, the one that forgave them while they were sinning, and the one providing all of the food and water for the trip.
> 
> It's called grace, unmerited favor.  That you require more is your fault, not His.
> Christ is our portion.
Click to expand...


God is the universe/love/laws of physics/shade/fire/warmth/forgiveness.

We already have names for these things. Redefining something as god tells us nothing. To use the word god implies a host of other attributes and if you dont intend to apply those attributes, using the word is intentionally misleading.


----------



## GISMYS

IGNORANT little man, does he want to be a robot or have freewill???? God gave man choice BUT THEN SIN LOVING little man wants to blame God for what choice man made AND THE JUST RESULTS HE GETS!!! lol!!!


----------



## Boss

> Ah. Has sealybobo said that he is absolutely right in his beliefs?
> 
> Whatever the case may be for that, the post I quoted didn't say that only those who think they are absolutely right in their beliefs are not totally comfortable etc. And while I disagree with how adamant sealy comes across that there is no god, you have certainly presented your case as though you feel absolutely confident in your beliefs.



Silly boob has run the gamut. He has said that he "just doesn't know" and then he claims it's "scientific consensus!" Repeatedly, he claims God is not real and man invented God. Then he says there is a .0001% chance God is real. He says he is an Atheists, then he's an "Agnostic Atheist!" First it's "not rational" to believe in God, then it's the "most rational" to be an undecided agnostic. 

I do feel confident that I am connecting with something beyond physical nature, greater than self. I define that as a spiritual connection with spiritual nature. As I said, if that were not the case, I wouldn't be able to just "believe" it. I feel confident that humans have always had spirituality because the oldest humans we know about were spiritually connecting. I don't feel confident that God exists as a physical entity or that physical sciences can ever prove God's spiritual existence. I also don't feel confident believing man-made religious incarnations of God. I've been completely open and honest about these things and remain consistent.


----------



## Boss

> Apologetics Press - "Evolution is the Scientific Consensus?So You Should Believe It!?



When did we switch back to a debate on evolution? We were talking about existence of God. I've not refuted evolution, but evolution does not disprove God. Evolution has nothing to do with origin of the universe or origin of life... or whether God exists.  Neither does Neil DeGrasse Tyson.


----------



## Boss

> Apologetics Press - "Evolution is the Scientific Consensus?So You Should Believe It!?



When did we switch back to a debate on evolution? We were talking about existence of God. I've not refuted evolution, but evolution does not disprove God. Evolution has nothing to do with origin of the universe or origin of life... or whether God exists.  Neither does Neil DeGrasse Tyson.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> IGNORANT little man, does he want to be a robot or have freewill???? God gave man choice BUT THEN SIN LOVING little man wants to blame God for what choice man made AND THE JUST RESULTS HE GETS!!! lol!!!



You are the robot lady.  I am practicing my free will.  I refuse to be guilted or brainwashed into believing your unbelievable cult story.  Sorry.  You'll just have to go back out there and try to recruit other fools like you who are gullable.


----------



## koshergrl

Gullible, illiterate know-nothing.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> Apologetics Press - "Evolution is the Scientific Consensus?So You Should Believe It!?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When did we switch back to a debate on evolution? We were talking about existence of God. I've not refuted evolution, but evolution does not disprove God. Evolution has nothing to do with origin of the universe or origin of life... or whether God exists.  Neither does Neil DeGrasse Tyson.
Click to expand...


The motivation for belief in a divine salvational god breaks down when you accept evolution:

Original sin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I see.  You want to deny all the supposed evidence god exists and still believe?  It is even harder to prove you wrong I will admit since you have your own crazy reasons why you believe in a god.  Its real easy to tear apart the jew, muslim or christian stories but your argument that "god exists because humans have always believed in one" is not one that can be proven wrong.  It's just a feeling you have.  

Lets just say most outspoken scientists don't agree with you.  Why won't they speak up?  Well you see how Americans treat and think about people who don't believe in god so I would keep quiet about it too if I were them.  You guys are too ignorant to hear the truth.


----------



## koshergrl

Illiterate know-nothing, redux.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> Apologetics Press - "Evolution is the Scientific Consensus?So You Should Believe It!?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When did we switch back to a debate on evolution? We were talking about existence of God. I've not refuted evolution, but evolution does not disprove God. Evolution has nothing to do with origin of the universe or origin of life... or whether God exists.  Neither does Neil DeGrasse Tyson.
Click to expand...


In 1997, the science journal Nature reported that 40 percent of scientists in the U.S. believed in a personal Godthe same amount as had believed eighty years prior. However, when those results were filtered to include only members of the National Academy of Sciences, the number dropped to 10 percent. A Pew survey taken in 2009 records that 33 percent of scientists believe in God and another 18 percent in a higher power, compared to 94 percent of the (STUPID) general public.

Read more: Why don't scientists believe in God?


----------



## Slyhunter

I'm pissed at myself for being blind all those years I called myself a Christian. I want God to be real. I want to be rewarded for living this lousy life. Wanting something to be true, doesn't make it true. The bible is a work of fiction and the God of the OT is somebody I'd want nothing to do with. Too hateful, bloodthirsty, full of himself, I don't want to be anybody's slave and that includes God's.


----------



## sealybobo

koshergrl said:


> Illiterate know-nothing, redux.



There are scientists who simply don't bother thinking about God. Steven Weinberg, a Nobel Prize laureate for his work in particle physics, said, "The experience of being a scientist makes religion seem fairly irrelevant. Most scientists I know simply don't think about it very much. They don't think about religion enough to qualify as practicing atheists."

Read more: Why don't scientists believe in God?


----------



## sealybobo

Slyhunter said:


> I'm pissed at myself for being blind all those years I called myself a Christian. I want God to be real. I want to be rewarded for living this lousy life. Wanting something to be true, doesn't make it true. The bible is a work of fiction and the God of the OT is somebody I'd want nothing to do with. Too hateful, bloodthirsty, full of himself, I don't want to be anybody's slave and that includes God's.



Clearly the Old and New Testaments were written by men and for men.


----------



## koshergrl

Illiterate know-nothing, ad infinitum.


----------



## sealybobo

koshergrl said:


> Illiterate know-nothing, redux.



Look at this bullshit website

) They choose to worship "created things rather than the Creator" (Romans 1:25 NIV).
2) They choose to embrace "opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge" (1 Timothy 6:20 NIV).
3) They choose to retain their sin instead of repenting (John 3:19).
4) They choose to limit their definition of truth to what can be empirically discovered. Unfortunately, the truth of God cannot be discovered via the scientific method. "The world through its wisdom did not know him" (1 Corinthians 1:21 NIV).
5) They choose pride over humility (James 4:6).

They left one out.  We don't believe because the stories are unfucking believable.  Is that so fucking hard to understand?  We don't trust corrupt lying churches.  We don't accept their claims as fact.  Why should we?  

Well guess what people.  Anyone who does has blind faith.  You are trusting a society you should know is untrustworthy.  Kings, Pharoahs, Slave Masters and corrupt Popes use religion to control the stupid masses.  Are you someone who they control?  I think you are.


----------



## sealybobo

koshergrl said:


> Illiterate know-nothing, ad infinitum.



I don't get people like you.  Why does it make you mad that I point out you have absolutely zero proof your lord and savior are even real?  You freaks run around telling everyone to believe the unbelievable stories your fake ass book tells or go to hell.  

Doesn't it bother you that all the other religions before and after yours are/were fake? 

So all you really have to go on is trust that your church is telling the truth.  But then you'd have to have faith that the generation before them told them the truth, and so on and so on.

If you ask me, 11 guys made up the story 2000 years ago and you are brainwashed to believe nonsense.  

And I would be ok with that if you guys weren't trying to push it on the rest of us.  I think religion is bad for society and I think we'll be much better off without it.  

I read your fake ass book.  Maybe now you guys should read something other than that fake ass book.  Why there is no god


----------



## Tuatara

sealybobo, are you feeding the trolls


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apologetics Press - "Evolution is the Scientific Consensus?So You Should Believe It!?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When did we switch back to a debate on evolution? We were talking about existence of God. I've not refuted evolution, but evolution does not disprove God. Evolution has nothing to do with origin of the universe or origin of life... or whether God exists.  Neither does Neil DeGrasse Tyson.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The motivation for belief in a divine salvational god breaks down when you accept evolution:
> 
> Original sin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> I see.  You want to deny all the supposed evidence god exists and still believe?  It is even harder to prove you wrong I will admit since you have your own crazy reasons why you believe in a god.  Its real easy to tear apart the jew, muslim or christian stories but your argument that "god exists because humans have always believed in one" is not one that can be proven wrong.  It's just a feeling you have.
> 
> Lets just say most outspoken scientists don't agree with you.  Why won't they speak up?  Well you see how Americans treat and think about people who don't believe in god so I would keep quiet about it too if I were them.  You guys are too ignorant to hear the truth.
Click to expand...


Well, I am sorry but nothing "breaks down" when you accept the theory of evolution. I'm a perfect example.. I accept evolution and  I also believe in a higher spiritual power. Now, I don't know about "divine salvational" God, but I do know Christians who also accept the theory of evolution. I have no idea what a wiki article on "original sin" has to do with evolution. I also have no idea what you mean that I want to deny evidence God exists, that seems to be what YOU want to do here. I'm the one making an argument for God existing and presenting the evidence I have. 

You've not proven anyone wrong here. You've attacked religions, mostly with a simple-minded and frankly child-like understanding of their teachings. It's not "crazy reasoning" for me to believe in God because I communicate with God daily. And it's not a "feeling" that humans have always been spiritual creatures, it's a scientific fact. 

Now... Thank God we have Silly Boob to tell us what scientists believe but are too afraid to say! I know your little stupid ass has solid inside understanding of what every scientist thinks and believes on matters of spirituality. Still.... no evidence is being presented to disprove God, by you or by them. I don't think it is because we are too ignorant to hear it, I believe it's because no such evidence exists. Belief in something not in evidence is called "faith" and that's what you have.


----------



## Boss

> I think religion is bad for society and I think we'll be much better off without it.



Your trouble is you are a monkey who is trying to think. You should leave thinking to evolved humans who know and comprehend their spiritual connection to something greater than self, and concern yourself with peeling bananas or something. 

It doesn't really matter what you think we'd be better off without, you are never going to remove a fundamental human behavioral attribute. It's remarkably silly for you to believe this is even possible. Again.... your time would be better spent picking off fleas from your mate or learning to hang upside down from your feet. Leave social structure to the species who do it better than any other!


----------



## MaryL

Boss said:


> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.



Perhaps Christians should chop off more heads, stone people to death,  put out hits on disrespectful easterners, stop allowing apostolates and insist on  Christian laws in  Muslim countries. And, a touch of suicidal murder and sectarian violence, that might make things right.


----------



## The Irish Ram

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apologetics Press - "Evolution is the Scientific Consensus?So You Should Believe It!?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When did we switch back to a debate on evolution? We were talking about existence of God. I've not refuted evolution, but evolution does not disprove God. Evolution has nothing to do with origin of the universe or origin of life... or whether God exists.  Neither does Neil DeGrasse Tyson.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The motivation for belief in a divine salvational god breaks down when you accept evolution:
> 
> Original sin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> I see.  You want to deny all the supposed evidence god exists and still believe?  It is even harder to prove you wrong I will admit since you have your own crazy reasons why you believe in a god.  Its real easy to tear apart the jew, muslim or christian stories but your argument that "god exists because humans have always believed in one" is not one that can be proven wrong.  It's just a feeling you have.
> 
> Lets just say most outspoken scientists don't agree with you.  Why won't they speak up?  Well you see how Americans treat and think about people who don't believe in god so I would keep quiet about it too if I were them.  You guys are too ignorant to hear the truth.
Click to expand...


Darwin breaks down when you accept DNA.


----------



## hipeter924

If my travels through atheist forums is any judge, most of them are admin'd and made up of cyber bullies, who make believers and those of the 'wrong' view feel bad about themselves.

There is this myth created by Hitchens, Dawkins, and others that somehow every atheist is nicer or more open minded without god to cloud their thinking. But I call BS on that as the top 10 atheist forums on a google search are full of the most awful, self-centered, homophobic, racist, sexist, closed-minded people you could ever meet. 

There are four camps of people to avoid on atheist forums:

1. The Femanazis: Basically they hate all men, view them as intellectually inferior, and hate gay and bi men the most. The Sub-Group of this camp is the self-hating transsexual/lesbian group that hate gay/bi men and hate same-sex marriage. Avoid at all costs, they can't be reasoned with, only thing they respect is a libertarian that hates same-sex marriage, or a self-hating man.

2. The Europhiles: The tamest of the lot but still nasty pieces of work. They believe that Europe is a utopia, alongside Canada. If you point out anything that contradicts this view, like horrible treatment of minorities in France, violent religious/nationalist groups, high unemployment and weak economic growth - they will go after you like rabid wolves. 

3. Ex-religious radicals: Basically awful religious types who have become 'atheist' and believe they have all the answers, and have just donned a different hat to spew hateful rhetoric from a different perspective. Some just go back to being religious radicals, as they don't get any more respect among most atheists. Don't talk to them, unless it is on some mundane or boring topic unrelated to leaving god. 

4. The ideologues in the mod/admin team: 5 out of 10 atheist forums have them. They are over-privileged people that hate anyone that disagrees with their own political views, one such forum is run by a homophobic libertarian that hates same-sex marriage (and gay couples) as much as s/he does religious.

My advice is look at the other side, or you risk hate building up towards people, which is never a good thing.


----------



## The Irish Ram

We have lots of #3's here.  Can ya trade 'em like baseball cards?


----------



## HUGGY

hipeter924 said:


> If my travels through atheist forums is any judge, most of them are admin'd and made up of cyber bullies, who make believers and those of the 'wrong' view feel bad about themselves.
> 
> There is this myth created by Hitchens, Dawkins, and others that somehow every atheist is nicer or more open minded without god to cloud their thinking. But I call BS on that as the top 10 atheist forums on a google search are full of the most awful, self-centered, homophobic, racist, sexist, closed-minded people you could ever meet.
> 
> *There are four camps of people to avoid on atheist forums:*
> 
> 1. The Femanazis: Basically they hate all men, view them as intellectually inferior, and hate gay and bi men the most. The Sub-Group of this camp is the self-hating transsexual/lesbian group that hate gay/bi men and hate same-sex marriage. Avoid at all costs, they can't be reasoned with, only thing they respect is a libertarian that hates same-sex marriage, or a self-hating man.
> 
> 2. The Europhiles: The tamest of the lot but still nasty pieces of work. They believe that Europe is a utopia, alongside Canada. If you point out anything that contradicts this view, like horrible treatment of minorities in France, violent religious/nationalist groups, high unemployment and weak economic growth - they will go after you like rabid wolves.
> 
> 3. Ex-religious radicals: Basically awful religious types who have become 'atheist' and believe they have all the answers, and have just donned a different hat to spew hateful rhetoric from a different perspective. Some just go back to being religious radicals, as they don't get any more respect among most atheists. Don't talk to them, unless it is on some mundane or boring topic unrelated to leaving god.
> 
> 4. The ideologues in the mod/admin team: 5 out of 10 atheist forums have them. They are over-privileged people that hate anyone that disagrees with their own political views, one such forum is run by a homophobic libertarian that hates same-sex marriage (and gay couples) as much as s/he does religious.
> 
> My advice is look at the other side, or you risk hate building up towards people, which is never a good thing.



*"There are four camps of people to avoid on atheist forums:"*

OR ....you could just do like I do and never go to an atheist forum.. Problem solved.

If you are so stupid that you need a support group to see that religion and god is a scam then you probably should remain a christian.


----------



## HUGGY

The Irish Ram said:


> We have lots of #3's here.  Can ya trade 'em like baseball cards?



Do people that have a sex change go #3 ??

Just askin...


----------



## sealybobo

Tuatara said:


> sealybobo, are you feeding the trolls



No.  I'm really into this.  Every night I go home and watch the religious shows.  Either they need money for their ministries, for you to have good luck or to fly mistreated jews out of russia to Israel.

OMFG Israel has a ton of money.  They can't fly them home?  They don't care about persecuted jews in Russia enough to get them out of there but we should?  $300 to fly 1 home, $700 to fly 2.  Why wouldn't you just fly 1 then call the next day and save $100?  

Anyways, last night I realized what I am doing here.  I'm basically the black guy who moved into an all white neighborhood.  No one can give me a good reason why they don't like me but they don't want me there.  They "think" crime will go up if blacks start moving into the neighborhood, etc.  And you know what?  I can't say for sure it won't.  I don't think it will because I'm a good atheist but the first black to move into an all white neighborhood is usually good too, but then come 100 or 1000 more and all of the sudden crime does go up.  But I don't think that would happen with atheists.  All I'm saying is I see why they don't want us Atheists in their communities.  

Part of me says, "listen sealybobo, these people have the right to believe and live whatever way they want to live".  If it weren't for the fact that their beliefs negatively affect me, I would probably keep my mouth shut and let them to continue believing a fairytale.  Same way black people feel.  They don't care if people are racist as long as it doesn't cost them a job or prevent them from living where they want to live.  But religion wants to force itself on us.  It wants it's lie taught in school.  It prevents people from getting abortions, stem cell research and assisted suicide.  Politicians use it to sucker people into voting against themselves financially.  So normally I would not fight with religion but I believe they started the fight.

Im sorry if my insensitivity towards your beliefs offends you. But guess what  your religious wars, jihads, crusades, inquisitions, censoring of free speech, brainwashing of children, molesting of kids and covering it up, forcing girls into underage marriages, female genital mutilation, stoning, pederasty, homophobia and rejection of science and reason offend me. So I guess were even.  Anonymous


----------



## GISMYS

It is a fool who says to himself, &#8220;There is no God!&#8221; Anyone who talks like that is warped and evil and cannot really be a good person at all.Psalm 14:1===Only a fool would say to himself, &#8220;There is no God.&#8221; And why does he say it? Because of his wicked heart, his dark and evil deeds. His life is corroded with sin. PSALM 53:1 and you???


----------



## sealybobo

HUGGY said:


> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If my travels through atheist forums is any judge, most of them are admin'd and made up of cyber bullies, who make believers and those of the 'wrong' view feel bad about themselves.
> 
> There is this myth created by Hitchens, Dawkins, and others that somehow every atheist is nicer or more open minded without god to cloud their thinking. But I call BS on that as the top 10 atheist forums on a google search are full of the most awful, self-centered, homophobic, racist, sexist, closed-minded people you could ever meet.
> 
> *There are four camps of people to avoid on atheist forums:*
> 
> 1. The Femanazis: Basically they hate all men, view them as intellectually inferior, and hate gay and bi men the most. The Sub-Group of this camp is the self-hating transsexual/lesbian group that hate gay/bi men and hate same-sex marriage. Avoid at all costs, they can't be reasoned with, only thing they respect is a libertarian that hates same-sex marriage, or a self-hating man.
> 
> 2. The Europhiles: The tamest of the lot but still nasty pieces of work. They believe that Europe is a utopia, alongside Canada. If you point out anything that contradicts this view, like horrible treatment of minorities in France, violent religious/nationalist groups, high unemployment and weak economic growth - they will go after you like rabid wolves.
> 
> 3. Ex-religious radicals: Basically awful religious types who have become 'atheist' and believe they have all the answers, and have just donned a different hat to spew hateful rhetoric from a different perspective. Some just go back to being religious radicals, as they don't get any more respect among most atheists. Don't talk to them, unless it is on some mundane or boring topic unrelated to leaving god.
> 
> 4. The ideologues in the mod/admin team: 5 out of 10 atheist forums have them. They are over-privileged people that hate anyone that disagrees with their own political views, one such forum is run by a homophobic libertarian that hates same-sex marriage (and gay couples) as much as s/he does religious.
> 
> My advice is look at the other side, or you risk hate building up towards people, which is never a good thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"There are four camps of people to avoid on atheist forums:"*
> 
> OR ....you could just do like I do and never go to an atheist forum.. Problem solved.
> 
> If you are so stupid that you need a support group to see that religion and god is a scam then you probably should remain a christian.
Click to expand...


Yea but religious people make what sound like good arguments but they all have a very fatal flaw to them.  They all assume the premise is real.  Jesus/God is made up.  I can't say that for sure but lets just say the existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

And yes, in the beginning we do need a support group to confirm:

1.  We aren't bad people
2. We aren't going to hell for thinking
3. We aren't doubtful because we are evil or bitter or want to sin with impunity

We just don't believe something that very well probably was made up.

Why there is no god

I bet a lot of so called christians don't really deep down believe.  They have been brainwashed as children to believe a story and the guilt of even thinking god was imagined up makes them think they'll go to hell for even thinking those thoughts.  I however have let that guilt go because I am certain the god they talk about is made up.  I'm agnostic atheist that there is "a god" because how can I know for sure who or what is on the other side of black holes?  But I do know the biblical bible and muslim and Jewish religions are all made up just like the 999 others before and after.

There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible concerning the existence of a god. Any evidence proposed by theists to support the Bibles various historical and supernatural claims is non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.

The Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many religious texts. Like those others, it itself constitutes no evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful content do not legitimise it nor distinguish it from other ancient works of literature.

The Bible is historically inaccurate, factually incorrect, inconsistent and contradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> It is a fool who says to himself, There is no God! Anyone who talks like that is warped and evil and cannot really be a good person at all.Psalm 14:1===Only a fool would say to himself, There is no God. And why does he say it? Because of his wicked heart, his dark and evil deeds. His life is corroded with sin. PSALM 53:1 and you???



Just know that every time you post something like this it's going to receive a FUCK JESUS from me.  So in a way when you post shit like this it's like you are asking me to say it.  

Say it again.  I know you want me to type back FUCK JESUS so go ahead.  I know you don't really believe.  If you did you wouldn't be here.

PS.  I thought about when my mom dies and we take her to the christian church for the service.  I thought about you saying "YOU DON"T WANT TO BELIEVE...".  You know what Gismys?  Fuck you.  Of course I want to believe my mom will go to heaven and I'll join her one day.  What human doesn't want to believe that?  Just like Muslims want to believe 40 virgins are waiting for them....


----------



## sealybobo

hipeter924 said:


> If my travels through atheist forums is any judge, most of them are admin'd and made up of cyber bullies, who make believers and those of the 'wrong' view feel bad about themselves.
> 
> There is this myth created by Hitchens, Dawkins, and others that somehow every atheist is nicer or more open minded without god to cloud their thinking. But I call BS on that as the top 10 atheist forums on a google search are full of the most awful, self-centered, homophobic, racist, sexist, closed-minded people you could ever meet.
> 
> There are four camps of people to avoid on atheist forums:
> 
> 1. The Femanazis: Basically they hate all men, view them as intellectually inferior, and hate gay and bi men the most. The Sub-Group of this camp is the self-hating transsexual/lesbian group that hate gay/bi men and hate same-sex marriage. Avoid at all costs, they can't be reasoned with, only thing they respect is a libertarian that hates same-sex marriage, or a self-hating man.
> 
> 2. The Europhiles: The tamest of the lot but still nasty pieces of work. They believe that Europe is a utopia, alongside Canada. If you point out anything that contradicts this view, like horrible treatment of minorities in France, violent religious/nationalist groups, high unemployment and weak economic growth - they will go after you like rabid wolves.
> 
> 3. Ex-religious radicals: Basically awful religious types who have become 'atheist' and believe they have all the answers, and have just donned a different hat to spew hateful rhetoric from a different perspective. Some just go back to being religious radicals, as they don't get any more respect among most atheists. Don't talk to them, unless it is on some mundane or boring topic unrelated to leaving god.
> 
> 4. The ideologues in the mod/admin team: 5 out of 10 atheist forums have them. They are over-privileged people that hate anyone that disagrees with their own political views, one such forum is run by a homophobic libertarian that hates same-sex marriage (and gay couples) as much as s/he does religious.
> 
> My advice is look at the other side, or you risk hate building up towards people, which is never a good thing.



Really?  Because I go to the bible belt and that is where I find the most racist Americans.  

Homophobic?  Really?  You are religious person wants to say we're homophobic?  

Sexist?  You mean like not paying them equal pay, not paying for birth control and trying to take away their right to choose?

P.S.  I can be a racist and sexist too but don't lump us all together.

Atheists are not a homogeneous group. There is no formal moral code resulting from a lack of belief. Atheists can and do subscribe to any number of ethical systems, or may simply decide such things for themselves.


----------



## sealybobo

The Irish Ram said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did we switch back to a debate on evolution? We were talking about existence of God. I've not refuted evolution, but evolution does not disprove God. Evolution has nothing to do with origin of the universe or origin of life... or whether God exists.  Neither does Neil DeGrasse Tyson.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The motivation for belief in a divine salvational god breaks down when you accept evolution:
> 
> Original sin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> I see.  You want to deny all the supposed evidence god exists and still believe?  It is even harder to prove you wrong I will admit since you have your own crazy reasons why you believe in a god.  Its real easy to tear apart the jew, muslim or christian stories but your argument that "god exists because humans have always believed in one" is not one that can be proven wrong.  It's just a feeling you have.
> 
> Lets just say most outspoken scientists don't agree with you.  Why won't they speak up?  Well you see how Americans treat and think about people who don't believe in god so I would keep quiet about it too if I were them.  You guys are too ignorant to hear the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Darwin breaks down when you accept DNA.
Click to expand...


Link or explanation?


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> I think religion is bad for society and I think we'll be much better off without it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your trouble is you are a monkey who is trying to think. You should leave thinking to evolved humans who know and comprehend their spiritual connection to something greater than self, and concern yourself with peeling bananas or something.
> 
> It doesn't really matter what you think we'd be better off without, you are never going to remove a fundamental human behavioral attribute. It's remarkably silly for you to believe this is even possible. Again.... your time would be better spent picking off fleas from your mate or learning to hang upside down from your feet. Leave social structure to the species who do it better than any other!
Click to expand...


Oh yea?  Funny how ultra conservative christians were 100 years ago compared to today.  Funny how many members their losing as the old die and the young who have access to science and the internet are not as gullible as old farts like you are.  Perhaps you're too old of a dog and set in your ways.  I know you are a conservative and you know that is exactly what conservative means.  Set in your ways!  So you are a lost cause.

Oh and yea Boss, you are smart, just as smart as a Neandertal was.  They believed in god too.  So you can be confident you are at least as smart as people were 200,000 years ago.  You haven't evolved past Age of Enlightenment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Age of Enlightenment spells the end of religion.  Of course it's going to take awhile.  In 1961 during the civil rights era Bobby Kennedy said one day a black man might be president of the USA.  50 years later it happened.  Trust me, jesus and religion is on it's way out.  Sure it will take another 1000 years for the muslims, mormons and bible belters to completely let it go but in 50 years you won't be able to be president if you believe in Jesus or Mohammad because if you do you are 

It'll be ok to be "spiritual" like you but don't try to tell the American people why you believe in god because they won't vote for someone who believes in an invisible man watching our every move.  

Remember boss, every other religion, the 999 that came before Christianity and Muslim and Jew are all gone.  Sure we left them for just another stupid religion but one day when we leave it'll be for good.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did we switch back to a debate on evolution? We were talking about existence of God. I've not refuted evolution, but evolution does not disprove God. Evolution has nothing to do with origin of the universe or origin of life... or whether God exists.  Neither does Neil DeGrasse Tyson.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The motivation for belief in a divine salvational god breaks down when you accept evolution:
> 
> Original sin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> I see.  You want to deny all the supposed evidence god exists and still believe?  It is even harder to prove you wrong I will admit since you have your own crazy reasons why you believe in a god.  Its real easy to tear apart the jew, muslim or christian stories but your argument that "god exists because humans have always believed in one" is not one that can be proven wrong.  It's just a feeling you have.
> 
> Lets just say most outspoken scientists don't agree with you.  Why won't they speak up?  Well you see how Americans treat and think about people who don't believe in god so I would keep quiet about it too if I were them.  You guys are too ignorant to hear the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've not proven anyone wrong here. You've attacked religions, mostly with a simple-minded and frankly child-like understanding of their teachings. It's not "crazy reasoning" for me to believe in God because I communicate with God daily. And it's not a "feeling" that humans have always been spiritual creatures, it's a scientific fact.
> 
> Now... Thank God we have Silly Boob to tell us what scientists believe but are too afraid to say! I know your little stupid ass has solid inside understanding of what every scientist thinks and believes on matters of spirituality. Still.... no evidence is being presented to disprove God, by you or by them. I don't think it is because we are too ignorant to hear it, I believe it's because no such evidence exists. Belief in something not in evidence is called "faith" and that's what you have.
Click to expand...


I have heard Neal Degrass Tyson say in a nice way, "I'm just too busy to even think/discuss/worry about religion.  That was him being nice. 

This is a quote from him God is an ever-receding pocket of ignorance thats getting smaller and smaller as time goes on.- Neil deGrasse Tyson

You can't be a real scientist and believe in god.  Any scientists that believe in god, lets just say I would not trust their judgement because they don't need facts to come to a conclusion.  That's you boss.  You can say you believe in evolution and god but so what?  You can believe in a fact and unicorns too.  

The fact is, and I knew this wouldn't deter you because you deny christ, but evolution debunks the whole story of christianity.  That's why the church has hated science for so long.  But like they always do, the church slowly but surely shifts it's position when it absolutely has to.  For example, today the Catholic church is cool with evolution.  They have found a way for it not to matter anymore.  But at first it was a HUGE problem. 

There is no evidence god doesnt exist, so belief is as justified or as valid as non-belief.

Argument from ignorance.

A common attempt to shift the burden of proof or make room for a god. Represents a type of false dichotomy that excludes the fact that there is insufficient investigation and the proposition has not yet been proven either true or false.

The failure to disprove the existence of something does not constitute proof of its existence.

Belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims because all such claims would need to be believed implicitly. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> I think religion is bad for society and I think we'll be much better off without it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your trouble is you are a monkey who is trying to think. You should leave thinking to evolved humans who know and comprehend their spiritual connection to something greater than self, and concern yourself with peeling bananas or something.
> 
> It doesn't really matter what you think we'd be better off without, you are never going to remove a fundamental human behavioral attribute. It's remarkably silly for you to believe this is even possible. Again.... your time would be better spent picking off fleas from your mate or learning to hang upside down from your feet. Leave social structure to the species who do it better than any other!
Click to expand...


Disbelieving in astrology because a priest tells you to is no better than believing in a god because the same priest tells you to do so.

Science observes the physical universe, makes models of how it works and then refines those models through further observation. When something interacts with the physical universe, such as through light, motion, sound, heat, mass or gravity, it becomes a natural phenomena and thus open to scientific inquiry. If it does not interact with the physical universe then it cannot be said to exist in any meaningful or perceivable way. 

Proposing the existence of an entity that can never be investigated via empirical, experimental or reproducible means moves it from the realm of reality and into the realm of unfalsifiable speculation. The inability of science to investigate or disprove such a hypothesis is not the same as proving it true and neither does it automatically lend credence to any metaphysical or theological argument. If such reasoning were actually permissible then one could claim anything imaginable to be real or true if only because it could not be proven false.

Relying on supernatural explanations is a cop-out or a dead-end to deepening our understanding of reality. If a natural cause for something is not known, the scientific approach is to say I dont know yet and keep on looking, not to presume an answer which makes us comfortable.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a fool who says to himself, There is no God! Anyone who talks like that is warped and evil and cannot really be a good person at all.Psalm 14:1===Only a fool would say to himself, There is no God. And why does he say it? Because of his wicked heart, his dark and evil deeds. His life is corroded with sin. PSALM 53:1 and you???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just know that every time you post something like this it's going to receive a FUCK JESUS from me.  So in a way when you post shit like this it's like you are asking me to say it.
> 
> Say it again.  I know you want me to type back FUCK JESUS so go ahead.  I know you don't really believe.  If you did you wouldn't be here.
> 
> PS.  I thought about when my mom dies and we take her to the christian church for the service.  I thought about you saying "YOU DON"T WANT TO BELIEVE...".  You know what Gismys?  Fuck you.  Of course I want to believe my mom will go to heaven and I'll join her one day.  What human doesn't want to believe that?  Just like Muslims want to believe 40 virgins are waiting for them....
Click to expand...

YES!!! SATAN AND DEMONS HATE TO SEE GOD'S WORD POSTED HERE TOO!!!and you??


----------



## hipeter924

sealybobo said:


> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If my travels through atheist forums is any judge, most of them are admin'd and made up of cyber bullies, who make believers and those of the 'wrong' view feel bad about themselves.
> 
> There is this myth created by Hitchens, Dawkins, and others that somehow every atheist is nicer or more open minded without god to cloud their thinking. But I call BS on that as the top 10 atheist forums on a google search are full of the most awful, self-centered, homophobic, racist, sexist, closed-minded people you could ever meet.
> 
> There are four camps of people to avoid on atheist forums:
> 
> 1. The Femanazis: Basically they hate all men, view them as intellectually inferior, and hate gay and bi men the most. The Sub-Group of this camp is the self-hating transsexual/lesbian group that hate gay/bi men and hate same-sex marriage. Avoid at all costs, they can't be reasoned with, only thing they respect is a libertarian that hates same-sex marriage, or a self-hating man.
> 
> 2. The Europhiles: The tamest of the lot but still nasty pieces of work. They believe that Europe is a utopia, alongside Canada. If you point out anything that contradicts this view, like horrible treatment of minorities in France, violent religious/nationalist groups, high unemployment and weak economic growth - they will go after you like rabid wolves.
> 
> 3. Ex-religious radicals: Basically awful religious types who have become 'atheist' and believe they have all the answers, and have just donned a different hat to spew hateful rhetoric from a different perspective. Some just go back to being religious radicals, as they don't get any more respect among most atheists. Don't talk to them, unless it is on some mundane or boring topic unrelated to leaving god.
> 
> 4. The ideologues in the mod/admin team: 5 out of 10 atheist forums have them. They are over-privileged people that hate anyone that disagrees with their own political views, one such forum is run by a homophobic libertarian that hates same-sex marriage (and gay couples) as much as s/he does religious.
> 
> My advice is look at the other side, or you risk hate building up towards people, which is never a good thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Because I go to the bible belt and that is where I find the most racist Americans.
> 
> *Homophobic?  Really?  You are religious person wants to say we're homophobic?
> *
> Sexist?  You mean like not paying them equal pay, not paying for birth control and trying to take away their right to choose?
> 
> *P.S.  I can be a racist and sexist too but don't lump us all together.*
> 
> Atheists are not a homogeneous group. There is no formal moral code resulting from a lack of belief. Atheists can and do subscribe to any number of ethical systems, or may simply decide such things for themselves.
Click to expand...

 Where did I lump all atheists together? 

I can attest to the fact that most of the atheist forums you can find in the internet are not where you find the average, mill of the run atheist  (would recommend Facebook to find religious/atheist discussion groups that aren't made up of insensitive pricks). 

Funny that you call me a 'christian', I didn't even believe in santa or the tooth fairly when I was growing up, why would I believe in sky daddies.

I am bi, so I can read homophobia, if you don't like other atheists being called homophobic, then grow a pair, as there are a lot of them out there. 

The most homophobic people I ever met in RL and in internet forums were  self-hating lesbian/transexual women who hated men as much as they did  same-sex marriage. They make westboro look kind in comparison.


----------



## sealybobo

hipeter924 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If my travels through atheist forums is any judge, most of them are admin'd and made up of cyber bullies, who make believers and those of the 'wrong' view feel bad about themselves.
> 
> There is this myth created by Hitchens, Dawkins, and others that somehow every atheist is nicer or more open minded without god to cloud their thinking. But I call BS on that as the top 10 atheist forums on a google search are full of the most awful, self-centered, homophobic, racist, sexist, closed-minded people you could ever meet.
> 
> There are four camps of people to avoid on atheist forums:
> 
> 1. The Femanazis: Basically they hate all men, view them as intellectually inferior, and hate gay and bi men the most. The Sub-Group of this camp is the self-hating transsexual/lesbian group that hate gay/bi men and hate same-sex marriage. Avoid at all costs, they can't be reasoned with, only thing they respect is a libertarian that hates same-sex marriage, or a self-hating man.
> 
> 2. The Europhiles: The tamest of the lot but still nasty pieces of work. They believe that Europe is a utopia, alongside Canada. If you point out anything that contradicts this view, like horrible treatment of minorities in France, violent religious/nationalist groups, high unemployment and weak economic growth - they will go after you like rabid wolves.
> 
> 3. Ex-religious radicals: Basically awful religious types who have become 'atheist' and believe they have all the answers, and have just donned a different hat to spew hateful rhetoric from a different perspective. Some just go back to being religious radicals, as they don't get any more respect among most atheists. Don't talk to them, unless it is on some mundane or boring topic unrelated to leaving god.
> 
> 4. The ideologues in the mod/admin team: 5 out of 10 atheist forums have them. They are over-privileged people that hate anyone that disagrees with their own political views, one such forum is run by a homophobic libertarian that hates same-sex marriage (and gay couples) as much as s/he does religious.
> 
> My advice is look at the other side, or you risk hate building up towards people, which is never a good thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Because I go to the bible belt and that is where I find the most racist Americans.
> 
> *Homophobic?  Really?  You are religious person wants to say we're homophobic?
> *
> Sexist?  You mean like not paying them equal pay, not paying for birth control and trying to take away their right to choose?
> 
> *P.S.  I can be a racist and sexist too but don't lump us all together.*
> 
> Atheists are not a homogeneous group. There is no formal moral code resulting from a lack of belief. Atheists can and do subscribe to any number of ethical systems, or may simply decide such things for themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did I lump all atheists together?
> 
> I can attest to the fact that most of the atheist forums you can find in the internet are not where you find the average, mill of the run atheist  (would recommend Facebook to find religious/atheist discussion groups that aren't made up of insensitive pricks).
> 
> Funny that you call me a 'christian', I didn't even believe in santa or the tooth fairly when I was growing up, why would I believe in sky daddies.
> 
> I am bi, so I can read homophobia, if you don't like other atheists being called homophobic, then grow a pair, as there are a lot of them out there.
> 
> The most homophobic people I ever met in RL and in internet forums were  self-hating lesbian/transexual women who hated men as much as they did  same-sex marriage. They make westboro look kind in comparison.
Click to expand...


Cool.  

Just look at how much Michelle Bachman's husband hates gay's when he's gay himself.  Or how much anti gay legislation did toe tapping Larry Craig pass?  Or Mark Foley?


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a fool who says to himself, There is no God! Anyone who talks like that is warped and evil and cannot really be a good person at all.Psalm 14:1===Only a fool would say to himself, There is no God. And why does he say it? Because of his wicked heart, his dark and evil deeds. His life is corroded with sin. PSALM 53:1 and you???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just know that every time you post something like this it's going to receive a FUCK JESUS from me.  So in a way when you post shit like this it's like you are asking me to say it.
> 
> Say it again.  I know you want me to type back FUCK JESUS so go ahead.  I know you don't really believe.  If you did you wouldn't be here.
> 
> PS.  I thought about when my mom dies and we take her to the christian church for the service.  I thought about you saying "YOU DON"T WANT TO BELIEVE...".  You know what Gismys?  Fuck you.  Of course I want to believe my mom will go to heaven and I'll join her one day.  What human doesn't want to believe that?  Just like Muslims want to believe 40 virgins are waiting for them....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YES!!! SATAN AND DEMONS HATE TO SEE GOD'S WORD POSTED HERE TOO!!!and you??
Click to expand...


A PERFECT representative of your church just came into my place of business.  So funny.  I said, "what happened to you on the first time free offer?"  He said he was institutionalized.  Later he said something about alcohol too but anyways I said I"m sorry but we can't give you another free trial bc our times is too valuable.  I told you that when we first met so now you have to pay.  I'll give you 4 for $105.  He said he doesn't have the money right now because he just donated money to his church.  

Meanwhile his child is going without and he's giving money to the church.  Now there's a fool Gismys.  Even God agrees with me on that one.  Or would if he existed.  

I can't believe the church would take from him but that's exactly who they pray on.  The weak, poor dumb.  

Actually they pray on the rich too.  The rich buy their way into heaven too just like the poor.  God will take anyone's money.


----------



## thanatos144

Being ruled by fear is a sad way to live.


----------



## sealybobo

thanatos144 said:


> Being ruled by fear is a sad way to live.



Exactly.  Gismym and other bible thumpers say, "who are you little man you think you know better than god", but I don't claim to know better than god.  I claim there is no god.  I claim to know better than gismys, her corrupt church and every other foolish church in the world who believes

Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree. 

Properly read, the bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.  Isaac Asimov


----------



## thanatos144

sealybobo said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being ruled by fear is a sad way to live.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  Gismym and other bible thumpers say, "who are you little man you think you know better than god", but I don't claim to know better than god.  I claim there is no god.  I claim to know better than gismys, her corrupt church and every other foolish church in the world who believes
> 
> &#8220;Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.&#8221;
> 
> Properly read, the bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.&#8221; &#8211; Isaac Asimov
Click to expand...

Are you so devoid of Love that you dont know the difference between that and fear?


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a fool who says to himself, There is no God! Anyone who talks like that is warped and evil and cannot really be a good person at all.Psalm 14:1===Only a fool would say to himself, There is no God. And why does he say it? Because of his wicked heart, his dark and evil deeds. His life is corroded with sin. PSALM 53:1 and you???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just know that every time you post something like this it's going to receive a FUCK JESUS from me.  So in a way when you post shit like this it's like you are asking me to say it.
> 
> Say it again.  I know you want me to type back FUCK JESUS so go ahead.  I know you don't really believe.  If you did you wouldn't be here.
> 
> PS.  I thought about when my mom dies and we take her to the christian church for the service.  I thought about you saying "YOU DON"T WANT TO BELIEVE...".  You know what Gismys?  Fuck you.  Of course I want to believe my mom will go to heaven and I'll join her one day.  What human doesn't want to believe that?  Just like Muslims want to believe 40 virgins are waiting for them....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YES!!! SATAN AND DEMONS HATE TO SEE GOD'S WORD POSTED HERE TOO!!!and you??
Click to expand...


I keep telling you that you and every member of your church have swallowed a line of bull and you keep using the book they used to brainwash you as your defense. 

I have asked you repeatedly, how can you believe your parents and pastors when they tell you stories that can't possibly be true like adam and eve, noah, mosus & jesus?  Talking snakes?  Rising from the dead after being born of a virgin mother?  

I seriously want to know how you can believe your parents and a lying church?  And I shouldn't say lying because half of the churches and preachers probably believe the bullshit they are peddling.  I can't believe all preachers are corrupt bullshit/con artists.  

But even if they are sincere Gismys, how do you believe stories that are impossible?  Maybe when you were a kid like we all believed in Santa but even then they had to bribe us into believing or we would have stopped believing years earlier. 

I guess I'm just as guilty as you.  I believed in god up until I was 42 so I guess I shouldn't give you such a hard time.  Wake up kid.  You are wasting your time and holding society back with this jesus shit. Give it a rest!    That I will pray for.


----------



## GISMYS

HEY!! no Skin off my nose!!! You are free to reject GOD and GOD'S love and forgivness and pay your own sin debt= Death and Hell GO FOR IT!!!


----------



## sealybobo

thanatos144 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being ruled by fear is a sad way to live.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  Gismym and other bible thumpers say, "who are you little man you think you know better than god", but I don't claim to know better than god.  I claim there is no god.  I claim to know better than gismys, her corrupt church and every other foolish church in the world who believes
> 
> Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
> 
> Properly read, the bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.  Isaac Asimov
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you so devoid of Love that you dont know the difference between that and fear?
Click to expand...


I love.  What are you talking about?

Atheists cant know the difference between right and wrong.

Note: The following answer is a generalisation. Atheists are not a homogeneous group. There is no formal moral code resulting from a lack of belief. Atheists can and do subscribe to any number of ethical systems, or may simply decide such things for themselves.

Atheists generally derive their sense of right and wrong from an innate [2][3] and reasoned [2] understanding of which actions contribute towards a society most hospitable to continual well-being and personal fulfilment. They are accountable to their own conscience and to society at large. They do not require an absolute standard in order to make distinctions between the possible effects of their actions.

Atheists are attuned to the here and now. Their ethics are not derived from some reward or punishment after death, but from a rational consideration of the consequences in this life.  Impulsive desires are compassionately, empathetically and intelligently [2] weighed against long term personal and social goals.

As social animals that have evolved to want and give love, to have freedom and security, we have learned that we are safer, stronger and more prosperous in a successful group. Crimes are inherently anti-social behaviours that introduce needless risk and are antithetical to the long-term needs and goals of a happy, stable society.

Note: Essentially all theists unknowingly exercise their innate morality or conscience by picking and choosing which parts of their religion to follow.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> HEY!! no Skin off my nose!!! You are free to reject GOD and GOD'S love and forgivness and pay your own sin debt= Death and Hell GO FOR IT!!!



So you don't want god put back in school?  Cool.  Cause if it's no skin off your nose, keep that shit to yourself.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> HEY!! no Skin off my nose!!! You are free to reject GOD and GOD'S love and forgivness and pay your own sin debt= Death and Hell GO FOR IT!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't want god put back in school?  Cool.  Cause if it's no skin off your nose, keep that shit to yourself.
Click to expand...


A little slow???Got a dim light??  no Skin off my nose!!! If You chose to  reject GOD and GOD'S love and forgivness and pay your own sin debt= Death and Hell GO FOR IT!


----------



## sealybobo

thanatos144 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being ruled by fear is a sad way to live.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  Gismym and other bible thumpers say, "who are you little man you think you know better than god", but I don't claim to know better than god.  I claim there is no god.  I claim to know better than gismys, her corrupt church and every other foolish church in the world who believes
> 
> Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
> 
> Properly read, the bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.  Isaac Asimov
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you so devoid of Love that you dont know the difference between that and fear?
Click to expand...


I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking. The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which theres little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.  Carl Sagan

I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it. - Mark Twain


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> HEY!! no Skin off my nose!!! You are free to reject GOD and GOD'S love and forgivness and pay your own sin debt= Death and Hell GO FOR IT!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't want god put back in school?  Cool.  Cause if it's no skin off your nose, keep that shit to yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A little slow???Got a dim light??  no Skin off my nose!!! If You chose to  reject GOD and GOD'S love and forgivness and pay your own sin debt= Death and Hell GO FOR IT!
Click to expand...


Believe!  BELIEVE!!   I can't.  NO.  OK fine I agree, and god says LIAR!


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't want god put back in school?  Cool.  Cause if it's no skin off your nose, keep that shit to yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A little slow???Got a dim light??  no Skin off my nose!!! If You chose to  reject GOD and GOD'S love and forgivness and pay your own sin debt= Death and Hell GO FOR IT!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Believe!  BELIEVE!!   I can't.  NO.  OK fine I agree, and god says LIAR!
Click to expand...


 WISE!!! WE ALL choose what we believe.you can believe if you want to believe!!! and God will help you if you ask!!!


----------



## thanatos144

sealybobo said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  Gismym and other bible thumpers say, "who are you little man you think you know better than god", but I don't claim to know better than god.  I claim there is no god.  I claim to know better than gismys, her corrupt church and every other foolish church in the world who believes
> 
> Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
> 
> Properly read, the bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.  Isaac Asimov
> 
> 
> 
> Are you so devoid of Love that you dont know the difference between that and fear?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking. The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which theres little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.  Carl Sagan
> 
> I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it. - Mark Twain
Click to expand...

What does this have to do with my post? Sagan is a fool and Twain knows whether he was right or wrong now.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> A little slow???Got a dim light??  no Skin off my nose!!! If You chose to  reject GOD and GOD'S love and forgivness and pay your own sin debt= Death and Hell GO FOR IT!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Believe!  BELIEVE!!   I can't.  NO.  OK fine I agree, and god says LIAR!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WISE!!! WE ALL choose what we believe.you can believe if you want to believe!!! and God will help you if you ask!!!
Click to expand...


Who is god?  Can you introduce me to him?  Did you ever meet him besides in your imagination?


----------



## sealybobo

thanatos144 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you so devoid of Love that you dont know the difference between that and fear?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking. The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which theres little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.  Carl Sagan
> 
> I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it. - Mark Twain
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does this have to do with my post? Sagan is a fool and Twain knows whether he was right or wrong now.
Click to expand...


Ok, I'll bite.  Do I know the difference between what and fear?  If this is your attempt to convert me you are boring me already.  Is this what you people do?  Of course it is.  I hear it on tv every day.  Just keep saying stupid shit like god said this and god said that but never really get to the point because the point is, you have no fucking evidence your fairy tales are real.  All you do is rely on the stupidity of the people in your flocks.  Dumb bitches.

And as for being without love, you are a fool.  If you think only people who believe in god feel love, well, lets just say that is all the proof I need to know that religion prays on the dumb and vulnerable and gullible fools of the world.  No different than the sheep in Saudi Arabia who right now are praying to the east 7 times a day and washing their feet for god.


----------



## sealybobo

thanatos144 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being ruled by fear is a sad way to live.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  Gismym and other bible thumpers say, "who are you little man you think you know better than god", but I don't claim to know better than god.  I claim there is no god.  I claim to know better than gismys, her corrupt church and every other foolish church in the world who believes
> 
> Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
> 
> Properly read, the bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.  Isaac Asimov
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you so devoid of Love that you dont know the difference between that and fear?
Click to expand...


Here is my proof religion is a complete waste of time.  Look how many times Muslims pray each day.  Where is that getting them?  How much time and money do they waste on religion?  

1. The Dawn Prayer must be observed during two hours before sunrise (11:114, 24:58).
2. The Noon Prayer is due when the sun declines from its highest pointat noon (17:78).
3. The Afternoon Prayer can be observed during the 3-4 hours preceding sunset (2:238).
4. The Sunset Prayer becomes due after sunset (11:114).
5. The Night Prayer can be observed after the twilight disappears from the sky (24:58).

They waste a good hour plus every day praying to Allah who doesn't even exist.  

Christians, please realize Muslims are your retarded younger cousins and you all are the Jews stupid little brothers.  You all came from Abraham, right?


----------



## thanatos144

sealybobo said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  Gismym and other bible thumpers say, "who are you little man you think you know better than god", but I don't claim to know better than god.  I claim there is no god.  I claim to know better than gismys, her corrupt church and every other foolish church in the world who believes
> 
> Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
> 
> Properly read, the bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.  Isaac Asimov
> 
> 
> 
> Are you so devoid of Love that you dont know the difference between that and fear?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is my proof religion is a complete waste of time.  Look how many times Muslims pray each day.  Where is that getting them?  How much time and money do they waste on religion?
> 
> 1. The Dawn Prayer must be observed during two hours before sunrise (11:114, 24:58).
> 2. The Noon Prayer is due when the sun declines from its highest pointat noon (17:78).
> 3. The Afternoon Prayer can be observed during the 3-4 hours preceding sunset (2:238).
> 4. The Sunset Prayer becomes due after sunset (11:114).
> 5. The Night Prayer can be observed after the twilight disappears from the sky (24:58).
> 
> They waste a good hour plus every day praying to Allah who doesn't even exist.
> 
> Christians, please realize Muslims are your retarded younger cousins and you all are the Jews stupid little brothers.  You all came from Abraham, right?
Click to expand...


I wasn't talking about religion....I was talking about whether the specific people you posted about posted in fear....Try not not spin my posts please.


----------



## Boss

> They waste a good hour plus every day praying to Allah who doesn't even exist.



That's a bargain compared to how many hours a day you spend refuting a God you don't believe in. 

Just sayin'.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> They waste a good hour plus every day praying to Allah who doesn't even exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a bargain compared to how many hours a day you spend refuting a God you don't believe in.
> 
> Just sayin'.
Click to expand...


True, but like them, I think society will be better off when people wake up.  

However, I am beginning to realize most atheists scientists are right.  Discussing religion isn't really worth the time spent.

But remember, I'm a new atheist.  Just like new born agains who go running around trying to save everyone, eventually like them I'll get tired of this and I'll move on.  Every once in awhile I'll get a bug up my ass and I'll come back to let it out but you will see I usually take 2 year breaks from USMB until either 

a.  It's an election year
b.  I realize for the first time ever that god doesn't exist!  Where else but USMB can I come to talk about it?  Can't talk about it with MOST of my friends.  Can't talk about it at work.  There are no atheist churches.  

Anyways, thanks for chatting.  I appreciate your input.  I don't hate people like you.  Remember I would have agreed with you 2 months ago.  Now I'm trying to open your eyes like my buddies opened my eyes.  You can wish/hope/want to believe/have faith/think there is a god but you have absolutely zero scientific proof.

Personal revelation cannot be independently verified. So-called revelations never include information a recipient could not have known beforehand, such as the time and location of a rare event or answers to any number of unsolved problems in science. They are usually emotional or perceptual in content and therefore unremarkable among the many cognitive processes brains exhibit, including dreams and hallucinations. These experiences may even be artificially induced by narcotics or magnetic fields. Extreme cases may be diagnosed as a form of schizophrenia or psychosis.

Spiritual and religious experiences are not only inconsistent among individuals but are variably attributed to different gods, aliens, spirits, rituals, hallucinations, meditation etc. The fact that medical conditions and other natural processes [2] can induce these experiences is evidence they are produced by our brain.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> They waste a good hour plus every day praying to Allah who doesn't even exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a bargain compared to how many hours a day you spend refuting a God you don't believe in.
> 
> Just sayin'.
Click to expand...


Even if there exists some topic on which science can never speak, any understanding could potentially evade us forever  supernatural or metaphysical speculation would not automatically be correct. Uncertainty is the most legitimate position.

Lightning, earthquakes, volcanos, disease, mental illness, speciation, planetary orbits and numerous other phenomena have been historically labelled supernatural only to later be more thoroughly explained by science. In fact, every mystery ever demonstrably solved has had a non-supernatural explanation. To suggest that science cannot or will not explain a phenomena, and that only theism can, is hubris of the highest order.

Using god to explain something explains nothing. Gods supposed powers and how they work are a mystery. An explanation is intended to clarify and extend knowledge. Attributing a phenomenon to the magical powers of a supernatural being does neither. Worse still, this presumption acts to prevent any deeper investigation, being little more than a form of blissful ignorance.

Note: By using god to fill gaps in their knowledge theists inadvertently provide a shrinking role for their god as science advances. They also predicate gods existence on a lack of knowledge, not on any positive argument or evidence.


----------



## GISMYS

Learn this Great Truth!!==The man is a fool who says to himself, &#8220;There is no God!&#8221; Anyone who talks like that is warped and evil and cannot really be a good person at all.Psalm 14:1===Only a fool would say to himself, &#8220;There is no God.&#8221; And why does he say it? Because of his wicked heart, his dark and evil deeds. His life is corroded with sin. PSALM 53:1 and you???


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> Learn this Great Truth!!==The man is a fool who says to himself, There is no God! Anyone who talks like that is warped and evil and cannot really be a good person at all.Psalm 14:1===Only a fool would say to himself, There is no God. And why does he say it? Because of his wicked heart, his dark and evil deeds. His life is corroded with sin. PSALM 53:1 and you???



And you wonder why we say fuck you and your jesus.  We aren't warped, evil and we are good people.  We are simply unconvinced.  

Wouldn't we be stupid if we just took your word for it or the bible that quite honestly 

There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible concerning the existence of a god. Any evidence proposed by theists to support the Bibles various historical and supernatural claims is non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.

The Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many religious texts. Like those others, it itself constitutes no evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful content do not legitimise it nor distinguish it from other ancient works of literature.

The Bible is historically inaccurate [2], factually incorrect, inconsistent [2] and contradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time.

Or when there is no contemporary evidence for Jesus existence or the Bibles account of his life; no artefacts, dwellings, works of carpentry, self-written manuscripts, court records, eyewitness testimony, official diaries, birth records, re&#64258;ections on his significance or written disputes about his teachings. Nothing survives from the time in which he is said to have lived.

All historical references to Jesus derive from hearsay accounts written decades or centuries after his supposed death. These historical references generally refer to early Christians rather than a historical Jesus and, in some cases, directly contradict the Gospels or were deliberately manufactured.

The Gospels themselves contradict one-another [2] on many key events and were constructed by unknown authors up to a century after the events they describe are said to have occurred. They are not eyewitness accounts. The New Testament, as a whole, contains many internal inconsistencies as a result of its piecemeal construction and is factually incorrect on several historical claims, such as the early existence of Nazareth, the reign of Herod and the Roman census. Like the Old Testament, it too has had entire books and sections redacted.

The Biblical account of Jesus has striking similarities with other mythologies and texts and many of his supposed teachings existed prior to his time. It is likely the character was either partly or entirely invented [2] by competing first century messianic cults from an amalgamation of Greco-Roman, Egyptian and Judeo-Apocalyptic myths and prophecies.

Even if Jesus existence could be established, this would in no way validate Christian theology or any element of the story portrayed in the Bible, such as the performance of miracles or the resurrection. Simply because it is conceivable a heretical Jewish preacher named Yeshua lived circa 30 AD, had followers and was executed, does not imply the son of a god walked the Earth at that time.


----------



## Boss

> True, but like them, I think society will be better off when people wake up.



But here is the thing... You can't change a fundamental human behavioral attribute. I can say society will be better off when people no longer hate. Now, is that ever going to happen? Nope, it's a fundamental human behavioral attribute that isn't going to ever go away. There will always be people who hate. I may delude myself into thinking if I come here daily and spend hours and hours speaking out against hate and preaching love and tolerance, that one day hate can be a thing of the past... but that's not rational. In fact, I would suspect my miniscule contribution would do little if anything to erase hate. 



> But remember, I'm a new atheist.



Are you an Atheist today? Yesterday, you were an "agnostic atheist" who believed the most rational position was one of skepticism. Now you are saying you're not skeptical, you've made up your mind. 



> Now I'm trying to open your eyes like my buddies opened my eyes.



Well all you need to do is explain to me what I am spiritually connecting with. It's not my imagination because I gain enormous benefit from it. It's not religious brainwashing, I hardly ever listen to preachers or go to churches. It's not something physical because there is no physical evidence for it. So what is this I am connecting with that is bestowing a bounty of blessings on me? 



> Personal revelation cannot be independently verified.



Never have claimed it could. Personal experience can't be dismissed. I can't pretend I am not connecting to something when I know that I am. I haven't tried to get you to believe what I know is true, that's up to you. All I can do is tell you what I experience, and if you don't want to believe it, that's fine. If you believe I have been trying to "convert" you, perhaps you suffer from paranoia? 



> The fact that medical conditions and other natural processes [2] can induce these experiences is evidence they are produced by our brain.



When you copy and paste your propaganda material, you should at least remove the index tags. 

I am not on any kind of medication, have no medical conditions, don't do narcotics. My spiritual connection is not a manifestation of my brain because I realize true benefits from it. My brain isn't producing the benefits. 

Almost every day, I begin the day with about 30-45 minutes of 'meditation' or 'prayer' ...whatever you want to call it. I connect with spiritual nature. I contemplate the things that trouble me, I think about what I want to accomplish, I reflect on problems in my personal life, people I love who are sick, people I know who are experiencing turmoil. Throughout the rest of the day, many of these things are resolved or things happen to improve them for the better. My brain isn't doing this, making these things happen. 

Now, I said "almost" every day. Honestly, I sometimes don't take the time to do this. On those days, I experience more conflict, more turmoil, more problems than I know how to deal with. Again, my brain isn't causing these things to happen, they are just happening. I don't have a scientific explanation for this, it's not something physical in nature. But the results are real and I can't ignore that. 

The other day, I meditated about a $250 electric bill which I had no idea how I was going to pay. I had $50, but in speaking with the electric company, that wasn't going to be enough to keep my power on. So I meditate for 30 minutes about that... I felt a sense of calmness come over me, suddenly I was not worried about this anymore. Less than one hour later, I go to the mailbox and there is a letter from another power company. It was where I had lived 20 years ago in Georgia. They were sending me a check for $200, a refund of the deposit I had paid way back when. Did my brain make that happen? 

I can give you thousands upon thousands of stories like this. Five years ago, I was vacationing in Florida. I wandered out into the ocean and saw a sandbar nearby. I decided it would be cool to swim out to it and stand on it... about 50 yards from shore. After frolicking around a bit, I began swimming back to shore... but there had developed a riptide between me and the shore, and it began sweeping me horizontally down the coast. I was swimming as hard as I could but going nowhere. I swam desperately for nearly an hour until I was completely exhausted... still it seemed I was no closer to the shore. I began to pray because I really did think I was about to die. Suddenly, the same calmness came over me, by entire body relaxed. At first I thought, okay, I am about to die. But I just floated along in the water for a bit, and as odd as it sounds, I started paddling with the flow of the current. Before I knew it, I was just a few feet from shore. Now, I was three miles down the beach from my condo, but I didn't die. (By the way, 3 people died that day from the riptide.) 

I'm not telling you this stuff to "convert" you, but because these are my personal experiences. You are NEVER going to convince me there isn't a higher power. You can type until your heart is content, I will NEVER believe God doesn't exist. I've got all the proof I need. I do not have to prove it to you or anyone else.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> True, but like them, I think society will be better off when people wake up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But here is the thing... You can't change a fundamental human behavioral attribute.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But remember, I'm a new atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you an Atheist today? Yesterday, you were an "agnostic atheist" who believed the most rational position was one of skepticism. Now you are saying you're not skeptical, you've made up your mind.
> 
> 
> 
> Well all you need to do is explain to me what I am spiritually connecting with. It's not my imagination because I gain enormous benefit from it. It's not religious brainwashing, I hardly ever listen to preachers or go to churches. It's not something physical because there is no physical evidence for it. So what is this I am connecting with that is bestowing a bounty of blessings on me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Personal revelation cannot be independently verified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never have claimed it could. Personal experience can't be dismissed. I can't pretend I am not connecting to something when I know that I am. I haven't tried to get you to believe what I know is true, that's up to you. All I can do is tell you what I experience, and if you don't want to believe it, that's fine. If you believe I have been trying to "convert" you, perhaps you suffer from paranoia?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that medical conditions and other natural processes [2] can induce these experiences is evidence they are produced by our brain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you copy and paste your propaganda material, you should at least remove the index tags.
> 
> I am not on any kind of medication, have no medical conditions, don't do narcotics. My spiritual connection is not a manifestation of my brain because I realize true benefits from it. My brain isn't producing the benefits.
> 
> Almost every day, I begin the day with about 30-45 minutes of 'meditation' or 'prayer' ...whatever you want to call it. I connect with spiritual nature. I contemplate the things that trouble me, I think about what I want to accomplish, I reflect on problems in my personal life, people I love who are sick, people I know who are experiencing turmoil. Throughout the rest of the day, many of these things are resolved or things happen to improve them for the better. My brain isn't doing this, making these things happen.
> 
> Now, I said "almost" every day. Honestly, I sometimes don't take the time to do this. On those days, I experience more conflict, more turmoil, more problems than I know how to deal with. Again, my brain isn't causing these things to happen, they are just happening. I don't have a scientific explanation for this, it's not something physical in nature. But the results are real and I can't ignore that.
> 
> The other day, I meditated about a $250 electric bill which I had no idea how I was going to pay. I had $50, but in speaking with the electric company, that wasn't going to be enough to keep my power on. So I meditate for 30 minutes about that... I felt a sense of calmness come over me, suddenly I was not worried about this anymore. Less than one hour later, I go to the mailbox and there is a letter from another power company. It was where I had lived 20 years ago in Georgia. They were sending me a check for $200, a refund of the deposit I had paid way back when. Did my brain make that happen?
> 
> I can give you thousands upon thousands of stories like this. Five years ago, I was vacationing in Florida. I wandered out into the ocean and saw a sandbar nearby. I decided it would be cool to swim out to it and stand on it... about 50 yards from shore. After frolicking around a bit, I began swimming back to shore... but there had developed a riptide between me and the shore, and it began sweeping me horizontally down the coast. I was swimming as hard as I could but going nowhere. I swam desperately for nearly an hour until I was completely exhausted... still it seemed I was no closer to the shore. I began to pray because I really did think I was about to die. Suddenly, the same calmness came over me, by entire body relaxed. At first I thought, okay, I am about to die. But I just floated along in the water for a bit, and as odd as it sounds, I started paddling with the flow of the current. Before I knew it, I was just a few feet from shore. Now, I was three miles down the beach from my condo, but I didn't die. (By the way, 3 people died that day from the riptide.)
> 
> I'm not telling you this stuff to "convert" you, but because these are my personal experiences. You are NEVER going to convince me there isn't a higher power. You can type until your heart is content, I will NEVER believe God doesn't exist. I've got all the proof I need. I do not have to prove it to you or anyone else.
Click to expand...


You can't change a fundamental human attribute?  Really?  Because my buddy from Iran used to pray 5 times a day and now he's an atheist.  What changed?  The open and free society.  

And people aren't born religious they are taught it.  When less and less people are going to church or following, the religion slowly goes away.  I can't see a return to conservative religious America.  We are progressively becoming more and more liberal each day.  What do you think will drag us back to more people finding jesus?  

Did  you see 7 out of 10 don't take the bible literally???  Do you know what this means?  This means that it's only a matter of time that those people realize the entire religion is based on a lie.  Emily tried to say the adam and eve story is a story to teach about......

So it's a lie?  That's all the proof you should need we've been brainwashed/hard wired to believe in god.  But as we get smarter guess what?  God goes away.  Your children will not buy the shit you are trying to push.  They're getting smarter too.  And they won't be ostrasized by their friends if they don't go to church or believe in jesus because neither do they.  I'm not talking about in the bible belt.  I live in Michigan and no one around me hardly are bible thumpers and very few of my friends go to church ever.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> True, but like them, I think society will be better off when people wake up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But here is the thing... You can't change a fundamental human behavioral attribute. I can say society will be better off when people no longer hate. Now, is that ever going to happen? Nope, it's a fundamental human behavioral attribute that isn't going to ever go away. There will always be people who hate. I may delude myself into thinking if I come here daily and spend hours and hours speaking out against hate and preaching love and tolerance, that one day hate can be a thing of the past... but that's not rational. In fact, I would suspect my miniscule contribution would do little if anything to erase hate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But remember, I'm a new atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you an Atheist today? Yesterday, you were an "agnostic atheist" who believed the most rational position was one of skepticism. Now you are saying you're not skeptical, you've made up your mind.
> 
> 
> 
> Well all you need to do is explain to me what I am spiritually connecting with. It's not my imagination because I gain enormous benefit from it. It's not religious brainwashing, I hardly ever listen to preachers or go to churches. It's not something physical because there is no physical evidence for it. So what is this I am connecting with that is bestowing a bounty of blessings on me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Personal revelation cannot be independently verified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never have claimed it could. Personal experience can't be dismissed. I can't pretend I am not connecting to something when I know that I am. I haven't tried to get you to believe what I know is true, that's up to you. All I can do is tell you what I experience, and if you don't want to believe it, that's fine. If you believe I have been trying to "convert" you, perhaps you suffer from paranoia?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that medical conditions and other natural processes [2] can induce these experiences is evidence they are produced by our brain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you copy and paste your propaganda material, you should at least remove the index tags.
> 
> I am not on any kind of medication, have no medical conditions, don't do narcotics. My spiritual connection is not a manifestation of my brain because I realize true benefits from it. My brain isn't producing the benefits.
> 
> Almost every day, I begin the day with about 30-45 minutes of 'meditation' or 'prayer' ...whatever you want to call it. I connect with spiritual nature. I contemplate the things that trouble me, I think about what I want to accomplish, I reflect on problems in my personal life, people I love who are sick, people I know who are experiencing turmoil. Throughout the rest of the day, many of these things are resolved or things happen to improve them for the better. My brain isn't doing this, making these things happen.
> 
> Now, I said "almost" every day. Honestly, I sometimes don't take the time to do this. On those days, I experience more conflict, more turmoil, more problems than I know how to deal with. Again, my brain isn't causing these things to happen, they are just happening. I don't have a scientific explanation for this, it's not something physical in nature. But the results are real and I can't ignore that.
> 
> The other day, I meditated about a $250 electric bill which I had no idea how I was going to pay. I had $50, but in speaking with the electric company, that wasn't going to be enough to keep my power on. So I meditate for 30 minutes about that... I felt a sense of calmness come over me, suddenly I was not worried about this anymore. Less than one hour later, I go to the mailbox and there is a letter from another power company. It was where I had lived 20 years ago in Georgia. They were sending me a check for $200, a refund of the deposit I had paid way back when. Did my brain make that happen?
> 
> I can give you thousands upon thousands of stories like this. Five years ago, I was vacationing in Florida. I wandered out into the ocean and saw a sandbar nearby. I decided it would be cool to swim out to it and stand on it... about 50 yards from shore. After frolicking around a bit, I began swimming back to shore... but there had developed a riptide between me and the shore, and it began sweeping me horizontally down the coast. I was swimming as hard as I could but going nowhere. I swam desperately for nearly an hour until I was completely exhausted... still it seemed I was no closer to the shore. I began to pray because I really did think I was about to die. Suddenly, the same calmness came over me, by entire body relaxed. At first I thought, okay, I am about to die. But I just floated along in the water for a bit, and as odd as it sounds, I started paddling with the flow of the current. Before I knew it, I was just a few feet from shore. Now, I was three miles down the beach from my condo, but I didn't die. (By the way, 3 people died that day from the riptide.)
Click to expand...


I've had things like this happen to me too.  It wasn't god.  And what about the guy who went down and never came back up?  Or the baby who walked into a pool and drowned?  All of these things can be explained and statistically for every 1 god saves (you) 1000 die.  

Want to show me a miracle?  Have an amputated limb grow back overnight.  That'd be a miracle.  

When you were almost drowning?  That was your mind.  Glad yoga helps though.  It probably saved your life.  

And I get it.  It's not that you know god exists or can prove it.  You believe.  You want there to be.  You WISH there was.  YOU HOPE.  You pray.  But you don't know anything, just like me.  What do I know, right?  

But I hope you don't believe not believing sends you to hell.  Then you cross the line into the lunatic fringe.   

Hey, I saw Osama last night.  Story about a girl who has to dress as a boy in Afganistan to find work or her family will starve.  Those slaves/sheep/property I mean women are very sure there is a god.  They too pray to him 5 times a day.  Lot of good it's doing them.  But if they didn't believe in god maybe they would stand up for themselves?  I think we should arm the Afganistan women and when the Taliban try to fuck with them BOOM.  Perfect outfits to hide guns.  What do you think?  We need to free those women.  Praying aint helping them.  Guns will though.  Two hands digging can do a lot more than 1000 praying.


----------



## HUGGY

Boss said:


> True, but like them, I think society will be better off when people wake up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But here is the thing... You can't change a fundamental human behavioral attribute. I can say society will be better off when people no longer hate. Now, is that ever going to happen? Nope, it's a fundamental human behavioral attribute that isn't going to ever go away. There will always be people who hate. I may delude myself into thinking if I come here daily and spend hours and hours speaking out against hate and preaching love and tolerance, that one day hate can be a thing of the past... but that's not rational. In fact, I would suspect my miniscule contribution would do little if anything to erase hate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But remember, I'm a new atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you an Atheist today? Yesterday, you were an "agnostic atheist" who believed the most rational position was one of skepticism. Now you are saying you're not skeptical, you've made up your mind.
> 
> 
> 
> Well all you need to do is explain to me what I am spiritually connecting with. It's not my imagination because I gain enormous benefit from it. It's not religious brainwashing, I hardly ever listen to preachers or go to churches. It's not something physical because there is no physical evidence for it. So what is this I am connecting with that is bestowing a bounty of blessings on me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Personal revelation cannot be independently verified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never have claimed it could. Personal experience can't be dismissed. I can't pretend I am not connecting to something when I know that I am. I haven't tried to get you to believe what I know is true, that's up to you. All I can do is tell you what I experience, and if you don't want to believe it, that's fine. If you believe I have been trying to "convert" you, perhaps you suffer from paranoia?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that medical conditions and other natural processes [2] can induce these experiences is evidence they are produced by our brain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you copy and paste your propaganda material, you should at least remove the index tags.
> 
> I am not on any kind of medication, have no medical conditions, don't do narcotics. My spiritual connection is not a manifestation of my brain because I realize true benefits from it. My brain isn't producing the benefits.
> 
> Almost every day, I begin the day with about 30-45 minutes of 'meditation' or 'prayer' ...whatever you want to call it. I connect with spiritual nature. I contemplate the things that trouble me, I think about what I want to accomplish, I reflect on problems in my personal life, people I love who are sick, people I know who are experiencing turmoil. Throughout the rest of the day, many of these things are resolved or things happen to improve them for the better. My brain isn't doing this, making these things happen.
> 
> Now, I said "almost" every day. Honestly, I sometimes don't take the time to do this. On those days, I experience more conflict, more turmoil, more problems than I know how to deal with. Again, my brain isn't causing these things to happen, they are just happening. I don't have a scientific explanation for this, it's not something physical in nature. But the results are real and I can't ignore that.
> 
> The other day, I meditated about a $250 electric bill which I had no idea how I was going to pay. I had $50, but in speaking with the electric company, that wasn't going to be enough to keep my power on. So I meditate for 30 minutes about that... I felt a sense of calmness come over me, suddenly I was not worried about this anymore. Less than one hour later, I go to the mailbox and there is a letter from another power company. It was where I had lived 20 years ago in Georgia. They were sending me a check for $200, a refund of the deposit I had paid way back when. Did my brain make that happen?
> 
> I can give you thousands upon thousands of stories like this. Five years ago, I was vacationing in Florida. I wandered out into the ocean and saw a sandbar nearby. I decided it would be cool to swim out to it and stand on it... about 50 yards from shore. After frolicking around a bit, I began swimming back to shore... but there had developed a riptide between me and the shore, and it began sweeping me horizontally down the coast. I was swimming as hard as I could but going nowhere. I swam desperately for nearly an hour until I was completely exhausted... still it seemed I was no closer to the shore. I began to pray because I really did think I was about to die. Suddenly, the same calmness came over me, by entire body relaxed. At first I thought, okay, I am about to die. But I just floated along in the water for a bit, and as odd as it sounds, I started paddling with the flow of the current. Before I knew it, I was just a few feet from shore. Now, I was three miles down the beach from my condo, but I didn't die. (By the way, 3 people died that day from the riptide.)
> 
> *I'm not telling you this stuff to "convert" you*, but because these are my personal experiences. You are NEVER going to convince me there isn't a higher power. You can type until your heart is content, I will NEVER believe God doesn't exist. I've got all the proof I need. I do not have to prove it to you or anyone else.
Click to expand...


*"I'm not telling you this stuff to "convert" you"* 

You've posted the same mantra over a thousand times on this thread alone.  You are trying to convince SOMEONE.


----------



## Boss

> "I'm not telling you this stuff to "convert" you"
> 
> You've posted the same mantra over a thousand times on this thread alone. You are trying to convince SOMEONE.



I don't think anyone has convinced someone of anything in the history of message boards. Why in the hell do you think I am trying to do that? I'm presenting my knowledge from my experiences, and you can take them or leave them, I really don't care.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> You can't change a fundamental human attribute?  Really?  Because my buddy from Iran used to pray 5 times a day and now he's an atheist.  What changed?  The open and free society.



That's an individual changing his individual behavior. People do that all the time. The spiritual attribute still exists in man. His behavior doesn't change that. At some point in the future, he could change his behavior again. At the same time he decided to be an atheist, dozens of other humans decided to be spiritually connected. You've not changed the world. 



> And people aren't born religious they are taught it.  When less and less people are going to church or following, the religion slowly goes away.  I can't see a return to conservative religious America.  We are progressively becoming more and more liberal each day.  What do you think will drag us back to more people finding jesus?



Why are you reverting back again to a religious argument? Humans are spiritually inclined whether they are born into a religious family or ever have any religious upbringing. They don't come from the womb practicing spirituality the same reason they don't come from the womb talking and communicating. 

Religions rise and fall, they've done this all through human history, but human spirituality remains virtually unchanged. Progressive and liberal movements rise and fall, happens all throughout history. Just because you think there is some trend happening now, doesn't mean that is always and forever going to be the case. 

Now, I don't know what might "drag us back to finding jesus" but I can certainly tell you what has happened in the past to rejuvenate human spirituality, cataclysm. Let's let some asteroid hit the planet and wipe out about half the population, and you'll see a lot of people start to hit their knees and pray again. "There are no atheists in foxholes" as the saying goes. When humans are faced with overwhelming adversity and turmoil, they turn to spiritual connection. The problem today is, too many people have it too good. They don't feel the need to maintain their spiritual connection. 



> Did  you see 7 out of 10 don't take the bible literally???  Do you know what this means?  This means that it's only a matter of time that those people realize the entire religion is based on a lie.  Emily tried to say the adam and eve story is a story to teach about......
> 
> So it's a lie?



Emily didn't say the Bible was a lie. She, along with others, have tried to get you to understand the purpose of the stories in the Bible. The religion isn't based on a lie. It may be misguided or a misinterpretation of God, but that isn't a lie. Still... why are you reverting to religion? Can your brain not comprehend that human spirituality and religion are two different things? 



> That's all the proof you should need we've been brainwashed/hard wired to believe in god.  But as we get smarter guess what?  God goes away.  Your children will not buy the shit you are trying to push.  They're getting smarter too.  And they won't be ostrasized by their friends if they don't go to church or believe in jesus because neither do they.  I'm not talking about in the bible belt.  I live in Michigan and no one around me hardly are bible thumpers and very few of my friends go to church ever.



But that's just not true. We've gotten immensely smarter in the past 2,000 years and Christianity is the most widespread and fastest growing religion today. And that's just Christians... there are a growing number of people who are like myself, strongly connected spiritually without religion. I've not been to church in years, aside from the occasional wedding or funeral. My children all go to church regularly. I never made them go, it has always been their choice. 

What you need to understand is, just because you don't know many people around you who are religious or go to church, doesn't mean that is representative of the entire human race. 88% of us are spiritual in some way. 66% of us attend regular religious services. Even in the most devoutly Atheist places on earth, less than 20% are willing to state they don't believe anything greater than self exists. You've got a really long way to go to wipe out human spirituality.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't change a fundamental human attribute?  Really?  Because my buddy from Iran used to pray 5 times a day and now he's an atheist.  What changed?  The open and free society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's an individual changing his individual behavior. People do that all the time. The spiritual attribute still exists in man. His behavior doesn't change that. At some point in the future, he could change his behavior again. At the same time he decided to be an atheist, dozens of other humans decided to be spiritually connected. You've not changed the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And people aren't born religious they are taught it.  When less and less people are going to church or following, the religion slowly goes away.  I can't see a return to conservative religious America.  We are progressively becoming more and more liberal each day.  What do you think will drag us back to more people finding jesus?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you reverting back again to a religious argument? Humans are spiritually inclined whether they are born into a religious family or ever have any religious upbringing. They don't come from the womb practicing spirituality the same reason they don't come from the womb talking and communicating.
> 
> Religions rise and fall, they've done this all through human history, but human spirituality remains virtually unchanged. Progressive and liberal movements rise and fall, happens all throughout history. Just because you think there is some trend happening now, doesn't mean that is always and forever going to be the case.
> 
> Now, I don't know what might "drag us back to finding jesus" but I can certainly tell you what has happened in the past to rejuvenate human spirituality, cataclysm. Let's let some asteroid hit the planet and wipe out about half the population, and you'll see a lot of people start to hit their knees and pray again. "There are no atheists in foxholes" as the saying goes. When humans are faced with overwhelming adversity and turmoil, they turn to spiritual connection. The problem today is, too many people have it too good. They don't feel the need to maintain their spiritual connection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did  you see 7 out of 10 don't take the bible literally???  Do you know what this means?  This means that it's only a matter of time that those people realize the entire religion is based on a lie.  Emily tried to say the adam and eve story is a story to teach about......
> 
> So it's a lie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Emily didn't say the Bible was a lie. She, along with others, have tried to get you to understand the purpose of the stories in the Bible. The religion isn't based on a lie. It may be misguided or a misinterpretation of God, but that isn't a lie. Still... why are you reverting to religion? Can your brain not comprehend that human spirituality and religion are two different things?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's all the proof you should need we've been brainwashed/hard wired to believe in god.  But as we get smarter guess what?  God goes away.  Your children will not buy the shit you are trying to push.  They're getting smarter too.  And they won't be ostrasized by their friends if they don't go to church or believe in jesus because neither do they.  I'm not talking about in the bible belt.  I live in Michigan and no one around me hardly are bible thumpers and very few of my friends go to church ever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that's just not true. We've gotten immensely smarter in the past 2,000 years and Christianity is the most widespread and fastest growing religion today. And that's just Christians... there are a growing number of people who are like myself, strongly connected spiritually without religion. I've not been to church in years, aside from the occasional wedding or funeral. My children all go to church regularly. I never made them go, it has always been their choice.
> 
> What you need to understand is, just because you don't know many people around you who are religious or go to church, doesn't mean that is representative of the entire human race. 88% of us are spiritual in some way. 66% of us attend regular religious services. Even in the most devoutly Atheist places on earth, less than 20% are willing to state they don't believe anything greater than self exists. You've got a really long way to go to wipe out human spirituality.
Click to expand...


I can agree that spirituality probably will always be around.  Can't say for sure but I would probably agree with you on that.  As long as the religions go away I'm cool with that.  

And yes Christianity, if the stories aren't literal, are lies.  For thousands of years ignorant sheep believed those stories to be literal and still 3 out of 10 still do.

Actually, I do think people might one day stop being spiritual.  Like me and my buddy and all the scientists like Neal Degrass Tyson.  We are too busy figuring out the universe to waste our time worry about fantasies.  But I do agree you praying/meditating is good for the soul or good for your health.  But it is possible eventually humans will become intelligent enough to stop calling it god.    

I don't believe 66% attend church regularly.  I see the people coming out of church every Sunday and I see EVERYONE ELSE who's not in church and I seriously doubt that 66% of the population are in church at 10am on Sunday.  Come on Boss admit that number is seriously inflated.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't change a fundamental human attribute?  Really?  Because my buddy from Iran used to pray 5 times a day and now he's an atheist.  What changed?  The open and free society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's an individual changing his individual behavior. People do that all the time. The spiritual attribute still exists in man. His behavior doesn't change that. At some point in the future, he could change his behavior again. At the same time he decided to be an atheist, dozens of other humans decided to be spiritually connected. You've not changed the world.
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you reverting back again to a religious argument? Humans are spiritually inclined whether they are born into a religious family or ever have any religious upbringing. They don't come from the womb practicing spirituality the same reason they don't come from the womb talking and communicating.
> 
> Religions rise and fall, they've done this all through human history, but human spirituality remains virtually unchanged. Progressive and liberal movements rise and fall, happens all throughout history. Just because you think there is some trend happening now, doesn't mean that is always and forever going to be the case.
> 
> Now, I don't know what might "drag us back to finding jesus" but I can certainly tell you what has happened in the past to rejuvenate human spirituality, cataclysm. Let's let some asteroid hit the planet and wipe out about half the population, and you'll see a lot of people start to hit their knees and pray again. "There are no atheists in foxholes" as the saying goes. When humans are faced with overwhelming adversity and turmoil, they turn to spiritual connection. The problem today is, too many people have it too good. They don't feel the need to maintain their spiritual connection.
> 
> 
> 
> Emily didn't say the Bible was a lie. She, along with others, have tried to get you to understand the purpose of the stories in the Bible. The religion isn't based on a lie. It may be misguided or a misinterpretation of God, but that isn't a lie. Still... why are you reverting to religion? Can your brain not comprehend that human spirituality and religion are two different things?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's all the proof you should need we've been brainwashed/hard wired to believe in god.  But as we get smarter guess what?  God goes away.  Your children will not buy the shit you are trying to push.  They're getting smarter too.  And they won't be ostrasized by their friends if they don't go to church or believe in jesus because neither do they.  I'm not talking about in the bible belt.  I live in Michigan and no one around me hardly are bible thumpers and very few of my friends go to church ever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that's just not true. We've gotten immensely smarter in the past 2,000 years and Christianity is the most widespread and fastest growing religion today. And that's just Christians... there are a growing number of people who are like myself, strongly connected spiritually without religion. I've not been to church in years, aside from the occasional wedding or funeral. My children all go to church regularly. I never made them go, it has always been their choice.
> 
> What you need to understand is, just because you don't know many people around you who are religious or go to church, doesn't mean that is representative of the entire human race. 88% of us are spiritual in some way. 66% of us attend regular religious services. Even in the most devoutly Atheist places on earth, less than 20% are willing to state they don't believe anything greater than self exists. You've got a really long way to go to wipe out human spirituality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can agree that spirituality probably will always be around.  Can't say for sure but I would probably agree with you on that.  As long as the religions go away I'm cool with that.
> 
> And yes Christianity, if the stories aren't literal, are lies.  For thousands of years ignorant sheep believed those stories to be literal and still 3 out of 10 still do.
> 
> Actually, I do think people might one day stop being spiritual.  Like me and my buddy and all the scientists like Neal Degrass Tyson.  We are too busy figuring out the universe to waste our time worry about fantasies.  But I do agree you praying/meditating is good for the soul or good for your health.  But it is possible eventually humans will become intelligent enough to stop calling it god.
> 
> I don't believe 66% attend church regularly.  I see the people coming out of church every Sunday and I see EVERYONE ELSE who's not in church and I seriously doubt that 66% of the population are in church at 10am on Sunday.  Come on Boss admit that number is seriously inflated.
Click to expand...


Well, religions are likely not going away because that is how humans manifest their spiritual connections. It's like hoping banks go away... they won't as long as we have currency. Or better yet, hoping governments go away... they won't as long as we have civil social society. The best bet for a hope is that religions modify and adapt to realize a more universal understanding of God. 

*...if the stories aren't literal, are lies.*

This isn't true. The stories, as has been explained, are parables. Now, parables are not lies. They are not literal truths, but that doesn't make them lies by default. And yes, some number of people take them literally because it's what their religion teaches. 

*Actually, I do think people might one day stop being spiritual.  Like me and my buddy and all the scientists like Neal Degrass Tyson.*

But that's not going to happen. That's what I am trying to get you to understand, it's a fundamental human attribute. A condition of man that hasn't changed... ever. You, your buddy, and Neil Tyson have simply stopped practicing spiritual connection. Some people stop using electricity, some people stop watching TV, some people stop eating meat... doesn't mean everyone will one day follow suit. 

*But I do agree you praying/meditating is good for the soul or good for your health.  But it is possible eventually humans will become intelligent enough to stop calling it god.*

So your main problem is what humans call it? You agree with it and realize it benefits us, but you just don't like that we call it a particular name? I use the term "God" all the time, it's a placeholder for what I connect with that is greater than self. I also refer to God as "He" sometimes, but it doesn't mean I think God has gender or is a human-like being. It could be compared with calling a ship "she" doesn't mean you think ships have gender. Or saying "mother nature" doesn't mean you believe nature is an actual human-like entity.   

This cuts to the core of what bothers me most about your type. You dishonestly attack human spirituality instead of admitting your beef is with Christians who seek to impose their sense of morality on society and mess up your decadent lifestyle. That's really what you have a problem with, but instead of admitting the truth, you hide behind this "intellectualist" facade and try to destroy a fundamental human attribute you'll never destroy.   

*We are too busy figuring out the universe to waste our time worry about fantasies.*

Apparently, you and Neil Tyson are NOT to busy to constantly attack and belittle human spirituality. You both spend an awful lot of time doing what you claim you're too busy to do. 

*I don't believe 66% attend church regularly....Come on Boss admit that number is seriously inflated.*

Not according to Pew Research. I think that is who compiled the latest global statistics. You have to remember, there are places where nearly 100% of the population attend regular religious services if for no other reason than because it is mandated by the fundamentalist government. But still, it's not the 66% you should be worried about, it's the 88% of humans who believe in something greater than self. That statistic has hardly changed in all of human history. Now there may be pockets of society where this number varies from the norm, and more people are inclined to be Atheistic. However, and history will back this up as well, whenever societies lose the spiritual foundation entirely, they decline into immoral chaos and collapse.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> You dishonestly attack human spirituality instead of admitting your beef is with Christians who seek to impose their sense of morality on society and mess up your decadent lifestyle. That's really what you have a problem with, but instead of admitting the truth, you hide behind this "intellectualist" facade and try to destroy a fundamental human attribute you'll never destroy.
> 
> [
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Belief in God Low Among Young Americans
> 
> Young Americans are abandoning God in droves.
> 
> A new survey by the Pew Research Center finds that belief in the existence of God has dropped 15 points in the last five years among Americans 30 and under.
> 
> Pew, which has been studying the trend for 25 years, finds that just 68 percent of millenials in 2012 agree with the statement I never doubt the existence of God. Thats down from 76 percent in 2009 and 83 percent in 2007.
> 
> Still sure god is here to stay?
> 
> 83% in 07
> 76% in 09
> 68% in 2012.
> 
> Will it be only 50% in 2016?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Belief in God Low Among Young Americans
> 
> Young Americans are abandoning God in droves.
> 
> A new survey by the Pew Research Center finds that belief in the existence of God has dropped 15 points in the last five years among Americans 30 and under.
> 
> Pew, which has been studying the trend for 25 years, finds that just 68 percent of millenials in 2012 agree with the statement &#8220;I never doubt the existence of God.&#8221; That&#8217;s down from 76 percent in 2009 and 83 percent in 2007.
> 
> Still sure god is here to stay?
> 
> 83% in 07
> 76% in 09
> 68% in 2012.
> 
> Will it be only 50% in 2016?



Well okay, but what you are doing is making some bold assumptions based on an ambiguous question. You are trying to say that people who have admitted they may have sometimes doubted existence of God are non-spiritual and don't believe in God. So you are making assumptions the question did not ask or infer. 

The same research group can ask the question "do you believe in a power greater than self?" and they get a totally different result... ~90% say they do, whether millennial or not. And I think I am being generous here, if I'm not mistaken the number is more like 92%. 

Do people sometimes doubt God exists? Sure... especially the young and stupid!


----------



## Slyhunter

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Belief in God Low Among Young Americans
> 
> Young Americans are abandoning God in droves.
> 
> A new survey by the Pew Research Center finds that belief in the existence of God has dropped 15 points in the last five years among Americans 30 and under.
> 
> Pew, which has been studying the trend for 25 years, finds that just 68 percent of millenials in 2012 agree with the statement I never doubt the existence of God. Thats down from 76 percent in 2009 and 83 percent in 2007.
> 
> Still sure god is here to stay?
> 
> 83% in 07
> 76% in 09
> 68% in 2012.
> 
> Will it be only 50% in 2016?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well okay, but what you are doing is making some bold assumptions based on an ambiguous question. You are trying to say that people who have admitted they may have sometimes doubted existence of God are non-spiritual and don't believe in God. So you are making assumptions the question did not ask or infer.
> 
> The same research group can ask the question "do you believe in a power greater than self?" and they get a totally different result... ~90% say they do, whether millennial or not. And I think I am being generous here, if I'm not mistaken the number is more like 92%.
> 
> Do people sometimes doubt God exists? Sure... especially the young and stupid!
Click to expand...


I believe the bible is a work of fiction.
The universe is big, there are probably more higher beings in existence somewhere.


----------



## Boss

Slyhunter said:


> I believe the bible is a work of fiction.
> The universe is big, there are probably more higher beings in existence somewhere.



Good for you, but personal beliefs are anecdotal evidence.


----------



## Slyhunter

Boss said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe the bible is a work of fiction.
> The universe is big, there are probably more higher beings in existence somewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good for you, but personal beliefs are anecdotal evidence.
Click to expand...

You have no proof the bible is the truth. And if the bible did speak the truth I would not want to follow the God of Israelites who went around destroying villages of people simply for not worshipping their God.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe the bible is a work of fiction.
> The universe is big, there are probably more higher beings in existence somewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good for you, but personal beliefs are anecdotal evidence.
Click to expand...


Of course, since almost every post by you in this thread is about your personal belief, it leads me to wonder why you seem to disparage someone else's anecdotal evidence.


----------



## Montrovant

Slyhunter said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe the bible is a work of fiction.
> The universe is big, there are probably more higher beings in existence somewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good for you, but personal beliefs are anecdotal evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no proof the bible is the truth. And if the bible did speak the truth I would not want to follow the God of Israelites who went around destroying villages of people simply for not worshipping their God.
Click to expand...


Boss has said on multiple occasions he does not believe in the Bible.  I disagree with almost every premise of his in this thread, but he has not claimed to be a Christian.


----------



## Boss

Slyhunter said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe the bible is a work of fiction.
> The universe is big, there are probably more higher beings in existence somewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good for you, but personal beliefs are anecdotal evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no proof the bible is the truth. And if the bible did speak the truth I would not want to follow the God of Israelites who went around destroying villages of people simply for not worshipping their God.
Click to expand...


Perhaps you've missed the entirety of the thread, but I am not here arguing on behalf of the Bible. It's a great and wonderful book... the most published and widely read book of all time. It has some great lessons for living a good moral life and maintaining spiritual fidelity. Jesus was a great philosopher who had many beautiful things to say. But I am not a Christian and don't subscribe to Christian religion.


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe the bible is a work of fiction.
> The universe is big, there are probably more higher beings in existence somewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good for you, but personal beliefs are anecdotal evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, since almost every post by you in this thread is about your personal belief, it leads me to wonder why you seem to disparage someone else's anecdotal evidence.
Click to expand...


Well it's because I don't believe in double standards.


----------



## GISMYS

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good for you, but personal beliefs are anecdotal evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, since almost every post by you in this thread is about your personal belief, it leads me to wonder why you seem to disparage someone else's anecdotal evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well it's because I don't believe in double standards.
Click to expand...


What little man may or maynot believe CHANGES NO TRUTH but it will change your eternity!!


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Belief in God Low Among Young Americans
> 
> Young Americans are abandoning God in droves.
> 
> A new survey by the Pew Research Center finds that belief in the existence of God has dropped 15 points in the last five years among Americans 30 and under.
> 
> Pew, which has been studying the trend for 25 years, finds that just 68 percent of millenials in 2012 agree with the statement I never doubt the existence of God. Thats down from 76 percent in 2009 and 83 percent in 2007.
> 
> Still sure god is here to stay?
> 
> 83% in 07
> 76% in 09
> 68% in 2012.
> 
> Will it be only 50% in 2016?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well okay, but what you are doing is making some bold assumptions based on an ambiguous question. You are trying to say that people who have admitted they may have sometimes doubted existence of God are non-spiritual and don't believe in God. So you are making assumptions the question did not ask or infer.
> 
> The same research group can ask the question "do you believe in a power greater than self?" and they get a totally different result... ~90% say they do, whether millennial or not. And I think I am being generous here, if I'm not mistaken the number is more like 92%.
> 
> Do people sometimes doubt God exists? Sure... especially the young and stupid!
Click to expand...


No it is YOU who makes a lot of assumptions.  1 that kids are stupid.  I say if they are questioning religions more they are more intelligent than their parents who believed without question.  

2 you assume society will decay without religion and that decay will be because of a lack of faith.  I say parents who have jobs and raise their kids in a 2 parent home will raise good citizens without god.  Many do.  In fact more and more people every day.  You can't show me that crime is happening because people don't believe in god but you can show me where chrstians commit crimes because they are desperate.  Sure people who are strict chrstians won't get abortions or have sex before marriage but most people aren't strict christians.  Anyways, I don't buy it that lack of faith causes aids.

Oh, by the way, a lesbian black girl is here in my business right now.  I asked her if she's religious and she said yes.  Isn't she going to hell?  So what she believes in a god?  Does her belief prove anything?

I believe in a power greater than myself.  It's called time.  I can't beat it.  Eventually I'm going to run out of it.  I also believe in the sun.  It is greater than me.  I also think this entire planet is alive and we are killing it.


----------



## sealybobo

Slyhunter said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Belief in God Low Among Young Americans
> 
> Young Americans are abandoning God in droves.
> 
> A new survey by the Pew Research Center finds that belief in the existence of God has dropped 15 points in the last five years among Americans 30 and under.
> 
> Pew, which has been studying the trend for 25 years, finds that just 68 percent of millenials in 2012 agree with the statement I never doubt the existence of God. Thats down from 76 percent in 2009 and 83 percent in 2007.
> 
> Still sure god is here to stay?
> 
> 83% in 07
> 76% in 09
> 68% in 2012.
> 
> Will it be only 50% in 2016?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well okay, but what you are doing is making some bold assumptions based on an ambiguous question. You are trying to say that people who have admitted they may have sometimes doubted existence of God are non-spiritual and don't believe in God. So you are making assumptions the question did not ask or infer.
> 
> The same research group can ask the question "do you believe in a power greater than self?" and they get a totally different result... ~90% say they do, whether millennial or not. And I think I am being generous here, if I'm not mistaken the number is more like 92%.
> 
> Do people sometimes doubt God exists? Sure... especially the young and stupid!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe the bible is a work of fiction.
> The universe is big, there are probably more higher beings in existence somewhere.
Click to expand...


Last week it dawned on me the entire christian/jewish religions are started with a lie.  For years my family and church brainwashed me and told me the story of adam and eve and they said it was a real story.  When they could no longer continue that lie, they now say it's a story to send a message?  So it isn't true?  Noah's story isn't really true?  The entire thing is a lie.

We don't know who invented religion but we know that the kings/pharoahs/churches used it from as far back as we can remember to control the sheep.

Sure there might be other life forms out there.  Why do they have to be gods?  The closest planet to us is 80,000 light years away.  As advance as they might be they probably haven't and can't make it to us just like we can't make it to them.

And the chances are if there is life somewhere else it's probably not as smart as humans.  We were a fluke.  

Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer (Aliens?). Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.

The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organisation and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply god.

The standard of evidence required to prove a gods existence is immediately more than any personal anecdote, witness testimony, ancient book or reported miracle  none of which can be considered extraordinarily reliable. The human mind is also highly susceptible to being fooled and even fooling itself. One could be suffering from an hallucination or a form of undiagnosed schizophrenia, hysteria or psychosis, ruling out even our own senses as reliable evidence gathering mechanisms in this case. As strange as it sounds, misunderstood aliens might even be attempting to interact with us using extremely advanced technology. 

Spiritual and religious experiences are not only inconsistent among individuals but are variably attributed to different gods, aliens, spirits, rituals, hallucinations, meditation etc. The fact that medical conditions and other natural processes [2] can induce these experiences is evidence they are produced by our brain.


----------



## GISMYS

Just another sign of the last days=JESUS says==Jesus asked this question, &#8220;when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?&#8221; (Lk 18:8).Jesus was talking to those left behind after the Rapture in Lk 18:8.


----------



## thanatos144

Notice something in this thread? No Christian is forcing you to worship Jesus....Not even the cartoon character GISMYS.  Yet Atheists DEMAND we do as they do......No worshiping in public because it frightens them.....No telling others about how you found Christ because it frightens them.

Fact is it isn't Christians that will destroy your freedom to worship or not....No it will be the holier the thou atheists.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> Just another sign of the last days=JESUS says==Jesus asked this question, when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth? (Lk 18:8).Jesus was talking to those left behind after the Rapture in Lk 18:8.



That never happened.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just another sign of the last days=JESUS says==Jesus asked this question, when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth? (Lk 18:8).Jesus was talking to those left behind after the Rapture in Lk 18:8.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That never happened.
Click to expand...


YES!!! THE RAPTURE IS A VERY,VERY ,NEAR FUTURE EVENT!!! WILL you be left behind??? your choice!


----------



## thanatos144

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just another sign of the last days=JESUS says==Jesus asked this question, when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth? (Lk 18:8).Jesus was talking to those left behind after the Rapture in Lk 18:8.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That never happened.
Click to expand...


No shit.....It is prophecy


----------



## sealybobo

thanatos144 said:


> Notice something in this thread? No Christian is forcing you to worship Jesus....Not even the cartoon character GISMYS.  Yet Atheists DEMAND we do as they do......No worshiping in public because it frightens them.....No telling others about how you found Christ because it frightens them.
> 
> Fact is it isn't Christians that will destroy your freedom to worship or not....No it will be the holier the thou atheists.



Common comment from a religious nut:  "Militant atheists are just as bad as religious ones."

No, theyre not. There are no calls for slavery, rape or murder in the atheist holy book.

Atheists are most often called militant when they passionately defend reason and advocate critical thinking. The bar theists set for perceived hostility appears to be any atheist simply voicing an opinion in dissent of religious belief. In contrast, the bar atheists set for perceived theistic hostility is any form of religiously motivated violence or oppression.

Atheism does not preclude someone from being argumentative or insensitive; those things are simply seen as being preferable to killing one another over an imaginary friend.

A militant atheist will debate in a University theatre or appeal for the separation of religion and government. A militant theist will kill doctors, stone women to death, incite religious war, restrict sexual and gender equality and convince children they are flawed and worthless  all under the instruction of their imagined god or holy book.

It can be argued that there is no such thing as a militant atheist, that the term is itself a misnomer, because there is simply no ideology or philosophy in atheism to be militant about. If an atheist is someone who lacks belief in gods, then a militant atheist is apparently someone who passionately lacks a belief in gods. *All other possible beliefs and ideologies  including any desire to oppress theism  come from outside atheism. This is in contrast to religious belief, which often includes a set of laws and commandments purportedly derived from a supernatural source about which one can be militant.

Note: Militant atheism is most often confused with gosateizm (state atheism), which was based on the ideology of Marxism-Leninism. It was this ideology which was responsible for the oppression and murder of theists under several 20th century communist regimes. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods with no inherit moral, political or philosophical baggage.

Im sorry if my insensitivity towards your beliefs offends you. But guess what  your religious wars, jihads, crusades, inquisitions, censoring of free speech, brainwashing of children, forcing girls into underage marriages, female genital mutilation, stoning, pederasty, homophobia and rejection of science and reason offend me. So I guess were even.  Anonymous*


----------



## GISMYS

thanatos144 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just another sign of the last days=JESUS says==Jesus asked this question, when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth? (Lk 18:8).Jesus was talking to those left behind after the Rapture in Lk 18:8.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That never happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No shit.....It is prophecy
Click to expand...


3But immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints; 4and there must be no filthiness and silly talk, or coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. 5For this you know with certainty, that no immoral or impure person or covetous man, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. Ephesians 5:4


----------



## sealybobo

thanatos144 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just another sign of the last days=JESUS says==Jesus asked this question, when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth? (Lk 18:8).Jesus was talking to those left behind after the Rapture in Lk 18:8.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That never happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No shit.....It is prophecy
Click to expand...


Even if Jesus existence could be established, this would in no way validate Christian theology or any element of the story portrayed in the Bible, such as the performance of miracles or the resurrection. Simply because it is conceivable a heretical Jewish preacher named Yeshua lived circa 30 AD, had followers and was executed, does not imply the son of a god walked the Earth at that time.

And we have already established the entire jewish & christian religions start with a lie.  7 out of 10 don't think Adam & Eve or Noah are literal historical figures.  They admit those are just stories.  So a lie.

Now, if the book of Genesis is an allegory, then sin is an allegory, the Fall is an allegory and the need for a Savior is an allegory  but if we are all descendants of an allegory, where does that leave us? It destroys the foundation of all Christian doctrineit destroys the foundation of the gospel. - Ken Ham


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> That never happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No shit.....It is prophecy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 3But immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints; 4and there must be no filthiness and silly talk, or coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. 5For this you know with certainty, that no immoral or impure person or covetous man, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. Ephesians 5:4
Click to expand...


No silly talk?  Then you're out for sure.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> That never happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No shit.....It is prophecy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even if Jesus existence could be established, this would in no way validate Christian theology or any element of the story portrayed in the Bible, such as the performance of miracles or the resurrection. Simply because it is conceivable a heretical Jewish preacher named Yeshua lived circa 30 AD, had followers and was executed, does not imply the son of a god walked the Earth at that time.
> 
> And we have already established the entire jewish & christian religions start with a lie.  7 out of 10 don't think Adam & Eve or Noah are literal historical figures.  They admit those are just stories.  So a lie.
> 
> Now, if the book of Genesis is an allegory, then sin is an allegory, the Fall is an allegory and the need for a Savior is an allegory  but if we are all descendants of an allegory, where does that leave us? It destroys the foundation of all Christian doctrineit destroys the foundation of the gospel. - Ken Ham
Click to expand...


2000 + years prove you very WRONG!!! GOD'S WORD IS GOD INSPIRED(GOD BREATHED) LIVING ETERNAL WORD!!!


----------



## thanatos144

sealybobo said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Notice something in this thread? No Christian is forcing you to worship Jesus....Not even the cartoon character GISMYS.  Yet Atheists DEMAND we do as they do......No worshiping in public because it frightens them.....No telling others about how you found Christ because it frightens them.
> 
> Fact is it isn't Christians that will destroy your freedom to worship or not....No it will be the holier the thou atheists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Common comment from a religious nut:  "Militant atheists are just as bad as religious ones."
> 
> No, theyre not. There are no calls for slavery, rape or murder in the atheist holy book.
> 
> Atheists are most often called militant when they passionately defend reason and advocate critical thinking. The bar theists set for perceived hostility appears to be any atheist simply voicing an opinion in dissent of religious belief. In contrast, the bar atheists set for perceived theistic hostility is any form of religiously motivated violence or oppression.
> 
> Atheism does not preclude someone from being argumentative or insensitive; those things are simply seen as being preferable to killing one another over an imaginary friend.
> 
> A militant atheist will debate in a University theatre or appeal for the separation of religion and government. A militant theist will kill doctors, stone women to death, incite religious war, restrict sexual and gender equality and convince children they are flawed and worthless  all under the instruction of their imagined god or holy book.
> 
> It can be argued that there is no such thing as a militant atheist, that the term is itself a misnomer, because there is simply no ideology or philosophy in atheism to be militant about. If an atheist is someone who lacks belief in gods, then a militant atheist is apparently someone who passionately lacks a belief in gods. *All other possible beliefs and ideologies  including any desire to oppress theism  come from outside atheism. This is in contrast to religious belief, which often includes a set of laws and commandments purportedly derived from a supernatural source about which one can be militant.
> 
> Note: Militant atheism is most often confused with gosateizm (state atheism), which was based on the ideology of Marxism-Leninism. It was this ideology which was responsible for the oppression and murder of theists under several 20th century communist regimes. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods with no inherit moral, political or philosophical baggage.
> 
> Im sorry if my insensitivity towards your beliefs offends you. But guess what  your religious wars, jihads, crusades, inquisitions, censoring of free speech, brainwashing of children, forcing girls into underage marriages, female genital mutilation, stoning, pederasty, homophobia and rejection of science and reason offend me. So I guess were even.  Anonymous*
Click to expand...

*

Hey do you think things like communism and abortion and the welfare state was created by those who believed in Christ? Atheists have killed more people in a hundred years then Christians ... Hell all faiths have in 5000 years*


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No shit.....It is prophecy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if Jesus existence could be established, this would in no way validate Christian theology or any element of the story portrayed in the Bible, such as the performance of miracles or the resurrection. Simply because it is conceivable a heretical Jewish preacher named Yeshua lived circa 30 AD, had followers and was executed, does not imply the son of a god walked the Earth at that time.
> 
> And we have already established the entire jewish & christian religions start with a lie.  7 out of 10 don't think Adam & Eve or Noah are literal historical figures.  They admit those are just stories.  So a lie.
> 
> Now, if the book of Genesis is an allegory, then sin is an allegory, the Fall is an allegory and the need for a Savior is an allegory  but if we are all descendants of an allegory, where does that leave us? It destroys the foundation of all Christian doctrineit destroys the foundation of the gospel. - Ken Ham
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 2000 + years prove you very WRONG!!! GOD'S WORD IS GOD INSPIRED(GOD BREATHED) LIVING ETERNAL WORD!!!
Click to expand...


Don't look at me.  Ask the Jews or Muslims if Jesus is the Messiah.  They agree with me he is not.  Now that is the only thing we agree on but you get my point.  Not everyone buys your bullshit cult story.


----------



## sealybobo

thanatos144 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Notice something in this thread? No Christian is forcing you to worship Jesus....Not even the cartoon character GISMYS.  Yet Atheists DEMAND we do as they do......No worshiping in public because it frightens them.....No telling others about how you found Christ because it frightens them.
> 
> Fact is it isn't Christians that will destroy your freedom to worship or not....No it will be the holier the thou atheists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Common comment from a religious nut:  "Militant atheists are just as bad as religious ones."
> 
> No, theyre not. There are no calls for slavery, rape or murder in the atheist holy book.
> 
> Atheists are most often called militant when they passionately defend reason and advocate critical thinking. The bar theists set for perceived hostility appears to be any atheist simply voicing an opinion in dissent of religious belief. In contrast, the bar atheists set for perceived theistic hostility is any form of religiously motivated violence or oppression.
> 
> Atheism does not preclude someone from being argumentative or insensitive; those things are simply seen as being preferable to killing one another over an imaginary friend.
> 
> A militant atheist will debate in a University theatre or appeal for the separation of religion and government. A militant theist will kill doctors, stone women to death, incite religious war, restrict sexual and gender equality and convince children they are flawed and worthless  all under the instruction of their imagined god or holy book.
> 
> It can be argued that there is no such thing as a militant atheist, that the term is itself a misnomer, because there is simply no ideology or philosophy in atheism to be militant about. If an atheist is someone who lacks belief in gods, then a militant atheist is apparently someone who passionately lacks a belief in gods. *All other possible beliefs and ideologies  including any desire to oppress theism  come from outside atheism. This is in contrast to religious belief, which often includes a set of laws and commandments purportedly derived from a supernatural source about which one can be militant.
> 
> Note: Militant atheism is most often confused with gosateizm (state atheism), which was based on the ideology of Marxism-Leninism. It was this ideology which was responsible for the oppression and murder of theists under several 20th century communist regimes. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods with no inherit moral, political or philosophical baggage.
> 
> Im sorry if my insensitivity towards your beliefs offends you. But guess what  your religious wars, jihads, crusades, inquisitions, censoring of free speech, brainwashing of children, forcing girls into underage marriages, female genital mutilation, stoning, pederasty, homophobia and rejection of science and reason offend me. So I guess were even.  Anonymous*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> Hey do you think things like communism and abortion and the welfare state was created by those who believed in Christ? Atheists have killed more people in a hundred years then Christians ... Hell all faiths have in 5000 years*
Click to expand...

*

Wrong.  Militant atheism is most often confused with gosateizm (state atheism), which was based on the ideology of Marxism-Leninism. It was this ideology which was responsible for the oppression and murder of theists under several 20th century communist regimes. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods with no inherit moral, political or philosophical baggage.

Name the last atheist genocide?  I can tell you the last religious one I can remember it was in Yugoslavia.  There were 5 different religious groups clashing and the politicians spurred it on just like the politicians today use religion and they had ethnic cleansing remember Kosovo?  So religion has a terrible track record.  Are you counting Iraq and Afganistan?  Those were inspired by religion too.  Bush used Christians to lie us into Iraq and Osama used Allah to get those guys to fly planes into our buildings.  Allah Akbar!  

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.  Steven Weinberg*


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even if Jesus existence could be established, this would in no way validate Christian theology or any element of the story portrayed in the Bible, such as the performance of miracles or the resurrection. Simply because it is conceivable a heretical Jewish preacher named Yeshua lived circa 30 AD, had followers and was executed, does not imply the son of a god walked the Earth at that time.
> 
> And we have already established the entire jewish & christian religions start with a lie.  7 out of 10 don't think Adam & Eve or Noah are literal historical figures.  They admit those are just stories.  So a lie.
> 
> Now, if the book of Genesis is an allegory, then sin is an allegory, the Fall is an allegory and the need for a Savior is an allegory  but if we are all descendants of an allegory, where does that leave us? It destroys the foundation of all Christian doctrineit destroys the foundation of the gospel. - Ken Ham
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2000 + years prove you very WRONG!!! GOD'S WORD IS GOD INSPIRED(GOD BREATHED) LIVING ETERNAL WORD!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't look at me.  Ask the Jews or Muslims if Jesus is the Messiah.  They agree with me he is not.  Now that is the only thing we agree on but you get my point.  Not everyone buys your bullshit cult story.
Click to expand...


YES!!! JESUS SAYS==Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. 14"For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it. Matthew 7:13


----------



## thanatos144

sealybobo said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Common comment from a religious nut:  "Militant atheists are just as bad as religious ones."
> 
> No, theyre not. There are no calls for slavery, rape or murder in the atheist holy book.
> 
> Atheists are most often called militant when they passionately defend reason and advocate critical thinking. The bar theists set for perceived hostility appears to be any atheist simply voicing an opinion in dissent of religious belief. In contrast, the bar atheists set for perceived theistic hostility is any form of religiously motivated violence or oppression.
> 
> Atheism does not preclude someone from being argumentative or insensitive; those things are simply seen as being preferable to killing one another over an imaginary friend.
> 
> A militant atheist will debate in a University theatre or appeal for the separation of religion and government. A militant theist will kill doctors, stone women to death, incite religious war, restrict sexual and gender equality and convince children they are flawed and worthless  all under the instruction of their imagined god or holy book.
> 
> It can be argued that there is no such thing as a militant atheist, that the term is itself a misnomer, because there is simply no ideology or philosophy in atheism to be militant about. If an atheist is someone who lacks belief in gods, then a militant atheist is apparently someone who passionately lacks a belief in gods. *All other possible beliefs and ideologies  including any desire to oppress theism  come from outside atheism. This is in contrast to religious belief, which often includes a set of laws and commandments purportedly derived from a supernatural source about which one can be militant.
> 
> Note: Militant atheism is most often confused with gosateizm (state atheism), which was based on the ideology of Marxism-Leninism. It was this ideology which was responsible for the oppression and murder of theists under several 20th century communist regimes. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods with no inherit moral, political or philosophical baggage.
> 
> Im sorry if my insensitivity towards your beliefs offends you. But guess what  your religious wars, jihads, crusades, inquisitions, censoring of free speech, brainwashing of children, forcing girls into underage marriages, female genital mutilation, stoning, pederasty, homophobia and rejection of science and reason offend me. So I guess were even.  Anonymous*
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Hey do you think things like communism and abortion and the welfare state was created by those who believed in Christ? Atheists have killed more people in a hundred years then Christians ... Hell all faiths have in 5000 years*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> Wrong.  Militant atheism is most often confused with gosateizm (state atheism), which was based on the ideology of Marxism-Leninism. It was this ideology which was responsible for the oppression and murder of theists under several 20th century communist regimes. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods with no inherit moral, political or philosophical baggage.
> 
> Name the last atheist genocide?  I can tell you the last religious one I can remember it was in Yugoslavia.  There were 5 different religious groups clashing and the politicians spurred it on just like the politicians today use religion and they had ethnic cleansing remember Kosovo?  So religion has a terrible track record.  Are you counting Iraq and Afganistan?  Those were inspired by religion too.  Bush used Christians to lie us into Iraq and Osama used Allah to get those guys to fly planes into our buildings.  Allah Akbar!
> 
> With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.  Steven Weinberg*
Click to expand...

*
Sorry friend but Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Sanger and many more killers were all atheists...You religion kills people by the MILLIONS.*


----------



## Slyhunter

thanatos144 said:


> Notice something in this thread? No Christian is forcing you to worship Jesus....Not even the cartoon character GISMYS.  Yet Atheists DEMAND we do as they do......No worshiping in public because it frightens them.....No telling others about how you found Christ because it frightens them.
> 
> Fact is it isn't Christians that will destroy your freedom to worship or not....No it will be the holier the thou atheists.



Not because it frightens them but because it's irritating to have to sit through that dribble. Personally I want to get rid of all laws that were made because of religion. Like, no alcohol sales on Sunday.


----------



## thanatos144

Slyhunter said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Notice something in this thread? No Christian is forcing you to worship Jesus....Not even the cartoon character GISMYS.  Yet Atheists DEMAND we do as they do......No worshiping in public because it frightens them.....No telling others about how you found Christ because it frightens them.
> 
> Fact is it isn't Christians that will destroy your freedom to worship or not....No it will be the holier the thou atheists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not because it frightens them but because it's irritating to have to sit through that dribble. Personally I want to get rid of all laws that were made because of religion. Like, no alcohol sales on Sunday.
Click to expand...


Sorry for your luck but I have freedom OF religion. You dont like my talking about it
? dont fucking listen.


----------



## Slyhunter

thanatos144 said:


> Notice something in this thread? No Christian is forcing you to worship Jesus....Not even the cartoon character GISMYS.  Yet Atheists DEMAND we do as they do......No worshiping in public because it frightens them.....No telling others about how you found Christ because it frightens them.
> 
> Fact is it isn't Christians that will destroy your freedom to worship or not....No it will be the holier the thou atheists.



You're not even the tiniest bit annoyed with Gismys's incessant religious yammering trying to dominate this thread? You don't find yourself wishing he would just shutup and let the adults have the floor so we can have adult conversations over the matter? His posts makes religious nuts look bad.


----------



## GISMYS

Slyhunter said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Notice something in this thread? No Christian is forcing you to worship Jesus....Not even the cartoon character GISMYS.  Yet Atheists DEMAND we do as they do......No worshiping in public because it frightens them.....No telling others about how you found Christ because it frightens them.
> 
> Fact is it isn't Christians that will destroy your freedom to worship or not....No it will be the holier the thou atheists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not because it frightens them but because it's irritating to have to sit through that dribble. Personally I want to get rid of all laws that were made because of religion. Like, no alcohol sales on Sunday.
Click to expand...


no!!! YOU JUST NEED TO LEARN TO THINK and not allow yourself to be brainwashed,Can't you see our CLUELESS liberal dem. and the results of the last six years??


----------



## Slyhunter

GISMYS said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Notice something in this thread? No Christian is forcing you to worship Jesus....Not even the cartoon character GISMYS.  Yet Atheists DEMAND we do as they do......No worshiping in public because it frightens them.....No telling others about how you found Christ because it frightens them.
> 
> Fact is it isn't Christians that will destroy your freedom to worship or not....No it will be the holier the thou atheists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not because it frightens them but because it's irritating to have to sit through that dribble. Personally I want to get rid of all laws that were made because of religion. Like, no alcohol sales on Sunday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no!!! YOU JUST NEED TO LEARN TO THINK and not allow yourself to be brainwashed,Can't you see our CLUELESS liberal dem. and the results of the last six years??
Click to expand...


You think I'm brainwashed.


----------



## GISMYS

Slyhunter said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not because it frightens them but because it's irritating to have to sit through that dribble. Personally I want to get rid of all laws that were made because of religion. Like, no alcohol sales on Sunday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no!!! YOU JUST NEED TO LEARN TO THINK and not allow yourself to be brainwashed,Can't you see our CLUELESS liberal dem. and the results of the last six years??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think I'm brainwashed.
Click to expand...


lol!! I bet you would make a good Billary voter!!!


----------



## sealybobo

thanatos144 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey do you think things like communism and abortion and the welfare state was created by those who believed in Christ? Atheists have killed more people in a hundred years then Christians ... Hell all faiths have in 5000 years
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  Militant atheism is most often confused with gosateizm (state atheism), which was based on the ideology of Marxism-Leninism. It was this ideology which was responsible for the oppression and murder of theists under several 20th century communist regimes. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods with no inherit moral, political or philosophical baggage.
> 
> Name the last atheist genocide?  I can tell you the last religious one I can remember it was in Yugoslavia.  There were 5 different religious groups clashing and the politicians spurred it on just like the politicians today use religion and they had ethnic cleansing remember Kosovo?  So religion has a terrible track record.  Are you counting Iraq and Afganistan?  Those were inspired by religion too.  Bush used Christians to lie us into Iraq and Osama used Allah to get those guys to fly planes into our buildings.  Allah Akbar!
> 
> With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.  Steven Weinberg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry friend but Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Sanger and many more killers were all atheists...You religion kills people by the MILLIONS.
Click to expand...


Show me those German's who killed for Hilter in the 30's and 40's were Atheists and not Christians.  They were christians killing in africa, greece, jews, france, england.  Remember they were the superior white christian race, remember?  

Hitler was religious and publicly decried atheism. 

We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.  Adolf Hitler


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> no!!! YOU JUST NEED TO LEARN TO THINK and not allow yourself to be brainwashed,Can't you see our CLUELESS liberal dem. and the results of the last six years??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think I'm brainwashed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol!! I bet you would make a good Billary voter!!!
Click to expand...


And you vote for Bachmann & Palin.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  Militant atheism is most often confused with gosateizm (state atheism), which was based on the ideology of Marxism-Leninism. It was this ideology which was responsible for the oppression and murder of theists under several 20th century communist regimes. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods with no inherit moral, political or philosophical baggage.
> 
> Name the last atheist genocide?  I can tell you the last religious one I can remember it was in Yugoslavia.  There were 5 different religious groups clashing and the politicians spurred it on just like the politicians today use religion and they had ethnic cleansing remember Kosovo?  So religion has a terrible track record.  Are you counting Iraq and Afganistan?  Those were inspired by religion too.  Bush used Christians to lie us into Iraq and Osama used Allah to get those guys to fly planes into our buildings.  Allah Akbar!
> 
> With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.  Steven Weinberg
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry friend but Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Sanger and many more killers were all atheists...You religion kills people by the MILLIONS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me those German's who killed for Hilter in the 30's and 40's were Atheists and not Christians.  They were christians killing in africa, greece, jews, france, england.  Remember they were the superior white christian race, remember?
> 
> Hitler was religious and publicly decried atheism.
> 
> We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.  Adolf Hitler
Click to expand...


Satan is a liar and the father of liars!!!  hitler killed millions of JEWS!!! JESUS WAS BORN A JEW AS WERE ALL BUT ONE WRITERS THAT RECORDED GOD'S WORD!!!


----------



## thanatos144

sealybobo said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  Militant atheism is most often confused with gosateizm (state atheism), which was based on the ideology of Marxism-Leninism. It was this ideology which was responsible for the oppression and murder of theists under several 20th century communist regimes. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods with no inherit moral, political or philosophical baggage.
> 
> Name the last atheist genocide?  I can tell you the last religious one I can remember it was in Yugoslavia.  There were 5 different religious groups clashing and the politicians spurred it on just like the politicians today use religion and they had ethnic cleansing remember Kosovo?  So religion has a terrible track record.  Are you counting Iraq and Afganistan?  Those were inspired by religion too.  Bush used Christians to lie us into Iraq and Osama used Allah to get those guys to fly planes into our buildings.  Allah Akbar!
> 
> With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.  Steven Weinberg
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry friend but Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Sanger and many more killers were all atheists...You religion kills people by the MILLIONS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me those German's who killed for Hilter in the 30's and 40's were Atheists and not Christians.  They were christians killing in africa, greece, jews, france, england.  Remember they were the superior white christian race, remember?
> 
> Hitler was religious and publicly decried atheism.
> 
> We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.  Adolf Hitler
Click to expand...


Show me they werent. The first things they did was push out the church.


----------



## Slyhunter

GISMYS said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> no!!! YOU JUST NEED TO LEARN TO THINK and not allow yourself to be brainwashed,Can't you see our CLUELESS liberal dem. and the results of the last six years??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think I'm brainwashed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol!! I bet you would make a good Billary voter!!!
Click to expand...


Actually I wanted Newt Gingrich to win.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry friend but Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Sanger and many more killers were all atheists...You religion kills people by the MILLIONS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show me those German's who killed for Hilter in the 30's and 40's were Atheists and not Christians.  They were christians killing in africa, greece, jews, france, england.  Remember they were the superior white christian race, remember?
> 
> Hitler was religious and publicly decried atheism.
> 
> We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.  Adolf Hitler
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Satan is a liar and the father of liars!!!  hitler killed millions of JEWS!!! JESUS WAS BORN A JEW AS WERE ALL BUT ONE WRITERS THAT RECORDED GOD'S WORD!!!
Click to expand...


Did he do it single handed or did the German people help him?  So please show me what year all the German's converted to Atheism and please show me in history books when exactly did they convert back to Christianity?  

Are you satan?  Because you just lied.  Either that or you didn't realize Hitler and the German people of the 1940's were CHRISTIANS you stupid bitch.  

So were the Italians and the Catholic Church who helped Hitler.


----------



## Slyhunter

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry friend but Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Sanger and many more killers were all atheists...You religion kills people by the MILLIONS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show me those German's who killed for Hilter in the 30's and 40's were Atheists and not Christians.  They were christians killing in africa, greece, jews, france, england.  Remember they were the superior white christian race, remember?
> 
> Hitler was religious and publicly decried atheism.
> 
> We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.  Adolf Hitler
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Satan is a liar and the father of liars!!!  hitler killed millions of JEWS!!! JESUS WAS BORN A JEW AS WERE ALL BUT ONE WRITERS THAT RECORDED GOD'S WORD!!!
Click to expand...


Satan wrote the bible.


----------



## thanatos144

Slyhunter said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Notice something in this thread? No Christian is forcing you to worship Jesus....Not even the cartoon character GISMYS.  Yet Atheists DEMAND we do as they do......No worshiping in public because it frightens them.....No telling others about how you found Christ because it frightens them.
> 
> Fact is it isn't Christians that will destroy your freedom to worship or not....No it will be the holier the thou atheists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're not even the tiniest bit annoyed with Gismys's incessant religious yammering trying to dominate this thread? You don't find yourself wishing he would just shutup and let the adults have the floor so we can have adult conversations over the matter? His posts makes religious nuts look bad.
Click to expand...


if you dont like his absurd posts put him on ignore....I very much doubt he is anything more then character some atheist created to look the fanatic.


----------



## sealybobo

thanatos144 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry friend but Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Sanger and many more killers were all atheists...You religion kills people by the MILLIONS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show me those German's who killed for Hilter in the 30's and 40's were Atheists and not Christians.  They were christians killing in africa, greece, jews, france, england.  Remember they were the superior white christian race, remember?
> 
> Hitler was religious and publicly decried atheism.
> 
> We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.  Adolf Hitler
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me they werent. The first things they did was push out the church.
Click to expand...


Exactly what I thought you'd say lying fuck.  

They were christians.


----------



## GISMYS

slyhunter said:


> gismys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> you think i'm brainwashed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol!! I bet you would make a good billary voter!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> actually i wanted newt gingrich to win.
Click to expand...


well try to think!! Are you pro abortion?? Gay marrage?? Sexual perversion? Anti god?? Anti military?? Pro cut and run,tax and spend?? Then vote liberal dem


----------



## Boss

Slyhunter said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Notice something in this thread? No Christian is forcing you to worship Jesus....Not even the cartoon character GISMYS.  Yet Atheists DEMAND we do as they do......No worshiping in public because it frightens them.....No telling others about how you found Christ because it frightens them.
> 
> Fact is it isn't Christians that will destroy your freedom to worship or not....No it will be the holier the thou atheists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not because it frightens them but because it's irritating to have to sit through that dribble. Personally *I want to get rid of all laws that were made because of religion.* Like, no alcohol sales on Sunday.
Click to expand...


So then, I should be able to pass a law that it's okay for adults to sleep with 12-year olds/minors, because this is based on religion. I should also be able to pass a law that adults can marry animals if they want, or have multiple wives/husbands. I can also pass a law that says if I need something and you have it, I can take it from you by force. If I don't want to live next door to someone with brown skin, I can kill them. If I find you annoying, I can kill you. If I lie in court and it's for my own benefit, it is excused and permitted. If I want to walk around naked in public, I can do so. If I want to peek into your daughter's window at night, no problem. If I want to sit in the park and masturbate while watching your kids play, that's fine. 

You see, ALL of these laws are fundamentally based on religious morals. When we remove the religious foundation, we can justify and rationalize almost anything. You don't have any property rights, you don't have equality, what is good or bad for children isn't your business. Fuck you if you're offended by me, don't look! These things go out the window when we remove the religious moral foundations supporting them. That's what you are essentially arguing for.


----------



## Slyhunter

GISMYS said:


> slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gismys said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol!! I bet you would make a good billary voter!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> actually i wanted newt gingrich to win.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well try tomthink!! Are you pro abortion?? Gay marrage?? Sexual perversion? Anti god?? Anti military?? Pro cut and run,tax and spend?? Then vote liberal dem
Click to expand...


anti-abortion (unless the fetus has the gay gene or other genetic abnormalities), anti-public gayness anything, open minded about religion but don't want them controlling everything, expect the government not to borrow to spend on non-emergency needs. Closed border, American jobs for Americans. No immigration until every American who wants a job has a job. I also expect every American who works for a living to earn a living and not have to live like a Mexican in Mexico. So whom am I supposed to vote for again?


----------



## Slyhunter

Boss said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Notice something in this thread? No Christian is forcing you to worship Jesus....Not even the cartoon character GISMYS.  Yet Atheists DEMAND we do as they do......No worshiping in public because it frightens them.....No telling others about how you found Christ because it frightens them.
> 
> Fact is it isn't Christians that will destroy your freedom to worship or not....No it will be the holier the thou atheists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not because it frightens them but because it's irritating to have to sit through that dribble. Personally *I want to get rid of all laws that were made because of religion.* Like, no alcohol sales on Sunday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So then, I should be able to pass a law that it's okay for adults to sleep with 12-year olds/minors, because this is based on religion. I should also be able to pass a law that adults can marry animals if they want, or have multiple wives/husbands. I can also pass a law that says if I need something and you have it, I can take it from you by force. If I don't want to live next door to someone with brown skin, I can kill them. If I find you annoying, I can kill you. If I lie in court and it's for my own benefit, it is excused and permitted. If I want to walk around naked in public, I can do so. If I want to peek into your daughter's window at night, no problem. If I want to sit in the park and masturbate while watching your kids play, that's fine.
> 
> You see, ALL of these laws are fundamentally based on religious morals. When we remove the religious foundation, we can justify and rationalize almost anything. You don't have any property rights, you don't have equality, what is good or bad for children isn't your business. Fuck you if you're offended by me, don't look! These things go out the window when we remove the religious moral foundations supporting them. That's what you are essentially arguing for.
Click to expand...


You can be righteous without being religious. You can practice do no harm to others and everyone has the right to do any fucking thing they want to do as long as it does not interfere with another individual right to do the same. without being religious. And it should be legal to serve alcohol on Sundays.


----------



## GISMYS

Slyhunter said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> actually i wanted newt gingrich to win.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well try tomthink!! Are you pro abortion?? Gay marrage?? Sexual perversion? Anti god?? Anti military?? Pro cut and run,tax and spend?? Then vote liberal dem
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> anti-abortion (unless the fetus has the gay gene or other genetic abnormalities), anti-public gayness anything, open minded about religion but don't want them controlling everything, expect the government not to borrow to spend on non-emergency needs. Closed border, American jobs for Americans. No immigration until every American who wants a job has a job. I also expect every American who works for a living to earn a living and not have to live like a Mexican in Mexico. So whom am I supposed to vote for again?
Click to expand...


LOL!!! MUST I THINK FOR YOU??? GOP IS PRO military,pro national defence,pro God, PRO GOVERMENT BY THE PEOPLE, PRO LOWER TAX, PRO FREEDOM WORLDWIDE,ANTI ABORTION,ANTI GAY MARRAGE,SEXUAL PERVERSION, PRO AMERICAN ECONOMY AND JOB CREATION. NOW VOTE GOP OR SIT ON YOUR HANDS AND CRY!


----------



## Slyhunter

GISMYS said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> well try tomthink!! Are you pro abortion?? Gay marrage?? Sexual perversion? Anti god?? Anti military?? Pro cut and run,tax and spend?? Then vote liberal dem
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anti-abortion (unless the fetus has the gay gene or other genetic abnormalities), anti-public gayness anything, open minded about religion but don't want them controlling everything, expect the government not to borrow to spend on non-emergency needs. Closed border, American jobs for Americans. No immigration until every American who wants a job has a job. I also expect every American who works for a living to earn a living and not have to live like a Mexican in Mexico. So whom am I supposed to vote for again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!!! MUST I THINK FOR YOU??? GOP IS PRO military,pro national defence,pro God, PRO GOVERMENT BY THE PEOPLE, PRO LOWER TAX, PRO FREEDOM WORLDWIDE,ANTI ABORTION,ANTI GAY MARRAGE,SEXUAL PERVERSION, PRO AMERICAN ECONOMY AND JOB CREATION. NOW VOTE GOP OR SIT ON YOUR HANDS AND CRY!
Click to expand...


They are also pro low wage immigration workers, open borders, No minimum wage, No safety net for those who have to compete with these immigration workers for bottom level jobs. They are the screw the American worker party.

And if Sean Hannity has his way they are the anti free speech party wanting to make porn illegal and drugs and anything they don't approve of. They are the holier than though party who wishes to force everyone to obey their version of religious laws. They are the ones who made it illegal to buy booze on Sunday.


----------



## GISMYS

Slyhunter said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> anti-abortion (unless the fetus has the gay gene or other genetic abnormalities), anti-public gayness anything, open minded about religion but don't want them controlling everything, expect the government not to borrow to spend on non-emergency needs. Closed border, American jobs for Americans. No immigration until every American who wants a job has a job. I also expect every American who works for a living to earn a living and not have to live like a Mexican in Mexico. So whom am I supposed to vote for again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!!! MUST I THINK FOR YOU??? GOP IS PRO military,pro national defence,pro God, PRO GOVERMENT BY THE PEOPLE, PRO LOWER TAX, PRO FREEDOM WORLDWIDE,ANTI ABORTION,ANTI GAY MARRAGE,SEXUAL PERVERSION, PRO AMERICAN ECONOMY AND JOB CREATION. NOW VOTE GOP OR SIT ON YOUR HANDS AND CRY!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are also pro low wage immigration workers, open borders, No minimum wage, No safety net for those who have to compete with these immigration workers for bottom level jobs. They are the screw the American worker party.
Click to expand...


LOL!!! NOW YOU WANT ME TO DO YOUR RESEARCH TOO??? OR WILL YOU JUST BELIEVE LIBERAL DEM brainwashing?? you waste my time!!! begone!!!


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Belief in God Low Among Young Americans
> 
> Young Americans are abandoning God in droves.
> 
> A new survey by the Pew Research Center finds that belief in the existence of God has dropped 15 points in the last five years among Americans 30 and under.
> 
> Pew, which has been studying the trend for 25 years, finds that just 68 percent of millenials in 2012 agree with the statement I never doubt the existence of God. Thats down from 76 percent in 2009 and 83 percent in 2007.
> 
> Still sure god is here to stay?
> 
> 83% in 07
> 76% in 09
> 68% in 2012.
> 
> Will it be only 50% in 2016?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well okay, but what you are doing is making some bold assumptions based on an ambiguous question. You are trying to say that people who have admitted they may have sometimes doubted existence of God are non-spiritual and don't believe in God. So you are making assumptions the question did not ask or infer.
> 
> The same research group can ask the question "do you believe in a power greater than self?" and they get a totally different result... ~90% say they do, whether millennial or not. And I think I am being generous here, if I'm not mistaken the number is more like 92%.
> 
> Do people sometimes doubt God exists? Sure... especially the young and stupid!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it is YOU who makes a lot of assumptions.  1 that kids are stupid.  I say if they are questioning religions more they are more intelligent than their parents who believed without question.
Click to expand...


I know of ZERO young people who have ever accepted anything without question. NADDA! 



> 2 you assume society will decay without religion and that decay will be because of a lack of faith.



No, I KNOW that it will because it has before. This is essentially what destroyed the Roman Empire. There have been countless other Communist, Socialist, Fascist, Marxist and Maoist dictatorships which have crumbled due to lack of spirituality. The history books are full of examples. 



> I say parents who have jobs and raise their kids in a 2 parent home will raise good citizens without god.  Many do.  In fact more and more people every day.  You can't show me that crime is happening because people don't believe in god but you can show me where chrstians commit crimes because they are desperate.  Sure people who are strict chrstians won't get abortions or have sex before marriage but most people aren't strict christians.  Anyways, I don't buy it that lack of faith causes aids.



I can't show you anything because your mind is closed. You've convinced yourself that humans can somehow maintain moral standards without accountability or consequence. Lack of faith doesn't cause aids. Shooting up drugs with shared needles, having homosexual relations, and exchanging body fluids with those infected is what causes aids. If these were activities happening in Churches, I'd say we need to shut them down. If preachers were advocating these behaviors, I'd say we need to silence them. 



> Oh, by the way, a lesbian black girl is here in my business right now.  I asked her if she's religious and she said yes.  Isn't she going to hell?  So what she believes in a god?  Does her belief prove anything?



Why are you running to the comfort of a religious debate again? You know that I am not a religious person. I don't know what this mythical person believes, where she's going, or if she even exists. It's basically you just running your mouth. 



> I believe in a power greater than myself.  It's called time.  I can't beat it.  Eventually I'm going to run out of it.  I also believe in the sun.  It is greater than me.  I also think this entire planet is alive and we are killing it.



And you also believe in "Karma" or you did the other day, you said so. I think you are fully aware of spiritual nature and you just don't think there will be any consequence for rebuking and attacking it. Guess what? You are absolutely correct in your assumption as far as your physical existence goes. It's when your spirit leaves this physical presence you need to be concerned about, but I guess you figure you'll cross that bridge when you come to it. In the meantime, you've decided to abandon your spirit and soul, and live by your own rules. Good luck with that. Be on the lookout for Karma.


----------



## Slyhunter

GISMYS said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!!! MUST I THINK FOR YOU??? GOP IS PRO military,pro national defence,pro God, PRO GOVERMENT BY THE PEOPLE, PRO LOWER TAX, PRO FREEDOM WORLDWIDE,ANTI ABORTION,ANTI GAY MARRAGE,SEXUAL PERVERSION, PRO AMERICAN ECONOMY AND JOB CREATION. NOW VOTE GOP OR SIT ON YOUR HANDS AND CRY!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are also pro low wage immigration workers, open borders, No minimum wage, No safety net for those who have to compete with these immigration workers for bottom level jobs. They are the screw the American worker party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!!! NOW YOU WANT ME TO DO YOUR RESEARCH TOO??? OR WILL YOU JUST BELIEVE LIBERAL DEM brainwashing?? you waste my time!!! begone!!!
Click to expand...

ignoring the truth shows you are the one that is brainwashed.
Democrats are open border, buying immigrant vote party.
Republicans are open border, low wage immigrant party.
And the Libertarianism is the party of Darwanism, I got mine you go die now if you can't compete.

They all three suck.


----------



## Boss

Slyhunter said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not because it frightens them but because it's irritating to have to sit through that dribble. Personally *I want to get rid of all laws that were made because of religion.* Like, no alcohol sales on Sunday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So then, I should be able to pass a law that it's okay for adults to sleep with 12-year olds/minors, because this is based on religion. I should also be able to pass a law that adults can marry animals if they want, or have multiple wives/husbands. I can also pass a law that says if I need something and you have it, I can take it from you by force. If I don't want to live next door to someone with brown skin, I can kill them. If I find you annoying, I can kill you. If I lie in court and it's for my own benefit, it is excused and permitted. If I want to walk around naked in public, I can do so. If I want to peek into your daughter's window at night, no problem. If I want to sit in the park and masturbate while watching your kids play, that's fine.
> 
> You see, ALL of these laws are fundamentally based on religious morals. When we remove the religious foundation, we can justify and rationalize almost anything. You don't have any property rights, you don't have equality, what is good or bad for children isn't your business. Fuck you if you're offended by me, don't look! These things go out the window when we remove the religious moral foundations supporting them. That's what you are essentially arguing for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can be righteous without being religious. You can practice do no harm to others and everyone has the right to do any fucking thing they want to do as long as it does not interfere with another individual right to do the same. without being religious. And it should be legal to serve alcohol on Sundays.
Click to expand...


Hey, I like alcohol and agree it should be served on Sundays. That's far from removing all laws based on religion. That's what you said, now you're backing off that? "Don't do harm to others" is a religious concept. In the animal kingdom, it's survival of the fittest. So that's how I want the law to be... If I am stronger than you or have bigger guns, I should be able to take your shit and kill you. I don't need your damn religious concepts. If I want to run around nude in public and masturbate in the park while watching your kids... how does that concern you? If I am peeking in your daughter's window, how is that interfering with your rights? You don't have any goddamn rights! You're rights are all based on the concept of all men being *created* equal and *endowed* with inalienable rights... a *religious* concept. They're obsolete in your society! Yeah... I'm going to get REAL "righteous" on your ass!


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well okay, but what you are doing is making some bold assumptions based on an ambiguous question. You are trying to say that people who have admitted they may have sometimes doubted existence of God are non-spiritual and don't believe in God. So you are making assumptions the question did not ask or infer.
> 
> The same research group can ask the question "do you believe in a power greater than self?" and they get a totally different result... ~90% say they do, whether millennial or not. And I think I am being generous here, if I'm not mistaken the number is more like 92%.
> 
> Do people sometimes doubt God exists? Sure... especially the young and stupid!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it is YOU who makes a lot of assumptions.  1 that kids are stupid.  I say if they are questioning religions more they are more intelligent than their parents who believed without question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know of ZERO young people who have ever accepted anything without question. NADDA!
> 
> 
> 
> No, I KNOW that it will because it has before. This is essentially what destroyed the Roman Empire. There have been countless other Communist, Socialist, Fascist, Marxist and Maoist dictatorships which have crumbled due to lack of spirituality. The history books are full of examples.
> 
> 
> 
> I can't show you anything because your mind is closed. You've convinced yourself that humans can somehow maintain moral standards without accountability or consequence. Lack of faith doesn't cause aids. Shooting up drugs with shared needles, having homosexual relations, and exchanging body fluids with those infected is what causes aids. If these were activities happening in Churches, I'd say we need to shut them down. If preachers were advocating these behaviors, I'd say we need to silence them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, by the way, a lesbian black girl is here in my business right now.  I asked her if she's religious and she said yes.  Isn't she going to hell?  So what she believes in a god?  Does her belief prove anything?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you running to the comfort of a religious debate again? You know that I am not a religious person. I don't know what this mythical person believes, where she's going, or if she even exists. It's basically you just running your mouth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe in a power greater than myself.  It's called time.  I can't beat it.  Eventually I'm going to run out of it.  I also believe in the sun.  It is greater than me.  I also think this entire planet is alive and we are killing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you also believe in "Karma" or you did the other day, you said so. I think you are fully aware of spiritual nature and you just don't think there will be any consequence for rebuking and attacking it. Guess what? You are absolutely correct in your assumption as far as your physical existence goes. It's when your spirit leaves this physical presence you need to be concerned about, but I guess you figure you'll cross that bridge when you come to it. In the meantime, you've decided to abandon your spirit and soul, and live by your own rules. Good luck with that. Be on the lookout for Karma.
Click to expand...


I do believe in Karma.  I can't explain it and I could be convinced that there is no Karma, but yes you are right I do believe in Karma.  Like all animals, I have a healthy fear of the unknown.  And I feel that if you do bad things, what comes around goes around.  If that is what you mean by spirituality, maybe I can agree with you on that.

But a god?  A guy who watches us and cares what you do and cares about the billions of abortions?  Not a chance.  That would be like you caring about the parasite that is in one of the terds you produced.


----------



## GISMYS

ALMIGHTY GOD IS FAR,FAR MORE AWESOME THAN your peanut brain can imagine. GOD SAYS NOT EVEN A LITTLE BIRD FALL TO EARTH WITHOUT HIM KNOWING,GOD says He has recorded the number of hairs on a believer's head and you dare think GOD does not care about millions of abortions??? THINK AGAIN!!!


----------



## sealybobo

thanatos144 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry friend but Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Sanger and many more killers were all atheists...You religion kills people by the MILLIONS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show me those German's who killed for Hilter in the 30's and 40's were Atheists and not Christians.  They were christians killing in africa, greece, jews, france, england.  Remember they were the superior white christian race, remember?
> 
> Hitler was religious and publicly decried atheism.
> 
> We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.  Adolf Hitler
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me they werent. The first things they did was push out the church.
Click to expand...


Regardless of what Hitler was personally, the German people considered themselves christians.  If you can't show me when they all converted to atheism and then what year they converted back, then you must agree I'm right and you are wrong.  So, if anything one atheist got all those stupid christians to do his dirty work.  Similar to how Bush did it here in America.  Hitler got the Christians to murder jews and Bush got them to murder Muslims.    

Adolf Hitler was raised by an anti-clerical, skeptic father and a devout Catholic mother. Baptized as an infant, confirmed at the age of fifteen, he ceased attending Mass and participating in the sacraments in later life.In adulthood, he became disdainful of Christianity, but in power was prepared to delay clashes with the churches out of political considerations.  he had never formally left the Church.  Hitler was not excommunicated prior to his suicide. The biographer John Toland noted Hitler's anticlericalism, but considered him still in "good standing" with the Church by 1941

Hitler's public relationship to religion has been characterised as one of opportunistic pragmatism.  His regime did not publicly advocate for state atheism. Hitler himself was reluctant of public attacks on the Church for political reasons, despite the urgings of Nazis like Bormann. Although he was sceptical of religion, he did not present himself to the public as an atheist, and spoke of belief in an "almighty creator". 

certainty that the progress of science would destroy all myths and had already proved Christian doctrine to be an absurdity".

Hitler saw Christianity as a temporary ally. He made various public comments against "bolshevistic" atheist movements, and in favour of so-called "Positive Christianity" (a movement which sought to nazify Christianity by purging it of its Jewish elements, the Old Testament and key doctrines like the Apostle's Creed). In a 1922 speech he said "my feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter".  In his semi-autobiographical Mein Kampf (1925/6), he makes a number of religious allusions, claiming to fulfil the will of the Christian God and having been chosen by providence.  In a 1928 speech he said: "We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity ... in fact our movement is Christian."  Given his hostility to Christianity, Laurence Rees wrote that "The most persuasive explanation of these statements is that Hitler, as a politician, simply recognized the practical reality of the world he inhabited... Had Hitler distanced himself or his movement too much from Christianity it is all but impossible to see how he could ever have been successful in a free election".

While campaigning for office in the early 1930s, Hitler offered moderate public statements on Christianity, promising not to interfere with the churches if given power, and calling Christianity the foundation of German morality. Kershaw considers that use of such rhetoric served to placate potential criticism from the Church. According to Max Domarus, Hitler had fully discarded belief in the Judeo-Christian conception of God by 1937, but continued to use the word "God" in speeches.

So he got the christian German's to murder Jews.  No denying it.  He may have been an atheist but so maybe Bush was too.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> ALMIGHTY GOD IS FAR,FAR MORE AWESOME THAN your peanut brain can imagine. GOD SAYS NOT EVEN A LITTLE BIRD FALL TO EARTH WITHOUT HIM KNOWING,GOD says He has recorded the number of hairs on a believer's head and you dare think GOD does not care about millions of abortions??? THINK AGAIN!!!



This planet needs those abortions.  I care about those aborted fetus' about as much as I do when 1000 fish hatch and predator fish come and eat half of them.  Do you cry for the 500 fish that never got a chance?  No you do not.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> ALMIGHTY GOD IS FAR,FAR MORE AWESOME THAN your peanut brain can imagine. GOD SAYS NOT EVEN A LITTLE BIRD FALL TO EARTH WITHOUT HIM KNOWING,GOD says He has recorded the number of hairs on a believer's head and you dare think GOD does not care about millions of abortions??? THINK AGAIN!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This planet needs those abortions.  I care about those aborted fetus' about as much as I do when 1000 fish hatch and predator fish come and eat half of them.  Do you cry for the 500 fish that never got a chance?  No you do not.
Click to expand...


TOO BAD YOUR MOTHER DID NOT FEEL THE SAME ABOUT YOU. Right??


----------



## HUGGY

*Why do the God-haters persist?*

As long as there are people in the world and on the internet like Jizzy there will be blowback from intelligent people calling bullshit on him and those like him.


----------



## Slyhunter

GISMYS said:


> ALMIGHTY GOD IS FAR,FAR MORE AWESOME THAN your peanut brain can imagine. GOD SAYS NOT EVEN A LITTLE BIRD FALL TO EARTH WITHOUT HIM KNOWING,GOD says He has recorded the number of hairs on a believer's head and you dare think GOD does not care about millions of abortions??? THINK AGAIN!!!



Jesus said that if you had but the faith of a mustard seed you could move mountains.
Seen any mountains move lately?


----------



## GISMYS

Slyhunter said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> ALMIGHTY GOD IS FAR,FAR MORE AWESOME THAN your peanut brain can imagine. GOD SAYS NOT EVEN A LITTLE BIRD FALL TO EARTH WITHOUT HIM KNOWING,GOD says He has recorded the number of hairs on a believer's head and you dare think GOD does not care about millions of abortions??? THINK AGAIN!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus said that if you had but the faith of a mustard seed you could move mountains.
> Seen any mountains move lately?
Click to expand...


"if you had but the faith of a mustard seed " DO YOU????


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> So then, I should be able to pass a law that it's okay for adults to sleep with 12-year olds/minors, because this is based on religion. I should also be able to pass a law that adults can marry animals if they want, or have multiple wives/husbands. I can also pass a law that says if I need something and you have it, I can take it from you by force. If I don't want to live next door to someone with brown skin, I can kill them. If I find you annoying, I can kill you. If I lie in court and it's for my own benefit, it is excused and permitted. If I want to walk around naked in public, I can do so. If I want to peek into your daughter's window at night, no problem. If I want to sit in the park and masturbate while watching your kids play, that's fine.
> 
> You see, ALL of these laws are fundamentally based on religious morals. When we remove the religious foundation, we can justify and rationalize almost anything. You don't have any property rights, you don't have equality, what is good or bad for children isn't your business. Fuck you if you're offended by me, don't look! These things go out the window when we remove the religious moral foundations supporting them. That's what you are essentially arguing for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can be righteous without being religious. You can practice do no harm to others and everyone has the right to do any fucking thing they want to do as long as it does not interfere with another individual right to do the same. without being religious. And it should be legal to serve alcohol on Sundays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, I like alcohol and agree it should be served on Sundays. That's far from removing all laws based on religion. That's what you said, now you're backing off that? "Don't do harm to others" is a religious concept. In the animal kingdom, it's survival of the fittest. So that's how I want the law to be... If I am stronger than you or have bigger guns, I should be able to take your shit and kill you. I don't need your damn religious concepts. If I want to run around nude in public and masturbate in the park while watching your kids... how does that concern you? If I am peeking in your daughter's window, how is that interfering with your rights? You don't have any goddamn rights! You're rights are all based on the concept of all men being *created* equal and *endowed* with inalienable rights... a *religious* concept. They're obsolete in your society! Yeah... I'm going to get REAL "righteous" on your ass!
Click to expand...


I thought being created was a spiritual concept, not just a religious one.....



I hope what Slyhunter meant was more along the lines of wanting to do away with laws based solely on religion and not on the secular needs of society.  Of course, those things can so often be intertwined.


----------



## Slyhunter

GISMYS said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> ALMIGHTY GOD IS FAR,FAR MORE AWESOME THAN your peanut brain can imagine. GOD SAYS NOT EVEN A LITTLE BIRD FALL TO EARTH WITHOUT HIM KNOWING,GOD says He has recorded the number of hairs on a believer's head and you dare think GOD does not care about millions of abortions??? THINK AGAIN!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus said that if you had but the faith of a mustard seed you could move mountains.
> Seen any mountains move lately?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "if you had but the faith of a mustard seed " DO YOU????
Click to expand...


no, the question is DO YOU??? Why haven't I seen you move any mountains or anyone else for that matter who do have the faith of a mustard seed?


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> ALMIGHTY GOD IS FAR,FAR MORE AWESOME THAN your peanut brain can imagine. GOD SAYS NOT EVEN A LITTLE BIRD FALL TO EARTH WITHOUT HIM KNOWING,GOD says He has recorded the number of hairs on a believer's head and you dare think GOD does not care about millions of abortions??? THINK AGAIN!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This planet needs those abortions.  I care about those aborted fetus' about as much as I do when 1000 fish hatch and predator fish come and eat half of them.  Do you cry for the 500 fish that never got a chance?  No you do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> TOO BAD YOUR MOTHER DID NOT FEEL THE SAME ABOUT YOU. Right??
Click to expand...


Too bad a lot of people in India, China & Africa don't abort huh?  Or the poor single mom's in the hood.  Do we really need those babies being born?  We need more abortions not less.  You can't ask people to stop fucking.  That's like asking a dog that isn't fixed to not fuck.  Good luck with that.  And look at what we do when we have too many dogs at the pound.  We keep them alive as long as we can but if no one adopts them eventually we kill them.  I guess not all life is precious.  But to a human we think all human life is precious.  It's not really.


----------



## GISMYS

Slyhunter said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus said that if you had but the faith of a mustard seed you could move mountains.
> Seen any mountains move lately?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "if you had but the faith of a mustard seed " DO YOU????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no, the question is DO YOU??? Why haven't I seen you move any mountains or anyone else for that matter who do have the faith of a mustard seed?
Click to expand...


NO!! AND I KNOW NO ONE THAT DOES,we all have doubts and unbelief which cancels out faith,we humans need JESUS AS OUR LORD AND SAVIOR,WITHOUT JESUS WE ARE DOOMED LIKE YOU!!!


----------



## Boss

> And I feel that if you do bad things, what comes around goes around. If that is what you mean by spirituality, maybe I can agree with you on that.
> 
> But a god? A guy who watches us and cares what you do and cares about the billions of abortions? Not a chance.



So you don't consider it a "bad" thing to terminate the life of an innocent human being? I disagree, I think it's an abhorrent thing and it shouldn't happen except in the rarest of circumstances. I don't believe abortion should be banned, just as I don't believe the death penalty or euthanasia should be outlawed. But it should be made very extremely rare and done with the greatest deliberation in every instance. The taking of another human life is "bad Karma" in my book, nothing good can come from that. 

Now I've explained my personal understanding of God as Spiritual Energy. I don't know how many times you need to hear the same thing, but I don't believe in a God that "cares" about things. You know, electricity doesn't "care" if you grab hold to a 50,000 watt power line. You simply pay the consequence for what you choose to do there. I think God works the same way, it's not a matter of "caring" what you do. 

I also don't believe in an invisible "guy who watches us" as you put it. And if that is what other people believe, I don't share their belief. I don't think God is a guy, or has eyes and physical attributes like sight. If it helps others to picture God that way, more power to them. If that keeps them in spiritual fidelity, maintaining positive flow of spiritual energy, I have no problems with it. I have more of a problem with know-it-all atheists who parade around with a science book, claiming they've disproved God and attempting to destroy human spirituality. I'll fight and reject that until my dying breath.


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can be righteous without being religious. You can practice do no harm to others and everyone has the right to do any fucking thing they want to do as long as it does not interfere with another individual right to do the same. without being religious. And it should be legal to serve alcohol on Sundays.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, I like alcohol and agree it should be served on Sundays. That's far from removing all laws based on religion. That's what you said, now you're backing off that? "Don't do harm to others" is a religious concept. In the animal kingdom, it's survival of the fittest. So that's how I want the law to be... If I am stronger than you or have bigger guns, I should be able to take your shit and kill you. I don't need your damn religious concepts. If I want to run around nude in public and masturbate in the park while watching your kids... how does that concern you? If I am peeking in your daughter's window, how is that interfering with your rights? You don't have any goddamn rights! You're rights are all based on the concept of all men being *created* equal and *endowed* with inalienable rights... a *religious* concept. They're obsolete in your society! Yeah... I'm going to get REAL "righteous" on your ass!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought being created was a spiritual concept, not just a religious one.....
Click to expand...


It is! 



> I hope what Slyhunter meant was more along the lines of wanting to do away with laws based solely on religion and not on the secular needs of society.  Of course, those things can so often be intertwined.



All the examples I mentioned are based solely on religious teaching. (religion is spiritual, btw)

"Secular need" is an ambiguous term that can mean almost anything your heart desires. For every example I presented, I can give you a totally secular justification and rationalization for why it should be law of the land. You may not agree with me, but that doesn't mean an argument can't be made. 

The thing is, we live in a country that is founded on the principle of all men having equal and endowed rights. That means religious men have just as much right to self-determination as you have. They are part of the process. They have an equal political and social voice and say-so in society, and we have to tolerate that. If you are going to strip their political voice, then all men are no longer equal and don't have equal rights. 

I get the frustration of the seculars in wanting to silence the religious, but establishing a system where religion is not a factor isn't a wise idea. What happens next is, the more radical members of society push the envelope further, and suddenly the secular moralistic people are now on the front line.... _What's the matter? You got a stick up your butt about me fucking kids? What are you, some kind of religious nut? ....What's your problem with me breaking in someone's house and stealing food? I was hungry! What is this...Thou shalt not steal?_ ...and YES... that's exactly where it goes. That's what it leads to.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> And I feel that if you do bad things, what comes around goes around. If that is what you mean by spirituality, maybe I can agree with you on that.
> 
> But a god? A guy who watches us and cares what you do and cares about the billions of abortions? Not a chance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't consider it a "bad" thing to terminate the life of an innocent human being? I disagree, I think it's an abhorrent thing and it shouldn't happen except in the rarest of circumstances. I don't believe abortion should be banned, just as I don't believe the death penalty or euthanasia should be outlawed. But it should be made very extremely rare and done with the greatest deliberation in every instance. The taking of another human life is "bad Karma" in my book, nothing good can come from that.
> 
> Now I've explained my personal understanding of God as Spiritual Energy. I don't know how many times you need to hear the same thing, but I don't believe in a God that "cares" about things. You know, electricity doesn't "care" if you grab hold to a 50,000 watt power line. You simply pay the consequence for what you choose to do there. I think God works the same way, it's not a matter of "caring" what you do.
> 
> I also don't believe in an invisible "guy who watches us" as you put it. And if that is what other people believe, I don't share their belief. I don't think God is a guy, or has eyes and physical attributes like sight. If it helps others to picture God that way, more power to them. If that keeps them in spiritual fidelity, maintaining positive flow of spiritual energy, I have no problems with it. I have more of a problem with know-it-all atheists who parade around with a science book, claiming they've disproved God and attempting to destroy human spirituality. I'll fight and reject that until my dying breath.
Click to expand...


1.  No I don't consider it murder to have an abortion.  Do I wish all of those women kept their legs crossed or took birth control or made their men wear condoms so they didn't have to have abortions?  Of course.  But since they didn't, I'm glad abortion is an option.  There is no question human's are over populating this planet.  Yesterday I heard a preacher talking about how 500 million or a billion babies have been MURDERED in America alone since abortions were made legal.  All I can say is I'm glad we don't have those extra people walking around polluting this planet.  Especially when a lot of those potential parents didn't want them in the first place.  They would have been horrible parents and raised horrible citizens.  We humans should be having less kids not more.  Would I ever want someone in my family to have an abortion?  No.  But when I was 18 if I knocked up a honey I would have wanted her to get one.  

2.  I guess I don't care if someone believes what you believe because at least you aren't trying to pass off a fake book written 2000 years ago as fact but I do stand by my feeling that man has used organized religion to divide us and manipulate the masses.  And if one day Christianity, Muslims and the Jewish religions went away and people just believed in "a higher power" and didn't pretend that it came and talked to them, I guess that is harmless.  Spirituality isn't to me as bad as religion.  I still think you are just making it all up but at least you admit it is a belief of yours, not something you know to be a fact like when gismys says JESUS is our lord and savior.

3.  We have disproved the Jesus/muslim/jewish god.  To believe those stories you must ignore reality.  No question about it that is all made up.  Even 7 out of 10 christians agree the opening premise of the old testament is a lie.  No Adam & Eve.  No Mosus talking to burning bushes.  No talking snakes.  No virgin births or ressurections.  So if even after all these lies about god you still want to believe in "something", I guess that is your prerogative.  At least the majority of people in this country no longer take the bible literally and I think that is a huge step forward.  You may think its a bad thing but I don't.  I think there are a host of other reasons why societies without religion fail and I think plenty of religious societies have failed too so failure isn't exclusive to atheism.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, I like alcohol and agree it should be served on Sundays. That's far from removing all laws based on religion. That's what you said, now you're backing off that? "Don't do harm to others" is a religious concept. In the animal kingdom, it's survival of the fittest. So that's how I want the law to be... If I am stronger than you or have bigger guns, I should be able to take your shit and kill you. I don't need your damn religious concepts. If I want to run around nude in public and masturbate in the park while watching your kids... how does that concern you? If I am peeking in your daughter's window, how is that interfering with your rights? You don't have any goddamn rights! You're rights are all based on the concept of all men being *created* equal and *endowed* with inalienable rights... a *religious* concept. They're obsolete in your society! Yeah... I'm going to get REAL "righteous" on your ass!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought being created was a spiritual concept, not just a religious one.....
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hope what Slyhunter meant was more along the lines of wanting to do away with laws based solely on religion and not on the secular needs of society.  Of course, those things can so often be intertwined.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All the examples I mentioned are based solely on religious teaching. (religion is spiritual, btw)
> 
> "Secular need" is an ambiguous term that can mean almost anything your heart desires. For every example I presented, I can give you a totally secular justification and rationalization for why it should be law of the land. You may not agree with me, but that doesn't mean an argument can't be made.
> 
> The thing is, we live in a country that is founded on the principle of all men having equal and endowed rights. That means religious men have just as much right to self-determination as you have. They are part of the process. They have an equal political and social voice and say-so in society, and we have to tolerate that. If you are going to strip their political voice, then all men are no longer equal and don't have equal rights.
> 
> I get the frustration of the seculars in wanting to silence the religious, but establishing a system where religion is not a factor isn't a wise idea. What happens next is, the more radical members of society push the envelope further, and suddenly the secular moralistic people are now on the front line.... _What's the matter? You got a stick up your butt about me fucking kids? What are you, some kind of religious nut? ....What's your problem with me breaking in someone's house and stealing food? I was hungry! What is this...Thou shalt not steal?_ ...and YES... that's exactly where it goes. That's what it leads to.
Click to expand...


WRONG!  We don't need religion to know not to fuck kids and we don't need religion to know not to B&E into someones home.  

And we don't need religion telling gay people they can't have the same benefits that straight married couples get.  This is one example of why we seperate church and state.  The bible says gays are bad but the law doesn't see it that way.  Neither do I.  Only religious nuts care if two guys fuck.  

And religion says abortion is bad but as I have pointed out this planet is way too over populated so this is another example of how without religion, there really is no reason not to abort a fetus if you do not want to be a parent.  

But if you believe in god and want to have the baby, no atheist is going to force you to abort.

Anyways, society isn't going to let you fuck a child or steal if we get rid of religion.  That's just stupid talk.  Come up with some better examples if you want us to understand your point because right now you have lost me.


----------



## Boss

> No I don't consider it murder to have an abortion.



It is the willful act of taking another human life... that IS murder, by definition. Don't care how you dance around it or rationalized it. This is a prime example of how morality slips away whenever you don't have a spiritual foundation. When society agreed to allow abortions, it was justified that it's better to allow it under certain circumstances and conditions to prevent people from being butchered in back alleys. Today, the debate is over whether or not you can partially birth a baby and still kill it. What will it be tomorrow... okay to kill infants up to 6 months old? Hey... gotta trim that population growth somehow, right? 



> WRONG! We don't need religion to know not to fuck kids and we don't need religion to know not to B&E into someones home.



Actually, yes you do. As we can see with the abortion example, if you don't have that, you continue to see morality decline further and further. Once you've removed the "religious" barrier, all bets are off! You can do any goddamn thing you please, there's no accountability! No moral standard! You tell me that you don't think it's "right" to fuck kids and I tell you to go fuck yourself and take your morality with you... mind your own goddamn business! I'll bet you'd be the FIRST in line to condone poor people breaking into the homes of rich folk to feed themselves... you wouldn't have a bit a problem in the world with that, all you need is for some liberal asswipe to propose it! 



> The bible says gays are bad but the law doesn't see it that way.



You're absolutely correct, it doesn't. And there isn't one law on the books that prohibits gay people from joining in marital union with a partner of the opposite sex. They have the EXACT same rights as everyone else. What they can't do is PERVERT marriage to accommodate their sexual proclivities.... just like people who want to fuck kids can't do it and call that marriage.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> No I don't consider it murder to have an abortion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is the willful act of taking another human life... that IS murder, by definition. Don't care how you dance around it or rationalized it. This is a prime example of how morality slips away whenever you don't have a spiritual foundation. When society agreed to allow abortions, it was justified that it's better to allow it under certain circumstances and conditions to prevent people from being butchered in back alleys. Today, the debate is over whether or not you can partially birth a baby and still kill it. What will it be tomorrow... okay to kill infants up to 6 months old? Hey... gotta trim that population growth somehow, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WRONG! We don't need religion to know not to fuck kids and we don't need religion to know not to B&E into someones home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, yes you do. As we can see with the abortion example, if you don't have that, you continue to see morality decline further and further. Once you've removed the "religious" barrier, all bets are off! You can do any goddamn thing you please, there's no accountability! No moral standard! You tell me that you don't think it's "right" to fuck kids and I tell you to go fuck yourself and take your morality with you... mind your own goddamn business! I'll bet you'd be the FIRST in line to condone poor people breaking into the homes of rich folk to feed themselves... you wouldn't have a bit a problem in the world with that, all you need is for some liberal asswipe to propose it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The bible says gays are bad but the law doesn't see it that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're absolutely correct, it doesn't. And there isn't one law on the books that prohibits gay people from joining in marital union with a partner of the opposite sex. They have the EXACT same rights as everyone else. What they can't do is PERVERT marriage to accommodate their sexual proclivities.... just like people who want to fuck kids can't do it and call that marriage.
Click to expand...


Do you think abortion is a new practice, that it was conceived by atheists, or that it is only practiced by atheists?  

You can find plenty of examples of religious societies with horrible morals, at least from a Western PoV.  Morality changes with time and place, even amongst the religious and spiritual.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> No I don't consider it murder to have an abortion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Today, the debate is over whether or not you can partially birth a baby and still kill it. What will it be tomorrow... okay to kill infants up to 6 months old? Hey... gotta trim that population growth somehow, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WRONG! We don't need religion to know not to fuck kids and we don't need religion to know not to B&E into someones home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, yes you do. As we can see with the abortion example, if you don't have that, you continue to see morality decline further and further. Once you've removed the "religious" barrier, all bets are off! You can do any goddamn thing you please, there's no accountability! No moral standard! You tell me that you don't think it's "right" to fuck kids and I tell you to go fuck yourself and take your morality with you... mind your own goddamn business! I'll bet you'd be the FIRST in line to condone poor people breaking into the homes of rich folk to feed themselves... you wouldn't have a bit a problem in the world with that, all you need is for some liberal asswipe to propose it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The bible says gays are bad but the law doesn't see it that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're absolutely correct, it doesn't. And there isn't one law on the books that prohibits gay people from joining in marital union with a partner of the opposite sex. They have the EXACT same rights as everyone else. What they can't do is PERVERT marriage to accommodate their sexual proclivities.... just like people who want to fuck kids can't do it and call that marriage.
Click to expand...


Are you telling me that if you didn't believe in god or hell you'd want to fuck kids?  I don't believe in god and I'm not a creep like you perv.  

I didn't think you believed in the bible or jesus?  Who cares what the bible says.  Gays should be able to legally do what married couples do.  Share insurance, get tax breaks, own a home together, raise kids, adopt, make life decisions in hospitals just like any other married person.  Not seperate but equal either.  It's married.  They are husband and husband or wife and wife or whatever they want to call it deal with it.

We have laws.  We don't need your religion to know not to steal, rape, murder, cheat, lie, be greedy, but guess what?  That's exactly what you Christians and Muslims do.  Oh yea, I forgot.


----------



## GISMYS

sexual perverts are not fit to even own a pet,IT IS CHILD ABUSE TO ALLOW THEM TO EVEN BE NEAR CHILDREN!


----------



## AtheistBuddah

We attack you and we ridicule you for every homosexual denied their rights to have their unions recognized under the law. We loath you for every child you indoctrinate with fear and we despise your religion for the deaths it has caused throughout our history. It is a blight on the human race and we attack and hate it utterly. It is not your God we hate, but the vile dogma and belief systems you push on us in that God's name.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sexual perverts are not fit to even own a pet,IT IS CHILD ABUSE TO ALLOW THEM TO EVEN BE NEAR CHILDREN!



So you'd rather them stay in the closet and secretly molest children?  

If a flamer comes up and hands me a resume at least I know not to hire him.  You think I want a person hiding who they are?  I don't.  Be who you are.

Oh, and why can't they own a pet?  Do you think they'd do something to it?  That must mean like boss, if there were no jesus watching you you would be a horrible person and you'd fuck dogs and children.  I guess if jesus keeps you in line gismys, keep on truckin baby.  I'd hate for your delusion to end and you'd be a real jerk off if you didn't have jesus, huh?  You'd have nothing to say.


----------



## sealybobo

AtheistBuddah said:


> We attack you and we ridicule you for every homosexual denied their rights to have their unions recognized under the law. We loath you for every child you indoctrinate with fear and we despise your religion for the deaths it has caused throughout our history. It is a blight on the human race and we attack and hate it utterly. It is not your God we hate, but the vile dogma and belief systems you push on us in that God's name.



Like all other false religions.  Common sense says people are people and live and let live.  And it is their own stubborness that is driving people away.  So encourage them to speak up. Sometimes your enemy has to prove you right so you let them talk and talk and spew their viciousness.  No way that's what god is all about.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> sexual perverts are not fit to even own a pet,IT IS CHILD ABUSE TO ALLOW THEM TO EVEN BE NEAR CHILDREN!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you'd rather them stay in the closet and secretly molest children?
> 
> If a flamer comes up and hands me a resume at least I know not to hire him.  You think I want a person hiding who they are?  I don't.  Be who you are.
> 
> Oh, and why can't they own a pet?  Do you think they'd do something to it?  That must mean like boss, if there were no jesus watching you you would be a horrible person and you'd fuck dogs and children.  I guess if jesus keeps you in line gismys, keep on truckin baby.  I'd hate for your delusion to end and you'd be a real jerk off if you didn't have jesus, huh?  You'd have nothing to say.
Click to expand...


look what shameful,degrading acts of animals they do now!!!==24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies among themselves.

25 They changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature.

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men, working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense for their error which was meet.
Romans 1:24-27


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> sexual perverts are not fit to even own a pet,IT IS CHILD ABUSE TO ALLOW THEM TO EVEN BE NEAR CHILDREN!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you'd rather them stay in the closet and secretly molest children?
> 
> If a flamer comes up and hands me a resume at least I know not to hire him.  You think I want a person hiding who they are?  I don't.  Be who you are.
> 
> Oh, and why can't they own a pet?  Do you think they'd do something to it?  That must mean like boss, if there were no jesus watching you you would be a horrible person and you'd fuck dogs and children.  I guess if jesus keeps you in line gismys, keep on truckin baby.  I'd hate for your delusion to end and you'd be a real jerk off if you didn't have jesus, huh?  You'd have nothing to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> look what shameful,degrading acts of animals they do now!!!==24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies among themselves.
> 
> 25 They changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
> 
> 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature.
> 
> 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men, working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense for their error which was meet.
> Romans 1:24-27
Click to expand...


Luke 17:35 says it won't stop you from getting into heaven.

"I tell you, on that night there will be two in one bed; one will be taken and the other will be left."There will be two women grinding at the same place; one will be taken and the other will be left.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you'd rather them stay in the closet and secretly molest children?
> 
> If a flamer comes up and hands me a resume at least I know not to hire him.  You think I want a person hiding who they are?  I don't.  Be who you are.
> 
> Oh, and why can't they own a pet?  Do you think they'd do something to it?  That must mean like boss, if there were no jesus watching you you would be a horrible person and you'd fuck dogs and children.  I guess if jesus keeps you in line gismys, keep on truckin baby.  I'd hate for your delusion to end and you'd be a real jerk off if you didn't have jesus, huh?  You'd have nothing to say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> look what shameful,degrading acts of animals they do now!!!==24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies among themselves.
> 
> 25 They changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
> 
> 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature.
> 
> 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men, working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense for their error which was meet.
> Romans 1:24-27
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Luke 17:35 says it won't stop you from getting into heaven.
> 
> "I tell you, on that night there will be two in one bed; one will be taken and the other will be left."There will be two women grinding at the same place; one will be taken and the other will be left.
Click to expand...


THINK AGAIN!!!! GOD'S WORD SAYS==do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Coranthians 6:9-10


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> "I tell you, on that night there will be two in one bed; one will be taken and the other will be left."There will be two women grinding at the same place; one will be taken and the other will be left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THINK AGAIN!!!! GOD'S WORD SAYS==do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Coranthians 6:9-10
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So anyone who has ever gotten drunk, cheated, stole, lied, fornicated will not go to heaven?
> 
> Anyways, the bible said two women can grind, one will go to heaven and one won't.  That means it doesn't matter if you are gay.
> 
> Are you perfect?  Have you ever sinned?  Will you sin again?  If so, gays say Gismys go fuck yourself.
Click to expand...


----------



## AtheistBuddah

sealybobo said:


> AtheistBuddah said:
> 
> 
> 
> We attack you and we ridicule you for every homosexual denied their rights to have their unions recognized under the law. We loath you for every child you indoctrinate with fear and we despise your religion for the deaths it has caused throughout our history. It is a blight on the human race and we attack and hate it utterly. It is not your God we hate, but the vile dogma and belief systems you push on us in that God's name.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like all other false religions.  Common sense says people are people and live and let live.  And it is their own stubborness that is driving people away.  So encourage them to speak up. Sometimes your enemy has to prove you right so you let them talk and talk and spew their viciousness.  No way that's what god is all about.
Click to expand...


True. Their religion will soon go extinct. Shriveled up under the weight of its own oppressiveness and discrimination. The US is undergoing a similar change to secularism that happened to the Greeks when they started to abandon their gods and embrace logic and reason.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> THINK AGAIN!!!! GOD'S WORD SAYS==do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Coranthians 6:9-10
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So anyone who has ever gotten drunk, cheated, stole, lied, fornicated will not go to heaven?
> 
> Anyways, the bible said two women can grind, one will go to heaven and one won't.  That means it doesn't matter if you are gay.
> 
> Are you perfect?  Have you ever sinned?  Will you sin again?  If so, gays say Gismys go fuck yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> GOD IS NOT willing that any perish, so confess and repent of sin and with GOD'S help live the best life you can,accept JESUS AS YOUR LORD AND SAVIOR.
Click to expand...


----------



## sealybobo

AtheistBuddah said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AtheistBuddah said:
> 
> 
> 
> We attack you and we ridicule you for every homosexual denied their rights to have their unions recognized under the law. We loath you for every child you indoctrinate with fear and we despise your religion for the deaths it has caused throughout our history. It is a blight on the human race and we attack and hate it utterly. It is not your God we hate, but the vile dogma and belief systems you push on us in that God's name.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like all other false religions.  Common sense says people are people and live and let live.  And it is their own stubborness that is driving people away.  So encourage them to speak up. Sometimes your enemy has to prove you right so you let them talk and talk and spew their viciousness.  No way that's what god is all about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True. Their religion will soon go extinct. Shriveled up under the weight of its own oppressiveness and discrimination. The US is undergoing a similar change to secularism that happened to the Greeks when they started to abandon their gods and embrace logic and reason.
Click to expand...


I know.  I'm Greek.  Then the church fought guys like Galileo.  Imagine how much further we'd be if the kings/pharoh's didn't play us like fools for thousands of years.  They used religion to keep us down.  Fought it every step of the way as long as they could.  They are still using it to divide us to this day.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> So anyone who has ever gotten drunk, cheated, stole, lied, fornicated will not go to heaven?
> 
> Anyways, the bible said two women can grind, one will go to heaven and one won't.  That means it doesn't matter if you are gay.
> 
> Are you perfect?  Have you ever sinned?  Will you sin again?  If so, gays say Gismys go fuck yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GOD IS NOT willing that any perish, so confess and repent of sin and with GOD'S help live the best life you can,accept JESUS AS YOUR LORD AND SAVIOR.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think any gay person who honestly loved their spouse for years is going to feel guilt when they look at jesus.  Will you look at god guilty for all the times your husband gave it to you and you loved it?  Said, "OH GOD" and didn't mean the father son or holy ghost?  Said Jesus but meant Larry the Cable Guy?
Click to expand...


----------



## sealybobo

I love it I think I ask Gismys a question and it gets her to post a new board.  I'm not biting.


----------



## GISMYS

Think again!!!===do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor  thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 1 corinthians 1:9-10


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> Think again!!!===do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor  thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 1 corinthians 1:9-10



Men clearly wrote that.  Men who were clearly not inspired by a god.  Sound like taliban to me.


----------



## GISMYS

mankind for thousands of years has known the BIBLE IS GOD'S INSPIRED(GOD BREATHED) WORD!!

&#9668; Genesis 9:7 &#9658; 
As for you, be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth and increase upon it."


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> mankind for thousands of years has known the BIBLE IS GOD'S INSPIRED(GOD BREATHED) WORD!!



Define mankind?  The muslims didn't believe that.  The jews haven't known that.  Atheists haven't known that.  Even Mormons think the other christianities are corrupted by men.  

Thousands of years?  Do you know what a small amount of time that is?  Of course you don't you simple monkey brain.  I even learned today that relgion/spirituality comes from the most primitive part of the brain.  Even monkey's are spiritual you simple little goober.  So cute.  So stupid.  

7 out of 10 christians don't take it literally.  You are losing believers by the thousands.  If it were really THE TRUTH you wouldn't be losing members you'd be picking up muslims and jews but they know your bullshit story is no better than there.  What say you?  Count the cost?  Just think fool.  God says eat a dick bitch.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> mankind for thousands of years has known the BIBLE IS GOD'S INSPIRED(GOD BREATHED) WORD!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define mankind?  The muslims didn't believe that.  The jews haven't known that.  Atheists haven't known that.  Even Mormons think the other christianities are corrupted by men.
> 
> Thousands of years?  Do you know what a small amount of time that is?  Of course you don't you simple monkey brain.  I even learned today that relgion/spirituality comes from the most primitive part of the brain.  Even monkey's are spiritual you simple little goober.  So cute.  So stupid.
> 
> 7 out of 10 christians don't take it literally.  You are losing believers by the thousands.  If it were really THE TRUTH you wouldn't be losing members you'd be picking up muslims and jews but they know your bullshit story is no better than there.  What say you?  Count the cost?  Just think fool.  God says eat a dick bitch.
Click to expand...


ROFLMAO!!! COME OUT from under that rock and look around!!!


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> mankind for thousands of years has known the BIBLE IS GOD'S INSPIRED(GOD BREATHED) WORD!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define mankind?  The muslims didn't believe that.  The jews haven't known that.  Atheists haven't known that.  Even Mormons think the other christianities are corrupted by men.
> 
> Thousands of years?  Do you know what a small amount of time that is?  Of course you don't you simple monkey brain.  I even learned today that relgion/spirituality comes from the most primitive part of the brain.  Even monkey's are spiritual you simple little goober.  So cute.  So stupid.
> 
> 7 out of 10 christians don't take it literally.  You are losing believers by the thousands.  If it were really THE TRUTH you wouldn't be losing members you'd be picking up muslims and jews but they know your bullshit story is no better than there.  What say you?  Count the cost?  Just think fool.  God says eat a dick bitch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO!!! COME OUT from under that rock and look around!!!
Click to expand...


I do.  I casually ask around and I'm finding a lot of people don't believe in god or they don't take the bible stuff literally.  Basically you would think all of them are going to hell because the sin and they haven't been born again/baptized.  

So don't tell me to look around me and you roflmao me bitch when I see you on other boards admitting that society is lost and the end is near and we all need to repent.  You need to take a long walk off a short pier.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Define mankind?  The muslims didn't believe that.  The jews haven't known that.  Atheists haven't known that.  Even Mormons think the other christianities are corrupted by men.
> 
> Thousands of years?  Do you know what a small amount of time that is?  Of course you don't you simple monkey brain.  I even learned today that relgion/spirituality comes from the most primitive part of the brain.  Even monkey's are spiritual you simple little goober.  So cute.  So stupid.
> 
> 7 out of 10 christians don't take it literally.  You are losing believers by the thousands.  If it were really THE TRUTH you wouldn't be losing members you'd be picking up muslims and jews but they know your bullshit story is no better than there.  What say you?  Count the cost?  Just think fool.  God says eat a dick bitch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO!!! COME OUT from under that rock and look around!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do.  I casually ask around and I'm finding a lot of people don't believe in god or they don't take the bible stuff literally.  Basically you would think all of them are going to hell because the sin and they haven't been born again/baptized.
> 
> So don't tell me to look around me and you roflmao me bitch when I see you on other boards admitting that society is lost and the end is near and we all need to repent.  You need to take a long walk off a short pier.
Click to expand...


Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction(HELL), and there are many who enter through it. 14"For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it. Matthew 7:13


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> mankind for thousands of years has known the BIBLE IS GOD'S INSPIRED(GOD BREATHED) WORD!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define mankind?  The muslims didn't believe that.  The jews haven't known that.  Atheists haven't known that.  Even Mormons think the other christianities are corrupted by men.
> 
> Thousands of years?  Do you know what a small amount of time that is?  Of course you don't you simple monkey brain.  I even learned today that relgion/spirituality comes from the most primitive part of the brain.  Even monkey's are spiritual you simple little goober.  So cute.  So stupid.
> 
> 7 out of 10 christians don't take it literally.  You are losing believers by the thousands.  If it were really THE TRUTH you wouldn't be losing members you'd be picking up muslims and jews but they know your bullshit story is no better than there.  What say you?  Count the cost?  Just think fool.  God says eat a dick bitch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO!!! COME OUT from under that rock and look around!!!
Click to expand...


Seriously how many people in your town go to your church?  If you live in the south it might be higher but then the population is smaller.  If you live in north you see pretty much no one goes to church.  Maybe 5% of the whites, 10% of the blacks, I don't even know where a jewish synagog is in my area.  No mosques.  Trust me, in white America, not a lot of people follow the jesus myth anymore.  Now you are just clinging on to the poor blacks and desperate white schmucks.  I watch on tv and it is an absolute joke christianity.  I do look around, and I fucking laugh.  Then I count the cost.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Define mankind?  The muslims didn't believe that.  The jews haven't known that.  Atheists haven't known that.  Even Mormons think the other christianities are corrupted by men.
> 
> Thousands of years?  Do you know what a small amount of time that is?  Of course you don't you simple monkey brain.  I even learned today that relgion/spirituality comes from the most primitive part of the brain.  Even monkey's are spiritual you simple little goober.  So cute.  So stupid.
> 
> 7 out of 10 christians don't take it literally.  You are losing believers by the thousands.  If it were really THE TRUTH you wouldn't be losing members you'd be picking up muslims and jews but they know your bullshit story is no better than there.  What say you?  Count the cost?  Just think fool.  God says eat a dick bitch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO!!! COME OUT from under that rock and look around!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously how many people in your town go to your church?  If you live in the south it might be higher but then the population is smaller.  If you live in north you see pretty much no one goes to church.  Maybe 5% of the whites, 10% of the blacks, I don't even know where a jewish synagog is in my area.  No mosques.  Trust me, in white America, not a lot of people follow the jesus myth anymore.  Now you are just clinging on to the poor blacks and desperate white schmucks.  I watch on tv and it is an absolute joke christianity.  I do look around, and I fucking laugh.  Then I count the cost.
Click to expand...


OUR CHURCH IS FULL EACH SUNDAY!!  AND IN OUR CITY THERE SEEMS TO BE A CHURCH ALMOST ON EVERY BLOCK!!! PTL. SOUTHERN USA-IN GOD WE TRUST!!and you??


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO!!! COME OUT from under that rock and look around!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously how many people in your town go to your church?  If you live in the south it might be higher but then the population is smaller.  If you live in north you see pretty much no one goes to church.  Maybe 5% of the whites, 10% of the blacks, I don't even know where a jewish synagog is in my area.  No mosques.  Trust me, in white America, not a lot of people follow the jesus myth anymore.  Now you are just clinging on to the poor blacks and desperate white schmucks.  I watch on tv and it is an absolute joke christianity.  I do look around, and I fucking laugh.  Then I count the cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OUR CHURCH IS FULL EACH SUNDAY!!  AND IN OUR CITY THERE SEEMS TO BE A CHURCH ALMOST ON EVERY BLOCK!!! PTL. SOUTHERN USA-IN GOD WE TRUST!!and you??
Click to expand...


Me?  The real America.  Michigan, Chicago, NY, California.  We still have some ignorant fools in Wisconsin, Ohio and places like that, but that's usually the simple folk in the country.  Anywhere in the city you find people have much better things to do then go get lectured and brainwashed at some church.  Some people need it, but hey, human's are evolving.  I know a guy who's a devout Catholic and his kid doesn't want him baptizing her child.  Good for her.  She didn't fall for the brainwashing like he did when his momma told him about jesus and the converted from I forgot to Catholicism.  He about freaked out when I tried to convince him there is no god.  Unfriended me on facebook.  LOL  But I gotta listen to his Have you been saved bullshit?  He can't listen to my arguments?  Then fuck what he or you is trying to say if you can't take a rebuttal.  It is why I came on here.  I need to let it out.  I just recently found NO GOD.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously how many people in your town go to your church?  If you live in the south it might be higher but then the population is smaller.  If you live in north you see pretty much no one goes to church.  Maybe 5% of the whites, 10% of the blacks, I don't even know where a jewish synagog is in my area.  No mosques.  Trust me, in white America, not a lot of people follow the jesus myth anymore.  Now you are just clinging on to the poor blacks and desperate white schmucks.  I watch on tv and it is an absolute joke christianity.  I do look around, and I fucking laugh.  Then I count the cost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OUR CHURCH IS FULL EACH SUNDAY!!  AND IN OUR CITY THERE SEEMS TO BE A CHURCH ALMOST ON EVERY BLOCK!!! PTL. SOUTHERN USA-IN GOD WE TRUST!!and you??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Me?  The real America.  Michigan, Chicago, NY, California.  We still have some ignorant fools in Wisconsin, Ohio and places like that, but that's usually the simple folk in the country.  Anywhere in the city you find people have much better things to do then go get lectured and brainwashed at some church.  Some people need it, but hey, human's are evolving.  I know a guy who's a devout Catholic and his kid doesn't want him baptizing her child.  Good for her.  She didn't fall for the brainwashing like he did when his momma told him about jesus and the converted from I forgot to Catholicism.  He about freaked out when I tried to convince him there is no god.  Unfriended me on facebook.  LOL  But I gotta listen to his Have you been saved bullshit?  He can't listen to my arguments?  Then fuck what he or you is trying to say if you can't take a rebuttal.  It is why I came on here.  I need to let it out.  I just recently found NO GOD.
Click to expand...


BOY!! Satan is playing you for a fool and laughing!!! GOD OFFERS YOU LOVE AND FORGIVNESS,A BLESSED LIFE NOW AND ETERNAL LIFE LATER!!! ONLY A TOTAL FOOL WOULD REJECT THAT!!!and you??


----------



## HUGGY

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously how many people in your town go to your church?  If you live in the south it might be higher but then the population is smaller.  If you live in north you see pretty much no one goes to church.  Maybe 5% of the whites, 10% of the blacks, I don't even know where a jewish synagog is in my area.  No mosques.  Trust me, in white America, not a lot of people follow the jesus myth anymore.  Now you are just clinging on to the poor blacks and desperate white schmucks.  I watch on tv and it is an absolute joke christianity.  I do look around, and I fucking laugh.  Then I count the cost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OUR CHURCH IS FULL EACH SUNDAY!!  AND IN OUR CITY THERE SEEMS TO BE A CHURCH ALMOST ON EVERY BLOCK!!! PTL. SOUTHERN USA-IN GOD WE TRUST!!and you??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Me?  The real America.  Michigan, Chicago, NY, California.  We still have some ignorant fools in Wisconsin, Ohio and places like that, but that's usually the simple folk in the country.  Anywhere in the city you find people have much better things to do then go get lectured and brainwashed at some church.  Some people need it, but hey, human's are evolving.  I know a guy who's a devout Catholic and his kid doesn't want him baptizing her child.  Good for her.  She didn't fall for the brainwashing like he did when his momma told him about jesus and the converted from I forgot to Catholicism.  He about freaked out when I tried to convince him there is no god.  Unfriended me on facebook.  LOL  But I gotta listen to his Have you been saved bullshit?  He can't listen to my arguments?  Then fuck what he or you is trying to say if you can't take a rebuttal.  It is why I came on here.  I need to let it out.  I just recently found NO GOD.
Click to expand...


Finding NO GOD is simple...  Just look around you.. a billion things going on..  all without the help from some sky fairy..   Listen carefully for god to talk to you..  nothing... Good news...  If you were hearing god it would mean you are having hallucinations and need a shrink.. AND THEY are expensive!!


----------



## GISMYS

HUGGY said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> OUR CHURCH IS FULL EACH SUNDAY!!  AND IN OUR CITY THERE SEEMS TO BE A CHURCH ALMOST ON EVERY BLOCK!!! PTL. SOUTHERN USA-IN GOD WE TRUST!!and you??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me?  The real America.  Michigan, Chicago, NY, California.  We still have some ignorant fools in Wisconsin, Ohio and places like that, but that's usually the simple folk in the country.  Anywhere in the city you find people have much better things to do then go get lectured and brainwashed at some church.  Some people need it, but hey, human's are evolving.  I know a guy who's a devout Catholic and his kid doesn't want him baptizing her child.  Good for her.  She didn't fall for the brainwashing like he did when his momma told him about jesus and the converted from I forgot to Catholicism.  He about freaked out when I tried to convince him there is no god.  Unfriended me on facebook.  LOL  But I gotta listen to his Have you been saved bullshit?  He can't listen to my arguments?  Then fuck what he or you is trying to say if you can't take a rebuttal.  It is why I came on here.  I need to let it out.  I just recently found NO GOD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Finding NO GOD is simple...  Just look around you.. a billion things going on..  all without the help from some sky fairy..   Listen carefully for god to talk to you..  nothing... Good news...  If you were hearing god it would mean you are having hallucinations and need a shrink.. AND THEY are expensive!!
Click to expand...


GOME ON!!! You don't want to hear GOD,you love your pet sins far too much and you are allowing satan to play you for a fool and use you as his tool,puppet!!!


----------



## Tuatara

GISMYS said:


> mankind for thousands of years has known the BIBLE IS GOD'S INSPIRED(GOD BREATHED) WORD!!
> 
> &#9668; Genesis 9:7 &#9658;
> As for you, be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth and increase upon it."


At over 9 billion people I think we as a spieces are fruitful enough. Or do you want to keep going to 50 billion?


----------



## AtheistBuddah

sealybobo said:


> AtheistBuddah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like all other false religions.  Common sense says people are people and live and let live.  And it is their own stubborness that is driving people away.  So encourage them to speak up. Sometimes your enemy has to prove you right so you let them talk and talk and spew their viciousness.  No way that's what god is all about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True. Their religion will soon go extinct. Shriveled up under the weight of its own oppressiveness and discrimination. The US is undergoing a similar change to secularism that happened to the Greeks when they started to abandon their gods and embrace logic and reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know.  I'm Greek.  Then the church fought guys like Galileo.  Imagine how much further we'd be if the kings/pharoh's didn't play us like fools for thousands of years.  They used religion to keep us down.  Fought it every step of the way as long as they could.  They are still using it to divide us to this day.
Click to expand...


But the day is soon coming when they won't be able to fight progress anymore. Religion has been playing a nonstop arm-wrestling game with reason and progress and now their arm is starting to get weak and soon it will just give out.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Are you telling me that if you didn't believe in god or hell you'd want to fuck kids?  I don't believe in god and I'm not a creep like you perv.



No, I am giving you examples of how moral decline works when there is no spiritual foundation for morality in society. Some people DO want to fuck kids. Who the hell are YOU to dictate to them what is right and wrong? Some people want to fuck animals or run around naked in public, masturbate in parks, peek in windows at night, etc. Different strokes for different folks. Once you've established we can't have laws based on arbitrary moral judgement, the walls start to crumble down. I've heard enough from you to know I don't want you leading the charge for what's moral and right. 



> I didn't think you believed in the bible or jesus?  Who cares what the bible says.



About 70% of the general public, last count. 



> Gays should be able to legally do what married couples do.  Share insurance, get tax breaks, own a home together, raise kids, adopt, make life decisions in hospitals just like any other married person.  Not seperate but equal either.  It's married.  They are husband and husband or wife and wife or whatever they want to call it deal with it.



And kid fuckers ought to be able to do what they want, and polygamists, and goat fuckers, and voyers, and exhibitionists, and necrophilacs, etc. How can you deny them their "rights" based on what YOU think is disgusting or inappropriate? It's none of you do-gooder business!

I've always personally supported the idea of civil unions to replace government sanctioned marriage. Mainly because I don't think the government ought to be defining what "marriage" means to the individual. I feel as if this is a solution that would give all sides basically what they want. Gay couples could gain the benefits of traditional married couples, churches and religion gets to keep sanctity of marriage, and government isn't being cajoled into the role of moral arbiter for either side. I think the Federal government could easily reform and modify current law to change "marriage" to "civil partnership" without much hassle, and then the states could follow suit in adopting civil unions to replace traditional marriages. 

And before you comment on this, my viewpoint is adopted from a gay couple who are close personal friends of mine. They do NOT support "gay marriage" laws. They have lived together as a gay couple for nearly 30 years. They have insurance together. They own property together. They even held a wedding ceremony in Alabama... in 1986! Went on a honeymoon... have a wedding album... had bridesmaids and groomsmen and everything. They don't have a piece of paper from the state... but BIG DEAL! This is THEIR idea of how to resolve the issue, and I agree with them. 



> We have laws.  We don't need your religion to know not to steal, rape, murder, cheat, lie, be greedy, but guess what?  That's exactly what you Christians and Muslims do.  Oh yea, I forgot.



Yes, we do have laws... ALL of them are (to some degree) based on a religious moral standard. As I said, when you remove that and replace it with secular standards that can be defined any damn way you please, the walls start to crumble down. You can no longer justify denying others their "rights" under the law, based on what makes YOU uncomfortable. You've given that up! You can never get it back, it's gone for good! We'll simply see more and more outrageous immoral behavior justified, condoned, accepted, and codified into law.


----------



## AtheistBuddah

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you telling me that if you didn't believe in god or hell you'd want to fuck kids?  I don't believe in god and I'm not a creep like you perv.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I am giving you examples of how moral decline works when there is no spiritual foundation for morality in society. Some people DO want to fuck kids. Who the hell are YOU to dictate to them what is right and wrong? Some people want to fuck animals or run around naked in public, masturbate in parks, peek in windows at night, etc. Different strokes for different folks. Once you've established we can't have laws based on arbitrary moral judgement, the walls start to crumble down. I've heard enough from you to know I don't want you leading the charge for what's moral and right.
Click to expand...


Again with this nonsense? I already said it once but you didn't dare quote me or take me on did you? Well I'm calling you out, because your idea that the world is somehow becoming a worse place to live because more people are abandoning religion and losing their morality is utter crap and the facts just don't support it. Firstly, the notion that less people are religious is disproven by your own words and the statistic you yourself provided earlier. Also the world now is a better place to live than it was just 50 years ago. The average life expectancy for someone my age (22) is somewhere in the ballpark of 120 years and you can thank secular scientists for that. Also many of our morals and ethics such as "innocent until proven guilty" and "no cruel or unusual punishment" these are not values you would find in the Bible. They're not legal practices you would find in a theocracy or other religious society. In fact the places on the planet where death rates are highest are places where education levels are low and religious fervor is high. So no, don't try to tell me or anyone else here that we are less moral or less civilized than the inbreeding, goatfuckers that wrote the Bible because it isn't true. Our future is not filled with some end time prophecy it's a bright future with limitless potential to improve the quality of life for all. And as for your initial slippery slope argument I will give you the logic that is presented in our very own Constitution in the 1st Amendment. The logic that we have the right to say, do and think what we want until it causes harm to someone else. So no just because we abandon arbitrary religious morals does not mean that one day molesting children will be okay and that your religion is all that separates us from that fate. The logic I presented is what separates us from that fate because clearly rape causes harm. So the perv can think it, hell he can even talk about it but he can never get away with doing it. And Christianity isn't the reason for that because neither it nor any religion has a monopoly on morality.


----------



## Boss

AtheistBuddah said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you telling me that if you didn't believe in god or hell you'd want to fuck kids?  I don't believe in god and I'm not a creep like you perv.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I am giving you examples of how moral decline works when there is no spiritual foundation for morality in society. Some people DO want to fuck kids. Who the hell are YOU to dictate to them what is right and wrong? Some people want to fuck animals or run around naked in public, masturbate in parks, peek in windows at night, etc. Different strokes for different folks. Once you've established we can't have laws based on arbitrary moral judgement, the walls start to crumble down. I've heard enough from you to know I don't want you leading the charge for what's moral and right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again with this nonsense? I already said it once but you didn't dare quote me or take me on did you? Well I'm calling you out, because your idea that the world is somehow becoming a worse place to live because more people are abandoning religion and losing their morality is utter crap and the facts just don't support it. Firstly, the notion that less people are religious is disproven by your own words and the statistic you yourself provided earlier. Also the world now is a better place to live than it was just 50 years ago. The average life expectancy for someone my age (22) is somewhere in the ballpark of 120 years and you can thank secular scientists for that. Also many of our morals and ethics such as "innocent until proven guilty" and "no cruel or unusual punishment" these are not values you would find in the Bible. They're not legal practices you would find in a theocracy or other religious society. In fact the places on the planet where death rates are highest are places where education levels are low and religious fervor is high. So no, don't try to tell me or anyone else here that we are less moral or less civilized than the inbreeding, goatfuckers that wrote the Bible because it isn't true. Our future is not filled with some end time prophecy it's a bright future with limitless potential to improve the quality of life for all. And as for your initial slippery slope argument I will give you the logic that is presented in our very own Constitution in the 1st Amendment. The logic that we have the right to say, do and think what we want until it causes harm to someone else. So no just because we abandon arbitrary religious morals does not mean that one day molesting children will be okay and that your religion is all that separates us from that fate. The logic I presented is what separates us from that fate because clearly rape causes harm. So the perv can think it, hell he can even talk about it but he can never get away with doing it. And Christianity isn't the reason for that because neither it nor any religion has a monopoly on morality.
Click to expand...



​


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Boss said:


> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.



Addressing your last graph, I think it's much simpler. People on discussion sites, youtube, twitter, whatever aspouse their beliefs in a prolithic manner because some number will always agree with them and give them the pat on the back and acknowledgement they seek. But then we're all guilty of that. If not for the acknowledgement none of us would be here. But I don't think they're trying to recruit others. You can never change someone's mind who doesn't already partially agree with you.


----------



## Montrovant

AtheistBuddah said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you telling me that if you didn't believe in god or hell you'd want to fuck kids?  I don't believe in god and I'm not a creep like you perv.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I am giving you examples of how moral decline works when there is no spiritual foundation for morality in society. Some people DO want to fuck kids. Who the hell are YOU to dictate to them what is right and wrong? Some people want to fuck animals or run around naked in public, masturbate in parks, peek in windows at night, etc. Different strokes for different folks. Once you've established we can't have laws based on arbitrary moral judgement, the walls start to crumble down. I've heard enough from you to know I don't want you leading the charge for what's moral and right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again with this nonsense? I already said it once but you didn't dare quote me or take me on did you? Well I'm calling you out, because your idea that the world is somehow becoming a worse place to live because more people are abandoning religion and losing their morality is utter crap and the facts just don't support it. Firstly, the notion that less people are religious is disproven by your own words and the statistic you yourself provided earlier. Also the world now is a better place to live than it was just 50 years ago. The average life expectancy for someone my age (22) is somewhere in the ballpark of 120 years and you can thank secular scientists for that. Also many of our morals and ethics such as "innocent until proven guilty" and "no cruel or unusual punishment" these are not values you would find in the Bible. They're not legal practices you would find in a theocracy or other religious society. In fact the places on the planet where death rates are highest are places where education levels are low and religious fervor is high. So no, don't try to tell me or anyone else here that we are less moral or less civilized than the inbreeding, goatfuckers that wrote the Bible because it isn't true. Our future is not filled with some end time prophecy it's a bright future with limitless potential to improve the quality of life for all. And as for your initial slippery slope argument I will give you the logic that is presented in our very own Constitution in the 1st Amendment. The logic that we have the right to say, do and think what we want until it causes harm to someone else. So no just because we abandon arbitrary religious morals does not mean that one day molesting children will be okay and that your religion is all that separates us from that fate. The logic I presented is what separates us from that fate because clearly rape causes harm. So the perv can think it, hell he can even talk about it but he can never get away with doing it. And Christianity isn't the reason for that because neither it nor any religion has a monopoly on morality.
Click to expand...


Your average life expectancy is 120?  Based on what wild speculation?

Hey, look, here's an article about the oldest living man dying....he was 111.  Sure, there's probably someone older out there.  It's still younger than what you are saying is your average life expectancy.

World's oldest man dies at age 111 - CNN.com


----------



## sealybobo

HUGGY said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> OUR CHURCH IS FULL EACH SUNDAY!!  AND IN OUR CITY THERE SEEMS TO BE A CHURCH ALMOST ON EVERY BLOCK!!! PTL. SOUTHERN USA-IN GOD WE TRUST!!and you??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me?  The real America.  Michigan, Chicago, NY, California.  We still have some ignorant fools in Wisconsin, Ohio and places like that, but that's usually the simple folk in the country.  Anywhere in the city you find people have much better things to do then go get lectured and brainwashed at some church.  Some people need it, but hey, human's are evolving.  I know a guy who's a devout Catholic and his kid doesn't want him baptizing her child.  Good for her.  She didn't fall for the brainwashing like he did when his momma told him about jesus and the converted from I forgot to Catholicism.  He about freaked out when I tried to convince him there is no god.  Unfriended me on facebook.  LOL  But I gotta listen to his Have you been saved bullshit?  He can't listen to my arguments?  Then fuck what he or you is trying to say if you can't take a rebuttal.  It is why I came on here.  I need to let it out.  I just recently found NO GOD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Finding NO GOD is simple...  Just look around you.. a billion things going on..  all without the help from some sky fairy..   Listen carefully for god to talk to you..  nothing... Good news...  If you were hearing god it would mean you are having hallucinations and need a shrink.. AND THEY are expensive!!
Click to expand...


All you have to do is watch an animal show on Sunday morning to see that spirituality comes from the most primitive part of the brain.  They think even monkeys are spiritual.  

Last night I was watching some black christian lady trying to sell her spiritual first aid kit.  Came with Mur.  In the middle of sentences she would say PRAISE GOD.  She said Mur was used to take away pain so SOME first aid kits will come with MUR.  Some will come with a love ring.  Some will come with fake money but blessed by her.  Jesus said we are better as two so if you are alone and watching this, call me for this love potion praise jesus. 

The only thing I wondered was how much do you have to give to get one of those cheap ass first aid kits and how pathetic are you if you actually call.  

She doesn't represent all christians but she represents the stupidity all christians possess to believe that shit past adulthood.


----------



## sealybobo

Montrovant said:


> AtheistBuddah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I am giving you examples of how moral decline works when there is no spiritual foundation for morality in society. Some people DO want to fuck kids. Who the hell are YOU to dictate to them what is right and wrong? Some people want to fuck animals or run around naked in public, masturbate in parks, peek in windows at night, etc. Different strokes for different folks. Once you've established we can't have laws based on arbitrary moral judgement, the walls start to crumble down. I've heard enough from you to know I don't want you leading the charge for what's moral and right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again with this nonsense? I already said it once but you didn't dare quote me or take me on did you? Well I'm calling you out, because your idea that the world is somehow becoming a worse place to live because more people are abandoning religion and losing their morality is utter crap and the facts just don't support it. Firstly, the notion that less people are religious is disproven by your own words and the statistic you yourself provided earlier. Also the world now is a better place to live than it was just 50 years ago. The average life expectancy for someone my age (22) is somewhere in the ballpark of 120 years and you can thank secular scientists for that. Also many of our morals and ethics such as "innocent until proven guilty" and "no cruel or unusual punishment" these are not values you would find in the Bible. They're not legal practices you would find in a theocracy or other religious society. In fact the places on the planet where death rates are highest are places where education levels are low and religious fervor is high. So no, don't try to tell me or anyone else here that we are less moral or less civilized than the inbreeding, goatfuckers that wrote the Bible because it isn't true. Our future is not filled with some end time prophecy it's a bright future with limitless potential to improve the quality of life for all. And as for your initial slippery slope argument I will give you the logic that is presented in our very own Constitution in the 1st Amendment. The logic that we have the right to say, do and think what we want until it causes harm to someone else. So no just because we abandon arbitrary religious morals does not mean that one day molesting children will be okay and that your religion is all that separates us from that fate. The logic I presented is what separates us from that fate because clearly rape causes harm. So the perv can think it, hell he can even talk about it but he can never get away with doing it. And Christianity isn't the reason for that because neither it nor any religion has a monopoly on morality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your average life expectancy is 120?  Based on what wild speculation?
> 
> Hey, look, here's an article about the oldest living man dying....he was 111.  Sure, there's probably someone older out there.  It's still younger than what you are saying is your average life expectancy.
> 
> World's oldest man dies at age 111 - CNN.com
Click to expand...


You nit pick that one little thing what about when he said this:  In fact the places on the planet where death rates are highest are places where education levels are low and religious fervor is high. So no, don't try to tell me or anyone else here that we are less moral or less civilized than the inbreeding, goatfuckers that wrote the Bible because it isn't true.


----------



## sealybobo

Delta4Embassy said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Addressing your last graph, I think it's much simpler. People on discussion sites, youtube, twitter, whatever aspouse their beliefs in a prolithic manner because some number will always agree with them and give them the pat on the back and acknowledgement they seek. But then we're all guilty of that. If not for the acknowledgement none of us would be here. But I don't think they're trying to recruit others. You can never change someone's mind who doesn't already partially agree with you.
Click to expand...


For many years I was a christian.  For many years I just believed in God.  Today I don't believe in Gods.  People can evolve/improve/wake up/educate themselves/be unbrainwashed without fear of the hypocrite christians.


----------



## warwulf

How can we hate something that doesn't exist? It's like hating leprachauns or unicorns or elves. If anything, we hate the way in which intelligent people blindly follow a jewish religion that essentially pussifies the Gentile race by their alleged "Commandments" which are blatantly offensive to the Alpha Males inherent need and desire to procreate and live and to allow the Laws of Nature to rule. 
  Might Is Right. Not some never-existed jewish demi-god who has never once been proven to exist, save a 'soul' or throw anyone into 'hell'. 
  The xtian 'god' doesn't care if you xtians pray to him or not and as war has proven, he will let anyone die indiscriminately; atheist and xtian alike are killed and no magickal prayers will save you if your time is up. 
  It's best not to pray for anything as it's just better to get off your ass and do it yourself. Antinomianism in play and the results, unlike prayers, are visible and tangible.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you telling me that if you didn't believe in god or hell you'd want to fuck kids?  I don't believe in god and I'm not a creep like you perv.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I am giving you examples of how moral decline works when there is no spiritual foundation for morality in society. Some people DO want to fuck kids. Who the hell are YOU to dictate to them what is right and wrong? Some people want to fuck animals or run around naked in public, masturbate in parks, peek in windows at night, etc. Different strokes for different folks. Once you've established we can't have laws based on arbitrary moral judgement, the walls start to crumble down. I've heard enough from you to know I don't want you leading the charge for what's moral and right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't think you believed in the bible or jesus?  Who cares what the bible says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About 70% of the general public, last count.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gays should be able to legally do what married couples do.  Share insurance, get tax breaks, own a home together, raise kids, adopt, make life decisions in hospitals just like any other married person.  Not seperate but equal either.  It's married.  They are husband and husband or wife and wife or whatever they want to call it deal with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And kid fuckers ought to be able to do what they want, and polygamists, and goat fuckers, and voyers, and exhibitionists, and necrophilacs, etc. How can you deny them their "rights" based on what YOU think is disgusting or inappropriate? It's none of you do-gooder business!
> 
> I've always personally supported the idea of civil unions to replace government sanctioned marriage. Mainly because I don't think the government ought to be defining what "marriage" means to the individual. I feel as if this is a solution that would give all sides basically what they want. Gay couples could gain the benefits of traditional married couples, churches and religion gets to keep sanctity of marriage, and government isn't being cajoled into the role of moral arbiter for either side. I think the Federal government could easily reform and modify current law to change "marriage" to "civil partnership" without much hassle, and then the states could follow suit in adopting civil unions to replace traditional marriages.
> 
> And before you comment on this, my viewpoint is adopted from a gay couple who are close personal friends of mine. They do NOT support "gay marriage" laws. They have lived together as a gay couple for nearly 30 years. They have insurance together. They own property together. They even held a wedding ceremony in Alabama... in 1986! Went on a honeymoon... have a wedding album... had bridesmaids and groomsmen and everything. They don't have a piece of paper from the state... but BIG DEAL! This is THEIR idea of how to resolve the issue, and I agree with them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have laws.  We don't need your religion to know not to steal, rape, murder, cheat, lie, be greedy, but guess what?  That's exactly what you Christians and Muslims do.  Oh yea, I forgot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, we do have laws... ALL of them are (to some degree) based on a religious moral standard. As I said, when you remove that and replace it with secular standards that can be defined any damn way you please, the walls start to crumble down. You can no longer justify denying others their "rights" under the law, based on what makes YOU uncomfortable. You've given that up! You can never get it back, it's gone for good! We'll simply see more and more outrageous immoral behavior justified, condoned, accepted, and codified into law.
Click to expand...


Boss we have laws against all the things you are talking about.  You are insane.  Oh and my father a man who knows nothing about science and has a high school education says science is stupid too.  His reason?  How could everything be so perfect?  Something must have put the intestants in us, 2 eyes, 2 hands, a brain, heart, lungs.  If science thinks this happened by chance or accident then science is stupid.

But science has lots of reasons it believes what it does.  My dad and you believe only because you can't believe there is no god, or spiritual energy.


----------



## Montrovant

sealybobo said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AtheistBuddah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again with this nonsense? I already said it once but you didn't dare quote me or take me on did you? Well I'm calling you out, because your idea that the world is somehow becoming a worse place to live because more people are abandoning religion and losing their morality is utter crap and the facts just don't support it. Firstly, the notion that less people are religious is disproven by your own words and the statistic you yourself provided earlier. Also the world now is a better place to live than it was just 50 years ago. The average life expectancy for someone my age (22) is somewhere in the ballpark of 120 years and you can thank secular scientists for that. Also many of our morals and ethics such as "innocent until proven guilty" and "no cruel or unusual punishment" these are not values you would find in the Bible. They're not legal practices you would find in a theocracy or other religious society. In fact the places on the planet where death rates are highest are places where education levels are low and religious fervor is high. So no, don't try to tell me or anyone else here that we are less moral or less civilized than the inbreeding, goatfuckers that wrote the Bible because it isn't true. Our future is not filled with some end time prophecy it's a bright future with limitless potential to improve the quality of life for all. And as for your initial slippery slope argument I will give you the logic that is presented in our very own Constitution in the 1st Amendment. The logic that we have the right to say, do and think what we want until it causes harm to someone else. So no just because we abandon arbitrary religious morals does not mean that one day molesting children will be okay and that your religion is all that separates us from that fate. The logic I presented is what separates us from that fate because clearly rape causes harm. So the perv can think it, hell he can even talk about it but he can never get away with doing it. And Christianity isn't the reason for that because neither it nor any religion has a monopoly on morality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your average life expectancy is 120?  Based on what wild speculation?
> 
> Hey, look, here's an article about the oldest living man dying....he was 111.  Sure, there's probably someone older out there.  It's still younger than what you are saying is your average life expectancy.
> 
> World's oldest man dies at age 111 - CNN.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You nit pick that one little thing what about when he said this:  In fact the places on the planet where death rates are highest are places where education levels are low and religious fervor is high. So no, don't try to tell me or anyone else here that we are less moral or less civilized than the inbreeding, goatfuckers that wrote the Bible because it isn't true.
Click to expand...


I'd say that extremism is always a good place to look for high rates of death, particularly unnatural death.  Whether that takes the form of religious extremists, ecological extremists, political extremists, is far less important than the fact that they are extremists.  

And I nit pick that one thing because it is so out there, so seemingly without basis, it calls into question the reasoning of the poster.  Kind of like some of your claims about what 'science says'.  Or like Boss's claims about what must be true regarding the origin of the universe.

Making speculative claims as though they are undisputed fact is not a good way to give yourself credence, IMO.


----------



## AtheistBuddah

Boss said:


> AtheistBuddah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I am giving you examples of how moral decline works when there is no spiritual foundation for morality in society. Some people DO want to fuck kids. Who the hell are YOU to dictate to them what is right and wrong? Some people want to fuck animals or run around naked in public, masturbate in parks, peek in windows at night, etc. Different strokes for different folks. Once you've established we can't have laws based on arbitrary moral judgement, the walls start to crumble down. I've heard enough from you to know I don't want you leading the charge for what's moral and right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again with this nonsense? I already said it once but you didn't dare quote me or take me on did you? Well I'm calling you out, because your idea that the world is somehow becoming a worse place to live because more people are abandoning religion and losing their morality is utter crap and the facts just don't support it. Firstly, the notion that less people are religious is disproven by your own words and the statistic you yourself provided earlier. Also the world now is a better place to live than it was just 50 years ago. The average life expectancy for someone my age (22) is somewhere in the ballpark of 120 years and you can thank secular scientists for that. Also many of our morals and ethics such as "innocent until proven guilty" and "no cruel or unusual punishment" these are not values you would find in the Bible. They're not legal practices you would find in a theocracy or other religious society. In fact the places on the planet where death rates are highest are places where education levels are low and religious fervor is high. So no, don't try to tell me or anyone else here that we are less moral or less civilized than the inbreeding, goatfuckers that wrote the Bible because it isn't true. Our future is not filled with some end time prophecy it's a bright future with limitless potential to improve the quality of life for all. And as for your initial slippery slope argument I will give you the logic that is presented in our very own Constitution in the 1st Amendment. The logic that we have the right to say, do and think what we want until it causes harm to someone else. So no just because we abandon arbitrary religious morals does not mean that one day molesting children will be okay and that your religion is all that separates us from that fate. The logic I presented is what separates us from that fate because clearly rape causes harm. So the perv can think it, hell he can even talk about it but he can never get away with doing it. And Christianity isn't the reason for that because neither it nor any religion has a monopoly on morality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ​
Click to expand...


What an eloquent means of conceding defeat. Thank you


----------



## AtheistBuddah

Montrovant said:


> AtheistBuddah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I am giving you examples of how moral decline works when there is no spiritual foundation for morality in society. Some people DO want to fuck kids. Who the hell are YOU to dictate to them what is right and wrong? Some people want to fuck animals or run around naked in public, masturbate in parks, peek in windows at night, etc. Different strokes for different folks. Once you've established we can't have laws based on arbitrary moral judgement, the walls start to crumble down. I've heard enough from you to know I don't want you leading the charge for what's moral and right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again with this nonsense? I already said it once but you didn't dare quote me or take me on did you? Well I'm calling you out, because your idea that the world is somehow becoming a worse place to live because more people are abandoning religion and losing their morality is utter crap and the facts just don't support it. Firstly, the notion that less people are religious is disproven by your own words and the statistic you yourself provided earlier. Also the world now is a better place to live than it was just 50 years ago. The average life expectancy for someone my age (22) is somewhere in the ballpark of 120 years and you can thank secular scientists for that. Also many of our morals and ethics such as "innocent until proven guilty" and "no cruel or unusual punishment" these are not values you would find in the Bible. They're not legal practices you would find in a theocracy or other religious society. In fact the places on the planet where death rates are highest are places where education levels are low and religious fervor is high. So no, don't try to tell me or anyone else here that we are less moral or less civilized than the inbreeding, goatfuckers that wrote the Bible because it isn't true. Our future is not filled with some end time prophecy it's a bright future with limitless potential to improve the quality of life for all. And as for your initial slippery slope argument I will give you the logic that is presented in our very own Constitution in the 1st Amendment. The logic that we have the right to say, do and think what we want until it causes harm to someone else. So no just because we abandon arbitrary religious morals does not mean that one day molesting children will be okay and that your religion is all that separates us from that fate. The logic I presented is what separates us from that fate because clearly rape causes harm. So the perv can think it, hell he can even talk about it but he can never get away with doing it. And Christianity isn't the reason for that because neither it nor any religion has a monopoly on morality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your average life expectancy is 120?  Based on what wild speculation?
> 
> Hey, look, here's an article about the oldest living man dying....he was 111.  Sure, there's probably someone older out there.  It's still younger than what you are saying is your average life expectancy.
> 
> World's oldest man dies at age 111 - CNN.com
Click to expand...


I said MY life expectancy and that of other healthy members of my generation those to come after me. Not that of all human beings on currently living fool. Was it really so hard to understand what I meant?


----------



## emilynghiem

sealybobo said:


> All you have to do is watch an animal show on Sunday morning to see that spirituality comes from the most primitive part of the brain.  They think even monkeys are spiritual.
> 
> Last night I was watching some black christian lady trying to sell her spiritual first aid kit.  Came with Mur.  In the middle of sentences she would say PRAISE GOD.  She said Mur was used to take away pain so SOME first aid kits will come with MUR.  Some will come with a love ring.  Some will come with fake money but blessed by her.  Jesus said we are better as two so if you are alone and watching this, call me for this love potion praise jesus.
> 
> The only thing I wondered was how much do you have to give to get one of those cheap ass first aid kits and how pathetic are you if you actually call.
> 
> She doesn't represent all christians but she represents the stupidity all christians possess to believe that shit past adulthood.



1. The 'God' Part of The Brain | A Scientific Interpretation of Human Spirituality and God
Dear  [MENTION=11281]sealybobo[/MENTION] you remind me of the theory of the god part of the brain,
that evolved as a greater survival mechanism. so even if this is primitive,
if it helps increase chances of survival, it's not necessarily a negative thing

2. as for "hypocrite christians"
If you are still reacting against Christianity
that seems like teenager attitude/high school in my book.

Teenagers who decided they didn't agree with their parents,
or can see more and are smarter now, and so they "hate" on them
which is just temporary. To 'assert your independence' while
forming your own identity that doesn't require reacting against anyone else.

At some point even the most abused people forgive and overcome their past.
That is part of growing up.

The truly mature people, whether theist or nontheist
do not rag on reject or blame any group.

That is deemed a waste of time and energy.




			
				sb said:
			
		

> For many years I was a christian.  For many years I just believed in God.  Today I don't believe in Gods.  People can evolve/improve/wake up/educate themselves/be unbrainwashed without fear of the hypocrite christians.



3. so moving on with this "evolution", I'd like to see the real you,
after you are done scowling scoffing and criticizing Christians and
old ways of looking at God.

I fully agree the real meanings of God (and Jesus as Justice) are much broader.
But the people who live and see on that level tend to be so
universally inclusive, they do not judge or criticize anyone anymore.

So I hope to see you up there someday
and not stuck in the trenches with the teens
boasting and mocking each other over whose clique or gang
is in the know and the others are primitive and in the dark.

All that is high school to me. Are you sure that's where you
want to stay in life?


----------



## AtheistBuddah

[/QUOTE]I'd say that extremism is always a good place to look for high rates of death, particularly unnatural death.  Whether that takes the form of religious extremists, ecological extremists, political extremists, is far less important than the fact that they are extremists.  

Making speculative claims as though they are undisputed fact is not a good way to give yourself credence, IMO.[/QUOTE]

I agree, religious extremism is not the only form of extremism that causes death and overall harm to humanity. It is however the form of extremism that does it most often, in my opinion. Though in fairness it is not the only form I focus my attention on it is simply the topic of this part of the forums.

To your second point about speculative claims I completely agree and I endeavor constantly (though I admit not always successfully) to act according to that.


----------



## Boss

> Boss we have laws against all the things you are talking about. You are insane. Oh and my father a man who knows nothing about science and has a high school education says science is stupid too. His reason? How could everything be so perfect? Something must have put the intestants in us, 2 eyes, 2 hands, a brain, heart, lungs. If science thinks this happened by chance or accident then science is stupid.
> 
> But science has lots of reasons it believes what it does. My dad and you believe only because you can't believe there is no god, or spiritual energy.



Again, I believe in God because I experience a connection with God daily. I know the connection is real because I realize tangible results from it. It's not a matter of "can't believe" as much as "can't deny" for me. I simply can't deny what I know is real. That's why I gave the analogy about your Mom before, but that seemed to fly completely over your silly head.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

Boss said:


> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God.



Oh what a load of crap.


----------



## Boss

> Boss we have laws against all the things you are talking about. You are insane.



Yes, we currently DO have laws against those things. But virtually every law is based to some degree on a religiously-based moral construct. Once we establish that "religious morality" can't be used to define our laws, then all bets are off. Every one of those things can be rationalized and justified to satisfy our desire for pleasure and indulgence by claiming a "right" to it. It may seem "insane" today, but I'll bet you in 1964, the Civil Rights people had no idea their movement would spark a debate over homosexuals being able to "marry" each other, much less be USED to make that argument! Likewise, I bet those who ruled on Roe v. Wade had no idea their ruling would eventually be used to justify outright infanticide. 

You are effectively eroding away the moral foundations of civilization and societal structure. Eventually, this will result in moral decay and collapse of civilization. This isn't a speculation, it's a known fact of history.


----------



## HUGGY

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> So anyone who has ever gotten drunk, cheated, stole, lied, fornicated will not go to heaven?
> 
> Anyways, the bible said two women can grind, one will go to heaven and one won't.  That means it doesn't matter if you are gay.
> 
> Are you perfect?  Have you ever sinned?  Will you sin again?  If so, gays say Gismys go fuck yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GOD IS NOT willing that any perish, so confess and repent of sin and with GOD'S help live the best life you can,accept JESUS AS YOUR LORD AND SAVIOR.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK...well and good enough for the average person that just screws up once in a while but what does your god say about wacked out psychos like you that won't change with an "I'm sorry"?
> 
> You and those like you can't change with an apology...your affliction is permanent.
> 
> So you are just ass out?
Click to expand...


----------



## GISMYS

huggy said:


> gismys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> god is not willing that any perish, so confess and repent of sin and with god's help live the best life you can,accept jesus as your lord and savior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ok...well and good enough for the average person that just screws up once in a while but what does your god say about wacked out psychos like you that won't change with an "i'm sorry"?
> 
> You and those like you can't change with an apology...your affliction is permanent.
> 
> So you are just ass out?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> druggs do kill brain cells,your post proves that!!
Click to expand...


----------



## AtheistBuddah

GISMYS said:


> huggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gismys said:
> 
> 
> 
> ok...well and good enough for the average person that just screws up once in a while but what does your god say about wacked out psychos like you that won't change with an "i'm sorry"?
> 
> You and those like you can't change with an apology...your affliction is permanent.
> 
> So you are just ass out?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> druggs do kill brain cells,your post proves that!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the guy that starts a post and then is also the first five or so replies to it.
Click to expand...


----------



## HUGGY

AtheistBuddah said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> huggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> druggs do kill brain cells,your post proves that!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the guy that starts a post and then is also the first five or so replies to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's cuz when he is in his closet he is the most interesting person in the room...
Click to expand...


----------



## HUGGY

GISMYS said:


> huggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gismys said:
> 
> 
> 
> ok...well and good enough for the average person that just screws up once in a while but what does your god say about wacked out psychos like you that won't change with an "i'm sorry"?
> 
> You and those like you can't change with an apology...your affliction is permanent.
> 
> So you are just ass out?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> druggs do kill brain cells,your post proves that!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  How so?
> 
> Why not just answer my question?
> 
> What provisions does your god hold out for the mentally ill?...
> 
> Will that mentally fucked piece of shit that murdered his mom and those grade school kids get into heaven with a "Sorry... my bad" ?
> 
> This is a serious question and one that it would seem is one that should be of YOUR greatest interest.
Click to expand...


----------



## GISMYS

HUGGY said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> huggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> druggs do kill brain cells,your post proves that!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  How so?
> 
> Why not just answer my question?
> 
> What provisions does your god hold out for the mentally ill?...
> 
> Will that mentally fucked piece of shit that murdered his mom and those grade school kids get into heaven with a "Sorry... my bad" ?
> 
> This is a serious question and one that it would seem is one that should be of YOUR greatest interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NO WORRIES!!! GOD IS FAIR AND JUST,NO ONE WILL GET A DIRTY DEAL!!!  CHILDREN AND ANY THAT DO NOT UNDERSTAND RIGH FROM WRONG ARE NOT ACCOUNTABLE!! but you???
Click to expand...


----------



## sealybobo

Montrovant said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your average life expectancy is 120?  Based on what wild speculation?
> 
> Hey, look, here's an article about the oldest living man dying....he was 111.  Sure, there's probably someone older out there.  It's still younger than what you are saying is your average life expectancy.
> 
> World's oldest man dies at age 111 - CNN.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You nit pick that one little thing what about when he said this:  In fact the places on the planet where death rates are highest are places where education levels are low and religious fervor is high. So no, don't try to tell me or anyone else here that we are less moral or less civilized than the inbreeding, goatfuckers that wrote the Bible because it isn't true.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd say that extremism is always a good place to look for high rates of death, particularly unnatural death.  Whether that takes the form of religious extremists, ecological extremists, political extremists, is far less important than the fact that they are extremists.
> 
> And I nit pick that one thing because it is so out there, so seemingly without basis, it calls into question the reasoning of the poster.  Kind of like some of your claims about what 'science says'.  Or like Boss's claims about what must be true regarding the origin of the universe.
> 
> Making speculative claims as though they are undisputed fact is not a good way to give yourself credence, IMO.
Click to expand...


What is real? What constitutes knowledge? Are all supernatural claims implicitly true? Why/Why not?

A person who disbelieves for poor reasons is no better off than someone who believes for poor reasons. Disbelieving in astrology because a priest tells you to is no better than believing in a god because the same priest tells you to do so.

Science observes the physical universe, makes models of how it works and then refines those models through further observation. When something interacts with the physical universe, such as through light, motion, sound, heat, mass or gravity, it becomes a natural phenomena and thus open to scientific inquiry. If it does not interact with the physical universe then it cannot be said to exist in any meaningful or perceivable way.

Proposing the existence of an entity or phenomena that can never be investigated via empirical, experimental or reproducible means moves it from the realm of reality and into the realm of unfalsifiable speculation. The inability of science to investigate or disprove such a hypothesis is not the same as proving it true and neither does it automatically lend credence to any metaphysical or theological argument. If such reasoning were actually permissible then one could claim anything imaginable to be real or true if only because it could not be proven false.

Relying on supernatural explanations is a cop-out or a dead-end to deepening our understanding of reality. If a natural cause for something is not known, the scientific approach is to say I dont know yet and keep on looking, not to presume an answer which makes us comfortable.


----------



## sealybobo

emilynghiem said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> All you have to do is watch an animal show on Sunday morning to see that spirituality comes from the most primitive part of the brain.  They think even monkeys are spiritual.
> 
> Last night I was watching some black christian lady trying to sell her spiritual first aid kit.  Came with Mur.  In the middle of sentences she would say PRAISE GOD.  She said Mur was used to take away pain so SOME first aid kits will come with MUR.  Some will come with a love ring.  Some will come with fake money but blessed by her.  Jesus said we are better as two so if you are alone and watching this, call me for this love potion praise jesus.
> 
> The only thing I wondered was how much do you have to give to get one of those cheap ass first aid kits and how pathetic are you if you actually call.
> 
> She doesn't represent all christians but she represents the stupidity all christians possess to believe that shit past adulthood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The 'God' Part of The Brain | A Scientific Interpretation of Human Spirituality and God
> Dear  [MENTION=11281]sealybobo[/MENTION] you remind me of the theory of the god part of the brain,
> that evolved as a greater survival mechanism. so even if this is primitive,
> if it helps increase chances of survival, it's not necessarily a negative thing
> 
> 2. as for "hypocrite christians"
> If you are still reacting against Christianity
> that seems like teenager attitude/high school in my book.
> 
> Teenagers who decided they didn't agree with their parents,
> or can see more and are smarter now, and so they "hate" on them
> which is just temporary. To 'assert your independence' while
> forming your own identity that doesn't require reacting against anyone else.
> 
> At some point even the most abused people forgive and overcome their past.
> That is part of growing up.
> 
> The truly mature people, whether theist or nontheist
> do not rag on reject or blame any group.
> 
> That is deemed a waste of time and energy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For many years I was a christian.  For many years I just believed in God.  Today I don't believe in Gods.  People can evolve/improve/wake up/educate themselves/be unbrainwashed without fear of the hypocrite christians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 3. so moving on with this "evolution", I'd like to see the real you,
> after you are done scowling scoffing and criticizing Christians and
> old ways of looking at God.
> 
> I fully agree the real meanings of God (and Jesus as Justice) are much broader.
> But the people who live and see on that level tend to be so
> universally inclusive, they do not judge or criticize anyone anymore.
> 
> So I hope to see you up there someday
> and not stuck in the trenches with the teens
> boasting and mocking each other over whose clique or gang
> is in the know and the others are primitive and in the dark.
> 
> All that is high school to me. Are you sure that's where you
> want to stay in life?
Click to expand...


Really?  Let us see what religious people think about us.  Is this ragging on, rejecting or blaming atheists?  Americans Would Rather Vote For A Philandering, Pot-Smoking President Than An Atheist One

Believers claim the victim and imply that non-theists gang up on them, or rally against them. No, atheists just look at believers the same way they might look at someone who claims the Earth is flat, or that the Earth is the center of the universe: delusional.

The bar theists set for perceived atheist hostility appears to be anyone simply voicing a dissenting opinion or mentioning an inclination towards non-belief. Claiming persecution is simply a deflection for theists who are unwilling or unable to deal with open criticism.


----------



## sealybobo

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh what a load of crap.
Click to expand...


Tell him to let us know the day an atheist can be president.  Until then shut the fuck up about being picked on Boss.

Americans Would Rather Vote For A Philandering, Pot-Smoking President Than An Atheist One


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> Boss we have laws against all the things you are talking about. You are insane.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we currently DO have laws against those things. But virtually every law is based to some degree on a religiously-based moral construct. Once we establish that "religious morality" can't be used to define our laws, then all bets are off. Every one of those things can be rationalized and justified to satisfy our desire for pleasure and indulgence by claiming a "right" to it. It may seem "insane" today, but I'll bet you in 1964, the Civil Rights people had no idea their movement would spark a debate over homosexuals being able to "marry" each other, much less be USED to make that argument! Likewise, I bet those who ruled on Roe v. Wade had no idea their ruling would eventually be used to justify outright infanticide.
> 
> You are effectively eroding away the moral foundations of civilization and societal structure. Eventually, this will result in moral decay and collapse of civilization. This isn't a speculation, it's a known fact of history.
Click to expand...


I have no need for religion, I have a conscience. 

A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it.  David Stevens

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.  Steven Weinberg

Where ignorance is bliss, tis folly to be wise.  Thomas Gray

Being an atheist is like being the only sober person in the car  and no one will let you drive. 

Isnt it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?  Douglas Adams

You do not need the Bible to justify love, but no better tool has been invented to justify hate.  Richard Weatherwax

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.  Richard Dawkins

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.  Charles Darwin

What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.  Christopher Hitchens

Science adjusts its understanding based on whats observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved.  Tim Minchin

It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.  Carl Sagan

God is an ever-receding pocket of ignorance thats getting smaller and smaller as time goes on.- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Faith isnt a virtue; it is the glorification of voluntary ignorance.


----------



## sealybobo

HUGGY said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> GOD IS NOT willing that any perish, so confess and repent of sin and with GOD'S help live the best life you can,accept JESUS AS YOUR LORD AND SAVIOR.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK...well and good enough for the average person that just screws up once in a while but what does your god say about wacked out psychos like you that won't change with an "I'm sorry"?
> 
> You and those like you can't change with an apology...your affliction is permanent.
> 
> So you are just ass out?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there is a god he would reward my intelligence for not being a sucker.  He would also not care about abortions any more than he cares about the fish you catch and eat or the mosquito on the ass of a lion in Africa.  Do you care about a tad pole in the pond in my lake?  But god cares about you or seeds that are aborted?  Get over yourselves.
Click to expand...


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> Boss we have laws against all the things you are talking about. You are insane.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we currently DO have laws against those things. But virtually every law is based to some degree on a religiously-based moral construct. Once we establish that "religious morality" can't be used to define our laws, then all bets are off. Every one of those things can be rationalized and justified to satisfy our desire for pleasure and indulgence by claiming a "right" to it. It may seem "insane" today, but I'll bet you in 1964, the Civil Rights people had no idea their movement would spark a debate over homosexuals being able to "marry" each other, much less be USED to make that argument! Likewise, I bet those who ruled on Roe v. Wade had no idea their ruling would eventually be used to justify outright infanticide.
> 
> You are effectively eroding away the moral foundations of civilization and societal structure. Eventually, this will result in moral decay and collapse of civilization. This isn't a speculation, it's a known fact of history.
Click to expand...


We need the future generations to take care of their kids.  We also need the next generation not to be as stupid as we were since Reagan to today the rich have taken over our country.  Higher wages and a strong working democracy might go a long way.  Strenghten public schools and reform prisoners.  I could go on and on but why bother with you.  The fact is we can raise good people without your lie.  You can keep your lie.

Oh yea, but you just teach spirituality and karma.  I don't mind that.  But religion?  Throw it out with the bath water.  It's bad.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  How so?
> 
> Why not just answer my question?
> 
> What provisions does your god hold out for the mentally ill?...
> 
> Will that mentally fucked piece of shit that murdered his mom and those grade school kids get into heaven with a "Sorry... my bad" ?
> 
> This is a serious question and one that it would seem is one that should be of YOUR greatest interest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO WORRIES!!! GOD IS FAIR AND JUST,NO ONE WILL GET A DIRTY DEAL!!!  CHILDREN AND ANY THAT DO NOT UNDERSTAND RIGH FROM WRONG ARE NOT ACCOUNTABLE!! but you???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See you can't have a rational conversation.  Us atheists ask that you prove god exists without trying to scare us with hell.  You can't, stupid bitch.
Click to expand...


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> NO WORRIES!!! GOD IS FAIR AND JUST,NO ONE WILL GET A DIRTY DEAL!!!  CHILDREN AND ANY THAT DO NOT UNDERSTAND RIGH FROM WRONG ARE NOT ACCOUNTABLE!! but you???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See you can't have a rational conversation.  Us atheists ask that you prove god exists without trying to scare us with hell.  You can't, stupid bitch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOU HAVE THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE AND LIFE THAT PROVES GOD IS, How much more proof does a silly tard need????=== The truth about God is known to them instinctively;God has put this knowledge in their hearts.  20 Since earliest times men have seen the earth and sky and all God made, and have known of his existence and great eternal power. So they will have no excuse when they stand before God at Judgment Day.Romans 1:19-20
Click to expand...


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss we have laws against all the things you are talking about. You are insane.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we currently DO have laws against those things. But virtually every law is based to some degree on a religiously-based moral construct. Once we establish that "religious morality" can't be used to define our laws, then all bets are off. Every one of those things can be rationalized and justified to satisfy our desire for pleasure and indulgence by claiming a "right" to it. It may seem "insane" today, but I'll bet you in 1964, the Civil Rights people had no idea their movement would spark a debate over homosexuals being able to "marry" each other, much less be USED to make that argument! Likewise, I bet those who ruled on Roe v. Wade had no idea their ruling would eventually be used to justify outright infanticide.
> 
> You are effectively eroding away the moral foundations of civilization and societal structure. Eventually, this will result in moral decay and collapse of civilization. This isn't a speculation, it's a known fact of history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We need the future generations to take care of their kids.  We also need the next generation not to be as stupid as we were since Reagan to today the rich have taken over our country.  Higher wages and a strong working democracy might go a long way.  Strenghten public schools and reform prisoners.  I could go on and on but why bother with you.  The fact is we can raise good people without your lie.  You can keep your lie.
> 
> Oh yea, but you just teach spirituality and karma.  I don't mind that.  But religion?  Throw it out with the bath water.  It's bad.
Click to expand...


You have a political opinion. So do I. So does a religious person. We ALL have an equal voice in politics, in determining what our laws are, in establishing and/or maintaining social and cultural morality. You do not have an exclusive right to that. 

I disagree with you. I think Reagan was one of our greatest presidents. I don't believe the rich are taking over the country. I don't believe the government should mandate higher wages or meddle in capitalism any more than is necessary to protect the environment and people from abuse. Your opinion is not universal. We don't live in a dictatorship you rule. 

I respect your opinion, but you do not get to decide what I can and can't teach my children or what is or isn't stupid. You're really not going to win me over by calling me names and denigrating my intelligence. What you are more likely to do is piss me off. Piss enough of us off and you'll likely get a backlash from the 88% of us who are about sick of you godless minions dictating to us what we're going to accept and cramming it down our throats. 

You are very BOLD right now, because the political winds happen to be blowing in your favor a bit, but those things can change quickly. They always have in the past, and they will in the future. When society has had enough of this shit, they will put an end to it. You'll go back to whining and mewling about "the fairness of it all" and become insignificant again.


----------



## Slyhunter

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> See you can't have a rational conversation.  Us atheists ask that you prove god exists without trying to scare us with hell.  You can't, stupid bitch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU HAVE THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE AND LIFE THAT PROVES GOD IS, How much more proof does a silly tard need????=== The truth about God is known to them instinctively;God has put this knowledge in their hearts.  20 Since earliest times men have seen the earth and sky and all God made, and have known of his existence and great eternal power. So they will have no excuse when they stand before God at Judgment Day.Romans 1:19-20
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove God made them.
Click to expand...


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> See you can't have a rational conversation.  Us atheists ask that you prove god exists without trying to scare us with hell.  You can't, stupid bitch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU HAVE THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE AND LIFE THAT PROVES GOD IS, How much more proof does a silly tard need????=== The truth about God is known to them instinctively;God has put this knowledge in their hearts.  20 Since earliest times men have seen the earth and sky and all God made, and have known of his existence and great eternal power. So they will have no excuse when they stand before God at Judgment Day.Romans 1:19-20
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A particular standard of evidence is required to prove any claim. This standard is adjusted depending upon the nature of the claim. Since gods existence is an extraordinary claim, perhaps the most extraordinary claim, proving it requires equally extraordinary evidence.
> 
> The standard of evidence required is more than any personal anecdote, witness testimony, ancient book or reported miracle  none of which can be considered extraordinarily reliable or fear tactics. The human mind is also highly susceptible to being fooled and even fooling itself. One could be suffering from an hallucination or a form of undiagnosed schizophrenia, hysteria or psychosis, ruling out even our own senses as reliable evidence gathering mechanisms in this case. You could be brainwashed.  As strange as it sounds, misunderstood aliens might even be attempting to interact with us using extremely advanced technology.
> 
> Every conceivable argument, every imaginable piece of evidence for god is not without some fatal flaw or more likely explanation which precludes it from being used as definitive proof.
> 
> God is what it would take to convince an atheist that god exists.  I'll live a good life and if I meet him he will reward me for not buying your bullshit story but more than likely, just like the billion years before you were born you don't remember any of it, that is what it will be like for you after you are dead.  Deal with it.
Click to expand...


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we currently DO have laws against those things. But virtually every law is based to some degree on a religiously-based moral construct. Once we establish that "religious morality" can't be used to define our laws, then all bets are off. Every one of those things can be rationalized and justified to satisfy our desire for pleasure and indulgence by claiming a "right" to it. It may seem "insane" today, but I'll bet you in 1964, the Civil Rights people had no idea their movement would spark a debate over homosexuals being able to "marry" each other, much less be USED to make that argument! Likewise, I bet those who ruled on Roe v. Wade had no idea their ruling would eventually be used to justify outright infanticide.
> 
> You are effectively eroding away the moral foundations of civilization and societal structure. Eventually, this will result in moral decay and collapse of civilization. This isn't a speculation, it's a known fact of history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We need the future generations to take care of their kids.  We also need the next generation not to be as stupid as we were since Reagan to today the rich have taken over our country.  Higher wages and a strong working democracy might go a long way.  Strenghten public schools and reform prisoners.  I could go on and on but why bother with you.  The fact is we can raise good people without your lie.  You can keep your lie.
> 
> Oh yea, but you just teach spirituality and karma.  I don't mind that.  But religion?  Throw it out with the bath water.  It's bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have a political opinion. So do I. So does a religious person. We ALL have an equal voice in politics, in determining what our laws are, in establishing and/or maintaining social and cultural morality. You do not have an exclusive right to that.
> 
> I disagree with you. I think Reagan was one of our greatest presidents. I don't believe the rich are taking over the country. I don't believe the government should mandate higher wages or meddle in capitalism any more than is necessary to protect the environment and people from abuse. Your opinion is not universal. We don't live in a dictatorship you rule.
> 
> I respect your opinion, but you do not get to decide what I can and can't teach my children or what is or isn't stupid. You're really not going to win me over by calling me names and denigrating my intelligence. What you are more likely to do is piss me off. Piss enough of us off and you'll likely get a backlash from the 88% of us who are about sick of you godless minions dictating to us what we're going to accept and cramming it down our throats.
> 
> You are very BOLD right now, because the political winds happen to be blowing in your favor a bit, but those things can change quickly. They always have in the past, and they will in the future. When society has had enough of this shit, they will put an end to it. You'll go back to whining and mewling about "the fairness of it all" and become insignificant again.
Click to expand...


1.  I try to push your buttons.  But you know I like you.  I'm mostly/usually respectful right?  Or at least try to.  But I do like pushing your buttons.  

2.  I don't care what an old fart who's set in his ways and conservative thinks.  I know no matter what the GOP do, you'll remain.  Many have left the party.  But I guess they aren't brainwashed by Fox and Rush as I suspect you are.  If not, what do you disagree with them about?  Global warming?  Taxes on the rich?

Are you rich?  If you are, you're voting for the right party.  If you are not, you should see the gop don't want you to have ss or medicare, no right to your job, low wages, tax breaks to the rich mean your taxes go up, let companeis pollute.  I bet  you go along with them on everything.  Tell me what you are liberal about.  This is exactly the connection I make to people who are gullible and religious are also gullibly voting GOP.  You are the perfect example.  I don't want to get into politics with you.  Reagan was the beginning of the end and Bush finished the job.  Bye Bye American middle class.  Remember all those union workers for the big three that made every small business in Michigan  thrive for 50 years?  Those are now $10 walmart jobs.  No pensions, ss gonna be shit because they're only making minimum wage and I'm sure they deduct foodstamps from your future ss earnings just like they do unemployment.  Anyways, about god and politics, you're a fucking retard trust me.  But a nice one.  

3.  No I don't get to decide but we decided a long time ago to take god out of school.  Now that I don't believe in god I see why.  Before I didn't think it mattered.  I understood seperation of church and state.  Now I REALLY understand seperation of church and state.  Don't you?  I suspect you don't.  I think you want gods law to be man's law.  Is that true?  No abortions?  Gay sex is illegal?  True of fucking false boss?  So how are you not a christian?  Are you really a christian but pretend not to be?  Sort of like a tea bagger or libertarian's pretend they didn't vote for Bush, McCain, Romney???  Fake asses.


----------



## Boss

> The inability of science to investigate or disprove such a hypothesis is not the same as proving it true and neither does it automatically lend credence to any metaphysical or theological argument. If such reasoning were actually permissible then one could claim anything imaginable to be real or true if only because it could not be proven false.



To reiterate a point... Science does not PROVE things. Science proposes a probability of possibility. That's ALL science can do. Any conclusion of proof you've based on science requires faith. Nothing is "proven" except mathematics, and even with math it is subject to question when dealing with physics at the subatomic and quantum level. This is exactly the "reasoning" science approaches everything. There is not an exception from the perception of science. You can BELIEVE there is, but that is FAITH. 

Metaphysical, spiritual and theological arguments are outside the scope of science. It cannot evaluate the evidence. Perhaps it will one day be able to do so, but we have no way of knowing at this time. Demanding that something clearly outside the physical be explained by physical science is totally silly and illogical. Furthermore, demanding it must be "proven" is even more ridiculous and absurd. You can't even "prove" physical things with physical science in the physical universe.


----------



## Boss

Slyhunter said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOU HAVE THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE AND LIFE THAT PROVES GOD IS, How much more proof does a silly tard need????=== The truth about God is known to them instinctively;God has put this knowledge in their hearts.  20 Since earliest times men have seen the earth and sky and all God made, and have known of his existence and great eternal power. So they will have no excuse when they stand before God at Judgment Day.Romans 1:19-20
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove God made them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove God didn't!
Click to expand...


----------



## Slyhunter

Boss said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove God made them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove God didn't!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove Zeus didn't.
Click to expand...


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we currently DO have laws against those things. But virtually every law is based to some degree on a religiously-based moral construct. Once we establish that "religious morality" can't be used to define our laws, then all bets are off. Every one of those things can be rationalized and justified to satisfy our desire for pleasure and indulgence by claiming a "right" to it. It may seem "insane" today, but I'll bet you in 1964, the Civil Rights people had no idea their movement would spark a debate over homosexuals being able to "marry" each other, much less be USED to make that argument! Likewise, I bet those who ruled on Roe v. Wade had no idea their ruling would eventually be used to justify outright infanticide.
> 
> You are effectively eroding away the moral foundations of civilization and societal structure. Eventually, this will result in moral decay and collapse of civilization. This isn't a speculation, it's a known fact of history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We need the future generations to take care of their kids.  We also need the next generation not to be as stupid as we were since Reagan to today the rich have taken over our country.  Higher wages and a strong working democracy might go a long way.  Strenghten public schools and reform prisoners.  I could go on and on but why bother with you.  The fact is we can raise good people without your lie.  You can keep your lie.
> 
> Oh yea, but you just teach spirituality and karma.  I don't mind that.  But religion?  Throw it out with the bath water.  It's bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I respect your opinion....
> 
> Piss enough of us off and you'll likely get a backlash from the 88% of us who are about sick of you godless minions dictating to us what we're going to accept and cramming it down our throats.
> 
> When society has had enough of this shit, they will put an end to it. You'll go back to whining and mewling about "the fairness of it all" and become insignificant again.
Click to expand...


WOW everyone do you see this?  Boss starts off saying he respects our opinions but then look what he goes on to say.  I love bringing out the worst/truth in people.  

Atheists are most often called militant when they passionately defend reason and advocate critical thinking. The bar theists set for perceived hostility appears to be any atheist simply voicing an opinion in dissent of religious belief.   

Atheism does not preclude someone from being argumentative or insensitive; those things are simply seen as being preferable to killing one another over an imaginary friend.

A militant atheist will debate in a University or appeal for the separation of religion and government. A militant theist will kill doctors, stone women to death, incite religious war, restrict sexual and gender equality.

Im sorry if my insensitivity towards your beliefs offends you. But guess what  your religious wars, jihads, crusades, inquisitions, censoring of free speech, brainwashing of children, forcing girls into underage marriages, female genital mutilation, stoning, pederasty, homophobia and rejection of science and reason offend me. So I guess were even.  Anonymous


----------



## Boss

> Global warming?


Antarctica sets new record for sea ice area | Watts Up With That?

Global sea ice area, as of Sunday morning, stood at 1.005 million square kilometers above average.

The sea ice surrounding Antarctica, set a new record for areal coverage. 

You've been sold a myth by charlatans. You believed them because you're an idiot. 



> Taxes on the rich?



Every top marginal tax increase since Truman has resulted in less tax revenue, when adjusted for inflation. Every top marginal tax decrease has resulted in increased revenue, when adjusted. It would seem to me, if you wanted MORE money to do MORE things, you want to decrease taxes on top marginal incomes. Reagan's tax cuts sparked the longest period of peacetime prosperity in American history. 

And here's another thing... Democrats passed Obamacare without a single Republican vote... why didn't they also pass a tax increase on "the rich?" Why didn't they end the Bush Tax Cuts? Here, let me help you with that... they didn't need Republicans, they needed DEMOCRATS!


----------



## Boss

Boss said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove God didn't!
> 
> 
> 
> Prove Zeus didn't.
Click to expand...


Don't have to. I never claimed Zeus did.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove God made them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove God didn't!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, so you want to know what kind of "MILITANT" atheist I am?  A sweet young little 20 year old came in and tried to sell me a dvd about the end times.  I asked how much and she said it's strictly a donation.  I said sorry I don't have the money.  I didn't have the heart to break her heart and tell her there is no god.  You know how people are a lot more brutally honest and more mean on the web than they would be in real life?  That was it right there.  Maybe if she wasn't so cute and young and sweet I might have had the discussion but I didn't have the heart to do it.  Instead of the dvd she gave me a little fold out pocket size thing called UNLOCKING REVELATIONS.  Besides the DVD they also have seminars coming soon all across Michigan.
> 
> I'm not showing up and protesting those brainwashing seminars.  But watch if atheists had gatherings, watch the bible thumpers show up in droves.
> 
> At this seminar it will tell you
> 
> 1.  How the world will end
> 
> 2.  What role does the USA play?  Last night I was watching a guy talk about how Europe is where the beast will come from.
> 
> 3.  Who is the anti christ and what is the mark of the beast?
> 
> 4.  What really happens after death?
> 
> 5.  Are heaven and hell real and what will they look like?
> 
> 6. How can I find peace and be sure of eternal life?
> 
> And you think it is good or healthy that these people are lying to the weak minded and praying on their pocket books?  Come on Boss.
Click to expand...


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove God didn't!
> 
> 
> 
> Prove Zeus didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't have to. I never claimed Zeus did.
Click to expand...


You never claimed that he didn't either.  By your logic that means you did.


----------



## indiajo

thanatos144 said:


> Sorry friend but Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Sanger and many more killers were all atheists...You religion kills people by the MILLIONS.



Hitler was Catholic. Get yourself educated.


----------



## Tuatara

I don't belive in fairies. Can you imagine someone calling me a fairy-hater because of that. Yes, it sounds ridiculous. 


Pay attention Boss.


----------



## Slyhunter

Boss said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove God didn't!
> 
> 
> 
> Prove Zeus didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't have to. I never claimed Zeus did.
Click to expand...

Fine I don't have to prove a negative you have to prove a positive.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> Global warming?
> 
> 
> 
> Antarctica sets new record for sea ice area | Watts Up With That?
> 
> Global sea ice area, as of Sunday morning, stood at 1.005 million square kilometers above average.
> 
> The sea ice surrounding Antarctica, set a new record for areal coverage.
> 
> You've been sold a myth by charlatans. You believed them because you're an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taxes on the rich?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every top marginal tax increase since Truman has resulted in less tax revenue, when adjusted for inflation. Every top marginal tax decrease has resulted in increased revenue, when adjusted. It would seem to me, if you wanted MORE money to do MORE things, you want to decrease taxes on top marginal incomes. Reagan's tax cuts sparked the longest period of peacetime prosperity in American history.
> 
> And here's another thing... Democrats passed Obamacare without a single Republican vote... why didn't they also pass a tax increase on "the rich?" Why didn't they end the Bush Tax Cuts? Here, let me help you with that... they didn't need Republicans, they needed DEMOCRATS!
Click to expand...


Watts Up With That is a weather and climate commentary site (blog), created in 2006 by California meteorologist Anthony Watts, that reports on anthropogenic global warming-related issues from a skeptical point of view.

OMG Boss look who you are believing!  This guy is just like one of those "scientists" the tobacco companies paid to say smoking doesn't cause cancer.  He's a right winger!  Anti taxes.  Of course he denies man caused global warming.

Watts has expressed a skeptical view of anthropogenic CO2-driven global warming, believing the Sun, not man, is the driver of climatic change. 

He admits that what most bothers him about scientists and others who claim global warming is serious, is that, "They want to change policy. They want to apply taxes

Watts is a signatory to The Heartland Institute's Manhattan Declaration which calls on world leaders to "reject the views expressed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" and abandon "all taxes, regulations, and other interventions intended to reduce emissions of CO2

So he's basically a tea bagger.  You are quoting a tea bag scientists.  Zero credibility.  The rich/corporations pay him to agree or he's a libertarian/tea bagger who really believes the shit he's saying.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove God didn't!
> 
> 
> 
> Prove Zeus didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't have to. I never claimed Zeus did.
Click to expand...


The global warming scientist guy you quoted is part of this group schmuck

The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian public policy think tank based in Chicago, 

We all know it is these groups who are lying to ignorant poor and middle class people like you.  They don't want to pay for the clean up idiot.  What is your reason for going along with their denial?  

Oh yea, and if the media were liberal, wouldn't they be letting the people know? 

This is why the GOP got Clinton to deregulate the media so they could buy it up.  Now that they own it all they can deny global warming, lie us into wars, rig/steal elections, hell do whatever we want.  We'll give them gay marriage and they'll think the media is liberal.  And meanwhile not one Wallstreet or Mortgage Giant CEO went to prison for causing the crash of 2007.  Oh yea, you don't believe they did crash the market because the media never told you.  Same as it's not telling you that global warming is a fact and god is a lie.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove Zeus didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't have to. I never claimed Zeus did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You never claimed that he didn't either.  By your logic that means you did.
Click to expand...




Slyhunter said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove Zeus didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't have to. I never claimed Zeus did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fine I don't have to prove a negative you have to prove a positive.
Click to expand...


I don't have to prove anything I didn't claim. I don't know what Zeus might be responsible for or if Zeus ever existed. It's not my argument. You'll need to find someone who believes in Zeus to get those answers, I can't help you. 

Yes, if you want to claim something does not exist, you need to prove it. Otherwise, we can only say you have FAITH it doesn't exist... negative, positive, doesn't matter.


----------



## Boss

Tuatara said:


> I don't belive in fairies. Can you imagine someone calling me a fairy-hater because of that. Yes, it sounds ridiculous.
> 
> Pay attention Boss.



If you had argued for months, logging nearly 5,000 posts on a message board against fairies, I would say you were a fairy-hater.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Global warming?
> 
> 
> 
> Antarctica sets new record for sea ice area | Watts Up With That?
> 
> Global sea ice area, as of Sunday morning, stood at 1.005 million square kilometers above average.
> 
> The sea ice surrounding Antarctica, set a new record for areal coverage.
> 
> You've been sold a myth by charlatans. You believed them because you're an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taxes on the rich?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every top marginal tax increase since Truman has resulted in less tax revenue, when adjusted for inflation. Every top marginal tax decrease has resulted in increased revenue, when adjusted. It would seem to me, if you wanted MORE money to do MORE things, you want to decrease taxes on top marginal incomes. Reagan's tax cuts sparked the longest period of peacetime prosperity in American history.
> 
> And here's another thing... Democrats passed Obamacare without a single Republican vote... why didn't they also pass a tax increase on "the rich?" Why didn't they end the Bush Tax Cuts? Here, let me help you with that... they didn't need Republicans, they needed DEMOCRATS!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Watts Up With That is a weather and climate commentary site (blog), created in 2006 by California meteorologist Anthony Watts, that reports on anthropogenic global warming-related issues from a skeptical point of view.
> 
> OMG Boss look who you are believing!  This guy is just like one of those "scientists" the tobacco companies paid to say smoking doesn't cause cancer.  He's a right winger!  Anti taxes.  Of course he denies man caused global warming.
> 
> Watts has expressed a skeptical view of anthropogenic CO2-driven global warming, believing the Sun, not man, is the driver of climatic change.
> 
> He admits that what most bothers him about scientists and others who claim global warming is serious, is that, "They want to change policy. They want to apply taxes
> 
> Watts is a signatory to The Heartland Institute's Manhattan Declaration which calls on world leaders to "reject the views expressed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" and abandon "all taxes, regulations, and other interventions intended to reduce emissions of CO2
> 
> So he's basically a tea bagger.  You are quoting a tea bag scientists.  Zero credibility.  The rich/corporations pay him to agree or he's a libertarian/tea bagger who really believes the shit he's saying.
Click to expand...



The new record anomaly for Southern Hemisphere sea ice, the ice encircling the southernmost continent, is 2.074 million square kilometers and was posted for the first time by the *University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaigns* The Cryosphere Today early Sunday morning.

So... University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign is a Tea Party outfit??? 

That's a good one, silly boob!


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't have to. I never claimed Zeus did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You never claimed that he didn't either.  By your logic that means you did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't have to. I never claimed Zeus did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fine I don't have to prove a negative you have to prove a positive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have to prove anything I didn't claim. I don't know what Zeus might be responsible for or if Zeus ever existed. It's not my argument. You'll need to find someone who believes in Zeus to get those answers, I can't help you.
> 
> Yes, if you want to claim something does not exist, you need to prove it. Otherwise, we can only say you have FAITH it doesn't exist... negative, positive, doesn't matter.
Click to expand...


God you are a stubborn

Confidently asserting that a theory or hypothesis is true or false even though the theory or hypothesis cannot possibly be contradicted by an observation or the outcome of any physical experiment, usually without strong evidence or good reasons.

Making unfalsifiable claims is a way to leave the realm of rational discourse, since unfalsifiable claims are often faith-based, and not founded on evidence and reason.

Example #1:

I have tiny, invisible unicorns living in my anus.  Unfortunately, these cannot be detected by any kind of scientific equipment.

Explanation: While it may actually be a fact that tiny, invisible, mythological creatures are occupying this persons opening at the lower end of the alimentary canal, it is a theory that is constructed so it cannot be falsified in any way; therefore, should not be seriously considered without significant evidence.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Antarctica sets new record for sea ice area | Watts Up With That?
> 
> Global sea ice area, as of Sunday morning, stood at 1.005 million square kilometers above average.
> 
> The sea ice surrounding Antarctica, set a new record for areal coverage.
> 
> You've been sold a myth by charlatans. You believed them because you're an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> Every top marginal tax increase since Truman has resulted in less tax revenue, when adjusted for inflation. Every top marginal tax decrease has resulted in increased revenue, when adjusted. It would seem to me, if you wanted MORE money to do MORE things, you want to decrease taxes on top marginal incomes. Reagan's tax cuts sparked the longest period of peacetime prosperity in American history.
> 
> And here's another thing... Democrats passed Obamacare without a single Republican vote... why didn't they also pass a tax increase on "the rich?" Why didn't they end the Bush Tax Cuts? Here, let me help you with that... they didn't need Republicans, they needed DEMOCRATS!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Watts Up With That is a weather and climate commentary site (blog), created in 2006 by California meteorologist Anthony Watts, that reports on anthropogenic global warming-related issues from a skeptical point of view.
> 
> OMG Boss look who you are believing!  This guy is just like one of those "scientists" the tobacco companies paid to say smoking doesn't cause cancer.  He's a right winger!  Anti taxes.  Of course he denies man caused global warming.
> 
> Watts has expressed a skeptical view of anthropogenic CO2-driven global warming, believing the Sun, not man, is the driver of climatic change.
> 
> He admits that what most bothers him about scientists and others who claim global warming is serious, is that, "They want to change policy. They want to apply taxes
> 
> Watts is a signatory to The Heartland Institute's Manhattan Declaration which calls on world leaders to "reject the views expressed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" and abandon "all taxes, regulations, and other interventions intended to reduce emissions of CO2
> 
> So he's basically a tea bagger.  You are quoting a tea bag scientists.  Zero credibility.  The rich/corporations pay him to agree or he's a libertarian/tea bagger who really believes the shit he's saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The new record anomaly for Southern Hemisphere sea ice, the ice encircling the southernmost continent, is 2.074 million square kilometers and was posted for the first time by the *University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaigns* The Cryosphere Today early Sunday morning.
> 
> So... University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign is a Tea Party outfit???
> 
> That's a good one, silly boob!
Click to expand...


I don't know are they?  All I know is the link you provided sent me to a right wing think tank / PAC.  A lying scientists basically.  Just like the ones that said cigarettes don't cause smoking.  Good night you right wing loon.  I'll pray to the pink unicorns tonight that you get smarter.  If you do overnight now that might be a real miracle but I suspect you'll be just as dumb on Wednesday as you are on Monday regardless of what I say on Tuesday.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't belive in fairies. Can you imagine someone calling me a fairy-hater because of that. Yes, it sounds ridiculous.
> 
> Pay attention Boss.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you had argued for months, logging nearly 5,000 posts on a message board against fairies, I would say you were a fairy-hater.
Click to expand...


I wonder how many posts you've made in this thread alone.  Does that make you an atheist-hater?


----------



## HUGGY

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Watts Up With That is a weather and climate commentary site (blog), created in 2006 by California meteorologist Anthony Watts, that reports on anthropogenic global warming-related issues from a skeptical point of view.
> 
> OMG Boss look who you are believing!  This guy is just like one of those "scientists" the tobacco companies paid to say smoking doesn't cause cancer.  He's a right winger!  Anti taxes.  Of course he denies man caused global warming.
> 
> Watts has expressed a skeptical view of anthropogenic CO2-driven global warming, believing the Sun, not man, is the driver of climatic change.
> 
> He admits that what most bothers him about scientists and others who claim global warming is serious, is that, "They want to change policy. They want to apply taxes
> 
> Watts is a signatory to The Heartland Institute's Manhattan Declaration which calls on world leaders to "reject the views expressed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" and abandon "all taxes, regulations, and other interventions intended to reduce emissions of CO2
> 
> So he's basically a tea bagger.  You are quoting a tea bag scientists.  Zero credibility.  The rich/corporations pay him to agree or he's a libertarian/tea bagger who really believes the shit he's saying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The new record anomaly for Southern Hemisphere sea ice, the ice encircling the southernmost continent, is 2.074 million square kilometers and was posted for the first time by the *University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaigns* The Cryosphere Today early Sunday morning.
> 
> So... University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign is a Tea Party outfit???
> 
> That's a good one, silly boob!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know are they?  All I know is the link you provided sent me to a right wing think tank / PAC.  A lying scientists basically.  Just like the ones that said cigarettes don't cause smoking.  Good night you right wing loon.  I'll pray to the pink unicorns tonight that you get smarter.  If you do overnight now that might be a real miracle but I suspect you'll be just as dumb on Wednesday as you are on Monday regardless of what I say on Tuesday.
Click to expand...


How do we know it isn't your ass unicorns doing the talking?


----------



## AtheistBuddah

Boss said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't belive in fairies. Can you imagine someone calling me a fairy-hater because of that. Yes, it sounds ridiculous.
> 
> Pay attention Boss.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you had argued for months, logging nearly 5,000 posts on a message board against fairies, I would say you were a fairy-hater.
Click to expand...


Well if a religion sprang up around the belief in fairies that promoted half the heinous shit that Christianity promotes and that religion then tried to force it's belief and rules into laws that everyone in this country had to follow then yes we would be logging in 5k plus posts basing fairies and all that believe in them. Honestly I don't give a damn what you or anyone else believes in or doesn't believe in. I don't care what customs or rules you choose to adhere to as long as they don't bring harm to others and you don't try to push them on others. That's all. Religion in my opinion has crossed a line. Heck it started out on the wrong side of that line. All I and many others want is for religion to get back on the other side of that line and keep their religion to themselves.


----------



## AtheistBuddah

Tolerance. Equality. Liberty. These things are sacred and MUST be protected. People have the right to live the way they want to as long as it doesn't bring measurable, quantifiable harm to other people or their property.


----------



## THE LIGHT

AtheistBuddah said:


> Tolerance. Equality. Liberty. These things are sacred and MUST be protected. People have the right to live the way they want to as long as it doesn't bring measurable, quantifiable harm to other people or their property.



Who determines what is "tolerant"?
Who determines what is "equal"?
Who determines what is "liberty"?


----------



## AtheistBuddah

THE LIGHT said:


> AtheistBuddah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tolerance. Equality. Liberty. These things are sacred and MUST be protected. People have the right to live the way they want to as long as it doesn't bring measurable, quantifiable harm to other people or their property.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who determines what is "tolerant"?
> Who determines what is "equal"?
> Who determines what is "liberty"?
Click to expand...



Um common sense actually. It's pretty simple really. If it doesn't hurt you, anything you own, or anyone/anything else for that matter. THEN I HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO IT. Period. And our laws should reflect this fact. For example, if two gay men or two lesbians wish to marry. Then how the fuck does that even begin to affect you, me or anyone but the two of them? I can see where the issues arises in the case of abortion because we can't all agree on whether or not a fetus is a person and if it is then abortion would definitely be classified on doing harm to another person so I'm willing to talk about that one. But gay rights? C'mon. Let's just let them get married and move on. Same with the whole contraception thing. Employers don't want to pay for birth control (a form of contraception) but are cool paying for vasectomies (another form of contraception) it's bullshit and we all know it.

PS. I'm talking measurable physical or psychological harm here not whether or not it makes other people butthurt. Get over it. Gays are people too and people have the right to get married.


----------



## Boss

AtheistBuddah said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't belive in fairies. Can you imagine someone calling me a fairy-hater because of that. Yes, it sounds ridiculous.
> 
> Pay attention Boss.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you had argued for months, logging nearly 5,000 posts on a message board against fairies, I would say you were a fairy-hater.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well if a religion sprang up around the belief in fairies that promoted half the heinous shit that Christianity promotes and that religion then tried to force it's belief and rules into laws that everyone in this country had to follow then yes we would be logging in 5k plus posts basing fairies and all that believe in them. Honestly I don't give a damn what you or anyone else believes in or doesn't believe in. I don't care what customs or rules you choose to adhere to as long as they don't bring harm to others and you don't try to push them on others. That's all. Religion in my opinion has crossed a line. Heck it started out on the wrong side of that line. All I and many others want is for religion to get back on the other side of that line and keep their religion to themselves.
Click to expand...


Problem is, you live in a democratic society where we all have an equal voice and say in the laws and rules that govern our communities. You don't get to dismiss my opinion because you don't like it, just as I don't get to dismiss yours because it offends me. 

No one can force you to be a Christian, it's not possible. Christianity is a religion of acceptance, and unless you accept Christ as your personal savior, you cannot be a Christian. I don't care what you think or what anyone else tells you, that is a fact of life. Christians have as much right to construct laws as you have, and they can construct those laws based on their personal beliefs, including their religious beliefs... especially their religious beliefs, as a matter of fact.


----------



## Boss

AtheistBuddah said:


> Tolerance. Equality. Liberty. These things are sacred and MUST be protected. People have the right to live the way they want to as long as it doesn't bring measurable, quantifiable harm to other people or their property.



You should shut the fuck up talking about "tolerance" until you have an inkling of an idea of what that means. You wouldn't know tolerance if it was sitting in your lap calling you mamma! 

People simply do NOT have the right to live the way they want with disregard for the rest of society. You don't get to be the only one who can quantify "harm to others" or any damn thing else, for that matter. You're ONE voice. Your opinion is equal to everyone else's opinion, it's not special, it doesn't get special consideration.


----------



## Boss

AtheistBuddah said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AtheistBuddah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tolerance. Equality. Liberty. These things are sacred and MUST be protected. People have the right to live the way they want to as long as it doesn't bring measurable, quantifiable harm to other people or their property.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who determines what is "tolerant"?
> Who determines what is "equal"?
> Who determines what is "liberty"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Um common sense actually. It's pretty simple really. If it doesn't hurt you, anything you own, or anyone/anything else for that matter. THEN I HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO IT. Period. And our laws should reflect this fact. For example, if two gay men or two lesbians wish to marry. Then how the fuck does that even begin to affect you, me or anyone but the two of them? I can see where the issues arises in the case of abortion because we can't all agree on whether or not a fetus is a person and if it is then abortion would definitely be classified on doing harm to another person so I'm willing to talk about that one. But gay rights? C'mon. Let's just let them get married and move on. Same with the whole contraception thing. Employers don't want to pay for birth control (a form of contraception) but are cool paying for vasectomies (another form of contraception) it's bullshit and we all know it.
> 
> PS. I'm talking measurable physical or psychological harm here not whether or not it makes other people butthurt. Get over it. Gays are people too and people have the right to get married.
Click to expand...


Again, YOU are not the final judge on what harms others. I might not see any harm in being able to peek into your windows at night and watch your wife get undressed. I doubt you'd share my opinion, but fuck you... it's not "harming" you in any way! Our laws should reflect what the people want as boundaries and limitations. And NO.... we don't need to just allow homosexual people to redefine something like "marriage" in order to legitimize their sexual lifestyle. It destroys the social foundation of family and shits on religious sanctity. That is clearly "harm to others" in my book, and  I don't give a damn if you disagree. 

There are ways to remedy the "problems" of gay couples wanting to play hubby and wife. I'm a strong Civil Unions supporter, and I think we ought to get government out of the "marriage" business altogether. They shouldn't be defining what 'marriage' means to the individual, whether straight OR gay. We can't get to a sensible and reasonable solution like that because of extremist activist idiots who want to push their agendas on the rest of society. 

As for the whole contraception issue.... talk to Ruth Ginsberg! She's your gal! The SCOTUS ruled in the Hobby Lobby case, and now you'll have to live with that decision just like we have to live with Roe v. Wade. 

...Tolerance baby, tolerance!


----------



## PostmodernProph

AtheistBuddah said:


> and that religion then tried to force it's belief and rules into laws that everyone in this country had to follow



I apologize for proposing a new law that unless you converted to Christianity you got your balls cut off......however, it was for your own good......


----------



## PostmodernProph

AtheistBuddah said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AtheistBuddah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tolerance. Equality. Liberty. These things are sacred and MUST be protected. People have the right to live the way they want to as long as it doesn't bring measurable, quantifiable harm to other people or their property.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who determines what is "tolerant"?
> Who determines what is "equal"?
> Who determines what is "liberty"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Um common sense actually. It's pretty simple really. If it doesn't hurt you, anything you own, or anyone/anything else for that matter. THEN I HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO IT. Period. And our laws should reflect this fact. For example, if two gay men or two lesbians wish to marry. Then how the fuck does that even begin to affect you, me or anyone but the two of them? I can see where the issues arises in the case of abortion because we can't all agree on whether or not a fetus is a person and if it is then abortion would definitely be classified on doing harm to another person so I'm willing to talk about that one. But gay rights? C'mon. Let's just let them get married and move on. Same with the whole contraception thing. Employers don't want to pay for birth control (a form of contraception) but are cool paying for vasectomies (another form of contraception) it's bullshit and we all know it.
> 
> PS. I'm talking measurable physical or psychological harm here not whether or not it makes other people butthurt. Get over it. Gays are people too and people have the right to get married.
Click to expand...


if they get married do I have the right to pay no attention to them?.....or do I have to bake them wedding cakes and take their wedding pictures in order to stay in business?.....


----------



## sealybobo

THE LIGHT said:


> AtheistBuddah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tolerance. Equality. Liberty. These things are sacred and MUST be protected. People have the right to live the way they want to as long as it doesn't bring measurable, quantifiable harm to other people or their property.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who determines what is "tolerant"?
> Who determines what is "equal"?
> Who determines what is "liberty"?
Click to expand...


We do.  Just like 5000 years ago the politicians/priests wrote the old testament, today we have laws.  

Or should we have some fake holy men go meet in secret and come out with a book that supposedly god told them to write and told them exactly what to write and to be honest, a lot of it seems like man made bullshit.  

Who do you think should determine those things?  An ancient outdated book?

Maybe you need the lie that god exists but I don't and I think it's insulting that you freaks think society needs god or else it'll fall apart.  Maybe it's falling apart because people are stupid enough to be suckered by con artist churches that are tax free big business' and politicians who cater to the ignorance of those religions.


----------



## sealybobo

PostmodernProph said:


> AtheistBuddah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who determines what is "tolerant"?
> Who determines what is "equal"?
> Who determines what is "liberty"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um common sense actually. It's pretty simple really. If it doesn't hurt you, anything you own, or anyone/anything else for that matter. THEN I HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO IT. Period. And our laws should reflect this fact. For example, if two gay men or two lesbians wish to marry. Then how the fuck does that even begin to affect you, me or anyone but the two of them? I can see where the issues arises in the case of abortion because we can't all agree on whether or not a fetus is a person and if it is then abortion would definitely be classified on doing harm to another person so I'm willing to talk about that one. But gay rights? C'mon. Let's just let them get married and move on. Same with the whole contraception thing. Employers don't want to pay for birth control (a form of contraception) but are cool paying for vasectomies (another form of contraception) it's bullshit and we all know it.
> 
> PS. I'm talking measurable physical or psychological harm here not whether or not it makes other people butthurt. Get over it. Gays are people too and people have the right to get married.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if they get married do I have the right to pay no attention to them?.....or do I have to bake them wedding cakes and take their wedding pictures in order to stay in business?.....
Click to expand...


Can you tell a black man and white woman you won't bake them a cake because you don't like white women fucking N**#rs?  I'm sure 50 years ago your grandfather asked that very same question.   

Trust me, their $ spends just fine.  I'm sure as a business you understand to put all that emotional bullshit aside while you are at work.  Corporations don't give a shit about religion, sexual orientation, race.  Business only cares about profits.  So if you are denying gays $ chances are you aren't a good business man and won't be around for long.

Like Hobby Lobby.  I bet they won't be around in 10 years.  Meanwhile they are just trying to cut costs so they want to stop paying for birth control.  Good.  Now they can pay for maternaty leave.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> Again, YOU are not the final judge on what harms others. I might not see any harm in being able to peek into your windows at night and watch your wife get undressed. I doubt you'd share my opinion, but fuck you... it's not "harming" you in any way! Our laws should reflect what the people want as boundaries and limitations. And NO.... we don't need to just allow homosexual people to redefine something like "marriage" in order to legitimize their sexual lifestyle. It destroys the social foundation of family and shits on religious sanctity. That is clearly "harm to others" in my book, and  I don't give a damn if you disagree.
> 
> There are ways to remedy the "problems" of gay couples wanting to play hubby and wife. I'm a strong Civil Unions supporter, and I think we ought to get government out of the "marriage" business altogether. They shouldn't be defining what 'marriage' means to the individual, whether straight OR gay. We can't get to a sensible and reasonable solution like that because of extremist activist idiots who want to push their agendas on the rest of society.
> 
> As for the whole contraception issue.... talk to Ruth Ginsberg! She's your gal! The SCOTUS ruled in the Hobby Lobby case, and now you'll have to live with that decision just like we have to live with Roe v. Wade.
> 
> ...Tolerance baby, tolerance!



You are so stupid.  We don't give a fuck what a fuckin retard like you thinks is ok.  Ignorance of the fucking law is no excuse.  And if you need a imaginary god to tell you not to be a pervert, I don't know what that says about you Boss.  Maybe your parents didn't raise you properly.  

If you don't understand how invading someone's privacy harms someone, maybe you aren't smart enough to be on USMB.  Maybe you should be on USduMB.

And no one cares what you call gay marriage.  You can call it civil union or two guys butt fucking while you jack off thinking about it.  Whatever you want to call it is cool with me.  I'm going to call it marriage.  AND, they are going to get all the same benefits straight married couples get.  

Are you going to cry if I call them husband and husband?  Are you going to DEMAND the marriage license doesn't say Marriage on it?  Because you care why?


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are so stupid.  We don't give a fuck what a fuckin retard like you thinks is ok.  Ignorance of the fucking law is no excuse.  And if you need a imaginary god to tell you not to be a pervert, I don't know what that says about you Boss.  Maybe your parents didn't raise you properly.
> 
> If you don't understand how invading someone's privacy harms someone, maybe you aren't smart enough to be on USMB.  Maybe you should be on USduMB.
> 
> And no one cares what you call gay marriage.  You can call it civil union or two guys butt fucking while you jack off thinking about it.  Whatever you want to call it is cool with me.  I'm going to call it marriage.  AND, they are going to get all the same benefits straight married couples get.
> 
> Are you going to cry if I call them husband and husband?  Are you going to DEMAND the marriage license doesn't say Marriage on it?  Because you care why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I understand you don't give a fuck... that's the crux of the problem here. You've gotten way too big for your britches. You think America is a place you own and control because you've managed to win a few elections. You believe you can make your own rules for society and disregard what others want. It's always been the danger with liberals, they don't believe in democratic government, they believe in authoritative fascist totalitarianism. Give them a little power and suddenly they are little Mussolinis. Cramming their liberalism down our throat and telling us they don't give a fuck what we think about it.
> 
> I don't hate gay people. I am highly offended by that allegation. My personal position on CUs comes from a gay couple that I've known for 30 years. Do you think they are homophobes? Like them, I am opposed to Government determining what is or isn't legitimate sexual behavior. Marriage is the union of a man and woman, not two homosexuals, not a woman and her german shepherd, not a man and his harem. Now my gay friends had a wedding in the backwoods of 'ignorant redneck knuckledraggin' Alabama, in 1986! In their eyes, they are as "married" as any traditional married couple on the planet. They are fine with the State of Alabama not recognizing their marriage, it hasn't bothered them one bit.
Click to expand...


----------



## THE LIGHT

AtheistBuddah said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AtheistBuddah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tolerance. Equality. Liberty. These things are sacred and MUST be protected. People have the right to live the way they want to as long as it doesn't bring measurable, quantifiable harm to other people or their property.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who determines what is "tolerant"?
> Who determines what is "equal"?
> Who determines what is "liberty"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Um common sense actually. It's pretty simple really. If it doesn't hurt you, anything you own, or anyone/anything else for that matter. THEN I HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO IT. Period. And our laws should reflect this fact. For example, if two gay men or two lesbians wish to marry. Then how the fuck does that even begin to affect you, me or anyone but the two of them? I can see where the issues arises in the case of abortion because we can't all agree on whether or not a fetus is a person and if it is then abortion would definitely be classified on doing harm to another person so I'm willing to talk about that one. But gay rights? C'mon. Let's just let them get married and move on. Same with the whole contraception thing. Employers don't want to pay for birth control (a form of contraception) but are cool paying for vasectomies (another form of contraception) it's bullshit and we all know it.
> 
> PS. I'm talking measurable physical or psychological harm here not whether or not it makes other people butthurt. Get over it. Gays are people too and people have the right to get married.
Click to expand...



That still doesn't answer my questions. Who determines what is "measurable physical or psychological harm"? Hearing the word gay rights could psychologically harm someone. So who is to determine? All I need to know is "who"


----------



## Tuatara

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No shit.....It is prophecy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if Jesus existence could be established, this would in no way validate Christian theology or any element of the story portrayed in the Bible, such as the performance of miracles or the resurrection. Simply because it is conceivable a heretical Jewish preacher named Yeshua lived circa 30 AD, had followers and was executed, does not imply the son of a god walked the Earth at that time.
> 
> And we have already established the entire jewish & christian religions start with a lie.  7 out of 10 don't think Adam & Eve or Noah are literal historical figures.  They admit those are just stories.  So a lie.
> 
> Now, if the book of Genesis is an allegory, then sin is an allegory, the Fall is an allegory and the need for a Savior is an allegory  but if we are all descendants of an allegory, where does that leave us? It destroys the foundation of all Christian doctrineit destroys the foundation of the gospel. - Ken Ham
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 2000 + years prove you very WRONG!!! GOD'S WORD IS GOD INSPIRED(GOD BREATHED) LIVING ETERNAL WORD!!!
Click to expand...

Screenshot by Lightshot


You're done.


----------



## Tuatara

THE LIGHT said:


> That still doesn't answer my questions. Who determines what is "measurable physical or psychological harm"? Hearing the word gay rights could psychologically harm someone. So who is to determine? All I need to know is "who"


Has there been a case of someone who has suffrered psychological harm from hearing the words "gay rights"? I don't think so. But if you can provide any medical journals that tell otherwise, please give details.


----------



## Tuatara

Boss said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't belive in fairies. Can you imagine someone calling me a fairy-hater because of that. Yes, it sounds ridiculous.
> 
> Pay attention Boss.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you had argued for months, logging nearly 5,000 posts on a message board against fairies, I would say you were a fairy-hater.
Click to expand...

Thankfully fairy believers (yes there are some who do believe in them) are not trying to force their beliefs onto others or are getting tax breaks or condemn others for not believing in fairies for if they did, I would argue their insanity with purpose. It still is ridiculous.


----------



## Boss

> Thankfully fairy believers (yes there are some who do believe in them) are not trying to force their beliefs onto others or are getting tax breaks or condemn others for not believing in fairies for if they did, I would argue their insanity with purpose. It still is ridiculous.



Well I hate to tell you this but people are always going to force their beliefs on you in any civilized democratic society. We don't live in some Utopian fantasy world where everyone gets to do as they please. That's not civil society, that's anarchy, and believe me, you don't want it. 

No one is forcing you to adopt a religious belief. That has NEVER happened in America. You know where that DOES happen? In countries where they don't have a self-governing representative republic, where all men are created equal and have an equal voice. 

What you are opposed to is TOLERANCE. As ironic as that is, it's your problem. You are an intolerant anti-social bigot who doesn't want to get along with others. You've made your mind up that we're all going to follow your rules and live the way you want, and we're getting no peace until we agree. Well people don't agree with you, they don't want the society you want. So what you're going to need to do is pick up arms and declare a war. That's the only way to get people to stop forcing their beliefs on you. Take over the country and install some tin-horn dictator who promises you the Utopian world you want, then you'll be happy!


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AtheistBuddah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um common sense actually. It's pretty simple really. If it doesn't hurt you, anything you own, or anyone/anything else for that matter. THEN I HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO IT. Period. And our laws should reflect this fact. For example, if two gay men or two lesbians wish to marry. Then how the fuck does that even begin to affect you, me or anyone but the two of them? I can see where the issues arises in the case of abortion because we can't all agree on whether or not a fetus is a person and if it is then abortion would definitely be classified on doing harm to another person so I'm willing to talk about that one. But gay rights? C'mon. Let's just let them get married and move on. Same with the whole contraception thing. Employers don't want to pay for birth control (a form of contraception) but are cool paying for vasectomies (another form of contraception) it's bullshit and we all know it.
> 
> PS. I'm talking measurable physical or psychological harm here not whether or not it makes other people butthurt. Get over it. Gays are people too and people have the right to get married.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if they get married do I have the right to pay no attention to them?.....or do I have to bake them wedding cakes and take their wedding pictures in order to stay in business?.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you tell a black man and white woman you won't bake them a cake because you don't like white women fucking N**#rs?  I'm sure 50 years ago your grandfather asked that very same question.
Click to expand...

???....must have been your grandfather, not mine.....be that as it may there is a similarity......the law had to redefine marriage to keep whites from marrying blacks, just as the law had to redefine marriage to allow men to marry men......one small segment of society forcing its definitions on everyone in both cases.....


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> Like Hobby Lobby.  I bet they won't be around in 10 years.  Meanwhile they are just trying to cut costs so they want to stop paying for birth control.  Good.  Now they can pay for maternaty leave.



so you admit that forcing your beliefs on others makes you feel good?......


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> If you don't understand how invading someone's privacy harms someone, maybe you aren't smart enough to be on USMB.  Maybe you should be on USduMB.



maybe this has passed your notice, but we aren't talking about what someone does in the privacy of their bedroom......we are talking about what they are doing in the courthouse to require everyone to take notice of their "privacy"........


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> AND, they are going to get all the same benefits straight married couples get.



if this were about benefits, why aren't you demanding equal benefits for unmarried heterosexual couples?........


----------



## HUGGY

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't understand how invading someone's privacy harms someone, maybe you aren't smart enough to be on USMB.  Maybe you should be on USduMB.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> maybe this has passed your notice, but we aren't talking about what someone does in the privacy of their bedroom......we are talking about what they are doing in the courthouse to require everyone to take notice of their "privacy"........
Click to expand...


They are butt fucking in the courthouses????   Well !!!  I never !!!

And Boss is spankin his monkey thinking about it ?????

This thread has takin a turn for the worse...


----------



## Delta4Embassy

'God-hater' strikes me as an inaccurate term. I do not believe in gods, but I can't hate gods if I don't believe they exist. But for me at least it's more I hate people who demand I do their bidding because their unproven god says whatever. It's not the god or the religion I hate but the followers.


----------



## Steven_R

Delta4Embassy said:


> 'God-hater' strikes me as an inaccurate term. I do not believe in gods, but I can't hate gods if I don't believe they exist. But for me at least it's more I hate people who demand I do their bidding because their unproven god says whatever. It's not the god or the religion I hate but the followers.



I don't even hate the followers, at least the ones who just believe in whatever while leaving me alone. I'm willing to hate those that want to force me to live by their believe system or die/be imprisoned/be a second class citizen/subvert science, but someone who just goes to church and tries to be a good person and has a live and let live attitude is fine with me. That doesn't mean I don't pity them for believing in bronze age fairy tales as an adult, but if that belief somehow translates into their being happy or a better person for it, I can look the other way.


----------



## GISMYS

Steven_R said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'God-hater' strikes me as an inaccurate term. I do not believe in gods, but I can't hate gods if I don't believe they exist. But for me at least it's more I hate people who demand I do their bidding because their unproven god says whatever. It's not the god or the religion I hate but the followers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't even hate the followers, at least the ones who just believe in whatever while leaving me alone. I'm willing to hate those that want to force me to live by their believe system or die/be imprisoned/be a second class citizen/subvert science, but someone who just goes to church and tries to be a good person and has a live and let live attitude is fine with me. That doesn't mean I don't pity them for believing in bronze age fairy tales as an adult, but if that belief somehow translates into their being happy or a better person for it, I can look the other way.
Click to expand...


YES!!! GOD'S WORD says the fool says there is no GOD!! AND YOU WANT TO COME HERE AND POST ABOUT YOUR IGNORANCE!!! WHY??


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are so stupid.  We don't give a fuck what a fuckin retard like you thinks is ok.  Ignorance of the fucking law is no excuse.  And if you need a imaginary god to tell you not to be a pervert, I don't know what that says about you Boss.  Maybe your parents didn't raise you properly.
> 
> If you don't understand how invading someone's privacy harms someone, maybe you aren't smart enough to be on USMB.  Maybe you should be on USduMB.
> 
> And no one cares what you call gay marriage.  You can call it civil union or two guys butt fucking while you jack off thinking about it.  Whatever you want to call it is cool with me.  I'm going to call it marriage.  AND, they are going to get all the same benefits straight married couples get.
> 
> Are you going to cry if I call them husband and husband?  Are you going to DEMAND the marriage license doesn't say Marriage on it?  Because you care why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I understand you don't give a fuck... that's the crux of the problem here. You've gotten way too big for your britches. You think America is a place you own and control because you've managed to win a few elections. You believe you can make your own rules for society and disregard what others want. It's always been the danger with liberals, they don't believe in democratic government, they believe in authoritative fascist totalitarianism. Give them a little power and suddenly they are little Mussolinis. Cramming their liberalism down our throat and telling us they don't give a fuck what we think about it.
> 
> I don't hate gay people. I am highly offended by that allegation. My personal position on CUs comes from a gay couple that I've known for 30 years. Do you think they are homophobes? Like them, I am opposed to Government determining what is or isn't legitimate sexual behavior. Marriage is the union of a man and woman, not two homosexuals, not a woman and her german shepherd, not a man and his harem. Now my gay friends had a wedding in the backwoods of 'ignorant redneck knuckledraggin' Alabama, in 1986! In their eyes, they are as "married" as any traditional married couple on the planet. They are fine with the State of Alabama not recognizing their marriage, it hasn't bothered them one bit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes boss you are exactly right.  Way too many of us here in America want seperation of church and state and the only laws we have on the books that you don't like are the laws that go against christianity, jews or the muslim religions.  Example, abortion and gay marriage.
> 
> I thank you guys for pushing these issues because I think you all have done more to turn people away from religion in the last 40 years than I could have ever done in a lifetime.  It is issues like abortion, stem cell, birth control and gay marriage that is going to make people understand why we need seperation of church and state.
> 
> Most people understand the need for abortions.  Even anti abortion hypocrites as soon as it happens to them at the wrong time will go seek out an abortion.  So we should probably keep them safe and legal seeing as how even the people who are anti abortion are customers too.
> 
> If they want to feel guilty about it and think they're going to go to hell for it, that's great.  But we don't want to be teaching that as a society.  Another great example is gays.  I'd rather them be happy who they are rather than commit suicide because your bogus religions tell them it's immoral.
> 
> It is you who's focusing on gays sexual behaviors you fucking creep.  I'm focusing on giving them equal rights that straight married couples have.  And if you are suggesting you'd be ok with giving them all those benefits that come with being married, just as long as they call it civil unions, I'll suggest that's a fucking lie because no way you guys are that hung up on the fact that they want to call it marriage.
> 
> It hasn't bothered your gay friends one bit?  They didn't mind not being able to share health insurance like straight couples?  They don't mind not being able to adopt?  The one who dies last won't mind when his husbands family tells him to get out of the hospital room when he's dying because he can't make life choices for his partner like a married couple can do?  Instead his old family will decide and not only that they will take everything he owns because if you aren't married you don't get to keep your partners shit.  Or they won't mind that they don't get the ss benefits that straight couples do?
> 
> I don't blame your gay friends for not wanting to get married.  I think its a stupid thing to do.  Would you agree to give someone else half your wealth if at any time it isn't working out?  Not if you have any wealth you wouldn't.
> 
> Anyways, what you have said is an ignorant ignorant thing.  Just because your one hick gay friends don't care, doesn't mean a lot of gays don't.  They do.  And you will ignore everything I just said.  You will ignore that a gay man's family can come to the hospital and throw his partner out of the hospital because "they aren't married".  I saw this happen with a straight uncle of mine and his girlfriend.  The kids let her hang around until he died then they were changing the locks and not returning her phone calls anymore.  She was tossed aside.  And that is what happens to gay people.
> 
> Anyways, you are pretty much wrong about everything you believe.  Gays, abortion god.
> 
> Oh, and thank you for letting me know you live in a red neck hick state.  I should have known.  Please go tell your neighbors you don't believe in Jesus or do you keep that a secret?  Because you just know they all think you're going to hell.  So do I only for other reasons.  LOL.   Actually you know I don't believe in hell.
Click to expand...


----------



## sealybobo

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> if they get married do I have the right to pay no attention to them?.....or do I have to bake them wedding cakes and take their wedding pictures in order to stay in business?.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you tell a black man and white woman you won't bake them a cake because you don't like white women fucking N**#rs?  I'm sure 50 years ago your grandfather asked that very same question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ???....must have been your grandfather, not mine.....be that as it may there is a similarity......the law had to redefine marriage to keep whites from marrying blacks, just as the law had to redefine marriage to allow men to marry men......one small segment of society forcing its definitions on everyone in both cases.....
Click to expand...


No it was your grandfather because you sound just like those racists back then, only today you hate gays not blacks.  You've evolved a little but not much.  

Whites may have tried to redefine the law so it said marriage is between one white man and one white woman, but they failed.  Your side failed.

Oh, and maybe you just have to be open to re defining what marriage is.  Because it is no longer just for straight men and women.  Not here in America anyways.  Maybe in Russia and Iran so maybe you should move there.  

Marriage is a socially recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights, benefits and obligations between them.

Just because the old America only allowed straights to marry, doesn't mean that's how its going to be in the new America.  Just like old America didn't like black men marrying white women, eventually they will get over it.

So SO WHAT marriage up until now has been between a man and a women.  That's old and out dated.  Today it's simply a socially recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them.


----------



## sealybobo

Steven_R said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'God-hater' strikes me as an inaccurate term. I do not believe in gods, but I can't hate gods if I don't believe they exist. But for me at least it's more I hate people who demand I do their bidding because their unproven god says whatever. It's not the god or the religion I hate but the followers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't even hate the followers, at least the ones who just believe in whatever while leaving me alone. I'm willing to hate those that want to force me to live by their believe system or die/be imprisoned/be a second class citizen/subvert science, but someone who just goes to church and tries to be a good person and has a live and let live attitude is fine with me. That doesn't mean I don't pity them for believing in bronze age fairy tales as an adult, but if that belief somehow translates into their being happy or a better person for it, I can look the other way.
Click to expand...


I agree.  But I also do think religion is either bad for them or unnecessary.  A lie is still a lie no matter how good it makes them feel.  

I do hope religion goes away in the future but I agree that I don't want to burst anyone's bubble if they need religion and it makes them a better person and makes them feel good.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'God-hater' strikes me as an inaccurate term. I do not believe in gods, but I can't hate gods if I don't believe they exist. But for me at least it's more I hate people who demand I do their bidding because their unproven god says whatever. It's not the god or the religion I hate but the followers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't even hate the followers, at least the ones who just believe in whatever while leaving me alone. I'm willing to hate those that want to force me to live by their believe system or die/be imprisoned/be a second class citizen/subvert science, but someone who just goes to church and tries to be a good person and has a live and let live attitude is fine with me. That doesn't mean I don't pity them for believing in bronze age fairy tales as an adult, but if that belief somehow translates into their being happy or a better person for it, I can look the other way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree.  But I also do think religion is either bad for them or unnecessary.  A lie is still a lie no matter how good it makes them feel.
> 
> I do hope religion goes away in the future but I agree that I don't want to burst anyone's bubble if they need religion and it makes them a better person and makes them feel good.
Click to expand...


LOL!!And why do you think you are brought back here each day???? GOD is giving another chance to wise up!!!Don't waste it,it could be your last!!!


----------



## sealybobo

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> AND, they are going to get all the same benefits straight married couples get.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if this were about benefits, why aren't you demanding equal benefits for unmarried heterosexual couples?........
Click to expand...


They can get married if they want the benefits of being married.

Good point though.  It did make me think for a second.  But if they want the benefits, they got to get married.  We here in America don't give boyfriends and girlfriends marriage benefits.  Do you think we should?  Then advocate for it.  Maybe you'll convince enough of us that all you have to be in a "couple" and you can share insurance, get tax breaks, etc.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't even hate the followers, at least the ones who just believe in whatever while leaving me alone. I'm willing to hate those that want to force me to live by their believe system or die/be imprisoned/be a second class citizen/subvert science, but someone who just goes to church and tries to be a good person and has a live and let live attitude is fine with me. That doesn't mean I don't pity them for believing in bronze age fairy tales as an adult, but if that belief somehow translates into their being happy or a better person for it, I can look the other way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.  But I also do think religion is either bad for them or unnecessary.  A lie is still a lie no matter how good it makes them feel.
> 
> I do hope religion goes away in the future but I agree that I don't want to burst anyone's bubble if they need religion and it makes them a better person and makes them feel good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!!And why do you think you are brought back here each day???? GOD is giving another chance to wise up!!!Don't waste it,it could be your last!!!
Click to expand...


Are you kidding I watch religious shows for entertainment and they spin me up and I come running here to talk about how insane those people are.  If anything they/you are making me more sure agnostic atheism is the most rational position.  

You run more people away from god than anyone I know.


----------



## sealybobo

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't understand how invading someone's privacy harms someone, maybe you aren't smart enough to be on USMB.  Maybe you should be on USduMB.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> maybe this has passed your notice, but we aren't talking about what someone does in the privacy of their bedroom......we are talking about what they are doing in the courthouse to require everyone to take notice of their "privacy"........
Click to expand...


As a straight couple, do you know if me and my wife give each other oral?  Do we find out in the court house if you fuck your wife in the ass?  

Do you know which gay man in the relationship is the pitcher and which is the catcher?  

You creeps need to get off what they are doing in the privacy of their homes.  All that we care about is that they can legally marry and enjoy all the benefits that straight married couples get.  Anything beyond that is you being a fucking closet fag who can't stop thinking about a big cock in your ass or mouth.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't understand how invading someone's privacy harms someone, maybe you aren't smart enough to be on USMB.  Maybe you should be on USduMB.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> maybe this has passed your notice, but we aren't talking about what someone does in the privacy of their bedroom......we are talking about what they are doing in the courthouse to require everyone to take notice of their "privacy"........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As a straight couple, do you know if me and my wife give each other oral?  Do we find out in the court house if you fuck your wife in the ass?
> 
> Do you know which gay man in the relationship is the pitcher and which is the catcher?
> 
> You creeps need to get off what they are doing in the privacy of their homes.  All that we care about is that they can legally marry and enjoy all the benefits that straight married couples get.  Anything beyond that is you being a fucking closet fag who can't stop thinking about a big cock in your ass or mouth.
Click to expand...


you want to marry your dog?? your little sister???? "All that we care about is that they can legally marry and enjoy all the benefits that straight married couples get. ". REALLY?????? Marrage is between men and women!!! DUH!!


----------



## itfitzme

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't even hate the followers, at least the ones who just believe in whatever while leaving me alone. I'm willing to hate those that want to force me to live by their believe system or die/be imprisoned/be a second class citizen/subvert science, but someone who just goes to church and tries to be a good person and has a live and let live attitude is fine with me. That doesn't mean I don't pity them for believing in bronze age fairy tales as an adult, but if that belief somehow translates into their being happy or a better person for it, I can look the other way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.  But I also do think religion is either bad for them or unnecessary.  A lie is still a lie no matter how good it makes them feel.
> 
> I do hope religion goes away in the future but I agree that I don't want to burst anyone's bubble if they need religion and it makes them a better person and makes them feel good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!!And why do you think you are brought back here each day???? GOD is giving another chance to wise up!!!Don't waste it,it could be your last!!!
Click to expand...


So I can tell you what a moron God says you are, ever night.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> maybe this has passed your notice, but we aren't talking about what someone does in the privacy of their bedroom......we are talking about what they are doing in the courthouse to require everyone to take notice of their "privacy"........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a straight couple, do you know if me and my wife give each other oral?  Do we find out in the court house if you fuck your wife in the ass?
> 
> Do you know which gay man in the relationship is the pitcher and which is the catcher?
> 
> You creeps need to get off what they are doing in the privacy of their homes.  All that we care about is that they can legally marry and enjoy all the benefits that straight married couples get.  Anything beyond that is you being a fucking closet fag who can't stop thinking about a big cock in your ass or mouth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you want to marry your dog?? your little sister???? "All that we care about is that they can legally marry and enjoy all the benefits that straight married couples get. ". REALLY?????? Marrage is between men and women!!! DUH!!
Click to expand...


We don't allow fist cousins or siblings to get married because of birth defects.  It is illegal to fuck your sister no matter how bad you want to.  

We also don't allow people to marry other animals.  

We also don't allow adults to marry children.

Can you show me any organizations or movements that want to do these things and show me how much of the population support them? 

So neither the citizens or the courts or the churches would approve.  But, as far as gays go, the courts and citizens approve so FUCK YOUR CHURCHES.  They don't have to marry gay people so what do they care?  What do you care?  And don't say because it's ruining the sanctity of marriage because you straight breeders are doing that on your own with over 50% of you saying I DO GOD and then going and getting a divorce.

You should focus on straight divorces and fix that and leave the gays alone.


----------



## HUGGY

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> maybe this has passed your notice, but we aren't talking about what someone does in the privacy of their bedroom......we are talking about what they are doing in the courthouse to require everyone to take notice of their "privacy"........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a straight couple, do you know if me and my wife give each other oral?  Do we find out in the court house if you fuck your wife in the ass?
> 
> Do you know which gay man in the relationship is the pitcher and which is the catcher?
> 
> You creeps need to get off what they are doing in the privacy of their homes.  All that we care about is that they can legally marry and enjoy all the benefits that straight married couples get.  Anything beyond that is you being a fucking closet fag who can't stop thinking about a big cock in your ass or mouth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you want to marry your dog?? your little sister???? "All that we care about is that they can legally marry and enjoy all the benefits that straight married couples get. ". REALLY?????? Marrage is between men and women!!! DUH!!
Click to expand...


I kiss my dogs.  There I've said it.  It's true !!!  Does that make me a bad person ???


----------



## Boss

Delta4Embassy said:


> 'God-hater' strikes me as an inaccurate term. I do not believe in gods, but I can't hate gods if I don't believe they exist. But for me at least it's more I hate people who demand I do their bidding because their unproven god says whatever. It's not the god or the religion I hate but the followers.



So it's really not "God" you hate as much as it's representative democracy? 

Glad you could clear that up for us!


----------



## Boss

Steven_R said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'God-hater' strikes me as an inaccurate term. I do not believe in gods, but I can't hate gods if I don't believe they exist. But for me at least it's more I hate people who demand I do their bidding because their unproven god says whatever. It's not the god or the religion I hate but the followers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't even hate the followers, at least the ones who just believe in whatever while leaving me alone. I'm willing to hate those that want to force me to live by their believe system or die/be imprisoned/be a second class citizen/subvert science, but someone who just goes to church and tries to be a good person and has a live and let live attitude is fine with me. That doesn't mean I don't pity them for believing in bronze age fairy tales as an adult, but if that belief somehow translates into their being happy or a better person for it, I can look the other way.
Click to expand...



Ahh... so now there's two of you who hate that we live in a representative democracy. Now we're getting somewhere! I'm starting to understand!


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I understand you don't give a fuck... that's the crux of the problem here. You've gotten way too big for your britches. You think America is a place you own and control because you've managed to win a few elections. You believe you can make your own rules for society and disregard what others want. It's always been the danger with liberals, they don't believe in democratic government, they believe in authoritative fascist totalitarianism. Give them a little power and suddenly they are little Mussolinis. Cramming their liberalism down our throat and telling us they don't give a fuck what we think about it.
> 
> I don't hate gay people. I am highly offended by that allegation. My personal position on CUs comes from a gay couple that I've known for 30 years. Do you think they are homophobes? Like them, I am opposed to Government determining what is or isn't legitimate sexual behavior. Marriage is the union of a man and woman, not two homosexuals, not a woman and her german shepherd, not a man and his harem. Now my gay friends had a wedding in the backwoods of 'ignorant redneck knuckledraggin' Alabama, in 1986! In their eyes, they are as "married" as any traditional married couple on the planet. They are fine with the State of Alabama not recognizing their marriage, it hasn't bothered them one bit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes boss you are exactly right.  Way too many of us here in America want seperation of church and state and the only laws we have on the books that you don't like are the laws that go against christianity, jews or the muslim religions.  Example, abortion and gay marriage.
Click to expand...


There is nothing in the Constitution about "separation of church and state." It only says that Congress can't make laws establishing religion. I don't think that has ever come up in Congress. The phrase "separation of church and state" comes from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to Danbury Baptists, assuring them that the federal government would not interfere with their religious customs.... like marriage, for instance. 



> I thank you guys for pushing these issues because I think you all have done more to turn people away from religion in the last 40 years than I could have ever done in a lifetime.  It is issues like abortion, stem cell, birth control and gay marriage that is going to make people understand why we need seperation of church and state.



The only ones who push these issues are Democrat liberals, and they do it in order to divide people so they can win elections on emotion. It hasn't pushed anyone away from religion, it's pushing people away from politics. However, a few more cycles of insane liberal policy, and people will again become involved in politics. The pendulum has always swung back and forth, and it will again. 



> Most people understand the need for abortions.  Even anti abortion hypocrites as soon as it happens to them at the wrong time will go seek out an abortion.  So we should probably keep them safe and legal seeing as how even the people who are anti abortion are customers too.



I've said myself, I don't favor a total ban or outlawing of abortion entirely. I think most people agree to sensible criteria where the procedure is allowable under certain circumstances. The problem is, instead of us working together to reform the insanity, it has only become more perverse and insane. We are literally birthing babies and killing them as they are being born. That is infanticide and it's wrong. Obummer voted for a bill in Illinois to allow doctors to murder children born accidentally in botched partial birth cases. It did not matter that the child had been born, it was the intent to abort that took priority. That's wrong. I don't give a shit about choices or rights... that's wrong. I don't care about liberal or conservative... that's wrong. I don't care if you believe in God or not... that's wrong. I will not stand for it, I will not tolerate it. I don't care what names you call me, I don't care how much you scream about rights, I am not going to support that. EVER! 



> If they want to feel guilty about it and think they're going to go to hell for it, that's great.  But we don't want to be teaching that as a society.  Another great example is gays.  I'd rather them be happy who they are rather than commit suicide because your bogus religions tell them it's immoral.



Again, you don't get to decide by yourself what we teach as society. No one gave you that authority. We all have equal rights to speak our opinions and be politically active on the issues we feel passionate about, and you don't get to take that away from anyone. 

I'd rather gays be happy too! I want to come together as a society and agree that government shouldn't be deciding what individuals call "marriage" or defining it according to sexuality. That's why I am a big supporter of Civil Unions, and a plan that would resolve this issue forever. It is the activists who don't want this. You'd rather have the issue dividing us so you can win elections on emotion, as opposed to helping gays be happy. 



> It is you who's focusing on gays sexual behaviors you fucking creep.  I'm focusing on giving them equal rights that straight married couples have.  And if you are suggesting you'd be ok with giving them all those benefits that come with being married, just as long as they call it civil unions, I'll suggest that's a fucking lie because no way you guys are that hung up on the fact that they want to call it marriage.



They already have equal rights. No gay person has ever been denied a license to marry a person of the opposite sex, which is what marriage is. What you want is to pervert marriage in order to legitimize sexual behavior, and I am opposed to that. I don't think that is the government's business. As for "benefits" how about we abolish the IRS and do away with income taxes? Then there are no federal "benefits" to being married. If we have to require some identifier to distinguish between single persons and couples, it should be something generic that doesn't have anything to do with sexuality. Civil Unions could be used in any number of situations... a daughter and her aging mother, for example. Two spinster sisters... platonic friends that are bffs and roomies... whatever. Any two legal age adults could obtain a CU and this would suffice as a 'domestic partnership' under the law, with the same ramifications as traditional marriage currently carries. I honestly can't say how many people "on my side" agree with that, I don't care, really. That is MY solution. 



> It hasn't bothered your gay friends one bit?  They didn't mind not being able to share health insurance like straight couples?  They don't mind not being able to adopt?  The one who dies last won't mind when his husbands family tells him to get out of the hospital room when he's dying because he can't make life choices for his partner like a married couple can do?  Instead his old family will decide and not only that they will take everything he owns because if you aren't married you don't get to keep your partners shit.  Or they won't mind that they don't get the ss benefits that straight couples do?



Nope. They found that most of those things can be worked around and the ones that can't, don't really matter to them. They don't believe gay couples should be allowed to adopt because children are better off in a traditional mother-father family. Their families accept they are gay, most of them were at their wedding. All their property is jointly owned. Not sure about their insurance,  I think they have individual policies. They are concerned about SS benefits but that's why they support CU reform. But the main thing is, they don't want the government defining their relationship, they don't need that. Never have. 



> I don't blame your gay friends for not wanting to get married.  I think its a stupid thing to do.  Would you agree to give someone else half your wealth if at any time it isn't working out?  Not if you have any wealth you wouldn't.



Again... they held a wedding ceremony in rural Alabama back in 1986. No hick sheriff was there to tell them they couldn't do that. No redneck church folk were there protesting. They had a photographer, a wedding cake, full ceremony with a Rastafarian priest... it was beautiful. They feel they are as "married" as anyone. They are both fairly wealthy people in their own right, and they have wills which are clear on disbursement of assets should they die. They both have life insurance policies naming the other as beneficiary. There is no law that says you have to be straight to do that. Again, these are false myths perpetrated by activists who are pushing an emotive agenda. 



> Anyways, what you have said is an ignorant ignorant thing.  Just because your one hick gay friends don't care, doesn't mean a lot of gays don't.  They do.  And you will ignore everything I just said.  You will ignore that a gay man's family can come to the hospital and throw his partner out of the hospital because "they aren't married".  I saw this happen with a straight uncle of mine and his girlfriend.  The kids let her hang around until he died then they were changing the locks and not returning her phone calls anymore.  She was tossed aside.  And that is what happens to gay people.



Well but, no... it's not what happens. I'm giving you a real life example of two gay people who wanted to share their life together and didn't care about the obstacles. They made that happen. They are happy together... about to celebrate their 30th anniversary. I'm sorry for your straight uncle and his straight girlfriend, but it has nothing to do with this. 



> Anyways, you are pretty much wrong about everything you believe.  Gays, abortion god.
> 
> Oh, and thank you for letting me know you live in a red neck hick state.  I should have known.  Please go tell your neighbors you don't believe in Jesus or do you keep that a secret?  Because you just know they all think you're going to hell.  So do I only for other reasons.  LOL.   Actually you know I don't believe in hell.



But you don't get to decide what I believe. That's the thing. You seem to think this is your right and it's not. You have the right to think I am wrong, and I have the right to be wrong. You have to TOLERATE that in a civil society. And I have to TOLERATE you. That's how this works.

As for me telling my neighbors things, I don't care what my neighbors think. This somehow  seems to be a really big deal with liberals, they want to be liked and admired by others. So they concoct these emotive social issues so they can pretend they are standing up for rights and being good people, and they think this makes them look good to others. What I find more time than not is, it's a compensation for their true bigoted shortcomings. They don't believe we are all equal, they believe some of us are different and entitled to special consideration because of that. They don't believe in tolerance, they believe society should conform to their liberal ideals and if they don't get their way, they call people racist and ignorant. They don't believe in a free society where we all have an equal voice, they believe their voice is superior and opposition must be silenced. They aren't interested in finding ways to compromise and get along, they want to continue dividing us and tearing us apart so they can advance their agenda.


----------



## DriftingSand

Delta4Embassy said:


> 'God-hater' strikes me as an inaccurate term. I do not believe in gods, but I can't hate gods if I don't believe they exist. But for me at least it's more I hate people who demand I do their bidding because their unproven god says whatever. It's not the god or the religion I hate but the followers.



List ten individuals who "demand that you do their bidding."  What a ridiculous statement!

If anyone "demands" that you do their bidding -- just say NO if you don't feel like it.  That way you can remove the "hate" from your heart because that won't hurt anyone but you.


----------



## GISMYS

DriftingSand said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'God-hater' strikes me as an inaccurate term. I do not believe in gods, but I can't hate gods if I don't believe they exist. But for me at least it's more I hate people who demand I do their bidding because their unproven god says whatever. It's not the god or the religion I hate but the followers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> List ten individuals who "demand that you do their bidding."  What a ridiculous statement!
> 
> If anyone "demands" that you do their bidding -- just say NO if you don't feel like it.  That way you can remove the "hate" from your heart because that won't hurt anyone but you.
Click to expand...


GOD IS NOT WILLING THAT ANY PERISH But you are free to reject GOD'S love and forgivness and choose death and hell===but why do that??? THINK!!!


----------



## Tuatara

Boss said:


> Thankfully fairy believers (yes there are some who do believe in them) are not trying to force their beliefs onto others or are getting tax breaks or condemn others for not believing in fairies for if they did, I would argue their insanity with purpose. It still is ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I hate to tell you this but people are always going to force their beliefs on you in any civilized democratic society.
Click to expand...

People will try and force their beliefs under any and all societies. 




> We don't live in some Utopian fantasy world where everyone gets to do as they please.


 We should as long as what they are doing doesn't harm anyone else.



> That's not civil society, that's anarchy, and believe me, you don't want it.


I don't remember any atheists here asking for anarchy. There are many socities where the overwhemong majority are atheists. Guess what. No anarchy.



> No one is forcing you to adopt a religious belief. That has NEVER happened in America.


Force, maybe not but what ever happened to separation of church and state? Religions and religious symbols have definitely been legislated illegally in the US. If you don't believe me then think how you and all your other christians buddies would react if they were forced to participate in a Muslim prayer every day.




> You know where that DOES happen? In countries where they don't have a self-governing representative republic, where all men are created equal and have an equal voice.


 Wrong again. In the US all men are not created equal. Just ask blacks, gays and other minorities.



> What you are opposed to is TOLERANCE. As ironic as that is, it's your problem.


The real irony is, is that Christians are a lot more intolerant than atheists, by far.




> You are an intolerant anti-social bigot who doesn't want to get along with others.


 I'm very social and I tolerate just about everyone. I have many christian friends. I don't care what religion, race or sexual prefernce the person has. Not everyone here can say that.



> You've made your mind up that we're all going to follow your rules and live the way you want, and we're getting no peace until we agree.


 I don't want everyone to live the way I want. When did I say this?




> Well people don't agree with you, they don't want the society you want.


 And exactly what is this society I want? I don't remember projecting anything of the sort.   





> So what you're going to need to do is pick up arms and declare a war. That's the only way to get people to stop forcing their beliefs on you.


 You just said the US doesn't force beliefs on anyone and now you say the only way to do it is by violence. I think you're losing your marbles.




> Take over the country and install some tin-horn dictator who promises you the Utopian world you want, then you'll be happy!


I don't remember describing any kind of Utopian that I want and why would I want a dictator even though I know your government has supported so many in the recent past.


----------



## THE LIGHT

Delta4Embassy said:


> 'God-hater' strikes me as an inaccurate term. I do not believe in gods, but I can't hate gods if I don't believe they exist. But for me at least it's more *I hate people* who demand I do their bidding because their unproven god says whatever. It's not the god or the religion I hate but the followers.



&#8220;*If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you*." (John 15:18)

"Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us." (Psalms 2:1-3)

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;" (Romans 3:23)

"As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:" (Romans 3:10)


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'God-hater' strikes me as an inaccurate term. I do not believe in gods, but I can't hate gods if I don't believe they exist. But for me at least it's more I hate people who demand I do their bidding because their unproven god says whatever. It's not the god or the religion I hate but the followers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it's really not "God" you hate as much as it's representative democracy?
> 
> Glad you could clear that up for us!
Click to expand...


You define a representative democracy as 'people demanding you do their bidding'?


----------



## THE LIGHT

Tuatara said:


> We should as long as what they are doing doesn't harm anyone else.



What is considered harm? and who determines it?



Tuatara said:


> Wrong again. In the US all men are not created equal. Just ask blacks, gays and other minorities.



Which blacks should I ask? The ones that are oppressed, or the ones oppressing the ones that are oppressed (i.e. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Maxine Waters ...etc).

Equality stems from a Creator, but the creator has been rejected in the US these days.



Tuatara said:


> The real irony is, is that Christians are a lot more intolerant than atheists, by far.



And what is tolerance?



Tuatara said:


> I'm very social and I tolerate *just about* everyone. I have many christian friends. I don't care what religion, race or sexual prefernce the person has. Not everyone here can say that.



 I too tolerate everyone but those who I don't tolerate.


----------



## DriftingSand

GISMYS said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'God-hater' strikes me as an inaccurate term. I do not believe in gods, but I can't hate gods if I don't believe they exist. But for me at least it's more I hate people who demand I do their bidding because their unproven god says whatever. It's not the god or the religion I hate but the followers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> List ten individuals who "demand that you do their bidding."  What a ridiculous statement!
> 
> If anyone "demands" that you do their bidding -- just say NO if you don't feel like it.  That way you can remove the "hate" from your heart because that won't hurt anyone but you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> GOD IS NOT WILLING THAT ANY PERISH But you are free to reject GOD'S love and forgivness and choose death and hell===but why do that??? THINK!!!
Click to expand...


Sorry but your post has ZERO to relevance in respect to what I posted. Please "think" about what you post and try to make sure it pertains to the topic at hand.  Thank you sir.


----------



## Boss

Tuatara said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thankfully fairy believers (yes there are some who do believe in them) are not trying to force their beliefs onto others or are getting tax breaks or condemn others for not believing in fairies for if they did, I would argue their insanity with purpose. It still is ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I hate to tell you this but people are always going to force their beliefs on you in any civilized democratic society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People will try and force their beliefs under any and all societies.
Click to expand...


This may be, but in a representative democracy we all have a say in what those beliefs will be through our elected representatives. In the "Utopian fantasy" you want, those beliefs are dictated by the Authority and if you dissent they execute you. 



> We should as long as what they are doing doesn't harm anyone else.



You don't get to decide on your own what harms other people. You may have an opinion and I may differ. I may have an opinion and you may differ. The problem is, someone didn't pop your ass enough when you were little, and you think that you own the world. 



> I don't remember any atheists here asking for anarchy. There are many socities where the overwhemong majority are atheists. Guess what. No anarchy.



You cannot name ONE society that is majority Atheist on the entire planet, in ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY! There is not one now, nor has there EVER been one. NADDA!! 



> Force, maybe not but what ever happened to separation of church and state? Religions and religious symbols have definitely been legislated illegally in the US. If you don't believe me then think how you and all your other christians buddies would react if they were forced to participate in a Muslim prayer every day.



Separation of church and state is not in the Constitution. It was in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to Danbury Baptists, assuring them the new government would not interfere with their religious customs... like marriage ceremonies. The letter ended with a prayer from the President of the United States. 

At NO TIME in US history has anyone ever been FORCED to participate in a prayer of any kind. There is no law on the books, nor has there ever been a law, stating you had to participate in prayer of any kind. No one has ever proposed such a law... EVER! 

And I don't have "Christian buddies" ...most Christians call me an Atheist. 



> Wrong again. In the US all men are not created equal. Just ask blacks, gays and other minorities.



And this is the root of the problem with liberal idiots. You honestly believe this shit. 

Yes... All men ARE created equal, and we have numerous anti-discrimination laws to protect people from being discriminated against on the basis of race, creed and religion. No law in any state of the US singles out homosexuals to discriminate against them. 



> The real irony is, is that Christians are a lot more intolerant than atheists, by far.



No, as we can see here, they are not. 



> I'm very social and I tolerate just about everyone. I have many christian friends. I don't care what religion, race or sexual prefernce the person has. Not everyone here can say that.



No, you have shown complete disrespect and intolerance for those who have religious beliefs. You have a bigoted and opinionated view of others, and you seek to impose your will on society without regard for what anyone else thinks about it. 



> I don't want everyone to live the way I want. When did I say this?



When you were ranting earlier about things being legal as long as they don't harm others. Not everyone wants to live that way, they don't want that kind of society. We have the right to establish our own laws and boundaries for societal morality. No one put YOU in charge of that. No one gave YOU that authority. 



> And exactly what is this society I want? I don't remember projecting anything of the sort.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what you're going to need to do is pick up arms and declare a war. That's the only way to get people to stop forcing their beliefs on you.
> 
> 
> 
> You just said the US doesn't force beliefs on anyone and now you say the only way to do it is by violence. I think you're losing your marbles.
Click to expand...


No, I said if YOU want that, it's what you need to do. America doesn't work that way. We have a system of representative democracy, where our various ideas are hashed out by our elected representatives and our laws are established. If you don't like that process and wish to impose YOUR view of how society should behave, then you need to declare war and overthrow the current system. Otherwise, you have to work within the framework of the system, which means reaching reasonable compromises and tolerating some things you may not like. There is no world where everyone gets what they want. That world is never going to exist. It is like Pleasure Island of Pinocchio. Again... your problem is a lack of ass-busting when you were little. Had your parents disciplined you like they should have, you would have learned that you don't always get what you want. Sometimes life isn't fair. Sometimes you have to put up with things you may not like. 



> I don't remember describing any kind of Utopian that I want and why would I want a dictator even though I know your government has supported so many in the recent past.



What do you mean by "your country" here? Are you not from the US? If not, why the hell are you even commenting on our society and what we do? It's not any of your business. 

And YES... you DO want a dictator. You want someone to tell the religious people to sit down and shut up. You want someone to take control of the laws and establish them in the way you think is appropriate. You want your values and set of rules enforced and those who disagree with you silenced. Now maybe you don't realize that's what you want, but that's what you're asking for... a dictator.


----------



## Slyhunter

HUGGY said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a straight couple, do you know if me and my wife give each other oral?  Do we find out in the court house if you fuck your wife in the ass?
> 
> Do you know which gay man in the relationship is the pitcher and which is the catcher?
> 
> You creeps need to get off what they are doing in the privacy of their homes.  All that we care about is that they can legally marry and enjoy all the benefits that straight married couples get.  Anything beyond that is you being a fucking closet fag who can't stop thinking about a big cock in your ass or mouth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you want to marry your dog?? your little sister???? "All that we care about is that they can legally marry and enjoy all the benefits that straight married couples get. ". REALLY?????? Marrage is between men and women!!! DUH!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I kiss my dogs.  There I've said it.  It's true !!!  Does that make me a bad person ???
Click to expand...

Before or after they lick themselves?


----------



## Slyhunter

DriftingSand said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'God-hater' strikes me as an inaccurate term. I do not believe in gods, but I can't hate gods if I don't believe they exist. But for me at least it's more I hate people who demand I do their bidding because their unproven god says whatever. It's not the god or the religion I hate but the followers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> List ten individuals who "demand that you do their bidding."  What a ridiculous statement!
> 
> If anyone "demands" that you do their bidding -- just say NO if you don't feel like it.  That way you can remove the "hate" from your heart because that won't hurt anyone but you.
Click to expand...


Making it illegal to buy alcohol on Sunday is one example of forcing us to abide by their christian laws. attempting to outlaw porn is another.


----------



## Tuatara

Boss said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I hate to tell you this but people are always going to force their beliefs on you in any civilized democratic society.
> 
> 
> 
> People will try and force their beliefs under any and all societies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This may be, but in a representative democracy we all have a say in what those beliefs will be through our elected representatives. In the "Utopian fantasy" you want, those beliefs are dictated by the Authority and if you dissent they execute you.
Click to expand...

There you go again with this Utopian Fantasy which I haven't mentioned. Enough of the strawman. You also state that "beliefs will be through our elected representatives". How can anyone's belief system change just because of who was elected?


> You don't get to decide on your own what harms other people.


I didn't say I was deciding this on my own. You are a very dishonest debater as I've cleary shown your lies.


> You may have an opinion and I may differ. I may have an opinion and you may differ.


Opinions on what may be harmful. Let's see. I think shooting you or anyone else in the kneecap unprovoked is harmful, would you agree?


> The problem is, someone didn't pop your ass enough when you were little, and you think that you own the world.


What does that even mean?



> You cannot name ONE society that is majority Atheist on the entire planet, in ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY! There is not one now, nor has there EVER been one. NADDA!!


Thanks for coming out ...
http://www.thechapmans.nl/news/Atheist.pdf


> At NO TIME in US history has anyone ever been FORCED to participate in a prayer of any kind.


Not even before 1962.
When the Court Took on Prayer and the Bible in Public Schools | Religion & Politics

Again, you are down and out.



> And this is the root of the problem with liberal idiots. You honestly believe this shit.
> 
> Yes... All men ARE created equal, and we have numerous anti-discrimination laws to protect people from being discriminated against on the basis of race, creed and religion. No law in any state of the US singles out homosexuals to discriminate against them.


You really should stop while you're behind. Same-sex marriage is currently legal in 19 states. Can you say the same for man-woman marriages?
You may have anti-discrimination laws but it doesn't mean your country is rampant with racism. Racism in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Racial Identity and Racial Treatment of Mexican Americans | Vilma Ortiz - Academia.edu
Important lawsuit alleging discrimination against Muslim Americans moves forward | The Electronic Intifada


> When you were ranting earlier about things being legal as long as they don't harm others. Not everyone wants to live that way, they don't want that kind of society.


So you are saying people want a society where thay can be harmed or are you saying people should let the government interfere with their lives especially non harmful issues.


> We have the right to establish our own laws and boundaries for societal morality.


Yes you do, but laws and boundaries are always changing. Do you not believe in freedom of speech for people to voice their opinions on those laws and boudaries? 


> No one put YOU in charge of that. No one gave YOU that authority.


Who said I had that authority, again with the dishonesty.


You are done. Too many lies, too many dishonest tactics. Too many logical fallacies. Too many fails.


----------



## PostmodernProph

HUGGY said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't understand how invading someone's privacy harms someone, maybe you aren't smart enough to be on USMB.  Maybe you should be on USduMB.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> maybe this has passed your notice, but we aren't talking about what someone does in the privacy of their bedroom......we are talking about what they are doing in the courthouse to require everyone to take notice of their "privacy"........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are butt fucking in the courthouses????   Well !!!  I never !!!
> 
> And Boss is spankin his monkey thinking about it ?????
> 
> This thread has takin a turn for the worse...
Click to expand...


no, they are suing people who don't want to bake them cakes....


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you tell a black man and white woman you won't bake them a cake because you don't like white women fucking N**#rs?  I'm sure 50 years ago your grandfather asked that very same question.
> 
> 
> 
> ???....must have been your grandfather, not mine.....be that as it may there is a similarity......the law had to redefine marriage to keep whites from marrying blacks, just as the law had to redefine marriage to allow men to marry men......one small segment of society forcing its definitions on everyone in both cases.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it was your grandfather because you sound just like those racists back then, only today you hate gays not blacks.
Click to expand...

well actually no....though that won't stop some liberal dimwit from pretending I do.....what I do hate is said liberal dimwit thinking he can force his beliefs on the rest of society......




> Whites may have tried to redefine the law so it said marriage is between one white man and one white woman, but they failed.  Your side failed.



actually, it was your side.....and now you're trying it again....




> Oh, and maybe you just have to be open to re defining what marriage is.



so I should just accept what you are forcing on us?....




> Marriage is a socially recognized union


you realize of course that if you go with what's been socially recognized, you're screwed.....




> the new America


so, what else do you folks have planned for this "new America"?.....


----------



## Steven_R

Boss said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'God-hater' strikes me as an inaccurate term. I do not believe in gods, but I can't hate gods if I don't believe they exist. But for me at least it's more I hate people who demand I do their bidding because their unproven god says whatever. It's not the god or the religion I hate but the followers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't even hate the followers, at least the ones who just believe in whatever while leaving me alone. I'm willing to hate those that want to force me to live by their believe system or die/be imprisoned/be a second class citizen/subvert science, but someone who just goes to church and tries to be a good person and has a live and let live attitude is fine with me. That doesn't mean I don't pity them for believing in bronze age fairy tales as an adult, but if that belief somehow translates into their being happy or a better person for it, I can look the other way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh... so now there's two of you who hate that we live in a representative democracy. Now we're getting somewhere! I'm starting to understand!
Click to expand...


Right.


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't understand how invading someone's privacy harms someone, maybe you aren't smart enough to be on USMB.  Maybe you should be on USduMB.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> maybe this has passed your notice, but we aren't talking about what someone does in the privacy of their bedroom......we are talking about what they are doing in the courthouse to require everyone to take notice of their "privacy"........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As a straight couple, do you know if me and my wife give each other oral?
Click to expand...


no, because you keep it in your home.....you don't file lawsuits demanding a certificate stating you give your wife oral........though perhaps that's the next step for your new America.....


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a straight couple, do you know if me and my wife give each other oral?  Do we find out in the court house if you fuck your wife in the ass?
> 
> Do you know which gay man in the relationship is the pitcher and which is the catcher?
> 
> You creeps need to get off what they are doing in the privacy of their homes.  All that we care about is that they can legally marry and enjoy all the benefits that straight married couples get.  Anything beyond that is you being a fucking closet fag who can't stop thinking about a big cock in your ass or mouth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you want to marry your dog?? your little sister???? "All that we care about is that they can legally marry and enjoy all the benefits that straight married couples get. ". REALLY?????? Marrage is between men and women!!! DUH!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We don't allow fist cousins or siblings to get married because of birth defects.  It is illegal to fuck your sister no matter how bad you want to.
> 
> We also don't allow people to marry other animals.
> 
> We also don't allow adults to marry children.
> 
> Can you show me any organizations or movements that want to do these things and show me how much of the population support them?
> 
> So neither the citizens or the courts or the churches would approve.  But, as far as gays go, the courts and citizens approve so FUCK YOUR CHURCHES.  They don't have to marry gay people so what do they care?  What do you care?  And don't say because it's ruining the sanctity of marriage because you straight breeders are doing that on your own with over 50% of you saying I DO GOD and then going and getting a divorce.
> 
> You should focus on straight divorces and fix that and leave the gays alone.
Click to expand...


until the new America says so......



> FUCK YOUR CHURCHES



back to the God hating part.....


----------



## HUGGY

Slyhunter said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> you want to marry your dog?? your little sister???? "All that we care about is that they can legally marry and enjoy all the benefits that straight married couples get. ". REALLY?????? Marrage is between men and women!!! DUH!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I kiss my dogs.  There I've said it.  It's true !!!  Does that make me a bad person ???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Before or after they lick themselves?
Click to expand...


I don't kiss em on their tongues you sick fuck !


----------



## Chuckt

Delta4Embassy said:


> 'God-hater' strikes me as an inaccurate term. I do not believe in gods, but I can't hate gods if I don't believe they exist. But for me at least it's more I hate people who demand I do their bidding because their unproven god says whatever. It's not the god or the religion I hate but the followers.



You post against God whom you claim doesn't exist even though you don't hate him but you don't respond to me so I guess maybe you do hate the followers.


----------



## HUGGY

It makes more sense to hate dummies that follow a 2000 year old book that is absolute fiction than hate modern day oponents that have scientists that have up to date weapons and can turn them on you.

If I gotta choose I'm definitely gonna hate the stupid fuckers with the two millenium old game plan.


----------



## thanatos144

HUGGY said:


> It makes more sense to hate dummies that follow a 2000 year old book that is absolute fiction than hate modern day oponents that have scientists that have up to date weapons and can turn them on you.
> 
> If I gotta choose I'm definitely gonna hate the stupid fuckers with the two millenium old game plan.



You can't blame the bible for you sucking dick . That was ether a genetic defect of mental instability none of which was caused by the bible 

tapatalk post


----------



## HUGGY

thanatos144 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> It makes more sense to hate dummies that follow a 2000 year old book that is absolute fiction than hate modern day oponents that have scientists that have up to date weapons and can turn them on you.
> 
> If I gotta choose I'm definitely gonna hate the stupid fuckers with the two millenium old game plan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't blame the bible for you sucking dick . That was ether a genetic defect of mental instability none of which was caused by the bible
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...



Nice...

Adding a homo twist to the conversation. 

Don't follow your posts much..  Guess I didn't miss anything..

The admins are really missing an opportunity for volume by not having a dick sucking forum for peeps like you to rage in.

You should bitch for your right to equal status.

Seriously!  When fags can't have their own forum on USMB..  are we REALLY FREE ????


----------



## thanatos144

HUGGY said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> It makes more sense to hate dummies that follow a 2000 year old book that is absolute fiction than hate modern day oponents that have scientists that have up to date weapons and can turn them on you.
> 
> If I gotta choose I'm definitely gonna hate the stupid fuckers with the two millenium old game plan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't blame the bible for you sucking dick . That was ether a genetic defect of mental instability none of which was caused by the bible
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nice...
> 
> Adding a homo twist to the conversation.
> 
> Don't follow your posts much..  Guess I didn't miss anything..
> 
> The admins are really missing an opportunity for volume by not having a dick sucking forum for peeps like you to rage in.
> 
> You should bitch for your right to equal status.
> 
> Seriously!  When fags can't have their own forum on USMB..  are we REALLY FREE ????
Click to expand...


Why direct you anger at being a homosexual at me?  I didn't make you like that. 

tapatalk post


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I understand you don't give a fuck... that's the crux of the problem here. You've gotten way too big for your britches. You think America is a place you own and control because you've managed to win a few elections. You believe you can make your own rules for society and disregard what others want. It's always been the danger with liberals, they don't believe in democratic government, they believe in authoritative fascist totalitarianism. Give them a little power and suddenly they are little Mussolinis. Cramming their liberalism down our throat and telling us they don't give a fuck what we think about it.
> 
> I don't hate gay people. I am highly offended by that allegation. My personal position on CUs comes from a gay couple that I've known for 30 years. Do you think they are homophobes? Like them, I am opposed to Government determining what is or isn't legitimate sexual behavior. Marriage is the union of a man and woman, not two homosexuals, not a woman and her german shepherd, not a man and his harem. Now my gay friends had a wedding in the backwoods of 'ignorant redneck knuckledraggin' Alabama, in 1986! In their eyes, they are as "married" as any traditional married couple on the planet. They are fine with the State of Alabama not recognizing their marriage, it hasn't bothered them one bit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes boss you are exactly right.  Way too many of us here in America want seperation of church and state and the only laws we have on the books that you don't like are the laws that go against christianity, jews or the muslim religions.  Example, abortion and gay marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing in the Constitution about "separation of church and state." It only says that Congress can't make laws establishing religion. I don't think that has ever come up in Congress. The phrase "separation of church and state" comes from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to Danbury Baptists, assuring them that the federal government would not interfere with their religious customs.... like marriage, for instance.
> 
> 
> 
> The only ones who push these issues are Democrat liberals, and they do it in order to divide people so they can win elections on emotion. It hasn't pushed anyone away from religion, it's pushing people away from politics. However, a few more cycles of insane liberal policy, and people will again become involved in politics. The pendulum has always swung back and forth, and it will again.
> 
> 
> 
> I've said myself, I don't favor a total ban or outlawing of abortion entirely. I think most people agree to sensible criteria where the procedure is allowable under certain circumstances. The problem is, instead of us working together to reform the insanity, it has only become more perverse and insane. We are literally birthing babies and killing them as they are being born. That is infanticide and it's wrong. Obummer voted for a bill in Illinois to allow doctors to murder children born accidentally in botched partial birth cases. It did not matter that the child had been born, it was the intent to abort that took priority. That's wrong. I don't give a shit about choices or rights... that's wrong. I don't care about liberal or conservative... that's wrong. I don't care if you believe in God or not... that's wrong. I will not stand for it, I will not tolerate it. I don't care what names you call me, I don't care how much you scream about rights, I am not going to support that. EVER!
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you don't get to decide by yourself what we teach as society. No one gave you that authority. We all have equal rights to speak our opinions and be politically active on the issues we feel passionate about, and you don't get to take that away from anyone.
> 
> I'd rather gays be happy too! I want to come together as a society and agree that government shouldn't be deciding what individuals call "marriage" or defining it according to sexuality. That's why I am a big supporter of Civil Unions, and a plan that would resolve this issue forever. It is the activists who don't want this. You'd rather have the issue dividing us so you can win elections on emotion, as opposed to helping gays be happy.
> 
> 
> 
> They already have equal rights. No gay person has ever been denied a license to marry a person of the opposite sex, which is what marriage is. What you want is to pervert marriage in order to legitimize sexual behavior, and I am opposed to that. I don't think that is the government's business. As for "benefits" how about we abolish the IRS and do away with income taxes? Then there are no federal "benefits" to being married. If we have to require some identifier to distinguish between single persons and couples, it should be something generic that doesn't have anything to do with sexuality. Civil Unions could be used in any number of situations... a daughter and her aging mother, for example. Two spinster sisters... platonic friends that are bffs and roomies... whatever. Any two legal age adults could obtain a CU and this would suffice as a 'domestic partnership' under the law, with the same ramifications as traditional marriage currently carries. I honestly can't say how many people "on my side" agree with that, I don't care, really. That is MY solution.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. They found that most of those things can be worked around and the ones that can't, don't really matter to them. They don't believe gay couples should be allowed to adopt because children are better off in a traditional mother-father family. Their families accept they are gay, most of them were at their wedding. All their property is jointly owned. Not sure about their insurance,  I think they have individual policies. They are concerned about SS benefits but that's why they support CU reform. But the main thing is, they don't want the government defining their relationship, they don't need that. Never have.
> 
> 
> 
> Again... they held a wedding ceremony in rural Alabama back in 1986. No hick sheriff was there to tell them they couldn't do that. No redneck church folk were there protesting. They had a photographer, a wedding cake, full ceremony with a Rastafarian priest... it was beautiful. They feel they are as "married" as anyone. They are both fairly wealthy people in their own right, and they have wills which are clear on disbursement of assets should they die. They both have life insurance policies naming the other as beneficiary. There is no law that says you have to be straight to do that. Again, these are false myths perpetrated by activists who are pushing an emotive agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyways, what you have said is an ignorant ignorant thing.  Just because your one hick gay friends don't care, doesn't mean a lot of gays don't.  They do.  And you will ignore everything I just said.  You will ignore that a gay man's family can come to the hospital and throw his partner out of the hospital because "they aren't married".  I saw this happen with a straight uncle of mine and his girlfriend.  The kids let her hang around until he died then they were changing the locks and not returning her phone calls anymore.  She was tossed aside.  And that is what happens to gay people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well but, no... it's not what happens. I'm giving you a real life example of two gay people who wanted to share their life together and didn't care about the obstacles. They made that happen. They are happy together... about to celebrate their 30th anniversary. I'm sorry for your straight uncle and his straight girlfriend, but it has nothing to do with this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyways, you are pretty much wrong about everything you believe.  Gays, abortion god.
> 
> Oh, and thank you for letting me know you live in a red neck hick state.  I should have known.  Please go tell your neighbors you don't believe in Jesus or do you keep that a secret?  Because you just know they all think you're going to hell.  So do I only for other reasons.  LOL.   Actually you know I don't believe in hell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you don't get to decide what I believe. That's the thing. You seem to think this is your right and it's not. You have the right to think I am wrong, and I have the right to be wrong. You have to TOLERATE that in a civil society. And I have to TOLERATE you. That's how this works.
> 
> As for me telling my neighbors things, I don't care what my neighbors think. This somehow  seems to be a really big deal with liberals, they want to be liked and admired by others. So they concoct these emotive social issues so they can pretend they are standing up for rights and being good people, and they think this makes them look good to others. What I find more time than not is, it's a compensation for their true bigoted shortcomings. They don't believe we are all equal, they believe some of us are different and entitled to special consideration because of that. They don't believe in tolerance, they believe society should conform to their liberal ideals and if they don't get their way, they call people racist and ignorant. They don't believe in a free society where we all have an equal voice, they believe their voice is superior and opposition must be silenced. They aren't interested in finding ways to compromise and get along, they want to continue dividing us and tearing us apart so they can advance their agenda.
Click to expand...


Let me first say if my wife gives birth to a retarded baby, kill it.  But thats just the Spartan in me.  After reading what you said about abortion here is my translation of what you said.  Only in cases of rape or incest.  Cant have an abortion just because you made a mistake.  Sorry, disagree.  

And I know I dont get to make the decision alone.  But here is what makes me mad.  The GOP are pushing shit no one agreed to.  No one knew in Michigan theyd come in and make us right to work or limit abortion rights.  The gop are slipping in this shit when they dont have the mandate.  And this ignorant religious society wont stand up hell they dont even realize its happening.  Their country is being taken over and they dont even get it.  Great job liberal media, NOT.  But Im sure you think the media is liberal too when 7 mega corporations own them all you fool.  

You can speak your opinion?  Go outside and yell the N word in a mall in front of everyone.  Yell I hate faggots in the mall.  Go protest with them Boss.  But dont get all upset if one day we show up to protest you.  
Marriage is a law.  Fuck what your religion thinks it is.  That only affects you and the other idiots in your cult.  If you want to talk about when 2 people enter into an agreement that they are partners, the gays and I like to call it marriage.  You can call it civil unions.  You are free to do that if you want but we are free to call it marriage.  Deal with it.  
You guys focusing on the term marriage is just one of your many bad arguments you make, then move on to another bad reason why it should only be one man and one woman, then every time we debunk one of your bad justifications, you just move on to another one.  You can never pin down a bigot.  

I know many gay republicans.  No matter how much bookaki the GOP throw at them, they don't care.  For some reason they really like the republican party despite the party saying they're going to hell.  The must like the fiscal responsibility and low tax talk I don't know.

And I don't know what to say about your gay friends.  I would have to take your word for it and assume they aren't pulling your leg.  Or maybe they just don't want to get into an argument with you so they tell you what you want to hear.   But you are their bigoted asshole republican friend no doubt.  

So they don't care about the tax breaks and they have enough money to go make wills.  Good for them.   Proof that you don't have to be straight, white, christian or a man to be an asshole.  You said they are rich or are well off so that puts them in a different category.  They are possibly wealthy enough to consider themselves republicans so...

I don't know.  All I know is your one gay, jewish or muslim friends don't prove you right.


----------



## sealybobo

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> you want to marry your dog?? your little sister???? "All that we care about is that they can legally marry and enjoy all the benefits that straight married couples get. ". REALLY?????? Marrage is between men and women!!! DUH!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't allow fist cousins or siblings to get married because of birth defects.  It is illegal to fuck your sister no matter how bad you want to.
> 
> We also don't allow people to marry other animals.
> 
> We also don't allow adults to marry children.
> 
> Can you show me any organizations or movements that want to do these things and show me how much of the population support them?
> 
> So neither the citizens or the courts or the churches would approve.  But, as far as gays go, the courts and citizens approve so FUCK YOUR CHURCHES.  They don't have to marry gay people so what do they care?  What do you care?  And don't say because it's ruining the sanctity of marriage because you straight breeders are doing that on your own with over 50% of you saying I DO GOD and then going and getting a divorce.
> 
> You should focus on straight divorces and fix that and leave the gays alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> until the new America says so......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FUCK YOUR CHURCHES
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> back to the God hating part.....
Click to expand...


All I can say is look around you at society.  This is what thousands of years of christianity has produced.  In fact god fucked up with adam, then he wiped the slate clearn with noah all to re populate the earth with new assholes who would kill the messiah and now look at christian society.  Even they admit that end times are coming   and that society is corrupt.  

And now the new age christians like yourself are advocating fucking dogs and kids.  Jesus, hurry the fuck up and take these "chrstians" home hurry!!!!


----------



## sealybobo

Chuckt said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'God-hater' strikes me as an inaccurate term. I do not believe in gods, but I can't hate gods if I don't believe they exist. But for me at least it's more I hate people who demand I do their bidding because their unproven god says whatever. It's not the god or the religion I hate but the followers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You post against God whom you claim doesn't exist even though you don't hate him but you don't respond to me so I guess maybe you do hate the followers.
Click to expand...


How hard is it to fool people/voters/citizens who believe in an invisible fucking man without any proof?


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't allow fist cousins or siblings to get married because of birth defects.  It is illegal to fuck your sister no matter how bad you want to.
> 
> We also don't allow people to marry other animals.
> 
> We also don't allow adults to marry children.
> 
> Can you show me any organizations or movements that want to do these things and show me how much of the population support them?
> 
> So neither the citizens or the courts or the churches would approve.  But, as far as gays go, the courts and citizens approve so FUCK YOUR CHURCHES.  They don't have to marry gay people so what do they care?  What do you care?  And don't say because it's ruining the sanctity of marriage because you straight breeders are doing that on your own with over 50% of you saying I DO GOD and then going and getting a divorce.
> 
> You should focus on straight divorces and fix that and leave the gays alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> until the new America says so......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FUCK YOUR CHURCHES
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> back to the God hating part.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All I can say is look around you at society.  This is what thousands of years of christianity has produced.  In fact god fucked up with adam, then he wiped the slate clearn with noah all to re populate the earth with new assholes who would kill the messiah and now look at christian society.  Even they admit that end times are coming   and that society is corrupt.
> 
> And now the new age christians like yourself are advocating fucking dogs and kids.  Jesus, hurry the fuck up and take these "chrstians" home hurry!!!!
Click to expand...


HOW TYPICAL=PATHETIC of little man!!!  you chose to reject GOD'S LOVE AND FORGIVNESS THEN YOU TRY TO BLAME GOD FOR THE RESULTS OF YOUR POOR,EVIL CHOICE!!! DREAM ON!!


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> until the new America says so......
> 
> 
> 
> back to the God hating part.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All I can say is look around you at society.  This is what thousands of years of christianity has produced.  In fact god fucked up with adam, then he wiped the slate clearn with noah all to re populate the earth with new assholes who would kill the messiah and now look at christian society.  Even they admit that end times are coming   and that society is corrupt.
> 
> And now the new age christians like yourself are advocating fucking dogs and kids.  Jesus, hurry the fuck up and take these "chrstians" home hurry!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HOW TYPICAL=PATHETIC of little man!!!  you chose to reject GOD'S LOVE AND FORGIVNESS THEN YOU TRY TO BLAME GOD FOR THE RESULTS OF YOUR POOR,EVIL CHOICE!!! DREAM ON!!
Click to expand...


I'm not out there raping and murdering.  The prisons are full of christians my man.  Ask any bully in school do you believe in god and he will say yes.  Your god is a failure.  Come to the other side.  Deny him.  He doesn't exist.  Save 10% of your wages and sleep in on Sunday's and fuck hot women for a change or at least masturbate thinking about women you'll never get.  It's fun.   

P.S.  That's exactly what the christian priest said to me when I said no to his sexual advances.  He said, "You choose to reject gods love?  Then he said it was my fault and to ask for forgiveness for my poor evil choice when I said ok to his advances.  you chose to reject GOD'S LOVE AND FORGIVNESS THEN YOU TRY TO BLAME GOD FOR THE RESULTS OF YOUR POOR,EVIL CHOICE!  It was impossible to say no to such a hard sell.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I can say is look around you at society.  This is what thousands of years of christianity has produced.  In fact god fucked up with adam, then he wiped the slate clearn with noah all to re populate the earth with new assholes who would kill the messiah and now look at christian society.  Even they admit that end times are coming   and that society is corrupt.
> 
> And now the new age christians like yourself are advocating fucking dogs and kids.  Jesus, hurry the fuck up and take these "chrstians" home hurry!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HOW TYPICAL=PATHETIC of little man!!!  you chose to reject GOD'S LOVE AND FORGIVNESS THEN YOU TRY TO BLAME GOD FOR THE RESULTS OF YOUR POOR,EVIL CHOICE!!! DREAM ON!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not out there raping and murdering.  The prisons are full of christians my man.  Ask any bully in school do you believe in god and he will say yes.  Your god is a failure.  Come to the other side.  Deny him.  He doesn't exist.  Save 10% of your wages and sleep in on Sunday's and fuck hot women for a change or at least masturbate thinking about women you'll never get.  It's fun.
> 
> P.S.  That's exactly what the christian priest said to me when I said no to his sexual advances.  He said, "You choose to reject gods love?  Then he said it was my fault and to ask for forgiveness for my poor evil choice when I said ok to his advances.  you chose to reject GOD'S LOVE AND FORGIVNESS THEN YOU TRY TO BLAME GOD FOR THE RESULTS OF YOUR POOR,EVIL CHOICE!  It was impossible to say no to such a hard sell.
Click to expand...


SO YOU BELIEVE SATAN'S LIES AND TALK YOURSELF INTO HELL!!! YOUR CHOICE!!! and you??


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't allow fist cousins or siblings to get married because of birth defects.  It is illegal to fuck your sister no matter how bad you want to.
> 
> We also don't allow people to marry other animals.
> 
> We also don't allow adults to marry children.
> 
> Can you show me any organizations or movements that want to do these things and show me how much of the population support them?
> 
> So neither the citizens or the courts or the churches would approve.  But, as far as gays go, the courts and citizens approve so FUCK YOUR CHURCHES.  They don't have to marry gay people so what do they care?  What do you care?  And don't say because it's ruining the sanctity of marriage because you straight breeders are doing that on your own with over 50% of you saying I DO GOD and then going and getting a divorce.
> 
> You should focus on straight divorces and fix that and leave the gays alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> until the new America says so......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FUCK YOUR CHURCHES
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> back to the God hating part.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All I can say is look around you at society.  This is what thousands of years of christianity has produced.  In fact god fucked up with adam, then he wiped the slate clearn with noah all to re populate the earth with new assholes who would kill the messiah and now look at christian society.  Even they admit that end times are coming   and that society is corrupt.
> 
> And now the new age christians like yourself are advocating fucking dogs and kids.  Jesus, hurry the fuck up and take these "chrstians" home hurry!!!!
Click to expand...


oh dear.....when I look at society I see what liberals have done to fuck it up in the last fifty.....I mean seriously, we have adult liberals who are so fucking stupid that they think Christians are advocating fucking dogs and children.... what's next......Hillary for president?......


----------



## sealybobo

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> until the new America says so......
> 
> 
> 
> back to the God hating part.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All I can say is look around you at society.  This is what thousands of years of christianity has produced.  In fact god fucked up with adam, then he wiped the slate clearn with noah all to re populate the earth with new assholes who would kill the messiah and now look at christian society.  Even they admit that end times are coming   and that society is corrupt.
> 
> And now the new age christians like yourself are advocating fucking dogs and kids.  Jesus, hurry the fuck up and take these "chrstians" home hurry!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> oh dear.....when I look at society I see what liberals have done to fuck it up in the last fifty.....I mean seriously, we have adult liberals who are so fucking stupid that they think Christians are advocating fucking dogs and children.... what's next......Hillary for president?......
Click to expand...


Look how bush lied you christians into war with muslims.  Look at how catholics say raping children is a sin but not a crime.  

The fact that you could say such a thing after you god damn morons voted Bush in twice makes you a joke.  

What's next Jeb for president?  

The only and I mean ONLY reason America had such a big huge fat never been seen before in the history of the world middle class is because of liberals.  The Reagans, Bush's, Corporations use religion to keep the masses under control and you are a perfect example of even though it is they who fucked you over, you think it was the libs.  

They got you worrying about gays having sex and abortions meanwhile they sent all our jobs overseas and the rich are pulling a complete take over of our government.  If they win this midterm and they probably will because the American people are dumb, that'll be it.  At least we will take back what you win this November in 2016.  Yes, Hillary 2016.  

Certainly not Jeb, Christy, Ryan, Huckabee, Newt, Cain, Bachmann.  Do you really suggest any of these people are good?  And I love it how after 8 years of bush and then a total colllapse you religious people have never once taken any of the blame.  You and Bush did nothing wrong.  Fucking liars.  God will send you to hell for lying and if you are just dumb he probably doesn't reward stupidity.


----------



## sealybobo

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> until the new America says so......
> 
> 
> 
> back to the God hating part.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All I can say is look around you at society.  This is what thousands of years of christianity has produced.  In fact god fucked up with adam, then he wiped the slate clearn with noah all to re populate the earth with new assholes who would kill the messiah and now look at christian society.  Even they admit that end times are coming   and that society is corrupt.
> 
> And now the new age christians like yourself are advocating fucking dogs and kids.  Jesus, hurry the fuck up and take these "chrstians" home hurry!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> oh dear.....when I look at society I see what liberals have done to fuck it up in the last fifty.....I mean seriously, we have adult liberals who are so fucking stupid that they think Christians are advocating fucking dogs and children.... what's next......Hillary for president?......
Click to expand...


Oh and by the way, I said Boss wants to fuck dogs and kids because HE used it as an example of things you guys would want to do if you didn't believe in god.  His words not mine.  And this isn't a "belief" of mine.  Like I don't have any faith in it.

But you do have faith there is an imaginary man in the sky who cares about you but sends others to hell who don't agree with you.  How narcisistic and pathetic.

I have explained in great detail how the rich and powerful, if they can convince you there is an imaginary man in the sky, they can pretty much convince you anything they want.  This of course is not good for a society.  If the masses can be manipulated by 1 bullshit lie, made up imaginary story, this can't possibly bode well for that society.

But explain it to me how us believing you want to screw dogs and kids is fucking up society?  So you have yet to even give a real example of how liberals are ruining anything.  Got any better examples?  And more importantly, atheist liberals.  What harm are we causing by waking up people to the fact their being lied to and manipulated through that lie.  

And I love it how god never fails.  If he loses members it's societies fault.  Really?  Maybe it is god's fault.  Maybe if he sold a more believable product.  Maybe if he showed up every once in awhile.  Its beginning to feel like a cult.  

Lets look at God's interaction with man

4000 bc he created the universe, right?  

Then he flooded the planet, caused plagues, let men walk on water.  Today what does he do?  His image appears on toast.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I can say is look around you at society.  This is what thousands of years of christianity has produced.  In fact god fucked up with adam, then he wiped the slate clearn with noah all to re populate the earth with new assholes who would kill the messiah and now look at christian society.  Even they admit that end times are coming   and that society is corrupt.
> 
> And now the new age christians like yourself are advocating fucking dogs and kids.  Jesus, hurry the fuck up and take these "chrstians" home hurry!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oh dear.....when I look at society I see what liberals have done to fuck it up in the last fifty.....I mean seriously, we have adult liberals who are so fucking stupid that they think Christians are advocating fucking dogs and children.... what's next......Hillary for president?......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh and by the way, I said Boss wants to fuck dogs and kids because HE used it as an example of things you guys would want to do if you didn't believe in god.  His words not mine.  And this isn't a "belief" of mine.  Like I don't have any faith in it.
> 
> But you do have faith there is an imaginary man in the sky who cares about you but sends others to hell who don't agree with you.  How narcisistic and pathetic.
> 
> I have explained in great detail how the rich and powerful, if they can convince you there is an imaginary man in the sky, they can pretty much convince you anything they want.  This of course is not good for a society.  If the masses can be manipulated by 1 bullshit lie, made up imaginary story, this can't possibly bode well for that society.
> 
> But explain it to me how us believing you want to screw dogs and kids is fucking up society?  So you have yet to even give a real example of how liberals are ruining anything.  Got any better examples?  And more importantly, atheist liberals.  What harm are we causing by waking up people to the fact their being lied to and manipulated through that lie.
> 
> And I love it how god never fails.  If he loses members it's societies fault.  Really?  Maybe it is god's fault.  Maybe if he sold a more believable product.  Maybe if he showed up every once in awhile.  Its beginning to feel like a cult.
> 
> Lets look at God's interaction with man
> 
> 4000 bc he created the universe, right?
> 
> Then he flooded the planet, caused plagues, let men walk on water.  Today what does he do?  His image appears on toast.
Click to expand...


LOL!!! silly little tard trying to argue and fight against ALMIGHTY GOD!!! wonder who will win!!!


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Let me first say if my wife gives birth to a retarded baby, kill it.  But that&#8217;s just the Spartan in me.  After reading what you said about abortion here is my translation of what you said.  Only in cases of rape or incest.  Can&#8217;t have an abortion just because you made a mistake.  Sorry, disagree.



Well, but that's not what I said. I don't believe it is right or moral to kill innocent people who have done no harm to anyone else. A fetus is a human being, I don't care what kind of pretend caveats you wish to apply, that is science and biology and it can't be refuted. I have no problem with this country having an honest debate about when it is appropriate to terminate a human life, but that's what needs to be debated here. 

I understand people make mistakes, and not everyone shares my moral view on life. Our boundaries for civil society should revolve around what the people of a state or community have gone to the ballot box and supported with their vote. What is your problem with that?

If someone makes a mistake, I don't think it should be compounded by making an even bigger mistake. I know of too many women who had abortions because society told them it was okay, only to suffer terrible life-long consequences of guilt and depression for what they did. No one warned them it would be like that, it was never mentioned. I think, aside from rape or incest, anyone getting an abortion should have to undergo mandatory counseling to discuss how this may effect them. Maybe have some women who have experienced this speak to them first, to let them know it's not as simple as it sounds. 

Furthermore, I think you should be allowed one "mistake" and if you come in for a second abortion, you also get a free tube tying. Abortion should not be used as a replacement for birth control. Also, no federal dollars! Our taxes should not go to fund abortions. If you and your liberal friends think poor women need help paying for abortions, form a charity organization and help them. 



> And I know I don&#8217;t get to make the decision alone.  But here is what makes me mad.  The GOP are pushing shit no one agreed to.  No one knew in Michigan they&#8217;d come in and make us right to work or limit abortion rights.  The gop are slipping in this shit when they don&#8217;t have the mandate.  And this ignorant religious society won&#8217;t stand up hell they don&#8217;t even realize it&#8217;s happening.  Their country is being taken over and they don&#8217;t even get it.  Great job liberal media, NOT.  But I&#8217;m sure you think the media is liberal too when 7 mega corporations own them all you fool.



Here again you are attributing views and policies to me and I've not even commented on them. After Obamacare, I don't want to hear anything about mandates... and what the hell does state government have to do with national politics? In case you haven't noticed, the GOP is currently devouring itself. Half of them want to be like the Democrats and cater to special interests. I might not ever vote Republican again! 

But let's get back to you here... Read the paragraph you reeled off. You start by claiming no one knew, they're passing stuff without anyone having a say, without a mandate... by the end, you've decided that people don't care and aren't paying attention and the news media isn't getting the word out. It's not the media's job to advocate for your liberal policies or push your liberal agenda. Most of the state and local politicians I know are following their constituency. Any politician who doesn't is going to have a short political career. Sounds like the religious folk have your side outnumbered and you are trying to find ways to blame the system instead of being tolerant of democracy. 



> You can speak your opinion?  Go outside and yell the N word in a mall in front of everyone.  Yell I hate faggots in the mall.  Go protest with them Boss.  But don&#8217;t get all upset if one day we show up to protest you.



Why do I want to go outside and yell bigoted and prejudiced hatred? I'm not bigoted or prejudiced, and I don't hate people. IF I ever do that, you are welcome to come protest me. I think everyone should have the right to state their opinions and if you don't like them, you have the right to protest. However, this goes for religious folk as well, they also have the right to protest your opinion. That's America! 



> Marriage is a law.  Fuck what your religion thinks it is.  That only affects you and the other idiots in your cult.  If you want to talk about when 2 people enter into an agreement that they are partners, the gays and I like to call it marriage.  You can call it civil unions.  You are free to do that if you want but we are free to call it marriage.  Deal with it.
> You guys focusing on the term &#8220;marriage&#8221; is just one of your many bad arguments you make, then move on to another bad reason why it should only be one man and one woman, then every time we debunk one of your bad justifications, you just move on to another one.  You can never pin down a bigot.



Marriage is NOT a law. There is no law that says you are entitled to marry or mandates you have to be married. I don't have a problem with you calling it whatever you please, I don't want GOVERNMENT calling it anything. It's not the government's business what I define as marriage, or what YOU define as marriage for that matter. And no... I'm not going to "deal with" you manipulating government to legitimize a sexual behavior. I'm not focused on the term "marriage" I'm focused on the term "GAY marriage" because I don't think sexuality should define marriage. I'm not for that, I don't support that. If it's an issue that government is in the marriage business, then get the government out of the marriage business. Leave that to churches and individuals and let the government find another way to identify domestic relationships. Problem solved. Issue settled. 



> I know many gay republicans.  No matter how much bookaki the GOP throw at them, they don't care.  For some reason they really like the republican party despite the party saying they're going to hell.  The must like the fiscal responsibility and low tax talk I don't know.
> 
> And I don't know what to say about your gay friends.  I would have to take your word for it and assume they aren't pulling your leg.  Or maybe they just don't want to get into an argument with you so they tell you what you want to hear.   But you are their bigoted asshole republican friend no doubt.



I've never seen or heard a Republican politician say gay people are going to hell. NEVER. I've also never heard homosexuals mentioned in any party platform or in any national political speech by any Republican candidate. Where are you getting this from? Opposition to "gay marriage" is not based on hatred of gay people. It is the protection of traditional marriage and there are numerous and varied reasons for that viewpoint. You've decided, in your head, that all those who oppose gay marriage must be bigoted assholes. 

No, my friends aren't just telling me stuff to avoid argument. I have had lengthy conversations with them about this. Like I said, it's where I got my viewpoint from on Civil Unions. I assumed they supported gay marriage and we got to talking one night about it, and much to my surprise, they didn't. Once they explained their position it made so much sense to me that I adopted it as my own. 



> So they don't care about the tax breaks and they have enough money to go make wills.  Good for them.   Proof that you don't have to be straight, white, christian or a man to be an asshole.  You said they are rich or are well off so that puts them in a different category.  They are possibly wealthy enough to consider themselves republicans so...
> 
> I don't know.  All I know is your one gay, jewish or muslim friends don't prove you right.



Again we see an example of you assuming things about people you don't know. This is a common trend with you, as it is with anyone who doesn't have a God. You see, you have to appoint yourself as God the Judge of All, and this is where you get to decide things about people based on stereotypes and prejudice. My friends are very libertarian, I don't know how they vote for president, but I know they don't like Obama. They don't believe there should be tax breaks for married people, they don't think we should have income tax at all. It doesn't take a rich person to make a will, I think it costs about $115, last I checked. Of course, under Obama, that's probably more like $500 now... but I digress. 

I'm not trying to "prove myself right" here, just sharing my opinion. We could ostensibly END the entire "gay marriage" debate forever with simple Civil Unions legislation. Churches and religious folks could keep their sanctity of traditional marriages intact, gay couples could qualify for any 'marital' benefit, the government wouldn't be in a position of condoning or legitimizing a sexual behavior, and there is the added bonus of being able to help out other domestic relationship arrangements as well. It's a win-win-win-win! So what's the problem? Well, the problem is, activist nitwits like you who don't want to reach a compromise because that would take away one of your precious social wedge issues and you wouldn't be able to divide us and lob hateful accusations at people you don't know anymore.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> oh dear.....when I look at society I see what liberals have done to fuck it up in the last fifty.....I mean seriously, we have adult liberals who are so fucking stupid that they think Christians are advocating fucking dogs and children.... what's next......Hillary for president?......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh and by the way, I said Boss wants to fuck dogs and kids because HE used it as an example of things you guys would want to do if you didn't believe in god.  His words not mine.  And this isn't a "belief" of mine.  Like I don't have any faith in it.
> 
> But you do have faith there is an imaginary man in the sky who cares about you but sends others to hell who don't agree with you.  How narcisistic and pathetic.
> 
> I have explained in great detail how the rich and powerful, if they can convince you there is an imaginary man in the sky, they can pretty much convince you anything they want.  This of course is not good for a society.  If the masses can be manipulated by 1 bullshit lie, made up imaginary story, this can't possibly bode well for that society.
> 
> But explain it to me how us believing you want to screw dogs and kids is fucking up society?  So you have yet to even give a real example of how liberals are ruining anything.  Got any better examples?  And more importantly, atheist liberals.  What harm are we causing by waking up people to the fact their being lied to and manipulated through that lie.
> 
> And I love it how god never fails.  If he loses members it's societies fault.  Really?  Maybe it is god's fault.  Maybe if he sold a more believable product.  Maybe if he showed up every once in awhile.  Its beginning to feel like a cult.
> 
> Lets look at God's interaction with man
> 
> 4000 bc he created the universe, right?
> 
> Then he flooded the planet, caused plagues, let men walk on water.  Today what does he do?  His image appears on toast.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!!! silly little tard trying to argue and fight against ALMIGHTY GOD!!! wonder who will win!!!
Click to expand...


In this corner Sealybobo.  In the other corner, it's fucking empty.  Sealybobo wins.

Ok stupid.  I challenge your god to a debate.  Tell him to meet me on USMB at 6pm in this thread.  If/When he doesn't show up, I win and you lose.  There is no god.  Do you think your god will show up?  Do you really think he'll show up if you are dying?  He won't.  You'll die just like every other animal on earth.  And when you die that is it.  But no big deal.

I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it. - Mark Twain


----------



## thanatos144

god is great because god made all the ingredients for this


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me first say if my wife gives birth to a retarded baby, kill it.  But thats just the Spartan in me.  After reading what you said about abortion here is my translation of what you said.  Only in cases of rape or incest.  Cant have an abortion just because you made a mistake.  Sorry, disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, but that's not what I said. I don't believe it is right or moral to kill innocent people who have done no harm to anyone else. A fetus is a human being, I don't care what kind of pretend caveats you wish to apply, that is science and biology and it can't be refuted. I have no problem with this country having an honest debate about when it is appropriate to terminate a human life, but that's what needs to be debated here.
> 
> I understand people make mistakes, and not everyone shares my moral view on life. Our boundaries for civil society should revolve around what the people of a state or community have gone to the ballot box and supported with their vote. What is your problem with that?
> 
> If someone makes a mistake, I don't think it should be compounded by making an even bigger mistake. I know of too many women who had abortions because society told them it was okay, only to suffer terrible life-long consequences of guilt and depression for what they did. No one warned them it would be like that, it was never mentioned. I think, aside from rape or incest, anyone getting an abortion should have to undergo mandatory counseling to discuss how this may effect them. Maybe have some women who have experienced this speak to them first, to let them know it's not as simple as it sounds.
> 
> Furthermore, I think you should be allowed one "mistake" and if you come in for a second abortion, you also get a free tube tying. Abortion should not be used as a replacement for birth control. Also, no federal dollars! Our taxes should not go to fund abortions. If you and your liberal friends think poor women need help paying for abortions, form a charity organization and help them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I know I dont get to make the decision alone.  But here is what makes me mad.  The GOP are pushing shit no one agreed to.  No one knew in Michigan theyd come in and make us right to work or limit abortion rights.  The gop are slipping in this shit when they dont have the mandate.  And this ignorant religious society wont stand up hell they dont even realize its happening.  Their country is being taken over and they dont even get it.  Great job liberal media, NOT.  But Im sure you think the media is liberal too when 7 mega corporations own them all you fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here again you are attributing views and policies to me and I've not even commented on them. After Obamacare, I don't want to hear anything about mandates... and what the hell does state government have to do with national politics? In case you haven't noticed, the GOP is currently devouring itself. Half of them want to be like the Democrats and cater to special interests. I might not ever vote Republican again!
> 
> But let's get back to you here... Read the paragraph you reeled off. You start by claiming no one knew, they're passing stuff without anyone having a say, without a mandate... by the end, you've decided that people don't care and aren't paying attention and the news media isn't getting the word out. It's not the media's job to advocate for your liberal policies or push your liberal agenda. Most of the state and local politicians I know are following their constituency. Any politician who doesn't is going to have a short political career. Sounds like the religious folk have your side outnumbered and you are trying to find ways to blame the system instead of being tolerant of democracy.
> 
> Why do I want to go outside and yell bigoted and prejudiced hatred? I'm not bigoted or prejudiced, and I don't hate people. IF I ever do that, you are welcome to come protest me. I think everyone should have the right to state their opinions and if you don't like them, you have the right to protest. However, this goes for religious folk as well, they also have the right to protest your opinion. That's America!
> 
> Marriage is NOT a law. There is no law that says you are entitled to marry or mandates you have to be married. I don't have a problem with you calling it whatever you please, I don't want GOVERNMENT calling it anything. It's not the government's business what I define as marriage, or what YOU define as marriage for that matter. And no... I'm not going to "deal with" you manipulating government to legitimize a sexual behavior. I'm not focused on the term "marriage" I'm focused on the term "GAY marriage" because I don't think sexuality should define marriage. I'm not for that, I don't support that. If it's an issue that government is in the marriage business, then get the government out of the marriage business. Leave that to churches and individuals and let the government find another way to identify domestic relationships. Problem solved. Issue settled.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know many gay republicans.  No matter how much bookaki the GOP throw at them, they don't care.  For some reason they really like the republican party despite the party saying they're going to hell.  The must like the fiscal responsibility and low tax talk I don't know.
> 
> And I don't know what to say about your gay friends.  I would have to take your word for it and assume they aren't pulling your leg.  Or maybe they just don't want to get into an argument with you so they tell you what you want to hear.   But you are their bigoted asshole republican friend no doubt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've never seen or heard a Republican politician say gay people are going to hell. NEVER. I've also never heard homosexuals mentioned in any party platform or in any national political speech by any Republican candidate. Where are you getting this from? Opposition to "gay marriage" is not based on hatred of gay people. It is the protection of traditional marriage and there are numerous and varied reasons for that viewpoint. You've decided, in your head, that all those who oppose gay marriage must be bigoted assholes.
> 
> No, my friends aren't just telling me stuff to avoid argument. I have had lengthy conversations with them about this. Like I said, it's where I got my viewpoint from on Civil Unions. I assumed they supported gay marriage and we got to talking one night about it, and much to my surprise, they didn't. Once they explained their position it made so much sense to me that I adopted it as my own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So they don't care about the tax breaks and they have enough money to go make wills.  Good for them.   Proof that you don't have to be straight, white, christian or a man to be an asshole.  You said they are rich or are well off so that puts them in a different category.  They are possibly wealthy enough to consider themselves republicans so...
> 
> I don't know.  All I know is your one gay, jewish or muslim friends don't prove you right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again we see an example of you assuming things about people you don't know. This is a common trend with you, as it is with anyone who doesn't have a God. You see, you have to appoint yourself as God the Judge of All, and this is where you get to decide things about people based on stereotypes and prejudice. My friends are very libertarian, I don't know how they vote for president, but I know they don't like Obama. They don't believe there should be tax breaks for married people, they don't think we should have income tax at all. It doesn't take a rich person to make a will, I think it costs about $115, last I checked. Of course, under Obama, that's probably more like $500 now... but I digress.
> 
> I'm not trying to "prove myself right" here, just sharing my opinion. We could ostensibly END the entire "gay marriage" debate forever with simple Civil Unions legislation. Churches and religious folks could keep their sanctity of traditional marriages intact, gay couples could qualify for any 'marital' benefit, the government wouldn't be in a position of condoning or legitimizing a sexual behavior, and there is the added bonus of being able to help out other domestic relationship arrangements as well. It's a win-win-win-win! So what's the problem? Well, the problem is, activist nitwits like you who don't want to reach a compromise because that would take away one of your precious social wedge issues and you wouldn't be able to divide us and lob hateful accusations at people you don't know anymore.
Click to expand...


There is no arguing with you.  Perhaps we should split up the 50 states and you guys should start your own country.  In some ways I wish we would have split up after the civil war instead of insisting your dead weight remain part of the USA.


----------



## Slyhunter

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> until the new America says so......
> 
> 
> 
> back to the God hating part.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All I can say is look around you at society.  This is what thousands of years of christianity has produced.  In fact god fucked up with adam, then he wiped the slate clearn with noah all to re populate the earth with new assholes who would kill the messiah and now look at christian society.  Even they admit that end times are coming   and that society is corrupt.
> 
> And now the new age christians like yourself are advocating fucking dogs and kids.  Jesus, hurry the fuck up and take these "chrstians" home hurry!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HOW TYPICAL=PATHETIC of little man!!!  you chose to reject GOD'S LOVE AND FORGIVNESS THEN YOU TRY TO BLAME GOD FOR THE RESULTS OF YOUR POOR,EVIL CHOICE!!! DREAM ON!!
Click to expand...

What love, show it to me. Oh wait I feel something.... 

nvm it was just gas.


----------



## HUGGY

thanatos144 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You can't blame the bible for you sucking dick *. That was ether a genetic defect of mental instability none of which was caused by the bible
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice...
> 
> Adding a homo twist to the conversation.
> 
> Don't follow your posts much..  Guess I didn't miss anything..
> 
> The admins are really missing an opportunity for volume by not having a dick sucking forum for peeps like you to rage in.
> 
> You should bitch for your right to equal status.
> 
> Seriously!  When fags can't have their own forum on USMB..  are we REALLY FREE ????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why direct you anger at being a homosexual at me?  I didn't make you like that.
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...

Because it is YOU ( * "You can't blame the bible for you sucking dick" *.)  that is trying to turn the conversation to sucking dick.  You are not alone in that regard.  That is why I think the admin should provide a forum for you fags to wallow in.


----------



## sealybobo

HUGGY said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice...
> 
> Adding a homo twist to the conversation.
> 
> Don't follow your posts much..  Guess I didn't miss anything..
> 
> The admins are really missing an opportunity for volume by not having a dick sucking forum for peeps like you to rage in.
> 
> You should bitch for your right to equal status.
> 
> Seriously!  When fags can't have their own forum on USMB..  are we REALLY FREE ????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why direct you anger at being a homosexual at me?  I didn't make you like that.
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it is YOU ( * "You can't blame the bible for you sucking dick" *.)  that is trying to turn the conversation to sucking dick.  You are not alone in that regard.  That is why I think the admin should provide a forum for you fags to wallow in.
Click to expand...


When you see a straight couple, do you immediately start wondering how they have sex?  Does she suck his dick?  Does he fuck her in the ass?  

No we don't.  But these right wingers sure are interested in what gay couples do in the privacy of their homes.

And I'm not kidding about righties being bi sexual.  They think being gay is a choice and that is probably true for any bi sexuals out there.  But us 100% hetero's and people who are 100% gay know there is no choice for them.

So any righty who thinks being gay is a choice must be bi sexual.  THey just choose to be straight.  Maybe because of the bible, maybe because their friends and family would disown them.  But they admit with their argument that being straight is a choice for them.  They'd love a dick in the mouth but god says no so they don't.


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> Look how bush lied you christians into war with muslims.  Look at how catholics say raping children is a sin but not a crime.
> 
> The fact that you could say such a thing after you god damn morons voted Bush in twice makes you a joke.
> 
> What's next Jeb for president?
> 
> The only and I mean ONLY reason America had such a big huge fat never been seen before in the history of the world middle class is because of liberals.  The Reagans, Bush's, Corporations use religion to keep the masses under control and you are a perfect example of even though it is they who fucked you over, you think it was the libs.
> 
> They got you worrying about gays having sex and abortions meanwhile they sent all our jobs overseas and the rich are pulling a complete take over of our government.  If they win this midterm and they probably will because the American people are dumb, that'll be it.  At least we will take back what you win this November in 2016.  Yes, Hillary 2016.
> 
> Certainly not Jeb, Christy, Ryan, Huckabee, Newt, Cain, Bachmann.  Do you really suggest any of these people are good?  And I love it how after 8 years of bush and then a total colllapse you religious people have never once taken any of the blame.  You and Bush did nothing wrong.  Fucking liars.  God will send you to hell for lying and if you are just dumb he probably doesn't reward stupidity.



you're insane....


----------



## itfitzme

Boss said:


> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.



From what you are saying, it appears that you are confusing are confusing yourself with God.  

You say it with "True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief."

That is describing, by implication,  them attacking you.


----------



## HUGGY

itfitzme said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From what you are saying, it appears that you are confusing are confusing yourself with God.
> 
> You say it with "True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief."
> 
> That is describing, by implication,  them attacking you.
Click to expand...


We could attack them with sharks that have laser beams attached to their heads... or ill tempered sea bass...


----------



## thanatos144

HUGGY said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice...
> 
> Adding a homo twist to the conversation.
> 
> Don't follow your posts much..  Guess I didn't miss anything..
> 
> The admins are really missing an opportunity for volume by not having a dick sucking forum for peeps like you to rage in.
> 
> You should bitch for your right to equal status.
> 
> Seriously!  When fags can't have their own forum on USMB..  are we REALLY FREE ????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why direct you anger at being a homosexual at me?  I didn't make you like that.
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it is YOU ( * "You can't blame the bible for you sucking dick" *.)  that is trying to turn the conversation to sucking dick.  You are not alone in that regard.  That is why I think the admin should provide a forum for you fags to wallow in.
Click to expand...

no that is me saying you suck dick and that you are a homosexual......Please do try and keep up with the class.


----------



## sealybobo

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look how bush lied you christians into war with muslims.  Look at how catholics say raping children is a sin but not a crime.
> 
> The fact that you could say such a thing after you god damn morons voted Bush in twice makes you a joke.
> 
> What's next Jeb for president?
> 
> The only and I mean ONLY reason America had such a big huge fat never been seen before in the history of the world middle class is because of liberals.  The Reagans, Bush's, Corporations use religion to keep the masses under control and you are a perfect example of even though it is they who fucked you over, you think it was the libs.
> 
> They got you worrying about gays having sex and abortions meanwhile they sent all our jobs overseas and the rich are pulling a complete take over of our government.  If they win this midterm and they probably will because the American people are dumb, that'll be it.  At least we will take back what you win this November in 2016.  Yes, Hillary 2016.
> 
> Certainly not Jeb, Christy, Ryan, Huckabee, Newt, Cain, Bachmann.  Do you really suggest any of these people are good?  And I love it how after 8 years of bush and then a total colllapse you religious people have never once taken any of the blame.  You and Bush did nothing wrong.  Fucking liars.  God will send you to hell for lying and if you are just dumb he probably doesn't reward stupidity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you're insane....
Click to expand...


And this is why we persist.  How can a citizen vote intelligently if he believes there is an invisible man in the sky?  And what if the GOP forms an alliance with religion and they are deemed the "moral" party based on two and only two things, gay marriage and abortion.  Then that party would be ruled by the rich and would have successfully divided the masses with this bullshit con artist cult scam called christianity.  

How can you convince someone who believes in invisible men in the sky who send people to heaven and hell?  If they are so gullible they believe that, they can be fooled on any other issue for sure like global warming, wars, economic fairness is not socialism?  As long as the moral party says global warming isn't real, they go along and even if they are wrong, all that matters is abortion and gay marriage to them.  Or racism.  Look at how many poor southerners vote GOP only because blacks vote Demoratic?

You church going hypocrites understand about your personal communities but you fail to realize we are all in this together.  You, me, the guys in Alaska, the blacks in the hood, the arab americans, gays, atheists.  You guys think we're ruining America when it is you who goes along with your slave masters even though you aren't rich enough to be in the GOP.

Anyways, nice come back.  You got me.  Now piss off.  I don't want to talk politics anymore because I realized that there is a bigger problem.  Religion.  It is how they control the stupid masses.  The masses don't need religion.  We'll be smarter if we let that fairy tale shit go once and for all.  Then we'll build space ships like you've never seen before.  We'll cure everything.  Healthcare won't be a for profit thing anymore.  You do know they could cure cancer but why would they when it's such a cash cow, right?  

And no matter what the GOP do you defend it because they are the god party.  This is why god has to die once and for all.  There were 999 other gods before Jesus.  Why were they all made up but not Jesus?  Everyone knows Adam & Eve is just a story along with mosus & noah.  So if those were just stories, so was Jesus.  No virgin birth, no miracles and no rising from the dead.  A con, scam lie.  OR, do you think Adam & Eve, Noah, Mosus stories are real historical stories?    Only 3 out of 10 christians take those stories literally yet they still HAVE FAITH Jesus was the Messiah?


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look how bush lied you christians into war with muslims.  Look at how catholics say raping children is a sin but not a crime.
> 
> The fact that you could say such a thing after you god damn morons voted Bush in twice makes you a joke.
> 
> What's next Jeb for president?
> 
> The only and I mean ONLY reason America had such a big huge fat never been seen before in the history of the world middle class is because of liberals.  The Reagans, Bush's, Corporations use religion to keep the masses under control and you are a perfect example of even though it is they who fucked you over, you think it was the libs.
> 
> They got you worrying about gays having sex and abortions meanwhile they sent all our jobs overseas and the rich are pulling a complete take over of our government.  If they win this midterm and they probably will because the American people are dumb, that'll be it.  At least we will take back what you win this November in 2016.  Yes, Hillary 2016.
> 
> Certainly not Jeb, Christy, Ryan, Huckabee, Newt, Cain, Bachmann.  Do you really suggest any of these people are good?  And I love it how after 8 years of bush and then a total colllapse you religious people have never once taken any of the blame.  You and Bush did nothing wrong.  Fucking liars.  God will send you to hell for lying and if you are just dumb he probably doesn't reward stupidity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you're insane....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And this is why we persist.  How can a citizen vote intelligently if he believes there is an invisible man in the sky?  And what if the GOP forms an alliance with religion and they are deemed the "moral" party based on two and only two things, gay marriage and abortion.  Then that party would be ruled by the rich and would have successfully divided the masses with this bullshit con artist cult scam called christianity.
> 
> How can you convince someone who believes in invisible men in the sky who send people to heaven and hell?  If they are so gullible they believe that, they can be fooled on any other issue for sure like global warming, wars, economic fairness is not socialism?  As long as the moral party says global warming isn't real, they go along and even if they are wrong, all that matters is abortion and gay marriage to them.  Or racism.  Look at how many poor southerners vote GOP only because blacks vote Demoratic?
> 
> You church going hypocrites understand about your personal communities but you fail to realize we are all in this together.  You, me, the guys in Alaska, the blacks in the hood, the arab americans, gays, atheists.  You guys think we're ruining America when it is you who goes along with your slave masters even though you aren't rich enough to be in the GOP.
> 
> Anyways, nice come back.  You got me.  Now piss off.  I don't want to talk politics anymore because I realized that there is a bigger problem.  Religion.  It is how they control the stupid masses.  The masses don't need religion.  We'll be smarter if we let that fairy tale shit go once and for all.  Then we'll build space ships like you've never seen before.  We'll cure everything.  Healthcare won't be a for profit thing anymore.  You do know they could cure cancer but why would they when it's such a cash cow, right?
> 
> And no matter what the GOP do you defend it because they are the god party.  This is why god has to die once and for all.  There were 999 other gods before Jesus.  Why were they all made up but not Jesus?  Everyone knows Adam & Eve is just a story along with mosus & noah.  So if those were just stories, so was Jesus.  No virgin birth, no miracles and no rising from the dead.  A con, scam lie.  OR, do you think Adam & Eve, Noah, Mosus stories are real historical stories?    Only 3 out of 10 christians take those stories literally yet they still HAVE FAITH Jesus was the Messiah?
Click to expand...


there's a bit of drool running down your chin......


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.



I would like to start over with you theists.  Is that ok with you?  If so, the first thing you have to let go of is that we are hate-filled.  Everything else we might be doing like making fun of you but thats to make a point.  Your belief is irrational.  But you are right, agnostic atheism is the most rational position, ok?  We give you that.  We dont know for sure either.  But you can not deny that the odds of there being a god are lower than the odds there is a god.  And it's not on me/us to prove god doesn't exist.  Otherwise, prove to me unicorns don't exist.   

And then you say True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief.  Are you kidding me boss?  When we are the least trusted group even lower than cheaters and pot smokers in a recent poll?  I have heard a lot of atheists say they dont really care that much about religion but thats probably the smart thing to say on camera.  No sense in alienating yourself.  And religion is doing a fine job losing members on it's own.  No need to stir up the public so theists can say "look the atheists are attacking us christians".  Most people who aren't real christians, if put in a corner would probably side with religion "just to be safe" so until people evolve more we'll just keep focusing on what we can learn and let you stay firm on what you do know and that a god exists.  And does it really matter in your day to day life?  I do good things too even though I don't believe in god.  Do you only do good because you think there is a god?  You need that?  Pathetic.

I know most atheists dont think it is healthy or good to tell a lie no matter how good it makes you feel.  Plus we really dont think it is necessary.  Can you at least respect that is truly how we feel?  Your post that we dont want to believe so we can live wicked makes you sound stupid like gismy.  

I too find it amusing when people talk about god.  Im fascinated.  Sometimes I throw them a bomb and debate if there is a god and they never like that.  They say Ill go to hell.  See, they are too afraid to even think rationally.  They have to throw fear into the mix if someone doesn't buy their bullshit cockameme story.  True?  You have to admit this is what theists do.  Please be honest boss.

But people are getting smarter.  I say well get a lot smarter a lot faster without religion dumbing down the masses.  Sorry but I really believe this is what it does.  If you believe in god/santa clause, how intelligently are you voting?  Look at how many one wedge issue voters the GOP wins over from the poor and middle class.  People who are either racist, god lovers or gun lovers.  These people vote against themselves because they gop is the party of god.   

And yes.  I would love nothing more than to recruit people who are on the fence into my way of thinking politically and religiously.  And yes this is therapeutic.


----------



## HUGGY

thanatos144 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why direct you anger at being a homosexual at me?  I didn't make you like that.
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> Because it is YOU ( * "You can't blame the bible for you sucking dick" *.)  that is trying to turn the conversation to sucking dick.  You are not alone in that regard.  That is why I think the admin should provide a forum for you fags to wallow in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no that is me saying you suck dick and that you are a homosexual......Please do try and keep up with the class.
Click to expand...


You are off topic.  

I agree that there is a "class" of a type here on USMB that attempts to steer all conversation onto their favorite homosexual past time.

I'm not interested in your sexual perversions.  Keep it up on threads I participate in and it will be reported.

Again I urge you to petition the admin to start a Homosexual Forum where you and your butt buddies can talk about dick sucking without offending other members.


----------



## sealybobo

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> you're insane....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this is why we persist.  How can a citizen vote intelligently if he believes there is an invisible man in the sky?  And what if the GOP forms an alliance with religion and they are deemed the "moral" party based on two and only two things, gay marriage and abortion.  Then that party would be ruled by the rich and would have successfully divided the masses with this bullshit con artist cult scam called christianity.
> 
> How can you convince someone who believes in invisible men in the sky who send people to heaven and hell?  If they are so gullible they believe that, they can be fooled on any other issue for sure like global warming, wars, economic fairness is not socialism?  As long as the moral party says global warming isn't real, they go along and even if they are wrong, all that matters is abortion and gay marriage to them.  Or racism.  Look at how many poor southerners vote GOP only because blacks vote Demoratic?
> 
> You church going hypocrites understand about your personal communities but you fail to realize we are all in this together.  You, me, the guys in Alaska, the blacks in the hood, the arab americans, gays, atheists.  You guys think we're ruining America when it is you who goes along with your slave masters even though you aren't rich enough to be in the GOP.
> 
> Anyways, nice come back.  You got me.  Now piss off.  I don't want to talk politics anymore because I realized that there is a bigger problem.  Religion.  It is how they control the stupid masses.  The masses don't need religion.  We'll be smarter if we let that fairy tale shit go once and for all.  Then we'll build space ships like you've never seen before.  We'll cure everything.  Healthcare won't be a for profit thing anymore.  You do know they could cure cancer but why would they when it's such a cash cow, right?
> 
> And no matter what the GOP do you defend it because they are the god party.  This is why god has to die once and for all.  There were 999 other gods before Jesus.  Why were they all made up but not Jesus?  Everyone knows Adam & Eve is just a story along with mosus & noah.  So if those were just stories, so was Jesus.  No virgin birth, no miracles and no rising from the dead.  A con, scam lie.  OR, do you think Adam & Eve, Noah, Mosus stories are real historical stories?    Only 3 out of 10 christians take those stories literally yet they still HAVE FAITH Jesus was the Messiah?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> there's a bit of drool running down your chin......
Click to expand...


That's all you got?    Cat got your tongue?  Don't know where to start?  Must be because you know your thoughts are bullshit and you know I'll tear anything you have to say apart.  Just don't make it too long.  Lets get to the nitty gritty.  Who are you anyways?  What do you do for a living?  How much do you make?  What state do you live in?  How old?


----------



## Slyhunter

sealybobo said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why direct you anger at being a homosexual at me?  I didn't make you like that.
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> Because it is YOU ( * "You can't blame the bible for you sucking dick" *.)  that is trying to turn the conversation to sucking dick.  You are not alone in that regard.  That is why I think the admin should provide a forum for you fags to wallow in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you see a straight couple, do you immediately start wondering how they have sex?  Does she suck his dick?  Does he fuck her in the ass?
> 
> .
Click to expand...

If she's hot looking I do. If their both fat its all a matter of logistics though.


----------



## Slyhunter

There are two types of people in this world, the fuckers and the fuckees. And the fuckers RULE!


----------



## HUGGY

Slyhunter said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because it is YOU ( * "You can't blame the bible for you sucking dick" *.)  that is trying to turn the conversation to sucking dick.  You are not alone in that regard.  That is why I think the admin should provide a forum for you fags to wallow in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you see a straight couple, do you immediately start wondering how they have sex?  Does she suck his dick?  Does he fuck her in the ass?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If she's hot looking I do. If their both fat its all a matter of logistics though.
Click to expand...


I detest a god that allows...nay.... PROMOTES sluvenly ugly unclean bible believing fat women living in double wide trailers that get themselves knocked up by self loathing unemployable drunks.

The disgusting female has several of these unwanted bastard brats that grow up or at least get old enough to move out on their own and think about a man's penis too much because they associate and are repulsed by women with the strong resemblance of a hog that bore him. OR the kid has unnatural desire for his sister because incest is also promoted by this wretched god.

What kind of God promotes this perverted behavior?


----------



## GISMYS

HUGGY said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you see a straight couple, do you immediately start wondering how they have sex?  Does she suck his dick?  Does he fuck her in the ass?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> If she's hot looking I do. If their both fat its all a matter of logistics though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I detest a god that allows...nay.... PROMOTES sluvenly ugly unclean bible believing fat women living in double wide trailers that get themselves knocked up by self loathing unemployable drunks.
> 
> The disgusting female has several of these unwanted bastard brats that grow up or at least get old enough to move out on their own and think about a man's penis too much because they associate and are repulsed by women with the strong resemblance of a hog that bore him. OR the kid has unnatural desire for his sister because incest is also promoted by this wretched god.
> 
> What kind of God promotes this perverted behavior?
Click to expand...


"What kind of God promotes this perverted behavior?" WHAT KIND OF IGNORANT TARD THINKS HE DOES??? and you???


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And this is why we persist.  How can a citizen vote intelligently if he believes there is an invisible man in the sky?  And what if the GOP forms an alliance with religion and they are deemed the "moral" party based on two and only two things, gay marriage and abortion.  Then that party would be ruled by the rich and would have successfully divided the masses with this bullshit con artist cult scam called christianity.
> 
> How can you convince someone who believes in invisible men in the sky who send people to heaven and hell?  If they are so gullible they believe that, they can be fooled on any other issue for sure like global warming, wars, economic fairness is not socialism?  As long as the moral party says global warming isn't real, they go along and even if they are wrong, all that matters is abortion and gay marriage to them.  Or racism.  Look at how many poor southerners vote GOP only because blacks vote Demoratic?
> 
> You church going hypocrites understand about your personal communities but you fail to realize we are all in this together.  You, me, the guys in Alaska, the blacks in the hood, the arab americans, gays, atheists.  You guys think we're ruining America when it is you who goes along with your slave masters even though you aren't rich enough to be in the GOP.
> 
> Anyways, nice come back.  You got me.  Now piss off.  I don't want to talk politics anymore because I realized that there is a bigger problem.  Religion.  It is how they control the stupid masses.  The masses don't need religion.  We'll be smarter if we let that fairy tale shit go once and for all.  Then we'll build space ships like you've never seen before.  We'll cure everything.  Healthcare won't be a for profit thing anymore.  You do know they could cure cancer but why would they when it's such a cash cow, right?
> 
> And no matter what the GOP do you defend it because they are the god party.  This is why god has to die once and for all.  There were 999 other gods before Jesus.  Why were they all made up but not Jesus?  Everyone knows Adam & Eve is just a story along with mosus & noah.  So if those were just stories, so was Jesus.  No virgin birth, no miracles and no rising from the dead.  A con, scam lie.  OR, do you think Adam & Eve, Noah, Mosus stories are real historical stories?    Only 3 out of 10 christians take those stories literally yet they still HAVE FAITH Jesus was the Messiah?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there's a bit of drool running down your chin......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's all you got?    Cat got your tongue?  Don't know where to start?  Must be because you know your thoughts are bullshit and you know I'll tear anything you have to say apart.  Just don't make it too long.  Lets get to the nitty gritty.  Who are you anyways?  What do you do for a living?  How much do you make?  What state do you live in?  How old?
Click to expand...


no, its just that you're obviously a fanatic and totally disinterested in fact.....not much to be gained in pointing you in the direction of truth, as you obviously have decided to ignore it.....as I would have to correct errors in every sentence (sometimes two at a time) it would simply take more time than you're worth.....


----------



## sealybobo

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> there's a bit of drool running down your chin......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's all you got?    Cat got your tongue?  Don't know where to start?  Must be because you know your thoughts are bullshit and you know I'll tear anything you have to say apart.  Just don't make it too long.  Lets get to the nitty gritty.  Who are you anyways?  What do you do for a living?  How much do you make?  What state do you live in?  How old?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no, its just that you're obviously a fanatic and totally disinterested in fact.....not much to be gained in pointing you in the direction of truth, as you obviously have decided to ignore it.....as I would have to correct errors in every sentence (sometimes two at a time) it would simply take more time than you're worth.....
Click to expand...


Atheists are most often called militant when they passionately defend reason and advocate critical thinking. The bar theists set for perceived hostility appears to be any atheist simply voicing an opinion in dissent of religious belief. In contrast, the bar atheists set for perceived theistic hostility is any form of religiously motivated violence or oppression.

Atheism does not preclude someone from being argumentative or insensitive; those things are simply seen as being preferable to killing one another over an imaginary friend.

A militant atheist will debate in a University theatre or appeal for the separation of religion and government. A militant theist will kill doctors, stone women to death, incite religious war, restrict sexual and gender equality and convince children they are flawed and worthless  all under the instruction of their imagined god or holy book.

It can be argued that there is no such thing as a militant atheist, that the term is itself a misnomer, because there is simply no ideology or philosophy in atheism to be militant about. If an atheist is someone who lacks belief in gods, then a militant atheist is apparently someone who passionately lacks a belief in gods. All other possible beliefs and ideologies  including any desire to oppress theism  come from outside atheism. This is in contrast to religious belief, which often includes a set of laws and commandments purportedly derived from a supernatural source about which one can be militant.

Note: Militant atheism is most often confused with gosateizm (state atheism), which was based on the ideology of Marxism-Leninism. It was this ideology which was responsible for the oppression and murder of theists under several 20th century communist regimes. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods with no inherit moral, political or philosophical baggage.

See also: The Ethics of Belief (a must read), Richard Dawkins on Militant Atheism, Christian Terrorism, Islamic Terrorism, Atheist Terrorism (no link found).

Im sorry if my insensitivity towards your beliefs offends you. But guess what  your religious wars, jihads, crusades, inquisitions, censoring of free speech, brainwashing of children, forcing girls into underage marriages, female genital mutilation, stoning, pederasty, homophobia and rejection of science and reason offend me. So I guess were even.  Anonymous

Being open-minded does not mean accepting claims outright, it means demonstrating the willingness to consider new ones. An open-minded person is receptive to new ideas, opinions and arguments and wants to discover their real truth-value before accepting them. Atheists are generally very open-minded.

Unjustified belief in the supernatural does not automatically make someone open-minded and, conversely, disbelief  pending further evidence  does not automatically make someone close-minded.

Athiests simply do not usually exhibit gullibility or credulity. They maintain a standard of evidence proportional to the extraordinary nature of certain claims. They are usually open to the idea of god, but so far unconvinced by any evidence or argument put forward to support it.

Why cant atheists just leave theists alone?

Because religion has been, and continues to be, responsible for countless horrors throughout human history. See also: Religiously motivated animosity, violence and oppression and discrimination.
For all the problems we face as a society, many theists choose not only to do nothing to help, but actually engage in sabotage by actively preventing solutions from being instigated, usually by supporting irrational political positions e.g. stem-cell research, contraception, womens rights, sexual equality and even global warming.
Because belief in a god taps into mankinds natural tendency to defer moral decision making to authority figures (including priests, prophets, holy books, popes, ayatollahs and imams). Acting out Gods plan or Gods will is a sure-fire way to absolve ones-self of responsibility for ones actions. See also: Cituke.
Because as a functional member of society it benefits everyone if your decision making process is founded on evidence and reason, not on superstition. Faith isnt a virtue; it is the glorification of voluntary ignorance.
Because religious superstition erects an absolute monarchy in a persons mind. It teaches them to be satisfied with with not understanding the world and represents a surrendering to ignorance under the pretension of devine knowledge. Many of the greatest thinkers in human history have been repressed, sometimes forcefully, by those with faith. It is not skeptics or explorers but fanatics and ideologues who menace decency and progress. See also: Hypatia, Galileo Galilei, Giordano Bruno, The relationship between science and religion.


----------



## sealybobo

koshergrl said:


> They are abject failures, whose only joy in life is to attack people who are able to squeeze a modicom of happiness out of life.
> 
> They don't approve of happiness. That's why they want to kill babies, euthanise teh elderly,  make everybody poor, and turn our health system into crap.



Perfect example of how the powerful use religion to control the stupid masses.  This person is clearly brainwashed.

We love happiness.  We just don't like you telling us we're going to go to hell or you trying to impose your religious rules on our society.  Our society is not a christian society.  Does that bother you?  Then maybe it is you who is the problem.

We want to have abortions when we don't want to have babies.  No one wants to kill babies you stupid ****.  If that is your belief then you can go fuck right off.  And anyone who thinks this way can't be happy or smart.  

Have you ever seen a love one who is terminal and suffering you **** bag?  20 years ago they wouldn't give the morphine drip like they do today because "it would kill them".  So fucking what?  The person is TERMINAL!  Today they give the drip no thanks to god or you god believers.  

The healthcare system was already crap.  The costs went up over 100% during the time Bush was in office, you brainwashed fool.  We want to make healthcare affordable for all.  So much for jesus saying heal the sick and feed the poor.  This is why christianity is doomed.  It is a worthless made up religion.  If it did more good than harm do you think we'd be talking bad against it?  I"d probably still be religious if it weren't for the christians and their churches.  They didn't represent jesus very well.  You are a perfect example of that.  

Just like the kings and pharoahs used religion to control the poor masses, so do the powerful today.  Yet they got you thinking we want to make everyone poor or socialist or communist.  Anyone who thinks like you do is really stupid on a major level.  Please shut the fuck up.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> If she's hot looking I do. If their both fat its all a matter of logistics though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I detest a god that allows...nay.... PROMOTES sluvenly ugly unclean bible believing fat women living in double wide trailers that get themselves knocked up by self loathing unemployable drunks.
> 
> The disgusting female has several of these unwanted bastard brats that grow up or at least get old enough to move out on their own and think about a man's penis too much because they associate and are repulsed by women with the strong resemblance of a hog that bore him. OR the kid has unnatural desire for his sister because incest is also promoted by this wretched god.
> 
> What kind of God promotes this perverted behavior?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "What kind of God promotes this perverted behavior?" WHAT KIND OF IGNORANT TARD THINKS HE DOES??? and you???
Click to expand...


Why is it now that we have developed rational inquiry we hear only a deafening silence from a god who once supposedly engaged regularly in human affairs?  Why are we the losers in the dice roll of time? If a god places such a high value on us worshipping and believing then why not simply make its existence obvious to us?

If one accepts the prevailing scientific understanding of the development of the universe, yet also believes in one of the major religions, then presumably god sat idle for 13.7 billion years  waiting as the stars, galaxies and planets formed. Then it watched with complete and utter indifference as modern Homo Sapians evolved, struggled and died for a further 150,000 years. Finally, a few thousand years ago, this god suddenly decided to reveal itself to several people in the most primitive, illiterate and remote portions of humanity in a completely unverifiable way  and then simply disappeared.


----------



## sealybobo

koshergrl said:


> They are abject failures, whose only joy in life is to attack people who are able to squeeze a modicom of happiness out of life.
> 
> They don't approve of happiness. That's why they want to kill babies, euthanise teh elderly,  make everybody poor, and turn our health system into crap.



Why do we persist?  Here are some reasons:  

1.  Religion has been, and continues to be, responsible for countless horrors throughout human history. Religiously motivated animosity, violence, oppression and discrimination.

2. For all the problems we face as a society, many theists choose not only to do nothing to help, but actually engage in sabotage by actively preventing solutions from being instigated, usually by supporting irrational political positions e.g. stem-cell research, contraception, womens rights, sexual equality and even global warming.

3. Because belief in a god taps into mankinds natural tendency to defer moral decision making to authority figures (including priests, prophets, holy books, popes, ayatollahs and imams and BUSH). Acting out Gods plan or Gods will is a sure-fire way to absolve ones-self of responsibility for ones actions. 

4. Because as a functional member of society it benefits everyone if your decision making process is founded on evidence and reason, not on superstition. Faith isnt a virtue; it is the glorification of voluntary ignorance.

5.  Because religious superstition erects an absolute monarchy in a persons mind. It teaches them to be satisfied with not understanding the world and represents a surrendering to ignorance under the pretension of devine knowledge. Many of the greatest thinkers in human history have been repressed, sometimes forcefully, by those with faith. It is not skeptics or explorers but fanatics and ideologues who menace decency and progress. Examples are Hypatia, Galileo Galilei, Giordano Bruno,


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's all you got?    Cat got your tongue?  Don't know where to start?  Must be because you know your thoughts are bullshit and you know I'll tear anything you have to say apart.  Just don't make it too long.  Lets get to the nitty gritty.  Who are you anyways?  What do you do for a living?  How much do you make?  What state do you live in?  How old?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no, its just that you're obviously a fanatic and totally disinterested in fact.....not much to be gained in pointing you in the direction of truth, as you obviously have decided to ignore it.....as I would have to correct errors in every sentence (sometimes two at a time) it would simply take more time than you're worth.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheists are most often called militant when they passionately defend reason and advocate critical thinking.
Click to expand...

/shrugs.....I only say it when you pretend the stupid things you say are "rational".....


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are abject failures, whose only joy in life is to attack people who are able to squeeze a modicom of happiness out of life.
> 
> They don't approve of happiness. That's why they want to kill babies, euthanise teh elderly,  make everybody poor, and turn our health system into crap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do we persist?  Here are some reasons:
> 
> 1.  Religion has been, and continues to be, responsible for countless horrors throughout human history. Religiously motivated animosity, violence, oppression and discrimination.
> 
> 2. For all the problems we face as a society, many theists choose not only to do nothing to help, but actually engage in sabotage by actively preventing solutions from being instigated, usually by supporting irrational political positions e.g. stem-cell research, contraception, women&#8217;s rights, sexual equality and even global warming.
> 
> 3. Because belief in a god taps into mankind&#8217;s natural tendency to defer moral decision making to authority figures (including priests, prophets, holy books, popes, ayatollahs and imams and BUSH). Acting out &#8216;God&#8217;s plan&#8217; or &#8216;God&#8217;s will&#8217; is a sure-fire way to absolve one&#8217;s-self of responsibility for one&#8217;s actions.
> 
> 4. Because as a functional member of society it benefits everyone if your decision making process is founded on evidence and reason, not on superstition. Faith isn&#8217;t a virtue; it is the glorification of voluntary ignorance.
> 
> 5.  Because religious superstition erects an absolute monarchy in a person&#8217;s mind. It teaches them to be satisfied with not understanding the world and represents a surrendering to ignorance under the pretension of &#8216;devine knowledge&#8217;. Many of the greatest thinkers in human history have been repressed, sometimes forcefully, by those with faith. It is not skeptics or explorers but fanatics and ideologues who menace decency and progress. Examples are Hypatia, Galileo Galilei, Giordano Bruno,
Click to expand...


five examples of you saying stupid things that you claim are rational.....
]
for example.....you hang your accusation against Christianity on events which happened during the Dark Ages, when everyone was engaging in countless horrors......it was not caused by religion....it was caused by ignorance...and the ignorant included both the religious and the irreligious......


----------



## sealybobo

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are abject failures, whose only joy in life is to attack people who are able to squeeze a modicom of happiness out of life.
> 
> They don't approve of happiness. That's why they want to kill babies, euthanise teh elderly,  make everybody poor, and turn our health system into crap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do we persist?  Here are some reasons:
> 
> 1.  Religion has been, and continues to be, responsible for countless horrors throughout human history. Religiously motivated animosity, violence, oppression and discrimination.
> 
> 2. For all the problems we face as a society, many theists choose not only to do nothing to help, but actually engage in sabotage by actively preventing solutions from being instigated, usually by supporting irrational political positions e.g. stem-cell research, contraception, womens rights, sexual equality and even global warming.
> 
> 3. Because belief in a god taps into mankinds natural tendency to defer moral decision making to authority figures (including priests, prophets, holy books, popes, ayatollahs and imams and BUSH). Acting out Gods plan or Gods will is a sure-fire way to absolve ones-self of responsibility for ones actions.
> 
> 4. Because as a functional member of society it benefits everyone if your decision making process is founded on evidence and reason, not on superstition. Faith isnt a virtue; it is the glorification of voluntary ignorance.
> 
> 5.  Because religious superstition erects an absolute monarchy in a persons mind. It teaches them to be satisfied with not understanding the world and represents a surrendering to ignorance under the pretension of devine knowledge. Many of the greatest thinkers in human history have been repressed, sometimes forcefully, by those with faith. It is not skeptics or explorers but fanatics and ideologues who menace decency and progress. Examples are Hypatia, Galileo Galilei, Giordano Bruno,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> five examples of you saying stupid things that you claim are rational.....
> ]
> for example.....you hang your accusation against Christianity on events which happened during the Dark Ages, when everyone was engaging in countless horrors......it was not caused by religion....it was caused by ignorance...and the ignorant included both the religious and the irreligious......
Click to expand...


Nonsense.  What about what young christian Americans did to indians and black people?  

And if it weren't for the cover christians gave Bush, he might not have been able to lie us into Iraq.  Remember what you religious people did to the Dixie Chicks when they spoke up?  That is a great example of how the rulers of society have used religion to manipulate/control the masses for as long as we've had religion.  The pharoah's used it.  The kings proclaimed their divine rights and the Catholic church has been cleaning up off those dopes for how many thousands of years?  They came up with a better product than the jews.  Then the Muslims came up with their own brand/product and look how well that nonsense has done.  Do you think your stories are any better?  Fucking joke.    Good night dummy.


----------



## sealybobo

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are abject failures, whose only joy in life is to attack people who are able to squeeze a modicom of happiness out of life.
> 
> They don't approve of happiness. That's why they want to kill babies, euthanise teh elderly,  make everybody poor, and turn our health system into crap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do we persist?  Here are some reasons:
> 
> 1.  Religion has been, and continues to be, responsible for countless horrors throughout human history. Religiously motivated animosity, violence, oppression and discrimination.
> 
> 2. For all the problems we face as a society, many theists choose not only to do nothing to help, but actually engage in sabotage by actively preventing solutions from being instigated, usually by supporting irrational political positions e.g. stem-cell research, contraception, womens rights, sexual equality and even global warming.
> 
> 3. Because belief in a god taps into mankinds natural tendency to defer moral decision making to authority figures (including priests, prophets, holy books, popes, ayatollahs and imams and BUSH). Acting out Gods plan or Gods will is a sure-fire way to absolve ones-self of responsibility for ones actions.
> 
> 4. Because as a functional member of society it benefits everyone if your decision making process is founded on evidence and reason, not on superstition. Faith isnt a virtue; it is the glorification of voluntary ignorance.
> 
> 5.  Because religious superstition erects an absolute monarchy in a persons mind. It teaches them to be satisfied with not understanding the world and represents a surrendering to ignorance under the pretension of devine knowledge. Many of the greatest thinkers in human history have been repressed, sometimes forcefully, by those with faith. It is not skeptics or explorers but fanatics and ideologues who menace decency and progress. Examples are Hypatia, Galileo Galilei, Giordano Bruno,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> five examples of you saying stupid things that you claim are rational.....
> ]
> for example.....you hang your accusation against Christianity on events which happened during the Dark Ages, when everyone was engaging in countless horrors......it was not caused by religion....it was caused by ignorance...and the ignorant included both the religious and the irreligious......
Click to expand...


Also

1.  Christians slowed down research because stem cells are life.  My mom has Alzheimers you cock sucker.

2.  Christians don't think global warming or pollution will destroy the planet because that wasn't proficized.  Religion makes too many people ignorant.  Now I don't know what level of ignorant you are but I don't like any ignorance, not even a little.  

So fuck the past.  Christians suck today.  There is no god you fools.  And if there is, be a better god damn citizen.  Believing in him when he's hiding can't possibly be more important than how you treat this planet.  What's the more logical test?  See if you destroy the planet or instead throw away the fairy tales and start cleaning up the fucking mess we've already made.  Religion makes people stupid.  Look at all those muslim women in afganistan praying 5 times a day.  We should give them guns to hide under those burkas.


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> Nonsense.  What about what young christian Americans did to indians and black people?



oh.....did the non-Christians immigrate to this country AFTER the 1870s?......religion had nothing to do with Indian wars or slavery.....




> And if it weren't for the cover christians gave Bush, he might not have been able to lie us into Iraq.



lol.....I get it....you think that all Christians are Republicans!....... 

remember when I said I had laughed at you four times today?......make it five.....


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do we persist?  Here are some reasons:
> 
> 1.  Religion has been, and continues to be, responsible for countless horrors throughout human history. Religiously motivated animosity, violence, oppression and discrimination.
> 
> 2. For all the problems we face as a society, many theists choose not only to do nothing to help, but actually engage in sabotage by actively preventing solutions from being instigated, usually by supporting irrational political positions e.g. stem-cell research, contraception, women&#8217;s rights, sexual equality and even global warming.
> 
> 3. Because belief in a god taps into mankind&#8217;s natural tendency to defer moral decision making to authority figures (including priests, prophets, holy books, popes, ayatollahs and imams and BUSH). Acting out &#8216;God&#8217;s plan&#8217; or &#8216;God&#8217;s will&#8217; is a sure-fire way to absolve one&#8217;s-self of responsibility for one&#8217;s actions.
> 
> 4. Because as a functional member of society it benefits everyone if your decision making process is founded on evidence and reason, not on superstition. Faith isn&#8217;t a virtue; it is the glorification of voluntary ignorance.
> 
> 5.  Because religious superstition erects an absolute monarchy in a person&#8217;s mind. It teaches them to be satisfied with not understanding the world and represents a surrendering to ignorance under the pretension of &#8216;devine knowledge&#8217;. Many of the greatest thinkers in human history have been repressed, sometimes forcefully, by those with faith. It is not skeptics or explorers but fanatics and ideologues who menace decency and progress. Examples are Hypatia, Galileo Galilei, Giordano Bruno,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> five examples of you saying stupid things that you claim are rational.....
> ]
> for example.....you hang your accusation against Christianity on events which happened during the Dark Ages, when everyone was engaging in countless horrors......it was not caused by religion....it was caused by ignorance...and the ignorant included both the religious and the irreligious......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Also
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  Christians slowed down research because stem cells are life.  My mom has Alzheimers you cock sucker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so, you felt it necessary to kill unborn children to rescue her?.....(not to mention using homosexuality as an insult in a fit of intolerance).......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2.  Christians don't think global warming or pollution will destroy the planet because that wasn't proficized.  Religion makes too many people ignorant.  Now I don't know what level of ignorant you are but I don't like any ignorance, not even a little.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> liberals believed mankind caused the current global warming cycle which began 150k years ago.....one of the reasons I don't consider liberals very intelligent......however, it has nothing to do with religion....
Click to expand...


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Nonsense.  What about what young christian Americans did to indians and black people?



Uhm... excuse me, but it was Quaker ministers who BEGAN the abolitionist movement which ultimately ended slavery. It was the great Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. who, along with numerous other black (and white) ministers, led the Civil Rights movement. Southern pastors and church organizations vehemently protested Jackson's Indian Removal policy. 



> And if it weren't for the cover christians gave Bush, he might not have been able to lie us into Iraq.



You mean were we liberated 25 million people from a tyrant SECULAR dictator? 



> Remember what you religious people did to the Dixie Chicks when they spoke up?  That is a great example of how the rulers of society have used religion to manipulate/control the masses for as long as we've had religion.



No one in political power did ANYTHING to the Dixie Chicks. One of them made a disparaging comment about the president and their fan base boycotted them. That's how it works in a free democratic society. You have the right to say whatever you please, and the consumer has a right to boycott your ass for it. Costco learned that lesson just this week.  



> The pharoah's used it.  The kings proclaimed their divine rights and the Catholic church has been cleaning up off those dopes for how many thousands of years?  They came up with a better product than the jews.  Then the Muslims came up with their own brand/product and look how well that nonsense has done.  Do you think your stories are any better?  Fucking joke.    Good night dummy.



The pharaohs enslaved the Jews and killed Christians. Kings and governments have often tried to control religion as a means to control the masses. That's exactly why we came here and started a new country, dingbat. So a bunch of you god-haters take over religion and pervert it to perpetrate evil and you want to blame the religion for that? 

You're the only joke here, bud.


----------



## AtheistBuddah

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.  What about what young christian Americans did to indians and black people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uhm... excuse me, but it was Quaker ministers who BEGAN the abolitionist movement which ultimately ended slavery. It was the great Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. who, along with numerous other black (and white) ministers, led the Civil Rights movement. Southern pastors and church organizations vehemently protested Jackson's Indian Removal policy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if it weren't for the cover christians gave Bush, he might not have been able to lie us into Iraq.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean were we liberated 25 million people from a tyrant SECULAR dictator?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember what you religious people did to the Dixie Chicks when they spoke up?  That is a great example of how the rulers of society have used religion to manipulate/control the masses for as long as we've had religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one in political power did ANYTHING to the Dixie Chicks. One of them made a disparaging comment about the president and their fan base boycotted them. That's how it works in a free democratic society. You have the right to say whatever you please, and the consumer has a right to boycott your ass for it. Costco learned that lesson just this week.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The pharoah's used it.  The kings proclaimed their divine rights and the Catholic church has been cleaning up off those dopes for how many thousands of years?  They came up with a better product than the jews.  Then the Muslims came up with their own brand/product and look how well that nonsense has done.  Do you think your stories are any better?  Fucking joke.    Good night dummy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The pharaohs enslaved the Jews and killed Christians. Kings and governments have often tried to control religion as a means to control the masses. That's exactly why we came here and started a new country, dingbat. So a bunch of you god-haters take over religion and pervert it to perpetrate evil and you want to blame the religion for that?
> 
> You're the only joke here, bud.
Click to expand...


Did you really just try and say that Sadam, the leader of a Muslim nation was an atheist? Were you fucking born yesterday or something? Do I have to explain to you how impossible it would be for a secular individual to rise to power in the Middle East? For fuck sake there are states in the South that have laws on the books prohibiting atheists from running for public office and that's in America! Why is it that every time a tyrant rises to power and does fucked up shit, people like you claim he was some kind of "Evil Atheist"??? For fucks sake, use your brain.


----------



## PostmodernProph

AtheistBuddah said:


> Do I have to explain to you how impossible it would be for a secular individual to rise to power in the Middle East.



you DO understand what "dictator" means, right?.....


----------



## AtheistBuddah

PostmodernProph said:


> AtheistBuddah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do I have to explain to you how impossible it would be for a secular individual to rise to power in the Middle East.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you DO understand what "dictator" means, right?.....
Click to expand...


You Do understand what "assassinated" means right? sigh*
Seriously a secular/atheist being the leader of a Middle Eastern country? Richard Simmons has a better chance of becoming Pope.


----------



## Boss

I don't see where I said Saddam was an atheist. 

Your problem is, you don't know how to read plain English, apparently.


----------



## sealybobo

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.  What about what young christian Americans did to indians and black people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oh.....did the non-Christians immigrate to this country AFTER the 1870s?......religion had nothing to do with Indian wars or slavery.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if it weren't for the cover christians gave Bush, he might not have been able to lie us into Iraq.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol.....I get it....you think that all Christians are Republicans!.......
> 
> remember when I said I had laughed at you four times today?......make it five.....
Click to expand...


Christianity/Religion had EVERYTHING to do with slavery and what we were capable of doing to the indians.  Savage & barbaric & unevolved greedy/selfish ignorant people are religious.  It is why they flock to the GOP.  

Not all christians.  I know a gay black girl who's a chrstian.  She's a Democrat.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.  What about what young christian Americans did to indians and black people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uhm... excuse me, but it was Quaker ministers who BEGAN the abolitionist movement which ultimately ended slavery. It was the great Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. who, along with numerous other black (and white) ministers, led the Civil Rights movement. Southern pastors and church organizations vehemently protested Jackson's Indian Removal policy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if it weren't for the cover christians gave Bush, he might not have been able to lie us into Iraq.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean were we liberated 25 million people from a tyrant SECULAR dictator?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember what you religious people did to the Dixie Chicks when they spoke up?  That is a great example of how the rulers of society have used religion to manipulate/control the masses for as long as we've had religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one in political power did ANYTHING to the Dixie Chicks. One of them made a disparaging comment about the president and their fan base boycotted them. That's how it works in a free democratic society. You have the right to say whatever you please, and the consumer has a right to boycott your ass for it. Costco learned that lesson just this week.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The pharoah's used it.  The kings proclaimed their divine rights and the Catholic church has been cleaning up off those dopes for how many thousands of years?  They came up with a better product than the jews.  Then the Muslims came up with their own brand/product and look how well that nonsense has done.  Do you think your stories are any better?  Fucking joke.    Good night dummy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The pharaohs enslaved the Jews and killed Christians. Kings and governments have often tried to control religion as a means to control the masses. That's exactly why we came here and started a new country, dingbat. So a bunch of you god-haters take over religion and pervert it to perpetrate evil and you want to blame the religion for that?
> 
> You're the only joke here, bud.
Click to expand...


We also left England because of economic oppression but like religion, it seems it followed us over from England.  The churches still have a lot of power/influence over the masses.  Not as much as back in the day but still it has a lot of sway with the naive.


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.  What about what young christian Americans did to indians and black people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oh.....did the non-Christians immigrate to this country AFTER the 1870s?......religion had nothing to do with Indian wars or slavery.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if it weren't for the cover christians gave Bush, he might not have been able to lie us into Iraq.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol.....I get it....you think that all Christians are Republicans!.......
> 
> remember when I said I had laughed at you four times today?......make it five.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Christianity/Religion had EVERYTHING to do with slavery
Click to expand...


lol.....the ignorant can be so funny sometimes.....okay, bobo, tell us how slavery is the product of Christianity.....in doing so, please keep in mind that slavery existed even prior to Abraham.....


----------



## sealybobo

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> oh.....did the non-Christians immigrate to this country AFTER the 1870s?......religion had nothing to do with Indian wars or slavery.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol.....I get it....you think that all Christians are Republicans!.......
> 
> remember when I said I had laughed at you four times today?......make it five.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christianity/Religion had EVERYTHING to do with slavery
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol.....the ignorant can be so funny sometimes.....okay, bobo, tell us how slavery is the product of Christianity.....in doing so, please keep in mind that slavery existed even prior to Abraham.....
Click to expand...


And according to Boss, man has believed in god since man could first stand on two feet.  He says man has always believed in God and that is his proof god exists.  

How come god didn't speak out against slavery?  

I forget if you are one of the fools who takes the bible literally.  If you do, isn't it funny how god didn't speak out against slavery?  OR, is it more likely that the men who invented/wrote/made up the bible were slave owners so to them owning slaves was no big deal.  Proof religion is man made.  

So, how is it that these believers in god(s) could enslave people?  How did those southern slave owners dare walk into a church on Sunday mornings after whipping and raping their slaves all week?  The answer is they did it with no problem because people are selective about what they believe and everyone believes something different.  That is because they are all making it up.  Cherry picking.

Think about it.  If there is a god, not one southern slave owner christian from back then could possibly be in heaven right now.  THey'd all be burning in hell, right?  

Unfortunately there is no hell.  Hopefully those people just lived miserable lives despite having enough money to own slaves and hopefully they died a slow horrible death.  But after that, they're just worm dirt like all the other animals that have died on this earth in the billion years we've been here.  Either that or dinosaurs are in heaven too.  Do you believe that?  Oh  yea, only humans go to heaven, right?  Talk about an arrogant premise.  More proof religion was made up by man, who is so full of himself.


----------



## sealybobo

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> oh.....did the non-Christians immigrate to this country AFTER the 1870s?......religion had nothing to do with Indian wars or slavery.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol.....I get it....you think that all Christians are Republicans!.......
> 
> remember when I said I had laughed at you four times today?......make it five.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christianity/Religion had EVERYTHING to do with slavery
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol.....the ignorant can be so funny sometimes.....okay, bobo, tell us how slavery is the product of Christianity.....in doing so, please keep in mind that slavery existed even prior to Abraham.....
Click to expand...


Slavery and religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> We also left England because of economic oppression but like religion, it seems it followed us over from England.  The churches still have a lot of power/influence over the masses.  Not as much as back in the day but still it has a lot of sway with the naive.



Well, let's see... You've failed at science and math already, and now it appears you fail history as well. This explains a lot of what is wrong with you. 

Did you never learn about the Puritans and Plymouth Rock? You see, they were the first settlers. They came here to escape religious persecution in England. It wasn't because of their LACK of religion. They got along fine with the Native Americans, in fact, they established the tradition we know today as Thanksgiving. Most of us learned about this in 2nd grade, but apparently you were in the special ed class and missed it. 

Yes, the "masses" are mostly religious. You've acknowledged this several times. The vast minority are non-religious idiots like you. In fact, your type represent less than two out of ten people. You are very much a societal outcast and you always will be.


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christianity/Religion had EVERYTHING to do with slavery
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol.....the ignorant can be so funny sometimes.....okay, bobo, tell us how slavery is the product of Christianity.....in doing so, please keep in mind that slavery existed even prior to Abraham.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And according to Boss, man has believed in god since man could first stand on two feet.  He says man has always believed in God and that is his proof god exists.
> 
> How come god didn't speak out against slavery?
> 
> I forget if you are one of the fools who takes the bible literally.  If you do, isn't it funny how god didn't speak out against slavery?  OR, is it more likely that the men who invented/wrote/made up the bible were slave owners so to them owning slaves was no big deal.  Proof religion is man made.
> 
> So, how is it that these believers in god(s) could enslave people?  How did those southern slave owners dare walk into a church on Sunday mornings after whipping and raping their slaves all week?  The answer is they did it with no problem because people are selective about what they believe and everyone believes something different.  That is because they are all making it up.  Cherry picking.
> 
> Think about it.  If there is a god, not one southern slave owner christian from back then could possibly be in heaven right now.  THey'd all be burning in hell, right?
> 
> Unfortunately there is no hell.  Hopefully those people just lived miserable lives despite having enough money to own slaves and hopefully they died a slow horrible death.  But after that, they're just worm dirt like all the other animals that have died on this earth in the billion years we've been here.  Either that or dinosaurs are in heaven too.  Do you believe that?  Oh  yea, only humans go to heaven, right?  Talk about an arrogant premise.  More proof religion was made up by man, who is so full of himself.
Click to expand...


well, I recall Paul admonishing the owner of a run away slave to treat him as a brother (Philemon 1:16).....I doubt that referred to either whipping or raping....be that as it may, the question I asked was whether you could back up your statement that Christianity had everything to do with slavery.....now, though I understand why you may wish to avoid answering that question, I have no intention of letting you slide past it without doing so.....


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We also left England because of economic oppression but like religion, it seems it followed us over from England.  The churches still have a lot of power/influence over the masses.  Not as much as back in the day but still it has a lot of sway with the naive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, let's see... You've failed at science and math already, and now it appears you fail history as well. This explains a lot of what is wrong with you.
> 
> Did you never learn about the Puritans and Plymouth Rock? You see, they were the first settlers. They came here to escape religious persecution in England. It wasn't because of their LACK of religion. They got along fine with the Native Americans, in fact, they established the tradition we know today as Thanksgiving. Most of us learned about this in 2nd grade, but apparently you were in the special ed class and missed it.
> 
> Yes, the "masses" are mostly religious. You've acknowledged this several times. The vast minority are non-religious idiots like you. In fact, your type represent less than two out of ten people. You are very much a societal outcast and you always will be.
Click to expand...


Yes, the original settlers wanted the freedom to practice their own religions, not be forced into a state run religion.

However, haven't you said more than once that you are not religious, Boss?  Wouldn't that make you also a societal outcast, and perhaps also the vast minority of non-religious idiots?


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christianity/Religion had EVERYTHING to do with slavery
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol.....the ignorant can be so funny sometimes.....okay, bobo, tell us how slavery is the product of Christianity.....in doing so, please keep in mind that slavery existed even prior to Abraham.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slavery and religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


can you point me to the specific part you believes demonstrates that "Christianity had everything to do with slavery"......your argument is a bit vague.....


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christianity/Religion had EVERYTHING to do with slavery
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol.....the ignorant can be so funny sometimes.....okay, bobo, tell us how slavery is the product of Christianity.....in doing so, please keep in mind that slavery existed even prior to Abraham.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slavery and religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Abolitionism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Later, in the 17th century, English Quakers and evangelical religious groups condemned slavery (by then applied mostly to Africans) as un-Christian; in the 18th century, abolition was part of the message of the First Great Awakening in the Thirteen Colonies; and in the same period, rationalist thinkers of the Enlightenment criticized it for violating the rights of man.

Bartolomé de las Casas was a 16th-century Spanish Dominican priest, the first resident Bishop of Chiapas. As a settler in the New World he witnessed and opposed the poor treatment of the Native Americans by the Spanish colonists. He advocated before King Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor on behalf of rights for the natives. Originally supporting the importation of African slaves as laborers, he eventually changed and became an advocate for the Africans in the colonies.


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Yes, the original settlers wanted the freedom to practice their own religions, not be forced into a state run religion.
> 
> However, haven't you said more than once that you are not religious, Boss?  Wouldn't that make you also a societal outcast, and perhaps also the vast minority of non-religious idiots?



I'm non-religious, not anti-religion. As a spiritualist who believes in God, I am not in the minority nor an outcast. But hey... I understand this is the kind of minutiae you live for. And I have to admit, with your mad skills at taking what people say and parsing it out of context of intended meaning, you could.... oh wait... there is absolutely nothing you could do with that skill other than be an internet troll!   Carry on!!


----------



## sealybobo

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> oh.....did the non-Christians immigrate to this country AFTER the 1870s?......religion had nothing to do with Indian wars or slavery.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol.....I get it....you think that all Christians are Republicans!.......
> 
> remember when I said I had laughed at you four times today?......make it five.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christianity/Religion had EVERYTHING to do with slavery
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol.....the ignorant can be so funny sometimes.....okay, bobo, tell us how slavery is the product of Christianity.....in doing so, please keep in mind that slavery existed even prior to Abraham.....
Click to expand...


Slavery in different forms existed within Christianity for over 18 centuries. Although in the early years of Christianity, freeing slaves was regarded as an act of charity, and the Christian view of equality of all people including slaves was a novelty in the Roman Empire, the actual institution of slavery was rarely criticised.  In 340, the Synod of Gangra condemned the Manicheans for their urging that slaves should liberate themselves; the canons of the Synod instead declared that anyone preaching abolitionism should be anathematised, and that slaves had a Christian obligation to submit to their masters. Augustine of Hippo argued that slavery was part of the mechanism to preserve the natural order of things;  John Chrysostom, regarded as a saint by Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, argued that slaves should be resigned to their fate, as by obeying his master he is obeying.
In 1452 Pope Nicholas V issued the papal bull Dum Diversas, which granted Afonso V of Portugal the right to reduce any "Saracens, pagans and any other unbelievers" to hereditary slavery. The approval of slavery under these conditions was reaffirmed and extended in his Romanus Pontifex bull of 1455. In 1488 Pope Innocent VIII accepted the gift of 100 slaves from Ferdinand II of Aragon and distributed those slaves to his cardinals and the Roman nobility. Also, in 1639 Pope Urban VIII purchased slaves for himself from the Knights of Malta.
The Dominican friars 1510 strongly denounced the enslavement of the local Indians. Along with other priests, they opposed their treatment as unjust and illegal in an audience with the Spanish king and in the subsequent royal commission.  As a response to this position, the Spanish monarchy's subsequent Requerimiento provided a religious justification for the enslavement of the local populations, on the pretext of refusing conversion to Roman Catholicism and therefore denying the authority of the Pope.
Some other Christian organizations were slaveholders. The 18th century evangelical Protestant Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts owned the Codrington Plantation, in Barbados, containing several hundred slaves, branded on their chests with the word Society. George Whitefield, famed for his sparking of the so-called Great Awakening of American evangelicalism, overturned a province-wide ban against slavery,and went on to own several hundred slaves himself.
When the American Civil War broke out, to settle the question of the limits of federal power, slavery became one of the issues which would be decided by the outcome; the southern defeat lead to a constitutional ban on slavery. Despite the general emancipation of slaves, members of some Christian groups like the Christian Identity movement, and the Ku Klux Klan (a white supremacist group) see the enslavement of Africans as a positive aspect of American history.


----------



## sealybobo

boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> postmodernproph said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.....the ignorant can be so funny sometimes.....okay, bobo, tell us how slavery is the product of christianity.....in doing so, please keep in mind that slavery existed even prior to abraham.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> slavery and religion - wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> abolitionism - wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> later, in the 17th century, english quakers and evangelical religious groups condemned slavery (by then applied mostly to africans) as un-christian; in the 18th century, abolition was part of the message of the first great awakening in the thirteen colonies; and in the same period, rationalist thinkers of the enlightenment criticized it for violating the rights of man.
> 
> Bartolomé de las casas was a 16th-century spanish dominican priest, the first resident bishop of chiapas. As a settler in the new world he witnessed and opposed the poor treatment of the native americans by the spanish colonists. He advocated before king charles v, holy roman emperor on behalf of rights for the natives. Originally supporting the importation of african slaves as laborers, he eventually changed and became an advocate for the africans in the colonies.
Click to expand...


bfd.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the original settlers wanted the freedom to practice their own religions, not be forced into a state run religion.
> 
> However, haven't you said more than once that you are not religious, Boss?  Wouldn't that make you also a societal outcast, and perhaps also the vast minority of non-religious idiots?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm non-religious, not anti-religion. As a spiritualist who believes in God, I am not in the minority nor an outcast. But hey... I understand this is the kind of minutiae you live for. And I have to admit, with your mad skills at taking what people say and parsing it out of context of intended meaning, you could.... oh wait... there is absolutely nothing you could do with that skill other than be an internet troll!   Carry on!!
Click to expand...


And had you said anti-religious, I would never have commented.  You have mad skills at not saying the same thing as your intended meaning.  

Are the non-religious not the minority?  I thought the masses were mostly religious.  Not being religious would put you in the minority.  I'm sure you'll either deny the truth of that or complain about minutia.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the original settlers wanted the freedom to practice their own religions, not be forced into a state run religion.
> 
> However, haven't you said more than once that you are not religious, Boss?  Wouldn't that make you also a societal outcast, and perhaps also the vast minority of non-religious idiots?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm non-religious, not anti-religion. As a spiritualist who believes in God, I am not in the minority nor an outcast. But hey... I understand this is the kind of minutiae you live for. And I have to admit, with your mad skills at taking what people say and parsing it out of context of intended meaning, you could.... oh wait... there is absolutely nothing you could do with that skill other than be an internet troll!   Carry on!!
Click to expand...


Christians, Muslims, Jews & Atheists disagree with you boss.  You may actually be the smallest of minorities.  There are probably more atheists in America than there are people who don't believe any of the religions but at the same time believe in god.  

If you ask most people they will say they are christian, atheist, jew, muslim, jehova, mormon or agnnostic.  Very very very few people believe what you do. 

You are absolutely a fringe thinker.  not part of the mainstream; unconventional, peripheral, or extreme


----------



## Montrovant

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the original settlers wanted the freedom to practice their own religions, not be forced into a state run religion.
> 
> However, haven't you said more than once that you are not religious, Boss?  Wouldn't that make you also a societal outcast, and perhaps also the vast minority of non-religious idiots?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm non-religious, not anti-religion. As a spiritualist who believes in God, I am not in the minority nor an outcast. But hey... I understand this is the kind of minutiae you live for. And I have to admit, with your mad skills at taking what people say and parsing it out of context of intended meaning, you could.... oh wait... there is absolutely nothing you could do with that skill other than be an internet troll!   Carry on!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Christians, Muslims, Jews & Atheists disagree with you boss.  You may actually be the smallest of minorities.  There are probably more atheists in America than there are people who don't believe any of the religions but at the same time believe in god.
> 
> If you ask most people they will say they are christian, atheist, jew, muslim, jehova, mormon or agnnostic.  Very very very few people believe what you do.
> 
> You are absolutely a fringe thinker.  not part of the mainstream; unconventional, peripheral, or extreme
Click to expand...


I believe I've seen polls indicating people who are spiritual but not religious are on the rise, but absolutely that is in the minority.  Don't somewhere around 70% of adults in the US self identify as Christian?


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> When the American Civil War broke out, to settle the question of the limits of federal power, slavery became one of the issues which would be decided by the outcome; the southern defeat lead to a constitutional ban on slavery.


so when the Atheist Army of the North defeated the Confederation of Christian Secessionist Slaveowners it finally resolved the issue in the US......Huzzah and Glory, Glory, Hallelujah!.....


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm non-religious, not anti-religion. As a spiritualist who believes in God, I am not in the minority nor an outcast. But hey... I understand this is the kind of minutiae you live for. And I have to admit, with your mad skills at taking what people say and parsing it out of context of intended meaning, you could.... oh wait... there is absolutely nothing you could do with that skill other than be an internet troll!   Carry on!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christians, Muslims, Jews & Atheists disagree with you boss.  You may actually be the smallest of minorities.  There are probably more atheists in America than there are people who don't believe any of the religions but at the same time believe in god.
> 
> If you ask most people they will say they are christian, atheist, jew, muslim, jehova, mormon or agnnostic.  Very very very few people believe what you do.
> 
> You are absolutely a fringe thinker.  not part of the mainstream; unconventional, peripheral, or extreme
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe I've seen polls indicating people who are spiritual but not religious are on the rise, but absolutely that is in the minority.  Don't somewhere around 70% of adults in the US self identify as Christian?
Click to expand...


*There are probably more atheists in America than there are people who don't believe any of the religions but at the same time believe in god.*

Demographics of atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A 2012 study by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life reports that *just 6%* of the US population are atheists..

Spiritual but not religious - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The term is used world-wide, but is most prominent in the United States where one study reports that as many as* 33% of people identify as spiritual but not religious.*[3] Other surveys report lower percentages ranging from 24%[4] to 10%[5]

So even the most slanted data shows there are nearly twice as many non-religious but spiritual compared to atheists. This is IF there are actually 6% Atheists, most other surveys found it to be more like 2%. Could be as many as 12x more of us than you. And hey... all of us are in the vast minority because the religious have about a 75% stronghold. Another poll I read, I think from Pew, said 66% claim to attend regular religious services. 

In any event, the data is online for anyone who this matters to. If that makes some difference as to how you personally believe... the numbers and who believes what... then so be it. I've never really been bothered with what other people thought, that's never held sway with what I think or believe. But maybe you guys are different and that is really important?


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christians, Muslims, Jews & Atheists disagree with you boss.  You may actually be the smallest of minorities.  There are probably more atheists in America than there are people who don't believe any of the religions but at the same time believe in god.
> 
> If you ask most people they will say they are christian, atheist, jew, muslim, jehova, mormon or agnnostic.  Very very very few people believe what you do.
> 
> You are absolutely a fringe thinker.  not part of the mainstream; unconventional, peripheral, or extreme
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe I've seen polls indicating people who are spiritual but not religious are on the rise, but absolutely that is in the minority.  Don't somewhere around 70% of adults in the US self identify as Christian?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *There are probably more atheists in America than there are people who don't believe any of the religions but at the same time believe in god.*
> 
> Demographics of atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> A 2012 study by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life reports that *just 6%* of the US population are atheists..
> 
> Spiritual but not religious - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The term is used world-wide, but is most prominent in the United States where one study reports that as many as* 33% of people identify as spiritual but not religious.*[3] Other surveys report lower percentages ranging from 24%[4] to 10%[5]
> 
> So even the most slanted data shows there are nearly twice as many non-religious but spiritual compared to atheists. This is IF there are actually 6% Atheists, most other surveys found it to be more like 2%. Could be as many as 12x more of us than you. And hey... all of us are in the vast minority because the religious have about a 75% stronghold. Another poll I read, I think from Pew, said 66% claim to attend regular religious services.
> 
> In any event, the data is online for anyone who this matters to. If that makes some difference as to how you personally believe... the numbers and who believes what... then so be it. I've never really been bothered with what other people thought, that's never held sway with what I think or believe. But maybe you guys are different and that is really important?
Click to expand...


Um, you are the one who said that as a spiritualist who believes in god you are not in the minority.  Now you've shown that you are, in fact, in the minority.  Hooray!  This could have ended there, but somehow you segued that into these statistics having some influence on what we believe.

You seem to be unwilling or unable to simply admit to a mistake or error.  You're in the minority when it comes to belief.  Nothing wrong with that.  No need to try and turn something around on others.


----------



## HUGGY

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We also left England because of economic oppression but like religion, it seems it followed us over from England.  The churches still have a lot of power/influence over the masses.  Not as much as back in the day but still it has a lot of sway with the naive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, let's see... You've failed at science and math already, and now it appears you fail history as well. This explains a lot of what is wrong with you.
> 
> Did you never learn about the Puritans and Plymouth Rock? You see, they were the first settlers. They came here to escape religious persecution in England. It wasn't because of their LACK of religion. They got along fine with the Native Americans, in fact, they established the tradition we know today as Thanksgiving. Most of us learned about this in 2nd grade, but apparently you were in the special ed class and missed it.
> 
> Yes, the "masses" are mostly religious. You've acknowledged this several times. The vast minority are non-religious idiots like you. In fact, your type represent less than two out of ten people. You are very much a societal outcast and you always will be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, *the original settlers *wanted the freedom to practice their own religions, not be forced into a state run religion.
> 
> However, haven't you said more than once that you are not religious, Boss?  Wouldn't that make you also a societal outcast, and perhaps also the vast minority of non-religious idiots?
Click to expand...


They were NOT the original settlers.

They were the Johnnie come lately land thieves.

Maybe today it is far too late to repay the Native Americans for the theft of their property but back then it certainly was current business.

I believe that the scam to steal Native American land was far more incentive than any so called goody two shoes religious motivation.

Trust the white man to hide his true nature behind some nonsense about "god" and Jesus.


----------



## Montrovant

HUGGY said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, let's see... You've failed at science and math already, and now it appears you fail history as well. This explains a lot of what is wrong with you.
> 
> Did you never learn about the Puritans and Plymouth Rock? You see, they were the first settlers. They came here to escape religious persecution in England. It wasn't because of their LACK of religion. They got along fine with the Native Americans, in fact, they established the tradition we know today as Thanksgiving. Most of us learned about this in 2nd grade, but apparently you were in the special ed class and missed it.
> 
> Yes, the "masses" are mostly religious. You've acknowledged this several times. The vast minority are non-religious idiots like you. In fact, your type represent less than two out of ten people. You are very much a societal outcast and you always will be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, *the original settlers *wanted the freedom to practice their own religions, not be forced into a state run religion.
> 
> However, haven't you said more than once that you are not religious, Boss?  Wouldn't that make you also a societal outcast, and perhaps also the vast minority of non-religious idiots?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They were NOT the original settlers.
> 
> They were the Johnnie come lately land thieves.
> 
> Maybe today it is far too late to repay the Native Americans for the theft of their property but back then it certainly was current business.
> 
> I believe that the scam to steal Native American land was far more incentive than any so called goody two shoes religious motivation.
> 
> Trust the white man to hide his true nature behind some nonsense about "god" and Jesus.
Click to expand...


Clearly they were the original settlers in the context of the conversation.


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe I've seen polls indicating people who are spiritual but not religious are on the rise, but absolutely that is in the minority.  Don't somewhere around 70% of adults in the US self identify as Christian?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *There are probably more atheists in America than there are people who don't believe any of the religions but at the same time believe in god.*
> 
> Demographics of atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> A 2012 study by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life reports that *just 6%* of the US population are atheists..
> 
> Spiritual but not religious - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The term is used world-wide, but is most prominent in the United States where one study reports that as many as* 33% of people identify as spiritual but not religious.*[3] Other surveys report lower percentages ranging from 24%[4] to 10%[5]
> 
> So even the most slanted data shows there are nearly twice as many non-religious but spiritual compared to atheists. This is IF there are actually 6% Atheists, most other surveys found it to be more like 2%. Could be as many as 12x more of us than you. And hey... all of us are in the vast minority because the religious have about a 75% stronghold. Another poll I read, I think from Pew, said 66% claim to attend regular religious services.
> 
> In any event, the data is online for anyone who this matters to. If that makes some difference as to how you personally believe... the numbers and who believes what... then so be it. I've never really been bothered with what other people thought, that's never held sway with what I think or believe. But maybe you guys are different and that is really important?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, you are the one who said that as a spiritualist who believes in god you are not in the minority.  Now you've shown that you are, in fact, in the minority.  Hooray!  This could have ended there, but somehow you segued that into these statistics having some influence on what we believe.
> 
> You seem to be unwilling or unable to simply admit to a mistake or error.  You're in the minority when it comes to belief.  Nothing wrong with that.  No need to try and turn something around on others.
Click to expand...


No, no... I'm NOT in the minority. I am a spiritual believer in God, I am among about 88% globally, who believe in something greater than self. YOU are in the vast and overwhelming minority at 6% optimistically, and probably ~2% realistically. Now, you tried to claim I'm in the minority because you want to divide all the spiritual people into subgroups based on religions, but that is just stupid and meaningless. Even if we look at Religious vs. Non-religious, you represent far more of a minority than I. 

What we have here again is your incessant troll-like behavior, where you don't really want to discuss the topic, but cause a diversion and distraction by being a fucktard. It's really disappointing to me because I think you might have potential. You seem like an intelligent person who might be able to hold his own in a debate. At least, more so than some others here. But we never get to see that side of you because you're too busy being a twat.


----------



## Boss

HUGGY said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, let's see... You've failed at science and math already, and now it appears you fail history as well. This explains a lot of what is wrong with you.
> 
> Did you never learn about the Puritans and Plymouth Rock? You see, they were the first settlers. They came here to escape religious persecution in England. It wasn't because of their LACK of religion. They got along fine with the Native Americans, in fact, they established the tradition we know today as Thanksgiving. Most of us learned about this in 2nd grade, but apparently you were in the special ed class and missed it.
> 
> Yes, the "masses" are mostly religious. You've acknowledged this several times. The vast minority are non-religious idiots like you. In fact, your type represent less than two out of ten people. You are very much a societal outcast and you always will be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, *the original settlers *wanted the freedom to practice their own religions, not be forced into a state run religion.
> 
> However, haven't you said more than once that you are not religious, Boss?  Wouldn't that make you also a societal outcast, and perhaps also the vast minority of non-religious idiots?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They were NOT the original settlers.
> 
> They were the Johnnie come lately land thieves.
> 
> Maybe today it is far too late to repay the Native Americans for the theft of their property but back then it certainly was current business.
> 
> I believe that the scam to steal Native American land was far more incentive than any so called goody two shoes religious motivation.
> 
> Trust the white man to hide his true nature behind some nonsense about "god" and Jesus.
Click to expand...



FYI: There were never any 'Atheist' Native Americans.


----------



## HUGGY

Montrovant said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, *the original settlers *wanted the freedom to practice their own religions, not be forced into a state run religion.
> 
> However, haven't you said more than once that you are not religious, Boss?  Wouldn't that make you also a societal outcast, and perhaps also the vast minority of non-religious idiots?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They were NOT the original settlers.
> 
> They were the Johnnie come lately land thieves.
> 
> Maybe today it is far too late to repay the Native Americans for the theft of their property but back then it certainly was current business.
> 
> I believe that the scam to steal Native American land was far more incentive than any so called goody two shoes religious motivation.
> 
> Trust the white man to hide his true nature behind some nonsense about "god" and Jesus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly they were the original settlers in the context of the conversation.
Click to expand...


If the Native Americans had known what was in the hearts of the first Europeans they would have sunk every boat to prevent word getting back from where they came from and killed every one of those on board.

The NAs were foolish to believe the forked tongued devils babbling nonsense of gods and talking snakes.  The only true snakes were the white men and women.

Better yet ...they should have taken the boats and tricked the whites into showing them the means to make metal objects and weapons.  THEN kept the whites as slaves forcing them to produce the weapons and boats needed to defend THEIR land.


----------



## Boss

But they didn't. So what they should have done or ought to have done is irrelevant and meaningless. 

We're hardly going to pack up and return to wherever our ancestry came from. And even if we did, what if there is some moron on the Internet there, lamenting about how that land was taken years ago from natives... do you keep on moving? How far back do we go with it? At what point in the past do you think all was "fair and square" and no one held any land they weren't entitled to? 

Do you think the Native Americans didn't take any land from other tribes or other people before them? (By the way... I'm Native American, 1/8 Cherokee and 1/8 Choctaw.)


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> *There are probably more atheists in America than there are people who don't believe any of the religions but at the same time believe in god.*
> 
> Demographics of atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> A 2012 study by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life reports that *just 6%* of the US population are atheists..
> 
> Spiritual but not religious - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The term is used world-wide, but is most prominent in the United States where one study reports that as many as* 33% of people identify as spiritual but not religious.*[3] Other surveys report lower percentages ranging from 24%[4] to 10%[5]
> 
> So even the most slanted data shows there are nearly twice as many non-religious but spiritual compared to atheists. This is IF there are actually 6% Atheists, most other surveys found it to be more like 2%. Could be as many as 12x more of us than you. And hey... all of us are in the vast minority because the religious have about a 75% stronghold. Another poll I read, I think from Pew, said 66% claim to attend regular religious services.
> 
> In any event, the data is online for anyone who this matters to. If that makes some difference as to how you personally believe... the numbers and who believes what... then so be it. I've never really been bothered with what other people thought, that's never held sway with what I think or believe. But maybe you guys are different and that is really important?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, you are the one who said that as a spiritualist who believes in god you are not in the minority.  Now you've shown that you are, in fact, in the minority.  Hooray!  This could have ended there, but somehow you segued that into these statistics having some influence on what we believe.
> 
> You seem to be unwilling or unable to simply admit to a mistake or error.  You're in the minority when it comes to belief.  Nothing wrong with that.  No need to try and turn something around on others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, no... I'm NOT in the minority. I am a spiritual believer in God, I am among about 88% globally, who believe in something greater than self. YOU are in the vast and overwhelming minority at 6% optimistically, and probably ~2% realistically. Now, you tried to claim I'm in the minority because you want to divide all the spiritual people into subgroups based on religions, but that is just stupid and meaningless. Even if we look at Religious vs. Non-religious, you represent far more of a minority than I.
> 
> What we have here again is your incessant troll-like behavior, where you don't really want to discuss the topic, but cause a diversion and distraction by being a fucktard. It's really disappointing to me because I think you might have potential. You seem like an intelligent person who might be able to hold his own in a debate. At least, more so than some others here. But we never get to see that side of you because you're too busy being a twat.
Click to expand...


Atheists and agnostics are a smaller minority than spiritual but not religious, sure.  So what?  You used being in the minority as a kind of insult toward sealybobo, and I pointed out that being non-religious, you are in the minority when it comes to belief, too.  Now here you are, denying being in the minority, then admitting being in the minority but calling it stupid and meaningless.  Well, atheists and agnostics being in the minority is stupid and meaningless as well.  It doesn't affect the truth of anyone's position to be in the minority or majority.


----------



## Steven_R

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We also left England because of economic oppression but like religion, it seems it followed us over from England.  The churches still have a lot of power/influence over the masses.  Not as much as back in the day but still it has a lot of sway with the naive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, let's see... You've failed at science and math already, and now it appears you fail history as well. This explains a lot of what is wrong with you.
> 
> Did you never learn about the Puritans and Plymouth Rock? You see, they were the first settlers. They came here to escape religious persecution in England. It wasn't because of their LACK of religion. They got along fine with the Native Americans, in fact, they established the tradition we know today as Thanksgiving. Most of us learned about this in 2nd grade, but apparently you were in the special ed class and missed it.
> 
> Yes, the "masses" are mostly religious. You've acknowledged this several times. The vast minority are non-religious idiots like you. In fact, your type represent less than two out of ten people. You are very much a societal outcast and you always will be.
Click to expand...


You might want to crack open a history book. The Puritans left England for religious reasons, mainly because they wanted to set up a theocracy under their own ideas and James I told them to get bent. They all but managed to do that when Cromwell cut off Charles I's head in 1649 and the Puritans became politically powerful during the Commonwealth and their policies were so unpopular (e.g. closing the theaters because plays are immoral) that when Charles II restored the crown England rejoiced. Those that went to Holland in the 1610s were told to leave because they were obnoxious assholes who kept harassing the Dutch locals about how immoral and wicked they were because they didn't subscribe to the Puritan ideals of what was proper.

Also, the Pilgrims didn't get along with the locals in the New World as much as you think. The first thing they did after getting off the Mayflower was to plunder some native food stores, something I'm sure the Indians were thrilled about come winter time. 

If you're interested, there's a great book on the subject. 
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Mayflower-Story-Courage-Community-War/dp/0143111973]Mayflower: A Story of Courage, Community, and War: Nathaniel Philbrick: 9780143111979: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]


EDIT: To clarify that some Puritans left for Holland ad some stayed in England. Those that went to Holland and then the New World obviously weren't in England when Charles I was executed.


----------



## jillian

Steven_R said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We also left England because of economic oppression but like religion, it seems it followed us over from England.  The churches still have a lot of power/influence over the masses.  Not as much as back in the day but still it has a lot of sway with the naive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, let's see... You've failed at science and math already, and now it appears you fail history as well. This explains a lot of what is wrong with you.
> 
> Did you never learn about the Puritans and Plymouth Rock? You see, they were the first settlers. They came here to escape religious persecution in England. It wasn't because of their LACK of religion. They got along fine with the Native Americans, in fact, they established the tradition we know today as Thanksgiving. Most of us learned about this in 2nd grade, but apparently you were in the special ed class and missed it.
> 
> Yes, the "masses" are mostly religious. You've acknowledged this several times. The vast minority are non-religious idiots like you. In fact, your type represent less than two out of ten people. You are very much a societal outcast and you always will be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You might want to crack open a history book. The Puritans left England for religious reasons, mainly because they wanted to set up a theocracy under their own ideas and James I told them to get bent. They all but managed to do that when Cromwell cut off Charles I's head and the Puritans became politically powerful during the Commonwealth and their policies were so unpopular (e.g. closing the theaters because plays are immoral) that when Charles II restored the crown England rejoiced. They went to Holland and were told to leave because they were obnoxious assholes who kept harassing the Dutch locals about how immoral and wicked they were because they didn't subscribe to the Puritan ideals of what was proper.
> 
> Also, the Pilgrims didn't get along with the locals in the New World as much as you think. The first thing they did after getting off the Mayflower was to plunder some native food stores, something I'm sure the Indians were thrilled about come winter time.
> 
> If you're interested, there's a great book on the subject.
> [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Mayflower-Story-Courage-Community-War/dp/0143111973]Mayflower: A Story of Courage, Community, and War: Nathaniel Philbrick: 9780143111979: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]
Click to expand...


and the puritans lost that battle, didn't they? the founding fathers disdained the idea of a theocracy.


----------



## BreezeWood

> Salem witch trials - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> These immigrants (Puritans) established several colonies in New England, of which the Massachusetts Bay Colony was the largest and most economically important.
> 
> The Salem witch trials were a series of hearings and prosecutions of people accused of witchcraft in colonial Massachusetts between February 1692 and May 1693. The trials resulted in the executions of twenty people, most of them women.




and of course, the Puritans always did keep a few tricks up their selves for communal entertainment ...

.


----------



## Boss

Steven_R said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We also left England because of economic oppression but like religion, it seems it followed us over from England.  The churches still have a lot of power/influence over the masses.  Not as much as back in the day but still it has a lot of sway with the naive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, let's see... You've failed at science and math already, and now it appears you fail history as well. This explains a lot of what is wrong with you.
> 
> Did you never learn about the Puritans and Plymouth Rock? You see, they were the first settlers. They came here to escape religious persecution in England. It wasn't because of their LACK of religion. They got along fine with the Native Americans, in fact, they established the tradition we know today as Thanksgiving. Most of us learned about this in 2nd grade, but apparently you were in the special ed class and missed it.
> 
> Yes, the "masses" are mostly religious. You've acknowledged this several times. The vast minority are non-religious idiots like you. In fact, your type represent less than two out of ten people. You are very much a societal outcast and you always will be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You might want to crack open a history book. The Puritans left England for religious reasons, mainly because they wanted to set up a theocracy under their own ideas and James I told them to get bent. They all but managed to do that when Cromwell cut off Charles I's head in 1649 and the Puritans became politically powerful during the Commonwealth and their policies were so unpopular (e.g. closing the theaters because plays are immoral) that when Charles II restored the crown England rejoiced. Those that went to Holland in the 1610s were told to leave because they were obnoxious assholes who kept harassing the Dutch locals about how immoral and wicked they were because they didn't subscribe to the Puritan ideals of what was proper.
> 
> Also, the Pilgrims didn't get along with the locals in the New World as much as you think. The first thing they did after getting off the Mayflower was to plunder some native food stores, something I'm sure the Indians were thrilled about come winter time.
> 
> If you're interested, there's a great book on the subject.
> [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Mayflower-Story-Courage-Community-War/dp/0143111973]Mayflower: A Story of Courage, Community, and War: Nathaniel Philbrick: 9780143111979: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]
> 
> 
> EDIT: To clarify that some Puritans left for Holland ad some stayed in England. Those that went to Holland and then the New World obviously weren't in England when Charles I was executed.
Click to expand...


Yeah, but I'm not arguing for the virtue of the Puritans or what transpired in England. The conversation was about America and why we came here. It was not because of economic oppression. An argument might be made that was the reason we fought for independence from England, but it had little to do with original settlers. 

Yeah, yeah.. Religions have done bad things... seems to be an ongoing theme with Atheists. They've also done a lot of good things, but you ignore that.


----------



## Steven_R

I'm not ignoring it, but the story that the Pilgrims were some poor, oppressed peoples who just wanted to be able to worship the way they wanted and the big, bad Church of England wouldn't let them isn't the whole story. The Puritans were the kind of obnoxious assholes who want restrictive laws because they don't like certain things and James I wouldn't go along with them. Those that left for Holland got kicked out of Holland because they just kept up their same nonsense and the Dutch finally got fed up with being told they were going to Hell for wearing yellow socks and wide brimmed hats which take away from the glory of God.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, *the original settlers *wanted the freedom to practice their own religions, not be forced into a state run religion.
> 
> However, haven't you said more than once that you are not religious, Boss?  Wouldn't that make you also a societal outcast, and perhaps also the vast minority of non-religious idiots?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They were NOT the original settlers.
> 
> They were the Johnnie come lately land thieves.
> 
> Maybe today it is far too late to repay the Native Americans for the theft of their property but back then it certainly was current business.
> 
> I believe that the scam to steal Native American land was far more incentive than any so called goody two shoes religious motivation.
> 
> Trust the white man to hide his true nature behind some nonsense about "god" and Jesus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> FYI: There were never any 'Atheist' Native Americans.
Click to expand...


I hope you mean this in a societal, rather than individual, sense.


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were NOT the original settlers.
> 
> They were the Johnnie come lately land thieves.
> 
> Maybe today it is far too late to repay the Native Americans for the theft of their property but back then it certainly was current business.
> 
> I believe that the scam to steal Native American land was far more incentive than any so called goody two shoes religious motivation.
> 
> Trust the white man to hide his true nature behind some nonsense about "god" and Jesus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FYI: There were never any 'Atheist' Native Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hope you mean this in a societal, rather than individual, sense.
Click to expand...


I mean it in the general sense that every Native American believed in a Great Spirit. There were no "Atheist" Native Americans. They were very spiritual people, perhaps more so than their European counterparts.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> FYI: There were never any 'Atheist' Native Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you mean this in a societal, rather than individual, sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I mean it in the general sense that every Native American believed in a Great Spirit. There were no "Atheist" Native Americans. They were very spiritual people, perhaps more so than their European counterparts.
Click to expand...


That sounds like individual rather than societal; that you are saying no single Native American ever found him or her self lacking faith in a Great Spirit.  I have no idea how you would possibly know that, so perhaps I'm mistaking your intent.


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you mean this in a societal, rather than individual, sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I mean it in the general sense that every Native American believed in a Great Spirit. There were no "Atheist" Native Americans. They were very spiritual people, perhaps more so than their European counterparts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That sounds like individual rather than societal; that you are saying no single Native American ever found him or her self lacking faith in a Great Spirit.  I have no idea how you would possibly know that, so perhaps I'm mistaking your intent.
Click to expand...


This is the second time I've seen someone try to make an argument that simply "lacking faith" equates to Atheism. You can certainly "lack faith" in something but still believe it exists. Atheists do not believe God exists. Native Americans ALL believed in a Great Spirit. There may have been some who "lacked faith" in that Great Spirit at times, but the belief in the existence of a Great Spirit was universal. And I know this because I've studied Native American history my whole life. 

Now... IF you have some evidence of Atheist Native Americans, please present it. I would love to see that. But I don't think you have such evidence because I don't believe it exists.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I mean it in the general sense that every Native American believed in a Great Spirit. There were no "Atheist" Native Americans. They were very spiritual people, perhaps more so than their European counterparts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That sounds like individual rather than societal; that you are saying no single Native American ever found him or her self lacking faith in a Great Spirit.  I have no idea how you would possibly know that, so perhaps I'm mistaking your intent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the second time I've seen someone try to make an argument that simply "lacking faith" equates to Atheism. You can certainly "lack faith" in something but still believe it exists. Atheists do not believe God exists. Native Americans ALL believed in a Great Spirit. There may have been some who "lacked faith" in that Great Spirit at times, but the belief in the existence of a Great Spirit was universal. And I know this because I've studied Native American history my whole life.
> 
> Now... IF you have some evidence of Atheist Native Americans, please present it. I would love to see that. But I don't think you have such evidence because I don't believe it exists.
Click to expand...


I'm not saying I have evidence of Native American atheists in the past.  What I'm saying is that making a claim that every single Native American believed in a Great Spirit seems unlikely.  There are always rebels or outcasts in a society, people who have beliefs counter to the norm.  It seems likely that this would be the case with religious or spiritual belief as well.

I'm not denying that the vast majority of Native Americans in the time of European settlement had religious or spiritual beliefs.  To say that every single one, without fail, had those beliefs; that not a single person ever deviated from that, ever believed differently, is a pretty extraordinary claim.  I think it's also impossible to prove.

I just wonder why you think it reasonable to speak to the beliefs of ever single Native American, why you think they were so unusually uniform in belief.


----------



## Boss

I don't really care what you believe. The concept of Atheism was unknown to them. There was no deviation from culture, if someone ever dared such a thing, they killed them and burned the bodies... hoping that would be enough to please the Great Spirit. They simply didn't tolerate such things. 

Now... they weren't "uniform in belief" because the various tribes held different beliefs regarding the Great Spirit. But they ALL believed in the Great Spirit, their lives and cultures revolved around it.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> I don't really care what you believe. The concept of Atheism was unknown to them. There was no deviation from culture, if someone ever dared such a thing, they killed them and burned the bodies... hoping that would be enough to please the Great Spirit. They simply didn't tolerate such things.
> 
> Now... they weren't "uniform in belief" because the various tribes held different beliefs regarding the Great Spirit. But they ALL believed in the Great Spirit, their lives and cultures revolved around it.



If they killed people and burned the bodies if they deviated....then some deviated.

But you know what?  You think you can speak for the beliefs of every individual Native American who lived at that time, you go right ahead.


----------



## emilynghiem

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I mean it in the general sense that every Native American believed in a Great Spirit. There were no "Atheist" Native Americans. They were very spiritual people, perhaps more so than their European counterparts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That sounds like individual rather than societal; that you are saying no single Native American ever found him or her self lacking faith in a Great Spirit.  I have no idea how you would possibly know that, so perhaps I'm mistaking your intent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the second time I've seen someone try to make an argument that simply "lacking faith" equates to Atheism. You can certainly "lack faith" in something but still believe it exists. Atheists do not believe God exists. Native Americans ALL believed in a Great Spirit. There may have been some who "lacked faith" in that Great Spirit at times, but the belief in the existence of a Great Spirit was universal. And I know this because I've studied Native American history my whole life.
> 
> Now... IF you have some evidence of Atheist Native Americans, please present it. I would love to see that. But I don't think you have such evidence because I don't believe it exists.
Click to expand...


I can see if GreenBean answers email; he is at least part Native American and may not believe in God. I know for sure he does not relate to the Christian God. His rejection of Christianity may be the equivalent to him of rejecting God for practical purposes.

If there are Buddhists who can practice Buddhism, and not truly let go and be as objective and neutral as Buddhism calls for; and there are Christians who can practice Christianity and not yet fully demonstrate forgiveness at the level called for in the Bible,

I have no doubt you can find Native Americans at different stages of awareness.
As GreenBean pointed out, with the well-studied factor of alcoholic and addictive tendencies in Native Americans, presumably tied to the spiritual process of recovering from wounds of genocide passed down through generations, you could argue that some of that addiction is from not being fully at peace with God. So how is that different from anyone else with varying degrees or stages of development in their understanding of their relationship with God?

Do you think you can just draw a line, and say people in this group don't believe and people in this group do? And make up some hard fast rule that magically applies to all those people under one nice neat generalization? I think not. I find people going through their own unique process, and nobody has quite the same way of experiencing or expressing it.

I really think that's what this conversation is about, coming to that realization that we can hardly judge anyone else's experiences or understanding by projecting our own onto them.
If we don't appreciate when we catch others making generalizations that aren't true for us or for all people, we need to learn not to do that to others either, but forgive and correct when this happens. We are all going to learn by comparing our own experiences, but there is no need to judge others when they are going through the same learning curve, trying to figure out how to manage our diverse perspectives. why isn't this embraced as a positive thing to explore and share our differences. why don't we trust the process to bring out the truth from each person, why this need to judge and jump on others when we all have biases?


----------



## emilynghiem

[MENTION=36773]Boss[/MENTION] So if they *all believed,* you mean there were *never any members among them* they had to kill and burn?
How can faith be real if it is forced like this? How many might have been nonbelievers but with no freedom to explore or express it?



Boss said:


> I don't really care what you believe. The concept of Atheism was unknown to them. There was no deviation from culture, if *someone ever dared such a thing, they killed them and burned the bodies*... hoping that would be enough to please the Great Spirit. They simply didn't tolerate such things.
> 
> Now... they weren't "uniform in belief" because the various tribes held different beliefs regarding the Great Spirit. But they ALL believed in the Great Spirit, their lives and cultures revolved around it.



So if there was no tolerance, only retribution judgment and punishment
how do you know they are truly following the one universal God and
not some local authority to keep their tribal order cohesive?

Someone could still argue that, like Hitler or the Jihadists, these people
are not really worshipping and following God but something negative.

I don't think the issue is whether or not "people believe in God"
because Hitler and the Jihadists also believe they are doing God's will.

I believe the real issue is whether or not people practice
Restorative Justice or Retributive Justice as the side of God's Justice they invoke.

I find THAT distinction hits the target and marks the difference in people.
It's not whether you call or act as a Christian Atheist Buddhist Muslim etc.
The key critical factor
that divides the sheep and the goats
* spiritually it is whether you embrace Restorative Justice and live by this
in all your relations with others
* or you refer to other local authorities to mete out Retributive Justice as your authority

Culturally, of course, there is a physical difference if people relate to
* natural laws, science, secular terms social psychology etc.
* scriptural laws and authority through religious groups
Those are external differences in how we communicate, which languages/laws we use

But for the spirit, if people align in the spirit of Restorative Justice to seek common
truth through mutual forgiveness and correction,
it does not matter so much what physical language/laws they use
because they put the spirit of truth and justice first in embracing their neighbors equally.

If people divide by the spirit of Retributive Justice
then like the Hitler followers, or Jihadists
or Native American or African tribes who went to war wiping out other groups,
what difference does it make if you say you believe in some form of God?

If you are retributive and dividing against another group
that is not universal and not the complete truth of God.

So that is the key factor: do you or do you not treat all other people and groups equally under universal principles, or do you judge reject and seek punishment/retribution
against people or groups that you exclude?


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really care what you believe. The concept of Atheism was unknown to them. There was no deviation from culture, if someone ever dared such a thing, they killed them and burned the bodies... hoping that would be enough to please the Great Spirit. They simply didn't tolerate such things.
> 
> Now... they weren't "uniform in belief" because the various tribes held different beliefs regarding the Great Spirit. But they ALL believed in the Great Spirit, their lives and cultures revolved around it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they killed people and burned the bodies if they deviated....then some deviated.
> 
> But you know what?  You think you can speak for the beliefs of every individual Native American who lived at that time, you go right ahead.
Click to expand...


Thanks, I'm glad to have your permission. I'm only bringing the information here, these people spoke for themselves and their stories are archived. The most important thing you need to understand is, they had a completely different kind of culture than you are familiar with. Where we are familiar with a culture that revolves around self and free will, where you can question God or reject God as well as believe in God, the Native Americans had a culture centered on the Great Spirit. The only sense of self came through the Great Spirit. 

Now you said (I did not say it) that surely there were some rogue mavericks who bucked authority and refused to believe in this Great Spirit. I replied to that by saying that IF such a thing happened in their culture, they killed the person and burned the body. They probably then killed the mother who spawned such an example and burned her body as well. Now, because I tried to explain how their culture simply did not tolerate or accept such a view, you decided to turn that back around on me and "prove me wrong" in my initial assertion. 

What I said still stands. There were no Atheist Native Americans. And emily... we are not talking about present day descendants of Native Americans who don't believe in a Christian God. Once their culture had been disseminated or destroyed, the influence of white man's culture prevailed. 

This argument emerged as a result of an Atheist claiming that Native Americans weren't interested in hearing about God and Jesus from the Puritans. The fact of the matter is, the Puritans and Native Americans were able to find mutual respect and understanding with each other and got along rather well for many years. Now I can only imagine the strong spiritual faiths of both groups played an enormous role in that. ...There were also no Atheist Puritans.


----------



## Boss

emilynghiem said:


> [MENTION=36773]Boss[/MENTION] So if they *all believed,* you mean there were *never any members among them* they had to kill and burn?
> How can faith be real if it is forced like this? How many might have been nonbelievers but with no freedom to explore or express it?



You are thinking in terms of your cultural upbringing. What you understand from the culture you've been surrounded by your entire life. It's all you can relate to because it's all you've ever known. You see, we are a culture that holds the individual self as the central importance and everything else revolves around self. This includes questions of spiritual foundation and concepts of "freedom to explore and express," etc.  Native Americans had a much different culture, one we are not familiar with at all. In their culture, 'individual self' arises as the result of the Great Spirit, and all revolves around the Great Spirit. For them, this was not a matter of faith or belief, but a truth that was universal. 

Now you can imagine that surely there may have been some rebellious individual who somehow came to reject this universal truth, but their culture would have viewed such a thing as a horrible abomination that must be destroyed. It was simply unheard of, unthinkable, and unacceptable in their culture.


----------



## thanatos144

To say religion is wrong because there have been death is hypocritical seeing as secularism through communism and socialism has caused mode deaths in a century then religon ever did 

Tapatalk


----------



## sealybobo

thanatos144 said:


> To say religion is wrong because there have been death is hypocritical seeing as secularism through communism and socialism has caused mode deaths in a century then religon ever did
> 
> Tapatalk



You keep repeating it even though it isn't true.  Religious people have murdered way more over the history of man than atheists.  You probably don't count all the KKKristians who murdered and enslaved all those blacks for 400 years.  You probably don't count all the indians you slaughtered.  You probably don't count all the years the Turks (muslims) enslaved the Greeks (christians).  And you probably forget that the Germans of WW2 were all Christians.  

I hear Christians think it is ok to lie as long as you are lying for Jesus.  How convenient.


----------



## thanatos144

sealybobo said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> To say religion is wrong because there have been death is hypocritical seeing as secularism through communism and socialism has caused mode deaths in a century then religon ever did
> 
> Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep repeating it even though it isn't true.  Religious people have murdered way more over the history of man than atheists.  You probably don't count all the KKKristians who murdered and enslaved all those blacks for 400 years.  You probably don't count all the indians you slaughtered.  You probably don't count all the years the Turks (muslims) enslaved the Greeks (christians).  And you probably forget that the Germans of WW2 were all Christians.
> 
> I hear Christians think it is ok to lie as long as you are lying for Jesus.  How convenient.
Click to expand...


Hey dummy the kkk are democrat haters who use fear to force voting how they want.  You dont get to make shit up just because history shows you secularists as mass murderers 

Tapatalk


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, let's see... You've failed at science and math already, and now it appears you fail history as well. This explains a lot of what is wrong with you.
> 
> Did you never learn about the Puritans and Plymouth Rock? You see, they were the first settlers. They came here to escape religious persecution in England. It wasn't because of their LACK of religion. They got along fine with the Native Americans, in fact, they established the tradition we know today as Thanksgiving. Most of us learned about this in 2nd grade, but apparently you were in the special ed class and missed it.
> 
> Yes, the "masses" are mostly religious. You've acknowledged this several times. The vast minority are non-religious idiots like you. In fact, your type represent less than two out of ten people. You are very much a societal outcast and you always will be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You might want to crack open a history book. The Puritans left England for religious reasons, mainly because they wanted to set up a theocracy under their own ideas and James I told them to get bent. They all but managed to do that when Cromwell cut off Charles I's head in 1649 and the Puritans became politically powerful during the Commonwealth and their policies were so unpopular (e.g. closing the theaters because plays are immoral) that when Charles II restored the crown England rejoiced. Those that went to Holland in the 1610s were told to leave because they were obnoxious assholes who kept harassing the Dutch locals about how immoral and wicked they were because they didn't subscribe to the Puritan ideals of what was proper.
> 
> Also, the Pilgrims didn't get along with the locals in the New World as much as you think. The first thing they did after getting off the Mayflower was to plunder some native food stores, something I'm sure the Indians were thrilled about come winter time.
> 
> If you're interested, there's a great book on the subject.
> [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Mayflower-Story-Courage-Community-War/dp/0143111973]Mayflower: A Story of Courage, Community, and War: Nathaniel Philbrick: 9780143111979: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]
> 
> 
> EDIT: To clarify that some Puritans left for Holland ad some stayed in England. Those that went to Holland and then the New World obviously weren't in England when Charles I was executed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, but I'm not arguing for the virtue of the Puritans or what transpired in England. The conversation was about America and why we came here. It was not because of economic oppression. An argument might be made that was the reason we fought for independence from England, but it had little to do with original settlers.
> 
> Yeah, yeah.. Religions have done bad things... seems to be an ongoing theme with Atheists. They've also done a lot of good things, but you ignore that.
Click to expand...


I don't care if the ORIGINAL Pilgrims came because of religion, the wave of people that followed came over because of economic oppression.  They didn't want to be surfs anymore.  And today the rich are turning Americans into the surfs where we have a small rich/ruling class, small merchantile (white collar) and a huge masses called the working poor, working for below poverty wages like so many in America do today.  The rich have won.  It is up to us to fight back.  Don't think class warfare exists?  It does, and we're losing.  

Last week I finally learned why the blacks are so much more lively in church.  They brought that over from Africa.  Now does anyone believe the holy ghost spirit is in those fakers?  How come they can't teach Catholics how to do that?  How come all denominations don't heal and do exorcisms?  My god it is so obvious how fake all religion is.  But even people who admit that "still believe in something".  That's being close minded/brainwashed.  

Anyways, I just want to reconfirm that it doesn't matter if a lie produces some good people.  It is still a lie.  At least present all the facts and then let people decide.  Let them know the words in the bible are not from god.  They aren't even from the deciples.  They were written years later.  Let people know as an adult that all the stories were meant to teach right and wrong just like santa, then let people decide.  Let people know the history of the bible, don't just tell them to read the bible as fact.  That's called brainwashing someone with a lie.  Now when I read the bible, I'm clear what I am reading.  An old book from some superstitious Priests/Corporations.  Lets face it, that is what they are.  So if you are so scared of hell you can't even acknowledge that, that's brainwashing.

And clearly religion has done more harm that good.  I don't give a shit what good you did this weekend boss.  Doesn't count because you aren't a christians or an atheist.  You're like Hitler.  You believed your own personal bs story.  And boy how many people do that, huh?  A lot.

Oh yea, and I want to point out how this nation is not a Christian Nation.  Most people are only lip service Christians.  Proof?  Look at all the Christian schools in the country.  Very few great people go to those schools or come out of them.  The only time in history they ever got hired by our government is when Bush paid back the moral minority for their votes by appointing a bunch of right wing loons from those schools within our government.  Oh, and this would be another example of the harm religion has done.  These right wing loons pushed the right's agenda despite what public opinion said.  Now a lot of these crazy appointees are still in positions of power even though Bush is long gone.  Anyways, no one great comes out of those christian schools.  Great people come from "liberal" universities.  Harvard, Duke, Yale, Princeton, Michigan State, UofM.  

How come all the supposed "christians" in America don't go play for these schools?  How come these schools aren't among the top school in the nation?  Top Ten Christian Colleges by Forbes Ranking

Because American's won't go to them.  Tebo didn't even go to one of those schools.  Why not?  They are so good at recruiting the poor into believing in Christ but they can't get any kids to come play basketball or football for Jesus?


----------



## sealybobo

thanatos144 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> To say religion is wrong because there have been death is hypocritical seeing as secularism through communism and socialism has caused mode deaths in a century then religon ever did
> 
> Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep repeating it even though it isn't true.  Religious people have murdered way more over the history of man than atheists.  You probably don't count all the KKKristians who murdered and enslaved all those blacks for 400 years.  You probably don't count all the indians you slaughtered.  You probably don't count all the years the Turks (muslims) enslaved the Greeks (christians).  And you probably forget that the Germans of WW2 were all Christians.
> 
> I hear Christians think it is ok to lie as long as you are lying for Jesus.  How convenient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey dummy the kkk are democrat haters who use fear to force voting how they want.  You dont get to make shit up just because history shows you secularists as mass murderers
> 
> Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Democrats before the Civil Rights movement are today's Republicans.  Google the Southern Strategy and read if you don't already know.

And doesn't matter.  Those KKK Democrats or Republicans were all god fearing christians no?


----------



## thanatos144

sealybobo said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep repeating it even though it isn't true.  Religious people have murdered way more over the history of man than atheists.  You probably don't count all the KKKristians who murdered and enslaved all those blacks for 400 years.  You probably don't count all the indians you slaughtered.  You probably don't count all the years the Turks (muslims) enslaved the Greeks (christians).  And you probably forget that the Germans of WW2 were all Christians.
> 
> I hear Christians think it is ok to lie as long as you are lying for Jesus.  How convenient.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey dummy the kkk are democrat haters who use fear to force voting how they want.  You dont get to make shit up just because history shows you secularists as mass murderers
> 
> Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Democrats before the Civil Rights movement are today's Republicans.  Google the Southern Strategy and read if you don't already know.
> 
> And doesn't matter.  Those KKK Democrats or Republicans were all god fearing christians no?
Click to expand...


Bullshit 

Tapatalk


----------



## sealybobo

thanatos144 said:


> To say religion is wrong because there have been death is hypocritical seeing as secularism through communism and socialism has caused mode deaths in a century then religon ever did
> 
> Tapatalk



Religion is wrong because its a lie.  All the death is just one reason why religion needs to go.  It makes people stupid.  Want proof?  Look in the mirror.


----------



## sealybobo

thanatos144 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey dummy the kkk are democrat haters who use fear to force voting how they want.  You dont get to make shit up just because history shows you secularists as mass murderers
> 
> Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats before the Civil Rights movement are today's Republicans.  Google the Southern Strategy and read if you don't already know.
> 
> And doesn't matter.  Those KKK Democrats or Republicans were all god fearing christians no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit
> 
> Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Did you read it already?  

I love it when a right winger is stumped and wrong and all they can come back with is "bullshit".  What  a fucking loser you must be.  

If that isn't the real history of the US, please explain how the Southern Strategy is "bullshit", even though the Republicans who came up with it have since admitted it?

Maybe you aren't old enough to remember.  THEN READ what I posted dumb ass.  Also google Lee Atwater.  He was Reagan's racist/Carl Rove back in the day.  He came up with Willie Horton.  And you racist right wing (mostly christians) swallowed it.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> I don't care if the ORIGINAL Pilgrims came because of religion, the wave of people that followed came over because of economic oppression.  They didn't want to be surfs anymore.



Now you are moving goal posts. You originally said that we came here because of economic oppression, now you admit that was false, but LATER that's why people came. Well, some people DID come for that reason, there isn't a ONE reason that everyone came. Some people just came for the fucking adventure of it! My scant few European ancestors came to escape persecution from a tyrant king who thought it a good idea to kill off all the peasants. But the Puritans and the original colonists came to have religious freedom. 



> And today the rich are turning Americans into the surfs where we have a small rich/ruling class, small merchantile (white collar) and a huge masses called the working poor, working for below poverty wages like so many in America do today.  The rich have won.  It is up to us to fight back.  Don't think class warfare exists?  It does, and we're losing.



FUCK YOU! This isn't a goddamn political debate! Stop trying to pretend it is one! What we have today is a fucked up generation (or two) who are completely ignorant of history, as you are aptly demonstrating here. Running around spewing a bunch of 19th century Marxist ideology that has completely failed across Europe and Asia. We don't have "CLASSES" in America! ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL AND ENDOWED WITH RIGHTS BY THEIR CREATOR! It is YOU who has determined we have "classes" of people, and you promote this insanity of liberal Marxist bullshit on that basis because that is the basis on which it originated in the rest of the world where they didn't have free market capitalism and Constitutional liberty. In order to make ANY argument for your failed ideology, you MUST establish classes and instigate class warfare. 



> Last week I finally learned why the blacks are so much more lively in church.  They brought that over from Africa.



No they didn't, and that is a pure racist stereotype. Blacks in Africa were spiritual, as are every society in every corner of the world for as long as human societies have existed. You need to stop "learning" until you comprehend that what you are "learning" is pure racism. 



> Anyways, I just want to reconfirm that it doesn't matter if a lie produces some good people.  It is still a lie.  At least present all the facts and then let people decide.



Well, HERE is the fact... No matter where you look or at what time in human history you look, everywhere you find humans there is also human spirituality. Ancient Egyptians were practicing spiritualism, building their pyramids... on the other side of the planet, tens of thousands of miles away, the Mayans were practicing spirituality, building their pyramids... Thousands of miles away from either were the Australian Aborigines, practicing their spirituality. This was before Facebook or televangelists, moron! NON-spirituality IS THE LIE!


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care if the ORIGINAL Pilgrims came because of religion, the wave of people that followed came over because of economic oppression.  They didn't want to be surfs anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are moving goal posts. You originally said that we came here because of economic oppression, now you admit that was false, but LATER that's why people came. Well, some people DID come for that reason, there isn't a ONE reason that everyone came. Some people just came for the fucking adventure of it! My scant few European ancestors came to escape persecution from a tyrant king who thought it a good idea to kill off all the peasants. But the Puritans and the original colonists came to have religious freedom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And today the rich are turning Americans into the surfs where we have a small rich/ruling class, small merchantile (white collar) and a huge masses called the working poor, working for below poverty wages like so many in America do today.  The rich have won.  It is up to us to fight back.  Don't think class warfare exists?  It does, and we're losing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FUCK YOU! This isn't a goddamn political debate! Stop trying to pretend it is one! What we have today is a fucked up generation (or two) who are completely ignorant of history, as you are aptly demonstrating here. Running around spewing a bunch of 19th century Marxist ideology that has completely failed across Europe and Asia. We don't have "CLASSES" in America! ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL AND ENDOWED WITH RIGHTS BY THEIR CREATOR! It is YOU who has determined we have "classes" of people, and you promote this insanity of liberal Marxist bullshit on that basis because that is the basis on which it originated in the rest of the world where they didn't have free market capitalism and Constitutional liberty. In order to make ANY argument for your failed ideology, you MUST establish classes and instigate class warfare.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Last week I finally learned why the blacks are so much more lively in church.  They brought that over from Africa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they didn't, and that is a pure racist stereotype. Blacks in Africa were spiritual, as are every society in every corner of the world for as long as human societies have existed. You need to stop "learning" until you comprehend that what you are "learning" is pure racism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyways, I just want to reconfirm that it doesn't matter if a lie produces some good people.  It is still a lie.  At least present all the facts and then let people decide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, HERE is the fact... No matter where you look or at what time in human history you look, everywhere you find humans there is also human spirituality. Ancient Egyptians were practicing spiritualism, building their pyramids... on the other side of the planet, tens of thousands of miles away, the Mayans were practicing spirituality, building their pyramids... Thousands of miles away from either were the Australian Aborigines, practicing their spirituality. This was before Facebook or televangelists, moron! NON-spirituality IS THE LIE!
Click to expand...


As soon as I read the word Marxist I stopped reading.  Good day sir.  Fuck off.  Eat a dick.  You can't talk to cock suckers like you.  

From calling us god haters to marxists, fuck you.

And I agreed with your opening paragraph.  I was going to say so until I saw you call us Marxist.  Fuck you piece of shit Archie Bunker.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Did you read it already?
> 
> I love it when a right winger is stumped and wrong and all they can come back with is "bullshit".  What  a fucking loser you must be.
> 
> If that isn't the real history of the US, please explain how the Southern Strategy is "bullshit", even though the Republicans who came up with it have since admitted it?



I'll be GLAD to explain how your interpretation of the "Southern Strategy" is incorrect. It is in reference to Nixon's campaign in 1968. At the time (may still be the case) no candidate had ever won the White House without carrying a Southern state. It was electorally impossible. So their campaign devised a strategy to target Southern states heavily, so as to win at least one or two states. And that is what they did! Now, they didn't run around the South preaching segregation... that was a Democrat-turned-independent, George C. Wallace. So that is who the racist southerners supported, not Nixon. And since the Democrat vote was split between the racist Democrats and the moderates, Nixon prevailed. 

Even if you totally disregard Wallace, your argument amounts to... Nixon came down south and won over all the racists who would have otherwise voted for the Democrat! It has been the most insane and absurd claim of ANY that liberals have ever made.... Nixon beat you by stealing all your RACIST support?


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really care what you believe. The concept of Atheism was unknown to them. There was no deviation from culture, if someone ever dared such a thing, they killed them and burned the bodies... hoping that would be enough to please the Great Spirit. They simply didn't tolerate such things.
> 
> Now... they weren't "uniform in belief" because the various tribes held different beliefs regarding the Great Spirit. But they ALL believed in the Great Spirit, their lives and cultures revolved around it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they killed people and burned the bodies if they deviated....then some deviated.
> 
> But you know what?  You think you can speak for the beliefs of every individual Native American who lived at that time, you go right ahead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks, I'm glad to have your permission. I'm only bringing the information here, these people spoke for themselves and their stories are archived. The most important thing you need to understand is, they had a completely different kind of culture than you are familiar with. Where we are familiar with a culture that revolves around self and free will, where you can question God or reject God as well as believe in God, the Native Americans had a culture centered on the Great Spirit. The only sense of self came through the Great Spirit.
> 
> Now you said (I did not say it) that surely there were some rogue mavericks who bucked authority and refused to believe in this Great Spirit. I replied to that by saying that IF such a thing happened in their culture, they killed the person and burned the body. They probably then killed the mother who spawned such an example and burned her body as well. Now, because I tried to explain how their culture simply did not tolerate or accept such a view, you decided to turn that back around on me and "prove me wrong" in my initial assertion.
> 
> What I said still stands. There were no Atheist Native Americans. And emily... we are not talking about present day descendants of Native Americans who don't believe in a Christian God. Once their culture had been disseminated or destroyed, the influence of white man's culture prevailed.
> 
> This argument emerged as a result of an Atheist claiming that Native Americans weren't interested in hearing about God and Jesus from the Puritans. The fact of the matter is, the Puritans and Native Americans were able to find mutual respect and understanding with each other and got along rather well for many years. Now I can only imagine the strong spiritual faiths of both groups played an enormous role in that. ...There were also no Atheist Puritans.
Click to expand...


What you said stands as your statement.  The truth of it is still very much in question.

Yes, they had a different culture than exists in the US today.  Perhaps they would have killed anyone who expressed an atheistic view (did all Native American tribes or societies do this?).  But people have been killed for expressing views they knew were taboo or illegal or unacceptable to the societies they lived in throughout history.  More, people can easily feign belief in something.  All I am saying is that I think it is likely that at some point, at least one Native American came to the conclusion there was no god(s).  It may not have been recorded anywhere, it may not have been a long-lived belief, such a person may not have ever expressed it, it just seems likely to be true.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you read it already?
> 
> I love it when a right winger is stumped and wrong and all they can come back with is "bullshit".  What  a fucking loser you must be.
> 
> If that isn't the real history of the US, please explain how the Southern Strategy is "bullshit", even though the Republicans who came up with it have since admitted it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll be GLAD to explain how your interpretation of the "Southern Strategy" is incorrect. It is in reference to Nixon's campaign in 1968. At the time (may still be the case) no candidate had ever won the White House without carrying a Southern state. It was electorally impossible. So their campaign devised a strategy to target Southern states heavily, so as to win at least one or two states. And that is what they did! Now, they didn't run around the South preaching segregation... that was a Democrat-turned-independent, George C. Wallace. So that is who the racist southerners supported, not Nixon. And since the Democrat vote was split between the racist Democrats and the moderates, Nixon prevailed.
> 
> Even if you totally disregard Wallace, your argument amounts to... Nixon came down south and won over all the racists who would have otherwise voted for the Democrat! It has been the most insane and absurd claim of ANY that liberals have ever made.... Nixon beat you by stealing all your RACIST support?
Click to expand...


The GOP won over whites in the south because blacks were voting democrat.  Plain and simple.  That is and was the appeal back then and still today.  Otherwise, what does the GOP offer poor and middle class southerners?  Other than the classic wedge issues racism, god, gays and guns.  Financially the hicks down south are the poorest and most uneducated brainwashed imbred Americans.  If one goes to Europe the Europeans make fun of them so much.  In France they call them Le Goobers.  Le Red Necks.  Le Hicks.  

Anyways, I barely read what you wrote.  Might as well stop replying to me.  Being a Marxist god hater I don't read garbage from fascist capitalist swine.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> As soon as I read the word Marxist I stopped reading.  Good day sir.  Fuck off.  Eat a dick.  You can't talk to cock suckers like you.
> 
> From calling us god haters to marxists, fuck you.
> 
> And I agreed with your opening paragraph.  I was going to say so until I saw you call us Marxist.  Fuck you piece of shit Archie Bunker.



Gay-hating homophobic insults aren't necessary, I am not effected by them. 

I honestly don't suspect you are smart enough to realize you're spewing 19th century Marxist claptrap, you are functionally illiterate when it comes to history. But that IS what you are spewing. AND... God-hating is a fundamental part of that ideology. Marx philosophized that religion must be subdued or crushed in order to make the socialist policies work because the people needed to have faith in only the state, not a God. After the first attempts at Marxism failed dismally, they came back and decided that maybe religion was okay to have if the state controlled it. Of course that effort failed as well. 

This has never stopped, it just keeps on being "repackaged" and modified or tweaked, and rolled back out again in another incarnation. It has NEVER worked! It NEVER will work! What DOES work is FREEDOM, LIBERTY, CAPITALISM!


----------



## sealybobo

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they killed people and burned the bodies if they deviated....then some deviated.
> 
> But you know what?  You think you can speak for the beliefs of every individual Native American who lived at that time, you go right ahead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, I'm glad to have your permission. I'm only bringing the information here, these people spoke for themselves and their stories are archived. The most important thing you need to understand is, they had a completely different kind of culture than you are familiar with. Where we are familiar with a culture that revolves around self and free will, where you can question God or reject God as well as believe in God, the Native Americans had a culture centered on the Great Spirit. The only sense of self came through the Great Spirit.
> 
> Now you said (I did not say it) that surely there were some rogue mavericks who bucked authority and refused to believe in this Great Spirit. I replied to that by saying that IF such a thing happened in their culture, they killed the person and burned the body. They probably then killed the mother who spawned such an example and burned her body as well. Now, because I tried to explain how their culture simply did not tolerate or accept such a view, you decided to turn that back around on me and "prove me wrong" in my initial assertion.
> 
> What I said still stands. There were no Atheist Native Americans. And emily... we are not talking about present day descendants of Native Americans who don't believe in a Christian God. Once their culture had been disseminated or destroyed, the influence of white man's culture prevailed.
> 
> This argument emerged as a result of an Atheist claiming that Native Americans weren't interested in hearing about God and Jesus from the Puritans. The fact of the matter is, the Puritans and Native Americans were able to find mutual respect and understanding with each other and got along rather well for many years. Now I can only imagine the strong spiritual faiths of both groups played an enormous role in that. ...There were also no Atheist Puritans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you said stands as your statement.  The truth of it is still very much in question.
> 
> Yes, they had a different culture than exists in the US today.  Perhaps they would have killed anyone who expressed an atheistic view (did all Native American tribes or societies do this?).  But people have been killed for expressing views they knew were taboo or illegal or unacceptable to the societies they lived in throughout history.  More, people can easily feign belief in something.  All I am saying is that I think it is likely that at some point, at least one Native American came to the conclusion there was no god(s).  It may not have been recorded anywhere, it may not have been a long-lived belief, such a person may not have ever expressed it, it just seems likely to be true.
Click to expand...


Yes, there were always atheists.  Can you imagine how upset they got when they lost the first debate to the original people who believed in/made up god?  

The atheist probably made all good, sane, rational, logical, scientific arguments and the defenders of god told a more fascinating story about heaven and hell and a god who loves us and of course the masses went with the better storyline.  Gullible.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> As soon as I read the word Marxist I stopped reading.  Good day sir.  Fuck off.  Eat a dick.  You can't talk to cock suckers like you.
> 
> From calling us god haters to marxists, fuck you.
> 
> And I agreed with your opening paragraph.  I was going to say so until I saw you call us Marxist.  Fuck you piece of shit Archie Bunker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gay-hating homophobic insults aren't necessary, I am not effected by them.
> 
> I honestly don't suspect you are smart enough to realize you're spewing 19th century Marxist claptrap, you are functionally illiterate when it comes to history. But that IS what you are spewing. AND... God-hating is a fundamental part of that ideology. Marx philosophized that religion must be subdued or crushed in order to make the socialist policies work because the people needed to have faith in only the state, not a God. After the first attempts at Marxism failed dismally, they came back and decided that maybe religion was okay to have if the state controlled it. Of course that effort failed as well.
> 
> This has never stopped, it just keeps on being "repackaged" and modified or tweaked, and rolled back out again in another incarnation. It has NEVER worked! It NEVER will work! What DOES work is FREEDOM, LIBERTY, CAPITALISM!
Click to expand...


Then maybe Marxists weren't all bad after all.  You guys throw those terms around but do you realize capitalism is just another ism?  It isn't purer or better.  In fact it is proving to be just as corruptable as all the other isms before it.  You seem to be ignorant to this history.

Maybe with god out of the way people will be less stupid.  Look at you.  You don't even know you are a racist.  

&#8220;Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.&#8221; &#8211; Charles Darwin


Because you sound a lot like the racists I talk to on USMB.  Just like I sound like the Marxists you talk to.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> The GOP won over whites in the south because blacks were voting democrat.  Plain and simple.  That is and was the appeal back then and still today.  Otherwise, what does the GOP offer poor and middle class southerners?  Other than the classic wedge issues racism, god, gays and guns.  Financially the hicks down south are the poorest and most uneducated brainwashed imbred Americans.  If one goes to Europe the Europeans make fun of them so much.  In France they call them Le Goobers.  Le Red Necks.  Le Hicks.
> 
> Anyways, I barely read what you wrote.  Might as well stop replying to me.  Being a Marxist god hater I don't read garbage from fascist capitalist swine.



Well okay... so you are admitting that in all the previous elections, those racist whites who voted for Nixon were supporting the Democratic Party, because that is who they previously voted for. And I suppose George "Segregation now, segregation forever" Wallace... well, he just got a few non-racist white fence sitters to vote for him, eh? 

Nothing in the 1968 GOP platform was racist in any way. There is no racist speech by Nixon during that campaign. You've presented NO evidence to support your view... other than racist and bigoted stereotypes. Your little prejudiced rant about Southerners reminds me very much of Archie Bunker.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Then maybe Marxists weren't all bad after all.



In all it's various forms that have been tried, it accounts for over 150 million dead, and that number is growing. So yeah... kinda not good.  



> You guys throw those terms around but do you realize capitalism is just another ism?  It isn't purer or better.  In fact it is proving to be just as corruptable as all the other isms before it.  You seem to be ignorant to this history.



Free market American capitalism is responsible for creating more millionaires and billionaires than ANY system ever devised by mankind. NOTHING has ever been so successful. There is corruption in all systems, the difference in America is, the corrupted are caught, prosecuted and sent to prison. In your typical Marxist country, the corruption is seldom ever heard about because those who are the most corrupt, control the wealth AND the political power, including the media and justice system. 



> Maybe with god out of the way people will be less stupid.  Look at you.  You don't even know you are a racist.
> 
> Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.  Charles Darwin
> 
> Because you sound a lot like the racists I talk to on USMB.  Just like I sound like the Marxists you talk to.



 ...Guess you must be out of ammo?


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> As soon as I read the word Marxist I stopped reading.  Good day sir.  Fuck off.  Eat a dick.  You can't talk to cock suckers like you.
> 
> From calling us god haters to marxists, fuck you.
> 
> And I agreed with your opening paragraph.  I was going to say so until I saw you call us Marxist.  Fuck you piece of shit Archie Bunker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gay-hating homophobic insults aren't necessary, I am not effected by them.
> 
> I honestly don't suspect you are smart enough to realize you're spewing 19th century Marxist claptrap, you are functionally illiterate when it comes to history. But that IS what you are spewing. AND... God-hating is a fundamental part of that ideology. Marx philosophized that religion must be subdued or crushed in order to make the socialist policies work because the people needed to have faith in only the state, not a God. After the first attempts at Marxism failed dismally, they came back and decided that maybe religion was okay to have if the state controlled it. Of course that effort failed as well.
> 
> This has never stopped, it just keeps on being "repackaged" and modified or tweaked, and rolled back out again in another incarnation. It has NEVER worked! It NEVER will work! What DOES work is FREEDOM, LIBERTY, CAPITALISM!
Click to expand...


PS.  I read through the definition of Marxism.  Looks to me like conservatives share a lot of beliefs with old Carl too.  Capitalism also follows Ayn Rand.  She was an atheist.  This is why I find it odd Republicans also consider themselves Christians.  That's because they selectively pick and choose what they follow in the bible.  They certainly don't follow feed the poor or heal the sick.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then maybe Marxists weren't all bad after all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In all it's various forms that have been tried, it accounts for over 150 million dead, and that number is growing. So yeah... kinda not good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You guys throw those terms around but do you realize capitalism is just another ism?  It isn't purer or better.  In fact it is proving to be just as corruptable as all the other isms before it.  You seem to be ignorant to this history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Free market American capitalism is responsible for creating more millionaires and billionaires than ANY system ever devised by mankind. NOTHING has ever been so successful. There is corruption in all systems, the difference in America is, the corrupted are caught, prosecuted and sent to prison. In your typical Marxist country, the corruption is seldom ever heard about because those who are the most corrupt, control the wealth AND the political power, including the media and justice system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe with god out of the way people will be less stupid.  Look at you.  You don't even know you are a racist.
> 
> Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.  Charles Darwin
> 
> Because you sound a lot like the racists I talk to on USMB.  Just like I sound like the Marxists you talk to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...Guess you must be out of ammo?
Click to expand...


No, regulated capitalism with a sprinkle of public schools/teachers, libraries, water works, police, fire fighters and government workers is what made this country great.  Labor laws, safety nets, etc.  It produced the biggest middle class the world has ever seen.  People became millionaires because they invented a product that the masses wanted and the masses had money.  

Bushanomics may have produced a lot of millionaires and billionaires but at the cost of the middle class.  It made the investor class even richer.  They also removed all the safety nets that they had in case they failed.  I don't want to get into it.  Fact is, Republicanism/Libertarianism will make the middle class disappear.  And when we point to Bush as an example they say he was too liberal.  Ok.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then maybe Marxists weren't all bad after all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In all it's various forms that have been tried, it accounts for over 150 million dead, and that number is growing. So yeah... kinda not good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You guys throw those terms around but do you realize capitalism is just another ism?  It isn't purer or better.  In fact it is proving to be just as corruptable as all the other isms before it.  You seem to be ignorant to this history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Free market American capitalism is responsible for creating more millionaires and billionaires than ANY system ever devised by mankind. NOTHING has ever been so successful. There is corruption in all systems, the difference in America is, the corrupted are caught, prosecuted and sent to prison. In your typical Marxist country, the corruption is seldom ever heard about because those who are the most corrupt, control the wealth AND the political power, including the media and justice system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe with god out of the way people will be less stupid.  Look at you.  You don't even know you are a racist.
> 
> Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.  Charles Darwin
> 
> Because you sound a lot like the racists I talk to on USMB.  Just like I sound like the Marxists you talk to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...Guess you must be out of ammo?
Click to expand...


For you yes I am out of ammo and energy.  

One more thing though.  Back before Bush 2000, regulated capitalism worked just fine.  Then the GOP deregulated capitalism and it blew up.  Same thing caused the great depression.  

Republicans like our economy going boom and bust every 10 years.  Democrats like slow steady growth.  The masses don't get fucked every 10 years with slow steady growth.  FDR's New Deal lasted 70 years.  Wasn't until Reagan and Bush started undoing the new deal that the middle class started disappearing.


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they killed people and burned the bodies if they deviated....then some deviated.
> 
> But you know what?  You think you can speak for the beliefs of every individual Native American who lived at that time, you go right ahead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, I'm glad to have your permission. I'm only bringing the information here, these people spoke for themselves and their stories are archived. The most important thing you need to understand is, they had a completely different kind of culture than you are familiar with. Where we are familiar with a culture that revolves around self and free will, where you can question God or reject God as well as believe in God, the Native Americans had a culture centered on the Great Spirit. The only sense of self came through the Great Spirit.
> 
> Now you said (I did not say it) that surely there were some rogue mavericks who bucked authority and refused to believe in this Great Spirit. I replied to that by saying that IF such a thing happened in their culture, they killed the person and burned the body. They probably then killed the mother who spawned such an example and burned her body as well. Now, because I tried to explain how their culture simply did not tolerate or accept such a view, you decided to turn that back around on me and "prove me wrong" in my initial assertion.
> 
> What I said still stands. There were no Atheist Native Americans. And emily... we are not talking about present day descendants of Native Americans who don't believe in a Christian God. Once their culture had been disseminated or destroyed, the influence of white man's culture prevailed.
> 
> This argument emerged as a result of an Atheist claiming that Native Americans weren't interested in hearing about God and Jesus from the Puritans. The fact of the matter is, the Puritans and Native Americans were able to find mutual respect and understanding with each other and got along rather well for many years. Now I can only imagine the strong spiritual faiths of both groups played an enormous role in that. ...There were also no Atheist Puritans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you said stands as your statement.  The truth of it is still very much in question.
> 
> Yes, they had a different culture than exists in the US today.  Perhaps they would have killed anyone who expressed an atheistic view (did all Native American tribes or societies do this?).  But people have been killed for expressing views they knew were taboo or illegal or unacceptable to the societies they lived in throughout history.  More, people can easily feign belief in something.  All I am saying is that I think it is likely that at some point, at least one Native American came to the conclusion there was no god(s).  It may not have been recorded anywhere, it may not have been a long-lived belief, such a person may not have ever expressed it, it just seems likely to be true.
Click to expand...


I've not backed away from my statement. There were no Atheist Native Americans, there were no Atheist Puritans. You are welcome to prove my statements wrong, the floor is yours. All you're saying is you don't think that is likely, but your opinion on what is likely isn't what is needed here. Examples of Atheist Native Americans and Puritans is what you need to find and present. 

*Perhaps they would have killed anyone who expressed an atheistic view (did all Native American tribes or societies do this?)*

I don't know that the issue ever came up, I was responding to your claim. Native American culture is well documented, go read some books on it. They didn't have Atheists. Wouldn't have tolerated an atheist viewpoint in their midst. It wasn't their culture. Down to their very NAMES, they were spiritually connected humans. Everything they did and were was centered around the Great Spirit. There was no deviation or alternative viewpoint, there was no place for such a thing in their culture. Had it ever existed, it would have been viewed as something dark and evil that must be vanquished at all costs. They would not have allowed  recalcitrant behavior regarding the Great Spirit. 

Much the same could be said for the Puritans, except they would have probably burned you at the stake alive instead of killing you first.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, I'm glad to have your permission. I'm only bringing the information here, these people spoke for themselves and their stories are archived. The most important thing you need to understand is, they had a completely different kind of culture than you are familiar with. Where we are familiar with a culture that revolves around self and free will, where you can question God or reject God as well as believe in God, the Native Americans had a culture centered on the Great Spirit. The only sense of self came through the Great Spirit.
> 
> Now you said (I did not say it) that surely there were some rogue mavericks who bucked authority and refused to believe in this Great Spirit. I replied to that by saying that IF such a thing happened in their culture, they killed the person and burned the body. They probably then killed the mother who spawned such an example and burned her body as well. Now, because I tried to explain how their culture simply did not tolerate or accept such a view, you decided to turn that back around on me and "prove me wrong" in my initial assertion.
> 
> What I said still stands. There were no Atheist Native Americans. And emily... we are not talking about present day descendants of Native Americans who don't believe in a Christian God. Once their culture had been disseminated or destroyed, the influence of white man's culture prevailed.
> 
> This argument emerged as a result of an Atheist claiming that Native Americans weren't interested in hearing about God and Jesus from the Puritans. The fact of the matter is, the Puritans and Native Americans were able to find mutual respect and understanding with each other and got along rather well for many years. Now I can only imagine the strong spiritual faiths of both groups played an enormous role in that. ...There were also no Atheist Puritans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you said stands as your statement.  The truth of it is still very much in question.
> 
> Yes, they had a different culture than exists in the US today.  Perhaps they would have killed anyone who expressed an atheistic view (did all Native American tribes or societies do this?).  But people have been killed for expressing views they knew were taboo or illegal or unacceptable to the societies they lived in throughout history.  More, people can easily feign belief in something.  All I am saying is that I think it is likely that at some point, at least one Native American came to the conclusion there was no god(s).  It may not have been recorded anywhere, it may not have been a long-lived belief, such a person may not have ever expressed it, it just seems likely to be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've not backed away from my statement. There were no Atheist Native Americans, there were no Atheist Puritans. You are welcome to prove my statements wrong, the floor is yours. All you're saying is you don't think that is likely, but your opinion on what is likely isn't what is needed here. Examples of Atheist Native Americans and Puritans is what you need to find and present.
> 
> *Perhaps they would have killed anyone who expressed an atheistic view (did all Native American tribes or societies do this?)*
> 
> I don't know that the issue ever came up, I was responding to your claim. Native American culture is well documented, go read some books on it. They didn't have Atheists. Wouldn't have tolerated an atheist viewpoint in their midst. It wasn't their culture. Down to their very NAMES, they were spiritually connected humans. Everything they did and were was centered around the Great Spirit. There was no deviation or alternative viewpoint, there was no place for such a thing in their culture. Had it ever existed, it would have been viewed as something dark and evil that must be vanquished at all costs. They would not have allowed  recalcitrant behavior regarding the Great Spirit.
> 
> Much the same could be said for the Puritans, except they would have probably burned you at the stake alive instead of killing you first.
Click to expand...


Of course there are atheist indians.  There are atheist muslims who pray 5 times a day too because they have to.  I myself go to a christian church from time to time.  Would anyone believe there was an actual atheist in church?  Well there is.  And I'm probably not alone.  I do know other christians who believe like you.  They were born into christianity, don't believe any of the organized religions but still believe in god.  

I know its a hard thing to let go of.  Here is one reason why.

Why do normal people believe ridiculous things?   If Christians used the same critical powers they use to dismiss other religions they would surely end up dismissing the claims of their own religion.  But they dont bc of Cognitive dissonance.

As anyone who works in education can tell you, children are gullible.  So we have a situation where, from birth children are fed cultural myths such as Noahs Flood as factual stories. What is happening is that children are fed improbable stories before they are taught how to rationalize the ridiculous from the scientifically verified. These children are at the most educationally vulnerable point in their lives. And who are the people they trust the most?  Their parents, grandparents, preachers.  These children have no hope of being able to decipher whether such truth claims are probable or not. They dont even think to question such claims.  Actually I did.  

It is only after these cultural memories are embedded that children learn about life, about science, about how to tell a lie from a truth, about the notion that you cant trust everyone, even a priest.  

The second option is also prevalent. Many Christians do learn to be critical and do apply that vetting process to their embedded learning.  So they think the bible is just a bunch of allegories.  The theist ends up creating wildly ad hoc reasons as to how the evidence can fit in with so-called biblical facts.    

Obviously, there are difficult questions for the theist who actually discounts such myths as symbolic. It is a potentially slippery slope as to discerning what is myth, what is allegory and what actually happened in the Bible.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, I'm glad to have your permission. I'm only bringing the information here, these people spoke for themselves and their stories are archived. The most important thing you need to understand is, they had a completely different kind of culture than you are familiar with. Where we are familiar with a culture that revolves around self and free will, where you can question God or reject God as well as believe in God, the Native Americans had a culture centered on the Great Spirit. The only sense of self came through the Great Spirit.
> 
> Now you said (I did not say it) that surely there were some rogue mavericks who bucked authority and refused to believe in this Great Spirit. I replied to that by saying that IF such a thing happened in their culture, they killed the person and burned the body. They probably then killed the mother who spawned such an example and burned her body as well. Now, because I tried to explain how their culture simply did not tolerate or accept such a view, you decided to turn that back around on me and "prove me wrong" in my initial assertion.
> 
> What I said still stands. There were no Atheist Native Americans. And emily... we are not talking about present day descendants of Native Americans who don't believe in a Christian God. Once their culture had been disseminated or destroyed, the influence of white man's culture prevailed.
> 
> This argument emerged as a result of an Atheist claiming that Native Americans weren't interested in hearing about God and Jesus from the Puritans. The fact of the matter is, the Puritans and Native Americans were able to find mutual respect and understanding with each other and got along rather well for many years. Now I can only imagine the strong spiritual faiths of both groups played an enormous role in that. ...There were also no Atheist Puritans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you said stands as your statement.  The truth of it is still very much in question.
> 
> Yes, they had a different culture than exists in the US today.  Perhaps they would have killed anyone who expressed an atheistic view (did all Native American tribes or societies do this?).  But people have been killed for expressing views they knew were taboo or illegal or unacceptable to the societies they lived in throughout history.  More, people can easily feign belief in something.  All I am saying is that I think it is likely that at some point, at least one Native American came to the conclusion there was no god(s).  It may not have been recorded anywhere, it may not have been a long-lived belief, such a person may not have ever expressed it, it just seems likely to be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've not backed away from my statement. There were no Atheist Native Americans, there were no Atheist Puritans. You are welcome to prove my statements wrong, the floor is yours. All you're saying is you don't think that is likely, but your opinion on what is likely isn't what is needed here. Examples of Atheist Native Americans and Puritans is what you need to find and present.
> 
> *Perhaps they would have killed anyone who expressed an atheistic view (did all Native American tribes or societies do this?)*
> 
> I don't know that the issue ever came up, I was responding to your claim. Native American culture is well documented, go read some books on it. They didn't have Atheists. Wouldn't have tolerated an atheist viewpoint in their midst. It wasn't their culture. Down to their very NAMES, they were spiritually connected humans. Everything they did and were was centered around the Great Spirit. There was no deviation or alternative viewpoint, there was no place for such a thing in their culture. Had it ever existed, it would have been viewed as something dark and evil that must be vanquished at all costs. They would not have allowed  recalcitrant behavior regarding the Great Spirit.
> 
> Much the same could be said for the Puritans, except they would have probably burned you at the stake alive instead of killing you first.
Click to expand...


You made a claim that there were no atheist Native Americans.  It is an unprovable claim.  I disagree with making such a broad, all-encompassing claim.  

You say you don't know if the issue of atheism ever came up among Native Americans of the time, yet you claim to know what would have happened to someone expressing atheism.  If it never came up, how could you know the reaction to it?

I'm not trying to prove there were atheist Native Americans.  I'm trying to say that claiming to know the personal beliefs of every individual person among millions is ridiculous.  If you want to say most Native Americans had spiritual belief, fine.  If you want to say the vast majority, fine.  Nearly all, fine.  However, it is impossible for you or anyone else to know whether or not any individual Native American might have lacked belief in god(s).  There isn't even a consensus on the total number of people who lived here before European settlement, how could anyone possibly know the beliefs of each individual person?  Particularly if those beliefs might have been held secret in fear of the consequences of openly stating them (assuming your claim about killing any atheists are true and true for all Native American societies)?

You also seem to lump all Native Americans together in their religious beliefs.  Weren't there some widely divergent beliefs among differing tribes or societies?

I'm not saying atheism was common amongst Native Americans.  I'm just saying that based on all available evidence of human behavior, at least some people probably believed differently than the norms of society, and some of those may have been atheists.


----------



## sealybobo

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you said stands as your statement.  The truth of it is still very much in question.
> 
> Yes, they had a different culture than exists in the US today.  Perhaps they would have killed anyone who expressed an atheistic view (did all Native American tribes or societies do this?).  But people have been killed for expressing views they knew were taboo or illegal or unacceptable to the societies they lived in throughout history.  More, people can easily feign belief in something.  All I am saying is that I think it is likely that at some point, at least one Native American came to the conclusion there was no god(s).  It may not have been recorded anywhere, it may not have been a long-lived belief, such a person may not have ever expressed it, it just seems likely to be true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've not backed away from my statement. There were no Atheist Native Americans, there were no Atheist Puritans. You are welcome to prove my statements wrong, the floor is yours. All you're saying is you don't think that is likely, but your opinion on what is likely isn't what is needed here. Examples of Atheist Native Americans and Puritans is what you need to find and present.
> 
> *Perhaps they would have killed anyone who expressed an atheistic view (did all Native American tribes or societies do this?)*
> 
> I don't know that the issue ever came up, I was responding to your claim. Native American culture is well documented, go read some books on it. They didn't have Atheists. Wouldn't have tolerated an atheist viewpoint in their midst. It wasn't their culture. Down to their very NAMES, they were spiritually connected humans. Everything they did and were was centered around the Great Spirit. There was no deviation or alternative viewpoint, there was no place for such a thing in their culture. Had it ever existed, it would have been viewed as something dark and evil that must be vanquished at all costs. They would not have allowed  recalcitrant behavior regarding the Great Spirit.
> 
> Much the same could be said for the Puritans, except they would have probably burned you at the stake alive instead of killing you first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You made a claim that there were no atheist Native Americans.  It is an unprovable claim.  I disagree with making such a broad, all-encompassing claim.
> 
> You say you don't know if the issue of atheism ever came up among Native Americans of the time, yet you claim to know what would have happened to someone expressing atheism.  If it never came up, how could you know the reaction to it?
> 
> I'm not trying to prove there were atheist Native Americans.  I'm trying to say that claiming to know the personal beliefs of every individual person among millions is ridiculous.  If you want to say most Native Americans had spiritual belief, fine.  If you want to say the vast majority, fine.  Nearly all, fine.  However, it is impossible for you or anyone else to know whether or not any individual Native American might have lacked belief in god(s).  There isn't even a consensus on the total number of people who lived here before European settlement, how could anyone possibly know the beliefs of each individual person?  Particularly if those beliefs might have been held secret in fear of the consequences of openly stating them (assuming your claim about killing any atheists are true and true for all Native American societies)?
> 
> You also seem to lump all Native Americans together in their religious beliefs.  Weren't there some widely divergent beliefs among differing tribes or societies?
> 
> I'm not saying atheism was common amongst Native Americans.  I'm just saying that based on all available evidence of human behavior, at least some people probably believed differently than the norms of society, and some of those may have been atheists.
Click to expand...


Of course there was.  As long as there have been people who claim god exists there have been people who didn't believe.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've not backed away from my statement. There were no Atheist Native Americans, there were no Atheist Puritans. You are welcome to prove my statements wrong, the floor is yours. All you're saying is you don't think that is likely, but your opinion on what is likely isn't what is needed here. Examples of Atheist Native Americans and Puritans is what you need to find and present.
> 
> *Perhaps they would have killed anyone who expressed an atheistic view (did all Native American tribes or societies do this?)*
> 
> I don't know that the issue ever came up, I was responding to your claim. Native American culture is well documented, go read some books on it. They didn't have Atheists. Wouldn't have tolerated an atheist viewpoint in their midst. It wasn't their culture. Down to their very NAMES, they were spiritually connected humans. Everything they did and were was centered around the Great Spirit. There was no deviation or alternative viewpoint, there was no place for such a thing in their culture. Had it ever existed, it would have been viewed as something dark and evil that must be vanquished at all costs. They would not have allowed  recalcitrant behavior regarding the Great Spirit.
> 
> Much the same could be said for the Puritans, except they would have probably burned you at the stake alive instead of killing you first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You made a claim that there were no atheist Native Americans.  It is an unprovable claim.  I disagree with making such a broad, all-encompassing claim.
> 
> You say you don't know if the issue of atheism ever came up among Native Americans of the time, yet you claim to know what would have happened to someone expressing atheism.  If it never came up, how could you know the reaction to it?
> 
> I'm not trying to prove there were atheist Native Americans.  I'm trying to say that claiming to know the personal beliefs of every individual person among millions is ridiculous.  If you want to say most Native Americans had spiritual belief, fine.  If you want to say the vast majority, fine.  Nearly all, fine.  However, it is impossible for you or anyone else to know whether or not any individual Native American might have lacked belief in god(s).  There isn't even a consensus on the total number of people who lived here before European settlement, how could anyone possibly know the beliefs of each individual person?  Particularly if those beliefs might have been held secret in fear of the consequences of openly stating them (assuming your claim about killing any atheists are true and true for all Native American societies)?
> 
> You also seem to lump all Native Americans together in their religious beliefs.  Weren't there some widely divergent beliefs among differing tribes or societies?
> 
> I'm not saying atheism was common amongst Native Americans.  I'm just saying that based on all available evidence of human behavior, at least some people probably believed differently than the norms of society, and some of those may have been atheists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course there was.  As long as there have been people who claim god exists there have been people who didn't believe.
Click to expand...


YES!!! POOR BLINDED FOOLS ARE NOTHING NEW!!!and you???


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then maybe Marxists weren't all bad after all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In all it's various forms that have been tried, it accounts for over 150 million dead, and that number is growing. So yeah... kinda not good.
> 
> Free market American capitalism is responsible for creating more millionaires and billionaires than ANY system ever devised by mankind. NOTHING has ever been so successful. There is corruption in all systems, the difference in America is, the corrupted are caught, prosecuted and sent to prison. In your typical Marxist country, the corruption is seldom ever heard about because those who are the most corrupt, control the wealth AND the political power, including the media and justice system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe with god out of the way people will be less stupid.  Look at you.  You don't even know you are a racist.
> 
> Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.  Charles Darwin
> 
> Because you sound a lot like the racists I talk to on USMB.  Just like I sound like the Marxists you talk to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...Guess you must be out of ammo?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For you yes I am out of ammo and energy.
> 
> One more thing though.  Back before Bush 2000, regulated capitalism worked just fine.  Then the GOP deregulated capitalism and it blew up.  Same thing caused the great depression.
> 
> Republicans like our economy going boom and bust every 10 years.  Democrats like slow steady growth.  The masses don't get fucked every 10 years with slow steady growth.  FDR's New Deal lasted 70 years.  Wasn't until Reagan and Bush started undoing the new deal that the middle class started disappearing.
Click to expand...


Uhm... NO.  Under Carter, we went through 4 years of Democrats regulating capitalism out the wazoo, mandatory price freezes, caps on trade, etc. Coupled with totally feckless and clueless foreign policy which allowed the Shah of Iran to be overthrown, ushering in the radical Islamic Fundie movement we're still dealing with today, and spiraling oil prices out of control, creating the "Carter Malaise." Reagan came in and DE-regulated capitalism, creating 30 years of peacetime prosperity and a record that still stands to this day for growth. Bush didn't deregulate anything that I am aware of. He grew the size of government more than the previous two Democrat presidents combined. He "compassionately" gave an across-the-board tax cut to every taxpayer, which was essentially economic stupidity. It didn't work to spur record-setting economic growth because it basically cancelled itself out. After 4 years of Bush, 8 years of Clinton, and 8 years of another Bush, they finally dismantled most of what Reagan had done, and the economy tanked. The buffoon in the White House now is more of an economic moron than those three combined. Except, I don't think he gives a shit about the economy, he is on a mission to destroy Capitalism so we can usher in New Age Marxism! 

We're still living with FDR New Deal policies, which have us currently at $17.5 trillion in debt. Nothing has been done to make Social Security solvent, in fact, this idiot has pilfered over $800 billion from it to help pay for Obamacare, which is a complete and utter disaster. 

But hey... NONE of this matters to liberal democrats because all that matters is "intent!" You _intended_ to help folks... that's all that counts! We should just keep on voting for you regardless of how bad your policies fail because you have the best of _intentions!_


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> In all it's various forms that have been tried, it accounts for over 150 million dead, and that number is growing. So yeah... kinda not good.
> 
> Free market American capitalism is responsible for creating more millionaires and billionaires than ANY system ever devised by mankind. NOTHING has ever been so successful. There is corruption in all systems, the difference in America is, the corrupted are caught, prosecuted and sent to prison. In your typical Marxist country, the corruption is seldom ever heard about because those who are the most corrupt, control the wealth AND the political power, including the media and justice system.
> ...Guess you must be out of ammo?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For you yes I am out of ammo and energy.
> 
> One more thing though.  Back before Bush 2000, regulated capitalism worked just fine.  Then the GOP deregulated capitalism and it blew up.  Same thing caused the great depression.
> 
> Republicans like our economy going boom and bust every 10 years.  Democrats like slow steady growth.  The masses don't get fucked every 10 years with slow steady growth.  FDR's New Deal lasted 70 years.  Wasn't until Reagan and Bush started undoing the new deal that the middle class started disappearing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uhm... NO.  Under Carter, we went through 4 years of Democrats regulating capitalism out the wazoo, mandatory price freezes, caps on trade, etc. Coupled with totally feckless and clueless foreign policy which allowed the Shah of Iran to be overthrown, ushering in the radical Islamic Fundie movement we're still dealing with today, and spiraling oil prices out of control, creating the "Carter Malaise." Reagan came in and DE-regulated capitalism, creating 30 years of peacetime prosperity and a record that still stands to this day for growth. Bush didn't deregulate anything that I am aware of. He grew the size of government more than the previous two Democrat presidents combined. He "compassionately" gave an across-the-board tax cut to every taxpayer, which was essentially economic stupidity. It didn't work to spur record-setting economic growth because it basically cancelled itself out. After 4 years of Bush, 8 years of Clinton, and 8 years of another Bush, they finally dismantled most of what Reagan had done, and the economy tanked. The buffoon in the White House now is more of an economic moron than those three combined. Except, I don't think he gives a shit about the economy, he is on a mission to destroy Capitalism so we can usher in New Age Marxism!
> 
> We're still living with FDR New Deal policies, which have us currently at $17.5 trillion in debt. Nothing has been done to make Social Security solvent, in fact, this idiot has pilfered over $800 billion from it to help pay for Obamacare, which is a complete and utter disaster.
> 
> But hey... NONE of this matters to liberal democrats because all that matters is "intent!" You _intended_ to help folks... that's all that counts! We should just keep on voting for you regardless of how bad your policies fail because you have the best of _intentions!_
Click to expand...


We wouldn't be in debt if the rich and powerful didn't want us in debt.  The more we go into debt, the more they own us.  Who owns the Federal Reserve?  Private bankers?  

And maybe we shouldn't have given all those tax breaks to the rich and corporations?  Looks like clinton had a surplus and Bush made it impossible to pay down the debt.  On purpose too because they want to use the debt to end ss and medicare.  End the new deal.  At least you admit it, sort of.  

Listen, there is so much wrong with your revisionist history that to reply in full to you would make me sounds like a rambling lunitic.  Your history isn't even close to reality. 

Roll Back the Reagan Tax Cuts | Common Dreams

The New Deal produced the greatest middle class in human history.  Of course the rich didn't like it so they've worked for years to destroy it.  

Lets be honest boss.  You want to end ss and medicare.  Your party does.  They won't admit that out loud but to them/you those are Marxist/socialist programs that you want to kill.  

Anyways, I dislike you more and more as time goes on.


----------



## sealybobo

And stop trying to sucker me into politics boss.  You can't debate rationally/logically/reasonably with a person who believes in fairy tales.

If I can't prove to you that the invisible man and the boogie man don't exist how do you think I'm going to convince you that it wasn't Carter or FDR's policies that caused......fuck off boss.


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> You made a claim that there were no atheist Native Americans.  It is an unprovable claim.  I disagree with making such a broad, all-encompassing claim.



It wasn't a claim. I was a statement of fact based on a study of Native American culture. You've tried to turn it into an unprovable claim by being your usual ridiculous self. 



> You say you don't know if the issue of atheism ever came up among Native Americans of the time, yet you claim to know what would have happened to someone expressing atheism.  If it never came up, how could you know the reaction to it?



It's because I undertand their culture. You are unable to understand it because you apparently think all cultures must be like your own. I've tried to explain how "western" culture is different than Native American culture, but you want to be hard headed. You don't seem to get it. You think that Native Americans operated the same as other cultures you are familiar with, and they didn't. Where us European "western" culture people are ingrained with a sense of "self" and all our emphasis is on "self" ...from the Greek philosophies or Enlightenment, or whatever... the Native Americans held a completely different philosophy. Their culture was ingrained with a sense of belonging to the Great Spirit. Everything they did, everything they had, everything they lived for, all aspects of their entire life, revolved around the Great Spirit. Many of them sacrificed themselves and their families for nothing more than pleasing the Great Spirit, and considered it an honor to do so. A concept of "Atheism" in such a culture is non-existent. It's like saying you can't believe that some Christian somewhere doesn't believe in worshiping cows! The fact is, there aren't any Christian cow worshipers, you won't find any, and it doesn't matter what you believe. 



> I'm not trying to prove there were atheist Native Americans.  I'm trying to say that claiming to know the personal beliefs of every individual person among millions is ridiculous.  If you want to say most Native Americans had spiritual belief, fine.  If you want to say the vast majority, fine.  Nearly all, fine.  However, it is impossible for you or anyone else to know whether or not any individual Native American might have lacked belief in god(s).  There isn't even a consensus on the total number of people who lived here before European settlement, how could anyone possibly know the beliefs of each individual person?  Particularly if those beliefs might have been held secret in fear of the consequences of openly stating them (assuming your claim about killing any atheists are true and true for all Native American societies)?



Again...  I CAN say it because I understand their culture. I've read countless books about it. I have studied about Native Americans my whole life because it is a major part of my personal ancestry. Now, for the sake of trying to appease your ignorance, I tried to accept your premise that maybe there was some isolated nut in the bunch who, for whatever reason, mental defect or retardation, didn't subscribe to the tribal views on the Great Spirit. You tried to turn that back around on me and claim I admitted I was wrong... somehow!  It's typical of the behavior we see from you regularly here. 



> You also seem to lump all Native Americans together in their religious beliefs.  Weren't there some widely divergent beliefs among differing tribes or societies?
> 
> I'm not saying atheism was common amongst Native Americans.  I'm just saying that based on all available evidence of human behavior, at least some people probably believed differently than the norms of society, and some of those may have been atheists.



They didn't have "religious" beliefs. There was no Native American religion. There were many tribes, and they all held deep spiritual connection which was the center of their culture. There were some variations with regard to how they perceived the Great Spirit. None of them were Atheists. Did some of them ever lose faith in the Great Spirit or think the Great Spirit had forsaken them? Probably so, especially when Jackson was marching them across the desert to their deaths... but they weren't Atheists.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> And stop trying to sucker me into politics boss.



You're right... I've made enough of a fool out of you on science, math, history and God... no need to add to your embarrassment by schooling you in politics as well. 



> We wouldn't be in debt if the rich and powerful didn't want us in debt.



Bahahaahaha... You think capitalists, who make money from people buying their stuff... want YOU or anyone else to be poor and not have money to spend? 



> Looks like clinton had a surplus and Bush made it impossible to pay down the debt.



We still had a national debt under Clinton. The "surplus" you are referring to was the fiscal budget for the year, which was only a "surplus" because Congress changed the rules on what could be counted as the "general fund" and included the Social Security Trust Fund in that money, creating a surplus. There never WAS a surplus. It was an accounting gimmick which used CBO numbers forecasting 10-years out and speculating on the new latest Dot-com craze, which never materialized. Instead the Dot-com bubble burst, and all that imaginary surplus money went up in smoke because it never existed anyway. 



> On purpose too because they want to use the debt to end ss and medicare.



No one wants to end Social Security or Medicare. Responsible people in the GOP have worked on plans to reform the programs so they remain solvent instead of going tits up, which they are on course to do in about another decade if something isn't done. Democrats want to demagogue and turn it into a political football, while raiding the current funding to pay for their pet projects. I guess when it fucking goes tits up, we'll hear how that was all the Republicans fault? Rich greedy bastards never wanted to fix it! 



> The New Deal produced the greatest middle class in human history. Of course the rich didn't like it so they've worked for years to destroy it.



Again, MORON... RICH people are capitalists who make money selling shit to you! How the hell does it HELP them for YOU to not have money? How are they supposed to make profits and keep being rich if you don't have any money to buy what they're selling? 

You people are not very bright.


----------



## Boss

And really, silly boob? Commondreams.org?  Was the Commies-R-Us.org website down or something?


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> And really, silly boob? Commondreams.org?  Was the Commies-R-Us.org website down or something?



Don't expect any of the sites you go to to tell you the truth.

And no, I find so much wrong with everything  you have said today and in the past I wouldn't even know where to begin.  AND, I know none of it will make a bit of difference with you so no refuse to get sucked in.  I was going to but then I changed my mind.  It would be a waste of my time.  You clearly have a right wing version of history and reality.  The best we can do is agree to disagree.

You didn't school anyone.  I just can't waste my time with people who believe in fairytales and also doesn't understand that class warfare exists or that he is losing.

I'd be better off to just wait 10 years for you to die.  God told me you'd be dead in 10 years or less.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> You made a claim that there were no atheist Native Americans.  It is an unprovable claim.  I disagree with making such a broad, all-encompassing claim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't a claim. I was a statement of fact based on a study of Native American culture. You've tried to turn it into an unprovable claim by being your usual ridiculous self.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say you don't know if the issue of atheism ever came up among Native Americans of the time, yet you claim to know what would have happened to someone expressing atheism.  If it never came up, how could you know the reaction to it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's because I undertand their culture. You are unable to understand it because you apparently think all cultures must be like your own. I've tried to explain how "western" culture is different than Native American culture, but you want to be hard headed. You don't seem to get it. You think that Native Americans operated the same as other cultures you are familiar with, and they didn't. Where us European "western" culture people are ingrained with a sense of "self" and all our emphasis is on "self" ...from the Greek philosophies or Enlightenment, or whatever... the Native Americans held a completely different philosophy. Their culture was ingrained with a sense of belonging to the Great Spirit. Everything they did, everything they had, everything they lived for, all aspects of their entire life, revolved around the Great Spirit. Many of them sacrificed themselves and their families for nothing more than pleasing the Great Spirit, and considered it an honor to do so. A concept of "Atheism" in such a culture is non-existent. It's like saying you can't believe that some Christian somewhere doesn't believe in worshiping cows! The fact is, there aren't any Christian cow worshipers, you won't find any, and it doesn't matter what you believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not trying to prove there were atheist Native Americans.  I'm trying to say that claiming to know the personal beliefs of every individual person among millions is ridiculous.  If you want to say most Native Americans had spiritual belief, fine.  If you want to say the vast majority, fine.  Nearly all, fine.  However, it is impossible for you or anyone else to know whether or not any individual Native American might have lacked belief in god(s).  There isn't even a consensus on the total number of people who lived here before European settlement, how could anyone possibly know the beliefs of each individual person?  Particularly if those beliefs might have been held secret in fear of the consequences of openly stating them (assuming your claim about killing any atheists are true and true for all Native American societies)?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again...  I CAN say it because I understand their culture. I've read countless books about it. I have studied about Native Americans my whole life because it is a major part of my personal ancestry. Now, for the sake of trying to appease your ignorance, I tried to accept your premise that maybe there was some isolated nut in the bunch who, for whatever reason, mental defect or retardation, didn't subscribe to the tribal views on the Great Spirit. You tried to turn that back around on me and claim I admitted I was wrong... somehow!  It's typical of the behavior we see from you regularly here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You also seem to lump all Native Americans together in their religious beliefs.  Weren't there some widely divergent beliefs among differing tribes or societies?
> 
> I'm not saying atheism was common amongst Native Americans.  I'm just saying that based on all available evidence of human behavior, at least some people probably believed differently than the norms of society, and some of those may have been atheists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They didn't have "religious" beliefs. There was no Native American religion. There were many tribes, and they all held deep spiritual connection which was the center of their culture. There were some variations with regard to how they perceived the Great Spirit. None of them were Atheists. Did some of them ever lose faith in the Great Spirit or think the Great Spirit had forsaken them? Probably so, especially when Jackson was marching them across the desert to their deaths... but they weren't Atheists.
Click to expand...


It is a statement of fact?  I think you may be using your own personal definition of the word again.  Are there records of the beliefs of every individual Native American who lived at the time of European settlement?  Did you know these people in order to speak to the beliefs of each individual among the millions?  How then can you claim a statement about the beliefs of each individual is a statement of fact?

What do you consider Native American?  I wonder if you put the Aztecs or Mayans or Inuit in the definition?  Do you think they had the same basic spiritual or religious beliefs as the Iroquois, or the Apache, the Hopi, etc.?

You remind me of Ahmedinejad saying there are no homosexuals in Iran.


----------



## sealybobo

Wake up boss

"Do the Rich Even Need the Rest of America Anymore?" | naked capitalism


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And stop trying to sucker me into politics boss.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're right... I've made enough of a fool out of you on science, math, history and God... no need to add to your embarrassment by schooling you in politics as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We wouldn't be in debt if the rich and powerful didn't want us in debt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bahahaahaha... You think capitalists, who make money from people buying their stuff... want YOU or anyone else to be poor and not have money to spend?
> 
> 
> 
> We still had a national debt under Clinton. The "surplus" you are referring to was the fiscal budget for the year, which was only a "surplus" because Congress changed the rules on what could be counted as the "general fund" and included the Social Security Trust Fund in that money, creating a surplus. There never WAS a surplus. It was an accounting gimmick which used CBO numbers forecasting 10-years out and speculating on the new latest Dot-com craze, which never materialized. Instead the Dot-com bubble burst, and all that imaginary surplus money went up in smoke because it never existed anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On purpose too because they want to use the debt to end ss and medicare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one wants to end Social Security or Medicare. Responsible people in the GOP have worked on plans to reform the programs so they remain solvent instead of going tits up, which they are on course to do in about another decade if something isn't done. Democrats want to demagogue and turn it into a political football, while raiding the current funding to pay for their pet projects. I guess when it fucking goes tits up, we'll hear how that was all the Republicans fault? Rich greedy bastards never wanted to fix it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The New Deal produced the greatest middle class in human history. Of course the rich didn't like it so they've worked for years to destroy it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, MORON... RICH people are capitalists who make money selling shit to you! How the hell does it HELP them for YOU to not have money? How are they supposed to make profits and keep being rich if you don't have any money to buy what they're selling?
> 
> You people are not very bright.
Click to expand...


As stocks boomed, the wealthy bounced back. And while the Main Street economy was wracked by high unemployment and the real-estate crash, the wealthywhose financial fates were more tied to capital markets than jobs and houses picked themselves up, brushed themselves off and started buying luxury goods again.

Some argue that the rich no longer need the rest of America.

The wealthy increasingly earn their fortunes with overseas labor, selling to overseas consumers and managing financial transactions that have little to do with the rest of the U.S. 

A member of the elite can make money from factories in China that sell to consumers in India, while relying entirely on immigrant servants at one of several homes around the country.

The financial crisis resulted in the greatest looting of the public purse in history. While the banksters were the obvious beneficiaries, most of the rest of the rich were carried along with them. The sudden recovery in the fortunes of the wealthy was no accident, but the result of a host of policies to prop up asset values.

All you have to look at is how the GOP are not interested in investing America.  They don't want to invest in schools, infrastructure, NOTHING.  So if the government isn't going to invest in America, why would corporations?  Why not go to countries that are investing in their infrastructure like China?

Anyways, this is why us god haters persist.  Boss clearly has a very deep understanding of history from a conservatives point of view.  Its all lies and bullshit but still he really truly believes what he says and to be honest, if I didn't know any better his claims would sound legit.  Fortunately I do know better.


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> It is a statement of fact?  I think you may be using your own personal definition of the word again.  Are there records of the beliefs of every individual Native American who lived at the time of European settlement?  Did you know these people in order to speak to the beliefs of each individual among the millions?  How then can you claim a statement about the beliefs of each individual is a statement of fact?



It is a statement of fact and I base that on a study of the culture. Nope, not using my definition. The records of every individual doesn't have to exist. You are entitled to believe otherwise, but you're wrong. I don't have to have spoken to each one, I know about their culture. These people we're talking about were literally NAMED after the spiritual. Is that point not sinking into that concrete-like head of yours? Their very IDENTITY came from the spiritual, and you are trying to claim some of them lacked spirituality. It's like trying to claim there are some radical Islamic fundamentalists who don't believe in Allah! Or that it's possible that SOME Popes might have been Atheists! You're off your fucking nut, man! 



> What do you consider Native American?  I wonder if you put the Aztecs or Mayans or Inuit in the definition?  Do you think they had the same basic spiritual or religious beliefs as the Iroquois, or the Apache, the Hopi, etc.?
> 
> You remind me of Ahmedinejad saying there are no homosexuals in Iran.



I have not studied about Mayans or Inuits, so I can't tell you about them. When I say "Native American" (an offensive term to some of us, btw) I am referring to the indigenous peoples of what is now considered the continental United States. 

And I don't know about Armordinnerjacket, but I wouldn't imagine being gay in Iran is very pleasant.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> As stocks boomed, the wealthy bounced back. And while the Main Street economy was wracked by high unemployment and the real-estate crash, the wealthywhose financial fates were more tied to capital markets than jobs and houses picked themselves up, brushed themselves off and started buying luxury goods again.
> 
> The wealthy increasingly earn their fortunes with overseas labor, selling to overseas consumers and managing financial transactions that have little to do with the rest of the U.S.
> 
> A member of the elite can make money from factories in China that sell to consumers in India, while relying entirely on immigrant servants at one of several homes around the country.



Oh, the rich are always going to find ways to earn more wealth, it's kinda what they do. Like you can always find a way to blame Republicans for your plight in life and whine and moan about how you need more government handouts.... it's what you do! 

That said, the rich would much rather invest in American companies and provide jobs to American consumers where they will sell their products to them and avoid the pitfalls of unstable governments and wars or whatnot. They make a lot more profit when they can keep their investments at home, but if the government and you libs are going to wage all out war on them and make it impossible for them to earn profits here, they'll do it elsewhere. Push comes to shove, they don't HAVE to make profits at all... they're rich, remember? They can live the rest of their lives on the wealth they have, and still leave enough to their families that they won't ever have to work either. 

So we've had 5.5 years of your liberal war on the rich, doing all these things to stifle capitalist growth and punish the wealthy.... how's that plan working out for ya? 30% of the black people in America are unemployed, more people on food stamps that any time in history. Is it working? Are you helping this so-called "middle class" any? Maybe you're keeping the rich from getting richer? Nope... that's not happening either. 



> Some argue that the rich no longer need the rest of America.



Nonsense. Are they going to polish their own yachts? Change the tires on their own limo? Do the mechanic work on their own jets? Mow their own grass at their mansions? Where are they supposed to go to get a decent steak dinner? Who's going to do their hair, manicures, pedicures, run the trendy shops they like to frequent? Where are they going to play golf at? What if they need a new TV or car, who's going to sell it to them? Where are they going to buy their groceries and toilet paper? Who's going to clean out the septic tank? Who's going to run the country club? Who's going to run the liquor store? Who's going to do their taxes, handle their investment, trade their stocks, keep their books, handle their legal matters? LOTS of things out there the rich folk need the rest of America to do! 



> The financial crisis resulted in the greatest looting of the public purse in history. While the banksters were the obvious beneficiaries, most of the rest of the rich were carried along with them. The sudden recovery in the fortunes of the wealthy was no accident, but the result of a host of policies to prop up asset values.



You're as full of shit as a Christmas turkey. Banks benefited because your liberal representatives thought it was a peachy idea to bail them out.... TOO BIG TO FAIL! But the problems started with your liberal asswipe representatives who passed low interest loan guarantees for poor folks to buy homes, so I guess they kind of felt obligated.  



> All you have to look at is how the GOP are not interested in investing America.  They don't want to invest in schools, infrastructure, NOTHING.  So if the government isn't going to invest in America, why would corporations?  Why not go to countries that are investing in their infrastructure like China?



We can't afford to keep building goddamn schools! We don't have any money to invest, it's all been spent! We're borrowing a trillion dollars a year from Communist China, just to keep the goddamn lights on! Your president has already spent over $2 trillion on supposed "infrastructure" that never did materialize! It mostly went to his rat bastard campaign donors and special interest groups. Or people like Solyndra, who took the damn money and promptly filed bankruptcy. So no.... we can't afford any more of that kind of shit! 



> Anyways, this is why us god haters persist.  Boss clearly has a very deep understanding of history from a conservatives point of view.  Its all lies and bullshit but still he really truly believes what he says and to be honest, if I didn't know any better his claims would sound legit.  Fortunately I do know better.



No, you clearly DO NOT know better. You are clearly an idiot on a myriad of topics.


----------



## MDiver

After well over four-thousand responses to the original post, I'm very much a late poster to the debate. Anyway, as an atheist I cannot hate what I, in my heart, don't believe exists in the first place, whether such deities of the Hindus, or the single deity of the Abrahamic religion, or others.  So, I would have to be classified as a non-hater when it comes to any and all deities.  
Ultimately, the problem isn't believing in all-knowing, all-powerful...and invisible, deities (which if one really analyzed that concept logically and thoroughly, would dump such thoughts).  Any hatred stems from seeing and experiencing people acting on the belief that they have, because of their belief, some right to dictate how I and others who don't believe, live our lives. 
Throughout my childhood and into my teen years, I was forced to attend religious services and bible shools.  My belief was irrelevant.  When I joined the military, attending church services in recruit training was mandatory.  This notion that because you believe in this fictitious creature, should never mean you are forced to follow it.  
My dislike of religious types is that they are always trying to shove it down our throats, whether we want it or not.  One just has to look at the constant attempts to get religion back into our public shools where a myriad of children have different beliefs, or non-beliefs.  What someone worships or doesn't worship is none of the religious types business.  So, my hatred isn't to non-existent deities, it's towards the worshippers.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> As stocks boomed, the wealthy bounced back. And while the Main Street economy was wracked by high unemployment and the real-estate crash, the wealthywhose financial fates were more tied to capital markets than jobs and houses picked themselves up, brushed themselves off and started buying luxury goods again.
> 
> The wealthy increasingly earn their fortunes with overseas labor, selling to overseas consumers and managing financial transactions that have little to do with the rest of the U.S.
> 
> A member of the elite can make money from factories in China that sell to consumers in India, while relying entirely on immigrant servants at one of several homes around the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, the rich are always going to find ways to earn more wealth, it's kinda what they do. Like you can always find a way to blame Republicans for your plight in life and whine and moan about how you need more government handouts.... it's what you do!
> 
> That said, the rich would much rather invest in American companies and provide jobs to American consumers where they will sell their products to them and avoid the pitfalls of unstable governments and wars or whatnot. They make a lot more profit when they can keep their investments at home, but if the government and you libs are going to wage all out war on them and make it impossible for them to earn profits here, they'll do it elsewhere. Push comes to shove, they don't HAVE to make profits at all... they're rich, remember? They can live the rest of their lives on the wealth they have, and still leave enough to their families that they won't ever have to work either.
> 
> So we've had 5.5 years of your liberal war on the rich, doing all these things to stifle capitalist growth and punish the wealthy.... how's that plan working out for ya? 30% of the black people in America are unemployed, more people on food stamps that any time in history. Is it working? Are you helping this so-called "middle class" any? Maybe you're keeping the rich from getting richer? Nope... that's not happening either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some argue that the rich no longer need the rest of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense. Are they going to polish their own yachts? Change the tires on their own limo? Do the mechanic work on their own jets? Mow their own grass at their mansions? Where are they supposed to go to get a decent steak dinner? Who's going to do their hair, manicures, pedicures, run the trendy shops they like to frequent? Where are they going to play golf at? What if they need a new TV or car, who's going to sell it to them? Where are they going to buy their groceries and toilet paper? Who's going to clean out the septic tank? Who's going to run the country club? Who's going to run the liquor store? Who's going to do their taxes, handle their investment, trade their stocks, keep their books, handle their legal matters? LOTS of things out there the rich folk need the rest of America to do!
> 
> 
> 
> You're as full of shit as a Christmas turkey. Banks benefited because your liberal representatives thought it was a peachy idea to bail them out.... TOO BIG TO FAIL! But the problems started with your liberal asswipe representatives who passed low interest loan guarantees for poor folks to buy homes, so I guess they kind of felt obligated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All you have to look at is how the GOP are not interested in investing America.  They don't want to invest in schools, infrastructure, NOTHING.  So if the government isn't going to invest in America, why would corporations?  Why not go to countries that are investing in their infrastructure like China?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We can't afford to keep building goddamn schools! We don't have any money to invest, it's all been spent! We're borrowing a trillion dollars a year from Communist China, just to keep the goddamn lights on! Your president has already spent over $2 trillion on supposed "infrastructure" that never did materialize! It mostly went to his rat bastard campaign donors and special interest groups. Or people like Solyndra, who took the damn money and promptly filed bankruptcy. So no.... we can't afford any more of that kind of shit!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyways, this is why us god haters persist.  Boss clearly has a very deep understanding of history from a conservatives point of view.  Its all lies and bullshit but still he really truly believes what he says and to be honest, if I didn't know any better his claims would sound legit.  Fortunately I do know better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you clearly DO NOT know better. You are clearly an idiot on a myriad of topics.
Click to expand...


I don't even read your posts anymore.  Or I read the first paragraph and it is so far off base I simply stop reading.  So you wasted all your time writing that because I didn't even read it.  

Type me some more bullshit so I can NOT read it.  

God doesn't exist.  That's all.


----------



## sealybobo

MDiver said:


> After well over four-thousand responses to the original post, I'm very much a late poster to the debate. Anyway, as an atheist I cannot hate what I, in my heart, don't believe exists in the first place, whether such deities of the Hindus, or the single deity of the Abrahamic religion, or others.  So, I would have to be classified as a non-hater when it comes to any and all deities.
> Ultimately, the problem isn't believing in all-knowing, all-powerful...and invisible, deities (which if one really analyzed that concept logically and thoroughly, would dump such thoughts).  Any hatred stems from seeing and experiencing people acting on the belief that they have, because of their belief, some right to dictate how I and others who don't believe, live our lives.
> Throughout my childhood and into my teen years, I was forced to attend religious services and bible shools.  My belief was irrelevant.  When I joined the military, attending church services in recruit training was mandatory.  This notion that because you believe in this fictitious creature, should never mean you are forced to follow it.
> My dislike of religious types is that they are always trying to shove it down our throats, whether we want it or not.  One just has to look at the constant attempts to get religion back into our public shools where a myriad of children have different beliefs, or non-beliefs.  What someone worships or doesn't worship is none of the religious types business.  So, my hatred isn't to non-existent deities, it's towards the worshippers.



Great post.  I don't hate god.  He doesn't exist.  I hate religious people for being so stupid.


----------



## Boss

MDiver said:


> After well over four-thousand responses to the original post, I'm very much a late poster to the debate. Anyway, as an atheist I cannot hate what I, in my heart, don't believe exists in the first place, whether such deities of the Hindus, or the single deity of the Abrahamic religion, or others.  So, I would have to be classified as a non-hater when it comes to any and all deities.
> Ultimately, the problem isn't believing in all-knowing, all-powerful...and invisible, deities (which if one really analyzed that concept logically and thoroughly, would dump such thoughts).  Any hatred stems from seeing and experiencing people acting on the belief that they have, because of their belief, some right to dictate how I and others who don't believe, live our lives.
> Throughout my childhood and into my teen years, I was forced to attend religious services and bible shools.  My belief was irrelevant.  When I joined the military, attending church services in recruit training was mandatory.  This notion that because you believe in this fictitious creature, should never mean you are forced to follow it.
> My dislike of religious types is that they are always trying to shove it down our throats, whether we want it or not.  One just has to look at the constant attempts to get religion back into our public shools where a myriad of children have different beliefs, or non-beliefs.  What someone worships or doesn't worship is none of the religious types business.  So, my hatred isn't to non-existent deities, it's towards the worshippers.



Thanks for your input, but you are not the first person who has taken this angle. There have been several who've admitted they don't hate God, just the followers of God. In each case, it seems to be that you don't like followers of God having a political voice and 1st Amendment right to free speech or ability to petition for redress of grievances. You believe you should have those rights to promote whatever agenda you please, and no one should dare challenge your rights to do so. However, those rights shouldn't belong to an entire class of people, simply  based on your perception and stereotype of them. Your bigotry and prejudice stems from your upbringing and life experience, which you think justifies your viewpoint. 

You claim that you don't think it is logical to believe in something invisible. Does this mean we can conclude that you don't believe in Love, Forgiveness, Benevolence, Respect? What about things like Time, Space, Gravity, or a nice ocean breeze? You don't believe those exist? How about your thoughts or emotions, dreams and ambitions? Can you tell me the material physical makeup of any of these things? Logically you can, or you can't believe in them, right? 

No one that I am aware of has ever told anyone how to worship in this country. With Christianity in particular, it's impossible for you to ever be forced to be a Christian against your will. It is a religion of acceptance, meaning you must first accept that Christ is your savior. No matter how much Christians might want you to be one, unless you can fulfill that requirement, you cannot be a Christian. So again, your main problem, the main thing that really bugs you most, is your intolerance for the beliefs of others and a seething desire to restrict their ability to participate in political discourse. If we could silence those people and disenfranchise them from their constitutional rights, you'd be happy. 

Again... thank you for that input!


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a statement of fact?  I think you may be using your own personal definition of the word again.  Are there records of the beliefs of every individual Native American who lived at the time of European settlement?  Did you know these people in order to speak to the beliefs of each individual among the millions?  How then can you claim a statement about the beliefs of each individual is a statement of fact?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a statement of fact and I base that on a study of the culture. Nope, not using my definition. The records of every individual doesn't have to exist. You are entitled to believe otherwise, but you're wrong. I don't have to have spoken to each one, I know about their culture. These people we're talking about were literally NAMED after the spiritual. Is that point not sinking into that concrete-like head of yours? Their very IDENTITY came from the spiritual, and you are trying to claim some of them lacked spirituality. It's like trying to claim there are some radical Islamic fundamentalists who don't believe in Allah! Or that it's possible that SOME Popes might have been Atheists! You're off your fucking nut, man!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you consider Native American?  I wonder if you put the Aztecs or Mayans or Inuit in the definition?  Do you think they had the same basic spiritual or religious beliefs as the Iroquois, or the Apache, the Hopi, etc.?
> 
> You remind me of Ahmedinejad saying there are no homosexuals in Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have not studied about Mayans or Inuits, so I can't tell you about them. When I say "Native American" (an offensive term to some of us, btw) I am referring to the indigenous peoples of what is now considered the continental United States.
> 
> And I don't know about Armordinnerjacket, but I wouldn't imagine being gay in Iran is very pleasant.
Click to expand...


It would be more like saying that someone living in a radical Islamic fundamentalist country must be Islamic; that there cannot be atheists living in such a place.  

I don't know what term you would consider non-offensive if you don't like Native American.  Although I wonder why you now put it in quotes and call it offensive when you've used it multiple times in the thread.  American Indian?  Indigenous people?


----------



## sealybobo

MDiver said:


> After well over four-thousand responses to the original post, I'm very much a late poster to the debate. Anyway, as an atheist I cannot hate what I, in my heart, don't believe exists in the first place, whether such deities of the Hindus, or the single deity of the Abrahamic religion, or others.  So, I would have to be classified as a non-hater when it comes to any and all deities.
> Ultimately, the problem isn't believing in all-knowing, all-powerful...and invisible, deities (which if one really analyzed that concept logically and thoroughly, would dump such thoughts).  Any hatred stems from seeing and experiencing people acting on the belief that they have, because of their belief, some right to dictate how I and others who don't believe, live our lives.
> Throughout my childhood and into my teen years, I was forced to attend religious services and bible shools.  My belief was irrelevant.  When I joined the military, attending church services in recruit training was mandatory.  This notion that because you believe in this fictitious creature, should never mean you are forced to follow it.
> My dislike of religious types is that they are always trying to shove it down our throats, whether we want it or not.  One just has to look at the constant attempts to get religion back into our public shools where a myriad of children have different beliefs, or non-beliefs.  What someone worships or doesn't worship is none of the religious types business.  So, my hatred isn't to non-existent deities, it's towards the worshippers.



In reply to boss:

We cant see or measure wind but science can.

Okay -- so what measurable, repeatable, falsifiable qualities does his Invisible Sky Daddy have? 

Wind is moving air and love is neurochemistry. Both can be demonstrated and measured, and neither requires a suspension of the laws of physics.

How do you know what you claim to feel is not a product of your own mind?

To put it another way, if wind stopped we would notice it (trees stationary, clouds not moving, water still, etc.); if love stopped we would notice it (people feeling no affection for one another). What would we notice if God suddenly went away? 

Nothing, because god doesn't even exist and still people believe.   

And Boss can't see that this lie we tell our children is seriously dumbing down the population and seriously holding us back.

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20140124050528AAzqz4a

And sometimes boss claims that this god is much bigger than any human can imagine, which if there were a god I would agree.  But then sometimes he seems to believe he has a relationship with god, god protects him and there is a heaven.  

I can't stand reading his posts anymore so I wish you luck.


----------



## BreezeWood

Boss said:


> MDiver said:
> 
> 
> 
> After well over four-thousand responses to the original post, I'm very much a late poster to the debate. Anyway, as an atheist I cannot hate what I, in my heart, don't believe exists in the first place, whether such deities of the Hindus, or the single deity of the Abrahamic religion, or others.  So, I would have to be classified as a non-hater when it comes to any and all deities.
> Ultimately, the problem isn't believing in all-knowing, all-powerful...and invisible, deities (which if one really analyzed that concept logically and thoroughly, would dump such thoughts).  Any hatred stems from seeing and experiencing people acting on the belief that they have, because of their belief, some right to dictate how I and others who don't believe, live our lives.
> Throughout my childhood and into my teen years, I was forced to attend religious services and bible shools.  My belief was irrelevant.  When I joined the military, attending church services in recruit training was mandatory.  This notion that because you believe in this fictitious creature, should never mean you are forced to follow it.
> My dislike of religious types is that they are always trying to shove it down our throats, whether we want it or not.  One just has to look at the constant attempts to get religion back into our public shools where a myriad of children have different beliefs, or non-beliefs.  What someone worships or doesn't worship is none of the religious types business.  So, my hatred isn't to non-existent deities, it's towards the worshippers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for your input, but you are not the first person who has taken this angle. There have been several who've admitted they don't hate God, just the followers of God. In each case, it seems to be that you don't like followers of God having a political voice and 1st Amendment right to free speech or ability to petition for redress of grievances.[/B] You believe you should have those rights to promote whatever agenda you please, and no one should dare challenge your rights to do so. However, those rights shouldn't belong to an entire class of people, simply  based on your perception and stereotype of them. Your bigotry and prejudice stems from your upbringing and life experience, which you think justifies your viewpoint.
> 
> You claim that you don't think it is logical to believe in something invisible. Does this mean we can conclude that you don't believe in Love, Forgiveness, Benevolence, Respect? What about things like Time, Space, Gravity, or a nice ocean breeze? You don't believe those exist? How about your thoughts or emotions, dreams and ambitions? Can you tell me the material physical makeup of any of these things? Logically you can, or you can't believe in them, right?
> 
> No one that I am aware of has ever told anyone how to worship in this country. With Christianity in particular, it's impossible for you to ever be forced to be a Christian against your will. It is a religion of acceptance, meaning you must first accept that Christ is your savior. No matter how much Christians might want you to be one, unless you can fulfill that requirement, you cannot be a Christian. So again, your main problem, the main thing that really bugs you most, is your intolerance for the beliefs of others and a seething desire to restrict their ability to participate in political discourse. If we could silence those people and disenfranchise them from their constitutional rights, you'd be happy.
> 
> Again... thank you for that input!
Click to expand...




*... followers of God - *


cry us a river bossy ...

.


----------



## sealybobo

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a statement of fact?  I think you may be using your own personal definition of the word again.  Are there records of the beliefs of every individual Native American who lived at the time of European settlement?  Did you know these people in order to speak to the beliefs of each individual among the millions?  How then can you claim a statement about the beliefs of each individual is a statement of fact?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a statement of fact and I base that on a study of the culture. Nope, not using my definition. The records of every individual doesn't have to exist. You are entitled to believe otherwise, but you're wrong. I don't have to have spoken to each one, I know about their culture. These people we're talking about were literally NAMED after the spiritual. Is that point not sinking into that concrete-like head of yours? Their very IDENTITY came from the spiritual, and you are trying to claim some of them lacked spirituality. It's like trying to claim there are some radical Islamic fundamentalists who don't believe in Allah! Or that it's possible that SOME Popes might have been Atheists! You're off your fucking nut, man!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you consider Native American?  I wonder if you put the Aztecs or Mayans or Inuit in the definition?  Do you think they had the same basic spiritual or religious beliefs as the Iroquois, or the Apache, the Hopi, etc.?
> 
> You remind me of Ahmedinejad saying there are no homosexuals in Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have not studied about Mayans or Inuits, so I can't tell you about them. When I say "Native American" (an offensive term to some of us, btw) I am referring to the indigenous peoples of what is now considered the continental United States.
> 
> And I don't know about Armordinnerjacket, but I wouldn't imagine being gay in Iran is very pleasant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would be more like saying that someone living in a radical Islamic fundamentalist country must be Islamic; that there cannot be atheists living in such a place.
> 
> I don't know what term you would consider non-offensive if you don't like Native American.  Although I wonder why you now put it in quotes and call it offensive when you've used it multiple times in the thread.  American Indian?  Indigenous people?
Click to expand...


To think that there weren't any Native American Indians that didn't believe in gods is the stupidest thing I've ever heard in my life.  

I wish he could go back and realize that except for all the technology and the language, people living back 200 or even 2000 years ago weren't all that much different than they are today.  They laughed, got jealous, were superstitous, curious, afraid of the unknown, wanted to be safe and loved and financially secure.    

And people are people.  They will be pretty much the same 2000 years from now.  I'm sure religion won't completely disappear but people won't be spewing that jesus or mohammad crap 2000 years from now.  Those religions are as good as dead.  Maybe in the middle east they have more control over the media and the masses so maybe they'll stay conservative a lot longer but that's just because they are so far behind us  here in the West.  In the west the Enlightenment Period has sort of put a knife in god(s) and given way to the future, science.


----------



## BreezeWood

> Indiana marriage law is discriminatory, US court says in ruling for humanists - CSMonitor.com
> 
> 
> *Indiana marriage law is discriminatory, US court says in ruling for humanists*
> 
> 
> The three-judge panel ruled that Indianas marriage statute discriminated arbitrarily among religious and ethical beliefs, favoring certain religions over others and disfavoring members of humanist societies who wanted their marriages sanctified by someone holding the same beliefs.
> 
> The decision marks a significant victory for nonreligious Americans. The appeals court declared that the First Amendment mandates a neutrality principle under which states may not favor or disfavor religion when compared with similar secular belief systems.




*The appeals court declared that the First Amendment mandates a neutrality principle under which states may not favor or disfavor religion when compared with similar secular belief systems.*


anotherwords, the "Followers of God" may do so only as a discretion of their personal beliefs as embedded by the First Amendment, U S Constitution.

.


----------



## Tuatara

Boss said:


> That said, the rich would much rather invest in American companies and provide jobs to American consumers where they will sell their products to them and avoid the pitfalls of unstable governments and wars or whatnot.


Funniest post ever. Someone just lost all touch with reality.


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> It would be more like saying that someone living in a radical Islamic fundamentalist country must be Islamic; that there cannot be atheists living in such a place.



Well, no... it wouldn't be like that at all because a country is not like a tribe. Whereas, a specific group is more like a tribe. 



> I don't know what term you would consider non-offensive if you don't like Native American.  Although I wonder why you now put it in quotes and call it offensive when you've used it multiple times in the thread.  American Indian?  Indigenous people?



Just because I use it doesn't mean it's not offensive. Dickwad. 

It's more respectful to use the tribal name if you know it, or if you are talking about all the tribes, indigenous people. My ancestors are not American and not Indians. They are also not "Natives of America" because the continent was here with my people long before it was ever known as America. Imagine if I came and took over your home, made you go live in the garden shed out back, then held lavish parties where I told my friends to pay their respects to you by patting you on the head and calling you Boss's House Natives? I don't imagine you'd find that endearing.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> To think that there weren't any Native American Indians that didn't believe in gods is the stupidest thing I've ever heard in my life.



I guess you don't listen to yourself much?   ...makes sense.



> I wish he could go back and realize that except for all the technology and the language, people living back 200 or even 2000 years ago weren't all that much different than they are today.



People of a completely different 'non-western' culture were MUCH different. That is what you and Moonbat don't seem to be able to grasp. You assume all human beings who ever lived, held your own European cultural views. It's really smug arrogance to think this way, but that's how you've been taught to believe. 



> They laughed, got jealous, were superstitous, curious, afraid of the unknown, wanted to be safe and loved and financially secure.
> 
> And people are people.  They will be pretty much the same 2000 years from now.  I'm sure religion won't completely disappear but people won't be spewing that jesus or mohammad crap 2000 years from now.



Who the fuck are you, Nostradamus? How the hell do you know what people will be doing in the future? Do you have some falsifiable scientific evidence for that, or is it more blind faith? From a purely scientific perspective, what is likely NOT to change, is human spirituality. It has been a fundamental attribute of humans for all our existence. 



> In the west the Enlightenment Period has sort of put a knife in god(s) and given way to the future, science.



This is from the Father of The Enlightenment and one of the greatest scientific minds of all time:

_He who thinks half-heartedly will not believe in God; but he who really thinks has to believe in God. 

Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and every where, could produce no variety of things. All that diversity of natural things which we find suited to different times and places could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being, necessarily existing.

"This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being....This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God "pantokrator," or Universal Ruler."

"Since every particle of space is always, and every indivisible moment of duration is every where, certainly the Maker and Lord of all things cannot be never and no where....God is the same God, always and every where. He is omnipresent not virtually only, but also substantially; for virtue cannot subsist without substance.It is allowed by all that the Supreme God exists necessarily; and by the same necessity he exists always and every where....And thus much concerning God; to discourse of whom from the appearance of things, does certainly belong to Natural Philosophy."_

Scientific inquiry, which then existed as Natural Philosophy, could not exist apart from "the Maker," according to Newton. In fact, science was the perfect realm in which to discuss God.

Now it is clear to me that what we need to do, if you are resigned to use Science and The Enlightenment as your argumentative points, is to hold you down and force feed you quotes from Sir Isaac Newton until you puke.


----------



## thanatos144

I see the antichristain bigotry is still rampant here.  

Tapatalk


----------



## Boss

Tuatara said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> That said, the rich would much rather invest in American companies and provide jobs to American consumers where they will sell their products to them and avoid the pitfalls of unstable governments and wars or whatnot.
> 
> 
> 
> Funniest post ever. Someone just lost all touch with reality.
Click to expand...


Well I guess that depends on where your reality is. If you live in the reality where rich people gets some kind of sick pleasure out of making poor people suffer and don't want anyone to have money or economic prosperity, then yeah... I guess it does sound out of touch. 

On the other hand, if you understand that most wealthy people are capitalists who want consumers to have money and spend money, and they would rather them do that here, where the generated economic commerce benefits our country instead of someone else's country, then my comment makes perfect sense. 

You people have been so fucking brainwashed we're never going to get you back. We're going to end up having to shoot a bunch of you in the head before it's all said and done, because you're like rabid dogs. The propagandists have filled your mind with absolute shit, and you've bought every bit of it. Now you're invested, you've got years and years of this shit built up in your minds, and nothing is going to convince you otherwise. It doesn't even matter if it makes no rational sense, it's what you're going to believe. 

Has no one ever taught you how wrong it is to apply a perceived stereotype to a whole entire group of people you do not know, and judge them on that basis? That virtually every social problem we've had in this country is based on that kind of bigoted ignorance? Rich people are not all one way, just like poor people are not all one way and middle class people are not all one way. Every person is different. I've known poor people who would just as soon step over your body as you're having a heart attack, to be the next in line at Wal-mart. I've also know rich people who give selflessly of their time and money to help those in need, to mentor to others and try to help them achieve a better life. But you all have ignorantly convinced yourselves that every rich person is the equivalent of Homer Simpson's boss.


----------



## sealybobo

Tuatara said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> That said, the rich would much rather invest in American companies and provide jobs to American consumers where they will sell their products to them and avoid the pitfalls of unstable governments and wars or whatnot.
> 
> 
> 
> Funniest post ever. Someone just lost all touch with reality.
Click to expand...


He doesn't realize the 2007 Great Recession was a huge blow to the middle class and a huge victory for the rich.  Probably done on purpose.  For example the TARP bank bailout right when Bush left office.  That was nothing more than the biggest bank robbery in world history.  And he doesn't believe class warfare exists.  It does and we're losing.  And if we fight back we are called all kinds of names.

Anyways, back to the topic, because I believe religion has a lot to do with the stupidity and irrational side of humans, no doubt.  Case in point, I was watching this documentary on PBS last night http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/27/u...chool-prayer-lawsuit.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

And the "christians" in these town hall meetings were so vile, angry, worked up, ready to kill for jesus.  Honest to god, I fucking hate it when christians say don't just christianity by the people who represent it.  Fuck that.  What else do I have to go by?  Why would I want to join their club?

Even when I was a "christian" I had what is called empathy which means I have the ability to put myself in other people's shoes.  What if I were a muslim?  What if I were an Atheist?  This country is for everyone, so in any public institution, they can not favor one side over the other.  

This girl was so courageous and she won!  The Supreme Court ruled with her.  Take that sign down.  Go worship at church.  

So, if god were provable/real, the Supreme Court would have ruled to keep god in schools.  But because they know logically god is not something that can be proved, it should not be something that is forced on anyone.  You can have faith, believe or hope there is a god but I think most of us know the gismys' of the world are just repeating a story they were told when they were too young and gullible to know better and now they are what we call brainwashed.

And sorry, but this nice sweet girl was not "hating god" but the christians sure were hating her.  So much for you get to choose if you believe or not.  Looks more like if you don't believe LETS BURN HER AT THE STAKE.  You sooo know those people would have crucified her 400 years ago.  Burned her to see if she was a witch.  This is why religion has held on so long.  In the past you couldn't call bullshit.  Now we see the youth are waking up.   Too smart to fall for it.  Now watch this clip and tell me this girl is "evil".  She is not.


----------



## GISMYS

ALLOWING satan to use you as his tool,fool,puppet is NOT VERY SMART is that truth hard to understand? WHY ASK FOR EARLY JUDGMENT? Don't you have enough trouble now in your pathetic excuse for a life?? try to think!


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> That said, the rich would much rather invest in American companies and provide jobs to American consumers where they will sell their products to them and avoid the pitfalls of unstable governments and wars or whatnot.
> 
> 
> 
> Funniest post ever. Someone just lost all touch with reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I guess that depends on where your reality is. If you live in the reality where rich people gets some kind of sick pleasure out of making poor people suffer and don't want anyone to have money or economic prosperity, then yeah... I guess it does sound out of touch.
> 
> On the other hand, if you understand that most wealthy people are capitalists who want consumers to have money and spend money, and they would rather them do that here, where the generated economic commerce benefits our country instead of someone else's country, then my comment makes perfect sense.
> 
> You people have been so fucking brainwashed we're never going to get you back. We're going to end up having to shoot a bunch of you in the head before it's all said and done, because you're like rabid dogs. The propagandists have filled your mind with absolute shit, and you've bought every bit of it. Now you're invested, you've got years and years of this shit built up in your minds, and nothing is going to convince you otherwise. It doesn't even matter if it makes no rational sense, it's what you're going to believe.
> 
> Has no one ever taught you how wrong it is to apply a perceived stereotype to a whole entire group of people you do not know, and judge them on that basis? That virtually every social problem we've had in this country is based on that kind of bigoted ignorance? Rich people are not all one way, just like poor people are not all one way and middle class people are not all one way. Every person is different. I've known poor people who would just as soon step over your body as you're having a heart attack, to be the next in line at Wal-mart. I've also know rich people who give selflessly of their time and money to help those in need, to mentor to others and try to help them achieve a better life. But you all have ignorantly convinced yourselves that every rich person is the equivalent of Homer Simpson's boss.
Click to expand...


All one has to know is the history of unions and the history of corporations and workers to know you are full of shit.  Before Ford, no one else was practicing the phylosophy of pay your workers a good wage so they can buy your product.  

And unions brought everyones wages up.  Even people who weren't in unions benefitted from them.  A rising tide lifts all boats.  Companies paid better or else their employees will unionize.

Oh, and you only have to look at the middle class now to see what the rich want.  The rich DO NOT want the middle class to save up a lot of money like our parents did.  That causes inflation.  They don't want to pay into ss and medicare.  Only a fool thinks they GOP aren't trying to kill those programs.  Just look at medicare in the past v today.  Healthcare is going to gobble up everyones desposible income.  People in the next generation are going to leave their kids nothing.  No pensions in the future.  

All you have to do is see that American's aren't saving today to know how the GOP like it.  They like it just like it is.  Cheap labor, and a working poor class not so poor they revolt but not so well off they can become "well off" and retire anytime before 70.  

Isn't that one of the things the GOP wants to do?  Raise retirement to 70?  Bastards.

Oh, and I don't bitch for me.  Well I do because I think without people like you I/we'd all be doing MUCH better.  But I'll be alright.  I'll have enough to retire.  I'm worried about the future of America.  And I know you honestly do to.  You've just been brainwashed to be a right wing thinker.  I know you think the same of me too but it is obvious.  You think all government is evil and bad but the rich want what is good for the middle class and poor?  You're classic gullible.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> ALLOWING satan to use you as his tool,fool,puppet is NOT VERY SMART is that truth hard to understand? WHY ASK FOR EARLY JUDGMENT? Don't you have enough trouble now in your pathetic excuse for a life?? try to think!



Allowing Jesus to fuck your head like he has and let the church use you as a puppet doesn't seem very smart either.  Is that hard to understand?  

No I don't have any trouble that I can't handle without god.  There is no god there to help you out.  If you believe in hell then I guess I don't blame you for believing so strongly but I can tell you someone told you a story and you swallowed it.  

Tell me, forget god.  Show me proof of hell or heaven and you can't use the bible as proof because I say that book is a lie.  Got any other sources that are credible?  Every proof for a god(s) doesn't come without fatal flaws.  Show me what you got.  Don't tell me what your paster or mammy told you either.  They lied or were lied to themselves.  I would say the story was embellished but it is a flat out lie to say Mary was a virgin, right?  Impossible.  What has god done lately after fucking Mary?


----------



## sealybobo

When doing research, students will regularly ask me, "Why do I need to find multiple sources? I can get all the information I need from this [article, book, website]." I always explain that if you only use one source, you don't know what you're not getting from other sources in terms of information, ideas, viewpoints, etc.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> ALLOWING satan to use you as his tool,fool,puppet is NOT VERY SMART is that truth hard to understand? WHY ASK FOR EARLY JUDGMENT? Don't you have enough trouble now in your pathetic excuse for a life?? try to think!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing Jesus to fuck your head like he has and let the church use you as a puppet doesn't seem very smart either.  Is that hard to understand?
> 
> No I don't have any trouble that I can't handle without god.  There is no god there to help you out.  If you believe in hell then I guess I don't blame you for believing so strongly but I can tell you someone told you a story and you swallowed it.
> 
> Tell me, forget god.  Show me proof of hell or heaven and you can't use the bible as proof because I say that book is a lie.  Got any other sources that are credible?  Every proof for a god(s) doesn't come without fatal flaws.  Show me what you got.  Don't tell me what your paster or mammy told you either.  They lied or were lied to themselves.  I would say the story was embellished but it is a flat out lie to say Mary was a virgin, right?  Impossible.  What has god done lately after fucking Mary?
Click to expand...


LOL!!!  What silly sin loving little man's opinion of GOD'S WORD is  changes no truth. I WALK AND TALK WITH GOD EACH DAY,I LIVE MY LIFE AS GOD'S son,happy,blessed,protected, GOD has given me my heart's desires, health.wealth zero debts I WANT FOR NOTHING. PTL. and you??


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> ALLOWING satan to use you as his tool,fool,puppet is NOT VERY SMART is that truth hard to understand? WHY ASK FOR EARLY JUDGMENT? Don't you have enough trouble now in your pathetic excuse for a life?? try to think!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing Jesus to fuck your head like he has and let the church use you as a puppet doesn't seem very smart either.  Is that hard to understand?
> 
> No I don't have any trouble that I can't handle without god.  There is no god there to help you out.  If you believe in hell then I guess I don't blame you for believing so strongly but I can tell you someone told you a story and you swallowed it.
> 
> Tell me, forget god.  Show me proof of hell or heaven and you can't use the bible as proof because I say that book is a lie.  Got any other sources that are credible?  Every proof for a god(s) doesn't come without fatal flaws.  Show me what you got.  Don't tell me what your paster or mammy told you either.  They lied or were lied to themselves.  I would say the story was embellished but it is a flat out lie to say Mary was a virgin, right?  Impossible.  What has god done lately after fucking Mary?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!!!  What silly sin loving little man's opinion of GOD'S WORD is  changes no truth. I WALK AND TALK WITH GOD EACH DAY,I LIVE MY LIFE AS GOD'S son,happy,blessed,protected, GOD has given me my heart's desires, health.wealth zero debts I WANT FOR NOTHING. PTL. and you??
Click to expand...


Me too.  So god doesn't matter.

A result of our naturally evolved neurology, made hypersensitive to purpose (an unseen actor) because of the large social groups humans have and the way the brain associates pattern with intent.

Humans have evolved a variety of cognitive shortcuts to deal with the mass of information provided by our senses. In particular, we tend to filter sensory input according to a set of expectations built on prior beliefs and past experiences, impart meaning to ambiguous input even when there is no real meaning behind it and infer causal relationships where none exist.

Personal revelation cannot be independently verified. So-called revelations never include information a recipient could not have known beforehand, such as the time and location of a rare event or answers to any number of unsolved problems in science. They are usually emotional or perceptual in content and therefore unremarkable among the many cognitive processes brains exhibit, including dreams and hallucinations. These experiences may even be artificially induced by narcotics or magnetic fields. Extreme cases may be diagnosed as a form of schizophrenia or psychosis.

Spiritual and religious experiences are not only inconsistent among individuals but are variably attributed to different gods, aliens, spirits, rituals, hallucinations, meditation etc. The fact that medical conditions and other natural processes [2] can induce these experiences is evidence they are produced by our brain.


----------



## sealybobo

You can tell youve created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.  Anne Lamott


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> ALLOWING satan to use you as his tool,fool,puppet is NOT VERY SMART is that truth hard to understand? WHY ASK FOR EARLY JUDGMENT? Don't you have enough trouble now in your pathetic excuse for a life?? try to think!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing Jesus to fuck your head like he has and let the church use you as a puppet doesn't seem very smart either.  Is that hard to understand?
> 
> No I don't have any trouble that I can't handle without god.  There is no god there to help you out.  If you believe in hell then I guess I don't blame you for believing so strongly but I can tell you someone told you a story and you swallowed it.
> 
> Tell me, forget god.  Show me proof of hell or heaven and you can't use the bible as proof because I say that book is a lie.  Got any other sources that are credible?  Every proof for a god(s) doesn't come without fatal flaws.  Show me what you got.  Don't tell me what your paster or mammy told you either.  They lied or were lied to themselves.  I would say the story was embellished but it is a flat out lie to say Mary was a virgin, right?  Impossible.  What has god done lately after fucking Mary?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!!!  What silly sin loving little man's opinion of GOD'S WORD is  changes no truth. I WALK AND TALK WITH GOD EACH DAY,I LIVE MY LIFE AS GOD'S son,happy,blessed,protected, GOD has given me my heart's desires, health.wealth zero debts I WANT FOR NOTHING. PTL. and you??
Click to expand...


The claim that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.

Atheism is correlated with better scientific literacy [2][3], lower poverty rates, higher literacy rates, higher average incomes, less violence, lower divorce rates, lower teen pregnancy rates, lower STD infection rates, lower crime rates and lower homicide rates. It correlates highly with the well-being of individuals and societies by almost every possible measure.

Atheists can be spiritual (a must watch).

Studies on happiness outside of predominantly religious countries (eg. the United States) find little to no correlation between happiness and religious belief. This corresponds with evidence which shows social and community bonding, rather than spiritual engagement, explains why religious people report greater satisfaction with life. Atheists, by comparison, may also simply be unhappy with the level of distrust and persecution they receive from their compatriots.

Where ignorance is bliss, tis folly to be wise.  Thomas Gray

Being an atheist is like being the only sober person in the car  and no one will let you drive. - Anonymous


----------



## sealybobo

I know a lot of non believers who still go to church for the community of it all.  The social aspect of it.  That might make you happier but I can't be in a room full of retards so....


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing Jesus to fuck your head like he has and let the church use you as a puppet doesn't seem very smart either.  Is that hard to understand?
> 
> No I don't have any trouble that I can't handle without god.  There is no god there to help you out.  If you believe in hell then I guess I don't blame you for believing so strongly but I can tell you someone told you a story and you swallowed it.
> 
> Tell me, forget god.  Show me proof of hell or heaven and you can't use the bible as proof because I say that book is a lie.  Got any other sources that are credible?  Every proof for a god(s) doesn't come without fatal flaws.  Show me what you got.  Don't tell me what your paster or mammy told you either.  They lied or were lied to themselves.  I would say the story was embellished but it is a flat out lie to say Mary was a virgin, right?  Impossible.  What has god done lately after fucking Mary?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!!!  What silly sin loving little man's opinion of GOD'S WORD is  changes no truth. I WALK AND TALK WITH GOD EACH DAY,I LIVE MY LIFE AS GOD'S son,happy,blessed,protected, GOD has given me my heart's desires, health.wealth zero debts I WANT FOR NOTHING. PTL. and you??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The claim that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.
> 
> Atheism is correlated with better scientific literacy [2][3], lower poverty rates, higher literacy rates, higher average incomes, less violence, lower divorce rates, lower teen pregnancy rates, lower STD infection rates, lower crime rates and lower homicide rates. It correlates highly with the well-being of individuals and societies by almost every possible measure.
> 
> Atheists can be spiritual (a must watch).
> 
> Studies on happiness outside of predominantly religious countries (eg. the United States) find little to no correlation between happiness and religious belief. This corresponds with evidence which shows social and community bonding, rather than spiritual engagement, explains why religious people report greater satisfaction with life. Atheists, by comparison, may also simply be unhappy with the level of distrust and persecution they receive from their compatriots.
> 
> Where ignorance is bliss, tis folly to be wise.  Thomas Gray
> 
> Being an atheist is like being the only sober person in the car  and no one will let you drive. - Anonymous
Click to expand...


HEY!!! I DID MY DUTY, I GAVE YOU TRUTH,I GAVE YOU WARNING, if you want to chose hell . GO FOR IT!!! NO SKIN OFF MY NOSE!!!


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!!!  What silly sin loving little man's opinion of GOD'S WORD is  changes no truth. I WALK AND TALK WITH GOD EACH DAY,I LIVE MY LIFE AS GOD'S son,happy,blessed,protected, GOD has given me my heart's desires, health.wealth zero debts I WANT FOR NOTHING. PTL. and you??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The claim that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.
> 
> Atheism is correlated with better scientific literacy [2][3], lower poverty rates, higher literacy rates, higher average incomes, less violence, lower divorce rates, lower teen pregnancy rates, lower STD infection rates, lower crime rates and lower homicide rates. It correlates highly with the well-being of individuals and societies by almost every possible measure.
> 
> Atheists can be spiritual (a must watch).
> 
> Studies on happiness outside of predominantly religious countries (eg. the United States) find little to no correlation between happiness and religious belief. This corresponds with evidence which shows social and community bonding, rather than spiritual engagement, explains why religious people report greater satisfaction with life. Atheists, by comparison, may also simply be unhappy with the level of distrust and persecution they receive from their compatriots.
> 
> Where ignorance is bliss, tis folly to be wise.  Thomas Gray
> 
> Being an atheist is like being the only sober person in the car  and no one will let you drive. - Anonymous
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HEY!!! I DID MY DUTY, I GAVE YOU TRUTH,I GAVE YOU WARNING, if you want to chose hell . GO FOR IT!!! NO SKIN OFF MY NOSE!!!
Click to expand...


Then stop already.  I clearly chose hell over heaven with you.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The claim that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.
> 
> Atheism is correlated with better scientific literacy [2][3], lower poverty rates, higher literacy rates, higher average incomes, less violence, lower divorce rates, lower teen pregnancy rates, lower STD infection rates, lower crime rates and lower homicide rates. It correlates highly with the well-being of individuals and societies by almost every possible measure.
> 
> Atheists can be spiritual (a must watch).
> 
> Studies on happiness outside of predominantly religious countries (eg. the United States) find little to no correlation between happiness and religious belief. This corresponds with evidence which shows social and community bonding, rather than spiritual engagement, explains why religious people report greater satisfaction with life. Atheists, by comparison, may also simply be unhappy with the level of distrust and persecution they receive from their compatriots.
> 
> Where ignorance is bliss, tis folly to be wise.  Thomas Gray
> 
> Being an atheist is like being the only sober person in the car  and no one will let you drive. - Anonymous
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HEY!!! I DID MY DUTY, I GAVE YOU TRUTH,I GAVE YOU WARNING, if you want to chose hell . GO FOR IT!!! NO SKIN OFF MY NOSE!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then stop already.  I clearly chose hell over heaven with you.
Click to expand...


YOU GOT IT!!! AND IT IS ALL YOUR CHOICE,NO ONE TO BLAME BUT YOURSELF!!! hell.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> That said, the rich would much rather invest in American companies and provide jobs to American consumers where they will sell their products to them and avoid the pitfalls of unstable governments and wars or whatnot.
> 
> 
> 
> Funniest post ever. Someone just lost all touch with reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I guess that depends on where your reality is. If you live in the reality where rich people gets some kind of sick pleasure out of making poor people suffer and don't want anyone to have money or economic prosperity, then yeah... I guess it does sound out of touch.
> 
> On the other hand, if you understand that most wealthy people are capitalists who want consumers to have money and spend money, and they would rather them do that here, where the generated economic commerce benefits our country instead of someone else's country, then my comment makes perfect sense.
> 
> You people have been so fucking brainwashed we're never going to get you back. We're going to end up having to shoot a bunch of you in the head before it's all said and done, because you're like rabid dogs. The propagandists have filled your mind with absolute shit, and you've bought every bit of it. Now you're invested, you've got years and years of this shit built up in your minds, and nothing is going to convince you otherwise. It doesn't even matter if it makes no rational sense, it's what you're going to believe.
> 
> Has no one ever taught you how wrong it is to apply a perceived stereotype to a whole entire group of people you do not know, and judge them on that basis? That virtually every social problem we've had in this country is based on that kind of bigoted ignorance? Rich people are not all one way, just like poor people are not all one way and middle class people are not all one way. Every person is different. I've known poor people who would just as soon step over your body as you're having a heart attack, to be the next in line at Wal-mart. I've also know rich people who give selflessly of their time and money to help those in need, to mentor to others and try to help them achieve a better life. But you all have ignorantly convinced yourselves that every rich person is the equivalent of Homer Simpson's boss.
Click to expand...


So regarding the story where the Supreme Court ruled with the atheist that the public school should take down the sign that refers to god, where do you stand?  I want to see if you understand the constitution when it comes to this matter.  

And boy were those theists vicious towards that little girl.  Just because she's an atheist doesn't mean she is wrong.  Do you guys understand separation of church and state?


----------



## Gadawg73

sealybobo said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> That said, the rich would much rather invest in American companies and provide jobs to American consumers where they will sell their products to them and avoid the pitfalls of unstable governments and wars or whatnot.
> 
> 
> 
> Funniest post ever. Someone just lost all touch with reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He doesn't realize the 2007 Great Recession was a huge blow to the middle class and a huge victory for the rich.  Probably done on purpose.  For example the TARP bank bailout right when Bush left office.  That was nothing more than the biggest bank robbery in world history.  And he doesn't believe class warfare exists.  It does and we're losing.  And if we fight back we are called all kinds of names.
> 
> Anyways, back to the topic, because I believe religion has a lot to do with the stupidity and irrational side of humans, no doubt.  Case in point, I was watching this documentary on PBS last night http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/27/u...chool-prayer-lawsuit.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
> 
> And the "christians" in these town hall meetings were so vile, angry, worked up, ready to kill for jesus.  Honest to god, I fucking hate it when christians say don't just christianity by the people who represent it.  Fuck that.  What else do I have to go by?  Why would I want to join their club?
> 
> Even when I was a "christian" I had what is called empathy which means I have the ability to put myself in other people's shoes.  What if I were a muslim?  What if I were an Atheist?  This country is for everyone, so in any public institution, they can not favor one side over the other.
> 
> This girl was so courageous and she won!  The Supreme Court ruled with her.  Take that sign down.  Go worship at church.
> 
> So, if god were provable/real, the Supreme Court would have ruled to keep god in schools.  But because they know logically god is not something that can be proved, it should not be something that is forced on anyone.  You can have faith, believe or hope there is a god but I think most of us know the gismys' of the world are just repeating a story they were told when they were too young and gullible to know better and now they are what we call brainwashed.
> 
> And sorry, but this nice sweet girl was not "hating god" but the christians sure were hating her.  So much for you get to choose if you believe or not.  Looks more like if you don't believe LETS BURN HER AT THE STAKE.  You sooo know those people would have crucified her 400 years ago.  Burned her to see if she was a witch.  This is why religion has held on so long.  In the past you couldn't call bullshit.  Now we see the youth are waking up.   Too smart to fall for it.  Now watch this clip and tell me this girl is "evil".  She is not.
Click to expand...




Dumbass, the rich lost FAR MORE during the recession you fool.

You claim they have all the capital and investments and they have a lot.
ALL OF THOSE THINGS LOST 50% IN VALUE THEN.

Go enroll at a local community college in Econ and History 101.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Tuatara said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> That said, the rich would much rather invest in American companies and provide jobs to American consumers where they will sell their products to them and avoid the pitfalls of unstable governments and wars or whatnot.
> 
> 
> 
> Funniest post ever. Someone just lost all touch with reality.
Click to expand...


Says the guy claiming that Obamunist stooge Jeff Immelt is a "Republican."


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would be more like saying that someone living in a radical Islamic fundamentalist country must be Islamic; that there cannot be atheists living in such a place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, no... it wouldn't be like that at all because a country is not like a tribe. Whereas, a specific group is more like a tribe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what term you would consider non-offensive if you don't like Native American.  Although I wonder why you now put it in quotes and call it offensive when you've used it multiple times in the thread.  American Indian?  Indigenous people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because I use it doesn't mean it's not offensive. Dickwad.
> 
> It's more respectful to use the tribal name if you know it, or if you are talking about all the tribes, indigenous people. My ancestors are not American and not Indians. They are also not "Natives of America" because the continent was here with my people long before it was ever known as America. Imagine if I came and took over your home, made you go live in the garden shed out back, then held lavish parties where I told my friends to pay their respects to you by patting you on the head and calling you Boss's House Natives? I don't imagine you'd find that endearing.
Click to expand...


No, a country is not a tribe.  However, you did not say none of the members of a particular tribe were atheist.  You said, "There were no Atheist Native Americans".  Since you have defined Native American in this context as the people indigenous to the continental US, that is certainly a country-sized area.  Considering it contained a number of tribes in the period under discussion, it would be more difficult to make such a declaration than in a single country IMO.

If you find Native American offensive, fine.  I'm not sure why the use of the name of a continent is an issue, but OK.  But if you are going to use the term, I find it hard to care if you claim to find it offensive or not.  I'm fine using indigenous people if you are.


----------



## sealybobo

Gadawg73 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funniest post ever. Someone just lost all touch with reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He doesn't realize the 2007 Great Recession was a huge blow to the middle class and a huge victory for the rich.  Probably done on purpose.  For example the TARP bank bailout right when Bush left office.  That was nothing more than the biggest bank robbery in world history.  And he doesn't believe class warfare exists.  It does and we're losing.  And if we fight back we are called all kinds of names.
> 
> Anyways, back to the topic, because I believe religion has a lot to do with the stupidity and irrational side of humans, no doubt.  Case in point, I was watching this documentary on PBS last night http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/27/u...chool-prayer-lawsuit.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
> 
> And the "christians" in these town hall meetings were so vile, angry, worked up, ready to kill for jesus.  Honest to god, I fucking hate it when christians say don't just christianity by the people who represent it.  Fuck that.  What else do I have to go by?  Why would I want to join their club?
> 
> Even when I was a "christian" I had what is called empathy which means I have the ability to put myself in other people's shoes.  What if I were a muslim?  What if I were an Atheist?  This country is for everyone, so in any public institution, they can not favor one side over the other.
> 
> This girl was so courageous and she won!  The Supreme Court ruled with her.  Take that sign down.  Go worship at church.
> 
> So, if god were provable/real, the Supreme Court would have ruled to keep god in schools.  But because they know logically god is not something that can be proved, it should not be something that is forced on anyone.  You can have faith, believe or hope there is a god but I think most of us know the gismys' of the world are just repeating a story they were told when they were too young and gullible to know better and now they are what we call brainwashed.
> 
> And sorry, but this nice sweet girl was not "hating god" but the christians sure were hating her.  So much for you get to choose if you believe or not.  Looks more like if you don't believe LETS BURN HER AT THE STAKE.  You sooo know those people would have crucified her 400 years ago.  Burned her to see if she was a witch.  This is why religion has held on so long.  In the past you couldn't call bullshit.  Now we see the youth are waking up.   Too smart to fall for it.  Now watch this clip and tell me this girl is "evil".  She is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dumbass, the rich lost FAR MORE during the recession you fool.
> 
> You claim they have all the capital and investments and they have a lot.
> ALL OF THOSE THINGS LOST 50% IN VALUE THEN.
> 
> Go enroll at a local community college in Econ and History 101.
Click to expand...


Wake up fool.  

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/10/the-rich-get-richer-through-the-recovery/

Some 95% of 2009-2012 Income Gains Went to Wealthiest 1% - Real Time Economics - WSJ

Oh the poor rich

CEO pay up by 937% since 1978. That of the typical worker? 10.2% | Al Jazeera America

Things you'll never find out watching Fox or listening to Rush

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/15/opinion/ceo-pay-goes-up-up-and-away.html


Either you are rich and take me for a fool or you are an ignorant house slave content with being masters book licker.


----------



## sealybobo

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would be more like saying that someone living in a radical Islamic fundamentalist country must be Islamic; that there cannot be atheists living in such a place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, no... it wouldn't be like that at all because a country is not like a tribe. Whereas, a specific group is more like a tribe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what term you would consider non-offensive if you don't like Native American.  Although I wonder why you now put it in quotes and call it offensive when you've used it multiple times in the thread.  American Indian?  Indigenous people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because I use it doesn't mean it's not offensive. Dickwad.
> 
> It's more respectful to use the tribal name if you know it, or if you are talking about all the tribes, indigenous people. My ancestors are not American and not Indians. They are also not "Natives of America" because the continent was here with my people long before it was ever known as America. Imagine if I came and took over your home, made you go live in the garden shed out back, then held lavish parties where I told my friends to pay their respects to you by patting you on the head and calling you Boss's House Natives? I don't imagine you'd find that endearing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, a country is not a tribe.  However, you did not say none of the members of a particular tribe were atheist.  You said, "There were no Atheist Native Americans".  Since you have defined Native American in this context as the people indigenous to the continental US, that is certainly a country-sized area.  Considering it contained a number of tribes in the period under discussion, it would be more difficult to make such a declaration than in a single country IMO.
> 
> If you find Native American offensive, fine.  I'm not sure why the use of the name of a continent is an issue, but OK.  But if you are going to use the term, I find it hard to care if you claim to find it offensive or not.  I'm fine using indigenous people if you are.
Click to expand...


Wait stop!  I want to give him that the Indians were god fearing people.  That way we can add those scalpers to the list of murderous people who also believe in god.  And not just murder them, TORTURE them.

Yes Boss, the Indians were all theists.  I agree!


----------



## Tuatara

Uncensored2008 said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> That said, the rich would much rather invest in American companies and provide jobs to American consumers where they will sell their products to them and avoid the pitfalls of unstable governments and wars or whatnot.
> 
> 
> 
> Funniest post ever. Someone just lost all touch with reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the guy claiming that Obamunist stooge Jeff Immelt is a "Republican."
Click to expand...

Iwould like to point out the idiocy of this poster. I claimed Jeff Immelt was a republican. This poster argued because the man was hired by Obama that he must not be Republican and used this wikipedia link. I then told him to look at his own link which I will post here. Can anyone point out to him what it says about his political leanings. Anyone. Top right corner.


----------



## sealybobo

Tuatara said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funniest post ever. Someone just lost all touch with reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the guy claiming that Obamunist stooge Jeff Immelt is a "Republican."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Iwould like to point out the idiocy of this poster. I claimed Jeff Immelt was a republican. This poster argued because the man was hired by Obama that he must not be Republican and used this wikipedia link. I then told him to look at his own link which I will post here. Can anyone point out to him what it says about his political leanings. Anyone. Top right corner.
Click to expand...


They throw a fit unless we appoint their guys, then insist those guys are "liberals" for working with Obama, meanwhile the GOP have obstructionists even within the Obama administration.  

Did Bush appoint any liberals?  Not a one.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> That said, the rich would much rather invest in American companies and provide jobs to American consumers where they will sell their products to them and avoid the pitfalls of unstable governments and wars or whatnot.
> 
> 
> 
> Funniest post ever. Someone just lost all touch with reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I guess that depends on where your reality is. If you live in the reality where rich people gets some kind of sick pleasure out of making poor people suffer and don't want anyone to have money or economic prosperity, then yeah... I guess it does sound out of touch.
> 
> On the other hand, if you understand that most wealthy people are capitalists who want consumers to have money and spend money, and they would rather them do that here, where the generated economic commerce benefits our country instead of someone else's country, then my comment makes perfect sense.
> 
> You people have been so fucking brainwashed we're never going to get you back. We're going to end up having to shoot a bunch of you in the head before it's all said and done, because you're like rabid dogs. The propagandists have filled your mind with absolute shit, and you've bought every bit of it. Now you're invested, you've got years and years of this shit built up in your minds, and nothing is going to convince you otherwise. It doesn't even matter if it makes no rational sense, it's what you're going to believe.
> 
> Has no one ever taught you how wrong it is to apply a perceived stereotype to a whole entire group of people you do not know, and judge them on that basis? That virtually every social problem we've had in this country is based on that kind of bigoted ignorance? Rich people are not all one way, just like poor people are not all one way and middle class people are not all one way. Every person is different. I've known poor people who would just as soon step over your body as you're having a heart attack, to be the next in line at Wal-mart. I've also know rich people who give selflessly of their time and money to help those in need, to mentor to others and try to help them achieve a better life. But you all have ignorantly convinced yourselves that every rich person is the equivalent of Homer Simpson's boss.
Click to expand...


I read this and thought of you:  the erroneous contention that all atheists believe "God does not exist". We have to add that the intelligent atheist will acknowledge that there may, in fact, be "gods" that are unlike those described and worshipped by people through the many organized religions of this world.

The only difference between me and you is I don't believe there is one and you do.

I'm not saying there is no god.  I'm saying I don't believe there is one.  Certainly I don't believe the christians, muslims & jews.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Tuatara said:


> Iwould like to point out the idiocy of this poster. I claimed Jeff Immelt was a republican. This poster argued because the man was hired by Obama that he must not be Republican and used this wikipedia link. I then told him to look at his own link which I will post here. Can anyone point out to him what it says about his political leanings. Anyone. Top right corner.



Retard, Immelt is an Obamunist stooge. Part of Obama's economic dream team, in charge of offshoring jobs to China...


----------



## Uncensored2008

sealybobo said:


> They throw a fit unless we appoint their guys, then insist those guys are "liberals" for working with Obama, meanwhile the GOP have obstructionists even within the Obama administration.
> 
> Did Bush appoint any liberals?  Not a one.



Immelt not only contributed heavily to Obama, his NBC network became part of the Obama team, openly campaigning for Obama in both elections.


----------



## sealybobo

Uncensored2008 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> They throw a fit unless we appoint their guys, then insist those guys are "liberals" for working with Obama, meanwhile the GOP have obstructionists even within the Obama administration.
> 
> Did Bush appoint any liberals?  Not a one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immelt not only contributed heavily to Obama, his NBC network became part of the Obama team, openly campaigning for Obama in both elections.
Click to expand...


This is just another great example of how the rich own/control both parties.  Big deal he donated to Obama.  Probably playing both sides of the fence.  And since Citizens United, you have no idea how much this guy has donated and to whom.

And excuse me pal, but please don't tell us who is liberal and who is not.  So now you guys are claiming that the CEO of GE one of the largest most powerful companies in the world is a liberal progressive?  Is he starting a union at GE?  How much more does he make than the average worker?  Besides bribing, I mean donating to Obama, what else makes this guy a liberal progressive?  

Immelt has a total five year compensation of $53.82 million, an income which ranked sixth among executives employed by US-based conglomerates. 

Overall General Electric year end employment has dropped from 315,000 in 2002 to 307,000 in 2013

Another job creator?

As CEO of General Electric in 2007, Immelt earned a total compensation of $14,209,267

Stop trying to have CEO's run this county.  Big difference in running a for profit company and a country.  HUGE difference.  First of all, a CEO wants to keep worker compensation low and his pay high.  In a country, the government should want a balance.  The government should protect the middle class and poor from the predatory corporatons who only care about profit.  

I don't hate corporations for it.  That's their job is to only care about profits.  That's why we have a government.  Everyone knows a game is no good without rules.  Today the refs or government have been paid off to side with the corporations and not be fair to the workers of America.  This has to change.  

Romney was a CEO.  Bain Capital sent thousands of jobs overseas.  Bain made money tearing companies apart and bankrupting them.  Not what America needs.


----------



## sealybobo

thanatos144 said:


> I see the antichristain bigotry is still rampant here.
> 
> Tapatalk



I notice no christians want to explain their fellow christians behavior in this town hall meeting where this very nice smart sweet atheist girl sued the school to take down the sign that said GOD.  And the Supreme Court ruled in her favor because the Supreme Court decided that the sign they had up was favoring people who believe in god, specifically christians, and so needed to be taken down.  

Why do we persist you guys ask?  Because your imaginary friend has no place in our government.  Government should be ruled by logic and science and facts not faith.  And all those christians at the town hall need to realize this isn't their country.  They share it with people who believe in other gods and even people who don't believe in any gods.  

Did you watch it?  Did you hear all the nasty things they said to her?  What is it about the constitution they don't understand?  And yet it is these very same people who say everything obama or the Federal government does is unconstitutional.  But they don't seem to understand the whole concept of the wall between church and state. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/27/u...chool-prayer-lawsuit.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, no... it wouldn't be like that at all because a country is not like a tribe. Whereas, a specific group is more like a tribe.
> 
> 
> 
> Just because I use it doesn't mean it's not offensive. Dickwad.
> 
> It's more respectful to use the tribal name if you know it, or if you are talking about all the tribes, indigenous people. My ancestors are not American and not Indians. They are also not "Natives of America" because the continent was here with my people long before it was ever known as America. Imagine if I came and took over your home, made you go live in the garden shed out back, then held lavish parties where I told my friends to pay their respects to you by patting you on the head and calling you Boss's House Natives? I don't imagine you'd find that endearing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, a country is not a tribe.  However, you did not say none of the members of a particular tribe were atheist.  You said, "There were no Atheist Native Americans".  Since you have defined Native American in this context as the people indigenous to the continental US, that is certainly a country-sized area.  Considering it contained a number of tribes in the period under discussion, it would be more difficult to make such a declaration than in a single country IMO.
> 
> If you find Native American offensive, fine.  I'm not sure why the use of the name of a continent is an issue, but OK.  But if you are going to use the term, I find it hard to care if you claim to find it offensive or not.  I'm fine using indigenous people if you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait stop!  I want to give him that the Indians were god fearing people.  That way we can add those scalpers to the list of murderous people who also believe in god.  And not just murder them, TORTURE them.
> 
> Yes Boss, the Indians were all theists.  I agree!
Click to expand...


Here we have an ignorant bigot responding to a post where it is made quite clear that "Indian" is an offensive term, yet he applies it twice with no regard. The ignorant one also mentions "scalping" which is a practice of removing the scalp of an enemy as a battle trophy. It originated in Eurasia prehistory. Scalping - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*However, you did not say none of the members of a particular tribe were atheist.*

None of the members of a particular tribe were Atheists. None of the members of ANY tribe were Atheists. The concept of Atheism was unknown, unheard of, and would have been considered "bad medicine" and strongly rebuked. 

*Considering it contained a number of tribes in the period under discussion, it would be more difficult to make such a declaration than in a single country IMO.*

Considering your opinion knows nothing of the cultures, it is irrelevant. You continue to try and imagine things as a European, as if no other culture exists. These people were different. Their lives were defined by the spirit. It wasn't a matter of conscious choice, it was just how things were. There was no "choose to not believe" in their culture, it did not exist. Where you view their spirituality as "faith and belief" they saw it as empirical truth. This was true for all the tribes, while they varied in some manner over details, they all universally held this cultural connection spiritually. 

*If you find Native American offensive, fine.  I'm not sure why the use of the name of a continent is an issue, but OK.*

I didn't say I found it offensive. I said some find it offensive and explained why. It's an issue because it wasn't your continent to name. It presupposes America was already here and these people were the "Natives" of it, and that is a lie. They were here LONG before America was here. But typical of arrogant Europeans, in your mind, America has always been America! And I don't have a problem with using Native American in conversation, it has become a commonly accepted term, but it's still an offensive term to many people.


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funniest post ever. Someone just lost all touch with reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I guess that depends on where your reality is. If you live in the reality where rich people gets some kind of sick pleasure out of making poor people suffer and don't want anyone to have money or economic prosperity, then yeah... I guess it does sound out of touch.
> 
> On the other hand, if you understand that most wealthy people are capitalists who want consumers to have money and spend money, and they would rather them do that here, where the generated economic commerce benefits our country instead of someone else's country, then my comment makes perfect sense.
> 
> You people have been so fucking brainwashed we're never going to get you back. We're going to end up having to shoot a bunch of you in the head before it's all said and done, because you're like rabid dogs. The propagandists have filled your mind with absolute shit, and you've bought every bit of it. Now you're invested, you've got years and years of this shit built up in your minds, and nothing is going to convince you otherwise. It doesn't even matter if it makes no rational sense, it's what you're going to believe.
> 
> Has no one ever taught you how wrong it is to apply a perceived stereotype to a whole entire group of people you do not know, and judge them on that basis? That virtually every social problem we've had in this country is based on that kind of bigoted ignorance? Rich people are not all one way, just like poor people are not all one way and middle class people are not all one way. Every person is different. I've known poor people who would just as soon step over your body as you're having a heart attack, to be the next in line at Wal-mart. I've also know rich people who give selflessly of their time and money to help those in need, to mentor to others and try to help them achieve a better life. But you all have ignorantly convinced yourselves that every rich person is the equivalent of Homer Simpson's boss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read this and thought of you:  the erroneous contention that all atheists believe "God does not exist". We have to add that the intelligent atheist will acknowledge that there may, in fact, be "gods" that are unlike those described and worshipped by people through the many organized religions of this world.
> 
> The only difference between me and you is I don't believe there is one and you do.
> 
> I'm not saying there is no god.  I'm saying I don't believe there is one.  Certainly I don't believe the christians, muslims & jews.
Click to expand...


of course atheists say that God does not exist, that's what makes them atheists.....if you have trouble admitting this, don't call yourself an atheist.....


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see the antichristain bigotry is still rampant here.
> 
> Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I notice no christians want to explain their fellow christians behavior in this town hall meeting where this very nice smart sweet atheist girl sued the school to take down the sign that said GOD.  And the Supreme Court ruled in her favor because the Supreme Court decided that the sign they had up was favoring people who believe in god, specifically christians, and so needed to be taken down.
> 
> Why do we persist you guys ask?  Because your imaginary friend has no place in our government.  Government should be ruled by logic and science and facts not faith.  And all those christians at the town hall need to realize this isn't their country.  They share it with people who believe in other gods and even people who don't believe in any gods.
> 
> Did you watch it?  Did you hear all the nasty things they said to her?  What is it about the constitution they don't understand?  And yet it is these very same people who say everything obama or the Federal government does is unconstitutional.  But they don't seem to understand the whole concept of the wall between church and state.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/27/u...chool-prayer-lawsuit.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Click to expand...


its a shame she felt the need to force her beliefs on all her neighbors.....but I understand the part about fearing her eyes would burn out of her head if she was required to walk near a printed prayer......you can't be too careful around incendiary things such as prayers.....


----------



## Ina

Those that hate any deity, hate themselves the most.


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> And all those christians at the town hall need to realize this isn't their country.



oh, were they from Kansas?....


----------



## Uncensored2008

sealybobo said:


> This is just another great example of how the rich own/control both parties.  Big deal he donated to Obama.  Probably playing both sides of the fence.  And since Citizens United, you have no idea how much this guy has donated and to whom.
> 
> And excuse me pal, but please don't tell us who is liberal and who is not.  So now you guys are claiming that the CEO of GE one of the largest most powerful companies in the world is a liberal progressive?  Is he starting a union at GE?  How much more does he make than the average worker?  Besides bribing, I mean donating to Obama, what else makes this guy a liberal progressive?
> 
> Immelt has a total five year compensation of $53.82 million, an income which ranked sixth among executives employed by US-based conglomerates.
> 
> Overall General Electric year end employment has dropped from 315,000 in 2002 to 307,000 in 2013
> 
> Another job creator?
> 
> As CEO of General Electric in 2007, Immelt earned a total compensation of $14,209,267
> 
> Stop trying to have CEO's run this county.  Big difference in running a for profit company and a country.  HUGE difference.  First of all, a CEO wants to keep worker compensation low and his pay high.  In a country, the government should want a balance.  The government should protect the middle class and poor from the predatory corporatons who only care about profit.
> 
> I don't hate corporations for it.  That's their job is to only care about profits.  That's why we have a government.  Everyone knows a game is no good without rules.  Today the refs or government have been paid off to side with the corporations and not be fair to the workers of America.  This has to change.
> 
> Romney was a CEO.  Bain Capital sent thousands of jobs overseas.  Bain made money tearing companies apart and bankrupting them.  Not what America needs.



Immelt is a leftist totalitarian; just like Obama, just like you.

None of you have the slightest thing in common with liberals. 

Liberals support Laissez Faire markets - do you?
Liberals support freedom of religion, even on sacred government ground - do you?
Liberals support freedom of speech, even when it is critical of Dear Leader - do you?

Of course not, you are a Khmer Rouge democrat, a leftist thug.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, a country is not a tribe.  However, you did not say none of the members of a particular tribe were atheist.  You said, "There were no Atheist Native Americans".  Since you have defined Native American in this context as the people indigenous to the continental US, that is certainly a country-sized area.  Considering it contained a number of tribes in the period under discussion, it would be more difficult to make such a declaration than in a single country IMO.
> 
> If you find Native American offensive, fine.  I'm not sure why the use of the name of a continent is an issue, but OK.  But if you are going to use the term, I find it hard to care if you claim to find it offensive or not.  I'm fine using indigenous people if you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait stop!  I want to give him that the Indians were god fearing people.  That way we can add those scalpers to the list of murderous people who also believe in god.  And not just murder them, TORTURE them.
> 
> Yes Boss, the Indians were all theists.  I agree!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here we have an ignorant bigot responding to a post where it is made quite clear that "Indian" is an offensive term, yet he applies it twice with no regard. The ignorant one also mentions "scalping" which is a practice of removing the scalp of an enemy as a battle trophy. It originated in Eurasia prehistory. Scalping - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> *However, you did not say none of the members of a particular tribe were atheist.*
> 
> None of the members of a particular tribe were Atheists. None of the members of ANY tribe were Atheists. The concept of Atheism was unknown, unheard of, and would have been considered "bad medicine" and strongly rebuked.
> 
> *Considering it contained a number of tribes in the period under discussion, it would be more difficult to make such a declaration than in a single country IMO.*
> 
> Considering your opinion knows nothing of the cultures, it is irrelevant. You continue to try and imagine things as a European, as if no other culture exists. These people were different. Their lives were defined by the spirit. It wasn't a matter of conscious choice, it was just how things were. There was no "choose to not believe" in their culture, it did not exist. Where you view their spirituality as "faith and belief" they saw it as empirical truth. This was true for all the tribes, while they varied in some manner over details, they all universally held this cultural connection spiritually.
> 
> *If you find Native American offensive, fine.  I'm not sure why the use of the name of a continent is an issue, but OK.*
> 
> I didn't say I found it offensive. I said some find it offensive and explained why. It's an issue because it wasn't your continent to name. It presupposes America was already here and these people were the "Natives" of it, and that is a lie. They were here LONG before America was here. But typical of arrogant Europeans, in your mind, America has always been America! And I don't have a problem with using Native American in conversation, it has become a commonly accepted term, but it's still an offensive term to many people.
Click to expand...


This is what you said :


Boss said:


> I have not studied about Mayans or Inuits, so I can't tell you about them. When I say "Native American" (an offensive term to some of us, btw) I am referring to the indigenous peoples of what is now considered the continental United States.



An offensive term to some of *us*.  Us generally would include you.  Is there a reason I should have assumed your use of the word us did not include you?  At this point I'm assuming you meant that your ancestry is of the indigenous people, and some of them find it offensive, but not you.

As to choosing not to believe, I think that is actually a poor way to put it, even if it is common.  I don't think most people consciously choose what to believe in regards to religion or spirituality.  Regardless, the idea that every single one of the millions of people would agree with whatever their particular tribe believed seems asinine to me.  You think you can speak to the beliefs of every individual amongst the millions that lived in the area of the continental US before European settlement.  I think that is both arrogant and impossible.  Clearly this is going nowhere and it's a sidetrack I really don't care much about.


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> An offensive term to some of *us*.  Us generally would include you.  Is there a reason I should have assumed your use of the word us did not include you?  At this point I'm assuming you meant that your ancestry is of the indigenous people, and some of them find it offensive, but not you.



Why would you assume I meant myself? 'Some of us' does not generally include me. Some of us on this forum don't believe in God... does that include me? Did I say it did? I don't take offense to "Native American" but then, I also don't take offense to "Redskin" and actually find it to be more respectful. I just brought this up as a sidebar, just in case you weren't aware, as obviously you weren't. 



> As to choosing not to believe, I think that is actually a poor way to put it, even if it is common.  I don't think most people consciously choose what to believe in regards to religion or spirituality.



Oh really? I'm genuinely interested in your explanation of this. 



> Regardless, the idea that every single one of the millions of people would agree with whatever their particular tribe believed seems asinine to me.  You think you can speak to the beliefs of every individual amongst the millions that lived in the area of the continental US before European settlement.  I think that is both arrogant and impossible.  Clearly this is going nowhere and it's a sidetrack I really don't care much about.



I know it seems asinine to you, that has been made very clear. It seems that way because you are of European descent and understand western culture, where everything revolves around self. In this culture, we objectively determine what we choose to believe. In the Native American culture there was no choice of individual regarding the Great Spirit, it was a truth as apparent as their existence. I'm not being arrogant, I am stating a fact regarding their culture that is vastly different from the culture you are familiar with, and you don't understand it. This was not a matter of "faith" for them, as it is with western cultures.


----------



## Slyhunter

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> HEY!!! I DID MY DUTY, I GAVE YOU TRUTH,I GAVE YOU WARNING, if you want to chose hell . GO FOR IT!!! NO SKIN OFF MY NOSE!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then stop already.  I clearly chose hell over heaven with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOU GOT IT!!! AND IT IS ALL YOUR CHOICE,NO ONE TO BLAME BUT YOURSELF!!! hell.
Click to expand...


Heaven sounds boring. All those self righteous people preaching their brains off. Who would want that.


----------



## Slyhunter

Uncensored2008 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is just another great example of how the rich own/control both parties.  Big deal he donated to Obama.  Probably playing both sides of the fence.  And since Citizens United, you have no idea how much this guy has donated and to whom.
> 
> And excuse me pal, but please don't tell us who is liberal and who is not.  So now you guys are claiming that the CEO of GE one of the largest most powerful companies in the world is a liberal progressive?  Is he starting a union at GE?  How much more does he make than the average worker?  Besides bribing, I mean donating to Obama, what else makes this guy a liberal progressive?
> 
> Immelt has a total five year compensation of $53.82 million, an income which ranked sixth among executives employed by US-based conglomerates.
> 
> Overall General Electric year end employment has dropped from 315,000 in 2002 to 307,000 in 2013
> 
> Another job creator?
> 
> As CEO of General Electric in 2007, Immelt earned a total compensation of $14,209,267
> 
> Stop trying to have CEO's run this county.  Big difference in running a for profit company and a country.  HUGE difference.  First of all, a CEO wants to keep worker compensation low and his pay high.  In a country, the government should want a balance.  The government should protect the middle class and poor from the predatory corporatons who only care about profit.
> 
> I don't hate corporations for it.  That's their job is to only care about profits.  That's why we have a government.  Everyone knows a game is no good without rules.  Today the refs or government have been paid off to side with the corporations and not be fair to the workers of America.  This has to change.
> 
> Romney was a CEO.  Bain Capital sent thousands of jobs overseas.  Bain made money tearing companies apart and bankrupting them.  Not what America needs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immelt is a leftist totalitarian; just like Obama, just like you.
> 
> None of you have the slightest thing in common with liberals.
> 
> Liberals support Laissez Faire markets - do you?
> Liberals support freedom of religion, even on sacred government ground - do you?
> Liberals support freedom of speech, even when it is critical of Dear Leader - do you?
> 
> Of course not, you are a Khmer Rouge democrat, a leftist thug.
Click to expand...


I got banned at Democratic Underground. I tried to claim I'm a Tom Payne liberal. If your not progressive they get rid of you.


----------



## PostmodernProph

Slyhunter said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then stop already.  I clearly chose hell over heaven with you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU GOT IT!!! AND IT IS ALL YOUR CHOICE,NO ONE TO BLAME BUT YOURSELF!!! hell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heaven sounds boring. All those self righteous people preaching their brains off. Who would want that.
Click to expand...


???....where did you get the silly idea anyone would be preaching in heaven?.....


----------



## GISMYS

PostmodernProph said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOU GOT IT!!! AND IT IS ALL YOUR CHOICE,NO ONE TO BLAME BUT YOURSELF!!! hell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heaven sounds boring. All those self righteous people preaching their brains off. Who would want that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ???....where did you get the silly idea anyone would be preaching in heaven?.....
Click to expand...


HEAVEN HERE ON THE RE-NEWED EARTH THAT IS RE-NEWED TO PERFECTION WITH JESUS RULING FROM THE NEW JERUSALEM AS KING OF KINGS LORD OF LORDS  THEN imho. we may use earth as our home base as we move out into the trillions of stars and new worlds=========and here we have a typical non-thinker saying, sounds boring!!!! ROFLMAO!!! SILLY TARDS!!!


----------



## sealybobo

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I guess that depends on where your reality is. If you live in the reality where rich people gets some kind of sick pleasure out of making poor people suffer and don't want anyone to have money or economic prosperity, then yeah... I guess it does sound out of touch.
> 
> On the other hand, if you understand that most wealthy people are capitalists who want consumers to have money and spend money, and they would rather them do that here, where the generated economic commerce benefits our country instead of someone else's country, then my comment makes perfect sense.
> 
> You people have been so fucking brainwashed we're never going to get you back. We're going to end up having to shoot a bunch of you in the head before it's all said and done, because you're like rabid dogs. The propagandists have filled your mind with absolute shit, and you've bought every bit of it. Now you're invested, you've got years and years of this shit built up in your minds, and nothing is going to convince you otherwise. It doesn't even matter if it makes no rational sense, it's what you're going to believe.
> 
> Has no one ever taught you how wrong it is to apply a perceived stereotype to a whole entire group of people you do not know, and judge them on that basis? That virtually every social problem we've had in this country is based on that kind of bigoted ignorance? Rich people are not all one way, just like poor people are not all one way and middle class people are not all one way. Every person is different. I've known poor people who would just as soon step over your body as you're having a heart attack, to be the next in line at Wal-mart. I've also know rich people who give selflessly of their time and money to help those in need, to mentor to others and try to help them achieve a better life. But you all have ignorantly convinced yourselves that every rich person is the equivalent of Homer Simpson's boss.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I read this and thought of you:  the erroneous contention that all atheists believe "God does not exist". We have to add that the intelligent atheist will acknowledge that there may, in fact, be "gods" that are unlike those described and worshipped by people through the many organized religions of this world.
> 
> The only difference between me and you is I don't believe there is one and you do.
> 
> I'm not saying there is no god.  I'm saying I don't believe there is one.  Certainly I don't believe the christians, muslims & jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> of course atheists say that God does not exist, that's what makes them atheists.....if you have trouble admitting this, don't call yourself an atheist.....
Click to expand...


I, like you guys, have no clue if there is a god or not.  That's why the most rational position is agnostic atheism.  But I'm not going to say that and explain that every time.  As far as Jesus and Mohammad go, I'm an atheist.  That's all you need to know.


----------



## sealybobo

PostmodernProph said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOU GOT IT!!! AND IT IS ALL YOUR CHOICE,NO ONE TO BLAME BUT YOURSELF!!! hell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heaven sounds boring. All those self righteous people preaching their brains off. Who would want that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ???....where did you get the silly idea anyone would be preaching in heaven?.....
Click to expand...


Can they fuck or eat pussy?  Do they lust?  Then it can't be heaven.


----------



## sealybobo

Slyhunter said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is just another great example of how the rich own/control both parties.  Big deal he donated to Obama.  Probably playing both sides of the fence.  And since Citizens United, you have no idea how much this guy has donated and to whom.
> 
> And excuse me pal, but please don't tell us who is liberal and who is not.  So now you guys are claiming that the CEO of GE one of the largest most powerful companies in the world is a liberal progressive?  Is he starting a union at GE?  How much more does he make than the average worker?  Besides bribing, I mean donating to Obama, what else makes this guy a liberal progressive?
> 
> Immelt has a total five year compensation of $53.82 million, an income which ranked sixth among executives employed by US-based conglomerates.
> 
> Overall General Electric year end employment has dropped from 315,000 in 2002 to 307,000 in 2013
> 
> Another job creator?
> 
> As CEO of General Electric in 2007, Immelt earned a total compensation of $14,209,267
> 
> Stop trying to have CEO's run this county.  Big difference in running a for profit company and a country.  HUGE difference.  First of all, a CEO wants to keep worker compensation low and his pay high.  In a country, the government should want a balance.  The government should protect the middle class and poor from the predatory corporatons who only care about profit.
> 
> I don't hate corporations for it.  That's their job is to only care about profits.  That's why we have a government.  Everyone knows a game is no good without rules.  Today the refs or government have been paid off to side with the corporations and not be fair to the workers of America.  This has to change.
> 
> Romney was a CEO.  Bain Capital sent thousands of jobs overseas.  Bain made money tearing companies apart and bankrupting them.  Not what America needs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immelt is a leftist totalitarian; just like Obama, just like you.
> 
> None of you have the slightest thing in common with liberals.
> 
> Liberals support Laissez Faire markets - do you?
> Liberals support freedom of religion, even on sacred government ground - do you?
> Liberals support freedom of speech, even when it is critical of Dear Leader - do you?
> 
> Of course not, you are a Khmer Rouge democrat, a leftist thug.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I got banned at Democratic Underground. I tried to claim I'm a Tom Payne liberal. If your not progressive they get rid of you.
Click to expand...


I am a progressive liberal democrat.  They would love me over there.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, a country is not a tribe.  However, you did not say none of the members of a particular tribe were atheist.  You said, "There were no Atheist Native Americans".  Since you have defined Native American in this context as the people indigenous to the continental US, that is certainly a country-sized area.  Considering it contained a number of tribes in the period under discussion, it would be more difficult to make such a declaration than in a single country IMO.
> 
> If you find Native American offensive, fine.  I'm not sure why the use of the name of a continent is an issue, but OK.  But if you are going to use the term, I find it hard to care if you claim to find it offensive or not.  I'm fine using indigenous people if you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait stop!  I want to give him that the Indians were god fearing people.  That way we can add those scalpers to the list of murderous people who also believe in god.  And not just murder them, TORTURE them.
> 
> Yes Boss, the Indians were all theists.  I agree!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here we have an ignorant bigot responding to a post where it is made quite clear that "Indian" is an offensive term, yet he applies it twice with no regard. The ignorant one also mentions "scalping" which is a practice of removing the scalp of an enemy as a battle trophy. It originated in Eurasia prehistory. Scalping - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> *However, you did not say none of the members of a particular tribe were atheist.*
> 
> None of the members of a particular tribe were Atheists. None of the members of ANY tribe were Atheists. The concept of Atheism was unknown, unheard of, and would have been considered "bad medicine" and strongly rebuked.
> 
> *Considering it contained a number of tribes in the period under discussion, it would be more difficult to make such a declaration than in a single country IMO.*
> 
> Considering your opinion knows nothing of the cultures, it is irrelevant. You continue to try and imagine things as a European, as if no other culture exists. These people were different. Their lives were defined by the spirit. It wasn't a matter of conscious choice, it was just how things were. There was no "choose to not believe" in their culture, it did not exist. Where you view their spirituality as "faith and belief" they saw it as empirical truth. This was true for all the tribes, while they varied in some manner over details, they all universally held this cultural connection spiritually.
> 
> *If you find Native American offensive, fine.  I'm not sure why the use of the name of a continent is an issue, but OK.*
> 
> I didn't say I found it offensive. I said some find it offensive and explained why. It's an issue because it wasn't your continent to name. It presupposes America was already here and these people were the "Natives" of it, and that is a lie. They were here LONG before America was here. But typical of arrogant Europeans, in your mind, America has always been America! And I don't have a problem with using Native American in conversation, it has become a commonly accepted term, but it's still an offensive term to many people.
Click to expand...


Native American Indians or Dot Head Indians?


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> I, like you guys, have no clue if there is a god or not.  That's why the most rational position is agnostic atheism.  But I'm not going to say that and explain that every time.  As far as Jesus and Mohammad go, I'm an atheist.  That's all you need to know.



Sounds to me like you are the one with no clue if there is a God or not. One day you're telling us that man invented God to cope with fear, the next day you're admitting that there may be something greater but you don't know what it is, another day you're lamenting about Karma, back to God doesn't exist and is just a bunch of made up nonsense. I think you should add another title and become the first agnostic-atheist-spiritualist! 

The truth is, you are not an atheist. You are not really an agnostic because you do believe there is something greater than self, you called it Karma the other day. This makes you a non-religious spiritualist like me. The difference in us is, I am not a bigot like you. I openly admit that I cannot prove the God of Abraham doesn't exist, and I don't have animosity toward those who spiritually connect differently than myself based on prejudice. We both believe in the same higher power, you call it Karma and I call it God. 

We both SEEM to comprehend that science can't disprove God, but you are under the impression that it almost has or it's getting close, whereas I don't believe there is any evidence to support that faith. You like to use Science and The Enlightenment to support your faith in disbelief, and I like to quote Newton, the father of the enlightenment and one of the greatest scientific minds of all time, on his profound belief in God. You go back and forth from claiming only stupid and ignorant gullible fools believe in God, to admitting that some really smart people can believe in God.  Like Sir Isaac Newton, for instance. 

Thus far, you have submitted very little evidence to support your viewpoint. What it amounts to is grandiose conjecture from atheist bloggers and activist atheist websites. None of which raises your view above the level of faith, no different than the religious people you ridicule. What you have clearly exposed yourself as, is a religious bigot.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Native American Indians or Dot Head Indians?



More outright racist bigotry spewing out.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> An offensive term to some of *us*.  Us generally would include you.  Is there a reason I should have assumed your use of the word us did not include you?  At this point I'm assuming you meant that your ancestry is of the indigenous people, and some of them find it offensive, but not you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you assume I meant myself? 'Some of us' does not generally include me. Some of us on this forum don't believe in God... does that include me? Did I say it did? I don't take offense to "Native American" but then, I also don't take offense to "Redskin" and actually find it to be more respectful. I just brought this up as a sidebar, just in case you weren't aware, as obviously you weren't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As to choosing not to believe, I think that is actually a poor way to put it, even if it is common.  I don't think most people consciously choose what to believe in regards to religion or spirituality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh really? I'm genuinely interested in your explanation of this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless, the idea that every single one of the millions of people would agree with whatever their particular tribe believed seems asinine to me.  You think you can speak to the beliefs of every individual amongst the millions that lived in the area of the continental US before European settlement.  I think that is both arrogant and impossible.  Clearly this is going nowhere and it's a sidetrack I really don't care much about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know it seems asinine to you, that has been made very clear. It seems that way because you are of European descent and understand western culture, where everything revolves around self. In this culture, we objectively determine what we choose to believe. In the Native American culture there was no choice of individual regarding the Great Spirit, it was a truth as apparent as their existence. I'm not being arrogant, I am stating a fact regarding their culture that is vastly different from the culture you are familiar with, and you don't understand it. This was not a matter of "faith" for them, as it is with western cultures.
Click to expand...


Because you didn't specify what you meant by 'some of us'.  Notice how, in your examples, you added something at the end of the phrase to clarify; you used 'on this forum' so I know who you mean.  If, instead, you were to say just, "Some of us don't believe in god" how would I have any idea you meant some people on this forum, and that you didn't include yourself in that number?  I just didn't realize the specifics of who you were talking about until you clarified.

When I say I don't think we consciously choose what to believe, I am saying that I don't think people see something they disbelieve, decide to believe it, and then do.  Instead, if someone does not believe in something, they need to either see new evidence, or have previously seen evidence presented in a new way, etc. and find it believable.  They don't say to themselves, "I am going to believe this evidence".  When viewing the evidence they don't make a conscious decision to believe it, they either do or don't.  While our beliefs certainly can change many times throughout our lives, I think it is very rare for a person to consciously decide to make that change.  

I'm not sure how being of European decent has anything to do with believing that, however homogenous a society, there always seems to be outcasts, rebels, people who don't fit in, people who don't agree, etc.  Even when the threat of imprisonment, pain or death are involved, still we see people who, for whatever reason, cannot accept or agree with whatever the society they live in promotes or believes.  Cultures and societies can be very different, but people are still people.  
I am not claiming any certainty that there were atheist Native Americans at any particular time before European settlement.  What I'm saying is that it is impossible for anyone to know.  Could someone have been through some tragedy which made them decide that what they thought they knew was actually false?  Could a tribe that did not promote or spend much time on their spiritual beliefs, perhaps because of a lifestyle that didn't leave much time for it, have members that didn't believe what was taught to them?  Could a prisoner taken in fighting between tribes have found the clash of beliefs combined with bad treatment caused them to believe their spiritual beliefs false?
It is your apparent certainty that there simply could not have been a single atheist among the millions of Native Americans is what I'm arguing against.  I don't see how it's possible you or anyone else could know for a fact, as you said, that there wasn't a single one.


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> An offensive term to some of *us*.  Us generally would include you.  Is there a reason I should have assumed your use of the word us did not include you?  At this point I'm assuming you meant that your ancestry is of the indigenous people, and some of them find it offensive, but not you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you assume I meant myself? 'Some of us' does not generally include me. Some of us on this forum don't believe in God... does that include me? Did I say it did? I don't take offense to "Native American" but then, I also don't take offense to "Redskin" and actually find it to be more respectful. I just brought this up as a sidebar, just in case you weren't aware, as obviously you weren't.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really? I'm genuinely interested in your explanation of this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless, the idea that every single one of the millions of people would agree with whatever their particular tribe believed seems asinine to me.  You think you can speak to the beliefs of every individual amongst the millions that lived in the area of the continental US before European settlement.  I think that is both arrogant and impossible.  Clearly this is going nowhere and it's a sidetrack I really don't care much about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know it seems asinine to you, that has been made very clear. It seems that way because you are of European descent and understand western culture, where everything revolves around self. In this culture, we objectively determine what we choose to believe. In the Native American culture there was no choice of individual regarding the Great Spirit, it was a truth as apparent as their existence. I'm not being arrogant, I am stating a fact regarding their culture that is vastly different from the culture you are familiar with, and you don't understand it. This was not a matter of "faith" for them, as it is with western cultures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because you didn't specify what you meant by 'some of us'.  Notice how, in your examples, you added something at the end of the phrase to clarify; you used 'on this forum' so I know who you mean.  If, instead, you were to say just, "Some of us don't believe in god" how would I have any idea you meant some people on this forum, and that you didn't include yourself in that number?  I just didn't realize the specifics of who you were talking about until you clarified.
Click to expand...


Oh yeah, I forgot I was talking to a complete and total mental retard who can't comprehend basic English in context of the conversation and needs every least little detail and nuance explained so he understands. You are the reason that when I buy a toaster it comes with a small book of warnings about the things you can't do with a toaster that most non-morons comprehend, but if it's not spelled out in the most intricate detail, morons like you will do it and then sue the company for neglecting to warn you that you couldn't. It's a wonder people like you can even have a rational conversation at all... I bet this one paragraph contains a few dozen words or combinations of words that you can easily take out of context or misconstrue in some retarded way, to mean something entirely different. 

For future reference, IF what I mean is that I am offended, I will state it as _"I AM OFFENDED BY ___________!"_ I will not vaguely imply that _some people_ are offended and expect you to consider that I am among those _"some people"_ being referred to. In fact, if I ever say that _"some people"_ do, say or are anything, it will never mean that I am automatically included unless I include myself specifically. If you need me to write a complete essay on this and other intricacies of language communication, you'll have to go fuck yourself, I don't have time your nonsense. 



> When I say I don't think we consciously choose what to believe, I am saying that I don't think people see something they disbelieve, decide to believe it, and then do.  Instead, if someone does not believe in something, they need to either see new evidence, or have previously seen evidence presented in a new way, etc. and find it believable.  They don't say to themselves, "I am going to believe this evidence".  When viewing the evidence they don't make a conscious decision to believe it, they either do or don't.  While our beliefs certainly can change many times throughout our lives, I think it is very rare for a person to consciously decide to make that change.



Well how the hell else would they decide? SUBconsciously? UNconsciously? Do you even read your blather, or is this stupidity just free-flowing from your vapid little mind like thought diarrhea? I've never known anyone who went to such bizarre extremes to try and make someone else WRONG so they could be RIGHT. You've got a real problem, buddy! 



> I'm not sure how being of European decent has anything to do with believing that, however homogenous a society, there always seems to be outcasts, rebels, people who don't fit in, people who don't agree, etc.  Even when the threat of imprisonment, pain or death are involved, still we see people who, for whatever reason, cannot accept or agree with whatever the society they live in promotes or believes.  Cultures and societies can be very different, but people are still people.



You are only familiar with European-style western culture. You do not know of any other culture or how they process thought. Hell, you struggle with processing thought from your OWN culture! Again.... the people you see who "for whatever reason, cannot accept or agree with whatever the society they live in promotes or believes" are raised and conditioned to western culture, where emphasis is on SELF. You're looking at this as if they had a choice to accept and agree or not, and they didn't have a choice, it was a universal understanding of truth and reality to them. Could _ANY_ rational person you know of, that is not mentally defective in some way, _"choose to believe"_ they are a rock and not a living being? I think even your retarded ass can understand, that is not possible unless that person is completely fucked in the head. Well okay... the same thing applies to Native Americans not believing in the Great Spirit... they would have to basically believe they were a rock and not a living thing. *ALL LIFE* was through the Great Spirit. There was no alternative concept to believe in. You are trying to rationalize one because you are familiar with western culture that revolves around *SELF* and not the Great Spirit. It is just a vast difference in the two cultures, and you are simply not comprehending this. 

You're again wanting to find these little niche caveats where it's possible that there were some rogue rebels or outcasts and whatnot, and there were indeed those types among the tribes, but even they would not have questioned the Great Spirit's existence. They might have disagreed with the tribal leaders, they may have disobeyed something the Great Spirit had conveyed to the tribe, but they were not Atheists because that concept couldn't exist in their culture. It would have been the equivalent to someone declaring themselves a non-living inorganic material. Now, somehow, your brain can comprehend how irrational such a declaration might be in our culture, but you can't comprehend how irrational Atheism would have been in their culture. 



> I am not claiming any certainty that there were atheist Native Americans at any particular time before European settlement.  What I'm saying is that it is impossible for anyone to know.  Could someone have been through some tragedy which made them decide that what they thought they knew was actually false?  Could a tribe that did not promote or spend much time on their spiritual beliefs, perhaps because of a lifestyle that didn't leave much time for it, have members that didn't believe what was taught to them?  Could a prisoner taken in fighting between tribes have found the clash of beliefs combined with bad treatment caused them to believe their spiritual beliefs false?
> It is your apparent certainty that there simply could not have been a single atheist among the millions of Native Americans is what I'm arguing against.  I don't see how it's possible you or anyone else could know for a fact, as you said, that there wasn't a single one.



What you're continuing to do is to draw up irrelevant hypotheticals to support your notion of which you have provided *NO* evidence for. You keep yammering about their _"spiritual beliefs"_ as if you don't understand they weren't from westernized culture where we have _"spiritual beliefs"_ but rather, a culture that was centered on the Great Spirit in every aspect of who and what they were, and it was *NOT* simply a _"spiritual belief"_ to them, but an absolute truism that was not questioned or doubted. 

*I DO KNOW* for a fact, I've studied their culture. That is the most fundamental aspect of it. Everything IN their culture was centered on their spirit and connection with the Great Spirit. There were no exceptions to this, it wasn't a matter of individual choice, that did not exist. I don't care if you don't believe it, I don't care if you don't find it possible, I don't care how unlikely it seems to you. Their culture was unlike anything you are familiar with or can relate to. I'm trying to get that point across to you, but you're too fucking dead-set on finding some nuance or trivial and ridiculous detail to snag me on and prove me WRONG so you can be RIGHT!  ...And you just keep on failing!


----------



## Tuatara

Uncensored2008 said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iwould like to point out the idiocy of this poster. I claimed Jeff Immelt was a republican. This poster argued because the man was hired by Obama that he must not be Republican and used this wikipedia link. I then told him to look at his own link which I will post here. Can anyone point out to him what it says about his political leanings. Anyone. Top right corner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Retard, Immelt is an Obamunist stooge. Part of Obama's economic dream team, in charge of offshoring jobs to China...
Click to expand...

and a Republican... tool.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Oh yeah, I forgot I was talking to a complete and total mental retard who can't comprehend basic English in context of the conversation and needs every least little detail and nuance explained so he understands. You are the reason that when I buy a toaster it comes with a small book of warnings about the things you can't do with a toaster that most non-morons comprehend, but if it's not spelled out in the most intricate detail, morons like you will do it and then sue the company for neglecting to warn you that you couldn't. It's a wonder people like you can even have a rational conversation at all... I bet this one paragraph contains a few dozen words or combinations of words that you can easily take out of context or misconstrue in some retarded way, to mean something entirely different.
> 
> For future reference, IF what I mean is that I am offended, I will state it as _"I AM OFFENDED BY ___________!"_ I will not vaguely imply that _some people_ are offended and expect you to consider that I am among those _"some people"_ being referred to. In fact, if I ever say that _"some people"_ do, say or are anything, it will never mean that I am automatically included unless I include myself specifically. If you need me to write a complete essay on this and other intricacies of language communication, you'll have to go fuck yourself, I don't have time your nonsense.



But you didn't say 'some people', you said, 'some of *us*'.  Do you know what the word 'us' means?  It is a group of which the speaker is a part.  I don't need essays or any other ridiculous crap you want to come up with.  If you don't understand what the word 'us' means, and how you are included in it when you use it, it is you that has problems with English.



> Well how the hell else would they decide? SUBconsciously? UNconsciously? Do you even read your blather, or is this stupidity just free-flowing from your vapid little mind like thought diarrhea? I've never known anyone who went to such bizarre extremes to try and make someone else WRONG so they could be RIGHT. You've got a real problem, buddy!


Yes, you decide unconsciously.  When you observe evidence of something, before you believe that evidence leads to a particular conclusion, do you consciously tell yourself you are going to believe in that conclusion?[/quote]



> You are only familiar with European-style western culture. You do not know of any other culture or how they process thought. Hell, you struggle with processing thought from your OWN culture! Again.... the people you see who "for whatever reason, cannot accept or agree with whatever the society they live in promotes or believes" are raised and conditioned to western culture, where emphasis is on SELF. You're looking at this as if they had a choice to accept and agree or not, and they didn't have a choice, it was a universal understanding of truth and reality to them. Could _ANY_ rational person you know of, that is not mentally defective in some way, _"choose to believe"_ they are a rock and not a living being? I think even your retarded ass can understand, that is not possible unless that person is completely fucked in the head. Well okay... the same thing applies to Native Americans not believing in the Great Spirit... they would have to basically believe they were a rock and not a living thing. *ALL LIFE* was through the Great Spirit. There was no alternative concept to believe in. You are trying to rationalize one because you are familiar with western culture that revolves around *SELF* and not the Great Spirit. It is just a vast difference in the two cultures, and you are simply not comprehending this.


I understand what you are saying.  I just don't agree with you.  I don't believe that only modern Western cultures have had intellectual rebels, people who believe seemingly wild or crazy things, etc.  And hell, maybe there were some mentally defective Native Americans and it led them to be atheists.  There's no reason to think Native Americans were immune to mental deficiencies. 



> You're again wanting to find these little niche caveats where it's possible that there were some rogue rebels or outcasts and whatnot, and there were indeed those types among the tribes, but even they would not have questioned the Great Spirit's existence. They might have disagreed with the tribal leaders, they may have disobeyed something the Great Spirit had conveyed to the tribe, but they were not Atheists because that concept couldn't exist in their culture. It would have been the equivalent to someone declaring themselves a non-living inorganic material. Now, somehow, your brain can comprehend how irrational such a declaration might be in our culture, but you can't comprehend how irrational Atheism would have been in their culture.



I never said that any potential atheists among Native Americans would be considered rational or even sane.  What I've said, what you might have understood if you could grasp the English you accuse me of not understanding, is that I don't believe there is any way for you or anyone else to know for sure that no single Native American, of the millions who lived in pre-European settlement times, was ever an atheist.  



> What you're continuing to do is to draw up irrelevant hypotheticals to support your notion of which you have provided *NO* evidence for. You keep yammering about their _"spiritual beliefs"_ as if you don't understand they weren't from westernized culture where we have _"spiritual beliefs"_ but rather, a culture that was centered on the Great Spirit in every aspect of who and what they were, and it was *NOT* simply a _"spiritual belief"_ to them, but an absolute truism that was not questioned or doubted.
> 
> *I DO KNOW* for a fact, I've studied their culture. That is the most fundamental aspect of it. Everything IN their culture was centered on their spirit and connection with the Great Spirit. There were no exceptions to this, it wasn't a matter of individual choice, that did not exist. I don't care if you don't believe it, I don't care if you don't find it possible, I don't care how unlikely it seems to you. Their culture was unlike anything you are familiar with or can relate to. I'm trying to get that point across to you, but you're too fucking dead-set on finding some nuance or trivial and ridiculous detail to snag me on and prove me WRONG so you can be RIGHT!  ...And you just keep on failing!



I only feel the need to prove you wrong because you so constantly are.  

You've studied Native American culture?  That's great.  You could be the foremost expert in the world on every tribe that existed at the time and I'd STILL say it is a literal impossibility for you to know the beliefs of every Native American who lived prior to European settlement.  There simply is not enough data to make that claim without any possible doubt.  Studying cultures can give general knowledge but cannot allow you to know each individual within that culture (unless it's extremely small scale).  

So maybe it would have to be the equivalent, for the time, of a conspiracy theorist.  Maybe it would have to be someone just crazy.  There are always people like that in any society of sufficient size, though.  And if just one lunatic didn't believe what everyone around them took to be obvious truth, then there could have been an atheist Native American.  It doesn't have to be at all likely, just possible.

Some of us think you are far too certain of your own beliefs.


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> As far as Jesus and Mohammad go, I'm an atheist.  That's all you need to know.



because you say they don't exist......precisely what I said, end of argument.....


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Heaven sounds boring. All those self righteous people preaching their brains off. Who would want that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ???....where did you get the silly idea anyone would be preaching in heaven?.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can they fuck or eat pussy?  Do they lust?  Then it can't be heaven.
Click to expand...


silly bobo.....are ALL your beliefs based on ignorance?......


----------



## Boss

Moonbat, I've already entertained your "maybe there was a nutter" theory. If there were any such cases, they are not documented by any of the tribes I am aware of. Had there been some anomaly instance of such a person, they would have likely been expediently killed and their body burned, and probably their mother and immediate family just to be safe.  Then they would have taken the ashes to someplace far away and put them in a place where only death would come in contact with them. Following all of this, the others of the tribe would probably perform some ceremonial rituals for the next months, to ensure the Great Spirit had not become angry. Now, you ask me how I could possibly know all of this? Well because it's documented this is the kind of thing they did with individuals who dared to challenge the authority of the tribal leader. To put it simply, these people would not have fucked around with your atheistic pontifications for one second. Such things were not allowed, IF they ever existed at all. As of yet, you have not given any examples of Atheist Native Americans to prove me wrong. You've presented YOUR OPINION, and that's fine... you're wrong. 

And BY the way... When I said "some of us" in my previous statement, I meant some of us who are descendents of the indigenous peoples of the continent. Most non-retarded people could've figured that out without me having to spell it out. Now, I honestly do not have the time or patience to break down every little thing I say, explain what every little word means in context, clarify all the possible mistranslations your empty little noggin can conjure up, and make sure there is no possible way you can misunderstand what I say. I am accustomed to communicating with non-retards who can discern context within the scope of a conversation.


----------



## sealybobo

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> As far as Jesus and Mohammad go, I'm an atheist.  That's all you need to know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> because you say they don't exist......precisely what I said, end of argument.....
Click to expand...


Oh they may have been real people but they didn't do any miracles.  

Miracles have not been demonstrated to occur. The existence of a miracle would pose logical problems for belief in a god which can supposedly see the future and began the universe with a set of predefined laws. Even if a miracle could be demonstrated it would not immediately imply the existence of a god, much less any particular one, as unknown natural processes or agents could still be at work.

Most alleged miracles can be explained as statistically unlikely occurrences. For example, one child surviving a plane crash that kills two hundred others is not a miracle, just as one person winning the lottery is not. In the absence of any empirical evidence, all other claims can be dismissed as the result of magical thinking, misattribution, credulity, hearsay and anecdote. Eye-witness testimony and anecdotal accounts are, by themselves, not reliable or definitive forms of proof for such extraordinary claims.

Divine intervention claims most often concern systems and events for which we have poor predictive capabilities, for example, weather, sports, health and social/economic interactions. Such claims are rarely made in relation to those things we can accurately predict and test e.g. the motion of celestial bodies, boiling point of water and pull of gravity. If a god is constantly intervening in the universe it supposedly created, then it is with such ambiguity as to appear completely indistinguishable from normal background chance.

Theists often fail to adequately apportion blame when claims of their particular gods infinite mercy or omnibenevolence involve sparing a few lives in a disaster, or recovery from a debilitating disease  all of which their god would ultimately be responsible for inflicting if it existed. 

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. - Carl Sagan

Elite athletes make first place, strange shapes appear on toast and some people narrowly escape death, but amputated limbs never regrow, mountains never move and food never spontaneously appears in front of the hundreds of children that starve to death each hour.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> Moonbat, I've already entertained your "maybe there was a nutter" theory. If there were any such cases, they are not documented by any of the tribes I am aware of. Had there been some anomaly instance of such a person, they would have likely been expediently killed and their body burned, and probably their mother and immediate family just to be safe.  Then they would have taken the ashes to someplace far away and put them in a place where only death would come in contact with them. Following all of this, the others of the tribe would probably perform some ceremonial rituals for the next months, to ensure the Great Spirit had not become angry. Now, you ask me how I could possibly know all of this? Well because it's documented this is the kind of thing they did with individuals who dared to challenge the authority of the tribal leader. To put it simply, these people would not have fucked around with your atheistic pontifications for one second. Such things were not allowed, IF they ever existed at all. As of yet, you have not given any examples of Atheist Native Americans to prove me wrong. You've presented YOUR OPINION, and that's fine... you're wrong.
> 
> And BY the way... When I said "some of us" in my previous statement, I meant some of us who are descendents of the indigenous peoples of the continent. Most non-retarded people could've figured that out without me having to spell it out. Now, I honestly do not have the time or patience to break down every little thing I say, explain what every little word means in context, clarify all the possible mistranslations your empty little noggin can conjure up, and make sure there is no possible way you can misunderstand what I say. I am accustomed to communicating with non-retards who can discern context within the scope of a conversation.



Funny if you look at my 1970's encyclopedia it says 98% of the people of Greece were Greek Orthodox.  First, do you really believe all 98% were really "christians" and believed in god?  Then you are gullible.  I know many Greek Americans who call themselves Greek Orthodox because they were born into it, but like me and you they don't really believe all the stories.  

As for the indians.  If penalty was death, how can you know if anyone really believes or are they all just going along not to be tortured and killed by savage indians?  I'm sure some didn't really believe.  I have to believe as savage and barbaric as they were they had to have some phylosophers in the bunch.  I'm sure even some indians themselves feared savage indians from other tribes, or is that just stuff I saw in movies?  Looked like they would concur other tribes, kill the men and take their women.  They'd raise their babies though.  They were at least kind to children.  

I actually like indians and their history and I am sorry what we did to them.  Just think of how much more beautiful the middle of the country would be if we left it alone and didn't develop it into cities and smog and concrete and steal.  If you wanted to go live with them you had to live by their rules, which I would gladly do.  Ever see Jeremiah Johnson?  I would love to sell everything and go do that, until the savages came and killed his wife and son and then tried to kill him.  And not that I blame them.  That's what the indians should have done to the people on the Mayflower and every other ship that came after.  Go take something else over.  Go to Africa they should have told us.  This land is not for sale.  They should have put up borders.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I, like you guys, have no clue if there is a god or not.  That's why the most rational position is agnostic atheism.  But I'm not going to say that and explain that every time.  As far as Jesus and Mohammad go, I'm an atheist.  That's all you need to know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds to me like you are the one with no clue if there is a God or not. One day you're telling us that man invented God to cope with fear, the next day you're admitting that there may be something greater but you don't know what it is, another day you're lamenting about Karma, back to God doesn't exist and is just a bunch of made up nonsense. I think you should add another title and become the first agnostic-atheist-spiritualist!
> 
> The truth is, you are not an atheist. You are not really an agnostic because you do believe there is something greater than self, you called it Karma the other day. This makes you a non-religious spiritualist like me. The difference in us is, I am not a bigot like you. I openly admit that I cannot prove the God of Abraham doesn't exist, and I don't have animosity toward those who spiritually connect differently than myself based on prejudice. We both believe in the same higher power, you call it Karma and I call it God.
> 
> We both SEEM to comprehend that science can't disprove God, but you are under the impression that it almost has or it's getting close, whereas I don't believe there is any evidence to support that faith. You like to use Science and The Enlightenment to support your faith in disbelief, and I like to quote Newton, the father of the enlightenment and one of the greatest scientific minds of all time, on his profound belief in God. You go back and forth from claiming only stupid and ignorant gullible fools believe in God, to admitting that some really smart people can believe in God.  Like Sir Isaac Newton, for instance.
> 
> Thus far, you have submitted very little evidence to support your viewpoint. What it amounts to is grandiose conjecture from atheist bloggers and activist atheist websites. None of which raises your view above the level of faith, no different than the religious people you ridicule. What you have clearly exposed yourself as, is a religious bigot.
Click to expand...


Well were going to have to just agree to disagree.  

You haven't proved there is a god.  Pretty big thing not to be able to prove don't you think?  How many days have you, Gismys & Emiy tried and so far you've given us nothing.  This is why the younger generation is leaving the churches.  Even if they agree with you, they really have no "proof".  But at least, like you, they realize the jesus, mormon, muslim & jew stories are not real.

There is no church that teaches what you preach, correct?  You've pontificated, phylosophized, a lot of interesting points.  I'll give you the karma thing does make me think.  But it doesn't lead me to a god either.  And since you agree that believing in this god if he does exist doesn't matter, I guess it's ok that I don't believe in god, right?  And I too am not perfect.  I too was raised with the fear of god, and taught about karma.  But that might all be random.  Good things happen to bad people and bad things happen to good people.  I asked my christian brother about karma and he said it's real if you believe it's real.  So I will give you that I do think it matters if you are a good person or not.  

And I do understand there is the non physical.  Have you ever taken a tuning rod and hit it and the guy across the room's rod starts making noise?  Telepathic stuff.  There is so much you and I don't know.  I watch these shows.  They aren't anti religion but they are scientific shows and just the facts and information they are giving always seems to innocently go against religion.  Thats when I understand why religion hates science.  But they back track and they are slick like you.  No matter how many things they have proved are not god when people thought they were, yet you guys continue to move the goal post.  God keeps getting smaller and smaller.  God of the gaps is what its called.


----------



## sealybobo

so i guess i am the first native to answer this but i am sure i won't be the last. (we are still alive btw)

we do not worship as you know it. we give thanks. we believe the world and everything in it was created. after that fact there is NOTHING in common with christianity or any other religion. each nation has its own beliefs traditionally.

no we don't have gods. we don't even have one god. we acknowledge the spirit world. and past what i have said, there is nothing else i wish to share about my beliefs except that they are meant for me and the other people of my nation. they are not even for other natives. they have their own traditions.

we do not believe one belief is better than another..just better for us as a people.

you may have to rethink your whole idea that if it is good it must have something to do with your god. my experience is christianity brought nothing to us but death and suffering even into the 21st century. we live our beliefs. it is not lip service. you can see WHAT we believe by what we DO. 

Best answer Boss!!!

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091125160239AAMqIvN

Clap


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Moonbat, I've already entertained your "maybe there was a nutter" theory. If there were any such cases, they are not documented by any of the tribes I am aware of. Had there been some anomaly instance of such a person, they would have likely been expediently killed and their body burned, and probably their mother and immediate family just to be safe.  Then they would have taken the ashes to someplace far away and put them in a place where only death would come in contact with them. Following all of this, the others of the tribe would probably perform some ceremonial rituals for the next months, to ensure the Great Spirit had not become angry. Now, you ask me how I could possibly know all of this? Well because it's documented this is the kind of thing they did with individuals who dared to challenge the authority of the tribal leader. To put it simply, these people would not have fucked around with your atheistic pontifications for one second. Such things were not allowed, IF they ever existed at all. As of yet, you have not given any examples of Atheist Native Americans to prove me wrong. You've presented YOUR OPINION, and that's fine... you're wrong.
> 
> And BY the way... When I said "some of us" in my previous statement, I meant some of us who are descendents of the indigenous peoples of the continent. Most non-retarded people could've figured that out without me having to spell it out. Now, I honestly do not have the time or patience to break down every little thing I say, explain what every little word means in context, clarify all the possible mistranslations your empty little noggin can conjure up, and make sure there is no possible way you can misunderstand what I say. I am accustomed to communicating with non-retards who can discern context within the scope of a conversation.



And you have presented YOUR OPINION.  Even if you are right, that's what you've presented, not fact. 

Yes, I did come to the conclusion that you meant some of us who have indigenous ancestry, I pointed that out in a previous post.  However, if you honestly can't see how your saying 'an offensive term to some of us' would be construed to mean you are offended, that anyone who read that post would know that you were bringing up other people being offended by a term when you used the word us, then I understand why conversations with you go the way they do.  You must be so self-centered that you can hardly imagine anyone coming to a different conclusion than you, or not automatically understanding what you mean no matter how you say it.

So if someone said, "Some of us find the word retard offensive" would you assume that they are telling you they have a mental handicap but don't find the word retard offensive?


----------



## Montrovant

To be clear Boss, because I actually feel clarity is important, I am perfectly willing to accept that as the product of a modern Western nation, my cultural biases may make atheism among Native Americans from before European colonization seem more likely than it actually is.  

That doesn't make a statement that there were no atheists any more than an opinion, however.  Knowing the beliefs of millions of long dead individuals, particularly when they were parts of cultures who tended toward oral rather than written history, is simply not possible.  You can certainly conclude based on the evidence that there were none, and you may be vastly more informed on the subject than I am, I won't dispute those things.  Can you admit that there is a possibility, however small, that some few number of Native Americans could have lacked belief in any sort of god at some point?  Even if they were killed for those views, even if they held those views to themselves?  That's all I'm asking for, acknowledgement that calling it a fact was a step too far.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Funny if you look at my 1970's encyclopedia it says 98% of the people of Greece were Greek Orthodox.  First, do you really believe all 98% were really "christians" and believed in god?  Then you are gullible.  I know many Greek Americans who call themselves Greek Orthodox because they were born into it, but like me and you they don't really believe all the stories.



The Greeks are basically the founders of western culture. We are products of that culture. The Greek philosophers brought the attribute of introspection, questioning of who we are and what we believe, what happens next. It is through that philosophy we have this self-centered belief system which enables us to consider various possibilities regarding Gods and Religions. Native Americans did not have that cultural underpinning. This point seems to be flying comfortably over your head as well as Moonbat's. We're talking about two completely different ways of thinking, schools of thought. Native Americans did not have introspection of self, things didn't revolve around the individual. 



> As for the indians.  If penalty was death, how can you know if anyone really believes or are they all just going along not to be tortured and killed by savage indians?  I'm sure some didn't really believe.  I have to believe as savage and barbaric as they were they had to have some phylosophers in the bunch.  I'm sure even some indians themselves feared savage indians from other tribes, or is that just stuff I saw in movies?  Looked like they would concur other tribes, kill the men and take their women.  They'd raise their babies though.  They were at least kind to children.



I did not say "the penalty was death" ...there was no penalty, it was not an issue. I explained how such an instance would have been handled in the event someone was kicked in the head by a horse or born without a normal brain, and didn't adhere to the Great Spirit. It wasn't something held over their heads... you're gonna 'believe' or we're gonna kill you! Again, you are thinking in western culture terms here and failing to grasp they had a different culture. From their perspective, this was not a "belief" but a truth that was unquestionable. 

It is noted that you continue to disrespect these people by calling them "indians" when you've been told that is highly offensive. Apparently, your bigotry is blind and oblivious. As for savagery, they were no more savage than the Nordics or Mongolians. Yes, much of what you believe is due to myths spread by Hollywood. 



> I actually like indians and their history and I am sorry what we did to them.  Just think of how much more beautiful the middle of the country would be if we left it alone and didn't develop it into cities and smog and concrete and steal.  If you wanted to go live with them you had to live by their rules, which I would gladly do.  Ever see Jeremiah Johnson?  I would love to sell everything and go do that, until the savages came and killed his wife and son and then tried to kill him.  And not that I blame them.  That's what the indians should have done to the people on the Mayflower and every other ship that came after.  Go take something else over.  Go to Africa they should have told us.  This land is not for sale.  They should have put up borders.



You wouldn't survive one day with any Native American tribe. You'd start spewing your anti-God nonsense and you'd be history. The scant few white men who ever interacted with Native Americans had to be totally respectful of their spirituality. Somehow, I don't see your bigoted ass being able to pull that off. The Puritans, on the other hand, were able to cohabitate with them because they developed a mutual respect through spirit. For nearly a century, there was no problem between Native Americans and early settlers. Of course, there were some tribes who weren't hospitable, and didn't cotton to white men encroaching on their lands, but all-in-all, the early settlers had a generally good relationship with the Native Americans. We could not have ever colonized otherwise. 



sealybobo said:


> Well were going to have to just agree to disagree.
> 
> You haven't proved there is a god.  Pretty big thing not to be able to prove don't you think?  How many days have you, Gismys & Emiy tried and so far you've given us nothing.  This is why the younger generation is leaving the churches.  Even if they agree with you, they really have no "proof".  But at least, like you, they realize the jesus, mormon, muslim & jew stories are not real.



I've not tried to prove God. I've also not stated that anything isn't real. You're a hypocrite. You claim the best and most rational position is "we don't know" but then you turn around and argue as if you DO know. This is typical of most bigots, they can't support their opinions but they believe their opinions are empirical and anyone who challenges them are wrong. 



> There is no church that teaches what you preach, correct?  You've pontificated, phylosophized, a lot of interesting points.  I'll give you the karma thing does make me think.  But it doesn't lead me to a god either.  And since you agree that believing in this god if he does exist doesn't matter, I guess it's ok that I don't believe in god, right?  And I too am not perfect.  I too was raised with the fear of god, and taught about karma.  But that might all be random.  Good things happen to bad people and bad things happen to good people.  I asked my christian brother about karma and he said it's real if you believe it's real.  So I will give you that I do think it matters if you are a good person or not.



If you believe in Karma as you claimed you did several times, and are again tepidly claiming you do... then you are not an atheist or agnostic. You are spiritual, whether you realize it or not. You do believe in something greater than self, Karma. Now it seems to me, the only real difference between you and someone who believes in God is semantics and terminology. 



> And I do understand there is the non physical.  Have you ever taken a tuning rod and hit it and the guy across the room's rod starts making noise?  Telepathic stuff.  There is so much you and I don't know.  I watch these shows.  They aren't anti religion but they are scientific shows and just the facts and information they are giving always seems to innocently go against religion.  Thats when I understand why religion hates science.  But they back track and they are slick like you.  No matter how many things they have proved are not god when people thought they were, yet you guys continue to move the goal post.  God keeps getting smaller and smaller.  God of the gaps is what its called.



I can go you one better... Look at the scientific study of atoms. An atom is the smallest form of matter, there are 237 quintillion atoms in a grain of sand. Each atom is comprised of a nucleus and the nucleus is orbited by electrons which define the atom. These electrons pop into and out of existence all the time, they can be at two places at the same time. This completely defies any concept of logic we understand in the physical world, yet at the molecular level, it is exactly what is happening with every atom in the universe, of which all matter consists. Can you explain that? I can't. Also... we can take atoms and collide them together, producing subatomic particles of all sorts. We've discovered tens of thousands of subatomic particles this way. It's like, each atom is a little surprise package of particles we've never seen before. Each of these particles has sometimes radically different properties enabling their atoms to do different things. For all intents and purposes, these are little tiny microscopic "miracles" happening on a regular basis to enable existence of everything we perceive as material in our universe. In other words, physical existence itself, is a spiritual miracle happening in real time. 



sealybobo said:


> so i guess i am the first native to answer this but i am sure i won't be the last. (we are still alive btw)
> 
> we do not worship as you know it. we give thanks. we believe the world and everything in it was created. after that fact there is NOTHING in common with christianity or any other religion. each nation has its own beliefs traditionally.
> 
> no we don't have gods. we don't even have one god. we acknowledge the spirit world. and past what i have said, there is nothing else i wish to share about my beliefs except that they are meant for me and the other people of my nation. they are not even for other natives. they have their own traditions.
> 
> we do not believe one belief is better than another..just better for us as a people.
> 
> you may have to rethink your whole idea that if it is good it must have something to do with your god. my experience is christianity brought nothing to us but death and suffering even into the 21st century. we live our beliefs. it is not lip service. you can see WHAT we believe by what we DO.
> 
> Best answer Boss!!!
> 
> https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091125160239AAMqIvN
> 
> Clap



Great... You've just proven my point. I have never claimed that Native Americans believed in the Christian God. It is their culture which is centered on spirit and not self. Unlike western culture where individuals can have introspective thought and consider various possibilities regarding the spiritual, these people are tied directly to spirit and everything revolves around that.


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> To be clear Boss, because I actually feel clarity is important, I am perfectly willing to accept that as the product of a modern Western nation, my cultural biases may make atheism among Native Americans from before European colonization seem more likely than it actually is.
> 
> That doesn't make a statement that there were no atheists any more than an opinion, however.  Knowing the beliefs of millions of long dead individuals, particularly when they were parts of cultures who tended toward oral rather than written history, is simply not possible.  You can certainly conclude based on the evidence that there were none, and you may be vastly more informed on the subject than I am, I won't dispute those things.  Can you admit that there is a possibility, however small, that some few number of Native Americans could have lacked belief in any sort of god at some point?  Even if they were killed for those views, even if they held those views to themselves?  That's all I'm asking for, acknowledgement that calling it a fact was a step too far.



I never said they believed in God. I imagine the idea of a Christian God was as foreign to them as the idea of Atheism. They all understood a universal truth described as the Great Spirit. There were no exceptions to this, it was part of their culture. I understand what you're trying to get at here, but you are approaching your understanding from a different perspective and not comprehending the fundamental difference in culture. It was not a choice of belief in the Great Spirit, it was a truth they all understood as such. 

Now... Tell me this... How can you "lack belief" in something you understand as a universal truth? Can you see how that would be a contradiction of logic? There is no way to know something is universally true, yet also "lack belief" in it. It's just not logically possible. From a western cultural philosophy standpoint, there is no "universal truth" when it comes to spirituality, but that is a western culture perspective that did not exist with Native Americans. To them, everything was central to the Great Spirit, and that's why we find their very names and identities were tied to the spiritual. Everything about who they were and what they did, every aspect of their lives and life in general, was centered on this spirit. It wasn't a "belief" to them, it was a truth that was undeniable.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny if you look at my 1970's encyclopedia it says 98% of the people of Greece were Greek Orthodox.  First, do you really believe all 98% were really "christians" and believed in god?  Then you are gullible.  I know many Greek Americans who call themselves Greek Orthodox because they were born into it, but like me and you they don't really believe all the stories.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Greeks are basically the founders of western culture. We are products of that culture. The Greek philosophers brought the attribute of introspection, questioning of who we are and what we believe, what happens next. It is through that philosophy we have this self-centered belief system which enables us to consider various possibilities regarding Gods and Religions. Native Americans did not have that cultural underpinning. This point seems to be flying comfortably over your head as well as Moonbat's. We're talking about two completely different ways of thinking, schools of thought. Native Americans did not have introspection of self, things didn't revolve around the individual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for the indians.  If penalty was death, how can you know if anyone really believes or are they all just going along not to be tortured and killed by savage indians?  I'm sure some didn't really believe.  I have to believe as savage and barbaric as they were they had to have some phylosophers in the bunch.  I'm sure even some indians themselves feared savage indians from other tribes, or is that just stuff I saw in movies?  Looked like they would concur other tribes, kill the men and take their women.  They'd raise their babies though.  They were at least kind to children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did not say "the penalty was death" ...there was no penalty, it was not an issue. I explained how such an instance would have been handled in the event someone was kicked in the head by a horse or born without a normal brain, and didn't adhere to the Great Spirit. It wasn't something held over their heads... you're gonna 'believe' or we're gonna kill you! Again, you are thinking in western culture terms here and failing to grasp they had a different culture. From their perspective, this was not a "belief" but a truth that was unquestionable.
> 
> It is noted that you continue to disrespect these people by calling them "indians" when you've been told that is highly offensive. Apparently, your bigotry is blind and oblivious. As for savagery, they were no more savage than the Nordics or Mongolians. Yes, much of what you believe is due to myths spread by Hollywood.
> 
> 
> 
> You wouldn't survive one day with any Native American tribe. You'd start spewing your anti-God nonsense and you'd be history. The scant few white men who ever interacted with Native Americans had to be totally respectful of their spirituality. Somehow, I don't see your bigoted ass being able to pull that off. The Puritans, on the other hand, were able to cohabitate with them because they developed a mutual respect through spirit. For nearly a century, there was no problem between Native Americans and early settlers. Of course, there were some tribes who weren't hospitable, and didn't cotton to white men encroaching on their lands, but all-in-all, the early settlers had a generally good relationship with the Native Americans. We could not have ever colonized otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> I've not tried to prove God. I've also not stated that anything isn't real. You're a hypocrite. You claim the best and most rational position is "we don't know" but then you turn around and argue as if you DO know. This is typical of most bigots, they can't support their opinions but they believe their opinions are empirical and anyone who challenges them are wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> If you believe in Karma as you claimed you did several times, and are again tepidly claiming you do... then you are not an atheist or agnostic. You are spiritual, whether you realize it or not. You do believe in something greater than self, Karma. Now it seems to me, the only real difference between you and someone who believes in God is semantics and terminology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I do understand there is the non physical.  Have you ever taken a tuning rod and hit it and the guy across the room's rod starts making noise?  Telepathic stuff.  There is so much you and I don't know.  I watch these shows.  They aren't anti religion but they are scientific shows and just the facts and information they are giving always seems to innocently go against religion.  Thats when I understand why religion hates science.  But they back track and they are slick like you.  No matter how many things they have proved are not god when people thought they were, yet you guys continue to move the goal post.  God keeps getting smaller and smaller.  God of the gaps is what its called.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can go you one better... Look at the scientific study of atoms. An atom is the smallest form of matter, there are 237 quintillion atoms in a grain of sand. Each atom is comprised of a nucleus and the nucleus is orbited by electrons which define the atom. These electrons pop into and out of existence all the time, they can be at two places at the same time. This completely defies any concept of logic we understand in the physical world, yet at the molecular level, it is exactly what is happening with every atom in the universe, of which all matter consists. Can you explain that? I can't. Also... we can take atoms and collide them together, producing subatomic particles of all sorts. We've discovered tens of thousands of subatomic particles this way. It's like, each atom is a little surprise package of particles we've never seen before. Each of these particles has sometimes radically different properties enabling their atoms to do different things. For all intents and purposes, these are little tiny microscopic "miracles" happening on a regular basis to enable existence of everything we perceive as material in our universe. In other words, physical existence itself, is a spiritual miracle happening in real time.
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> so i guess i am the first native to answer this but i am sure i won't be the last. (we are still alive btw)
> 
> we do not worship as you know it. we give thanks. we believe the world and everything in it was created. after that fact there is NOTHING in common with christianity or any other religion. each nation has its own beliefs traditionally.
> 
> no we don't have gods. we don't even have one god. we acknowledge the spirit world. and past what i have said, there is nothing else i wish to share about my beliefs except that they are meant for me and the other people of my nation. they are not even for other natives. they have their own traditions.
> 
> we do not believe one belief is better than another..just better for us as a people.
> 
> you may have to rethink your whole idea that if it is good it must have something to do with your god. my experience is christianity brought nothing to us but death and suffering even into the 21st century. we live our beliefs. it is not lip service. you can see WHAT we believe by what we DO.
> 
> Best answer Boss!!!
> 
> https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091125160239AAMqIvN
> 
> Clap
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great... You've just proven my point. I have never claimed that Native Americans believed in the Christian God. It is their culture which is centered on spirit and not self. Unlike western culture where individuals can have introspective thought and consider various possibilities regarding the spiritual, these people are tied directly to spirit and everything revolves around that.
Click to expand...


Well you have to realize that when it comes to debating someone who thinks like you, I'm an Agnostic Atheist.  But when it comes to any organized religion that claims they not only know god exists they also have stories about when he visited, I am an atheist.  

But I truly do admit that I don't know if there is a god.  Do I think there is?  No.  Do I think there is a hell?  No.  But of course I don't know that either.  I'm just pretty sure that the real god if there is one, doesn't care if we believe.  

Anyways, I still think you, the indians and everyone else who believe in god do so because you've been programmed to believe and because you want to believe.

As for splitting atoms, I'm sure a scientist could explain all that to you.  I sure can't.  

Anyways, sorry I'm distracted.  My 94 year old grandmother is dying and my aunt just called.


----------



## orogenicman

Sorry about your grandmother, sealybobo


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Well you have to realize that when it comes to debating someone who thinks like you, I'm an Agnostic Atheist.  But when it comes to any organized religion that claims they not only know god exists they also have stories about when he visited, I am an atheist.



Debating? Is that what you think we've been doing? I must have missed the debate part. 

I'm not sure if you've noticed, but in all the thousands of posts in several threads by numerous posters, YOU are the only one who has used the term "agnostic atheist." That's because there is no such thing. You're using a term for something that doesn't exist. The fact that you continue to use it is evidence of how incredibly stupid you are. Not that there was a shortage of such evidence. 



> But I truly do admit that I don't know if there is a god.  Do I think there is?  No.  Do I think there is a hell?  No.  But of course I don't know that either.  I'm just pretty sure that the real god if there is one, doesn't care if we believe.



Well, if you would stick with your first sentence, I wouldn't have nearly as much to have to comment on in your remarks. But what you consistently do is talk out of both sides of your mouth... first, you say you don't know, then you claim that you're sure. If you don't know, then you don't know if any god is the real god. Also, if you believe in anything without evidence, by definition, you have faith. That's exactly what faith is... belief without evidence. Now, I have not seen you present ANY evidence to support your stated beliefs here. So I can only deduce you have faith. It's important for you to comprehend that your faiths are no more important than the faiths of others. 



> Anyways, I still think you, the indians and everyone else who believe in god do so because you've been programmed to believe and because you want to believe.



Okay.... this is now the third time I've pointed out that you are using an offensive term for Native Americans. They are not "indians!" This is no different than me calling you "Jewface!" Maybe I will start calling you that and we'll see how you like it, Jewface? 

Do you honestly think I've been "programmed" to believe the way I do? It was through years and years of my own observations and investigations that I came to understand God. If I didn't make a daily connection to God through spiritual contemplation, I couldn't believe in God. I cannot speak for anyone else, but I certainly wasn't programmed to believe in God. Native Americans also weren't programmed, they were simply following their culture.



> As for splitting atoms, I'm sure a scientist could explain all that to you.  I sure can't.



I didn't expect you to explain it to me. I don't need it explained. I presented it as an example of something happening all around you, in every material thing you're aware of. Electrons are literally popping into and out of existence, being at two places at one time, defying everything you think of as logical in the physical universe. This is the nature of all material things. 



> Anyways, sorry I'm distracted.  My 94 year old grandmother is dying and my aunt just called.



I'm sorry to hear about your grandmother. During this stressful time, I hope that you will keep your opinions about God and afterlife to yourself, for the sake of your family. I know that it's not important to you that your grandmother is passing away, after all, the population has to be controlled, right? And I realize that you are fine with the idea that her spirit and soul will be gone for the rest of eternity and she will be nothing more than worm food. But I am also quite sure most of your family believes the person she was, the things she did in life, the efforts she made to be a good person, were not in vain and her spirit is going on to a new journey from here. I just hope you can be respectful of their faith, and I will pray to my God today for you to have strength in this time of need.


----------



## Montrovant

No one else may be using the term, but it certainly does seem to exist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

Agnostic Atheist - Dictionary Definition

Agnostic Atheist


----------



## BreezeWood

> B: We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> B: Debating? Is that what you think we've been doing? I must have missed the debate part.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



yes, you have ...

.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well you have to realize that when it comes to debating someone who thinks like you, I'm an Agnostic Atheist.  But when it comes to any organized religion that claims they not only know god exists they also have stories about when he visited, I am an atheist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Debating? Is that what you think we've been doing? I must have missed the debate part.
> 
> I'm not sure if you've noticed, but in all the thousands of posts in several threads by numerous posters, YOU are the only one who has used the term "agnostic atheist." That's because there is no such thing. You're using a term for something that doesn't exist. The fact that you continue to use it is evidence of how incredibly stupid you are. Not that there was a shortage of such evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I truly do admit that I don't know if there is a god.  Do I think there is?  No.  Do I think there is a hell?  No.  But of course I don't know that either.  I'm just pretty sure that the real god if there is one, doesn't care if we believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if you would stick with your first sentence, I wouldn't have nearly as much to have to comment on in your remarks. But what you consistently do is talk out of both sides of your mouth... first, you say you don't know, then you claim that you're sure. If you don't know, then you don't know if any god is the real god. Also, if you believe in anything without evidence, by definition, you have faith. That's exactly what faith is... belief without evidence. Now, I have not seen you present ANY evidence to support your stated beliefs here. So I can only deduce you have faith. It's important for you to comprehend that your faiths are no more important than the faiths of others.
> 
> 
> 
> Okay.... this is now the third time I've pointed out that you are using an offensive term for Native Americans. They are not "indians!" This is no different than me calling you "Jewface!" Maybe I will start calling you that and we'll see how you like it, Jewface?
> 
> Do you honestly think I've been "programmed" to believe the way I do? It was through years and years of my own observations and investigations that I came to understand God. If I didn't make a daily connection to God through spiritual contemplation, I couldn't believe in God. I cannot speak for anyone else, but I certainly wasn't programmed to believe in God. Native Americans also weren't programmed, they were simply following their culture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for splitting atoms, I'm sure a scientist could explain all that to you.  I sure can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't expect you to explain it to me. I don't need it explained. I presented it as an example of something happening all around you, in every material thing you're aware of. Electrons are literally popping into and out of existence, being at two places at one time, defying everything you think of as logical in the physical universe. This is the nature of all material things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyways, sorry I'm distracted.  My 94 year old grandmother is dying and my aunt just called.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry to hear about your grandmother. During this stressful time, I hope that you will keep your opinions about God and afterlife to yourself, for the sake of your family. I know that it's not important to you that your grandmother is passing away, after all, the population has to be controlled, right? And I realize that you are fine with the idea that her spirit and soul will be gone for the rest of eternity and she will be nothing more than worm food. But I am also quite sure most of your family believes the person she was, the things she did in life, the efforts she made to be a good person, were not in vain and her spirit is going on to a new journey from here. I just hope you can be respectful of their faith, and I will pray to my God today for you to have strength in this time of need.
Click to expand...


Come one of course I don't talk this shit to my family.  Not these family members for sure.  They believe the bible literally.  I've asked before and based on my aunts reply I wouldn't dare tell her I don't believe.  I'm sure there are a lot of christians like me.

I told you boss, as far as the adam and eve god, I'm an atheist.  ALTHOUGH, I guess I wasn't there so even that I wouldn't be able to say I'm 100% sure.  How could I?  Was I there?  But it doesn't sound believable to me.  I'm willing to be my soul on it anyways.  

No, I don't suspect you'd consider it a debate since you only hear yourself.  You are like bush.  You believe on Wednesday what you believed on Monday regardless of what happens on Tuesday.  Stand your ground boss.  

At least you aren't a religious nut.  But politically you are a right winger so it gives me clear perspective on how no matter what evidence you guys are given, you are NEVER wrong about anything.  It's why I don't discuss politics.  Doesn't matter if you are wrong if you don't believe you are wrong.  Look at Bush.  He didn't cause the recession, right?  

You guys also hold democrats up to a higher standard.  You aren't republicans because it benefits you financially.  It's usually because of god gays and guns & you believe they benefit you financially.  They don't, but since they never take blame for anything, who can prove that?  Hell, you guys believe in a invisible man.  How can anyone prove anything to you guys?  

What are your wedge issues?  I already know you don't want gays to marry, even though you aren't a Christian.  That's weird.  Why not?  Anyways, you are 2 marbles shy of beeing a loon.  Keep it up.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Come one of course I don't talk this shit to my family.  Not these family members for sure.  They believe the bible literally.  I've asked before and based on my aunts reply I wouldn't dare tell her I don't believe.  I'm sure there are a lot of christians like me.



I'm sure you're probably right. I have said before, I know Atheists who are bigger believers in God than some Christians. 



> I told you boss, as far as the adam and eve god, I'm an atheist.  ALTHOUGH, I guess I wasn't there so even that I wouldn't be able to say I'm 100% sure.  How could I?  Was I there?  But it doesn't sound believable to me.  I'm willing to be my soul on it anyways.



Lots of things don't sound believable to me. Electrons popping in and out of existence or being in two places at the same time, doesn't sound believable. Places in the universe with no mass but gravitational forces so strong that light cannot escape, doesn't sound believable to me. The realizations these are facts tells me that sometimes things don't sound believable but are. 

Willing to bet your soul? But you don't have a soul, remember? If you believe you do have a soul, why would you bet it when you don't have to? In order to harm Christian religion? That's sort of like cutting off your nose to spite your face. You're going to be around some Christians when your grandmother passes, take note of the things they do and say and come back to tell me what it is about them that you find dangerous or troubling? 



> No, I don't suspect you'd consider it a debate since you only hear yourself.  You are like bush.  You believe on Wednesday what you believed on Monday regardless of what happens on Tuesday.  Stand your ground boss.



Yes, I believe what I believe until someone can show me evidence to convince me otherwise. Debates are not popularity of opinion. 



> At least you aren't a religious nut.  But politically you are a right winger so it gives me clear perspective on how no matter what evidence you guys are given, you are NEVER wrong about anything.  It's why I don't discuss politics.  Doesn't matter if you are wrong if you don't believe you are wrong.  Look at Bush.  He didn't cause the recession, right?



First of all, what you are doing is stereotyping me. You have built a template of how all right wingers are, and so you paint me with this brush before even hearing my positions or views. You pre judge me... another word for that is prejudice. You don't discuss politics, really? Seems like you are continuously bringing politics into this thread, am I mistaken? 

And no.... Bush didn't cause the recession. He certainly hasn't caused the recession to drag on for 5 more years after retirement. Look... IF politicians could control recessions, we'd NEVER have one! Now certain policies can cause recessions to linger or worsen, or even turn one around, but you've not presented any evidence of Bush's recession causing policies, you just spewed out a liberal dummycrat talking point. 



> You guys also hold democrats up to a higher standard.  You aren't republicans because it benefits you financially.  It's usually because of god gays and guns & you believe they benefit you financially.  They don't, but since they never take blame for anything, who can prove that?  Hell, you guys believe in a invisible man.  How can anyone prove anything to you guys?



Again, you are painting an entire group of people with one wide brush based on your stereotypes. I don't see Democrats being held to a higher standard, I see Democrats being given a pass on things that would impeach most Republicans, day in and day out. 



> What are your wedge issues?  I already know you don't want gays to marry, even though you aren't a Christian.  That's weird.  Why not?  Anyways, you are 2 marbles shy of beeing a loon.  Keep it up.



Wedge issues are called wedge issues because they drive a wedge between two sides that cannot be overcome. I believe these issues shouldn't have to exist in a constitutional republic democracy. We have a system and it works, or at least it has for over 200 years. Your political party has decided it doesn't like the system, and wants to force it's agenda on us through judicial activism and executive fiat. Your Democrat-controlled Senate is currently haggling over how they can overturn a Supreme Court ruling. Now, when it comes to abortion or Obamacare, the SCOTUS is "settled law of the land" and we need to just move on. 

I've explained my views on gay marriage in another thread. I support Civil Unions and getting government OUT of the marriage business. I don't believe it's the government's place to determine what IS or ISN'T appropriate marriage for individuals. That should be left up to them to decide and not the government. What is so weird about FREEDOM?


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come one of course I don't talk this shit to my family.  Not these family members for sure.  They believe the bible literally.  I've asked before and based on my aunts reply I wouldn't dare tell her I don't believe.  I'm sure there are a lot of christians like me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure you're probably right. I have said before, I know Atheists who are bigger believers in God than some Christians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I told you boss, as far as the adam and eve god, I'm an atheist.  ALTHOUGH, I guess I wasn't there so even that I wouldn't be able to say I'm 100% sure.  How could I?  Was I there?  But it doesn't sound believable to me.  I'm willing to be my soul on it anyways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lots of things don't sound believable to me. Electrons popping in and out of existence or being in two places at the same time, doesn't sound believable. Places in the universe with no mass but gravitational forces so strong that light cannot escape, doesn't sound believable to me. The realizations these are facts tells me that sometimes things don't sound believable but are.
> 
> Willing to bet your soul? But you don't have a soul, remember? If you believe you do have a soul, why would you bet it when you don't have to? In order to harm Christian religion? That's sort of like cutting off your nose to spite your face. You're going to be around some Christians when your grandmother passes, take note of the things they do and say and come back to tell me what it is about them that you find dangerous or troubling?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I believe what I believe until someone can show me evidence to convince me otherwise. Debates are not popularity of opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, what you are doing is stereotyping me. You have built a template of how all right wingers are, and so you paint me with this brush before even hearing my positions or views. You pre judge me... another word for that is prejudice. You don't discuss politics, really? Seems like you are continuously bringing politics into this thread, am I mistaken?
> 
> And no.... Bush didn't cause the recession. He certainly hasn't caused the recession to drag on for 5 more years after retirement. Look... IF politicians could control recessions, we'd NEVER have one! Now certain policies can cause recessions to linger or worsen, or even turn one around, but you've not presented any evidence of Bush's recession causing policies, you just spewed out a liberal dummycrat talking point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You guys also hold democrats up to a higher standard.  You aren't republicans because it benefits you financially.  It's usually because of god gays and guns & you believe they benefit you financially.  They don't, but since they never take blame for anything, who can prove that?  Hell, you guys believe in a invisible man.  How can anyone prove anything to you guys?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you are painting an entire group of people with one wide brush based on your stereotypes. I don't see Democrats being held to a higher standard, I see Democrats being given a pass on things that would impeach most Republicans, day in and day out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are your wedge issues?  I already know you don't want gays to marry, even though you aren't a Christian.  That's weird.  Why not?  Anyways, you are 2 marbles shy of beeing a loon.  Keep it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wedge issues are called wedge issues because they drive a wedge between two sides that cannot be overcome. I believe these issues shouldn't have to exist in a constitutional republic democracy. We have a system and it works, or at least it has for over 200 years. Your political party has decided it doesn't like the system, and wants to force it's agenda on us through judicial activism and executive fiat. Your Democrat-controlled Senate is currently haggling over how they can overturn a Supreme Court ruling. Now, when it comes to abortion or Obamacare, the SCOTUS is "settled law of the land" and we need to just move on.
> 
> I've explained my views on gay marriage in another thread. I support Civil Unions and getting government OUT of the marriage business. I don't believe it's the government's place to determine what IS or ISN'T appropriate marriage for individuals. That should be left up to them to decide and not the government. What is so weird about FREEDOM?
Click to expand...


You are so naive about some things, like you don't seem to realize the rich get richer when recessions hit.  It allows them to buy low and sell high.  Recessions don't bother the investor class as much as they do you or I.

And you are right, I don't want to get into politics because I already know there is no way we're going to agree and you're just going to piss me off with your stupidity.  

You need to realize when we say Bush we mean the GOP.  Bush is still fucking this economy up.  Only now he's in the form of McConnell, Paul Ryan & Boehner.  

P.S.  My favorite song:  Ten Little Indians - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The modern lyrics are:

    One little, two little, three little Indians
    Four little, five little, six little Indians
    Seven little, eight little, nine little Indians
    Ten little Indian boys.

    Ten little, nine little, eight little Indians
    Seven little, six little, five little Indians
    Four little, three little, two little Indians
    One little Indian boy.

The original piece, then called "Ten Little Injuns", was written by songwriter Septimus Winner in 1868 for a minstrel show and was much more elaborate:

    Ten little Injuns standin' in a line,
    One toddled home and then there were nine;

    Nine little Injuns swingin' on a gate,
    One tumbled off and then there were eight.

    Eight little Injuns gayest under heav'n.
    One went to sleep and then there were seven;

    Seven little Injuns cuttin' up their tricks,
    One broke his neck and then there were six.

    Six little Injuns all alive,
    One kicked the bucket and then there were five;

    Five little Injuns on a cellar door,
    One tumbled in and then there were four.

    Four little Injuns up on a spree,
    One got fuddled and then there were three;

    Three little Injuns out on a canoe,
    One tumbled overboard and then there were two.

    Two little Injuns foolin' with a gun,
    One shot t'other and then there was one;

    One little Injun livin' all alone,
    He got married and then there were none.


----------



## Montrovant

Are we really going to turn this into another political flame war?  We get enough of that on the rest of the site.


----------



## sealybobo

Montrovant said:


> Are we really going to turn this into another political flame war?  We get enough of that on the rest of the site.



I know, I'm sorry.  My fault.  So I just saw Gismys post something super gay about why not back a winner jesus not a loser satan.  OMG I can't believe that's a dude.  How can anyone come here and read all this and not wonder themselves if all the stories are/were made up.  Especially when you sit and think about virgin births and rising from the dead after 3 days.  

Adam lived to 930 years; Noah even longer, to 950 years


----------



## GISMYS

WHAT THINKING PERSON WOULD THINK ALMIGHTY GOD WHO HAS CREATED THE UNIVERSE AND LIFE WOULD HAVE a problem having a virgin give birt to JESUS OR BRING A DEAD PERSON BACK TO LIFE, WHICH would be harder to do?????????????


----------



## Tuatara

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure if you've noticed, but in all the thousands of posts in several threads by numerous posters, YOU are the only one who has used the term "agnostic atheist." That's because there is no such thing. You're using a term for something that doesn't exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The term exists and most atheists are "agnostic atheists" meaning we cannot say for sure a god or gods exist we simply don't believe they do. Another forum puts "agnostic atheists" ahead of every other religious position.
> 
> What is your religious position?
> 
> 
> Do your research!
Click to expand...


----------



## Slyhunter

GISMYS said:


> WHAT THINKING PERSON WOULD THINK ALMIGHTY GOD WHO HAS CREATED THE UNIVERSE AND LIFE WOULD HAVE a problem having a virgin give birt to JESUS OR BRING A DEAD PERSON BACK TO LIFE, WHICH would be harder to do?????????????


Fine if he did it once why can't he do it again so we all can see he is almighty God. If you have but the faith of a mustard seed you can move mountains. Do you have the faith of a mustard seed? How come you ain't moving any mountains? How come nobody is moving any mountains? Nobody has any faith?


----------



## GISMYS

Slyhunter said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHAT THINKING PERSON WOULD THINK ALMIGHTY GOD WHO HAS CREATED THE UNIVERSE AND LIFE WOULD HAVE a problem having a virgin give birt to JESUS OR BRING A DEAD PERSON BACK TO LIFE, WHICH would be harder to do?????????????
> 
> 
> 
> Fine if he did it once why can't he do it again so we all can see he is almighty God. If you have but the faith of a mustard seed you can move mountains. Do you have the faith of a mustard seed? How come you ain't moving any mountains? How come nobody is moving any mountains? Nobody has any faith?
Click to expand...


SEEING GOD IS NOT THE ANSWER FOR YOU, KNOWING JESUS AS YOUR LORD AND SAVIOR IS THE ONLY REAL ANSWER TO YOUR PROBLEMS, satan and demons saw GOD but still they chose sin.


----------



## Slyhunter

GISMYS said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHAT THINKING PERSON WOULD THINK ALMIGHTY GOD WHO HAS CREATED THE UNIVERSE AND LIFE WOULD HAVE a problem having a virgin give birt to JESUS OR BRING A DEAD PERSON BACK TO LIFE, WHICH would be harder to do?????????????
> 
> 
> 
> Fine if he did it once why can't he do it again so we all can see he is almighty God. If you have but the faith of a mustard seed you can move mountains. Do you have the faith of a mustard seed? How come you ain't moving any mountains? How come nobody is moving any mountains? Nobody has any faith?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SEEING GOD IS NOT THE ANSWER FOR YOU, KNOWING JESUS AS YOUR LORD AND SAVIOR IS THE ONLY REAL ANSWER TO YOUR PROBLEMS, satan and demons saw GOD but still they chose sin.
Click to expand...

You didn't answer the question.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> You are so naive about some things, like you don't seem to realize the rich get richer when recessions hit.  It allows them to buy low and sell high.  Recessions don't bother the investor class as much as they do you or I.



Hey, here's a NEWSFLASH for you, genius... "The Rich" get richer *no matter what!* The only way you can prevent that from happening is to do like Chairman Mao did and confiscate all the wealth from the rich and then execute them. Then you can adopt anti-capitalist policies that prevent anyone from ever becoming rich and all the people can live equally poor! Of course, this won't apply to the ruling class elite, they will still have all the wealth and power, all the luxury and extravagance, but for the most part, the masses will all be poor and dependent on the central government for survival. Is THAT what you're after? 

Again... Free market, free enterprise capitalism, like what we have had in America for 200+ years, is the most advantageous system man has ever invented. More people can become millionaires and billionaires than through any other system ever developed. There is not a system that even runs a close second. Yes... Rich people will get richer, and they will get richer at a faster rate than poor people get rich. That's just the nature of things. It can't be avoided. It's better to let that happen, let rich people get richer, then they have money to invest, money to lend, money to lose, money to burn, money to open new businesses and create new jobs, money to expand and create more jobs, money they have to pay taxes on, etc. Just about anything the rich person does with their money, helps those who aren't rich in some way. The only exception is when you try to punish the rich for making money, then they seek out ways to make money but avoid your punishment, like sending it elsewhere to other countries or socking it away in some security or trust fund. 

For whatever reason, you can't get that through your vapid little head and you just want to keep on playing Robin Hood! Your plan doesn't work, it has never worked, and it's not going to start working anytime soon. Take some advice from a prominate Democrat icon... A rising tide floats all boats! 



> You need to realize when we say Bush we mean the GOP.  Bush is still fucking this economy up.  Only now he's in the form of McConnell, Paul Ryan & Boehner.



How the hell are MINORITY PARTY senators fucking things up? Boehner breaks down in tears whenever Democrats brow beat him over the least little thing. He has folded more times than a cheap K-mart tent. His party base is about ready to send his ass home he has been so ineffective. What the hell has he done, or ANY Republican for that matter,  to worsen the economy in the past 5 years? Can you even cite ONE GOP initiative passed by the Republican House that has been approved by Harry Reid's Senate? This president has gotten virtually EVERYTHING he has asked for, from bailouts totalling over $3 trillion, to infrastructure funding over $2 trillion, debt ceiling increases out the ass, not to mention carte blanche on executive orders to do all kinds of unprecedented and frankly unconstitutional shit he has no business doing. Not to mention turning a blind eye to the endless stream of frankly impeachable corruption and scandal going on with this administration. 



> P.S.  My favorite song:



I'm not entertaining your racism anymore. Go fuck yourself.


----------



## GISMYS

Jesus says=If you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you would say to this mulberry tree, &#8216;Be uprooted and planted in the sea,&#8217; and it would obey you.&#8221;  Jesus makes it clear that it is not the volume of faith that makes impossible things happen, because faith &#8220;the size of a mustard seed&#8221;&#8212;very tiny&#8212;can accomplish the impossible.  What did He mean?

When the apostles heard that they must extend forgiveness in such an expansive (and impossible) way, they assumed they had to conjure up this kind of love themselves.  If they had more faith, they could do it.  By telling them that even faith the size of a mustard seed would be enough to work wonders, Jesus immediately shifts the emphasis away from the wonder worker and on to the Worker of wonders.  It is not the size of our faith but its Object that makes all the difference.  If we are thinking about the size of our faith, we are thinking about ourselves.  If we are thinking about the impossibility of what needs to happen, such as forgiving others endlessly, we would do well to think about God and His unlimited power.  To believe that God can do anything in and through us simply takes faith.  Jesus uses the metaphor of a mustard seed to emphasize that impossible things are accomplished when our faith in God&#8212;our trust in Him to hear our prayers and act on our behalf&#8212;is exercised.  It is not the amount of faith that matters but its quality.  Faith is the human action through which the power of God is released in the world.  With God, nothing is impossible (see Gen 18:14; Mt19:26; Lk 1:37).
CE.


----------



## HUGGY

It's good to see religion in it's death throws...

For serious...


----------



## BreezeWood

HUGGY said:


> It's good to see religion in it's death throws...
> 
> For serious...




its been quite a stretch already ....

.


----------



## sealybobo

HUGGY said:


> It's good to see religion in it's death throws...
> 
> For serious...



 Valentine's Day Murder Trial Begins
Former Baptist missionary allegedly shot his wife to make room for another lover. 

The couple met that alleged mistress when she was just a girl during a mission trip from Lithuania.  

15 minutes after he called 911 he texted the young girl that his wife was dead and she replied back, "interesting "

I'm not a religious man but I would NEVER do this to my wife.  First I wouldn't have the BALLS to hit on the minor and not think she would tell people.  Then, I would never consider murdering my wife.  I may leave my wife for a 20 year old but I would not kill her.

This 20 year old mistress was a christian too?  If they believe in god, how do they get themselves to kill?  Don't they worry about going to hell?  I wonder how many so called christians are really christians?  Until he got caught, Mr. Leuthold was a christian.  Is he still a christian?  Will he ask god for forgiveness?  What a joke.    


Prosecutors detail Leuthold&#8217;s conversations, and series of Internet searches - News - Journal Star - Peoria, IL


----------



## sealybobo

Slyhunter said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHAT THINKING PERSON WOULD THINK ALMIGHTY GOD WHO HAS CREATED THE UNIVERSE AND LIFE WOULD HAVE a problem having a virgin give birt to JESUS OR BRING A DEAD PERSON BACK TO LIFE, WHICH would be harder to do?????????????
> 
> 
> 
> Fine if he did it once why can't he do it again so we all can see he is almighty God. If you have but the faith of a mustard seed you can move mountains. Do you have the faith of a mustard seed? How come you ain't moving any mountains? How come nobody is moving any mountains? Nobody has any faith?
Click to expand...


I rented and watched The Son of God yesterday.  First off when he brought back Lazareth from the dead after 4 days of being dead.  Come on.  

And this movie made him out to be a rock star among the people.  Pahleez.  He had 11 followers.  They make it seem like thousands followed him.  Remember he filled all the empty baskets with fish to feed everyone?  Come on.  That is impossible.  

I was also hoping they'd show how Mary's husband took it when she told him she was pregnant yet they had not had sex yet.  Yea, a middle eastern man would have stoned his wife if she told him she was impregnated by god.  You know who had a lot of faith?  Jesus' dad.  

Yes, it is asking a lot to ask us to believe the Jesus stories.  I can't.  I get the message behind it, but clearly the story has been embellished if not completely made up.

Now, either believe the unbelievable story or go to hell.  Your choice.


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHAT THINKING PERSON WOULD THINK ALMIGHTY GOD WHO HAS CREATED THE UNIVERSE AND LIFE WOULD HAVE a problem having a virgin give birt to JESUS OR BRING A DEAD PERSON BACK TO LIFE, WHICH would be harder to do?????????????
> 
> 
> 
> Fine if he did it once why can't he do it again so we all can see he is almighty God. If you have but the faith of a mustard seed you can move mountains. Do you have the faith of a mustard seed? How come you ain't moving any mountains? How come nobody is moving any mountains? Nobody has any faith?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I rented and watched The Son of God yesterday.
Click to expand...


sweet!....they got your four bucks!.....


----------



## sealybobo

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fine if he did it once why can't he do it again so we all can see he is almighty God. If you have but the faith of a mustard seed you can move mountains. Do you have the faith of a mustard seed? How come you ain't moving any mountains? How come nobody is moving any mountains? Nobody has any faith?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I rented and watched The Son of God yesterday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sweet!....they got your four bucks!.....
Click to expand...


$1.20 redbox

And it wasn't nearly as good as the Mel Gibson one.  That one was darker and better.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are so naive about some things, like you don't seem to realize the rich get richer when recessions hit.  It allows them to buy low and sell high.  Recessions don't bother the investor class as much as they do you or I.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, here's a NEWSFLASH for you, genius... "The Rich" get richer *no matter what!* The only way you can prevent that from happening is to do like Chairman Mao did and confiscate all the wealth from the rich and then execute them. Then you can adopt anti-capitalist policies that prevent anyone from ever becoming rich and all the people can live equally poor! Of course, this won't apply to the ruling class elite, they will still have all the wealth and power, all the luxury and extravagance, but for the most part, the masses will all be poor and dependent on the central government for survival. Is THAT what you're after?
> 
> Again... Free market, free enterprise capitalism, like what we have had in America for 200+ years, is the most advantageous system man has ever invented. More people can become millionaires and billionaires than through any other system ever developed. There is not a system that even runs a close second. Yes... Rich people will get richer, and they will get richer at a faster rate than poor people get rich. That's just the nature of things. It can't be avoided. It's better to let that happen, let rich people get richer, then they have money to invest, money to lend, money to lose, money to burn, money to open new businesses and create new jobs, money to expand and create more jobs, money they have to pay taxes on, etc. Just about anything the rich person does with their money, helps those who aren't rich in some way. The only exception is when you try to punish the rich for making money, then they seek out ways to make money but avoid your punishment, like sending it elsewhere to other countries or socking it away in some security or trust fund.
> 
> For whatever reason, you can't get that through your vapid little head and you just want to keep on playing Robin Hood! Your plan doesn't work, it has never worked, and it's not going to start working anytime soon. Take some advice from a prominate Democrat icon... A rising tide floats all boats!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to realize when we say Bush we mean the GOP.  Bush is still fucking this economy up.  Only now he's in the form of McConnell, Paul Ryan & Boehner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How the hell are MINORITY PARTY senators fucking things up? Boehner breaks down in tears whenever Democrats brow beat him over the least little thing. He has folded more times than a cheap K-mart tent. His party base is about ready to send his ass home he has been so ineffective. What the hell has he done, or ANY Republican for that matter,  to worsen the economy in the past 5 years? Can you even cite ONE GOP initiative passed by the Republican House that has been approved by Harry Reid's Senate? This president has gotten virtually EVERYTHING he has asked for, from bailouts totalling over $3 trillion, to infrastructure funding over $2 trillion, debt ceiling increases out the ass, not to mention carte blanche on executive orders to do all kinds of unprecedented and frankly unconstitutional shit he has no business doing. Not to mention turning a blind eye to the endless stream of frankly impeachable corruption and scandal going on with this administration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P.S.  My favorite song:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not entertaining your racism anymore. Go fuck yourself.
Click to expand...


So sensitive you little bitch.   

Hey, after watching Son of God yesterday I wanted to point out it was religious people/JEWS that killed Jesus, not atheists.  A lot of good religion did for those people, huh?  Imagine what kind of pricks they would have been had they not had religion, right?  Go fuck yourself.  

You guys think we need religion.  HA!


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> So sensitive you little bitch.
> 
> Hey, after watching Son of God yesterday I wanted to point out it was religious people/JEWS that killed Jesus, not atheists.  A lot of good religion did for those people, huh?  Imagine what kind of pricks they would have been had they not had religion, right?  Go fuck yourself.
> 
> You guys think we need religion.  HA!



I'm very well aware of what happened to Jesus. I am not here to argue for Jesus or religion. You are frustrated because I won't condemn and attack Jesus and religion. 

I have not said you need religion. You do need human spirituality. It ultimately doesn't matter if you disagree with that, we're never going to find out because humans will always have spirituality. And... since we will always have human spirituality, we'll probably always have religions.

I think it is good that you watch religious movies. If you get the chance, you should watch the History Channel's mini-series _The Bible_. Whenever you are watching, instead of constantly telling yourself "that could never happen" you should remember the tiny electron. Things happen all the time, in everything around you, that seem unlikely they could happen.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So sensitive you little bitch.
> 
> Hey, after watching Son of God yesterday I wanted to point out it was religious people/JEWS that killed Jesus, not atheists.  A lot of good religion did for those people, huh?  Imagine what kind of pricks they would have been had they not had religion, right?  Go fuck yourself.
> 
> You guys think we need religion.  HA!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm very well aware of what happened to Jesus. I am not here to argue for Jesus or religion. You are frustrated because I won't condemn and attack Jesus and religion.
> 
> I have not said you need religion. You do need human spirituality. It ultimately doesn't matter if you disagree with that, we're never going to find out because humans will always have spirituality. And... since we will always have human spirituality, we'll probably always have religions.
> 
> I think it is good that you watch religious movies. If you get the chance, you should watch the History Channel's mini-series _The Bible_. Whenever you are watching, instead of constantly telling yourself "that could never happen" you should remember the tiny electron. Things happen all the time, in everything around you, that seem unlikely they could happen.
Click to expand...


I did watch the History Channels The Bible.  I love how the devil looked like Obama.  

I'm watching a piece right now about empty space.  Even if the earth, all the planets and the stars disappeared, empty space would still be here.  

They are explaining empty space, how it is a real thing and how you can bend it, etc.  Fascinating.


----------



## sealybobo

I just find it strange that these scientists are constantly figuring out space, time and the universe and for some reason these brilliant people don't seem to believe in god or they don't seem to be concluding that based on what they are finding that it somehow proves god exists.  Only Boss does that.  It is why I know he is full of shit.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So sensitive you little bitch.
> 
> Hey, after watching Son of God yesterday I wanted to point out it was religious people/JEWS that killed Jesus, not atheists.  A lot of good religion did for those people, huh?  Imagine what kind of pricks they would have been had they not had religion, right?  Go fuck yourself.
> 
> You guys think we need religion.  HA!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm very well aware of what happened to Jesus. I am not here to argue for Jesus or religion. You are frustrated because I won't condemn and attack Jesus and religion.
> 
> I have not said you need religion. You do need human spirituality. It ultimately doesn't matter if you disagree with that, we're never going to find out because humans will always have spirituality. And... since we will always have human spirituality, we'll probably always have religions.
> 
> I think it is good that you watch religious movies. If you get the chance, you should watch the History Channel's mini-series _The Bible_. Whenever you are watching, instead of constantly telling yourself "that could never happen" you should remember the tiny electron. Things happen all the time, in everything around you, that seem unlikely they could happen.
Click to expand...


How come all the stuff I hear scientists say on shows like the Cosmos, all the stuff they are figuring out and learning doesn't seem to be proving to them or anyone else watching that god exists?  This deep philosophical thinking you keep bringing up like love not being physical.  How come I don't hear anyone else using these theories of yours?  

But then again, nothing can prove to you that an invisible man isn't watching your back.  The smartest men in the world can't disprove that.  Maybe we can to the rest of the world but to you that invisible man is very very real no matter what so....


----------



## GISMYS

That man is a fool who says to himself, &#8220;There is no God!&#8221; Anyone who talks like that is warped and evil and cannot really be a good person at all.Psalm 14:1===Only a fool would say to himself, &#8220;There is no God.&#8221; And why does he say it? Because of his wicked heart, his dark and evil deeds. His life is corroded with sin. PSALM 53:1 == For from the creation of the world the invisible things of Him are clearly seen, being understood through the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.

21 For when they knew God, they neither glorified Him as God, nor were thankful, but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Romans 1:20-22


----------



## thanatos144

sealybobo said:


> I just find it strange that these scientists are constantly figuring out space, time and the universe and for some reason these brilliant people don't seem to believe in god or they don't seem to be concluding that based on what they are finding that it somehow proves god exists.  Only Boss does that.  It is why I know he is full of shit.



Arrogance isnt a virtue 

Tapatalk


----------



## Boss

Oh I know, it's extraordinarily fascinating. Some of the things they are discovering are quite unbelievable because they seem to defy all logic and physics that we know of. And that is my point here. Whenever you say "oh, that could never happen" you should keep this in mind... LOTS of things are happening all around you that seem like they shouldn't be able to happen. 

When you look at just the things today that we can do with the technology we've learned over the past 200 years, you can see where someone from 200 years ago might have said "oh, that's impossible, that could never happen!" Yet, here we are making it happen. Are we working miracles or did we just learn things that weren't known of 200 years ago? Now, imagine 200 years from now, what we may know how to do that today we would say "oh, that could never happen, it's not possible!" And here, we've only covered 400 years when the universe is 15 billion years old. 

WHAT IF... and I am asking you to put aside your religious prejudice and put on your imagination cap here... What if the Christian/Abrahamic incarnation of "God" was actually a visitation of an intelligent species 1 million years more advanced than our own? Perhaps immaculate conceptions, great floods, parting oceans, burning bushes, raising the dead, etc.  are not "miracles" but simply an advanced species demonstrating technology far ahead of our time? What if this same intelligence is responsible for what we call "life" and we're simply an advanced science experiment, where the intelligence intervenes from time to time in order to ensure stability and perseverance? What if carbon-based life is simply a technology pioneered by a greater life form in the universe? Do you think our species, which has only existed a couple hundred thousand years at best, is able to say "oh, that's impossible, it could never be?"


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So sensitive you little bitch.
> 
> Hey, after watching Son of God yesterday I wanted to point out it was religious people/JEWS that killed Jesus, not atheists.  A lot of good religion did for those people, huh?  Imagine what kind of pricks they would have been had they not had religion, right?  Go fuck yourself.
> 
> You guys think we need religion.  HA!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm very well aware of what happened to Jesus. I am not here to argue for Jesus or religion. You are frustrated because I won't condemn and attack Jesus and religion.
> 
> I have not said you need religion. You do need human spirituality. It ultimately doesn't matter if you disagree with that, we're never going to find out because humans will always have spirituality. And... since we will always have human spirituality, we'll probably always have religions.
> 
> I think it is good that you watch religious movies. If you get the chance, you should watch the History Channel's mini-series _The Bible_. Whenever you are watching, instead of constantly telling yourself "that could never happen" you should remember the tiny electron. Things happen all the time, in everything around you, that seem unlikely they could happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How come all the stuff I hear scientists say on shows like the Cosmos, all the stuff they are figuring out and learning doesn't seem to be proving to them or anyone else watching that god exists?  This deep philosophical thinking you keep bringing up like love not being physical.  How come I don't hear anyone else using these theories of yours?
> 
> But then again, nothing can prove to you that an invisible man isn't watching your back.  The smartest men in the world can't disprove that.  Maybe we can to the rest of the world but to you that invisible man is very very real no matter what so....
Click to expand...


It's because science is the practice of examining the physical universe. It can't examine spiritual things, it doesn't have any parameters to do so, it's beyond the ability of science. It is limited to the physical material world because that is what science is. 

I don't believe in invisible men. A man is a human being, a carbon-based life form that has material presence and existence, and can be confirmed with physical science. Spiritual energy is not detectable or observable with physical science at this time. Perhaps some day we'll unlock the secret of spiritual energy and science can explain how it works. But... like all things science has explained, it can't explain the question of why. For instance, you can't explain why math works. It just does. You can't explain why gravity works. It just does. Why do the elements and compounds have the properties they have? We don't know, they just do. We can use science to figure out how they work, we still don't know why.


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> You guys think we need religion.  HA!



???....we don't think you need religion....we're actually perfectly content with you spending eternity in Hell if that's what you choose to do......


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> Oh I know, it's extraordinarily fascinating. Some of the things they are discovering are quite unbelievable because they seem to defy all logic and physics that we know of. And that is my point here. Whenever you say "oh, that could never happen" you should keep this in mind... LOTS of things are happening all around you that seem like they shouldn't be able to happen.
> 
> When you look at just the things today that we can do with the technology we've learned over the past 200 years, you can see where someone from 200 years ago might have said "oh, that's impossible, that could never happen!" Yet, here we are making it happen. Are we working miracles or did we just learn things that weren't known of 200 years ago? Now, imagine 200 years from now, what we may know how to do that today we would say "oh, that could never happen, it's not possible!" And here, we've only covered 400 years when the universe is 15 billion years old.
> 
> WHAT IF... and I am asking you to put aside your religious prejudice and put on your imagination cap here... What if the Christian/Abrahamic incarnation of "God" was actually a visitation of an intelligent species 1 million years more advanced than our own? Perhaps immaculate conceptions, great floods, parting oceans, burning bushes, raising the dead, etc.  are not "miracles" but simply an advanced species demonstrating technology far ahead of our time? What if this same intelligence is responsible for what we call "life" and we're simply an advanced science experiment, where the intelligence intervenes from time to time in order to ensure stability and perseverance? What if carbon-based life is simply a technology pioneered by a greater life form in the universe? Do you think our species, which has only existed a couple hundred thousand years at best, is able to say "oh, that's impossible, it could never be?"



Aliens is actually one of the things us atheists say not to rule out.  They are mentioned several times in that site I keep showing you.    

Spiritual and religious experiences are not only inconsistent among individuals but are variably attributed to different gods, aliens, spirits, rituals, hallucinations, meditation etc. 

Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer (Aliens?). 

As strange as it sounds, misunderstood aliens might even be attempting to interact with us using extremely advanced technology. In fact, reality itself could be a computer simulation which we unknowingly inhabit.

Every conceivable argument, every imaginable piece of evidence for god is not without some fatal flaw or more likely explanation which precludes it from being used as definitive proof.


----------



## sealybobo

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You guys think we need religion.  HA!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ???....we don't think you need religion....we're actually perfectly content with you spending eternity in Hell if that's what you choose to do......
Click to expand...


We don't believe in hell.  That's a scare tactic you guys use when people refuse to believe your fairy tale.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Aliens is actually one of the things us atheists say not to rule out.  They are mentioned several times in that site I keep showing you.
> 
> Spiritual and religious experiences are not only inconsistent among individuals but are variably attributed to different gods, aliens, spirits, rituals, hallucinations, meditation etc.
> 
> Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer (Aliens?).
> 
> As strange as it sounds, misunderstood aliens might even be attempting to interact with us using extremely advanced technology. In fact, reality itself could be a computer simulation which we unknowingly inhabit.
> 
> Every conceivable argument, every imaginable piece of evidence for god is not without some fatal flaw or more likely explanation which *precludes it from being used as definitive proof.*



But definitive proof of what? Invisible people who live in the sky? *YOUR* concept of God? Any particular *religious* concept of God? 

The evidence that we intelligently exist, that wondrous and amazing forms of life exist in all their splendor, that the entire universe exists in all it's fascinating glory, that principles and laws work precisely and predictably, that forces of nature enable a reality to exist at all, that we have a powerful and intrinsic connection to something greater than self... ALL of this is evidence. Even the fact that your own rational mind cannot imagine there isn't something greater, like Karma. 

What I am trying to get you to understand with the alien theory is, maybe the "truth" is something between atheism and religion? Maybe there is a supreme power but it's not a deity God? Maybe this power does have influence over our domain, but it's not there to cast judgement or persecute? Maybe there was an intelligent designer but they were hardly Gods? Possible? I can't say that it's not.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aliens is actually one of the things us atheists say not to rule out.  They are mentioned several times in that site I keep showing you.
> 
> Spiritual and religious experiences are not only inconsistent among individuals but are variably attributed to different gods, aliens, spirits, rituals, hallucinations, meditation etc.
> 
> Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer (Aliens?).
> 
> As strange as it sounds, misunderstood aliens might even be attempting to interact with us using extremely advanced technology. In fact, reality itself could be a computer simulation which we unknowingly inhabit.
> 
> Every conceivable argument, every imaginable piece of evidence for god is not without some fatal flaw or more likely explanation which *precludes it from being used as definitive proof.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But definitive proof of what? Invisible people who live in the sky? *YOUR* concept of God? Any particular *religious* concept of God?
> 
> The evidence that we intelligently exist, that wondrous and amazing forms of life exist in all their splendor, that the entire universe exists in all it's fascinating glory, that principles and laws work precisely and predictably, that forces of nature enable a reality to exist at all, that we have a powerful and intrinsic connection to something greater than self... ALL of this is evidence. Even the fact that your own rational mind cannot imagine there isn't something greater, like Karma.
> 
> What I am trying to get you to understand with the alien theory is, maybe the "truth" is something between atheism and religion? Maybe there is a supreme power but it's not a deity God? Maybe this power does have influence over our domain, but it's not there to cast judgement or persecute? Maybe there was an intelligent designer but they were hardly Gods? Possible? I can't say that it's not.
Click to expand...


I am open to all possibilities Boss.  Give me evidence or your theories and I'll keep an open mind.  I certainly don't claim to have all the answers.  

But again, the more I watch religious shows or movies the more I am certain that Christianity, Muslimism and Jewdaoism are all completely made up.

I was watching Malcomb X the other day.  This black woman told him she was praying for him....and not to worry because Jesus would protect him.  LOL.  She didn't even realize he was a muslim.   

And I don't think karma points to a god either.  I do believe in karma, and I will be honest I don't know why/how or even if karma is real or random, but I do believe in it.  I believe if I go around stealing, lying, raping and murdering, even if I get away with it all, bad things will come my way.  Or maybe my friend is right.  Bad things happen to good people and good things happen to bad people.  Some very rich and very successful people are horrible people.  They live lives of luxury.  They have people that love them.  So some of them might not give a shit and so karma doesn't even enter into the equation for them.  So when they get karma or if their kids don't talk to them, is that karma or just the results of their actions?  I choose to hope that you reap what you sow.  But that doesn't mean I can't be convinced Karma isn't real either.  Remember 2 months ago I believed in god too.  I can be convinced that karma isn't real, logically.  But I will still live my life believing in Karma because like a friend said to me, "karma is real if you believe it is real"

Look at Bush.  That guy ruined the planet and he's happier than a pig in shit painting in Crawford.  

Chaney should have had a heart attack and died by now but he's living just fine.

Rush is a sonofabitch who got caught on Oxycotton after saying people on drugs should be shot.  

Lee Atwater was sorry for his politics when he got a terminal tumor.  Too late Lee.  

I can't believe any of these men aren't going to pay for their actions.  

Anyways, it doesn't matter if they pay, I don't do bad things because I think what goes around comes around.  This still doesn't prove a god exists.  We know the god(s) that religious people believe in are made up.  No one rose from the dead after 4 days (Lazarith) no one lived to over 400 years old back then, etc.  We know that's all made up stories to teach right and wrong.  You're saying that because instinctively because people have always believed (without any proof) that this is your proof something bigger than us exists.  Something that made us.  That is a possible theory.  It isn't proof, but I'll give you that I don't have an answer for that yet.  But it seems like 200 years ago religion said a bunch of things were god and they turned out to be scientifically provable things that were not god.  So the god of the gaps approach.  So I haven't been able to debunk your theory yet.  But when I do, it seems that people who believe in god just move on to another bad reason why they believe.  Mostly because they can't believe there is no god.  Pretty powerful stuff this god is.  But remember most people believe because they want to believe or because they can't fathom otherwise.  

Well it is possible that there might not be a god.  Do you give me that?


----------



## Slyhunter

I'm thinking the Indians had it right. Everything has a spirit and they all flow up to the great spirit and live an ethereal existence in the void.


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You guys think we need religion.  HA!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ???....we don't think you need religion....we're actually perfectly content with you spending eternity in Hell if that's what you choose to do......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We don't believe in hell.  That's a scare tactic you guys use when people refuse to believe your fairy tale.
Click to expand...


hey, whatever you choose to believe.....makes no difference to us......


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aliens is actually one of the things us atheists say not to rule out.  They are mentioned several times in that site I keep showing you.
> 
> Spiritual and religious experiences are not only inconsistent among individuals but are variably attributed to different gods, aliens, spirits, rituals, hallucinations, meditation etc.
> 
> Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer (Aliens?).
> 
> As strange as it sounds, misunderstood aliens might even be attempting to interact with us using extremely advanced technology. In fact, reality itself could be a computer simulation which we unknowingly inhabit.
> 
> Every conceivable argument, every imaginable piece of evidence for god is not without some fatal flaw or more likely explanation which *precludes it from being used as definitive proof.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But definitive proof of what? Invisible people who live in the sky? *YOUR* concept of God? Any particular *religious* concept of God?
> 
> The evidence that we intelligently exist, that wondrous and amazing forms of life exist in all their splendor, that the entire universe exists in all it's fascinating glory, that principles and laws work precisely and predictably, that forces of nature enable a reality to exist at all, that we have a powerful and intrinsic connection to something greater than self... ALL of this is evidence. Even the fact that your own rational mind cannot imagine there isn't something greater, like Karma.
> 
> What I am trying to get you to understand with the alien theory is, maybe the "truth" is something between atheism and religion? Maybe there is a supreme power but it's not a deity God? Maybe this power does have influence over our domain, but it's not there to cast judgement or persecute? Maybe there was an intelligent designer but they were hardly Gods? Possible? I can't say that it's not.
Click to expand...


I googled "is there any proof that god exists?" and found these answers:

You can go ahead and believe it is if you want, but you really shouldn't be going and telling other people it is, especially when a person who claims to be scared comes asking for it and you don't have a single iota of evidence to offer. 

Not only is there no proof that God exists, there're not even any good logical arguments for his existence that aren't full of logical fallacies. There's not even a good reliable definition for the word God, or rather, there are way too many definitions (but no good ones). Whatever can't be defined does not exist. 

The fact that people are so terrified of life, and the death it brings, is proof that he is invented to soften these blows of reality.

There is nothing to be afraid of. All of us die, and with no afterlife, there is nothing to fear after death. It is silly to say that you will be in a state of nothingness because nothing is nothing. If you are nothing when death becomes you, then there will be not a thought to fear. So you live your life for your life, and all you should worry about is how you can make your life the best it can be.

"Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened."
 Dr. Seuss 


There is no proof , and you shouldnt be scared of dead.

You shouldn't be scared of death, but rather you should be scared of never starting to live.

Sorry but I can't give you any proof, because there is none.

Not that I know of.
Mostly *they* will tell you, you have to believe first, then you'll have proof. Which is nonsense.

Not a single ounce. 

All the best answers are listed above, then it goes into one person who talks like you.  He says Everything that you see around you has an intent behind it and our purpose is to seek god.  I don't buy that.  Is a rats intent to seek out god?  What is the rats purpose?  So what makes us think we are so special?  Just because we are at the top of the food chain?  The more shows I watch about other animals the more I realize we are just animals.  Just because our brain is big enough to come up with the idea of a "god", does not prove a god exists.  So I think our purpose is to to seek out truth.  And until we know the truth, best answer is we just don't know yet.  

After the one guy who talks like you, it goes into bible thumper talk.  So the best answers on Yahoo were atheists, So 1 jackoff like you and the rest religious nuts.  

I was reading about the age of enlightenment.  I wanted to see how much religion fought with science.  These were the parts I found interesting:    

Developments during this period were to have a profound influence in the shaping of western civilization, as science, art, philosophy and economic development flourished in the Dutch Republic. Some key players in the Dutch Enlightenment were: Baruch Spinoza, a philosopher who played a major role in shaping the basis for the Enlightenment; Pierre Bayle, a French philosopher who advocated separation between science and religion and Adriaan Koerbagh, a scholar and critic of religion 

Attempts to reconcile science and religion resulted in a widespread rejection of prophecy, miracle and revealed religion in preference for Deism - especially by Thomas Paine in "The Age of Reason" and by Thomas Jefferson in his short Jefferson Bible - from which all supernatural aspects were removed.

Historian Keith Thomas says the Enlightenment has always been contested territory. He says that its supporters hail it as the source of everything that is progressive about the modern world. For them, it stands for freedom of thought, rational inquiry, critical thinking, religious tolerance, political liberty, scientific achievement, the pursuit of happiness, and hope for the future.  However, he adds, "its enemies accuse it of 'shallow' rationalism, naïve optimism, unrealistic universalism, and moral darkness."

Thomas points out that from the start there was a Counter-Enlightenment in which conservative and clerical defenders of traditional religion attacked materialism and skepticism as evil forces that encouraged immorality. By 1794, they pointed to the Terror during the French Revolution as confirmation of their predictions. As the Enlightenment was ending, new generations of Romantic philosophers argued that excessive dependence on reason was a mistake perpetuated by the Enlightenment, because it disregarded the powerful bonds of history, myth, faith and tradition that were necessary to hold society together.

Enlightenment was a desire for human affairs to be guided by rationality rather than by faith, superstition, or revelation; a belief in the power of human reason to change society and liberate the individual from the restraints of custom or arbitrary authority; all backed up by a world view increasingly validated by science rather than by religion or tradition.

Enlightenment scholars sought to curtail the political power of organized religion and thereby prevent another age of intolerant religious war. Spinoza determined to remove politics from contemporary and historical theology (e.g. disregarding Judaic law).  Moses Mendelssohn advised affording no political weight to any organized religion, but instead recommended that each person follow what s/he found most convincing.  A good religion based in instinctive morals and a belief in God should not theoretically need force to maintain order in its believers, and both Mendelssohn and Spinoza judged religion on its moral fruits, not the logic of its theology.

Bayle (16471706) observed that in his day, "prudent persons will always maintain an appearance of [religion]." Locke considered the consequences for mankind if there were no God and no divine law. The result would be moral anarchy. Every individual could have no law but his own will, no end but himself. He would be a god to himself, and the satisfaction of his own will the sole measure and end of all his actions.

In the Enlightenment, a person could generally believe in any non-controversial religion that had an agreeable moral code and professed faith in God, but irreligious behavior was not acceptable.

Voltaire (François-Marie Arouet) (16941778) French. Highly influential writer, historian and philosopher. He promoted Newtonian ism and denounced organized religion as pernicious.


----------



## sealybobo

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> ???....we don't think you need religion....we're actually perfectly content with you spending eternity in Hell if that's what you choose to do......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't believe in hell.  That's a scare tactic you guys use when people refuse to believe your fairy tale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> hey, whatever you choose to believe.....makes no difference to us......
Click to expand...


Actually it does seem to make a difference to you guys.  Did you see that athiest girl who wanted GOD taken down off the wall in her school?  You should have seen the freaks that got upset.  What do they care?  It should make no difference to them but it certainly does.  

So I hope you are telling the truth.  You keep that story to yourself because it really makes you look like a stupid fucking moron on these boards.  Maybe your stupid neighbors and members of your church buy that bullshit down in Mayberry but this "you'll go to hell" shit only makes you sound like a stupid baby who knows deep down she/he has zero evidence and you just can't fucking believe that your pastor swallowed the same like your parents swallowed and you swallowed the same like.  Your family has been swallowing that lie for thousands of years.  Dummy.


----------



## Boss

> Not only is there no proof that God exists, there're not even any good logical arguments for his existence that aren't full of logical fallacies.



This statement is only true if you get to pre-determine what the parameters are for "God." We can see in just this one sentence, several presuppositions that do not have to apply for God. 1.) There is no way to physically "prove" spiritual existence. 2. God doesn't have to conform to logical arguments or be a "he." 3. Proof and evidence are subjective terms, the absence of which, does not necessarily relate to truth. 

Now, I think I presented some compelling evidence... I never said I "proved" anything, God can't be proven.  Our DNA coding as humans is more complex than the coding operating the machine you are typing and reading these posts on. I've still heard no "logical" explanation for electrons disappearing and re-appearing or being in two places at the same time, and this happens at a molecular level in everything we perceive as matter. I've heard no "logical" explanation for why there is no mass inside a black hole, yet the gravitational forces are so strong that light can't escape. 

I know how much you adore the Age of Enlightenment and Science... So let me close with a true story from Sir Isaac Newton, Father of the Enlightenment and modern Science... 

Newton was visited by an Atheist colleague at Cambridge. His guest commented on a model of the solar system on Newton's shelf. "Wow, this is beautiful, did you make it?" 
Newton replied, "No one made it!" 
The guest looked somewhat puzzled at Newton and said, "But of course someone must have made this!"
Newton responded, "You see the entire universe out there and believe it is possible that it wasn't made, yet this tiny material object, you can't imagine it wasn't made?"


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> Not only is there no proof that God exists, there're not even any good logical arguments for his existence that aren't full of logical fallacies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> get to pre-determine what the parameters are for "God."
> 
> There is no way to physically "prove" spiritual existence.
> 
> God doesn't have to conform to logical arguments or be a "he." 3.
> 
> Proof and evidence are subjective terms, the absence of which, does not necessarily relate to truth.
> 
> I know how much you adore the Age of Enlightenment and Science... So let me close with a true story from Sir Isaac Newton, Father of the Enlightenment and modern Science...
> 
> Newton was visited by an Atheist colleague at Cambridge. His guest commented on a model of the universe on Newton's shelf. "Wow, this is beautiful, did you make it?"
> Newton replied, "No one made it!"
> The guest looked somewhat puzzled at Newton and said, "But of course someone must have made this!"
> Newton responded, "You see the entire universe out there and believe it is possible that it wasn't made, yet this tiny material object, you can't imagine it wasn't made?"
Click to expand...


Yes we do get to define what god is.  If you can't define it, how are you so sure of it?  

Thank you for admitting it.  There is no way to prove god exists.  Finally.  I see you added "physically" in the sentence.  Do you plan on proving it to me EMOTIONALLY?  We already understand humans are superstitious and believe because they want to believe.  

And stop saying we always believed.  Bullshit.  At one point early in our history someone made it up.  So what?  That only shows how primitive the idea is.

No boss, YOU don't have to conform to logical arguments.  Thanks for finally admitting all this.

Proof:  evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth. 

Subjective:  influenced by personal feelings or opinions

Sir Isaac Newton, one of historys greatest scientists, was not only intensely religious but also believed in alchemical transmutation. Alchemy is, however, fully incorrect given our modern understanding of chemistry, the atom and nucleosynthysis.

The fact that an intelligent person holds an irrational belief is simply evidence that our brains are able to compartmentalise world-views and models from one another, usually in order to maintain a state of ignorant bliss and escape the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.


----------



## sealybobo

koshergrl said:


> Right on cue.



You guys do realize each day us atheists wake up to see what the god fearing russians, jews and muslims are doing to each other.  You do realize it isn't atheists lobbying bombs into Israel, right?  Those bombs are coming from god fearing people.  

Maybe us atheists should pray to god that he strikes all of you down and leave the planet to us.  No doubt the planet will be much better off with scientists leading the way not capitalist pigs controlling ignorant religious fools.  

And what will the christian USA do to help?  Will we send food and aid or will we bomb Hamas for the Jews because the bible says defend the "chosen people".


----------



## sealybobo

Slyhunter said:


> I'm thinking the Indians had it right. Everything has a spirit and they all flow up to the great spirit and live an ethereal existence in the void.



By boss' logic, because they came up with it when they were very primitive and unevolved and uneducated, that means it must be true.

I wonder, if this was the truth, how did we lose the truth and come up with 100 different organized religions?  If boss is right and man is so smart, how come we have a million different "truths".  I think its because primitive man wasn't that smart and was superstitious, including the indians.  

But that is interesting for sure that the indians believed "something" too.  No englishman told them about god.  But all that proves is we are all very simliar creatures.  We all have wild imaginations.  We all had a healthy fear of the unknown when we were cavemen and we came up with god.

Remember the boogyman?  How long did it take to convince yourself he wasn't under your bed or in your closet?  

Anyways, us Atheists get blamed for the French Revolution and Stalin, so every war you guys fight, every war the jews and muslims fight, puts you closer and closer to topping us for being the most murderous.  I say you have long since passed us on that, but you guys claim we have murdered more, so assuming you are right which you are not, everytime a jew kills a muslim or a muslim kills a jew or a christian kills a muslim, that puts you closer and closer to our record, which I say we don't even hold, but whatever.  I just enjoy watching religious people murder because each time it proves me right.  I myself have never murdered anyone.  I'm an atheist.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Not only is there no proof that God exists, there're not even any good logical arguments for his existence that aren't full of logical fallacies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This statement is only true if you get to pre-determine what the parameters are for "God." We can see in just this one sentence, several presuppositions that do not have to apply for God. 1.) There is no way to physically "prove" spiritual existence. 2. God doesn't have to conform to logical arguments or be a "he." 3. Proof and evidence are subjective terms, the absence of which, does not necessarily relate to truth.
> 
> Now, I think I presented some compelling evidence... I never said I "proved" anything, God can't be proven.  Our DNA coding as humans is more complex than the coding operating the machine you are typing and reading these posts on. I've still heard no "logical" explanation for electrons disappearing and re-appearing or being in two places at the same time, and this happens at a molecular level in everything we perceive as matter. I've heard no "logical" explanation for why there is no mass inside a black hole, yet the gravitational forces are so strong that light can't escape.
> 
> I know how much you adore the Age of Enlightenment and Science... So let me close with a true story from Sir Isaac Newton, Father of the Enlightenment and modern Science...
> 
> Newton was visited by an Atheist colleague at Cambridge. His guest commented on a model of the universe on Newton's shelf. "Wow, this is beautiful, did you make it?"
> Newton replied, "No one made it!"
> The guest looked somewhat puzzled at Newton and said, "But of course someone must have made this!"
> Newton responded, "You see the entire universe out there and believe it is possible that it wasn't made, yet this tiny material object, you can't imagine it wasn't made?"
Click to expand...


Aren't black holes supposed to be very large amounts of mass in an extremely small, perhaps infinitely small, volume of space?


----------



## Slyhunter

sealybobo said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right on cue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You guys do realize each day us atheists wake up to see what the god fearing russians, jews and muslims are doing to each other.  You do realize it isn't atheists lobbying bombs into Israel, right?  Those bombs are coming from god fearing people.
> 
> Maybe us atheists should pray to god that he strikes all of you down and leave the planet to us.  No doubt the planet will be much better off with scientists leading the way not capitalist pigs controlling ignorant religious fools.
> 
> And what will the christian USA do to help?  Will we send food and aid or will we bomb Hamas for the Jews because the bible says defend the "chosen people".
Click to expand...


I have to agree with you.
Religion has caused more problems than it has solved.
And that sucks.


----------



## Slyhunter

When I was a kid I believed in Tooth Fairies. I grew up and learned better.
When I was a kid I believe in Santa Clause. I grew up and learned better.
What makes you think this Christian God is any different?
What makes him real and the God of the Muslims a lie, or the God of the Talmud, or the Buddhist bullshit. There are a lot of religions that had I been born into it I would probably stupidly be a believer until I out grew it.


----------



## thanatos144

Slyhunter said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right on cue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You guys do realize each day us atheists wake up to see what the god fearing russians, jews and muslims are doing to each other.  You do realize it isn't atheists lobbying bombs into Israel, right?  Those bombs are coming from god fearing people.
> 
> Maybe us atheists should pray to god that he strikes all of you down and leave the planet to us.  No doubt the planet will be much better off with scientists leading the way not capitalist pigs controlling ignorant religious fools.
> 
> And what will the christian USA do to help?  Will we send food and aid or will we bomb Hamas for the Jews because the bible says defend the "chosen people".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have to agree with you.
> Religion has caused more problems than it has solved.
> And that sucks.
Click to expand...


Bullshit. 

Tapatalk


----------



## HUGGY

Slyhunter said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right on cue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You guys do realize each day us atheists wake up to see what the god fearing russians, jews and muslims are doing to each other.  You do realize it isn't atheists lobbying bombs into Israel, right?  Those bombs are coming from god fearing people.
> 
> Maybe us atheists should pray to god that he strikes all of you down and leave the planet to us.  No doubt the planet will be much better off with scientists leading the way not capitalist pigs controlling ignorant religious fools.
> 
> And what will the christian USA do to help?  Will we send food and aid or will we bomb Hamas for the Jews because the bible says defend the "chosen people".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have to agree with you.
> Religion has caused more problems than it has solved.
> And that sucks.
Click to expand...


Defending a lie is always problematic.


----------



## thanatos144

HUGGY said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You guys do realize each day us atheists wake up to see what the god fearing russians, jews and muslims are doing to each other.  You do realize it isn't atheists lobbying bombs into Israel, right?  Those bombs are coming from god fearing people.
> 
> Maybe us atheists should pray to god that he strikes all of you down and leave the planet to us.  No doubt the planet will be much better off with scientists leading the way not capitalist pigs controlling ignorant religious fools.
> 
> And what will the christian USA do to help?  Will we send food and aid or will we bomb Hamas for the Jews because the bible says defend the "chosen people".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have to agree with you.
> Religion has caused more problems than it has solved.
> And that sucks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Defending a lie is always problematic.
Click to expand...


What lie ? 

Tapatalk


----------



## PostmodernProph

Slyhunter said:


> When I was a kid I believed in Tooth Fairies. I grew up and learned better.
> When I was a kid I believe in Santa Clause. I grew up and learned better.
> What makes you think this Christian God is any different?
> What makes him real and the God of the Muslims a lie, or the God of the Talmud, or the Buddhist bullshit. There are a lot of religions that had I been born into it I would probably stupidly be a believer until I out grew it.



Santa Claus never brought my children anything....I know, because I had the receipt for all the presents they ever received.....


----------



## sealybobo

thanatos144 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to agree with you.
> Religion has caused more problems than it has solved.
> And that sucks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Defending a lie is always problematic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What lie ?
> 
> Tapatalk
Click to expand...


The lies that you call the old or new testaments.  Complete utter bullshit.

And, each day I wake up to see how many religious jews the muslims have killed or how many muslims the religious jews have killed.  Either way it is religion killing other religions.  No good.  And it isn't like Christians are innocent of this.

In fact, I heard that a few decades ago America was guilty of shooting down an Iranian passenger plane.  So while we are shocked at what the Russians are doing, realize we aren't much better/different.  

We had the balls to cry foul when Russia invaded Ukraine but we invaded Iraq?  See, religion makes people really stupid and ignorant.  We can't even see we are hypocrites because of religion.  That's what you get when you throw out logic and reason.

Anyone who believes in a fairy tale is a fucking retard and probably really easily manipulated.


----------



## BreezeWood

eventually, those religions will fall to the wayside - and a renewed understanding for the true Almighty will continue in its course. -

till either the Triumph of Good over Evil or of Evil over Good is concluded in finality.

.


----------



## sealybobo

BreezeWood said:


> eventually, those religions will fall to the wayside - and a renewed understanding for the true Almighty will continue in its course. -
> 
> till either the Triumph of Good over Evil or of Evil over Good is concluded in finality.
> 
> .



Maybe one day religion won't claim an impossible story is true.  Maybe it won't claim that believing in an imaginary man or their impossible stories is the only way to heaven.  

Hell, I'd be ok if people worshipped the sun.  At least I can see the sun and I know without it I'm dead.  The sun is worthy of worship.

IN FACT, we use to worship the sun and not a made up god.  So seems we are going backwards as far as our beliefs go.


----------



## Slyhunter

thanatos144 said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You guys do realize each day us atheists wake up to see what the god fearing russians, jews and muslims are doing to each other.  You do realize it isn't atheists lobbying bombs into Israel, right?  Those bombs are coming from god fearing people.
> 
> Maybe us atheists should pray to god that he strikes all of you down and leave the planet to us.  No doubt the planet will be much better off with scientists leading the way not capitalist pigs controlling ignorant religious fools.
> 
> And what will the christian USA do to help?  Will we send food and aid or will we bomb Hamas for the Jews because the bible says defend the "chosen people".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have to agree with you.
> Religion has caused more problems than it has solved.
> And that sucks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Your reply should've had a comma not a period in it where you go on and explain why my statement was bullshit.


----------



## sealybobo

Slyhunter said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to agree with you.
> Religion has caused more problems than it has solved.
> And that sucks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your reply should've had a comma not a period in it where you go on and explain why my statement was bullshit.
Click to expand...


Because he's a stupid ignorant cock sucker.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not only is there no proof that God exists, there're not even any good logical arguments for his existence that aren't full of logical fallacies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This statement is only true if you get to pre-determine what the parameters are for "God."
> 
> There is no way to physically "prove" spiritual existence.
> 
> God doesn't have to conform to logical arguments or be a "he." 3.
> 
> Proof and evidence are subjective terms, the absence of which, does not necessarily relate to truth.
> 
> I know how much you adore the Age of Enlightenment and Science... So let me close with a true story from Sir Isaac Newton, Father of the Enlightenment and modern Science...
> 
> Newton was visited by an Atheist colleague at Cambridge. His guest commented on a model of the universe on Newton's shelf. "Wow, this is beautiful, did you make it?"
> Newton replied, "No one made it!"
> The guest looked somewhat puzzled at Newton and said, "But of course someone must have made this!"
> Newton responded, "You see the entire universe out there and believe it is possible that it wasn't made, yet this tiny material object, you can't imagine it wasn't made?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes we do get to define what god is.  If you can't define it, how are you so sure of it?
Click to expand...


I didn't say you couldn't define God. I said, you can't say God doesn't exist unless you have made a predetermination of what God is. You don't have any evidence of what God is or isn't, so any presupposition is invalid. 



> Thank you for admitting it.  There is no way to prove god exists.  Finally.  I see you added "physically" in the sentence.  Do you plan on proving it to me EMOTIONALLY?  We already understand humans are superstitious and believe because they want to believe.



I've never NOT included "physically" in the sentence. I've repeatedly said that I can't prove God to you. Why do you keep insisting that I must prove God to you in order for God to exist? 



> And stop saying we always believed.  Bullshit.  At one point early in our history someone made it up.  So what?  That only shows how primitive the idea is.



Where is the evidence to support this? You need hard evidence, not someone's speculations. For instance, you need to show where humans existed for some period before they "invented" spirituality. There is no such evidence. Every archeological finding shows primitive man was spiritual, and this attribute has always existed. I don't understand why we keep having to go over this same point again and again. 



> No boss, YOU don't have to conform to logical arguments.  Thanks for finally admitting all this.



Again, you are incoherent. I never said that I didn't have to conform to logical arguments. I said God doesn't have to conform to logical arguments. 



> Proof:  evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce *belief* in its truth.
> 
> Subjective:  influenced by personal feelings or opinions



Correct. Proof and evidence are subjective. I can say I have proof and evidence we were visited by aliens, but you may not see my proof and evidence as legitimate. Why are you having a hard time grasping this? 



> Sir Isaac Newton, one of historys greatest scientists, was not only intensely religious but also believed in alchemical transmutation. Alchemy is, however, fully incorrect given our modern understanding of chemistry, the atom and nucleosynthysis.
> 
> The fact that an intelligent person holds an irrational belief is simply evidence that our brains are able to compartmentalise world-views and models from one another, usually in order to maintain a state of ignorant bliss and escape the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.



I simply gave you a story from Isaac Newton.


----------



## Slyhunter

I am God.


----------



## Montrovant

sealybobo said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Defending a lie is always problematic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What lie ?
> 
> Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The lies that you call the old or new testaments.  Complete utter bullshit.
> 
> And, each day I wake up to see how many religious jews the muslims have killed or how many muslims the religious jews have killed.  Either way it is religion killing other religions.  No good.  And it isn't like Christians are innocent of this.
> 
> In fact, I heard that a few decades ago America was guilty of shooting down an Iranian passenger plane.  So while we are shocked at what the Russians are doing, realize we aren't much better/different.
> 
> We had the balls to cry foul when Russia invaded Ukraine but we invaded Iraq?  See, religion makes people really stupid and ignorant.  We can't even see we are hypocrites because of religion.  That's what you get when you throw out logic and reason.
> 
> Anyone who believes in a fairy tale is a fucking retard and probably really easily manipulated.
Click to expand...


How is religion to blame for the invasion of Iraq?  I would consider that politics well before religion.


----------



## thanatos144

Slyhunter said:


> I am God.



Doubtful 

Tapatalk


----------



## HUGGY

Slyhunter said:


> I am God.



Congratulations on your recent promotion!...


----------



## Slyhunter

thanatos144 said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doubtful
> 
> Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Prove I'm not.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the evidence to support this? You need hard evidence, not someone's speculations. For instance, you need to show where humans existed for some period before they "invented" spirituality. There is no such evidence. Every archeological finding shows primitive man was spiritual, and this attribute has always existed. I don't understand why we keep having to go over this same point again and again.
> 
> :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They raised 1000 atheist babies and none of them came up with god.  Some of them were afraid of the boogy man but someone had to tell them about the boogy man.  Turns out they talked about it on Scooby Doo.  They also heard about Santa at school and the parents didn't want the 1000 kids to spoil the lie for other children who are in the process of being programmed and believe it or not, none of them made the leap from Santa to God.
> 
> Then they told all 1000 of them when they turned 18 about god.  How many do you think bought it at the age of 18?  Believe it or not, more than I would have expected.  People are still very innocent, gullible, naive, impressionable at the age of 18 so more than 50% fell for it but the numbers weren't as high as when you brainwash someone from a very young age.
> 
> So since we don't come out of our moms poontangs instinctively knowing about god, it is deduced that some one person must have come up with the concept and spread it around.  All other possibilities are highly unlikely.  And there is research that shows all animals have a healthy fear of the unknown and our human brains have a big imagination and we can come up with some pretty wacky stuff like boogy men, witches, ghosts and gods.
> 
> We have believed in the boogy man since the beginning of man.  That's a fact.  A healthy fear of the unknown.  It kept us alive.  So by your thinking, the boogy man must be real because we have always believed.
> 
> Anyways, I would like to know how many people you guys think atheists have killed in the history of man and how many you guys have killed.  I want to see when you guys pass us.  If you don't at least give us the numbers you believe to be true, we'll never get to say that one day religious people have passed atheists when it comes to murder/death/kill.  Every day a jew kills a muslim or visa versa you get closer to our supposed number.
> 
> Which I deny even is true by the way.  You guys have murdered way more than us, but for fun, let me know what our number is and what your number is.  Because in the last 100 years you guys have murdered probably millions to our 10 maybe?
Click to expand...


----------



## HUGGY

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the evidence to support this? You need hard evidence, not someone's speculations. For instance, you need to show where humans existed for some period before they "invented" spirituality. There is no such evidence. Every archeological finding shows primitive man was spiritual, and this attribute has always existed. I don't understand why we keep having to go over this same point again and again.
> 
> :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They raised 1000 atheist babies and none of them came up with god.  Some of them were afraid of the boogy man but someone had to tell them about the boogy man.  Turns out they talked about it on Scooby Doo.  They also heard about Santa at school and the parents didn't want the 1000 kids to spoil the lie for other children who are in the process of being programmed and believe it or not, none of them made the leap from Santa to God.
> 
> Then they told all 1000 of them when they turned 18 about god.  How many do you think bought it at the age of 18?  Believe it or not, more than I would have expected.  People are still very innocent, gullible, naive, impressionable at the age of 18 so more than 50% fell for it but the numbers weren't as high as when you brainwash someone from a very young age.
> 
> So since we don't come out of our moms poontangs instinctively knowing about god, it is deduced that some one person must have come up with the concept and spread it around.  All other possibilities are highly unlikely.  And there is research that shows all animals have a healthy fear of the unknown and our human brains have a big imagination and we can come up with some pretty wacky stuff like boogy men, witches, ghosts and gods.
> 
> We have believed in the boogy man since the beginning of man.  That's a fact.  A healthy fear of the unknown.  It kept us alive.  So by your thinking, the boogy man must be real because we have always believed.
> 
> Anyways, I would like to know how many people you guys think atheists have killed in the history of man and how many you guys have killed.  I want to see when you guys pass us.  If you don't at least give us the numbers you believe to be true, we'll never get to say that one day religious people have passed atheists when it comes to murder/death/kill.  Every day a jew kills a muslim or visa versa you get closer to our supposed number.
> 
> Which I deny even is true by the way.  You guys have murdered way more than us, but for fun, let me know what our number is and what your number is.  Because in the last 100 years you guys have murdered probably millions to our 10 maybe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm gonna write a book that states clearly that God has given me Mauii.
> 
> That way I can go to Hawaii and kill all of the interloping residents of MY HOMELAND and take possession of that island because "It is written".
> 
> I wouldn't naturally believe in something as rediculous as a god... but ...  If owning an island paradise is thrown into the pot I will gladly change course and believe in god.
> 
> If god hands me over Mauii all you athiests can kiss my ass !!!!!
Click to expand...


----------



## sealybobo

Montrovant said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What lie ?
> 
> Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The lies that you call the old or new testaments.  Complete utter bullshit.
> 
> And, each day I wake up to see how many religious jews the muslims have killed or how many muslims the religious jews have killed.  Either way it is religion killing other religions.  No good.  And it isn't like Christians are innocent of this.
> 
> In fact, I heard that a few decades ago America was guilty of shooting down an Iranian passenger plane.  So while we are shocked at what the Russians are doing, realize we aren't much better/different.
> 
> We had the balls to cry foul when Russia invaded Ukraine but we invaded Iraq?  See, religion makes people really stupid and ignorant.  We can't even see we are hypocrites because of religion.  That's what you get when you throw out logic and reason.
> 
> Anyone who believes in a fairy tale is a fucking retard and probably really easily manipulated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is religion to blame for the invasion of Iraq?  I would consider that politics well before religion.
Click to expand...


Are you kidding me?  You don't see how quickly all the kids in the bible belt enlisted after 9-11 to go kill arabs?  You don't see how Bush the Christian played that card?  Wow!


----------



## Montrovant

sealybobo said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The lies that you call the old or new testaments.  Complete utter bullshit.
> 
> And, each day I wake up to see how many religious jews the muslims have killed or how many muslims the religious jews have killed.  Either way it is religion killing other religions.  No good.  And it isn't like Christians are innocent of this.
> 
> In fact, I heard that a few decades ago America was guilty of shooting down an Iranian passenger plane.  So while we are shocked at what the Russians are doing, realize we aren't much better/different.
> 
> We had the balls to cry foul when Russia invaded Ukraine but we invaded Iraq?  See, religion makes people really stupid and ignorant.  We can't even see we are hypocrites because of religion.  That's what you get when you throw out logic and reason.
> 
> Anyone who believes in a fairy tale is a fucking retard and probably really easily manipulated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is religion to blame for the invasion of Iraq?  I would consider that politics well before religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you kidding me?  You don't see how quickly all the kids in the bible belt enlisted after 9-11 to go kill arabs?  You don't see how Bush the Christian played that card?  Wow!
Click to expand...


What I see is that the invasion had pretty strong support from all over the country.  I have no idea how many enlisted from various regions, do you have any stats about that or are you just making things up?

All presidents play the 'Christian card'.  You've mentioned yourself that professing Christian faith is almost a prerequisite to be president.

I think the invasion of Iraq had far, far, far more to do with politics than religion.  Even if you blame it on a desire for oil, it's still far more about politics than religion.

You seem to have a strong need to find religion to blame for everything you can, particularly Christianity.  While I've got no problems with finding fault in Christianity, blaming the religion for things it is not responsible for is just silly.


----------



## thanatos144

sealybobo said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The lies that you call the old or new testaments.  Complete utter bullshit.
> 
> And, each day I wake up to see how many religious jews the muslims have killed or how many muslims the religious jews have killed.  Either way it is religion killing other religions.  No good.  And it isn't like Christians are innocent of this.
> 
> In fact, I heard that a few decades ago America was guilty of shooting down an Iranian passenger plane.  So while we are shocked at what the Russians are doing, realize we aren't much better/different.
> 
> We had the balls to cry foul when Russia invaded Ukraine but we invaded Iraq?  See, religion makes people really stupid and ignorant.  We can't even see we are hypocrites because of religion.  That's what you get when you throw out logic and reason.
> 
> Anyone who believes in a fairy tale is a fucking retard and probably really easily manipulated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is religion to blame for the invasion of Iraq?  I would consider that politics well before religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you kidding me?  You don't see how quickly all the kids in the bible belt enlisted after 9-11 to go kill arabs?  You don't see how Bush the Christian played that card?  Wow!
Click to expand...

Thats called patriotism you jerkoff. 


Tapatalk


----------



## thanatos144

Slyhunter said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doubtful
> 
> Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove I'm not.
Click to expand...


Easy God isnt a petty dick 

Tapatalk


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the evidence to support this? You need hard evidence, not someone's speculations. For instance, you need to show where humans existed for some period before they "invented" spirituality. There is no such evidence. Every archeological finding shows primitive man was spiritual, and this attribute has always existed. I don't understand why we keep having to go over this same point again and again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They raised 1000 atheist babies and none of them came up with god.  Some of them were afraid of the boogy man but someone had to tell them about the boogy man.  Turns out they talked about it on Scooby Doo.  They also heard about Santa at school and the parents didn't want the 1000 kids to spoil the lie for other children who are in the process of being programmed and believe it or not, none of them made the leap from Santa to God.
> 
> Then they told all 1000 of them when they turned 18 about god.  How many do you think bought it at the age of 18?  Believe it or not, more than I would have expected.  People are still very innocent, gullible, naive, impressionable at the age of 18 so more than 50% fell for it but the numbers weren't as high as when you brainwash someone from a very young age.
> 
> So since we don't come out of our moms poontangs instinctively knowing about god, it is deduced that some one person must have come up with the concept and spread it around.  All other possibilities are highly unlikely.  And there is research that shows all animals have a healthy fear of the unknown and our human brains have a big imagination and we can come up with some pretty wacky stuff like boogy men, witches, ghosts and gods.
> 
> We have believed in the boogy man since the beginning of man.  That's a fact.  A healthy fear of the unknown.  It kept us alive.  So by your thinking, the boogy man must be real because we have always believed.
> 
> Anyways, I would like to know how many people you guys think atheists have killed in the history of man and how many you guys have killed.  I want to see when you guys pass us.  If you don't at least give us the numbers you believe to be true, we'll never get to say that one day religious people have passed atheists when it comes to murder/death/kill.  Every day a jew kills a muslim or visa versa you get closer to our supposed number.
> 
> Which I deny even is true by the way.  You guys have murdered way more than us, but for fun, let me know what our number is and what your number is.  Because in the last 100 years you guys have murdered probably millions to our 10 maybe?
Click to expand...


So...... When are you going to provide evidence that humans invented spirituality? 

In the last century, Atheists have killed at least 150 million, and that is just the Top 3 Atheist dictators... Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. But let's not get sidetracked, I am interested in your evidence that humans invented spirituality.. you've been claiming it, I want to see the evidence to support your claim.


----------



## sealybobo

Montrovant said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is religion to blame for the invasion of Iraq?  I would consider that politics well before religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you kidding me?  You don't see how quickly all the kids in the bible belt enlisted after 9-11 to go kill arabs?  You don't see how Bush the Christian played that card?  Wow!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I see is that the invasion had pretty strong support from all over the country.  I have no idea how many enlisted from various regions, do you have any stats about that or are you just making things up?
> 
> All presidents play the 'Christian card'.  You've mentioned yourself that professing Christian faith is almost a prerequisite to be president.
> 
> I think the invasion of Iraq had far, far, far more to do with politics than religion.  Even if you blame it on a desire for oil, it's still far more about politics than religion.
> 
> You seem to have a strong need to find religion to blame for everything you can, particularly Christianity.  While I've got no problems with finding fault in Christianity, blaming the religion for things it is not responsible for is just silly.
Click to expand...


I just like pointing out it is a religious society that is dumb enough to be lied into Iraq, and yes they played the "christian" card.  If you recall what did Bush call them?  Radical Islam???  What a dick.  Do you know how many stupid Americans were calling Muslim Americans "radical islam"?  I had to point out to them that Muslim Americans aren't the same thing as Al Queda.  Do you also notice we never invade other christian nations?  Only Muslim nations.  So while politics might be more at play, yes I believe religion plays a role too.

I stopped arguing politics as soon as I realized there was no god.  If poor and middle class republicans can be conned into believing an invisible man exists, and that the GOP is the religious party, you don't waste your time arguing about abortion or gays first.  You attack the source of the problem, which is religion.  Without it people mind their own business and start voting for logical things like fair taxation and workers rights.  Right now they ignore what they should be focusing on and instead worry about butt sex.  Why?  Religion.  Who gives a fuck about butt sex?


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the evidence to support this? You need hard evidence, not someone's speculations. For instance, you need to show where humans existed for some period before they "invented" spirituality. There is no such evidence. Every archeological finding shows primitive man was spiritual, and this attribute has always existed. I don't understand why we keep having to go over this same point again and again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They raised 1000 atheist babies and none of them came up with god.  Some of them were afraid of the boogy man but someone had to tell them about the boogy man.  Turns out they talked about it on Scooby Doo.  They also heard about Santa at school and the parents didn't want the 1000 kids to spoil the lie for other children who are in the process of being programmed and believe it or not, none of them made the leap from Santa to God.
> 
> Then they told all 1000 of them when they turned 18 about god.  How many do you think bought it at the age of 18?  Believe it or not, more than I would have expected.  People are still very innocent, gullible, naive, impressionable at the age of 18 so more than 50% fell for it but the numbers weren't as high as when you brainwash someone from a very young age.
> 
> So since we don't come out of our moms poontangs instinctively knowing about god, it is deduced that some one person must have come up with the concept and spread it around.  All other possibilities are highly unlikely.  And there is research that shows all animals have a healthy fear of the unknown and our human brains have a big imagination and we can come up with some pretty wacky stuff like boogy men, witches, ghosts and gods.
> 
> We have believed in the boogy man since the beginning of man.  That's a fact.  A healthy fear of the unknown.  It kept us alive.  So by your thinking, the boogy man must be real because we have always believed.
> 
> Anyways, I would like to know how many people you guys think atheists have killed in the history of man and how many you guys have killed.  I want to see when you guys pass us.  If you don't at least give us the numbers you believe to be true, we'll never get to say that one day religious people have passed atheists when it comes to murder/death/kill.  Every day a jew kills a muslim or visa versa you get closer to our supposed number.
> 
> Which I deny even is true by the way.  You guys have murdered way more than us, but for fun, let me know what our number is and what your number is.  Because in the last 100 years you guys have murdered probably millions to our 10 maybe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So...... When are you going to provide evidence that humans invented spirituality?
> 
> In the last century, Atheists have killed at least 150 million, and that is just the Top 3 Atheist dictators... Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. But let's not get sidetracked, I am interested in your evidence that humans invented spirituality.. you've been claiming it, I want to see the evidence to support your claim.
Click to expand...


Well round this up (for the sake of liberals) and say 6 million deaths caused by Christians. 

That's just christians alone.  Now add up the muslims and jews.

Then he says 
The deaths caused by non-Christians  approximately 90 MILLION! And this is actually a conservative number.

But he's counting Muslim murder.  And he's not even counting jewish murder/death/kills.

I'm not saying Christianity is the leading killer of man, I'm saying religion in general is. 

So how good is religion?  Not very if you ask me.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Well round this up (for the sake of liberals) and say 6 million deaths caused by Christians.
> 
> That's just christians alone.  Now add up the muslims and jews.
> 
> Then he says
> The deaths caused by non-Christians  approximately 90 MILLION! And this is actually a conservative number.
> 
> But he's counting Muslim murder.  And he's not even counting jewish murder/death/kills.
> 
> I'm not saying Christianity is the leading killer of man, I'm saying religion in general is.
> 
> So how good is religion?  Not very if you ask me.



What the hell are you talking about? No one has been killed in the name of Christianity in the past century, as far as I know. Now Muslims do kill a lot of people in the name of Allah, and I'm sure that adds up to a significant number over time, but your Atheist number is at least 150 million. I don't think even the Muslims can come close to that. 

And I guess we're going to abandon your silly argument about humans inventing spirituality for now, huh?


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> I just like pointing out it is a religious society that is dumb enough to be lied into Iraq, and yes they played the "christian" card.



Why do you keep contradicting your own arguments? I post something from Isaac Newton and you pontificate some cut-n-paste about how intelligence of the individual is not relevant to their religious beliefs... next thing you know, here you are posting about them ignorant christians. Which one is it? You can't have this both ways, moron.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just like pointing out it is a religious society that is dumb enough to be lied into Iraq, and yes they played the "christian" card.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you keep contradicting your own arguments? I post something from Isaac Newton and you pontificate some cut-n-paste about how intelligence of the individual is not relevant to their religious beliefs... next thing you know, here you are posting about them ignorant christians. Which one is it? You can't have this both ways, moron.
Click to expand...


Not to agree with sealy here, but ignorance and stupidity are not the same thing.


----------



## Montrovant

sealybobo said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you kidding me?  You don't see how quickly all the kids in the bible belt enlisted after 9-11 to go kill arabs?  You don't see how Bush the Christian played that card?  Wow!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I see is that the invasion had pretty strong support from all over the country.  I have no idea how many enlisted from various regions, do you have any stats about that or are you just making things up?
> 
> All presidents play the 'Christian card'.  You've mentioned yourself that professing Christian faith is almost a prerequisite to be president.
> 
> I think the invasion of Iraq had far, far, far more to do with politics than religion.  Even if you blame it on a desire for oil, it's still far more about politics than religion.
> 
> You seem to have a strong need to find religion to blame for everything you can, particularly Christianity.  While I've got no problems with finding fault in Christianity, blaming the religion for things it is not responsible for is just silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just like pointing out it is a religious society that is dumb enough to be lied into Iraq, and yes they played the "christian" card.  If you recall what did Bush call them?  Radical Islam???  What a dick.  Do you know how many stupid Americans were calling Muslim Americans "radical islam"?  I had to point out to them that Muslim Americans aren't the same thing as Al Queda.  Do you also notice we never invade other christian nations?  Only Muslim nations.  So while politics might be more at play, yes I believe religion plays a role too.
> 
> I stopped arguing politics as soon as I realized there was no god.  If poor and middle class republicans can be conned into believing an invisible man exists, and that the GOP is the religious party, you don't waste your time arguing about abortion or gays first.  You attack the source of the problem, which is religion.  Without it people mind their own business and start voting for logical things like fair taxation and workers rights.  Right now they ignore what they should be focusing on and instead worry about butt sex.  Why?  Religion.  Who gives a fuck about butt sex?
Click to expand...


Do you notice we never invade any European or majority-white nations?  Maybe race is the big factor, huh?

You are drawing conclusions about religion being the main motivation that are, I think, completely erroneous.  Sure, religion may play a part, but I don't think it's close to the biggest reason for the invasion of Iraq or any other country in recent years.

Bush called who radical Islam?  You're not particularly clear there.  Did he call all Muslim Americans radical Islam?

You say you stopped arguing politics, but you are on a political forum, you've argued politics in this thread, and you're doing it in that very post.  You haven't done anything like stop arguing politics.

And while there are sure to be some correlations between religious belief and political belief, I doubt they are anything close to universal.  People of all political affiliation are believers, people of all political affiliation are atheists.  Do you think there are no atheist Republicans?  No Christian Democrats or Libertarians or Independents?

You assume too much about people based solely on their religious beliefs, especially considering you don't seem to take the depth or type of beliefs into much account.


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just like pointing out it is a religious society that is dumb enough to be lied into Iraq, and yes they played the "christian" card.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you keep contradicting your own arguments? I post something from Isaac Newton and you pontificate some cut-n-paste about how intelligence of the individual is not relevant to their religious beliefs... next thing you know, here you are posting about them ignorant christians. Which one is it? You can't have this both ways, moron.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not to agree with sealy here, but ignorance and stupidity are not the same thing.
Click to expand...


In certain context that is true. 

Silly boob keeps swinging back and forth. He explains how some of the smartest people in the world can be Christians, then he makes comments that indicate Christians are dumb. Like the comment I highlighted in the quote box. I just want him to make up his mind... are all Christians dumb and gullible, or are they sometimes the smartest people on the planet?


----------



## itfitzme

Because religeous believers continue to claim it is real.


----------



## BreezeWood

itfitzme said:


> Because religeous believers continue to claim it is real.



... what they have been given to read. 

.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you keep contradicting your own arguments? I post something from Isaac Newton and you pontificate some cut-n-paste about how intelligence of the individual is not relevant to their religious beliefs... next thing you know, here you are posting about them ignorant christians. Which one is it? You can't have this both ways, moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not to agree with sealy here, but ignorance and stupidity are not the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In certain context that is true.
> 
> Silly boob keeps swinging back and forth. He explains how some of the smartest people in the world can be Christians, then he makes comments that indicate Christians are dumb. Like the comment I highlighted in the quote box. I just want him to make up his mind... are all Christians dumb and gullible, or are they sometimes the smartest people on the planet?
Click to expand...


Fair enough.  I think ignorance gets used incorrectly a lot, probably due to ignorance.  

For myself, I find religious belief to often seem foolish, perhaps even dumb.  On the other hand, I wouldn't say that being stupid about a particular subject means a person has low intelligence; I think most of us can be pretty stupid about various things no matter our general level of intelligence.  And, of course, emotion can often overrule intellect.

But you are right that it can be hard to determine just what sealy thinks about the religious.


----------



## PostmodernProph

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just like pointing out it is a religious society that is dumb enough to be lied into Iraq, and yes they played the "christian" card.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you keep contradicting your own arguments? I post something from Isaac Newton and you pontificate some cut-n-paste about how intelligence of the individual is not relevant to their religious beliefs... next thing you know, here you are posting about them ignorant christians. Which one is it? You can't have this both ways, moron.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not to agree with sealy here, but ignorance and stupidity are not the same thing.
Click to expand...


in his case, they split rent.....


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to agree with sealy here, but ignorance and stupidity are not the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In certain context that is true.
> 
> Silly boob keeps swinging back and forth. He explains how some of the smartest people in the world can be Christians, then he makes comments that indicate Christians are dumb. Like the comment I highlighted in the quote box. I just want him to make up his mind... are all Christians dumb and gullible, or are they sometimes the smartest people on the planet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fair enough.  I think ignorance gets used incorrectly a lot, probably due to ignorance.
> 
> For myself, I find religious belief to often seem foolish, perhaps even dumb.  On the other hand, I wouldn't say that being stupid about a particular subject means a person has low intelligence; I think most of us can be pretty stupid about various things no matter our general level of intelligence.  And, of course, emotion can often overrule intellect.
> 
> But you are right that it can be hard to determine just what sealy thinks about the religious.
Click to expand...


Moonbat... The word "SET" has 127 different definitions. It can literally mean 127 different things in conversation. Many of the words in our English vocabulary are this way, they have numerous definitions and can mean different things in context of other words they are used in conjunction with. I'm not sure if you're a foreigner, if English is a second language for you, or if you are just really deprived educationally on how our language works, but you really do need to learn about this if you expect to ever be able to communicate effectively with others. 

Do you consider Isaac Newton "foolish, perhaps even dumb?" Because I don't, and I don't believe most rational people would. Silly boob says this is okay because intelligence doesn't have anything to do with religious beliefs, some very smart people can also be religious... then the next post he is lamenting about "dumb southerners gullible enough to believe religion." So it's as if there is a double standard.... Intelligent people can believe in God, but Southerners believe in God because they are dumb and stupid.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> In certain context that is true.
> 
> Silly boob keeps swinging back and forth. He explains how some of the smartest people in the world can be Christians, then he makes comments that indicate Christians are dumb. Like the comment I highlighted in the quote box. I just want him to make up his mind... are all Christians dumb and gullible, or are they sometimes the smartest people on the planet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fair enough.  I think ignorance gets used incorrectly a lot, probably due to ignorance.
> 
> For myself, I find religious belief to often seem foolish, perhaps even dumb.  On the other hand, I wouldn't say that being stupid about a particular subject means a person has low intelligence; I think most of us can be pretty stupid about various things no matter our general level of intelligence.  And, of course, emotion can often overrule intellect.
> 
> But you are right that it can be hard to determine just what sealy thinks about the religious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Moonbat... The word "SET" has 127 different definitions. It can literally mean 127 different things in conversation. Many of the words in our English vocabulary are this way, they have numerous definitions and can mean different things in context of other words they are used in conjunction with. I'm not sure if you're a foreigner, if English is a second language for you, or if you are just really deprived educationally on how our language works, but you really do need to learn about this if you expect to ever be able to communicate effectively with others.
> 
> Do you consider Isaac Newton "foolish, perhaps even dumb?" Because I don't, and I don't believe most rational people would. Silly boob says this is okay because intelligence doesn't have anything to do with religious beliefs, some very smart people can also be religious... then the next post he is lamenting about "dumb southerners gullible enough to believe religion." So it's as if there is a double standard.... Intelligent people can believe in God, but Southerners believe in God because they are dumb and stupid.
Click to expand...


Haven't you complained, multiple times, that I argue with you just for the sake of arguing with you?  Yet here you are, seeming to argue with me even when I'm pretty much agreeing with you.

I'm well aware that words often have multiple meanings.  That doesn't mean that ignorance is defined as stupidity.  People often use the words interchangeably, perhaps that is common enough that it should be given a new definition, but as it stands ignorance is defined as a lack of knowledge or education.  Hence my little joke about ignorance being used out of ignorance......

No, I wouldn't call Newton dumb, but I might characterize his religious beliefs that way.  Are you aware that a person can have multiple facets to their personality, and that their attitude or beliefs about one subject do not necessarily equate to the entirety of them as a person?  Are you aware that very intelligent people can do or believe very stupid things?

Like I said, sealy makes it hard to know what his thoughts about the religious really are.  Is there some reason you felt the need to further explain things when I was agreeing with you, other than a need to argue with me?


----------



## HUGGY

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> In certain context that is true.
> 
> Silly boob keeps swinging back and forth. He explains how some of the smartest people in the world can be Christians, then he makes comments that indicate Christians are dumb. Like the comment I highlighted in the quote box. I just want him to make up his mind... are all Christians dumb and gullible, or are they sometimes the smartest people on the planet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fair enough.  I think ignorance gets used incorrectly a lot, probably due to ignorance.
> 
> For myself, I find religious belief to often seem foolish, perhaps even dumb.  On the other hand, I wouldn't say that being stupid about a particular subject means a person has low intelligence; I think most of us can be pretty stupid about various things no matter our general level of intelligence.  And, of course, emotion can often overrule intellect.
> 
> But you are right that it can be hard to determine just what sealy thinks about the religious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Moonbat... The word "SET" has 127 different definitions. It can literally mean 127 different things in conversation. Many of the words in our English vocabulary are this way, they have numerous definitions and can mean different things in context of other words they are used in conjunction with. I'm not sure if you're a foreigner, if English is a second language for you, or if you are just really deprived educationally on how our language works, but you really do need to learn about this if you expect to ever be able to communicate effectively with others.
> 
> Do you consider Isaac Newton "foolish, perhaps even dumb?" Because I don't, and I don't believe most rational people would. Silly boob says this is okay because intelligence doesn't have anything to do with religious beliefs, some very smart people can also be religious... then the next post he is lamenting about "dumb southerners gullible enough to believe religion." So it's as if there is a double standard.... Intelligent people can believe in God, but Southerners believe in God because they are dumb and stupid.
Click to expand...


I think it is the *sun* and the mean income in relation to the sun in the South.  A lot of people in the South cannot afford AC in the home or work in environments where it is hot and humid. 

After living for several years in Southern Florida coming from the Pacific Northwest where our humidity is very low even in the Summer when it can frequently get into the eighties.

When it is hot and humid it is difficult to think clearly.  Multiple generations of exposure to these conditions have bred a population with a dissadvanantage in making rational choices.

Much of the bad thinking and resulting conflict on the planet originates in countries where poor people must endure conditions that do not promote clear thinking.

Religion is strongest globally in the countries closest to the equator.


----------



## BreezeWood

HUGGY said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fair enough.  I think ignorance gets used incorrectly a lot, probably due to ignorance.
> 
> For myself, I find religious belief to often seem foolish, perhaps even dumb.  On the other hand, I wouldn't say that being stupid about a particular subject means a person has low intelligence; I think most of us can be pretty stupid about various things no matter our general level of intelligence.  And, of course, emotion can often overrule intellect.
> 
> But you are right that it can be hard to determine just what sealy thinks about the religious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonbat... The word "SET" has 127 different definitions. It can literally mean 127 different things in conversation. Many of the words in our English vocabulary are this way, they have numerous definitions and can mean different things in context of other words they are used in conjunction with. I'm not sure if you're a foreigner, if English is a second language for you, or if you are just really deprived educationally on how our language works, but you really do need to learn about this if you expect to ever be able to communicate effectively with others.
> 
> Do you consider Isaac Newton "foolish, perhaps even dumb?" Because I don't, and I don't believe most rational people would. Silly boob says this is okay because intelligence doesn't have anything to do with religious beliefs, some very smart people can also be religious... then the next post he is lamenting about "dumb southerners gullible enough to believe religion." So it's as if there is a double standard.... Intelligent people can believe in God, but Southerners believe in God because they are dumb and stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think it is the *sun* and the mean income in relation to the sun in the South.  A lot of people in the South cannot afford AC in the home or work in environments where it is hot and humid.
> 
> After living for several years in Southern Florida coming from the Pacific Northwest where our humidity is very low even in the Summer when it can frequently get into the eighties.
> 
> When it is hot and humid it is difficult to think clearly.  Multiple generations of exposure to these conditions have bred a population with a dissadvanantage in making rational choices.
> 
> Much of the bad thinking and resulting conflict on the planet originates in countries where poor people must endure conditions that do not promote clear thinking.
> 
> Religion is strongest globally in the countries closest to the equator.
Click to expand...



* A lot of people in the South cannot afford AC in the home or work in environments where it is hot and humid.* 


are you speaking of Dixie - because there may be a few without AC but otherwise your comment is laughable, 2014 ... true of field work but those conditions are made more tolerable  without the prospect of forced labour. 

but it does remain a factor as well as rural vs urban root mentality which is distinct between the prevailing Liberal and Conservative ideologies, for some reason.

.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well round this up (for the sake of liberals) and say 6 million deaths caused by Christians.
> 
> That's just christians alone.  Now add up the muslims and jews.
> 
> Then he says
> The deaths caused by non-Christians  approximately 90 MILLION! And this is actually a conservative number.
> 
> But he's counting Muslim murder.  And he's not even counting jewish murder/death/kills.
> 
> I'm not saying Christianity is the leading killer of man, I'm saying religion in general is.
> 
> So how good is religion?  Not very if you ask me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I guess we're going to abandon your silly argument about humans inventing spirituality for now, huh?
Click to expand...


Listen son.  You don't get to pin the French Revolution on atheism and then not take responsibility for Iraq, ww2 (the germans were religious and hitler was spiritual).  This thing going on right now is jew v muslim.  Religious people.  Your numbers of murder/death/kills keeps adding up like a video game.  

Stop being a slick bullshitter who thinks he's clever with his stupid lame fucking arguments about how he thinks he has proven god exists but no one else here seems to agree with you nor can you provide any links of intelligent men that agree with you.  This is just one little man's theories.  Billions of others exist stupid.  It's all in your head.  That's what science says.  That's why so many of them are atheists.  They even know why even some smart people are dumb enough to believe in god.  The fact that an intelligent person holds an irrational belief is simply evidence that our brains are able to compartmentalize world-views and models from one another, usually in order to maintain a state of ignorant bliss and escape the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.  They want to believe in miracles.    

You have to stop defending religion or religious people or their actions and leadership.  If you mean lead by example, all religious societies are evil.  If I was an alien observing this planet I would say they are all murderous and cruel, except the liberals of course.

Traditionally spirituality has been defined as a process of personal transformation in accordance with religious ideals. Since the 19th century spirituality is often separated from religion, and has become more oriented on subjective experience and psychological growth. It may refer to almost any kind of meaningful activity or blissful experience, but without a single, widely-agreed definition.


----------



## sealybobo

New Oxford University study has found that faith and religion come to human beings naturally  possibly instinctively. 

"We tend to see purpose in the world," Oxford University professor Roger Trigg said Thursday. "We see agency. We think that something is there even if you can't see it. ... All this tends to build up to a religious way of thinking."

widespread belief in some kind of afterlife and an instinctive tendency to suggest that natural phenomena happen for a purpose.

"Children in particular found it very easy to think in religious ways," such as believing in God's omniscience. But adults also jumped first for explanations that implied an unseen agent at work in the world, the study found.

The study doesn't say anything about whether God, gods or an afterlife exist, said Justin Barrett, the project's other co-director.

"This project does not set out to prove God or gods exist. Just because we find it easier to think in a particular way does not mean that it is true in fact," he said.

Both atheists and religious people could use the study to argue their sides, Trigg told CNN.

Famed secularist Richard "Dawkins would accept our findings and say we've got to grow out of it," Trigg argued.

But people of faith could argue that the universality of religious sentiment serves God's purpose, the philosophy professor said.

"Religious people would say, 'If there is a God, then ... he would have given us inclinations to look for him,'" Trigg said.

The blockbuster study may not take a stance on the existence of God, but it has profound implications for religious freedom, Trigg contends.

"If you've got something so deep-rooted in human nature, thwarting it is in some sense not enabling humans to fulfill their basic interests," Trigg said.

"There is quite a drive to think that religion is private," he said, arguing that such a belief is wrong. "It isn't just a quirky interest of a few, it's basic human nature."

"This shows that it's much more universal, prevalent, and deep-rooted. It's got to be reckoned with. You can't just pretend it isn't there," he said.

And the Oxford study, known as the Cognition, Religion and Theology Project, strongly implies that religion will not wither away, he said.


----------



## sealybobo

Montrovant said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I see is that the invasion had pretty strong support from all over the country.  I have no idea how many enlisted from various regions, do you have any stats about that or are you just making things up?
> 
> All presidents play the 'Christian card'.  You've mentioned yourself that professing Christian faith is almost a prerequisite to be president.
> 
> I think the invasion of Iraq had far, far, far more to do with politics than religion.  Even if you blame it on a desire for oil, it's still far more about politics than religion.
> 
> You seem to have a strong need to find religion to blame for everything you can, particularly Christianity.  While I've got no problems with finding fault in Christianity, blaming the religion for things it is not responsible for is just silly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just like pointing out it is a religious society that is dumb enough to be lied into Iraq, and yes they played the "christian" card.  If you recall what did Bush call them?  Radical Islam???  What a dick.  Do you know how many stupid Americans were calling Muslim Americans "radical islam"?  I had to point out to them that Muslim Americans aren't the same thing as Al Queda.  Do you also notice we never invade other christian nations?  Only Muslim nations.  So while politics might be more at play, yes I believe religion plays a role too.
> 
> I stopped arguing politics as soon as I realized there was no god.  If poor and middle class republicans can be conned into believing an invisible man exists, and that the GOP is the religious party, you don't waste your time arguing about abortion or gays first.  You attack the source of the problem, which is religion.  Without it people mind their own business and start voting for logical things like fair taxation and workers rights.  Right now they ignore what they should be focusing on and instead worry about butt sex.  Why?  Religion.  Who gives a fuck about butt sex?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you notice we never invade any European or majority-white nations?  Maybe race is the big factor, huh?
> 
> You are drawing conclusions about religion being the main motivation that are, I think, completely erroneous.  Sure, religion may play a part, but I don't think it's close to the biggest reason for the invasion of Iraq or any other country in recent years.
> 
> Bush called who radical Islam?  You're not particularly clear there.  Did he call all Muslim Americans radical Islam?
> 
> You say you stopped arguing politics, but you are on a political forum, you've argued politics in this thread, and you're doing it in that very post.  You haven't done anything like stop arguing politics.
> 
> And while there are sure to be some correlations between religious belief and political belief, I doubt they are anything close to universal.  People of all political affiliation are believers, people of all political affiliation are atheists.  Do you think there are no atheist Republicans?  No Christian Democrats or Libertarians or Independents?
> 
> You assume too much about people based solely on their religious beliefs, especially considering you don't seem to take the depth or type of beliefs into much account.
Click to expand...


No, we never invade christians or whites.  Last time white Germany and us went at it.  The german people were all christians.  How great is the religion when the people of that religion are capable of such acts?  Time to get rid of the christian and muslim religions because  they say all non christians/muslims are bad.  So these religions need to end.  Jews will always be jews.  You can't join that club.  You either are born into it or you are not.  Sammy Davis the one exception.  Anyways, we need a new religion.  One that doesn't say non believers are going to hell.  Or maybe there is an old religion that preached this and it never caught on?  I don't know.  All I know is religous people are KILLAS.  Ask any alien watching us from space.  What do you think they think of us?  Fucktards.  They would love a liberal planet.  But you cons would dissect that alien so fast.

See son, you don't know how Bush mind fucked you.  If you did you would know what I'm talking about.  Bush/Rush/Fox/Drudged purposely called them radical ISLAM.  They basically called a holy war and you dumb americans were so easily duped.  I'll admit so was I after 911 but then about 1 yr into Iraq I work up.  You clearly didn't.  Bush/Chaney loved/wanted the Iraq war.  And you know when I say bush I mean the gop.  Fill in the fucking blank christy, huckabee, mccain, mitt, mcconnell, boehner, ryan, paul, shell/exxon/bp/haloburton/incorporated.

And lastly, I am a student of politics/religion.  I study them.  That's why I know where politics is corrupt and why religion is too.  Hell if you'd get your head out of rush/fox/drudges asses you'd know more I promise you that.  Yesterday alone on NPR they were talking about politics in America vs. Australia.  This is just one small example of how they own you bitches and you keep voting for them.  In Australia you pay a $15 fine if you don't vote, so they have very high turn over.  This changes EVERYTHING.  More people vote.  You can show up and vote for NO ONE but you have to show up.  This gets the citizens engaged more.  More interested and more informed.  Then the politicians start fighting for the votes in the middle, not pandering to the far right on abortion, god gays and guns and RACISM.  This is how the GOP/Rich are winning elections.  By low voter turn out and low information voters.  

Remember they use to say all politics are local?  Really?  Who's your state reps?  What did they vote on recently?  So even the people here in America who do pay attention and so uninformed, misinformed or underinformed.


----------



## sealybobo

BreezeWood said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moonbat... The word "SET" has 127 different definitions. It can literally mean 127 different things in conversation. Many of the words in our English vocabulary are this way, they have numerous definitions and can mean different things in context of other words they are used in conjunction with. I'm not sure if you're a foreigner, if English is a second language for you, or if you are just really deprived educationally on how our language works, but you really do need to learn about this if you expect to ever be able to communicate effectively with others.
> 
> Do you consider Isaac Newton "foolish, perhaps even dumb?" Because I don't, and I don't believe most rational people would. Silly boob says this is okay because intelligence doesn't have anything to do with religious beliefs, some very smart people can also be religious... then the next post he is lamenting about "dumb southerners gullible enough to believe religion." So it's as if there is a double standard.... Intelligent people can believe in God, but Southerners believe in God because they are dumb and stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is the *sun* and the mean income in relation to the sun in the South.  A lot of people in the South cannot afford AC in the home or work in environments where it is hot and humid.
> 
> After living for several years in Southern Florida coming from the Pacific Northwest where our humidity is very low even in the Summer when it can frequently get into the eighties.
> 
> When it is hot and humid it is difficult to think clearly.  Multiple generations of exposure to these conditions have bred a population with a dissadvanantage in making rational choices.
> 
> Much of the bad thinking and resulting conflict on the planet originates in countries where poor people must endure conditions that do not promote clear thinking.
> 
> Religion is strongest globally in the countries closest to the equator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> * A lot of people in the South cannot afford AC in the home or work in environments where it is hot and humid.*
> 
> 
> are you speaking of Dixie - because there may be a few without AC but otherwise your comment is laughable, 2014 ... true of field work but those conditions are made more tolerable  without the prospect of forced labour.
> 
> but it does remain a factor as well as rural vs urban root mentality which is distinct between the prevailing Liberal and Conservative ideologies, for some reason.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Solutions that might work in Mayberry won't work in Detroit goober.


----------



## sealybobo

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to agree with sealy here, but ignorance and stupidity are not the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In certain context that is true.
> 
> Silly boob keeps swinging back and forth. He explains how some of the smartest people in the world can be Christians, then he makes comments that indicate Christians are dumb. Like the comment I highlighted in the quote box. I just want him to make up his mind... are all Christians dumb and gullible, or are they sometimes the smartest people on the planet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fair enough.  I think ignorance gets used incorrectly a lot, probably due to ignorance.
> 
> For myself, I find religious belief to often seem foolish, perhaps even dumb.  On the other hand, I wouldn't say that being stupid about a particular subject means a person has low intelligence; I think most of us can be pretty stupid about various things no matter our general level of intelligence.  And, of course, emotion can often overrule intellect.
> 
> But you are right that it can be hard to determine just what sealy thinks about the religious.
Click to expand...


I heard yesterday that a lot of people don't put that much thought into poltics.  We all know that is true, but they were discussing the possibilities of why.  I realized the same irrational reasons people believe in god are the same as politics.

Doesn't matter that the stories in the bible couldn't be physically true.  People want to believe and that over rides rational thought.

And it is funny because a christian knows how to call bullshit on the mormon, muslim & jewish stories but can't see that their own story is full of holes.  Weird.

I think if a lot of people gave it a lot of thought they'd realize that religion is made up but most people choose not to think that hard or are frightened with hell from thinking rationally.


----------



## sealybobo

BreezeWood said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moonbat... The word "SET" has 127 different definitions. It can literally mean 127 different things in conversation. Many of the words in our English vocabulary are this way, they have numerous definitions and can mean different things in context of other words they are used in conjunction with. I'm not sure if you're a foreigner, if English is a second language for you, or if you are just really deprived educationally on how our language works, but you really do need to learn about this if you expect to ever be able to communicate effectively with others.
> 
> Do you consider Isaac Newton "foolish, perhaps even dumb?" Because I don't, and I don't believe most rational people would. Silly boob says this is okay because intelligence doesn't have anything to do with religious beliefs, some very smart people can also be religious... then the next post he is lamenting about "dumb southerners gullible enough to believe religion." So it's as if there is a double standard.... Intelligent people can believe in God, but Southerners believe in God because they are dumb and stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is the *sun* and the mean income in relation to the sun in the South.  A lot of people in the South cannot afford AC in the home or work in environments where it is hot and humid.
> 
> After living for several years in Southern Florida coming from the Pacific Northwest where our humidity is very low even in the Summer when it can frequently get into the eighties.
> 
> When it is hot and humid it is difficult to think clearly.  Multiple generations of exposure to these conditions have bred a population with a dissadvanantage in making rational choices.
> 
> Much of the bad thinking and resulting conflict on the planet originates in countries where poor people must endure conditions that do not promote clear thinking.
> 
> Religion is strongest globally in the countries closest to the equator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> * A lot of people in the South cannot afford AC in the home or work in environments where it is hot and humid.*
> 
> 
> are you speaking of Dixie - because there may be a few without AC but otherwise your comment is laughable, 2014 ... true of field work but those conditions are made more tolerable  without the prospect of forced labour.
> 
> but it does remain a factor as well as rural vs urban root mentality which is distinct between the prevailing Liberal and Conservative ideologies, for some reason.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


The poor white people down south are conned by religion very much like the blacks were taught respect for their slave masters is like respect for god.  "See" they said, "says it right in the bible".  

No doubt poor and middle class social conservatives worship the rich.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you keep contradicting your own arguments? I post something from Isaac Newton and you pontificate some cut-n-paste about how intelligence of the individual is not relevant to their religious beliefs... next thing you know, here you are posting about them ignorant christians. Which one is it? You can't have this both ways, moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not to agree with sealy here, but ignorance and stupidity are not the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In certain context that is true.
> 
> Silly boob keeps swinging back and forth. He explains how some of the smartest people in the world can be Christians, then he makes comments that indicate Christians are dumb. Like the comment I highlighted in the quote box. I just want him to make up his mind... are all Christians dumb and gullible, or are they sometimes the smartest people on the planet?
Click to expand...


The fact that an intelligent person holds an irrational belief is simply evidence that our brains are able to compartmentalise world-views and models from one another, usually in order to maintain a state of ignorant bliss and escape the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.

The validity of a claim, such as the existence of god, is not governed by the intelligence of the minds which hold it. Evidence and reason are the deciding factors.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to agree with sealy here, but ignorance and stupidity are not the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In certain context that is true.
> 
> Silly boob keeps swinging back and forth. He explains how some of the smartest people in the world can be Christians, then he makes comments that indicate Christians are dumb. Like the comment I highlighted in the quote box. I just want him to make up his mind... are all Christians dumb and gullible, or are they sometimes the smartest people on the planet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that an intelligent person holds an irrational belief is simply evidence that our brains are able to compartmentalise world-views and models from one another, usually in order to maintain a state of ignorant bliss and escape the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.
> 
> The validity of a claim, such as the existence of god, is not governed by the intelligence of the minds which hold it. Evidence and reason are the deciding factors.
Click to expand...


Right, so it's just when SOUTHERN people believe in God that it's because of dumb and stupid gullibility? 



> Listen son. You don't get to pin the French Revolution on atheism and then not take responsibility for Iraq, ww2 (the germans were religious and hitler was spiritual). This thing going on right now is jew v muslim. Religious people. Your numbers of murder/death/kills keeps adding up like a video game.



I'm not your son. I didn't mention the French Revolution. I only mentioned Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. All three were Atheists running Atheist regimes. None of your examples are religious genocide except for the Muslims, and they believe in Allah, not God. Now you better get to cracking, you are 150 million in the stinkhole boy.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well round this up (for the sake of liberals) and say 6 million deaths caused by Christians.
> 
> That's just christians alone.  Now add up the muslims and jews.
> 
> Then he says
> The deaths caused by non-Christians  approximately 90 MILLION! And this is actually a conservative number.
> 
> But he's counting Muslim murder.  And he's not even counting jewish murder/death/kills.
> 
> I'm not saying Christianity is the leading killer of man, I'm saying religion in general is.
> 
> So how good is religion?  Not very if you ask me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the hell are you talking about? No one has been killed in the name of Christianity in the past century, as far as I know. Now Muslims do kill a lot of people in the name of Allah, and I'm sure that adds up to a significant number over time, but your Atheist number is at least 150 million. I don't think even the Muslims can come close to that.
> 
> And I guess we're going to abandon your silly argument about humans inventing spirituality for now, huh?
Click to expand...


On NPR I heard the Jews calling the Muslims animals.  What a religious way to look at another culture.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> In certain context that is true.
> 
> Silly boob keeps swinging back and forth. He explains how some of the smartest people in the world can be Christians, then he makes comments that indicate Christians are dumb. Like the comment I highlighted in the quote box. I just want him to make up his mind... are all Christians dumb and gullible, or are they sometimes the smartest people on the planet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that an intelligent person holds an irrational belief is simply evidence that our brains are able to compartmentalise world-views and models from one another, usually in order to maintain a state of ignorant bliss and escape the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.
> 
> The validity of a claim, such as the existence of god, is not governed by the intelligence of the minds which hold it. Evidence and reason are the deciding factors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, so it's just when SOUTHERN people believe in God that it's because of dumb and stupid gullibility?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listen son. You don't get to pin the French Revolution on atheism and then not take responsibility for Iraq, ww2 (the germans were religious and hitler was spiritual). This thing going on right now is jew v muslim. Religious people. Your numbers of murder/death/kills keeps adding up like a video game.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not your son. I didn't mention the French Revolution. I only mentioned Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. All three were Atheists running Atheist regimes. None of your examples are religious genocide except for the Muslims, and they believe in Allah, not God. Now you better get to cracking, you are 150 million in the stinkhole boy.
Click to expand...


I don't care.  Every time a Jew or Muslim gets murder/death/killed chalk one more up for religion.  You get all those deaths.  No Israeli or Palestinian atheists are killing anyone.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> In certain context that is true.
> 
> Silly boob keeps swinging back and forth. He explains how some of the smartest people in the world can be Christians, then he makes comments that indicate Christians are dumb. Like the comment I highlighted in the quote box. I just want him to make up his mind... are all Christians dumb and gullible, or are they sometimes the smartest people on the planet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that an intelligent person holds an irrational belief is simply evidence that our brains are able to compartmentalise world-views and models from one another, usually in order to maintain a state of ignorant bliss and escape the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.
> 
> The validity of a claim, such as the existence of god, is not governed by the intelligence of the minds which hold it. Evidence and reason are the deciding factors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, so it's just when SOUTHERN people believe in God that it's because of dumb and stupid gullibility?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listen son. You don't get to pin the French Revolution on atheism and then not take responsibility for Iraq, ww2 (the germans were religious and hitler was spiritual). This thing going on right now is jew v muslim. Religious people. Your numbers of murder/death/kills keeps adding up like a video game.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not your son. I didn't mention the French Revolution. I only mentioned Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. All three were Atheists running Atheist regimes. None of your examples are religious genocide except for the Muslims, and *they believe in Allah, not God*. Now you better get to cracking, you are 150 million in the stinkhole boy.
Click to expand...


Um, isn't Allah simply Arabic for god?


----------



## BreezeWood

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that an intelligent person holds an irrational belief is simply evidence that our brains are able to compartmentalise world-views and models from one another, usually in order to maintain a state of ignorant bliss and escape the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.
> 
> The validity of a claim, such as the existence of god, is not governed by the intelligence of the minds which hold it. Evidence and reason are the deciding factors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, so it's just when SOUTHERN people believe in God that it's because of dumb and stupid gullibility?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listen son. You don't get to pin the French Revolution on atheism and then not take responsibility for Iraq, ww2 (the germans were religious and hitler was spiritual). This thing going on right now is jew v muslim. Religious people. Your numbers of murder/death/kills keeps adding up like a video game.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not your son. I didn't mention the French Revolution. I only mentioned Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. All three were Atheists running Atheist regimes. None of your examples are religious genocide except for the Muslims, and *they believe in Allah, not God*. Now you better get to cracking, you are 150 million in the stinkhole boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, isn't Allah simply Arabic for god?
Click to expand...



three contradictory religious scripts have the same God - 

at least 2in3 are incorrect or better, all three ... their scriptures not the Deity.

.


----------



## Montrovant

sealybobo said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just like pointing out it is a religious society that is dumb enough to be lied into Iraq, and yes they played the "christian" card.  If you recall what did Bush call them?  Radical Islam???  What a dick.  Do you know how many stupid Americans were calling Muslim Americans "radical islam"?  I had to point out to them that Muslim Americans aren't the same thing as Al Queda.  Do you also notice we never invade other christian nations?  Only Muslim nations.  So while politics might be more at play, yes I believe religion plays a role too.
> 
> I stopped arguing politics as soon as I realized there was no god.  If poor and middle class republicans can be conned into believing an invisible man exists, and that the GOP is the religious party, you don't waste your time arguing about abortion or gays first.  You attack the source of the problem, which is religion.  Without it people mind their own business and start voting for logical things like fair taxation and workers rights.  Right now they ignore what they should be focusing on and instead worry about butt sex.  Why?  Religion.  Who gives a fuck about butt sex?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you notice we never invade any European or majority-white nations?  Maybe race is the big factor, huh?
> 
> You are drawing conclusions about religion being the main motivation that are, I think, completely erroneous.  Sure, religion may play a part, but I don't think it's close to the biggest reason for the invasion of Iraq or any other country in recent years.
> 
> Bush called who radical Islam?  You're not particularly clear there.  Did he call all Muslim Americans radical Islam?
> 
> You say you stopped arguing politics, but you are on a political forum, you've argued politics in this thread, and you're doing it in that very post.  You haven't done anything like stop arguing politics.
> 
> And while there are sure to be some correlations between religious belief and political belief, I doubt they are anything close to universal.  People of all political affiliation are believers, people of all political affiliation are atheists.  Do you think there are no atheist Republicans?  No Christian Democrats or Libertarians or Independents?
> 
> You assume too much about people based solely on their religious beliefs, especially considering you don't seem to take the depth or type of beliefs into much account.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, we never invade christians or whites.  Last time white Germany and us went at it.  The german people were all christians.  How great is the religion when the people of that religion are capable of such acts?  Time to get rid of the christian and muslim religions because  they say all non christians/muslims are bad.  So these religions need to end.  Jews will always be jews.  You can't join that club.  You either are born into it or you are not.  Sammy Davis the one exception.  Anyways, we need a new religion.  One that doesn't say non believers are going to hell.  Or maybe there is an old religion that preached this and it never caught on?  I don't know.  All I know is religous people are KILLAS.  Ask any alien watching us from space.  What do you think they think of us?  Fucktards.  They would love a liberal planet.  But you cons would dissect that alien so fast.
> 
> See son, you don't know how Bush mind fucked you.  If you did you would know what I'm talking about.  Bush/Rush/Fox/Drudged purposely called them radical ISLAM.  They basically called a holy war and you dumb americans were so easily duped.  I'll admit so was I after 911 but then about 1 yr into Iraq I work up.  You clearly didn't.  Bush/Chaney loved/wanted the Iraq war.  And you know when I say bush I mean the gop.  Fill in the fucking blank christy, huckabee, mccain, mitt, mcconnell, boehner, ryan, paul, shell/exxon/bp/haloburton/incorporated.
> 
> And lastly, I am a student of politics/religion.  I study them.  That's why I know where politics is corrupt and why religion is too.  Hell if you'd get your head out of rush/fox/drudges asses you'd know more I promise you that.  Yesterday alone on NPR they were talking about politics in America vs. Australia.  This is just one small example of how they own you bitches and you keep voting for them.  In Australia you pay a $15 fine if you don't vote, so they have very high turn over.  This changes EVERYTHING.  More people vote.  You can show up and vote for NO ONE but you have to show up.  This gets the citizens engaged more.  More interested and more informed.  Then the politicians start fighting for the votes in the middle, not pandering to the far right on abortion, god gays and guns and RACISM.  This is how the GOP/Rich are winning elections.  By low voter turn out and low information voters.
> 
> Remember they use to say all politics are local?  Really?  Who's your state reps?  What did they vote on recently?  So even the people here in America who do pay attention and so uninformed, misinformed or underinformed.
Click to expand...


Wow, that's a staggering amount of projection and strawman argument.

Christianity certainly has a history of aggression and violence, of 'killing in the name of god'.  However, the followers of Christianity seem to have pretty much given up on that.  Some followers of Islam, unfortunately, have not.  

While I would love to see how humanity would fare without religion, both because of my lack of belief and my curiosity as to how important it is to our survival and advancement as a species, there is no need for religion to end.  We've gotten along with religion being part of humanity up to this point.  

You cons would dissect that alien so fast?  What the hell are you talking about?  First, I am not a con.  I am not a member of any political party nor am I beholden to any particular political philosophy.  Second, I don't think that political belief would be the main determining factor in how a person reacted to intelligent alien life.

Bush mind fucked me?  I never voted for or even liked Bush.  That you see the religious behind every bad thing that ever happens doesn't mean I've somehow been fooled by a former president.    Yes, politicians drummed up some hatred for Muslims.  That's what politicians do; they provide people with a target for their frustration, anger and hate, whether that target deserves it or not.  

I was never for the Iraq war.  Afghanistan I understood, but Iraq always seemed like a purposeless war to me, a continuation of Bush Sr.'s war.  Maybe you are the 'dumb American' who was 'mind fucked' by Bush if you thought the war was a good idea for the first year.  

If you mean the GOP, why don't you say the GOP instead of just Bush?

Now I have my head in Rush/Fox/Drudge's ass?  You don't know the first thing about my political beliefs, so far as I can tell, but in your need to put people in simple categories you can more easily demonize, you've decided you do.  I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh.  Other than the occasional short bit to see what the fuss is about on a particular subject, I never have.  I don't watch tv news.  I do go to Fox's website, but I just happen to like the layout.  I also go to CNN's site and read BBC headlines.  I have never been to the Drudge site.  So how is my head in their asses again?  

Who owns me?  Who have I voted for?  You haven't the slightest clue.  You aren't arguing with me, you're arguing with a caricature you've created of your idea of a conservative.  If you want to stop talking to yourself and actually talk to me, let me know.


----------



## sealybobo

Montrovant said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you notice we never invade any European or majority-white nations?  Maybe race is the big factor, huh?
> 
> You are drawing conclusions about religion being the main motivation that are, I think, completely erroneous.  Sure, religion may play a part, but I don't think it's close to the biggest reason for the invasion of Iraq or any other country in recent years.
> 
> Bush called who radical Islam?  You're not particularly clear there.  Did he call all Muslim Americans radical Islam?
> 
> You say you stopped arguing politics, but you are on a political forum, you've argued politics in this thread, and you're doing it in that very post.  You haven't done anything like stop arguing politics.
> 
> And while there are sure to be some correlations between religious belief and political belief, I doubt they are anything close to universal.  People of all political affiliation are believers, people of all political affiliation are atheists.  Do you think there are no atheist Republicans?  No Christian Democrats or Libertarians or Independents?
> 
> You assume too much about people based solely on their religious beliefs, especially considering you don't seem to take the depth or type of beliefs into much account.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, we never invade christians or whites.  Last time white Germany and us went at it.  The german people were all christians.  How great is the religion when the people of that religion are capable of such acts?  Time to get rid of the christian and muslim religions because  they say all non christians/muslims are bad.  So these religions need to end.  Jews will always be jews.  You can't join that club.  You either are born into it or you are not.  Sammy Davis the one exception.  Anyways, we need a new religion.  One that doesn't say non believers are going to hell.  Or maybe there is an old religion that preached this and it never caught on?  I don't know.  All I know is religous people are KILLAS.  Ask any alien watching us from space.  What do you think they think of us?  Fucktards.  They would love a liberal planet.  But you cons would dissect that alien so fast.
> 
> See son, you don't know how Bush mind fucked you.  If you did you would know what I'm talking about.  Bush/Rush/Fox/Drudged purposely called them radical ISLAM.  They basically called a holy war and you dumb americans were so easily duped.  I'll admit so was I after 911 but then about 1 yr into Iraq I work up.  You clearly didn't.  Bush/Chaney loved/wanted the Iraq war.  And you know when I say bush I mean the gop.  Fill in the fucking blank christy, huckabee, mccain, mitt, mcconnell, boehner, ryan, paul, shell/exxon/bp/haloburton/incorporated.
> 
> And lastly, I am a student of politics/religion.  I study them.  That's why I know where politics is corrupt and why religion is too.  Hell if you'd get your head out of rush/fox/drudges asses you'd know more I promise you that.  Yesterday alone on NPR they were talking about politics in America vs. Australia.  This is just one small example of how they own you bitches and you keep voting for them.  In Australia you pay a $15 fine if you don't vote, so they have very high turn over.  This changes EVERYTHING.  More people vote.  You can show up and vote for NO ONE but you have to show up.  This gets the citizens engaged more.  More interested and more informed.  Then the politicians start fighting for the votes in the middle, not pandering to the far right on abortion, god gays and guns and RACISM.  This is how the GOP/Rich are winning elections.  By low voter turn out and low information voters.
> 
> Remember they use to say all politics are local?  Really?  Who's your state reps?  What did they vote on recently?  So even the people here in America who do pay attention and so uninformed, misinformed or underinformed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, that's a staggering amount of projection and strawman argument.
> 
> Christianity certainly has a history of aggression and violence, of 'killing in the name of god'.  However, the followers of Christianity seem to have pretty much given up on that.  Some followers of Islam, unfortunately, have not.
> 
> While I would love to see how humanity would fare without religion, both because of my lack of belief and my curiosity as to how important it is to our survival and advancement as a species, there is no need for religion to end.  We've gotten along with religion being part of humanity up to this point.
> 
> You cons would dissect that alien so fast?  What the hell are you talking about?  First, I am not a con.  I am not a member of any political party nor am I beholden to any particular political philosophy.  Second, I don't think that political belief would be the main determining factor in how a person reacted to intelligent alien life.
> 
> Bush mind fucked me?  I never voted for or even liked Bush.  That you see the religious behind every bad thing that ever happens doesn't mean I've somehow been fooled by a former president.    Yes, politicians drummed up some hatred for Muslims.  That's what politicians do; they provide people with a target for their frustration, anger and hate, whether that target deserves it or not.
> 
> I was never for the Iraq war.  Afghanistan I understood, but Iraq always seemed like a purposeless war to me, a continuation of Bush Sr.'s war.  Maybe you are the 'dumb American' who was 'mind fucked' by Bush if you thought the war was a good idea for the first year.
> 
> If you mean the GOP, why don't you say the GOP instead of just Bush?
> 
> Now I have my head in Rush/Fox/Drudge's ass?  You don't know the first thing about my political beliefs, so far as I can tell, but in your need to put people in simple categories you can more easily demonize, you've decided you do.  I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh.  Other than the occasional short bit to see what the fuss is about on a particular subject, I never have.  I don't watch tv news.  I do go to Fox's website, but I just happen to like the layout.  I also go to CNN's site and read BBC headlines.  I have never been to the Drudge site.  So how is my head in their asses again?
> 
> Who owns me?  Who have I voted for?  You haven't the slightest clue.  You aren't arguing with me, you're arguing with a caricature you've created of your idea of a conservative.  If you want to stop talking to yourself and actually talk to me, let me know.
Click to expand...


I have to go, but I'll read all this tomorrow.  One thing I want to say is that religious does a horrible job as far as good and evil.  Don't try to say it doesn't.  And if Jesus is "the truth" how come the Arabs can't see the truth?  Probably because he isn't the truth.  He's our truth.  Their "truth" is Allah.  Only problem is no one knows the truth or there is no truth.  It's all made up.  If it was real the muslims would clearly see it and convert.  They don't.  Know why?  Because our story is just as much bullshit as theirs.  

And you know it.  

And how did Christian America handle Iraq?  Did we win the hearts and minds?  No, Christians did not win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people.  They hate us even more.  Thanks to the great christians like George Bush.  Fuck you Christians.


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that an intelligent person holds an irrational belief is simply evidence that our brains are able to compartmentalise world-views and models from one another, usually in order to maintain a state of ignorant bliss and escape the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.
> 
> The validity of a claim, such as the existence of god, is not governed by the intelligence of the minds which hold it. Evidence and reason are the deciding factors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, so it's just when SOUTHERN people believe in God that it's because of dumb and stupid gullibility?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listen son. You don't get to pin the French Revolution on atheism and then not take responsibility for Iraq, ww2 (the germans were religious and hitler was spiritual). This thing going on right now is jew v muslim. Religious people. Your numbers of murder/death/kills keeps adding up like a video game.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not your son. I didn't mention the French Revolution. I only mentioned Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. All three were Atheists running Atheist regimes. None of your examples are religious genocide except for the Muslims, and *they believe in Allah, not God*. Now you better get to cracking, you are 150 million in the stinkhole boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, isn't Allah simply Arabic for god?
Click to expand...


Nyupe... totally different deity.


----------



## BreezeWood

.









the variations within the Abrahamic religions would no more establish a distinct Deity than the differences in their scripture by the original three religions.  

.


----------



## Boss

BreezeWood said:


> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the variations within the Abrahamic religions would no more establish a distinct Deity than the differences in their scripture by the original three religions.
> 
> .



Wrong. 

The Muslim (Moo-slem) religion worships Allah, the pagan God of the Moon. He was married to the sun goddess and the stars were his daughters. (Note the symbol you posted for Islam.)

Archaeologists have uncovered temples to the Moon-god throughout the Middle East. When the popularity of the Moon-god waned elsewhere, the Arabs remained true to their conviction that the Moon-god was the greatest of all gods. While they worshipped 360 gods at the Kabah in Mecca, the Moon-god was the chief deity. Mecca was in fact built as a shrine for the Moon-god. 

Muhammad was raised in the religion of the Moon-god Allah. But he went one step further than his fellow pagan Arabs. While they believed that Allah, i.e. the Moon-god, was the greatest of all gods and the supreme deity in a pantheon of deities, Muhammad decided that Allah was not only the greatest god but the only god. 

In effect he said, _"Look, you already believe that the Moon-god Allah is the greatest of all gods. All I want you to do is to accept that the idea that he is the only god. I am not taking away the Allah you already worship. I am only taking away his wife and his daughters and all the other gods."_ This is seen from the fact that the first point of the Muslim creed is not, _"Allah is great"_ but _"Allah is the *greatest*,"_ i.e., he is the greatest among the gods. Why would Muhammad say that Allah is the _"greatest"_ except in a polytheistic context? The Arabic word is used to contrast the greater from the lesser. That this is true is seen from the fact that the pagan Arabs never accused Muhammad of preaching a different Allah than the one they already worshipped. This "Allah" was the Moon-god according to the archeological evidence. Muhammad thus attempted to have it both ways. To the pagans, he said that he still believed in the Moon-god Allah. To the Jews and the Christians, he said that Allah was their God too. But both the Jews and the Christians knew better and that is why they rejected his god _Allah_ as a false god. 

And now you know the REST of the story!


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right, so it's just when SOUTHERN people believe in God that it's because of dumb and stupid gullibility?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not your son. I didn't mention the French Revolution. I only mentioned Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. All three were Atheists running Atheist regimes. None of your examples are religious genocide except for the Muslims, and *they believe in Allah, not God*. Now you better get to cracking, you are 150 million in the stinkhole boy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, isn't Allah simply Arabic for god?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nyupe... totally different deity.
Click to expand...


Let me rephrase.  Isn't the word Allah the Arabic word for god?  Wouldn't a Christian speaking Arabic say allah instead of god?  I seem to recall a story about a Muslim-run country recently trying to get Christians to remove the word allah from their Bibles.

I've certainly read from multiple sources that allah is the Arabic word for god, but I don't know the language at all.

I've tried to do a quick search about this moon god thing, but pretty much all that came up seemed to be Christian sources making the claim and Islamic sources denying it.


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um, isn't Allah simply Arabic for god?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nyupe... totally different deity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me rephrase.  Isn't the word Allah the Arabic word for god?  Wouldn't a Christian speaking Arabic say allah instead of god?  I seem to recall a story about a Muslim-run country recently trying to get Christians to remove the word allah from their Bibles.
> 
> I've certainly read from multiple sources that allah is the Arabic word for god, but I don't know the language at all.
> 
> I've tried to do a quick search about this moon god thing, but pretty much all that came up seemed to be Christian sources making the claim and Islamic sources denying it.
Click to expand...


Well, since I am non-religious, I really don't have a dog in this hunt, I am just going by what archaeologists have discovered and history has recorded. That's the thing about history, you can't run away from it. It is a common misconception that Allah and God are the same, largely due to Muhammad teaching this lie after the fact. The pagan deity Allah: God of the Moon, existed long before Muhammad. Now, I am not here to dispute Muhammad any more than I'm here to dispute Jesus or Abraham. I'm just reporting the facts. You can believe Muhammad or history, doesn't really matter to me.


----------



## sealybobo

Montrovant said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you notice we never invade any European or majority-white nations?  Maybe race is the big factor, huh?
> 
> You are drawing conclusions about religion being the main motivation that are, I think, completely erroneous.  Sure, religion may play a part, but I don't think it's close to the biggest reason for the invasion of Iraq or any other country in recent years.
> 
> Bush called who radical Islam?  You're not particularly clear there.  Did he call all Muslim Americans radical Islam?
> 
> You say you stopped arguing politics, but you are on a political forum, you've argued politics in this thread, and you're doing it in that very post.  You haven't done anything like stop arguing politics.
> 
> And while there are sure to be some correlations between religious belief and political belief, I doubt they are anything close to universal.  People of all political affiliation are believers, people of all political affiliation are atheists.  Do you think there are no atheist Republicans?  No Christian Democrats or Libertarians or Independents?
> 
> You assume too much about people based solely on their religious beliefs, especially considering you don't seem to take the depth or type of beliefs into much account.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, we never invade christians or whites.  Last time white Germany and us went at it.  The german people were all christians.  How great is the religion when the people of that religion are capable of such acts?  Time to get rid of the christian and muslim religions because  they say all non christians/muslims are bad.  So these religions need to end.  Jews will always be jews.  You can't join that club.  You either are born into it or you are not.  Sammy Davis the one exception.  Anyways, we need a new religion.  One that doesn't say non believers are going to hell.  Or maybe there is an old religion that preached this and it never caught on?  I don't know.  All I know is religous people are KILLAS.  Ask any alien watching us from space.  What do you think they think of us?  Fucktards.  They would love a liberal planet.  But you cons would dissect that alien so fast.
> 
> See son, you don't know how Bush mind fucked you.  If you did you would know what I'm talking about.  Bush/Rush/Fox/Drudged purposely called them radical ISLAM.  They basically called a holy war and you dumb americans were so easily duped.  I'll admit so was I after 911 but then about 1 yr into Iraq I work up.  You clearly didn't.  Bush/Chaney loved/wanted the Iraq war.  And you know when I say bush I mean the gop.  Fill in the fucking blank christy, huckabee, mccain, mitt, mcconnell, boehner, ryan, paul, shell/exxon/bp/haloburton/incorporated.
> 
> And lastly, I am a student of politics/religion.  I study them.  That's why I know where politics is corrupt and why religion is too.  Hell if you'd get your head out of rush/fox/drudges asses you'd know more I promise you that.  Yesterday alone on NPR they were talking about politics in America vs. Australia.  This is just one small example of how they own you bitches and you keep voting for them.  In Australia you pay a $15 fine if you don't vote, so they have very high turn over.  This changes EVERYTHING.  More people vote.  You can show up and vote for NO ONE but you have to show up.  This gets the citizens engaged more.  More interested and more informed.  Then the politicians start fighting for the votes in the middle, not pandering to the far right on abortion, god gays and guns and RACISM.  This is how the GOP/Rich are winning elections.  By low voter turn out and low information voters.
> 
> Remember they use to say all politics are local?  Really?  Who's your state reps?  What did they vote on recently?  So even the people here in America who do pay attention and so uninformed, misinformed or underinformed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, that's a staggering amount of projection and strawman argument.
> 
> Christianity certainly has a history of aggression and violence, of 'killing in the name of god'.  However, the followers of Christianity seem to have pretty much given up on that.  Some followers of Islam, unfortunately, have not.
> 
> While I would love to see how humanity would fare without religion, both because of my lack of belief and my curiosity as to how important it is to our survival and advancement as a species, there is no need for religion to end.  We've gotten along with religion being part of humanity up to this point.
> 
> You cons would dissect that alien so fast?  What the hell are you talking about?  First, I am not a con.  I am not a member of any political party nor am I beholden to any particular political philosophy.  Second, I don't think that political belief would be the main determining factor in how a person reacted to intelligent alien life.
> 
> Bush mind fucked me?  I never voted for or even liked Bush.  That you see the religious behind every bad thing that ever happens doesn't mean I've somehow been fooled by a former president.    Yes, politicians drummed up some hatred for Muslims.  That's what politicians do; they provide people with a target for their frustration, anger and hate, whether that target deserves it or not.
> 
> I was never for the Iraq war.  Afghanistan I understood, but Iraq always seemed like a purposeless war to me, a continuation of Bush Sr.'s war.  Maybe you are the 'dumb American' who was 'mind fucked' by Bush if you thought the war was a good idea for the first year.
> 
> If you mean the GOP, why don't you say the GOP instead of just Bush?
> 
> Now I have my head in Rush/Fox/Drudge's ass?  You don't know the first thing about my political beliefs, so far as I can tell, but in your need to put people in simple categories you can more easily demonize, you've decided you do.  I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh.  Other than the occasional short bit to see what the fuss is about on a particular subject, I never have.  I don't watch tv news.  I do go to Fox's website, but I just happen to like the layout.  I also go to CNN's site and read BBC headlines.  I have never been to the Drudge site.  So how is my head in their asses again?
> 
> Who owns me?  Who have I voted for?  You haven't the slightest clue.  You aren't arguing with me, you're arguing with a caricature you've created of your idea of a conservative.  If you want to stop talking to yourself and actually talk to me, let me know.
Click to expand...


First, if you aren't a con then stop using their buzz words like straw man.  

Second, yes I generalize.  I'm on a fucking message board.  There are religious liberals too.

3.  I don't want to talk politics with someone who is unconvincable.  I may come here and spout off my opinion, but I don't want to get in a tit for tat with boss.  Righties love that shit.  I say why bother.  Remember all their confidence that Mitt was ahead in the polls?  

Anyways, I'm not here to talk politics. I'm just telling you that religion and politics are the two ways "they" mind fuck you/us.  

Oh, and when I say they own you, I mean they own me too unfortunately.  

So I hear the Jews, the founders of our religion, are up to 1000 muslim murder/death/kills in Gaza.  Boy they sure want to catch us atheists in our number of all time murder/death/kills.  We haven't killed anyone since Pol Pot but the christians/jews/muslims just keep killing each other.  Very impressive from a scientific point of view.  In fact doctors learned a lot about plastic surgery and helping amputees through war or experimenting on people.  

I was thinking about this on the way into work this am.  Jesus didn't tell the jews to start a new religion.  He was just telling them they were being hypocrites, no different than today's christians are christians only because they believe it'll get them into heaven.  They don't follow what jesus said any better than the money changers did.  And that whole son of god thing got blown way out of proportion.  I'm sure Jesus meant every man/woman is the son of god, not him literally.  And I just can't seem to wrap my mind around this whole thing about he died for our sins?  What is that all about again?


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nyupe... totally different deity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me rephrase.  Isn't the word Allah the Arabic word for god?  Wouldn't a Christian speaking Arabic say allah instead of god?  I seem to recall a story about a Muslim-run country recently trying to get Christians to remove the word allah from their Bibles.
> 
> I've certainly read from multiple sources that allah is the Arabic word for god, but I don't know the language at all.
> 
> I've tried to do a quick search about this moon god thing, but pretty much all that came up seemed to be Christian sources making the claim and Islamic sources denying it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, since I am non-religious, I really don't have a dog in this hunt, I am just going by what archaeologists have discovered and history has recorded. That's the thing about history, you can't run away from it. It is a common misconception that Allah and God are the same, largely due to Muhammad teaching this lie after the fact. The pagan deity Allah: God of the Moon, existed long before Muhammad. Now, I am not here to dispute Muhammad any more than I'm here to dispute Jesus or Abraham. I'm just reporting the facts. You can believe Muhammad or history, doesn't really matter to me.
Click to expand...


I don't like it that they made those two pope's saints.  I use to think saints were great men but now I realize they were just men.  Certainly no saints.  Top 10 Most Wicked Popes - Listverse


----------



## sealybobo

without Jesus death on the cross for our sins, no one would have eternal life?

What about the billions of people that lived before?


----------



## sealybobo

Wait a minute!!!  Jesus Himself said, I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me

Oh he said so himself?  That is their proof?  LOL.  So did Joseph Smith, David Koresh, Charles Manson, etc.  So your proof is to tell me the guy said so himself, 2000 years ago?  I'll continue reading this shit and see if it convinces me of anything.


----------



## sealybobo

Jesus declares the reason for His birth, death, and resurrectionto provide the way to heaven for sinful mankind, who could never get there on their own.  Couldnt god think of an easier way?  

When God created Adam and Eve, they were perfect in every way and lived in a virtual paradise. Already there are so many questions that cant be answered believably.  God created man in His image, even though boss says hes not physical.  Adam and Eve succumbed to Satans temptations and lies. So either you are a nut job and believe this literally or you understand this is just a story to teach right and wrong.  So if it is a story, and the ark is a story, then so is the Jesus story.    

God declared that all who sin will die, both physically and spiritually. This is the fate of all mankind. But God, in His grace and mercy, provided a way out of this dilemma, the shed blood of His perfect Son on the cross. God declared that without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness Really?  Should we all live by this?  This is exactly what is wrong with religion.  That right there.  BOOM!  

This is why Jesus came and why He died, to become the ultimate and final sacrifice.  Sick this religion is founded on human sacrifice.    

Through Him, the promise of life eternal with God becomes effective through faith to those who believe in Jesus. These two words, faith and believing, are critical to our salvation. It is through our believing in the shed blood of Christ for our sins that we receive eternal life. 

This is an ancient outdated religion.


----------



## Boss

You're funny, silly boob. You are the most curious about religion Atheist I've ever seen. If I didn't know better I'd think you maybe had some doubts about your spirituality. We already know that you believe in Karma, so you certainly have spiritual awareness. It's okay to not be exactly sure what you believe, I think this is more common than you might think.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> You're funny, silly boob. You are the most curious about religion Atheist I've ever seen. If I didn't know better I'd think you maybe had some doubts about your spirituality. We already know that you believe in Karma, so you certainly have spiritual awareness. It's okay to not be exactly sure what you believe, I think this is more common than you might think.



And maybe it is only the organized religions that I don't like.  Maybe I wouldn't mind one religion that we all belong to.  Former Jews muslims and christians.  One that doesn't preach you'll go to hell if you are not a member.  And one that doesn't tell fairy tales and try to pass them off as fact.  We're not stupid.  Or are we?


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> You're funny, silly boob. You are the most curious about religion Atheist I've ever seen. If I didn't know better I'd think you maybe had some doubts about your spirituality. We already know that you believe in Karma, so you certainly have spiritual awareness. It's okay to not be exactly sure what you believe, I think this is more common than you might think.



Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.  Charles Darwin


----------



## GISMYS

JUST KEEP ON HANGING AROUND THE RELIGION TOPIC AND MAYBE YOU WILL WISE UP,get off your fat lazy butt and seek TRUTH.==========GOD'S INSPIRED(GOD BREATHED) WORD IS ALL TRUTH!!


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nyupe... totally different deity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me rephrase.  Isn't the word Allah the Arabic word for god?  Wouldn't a Christian speaking Arabic say allah instead of god?  I seem to recall a story about a Muslim-run country recently trying to get Christians to remove the word allah from their Bibles.
> 
> I've certainly read from multiple sources that allah is the Arabic word for god, but I don't know the language at all.
> 
> I've tried to do a quick search about this moon god thing, but pretty much all that came up seemed to be Christian sources making the claim and Islamic sources denying it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, since I am non-religious, I really don't have a dog in this hunt, I am just going by what archaeologists have discovered and history has recorded. That's the thing about history, you can't run away from it. It is a common misconception that Allah and God are the same, largely due to Muhammad teaching this lie after the fact. The pagan deity Allah: God of the Moon, existed long before Muhammad. Now, I am not here to dispute Muhammad any more than I'm here to dispute Jesus or Abraham. I'm just reporting the facts. You can believe Muhammad or history, doesn't really matter to me.
Click to expand...


That's the thing.  It's not a question of believing Muhammad or history.  I have not seem evidence that it is history.  Like I said, looking up allah as the moon god gave me a bunch of sites which were either Christian or Muslim.  I didn't get archeological sites, historical sites, etc.  Where did you get this information from?  Then I could go see for myself.  

You haven't really answered my question about the word allah, either, unless you are saying it does not mean god in Arabic, but instead means the specific moon god you're talking about.


----------



## BreezeWood

sealybobo said:


> Wait a minute!!!  Jesus Himself said, I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me
> 
> Oh he said so himself?  That is their proof?  LOL.  So did Joseph Smith, David Koresh, Charles Manson, etc.  So your proof is to tell me the guy said so himself, 2000 years ago?  I'll continue reading this shit and see if it convinces me of anything.






> I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me



is there proof the quote is attributable to J ?


*"No one comes to the Father except through me*


if attributable, the quote would be a / the reason for his trial for blasphemy as was done and without an encore verifiable for posterity ... end of story end of myth. - 

but a true martyr who died for his cause / and (vanity). all hail Jesus.

.


----------



## sealybobo

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me rephrase.  Isn't the word Allah the Arabic word for god?  Wouldn't a Christian speaking Arabic say allah instead of god?  I seem to recall a story about a Muslim-run country recently trying to get Christians to remove the word allah from their Bibles.
> 
> I've certainly read from multiple sources that allah is the Arabic word for god, but I don't know the language at all.
> 
> I've tried to do a quick search about this moon god thing, but pretty much all that came up seemed to be Christian sources making the claim and Islamic sources denying it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, since I am non-religious, I really don't have a dog in this hunt, I am just going by what archaeologists have discovered and history has recorded. That's the thing about history, you can't run away from it. It is a common misconception that Allah and God are the same, largely due to Muhammad teaching this lie after the fact. The pagan deity Allah: God of the Moon, existed long before Muhammad. Now, I am not here to dispute Muhammad any more than I'm here to dispute Jesus or Abraham. I'm just reporting the facts. You can believe Muhammad or history, doesn't really matter to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the thing.  It's not a question of believing Muhammad or history.  I have not seem evidence that it is history.  Like I said, looking up allah as the moon god gave me a bunch of sites which were either Christian or Muslim.  I didn't get archeological sites, historical sites, etc.  Where did you get this information from?  Then I could go see for myself.
> 
> You haven't really answered my question about the word allah, either, unless you are saying it does not mean god in Arabic, but instead means the specific moon god you're talking about.
Click to expand...


It isn't history.  The only thing that stops these stories from being fairy tales is that they supposedly happened 5000 or 2000 years ago rather than "in a place far far away a long time ago".

There is no contemporary evidence for Jesus (or Mohammad's) existence or the Bibles account of his life; no artifacts, dwellings, works of carpentry, self-written manuscripts, court records, eyewitness testimony, official diaries, birth records, re&#64258;ections on his significance or written disputes about his teachings. Nothing survives from the time in which he is said to have lived.

The Biblical account of Jesus (and the Koran's account of Mohammad) have striking similarities with other mythologies and texts. It is likely the character(s) was either partly or entirely invented by competing first century messianic cults from an amalgamation of Greco-Roman, Egyptian and Judeo-Apocalyptic myths and prophecies.

Even if Jesus or Mohammad's existence could be established, this would in no way validate Christian or Muslim theology or any element of the stories portrayed in the Bible or Koran, such as the performance of miracles or the resurrection. 

Simply because it is conceivable a heretical Jewish preacher named Yeshua lived circa 30 AD, had followers and was executed, does not imply the son of a god walked the Earth at that time.  Same for Mo.


----------



## GISMYS

Roflmao!!! So you are so blinded and ignorant that you do not know truth when you read it???? Pray for help and pray fast and long!!!


----------



## sealybobo

BreezeWood said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait a minute!!!  Jesus Himself said, I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me
> 
> Oh he said so himself?  That is their proof?  LOL.  So did Joseph Smith, David Koresh, Charles Manson, etc.  So your proof is to tell me the guy said so himself, 2000 years ago?  I'll continue reading this shit and see if it convinces me of anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> is there proof the quote is attributable to J ?
> 
> 
> *"No one comes to the Father except through me*
> 
> 
> if attributable, the quote would be a / the reason for his trial for blasphemy as was done and without an encore verifiable for posterity ... end of story end of myth. -
> 
> but a true martyr who died for his cause / and (vanity). all hail Jesus.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I also find it amazing that the religious leaders of these false religions could or would try and murder a person for denying their stories.  That alone should tell you they are not real.  Seriously?  Your religion says its ok to murder someone who disagrees or speaks out in disbelief?  Wow!  That's going to be a real good religion.  A lot of good is going to come of a religion like that, NOT.  

Christians will say that was the jews not them, but for how many hundreds of years did Christians slso kill non believers?  So how can anyone who takes a serious hard look at these religions believe or take them seriously?

Notice they never teach you the history of religion.  Instead they tell you to read their book full of scare tactics and impossible stories and ignore their history.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> Roflmao!!! So you are so blinded and ignorant that you do not know truth when you read it???? Pray for help and pray fast and long!!!



Nope.  I read the bible and the truth is not obvious.  If it is to you that's because you are gullible.


----------



## GISMYS

GOD'S WORDS TO UNBELIEVERS==The man who isn&#8217;t a Christian can&#8217;t understand and can&#8217;t accept these thoughts from God, which the Holy Spirit teaches us. They sound foolish to him because only those who have the Holy Spirit within them can understand what the Holy Spirit means. Others just can&#8217;t take it in.  15 But the spiritual man has insight into everything, and that bothers and baffles the man of the world, who can&#8217;t understand him at all.  16 How could he? For certainly he has never been one to know the Lord&#8217;s thoughts, or to discuss them with him, or to move the hands of God by prayer. But, strange as it seems, we Christians actually do have within us a portion of the very thoughts and mind of Christ. 1Corinthians 2:14-16=====IS THIS YOUR PROBLEM???


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> GOD'S WORDS TO UNBELIEVERS==The man who isnt a Christian cant understand and cant accept these thoughts from God, which the Holy Spirit teaches us. They sound foolish to him because only those who have the Holy Spirit within them can understand what the Holy Spirit means. Others just cant take it in.  15 But the spiritual man has insight into everything, and that bothers and baffles the man of the world, who cant understand him at all.  16 How could he? For certainly he has never been one to know the Lords thoughts, or to discuss them with him, or to move the hands of God by prayer. But, strange as it seems, we Christians actually do have within us a portion of the very thoughts and mind of Christ. 1Corinthians 2:14-16=====IS THIS YOUR PROBLEM???



Sealybobo shows Gismys a book of fairy tales and tries to pass them off as fact.

Gismys doesn't believe the stories

Sealybobo says if he doesn't believe the stories he'll go to hell.

Gismys calls bs.

Sealybobo continues to use the book of fairy tales as proof his fairy tales are real.

Gismym never buys it

Sealybobo continues to tell gismys that he'll go to hell if he doesn't believe

Gismys never believes and continues to live a normal life.

Sound familiar?


----------



## GISMYS

TRY AGAIN!! THIS SCRIPTURE IS NOT HARD FOR "MOST" people to understand!!===GOD'S WORDS TO UNBELIEVERS==The man who isn&#8217;t a Christian can&#8217;t understand and can&#8217;t accept these thoughts from God, which the Holy Spirit teaches us. They sound foolish to him because only those who have the Holy Spirit within them can understand what the Holy Spirit means. Others just can&#8217;t take it in. 15 But the spiritual man has insight into everything, and that bothers and baffles the man of the world, who can&#8217;t understand him at all. 16 How could he? For certainly he has never been one to know the Lord&#8217;s thoughts, or to discuss them with him, or to move the hands of God by prayer. But, strange as it seems, we Christians actually do have within us a portion of the very thoughts and mind of Christ. 1Corinthians 2:14-16=====IS THIS YOUR PROBLEM???


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> TRY AGAIN!! BLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLA only those who have the Holy Spirit within them can understand what the Holy Spirit means. BLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLA Ignorance is bliss.



Exactly


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> TRY AGAIN!! BLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLA only those who have the Holy Spirit within them can understand what the Holy Spirit means. BLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLA Ignorance is bliss.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly
Click to expand...


REALLY SAD TO SEE A POOR LOST BLINDED SOUL ON THE ROAD TO ETERNAL HELL!!!! BUT YOUR FREE CHOICE!!! But you can't blame GOD!!!


----------



## Montrovant

sealybobo said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, since I am non-religious, I really don't have a dog in this hunt, I am just going by what archaeologists have discovered and history has recorded. That's the thing about history, you can't run away from it. It is a common misconception that Allah and God are the same, largely due to Muhammad teaching this lie after the fact. The pagan deity Allah: God of the Moon, existed long before Muhammad. Now, I am not here to dispute Muhammad any more than I'm here to dispute Jesus or Abraham. I'm just reporting the facts. You can believe Muhammad or history, doesn't really matter to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the thing.  It's not a question of believing Muhammad or history.  I have not seem evidence that it is history.  Like I said, looking up allah as the moon god gave me a bunch of sites which were either Christian or Muslim.  I didn't get archeological sites, historical sites, etc.  Where did you get this information from?  Then I could go see for myself.
> 
> You haven't really answered my question about the word allah, either, unless you are saying it does not mean god in Arabic, but instead means the specific moon god you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It isn't history.  The only thing that stops these stories from being fairy tales is that they supposedly happened 5000 or 2000 years ago rather than "in a place far far away a long time ago".
> 
> There is no contemporary evidence for Jesus (or Mohammad's) existence or the Bibles account of his life; no artifacts, dwellings, works of carpentry, self-written manuscripts, court records, eyewitness testimony, official diaries, birth records, re&#64258;ections on his significance or written disputes about his teachings. Nothing survives from the time in which he is said to have lived.
> 
> The Biblical account of Jesus (and the Koran's account of Mohammad) have striking similarities with other mythologies and texts. It is likely the character(s) was either partly or entirely invented by competing first century messianic cults from an amalgamation of Greco-Roman, Egyptian and Judeo-Apocalyptic myths and prophecies.
> 
> Even if Jesus or Mohammad's existence could be established, this would in no way validate Christian or Muslim theology or any element of the stories portrayed in the Bible or Koran, such as the performance of miracles or the resurrection.
> 
> Simply because it is conceivable a heretical Jewish preacher named Yeshua lived circa 30 AD, had followers and was executed, does not imply the son of a god walked the Earth at that time.  Same for Mo.
Click to expand...


Do you even realize your post has little to do with the conversation you are quoting?


----------



## Montrovant

sealybobo said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, we never invade christians or whites.  Last time white Germany and us went at it.  The german people were all christians.  How great is the religion when the people of that religion are capable of such acts?  Time to get rid of the christian and muslim religions because  they say all non christians/muslims are bad.  So these religions need to end.  Jews will always be jews.  You can't join that club.  You either are born into it or you are not.  Sammy Davis the one exception.  Anyways, we need a new religion.  One that doesn't say non believers are going to hell.  Or maybe there is an old religion that preached this and it never caught on?  I don't know.  All I know is religous people are KILLAS.  Ask any alien watching us from space.  What do you think they think of us?  Fucktards.  They would love a liberal planet.  But you cons would dissect that alien so fast.
> 
> See son, you don't know how Bush mind fucked you.  If you did you would know what I'm talking about.  Bush/Rush/Fox/Drudged purposely called them radical ISLAM.  They basically called a holy war and you dumb americans were so easily duped.  I'll admit so was I after 911 but then about 1 yr into Iraq I work up.  You clearly didn't.  Bush/Chaney loved/wanted the Iraq war.  And you know when I say bush I mean the gop.  Fill in the fucking blank christy, huckabee, mccain, mitt, mcconnell, boehner, ryan, paul, shell/exxon/bp/haloburton/incorporated.
> 
> And lastly, I am a student of politics/religion.  I study them.  That's why I know where politics is corrupt and why religion is too.  Hell if you'd get your head out of rush/fox/drudges asses you'd know more I promise you that.  Yesterday alone on NPR they were talking about politics in America vs. Australia.  This is just one small example of how they own you bitches and you keep voting for them.  In Australia you pay a $15 fine if you don't vote, so they have very high turn over.  This changes EVERYTHING.  More people vote.  You can show up and vote for NO ONE but you have to show up.  This gets the citizens engaged more.  More interested and more informed.  Then the politicians start fighting for the votes in the middle, not pandering to the far right on abortion, god gays and guns and RACISM.  This is how the GOP/Rich are winning elections.  By low voter turn out and low information voters.
> 
> Remember they use to say all politics are local?  Really?  Who's your state reps?  What did they vote on recently?  So even the people here in America who do pay attention and so uninformed, misinformed or underinformed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, that's a staggering amount of projection and strawman argument.
> 
> Christianity certainly has a history of aggression and violence, of 'killing in the name of god'.  However, the followers of Christianity seem to have pretty much given up on that.  Some followers of Islam, unfortunately, have not.
> 
> While I would love to see how humanity would fare without religion, both because of my lack of belief and my curiosity as to how important it is to our survival and advancement as a species, there is no need for religion to end.  We've gotten along with religion being part of humanity up to this point.
> 
> You cons would dissect that alien so fast?  What the hell are you talking about?  First, I am not a con.  I am not a member of any political party nor am I beholden to any particular political philosophy.  Second, I don't think that political belief would be the main determining factor in how a person reacted to intelligent alien life.
> 
> Bush mind fucked me?  I never voted for or even liked Bush.  That you see the religious behind every bad thing that ever happens doesn't mean I've somehow been fooled by a former president.    Yes, politicians drummed up some hatred for Muslims.  That's what politicians do; they provide people with a target for their frustration, anger and hate, whether that target deserves it or not.
> 
> I was never for the Iraq war.  Afghanistan I understood, but Iraq always seemed like a purposeless war to me, a continuation of Bush Sr.'s war.  Maybe you are the 'dumb American' who was 'mind fucked' by Bush if you thought the war was a good idea for the first year.
> 
> If you mean the GOP, why don't you say the GOP instead of just Bush?
> 
> Now I have my head in Rush/Fox/Drudge's ass?  You don't know the first thing about my political beliefs, so far as I can tell, but in your need to put people in simple categories you can more easily demonize, you've decided you do.  I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh.  Other than the occasional short bit to see what the fuss is about on a particular subject, I never have.  I don't watch tv news.  I do go to Fox's website, but I just happen to like the layout.  I also go to CNN's site and read BBC headlines.  I have never been to the Drudge site.  So how is my head in their asses again?
> 
> Who owns me?  Who have I voted for?  You haven't the slightest clue.  You aren't arguing with me, you're arguing with a caricature you've created of your idea of a conservative.  If you want to stop talking to yourself and actually talk to me, let me know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, if you aren't a con then stop using their buzz words like straw man.
> 
> Second, yes I generalize.  I'm on a fucking message board.  There are religious liberals too.
> 
> 3.  I don't want to talk politics with someone who is unconvincable.  I may come here and spout off my opinion, but I don't want to get in a tit for tat with boss.  Righties love that shit.  I say why bother.  Remember all their confidence that Mitt was ahead in the polls?
> 
> Anyways, I'm not here to talk politics. I'm just telling you that religion and politics are the two ways "they" mind fuck you/us.
> 
> Oh, and when I say they own you, I mean they own me too unfortunately.
> 
> So I hear the Jews, the founders of our religion, are up to 1000 muslim murder/death/kills in Gaza.  Boy they sure want to catch us atheists in our number of all time murder/death/kills.  We haven't killed anyone since Pol Pot but the christians/jews/muslims just keep killing each other.  Very impressive from a scientific point of view.  In fact doctors learned a lot about plastic surgery and helping amputees through war or experimenting on people.
> 
> I was thinking about this on the way into work this am.  Jesus didn't tell the jews to start a new religion.  He was just telling them they were being hypocrites, no different than today's christians are christians only because they believe it'll get them into heaven.  They don't follow what jesus said any better than the money changers did.  And that whole son of god thing got blown way out of proportion.  I'm sure Jesus meant every man/woman is the son of god, not him literally.  And I just can't seem to wrap my mind around this whole thing about he died for our sins?  What is that all about again?
Click to expand...


A straw man is a poor debating fallacy.  It has nothing to do with conservatives or liberals or any other political philosophies.

You don't just generalize, you try to force people or their arguments into religious boxes you have created in your mind.  You argue as though Christianity, or the Abrahamic religions, are the only ones that exist.  

You don't want to discuss politics, you just want to give your opinions and then ignore any replies?

The Jews are the founders of 'our' religion?  Odd terminology for an atheist, and yet another example of the way you really seem to argue against Christianity when you talk about religion.  That's understandable to an extent, since it's far and away the major religion in the US, but you conflate all religion with Christianity far too often.

Yes, many have been killed in the name of religion, and many still are.  I'm not sure if the current Israel/Hamas conflict is really about religion, though; I think that politics and nationalism may have as much to do with it.  But sure, I'll accept that it's an example of people killing for religion.  So what?  Why tell me that, when I've never denied that people kill for religion?

You are welcome to whatever interpretation of Christianity you want.  I think that you are being silly, but no sillier than most believers.  

You continue to try and argue as though I think or believe things I do not and have never claimed to think.  I am not religious.  I have never been a believer.  I have anti-Christian symbols carved into my flesh, FFS.  I don't like or agree with religion.  However, that doesn't mean I am OK with poor arguments made against religion or with the kind of nearly blind stereotyping you so often do.


----------



## BreezeWood

Montrovant said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's the thing.  It's not a question of believing Muhammad or history.  I have not seem evidence that it is history.  Like I said, looking up allah as the moon god gave me a bunch of sites which were either Christian or Muslim.  I didn't get archeological sites, historical sites, etc.  Where did you get this information from?  Then I could go see for myself.
> 
> You haven't really answered my question about the word allah, either, unless you are saying it does not mean god in Arabic, but instead means the specific moon god you're talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't history.  The only thing that stops these stories from being fairy tales is that they supposedly happened 5000 or 2000 years ago rather than "in a place far far away a long time ago".
> 
> There is no contemporary evidence for Jesus (or Mohammad's) existence or the Bibles account of his life; no artifacts, dwellings, works of carpentry, self-written manuscripts, court records, eyewitness testimony, official diaries, birth records, re&#64258;ections on his significance or written disputes about his teachings. Nothing survives from the time in which he is said to have lived.
> 
> The Biblical account of Jesus (and the Koran's account of Mohammad) have striking similarities with other mythologies and texts. It is likely the character(s) was either partly or entirely invented by competing first century messianic cults from an amalgamation of Greco-Roman, Egyptian and Judeo-Apocalyptic myths and prophecies.
> 
> Even if Jesus or Mohammad's existence could be established, this would in no way validate Christian or Muslim theology or any element of the stories portrayed in the Bible or Koran, such as the performance of miracles or the resurrection.
> 
> Simply because it is conceivable a heretical Jewish preacher named Yeshua lived circa 30 AD, had followers and was executed, does not imply the son of a god walked the Earth at that time.  Same for Mo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you even realize your post has little to do with the conversation you are quoting?
Click to expand...



not to mention an attribution, the above is quoted from somewhere ....


speaking of - "has little to do with the conversation" - what about GISMO ?

.


----------



## Montrovant

BreezeWood said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't history.  The only thing that stops these stories from being fairy tales is that they supposedly happened 5000 or 2000 years ago rather than "in a place far far away a long time ago".
> 
> There is no contemporary evidence for Jesus (or Mohammad's) existence or the Bibles account of his life; no artifacts, dwellings, works of carpentry, self-written manuscripts, court records, eyewitness testimony, official diaries, birth records, re&#64258;ections on his significance or written disputes about his teachings. Nothing survives from the time in which he is said to have lived.
> 
> The Biblical account of Jesus (and the Koran's account of Mohammad) have striking similarities with other mythologies and texts. It is likely the character(s) was either partly or entirely invented by competing first century messianic cults from an amalgamation of Greco-Roman, Egyptian and Judeo-Apocalyptic myths and prophecies.
> 
> Even if Jesus or Mohammad's existence could be established, this would in no way validate Christian or Muslim theology or any element of the stories portrayed in the Bible or Koran, such as the performance of miracles or the resurrection.
> 
> Simply because it is conceivable a heretical Jewish preacher named Yeshua lived circa 30 AD, had followers and was executed, does not imply the son of a god walked the Earth at that time.  Same for Mo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you even realize your post has little to do with the conversation you are quoting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> not to mention an attribution, the above is quoted from somewhere ....
> 
> 
> speaking of - "has little to do with the conversation" - what about GISMO ?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I pretty much ignore GISMYS.  His/her crazy ramblings aren't worth the time to read or reply to IMO.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> TRY AGAIN!! BLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLA only those who have the Holy Spirit within them can understand what the Holy Spirit means. BLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLA Ignorance is bliss.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> REALLY SAD TO SEE A POOR LOST BLINDED SOUL ON THE ROAD TO ETERNAL HELL!!!! BUT YOUR FREE CHOICE!!! But you can't blame GOD!!!
Click to expand...


Really because it seems like you enjoy rubbing it in.  We have a dumb friend like you and he tried saying that to us once and we made so much fun of him that he just shuts up now.  If him and you want to believe people are going to hell for denying your fake story, that's your free choice.  And I don't blame a god because there is no god.  If there was he wouldn't be hiding.  He made us in his image?  So he looks like a man?  Then come perform some magic for me like Jesus did for his followers.  He supposedly gave them proof and they crucified him.  I wouldn't.  I would believe him if I saw him turn 2 fish into 200.  Show me a miracle.  

But unfortunately we are the losers in the dice roll of time.  Supposedly Jesus went around showing everyone proof but today we have to rely on what sounds like a made up story.  I mean unless you are a child or really gullible/weak minded.

But if that makes you feel good that you are going to heaven, great.  Just realize telling other people if they don't believe they will go to hell is exactly why I don't believe.  No god would come up with this.  A cult would though.


----------



## GISMYS

sealybobo said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> REALLY SAD TO SEE A POOR LOST BLINDED SOUL ON THE ROAD TO ETERNAL HELL!!!! BUT YOUR FREE CHOICE!!! But you can't blame GOD!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really because it seems like you enjoy rubbing it in.  We have a dumb friend like you and he tried saying that to us once and we made so much fun of him that he just shuts up now.  If him and you want to believe people are going to hell for denying your fake story, that's your free choice.  And I don't blame a god because there is no god.  If there was he wouldn't be hiding.  He made us in his image?  So he looks like a man?  Then come perform some magic for me like Jesus did for his followers.  He supposedly gave them proof and they crucified him.  I wouldn't.  I would believe him if I saw him turn 2 fish into 200.  Show me a miracle.
> 
> But unfortunately we are the losers in the dice roll of time.  Supposedly Jesus went around showing everyone proof but today we have to rely on what sounds like a made up story.  I mean unless you are a child or really gullible/weak minded.
> 
> But if that makes you feel good that you are going to heaven, great.  Just realize telling other people if they don't believe they will go to hell is exactly why I don't believe.  No god would come up with this.  A cult would though.
Click to expand...


LOL!!! YOU CAN'T DEBATE WHAT GOD'S WORD SAYS IF YOU DON'T READ AND STUDY IT!!! When you try you look very ignorant!!! and you??


----------



## Slyhunter

GISMYS said:


> GOD'S WORDS TO UNBELIEVERS==The man who isnt a Christian cant understand and cant accept these thoughts from God, which the Holy Spirit teaches us. They sound foolish to him because only those who have the Holy Spirit within them can understand what the Holy Spirit means. Others just cant take it in.  15 But the spiritual man has insight into everything, and that bothers and baffles the man of the world, who cant understand him at all.  16 How could he? For certainly he has never been one to know the Lords thoughts, or to discuss them with him, or to move the hands of God by prayer. But, strange as it seems, we Christians actually do have within us a portion of the very thoughts and mind of Christ. 1Corinthians 2:14-16=====IS THIS YOUR PROBLEM???



You need to read what your wrote.
Since you are not stupid enough to believe my words and blindly follow me you can't be a member of my special club.


----------



## sealybobo

Montrovant said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you even realize your post has little to do with the conversation you are quoting?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> not to mention an attribution, the above is quoted from somewhere ....
> 
> 
> speaking of - "has little to do with the conversation" - what about GISMO ?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I pretty much ignore GISMYS.  His/her crazy ramblings aren't worth the time to read or reply to IMO.
Click to expand...


Perhaps your feelings stem from me jumping to conclusions about you.  Maybe I misunderstood a post you wrote or I agreed with you and in going into my rant I started writing as if I was writing at a theist because I often do that.  Do you believe in god or not?  And if you didn't vote for bush, who did you vote for?  I have read through some of your past posts and I'm trying to put a finger on you but I really haven't had much luck.  You definately aren't black or white.  You are more a gray.  

And, my theory of how they use religion to control the masses.  You disagree with that?  You don't see how they use god in politics?

I have a feeling that if voting age adults are dumb enough to believe in a god, they are pretty much dumb enough to believe anything because belief in god requires blind faith and I don't have blind faith in anything.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> REALLY SAD TO SEE A POOR LOST BLINDED SOUL ON THE ROAD TO ETERNAL HELL!!!! BUT YOUR FREE CHOICE!!! But you can't blame GOD!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really because it seems like you enjoy rubbing it in.  We have a dumb friend like you and he tried saying that to us once and we made so much fun of him that he just shuts up now.  If him and you want to believe people are going to hell for denying your fake story, that's your free choice.  And I don't blame a god because there is no god.  If there was he wouldn't be hiding.  He made us in his image?  So he looks like a man?  Then come perform some magic for me like Jesus did for his followers.  He supposedly gave them proof and they crucified him.  I wouldn't.  I would believe him if I saw him turn 2 fish into 200.  Show me a miracle.
> 
> But unfortunately we are the losers in the dice roll of time.  Supposedly Jesus went around showing everyone proof but today we have to rely on what sounds like a made up story.  I mean unless you are a child or really gullible/weak minded.
> 
> But if that makes you feel good that you are going to heaven, great.  Just realize telling other people if they don't believe they will go to hell is exactly why I don't believe.  No god would come up with this.  A cult would though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!!! YOU CAN'T DEBATE WHAT GOD'S WORD SAYS IF YOU DON'T READ AND STUDY IT!!! When you try you look very ignorant!!! and you??
Click to expand...


I have read and studied it.  Did nothing for me.  Not even a good read.  It was literally all over the place.  A good book has a beginning, middle and end.  

What is this And you? shit?  Fucking loser.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> REALLY SAD TO SEE A POOR LOST BLINDED SOUL ON THE ROAD TO ETERNAL HELL!!!! BUT YOUR FREE CHOICE!!! But you can't blame GOD!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really because it seems like you enjoy rubbing it in.  We have a dumb friend like you and he tried saying that to us once and we made so much fun of him that he just shuts up now.  If him and you want to believe people are going to hell for denying your fake story, that's your free choice.  And I don't blame a god because there is no god.  If there was he wouldn't be hiding.  He made us in his image?  So he looks like a man?  Then come perform some magic for me like Jesus did for his followers.  He supposedly gave them proof and they crucified him.  I wouldn't.  I would believe him if I saw him turn 2 fish into 200.  Show me a miracle.
> 
> But unfortunately we are the losers in the dice roll of time.  Supposedly Jesus went around showing everyone proof but today we have to rely on what sounds like a made up story.  I mean unless you are a child or really gullible/weak minded.
> 
> But if that makes you feel good that you are going to heaven, great.  Just realize telling other people if they don't believe they will go to hell is exactly why I don't believe.  No god would come up with this.  A cult would though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!!! YOU CAN'T DEBATE WHAT GOD'S WORD SAYS IF YOU DON'T READ AND STUDY IT!!! When you try you look very ignorant!!! and you??
Click to expand...


Only a fool believes something that requires blind faith.  And you?


----------



## Montrovant

sealybobo said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> not to mention an attribution, the above is quoted from somewhere ....
> 
> 
> speaking of - "has little to do with the conversation" - what about GISMO ?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I pretty much ignore GISMYS.  His/her crazy ramblings aren't worth the time to read or reply to IMO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps your feelings stem from me jumping to conclusions about you.  Maybe I misunderstood a post you wrote or I agreed with you and in going into my rant I started writing as if I was writing at a theist because I often do that.  Do you believe in god or not?  And if you didn't vote for bush, who did you vote for?  I have read through some of your past posts and I'm trying to put a finger on you but I really haven't had much luck.  You definately aren't black or white.  You are more a gray.
> 
> And, my theory of how they use religion to control the masses.  You disagree with that?  You don't see how they use god in politics?
> 
> I have a feeling that if voting age adults are dumb enough to believe in a god, they are pretty much dumb enough to believe anything because belief in god requires blind faith and I don't have blind faith in anything.
Click to expand...


I think in the US, god is only one of many ways that politicians attempt to 'control' the masses.  

I don't consider belief in god enough information about a person to say they are dumb.  They hold a dumb belief, but they can be intelligent people.

I have said on numerous occasions I am not a believer.  I don't believe in any god or spiritual being or anything of the sort.

I didn't vote for Bush or anyone else.  I rarely see a politician running for high office that I'd trust to run anything of importance.  I am extremely jaded politically; I don't consider either of the major parties to be much different, and the smaller parties too often seem packed with extremists.


----------



## GISMYS

THIS SCRIPTURE IS NOT HARD FOR "MOST" people to understand!!===GOD'S WORDS TO you UNBELIEVERS==The man who isn&#8217;t a Christian can&#8217;t understand and can&#8217;t accept these thoughts from God, which the Holy Spirit teaches us. They sound foolish to him because only those who have the Holy Spirit within them can understand what the Holy Spirit means. Others just can&#8217;t take it in. 15 But the spiritual man has insight into everything, and that bothers and baffles the man of the world, who can&#8217;t understand him at all. 16 How could he? For certainly he has never been one to know the Lord&#8217;s thoughts, or to discuss them with him, or to move the hands of God by prayer. But, strange as it seems, we Christians actually do have within us a portion of the very thoughts and mind of Christ. 1Corinthians 2:14-16=====IS THIS YOUR PROBLEM???


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me rephrase.  Isn't the word Allah the Arabic word for god?  Wouldn't a Christian speaking Arabic say allah instead of god?  I seem to recall a story about a Muslim-run country recently trying to get Christians to remove the word allah from their Bibles.
> 
> I've certainly read from multiple sources that allah is the Arabic word for god, but I don't know the language at all.
> 
> I've tried to do a quick search about this moon god thing, but pretty much all that came up seemed to be Christian sources making the claim and Islamic sources denying it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, since I am non-religious, I really don't have a dog in this hunt, I am just going by what archaeologists have discovered and history has recorded. That's the thing about history, you can't run away from it. It is a common misconception that Allah and God are the same, largely due to Muhammad teaching this lie after the fact. The pagan deity Allah: God of the Moon, existed long before Muhammad. Now, I am not here to dispute Muhammad any more than I'm here to dispute Jesus or Abraham. I'm just reporting the facts. You can believe Muhammad or history, doesn't really matter to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the thing.  It's not a question of believing Muhammad or history.  I have not seem evidence that it is history.  Like I said, looking up allah as the moon god gave me a bunch of sites which were either Christian or Muslim.  I didn't get archeological sites, historical sites, etc.  Where did you get this information from?  Then I could go see for myself.
> 
> You haven't really answered my question about the word allah, either, unless you are saying it does not mean god in Arabic, but instead means the specific moon god you're talking about.
Click to expand...


Well I learned this from a Comparative Religious Studies course I took in college about 35 years ago. I can't explain why the abundance of history and archeology sites on the Internet don't have specific information about this, perhaps because it conflicts with the major religious teachings of Islam which denies this? But we all know that if you can't find something on the Internet from a completely non-bias science, history or archeology site, about a religious topic, it must not be valid because the Internet is perfect and flawless, right? So there must be some other valid explanation for what the crescent moon and star symbol means, or why Muhammad said "Allah is *greatest*" instead of "Allah is great." I guess the recorded history of Allah which predates Muhammad and Islam is a case of people just being forward thinkers with psychic ability?











Allah was a pagan deity before Muhammad. Muslims deny this for obvious reasons. It is a major skeleton in the closet for Islam, but I am shocked that you only found religious sites discussing this topic.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Only a fool believes something that requires blind faith.  And you?



But you have blind faith that man invented spirituality. You've presented no evidence to support that idea. You've repeatedly denounced various religious incarnations of God without an ounce of evidence to support your views. So are you admitting you're a fool here?


----------



## Montrovant

I asked a perfectly reasonable question and you responded with snide sarcasm.

I didn't say this whole moon god thing is invalid, hence my question about where you heard it.  I said that I only found contradictory religious sources.


----------



## Slyhunter

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only a fool believes something that requires blind faith.  And you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you have blind faith that man invented spirituality. You've presented no evidence to support that idea. You've repeatedly denounced various religious incarnations of God without an ounce of evidence to support your views. So are you admitting you're a fool here?
Click to expand...


You don't prove a negative. You must first prove the positive. And there is no proof that God exists. The bible is just another book of fairytales.


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> I asked a perfectly reasonable question and you responded with snide sarcasm.
> 
> I didn't say this whole moon god thing is invalid, hence my question about where you heard it.  I said that I only found contradictory religious sources.



LOL... and I am asking you.... Geee, why do you think that is??? 

I think it's like the predominate point of contention between Christianity and Islam. I suspect legitimate archeology and history sites aren't interested in being denounced by Muslims or Christians, so they avoid this topic. That simply doesn't mean the archeological or historic evidence doesn't exist.


----------



## Boss

Slyhunter said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only a fool believes something that requires blind faith.  And you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you have blind faith that man invented spirituality. You've presented no evidence to support that idea. You've repeatedly denounced various religious incarnations of God without an ounce of evidence to support your views. So are you admitting you're a fool here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't prove a negative. You must first prove the positive. And there is no proof that God exists. *The bible is just another book of fairytales.*
Click to expand...


That's a faith-based belief unless you have evidence to support it.


----------



## LoneLaugher

Is it possible to hate that which does not exist?


----------



## HUGGY

Boss said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you have blind faith that man invented spirituality. You've presented no evidence to support that idea. You've repeatedly denounced various religious incarnations of God without an ounce of evidence to support your views. So are you admitting you're a fool here?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't prove a negative. You must first prove the positive. And there is no proof that God exists. *The bible is just another book of fairytales.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a faith-based belief unless you have evidence to support it.
Click to expand...


You think someone must have unsupported faith to have suspicion that talking snakes and the mutitude of myths in the first testament including the tablets supposedly fashioned on a mountain top for Moses and the many one-off scenerios like ressurection described in the King James bible to be untrue?  

At some point reality must draw a line in the sand to distinguish fact from fantasy or any and all stories from any and all sources must be accepted equally and the doors to the mental hospitals must be opened for the patients to come and go as they please.

AND what is the point of the rules of evidense in a courtroom?  If all story is just as valid as any other what separates truth from jibberish? 

You say faith?

Nonsense.

Faith alone is an absolute disqualification.


----------



## MaryL

I pray to god that he protects me from his followers. Just one more headache to add to life's pointless troubles. Not gonna happen. If god IS real, he's a sadist.


----------



## Boss

HUGGY said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't prove a negative. You must first prove the positive. And there is no proof that God exists. *The bible is just another book of fairytales.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a faith-based belief unless you have evidence to support it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think someone must have unsupported faith to have suspicion that talking snakes and the mutitude of myths in the first testament including the tablets supposedly fashioned on a mountain top for Moses and the many one-off scenerios like ressurection described in the King James bible to be untrue?
> 
> At some point reality must draw a line in the sand to distinguish fact from fantasy or any and all stories from any and all sources must be accepted equally and the doors to the mental hospitals must be opened for the patients to come and go as they please.
> 
> AND what is the point of the rules of evidense in a courtroom?  If all story is just as valid as any other what separates truth from jibberish?
> 
> You say faith?
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> Faith alone is an absolute disqualification.
Click to expand...


Well, when I read what was posted it appears to be a statement of believed truth... "The bible is just another book of fairytales." There is nothing there to indicate this is only a suspicion. I don't have any problem with someone stating they suspect the bible is a book of fairytales, it's when that is turned into a statement of "fact" that it becomes a faith-based belief. There is no evidence for it, and things that are believed without evidence are faith. 

The rules of evidence in a courtroom are that you can't prove something didn't happen unless you have evidence it didn't happen. Faith is faith regardless of whether it's applied to religious beliefs, the belief that principles of physics are universal, or the belief that God does not exist. Faith is belief in something without evidence. Now, there isn't anything wrong with having faith... I have faith the sun is going to come up in the morning. I don't know that it will, there is no evidence it has to, there is a possibility it won't.... but I have faith it will.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I asked a perfectly reasonable question and you responded with snide sarcasm.
> 
> I didn't say this whole moon god thing is invalid, hence my question about where you heard it.  I said that I only found contradictory religious sources.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL... and I am asking you.... Geee, why do you think that is???
> 
> I think it's like the predominate point of contention between Christianity and Islam. I suspect legitimate archeology and history sites aren't interested in being denounced by Muslims or Christians, so they avoid this topic. That simply doesn't mean the archeological or historic evidence doesn't exist.
Click to expand...


Until you brought it up I'd never heard of allah being a pagan moon god before, so that certainly doesn't seem likely to be the predominate point of contention between the two religions.  

And again, there are instances like this :
Malaysia's highest court backs a ban on Allah in Christian bibles | World news | The Guardian
where the word allah is used by Christians and supposedly has been for many years.

I don't know if Islam grew from some moon god worshiping religion.  I just haven't seen a source that seem unbiased enough about the history to accept either way.


----------



## Cenotaph

How can one hate something which does not exist?


----------



## HUGGY

Boss said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a faith-based belief unless you have evidence to support it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think someone must have unsupported faith to have suspicion that talking snakes and the mutitude of myths in the first testament including the tablets supposedly fashioned on a mountain top for Moses and the many one-off scenerios like ressurection described in the King James bible to be untrue?
> 
> At some point reality must draw a line in the sand to distinguish fact from fantasy or any and all stories from any and all sources must be accepted equally and the doors to the mental hospitals must be opened for the patients to come and go as they please.
> 
> AND what is the point of the rules of evidense in a courtroom?  If all story is just as valid as any other what separates truth from jibberish?
> 
> You say faith?
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> Faith alone is an absolute disqualification.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, when I read what was posted it appears to be a statement of believed truth... "The bible is just another book of fairytales." There is nothing there to indicate this is only a suspicion. I don't have any problem with someone stating they suspect the bible is a book of fairytales, it's when that is turned into a statement of "fact" that it becomes a faith-based belief. There is no evidence for it, and things that are believed without evidence are faith.
> 
> The rules of evidence in a courtroom are that you can't prove something didn't happen unless you have evidence it didn't happen. Faith is faith regardless of whether it's applied to religious beliefs, the belief that principles of physics are universal, or the belief that God does not exist. Faith is belief in something without evidence. Now, there isn't anything wrong with having faith... *I have faith the sun is going to come up in the morning*. I don't know that it will, there is no evidence it has to, there is a possibility it won't.... but I have faith it will.
Click to expand...


Over reaching is the standard refuge for those selling nonsense and snake oil.

There most certainly is abundant evidense that the sun will "come up tommorow morning".  That rediculous statement is componded by the fact that the sun does not "come up". 

The earth rotates.  So... the earth would need to stop rotating at a point where the position of the sun is behind the earth in relation to you and I OR the sun would need to vanish altogether in which case we would immediately go hurtling off into space as there would be nothing to keep us in this orbit.  Only those living in close proximitry to active volcanos would survive more than a few hours.  

Something would need to act on the earth or the sun to cause these two entities to react as you suggest is possible for not faith keeping everything in it's place.

This would be counter to the law of physics that demands matter in motion must stay in motion until acted upon by something else. There is nothing within range of a few hours away that can act upon our earth or sun. 

Faith cannot play into the possibility of the status of the positions of the sun or earth.

What we have here is just another snake oil salesman pronouncing the big lie as all religion is based.

Because we don't know ALL of the answers to ALL of the questions still remaining about the universe then ALL bets are off and ALL possibilities are on the table.

One of the more amazing things people like you are still trying to sell is how stupid you believe people are. 

We are not as ignorant as humanity was 2-3000 years ago.

Science has solved much of the mystery of the universe.  

You and those like you are drowning in the quicksand of knowledge.  It is burying you and your arguments.   

What your argument reminds me of is the attempt of some to replace much of the religious myth replaced by science with intelligent design.  Your particular "twist" is to attempt to breath life into *faith* claiming that belief in an all powerfull being or "force" preceeds even religion and MUST be considered as a seperate and irrefutable constant of human developement.

You want to roll out your theory with the same old argument that no one can prove it does not exist just as with faith of the existance of a god.

You claim no responsibility to factually prove any of your statements.  Of course as you believe... it is up to the nay sayers to prove your theory is false... not the other way around.

Science would do the world and human developement a favor by just cutting to the chase by proving beyond any shadow of a doubt that god does not and can not exist.

This false "high road" is a copout and causing more harm than good.  

Allowing everyone to believe whatever they want is a quaint notion sounding much better than it is.  There is something to be said for taking responsibility for what one says also.

Promoting fraud is morally wrong.  Science could do much in defining the truth or fiction in regards to statements concerning the religious dieties by people that recieve money by continuing to promote these lies..


----------



## Boss

HUGGY said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think someone must have unsupported faith to have suspicion that talking snakes and the mutitude of myths in the first testament including the tablets supposedly fashioned on a mountain top for Moses and the many one-off scenerios like ressurection described in the King James bible to be untrue?
> 
> At some point reality must draw a line in the sand to distinguish fact from fantasy or any and all stories from any and all sources must be accepted equally and the doors to the mental hospitals must be opened for the patients to come and go as they please.
> 
> AND what is the point of the rules of evidense in a courtroom?  If all story is just as valid as any other what separates truth from jibberish?
> 
> You say faith?
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> Faith alone is an absolute disqualification.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, when I read what was posted it appears to be a statement of believed truth... "The bible is just another book of fairytales." There is nothing there to indicate this is only a suspicion. I don't have any problem with someone stating they suspect the bible is a book of fairytales, it's when that is turned into a statement of "fact" that it becomes a faith-based belief. There is no evidence for it, and things that are believed without evidence are faith.
> 
> The rules of evidence in a courtroom are that you can't prove something didn't happen unless you have evidence it didn't happen. Faith is faith regardless of whether it's applied to religious beliefs, the belief that principles of physics are universal, or the belief that God does not exist. Faith is belief in something without evidence. Now, there isn't anything wrong with having faith... *I have faith the sun is going to come up in the morning*. I don't know that it will, there is no evidence it has to, there is a possibility it won't.... but I have faith it will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Over reaching is the standard refuge for those selling nonsense and snake oil.
> 
> There most certainly is abundant evidense that the sun will "come up tommorow morning".  That rediculous statement is componded by the fact that the sun does not "come up".
> 
> The earth rotates.  So... the earth would need to stop rotating at a point where the position of the sun is behind the earth in relation to you and I OR the sun would need to vanish altogether in which case we would immediately go hurtling off into space as there would be nothing to keep us in this orbit.  Only those living in close proximitry to active volcanos would survive more than a few hours.
> 
> Something would need to act on the earth or the sun to cause these two entities to react as you suggest is possible for not faith keeping everything in it's place.
Click to expand...


Right... and I have faith none of those things are going to happen and the sun will rise tomorrow. My faith is not based on evidence it will, I don't know if it will or not, and you don't know either. You and I have faith that it will because it always has before. I can certainly think of several things that could cause the sun not to rise in the morning.. the sun could explode... a gamma ray burst could obliterate earth... an alien starship could destroy the planet... or some cosmic event that only happens once every 14.5 billion years could happen. Again... I have FAITH these things aren't going to happen. I have no reason to believe otherwise. 



> This would be counter to the law of physics that demands matter in motion must stay in motion until acted upon by something else. There is nothing within range of a few hours away that can act upon our earth or sun.



You have faith that is the case. You have faith the law of physics will act as it always has. I don't have evidence that something isn't a few seconds away, much less a few hours. I have pretty substantial faith that nothing is going to happen, but no one is certain. 



> Faith cannot play into the possibility of the status of the positions of the sun or earth.



But it does. Now you can certainly have high confidence in your faith, good reason for having the faith, I'm not arguing that. Still, unless you can prove something is true you have to rely on faith. You can't prove the sun will come up tomorrow, only that you have faith the probability is high. 



> What we have here is just another snake oil salesman pronouncing the big lie as all religion is based.



Well I am not selling any snake oil or speaking on behalf of any religion. We're discussing philosophy of faith. You're biased against me because I don't subscribe to your disbelief of God and you want to pretend I am religious. This is clouding your ability to think objectively and properly evaluate the points I am making. 



> Because we don't know ALL of the answers to ALL of the questions still remaining about the universe then ALL bets are off and ALL possibilities are on the table.



Possibility is all that science can evaluate. Science can't do a thing with a conclusion. Once you've made a conclusion on anything, you've abandoned science for faith. I don't think we *KNOW* anything about the universe. We have faith in our tests and observations which show a high probability of possibility. Science remains open to all possibilities which are still on the table. If you disagree, you are exercising a faith-based belief. 



> One of the more amazing things people like you are still trying to sell is how stupid you believe people are.
> 
> We are not as ignorant as humanity was 2-3000 years ago.
> 
> Science has solved much of the mystery of the universe.



This statement can apply to every age of man since our inception. Man ALWAYS assumes he is at the height of knowledge and understanding. Again, "Science" hasn't "solved" anything, science can only posit probabilities of possibility. MAN determines, through FAITH, that things are "solved," and need no further investigation. 



> Science would do the world and human developement a favor by just cutting to the chase by proving beyond any shadow of a doubt that god does not and can not exist.



But science doesn't (and can't) conclude things. Conclusions require faith. Science cannot evaluate faith. Science can only evaluate probabilities and predict possibility. What you seem to want to do is elevate Science to status of a deity. You've simply made Science into your God. And hey... that's fine, everyone needs a God, it's human nature.


----------



## HUGGY

Boss said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, when I read what was posted it appears to be a statement of believed truth... "The bible is just another book of fairytales." There is nothing there to indicate this is only a suspicion. I don't have any problem with someone stating they suspect the bible is a book of fairytales, it's when that is turned into a statement of "fact" that it becomes a faith-based belief. There is no evidence for it, and things that are believed without evidence are faith.
> 
> The rules of evidence in a courtroom are that you can't prove something didn't happen unless you have evidence it didn't happen. Faith is faith regardless of whether it's applied to religious beliefs, the belief that principles of physics are universal, or the belief that God does not exist. Faith is belief in something without evidence. Now, there isn't anything wrong with having faith... *I have faith the sun is going to come up in the morning*. I don't know that it will, there is no evidence it has to, there is a possibility it won't.... but I have faith it will.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Over reaching is the standard refuge for those selling nonsense and snake oil.
> 
> There most certainly is abundant evidense that the sun will "come up tommorow morning".  That rediculous statement is componded by the fact that the sun does not "come up".
> 
> The earth rotates.  So... the earth would need to stop rotating at a point where the position of the sun is behind the earth in relation to you and I OR the sun would need to vanish altogether in which case we would immediately go hurtling off into space as there would be nothing to keep us in this orbit.  Only those living in close proximitry to active volcanos would survive more than a few hours.
> 
> Something would need to act on the earth or the sun to cause these two entities to react as you suggest is possible for not faith keeping everything in it's place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right... and I have faith none of those things are going to happen and the sun will rise tomorrow. My faith is not based on evidence it will, I don't know if it will or not, and you don't know either. You and I have faith that it will because it always has before. I can certainly think of several things that could cause the sun not to rise in the morning.. the sun could explode... a gamma ray burst could obliterate earth... an alien starship could destroy the planet... or some cosmic event that only happens once every 14.5 billion years could happen. Again... I have FAITH these things aren't going to happen. I have no reason to believe otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> You have faith that is the case. You have faith the law of physics will act as it always has. I don't have evidence that something isn't a few seconds away, much less a few hours. I have pretty substantial faith that nothing is going to happen, but no one is certain.
> 
> 
> 
> But it does. Now you can certainly have high confidence in your faith, good reason for having the faith, I'm not arguing that. Still, unless you can prove something is true you have to rely on faith. You can't prove the sun will come up tomorrow, only that you have faith the probability is high.
> 
> 
> 
> Well I am not selling any snake oil or speaking on behalf of any religion. We're discussing philosophy of faith. You're biased against me because I don't subscribe to your disbelief of God and you want to pretend I am religious. This is clouding your ability to think objectively and properly evaluate the points I am making.
> 
> 
> 
> Possibility is all that science can evaluate. Science can't do a thing with a conclusion. Once you've made a conclusion on anything, you've abandoned science for faith. I don't think we *KNOW* anything about the universe. We have faith in our tests and observations which show a high probability of possibility. Science remains open to all possibilities which are still on the table. If you disagree, you are exercising a faith-based belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the more amazing things people like you are still trying to sell is how stupid you believe people are.
> 
> We are not as ignorant as humanity was 2-3000 years ago.
> 
> Science has solved much of the mystery of the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This statement can apply to every age of man since our inception. Man ALWAYS assumes he is at the height of knowledge and understanding. Again, "Science" hasn't "solved" anything, science can only posit probabilities of possibility. MAN determines, through FAITH, that things are "solved," and need no further investigation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science would do the world and human developement a favor by just cutting to the chase by proving beyond any shadow of a doubt that god does not and can not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But science doesn't (and can't) conclude things. Conclusions require faith. Science cannot evaluate faith. Science can only evaluate probabilities and predict possibility. What you seem to want to do is elevate Science to status of a deity. You've simply made Science into your God. And hey... that's fine, everyone needs a God, it's human nature.
Click to expand...


*"You have faith the law of physics will act as it always has"*

Not since that *theory* passed into the status of being a *law* and not some well thought out and supported idea has anyone needed faith to believe it.


----------



## PostmodernProph

Cenotaph said:


> How can one hate something which does not exist?



gosh, and I think you're only the eighth person to say that.....


----------



## Boss

HUGGY said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Over reaching is the standard refuge for those selling nonsense and snake oil.
> 
> There most certainly is abundant evidense that the sun will "come up tommorow morning".  That rediculous statement is componded by the fact that the sun does not "come up".
> 
> The earth rotates.  So... the earth would need to stop rotating at a point where the position of the sun is behind the earth in relation to you and I OR the sun would need to vanish altogether in which case we would immediately go hurtling off into space as there would be nothing to keep us in this orbit.  Only those living in close proximitry to active volcanos would survive more than a few hours.
> 
> Something would need to act on the earth or the sun to cause these two entities to react as you suggest is possible for not faith keeping everything in it's place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right... and I have faith none of those things are going to happen and the sun will rise tomorrow. My faith is not based on evidence it will, I don't know if it will or not, and you don't know either. You and I have faith that it will because it always has before. I can certainly think of several things that could cause the sun not to rise in the morning.. the sun could explode... a gamma ray burst could obliterate earth... an alien starship could destroy the planet... or some cosmic event that only happens once every 14.5 billion years could happen. Again... I have FAITH these things aren't going to happen. I have no reason to believe otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> You have faith that is the case. You have faith the law of physics will act as it always has. I don't have evidence that something isn't a few seconds away, much less a few hours. I have pretty substantial faith that nothing is going to happen, but no one is certain.
> 
> 
> 
> But it does. Now you can certainly have high confidence in your faith, good reason for having the faith, I'm not arguing that. Still, unless you can prove something is true you have to rely on faith. You can't prove the sun will come up tomorrow, only that you have faith the probability is high.
> 
> 
> 
> Well I am not selling any snake oil or speaking on behalf of any religion. We're discussing philosophy of faith. You're biased against me because I don't subscribe to your disbelief of God and you want to pretend I am religious. This is clouding your ability to think objectively and properly evaluate the points I am making.
> 
> 
> 
> Possibility is all that science can evaluate. Science can't do a thing with a conclusion. Once you've made a conclusion on anything, you've abandoned science for faith. I don't think we *KNOW* anything about the universe. We have faith in our tests and observations which show a high probability of possibility. Science remains open to all possibilities which are still on the table. If you disagree, you are exercising a faith-based belief.
> 
> 
> 
> This statement can apply to every age of man since our inception. Man ALWAYS assumes he is at the height of knowledge and understanding. Again, "Science" hasn't "solved" anything, science can only posit probabilities of possibility. MAN determines, through FAITH, that things are "solved," and need no further investigation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science would do the world and human developement a favor by just cutting to the chase by proving beyond any shadow of a doubt that god does not and can not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But science doesn't (and can't) conclude things. Conclusions require faith. Science cannot evaluate faith. Science can only evaluate probabilities and predict possibility. What you seem to want to do is elevate Science to status of a deity. You've simply made Science into your God. And hey... that's fine, everyone needs a God, it's human nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"You have faith the law of physics will act as it always has"*
> 
> Not since that *theory* passed into the status of being a *law* and not some well thought out and supported idea has anyone needed faith to believe it.
Click to expand...


It doesn't matter what status something has passed into or how well thought out and supported an idea is. You can't know what's going to happen in the future, time may not even exist for the laws of physics to operate in. Like I said, perhaps universes (like electrons) simply poof out of existence after 14.5 billion years? Do you have any evidence they don't? Please don't try and distort my point by assuming I am making this argument and believe this will happen... I don't. I have faith the universe will continue to exist as it has for the past 14.5 billion years, and the laws of physics will continue to work as they have. In fact, I have unquestionable faith that will be the case. Still... I do have faith. 

My point is, faith exists and you have it whether you realize you do or not. Even in the most proven principles of science you hold so near and dear, you must have faith.


----------



## sealybobo

Montrovant said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I pretty much ignore GISMYS.  His/her crazy ramblings aren't worth the time to read or reply to IMO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps your feelings stem from me jumping to conclusions about you.  Maybe I misunderstood a post you wrote or I agreed with you and in going into my rant I started writing as if I was writing at a theist because I often do that.  Do you believe in god or not?  And if you didn't vote for bush, who did you vote for?  I have read through some of your past posts and I'm trying to put a finger on you but I really haven't had much luck.  You definately aren't black or white.  You are more a gray.
> 
> And, my theory of how they use religion to control the masses.  You disagree with that?  You don't see how they use god in politics?
> 
> I have a feeling that if voting age adults are dumb enough to believe in a god, they are pretty much dumb enough to believe anything because belief in god requires blind faith and I don't have blind faith in anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't vote for Bush or anyone else.
Click to expand...


YOU are what's wrong with America.


----------



## sealybobo

Cenotaph said:


> How can one hate something which does not exist?



If there is a god he has to be sitting back scratching his head asking himself how they figured out he existed since he has never visited or talked to anyone.  I've never seen one glimpse.  Seems completely made up to me when people say god talked to them, or that I have to have faith that god talked to people 2000 years ago.   by liars who use god to control people.  It's certainly a big business and they use it politically too.  The king used his divine right to collect taxes.  Slave owners used it to keep their slaves in line.  Pharoahs used it on their slaves.  Don't worry you only live to 30, there is an afterlife.  

The rich and corporations and GOP politicians use it today to sucker the masses too.

So I don't hate god.  I hate the people who use god in bad ways.  How's god doing over in Gaza?  Don't all those people believe in god?  Good job god.


----------



## GreenBean

LoneLaugher said:


> Is it possible to hate that which does not exist?



No - they hate the fact that not everyone agrees with them because other people believe God does exist .  How do they disagree with the Gods Of Liberalism !


----------



## GreenBean

sealybobo said:


> Cenotaph said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can one hate something which does not exist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If there is a god he has to be sitting back scratching his head asking himself how they figured out he existed since he has never visited or talked to anyone.  I've never seen one glimpse.  Seems completely made up to me when people say god talked to them, or that I have to have faith that god talked to people 2000 years ago.   by liars who use god to control people.  It's certainly a big business and they use it politically too.  The king used his divine right to collect taxes.  Slave owners used it to keep their slaves in line.  Pharoahs used it on their slaves.  Don't worry you only live to 30, there is an afterlife.
> 
> The rich and corporations and GOP politicians use it today to sucker the masses too.
> 
> So I don't hate god.  I hate the people who use god in bad ways.  How's god doing over in Gaza?  Don't all those people believe in god?  Good job god.
Click to expand...




> If there is a god he has to be sitting back scratching his head asking himself how they figured out he existed since he has never visited or talked to anyone.  *I've never seen one glimpse.*



Possibly because you don't understand their Language and wouldn't know it when you saw it - He's right in your face - can't you see him ?  Look Harder Grasshopper.


----------



## BreezeWood

Cenotaph said:


> How can one hate something which does not exist?




easily, for endless reasons - that hating itself would generate, for people that (hate) .... * clue.

seriously, does anyone read the OP ?


the reason not to hate is the reason for God and for Admission to the OuterWorld of the Everlasting ... for who may succeed.

.


----------



## Montrovant

sealybobo said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps your feelings stem from me jumping to conclusions about you.  Maybe I misunderstood a post you wrote or I agreed with you and in going into my rant I started writing as if I was writing at a theist because I often do that.  Do you believe in god or not?  And if you didn't vote for bush, who did you vote for?  I have read through some of your past posts and I'm trying to put a finger on you but I really haven't had much luck.  You definately aren't black or white.  You are more a gray.
> 
> And, my theory of how they use religion to control the masses.  You disagree with that?  You don't see how they use god in politics?
> 
> I have a feeling that if voting age adults are dumb enough to believe in a god, they are pretty much dumb enough to believe anything because belief in god requires blind faith and I don't have blind faith in anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't vote for Bush or anyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOU are what's wrong with America.
Click to expand...


I'm pretty sure you'd think I'm what's wrong with America if I'd voted for Bush, so....I'll take that with a huge grain of salt.


----------



## Cenotaph

PostmodernProph said:


> Cenotaph said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can one hate something which does not exist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gosh, and I think you're only the eighth person to say that.....
Click to expand...


Then it must be a logically obvious thing to ask if multiple people have come to the same question.


----------



## Boss

Cenotaph said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cenotaph said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can one hate something which does not exist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gosh, and I think you're only the eighth person to say that.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it must be a logically obvious thing to ask if multiple people have come to the same question.
Click to expand...



Thing is, you now have over 5,000 posts, mostly from God-haters bashing the God they don't believe exists. I totally agree with you... How CAN you hate something for 5,000 posts which you claim doesn't exist? Seems to kind of defy logic and reason, doesn't it?


----------



## BreezeWood

Cenotaph said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cenotaph said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can one hate something which does not exist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gosh, and I think you're only the eighth person to say that.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it must be a logically obvious thing to ask if multiple people have come to the same question.
Click to expand...



it is a ruse, "Why do the God-haters persist" - 

by the self possessed ... in need of companionship.

.


----------



## Cenotaph

Boss said:


> Cenotaph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> gosh, and I think you're only the eighth person to say that.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then it must be a logically obvious thing to ask if multiple people have come to the same question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Thing is, you now have over 5,000 posts, mostly from God-haters bashing the God they don't believe exists. I totally agree with you... How CAN you hate something for 5,000 posts which you claim doesn't exist? Seems to kind of defy logic and reason, doesn't it?
Click to expand...


Humans are quite good at defying logic. In fact, their irrationality is best channeled through their creation of religion.


----------



## LoneLaugher

Boss said:


> Cenotaph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> gosh, and I think you're only the eighth person to say that.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then it must be a logically obvious thing to ask if multiple people have come to the same question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Thing is, you now have over 5,000 posts, mostly from God-haters bashing the God they don't believe exists. I totally agree with you... How CAN you hate something for 5,000 posts which you claim doesn't exist? Seems to kind of defy logic and reason, doesn't it?
Click to expand...


Clearly, those who logically deny the existence of any god are not demonstrating hate for said god(s). What you are reading is the reaction to those who claim such beings as creators or guardians or deciders......and in doing so, express hatred and intolerance for their fellow man. 

There is no god. Calling upon him to save you....or damn another.....is pointless. If it were also harmless, you'd get no argument from me.


----------



## Boss

LoneLaugher said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cenotaph said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then it must be a logically obvious thing to ask if multiple people have come to the same question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thing is, you now have over 5,000 posts, mostly from God-haters bashing the God they don't believe exists. I totally agree with you... How CAN you hate something for 5,000 posts which you claim doesn't exist? Seems to kind of defy logic and reason, doesn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly, those who logically deny the existence of any god are not demonstrating hate for said god(s). What you are reading is the reaction to those who claim such beings as creators or guardians or deciders......and in doing so, express hatred and intolerance for their fellow man.
> 
> There is no god. Calling upon him to save you....or damn another.....is pointless. If it were also harmless, you'd get no argument from me.
Click to expand...


But in all these 5,000+ posts, there isn't any evidence of God believers expressing hate or intolerance toward you. We've been tolerating your hate speech for 5,000 posts. What appears to be the problem is, you are intolerant of religious people having the freedom to express a political voice. You want to silence them politically because they have you outnumbered. 

*There is no god.*

This is belief in something without evidence... the actual definition of FAITH. Therefore, you have a faith-based belief that there is no God. You've not offered any evidence to support your disbelief. Now you're entitled to your faith, but you don't have the right to force your faith on others.


----------



## PostmodernProph

Cenotaph said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cenotaph said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can one hate something which does not exist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gosh, and I think you're only the eighth person to say that.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it must be a logically obvious thing to ask if multiple people have come to the same question.
Click to expand...


no, just means multiple people with no true interest in the topic got lost and ended up on a forum they lack the intelligence to participate.....


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thing is, you now have over 5,000 posts, mostly from God-haters bashing the God they don't believe exists. I totally agree with you... How CAN you hate something for 5,000 posts which you claim doesn't exist? Seems to kind of defy logic and reason, doesn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly, those who logically deny the existence of any god are not demonstrating hate for said god(s). What you are reading is the reaction to those who claim such beings as creators or guardians or deciders......and in doing so, express hatred and intolerance for their fellow man.
> 
> There is no god. Calling upon him to save you....or damn another.....is pointless. If it were also harmless, you'd get no argument from me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But in all these 5,000+ posts, there isn't any evidence of God believers expressing hate or intolerance toward you. We've been tolerating your hate speech for 5,000 posts. What appears to be the problem is, you are intolerant of religious people having the freedom to express a political voice. You want to silence them politically because they have you outnumbered.
> 
> *There is no god.*
> 
> This is belief in something without evidence... the actual definition of FAITH. Therefore, you have a faith-based belief that there is no God. You've not offered any evidence to support your disbelief. Now you're entitled to your faith, but you don't have the right to force your faith on others.
Click to expand...


When you say 'you', I assume you are talking about atheists, since you go on to say god believers have been tolerating 'your' hate speech for 5,000 posts.  So, no examples of believers expressing hatred or intolerance in the thread at all, huh?


----------



## sealybobo

Montrovant said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't vote for Bush or anyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU are what's wrong with America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure you'd think I'm what's wrong with America if I'd voted for Bush, so....I'll take that with a huge grain of salt.
Click to expand...


Nope.  I'd have more respect for you had you voted.


----------



## sealybobo

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly, those who logically deny the existence of any god are not demonstrating hate for said god(s). What you are reading is the reaction to those who claim such beings as creators or guardians or deciders......and in doing so, express hatred and intolerance for their fellow man.
> 
> There is no god. Calling upon him to save you....or damn another.....is pointless. If it were also harmless, you'd get no argument from me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But in all these 5,000+ posts, there isn't any evidence of God believers expressing hate or intolerance toward you. We've been tolerating your hate speech for 5,000 posts. What appears to be the problem is, you are intolerant of religious people having the freedom to express a political voice. You want to silence them politically because they have you outnumbered.
> 
> *There is no god.*
> 
> This is belief in something without evidence... the actual definition of FAITH. Therefore, you have a faith-based belief that there is no God. You've not offered any evidence to support your disbelief. Now you're entitled to your faith, but you don't have the right to force your faith on others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you say 'you', I assume you are talking about atheists, since you go on to say god believers have been tolerating 'your' hate speech for 5,000 posts.  So, no examples of believers expressing hatred or intolerance in the thread at all, huh?
Click to expand...


If he/they could they would run you out to a post and light you on fire.  Did you see the town hall meeting where the atheist girl sued to have God taken off the wall at her school because it made her uncomfortable?  Those people had it been 200 years ago and no cameras would have stoned that brave girl to death.

Here is the fact.  There is no proof of god and our society I think, no I know it must realize this and that is why we don't have a country run by the church.  If god was a fact we wouldn't need government or government would be run by bishops or cardinals and priests or whatever.  I think deep down we all realize religion/god is something that should be kept personal because if we had a court of law and a jury and all the evidence presented, it'd be pretty tough for the religious to prove anything.  What would they use as proof?  Their fictional books?  Eye witness testimony of people saying they saw an angel or demon or they were possessed?  I think science would tear those things apart and god too.

I just heard this yesterday.  You can show a monkey a bird and ring a bell and after awhile all you have to do is ring a bell and the monkey will think of a bird even if you don't show the monkey anything.  You can do the same with humans.  Here is how we are different.  A human can imagine a human with wings.  Angels.  Do angels exist Boss?  We invented them in our minds, just like god.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thing is, you now have over 5,000 posts, mostly from God-haters bashing the God they don't believe exists. I totally agree with you... How CAN you hate something for 5,000 posts which you claim doesn't exist? Seems to kind of defy logic and reason, doesn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly, those who logically deny the existence of any god are not demonstrating hate for said god(s). What you are reading is the reaction to those who claim such beings as creators or guardians or deciders......and in doing so, express hatred and intolerance for their fellow man.
> 
> There is no god. Calling upon him to save you....or damn another.....is pointless. If it were also harmless, you'd get no argument from me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But in all these 5,000+ posts, there isn't any evidence of God believers expressing hate or intolerance toward you. We've been tolerating your hate speech for 5,000 posts. What appears to be the problem is, you are intolerant of religious people having the freedom to express a political voice. You want to silence them politically because they have you outnumbered.
> 
> *There is no god.*
> 
> This is belief in something without evidence... the actual definition of FAITH. Therefore, you have a faith-based belief that there is no God. You've not offered any evidence to support your disbelief. Now you're entitled to your faith, but you don't have the right to force your faith on others.
Click to expand...


No.  We would just need more evidence in this god because the evidence you have so far is bad evidence or insufficient.  What else do you have?  Pretty big claim and such weak evidence you present on such a big claim.  No one even agrees with you.  Gismys says your going to hell and jews don't give a fuck about you and neither do muslims.  

Is bald a hair color?


----------



## Montrovant

sealybobo said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOU are what's wrong with America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure you'd think I'm what's wrong with America if I'd voted for Bush, so....I'll take that with a huge grain of salt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  I'd have more respect for you had you voted.
Click to expand...


Then I guess it's a good thing I don't feel a need for your respect, particularly considering your simplistic, partisan political views as posted here.


----------



## sealybobo

GreenBean said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cenotaph said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can one hate something which does not exist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If there is a god he has to be sitting back scratching his head asking himself how they figured out he existed since he has never visited or talked to anyone.  I've never seen one glimpse.  Seems completely made up to me when people say god talked to them, or that I have to have faith that god talked to people 2000 years ago.   by liars who use god to control people.  It's certainly a big business and they use it politically too.  The king used his divine right to collect taxes.  Slave owners used it to keep their slaves in line.  Pharoahs used it on their slaves.  Don't worry you only live to 30, there is an afterlife.
> 
> The rich and corporations and GOP politicians use it today to sucker the masses too.
> 
> So I don't hate god.  I hate the people who use god in bad ways.  How's god doing over in Gaza?  Don't all those people believe in god?  Good job god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If there is a god he has to be sitting back scratching his head asking himself how they figured out he existed since he has never visited or talked to anyone.  *I've never seen one glimpse.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Possibly because you don't understand their Language and wouldn't know it when you saw it - He's right in your face - can't you see him ?  Look Harder Grasshopper.
Click to expand...


Listen fuck face.  I was raised christian.  We did everything right.  We were the perfect family.  My brother is still a christian although I know he doesn't take the bible literally so put him in that category of christian but anyways, the point is nothing bad happened to me I left god.  I didn't dive into a bad life of drugs or crime and so I needed salvation/saving. 

But notice that is how a lot of people find god?  When they are low and vulnerable?  That's always when predators trike.  

Anyways, so it wasn't like I didn't read the bible and try to live by it.  I just never really meant it when I said I believed Jesus was our lord and savior.  Maybe I did at one point but I believed ONLY because I didn't think it through hard enough and I certainly wasn't told the other side which is these stories are impossible and just meant to teach me right from wrong.  

So I'm not smarter than you.  I'm just able to put that brainwashing and fear of the unknown part of my brain on hold and let logic and reason kick in here where most people "just can't believe" there is no god.  

Yes, that is the best you godd'ers have.  You have no proof.  All you have is "you can't believe otherwise" or "you have faith" or you want to believe.  We get it.  But we also think as good as it has done for you, it is no good for mankind.  Makes people really stupid and is holding back your brain from evolving.  Let that shit go.  A healthy fear of the unknown was good for our ancestors.  It kept them alive.  But today religion is proving to be no good.  Look at the war machine of the christians, jews and look at what muslims say about non muslims.  They all suck.  Just as a Mormon and they will tell you I'm right about those 3 religions.  

And ask a Christian and they'll say they are the best.  Jews think they are the chosen ones.  They'll all fucking nuts.


----------



## sealybobo

Montrovant said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure you'd think I'm what's wrong with America if I'd voted for Bush, so....I'll take that with a huge grain of salt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  I'd have more respect for you had you voted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then I guess it's a good thing I don't feel a need for your respect, particularly considering your simplistic, partisan political views as posted here.
Click to expand...


Does your dick lean right too?


----------



## GreenBean

sealybobo said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there is a god he has to be sitting back scratching his head asking himself how they figured out he existed since he has never visited or talked to anyone.  I've never seen one glimpse.  Seems completely made up to me when people say god talked to them, or that I have to have faith that god talked to people 2000 years ago.   by liars who use god to control people.  It's certainly a big business and they use it politically too.  The king used his divine right to collect taxes.  Slave owners used it to keep their slaves in line.  Pharoahs used it on their slaves.  Don't worry you only live to 30, there is an afterlife.
> 
> The rich and corporations and GOP politicians use it today to sucker the masses too.
> 
> So I don't hate god.  I hate the people who use god in bad ways.  How's god doing over in Gaza?  Don't all those people believe in god?  Good job god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If there is a god he has to be sitting back scratching his head asking himself how they figured out he existed since he has never visited or talked to anyone.  *I've never seen one glimpse.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Possibly because you don't understand their Language and wouldn't know it when you saw it - He's right in your face - can't you see him ?  Look Harder Grasshopper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Listen fuck face.  I was raised christian.  We did everything right.  We were the perfect family.  My brother is still a christian although I know he doesn't take the bible literally so put him in that category of christian but anyways, the point is nothing bad happened to me I left god.  I didn't dive into a bad life of drugs or crime and so I needed salvation/saving.
> 
> But notice that is how a lot of people find god?  When they are low and vulnerable?  That's always when predators trike.
> 
> Anyways, so it wasn't like I didn't read the bible and try to live by it.  I just never really meant it when I said I believed Jesus was our lord and savior.  Maybe I did at one point but I believed ONLY because I didn't think it through hard enough and I certainly wasn't told the other side which is these stories are impossible and just meant to teach me right from wrong.
> 
> So I'm not smarter than you.  I'm just able to put that brainwashing and fear of the unknown part of my brain on hold and let logic and reason kick in here where most people "just can't believe" there is no god.
> 
> Yes, that is the best you godd'ers have.  You have no proof.  All you have is "you can't believe otherwise" or "you have faith" or you want to believe.  We get it.  But we also think as good as it has done for you, it is no good for mankind.  Makes people really stupid and is holding back your brain from evolving.  Let that shit go.  A healthy fear of the unknown was good for our ancestors.  It kept them alive.  But today religion is proving to be no good.  Look at the war machine of the christians, jews and look at what muslims say about non muslims.  They all suck.  Just as a Mormon and they will tell you I'm right about those 3 religions.
> 
> And ask a Christian and they'll say they are the best.  Jews think they are the chosen ones.  They'll all fucking nuts.
Click to expand...


Listen up "Fuck Face" -I am not a Christain either - although I was raised as one.  
You don't have to be a Bible Thumper or member of one of "Big Brothers" organized religions to believe in God .  You want to know who God is .... listen to the whistling wind fuck face ... listen carefully .


----------



## GreenBean

sealybobo said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  I'd have more respect for you had you voted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then I guess it's a good thing I don't feel a need for your respect, particularly considering your simplistic, partisan political views as posted here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does your dick lean right too?
Click to expand...


According to Paula Jones  Bill Clintons Pecker leaned left - maybe you should write a thesis on dickular orientation and political persuasions


----------



## Montrovant

sealybobo said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  I'd have more respect for you had you voted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then I guess it's a good thing I don't feel a need for your respect, particularly considering your simplistic, partisan political views as posted here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does your dick lean right too?
Click to expand...


Oh, are you going to say your posted political views are not partisan?

It's strange how you go from painting me as a conservative, to being unable to determine my political views, to saying I'm very right-leaning.  You aren't even consistent in the labels you try to force people into.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> A human can imagine a human with wings.  Angels.  Do angels exist Boss?  We invented them in our minds, just like god.





sealybobo said:


> No.  We would just need more evidence in this god because the evidence you have so far is bad evidence or insufficient.  What else do you have?  Pretty big claim and such weak evidence you present on such a big claim.



You have admitted in this thread that you believe in Karma. That is, for some strange and unknown reason, good deeds are rewarded by good things happening and bad deeds result in bad things happening. You've said that you don't know if there is a God, this is the basis for your claims of "agnostic" atheism. It is obvious that you have some spiritual awareness, whether you acknowledge it as such or not. 

Now I don't point these things out to embarrass you or demonstrate a hypocrisy, but to illustrate how you, a rational human being, realizes there is something greater than self. Even though you are inclined to disavow God, it is mainly the religious incarnations of God and not so much the concept itself. Someone made this point way back in the thread, and I can't even remember who did it, but basically it was saying that even if we completely destroyed all religion and all religious materials, banned religion entirely, got rid of all our religious symbolism and dogma... Man would still contemplate God. 

It is the self-evidence of this which provides the clearest evidence we have for God. The fact that it's impossible for mankind not to contemplate God. Absent all religion and spirituality, man would still contemplate, is there something greater than myself? To me, this is very compelling and powerful evidence, whether you recognize it as such or not. 

You see... "Evidence" is purely subjective to the views of the individual. I've been through this before... I can show you what I feel is compelling evidence of extraterrestrials visiting the planet, and I can believe that my evidence is incontrovertible... BUT, you may not view it as such. You may think my "evidence" isn't even evidence and is mere coincidence. So is my evidence REALLY evidence, or is it just coincidence that I have mistaken as evidence? What we individually accept or reject as "evidence" is highly determined by our individual perceptions, making "evidence" completely subjective. 

So it does not matter about evidence. I can show you evidence of God all day long, you are poised to reject it no matter how compelling I believe it to be, and I can't change that. Now, let's take this into science at the molecular level... I can tell you that I have evidence electrons disappear and re-appear in different places, or that they can be in two places at the same time. If you reject my claims of evidence and refuse to look into a microscope and see for yourself, what can I ever to to convince you of this? You can say, that's a bunch of bullshit, it's impossible, it violates the laws of physics, and you don't believe it's true. What can I do to change your mind? Until you are willing to accept my evidence, it's pointless to argue. Very much the same can be said for God.


----------



## sealybobo

GreenBean said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Possibly because you don't understand their Language and wouldn't know it when you saw it - He's right in your face - can't you see him ?  Look Harder Grasshopper.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listen fuck face.  I was raised christian.  We did everything right.  We were the perfect family.  My brother is still a christian although I know he doesn't take the bible literally so put him in that category of christian but anyways, the point is nothing bad happened to me I left god.  I didn't dive into a bad life of drugs or crime and so I needed salvation/saving.
> 
> But notice that is how a lot of people find god?  When they are low and vulnerable?  That's always when predators trike.
> 
> Anyways, so it wasn't like I didn't read the bible and try to live by it.  I just never really meant it when I said I believed Jesus was our lord and savior.  Maybe I did at one point but I believed ONLY because I didn't think it through hard enough and I certainly wasn't told the other side which is these stories are impossible and just meant to teach me right from wrong.
> 
> So I'm not smarter than you.  I'm just able to put that brainwashing and fear of the unknown part of my brain on hold and let logic and reason kick in here where most people "just can't believe" there is no god.
> 
> Yes, that is the best you godd'ers have.  You have no proof.  All you have is "you can't believe otherwise" or "you have faith" or you want to believe.  We get it.  But we also think as good as it has done for you, it is no good for mankind.  Makes people really stupid and is holding back your brain from evolving.  Let that shit go.  A healthy fear of the unknown was good for our ancestors.  It kept them alive.  But today religion is proving to be no good.  Look at the war machine of the christians, jews and look at what muslims say about non muslims.  They all suck.  Just as a Mormon and they will tell you I'm right about those 3 religions.
> 
> And ask a Christian and they'll say they are the best.  Jews think they are the chosen ones.  They'll all fucking nuts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Listen up "Fuck Face" -I am not a Christain either - although I was raised as one.
> You don't have to be a Bible Thumper or member of one of "Big Brothers" organized religions to believe in God .  You want to know who God is .... listen to the whistling wind fuck face ... listen carefully .
Click to expand...


For awhile I was like you.  I didn't believe in organized religion but I still believed in god.  Must have been about 4 months ago.  It was when me and some buddies were watching the Cosmos.  They/We started making fun of people who believe in god and then I told them I believed in "something" and they helped me realize that was all in my head just like it is in yours.  

Without the real life stories of the bible, what other proof do you have?  Realize that if god didn't talk to adam and eve, didn't send jesus, didn't talk to mosus, the arc is just a story, etc that all religion is made up.  There were 997 other religions before the jews muslims an christians.  What happened to those religions?  Supposedly god came and talked to them too.  Wake the fuck up.  

Sorry, my friends had to talk to me this way to get me to snap out of it.  Start thinking logically like a scientist and explain it to yourself what proof you have there is a god.  Don't tell me because I don't want to hear it.  I've already heard it from boss.  Fact is, you just want there to be a god.  Here, read this:  Why there is no god

Eventually you should come to call yourself an agnostic atheist because atheists don't presume to know what is on the other side of a black hole or hiding on the other side of the moon.  It is religious people who claim they know.  They know nothing.

So for me, I don't need a god to make me good.  But I also don't know.  Maybe there is a god and hell.  Only problem is, if you don't believe the organized religions, what makes you believe in hell?  Who came up with hell?  People.  

What I don't believe is I have to believe in jesus or burn in hell.  That's a joke.  Why would god make me lie?  If I can't/don't believe, why punish me?  He proved it 2000 years ago, prove it to me.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> A human can imagine a human with wings.  Angels.  Do angels exist Boss?  We invented them in our minds, just like god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  We would just need more evidence in this god because the evidence you have so far is bad evidence or insufficient.  What else do you have?  Pretty big claim and such weak evidence you present on such a big claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have admitted in this thread that you believe in Karma. That is, for some strange and unknown reason, good deeds are rewarded by good things happening and bad deeds result in bad things happening. You've said that you don't know if there is a God, this is the basis for your claims of "agnostic" atheism. It is obvious that you have some spiritual awareness, whether you acknowledge it as such or not.
> 
> Now I don't point these things out to embarrass you or demonstrate a hypocrisy, but to illustrate how you, a rational human being, realizes there is something greater than self. Even though you are inclined to disavow God, it is mainly the religious incarnations of God and not so much the concept itself. Someone made this point way back in the thread, and I can't even remember who did it, but basically it was saying that even if we completely destroyed all religion and all religious materials, banned religion entirely, got rid of all our religious symbolism and dogma... Man would still contemplate God.
> 
> It is the self-evidence of this which provides the clearest evidence we have for God. The fact that it's impossible for mankind not to contemplate God. Absent all religion and spirituality, man would still contemplate, is there something greater than myself? To me, this is very compelling and powerful evidence, whether you recognize it as such or not.
> 
> You see... "Evidence" is purely subjective to the views of the individual. I've been through this before... I can show you what I feel is compelling evidence of extraterrestrials visiting the planet, and I can believe that my evidence is incontrovertible... BUT, you may not view it as such. You may think my "evidence" isn't even evidence and is mere coincidence. So is my evidence REALLY evidence, or is it just coincidence that I have mistaken as evidence? What we individually accept or reject as "evidence" is highly determined by our individual perceptions, making "evidence" completely subjective.
> 
> So it does not matter about evidence. I can show you evidence of God all day long, you are poised to reject it no matter how compelling I believe it to be, and I can't change that. Now, let's take this into science at the molecular level... I can tell you that I have evidence electrons disappear and re-appear in different places, or that they can be in two places at the same time. If you reject my claims of evidence and refuse to look into a microscope and see for yourself, what can I ever to to convince you of this? You can say, that's a bunch of bullshit, it's impossible, it violates the laws of physics, and you don't believe it's true. What can I do to change your mind? Until you are willing to accept my evidence, it's pointless to argue. Very much the same can be said for God.
Click to expand...


Sort of like how I think there is plenty of evidence bush/the gop stole 2000 & 2004 so he could appoint alito/roberts and tilt the court right, let us get hit on 9-11 so they could lie us into iraq and pass their radical economic agenda, changed bankruptsy laws and purposely bankrupted the country just for a little while so they could kill unions and renig on pensions.  I mean I think there is tons of evidence but since the so called liberal media won't talk about any of it.....

Your evidence for god is not even as good as my evidence the GOP pulled a coup in 2000.  The wind is god?  Me being superstitious about karma is god?  Weak!


----------



## sealybobo

Montrovant said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then I guess it's a good thing I don't feel a need for your respect, particularly considering your simplistic, partisan political views as posted here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does your dick lean right too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, are you going to say your posted political views are not partisan?
> 
> It's strange how you go from painting me as a conservative, to being unable to determine my political views, to saying I'm very right-leaning.  You aren't even consistent in the labels you try to force people into.
Click to expand...


You don't vote.  Its like you aren't a man or a woman you are an it.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> A human can imagine a human with wings.  Angels.  Do angels exist Boss?  We invented them in our minds, just like god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  We would just need more evidence in this god because the evidence you have so far is bad evidence or insufficient.  What else do you have?  Pretty big claim and such weak evidence you present on such a big claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have admitted in this thread that you believe in Karma. That is, for some strange and unknown reason, good deeds are rewarded by good things happening and bad deeds result in bad things happening. You've said that you don't know if there is a God, this is the basis for your claims of "agnostic" atheism. It is obvious that you have some spiritual awareness, whether you acknowledge it as such or not.
> 
> Now I don't point these things out to embarrass you or demonstrate a hypocrisy, but to illustrate how you, a rational human being, realizes there is something greater than self. Even though you are inclined to disavow God, it is mainly the religious incarnations of God and not so much the concept itself. Someone made this point way back in the thread, and I can't even remember who did it, but basically it was saying that even if we completely destroyed all religion and all religious materials, banned religion entirely, got rid of all our religious symbolism and dogma... Man would still contemplate God.
> 
> It is the self-evidence of this which provides the clearest evidence we have for God. The fact that it's impossible for mankind not to contemplate God. Absent all religion and spirituality, man would still contemplate, is there something greater than myself? To me, this is very compelling and powerful evidence, whether you recognize it as such or not.
> 
> You see... "Evidence" is purely subjective to the views of the individual. I've been through this before... I can show you what I feel is compelling evidence of extraterrestrials visiting the planet, and I can believe that my evidence is incontrovertible... BUT, you may not view it as such. You may think my "evidence" isn't even evidence and is mere coincidence. So is my evidence REALLY evidence, or is it just coincidence that I have mistaken as evidence? What we individually accept or reject as "evidence" is highly determined by our individual perceptions, making "evidence" completely subjective.
> 
> So it does not matter about evidence. I can show you evidence of God all day long, you are poised to reject it no matter how compelling I believe it to be, and I can't change that. Now, let's take this into science at the molecular level... I can tell you that I have evidence electrons disappear and re-appear in different places, or that they can be in two places at the same time. If you reject my claims of evidence and refuse to look into a microscope and see for yourself, what can I ever to to convince you of this? You can say, that's a bunch of bullshit, it's impossible, it violates the laws of physics, and you don't believe it's true. What can I do to change your mind? Until you are willing to accept my evidence, it's pointless to argue. Very much the same can be said for God.
Click to expand...



Proof #11 - Notice that there is no scientific evidence

There is no scientific evidence indicating that God exists. We all know that. For example:

    God has never left any physical evidence of his existence on earth.

    None of Jesus' "miracles" left any physical evidence either. 

    God has never spoken to modern man, for example by taking over all the television stations and broadcasting a rational message to everyone.

    The resurrected Jesus has never appeared to anyone. 

    The Bible we have is provably incorrect and is obviously the work of primitive men rather than God.

    When we analyze prayer with statistics, we find no evidence that God is "answering prayers." 

    Huge, amazing atrocities like the Holocaust and AIDS occur without any response from God.

Let's agree that there is no empirical evidence showing that God exists.

If you think about it as a rational person, this lack of evidence is startling. There is not one bit of empirical evidence indicating that today's "God", nor any other contemporary god, nor any god of the past, exists. In addition we know that:

    If we had scientific proof of God's existence, we would talk about the "science of God" rather than "faith in God".

    If we had scientific proof of God's existence, the study of God would be a scientific endeavor rather than a theological one.

    If we had scientific proof of God's existence, all religious people would be aligning on the God that had been scientifically proven to exist. Instead there are thousands of gods and religions. 

The reason for this lack of evidence is easy for any unbiased observer to see. The reason why there is no empirical evidence for God is because God is imaginary.


----------



## sealybobo

GreenBean said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Possibly because you don't understand their Language and wouldn't know it when you saw it - He's right in your face - can't you see him ?  Look Harder Grasshopper.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listen fuck face.  I was raised christian.  We did everything right.  We were the perfect family.  My brother is still a christian although I know he doesn't take the bible literally so put him in that category of christian but anyways, the point is nothing bad happened to me I left god.  I didn't dive into a bad life of drugs or crime and so I needed salvation/saving.
> 
> But notice that is how a lot of people find god?  When they are low and vulnerable?  That's always when predators trike.
> 
> Anyways, so it wasn't like I didn't read the bible and try to live by it.  I just never really meant it when I said I believed Jesus was our lord and savior.  Maybe I did at one point but I believed ONLY because I didn't think it through hard enough and I certainly wasn't told the other side which is these stories are impossible and just meant to teach me right from wrong.
> 
> So I'm not smarter than you.  I'm just able to put that brainwashing and fear of the unknown part of my brain on hold and let logic and reason kick in here where most people "just can't believe" there is no god.
> 
> Yes, that is the best you godd'ers have.  You have no proof.  All you have is "you can't believe otherwise" or "you have faith" or you want to believe.  We get it.  But we also think as good as it has done for you, it is no good for mankind.  Makes people really stupid and is holding back your brain from evolving.  Let that shit go.  A healthy fear of the unknown was good for our ancestors.  It kept them alive.  But today religion is proving to be no good.  Look at the war machine of the christians, jews and look at what muslims say about non muslims.  They all suck.  Just as a Mormon and they will tell you I'm right about those 3 religions.
> 
> And ask a Christian and they'll say they are the best.  Jews think they are the chosen ones.  They'll all fucking nuts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Listen up "Fuck Face" -I am not a Christain either - although I was raised as one.
> You don't have to be a Bible Thumper or member of one of "Big Brothers" organized religions to believe in God .  You want to know who God is .... listen to the whistling wind fuck face ... listen carefully .
Click to expand...


We know why the wind whistles.  Its science not god.  

If you think about it as a rational person, this lack of evidence is startling. There is not one bit of empirical evidence indicating that today's "God", nor any other contemporary god, nor any god of the past, exists. In addition we know that:

If we had scientific proof of God's existence, we would talk about the "science of God" rather than "faith in God".

If we had scientific proof of God's existence, the study of God would be a scientific endeavor rather than a theological one.

If we had scientific proof of God's existence, all religious people would be aligning on the God that had been scientifically proven to exist. Instead there are thousands of gods and religions.

The reason for this lack of evidence is easy for any unbiased observer to see. The reason why there is no empirical evidence for God is because God is imaginary.


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> They/We started making fun of people who believe in god and then I told them I believed in "something" and they helped me realize that was all in my head just like it is in yours.



how sad.....was your faith always weak?.....



sealybobo said:


> Sort of like how I think there is plenty of evidence bush/the gop stole 2000 & 2004 so he could appoint alito/roberts and tilt the court right, let us get hit on 9-11 so they could lie us into iraq and pass their radical economic agenda, changed bankruptsy laws and purposely bankrupted the country just for a little while so they could kill unions and renig on pensions.



let me guess....television and your friends told you that too, didn't they.....


----------



## GreenBean

sealybobo said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Listen fuck face.  I was raised christian.  We did everything right.  We were the perfect family.  My brother is still a christian although I know he doesn't take the bible literally so put him in that category of christian but anyways, the point is nothing bad happened to me I left god.  I didn't dive into a bad life of drugs or crime and so I needed salvation/saving.
> 
> But notice that is how a lot of people find god?  When they are low and vulnerable?  That's always when predators trike.
> 
> Anyways, so it wasn't like I didn't read the bible and try to live by it.  I just never really meant it when I said I believed Jesus was our lord and savior.  Maybe I did at one point but I believed ONLY because I didn't think it through hard enough and I certainly wasn't told the other side which is these stories are impossible and just meant to teach me right from wrong.
> 
> So I'm not smarter than you.  I'm just able to put that brainwashing and fear of the unknown part of my brain on hold and let logic and reason kick in here where most people "just can't believe" there is no god.
> 
> Yes, that is the best you godd'ers have.  You have no proof.  All you have is "you can't believe otherwise" or "you have faith" or you want to believe.  We get it.  But we also think as good as it has done for you, it is no good for mankind.  Makes people really stupid and is holding back your brain from evolving.  Let that shit go.  A healthy fear of the unknown was good for our ancestors.  It kept them alive.  But today religion is proving to be no good.  Look at the war machine of the christians, jews and look at what muslims say about non muslims.  They all suck.  Just as a Mormon and they will tell you I'm right about those 3 religions.
> 
> And ask a Christian and they'll say they are the best.  Jews think they are the chosen ones.  They'll all fucking nuts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listen up "Fuck Face" -I am not a Christain either - although I was raised as one.
> You don't have to be a Bible Thumper or member of one of "Big Brothers" organized religions to believe in God .  You want to know who God is .... listen to the whistling wind fuck face ... listen carefully .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We know why the wind whistles.  Its science not god.
> 
> If you think about it as a rational person, this lack of evidence is startling. There is not one bit of empirical evidence indicating that today's "God", nor any other contemporary god, nor any god of the past, exists. In addition we know that:
> 
> If we had scientific proof of God's existence, we would talk about the "science of God" rather than "faith in God".
> 
> If we had scientific proof of God's existence, the study of God would be a scientific endeavor rather than a theological one.
> 
> If we had scientific proof of God's existence, all religious people would be aligning on the God that had been scientifically proven to exist. Instead there are thousands of gods and religions.
> 
> The reason for this lack of evidence is easy for any unbiased observer to see. The reason why there is no empirical evidence for God is because God is imaginary.
Click to expand...




> The reason for this lack of evidence is easy for any unbiased observer to see. The reason why there is no empirical evidence for God is because God is imaginary.



Perhaps - Perhaps Not .  Do you understand string theory and it's relativity to Time ?


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Sort of like how I think there is plenty of evidence bush/the gop stole 2000 & 2004 so he could appoint alito/roberts and tilt the court right, let us get hit on 9-11 so they could lie us into iraq and pass their radical economic agenda, changed bankruptsy laws and purposely bankrupted the country just for a little while so they could kill unions and renig on pensions.  I mean I think there is tons of evidence but since the so called liberal media won't talk about any of it.....
> 
> Your evidence for god is not even as good as my evidence the GOP pulled a coup in 2000.  The wind is god?  Me being superstitious about karma is god?  Weak!



Yeah, sorta like that. 

Whether evidence is weak or strong is dependent on individual perspective. This is why we have hung juries. You can show me your Bush 2000 evidence and I can show you where it is invalid and/or irrelevant, but if you don't believe me and you do believe your evidence, we'll have a difference of opinion. The same applies to me and my evidence for God. 

Again... the point is, "evidence" makes no difference in the argument. It's perception and perspectives of the individual. This defines the validity or invalidation in your mind or mine, of whatever the argument happens to be. I can't change how you view evidence and you can't change how I view it. We're ultimately all in charge of our own perspectives. 

If you are superstitious about Karma, it means you have a spiritual awareness of some kind. You just refuse to identify it as such. We're really not that different in our spiritual understanding, but I think I happen to be a little more intune with my spiritual connection than you are. I embrace my spirituality while you try to hide from yours. 

It becomes intriguing when we start to examine why that is the case. For me, I don't really care what others think of me. I am a confident person who has strong convictions and I am passionate about what I believe. It's has never really mattered to me if I am the only one in the room who has a certain opinion. In fact, I kind of like that about myself. You, on the other hand, judging by your comments here alone, are very insecure about yourself. You seek approval from others. Your friends are bashing Christians, so you want to be "cool" like them. It's more important for you to be accepted socially.


----------



## BreezeWood

sealybobo said:


> God has never left any physical evidence of his existence on earth.
> 
> .



life on Earth is the determining factor, beyond its physiology the presence of Spiritual Enlightenment granted to all living creatures flora and fauna.

sealy, is it your intent to expire with your physiology ? 

.


----------



## GreenBean

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sort of like how I think there is plenty of evidence bush/the gop stole 2000 & 2004 so he could appoint alito/roberts and tilt the court right, let us get hit on 9-11 so they could lie us into iraq and pass their radical economic agenda, changed bankruptsy laws and purposely bankrupted the country just for a little while so they could kill unions and renig on pensions.  I mean I think there is tons of evidence but since the so called liberal media won't talk about any of it.....
> 
> Your evidence for god is not even as good as my evidence the GOP pulled a coup in 2000.  The wind is god?  Me being superstitious about karma is god?  Weak!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, sorta like that.
> 
> Whether evidence is weak or strong is dependent on individual perspective. This is why we have hung juries. You can show me your Bush 2000 evidence and I can show you where it is invalid and/or irrelevant, but if you don't believe me and you do believe your evidence, we'll have a difference of opinion. The same applies to me and my evidence for God.
> 
> Again... the point is, "evidence" makes no difference in the argument. It's perception and perspectives of the individual. This defines the validity or invalidation in your mind or mine, of whatever the argument happens to be. I can't change how you view evidence and you can't change how I view it. We're ultimately all in charge of our own perspectives.
> 
> If you are superstitious about Karma, it means you have a spiritual awareness of some kind. You just refuse to identify it as such. We're really not that different in our spiritual understanding, but I think I happen to be a little more intune with my spiritual connection than you are. I embrace my spirituality while you try to hide from yours.
> 
> It becomes intriguing when we start to examine why that is the case. For me, I don't really care what others think of me. I am a confident person who has strong convictions and I am passionate about what I believe. It's has never really mattered to me if I am the only one in the room who has a certain opinion. In fact, I kind of like that about myself. You, on the other hand, judging by your comments here alone, are very insecure about yourself. You seek approval from others. Your friends are bashing Christians, so you want to be "cool" like them. It's more important for you to be accepted socially.
Click to expand...


Briiliant !  - why don't you post more often ?


----------



## Montrovant

GreenBean said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sort of like how I think there is plenty of evidence bush/the gop stole 2000 & 2004 so he could appoint alito/roberts and tilt the court right, let us get hit on 9-11 so they could lie us into iraq and pass their radical economic agenda, changed bankruptsy laws and purposely bankrupted the country just for a little while so they could kill unions and renig on pensions.  I mean I think there is tons of evidence but since the so called liberal media won't talk about any of it.....
> 
> Your evidence for god is not even as good as my evidence the GOP pulled a coup in 2000.  The wind is god?  Me being superstitious about karma is god?  Weak!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, sorta like that.
> 
> Whether evidence is weak or strong is dependent on individual perspective. This is why we have hung juries. You can show me your Bush 2000 evidence and I can show you where it is invalid and/or irrelevant, but if you don't believe me and you do believe your evidence, we'll have a difference of opinion. The same applies to me and my evidence for God.
> 
> Again... the point is, "evidence" makes no difference in the argument. It's perception and perspectives of the individual. This defines the validity or invalidation in your mind or mine, of whatever the argument happens to be. I can't change how you view evidence and you can't change how I view it. We're ultimately all in charge of our own perspectives.
> 
> If you are superstitious about Karma, it means you have a spiritual awareness of some kind. You just refuse to identify it as such. We're really not that different in our spiritual understanding, but I think I happen to be a little more intune with my spiritual connection than you are. I embrace my spirituality while you try to hide from yours.
> 
> It becomes intriguing when we start to examine why that is the case. For me, I don't really care what others think of me. I am a confident person who has strong convictions and I am passionate about what I believe. It's has never really mattered to me if I am the only one in the room who has a certain opinion. In fact, I kind of like that about myself. You, on the other hand, judging by your comments here alone, are very insecure about yourself. You seek approval from others. Your friends are bashing Christians, so you want to be "cool" like them. It's more important for you to be accepted socially.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Briiliant !  - why don't you post more often ?
Click to expand...


I take it you haven't followed this thread.....


----------



## sealybobo

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> They/We started making fun of people who believe in god and then I told them I believed in "something" and they helped me realize that was all in my head just like it is in yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how sad.....was your faith always weak?.....
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sort of like how I think there is plenty of evidence bush/the gop stole 2000 & 2004 so he could appoint alito/roberts and tilt the court right, let us get hit on 9-11 so they could lie us into iraq and pass their radical economic agenda, changed bankruptsy laws and purposely bankrupted the country just for a little while so they could kill unions and renig on pensions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> let me guess....television and your friends told you that too, didn't they.....
Click to expand...


Yes.  I never completely believed the stories even when I was young and gullible.  

No, I have been paying attention to politics for 30 years now, unlike most Americans who are not interested in politics.  And then there are the poor and middle class fools who pay attention only they pay attention to rush and fox and so they get it wrong.


----------



## sealybobo

BreezeWood said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> God has never left any physical evidence of his existence on earth.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> life on Earth is the determining factor, beyond its physiology the presence of Spiritual Enlightenment granted to all living creatures flora and fauna.
> 
> sealy, is it your intent to expire with your physiology ?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


So the Mosus, Adam and Eve, Abraham, Mohammad, Jesus & Devil stories are completely made up stories, correct?  You do understand that, right?  So if that is true, you have even less of an argument that god exists.  

And so since you can't logically defend those stories, now you are trying to say that just the fact that life is here on earth that this proves god?  No it does not.  Sorry.  Science says try again.  

Yes when you die that's it.  What was it like before you were born?  That's what it'll be like after you die.  Remember before you were born?  Did it hurt?  Were you sad because you weren't alive?  What about the chicken I ate last night?  Where is its soul?  

So please realize you are just another animal in the food chain.  You are at the top, but no matter, you are still just another animal.  You just have a big enough brain you can imagine angels, demons, witches, ghosts, devils and god.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sort of like how I think there is plenty of evidence bush/the gop stole 2000 & 2004 so he could appoint alito/roberts and tilt the court right, let us get hit on 9-11 so they could lie us into iraq and pass their radical economic agenda, changed bankruptsy laws and purposely bankrupted the country just for a little while so they could kill unions and renig on pensions.  I mean I think there is tons of evidence but since the so called liberal media won't talk about any of it.....
> 
> Your evidence for god is not even as good as my evidence the GOP pulled a coup in 2000.  The wind is god?  Me being superstitious about karma is god?  Weak!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You, on the other hand, judging by your comments here alone, are very insecure about yourself. You seek approval from others. Your friends are bashing Christians, so you want to be "cool" like them. It's more important for you to be accepted socially.
Click to expand...


So if someone convinces you that your position is wrong then that means its because I want to be cool like them?  I don't think so.  They didn't fear me into believing what they believe.  And if I didn't agree with them I wouldn't say I did.  I actually got my feelings hurt, because he/they told me if I believe in a generic god then I'm just as dumb as the people who believe in jesus or mohammad.  What possible reasons could I have for believing?  No good ones.

So I may believe in Karma and I may admit I'm an agnostic atheist but that doesn't mean I believe in god, no matter what form you think he/it takes.  

So he didn't make us in his image, right? At least you admit that.


----------



## sealybobo

GreenBean said:


> The reason for this lack of evidence is easy for any unbiased observer to see. The reason why there is no empirical evidence for God is because God is imaginary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps - Perhaps Not .  Do you understand string theory and it's relativity to Time ?
Click to expand...


Nope.  Does it prove a god exists?


----------



## BillyP

BreezeWood said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> God has never left any physical evidence of his existence on earth.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> life on Earth is the determining factor, beyond its physiology the presence of Spiritual Enlightenment granted to all living creatures flora and fauna.
> 
> sealy, is it your intent to expire with your physiology ?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


If he said no it still wouldn't prove a god. Please try again.


----------



## sealybobo

BillyP said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> God has never left any physical evidence of his existence on earth.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> life on Earth is the determining factor, beyond its physiology the presence of Spiritual Enlightenment granted to all living creatures flora and fauna.
> 
> sealy, is it your intent to expire with your physiology ?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If he said no it still wouldn't prove a god. Please try again.
Click to expand...


His argument is wishful thinking. The primary psychological role of traditional religion is deathist rationalisation, that is, rationalising the tragedy of death as a good thing to alleviate the anxiety of mortality.

I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking. The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which theres little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.  Carl Sagan

I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it. - Mark Twain


----------



## GreenBean

Montrovant said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, sorta like that.
> 
> Whether evidence is weak or strong is dependent on individual perspective. This is why we have hung juries. You can show me your Bush 2000 evidence and I can show you where it is invalid and/or irrelevant, but if you don't believe me and you do believe your evidence, we'll have a difference of opinion. The same applies to me and my evidence for God.
> 
> Again... the point is, "evidence" makes no difference in the argument. It's perception and perspectives of the individual. This defines the validity or invalidation in your mind or mine, of whatever the argument happens to be. I can't change how you view evidence and you can't change how I view it. We're ultimately all in charge of our own perspectives.
> 
> If you are superstitious about Karma, it means you have a spiritual awareness of some kind. You just refuse to identify it as such. We're really not that different in our spiritual understanding, but I think I happen to be a little more intune with my spiritual connection than you are. I embrace my spirituality while you try to hide from yours.
> 
> It becomes intriguing when we start to examine why that is the case. For me, I don't really care what others think of me. I am a confident person who has strong convictions and I am passionate about what I believe. It's has never really mattered to me if I am the only one in the room who has a certain opinion. In fact, I kind of like that about myself. You, on the other hand, judging by your comments here alone, are very insecure about yourself. You seek approval from others. Your friends are bashing Christians, so you want to be "cool" like them. It's more important for you to be accepted socially.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Briiliant !  - why don't you post more often ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I take it you haven't followed this thread.....
Click to expand...


What brought that on doofus ? What would my complimenting another poster have to do anything with "following the thread"  kindly explain yourself or just STFU dumb ass


----------



## BillyP

GreenBean said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Briiliant !  - why don't you post more often ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I take it you haven't followed this thread.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What brought that on doofus ? What would my complimenting another poster have to do anything with "following the thread"  kindly explain yourself or just STFU dumb ass
Click to expand...


Because Boss is a major windbag/imbecile. You'd know that if you ever read some of his stuff.


----------



## GreenBean

sealybobo said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The reason for this lack of evidence is easy for any unbiased observer to see. The reason why there is no empirical evidence for God is because God is imaginary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps - Perhaps Not .  Do you understand string theory and it's relativity to Time ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  Does it prove a god exists?
Click to expand...


Okay so you don't understand string theory and it's relativity to time .  
Guess what ?
Neither do I [LOL]
But it still exists .


----------



## BillyP

GreenBean said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps - Perhaps Not .  Do you understand string theory and it's relativity to Time ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  Does it prove a god exists?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay so you don't understand string theory and it's relativity to time .
> Guess what ?
> Neither do I [LOL]
> But it still exists .
Click to expand...

String theory is a theory, just like god. They don't exist, only their theories do.


----------



## sealybobo

GreenBean said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps - Perhaps Not .  Do you understand string theory and it's relativity to Time ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  Does it prove a god exists?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay so you don't understand string theory and it's relativity to time .
> Guess what ?
> Neither do I [LOL]
> But it still exists .
Click to expand...


And that proves what?  Do you understand Leprechauns?  Neither do I.  Does that mean they exist too?  Until we know more the best answer is you just don't know yet.  

If you don't understand what god is, how do you know for sure that he exists?  So you are admitting you have no understanding of what god is but you are still sure he exists?  

Also, as with string theory, you are believing what other people have told you about god.  Chances are you haven't looked that deeply into it or you would realize it is an irrational belief.  And I think a lot of people realize this and still believe.  I was one of those people until I was woken up by an atheist friend.  He had to yell at me and call me stupid and I had to go home and think about it and I realized if I continue to believe there is a god then I do so with zero proof and a whole bunch of facts that point to the probability that we as humans just made it up.

A dog can be taught to think of a bird when we ring a bell.  So can a man.  Both can imagine a bird in their heads.  What makes man special?  We can imagine wings on a man.  That's how we came up with angels.  Very simple way of explaining we made all that shit up.  Either that or believe the stories in the bible or koran or start worshipping Zeus.


----------



## HUGGY

Why hate god?

Because it is fun and there are no consequences because god is just made up nonsense.

Now what is really troubling is how many people are stupid enough to buy into the god racket.

When that many people are THAT willfully ignorant it doesn't matter that they believe in a sky fairy.  If it wasn't god it would be something just as stupid.

Even if the scientists got off their asses and proved without a doubt that there is no god humanity would still be just as stupid.

The possibilities of what the population could gravitate to are endless and endlessly stupid and more than likely dangerous.  

Take Germany only 70 years ago.  They turned completely evil.  It didn't take much either.  Just a Charlie Chapman look alike and some clever propaganda.  Hitler could not have happened without the consent of the German population.

Take the current RW campaign to make Obama and America fail just to prove the ****** shouldn't be president.  These traitors couldn't operate without the will of the morons in their states that blindly go along with it.

It doesn't matter that a few people hate god.  It makes no difference that a few hate the stupidity that sustains religion.

There will always be more stupid people than smart people.  All one can do is hate them and laugh at them.  They are not going away.  

At least they are not for the most part NAZIS.


----------



## GreenBean

BillyP said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I take it you haven't followed this thread.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What brought that on doofus ? What would my complimenting another poster have to do anything with "following the thread"  kindly explain yourself or just STFU dumb ass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because Boss is a major windbag/imbecile. You'd know that if you ever read some of his stuff.
Click to expand...


Okay ........... USMB is chock full of overbearing windbags , some people think I am one , as I tend to get overly  passionate on some topics and have a tendency to be vulgar and insulting ... That's actually the first post of his I ever recall seeing and I thought it was rather eloquent, but thanks for the heads up.


----------



## GreenBean

BillyP said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  Does it prove a god exists?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay so you don't understand string theory and it's relativity to time .
> Guess what ?
> Neither do I [LOL]
> But it still exists .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> String theory is a theory, just like god. They don't exist, only their theories do.
Click to expand...


Theories don't exist ?  ....Hmmm ... Interesting Theory ... but  it's only a theory - right ? 

*Infinity* can't be proven -so basically it's a theory

<<< To Infinity    -6  -5   -4  -3   -2   -1  0   +1   +2   +3 + 4   +5  +6   to Infinity  >>>
Infinity is the sum of ALL things. Infinity is all inclusive
Both ends of the scale above go to Infinity.
Both go to same point and there can only be ONE Infinity.
Both ends of the scale undeniably meet back at the same point.
Therefore Infinity must be circular, meeting back at zero .
That would mean that the World is round ? !
-Drats, and I was just getting used to Copernicus-

In order to physically demonstrate this theory it would be necessary to travel from Zero , circle the globe of infinity and arrive back at Zero again . This is obviously a physical impossibility due to the restrictions of the Fourth dimension - TIME. Were the restrictions of the Fourth Dimension lifted , and we were permitted to eat of the Tree of Knowledge "we would Know  "without labor countless things at the same time and in an instant of time, unaccompanied with doubt or obscurity. We would know everything at a glance. {1}"

In the small Town of Garabandal in Spain, a supernatural apparition, believed to Angelic by the Devout, demonic by others and insanity by still others is alleged to have made a statement to a young Child, who was incapable of completely understanding the meaning of what she was relaying.  The Entity she was conversing with, she believed to be an apparition of the Virgin Mary,  The Apparition told her that after the third Pope then will come the end of time but not the end of the world . 
But how can this be ? If time stops , our very existence ceases, we become nothing within nothing, and we all know zero + zero = ZERO ...The problem with Zero + Zero is  that Zero can only exist as  a concept , not a substantiated fact  when using a lineal thought process. In the same way the World was flat at one time.  { And there is still a fringe element that believes this !}

DOES ZERO EXIST ? On the other side of the coin does infinity exist ? And completing the triumvirate/trilogy/trinity DOES GOD EXIST ?  





> " A child once asked me if I believe in God. I said, *God is a concept like zero -- does zero exist?*" --- Larry Bierman Positive Atheism .


.Yes Larry Bierman There is a Zero , didn't you hear that recent scientific studies have proven that the world is round ?!

-

The biggest challenge to  physicists today is how to reconcile general relativity and quantum mechanics. These Two fundamental pillars of modern science are highly incompatible.  What the two theories clash over is zero and infinity" A black hole for instance occupies ZERO space, so how can infinite mass-- be crammed into zero space, curving space infinitely ?  Einstein's equations of general relativity cannot deal with the sharpness of zero. In a black hole, space and  time are meaningless/ zeroes. Everything is nothing.  Human beings can not adequately process this information neither. If you divide any number by zero the answer is undefined. If you are using a windows operating system to view this page try the calculator installed in all windows systems . dividing a number by Zero.. you'll get "Can not divide by Zero" in most handhelds you'll get "undefined" Undefined can mean many things. But basically It is translatable as "need more info" . One could argue that Zero and infinity are abstract or imaginary quantities, because in reality Zero/ nothingness does not exist. There is no such thing as Zero or true Nothingness in Human reality or  Human experience that we can  point to as an example. However without Zero our entire mathematical structure and theory collapses. 


Only in the absence of the time could we fully comprehend the concept of Zero.  My god that's a ludicrous statement isn't it ?  Without time we cease to exist/ die ..Become Zeroes, nothing at all, or everything within everything. The problem with our the Human mind is that it is locked within the constraints of linear time. First I will search for the "F" key on the keyboard in front of me , to begin typing the word First  next the letter "I" and so on, all our actions and thought processes  revolve around linear time. It is natural of the human to think that there must be a beginning and an end of everything.


A peculiar statement was made by an apparition  that appeared to the child at Garabandal ,Spain.



> "The power and wisdom of God is not confined to the creation of man and the material world. Beyond man millions of creatures exist, far more perfect than man. The angelic nature is a whole world of perfection, angels are spiritual substances, incorruptible by nature, entirely free from infirmities which compass us on every side. They are all brightness and beauty, their loveliness surpasses all united charms of earth. Their intelligence is Godlike for the knowledge extends to all truths of the natural order. They are acquainted with all secrets of nature and all that remains hidden from the greatest minds that ever existed. They know without labor countless things at the same time and in an instant of time, unaccompanied with doubt or obscurity. They know everything at a glance."  countless = Infinite  everything at a glance =  Instant Knowledge , a thought process unrestrained by the weight of time.



http://www.geocities.ws/nephilimnot/end_time.html


----------



## GreenBean

sealybobo said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  Does it prove a god exists?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay so you don't understand string theory and it's relativity to time .
> Guess what ?
> Neither do I [LOL]
> But it still exists .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that proves what?  Do you understand Leprechauns?  Neither do I.  Does that mean they exist too?  Until we know more the best answer is you just don't know yet.
> 
> If you don't understand what god is, how do you know for sure that he exists?  So you are admitting you have no understanding of what god is but you are still sure he exists?
> 
> Also, as with string theory, you are believing what other people have told you about god.  Chances are you haven't looked that deeply into it or you would realize it is an irrational belief.  And I think a lot of people realize this and still believe.  I was one of those people until I was woken up by an atheist friend.  He had to yell at me and call me stupid and I had to go home and think about it and I realized if I continue to believe there is a god then I do so with zero proof and a whole bunch of facts that point to the probability that we as humans just made it up.
> 
> A dog can be taught to think of a bird when we ring a bell.  So can a man.  Both can imagine a bird in their heads.  What makes man special?  We can imagine wings on a man.  That's how we came up with angels.  Very simple way of explaining we made all that shit up.  Either that or believe the stories in the bible or koran or start worshipping Zeus.
Click to expand...


I don't believe in the Bible or Koran or any of that other "Big Brother"  religous BS either , but that does not exclude the exitence of a Supreme entity or a spiritual realm.

*Can you explain Fatima* - if you are at all familiar with it  ?

"miracle of the sun"--a spectacular  phenomenon--occurred in the presence of 50,000 - 70,000 witnesses. {Although some accounts say as much as a 100,000}

The crowd consisted of educated and illiterate ,rich and poor, die hard Catholics *as well as devout Atheists who had come to mock. *

Fatima Sun Dance


----------



## Montrovant

GreenBean said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Briiliant !  - why don't you post more often ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I take it you haven't followed this thread.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What brought that on doofus ? What would my complimenting another poster have to do anything with "following the thread"  kindly explain yourself or just STFU dumb ass
Click to expand...


You asked why Boss doesn't post more often.  He's posted many, many times in this thread.

What brought that on?  Why would my comment that you haven't followed this thread cause such an angry response?


----------



## GreenBean

Montrovant said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I take it you haven't followed this thread.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What brought that on doofus ? What would my complimenting another poster have to do anything with "following the thread"  kindly explain yourself or just STFU dumb ass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You asked why Boss doesn't post more often.  He's posted many, many times in this thread.
> 
> What brought that on?  Why would my comment that you haven't followed this thread cause such an angry response?
Click to expand...


Misunderstanding of what you meant - *my apologies* .  I usually post on the politics section / flame zone where the insults fly like gnats - thought your post was  "incoming"


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sort of like how I think there is plenty of evidence bush/the gop stole 2000 & 2004 so he could appoint alito/roberts and tilt the court right, let us get hit on 9-11 so they could lie us into iraq and pass their radical economic agenda, changed bankruptsy laws and purposely bankrupted the country just for a little while so they could kill unions and renig on pensions.  I mean I think there is tons of evidence but since the so called liberal media won't talk about any of it.....
> 
> Your evidence for god is not even as good as my evidence the GOP pulled a coup in 2000.  The wind is god?  Me being superstitious about karma is god?  Weak!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You, on the other hand, judging by your comments here alone, are very insecure about yourself. You seek approval from others. Your friends are bashing Christians, so you want to be "cool" like them. It's more important for you to be accepted socially.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if someone convinces you that your position is wrong then that means its because I want to be cool like them?  I don't think so.  They didn't fear me into believing what they believe.  And if I didn't agree with them I wouldn't say I did.  I actually got my feelings hurt, because he/they told me if I believe in a generic god then I'm just as dumb as the people who believe in jesus or mohammad.  What possible reasons could I have for believing?  No good ones.
> 
> So I may believe in Karma and I may admit I'm an agnostic atheist but that doesn't mean I believe in god, no matter what form you think he/it takes.
> 
> So he didn't make us in his image, right? At least you admit that.
Click to expand...


But they didn't convince you. Repeatedly you have admitted you believe there is something more than just the physical realm, a thing or force you define as "Karma." Here you admit that you "got your feelings hurt" for believing in a "generic God" and this is largely why you have become an "agnostic" atheist. It allows you to "be cool" with your buddies and be accepted by them, while still rectifying your belief in something greater than self. 

*So he didn't make us in his image, right? At least you admit that.*

Well, no... I didn't admit that. I have no idea if that is true or not true. I personally don't believe in such a God, I think of God as more of an energy force, like electricity or a natural force like  gravity. My interpretation of God doesn't have humanistic attributes or conform to any organized religious incarnation. You might say that I believe in Karma like you but I choose to define it with three letters instead of four. However, I leave the possibility open that I could be wrong about this, and God could very well be as the Abrahamic religions or other religions imagine. In fact, being that it's God we're talking about here, there is nothing that prohibits God from being all things to all people in a spiritual sense. It could be that everyone is right, and that's just the nature of God.


----------



## BreezeWood

> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would love to believe that when I die I will live again ...  Carl Sagan
> 
> I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it. - Mark Twain
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *GreenBean:* In order to physically demonstrate this theory it would be necessary to travel from Zero , circle the globe of infinity and arrive back at Zero again . This is obviously a physical impossibility due to the restrictions of the Fourth dimension - TIME
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



Carl Sagan religiously was nothing but a whiner and why would anyone believe they were "dead" before they were born ???


*I would love to believe that when I die I will live again ... "*


well the point is to defy GreenBean and travel the circuitous rout to "know" before death the means for ones Spirit to return to the Everlasting where one came from at birth.

certainly not knowing the rules is the surest way to insure mortality.

.


----------



## AtheistBuddah

BreezeWood said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would love to believe that when I die I will live again ...  Carl Sagan
> 
> I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it. - Mark Twain
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *GreenBean:* In order to physically demonstrate this theory it would be necessary to travel from Zero , circle the globe of infinity and arrive back at Zero again . This is obviously a physical impossibility due to the restrictions of the Fourth dimension - TIME
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> why would anyone believe they were "dead" before they were born ???
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...



I believe what Mark Twain meant was that his consciousness did not exist and could not experience anything for billions upon billions of years before his birth and that the same would be true after his death. There was a point where he didn't exist and eventually there would be a point again where he didn't exist and that didn't bother him. That's essentially what he was saying. He wasn't literally implying that he was dead before he was even born.


----------



## BillyP

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> You, on the other hand, judging by your comments here alone, are very insecure about yourself. You seek approval from others. Your friends are bashing Christians, so you want to be "cool" like them. It's more important for you to be accepted socially.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if someone convinces you that your position is wrong then that means its because I want to be cool like them?  I don't think so.  They didn't fear me into believing what they believe.  And if I didn't agree with them I wouldn't say I did.  I actually got my feelings hurt, because he/they told me if I believe in a generic god then I'm just as dumb as the people who believe in jesus or mohammad.  What possible reasons could I have for believing?  No good ones.
> 
> So I may believe in Karma and I may admit I'm an agnostic atheist but that doesn't mean I believe in god, no matter what form you think he/it takes.
> 
> So he didn't make us in his image, right? At least you admit that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But they didn't convince you. Repeatedly you have admitted you believe there is something more than just the physical realm, a thing or force you define as "Karma." Here you admit that you "got your feelings hurt" for believing in a "generic God" and this is largely why you have become an "agnostic" atheist. It allows you to "be cool" with your buddies and be accepted by them, while still rectifying your belief in something greater than self.
> 
> *So he didn't make us in his image, right? At least you admit that.*
> 
> Well, no... I didn't admit that. I have no idea if that is true or not true. I personally don't believe in such a God, I think of *God as more of an energy force, like electricity *or a natural force like  gravity. My interpretation of God doesn't have humanistic attributes or conform to any organized religious incarnation. You might say that I believe in Karma like you but I choose to define it with three letters instead of four. However, I leave the possibility open that I could be wrong about this, and God could very well be as the Abrahamic religions or other religions imagine. In fact, being that it's God we're talking about here, there is nothing that prohibits God from being all things to all people in a spiritual sense. It could be that everyone is right, and that's just the nature of God.
Click to expand...


So I see god every time I turn of a light in my house? Wow! That's pretty stupid, even for you.


----------



## Boss

BillyP said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if someone convinces you that your position is wrong then that means its because I want to be cool like them?  I don't think so.  They didn't fear me into believing what they believe.  And if I didn't agree with them I wouldn't say I did.  I actually got my feelings hurt, because he/they told me if I believe in a generic god then I'm just as dumb as the people who believe in jesus or mohammad.  What possible reasons could I have for believing?  No good ones.
> 
> So I may believe in Karma and I may admit I'm an agnostic atheist but that doesn't mean I believe in god, no matter what form you think he/it takes.
> 
> So he didn't make us in his image, right? At least you admit that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But they didn't convince you. Repeatedly you have admitted you believe there is something more than just the physical realm, a thing or force you define as "Karma." Here you admit that you "got your feelings hurt" for believing in a "generic God" and this is largely why you have become an "agnostic" atheist. It allows you to "be cool" with your buddies and be accepted by them, while still rectifying your belief in something greater than self.
> 
> *So he didn't make us in his image, right? At least you admit that.*
> 
> Well, no... I didn't admit that. I have no idea if that is true or not true. I personally don't believe in such a God, I think of *God as more of an energy force, like electricity *or a natural force like  gravity. My interpretation of God doesn't have humanistic attributes or conform to any organized religious incarnation. You might say that I believe in Karma like you but I choose to define it with three letters instead of four. However, I leave the possibility open that I could be wrong about this, and God could very well be as the Abrahamic religions or other religions imagine. In fact, being that it's God we're talking about here, there is nothing that prohibits God from being all things to all people in a spiritual sense. It could be that everyone is right, and that's just the nature of God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So I see god every time I turn of a light in my house? Wow! That's pretty stupid, even for you.
Click to expand...



But that's not what I said. Yes, that is pretty stupid, but I bet it isn't that stupid for you.


----------



## BillyP

Boss said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> But they didn't convince you. Repeatedly you have admitted you believe there is something more than just the physical realm, a thing or force you define as "Karma." Here you admit that you "got your feelings hurt" for believing in a "generic God" and this is largely why you have become an "agnostic" atheist. It allows you to "be cool" with your buddies and be accepted by them, while still rectifying your belief in something greater than self.
> 
> *So he didn't make us in his image, right? At least you admit that.*
> 
> Well, no... I didn't admit that. I have no idea if that is true or not true. I personally don't believe in such a God, I think of *God as more of an energy force, like electricity *or a natural force like  gravity. My interpretation of God doesn't have humanistic attributes or conform to any organized religious incarnation. You might say that I believe in Karma like you but I choose to define it with three letters instead of four. However, I leave the possibility open that I could be wrong about this, and God could very well be as the Abrahamic religions or other religions imagine. In fact, being that it's God we're talking about here, there is nothing that prohibits God from being all things to all people in a spiritual sense. It could be that everyone is right, and that's just the nature of God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So I see god every time I turn of a light in my house? Wow! That's pretty stupid, even for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But that's not what I said. Yes, that is pretty stupid, but I bet it isn't that stupid for you.
Click to expand...

You're the noob who said that god is like electricity.


----------



## BreezeWood

AtheistBuddah said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why would anyone believe they were "dead" before they were born ???
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe what Mark Twain meant was that his consciousness did not exist and could not experience anything for billions upon billions of years before his birth and that the same would be true after his death. There was a point where he didn't exist and eventually there would be a point again where he didn't exist and that didn't bother him. That's essentially what he was saying. He wasn't literally implying that he was dead before he was even born.
Click to expand...





> I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it. - Mark Twain




*AB: I believe what Mark Twain meant was that his consciousness did not exist and could not experience anything for billions upon billions of years before his birth ...*


I agree MTs comment was flippant (poetic license) and meant as you describe however to say he was "dead" before his birth might better have been simply as he did not exist - physiologically.

at least I do not believe I was dead in the pursuit of life I accomplished and intend to continue as a Spirit after the body perishes ... wherever that may lead and remain a part of the Everlasting as long as possible.

.


----------



## Slyhunter

BillyP said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> So I see god every time I turn of a light in my house? Wow! That's pretty stupid, even for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that's not what I said. Yes, that is pretty stupid, but I bet it isn't that stupid for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're the noob who said that god is like electricity.
Click to expand...


How does being like electricity equate to being like a light bulb. You know your talking about two different things right.


----------



## sealybobo

HUGGY said:


> Why hate god?
> 
> Because it is fun and there are no consequences because god is just made up nonsense.
> 
> Now what is really troubling is how many people are stupid enough to buy into the god racket.
> 
> When that many people are THAT willfully ignorant it doesn't matter that they believe in a sky fairy.  If it wasn't god it would be something just as stupid.
> 
> Even if the scientists got off their asses and proved without a doubt that there is no god humanity would still be just as stupid.
> 
> The possibilities of what the population could gravitate to are endless and endlessly stupid and more than likely dangerous.
> 
> Take Germany only 70 years ago.  They turned completely evil.  It didn't take much either.  Just a Charlie Chapman look alike and some clever propaganda.  Hitler could not have happened without the consent of the German population.
> 
> Take the current RW campaign to make Obama and America fail just to prove the ****** shouldn't be president.  These traitors couldn't operate without the will of the morons in their states that blindly go along with it.
> 
> It doesn't matter that a few people hate god.  It makes no difference that a few hate the stupidity that sustains religion.
> 
> There will always be more stupid people than smart people.  All one can do is hate them and laugh at them.  They are not going away.
> 
> At least they are not for the most part NAZIS.



I agree completely.  This is why I say I'm convinced that the politicians/rich/media know they can convince people who believe in invisible sky fairies of anything.  As long as we remain ignorant like this as a society it is definately holding us back.  And I don't think religion does more good than bad. 

A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it.  David Stevens


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> You, on the other hand, judging by your comments here alone, are very insecure about yourself. You seek approval from others. Your friends are bashing Christians, so you want to be "cool" like them. It's more important for you to be accepted socially.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if someone convinces you that your position is wrong then that means its because I want to be cool like them?  I don't think so.  They didn't fear me into believing what they believe.  And if I didn't agree with them I wouldn't say I did.  I actually got my feelings hurt, because he/they told me if I believe in a generic god then I'm just as dumb as the people who believe in jesus or mohammad.  What possible reasons could I have for believing?  No good ones.
> 
> So I may believe in Karma and I may admit I'm an agnostic atheist but that doesn't mean I believe in god, no matter what form you think he/it takes.
> 
> So he didn't make us in his image, right? At least you admit that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But they didn't convince you. Repeatedly you have admitted you believe there is something more than just the physical realm, a thing or force you define as "Karma." Here you admit that you "got your feelings hurt" for believing in a "generic God" and this is largely why you have become an "agnostic" atheist. It allows you to "be cool" with your buddies and be accepted by them, while still rectifying your belief in something greater than self.
> 
> *So he didn't make us in his image, right? At least you admit that.*
> 
> Well, no... I didn't admit that. I have no idea if that is true or not true. I personally don't believe in such a God, I think of God as more of an energy force, like electricity or a natural force like  gravity. My interpretation of God doesn't have humanistic attributes or conform to any organized religious incarnation. You might say that I believe in Karma like you but I choose to define it with three letters instead of four. However, I leave the possibility open that I could be wrong about this, and God could very well be as the Abrahamic religions or other religions imagine. In fact, being that it's God we're talking about here, there is nothing that prohibits God from being all things to all people in a spiritual sense. It could be that everyone is right, and that's just the nature of God.
Click to expand...


Not true.  I read on my favorite site the one you hate that the most logical position to take is agnostic atheism, because I shouldn't assume I know, just like christians and muslims and jews shouldn't lie and say they know.  

But as far as I can tell, there is no god.  

I don't suggest I'm not prone to be superstitious or irrational when it comes to this stuff.  You and I both know god has been ingrained in our fabric for a long long time.  Like how sometimes a domestic dog will show you it's basic instincts.  I saw my beagle kill a muskrat.  Why did she do it?  She doesn't eat muskrat.  But you should have seen her when she saw it.  Even though I said NO, she did it anything.  

I may believe in Karma but that's just my superstitious nature.  If I go steal something right now I don't think that karma is going to kick in and pay me back for it.  Or, even if karma is true, that doesn't mean a god exists.  It can probably be explained scientifically.  Actually, they would say that you can murder someone and live a long comfortable financially secure life free of sickness and pain.  BUT, it would eat me up inside and that is where the karma comes from.  Then whenever something bad happens, I would attribute it to what I did, when in reality there is ZERO connection.

So karma is what you make of it, in your head.  And by the way, if it eats you up you could get cancer.  No god gave you cancer.  You gave that shit to yourself.  

But also notice the people who live long happy lives who are evil?  They may not believe in karma.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> You, on the other hand, judging by your comments here alone, are very insecure about yourself. You seek approval from others. Your friends are bashing Christians, so you want to be "cool" like them. It's more important for you to be accepted socially.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if someone convinces you that your position is wrong then that means its because I want to be cool like them?  I don't think so.  They didn't fear me into believing what they believe.  And if I didn't agree with them I wouldn't say I did.  I actually got my feelings hurt, because he/they told me if I believe in a generic god then I'm just as dumb as the people who believe in jesus or mohammad.  What possible reasons could I have for believing?  No good ones.
> 
> So I may believe in Karma and I may admit I'm an agnostic atheist but that doesn't mean I believe in god, no matter what form you think he/it takes.
> 
> So he didn't make us in his image, right? At least you admit that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But they didn't convince you. Repeatedly you have admitted you believe there is something more than just the physical realm, a thing or force you define as "Karma." Here you admit that you "got your feelings hurt" for believing in a "generic God" and this is largely why you have become an "agnostic" atheist. It allows you to "be cool" with your buddies and be accepted by them, while still rectifying your belief in something greater than self.
> 
> *So he didn't make us in his image, right? At least you admit that.*
> 
> Well, no... I didn't admit that. I have no idea if that is true or not true. I personally don't believe in such a God, I think of God as more of an energy force, like electricity or a natural force like  gravity. My interpretation of God doesn't have humanistic attributes or conform to any organized religious incarnation. You might say that I believe in Karma like you but I choose to define it with three letters instead of four. However, I leave the possibility open that I could be wrong about this, and God could very well be as the Abrahamic religions or other religions imagine. In fact, being that it's God we're talking about here, there is nothing that prohibits God from being all things to all people in a spiritual sense. It could be that everyone is right, and that's just the nature of God.
Click to expand...


So you don't know is what you are saying.  Agnostic Theist is what I would call you.  

What are your thoughts on hell?  

I guess whatever you come up with in your head must be true, right?  Because how could you come up with it if it weren't true?  That's what you say about god.  Since we came up with it, must be true.  So whatever you think, must be true, right?


----------



## Slyhunter

I've had an unexplained miracle happen in my life. I believe there are things in this universe that are beyond my current knowledge. That can includes, maybe spirits living between the stars. The bible on the other hand is a work of fiction. 

Just like that cross at ground zero.
I keep pointing out to my mother it isn't the same cross. The one in the left pic is turned differently than the one in the right pic. Facts don't change my mothers opinion about the ground zero cross, so they won't change her opinion about the bible.


----------



## Slyhunter

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if someone convinces you that your position is wrong then that means its because I want to be cool like them?  I don't think so.  They didn't fear me into believing what they believe.  And if I didn't agree with them I wouldn't say I did.  I actually got my feelings hurt, because he/they told me if I believe in a generic god then I'm just as dumb as the people who believe in jesus or mohammad.  What possible reasons could I have for believing?  No good ones.
> 
> So I may believe in Karma and I may admit I'm an agnostic atheist but that doesn't mean I believe in god, no matter what form you think he/it takes.
> 
> So he didn't make us in his image, right? At least you admit that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But they didn't convince you. Repeatedly you have admitted you believe there is something more than just the physical realm, a thing or force you define as "Karma." Here you admit that you "got your feelings hurt" for believing in a "generic God" and this is largely why you have become an "agnostic" atheist. It allows you to "be cool" with your buddies and be accepted by them, while still rectifying your belief in something greater than self.
> 
> *So he didn't make us in his image, right? At least you admit that.*
> 
> Well, no... I didn't admit that. I have no idea if that is true or not true. I personally don't believe in such a God, I think of God as more of an energy force, like electricity or a natural force like  gravity. My interpretation of God doesn't have humanistic attributes or conform to any organized religious incarnation. You might say that I believe in Karma like you but I choose to define it with three letters instead of four. However, I leave the possibility open that I could be wrong about this, and God could very well be as the Abrahamic religions or other religions imagine. In fact, being that it's God we're talking about here, there is nothing that prohibits God from being all things to all people in a spiritual sense. It could be that everyone is right, and that's just the nature of God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don't know is what you are saying.  Agnostic Theist is what I would call you.
> 
> What are your thoughts on hell?
> 
> I guess whatever you come up with in your head must be true, right?  Because how could you come up with it if it weren't true?  That's what you say about god.  Since we came up with it, must be true.  So whatever you think, must be true, right?
Click to expand...


One mans hell, anothers paradise.


----------



## sealybobo

Slyhunter said:


> I've had an unexplained miracle happen in my life. .



What was it?

Miracles have not been demonstrated to occur.  Even if a miracle could be demonstrated it would not immediately imply the existence of a god as unknown natural processes or agents could still be at work.  What if aliens did it?  

Most alleged miracles can be explained as statistically unlikely occurrences. For example, one child surviving a plane crash that kills two hundred others is not a miracle, just as one person winning the lottery is not. In the absence of any empirical evidence, all other claims can be dismissed as the result of magical thinking, misattribution, credulity, hearsay and anecdote. Eye-witness testimony and anecdotal accounts are, by themselves, not reliable or definitive forms of proof for such extraordinary claims.

Divine intervention claims most often concern systems and events for which we have poor predictive capabilities, for example, weather, sports, health and social/economic interactions. Such claims are rarely made in relation to those things we can accurately predict and test e.g. the motion of celestial bodies, boiling point of water and pull of gravity. If a god is constantly intervening in the universe it supposedly created, then it is with such ambiguity as to appear completely indistinguishable from normal background chance.

Elite athletes make first place and thanks god, strange shapes appear on toast and some people narrowly escape death, but amputated limbs never regrow, mountains never move and food never spontaneously appears in front of the hundreds of children that starve to death each hour.

But a miracle happened to you?


----------



## sealybobo

Slyhunter said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> But they didn't convince you. Repeatedly you have admitted you believe there is something more than just the physical realm, a thing or force you define as "Karma." Here you admit that you "got your feelings hurt" for believing in a "generic God" and this is largely why you have become an "agnostic" atheist. It allows you to "be cool" with your buddies and be accepted by them, while still rectifying your belief in something greater than self.
> 
> *So he didn't make us in his image, right? At least you admit that.*
> 
> Well, no... I didn't admit that. I have no idea if that is true or not true. I personally don't believe in such a God, I think of God as more of an energy force, like electricity or a natural force like  gravity. My interpretation of God doesn't have humanistic attributes or conform to any organized religious incarnation. You might say that I believe in Karma like you but I choose to define it with three letters instead of four. However, I leave the possibility open that I could be wrong about this, and God could very well be as the Abrahamic religions or other religions imagine. In fact, being that it's God we're talking about here, there is nothing that prohibits God from being all things to all people in a spiritual sense. It could be that everyone is right, and that's just the nature of God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't know is what you are saying.  Agnostic Theist is what I would call you.
> 
> What are your thoughts on hell?
> 
> I guess whatever you come up with in your head must be true, right?  Because how could you come up with it if it weren't true?  That's what you say about god.  Since we came up with it, must be true.  So whatever you think, must be true, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One mans hell, anothers paradise.
Click to expand...


I've had 2 or 3 friends tell me their "guardian angel" stories about how they were going to get hit by a car or train and something/someone said LOOK OUT, even though no one was there.  Are they really that gullible?  They don't realize that was their minds playing tricks on them?


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> I agree completely.  This is why I say I'm convinced that the politicians/rich/media know they can convince people who believe in invisible sky fairies of anything.  As long as we remain ignorant like this as a society it is definately holding us back.  *And I don't think religion does more good than bad. *
> 
> A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it.  David Stevens



But you are wrong. Just the very question of good vs. bad is related to religion. I say this, not as a fan of organized religion, but as someone objectively evaluating humanity as a whole. Our entire species operates out of a sense of morality judgement. These moral ethics come from our religious or spiritual views of something greater than self. Whenever you logically remove something greater than self, then nothing is greater than self. In other words, survival of the fittest, as things are in nature with every other living thing.

Lions do not have compassion for gazelles. They do not think about the gazelle having a family or it's struggle to survive, they view the gazelle as a meal. Gorillas don't court their mate and await approval before copulation with them. Their sexual behavior is what we would consider rape. A bird foraging for worms will not hit the jackpot and then share the bounty with other needy birds. The early bird gets the worm. 

Other species do not have a moral ethical sense of right or wrong. They operate on pure animal instinct without regard for ethics. It is through a human conscious understanding and awareness of something greater than self, that we developed various ethos which became our basis for human morality. 

You cannot explain this away with any other theory because they defy rationality. If we adopted morals in order to better work together in groups or packs, or to better attract mates, then we'd see other species adopting the same kind of moral ethics to supplant their animal instincts, and we simply see no such evidence. It all stems from a conscious awareness humans have of some power greater than ourselves, something of more importance than self-preservation.


----------



## BillyP

sealybobo said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've had an unexplained miracle happen in my life. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What was it?
> 
> Miracles have not been demonstrated to occur.  Even if a miracle could be demonstrated it would not immediately imply the existence of a god as unknown natural processes or agents could still be at work.  What if aliens did it?
> 
> Most alleged miracles can be explained as statistically unlikely occurrences. For example, one child surviving a plane crash that kills two hundred others is not a miracle, just as one person winning the lottery is not. In the absence of any empirical evidence, all other claims can be dismissed as the result of magical thinking, misattribution, credulity, hearsay and anecdote. Eye-witness testimony and anecdotal accounts are, by themselves, not reliable or definitive forms of proof for such extraordinary claims.
> 
> Divine intervention claims most often concern systems and events for which we have poor predictive capabilities, for example, weather, sports, health and social/economic interactions. Such claims are rarely made in relation to those things we can accurately predict and test e.g. the motion of celestial bodies, boiling point of water and pull of gravity. If a god is constantly intervening in the universe it supposedly created, then it is with such ambiguity as to appear completely indistinguishable from normal background chance.
> 
> Elite athletes make first place and thanks god, strange shapes appear on toast and some people narrowly escape death, but amputated limbs never regrow, mountains never move and food never spontaneously appears in front of the hundreds of children that starve to death each hour.
> 
> But a miracle happened to you?
Click to expand...


Ya, it's a miracle he finished high school.


----------



## Slyhunter

sealybobo said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've had an unexplained miracle happen in my life. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What was it?
> 
> Miracles have not been demonstrated to occur.  Even if a &#8216;miracle&#8217; could be demonstrated it would not immediately imply the existence of a god as unknown natural processes or agents could still be at work.  What if aliens did it?
> 
> Most alleged miracles can be explained as statistically unlikely occurrences. For example, one child surviving a plane crash that kills two hundred others is not a miracle, just as one person winning the lottery is not. In the absence of any empirical evidence, all other claims can be dismissed as the result of magical thinking, misattribution, credulity, hearsay and anecdote. Eye-witness testimony and anecdotal accounts are, by themselves, not reliable or definitive forms of proof for such extraordinary claims.
> 
> Divine intervention claims most often concern systems and events for which we have poor predictive capabilities, for example, weather, sports, health and social/economic interactions. Such claims are rarely made in relation to those things we can accurately predict and test e.g. the motion of celestial bodies, boiling point of water and pull of gravity. If a god is constantly intervening in the universe it supposedly created, then it is with such ambiguity as to appear completely indistinguishable from normal background chance.
> 
> &#8220;Elite athletes make first place and thanks god, strange shapes appear on toast and some people narrowly escape death, but amputated limbs never regrow, mountains never move and food never spontaneously appears in front of the hundreds of children that starve to death each hour.
> 
> But a miracle happened to you?
Click to expand...


I was at a church camp for a couple of weeks. There was this cliff next to a creek that ran into a dam. I knew of a hidden path that you could jump to. I figured on freaking people out and making it look like I jumped. I made sure nobody was near me and I jumped but the path disintegrated beneath my feet and I went through it. Someone grabbed my hand, that wasn't there before, and pulled me up. Saved my life.


----------



## BillyP

Slyhunter said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've had an unexplained miracle happen in my life. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What was it?
> 
> Miracles have not been demonstrated to occur.  Even if a miracle could be demonstrated it would not immediately imply the existence of a god as unknown natural processes or agents could still be at work.  What if aliens did it?
> 
> Most alleged miracles can be explained as statistically unlikely occurrences. For example, one child surviving a plane crash that kills two hundred others is not a miracle, just as one person winning the lottery is not. In the absence of any empirical evidence, all other claims can be dismissed as the result of magical thinking, misattribution, credulity, hearsay and anecdote. Eye-witness testimony and anecdotal accounts are, by themselves, not reliable or definitive forms of proof for such extraordinary claims.
> 
> Divine intervention claims most often concern systems and events for which we have poor predictive capabilities, for example, weather, sports, health and social/economic interactions. Such claims are rarely made in relation to those things we can accurately predict and test e.g. the motion of celestial bodies, boiling point of water and pull of gravity. If a god is constantly intervening in the universe it supposedly created, then it is with such ambiguity as to appear completely indistinguishable from normal background chance.
> 
> Elite athletes make first place and thanks god, strange shapes appear on toast and some people narrowly escape death, but amputated limbs never regrow, mountains never move and food never spontaneously appears in front of the hundreds of children that starve to death each hour.
> 
> But a miracle happened to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was at a church camp for a couple of weeks. There was this cliff next to a creek that ran into a dam. I knew of a hidden path that you could jump to. I figured on freaking people out and making it look like I jumped. I made sure nobody was near me and I jumped but the path disintegrated beneath my feet and I went through it. Someone grabbed my hand, that wasn't there before, and pulled me up. Saved my life.
Click to expand...

Your hand wasn't there before? You sure?


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree completely.  This is why I say I'm convinced that the politicians/rich/media know they can convince people who believe in invisible sky fairies of anything.  As long as we remain ignorant like this as a society it is definately holding us back.  *And I don't think religion does more good than bad. *
> 
> A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it.  David Stevens
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These moral ethics come from our religious or spiritual views of something greater than self. Whenever you logically remove something greater than self, then nothing is greater than self. In other words, survival of the fittest, as things are in nature with every other living thing.
> 
> Lions do not have compassion for gazelles. They do not think about the gazelle having a family or it's struggle to survive, they view the gazelle as a meal. Gorillas don't court their mate and await approval before copulation with them. Their sexual behavior is what we would consider rape. A bird foraging for worms will not hit the jackpot and then share the bounty with other needy birds. The early bird gets the worm.
> 
> Other species do not have a moral ethical sense of right or wrong. They operate on pure animal instinct without regard for ethics. It is through a human conscious understanding and awareness of something greater than self, that we developed various ethos which became our basis for human morality.
> 
> You cannot explain this away with any other theory because they defy rationality. If we adopted morals in order to better work together in groups or packs, or to better attract mates, then we'd see other species adopting the same kind of moral ethics to supplant their animal instincts, and we simply see no such evidence. It all stems from a conscious awareness humans have of some power greater than ourselves, something of more importance than self-preservation.
Click to expand...


No they don't.  We had morals before we invented religion.  We learned them living together in groups.  

Hell, even animals have those morals when it comes to living in groups.  

I'm not removing something that is greater than self.  I'm removing a fairy tale made up thing you guys invented in your heads.  And I do believe in things greater than myself.  This society and planet will live on long after I'm gone.  Greater than self.  The sun and moon are greater than myself.  

 What you are saying is if we remove the lie we will fall into chaos.  I disagree.  I think we would advance faster and solve more problems.  We no longer need this lie.  It served us when we were monkeys but don't need it now.

I've seen Lions have compassion for a baby antelope.  [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZw-1BfHFKM]MUST WATCH: A Lioness Adopts a baby antelope. A short documentary that will open your eyes. - YouTube[/ame]

You think gorillas are raping but they are not.  Those females selected them.  They won the right.  Have you ever seen elephants fuck?  They do it right in front of everyone and they make a lot of noise.  And if another bigger elephant wants to challenge the king elephant they can but they can't just fuck one of his girls without a fight.  

You know so little.  You're the perfect candidate for religion.

Do Animals Know Right from Wrong? New Clues Point to 'Yes'

Now I've seen male Zebra come kill a baby calf because it wasn't one of his.  He was thinning the herd.  Why did he do this?  Because of food and competition.  We don't do these things because we don't have to.  We are civilized.  But, we get abortions.  

Please give me some more examples of how animals do things that we don't because we believe in god(s).  

And I and science can explain everything you just said away.  If I missed something, let me know.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree completely.  This is why I say I'm convinced that the politicians/rich/media know they can convince people who believe in invisible sky fairies of anything.  As long as we remain ignorant like this as a society it is definately holding us back.  *And I don't think religion does more good than bad. *
> 
> A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it.  David Stevens
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you are wrong. Just the very question of good vs. bad is related to religion. I say this, not as a fan of organized religion, but as someone objectively evaluating humanity as a whole. Our entire species operates out of a sense of morality judgement. These moral ethics come from our religious or spiritual views of something greater than self. Whenever you logically remove something greater than self, then nothing is greater than self. In other words, survival of the fittest, as things are in nature with every other living thing.
> 
> Lions do not have compassion for gazelles. They do not think about the gazelle having a family or it's struggle to survive, they view the gazelle as a meal. Gorillas don't court their mate and await approval before copulation with them. Their sexual behavior is what we would consider rape. A bird foraging for worms will not hit the jackpot and then share the bounty with other needy birds. The early bird gets the worm.
> 
> Other species do not have a moral ethical sense of right or wrong. They operate on pure animal instinct without regard for ethics. It is through a human conscious understanding and awareness of something greater than self, that we developed various ethos which became our basis for human morality.
> 
> You cannot explain this away with any other theory because they defy rationality. If we adopted morals in order to better work together in groups or packs, or to better attract mates, then we'd see other species adopting the same kind of moral ethics to supplant their animal instincts, and we simply see no such evidence. It all stems from a conscious awareness humans have of some power greater than ourselves, something of more importance than self-preservation.
Click to expand...


It is so funny because all the shit religion has said over the years that has PROVED god exists, and each time science proves you fuckers wrong you just move on to another bullshit reason you think god exists.  We call it god of the gaps.  Everything we don't know, you say is god.  And each time we prove it isn't god, your god just gets smaller and smaller.  

 In another new video from the BBC "Frozen Planet" series, Adelie penguins are seen gathering stones to build their nests. One penguin stealthily steals a stone from his neighbor's nest every time the neighbor goes a-gathering. Does the penguin thief know its covert actions are wrong?

These are some of the scenarios that interest ethologists, or scientists who study animal behavior. For years, these scientists categorically ruled out the possibility that animals might have a sense of morality  that they know right from wrong. Lately, though, the tide is turning. 

"People used to like to make that stark division between human and nonhuman animals," said ethologist Marc Bekoff. "But there's just no doubt that the scientific evidence for animal morality is accumulating as more and more animals are studied." 

So fuck you Boss and your comment that I can not explain this away.  Yes I fucking can!  You are fucking wrong!  That's my fucking explanation you idiot!  

Much of Bekoff's research has focused on wolves and coyotes  both of which live in tight-knit groups governed by strict rules. Bekoff has observed acts of altruism, tolerance, forgiveness, reciprocity and fairness among wolves and coyotes, and says many of these moral sentiments are evident in the way the animals play with one another.

Breaking these rules of engagement  or other rules, such as taking more than one's fair share of food  is serious business among wolves and coyotes. "There is a consequence of being labeled a cheater," Bekoff said. Others stop bonding with the "immoral" pack member, and eventually it wanders away from the group, usually resulting in an early death because it no longer receives the benefits of pack living. Bekoff believes the rules governing pack behavior offer a glimpse of the moral code that allowed early human societies to function and flourish.

Check fucking mate BOSS.


----------



## sealybobo

Furthermore, conceptions of wild animals as ruthless and violent are completely wrong, Bekoff said. "All the research coming out these days on other primates and mammals shows that more than 90 to 95 percent of their behavior is pro-social or positive. It's actually rare to see aggression or violence."

Each time Boss is wrong it makes it harder for me to read another paragraph of his bullshit because then I have to go first figure out what the fuck he's saying and where/how/why he is wrong and then go find proof that he's fucking wrong.  Humans are nothing more than animals boss.  You a chiwawa and me a Labrador


----------



## sealybobo

Another thing that makes gauging morality in animals difficult is that scientists are only just beginning to investigate the neural mechanisms that control moral decision-making in humans. Last year, researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that applying a powerful magnet to a part of the brain called the right temporo-parietal junction in human study participants temporarily skewed their ability to make moral judgments. When questioned about the nature of various actions, the magnetic jolt made them think that actions they had previously judged to be immoral were instead morally acceptable. This and related studies suggest that our sense of morality is somehow hard-wired into our brains.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> So you don't know is what you are saying.  Agnostic Theist is what I would call you.
> 
> What are your thoughts on hell?
> 
> I guess whatever you come up with in your head must be true, right?  Because how could you come up with it if it weren't true?  That's what you say about god.  Since we came up with it, must be true.  So whatever you think, must be true, right?



You're right, I don't know if the Abrahamic God is real or not. I don't know if the Buddhist or Hindus are right or not. I don't know if Catholicism or Judaism or Islam is right or not. From MY perspective, they could all be right and they could all be wrong. Therefore, I cannot proclaim that one is right and the other is wrong, or that any are right or wrong. 

I don't really care how you would label me, I am a spiritualist who believes in God. I believe in God because God is who I communicate with daily and I have been blessed by God many times in my life. I need no more proof than this to believe God is real. I'm not compelled by God to seek out a group of people who've predefined God and have a dogmatic view of what God is. I respect other people who have done that, they have the right to worship God however they please. God doesn't compel me to condemn them unless they condemn themselves through their own acts, like radical Islam for example.

As for "Hell" I think I've already explained what I personally believe, but here it is again... I personally believe our spirit or soul is everlasting and eternal. It inhabits a physical vessel for the moment, but the moment is called "time" and this is a physical construct. Our spirit transcends time, it's not physical. So where was this spirit before it inhabited our body and where will it go when our physical bodies expire? I don't know. On this question, I have to speculate and have faith in my speculation. 

My speculation is as follows: There are many greater and lesser dimensions of existence above and below our physical realm that we're aware of as physical beings. The greater ones could be described as "heavenly" dimensions and the lesser ones could be described as degrees of "hell" for lack of a better way to put it. I think our spirits are free to follow their own course in this existence, however, our spirit's future rests on our spiritual deeds in this existence. In other words, if we strive for positive spirituality and "goodness" as humans, our spirit is 'rewarded' by being promoted to a greater realm in the afterlife. Subsequently, if our spirits follow a course contrary to spiritual "goodness" we may end up being 'demoted' to a lesser existence in the afterlife. The more evil your spirit, the worse the realm or lower you will end up. If you aren't good or bad, but somewhere in between, perhaps your spirit is 'reincarnated' in this dimension and you get to try again? 

Now it's important to note, in these other dimensions, I don't know that we have "physical" existence, I suspect that we probably don't. However, our spirits will have conscious awareness and presence of some kind to facilitate it's existence. Keep in mind, there could be something greater than physical existence, something we are simply unable to wrap our minds around as physical beings in a physical universe. As I said, I don't know, this is all speculation on my part. My reasoning for this speculation is the apparent course spiritual powers guide us as humans. I reason there must be a purpose for that. Otherwise, we'd be just as spiritually inclined to be evil as good, and that's not the case.


----------



## Slyhunter

BillyP said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What was it?
> 
> Miracles have not been demonstrated to occur.  Even if a &#8216;miracle&#8217; could be demonstrated it would not immediately imply the existence of a god as unknown natural processes or agents could still be at work.  What if aliens did it?
> 
> Most alleged miracles can be explained as statistically unlikely occurrences. For example, one child surviving a plane crash that kills two hundred others is not a miracle, just as one person winning the lottery is not. In the absence of any empirical evidence, all other claims can be dismissed as the result of magical thinking, misattribution, credulity, hearsay and anecdote. Eye-witness testimony and anecdotal accounts are, by themselves, not reliable or definitive forms of proof for such extraordinary claims.
> 
> Divine intervention claims most often concern systems and events for which we have poor predictive capabilities, for example, weather, sports, health and social/economic interactions. Such claims are rarely made in relation to those things we can accurately predict and test e.g. the motion of celestial bodies, boiling point of water and pull of gravity. If a god is constantly intervening in the universe it supposedly created, then it is with such ambiguity as to appear completely indistinguishable from normal background chance.
> 
> &#8220;Elite athletes make first place and thanks god, strange shapes appear on toast and some people narrowly escape death, but amputated limbs never regrow, mountains never move and food never spontaneously appears in front of the hundreds of children that starve to death each hour.
> 
> But a miracle happened to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was at a church camp for a couple of weeks. There was this cliff next to a creek that ran into a dam. I knew of a hidden path that you could jump to. I figured on freaking people out and making it look like I jumped. I made sure nobody was near me and I jumped but the path disintegrated beneath my feet and I went through it. Someone grabbed my hand, that wasn't there before, and pulled me up. Saved my life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your hand wasn't there before? You sure?
Click to expand...


The person who grabbed my hand wasn't.
Grammer nazi.


fyi I also met a real mind reader. We held a conversation with him reading my mind and responding to me without me moving my lips at all.
I'm either a liar or I've had some really different experiences.


----------



## Boss

Silly boob, if you're just going to rapid-fire a bunch of nonsense, I am not going to respond. Whenever you gather your thoughts into a coherent post, I will address your points.


----------



## sealybobo

Slyhunter said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've had an unexplained miracle happen in my life. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What was it?
> 
> Miracles have not been demonstrated to occur.  Even if a miracle could be demonstrated it would not immediately imply the existence of a god as unknown natural processes or agents could still be at work.  What if aliens did it?
> 
> Most alleged miracles can be explained as statistically unlikely occurrences. For example, one child surviving a plane crash that kills two hundred others is not a miracle, just as one person winning the lottery is not. In the absence of any empirical evidence, all other claims can be dismissed as the result of magical thinking, misattribution, credulity, hearsay and anecdote. Eye-witness testimony and anecdotal accounts are, by themselves, not reliable or definitive forms of proof for such extraordinary claims.
> 
> Divine intervention claims most often concern systems and events for which we have poor predictive capabilities, for example, weather, sports, health and social/economic interactions. Such claims are rarely made in relation to those things we can accurately predict and test e.g. the motion of celestial bodies, boiling point of water and pull of gravity. If a god is constantly intervening in the universe it supposedly created, then it is with such ambiguity as to appear completely indistinguishable from normal background chance.
> 
> Elite athletes make first place and thanks god, strange shapes appear on toast and some people narrowly escape death, but amputated limbs never regrow, mountains never move and food never spontaneously appears in front of the hundreds of children that starve to death each hour.
> 
> But a miracle happened to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was at a church camp for a couple of weeks. There was this cliff next to a creek that ran into a dam. I knew of a hidden path that you could jump to. I figured on freaking people out and making it look like I jumped. I made sure nobody was near me and I jumped but the path disintegrated beneath my feet and I went through it. Someone grabbed my hand, that wasn't there before, and pulled me up. Saved my life.
Click to expand...


Just as I thought.  Just like my other buddies who said someone told them to "look out".  It was all in your head I promise you that.  I don't know what happened because I wasn't there but here again is something that is personal to you and no one can disprove, but you certainly can't prove it.  Even if someone with you said they saw the miracle happen, I wouldn't believe it either because I don't know you or them.  All I know is that miracles have not been proven to exist or ever happen.  They are unlikely occurences or flukes or luck.  Like when 1 baby survives a plane crash.  Did god save her?  Why did he not save the rest?  Random shit.  

Show me god move a mountain or grow an amputees arm back on overnight.  That'd be a miracle.  I don't know what happened to you.  

But I do realize many gullible Americans I know have sworn shit like this happened to them.  No one in the history of the world has yet to prove a miracle though.  People have seen ghosts too.  Do you think that can be proven?  It hasn't been yet.  So changes are its all in their heads.  The mind is an amazing thing.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> Silly boob, if you're just going to rapid-fire a bunch of nonsense, I am not going to respond. Whenever you gather your thoughts into a coherent post, I will address your points.



Your reasons for believing in god keep getting smaller.  That's called god of the gaps.  Each time we solve a gap your god gets smaller.

Do Animals Know Right from Wrong? New Clues Point to 'Yes'

You were wrong about other animals.  Exactly what I mean when I say you believe in god because you aren't smart enough to realize its all in your head.  You are an unevolved primitive man who is superstitious.  And you think you are special because you are at the top of the food chain but in reality you are a weak human with a big brain (compared to monkeys anyways) and a little penis (compared to an elephant)


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> It is so funny because all the shit religion has said over the years that has PROVED god exists, and each time science proves you fuckers wrong you just move on to another bullshit reason you think god exists.  We call it god of the gaps.  Everything we don't know, you say is god.  And each time we prove it isn't god, your god just gets smaller and smaller.



But let's evaluate this for a moment because it's important to the philosophical debate... What HAVE you actually proven? You can show me HOW gravity works, you can't explain WHY. So go ahead... tell us WHY gravity works? Tell us WHY electromagnetism functions as it does? Tell us why the compound elements of hydrogen and oxygen create water? You can explain HOW these things occur all day long, science is valuable in doing that, but science cannot explain WHY. This isn't "God of the Gaps" this is God of the abyss... God of the unknown... God of the unexplainable. You'll never fill these gaps with science because science can't answer these questions of WHY. Only God can answer those.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Silly boob, if you're just going to rapid-fire a bunch of nonsense, I am not going to respond. Whenever you gather your thoughts into a coherent post, I will address your points.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your reasons for believing in god keep getting smaller.  That's called god of the gaps.  Each time we solve a gap your god gets smaller.
> 
> Do Animals Know Right from Wrong? New Clues Point to 'Yes'
> 
> You were wrong about other animals.  Exactly what I mean when I say you believe in god because you aren't smart enough to realize its all in your head.  You are an unevolved primitive man who is superstitious.  And you think you are special because you are at the top of the food chain but in reality you are a weak human with a big brain (compared to monkeys anyways) and a little penis (compared to an elephant)
Click to expand...


That's funny... You point to a speculative hypothesis and claim it is "PROOF" of something. It simply is not, it's just a hypothesis. It's someone saying... Maybe animals know right from wrong? And you've taken this to mean they've proven animals DO know right from wrong. 

Of course, animals can learn right from wrong, as evidenced in the video of the dog getting into the garbage. The dog was aware that what it was doing wasn't right, but it still did it. The reason he knew it wasn't right was because a human had taught him this, and the reason he did it anyway is because his animal instinct told him there may be some goodies inside the trash. This actually proves MY point, that animals don't operate on moral choice but on animal instinct. 

The second example was a thieving penguin, stealing stones from another penguin's nest... well, if the penguin in question were operating on morality, it wouldn't have been stealing the stones. Or maybe it would have stolen a stone then returned it out of moral guilt? 

Dogs play fighting is simply animal behavior, nothing to do with moral right and wrong. What they are actually doing is teaching younger dogs how to fight. The other example of dog behavior depending on rewards and such, is just another example of dogs learning moral right and wrong from humans. Dogs, as well as other animals, do have the capacity to learn moral right and wrong and rationalize behavior accordingly. They do not naturally have this ability on their own.


----------



## BillyP

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Silly boob, if you're just going to rapid-fire a bunch of nonsense, I am not going to respond. Whenever you gather your thoughts into a coherent post, I will address your points.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your reasons for believing in god keep getting smaller.  That's called god of the gaps.  Each time we solve a gap your god gets smaller.
> 
> Do Animals Know Right from Wrong? New Clues Point to 'Yes'
> 
> You were wrong about other animals.  Exactly what I mean when I say you believe in god because you aren't smart enough to realize its all in your head.  You are an unevolved primitive man who is superstitious.  And you think you are special because you are at the top of the food chain but in reality you are a weak human with a big brain (compared to monkeys anyways) and a little penis (compared to an elephant)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's funny... You point to a speculative hypothesis and claim it is "PROOF" of something. It simply is not, it's just a hypothesis. It's someone saying... Maybe animals know right from wrong? And you've taken this to mean they've proven animals DO know right from wrong.
> 
> Of course, animals can learn right from wrong, as evidenced in the video of the dog getting into the garbage. The dog was aware that what it was doing wasn't right, but it still did it. The reason he knew it wasn't right was because a human had taught him this, and the reason he did it anyway is because his animal instinct told him there may be some goodies inside the trash. This actually proves MY point, that animals don't operate on moral choice but on animal instinct.
> 
> The second example was a thieving penguin, stealing stones from another penguin's nest... well, if the penguin in question were operating on morality, it wouldn't have been stealing the stones. Or maybe it would have stolen a stone then returned it out of moral guilt?
> 
> Dogs play fighting is simply animal behavior, nothing to do with moral right and wrong. What they are actually doing is teaching younger dogs how to fight. The other example of dog behavior depending on rewards and such, is just another example of dogs learning moral right and wrong from humans. Dogs, as well as other animals, do have the capacity to learn moral right and wrong and rationalize behavior accordingly. They do not naturally have this ability on their own.
Click to expand...

So blacks who deal crack are at the level of a penguin?


----------



## BreezeWood

Boss said:


> Lions do not have compassion for gazelles. They do not think about the gazelle having a family or it's struggle to survive, they view the gazelle as a meal. Gorillas don't court their mate and await approval before copulation with them. Their sexual behavior is what we would consider rape. A bird foraging for worms will not hit the jackpot and then share the bounty with other needy birds. The early bird gets the worm.
> 
> Other species do not have a moral ethical sense of right or wrong. They operate on pure animal instinct without regard for ethics. It is through a human conscious understanding and awareness of something greater than self, that we developed various ethos which became our basis for human morality.



.








blade, you are a joke ... religiously.

.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is so funny because all the shit religion has said over the years that has PROVED god exists, and each time science proves you fuckers wrong you just move on to another bullshit reason you think god exists.  We call it god of the gaps.  Everything we don't know, you say is god.  And each time we prove it isn't god, your god just gets smaller and smaller.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But let's evaluate this for a moment because it's important to the philosophical debate... What HAVE you actually proven? You can show me HOW gravity works, you can't explain WHY. So go ahead... tell us WHY gravity works? Tell us WHY electromagnetism functions as it does? Tell us why the compound elements of hydrogen and oxygen create water? You can explain HOW these things occur all day long, science is valuable in doing that, but science cannot explain WHY. This isn't "God of the Gaps" this is God of the abyss... God of the unknown... God of the unexplainable. You'll never fill these gaps with science because science can't answer these questions of WHY. Only God can answer those.
Click to expand...


You can't explain why either.  That is why we say the best answer for you and I to give is we just don't know.  You claim you know of a god and talk to him.  I watched Noah last night.  WTF?  Who were the Rock men again?  Gismys, please explain who those things were.  What were they called Watchers?  They were fallen angels who pissed off god and the human's betrayed them but the liked Noah?  OMG!  

So god is why electromagnettism functions as it does?  Is that what you are saying?  Is that your final answer?  This is what I'm talking about.  When science figures out how that works, your god will get smaller and smaller.  God of the gaps.  We fill in a gap that use to be "gods" doing and now can be scientifically explained, and you just move on to something else science hasn't figured out YET.  And when the do that won't sway you because it's ingrained in that puny unevolved brain of yours.  You can't let it go.  I believe I am the future.  Jesus Mosus and Mohammad will be dead but there will be people like you who can't give up god and there will be many more people like me.  Many more.  All they have to do is watch Noah and they realize organized religions are a joke, then they have to just listen to you to realize really you have nothing.  You just want/hope there to be a god.  You even talk to him.    And I use to do it 5 months ago!  So I know what you are going through.  My friends had to make me realize, that shit is all in your head.  I can't convince you.  Only you can convince yourself.  So each time you are talking to god, in the back of your head you must realize you are just talking to yourself.  

And I'm not afraid of death.  I'm afraid of dying.  Of coming to the end.  Sorry its over.  But it was a great ride.  Some people are not so lucky.  What did the 9 year old cancer or car wreck kid do wrong?  You know what she did?  Nothing.  Wrong place wrong time, bad genes, some corporations pollution gave her cancer, or a serial killer found her.  Completely random.  And if she is miraculously cured, its not god.  He doesn't do 1 in a 1000 favors.  She wasn't better than the other 999.  No angel saved her.  No demon possessed her.  That's just in her head the church put that there.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is so funny because all the shit religion has said over the years that has PROVED god exists, and each time science proves you fuckers wrong you just move on to another bullshit reason you think god exists.  We call it god of the gaps.  Everything we don't know, you say is god.  And each time we prove it isn't god, your god just gets smaller and smaller.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But let's evaluate this for a moment because it's important to the philosophical debate... What HAVE you actually proven? You can show me HOW gravity works, you can't explain WHY. So go ahead... tell us WHY gravity works? Tell us WHY electromagnetism functions as it does? Tell us why the compound elements of hydrogen and oxygen create water? You can explain HOW these things occur all day long, science is valuable in doing that, but science cannot explain WHY. This isn't "God of the Gaps" this is God of the abyss... God of the unknown... God of the unexplainable. You'll never fill these gaps with science because science can't answer these questions of WHY. Only God can answer those.
Click to expand...


I find it amazing how much you like to argue against scientific researchers who actually have good reasons for believing what they do, yet you are such a tool arguing all your bad evidence.

ethologist Marc Bekoff. "there's just no doubt that the scientific evidence for animal morality is accumulating as more and more animals are studied."

Bekoff is a professor emeritus of ecology and evolutionary biology at the University of Colorado, Boulder, and co-founder (with primatologist Jane Goodall) of Ethologists for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. 

I bet you'll call them tree huggers or liberal propogandists.  

"It has only been observed in certain species, because it really hasn't been studied extensively

So why did religion say the animals didn't have souls or know right from wrong without researching it first?  Because they didn't know science.  So if they are/were wrong about this, imagine what else they are wrong about and/or completely made up?  GOD!

Bekoff has observed acts of altruism, tolerance, forgiveness, reciprocity and fairness among wolves and coyotes

"There is a consequence of being labeled a cheater.  Others stop bonding with the "immoral" pack member, and eventually it wanders away from the group, usually resulting in an early death because it no longer receives the benefits of pack living. Bekoff believes the rules governing pack behavior offer a glimpse of the moral code that allowed early human societies to function and flourish.

evidence of seemingly moral sentiments in many other species too, including whales, ravens, bats, elephants, chimpanzees and even rodents.

rats have shown that they will not eat if they know that doing so will inflict pain on other rats.  When the hungry rats were given access to food, but could see that taking it caused a second group of rats to receive an electric shock, the rats stopped eating rather than inflict pain on the group. 

All the research coming out these days on other primates and mammals shows that more than 90 to 95 percent of their behavior is pro-social or positive. It's actually rare to see aggression or violence."

scientists are only just beginning to investigate the neural mechanisms that control moral decision-making in humans. Last year, researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that applying a powerful magnet to a part of the brain called the right temporo-parietal junction in human study participants temporarily skewed their ability to make moral judgments. 

Bekoff suspects that the same brain mechanisms that control moral behavior in humans also control such behavior in other mammals. "It's a new area and what's exciting is that there are so many unanswered questions," he said. "But we need to be consistent in our discussion of behavioral as well as physiological similarities between humans and other animals. As we develop techniques to do imaging in the brains of non-humans, we need to apply the same rules to neuroscience as we do to anatomy."

That is, if the structures in human brains that control moral and emotional behavior are also present in animals, then scientists ought to concede that these structures probably play similar roles for them, just as analogous body parts  eyes, for example  imply that we both see.


----------



## sealybobo

We know now about the moral behavior of animals really leads us to conclude that it's much more developed than we previously gave them credit for," Bekoff said. "We are not the sole occupants of the moral arena  and it's unlikely that we would be, given what we know about evolution."

Do Animals Know Right from Wrong? New Clues Point to 'Yes'

Or we could go with boss who says that we know right from wrong because we have souls and animals don't.  Fuck religion for making that up.  Speaking of, I noticed on Noah he was a vegetarian and the "humans" ate meat.  Does that mean we are bad too because we eat meat?  We are part of the wicked society Noah hated.  

What happened to his sons?  His 2 sons didn't have wives so did they fuck their brothers twin daughters?  

I never knew the complete story.  I didn't know the bad guy was a stow a way or that his sons didn't bring wives or that Noah thought his family would perish too.  Boy, he would have done this planet a favor.  Can you imagine how beautiful this planet would be if no humans lived here?  Cougars, Bear, Lion, Tigers at the top of the food chain and lots of deer and mice around to eat.  The planet would be green and no plastic in the ocean.  He should have killed his family and ended man on earth.  Otherwise, all he did was re populate the earth with the same kind of assholes god wiped out in the flood.  Hell, it was his ancestors that killed Jesus.  

So who did his sons bang to repopulate the earth with?  I would have banged the mom.  She was hot.


----------



## sealybobo

BillyP said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your reasons for believing in god keep getting smaller.  That's called god of the gaps.  Each time we solve a gap your god gets smaller.
> 
> Do Animals Know Right from Wrong? New Clues Point to 'Yes'
> 
> You were wrong about other animals.  Exactly what I mean when I say you believe in god because you aren't smart enough to realize its all in your head.  You are an unevolved primitive man who is superstitious.  And you think you are special because you are at the top of the food chain but in reality you are a weak human with a big brain (compared to monkeys anyways) and a little penis (compared to an elephant)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's funny... You point to a speculative hypothesis and claim it is "PROOF" of something. It simply is not, it's just a hypothesis. It's someone saying... Maybe animals know right from wrong? And you've taken this to mean they've proven animals DO know right from wrong.
> 
> Of course, animals can learn right from wrong, as evidenced in the video of the dog getting into the garbage. The dog was aware that what it was doing wasn't right, but it still did it. The reason he knew it wasn't right was because a human had taught him this, and the reason he did it anyway is because his animal instinct told him there may be some goodies inside the trash. This actually proves MY point, that animals don't operate on moral choice but on animal instinct.
> 
> The second example was a thieving penguin, stealing stones from another penguin's nest... well, if the penguin in question were operating on morality, it wouldn't have been stealing the stones. Or maybe it would have stolen a stone then returned it out of moral guilt?
> 
> Dogs play fighting is simply animal behavior, nothing to do with moral right and wrong. What they are actually doing is teaching younger dogs how to fight. The other example of dog behavior depending on rewards and such, is just another example of dogs learning moral right and wrong from humans. Dogs, as well as other animals, do have the capacity to learn moral right and wrong and rationalize behavior accordingly. They do not naturally have this ability on their own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So blacks who deal crack are at the level of a penguin?
Click to expand...


So true.  You brought up a good point.  Boss says god must exist because we have always believed.  First of all, based on other animals, we did not always believe in god(s) because there was a time when we weren't smart enough to come up with such a crazy story.  Great example is a dog can be trained to think about a bird just with a bell.  So can a human.  But a human can imagine wings on a human or wings on a dog.  A dog can't do that.  It isn't smart/evolved enough.  It may never get that evolved.  Probably won't.  But there was a time when we weren't religious but we did know/learn right from wrong, without religion.  

And, if god must be because we always believed, then the devil must be since we always believed in him too.  But that isn't the story on him.  The story on the devil is god cast him out.  Did we always believe in the devil too?  We must have if we came up with god.  Doing bad is why we came up with god in the first place.  Morality police.  Big Brother.  

Boss believes whatever he wants to believe.  Doesn't have to make sense to us as long as it makes sense to him.  And that's the point.  Keep that shit to yourself religious people.  Its really rather silly and we shouldn't be a society of religious idiots.


----------



## Youwerecreated

sealybobo said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What was it?
> 
> Miracles have not been demonstrated to occur.  Even if a miracle could be demonstrated it would not immediately imply the existence of a god as unknown natural processes or agents could still be at work.  What if aliens did it?
> 
> Most alleged miracles can be explained as statistically unlikely occurrences. For example, one child surviving a plane crash that kills two hundred others is not a miracle, just as one person winning the lottery is not. In the absence of any empirical evidence, all other claims can be dismissed as the result of magical thinking, misattribution, credulity, hearsay and anecdote. Eye-witness testimony and anecdotal accounts are, by themselves, not reliable or definitive forms of proof for such extraordinary claims.
> 
> Divine intervention claims most often concern systems and events for which we have poor predictive capabilities, for example, weather, sports, health and social/economic interactions. Such claims are rarely made in relation to those things we can accurately predict and test e.g. the motion of celestial bodies, boiling point of water and pull of gravity. If a god is constantly intervening in the universe it supposedly created, then it is with such ambiguity as to appear completely indistinguishable from normal background chance.
> 
> Elite athletes make first place and thanks god, strange shapes appear on toast and some people narrowly escape death, but amputated limbs never regrow, mountains never move and food never spontaneously appears in front of the hundreds of children that starve to death each hour.
> 
> But a miracle happened to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was at a church camp for a couple of weeks. There was this cliff next to a creek that ran into a dam. I knew of a hidden path that you could jump to. I figured on freaking people out and making it look like I jumped. I made sure nobody was near me and I jumped but the path disintegrated beneath my feet and I went through it. Someone grabbed my hand, that wasn't there before, and pulled me up. Saved my life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just as I thought.  Just like my other buddies who said someone told them to "look out".  It was all in your head I promise you that.  I don't know what happened because I wasn't there but here again is something that is personal to you and no one can disprove, but you certainly can't prove it.  Even if someone with you said they saw the miracle happen, I wouldn't believe it either because I don't know you or them.  All I know is that miracles have not been proven to exist or ever happen.  They are unlikely occurences or flukes or luck.  Like when 1 baby survives a plane crash.  Did god save her?  Why did he not save the rest?  Random shit.
> 
> Show me god move a mountain or grow an amputees arm back on overnight.  That'd be a miracle.  I don't know what happened to you.
> 
> But I do realize many gullible Americans I know have sworn shit like this happened to them.  No one in the history of the world has yet to prove a miracle though.  People have seen ghosts too.  Do you think that can be proven?  It hasn't been yet.  So changes are its all in their heads.  The mind is an amazing thing.
Click to expand...


 you can't even discern Gods existence by examining the works of his hands.


----------



## Youwerecreated

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Silly boob, if you're just going to rapid-fire a bunch of nonsense, I am not going to respond. Whenever you gather your thoughts into a coherent post, I will address your points.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your reasons for believing in god keep getting smaller.  That's called god of the gaps.  Each time we solve a gap your god gets smaller.
> 
> Do Animals Know Right from Wrong? New Clues Point to 'Yes'
> 
> You were wrong about other animals.  Exactly what I mean when I say you believe in god because you aren't smart enough to realize its all in your head.  You are an unevolved primitive man who is superstitious.  And you think you are special because you are at the top of the food chain but in reality you are a weak human with a big brain (compared to monkeys anyways) and a little penis (compared to an elephant)
Click to expand...


do you understand the difference between instinct and ethics ?


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is so funny because all the shit religion has said over the years that has PROVED god exists, and each time science proves you fuckers wrong you just move on to another bullshit reason you think god exists.  We call it god of the gaps.  Everything we don't know, you say is god.  And each time we prove it isn't god, your god just gets smaller and smaller.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But let's evaluate this for a moment because it's important to the philosophical debate... What HAVE you actually proven? You can show me HOW gravity works, you can't explain WHY. So go ahead... tell us WHY gravity works? Tell us WHY electromagnetism functions as it does? Tell us why the compound elements of hydrogen and oxygen create water? You can explain HOW these things occur all day long, science is valuable in doing that, but science cannot explain WHY. This isn't "God of the Gaps" this is God of the abyss... God of the unknown... God of the unexplainable. You'll never fill these gaps with science because science can't answer these questions of WHY. Only God can answer those.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't explain why either.  That is why we say the best answer for you and I to give is we just don't know. ... So god is why electromagnettism functions as it does?  Is that what you are saying?  Is that your final answer?  This is what I'm talking about.  When science figures out how that works, your god will get smaller and smaller.
Click to expand...


Science already knows how electromagnetism works. They don't know why. They never will know why. Same with gravity or nuclear forces. Science can talk all day long about how these forces work, they can't explain WHY. And YES, I do have an answer. God. 



> God of the gaps.  We fill in a gap that use to be "gods" doing and now can be scientifically explained, and you just move on to something else science hasn't figured out YET.



Again... no GAP... It's not something science hasn't yet explained. It's something science cannot explain. It can tell you how things happen, what causes them to happen, when you can expect to see them happen, how these things effect other things that happen... Science can't tell you WHY. Why are mathematical results predictable and not random? Why does 1+1 always equal 2? Science doesn't explain why, it can't. So there is no GAP. 



> I believe I am the future. ...and there will be many more people like me.  Many more.



You currently represent less than one out of ten people, dude. You realize this, right? 




> You just want/hope there to be a god.  You even talk to him.



Yep. Daily. I also receive blessings from Him. There is no "want/hope" to it. If that were the case, I suspect I couldn't believe it. I'm not big on blind faith, I need to see evidence. With God, I've seen the evidence. 



> And I'm not afraid of death.  I'm afraid of dying.  Of coming to the end.  Sorry its over.  But it was a great ride.  Some people are not so lucky.  What did the 9 year old cancer or car wreck kid do wrong?  You know what she did?  Nothing.  Wrong place wrong time, bad genes, *some corporations pollution gave her cancer*, or a serial killer found her.  Completely random.  And if she is miraculously cured, its not god.



Maybe this explains why you are such a moronic pinhead liberal?


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> First of all, based on other animals, we did not always believe in god(s) because there was a time when we weren't smart enough to come up with such a crazy story.



You've shown no evidence to support this speculation. Do you have any or not? You see, the archeology suggests that humans have always been spiritual. From the oldest bones we've ever unearthed, the civilizations show that humans practiced spirituality. In order to prove they invented this, you have to unearth some bones from BEFORE they practiced spirituality, and that hasn't happened. What you have is a speculation based on your disbelief in God. That's not science, that is FAITH.


----------



## BillyP

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, based on other animals, we did not always believe in god(s) because there was a time when we weren't smart enough to come up with such a crazy story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've shown no evidence to support this speculation. Do you have any or not? You see, the archeology suggests that humans have always been spiritual. From the oldest bones we've ever unearthed, the civilizations show that humans practiced spirituality. In order to prove they invented this, you have to unearth some bones from BEFORE they practiced spirituality, and that hasn't happened. What you have is a speculation based on your disbelief in God. That's not science, that is FAITH.
Click to expand...


There's more proof that ancient civilizations descended from aliens than there is of spirituality.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, based on other animals, we did not always believe in god(s) because there was a time when we weren't smart enough to come up with such a crazy story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've shown no evidence to support this speculation. Do you have any or not? You see, the archeology suggests that humans have always been spiritual. From the oldest bones we've ever unearthed, the civilizations show that humans practiced spirituality. In order to prove they invented this, you have to unearth some bones from BEFORE they practiced spirituality, and that hasn't happened. What you have is a speculation based on your disbelief in God. That's not science, that is FAITH.
Click to expand...


Do you believe in evolution?  That is my proof.  Before our brains developed into what they are today, we were dumber animals, and from the study we see other animals know right from wrong.  So we knew right from wrong before we were smart enough to invent god with our imagination.  If you need more proof, ask your god.  Let us know if he talks back.  

P.S.  I don't talk to god and I've lived a blessed life too.  Turns out talking to your god isn't necessary.  But I guess if it makes you feel good go for it.  Jacking off isn't hurting anyone else either but only because you keep it to yourself....


----------



## thanatos144

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is so funny because all the shit religion has said over the years that has PROVED god exists, and each time science proves you fuckers wrong you just move on to another bullshit reason you think god exists.  We call it god of the gaps.  Everything we don't know, you say is god.  And each time we prove it isn't god, your god just gets smaller and smaller.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But let's evaluate this for a moment because it's important to the philosophical debate... What HAVE you actually proven? You can show me HOW gravity works, you can't explain WHY. So go ahead... tell us WHY gravity works? Tell us WHY electromagnetism functions as it does? Tell us why the compound elements of hydrogen and oxygen create water? You can explain HOW these things occur all day long, science is valuable in doing that, but science cannot explain WHY. This isn't "God of the Gaps" this is God of the abyss... God of the unknown... God of the unexplainable. You'll never fill these gaps with science because science can't answer these questions of WHY. Only God can answer those.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't explain why either.  That is why we say the best answer for you and I to give is we just don't know.  You claim you know of a god and talk to him.  I watched Noah last night.  WTF?  Who were the Rock men again?  Gismys, please explain who those things were.  What were they called Watchers?  They were fallen angels who pissed off god and the human's betrayed them but the liked Noah?  OMG!
> 
> So god is why electromagnettism functions as it does?  Is that what you are saying?  Is that your final answer?  This is what I'm talking about.  When science figures out how that works, your god will get smaller and smaller.  God of the gaps.  We fill in a gap that use to be "gods" doing and now can be scientifically explained, and you just move on to something else science hasn't figured out YET.  And when the do that won't sway you because it's ingrained in that puny unevolved brain of yours.  You can't let it go.  I believe I am the future.  Jesus Mosus and Mohammad will be dead but there will be people like you who can't give up god and there will be many more people like me.  Many more.  All they have to do is watch Noah and they realize organized religions are a joke, then they have to just listen to you to realize really you have nothing.  You just want/hope there to be a god.  You even talk to him.    And I use to do it 5 months ago!  So I know what you are going through.  My friends had to make me realize, that shit is all in your head.  I can't convince you.  Only you can convince yourself.  So each time you are talking to god, in the back of your head you must realize you are just talking to yourself.
> 
> And I'm not afraid of death.  I'm afraid of dying.  Of coming to the end.  Sorry its over.  But it was a great ride.  Some people are not so lucky.  What did the 9 year old cancer or car wreck kid do wrong?  You know what she did?  Nothing.  Wrong place wrong time, bad genes, some corporations pollution gave her cancer, or a serial killer found her.  Completely random.  And if she is miraculously cured, its not god.  He doesn't do 1 in a 1000 favors.  She wasn't better than the other 999.  No angel saved her.  No demon possessed her.  That's just in her head the church put that there.
Click to expand...

That movie was a insult to the story of Noah. They did not follow the bible and made shit up. Hell they refused to even say God in the movie. So if you are basing your knowlage of the ark on that movie you are a fool 


Tapatalk


----------



## sealybobo

BillyP said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, based on other animals, we did not always believe in god(s) because there was a time when we weren't smart enough to come up with such a crazy story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've shown no evidence to support this speculation. Do you have any or not? You see, the archeology suggests that humans have always been spiritual. From the oldest bones we've ever unearthed, the civilizations show that humans practiced spirituality. In order to prove they invented this, you have to unearth some bones from BEFORE they practiced spirituality, and that hasn't happened. What you have is a speculation based on your disbelief in God. That's not science, that is FAITH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's more proof that ancient civilizations descended from aliens than there is of spirituality.
Click to expand...


That is true.  I watch those shows about how the Pharohs were aliens and they cross bred with humans and that's when we took the big leap forward intellectually.  Or how they had advanced technology and made those pyramids better than we could even with our advanced tools.  It all makes a lot of sense.  And that's why we look up and worship god(s) because they came from the sky in their space ships.  Even the drawings look like astronauts in those space suits. 

Anyways, those shows make me think/wonder.  When I hear religious shows or when I watched Noah last night all I could do was laugh.  Impossible and regoddamndickulous.


----------



## sealybobo

thanatos144 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> But let's evaluate this for a moment because it's important to the philosophical debate... What HAVE you actually proven? You can show me HOW gravity works, you can't explain WHY. So go ahead... tell us WHY gravity works? Tell us WHY electromagnetism functions as it does? Tell us why the compound elements of hydrogen and oxygen create water? You can explain HOW these things occur all day long, science is valuable in doing that, but science cannot explain WHY. This isn't "God of the Gaps" this is God of the abyss... God of the unknown... God of the unexplainable. You'll never fill these gaps with science because science can't answer these questions of WHY. Only God can answer those.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't explain why either.  That is why we say the best answer for you and I to give is we just don't know.  You claim you know of a god and talk to him.  I watched Noah last night.  WTF?  Who were the Rock men again?  Gismys, please explain who those things were.  What were they called Watchers?  They were fallen angels who pissed off god and the human's betrayed them but the liked Noah?  OMG!
> 
> So god is why electromagnettism functions as it does?  Is that what you are saying?  Is that your final answer?  This is what I'm talking about.  When science figures out how that works, your god will get smaller and smaller.  God of the gaps.  We fill in a gap that use to be "gods" doing and now can be scientifically explained, and you just move on to something else science hasn't figured out YET.  And when the do that won't sway you because it's ingrained in that puny unevolved brain of yours.  You can't let it go.  I believe I am the future.  Jesus Mosus and Mohammad will be dead but there will be people like you who can't give up god and there will be many more people like me.  Many more.  All they have to do is watch Noah and they realize organized religions are a joke, then they have to just listen to you to realize really you have nothing.  You just want/hope there to be a god.  You even talk to him.    And I use to do it 5 months ago!  So I know what you are going through.  My friends had to make me realize, that shit is all in your head.  I can't convince you.  Only you can convince yourself.  So each time you are talking to god, in the back of your head you must realize you are just talking to yourself.
> 
> And I'm not afraid of death.  I'm afraid of dying.  Of coming to the end.  Sorry its over.  But it was a great ride.  Some people are not so lucky.  What did the 9 year old cancer or car wreck kid do wrong?  You know what she did?  Nothing.  Wrong place wrong time, bad genes, some corporations pollution gave her cancer, or a serial killer found her.  Completely random.  And if she is miraculously cured, its not god.  He doesn't do 1 in a 1000 favors.  She wasn't better than the other 999.  No angel saved her.  No demon possessed her.  That's just in her head the church put that there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That movie was a insult to the story of Noah. They did not follow the bible and made shit up. Hell they refused to even say God in the movie. So if you are basing your knowlage of the ark on that movie you are a fool
> 
> 
> Tapatalk
Click to expand...


I hope so because if that is the story no one could possibly take it literally.

So who were the rock creatures suppose to be?  I never heard about them before.

And who was on the arc?  Last night it was Noah, wife, 3 sons, 1 wife and a stow away.  

How did they repopulate the earth?  Did the other two brothers fuck the twin babies when they got old enough?  Seriously I want to know.  

And I don't think it matters because I think most people understand it is just a story to teach about right and wrong.  Anyone who takes the story literally is borderline retarded imo.


----------



## Boss

BillyP said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, based on other animals, we did not always believe in god(s) because there was a time when we weren't smart enough to come up with such a crazy story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've shown no evidence to support this speculation. Do you have any or not? You see, the archeology suggests that humans have always been spiritual. From the oldest bones we've ever unearthed, the civilizations show that humans practiced spirituality. In order to prove they invented this, you have to unearth some bones from BEFORE they practiced spirituality, and that hasn't happened. What you have is a speculation based on your disbelief in God. That's not science, that is FAITH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's more proof that ancient civilizations descended from aliens than there is of spirituality.
Click to expand...


No, there is no proof. There might be evidence but evidence is subjective. 

You're free to refute my point if you can. The oldest civilization of humans ever discovered shows signs of human spirituality. It's not subjective, that's what they found. To prove spirituality was invented you have to show some evidence, otherwise that is faith-based belief. I have no problem with you having a faith-based belief, but you're not going to claim it's science. 



> *silly boob:* Do you believe in evolution? That is my proof.



Sorry, but you have shown no evidence that cross-genus evolution ever happened. I do believe in microevolution, I think it's one of God's amazing miracles. But God created man and gave him spiritual awareness. Everything didn't "evolve" from a single cell, that's a fantasy that isn't supported by science. Again... I have no problem with your faith-based beliefs, but that's what we're going to call them.


----------



## Boss

> *Silly boob:* Before our brains developed into what they are today, we were dumber animals...



I have to say, YOU do make a compelling case for that argument.


----------



## Steven_R

Boss said:


> Everything didn't "evolve" from a single cell, that's a fantasy that isn't supported by science.



Don't ever change.


----------



## hobelim

sealybobo said:


> I hope so because if that is the story no one could possibly take it literally.
> 
> So who were the rock creatures suppose to be?  I never heard about them before.
> 
> And who was on the arc?  Last night it was Noah, wife, 3 sons, 1 wife and a stow away.
> 
> How did they repopulate the earth?  Did the other two brothers fuck the twin babies when they got old enough?  Seriously I want to know.  .




It says in the story that Noah brought along two of every other type of creature on board along with his family. I suspect bestiality.

There must have been a few dogs on board, a dumb ox or two, some cattle, rats, pigs, sheep, goats, vultures, wolves, bottom feeders, sharks, snakes, fish, a few worms, monkeys, weasels,  maggots and parasites, not to mention a couple of jackasses, and the ever elusive nocturnal brown nosed dork.

Take about 50 creatures of various species in different stages of evolution, add a few thousand years, and presto gismo, the world as it is today, a reality more bizarre than in any fairy tale ever conceived!


----------



## BillyP

Boss said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've shown no evidence to support this speculation. Do you have any or not? You see, the archeology suggests that humans have always been spiritual. From the oldest bones we've ever unearthed, the civilizations show that humans practiced spirituality. In order to prove they invented this, you have to unearth some bones from BEFORE they practiced spirituality, and that hasn't happened. What you have is a speculation based on your disbelief in God. That's not science, that is FAITH.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's more proof that ancient civilizations descended from aliens than there is of spirituality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, there is no proof. There might be evidence but evidence is subjective.
> 
> You're free to refute my point if you can. The oldest civilization of humans ever discovered shows signs of human spirituality. It's not subjective, that's what they found. To prove spirituality was invented you have to show some evidence, otherwise that is faith-based belief. I have no problem with you having a faith-based belief, but you're not going to claim it's science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *silly boob:* Do you believe in evolution? That is my proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but you have shown no evidence that cross-genus evolution ever happened. I do believe in microevolution, I think it's one of God's amazing miracles. But God created man and gave him spiritual awareness. Everything didn't "evolve" from a single cell, that's a fantasy that isn't supported by science. Again... I have no problem with your faith-based beliefs, but that's what we're going to call them.
Click to expand...

The first religions were about worshipping gods that were actually aliens.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've shown no evidence to support this speculation. Do you have any or not? You see, the archeology suggests that humans have always been spiritual. From the oldest bones we've ever unearthed, the civilizations show that humans practiced spirituality. In order to prove they invented this, you have to unearth some bones from BEFORE they practiced spirituality, and that hasn't happened. What you have is a speculation based on your disbelief in God. That's not science, that is FAITH.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's more proof that ancient civilizations descended from aliens than there is of spirituality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, there is no proof. There might be evidence but evidence is subjective.
> 
> You're free to refute my point if you can. The oldest civilization of humans ever discovered shows signs of human spirituality. It's not subjective, that's what they found. To prove spirituality was invented you have to show some evidence, otherwise that is faith-based belief. I have no problem with you having a faith-based belief, but you're not going to claim it's science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *silly boob:* Do you believe in evolution? That is my proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but you have shown no evidence that cross-genus evolution ever happened. I do believe in microevolution, I think it's one of God's amazing miracles. But God created man and gave him spiritual awareness. Everything didn't "evolve" from a single cell, that's a fantasy that isn't supported by science. Again... I have no problem with your faith-based beliefs, but that's what we're going to call them.
Click to expand...


Do you have any idea how many civilizations lived before the ones we found?  Thousands maybe millions of years.  Did your monkey ancestors believe in god?  Oh yea, you don't believe in evolution.


----------



## thanatos144

sealybobo said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't explain why either.  That is why we say the best answer for you and I to give is we just don't know.  You claim you know of a god and talk to him.  I watched Noah last night.  WTF?  Who were the Rock men again?  Gismys, please explain who those things were.  What were they called Watchers?  They were fallen angels who pissed off god and the human's betrayed them but the liked Noah?  OMG!
> 
> So god is why electromagnettism functions as it does?  Is that what you are saying?  Is that your final answer?  This is what I'm talking about.  When science figures out how that works, your god will get smaller and smaller.  God of the gaps.  We fill in a gap that use to be "gods" doing and now can be scientifically explained, and you just move on to something else science hasn't figured out YET.  And when the do that won't sway you because it's ingrained in that puny unevolved brain of yours.  You can't let it go.  I believe I am the future.  Jesus Mosus and Mohammad will be dead but there will be people like you who can't give up god and there will be many more people like me.  Many more.  All they have to do is watch Noah and they realize organized religions are a joke, then they have to just listen to you to realize really you have nothing.  You just want/hope there to be a god.  You even talk to him.    And I use to do it 5 months ago!  So I know what you are going through.  My friends had to make me realize, that shit is all in your head.  I can't convince you.  Only you can convince yourself.  So each time you are talking to god, in the back of your head you must realize you are just talking to yourself.
> 
> And I'm not afraid of death.  I'm afraid of dying.  Of coming to the end.  Sorry its over.  But it was a great ride.  Some people are not so lucky.  What did the 9 year old cancer or car wreck kid do wrong?  You know what she did?  Nothing.  Wrong place wrong time, bad genes, some corporations pollution gave her cancer, or a serial killer found her.  Completely random.  And if she is miraculously cured, its not god.  He doesn't do 1 in a 1000 favors.  She wasn't better than the other 999.  No angel saved her.  No demon possessed her.  That's just in her head the church put that there.
> 
> 
> 
> That movie was a insult to the story of Noah. They did not follow the bible and made shit up. Hell they refused to even say God in the movie. So if you are basing your knowlage of the ark on that movie you are a fool
> 
> 
> Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hope so because if that is the story no one could possibly take it literally.
> 
> So who were the rock creatures suppose to be?  I never heard about them before.
> 
> And who was on the arc?  Last night it was Noah, wife, 3 sons, 1 wife and a stow away.
> 
> How did they repopulate the earth?  Did the other two brothers fuck the twin babies when they got old enough?  Seriously I want to know.
> 
> And I don't think it matters because I think most people understand it is just a story to teach about right and wrong.  Anyone who takes the story literally is borderline retarded imo.
Click to expand...


You are making the assumption that God only saved them. The bible is a family history that culminates with the christ 

Tapatalk


----------



## Steven_R

No, the Bible specifically says every other human that wasn't Noah, Shem, Ham, Japheth, or their unnamed son incubation stations (aka wives) were drowned to death by a merciful and caring and loving god.

There's not a lot of wiggle room there.


----------



## BillyP

Steven_R said:


> No, the Bible specifically says every other human that wasn't Noah, Shem, Ham, Japheth, or their unnamed son incubation stations (aka wives) were drowned to death by a merciful and caring and loving god.
> 
> There's not a lot of wiggle room there.



So where did all the fucking chinks come from?


----------



## thanatos144

Steven_R said:


> No, the Bible specifically says every other human that wasn't Noah, Shem, Ham, Japheth, or their unnamed son incubation stations (aka wives) were drowned to death by a merciful and caring and loving god.
> 
> There's not a lot of wiggle room there.



No it doesnt 

Tapatalk


----------



## Steven_R

BillyP said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the Bible specifically says every other human that wasn't Noah, Shem, Ham, Japheth, or their unnamed son incubation stations (aka wives) were drowned to death by a merciful and caring and loving god.
> 
> There's not a lot of wiggle room there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So where did all the fucking chinks come from?
Click to expand...


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCpX1Ue1pmk]Kenny Powers says fairwell to jefferson davis middle school - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Steven_R

thanatos144 said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the Bible specifically says every other human that wasn't Noah, Shem, Ham, Japheth, or their unnamed son incubation stations (aka wives) were drowned to death by a merciful and caring and loving god.
> 
> There's not a lot of wiggle room there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesnt
> 
> Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Yeah, Genesis 7 specifically says it.



> And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him, into the ark, because of the waters of the flood.
> Genesis 7:7



So we know exactly who was in the ark.



> 21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
> 
> 22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
> 
> 23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.
> Genesis 7:21-23



I didn't come up with the flood story, I didn't write, I don't believe it, but there it is. We know exactly who was in the Ark and the Bible is explicit in spelling out that anyone NOT in the ark was snuffed out.


----------



## sealybobo

thanatos144 said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the Bible specifically says every other human that wasn't Noah, Shem, Ham, Japheth, or their unnamed son incubation stations (aka wives) were drowned to death by a merciful and caring and loving god.
> 
> There's not a lot of wiggle room there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesnt
> 
> Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Why don't you theists produce a more factual version of what happened so we can watch it?  I was so curious to see the details about Noah because all I was told growing up was that God told Noah the world was bad and he was going to flood the earth.  He told Noah to go warn people and invite whoever wanted to come onto the arc but they all made fun of him.  Then the flood came and they all tried to get on but it was too late.  

Maybe they didn't even try to make it factual because then everyone would start picking apart what an impossible story it is.  So instead of making it as close to the real story as possible, they changed a few things and they put those stupid rock creatures (fallen angels) in so even theists don't take the movie version literally.  

So instead of us picking apart the actual story because its made up, they gave us this shitty version of the story that even theists don't like.  Epic fail!


----------



## sealybobo

Steven_R said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the Bible specifically says every other human that wasn't Noah, Shem, Ham, Japheth, or their unnamed son incubation stations (aka wives) were drowned to death by a merciful and caring and loving god.
> 
> There's not a lot of wiggle room there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesnt
> 
> Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, Genesis 7 specifically says it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him, into the ark, because of the waters of the flood.
> Genesis 7:7
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So we know exactly who was in the ark.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
> 
> 22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
> 
> 23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.
> Genesis 7:21-23
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't come up with the flood story, I didn't write, I don't believe it, but there it is. We know exactly who was in the Ark and the Bible is explicit in spelling out that anyone NOT in the ark was snuffed out.
Click to expand...


You are correct.

Taptalk.


----------



## sealybobo

BillyP said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the Bible specifically says every other human that wasn't Noah, Shem, Ham, Japheth, or their unnamed son incubation stations (aka wives) were drowned to death by a merciful and caring and loving god.
> 
> There's not a lot of wiggle room there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So where did all the fucking chinks come from?
Click to expand...


One of Noah's daughter in laws was asian.  

After Shem fucked his wife he swapped with Ham and then with Japheth.  Each son fucked each brothers wife.  Then they fucked each others kids when they got old enough (13).


----------



## Boss

BillyP said:


> The first religions were about worshipping gods that were actually aliens.



Gee willikers, I am not seeing the evidence for this. Did you forget to post it or what?


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Do you have any idea how many civilizations lived before the ones we found?  Thousands maybe millions of years.  Did your monkey ancestors believe in god?  Oh yea, you don't believe in evolution.



You're funny, you should do stand up! You are speculating about what hasn't been discovered and there is no evidence for. That is called FAITH in something because there is no evidence. Until you discover civilizations which existed before the ones we've discovered, you can't tell us anything about them including how many there were. You're speculating!


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Why don't you theists produce a more factual version of what happened so we can watch it?  I was so curious to see the details about Noah because all I was told growing up was that God told Noah the world was bad and he was going to flood the earth.  He told Noah to go warn people and invite whoever wanted to come onto the arc but they all made fun of him.  Then the flood came and they all tried to get on but it was too late.
> 
> Maybe they didn't even try to make it factual because then everyone would start picking apart what an impossible story it is.  So instead of making it as close to the real story as possible, they changed a few things and they put those stupid rock creatures (fallen angels) in so even theists don't take the movie version literally.
> 
> So instead of us picking apart the actual story because its made up, they gave us this shitty version of the story that even theists don't like.  Epic fail!



That's what happens when Atheists make movies about the Bible. Epic fail!


----------



## HUGGY

*Why do the God-haters persist?*

2000 years of fraud?  Easy target.

Mars Hill Church mega church in Seattle facing ex parisheners this Sunday.

What a hoot !!!  Even the devotee's can't stand their own church..

Mars hill is run like a cult.


----------



## PostmodernProph

BillyP said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the Bible specifically says every other human that wasn't Noah, Shem, Ham, Japheth, or their unnamed son incubation stations (aka wives) were drowned to death by a merciful and caring and loving god.
> 
> There's not a lot of wiggle room there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So where did all the fucking chinks come from?
Click to expand...


from fucking.....


----------



## BillyP

PostmodernProph said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the Bible specifically says every other human that wasn't Noah, Shem, Ham, Japheth, or their unnamed son incubation stations (aka wives) were drowned to death by a merciful and caring and loving god.
> 
> There's not a lot of wiggle room there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So where did all the fucking chinks come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> from fucking.....
Click to expand...


Seriously though, there weren't any Asians on Noah's boat, so where did they all come from?


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have any idea how many civilizations lived before the ones we found?  Thousands maybe millions of years.  Did your monkey ancestors believe in god?  Oh yea, you don't believe in evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're funny, you should do stand up! You are speculating about what hasn't been discovered and there is no evidence for. That is called FAITH in something because there is no evidence. Until you discover civilizations which existed before the ones we've discovered, you can't tell us anything about them including how many there were. You're speculating!
Click to expand...


Wow, you brought up exactly what I came here to tell you.  You have FAITH there is a god, despite the lack of evidence.  You even manufacture bad evidence and use it as justification in your head.  Doesn't matter that the logic is bad to you.  If it was sound others would use it.  It would be considered proof.  But these theories are only yours.  And make no mistake it isn't proof.  I would have to have faith that what you BELIEVE is right.  I don't.

Even organized religion admits you have to have faith because they know they can't prove it to an atheist.  You have to want to believe.  You have to look for it with an open mind.  Or you theists suggest that if we don't buy in to it we are somehow evil.

Which brings me to my next point.  Religion like communism, socialism and capitalism may even start out for a good purpose but all are eventually corrupted.  And just because you think a lie produces good consequences doesn't mean it isn't a lie.  And I don't think it produces shit.  I'm the same person I was before I became an atheist.  I still cry when I see little kids suffering.  I still love.  I don't even hate.  My relatives just stole $50K from my dad.  My grandmother died.  So what?  I'll never speak to them again.

Oh, the other day I heard a religious show that was amazingly great.  He could have said all that good stuff and left god out.  The only part I disagreed with was the god part.  In the future god will be left out of those types of speeches.  We don't need the lie part.  Who cares about the after life.  Enjoy this life for god sakes.  People will not go crazy if they think there is no heaven and hell or god.  

Anyways, the guy was talking about conflict resolution.  It was exactly what my dad needed to hear about his sister.  I called him and told him what the preacher said and I know it helped him.  So thanks religion.  I guess you aren't all bad.  But as soon as you stop telling the lie maybe I'll join your spiritual church.  But please drop the god shit.  Or just keep it to yourself.  Makes you look stupid.


----------



## sealybobo

HUGGY said:


> *Why do the God-haters persist?*
> 
> 2000 years of fraud?  Easy target.
> 
> Mars Hill Church mega church in Seattle facing ex parisheners this Sunday.
> 
> What a hoot !!!  Even the devotee's can't stand their own church..
> 
> Mars hill is run like a cult.[/url]



It is their fault for being gullible.  Anyone who sent money to the PTL ministries deserved getting conned.  But can you blame the snake oil salesmen you call preachers/ministers/rabbis?  I mean if you are dumb enough to believe in a god then I guess you'll believe anything they tell you.  Greatest bullshit story ever told.  Even boss knows it that's why he's not a member of any organized religion.


----------



## sealybobo

BillyP said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> So where did all the fucking chinks come from?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> from fucking.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously though, there weren't any Asians on Noah's boat, so where did they all come from?
Click to expand...


CLEARLY the Noah story is just a morality story to teach right from wrong and about man's wickedness.  It is our ancient ancestors stories about how the world began.  Sort of like when a native american indian like boss' great great great great great great grandpappy chief chicken hawk told of the beginning of earth.  When the great spirit horse came riding in on blablabla.  You get the point.  Point is, doesn't matter what culture of man, all men have a natural and healthy fear of the unknown and brains that can imagine.  We can even imagine people with wings.  We call them angels.  

Boss thinks because asians, africans, europeans and even the savage injuns were spiritual that this means there must be something bigger but all that tells me is all men are superstitious.  And if god was real, why wouldn't all men worship the same way?  Why?  Because we've all concocted different stories.  

And funny that every single organized religion is not the truth.  Even Boss admits it.  All lies.  All made up.  And boss shows you how hard it is to convert someone who's brainwashed.  He knows not to be a member of any of the organized religions.  Basically, they are all lies and he knows it.  If not he would be a member and follow it strictly.  Him being a rogue religous idiot means that he understands that every religion is bogus and so everything they teach was just made up by some ancient men in hopes of teaching right and wrong.  I say in hopes of controlling the masses and making $ but lets say it was started for good reasons.  Boss knows it is not literal.  Jesus was not the messiah.  Mohammad was not a profit.  

Anyways, clearly we didn't all come from adam and eve or two people.  We sprouted out of the pond like tad poles and evolved to air breathers, then to small rodents and then into apes then into men.  Did you see the Cosmos?  Some fish are white, some have teeth, some are big, some small.  Same with humans.  We have asians, blacks, whites, baltic, eskemos, hispanics.  The first humans that developed in the cold evolved into eskemos.  In the hot spots they were black.  Etc.


----------



## BreezeWood

sealybobo said:


> CLEARLY the Noah story is just a morality story to teach right from wrong ...



that known, then so much for speaking to God ... that is until after the meaning above is accomplished and the Spirit is set free.

seabo, you do have a Spirit ?

.


----------



## PostmodernProph

BillyP said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> So where did all the fucking chinks come from?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> from fucking.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously though, there weren't any Asians on Noah's boat, so where did they all come from?
Click to expand...


how can something that stupid be a serious question?.......people spread all over the world from a single central location.....even if you deny creation, if you believe in evolution you have to believe that as well......DNA studies say all of humanity spread from a single source located in Africa between 25k and 45k years ago.....

thus, all Asians came from Africa......

the flood happened sometime prior to the dispersion......

how else do you explain the fact that native populations from all the continents have a similar story of their ancestors surviving a massive flood that killed everyone else......


----------



## sealybobo

BreezeWood said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> CLEARLY the Noah story is just a morality story to teach right from wrong ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that known, then so much for speaking to God ... that is until after the meaning above is accomplished and the Spirit is set free.
> 
> seabo, you do have a Spirit ?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


What?  Are you speaking in tongues?  First of all, what did you even just fucking say to me???  I keep re reading it and it doesn't make sense.  

Second of all, are you agreeing with me that the book is just a man made book?    

Are you agreeing with me that the bible is just a book written by man?

Then you say, "that said, so much for speaking to god.....that is until.  Hold it right there.  Are you saying you can and do talk to god?  

Then you continue on to say "that is until after the meaning above is accomplished and the Spirit is set free."  Please explain yourself.  You theists think you are so deep and insightful but really you make no sense whatsoever.  

And then you go on to say "seabo, you do have a Spirit ?".  What is the question mark all about?  Are you telling me I do or asking?  Because I don't believe we have spirits that live on.  When our bodies die we die just like the electricity in a light bulb doesn't move on to light bulb heaven when it's life ends.


----------



## Boss

> Anyways, clearly we didn't all come from adam and eve or two people. We sprouted out of the pond like tad poles and evolved to air breathers, then to small rodents and then into apes then into men.



Too funny. I find it fascinating the kind of nonsense you have faith in while rejecting known biology. 

So explain to us, when we sprang out of the pond like tadpoles, were we already warm-blooded animals or did the organism have to determine that it couldn't exist on land unless it completely changed it's circulatory system? How did the organism know what it needed? How did the organism determine that it needed to breathe air instead of obtaining oxygen through a totally different process? They obviously had never studied biology and didn't realize this was not possible. But whatever, now they are rodents... how did the rodents know they needed to control their digestive systems and not absorb 80% of the energy from what they ate through Coprophagia? (That's the eating of their own feces.) Because, see... it doesn't make sense that they would stop retaining 80% of the energy from eating their shit yet still manage to grow larger and morph into something bigger. And who decided which rodents would move on and become apes and which rodents would remain shit-eating rodents? There are lots of questions here you need to answer because there has been no answer so far. 

Not a single shred of evidence exists for the theory you are espousing. None. But we KNOW that humans can create humans. We KNOW that rodents can create rodents. We KNOW that apes can produce apes, and so on. We also know that rodents and apes who happen to live in hot climates can develop, over time, less body hair. While rodents and apes living in colder climates can develop longer hair. Some animals can develop longer legs to help them run faster, or longer necks to help them reach food better. What they CAN'T do, or at least we've found no evidence of, is change what they are into something entirely different. Species do not evolve into new genera, there has never been any such case discovered or any biological experiment to demonstrate this. Cold-blooded tadpoles turn into cold-blooded frogs, they don't turn into warm-blooded rodents. You've not shown evidence this has ever happened, and you can't even logically explain HOW it could happen. Yet that is what you believe. 

You are practicing a faith-based belief in something you have ZERO evidence for.


----------



## sealybobo

PostmodernProph said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> from fucking.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously though, there weren't any Asians on Noah's boat, so where did they all come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> how else do you explain the fact that native populations from all the continents have a similar story of their ancestors surviving a massive flood that killed everyone else......
Click to expand...


Flood Stories from Around the World

Did you also know that the Biblical account of Jesus has striking similarities with other mythologies and texts and many of his supposed teachings already existed prior to his time. It is likely the character was either partly or entirely invented by competing first century messianic cults from an amalgamation of Greco-Roman, Egyptian and Judeo-Apocalyptic myths and prophecies.


----------



## Boss

> ...how else do you explain the fact that native populations from all the continents have a similar story of their ancestors surviving a massive flood that killed everyone else.



It's magic tadpoles, don't you see? They sprang forth from the ponds and some decided to be Asian rodents while others decided to become European rodents, then they 'evolved' into Asian apes and European apes, and then into Asian people and European people! ....It took millions of years man! lol


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> Anyways, clearly we didn't all come from adam and eve or two people. We sprouted out of the pond like tad poles and evolved to air breathers, then to small rodents and then into apes then into men.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too funny. I find it fascinating the kind of nonsense you have faith in while rejecting known biology.
> 
> So explain to us, when we sprang out of the pond like tadpoles, were we already warm-blooded animals or did the organism have to determine that it couldn't exist on land unless it completely changed it's circulatory system? How did the organism know what it needed? How did the organism determine that it needed to breathe air instead of obtaining oxygen through a totally different process? They obviously had never studied biology and didn't realize this was not possible. But whatever, now they are rodents... how did the rodents know they needed to control their digestive systems and not absorb 80% of the energy from what they ate through Coprophagia? (That's the eating of their own feces.) Because, see... it doesn't make sense that they would stop retaining 80% of the energy from eating their shit yet still manage to grow larger and morph into something bigger. And who decided which rodents would move on and become apes and which rodents would remain shit-eating rodents? There are lots of questions here you need to answer because there has been no answer so far.
> 
> Not a single shred of evidence exists for the theory you are espousing. None. But we KNOW that humans can create humans. We KNOW that rodents can create rodents. We KNOW that apes can produce apes, and so on. We also know that rodents and apes who happen to live in hot climates can develop, over time, less body hair. While rodents and apes living in colder climates can develop longer hair. Some animals can develop longer legs to help them run faster, or longer necks to help them reach food better. What they CAN'T do, or at least we've found no evidence of, is change what they are into something entirely different. Species do not evolve into new genera, there has never been any such case discovered or any biological experiment to demonstrate this. Cold-blooded tadpoles turn into cold-blooded frogs, they don't turn into warm-blooded rodents. You've not shown evidence this has ever happened, and you can't even logically explain HOW it could happen. Yet that is what you believe.
> 
> You are practicing a faith-based belief in something you have ZERO evidence for.
Click to expand...


You should have watched the Cosmos.  It explained it all.  I'm not a scientist but I stayed at a Holiday Inn last night so I feel smart.  

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHgHI8YnsF8]The Eye - Cosmos A SpaceTime Odyssey - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> ...how else do you explain the fact that native populations from all the continents have a similar story of their ancestors surviving a massive flood that killed everyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's magic tadpoles, don't you see? They sprang forth from the ponds and some decided to be Asian rodents while others decided to become European rodents, then they 'evolved' into Asian apes and European apes, and then into Asian people and European people! ....It took millions of years man! lol
Click to expand...


Or god did it in 7 days.


----------



## Boss

> ...just like the electricity in a light bulb doesn't move on to light bulb heaven when it's life ends.



But the light bulb is not the electricity. What happens to the electricity that powered the light bulb when the light bulb dies? Does it stop existing? Well, test out your theory there... next time you blow a bulb, take the expired bulb out and stick your finger in the socket and let us know if the electricity still lives on?


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> Anyways, clearly we didn't all come from adam and eve or two people. We sprouted out of the pond like tad poles and evolved to air breathers, then to small rodents and then into apes then into men.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too funny. I find it fascinating the kind of nonsense you have faith in while rejecting known biology.
> 
> So explain to us, when we sprang out of the pond like tadpoles, were we already warm-blooded animals or did the organism have to determine that it couldn't exist on land unless it completely changed it's circulatory system? How did the organism know what it needed? How did the organism determine that it needed to breathe air instead of obtaining oxygen through a totally different process? They obviously had never studied biology and didn't realize this was not possible. But whatever, now they are rodents... how did the rodents know they needed to control their digestive systems and not absorb 80% of the energy from what they ate through Coprophagia? (That's the eating of their own feces.) Because, see... it doesn't make sense that they would stop retaining 80% of the energy from eating their shit yet still manage to grow larger and morph into something bigger. And who decided which rodents would move on and become apes and which rodents would remain shit-eating rodents? There are lots of questions here you need to answer because there has been no answer so far.
> 
> Not a single shred of evidence exists for the theory you are espousing. None. But we KNOW that humans can create humans. We KNOW that rodents can create rodents. We KNOW that apes can produce apes, and so on. We also know that rodents and apes who happen to live in hot climates can develop, over time, less body hair. While rodents and apes living in colder climates can develop longer hair. Some animals can develop longer legs to help them run faster, or longer necks to help them reach food better. What they CAN'T do, or at least we've found no evidence of, is change what they are into something entirely different. Species do not evolve into new genera, there has never been any such case discovered or any biological experiment to demonstrate this. Cold-blooded tadpoles turn into cold-blooded frogs, they don't turn into warm-blooded rodents. You've not shown evidence this has ever happened, and you can't even logically explain HOW it could happen. Yet that is what you believe.
> 
> You are practicing a faith-based belief in something you have ZERO evidence for.
Click to expand...


It took millions of years and was completely random.  

No evidence for evolution?  I beg to differ.  The only one with zero evidence on his theories is you my little buddy.  

Shortly after the appearance of the first reptiles, two branches split off. One branch is the Diapsids, from which come the modern reptiles and birds. The other branch is Synapsida, from which come modern mammals. Both had temporal fenestrae, a pair of holes in their skulls behind the eyes, which were used to increase the space for jaw muscles. Synapsids had one opening on each side, while diapsids had two.

The earliest mammal-like reptiles are the pelycosaurs. The pelycosaurs were the first animals to have temporal fenestrae. Pelycosaurs are not therapsids but soon they gave rise to them. The Therapsida were the direct ancestor of mammals.

From Eucynodontia (cynodonts) came the first mammals. Most early mammals were small shrew-like animals that fed on insects. Although there is no evidence in the fossil record, it is likely that these animals had a constant body temperature and milk glands for their young. The neocortex region of the brain first evolved in mammals and thus is unique to them.

It is thought that the earliest multicellular animal was a sponge-like creature. 

Animal movement may have started with cnidarians. Almost all cnidarians possess nerves and muscles. Because they are the simplest animals to possess them, their direct ancestors were very probably the first animals to use nerves and muscles together. Cnidarians are also the first animals with an actual body of definite form and shape. They have radial symmetry. The first eyes evolved at this time.

Some fresh water lobe-finned fish (Sarcopterygii) develop legs and give rise to the Tetrapoda.

The first tetrapods evolved in shallow and swampy freshwater habitats.

Primitive tetrapods developed from a lobe-finned fish

Acanthostega is an extinct amphibian, among the first animals to have recognizable limbs. It is a candidate for being one of the first vertebrates to be capable of coming onto land. It lacked wrists, and was generally poorly adapted for life on land. The limbs could not support the animal's weight. Acanthostega had both lungs and gills, also indicating it was a link between lobe-finned fish and terrestrial vertebrates.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyways, clearly we didn't all come from adam and eve or two people. We sprouted out of the pond like tad poles and evolved to air breathers, then to small rodents and then into apes then into men.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too funny. I find it fascinating the kind of nonsense you have faith in while rejecting known biology.
> 
> So explain to us, when we sprang out of the pond like tadpoles, were we already warm-blooded animals or did the organism have to determine that it couldn't exist on land unless it completely changed it's circulatory system? How did the organism know what it needed? How did the organism determine that it needed to breathe air instead of obtaining oxygen through a totally different process? They obviously had never studied biology and didn't realize this was not possible. But whatever, now they are rodents... how did the rodents know they needed to control their digestive systems and not absorb 80% of the energy from what they ate through Coprophagia? (That's the eating of their own feces.) Because, see... it doesn't make sense that they would stop retaining 80% of the energy from eating their shit yet still manage to grow larger and morph into something bigger. And who decided which rodents would move on and become apes and which rodents would remain shit-eating rodents? There are lots of questions here you need to answer because there has been no answer so far.
> 
> Not a single shred of evidence exists for the theory you are espousing. None. But we KNOW that humans can create humans. We KNOW that rodents can create rodents. We KNOW that apes can produce apes, and so on. We also know that rodents and apes who happen to live in hot climates can develop, over time, less body hair. While rodents and apes living in colder climates can develop longer hair. Some animals can develop longer legs to help them run faster, or longer necks to help them reach food better. What they CAN'T do, or at least we've found no evidence of, is change what they are into something entirely different. Species do not evolve into new genera, there has never been any such case discovered or any biological experiment to demonstrate this. Cold-blooded tadpoles turn into cold-blooded frogs, they don't turn into warm-blooded rodents. You've not shown evidence this has ever happened, and you can't even logically explain HOW it could happen. Yet that is what you believe.
> 
> You are practicing a faith-based belief in something you have ZERO evidence for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should have watched the Cosmos.  It explained it all.  I'm not a scientist but I stayed at a Holiday Inn last night so I feel smart.
Click to expand...


Well I'm sorry but I doubt Cosmos explained something science has never found evidence for in all of human history. I've seen these shows plenty of times, they explain THEORIES... these are IDEAS people have about what MIGHT have happened. Sometimes they have little tidbits of "evidence" to suggest these theories are possible, and sometimes they don't. But "evidence" as was stated before, is speculative. 

Now, let me explain what you are doing... The Cosmos show is like your religious service. It's no different than a religious Christian going to a church and listening to a pastor give a sermon on The Bible. It helps you to validate your faith-based beliefs.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> ...just like the electricity in a light bulb doesn't move on to light bulb heaven when it's life ends.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the light bulb is not the electricity. What happens to the electricity that powered the light bulb when the light bulb dies? Does it stop existing? Well, test out your theory there... next time you blow a bulb, take the expired bulb out and stick your finger in the socket and let us know if the electricity still lives on?
Click to expand...


No fool.  When the bulb burns out, what happens to the light it was putting out?  Does it go to light heaven?  Does it still feel/exist?  Do an experiment.  In a dark room light a match.  When the match burns out, what happens to the light?  That is what happens to your soul when you die.  The light doesn't move on to light heaven.

Oh by the way, From amphibians came the first reptiles: Hylonomus is the earliest known reptile.  

Reptiles have advanced nervous systems, compared to amphibians.

So amphibians came from the first reptiles.  Do you dispute that?

Shortly after the appearance of the first reptiles, two branches split off. One branch is the Diapsids, from which come the modern reptiles and birds. The other branch is Synapsida, from which come modern mammals.

So all mammals evolved from early reptiles.  

I'm not a scientist but I believe them more than I believe you.  

Do you really believe man/human was always in this man form?  You don't believe we came from 

100 Ma 	Last common ancestor of mice and humans (base of the clade Euarchontoglires).

A group of small, nocturnal and arboreal, insect-eating mammals called the Euarchonta begins a speciation that will lead to the primate, treeshrew and flying lemur orders. 

Primates diverge into suborders Strepsirrhini (wet-nosed primates) and Haplorrhini (dry-nosed primates). Strepsirrhini contain most of the prosimians; modern examples include the lemurs and lorises. The haplorrhines include the three living groups: prosimian tarsiers, simian monkeys, and apes. One of the earliest haplorrhines is Teilhardina asiatica, a mouse-sized, diurnal creature with small eyes. The Haplorrhini metabolism lost the ability to make its own Vitamin C. This means that it and all its descendants had to include fruit in its diet, where Vitamin C could be obtained externally.

 Catarrhini splits into 2 superfamilies, Old World monkeys (Cercopithecoidea) and apes (Hominoidea). Our trichromatic color vision had its genetic origins in this period.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Too funny. I find it fascinating the kind of nonsense you have faith in while rejecting known biology.
> 
> So explain to us, when we sprang out of the pond like tadpoles, were we already warm-blooded animals or did the organism have to determine that it couldn't exist on land unless it completely changed it's circulatory system? How did the organism know what it needed? How did the organism determine that it needed to breathe air instead of obtaining oxygen through a totally different process? They obviously had never studied biology and didn't realize this was not possible. But whatever, now they are rodents... how did the rodents know they needed to control their digestive systems and not absorb 80% of the energy from what they ate through Coprophagia? (That's the eating of their own feces.) Because, see... it doesn't make sense that they would stop retaining 80% of the energy from eating their shit yet still manage to grow larger and morph into something bigger. And who decided which rodents would move on and become apes and which rodents would remain shit-eating rodents? There are lots of questions here you need to answer because there has been no answer so far.
> 
> Not a single shred of evidence exists for the theory you are espousing. None. But we KNOW that humans can create humans. We KNOW that rodents can create rodents. We KNOW that apes can produce apes, and so on. We also know that rodents and apes who happen to live in hot climates can develop, over time, less body hair. While rodents and apes living in colder climates can develop longer hair. Some animals can develop longer legs to help them run faster, or longer necks to help them reach food better. What they CAN'T do, or at least we've found no evidence of, is change what they are into something entirely different. Species do not evolve into new genera, there has never been any such case discovered or any biological experiment to demonstrate this. Cold-blooded tadpoles turn into cold-blooded frogs, they don't turn into warm-blooded rodents. You've not shown evidence this has ever happened, and you can't even logically explain HOW it could happen. Yet that is what you believe.
> 
> You are practicing a faith-based belief in something you have ZERO evidence for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should have watched the Cosmos.  It explained it all.  I'm not a scientist but I stayed at a Holiday Inn last night so I feel smart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I'm sorry but I doubt Cosmos explained something science has never found evidence for in all of human history. I've seen these shows plenty of times, they explain THEORIES... these are IDEAS people have about what MIGHT have happened. Sometimes they have little tidbits of "evidence" to suggest these theories are possible, and sometimes they don't. But "evidence" as was stated before, is speculative.
> 
> Now, let me explain what you are doing... The Cosmos show is like your religious service. It's no different than a religious Christian going to a church and listening to a pastor give a sermon on The Bible. It helps you to validate your faith-based beliefs.
Click to expand...


Bullshit.  The Cosmos uses scientific evidence and you are merely guessing.   

Timeline of human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know you and the organized religions don't believe in evolution but its a fact just like man made global warming.  

We don't care if you believe.  Its your kids that we are after.  The future!


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Too funny. I find it fascinating the kind of nonsense you have faith in while rejecting known biology.
> 
> So explain to us, when we sprang out of the pond like tadpoles, were we already warm-blooded animals or did the organism have to determine that it couldn't exist on land unless it completely changed it's circulatory system? How did the organism know what it needed? How did the organism determine that it needed to breathe air instead of obtaining oxygen through a totally different process? They obviously had never studied biology and didn't realize this was not possible. But whatever, now they are rodents... how did the rodents know they needed to control their digestive systems and not absorb 80% of the energy from what they ate through Coprophagia? (That's the eating of their own feces.) Because, see... it doesn't make sense that they would stop retaining 80% of the energy from eating their shit yet still manage to grow larger and morph into something bigger. And who decided which rodents would move on and become apes and which rodents would remain shit-eating rodents? There are lots of questions here you need to answer because there has been no answer so far.
> 
> Not a single shred of evidence exists for the theory you are espousing. None. But we KNOW that humans can create humans. We KNOW that rodents can create rodents. We KNOW that apes can produce apes, and so on. We also know that rodents and apes who happen to live in hot climates can develop, over time, less body hair. While rodents and apes living in colder climates can develop longer hair. Some animals can develop longer legs to help them run faster, or longer necks to help them reach food better. What they CAN'T do, or at least we've found no evidence of, is change what they are into something entirely different. Species do not evolve into new genera, there has never been any such case discovered or any biological experiment to demonstrate this. Cold-blooded tadpoles turn into cold-blooded frogs, they don't turn into warm-blooded rodents. You've not shown evidence this has ever happened, and you can't even logically explain HOW it could happen. Yet that is what you believe.
> 
> You are practicing a faith-based belief in something you have ZERO evidence for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should have watched the Cosmos.  It explained it all.  I'm not a scientist but I stayed at a Holiday Inn last night so I feel smart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I'm sorry but I doubt Cosmos explained something science has never found evidence for in all of human history. I've seen these shows plenty of times, they explain THEORIES... these are IDEAS people have about what MIGHT have happened. Sometimes they have little tidbits of "evidence" to suggest these theories are possible, and sometimes they don't. But "evidence" as was stated before, is speculative.
> 
> Now, let me explain what you are doing... The Cosmos show is like your religious service. It's no different than a religious Christian going to a church and listening to a pastor give a sermon on The Bible. It helps you to validate your faith-based beliefs.
Click to expand...


Homininae ancestors speciate from the ancestors of the orangutan.

Pierolapithecus catalaunicus is believed to be a common ancestor of humans and the great apes or at least a species that brings us closer to a common ancestor than any previous fossil discovery. It had special adaptations for tree climbing, just as humans and other great apes do: a wide, flat rib cage, a stiff lower spine, flexible wrists, and shoulder blades that lie along its back.  The lineage currently represented by humans and the Pan genus (chimpanzees and bonobos) speciates from the ancestors of the gorillas.


----------



## sealybobo

Maybe science doesn't tell us everything but what it does tell us is that religion and boss are wrong.

Hominina speciate from the ancestors of the chimpanzees. Both chimpanzees and humans have a larynx that repositions during the first two years of life to a spot between the pharynx and the lungs, indicating that the common ancestors have this feature, a precondition for vocalized speech in humans. The latest common ancestor lived around the time of Sahelanthropus tchadensis, ca. 7 Ma [4]; S. tchadensis is sometimes claimed to be the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees, but there is no way to establish this with any certainty. The earliest known representative from the ancestral human line post-dating the separation with the chimpanzee lines is Orrorin tugenensis (Millennium Man, Kenya; ca. 6 Ma).


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> ...just like the electricity in a light bulb doesn't move on to light bulb heaven when it's life ends.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the light bulb is not the electricity. What happens to the electricity that powered the light bulb when the light bulb dies? Does it stop existing? Well, test out your theory there... next time you blow a bulb, take the expired bulb out and stick your finger in the socket and let us know if the electricity still lives on?
Click to expand...


Seriously.  What happens to the light in the room after you turn the light bulb out?  Where does it go?  Is that light god because you can't touch or harness it?  Where does the light go in a room when you turn the light off?  Wow, that's deep.  

The same thing happens to your spirit when you die in that hospital bed.  It does not leave the room.  It just ends.  

Hey, I just exhaled a breath.  Where did that breath go?  It lives on forever?  Or does it go to a breath heaven?  

I understand or should I say I don't understand everything about energy and matter and time and space but what I do know doesn't suggest a god to me or anyone else.  Everyone who believes in god except you admits you just have to have faith.  

But I look at human history and read scientific studies about the brain and I realize how/when/why we invented a god.  I even understand how/why humans like you can seem perfectly intelligent but then believe such an irrational belief.  Why?  Because you want to believe, despite all the evidence.  That's ok, but I think that way of thinking is holding us all back.  It says "I'm happy with my ignorant theory rather than admitting I don't know and keep looking"  And please don't try to make this a "god fearing nation", because a lot of us don't want to buy into that bullshit.  

I know Boss, it's scary to think you are all alone.  And maybe you need something bigger than self.  Isn't your community bigger than yourself?  Isn't your family bigger than yourself?  Isn't society, this planet, the sun and the universe bigger than self?  Isn't that enough?


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...just like the electricity in a light bulb doesn't move on to light bulb heaven when it's life ends.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the light bulb is not the electricity. What happens to the electricity that powered the light bulb when the light bulb dies? Does it stop existing? Well, test out your theory there... next time you blow a bulb, take the expired bulb out and stick your finger in the socket and let us know if the electricity still lives on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No fool.  When the bulb burns out, what happens to the light it was putting out?  Does it go to light heaven?  Does it still feel/exist?  Do an experiment.  In a dark room light a match.  When the match burns out, what happens to the light?  That is what happens to your soul when you die.  The light doesn't move on to light heaven.
Click to expand...


But wait, your analogy is only considering the obvious thing we see and have obvious evidence of, rather than the thing we don't see or have obvious evidence of. When you die, life doesn't go somewhere else to exist just like the light doesn't go somewhere else. However, the thing that enabled the light to burn is still there, just as your spirit is still there after you die. You can't see it, there is no 'evidence' apparent, but it's there. With the light analogy, you can stick your finger in the socket and confirm it if you like. 

While we are on this subject of light, let me ask you this... Does darkness exist? You can't measure it or quantify it, so it must not exist, right? Yet, when you have absense of light, what do you have? 



> Oh by the way, From amphibians came the first reptiles: Hylonomus is the earliest known reptile.
> Reptiles have advanced nervous systems, compared to amphibians.
> So amphibians came from the first reptiles.  Do you dispute that?



I'm skeptical of anything I don't have evidence for. You have ZERO evidence that anything came from anything else, it's all speculation. 



> Shortly after the appearance of the first reptiles, two branches split off. One branch is the Diapsids, from which come the modern reptiles and birds. The other branch is Synapsida, from which come modern mammals.
> 
> So all mammals evolved from early reptiles.



More speculation. You have ZERO evidence. You've provided nothing to confirm this. 



> I'm not a scientist but I believe them more than I believe you.



And that's FINE! You can have faith! It's a natural and normal human behavioral attribute to have faith! I've been making this point all along, and you can't understand that for some odd reason. 



> Do you really believe man/human was always in this man form?  You don't believe we came from



I don't think humans "came from" anything. We were always hominids. Perhaps we were a more primitive form of hominid at one time? That's a possibility. All this garbage you are spouting about mice and lemurs is theory and speculation based on *NO EVIDENCE!* 

Not even Darwin proved this nonsense. One genus class doesn't evolve into another, it's never been observed and never has there been evidence found to support it. You can't even make this happen in a controlled lab environment where you can manipulate all aspects. It completely defies all we know about biology, but it's what you have faith in and believe. I understand that, we all need to have faith and believe in something, it's human nature.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Why?  Because you want to believe, despite all the evidence.  That's ok, but I think that way of thinking is holding us all back.  It says "I'm happy with my ignorant theory rather than admitting I don't know and keep looking"  And please don't try to make this a "god fearing nation", because a lot of us don't want to buy into that bullshit.
> 
> I know Boss, it's scary to think you are all alone.  And maybe you need something bigger than self.  Isn't your community bigger than yourself?  Isn't your family bigger than yourself?  Isn't society, this planet, the sun and the universe bigger than self?  Isn't that enough?



Problem is, I know that I am making a real connection with something greater than self. I can't prove this to you but I don't need to prove it to you. It's not a theory, it's not a "belief" or something that requires my "faith" at all. I'm not all alone, I have something greater than self that I make contact with daily, so I shall fear no evil.... (get it?) This force is bigger than my family, the community, the sun, the universe, the planet... all of it. Nothing less than that is enough, since I am certain it exists. 

*And please don't try to make this a "god fearing nation", because a lot of us don't want to buy into that bullshit.*

Oh, I know you don't... which is what this is really ALL about. It's too bad you can't just be more honest about it, and we only get little glimpses of this now and again when you unconsciously let your guard down and admit it. Life is much easier to live when you aren't confined by moral constraints or limits. When you can justify pretty much anything you desire, life is cool. When you don't have to be accountable for your actions, you can do anything you please. 

That's the world you think you want to live in. The problem is, when everyone in the society around you is operating on the same debased morality, things are going to become really unpleasant in a hurry. You'll discover that some humans have a lesser natural sense of right and wrong than you have, and won't really give a shit about how you feel. Things you think of as morally wrong, other people will be like.... meh, fuck you, don't judge me! Pretty soon, you are living in a world where nothing matters anymore... so what if people die? They're going to die someday anyway, right? We devolve into animals operating on animalistic instinct rather than a sense of moral right and wrong, because you've destroyed that. Once it is destroyed it can't be replaced. It's gone and so is your civilization... then you are fucked.


----------



## BillyP

Bossy, science isn't faith, it's fact. Just so you know.


----------



## Boss

BillyP said:


> Bossy, science isn't faith, it's fact. Just so you know.



Hey, I have NO problem with science. It's a subject that constantly fascinates me. The things we are currently discovering about quantum mechanics in particular, the possibility of other universes and dimensions, the consideration of all the possibilities that enables, is extraordinary. The large hadron collider and all the 'secrets' it is unlocking... fucking amazing stuff right there. 

What I object to is the usurping of science to support faith-based beliefs that science hasn't confirmed or established. I'm a pretty smart cookie, and I can't sit here and allow people to make outrageous claims as if they are fact while hiding behind science. 

Even your innocent assertion that "science isn't faith, it's fact!" I understand what you mean, but that is an incorrect interpretation of science in general. Science does not proclaim anything as a "fact." By definition, it can't, that refutes the very nature of science itself. That's why everything presented in science is presented as "theory" ...because it remains open to challenge, open to new possibilities, open to further investigation. Science can do nothing with a "fact" because science can only evaluate possibilities and predict probabilities. Once MAN has used science to conclude a fact, science is done. There is nothing else science can ever do with a concluded fact. You are then practicing FAITH... a belief in whatever conclusion you have drawn, and science has punched the clock. I prefer to let science continue to work, continue to investigate and explore possibilities... acknowledge that science may establish things as true facts, but the possibility always remains open that theories are wrong, that science hasn't found all the answers.


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> Did you also know that the Biblical account of Jesus has striking similarities with other mythologies and texts and many of his supposed teachings already existed prior to his time. It is likely the character was either partly or entirely invented by competing first century messianic cults from an amalgamation of Greco-Roman, Egyptian and Judeo-Apocalyptic myths and prophecies.



I've heard idiots make the claim.....however, every time they try to come up with an example I demonstrate how stupid they are and they run away.......are you next?.....


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> I'm not a scientist but I stayed at a Holiday Inn last night so I feel smart.



I suspect it was actually a Super 8.......


----------



## PostmodernProph

Boss said:


> ...how else do you explain the fact that native populations from all the continents have a similar story of their ancestors surviving a massive flood that killed everyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's magic tadpoles, don't you see? They sprang forth from the ponds and some decided to be Asian rodents while others decided to become European rodents, then they 'evolved' into Asian apes and European apes, and then into Asian people and European people! ....It took millions of years man! lol
Click to expand...


unfortunately, when they sprang out of the pond they dried out and died.....


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> Maybe science doesn't tell us everything but what it does tell us is that religion and boss are wrong.



Catechism 101......


----------



## BreezeWood

sealybobo said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> CLEARLY the Noah story is just a morality story to teach right from wrong ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that known, then so much for speaking to God ... that is until after the meaning above is accomplished and the Spirit is set free.
> 
> seabo, you do have a Spirit ?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What?  Are you speaking in tongues?  First of all, what did you even just fucking say to me???  I keep re reading it and it doesn't make sense.
> 
> Second of all, are you agreeing with me that the book is just a man made book?
> 
> Are you agreeing with me that the bible is just a book written by man?
> 
> Then you say, "that said, so much for speaking to god.....that is until.  Hold it right there.  Are you saying you can and do talk to god?
> 
> Then you continue on to say "that is until after the meaning above is accomplished and the Spirit is set free."  Please explain yourself.  You theists think you are so deep and insightful but really you make no sense whatsoever.
> 
> And then you go on to say "seabo, you do have a Spirit ?".  What is the question mark all about?  Are you telling me I do or asking?  Because I don't believe we have spirits that live on.  When our bodies die we die just like the electricity in a light bulb doesn't move on to light bulb heaven when it's life ends.
Click to expand...





> King James Bible
> 
> And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.




that is as far as I have "read" the Bible - until the above is rewritten correctly I intend not to read any further to prevent myself from becoming a part of its sordid history.

by word of mouth and reading excerpts it is possible to follow the Bibles intent and to conclude it possibly does have messages from the Creator it claims to represent.

the point is, once one realizes the goal - The Triumph of Good over Evil or Oblivion there is no need to talk to God but simply to fulfill the commandment - that is the parable of Noah, where the Almighty gave humanity a second chance.

by Noah it seems everyone must be saved or possibly no one will survive ... a good reason to communicate on forums.

but unless you accomplish Admission to the Everlasting before your physiology perishes your Spirit will perish with it ... nothing to lose in trying seabo. 

.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the light bulb is not the electricity. What happens to the electricity that powered the light bulb when the light bulb dies? Does it stop existing? Well, test out your theory there... next time you blow a bulb, take the expired bulb out and stick your finger in the socket and let us know if the electricity still lives on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No fool.  When the bulb burns out, what happens to the light it was putting out?  Does it go to light heaven?  Does it still feel/exist?  Do an experiment.  In a dark room light a match.  When the match burns out, what happens to the light?  That is what happens to your soul when you die.  The light doesn't move on to light heaven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But wait, your analogy is only considering the obvious thing we see and have obvious evidence of, rather than the thing we don't see or have obvious evidence of. When you die, life doesn't go somewhere else to exist just like the light doesn't go somewhere else. However, the thing that enabled the light to burn is still there, just as your spirit is still there after you die. You can't see it, there is no 'evidence' apparent, but it's there. With the light analogy, you can stick your finger in the socket and confirm it if you like.
> 
> While we are on this subject of light, let me ask you this... Does darkness exist? You can't measure it or quantify it, so it must not exist, right? Yet, when you have absense of light, what do you have?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm skeptical of anything I don't have evidence for. You have ZERO evidence that anything came from anything else, it's all speculation.
> 
> 
> 
> More speculation. You have ZERO evidence. You've provided nothing to confirm this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a scientist but I believe them more than I believe you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that's FINE! You can have faith! It's a natural and normal human behavioral attribute to have faith! I've been making this point all along, and you can't understand that for some odd reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really believe man/human was always in this man form?  You don't believe we came from
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think humans "came from" anything. We were always hominids. Perhaps we were a more primitive form of hominid at one time? That's a possibility. All this garbage you are spouting about mice and lemurs is theory and speculation based on *NO EVIDENCE!*
> 
> Not even Darwin proved this nonsense. One genus class doesn't evolve into another, it's never been observed and never has there been evidence found to support it. You can't even make this happen in a controlled lab environment where you can manipulate all aspects. It completely defies all we know about biology, but it's what you have faith in and believe. I understand that, we all need to have faith and believe in something, it's human nature.
Click to expand...


The light socket might be able to make more electricity but the electricity it made 2 seconds ago is gone.  No soul.  It doesn't live on forever.  Nothing does.


----------



## Slyhunter

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No fool.  When the bulb burns out, what happens to the light it was putting out?  Does it go to light heaven?  Does it still feel/exist?  Do an experiment.  In a dark room light a match.  When the match burns out, what happens to the light?  That is what happens to your soul when you die.  The light doesn't move on to light heaven.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But wait, your analogy is only considering the obvious thing we see and have obvious evidence of, rather than the thing we don't see or have obvious evidence of. When you die, life doesn't go somewhere else to exist just like the light doesn't go somewhere else. However, the thing that enabled the light to burn is still there, just as your spirit is still there after you die. You can't see it, there is no 'evidence' apparent, but it's there. With the light analogy, you can stick your finger in the socket and confirm it if you like.
> 
> While we are on this subject of light, let me ask you this... Does darkness exist? You can't measure it or quantify it, so it must not exist, right? Yet, when you have absense of light, what do you have?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm skeptical of anything I don't have evidence for. You have ZERO evidence that anything came from anything else, it's all speculation.
> 
> 
> 
> More speculation. You have ZERO evidence. You've provided nothing to confirm this.
> 
> 
> 
> And that's FINE! You can have faith! It's a natural and normal human behavioral attribute to have faith! I've been making this point all along, and you can't understand that for some odd reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really believe man/human was always in this man form?  You don't believe we came from
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think humans "came from" anything. We were always hominids. Perhaps we were a more primitive form of hominid at one time? That's a possibility. All this garbage you are spouting about mice and lemurs is theory and speculation based on *NO EVIDENCE!*
> 
> Not even Darwin proved this nonsense. One genus class doesn't evolve into another, it's never been observed and never has there been evidence found to support it. You can't even make this happen in a controlled lab environment where you can manipulate all aspects. It completely defies all we know about biology, but it's what you have faith in and believe. I understand that, we all need to have faith and believe in something, it's human nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The light socket might be able to make more electricity but the electricity it made 2 seconds ago is gone.  No soul.  It doesn't live on forever.  Nothing does.
Click to expand...


I have multiple awesome dreams when I sleep at night. I remember A lot of them. I don't believe I'm capable of creating the storylines for those dreams. Though I doubt God implanted orgies into them every now and then. I believe in spirituality. I don't believe in the bible.


----------



## sealybobo

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you also know that the Biblical account of Jesus has striking similarities with other mythologies and texts and many of his supposed teachings already existed prior to his time. It is likely the character was either partly or entirely invented by competing first century messianic cults from an amalgamation of Greco-Roman, Egyptian and Judeo-Apocalyptic myths and prophecies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've heard idiots make the claim.....however, every time they try to come up with an example I demonstrate how stupid they are and they run away.......are you next?.....
Click to expand...


Yea, you guys will say Jews would not have been open to pagan myths but you have to realize early christians were a new cult.  They had to come up with a way to be different/better than the jews in order to attract members.  

Dionysian religion and Christianity have notable parallels. 

Which is why Jesus turns water into wine, was intended to show Jesus as superior to Dionysus

scholars of comparative mythology argue that both Dionysus and Jesus represent the "dying-and-returning god" mythological archetype.[13] Other parallels, such as the celebration by a ritual meal of bread and wine, have also been suggested and Powell, in particular, argues that precursors to the Christian notion of transubstantiation can be found in Dionysian religion

There are 999 other religions that came before Chrstianity.  I could point out thousands of similarities.  Proof christianity is just a knock off of older religions/myths.  

What did you come back with before that made everyone else run?  Probably stupidity.


----------



## sealybobo

Slyhunter said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> But wait, your analogy is only considering the obvious thing we see and have obvious evidence of, rather than the thing we don't see or have obvious evidence of. When you die, life doesn't go somewhere else to exist just like the light doesn't go somewhere else. However, the thing that enabled the light to burn is still there, just as your spirit is still there after you die. You can't see it, there is no 'evidence' apparent, but it's there. With the light analogy, you can stick your finger in the socket and confirm it if you like.
> 
> While we are on this subject of light, let me ask you this... Does darkness exist? You can't measure it or quantify it, so it must not exist, right? Yet, when you have absense of light, what do you have?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm skeptical of anything I don't have evidence for. You have ZERO evidence that anything came from anything else, it's all speculation.
> 
> 
> 
> More speculation. You have ZERO evidence. You've provided nothing to confirm this.
> 
> 
> 
> And that's FINE! You can have faith! It's a natural and normal human behavioral attribute to have faith! I've been making this point all along, and you can't understand that for some odd reason.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think humans "came from" anything. We were always hominids. Perhaps we were a more primitive form of hominid at one time? That's a possibility. All this garbage you are spouting about mice and lemurs is theory and speculation based on *NO EVIDENCE!*
> 
> Not even Darwin proved this nonsense. One genus class doesn't evolve into another, it's never been observed and never has there been evidence found to support it. You can't even make this happen in a controlled lab environment where you can manipulate all aspects. It completely defies all we know about biology, but it's what you have faith in and believe. I understand that, we all need to have faith and believe in something, it's human nature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The light socket might be able to make more electricity but the electricity it made 2 seconds ago is gone.  No soul.  It doesn't live on forever.  Nothing does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have multiple awesome dreams when I sleep at night. I remember A lot of them. I don't believe I'm capable of creating the storylines for those dreams. Though I doubt God implanted orgies into them every now and then. I believe in spirituality. I don't believe in the bible.
Click to expand...


Spirituality is real.  It's in your head.  Its a feeling nothing more.


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> Dionysian religion and Christianity have notable parallels.



lol....


> Dionysus is the son of Zeus and Semele. He is the only god to have a mortal parent. Zeus came to Semele in the night, invisible, felt only as a divine presence. Semele was pleased to be a lover of a god, even though she did not know which one. Word soon got around and Hera quickly assumed who was responsible. Hera went to Semele in disguise and convinced her she should see her lover as he really was. When Zeus next came to her she made him promise to grant her one wish. She went so far as to make him swear on the River Styx that he would grant her request. Zeus was madly in love and agreed. She then asked him to show her his true form. Zeus, was unhappy, and knew what would happen but, having sworn he had no choice. He appeared in his true form and Semele was instantly burnt to a crisp by the sight of his glory. Zeus did manage to rescue Dionysus and stitched him into his thigh to hold him until he was ready to be born. His birth from Zeus alone conferred immortality upon him.
> 
> Dionysus problems with Hera were not yet over. She was still jealous and arranged for the Titans to kill him. The Titans ripped him into to pieces. However, Rhea brought him back to life. After this Zeus arranged for his protection and turned him over the mountain nymphs to be raised.



omigorsh, mother burned to a crisp, stitched into his father's thigh and ripped to pieces out of jealousy......how could we have overlooked those parallels so long!.....

Dionysus



> I could point out thousands of similarities.



try coming up with a legitimate one next time......



> What did you come back with before that made everyone else run?



facts.....works every time...


----------



## sealybobo

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dionysian religion and Christianity have notable parallels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol....
> 
> 
> 
> Dionysus is the son of Zeus and Semele. He is the only god to have a mortal parent. Zeus came to Semele in the night, invisible, felt only as a divine presence. Semele was pleased to be a lover of a god, even though she did not know which one. Word soon got around and Hera quickly assumed who was responsible. Hera went to Semele in disguise and convinced her she should see her lover as he really was. When Zeus next came to her she made him promise to grant her one wish. She went so far as to make him swear on the River Styx that he would grant her request. Zeus was madly in love and agreed. She then asked him to show her his true form. Zeus, was unhappy, and knew what would happen but, having sworn he had no choice. He appeared in his true form and Semele was instantly burnt to a crisp by the sight of his glory. Zeus did manage to rescue Dionysus and stitched him into his thigh to hold him until he was ready to be born. His birth from Zeus alone conferred immortality upon him.
> 
> Dionysus problems with Hera were not yet over. She was still jealous and arranged for the Titans to kill him. The Titans ripped him into to pieces. However, Rhea brought him back to life. After this Zeus arranged for his protection and turned him over the mountain nymphs to be raised.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> omigorsh, mother burned to a crisp, stitched into his father's thigh and ripped to pieces out of jealousy......how could we have overlooked those parallels so long!.....
> 
> Dionysus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could point out thousands of similarities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> try coming up with a legitimate one next time......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What did you come back with before that made everyone else run?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> facts.....works every time...
Click to expand...


Wow you are good


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dionysian religion and Christianity have notable parallels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol....
> 
> 
> omigorsh, mother burned to a crisp, stitched into his father's thigh and ripped to pieces out of jealousy......how could we have overlooked those parallels so long!.....
> 
> Dionysus
> 
> 
> 
> try coming up with a legitimate one next time......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What did you come back with before that made everyone else run?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> facts.....works every time...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow you are good
Click to expand...


yeah.....I get that a lot.....


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> The light socket might be able to make more electricity but the electricity it made 2 seconds ago is gone.  No soul.  It doesn't live on forever.  Nothing does.



Not sure if you understand how electricity works but I'm pretty sure the light socket doesn't make it. According to the laws of thermodynamics, energy can't be created or destroyed, so it must live on forever. 

So you don't think you have a soul?


----------



## Slyhunter

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The light socket might be able to make more electricity but the electricity it made 2 seconds ago is gone.  No soul.  It doesn't live on forever.  Nothing does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure if you understand how electricity works but I'm pretty sure the light socket doesn't make it. According to the laws of thermodynamics, energy can't be created or destroyed, so it must live on forever.
> 
> So you don't think you have a soul?
Click to expand...


The light is a side effect which shows it's passage.


----------



## Boss

Slyhunter said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The light socket might be able to make more electricity but the electricity it made 2 seconds ago is gone.  No soul.  It doesn't live on forever.  Nothing does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure if you understand how electricity works but I'm pretty sure the light socket doesn't make it. According to the laws of thermodynamics, energy can't be created or destroyed, so it must live on forever.
> 
> So you don't think you have a soul?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The light is a side effect which shows it's passage.
Click to expand...


Right, an in the analogy, your life is a side effect which shows the passage of your spiritual energy.


----------



## BreezeWood

> *bossy:* Not even Darwin proved this nonsense. One genus class doesn't evolve into another, it's never been observed and never has there been evidence found to support it. You can't even make this happen in a controlled lab environment where you can manipulate all aspects. It completely defies all we know about biology, but it's what you have faith in and believe. I understand that, we all need to have faith and believe in something, it's human nature.




*It completely defies all we know about biology ...*

changing from one to another is well documented in biology.









*... doesn't evolve into another*



nature is subtle bossy, your restrictions are without merit - if you do not believe the Cicadas just ask any ordinary caterpillar.










.


----------



## Boss

Sorry Breeze, Cicadas are never something other than Cicadas. They change forms as part of their natural reproductive cycle, they don't evolve into a different genus. Try again.


----------



## BreezeWood

Boss said:


> Sorry Breeze, Cicadas are never something other than Cicadas. They change forms as part of their natural reproductive cycle, they don't evolve into a different genus. Try again.



that was not your point -

*it's never been observed and never has there been evidence found to support it.*

in Biology.








our friend the caterpillar is a little more dramatic - than the cicada ?


.


----------



## Boss

BreezeWood said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Breeze, Cicadas are never something other than Cicadas. They change forms as part of their natural reproductive cycle, they don't evolve into a different genus. Try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that was not your point -
> 
> *it's never been observed and never has there been evidence found to support it.*
> 
> in Biology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> our friend the caterpillar is a little more dramatic - than the cicada ?
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Bless your heart, I know you are trying diligently to prove my point wrong, but you are still failing. You keep showing examples of things in their natural cycles of life at different stages. I can show the same thing: 









This doesn't prove cross-genus evolution. What you need is a picture of a caterpillar or cicada producing an orchid blossom or lizard... or something other than what they are or are supposed to produce.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Breeze, Cicadas are never something other than Cicadas. They change forms as part of their natural reproductive cycle, they don't evolve into a different genus. Try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that was not your point -
> 
> *it's never been observed and never has there been evidence found to support it.*
> 
> in Biology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> our friend the caterpillar is a little more dramatic - than the cicada ?
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bless your heart, I know you are trying diligently to prove my point wrong, but you are still failing. You keep showing examples of things in their natural cycles of life at different stages. I can show the same thing:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This doesn't prove cross-genus evolution. What you need is a picture of a caterpillar or cicada producing an orchid blossom or lizard... or something other than what they are or are supposed to produce.
Click to expand...


You'd need more than one picture, since I don't think evolutionary theory says that something will give birth to or lay an egg with an offspring of a different genus.


----------



## BillyP

If you want to see evolution with your own eyes, go into a house built in say, 1750. You'll notice that all the rooms and doorways... Are shorter/smaller. Meaning in a couple of hundred years, humans have gotten taller overall. People's clothes from that period will also tend to be smaller as well. That's called evolution.


----------



## Boss

BillyP said:


> If you want to see evolution with your own eyes, go into a house built in say, 1750. You'll notice that all the rooms and doorways... Are shorter/smaller. Meaning in a couple of hundred years, humans have gotten taller overall. People's clothes from that period will also tend to be smaller as well. That's called evolution.



That's total bullshit. Statistically, men are slightly taller today than in 1750, but men also live much longer so they tend to grow taller. Doorways were smaller back then for several reasons, none of which had anything to do with how tall people were. Doors were made of solid wood, it was expensive, so shorter doors cost less to make. There were no standard sizes, doors were built custom by the builder. The smaller the door, the more heat was retained inside the dwelling. Also, a heftier archway above the door lends better architectural integrity to the structure. 

Washington and Jefferson were both over 6 feet in height. 

But still... you are talking about microevolution here. Slight changes in a species over a long period of time. I have not ever refuted or rejected that theory. There are thousands of much better examples than the one you presented for microevolution. The "debate" is MACRO-evolution.... where one kind of thing spawns some other kind of thing. There is NO EVIDENCE for that. We've never observed it happen, we can't replicate it in a lab, there is no fossil proving it happened... nothing. It simply defies biology as we know it. 

Those who believe in macroevolution have a purely faith-based belief in something with no evidence.


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> that was not your point -
> 
> *it's never been observed and never has there been evidence found to support it.*
> 
> in Biology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> our friend the caterpillar is a little more dramatic - than the cicada ?
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bless your heart, I know you are trying diligently to prove my point wrong, but you are still failing. You keep showing examples of things in their natural cycles of life at different stages. I can show the same thing:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This doesn't prove cross-genus evolution. What you need is a picture of a caterpillar or cicada producing an orchid blossom or lizard... or something other than what they are or are supposed to produce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'd need more than one picture, since I don't think evolutionary theory says that something will give birth to or lay an egg with an offspring of a different genus.
Click to expand...


Well, IF that ever happened, at some point, something HAD to give birth or lay an egg with a different offspring. You can't get from point A to point B without ever arriving at point B.


----------



## BreezeWood

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> that was not your point -
> 
> *it's never been observed and never has there been evidence found to support it.*
> 
> in Biology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> our friend the caterpillar is a little more dramatic - than the cicada ?
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bless your heart, I know you are trying diligently to prove my point wrong, but you are still failing. You keep showing examples of things in their natural cycles of life at different stages. I can show the same thing:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This doesn't prove cross-genus evolution. What you need is a picture of a caterpillar or cicada producing an orchid blossom or lizard... or something other than what they are or are supposed to produce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'd need more than one picture, since I don't think evolutionary theory says that something will give birth to or lay an egg with an offspring of a different genus.
Click to expand...






> New Research Confirms 'Out Of Africa' Theory Of Human Evolution -- ScienceDaily
> 
> *New Research Confirms 'Out Of Africa' Theory Of Human Evolution*
> 
> *The research confirms the Out Of Africa hypothesis that all modern humans stem from a single group of Homo sapiens* who emigrated from Africa 2,000 generations ago and spread throughout Eurasia over thousands of years. *These settlers replaced other early humans (such as Neanderthals), rather than interbreeding with them.*
> 
> Academics analysed the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and Y chromosome DNA of Aboriginal Australians and Melanesians from New Guinea. This data was compared with the various DNA patterns associated with early humans. The research was an international effort, with researchers from Tartu in Estonia, Oxford, and Stanford in California all contributing key data and expertise.
> 
> The results showed that both the Aborigines and Melanesians share the genetic features that have been linked to the exodus of modern humans from Africa 50,000 years ago.




*The research confirms the Out Of Africa hypothesis that all modern humans stem from a single group of Homo sapiens ... These settlers replaced other early humans (such as Neanderthals), rather than interbreeding with them.*


*stem from a single group of Homo sapiens ...*


the statement "It completely defies all we know about biology" by Boss is erroneous and without merit - biology that converts from one to another is well established and documented and that process on an evolutionary plane being established for a programed change from a generational compilation to a single event is the advent for the above article - not that all humans evolved from a single source as is but also that the single source evolved at a specific location copulated over time that generated in a single event an irreversible change, the same as metamorphosis.

.


----------



## BreezeWood

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bless your heart, I know you are trying diligently to prove my point wrong, but you are still failing. You keep showing examples of things in their natural cycles of life at different stages. I can show the same thing:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This doesn't prove cross-genus evolution. What you need is a picture of a caterpillar or cicada producing an orchid blossom or lizard... or something other than what they are or are supposed to produce.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'd need more than one picture, since I don't think evolutionary theory says that something will give birth to or lay an egg with an offspring of a different genus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, IF that ever happened, at some point, something HAD to give birth or lay an egg with a different offspring. You can't get from point A to point B without ever arriving at point B.
Click to expand...



*You can't get from point A to point B without ever arriving at point B.*


- that makes a lot of sense, Blade ????

ok, we'll include the cocoon ....







metamorphosis obviously is not your friend ...


(Hint) - think again how evolutionary change occurs - as in a developed program thart is executed once after compilation.


*your fetus example is not what is being discussed.

.


----------



## BillyP

Boss said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to see evolution with your own eyes, go into a house built in say, 1750. You'll notice that all the rooms and doorways... Are shorter/smaller. Meaning in a couple of hundred years, humans have gotten taller overall. People's clothes from that period will also tend to be smaller as well. That's called evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's total bullshit. Statistically, men are slightly taller today than in 1750, but men also live much longer so they tend to grow taller. Doorways were smaller back then for several reasons, none of which had anything to do with how tall people were. Doors were made of solid wood, it was expensive, so shorter doors cost less to make. There were no standard sizes, doors were built custom by the builder. The smaller the door, the more heat was retained inside the dwelling. Also, a heftier archway above the door lends better architectural integrity to the structure.
> 
> Washington and Jefferson were both over 6 feet in height.
> 
> But still... you are talking about microevolution here. Slight changes in a species over a long period of time. I have not ever refuted or rejected that theory. There are thousands of much better examples than the one you presented for microevolution. The "debate" is MACRO-evolution.... where one kind of thing spawns some other kind of thing. There is NO EVIDENCE for that. We've never observed it happen, we can't replicate it in a lab, there is no fossil proving it happened... nothing. It simply defies biology as we know it.
> 
> Those who believe in macroevolution have a purely faith-based belief in something with no evidence.
Click to expand...


Humans overall are getting taller over time. Just wait a long time, that'll be macro, and humans will be even taller. 
I used to eat meat but over time my thinking evolved and now I eat a lot healthier and spawned vegetarian children. More evolution at work.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bless your heart, I know you are trying diligently to prove my point wrong, but you are still failing. You keep showing examples of things in their natural cycles of life at different stages. I can show the same thing:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This doesn't prove cross-genus evolution. What you need is a picture of a caterpillar or cicada producing an orchid blossom or lizard... or something other than what they are or are supposed to produce.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'd need more than one picture, since I don't think evolutionary theory says that something will give birth to or lay an egg with an offspring of a different genus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, IF that ever happened, at some point, something HAD to give birth or lay an egg with a different offspring. You can't get from point A to point B without ever arriving at point B.
Click to expand...


No, you can't get from point A to point B without ever arriving at point B.....but there's no reason to assume that point A and point B are directly connected.  You are proposing AB, when evolutionary theory, so far as I'm aware, proposes something more like A-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->B.

The idea is not that a lizard gave birth to a rat, or a fish laid eggs which hatched as frogs.  Instead, it is the culmination of many smaller changes which eventually lead to the larger changes in genus.  Even the idea of punctuated equilibrium, which often is made to sound like the immediate change you imply, is actually supposed to take place over 10s or 100s of thousands of years.  

So yes, point A must lead to point B, but ignoring the journey between the points is disingenuous at best.


----------



## Montrovant

BillyP said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to see evolution with your own eyes, go into a house built in say, 1750. You'll notice that all the rooms and doorways... Are shorter/smaller. Meaning in a couple of hundred years, humans have gotten taller overall. People's clothes from that period will also tend to be smaller as well. That's called evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's total bullshit. Statistically, men are slightly taller today than in 1750, but men also live much longer so they tend to grow taller. Doorways were smaller back then for several reasons, none of which had anything to do with how tall people were. Doors were made of solid wood, it was expensive, so shorter doors cost less to make. There were no standard sizes, doors were built custom by the builder. The smaller the door, the more heat was retained inside the dwelling. Also, a heftier archway above the door lends better architectural integrity to the structure.
> 
> Washington and Jefferson were both over 6 feet in height.
> 
> But still... you are talking about microevolution here. Slight changes in a species over a long period of time. I have not ever refuted or rejected that theory. There are thousands of much better examples than the one you presented for microevolution. The "debate" is MACRO-evolution.... where one kind of thing spawns some other kind of thing. There is NO EVIDENCE for that. We've never observed it happen, we can't replicate it in a lab, there is no fossil proving it happened... nothing. It simply defies biology as we know it.
> 
> Those who believe in macroevolution have a purely faith-based belief in something with no evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Humans overall are getting taller over time. Just wait a long time, that'll be macro, and humans will be even taller.
> I used to eat meat but over time my thinking evolved and now I eat a lot healthier and spawned vegetarian children. More evolution at work.
Click to expand...


Time is the issue.

There should be no expectation of observing the kind of changes Boss is talking about because evolutionary theory does not propose those changes occur in short periods of time.  Humans haven't be paying close enough attention or keeping especially accurate records for that long, so direct observation of changes in genus would be unexpected based on current thought.  Unfortunately, that also makes falsification a problem.  Hence the whole micro- and macro-evolution debate.


----------



## Carla_Danger

Boss said:


> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.




This thread is amusing.


----------



## PostmodernProph

BillyP said:


> If you want to see evolution with your own eyes, go into a house built in say, 1750. You'll notice that all the rooms and doorways... Are shorter/smaller. Meaning in a couple of hundred years, humans have gotten taller overall. People's clothes from that period will also tend to be smaller as well. That's called evolution.



of course....because the folks who built the houses in 1750 were all single celled organisms......


----------



## PostmodernProph

Montrovant said:


> Time is the issue.



tissue is the issue.....if there is no expectation of observing, there should be no expectation of convincing.....isn't that the argument of those who deny God?.....


----------



## BillyP

PostmodernProph said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to see evolution with your own eyes, go into a house built in say, 1750. You'll notice that all the rooms and doorways... Are shorter/smaller. Meaning in a couple of hundred years, humans have gotten taller overall. People's clothes from that period will also tend to be smaller as well. That's called evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> of course....because the folks who built the houses in 1750 were all single celled organisms......
Click to expand...


Wtf are  you talking about?


----------



## PostmodernProph

BreezeWood said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bless your heart, I know you are trying diligently to prove my point wrong, but you are still failing. You keep showing examples of things in their natural cycles of life at different stages. I can show the same thing:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This doesn't prove cross-genus evolution. What you need is a picture of a caterpillar or cicada producing an orchid blossom or lizard... or something other than what they are or are supposed to produce.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'd need more than one picture, since I don't think evolutionary theory says that something will give birth to or lay an egg with an offspring of a different genus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New Research Confirms 'Out Of Africa' Theory Of Human Evolution -- ScienceDaily
> 
> *New Research Confirms 'Out Of Africa' Theory Of Human Evolution*
> 
> *The research confirms the Out Of Africa hypothesis that all modern humans stem from a single group of Homo sapiens* who emigrated from Africa 2,000 generations ago and spread throughout Eurasia over thousands of years. *These settlers replaced other early humans (such as Neanderthals), rather than interbreeding with them.*
> 
> Academics analysed the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and Y chromosome DNA of Aboriginal Australians and Melanesians from New Guinea. This data was compared with the various DNA patterns associated with early humans. The research was an international effort, with researchers from Tartu in Estonia, Oxford, and Stanford in California all contributing key data and expertise.
> 
> The results showed that both the Aborigines and Melanesians share the genetic features that have been linked to the exodus of modern humans from Africa 50,000 years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *The research confirms the Out Of Africa hypothesis that all modern humans stem from a single group of Homo sapiens ... These settlers replaced other early humans (such as Neanderthals), rather than interbreeding with them.*
> 
> 
> *stem from a single group of Homo sapiens ...*
> 
> 
> the statement "It completely defies all we know about biology" by Boss is erroneous and without merit - biology that converts from one to another is well established and documented and that process on an evolutionary plane being established for a programed change from a generational compilation to a single event is the advent for the above article - not that all humans evolved from a single source as is but also that the single source evolved at a specific location copulated over time that generated in a single event an irreversible change, the same as metamorphosis.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


sweet.....now we know when Adam and Eve left the garden.....


----------



## PostmodernProph

BillyP said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to see evolution with your own eyes, go into a house built in say, 1750. You'll notice that all the rooms and doorways... Are shorter/smaller. Meaning in a couple of hundred years, humans have gotten taller overall. People's clothes from that period will also tend to be smaller as well. That's called evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> of course....because the folks who built the houses in 1750 were all single celled organisms......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wtf are  you talking about?
Click to expand...


pointing out your claim does not prove macro-evolution......

I had to point it out because when you said this....


> Humans overall are getting taller over time. Just wait a long time, that'll be macro, and humans will be even taller.


.....it became painfully obvious you didn't know what the fuck macro-evolution even means......


----------



## BillyP

PostmodernProph said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> of course....because the folks who built the houses in 1750 were all single celled organisms......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wtf are  you talking about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> pointing out your claim does not prove macro-evolution......
> 
> I had to point it out because when you said this....
> 
> 
> 
> Humans overall are getting taller over time. Just wait a long time, that'll be macro, and humans will be even taller.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .....it became painfully obvious you didn't know what the fuck macro-evolution even means......
Click to expand...

So evolution is bullshit because a single cell organism can't turn into a human?


----------



## PostmodernProph

BillyP said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wtf are  you talking about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pointing out your claim does not prove macro-evolution......
> 
> I had to point it out because when you said this....
> 
> 
> 
> Humans overall are getting taller over time. Just wait a long time, that'll be macro, and humans will be even taller.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .....it became painfully obvious you didn't know what the fuck macro-evolution even means......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So evolution is bullshit because a single cell organism can't turn into a human?
Click to expand...

no....the claim that single celled organisms evolved into humans is bullshit because single celled organisms can't even evolve into multi celled organisms.........and if you weren't bright enough to figure that one out without help you shouldn't be involved in the argument.....its over your head......


----------



## Slyhunter

PostmodernProph said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> pointing out your claim does not prove macro-evolution......
> 
> I had to point it out because when you said this....
> 
> .....it became painfully obvious you didn't know what the fuck macro-evolution even means......
> 
> 
> 
> So evolution is bullshit because a single cell organism can't turn into a human?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no....the claim that single celled organisms evolved into humans is bullshit because single celled organisms can't even evolve into multi celled organisms.........and if you weren't bright enough to figure that one out without help you shouldn't be involved in the argument.....its over your head......
Click to expand...


Apparently it's over your head.


> The transition from one-celled microbes to multicellularity was a huge step in the evolution of life on this planet, but as daunting as this evolutionary step seems, it didn't happen just once. Today's plants, fungi, animals, and various types of algae are all descendants of separate transitions to multicellular life.
> 
> All of these transitions from a single-cell lifestyle to multicellularity occurred in the very distant past, so how can we learn anything about them? It turns out that it is not hard to find living, modern examples that closely parallel the momentous evolutionary transitions that led to animals, plants, and fungi. Right now on earth there are primitive multicellular organisms that, in many ways, resemble the first multicellular creatures that existed a billion years ago. Researchers are using these organisms to understand what kinds of genetic changes are needed to turn a single-celled organism into a multicellular one.
> 
> A group at the University of Arizona has published a study of of one group the these amazing organisms, the volvocine green algae. What's amazing about this group of algae is that you can find a range of multicellular sophistication in closely relate algae species. There are species that form simple sets of four identical cells stuck together, other that form balls of 32-64 not quite identical cells with some specialized functions, up to full-blown multicellular organisms with 50,000 highly specialized cells, including reproductive germ cells. The evolution of multicellularity is not an irrecoverable event from an unimaginably distant past; it is something we can observe, manipulate, and test in the lab today.
> How Single-Cell Organisms Evolve Into Multicellular Ones


So now apologize.


----------



## PostmodernProph

Slyhunter said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> So evolution is bullshit because a single cell organism can't turn into a human?
> 
> 
> 
> no....the claim that single celled organisms evolved into humans is bullshit because single celled organisms can't even evolve into multi celled organisms.........and if you weren't bright enough to figure that one out without help you shouldn't be involved in the argument.....its over your head......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently it's over your head.
> 
> 
> 
> The transition from one-celled microbes to multicellularity was a huge step in the evolution of life on this planet, but as daunting as this evolutionary step seems, it didn't happen just once. Today's plants, fungi, animals, and various types of algae are all descendants of separate transitions to multicellular life.
> 
> All of these transitions from a single-cell lifestyle to multicellularity occurred in the very distant past, so how can we learn anything about them? It turns out that it is not hard to find living, modern examples that closely parallel the momentous evolutionary transitions that led to animals, plants, and fungi. Right now on earth there are primitive multicellular organisms that, in many ways, resemble the first multicellular creatures that existed a billion years ago. Researchers are using these organisms to understand what kinds of genetic changes are needed to turn a single-celled organism into a multicellular one.
> 
> A group at the University of Arizona has published a study of of one group the these amazing organisms, the volvocine green algae. What's amazing about this group of algae is that you can find a range of multicellular sophistication in closely relate algae species. There are species that form simple sets of four identical cells stuck together, other that form balls of 32-64 not quite identical cells with some specialized functions, up to full-blown multicellular organisms with 50,000 highly specialized cells, including reproductive germ cells. The evolution of multicellularity is not an irrecoverable event from an unimaginably distant past; it is something we can observe, manipulate, and test in the lab today.
> How Single-Cell Organisms Evolve Into Multicellular Ones
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So now apologize.
Click to expand...


why would I apologize just because you were able to recite your catechism......prove it happens and I will apologize......of course, I will be dead first so you may not hear it......I will whisper it to you from heaven......


----------



## Slyhunter

PostmodernProph said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> no....the claim that single celled organisms evolved into humans is bullshit because single celled organisms can't even evolve into multi celled organisms.........and if you weren't bright enough to figure that one out without help you shouldn't be involved in the argument.....its over your head......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently it's over your head.
> 
> 
> 
> The transition from one-celled microbes to multicellularity was a huge step in the evolution of life on this planet, but as daunting as this evolutionary step seems, it didn't happen just once. Today's plants, fungi, animals, and various types of algae are all descendants of separate transitions to multicellular life.
> 
> All of these transitions from a single-cell lifestyle to multicellularity occurred in the very distant past, so how can we learn anything about them? It turns out that it is not hard to find living, modern examples that closely parallel the momentous evolutionary transitions that led to animals, plants, and fungi. Right now on earth there are primitive multicellular organisms that, in many ways, resemble the first multicellular creatures that existed a billion years ago. Researchers are using these organisms to understand what kinds of genetic changes are needed to turn a single-celled organism into a multicellular one.
> 
> A group at the University of Arizona has published a study of of one group the these amazing organisms, the volvocine green algae. What's amazing about this group of algae is that you can find a range of multicellular sophistication in closely relate algae species. There are species that form simple sets of four identical cells stuck together, other that form balls of 32-64 not quite identical cells with some specialized functions, up to full-blown multicellular organisms with 50,000 highly specialized cells, including reproductive germ cells. The evolution of multicellularity is not an irrecoverable event from an unimaginably distant past; it is something we can observe, manipulate, and test in the lab today.
> How Single-Cell Organisms Evolve Into Multicellular Ones
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So now apologize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> why would I apologize just because you were able to recite your catechism......prove it happens and I will apologize......of course, I will be dead first so you may not hear it......I will whisper it to you from heaven......
Click to expand...


From my link.


> The evolution of multicellularity is not an irrecoverable event from an unimaginably distant past; it is something we can observe, manipulate, and test in the lab today.


stop being so dense.

If you had clicked on the link you would've read


> 1) ~223 million years ago, a species of single-celled green algae began forming aggregates of cells stuck together by a glue of secreted proteins and sugars (and we can see species which do this today).
> 
> 2) Also ~200 million years ago, the rate of cell division began to be controlled genetically. Unlike single-celled organisms, which reproduce whenever the surrounding environment is right, the new multicellular algae began controlling exactly how many daughter cells they produce. This is a critical step towards establishing a multi-cellular body-plan with genetically controlled dimensions.
> 
> 3) Roughly 10 million years later, the cells of some multicellular algae species began to orient their whip-like flagella in the same direction, so that all of the flagella would work together to control the swimming direction of the organism.
> 
> 4) By ~100 million years ago, some of the algae species had established separate reproductive germ cells, and ever since then, various volvocine algae species have developed more cells with highly specialized functions.


----------



## Boss

Your link doesn't show a singe to multi cell evolution, it shows single cells reproducing and grouping themselves into a bunch of single-cell organisms. They have not changed from single to multi cellular.


----------



## PostmodernProph

Slyhunter said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently it's over your head.
> 
> So now apologize.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why would I apologize just because you were able to recite your catechism......prove it happens and I will apologize......of course, I will be dead first so you may not hear it......I will whisper it to you from heaven......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From my link.
> 
> 
> 
> The evolution of multicellularity is not an irrecoverable event from an unimaginably distant past; it is something we can observe, manipulate, and test in the lab today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> stop being so dense.
Click to expand...


unfortunately, that is a false statement.....it has never been observed, manipulated or tested in a lab, as you well know.....if it had, you could provide lab results.....


----------



## BreezeWood

all multicelular organisms originate from a single cell, there is no evolutionary gap between the two types, they are physiologically the same - 

otherwise prove a multicellular organism originates from more than a single cell at its inception ... no such organism exist.

.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Unless you believe complex lifeforms 'popped' into existence, you must conceed they evolved to their present form. Evolution might not be able to prove every little bit of itself, but it at least offers a more likely scenario than all life presently on Earth always has been.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Not my best analogy, but it's late. But the denial of evolution is like saying computers as we have them now have always been as they are now. And didn't evolve from building sized machines.


----------



## Chuckt

Delta4Embassy said:


> Unless you believe complex lifeforms 'popped' into existence, you must conceed they evolved to their present form. Evolution might not be able to prove every little bit of itself, but it at least offers a more likely scenario than all life presently on Earth always has been.



Wouldn't evolution then be the perfect lie to counter that complex lifeforms were created by God?


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Chuckt said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you believe complex lifeforms 'popped' into existence, you must conceed they evolved to their present form. Evolution might not be able to prove every little bit of itself, but it at least offers a more likely scenario than all life presently on Earth always has been.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't evolution then be the perfect lie to counter that complex lifeforms were created by God?
Click to expand...


Couldn't both be true? What if God is just a word we use to describe science or how things really work but without going into details. "Why does the Sun rise in the east? - God." If you allow that God isn't a discrete sentient being but instead is simply the universe itself then gravity, which is merely part of the universe as are all the planets and everything else, then the statement becomes true. 

I've found that when people argue the science vs religion thing they're both wrong. It's not science OR religion at all. Where science ends, religion begins, and where religion ends, science resumes. 

Since time-space is curved, any direction you travel you wind up back where you started. As with science merging into reliigon, and back again.


----------



## Boss

Delta4Embassy said:


> Unless you believe complex lifeforms 'popped' into existence, you must conceed they evolved to their present form. Evolution might not be able to prove every little bit of itself, but it at least offers a more likely scenario than all life presently on Earth always has been.



Sorry, but no matter what you believe, they did "pop into existence." They do exist, they didn't exist before... no other way for this to be the case without popping into existence. Now... did this happen as a matter of random circumstance or some divine interaction? That is the question. 

Evolution is being split into two very different theories here. Macro and Micro... Micro evolution is the slight changes which happen to a species over time, like people growing taller, or bears growing white fur instead of brown. Not many people can refute micro evolution because the evidence is clear this does happen. When you read that most scientists believe in "evolution" this is what they are talking about, micro evolution. Macro evolution, on the other hand, is not supported with scientific evidence other than micro evolution. It's a theory that these little changes over time in micro evolution eventually caused larger change at the genus level. It is a total speculation. We have no evidence to prove this kind of evolution ever happened, other than the fact we have all these various forms of life. 

So what is happenining is, those who don't believe in God are running around claiming "you  don't believe in proven evolution!" When the fact is, the God believers mostly do believe in microevolution, it is macroevolution they have a problem with. One is proven, one is a speculation. The non-believers will chortle (thinking it is clever) "what, you think it all poofed into existence?" But the fact remains, whether you believe in God or not, it DID poof into existence. Keep in mind, as bizarre as it may sound, things CAN poof into and out of existence in the physical universe, as well as occupying two places at the same time... it happens all the time with electrons.


----------



## BillyP

Delta4Embassy said:


> Chuckt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you believe complex lifeforms 'popped' into existence, you must conceed they evolved to their present form. Evolution might not be able to prove every little bit of itself, but it at least offers a more likely scenario than all life presently on Earth always has been.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't evolution then be the perfect lie to counter that complex lifeforms were created by God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Couldn't both be true? *What if God is just a word we use to describe science or how things really work but without going into details. "Why does the Sun rise in the east? - God." If you allow that God isn't a discrete* sentient being but instead is simply the universe itself then gravity, which is merely part of the universe as are all the planets and everything else, then the statement becomes true.
> 
> I've found that when people argue the science vs religion thing they're both wrong. It's not science OR religion at all. Where science ends, religion begins, and where religion ends, science resumes.
> 
> Since time-space is curved, any direction you travel you wind up back where you started. As with science merging into reliigon, and back again.
Click to expand...

Then I'd suggest you buy a dictionary because god isn't the universe but the person that created it.


----------



## PostmodernProph

Delta4Embassy said:


> Not my best analogy, but it's late. But the denial of evolution is like saying computers as we have them now have always been as they are now. And didn't evolve from building sized machines.



uh, Delta?.....computers were designed......by intelligent folks.....


----------



## BreezeWood

Chuckt said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you believe complex lifeforms 'popped' into existence, you must conceed they evolved to their present form. Evolution might not be able to prove every little bit of itself, but it at least offers a more likely scenario than all life presently on Earth always has been.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't evolution then be the perfect lie to counter that complex lifeforms were created by God?
Click to expand...



no, evolution is simply an explanation of dated physical content for life's past history - 

that can be used when necessary to counter any unsubstantiated literature where such conflicts may arise.

.


----------



## BillyP

PostmodernProph said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not my best analogy, but it's late. But the denial of evolution is like saying computers as we have them now have always been as they are now. And didn't evolve from building sized machines.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uh, Delta?.....computers were designed......by intelligent folks.....
Click to expand...


Computers evolved from typewriters, abaci, calculators, etc... Not thought up out of the blue as something brand new already finished from purely intelligent design.


----------



## Steven_R

Boss said:


> Evolution is being split into two very different theories here. Macro and Micro... Micro evolution is the slight changes which happen to a species over time, like people growing taller, or bears growing white fur instead of brown. Not many people can refute micro evolution because the evidence is clear this does happen. When you read that most scientists believe in "evolution" this is what they are talking about, micro evolution. Macro evolution, on the other hand, is not supported with scientific evidence other than micro evolution. It's a theory that these little changes over time in micro evolution eventually caused larger change at the genus level. It is a total speculation. We have no evidence to prove this kind of evolution ever happened, other than the fact we have all these various forms of life.



You're right. Aside from the fossils, genetics, lab experiments on bacteria, and comparing populations in the wild (e.g. ring species), we don't have anything to go on. 

Let's say you're right and only microevolution exists. What happens when we expand that timeline to millions of years and hundreds of thousands of generations? If we start with a population of bears and half microevolve to have white hair and the other microevolve to spend more time swimming and develop traits, how long will it be before they can no longer interbreed? And if they no longer can interbreed, then what?


----------



## PostmodernProph

BillyP said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not my best analogy, but it's late. But the denial of evolution is like saying computers as we have them now have always been as they are now. And didn't evolve from building sized machines.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uh, Delta?.....computers were designed......by intelligent folks.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Computers evolved from typewriters, abaci, calculators, etc... Not thought up out of the blue as something brand new already finished from purely intelligent design.
Click to expand...


/chuckles.....how many baby computers did a pair of typewriters have to have before one survived to puberty......


----------



## BillyP

PostmodernProph said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> uh, Delta?.....computers were designed......by intelligent folks.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Computers evolved from typewriters, abaci, calculators, etc... Not thought up out of the blue as something brand new already finished from purely intelligent design.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> /chuckles.....how many baby computers did a pair of typewriters have to have before one survived to puberty......
Click to expand...


You can deflect all you want, the simple fact is that computers evolved from earlier machines. See how evolution works?


----------



## PostmodernProph

BillyP said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> Computers evolved from typewriters, abaci, calculators, etc... Not thought up out of the blue as something brand new already finished from purely intelligent design.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> /chuckles.....how many baby computers did a pair of typewriters have to have before one survived to puberty......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can deflect all you want, the simple fact is that computers evolved from earlier machines. See how evolution works?
Click to expand...


the biology of circuits.....funny....but stupid all the same.......


----------



## Boss

Steven_R said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is being split into two very different theories here. Macro and Micro... Micro evolution is the slight changes which happen to a species over time, like people growing taller, or bears growing white fur instead of brown. Not many people can refute micro evolution because the evidence is clear this does happen. When you read that most scientists believe in "evolution" this is what they are talking about, micro evolution. Macro evolution, on the other hand, is not supported with scientific evidence other than micro evolution. It's a theory that these little changes over time in micro evolution eventually caused larger change at the genus level. It is a total speculation. We have no evidence to prove this kind of evolution ever happened, other than the fact we have all these various forms of life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're right. Aside from the fossils, genetics, lab experiments on bacteria, and comparing populations in the wild (e.g. ring species), we don't have anything to go on.
> 
> Let's say you're right and only microevolution exists. What happens when we expand that timeline to millions of years and hundreds of thousands of generations? If we start with a population of bears and half microevolve to have white hair and the other microevolve to spend more time swimming and develop traits, how long will it be before they can no longer interbreed? And if they no longer can interbreed, then what?
Click to expand...


Not "aside from" but including all fossils, genetics, lab experiments on bacteria and other information. It's not that we don't have anything to go on, it's that we have plenty. Everything just indicates macroevolution doesn't happen. The "oh but it takes millions of years" excuse is equivalent to saying... if you drop a ball millions of times, eventually it won't fall to the ground. There is no evidence of that. 

In order for macroevolution to happen, organisms must do something we've never observed them doing and can't prove they are capable of doing. We can speculate all day long but speculations are not proof. And that is the problem here, we have some people who want to claim these speculations are truth that can't be challenged. It's either intellectual dishonesty or scientific illiteracy. 

Species within a given genus can change dramatically over time, through generations of reproduction, creating entirely new species of life. But they remain in the same genus. A brown bear and polar bear are in the same genus. They share a common ancestor. The problem is, those who dismiss the possibility of creationism, can't explain the countless different forms of life unless all life ultimately emerged from a single cell organism. So this completely speculative theory of macroevolution becomes the best explanation. It has no basis in science, no evidence to support it, we've never observed it or been able to replicate it in a lab. In fact, it defies everything we know about biological systems.


----------



## Boss

BillyP said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> Computers evolved from typewriters, abaci, calculators, etc... Not thought up out of the blue as something brand new already finished from purely intelligent design.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> /chuckles.....how many baby computers did a pair of typewriters have to have before one survived to puberty......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can deflect all you want, the simple fact is that computers evolved from earlier machines. See how evolution works?
Click to expand...



Correction: See how intelligent design works?


----------



## Steven_R

You man like when Dr. Lenski observed E. Coli suddenly being able to use the citrate in a solution when they couldn't before?


----------



## BreezeWood

Boss said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> /chuckles.....how many baby computers did a pair of typewriters have to have before one survived to puberty......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can deflect all you want, the simple fact is that computers evolved from earlier machines. See how evolution works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correction: See how intelligent design works?
Click to expand...



are you implying God is engineering the changes for the physiological evolutions on Earth - 

religionist haven't a clue scripturaly ... is their problem.

.


----------



## Boss

BreezeWood said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can deflect all you want, the simple fact is that computers evolved from earlier machines. See how evolution works?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correction: See how intelligent design works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> are you implying God is engineering the changes for the physiological evolutions on Earth -
> 
> religionist haven't a clue scripturaly ... is their problem.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I don't know about scripture and religion. But yes.... God IS the Engineer.


----------



## Steven_R

Boss said:


> God IS the Engineer.



Given the problems with the human spine, God obviously needs to repeat his Statics course.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The light socket might be able to make more electricity but the electricity it made 2 seconds ago is gone.  No soul.  It doesn't live on forever.  Nothing does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure if you understand how electricity works but I'm pretty sure the light socket doesn't make it. According to the laws of thermodynamics, energy can't be created or destroyed, so it must live on forever.
> 
> So you don't think you have a soul?
Click to expand...


What about a mosquito, frog, fish or cockroach?  Do they have souls?  What happens to their energy when they die?


----------



## Montrovant

BillyP said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> Computers evolved from typewriters, abaci, calculators, etc... Not thought up out of the blue as something brand new already finished from purely intelligent design.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> /chuckles.....how many baby computers did a pair of typewriters have to have before one survived to puberty......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can deflect all you want, the simple fact is that computers evolved from earlier machines. See how evolution works?
Click to expand...


Of course, there is a difference between biologic evolution and the word as you are using it.

Mixing uses for the word evolution does not help make the case for biological evolution.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The light socket might be able to make more electricity but the electricity it made 2 seconds ago is gone.  No soul.  It doesn't live on forever.  Nothing does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure if you understand how electricity works but I'm pretty sure the light socket doesn't make it. According to the laws of thermodynamics, energy can't be created or destroyed, so it must live on forever.
> 
> So you don't think you have a soul?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about a mosquito, frog, fish or cockroach?  Do they have souls?  What happens to their energy when they die?
Click to expand...


I don't think they have souls, so there is no spiritual energy there. Breeze tends to disagree with me on that, and I've said that he could be correct, all life could have spiritual connection. All I know for sure is that humans do, and it appears to be the thing that makes us radically different from all other living things. 

And you see, that's the whole problem here... you can formulate all kinds of junk science theories and speculations about how humans came to be without spiritual interaction, but the radical difference in humans and other living things is impossible to explain without spirituality.


----------



## PostmodernProph

Steven_R said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> God IS the Engineer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given the problems with the human spine, God obviously needs to repeat his Statics course.
Click to expand...


takes a lot of backbone to hold up that argument....


----------



## BillyP

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure if you understand how electricity works but I'm pretty sure the light socket doesn't make it. According to the laws of thermodynamics, energy can't be created or destroyed, so it must live on forever.
> 
> So you don't think you have a soul?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about a mosquito, frog, fish or cockroach?  Do they have souls?  What happens to their energy when they die?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think they have souls, so there is no spiritual energy there. Breeze tends to disagree with me on that, and I've said that he could be correct, all life could have spiritual connection. All I know for sure is that humans do, and it appears to be the thing that makes us radically different from all other living things.
> 
> And you see, that's the whole problem here... you can formulate all kinds of junk science theories and speculations about how humans came to be without spiritual interaction, but the radical difference in humans and other living things is impossible to explain without spirituality.
Click to expand...


...or an alien intervention.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure if you understand how electricity works but I'm pretty sure the light socket doesn't make it. According to the laws of thermodynamics, energy can't be created or destroyed, so it must live on forever.
> 
> So you don't think you have a soul?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about a mosquito, frog, fish or cockroach?  Do they have souls?  What happens to their energy when they die?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think they have souls, so there is no spiritual energy there. Breeze tends to disagree with me on that, and I've said that he could be correct, all life could have spiritual connection. All I know for sure is that humans do, and it appears to be the thing that makes us radically different from all other living things.
> 
> And you see, that's the whole problem here... you can formulate all kinds of junk science theories and speculations about how humans came to be without spiritual interaction, but the radical difference in humans and other living things is impossible to explain without spirituality.
Click to expand...


The only difference between us and the other animals is that we are the only ones, as far as we know, that have brains capable of imagining up gods, ghosts, witches, angels, devils and miracles.  

The same energy that drives you also keeps that mosquito alive fool.  So if you understand that they don't have souls then you must be able to comprehend that neither do you.  You only HOPE you do and you don't THINK they do.  Fact is you are just talking out of your ass.  Wishful thinking with zero proof.  

Now you just have to realize how arrogant and ignorant it is of you to think that you are more special than the mosquito and monkey and that your "spirit" will live on forever.  What a hoot.  You seem to be able to understand that when a fish dies, that's it, but you think somehow your energy is more special.  How arrogant/narcissistic of you to think you are so special.  Guess what?  You aren't.  

When you die, like a shark, sheep, goat, snake, mouse, bird, nat, lion, elephant or dolphin, that's it.  Everything about you dies.  No re incarnations, no going to heaven, etc.  That's all wishful thinking.


----------



## BreezeWood

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correction: See how intelligent design works?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> are you implying God is engineering the changes for the physiological evolutions on Earth -
> 
> religionist haven't a clue scripturaly ... is their problem.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know about scripture and religion. But yes.... God IS the Engineer.
Click to expand...



as written from the point of view life's involvement remains the same while physiology is the product of the given life's intent - from the beginning life became flora and fauna whether by choice or not and how the life shapes its existence is not the preview of the God but will be judged by its final accomplishment.

all physiology has a similar root in a single cell, the intent of each individual life, Spirit through time has determined its own unique shape.

.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about a mosquito, frog, fish or cockroach?  Do they have souls?  What happens to their energy when they die?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think they have souls, so there is no spiritual energy there. Breeze tends to disagree with me on that, and I've said that he could be correct, all life could have spiritual connection. All I know for sure is that humans do, and it appears to be the thing that makes us radically different from all other living things.
> 
> And you see, that's the whole problem here... you can formulate all kinds of junk science theories and speculations about how humans came to be without spiritual interaction, but the radical difference in humans and other living things is impossible to explain without spirituality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only difference between us and the other animals is that we are the only ones, as far as we know, that have brains capable of imagining up gods, ghosts, witches, angels, devils and miracles.
> 
> The same energy that drives you also keeps that mosquito alive fool.  So if you understand that they don't have souls then you must be able to comprehend that neither do you.  You only HOPE you do and you don't THINK they do.  Fact is you are just talking out of your ass.  Wishful thinking with zero proof.
> 
> Now you just have to realize how arrogant and ignorant it is of you to think that you are more special than the mosquito and monkey and that your "spirit" will live on forever.  What a hoot.  You seem to be able to understand that when a fish dies, that's it, but you think somehow your energy is more special.  How arrogant/narcissistic of you to think you are so special.  Guess what?  You aren't.
> 
> When you die, like a shark, sheep, goat, snake, mouse, bird, nat, lion, elephant or dolphin, that's it.  Everything about you dies.  No re incarnations, no going to heaven, etc.  That's all wishful thinking.
Click to expand...


You're conflating and confounding spiritual and physical energy. They are not the same thing. 

If you don't understand how humans are more special than a mosquito or ape, I can't help you. Anyone who objectively looks at the advancement of the species can comprehend that humans have far exceeded any other species on the planet. You claim it's because of our special and unique brains, but where did that come from? It's a fairly impressive attribute just to have happened through nature and random chance. 

When you die, just like when anything physical dies, the organism becomes inorganic and stops living. If spiritual energy is what enabled us to live, we would never die. Only our spirit relies on spiritual energy, and it transcends time, which is a physical element of a physical universe. We understand what time is, we know that it's a physical parameter of a physical universe. The spiritual created the physical, it's beyond physical constraints or principles.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think they have souls, so there is no spiritual energy there. Breeze tends to disagree with me on that, and I've said that he could be correct, all life could have spiritual connection. All I know for sure is that humans do, and it appears to be the thing that makes us radically different from all other living things.
> 
> And you see, that's the whole problem here... you can formulate all kinds of junk science theories and speculations about how humans came to be without spiritual interaction, but the radical difference in humans and other living things is impossible to explain without spirituality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only difference between us and the other animals is that we are the only ones, as far as we know, that have brains capable of imagining up gods, ghosts, witches, angels, devils and miracles.
> 
> The same energy that drives you also keeps that mosquito alive fool.  So if you understand that they don't have souls then you must be able to comprehend that neither do you.  You only HOPE you do and you don't THINK they do.  Fact is you are just talking out of your ass.  Wishful thinking with zero proof.
> 
> Now you just have to realize how arrogant and ignorant it is of you to think that you are more special than the mosquito and monkey and that your "spirit" will live on forever.  What a hoot.  You seem to be able to understand that when a fish dies, that's it, but you think somehow your energy is more special.  How arrogant/narcissistic of you to think you are so special.  Guess what?  You aren't.
> 
> When you die, like a shark, sheep, goat, snake, mouse, bird, nat, lion, elephant or dolphin, that's it.  Everything about you dies.  No re incarnations, no going to heaven, etc.  That's all wishful thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're conflating and confounding spiritual and physical energy. They are not the same thing.
> 
> If you don't understand how humans are more special than a mosquito or ape, I can't help you. Anyone who objectively looks at the advancement of the species can comprehend that humans have far exceeded any other species on the planet. You claim it's because of our special and unique brains, but where did that come from? It's a fairly impressive attribute just to have happened through nature and random chance.
> 
> When you die, just like when anything physical dies, the organism becomes inorganic and stops living. If spiritual energy is what enabled us to live, we would never die. Only our spirit relies on spiritual energy, and it transcends time, which is a physical element of a physical universe. We understand what time is, we know that it's a physical parameter of a physical universe. The spiritual created the physical, it's beyond physical constraints or principles.
Click to expand...


There's going to be a special on PBS about some of the really smarter animals on the food chain.  The Crow for example is really smart.  A lot smarter than a dove for example.  So does the Crow have a soul?  A dolphin is smarter than a shark.  So does the dolphin have a soul?  Dogs should have souls too.  And a lot of people can't believe that dogs don't go to heaven.  We grow very attached to them.  So a lot of us want to believe dogs go to heaven too.  So just as silly as that sounds to you, you sound that silly to me when you say you feel you are so much more special than all the other animals on the planet that you have a special soul that lives on forever........I am seriously laughing at you right now.......Do you read the shit you write to me and actually believe you are so special?  That is such an arrogant and ignorant thought.  Wishful thinking and all that.  

OMG Boss you would have loved last night I was watching an all black ministry and he had this woman who apparently was a sinner and he put her in a trance and made the devil get out and put god in her and she collapsed and she did the twitching and everyone was swarming around and then the preacher took off her jewelry and said she doesn't need that stuff anymore and when it was all done one of the guys holding her up gave her her jewelry back but one didn't and the camera caught her reaching out and grabbing him in a way as if to say hold on a minute now I done played along but now give me my shit back brotha.  The camera should not have caught that.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think they have souls, so there is no spiritual energy there. Breeze tends to disagree with me on that, and I've said that he could be correct, all life could have spiritual connection. All I know for sure is that humans do, and it appears to be the thing that makes us radically different from all other living things.
> 
> And you see, that's the whole problem here... you can formulate all kinds of junk science theories and speculations about how humans came to be without spiritual interaction, but the radical difference in humans and other living things is impossible to explain without spirituality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only difference between us and the other animals is that we are the only ones, as far as we know, that have brains capable of imagining up gods, ghosts, witches, angels, devils and miracles.
> 
> The same energy that drives you also keeps that mosquito alive fool.  So if you understand that they don't have souls then you must be able to comprehend that neither do you.  You only HOPE you do and you don't THINK they do.  Fact is you are just talking out of your ass.  Wishful thinking with zero proof.
> 
> Now you just have to realize how arrogant and ignorant it is of you to think that you are more special than the mosquito and monkey and that your "spirit" will live on forever.  What a hoot.  You seem to be able to understand that when a fish dies, that's it, but you think somehow your energy is more special.  How arrogant/narcissistic of you to think you are so special.  Guess what?  You aren't.
> 
> When you die, like a shark, sheep, goat, snake, mouse, bird, nat, lion, elephant or dolphin, that's it.  Everything about you dies.  No re incarnations, no going to heaven, etc.  That's all wishful thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're conflating and confounding spiritual and physical energy. They are not the same thing.
> 
> If you don't understand how humans are more special than a mosquito or ape, I can't help you. Anyone who objectively looks at the advancement of the species can comprehend that humans have far exceeded any other species on the planet. You claim it's because of our special and unique brains, but where did that come from? It's a fairly impressive attribute just to have happened through nature and random chance.
> 
> When you die, just like when anything physical dies, the organism becomes inorganic and stops living. If spiritual energy is what enabled us to live, we would never die. Only our spirit relies on spiritual energy, and it transcends time, which is a physical element of a physical universe. We understand what time is, we know that it's a physical parameter of a physical universe. The spiritual created the physical, it's beyond physical constraints or principles.
Click to expand...


Three ways of looking at it.

1.  No one has a soul.  Not us or the animals.  When we die, that's it.

2.  Only humans have souls.  I think this is the most ignorant belief to have.

3.  We all have souls.  I think to leave the animals out and say only we have souls is just a horrible thing to think.  Don't the organized religions say animals were put on this planet for us?  What a bunch of horse shit considering that Dinosaurs were here first back when we were small fury rodent like mammals.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think they have souls, so there is no spiritual energy there. Breeze tends to disagree with me on that, and I've said that he could be correct, all life could have spiritual connection. All I know for sure is that humans do, and it appears to be the thing that makes us radically different from all other living things.
> 
> And you see, that's the whole problem here... you can formulate all kinds of junk science theories and speculations about how humans came to be without spiritual interaction, but the radical difference in humans and other living things is impossible to explain without spirituality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only difference between us and the other animals is that we are the only ones, as far as we know, that have brains capable of imagining up gods, ghosts, witches, angels, devils and miracles.
> 
> The same energy that drives you also keeps that mosquito alive fool.  So if you understand that they don't have souls then you must be able to comprehend that neither do you.  You only HOPE you do and you don't THINK they do.  Fact is you are just talking out of your ass.  Wishful thinking with zero proof.
> 
> Now you just have to realize how arrogant and ignorant it is of you to think that you are more special than the mosquito and monkey and that your "spirit" will live on forever.  What a hoot.  You seem to be able to understand that when a fish dies, that's it, but you think somehow your energy is more special.  How arrogant/narcissistic of you to think you are so special.  Guess what?  You aren't.
> 
> When you die, like a shark, sheep, goat, snake, mouse, bird, nat, lion, elephant or dolphin, that's it.  Everything about you dies.  No re incarnations, no going to heaven, etc.  That's all wishful thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're conflating and confounding spiritual and physical energy. They are not the same thing.
> 
> If you don't understand how humans are more special than a mosquito or ape, I can't help you. Anyone who objectively looks at the advancement of the species can comprehend that humans have far exceeded any other species on the planet. You claim it's because of our special and unique brains, but where did that come from? It's a fairly impressive attribute just to have happened through nature and random chance.
> 
> When you die, just like when anything physical dies, the organism becomes inorganic and stops living. If spiritual energy is what enabled us to live, we would never die. Only our spirit relies on spiritual energy, and it transcends time, which is a physical element of a physical universe. We understand what time is, we know that it's a physical parameter of a physical universe. The spiritual created the physical, it's beyond physical constraints or principles.
Click to expand...


So what about a baby who dies at birth???  What happens to that soul?  Does it live on as a baby forever?  Does it ever learn to talk?  Does it grow up to be at least 21 so it can get some pussy and drink a beer in heaven?  Tell me what happens to that soul.

The Christians, Muslims & Jews probably have an answer but I'm not interested in what they think.  I want to know what you think happens to that soul.  

I'll tell you what I think happens.  Same thing that happens to Bessy the Cow when we slit her throat or same thing that happens to a fish when you gut it.  It is an animal, and other than the size of the brain, you are no better, different or special.  We as humans of course value human life more than other animals but I'd say sometimes too much.

In Switzerland all cows and chickens have to be free range.  No treating animals like prisoners.  You religious humans are so arrogant and think so highly of yourselves.  You also have very wild imaginations.

I believe as a liberal I'm programmed to care more about animals than you conservatives.  You guys need to think animals don't have souls especially the way you treat them here in America.  Cows can't even fucking walk around they are crammed so close together.  I feel so guilty eating cow.  I wish we all had to go out and shoot a deer or wild pig for food.  Or do like Switzerland and open range our cattle.


----------



## Boss

So you aren't going to address my points and instead, laugh and chortle at what people believe and relate some idiotic story about a TV show you watched? You're illustrating how it's nearly impossible to have a rational conversation with you. Why should anyone bother with your ignorance and perpetuation of ignorance?


----------



## Slyhunter

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only difference between us and the other animals is that we are the only ones, as far as we know, that have brains capable of imagining up gods, ghosts, witches, angels, devils and miracles.
> 
> The same energy that drives you also keeps that mosquito alive fool.  So if you understand that they don't have souls then you must be able to comprehend that neither do you.  You only HOPE you do and you don't THINK they do.  Fact is you are just talking out of your ass.  Wishful thinking with zero proof.
> 
> Now you just have to realize how arrogant and ignorant it is of you to think that you are more special than the mosquito and monkey and that your "spirit" will live on forever.  What a hoot.  You seem to be able to understand that when a fish dies, that's it, but you think somehow your energy is more special.  How arrogant/narcissistic of you to think you are so special.  Guess what?  You aren't.
> 
> When you die, like a shark, sheep, goat, snake, mouse, bird, nat, lion, elephant or dolphin, that's it.  Everything about you dies.  No re incarnations, no going to heaven, etc.  That's all wishful thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're conflating and confounding spiritual and physical energy. They are not the same thing.
> 
> If you don't understand how humans are more special than a mosquito or ape, I can't help you. Anyone who objectively looks at the advancement of the species can comprehend that humans have far exceeded any other species on the planet. You claim it's because of our special and unique brains, but where did that come from? It's a fairly impressive attribute just to have happened through nature and random chance.
> 
> When you die, just like when anything physical dies, the organism becomes inorganic and stops living. If spiritual energy is what enabled us to live, we would never die. Only our spirit relies on spiritual energy, and it transcends time, which is a physical element of a physical universe. We understand what time is, we know that it's a physical parameter of a physical universe. The spiritual created the physical, it's beyond physical constraints or principles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's going to be a special on PBS about some of the really smarter animals on the food chain.  The Crow for example is really smart.  A lot smarter than a dove for example.  So does the Crow have a soul?  A dolphin is smarter than a shark.  So does the dolphin have a soul?  Dogs should have souls too.  And a lot of people can't believe that dogs don't go to heaven.  We grow very attached to them.  So a lot of us want to believe dogs go to heaven too.  So just as silly as that sounds to you, you sound that silly to me when you say you feel you are so much more special than all the other animals on the planet that you have a special soul that lives on forever........I am seriously laughing at you right now.......Do you read the shit you write to me and actually believe you are so special?  That is such an arrogant and ignorant thought.  Wishful thinking and all that.
> 
> OMG Boss you would have loved last night I was watching an all black ministry and he had this woman who apparently was a sinner and he put her in a trance and made the devil get out and put god in her and she collapsed and she did the twitching and everyone was swarming around and then the preacher took off her jewelry and said she doesn't need that stuff anymore and when it was all done one of the guys holding her up gave her her jewelry back but one didn't and the camera caught her reaching out and grabbing him in a way as if to say hold on a minute now I done played along but now give me my shit back brotha.  The camera should not have caught that.
Click to expand...


I like the indians point of view, I myself am part Iroquois. Everything living, grass and trees included, has a spirit. Not to say it's a powerful spirit, but non-the-less.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> So you aren't going to address my points and instead, laugh and chortle at what people believe and relate some idiotic story about a TV show you watched? You're illustrating how it's nearly impossible to have a rational conversation with you. Why should anyone bother with your ignorance and perpetuation of ignorance?



You are trying to convince me of something you have no concrete proof of.  In some ways you are even worse than Christians and Muslim because at least they believe this god once came and talked to their ancestors.  You know that isn't probably true and yet still you believe.  So you are the most annoying of all because you are the future of religion.  When I talk to you, I see the future before people completely give up on the idea of god but after christianity and all the other organized religions have died out.  

You too missed a very good point I was trying to make.  I want to know what happens to a young baby that is born prematurely or is aborted.  Does it have a soul too?  And without the organized religions, how do you know this?  Are you just another imbred knockoff of christianity?  Cherry picker?


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> So you aren't going to address my points and instead, laugh and chortle at what people believe and relate some idiotic story about a TV show you watched? You're illustrating how it's nearly impossible to have a rational conversation with you. Why should anyone bother with your ignorance and perpetuation of ignorance?



You call your position rational?  And forgive me sir but I see on here every other day people voicing their frustration with you so don't act like you are easy to talk to. 

I think the same things about you sometimes to be honest.  Oh, and I feel like I got under your skin or won in some small way.  Thanks for losing your cool ya fucking hick red neck from the dirty imbred south.


----------



## sealybobo

Slyhunter said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're conflating and confounding spiritual and physical energy. They are not the same thing.
> 
> If you don't understand how humans are more special than a mosquito or ape, I can't help you. Anyone who objectively looks at the advancement of the species can comprehend that humans have far exceeded any other species on the planet. You claim it's because of our special and unique brains, but where did that come from? It's a fairly impressive attribute just to have happened through nature and random chance.
> 
> When you die, just like when anything physical dies, the organism becomes inorganic and stops living. If spiritual energy is what enabled us to live, we would never die. Only our spirit relies on spiritual energy, and it transcends time, which is a physical element of a physical universe. We understand what time is, we know that it's a physical parameter of a physical universe. The spiritual created the physical, it's beyond physical constraints or principles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's going to be a special on PBS about some of the really smarter animals on the food chain.  The Crow for example is really smart.  A lot smarter than a dove for example.  So does the Crow have a soul?  A dolphin is smarter than a shark.  So does the dolphin have a soul?  Dogs should have souls too.  And a lot of people can't believe that dogs don't go to heaven.  We grow very attached to them.  So a lot of us want to believe dogs go to heaven too.  So just as silly as that sounds to you, you sound that silly to me when you say you feel you are so much more special than all the other animals on the planet that you have a special soul that lives on forever........I am seriously laughing at you right now.......Do you read the shit you write to me and actually believe you are so special?  That is such an arrogant and ignorant thought.  Wishful thinking and all that.
> 
> OMG Boss you would have loved last night I was watching an all black ministry and he had this woman who apparently was a sinner and he put her in a trance and made the devil get out and put god in her and she collapsed and she did the twitching and everyone was swarming around and then the preacher took off her jewelry and said she doesn't need that stuff anymore and when it was all done one of the guys holding her up gave her her jewelry back but one didn't and the camera caught her reaching out and grabbing him in a way as if to say hold on a minute now I done played along but now give me my shit back brotha.  The camera should not have caught that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I like the indians point of view, I myself am part Iroquois. Everything living, grass and trees included, has a spirit. Not to say it's a powerful spirit, but non-the-less.
Click to expand...


I would like to believe so too but science says probably not.  But it is no doubt a beautiful thought.  Wishful thinking.  

When you say indian do you mean the little squaw injun Boss?


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you aren't going to address my points and instead, laugh and chortle at what people believe and relate some idiotic story about a TV show you watched? You're illustrating how it's nearly impossible to have a rational conversation with you. Why should anyone bother with your ignorance and perpetuation of ignorance?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are trying to convince me of something you have no concrete proof of.  In some ways you are even worse than Christians and Muslim because at least they believe this god once came and talked to their ancestors.  You know that isn't probably true and yet still you believe.  So you are the most annoying of all because you are the future of religion.  When I talk to you, I see the future before people completely give up on the idea of god but after christianity and all the other organized religions have died out.
> 
> You too missed a very good point I was trying to make.  I want to know what happens to a young baby that is born prematurely or is aborted.  Does it have a soul too?  And without the organized religions, how do you know this?  Are you just another imbred knockoff of christianity?  Cherry picker?
Click to expand...


I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I don't need to convince you or prove anything to you. I don't understand any other way to describe what I connect with personally besides "spiritual energy" or "God." You can call me stupid, inbred, hick... whatever, I still know that I am making a connection with something real. You can hate me, you can denigrate me, you can insult me, but it doesn't change what I know that I am connecting with. 

It's not in my head, it's not imagination, or I would not feel a very real benefit from it. You can claim it's my imagination or try to explain it away with speculatory bullshit that science does not support, but I still know that it's real because I connect with it and gain benefit from it. You can let that bother you, and it can get under your skin, but I can't change what I know. It can eat at you so much that you feel compelled to spend days and weeks here in this forum spewing the same debunked nonsense over and over again, rejecting what I say, denying the points I've made, refusing to accept my testimonial and the testimonials of others, and it still does not matter to me one iota. You can keep this up for another year, ten years, twenty, fifty... doesn't matter, won't matter. 

There is literally NOTHING you're ever going to be able to do that will make me think otherwise. And I bet that I speak for just about anyone who believes in God here. All you are succeeding in doing is proving the point of my OP. No one who didn't believe in God would spend this much of their time trying to refute God. 

Think about this in some context other than God for a moment... You may think Elvis is the greatest, I may think the Beatles are the greatest... we can argue back and forth, both making our points and countering each other's viewpoints, but at some time we're both going to eventually conclude the argument is pointless because we're not changing the other person's mind, and we're going to find something better to do. It doesn't mean we changed our mind, or the other person "won" the argument, we just have better things in life to do than repeat the same argumentative points over and over for no reason. We agree to disagree. 

So I have to assume there is more to this than you not believing in God. It's as if you are on a mission to change people's mind about a God that you fully understand is real. That's why this is SO important to you. This means you can't abandon the argument and agree to disagree, because your motivation is not forthright. You believe in God, you know this God is real, and as long as people believe in this God, you can't get to do all the fun stuff you want to do. And that is what this is all about in a nutshell. You won't admit this, of course, but I believe that is the case here. Nothing else can rationally explain why you've continued on and on like this.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you aren't going to address my points and instead, laugh and chortle at what people believe and relate some idiotic story about a TV show you watched? You're illustrating how it's nearly impossible to have a rational conversation with you. Why should anyone bother with your ignorance and perpetuation of ignorance?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You call your position rational?  And forgive me sir but I see on here every other day people voicing their frustration with you so don't act like you are easy to talk to.
> 
> I think the same things about you sometimes to be honest.  Oh, and I feel like I got under your skin or won in some small way.  Thanks for losing your cool ya fucking hick red neck from the dirty imbred south.
Click to expand...


In the words of one of my favorite philosophers, Jules Winnfield: _"If my answers frighten you, Vincent, then you should cease asking scary questions."_ People get frustrated talking to me because I am spot on with my arguments and they can't refute them. When people get frustrated at me and start hurling insults and names, it lets me know I've said something that they had no response for or couldn't refute. Makes my day!  Others may get hurt feelings and most people enjoy being liked by others... I'm not built that way.


----------



## Montrovant




----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you aren't going to address my points and instead, laugh and chortle at what people believe and relate some idiotic story about a TV show you watched? You're illustrating how it's nearly impossible to have a rational conversation with you. Why should anyone bother with your ignorance and perpetuation of ignorance?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are trying to convince me of something you have no concrete proof of.  In some ways you are even worse than Christians and Muslim because at least they believe this god once came and talked to their ancestors.  You know that isn't probably true and yet still you believe.  So you are the most annoying of all because you are the future of religion.  When I talk to you, I see the future before people completely give up on the idea of god but after christianity and all the other organized religions have died out.
> 
> You too missed a very good point I was trying to make.  I want to know what happens to a young baby that is born prematurely or is aborted.  Does it have a soul too?  And without the organized religions, how do you know this?  Are you just another imbred knockoff of christianity?  Cherry picker?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I don't need to convince you or prove anything to you. I don't understand any other way to describe what I connect with personally besides "spiritual energy" or "God." You can call me stupid, inbred, hick... whatever, I still know that I am making a connection with something real. You can hate me, you can denigrate me, you can insult me, but it doesn't change what I know that I am connecting with.
> 
> It's not in my head, it's not imagination, or I would not feel a very real benefit from it. You can claim it's my imagination or try to explain it away with speculatory bullshit that science does not support, but I still know that it's real because I connect with it and gain benefit from it. You can let that bother you, and it can get under your skin, but I can't change what I know. It can eat at you so much that you feel compelled to spend days and weeks here in this forum spewing the same debunked nonsense over and over again, rejecting what I say, denying the points I've made, refusing to accept my testimonial and the testimonials of others, and it still does not matter to me one iota. You can keep this up for another year, ten years, twenty, fifty... doesn't matter, won't matter.
> 
> There is literally NOTHING you're ever going to be able to do that will make me think otherwise. And I bet that I speak for just about anyone who believes in God here. All you are succeeding in doing is proving the point of my OP. No one who didn't believe in God would spend this much of their time trying to refute God.
> 
> Think about this in some context other than God for a moment... You may think Elvis is the greatest, I may think the Beatles are the greatest... we can argue back and forth, both making our points and countering each other's viewpoints, but at some time we're both going to eventually conclude the argument is pointless because we're not changing the other person's mind, and we're going to find something better to do. It doesn't mean we changed our mind, or the other person "won" the argument, we just have better things in life to do than repeat the same argumentative points over and over for no reason. We agree to disagree.
> 
> So I have to assume there is more to this than you not believing in God. It's as if you are on a mission to change people's mind about a God that you fully understand is real. That's why this is SO important to you. This means you can't abandon the argument and agree to disagree, because your motivation is not forthright. You believe in God, you know this God is real, and as long as people believe in this God, you can't get to do all the fun stuff you want to do. And that is what this is all about in a nutshell. You won't admit this, of course, but I believe that is the case here. Nothing else can rationally explain why you've continued on and on like this.
Click to expand...


I understand exactly where you are and what you feel and think because I use to feel the same way.  I just woke up.

I'll give you an example.  Emotion.  Lets say crying.  One time I had a woman on top of me and I was sitting indian style and she was grinding me and I came and I cried.  It felt so good tears streamed out.  I didn't "boo hoo" cry or sob but I cried.  It felt that good.  The physical/emotional aspects of life are amazing I will give you that.  But that emotion wasn't the devil or hell. 

Anyways, I get it.  It's hard to believe there is no god.  But really, you have a soul but a bear doesn't?  How arrogant.  And you never answered me about a baby stillborn or aborted.  Does it live forever too?  Does it grow up to be 18 at least?  

And debating with you isn't my favorite thing to do.  I get it that we will just have to agree to disagree.  That's why I love every once in awhile I find someone else on USMB who gets it.  There are a lot more of us out there than you know.

And no.  No alterior motive other than I love spreading the truth, the gospel as much as I can.  I feel it's important to the survival of our species that we evolve beyond this childish thought.


----------



## BreezeWood

> *B:* *If you don't understand how humans are more special than a mosquito or ape, I can't help you ... humans have far exceeded any other species on the planet.*




and when left in a cell with a hungry Lion, what will you do ? - no ( spiritualist ), it was your God that put you in there.

.


----------



## sealybobo

Montrovant said:


>



The Buddha regarded soul-speculation as useless and illusory. He once said, 'Only through ignorance and delusion do men indulge in the dream that their souls are separate and self-existing entities. Their heart still clings to Self. They are anxious about heaven and they seek the pleasure of Self in heaven. Thus they cannot see the bliss of righteousness and the immortality of truth.' Selfish ideas appear in man's mind due to his conception of Self and craving for existence.


----------



## Montrovant

sealybobo said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Buddha regarded soul-speculation as useless and illusory. He once said, 'Only through ignorance and delusion do men indulge in the dream that their souls are separate and self-existing entities. Their heart still clings to Self. They are anxious about heaven and they seek the pleasure of Self in heaven. Thus they cannot see the bliss of righteousness and the immortality of truth.' Selfish ideas appear in man's mind due to his conception of Self and craving for existence.
Click to expand...


That's nice.

Why did you quote my post here?


----------



## PostmodernProph

BreezeWood said:


> *B:* *If you don't understand how humans are more special than a mosquito or ape, I can't help you ... humans have far exceeded any other species on the planet.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and when left in a cell with a hungry Lion, what will you do ? - no ( spiritualist ), it was your God that put you in there.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


have a fight with a lion.....


----------



## Boss

PostmodernProph said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *B:* *If you don't understand how humans are more special than a mosquito or ape, I can't help you ... humans have far exceeded any other species on the planet.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and when left in a cell with a hungry Lion, what will you do ? - no ( spiritualist ), it was your God that put you in there.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> have a fight with a lion.....
Click to expand...


Which prophet was it who the Pharaoh put in the den with the hungry lions? Daniel?


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are trying to convince me of something you have no concrete proof of.  In some ways you are even worse than Christians and Muslim because at least they believe this god once came and talked to their ancestors.  You know that isn't probably true and yet still you believe.  So you are the most annoying of all because you are the future of religion.  When I talk to you, I see the future before people completely give up on the idea of god but after christianity and all the other organized religions have died out.
> 
> You too missed a very good point I was trying to make.  I want to know what happens to a young baby that is born prematurely or is aborted.  Does it have a soul too?  And without the organized religions, how do you know this?  Are you just another imbred knockoff of christianity?  Cherry picker?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I don't need to convince you or prove anything to you. I don't understand any other way to describe what I connect with personally besides "spiritual energy" or "God." You can call me stupid, inbred, hick... whatever, I still know that I am making a connection with something real. You can hate me, you can denigrate me, you can insult me, but it doesn't change what I know that I am connecting with.
> 
> It's not in my head, it's not imagination, or I would not feel a very real benefit from it. You can claim it's my imagination or try to explain it away with speculatory bullshit that science does not support, but I still know that it's real because I connect with it and gain benefit from it. You can let that bother you, and it can get under your skin, but I can't change what I know. It can eat at you so much that you feel compelled to spend days and weeks here in this forum spewing the same debunked nonsense over and over again, rejecting what I say, denying the points I've made, refusing to accept my testimonial and the testimonials of others, and it still does not matter to me one iota. You can keep this up for another year, ten years, twenty, fifty... doesn't matter, won't matter.
> 
> There is literally NOTHING you're ever going to be able to do that will make me think otherwise. And I bet that I speak for just about anyone who believes in God here. All you are succeeding in doing is proving the point of my OP. No one who didn't believe in God would spend this much of their time trying to refute God.
> 
> Think about this in some context other than God for a moment... You may think Elvis is the greatest, I may think the Beatles are the greatest... we can argue back and forth, both making our points and countering each other's viewpoints, but at some time we're both going to eventually conclude the argument is pointless because we're not changing the other person's mind, and we're going to find something better to do. It doesn't mean we changed our mind, or the other person "won" the argument, we just have better things in life to do than repeat the same argumentative points over and over for no reason. We agree to disagree.
> 
> So I have to assume there is more to this than you not believing in God. It's as if you are on a mission to change people's mind about a God that you fully understand is real. That's why this is SO important to you. This means you can't abandon the argument and agree to disagree, because your motivation is not forthright. You believe in God, you know this God is real, and as long as people believe in this God, you can't get to do all the fun stuff you want to do. And that is what this is all about in a nutshell. You won't admit this, of course, but I believe that is the case here. Nothing else can rationally explain why you've continued on and on like this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand exactly where you are and what you feel and think because I use to feel the same way.  I just woke up.
> 
> I'll give you an example.  Emotion.  Lets say crying.  One time I had a woman on top of me and I was sitting indian style and she was grinding me and I came and I cried.  It felt so good tears streamed out.  I didn't "boo hoo" cry or sob but I cried.  It felt that good.  The physical/emotional aspects of life are amazing I will give you that.  But that emotion wasn't the devil or hell.
> 
> Anyways, I get it.  It's hard to believe there is no god.  But really, you have a soul but a bear doesn't?  How arrogant.  And you never answered me about a baby stillborn or aborted.  Does it live forever too?  Does it grow up to be 18 at least?
> 
> And debating with you isn't my favorite thing to do.  I get it that we will just have to agree to disagree.  That's why I love every once in awhile I find someone else on USMB who gets it.  There are a lot more of us out there than you know.
> 
> And no.  No alterior motive other than I love spreading the truth, the gospel as much as I can.  I feel it's important to the survival of our species that we evolve beyond this childish thought.
Click to expand...


No, you obviously don't understand what I feel. If you did, there would be no question in your mind about God's existence. I have answered all your questions. I told you that I don't know if bears and babies have souls. 

Grow up to be 18? The age of 18 is a physical notation of time passage, what does that have to do with spiritual energy that isn't physical? Grow up? You mean in a physical state of existence? No, there is no "grow up" when the spirit is timeless. Do they get to have sex or get drunk? You mean the physical things you do in a physical state of existence? Why would they need to do this? Why are you having such a hard time understanding the differences between physical and spiritual existence? I thought you believed as I do a few months ago? Sounds like you believed in some imaginary physical fantasy world to me.


----------



## PostmodernProph

Boss said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> and when left in a cell with a hungry Lion, what will you do ? - no ( spiritualist ), it was your God that put you in there.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> have a fight with a lion.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which prophet was it who the Pharaoh put in the den with the hungry lions? Daniel?
Click to expand...


Daniel yes, Pharaoh no.....it was the king of Persia, Darius....


----------



## BreezeWood

PostmodernProph said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> have a fight with a lion.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which prophet was it who the Pharaoh put in the den with the hungry lions? Daniel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel yes, Pharaoh no.....it was the king of Persia, Darius....
Click to expand...



Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani ... the same for those two above as the other one.


* (Hint) - Blade and Proph, not sure about yours but for the Almighty, its all or none to the end.

.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I don't need to convince you or prove anything to you. I don't understand any other way to describe what I connect with personally besides "spiritual energy" or "God." You can call me stupid, inbred, hick... whatever, I still know that I am making a connection with something real. You can hate me, you can denigrate me, you can insult me, but it doesn't change what I know that I am connecting with.
> 
> It's not in my head, it's not imagination, or I would not feel a very real benefit from it. You can claim it's my imagination or try to explain it away with speculatory bullshit that science does not support, but I still know that it's real because I connect with it and gain benefit from it. You can let that bother you, and it can get under your skin, but I can't change what I know. It can eat at you so much that you feel compelled to spend days and weeks here in this forum spewing the same debunked nonsense over and over again, rejecting what I say, denying the points I've made, refusing to accept my testimonial and the testimonials of others, and it still does not matter to me one iota. You can keep this up for another year, ten years, twenty, fifty... doesn't matter, won't matter.
> 
> There is literally NOTHING you're ever going to be able to do that will make me think otherwise. And I bet that I speak for just about anyone who believes in God here. All you are succeeding in doing is proving the point of my OP. No one who didn't believe in God would spend this much of their time trying to refute God.
> 
> Think about this in some context other than God for a moment... You may think Elvis is the greatest, I may think the Beatles are the greatest... we can argue back and forth, both making our points and countering each other's viewpoints, but at some time we're both going to eventually conclude the argument is pointless because we're not changing the other person's mind, and we're going to find something better to do. It doesn't mean we changed our mind, or the other person "won" the argument, we just have better things in life to do than repeat the same argumentative points over and over for no reason. We agree to disagree.
> 
> So I have to assume there is more to this than you not believing in God. It's as if you are on a mission to change people's mind about a God that you fully understand is real. That's why this is SO important to you. This means you can't abandon the argument and agree to disagree, because your motivation is not forthright. You believe in God, you know this God is real, and as long as people believe in this God, you can't get to do all the fun stuff you want to do. And that is what this is all about in a nutshell. You won't admit this, of course, but I believe that is the case here. Nothing else can rationally explain why you've continued on and on like this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand exactly where you are and what you feel and think because I use to feel the same way.  I just woke up.
> 
> I'll give you an example.  Emotion.  Lets say crying.  One time I had a woman on top of me and I was sitting indian style and she was grinding me and I came and I cried.  It felt so good tears streamed out.  I didn't "boo hoo" cry or sob but I cried.  It felt that good.  The physical/emotional aspects of life are amazing I will give you that.  But that emotion wasn't the devil or hell.
> 
> Anyways, I get it.  It's hard to believe there is no god.  But really, you have a soul but a bear doesn't?  How arrogant.  And you never answered me about a baby stillborn or aborted.  Does it live forever too?  Does it grow up to be 18 at least?
> 
> And debating with you isn't my favorite thing to do.  I get it that we will just have to agree to disagree.  That's why I love every once in awhile I find someone else on USMB who gets it.  There are a lot more of us out there than you know.
> 
> And no.  No alterior motive other than I love spreading the truth, the gospel as much as I can.  I feel it's important to the survival of our species that we evolve beyond this childish thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you obviously don't understand what I feel. If you did, there would be no question in your mind about God's existence. I have answered all your questions. I told you that I don't know if bears and babies have souls.
> 
> Grow up to be 18? The age of 18 is a physical notation of time passage, what does that have to do with spiritual energy that isn't physical? Grow up? You mean in a physical state of existence? No, there is no "grow up" when the spirit is timeless. Do they get to have sex or get drunk? You mean the physical things you do in a physical state of existence? Why would they need to do this? Why are you having such a hard time understanding the differences between physical and spiritual existence? I thought you believed as I do a few months ago? Sounds like you believed in some imaginary physical fantasy world to me.
Click to expand...


There use to be no question in my mind too.  I evolved out of that stage.  Maybe someday you will too.  Which brings me to my thought on the way in today.  I've been asking friends what religion they are.  Most of them, it seems like 90% of them hardly give a thought to god at all ever.  Most of them say they were "raised" Catholic or "raised" fill in the blank.  

They hardly give a thought to god.  And this is the common man's understanding of god.  They were told as a child the stories and no one ever even dared to ask them if they even believed in a god since they reached adulthood.  Most of them, without giving it much thought will say sure they believe in god.  They'll even claim to be christians.  But how much do they really believe and are they really christians?  The only thing that makes them christian is they were scared enough to say out loud that they believe Jesus is their lord and savior.  They don't dare even question the stories or dare think maybe the whole thing is made up.

Seems a lot of people I talk to even admit that they don't believe in god.  But I doubt they are being surveyed or claiming to be atheists.  I think most people just want to fit in, so they go with the group.  I'm a christian.  

But really are they?  Not enough people have had this adult rational conversation.  Fine, if after all this you still believe in a god, what can I say?  That's great for you.  I bet that makes you feel special. 

I feel special without the wild imagination or hope that a god talks to me and wants me to live forever when the sheeps soul just dies.  Wishful thinking.  But I'm sure none of these questions even shakes your faith a little.  Scardy cat.  Scared god's gonna punish you for doubting he is real.  Or will you feel stupid all those years you were talking to yourself?  

I remember driving around for a week feeling a little guilty not believing in god.  I use to talk to him and suddenly I found myself talking to myself about what a fool I was to believe in a god.  And he didn't strike me down.  

PS.  This isn't a karma thing.  Its ok to not believe in god.  As long as you don't turn into a dick thinking there are no consequences to your actions then it should be alright.  I hope if you one day realize there is no god you don't start murdering, lying and raping.  Would you?  Then you don't need a god to keep you in line.  Or maybe as a kid you did but grow up.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand exactly where you are and what you feel and think because I use to feel the same way.  I just woke up.
> 
> I'll give you an example.  Emotion.  Lets say crying.  One time I had a woman on top of me and I was sitting indian style and she was grinding me and I came and I cried.  It felt so good tears streamed out.  I didn't "boo hoo" cry or sob but I cried.  It felt that good.  The physical/emotional aspects of life are amazing I will give you that.  But that emotion wasn't the devil or hell.
> 
> Anyways, I get it.  It's hard to believe there is no god.  But really, you have a soul but a bear doesn't?  How arrogant.  And you never answered me about a baby stillborn or aborted.  Does it live forever too?  Does it grow up to be 18 at least?
> 
> And debating with you isn't my favorite thing to do.  I get it that we will just have to agree to disagree.  That's why I love every once in awhile I find someone else on USMB who gets it.  There are a lot more of us out there than you know.
> 
> And no.  No alterior motive other than I love spreading the truth, the gospel as much as I can.  I feel it's important to the survival of our species that we evolve beyond this childish thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you obviously don't understand what I feel. If you did, there would be no question in your mind about God's existence. I have answered all your questions. I told you that I don't know if bears and babies have souls.
> 
> Grow up to be 18? The age of 18 is a physical notation of time passage, what does that have to do with spiritual energy that isn't physical? Grow up? You mean in a physical state of existence? No, there is no "grow up" when the spirit is timeless. Do they get to have sex or get drunk? You mean the physical things you do in a physical state of existence? Why would they need to do this? Why are you having such a hard time understanding the differences between physical and spiritual existence? I thought you believed as I do a few months ago? Sounds like you believed in some imaginary physical fantasy world to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There use to be no question in my mind too.  I evolved out of that stage.  Maybe someday you will too.  Which brings me to my thought on the way in today.  I've been asking friends what religion they are.  Most of them, it seems like 90% of them hardly give a thought to god at all ever.  Most of them say they were "raised" Catholic or "raised" fill in the blank.
> 
> They hardly give a thought to god.  And this is the common man's understanding of god.  They were told as a child the stories and no one ever even dared to ask them if they even believed in a god since they reached adulthood.  Most of them, without giving it much thought will say sure they believe in god.  They'll even claim to be christians.  But how much do they really believe and are they really christians?  The only thing that makes them christian is they were scared enough to say out loud that they believe Jesus is their lord and savior.  They don't dare even question the stories or dare think maybe the whole thing is made up.
> 
> Seems a lot of people I talk to even admit that they don't believe in god.  But I doubt they are being surveyed or claiming to be atheists.  I think most people just want to fit in, so they go with the group.  I'm a christian.
> 
> But really are they?  Not enough people have had this adult rational conversation.  Fine, if after all this you still believe in a god, what can I say?  That's great for you.  I bet that makes you feel special.
> 
> I feel special without the wild imagination or hope that a god talks to me and wants me to live forever when the sheeps soul just dies.  Wishful thinking.  But I'm sure none of these questions even shakes your faith a little.  Scardy cat.  Scared god's gonna punish you for doubting he is real.  Or will you feel stupid all those years you were talking to yourself?
> 
> I remember driving around for a week feeling a little guilty not believing in god.  I use to talk to him and suddenly I found myself talking to myself about what a fool I was to believe in a god.  And he didn't strike me down.
> 
> PS.  This isn't a karma thing.  Its ok to not believe in god.  As long as you don't turn into a dick thinking there are no consequences to your actions then it should be alright.  I hope if you one day realize there is no god you don't start murdering, lying and raping.  Would you?  Then you don't need a god to keep you in line.  Or maybe as a kid you did but grow up.
Click to expand...


Again, you DID NOT believe as I do with no question in your mind, not given the really stupid and dumb questions you keep asking me. You're a really lost puppy when it comes to understanding God. I pray that one day you know the spiritual energy that I am aware of, but I honestly don't think you have ever known it. It doesn't make me feel special. It is not about me feeling special. It's more about something I can't live without and have no intention of ever trying to. You don't have to believe it, I don't get any extra credit if you do. I wish I could say that I don't really care if you ever believe it, but as a human who understands the benefits, I really do hope that you one day find God. 

I'm sorry that you've convinced yourself God isn't real, but that is something your soul will have to pay the consequence for in the end. I can't explain why other people you're in contact with don't believe or don't "really" believe, it's not for me to judge. All I know is, the world would be a much better place if everyone knew the connection to spiritual energy that I am aware of. It blesses you with something you can't get on your own and fills an empty void that nothing else can fill. I honestly feel sorry for people who don't know that peace and contentment of spirit. 

I have noticed, whenever people convince themselves there is no God, as you have done... the first thing they usually begin to do is try and fill that void with pleasures of the flesh. Sexual promiscuity, drinking, drugs, etc. It usually starts off innocent enough, just a way to have a little fun on the weekends. But because you are subconsciously trying to fill the void of spiritual energy, you continue to follow a self-destructive path of addiction and dependence. This is going to eventually lead to problems with relationships, issues of trust, or even the ability to rationalize right from wrong. This never happens overnight, it takes years sometimes. You'll never meet an Atheist who isn't trying to fill that void in some way. And mind you, it's not always just Atheists, it can be so-called Christians or religious people as well. Just because someone claims they are a Christian doesn't mean they know God.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you obviously don't understand what I feel. If you did, there would be no question in your mind about God's existence. I have answered all your questions. I told you that I don't know if bears and babies have souls.
> 
> Grow up to be 18? The age of 18 is a physical notation of time passage, what does that have to do with spiritual energy that isn't physical? Grow up? You mean in a physical state of existence? No, there is no "grow up" when the spirit is timeless. Do they get to have sex or get drunk? You mean the physical things you do in a physical state of existence? Why would they need to do this? Why are you having such a hard time understanding the differences between physical and spiritual existence? I thought you believed as I do a few months ago? Sounds like you believed in some imaginary physical fantasy world to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There use to be no question in my mind too.  I evolved out of that stage.  Maybe someday you will too.  Which brings me to my thought on the way in today.  I've been asking friends what religion they are.  Most of them, it seems like 90% of them hardly give a thought to god at all ever.  Most of them say they were "raised" Catholic or "raised" fill in the blank.
> 
> They hardly give a thought to god.  And this is the common man's understanding of god.  They were told as a child the stories and no one ever even dared to ask them if they even believed in a god since they reached adulthood.  Most of them, without giving it much thought will say sure they believe in god.  They'll even claim to be christians.  But how much do they really believe and are they really christians?  The only thing that makes them christian is they were scared enough to say out loud that they believe Jesus is their lord and savior.  They don't dare even question the stories or dare think maybe the whole thing is made up.
> 
> Seems a lot of people I talk to even admit that they don't believe in god.  But I doubt they are being surveyed or claiming to be atheists.  I think most people just want to fit in, so they go with the group.  I'm a christian.
> 
> But really are they?  Not enough people have had this adult rational conversation.  Fine, if after all this you still believe in a god, what can I say?  That's great for you.  I bet that makes you feel special.
> 
> I feel special without the wild imagination or hope that a god talks to me and wants me to live forever when the sheeps soul just dies.  Wishful thinking.  But I'm sure none of these questions even shakes your faith a little.  Scardy cat.  Scared god's gonna punish you for doubting he is real.  Or will you feel stupid all those years you were talking to yourself?
> 
> I remember driving around for a week feeling a little guilty not believing in god.  I use to talk to him and suddenly I found myself talking to myself about what a fool I was to believe in a god.  And he didn't strike me down.
> 
> PS.  This isn't a karma thing.  Its ok to not believe in god.  As long as you don't turn into a dick thinking there are no consequences to your actions then it should be alright.  I hope if you one day realize there is no god you don't start murdering, lying and raping.  Would you?  Then you don't need a god to keep you in line.  Or maybe as a kid you did but grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you DID NOT believe as I do with no question in your mind, not given the really stupid and dumb questions you keep asking me. You're a really lost puppy when it comes to understanding God. I pray that one day you know the spiritual energy that I am aware of, but I honestly don't think you have ever known it. It doesn't make me feel special. It is not about me feeling special. It's more about something I can't live without and have no intention of ever trying to. You don't have to believe it, I don't get any extra credit if you do. I wish I could say that I don't really care if you ever believe it, but as a human who understands the benefits, I really do hope that you one day find God.
> 
> I'm sorry that you've convinced yourself God isn't real, but that is something your soul will have to pay the consequence for in the end. I can't explain why other people you're in contact with don't believe or don't "really" believe, it's not for me to judge. All I know is, the world would be a much better place if everyone knew the connection to spiritual energy that I am aware of. It blesses you with something you can't get on your own and fills an empty void that nothing else can fill. I honestly feel sorry for people who don't know that peace and contentment of spirit.
> 
> I have noticed, whenever people convince themselves there is no God, as you have done... the first thing they usually begin to do is try and fill that void with pleasures of the flesh. Sexual promiscuity, drinking, drugs, etc. It usually starts off innocent enough, just a way to have a little fun on the weekends. But because you are subconsciously trying to fill the void of spiritual energy, you continue to follow a self-destructive path of addiction and dependence. This is going to eventually lead to problems with relationships, issues of trust, or even the ability to rationalize right from wrong. This never happens overnight, it takes years sometimes. You'll never meet an Atheist who isn't trying to fill that void in some way. And mind you, it's not always just Atheists, it can be so-called Christians or religious people as well. Just because someone claims they are a Christian doesn't mean they know God.
Click to expand...


Of course, behavior you disagree with or consider immoral must be a lack of spiritual connection.    Even amongst believers, they aren't REAL believers.


----------



## HUGGY

The idea of atheism being a religion is hilarious.

Picture this...

The atheist church doors open at 9 AM sharp.

Everyone files in and sits down in the pews ..9:05 AM

9:06 AM The "paster"  walks up to the podium and asks out loud "Do you believe in a god?"

The atheists scream back as one..."NO !!!!!"... Still 9:06 AM...

The atheist congregation rises and files out of the atheist church.. 9:10 AM


----------



## PostmodernProph

BreezeWood said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which prophet was it who the Pharaoh put in the den with the hungry lions? Daniel?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel yes, Pharaoh no.....it was the king of Persia, Darius....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani ... the same for those two above as the other one.
> 
> 
> * (Hint) - Blade and Proph, not sure about yours but for the Almighty, its all or none to the end.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I expect that was intended to communicate something.....not sure what, though......


----------



## PostmodernProph

HUGGY said:


> The idea of atheism being a religion is hilarious.
> 
> Picture this...
> 
> The atheist church doors open at 9 AM sharp.
> 
> Everyone files in and sits down in the pews ..9:05 AM
> 
> 9:06 AM The "paster"  walks up to the podium and asks out loud "Do you believe in a god?"
> 
> The atheists scream back as one..."NO !!!!!"... Still 9:06 AM...
> 
> The atheist congregation rises and files out of the atheist church.. 9:10 AM



you do realize you confused "religion" with "worship service" right?.....it is possible to have one without the other.......


----------



## Boss

HUGGY said:


> The idea of atheism being a religion is hilarious.
> 
> Picture this...
> 
> The atheist church doors open at 9 AM sharp.
> 
> Everyone files in and sits down in the pews ..9:05 AM
> 
> 9:06 AM The "paster"  walks up to the podium and asks out loud "Do you believe in a god?"
> 
> The atheists scream back as one..."NO !!!!!"... Still 9:06 AM...
> 
> The atheist congregation rises and files out of the atheist church.. 9:10 AM



I think this thread with over 5k posts serves as evidence that wouldn't be the case. See, you're missing the part where each Atheist is compelled to come before the congregation and pontificate on why God is not real, why people who believe in God are stupid, how this god belief got 'invented', various contradictions and out of context interpretations of scriptures, etc. After each Atheist had their turn at the podium, they would begin to repeat the process for days on end... at the end of the 30th day, one Atheist turns to another and says... "Oh yeah, this is why we don't go to church!"


----------



## BreezeWood

no matter what Huggy, et all may say, the Atheist has their place at the podium ... for as long as it may please them.

.


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Of course, behavior you disagree with or consider immoral must be a lack of spiritual connection.    Even amongst believers, they aren't REAL believers.



It's not a matter of what I consider immoral. I'm not going to spiritually judge your soul. Self-destructive behavior is what it is, and very few people are intentionally self-destructive. Meaning, most people can rationalize or justify their own self-destructive behavior. 

Now, it's just my personal experience, but I have found that it's much more difficult to rationalize self-destructive behavior when you have a strong spiritual connection. I tend to be more aware of self-destructive behavior and recognize it as such. I am also less inclined toward it because I am not trying to fill a void. That said, like every human, I struggle with my weaknesses. A strong spiritual connection helps me to cope with those instead of falling into a more dangerous cycle of 'ignorant bliss.'


----------



## HUGGY

Boss said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea of atheism being a religion is hilarious.
> 
> Picture this...
> 
> The atheist church doors open at 9 AM sharp.
> 
> Everyone files in and sits down in the pews ..9:05 AM
> 
> 9:06 AM The "paster"  walks up to the podium and asks out loud "Do you believe in a god?"
> 
> The atheists scream back as one..."NO !!!!!"... Still 9:06 AM...
> 
> The atheist congregation rises and files out of the atheist church.. 9:10 AM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think this thread with over 5k posts serves as evidence that wouldn't be the case. See, you're missing the part where each Atheist is compelled to come before the congregation and pontificate on why God is not real, why people who believe in God are stupid, how this god belief got 'invented', various contradictions and out of context interpretations of scriptures, etc. After each Atheist had their turn at the podium, they would begin to repeat the process for days on end... at the end of the 30th day, one Atheist turns to another and says... "Oh yeah, this is why we don't go to church!"
Click to expand...


Not so...It is the religists that must waste hours upon days pontificating why they believe in sky fairies.

Ask an atheist why he does not believe and the answer comes in two words.. "It's nonsense".

As atheists we all get it.  There is no reason for us to attempt to convince each other.

The only reason for atheists to come to the pulpit and give/make witness would be if the congregation was full of christians that needed reasons to come out of the darkness of ignorance and into the light as here at USMB..


----------



## Boss

HUGGY said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea of atheism being a religion is hilarious.
> 
> Picture this...
> 
> The atheist church doors open at 9 AM sharp.
> 
> Everyone files in and sits down in the pews ..9:05 AM
> 
> 9:06 AM The "paster"  walks up to the podium and asks out loud "Do you believe in a god?"
> 
> The atheists scream back as one..."NO !!!!!"... Still 9:06 AM...
> 
> The atheist congregation rises and files out of the atheist church.. 9:10 AM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think this thread with over 5k posts serves as evidence that wouldn't be the case. See, you're missing the part where each Atheist is compelled to come before the congregation and pontificate on why God is not real, why people who believe in God are stupid, how this god belief got 'invented', various contradictions and out of context interpretations of scriptures, etc. After each Atheist had their turn at the podium, they would begin to repeat the process for days on end... at the end of the 30th day, one Atheist turns to another and says... "Oh yeah, this is why we don't go to church!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not so...It is the religists that must waste hours upon days pontificating why they believe in sky fairies.
> 
> Ask an atheist why he does not believe and the answer comes in two words.. "It's nonsense".
> 
> As atheists we all get it.  There is no reason for us to attempt to convince each other.
> 
> The only reason for atheists to come to the pulpit and give/make witness would be if the congregation was full of christians that needed reasons to come out of the darkness of ignorance and into the light as here at USMB..
Click to expand...


Witness of nothing?


----------



## HUGGY

Boss said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think this thread with over 5k posts serves as evidence that wouldn't be the case. See, you're missing the part where each Atheist is compelled to come before the congregation and pontificate on why God is not real, why people who believe in God are stupid, how this god belief got 'invented', various contradictions and out of context interpretations of scriptures, etc. After each Atheist had their turn at the podium, they would begin to repeat the process for days on end... at the end of the 30th day, one Atheist turns to another and says... "Oh yeah, this is why we don't go to church!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not so...It is the religists that must waste hours upon days pontificating why they believe in sky fairies.
> 
> Ask an atheist why he does not believe and the answer comes in two words.. "It's nonsense".
> 
> As atheists we all get it.  There is no reason for us to attempt to convince each other.
> 
> The only reason for atheists to come to the pulpit and give/make witness would be if the congregation was full of christians that needed reasons to come out of the darkness of ignorance and into the light as here at USMB..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Witness of nothing?
Click to expand...


Yup!


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you obviously don't understand what I feel. If you did, there would be no question in your mind about God's existence. I have answered all your questions. I told you that I don't know if bears and babies have souls.
> 
> Grow up to be 18? The age of 18 is a physical notation of time passage, what does that have to do with spiritual energy that isn't physical? Grow up? You mean in a physical state of existence? No, there is no "grow up" when the spirit is timeless. Do they get to have sex or get drunk? You mean the physical things you do in a physical state of existence? Why would they need to do this? Why are you having such a hard time understanding the differences between physical and spiritual existence? I thought you believed as I do a few months ago? Sounds like you believed in some imaginary physical fantasy world to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There use to be no question in my mind too.  I evolved out of that stage.  Maybe someday you will too.  Which brings me to my thought on the way in today.  I've been asking friends what religion they are.  Most of them, it seems like 90% of them hardly give a thought to god at all ever.  Most of them say they were "raised" Catholic or "raised" fill in the blank.
> 
> They hardly give a thought to god.  And this is the common man's understanding of god.  They were told as a child the stories and no one ever even dared to ask them if they even believed in a god since they reached adulthood.  Most of them, without giving it much thought will say sure they believe in god.  They'll even claim to be christians.  But how much do they really believe and are they really christians?  The only thing that makes them christian is they were scared enough to say out loud that they believe Jesus is their lord and savior.  They don't dare even question the stories or dare think maybe the whole thing is made up.
> 
> Seems a lot of people I talk to even admit that they don't believe in god.  But I doubt they are being surveyed or claiming to be atheists.  I think most people just want to fit in, so they go with the group.  I'm a christian.
> 
> But really are they?  Not enough people have had this adult rational conversation.  Fine, if after all this you still believe in a god, what can I say?  That's great for you.  I bet that makes you feel special.
> 
> I feel special without the wild imagination or hope that a god talks to me and wants me to live forever when the sheeps soul just dies.  Wishful thinking.  But I'm sure none of these questions even shakes your faith a little.  Scardy cat.  Scared god's gonna punish you for doubting he is real.  Or will you feel stupid all those years you were talking to yourself?
> 
> I remember driving around for a week feeling a little guilty not believing in god.  I use to talk to him and suddenly I found myself talking to myself about what a fool I was to believe in a god.  And he didn't strike me down.
> 
> PS.  This isn't a karma thing.  Its ok to not believe in god.  As long as you don't turn into a dick thinking there are no consequences to your actions then it should be alright.  I hope if you one day realize there is no god you don't start murdering, lying and raping.  Would you?  Then you don't need a god to keep you in line.  Or maybe as a kid you did but grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you DID NOT believe as I do with no question in your mind, not given the really stupid and dumb questions you keep asking me. You're a really lost puppy when it comes to understanding God. I pray that one day you know the spiritual energy that I am aware of, but I honestly don't think you have ever known it. It doesn't make me feel special. It is not about me feeling special. It's more about something I can't live without and have no intention of ever trying to. You don't have to believe it, I don't get any extra credit if you do. I wish I could say that I don't really care if you ever believe it, but as a human who understands the benefits, I really do hope that you one day find God.
> 
> I'm sorry that you've convinced yourself God isn't real, but that is something your soul will have to pay the consequence for in the end. I can't explain why other people you're in contact with don't believe or don't "really" believe, it's not for me to judge. All I know is, the world would be a much better place if everyone knew the connection to spiritual energy that I am aware of. It blesses you with something you can't get on your own and fills an empty void that nothing else can fill. I honestly feel sorry for people who don't know that peace and contentment of spirit.
> 
> I have noticed, whenever people convince themselves there is no God, as you have done... the first thing they usually begin to do is try and fill that void with pleasures of the flesh. Sexual promiscuity, drinking, drugs, etc. It usually starts off innocent enough, just a way to have a little fun on the weekends. But because you are subconsciously trying to fill the void of spiritual energy, you continue to follow a self-destructive path of addiction and dependence. This is going to eventually lead to problems with relationships, issues of trust, or even the ability to rationalize right from wrong. This never happens overnight, it takes years sometimes. You'll never meet an Atheist who isn't trying to fill that void in some way. And mind you, it's not always just Atheists, it can be so-called Christians or religious people as well. Just because someone claims they are a Christian doesn't mean they know God.
Click to expand...


1.  How you can be 100% certain about this god thing you talk about is beyond me.  Just because the idea of god was planted into your head and you've grown attached to it doesn't make it real.

2.  I really was just like you.  I talked to god all the time.  I didn't believe organized religion. My buddy who converted me to atheist and I were talking about all this last night.  He agrees that society really is stupid for believing in god and/or religion.  It really is holding us all back.  Thank god for the 1 or 10% scientists of which 90% don't believe in god.  All the great things they have done to move society forward while the 90% of us who do believe in god sit around like stupid sheep worrying about the afterlife.  

3.  We turned on one religious show and the guy was rambly mumbo jumbo about some guy who introduced John or Peter to Jesus.  We were laughing at the people that were sitting at home truly watching and interested and taking heed of all the bullshit he was saying.  Where was he going we didn't know.  He was all over the place.  I love watching those shows.  Then I turn to the black religion channel and with one wave of his suit jacket the entire first 3 rows all collapsed from the holy spirit.  Really boss?  

4.  We all have to watch this and see how the kid wins over the professor who makes every kid write an essay on how god doesn't exist.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God's_Not_Dead_(film)


----------



## sealybobo

HUGGY said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea of atheism being a religion is hilarious.
> 
> Picture this...
> 
> The atheist church doors open at 9 AM sharp.
> 
> Everyone files in and sits down in the pews ..9:05 AM
> 
> 9:06 AM The "paster"  walks up to the podium and asks out loud "Do you believe in a god?"
> 
> The atheists scream back as one..."NO !!!!!"... Still 9:06 AM...
> 
> The atheist congregation rises and files out of the atheist church.. 9:10 AM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think this thread with over 5k posts serves as evidence that wouldn't be the case. See, you're missing the part where each Atheist is compelled to come before the congregation and pontificate on why God is not real, why people who believe in God are stupid, how this god belief got 'invented', various contradictions and out of context interpretations of scriptures, etc. After each Atheist had their turn at the podium, they would begin to repeat the process for days on end... at the end of the 30th day, one Atheist turns to another and says... "Oh yeah, this is why we don't go to church!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not so...It is the religists that must waste hours upon days pontificating why they believe in sky fairies.
> 
> Ask an atheist why he does not believe and the answer comes in two words.. "It's nonsense".
> 
> As atheists we all get it.  There is no reason for us to attempt to convince each other.
> 
> The only reason for atheists to come to the pulpit and give/make witness would be if the congregation was full of christians that needed reasons to come out of the darkness of ignorance and into the light as here at USMB..
Click to expand...


Amen!  I talk to so many people and so do my other atheist friends and we are finding many many other like minded friends who either don't believe or say they believe but then after a few questions you find out they either:

a.  Were raised into it so they were "born" christian but never gave it much thought.

b.  Were told if you don't believe you will go to hell.  Pretty powerful tactic.  Many people wouldn't dare even question it in their minds.  Even if they do have some doubts, they just say yes I believe jesus is lord and savior.

Very few people are strict christians/muslims/jews.  

My Iranian Atheist friend said the middle east is going to be 100 or more years behind us on evolving beyond religion.  They are very strict over there.  Perhaps that's the only way to keep people from enlightening themselves and freeing themselves.  But no one in their 20's believes in god.  They believe in clubbing, video games and their smart phones.  None of them are going to church on Sunday.  Maybe not in the bible belt but here in the big city north at least.  

Most people realize religion was made up to teach right from wrong.  I say it is also used to control people.  If you can convince them there is a god, you can convince them pretty much anything.  You can even use religion (gays and abortion) to get people to vote against their own financial interests.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, behavior you disagree with or consider immoral must be a lack of spiritual connection.    Even amongst believers, they aren't REAL believers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a matter of what I consider immoral. I'm not going to spiritually judge your soul. Self-destructive behavior is what it is, and very few people are intentionally self-destructive. Meaning, most people can rationalize or justify their own self-destructive behavior.
> 
> Now, it's just my personal experience, but I have found that it's much more difficult to rationalize self-destructive behavior when you have a strong spiritual connection. I tend to be more aware of self-destructive behavior and recognize it as such. I am also less inclined toward it because I am not trying to fill a void. That said, like every human, I struggle with my weaknesses. A strong spiritual connection helps me to cope with those instead of falling into a more dangerous cycle of 'ignorant bliss.'
Click to expand...


Name me a few vises you have.  Ones you have not been able to give up even with god watching.  For example, jacking off and thinking about that hot wife of your friends.  Or smoking.  Got any vises?


----------



## Delta4Embassy

sealybobo said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think this thread with over 5k posts serves as evidence that wouldn't be the case. See, you're missing the part where each Atheist is compelled to come before the congregation and pontificate on why God is not real, why people who believe in God are stupid, how this god belief got 'invented', various contradictions and out of context interpretations of scriptures, etc. After each Atheist had their turn at the podium, they would begin to repeat the process for days on end... at the end of the 30th day, one Atheist turns to another and says... "Oh yeah, this is why we don't go to church!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not so...It is the religists that must waste hours upon days pontificating why they believe in sky fairies.
> 
> Ask an atheist why he does not believe and the answer comes in two words.. "It's nonsense".
> 
> As atheists we all get it.  There is no reason for us to attempt to convince each other.
> 
> The only reason for atheists to come to the pulpit and give/make witness would be if the congregation was full of christians that needed reasons to come out of the darkness of ignorance and into the light as here at USMB..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Amen!  I talk to so many people and so do my other atheist friends and we are finding many many other like minded friends who either don't believe or say they believe but then after a few questions you find out they either:
> 
> a.  Were raised into it so they were "born" christian but never gave it much thought.
> 
> b.  Were told if you don't believe you will go to hell.  Pretty powerful tactic.  Many people wouldn't dare even question it in their minds.  Even if they do have some doubts, they just say yes I believe jesus is lord and savior.
> 
> Very few people are strict christians/muslims/jews.
> 
> My Iranian Atheist friend said the middle east is going to be 100 or more years behind us on evolving beyond religion.  They are very strict over there.  Perhaps that's the only way to keep people from enlightening themselves and freeing themselves.  But no one in their 20's believes in god.  They believe in clubbing, video games and their smart phones.  None of them are going to church on Sunday.  Maybe not in the bible belt but here in the big city north at least.
> 
> Most people realize religion was made up to teach right from wrong.  I say it is also used to control people.  If you can convince them there is a god, you can convince them pretty much anything.  You can even use religion (gays and abortion) to get people to vote against their own financial interests.
Click to expand...


My impression of strict or fundamentalist religions is they're the most insecure about things thus the rigidity. Cults accused of brainwashing frequently control their members every waking moment. Many fundamentalist religions and versions do this too incporating themselves into the follower's every day life (as opposed to just worship days.) Most of Islam (would say all, but I've seen personal ads from gay Muslims so apparently there really are liberal Muslims heh,) orthodox Jews, some of the Christian denominations.


----------



## Slyhunter

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, behavior you disagree with or consider immoral must be a lack of spiritual connection.    Even amongst believers, they aren't REAL believers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a matter of what I consider immoral. I'm not going to spiritually judge your soul. Self-destructive behavior is what it is, and very few people are intentionally self-destructive. Meaning, most people can rationalize or justify their own self-destructive behavior.
> 
> Now, it's just my personal experience, but I have found that it's much more difficult to rationalize self-destructive behavior when you have a strong spiritual connection. I tend to be more aware of self-destructive behavior and recognize it as such. I am also less inclined toward it because I am not trying to fill a void. That said, like every human, I struggle with my weaknesses. A strong spiritual connection helps me to cope with those instead of falling into a more dangerous cycle of 'ignorant bliss.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Name me a few vises you have.  Ones you have not been able to give up even with god watching.  For example, jacking off and thinking about that hot wife of your friends.  Or smoking.  Got any vises?
Click to expand...


God watches me jack off. Oh God, I'm screwed.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you obviously don't understand what I feel. If you did, there would be no question in your mind about God's existence. I have answered all your questions. I told you that I don't know if bears and babies have souls.
> 
> Grow up to be 18? The age of 18 is a physical notation of time passage, what does that have to do with spiritual energy that isn't physical? Grow up? You mean in a physical state of existence? No, there is no "grow up" when the spirit is timeless. Do they get to have sex or get drunk? You mean the physical things you do in a physical state of existence? Why would they need to do this? Why are you having such a hard time understanding the differences between physical and spiritual existence? I thought you believed as I do a few months ago? Sounds like you believed in some imaginary physical fantasy world to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There use to be no question in my mind too.  I evolved out of that stage.  Maybe someday you will too.  Which brings me to my thought on the way in today.  I've been asking friends what religion they are.  Most of them, it seems like 90% of them hardly give a thought to god at all ever.  Most of them say they were "raised" Catholic or "raised" fill in the blank.
> 
> They hardly give a thought to god.  And this is the common man's understanding of god.  They were told as a child the stories and no one ever even dared to ask them if they even believed in a god since they reached adulthood.  Most of them, without giving it much thought will say sure they believe in god.  They'll even claim to be christians.  But how much do they really believe and are they really christians?  The only thing that makes them christian is they were scared enough to say out loud that they believe Jesus is their lord and savior.  They don't dare even question the stories or dare think maybe the whole thing is made up.
> 
> Seems a lot of people I talk to even admit that they don't believe in god.  But I doubt they are being surveyed or claiming to be atheists.  I think most people just want to fit in, so they go with the group.  I'm a christian.
> 
> But really are they?  Not enough people have had this adult rational conversation.  Fine, if after all this you still believe in a god, what can I say?  That's great for you.  I bet that makes you feel special.
> 
> I feel special without the wild imagination or hope that a god talks to me and wants me to live forever when the sheeps soul just dies.  Wishful thinking.  But I'm sure none of these questions even shakes your faith a little.  Scardy cat.  Scared god's gonna punish you for doubting he is real.  Or will you feel stupid all those years you were talking to yourself?
> 
> I remember driving around for a week feeling a little guilty not believing in god.  I use to talk to him and suddenly I found myself talking to myself about what a fool I was to believe in a god.  And he didn't strike me down.
> 
> PS.  This isn't a karma thing.  Its ok to not believe in god.  As long as you don't turn into a dick thinking there are no consequences to your actions then it should be alright.  I hope if you one day realize there is no god you don't start murdering, lying and raping.  Would you?  Then you don't need a god to keep you in line.  Or maybe as a kid you did but grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry that you've convinced yourself God isn't real, but that is something your soul will have to pay the consequence for in the end.
> 
> I have noticed, whenever people convince themselves there is no God, as you have done... the first thing they usually begin to do is try and fill that void with pleasures of the flesh. Sexual promiscuity, drinking, drugs, etc. nds.
> 
> roblems with relationships, issues of trust, or even the ability to rationalize right from wrong. This never happens overnight, it takes years sometimes. You'll never meet an Atheist who isn't trying to fill that void in some way. And mind you, it's not always just Atheists, it can be so-called Christians or religious people as well. Just because someone claims they are a Christian doesn't mean they know God.
Click to expand...


So even though you aren't a christian you believe in hell?  Wow what a dope.

#2.  If belief in god makes you a better person, very cool.  My brother is religious and a very good person too.  Unfortunately religion doesn't help most people.  It only makes bad people think they are safe from hell because they believe the fairy tale.  Its ok to be a sinful dick because I believe in jesus.  I don't care what spin off you are boss, you're all the same.  And I bet you are a dick too in real life.  Based on your politics I'm sure of it. 

I feel sorry for people who believe in god.  When I was finally able to wake up I felt reborn.  Free from that bullshit.  Now I appreciate every second because when it's over it's over buddy.  Get over it.

4.  Nope.  Nothing has changed in my life other than I finally took the leap to atheist and then to agnostic atheist, which is the most rational position.  I can't know and neither can you.  On top of that man made it up when we were barely smarter than apes.  We had a natural fear of the unknown and wild imaginations.  Put 2 and 2 together and you get god.

5.  I have noticed that most people who found god later in life, in other words the people who weren't brainwashed as kids, usually they are the drug users, prostitutes, thieves, killers who hit rock bottom and someone tells them about god and it turns their life around.  But maybe for that person the lie about god is necessary.  I do know god isn't all bad boss.  But a lie is still a lie and has to be exposed.  

6.  I see what you are doing when you say atheism leads to your life falling apart.  Similar to the story about hell.  Its like karma.  If you do or think something bad, your life is going to be bad.  That's a lie too.  So if my car gets a flat, that's god.  If I lose my job, that's god.  If someone in my family dies or I get cancer or aids that's god.  Bullshit.  That's life.  Good things happen to bad people and bad things happen to good people.  So far since I've converted to agnostic atheism, nothing bad has happened.  Even when something did go bad and I did wonder for a second if that was god, I quickly realize how irrational I was being.  

7.  Last night on Animal Sex on PBS they explained how Whales use to walk on land.  I bet you don't believe that do you boss?  I just love how you guys deny/argue with scientists on all this stuff.  They showed where the hip bone still remains from when it had back legs.  Amazing stuff.  When you watch shows like that do you yell at the tv WRONG every time they state a fact like that?


----------



## sealybobo

Delta4Embassy said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not so...It is the religists that must waste hours upon days pontificating why they believe in sky fairies.
> 
> Ask an atheist why he does not believe and the answer comes in two words.. "It's nonsense".
> 
> As atheists we all get it.  There is no reason for us to attempt to convince each other.
> 
> The only reason for atheists to come to the pulpit and give/make witness would be if the congregation was full of christians that needed reasons to come out of the darkness of ignorance and into the light as here at USMB..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amen!  I talk to so many people and so do my other atheist friends and we are finding many many other like minded friends who either don't believe or say they believe but then after a few questions you find out they either:
> 
> a.  Were raised into it so they were "born" christian but never gave it much thought.
> 
> b.  Were told if you don't believe you will go to hell.  Pretty powerful tactic.  Many people wouldn't dare even question it in their minds.  Even if they do have some doubts, they just say yes I believe jesus is lord and savior.
> 
> Very few people are strict christians/muslims/jews.
> 
> My Iranian Atheist friend said the middle east is going to be 100 or more years behind us on evolving beyond religion.  They are very strict over there.  Perhaps that's the only way to keep people from enlightening themselves and freeing themselves.  But no one in their 20's believes in god.  They believe in clubbing, video games and their smart phones.  None of them are going to church on Sunday.  Maybe not in the bible belt but here in the big city north at least.
> 
> Most people realize religion was made up to teach right from wrong.  I say it is also used to control people.  If you can convince them there is a god, you can convince them pretty much anything.  You can even use religion (gays and abortion) to get people to vote against their own financial interests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My impression of strict or fundamentalist religions is they're the most insecure about things thus the rigidity. Cults accused of brainwashing frequently control their members every waking moment. Many fundamentalist religions and versions do this too incporating themselves into the follower's every day life (as opposed to just worship days.) Most of Islam (would say all, but I've seen personal ads from gay Muslims so apparently there really are liberal Muslims heh,) orthodox Jews, some of the Christian denominations.
Click to expand...


Well I have that free satellite tv that the government mandated all public broadcasters must provide and I get about 30 channels for free.  I'd say 4 of them are 24/7 religious channels.  Sometimes catholic, sometimes baptist, sometimes indian christians, bible belt, 700 club, etc.  

I get a kick out of it sometimes but I can only watch so long.  I always get mad when they get to the part where they want you to send money in.  Suckers.

But I guess the more I think about it, how many people does this god make feel better?  So maybe some people do need god.  And if they don't mind sending in the $ that's their business.  Plus religion is like a big business.  It employs a lot of people.  Maybe religion like the banks is too big to fail?

But that doesn't mean I won't try to help people that don't need it to wake up, evolve and educate themselves.  I think the reason those people need god is because they are pathetic and unevolved/uneducated/sad/lonely/not bright.  Maybe if they educate themselves that is a way to better themselves.  Instead of just being happy in your station in life because you are waiting for the afterlife.


----------



## sealybobo

I should have rented this one last night instead I rented a movie that turned out to be a b list movie at best.  We all need to watch this and come back and report:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God's_Not_Dead_(film)

I bet you in the end, the kid can't prove god exists but he appeals to the classes emotions, just like Miracle on 34th Street proved Santa was real.  And the class votes for the student over the teacher who makes everyone write an essay on how god isn't real.  I know the prof is probably the villain in the movie but to me he's the heroine.  LOL.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> 1.  How you can be 100% certain about this god thing you talk about is beyond me.  Just because the idea of god was planted into your head and you've grown attached to it doesn't make it real.



But it wasn't planted in my head. Religious beliefs were planted in my head but they didn't stick. As I got older, I rebelled against religion and God entirely. I was just like you. I spent about 20 years being dismissive of God, believing that I didn't need no stinkin' God. It took a life-changing event to shake me up enough to realize how wrong I had been. I suspect the same thing will have to happen for you as well. Once I began being conscious of God, I looked back on those 20 years and saw just how far down the path of self-destruction I had travelled. You don't realize it while you're on the journey, I guess you're having too much fun. What I realized was, it wasn't really that much fun, it was more of a desperate attempt to try and fill that void. Sex, booze and drugs didn't do it. I was basically a miserable person, I ruined a good marriage, several other relationships, disappointed my parents and family, but more important, I let myself down.  I wish I had those years to live over again, but I don't. 

I'm 100% certain about this "god thing" I'm talking about because I haven't tried to make it conform to some screwed up fantasy of a physical being that is invisible, sitting in a cloud casting judgement on me and making demands or threats. Instead, I've realized it is a powerful source of energy that is outside the physical, which enables humans to do amazing things, have amazing strength in the face of adversity or challenge, confidence in the ability to achieve, filling the void inside me which makes me complete. 



> 2.  I really was just like you.  I talked to god all the time.  I didn't believe organized religion. My buddy who converted me to atheist and I were talking about all this last night.  He agrees that society really is stupid for believing in god and/or religion.  It really is holding us all back.  Thank god for the 1 or 10% scientists of which 90% don't believe in god.  All the great things they have done to move society forward while the 90% of us who do believe in god sit around like stupid sheep worrying about the afterlife.



No, you weren't like me. At least not like I am now. You may be like me before I rejected God and became like you for 20 years. Your "buddy" is no buddy, he simply needs you to help reinforce his disbelief. You are a codependent enabler. 90% of the human race is spiritual, there simply can't be that many stupid people in our species or we wouldn't exist. The fact that we've done things no other species has even come close to, is pretty much enough to dispel the myth that we are stupid. As for science, the people who were most instrumental in creating science were also devoutly spiritual people. I've given you the quotes and anecdotes from Isaac Newton. Without that man, science probably wouldn't exist as we know it. 



> 3.  We turned on one religious show and the guy was rambly mumbo jumbo about some guy who introduced John or Peter to Jesus.  We were laughing at the people that were sitting at home truly watching and interested and taking heed of all the bullshit he was saying.  Where was he going we didn't know.  He was all over the place.  I love watching those shows.  Then I turn to the black religion channel and with one wave of his suit jacket the entire first 3 rows all collapsed from the holy spirit.  Really boss?



I can't speak for different religions and how people spiritually worship, but the fact is, they are worshiping and experiencing something spiritual. How many Atheist channels do you watch? What? There aren't any? Well, that's probably because Atheists make up about one in ten people. There is no market for Atheist programs. You know it's bad when the miracle healers and snake handlers outnumber you as a demographic. 



> 4.  We all have to watch this and see how the kid wins over the professor who makes every kid write an essay on how god doesn't exist.



We have to watch? I beg your pardon, no we don't have to watch. I have my own story to relate here...

Professor: There is no scientific evidence God exists, therefore there must be no God. 
Student: Sir, I respectfully disagree. 
Professor: My dear lad, on what basis do you disagree?
Student: Sir, do you believe that 'cold' exists?
Professor: Well of course cold exists.
Student: No sir, cold does not exist. Cold is the absence of heat. Heat exists, we can measure it, but we cannot measure cold.
Student: Sir, do you believe darkness exists?
Professor: Well yes, I believe darkness exists.
Student: No sir, darkness does not exist. Darkness is the absence of light. We can measure light, we cannot measure darkness. 
Student: God is like cold and darkness, it is present in the absence of evil. 

The Student: Albert Einstein.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> I should have rented this one last night instead I rented a movie that turned out to be a b list movie at best.  We all need to watch this and come back and report:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God's_Not_Dead_(film)
> 
> I bet you in the end, the kid can't prove god exists but he appeals to the classes emotions, just like Miracle on 34th Street proved Santa was real.  And the class votes for the student over the teacher who makes everyone write an essay on how god isn't real.  I know the prof is probably the villain in the movie but to me he's the *heroine*.  LOL.



Really? You think he's transexual???


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Slyhunter said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a matter of what I consider immoral. I'm not going to spiritually judge your soul. Self-destructive behavior is what it is, and very few people are intentionally self-destructive. Meaning, most people can rationalize or justify their own self-destructive behavior.
> 
> Now, it's just my personal experience, but I have found that it's much more difficult to rationalize self-destructive behavior when you have a strong spiritual connection. I tend to be more aware of self-destructive behavior and recognize it as such. I am also less inclined toward it because I am not trying to fill a void. That said, like every human, I struggle with my weaknesses. A strong spiritual connection helps me to cope with those instead of falling into a more dangerous cycle of 'ignorant bliss.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name me a few vises you have.  Ones you have not been able to give up even with god watching.  For example, jacking off and thinking about that hot wife of your friends.  Or smoking.  Got any vises?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God watches me jack off. Oh God, I'm screwed.
Click to expand...


Masturbation isn't sinful. 'Sin of Onan' was coitus interuptus, withdrawing the penis just before climax to prevent pregnancy. So you're not screwd, but you should probably still be embarassed if you make silly faces when you orgasm


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  How you can be 100% certain about this god thing you talk about is beyond me.  Just because the idea of god was planted into your head and you've grown attached to it doesn't make it real.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it wasn't planted in my head. Religious beliefs were planted in my head but they didn't stick. As I got older, I rebelled against religion and God entirely. I was just like you. I spent about 20 years being dismissive of God, believing that I didn't need no stinkin' God. It took a life-changing event to shake me up enough to realize how wrong I had been. I suspect the same thing will have to happen for you as well. Once I began being conscious of God, I looked back on those 20 years and saw just how far down the path of self-destruction I had travelled. You don't realize it while you're on the journey, I guess you're having too much fun. What I realized was, it wasn't really that much fun, it was more of a desperate attempt to try and fill that void. Sex, booze and drugs didn't do it. I was basically a miserable person, I ruined a good marriage, several other relationships, disappointed my parents and family, but more important, I let myself down.  I wish I had those years to live over again, but I don't.
> 
> I'm 100% certain about this "god thing" I'm talking about because I haven't tried to make it conform to some screwed up fantasy of a physical being that is invisible, sitting in a cloud casting judgement on me and making demands or threats. Instead, I've realized it is a powerful source of energy that is outside the physical, which enables humans to do amazing things, have amazing strength in the face of adversity or challenge, confidence in the ability to achieve, filling the void inside me which makes me complete.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2.  I really was just like you.  I talked to god all the time.  I didn't believe organized religion. My buddy who converted me to atheist and I were talking about all this last night.  He agrees that society really is stupid for believing in god and/or religion.  It really is holding us all back.  Thank god for the 1 or 10% scientists of which 90% don't believe in god.  All the great things they have done to move society forward while the 90% of us who do believe in god sit around like stupid sheep worrying about the afterlife.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you weren't like me. At least not like I am now. You may be like me before I rejected God and became like you for 20 years. Your "buddy" is no buddy, he simply needs you to help reinforce his disbelief. You are a codependent enabler. 90% of the human race is spiritual, there simply can't be that many stupid people in our species or we wouldn't exist. The fact that we've done things no other species has even come close to, is pretty much enough to dispel the myth that we are stupid. As for science, the people who were most instrumental in creating science were also devoutly spiritual people. I've given you the quotes and anecdotes from Isaac Newton. Without that man, science probably wouldn't exist as we know it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3.  We turned on one religious show and the guy was rambly mumbo jumbo about some guy who introduced John or Peter to Jesus.  We were laughing at the people that were sitting at home truly watching and interested and taking heed of all the bullshit he was saying.  Where was he going we didn't know.  He was all over the place.  I love watching those shows.  Then I turn to the black religion channel and with one wave of his suit jacket the entire first 3 rows all collapsed from the holy spirit.  Really boss?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't speak for different religions and how people spiritually worship, but the fact is, they are worshiping and experiencing something spiritual. How many Atheist channels do you watch? What? There aren't any? Well, that's probably because Atheists make up about one in ten people. There is no market for Atheist programs. You know it's bad when the miracle healers and snake handlers outnumber you as a demographic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4.  We all have to watch this and see how the kid wins over the professor who makes every kid write an essay on how god doesn't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have to watch? I beg your pardon, no we don't have to watch. I have my own story to relate here...
> 
> Professor: There is no scientific evidence God exists, therefore there must be no God.
> Student: Sir, I respectfully disagree.
> Professor: My dear lad, on what basis do you disagree?
> Student: Sir, do you believe that 'cold' exists?
> Professor: Well of course cold exists.
> Student: No sir, cold does not exist. Cold is the absence of heat. Heat exists, we can measure it, but we cannot measure cold.
> Student: Sir, do you believe darkness exists?
> Professor: Well yes, I believe darkness exists.
> Student: No sir, darkness does not exist. Darkness is the absence of light. We can measure light, we cannot measure darkness.
> Student: God is like cold and darkness, it is present in the absence of evil.
> 
> The Student: Albert Einstein.
Click to expand...


Wish I'd seen this before the other thread.  But if you take my word for it sometimes coincidences really do happen.


----------



## GISMYS

IT IS ALL YOUR CHOICE=BELIEVE GOD OR CHOSE TO REJECT GOD AND GOD'S LOVE====God loved the world so much that he gave his only Son so that anyone who believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.  17 God did not send his Son into the world to condemn it, but to save it.

18 &#8220;There is no eternal doom awaiting those who trust him to save them. But those who don&#8217;t trust him have already been tried and condemned for not believing in the only Son of God.  19 Their sentence is based on this fact: that the Light from heaven came into the world, but they loved the darkness more than the Light, for their deeds were evil.  20 They hated the heavenly Light because they wanted to sin in the darkness. They stayed away from that Light for fear their sins would be exposed and they would be punished.  21 But those doing right come gladly to the Light to let everyone see that they are doing what God wants them to.&#8221;
JOHN 3:16-21


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, behavior you disagree with or consider immoral must be a lack of spiritual connection.    Even amongst believers, they aren't REAL believers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a matter of what I consider immoral. I'm not going to spiritually judge your soul. Self-destructive behavior is what it is, and very few people are intentionally self-destructive. Meaning, most people can rationalize or justify their own self-destructive behavior.
> 
> Now, it's just my personal experience, but I have found that it's much more difficult to rationalize self-destructive behavior when you have a strong spiritual connection. I tend to be more aware of self-destructive behavior and recognize it as such. I am also less inclined toward it because I am not trying to fill a void. That said, like every human, I struggle with my weaknesses. A strong spiritual connection helps me to cope with those instead of falling into a more dangerous cycle of 'ignorant bliss.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Name me a few vises you have.  Ones you have not been able to give up even with god watching.  For example, jacking off and thinking about that hot wife of your friends.  Or smoking.  Got any vises?
Click to expand...


I hesitate confessing these things here because I know how this works. The focus will be redirected toward my confession and away from the topic. Every human has vices, it's normal because we are human. The problem is when those vices turn into obsession or addiction. Like you seem to be about sex... this makes about the 20th post where you've referenced sex in some way. 

Okay, here are few of my vices... I drink WAY too much coffee and tea, I am addicted to caffeine. I eat WAY too many foods that aren't healthy for me, I love to eat. When I go to an outdoor music festival once or twice a year, I enjoy a slug or two of good Kentucky Bourbon or Scotch and may even hit the occasional doobie my friends pass around. Other than that, I really don't have any vices. 

Ooo... wait.... One more I thought about! A few years ago, one of my liberal hippy friends offered me shrooms.. I had never done them before, so I though... what the heck, let me give it a try. I seriously had one of the most intense spiritual connections I've ever experienced while high on shrooms. Don't ever want to do it again, once was enough, but if you are having trouble connecting to spiritual energy, I can highly recommend it.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  How you can be 100% certain about this god thing you talk about is beyond me.  Just because the idea of god was planted into your head and you've grown attached to it doesn't make it real.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it wasn't planted in my head. Religious beliefs were planted in my head but they didn't stick. As I got older, I rebelled against religion and God entirely. I was just like you. I spent about 20 years being dismissive of God, believing that I didn't need no stinkin' God. It took a life-changing event to shake me up enough to realize how wrong I had been. I suspect the same thing will have to happen for you as well. Once I began being conscious of God, I looked back on those 20 years and saw just how far down the path of self-destruction I had travelled. You don't realize it while you're on the journey, I guess you're having too much fun. What I realized was, it wasn't really that much fun, it was more of a desperate attempt to try and fill that void. Sex, booze and drugs didn't do it. I was basically a miserable person, I ruined a good marriage, several other relationships, disappointed my parents and family, but more important, I let myself down.  I wish I had those years to live over again, but I don't.
> 
> I'm 100% certain about this "god thing" I'm talking about because I haven't tried to make it conform to some screwed up fantasy of a physical being that is invisible, sitting in a cloud casting judgement on me and making demands or threats. Instead, I've realized it is a powerful source of energy that is outside the physical, which enables humans to do amazing things, have amazing strength in the face of adversity or challenge, confidence in the ability to achieve, filling the void inside me which makes me complete.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2.  I really was just like you.  I talked to god all the time.  I didn't believe organized religion. My buddy who converted me to atheist and I were talking about all this last night.  He agrees that society really is stupid for believing in god and/or religion.  It really is holding us all back.  Thank god for the 1 or 10% scientists of which 90% don't believe in god.  All the great things they have done to move society forward while the 90% of us who do believe in god sit around like stupid sheep worrying about the afterlife.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you weren't like me. At least not like I am now. You may be like me before I rejected God and became like you for 20 years. Your "buddy" is no buddy, he simply needs you to help reinforce his disbelief. You are a codependent enabler. 90% of the human race is spiritual, there simply can't be that many stupid people in our species or we wouldn't exist. The fact that we've done things no other species has even come close to, is pretty much enough to dispel the myth that we are stupid. As for science, the people who were most instrumental in creating science were also devoutly spiritual people. I've given you the quotes and anecdotes from Isaac Newton. Without that man, science probably wouldn't exist as we know it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3.  We turned on one religious show and the guy was rambly mumbo jumbo about some guy who introduced John or Peter to Jesus.  We were laughing at the people that were sitting at home truly watching and interested and taking heed of all the bullshit he was saying.  Where was he going we didn't know.  He was all over the place.  I love watching those shows.  Then I turn to the black religion channel and with one wave of his suit jacket the entire first 3 rows all collapsed from the holy spirit.  Really boss?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't speak for different religions and how people spiritually worship, but the fact is, they are worshiping and experiencing something spiritual. How many Atheist channels do you watch? What? There aren't any? Well, that's probably because Atheists make up about one in ten people. There is no market for Atheist programs. You know it's bad when the miracle healers and snake handlers outnumber you as a demographic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4.  We all have to watch this and see how the kid wins over the professor who makes every kid write an essay on how god doesn't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have to watch? I beg your pardon, no we don't have to watch. I have my own story to relate here...
> 
> Professor: There is no scientific evidence God exists, therefore there must be no God.
> Student: Sir, I respectfully disagree.
> Professor: My dear lad, on what basis do you disagree?
> Student: Sir, do you believe that 'cold' exists?
> Professor: Well of course cold exists.
> Student: No sir, cold does not exist. Cold is the absence of heat. Heat exists, we can measure it, but we cannot measure cold.
> Student: Sir, do you believe darkness exists?
> Professor: Well yes, I believe darkness exists.
> Student: No sir, darkness does not exist. Darkness is the absence of light. We can measure light, we cannot measure darkness.
> Student: God is like cold and darkness, it is present in the absence of evil.
> 
> The Student: Albert Einstein.
Click to expand...


Isn't that from a silly chain email, or something of the like?  I'm pretty sure it's not something Einstein ever actually said.


----------



## Boss

I think it's from his autobiography.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  How you can be 100% certain about this god thing you talk about is beyond me.  Just because the idea of god was planted into your head and you've grown attached to it doesn't make it real.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it wasn't planted in my head. Religious beliefs were planted in my head but they didn't stick. As I got older, I rebelled against religion and God entirely. I was just like you. I spent about 20 years being dismissive of God, believing that I didn't need no stinkin' God. It took a life-changing event to shake me up enough to realize how wrong I had been. I suspect the same thing will have to happen for you as well. Once I began being conscious of God, I looked back on those 20 years and saw just how far down the path of self-destruction I had travelled. You don't realize it while you're on the journey, I guess you're having too much fun. What I realized was, it wasn't really that much fun, it was more of a desperate attempt to try and fill that void. Sex, booze and drugs didn't do it. I was basically a miserable person, I ruined a good marriage, several other relationships, disappointed my parents and family, but more important, I let myself down.  I wish I had those years to live over again, but I don't.
> 
> I'm 100% certain about this "god thing" I'm talking about because I haven't tried to make it conform to some screwed up fantasy of a physical being that is invisible, sitting in a cloud casting judgement on me and making demands or threats. Instead, I've realized it is a powerful source of energy that is outside the physical, which enables humans to do amazing things, have amazing strength in the face of adversity or challenge, confidence in the ability to achieve, filling the void inside me which makes me complete.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2.  I really was just like you.  I talked to god all the time.  I didn't believe organized religion. My buddy who converted me to atheist and I were talking about all this last night.  He agrees that society really is stupid for believing in god and/or religion.  It really is holding us all back.  Thank god for the 1 or 10% scientists of which 90% don't believe in god.  All the great things they have done to move society forward while the 90% of us who do believe in god sit around like stupid sheep worrying about the afterlife.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you weren't like me. At least not like I am now. You may be like me before I rejected God and became like you for 20 years. Your "buddy" is no buddy, he simply needs you to help reinforce his disbelief. You are a codependent enabler. 90% of the human race is spiritual, there simply can't be that many stupid people in our species or we wouldn't exist. The fact that we've done things no other species has even come close to, is pretty much enough to dispel the myth that we are stupid. As for science, the people who were most instrumental in creating science were also devoutly spiritual people. I've given you the quotes and anecdotes from Isaac Newton. Without that man, science probably wouldn't exist as we know it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3.  We turned on one religious show and the guy was rambly mumbo jumbo about some guy who introduced John or Peter to Jesus.  We were laughing at the people that were sitting at home truly watching and interested and taking heed of all the bullshit he was saying.  Where was he going we didn't know.  He was all over the place.  I love watching those shows.  Then I turn to the black religion channel and with one wave of his suit jacket the entire first 3 rows all collapsed from the holy spirit.  Really boss?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't speak for different religions and how people spiritually worship, but the fact is, they are worshiping and experiencing something spiritual. How many Atheist channels do you watch? What? There aren't any? Well, that's probably because Atheists make up about one in ten people. There is no market for Atheist programs. You know it's bad when the miracle healers and snake handlers outnumber you as a demographic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4.  We all have to watch this and see how the kid wins over the professor who makes every kid write an essay on how god doesn't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have to watch? I beg your pardon, no we don't have to watch. I have my own story to relate here...
> 
> Professor: There is no scientific evidence God exists, therefore there must be no God.
> Student: Sir, I respectfully disagree.
> Professor: My dear lad, on what basis do you disagree?
> Student: Sir, do you believe that 'cold' exists?
> Professor: Well of course cold exists.
> Student: No sir, cold does not exist. Cold is the absence of heat. Heat exists, we can measure it, but we cannot measure cold.
> Student: Sir, do you believe darkness exists?
> Professor: Well yes, I believe darkness exists.
> Student: No sir, darkness does not exist. Darkness is the absence of light. We can measure light, we cannot measure darkness.
> Student: God is like cold and darkness, it is present in the absence of evil.
> 
> The Student: Albert Einstein.
Click to expand...


So god is everything/anything good and the devil is everything/anything evil?  Why didn't you say so.  

We already have names for those things.  If someone is raped or murdered, we have names for what they did.  And yes what they did was evil.  But there is no devil there.  And when I help someone out of the kindness of my heart, that is not god, that is me.  Why give something/someone else credit?  If you see a beautiful landscape, that is not god, that's a beautiful landscape.  No god necessary.  And if you want to believe in god, either keep it to yourself or expect criticism for your silly belief.  

And notice atheists do good things and religious people do bad things.  So what does it matter if we believe in god or not?  Do you think your belief in god makes you any more sorry for the sins you've committed?  I doubt it does.  I think god is just your safety blanket.  

Who was the guy who said he believes because he wants to believe?  He's the most honest guy here.


----------



## BillyP

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  How you can be 100% certain about this god thing you talk about is beyond me.  Just because the idea of god was planted into your head and you've grown attached to it doesn't make it real.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it wasn't planted in my head. Religious beliefs were planted in my head but they didn't stick. As I got older, I rebelled against religion and God entirely. I was just like you. I spent about 20 years being dismissive of God, believing that I didn't need no stinkin' God. It took a life-changing event to shake me up enough to realize how wrong I had been. I suspect the same thing will have to happen for you as well. Once I began being conscious of God, I looked back on those 20 years and saw just how far down the path of self-destruction I had travelled. You don't realize it while you're on the journey, I guess you're having too much fun. What I realized was, it wasn't really that much fun, it was more of a desperate attempt to try and fill that void. Sex, booze and drugs didn't do it. I was basically a miserable person, I ruined a good marriage, several other relationships, disappointed my parents and family, but more important, I let myself down.  I wish I had those years to live over again, but I don't.
> 
> I'm 100% certain about this "god thing" I'm talking about because I haven't tried to make it conform to some screwed up fantasy of a physical being that is invisible, sitting in a cloud casting judgement on me and making demands or threats. Instead, I've realized it is a powerful source of energy that is outside the physical, which enables humans to do amazing things, have amazing strength in the face of adversity or challenge, confidence in the ability to achieve, filling the void inside me which makes me complete.
> 
> 
> 
> No, you weren't like me. At least not like I am now. You may be like me before I rejected God and became like you for 20 years. Your "buddy" is no buddy, he simply needs you to help reinforce his disbelief. You are a codependent enabler. 90% of the human race is spiritual, there simply can't be that many stupid people in our species or we wouldn't exist. The fact that we've done things no other species has even come close to, is pretty much enough to dispel the myth that we are stupid. As for science, the people who were most instrumental in creating science were also devoutly spiritual people. I've given you the quotes and anecdotes from Isaac Newton. Without that man, science probably wouldn't exist as we know it.
> 
> 
> 
> I can't speak for different religions and how people spiritually worship, but the fact is, they are worshiping and experiencing something spiritual. How many Atheist channels do you watch? What? There aren't any? Well, that's probably because Atheists make up about one in ten people. There is no market for Atheist programs. You know it's bad when the miracle healers and snake handlers outnumber you as a demographic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4.  We all have to watch this and see how the kid wins over the professor who makes every kid write an essay on how god doesn't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have to watch? I beg your pardon, no we don't have to watch. I have my own story to relate here...
> 
> Professor: There is no scientific evidence God exists, therefore there must be no God.
> Student: Sir, I respectfully disagree.
> Professor: My dear lad, on what basis do you disagree?
> Student: Sir, do you believe that 'cold' exists?
> Professor: Well of course cold exists.
> Student: No sir, cold does not exist. Cold is the absence of heat. Heat exists, we can measure it, but we cannot measure cold.
> Student: Sir, do you believe darkness exists?
> Professor: Well yes, I believe darkness exists.
> Student: No sir, darkness does not exist. Darkness is the absence of light. We can measure light, we cannot measure darkness.
> Student: God is like cold and darkness, it is present in the absence of evil.
> 
> The Student: Albert Einstein.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't that from a silly chain email, or something of the like?  I'm pretty sure it's not something Einstein ever actually said.
Click to expand...


We can measure cold, it's called a thermometer. Dark is varying degrees of black. Einstein was too smart to say something that stupid.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a matter of what I consider immoral. I'm not going to spiritually judge your soul. Self-destructive behavior is what it is, and very few people are intentionally self-destructive. Meaning, most people can rationalize or justify their own self-destructive behavior.
> 
> Now, it's just my personal experience, but I have found that it's much more difficult to rationalize self-destructive behavior when you have a strong spiritual connection. I tend to be more aware of self-destructive behavior and recognize it as such. I am also less inclined toward it because I am not trying to fill a void. That said, like every human, I struggle with my weaknesses. A strong spiritual connection helps me to cope with those instead of falling into a more dangerous cycle of 'ignorant bliss.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name me a few vises you have.  Ones you have not been able to give up even with god watching.  For example, jacking off and thinking about that hot wife of your friends.  Or smoking.  Got any vises?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hesitate confessing these things here because I know how this works. The focus will be redirected toward my confession and away from the topic. Every human has vices, it's normal because we are human. The problem is when those vices turn into obsession or addiction. Like you seem to be about sex... this makes about the 20th post where you've referenced sex in some way.
> 
> Okay, here are few of my vices... I drink WAY too much coffee and tea, I am addicted to caffeine. I eat WAY too many foods that aren't healthy for me, I love to eat. When I go to an outdoor music festival once or twice a year, I enjoy a slug or two of good Kentucky Bourbon or Scotch and may even hit the occasional doobie my friends pass around. Other than that, I really don't have any vices.
> 
> Ooo... wait.... One more I thought about! A few years ago, one of my liberal hippy friends offered me shrooms.. I had never done them before, so I though... what the heck, let me give it a try. I seriously had one of the most intense spiritual connections I've ever experienced while high on shrooms. Don't ever want to do it again, once was enough, but if you are having trouble connecting to spiritual energy, I can highly recommend it.
Click to expand...


Even on acid I never found jesus.

Based on your vises, I say you don't have any vises.  Ooohhhh coffee?  You sinner you.

So you have never jacked off thinking about a woman you know that is maybe married to someone else like a friend?  I find that very hard to believe.  I daily look for the one who I will jack it to at the end of the night, if I'm not with a woman of course.  Then I'm looking for a woman who I will pretend my woman is when I'm hitting it in the dark or doggy style.  One time I was with a black woman and it was dark and we were drunk and I'm telling you she was Halle Berry!  Talk about a spiritual experience.  

But I don't believe those are your only vises.  Those are pussy confessions.  Sometimes I jaywalk.  Shut the fuck you you racist bigot.    Tell us some of your really sinful thoughts.  The ones you can't even mention to strangers on USMB who will never meet you.  You like little gilrls?  Little boys?

Point is, you have good and bad in you.  So you have the devil and god in you?  If that's what you mean by god then all you are doing is redefining what god is.  But at least its a start.  So god is good and devil is bad.  Right?


----------



## sealybobo

BillyP said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it wasn't planted in my head. Religious beliefs were planted in my head but they didn't stick. As I got older, I rebelled against religion and God entirely. I was just like you. I spent about 20 years being dismissive of God, believing that I didn't need no stinkin' God. It took a life-changing event to shake me up enough to realize how wrong I had been. I suspect the same thing will have to happen for you as well. Once I began being conscious of God, I looked back on those 20 years and saw just how far down the path of self-destruction I had travelled. You don't realize it while you're on the journey, I guess you're having too much fun. What I realized was, it wasn't really that much fun, it was more of a desperate attempt to try and fill that void. Sex, booze and drugs didn't do it. I was basically a miserable person, I ruined a good marriage, several other relationships, disappointed my parents and family, but more important, I let myself down.  I wish I had those years to live over again, but I don't.
> 
> I'm 100% certain about this "god thing" I'm talking about because I haven't tried to make it conform to some screwed up fantasy of a physical being that is invisible, sitting in a cloud casting judgement on me and making demands or threats. Instead, I've realized it is a powerful source of energy that is outside the physical, which enables humans to do amazing things, have amazing strength in the face of adversity or challenge, confidence in the ability to achieve, filling the void inside me which makes me complete.
> 
> 
> 
> No, you weren't like me. At least not like I am now. You may be like me before I rejected God and became like you for 20 years. Your "buddy" is no buddy, he simply needs you to help reinforce his disbelief. You are a codependent enabler. 90% of the human race is spiritual, there simply can't be that many stupid people in our species or we wouldn't exist. The fact that we've done things no other species has even come close to, is pretty much enough to dispel the myth that we are stupid. As for science, the people who were most instrumental in creating science were also devoutly spiritual people. I've given you the quotes and anecdotes from Isaac Newton. Without that man, science probably wouldn't exist as we know it.
> 
> 
> 
> I can't speak for different religions and how people spiritually worship, but the fact is, they are worshiping and experiencing something spiritual. How many Atheist channels do you watch? What? There aren't any? Well, that's probably because Atheists make up about one in ten people. There is no market for Atheist programs. You know it's bad when the miracle healers and snake handlers outnumber you as a demographic.
> 
> 
> 
> We have to watch? I beg your pardon, no we don't have to watch. I have my own story to relate here...
> 
> Professor: There is no scientific evidence God exists, therefore there must be no God.
> Student: Sir, I respectfully disagree.
> Professor: My dear lad, on what basis do you disagree?
> Student: Sir, do you believe that 'cold' exists?
> Professor: Well of course cold exists.
> Student: No sir, cold does not exist. Cold is the absence of heat. Heat exists, we can measure it, but we cannot measure cold.
> Student: Sir, do you believe darkness exists?
> Professor: Well yes, I believe darkness exists.
> Student: No sir, darkness does not exist. Darkness is the absence of light. We can measure light, we cannot measure darkness.
> Student: God is like cold and darkness, it is present in the absence of evil.
> 
> The Student: Albert Einstein.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't that from a silly chain email, or something of the like?  I'm pretty sure it's not something Einstein ever actually said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We can measure cold, it's called a thermometer. Dark is varying degrees of black. Einstein was too smart to say something that stupid.
Click to expand...


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> I think it's from his autobiography.



I'm going to try to find some more of your vises.  How do you feel about those illegal kids at the border?  Is life precious or not?  If you won't pay to house, feed and doctor them, do you really care about life?  

Ever find something and not turn it into the cops?  Money or jewelry?

Ever lie on USMB?

Ever lie trying to pick up a girl?

Ever slack at work and get paid for doing nothing?

Were you ever mean to a kid when you were a kid?  Are you going to hell for any and every bad act you ever committed?  How do you decide who goes to heaven and who goes to hell?  Are you just making all this shit up as you go along?  Answer is yes.


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's from his autobiography.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to try to find some more of your vises.  How do you feel about those illegal kids at the border?  Is life precious or not?  If you won't pay to house, feed and doctor them, do you really care about life?
Click to expand...


don't you think we have a moral obligation to reunite them with their families in Central America as quickly as possible?.......


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> So god is everything/anything good and the devil is everything/anything evil?  Why didn't you say so.
> 
> We already have names for those things.



What do you mean "already have" ...the reason you have names for things is because God blessed you with a brain that was able to come up with language to create words so you have names for things. You're acting like God is trying to find His niche, and ooops... too bad, we already have that spot filled, God... try again! lmfao. 



> If someone is raped or murdered, we have names for what they did.  And yes what they did was evil.  But there is no devil there.  And when I help someone out of the kindness of my heart, that is not god, that is me.  Why give something/someone else credit?  If you see a beautiful landscape, that is not god, that's a beautiful landscape.  No god necessary.  And if you want to believe in god, either keep it to yourself or expect criticism for your silly belief.



Yes, again... we have names for a lot of things, God gave us that ability to invent names. If you honestly understand the concepts of evil and good, then you have an intrinsic spiritual awareness, it doesn't matter what you choose to call it. Why the hell do you think you get to tell me what I have to keep to myself? You don't keep your views to yourself, why should I have to? You represent such an insignificant fraction of humanity it warrants constant ridicule. You're among the dumbest of the dumb. 



> And notice atheists do good things and religious people do bad things.  So what does it matter if we believe in god or not?  Do you think your belief in god makes you any more sorry for the sins you've committed?  I doubt it does.  I think god is just your safety blanket.
> 
> Who was the guy who said he believes because he wants to believe?  He's the most honest guy here.



I've repeatedly tried to explain to you that I don't simply "believe" something on faith. I make a very real connection with something greater than self, and do so on a daily basis. I realize a tremendous personal benefit from it, and I don't need to "prove" that to you or anyone else. God is not my safety blanket, it is the source of inspiration, courage, strength, patience, comfort and hope, that I experience as a result of my strong spiritual connection. Sorry that you've chosen to miss out on that, I can't help you if you won't help yourself.


----------



## Boss

BillyP said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it wasn't planted in my head. Religious beliefs were planted in my head but they didn't stick. As I got older, I rebelled against religion and God entirely. I was just like you. I spent about 20 years being dismissive of God, believing that I didn't need no stinkin' God. It took a life-changing event to shake me up enough to realize how wrong I had been. I suspect the same thing will have to happen for you as well. Once I began being conscious of God, I looked back on those 20 years and saw just how far down the path of self-destruction I had travelled. You don't realize it while you're on the journey, I guess you're having too much fun. What I realized was, it wasn't really that much fun, it was more of a desperate attempt to try and fill that void. Sex, booze and drugs didn't do it. I was basically a miserable person, I ruined a good marriage, several other relationships, disappointed my parents and family, but more important, I let myself down.  I wish I had those years to live over again, but I don't.
> 
> I'm 100% certain about this "god thing" I'm talking about because I haven't tried to make it conform to some screwed up fantasy of a physical being that is invisible, sitting in a cloud casting judgement on me and making demands or threats. Instead, I've realized it is a powerful source of energy that is outside the physical, which enables humans to do amazing things, have amazing strength in the face of adversity or challenge, confidence in the ability to achieve, filling the void inside me which makes me complete.
> 
> 
> 
> No, you weren't like me. At least not like I am now. You may be like me before I rejected God and became like you for 20 years. Your "buddy" is no buddy, he simply needs you to help reinforce his disbelief. You are a codependent enabler. 90% of the human race is spiritual, there simply can't be that many stupid people in our species or we wouldn't exist. The fact that we've done things no other species has even come close to, is pretty much enough to dispel the myth that we are stupid. As for science, the people who were most instrumental in creating science were also devoutly spiritual people. I've given you the quotes and anecdotes from Isaac Newton. Without that man, science probably wouldn't exist as we know it.
> 
> 
> 
> I can't speak for different religions and how people spiritually worship, but the fact is, they are worshiping and experiencing something spiritual. How many Atheist channels do you watch? What? There aren't any? Well, that's probably because Atheists make up about one in ten people. There is no market for Atheist programs. You know it's bad when the miracle healers and snake handlers outnumber you as a demographic.
> 
> 
> 
> We have to watch? I beg your pardon, no we don't have to watch. I have my own story to relate here...
> 
> Professor: There is no scientific evidence God exists, therefore there must be no God.
> Student: Sir, I respectfully disagree.
> Professor: My dear lad, on what basis do you disagree?
> Student: Sir, do you believe that 'cold' exists?
> Professor: Well of course cold exists.
> Student: No sir, cold does not exist. Cold is the absence of heat. Heat exists, we can measure it, but we cannot measure cold.
> Student: Sir, do you believe darkness exists?
> Professor: Well yes, I believe darkness exists.
> Student: No sir, darkness does not exist. Darkness is the absence of light. We can measure light, we cannot measure darkness.
> Student: God is like cold and darkness, it is present in the absence of evil.
> 
> The Student: Albert Einstein.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't that from a silly chain email, or something of the like?  I'm pretty sure it's not something Einstein ever actually said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We can measure cold, it's called a thermometer. Dark is varying degrees of black. Einstein was too smart to say something that stupid.
Click to expand...


Wow... A real-life Science illiterate. 
Thermodynamic principles say you can't measure cold, only the absence of heat. 
Newton's laws of color and light say you can't measure darkness, only light. 

How about take an advanced science course before you tell us about how intelligent Einstein was, moron?


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Even on acid I never found jesus.



What?  But I thought you were "just like" me? Now you admit that you never found Jesus? Wow... didn't mean to let that truth slip out there, did ya buddy? 



> Based on your vises, I say you don't have any vises.  Ooohhhh coffee?  You sinner you.



  



> So you have never jacked off thinking about a woman you know that is maybe married to someone else like a friend?  I find that very hard to believe.



You know, your posts are totally repulsive. I don't care what you find hard to believe. It's funny, when the big controversy came up with the Duck Dynasty patriarch, in that same interview session, his son revealed that the interviewer was just as skeptical that he and his wife had never had sex until the night of their marriage. "You don't expect us to believe that, do you?" was how he put it to him. Believe it or not, there are some people who are able to maintain control over their primal instincts.



> I daily look for the one who I will jack it to at the end of the night, if I'm not with a woman of course.  Then I'm looking for a woman who I will pretend my woman is when I'm hitting it in the dark or doggy style.  One time I was with a black woman and it was dark and we were drunk and I'm telling you she was Halle Berry!  Talk about a spiritual experience.



Do these women know they are only sexual objects for your gratification? And of course, you don't see a problem with living in a society where we remove all moral barriers to our laws and restrictions because you believe people would handle this responsibly... right? 



> Point is, you have good and bad in you.  So you have the devil and god in you?  If that's what you mean by god then all you are doing is redefining what god is.  But at least its a start.  So god is good and devil is bad.  Right?



I've not redefined anything here. You are redefining things for me and then attributing those idiotic thoughts to me. I've not mentioned "the devil" once in this entire thread.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> I think it's from his autobiography.



This is what I got in a quick search :

Einstein Proves God Exists - Urban Legends
Einstein proves God in an encounter with a professor-Fiction!
snopes.com: Albert Einstein Humiliates Atheist

I think this may be erroneously attributed to Einstein, assuming it even happened at all.


----------



## BillyP

Boss said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't that from a silly chain email, or something of the like?  I'm pretty sure it's not something Einstein ever actually said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We can measure cold, it's called a thermometer. Dark is varying degrees of black. Einstein was too smart to say something that stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow... A real-life Science illiterate.
> Thermodynamic principles say you can't measure cold, only the absence of heat.
> Newton's laws of color and light say you can't measure darkness, only light.
> 
> How about take an advanced science course before you tell us about how intelligent Einstein was, moron?
Click to expand...


I have a thermometer that measures how cold it is outside in the winter. I can tell how cold it is by looking at it. 
And the guy who says god is like electricity calls ME a moron?


----------



## Boss

BillyP said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can measure cold, it's called a thermometer. Dark is varying degrees of black. Einstein was too smart to say something that stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow... A real-life Science illiterate.
> Thermodynamic principles say you can't measure cold, only the absence of heat.
> Newton's laws of color and light say you can't measure darkness, only light.
> 
> How about take an advanced science course before you tell us about how intelligent Einstein was, moron?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a thermometer that measures how cold it is outside in the winter. I can tell how cold it is by looking at it.
> And the guy who says god is like electricity calls ME a moron?
Click to expand...


Nope... your thermometer measures the absence of heat energy and how this affects mercury in the thermometer. In physics, cold can't be quantified in any other way but the relative transfer of energy between two bodies. See Maxwell and the Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics, as well as the Uncertainty Principle. Cold is simply a word to describe lack of heat energy. Warning: Stay away from topics you're not equipped to debate. 

And yes, I do believe spiritual energy is like electric energy is in the physical universe. I've not seen you counter that argument with any relevant information. Can you?


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even on acid I never found jesus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What?  But I thought you were "just like" me? Now you admit that you never found Jesus? Wow... didn't mean to let that truth slip out there, did ya buddy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Based on your vises, I say you don't have any vises.  Ooohhhh coffee?  You sinner you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, your posts are totally repulsive. I don't care what you find hard to believe. It's funny, when the big controversy came up with the Duck Dynasty patriarch, in that same interview session, his son revealed that the interviewer was just as skeptical that he and his wife had never had sex until the night of their marriage. "You don't expect us to believe that, do you?" was how he put it to him. Believe it or not, there are some people who are able to maintain control over their primal instincts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I daily look for the one who I will jack it to at the end of the night, if I'm not with a woman of course.  Then I'm looking for a woman who I will pretend my woman is when I'm hitting it in the dark or doggy style.  One time I was with a black woman and it was dark and we were drunk and I'm telling you she was Halle Berry!  Talk about a spiritual experience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do these women know they are only sexual objects for your gratification? And of course, you don't see a problem with living in a society where we remove all moral barriers to our laws and restrictions because you believe people would handle this responsibly... right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Point is, you have good and bad in you.  So you have the devil and god in you?  If that's what you mean by god then all you are doing is redefining what god is.  But at least its a start.  So god is good and devil is bad.  Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've not redefined anything here. You are redefining things for me and then attributing those idiotic thoughts to me. I've not mentioned "the devil" once in this entire thread.
Click to expand...


You made reference in the past to hell.  What makes you believe in heaven & hell if you aren't a member of one of the organized religions?

And I don't see the problem of me fantasizing about beautiful women I know but will never be with.  There is a hot mom here right now in the lobby waiting for her kid to be done with his lesson.  I would suck on her toes and eat her pussy all night!  Does she know?  Of course not stupid.

My brother and his wife didn't have sex till marriage either.

Oh, and I never found Jesus when on acid.  I did feel guilty once though when I was on cocaine.  I knew god would/did not approve.  But that was back when I believed.  I haven't done coke since I turned atheist.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> You made reference in the past to hell.  What makes you believe in heaven & hell if you aren't a member of one of the organized religions?



Again... I haven't mentioned "the devil" in this thread, that has been all YOU. On the subject of "Hell" we discussed this a few pages back and I gave you my take on it, did you forget? Geesh, maybe that's what happens when you lose too much man juice? Depletes the ol' brain cells... I'd lay off that shit a while if I were you... in your case, you can't afford to lose that many. 



> And I don't see the problem of me fantasizing about beautiful women I know but will never be with.  There is a hot mom here right now in the lobby waiting for her kid to be done with his lesson.  I would suck on her toes and eat her pussy all night!  Does she know?  Of course not stupid.



Well she probably doesn't know because if you expressed your fantasy to her she'd have you arrested or her husband would come whip your ass. But the other day, we were discussing how laws may be changed to allow people the freedom of sexual expression, in which case, you might feel more inclined to put the moves on mom, or maybe even whip it out and start jerking it while she sits there waiting. Hey... that's not harming anyone, is it? Why should we be confined to these antiquated laws based on religious beliefs? What's wrong with a man just being able to whip his dick out and masturbate when he sees a foxy babe like that? Right? 



> My brother and his wife didn't have sex till marriage either.



Well, see there? It's really not all that hard to imagine someone being able to control their sexual desires, is it? You didn't have to go very far to find a personal example. 



> Oh, and I never found Jesus when on acid.  I did feel guilty once though when I was on cocaine.  I knew god would/did not approve.  But that was back when I believed.  I haven't done coke since I turned atheist.



No, acid is far too trippy to find Jesus or much anything else. But you stated: "Even on acid, I never found Jesus." That's a different statement than you're now making. I think you let a little bit of truth slip out there and now you want to cover that up. I don't typically do drugs and I don't recommend it, but when I did shrooms and had a spiritual experience, it was almost like... hey, now I understand why God gave us shrooms! Maybe it's a little unorthodox, but since you seem to have a passion for pleasure indulgence and you are such curious fucker when it comes to spirituality, perhaps shrooms could help you find Jesus?


----------



## Carla_Danger

Doing a little shrooms fer Jebus, huh?  LOL!

Don't forget to wave your little flag around while you're doing them!


----------



## GISMYS

Ephesians 6:12

BELIEVERS we are not fighting against flesh-and-blood enemies, but against evil rulers and authorities of the unseen world, against mighty powers in this dark world, and against evil spirits in the heavenly places.


----------



## BreezeWood

GISMYS said:


> Ephesians 6:12
> 
> BELIEVERS we are not fighting against flesh-and-blood enemies, but against evil rulers and authorities of the unseen world, against mighty powers in this dark world, and against evil spirits in the heavenly places.




*the unseen world ... in this dark world ... against evil spirits* 


GISMO, have someone look under your bed with you and use a flashlight ... just one good nits sleep may solve your problem(s) and do give a little thought for the people around you, for a change.

.


----------



## BillyP

Boss said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow... A real-life Science illiterate.
> Thermodynamic principles say you can't measure cold, only the absence of heat.
> Newton's laws of color and light say you can't measure darkness, only light.
> 
> How about take an advanced science course before you tell us about how intelligent Einstein was, moron?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a thermometer that measures how cold it is outside in the winter. I can tell how cold it is by looking at it.
> And the guy who says god is like electricity calls ME a moron?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope... your thermometer measures the absence of heat energy and how this affects mercury in the thermometer. In physics, cold can't be quantified in any other way but the relative transfer of energy between two bodies. See Maxwell and the Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics, as well as the Uncertainty Principle. Cold is simply a word to describe lack of heat energy. Warning: Stay away from topics you're not equipped to debate.
> 
> And yes, I do believe spiritual energy is like electric energy is in the physical universe. I've not seen you counter that argument with any relevant information. Can you?
Click to expand...

Relevant information? You believe in something akin to Santa Claus, how do you counter that? You want me to break a little kid's heart? 

-20 is fucking cold, a measure of how cold it is compared to say, -5, which is a lot less cold.  Geez, no wonder you see invisible beings.


----------



## Slyhunter

BillyP said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a thermometer that measures how cold it is outside in the winter. I can tell how cold it is by looking at it.
> And the guy who says god is like electricity calls ME a moron?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope... your thermometer measures the absence of heat energy and how this affects mercury in the thermometer. In physics, cold can't be quantified in any other way but the relative transfer of energy between two bodies. See Maxwell and the Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics, as well as the Uncertainty Principle. Cold is simply a word to describe lack of heat energy. Warning: Stay away from topics you're not equipped to debate.
> 
> And yes, I do believe spiritual energy is like electric energy is in the physical universe. I've not seen you counter that argument with any relevant information. Can you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Relevant information? You believe in something akin to Santa Claus, how do you counter that? You want me to break a little kid's heart?
> 
> -20 is fucking cold, a measure of how cold it is compared to say, -5, which is a lot less cold.  Geez, no wonder you see invisible beings.
Click to expand...




> Fahrenheit (symbol °F) is a temperature scale based on one proposed in 1724 by the physicist Daniel Gabriel Fahrenheit (16861736), after whom the scale is named.[1] On Fahrenheit's original scale the lower defining point was the lowest temperature to which he could reproducibly cool brine (defining 0 degrees), while the highest was that of the average human core body temperature (defining 100 degrees).


Fahrenheit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
vs


> Celsius, also known as centigrade,[1] is a scale and unit of measurement for temperature. It is named after the Swedish astronomer Anders Celsius (17011744), who developed a similar temperature scale. The degree Celsius (°C) can refer to a specific temperature on the Celsius scale as well as a unit to indicate a temperature interval, a difference between two temperatures or an uncertainty. The unit was known until 1948 as "centigrade" from the Latin centum translated as 100 and gradus translated as "steps".
> 
> From 1744 until 1954, 0 °C was defined as the freezing point of water and 100 °C was defined as the boiling point of water, both at a pressure of one standard atmosphere with mercury being the working material.


neither measures cold.
Then there is what they call Absolute 0, the total absence of all heat.


> Absolute zero is the lower limit of the thermodynamic temperature scale, a state at which the enthalpy and entropy of a cooled ideal gas reaches its minimum value, taken as 0. The theoretical temperature is determined by extrapolating the ideal gas law; by international agreement, absolute zero is taken as &#8722;273.15° on the Celsius scale (International System of Units),[1][2] which equates to &#8722;459.67° on the Fahrenheit scale (English/United States customary units).[3] The corresponding Kelvin and Rankine temperature scales set their zero points at absolute zero by definition.
> 
> It is commonly thought of as the lowest temperature possible, but it is not the lowest enthalpy state possible, because all real substances begin to depart from the ideal gas when cooled as they approach the change of state to liquid, and then to solid; and the sum of the enthalpy of vaporization (gas to liquid) and enthalpy of fusion (liquid to solid) exceeds the ideal gas's change in enthalpy to absolute zero. In the quantum-mechanical description, matter (solid) at absolute zero is in its ground state, the point of lowest internal energy.
> 
> The laws of thermodynamics dictate that absolute zero cannot be reached using only thermodynamic means,[clarification needed] as the temperature of the substance being cooled approaches the temperature of the cooling agent asymptotically. A system at absolute zero still possesses quantum mechanical zero-point energy, the energy of its ground state. The kinetic energy of the ground state cannot be removed.
> 
> Scientists have achieved temperatures extremely close to absolute zero, where matter exhibits quantum effects such as superconductivity and superfluidity.


Absolute zero - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

All temperature measurements measure heat not cold. Cold is the absence of heat. Dark is the absence of light.


----------



## BillyP

Slyhunter said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope... your thermometer measures the absence of heat energy and how this affects mercury in the thermometer. In physics, cold can't be quantified in any other way but the relative transfer of energy between two bodies. See Maxwell and the Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics, as well as the Uncertainty Principle. Cold is simply a word to describe lack of heat energy. Warning: Stay away from topics you're not equipped to debate.
> 
> And yes, I do believe spiritual energy is like electric energy is in the physical universe. I've not seen you counter that argument with any relevant information. Can you?
> 
> 
> 
> Relevant information? You believe in something akin to Santa Claus, how do you counter that? You want me to break a little kid's heart?
> 
> -20 is fucking cold, a measure of how cold it is compared to say, -5, which is a lot less cold.  Geez, no wonder you see invisible beings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Fahrenheit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> vs
> 
> 
> 
> Celsius, also known as centigrade,[1] is a scale and unit of measurement for temperature. It is named after the Swedish astronomer Anders Celsius (17011744), who developed a similar temperature scale. The degree Celsius (°C) can refer to a specific temperature on the Celsius scale as well as a unit to indicate a temperature interval, a difference between two temperatures or an uncertainty. The unit was known until 1948 as "centigrade" from the Latin centum translated as 100 and gradus translated as "steps".
> 
> From 1744 until 1954, 0 °C was defined as the freezing point of water and 100 °C was defined as the boiling point of water, both at a pressure of one standard atmosphere with mercury being the working material.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> neither measures cold.
> Then there is what they call Absolute 0, the total absence of all heat.
> 
> 
> 
> Absolute zero is the lower limit of the thermodynamic temperature scale, a state at which the enthalpy and entropy of a cooled ideal gas reaches its minimum value, taken as 0. The theoretical temperature is determined by extrapolating the ideal gas law; by international agreement, absolute zero is taken as &#8722;273.15° on the Celsius scale (International System of Units),[1][2] which equates to &#8722;459.67° on the Fahrenheit scale (English/United States customary units).[3] The corresponding Kelvin and Rankine temperature scales set their zero points at absolute zero by definition.
> 
> It is commonly thought of as the lowest temperature possible, but it is not the lowest enthalpy state possible, because all real substances begin to depart from the ideal gas when cooled as they approach the change of state to liquid, and then to solid; and the sum of the enthalpy of vaporization (gas to liquid) and enthalpy of fusion (liquid to solid) exceeds the ideal gas's change in enthalpy to absolute zero. In the quantum-mechanical description, matter (solid) at absolute zero is in its ground state, the point of lowest internal energy.
> 
> The laws of thermodynamics dictate that absolute zero cannot be reached using only thermodynamic means,[clarification needed] as the temperature of the substance being cooled approaches the temperature of the cooling agent asymptotically. A system at absolute zero still possesses quantum mechanical zero-point energy, the energy of its ground state. The kinetic energy of the ground state cannot be removed.
> 
> Scientists have achieved temperatures extremely close to absolute zero, where matter exhibits quantum effects such as superconductivity and superfluidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Absolute zero - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> All temperature measurements measure heat not cold. Cold is the absence of heat. Dark is the absence of light.
Click to expand...


Sorry, but in the real world, cold is measured by the minus sign, as in, -15, which on a proper scale, is 15 degrees below the freezing point. We don't call that 150 degrees above absolute zero, or whatever it is, we call it -15, and people can tell by that how cold it is. Wind chill adds to that coldness, and we don't call that taking more heat away, but getting colder. Pretty simple really. But I guess you have to argue about something, right?


----------



## Boss

BillyP said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a thermometer that measures how cold it is outside in the winter. I can tell how cold it is by looking at it.
> And the guy who says god is like electricity calls ME a moron?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope... your thermometer measures the absence of heat energy and how this affects mercury in the thermometer. In physics, cold can't be quantified in any other way but the relative transfer of energy between two bodies. See Maxwell and the Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics, as well as the Uncertainty Principle. Cold is simply a word to describe lack of heat energy. Warning: Stay away from topics you're not equipped to debate.
> 
> And yes, I do believe spiritual energy is like electric energy is in the physical universe. I've not seen you counter that argument with any relevant information. Can you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Relevant information? You believe in something akin to Santa Claus, how do you counter that? You want me to break a little kid's heart?
> 
> -20 is fucking cold, a measure of how cold it is compared to say, -5, which is a lot less cold.  Geez, no wonder you see invisible beings.
Click to expand...


As you've been shown, in physics, cold is merely the absence of heat energy. You say -20 is "fucking cold" but it's nearly boiling compared to -459. In fact, if you ever have a chance to see liquid nitrogen in an open container, you will notice it appears to be boiling. It is actually -212 degrees, but exposed to ambient room temperature of 72 degrees, it is in fact "boiling." So "cold" becomes a relative term. 

The point of the examples are, the lack of actual physical evidence for the "existence" of things like "cold" and "dark." We have physical evidence of heat and light, those can be quantified. Cold and dark denote an absence of the aforementioned. Yet you demonstrate beautifully how much devout faith you have in their existence. 

I can also make the same point about time. The only actual "time" that can be "proven to exist" is the current state of present. The past no longer exists, it existed once as present, it's now gone forever. The future doesn't yet exist, it will eventually exist as present, then it will be gone forever. Now most people recognize time exists, but the only physical presence of time is present time. So there are many things that we can't physically prove the existence of, yet they do exist and we are aware of them. 

I don't believe in something akin Santa Claus. You disbelieve in a God that is akin to Santa Claus to you, and you are projecting that on me. You assume that what I believe in is what you disbelieve, and you are wrong.


----------



## BillyP

Boss said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope... your thermometer measures the absence of heat energy and how this affects mercury in the thermometer. In physics, cold can't be quantified in any other way but the relative transfer of energy between two bodies. See Maxwell and the Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics, as well as the Uncertainty Principle. Cold is simply a word to describe lack of heat energy. Warning: Stay away from topics you're not equipped to debate.
> 
> And yes, I do believe spiritual energy is like electric energy is in the physical universe. I've not seen you counter that argument with any relevant information. Can you?
> 
> 
> 
> Relevant information? You believe in something akin to Santa Claus, how do you counter that? You want me to break a little kid's heart?
> 
> -20 is fucking cold, a measure of how cold it is compared to say, -5, which is a lot less cold.  Geez, no wonder you see invisible beings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As you've been shown, in physics, cold is merely the absence of heat energy. You say -20 is "fucking cold" but it's nearly boiling compared to -459. In fact, if you ever have a chance to see liquid nitrogen in an open container, you will notice it appears to be boiling. It is actually -212 degrees, but exposed to ambient room temperature of 72 degrees, it is in fact "boiling." So "cold" becomes a relative term.
> 
> The point of the examples are, the lack of actual physical evidence for the "existence" of things like "cold" and "dark." We have physical evidence of heat and light, those can be quantified. Cold and dark denote an absence of the aforementioned. Yet you demonstrate beautifully how much devout faith you have in their existence.
> 
> I can also make the same point about time. The only actual "time" that can be "proven to exist" is the current state of present. The past no longer exists, it existed once as present, it's now gone forever. The future doesn't yet exist, it will eventually exist as present, then it will be gone forever. Now most people recognize time exists, but the only physical presence of time is present time. So there are many things that we can't physically prove the existence of, yet they do exist and we are aware of them.
> 
> I don't believe in something akin Santa Claus. You disbelieve in a God that is akin to Santa Claus to you, and you are projecting that on me. You assume that what I believe in is what you disbelieve, and you are wrong.
Click to expand...

I don't disbelieve, I'm agnostic, I see no proof either way. Show me actual proof and I'll change my mind. Can't be any fairer than that.


----------



## BillyP

As for the thermometer thing, -20 isn't in relation to absolute zero, it's in relation to water freezing and humans getting cold, (In Celsius, the proper scale). It's a measure of how cold it is.


----------



## Boss

BillyP said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> Relevant information? You believe in something akin to Santa Claus, how do you counter that? You want me to break a little kid's heart?
> 
> -20 is fucking cold, a measure of how cold it is compared to say, -5, which is a lot less cold.  Geez, no wonder you see invisible beings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you've been shown, in physics, cold is merely the absence of heat energy. You say -20 is "fucking cold" but it's nearly boiling compared to -459. In fact, if you ever have a chance to see liquid nitrogen in an open container, you will notice it appears to be boiling. It is actually -212 degrees, but exposed to ambient room temperature of 72 degrees, it is in fact "boiling." So "cold" becomes a relative term.
> 
> The point of the examples are, the lack of actual physical evidence for the "existence" of things like "cold" and "dark." We have physical evidence of heat and light, those can be quantified. Cold and dark denote an absence of the aforementioned. Yet you demonstrate beautifully how much devout faith you have in their existence.
> 
> I can also make the same point about time. The only actual "time" that can be "proven to exist" is the current state of present. The past no longer exists, it existed once as present, it's now gone forever. The future doesn't yet exist, it will eventually exist as present, then it will be gone forever. Now most people recognize time exists, but the only physical presence of time is present time. So there are many things that we can't physically prove the existence of, yet they do exist and we are aware of them.
> 
> I don't believe in something akin Santa Claus. You disbelieve in a God that is akin to Santa Claus to you, and you are projecting that on me. You assume that what I believe in is what you disbelieve, and you are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't disbelieve, I'm agnostic, I see no proof either way. Show me actual proof and I'll change my mind. Can't be any fairer than that.
Click to expand...


Well... show me proof that cold exists or dark, or time.


----------



## Boss

BillyP said:


> As for the thermometer thing, -20 isn't in relation to absolute zero, it's in relation to water freezing and humans getting cold, (In Celsius, the proper scale). It's a measure of how cold it is.



No, it's a measure of how little heat energy there is.


----------



## BillyP

Boss said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> As you've been shown, in physics, cold is merely the absence of heat energy. You say -20 is "fucking cold" but it's nearly boiling compared to -459. In fact, if you ever have a chance to see liquid nitrogen in an open container, you will notice it appears to be boiling. It is actually -212 degrees, but exposed to ambient room temperature of 72 degrees, it is in fact "boiling." So "cold" becomes a relative term.
> 
> The point of the examples are, the lack of actual physical evidence for the "existence" of things like "cold" and "dark." We have physical evidence of heat and light, those can be quantified. Cold and dark denote an absence of the aforementioned. Yet you demonstrate beautifully how much devout faith you have in their existence.
> 
> I can also make the same point about time. The only actual "time" that can be "proven to exist" is the current state of present. The past no longer exists, it existed once as present, it's now gone forever. The future doesn't yet exist, it will eventually exist as present, then it will be gone forever. Now most people recognize time exists, but the only physical presence of time is present time. So there are many things that we can't physically prove the existence of, yet they do exist and we are aware of them.
> 
> I don't believe in something akin Santa Claus. You disbelieve in a God that is akin to Santa Claus to you, and you are projecting that on me. You assume that what I believe in is what you disbelieve, and you are wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't disbelieve, I'm agnostic, I see no proof either way. Show me actual proof and I'll change my mind. Can't be any fairer than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well... show me proof that cold exists or dark, or time.
Click to expand...


Winter, nightime and a watch. Anything else?


----------



## Boss

BillyP said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't disbelieve, I'm agnostic, I see no proof either way. Show me actual proof and I'll change my mind. Can't be any fairer than that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well... show me proof that cold exists or dark, or time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Winter, nightime and a watch. Anything else?
Click to expand...


Well... prayer, worship and miracles... anything else? lol...see how that worked?


----------



## BillyP

Boss said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well... show me proof that cold exists or dark, or time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Winter, nightime and a watch. Anything else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well... prayer, worship and miracles... anything else? lol...see how that worked?
Click to expand...


I said actual proof. If you have any actual proof of all the stuff you claim about god... I'll listen with an open mind. In fact, it's one of the reasons that I came here to this board, to see if there was any here. So far, nope.


----------



## Boss

BillyP said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> Winter, nightime and a watch. Anything else?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well... prayer, worship and miracles... anything else? lol...see how that worked?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said actual proof. If you have any actual proof of all the stuff you claim about god... I'll listen with an open mind. In fact, it's one of the reasons that I came here to this board, to see if there was any here. So far, nope.
Click to expand...


And if you have any actual proof of cold, dark and time, I will also listen. 

I find it hard to believe that a smart ass who makes "Santa Claus" comments and "invisible sky fairy" retorts, is serous about being anything near objective.


----------



## BillyP

Boss said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well... prayer, worship and miracles... anything else? lol...see how that worked?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I said actual proof. If you have any actual proof of all the stuff you claim about god... I'll listen with an open mind. In fact, it's one of the reasons that I came here to this board, to see if there was any here. So far, nope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if you have any actual proof of cold, dark and time, I will also listen.
> 
> I find it hard to believe that a smart ass who makes "Santa Claus" comments and "invisible sky fairy" retorts, is serous about being anything near objective.
Click to expand...


Actually, there's more proof of Santa Claus than your god, because someone had to have eaten those cookies I left for him when I was 5.


----------



## Boss

BillyP said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said actual proof. If you have any actual proof of all the stuff you claim about god... I'll listen with an open mind. In fact, it's one of the reasons that I came here to this board, to see if there was any here. So far, nope.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if you have any actual proof of cold, dark and time, I will also listen.
> 
> I find it hard to believe that a smart ass who makes "Santa Claus" comments and "invisible sky fairy" retorts, is serous about being anything near objective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, there's more proof of Santa Claus than your god, because someone had to have eaten those cookies I left for him when I was 5.
Click to expand...


Hey, if you're fine with continuing to demonstrate that you're a liar and have no intention of being objective, that's fine with me. You don't even have any idea of what "my god" is. It does not have to be proven to you. You're completely free to believe what you want to believe, but you're not going to get away with lying about your willingness to be objective, I'll call you out for that and show people what a liar you are every time.


----------



## BillyP

Boss said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if you have any actual proof of cold, dark and time, I will also listen.
> 
> I find it hard to believe that a smart ass who makes "Santa Claus" comments and "invisible sky fairy" retorts, is serous about being anything near objective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, there's more proof of Santa Claus than your god, because someone had to have eaten those cookies I left for him when I was 5.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, if you're fine with continuing to demonstrate that you're a liar and have no intention of being objective, that's fine with me. You don't even have any idea of what "my god" is. It does not have to be proven to you. You're completely free to believe what you want to believe, but you're not going to get away with lying about your willingness to be objective, I'll call you out for that and show people what a liar you are every time.
Click to expand...


Me thinks that you come here to pontificate about your god because you're not too sure about it all yourself, and threads like this make you flesh out your ideas, which make you unsure, so you try out new ideas, which make you unsure... You get the idea.


----------



## Boss

BillyP said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, there's more proof of Santa Claus than your god, because someone had to have eaten those cookies I left for him when I was 5.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, if you're fine with continuing to demonstrate that you're a liar and have no intention of being objective, that's fine with me. You don't even have any idea of what "my god" is. It does not have to be proven to you. You're completely free to believe what you want to believe, but you're not going to get away with lying about your willingness to be objective, I'll call you out for that and show people what a liar you are every time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Me thinks that you come here to pontificate about your god because you're not too sure about it all yourself, and threads like this make you flesh out your ideas, which make you unsure, so you try out new ideas, which make you unsure... You get the idea.
Click to expand...


lmao.. You really haven't been following this thread, have you?


----------



## hobelim

BillyP said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> Winter, nightime and a watch. Anything else?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well... prayer, worship and miracles... anything else? lol...see how that worked?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said actual proof. If you have any actual proof of all the stuff you claim about god... I'll listen with an open mind. In fact, it's one of the reasons that I came here to this board, to see if there was any here. So far, nope.
Click to expand...



God is incorporeal, pure mind. If you want to see proof of God you must have a pure mind.

If in your mind you are seeking proof of the existence of God as defined by a superficial literal interpretation of scripture perpetuated by the superstitious, you will look and look and look for evidence but you will never find anything.

In other words if what you believe about God is false because you are looking for the God defined by Christians, a triune god made man, you will never find it because it does not exist and what Christians profess to believe about God does not correspond to any real living being ever in existence.

If you look and look and keep on looking for a more rational interpretation of scripture that conforms to the image of a loving and benevolent God by discerning the deeper implications of the words and subjects written, then everywhere you look you will see evidence of God.


----------



## BillyP

hobelim said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well... prayer, worship and miracles... anything else? lol...see how that worked?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I said actual proof. If you have any actual proof of all the stuff you claim about god... I'll listen with an open mind. In fact, it's one of the reasons that I came here to this board, to see if there was any here. So far, nope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> God is incorporeal, pure mind. If you want to see proof of God you must have a pure mind.
> 
> If in your mind you are seeking proof of the existence of God as defined as defined by a superficial literal interpretation of scripture perpetuated by the superstitious, you will look and look and look for evidence but you will never find anything.
> 
> In other words if what you believe about God is false because you are looking for the God defined by Christians, a triune god made man, you will never find it because it does not exist and what Christians profess to believe about God does not correspond to any real living being ever in existence.
> 
> If you look and look and keep on looking for a more rational interpretation of scripture that conforms to the image of a loving and benevolent God by discerning the deeper implications of the words and subjects written, then everywhere you look you will see evidence of God.
Click to expand...

In other words, you got nothing. Got it.


----------



## Boss

BillyP said:


> In other words, you got nothing. Got it.



Seems to me he had something and you couldn't refute it. That's beginning to be a pattern here. hobelim and myself rarely ever agree on anything, in fact we may have never agreed on anything, probably don't agree on the subject of God either, but both he and I have attempted to engage you in honest objective discourse, only to have you reject what we said without rebuttal. If your goal is to come here and proclaim that no one here can make you believe in God... guess what? You win! That's not going to happen, none of us expect it to. So... you win, give yourself a cookie and go surf porn!


----------



## Slyhunter

BillyP said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> Relevant information? You believe in something akin to Santa Claus, how do you counter that? You want me to break a little kid's heart?
> 
> -20 is fucking cold, a measure of how cold it is compared to say, -5, which is a lot less cold.  Geez, no wonder you see invisible beings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fahrenheit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> vs
> 
> neither measures cold.
> Then there is what they call Absolute 0, the total absence of all heat.
> 
> 
> 
> Absolute zero is the lower limit of the thermodynamic temperature scale, a state at which the enthalpy and entropy of a cooled ideal gas reaches its minimum value, taken as 0. The theoretical temperature is determined by extrapolating the ideal gas law; by international agreement, absolute zero is taken as &#8722;273.15° on the Celsius scale (International System of Units),[1][2] which equates to &#8722;459.67° on the Fahrenheit scale (English/United States customary units).[3] The corresponding Kelvin and Rankine temperature scales set their zero points at absolute zero by definition.
> 
> It is commonly thought of as the lowest temperature possible, but it is not the lowest enthalpy state possible, because all real substances begin to depart from the ideal gas when cooled as they approach the change of state to liquid, and then to solid; and the sum of the enthalpy of vaporization (gas to liquid) and enthalpy of fusion (liquid to solid) exceeds the ideal gas's change in enthalpy to absolute zero. In the quantum-mechanical description, matter (solid) at absolute zero is in its ground state, the point of lowest internal energy.
> 
> The laws of thermodynamics dictate that absolute zero cannot be reached using only thermodynamic means,[clarification needed] as the temperature of the substance being cooled approaches the temperature of the cooling agent asymptotically. A system at absolute zero still possesses quantum mechanical zero-point energy, the energy of its ground state. The kinetic energy of the ground state cannot be removed.
> 
> Scientists have achieved temperatures extremely close to absolute zero, where matter exhibits quantum effects such as superconductivity and superfluidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Absolute zero - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> All temperature measurements measure heat not cold. Cold is the absence of heat. Dark is the absence of light.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but in the real world, cold is measured by the minus sign, as in, -15, which on a proper scale, is 15 degrees below the freezing point. We don't call that 150 degrees above absolute zero, or whatever it is, we call it -15, and people can tell by that how cold it is. Wind chill adds to that coldness, and we don't call that taking more heat away, but getting colder. Pretty simple really. But I guess you have to argue about something, right?
Click to expand...


Actually, in the real world, +30 degrees Fahrenheit is the freezing temperature of water. You're being very ignorant.


----------



## Montrovant

Slyhunter said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fahrenheit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> vs
> 
> neither measures cold.
> Then there is what they call Absolute 0, the total absence of all heat.
> 
> Absolute zero - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> All temperature measurements measure heat not cold. Cold is the absence of heat. Dark is the absence of light.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but in the real world, cold is measured by the minus sign, as in, -15, which on a proper scale, is 15 degrees below the freezing point. We don't call that 150 degrees above absolute zero, or whatever it is, we call it -15, and people can tell by that how cold it is. Wind chill adds to that coldness, and we don't call that taking more heat away, but getting colder. Pretty simple really. But I guess you have to argue about something, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, in the real world, +30 degrees Fahrenheit is the freezing temperature of water. You're being very ignorant.
Click to expand...


That assumes he isn't using Celsius.

Also, as far as I'm aware, the freezing temp of water is 32 degrees Fahrenheit.

It's no good pointing out someone's ignorance with an incorrect statement.


----------



## BreezeWood

> Well... show me proof that cold exists or dark, or time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, in the real world,
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


actually in the real world it would be cold and dark as the default existence where the advent of the universe began as light and warmth ... what light or warmth was there that shed upon the Big Bang (before the bang) ?

.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You made reference in the past to hell.  What makes you believe in heaven & hell if you aren't a member of one of the organized religions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I don't see the problem of me fantasizing about beautiful women I know but will never be with.  There is a hot mom here right now in the lobby waiting for her kid to be done with his lesson.  I would suck on her toes and eat her pussy all night!  Does she know?  Of course not stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well she probably doesn't know because if you expressed your fantasy to her she'd have you arrested or her husband would come whip your ass. But the other day, we were discussing how laws may be changed to allow people the freedom of sexual expression, in which case, you might feel more inclined to put the moves on mom, or maybe even whip it out and start jerking it while she sits there waiting. Hey... that's not harming anyone, is it? Why should we be confined to these antiquated laws based on religious beliefs? What's wrong with a man just being able to whip his dick out and masturbate when he sees a foxy babe like that? Right?
Click to expand...


Actually, regarding flirting/hitting on women, the laws are going the opposite way.  Today now you get in trouble just for making woman feel uncomfortable.  Did you see the thing on facebook where the women were complaining about cat calls?  Pahleez ladies.  Wait till your looks fade and the cats calls stop coming.  Then you'll cry because no one is hitting on you anymore.  

Do you know what the difference between harassment and flirting is?  If she likes it.  If she doesn't you are a creep.  If she likes you it's just flirting.  So I don't hit on moms at work unless they start it because then it'd be uncomfortable if she's not into it.  

Sorry Boss, you think you caught me in a lie but back when I did blow I believed in god.  Apparently not enough that he kept me from putting that shit up my nose.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you got nothing. Got it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems to me he had something and you couldn't refute it. That's beginning to be a pattern here. hobelim and myself rarely ever agree on anything, in fact we may have never agreed on anything, probably don't agree on the subject of God either, but both he and I have attempted to engage you in honest objective discourse, only to have you reject what we said without rebuttal. If your goal is to come here and proclaim that no one here can make you believe in God... guess what? You win! That's not going to happen, none of us expect it to. So... you win, give yourself a cookie and go surf porn!
Click to expand...


What we've come to realize is there are going to be a few dopes like you who despite all the facts, evidence & reasoned logic, you are still going to believe no matter how little proof you have.  In fact, you'll use bad evidence as proof your god exists.  

Fact is, you believe despite the evidence.  You believe because you want to believe.

And so really the only thing for us to say to each other is every once in awhile I like to point out what a dope you are for having an imaginary friend. 

What pisses me off about you is you cling to that idea that god must exist because human's have always believed.  Even though I explain to you how/when/why humans came up with god.  A healthy fear of the unknown, wild imaginations and a fear of what happens when someone dies.

You don't realize that when the wooly mammoth killed father mother told the kids not to worry because he's in a better place now.  This doesn't prove a god exists.  It proves humans made up god to answer things they didn't know.  And they weren't very intelligent back then.  Today we are smarter than that and most scientists/atheists agree there is little if any evidence god exists.  Sorry, but you are 99.999% probably wrong.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> Well she probably doesn't know because if you expressed your fantasy to her she'd have you arrested or her husband would come whip your ass. But the other day, we were discussing how laws may be changed to allow people the freedom of sexual expression, in which case, you might feel more inclined to put the moves on mom, or maybe even whip it out and start jerking it while she sits there waiting. Hey... that's not harming anyone, is it? Why should we be confined to these antiquated laws based on religious beliefs? What's wrong with a man just being able to whip his dick out and masturbate when he sees a foxy babe like that? Right?
> 
> 
> There are sooo many beautiful MILF's at my work.  The one I was talking about the other day came in with such short shorts and she was showing me her freckly legs and then her tan lines on her bikini top and I don't think she knew how much she was driving me crazy.
> 
> I also have a foot fetish and these women come in with their toes done perfectly and I would love to put their feet in my mouth so bad.
> 
> And by the way, for those of you who hate feet, I do too if they are bad feet, but pretty feet are the biggest turn on.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> What we've come to realize is there are going to be a few dopes like you who despite all the facts, evidence & reasoned logic, you are still going to believe no matter how little proof you have.  In fact, you'll use bad evidence as proof your god exists.
> 
> Fact is, you believe despite the evidence.  You believe because you want to believe.
> 
> And so really the only thing for us to say to each other is every once in awhile I like to point out what a dope you are for having an imaginary friend.
> 
> What pisses me off about you is you cling to that idea that god must exist because human's have always believed.  Even though I explain to you how/when/why humans came up with god.  A healthy fear of the unknown, wild imaginations and a fear of what happens when someone dies.
> 
> You don't realize that when the wooly mammoth killed father mother told the kids not to worry because he's in a better place now.  This doesn't prove a god exists.  It proves humans made up god to answer things they didn't know.  And they weren't very intelligent back then.  Today we are smarter than that and most scientists/atheists agree there is little if any evidence god exists.  Sorry, but you are 99.999% probably wrong.



I've not seen all this "evidence and facts" you claim exists. When are you planning on releasing that? Your OPINION on things are not facts or evidence of anything other than your utter stupidity. I've already debunked every claim you've presented with factual scientific data that you've not refuted. You have proven that you are going to continue ignoring that and reposting the same argument over and over again, like some kind of autobot. 

The fact remains, about 90% of the human race believes in something spiritual, and about 10% don't. The majority includes scientists, doctors, geniuses, and people from every walk of life. You've not proven anything wrong, in fact, you've not even offered any valid evidence that anything is wrong. We've been waiting for that for weeks, over 5,000 posts now, still... *crickets*


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What we've come to realize is there are going to be a few dopes like you who despite all the facts, evidence & reasoned logic, you are still going to believe no matter how little proof you have.  In fact, you'll use bad evidence as proof your god exists.
> 
> Fact is, you believe despite the evidence.  You believe because you want to believe.
> 
> And so really the only thing for us to say to each other is every once in awhile I like to point out what a dope you are for having an imaginary friend.
> 
> What pisses me off about you is you cling to that idea that god must exist because human's have always believed.  Even though I explain to you how/when/why humans came up with god.  A healthy fear of the unknown, wild imaginations and a fear of what happens when someone dies.
> 
> You don't realize that when the wooly mammoth killed father mother told the kids not to worry because he's in a better place now.  This doesn't prove a god exists.  It proves humans made up god to answer things they didn't know.  And they weren't very intelligent back then.  Today we are smarter than that and most scientists/atheists agree there is little if any evidence god exists.  Sorry, but you are 99.999% probably wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've not seen all this "evidence and facts" you claim exists. When are you planning on releasing that? Your OPINION on things are not facts or evidence of anything other than your utter stupidity. I've already debunked every claim you've presented with factual scientific data that you've not refuted. You have proven that you are going to continue ignoring that and reposting the same argument over and over again, like some kind of autobot.
> 
> The fact remains, about 90% of the human race believes in something spiritual, and about 10% don't. The majority includes scientists, doctors, geniuses, and people from every walk of life. You've not proven anything wrong, in fact, you've not even offered any valid evidence that anything is wrong. We've been waiting for that for weeks, over 5,000 posts now, still... *crickets*
Click to expand...


You've shown me nothing nada zero zilch.  You believe because man has always believed and you have this silly notions about spirituality.  

The evidence I've shown you is like in a court trial.  Lets say the OJ case where he killed those two people.  The likelyhood OJ didn't do it is about the same chances I give there being a god.  

And when I say god I mean the something that you think created everything.

Anyways, we know OJ drove over, killed Ron and Nicole then ran back and had Cato hide the knife and burn the gloves and he flew off to Chicago.

Anyways, more people than not decided he wasn't guilty.  So I don't care that 90% believe in SOMETHING.  The fact they all believe different should tell you something but that FACT doesn't even phase you.  So I have shown you all the evidence I have.  If you are one of those OJ jurors who found him not guilty, then I guess that means the majority agree with you and you must be right.  OJ must be innocent.  

And you haven't shot anything I've said down other than in your own head.  I've given you pretty much the standard atheist come backs to all the things that theists usually say but I have to say you have a very wild imagination and are able to pick and choose the parts of religion you like and throw away the parts you don't like.  How lovely you can do that and in your head you are right.  It must be nice.  I hear ignorance is bliss so you must be really happy.  


Lots of people believe in a god.

Argumentum ad populum. The popularity of an idea says nothing of its veracity.

Geocentrism, a flat earth, creationism, astrology, alchemy and the occult were all once pervasive beliefs.

Furthermore, religions are culturally relative and, for the most part, are inconsistent and mutually exclusive.

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.  Stephen F Roberts

A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it.  David Stevens


The fact that lots of people hold an irrational belief is simply evidence that our brains are able to compartmentalize world-views and models from one another, usually in order to maintain a state of ignorant bliss and escape the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What we've come to realize is there are going to be a few dopes like you who despite all the facts, evidence & reasoned logic, you are still going to believe no matter how little proof you have.  In fact, you'll use bad evidence as proof your god exists.
> 
> Fact is, you believe despite the evidence.  You believe because you want to believe.
> 
> And so really the only thing for us to say to each other is every once in awhile I like to point out what a dope you are for having an imaginary friend.
> 
> What pisses me off about you is you cling to that idea that god must exist because human's have always believed.  Even though I explain to you how/when/why humans came up with god.  A healthy fear of the unknown, wild imaginations and a fear of what happens when someone dies.
> 
> You don't realize that when the wooly mammoth killed father mother told the kids not to worry because he's in a better place now.  This doesn't prove a god exists.  It proves humans made up god to answer things they didn't know.  And they weren't very intelligent back then.  Today we are smarter than that and most scientists/atheists agree there is little if any evidence god exists.  Sorry, but you are 99.999% probably wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've not seen all this "evidence and facts" you claim exists. When are you planning on releasing that? Your OPINION on things are not facts or evidence of anything other than your utter stupidity. I've already debunked every claim you've presented with factual scientific data that you've not refuted. You have proven that you are going to continue ignoring that and reposting the same argument over and over again, like some kind of autobot.
> 
> The fact remains, about 90% of the human race believes in something spiritual, and about 10% don't. The majority includes scientists, doctors, geniuses, and people from every walk of life. You've not proven anything wrong, in fact, you've not even offered any valid evidence that anything is wrong. We've been waiting for that for weeks, over 5,000 posts now, still... *crickets*
Click to expand...


Atheists should prove god doesnt exist.

The burden of proof is on the person or party asserting the claim; in this case, the theist.

A common attempt to shift the burden of proof or make room for a god. Represents a type of false dichotomy that excludes the fact that there is insufficient investigation and the proposition has not yet been proven either true or false.

The failure to disprove the existence of something does not constitute proof of its existence.

Belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims because all such claims would need to be believed implicitly. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

I have shown you tons of facts and evidence and you are slimy/slick enough to be able to argue anything.  For example, you take a bite of shit and say it tastes good.  Not only do you say it taste good you can actually make a pretty good argument that it tastes good.  You are so full of shit that you can actually believe your own bullshit too.  I truly believe you believe in this god and that your arguments are sound.  But you have poo pooed so much that I have shown you I guess you just believe because you want to believe.  You can't even imagine there is no god.  I don't believe that.  You have spent enough time on this site and read enough you have to wonder sometimes if the invisible guy is real or not.  NOT!

Morality is a cultural concept with a basis in evolutionary psychology and game theory. Species whose members were predisposed to cooperate were more likely to survive and pass on their genes. Reciprocacy, altruism and other so-called moral characteristics are evident in many species. The neurochemical thought to regulate morality and empathy is oxytocin.

Religious texts are simply part of many early attempts to codify moral precepts. Secular law, flexible with the shifting moral zeitgeist, has long since superseded religion as a source of moral directives for the majority of developed societies.


----------



## sealybobo

Why there is no god

This site has shot down every one of boss' arguments.  Or this site explains why every argument he makes is not without some fatal flaw. 

Boss thinks because people have always believed in something greater than self, that is why he believes god exists.  So just because ancient man was superstitious and had a healthy fear of the unknown and brains large/smart enough to have wild imaginations and invent angels, demons, witches, ghosts and gods, that means god exists?  

Boss is a cherry picker too.  He picks some things about religion, like going to hell for not believing, but then says he isn't a christian, muslim or jew.  So at least he admits that god never talked to anyone like Mosus, Noah or Mohammad.  

BUT then on the other hand Boss talks to god all the time.  And apparently god blesses him.  What a fucking joke.  

Why do I have to resort to that website?  Because there is so much wrong with your argument.  I look through all 46 points and I want to use all 46 in response to the bullshit you've been saying.  Its just infuriating that someone can use such bad/wrong logic and then think he is the one who's winning the argument.  Just know that us atheists sit around and laugh at you religious people.  If you were with us you would be the butt of our jokes.  But don't worry, we don't think you're going to hell for being such a fucking moron.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What we've come to realize is there are going to be a few dopes like you who despite all the facts, evidence & reasoned logic, you are still going to believe no matter how little proof you have.  In fact, you'll use bad evidence as proof your god exists.
> 
> Fact is, you believe despite the evidence.  You believe because you want to believe.
> 
> And so really the only thing for us to say to each other is every once in awhile I like to point out what a dope you are for having an imaginary friend.
> 
> What pisses me off about you is you cling to that idea that god must exist because human's have always believed.  Even though I explain to you how/when/why humans came up with god.  A healthy fear of the unknown, wild imaginations and a fear of what happens when someone dies.
> 
> You don't realize that when the wooly mammoth killed father mother told the kids not to worry because he's in a better place now.  This doesn't prove a god exists.  It proves humans made up god to answer things they didn't know.  And they weren't very intelligent back then.  Today we are smarter than that and most scientists/atheists agree there is little if any evidence god exists.  Sorry, but you are 99.999% probably wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've not seen all this "evidence and facts" you claim exists. When are you planning on releasing that? Your OPINION on things are not facts or evidence of anything other than your utter stupidity. I've already debunked every claim you've presented with factual scientific data that you've not refuted. You have proven that you are going to continue ignoring that and reposting the same argument over and over again, like some kind of autobot.
> 
> The fact remains, about 90% of the human race believes in something spiritual, and about 10% don't. The majority includes scientists, doctors, geniuses, and people from every walk of life. You've not proven anything wrong, in fact, you've not even offered any valid evidence that anything is wrong. We've been waiting for that for weeks, over 5,000 posts now, still... *crickets*
Click to expand...


Read numbers 3-33.  They explain why you are wrong about god existing.  These are completely good rational/logical arguments but as a theist of course you are going to ignore the facts and go with this faith about your feelings.  

And then keep reading because it explains in great deal all the reasons why you are full of shit.  

You've given a lot of valid arguments.  Simply because a logically valid argument can be constructed does not imply a true premise or true conclusion.

All cups are green.
Socrates is a cup.
Therefore, Socrates is green.

Although the above argument is logically valid, neither its premise nor conclusion are actually true. An argument is only sound if it is valid and its premise and conclusions are true.


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> Why there is no god
> 
> This site has shot down every one of boss' arguments.  Or this site explains why every argument he makes is not without some fatal flaw.



I get a laugh every time you link that site.....it doesn't "explain" anything except what atheists hate about Christians......


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What we've come to realize is there are going to be a few dopes like you who despite all the facts, evidence & reasoned logic, you are still going to believe no matter how little proof you have.  In fact, you'll use bad evidence as proof your god exists.
> 
> Fact is, you believe despite the evidence.  You believe because you want to believe.
> 
> And so really the only thing for us to say to each other is every once in awhile I like to point out what a dope you are for having an imaginary friend.
> 
> What pisses me off about you is you cling to that idea that god must exist because human's have always believed.  Even though I explain to you how/when/why humans came up with god.  A healthy fear of the unknown, wild imaginations and a fear of what happens when someone dies.
> 
> You don't realize that when the wooly mammoth killed father mother told the kids not to worry because he's in a better place now.  This doesn't prove a god exists.  It proves humans made up god to answer things they didn't know.  And they weren't very intelligent back then.  Today we are smarter than that and most scientists/atheists agree there is little if any evidence god exists.  Sorry, but you are 99.999% probably wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've not seen all this "evidence and facts" you claim exists. When are you planning on releasing that? Your OPINION on things are not facts or evidence of anything other than your utter stupidity. I've already debunked every claim you've presented with factual scientific data that you've not refuted. You have proven that you are going to continue ignoring that and reposting the same argument over and over again, like some kind of autobot.
> 
> The fact remains, about 90% of the human race believes in something spiritual, and about 10% don't. The majority includes scientists, doctors, geniuses, and people from every walk of life. You've not proven anything wrong, in fact, you've not even offered any valid evidence that anything is wrong. We've been waiting for that for weeks, over 5,000 posts now, still... *crickets*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've shown me nothing nada zero zilch.  You believe because man has always believed and you have this silly notions about spirituality.
Click to expand...


I'm not claiming God is a proven scientific fact and you just refuse to accept the evidence. That's the argument you want to make against God and you've not presented any evidence. When I point that detail out, you lament that I haven't proven God exists. Round and round we go. Look... the fact that I haven't given you sufficient proof of God's existence, doesn't mean that you've proven God doesn't exist. You stated that I am denying all the facts and evidence, but you've not presented any facts or evidence. If you have some, present it! If not, stop claiming you've presented it! 



> And you haven't shot anything I've said down other than in your own head. I've given you pretty much the standard atheist come backs to all the things that theists usually say but I have to say you have a very wild imagination and are able to pick and choose the parts of religion you like and throw away the parts you don't like. How lovely you can do that and in your head you are right. It must be nice. I hear ignorance is bliss so you must be really happy.



Oh, but I have shot down every supposition made by you and your atheist blog. You claim that man invented God, but there is no scientific evidence to support that belief. Archeology suggests that's just not true. The biology of animal behavior also doesn't lend any support. You claim it was to "explain the unknown" but God doesn't explain the unknown, science does. You claim it is to "console fears" but nothing else in nature has this problem, not to mention the utter absurdity that you can somehow console fear with something totally of the imagination. Nothing else in nature grapples with it's mortality. We only do so because we are aware of immortality, through spiritual connection. You've provided nothing to refute that because you can't. 

90% of humans being spiritual isn't proof of God, but even Darwin would contend it does mean something significant to the species if it's THAT fundamental to the general behavior. You can present n example of behavior in any living thing, across 90% of the species, which has no relevance whatsoever. 

As for religion, I don't subscribe to religions. I believe they are man-made incarnations prompted by our spiritual connection to something greater. They are clearly evidence that man does make some kind of metaphysical connection to something greater. Humans are spiritually connected, always have been, always will be. If you don't like that, I am sorry... just a fact of life.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> All cups are green.
> Socrates is a cup.
> Therefore, Socrates is green.
> 
> Although the above argument is logically valid.....



LMAO... It's not logically valid. Socrates was a philosopher and all cups aren't green.


----------



## ihallhou

Yes, you're right.  I am trying to make sure that other people know the truth, rather than the  religious version you are trying to selll.  One indication of intention is that your company is trying to make a profit, while we are not.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> All cups are green.
> Socrates is a cup.
> Therefore, Socrates is green.
> 
> Although the above argument is logically valid.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO... It's not logically valid. Socrates was a philosopher and all cups aren't green.
Click to expand...


If you hadn't cut off the rest of the post, it clearly says the premise and conclusion aren't true....


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> All cups are green.
> Socrates is a cup.
> Therefore, Socrates is green.
> 
> Although the above argument is logically valid.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO... It's not logically valid. Socrates was a philosopher and all cups aren't green.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you hadn't cut off the rest of the post, it clearly says the premise and conclusion aren't true....
Click to expand...


But that doesn't make the argument logically valid so it's unimportant. 

Seriously? This is how your libtard brains work???


----------



## BillyP

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO... It's not logically valid. Socrates was a philosopher and all cups aren't green.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you hadn't cut off the rest of the post, it clearly says the premise and conclusion aren't true....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that doesn't make the argument logically valid so it's unimportant.
> 
> Seriously? This is how your libtard brains work???
Click to expand...


God is like electricity.

I just turned a light on.

Therefore, I am in charge of god.


----------



## PostmodernProph

BillyP said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you hadn't cut off the rest of the post, it clearly says the premise and conclusion aren't true....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that doesn't make the argument logically valid so it's unimportant.
> 
> Seriously? This is how your libtard brains work???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God is like electricity.
> 
> I just turned a light on.
> 
> Therefore, I am in charge of god.
Click to expand...


treat that wrong and it can kill you.....


----------



## BillyP

PostmodernProph said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> But that doesn't make the argument logically valid so it's unimportant.
> 
> Seriously? This is how your libtard brains work???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God is like electricity.
> 
> I just turned a light on.
> 
> Therefore, I am in charge of god.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> treat that wrong and it can kill you.....
Click to expand...


Your god will kill me if I don't obey it? Gee, what a nice guy.


----------



## Boss

BillyP said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you hadn't cut off the rest of the post, it clearly says the premise and conclusion aren't true....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that doesn't make the argument logically valid so it's unimportant.
> 
> Seriously? This is how your libtard brains work???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God is like electricity.
> 
> I just turned a light on.
> 
> Therefore, I am in charge of god.
Click to expand...


No, you are in charge of a switch. It is there because someone was inspired to learn about switches. The switch is one of many aspects regarding electrical current, something else people were inspired to explore. It actually all goes back to a human who wasn't frightened like the other animals whenever lightning struck, and through faith in a power greater than self, was inspired to examine lightning and discover how to harness electricity.


----------



## BreezeWood

Boss said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> But that doesn't make the argument logically valid so it's unimportant.
> 
> Seriously? This is how your libtard brains work???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God is like electricity.
> 
> I just turned a light on.
> 
> Therefore, I am in charge of god.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you are in charge of a switch. It is there because someone was inspired to learn about switches. The switch is one of many aspects regarding electrical current, something else people were inspired to explore. It actually all goes back to a human who wasn't frightened like the other animals whenever lightning struck, and through faith in a power greater than self, was inspired to examine lightning and discover how to harness electricity.
Click to expand...




your soliloquy is imbecilic at best ...

fauna and flora to date without humanity are the stewards of the perpetual life of Earth - you are an ignoramus.

as you prove an accompanists for the construction of lethality to Earth, the A-Bomb so are you rendered a mortal for all eternity.

.


----------



## PostmodernProph

BillyP said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> God is like electricity.
> 
> I just turned a light on.
> 
> Therefore, I am in charge of god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> treat that wrong and it can kill you.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your god will kill me if I don't obey it? Gee, what a nice guy.
Click to expand...

"don't obey" or "think you are in charge of"......


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO... It's not logically valid. Socrates was a philosopher and all cups aren't green.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you hadn't cut off the rest of the post, it clearly says the premise and conclusion aren't true....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that doesn't make the argument logically valid so it's unimportant.
> 
> Seriously? This is how your libtard brains work???
Click to expand...


Well.  So much wrong.

First, I'm not a liberal.  Pointing out that you cut off some of a post certainly doesn't make me one.

You said the statements were logically invalid and pointed out that the premise was incorrect.  I responded by explaining that the post you quoted did in fact say that the premise was invalid.

I believe the point was supposed to be that while the premise is wrong, if one were to accept the premise as true, the logic would be valid.  Something along the lines of :
A = X
B = A
B = X

If all cups are green, and Socrates is a cup, then Socrates is green.  That is a logical conclusion to those statements, but is clearly not true.

You seem to be complaining that something isn't true after it was already pointed out that it isn't true.


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Well.  So much wrong.
> 
> First, I'm not a liberal.  Pointing out that you cut off some of a post certainly doesn't make me one.
> 
> You said the statements were logically invalid and pointed out that the premise was incorrect.  I responded by explaining that the post you quoted did in fact say that the premise was invalid.
> 
> I believe the point was supposed to be that while the premise is wrong, if one were to accept the premise as true, the logic would be valid.  Something along the lines of :
> A = X
> B = A
> B = X
> 
> If all cups are green, and Socrates is a cup, then Socrates is green.  That is a logical conclusion to those statements, but is clearly not true.
> 
> You seem to be complaining that something isn't true after it was already pointed out that it isn't true.



If you're not a liberal stop acting like one. You can whine about my editing the post all you like but I was responding to the specific point quoted ("Although the above argument is logically valid.") It wasn't logically valid. There was no point, you aren't explaining a point any better. All cups aren't green, Socrates is not a cup, so there is no logical conclusion. There is only a mishmash of liberal idiocy masquerading as logic. None of it applies to the topic of God because God hasn't been disproved. God is not green, God is not a cup, Socrates is not God. So why don't we all grow the fuck up and talk to each other like adults instead of 3-year-olds?


----------



## Boss

BreezeWood said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> God is like electricity.
> 
> I just turned a light on.
> 
> Therefore, I am in charge of god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you are in charge of a switch. It is there because someone was inspired to learn about switches. The switch is one of many aspects regarding electrical current, something else people were inspired to explore. It actually all goes back to a human who wasn't frightened like the other animals whenever lightning struck, and through faith in a power greater than self, was inspired to examine lightning and discover how to harness electricity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> your soliloquy is imbecilic at best ...
> 
> fauna and flora to date without humanity are the stewards of the perpetual life of Earth - you are an ignoramus.
> 
> as you prove an accompanists for the construction of lethality to Earth, the A-Bomb so are you rendered a mortal for all eternity.
> 
> .
Click to expand...



Fauna and flora weren't inspired by God to explore electricity or atomic energy.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well.  So much wrong.
> 
> First, I'm not a liberal.  Pointing out that you cut off some of a post certainly doesn't make me one.
> 
> You said the statements were logically invalid and pointed out that the premise was incorrect.  I responded by explaining that the post you quoted did in fact say that the premise was invalid.
> 
> I believe the point was supposed to be that while the premise is wrong, if one were to accept the premise as true, the logic would be valid.  Something along the lines of :
> A = X
> B = A
> B = X
> 
> If all cups are green, and Socrates is a cup, then Socrates is green.  That is a logical conclusion to those statements, but is clearly not true.
> 
> You seem to be complaining that something isn't true after it was already pointed out that it isn't true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're not a liberal stop acting like one. You can whine about my editing the post all you like but I was responding to the specific point quoted ("Although the above argument is logically valid.") It wasn't logically valid. There was no point, you aren't explaining a point any better. All cups aren't green, Socrates is not a cup, so there is no logical conclusion. There is only a mishmash of liberal idiocy masquerading as logic. None of it applies to the topic of God because God hasn't been disproved. God is not green, God is not a cup, Socrates is not God. So why don't we all grow the fuck up and talk to each other like adults instead of 3-year-olds?
Click to expand...


Probably because if anyone is acting like a child here, it's you.  

No, all cups are not green.  No, Socrates is not a cup.  However, that doesn't change the logical conclusion that if all cups are green, and if Socrates is a cup, then Socrates is green.

I changed it to a letter representation to try and avoid the cup/color/philosopher crap.  If A = X, and B = A, then B = X.  Obviously, if A does not = X, the whole thing goes to hell.

I wonder, however, how making a silly mishmash of a logic chain is in any way politically oriented.  I also wonder how commenting on you making a complaint about something that was covered in a post you cut off is in any way politically oriented.  Do conservatives or libertarians or communists or people of any other political affiliation not care if you cut off a post to bitch about it without full context? 

Of course god has not been disproved.  sealy is a fool if he thinks that is the case.  That doesn't make the logic of his statements, however silly they may have been, unclear.


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well.  So much wrong.
> 
> First, I'm not a liberal.  Pointing out that you cut off some of a post certainly doesn't make me one.
> 
> You said the statements were logically invalid and pointed out that the premise was incorrect.  I responded by explaining that the post you quoted did in fact say that the premise was invalid.
> 
> I believe the point was supposed to be that while the premise is wrong, if one were to accept the premise as true, the logic would be valid.  Something along the lines of :
> A = X
> B = A
> B = X
> 
> If all cups are green, and Socrates is a cup, then Socrates is green.  That is a logical conclusion to those statements, but is clearly not true.
> 
> You seem to be complaining that something isn't true after it was already pointed out that it isn't true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're not a liberal stop acting like one. You can whine about my editing the post all you like but I was responding to the specific point quoted ("Although the above argument is logically valid.") It wasn't logically valid. There was no point, you aren't explaining a point any better. All cups aren't green, Socrates is not a cup, so there is no logical conclusion. There is only a mishmash of liberal idiocy masquerading as logic. None of it applies to the topic of God because God hasn't been disproved. God is not green, God is not a cup, Socrates is not God. So why don't we all grow the fuck up and talk to each other like adults instead of 3-year-olds?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Probably because if anyone is acting like a child here, it's you.
> 
> No, all cups are not green.  No, Socrates is not a cup.  However, that doesn't change the logical conclusion that if all cups are green, and if Socrates is a cup, then Socrates is green.
> 
> I changed it to a letter representation to try and avoid the cup/color/philosopher crap.  If A = X, and B = A, then B = X.  Obviously, if A does not = X, the whole thing goes to hell.
> 
> I wonder, however, how making a silly mishmash of a logic chain is in any way politically oriented.  I also wonder how commenting on you making a complaint about something that was covered in a post you cut off is in any way politically oriented.  Do conservatives or libertarians or communists or people of any other political affiliation not care if you cut off a post to bitch about it without full context?
> 
> Of course god has not been disproved.  sealy is a fool if he thinks that is the case.  That doesn't make the logic of his statements, however silly they may have been, unclear.
Click to expand...


It's totally childish to derail the entire thread so you can debate the logic of an illogical point. All you and silly boob seem to be saying is, if something impossible is possible, then something impossible is possible. In your letter representations, if you determine that A=X, then it's illogical that A&#8800;X so where the hell is that coming from? How can A=X and A&#8800;X?  

Liberals are the only people I know of who can be this utterly moronic.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're not a liberal stop acting like one. You can whine about my editing the post all you like but I was responding to the specific point quoted ("Although the above argument is logically valid.") It wasn't logically valid. There was no point, you aren't explaining a point any better. All cups aren't green, Socrates is not a cup, so there is no logical conclusion. There is only a mishmash of liberal idiocy masquerading as logic. None of it applies to the topic of God because God hasn't been disproved. God is not green, God is not a cup, Socrates is not God. So why don't we all grow the fuck up and talk to each other like adults instead of 3-year-olds?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably because if anyone is acting like a child here, it's you.
> 
> No, all cups are not green.  No, Socrates is not a cup.  However, that doesn't change the logical conclusion that if all cups are green, and if Socrates is a cup, then Socrates is green.
> 
> I changed it to a letter representation to try and avoid the cup/color/philosopher crap.  If A = X, and B = A, then B = X.  Obviously, if A does not = X, the whole thing goes to hell.
> 
> I wonder, however, how making a silly mishmash of a logic chain is in any way politically oriented.  I also wonder how commenting on you making a complaint about something that was covered in a post you cut off is in any way politically oriented.  Do conservatives or libertarians or communists or people of any other political affiliation not care if you cut off a post to bitch about it without full context?
> 
> Of course god has not been disproved.  sealy is a fool if he thinks that is the case.  That doesn't make the logic of his statements, however silly they may have been, unclear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's totally childish to derail the entire thread so you can debate the logic of an illogical point. All you and silly boob seem to be saying is, if something impossible is possible, then something impossible is possible. In your letter representations, if you determine that A=X, then it's illogical that A&#8800;X so where the hell is that coming from? How can A=X and A&#8800;X?
> 
> Liberals are the only people I know of who can be this utterly moronic.
Click to expand...


Is this thread, with the thousands of posts in it, really being derailed at this point?  There have been numerous side conversations, the main conversation only rarely gets to the actual subject of the OP, so does it really matter?

I don't know what point sealy was trying to make in relation to god, actually.  I have only been skimming his posts for the most part.  Your reply to him caught my eye because it looked strange, then when I went back to see the post he had made that you quoted, I noticed how you left some of it out.  I pointed that out......and here we are.

Your obvious partisan hackery aside, I don't see how any of this has anything to do with politics.  If you honestly think only liberals can be particularly stupid, well.....that kind of tunnel vision does somewhat suit you.


----------



## GISMYS

Why do the God-haters persist? SIMPLE!!! They know that GOD is real but they want to hope HE is not so they try to fool theirself so they can go on liveing in their pet sins hoping to avoid their final judgment day!!! DREAM ON!!!


----------



## BreezeWood

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you are in charge of a switch. It is there because someone was inspired to learn about switches. The switch is one of many aspects regarding electrical current, something else people were inspired to explore. It actually all goes back to a human who wasn't frightened like the other animals whenever lightning struck, and through faith in a power greater than self, was inspired to examine lightning and discover how to harness electricity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> your soliloquy is imbecilic at best ...
> 
> fauna and flora to date without humanity are the stewards of the perpetual life of Earth - you are an ignoramus.
> 
> as you prove an accompanists for the construction of lethality to Earth, the A-Bomb so are you rendered a mortal for all eternity.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Fauna and flora weren't inspired by God to explore electricity or atomic energy.
Click to expand...




they have not chosen to threaten the Almighty's Creation - Christian.


* comprehending a post is more than just reading it, give it an effort - you might learn something.

.


----------



## BillyP

Boss said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> But that doesn't make the argument logically valid so it's unimportant.
> 
> Seriously? This is how your libtard brains work???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God is like electricity.
> 
> I just turned a light on.
> 
> Therefore, I am in charge of god.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you are in charge of a switch. It is there because someone was inspired to learn about switches. The switch is one of many aspects regarding electrical current, something else people were inspired to explore. It actually all goes back to a human who wasn't frightened like the other animals whenever lightning struck, and through faith in a power greater than self, was inspired to examine lightning and discover how to harness electricity.
Click to expand...


Just like something had to make your god, since nothing can make itself out of nothing. Which makes me in charge of god. Pretty simple really.


----------



## GISMYS

Why do the God-haters persist? SIMPLE! IN THEIR HEART AND MINDS THEY KNOW GOD IS REAL BUT THEY LOVE THEIR SINS MORE!!!== &#8220;The man who finds life will find it through trusting God.&#8221;*

18 But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, evil men who push away the truth from them.  19 For the truth about God is known to them instinctively;God has put this knowledge in their hearts.  20 Since earliest times men have seen the earth and sky and all God made, and have known of his existence and great eternal power. So they will have no excuse when they stand before God at Judgment Day.

21 Yes, they knew about him all right, but they wouldn&#8217;t admit it or worship him or even thank him for all his daily care. And after a while they began to think up silly ideas of what God was like and what he wanted them to do. The result was that their foolish minds became dark and confused.  22 Claiming themselves to be wise without God, they became utter fools instead.
Romans 1:


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Probably because if anyone is acting like a child here, it's you.
> 
> No, all cups are not green.  No, Socrates is not a cup.  However, that doesn't change the logical conclusion that if all cups are green, and if Socrates is a cup, then Socrates is green.
> 
> I changed it to a letter representation to try and avoid the cup/color/philosopher crap.  If A = X, and B = A, then B = X.  Obviously, if A does not = X, the whole thing goes to hell.
> 
> I wonder, however, how making a silly mishmash of a logic chain is in any way politically oriented.  I also wonder how commenting on you making a complaint about something that was covered in a post you cut off is in any way politically oriented.  Do conservatives or libertarians or communists or people of any other political affiliation not care if you cut off a post to bitch about it without full context?
> 
> Of course god has not been disproved.  sealy is a fool if he thinks that is the case.  That doesn't make the logic of his statements, however silly they may have been, unclear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's totally childish to derail the entire thread so you can debate the logic of an illogical point. All you and silly boob seem to be saying is, if something impossible is possible, then something impossible is possible. In your letter representations, if you determine that A=X, then it's illogical that A&#8800;X so where the hell is that coming from? How can A=X and A&#8800;X?
> 
> Liberals are the only people I know of who can be this utterly moronic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is this thread, with the thousands of posts in it, really being derailed at this point?  There have been numerous side conversations, the main conversation only rarely gets to the actual subject of the OP, so does it really matter?
> 
> I don't know what point sealy was trying to make in relation to god, actually.  I have only been skimming his posts for the most part.  Your reply to him caught my eye because it looked strange, then when I went back to see the post he had made that you quoted, I noticed how you left some of it out.  I pointed that out......and here we are.
> 
> Your obvious partisan hackery aside, I don't see how any of this has anything to do with politics.  If you honestly think only liberals can be particularly stupid, well.....that kind of tunnel vision does somewhat suit you.
Click to expand...


All I did was quote the portion of his post I wanted to comment on. He stated "although the above argument is logically valid..." but the above argument was not logically valid. The rest of what he had to say didn't matter, so I didn't quote that. I know there are a lot of misconceptions with regard to posting rules when it comes to quotes, but what I did wasn't editing his post to take anything out of context. He made an erroneous statement and I responded to that. Nothing he said afterwards had anything to do with clarifying his error. 

I have no idea what compelled you to comment, other than you saw some nit-picky little detail you could throw in my face and distract from the thread topic. You're real fucking good at that, in fact that is becoming your trademark here. Now you admit you don't know what the hell he was talking about either! LMFAO! Priceless!


----------



## Boss

BillyP said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> God is like electricity.
> 
> I just turned a light on.
> 
> Therefore, I am in charge of god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you are in charge of a switch. It is there because someone was inspired to learn about switches. The switch is one of many aspects regarding electrical current, something else people were inspired to explore. It actually all goes back to a human who wasn't frightened like the other animals whenever lightning struck, and through faith in a power greater than self, was inspired to examine lightning and discover how to harness electricity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just like something had to make your god, since nothing can make itself out of nothing. Which makes me in charge of god. Pretty simple really.
Click to expand...


Nothing had to make my God. This is yet another assumption you can't prove.


----------



## Boss

BreezeWood said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> your soliloquy is imbecilic at best ...
> 
> fauna and flora to date without humanity are the stewards of the perpetual life of Earth - you are an ignoramus.
> 
> as you prove an accompanists for the construction of lethality to Earth, the A-Bomb so are you rendered a mortal for all eternity.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fauna and flora weren't inspired by God to explore electricity or atomic energy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they have not chosen to threaten the Almighty's Creation - Christian.
> 
> 
> * comprehending a post is more than just reading it, give it an effort - you might learn something.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Circular reasoning. The Almighty created those who created the a-bomb. And while you may view the a-bomb as a destructive force capable of destroying the Almighty's Creation, it can also be viewed as a force which has protected the same creation. How many wars and deaths have been averted due to the existence of the a-bomb? And let's not forget, the Almighty has things like gamma ray bursts which can completely wipe out all life on our planet in the blink of an eye. There have been at least 4 mass extinction events on our planet, where the Almighty basically cleaned the slate and started it all over from scratch. 

I try real hard to comprehend your posts. You are the most enigmatic poster here, and sometimes you say some pretty deep and profound stuff... other times, you make no sense at all. Most of the time I just ignore you because for whatever reason, you want to call me a Christian or Religionist and pretend I am preaching some religious dogma. Then you go into your rants about the Everlasting and Almighty, the Flora and Fauna... like some kind of Buddhist extremist. I don't need your Religion any more than I need anyone else's. Thank you very much.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's totally childish to derail the entire thread so you can debate the logic of an illogical point. All you and silly boob seem to be saying is, if something impossible is possible, then something impossible is possible. In your letter representations, if you determine that A=X, then it's illogical that A&#8800;X so where the hell is that coming from? How can A=X and A&#8800;X?
> 
> Liberals are the only people I know of who can be this utterly moronic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this thread, with the thousands of posts in it, really being derailed at this point?  There have been numerous side conversations, the main conversation only rarely gets to the actual subject of the OP, so does it really matter?
> 
> I don't know what point sealy was trying to make in relation to god, actually.  I have only been skimming his posts for the most part.  Your reply to him caught my eye because it looked strange, then when I went back to see the post he had made that you quoted, I noticed how you left some of it out.  I pointed that out......and here we are.
> 
> Your obvious partisan hackery aside, I don't see how any of this has anything to do with politics.  If you honestly think only liberals can be particularly stupid, well.....that kind of tunnel vision does somewhat suit you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All I did was quote the portion of his post I wanted to comment on. He stated "although the above argument is logically valid..." but the above argument was not logically valid. The rest of what he had to say didn't matter, so I didn't quote that. I know there are a lot of misconceptions with regard to posting rules when it comes to quotes, but what I did wasn't editing his post to take anything out of context. He made an erroneous statement and I responded to that. Nothing he said afterwards had anything to do with clarifying his error.
> 
> I have no idea what compelled you to comment, other than you saw some nit-picky little detail you could throw in my face and distract from the thread topic. You're real fucking good at that, in fact that is becoming your trademark here. Now you admit you don't know what the hell he was talking about either! LMFAO! Priceless!
Click to expand...


Of course you consider it nit-picking to point out that your complaint was addressed in the portion of the post you left out.  You claim the rest of what he said didn't matter even though what he said directly addressed your post; that the premise was false.  

Logically valid and true are not the same thing.  His conclusion was logical even though the premise was untrue.  The truth of a premise is not the basis for whether the form of the argument is valid.  Here, let me give a couple of links which go into this a bit :
Logical validity - RationalWiki
Logically Valid Arguments | Ethical Realism

And argument can be logically valid and entirely false.  The logic used to reach a conclusion can be correct whether the premise is true or not.  So, once again, to break the argument sealy used down, A = X.  B = A.  Therefore, B = X.  The argument was untrue but the conclusion was reached logically based on the statements given.

I have not brought up any rules regarding editing posts and don't care if you did or did not violate the rules in doing so.  I only care about the editing in that what you left out already spoke to, at least in part, your complaint.


----------



## BillyP

Boss said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you are in charge of a switch. It is there because someone was inspired to learn about switches. The switch is one of many aspects regarding electrical current, something else people were inspired to explore. It actually all goes back to a human who wasn't frightened like the other animals whenever lightning struck, and through faith in a power greater than self, was inspired to examine lightning and discover how to harness electricity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just like something had to make your god, since nothing can make itself out of nothing. Which makes me in charge of god. Pretty simple really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing had to make my God. This is yet another assumption you can't prove.
Click to expand...

So your god just came into being all by himself? Can you prove this?


----------



## BreezeWood

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fauna and flora weren't inspired by God to explore electricity or atomic energy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they have not chosen to threaten the Almighty's Creation - Christian.
> 
> 
> * comprehending a post is more than just reading it, give it an effort - you might learn something.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Circular reasoning. The Almighty created those who created the a-bomb. And while you may view the a-bomb as a destructive force capable of destroying the Almighty's Creation, it can also be viewed as a force which has protected the same creation. How many wars and deaths have been averted due to the existence of the a-bomb? And let's not forget, the Almighty has things like gamma ray bursts which can completely wipe out all life on our planet in the blink of an eye. There have been at least 4 mass extinction events on our planet, where the Almighty basically cleaned the slate and started it all over from scratch.
> 
> I try real hard to comprehend your posts. You are the most enigmatic poster here, and sometimes you say some pretty deep and profound stuff... other times, you make no sense at all. Most of the time I just ignore you because for whatever reason, you want to call me a Christian or Religionist and pretend I am preaching some religious dogma. Then you go into your rants about the Everlasting and Almighty, the Flora and Fauna... like some kind of Buddhist extremist. I don't need your Religion any more than I need anyone else's. Thank you very much.
Click to expand...



.



> Fukushima nuclear meltdown worse than initially reported - TEPCO ? RT News
> 
> *Fukushima nuclear meltdown worse than initially reported - TEPCO*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://healthygulf.org/20110401163...s-oil-drilling-disaster-in-the-gulf-of-mexico
> 
> *BP's Oil Drilling Disaster in the Gulf of Mexico*
> 
> In April of 2010, the largest environmental disaster in American history began  BPs Deepwater Horizon rig explosion. Over 200 million barrels of oil and almost 2 million gallons of toxic chemical dispersants were released into the Gulf of Mexico.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



there is no circular reasoning to what humanity has chosen to create or the devastation humanity is responsible for as the on going destruction of our planet ... but your basis that 90% of humanity believes in something other than "self".

your rationale you display yourself is not other than self but rather for self - while asserting irreverently the fauna and flora exemplify a spiritualessness that in fact is the selflessness you ascribe for yourself.

yes, admittedly the A-Bomb has prevented WWIII - however if it occurs (Israel) what other answer would there be but that it should never have been given the light of day.

.


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Of course you consider it nit-picking to point out that your complaint was addressed in the portion of the post you left out.  You claim the rest of what he said didn't matter even though what he said directly addressed your post; that the premise was false.
> 
> Logically valid and true are not the same thing.  His conclusion was logical even though the premise was untrue.  The truth of a premise is not the basis for whether the form of the argument is valid.  Here, let me give a couple of links which go into this a bit :
> Logical validity - RationalWiki
> Logically Valid Arguments | Ethical Realism
> 
> And argument can be logically valid and entirely false.  The logic used to reach a conclusion can be correct whether the premise is true or not.  So, once again, to break the argument sealy used down, A = X.  B = A.  Therefore, B = X.  The argument was untrue but the conclusion was reached logically based on the statements given.
> 
> I have not brought up any rules regarding editing posts and don't care if you did or did not violate the rules in doing so.  I only care about the editing in that what you left out already spoke to, at least in part, your complaint.


I know the difference between 'logically valid' and 'true or false' and his presentation was both logically invalid and false. He did not, and you have not, spoken to the initial error that the argument was logically valid. 'All cups are green' and 'Socrates is a cup' remain logically  invalid and incorrect arguments. Wiki links don't change that. If A=X and B=A, then A, B and X all have the same value and are interchangeable.


----------



## Boss

BillyP said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just like something had to make your god, since nothing can make itself out of nothing. Which makes me in charge of god. Pretty simple really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing had to make my God. This is yet another assumption you can't prove.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So your god just came into being all by himself? Can you prove this?
Click to expand...


My God always existed, like energy and gravity. No I can't prove God, if I could do that, we wouldn't be having this conversation. You're the one who argued "something had to make my god." I haven't seen any evidence from you to support that argument. Got anything?


----------



## Boss

BreezeWood said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> they have not chosen to threaten the Almighty's Creation - Christian.
> 
> 
> * comprehending a post is more than just reading it, give it an effort - you might learn something.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Circular reasoning. The Almighty created those who created the a-bomb. And while you may view the a-bomb as a destructive force capable of destroying the Almighty's Creation, it can also be viewed as a force which has protected the same creation. How many wars and deaths have been averted due to the existence of the a-bomb? And let's not forget, the Almighty has things like gamma ray bursts which can completely wipe out all life on our planet in the blink of an eye. There have been at least 4 mass extinction events on our planet, where the Almighty basically cleaned the slate and started it all over from scratch.
> 
> I try real hard to comprehend your posts. You are the most enigmatic poster here, and sometimes you say some pretty deep and profound stuff... other times, you make no sense at all. Most of the time I just ignore you because for whatever reason, you want to call me a Christian or Religionist and pretend I am preaching some religious dogma. Then you go into your rants about the Everlasting and Almighty, the Flora and Fauna... like some kind of Buddhist extremist. I don't need your Religion any more than I need anyone else's. Thank you very much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://healthygulf.org/20110401163...s-oil-drilling-disaster-in-the-gulf-of-mexico
> 
> *BP's Oil Drilling Disaster in the Gulf of Mexico*
> 
> In April of 2010, the largest environmental disaster in American history began  BPs Deepwater Horizon rig explosion. Over 200 million barrels of oil and almost 2 million gallons of toxic chemical dispersants were released into the Gulf of Mexico.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> there is no circular reasoning to what humanity has chosen to create or the devastation humanity is responsible for as the on going destruction of our planet ... but your basis that 90% of humanity believes in something other than "self".
> 
> your rationale you display yourself is not other than self but rather for self - while asserting irreverently the fauna and flora exemplify a spiritualessness that in fact is the selflessness you ascribe for yourself.
> 
> yes, admittedly the A-Bomb has prevented WWIII - however if it occurs (Israel) what other answer would there be but that it should never have been given the light of day.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

1.) 90% of humanity does believe in something greater than self. That is just something called a fact. All I did was state a fact. 

2.) I have not said that fauna/flora are devoid of spirit. I accepted your argument that they could have spiritual connection we're not aware of. My rationale is to not dismiss possibility.

3.) If Israel wipes out the scourge of radical Islamic terrorism forever, the A-bomb will have once again proven it's value to the overall creation of the Almighty.


----------



## BillyP

Boss said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing had to make my God. This is yet another assumption you can't prove.
> 
> 
> 
> So your god just came into being all by himself? Can you prove this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My God always existed, like energy and gravity. No I can't prove God, if I could do that, we wouldn't be having this conversation. You're the one who argued "something had to make my god." I haven't seen any evidence from you to support that argument. Got anything?
Click to expand...


You're the one who claims your god has always existed, so you must have proof for that, let's hear it.


----------



## Boss

BillyP said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your god just came into being all by himself? Can you prove this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My God always existed, like energy and gravity. No I can't prove God, if I could do that, we wouldn't be having this conversation. You're the one who argued "something had to make my god." I haven't seen any evidence from you to support that argument. Got anything?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the one who claims your god has always existed, so you must have proof for that, let's hear it.
Click to expand...


I didn't say I could prove God. I certainly can't prove God to you. That's not proof God doesn't exist or something had to create God. Unless you have evidence to support your claim, it is a matter of faith. I have no problem with having faith in God. I also don't have a problem with you having faith there isn't a God, but you don't get to present that as fact.


----------



## Slyhunter

Boss said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> My God always existed, like energy and gravity. No I can't prove God, if I could do that, we wouldn't be having this conversation. You're the one who argued "something had to make my god." I haven't seen any evidence from you to support that argument. Got anything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one who claims your god has always existed, so you must have proof for that, let's hear it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say I could prove God. I certainly can't prove God to you. That's not proof God doesn't exist or something had to create God. Unless you have evidence to support your claim, it is a matter of faith. I have no problem with having faith in God. I also don't have a problem with you having faith there isn't a God, but you don't get to present that as fact.
Click to expand...


Do you have faith that there isn't Zeus.


----------



## BillyP

Boss said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> My God always existed, like energy and gravity. No I can't prove God, if I could do that, we wouldn't be having this conversation. You're the one who argued "something had to make my god." I haven't seen any evidence from you to support that argument. Got anything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one who claims your god has always existed, so you must have proof for that, let's hear it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say I could prove God. I certainly can't prove God to you. That's not proof God doesn't exist or something had to create God. Unless you have evidence to support your claim, it is a matter of faith. I have no problem with having faith in God. I also don't have a problem with you having faith there isn't a God, but you don't get to present that as fact.
Click to expand...


Since everything in the universe came from something else, let's just assume your god was made as well, until proven otherwise. And again, I'm agnostic, I see no proof for or against a god.


----------



## Boss

BillyP said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one who claims your god has always existed, so you must have proof for that, let's hear it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say I could prove God. I certainly can't prove God to you. That's not proof God doesn't exist or something had to create God. Unless you have evidence to support your claim, it is a matter of faith. I have no problem with having faith in God. I also don't have a problem with you having faith there isn't a God, but you don't get to present that as fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since everything in the universe came from something else, let's just assume your god was made as well, until proven otherwise. And again, I'm agnostic, I see no proof for or against a god.
Click to expand...


Energy and gravity didn't come from something else. God created the universe, time and reality. You can assume anything you like, it doesn't make it a fact. No... you're an atheist who doesn't believe in God, why do you avoid that?


----------



## Boss

Slyhunter said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one who claims your god has always existed, so you must have proof for that, let's hear it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say I could prove God. I certainly can't prove God to you. That's not proof God doesn't exist or something had to create God. Unless you have evidence to support your claim, it is a matter of faith. I have no problem with having faith in God. I also don't have a problem with you having faith there isn't a God, but you don't get to present that as fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have faith that there isn't Zeus.
Click to expand...


I do have faith there isn't Zeus.


----------



## hobelim

BillyP said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said actual proof. If you have any actual proof of all the stuff you claim about god... I'll listen with an open mind. In fact, it's one of the reasons that I came here to this board, to see if there was any here. So far, nope.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God is incorporeal, pure mind. If you want to see proof of God you must have a pure mind.
> 
> If in your mind you are seeking proof of the existence of God as defined as defined by a superficial literal interpretation of scripture perpetuated by the superstitious, you will look and look and look for evidence but you will never find anything.
> 
> In other words if what you believe about God is false because you are looking for the God defined by Christians, a triune god made man, you will never find it because it does not exist and what Christians profess to believe about God does not correspond to any real living being ever in existence.
> 
> If you look and look and keep on looking for a more rational interpretation of scripture that conforms to the image of a loving and benevolent God by discerning the deeper implications of the words and subjects written, then everywhere you look you will see evidence of God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words, you got nothing. Got it.
Click to expand...




No, I showed you something of great value that would assist you if you were genuinely seeking proof of God.

If a person is blind and does nothing to correct their vision they will never see anything whoever shows it to them.

Nothing is what you are after so nothing is what *you* got.


----------



## hobelim

Boss said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you got nothing. Got it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems to me he had something and you couldn't refute it. That's beginning to be a pattern here. hobelim and myself rarely ever agree on anything, in fact we may have never agreed on anything, probably don't agree on the subject of God either, but both he and I have attempted to engage you in honest objective discourse, only to have you reject what we said without rebuttal. If your goal is to come here and proclaim that no one here can make you believe in God... guess what? You win! That's not going to happen, none of us expect it to. So... you win, give yourself a cookie and go surf porn!
Click to expand...


LOL....

Thanks Boss, that was very kind of you given our previous disagreements that have been a bit rancorous. ..


Obviously this poster doesn't believe that to understand the answers to his own question requires intelligent thought that he seems to have confused with derision and obstinate stupidity.


And I would point out that I did not even attempt to prove the existence of God but pointed out that the brain is the most important tool used for perception and if the mind is full of thought viruses, false assumptions, and a self righteousness that that results in a self indulgent and petulant disposition it wouldn't be able to see anything as it exists in actuality even if he was smacked upside his head by God himself for being a dick.


----------



## Boss

hobelim said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you got nothing. Got it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems to me he had something and you couldn't refute it. That's beginning to be a pattern here. hobelim and myself rarely ever agree on anything, in fact we may have never agreed on anything, probably don't agree on the subject of God either, but both he and I have attempted to engage you in honest objective discourse, only to have you reject what we said without rebuttal. If your goal is to come here and proclaim that no one here can make you believe in God... guess what? You win! That's not going to happen, none of us expect it to. So... you win, give yourself a cookie and go surf porn!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL....
> 
> Thanks Boss, that was very kind of you given our previous disagreements that have been a bit rancorous. ..
> 
> 
> Obviously this poster doesn't believe that to understand the answers to his own question requires intelligent thought that he seems to have confused with derision and obstinate stupidity.
> 
> 
> And I would point out that I did not even attempt to prove the existence of God but pointed out that the brain is the most important tool used for perception and if the mind is full of thought viruses, false assumptions, and a self righteousness that that results in a self indulgent and petulant disposition it wouldn't be able to see anything as it exists in actuality even if he was smacked upside his head by God himself for being a dick.
Click to expand...


You are absolutely correct, and I don't get to say that often.


----------



## BillyP

Boss said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say I could prove God. I certainly can't prove God to you. That's not proof God doesn't exist or something had to create God. Unless you have evidence to support your claim, it is a matter of faith. I have no problem with having faith in God. I also don't have a problem with you having faith there isn't a God, but you don't get to present that as fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since everything in the universe came from something else, let's just assume your god was made as well, until proven otherwise. And again, I'm agnostic, I see no proof for or against a god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Energy and gravity didn't come from something else. God created the universe, time and reality. You can assume anything you like, it doesn't make it a fact. No... you're an atheist who doesn't believe in God, why do you avoid that?
Click to expand...


Energy and gravity were made during the Big Bang. I see no proof that there absolutely can't be a god. But as for right now, I see no proof that there is one either.


----------



## hobelim

Boss said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems to me he had something and you couldn't refute it. That's beginning to be a pattern here. hobelim and myself rarely ever agree on anything, in fact we may have never agreed on anything, probably don't agree on the subject of God either, but both he and I have attempted to engage you in honest objective discourse, only to have you reject what we said without rebuttal. If your goal is to come here and proclaim that no one here can make you believe in God... guess what? You win! That's not going to happen, none of us expect it to. So... you win, give yourself a cookie and go surf porn!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL....
> 
> Thanks Boss, that was very kind of you given our previous disagreements that have been a bit rancorous. ..
> 
> 
> Obviously this poster doesn't believe that to understand the answers to his own question requires intelligent thought that he seems to have confused with derision and obstinate stupidity.
> 
> 
> And I would point out that I did not even attempt to prove the existence of God but pointed out that the brain is the most important tool used for perception and if the mind is full of thought viruses, false assumptions, and a self righteousness that that results in a self indulgent and petulant disposition it wouldn't be able to see anything as it exists in actuality even if he was smacked upside his head by God himself for being a dick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are absolutely correct, and I don't get to say that often.
Click to expand...



If his posts are any reflection of the condition of his mind, and they are, he has probably had proof of God for all of his life but because of the condition of his mind he probably thinks he just has bad luck, or believes in Murphy law, or its religion, or the gays, illegal aliens, the Jews, the government, or that he was born under a bad sign......


----------



## Boss

BillyP said:


> Energy and gravity were made during the Big Bang. I see no proof that there absolutely can't be a god. But as for right now, I see no proof that there is one either.



You have a bad habit of stating your faith-based beliefs as facts. According to physics, energy cannot be created or destroyed. Also, if gravity did not exist prior to the Big Bang, how did the Big Bang happen? Theory of Singularity posits the collective mass of the universe was compressed (by gravity) into a singular point which exploded, creating the Big Bang. Without gravity, that isn't possible. So gravity and energy were not made during the Big Bang or there could have been no Big Bang. 

If you honestly see no proof there absolutely can't be a God, stop acting like this is a fact. Admit that it IS possible and those who believe in God could be correct. If you don't see proof there is a God, read what hobelim wrote, he's explaining why that might be the case for you. It is very difficult for us humans to "see proof" of that which we wish to reject. 

No one is going to be able to prove God to you through physical sciences. That's not to say that someday, at some point, we might be able to unlock this mystery through science. I personally believe the revelations of quantum mechanics may be a pathway to a real scientific explanation for what we perceive as "spiritual nature" or God. I can't PROVE that, it's beyond my ability to do so at this time. But it's okay because I don't have to prove what I know. I make a real connection to something greater than self everyday, and it does not matter to me if you believe that or accept it as such. I am aware of it and know it's real, and that's all that really matters to me personally.


----------



## BillyP

Boss said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> Energy and gravity were made during the Big Bang. I see no proof that there absolutely can't be a god. But as for right now, I see no proof that there is one either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have a bad habit of stating your faith-based beliefs as facts. According to physics, energy cannot be created or destroyed. Also, if gravity did not exist prior to the Big Bang, how did the Big Bang happen? Theory of Singularity posits the collective mass of the universe was compressed (by gravity) into a singular point which exploded, creating the Big Bang. Without gravity, that isn't possible. So gravity and energy were not made during the Big Bang or there could have been no Big Bang.
> 
> If you honestly see no proof there absolutely can't be a God, stop acting like this is a fact. Admit that it IS possible and those who believe in God could be correct. If you don't see proof there is a God, read what hobelim wrote, he's explaining why that might be the case for you. It is very difficult for us humans to "see proof" of that which we wish to reject.
> 
> No one is going to be able to prove God to you through physical sciences. That's not to say that someday, at some point, we might be able to unlock this mystery through science. I personally believe the revelations of quantum mechanics may be a pathway to a real scientific explanation for what we perceive as "spiritual nature" or God. I can't PROVE that, it's beyond my ability to do so at this time. But it's okay because I don't have to prove what I know. I make a real connection to something greater than self everyday, and it does not matter to me if you believe that or accept it as such. I am aware of it and know it's real, and that's all that really matters to me personally.
Click to expand...


Those who believe in a god are wrong about the stupid kind of god there might be, who judges people... Although it is possible that that is true, it goes against all common sense, not to mention science as we know it today. And I see no proof of such a god.


----------



## BreezeWood

Boss said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say I could prove God. I certainly can't prove God to you. That's not proof God doesn't exist or something had to create God. Unless you have evidence to support your claim, it is a matter of faith. I have no problem with having faith in God. I also don't have a problem with you having faith there isn't a God, but you don't get to present that as fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have faith that there isn't Zeus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do have faith there isn't Zeus.
Click to expand...






> *Boss:* 2.) I have not said that fauna/flora are devoid of spirit. I accepted your argument that they could have spiritual connection we're not aware of. My rationale is to not dismiss possibility.




*My rationale is to not dismiss possibility.*


whatevere is your point - are you saying you will perish with your physiology - or, you alone are what will survive in the Everlasting - 

God did not create the Universe, the Universe is a matter of the Everlasting and from which arose life, guided presently by the "Almighty" - and subordinated by Zeus.

you live by yourself Boss, without love ?

.


----------



## BillyP

hobelim said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well... prayer, worship and miracles... anything else? lol...see how that worked?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I said actual proof. If you have any actual proof of all the stuff you claim about god... I'll listen with an open mind. In fact, it's one of the reasons that I came here to this board, to see if there was any here. So far, nope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> God is incorporeal, pure mind. If you want to see proof of God you must have a pure mind.
> 
> If in your mind you are seeking proof of the existence of God as defined by a superficial literal interpretation of scripture perpetuated by the superstitious, you will look and look and look for evidence but you will never find anything.
> 
> In other words if what you believe about God is false because you are looking for the God defined by Christians, a triune god made man, you will never find it because it does not exist and what Christians profess to believe about God does not correspond to any real living being ever in existence.
> 
> If you look and look and keep on looking for a more rational interpretation of scripture that conforms to the image of a loving and benevolent God by discerning the deeper implications of the words and subjects written, then everywhere you look you will see evidence of God.
Click to expand...


Why must you have a pure mind to see god? That's kinda random. And book quoting doesn't count, that's a book, for crissakes.


----------



## GISMYS

18 I know very well how foolish it sounds to those who are lost, when they hear that Jesus died to save them. But we who are saved* recognize this message as the very power of God.  19 For God says, &#8220;I will destroy all human plans of salvation no matter how wise they seem to be, and ignore the best ideas of men, even the most brilliant of them.&#8221;

20 So what about these wise men, these scholars, these brilliant debaters of this world&#8217;s great affairs? God has made them all look foolish and shown their wisdom to be useless nonsense.  21 For God in his wisdom saw to it that the world would never find God through human brilliance, and then he stepped in and saved all those who believed his message, which the world calls foolish and silly.  22 It seems foolish to the Jews because they want a sign from heaven as proof that what is preached is true; and it is foolish to the Gentiles because they believe only what agrees with their philosophy and seems wise to them.  23 So when we preach about Christ dying to save them, the Jews are offended and the Gentiles say it&#8217;s all nonsense.  24 But God has opened the eyes of those called to salvation, both Jews and Gentiles, to see that Christ is the mighty power of God to save them; Christ himself is the center of God&#8217;s wise plan for their salvation.  25 This so-called &#8220;foolish&#8221; plan of God is far wiser than the wisest plan of the wisest man, and God in his weakness&#8212;Christ dying on the cross&#8212;is far stronger than any man.
1 Corinthians 1:18-25


----------



## Delta4Embassy

The statement 'energy can't be created or destroyed' is oft-cited, but completely wrong. It's been likened to 'what you learn in a physics 101' course but not what you learn in grad school. 

When matter is pulled into a black hole, it is for all intents and purposes destroyed. Latest hypotheses suggest maybe not. But since the PNR (point of no return) isn't something we can cross to check, we may have to limit our reference frame to different points for different things. Like answers to scientific truth which if not prepared to sit through an entire day of lectures is better summed up into one sentence. 

So "energy cannot be created or destroyed" is true "enough." But not absolutely true. Also, it's not "energy" any more it's "information." Everything in the universe is information if you can measure it.


----------



## hobelim

BillyP said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said actual proof. If you have any actual proof of all the stuff you claim about god... I'll listen with an open mind. In fact, it's one of the reasons that I came here to this board, to see if there was any here. So far, nope.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God is incorporeal, pure mind. If you want to see proof of God you must have a pure mind.
> 
> If in your mind you are seeking proof of the existence of God as defined by a superficial literal interpretation of scripture perpetuated by the superstitious, you will look and look and look for evidence but you will never find anything.
> 
> In other words if what you believe about God is false because you are looking for the God defined by Christians, a triune god made man, you will never find it because it does not exist and what Christians profess to believe about God does not correspond to any real living being ever in existence.
> 
> If you look and look and keep on looking for a more rational interpretation of scripture that conforms to the image of a loving and benevolent God by discerning the deeper implications of the words and subjects written, then everywhere you look you will see evidence of God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why must you have a pure mind to see god? That's kinda random. And book quoting doesn't count, that's a book, for crissakes.
Click to expand...



What I mean by pure mind is a mind that is open, honest, and rational. That's not random, that's essential to comprehension.

And it is not about judgement or crime and punishment as it is about cause and effect, action and consequence.


For instance, if a gullible person swallows any garbage they hear, their mind will as a consequence become confused.

Its not a punishment from God but a law as real as gravity.

If there is a person who thinks rationally but one day is persuaded to accept something irrational, that belief will defile and contaminate their mind and they will become a creature that cannot think rationally.


----------



## GISMYS

hobelim said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> God is incorporeal, pure mind. If you want to see proof of God you must have a pure mind.
> 
> If in your mind you are seeking proof of the existence of God as defined by a superficial literal interpretation of scripture perpetuated by the superstitious, you will look and look and look for evidence but you will never find anything.
> 
> In other words if what you believe about God is false because you are looking for the God defined by Christians, a triune god made man, you will never find it because it does not exist and what Christians profess to believe about God does not correspond to any real living being ever in existence.
> 
> If you look and look and keep on looking for a more rational interpretation of scripture that conforms to the image of a loving and benevolent God by discerning the deeper implications of the words and subjects written, then everywhere you look you will see evidence of God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why must you have a pure mind to see god? That's kinda random. And book quoting doesn't count, that's a book, for crissakes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What I mean by pure mind is a mind that is open, honest, and rational. That's not random, that's essential to comprehension.
> 
> And it is not about judgement or crime and punishment as it is about cause and effect, action and consequence.
> 
> 
> For instance, if a gullible person swallows any garbage they hear, their mind will as a consequence become confused.
> 
> Its not a punishment from God but a law as real as gravity.
> 
> If there is a person who thinks rationally but one day is persuaded to accept something irrational, that belief will defile and contaminate their mind and they will become a creature that cannot think rationally.
Click to expand...


ROFLMAO!!! OK!!! YOU KNOW YOUR PROBLEM =NOW do something about it!!! TWEAK!


----------



## Boss

BillyP said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> Energy and gravity were made during the Big Bang. I see no proof that there absolutely can't be a god. But as for right now, I see no proof that there is one either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have a bad habit of stating your faith-based beliefs as facts. According to physics, energy cannot be created or destroyed. Also, if gravity did not exist prior to the Big Bang, how did the Big Bang happen? Theory of Singularity posits the collective mass of the universe was compressed (by gravity) into a singular point which exploded, creating the Big Bang. Without gravity, that isn't possible. So gravity and energy were not made during the Big Bang or there could have been no Big Bang.
> 
> If you honestly see no proof there absolutely can't be a God, stop acting like this is a fact. Admit that it IS possible and those who believe in God could be correct. If you don't see proof there is a God, read what hobelim wrote, he's explaining why that might be the case for you. It is very difficult for us humans to "see proof" of that which we wish to reject.
> 
> No one is going to be able to prove God to you through physical sciences. That's not to say that someday, at some point, we might be able to unlock this mystery through science. I personally believe the revelations of quantum mechanics may be a pathway to a real scientific explanation for what we perceive as "spiritual nature" or God. I can't PROVE that, it's beyond my ability to do so at this time. But it's okay because I don't have to prove what I know. I make a real connection to something greater than self everyday, and it does not matter to me if you believe that or accept it as such. I am aware of it and know it's real, and that's all that really matters to me personally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those who believe in a god are wrong about the stupid kind of god there might be, who judges people... Although it is possible that that is true, it goes against all common sense, not to mention science as we know it today. And I see no proof of such a god.
Click to expand...


Well but the thing is, God doesn't HAVE to conform to what some people have perceived through their religion. I'm not big on religion, I believe religion is merely man's way of trying to comprehend a spiritual energy he can't quite understand. I don't believe it goes against common sense to consider that if man has been spiritually connecting with something for all his existence, and this attribute is consistently present in 90% or more of the species, there is probably something to that. 

Science, again, does not and has not disproved God. As of now, science can't evaluate spiritual existence. So why would you rely on science to make this determination? That seems to defy common sense. Perhaps you see no "proof" of God because you're looking for physical proof of something that isn't physical? 

Now, let's examine your devout faith in science and physics... do you believe it's possible for matter to disappear from existence, reappear somewhere else, or exist in two places at the same time? While this may sound pretty fucking incredible and impossible to believe, it happens all the time with electrons. These electrons are found in every single bit of matter in the universe. The thing that makes physics so fascinating is it can explain things that seem impossible. This goes back to Isaac Newton pondering gravity, and why the moon didn't come crashing down to earth, if gravity is present. Physics explains what keeps the moon suspended in the sky when "common sense" might suggest it must be controlled by some 'supernatural' force. But the thing is... what explains WHY physics works?


----------



## Boss

BreezeWood said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have faith that there isn't Zeus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do have faith there isn't Zeus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Boss:* 2.) I have not said that fauna/flora are devoid of spirit. I accepted your argument that they could have spiritual connection we're not aware of. My rationale is to not dismiss possibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *My rationale is to not dismiss possibility.*
> 
> 
> whatevere is your point - are you saying you will perish with your physiology - or, you alone are what will survive in the Everlasting -
> 
> God did not create the Universe, the Universe is a matter of the Everlasting and from which arose life, guided presently by the "Almighty" - and subordinated by Zeus.
> 
> you live by yourself Boss, without love ?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I am more than my physiology. That part of me which is not physical will exist beyond my physical life because it's not bound by physical rules of entropy and time. I believe spiritual nature created physical nature because physical nature could not create itself. This spiritual nature is what I define as "God." It has no humanistic attributes, it doesn't "judge" people on the basis of ancient religious dogma, and it's very much an omnipresent and omnipotent force residing within our universe and beyond. You seem to believe the same thing as I, you just call your thing "Almighty" or "Everlasting." I'm completely cool with that.


----------



## GISMYS

little man! keepyour silly ideas and opinions as they are utter foolishness!!! HOW TRUE GOD'S WORD IS=ETERNAL TRUTH!!18 I know very well how foolish it sounds to those who are lost, when they hear that Jesus died to save them. But we who are saved* recognize this message as the very power of God. 19 For God says, &#8220;I will destroy all human plans of salvation no matter how wise they seem to be, and ignore the best ideas of men, even the most brilliant of them.&#8221;

20 So what about these wise men, these scholars, these brilliant debaters of this world&#8217;s great affairs? God has made them all look foolish and shown their wisdom to be useless nonsense. 21 For God in his wisdom saw to it that the world would never find God through human brilliance, and then he stepped in and saved all those who believed his message, which the world calls foolish and silly. 22 It seems foolish to the Jews because they want a sign from heaven as proof that what is preached is true; and it is foolish to the Gentiles because they believe only what agrees with their philosophy and seems wise to them. 23 So when we preach about Christ dying to save them, the Jews are offended and the Gentiles say it&#8217;s all nonsense. 24 But God has opened the eyes of those called to salvation, both Jews and Gentiles, to see that Christ is the mighty power of God to save them; Christ himself is the center of God&#8217;s wise plan for their salvation. 25 This so-called &#8220;foolish&#8221; plan of God is far wiser than the wisest plan of the wisest man, and God in his weakness&#8212;Christ dying on the cross&#8212;is far stronger than any man.
1 Corinthians 1:18-25


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've not seen all this "evidence and facts" you claim exists. When are you planning on releasing that? Your OPINION on things are not facts or evidence of anything other than your utter stupidity. I've already debunked every claim you've presented with factual scientific data that you've not refuted. You have proven that you are going to continue ignoring that and reposting the same argument over and over again, like some kind of autobot.
> 
> The fact remains, about 90% of the human race believes in something spiritual, and about 10% don't. The majority includes scientists, doctors, geniuses, and people from every walk of life. You've not proven anything wrong, in fact, you've not even offered any valid evidence that anything is wrong. We've been waiting for that for weeks, over 5,000 posts now, still... *crickets*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've shown me nothing nada zero zilch.  You believe because man has always believed and you have this silly notions about spirituality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not claiming God is a proven scientific fact and you just refuse to accept the evidence. That's the argument you want to make against God and you've not presented any evidence. When I point that detail out, you lament that I haven't proven God exists. Round and round we go. Look... the fact that I haven't given you sufficient proof of God's existence, doesn't mean that you've proven God doesn't exist. You stated that I am denying all the facts and evidence, but you've not presented any facts or evidence. If you have some, present it! If not, stop claiming you've presented it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you haven't shot anything I've said down other than in your own head. I've given you pretty much the standard atheist come backs to all the things that theists usually say but I have to say you have a very wild imagination and are able to pick and choose the parts of religion you like and throw away the parts you don't like. How lovely you can do that and in your head you are right. It must be nice. I hear ignorance is bliss so you must be really happy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, but I have shot down every supposition made by you and your atheist blog. You claim that man invented God, but there is no scientific evidence to support that belief. Archeology suggests that's just not true. The biology of animal behavior also doesn't lend any support. You claim it was to "explain the unknown" but God doesn't explain the unknown, science does. You claim it is to "console fears" but nothing else in nature has this problem, not to mention the utter absurdity that you can somehow console fear with something totally of the imagination. Nothing else in nature grapples with it's mortality. We only do so because we are aware of immortality, through spiritual connection. You've provided nothing to refute that because you can't.
> 
> 90% of humans being spiritual isn't proof of God, but even Darwin would contend it does mean something significant to the species if it's THAT fundamental to the general behavior. You can present n example of behavior in any living thing, across 90% of the species, which has no relevance whatsoever.
> 
> As for religion, I don't subscribe to religions. I believe they are man-made incarnations prompted by our spiritual connection to something greater. They are clearly evidence that man does make some kind of metaphysical connection to something greater. Humans are spiritually connected, always have been, always will be. If you don't like that, I am sorry... just a fact of life.
Click to expand...


You show me your evidence that humans didn't make up god that instead they had sound, reasonable, rational, logical reasons for making up god.

Because either they made it up or you're saying god visited them.  

And the proof I have they made it up is that I am over 40 years old and I've seen no proof.  So either you are suggesting god spoke with them or they are like you, just another idiot who has his own definition of god and his own personal relationship.  

I'm not being rude.  I was just like you.  I use to talk to god too.  I woke up.  Won't  you?

In fact you freak, you claim god talks to you and you talk to god.  If that is how god talked to them back 10,000 years ago when they invented the idea of god, then that is my proof it is all fucking made up, because aint no god talking to you just like when I was JUST LIKE YOU and I had a "personal relationship" with god.  All Greeks think they have a personal relationship with god.  That is unless they are smart enough to realize they are just talking to themselves.  

So no god talked to the original man.  How do I know?  Because no god talked to adam and eve, noah, mosus, budda, mohammad, joseph smith or you.

What does my site prove?  That scientifically all the organized religions are BULLSHIT.  You agree with my site on that.  Ok then lets move on.  You also agree there is no proof a god exists.  And then you try to redefine god, just like my site said you would.  I swear if there are 50 points that site makes, 45 of them answer all of your come backs.  The come backs you think are so slick.  You're just another confused christian buddy.  You're just like me when I left Christianity.  It isn't that much of a leap once  you realize the whole thing is made up to come to the conclusion that your uneducated ape ancestors just made it up.

You want proof?  Just you asking me for proof still makes you an ignorant fuck.  Lets get in my time machine and go back and see.  Fucking fool.  Science says you are 99.999 probably wrong.  Agnostic Atheism.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you consider it nit-picking to point out that your complaint was addressed in the portion of the post you left out.  You claim the rest of what he said didn't matter even though what he said directly addressed your post; that the premise was false.
> 
> Logically valid and true are not the same thing.  His conclusion was logical even though the premise was untrue.  The truth of a premise is not the basis for whether the form of the argument is valid.  Here, let me give a couple of links which go into this a bit :
> Logical validity - RationalWiki
> Logically Valid Arguments | Ethical Realism
> 
> And argument can be logically valid and entirely false.  The logic used to reach a conclusion can be correct whether the premise is true or not.  So, once again, to break the argument sealy used down, A = X.  B = A.  Therefore, B = X.  The argument was untrue but the conclusion was reached logically based on the statements given.
> 
> I have not brought up any rules regarding editing posts and don't care if you did or did not violate the rules in doing so.  I only care about the editing in that what you left out already spoke to, at least in part, your complaint.
> 
> 
> 
> I know the difference between 'logically valid' and 'true or false' and his presentation was both logically invalid and false. He did not, and you have not, spoken to the initial error that the argument was logically valid. 'All cups are green' and 'Socrates is a cup' remain logically  invalid and incorrect arguments. Wiki links don't change that. If A=X and B=A, then A, B and X all have the same value and are interchangeable.
Click to expand...


It's amazing how consistent you are in doing the very things you complain about.

His structure was logically valid.  If all cups are green and Socrates is a cup, is Socrates green?  Logically, yes.  The facts that all cups are not green and Socrates is not a cup have no affect on the solid logic used to reach the conclusion.  All cups are green is not a logically invalid argument, it isn't even an argument.  It's an incorrect statement.  Socrates is a cup is not a logically invalid argument, it isn't even an argument.  It's an incorrect statement.  However, if you put those two incorrect statements together, the logically valid conclusion is that Socrates is green.

Yes, one of my links is from rationalwiki.  I'm sorry you have some kind of adverse reaction to such a link.  Of course, the other link isn't from a wiki.  And in both cases, the links were provided merely in the hope that you would see that the fact the statements used in sealy's silly little logic chain are false does not make it logically invalid.  In both links it is pointed out that the truth of the statements used is not the determining factor in whether it is logical.  To put it simply, logic is about the reasoning used to reach a conclusion, not about truth.

My letter representation doesn't work for you?  Fine.  How about this then :
If A, than X.
B = A.
If B = A, than X.
Does that make it more palatable to you?  If something is a cup (A), than it is green (X).  Socrates (B) is a cup (A).  If Socrates (B) is a cup (A), than it is green (X).

Or maybe substitute is for the equals sign :
A is X.
B = A.
B is X.

How about an example that's true as well as logically valid?
All domestic dogs are part of the Canidae family.
Spot is a domestic dog.
Spot is part of the Canidae family.

But you think this is all logically invalid, so why don't you tell me what the conclusion should be?  If all cups are green, if Socrates is a cup, then what is the logical conclusion about Socrates?

Maybe you'd better complain about my links again and nit-pick my letter representations?


----------



## BillyP

Boss said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have a bad habit of stating your faith-based beliefs as facts. According to physics, energy cannot be created or destroyed. Also, if gravity did not exist prior to the Big Bang, how did the Big Bang happen? Theory of Singularity posits the collective mass of the universe was compressed (by gravity) into a singular point which exploded, creating the Big Bang. Without gravity, that isn't possible. So gravity and energy were not made during the Big Bang or there could have been no Big Bang.
> 
> If you honestly see no proof there absolutely can't be a God, stop acting like this is a fact. Admit that it IS possible and those who believe in God could be correct. If you don't see proof there is a God, read what hobelim wrote, he's explaining why that might be the case for you. It is very difficult for us humans to "see proof" of that which we wish to reject.
> 
> No one is going to be able to prove God to you through physical sciences. That's not to say that someday, at some point, we might be able to unlock this mystery through science. I personally believe the revelations of quantum mechanics may be a pathway to a real scientific explanation for what we perceive as "spiritual nature" or God. I can't PROVE that, it's beyond my ability to do so at this time. But it's okay because I don't have to prove what I know. I make a real connection to something greater than self everyday, and it does not matter to me if you believe that or accept it as such. I am aware of it and know it's real, and that's all that really matters to me personally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those who believe in a god are wrong about the stupid kind of god there might be, who judges people... Although it is possible that that is true, it goes against all common sense, not to mention science as we know it today. And I see no proof of such a god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well but the thing is, God doesn't HAVE to conform to what some people have perceived through their religion. I'm not big on religion, I believe religion is merely man's way of trying to comprehend a spiritual energy he can't quite understand. I don't believe it goes against common sense to consider that if man has been spiritually connecting with something for all his existence, and this attribute is consistently present in 90% or more of the species, there is probably something to that.
> 
> Science, again, does not and has not disproved God. As of now, science can't evaluate spiritual existence. So why would you rely on science to make this determination? That seems to defy common sense. Perhaps you see no "proof" of God because you're looking for physical proof of something that isn't physical?
> 
> Now, let's examine your devout faith in science and physics... do you believe it's possible for matter to disappear from existence, reappear somewhere else, or exist in two places at the same time? While this may sound pretty fucking incredible and impossible to believe, it happens all the time with electrons. These electrons are found in every single bit of matter in the universe. The thing that makes physics so fascinating is it can explain things that seem impossible. This goes back to Isaac Newton pondering gravity, and why the moon didn't come crashing down to earth, if gravity is present. Physics explains what keeps the moon suspended in the sky when "common sense" might suggest it must be controlled by some 'supernatural' force. But the thing is... what explains WHY physics works?
Click to expand...

Science can't evaluate spiritual whatever because there's nothing to evaluate. Science can't evaluate my invisible friend Jack either. I bet you know why.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do have faith there isn't Zeus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Boss:* 2.) I have not said that fauna/flora are devoid of spirit. I accepted your argument that they could have spiritual connection we're not aware of. My rationale is to not dismiss possibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *My rationale is to not dismiss possibility.*
> 
> 
> whatevere is your point - are you saying you will perish with your physiology - or, you alone are what will survive in the Everlasting -
> 
> God did not create the Universe, the Universe is a matter of the Everlasting and from which arose life, guided presently by the "Almighty" - and subordinated by Zeus.
> 
> you live by yourself Boss, without love ?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am more than my physiology. That part of me which is not physical will exist beyond my physical life because it's not bound by physical rules of entropy and time. I believe spiritual nature created physical nature because physical nature could not create itself. This spiritual nature is what I define as "God." It has no humanistic attributes, it doesn't "judge" people on the basis of ancient religious dogma, and it's very much an omnipresent and omnipotent force residing within our universe and beyond. You seem to believe the same thing as I, you just call your thing "Almighty" or "Everlasting." I'm completely cool with that.
Click to expand...


Were dinosaurs more than their physiology?  Are apes, dogs, cats, birds, reptiles more than their physiology?  Why not?  Just because you're smarter?  Didn't whites use to say the very same thing about blacks/slaves?  See why your ancestors were wrong then and you are wrong now?  

What proof do you have?  You've provided none of this.  I mean you can prove your emotion is not physicail but that doesn't mean shit.  I just watched a show last night that said the mule dear fear and show love and bond.  So the mule deer goes to heaven too?  

Science says YOU have no proof and that this is nothing more than wishful thinking.


----------



## sealybobo

BillyP said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those who believe in a god are wrong about the stupid kind of god there might be, who judges people... Although it is possible that that is true, it goes against all common sense, not to mention science as we know it today. And I see no proof of such a god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well but the thing is, God doesn't HAVE to conform to what some people have perceived through their religion. I'm not big on religion, I believe religion is merely man's way of trying to comprehend a spiritual energy he can't quite understand. I don't believe it goes against common sense to consider that if man has been spiritually connecting with something for all his existence, and this attribute is consistently present in 90% or more of the species, there is probably something to that.
> 
> Science, again, does not and has not disproved God. As of now, science can't evaluate spiritual existence. So why would you rely on science to make this determination? That seems to defy common sense. Perhaps you see no "proof" of God because you're looking for physical proof of something that isn't physical?
> 
> Now, let's examine your devout faith in science and physics... do you believe it's possible for matter to disappear from existence, reappear somewhere else, or exist in two places at the same time? While this may sound pretty fucking incredible and impossible to believe, it happens all the time with electrons. These electrons are found in every single bit of matter in the universe. The thing that makes physics so fascinating is it can explain things that seem impossible. This goes back to Isaac Newton pondering gravity, and why the moon didn't come crashing down to earth, if gravity is present. Physics explains what keeps the moon suspended in the sky when "common sense" might suggest it must be controlled by some 'supernatural' force. But the thing is... what explains WHY physics works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Science can't evaluate spiritual whatever because there's nothing to evaluate. Science can't evaluate my invisible friend Jack either. I bet you know why.
Click to expand...


My friend said science has measured/evaluted spirituality.  He said they even weighed it.  They put someone dying on a scale and as soon as they died they lost weight and that is his proof there is a soul.  It left and the person lost weight.  

I'm sure science can explain that.  That is if it's even true.  Could get release of methane gasses?


----------



## GISMYS

GOD HATERS NEED TO FACE TRUTH=== The man who finds life will find it through trusting God.

18 But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, evil men who push away the truth from them.  19 For the truth about God is known to them instinctively; God has put this knowledge in their hearts.  20 Since earliest times men have seen the earth and sky and all God made, and have known of his existence and great eternal power. So they will have no excuse when they stand before God at Judgment Day.

21 Yes, they knew about him all right, but they wouldn&#8217;t admit it or worship him or even thank him for all his daily care. And after a while they began to think up silly ideas of what God was like and what he wanted them to do. The result was that their foolish minds became dark and confused.  22 Claiming themselves to be wise without God, they became utter fools instead.
Romans 1:17-22


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've shown me nothing nada zero zilch.  You believe because man has always believed and you have this silly notions about spirituality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not claiming God is a proven scientific fact and you just refuse to accept the evidence. That's the argument you want to make against God and you've not presented any evidence. When I point that detail out, you lament that I haven't proven God exists. Round and round we go. Look... the fact that I haven't given you sufficient proof of God's existence, doesn't mean that you've proven God doesn't exist. You stated that I am denying all the facts and evidence, but you've not presented any facts or evidence. If you have some, present it! If not, stop claiming you've presented it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you haven't shot anything I've said down other than in your own head. I've given you pretty much the standard atheist come backs to all the things that theists usually say but I have to say you have a very wild imagination and are able to pick and choose the parts of religion you like and throw away the parts you don't like. How lovely you can do that and in your head you are right. It must be nice. I hear ignorance is bliss so you must be really happy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, but I have shot down every supposition made by you and your atheist blog. You claim that man invented God, but there is no scientific evidence to support that belief. Archeology suggests that's just not true. The biology of animal behavior also doesn't lend any support. You claim it was to "explain the unknown" but God doesn't explain the unknown, science does. You claim it is to "console fears" but nothing else in nature has this problem, not to mention the utter absurdity that you can somehow console fear with something totally of the imagination. Nothing else in nature grapples with it's mortality. We only do so because we are aware of immortality, through spiritual connection. You've provided nothing to refute that because you can't.
> 
> 90% of humans being spiritual isn't proof of God, but even Darwin would contend it does mean something significant to the species if it's THAT fundamental to the general behavior. You can present n example of behavior in any living thing, across 90% of the species, which has no relevance whatsoever.
> 
> As for religion, I don't subscribe to religions. I believe they are man-made incarnations prompted by our spiritual connection to something greater. They are clearly evidence that man does make some kind of metaphysical connection to something greater. Humans are spiritually connected, always have been, always will be. If you don't like that, I am sorry... just a fact of life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You show me your evidence that humans didn't make up god that instead they had sound, reasonable, rational, logical reasons for making up god.
> 
> Because either they made it up or you're saying god visited them.
Click to expand...


You're asking me to show you evidence of a negative. I can't prove a negative, no one can. If you are going to argue that man invented God, you need to present some evidence of that, otherwise it is speculation. So far, you've presented nothing. You keep insisting that I prove your speculation wrong. 

I also don't accept they either made it up or God visited them. God could have visited them, or they could have been bestowed some intrinsic ability to connect with God without any visitation from God required. Whatever the case, it's apparent that humans have always had this attribute of being able to connect spiritually because they always have. All archeological findings confirm this. Nothing shows they invented it or that it's imaginary. In fact, it defies logic the species would have clung to some superficial imaginary attribute for all of it's existence. We find no such other example of this sort in all of nature.  



> And the proof I have they made it up is that I am over 40 years old and I've seen no proof.  So either you are suggesting god spoke with them or they are like you, just another idiot who has his own definition of god and his own personal relationship.



Well, 40 years isn't that long, to be honest. Man has been around for hundreds of thousands of years, and man has always been spiritually connected to something greater than self. That trumps your 40 years by a good little bit, don't you agree? I didn't suggest God spoke to anyone. You keep trying to cajole me into some religious belief so you can debate religion with me. Also, why do you keep going back and forth? You've said that you believed in God and spoke with God, now you claim that you've seen no proof. Seems one of those claims has to be dishonest.   



> I'm not being rude.  I was just like you.  I use to talk to god too.  I woke up.  Won't  you?



Well, no you didn't wake up. You allowed an Atheist to convince you of an Atheist speculation. You've offered nothing to support your disbelief, other than the absence of physical evidence for the spiritual. We've been over this, you were never "just like" me. I have no question in my mind that I connect with God. I don't think you've ever made that connection or you would never be able to deny it. I believe you think it makes you sound more credible to claim this, which is why you're doing it. The problem is, you continue to completely contradict yourself. 



> In fact you freak, you claim god talks to you and you talk to god.  If that is how god talked to them back 10,000 years ago when they invented the idea of god, then that is my proof it is all fucking made up, because aint no god talking to you just like when I was JUST LIKE YOU and I had a "personal relationship" with god.  All Greeks think they have a personal relationship with god.  That is unless they are smart enough to realize they are just talking to themselves.



Again, you are demonstrating how you most certainly were NOT "just like" me. I honestly don't think I am talking to myself and causing beneficial things to occur from my imagination. That's a helluva fucking trick if I'm making that happen on my own. God has blessed me so many times I can't count them. I have made it through some impossible situations, defied death a few times, overcome hopeless adversities, and you think this is all because I've created some imaginary being in my mind? I think you're silly if you think I'm going to buy that. 



> So no god talked to the original man.  How do I know?  Because no god talked to adam and eve, noah, mosus, budda, mohammad, joseph smith or you.



But where is your evidence at??? You're saying this, but you're not presenting any evidence other than your opinion. You simply DON'T KNOW this. You are speculating. You have a faith-based belief, or in this case, disbelief. No evidence, no proof, just faith and speculation. 



> What does my site prove?  That scientifically all the organized religions are BULLSHIT.  You agree with my site on that.  Ok then lets move on.  You also agree there is no proof a god exists.  And then you try to redefine god, just like my site said you would.  I swear if there are 50 points that site makes, 45 of them answer all of your come backs.  The come backs you think are so slick.  You're just another confused christian buddy.  You're just like me when I left Christianity.  It isn't that much of a leap once  you realize the whole thing is made up to come to the conclusion that your uneducated ape ancestors just made it up.
> 
> You want proof?  Just you asking me for proof still makes you an ignorant fuck.  Lets get in my time machine and go back and see.  Fucking fool.  Science says you are 99.999 probably wrong.  Agnostic Atheism.



Science says no such thing. Science offers not one iota of evidence that God doesn't exist. You can post links from your blog all you like, you've offered NO evidence to support ANY of your suppositions. I've not said religions are "bullshit" just that I don't subscribe to their dogma. They could be absolutely correct and I could be totally mistaken. That's a possibility, and I respect that. I'm NOT a confused Christian and definitely not "just like" you in any way. You can repeat that from now til the cows come home, it isn't going to be any more true. I connect daily to a God I know is there, who has blessed me more times than I can remember, in more ways than I can explain here. There is no question whatsoever in my mind about the existence of this God. You're not going to ever change my mind.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not claiming God is a proven scientific fact and you just refuse to accept the evidence. That's the argument you want to make against God and you've not presented any evidence. When I point that detail out, you lament that I haven't proven God exists. Round and round we go. Look... the fact that I haven't given you sufficient proof of God's existence, doesn't mean that you've proven God doesn't exist. You stated that I am denying all the facts and evidence, but you've not presented any facts or evidence. If you have some, present it! If not, stop claiming you've presented it!
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, but I have shot down every supposition made by you and your atheist blog. You claim that man invented God, but there is no scientific evidence to support that belief. Archeology suggests that's just not true. The biology of animal behavior also doesn't lend any support. You claim it was to "explain the unknown" but God doesn't explain the unknown, science does. You claim it is to "console fears" but nothing else in nature has this problem, not to mention the utter absurdity that you can somehow console fear with something totally of the imagination. Nothing else in nature grapples with it's mortality. We only do so because we are aware of immortality, through spiritual connection. You've provided nothing to refute that because you can't.
> 
> 90% of humans being spiritual isn't proof of God, but even Darwin would contend it does mean something significant to the species if it's THAT fundamental to the general behavior. You can present n example of behavior in any living thing, across 90% of the species, which has no relevance whatsoever.
> 
> As for religion, I don't subscribe to religions. I believe they are man-made incarnations prompted by our spiritual connection to something greater. They are clearly evidence that man does make some kind of metaphysical connection to something greater. Humans are spiritually connected, always have been, always will be. If you don't like that, I am sorry... just a fact of life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You show me your evidence that humans didn't make up god that instead they had sound, reasonable, rational, logical reasons for making up god.
> 
> Because either they made it up or you're saying god visited them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're asking me to show you evidence of a negative. I can't prove a negative, no one can. If you are going to argue that man invented God, you need to present some evidence of that, otherwise it is speculation. So far, you've presented nothing. You keep insisting that I prove your speculation wrong.
> 
> I also don't accept they either made it up or God visited them. God could have visited them, or they could have been bestowed some intrinsic ability to connect with God without any visitation from God required. Whatever the case, it's apparent that humans have always had this attribute of being able to connect spiritually because they always have. All archeological findings confirm this. Nothing shows they invented it or that it's imaginary. In fact, it defies logic the species would have clung to some superficial imaginary attribute for all of it's existence. We find no such other example of this sort in all of nature.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, 40 years isn't that long, to be honest. Man has been around for hundreds of thousands of years, and man has always been spiritually connected to something greater than self. That trumps your 40 years by a good little bit, don't you agree? I didn't suggest God spoke to anyone. You keep trying to cajole me into some religious belief so you can debate religion with me. Also, why do you keep going back and forth? You've said that you believed in God and spoke with God, now you claim that you've seen no proof. Seems one of those claims has to be dishonest.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, no you didn't wake up. You allowed an Atheist to convince you of an Atheist speculation. You've offered nothing to support your disbelief, other than the absence of physical evidence for the spiritual. We've been over this, you were never "just like" me. I have no question in my mind that I connect with God. I don't think you've ever made that connection or you would never be able to deny it. I believe you think it makes you sound more credible to claim this, which is why you're doing it. The problem is, you continue to completely contradict yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you are demonstrating how you most certainly were NOT "just like" me. I honestly don't think I am talking to myself and causing beneficial things to occur from my imagination. That's a helluva fucking trick if I'm making that happen on my own. God has blessed me so many times I can't count them. I have made it through some impossible situations, defied death a few times, overcome hopeless adversities, and you think this is all because I've created some imaginary being in my mind? I think you're silly if you think I'm going to buy that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So no god talked to the original man.  How do I know?  Because no god talked to adam and eve, noah, mosus, budda, mohammad, joseph smith or you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But where is your evidence at??? You're saying this, but you're not presenting any evidence other than your opinion. You simply DON'T KNOW this. You are speculating. You have a faith-based belief, or in this case, disbelief. No evidence, no proof, just faith and speculation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does my site prove?  That scientifically all the organized religions are BULLSHIT.  You agree with my site on that.  Ok then lets move on.  You also agree there is no proof a god exists.  And then you try to redefine god, just like my site said you would.  I swear if there are 50 points that site makes, 45 of them answer all of your come backs.  The come backs you think are so slick.  You're just another confused christian buddy.  You're just like me when I left Christianity.  It isn't that much of a leap once  you realize the whole thing is made up to come to the conclusion that your uneducated ape ancestors just made it up.
> 
> You want proof?  Just you asking me for proof still makes you an ignorant fuck.  Lets get in my time machine and go back and see.  Fucking fool.  Science says you are 99.999 probably wrong.  Agnostic Atheism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science says no such thing. Science offers not one iota of evidence that God doesn't exist. You can post links from your blog all you like, you've offered NO evidence to support ANY of your suppositions. I've not said religions are "bullshit" just that I don't subscribe to their dogma. They could be absolutely correct and I could be totally mistaken. That's a possibility, and I respect that. I'm NOT a confused Christian and definitely not "just like" you in any way. You can repeat that from now til the cows come home, it isn't going to be any more true. I connect daily to a God I know is there, who has blessed me more times than I can remember, in more ways than I can explain here. There is no question whatsoever in my mind about the existence of this God. You're not going to ever change my mind.
Click to expand...


Sorry you can't have it both ways.  If you are going to say: "humans have always been able to connect with god, you have to prove that.  I say like every other human invention like the wheel or fire, we picked god up somewhere along the way.  

Can you tell me when exactly we invented fire?  Do you say we always knew how to make fire?  No you don't.  Well guess what?  Scientists say we invented god the same time we invented writing, fire, jewelry, painting and the wheel.  NOT before.  

You have to prove we've always believed.  You can't have it both ways.  You want me to prove we invented god but I can't go back before we have found those ancient burial sites and find exactly where we invented god, I can just tell you like every other thought we have in our heads, god was not always there.  

And even if when we did believe as far back as when we were apes, that doesn't prove anything other than the idea of god is a very primitive concept.  Doesn't take a very educated brain to swallow the idea of god.  All it takes is a healthy fear of the unknown, a superstitious person and wishful thinking.  Sprinkle that all together and you get god.  

There was a point in history when we first invented every concept we know about today.  The first battery, the first wheel, first fire, first clothing, first spear, first gun.  Everything that exists today someone came up with it first.  

Just like someone had to take the first selfie, someone has to be the fist person that came up with god, and it took off like crazy.  Who did the first selfie?  We may never know.  So how are we going to know who was the fist person to come up with god?    

What proof do I have?  I have seen babies born and grow up to be adults.  They weren't born with the belief that god exists.  They had to be told the story.  In fact they had to be told over and over and over and be brainwashed with it before they become adults or most people will not swallow such a fairy tale.  

So it is not apparent that humans have always had this attribute of being able to connect spiritually because they haven't "always" been able to.

Do you see the flaw in your argument?  First of all, it isn't apparent to anyone but you, second of all you are saying it is apparent that we've always been able to connect because we always have.  You are assuming that we always have is a fact and that's the whole fucking argument you chump.  

Listen to yourself.  What proof do you have that we have always believed in god(s)?  

Boss' answer, "because we always have".  

What a fool.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, no you didn't wake up. You allowed an Atheist to convince you of an Atheist speculation. You've offered nothing to support your disbelief, other than the absence of physical evidence for the spiritual. We've been over this, you were never "just like" me. I have no question in my mind that I connect with God. I don't think you've ever made that connection or you would never be able to deny it. I believe you think it makes you sound more credible to claim this, which is why you're doing it. The problem is, you continue to completely contradict yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly what I said.  I woke up.  An atheist pointed out to me what an irrational illogical and improbable idea god is.  He pointed out why we invented him.  He pointed out how all the organized religions are full of shit and if you throw out all the stories that the organized religions tell of god visiting then you have even less proof a god exists.
> 
> You my friend are on thin ice.  You believe because we have always believed and because you have a personal connection with god is not irrefutable proof.  It is proof only you can accept.  So as far as USMB goes, you believe for no fucking good reason.   You are just like the other person who told me they believe simply because they want to believe.
> 
> And sorry boss but i was just like you and not too long ago.  I abandoned christianity but still said I believed in god.  I said I had a personal relationship with god.  I even talked to god and told him I know he wouldn't punish anyone for not buying into any of the organized religions.  I said, "god, I know the jesus story isn't real and the mohammad stories aren't true either and we came from the jewish faith and that isn't real either but I still believe in you god.  But what reason do I believe?  Every story about god ever told to me was a lie.  There is no rational reason to believe in a god.
> 
> Oh, and you don't get to re define god.  If god isn't the thing that created us and isn't listening to you when you talk and isn't performing miracles and there is no heaven then go created another thread stating that you have invented a new god or new concept of what god is.  I don't give a fuck what you think god is if you are completely redefining him and making him so he isn't physical and can't be defined then you are REALLY stretching here buddy.
> 
> And I love it how arrogant and sure you are about your little invisible man you talk to, that isn't really listening because he isn't the god that humans invented, but your proof is that we invented him, even though we invented him all wrong.  I can't even take you seriously anymore ass wipe.  So funny
> 
> Your arguments are so flawed I don't even know where to begin.  But you think they are all great arguments and that's real cute.  And you can't imagine that I was just as dumb as you are now until I woke up.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## sealybobo

From now on if you aren't a christian, muslim, jew, mormom or jehova fuck off.  I don't want to argue with people who believe even though they know all the organized religions are completely made up.  First I want to talk to the people who take the bible/koran literally.  Then I want to talk to the people who know the stories in the bible are just stories invented by men to teach write and wrong.  I'll talk to jews and muslims but I won't discuss god with people who don't believe any of the organized religions but still believe in god(s) because they have absolutely zero proof god exists and yet still believe.

At least Christians believe the stories in the bible are true.  If they really believe god sent his son jesus to be crucified, then I can understand why they believe.  But if you realize that's just a made up story and you still believe in god then maybe you are even dumber than the person who believes the jesus stories.  Or the muslim who believes the mohammad stories or the jews who believe the mosus stories.  At least they have an excuse.  They've either been brainwashed from when they were kids or they are just utterly gullible or they've been scared into believing.  

If you believe in god but not any organized religion, I almost want to say you are dumber than them but I have to give you points for at least not falling for the impossible stories.  And I should realize people like Boss are closer to the truth than a gismys is.  Once you realize the lies aren't true then maybe one day it will dawn on you that without the organized religions you really have zero as far as proof a god exists.  

If not, they would have never invented the lies in the first place.  There would have been no reason to lie.  They would have just used Boss' arguments.  But Boss' arguments don't hold much water so they had to make up the stories.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not claiming God is a proven scientific fact and you just refuse to accept the evidence. That's the argument you want to make against God and you've not presented any evidence. When I point that detail out, you lament that I haven't proven God exists. Round and round we go. Look... the fact that I haven't given you sufficient proof of God's existence, doesn't mean that you've proven God doesn't exist. You stated that I am denying all the facts and evidence, but you've not presented any facts or evidence. If you have some, present it! If not, stop claiming you've presented it!
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, but I have shot down every supposition made by you and your atheist blog. You claim that man invented God, but there is no scientific evidence to support that belief. Archeology suggests that's just not true. The biology of animal behavior also doesn't lend any support. You claim it was to "explain the unknown" but God doesn't explain the unknown, science does. You claim it is to "console fears" but nothing else in nature has this problem, not to mention the utter absurdity that you can somehow console fear with something totally of the imagination. Nothing else in nature grapples with it's mortality. We only do so because we are aware of immortality, through spiritual connection. You've provided nothing to refute that because you can't.
> 
> 90% of humans being spiritual isn't proof of God, but even Darwin would contend it does mean something significant to the species if it's THAT fundamental to the general behavior. You can present n example of behavior in any living thing, across 90% of the species, which has no relevance whatsoever.
> 
> As for religion, I don't subscribe to religions. I believe they are man-made incarnations prompted by our spiritual connection to something greater. They are clearly evidence that man does make some kind of metaphysical connection to something greater. Humans are spiritually connected, always have been, always will be. If you don't like that, I am sorry... just a fact of life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You show me your evidence that humans didn't make up god that instead they had sound, reasonable, rational, logical reasons for making up god.
> 
> Because either they made it up or you're saying god visited them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're asking me to show you evidence of a negative. I can't prove a negative, no one can. If you are going to argue that man invented God, you need to present some evidence of that, otherwise it is speculation. So far, you've presented nothing. You keep insisting that I prove your speculation wrong.
> 
> I also don't accept they either made it up or God visited them. God could have visited them, or they could have been bestowed some intrinsic ability to connect with God without any visitation from God required. Whatever the case, it's apparent that humans have always had this attribute of being able to connect spiritually because they always have. All archeological findings confirm this. Nothing shows they invented it or that it's imaginary. In fact, it defies logic the species would have clung to some superficial imaginary attribute for all of it's existence. We find no such other example of this sort in all of nature.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, 40 years isn't that long, to be honest. Man has been around for hundreds of thousands of years, and man has always been spiritually connected to something greater than self. That trumps your 40 years by a good little bit, don't you agree? I didn't suggest God spoke to anyone. You keep trying to cajole me into some religious belief so you can debate religion with me. Also, why do you keep going back and forth? You've said that you believed in God and spoke with God, now you claim that you've seen no proof. Seems one of those claims has to be dishonest.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, no you didn't wake up. You allowed an Atheist to convince you of an Atheist speculation. You've offered nothing to support your disbelief, other than the absence of physical evidence for the spiritual. We've been over this, you were never "just like" me. I have no question in my mind that I connect with God. I don't think you've ever made that connection or you would never be able to deny it. I believe you think it makes you sound more credible to claim this, which is why you're doing it. The problem is, you continue to completely contradict yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you are demonstrating how you most certainly were NOT "just like" me. I honestly don't think I am talking to myself and causing beneficial things to occur from my imagination. That's a helluva fucking trick if I'm making that happen on my own. God has blessed me so many times I can't count them. I have made it through some impossible situations, defied death a few times, overcome hopeless adversities, and you think this is all because I've created some imaginary being in my mind? I think you're silly if you think I'm going to buy that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So no god talked to the original man.  How do I know?  Because no god talked to adam and eve, noah, mosus, budda, mohammad, joseph smith or you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But where is your evidence at??? You're saying this, but you're not presenting any evidence other than your opinion. You simply DON'T KNOW this. You are speculating. You have a faith-based belief, or in this case, disbelief. No evidence, no proof, just faith and speculation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does my site prove?  That scientifically all the organized religions are BULLSHIT.  You agree with my site on that.  Ok then lets move on.  You also agree there is no proof a god exists.  And then you try to redefine god, just like my site said you would.  I swear if there are 50 points that site makes, 45 of them answer all of your come backs.  The come backs you think are so slick.  You're just another confused christian buddy.  You're just like me when I left Christianity.  It isn't that much of a leap once  you realize the whole thing is made up to come to the conclusion that your uneducated ape ancestors just made it up.
> 
> You want proof?  Just you asking me for proof still makes you an ignorant fuck.  Lets get in my time machine and go back and see.  Fucking fool.  Science says you are 99.999 probably wrong.  Agnostic Atheism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science says no such thing. Science offers not one iota of evidence that God doesn't exist. You can post links from your blog all you like, you've offered NO evidence to support ANY of your suppositions. I've not said religions are "bullshit" just that I don't subscribe to their dogma. They could be absolutely correct and I could be totally mistaken. That's a possibility, and I respect that. I'm NOT a confused Christian and definitely not "just like" you in any way. You can repeat that from now til the cows come home, it isn't going to be any more true. I connect daily to a God I know is there, who has blessed me more times than I can remember, in more ways than I can explain here. There is no question whatsoever in my mind about the existence of this God. You're not going to ever change my mind.
Click to expand...


I have proof!  Ok, in the beginning, when the first man invented god and told the others in his tribe about this god, he didn't use any of your arguments boss.  Man didn't use your spiritual connection arguments to prove a god existed, what did they do boss?  They made up stories.  They lied.  

So that is my proof man made up god.  If he didn't make it up, either he had proof or he speculated.  You say the fact that we have always speculated is proof a god exists.  But that's not true at all.  The fact that we made up a story about the beginning, where adam and eve lived in paradise and then sinned and then came the noah flood and then came jesus to be sacraficed.  

So the only thing we know is that from the beginning, man has been making shit up about god.  Where does god come from?  We pulled it out of our asses.  And all the stories are made up lies.  So if this is your proof, I guess you need to go ask god for forgiveness for being so stupid.  

Basically everything humans believe about god is a lie.  That should tell you we completely made it up.  If everything we thinkn we know about god is wrong, what are the chances god even exists?  

And you can't even defend religion so you fall back on this spiritual mumbo jumbo.  Fact is, you lose.  You have failed to prove anything.

Oh, and if you could please provide a link to anyone who agrees with you.  Or are you the only one who believes what you believe?  I think so.


----------



## Slyhunter

BillyP said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one who claims your god has always existed, so you must have proof for that, let's hear it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say I could prove God. I certainly can't prove God to you. That's not proof God doesn't exist or something had to create God. Unless you have evidence to support your claim, it is a matter of faith. I have no problem with having faith in God. I also don't have a problem with you having faith there isn't a God, but you don't get to present that as fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since everything in the universe came from something else, let's just assume your god was made as well, until proven otherwise. And again, I'm agnostic, I see no proof for or against a god.
Click to expand...


Actually the argument that God must exist because the universe being created from nothing is not logical ignores the fact that what/whom created God.


----------



## Slyhunter

GISMYS said:


> little man! keepyour silly ideas and opinions as they are utter foolishness!!! HOW TRUE GOD'S WORD IS=ETERNAL TRUTH!!18 I know very well how foolish it sounds to those who are lost, when they hear that Jesus died to save them. But we who are saved* recognize this message as the very power of God. 19 For God says, I will destroy all human plans of salvation no matter how wise they seem to be, and ignore the best ideas of men, even the most brilliant of them.
> 
> 20 So what about these wise men, these scholars, these brilliant debaters of this worlds great affairs? God has made them all look foolish and shown their wisdom to be useless nonsense. 21 For God in his wisdom saw to it that the world would never find God through human brilliance, and then he stepped in and saved all those who believed his message, which the world calls foolish and silly. 22 It seems foolish to the Jews because they want a sign from heaven as proof that what is preached is true; and it is foolish to the Gentiles because they believe only what agrees with their philosophy and seems wise to them. 23 So when we preach about Christ dying to save them, the Jews are offended and the Gentiles say its all nonsense. 24 But God has opened the eyes of those called to salvation, both Jews and Gentiles, to see that Christ is the mighty power of God to save them; Christ himself is the center of Gods wise plan for their salvation. 25 This so-called foolish plan of God is far wiser than the wisest plan of the wisest man, and God in his weaknessChrist dying on the crossis far stronger than any man.
> 1 Corinthians 1:18-25



What makes you think the words you quote as being the truth? Some book told you so.


----------



## GISMYS

Slyhunter said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> little man! keepyour silly ideas and opinions as they are utter foolishness!!! HOW TRUE GOD'S WORD IS=ETERNAL TRUTH!!18 I know very well how foolish it sounds to those who are lost, when they hear that Jesus died to save them. But we who are saved* recognize this message as the very power of God. 19 For God says, I will destroy all human plans of salvation no matter how wise they seem to be, and ignore the best ideas of men, even the most brilliant of them.
> 
> 20 So what about these wise men, these scholars, these brilliant debaters of this worlds great affairs? God has made them all look foolish and shown their wisdom to be useless nonsense. 21 For God in his wisdom saw to it that the world would never find God through human brilliance, and then he stepped in and saved all those who believed his message, which the world calls foolish and silly. 22 It seems foolish to the Jews because they want a sign from heaven as proof that what is preached is true; and it is foolish to the Gentiles because they believe only what agrees with their philosophy and seems wise to them. 23 So when we preach about Christ dying to save them, the Jews are offended and the Gentiles say its all nonsense. 24 But God has opened the eyes of those called to salvation, both Jews and Gentiles, to see that Christ is the mighty power of God to save them; Christ himself is the center of Gods wise plan for their salvation. 25 This so-called foolish plan of God is far wiser than the wisest plan of the wisest man, and God in his weaknessChrist dying on the crossis far stronger than any man.
> 1 Corinthians 1:18-25
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you think the words you quote as being the truth? Some book told you so.
Click to expand...


SO YOU DON'T KNOW TRUTH WHEN YOU READ OR HEAR IT??????????? WELL I DO!!!and you??


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You show me your evidence that humans didn't make up god that instead they had sound, reasonable, rational, logical reasons for making up god.
> 
> Because either they made it up or you're saying god visited them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're asking me to show you evidence of a negative. I can't prove a negative, no one can. If you are going to argue that man invented God, you need to present some evidence of that, otherwise it is speculation. So far, you've presented nothing. You keep insisting that I prove your speculation wrong.
> 
> I also don't accept they either made it up or God visited them. God could have visited them, or they could have been bestowed some intrinsic ability to connect with God without any visitation from God required. Whatever the case, it's apparent that humans have always had this attribute of being able to connect spiritually because they always have. All archeological findings confirm this. Nothing shows they invented it or that it's imaginary. In fact, it defies logic the species would have clung to some superficial imaginary attribute for all of it's existence. We find no such other example of this sort in all of nature.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, 40 years isn't that long, to be honest. Man has been around for hundreds of thousands of years, and man has always been spiritually connected to something greater than self. That trumps your 40 years by a good little bit, don't you agree? I didn't suggest God spoke to anyone. You keep trying to cajole me into some religious belief so you can debate religion with me. Also, why do you keep going back and forth? You've said that you believed in God and spoke with God, now you claim that you've seen no proof. Seems one of those claims has to be dishonest.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, no you didn't wake up. You allowed an Atheist to convince you of an Atheist speculation. You've offered nothing to support your disbelief, other than the absence of physical evidence for the spiritual. We've been over this, you were never "just like" me. I have no question in my mind that I connect with God. I don't think you've ever made that connection or you would never be able to deny it. I believe you think it makes you sound more credible to claim this, which is why you're doing it. The problem is, you continue to completely contradict yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you are demonstrating how you most certainly were NOT "just like" me. I honestly don't think I am talking to myself and causing beneficial things to occur from my imagination. That's a helluva fucking trick if I'm making that happen on my own. God has blessed me so many times I can't count them. I have made it through some impossible situations, defied death a few times, overcome hopeless adversities, and you think this is all because I've created some imaginary being in my mind? I think you're silly if you think I'm going to buy that.
> 
> 
> 
> But where is your evidence at??? You're saying this, but you're not presenting any evidence other than your opinion. You simply DON'T KNOW this. You are speculating. You have a faith-based belief, or in this case, disbelief. No evidence, no proof, just faith and speculation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does my site prove?  That scientifically all the organized religions are BULLSHIT.  You agree with my site on that.  Ok then lets move on.  You also agree there is no proof a god exists.  And then you try to redefine god, just like my site said you would.  I swear if there are 50 points that site makes, 45 of them answer all of your come backs.  The come backs you think are so slick.  You're just another confused christian buddy.  You're just like me when I left Christianity.  It isn't that much of a leap once  you realize the whole thing is made up to come to the conclusion that your uneducated ape ancestors just made it up.
> 
> You want proof?  Just you asking me for proof still makes you an ignorant fuck.  Lets get in my time machine and go back and see.  Fucking fool.  Science says you are 99.999 probably wrong.  Agnostic Atheism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science says no such thing. Science offers not one iota of evidence that God doesn't exist. You can post links from your blog all you like, you've offered NO evidence to support ANY of your suppositions. I've not said religions are "bullshit" just that I don't subscribe to their dogma. They could be absolutely correct and I could be totally mistaken. That's a possibility, and I respect that. I'm NOT a confused Christian and definitely not "just like" you in any way. You can repeat that from now til the cows come home, it isn't going to be any more true. I connect daily to a God I know is there, who has blessed me more times than I can remember, in more ways than I can explain here. There is no question whatsoever in my mind about the existence of this God. You're not going to ever change my mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry you can't have it both ways.  If you are going to say: "humans have always been able to connect with god, you have to prove that.  I say like every other human invention like the wheel or fire, we picked god up somewhere along the way.
> 
> Can you tell me when exactly we invented fire?  Do you say we always knew how to make fire?  No you don't.  Well guess what?  Scientists say we invented god the same time we invented writing, fire, jewelry, painting and the wheel.  NOT before.
Click to expand...


Scientists say no such thing. There is no science to confirm this speculation. *NONE!* You can keep on claiming it, but you've offered NO evidence. We didn't invent fire, ignorant! We didn't invent written language until about 3200 BCE. All archeological findings confirm that man has always been spiritual. As far back as we've found any evidence of human civilizations, we also find human spiritual rituals. Before the wheel, before painting, before jewelry, and certainly well before the written language. I honestly don't know what more evidence you need, this is from the oldest civilizations we know about. There is no information before that, so anything else is speculatory. I don't have any idea what you mean by "have it both ways" or where I've tried to have something more than one way. You can't state that humans invented spirituality unless you can show where and when that happened. Since you can't show that because from the oldest civilization, spirituality existed, then you can only speculate. There is no evidence to support your belief, it's as simple as that. 



> You have to prove we've always believed.  You can't have it both ways.  You want me to prove we invented god but I can't go back before we have found those ancient burial sites and find exactly where we invented god, I can just tell you like every other thought we have in our heads, god was not always there.



Again, I have no idea what you mean by having it both ways. I am not trying to have anything both ways. Archeology is clear on this, there is no debate, no dispute. Humans have always been spiritually connected, from the oldest civilizations ever discovered. If you have conflicting information, fucking present that! If not, acknowledge that this is what archeology says is the case. You are simply trying to force your OPINION as fact here, and I'm rejecting your OPINION because it's not FACT! Now you can certainly SPECULATE that we invented God but you don't have any evidence to show this to be the case. So let's stop claiming that "science" says something it doesn't say here.  



> And even if when we did believe as far back as when we were apes, that doesn't prove anything other than the idea of god is a very primitive concept.  Doesn't take a very educated brain to swallow the idea of god.  All it takes is a healthy fear of the unknown, a superstitious person and wishful thinking.  Sprinkle that all together and you get god.



But again, you are stubbornly ignoring the counterpoints I have made to your argument. It's as if I am talking to a brick wall here. "Fear of the unknown" hasn't caused any other living thing on this planet to ever create an imaginary playmate and worship it for all their existence. There isn't even any logical evidence that inventing such an imaginary playmate would suffice at consoling fears. If it were simply superstition or wishful thinking, humans would have long-ago abandoned such nonsense. Again, all you have here is speculation and opinion. And that's fine, but we're going to call it that! It's certainly not SCIENCE! 



> There was a point in history when we first invented every concept we know about today.  The first battery, the first wheel, first fire, first clothing, first spear, first gun.  Everything that exists today someone came up with it first.
> 
> Just like someone had to take the first selfie, someone has to be the fist person that came up with god, and it took off like crazy.  Who did the first selfie?  We may never know.  So how are we going to know who was the fist person to come up with god?



Again, you are speculating and here you honestly admit that you are speculating. Now if you would just comprehend that your speculations aren't science and not supported by science, then we'd be getting somewhere. Yes, humans have invented all kind of things... other animals aren't inventing shit, are they? Wonder why that is? All the billions of other forms of life that had such a head start on humans through evolution, yet somehow we were blessed with this special brain that just so happened to allow all this creativity.... odd isn't it? Or could that possibly be related to our unique intrinsic ability to connect with some power greater than ourselves, that gives us the *inspiration* to do these things?    



> What proof do I have?  I have seen babies born and grow up to be adults.  They weren't born with the belief that god exists.  They had to be told the story.  In fact they had to be told over and over and over and be brainwashed with it before they become adults or most people will not swallow such a fairy tale.



Were they taught how to talk, how to read, how to spell? Were they taught to wear clothes? Were they taught how to walk? How to feed themselves? What if no one had been around to teach any of those things, would they have learned on their own? The only thing you have proof of is that adult humans teach their young, just like other animals teach their young. 



> So it is not apparent that humans have always had this attribute of being able to connect spiritually because they haven't "always" been able to.



Yes is is apparent, from every archeological finding we've ever unearthed. You can't dispute that, you've offered no evidence to the contrary. Every human civilization that has ever existed has had some form of human spirituality. Are all humans always spiritual? No... only about 90% on average, the other 10% are idiots like you. 



> Do you see the flaw in your argument?  First of all, it isn't apparent to anyone but you, second of all you are saying it is apparent that we've always been able to connect because we always have.  You are assuming that we always have is a fact and that's the whole fucking argument you chump.
> 
> Listen to yourself.  What proof do you have that we have always believed in god(s)?
> 
> Boss' answer, "because we always have".
> 
> What a fool.



My evidence is clear and well documented. Every human civilization we've ever known of or found any evidence of, has had some form of spirituality. Every single one... no exceptions. There is not a time you can point to and say... Here is where man came up with this idea... or here is where God was invented. You can show where religions were invented, and I haven't disputed that. You can say... Here is where humans stopped believing in many gods and started believing in one god... got that... I understand it. Still, man has ALWAYS believed in something greater than self. It has taken many forms, there have been many incarnations of what that thing is, but it has always existed with man. You've offered nothing to refute that. You can't. The evidence is not there.


----------



## itfitzme

Because religious fanatics persist.

Next question.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're asking me to show you evidence of a negative. I can't prove a negative, no one can. If you are going to argue that man invented God, you need to present some evidence of that, otherwise it is speculation. So far, you've presented nothing. You keep insisting that I prove your speculation wrong.
> 
> I also don't accept they either made it up or God visited them. God could have visited them, or they could have been bestowed some intrinsic ability to connect with God without any visitation from God required. Whatever the case, it's apparent that humans have always had this attribute of being able to connect spiritually because they always have. All archeological findings confirm this. Nothing shows they invented it or that it's imaginary. In fact, it defies logic the species would have clung to some superficial imaginary attribute for all of it's existence. We find no such other example of this sort in all of nature.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, 40 years isn't that long, to be honest. Man has been around for hundreds of thousands of years, and man has always been spiritually connected to something greater than self. That trumps your 40 years by a good little bit, don't you agree? I didn't suggest God spoke to anyone. You keep trying to cajole me into some religious belief so you can debate religion with me. Also, why do you keep going back and forth? You've said that you believed in God and spoke with God, now you claim that you've seen no proof. Seems one of those claims has to be dishonest.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, no you didn't wake up. You allowed an Atheist to convince you of an Atheist speculation. You've offered nothing to support your disbelief, other than the absence of physical evidence for the spiritual. We've been over this, you were never "just like" me. I have no question in my mind that I connect with God. I don't think you've ever made that connection or you would never be able to deny it. I believe you think it makes you sound more credible to claim this, which is why you're doing it. The problem is, you continue to completely contradict yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you are demonstrating how you most certainly were NOT "just like" me. I honestly don't think I am talking to myself and causing beneficial things to occur from my imagination. That's a helluva fucking trick if I'm making that happen on my own. God has blessed me so many times I can't count them. I have made it through some impossible situations, defied death a few times, overcome hopeless adversities, and you think this is all because I've created some imaginary being in my mind? I think you're silly if you think I'm going to buy that.
> 
> 
> 
> But where is your evidence at??? You're saying this, but you're not presenting any evidence other than your opinion. You simply DON'T KNOW this. You are speculating. You have a faith-based belief, or in this case, disbelief. No evidence, no proof, just faith and speculation.
> 
> 
> 
> Science says no such thing. Science offers not one iota of evidence that God doesn't exist. You can post links from your blog all you like, you've offered NO evidence to support ANY of your suppositions. I've not said religions are "bullshit" just that I don't subscribe to their dogma. They could be absolutely correct and I could be totally mistaken. That's a possibility, and I respect that. I'm NOT a confused Christian and definitely not "just like" you in any way. You can repeat that from now til the cows come home, it isn't going to be any more true. I connect daily to a God I know is there, who has blessed me more times than I can remember, in more ways than I can explain here. There is no question whatsoever in my mind about the existence of this God. You're not going to ever change my mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry you can't have it both ways.  If you are going to say: "humans have always been able to connect with god, you have to prove that.  I say like every other human invention like the wheel or fire, we picked god up somewhere along the way.
> 
> Can you tell me when exactly we invented fire?  Do you say we always knew how to make fire?  No you don't.  Well guess what?  Scientists say we invented god the same time we invented writing, fire, jewelry, painting and the wheel.  NOT before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scientists say no such thing. There is no science to confirm this speculation. *NONE!* You can keep on claiming it, but you've offered NO evidence. We didn't invent fire, ignorant! We didn't invent written language until about 3200 BCE. All archeological findings confirm that man has always been spiritual. As far back as we've found any evidence of human civilizations, we also find human spiritual rituals. Before the wheel, before painting, before jewelry, and certainly well before the written language. I honestly don't know what more evidence you need, this is from the oldest civilizations we know about. There is no information before that, so anything else is speculatory. I don't have any idea what you mean by "have it both ways" or where I've tried to have something more than one way. You can't state that humans invented spirituality unless you can show where and when that happened. Since you can't show that because from the oldest civilization, spirituality existed, then you can only speculate. There is no evidence to support your belief, it's as simple as that.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I have no idea what you mean by having it both ways. I am not trying to have anything both ways. Archeology is clear on this, there is no debate, no dispute. Humans have always been spiritually connected, from the oldest civilizations ever discovered. If you have conflicting information, fucking present that! If not, acknowledge that this is what archeology says is the case. You are simply trying to force your OPINION as fact here, and I'm rejecting your OPINION because it's not FACT! Now you can certainly SPECULATE that we invented God but you don't have any evidence to show this to be the case. So let's stop claiming that "science" says something it doesn't say here.
> 
> 
> 
> But again, you are stubbornly ignoring the counterpoints I have made to your argument. It's as if I am talking to a brick wall here. "Fear of the unknown" hasn't caused any other living thing on this planet to ever create an imaginary playmate and worship it for all their existence. There isn't even any logical evidence that inventing such an imaginary playmate would suffice at consoling fears. If it were simply superstition or wishful thinking, humans would have long-ago abandoned such nonsense. Again, all you have here is speculation and opinion. And that's fine, but we're going to call it that! It's certainly not SCIENCE!
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you are speculating and here you honestly admit that you are speculating. Now if you would just comprehend that your speculations aren't science and not supported by science, then we'd be getting somewhere. Yes, humans have invented all kind of things... other animals aren't inventing shit, are they? Wonder why that is? All the billions of other forms of life that had such a head start on humans through evolution, yet somehow we were blessed with this special brain that just so happened to allow all this creativity.... odd isn't it? Or could that possibly be related to our unique intrinsic ability to connect with some power greater than ourselves, that gives us the *inspiration* to do these things?
> 
> 
> 
> Were they taught how to talk, how to read, how to spell? Were they taught to wear clothes? Were they taught how to walk? How to feed themselves? What if no one had been around to teach any of those things, would they have learned on their own? The only thing you have proof of is that adult humans teach their young, just like other animals teach their young.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it is not apparent that humans have always had this attribute of being able to connect spiritually because they haven't "always" been able to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes is is apparent, from every archeological finding we've ever unearthed. You can't dispute that, you've offered no evidence to the contrary. Every human civilization that has ever existed has had some form of human spirituality. Are all humans always spiritual? No... only about 90% on average, the other 10% are idiots like you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you see the flaw in your argument?  First of all, it isn't apparent to anyone but you, second of all you are saying it is apparent that we've always been able to connect because we always have.  You are assuming that we always have is a fact and that's the whole fucking argument you chump.
> 
> Listen to yourself.  What proof do you have that we have always believed in god(s)?
> 
> Boss' answer, "because we always have".
> 
> What a fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My evidence is clear and well documented. Every human civilization we've ever known of or found any evidence of, has had some form of spirituality. Every single one... no exceptions. There is not a time you can point to and say... Here is where man came up with this idea... or here is where God was invented. You can show where religions were invented, and I haven't disputed that. You can say... Here is where humans stopped believing in many gods and started believing in one god... got that... I understand it. Still, man has ALWAYS believed in something greater than self. It has taken many forms, there have been many incarnations of what that thing is, but it has always existed with man. You've offered nothing to refute that. You can't. The evidence is not there.
Click to expand...


Just because we see religious rituals as far back as we can see, doesn't mean we were always religious.  You see, when we were fish we were probably not spiritual.  When we were small rodent size mammals, we didn't believe in god.  When we were apes we didn't believe in gods yet either.  It was at some point in early homo sapien's history that we invented god.  But it wasn't ALWAYS.  I can't prove it wasn't and you can't prove it was ALYWAYS.  You can only speculate as so can I.  That's how you want it both ways.  You act like you know what was going on 1000 years before those ancient rituals were discovered.  You do not.

And besides, even if they did believe, that doesn't prove anything.  Most people today believe and we are a lot smarter today than we were back then.  And that doesn't prove anything either.  You think it does.

My mom said the same thing before when I was younger.  She said, "from the beginning of time man has always looked up"  I use to use this as justification for belief too before I woke up and realized god doesn't exist.  I'm not trying to convince you or change you.  I'm simply on a message board voicing my opinion.  

The fact that an intelligent person holds an irrational belief is simply evidence that our brains are able to compartmentalise world-views and models from one another, usually in order to maintain a state of ignorant bliss and escape the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> She said, "from the beginning of time man has always looked up"



since you used to be a rodent, you had to look higher than most......


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're asking me to show you evidence of a negative. I can't prove a negative, no one can. If you are going to argue that man invented God, you need to present some evidence of that, otherwise it is speculation. So far, you've presented nothing. You keep insisting that I prove your speculation wrong.
> 
> I also don't accept they either made it up or God visited them. God could have visited them, or they could have been bestowed some intrinsic ability to connect with God without any visitation from God required. Whatever the case, it's apparent that humans have always had this attribute of being able to connect spiritually because they always have. All archeological findings confirm this. Nothing shows they invented it or that it's imaginary. In fact, it defies logic the species would have clung to some superficial imaginary attribute for all of it's existence. We find no such other example of this sort in all of nature.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, 40 years isn't that long, to be honest. Man has been around for hundreds of thousands of years, and man has always been spiritually connected to something greater than self. That trumps your 40 years by a good little bit, don't you agree? I didn't suggest God spoke to anyone. You keep trying to cajole me into some religious belief so you can debate religion with me. Also, why do you keep going back and forth? You've said that you believed in God and spoke with God, now you claim that you've seen no proof. Seems one of those claims has to be dishonest.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, no you didn't wake up. You allowed an Atheist to convince you of an Atheist speculation. You've offered nothing to support your disbelief, other than the absence of physical evidence for the spiritual. We've been over this, you were never "just like" me. I have no question in my mind that I connect with God. I don't think you've ever made that connection or you would never be able to deny it. I believe you think it makes you sound more credible to claim this, which is why you're doing it. The problem is, you continue to completely contradict yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you are demonstrating how you most certainly were NOT "just like" me. I honestly don't think I am talking to myself and causing beneficial things to occur from my imagination. That's a helluva fucking trick if I'm making that happen on my own. God has blessed me so many times I can't count them. I have made it through some impossible situations, defied death a few times, overcome hopeless adversities, and you think this is all because I've created some imaginary being in my mind? I think you're silly if you think I'm going to buy that.
> 
> 
> 
> But where is your evidence at??? You're saying this, but you're not presenting any evidence other than your opinion. You simply DON'T KNOW this. You are speculating. You have a faith-based belief, or in this case, disbelief. No evidence, no proof, just faith and speculation.
> 
> 
> 
> Science says no such thing. Science offers not one iota of evidence that God doesn't exist. You can post links from your blog all you like, you've offered NO evidence to support ANY of your suppositions. I've not said religions are "bullshit" just that I don't subscribe to their dogma. They could be absolutely correct and I could be totally mistaken. That's a possibility, and I respect that. I'm NOT a confused Christian and definitely not "just like" you in any way. You can repeat that from now til the cows come home, it isn't going to be any more true. I connect daily to a God I know is there, who has blessed me more times than I can remember, in more ways than I can explain here. There is no question whatsoever in my mind about the existence of this God. You're not going to ever change my mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry you can't have it both ways.  If you are going to say: "humans have always been able to connect with god, you have to prove that.  I say like every other human invention like the wheel or fire, we picked god up somewhere along the way.
> 
> Can you tell me when exactly we invented fire?  Do you say we always knew how to make fire?  No you don't.  Well guess what?  Scientists say we invented god the same time we invented writing, fire, jewelry, painting and the wheel.  NOT before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scientists say no such thing. There is no science to confirm this speculation. *NONE!* You can keep on claiming it, but you've offered NO evidence. We didn't invent fire, ignorant! We didn't invent written language until about 3200 BCE. All archeological findings confirm that man has always been spiritual. As far back as we've found any evidence of human civilizations, we also find human spiritual rituals. Before the wheel, before painting, before jewelry, and certainly well before the written language. I honestly don't know what more evidence you need, this is from the oldest civilizations we know about. There is no information before that, so anything else is speculatory. I don't have any idea what you mean by "have it both ways" or where I've tried to have something more than one way. You can't state that humans invented spirituality unless you can show where and when that happened. Since you can't show that because from the oldest civilization, spirituality existed, then you can only speculate. There is no evidence to support your belief, it's as simple as that.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I have no idea what you mean by having it both ways. I am not trying to have anything both ways. Archeology is clear on this, there is no debate, no dispute. Humans have always been spiritually connected, from the oldest civilizations ever discovered. If you have conflicting information, fucking present that! If not, acknowledge that this is what archeology says is the case. You are simply trying to force your OPINION as fact here, and I'm rejecting your OPINION because it's not FACT! Now you can certainly SPECULATE that we invented God but you don't have any evidence to show this to be the case. So let's stop claiming that "science" says something it doesn't say here.
> 
> 
> 
> But again, you are stubbornly ignoring the counterpoints I have made to your argument. It's as if I am talking to a brick wall here. "Fear of the unknown" hasn't caused any other living thing on this planet to ever create an imaginary playmate and worship it for all their existence. There isn't even any logical evidence that inventing such an imaginary playmate would suffice at consoling fears. If it were simply superstition or wishful thinking, humans would have long-ago abandoned such nonsense. Again, all you have here is speculation and opinion. And that's fine, but we're going to call it that! It's certainly not SCIENCE!
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you are speculating and here you honestly admit that you are speculating. Now if you would just comprehend that your speculations aren't science and not supported by science, then we'd be getting somewhere. Yes, humans have invented all kind of things... other animals aren't inventing shit, are they? Wonder why that is? All the billions of other forms of life that had such a head start on humans through evolution, yet somehow we were blessed with this special brain that just so happened to allow all this creativity.... odd isn't it? Or could that possibly be related to our unique intrinsic ability to connect with some power greater than ourselves, that gives us the *inspiration* to do these things?
> 
> 
> 
> Were they taught how to talk, how to read, how to spell? Were they taught to wear clothes? Were they taught how to walk? How to feed themselves? What if no one had been around to teach any of those things, would they have learned on their own? The only thing you have proof of is that adult humans teach their young, just like other animals teach their young.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it is not apparent that humans have always had this attribute of being able to connect spiritually because they haven't "always" been able to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes is is apparent, from every archeological finding we've ever unearthed. You can't dispute that, you've offered no evidence to the contrary. Every human civilization that has ever existed has had some form of human spirituality. Are all humans always spiritual? No... only about 90% on average, the other 10% are idiots like you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you see the flaw in your argument?  First of all, it isn't apparent to anyone but you, second of all you are saying it is apparent that we've always been able to connect because we always have.  You are assuming that we always have is a fact and that's the whole fucking argument you chump.
> 
> Listen to yourself.  What proof do you have that we have always believed in god(s)?
> 
> Boss' answer, "because we always have".
> 
> What a fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My evidence is clear and well documented. Every human civilization we've ever known of or found any evidence of, has had some form of spirituality. Every single one... no exceptions. There is not a time you can point to and say... Here is where man came up with this idea... or here is where God was invented. You can show where religions were invented, and I haven't disputed that. You can say... Here is where humans stopped believing in many gods and started believing in one god... got that... I understand it. Still, man has ALWAYS believed in something greater than self. It has taken many forms, there have been many incarnations of what that thing is, but it has always existed with man. You've offered nothing to refute that. You can't. The evidence is not there.
Click to expand...


I have to agree with you that man has always been superstitious, had wild imaginations, a healthy fear of the unknown and has always been a little stupid so we probably did always believe in gods for as long as your brains have been big enough to come up with the concept.  

Think about where we would be if it weren't for the smart scientists.  The 5% that really advanced us as a society.  Invented all the great things that we enjoy today.  The majority of them say the masses are just stupid and believing in god is an irrational thought.  

So I'll give it to you the masses have always believed in something greater than them.  That's because the masses are really stupid and gullible.  

Everything is energy, and energy is without consciousness, without love and without mercy.

Anyways, we're just going to have to agree to disagree on if god exists.  

I found this about Einstein and maybe you are a Pantheism like him?

Pantheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

19. What evidence is there that humans have a spirit? Part 1: The Science of the Soul | 500 Questions about God & Christianity


----------



## hobelim

GISMYS said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why must you have a pure mind to see god? That's kinda random. And book quoting doesn't count, that's a book, for crissakes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I mean by pure mind is a mind that is open, honest, and rational. That's not random, that's essential to comprehension.
> 
> And it is not about judgement or crime and punishment as it is about cause and effect, action and consequence.
> 
> 
> For instance, if a gullible person swallows any garbage they hear, their mind will as a consequence become confused.
> 
> Its not a punishment from God but a law as real as gravity.
> 
> If there is a person who thinks rationally but one day is persuaded to accept something irrational, that belief will defile and contaminate their mind and they will become a creature that cannot think rationally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO!!! OK!!! YOU KNOW YOUR PROBLEM =NOW do something about it!!! TWEAK!
Click to expand...



What a schmuck.

You of all people here are the perfect example of a person suffering the consequences for setting aside the laws of God and worshiping a human being and misleading others to do the same because you lifted your skirt for the vile and loathsome flesh of unclean creatures that do not ruminate and have become a creature that cannot ruminate.

You have the form and shape of a flabby human being, but an intelligence just slightly above that of a mentally challenged monkey.

Don't take it too hard, at least you have no worries.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Just because we see religious rituals as far back as we can see, doesn't mean we were always religious.  You see, when we were fish we were probably not spiritual.  When we were small rodent size mammals, we didn't believe in god.  When we were apes we didn't believe in gods yet either.



All of this stuff is also speculative. You've offered NO scientific proof that anything has ever evolved past the genus stage. We weren't fish or rodents. If we were ape-like, God must've intervened to bestow us with something apes don't have, because we're obviously not like apes today. 



> It was at some point in early homo sapien's history that we invented god.



Where is your evidence???? Again, you cannot state this as a fact until you've proven it true. You've offered nothing but a speculation. Do you have proof or not? 



> But it wasn't ALWAYS.  I can't prove it wasn't and you can't prove it was ALYWAYS.



Yes I can, I already have. Every archeological finding of human civilization remains, shows humans are spiritual. Now, we've found bones dating back to the days of the dinosaurs, so it's obvious if there were any humans living in any kind of civilizations, we'd have found those too. It's not like we've found some evidence these humans over here didn't have spirituality and those did... ALL human civilizations ever unearthed, show signs of some type of spirituality. No exceptions. 



> And besides, even if they did believe, that doesn't prove anything.



Well now here is where we get to the crux of your argument, you are just going to reject whatever. You've made your mind up that no amount of evidence is ever going to convince you, and no matter how much evidence is shown, you are prepared to reject it. So it doesn't matter how much evidence I present, or how compelling the evidence is, your mind is completely made up on the matter. 

This is what is perplexing to me and why I made this thread. Why do you persist? Do you think I am going to have some kind of magical powers to overcome your stubborn refusal to accept the evidence? Do you think that if you argue this long enough, I will somehow find some way to change your made up mind about God? Well guess what? That's not ever going to happen man. Save us both the trouble and just move on! Why go through all of this shit over and over and over and over? If you're not going to accept ANY evidence under ANY circumstance, it's futile and pointless to continue.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because we see religious rituals as far back as we can see, doesn't mean we were always religious.  You see, when we were fish we were probably not spiritual.  When we were small rodent size mammals, we didn't believe in god.  When we were apes we didn't believe in gods yet either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of this stuff is also speculative. You've offered NO scientific proof that anything has ever evolved past the genus stage. We weren't fish or rodents. If we were ape-like, God must've intervened to bestow us with something apes don't have, because we're obviously not like apes today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was at some point in early homo sapien's history that we invented god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where is your evidence???? Again, you cannot state this as a fact until you've proven it true. You've offered nothing but a speculation. Do you have proof or not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it wasn't ALWAYS.  I can't prove it wasn't and you can't prove it was ALYWAYS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I can, I already have. Every archeological finding of human civilization remains, shows humans are spiritual. Now, we've found bones dating back to the days of the dinosaurs, so it's obvious if there were any humans living in any kind of civilizations, we'd have found those too. It's not like we've found some evidence these humans over here didn't have spirituality and those did... ALL human civilizations ever unearthed, show signs of some type of spirituality. No exceptions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And besides, even if they did believe, that doesn't prove anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well now here is where we get to the crux of your argument, you are just going to reject whatever. You've made your mind up that no amount of evidence is ever going to convince you, and no matter how much evidence is shown, you are prepared to reject it. So it doesn't matter how much evidence I present, or how compelling the evidence is, your mind is completely made up on the matter.
> 
> This is what is perplexing to me and why I made this thread. Why do you persist? Do you think I am going to have some kind of magical powers to overcome your stubborn refusal to accept the evidence? Do you think that if you argue this long enough, I will somehow find some way to change your made up mind about God? Well guess what? That's not ever going to happen man. Save us both the trouble and just move on! Why go through all of this shit over and over and over and over? If you're not going to accept ANY evidence under ANY circumstance, it's futile and pointless to continue.
Click to expand...


Just because humans have believed for as far back as we can look doesn't prove god exists.  I will give you that man has always believed in gods.  Fine.  That doesn't prove god exists.  

What evidence?  You have given your hunches and feelings and speculation as to why you believe god exists, but then again, you don't even know what god is.  And everything you use as proof is stuff science can explain.  Where does your mind and thoughts come from?  Your brain. 

Did you actually give irrefutable proof that your spirit lives on after you die?

Does anyone else here at USMB believe Boss has proven anything?


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because we see religious rituals as far back as we can see, doesn't mean we were always religious.  You see, when we were fish we were probably not spiritual.  When we were small rodent size mammals, we didn't believe in god.  When we were apes we didn't believe in gods yet either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of this stuff is also speculative. You've offered NO scientific proof that anything has ever evolved past the genus stage. We weren't fish or rodents. If we were ape-like, God must've intervened to bestow us with something apes don't have, because we're obviously not like apes today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was at some point in early homo sapien's history that we invented god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where is your evidence???? Again, you cannot state this as a fact until you've proven it true. You've offered nothing but a speculation. Do you have proof or not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it wasn't ALWAYS.  I can't prove it wasn't and you can't prove it was ALYWAYS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I can, I already have. Every archeological finding of human civilization remains, shows humans are spiritual. Now, we've found bones dating back to the days of the dinosaurs, so it's obvious if there were any humans living in any kind of civilizations, we'd have found those too. It's not like we've found some evidence these humans over here didn't have spirituality and those did... ALL human civilizations ever unearthed, show signs of some type of spirituality. No exceptions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And besides, even if they did believe, that doesn't prove anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well now here is where we get to the crux of your argument, you are just going to reject whatever. You've made your mind up that no amount of evidence is ever going to convince you, and no matter how much evidence is shown, you are prepared to reject it. So it doesn't matter how much evidence I present, or how compelling the evidence is, your mind is completely made up on the matter.
> 
> This is what is perplexing to me and why I made this thread. Why do you persist? Do you think I am going to have some kind of magical powers to overcome your stubborn refusal to accept the evidence? Do you think that if you argue this long enough, I will somehow find some way to change your made up mind about God? Well guess what? That's not ever going to happen man. Save us both the trouble and just move on! Why go through all of this shit over and over and over and over? If you're not going to accept ANY evidence under ANY circumstance, it's futile and pointless to continue.
Click to expand...


This is pretty interesting.  http://www.cavemenworld.com/explore/when-did-man-invent-god/

Ten thousand years ago, animism was the worlds most pervasive religious belief. Every plant, stone and animal was thought to contain a spirit.

According to archaeologists working in the Jordan River Valley in 1997, the Migdol Temple in the ancient city of Pella was the birthplace of mankinds idea of God.

Some 3,600 years ago, text was carved in stone there, indicating worship of a single all-powerful God, 

As the great French author Voltaire wrote in 1768: Si Dieu nexistait pas, il faudrait linventer, meaning If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him. So perhaps we did, and now we know when.

Morgan Freeman agrees with me Morgan Freeman: 'I Think We Invented God'


----------



## hobelim

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because we see religious rituals as far back as we can see, doesn't mean we were always religious.  You see, when we were fish we were probably not spiritual.  When we were small rodent size mammals, we didn't believe in god.  When we were apes we didn't believe in gods yet either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of this stuff is also speculative. You've offered NO scientific proof that anything has ever evolved past the genus stage. We weren't fish or rodents. If we were ape-like, God must've intervened to bestow us with something apes don't have, because we're obviously not like apes today.
> 
> 
> 
> Where is your evidence???? Again, you cannot state this as a fact until you've proven it true. You've offered nothing but a speculation. Do you have proof or not?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I can, I already have. Every archeological finding of human civilization remains, shows humans are spiritual. Now, we've found bones dating back to the days of the dinosaurs, so it's obvious if there were any humans living in any kind of civilizations, we'd have found those too. It's not like we've found some evidence these humans over here didn't have spirituality and those did... ALL human civilizations ever unearthed, show signs of some type of spirituality. No exceptions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And besides, even if they did believe, that doesn't prove anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well now here is where we get to the crux of your argument, you are just going to reject whatever. You've made your mind up that no amount of evidence is ever going to convince you, and no matter how much evidence is shown, you are prepared to reject it. So it doesn't matter how much evidence I present, or how compelling the evidence is, your mind is completely made up on the matter.
> 
> This is what is perplexing to me and why I made this thread. Why do you persist? Do you think I am going to have some kind of magical powers to overcome your stubborn refusal to accept the evidence? Do you think that if you argue this long enough, I will somehow find some way to change your made up mind about God? Well guess what? That's not ever going to happen man. Save us both the trouble and just move on! Why go through all of this shit over and over and over and over? If you're not going to accept ANY evidence under ANY circumstance, it's futile and pointless to continue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because humans have believed for as far back as we can look doesn't prove god exists.  I will give you that man has always believed in gods.  Fine.  That doesn't prove god exists.
> 
> What evidence?  You have given your hunches and feelings and speculation as to why you believe god exists, but then again, you don't even know what god is.  And everything you use as proof is stuff science can explain.  Where does your mind and thoughts come from?  Your brain.
> 
> Did you actually give irrefutable proof that your spirit lives on after you die?
> 
> Does anyone else here at USMB believe Boss has proven anything?
Click to expand...



No. Boss hasn't even proven that anyone is a God hater. I've tried to explain to Boss that people having spiritual beliefs for thousands of years is not proof of any spiritual reality and that what he calls spiritual evidence does not qualify as any kind of evidence..

It doesn't seem to matter to Boss that what people used to believe according to any given religion has been proven false thousands of years ago which proves only that people had vivid imaginations inspired by fear of the unknown and were superstitious which is hardly evidence of any alternate spiritual reality *especially since what they believed was false*.

He expects people to just believe what he says because he says so and if anyone disagrees or points out flaws in his reasoning they either are too stupid to grasp his deep thinking or they must hate God yet he finds it too hard to believe that his argument for spiritual reality is based on great errors that he has made in his own speculations and is simply just plain wrong.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss is right though.  Even 223,000 years ago Neandertals and Primitive man did show signs of being religious.  That certainly doesn't prove god exists though does it?  Just because our ape ancestors were superstitious and had wild imaginations and a healthy fear of the unknown does not mean that is proof god exists.  

In fact, look at how many versions of god there is.  Seems to me that everyone is just guessing.  Seems to me to be nothing more than wishful thinking.  

Then somewhere along the way man got a hold of the idea and figured out how to control people with religion.

Hell even Neandertals believed in god.  Are they in heaven too?  Does their spirit live on?  Wishful thinking. 

The earliest evidence of Hominids, such as Neanderthals and even Homo heidelbergensis, deliberately disposing of deceased individuals usually in funerary caches. The graves are believed to represent the beginnings of ceremonial rites.

So what?  What makes anyone think they didn't make it up?  Science gives a lot of great explanations as to how/when/why man invented god(s).  They were afraid of the unknown.  They invented a super parent.  They had wild imaginations and could tell really good stories just like we can today.

I have a great imagination.  I can come up with a wild story that is rooted in my fears too.  That doesn't mean whatever I say is real or true.


----------



## Montrovant

sealybobo said:


> From now on if you aren't a christian, muslim, jew, mormom or jehova fuck off.  I don't want to argue with people who believe even though they know all the organized religions are completely made up.  First I want to talk to the people who take the bible/koran literally.  Then I want to talk to the people who know the stories in the bible are just stories invented by men to teach write and wrong.  I'll talk to jews and muslims but I won't discuss god with people who don't believe any of the organized religions but still believe in god(s) because they have absolutely zero proof god exists and yet still believe.
> 
> At least Christians believe the stories in the bible are true.  If they really believe god sent his son jesus to be crucified, then I can understand why they believe.  But if you realize that's just a made up story and you still believe in god then maybe you are even dumber than the person who believes the jesus stories.  Or the muslim who believes the mohammad stories or the jews who believe the mosus stories.  At least they have an excuse.  They've either been brainwashed from when they were kids or they are just utterly gullible or they've been scared into believing.
> 
> If you believe in god but not any organized religion, I almost want to say you are dumber than them but I have to give you points for at least not falling for the impossible stories.  And I should realize people like Boss are closer to the truth than a gismys is.  Once you realize the lies aren't true then maybe one day it will dawn on you that without the organized religions you really have zero as far as proof a god exists.
> 
> If not, they would have never invented the lies in the first place.  There would have been no reason to lie.  They would have just used Boss' arguments.  But Boss' arguments don't hold much water so they had to make up the stories.



Maybe you should go make your own thread.  Boss made this one and has been pretty clear from the beginning that he doesn't follow any organized religion.  It seems kind of strange to come into a thread started by someone who doesn't believe in a religion and say you don't want to talk to anyone who has spiritual but not religious beliefs.


----------



## BreezeWood

Boss said:


> Still, man has ALWAYS believed in something greater than self.



just what is that suppose to mean and how does that relate to what you say you communicate with ?

.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because we see religious rituals as far back as we can see, doesn't mean we were always religious.  You see, when we were fish we were probably not spiritual.  When we were small rodent size mammals, we didn't believe in god.  When we were apes we didn't believe in gods yet either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of this stuff is also speculative. You've offered NO scientific proof that anything has ever evolved past the genus stage. We weren't fish or rodents. If we were ape-like, God must've intervened to bestow us with something apes don't have, because we're obviously not like apes today.
> 
> 
> 
> Where is your evidence???? Again, you cannot state this as a fact until you've proven it true. You've offered nothing but a speculation. Do you have proof or not?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I can, I already have. Every archeological finding of human civilization remains, shows humans are spiritual. Now, we've found bones dating back to the days of the dinosaurs, so it's obvious if there were any humans living in any kind of civilizations, we'd have found those too. It's not like we've found some evidence these humans over here didn't have spirituality and those did... ALL human civilizations ever unearthed, show signs of some type of spirituality. No exceptions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And besides, even if they did believe, that doesn't prove anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well now here is where we get to the crux of your argument, you are just going to reject whatever. You've made your mind up that no amount of evidence is ever going to convince you, and no matter how much evidence is shown, you are prepared to reject it. So it doesn't matter how much evidence I present, or how compelling the evidence is, your mind is completely made up on the matter.
> 
> This is what is perplexing to me and why I made this thread. Why do you persist? Do you think I am going to have some kind of magical powers to overcome your stubborn refusal to accept the evidence? Do you think that if you argue this long enough, I will somehow find some way to change your made up mind about God? Well guess what? That's not ever going to happen man. Save us both the trouble and just move on! Why go through all of this shit over and over and over and over? If you're not going to accept ANY evidence under ANY circumstance, it's futile and pointless to continue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because humans have believed for as far back as we can look doesn't prove god exists.  I will give you that man has always believed in gods.  Fine.  That doesn't prove god exists.
Click to expand...


Again, silly boob... for about the thousandth time... if you are coming to these threads in hopes that someone will "prove" God, you will continue to be disappointed. I don't know what else to tell you. I haven't said that I can prove God exists, and I certainly can't prove it to someone who has closed their mind to the possibility. What I am presenting is evidence to refute your argument that man "invented" spirituality. 

Up until now, you have simply failed to offer any evidence for that argument. I notice you have now decided to replace "spirituality" with "religion" again and start trying to throw out red herrings with regard to when monotheism came about, hoping to pass that off as man's inventing of spirituality, but it's not. I've already admitted we can track when man invented religions, started practicing monotheism, started worshiping the God of Abraham, etc. WAY before that, humans were being spiritual. It goes back hundreds of thousands of years to our very beginning. That is what archeology says and you haven't refuted.


----------



## JimBowie1958

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because we see religious rituals as far back as we can see, doesn't mean we were always religious.  You see, when we were fish we were probably not spiritual.  When we were small rodent size mammals, we didn't believe in god.  When we were apes we didn't believe in gods yet either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of this stuff is also speculative. You've offered NO scientific proof that anything has ever evolved past the genus stage. We weren't fish or rodents. If we were ape-like, God must've intervened to bestow us with something apes don't have, because we're obviously not like apes today.
> 
> 
> 
> Where is your evidence???? Again, you cannot state this as a fact until you've proven it true. You've offered nothing but a speculation. Do you have proof or not?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I can, I already have. Every archeological finding of human civilization remains, shows humans are spiritual. Now, we've found bones dating back to the days of the dinosaurs, so it's obvious if there were any humans living in any kind of civilizations, we'd have found those too. It's not like we've found some evidence these humans over here didn't have spirituality and those did... ALL human civilizations ever unearthed, show signs of some type of spirituality. No exceptions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And besides, even if they did believe, that doesn't prove anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well now here is where we get to the crux of your argument, you are just going to reject whatever. You've made your mind up that no amount of evidence is ever going to convince you, and no matter how much evidence is shown, you are prepared to reject it. So it doesn't matter how much evidence I present, or how compelling the evidence is, your mind is completely made up on the matter.
> 
> This is what is perplexing to me and why I made this thread. Why do you persist? Do you think I am going to have some kind of magical powers to overcome your stubborn refusal to accept the evidence? Do you think that if you argue this long enough, I will somehow find some way to change your made up mind about God? Well guess what? That's not ever going to happen man. Save us both the trouble and just move on! Why go through all of this shit over and over and over and over? If you're not going to accept ANY evidence under ANY circumstance, it's futile and pointless to continue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because humans have believed for as far back as we can look doesn't prove god exists.
Click to expand...


Yes, it does, idiot.

For millions of years people have believed that assertion A is true and all civilizations have ben built on the belief that A is true. All civilizations that decided that A was no longer true or ceased to be true vanished not long after that.

The odds are overwhelming that A is in fact true.

Duh, dumb shit.


----------



## hobelim

JimBowie1958 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> All of this stuff is also speculative. You've offered NO scientific proof that anything has ever evolved past the genus stage. We weren't fish or rodents. If we were ape-like, God must've intervened to bestow us with something apes don't have, because we're obviously not like apes today.
> 
> 
> 
> Where is your evidence???? Again, you cannot state this as a fact until you've proven it true. You've offered nothing but a speculation. Do you have proof or not?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I can, I already have. Every archeological finding of human civilization remains, shows humans are spiritual. Now, we've found bones dating back to the days of the dinosaurs, so it's obvious if there were any humans living in any kind of civilizations, we'd have found those too. It's not like we've found some evidence these humans over here didn't have spirituality and those did... ALL human civilizations ever unearthed, show signs of some type of spirituality. No exceptions.
> 
> 
> 
> Well now here is where we get to the crux of your argument, you are just going to reject whatever. You've made your mind up that no amount of evidence is ever going to convince you, and no matter how much evidence is shown, you are prepared to reject it. So it doesn't matter how much evidence I present, or how compelling the evidence is, your mind is completely made up on the matter.
> 
> This is what is perplexing to me and why I made this thread. Why do you persist? Do you think I am going to have some kind of magical powers to overcome your stubborn refusal to accept the evidence? Do you think that if you argue this long enough, I will somehow find some way to change your made up mind about God? Well guess what? That's not ever going to happen man. Save us both the trouble and just move on! Why go through all of this shit over and over and over and over? If you're not going to accept ANY evidence under ANY circumstance, it's futile and pointless to continue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because humans have believed for as far back as we can look doesn't prove god exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it does, idiot.
> 
> For millions of years people have believed that assertion A is true and all civilizations have ben built on the belief that A is true. All civilizations that decided that A was no longer true or ceased to be true vanished not long after that.
> 
> The odds are overwhelming that A is in fact true.
> 
> Duh, dumb shit.
Click to expand...



So the civilizations that existed 'millions' of years ago that worshiped stone statues of beasts and birds as if they were gods collapsed when they stopped believing?  Not because the foundational structure was false? Not because every time some trouble arose they turned to stone statues, made by human hands, that have no life and can neither see, hear, think, or talk, for guidance, protection and help?

This proves the existence of God? 

That is the most absurd reasoning presented yet.

congratulations!


----------



## BillyP

hobelim said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I mean by pure mind is a mind that is open, honest, and rational. That's not random, that's essential to comprehension.
> 
> And it is not about judgement or crime and punishment as it is about cause and effect, action and consequence.
> 
> 
> For instance, if a gullible person swallows any garbage they hear, their mind will as a consequence become confused.
> 
> Its not a punishment from God but a law as real as gravity.
> 
> If there is a person who thinks rationally but one day is persuaded to accept something irrational, that belief will defile and contaminate their mind and they will become a creature that cannot think rationally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO!!! OK!!! YOU KNOW YOUR PROBLEM =NOW do something about it!!! TWEAK!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What a schmuck.
> 
> You of all people here are the perfect example of a person suffering the consequences for setting aside the laws of God and worshiping a human being and misleading others to do the same because you lifted your skirt for the vile and loathsome flesh of unclean creatures that do not ruminate and have become a creature that cannot ruminate.
> 
> You have the form and shape of a flabby human being, but an intelligence just slightly above that of a mentally challenged monkey.
> 
> Don't take it too hard, at least you have no worries.
Click to expand...


I'm open, (somewhat ) honest and rational. Although it's probably the rational part that won't allow me to see your god.


----------



## thanatos144

I rented God is not dead and it was actually a really good movie and it reminded me quiet a bit about those in this thread. I recommend you all watch it. It is about a freshmen at college having to defend why he refuses to say God is Dead . It also has many side stories in it that lets you see how God works in mysterious ways. I guess it is based on lawsuits being filed against universities for discrimination and harassment of Christians...They listed them in the credits and there was a hell of  a lot of them.


----------



## hobelim

BillyP said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO!!! OK!!! YOU KNOW YOUR PROBLEM =NOW do something about it!!! TWEAK!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a schmuck.
> 
> You of all people here are the perfect example of a person suffering the consequences for setting aside the laws of God and worshiping a human being and misleading others to do the same because you lifted your skirt for the vile and loathsome flesh of unclean creatures that do not ruminate and have become a creature that cannot ruminate.
> 
> You have the form and shape of a flabby human being, but an intelligence just slightly above that of a mentally challenged monkey..
> 
> Don't take it too hard, at least you have no worries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm open, (somewhat ) honest and rational. Although it's probably the rational part that won't allow me to see your god.
Click to expand...


Knowing God is essentially to seeing God.

That rational  part of your mind is what has preserved your sanity and saved you from becoming a mindless believer in things that never happened and praying for guidance to a god that does not exist.

And that same rational part of your mind is what will assist you in knowing my God by using that intelligence to perceive the deeper implications of the divine commands which reveal a profound wisdom of a God that does not give a crap about what you eat or what you wear, a God that you may have never been looking for but once seen you will know and also see that he has always been there and intimately involved with you for your entire life.

But don't take my word for it. The more you purify your mind the more accurately you will perceive things the more you will be capable of comprehending and the sooner you will see God with your own eyes.


----------



## sealybobo

Montrovant said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> From now on if you aren't a christian, muslim, jew, mormom or jehova fuck off.  I don't want to argue with people who believe even though they know all the organized religions are completely made up.  First I want to talk to the people who take the bible/koran literally.  Then I want to talk to the people who know the stories in the bible are just stories invented by men to teach write and wrong.  I'll talk to jews and muslims but I won't discuss god with people who don't believe any of the organized religions but still believe in god(s) because they have absolutely zero proof god exists and yet still believe.
> 
> At least Christians believe the stories in the bible are true.  If they really believe god sent his son jesus to be crucified, then I can understand why they believe.  But if you realize that's just a made up story and you still believe in god then maybe you are even dumber than the person who believes the jesus stories.  Or the muslim who believes the mohammad stories or the jews who believe the mosus stories.  At least they have an excuse.  They've either been brainwashed from when they were kids or they are just utterly gullible or they've been scared into believing.
> 
> If you believe in god but not any organized religion, I almost want to say you are dumber than them but I have to give you points for at least not falling for the impossible stories.  And I should realize people like Boss are closer to the truth than a gismys is.  Once you realize the lies aren't true then maybe one day it will dawn on you that without the organized religions you really have zero as far as proof a god exists.
> 
> If not, they would have never invented the lies in the first place.  There would have been no reason to lie.  They would have just used Boss' arguments.  But Boss' arguments don't hold much water so they had to make up the stories.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should go make your own thread.  Boss made this one and has been pretty clear from the beginning that he doesn't follow any organized religion.  It seems kind of strange to come into a thread started by someone who doesn't believe in a religion and say you don't want to talk to anyone who has spiritual but not religious beliefs.
Click to expand...


Well good point.  But you see, the theists are all over the place.  Do you believe in god?  Christianity?  Muslim?  Jewish?  Mormon?  Jehova?  Born again?  Do you take the bible literally or do you not?  Do you believe in hell?  Do you believe the stories in the bible actually happened?  Do you believe miracles happen?  Do you believe god is watching you and cares about you?  Did he make us in his image?  Do angels exist?  Is Lucifer a real person?  I could go on and on.  Ask 100 different theists these questions and you'll get 100 different replies.  No standard.  This is one of the reasons you know its bullshit.  

Do you think Boss has proven god exists?  Explain his position back to me then.

And the thread is why do god haters persist.  We persist because ignorance while maybe bliss is not good for society.  PERIOD!  And as Gismys would say, AND YOU?  ONLY A FOOL!!!


----------



## BillyP

GISMYS said:


> little man! keepyour silly ideas and opinions as they are utter foolishness!!! HOW TRUE GOD'S WORD IS=ETERNAL TRUTH!!18 I know very well how foolish it sounds to those who are lost, when they hear that Jesus died to save them. But we who are saved* recognize this message as the very power of God. 19 For God says, I will destroy all human plans of salvation no matter how wise they seem to be, and ignore the best ideas of men, even the most brilliant of them.
> 
> 20 So what about these wise men, these scholars, these brilliant debaters of this worlds great affairs? God has made them all look foolish and shown their wisdom to be useless nonsense. 21 For God in his wisdom saw to it that the world would never find God through human brilliance, and then he stepped in and saved all those who believed his message, which the world calls foolish and silly. 22 It seems foolish to the Jews because they want a sign from heaven as proof that what is preached is true; and it is foolish to the Gentiles because they believe only what agrees with their philosophy and seems wise to them. 23 So when we preach about Christ dying to save them, the Jews are offended and the Gentiles say its all nonsense. 24 But God has opened the eyes of those called to salvation, both Jews and Gentiles, to see that Christ is the mighty power of God to save them; Christ himself is the center of Gods wise plan for their salvation. 25 This so-called foolish plan of God is far wiser than the wisest plan of the wisest man, and God in his weaknessChrist dying on the crossis far stronger than any man.
> 1 Corinthians 1:18-25


That's not god's word, you read that in a man-written book. Now go away.


----------



## BillyP

hobelim said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a schmuck.
> 
> You of all people here are the perfect example of a person suffering the consequences for setting aside the laws of God and worshiping a human being and misleading others to do the same because you lifted your skirt for the vile and loathsome flesh of unclean creatures that do not ruminate and have become a creature that cannot ruminate.
> 
> You have the form and shape of a flabby human being, but an intelligence just slightly above that of a mentally challenged monkey..
> 
> Don't take it too hard, at least you have no worries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm open, (somewhat ) honest and rational. Although it's probably the rational part that won't allow me to see your god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Knowing God is essentially to seeing God.
> 
> That rational  part of your mind is what has preserved your sanity and saved you from becoming a mindless believer in things that never happened and praying for guidance to a god that does not exist.
> 
> And that same rational part of your mind is what will assist you in knowing my God by using that intelligence to perceive the deeper implications of the divine commands which reveal a profound wisdom of a God that does not give a crap about what you eat or what you wear, a God that you may have never been looking for but once seen you will know and also see that he has always been there and intimately involved with you for your entire life.
> 
> But don't take my word for it. The more you purify your mind the more accurately you will perceive things the more you will be capable of comprehending and the sooner you will see God with your own eyes.
Click to expand...


I hear what you're saying, but here "it is about cause and effect, action and consequence." you seem to be still talking about a god that's needy and wants to be obeyed.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> All of this stuff is also speculative. You've offered NO scientific proof that anything has ever evolved past the genus stage. We weren't fish or rodents. If we were ape-like, God must've intervened to bestow us with something apes don't have, because we're obviously not like apes today.
> 
> 
> 
> Where is your evidence???? Again, you cannot state this as a fact until you've proven it true. You've offered nothing but a speculation. Do you have proof or not?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I can, I already have. Every archeological finding of human civilization remains, shows humans are spiritual. Now, we've found bones dating back to the days of the dinosaurs, so it's obvious if there were any humans living in any kind of civilizations, we'd have found those too. It's not like we've found some evidence these humans over here didn't have spirituality and those did... ALL human civilizations ever unearthed, show signs of some type of spirituality. No exceptions.
> 
> 
> 
> Well now here is where we get to the crux of your argument, you are just going to reject whatever. You've made your mind up that no amount of evidence is ever going to convince you, and no matter how much evidence is shown, you are prepared to reject it. So it doesn't matter how much evidence I present, or how compelling the evidence is, your mind is completely made up on the matter.
> 
> This is what is perplexing to me and why I made this thread. Why do you persist? Do you think I am going to have some kind of magical powers to overcome your stubborn refusal to accept the evidence? Do you think that if you argue this long enough, I will somehow find some way to change your made up mind about God? Well guess what? That's not ever going to happen man. Save us both the trouble and just move on! Why go through all of this shit over and over and over and over? If you're not going to accept ANY evidence under ANY circumstance, it's futile and pointless to continue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because humans have believed for as far back as we can look doesn't prove god exists.  I will give you that man has always believed in gods.  Fine.  That doesn't prove god exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, silly boob... for about the thousandth time... if you are coming to these threads in hopes that someone will "prove" God, you will continue to be disappointed. I don't know what else to tell you. I haven't said that I can prove God exists, and I certainly can't prove it to someone who has closed their mind to the possibility. What I am presenting is evidence to refute your argument that man "invented" spirituality.
> 
> Up until now, you have simply failed to offer any evidence for that argument. I notice you have now decided to replace "spirituality" with "religion" again and start trying to throw out red herrings with regard to when monotheism came about, hoping to pass that off as man's inventing of spirituality, but it's not. I've already admitted we can track when man invented religions, started practicing monotheism, started worshiping the God of Abraham, etc. WAY before that, humans were being spiritual. It goes back hundreds of thousands of years to our very beginning. That is what archeology says and you haven't refuted.
Click to expand...


God is not one of the thoughts that human's have as a basic instinct.  I think those are hunger, fear, happiness, etc.  So unless you can show me that every baby born eventually at some age comes to start believing in god instinctively, then shut the fuck up with your lame ass theory that man has always believed.  

I shouldn't have to show you that at some point in history someone came up with the concept of god.  Someone or a group of people.  But god isn't automatically implanted in all humans.   

Show me a group of 10 babies raised together by 10 atheist parents.  No tv, no magazines, books or stories about god.  Video tape those kids and see if/when any of them come up with god.  They may never.  Millions of people/groups probably came and went back when we were hunters and gatherers and they didn't all automatically believe in gods.  Some tribes might have and some not.  Just because all the American Injuns were spiritual too means that EVENTUALLY every group came up with god(s) and spirits sure, but they were all different stories and they like you had zero proof/evidence of god, only theories and feelings.  

And it seems most uneducated humans tend to believe in god(s).  All the people 1000 years plus ago were not educated in science.  Actually, there were many atheist greek phylosophers.  Probably more than you know because most of them shut their mouth in fear of their lives.  

If it weren't for modern science and the internet, I'd probably still believe like I did in the 1980's.  I didn't wake up until 2013 or 14.  I started waking up in the 90's when I thought just like you.  I rejected all the organized religions but still had a personal relationship with god.  I would even go to church and talk to god about feeling guilty that I am not a christian and don't believe the christian story.  I said "god please don't punish me for not believing these stupid people who are probably swallowing a lie that the church invented to control them"  And I was confident he agreed.  So in a way, I was and you are a lot like Joseph Smith of the Mormons.  You should start your own cult only leave out the magic underwear and crazy stories.  In fact Mormons are the perfect example of how stupid people are.  Youtube the mormon story southpark dumb dumb dumb.  That is the actual Mormon story.  REALLY?  And those people bought it?  So you keep telling me how you believe in god because everyone else believes, you stupid bastard.


----------



## sealybobo

BillyP said:


> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> little man! keepyour silly ideas and opinions as they are utter foolishness!!! HOW TRUE GOD'S WORD IS=ETERNAL TRUTH!!18 I know very well how foolish it sounds to those who are lost, when they hear that Jesus died to save them. But we who are saved* recognize this message as the very power of God. 19 For God says, I will destroy all human plans of salvation no matter how wise they seem to be, and ignore the best ideas of men, even the most brilliant of them.
> 
> 20 So what about these wise men, these scholars, these brilliant debaters of this worlds great affairs? God has made them all look foolish and shown their wisdom to be useless nonsense. 21 For God in his wisdom saw to it that the world would never find God through human brilliance, and then he stepped in and saved all those who believed his message, which the world calls foolish and silly. 22 It seems foolish to the Jews because they want a sign from heaven as proof that what is preached is true; and it is foolish to the Gentiles because they believe only what agrees with their philosophy and seems wise to them. 23 So when we preach about Christ dying to save them, the Jews are offended and the Gentiles say its all nonsense. 24 But God has opened the eyes of those called to salvation, both Jews and Gentiles, to see that Christ is the mighty power of God to save them; Christ himself is the center of Gods wise plan for their salvation. 25 This so-called foolish plan of God is far wiser than the wisest plan of the wisest man, and God in his weaknessChrist dying on the crossis far stronger than any man.
> 1 Corinthians 1:18-25
> 
> 
> 
> That's not god's word, you read that in a man-written book. Now go away.
Click to expand...


I love it how some people believe in god but then someone they love dies and they stop believing in god.  First of all, you and your love ones are just animals.  Does the chicken hate or deny gods existence when I make a hard boiled egg?  Does god care?  

Humans are so arrogant to think a god created all this "FOR THEM" and has a heaven waiting FOR THEM and cares so much FOR THEM that he created a hell FOR THOSE who don't believe in him.  And he's shy.  He's embarrassed to show himself but will torture you forever if you doubt his existence.

This is all assuming he gives a rats ass about you.  What an arrogant human idea/concept that there is a god and somehow we live on forever but the chicken just dies.  We're so special just because we know how to tell wild stories and invent things.  That must mean there is a god, right?  

And when they can't defend the classic definition of god, he becomes some energy like your soul that is not physical.  

PS.  If something had to create us, something had to create god.  What/who created god?  They can't have it both ways.  If it is possible nothing created god then its possible nothing like a god created us.

And if god is just all the energy in the universe then that is not god that's energy.  That energy didn't intentionally create you, doesn't send people to hell and boss is wasting his time talking to it.  Talk to a light bulb boss.  Or the sun.


----------



## hobelim

BillyP said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm open, (somewhat ) honest and rational. Although it's probably the rational part that won't allow me to see your god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Knowing God is essentially to seeing God.
> 
> That rational  part of your mind is what has preserved your sanity and saved you from becoming a mindless believer in things that never happened and praying for guidance to a god that does not exist.
> 
> And that same rational part of your mind is what will assist you in knowing my God by using that intelligence to perceive the deeper implications of the divine commands which reveal a profound wisdom of a God that does not give a crap about what you eat or what you wear, a God that you may have never been looking for but once seen you will know and also see that he has always been there and intimately involved with you for your entire life.
> 
> But don't take my word for it. The more you purify your mind the more accurately you will perceive things the more you will be capable of comprehending and the sooner you will see God with your own eyes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hear what you're saying, but here "it is about cause and effect, action and consequence." you seem to be still talking about a god that's needy and wants to be obeyed.
Click to expand...



It may seem that way to you but,  if you had a child and you said "do not touch the stove or you will burn your finger" would you say it because you were needy and wanted to be obeyed?

If the child did not listen and touched the stove and burned his finger would it be a punishment from you?


----------



## sealybobo

hobelim said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Knowing God is essentially to seeing God.
> 
> That rational  part of your mind is what has preserved your sanity and saved you from becoming a mindless believer in things that never happened and praying for guidance to a god that does not exist.
> 
> And that same rational part of your mind is what will assist you in knowing my God by using that intelligence to perceive the deeper implications of the divine commands which reveal a profound wisdom of a God that does not give a crap about what you eat or what you wear, a God that you may have never been looking for but once seen you will know and also see that he has always been there and intimately involved with you for your entire life.
> 
> But don't take my word for it. The more you purify your mind the more accurately you will perceive things the more you will be capable of comprehending and the sooner you will see God with your own eyes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hear what you're saying, but here "it is about cause and effect, action and consequence." you seem to be still talking about a god that's needy and wants to be obeyed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It may seem that way to you but,  if you had a child and you said "do not touch the stove or you will burn your finger" would you say it because you were needy and wanted to be obeyed?
> 
> If the child did not listen and touched the stove and burned his finger would it be a punishment from you?
Click to expand...


I guess if you believe that if your child doesn't believe in the jesus story then he will burn in hell, I guess I would warn him too.  

The good news is many more people today than ever before are not passing on this story to their children and even if they do, the kids aint buying it anymore.  

Oh, and that's a pretty good scare tactic you use to brainwash your kids.  My mom told me not to touch the iron and I did anyways and it burned for 3 days.  Blistered up too.  I needed proof.  With your story, if I doubt your bullshit, you're saying I'll burn in hell not for 3 days but ETERNITY?


----------



## BreezeWood

JimBowie1958 said:


> Yes, it does, idiot.
> 
> For millions of years people have believed that assertion A is true and all civilizations have ben built on the belief that A is true. All civilizations that decided that A was no longer true or ceased to be true vanished not long after that.
> 
> The odds are overwhelming that A is in fact true.
> 
> Duh, dumb shit.




*All civilizations that decided that A was no longer true or ceased to be true vanished not long after that.*




> What Happened On Easter Island ? A New (Even Scarier) Scenario : Krulwich Wonders... : NPR
> 
> Easter Island is the *"clearest example of a society that destroyed itself by overexploiting its own resources."* Once tree clearing started, it didn't stop until the whole forest was gone.
> 
> And yet, puzzlingly, these same people had managed to carve enormous statues  almost a thousand of them, with giant, hollow-eyed, gaunt faces, some weighing 75 tons. The statues faced not outward, not to the sea, but inward, toward the now empty, denuded landscape.





in truth, no civilization today represents a religion existing prior to the advent of the desert religions in a representative manner on a global scale nor the three mentioned - 

and moreso, those religions as exemplified by Easter Island mimic the concentric reality demonstrated by the parable of Noah that those (new) religions to this day continue to ignore.


and yet there is a person who claims to speak to God in this very thread, Bossy ... whose deliberation is not for the Garden of Creation but an egotism strictly embodied for the selectivity of humanity - sound familiar, need a baron island to live on ?


.


----------



## hobelim

sealybobo said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hear what you're saying, but here "it is about cause and effect, action and consequence." you seem to be still talking about a god that's needy and wants to be obeyed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It may seem that way to you but,  if you had a child and you said "do not touch the stove or you will burn your finger" would you say it because you were needy and wanted to be obeyed?
> 
> If the child did not listen and touched the stove and burned his finger would it be a punishment from you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess if you believe that if your child doesn't believe in the jesus story then he will burn in hell, I guess I would warn him too.
> 
> The good news is many more people today than ever before are not passing on this story to their children and even if they do, the kids aint buying it anymore.
> 
> Oh, and that's a pretty good scare tactic you use to brainwash your kids.  My mom told me not to touch the iron and I did anyways and it burned for 3 days.  Blistered up too.  I needed proof.  With your story, if I doubt your bullshit, you're saying I'll burn in hell not for 3 days but ETERNITY?
Click to expand...



I am not talking about the Jesus story or burning in hell. You missed the point entirely.


The laws in the OT are instruction, basics ,about how to live a fruitful pure life and how to avoid the  'the death' of intelligence and suffering consequent to becoming gullible and superstitious in a world full of strange and perverse creatures roaming in the wilderness continuously seeking to eat someones brain, fleece them for all they are worth, and use their empty heads like their own possessions.

You read Gisms posts. Can you imagine what it must be like going through life with all that irrational religious flotsam perverting and distorting every confused thought in your head?

How can anyone not believe in Gehenna after even one conversation with gism?


----------



## JimBowie1958

hobelim said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because humans have believed for as far back as we can look doesn't prove god exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it does, idiot.
> 
> For millions of years people have believed that assertion A is true and all civilizations have ben built on the belief that A is true. All civilizations that decided that A was no longer true or ceased to be true vanished not long after that.
> 
> The odds are overwhelming that A is in fact true.
> 
> Duh, dumb shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So the civilizations that existed 'millions' of years ago that worshiped stone statues of beasts and birds as if they were gods collapsed when they stopped believing?  Not because the foundational structure was false? Not because every time some trouble arose they turned to stone statues, made by human hands, that have no life and can neither see, hear, think, or talk, for guidance, protection and help?
> 
> This proves the existence of God?
> 
> That is the most absurd reasoning presented yet.
> 
> congratulations!
Click to expand...


You fail to comprehend my post, then claim I am absurd? I guess that follows, but for starters, I said 'people', you fucking retard, not 'civilizations'.

Take a reading comprehension class sometime.


----------



## JimBowie1958

BreezeWood said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it does, idiot.
> 
> For millions of years people have believed that assertion A is true and all civilizations have ben built on the belief that A is true. All civilizations that decided that A was no longer true or ceased to be true vanished not long after that.
> 
> The odds are overwhelming that A is in fact true.
> 
> Duh, dumb shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *All civilizations that decided that A was no longer true or ceased to be true vanished not long after that.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Happened On Easter Island ? A New (Even Scarier) Scenario : Krulwich Wonders... : NPR
> 
> Easter Island is the *"clearest example of a society that destroyed itself by overexploiting its own resources."* Once tree clearing started, it didn't stop until the whole forest was gone.
> 
> And yet, puzzlingly, these same people had managed to carve enormous statues  almost a thousand of them, with giant, hollow-eyed, gaunt faces, some weighing 75 tons. The statues faced not outward, not to the sea, but inward, toward the now empty, denuded landscape.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> in truth, no civilization today represents a religion existing prior to the advent of the desert religions in a representative manner on a global scale nor the three mentioned -
> 
> and moreso, those religions as exemplified by Easter Island mimic the concentric reality demonstrated by the parable of Noah that those (new) religions to this day continue to ignore.
> 
> 
> and yet there is a person who claims to speak to God in this very thread, Bossy ... whose deliberation is not for the Garden of Creation but an egotism strictly embodied for the selectivity of humanity - sound familiar, need a _baron island _to live on ?
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


No, I am doing just fine being king of my own household, thank you.


----------



## JimBowie1958

hobelim said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Knowing God is essentially to seeing God.
> 
> That rational  part of your mind is what has preserved your sanity and saved you from becoming a mindless believer in things that never happened and praying for guidance to a god that does not exist.
> 
> And that same rational part of your mind is what will assist you in knowing my God by using that intelligence to perceive the deeper implications of the divine commands which reveal a profound wisdom of a God that does not give a crap about what you eat or what you wear, a God that you may have never been looking for but once seen you will know and also see that he has always been there and intimately involved with you for your entire life.
> 
> But don't take my word for it. The more you purify your mind the more accurately you will perceive things the more you will be capable of comprehending and the sooner you will see God with your own eyes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hear what you're saying, but here "it is about cause and effect, action and consequence." you seem to be still talking about a god that's needy and wants to be obeyed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It may seem that way to you but,  if you had a child and you said "do not touch the stove or you will burn your finger" would you say it because you were needy and wanted to be obeyed?
> 
> If the child did not listen and touched the stove and burned his finger would it be a punishment from you?
Click to expand...


damit, I gotta spread some more rep around......


----------



## Montrovant

sealybobo said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> From now on if you aren't a christian, muslim, jew, mormom or jehova fuck off.  I don't want to argue with people who believe even though they know all the organized religions are completely made up.  First I want to talk to the people who take the bible/koran literally.  Then I want to talk to the people who know the stories in the bible are just stories invented by men to teach write and wrong.  I'll talk to jews and muslims but I won't discuss god with people who don't believe any of the organized religions but still believe in god(s) because they have absolutely zero proof god exists and yet still believe.
> 
> At least Christians believe the stories in the bible are true.  If they really believe god sent his son jesus to be crucified, then I can understand why they believe.  But if you realize that's just a made up story and you still believe in god then maybe you are even dumber than the person who believes the jesus stories.  Or the muslim who believes the mohammad stories or the jews who believe the mosus stories.  At least they have an excuse.  They've either been brainwashed from when they were kids or they are just utterly gullible or they've been scared into believing.
> 
> If you believe in god but not any organized religion, I almost want to say you are dumber than them but I have to give you points for at least not falling for the impossible stories.  And I should realize people like Boss are closer to the truth than a gismys is.  Once you realize the lies aren't true then maybe one day it will dawn on you that without the organized religions you really have zero as far as proof a god exists.
> 
> If not, they would have never invented the lies in the first place.  There would have been no reason to lie.  They would have just used Boss' arguments.  But Boss' arguments don't hold much water so they had to make up the stories.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should go make your own thread.  Boss made this one and has been pretty clear from the beginning that he doesn't follow any organized religion.  It seems kind of strange to come into a thread started by someone who doesn't believe in a religion and say you don't want to talk to anyone who has spiritual but not religious beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well good point.  But you see, the theists are all over the place.  Do you believe in god?  Christianity?  Muslim?  Jewish?  Mormon?  Jehova?  Born again?  Do you take the bible literally or do you not?  Do you believe in hell?  Do you believe the stories in the bible actually happened?  Do you believe miracles happen?  Do you believe god is watching you and cares about you?  Did he make us in his image?  Do angels exist?  Is Lucifer a real person?  I could go on and on.  Ask 100 different theists these questions and you'll get 100 different replies.  No standard.  This is one of the reasons you know its bullshit.
> 
> Do you think Boss has proven god exists?  Explain his position back to me then.
> 
> And the thread is why do god haters persist.  We persist because ignorance while maybe bliss is not good for society.  PERIOD!  And as Gismys would say, AND YOU?  ONLY A FOOL!!!
Click to expand...


Well of course there's no standard!  People can hardly agree on things based on the physical, there's certainly no reason to expect agreement on something without objective evidence.  

No, I don't think Boss has proven god exists.  I never claimed he did.  That's particularly clear since I've stated more than once that I don't believe in god; if he'd proved god exists, I would believe, wouldn't I?

There is no single reason why Boss's supposed 'god-haters' persist.  Besides the fact the premise is extremely flawed, as with anything, you will rarely get consensus from any reasonably large group of people.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> God is not one of the thoughts that human's have as a basic instinct.  I think those are hunger, fear, happiness, etc.  So unless you can show me that every baby born eventually at some age comes to start believing in god instinctively, then shut the fuck up with your lame ass theory that man has always believed.



Oh, it's not a lame ass theory, it's based on legitimate archeological findings. The lame ass theory without any presented evidence thus far, is that man invented spirituality. I never said everyone instinctively believes in God. However, everyone does have an instinctive awareness of something greater than self, you called it "karma" earlier. 



> I shouldn't have to show you that at some point in history someone came up with the concept of god.  Someone or a group of people.  But god isn't automatically implanted in all humans.



If you are going to make that argument you DO have to show evidence to support it, otherwise it's a faith-based belief and your opinion, not a fact. Sorry, but that's just how arguments and debates work. Again... never said God is automatically implanted. 



> Show me a group of 10 babies raised together by 10 atheist parents.  No tv, no magazines, books or stories about god.  Video tape those kids and see if/when any of them come up with god.  They may never.



In other words, take humans out of a cultural civilization scenario entirely and see what happens? I would say, if they aren't taught how to speak or read, not taught to wear clothes, not taught various social values, they might behave like chimpanzees. I would further say that if all humans had evolved without civilization, they would have become extinct. Now since most humans are part of a cultural civilization, at some point, they are going to contemplate the existence of something greater than self. It's inevitable. 



> Millions of people/groups probably came and went back when we were hunters and gatherers and they didn't all automatically believe in gods.  Some tribes might have and some not.  Just because all the American Injuns were spiritual too means that EVENTUALLY every group came up with god(s) and spirits sure, but they were all different stories and they like you had zero proof/evidence of god, only theories and feelings.



Again, we're not talking about "automatically believing in God" or any particular religious incarnation of God. No human civilization we've ever unearthed is devoid of spiritual belief. NONE! NADDA! It doesn't matter in which corner of the Earth you look, over the course of tens of thousands of years, every human civilization that has ever existed has practiced some form of spirituality. Different stories and different incarnations of spirituality only shows that humans have imaginations. They make a real spiritual connection then apply their interpretation to those experiences. This has happened all of human history, or as long as humans have been civilized creatures. 



> And it seems most uneducated humans tend to believe in god(s).  All the people 1000 years plus ago were not educated in science.  Actually, there were many atheist greek phylosophers.  Probably more than you know because most of them shut their mouth in fear of their lives.



Sorry, but you've already refuted this argument. There are MENSA geniuses who believe devoutly in God. There are scientists and doctors who believe devoutly in God. Sir Isaac Newton, probably the greatest scientific mind in history and Father of the Enlightenment, believed devoutly in God. So it's not exclusive to uneducated people by any stretch. Now it does seem to be true that certain people have achieved a high status of intelligence through academic study and have become "too smart for God" but this is typical hubris and the arrogance and vanity of man. 



> If it weren't for modern science and the internet, I'd probably still believe like I did in the 1980's.  I didn't wake up until 2013 or 14.  I started waking up in the 90's when I thought just like you.



You can be stubborn if you like, you never thought like me. I make a very real connection with a spiritual energy that I know is real and never question. I've never felt more wide awake and alive than immediately after meditation. I have no problems with modern science, but as we've repeatedly seen in this thread, modern science simply doesn't refute God. As for the Internet, any idiot with $100 can make a website and post a blog, and they can say virtually anything there. Do you honestly believe everything you read on the Internet? 



> I rejected all the organized religions but still had a personal relationship with god.  I would even go to church and talk to god about feeling guilty that I am not a christian and don't believe the christian story.  I said "god please don't punish me for not believing these stupid people who are probably swallowing a lie that the church invented to control them"  And I was confident he agreed.  So in a way, I was and you are a lot like Joseph Smith of the Mormons.  You should start your own cult only leave out the magic underwear and crazy stories.  In fact Mormons are the perfect example of how stupid people are.  Youtube the mormon story southpark dumb dumb dumb.  That is the actual Mormon story.  REALLY?  And those people bought it?  So you keep telling me how you believe in god because everyone else believes, you stupid bastard.



Okay... So you frequent moronic Atheist blog sites on the Internet and you watch Southpark, and this is your basis of understanding with regard to God and human spirituality. 'Nuff said!


----------



## JimBowie1958

thanatos144 said:


> I rented God is not dead and it was actually a really good movie and it reminded me quiet a bit about those in this thread. I recommend you all watch it. It is about a freshmen at college having to defend why he refuses to say God is Dead . It also has many side stories in it that lets you see how God works in mysterious ways. I guess it is based on lawsuits being filed against universities for discrimination and harassment of Christians...They listed them in the credits and there was a hell of  a lot of them.



Yeah, great movie.

I had a professor who claimed that belief in God was obsolete for a modern educated person.

I challenged him to debate and he passed on it. I got a minister to volunteer, but the prof ducked that one too.

I haven't seen a good debate between a believer and an atheist since Warren debated Flew back in the 70s. Warren must have done pretty good because now Flew is no longer an atheist, lol.


----------



## hobelim

JimBowie1958 said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it does, idiot.
> 
> For millions of years people have believed that assertion A is true and all civilizations have ben built on the belief that A is true. All civilizations that decided that A was no longer true or ceased to be true vanished not long after that.
> 
> The odds are overwhelming that A is in fact true.
> 
> Duh, dumb shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the civilizations that existed 'millions' of years ago that worshiped stone statues of beasts and birds as if they were gods collapsed when they stopped believing?  Not because the foundational structure was false? Not because every time some trouble arose they turned to stone statues, made by human hands, that have no life and can neither see, hear, think, or talk, for guidance, protection and help?
> 
> This proves the existence of God?
> 
> That is the most absurd reasoning presented yet.
> 
> congratulations!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You fail to comprehend my post, then claim I am absurd? I guess that follows, but for starters, I said 'people', you fucking retard, not 'civilizations'.
> 
> Take a reading comprehension class sometime.
Click to expand...


I did not fail to comprehend your post. "people' whether they were 'civilized' or knuckle dragging barbarians used to believe in gods that never existed in reality and 'civilizations' hierarchy, class, and social structure built on a belief that was false fell apart after they stopped being idiots and seeking advice from statues. What a surprise!

sorry, but that is not proof of God. And I did not say that you were absurd, however absurd you may be, I said your reasoning was absurd. It is.

reading comprehension? fucking retard?


----------



## BreezeWood

JimBowie1958 said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it does, idiot.
> 
> For millions of years people have believed that assertion A is true and all civilizations have ben built on the belief that A is true. All civilizations that decided that A was no longer true or ceased to be true vanished not long after that.
> 
> The odds are overwhelming that A is in fact true.
> 
> Duh, dumb shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *All civilizations that decided that A was no longer true or ceased to be true vanished not long after that.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Happened On Easter Island ? A New (Even Scarier) Scenario : Krulwich Wonders... : NPR
> 
> Easter Island is the *"clearest example of a society that destroyed itself by overexploiting its own resources."* Once tree clearing started, it didn't stop until the whole forest was gone.
> 
> And yet, puzzlingly, these same people had managed to carve enormous statues  almost a thousand of them, with giant, hollow-eyed, gaunt faces, some weighing 75 tons. The statues faced not outward, not to the sea, but inward, toward the now empty, denuded landscape.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> in truth, no civilization today represents a religion existing prior to the advent of the desert religions in a representative manner on a global scale nor the three mentioned -
> 
> and moreso, those religions as exemplified by Easter Island mimic the concentric reality demonstrated by the parable of Noah that those (new) religions to this day continue to ignore.
> 
> 
> and yet there is a person who claims to speak to God in this very thread, Bossy ... whose deliberation is not for the Garden of Creation but an egotism strictly embodied for the selectivity of humanity - sound familiar, need a _baron island _to live on ?
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I am doing just fine being king of my own household, thank you.
Click to expand...



so much for a ticket on the Ark ....

.


----------



## JimBowie1958

hobelim said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the civilizations that existed 'millions' of years ago that worshiped stone statues of beasts and birds as if they were gods collapsed when they stopped believing?  Not because the foundational structure was false? Not because every time some trouble arose they turned to stone statues, made by human hands, that have no life and can neither see, hear, think, or talk, for guidance, protection and help?
> 
> This proves the existence of God?
> 
> That is the most absurd reasoning presented yet.
> 
> congratulations!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You fail to comprehend my post, then claim I am absurd? I guess that follows, but for starters, I said 'people', you fucking retard, not 'civilizations'.
> 
> Take a reading comprehension class sometime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did not fail to comprehend your post. "people' whether they were 'civilized' or knuckle dragging barbarians ...
Click to expand...


So now you see no distinction between 'people' on one hand and 'civilizations' on the other.

roflmao, I was going to apologize for calling you a retard but on reflection I think I nailed it.




hobelim said:


> used to believe in gods that never existed in reality and 'civilizations' hierarchy, class, and social structure built on a belief that was false fell apart after they stopped being idiots and seeking advice from statues.



Not all 'gods' are the same, moron.




hobelim said:


> What a surprise!
> 
> sorry, but that is not proof of God.



The disproof of polytheistic 'gods' is not a disproof of a Creator, dumbass.




hobelim said:


> fucking retard?



Well, I only assume that you fuck, while you prove yourself a retard.

Yeah, a fucking retard.


----------



## JimBowie1958

BreezeWood said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> *All civilizations that decided that A was no longer true or ceased to be true vanished not long after that.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> in truth, no civilization today represents a religion existing prior to the advent of the desert religions in a representative manner on a global scale nor the three mentioned -
> 
> and moreso, those religions as exemplified by Easter Island mimic the concentric reality demonstrated by the parable of Noah that those (new) religions to this day continue to ignore.
> 
> 
> and yet there is a person who claims to speak to God in this very thread, Bossy ... whose deliberation is not for the Garden of Creation but an egotism strictly embodied for the selectivity of humanity - sound familiar, need a _baron island _to live on ?
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I am doing just fine being king of my own household, thank you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so much for a ticket on the Ark ....
> 
> .
Click to expand...


lol, why would a need a ticket on the Ark?


----------



## hobelim

JimBowie1958 said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You fail to comprehend my post, then claim I am absurd? I guess that follows, but for starters, I said 'people', you fucking retard, not 'civilizations'.
> 
> Take a reading comprehension class sometime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did not fail to comprehend your post. "people' whether they were 'civilized' or knuckle dragging barbarians ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So now you see no distinction between 'people' on one hand and 'civilizations' on the other.
> 
> retard.... moron..... dumbass.....fuck...... retard.... fucking retard.
Click to expand...





Thank you for that thoughtful and enlightening response.

It is truly inspiring to see the many wonderful ways that being a believer has fucked up your mind..


----------



## JimBowie1958

hobelim said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did not fail to comprehend your post. "people' whether they were 'civilized' or knuckle dragging barbarians ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So now you see no distinction between 'people' on one hand and 'civilizations' on the other.
> 
> retard.... moron..... dumbass.....fuck...... retard.... fucking retard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for that thoughtful and enlightening response.
> 
> It is truly inspiring to see the many wonderful ways that being a believer has fucked up your mind..
Click to expand...



Lol, you cant think straight, but that is my fault for telling you?

roflmao

whatever helps you sleep at night, shit-for-brains


----------



## BillyP

hobelim said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Knowing God is essentially to seeing God.
> 
> That rational  part of your mind is what has preserved your sanity and saved you from becoming a mindless believer in things that never happened and praying for guidance to a god that does not exist.
> 
> And that same rational part of your mind is what will assist you in knowing my God by using that intelligence to perceive the deeper implications of the divine commands which reveal a profound wisdom of a God that does not give a crap about what you eat or what you wear, a God that you may have never been looking for but once seen you will know and also see that he has always been there and intimately involved with you for your entire life.
> 
> But don't take my word for it. The more you purify your mind the more accurately you will perceive things the more you will be capable of comprehending and the sooner you will see God with your own eyes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hear what you're saying, but here "it is about cause and effect, action and consequence." you seem to be still talking about a god that's needy and wants to be obeyed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It may seem that way to you but,  if you had a child and you said "do not touch the stove or you will burn your finger" would you say it because you were needy and wanted to be obeyed?
> 
> If the child did not listen and touched the stove and burned his finger would it be a punishment from you?
Click to expand...

Ok, let's see if I can squeeze any sense out of this. 

So you're saying that god himself tells you what not to do? And if you disobey he'll make sure you get burned?
Because if it were my kid, I'd stop him from getting burned, whether he understood or not.


----------



## BreezeWood

JimBowie1958 said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I am doing just fine being king of my own household, thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so much for a ticket on the Ark ....
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, why would a need a ticket on the Ark?
Click to expand...



suit yourself would be the obvious answer, and actually I am not sure what your response was in reference to.

the unobvious answer unfortunately is we are all in this together - sink or swim as a group and being the salvation from royalty has best been paraphrased by the guillotine one sees little hope of a cumbya for such differing opinions ...

.


----------



## Slyhunter

hobelim said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Knowing God is essentially to seeing God.
> 
> That rational  part of your mind is what has preserved your sanity and saved you from becoming a mindless believer in things that never happened and praying for guidance to a god that does not exist.
> 
> And that same rational part of your mind is what will assist you in knowing my God by using that intelligence to perceive the deeper implications of the divine commands which reveal a profound wisdom of a God that does not give a crap about what you eat or what you wear, a God that you may have never been looking for but once seen you will know and also see that he has always been there and intimately involved with you for your entire life.
> 
> But don't take my word for it. The more you purify your mind the more accurately you will perceive things the more you will be capable of comprehending and the sooner you will see God with your own eyes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hear what you're saying, but here "it is about cause and effect, action and consequence." you seem to be still talking about a god that's needy and wants to be obeyed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It may seem that way to you but,  if you had a child and you said "do not touch the stove or you will burn your finger" would you say it because you were needy and wanted to be obeyed?
> 
> If the child did not listen and touched the stove and burned his finger would it be a punishment from you?
Click to expand...


Not the same thing is "be perfect or go to Hell."


----------



## Slyhunter

BreezeWood said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> *All civilizations that decided that A was no longer true or ceased to be true vanished not long after that.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> in truth, no civilization today represents a religion existing prior to the advent of the desert religions in a representative manner on a global scale nor the three mentioned -
> 
> and moreso, those religions as exemplified by Easter Island mimic the concentric reality demonstrated by the parable of Noah that those (new) religions to this day continue to ignore.
> 
> 
> and yet there is a person who claims to speak to God in this very thread, Bossy ... whose deliberation is not for the Garden of Creation but an egotism strictly embodied for the selectivity of humanity - sound familiar, need a _baron island _to live on ?
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I am doing just fine being king of my own household, thank you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so much for a ticket on the Ark ....
> 
> .
Click to expand...

How did Kangaroo's get their ticket?
And how did they make it back to Australia after the flood?


----------



## Boss

BreezeWood said:


> the unobvious answer unfortunately is we are all in this together - sink or swim as a group and being the salvation from royalty has best been paraphrased by the guillotine one sees little hope of a cumbya for such differing opinions



Alas, the pontificate of the many is in conflict with the turmoils of the few, and assimilation unto the higher realm is without consideration of the lesser of evils, therefore it is impervious to stride toward objectivism in the path of knowledge without the wisdom heretofore assigned by the abundance of enlightenment. Clarity and understanding are of far less importance to discourse whenever language can be a useful tool for the purpose of examination in the realm of fecal material from bulls or horses. Disbursement of such matter is paramount to harmonic communication with other carbonic forms, not withstanding the flora and fauna.


----------



## BreezeWood

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> the unobvious answer unfortunately is we are all in this together - sink or swim as a group and being the salvation from royalty has best been paraphrased by the guillotine one sees little hope of a cumbya for such differing opinions
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alas, the pontificate of the many is in conflict with the turmoils of the few, and assimilation unto the higher realm is without consideration of the lesser of evils, therefore it is impervious to stride toward objectivism in the path of knowledge without the wisdom heretofore assigned by the abundance of enlightenment. Clarity and understanding are of far less importance to discourse whenever language can be a useful tool for the purpose of examination in the realm of fecal material from bulls or horses. Disbursement of such matter is paramount to harmonic communication with other carbonic forms, not withstanding the flora and fauna.
Click to expand...


 - was that your response to Easter Island, just another deflection from reality ?

.


----------



## Boss

BreezeWood said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> the unobvious answer unfortunately is we are all in this together - sink or swim as a group and being the salvation from royalty has best been paraphrased by the guillotine one sees little hope of a cumbya for such differing opinions
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alas, the pontificate of the many is in conflict with the turmoils of the few, and assimilation unto the higher realm is without consideration of the lesser of evils, therefore it is impervious to stride toward objectivism in the path of knowledge without the wisdom heretofore assigned by the abundance of enlightenment. Clarity and understanding are of far less importance to discourse whenever language can be a useful tool for the purpose of examination in the realm of fecal material from bulls or horses. Disbursement of such matter is paramount to harmonic communication with other carbonic forms, not withstanding the flora and fauna.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> - was that your response to Easter Island, just another deflection from reality ?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Nope. It was my response to your posts that no one can decipher.


----------



## JimBowie1958

Slyhunter said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I am doing just fine being king of my own household, thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so much for a ticket on the Ark ....
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How did Kangaroo's get their ticket?
> And how did they make it back to Australia after the flood?
Click to expand...


The core truth to the Noah story is that, IMO, he had some kind of forewarning of the collapse of the Bosporus Straights glacier that then flooded the Black Sea area that he lived in. If Noah had been a subsistence farmer and herder, then he would have essentially saved the animals that he depended on for his livelihood and not literally every freaking animal on the planet.

I don't know anyone but the most extreme Biblical literalists who think Noah literally took in every animal species; the majority of Christ's church does not.


----------



## hobelim

Slyhunter said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hear what you're saying, but here "it is about cause and effect, action and consequence." you seem to be still talking about a god that's needy and wants to be obeyed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It may seem that way to you but,  if you had a child and you said "do not touch the stove or you will burn your finger" would you say it because you were needy and wanted to be obeyed?
> 
> If the child did not listen and touched the stove and burned his finger would it be a punishment from you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not the same thing is "be perfect or go to Hell."
Click to expand...




I think you are confusing church dogma with what I said.

If a person fills their own mind with irrational garbage they will become confused and say and do stupid things that injure themselves and the people they love.

Its not rocket science.

May people here prove this true every single day.


----------



## BreezeWood

JimBowie1958 said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> so much for a ticket on the Ark ....
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> How did Kangaroo's get their ticket?
> And how did they make it back to Australia after the flood?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The core truth to the Noah story is that, IMO, he had some kind of forewarning of the collapse of the Bosporus Straights glacier that then flooded the Black Sea area that he lived in. If Noah had been a subsistence farmer and herder, then he would have essentially saved the animals that he depended on for his livelihood and not literally every freaking animal on the planet.
> 
> I don't know anyone but the most extreme Biblical literalists who think Noah literally took in every animal species; the majority of Christ's church does not.
Click to expand...




*that he depended on for his livelihood and not literally every freaking animal on the planet.*


the parable in fact does purposefully keep alive "every freaking animal (and plant) on the planet" including the liberal Noah with the exclusion of "Conservatards" sic (special evil humans) who were the sole targets for the condemnation against humanity ...

.


----------



## Slyhunter

JimBowie1958 said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> so much for a ticket on the Ark ....
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> How did Kangaroo's get their ticket?
> And how did they make it back to Australia after the flood?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The core truth to the Noah story is that, IMO, he had some kind of forewarning of the collapse of the Bosporus Straights glacier that then flooded the Black Sea area that he lived in. If Noah had been a subsistence farmer and herder, then he would have essentially saved the animals that he depended on for his livelihood and not literally every freaking animal on the planet.
> 
> I don't know anyone but the most extreme Biblical literalists who think Noah literally took in every animal species; the majority of Christ's church does not.
Click to expand...


The bible says God flooded the world and killed everyone. If that's not true that makes it a work of fiction.


----------



## hobelim

BillyP said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hear what you're saying, but here "it is about cause and effect, action and consequence." you seem to be still talking about a god that's needy and wants to be obeyed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It may seem that way to you but,  if you had a child and you said "do not touch the stove or you will burn your finger" would you say it because you were needy and wanted to be obeyed?
> 
> If the child did not listen and touched the stove and burned his finger would it be a punishment from you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, let's see if I can squeeze any sense out of this.
> 
> So you're saying that god himself tells you what not to do? And if you disobey he'll make sure you get burned?
> Because if it were my kid, I'd stop him from getting burned, whether he understood or not.
Click to expand...




Only someone who never raised a child to adulthood would say something like that.


----------



## Montrovant

hobelim said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> It may seem that way to you but,  if you had a child and you said "do not touch the stove or you will burn your finger" would you say it because you were needy and wanted to be obeyed?
> 
> If the child did not listen and touched the stove and burned his finger would it be a punishment from you?
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, let's see if I can squeeze any sense out of this.
> 
> So you're saying that god himself tells you what not to do? And if you disobey he'll make sure you get burned?
> Because if it were my kid, I'd stop him from getting burned, whether he understood or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only someone who never raised a child to adulthood would say something like that.
Click to expand...


Or someone more concerned with the health of their child than imparting a lesson through getting a burn.....


----------



## JimBowie1958

Montrovant said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, let's see if I can squeeze any sense out of this.
> 
> So you're saying that god himself tells you what not to do? And if you disobey he'll make sure you get burned?
> Because if it were my kid, I'd stop him from getting burned, whether he understood or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only someone who never raised a child to adulthood would say something like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or someone more concerned with the health of their child than imparting a lesson through getting a burn.....
Click to expand...


Kids have a way of getting to the Forbidden Fruit no matter what you do.

Do you have any kids? IF so then you should know what hobilem meant.

Children seem to be proof of free will....and a universe ruled by anarchy.


----------



## PostmodernProph

Slyhunter said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did Kangaroo's get their ticket?
> And how did they make it back to Australia after the flood?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The core truth to the Noah story is that, IMO, he had some kind of forewarning of the collapse of the Bosporus Straights glacier that then flooded the Black Sea area that he lived in. If Noah had been a subsistence farmer and herder, then he would have essentially saved the animals that he depended on for his livelihood and not literally every freaking animal on the planet.
> 
> I don't know anyone but the most extreme Biblical literalists who think Noah literally took in every animal species; the majority of Christ's church does not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The bible says God flooded the world and killed everyone. If that's not true that makes it a work of fiction.
Click to expand...

and yet the descendants of the survivors speak of the event on every continent where mankind ended up, irrespective of religion.....apparently a very pervasive fiction.......


----------



## hobelim

Slyhunter said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did Kangaroo's get their ticket?
> And how did they make it back to Australia after the flood?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The core truth to the Noah story is that, IMO, he had some kind of forewarning of the collapse of the Bosporus Straights glacier that then flooded the Black Sea area that he lived in. If Noah had been a subsistence farmer and herder, then he would have essentially saved the animals that he depended on for his livelihood and not literally every freaking animal on the planet.
> 
> I don't know anyone but the most extreme Biblical literalists who think Noah literally took in every animal species; the majority of Christ's church does not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The bible says God flooded the world and killed everyone. If that's not true that makes it a work of fiction.
Click to expand...


Fiction does not equal false. Many works of fiction are based entirely on fact and many completely fabricated stories covey teaching and truth.


----------



## JimBowie1958

PostmodernProph said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The core truth to the Noah story is that, IMO, he had some kind of forewarning of the collapse of the Bosporus Straights glacier that then flooded the Black Sea area that he lived in. If Noah had been a subsistence farmer and herder, then he would have essentially saved the animals that he depended on for his livelihood and not literally every freaking animal on the planet.
> 
> I don't know anyone but the most extreme Biblical literalists who think Noah literally took in every animal species; the majority of Christ's church does not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The bible says God flooded the world and killed everyone. If that's not true that makes it a work of fiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and yet the descendants of the survivors speak of the event on every continent where mankind ended up, irrespective of religion.....apparently a very pervasive fiction.......
Click to expand...


Or there is the third option. A real event occurred and the people told the story based on their world view and understanding that today seems erroneous.

But does anyone expect these atheist ideologues to really discern anything if it is inconvenient to their ideology? Well, you shouldn't. They are liars for a reason.


----------



## hobelim

Montrovant said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, let's see if I can squeeze any sense out of this.
> 
> So you're saying that god himself tells you what not to do? And if you disobey he'll make sure you get burned?
> Because if it were my kid, I'd stop him from getting burned, whether he understood or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only someone who never raised a child to adulthood would say something like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or someone more concerned with the health of their child than imparting a lesson through getting a burn.....
Click to expand...



Did you never hear anyone tell you that you can't believe everything you hear? Did you never hear anyone say 'buyer beware"?

Did you never disregard those warnings and learn a lesson by getting burned?

A lesson that can be learned here without any danger to health is that whatever the churches teach that hell is  has nothing whatever to do with what Jesus meant by Gehenna.


----------



## Boss

Slyhunter said:


> The bible says God flooded the world and killed everyone. If that's not true that makes it a work of fiction.



Not to defend the Bible here, but there are something like 227 cultural stories of a great flood from nearly every ancient civilization. Also, I saw a guy draw a graph once... it showed the estimated population on earth today, 1,000 years ago and 2,000 years ago... following the trend back, this put the zero point somewhere around 3,000 BCE. Interestingly enough, about the time most scholars estimate for the great flood. Fossil records seem to also confirm this, as they have found things like sea shells on top of Mt. Everest and whale bones in the deserts. 

What is really odd is that we know humans have existed much longer, way before 3,000 BCE. But that is where the graph line takes us, and that seems to be where written history began. If you take the measurements of the arc from the Bible, consider they didn't need the aquatic life or plant life, insects would have hitched a ride on the wood and various animals, and you do accept the concept of microevolution, it's plausible that such a vessel could have held up to 100k different land-based species, which spawned the current array of land-based species we see today. 

Now, does all of this prove something beyond any shaddow of doubt? No, but I think it does present some substantial evidence that has to be objectively considered. It's not out of the realm of possibility by any stretch.


----------



## sealybobo

Montrovant said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should go make your own thread.  Boss made this one and has been pretty clear from the beginning that he doesn't follow any organized religion.  It seems kind of strange to come into a thread started by someone who doesn't believe in a religion and say you don't want to talk to anyone who has spiritual but not religious beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well good point.  But you see, the theists are all over the place.  Do you believe in god?  Christianity?  Muslim?  Jewish?  Mormon?  Jehova?  Born again?  Do you take the bible literally or do you not?  Do you believe in hell?  Do you believe the stories in the bible actually happened?  Do you believe miracles happen?  Do you believe god is watching you and cares about you?  Did he make us in his image?  Do angels exist?  Is Lucifer a real person?  I could go on and on.  Ask 100 different theists these questions and you'll get 100 different replies.  No standard.  This is one of the reasons you know its bullshit.
> 
> Do you think Boss has proven god exists?  Explain his position back to me then.
> 
> And the thread is why do god haters persist.  We persist because ignorance while maybe bliss is not good for society.  PERIOD!  And as Gismys would say, AND YOU?  ONLY A FOOL!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well of course there's no standard!  People can hardly agree on things based on the physical, there's certainly no reason to expect agreement on something without objective evidence.
> 
> No, I don't think Boss has proven god exists.  I never claimed he did.  That's particularly clear since I've stated more than once that I don't believe in god; if he'd proved god exists, I would believe, wouldn't I?
> 
> There is no single reason why Boss's supposed 'god-haters' persist.  Besides the fact the premise is extremely flawed, as with anything, you will rarely get consensus from any reasonably large group of people.
Click to expand...


You bring up a good point.  Why do we persist?  Because it is an insane notion and from the looks of this planet it doesn't seem to be doing much good.  And not just Christians but all theists like the muslims and jews.  How are they doing?  Not so good?  Maybe if they didn't believe in fairy tales they'd evolve beyond war?  Scientifically war makes no sense.  Ultimately you're going to negotiate.  All that murder just to hope for the upper hand at the negotiating table?  Is that the best the UN can do?  Isn't every country in the UN a god fearing nation?  Yea, god sucks.

A lot of christians wish they could spread christianity to the rest of the world.  How's it doing in China?  

Eastern Lightning is a millennial Chinese Christian sect

Eastern Lightning: Alleged kidnappings, murder and a female Christ - CNN.com

So these christians walk around trying to spread "the truth" and if you don't give them your contact information they murder you?


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bible says God flooded the world and killed everyone. If that's not true that makes it a work of fiction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not to defend the Bible here, but there are something like 227 cultural stories of a great flood from nearly every ancient civilization. Also, I saw a guy draw a graph once... it showed the estimated population on earth today, 1,000 years ago and 2,000 years ago... following the trend back, this put the zero point somewhere around 3,000 BCE. Interestingly enough, about the time most scholars estimate for the great flood. Fossil records seem to also confirm this, as they have found things like sea shells on top of Mt. Everest and whale bones in the deserts.
> 
> What is really odd is that we know humans have existed much longer, way before 3,000 BCE. But that is where the graph line takes us, and that seems to be where written history began. If you take the measurements of the arc from the Bible, consider they didn't need the aquatic life or plant life, insects would have hitched a ride on the wood and various animals, and you do accept the concept of microevolution, it's plausible that such a vessel could have held up to 100k different land-based species, which spawned the current array of land-based species we see today.
> 
> Now, does all of this prove something beyond any shaddow of doubt? No, but I think it does present some substantial evidence that has to be objectively considered. It's not out of the realm of possibility by any stretch.
Click to expand...


We just had a great flood here in Metro Detroit.  Something like 5 inches in 1 hour.  In 10 years it'll be 20 inches.  I'm sure with all those glaciers melting they had some floods too.  But to collect 2 of every animals?   

Actually today we record history.  Those monkeys weren't even smart enough to document it and pass that history down so that today it is recorded historic fact.  

Anyways, I'm starting to lighten up.  I get it that you want to believe no matter how little evidence you have and I don't believe no matter how much my heart wishes it were all true.  That's cool.  I like debating this stuff.  And I do hope one day we get rid of god in public.  Get it out of politics.  

And by the way, why do we persist?  Because you guys brought it into politics.  So if you want to use god as a reason to vote for the GOP, I want people to know god doesn't even exist.  Because as I've said many times before, no one poor or middle class should be voting GOP based on economics.  The GOP only benefits the rich economically.  That's a fact.  Trickle down never works.  We need a wealthy middle class not all the money going to the top.  The economy works better when the middle class has more money.  The GOP don't like that.  FACT.  Anyways, so you guys only vote GOP because of god, gays, guns or racism.  Either that or you truly believe tea baggers/libertarians/conservativism really works.  It could be possible you truly believe conservative economics work but trust me they don't.  

But if I can't prove to you that your invisible friend isn't real how am I going to convince you of anything in politics?  

Oh and I do tie religion and politics together.  No doubt the GOP has used god to win you over at least to some degree.  For example abortion.  I'm sure you hate abortion.  I see it as a necessary evil.  In fact all those kids at the border from s. America should have been aborted.  If not go adopt one right now.


----------



## sealybobo

GISMYS said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GISMYS said:
> 
> 
> 
> little man! keepyour silly ideas and opinions as they are utter foolishness!!! HOW TRUE GOD'S WORD IS=ETERNAL TRUTH!!18 I know very well how foolish it sounds to those who are lost, when they hear that Jesus died to save them. But we who are saved* recognize this message as the very power of God. 19 For God says, I will destroy all human plans of salvation no matter how wise they seem to be, and ignore the best ideas of men, even the most brilliant of them.
> 
> 20 So what about these wise men, these scholars, these brilliant debaters of this worlds great affairs? God has made them all look foolish and shown their wisdom to be useless nonsense. 21 For God in his wisdom saw to it that the world would never find God through human brilliance, and then he stepped in and saved all those who believed his message, which the world calls foolish and silly. 22 It seems foolish to the Jews because they want a sign from heaven as proof that what is preached is true; and it is foolish to the Gentiles because they believe only what agrees with their philosophy and seems wise to them. 23 So when we preach about Christ dying to save them, the Jews are offended and the Gentiles say its all nonsense. 24 But God has opened the eyes of those called to salvation, both Jews and Gentiles, to see that Christ is the mighty power of God to save them; Christ himself is the center of Gods wise plan for their salvation. 25 This so-called foolish plan of God is far wiser than the wisest plan of the wisest man, and God in his weaknessChrist dying on the crossis far stronger than any man.
> 1 Corinthians 1:18-25
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you think the words you quote as being the truth? Some book told you so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SO YOU DON'T KNOW TRUTH WHEN YOU READ OR HEAR IT??????????? WELL I DO!!!and you??
Click to expand...


Just don't get too carried away like these christians in China who go around talking a lot like you sound.  Hey boss.  Here are some more theists adding to your sides list of muder/death/kills.  Doing great god.  

Eastern Lightning: Alleged kidnappings, murder and a female Christ - CNN.com

"Go to hell, demon," one of the accused, Zhang Lidong, yelled as he beat the woman with a steel mop handle, telling her she would "never come back in the next reincarnation."

Other members of the group threatened diners that they would kill anyone who intervened, reported Chinese state media.

By the time police arrived at the fast food outlet in the city of Zhaoyuan, in the eastern Chinese province of Shandong, they found the victim, a 37-year-old mother named Wu Shuoyan, lying in a pool of blood.
Zhang was kicking and stomping her while a boy beat her with the mop handle, state media reported; within the hour, she was pronounced dead at a local hospital.
Five adults have been charged, along with a minor, with murder over the May 28 attack -- Zhang Lidong, Zhang Fan, Lyu Yingchun, Zhang Hang, Zhang Qiaolian. They are all members of the Church of Almighty God 

"She was a demon," he said, telling the interviewer that he and his co-accused were members of the church. "She was an evil spirit."
Authorities said the accused were likely gathering the phone numbers to find potential new recruits when Wu's refusal angered them, state media reported.

Also known as Eastern Lightning ("Dongfang Shandian"), the group preaches that Christ has been reincarnated as a woman from central China, and that the righteous are engaged in an apocalyptic struggle against China's Communist Party -- which they refer to as the "great red dragon."

Sounds like the Mormon's bullshit story.  So now there have been 1001 religions


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> A lot of christians wish they could spread christianity to the rest of the world.  How's it doing in China?
> 
> Eastern Lightning is a millennial Chinese Christian sect
> 
> Eastern Lightning: Alleged kidnappings, murder and a female Christ - CNN.com
> 
> So these christians walk around trying to spread "the truth" and if you don't give them your contact information they murder you?



For every story you can find like that, I can give you ten to twenty like this:


----------



## PostmodernProph

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of christians wish they could spread christianity to the rest of the world.  How's it doing in China?
> 
> Eastern Lightning is a millennial Chinese Christian sect
> 
> Eastern Lightning: Alleged kidnappings, murder and a female Christ - CNN.com
> 
> So these christians walk around trying to spread "the truth" and if you don't give them your contact information they murder you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For every story you can find like that, I can give you ten to twenty like this:
Click to expand...


Irony....I clicked the button to watch on You Tube and the ad that preceeded it was Heiniken Beer's "would you answer the call?".......an ad where they were looking for the person willing to answer a payphone and then walk across the street to meet the person on the line, with a night of prizes and notoriety given to those willing to act without proof.......


----------



## Boss

> Silly boob: And by the way, why do we persist? Because you guys brought it into politics.



My daughter is like me, she isn't afraid to speak her mind and she doesn't take shit off of anybody. In college, a professor gave her an assignment once, they had to pick a social issue and write an essay opposing it. She picked abortion. After everyone picked their topic, the professor then instructed them they could not use any religious context in their arguments. Well, my chip off the ol' block daughter protested... How exactly are you supposed to formulate an argument and not base it on your religious moral beliefs? Virtually everything about your beliefs on any topic is rooted in your religious belief or lack of religious belief. 

What you are asking is akin to what the professor was asking, and it's just not possible. We can't separate ourselves from our own convictions. Virtually every law is based on a religiously-rooted concept at some point and to some degree. It goes back to my argument about dismissing laws against public masturbation, or marrying children. Now you can claim this violates someone's rights or is detrimental to children or whatever, but the root basis is a religious construct. When you debase morality, that's exactly what you get... debased morality. 

We have a 1st Amendment right in this country for a reason, and that is to protect our religious freedoms, to be able to express our religious beliefs without persecution. You cannot silence these opinions any more than you can silence the opinions of the atheist. It's a fundamental right that must be protected. 

By the way, my daughter won her argument. The professor modified her criteria to indicate the essay couldn't contain specific religious arguments or scriptural references, but it could be based on religious convictions and beliefs.


----------



## Boss

PostmodernProph said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of christians wish they could spread christianity to the rest of the world.  How's it doing in China?
> 
> Eastern Lightning is a millennial Chinese Christian sect
> 
> Eastern Lightning: Alleged kidnappings, murder and a female Christ - CNN.com
> 
> So these christians walk around trying to spread "the truth" and if you don't give them your contact information they murder you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For every story you can find like that, I can give you ten to twenty like this:
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Irony....I clicked the button to watch on You Tube and the ad that preceeded it was Heiniken Beer's "would you answer the call?".......an ad where they were looking for the person willing to answer a payphone and then walk across the street to meet the person on the line, with a night of prizes and notoriety given to those willing to act without proof.......
Click to expand...

Well.... The Lord works in mysterious ways, huh?


----------



## BreezeWood

Slyhunter said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did Kangaroo's get their ticket?
> And how did they make it back to Australia after the flood?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The core truth to the Noah story is that, IMO, he had some kind of forewarning of the collapse of the Bosporus Straights glacier that then flooded the Black Sea area that he lived in. If Noah had been a subsistence farmer and herder, then he would have essentially saved the animals that he depended on for his livelihood and not literally every freaking animal on the planet.
> 
> I don't know anyone but the most extreme Biblical literalists who think Noah literally took in every animal species; the majority of Christ's church does not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The bible says God flooded the world and killed everyone. If that's not true that makes it a work of fiction.
Click to expand...



it is close to say "everyone" and that is the message of the religion for future posterity, irregardless the biblical accounts.

.


----------



## Slyhunter

JimBowie1958 said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bible says God flooded the world and killed everyone. If that's not true that makes it a work of fiction.
> 
> 
> 
> and yet the descendants of the survivors speak of the event on every continent where mankind ended up, irrespective of religion.....apparently a very pervasive fiction.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or there is the third option. A real event occurred and the people told the story based on their world view and understanding that today seems erroneous.
> 
> But does anyone expect these atheist ideologues to really discern anything if it is inconvenient to their ideology? Well, you shouldn't. They are liars for a reason.
Click to expand...


What reason are they liars?
What proof you think every single one of them is a liar?


----------



## Montrovant

JimBowie1958 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only someone who never raised a child to adulthood would say something like that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or someone more concerned with the health of their child than imparting a lesson through getting a burn.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kids have a way of getting to the Forbidden Fruit no matter what you do.
> 
> Do you have any kids? IF so then you should know what hobilem meant.
> 
> Children seem to be proof of free will....and a universe ruled by anarchy.
Click to expand...


I don't have any of my own children, but I have been a nanny to a 5 year old since she was born.  I would never let her touch a hot stove.  I've stopped her from doing so more than once.  Why?  I think the risk of injury is greater than the reward of learning not to touch the stove through pain.


----------



## JimBowie1958

sealybobo said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well good point.  But you see, the theists are all over the place.  Do you believe in god?  Christianity?  Muslim?  Jewish?  Mormon?  Jehova?  Born again?  Do you take the bible literally or do you not?  Do you believe in hell?  Do you believe the stories in the bible actually happened?  Do you believe miracles happen?  Do you believe god is watching you and cares about you?  Did he make us in his image?  Do angels exist?  Is Lucifer a real person?  I could go on and on.  Ask 100 different theists these questions and you'll get 100 different replies.  No standard.  This is one of the reasons you know its bullshit.
> 
> Do you think Boss has proven god exists?  Explain his position back to me then.
> 
> And the thread is why do god haters persist.  We persist because ignorance while maybe bliss is not good for society.  PERIOD!  And as Gismys would say, AND YOU?  ONLY A FOOL!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well of course there's no standard!  People can hardly agree on things based on the physical, there's certainly no reason to expect agreement on something without objective evidence.
> 
> No, I don't think Boss has proven god exists.  I never claimed he did.  That's particularly clear since I've stated more than once that I don't believe in god; if he'd proved god exists, I would believe, wouldn't I?
> 
> There is no single reason why Boss's supposed 'god-haters' persist.  Besides the fact the premise is extremely flawed, as with anything, you will rarely get consensus from any reasonably large group of people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You bring up a good point.  Why do we persist?  Because it is an insane notion
Click to expand...


lol, you stupid fucking liar.

So Aristotle, Plato, Copernicus, Galileo, Isaac Newton, LeMaire and all the believing scientists are insane because you stamp your little foot and insist it so?

Go fuck yourself, cretin.


----------



## JimBowie1958

Montrovant said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or someone more concerned with the health of their child than imparting a lesson through getting a burn.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kids have a way of getting to the Forbidden Fruit no matter what you do.
> 
> Do you have any kids? IF so then you should know what hobilem meant.
> 
> Children seem to be proof of free will....and a universe ruled by anarchy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have any of my own children, but I have been a nanny to a 5 year old since she was born.  I would never let her touch a hot stove.  I've stopped her from doing so more than once.  Why?  I think the risk of injury is greater than the reward of learning not to touch the stove through pain.
Click to expand...


If you had your own children and had to do things other than just watch them, you would find out that it is impossible to get them to mind 100% of the time.

It is far better for them to learn to trust you when you say no than it is to hover over them 24/7. They will get over a widdle burnypooo. But them learning to trust you and keep that trust into their teen years may save their lives.


----------



## Montrovant

JimBowie1958 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kids have a way of getting to the Forbidden Fruit no matter what you do.
> 
> Do you have any kids? IF so then you should know what hobilem meant.
> 
> Children seem to be proof of free will....and a universe ruled by anarchy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have any of my own children, but I have been a nanny to a 5 year old since she was born.  I would never let her touch a hot stove.  I've stopped her from doing so more than once.  Why?  I think the risk of injury is greater than the reward of learning not to touch the stove through pain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you had your own children and had to do things other than just watch them, you would find out that it is impossible to get them to mind 100% of the time.
> 
> It is far better for them to learn to trust you when you say no than it is to hover over them 24/7. They will get over a widdle burnypooo. But them learning to trust you and keep that trust into their teen years may save their lives.
Click to expand...


What do you mean, do things other than just watch them?  What is it you think I would do as a parent that I don't do now?

And touching a hot stove might cause a 'widdle burnypooo'.....or it might cause a severe burn.  What's the reason for allowing it?  Is the child unable to learn not to touch it through any other means?

Should I let a child play with a fork in an electrical socket?  Jump off a roof attempting to fly?  Play in traffic?  Everyone who takes care of a child determines for themselves which risks are worth allowing the child to take and which are not.  There is no universal agreement for what is or is not too dangerous.  I don't allow the child to touch a hot stove.  Neither do her parents, so I'm not sure how being a parent would have changed anything.


----------



## BillyP

hobelim said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> It may seem that way to you but,  if you had a child and you said "do not touch the stove or you will burn your finger" would you say it because you were needy and wanted to be obeyed?
> 
> If the child did not listen and touched the stove and burned his finger would it be a punishment from you?
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, let's see if I can squeeze any sense out of this.
> 
> So you're saying that god himself tells you what not to do? And if you disobey he'll make sure you get burned?
> Because if it were my kid, I'd stop him from getting burned, whether he understood or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only someone who never raised a child to adulthood would say something like that.
Click to expand...

You're a fucking idiot if you'd let your child get burned. I've raised 2 children who are adults now and wouldn't harm them on purpose to teach them a lesson. If that's the bible and your religion, it's messed up bigtime. A god who punishes people for not obeying a book is probably the dumbest thing ever.


----------



## sealybobo

JimBowie1958 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well of course there's no standard!  People can hardly agree on things based on the physical, there's certainly no reason to expect agreement on something without objective evidence.
> 
> No, I don't think Boss has proven god exists.  I never claimed he did.  That's particularly clear since I've stated more than once that I don't believe in god; if he'd proved god exists, I would believe, wouldn't I?
> 
> There is no single reason why Boss's supposed 'god-haters' persist.  Besides the fact the premise is extremely flawed, as with anything, you will rarely get consensus from any reasonably large group of people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You bring up a good point.  Why do we persist?  Because it is an insane notion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, you stupid fucking liar.
> 
> So Aristotle, Plato, Copernicus, Galileo, Isaac Newton, LeMaire and all the believing scientists are insane because you stamp your little foot and insist it so?
> 
> Go fuck yourself, cretin.
Click to expand...


It is still a stupid irrational thought.

Smart person X believes in god....

Ad hominem + Argument from Authority.

The validity of a claim, such as the existence of god, is not governed by the intelligence of the minds which hold it. Evidence and reason are the deciding factors.

Sir Isaac Newton, one of historys greatest scientists, was not only intensely religious but also believed in alchemical transmutation. Alchemy is, however, fully incorrect given our modern understanding of chemistry, the atom and nucleosynthysis.

The fact that an intelligent person holds an irrational belief is simply evidence that our brains are able to compartmentalize world-views and models from one another, usually in order to maintain a state of ignorant bliss and escape the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.


----------



## sealybobo

BillyP said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, let's see if I can squeeze any sense out of this.
> 
> So you're saying that god himself tells you what not to do? And if you disobey he'll make sure you get burned?
> Because if it were my kid, I'd stop him from getting burned, whether he understood or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only someone who never raised a child to adulthood would say something like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a fucking idiot if you'd let your child get burned. I've raised 2 children who are adults now and wouldn't harm them on purpose to teach them a lesson. If that's the bible and your religion, it's messed up bigtime. A god who punishes people for not obeying a book is probably the dumbest thing ever.
Click to expand...


Especially that book.  The Bible is historically inaccurate, factually incorrect, inconsistent and contradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time.

Properly read, the bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.  Isaac Asimov


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> Silly boob: And by the way, why do we persist? Because you guys brought it into politics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My daughter is like me, she isn't afraid to speak her mind and she doesn't take shit off of anybody. In college, a professor gave her an assignment once, they had to pick a social issue and write an essay opposing it. She picked abortion. After everyone picked their topic, the professor then instructed them they could not use any religious context in their arguments. Well, my chip off the ol' block daughter protested... How exactly are you supposed to formulate an argument and not base it on your religious moral beliefs? Virtually everything about your beliefs on any topic is rooted in your religious belief or lack of religious belief.
> 
> What you are asking is akin to what the professor was asking, and it's just not possible. We can't separate ourselves from our own convictions. Virtually every law is based on a religiously-rooted concept at some point and to some degree. It goes back to my argument about dismissing laws against public masturbation, or marrying children. Now you can claim this violates someone's rights or is detrimental to children or whatever, but the root basis is a religious construct. When you debase morality, that's exactly what you get... debased morality.
> 
> We have a 1st Amendment right in this country for a reason, and that is to protect our religious freedoms, to be able to express our religious beliefs without persecution. You cannot silence these opinions any more than you can silence the opinions of the atheist. It's a fundamental right that must be protected.
> 
> By the way, my daughter won her argument. The professor modified her criteria to indicate the essay couldn't contain specific religious arguments or scriptural references, but it could be based on religious convictions and beliefs.
Click to expand...


Oh I agree with your daughter completely!  Without god there is no argument against abortion.


----------



## sealybobo

BreezeWood said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The core truth to the Noah story is that, IMO, he had some kind of forewarning of the collapse of the Bosporus Straights glacier that then flooded the Black Sea area that he lived in. If Noah had been a subsistence farmer and herder, then he would have essentially saved the animals that he depended on for his livelihood and not literally every freaking animal on the planet.
> 
> I don't know anyone but the most extreme Biblical literalists who think Noah literally took in every animal species; the majority of Christ's church does not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The bible says God flooded the world and killed everyone. If that's not true that makes it a work of fiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> it is close to say "everyone" and that is the message of the religion for future posterity, irregardless the biblical accounts.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


What did you just say?  Basically what I am hearing you say is that the bible is just a book of fictional stories to teach right and wrong.  Is that what you are saying?  

Why don't you try lying to your parents or your spouse and then when they find out you were lying, tell them you were lying to them for their own good.  See how that plays out.

So I don't care if your book is meant to teach me right and wrong, if its full of lies/stories/fairy tales then I don't want to use it as a source anymore.

And most people can grasp that the Noah and Adam & Eve stories are probably just made up stories to teach right and wrong but then those same people really believe the virgin mary and son of god jesus stories to be fact?  Are they retarded?  

Now, if the book of Genesis is an allegory, then sin is an allegory, the Fall is an allegory and the need for a Savior is an allegory  but if we are all descendants of an allegory, where does that leave us? It destroys the foundation of all Christian doctrineit destroys the foundation of the gospel. - Ken Ham


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> It is still a stupid irrational thought.
> 
> Smart person X believes in god....
> 
> Ad hominem + Argument from Authority.
> 
> The validity of a claim, such as the existence of god, is not governed by the intelligence of the minds which hold it. Evidence and reason are the deciding factors.
> 
> Sir Isaac Newton, one of historys greatest scientists, was not only intensely religious but also believed in alchemical transmutation. Alchemy is, however, fully incorrect given our modern understanding of chemistry, the atom and nucleosynthysis.
> 
> The fact that an intelligent person holds an irrational belief is simply evidence that our brains are able to compartmentalize world-views and models from one another, usually in order to maintain a state of ignorant bliss and escape the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.



No, he didn't "believe in" alchemical transmutation, he experimented with it. Let's make that distinction clear. Newton was far more open minded to possibility than you can even comprehend how to be. If he were here, he'd tell you what an absolute idiot you're being. 

Let's talk more about atoms. We are just now beginning to unlock many mysteries regarding the atom. We are discovering things at the subatomic level that are almost surreal, and would have fascinated someone like Newton to no end. For you to pretend that our understanding has somehow dismissed all kinds of possibilities is absurd and perverts science in a way deserving of a slap across your stupid idiotic jaws. 

You are precisely the type of person who would have rejected much of what Newton proposed back in his time. You would have laughed and scoffed at how "ignorant" he was to believe some of the things he did, because it contradicted Aristotle and the known science of the day. No doubt, when Newton spoke of a "mercurial spirit" subtle, but ever-present in the universe, you would have dismissed him as a religious kook. 

You sit here and post your bullshit over and over about "the existence of god, is not governed by the intelligence of the minds which hold it" then you wander off into a rant about how only the stupid and ignorant people believe in God while the smart and intelligent grown ups don't. You're a walking, talking contradiction of yourself. A JOKE.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of christians wish they could spread christianity to the rest of the world.  How's it doing in China?
> 
> Eastern Lightning is a millennial Chinese Christian sect
> 
> Eastern Lightning: Alleged kidnappings, murder and a female Christ - CNN.com
> 
> So these christians walk around trying to spread "the truth" and if you don't give them your contact information they murder you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For every story you can find like that, I can give you ten to twenty like this:
Click to expand...


Funny cause all the religious shows I watch are all about $ and a very small percentage of that money goes to the needy, same with charities.  Sad really.  We could do better.  Unfortunately this god character isn't doing a very good job inspiring.  He's had how much time now 100,000 years give or take?


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is still a stupid irrational thought.
> 
> Smart person X believes in god....
> 
> Ad hominem + Argument from Authority.
> 
> The validity of a claim, such as the existence of god, is not governed by the intelligence of the minds which hold it. Evidence and reason are the deciding factors.
> 
> Sir Isaac Newton, one of historys greatest scientists, was not only intensely religious but also believed in alchemical transmutation. Alchemy is, however, fully incorrect given our modern understanding of chemistry, the atom and nucleosynthysis.
> 
> The fact that an intelligent person holds an irrational belief is simply evidence that our brains are able to compartmentalize world-views and models from one another, usually in order to maintain a state of ignorant bliss and escape the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, he didn't "believe in" alchemical transmutation, he experimented with it. Let's make that distinction clear. Newton was far more open minded to possibility than you can even comprehend how to be. If he were here, he'd tell you what an absolute idiot you're being.
> 
> Let's talk more about atoms. We are just now beginning to unlock many mysteries regarding the atom. We are discovering things at the subatomic level that are almost surreal, and would have fascinated someone like Newton to no end. For you to pretend that our understanding has somehow dismissed all kinds of possibilities is absurd and perverts science in a way deserving of a slap across your stupid idiotic jaws.
> 
> You are precisely the type of person who would have rejected much of what Newton proposed back in his time. You would have laughed and scoffed at how "ignorant" he was to believe some of the things he did, because it contradicted Aristotle and the known science of the day. No doubt, when Newton spoke of a "mercurial spirit" subtle, but ever-present in the universe, you would have dismissed him as a religious kook.
> 
> You sit here and post your bullshit over and over about "the existence of god, is not governed by the intelligence of the minds which hold it" then you wander off into a rant about how only the stupid and ignorant people believe in God while the smart and intelligent grown ups don't. You're a walking, talking contradiction of yourself. A JOKE.
Click to expand...


Yes, science is uncovering a lot of things about the atom and other things that are amazing and no matter how much they uncover it never leads us any closer to proving a god exists.  

You would have laughed at me when I said the earth was round because "everyone believes the earth is flat"

You are correct that even smart people believe in god but that doesn't stop the idea from being a stupid one.  And I have explained to you why they believe this irrational thought.  Any thoughts to that?  Then shut the fuck up Lucy.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Yes, science is uncovering a lot of things about the atom and other things that are amazing and no matter how much they uncover it never leads us any closer to proving a god exists.



You don't know if it does or not. All you have is a speculation that God doesn't exist. 



> You would have laughed at me when I said the earth was round because "everyone believes the earth is flat"



Uh... no... you would have said "just because blah blah blah, doesn't mean the earth is round!" 



> You are correct that even smart people believe in god but that doesn't stop the idea from being a stupid one.  And I have explained to you why they believe this irrational thought.  Any thoughts to that?  Then shut the fuck up Lucy.



We've been through this. You have this theory... okay, show us just one example in all of nature where a living thing has adopted an irrational behavior and it's present in 90% of the species for all of the species existence. All you need is one solid example to prove your theory valid. 

You see, it defies logic that humans, the most intelligent of all living things, would adopt an irrational behavior and devoutly believe in something imaginary for all their existence. I realize you want so badly to believe that's what has happened that you've concocted all these far-fetched explanations, but they simply don't comport with logic.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, science is uncovering a lot of things about the atom and other things that are amazing and no matter how much they uncover it never leads us any closer to proving a god exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know if it does or not. All you have is a speculation that God doesn't exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You would have laughed at me when I said the earth was round because "everyone believes the earth is flat"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh... no... you would have said "just because blah blah blah, doesn't mean the earth is round!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct that even smart people believe in god but that doesn't stop the idea from being a stupid one.  And I have explained to you why they believe this irrational thought.  Any thoughts to that?  Then shut the fuck up Lucy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We've been through this. You have this theory... okay, show us just one example in all of nature where a living thing has adopted an irrational behavior and it's present in 90% of the species for all of the species existence. All you need is one solid example to prove your theory valid.
> 
> You see, it defies logic that humans, the most intelligent of all living things, would adopt an irrational behavior and devoutly believe in something imaginary for all their existence. I realize you want so badly to believe that's what has happened that you've concocted all these far-fetched explanations, but they simply don't comport with logic.
Click to expand...


Humans are one example where a living thing has adopted an irrational behavior present in 90% of the species.  

Intelligence and rationality are not the same.  Whether most of humanity has 'devoutly' believed in something imaginary is far from certain.  You and sealy both talk about this subject as though you have some sort of overwhelming evidence one way or the other.


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Humans are one example where a living thing has adopted an irrational behavior present in 90% of the species.
> 
> Intelligence and rationality are not the same.  Whether most of humanity has 'devoutly' believed in something imaginary is far from certain.  You and sealy both talk about this subject as though you have some sort of overwhelming evidence one way or the other.



No, humans are the example you have this theory about, you need another example of it happening elsewhere in nature to support the theory it could happen in humans. 

In 100% of the archeological findings of human civilization remains, there is evidence of human spiritual belief. I think that is pretty devout. From what we have found from every culture with a recorded history, human spiritual beliefs were predominate. Again... pretty devout. 

The evidence that humans have always been devoutly spiritual is overwhelming. Now silly boob's theory on the other hand, has no validity or evidence to support it and it doesn't comport with logic or reason. And you haven't really offered much contribution because you've been too busy finding 'i's to dot and 't's to cross.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Humans are one example where a living thing has adopted an irrational behavior present in 90% of the species.
> 
> Intelligence and rationality are not the same.  Whether most of humanity has 'devoutly' believed in something imaginary is far from certain.  You and sealy both talk about this subject as though you have some sort of overwhelming evidence one way or the other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, humans are the example you have this theory about, you need another example of it happening elsewhere in nature to support the theory it could happen in humans.
> 
> In 100% of the archeological findings of human civilization remains, there is evidence of human spiritual belief. I think that is pretty devout. From what we have found from every culture with a recorded history, human spiritual beliefs were predominate. Again... pretty devout.
> 
> The evidence that humans have always been devoutly spiritual is overwhelming. Now silly boob's theory on the other hand, has no validity or evidence to support it and it doesn't comport with logic or reason. And you haven't really offered much contribution because you've been too busy finding 'i's to dot and 't's to cross.
Click to expand...


First, I realize you were looking for a non-human example, hence the laughter.

As we've gone over before, I think you make poor comparisons between humans and animals and don't take into account the differences in intelligence when you do.

Finding evidence of spirituality in a culture in no way means that most of the people were devout.  One can believe without being particularly devout, or even go through the motions of belief without truly believing, etc.  Devout belief is a strange goalpost move.

The evidence that humans have believed in something spiritual as long as there have been civilizations may be overwhelming.  However, considering your failure to differentiate truth and logic earlier, forgive me if I don't give much weight to your thoughts on what is or isn't logical.


----------



## BreezeWood

sealybobo said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bible says God flooded the world and killed everyone. If that's not true that makes it a work of fiction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it is close to say "everyone" and that is the message of the religion for future posterity, irregardless the biblical accounts.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What did you just say?  Basically what I am hearing you say is that the bible is just a book of fictional stories to teach right and wrong.  Is that what you are saying?
> 
> Why don't you try lying to your parents or your spouse and then when they find out you were lying, tell them you were lying to them for their own good.  See how that plays out.
> 
> So I don't care if your book is meant to teach me right and wrong, if its full of lies/stories/fairy tales then I don't want to use it as a source anymore.
> 
> And most people can grasp that the Noah and Adam & Eve stories are probably just made up stories to teach right and wrong but then those same people really believe the virgin mary and son of god jesus stories to be fact?  Are they retarded?
> 
> Now, if the book of Genesis is an allegory, then sin is an allegory, the Fall is an allegory and the need for a Savior is an allegory  but if we are all descendants of an allegory, where does that leave us? It destroys the foundation of all Christian doctrineit destroys the foundation of the gospel. - Ken Ham
Click to expand...



for some, the parable of Noah, the Triumph of Good vs Evil is well worth understanding to accomplish Remission to the OuterWorld of the Everlasting ... no matter how poorly it is represented by that deceitful book - and obscured as the necessary ingredient for all other goals. 

.


----------



## hobelim

BillyP said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, let's see if I can squeeze any sense out of this.
> 
> So you're saying that god himself tells you what not to do? And if you disobey he'll make sure you get burned?
> Because if it were my kid, I'd stop him from getting burned, whether he understood or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only someone who never raised a child to adulthood would say something like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a fucking idiot if you'd let your child get burned. I've raised 2 children who are adults now and wouldn't harm them on purpose to teach them a lesson. If that's the bible and your religion, it's messed up bigtime. A god who punishes people for not obeying a book is probably the dumbest thing ever.
Click to expand...


Who said anything about harming them on purpose to teach a lesson? And what makes you think I would let them get burned if I could stop it?

And again it is not a punishment from you or me if a child disregards all of the pains you or any parent would take to teach their children right from wrong and to keep them free from pain as much as possible in this reality if they go ahead and burn themselves anyway because they decided to play with matches one day when you weren't looking..

Hell is not a punishment for disregarding the divine commands anymore than confusion is a punishment for being gullible or the pain of being burned a punishment for disregarding your warnings.

If a person fills their own mind with irrational garbage they will become confused and they will say and do stupid things that injure themselves and others. Hell is a metaphor for such a state of self aggrandizing pain and confusion, and it is not a punishment from God it is a consequence of their own actions for failing to heed the lessons of the past and stand guard over the purity of ones own mind.

Whatever you have been told about heaven or hell, reward  or punishment, I am telling you  it is about cause and effect.

 It is about the reality of each person being directly accountable for their own thoughts and actions, and being bound to their consequences for good or evil.

Am I telling you something you don't already know?




The confusion of hell is all that most people have ever known for their entire lives.

Be open.

Rising from the dead and ascending into Heaven is as easy or as difficult as it is for a person to be honest with themselves and others.


----------



## JimBowie1958

Slyhunter said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did Kangaroo's get their ticket?
> And how did they make it back to Australia after the flood?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The core truth to the Noah story is that, IMO, he had some kind of forewarning of the collapse of the Bosporus Straights glacier that then flooded the Black Sea area that he lived in. If Noah had been a subsistence farmer and herder, then he would have essentially saved the animals that he depended on for his livelihood and not literally every freaking animal on the planet.
> 
> I don't know anyone but the most extreme Biblical literalists who think Noah literally took in every animal species; the majority of Christ's church does not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The bible says God flooded the world and killed everyone. If that's not true that makes it a work of fiction.
Click to expand...


lol, then for the lurkers out there who are not too stupid to grasp the idea;

It is quite likely that at the end of the last Ice Age glaciers released floods of water as they retreated. One of these is likely the release of Mediteranean waters into the Black Sea region. To those who memorized the oral history of the event it seemed like the whole world flooded, and other similar events occurred around the world as the Ice Age ended.

This would then explain the central truth of the Noah story while many of the details are true only from the perspective of the people at that time.

I wouldn't worry too much about the Atheist Denialists keeping up, so just move on and let them look stupid.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, science is uncovering a lot of things about the atom and other things that are amazing and no matter how much they uncover it never leads us any closer to proving a god exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know if it does or not. All you have is a speculation that God doesn't exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You would have laughed at me when I said the earth was round because "everyone believes the earth is flat"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh... no... you would have said "just because blah blah blah, doesn't mean the earth is round!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct that even smart people believe in god but that doesn't stop the idea from being a stupid one.  And I have explained to you why they believe this irrational thought.  Any thoughts to that?  Then shut the fuck up Lucy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We've been through this. You have this theory... okay, show us just one example in all of nature where a living thing has adopted an irrational behavior and it's present in 90% of the species for all of the species existence. All you need is one solid example to prove your theory valid.
> 
> You see, it defies logic that humans, the most intelligent of all living things, would adopt an irrational behavior and devoutly believe in something imaginary for all their existence. I realize you want so badly to believe that's what has happened that you've concocted all these far-fetched explanations, but they simply don't comport with logic.
Click to expand...


You know what?  I'm not the one making any claims.  YOU ARE.  I say the jury is still out even after all your evidence.  You're making the claim about some god thing and you talk about spiritual energy and karma and you poo poo all the scientific stuff about how the human brain has a wild imagination.  Bottom line is, I'm not making any claims.  You're claiming there is a god.  I don't believe you.  If you're not claiming I go to hell if I don't believe, then I guess we're cool, right?  

I have a beef with a lot of theists and their organized religions.  You seem harmless.  And I can't prove to you your imaginary friend isn't real.  If he is real to you I guess he's real.  But only to you.  Does this imaginary friend tell you to go around and convince people to believe and if we don't down we go to hates?  If not, have fun with your big buddy.  And trust me, I don't need a god, I have a conscience.  But it is great being able to think dirty thoughts and not fear some perv is watching.  

PS.  Why does the universe have to have a creator and god doesn't?  In fact, based on how you try to define god, you aren't even talking about god.  You're talking about the product of god.  That's your problem.  You're thinking too small.  The universe and all the life and energy and your spirit are not god, if there is a god, he's on the other side of the black hole watching all this.  What you describe as god is just god's creation.  God is much bigger than you even think.  No?  There is no god.  It's all just what you see.  No reason to make up a god. The universe is amazing by itself.  Worship science.  It'll cure you someday hopefully and maybe we can build a space ship and move before this planet is over with.  No god's going to help with that just like he doesn't help you when you are dying other than you feel better thinking this isn't the end.  Sorry, it is.  But be happy you got the time you did.  And I feel bad telling you.  Like telling a child about santa.  But again I think people who believe in god are less advanced/evolved and we will advance faster and be better citizens of this planet when we wise up.  If we believe that lie we are dumb.  If we need a lie to be good, what does that say about us?  I reject that.  Maybe we should tell kids that stuff to keep them in line but its not good for adults to believe in fairy tales.  Look at what theists are producing.  Garbage in garbage out.  A stupid ignorant greedy lazy brainwashed society of sheep easily manipulated by the man through the church and media.  Gullible.


----------



## sealybobo

BreezeWood said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is close to say "everyone" and that is the message of the religion for future posterity, irregardless the biblical accounts.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What did you just say?  Basically what I am hearing you say is that the bible is just a book of fictional stories to teach right and wrong.  Is that what you are saying?
> 
> Why don't you try lying to your parents or your spouse and then when they find out you were lying, tell them you were lying to them for their own good.  See how that plays out.
> 
> So I don't care if your book is meant to teach me right and wrong, if its full of lies/stories/fairy tales then I don't want to use it as a source anymore.
> 
> And most people can grasp that the Noah and Adam & Eve stories are probably just made up stories to teach right and wrong but then those same people really believe the virgin mary and son of god jesus stories to be fact?  Are they retarded?
> 
> Now, if the book of Genesis is an allegory, then sin is an allegory, the Fall is an allegory and the need for a Savior is an allegory  but if we are all descendants of an allegory, where does that leave us? It destroys the foundation of all Christian doctrineit destroys the foundation of the gospel. - Ken Ham
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> for some, the parable of Noah, the Triumph of Good vs Evil is well worth understanding to accomplish Remission to the OuterWorld of the Everlasting ... no matter how poorly it is represented by that deceitful book - and obscured as the necessary ingredient for all other goals.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Do you believe that?  You say "for some".  What about for you?  

And please understand when you write stuff like this "and obscured as the necessary ingredient for all other goals."  I'm not exactly sure what you are even saying here???


----------



## sealybobo

JimBowie1958 said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The core truth to the Noah story is that, IMO, he had some kind of forewarning of the collapse of the Bosporus Straights glacier that then flooded the Black Sea area that he lived in. If Noah had been a subsistence farmer and herder, then he would have essentially saved the animals that he depended on for his livelihood and not literally every freaking animal on the planet.
> 
> I don't know anyone but the most extreme Biblical literalists who think Noah literally took in every animal species; the majority of Christ's church does not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The bible says God flooded the world and killed everyone. If that's not true that makes it a work of fiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, then for the lurkers out there who are not too stupid to grasp the idea;
> 
> It is quite likely that at the end of the last Ice Age glaciers released floods of water as they retreated. One of these is likely the release of Mediteranean waters into the Black Sea region. To those who memorized the oral history of the event it seemed like the whole world flooded, and other similar events occurred around the world as the Ice Age ended.
> 
> This would then explain the central truth of the Noah story while many of the details are true only from the perspective of the people at that time.
> 
> I wouldn't worry too much about the Atheist Denialists keeping up, so just move on and let them look stupid.
Click to expand...


Why is it now that we have developed rational inquiry we hear only a deafening silence from a god who once supposedly engaged regularly in human affairs? Why does god not simply speak to us or appear before us as he supposedly used to? Why are we the losers in the dice roll of time?

If one accepts the prevailing scientific understanding of the development of the universe, yet also believes in one of the major religions, then presumably a god sat idle for 13.7 billion years  waiting as the stars, galaxies and planets formed. Then it watched with complete and utter indifference as modern Homo Sapians evolved, struggled and died for a further 150,000 years. Finally, a few thousand years ago, this god suddenly decided to reveal itself to several people in the most primitive, illiterate and remote portions of humanity in a completely unverifiable way  and then simply disappeared.


----------



## JimBowie1958

sealybobo said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bible says God flooded the world and killed everyone. If that's not true that makes it a work of fiction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol, then for the lurkers out there who are not too stupid to grasp the idea;
> 
> It is quite likely that at the end of the last Ice Age glaciers released floods of water as they retreated. One of these is likely the release of Mediteranean waters into the Black Sea region. To those who memorized the oral history of the event it seemed like the whole world flooded, and other similar events occurred around the world as the Ice Age ended.
> 
> This would then explain the central truth of the Noah story while many of the details are true only from the perspective of the people at that time.
> 
> I wouldn't worry too much about the Atheist Denialists keeping up, so just move on and let them look stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is it now that we have developed rational inquiry we hear only a deafening silence from a god who once supposedly engaged regularly in human affairs? Why does god not simply speak to us or appear before us as he supposedly used to? Why are we the losers in the dice roll of time?
Click to expand...


God still does miracles, but He doesn't do it to prove Himself. He isn't going to step into your little test tube, dude. You would have a better chance of getting Putin to return a message on his cell phone.

Why? Because He is God and you are a little piss ant jerk.



sealybobo said:


> If one accepts the prevailing scientific understanding of the development of the universe, yet also believes in one of the major religions, then presumably a god sat idle for 13.7 billion years  waiting as the stars, galaxies and planets formed. Then it watched with complete and utter indifference as modern Homo Sapians evolved, struggled and died for a further 150,000 years. Finally, a few thousand years ago, this god suddenly decided to reveal itself to several people in the most primitive, illiterate and remote portions of humanity in a completely unverifiable way  and then simply disappeared.



God is eternal. He doesn't wait for anything, dumbass, no more than you have to wait to read the last page of a book. If you want, you just turn to the page and read the damned thing.

So it is with God. He can act now or fifty gazillion years ago, it isn't like us who have to wait the flow of time.

Again, you demonstrate your complete ignorance about who and what God is, and yet you think you have learned enough on the subject to decide that He is not real?

roflmao.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> You know what?  I'm not the one making any claims.  YOU ARE.  I say the jury is still out even after all your evidence.



Well, no you're not and that is simply a lie. You keep saying God does not exist, you will say it again and again before you finish this specific rant. So the jury is not out, the trial is over and you've convicted God of not existing. You continue to make claims you can't back up. The specific one we are dealing with at the moment is about how man conjured up God from his imagination, then proceeded to devoutly believe in this imaginary entity for all his existence. 



> You're making the claim about some god thing and you talk about spiritual energy and karma and you poo poo all the scientific stuff about how the human brain has a wild imagination.  Bottom line is, I'm not making any claims.  You're claiming there is a god.  I don't believe you.  If you're not claiming I go to hell if I don't believe, then I guess we're cool, right?



You've admitted you believe in karma. There is no "scientific stuff" to indicate living organisms create imaginary entities to cope with fears or hold to these convictions for all their existence. You're unable to give even one example in nature of persistent irrational behavior. In fact, you can't even give another example in humans of a persistent irrational behavior which has always existed in the species. Even though this completely defies nature, it's your reasoning. Why? Because some atheist blogger said so. 

And we're only going to be cool when you stop the lying. 



> I have a beef with a lot of theists and their organized religions.  You seem harmless.  And I can't prove to you your imaginary friend isn't real.  If he is real to you I guess he's real.  But only to you.  Does this imaginary friend tell you to go around and convince people to believe and if we don't down we go to hates?  If not, have fun with your big buddy.  And trust me, I don't need a god, I have a conscience.  But it is great being able to think dirty thoughts and not fear some perv is watching.



Here again you are making statements you can't back up. You don't know what is real to other people, so why do you pretend you do? You keep claiming God is imaginary when we've already established it's not imagination. God doesn't tell me to convince you or to convert you. I realize you are an impediment to the flow of positive spiritual energy because of your ignorance. I'm just trying to help you 'see the light' if you'll pardon the pun. But hey... good luck with your perverted thoughts, I bet Robin Williams probably thought he didn't need God either.  



> PS.  Why does the universe have to have a creator and god doesn't?



Because the universe is physical and God isn't. 



> In fact, based on how you try to define god, you aren't even talking about god.  You're talking about the product of god.  That's your problem.  You're thinking too small.  The universe and all the life and energy and your spirit are not god, if there is a god, he's on the other side of the black hole watching all this.  What you describe as god is just god's creation.  God is much bigger than you even think.  No?  *There is no god.*  It's all just what you see.



What happened to *"I'm not the one making any claims -- I say the jury is still out..."* Sounds like you've reneged on that statement entirely, now you're saying there is no God. Is that what "agnostic atheism" is... like a bipolar disorder where you go back and forth from not being sure if there is a god or not, to proclaiming there is no god? 

*It's all just what you see.*

Interesting statement. What you and I see are material things comprised of atoms. Each atom is comprised of a nucleus and orbiting electrons. Those electrons disappear and reappear, or occupy two places at the same time. We bust open one of those atoms and all sorts of amazing subatomic particles come out. These amazing tiny particles give matter all kinds of various properties. What we see is a creation of something far more advanced than we are, far more powerful than we will ever be, and something far greater than we can even imagine. 



> No reason to make up a god. The universe is amazing by itself.  Worship science.  It'll cure you someday hopefully and maybe we can build a space ship and move before this planet is over with.  No god's going to help with that just like he doesn't help you when you are dying other than you feel better thinking this isn't the end.  Sorry, it is.  But be happy you got the time you did.  And I feel bad telling you.  Like telling a child about santa.



Again, God has saved me from certain death several times. I appreciate science, I worship God. Science can sometimes help to explain how God does some of the amazing things we experience as part of God's creation. Yes, I agree, it's amazing... too amazing for random chance to explain, in my opinion. 



> But again I think people who believe in god are *less advanced/evolved* and we will advance faster and be better citizens of this planet when we *wise up.*  If we believe that lie we are *dumb.*  If we need a lie to be good, what does that say about us?  I reject that.  Maybe we should tell kids that stuff to keep them in line but its not good for adults to believe in fairy tales.  Look at what theists are producing.  Garbage in garbage out.  A *stupid ignorant* greedy lazy brainwashed society of *sheep* easily manipulated by the man through the church and media.  Gullible.



You're contradicting your own points again. Here, let me refresh you memory: 

*The validity of a claim, such as the existence of god, is not governed by the intelligence of the minds which hold it. Evidence and reason are the deciding factors.*

Why do you keep going back and forth with this? Is that also part of this bipolar "atheist agnosticism" you're afflicted with? I think maybe you need some professional help.


----------



## sealybobo

JimBowie1958 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol, then for the lurkers out there who are not too stupid to grasp the idea;
> 
> It is quite likely that at the end of the last Ice Age glaciers released floods of water as they retreated. One of these is likely the release of Mediteranean waters into the Black Sea region. To those who memorized the oral history of the event it seemed like the whole world flooded, and other similar events occurred around the world as the Ice Age ended.
> 
> This would then explain the central truth of the Noah story while many of the details are true only from the perspective of the people at that time.
> 
> I wouldn't worry too much about the Atheist Denialists keeping up, so just move on and let them look stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it now that we have developed rational inquiry we hear only a deafening silence from a god who once supposedly engaged regularly in human affairs? Why does god not simply speak to us or appear before us as he supposedly used to? Why are we the losers in the dice roll of time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God still does miracles, but He doesn't do it to prove Himself. He isn't going to step into your little test tube, dude. You would have a better chance of getting Putin to return a message on his cell phone.
> 
> Why? Because He is God and you are a little piss ant jerk.
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If one accepts the prevailing scientific understanding of the development of the universe, yet also believes in one of the major religions, then presumably a god sat idle for 13.7 billion years  waiting as the stars, galaxies and planets formed. Then it watched with complete and utter indifference as modern Homo Sapians evolved, struggled and died for a further 150,000 years. Finally, a few thousand years ago, this god suddenly decided to reveal itself to several people in the most primitive, illiterate and remote portions of humanity in a completely unverifiable way  and then simply disappeared.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God is eternal. He doesn't wait for anything, dumbass, no more than you have to wait to read the last page of a book. If you want, you just turn to the page and read the damned thing.
> 
> So it is with God. He can act now or fifty gazillion years ago, it isn't like us who have to wait the flow of time.
> 
> Again, you demonstrate your complete ignorance about who and what God is, and yet you think you have learned enough on the subject to decide that He is not real?
> 
> roflmao.
Click to expand...


You are insane.  I especially enjoyed the part where you said, "God still does miracles, but He doesn't do it to prove Himself. He isn't going to step into your little test tube, dude."

What a great bullshit story.  The mormons have something similar.  Joseph Smith said god talked to him and he gave him some tablets but he said don't show anybody.....And today how many Mormons are there in Utah?  That is fucking amazing that many people can buy a story like that or the one you're telling.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know what?  I'm not the one making any claims.  YOU ARE.  I say the jury is still out even after all your evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, no you're not and that is simply a lie. You keep saying God does not exist, you will say it again and again before you finish this specific rant. So the jury is not out, the trial is over and you've convicted God of not existing. You continue to make claims you can't back up. The specific one we are dealing with at the moment is about how man conjured up God from his imagination, then proceeded to devoutly believe in this imaginary entity for all his existence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're making the claim about some god thing and you talk about spiritual energy and karma and you poo poo all the scientific stuff about how the human brain has a wild imagination.  Bottom line is, I'm not making any claims.  You're claiming there is a god.  I don't believe you.  If you're not claiming I go to hell if I don't believe, then I guess we're cool, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've admitted you believe in karma. There is no "scientific stuff" to indicate living organisms create imaginary entities to cope with fears or hold to these convictions for all their existence. You're unable to give even one example in nature of persistent irrational behavior. In fact, you can't even give another example in humans of a persistent irrational behavior which has always existed in the species. Even though this completely defies nature, it's your reasoning. Why? Because some atheist blogger said so.
> 
> And we're only going to be cool when you stop the lying.
> 
> 
> 
> Here again you are making statements you can't back up. You don't know what is real to other people, so why do you pretend you do? You keep claiming God is imaginary when we've already established it's not imagination. God doesn't tell me to convince you or to convert you. I realize you are an impediment to the flow of positive spiritual energy because of your ignorance. I'm just trying to help you 'see the light' if you'll pardon the pun. But hey... good luck with your perverted thoughts, I bet Robin Williams probably thought he didn't need God either.
> 
> 
> 
> Because the universe is physical and God isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> What happened to *"I'm not the one making any claims -- I say the jury is still out..."* Sounds like you've reneged on that statement entirely, now you're saying there is no God. Is that what "agnostic atheism" is... like a bipolar disorder where you go back and forth from not being sure if there is a god or not, to proclaiming there is no god?
> 
> *It's all just what you see.*
> 
> Interesting statement. What you and I see are material things comprised of atoms. Each atom is comprised of a nucleus and orbiting electrons. Those electrons disappear and reappear, or occupy two places at the same time. We bust open one of those atoms and all sorts of amazing subatomic particles come out. These amazing tiny particles give matter all kinds of various properties. What we see is a creation of something far more advanced than we are, far more powerful than we will ever be, and something far greater than we can even imagine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No reason to make up a god. The universe is amazing by itself.  Worship science.  It'll cure you someday hopefully and maybe we can build a space ship and move before this planet is over with.  No god's going to help with that just like he doesn't help you when you are dying other than you feel better thinking this isn't the end.  Sorry, it is.  But be happy you got the time you did.  And I feel bad telling you.  Like telling a child about santa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, God has saved me from certain death several times. I appreciate science, I worship God. Science can sometimes help to explain how God does some of the amazing things we experience as part of God's creation. Yes, I agree, it's amazing... too amazing for random chance to explain, in my opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But again I think people who believe in god are *less advanced/evolved* and we will advance faster and be better citizens of this planet when we *wise up.*  If we believe that lie we are *dumb.*  If we need a lie to be good, what does that say about us?  I reject that.  Maybe we should tell kids that stuff to keep them in line but its not good for adults to believe in fairy tales.  Look at what theists are producing.  Garbage in garbage out.  A *stupid ignorant* greedy lazy brainwashed society of *sheep* easily manipulated by the man through the church and media.  Gullible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're contradicting your own points again. Here, let me refresh you memory:
> 
> *The validity of a claim, such as the existence of god, is not governed by the intelligence of the minds which hold it. Evidence and reason are the deciding factors.*
> 
> Why do you keep going back and forth with this? Is that also part of this bipolar "atheist agnosticism" you're afflicted with? I think maybe you need some professional help.
Click to expand...


I certainly don't believe any organized religion just like you.  I just also do not buy into your definition of god.  So anyone being fair after listening to you, gismys and me would be to say "we just don't know".  Agnostic atheist is the best position. 

Why?  Because I can't say 100% for sure but so far, based on what you've told me and what organized religions say, I see NO evidence of god.  NEXT!


----------



## hobelim

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Humans are one example where a living thing has adopted an irrational behavior present in 90% of the species.
> 
> Intelligence and rationality are not the same.  Whether most of humanity has 'devoutly' believed in something imaginary is far from certain.  You and sealy both talk about this subject as though you have some sort of overwhelming evidence one way or the other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, humans are the example you have this theory about, you need another example of it happening elsewhere in nature to support the theory it could happen in humans.
> 
> In 100% of the archeological findings of human civilization remains, there is evidence of human spiritual belief. I think that is pretty devout. From what we have found from every culture with a recorded history, human spiritual beliefs were predominate. Again... pretty devout.
> 
> The evidence that humans have always been devoutly spiritual is overwhelming. Now silly boob's theory on the other hand, has no validity or evidence to support it and it doesn't comport with logic or reason. And you haven't really offered much contribution because you've been too busy finding 'i's to dot and 't's to cross.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, I realize you were looking for a non-human example, hence the laughter.
> 
> As we've gone over before, I think you make poor comparisons between humans and animals and don't take into account the differences in intelligence when you do.
> 
> Finding evidence of spirituality in a culture in no way means that most of the people were devout.  One can believe without being particularly devout, or even go through the motions of belief without truly believing, etc.  Devout belief is a strange goalpost move.
Click to expand...



No small point. 

As much evidence as there is that people have worshiped one thing or another for thousands of years there is as much evidence that people were maimed tortured or killed for thousands of years if they failed to show proper deference to whatever god happened to be worshiped at the time and it is still happening to this day.

That shows that much of what spirituality has been based on for thousands of years is coercion through threats of real and imaginary violence, pretense,  and an instinct to survive.


Nothing very deep or mysterious about that.


----------



## sealybobo

Hubble's observations suggested that there was a time, called the big bang, when the universe was infinitesimally small and infinitely dense. Under such conditions all the laws of science, and therefore all ability to predict the future, would break down. If there were events earlier than this time, then they could not affect what happens at the present time. Their existence can be ignored because it would have no observational consequences. One may say that time had a beginning at the big bang, in the sense that earlier times simply would not be defined. It should be emphasized that this beginning in time is very different from those that had been considered previously. In an unchanging universe a beginning in time is something that has to be imposed by some being outside the universe; there is no physical necessity for a beginning. One can imagine that God created the universe at literally any time in the past. On the other hand, if the universe is expanding, there may be physical reasons why there had to be a beginning. One could imagine that God created the universe at the instant of the big bang, or even afterwards in just such a way as to make it look as though there had been a big bang, but it would be meaningless to suppose that it was created before the big bang. An expanding universe does not preclude a creator, but it does place limits on when he might have carried out his job!

So what did god do before the big bang?  We know pretty much when the big bang happened.  So what happened before the big bang?  Did god just sit looking at a blank screen for all eternity before the big bang?  It only happened 13 million years ago.  Not that long ago for a god.  

Answer is, there is no god.


----------



## hobelim

sealybobo said:


> Hubble's observations suggested that there was a time, called the big bang, when the universe was infinitesimally small and infinitely dense. Under such conditions all the laws of science, and therefore all ability to predict the future, would break down. If there were events earlier than this time, then they could not affect what happens at the present time. Their existence can be ignored because it would have no observational consequences. One may say that time had a beginning at the big bang, in the sense that earlier times simply would not be defined. It should be emphasized that this beginning in time is very different from those that had been considered previously. In an unchanging universe a beginning in time is something that has to be imposed by some being outside the universe; there is no physical necessity for a beginning. One can imagine that God created the universe at literally any time in the past. On the other hand, if the universe is expanding, there may be physical reasons why there had to be a beginning. One could imagine that God created the universe at the instant of the big bang, or even afterwards in just such a way as to make it look as though there had been a big bang, but it would be meaningless to suppose that it was created before the big bang. An expanding universe does not preclude a creator, but it does place limits on when he might have carried out his job!
> 
> So what did god do before the big bang?  We know pretty much when the big bang happened.  So what happened before the big bang?  Did god just sit looking at a blank screen for all eternity before the big bang?  It only happened 13 million years ago.  Not that long ago for a god.
> 
> Answer is, there is no god.




When Percival Lowell first set out to observe Mars he made detailed maps of canals as he perceived them through the best instruments available at the time.

Better instruments have since shown Mars in greater detail ending all speculation about canals.

In the same way your brain is an instrument apparently with a clouded lens or is out of focus distracted by your own brains limitations and inability to conceive of anything beyond the the things of the physical realm including time or existence without any need for doing, a necessity for the continuation of life in the physical realm..

The most likely truth is not that there is no God, but that you have yet to develop an instrument capable of perceiving him as he is.


----------



## sealybobo

hobelim said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hubble's observations suggested that there was a time, called the big bang, when the universe was infinitesimally small and infinitely dense. Under such conditions all the laws of science, and therefore all ability to predict the future, would break down. If there were events earlier than this time, then they could not affect what happens at the present time. Their existence can be ignored because it would have no observational consequences. One may say that time had a beginning at the big bang, in the sense that earlier times simply would not be defined. It should be emphasized that this beginning in time is very different from those that had been considered previously. In an unchanging universe a beginning in time is something that has to be imposed by some being outside the universe; there is no physical necessity for a beginning. One can imagine that God created the universe at literally any time in the past. On the other hand, if the universe is expanding, there may be physical reasons why there had to be a beginning. One could imagine that God created the universe at the instant of the big bang, or even afterwards in just such a way as to make it look as though there had been a big bang, but it would be meaningless to suppose that it was created before the big bang. An expanding universe does not preclude a creator, but it does place limits on when he might have carried out his job!
> 
> So what did god do before the big bang?  We know pretty much when the big bang happened.  So what happened before the big bang?  Did god just sit looking at a blank screen for all eternity before the big bang?  It only happened 13 million years ago.  Not that long ago for a god.
> 
> Answer is, there is no god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When Percival Lowell first set out to observe Mars he made details maps of canals as he perceived them through the best instruments available at the time.
> 
> Better instruments have shown Mars in greater detail ending speculations about canals.
> 
> In the same way your brain is an instrument apparently with a clouded lens or is out of focus distracted by your own brains limitations and inability to conceive of anything beyond the the things of the physical realm including time or existence without any need for doing, a necessity for the continuation of life in the physical realm..
> 
> The most likely truth is not that there is no God, but that you have yet to develop an instrument capable of perceiving him as he is.
Click to expand...


Sorry wrong.  Notice if you ask a bunch of smart people, you'll find more atheists than if you ask a bunch of poor dumb hicks.  99% of the poor dumb hicks all believe.  

And I did believe at one time.  Also, it's not that your brain is smart and can conceive of a god and mine can't.  I'm hearing your stories and they all sound so fucking stupid.  You aren't deep you are reaching.  

And notice when god came and spoke to man?  a few thousand years ago, this god suddenly decided to reveal itself to several people in the most primitive, illiterate and remote portions of humanity in a completely unverifiable way  and then simply disappeared.


----------



## sealybobo

hobelim said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hubble's observations suggested that there was a time, called the big bang, when the universe was infinitesimally small and infinitely dense. Under such conditions all the laws of science, and therefore all ability to predict the future, would break down. If there were events earlier than this time, then they could not affect what happens at the present time. Their existence can be ignored because it would have no observational consequences. One may say that time had a beginning at the big bang, in the sense that earlier times simply would not be defined. It should be emphasized that this beginning in time is very different from those that had been considered previously. In an unchanging universe a beginning in time is something that has to be imposed by some being outside the universe; there is no physical necessity for a beginning. One can imagine that God created the universe at literally any time in the past. On the other hand, if the universe is expanding, there may be physical reasons why there had to be a beginning. One could imagine that God created the universe at the instant of the big bang, or even afterwards in just such a way as to make it look as though there had been a big bang, but it would be meaningless to suppose that it was created before the big bang. An expanding universe does not preclude a creator, but it does place limits on when he might have carried out his job!
> 
> So what did god do before the big bang?  We know pretty much when the big bang happened.  So what happened before the big bang?  Did god just sit looking at a blank screen for all eternity before the big bang?  It only happened 13 million years ago.  Not that long ago for a god.
> 
> Answer is, there is no god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When Percival Lowell first set out to observe Mars he made detailed maps of canals as he perceived them through the best instruments available at the time.
> 
> Better instruments have since shown Mars in greater detail ending all speculation about canals.
> 
> In the same way your brain is an instrument apparently with a clouded lens or is out of focus distracted by your own brains limitations and inability to conceive of anything beyond the the things of the physical realm including time or existence without any need for doing, a necessity for the continuation of life in the physical realm..
> 
> The most likely truth is not that there is no God, but that you have yet to develop an instrument capable of perceiving him as he is.
Click to expand...


Did you watch the Nova show last night on Mars?  Dude they think there is life on mars and they are sending a special space ship back to do more tests.  They found ice but it'd be like how dry ice works here on earth.  They want to see if they can find the elements of life in that ice.  If they do it will be amazing and prove life is everywhere.  

Also during the summer months on Mars methane comes from the hottest part of the planet.  That might mean life.  Stay tuned.

So while those weren't rivers, you don't get to gloat just yet that Mars never had life.  

And of course if we discover life on Mars, that won't shut you theists up.


----------



## hobelim

sealybobo said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hubble's observations suggested that there was a time, called the big bang, when the universe was infinitesimally small and infinitely dense. Under such conditions all the laws of science, and therefore all ability to predict the future, would break down. If there were events earlier than this time, then they could not affect what happens at the present time. Their existence can be ignored because it would have no observational consequences. One may say that time had a beginning at the big bang, in the sense that earlier times simply would not be defined. It should be emphasized that this beginning in time is very different from those that had been considered previously. In an unchanging universe a beginning in time is something that has to be imposed by some being outside the universe; there is no physical necessity for a beginning. One can imagine that God created the universe at literally any time in the past. On the other hand, if the universe is expanding, there may be physical reasons why there had to be a beginning. One could imagine that God created the universe at the instant of the big bang, or even afterwards in just such a way as to make it look as though there had been a big bang, but it would be meaningless to suppose that it was created before the big bang. An expanding universe does not preclude a creator, but it does place limits on when he might have carried out his job!
> 
> So what did god do before the big bang?  We know pretty much when the big bang happened.  So what happened before the big bang?  Did god just sit looking at a blank screen for all eternity before the big bang?  It only happened 13 million years ago.  Not that long ago for a god.
> 
> Answer is, there is no god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When Percival Lowell first set out to observe Mars he made details maps of canals as he perceived them through the best instruments available at the time.
> 
> Better instruments have shown Mars in greater detail ending speculations about canals.
> 
> In the same way your brain is an instrument apparently with a clouded lens or is out of focus distracted by your own brains limitations and inability to conceive of anything beyond the the things of the physical realm including time or existence without any need for doing, a necessity for the continuation of life in the physical realm..
> 
> The most likely truth is not that there is no God, but that you have yet to develop an instrument capable of perceiving him as he is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry wrong.  Notice if you ask a bunch of smart people, you'll find more atheists than if you ask a bunch of poor dumb hicks.  99% of the poor dumb hicks all believe.
> 
> And I did believe at one time.  Also, it's not that your brain is smart and can conceive of a god and mine can't.  I'm hearing your stories and they all sound so fucking stupid.  You aren't deep you are reaching.
> 
> And notice when god came and spoke to man?  a few thousand years ago, this god suddenly decided to reveal itself to several people in the most primitive, illiterate and remote portions of humanity in a completely unverifiable way &#8211; and then simply disappeared.
Click to expand...




Just because what 99% of people believe about God and the stories in the bible cannot possibly be literally true that does not preclude the existence of a superior being or realm of conscious existence that is not of this world.

Only after he purified his mind from all of the irrational superstitions and degrading practices that he was forced to believe and imitate since birth was Abraham able to perceive and interact with the living God.

And it may not be that God simply disappeared. The story of Abraham is a story of an atheist who speculated that if there was a God he must be a living being and could not be a statue made by human hands that has no life. Historically, people seem to have preferred darkness to light, superstitions and self important rituals and ceremonies to truth and reality. God didn't necessarily disappear as much as people get lost in the darkness and blindness of confusion as a consequence...


the greatest obstacle you face is your overinflated opinion of your own perceptions,  reasoning ability, and conclusions which makes it impossible for you to consider something as unbelievable as that you see no proof of God because you have an inferior instrument covered in cobwebs of resentments  and hostility through either choice or neglect..


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Hubble's observations suggested that there was a time, called the big bang, when the universe was infinitesimally small and infinitely dense. Under such conditions all the laws of science, and therefore all ability to predict the future, would break down. If there were events earlier than this time, then they could not affect what happens at the present time. Their existence can be ignored because it would have no observational consequences. One may say that time had a beginning at the big bang, in the sense that earlier times simply would not be defined. It should be emphasized that this beginning in time is very different from those that had been considered previously. In an unchanging universe a beginning in time is something that has to be imposed by some being outside the universe; there is no physical necessity for a beginning. One can imagine that God created the universe at literally any time in the past. On the other hand, if the universe is expanding, there may be physical reasons why there had to be a beginning. One could imagine that God created the universe at the instant of the big bang, or even afterwards in just such a way as to make it look as though there had been a big bang, but it would be meaningless to suppose that it was created before the big bang. An expanding universe does not preclude a creator, but it does place limits on when he might have carried out his job!
> 
> So what did god do before the big bang?  We know pretty much when the big bang happened.  So what happened before the big bang?  Did god just sit looking at a blank screen for all eternity before the big bang?  It only happened 13 million years ago.  Not that long ago for a god.
> 
> Answer is, there is no god.



I think you meant 13 *billion* instead of 13 million. And what you are measuring is a physical parameter known as "time." While time is still a mysterious and perplexing thing to physical science, we do know that time is not linear it is relative. In physics, time is distance, specifically, the distance light travels per second. What enables our sense of time is merely the universe expanding. If the universe stops expanding, time will end. 

Now you speak of "The Big Bang" and it's interesting to note, the term "Big Bang" itself was originally a pejorative, like "Star Wars" for Reagan's SDI or "Bush's War" for the Iraq War. Many scientists simply dismissed the theory as nonsense at first, hence the name "Big Bang." It was made fun of and joked about in the upper scientific circles. We're talking about less than 100 years ago. Of course, the fact that Hubble discovered the universe is expanding, lent a huge amount of credibility to the theory of a Big Bang. For about the past 20 years, however, the super-telescope which bears his name has discovered a fascinating new piece to the puzzle. The universe is not only expanding, it is accelerating. 

So what does that mean? Well, if you comprehend the dynamics of motion and physics, it could mean there wasn't ever a Big Bang. Physicists such as Stephen Hawking (hardly a dum-dum) would dispute your presentation of "Big Bang" as "proven fact." So this is a THEORY, and one that has been considered a joke, then taken seriously, and now is being questioned once again. You should consider applying your agnosticism to this, it's best to say we don't know at this time. 

You ask, what did God do before he created the universe... Well, time didn't yet exist, so it doesn't really matter. Perhaps God was busy creating other universes? Current quantum mechanics have presented string theories which posit there may be many universes. Perhaps a universe exists where spiritual existence is the "norm" and the spiritual entities ponder the possibility of physical existence?


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hubble's observations suggested that there was a time, called the big bang, when the universe was infinitesimally small and infinitely dense. Under such conditions all the laws of science, and therefore all ability to predict the future, would break down. If there were events earlier than this time, then they could not affect what happens at the present time. Their existence can be ignored because it would have no observational consequences. One may say that time had a beginning at the big bang, in the sense that earlier times simply would not be defined. It should be emphasized that this beginning in time is very different from those that had been considered previously. In an unchanging universe a beginning in time is something that has to be imposed by some being outside the universe; there is no physical necessity for a beginning. One can imagine that God created the universe at literally any time in the past. On the other hand, if the universe is expanding, there may be physical reasons why there had to be a beginning. One could imagine that God created the universe at the instant of the big bang, or even afterwards in just such a way as to make it look as though there had been a big bang, but it would be meaningless to suppose that it was created before the big bang. An expanding universe does not preclude a creator, but it does place limits on when he might have carried out his job!
> 
> So what did god do before the big bang?  We know pretty much when the big bang happened.  So what happened before the big bang?  Did god just sit looking at a blank screen for all eternity before the big bang?  It only happened 13 million years ago.  Not that long ago for a god.
> 
> Answer is, there is no god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You ask, what did God do before he created the universe... Well, time didn't yet exist, so it doesn't really matter. Perhaps God was busy creating other universes? Current quantum mechanics have presented string theories which posit there may be many universes. Perhaps a universe exists where spiritual existence is the "norm" and the spiritual entities ponder the possibility of physical existence?
Click to expand...


Yes time did exist before the big bang.  That time doesn't exist to us anymore.  I believe that is what he was trying to say in that thing I posted.  That the time and whatever existed before our big bang is irrelevant and can not ever be tested, but we know that it did exist before the big bang.  So if the big bang happened 13 billion years ago, what was happening 26 billion years ago?  Maybe the universe was shrinking back into the little ball it was right before the big bang.  That's the yo yo theory I just made it up.  LOL.

Anyways, best answer is I don't know.  Do you?


----------



## sealybobo

hobelim said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> When Percival Lowell first set out to observe Mars he made details maps of canals as he perceived them through the best instruments available at the time.
> 
> Better instruments have shown Mars in greater detail ending speculations about canals.
> 
> In the same way your brain is an instrument apparently with a clouded lens or is out of focus distracted by your own brains limitations and inability to conceive of anything beyond the the things of the physical realm including time or existence without any need for doing, a necessity for the continuation of life in the physical realm..
> 
> The most likely truth is not that there is no God, but that you have yet to develop an instrument capable of perceiving him as he is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry wrong.  Notice if you ask a bunch of smart people, you'll find more atheists than if you ask a bunch of poor dumb hicks.  99% of the poor dumb hicks all believe.
> 
> And I did believe at one time.  Also, it's not that your brain is smart and can conceive of a god and mine can't.  I'm hearing your stories and they all sound so fucking stupid.  You aren't deep you are reaching.
> 
> And notice when god came and spoke to man?  a few thousand years ago, this god suddenly decided to reveal itself to several people in the most primitive, illiterate and remote portions of humanity in a completely unverifiable way  and then simply disappeared.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because what 99% of people believe about God and the stories in the bible cannot possibly be literally true that does not preclude the existence of a superior being or realm of conscious existence that is not of this world.
> 
> Only after he purified his mind from all of the irrational superstitions and degrading practices that he was forced to believe and imitate since birth was Abraham able to perceive and interact with the living God.
> 
> And it may not be that God simply disappeared. The story of Abraham is a story of an atheist who speculated that if there was a God he must be a living being and could not be a statue made by human hands that has no life. Historically, people seem to have preferred darkness to light, superstitions and self important rituals and ceremonies to truth and reality. God didn't necessarily disappear as much as people get lost in the darkness and blindness of confusion as a consequence...
> 
> the greatest obstacle you face is your overinflated opinion of your own perceptions,  reasoning ability, and conclusions which makes it impossible for you to consider something as unbelievable as that you see no proof of God because you have an inferior instrument covered in cobwebs of resentments  and hostility through either choice or neglect..
Click to expand...


I would think if you asked most people they would say they prefer light to darkness.  

Sorry, no cobwebs, no resentment.  I don't hate god because my kid died.  I don't deny god exists because something bad happened.  I simply was enlightened.  

It is you who lacks reason.  There isn't one argument for god that doesn't come with a fatal flaw.  And you don't realize you believe because you are a scared and unevolved human who's been brainwashed to believe in fairy tales.  Do you believe in Santa too?

Why are people christians?  You act like other religions are selfish and christianity is not.  The church wants your money and you want to go to heaven, not to mention you like the social gatherings at church.  So it's like a fraternity that offers not only lifetime membership but eternal lifetime membership.


----------



## hobelim

sealybobo said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry wrong.  Notice if you ask a bunch of smart people, you'll find more atheists than if you ask a bunch of poor dumb hicks.  99% of the poor dumb hicks all believe.
> 
> And I did believe at one time.  Also, it's not that your brain is smart and can conceive of a god and mine can't.  I'm hearing your stories and they all sound so fucking stupid.  You aren't deep you are reaching.
> 
> And notice when god came and spoke to man?  a few thousand years ago, this god suddenly decided to reveal itself to several people in the most primitive, illiterate and remote portions of humanity in a completely unverifiable way &#8211; and then simply disappeared.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because what 99% of people believe about God and the stories in the bible cannot possibly be literally true that does not preclude the existence of a superior being or realm of conscious existence that is not of this world..
> 
> Only after he purified his mind from all of the irrational superstitions and degrading practices that he was forced to believe and imitate since birth was Abraham able to perceive and interact with the living God.
> 
> And it may not be that God simply disappeared. The story of Abraham is a story of an atheist who speculated that if there was a God he must be a living being and could not be a statue made by human hands that has no life. Historically, people seem to have preferred darkness to light, superstitions and self important rituals and ceremonies to truth and reality. God didn't necessarily disappear as much as people get lost in the darkness and blindness of confusion as a consequence...
> 
> the greatest obstacle you face is your overinflated opinion of your own perceptions,  reasoning ability, and conclusions which makes it impossible for you to consider something as unbelievable as that you see no proof of God because you have an inferior instrument covered in cobwebs of resentments  and hostility through either choice or neglect..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would think if you asked most people they would say they prefer light to darkness.
> 
> Sorry, no cobwebs, no resentment.  I don't hate god because my kid died.  I don't deny god exists because something bad happened.  I simply was enlightened.
> 
> It is you who lacks reason.  There isn't one argument for god that doesn't come with a fatal flaw.  And you don't realize you believe because you are a scared and unevolved human who's been brainwashed to believe in fairy tales.  Do you believe in Santa too?
> 
> Why are people christians?  You act like other religions are selfish and christianity is not.  The church wants your money and you want to go to heaven, not to mention you like the social gatherings at church.  So it's like a fraternity that offers not only lifetime membership but eternal lifetime membership.
Click to expand...




I am not a Christian and I do not belong to a church or any religion.

You, who claims to have been enlightened,  have failed to perceive the truth about me who has been conversing openly with you and other people on a message board about what I do and don't believe, yet you were wrong in your perceptions, accused me of being a Christian, and then spewed resentments and hostility in my direction that you claim to not have.

Is it any wonder you have failed to perceive the truth about God?


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hubble's observations suggested that there was a time, called the big bang, when the universe was infinitesimally small and infinitely dense. Under such conditions all the laws of science, and therefore all ability to predict the future, would break down. If there were events earlier than this time, then they could not affect what happens at the present time. Their existence can be ignored because it would have no observational consequences. One may say that time had a beginning at the big bang, in the sense that earlier times simply would not be defined. It should be emphasized that this beginning in time is very different from those that had been considered previously. In an unchanging universe a beginning in time is something that has to be imposed by some being outside the universe; there is no physical necessity for a beginning. One can imagine that God created the universe at literally any time in the past. On the other hand, if the universe is expanding, there may be physical reasons why there had to be a beginning. One could imagine that God created the universe at the instant of the big bang, or even afterwards in just such a way as to make it look as though there had been a big bang, but it would be meaningless to suppose that it was created before the big bang. An expanding universe does not preclude a creator, but it does place limits on when he might have carried out his job!
> 
> So what did god do before the big bang?  We know pretty much when the big bang happened.  So what happened before the big bang?  Did god just sit looking at a blank screen for all eternity before the big bang?  It only happened 13 million years ago.  Not that long ago for a god.
> 
> Answer is, there is no god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You ask, what did God do before he created the universe... Well, time didn't yet exist, so it doesn't really matter. Perhaps God was busy creating other universes? Current quantum mechanics have presented string theories which posit there may be many universes. Perhaps a universe exists where spiritual existence is the "norm" and the spiritual entities ponder the possibility of physical existence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes time did exist before the big bang.  That time doesn't exist to us anymore.  I believe that is what he was trying to say in that thing I posted.  That the time and whatever existed before our big bang is irrelevant and can not ever be tested, but we know that it did exist before the big bang.  So if the big bang happened 13 billion years ago, what was happening 26 billion years ago?  Maybe the universe was shrinking back into the little ball it was right before the big bang.  That's the yo yo theory I just made it up.  LOL.
> 
> Anyways, best answer is I don't know.  Do you?
Click to expand...


Well... no, stubborn... Time did not exist before the universe began. Where is the evidence for that? That's right, there isn't any. Time is a dimension of a physical universe. I understand that you and other Atheists want to dismiss whatever happened before the 'supposed' Big Bang, so that you can eliminate any possibility of God or a Creator. 

Your "yo yo theory" is also known as the cyclical universe theory, and for 50 years or so, it was considered a plausible and valid theory. However, the evidence that our universe is accelerating in expansion and not slowing, kind of puts that theory to rest. I mean... you DO believe in Newton's Laws of Motion, correct? So if the universe is expanding and accelerating in that expansion, what is going to cause it to suddenly move in the opposite direction? Not gravity, because gravity behaves the same all the time, so if gravity worked as a force on the universe, the expansion would be slowing not accelerating. 

So there was no "26 billion years ago" because "years" are a measure of how long it takes our planet to revolve around it's sun. Since our planet and sun did not exist, there were no years. There was no space and there was no time, or at least, you have not proven that to be the case. Until you can present some evidence for these things you believe, all you really have is FAITH.


----------



## Mad_Cabbie

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> You ask, what did God do before he created the universe... Well, time didn't yet exist, so it doesn't really matter. Perhaps God was busy creating other universes? Current quantum mechanics have presented string theories which posit there may be many universes. Perhaps a universe exists where spiritual existence is the "norm" and the spiritual entities ponder the possibility of physical existence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes time did exist before the big bang.  That time doesn't exist to us anymore.  I believe that is what he was trying to say in that thing I posted.  That the time and whatever existed before our big bang is irrelevant and can not ever be tested, but we know that it did exist before the big bang.  So if the big bang happened 13 billion years ago, what was happening 26 billion years ago?  Maybe the universe was shrinking back into the little ball it was right before the big bang.  That's the yo yo theory I just made it up.  LOL.
> 
> Anyways, best answer is I don't know.  Do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well... no, stubborn... Time did not exist before the universe began. Where is the evidence for that? That's right, there isn't any. Time is a dimension of a physical universe. I understand that you and other Atheists want to dismiss whatever happened before the 'supposed' Big Bang, so that you can eliminate any possibility of God or a Creator.
> 
> Your "yo yo theory" is also known as the cyclical universe theory, and for 50 years or so, it was considered a plausible and valid theory. However, the evidence that our universe is accelerating in expansion and not slowing, kind of puts that theory to rest. I mean... you DO believe in Newton's Laws of Motion, correct? So if the universe is expanding and accelerating in that expansion, what is going to cause it to suddenly move in the opposite direction? Not gravity, because gravity behaves the same all the time, so if gravity worked as a force on the universe, the expansion would be slowing not accelerating.
> 
> So there was no "26 billion years ago" because "years" are a measure of how long it takes our planet to revolve around it's sun. Since our planet and sun did not exist, there were no years. There was no space and there was no time, or at least, you have not proven that to be the case. Until you can present some evidence for these things you believe, all you really have is FAITH.
Click to expand...


I personally feel that there is not enough information as of yet, to make an empirical statement about what happened before the big bang. 

As for years not existing before the earth was around, there also was no Jesus in 3000 B.C., yet we still use that as a marker, correct?

Evidence and science is on our side - Christians are yet to actually back up anything they believe with actual facts.



> In physics, time is distance, specifically, the distance light travels per second. What enables our sense of time is merely the universe expanding. If the universe stops expanding, time will end.



False, entropy ALWAYS increases with time. Thus, time moves always in a forward arrow.


----------



## Boss

Mad_Cabbie said:


> I personally feel that there is not enough information as of yet, to make an empirical statement about what happened before the big bang.
> 
> As for years not existing before the earth was around, there also was no Jesus in 3000 B.C., yet we still use that as a marker, correct?
> 
> Evidence and science is on our side - Christians are yet to actually back up anything they believe with actual facts.



Evidence is on your side? How do you figure when you've presented NO evidence? See, this is what I don't get about you cats... you start off saying "we don't know" which is fine by me, it means we all have faith and nothing else... but then, you suddenly abandon the not knowing for KNOWING that God doesn't exist and there is some kind of evidence for that. The only evidence any of you ever seem to come up with is that we can't prove God does exist. 

3,000 BC wasn't called that in 3,000 BC. Yes, it's a marker and nothing more. The same with "years" or any other measure of our perception of this thing called "time." 



> In physics, time is distance, specifically, the distance light travels per second. What enables our sense of time is merely the universe expanding. If the universe stops expanding, time will end.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False, entropy ALWAYS increases with time. Thus, time moves always in a forward arrow.
Click to expand...


Entropy has nothing to do with this. Time is distance, it makes up part of space-time continuum, a fundamental dimension of our physical universe. There is absolutely NO evidence it existed BEFORE a physical universe.


----------



## JimBowie1958

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hubble's observations suggested that there was a time, called the big bang, when the universe was infinitesimally small and infinitely dense. Under such conditions all the laws of science, and therefore all ability to predict the future, would break down. If there were events earlier than this time, then they could not affect what happens at the present time. Their existence can be ignored because it would have no observational consequences. One may say that time had a beginning at the big bang, in the sense that earlier times simply would not be defined. It should be emphasized that this beginning in time is very different from those that had been considered previously. In an unchanging universe a beginning in time is something that has to be imposed by some being outside the universe; there is no physical necessity for a beginning. One can imagine that God created the universe at literally any time in the past. On the other hand, if the universe is expanding, there may be physical reasons why there had to be a beginning. One could imagine that God created the universe at the instant of the big bang, or even afterwards in just such a way as to make it look as though there had been a big bang, but it would be meaningless to suppose that it was created before the big bang. An expanding universe does not preclude a creator, but it does place limits on when he might have carried out his job!
> 
> So what did god do before the big bang?  We know pretty much when the big bang happened.  So what happened before the big bang?  Did god just sit looking at a blank screen for all eternity before the big bang?  It only happened 13 million years ago.  Not that long ago for a god.
> 
> Answer is, there is no god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You ask, what did God do before he created the universe... Well, time didn't yet exist, so it doesn't really matter. Perhaps God was busy creating other universes? Current quantum mechanics have presented string theories which posit there may be many universes. Perhaps a universe exists where spiritual existence is the "norm" and the spiritual entities ponder the possibility of physical existence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes time did exist before the big bang.
Click to expand...


Bullshit. Time did not exist prior to the Big Bang, you ficktard.


----------



## JimBowie1958

Mad_Cabbie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes time did exist before the big bang.  That time doesn't exist to us anymore.  I believe that is what he was trying to say in that thing I posted.  That the time and whatever existed before our big bang is irrelevant and can not ever be tested, but we know that it did exist before the big bang.  So if the big bang happened 13 billion years ago, what was happening 26 billion years ago?  Maybe the universe was shrinking back into the little ball it was right before the big bang.  That's the yo yo theory I just made it up.  LOL.
> 
> Anyways, best answer is I don't know.  Do you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well... no, stubborn... Time did not exist before the universe began. Where is the evidence for that? That's right, there isn't any. Time is a dimension of a physical universe. I understand that you and other Atheists want to dismiss whatever happened before the 'supposed' Big Bang, so that you can eliminate any possibility of God or a Creator.
> 
> Your "yo yo theory" is also known as the cyclical universe theory, and for 50 years or so, it was considered a plausible and valid theory. However, the evidence that our universe is accelerating in expansion and not slowing, kind of puts that theory to rest. I mean... you DO believe in Newton's Laws of Motion, correct? So if the universe is expanding and accelerating in that expansion, what is going to cause it to suddenly move in the opposite direction? Not gravity, because gravity behaves the same all the time, so if gravity worked as a force on the universe, the expansion would be slowing not accelerating.
> 
> So there was no "26 billion years ago" because "years" are a measure of how long it takes our planet to revolve around it's sun. Since our planet and sun did not exist, there were no years. There was no space and there was no time, or at least, you have not proven that to be the case. Until you can present some evidence for these things you believe, all you really have is FAITH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I personally feel that there is not enough information as of yet, to make an empirical statement about what happened before the big bang.
> 
> As for years not existing before the earth was around, there also was no Jesus in 3000 B.C., yet we still use that as a marker, correct?
> 
> Evidence and science is on our side - Christians are yet to actually back up anything they believe with actual facts.
> .
Click to expand...


WTF? CHRISTIANS INVENTED THE BIG BANG THEORY, dude!


----------



## BillyP

JimBowie1958 said:


> Mad_Cabbie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well... no, stubborn... Time did not exist before the universe began. Where is the evidence for that? That's right, there isn't any. Time is a dimension of a physical universe. I understand that you and other Atheists want to dismiss whatever happened before the 'supposed' Big Bang, so that you can eliminate any possibility of God or a Creator.
> 
> Your "yo yo theory" is also known as the cyclical universe theory, and for 50 years or so, it was considered a plausible and valid theory. However, the evidence that our universe is accelerating in expansion and not slowing, kind of puts that theory to rest. I mean... you DO believe in Newton's Laws of Motion, correct? So if the universe is expanding and accelerating in that expansion, what is going to cause it to suddenly move in the opposite direction? Not gravity, because gravity behaves the same all the time, so if gravity worked as a force on the universe, the expansion would be slowing not accelerating.
> 
> So there was no "26 billion years ago" because "years" are a measure of how long it takes our planet to revolve around it's sun. Since our planet and sun did not exist, there were no years. There was no space and there was no time, or at least, you have not proven that to be the case. Until you can present some evidence for these things you believe, all you really have is FAITH.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I personally feel that there is not enough information as of yet, to make an empirical statement about what happened before the big bang.
> 
> As for years not existing before the earth was around, there also was no Jesus in 3000 B.C., yet we still use that as a marker, correct?
> 
> Evidence and science is on our side - Christians are yet to actually back up anything they believe with actual facts.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF? CHRISTIANS INVENTED THE BIG BANG THEORY, dude!
Click to expand...


WHAAAAAAAAT?


----------



## thanatos144

BillyP said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mad_Cabbie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I personally feel that there is not enough information as of yet, to make an empirical statement about what happened before the big bang.
> 
> As for years not existing before the earth was around, there also was no Jesus in 3000 B.C., yet we still use that as a marker, correct?
> 
> Evidence and science is on our side - Christians are yet to actually back up anything they believe with actual facts.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WTF? CHRISTIANS INVENTED THE BIG BANG THEORY, dude!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WHAAAAAAAAT?
Click to expand...


And God said let there be light and it was good.


----------



## PostmodernProph

the Big Bang sounded like "Let there be....." in Hebrew.....


----------



## hobelim

thanatos144 said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> WTF? CHRISTIANS INVENTED THE BIG BANG THEORY, dude!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHAAAAAAAAT?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And God said let there be light and it was good.
Click to expand...




The story of Genesis is not about the creation of the universe, the solar system, the sun or the earth and is not about the first humans, plants, or animals.

Genesis is an allegorical account of Divine Law being given as a light that separates the darkness by differentiating between clean and unclean, right and wrong, good and evil, and life and death, in a world that had been without shape and void and darkness covered the face of the deep for the previous several millions of years of human evolution......


----------



## BillyP

hobelim said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHAAAAAAAAT?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And God said let there be light and it was good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The story of Genesis is not about the creation of the universe, the solar system, the sun or the earth and is not about the first humans, plants, or animals.
> 
> Genesis is an allegorical account of Divine Law being given as a light that separates the darkness by differentiating between clean and unclean, right and wrong, good and evil, and life and death, in a world that had been without shape and void and darkness covered the face of the deep for the previous several millions of years of human evolution......
Click to expand...


Allegorical, ok. But to say that they were talking about the BB? SHADDDDUP! 
The people who wrote the bible had no clue about the BB, which happened 13 BILLION years ago. Man only came on the scene within less than the last 100 million years or so. GIMMMMMEEEEE A FUCKKKKKING BREEEEAAAKKKK!!!


----------



## thanatos144

hobelim said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHAAAAAAAAT?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And God said let there be light and it was good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The story of Genesis is not about the creation of the universe, the solar system, the sun or the earth and is not about the first humans, plants, or animals.
> 
> Genesis is an allegorical account of Divine Law being given as a light that separates the darkness by differentiating between clean and unclean, right and wrong, good and evil, and life and death, in a world that had been without shape and void and darkness covered the face of the deep for the previous several millions of years of human evolution......
Click to expand...

Yes actually it is.


----------



## hobelim

BillyP said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And God said let there be light and it was good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The story of Genesis is not about the creation of the universe, the solar system, the sun or the earth and is not about the first humans, plants, or animals.
> 
> Genesis is an allegorical account of Divine Law being given as a light that separates the darkness by differentiating between clean and unclean, right and wrong, good and evil, and life and death, in a world that had been without shape and void and darkness covered the face of the deep for the previous several millions of years of human evolution......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Allegorical, ok. But to say that they were talking about the BB? SHADDDDUP!
> The people who wrote the bible had no clue about the BB, which happened 13 BILLION years ago. Man only came on the scene within less than the last 100 million years or so. GIMMMMMEEEEE A FUCKKKKKING BREEEEAAAKKKK!!!
Click to expand...


Any story that starts with 'in the beginning" just like 'once upon a time' and has a talking snake and mythical creatures should have been a dead give away to anyone with a second grade education that it is a story written like a fairy tale with the intention of teaching bronze age children morals and truths about life that are not necessarily directly connected to the literal meaning of the words used.

So, you have the intelligence to realize the story is not about the Big Bang,, so what is it about?

What separates the waters above from the waters below and established the firmament?

What is the breath of life?

How does the breath of life create a living being from the dust of the earth?

what is the dust of the earth?

what are the many trees whose fruit is pleasing to the eyes and good to eat?

what is a talking serpent? Forbidden fruit?

The sweat of the brow?

What is a cherubim with a flaming sword that flashed back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life?

what is the sword?

what is the tree of life?


----------



## thanatos144

It still stunns me the amount fear of God that is in this thread. Dont worry he still loves you even if you don't 

Tapatalk


----------



## hobelim

thanatos144 said:


> It still stunns me the amount fear of God that is in this thread. Dont worry he still loves you even if you don't
> 
> Tapatalk



 From where I am, the ones who profess to believe the story of Genesis is about the big bang must be terrified of God so much that they will deny reality to the point of insanity and don't have the faith or courage to acknowledge that serpents can't talk, except of course the human type.


----------



## BillyP

hobelim said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> The story of Genesis is not about the creation of the universe, the solar system, the sun or the earth and is not about the first humans, plants, or animals.
> 
> Genesis is an allegorical account of Divine Law being given as a light that separates the darkness by differentiating between clean and unclean, right and wrong, good and evil, and life and death, in a world that had been without shape and void and darkness covered the face of the deep for the previous several millions of years of human evolution......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Allegorical, ok. But to say that they were talking about the BB? SHADDDDUP!
> The people who wrote the bible had no clue about the BB, which happened 13 BILLION years ago. Man only came on the scene within less than the last 100 million years or so. GIMMMMMEEEEE A FUCKKKKKING BREEEEAAAKKKK!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any story that starts with 'in the beginning" just like 'once upon a time' and has a talking snake and mythical creatures should have been a dead give away to anyone with a second grade education that it is a story written like a fairy tale with the intention of teaching bronze age children morals and truths about life that are not necessarily directly connected to the literal meaning of the words used.
> 
> So, you have the intelligence to realize the story is not about the Big Bang,, so what is it about?
> 
> What separates the waters above from the waters below and established the firmament?
> 
> What is the breath of life?
> 
> How does the breath of life create a living being from the dust of the earth?
> 
> what is the dust of the earth?
> 
> what are the many trees whose fruit is pleasing to the eyes and good to eat?
> 
> what is a talking serpent? Forbidden fruit?
> 
> The sweat of the brow?
> 
> What is a cherubim with a flaming sword that flashed back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life?
> 
> what is the sword?
> 
> what is the tree of life?
Click to expand...


Does this have something to do with the tooth fairy? Should I be scared?


----------



## JimBowie1958

hobelim said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHAAAAAAAAT?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And God said let there be light and it was good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The story of Genesis is not about the creation of the universe, the solar system, the sun or the earth and is not about the first humans, plants, or animals.
> 
> Genesis is an allegorical account of Divine Law being given as a light that separates the darkness by differentiating between clean and unclean, right and wrong, good and evil, and life and death, in a world that had been without shape and void and darkness covered the face of the deep for the previous several millions of years of human evolution......
Click to expand...


An inventive interpretation but as valid as any. Genesis is NOT a scientific text, but its opening chapters are tales of myths and legends recorded in Holy Scripture by an inspired prophet because they had moral points to them and were true from the perspective of the person scribing the revelations.

I personally think that the first two chapters are recorded oral legends of the recovery from the Toba incident by humans from Africa that describes the rebirth of life on Earth.

Toba catastrophe theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> Michael L. Rampino and Stephen Self argue that the eruption caused a "brief, dramatic cooling or 'volcanic winter'", which resulted in a drop of the global mean surface temperature by 35 °C and accelerated the transition from warm to cold temperatures of the last glacial cycle.[14] Evidence from Greenland ice cores indicates a 1,000-year period of low &#948;18O and increased dust deposition immediately following the eruption. The eruption may have caused this 1,000-year period of cooler temperatures (stadial), two centuries of which could be accounted for by the persistence of the Toba stratospheric loading.


----------



## JimBowie1958

BillyP said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allegorical, ok. But to say that they were talking about the BB? SHADDDDUP!
> The people who wrote the bible had no clue about the BB, which happened 13 BILLION years ago. Man only came on the scene within less than the last 100 million years or so. GIMMMMMEEEEE A FUCKKKKKING BREEEEAAAKKKK!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any story that starts with 'in the beginning" just like 'once upon a time' and has a talking snake and mythical creatures should have been a dead give away to anyone with a second grade education that it is a story written like a fairy tale with the intention of teaching bronze age children morals and truths about life that are not necessarily directly connected to the literal meaning of the words used.
> 
> So, you have the intelligence to realize the story is not about the Big Bang,, so what is it about?
> 
> What separates the waters above from the waters below and established the firmament?
> 
> What is the breath of life?
> 
> How does the breath of life create a living being from the dust of the earth?
> 
> what is the dust of the earth?
> 
> what are the many trees whose fruit is pleasing to the eyes and good to eat?
> 
> what is a talking serpent? Forbidden fruit?
> 
> The sweat of the brow?
> 
> What is a cherubim with a flaming sword that flashed back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life?
> 
> what is the sword?
> 
> what is the tree of life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does this have something to do with the tooth fairy? Should I be scared?
Click to expand...


You should be scared simply because you are a fool.


----------



## JimBowie1958

hobelim said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It still stunns me the amount fear of God that is in this thread. Dont worry he still loves you even if you don't
> 
> Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From where I am,* the ones who profess to believe the story of Genesis is about the big bang must be terrified of God so much that they will deny reality to the point of insanity *and don't have the faith or courage to acknowledge that serpents can't talk, except of course the human type.
Click to expand...


Georges Lemaître - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> Monseigneur Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître, (French: [&#658;&#596;&#641;&#658;&#601; l&#601;m&#603;t&#641;] ( listen); 17 July 1894 &#8211; 20 June 1966) was a *Belgian Roman Catholic priest*, astronomer and professor of physics at the French section of the Catholic University of Louvain.[1] He was the first *known academic to propose the theory of the expansion of the universe*, widely misattributed to Edwin Hubble.[2][3] He was also the first to derive what is now known as Hubble's law and made the first estimation of what is now called the Hubble constant, which he published in 1927, two years before Hubble's article.[4][5][6][7] Lemaître also proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe, which he called his "hypothesis of the primeval atom" or the "Cosmic Egg".



Library : The Faith and Reason of Father George Lemaître - Catholic Culture



> Father Lemaître's intellectual background was unique. His education was a synthesis of the classics, philosophy and theology along with engineering, mathematics and physics. Perhaps this powerful combination is what allowed his mind to formulate a concept as abstract and significant as the primeval atom hypothesis &#8212; his term for what we now colloquially refer to as the Big Bang. In the words of the mathematician Father Gabriel Costa, Ph.D., commenting on the value of a formation in mathematics before studying theology, "There isn't much difference between infinity and eternity."4 We live in a world off infinite quantities. A mathematician must qualitatively understand the significant difference between 101000 and ? (infinity). As a theologian, similarly, one must be able to distinguish between a long life on Earth followed by a finite amount of time in purgatory, and  eternity in heaven or hell.
> 
> In May of 1933, Albert Einstein was scheduled to deliver a series of lectures in Belgium. However, following the second lecture, Einstein announced that Lemaître would be delivering the final seminar, much to Lemaître's surprise. Einstein told the scientists that Lemaître "has interesting things to tell us" and following the seminar said simply, "Very beautiful, very beautiful indeed."5 That September, Lemaître accepted appointment as a visiting professor of physics at the Catholic University of America. In 1933, Rev. Vecchierello, O.F.M. made an observation on this topic that is still valid today:
> 
> 
> It is a point of great interest nowadays, when there is so much loose thinking and still looser writing and talking about the non-existence of God, of the immortal soul, and of a host of eternal verities, to see a man who is both a priest and a scientist fraternizing on the most intimate terms with the world's most illustrious scientific geniuses. He not only associates with them, but he is their peer; and in that is the lie given to the old and empty charge that the study of science means the loss of belief in religion. Lemaître, of course, is usually an object of great curiosity &#8212; not so much to his coreligionists as to many not of the faith who marvel at the "phenomenon" of a Catholic priest being a scientist, yes, not only a scientist of the regular run, but a genius whose theories are most daring.6
> 
> 
> The following year, Lemaître made a presentation to Cardinal O'Connell of the Archdiocese of Boston at the Roundtable of Catholic Scientists and was also awarded the Mendel Medal from Villanova College for outstanding service to science. The culmination of these and other honors landed Lemaître with the Francqui Prize, which gave him about $390,000 in 2007 U.S. dollars. Lemaître's dedication to his vocation continued to earn him accolades. On July 27, 1935, he was named an honorary canon of the Malines cathedral by Cardinal Josef Van Roey. Later, on October 28, 1936 Pope Pius XI appointed Canon Lemaître to the newly reorganized Pontifical Academy of Sciences. By his motu proprio  In Multis Solaciis,  the Pope announced that the Church intended to be well informed on the current scientific revolution. Clearly, this was an implementation of the first Vatican Council's decree that faith and reason are complementary.7 Subsequently, Father John O'Hare, the president of the University of Notre Dame, hired Father Lemaître as a visiting professor. During that year, his course on cosmology was not only attended by graduate students, but also faculty members in the physics and mathematics departments.



Big Bang Theory: A Roman Catholic Creation | WGBH News



> In the late 1920s, Lemaître quietly put forth a theory he called his "hypothesis of the primeval atom." At the time, *Einstein&#8217;s notion of a finite-sized, static universe ruled the day*. But the fields of astronomy and cosmology were developing rapidly on the heels of Einstein&#8217;s breakthrough 1916 Theory of General Relativity. And as brilliant minds began extrapolating new equations from Einstein&#8217;s work, a static universe was posing some serious problems in the math. Problems that in many cases, could be ironed out if the universe was not fixed, but rather growing.
> 
> Lemaître imagined that if the universe was expanding, it had to be expanding from somewhere and some point in time. He figured that if* you traced the idea of the universe back in time, all the way to the very beginning, everything had to converge into a single point. Lemaître called that point a superatom. He suggested that the expansion of the universe had resulted from the explosion of this superatom that hurled materials in all directions, and set the universe as we know it in motion*....At a conference in the 1930s, where Lemaître presented his theory, Einstein reportedly remarked, "This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened."
> 
> As astonishing as Lemaître's idea was, perhaps equally surprising to us now was the reaction of the church. Lemaître was not jailed by the Pope like Galileo. He was not excommunicated the way Johannes Keppler was by the Lutheran Church. Quite the opposite. *In the early 1950s, Pope Pius XII not only declared that the big bang and the Catholic concept of creation were compatible; he embraced Lemaître's idea as scientific validation for the existence of God and of Catholicism*.
> 
> For his part, Lemaître was not pleased with the Pope&#8217;s position. He believed fiercely in the separation of church and lab. He viewed religion and science as two, equally valid, distinct ways of interpreting the world, both of which he believed in with deep conviction:
> 
> "*We may speak of this event as of a beginning. I do not say a creation. Physically it is a beginning in the sense that if something happened before, it has no observable influence on the behavior of our universe, as any feature of matter before this beginning has been completely lost by the extreme contraction at the theoretical zero. Any preexistence of the universe has a metaphysical character...The question if it was really a beginning or rather a creation, something started from nothing, is a philosophical question which cannot be settled by physical or astronomical considerations*."




Yeah, ole Georgie-poo was just terrified of God, I mean absolutely TEEERRRRIIIIIFFFIIIIIEEEEEDDDDD


roflmao


The thing that puzzles me the most these days is 'Why do apparently intelligent and educated secularists so often say the most appallingly stupid and ignorant things?'


----------



## JimBowie1958

BillyP said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mad_Cabbie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I personally feel that there is not enough information as of yet, to make an empirical statement about what happened before the big bang.
> 
> As for years not existing before the earth was around, there also was no Jesus in 3000 B.C., yet we still use that as a marker, correct?
> 
> Evidence and science is on our side - Christians are yet to actually back up anything they believe with actual facts.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WTF? CHRISTIANS INVENTED THE BIG BANG THEORY, dude!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WHAAAAAAAAT?
Click to expand...


Here comes the choochoo train into the tunnel, you spoon fed moron.


Georges Lemaître - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> Monseigneur Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître, (French: [&#658;&#596;&#641;&#658;&#601; l&#601;m&#603;t&#641;] ( listen); 17 July 1894  20 June 1966) was a *Belgian Roman Catholic priest*, astronomer and professor of physics at the French section of the Catholic University of Louvain.[1] He was the first *known academic to propose the theory of the expansion of the universe*, widely misattributed to Edwin Hubble.[2][3] He was also the first to derive what is now known as Hubble's law and made the first estimation of what is now called the Hubble constant, which he published in 1927, two years before Hubble's article.[4][5][6][7] Lemaître also proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe, which he called his "hypothesis of the primeval atom" or the "Cosmic Egg".



Library : The Faith and Reason of Father George Lemaître - Catholic Culture



> Father Lemaître's intellectual background was unique. His education was a synthesis of the classics, philosophy and theology along with engineering, mathematics and physics. Perhaps this powerful combination is what allowed his mind to formulate a concept as abstract and significant as the primeval atom hypothesis  his term for what we now colloquially refer to as the Big Bang. In the words of the mathematician Father Gabriel Costa, Ph.D., commenting on the value of a formation in mathematics before studying theology, "There isn't much difference between infinity and eternity."4 We live in a world off infinite quantities. A mathematician must qualitatively understand the significant difference between 101000 and ? (infinity). As a theologian, similarly, one must be able to distinguish between a long life on Earth followed by a finite amount of time in purgatory, and  eternity in heaven or hell.
> 
> In May of 1933, Albert Einstein was scheduled to deliver a series of lectures in Belgium. However, following the second lecture, Einstein announced that Lemaître would be delivering the final seminar, much to Lemaître's surprise. Einstein told the scientists that Lemaître "has interesting things to tell us" and following the seminar said simply, "Very beautiful, very beautiful indeed."5 That September, Lemaître accepted appointment as a visiting professor of physics at the Catholic University of America. In 1933, Rev. Vecchierello, O.F.M. made an observation on this topic that is still valid today:
> 
> 
> It is a point of great interest nowadays, when there is so much loose thinking and still looser writing and talking about the non-existence of God, of the immortal soul, and of a host of eternal verities, to see a man who is both a priest and a scientist fraternizing on the most intimate terms with the world's most illustrious scientific geniuses. He not only associates with them, but he is their peer; and in that is the lie given to the old and empty charge that the study of science means the loss of belief in religion. Lemaître, of course, is usually an object of great curiosity  not so much to his coreligionists as to many not of the faith who marvel at the "phenomenon" of a Catholic priest being a scientist, yes, not only a scientist of the regular run, but a genius whose theories are most daring.6
> 
> 
> The following year, Lemaître made a presentation to Cardinal O'Connell of the Archdiocese of Boston at the Roundtable of Catholic Scientists and was also awarded the Mendel Medal from Villanova College for outstanding service to science. The culmination of these and other honors landed Lemaître with the Francqui Prize, which gave him about $390,000 in 2007 U.S. dollars. Lemaître's dedication to his vocation continued to earn him accolades. On July 27, 1935, he was named an honorary canon of the Malines cathedral by Cardinal Josef Van Roey. Later, on October 28, 1936 Pope Pius XI appointed Canon Lemaître to the newly reorganized Pontifical Academy of Sciences. By his motu proprio  In Multis Solaciis,  the Pope announced that the Church intended to be well informed on the current scientific revolution. Clearly, this was an implementation of the first Vatican Council's decree that faith and reason are complementary.7 Subsequently, Father John O'Hare, the president of the University of Notre Dame, hired Father Lemaître as a visiting professor. During that year, his course on cosmology was not only attended by graduate students, but also faculty members in the physics and mathematics departments.



Big Bang Theory: A Roman Catholic Creation | WGBH News



> In the late 1920s, Lemaître quietly put forth a theory he called his "hypothesis of the primeval atom." At the time, *Einsteins notion of a finite-sized, static universe ruled the day*. But the fields of astronomy and cosmology were developing rapidly on the heels of Einsteins breakthrough 1916 Theory of General Relativity. And as brilliant minds began extrapolating new equations from Einsteins work, a static universe was posing some serious problems in the math. Problems that in many cases, could be ironed out if the universe was not fixed, but rather growing.
> 
> Lemaître imagined that if the universe was expanding, it had to be expanding from somewhere and some point in time. He figured that if* you traced the idea of the universe back in time, all the way to the very beginning, everything had to converge into a single point. Lemaître called that point a superatom. He suggested that the expansion of the universe had resulted from the explosion of this superatom that hurled materials in all directions, and set the universe as we know it in motion*....At a conference in the 1930s, where Lemaître presented his theory, Einstein reportedly remarked, "This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened."
> 
> As astonishing as Lemaître's idea was, perhaps equally surprising to us now was the reaction of the church. Lemaître was not jailed by the Pope like Galileo. He was not excommunicated the way Johannes Keppler was by the Lutheran Church. Quite the opposite. *In the early 1950s, Pope Pius XII not only declared that the big bang and the Catholic concept of creation were compatible; he embraced Lemaître's idea as scientific validation for the existence of God and of Catholicism*.
> 
> For his part, Lemaître was not pleased with the Popes position. He believed fiercely in the separation of church and lab. He viewed religion and science as two, equally valid, distinct ways of interpreting the world, both of which he believed in with deep conviction:
> 
> "*We may speak of this event as of a beginning. I do not say a creation. Physically it is a beginning in the sense that if something happened before, it has no observable influence on the behavior of our universe, as any feature of matter before this beginning has been completely lost by the extreme contraction at the theoretical zero. Any preexistence of the universe has a metaphysical character...The question if it was really a beginning or rather a creation, something started from nothing, is a philosophical question which cannot be settled by physical or astronomical considerations*."


----------



## BillyP

JimBowie1958 said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> WTF? CHRISTIANS INVENTED THE BIG BANG THEORY, dude!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHAAAAAAAAT?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here comes the choochoo train into the tunnel, you spoon fed moron.
> 
> 
> Georges Lemaître - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> Library : The Faith and Reason of Father George Lemaître - Catholic Culture
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Father Lemaître's intellectual background was unique. His education was a synthesis of the classics, philosophy and theology along with engineering, mathematics and physics. Perhaps this powerful combination is what allowed his mind to formulate a concept as abstract and significant as the primeval atom hypothesis  his term for what we now colloquially refer to as the Big Bang. In the words of the mathematician Father Gabriel Costa, Ph.D., commenting on the value of a formation in mathematics before studying theology, "There isn't much difference between infinity and eternity."4 We live in a world off infinite quantities. A mathematician must qualitatively understand the significant difference between 101000 and ? (infinity). As a theologian, similarly, one must be able to distinguish between a long life on Earth followed by a finite amount of time in purgatory, and  eternity in heaven or hell.
> 
> In May of 1933, Albert Einstein was scheduled to deliver a series of lectures in Belgium. However, following the second lecture, Einstein announced that Lemaître would be delivering the final seminar, much to Lemaître's surprise. Einstein told the scientists that Lemaître "has interesting things to tell us" and following the seminar said simply, "Very beautiful, very beautiful indeed."5 That September, Lemaître accepted appointment as a visiting professor of physics at the Catholic University of America. In 1933, Rev. Vecchierello, O.F.M. made an observation on this topic that is still valid today:
> 
> 
> It is a point of great interest nowadays, when there is so much loose thinking and still looser writing and talking about the non-existence of God, of the immortal soul, and of a host of eternal verities, to see a man who is both a priest and a scientist fraternizing on the most intimate terms with the world's most illustrious scientific geniuses. He not only associates with them, but he is their peer; and in that is the lie given to the old and empty charge that the study of science means the loss of belief in religion. Lemaître, of course, is usually an object of great curiosity  not so much to his coreligionists as to many not of the faith who marvel at the "phenomenon" of a Catholic priest being a scientist, yes, not only a scientist of the regular run, but a genius whose theories are most daring.6
> 
> 
> The following year, Lemaître made a presentation to Cardinal O'Connell of the Archdiocese of Boston at the Roundtable of Catholic Scientists and was also awarded the Mendel Medal from Villanova College for outstanding service to science. The culmination of these and other honors landed Lemaître with the Francqui Prize, which gave him about $390,000 in 2007 U.S. dollars. Lemaître's dedication to his vocation continued to earn him accolades. On July 27, 1935, he was named an honorary canon of the Malines cathedral by Cardinal Josef Van Roey. Later, on October 28, 1936 Pope Pius XI appointed Canon Lemaître to the newly reorganized Pontifical Academy of Sciences. By his motu proprio  In Multis Solaciis,  the Pope announced that the Church intended to be well informed on the current scientific revolution. Clearly, this was an implementation of the first Vatican Council's decree that faith and reason are complementary.7 Subsequently, Father John O'Hare, the president of the University of Notre Dame, hired Father Lemaître as a visiting professor. During that year, his course on cosmology was not only attended by graduate students, but also faculty members in the physics and mathematics departments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Big Bang Theory: A Roman Catholic Creation | WGBH News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the late 1920s, Lemaître quietly put forth a theory he called his "hypothesis of the primeval atom." At the time, *Einsteins notion of a finite-sized, static universe ruled the day*. But the fields of astronomy and cosmology were developing rapidly on the heels of Einsteins breakthrough 1916 Theory of General Relativity. And as brilliant minds began extrapolating new equations from Einsteins work, a static universe was posing some serious problems in the math. Problems that in many cases, could be ironed out if the universe was not fixed, but rather growing.
> 
> Lemaître imagined that if the universe was expanding, it had to be expanding from somewhere and some point in time. He figured that if* you traced the idea of the universe back in time, all the way to the very beginning, everything had to converge into a single point. Lemaître called that point a superatom. He suggested that the expansion of the universe had resulted from the explosion of this superatom that hurled materials in all directions, and set the universe as we know it in motion*....At a conference in the 1930s, where Lemaître presented his theory, Einstein reportedly remarked, "This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened."
> 
> As astonishing as Lemaître's idea was, perhaps equally surprising to us now was the reaction of the church. Lemaître was not jailed by the Pope like Galileo. He was not excommunicated the way Johannes Keppler was by the Lutheran Church. Quite the opposite. *In the early 1950s, Pope Pius XII not only declared that the big bang and the Catholic concept of creation were compatible; he embraced Lemaître's idea as scientific validation for the existence of God and of Catholicism*.
> 
> For his part, Lemaître was not pleased with the Popes position. He believed fiercely in the separation of church and lab. He viewed religion and science as two, equally valid, distinct ways of interpreting the world, both of which he believed in with deep conviction:
> 
> "*We may speak of this event as of a beginning. I do not say a creation. Physically it is a beginning in the sense that if something happened before, it has no observable influence on the behavior of our universe, as any feature of matter before this beginning has been completely lost by the extreme contraction at the theoretical zero. Any preexistence of the universe has a metaphysical character...The question if it was really a beginning or rather a creation, something started from nothing, is a philosophical question which cannot be settled by physical or astronomical considerations*."
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


God of the bible made the world in 6 days. Are you admitting that the bible is full of shit? Is the church admitting that it's whole dogma is based on bullshit? That's cool, thanks for the links. 
Anyways, I've always professed that science proves the bible wrong, that a priest shows that it's wrong is extra cool! 
And if you think that "Let there be light" proves the discovery of the BB, then you're a bigger spoon fed moron than I am.


----------



## hobelim

BillyP said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allegorical, ok. But to say that they were talking about the BB? SHADDDDUP!
> The people who wrote the bible had no clue about the BB, which happened 13 BILLION years ago. Man only came on the scene within less than the last 100 million years or so. GIMMMMMEEEEE A FUCKKKKKING BREEEEAAAKKKK!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any story that starts with 'in the beginning" just like 'once upon a time' and has a talking snake and mythical creatures should have been a dead give away to anyone with a second grade education that it is a story written like a fairy tale with the intention of teaching bronze age children morals and truths about life that are not necessarily directly connected to the literal meaning of the words used.
> 
> So, you have the intelligence to realize the story is not about the Big Bang,, so what is it about?
> 
> What separates the waters above from the waters below and established the firmament?
> 
> What is the breath of life?
> 
> How does the breath of life create a living being from the dust of the earth?
> 
> what is the dust of the earth?
> 
> what are the many trees whose fruit is pleasing to the eyes and good to eat?
> 
> what is a talking serpent? Forbidden fruit?
> 
> The sweat of the brow?
> 
> What is a cherubim with a flaming sword that flashed back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life?
> 
> what is the sword?
> 
> what is the tree of life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does this have something to do with the tooth fairy? Should I be scared?
Click to expand...


No, it more like the three little pigs, little red riding hood or the pied piper.

Should you be scared? I don't think so. You seem to be immune to the poison of serpents.

But you should be horrified by what believing that what amount to fairy tales are historical records and the literal truth has done to the minds of believers like Gism..

Can you perceive that the reality only hinted about in scripture is by far more bizarre than anything ever written in a fairy tale?

Time to pay the piper.


----------



## JimBowie1958

hobelim said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any story that starts with 'in the beginning" just like 'once upon a time' and has a talking snake and mythical creatures should have been a dead give away to anyone with a second grade education that it is a story written like a fairy tale with the intention of teaching bronze age children morals and truths about life that are not necessarily directly connected to the literal meaning of the words used.
> 
> So, you have the intelligence to realize the story is not about the Big Bang,, so what is it about?
> 
> What separates the waters above from the waters below and established the firmament?
> 
> What is the breath of life?
> 
> How does the breath of life create a living being from the dust of the earth?
> 
> what is the dust of the earth?
> 
> what are the many trees whose fruit is pleasing to the eyes and good to eat?
> 
> what is a talking serpent? Forbidden fruit?
> 
> The sweat of the brow?
> 
> What is a cherubim with a flaming sword that flashed back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life?
> 
> what is the sword?
> 
> what is the tree of life?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does this have something to do with the tooth fairy? Should I be scared?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it more like the three little pigs, little red riding hood or the pied piper.
> 
> Should you be scared? I don't think so. You seem to be immune to the poison of serpents.
> 
> But you should be horrified by what believing that what amount to fairy tales are historical records and the literal truth has done to the minds of believers like Gism..
> 
> Can you perceive that the reality only hinted about in scripture is by far more bizarre than anything ever written in a fairy tale?
> 
> Time to pay the piper.
Click to expand...


I think part of the stupidity of those opposed to Christianity is their deliberately chosen ignorance.

That you cannot even bother to respond to direct answers to your questions and ignorant statements tells me that you chose to be uninformed and blighted.

So be it. But don't think that your claims that the Christian faith had nothing to do with the Big Bang are anything more than your own bigotry and ignorance being put on display, dear.  No offense.


----------



## Boss

BillyP said:


> *God of the bible made the world in 6 days.* Are you admitting that the bible is full of shit? Is the church admitting that it's whole dogma is based on bullshit? That's cool, thanks for the links.
> Anyways, I've always professed that science proves the bible wrong, that a priest shows that it's wrong is extra cool!
> And if you think that "Let there be light" proves the discovery of the BB, then you're a bigger spoon fed moron than I am.



Biblical scholars consistently correct this false misconception and you people just continue on in misunderstanding anyway. Are you too ignorant to comprehend? What exactly is the problem and how do we fix it? 

First of all, the story is not told from the perspective of a human documenting the events. There were no humans at the time. How the story is conveyed is from the perspective of God, and since God is beyond time, our constraints of "days" have no relevance. We understand a "day" as being a revolution of the Earth, but according to the story, God didn't create the moon and sun until the third "day" so how were "days" being measured with no sun or moon? Finally, we have the language barrier itself... The word "day" in the Hebrew transcript is "yom." Okay... there are at least 30 different delineations of a "yom" in similar Hebrew texts. It can mean anything from a traditional day to an era of time. So 6 "yom" could mean anything from 6 days to thousands of years. 

As for the Big Bang, you've not presented any substantive evidence this event ever happened. It is a THEORY. Many physicists are now questioning if it EVER happened, including one Stephen Hawking, hardly a dumbass when it comes to this stuff. So why do we see the people here who profess this profound belief in science, actually rejecting what science is saying with regard to the Big Bang? Have you all adopted a devout faith in the Big Bang and become incapable of open-minded thought of any other possibility? How is this any different than a religious fanatic who devoutly believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible? 

Jim Bowie stated it was Christians who came up with the Big Bang theory. It was actually a Belgian Roman Catholic priest named Georges Lemaître.  He presented links to confirm this. But you've decided to ignore that and mock the literal interpretation of "let there be light" as being the argument for creationism explaining the Big Bang. Well okay, but what evidence do you have that this is not correct? Why can't God's command not be the explanation for why the Big Bang happened, IF the Big Bang happened?


----------



## JimBowie1958

BillyP said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHAAAAAAAAT?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here comes the choochoo train into the tunnel, you spoon fed moron.
> 
> 
> Georges Lemaître - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> Library : The Faith and Reason of Father George Lemaître - Catholic Culture
> 
> 
> 
> Big Bang Theory: A Roman Catholic Creation | WGBH News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the late 1920s, Lemaître quietly put forth a theory he called his "hypothesis of the primeval atom." At the time, *Einsteins notion of a finite-sized, static universe ruled the day*. But the fields of astronomy and cosmology were developing rapidly on the heels of Einsteins breakthrough 1916 Theory of General Relativity. And as brilliant minds began extrapolating new equations from Einsteins work, a static universe was posing some serious problems in the math. Problems that in many cases, could be ironed out if the universe was not fixed, but rather growing.
> 
> Lemaître imagined that if the universe was expanding, it had to be expanding from somewhere and some point in time. He figured that if* you traced the idea of the universe back in time, all the way to the very beginning, everything had to converge into a single point. Lemaître called that point a superatom. He suggested that the expansion of the universe had resulted from the explosion of this superatom that hurled materials in all directions, and set the universe as we know it in motion*....At a conference in the 1930s, where Lemaître presented his theory, Einstein reportedly remarked, "This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened."
> 
> As astonishing as Lemaître's idea was, perhaps equally surprising to us now was the reaction of the church. Lemaître was not jailed by the Pope like Galileo. He was not excommunicated the way Johannes Keppler was by the Lutheran Church. Quite the opposite. *In the early 1950s, Pope Pius XII not only declared that the big bang and the Catholic concept of creation were compatible; he embraced Lemaître's idea as scientific validation for the existence of God and of Catholicism*.
> 
> For his part, Lemaître was not pleased with the Popes position. He believed fiercely in the separation of church and lab. He viewed religion and science as two, equally valid, distinct ways of interpreting the world, both of which he believed in with deep conviction:
> 
> "*We may speak of this event as of a beginning. I do not say a creation. Physically it is a beginning in the sense that if something happened before, it has no observable influence on the behavior of our universe, as any feature of matter before this beginning has been completely lost by the extreme contraction at the theoretical zero. Any preexistence of the universe has a metaphysical character...The question if it was really a beginning or rather a creation, something started from nothing, is a philosophical question which cannot be settled by physical or astronomical considerations*."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God of the bible made the world in 6 days. Are you admitting that the bible is full of shit? Is the church admitting that it's whole dogma is based on bullshit? That's cool, thanks for the links.
> Anyways, I've always professed that science proves the bible wrong, that a priest shows that it's wrong is extra cool!
> And if you think that "Let there be light" proves the discovery of the BB, then you're a bigger spoon fed moron than I am.
Click to expand...


lol, you cannot understand the difference between recorded myths of true events and simple lies.

Thus demonstrating that you are an idiot, once and for all.


----------



## JimBowie1958

Boss said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> *God of the bible made the world in 6 days.* Are you admitting that the bible is full of shit? Is the church admitting that it's whole dogma is based on bullshit? That's cool, thanks for the links.
> Anyways, I've always professed that science proves the bible wrong, that a priest shows that it's wrong is extra cool!
> And if you think that "Let there be light" proves the discovery of the BB, then you're a bigger spoon fed moron than I am.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biblical scholars consistently correct this false misconception and you people just continue on in misunderstanding anyway. Are you too ignorant to comprehend? What exactly is the problem and how do we fix it?
> 
> First of all, the story is not told from the perspective of a human documenting the events. There were no humans at the time. How the story is conveyed is from the perspective of God, and since God is beyond time, our constraints of "days" have no relevance. We understand a "day" as being a revolution of the Earth, but according to the story, God didn't create the moon and sun until the third "day" so how were "days" being measured with no sun or moon? Finally, we have the language barrier itself... The word "day" in the Hebrew transcript is "yom." Okay... there are at least 30 different delineations of a "yom" in similar Hebrew texts. It can mean anything from a traditional day to an era of time. So 6 "yom" could mean anything from 6 days to thousands of years.
> 
> As for the Big Bang, you've not presented any substantive evidence this event ever happened. It is a THEORY. Many physicists are now questioning if it EVER happened, including one Stephen Hawking, hardly a dumbass when it comes to this stuff. So why do we see the people here who profess this profound belief in science, actually rejecting what science is saying with regard to the Big Bang? Have you all adopted a devout faith in the Big Bang and become incapable of open-minded thought of any other possibility? How is this any different than a religious fanatic who devoutly believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible?
> 
> Jim Bowie stated it was Christians who came up with the Big Bang theory. It was actually a Belgian Roman Catholic priest named Georges Lemaître.  He presented links to confirm this. But you've decided to ignore that and mock the literal interpretation of "let there be light" as being the argument for creationism explaining the Big Bang. Well okay, but what evidence do you have that this is not correct? Why can't God's command not be the explanation for why the Big Bang happened, IF the Big Bang happened?
Click to expand...


They know that the YEC claims do not represent Christian thought on the topic but they persist anyway as it makes their bullshit narrative of lies and slander easier to sell.

That is why shitheads like Hitchens like to debate fundamentalists all the time but pass on serious theologians that would embarrass them to death.


----------



## BillyP

JimBowie1958 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> *God of the bible made the world in 6 days.* Are you admitting that the bible is full of shit? Is the church admitting that it's whole dogma is based on bullshit? That's cool, thanks for the links.
> Anyways, I've always professed that science proves the bible wrong, that a priest shows that it's wrong is extra cool!
> And if you think that "Let there be light" proves the discovery of the BB, then you're a bigger spoon fed moron than I am.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biblical scholars consistently correct this false misconception and you people just continue on in misunderstanding anyway. Are you too ignorant to comprehend? What exactly is the problem and how do we fix it?
> 
> First of all, the story is not told from the perspective of a human documenting the events. There were no humans at the time. How the story is conveyed is from the perspective of God, and since God is beyond time, our constraints of "days" have no relevance. We understand a "day" as being a revolution of the Earth, but according to the story, God didn't create the moon and sun until the third "day" so how were "days" being measured with no sun or moon? Finally, we have the language barrier itself... The word "day" in the Hebrew transcript is "yom." Okay... there are at least 30 different delineations of a "yom" in similar Hebrew texts. It can mean anything from a traditional day to an era of time. So 6 "yom" could mean anything from 6 days to thousands of years.
> 
> As for the Big Bang, you've not presented any substantive evidence this event ever happened. It is a THEORY. Many physicists are now questioning if it EVER happened, including one Stephen Hawking, hardly a dumbass when it comes to this stuff. So why do we see the people here who profess this profound belief in science, actually rejecting what science is saying with regard to the Big Bang? Have you all adopted a devout faith in the Big Bang and become incapable of open-minded thought of any other possibility? How is this any different than a religious fanatic who devoutly believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible?
> 
> Jim Bowie stated it was Christians who came up with the Big Bang theory. It was actually a Belgian Roman Catholic priest named Georges Lemaître.  He presented links to confirm this. But you've decided to ignore that and mock the literal interpretation of "let there be light" as being the argument for creationism explaining the Big Bang. Well okay, but what evidence do you have that this is not correct? Why can't God's command not be the explanation for why the Big Bang happened, IF the Big Bang happened?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They know that the YEC claims do not represent Christian thought on the topic but they persist anyway as it makes their bullshit narrative of lies and slander easier to sell.
> 
> That is why shitheads like Hitchens like to debate fundamentalists all the time but pass on serious theologians that would embarrass them to death.
Click to expand...


So "serious" theologians can change the meaning of the bible anytime they want? 6 days is 6 fucking days, no ifs, ands or buts. But I guess if you don't constantly move the goalposts, then the whole charade falls apart.
hob, I have no prob with a theologian adding to scientific knowledge. It just further disproves the bible, whomever advances something. It's all good.


----------



## JimBowie1958

BillyP said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Biblical scholars consistently correct this false misconception and you people just continue on in misunderstanding anyway. Are you too ignorant to comprehend? What exactly is the problem and how do we fix it?
> 
> First of all, the story is not told from the perspective of a human documenting the events. There were no humans at the time. How the story is conveyed is from the perspective of God, and since God is beyond time, our constraints of "days" have no relevance. We understand a "day" as being a revolution of the Earth, but according to the story, God didn't create the moon and sun until the third "day" so how were "days" being measured with no sun or moon? Finally, we have the language barrier itself... The word "day" in the Hebrew transcript is "yom." Okay... there are at least 30 different delineations of a "yom" in similar Hebrew texts. It can mean anything from a traditional day to an era of time. So 6 "yom" could mean anything from 6 days to thousands of years.
> 
> As for the Big Bang, you've not presented any substantive evidence this event ever happened. It is a THEORY. Many physicists are now questioning if it EVER happened, including one Stephen Hawking, hardly a dumbass when it comes to this stuff. So why do we see the people here who profess this profound belief in science, actually rejecting what science is saying with regard to the Big Bang? Have you all adopted a devout faith in the Big Bang and become incapable of open-minded thought of any other possibility? How is this any different than a religious fanatic who devoutly believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible?
> 
> Jim Bowie stated it was Christians who came up with the Big Bang theory. It was actually a Belgian Roman Catholic priest named Georges Lemaître.  He presented links to confirm this. But you've decided to ignore that and mock the literal interpretation of "let there be light" as being the argument for creationism explaining the Big Bang. Well okay, but what evidence do you have that this is not correct? Why can't God's command not be the explanation for why the Big Bang happened, IF the Big Bang happened?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They know that the YEC claims do not represent Christian thought on the topic but they persist anyway as it makes their bullshit narrative of lies and slander easier to sell.
> 
> That is why shitheads like Hitchens like to debate fundamentalists all the time but pass on serious theologians that would embarrass them to death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So "serious" theologians can change the meaning of the bible anytime they want? 6 days is 6 fucking days, no ifs, ands or buts. But I guess if you don't constantly move the goalposts, then the whole charade falls apart.
> hob, I have no prob with a theologian adding to scientific knowledge. It just further disproves the bible, whomever advances something. It's all good.
Click to expand...


A myth is not a lie, moron, and it is not necessarily literal history either.

So go play in a street, idiot until you learn the difference.


----------



## hobelim

JimBowie1958 said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does this have something to do with the tooth fairy? Should I be scared?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it more like the three little pigs, little red riding hood or the pied piper.
> 
> Should you be scared? I don't think so. You seem to be immune to the poison of serpents.
> 
> But you should be horrified by what believing that what amount to fairy tales are historical records and the literal truth has done to the minds of believers like Gism..
> 
> Can you perceive that the reality only hinted about in scripture is by far more bizarre than anything ever written in a fairy tale?
> 
> Time to pay the piper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think part of the stupidity of those opposed to Christianity is their deliberately chosen ignorance.
> 
> That you cannot even bother to respond to direct answers to your questions and ignorant statements tells me that you chose to be uninformed and blighted.
> 
> So be it. But don't think that your claims that the Christian faith had nothing to do with the Big Bang are anything more than your own bigotry and ignorance being put on display, dear.  No offense.
Click to expand...




If you think that the Christian faith has anything at all to do with the big bang you are a moron.

The Christianity that is based on the worship of a triune god that became a human being goes against everything taught in the OT and the NT, not to mention logic and reality, and is not what Jesus believed or taught others and your own obstinate stupidity and the vile contents of your rotting mind is evidence of the consequences for violating the laws that Christians claim were made obsolete.


----------



## hobelim

JimBowie1958 said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And God said let there be light and it was good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The story of Genesis is not about the creation of the universe, the solar system, the sun or the earth and is not about the first humans, plants, or animals.
> 
> Genesis is an allegorical account of Divine Law being given as a light that separates the darkness by differentiating between clean and unclean, right and wrong, good and evil, and life and death, in a world that had been without shape and void and darkness covered the face of the deep for the previous several millions of years of human evolution......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An inventive interpretation but as valid as any. Genesis is NOT a scientific text, but its opening chapters are tales of myths and legends recorded in Holy Scripture by an inspired prophet because they had moral points to them and were true from the perspective of the person scribing the revelations.
> 
> I personally think that the first two chapters are recorded oral legends of the recovery from the Toba incident by humans from Africa that describes the rebirth of life on Earth.
Click to expand...



I think its about times more recent than that, about the time when Moses received the Law from God like a light. Adam compares to Moses, the first 'living being' enlightened by God through the law, the way of righteousness, and the dispute that the pharaoh, who happened to wear a serpent on his head, had with God over the soul of Moses, reflects the serpent who tempted Adam to defy God in the garden..

Adam naming the creatures of the world was Adam making metaphorical comparisons to different types of people in the wilderness who by their attributes resemble lower beasts , either clean or unclean, which is meant to establish a basis for comprehending the hidden subjects of Kosher law.


----------



## hobelim

BillyP said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Biblical scholars consistently correct this false misconception and you people just continue on in misunderstanding anyway. Are you too ignorant to comprehend? What exactly is the problem and how do we fix it?
> 
> First of all, the story is not told from the perspective of a human documenting the events. There were no humans at the time. How the story is conveyed is from the perspective of God, and since God is beyond time, our constraints of "days" have no relevance. We understand a "day" as being a revolution of the Earth, but according to the story, God didn't create the moon and sun until the third "day" so how were "days" being measured with no sun or moon? Finally, we have the language barrier itself... The word "day" in the Hebrew transcript is "yom." Okay... there are at least 30 different delineations of a "yom" in similar Hebrew texts. It can mean anything from a traditional day to an era of time. So 6 "yom" could mean anything from 6 days to thousands of years.
> 
> As for the Big Bang, you've not presented any substantive evidence this event ever happened. It is a THEORY. Many physicists are now questioning if it EVER happened, including one Stephen Hawking, hardly a dumbass when it comes to this stuff. So why do we see the people here who profess this profound belief in science, actually rejecting what science is saying with regard to the Big Bang? Have you all adopted a devout faith in the Big Bang and become incapable of open-minded thought of any other possibility? How is this any different than a religious fanatic who devoutly believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible?
> 
> Jim Bowie stated it was Christians who came up with the Big Bang theory. It was actually a Belgian Roman Catholic priest named Georges Lemaître.  He presented links to confirm this. But you've decided to ignore that and mock the literal interpretation of "let there be light" as being the argument for creationism explaining the Big Bang. Well okay, but what evidence do you have that this is not correct? Why can't God's command not be the explanation for why the Big Bang happened, IF the Big Bang happened?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They know that the YEC claims do not represent Christian thought on the topic but they persist anyway as it makes their bullshit narrative of lies and slander easier to sell.
> 
> That is why shitheads like Hitchens like to debate fundamentalists all the time but pass on serious theologians that would embarrass them to death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So "serious" theologians can change the meaning of the bible anytime they want? 6 days is 6 fucking days, no ifs, ands or buts. But I guess if you don't constantly move the goalposts, then the whole charade falls apart.
> hob, I have no prob with a theologian adding to scientific knowledge. It just further disproves the bible, whomever advances something. It's all good.
Click to expand...




What you don't seem to understand yet is that science has only proven false that which scripture is not about.


And the addled minds of certain people who worship that which is not God and expect to float up into the clouds ANY MINUTE!, and rule the earth for eternity from the sky are proof that what scripture is about is true.


----------



## JimBowie1958

hobelim said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it more like the three little pigs, little red riding hood or the pied piper.
> 
> Should you be scared? I don't think so. You seem to be immune to the poison of serpents.
> 
> But you should be horrified by what believing that what amount to fairy tales are historical records and the literal truth has done to the minds of believers like Gism..
> 
> Can you perceive that the reality only hinted about in scripture is by far more bizarre than anything ever written in a fairy tale?
> 
> Time to pay the piper.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think part of the stupidity of those opposed to Christianity is their deliberately chosen ignorance.
> 
> That you cannot even bother to respond to direct answers to your questions and ignorant statements tells me that you chose to be uninformed and blighted.
> 
> So be it. But don't think that your claims that the Christian faith had nothing to do with the Big Bang are anything more than your own bigotry and ignorance being put on display, dear.  No offense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you think that the Christian faith has anything at all to do with the big bang you are a moron.
Click to expand...


if the Pope and a  ground shaking scientist heralded by Einstein himself are morons, then I would gladly be such a moron.



hobelim said:


> The Christianity that is based on the worship of a triune god that became a human being goes against everything taught in the OT and the NT, not to mention logic and reality,



Lol, so you think the concept of a triune God goes against everything in the NT? Really?

And for the record, the triune God did not become a human being, only part of the godhead did that, the Son, so there is nothing irrational or illogical about any of that, dear.




hobelim said:


> and is not what Jesus believed or taught others



And what orifice of your lower body did you pull that out of?



hobelim said:


> and your own obstinate stupidity and the vile contents of your rotting mind is evidence of the consequences for violating the laws that Christians claim were made obsolete.



Prove it, dear.


----------



## JimBowie1958

hobelim said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They know that the YEC claims do not represent Christian thought on the topic but they persist anyway as it makes their bullshit narrative of lies and slander easier to sell.
> 
> That is why shitheads like Hitchens like to debate fundamentalists all the time but pass on serious theologians that would embarrass them to death.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So "serious" theologians can change the meaning of the bible anytime they want? 6 days is 6 fucking days, no ifs, ands or buts. But I guess if you don't constantly move the goalposts, then the whole charade falls apart.
> hob, I have no prob with a theologian adding to scientific knowledge. It just further disproves the bible, whomever advances something. It's all good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you don't seem to understand yet is that science has only proven false that which scripture is not about.
> 
> 
> And the addled minds of certain people who worship that which is not God and expect to float up into the clouds ANY MINUTE!, and* rule the earth for eternity from the sky *are proof that what scripture is about is true.
Click to expand...


Further proving that you don't what the hell you are talking about, dear.


----------



## JimBowie1958

hobelim said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> The story of Genesis is not about the creation of the universe, the solar system, the sun or the earth and is not about the first humans, plants, or animals.
> 
> Genesis is an allegorical account of Divine Law being given as a light that separates the darkness by differentiating between clean and unclean, right and wrong, good and evil, and life and death, in a world that had been without shape and void and darkness covered the face of the deep for the previous several millions of years of human evolution......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An inventive interpretation but as valid as any. Genesis is NOT a scientific text, but its opening chapters are tales of myths and legends recorded in Holy Scripture by an inspired prophet because they had moral points to them and were true from the perspective of the person scribing the revelations.
> 
> I personally think that the first two chapters are recorded oral legends of the recovery from the Toba incident by humans from Africa that describes the rebirth of life on Earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I think its about times more recent than that, about the time when Moses received the Law from God like a light. Adam compares to Moses, the first 'living being' enlightened by God through the law, the way of righteousness, and the dispute that the pharaoh, who happened to wear a serpent on his head, had with God over the soul of Moses, reflects the serpent who tempted Adam to defy God in the garden..
> 
> Adam naming the creatures of the world was Adam making metaphorical comparisons to different types of people in the wilderness who by their attributes resemble lower beasts , either clean or unclean, which is meant to establish a basis for comprehending the hidden subjects of Kosher law.
Click to expand...


There are parallels throughout the scriptures, but I wouldn't make much more of it than an observation.

But you can make of it whatever you wish, if that keeps the bats out of your belfry.


----------



## hobelim

JimBowie1958 said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> So "serious" theologians can change the meaning of the bible anytime they want? 6 days is 6 fucking days, no ifs, ands or buts. But I guess if you don't constantly move the goalposts, then the whole charade falls apart.
> hob, I have no prob with a theologian adding to scientific knowledge. It just further disproves the bible, whomever advances something. It's all good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you don't seem to understand yet is that science has only proven false that which scripture is not about.
> 
> 
> And the addled minds of certain people who worship that which is not God and expect to float up into the clouds ANY MINUTE!, and* rule the earth for eternity from the sky *are proof that what scripture is about is true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Further proving that you don't what the hell you are talking about, dear.
Click to expand...



I'm just going by what some of you people claim to believe.

I know that you only believe in the trinity bullshit but I do understand why you would still feel embarrassed.

If you weren't such a foul mouthed asshole I would feel sorry for you.


----------



## JimBowie1958

hobelim said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you don't seem to understand yet is that science has only proven false that which scripture is not about.
> 
> 
> And the addled minds of certain people who worship that which is not God and expect to float up into the clouds ANY MINUTE!, and* rule the earth for eternity from the sky *are proof that what scripture is about is true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Further proving that you don't what the hell you are talking about, dear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just going by what some of you people claim to believe.
Click to expand...


That is a shameless lie. You are doing nothing of the sort, since nothing of the sort is taught in catholic Christianity which is over 80% of Christianity.

There maybe some kookburger Protestant groups that teach some crazy shit like that, but they do not speak for the entire religion.

But prove your contention if you can.



hobelim said:


> I know that you only believe in the trinity bullshit but I do understand why you would still feel embarrassed.



lol, that statement made no sense. Wanna try again, dear?




hobelim said:


> If you weren't such a foul mouthed asshole I would feel sorry for you.



You are a lying fool. Why would I want your sympathy? That would imply I were a similar liar and fool as you.


----------



## hobelim

JimBowie1958 said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> and your own obstinate stupidity and the vile contents of your rotting mind is evidence of the consequences for violating the laws that Christians claim were made obsolete.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it, dear.
Click to expand...



There are no signs of life in you and every time I squeeze your head a foul and smelly pus comes out. 

You have already proven it.


----------



## PostmodernProph

hobelim said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> The story of Genesis is not about the creation of the universe, the solar system, the sun or the earth and is not about the first humans, plants, or animals.
> 
> Genesis is an allegorical account of Divine Law being given as a light that separates the darkness by differentiating between clean and unclean, right and wrong, good and evil, and life and death, in a world that had been without shape and void and darkness covered the face of the deep for the previous several millions of years of human evolution......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Allegorical, ok. But to say that they were talking about the BB? SHADDDDUP!
> The people who wrote the bible had no clue about the BB, which happened 13 BILLION years ago. Man only came on the scene within less than the last 100 million years or so. GIMMMMMEEEEE A FUCKKKKKING BREEEEAAAKKKK!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any story that starts with 'in the beginning" just like 'once upon a time' and has a talking snake and mythical creatures should have been a dead give away to anyone with a second grade education that it is a story written like a fairy tale with the intention of teaching bronze age children morals and truths about life that are not necessarily directly connected to the literal meaning of the words used.
Click to expand...

actually you're one verse off.....the Hebrew word which indicates such a story is the word which begins Genesis 1:2 and is translated into the English as "Now"......you will also find it beginning Genesis 3:1....


----------



## PostmodernProph

BillyP said:


> 6 days is 6 fucking days, no ifs, ands or buts.



you and the Rev. Phelps agree.....


----------



## PostmodernProph

> THE fog comes
> on little cat feet.
> 
> It sits looking
> over harbor and city
> on silent haunches
> and then moves on.



science proves Carl Sandburg was wrong.....


----------



## JimBowie1958

hobelim said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> and your own obstinate stupidity and the vile contents of your rotting mind is evidence of the consequences for violating the laws that Christians claim were made obsolete.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it, dear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There are no signs of life in you and every time I squeeze your head a foul and smelly pus comes out.
> 
> You have already proven it.
Click to expand...


So by disagreeing with you and showing my contempt for your lack of use of facts, reason or logic and your straight out just bald faced lies, that means I am putrid etc.

Go to hell, dear.


----------



## BillyP

PostmodernProph said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> 6 days is 6 fucking days, no ifs, ands or buts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you and the Rev. Phelps agree.....
Click to expand...

Why? 6 days doesn't mean 6 days? Feel a need to move the goalposts so that the fairy tales ring truer?


----------



## BillyP

JimBowie1958 said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here comes the choochoo train into the tunnel, you spoon fed moron.
> 
> Georges Lemaître - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Library : The Faith and Reason of Father George Lemaître - Catholic Culture
> 
> Big Bang Theory: A Roman Catholic Creation | WGBH News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God of the bible made the world in 6 days. Are you admitting that the bible is full of shit? Is the church admitting that it's whole dogma is based on bullshit? That's cool, thanks for the links.
> Anyways, I've always professed that science proves the bible wrong, that a priest shows that it's wrong is extra cool!
> And if you think that "Let there be light" proves the discovery of the BB, then you're a bigger spoon fed moron than I am.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, you cannot understand the difference between recorded myths of true events and simple lies.
> 
> Thus demonstrating that you are an idiot, once and for all.
Click to expand...

*recorded myths of true events*? 

Biggest moronic statement of the week... at least. 
It's either a myth or a true event, you can't have both.


----------



## BreezeWood

BillyP said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> 6 days is 6 fucking days, no ifs, ands or buts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you and the Rev. Phelps agree.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why? 6 days doesn't mean 6 days? Feel a need to move the goalposts so that the fairy tales ring truer?
Click to expand...



the strictness of interpretations is only made necessary to attempt legitimacy for their tangential religion of Christianity etc. and has no bearing on the true message of Spiritual Remission ... far more can be said from whence we came and where a Spirit may go, it is not a dead subject and what will pass is not the publication were it to be updated by science but the named religions.

your physiology is going to perish, reading that book is not going to stop it. it would only be worth your while were it to give you clarity for a possible passing as the same as to what created your Spirit in the first place.

.


----------



## sealybobo

hobelim said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because what 99% of people believe about God and the stories in the bible cannot possibly be literally true that does not preclude the existence of a superior being or realm of conscious existence that is not of this world..
> 
> Only after he purified his mind from all of the irrational superstitions and degrading practices that he was forced to believe and imitate since birth was Abraham able to perceive and interact with the living God.
> 
> And it may not be that God simply disappeared. The story of Abraham is a story of an atheist who speculated that if there was a God he must be a living being and could not be a statue made by human hands that has no life. Historically, people seem to have preferred darkness to light, superstitions and self important rituals and ceremonies to truth and reality. God didn't necessarily disappear as much as people get lost in the darkness and blindness of confusion as a consequence...
> 
> the greatest obstacle you face is your overinflated opinion of your own perceptions,  reasoning ability, and conclusions which makes it impossible for you to consider something as unbelievable as that you see no proof of God because you have an inferior instrument covered in cobwebs of resentments  and hostility through either choice or neglect..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would think if you asked most people they would say they prefer light to darkness.
> 
> Sorry, no cobwebs, no resentment.  I don't hate god because my kid died.  I don't deny god exists because something bad happened.  I simply was enlightened.
> 
> It is you who lacks reason.  There isn't one argument for god that doesn't come with a fatal flaw.  And you don't realize you believe because you are a scared and unevolved human who's been brainwashed to believe in fairy tales.  Do you believe in Santa too?
> 
> Why are people christians?  You act like other religions are selfish and christianity is not.  The church wants your money and you want to go to heaven, not to mention you like the social gatherings at church.  So it's like a fraternity that offers not only lifetime membership but eternal lifetime membership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not a Christian and I do not belong to a church or any religion.
> 
> You, who claims to have been enlightened,  have failed to perceive the truth about me who has been conversing openly with you and other people on a message board about what I do and don't believe, yet you were wrong in your perceptions, accused me of being a Christian, and then spewed resentments and hostility in my direction that you claim to not have.
> 
> Is it any wonder you have failed to perceive the truth about God?
Click to expand...


I use to believe in god too.  If it was the truth I'd still believe.  

There is a truth and reality independent of our desires. Faith simply reinforces your belief in what you would like to be true, rather than what really is.

In order to better under understand this reality and discover the truth we must look for evidence outside ourselves.

Faith isnt a virtue; it is the glorification of voluntary ignorance.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> You ask, what did God do before he created the universe... Well, time didn't yet exist, so it doesn't really matter. Perhaps God was busy creating other universes? Current quantum mechanics have presented string theories which posit there may be many universes. Perhaps a universe exists where spiritual existence is the "norm" and the spiritual entities ponder the possibility of physical existence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes time did exist before the big bang.  That time doesn't exist to us anymore.  I believe that is what he was trying to say in that thing I posted.  That the time and whatever existed before our big bang is irrelevant and can not ever be tested, but we know that it did exist before the big bang.  So if the big bang happened 13 billion years ago, what was happening 26 billion years ago?  Maybe the universe was shrinking back into the little ball it was right before the big bang.  That's the yo yo theory I just made it up.  LOL.
> 
> Anyways, best answer is I don't know.  Do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well... no, stubborn... Time did not exist before the universe began. Where is the evidence for that? That's right, there isn't any. Time is a dimension of a physical universe. I understand that you and other Atheists want to dismiss whatever happened before the 'supposed' Big Bang, so that you can eliminate any possibility of God or a Creator.
> 
> Your "yo yo theory" is also known as the cyclical universe theory, and for 50 years or so, it was considered a plausible and valid theory. However, the evidence that our universe is accelerating in expansion and not slowing, kind of puts that theory to rest. I mean... you DO believe in Newton's Laws of Motion, correct? So if the universe is expanding and accelerating in that expansion, what is going to cause it to suddenly move in the opposite direction? Not gravity, because gravity behaves the same all the time, so if gravity worked as a force on the universe, the expansion would be slowing not accelerating.
> 
> So there was no "26 billion years ago" because "years" are a measure of how long it takes our planet to revolve around it's sun. Since our planet and sun did not exist, there were no years. There was no space and there was no time, or at least, you have not proven that to be the case. Until you can present some evidence for these things you believe, all you really have is FAITH.
Click to expand...


The big bang happened 13 billion years ago.  There is a such thing as 14 billion years ago, no?


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> Mad_Cabbie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I personally feel that there is not enough information as of yet, to make an empirical statement about what happened before the big bang.
> 
> As for years not existing before the earth was around, there also was no Jesus in 3000 B.C., yet we still use that as a marker, correct?
> 
> Evidence and science is on our side - Christians are yet to actually back up anything they believe with actual facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence is on your side? How do you figure when you've presented NO evidence? See, this is what I don't get about you cats... you start off saying "we don't know" which is fine by me, it means we all have faith and nothing else... but then, you suddenly abandon the not knowing for KNOWING that God doesn't exist and there is some kind of evidence for that. The only evidence any of you ever seem to come up with is that we can't prove God does exist.
> 
> 3,000 BC wasn't called that in 3,000 BC. Yes, it's a marker and nothing more. The same with "years" or any other measure of our perception of this thing called "time."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In physics, time is distance, specifically, the distance light travels per second. What enables our sense of time is merely the universe expanding. If the universe stops expanding, time will end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False, entropy ALWAYS increases with time. Thus, time moves always in a forward arrow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Entropy has nothing to do with this. Time is distance, it makes up part of space-time continuum, a fundamental dimension of our physical universe. There is absolutely NO evidence it existed BEFORE a physical universe.
Click to expand...


You've provided no evidence either.  No good evidence anyways.


----------



## sealybobo

Mad_Cabbie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes time did exist before the big bang.  That time doesn't exist to us anymore.  I believe that is what he was trying to say in that thing I posted.  That the time and whatever existed before our big bang is irrelevant and can not ever be tested, but we know that it did exist before the big bang.  So if the big bang happened 13 billion years ago, what was happening 26 billion years ago?  Maybe the universe was shrinking back into the little ball it was right before the big bang.  That's the yo yo theory I just made it up.  LOL.
> 
> Anyways, best answer is I don't know.  Do you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well... no, stubborn... Time did not exist before the universe began. Where is the evidence for that? That's right, there isn't any. Time is a dimension of a physical universe. I understand that you and other Atheists want to dismiss whatever happened before the 'supposed' Big Bang, so that you can eliminate any possibility of God or a Creator.
> 
> Your "yo yo theory" is also known as the cyclical universe theory, and for 50 years or so, it was considered a plausible and valid theory. However, the evidence that our universe is accelerating in expansion and not slowing, kind of puts that theory to rest. I mean... you DO believe in Newton's Laws of Motion, correct? So if the universe is expanding and accelerating in that expansion, what is going to cause it to suddenly move in the opposite direction? Not gravity, because gravity behaves the same all the time, so if gravity worked as a force on the universe, the expansion would be slowing not accelerating.
> 
> So there was no "26 billion years ago" because "years" are a measure of how long it takes our planet to revolve around it's sun. Since our planet and sun did not exist, there were no years. There was no space and there was no time, or at least, you have not proven that to be the case. Until you can present some evidence for these things you believe, all you really have is FAITH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I personally feel that there is not enough information as of yet, to make an empirical statement about what happened before the big bang.
> 
> As for years not existing before the earth was around, there also was no Jesus in 3000 B.C., yet we still use that as a marker, correct?
> 
> Evidence and science is on our side - Christians are yet to actually back up anything they believe with actual facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In physics, time is distance, specifically, the distance light travels per second. What enables our sense of time is merely the universe expanding. If the universe stops expanding, time will end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False, entropy ALWAYS increases with time. Thus, time moves always in a forward arrow.
Click to expand...


Irrelevant really.  Boss likes to argue his talking points but does anything he says prove there is a god?  No.  And he keeps insisting we provide evidence his invisible man doesn't exist.  The only way to prove that is to kill him and then he won't be able to tell us his findings.  

Sorry boss, you believe in god because you want there to be a god.  Wishful thinking.  

The fact that a seemingly intelligent person holds an irrational belief is simply evidence that our brains are able to compartmentalize world-views and models from one another, usually in order to maintain a state of ignorant bliss and escape the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.


----------



## PostmodernProph

BillyP said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> 6 days is 6 fucking days, no ifs, ands or buts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you and the Rev. Phelps agree.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why? 6 days doesn't mean 6 days? Feel a need to move the goalposts so that the fairy tales ring truer?
Click to expand...


how can we move them while you and the Rev. Phelps keep pouring concrete.....


----------



## BillyP

PostmodernProph said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> 
> you and the Rev. Phelps agree.....
> 
> 
> 
> Why? 6 days doesn't mean 6 days? Feel a need to move the goalposts so that the fairy tales ring truer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> how can we move them while you and the Rev. Phelps keep pouring concrete.....
Click to expand...


Good. Don't forget it.


----------



## sealybobo

hobelim said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> When Percival Lowell first set out to observe Mars he made details maps of canals as he perceived them through the best instruments available at the time.
> 
> Better instruments have shown Mars in greater detail ending speculations about canals.
> 
> In the same way your brain is an instrument apparently with a clouded lens or is out of focus distracted by your own brains limitations and inability to conceive of anything beyond the the things of the physical realm including time or existence without any need for doing, a necessity for the continuation of life in the physical realm..
> 
> The most likely truth is not that there is no God, but that you have yet to develop an instrument capable of perceiving him as he is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry wrong.  Notice if you ask a bunch of smart people, you'll find more atheists than if you ask a bunch of poor dumb hicks.  99% of the poor dumb hicks all believe.
> 
> And I did believe at one time.  Also, it's not that your brain is smart and can conceive of a god and mine can't.  I'm hearing your stories and they all sound so fucking stupid.  You aren't deep you are reaching.
> 
> And notice when god came and spoke to man?  a few thousand years ago, this god suddenly decided to reveal itself to several people in the most primitive, illiterate and remote portions of humanity in a completely unverifiable way  and then simply disappeared.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because what 99% of people believe about God and the stories in the bible cannot possibly be literally true that does not preclude the existence of a superior being or realm of conscious existence that is not of this world.
> 
> Only after he purified his mind from all of the irrational superstitions and degrading practices that he was forced to believe and imitate since birth was Abraham able to perceive and interact with the living God.
> 
> And it may not be that God simply disappeared. The story of Abraham is a story of an atheist who speculated that if there was a God he must be a living being and could not be a statue made by human hands that has no life. Historically, people seem to have preferred darkness to light, superstitions and self important rituals and ceremonies to truth and reality. God didn't necessarily disappear as much as people get lost in the darkness and blindness of confusion as a consequence...
> 
> 
> the greatest obstacle you face is your overinflated opinion of your own perceptions,  reasoning ability, and conclusions which makes it impossible for you to consider something as unbelievable as that you see no proof of God because you have an inferior instrument covered in cobwebs of resentments  and hostility through either choice or neglect..
Click to expand...


Like all theists you are able to dismiss the 999 logical arguments why there is no god.  Why/how is that possible?  Because you want to believe or you can not imagine there is no god.  Sorry to disappoint you but spoiler alert!! when you die, there is no god or heaven.  We made that stuff up.  Wishful thinking.  

My dad is not an educated man.  He doesn't know anything about science.  He says, "there has to be a god".  He doesn't buy into any organized religions even though we were raised christian/greek orthodox.  He admits that he doesn't believe that people who don't believe in jesus will burn in hell.  Lets just put it that way.  He admits the bible was written by men.  He gets all that.  But still he says there must be a god.  How could this world be so perfect.  We need the cows, the chickens, air, the sun, water, blbblabla.  He says there's no way all this happened on its own.  There must be a god he says.  

And when I explain to him sciences argument against his theory he says, "then science is stupid".  

His reasons for belief are rooted in ignorance.  There must be a god?  Why must there be?  That's not a sound reasonable rational or logical argument.  

It doesn't seem to matter to theists that all of their arguments are bad ones.


----------



## thanatos144

sealybobo said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry wrong.  Notice if you ask a bunch of smart people, you'll find more atheists than if you ask a bunch of poor dumb hicks.  99% of the poor dumb hicks all believe.
> 
> And I did believe at one time.  Also, it's not that your brain is smart and can conceive of a god and mine can't.  I'm hearing your stories and they all sound so fucking stupid.  You aren't deep you are reaching.
> 
> And notice when god came and spoke to man?  a few thousand years ago, this god suddenly decided to reveal itself to several people in the most primitive, illiterate and remote portions of humanity in a completely unverifiable way  and then simply disappeared.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because what 99% of people believe about God and the stories in the bible cannot possibly be literally true that does not preclude the existence of a superior being or realm of conscious existence that is not of this world.
> 
> Only after he purified his mind from all of the irrational superstitions and degrading practices that he was forced to believe and imitate since birth was Abraham able to perceive and interact with the living God.
> 
> And it may not be that God simply disappeared. The story of Abraham is a story of an atheist who speculated that if there was a God he must be a living being and could not be a statue made by human hands that has no life. Historically, people seem to have preferred darkness to light, superstitions and self important rituals and ceremonies to truth and reality. God didn't necessarily disappear as much as people get lost in the darkness and blindness of confusion as a consequence...
> 
> 
> the greatest obstacle you face is your overinflated opinion of your own perceptions,  reasoning ability, and conclusions which makes it impossible for you to consider something as unbelievable as that you see no proof of God because you have an inferior instrument covered in cobwebs of resentments  and hostility through either choice or neglect..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like all theists you are able to dismiss the 999 logical arguments why there is no god.  Why/how is that possible?  Because you want to believe or you can not imagine there is no god.  Sorry to disappoint you but spoiler alert!! when you die, there is no god or heaven.  We made that stuff up.  Wishful thinking.
> 
> My dad is not an educated man.  He doesn't know anything about science.  He says, "there has to be a god".  He doesn't buy into any organized religions even though we were raised christian/greek orthodox.  He admits that he doesn't believe that people who don't believe in jesus will burn in hell.  Lets just put it that way.  He admits the bible was written by men.  He gets all that.  But still he says there must be a god.  How could this world be so perfect.  We need the cows, the chickens, air, the sun, water, blbblabla.  He says there's no way all this happened on its own.  There must be a god he says.
> 
> And when I explain to him sciences argument against his theory he says, "then science is stupid".
> 
> His reasons for belief are rooted in ignorance.  There must be a god?  Why must there be?  That's not a sound reasonable rational or logical argument.
> 
> It doesn't seem to matter to theists that all of their arguments are bad ones.
Click to expand...


The only ignorance i see today in this thread was yu hate full post. Saying you are right with nothing to back it up isnt intelligence 

Tapatalk


----------



## Steven_R

sealybobo said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry wrong.  Notice if you ask a bunch of smart people, you'll find more atheists than if you ask a bunch of poor dumb hicks.  99% of the poor dumb hicks all believe.
> 
> And I did believe at one time.  Also, it's not that your brain is smart and can conceive of a god and mine can't.  I'm hearing your stories and they all sound so fucking stupid.  You aren't deep you are reaching.
> 
> And notice when god came and spoke to man?  a few thousand years ago, this god suddenly decided to reveal itself to several people in the most primitive, illiterate and remote portions of humanity in a completely unverifiable way  and then simply disappeared.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because what 99% of people believe about God and the stories in the bible cannot possibly be literally true that does not preclude the existence of a superior being or realm of conscious existence that is not of this world.
> 
> Only after he purified his mind from all of the irrational superstitions and degrading practices that he was forced to believe and imitate since birth was Abraham able to perceive and interact with the living God.
> 
> And it may not be that God simply disappeared. The story of Abraham is a story of an atheist who speculated that if there was a God he must be a living being and could not be a statue made by human hands that has no life. Historically, people seem to have preferred darkness to light, superstitions and self important rituals and ceremonies to truth and reality. God didn't necessarily disappear as much as people get lost in the darkness and blindness of confusion as a consequence...
> 
> 
> the greatest obstacle you face is your overinflated opinion of your own perceptions,  reasoning ability, and conclusions which makes it impossible for you to consider something as unbelievable as that you see no proof of God because you have an inferior instrument covered in cobwebs of resentments  and hostility through either choice or neglect..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like all theists you are able to dismiss the 999 logical arguments why there is no god.  Why/how is that possible?  Because you want to believe or you can not imagine there is no god.  Sorry to disappoint you but spoiler alert!! when you die, there is no god or heaven.  We made that stuff up.  Wishful thinking.
> 
> My dad is not an educated man.  He doesn't know anything about science.  He says, "there has to be a god".  He doesn't buy into any organized religions even though we were raised christian/greek orthodox.  He admits that he doesn't believe that people who don't believe in jesus will burn in hell.  Lets just put it that way.  He admits the bible was written by men.  He gets all that.  But still he says there must be a god.  How could this world be so perfect.  We need the cows, the chickens, air, the sun, water, blbblabla.  He says there's no way all this happened on its own.  There must be a god he says.
> 
> And when I explain to him sciences argument against his theory he says, "then science is stupid".
> 
> His reasons for belief are rooted in ignorance.  There must be a god?  Why must there be?  That's not a sound reasonable rational or logical argument.
> 
> It doesn't seem to matter to theists that all of their arguments are bad ones.
Click to expand...


For me personally, I've had to look at it from a slightly different perspective. My brother and dad are deeply religious and my mother and sister are Christians, but not churchgoers. I'm agnostic on the whole existence of deities, but dismiss the whole Jehovah/Jesus story out of hand as just mythology. I find a lot to take from Christianity (do unto others..., turn the other cheek, stuff like that), but I'm not a believer. 

But, I don't really want to hurt my family or take away something from them that they value. 

So I thought about I and just leave the subject alone. I don't argue with them or tell them they are wrong or stupid or even that I don't believe. It simply isn't worth it to me to cause them to get upset over the whole issue. They don't bring it up or ask if I believe, and I don't bring it up. I still have Easter dinner with them, but don't go to church, I still say "bless you" and "merry Christmas" to them (and to people I see in the streets as well), I still enjoy several hymns (Eternal Father Strong To Save, Amazing Grace, and Angel Band are al particular favorites).


----------



## BreezeWood

sealybobo said:


> It doesn't seem to matter to theists that all of their arguments are bad ones.



that may be, by the way seabo what made you into being ?

.


----------



## hobelim

sealybobo said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would think if you asked most people they would say they prefer light to darkness.
> 
> Sorry, no cobwebs, no resentment.  I don't hate god because my kid died.  I don't deny god exists because something bad happened.  I simply was enlightened.
> 
> It is you who lacks reason.  There isn't one argument for god that doesn't come with a fatal flaw.  And you don't realize you believe because you are a scared and unevolved human who's been brainwashed to believe in fairy tales.  Do you believe in Santa too?
> 
> Why are people christians?  You act like other religions are selfish and christianity is not.  The church wants your money and you want to go to heaven, not to mention you like the social gatherings at church.  So it's like a fraternity that offers not only lifetime membership but eternal lifetime membership.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not a Christian and I do not belong to a church or any religion.
> 
> You, who claims to have been enlightened,  have failed to perceive the truth about me who has been conversing openly with you and other people on a message board about what I do and don't believe, yet you were wrong in your perceptions, accused me of being a Christian, and then spewed resentments and hostility in my direction that you claim to not have.
> 
> Is it any wonder you have failed to perceive the truth about God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I use to believe in god too.  If it was the truth I'd still believe.
> 
> There is a truth and reality independent of our desires. Faith simply reinforces your belief in what you would like to be true, rather than what really is.
> 
> In order to better under understand this reality and discover the truth we must look for evidence outside ourselves.
> 
> Faith isnt a virtue; it is the glorification of voluntary ignorance.
Click to expand...




I m sorry that you were hurt and disappointed to learn that what you were led to believe about God was not the truth. And I agree that one must seek evidence of truth independent of desires to know what really is, but maybe you should consider the possibility that the actual truth is that God exists independent of your desire to be right that he does not exist because your feelings were hurt when you learned that what were told to believe was false.

I once tried to believe in things that I was taught about God but couldn't believe because it couldn't possibly be true. I think it was about the same time that I lost my first teddy bear. Was a hard time but somehow I got over it. 

As an enlightened seeker of truth you should already know that even if what 99% of the people believe about Gods, spirits, etc., is patently false that does not preclude the existence of a supreme being that exists independent of anyone's ability or inability to perceive him who is the ultimate source of all life and what is seen and unseen..

You have already proven that your brain needs a tune up if you thought that I was a church going Christian which tapped into unresolved feelings about the time you wasted being deceived.


you really need to get over it. 

Forget about God, if you can't accurately perceive me, who was writing words that you can see with your own eyes, because you are still pissed off at Christians, you are not likely to accurately perceive that which can only be perceived through a pure mind.


----------



## sealybobo

hobelim said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not a Christian and I do not belong to a church or any religion.
> 
> You, who claims to have been enlightened,  have failed to perceive the truth about me who has been conversing openly with you and other people on a message board about what I do and don't believe, yet you were wrong in your perceptions, accused me of being a Christian, and then spewed resentments and hostility in my direction that you claim to not have.
> 
> Is it any wonder you have failed to perceive the truth about God?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I use to believe in god too.  If it was the truth I'd still believe.
> 
> There is a truth and reality independent of our desires. Faith simply reinforces your belief in what you would like to be true, rather than what really is.
> 
> In order to better under understand this reality and discover the truth we must look for evidence outside ourselves.
> 
> Faith isnt a virtue; it is the glorification of voluntary ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I m sorry that you were hurt and disappointed to learn that what you were led to believe about God was not the truth. And I agree that one must seek evidence of truth independent of desires to know what really is, but maybe you should consider the possibility that the actual truth is that God exists independent of your desire to be right that he does not exist because your feelings were hurt when you learned that what were told to believe was false.
> 
> I once tried to believe in things that I was taught about God but couldn't believe because it couldn't possibly be true. I think it was about the same time that I lost my first teddy bear. Was a hard time but somehow I got over it.
> 
> As an enlightened seeker of truth you should already know that even if what 99% of the people believe about Gods, spirits, etc., is patently false that does not preclude the existence of a supreme being that exists independent of anyone's ability or inability to perceive him who is the ultimate source of all life and what is seen and unseen..
> 
> You have already proven that your brain needs a tune up if you thought that I was a church going Christian which tapped into unresolved feelings about the time you wasted being deceived.
> 
> 
> you really need to get over it.
> 
> Forget about God, if you can't accurately perceive me, who was writing words that you can see with your own eyes, because you are still pissed off at Christians, you are not likely to accurately perceive that which can only be perceived through a pure mind.
Click to expand...


I don't care if you belong to an organized religion or if you just believe in a generic god, you still have no proof.  So until you do, I guess you can continue to believe your fairy tale and I will continue to believe you are fos.  

And what is with this "sorry you got your feelings hurt"?  I only focus on christianity because it is the main religion in the USA.  All the other organized religions are bullshit too.  Now how do you suppose Muslims & Jews "hurt my feelings"?  They didn't.  What I don't like is the lies they tell.  And you may think its ok to tell this lie.  You may think this is the one good lie that should be told.  I don't.  I think it is unnecessary and religious people are stupid.  You want proof?  Look at how bad our government is.  Why do we put up with it?  I'll tell you why.  Because the people in charge have divided us with bullshit wedge issues.  What are those issues?  God, gays and guns.  

I bet the mega rich people that rule/own/run America know this too.  I bet they tell themselves that the masses can be manipulated/controlled as long as they are dumb enough to believe something like religion with zero proof.


----------



## sealybobo

BreezeWood said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't seem to matter to theists that all of their arguments are bad ones.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that may be, by the way seabo what made you into being ?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


My parents?  

And if something had to make me, if something had to make the universe, what made god?  You can't have that argument both ways.  If something MUST have created all this, something must have created god.  And who or what created the thing that created god?  Get the point?


----------



## sealybobo

Steven_R said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because what 99% of people believe about God and the stories in the bible cannot possibly be literally true that does not preclude the existence of a superior being or realm of conscious existence that is not of this world.
> 
> Only after he purified his mind from all of the irrational superstitions and degrading practices that he was forced to believe and imitate since birth was Abraham able to perceive and interact with the living God.
> 
> And it may not be that God simply disappeared. The story of Abraham is a story of an atheist who speculated that if there was a God he must be a living being and could not be a statue made by human hands that has no life. Historically, people seem to have preferred darkness to light, superstitions and self important rituals and ceremonies to truth and reality. God didn't necessarily disappear as much as people get lost in the darkness and blindness of confusion as a consequence...
> 
> 
> the greatest obstacle you face is your overinflated opinion of your own perceptions,  reasoning ability, and conclusions which makes it impossible for you to consider something as unbelievable as that you see no proof of God because you have an inferior instrument covered in cobwebs of resentments  and hostility through either choice or neglect..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like all theists you are able to dismiss the 999 logical arguments why there is no god.  Why/how is that possible?  Because you want to believe or you can not imagine there is no god.  Sorry to disappoint you but spoiler alert!! when you die, there is no god or heaven.  We made that stuff up.  Wishful thinking.
> 
> My dad is not an educated man.  He doesn't know anything about science.  He says, "there has to be a god".  He doesn't buy into any organized religions even though we were raised christian/greek orthodox.  He admits that he doesn't believe that people who don't believe in jesus will burn in hell.  Lets just put it that way.  He admits the bible was written by men.  He gets all that.  But still he says there must be a god.  How could this world be so perfect.  We need the cows, the chickens, air, the sun, water, blbblabla.  He says there's no way all this happened on its own.  There must be a god he says.
> 
> And when I explain to him sciences argument against his theory he says, "then science is stupid".
> 
> His reasons for belief are rooted in ignorance.  There must be a god?  Why must there be?  That's not a sound reasonable rational or logical argument.
> 
> It doesn't seem to matter to theists that all of their arguments are bad ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For me personally, I've had to look at it from a slightly different perspective. My brother and dad are deeply religious and my mother and sister are Christians, but not churchgoers. I'm agnostic on the whole existence of deities, but dismiss the whole Jehovah/Jesus story out of hand as just mythology. I find a lot to take from Christianity (do unto others..., turn the other cheek, stuff like that), but I'm not a believer.
> 
> But, I don't really want to hurt my family or take away something from them that they value.
> 
> So I thought about I and just leave the subject alone. I don't argue with them or tell them they are wrong or stupid or even that I don't believe. It simply isn't worth it to me to cause them to get upset over the whole issue. They don't bring it up or ask if I believe, and I don't bring it up. I still have Easter dinner with them, but don't go to church, I still say "bless you" and "merry Christmas" to them (and to people I see in the streets as well), I still enjoy several hymns (Eternal Father Strong To Save, Amazing Grace, and Angel Band are al particular favorites).
Click to expand...


I too am very selective about who I discuss this with in real life.  It's why I come to USMB to talk about it.

But, consider that just because something is perceived as having good consequences if it is true, does not actually make it true.

The fact that religiously free societies with a proportionally large number of atheists are generally more peaceful than otherwise is evidence this perception is incorrect.

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.  Steven Weinberg


----------



## hobelim

sealybobo said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I use to believe in god too.  If it was the truth I'd still believe.
> 
> There is a truth and reality independent of our desires. Faith simply reinforces your belief in what you would like to be true, rather than what really is.
> 
> In order to better under understand this reality and discover the truth we must look for evidence outside ourselves.
> 
> Faith isn&#8217;t a virtue; it is the glorification of voluntary ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I m sorry that you were hurt and disappointed to learn that what you were led to believe about God was not the truth. And I agree that one must seek evidence of truth independent of desires to know what really is, but maybe you should consider the possibility that the actual truth is that God exists independent of your desire to be right that he does not exist because your feelings were hurt when you learned that what were told to believe was false.
> 
> I once tried to believe in things that I was taught about God but couldn't believe because it couldn't possibly be true. I think it was about the same time that I lost my first teddy bear. Was a hard time but somehow I got over it.
> 
> As an enlightened seeker of truth you should already know that even if what 99% of the people believe about Gods, spirits, etc., is patently false that does not preclude the existence of a supreme being that exists independent of anyone's ability or inability to perceive him who is the ultimate source of all life and what is seen and unseen..
> 
> You have already proven that your brain needs a tune up if you thought that I was a church going Christian which tapped into unresolved feelings about the time you wasted being deceived.
> 
> 
> you really need to get over it.
> 
> Forget about God, if you can't accurately perceive me, who was writing words that you can see with your own eyes, because you are still pissed off at Christians, you are not likely to accurately perceive that which can only be perceived through a pure mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't care if you belong to an organized religion or if you just believe in a generic god, you still have no proof.  So until you do, I guess you can continue to believe your fairy tale and I will continue to believe you are fos.
Click to expand...



How can you assert that I have no proof of God if you do not know or care what I believe and know about God?

If you don't know or care what I believe about God then the only thing that is false is your claim of there being no proof.

Maybe I am a pantheist who believes that the universe is God? Are you suggesting there is no proof for the universe? What if I believed that God was life itself, a creative force? Is there no proof for life? 




You seem to be emotionally driven and immature and completely oblivious to the extent to which your past hurts cloud and distort your perceptions of yourself and your conclusions based on the absence of clear thinking and understanding free from the emotional quagmire of past resentments.

Free your mind.

You may not be living behind bars but the condition of the prison you have made for yourself is far more deplorable than any dungeon ever mentioned in a fairy tale.


I see people like you declare that there is no God because you see no proof but because your mind has become defiled and contaminated by bitterness you can't see, even yourself.


----------



## BillyP

hobelim said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> I m sorry that you were hurt and disappointed to learn that what you were led to believe about God was not the truth. And I agree that one must seek evidence of truth independent of desires to know what really is, but maybe you should consider the possibility that the actual truth is that God exists independent of your desire to be right that he does not exist because your feelings were hurt when you learned that what were told to believe was false.
> 
> I once tried to believe in things that I was taught about God but couldn't believe because it couldn't possibly be true. I think it was about the same time that I lost my first teddy bear. Was a hard time but somehow I got over it.
> 
> As an enlightened seeker of truth you should already know that even if what 99% of the people believe about Gods, spirits, etc., is patently false that does not preclude the existence of a supreme being that exists independent of anyone's ability or inability to perceive him who is the ultimate source of all life and what is seen and unseen..
> 
> You have already proven that your brain needs a tune up if you thought that I was a church going Christian which tapped into unresolved feelings about the time you wasted being deceived.
> 
> 
> you really need to get over it.
> 
> Forget about God, if you can't accurately perceive me, who was writing words that you can see with your own eyes, because you are still pissed off at Christians, you are not likely to accurately perceive that which can only be perceived through a pure mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care if you belong to an organized religion or if you just believe in a generic god, you still have no proof.  So until you do, I guess you can continue to believe your fairy tale and I will continue to believe you are fos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How can you assert that I have no proof of God if you do not know or care what I believe and know about God?
> 
> If you don't know or care what I believe about God then the only thing that is false is your claim of there being no proof.
> 
> Maybe I am a pantheist who believes that the universe is God? Are you suggesting there is no proof for the universe? What if I believed that God was life itself, a creative force? Is there no proof for life?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be emotionally driven and immature and completely oblivious to the extent to which your past hurts cloud and distort your perceptions of yourself and your conclusions based on the absence of clear thinking and understanding free from the emotional quagmire of past resentments.
> 
> Free your mind.
> 
> You may not be living behind bars but the condition of the prison you have made for yourself is far more deplorable than any dungeon ever mentioned in a fairy tale.
> 
> 
> I see people like you declare that there is no God because you see no proof but because your mind has become defiled and contaminated by bitterness you can't see, even yourself.
Click to expand...

Ok, here's your chance, show us your proof of god.


----------



## sealybobo

hobelim said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> I m sorry that you were hurt and disappointed to learn that what you were led to believe about God was not the truth. And I agree that one must seek evidence of truth independent of desires to know what really is, but maybe you should consider the possibility that the actual truth is that God exists independent of your desire to be right that he does not exist because your feelings were hurt when you learned that what were told to believe was false.
> 
> I once tried to believe in things that I was taught about God but couldn't believe because it couldn't possibly be true. I think it was about the same time that I lost my first teddy bear. Was a hard time but somehow I got over it.
> 
> As an enlightened seeker of truth you should already know that even if what 99% of the people believe about Gods, spirits, etc., is patently false that does not preclude the existence of a supreme being that exists independent of anyone's ability or inability to perceive him who is the ultimate source of all life and what is seen and unseen..
> 
> You have already proven that your brain needs a tune up if you thought that I was a church going Christian which tapped into unresolved feelings about the time you wasted being deceived.
> 
> 
> you really need to get over it.
> 
> Forget about God, if you can't accurately perceive me, who was writing words that you can see with your own eyes, because you are still pissed off at Christians, you are not likely to accurately perceive that which can only be perceived through a pure mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care if you belong to an organized religion or if you just believe in a generic god, you still have no proof.  So until you do, I guess you can continue to believe your fairy tale and I will continue to believe you are fos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How can you assert that I have no proof of God if you do not know or care what I believe and know about God?
> 
> If you don't know or care what I believe about God then the only thing that is false is your claim of there being no proof.
> 
> Maybe I am a pantheist who believes that the universe is God? Are you suggesting there is no proof for the universe? What if I believed that God was life itself, a creative force? Is there no proof for life?
> 
> 
> You seem to be emotionally driven and immature and completely oblivious to the extent to which your past hurts cloud and distort your perceptions of yourself and your conclusions based on the absence of clear thinking and understanding free from the emotional quagmire of past resentments.
> 
> Free your mind.
> 
> You may not be living behind bars but the condition of the prison you have made for yourself is far more deplorable than any dungeon ever mentioned in a fairy tale.
> 
> 
> I see people like you declare that there is no God because you see no proof but because your mind has become defiled and contaminated by bitterness you can't see, even yourself.
Click to expand...


Let me work backwards and comment on your thoughts.

1.  Typical theist argument that I/we must be angry or evil if we don't believe.  My reply?  Fuck you.

2.  My history and knowledge that I have picked up along the way no doubt led me to atheism.  Probably because too many of you theists are complete assholes.

3.  A pantheist?  More like a pain in the ass.  And no fair!  You theists need to agree on one truth about god and all stick to it.  I'm sick of having to change my arguments because excuse the fuck out of me you're a catholic?  Oh  no you're a protestant?  Oh a Mormon?  Oh a Muslim or Jew?  Or people like you and boss who believe in god but not organized religion.  I wouldn't believe it that adults believe in god if I weren't one of you just a few months ago.  I have woken up and think the rest of the world needs to now.  I'm like a person who just finds christ and goes around asking people if they know where they are going when they die, only I tell people that there going no where.  LOL.  

And notice me and another poster said we don't tell our love ones that they believe a lie.  It'd be too much for some of them to take.  They can't discuss this topic without getting defensive and emotional.  But, I am hoping one day this lie isn't passed on to the next generation.  It is unnecessary and does not produce good citizens.  It produces stupid sheeple who are easily manipulated.  

4.  If you have proof of a god, show it.  I'm assuming you're just like every other theist and you have nothing.  Why do I assume that?  Because there is no argument for a god that doesn't have some kind of fatal flaw.

5.  It is you theists who aren't happy.  You are afraid of death.  Why?  Better to appreciate the time you have here on earth and if your life sucks, don't wait for heaven, make your life here on earth heaven. 

I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking. The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which theres little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.  Carl Sagan

The significance of our lives and our fragile planet is determined only by our own wisdom and courage. We are the custodians of lifes meaning. We long for a Parent to care for us, to forgive us our errors, to save us from our childish mistakes. But knowledge is preferable to ignorance. Better by far to embrace the hard truth than a reassuring fable. If we crave some cosmic purpose, then let us find ourselves a worthy goal.  Carl Sagan

When I became convinced that the universe was natural, that all the ghosts and gods were myths, there entered into my brain, into my soul, into every drop of my blood, the sense, the feeling, the joy of freedom. The walls of my prison crumbled and fell. The dungeon was flooded with light and all the bolts and bars and manacles turned to dust. I was no longer a servant, a serf, or a slave. There was for me no master in all the wide world, not even in infinite space.

I was free to think. Free to express my thoughts, free to live in my own ideal. Free to live for myself and those I loved. Free to use all my faculties, all my senses. Free to spread imaginations wings, free to investigate, to guess, and dream and hope. Free to judge and determine for myself. Free to reject all ignorant and cruel creeds, all the inspired books that savages have produced, and the barbarous legends of the past. Free from sanctified mistakes and holy lies. Free from the fear of eternal pain, free from the winged monsters of the night. Free from devils, ghosts and gods. For the first time I was free.

There were no prohibited places in all of the realm of thought. No error, no space where fancy could not spread her painted wings. No chains for my limbs. No lashes for my back. No flames for my flesh. No Masters frown or threat, no following in anothers steps. No need to bow or cringe or crawl, or utter lying words. I was free; I stood erect and fearlessly, joyously faced all worlds.

My heart was filled with gratitude, with thankfulness, and went out in love to all the heros, the thinkers who gave their lives for liberty of hand and brain, for the freedom of labor and thought to those who fell on the fierce fields of war. To those who died in dungeons, bound in chains, to those by fire consumed, to all the wise, the good, the brave of every land whose thoughts and deeds have given freedom to the sons of men. And then, I vowed to grasp the torch that they held, and hold it high, That light might conquer darkness still.

-Robert Green Ingersoll (1833-1899)


----------



## sealybobo

BillyP said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care if you belong to an organized religion or if you just believe in a generic god, you still have no proof.  So until you do, I guess you can continue to believe your fairy tale and I will continue to believe you are fos.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can you assert that I have no proof of God if you do not know or care what I believe and know about God?
> 
> If you don't know or care what I believe about God then the only thing that is false is your claim of there being no proof.
> 
> Maybe I am a pantheist who believes that the universe is God? Are you suggesting there is no proof for the universe? What if I believed that God was life itself, a creative force? Is there no proof for life?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be emotionally driven and immature and completely oblivious to the extent to which your past hurts cloud and distort your perceptions of yourself and your conclusions based on the absence of clear thinking and understanding free from the emotional quagmire of past resentments.
> 
> Free your mind.
> 
> You may not be living behind bars but the condition of the prison you have made for yourself is far more deplorable than any dungeon ever mentioned in a fairy tale.
> 
> 
> I see people like you declare that there is no God because you see no proof but because your mind has become defiled and contaminated by bitterness you can't see, even yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, here's your chance, show us your proof of god.
Click to expand...


I took a long time to reply to that guy and I would have thought if he had proof he would have replied to you by now.  Don't hold your breath.


----------



## hobelim

BillyP said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care if you belong to an organized religion or if you just believe in a generic god, you still have no proof.  So until you do, I guess you can continue to believe your fairy tale and I will continue to believe you are fos.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can you assert that I have no proof of God if you do not know or care what I believe and know about God?
> 
> If you don't know or care what I believe about God then the only thing that is false is your claim of there being no proof.
> 
> Maybe I am a pantheist who believes that the universe is God? Are you suggesting there is no proof for the universe? What if I believed that God was life itself, a creative force? Is there no proof for life?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be emotionally driven and immature and completely oblivious to the extent to which your past hurts cloud and distort your perceptions of yourself and your conclusions based on the absence of clear thinking and understanding free from the emotional quagmire of past resentments.
> 
> Free your mind.
> 
> You may not be living behind bars but the condition of the prison you have made for yourself is far more deplorable than any dungeon ever mentioned in a fairy tale.
> 
> 
> I see people like you declare that there is no God because you see no proof but because your mind has become defiled and contaminated by bitterness you can't see, even yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, here's your chance, show us your proof of god.
Click to expand...



God is not a genie in a bottle or circus animal that will appear to you at my bidding.

God will not descend from heaven because someone in hell says that they refuse to believe unless he comes out of hiding and kisses their ass. 

Its never going to happen.

Unless you purify your own mind and become refined you will never see proof of God even if someone rose from the dead and was standing there right in front of you, eating fish.

The more you cleanse your mind from that which causes your mind to stumble in thought and perception the more you will understand and be capable of perceiving. whether your eyes are opened and you see God or not will depend on whether you have the strength and courage to face yourself.


The best I can do is show you the way to purify your mind.

do it and you will see God.


You can start by learning your A, B, C's...


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> The big bang happened 13 billion years ago.  There is a such thing as 14 billion years ago, no?



We don't know if the Big Bang happened, it is a theory. Whenever the universe began is when time began because time is a dimension of the universe. Before the universe existed there is no evidence time existed or could have existed. 



> You've provided no evidence either. No good evidence anyways.



Well, what is "good" evidence? We can go through this again, "evidence" is subject to individual evaluation. Two people can view "evidence" as valid, invalid, good, bad, ugly... there is no rule that says all "evidence" is equal. You've made your mind up there is no God, so no amount of evidence will ever be good enough for you. It's like the OJ jurors... they made their mind up OJ was innocent, and the "evidence" simply didn't matter. 

But the thing is, I am not trying to present evidence to prove God exists. I'm just presenting evidence to refute your misconceptions regarding science and what you CLAIM that science has proven. 



> Sorry boss, you believe in god because you want there to be a god. Wishful thinking.



I don't know how many times I need to address this to get it through your thick head, but I believe in God because I communicate with God daily and God answers my prayers. If that didn't happen, I probably wouldn't be able to believe in God. It's way more than "faith" for me, I realize a lot of people simply have "faith" in what they believe... like YOU for instance.


----------



## hobelim

sealybobo said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can you assert that I have no proof of God if you do not know or care what I believe and know about God?
> 
> If you don't know or care what I believe about God then the only thing that is false is your claim of there being no proof.
> 
> Maybe I am a pantheist who believes that the universe is God? Are you suggesting there is no proof for the universe? What if I believed that God was life itself, a creative force? Is there no proof for life?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be emotionally driven and immature and completely oblivious to the extent to which your past hurts cloud and distort your perceptions of yourself and your conclusions based on the absence of clear thinking and understanding free from the emotional quagmire of past resentments.
> 
> Free your mind.
> 
> You may not be living behind bars but the condition of the prison you have made for yourself is far more deplorable than any dungeon ever mentioned in a fairy tale.
> 
> 
> I see people like you declare that there is no God because you see no proof but because your mind has become defiled and contaminated by bitterness you can't see, even yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, here's your chance, show us your proof of god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I took a long time to reply to that guy and I would have thought if he had proof he would have replied to you by now.  Don't hold your breath.
Click to expand...




Like I said, "You seem to be emotionally driven and immature" 


thanks for the confirmation....


----------



## Boss

Silly boob argues the most rational position is to say "we don't know" yet he continually refutes that position by insisting that he knows there is no God. He further tries to argue that science is 99.999% sure there is no God, which is fascinating, given he hasn't provided ANY scientific evidence to support that claim. 

Nevertheless, he insists there is no good reason for man to worship something greater than self. This is just some made up invention of the mind that we created to cope with fears and we'd be better off without it. Again, he offers nothing in the way of evidence to support this opinion and expects folks to just take it at face value. His examples are himself and his atheist 'buddies' who are doing just fine not believing in any Gods. 

I'm going to contradict his point here, it's far better for man to believe in something greater than self for two very important and fundamental reasons. The first is inspiration. You see, when humans have faith in something greater than self, it enables them to become inspired to accomplish things they would otherwise not be able to do. A person who can only believe in their personal capabilities may find a challenge too daunting, impossible from their perspective, and they will simply resign themselves to accepting that it's not meant to be. Whereas, a person who has an inner faith of a power greater than self, will gain strength of will, perseverance, determination beyond their own capabilities. Through the strength of this faith they are able to accomplish the otherwise impossible. 

The second reason is accountability. A person who believes they have no soul is not accountable to anything, including the rest of humanity. Anything can be justified, morality can simply be self-defined and rationalized as the individual sees fit. If there is no tangible consequence to their actions, the actions become based on personal desire and nothing more. This means you are honest when you want to be, you keep your promises when you feel like it, you can't ever really be trusted. In essence, you become your own God. 

Can people get by without believing in God? Sure! They've been doing this for all of human existence, just like humans have always been spiritual. The really neat thing about the Bible is, it's full of such examples, and tells the story of those who have attempted to walk the path in darkness rather than light. In fact, the counter-forces of spiritual energy are almost as strong as spiritual energy itself.


----------



## PostmodernProph

sealybobo said:


> 1.  Typical theist argument that I/we must be angry or evil if we don't believe.  My reply?  Fuck you.



I wonder why they think you're angry...


----------



## BreezeWood

sealybobo said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't seem to matter to theists that all of their arguments are bad ones.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that may be, by the way seabo what made you into being ?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My parents?
> 
> And if something had to make me, if something had to make the universe, what made god?  You can't have that argument both ways.  If something MUST have created all this, something must have created god.  And who or what created the thing that created god?  Get the point?
Click to expand...



the above time line is from some other subject matter - what made God would incidentally and necessarily not be any different than what God made. be happy with what already exists. 


the universe the laws of physics, nature and the origin of life do all exist both together physically and metaphysically.

physiology and the metaphysical Spirit reside together called an individual with and without beneficial results, there is the likelihood then that one might exist if only temporarily without the other and or eventually will become a necessity as one, physiology is destined to perish - were it determined from where one came there is a reasonable degree of probability of returning to that origin when the time arrives and an answer to the past has been fulfilled.

seabo, you can not disprove your existence.

.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> We don't know if the Big Bang happened, it is a theory. Whenever the universe began is when time began because time is a dimension of the universe. Before the universe existed there is no evidence time existed or could have existed.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, what is "good" evidence? We can go through this again, "evidence" is subject to individual evaluation. Two people can view "evidence" as valid, invalid, good, bad, ugly... there is no rule that says all "evidence" is equal. You've made your mind up there is no God, so no amount of evidence will ever be good enough for you. It's like the OJ jurors... they made their mind up OJ was innocent, and the "evidence" simply didn't matter.
> 
> But the thing is, I am not trying to present evidence to prove God exists. I'm just presenting evidence to refute your misconceptions regarding science and what you CLAIM that science has proven.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know how many times I need to address this to get it through your thick head, but I believe in God because I communicate with God daily and God answers my prayers. If that didn't happen, I probably wouldn't be able to believe in God. It's way more than "faith" for me, I realize a lot of people simply have "faith" in what they believe... like YOU for instance.



I was watching a great show last night on African American history.  They discussed what you and I were talking about.  Remember you said it was christians that argued to abolish slavery?  Well those very same anti slavery christians came from Philadelphia and a lot of those former slaves moved to Philly and went to church with those whites.  Do you know what the church did?  They put the blacks in separate pews from the whites.  One day the blacks showed up early and sat where the whites usually sat.  The people who ran the church told them they would have to move to the black pews.  So, the blacks got up and left and never went back.

So even the anti slavery christians were racist pricks.  No surprise there.  

Richard Allen (bishop) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Boss

Jeesh, Louise, silly boob... what on earth does this have to do with the Big Bang, origin of life, existence of human spirituality, or anything we are discussing in this thread?

I've already made the argument in the Confederate Flag thread that about 99.8% of America was racist by today's standard back in 1861. including Abe Lincoln. Everybody was a "racist prick" back then, but you want to make it appear that only these Christians were.

Do you want to know what was the prevailing argument to support this racism through most of the 20th century? It was DARWINISM! Yep... your Holy Grail of Atheist thought, the pontification of Darwinism was responsible for a white man's argument that black people were less evolved. It was actually the Christian religion, specifically people like REV. Martin Luther King, Jr. who brought a different message, that we are all equal in the eyes of God. Thank heaven's there are more God-believers than Atheist Darwinites, or we'd still be living in segregation.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Jeesh, Louise, silly boob... what on earth does this have to do with the Big Bang, origin of life, existence of human spirituality, or anything we are discussing in this thread?
> 
> I've already made the argument in the Confederate Flag thread that about 99.8% of America was racist by today's standard back in 1861. including Abe Lincoln. Everybody was a "racist prick" back then, but you want to make it appear that only these Christians were.
> 
> Do you want to know what was the prevailing argument to support this racism through most of the 20th century? It was DARWINISM! Yep... your Holy Grail of Atheist thought, the pontification of Darwinism was responsible for a white man's argument that black people were less evolved. It was actually the Christian religion, specifically people like REV. Martin Luther King, Jr. who brought a different message, that we are all equal in the eyes of God. Thank heaven's there are more God-believers than Atheist Darwinites, or we'd still be living in segregation.


You spend way too much time on fundie Christian websites.


----------



## Boss

Hollie said:


> You spend way too much time on fundie Christian websites.



That's funny, I've never even been to a fundie Christian website.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> That's funny, I've never even been to a fundie Christian website.


That's funny, because your juvenile claim that "Darwinism" was the cause of racism is boilerplate Christian fundamentalism. 

The ICR will rot your brain.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> Jeesh, Louise, silly boob... what on earth does this have to do with the Big Bang, origin of life, existence of human spirituality, or anything we are discussing in this thread?
> 
> I've already made the argument in the Confederate Flag thread that about 99.8% of America was racist by today's standard back in 1861. including Abe Lincoln. Everybody was a "racist prick" back then, but you want to make it appear that only these Christians were.
> 
> Do you want to know what was the prevailing argument to support this racism through most of the 20th century? It was DARWINISM! Yep... your Holy Grail of Atheist thought, the pontification of Darwinism was responsible for a white man's argument that black people were less evolved. It was actually the Christian religion, specifically people like REV. Martin Luther King, Jr. who brought a different message, that we are all equal in the eyes of God. Thank heaven's there are more God-believers than Atheist Darwinites, or we'd still be living in segregation.



I don't care how right wingers twisted Darwin's theories.  

Darwin observed and described evolution the same way Newton did for gravity. It was simply a discovery of a fact about the world – not an engineered philosophy on how to behave. Just as we do not blame Newton for the fact that gravity is used as a tool in the deployment of bombs, we cannot blame Darwin for individually misguided applications of ‘natural selection’.


----------



## Boss

Hollie said:


> That's funny, because your juvenile claim that "Darwinism" was the cause of racism is boilerplate Christian fundamentalism.
> 
> The ICR will rot your brain.



But I didn't say it was the cause of racism, did I? 

What the hell is "ICR?" 

It's not juvenile to acknowledge the truth, and the truth is well documented. All through the 20th century, the white supremacist argument was rooted in the Darwinian belief that black people were less evolved. Now, I am sorry if you find that offensive or "juvenile" ...it's the truth. It has nothing to do with where racism started or what caused it. How about learning how to read before you pop off with the smart mouth replies?


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> But I didn't say it was the cause of racism, did I?
> 
> What the hell is "ICR?"
> 
> It's not juvenile to acknowledge the truth, and the truth is well documented. All through the 20th century, the white supremacist argument was rooted in the Darwinian belief that black people were less evolved. Now, I am sorry if you find that offensive or "juvenile" ...it's the truth. It has nothing to do with where racism started or what caused it. How about learning how to read before you pop off with the smart mouth replies?


You Henry Morris clones are a hoot.

CA005:  Evolution and racism


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> I don't care how right wingers twisted Darwin's theories.
> 
> Darwin observed and described evolution the same way Newton did for gravity. It was simply a discovery of a fact about the world – not an engineered philosophy on how to behave. Just as we do not blame Newton for the fact that gravity is used as a tool in the deployment of bombs, we cannot blame Darwin for individually misguided applications of ‘natural selection’.



Oh no, you don't care about how anybody twisted anything except religious people. Everyone else, you'll write a pass for and say it's perfectly okay. And it wasn't "right wingers" who did that, it was mainly Democrats in the South. But that's okay because they "recanted" later on.


----------



## Boss

Hollie said:


> You Henry Morris clones are a hoot.
> 
> CA005:  Evolution and racism



Who the hell is Henry Morris? 

Are you drinking tonight???


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Who the hell is Henry Morris?
> 
> Are you drinking tonight???


Weak. Even by your standards of sidestepping.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> Jeesh, Louise, silly boob... what on earth does this have to do with the Big Bang, origin of life, existence of human spirituality, or anything we are discussing in this thread?
> 
> I've already made the argument in the Confederate Flag thread that about 99.8% of America was racist by today's standard back in 1861. including Abe Lincoln. Everybody was a "racist prick" back then, but you want to make it appear that only these Christians were.
> 
> Do you want to know what was the prevailing argument to support this racism through most of the 20th century? It was DARWINISM! Yep... your Holy Grail of Atheist thought, the pontification of Darwinism was responsible for a white man's argument that black people were less evolved. It was actually the Christian religion, specifically people like REV. Martin Luther King, Jr. who brought a different message, that we are all equal in the eyes of God. Thank heaven's there are more God-believers than Atheist Darwinites, or we'd still be living in segregation.



Couple more thoughts.

a.  Just remember those evil pricks are who told us about god.  You believe them?

b.  God didn't convince racists to go under ground, the law/government/society did.  Religion sat by for hundreds of years.  All of the sudden we have liberal democracy and political correctness and equal rights protection, blabla.  I could go on and on about how Kennedy had to send the National Guard down to Alabama and the deep/dirty south.  Those were all god fearing men.  They went to christian church week after year and god never got them to stop being racist pricks.  Some/a lot of them still are.  

Anyways, my argument was with Boss and others who tried to give christians credit for ending slavery when christians kept it going long after England stopped doing it.  So good for them for eventually coming around.  Anyways, it's a side argument you're jumping into.  I love it.  Bring it toots.  There is no god.  You and boss just wishful thinking.  Jesus never happened sorry.  Its another fable/allegory.  Its all right here if you want to take a good look.  Why there is no god

And so do you think those 98% are in hell or heaven?  And what if you today agree with them about blacks?  If being a racist prick would send you to hell today, god hasn't changed, we have, so let me know would those racist christians all get passes or are they burning in hell.

OR, maybe you defend the argument that being a racist won't exclude you from heaven.  I don't believe in heaven, but I wonder what your "beliefs" are, because everyone has different beliefs.  Boss has his bastardized beliefs and you I can't wait to hear your thoughts.


----------



## Boss

Hollie said:


> Weak. Even by your standards of sidestepping.



I honestly have NO idea what the hell you're talking about. I'm not a Christian, I am not religious, and I'm not a fundamentalist. I am not a racist or supremacist. What the hell I am supposedly "sidestepping" now, I have not a clue. YOU are the one who is hurling a bunch of unfounded accusations at ME! You've not backed up a goddamn thing, you just keep running your smart ass mouth, like the liberal know-it-all you believe you are. 

FUCK OFF!


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> But I didn't say it was the cause of racism, did I?
> 
> What the hell is "ICR?"
> 
> It's not juvenile to acknowledge the truth, and the truth is well documented. All through the 20th century, the white supremacist argument was rooted in the Darwinian belief that black people were less evolved. Now, I am sorry if you find that offensive or "juvenile" ...it's the truth. It has nothing to do with where racism started or what caused it. How about learning how to read before you pop off with the smart mouth replies?



Darwin was born in 1809.  You given the red necks in the 1700's deep dirty red neck south credit for coming up with Darwinism?

They may have believed that blacks were animals but they were christians/god fearing men too buddy don't lie.  Remember, EVERYONE believes.  Right?


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> I honestly have NO idea what the hell you're talking about. I'm not a Christian, I am not religious, and I'm not a fundamentalist. I am not a racist or supremacist. What the hell I am supposedly "sidestepping" now, I have not a clue. YOU are the one who is hurling a bunch of unfounded accusations at ME! You've not backed up a goddamn thing, you just keep running your smart ass mouth, like the liberal know-it-all you believe you are.
> 
> FUCK OFF!



Pussy.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> I honestly have NO idea what the hell you're talking about. I'm not a Christian, I am not religious, and I'm not a fundamentalist. I am not a racist or supremacist. What the hell I am supposedly "sidestepping" now, I have not a clue. YOU are the one who is hurling a bunch of unfounded accusations at ME! You've not backed up a goddamn thing, you just keep running your smart ass mouth, like the liberal know-it-all you believe you are.
> 
> FUCK OFF!


Ahh. The _angry Boss_, persona. That's so cute. 

What a shame you're not willing to acknowledge the source of your bogus claims.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> But I didn't say it was the cause of racism, did I?
> 
> What the hell is "ICR?"
> 
> the white supremacist argument was rooted in the Darwinian belief that black people were less evolved.



By calling them Darwinian, you are trying to be slick and take the argument away from the fact that they all prayed to jesus.  Did they not?  You said they all believed and that is your reason you believe.  So you do admit these were all christian/god fearing slave owners?


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Couple more thoughts.
> 
> a.  Just remember those evil pricks are who told us about god.  You believe them?



No they didn't, they were dead long before I was ever born, you fucking retard. I know about God because I communicate with God daily, we've been through this already. Dipshit. 



> b.  God didn't convince racists to go under ground, the law/government/society did.  Religion sat by for hundreds of years.  All of the sudden we have liberal democracy and political correctness and equal rights protection, blabla.  I could go on and on about how Kennedy had to send the National Guard down to Alabama and the deep/dirty south.  Those were all god fearing men.  They went to christian church week after year and god never got them to stop being racist pricks.  Some/a lot of them still are.



So Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. was NOT a Christian? He wasn't the pastor of Dexter Avenue Baptist Church in Montgomery, Alabama, and didn't lead the Civil Rights movement in America? 



> Anyways, my argument was with Boss and others who tried to give christians credit for ending slavery when christians kept it going long after England stopped doing it.  So good for them for eventually coming around.



It was Quaker ministers in Pennsylvania who started the abolition movement in America. That's what I said and that is the truth.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> By calling them Darwinian, you are trying to be slick and take the argument away from the fact that they all prayed to jesus.  Did they not?  You said they all believed and that is your reason you believe.  So you do admit these were all christian/god fearing slave owners?



Since about 95% of the human race is spiritual, I would say that more than likely, most slave owners were probably God-fearing men. That doesn't really mean a whole lot because you can say that about virtually ANYTHING. Most people who saved the lives of others were believers in God... Most people who sacrificed their own life for others were believers in God. Most people who adopt cats are believers in God. Hell... Most people who voted for Obama are believers in God!


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> No they didn't, they were dead long before I was ever born, you fucking retard. I know about God because I communicate with God daily, we've been through this already. Dipshit.
> 
> 
> 
> So Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. was NOT a Christian? He wasn't the pastor of Dexter Avenue Baptist Church in Montgomery, Alabama, and didn't lead the Civil Rights movement in America?
> 
> 
> 
> It was Quaker ministers in Pennsylvania who started the abolition movement in America. That's what I said and that is the truth.



Blacks were talking about this today on Detroit Radio.  One guy said MLK should have told blacks to start their own business' and patronize black only business' instead of begging to spend money in whiteys place.  Blacks would be better off.  I agree.  

Well those Quakers in PA didn't let the blacks sit with the whites.  That's all I'm saying.  When I saw that I thought of you and couldn't wait to tell you.  Such good christians.  

One good thing is human's are evolving so we aren't as bad anymore.  Still not perfect but we are getting there.  We are becoming more god like.  I know why you hope/wish/think there is a god because I use to think like you too.  I know it bothers you but its true.  2 months ago I'd be agreeing with you but those arguments are all bad arguments.  They might be good to you or the people who join your cult but they are not scientific evidence.

And if there is a god, he doesn't care about you.  It'd be like you caring about a Tardigrade that is in your drinking water.  Something might have made us, but something might have made it too.  You have no idea how small you are.  Just enjoy the ride.  Be a good person and if there is a god you may be rewarded.  But he certainly doesn't talk to you.  That's just making you feel better.

And I told you, I wouldn't argue with someone who believes as much as you do in person unless they liked to discuss it.  I've found 100% of theists get upset and can't talk about it anymore.  So they can't even stand up to someone who questions their beliefs.  Why?  Because to believe what they believe, you have to have blind dumb faith.  You may not buy into the Jesus thing but you have just as much faith as those clowns.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> Since about 95% of the human race is spiritual, I would say that more than likely, most slave owners were probably God-fearing men. That doesn't really mean a whole lot because you can say that about virtually ANYTHING. Most people who saved the lives of others were believers in God... Most people who sacrificed their own life for others were believers in God. Most people who adopt cats are believers in God. Hell... Most people who voted for Obama are believers in God!



A lot of good god did those slaves for hundreds of years.  But guess who used god to keep them in their places?  That's right, their slave owners.  Idiot.  

True Atheists Are 0.07% of the Federal Prison Population, Threatening Fact for Christian Fundamentalists | Alternet


----------



## sealybobo

Atheists Are 0.07% of the Federal Prison Population, Threatening Fact for Christian Fundamentalists | Alternet


----------



## sealybobo

I'm trying to cut and paste the part where it says 87% of scientists are atheists.  LOL


----------



## cultsmasher

Boss said:


> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.


  Boss,
  There is no such thing as god.  And even if there were, he would be the greatest evil ever encountered.  There is a documentary out there that can deprogram you.  It's called "Religious."  After that, to really seal the deal, I ran across a free ebook you need to read.  Really bad!  Just enter into your browser, "Our Holy Hell: The Causes, The Solutions."  These things are assuming that you even want to know the truth.


----------



## PostmodernProph

cultsmasher said:


> Boss,
> There is no such thing as god.  And even if there were, he would be the greatest evil ever encountered.  There is a documentary out there that can deprogram you.  It's called "Religious."  After that, to really seal the deal, I ran across a free ebook you need to read.  Really bad!  Just enter into your browser, "Our Holy Hell: The Causes, The Solutions."  These things are assuming that you even want to know the truth.


lol....


----------



## Crystalclear

cultsmasher said:


> Boss,
> There is no such thing as god.  And even if there were, he would be the greatest evil ever encountered.  There is a documentary out there that can deprogram you.  It's called "Religious."  After that, to really seal the deal, I ran across a free ebook you need to read.  Really bad!  Just enter into your browser, "Our Holy Hell: The Causes, The Solutions."  These things are assuming that you even want to know the truth.


True, God (if he even existed) must be a really bad person.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Darwin was born in 1809.  You given the red necks in the 1700's deep dirty red neck south credit for coming up with Darwinism?
> 
> They may have believed that blacks were animals but they were christians/god fearing men too buddy don't lie.  Remember, EVERYONE believes.  Right?




I guess you're like Hollie, too stupid to understand what "20th century" means? 

again... since 95% of humans believe in a God, anything from the past that's bad is on God's believers. God's believers elected Obama... TWICE! So there are lots of things we can blame on God's believers. Atheists have still killed over 150 million people in the last century. 

The abolition movement was started by Quaker ministers. The Civil Rights movement was led by Baptist ministers. Mormon's Helping Hands feeds more starving children than any entity on the planet. Second place goes to the Salvation Army. Which Atheist group is helping humanity? ...That's right, you have NO example. 

So come on down off the self-righteous white horse, you look absolutely ridiculous up there.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Blacks were talking about this today on Detroit Radio.  One guy said MLK should have told blacks to start their own business' and patronize black only business' instead of begging to spend money in whiteys place.  Blacks would be better off.  I agree.



Wow... Never took you to be a segregationist.


----------



## Youch

Boss said:


> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.




Haters will always hate.

This is but one of the several reasons why peace on earth is a bumper sticker.  Human nature isn't peaceful.  More importantly, this is why the original American social contract was so brilliant.


----------



## Boss

Crystalclear said:


> True, God (if he even existed) must be a really bad person.



Except that God is not a person. The things you and others are crediting to God are the actions of man. Men can be really bad people, even in the name of God.


----------



## Crystalclear

Boss said:


> Except that God is not a person. The things you and others are crediting to God are the actions of man. Men can be really bad people, even in the name of God.


Okay, maybe I should have said "bad entity". And I'm not talking about the things mankind has done "in the name of God." I'm talking about Bible stories (like Noah) in which God just wanted to destroy the earth or the fact that he sends people to a place to burn forever only for the reason that you do not believe in him/her/it. That are awful things to do, right? And according to your Holy Book it are things God did/is doing.


----------



## Boss

Crystalclear said:


> Okay, maybe I should have said "bad entity". And I'm not talking about the things mankind has done "in the name of God." I'm talking about Bible stories (like Noah) in which God just wanted to destroy the earth or the fact that he sends people to a place to burn forever only for the reason that you do not believe in him/her/it. That are awful things to do, right? And according to your Holy Book it are things God did/is doing.



I often get pushed into theological defense of the Bible here because people somehow can't accept that I am not a Christian or religious follower, but I still believe in God. I can't really answer your questions about the Bible as well as PmP or others, but since you are addressing me, I will do my best to try. 

According to the scripture, the world had become so vile and corrupt that God couldn't see another option. Now, we can see today where something like 10% of you are atheistic, just how much vile and hate you generate... I can only imagine a world where that was the "norm" and those who believed in God were killed. 

This thread has been going on for months, and I doubt God has reached any hearts. You all seem to be pretty dead set on not allowing God into your heart. So what would have worked back then would be the same as now for you. Is there any way for God to reach your hearts? ...I suspect, seeing God's believers in a big giant boat being saved while water continues to rise and you drown, just might work to make you believe in God. Short of something like that, I don't see what other option God would have.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> I guess you're like Hollie, too stupid to understand what "20th century" means?
> 
> again... since 95% of humans believe in a God, anything from the past that's bad is on God's believers. God's believers elected Obama... TWICE! So there are lots of things we can blame on God's believers. Atheists have still killed over 150 million people in the last century.
> 
> The abolition movement was started by Quaker ministers. The Civil Rights movement was led by Baptist ministers. Mormon's Helping Hands feeds more starving children than any entity on the planet. Second place goes to the Salvation Army. Which Atheist group is helping humanity? ...That's right, you have NO example.
> 
> So come on down off the self-righteous white horse, you look absolutely ridiculous up there.



45% of god believers voted against Obama too don't forget.  And how many of those Obama supporters voted for Bush twice and finally realized they were voting for the wrong party?  Remember Kennedy had to tell everyone he would not let the Vatican dictate his policies?

Oh, and consider this when thinking about the 95% christian American racists of the 1700's north and south.  In Canada blacks were not only free they could vote.  

And don't act like those racist Americans didn't know any better when England outlawed slavery and Canada did too.  It was all about money.  That's the problem with you Republican White American Christians.  Money trumps god every time.  Kill all the indians?  Sure why not.

Anyways, I want you to think long and hard about this.  These are the ignorant people who invented god.  No, in fact these people of the 1700's were MUCH MORE evolved than the people who invented god.  The people 150,000 years ago were very superstitious people.  They are who came up with the concept of a super parent for when the wooly mammoth ate their daddy.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> Wow... Never took you to be a segregationist.



Doesn't seem to bother you when Jews do it.  You're a supporter of Israel no?


----------



## hobelim

Boss said:


> I often get pushed into theological defense of the Bible here because people somehow can't accept that I am not a Christian or religious follower, but I still believe in God. I can't really answer your questions about the Bible as well as PmP or others, but since you are addressing me, I will do my best to try.
> 
> According to the scripture, the world had become so vile and corrupt that God couldn't see another option. Now, we can see today where something like 10% of you are atheistic, just how much vile and hate you generate... I can only imagine a world where that was the "norm" and those who believed in God were killed.
> 
> This thread has been going on for months, and I doubt God has reached any hearts. You all seem to be pretty dead set on not allowing God into your heart. So what would have worked back then would be the same as now for you. Is there any way for God to reach your hearts? ...I suspect, seeing God's believers in a big giant boat being saved while water continues to rise and you drown, just might work to make you believe in God. Short of something like that, I don't see what other option God would have.




Perhaps the truth is more simple than that and the story of Noah was based in part on fact, a natural disaster, with added explanations for its cause ( they best they could do is guess) and teaching for the survivors.


The meteor impact crater on the bottom of the Indian ocean that dates to the approximate time of the story of Gilgamesh could have easily caused the descriptions of the mind blowing destruction of a worldwide deluge. To any survivor it would have seemed that there was an angry God up there somewhere who must have decided to rid the world of bad people, because they were actually swept clean away and dead, and any survivors would have thought that they were somehow favored by this God because they survived.

Now I am not saying there is no God but claiming that God killed everyone according to the story of Noah because they were evil is as silly as claiming that God killed 225,000 people or more after the Indian ocean earthquake and ensuing tsunami because they were bad as if everyone doesn't eventually die from one thing or another.


----------



## sealybobo

Crystalclear said:


> True, God (if he even existed) must be a really bad person.



Not bad just indifferent.  Do you blame him?  If something created us, it probably doesn't even know we exist.  Or if it does it is like when we discovered Tardigrades.  Does anyone care about the life of a Tardigrade?  How about a maggot that comes from a poop you took in the woods?  Do you care about the maggot?

P.S.  I just realized Creationism is a myth and every society has a different story to tell.  These events supposedly happened "a long time ago".  Not a specific date.  Not recorded history.  Pre history, pre writing fairy tales.  I love it that today we can just laugh when someone says the Adam & Eve story is literal truth.  Now Boss doesn't say that but he denies science on such things as evolution and global warming.  But you know what?  What does it matter?  Even when we show Boss every one of his arguments has a fatal flaw, that doesn't sway him.  He still believes.  So even when he admits one day that evolution is real, that won't stop him.  Do you know how I know?  Because I use to believe just like him only I didn't deny evolution.  I just told myself that god planted the seed and we happened, slowly over millions of years.  I always knew there was no Adam & Eve.  How could there be?  Then we'd come from incest.  Same with the Noah story.  

So I believed in god but knew that man had invented all these stories.  But then one day not too long ago I realized, what reasons to I have to believe there even is a god?  There may be, but all that boss and gismys have given me is bullshit reasoning and fear of hell if I don't believe them.  And I'm a fool if I don't believe them?  Better to be safe than sorry?  Sorry, my brain doesn't work that way.  Either I believe or I don't, and I don't.  

PPS.  I hate the new layout on USMB.


----------



## sealybobo

hobelim said:


> Perhaps the truth is more simple than that and the story of Noah was based in part on fact, a natural disaster, with added explanations for its cause ( they best they could do is guess) and teaching for the survivors.
> 
> 
> The meteor impact crater on the bottom of the Indian ocean that dates to the approximate time of the story of Gilgamesh could have easily caused the descriptions of the mind blowing destruction of a worldwide deluge. To any survivor it would have seemed that there was an angry God up there somewhere who must have decided to rid the world of bad people, because they were actually swept clean away and dead, and any survivors would have thought that they were somehow favored by this God because they survived.
> 
> Now I am not saying there is no God but claiming that God killed everyone according to the story of Noah because they were evil is as silly as claiming that God killed 225,000 people or more after the Indian ocean earthquake and ensuing tsunami because they were bad as if everyone doesn't eventually die from one thing or another.



So they lied or made it up?  Because today we know floods aren't caused by god(s).  You do know that right?


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> I often get pushed into theological defense of the Bible here because people somehow can't accept that I am not a Christian or religious follower, but I still believe in God. I can't really answer your questions about the Bible as well as PmP or others, but since you are addressing me, I will do my best to try.
> 
> According to the scripture, the world had become so vile and corrupt that God couldn't see another option. Now, we can see today where something like 10% of you are atheistic, just how much vile and hate you generate... I can only imagine a world where that was the "norm" and those who believed in God were killed.
> 
> This thread has been going on for months, and I doubt God has reached any hearts. You all seem to be pretty dead set on not allowing God into your heart. So what would have worked back then would be the same as now for you. Is there any way for God to reach your hearts? ...I suspect, seeing God's believers in a big giant boat being saved while water continues to rise and you drown, just might work to make you believe in God. Short of something like that, I don't see what other option God would have.



How about the vile and hate you god believers generate?  

I bet the cop who shot that black kid believes in god.

Survey reveals only .02% of prisoners identify as atheists - Freedom From Religion Foundation


----------



## sealybobo

Crystalclear said:


> Okay, maybe I should have said "bad entity". And I'm not talking about the things mankind has done "in the name of God." I'm talking about Bible stories (like Noah) in which God just wanted to destroy the earth or the fact that he sends people to a place to burn forever only for the reason that you do not believe in him/her/it. That are awful things to do, right? And according to your Holy Book it are things God did/is doing.



Remember Boss gets the luxury of picking and choosing what parts of religion he agrees with and doesn't agree with because he openly admits every single organized religion is made up.  No god ever talked to any of them.  Not Mohammad, Jesus, Noah, Mosus, Joseph Smith, etc.

BUT, Boss talks to god.  

I wonder why he doesn't believe in christianity?  I'll ask him.

So even though he knows every organized religion is made up, he can't believe that primitive man made up god to begin with.

OR, his argument is that because we have always believed, that must mean god is real.  First of all, he can't prove we always believed.  I have even given him great arguments for how/why someone must have made it up at one point in history.  If you were born a baby to parents on a deserted island and they never told you about god, would you just instinctively come up with it?  No you would not.  Chances are it was sitting around a camp fire mourning the loss of a love one when someone came up with it.

And the fact that Indians invented their own version, Europeans invented their stories, Eqyptians, Greeks, etc.  All that tells us is we are all alike.

I will admit that if any society were to start over from scratch and no one is told about god, maybe not in the first generation, but eventually someone would come up with the story of god.  It is human nature to contemplate these things.  We have brains big enough to have wishful thinking.  

A bird can imagine a human and a human can imagine a bird but only a human can imagine a human with wings.


----------



## hobelim

sealybobo said:


> So they lied or made it up?  Because today we know floods aren't caused by god(s).  You do know that right?




I wouldn't say that they lied or made it up but they used facts about actual events to pen a story to covey truths about life that are relevant and remain true to this day.

I suspect other stories like the hammer of Thor also reflect  another impact event in prehistory that inspired Norse legends of some being of immense power up there somewhere.

This does not preclude or disprove the existence of God.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> So they lied or made it up?  Because today we know floods aren't caused by god(s).  You do know that right?



Excuse me, but we do NOT know this. We know how floods happen, we're uncertain on why. Yes, they can be physically explained, we still don't know why they happen, or why climate functions as it does, for that matter. We can explain how it works, but that is not to be confused with WHY it works.

You don't know that they lied or made anything up. Someone supposedly told Noah to build a big ass boat. Now... maybe it was an alien who knew that Earth was to be impacted by an asteroid soon? Don't know... it's possible. 

We do know the Earth has encountered several mass extinction events, the archeology shows us this much. If you learn of a way to avoid those, there's probably a Nobel Prize waiting for ya. The fact remains, as Neil Degrassey-head sez... the Universe has many ways to kill us. 

You don't know WHY.


----------



## BreezeWood

hobelim said:


> Now I am not saying there is no God but claiming that God killed everyone according to the story of Noah because they were evil ... is as silly ....




that is the religion, not to out of step for a carnivorous planet which may be meant as the daily reminder.

.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Remember Boss gets the luxury of picking and choosing what parts of religion he agrees with and doesn't agree with because he openly admits every single organized religion is made up.  No god ever talked to any of them.  Not Mohammad, Jesus, Noah, Mosus, Joseph Smith, etc.
> 
> BUT, Boss talks to god.
> 
> I wonder why he doesn't believe in christianity?  I'll ask him.



I never said I don't agree with Christianity or any other religion. I find a lot in Christian religion as well as Judaism, Islam, Hindu, and Buddhism that comports with my beliefs in a higher spiritual power. In essence, the "good" that religions do in the name of humanity and love, is of great consequence to spiritual energy, which I am an ardent supporter of. 

The reason I am not Christian is because I don't accept that Jesus was the physical incarnation of God, or that we are saved through faith in Jesus Christ. I believe Jesus was a great philosopher and may have been inspired by God, but I interpret the message of Jesus differently than Christians. I think what Jesus was telling us was that we didn't need organized religious formalities or church dogma to connect with God. Acceptance of God and God's Will is independent of religion and available to all men through their heart. 

I respect Christians, just as I respect all religious believers as long as they are promoting love in humanity and positive spiritual energy. 



> So even though he knows every organized religion is made up, he can't believe that primitive man made up god to begin with.



I've never said that I thought anything was "made up" including human spirituality, which has always existed in man. Because someone might misinterpret spiritual energy, doesn't mean they've made something up. 



> OR, his argument is that because we have always believed, that must mean god is real.  First of all, he can't prove we always believed.  I have even given him great arguments for how/why someone must have made it up at one point in history.  If you were born a baby to parents on a deserted island and they never told you about god, would you just instinctively come up with it?  No you would not.  Chances are it was sitting around a camp fire mourning the loss of a love one when someone came up with it.



Archeology says we've always believed. If you have a beef with archeology, take it up with them. You've shown us no point in human history where humans were not spiritual. You can speculate and form faith-based beliefs on anything you please, but we are simply going to call them that until you can present some kind of valid evidence to support your faith. 



> And the fact that Indians invented their own version, Europeans invented their stories, Eqyptians, Greeks, etc.  All that tells us is we are all alike.



No, it tells us that humans are all spiritual. It is an intrinsic characteristic found in man that simply cannot be denied. The fact that you can point to any culture at any place on the planet at any time and find human spiritual connection, is very telling. This means something profound. It can't be dismissed or written off as a fluke. It can't be explained away by superficial excuses or false justifications. There is no basis in nature for which to make those claims, so they are irrelevant. Humans are spiritually connected because they do spiritually connect with something greater than self. 



> I will admit that if any society were to start over from scratch and no one is told about god, maybe not in the first generation, but eventually someone would come up with the story of god.  It is human nature to contemplate these things.  We have brains big enough to have wishful thinking.



You are absolutely correct. Humans cannot exist without contemplating something greater than self. It's impossible. Again..... this means something profound.   



> A bird can imagine a human and a human can imagine a bird but only a human can imagine a human with wings.



But human spirituality goes beyond something imaginary. If it were imaginary, there would be no significant consequence from it and humans would lack any reason or justification to continue doing it. In nature, no living thing just does something for no reason whatsoever, without any benefit or purpose... doesn't happen in nature, anywhere, any time. So once again, we find that you are basing your faith-based beliefs on something that science simply doesn't and can't support. There is no evidence to support your faith, it's just plain old fashioned faith.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> Excuse me, but we do NOT know this. We know how floods happen, we're uncertain on why. Yes, they can be physically explained, we still don't know why they happen, or why climate functions as it does, for that matter. We can explain how it works, but that is not to be confused with WHY it works.
> 
> You don't know that they lied or made anything up. Someone supposedly told Noah to build a big ass boat. Now... maybe it was an alien who knew that Earth was to be impacted by an asteroid soon? Don't know... it's possible.
> 
> We do know the Earth has encountered several mass extinction events, the archeology shows us this much. If you learn of a way to avoid those, there's probably a Nobel Prize waiting for ya. The fact remains, as Neil Degrassey-head sez... the Universe has many ways to kill us.
> 
> You don't know WHY.



Sure we know why.  It's completely random.  The only thing we can do to prolong our life on this planet is to 

a.  Stop polluting it, drilling it, fracking it, nuking it, etc.  Unfortunately stupid religious people don't believe in Global warming because it wasn't written in the bible.  

b.  Embrace science.  Science saves you when you are sick, not god. Science got those aliens here to earth from their planet, not a god.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> The reason I am not Christian is because I don't accept that Jesus was the physical incarnation of God, or that we are saved through faith in Jesus Christ.
> 
> Archeology says we've always believed. If you have a beef with archeology, take it up with them.
> 
> You are absolutely correct. Humans cannot exist without contemplating something greater than self. It's impossible. Again..... this means something profound.
> 
> 
> 
> But human spirituality goes beyond something imaginary. If it were imaginary, there would be no significant consequence from it and humans would lack any reason or justification to continue doing it. In nature, no living thing just does something for no reason whatsoever, without any benefit or purpose... doesn't happen in nature, anywhere, any time. So once again, we find that you are basing your faith-based beliefs on something that science simply doesn't and can't support. There is no evidence to support your faith, it's just plain old fashioned faith.



1.  So you agree Jesus didn't perform miracles, rise from the dead and Mary wasn't a virgin.  So you agree with me.  Thanks.

2.  I promote love and treating others right too.  So just like christians and jews can be bad, atheists can be good.  Remember that.

3.  Your "archeologist says" argument is just like you trying to claim racists in the 1700's were Darwin fans even though he was born in 1800's.  You are a slick lying bullshitting spinster.

4.  I know it is hard to believe that from the indians to the asians they all came up with the concept of god or spirituality.  Just because ALL humans from indians to whites have always been spiritual/superstitious doesn't mean shit.  Science has explained this and I have explained it to you but you keep denying it.  Just because primitive men invented god doesn't mean god exists.  If someone smart who knew science were there maybe they would have been able to put the cabosh on god but unfortunately no one that smart was around when they invented god.  No one there to tell them it wasn't Zeus bowling.  The fact that ancient uncivilized and unevolved humans were capable of thinking up god, devils, angels, ghosts and demons does not mean they exist.  Are you really that thick headed you don't get that?  Your argument is fatally flawed.  Just because man was superstitious always doesn't mean they've always been right.  You are a fucking idiot if you believe that is good evidence.  Fucking dope.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> But human spirituality goes beyond something imaginary. If it were imaginary, there would be no significant consequence from it and humans would lack any reason or justification to continue doing it. In nature, no living thing just does something for no reason whatsoever, without any benefit or purpose... doesn't happen in nature, anywhere, any time. So once again, we find that you are basing your faith-based beliefs on something that science simply doesn't and can't support. There is no evidence to support your faith, it's just plain old fashioned faith.



Yes you benefit.  It's called ignorant bliss.  You want answers to the unknown.  You have a fear of the unknown.  Humans have always had a healthy fear of the unknown.

But the need for god is getting smaller.  I don't need it.  In fact my faith there is no god makes me appreciate the time I have here and now.  Plus it is liberating not having a super parent policing me 24/7.  

At first I was a little uncomfortable denying god but then I realized the only reason to feel guilty is if there is a god.  And even if there is a god, I would only feel guilty if this god cared about me, and I look around at this planet and the people on it and I realize if there is a god he doesn't care about you or me so no need to feel bad denying he exists.  Does is bother you if the maggot in your shit denies you created him?


----------



## sealybobo

*Paleolithic religion* is the set of spiritual beliefs thought to have appeared during the Paleolithic time.  

Religious behavior is thought to have emerged by the Upper Paleolithic, before 30,000 years ago at the latest, but behavioral patterns such as burial rites that one might characterize as religious — or as ancestral to religious behaviour — reach back into the Middle Paleolithic, as early as 300,000 years ago, coinciding with the first appearance of _Homo neanderthal_ and _Homo sapiens_. 

Ah so this behavior emerged?  It wasn't automatically and naturally something we always did?  

See the buzz words boss?  Behavioral patterns?


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> That's funny, I've never even been to a fundie Christian website.


----------



## daws101

I'm gone all this time and bossy is still blathering the same bullshit as the 1st post!


----------



## daws101

hobelim said:


> Perhaps the truth is more simple than that and the story of Noah was based in part on fact, a natural disaster, with added explanations for its cause ( they best they could do is guess) and teaching for the survivors.
> 
> 
> The meteor impact crater on the bottom of the Indian ocean that dates to the approximate time of the story of Gilgamesh could have easily caused the descriptions of the mind blowing destruction of a worldwide deluge. To any survivor it would have seemed that there was an angry God up there somewhere who must have decided to rid the world of bad people, because they were actually swept clean away and dead, and any survivors would have thought that they were somehow favored by this God because they survived.
> 
> Now I am not saying there is no God but claiming that God killed everyone according to the story of Noah because they were evil is as silly as claiming that God killed 225,000 people or more after the Indian ocean earthquake and ensuing tsunami because they were bad as if everyone doesn't eventually die from one thing or another.


according to the film god had already wiped out much of humanity before the flood ,noah constructed the ark  with the help of stone creatures called the watchers...


----------



## hobelim

daws101 said:


> according to the film god had already wiped out much of humanity before the flood ,noah constructed the ark  with the help of stone creatures called the watchers...




When can one acquire a stone creature? And would there be a cash discount?

btw, welcome back!


----------



## daws101

hobelim said:


> When can one acquire a stone creature? And would there be a cash discount?
> 
> btw, welcome back!


thanks.. you need a walmart card...


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Sure we know why.  It's completely random.



LMFAO... Well saying something is "random" doesn't in any way explain why it happens. In fact, it is the admission that you don't know why it happens, it's random, it just happens. 



> So you agree Jesus didn't perform miracles, rise from the dead and Mary wasn't a virgin. So you agree with me. Thanks.



I said none of that. I don't know what Jesus did or about Mary, I wasn't here.



> I promote love and treating others right too. So just like christians and jews can be bad, atheists can be good. Remember that.



Never have said atheists can't be good people or religious people can't be bad people. I promote more than "treating others right" like you, I promote positive spiritual energy flow. I think that is important in helping people be good. 



> Your "archeologist says" argument is just like you trying to claim racists in the 1700's were Darwin fans even though he was born in 1800's. You are a slick lying bullshitting spinster.



By "just like" do you mean that you've totally misconstrued it and are attempting to lie through your shit-stained teeth about what I have said? I never said anything about 1700s people being Darwin fans. Why do you feel compelled to lie about this stuff? It's not like people can't scroll back and read what I posted. Do you think you can lie about what I said and I'm going to let that slide and not say anything? I mean, seriously, why do you keep doing this? Over and over, I have to correct you on something you've claimed I said that I never said.



> I know it is hard to believe that from the indians to the asians they all came up with the concept of god or spirituality. Just because ALL humans from indians to whites have always been spiritual/superstitious doesn't mean shit. Science has explained this and I have explained it to you but you keep denying it.



Well, no... see that's the problem here. You aren't really "explaining" anything. You are presenting your opinion that is faith-based, and not giving any scientific backing for it. I am the one presenting science and you can't refute it. I've owned your ass this entire thread, you just keep posting your opinions over and over again, and lying about things I've said. We're getting nowhere with this, other than to fill pages and pages with your nonsense and my replying to it. When you can show me some science we can say there is some science being presented by you. Until then, we have the science I've presented and you've not refuted. 
*



			Paleolithic religion
		
Click to expand...

*


> is the set of spiritual beliefs thought to have appeared during thePaleolithic time.
> 
> Religious behavior is thought to have emerged by the Upper Paleolithic, before 30,000 years ago at the latest, but behavioral patterns such as burial rites that one might characterize as religious — or as ancestral to religious behaviour — reach back into the Middle Paleolithic, as early as 300,000 years ago, coinciding *with the first appearance of Homo neanderthal andHomo sapiens.*



You'll notice that all my arguments are regarding human spirituality, not religion. I agree that man invented religions and religious beliefs, they did this because they are spiritual creatures. My argument has always been regarding human spirituality, and as your source confirms, it is something that has been present in man since the first appearance of the species. 

So... no more arguing about this, your source and mine both confirm that humans have always been spiritual and there is no indication they "invented" human spirituality. This is what science says, this is all science says on the matter. Any further arguing from you to the contrary is simply you rejecting what science says because of your faith-based beliefs.


----------



## Boss

daws101 said:


> according to the film god had already wiped out much of humanity before the flood ,noah constructed the ark  with the help of stone creatures called the watchers...



You mean the film done by the atheist to mock the religion? I'm glad you watched it, I felt kind of bad for the production company... all that money wasted on a movie that no one watched. At least a few people were entertained by it. As for the actual biblical account, it wasn't even close from what I've heard.


----------



## Boss

daws101 said:


> I'm gone all this time and bossy is still blathering the same bullshit as the 1st post!



And you will be gone again if you can't post things relevant to the subject of the thread. How many times do you have to be banned to learn that lesson?


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> Excuse me, but we do NOT know this. We know how floods happen, we're uncertain on why. Yes, they can be physically explained, we still don't know why they happen, or why climate functions as it does, for that matter. We can explain how it works, but that is not to be confused with WHY it works.
> 
> You don't know that they lied or made anything up. Someone supposedly told Noah to build a big ass boat. Now... maybe it was an alien who knew that Earth was to be impacted by an asteroid soon? Don't know... it's possible.
> 
> We do know the Earth has encountered several mass extinction events, the archeology shows us this much. If you learn of a way to avoid those, there's probably a Nobel Prize waiting for ya. The fact remains, as Neil Degrassey-head sez... the Universe has many ways to kill us.
> 
> You don't know WHY.



You don't know either.  And that's why us agnostic atheists say the best answer is we just don't know and to keep on looking.  You theists claim you know.  You don't know shit.  Now if you want to get rid of the lie and start talking about right and wrong ok but leave god out because to us it is just a distraction and if you can't prove it, who really cares?  Are you really assuming that you have to believe in the spiritual or god to be good?  I disagree.  That should be insulting to humans that we need a scary lie to be good.  Repeat, belief in god does not make for good citizens.  Not good in heart and not wise in mind.  Ignorant greedy society.  Exactly what we have here in America.

And did you blow off the fact that somehow the people in England and Canada knew it was wrong to own slaves but you want to give white American christians a pass in the 1700's for owning slaves?  

Remember, it was that generation that told the next generation about god.  You believe that generation?  Why do you believe the generation before or after that generation?  But you do?  You take the word of our monkey ancestors.  

Actually you have bastardized god just like every other religion did after the very first one was invented.  Spin offs.


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> You mean the film done by the atheist to mock the religion? I'm glad you watched it, I felt kind of bad for the production company... all that money wasted on a movie that no one watched. At least a few people were entertained by it. As for the actual biblical account, it wasn't even close from what I've heard.


 false ! asshat

*The writer-director talks to "Good Morning America" about the challenges of literally portraying miraculous events described in the Bible and what he believes the movie is really about.*
_Noah_ writer-director *Darren Aronofsky* concedes that he couldn't help but interpret the biblical story of Noah's Ark, explaining that it was tough to literally portray miraculous events.

"You know, what is literalism? Does literalism exist? And when you're dealing with something like Noah, where everything is a miracle, from the deluge to all the animals two-by-two -- everything that happens is a miracle," the filmmaker told _Good Morning America_ Friday when asked about Paramount releasing a disclaimer saying the film was inspired by the Bible. "As soon as you start to interpret it, when you cast *Russell Crowe* it's an interpretation … but it's about the spirit. And the spirit of it is going back to all those four chapters and trying to be very, very truthful to every word, every sentence."

*if you haven't read the biblical account or seen the film then stfu.. 

Darren Aronofsky, director of Requiem for a Dream and Pi, as quoted here [1] :

[interviewer]: You know, a lot of filmmakers seem to be either very literary-based or else very movie-based who just watch movies. You seem to really be developing this new visual style that suits each story. You know, how did you find this third road?

DA: It's probably because I'm Godless. And so I've had to make my God, and my God is narrative filmmaking, which is -- ultimately what my God becomes, which is what my mantra becomes, is the theme.

--

Some elaboration on Aronofsky's views, from an interview on The Fountain [2]:

What’s your take on God? Are you religious? Do you believe in God?

DA: I think the themes of The Fountain, about this endless cycle of energy and matter, tracing back to the Big Bang... The Big Bang happened, and all this star matter turned into stars, and stars turned into planets, and planets turned into life. We’re all just borrowing this matter and energy for a little bit, while we’re here, until it goes back into everything else, and that connects us all. The cynics out there laugh at this crap, but it’s true. [Laughs] The messed up thing is how distracted we are and disconnected from that connection, and the result of it is what we’re doing to this planet and to ourselves. We’re just completely killing each other and killing the planet, and it’s a state of emergency right now, I think. All of my charity work has always been about the environment. There are 15,000 species on the endangered species list. Mercury poisoning is my new thing. [Laughs] We’re doing it to ourselves. The fact that there’s mercury poisoning in the breast milk of indigenous people in the North Arctic is all coming from us, and Alzheimer’s is on the rise. What are we doing to ourselves? It’s a complete disconnect. To me, that’s where the spirituality is. Whatever you want to call that connection -- some people would use that term God. That, to me, is what I think is holy.



*


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> And you will be gone again if you can't post things relevant to the subject of the thread. How many times do you have to be banned to learn that lesson?


everything I post is relevant.
this most especially: " I'm gone all this time and bossy is still blathering the same bullshit as the 1st post! "
it's fact so it's relevant


----------



## daws101

sealybobo said:


> You don't know either.  And that's why us agnostic atheists say the best answer is we just don't know and to keep on looking.  You theists claim you know.  You don't know shit.  Now if you want to get rid of the lie and start talking about right and wrong ok but leave god out because to us it is just a distraction and if you can't prove it, who really cares?  Are you really assuming that you have to believe in the spiritual or god to be good?  I disagree.  That should be insulting to humans that we need a scary lie to be good.  Repeat, belief in god does not make for good citizens.  Not good in heart and not wise in mind.  Ignorant greedy society.  Exactly what we have here in America.
> 
> And did you blow off the fact that somehow the people in England and Canada knew it was wrong to own slaves but you want to give white American christians a pass in the 1700's for owning slaves?
> 
> Remember, it was that generation that told the next generation about god.  You believe that generation?  Why do you believe the generation before or after that generation?  But you do?  You take the word of our monkey ancestors.
> 
> Actually you have bastardized god just like every other religion did after the very first one was invented.  Spin offs.


amen brother.


----------



## PostmodernProph

daws101 said:


> I'm gone all this time and bossy is still blathering the same bullshit as the 1st post!


does that tell us your posts have no impact on the board?.....


----------



## daws101

PostmodernProph said:


> does that tell us your posts have no impact on the board?.....


only in your dreams...your answer just highlights that bossys bullshit has not evolved in nearly 300 pages..


----------



## BreezeWood

Boss said:


> ...  In nature, no living thing just does something for no reason whatsoever, without any benefit or purpose... doesn't happen in nature, anywhere, any time. So once again, we find that you are basing your faith-based beliefs on something that science simply doesn't and can't support. There is no evidence to support your faith, it's just plain old fashioned faith.


*
Boss: ( There is no evidence to support your faith ) ...  In nature, no living thing just does something for no reason whatsoever, without any benefit or purpose... doesn't happen in nature, anywhere, any time.*


*what purpose could there be by excluding all other life to fulfill a certain individuals belief in spiritualism exclusive to only themselves ? .... 

if nothing else where is your scientific link to:   "In nature, no living thing just does something for no reason whatsoever, without any benefit or purpose... doesn't happen in nature, anywhere, any time".

you are not so much for something greater than self as you are just for yourself ... there is religion, you need to find it.

.




*


----------



## hobelim

daws101 said:


> only in your dreams...your answer just highlights that bossys bullshit has not evolved in nearly 300 pages..




That's just because you are too thick headed to accept spiritual evidence that does not qualify as any kind of evidence so of course you are incapable of accepting spiritual realities that are not real..

Unbeliever!


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> You don't know either.  And that's why us agnostic atheists say the best answer is we just don't know and to keep on looking.



But that's not what you said. You claimed we know that floods aren't caused by God(s) and you've offered no proof of that claim. I called you out on it, now you want to argue that I don't know either, but I didn't say I knew... you did. See, I would be fine with this "agnostic atheism" stuff if you actually practiced what you preach. You seem to want to have it both ways... we don't know, but yet, we do know. 




> You theists claim you know.  You don't know shit.  Now if you want to get rid of the lie and start talking about right and wrong ok but leave god out because to us it is just a distraction and if you can't prove it, who really cares?



Well, I am not a theist. I don't believe in religion. Remember? What lie? God? You've not proven God is a lie. That's another of your "agnostic atheist" claims that you don't know but say you do.

Who really cares? I care! Lots of other people who believe in God also care. We outnumber you about 9 to 1, so you'll have to put up with us.... but since you claim you don't know, that shouldn't be a problem. 



> Are you really assuming that you have to believe in the spiritual or god to be good?  I disagree.  That should be insulting to humans that we need a scary lie to be good.  Repeat, belief in god does not make for good citizens.  Not good in heart and not wise in mind.  Ignorant greedy society.  Exactly what we have here in America.



You're telling lies again. I didn't say you have to believe in God to be good. I don't give a damn what you find insulting, I find you insulting. You keep calling God a lie without supporting your accusation. 



> And did you blow off the fact that somehow the people in England and Canada knew it was wrong to own slaves but you want to give white American christians a pass in the 1700's for owning slaves?



As far as I know, you can't grow cotton in Canada or England. That's the only reason anyone had slaves. Now, we can take a look at any number of British colonies in Africa over to India, and I bet you'll find ample slaves under British rule. South Africa was segregated until the 1980s, primarily because of British law. Are we forgetting all of that conveniently? 



> Remember, it was that generation that told the next generation about god.  You believe that generation?  Why do you believe the generation before or after that generation?  But you do?  You take the word of our monkey ancestors.
> 
> Actually you have bastardized god just like every other religion did after the very first one was invented.  Spin offs.



I've already told you about what I believe. You're helping to establish my point here. Humans have always been spiritual. There is no evidence they invented that. If it were "made up" and served no fundamental purpose, humans would have stopped doing it long ago, but they haven't. They continue to pass down stories through generations and continue to believe in something greater than self. Even you admitted this was inescapable and people couldn't live without belief in a God. 

While it's easy for me to see how YOU may have come from a monkey, I didn't. This is yet another of your "agnostic atheist" claims that we don't know but really we do. You've offered no evidence that any sort of cross-genus evolution has ever taken place. Like all the rest, this is a faith-based belief you have under protection of "agnostic atheism" where you don't have to explain things, you can claim they are unknown, but continue to present your opinions as fact.


----------



## Boss

BreezeWood said:


> *Boss: ( There is no evidence to support your faith ) ...  In nature, no living thing just does something for no reason whatsoever, without any benefit or purpose... doesn't happen in nature, anywhere, any time.*
> 
> *what purpose could there be by excluding all other life to fulfill a certain individuals belief in spiritualism exclusive to only themselves ? ....
> 
> if nothing else where is your scientific link to:   "In nature, no living thing just does something for no reason whatsoever, without any benefit or purpose... doesn't happen in nature, anywhere, any time".
> 
> you are not so much for something greater than self as you are just for yourself ... there is religion, you need to find it.*



You want me to give you a scientific link to something science has never observed and has no account of ever happening? I don't understand this, I also can't give you a scientific link to no findings of flying spaghetti monsters. Does that mean science says they're real? I can think of millions of other things there are no scientific links to show they've not found evidence of... I don't see the point in that. If you have some evidence of a living thing doing something for no reason whatsoever, without any benefit or purpose, then present your evidence or shut up. 

I haven't "excluded" any damn thing. I don't know why you keep claiming this. You made the argument many moons ago about the possibility that all living things are spiritually connected, and I agreed that was a possibility and thanked you for your insight. But ever since then, you have consistently repeated this lie about what I've said. Why is that? Why do you and silly boob continue to post lie after lie about things I haven't said? If that's the only way you can find to disagree with me, making up a lie and pretending I said it, then so be it. I'd just like to understand why it keeps on happening. 

Do you not believe human beings are spiritual? That's pretty amazing since you think the Flora and Fauna are, and you do all this talking about the Almighty and Everlasting... so are humans not part of all that? See... me and silly boob are having an argument about human spirituality... he claims it's all made up nonsense and there is no such thing.  I maintain that humans make a real spiritual connection with something and it's not made up or invented. Which side are you on there? Do you think humans make it up and it's all in their heads? If not, you need to stop attacking ME and address the idiot who is claiming your "Everlasting" is a bunch of nonsense.


----------



## PostmodernProph

daws101 said:


> only in your dreams...your answer just highlights that bossys bullshit has not evolved in nearly 300 pages..


evolution takes millions of years, daws......you probably don't have that much time before you get banned again.....


----------



## BreezeWood

Boss said:


> You want me to give you a scientific link to something science has never observed and has no account of ever happening? I don't understand this, I also can't give you a scientific link to no findings of flying spaghetti monsters. Does that mean science says they're real? I can think of millions of other things there are no scientific links to show they've not found evidence of... I don't see the point in that. If you have some evidence of a living thing doing something for no reason whatsoever, without any benefit or purpose, then present your evidence or shut up.
> 
> I haven't "excluded" any damn thing. I don't know why you keep claiming this. You made the argument many moons ago about the possibility that all living things are spiritually connected, and I agreed that was a possibility and thanked you for your insight. But ever since then, you have consistently repeated this lie about what I've said. Why is that? Why do you and silly boob continue to post lie after lie about things I haven't said? If that's the only way you can find to disagree with me, making up a lie and pretending I said it, then so be it. I'd just like to understand why it keeps on happening.
> 
> Do you not believe human beings are spiritual? That's pretty amazing since you think the Flora and Fauna are, and you do all this talking about the Almighty and Everlasting... so are humans not part of all that? See... me and silly boob are having an argument about human spirituality... he claims it's all made up nonsense and there is no such thing.  I maintain that humans make a real spiritual connection with something and it's not made up or invented. Which side are you on there? Do you think humans make it up and it's all in their heads? If not, you need to stop attacking ME and address the idiot who is claiming your "Everlasting" is a bunch of nonsense.




Boss: ... In nature, no living thing just does something for no reason whatsoever, without any benefit or purpose... doesn't happen in nature, anywhere, any time.
*
Boss: You want me to give you a scientific link to something science has never observed and has no account of ever happening?*


yes, you have made an absurd assertion ( *something science has never observed and has no account of ever happening )* about nature that is far more prevalent as a digression of humanity than the other life forms whose subtleties conveniently escape you - no, they do not consume alcohol and swear in public.




Boss: ( I haven't "excluded" any damn thing ) - ( and I agreed that was a possibility ) ( ... so are humans not part of all that... ) - -  I maintain that humans make a real spiritual connection with something and it's not made up or invented.

*Boss: I maintain that humans make a real spiritual connection with something and it's not made up or invented ... In nature, no living thing just does something for no reason whatsoever, without any benefit or purpose... doesn't happen in nature, anywhere, any time.*


just what does not happen in nature ? -

you know perfectly well I include all life, Flora and Fauna as Spiritual creatures equally aspiring Admission to the Everlasting. it is you who deceivingly insist the issue is not debatable (without your evidence) and blindly insist on a hierarchy for humanity. - similar to the desert religions but not from the initial spirituality from Antiquity.




* have not learned how to "wrap in quot" without that tool in new forum ???? 

.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> Humans have always been spiritual. There is no evidence they invented that. If it were "made up" and served no fundamental purpose, humans would have stopped doing it long ago, but they haven't. They continue to pass down stories through generations and continue to believe in something greater than self. Even you admitted this was inescapable and people couldn't live without belief in a God.
> 
> While it's easy for me to see how YOU may have come from a monkey, I didn't. This is yet another of your "agnostic atheist" claims that we don't know but really we do. You've offered no evidence that any sort of cross-genus evolution has ever taken place. Like all the rest, this is a faith-based belief you have under protection of "agnostic atheism" where you don't have to explain things, you can claim they are unknown, but continue to present your opinions as fact.



1.  So now you want me to prove that god isn't creating the lightning.  Idiot.

2. The god the theists say is real is a lie and you know it.  If it weren't you'd realize all your christian buddies think you're going to hell.  Since people have always believed ignorant things like that, they must be true.  So there must be a hell and you're going to it because you deny jesus or mohammad or FILL IN THE BLANK.  

3.  People who believe in generic god are close to waking up.  I remember being just like you.  I'll give you an example.  I was watching Good Times the other night.  The episode where Michael had the balls to tell his christian mom he didn't believe in god.  I remember that episode when I was a child.  I remember being CLEARLY on his mother's side back then.  I remember being so glad when Michael changed his mind.  So it may take you 30 more years till it finally dawns on you like it did finally to me. 

4.  You are a theist.  Look up the fucking word jackass.

5.  Good points on the cotton, England, Africa, Canada point you made.

6.  People have always believed because it suited a purpose back then, was force fed to us for thousands of years, and still suits a purpose to this day.  It keeps the churches rich.  It helps control the masses.  Makes some people be good.  Helps you raise your kids with a super parent.  People have always been afraid of what happens when they die.  

I'll tell you who invented god.  Either a mom trying to make her children feel better after dad got eaten by a wholly mammouth or saber tooth tiger or a tribal elder who told the tribe stories, saw a lot of death and did a lot of pondering.  That's all it took.  A creative mind and a gullible clan.  

Ok, what proof did THEY have boss?  If he didn't really talk to them, they just made it up.  But you think god ingrained it into our dna?  That's your answer?  You don't have even one good argument for god.  

Lets just leave it at you believe because you want to believe and you can't believe otherwise.  Because you have no proof.  I don't need to prove to you Leprechauns don't exist now too, do I?


----------



## sealybobo

daws101 said:


> only in your dreams...your answer just highlights that bossys bullshit has not evolved in nearly 300 pages..



Boss says god is real because the majority of humans believe in some kind of god/spirituality.  

Then it is true boss is going to hell, because anyone who really claims to be a christian has to admit that the bible says Jesus said ONLY THROUGH ME can you enter heaven.  If christian light christians want to have a different spin on that I'm sorry but your church disagrees with you.  You don't get to cherry pick.  So christians clearly think Boss is going to hell.

Muslims for sure think Boss is going to hell.

Mormon's and Jehova say he's going to hell.  

I don't know what the jews say about people like boss.

But so the majority of religious people believe boss is going to hell.  So it must be true.

This is the same bad logic boss uses for god.


----------



## sealybobo

BreezeWood said:


> Boss: ... In nature, no living thing just does something for no reason whatsoever, without any benefit or purpose... doesn't happen in nature, anywhere, any time.
> *
> Boss: You want me to give you a scientific link to something science has never observed and has no account of ever happening?*
> 
> 
> yes, you have made an absurd assertion ( *something science has never observed and has no account of ever happening )* about nature that is far more prevalent as a digression of humanity than the other life forms whose subtleties conveniently escape you - no, they do not consume alcohol and swear in public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss: ( I haven't "excluded" any damn thing ) - ( and I agreed that was a possibility ) ( ... so are humans not part of all that... ) - -  I maintain that humans make a real spiritual connection with something and it's not made up or invented.
> 
> *Boss: I maintain that humans make a real spiritual connection with something and it's not made up or invented ... In nature, no living thing just does something for no reason whatsoever, without any benefit or purpose... doesn't happen in nature, anywhere, any time.*
> 
> 
> just what does not happen in nature ? -
> 
> you know perfectly well I include all life, Flora and Fauna as Spiritual creatures equally aspiring Admission to the Everlasting. it is you who deceivingly insist the issue is not debatable (without your evidence) and blindly insist on a hierarchy for humanity. - similar to the desert religions but not from the initial spirituality from Antiquity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * have not learned how to "wrap in quot" without that tool in new forum ????
> 
> .



I saw a show on how the meteor belt is possibly where life comes from.  Frozen ice with amino acids.  For some reason they got bounced around and flew all over the solar system hitting every planet.  We were just the right distance from the sun so life was able to flourish and evolve.  They think these meteors crashed on Mars and all the other planets and so those amino acids are on all the planets.  Mars billions of years ago may have had life on it or their may actually be life on it now.  They see in the summer methane comes out of the planet.  That could mean life.  We know there is ice and under might be water.  

Anyways, my point is, what put the amino acids on those asteroids?  Where does that life come from?  That's what we want to know.  

If god did it, why even bother continuing to look for the answers?  Saying god did it is what our uneducated ancient ancestors did.  Stop doing that.  We're better to say we don't know yet and to keep looking for the answers.


----------



## Boss

BreezeWood said:


> Boss: ... In nature, no living thing just does something for no reason whatsoever, without any benefit or purpose... doesn't happen in nature, anywhere, any time.
> *
> Boss: You want me to give you a scientific link to something science has never observed and has no account of ever happening?*
> 
> 
> yes, you have made an absurd assertion ( *something science has never observed and has no account of ever happening )* about nature that is far more prevalent as a digression of humanity than the other life forms whose subtleties conveniently escape you - no, they do not consume alcohol and swear in public.



Consuming alcohol and swearing in public both have benefit and purpose. You may not consider it beneficial or purposeful, but the creature doing it does. So you'll have to think harder to come up with an example of behavior with no rational purpose or benefit. You've failed.



> Boss: ( I haven't "excluded" any damn thing ) - ( and I agreed that was a possibility ) ( ... so are humans not part of all that... ) - -  I maintain that humans make a real spiritual connection with something and it's not made up or invented.





> *Boss: I maintain that humans make a real spiritual connection with something and it's not made up or invented ... In nature, no living thing just does something for no reason whatsoever, without any benefit or purpose... doesn't happen in nature, anywhere, any time.*
> 
> just what does not happen in nature ? -



Behaviors that have no rational purpose or reason, yet exist as a fundamental behavioral aspect of the species in question. Do you have any examples of this or not? (Repeating my statement over and over, making it bold or adding color, isn't a response.)



> you know perfectly well I include all life, Flora and Fauna as Spiritual creatures equally aspiring Admission to the Everlasting. it is you who deceivingly insist the issue is not debatable (without your evidence) and blindly insist on a hierarchy for humanity. - similar to the desert religions but not from the initial spirituality from Antiquity.



It's not blindly... it's apparent that humans are far more advanced and sophisticated than any other living thing. It's also apparent humans spiritually worship. Any 'hierarchy' is a perception you've drawn based on those presented facts. I don't know much about 'original spirituality' and I doubt you do either, but I know humans have always been spiritual creatures.

Again I ask, why are you busting MY chops when we both agree there is a spiritual nature? Why do you join forces with the "atheist agnostic" in this thread, who believes you're full of shit? This just doesn't make much sense to me, as it seems you are a spiritual person.



> * have not learned how to "wrap in quot" without that tool in new forum ????
> .





		Code:
	

 Use [QUOTE] and [/QUOTE]


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> Behaviors that have no rational purpose or reason, yet exist as a fundamental behavioral aspect of the species in question. Do you have any examples of this or not?
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> Use [QUOTE] and [/QUOTE]



For one, I have shown you that religion does serve a benefit.  It provides friends, helps raise your kids and answers your fears of the unknown just to name a few.  Here is another example.  How about, finding a wife?  Where do you find a good girl?  In church.  Or so you would think.  My buddy just married a nut job and divorced her after 4 months.  But I see a lot of my buddies or family who have good wives met them in church I will give you that.

Here is a good example though.  Science is trying to figure out why/how come us left handers haven't gone extinct and why the masses are right handed.  They theorize that being left handed was good in combat and sports so maybe we were studs and the woman liked us, but even we gave birth to mostly right handers.  And we live in a right handed world.  But the one thing us lefties are good/better at than righties is sports and war so maybe that is why.

Also the ability to write comes from the left side of the brain so that means everyone should be right handed, but we are not.  Why?  They don't know for sure.  Maybe it was god.  Maybe all us left handers are gods?


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> 1.  So now you want me to prove that god isn't creating the lightning.  Idiot.



No, I just want you to prove the definitive claims you make. Or at least present some sort of evidence we can evaluate objectively. Your OPINION on things are not evidence or facts, they are not science and we can't take them as truths. If you can't support your suppositions, they are simply "faith-based" beliefs. Now you have demonstrated you have very strong faith, which is not a bad thing, most humans do have faith. 



> 2. The god the theists say is real is a lie and you know it.  If it weren't you'd realize all your christian buddies think you're going to hell.  Since people have always believed ignorant things like that, they must be true.  So there must be a hell and you're going to it because you deny jesus or mohammad or FILL IN THE BLANK.



We see something revealing here about your personality. Notice how it seems you place a very high value on what others think. This causes you to appeal to me by informing me of how others think negatively of me. You assume that I am like you and I want others to like me. I don't care if others think I am going to hell. It doesn't make me think less of them or dismiss their arguments. 

Now, I don't know what God is real, I just know the God I communicate with is real. That's all that really matters to me. I haven't "denied" anything, I am a student of possibilities. From my perspective, ALL religious incarnations of God could be true, they could also be false or a combination of both. It doesn't matter to me because the God I know is real. 



> 3.  People who believe in generic god are close to waking up.  I remember being just like you.  I'll give you an example.  I was watching Good Times the other night.  The episode where Michael had the balls to tell his christian mom he didn't believe in god.  I remember that episode when I was a child.  I remember being CLEARLY on his mother's side back then.  I remember being so glad when Michael changed his mind.  So it may take you 30 more years till it finally dawns on you like it did finally to me.



You're NOT like me. I make a real connection with a real God daily, and you don't. You never have. If you did, you'd not be able to forget about that. You've been an empty spiritual vessel your whole life, you went through the motions of pretending to be spiritual for the sake of society or to please your family members... again, because you like to be liked. Now you wish to appeal to your "atheist buddies" so you've decided to reject the God that you never did connect with. 



> 4.  You are a theist.  Look up the fucking word jackass.



A theist believes in one or more "deities" and I don't know that God is a deity. I believe in Spiritual Energy. I do not subscribe to religious theologies, and only in the broadest sense of the word am I a "theist."  If we're going by that broad encompassing definition, you are also a theist... you believe in Karma. 



> 5.  Good points on the cotton, England, Africa, Canada point you made.



Another point is this... Even in 1700s England where they outlawed slavery, that was mostly a Christian society. 



> 6.  People have always believed because it suited a purpose back then, was force fed to us for thousands of years, and still suits a purpose to this day.  It keeps the churches rich.  It helps control the masses.  Makes some people be good.  Helps you raise your kids with a super parent.  People have always been afraid of what happens when they die.
> 
> I'll tell you who invented god.  Either a mom trying to make her children feel better after dad got eaten by a wholly mammouth or saber tooth tiger or a tribal elder who told the tribe stories, saw a lot of death and did a lot of pondering.  That's all it took.  A creative mind and a gullible clan.



But what you keep on doing is interjecting your opinion without basis in evidence. I don't have a problem with you having faith-based beliefs, but we cannot call those facts or science. No evidence exists that humans invented spirituality. You have not presented such evidence and you can't because none exists. You have a faith-based opinion, and that is all you have. 



> Ok, what proof did THEY have boss?  If he didn't really talk to them, they just made it up.  But you think god ingrained it into our dna?  That's your answer?  You don't have even one good argument for god.
> 
> Lets just leave it at you believe because you want to believe and you can't believe otherwise.  Because you have no proof.  I don't need to prove to you Leprechauns don't exist now too, do I?



I've already explained that I believe because I am aware of a spiritual connection which I gain benefit from. I don't have any need to prove that to you, and this thread isn't to prove God exists. If you actually think that someone is going to be able to convince you of a God that you refuse to believe in, I don't know what to tell you... get some professional help.


----------



## Montrovant

Wait.  You believe in god but aren't a theist?  You don't know if god is a deity?  You get very confusing with your terminology, Boss.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> For one, I have shown you that religion does serve a benefit.  It provides friends, helps raise your kids and answers your fears of the unknown just to name a few.  Here is another example.  How about, finding a wife?  Where do you find a good girl?  In church.  Or so you would think.  My buddy just married a nut job and divorced her after 4 months.  But I see a lot of my buddies or family who have good wives met them in church I will give you that.



So basically what you are saying is, God is beneficial to societal structure in general. It enables robust human civilization and culture. I agree, which is why I believe it is too fundamentally important to our species to have been invented or imaginary. It's also a good argument as to why God is essential to human civilization and we couldn't survive without it. Well said! 



> Here is a good example though.  Science is trying to figure out why/how come us left handers haven't gone extinct and why the masses are right handed.  They theorize that being left handed was good in combat and sports so maybe we were studs and the woman liked us, but even we gave birth to mostly right handers.  And we live in a right handed world.  But the one thing us lefties are good/better at than righties is sports and war so maybe that is why.
> 
> Also the ability to write comes from the left side of the brain so that means everyone should be right handed, but we are not.  Why?  They don't know for sure.  Maybe it was god.  Maybe all us left handers are gods?



I certainly think many atheists have replaced God with worship of self, becoming their own God. 

The left hand/right hand thing is superficial and not really related to this discussion. When I was 6 years old, I broke my right collarbone, was confined to a cast for 6 months. It just so happened this was about the time my schoolmates were learning to write, so I had to learn how to write left handed. I can write just as well with my left or right hand. I imagine had that accident not happened, I wouldn't have ever learned to write left handed.


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> Wait.  You believe in god but aren't a theist?  You don't know if god is a deity?  You get very confusing with your terminology, Boss.



I didn't raise the terminology issue, I am merely addressing it as presented. Sorry if you are confused, but I imagine that is a familiar state for you.... I bet you'll survive! 

To clarify: I believe in Spiritual Nature, a force that I routinely connect with and gain benefit from. Whether this constitutes a "deity" or not, I have no way of knowing for certain. It's quite superfluous to me one way or the other. Theological beliefs are related to religious understandings of a Deity God, and in that respect, I am not a theist. So if you go by a broad sense of context, then I guess you could call me a "theist" because I do believe in a "God" which I define as Spiritual Nature. However, I have consistently said I am non-theistic in my beliefs. Take it for what it's worth.


----------



## sealybobo

Montrovant said:


> Wait.  You believe in god but aren't a theist?  You don't know if god is a deity?  You get very confusing with your terminology, Boss.



We call them cherry pickers.  And notice he wants me to prove the invisible man he talks to isn't real?  If he really believes some invisible god is talking to him what I would recommend is a psychiatrist but I don't even really believe he believes the shit he says.  

I think he likes it that he can't define god.  That's because he knows deep down he can't.  It is truly all in his head.  Ignorant bliss.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> So basically what you are saying is, God is beneficial to societal structure in general. It enables robust human civilization and culture. I agree, which is why I believe it is too fundamentally important to our species to have been invented or imaginary. It's also a good argument as to why God is essential to human civilization and we couldn't survive without it. Well said!



There were for sure benefits to believing in god.  Don't get burned at the stake or crucified would be a couple.  But there are many more.  Just the comfort it must have given to people when their parents never returned from the hunt.

Even if god was important and helped when we were not as smart, for a million reasons I don't think it is necessary or beneficial anymore.  Lets just say the pro's don't outweigh the cons.  We can do better and don't need a god.  What do you think would happen if we got rid of god?  

But that's just me.  For you it is clearly necessary.  Just keep that shit to yourself.


----------



## BreezeWood

Boss said:


> Consuming alcohol and swearing in public both have benefit and purpose. You may not consider it beneficial or purposeful, but the creature doing it does. So you'll have to think harder to come up with an example of behavior with no rational purpose or benefit. You've failed.
> 
> 
> 
> Behaviors that have no rational purpose or reason, yet exist as a fundamental behavioral aspect of the species in question. Do you have any examples of this or not? (Repeating my statement over and over, making it bold or adding color, isn't a response.)
> 
> 
> 
> It's not blindly... it's apparent that humans are far more advanced and sophisticated than any other living thing. It's also apparent humans spiritually worship. Any 'hierarchy' is a perception you've drawn based on those presented facts. I don't know much about 'original spirituality' and I doubt you do either, but I know humans have always been spiritual creatures.
> 
> Again I ask, why are you busting MY chops when we both agree there is a spiritual nature? Why do you join forces with the "atheist agnostic" in this thread, who believes you're full of shit? This just doesn't make much sense to me, as it seems you are a spiritual person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> Use [QUOTE] and [/QUOTE]






> Consuming alcohol and swearing in public both have benefit and purpose.



that makes no sense ... sort of lost with your argument there, Blade - can we try a Peach, no process there ...




> it's apparent that humans are far more advanced and sophisticated than any other living thing.


we get what you are implying - of course you never replied to what will be your superior attribute when locked in a room with a hungry Lion.




> I don't know much about 'original spirituality'












> but I know humans have always been spiritual creatures.



that's the problem, why do you exclude all other life from spirituality - what you communicate with is not "in your head" why would ( whatever) only communicate with humans ?




> Again I ask, why are you busting MY chops when we both agree there is a spiritual nature?



you have a point there - except a true Spiritualist does have a religion and Spiritualism exists in all living creatures and to portray otherwise is heretical.

.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> I didn't raise the terminology issue, I am merely addressing it as presented. Sorry if you are confused, but I imagine that is a familiar state for you.... I bet you'll survive!
> 
> To clarify: I believe in Spiritual Nature, a force that I routinely connect with and gain benefit from. Whether this constitutes a "deity" or not, I have no way of knowing for certain. It's quite superfluous to me one way or the other. Theological beliefs are related to religious understandings of a Deity God, and in that respect, I am not a theist. So if you go by a broad sense of context, then I guess you could call me a "theist" because I do believe in a "God" which I define as Spiritual Nature. However, I have consistently said I am non-theistic in my beliefs. Take it for what it's worth.



You can't have it both ways.  Seems you want it both ways with all your arguments.  This one and a couple more.

1.  If something must have created all this, what created the thing that created all this?  Why does one have to have a cause but the other doesn't?  And how do you know?  You don't.

2.  Also your argument since most people believe then it must be true.  Same goes for most people think you are gong to hell. Muslims and Christians combined plus every other believer.  From the beginning when we first made this shit up, we always believed that other people who are not one of us or believe like we do will not go to heaven.  Why?  Because god told them.  In other words we've been lying about god from the time we invented him.  Hense all the bullshit fake ass fairy tales of creation and times when god talked to us.  LIES!  

So remember, If your theory holds true that because we always believed ignorant things then every ignorant thing we ever believed must be true.  And if majority rules, you're going to hell with me.  lol


----------



## sealybobo

BreezeWood said:


> that makes no sense ... sort of lost with your argument there, Blade - can we try a Peach, no process there ...
> 
> 
> 
> we get what you are implying - of course you never replied to what will be your superior attribute when locked in a room with a hungry Lion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that's the problem, why do you exclude all other life from spirituality - what you communicate with is not "in your head" why would ( whatever) only communicate with humans ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you have a point there - except a true Spiritualist does have a religion and Spiritualism exists in all living creatures and to portray otherwise is heretical.
> 
> .



I'll agree if there is a god he cares about giraffe and bear and dogs too.  Even the tiny Tardigrades. 

Either that or he doesn't give a shit about any of us.  This is the more probable scenario if there is a god that created this universe.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> There were for sure benefits to believing in god.  Don't get burned at the stake or crucified would be a couple.  But there are many more.  Just the comfort it must have given to people when their parents never returned from the hunt.
> 
> Even if god was important and helped when we were not as smart, for a million reasons I don't think it is necessary or beneficial anymore.  Lets just say the pro's don't outweigh the cons.  We can do better and don't need a god.  What do you think would happen if we got rid of god?
> 
> But that's just me.  For you it is clearly necessary.  Just keep that shit to yourself.



I don't think you can ever get rid of God. You've already refuted your "smartness" argument here, there are many geniuses, MENSAns, scientists, doctors, etc., who believe in God. In fact, many more believe in God than don't. Also, there has been no significant decline in the relative percentage of humans who are spiritual, there are as many of us today as ever. So... say buh-bye to your faith-based belief that we cling to spirituality because we're not smart. 

We can't do better because we haven't done better. Yet another opinion you can't substantiate. Just so happens we have a few examples of prominent societies who attempted living without spirituality, and the results are quite dismal. Lenin and Stalin tried it in Russia, over 50 million people died. Mao tried it in China, another 70 million people died. Pol Pot tried it in Cambodia... more millions of deaths. To date, there is no example of a vibrant society which is free from spirituality. 

Oh, and I'm sorry but until you are appointed the King, you don't get to tell me what to keep to myself. I have religious freedom in this country, and you have to tolerate it. Sorry!


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't raise the terminology issue, I am merely addressing it as presented. Sorry if you are confused, but I imagine that is a familiar state for you.... I bet you'll survive!
> 
> To clarify: I believe in Spiritual Nature, a force that I routinely connect with and gain benefit from. Whether this constitutes a "deity" or not, I have no way of knowing for certain. It's quite superfluous to me one way or the other. Theological beliefs are related to religious understandings of a Deity God, and in that respect, I am not a theist. So if you go by a broad sense of context, then I guess you could call me a "theist" because I do believe in a "God" which I define as Spiritual Nature. However, I have consistently said I am non-theistic in my beliefs. Take it for what it's worth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't have it both ways.  Seems you want it both ways with all your arguments.  This one and a couple more.
> 
> 1.  If something must have created all this, what created the thing that created all this?  Why does one have to have a cause but the other doesn't?  And how do you know?  You don't.
Click to expand...


Why are you repeating arguments that have already been addressed? Have you already forgotten the answers presented for this? By "created all this" you mean a physical material creation of stuff.... God is not physical or material. 

Having it both ways? Why don't you explain this? Do you mean, me having my way with you up one side and down the other? Turning your ass every which way but loose? 



> 2.  Also your argument since most people believe then it must be true.  Same goes for most people think you are gong to hell. Muslims and Christians combined plus every other believer.  From the beginning when we first made this shit up, we always believed that other people who are not one of us or believe like we do will not go to heaven.  Why?  Because god told them.  In other words we've been lying about god from the time we invented him.  Hense all the bullshit fake ass fairy tales of creation and times when god talked to us.  LIES!
> 
> So remember, If your theory holds true that because we always believed ignorant things then every ignorant thing we ever believed must be true.  And if majority rules, you're going to hell with me.  lol



I have never argued that since most people believe then it must be true. I stated that 90% of the species is, and always has been, spiritual. Because we know from nature and science that living things don't adopt behavior that has no fundamental reason or purpose, we have to assume human spirituality is a fundamental aspect to human behavior. You agreed with this above, but now you are back to trying to misconstrue something I said to make an inane point.

You've still provided NO evidence that we invented spirituality. Do you really think repeating your opinions over and over again is going to make up for your lack of evidence?


----------



## Boss

BreezeWood said:


> Consuming alcohol and swearing in public both have benefit and purpose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that makes no sense ... sort of lost with your argument there, Blade - can we try a Peach, no process there ...
Click to expand...


Try to follow closely... when a person consumes alcohol, they have a purpose and reason for doing it. The same with cursing in public. 

Don't know any Blade or Peach, so I can't comment. 



> it's apparent that humans are far more advanced and sophisticated than any other living thing.
> 
> 
> 
> we get what you are implying - of course you never replied to what will be your superior attribute when locked in a room with a hungry Lion.
Click to expand...


Well I hope I am never in that situation. Daniel, according to the Bible, was in that situation and his "superior attribute" was devout faith in God. Since I believe in the power of Spiritual Nature, I would probably rely on that, given I have no superior physical attribute over a hungry lion. 




> I don't know much about 'original spirituality'
Click to expand...


Sorry, that's not original spirituality. Try again. 




> but I know humans have always been spiritual creatures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that's the problem, why do you exclude all other life from spirituality - what you communicate with is not "in your head" why would ( whatever) only communicate with humans ?
Click to expand...


I've not excluded anything. All normal humans have two eyes... doesn't mean nothing else in nature has eyes. Humans communicate with each other through language... doesn't mean other things don't communicate with language. You're trying to take something I said and twist it into something I never argued. Why? What is the purpose of this?




> Again I ask, why are you busting MY chops when we both agree there is a spiritual nature?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you have a point there - except a true Spiritualist does have a religion and Spiritualism exists in all living creatures and to portray otherwise is heretical.
> .
Click to expand...


Well I don't believe in heresy, since that is a religious precept.


----------



## daws101

PostmodernProph said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> only in your dreams...your answer just highlights that bossys bullshit has not evolved in nearly 300 pages..
> 
> 
> 
> evolution takes millions of years, daws......you probably don't have that much time before you get banned again.....
Click to expand...

knowledge evolves much faster than life....since bossy's yammering has not evolved it will be left in the garbage pile of history like phrenology and the vapors..


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So they lied or made it up?  Because today we know floods aren't caused by god(s).  You do know that right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me, but we do NOT know this. We know how floods happen, we're uncertain on why. Yes, they can be physically explained, we still don't know why they happen, or why climate functions as it does, for that matter. We can explain how it works, but that is not to be confused with WHY it works.
> 
> You don't know that they lied or made anything up. Someone supposedly told Noah to build a big ass boat. Now... maybe it was an alien who knew that Earth was to be impacted by an asteroid soon? Don't know... it's possible.
> 
> We do know the Earth has encountered several mass extinction events, the archeology shows us this much. If you learn of a way to avoid those, there's probably a Nobel Prize waiting for ya. The fact remains, as Neil Degrassey-head sez... the Universe has many ways to kill us.
> 
> You don't know WHY.
Click to expand...

 the answer to why depends entirely on your own personal pov...in the case of flooding or fires or earthquakes and many human endeavors the how and the why are one in the same...


----------



## daws101

hobelim said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> only in your dreams...your answer just highlights that bossys bullshit has not evolved in nearly 300 pages..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's just because you are too thick headed to accept spiritual evidence that does not qualify as any kind of evidence so of course you are incapable of accepting spiritual realities that are not real..
> 
> Unbeliever!
Click to expand...


----------



## BillyP

Can you really hate something for which there is no proof? Wouldn't you just hate the idea? And anyways, who decided that god made the world in 6 days?


----------



## daws101

BillyP said:


> Can you really hate something for which there is no proof? Wouldn't you just hate the idea? And anyways, who decided that god made the world in 6 days?


in reality there is no proof that god does or does not exist..however, believers interpret that as  does exist...


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> There were for sure benefits to believing in god.  Don't get burned at the stake or crucified would be a couple.  But there are many more.  Just the comfort it must have given to people when their parents never returned from the hunt.
> 
> Even if god was important and helped when we were not as smart, for a million reasons I don't think it is necessary or beneficial anymore.  Lets just say the pro's don't outweigh the cons.  We can do better and don't need a god.  What do you think would happen if we got rid of god?
> 
> But that's just me.  For you it is clearly necessary.  Just keep that shit to yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think you can ever get rid of God. You've already refuted your "smartness" argument here, there are many geniuses, MENSAns, scientists, doctors, etc., who believe in God. In fact, many more believe in God than don't. Also, there has been no significant decline in the relative percentage of humans who are spiritual, there are as many of us today as ever. So... say buh-bye to your faith-based belief that we cling to spirituality because we're not smart.
> 
> We can't do better because we haven't done better. Yet another opinion you can't substantiate. Just so happens we have a few examples of prominent societies who attempted living without spirituality, and the results are quite dismal. Lenin and Stalin tried it in Russia, over 50 million people died. Mao tried it in China, another 70 million people died. Pol Pot tried it in Cambodia... more millions of deaths. To date, there is no example of a vibrant society which is free from spirituality.
> 
> Oh, and I'm sorry but until you are appointed the King, you don't get to tell me what to keep to myself. I have religious freedom in this country, and you have to tolerate it. Sorry!
Click to expand...


Fact is if you put 1000 smart people together, you'll find a lot of atheists.  And if you put a bunch of stupid people together you will get a higher number of believers.

scientists in the United States are more likely to not believe in God when compared to nonscientists [source: The Pew Research Center]. Here are the numbers from one 2009 Pew Research Center survey:


One-third of scientists said they believed in God, compared to 83 percent of the general public surveyed.
Nearly one-fifth reported not believing in God but having faith in a higher power (general public came in at 12 percent).
Roughly two-fifths said they didn't believe in a God or higher power (4 percent among the general public).


----------



## BreezeWood

> *BW:* you know perfectly well I include all life, Flora and Fauna as Spiritual creatures equally aspiring Admission to the Everlasting. it is you who deceivingly insist the issue is not debatable (without your evidence) and blindly insist on a hierarchy for humanity. - similar to the desert religions but not from the initial spirituality from Antiquity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Boss:* It's not blindly... it's apparent that humans are far more advanced and sophisticated than any other living thing. It's also apparent humans spiritually worship. Any 'hierarchy' is a perception you've drawn based on those presented facts. I don't know much about 'original spirituality' and I doubt you do either, but I know humans have always been spiritual creatures.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...






> I don't know much about 'original spirituality'












> *Boss:* Sorry, that's not original spirituality. Try again.




oh, and why not ?

it is you who deceivingly insist the issue is not debatable (without your evidence) and blindly insist on a hierarchy for humanity. - similar to the desert religions but not from the initial spirituality from Antiquity.

what is your example of spirituality from antiquity - the example that excludes Fauna and Flora, or all other life's of supernatural from that period that centers solely on humanity.






> *Blade:* Well I hope I am never in that situation. Daniel, according to the Bible, was in that situation and his "superior attribute" was devout faith in God. Since I believe in the power of Spiritual Nature, I would probably rely on that, given I have no superior physical attribute over a hungry lion.




  sure, and you are going to ask your "personal humanity" God for help ( against the Lion ) - good luck.

.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't raise the terminology issue, I am merely addressing it as presented. Sorry if you are confused, but I imagine that is a familiar state for you.... I bet you'll survive!
> 
> To clarify: I believe in Spiritual Nature, a force that I routinely connect with and gain benefit from. Whether this constitutes a "deity" or not, I have no way of knowing for certain. It's quite superfluous to me one way or the other. Theological beliefs are related to religious understandings of a Deity God, and in that respect, I am not a theist. So if you go by a broad sense of context, then I guess you could call me a "theist" because I do believe in a "God" which I define as Spiritual Nature. However, I have consistently said I am non-theistic in my beliefs. Take it for what it's worth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't have it both ways.  Seems you want it both ways with all your arguments.  This one and a couple more.
> 
> 1.  If something must have created all this, what created the thing that created all this?  Why does one have to have a cause but the other doesn't?  And how do you know?  You don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you repeating arguments that have already been addressed? Have you already forgotten the answers presented for this? By "created all this" you mean a physical material creation of stuff.... God is not physical or material.
> 
> Having it both ways? Why don't you explain this? Do you mean, me having my way with you up one side and down the other? Turning your ass every which way but loose?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2.  Also your argument since most people believe then it must be true.  Same goes for most people think you are gong to hell. Muslims and Christians combined plus every other believer.  From the beginning when we first made this shit up, we always believed that other people who are not one of us or believe like we do will not go to heaven.  Why?  Because god told them.  In other words we've been lying about god from the time we invented him.  Hense all the bullshit fake ass fairy tales of creation and times when god talked to us.  LIES!
> 
> So remember, If your theory holds true that because we always believed ignorant things then every ignorant thing we ever believed must be true.  And if majority rules, you're going to hell with me.  lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have never argued that since most people believe then it must be true. I stated that 90% of the species is, and always has been, spiritual. Because we know from nature and science that living things don't adopt behavior that has no fundamental reason or purpose, we have to assume human spirituality is a fundamental aspect to human behavior. You agreed with this above, but now you are back to trying to misconstrue something I said to make an inane point.
> 
> You've still provided NO evidence that we invented spirituality. Do you really think repeating your opinions over and over again is going to make up for your lack of evidence?
Click to expand...


Of course I have provided you tons of evidence.  Just the fact you keep bringing up your "no fundamental reason or purpose" argument when I've explained to you several times that there was/is a purpose for believing in god.  It makes you happy stupid.  

And yes you have said that two of your bad reasons for believing in god is because:

a.  Most people believe & 
b. Because people have believed for as far back as we can tell.

You say this is your proof a spirit or god exists.  Am I wrong?  If I am wrong, what reasons again to you have for believing in god?


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Fact is if you put 1000 smart people together, you'll find a lot of atheists.  And if you put a bunch of stupid people together you will get a higher number of believers.
> 
> scientists in the United States are more likely to not believe in God when compared to nonscientists [source: The Pew Research Center]. Here are the numbers from one 2009 Pew Research Center survey:
> 
> 
> One-third of scientists said they believed in God, compared to 83 percent of the general public surveyed.
> Nearly one-fifth reported not believing in God but having faith in a higher power (general public came in at 12 percent).
> Roughly two-fifths said they didn't believe in a God or higher power (4 percent among the general public).




Fact is, the most atheistic group you can find shows less than half don't believe in God and more than half believe in God or a higher power. So even with your "1000 smart people" argument, you fail... most of them believe in something greater than self. 

I think it was also a Pew study that examined the most atheist country on the planet, Sweden. They found 33% claimed to be atheist, 66% claimed some spiritual belief. What was really interesting was the follow-up question asked of the atheists... Less than half of that 33% were willing to go so far as to say they did not believe in any possibility of something greater than self. I guess the majority were "agnostic" atheists? 

Scientists, not scientists, smart people, dumb people, atheist country or not... doesn't matter, a majority believe in something greater than self. Even in a group of ALL atheists!


----------



## Boss

BreezeWood said:


> *Boss:* Sorry, that's not original spirituality. Try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oh, and why not ?
> 
> it is you who deceivingly insist the issue is not debatable (without your evidence) and blindly insist on a hierarchy for humanity. - similar to the desert religions but not from the initial spirituality from Antiquity.
> 
> what is your example of spirituality from antiquity - the example that excludes Fauna and Flora, or all other life's of supernatural from that period that centers solely on humanity.
Click to expand...


Why do you keep insisting that I am arguing on behalf of only humanity, ignoring what I've said to the contrary? I don't know that other living things aren't spiritual. I don't see the evidence of it but it doesn't mean it's not possible. Perhaps it's something that can't be seen by us? I'll accept that possibility. It has nothing to do with humans who are spiritual and always have been. 

The example of human spirituality goes back to the very first signs of human civilization, where they practiced ritual ceremonies and burials. This predates your Egyptian statue by tens of thousands of years. What you are showing is signs of early religious beliefs. 



> *Boss:* Well I hope I am never in that situation. Daniel, according to the Bible, was in that situation and his "superior attribute" was devout faith in God. Since I believe in the power of Spiritual Nature, I would probably rely on that, given I have no superior physical attribute over a hungry lion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sure, and you are going to ask your "personal humanity" God for help ( against the Lion ) - good luck.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


No, I am going to appeal to Spiritual Nature because that's my only hope against a hungry lion. What are YOU going to do? 

Oh, and please stop calling me "Blade." I don't know who that is but obviously you miss them and long for their return. I get that, I understand it... but I'm Boss, always have been. Sorry!


----------



## Boss

daws101 said:


> *knowledge evolves much faster than life*....since bossy's yammering has not evolved it will be left in the garbage pile of history like phrenology and the vapors..



I disagree. Knowledge, when applied to you, seems to vanish into a black hole, never to be seen or heard from again. Any surface knowledge which remains on the event horizon is converted to anti-knowledge and spewed back out from your oral orifice into the universe. Science is perplexed.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Of course I have provided you tons of evidence.  Just the fact you keep bringing up your "no fundamental reason or purpose" argument when I've explained to you several times that there was/is a purpose for believing in god.  It makes you happy stupid.
> 
> And yes you have said that two of your bad reasons for believing in god is because:
> 
> a.  Most people believe &
> b. Because people have believed for as far back as we can tell.
> 
> You say this is your proof a spirit or god exists.  Am I wrong?  If I am wrong, what reasons again to you have for believing in god?



Yes, you are wrong. The reason I personally have for believing in God is because I talk to God and God answers my prayers. The reason most humans, now and forever, believe in God is because humans are spiritually connected. I've never claimed I could prove God exists. 

Now that is important to note, because it all comes down to semantics. To "exist" can generally mean, in a state of physical material reality. Since spiritual nature, by definition, is not physical or material, it cannot have physical or material existence. It has a spiritual presence, not a physical existence.

Back to this supposed "ton of evidence" you claim to have presented... where is it? You've repeatedly stated that "we don't know" but then you pop off some opinion as if it's a "fact of science" and that's all you've been doing the entire thread, best I can tell. It seems you may be confusing your baseless opinions with evidence. 

My "no fundamental reason or purpose" argument is to refute your argument that humans invented spirituality, and all this God belief is from our wild imaginations. Not only have you failed to show any scientific evidence for that claim, it doesn't comport with logic or reason and completely contradicts nature as we understand it.


----------



## Boss

daws101 said:


> the answer to why depends entirely on your own personal pov...in the case of flooding or fires or earthquakes and many human endeavors the how and the why are one in the same...



But how and why are two different questions. To make them the same is called "circular reasoning." That's the most convenient way out when you don't have an answer. It all boils down to the old "JUST BECAUSE" argument.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fact is if you put 1000 smart people together, you'll find a lot of atheists.  And if you put a bunch of stupid people together you will get a higher number of believers.
> 
> scientists in the United States are more likely to not believe in God when compared to nonscientists [source: The Pew Research Center]. Here are the numbers from one 2009 Pew Research Center survey:
> 
> 
> One-third of scientists said they believed in God, compared to 83 percent of the general public surveyed.
> Nearly one-fifth reported not believing in God but having faith in a higher power (general public came in at 12 percent).
> Roughly two-fifths said they didn't believe in a God or higher power (4 percent among the general public).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fact is, the most atheistic group you can find shows less than half don't believe in God and more than half believe in God or a higher power. So even with your "1000 smart people" argument, you fail... most of them believe in something greater than self.
> 
> I think it was also a Pew study that examined the most atheist country on the planet, Sweden. They found 33% claimed to be atheist, 66% claimed some spiritual belief. What was really interesting was the follow-up question asked of the atheists... Less than half of that 33% were willing to go so far as to say they did not believe in any possibility of something greater than self. I guess the majority were "agnostic" atheists?
> 
> Scientists, not scientists, smart people, dumb people, atheist country or not... doesn't matter, a majority believe in something greater than self. Even in a group of ALL atheists!
Click to expand...


Argumentum ad populum. The popularity of an idea says nothing of its veracity.

Geocentrism, a flat earth, creationism, astrology, alchemy and the occult were all once pervasive beliefs.

Furthermore, religions are culturally relative and, for the most part, are inconsistent and mutually exclusive.

_“A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it.”_ – David Stevens

And I told you most atheists are actually agnostic atheists.  Remember, we don't know what's on the other side of a black hole yet either.  We remain open to all posibilities.  You're twist on a creator is actually really lame.  You are smart enough to realize religions are made up but you can't imagine that the entire premise is too.  Interesting.  

The validity of a claim, such as the existence of god, is not governed by the intelligence of the minds which hold it. Evidence and reason are the deciding factors.

The fact that an intelligent person holds an irrational belief is simply evidence that our brains are able to compartmentalize world-views and models from one another, usually in order to maintain a state of ‘ignorant bliss’ and escape the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I have provided you tons of evidence.  Just the fact you keep bringing up your "no fundamental reason or purpose" argument when I've explained to you several times that there was/is a purpose for believing in god.  It makes you happy stupid.
> 
> And yes you have said that two of your bad reasons for believing in god is because:
> 
> a.  Most people believe &
> b. Because people have believed for as far back as we can tell.
> 
> You say this is your proof a spirit or god exists.  Am I wrong?  If I am wrong, what reasons again to you have for believing in god?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you are wrong. The reason I personally have for believing in God is because I talk to God and God answers my prayers. The reason most humans, now and forever, believe in God is because humans are spiritually connected. I've never claimed I could prove God exists.
> 
> Now that is important to note, because it all comes down to semantics. To "exist" can generally mean, in a state of physical material reality. Since spiritual nature, by definition, is not physical or material, it cannot have physical or material existence. It has a spiritual presence, not a physical existence.
> 
> Back to this supposed "ton of evidence" you claim to have presented... where is it? You've repeatedly stated that "we don't know" but then you pop off some opinion as if it's a "fact of science" and that's all you've been doing the entire thread, best I can tell. It seems you may be confusing your baseless opinions with evidence.
> 
> My "no fundamental reason or purpose" argument is to refute your argument that humans invented spirituality, and all this God belief is from our wild imaginations. Not only have you failed to show any scientific evidence for that claim, it doesn't comport with logic or reason and completely contradicts nature as we understand it.
Click to expand...


Yes it is true science is/has proven that god is all in your head(s)

It started out as an ordinary day for Saul back in A.D. 36. He wanted to murder disciples of a man who claimed to be the Messiah, and he was on his way to Damascus to do so. Then, on the way to Damascus, a light flashed all around Saul. He fell to the ground and heard a voice that claimed to be Jesus Christ. The voice told him to continue to the town, a task likely made no easier by the blindness Saul experienced when he got up. Saul remained blind for three days, until a disciple named Ananias laid hands upon him. Saul's sight was restored, and he immediately became baptized. After his experience, Saul became a powerful preacher for Jesus; today, he's better known as St. Paul.

Paul's story is interesting not just to biblical scholars, but to neuro-

scientists as well. Some scientists claim that the account of this conversion, found in the book of Acts, contains enough evidence to diagnose Paul with temporal lobe epilepsy.

HowStuffWorks "Is the brain hardwired for religion?"

Who knows what's in your head if you are talking to a god you dope.  lol


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fact is if you put 1000 smart people together, you'll find a lot of atheists.  And if you put a bunch of stupid people together you will get a higher number of believers.
> 
> scientists in the United States are more likely to not believe in God when compared to nonscientists [source: The Pew Research Center]. Here are the numbers from one 2009 Pew Research Center survey:
> 
> 
> One-third of scientists said they believed in God, compared to 83 percent of the general public surveyed.
> Nearly one-fifth reported not believing in God but having faith in a higher power (general public came in at 12 percent).
> Roughly two-fifths said they didn't believe in a God or higher power (4 percent among the general public).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fact is, the most atheistic group you can find shows less than half don't believe in God and more than half believe in God or a higher power. So even with your "1000 smart people" argument, you fail... most of them believe in something greater than self.
> 
> I think it was also a Pew study that examined the most atheist country on the planet, Sweden. They found 33% claimed to be atheist, 66% claimed some spiritual belief. What was really interesting was the follow-up question asked of the atheists... Less than half of that 33% were willing to go so far as to say they did not believe in any possibility of something greater than self. I guess the majority were "agnostic" atheists?
> 
> Scientists, not scientists, smart people, dumb people, atheist country or not... doesn't matter, a majority believe in something greater than self. Even in a group of ALL atheists!
Click to expand...


A majority believe in the *possibility* of something greater than self, even in a group of all atheists.  A bit of an important distinction.  Otherwise, I agree, most believe in something religious or spiritual.


----------



## sealybobo

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fact is if you put 1000 smart people together, you'll find a lot of atheists.  And if you put a bunch of stupid people together you will get a higher number of believers.
> 
> scientists in the United States are more likely to not believe in God when compared to nonscientists [source: The Pew Research Center]. Here are the numbers from one 2009 Pew Research Center survey:
> 
> 
> One-third of scientists said they believed in God, compared to 83 percent of the general public surveyed.
> Nearly one-fifth reported not believing in God but having faith in a higher power (general public came in at 12 percent).
> Roughly two-fifths said they didn't believe in a God or higher power (4 percent among the general public).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fact is, the most atheistic group you can find shows less than half don't believe in God and more than half believe in God or a higher power. So even with your "1000 smart people" argument, you fail... most of them believe in something greater than self.
> 
> I think it was also a Pew study that examined the most atheist country on the planet, Sweden. They found 33% claimed to be atheist, 66% claimed some spiritual belief. What was really interesting was the follow-up question asked of the atheists... Less than half of that 33% were willing to go so far as to say they did not believe in any possibility of something greater than self. I guess the majority were "agnostic" atheists?
> 
> Scientists, not scientists, smart people, dumb people, atheist country or not... doesn't matter, a majority believe in something greater than self. Even in a group of ALL atheists!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A majority believe in the *possibility* of something greater than self, even in a group of all atheists.  A bit of an important distinction.  Otherwise, I agree, most believe in something religious or spiritual.
Click to expand...


Does the fact that most people believe matter?  Most people don't understand science or the brain.  Even people who believe in spirituality only do so because they want to believe in more.  They don't know anything they just want there to be so they've convinced themselves they believe in something they can't even prove to themselves.  No proof necessary.  They just hope or as they all it "have faith"  

Does the fact that as far back as we can trace man has always believed matter?  I say that's proof it was all just made up by a scared primitive men.    

Are either of these things proof of a god?  At least boss doesn't say I'll go to hell if I don't buy into it.  I'll give his monkey ass that.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fact is if you put 1000 smart people together, you'll find a lot of atheists.  And if you put a bunch of stupid people together you will get a higher number of believers.
> 
> scientists in the United States are more likely to not believe in God when compared to nonscientists [source: The Pew Research Center]. Here are the numbers from one 2009 Pew Research Center survey:
> 
> 
> One-third of scientists said they believed in God, compared to 83 percent of the general public surveyed.
> Nearly one-fifth reported not believing in God but having faith in a higher power (general public came in at 12 percent).
> Roughly two-fifths said they didn't believe in a God or higher power (4 percent among the general public).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fact is, the most atheistic group you can find shows less than half don't believe in God and more than half believe in God or a higher power. So even with your "1000 smart people" argument, you fail... most of them believe in something greater than self.
> 
> I think it was also a Pew study that examined the most atheist country on the planet, Sweden. They found 33% claimed to be atheist, 66% claimed some spiritual belief. What was really interesting was the follow-up question asked of the atheists... Less than half of that 33% were willing to go so far as to say they did not believe in any possibility of something greater than self. I guess the majority were "agnostic" atheists?
> 
> Scientists, not scientists, smart people, dumb people, atheist country or not... doesn't matter, a majority believe in something greater than self. Even in a group of ALL atheists!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Argumentum ad populum. The popularity of an idea says nothing of its veracity.
> 
> Geocentrism, a flat earth, creationism, astrology, alchemy and the occult were all once pervasive beliefs.
> 
> Furthermore, religions are culturally relative and, for the most part, are inconsistent and mutually exclusive.
> 
> _“A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it.”_ – David Stevens
> 
> And I told you most atheists are actually agnostic atheists.  Remember, we don't know what's on the other side of a black hole yet either.  We remain open to all posibilities.  You're twist on a creator is actually really lame.  You are smart enough to realize religions are made up but you can't imagine that the entire premise is too.  Interesting.
> 
> The validity of a claim, such as the existence of god, is not governed by the intelligence of the minds which hold it. Evidence and reason are the deciding factors.
> 
> The fact that an intelligent person holds an irrational belief is simply evidence that our brains are able to compartmentalize world-views and models from one another, usually in order to maintain a state of ‘ignorant bliss’ and escape the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.
Click to expand...


LMFAO... So you are now admitting your original point was "argumentum ad populum?" We're now back to "validity of a claim is not governed by intelligence" and away from "put 1000 smart people together, find a lot of atheists." Can't you make up your mind, silly boob? 

*We remain open to all posibilities.  You're twist on a creator is actually really lame.*

Wow... you can't type two consecutive sentences without contradicting yourself, can you?

Pathetic.


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *knowledge evolves much faster than life*....since bossy's yammering has not evolved it will be left in the garbage pile of history like phrenology and the vapors..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree. Knowledge, when applied to you, seems to vanish into a black hole, never to be seen or heard from again. Any surface knowledge which remains on the event horizon is converted to anti-knowledge and spewed back out from your oral orifice into the universe. Science is perplexed.
Click to expand...

of course you'd disagree which just proves my point...


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the answer to why depends entirely on your own personal pov...in the case of flooding or fires or earthquakes and many human endeavors the how and the why are one in the same...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But how and why are two different questions. To make them the same is called "circular reasoning." That's the most convenient way out when you don't have an answer. It all boils down to the old "JUST BECAUSE" argument.
Click to expand...

false .. why something happens is most often the same as how it it did.
circular reason is a hilarious statement coming from you .  
why did that fire happen?  someone was careless with a match.  
how did that fire happen  someone was careless with a match.


----------



## Boss

daws101 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the answer to why depends entirely on your own personal pov...in the case of flooding or fires or earthquakes and many human endeavors the how and the why are one in the same...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But how and why are two different questions. To make them the same is called "circular reasoning." That's the most convenient way out when you don't have an answer. It all boils down to the old "JUST BECAUSE" argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> false .. why something happens is most often the same as how it it did.
> circular reason is a hilarious statement coming from you .
> why did that fire happen?  someone was careless with a match.
> how did that fire happen  someone was careless with a match.
Click to expand...


False. It NEVER is. 
*Why did that fire happen?* Someone was careless with a match.
*How did that fire happen?* A sequence of exothermic chemical reactions between a fuel and an oxidant accompanied by the production of heat and conversion of chemical species. (Combustion)


----------



## BreezeWood

sealybobo said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> that makes no sense ... sort of lost with your argument there, Blade - can we try a Peach, no process there ...
> 
> 
> 
> we get what you are implying - of course you never replied to what will be your superior attribute when locked in a room with a hungry Lion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that's the problem, why do you exclude all other life from spirituality - what you communicate with is not "in your head" why would ( whatever) only communicate with humans ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you have a point there - except a true Spiritualist does have a religion and Spiritualism exists in all living creatures and to portray otherwise is heretical.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll agree if there is a god he cares about giraffe and bear and dogs too.  Even the tiny Tardigrades.
> 
> Either that or he doesn't give a shit about any of us.  This is the more probable scenario if there is a god that created this universe.
Click to expand...



the filtered religions suggest for the Spirit to freely exist requires a state of accomplished purity ( purity of heart ) for there to even be the possibility for acceptance to the Everlasting. so no there is no concern unless warranted by deed and then only to reject the unworthy.

the Everlasting is responsible for the universe - what is living is guided by the longest lasting Spirit - per interpretation over time.

.


----------



## BreezeWood

Boss said:


> Again I ask, why are you busting MY chops when we both agree there is a spiritual nature?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you have a point there - except a true Spiritualist does have a religion and Spiritualism exists in all living creatures and to portray otherwise is heretical.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I don't believe in heresy, since that is a religious precept.
Click to expand...





> *Boss:* Why do you keep insisting that I am arguing on behalf of only humanity, ignoring what I've said to the contrary? I don't know that other living things aren't spiritual. I don't see the evidence of it but it doesn't mean it's not possible. Perhaps it's something that can't be seen by us? I'll accept that possibility. It has nothing to do with humans who are spiritual and always have been.
> 
> The example of human spirituality goes back to the very first signs of human civilization, where they practiced ritual ceremonies and burials. This predates your Egyptian statue by tens of thousands of years. What you are showing is signs of early religious beliefs.




*Perhaps it's something that can't be seen by us?*


*





    ......... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


*

isn't your argument spiritual nature is not physical and therefore unprovable ... maybe you are simply blind by not having religious conviction, that is not everyone's problem. the physical and spiritual are one in the same.




> Bossy: Well I don't believe in heresy ...



no religion ???

.


----------



## daws101

Boss said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the answer to why depends entirely on your own personal pov...in the case of flooding or fires or earthquakes and many human endeavors the how and the why are one in the same...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But how and why are two different questions. To make them the same is called "circular reasoning." That's the most convenient way out when you don't have an answer. It all boils down to the old "JUST BECAUSE" argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> false .. why something happens is most often the same as how it it did.
> circular reason is a hilarious statement coming from you .
> why did that fire happen?  someone was careless with a match.
> how did that fire happen  someone was careless with a match.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False. It NEVER is.
> *Why did that fire happen?* Someone was careless with a match.
> *How did that fire happen?* A sequence of exothermic chemical reactions between a fuel and an oxidant accompanied by the production of heat and conversion of chemical species. (Combustion)
Click to expand...

nice bullshit!
no one who is rational when asking how common event like a fire  happened would need or care hear  the description of combustion most already know it...once again how and why serve the same function...


----------



## daws101

BreezeWood said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again I ask, why are you busting MY chops when we both agree there is a spiritual nature?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you have a point there - except a true Spiritualist does have a religion and Spiritualism exists in all living creatures and to portray otherwise is heretical.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I don't believe in heresy, since that is a religious precept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Boss:* Why do you keep insisting that I am arguing on behalf of only humanity, ignoring what I've said to the contrary? I don't know that other living things aren't spiritual. I don't see the evidence of it but it doesn't mean it's not possible. Perhaps it's something that can't be seen by us? I'll accept that possibility. It has nothing to do with humans who are spiritual and always have been.
> 
> The example of human spirituality goes back to the very first signs of human civilization, where they practiced ritual ceremonies and burials. This predates your Egyptian statue by tens of thousands of years. What you are showing is signs of early religious beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Perhaps it's something that can't be seen by us?*
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> isn't your argument spiritual nature is not physical and therefore unprovable ... maybe you are simply blind by not having religious conviction, that is not everyone's problem. the physical and spiritual are one in the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bossy: Well I don't believe in heresy ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no religion ???
> 
> .
Click to expand...


spiritual evidence is non existent. its generally "faith based knowledge", which in itself is an illusion of knowledge and willful ignorance


----------



## LittleNipper

daws101 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the answer to why depends entirely on your own personal pov...in the case of flooding or fires or earthquakes and many human endeavors the how and the why are one in the same...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But how and why are two different questions. To make them the same is called "circular reasoning." That's the most convenient way out when you don't have an answer. It all boils down to the old "JUST BECAUSE" argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> false .. why something happens is most often the same as how it it did.
> circular reason is a hilarious statement coming from you .
> why did that fire happen?  someone was careless with a match.
> how did that fire happen  someone was careless with a match.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False. It NEVER is.
> *Why did that fire happen?* Someone was careless with a match.
> *How did that fire happen?* A sequence of exothermic chemical reactions between a fuel and an oxidant accompanied by the production of heat and conversion of chemical species. (Combustion)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nice bullshit!
> no one who is rational when asking how common event like a fire  happened would need or care hear  the description of combustion most already know it...once again how and why serve the same function...
Click to expand...

Well, you sound highly educated and understanding. So, why do we have matches? Where they the end product of natural environmental evolution or were they_ created_ by man? My educated guess is that you really have no idea why you exist or where you are going. Instead of badmouthing, perhaps you might wish to put your brain to some purpose other than being narrow minded and missing the boat!


----------



## Boss

daws101 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the answer to why depends entirely on your own personal pov...in the case of flooding or fires or earthquakes and many human endeavors the how and the why are one in the same...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But how and why are two different questions. To make them the same is called "circular reasoning." That's the most convenient way out when you don't have an answer. It all boils down to the old "JUST BECAUSE" argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> false .. why something happens is most often the same as how it it did.
> circular reason is a hilarious statement coming from you .
> why did that fire happen?  someone was careless with a match.
> how did that fire happen  someone was careless with a match.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False. It NEVER is.
> *Why did that fire happen?* Someone was careless with a match.
> *How did that fire happen?* A sequence of exothermic chemical reactions between a fuel and an oxidant accompanied by the production of heat and conversion of chemical species. (Combustion)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nice bullshit!
> no one who is rational when asking how common event like a fire  happened would need or care hear  the description of combustion most already know it...once again how and why serve the same function...
Click to expand...


No, *why* and *how* are not the same and I've demonstrated this with your own example. It's not bullshit, it's something your dumb ass can't refute, so you whine bullshit. Anyone who is rational understands that *how* and *why* are two completely different questions on anything. Only some retard loudmouth on a message board would attempt to argue otherwise.


----------



## BreezeWood

daws101 said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again I ask, why are you busting MY chops when we both agree there is a spiritual nature?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you have a point there - except a true Spiritualist does have a religion and Spiritualism exists in all living creatures and to portray otherwise is heretical.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I don't believe in heresy, since that is a religious precept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Boss:* Why do you keep insisting that I am arguing on behalf of only humanity, ignoring what I've said to the contrary? I don't know that other living things aren't spiritual. I don't see the evidence of it but it doesn't mean it's not possible. Perhaps it's something that can't be seen by us? I'll accept that possibility. It has nothing to do with humans who are spiritual and always have been.
> 
> The example of human spirituality goes back to the very first signs of human civilization, where they practiced ritual ceremonies and burials. This predates your Egyptian statue by tens of thousands of years. What you are showing is signs of early religious beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Perhaps it's something that can't be seen by us?*
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> isn't your argument spiritual nature is not physical and therefore unprovable ... maybe you are simply blind by not having religious conviction, that is not everyone's problem. the physical and spiritual are one in the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bossy: Well I don't believe in heresy ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no religion ???
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> spiritual evidence is non existent. its generally "faith based knowledge", which in itself is an illusion of knowledge and willful ignorance
Click to expand...












> spiritual evidence is non existent. its generally "faith based knowledge", which in itself is an illusion of knowledge and willful ignorance




*spiritual evidence is non existent ...*


when a person has vision spiritual evidence is readily assimilated, for the illreligious however there are beginning steps available.

.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fact is if you put 1000 smart people together, you'll find a lot of atheists.  And if you put a bunch of stupid people together you will get a higher number of believers.
> 
> scientists in the United States are more likely to not believe in God when compared to nonscientists [source: The Pew Research Center]. Here are the numbers from one 2009 Pew Research Center survey:
> 
> 
> One-third of scientists said they believed in God, compared to 83 percent of the general public surveyed.
> Nearly one-fifth reported not believing in God but having faith in a higher power (general public came in at 12 percent).
> Roughly two-fifths said they didn't believe in a God or higher power (4 percent among the general public).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fact is, the most atheistic group you can find shows less than half don't believe in God and more than half believe in God or a higher power. So even with your "1000 smart people" argument, you fail... most of them believe in something greater than self.
> 
> I think it was also a Pew study that examined the most atheist country on the planet, Sweden. They found 33% claimed to be atheist, 66% claimed some spiritual belief. What was really interesting was the follow-up question asked of the atheists... Less than half of that 33% were willing to go so far as to say they did not believe in any possibility of something greater than self. I guess the majority were "agnostic" atheists?
> 
> Scientists, not scientists, smart people, dumb people, atheist country or not... doesn't matter, a majority believe in something greater than self. Even in a group of ALL atheists!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Argumentum ad populum. The popularity of an idea says nothing of its veracity.
> 
> Geocentrism, a flat earth, creationism, astrology, alchemy and the occult were all once pervasive beliefs.
> 
> Furthermore, religions are culturally relative and, for the most part, are inconsistent and mutually exclusive.
> 
> _“A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it.”_ – David Stevens
> 
> And I told you most atheists are actually agnostic atheists.  Remember, we don't know what's on the other side of a black hole yet either.  We remain open to all posibilities.  You're twist on a creator is actually really lame.  You are smart enough to realize religions are made up but you can't imagine that the entire premise is too.  Interesting.
> 
> The validity of a claim, such as the existence of god, is not governed by the intelligence of the minds which hold it. Evidence and reason are the deciding factors.
> 
> The fact that an intelligent person holds an irrational belief is simply evidence that our brains are able to compartmentalize world-views and models from one another, usually in order to maintain a state of ‘ignorant bliss’ and escape the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMFAO... So you are now admitting your original point was "argumentum ad populum?" We're now back to "validity of a claim is not governed by intelligence" and away from "put 1000 smart people together, find a lot of atheists." Can't you make up your mind, silly boob?
> 
> *We remain open to all posibilities.  You're twist on a creator is actually really lame.*
> 
> Wow... you can't type two consecutive sentences without contradicting yourself, can you?
> 
> Pathetic.
Click to expand...


That's because both are true.  Smart people don't typically believe things on blind faith in general and so that's why you'll find in smarter groups you'll find more atheists and in dumber groups you'll find more.  Great example is prison.  Prison is full of people who all believe in god.  Yes Nasa has a lot of doubters.  

Definition of Spiritual should be a person who doesn't believe any religions but wants to still believe in something.

So from now on call it Something.  In Something We Trust.  Something Damn You!  Please Something, forgive me, blablabla.  Last night I was watching a black woman preacher.  She was misinterpreting the bible left and right.  Using it to manipulate and bamboozle them.  But she said he created us in his image.  She had a very specific god she was talking about.  She wasn't vague like you.  She didn't define him or it as spiritual energy.  So now that's god?  Energy?  Electricity?  

You know what?  Since I don't know, I hope you are right.  I hope there is something higher or more too.  I just don't.  But if our/my energy never dies and lives on forever, that's great.  I'm just telling you that even if you are right there is a creator, that still doesn't mean you live on once your body dies.  That's wishful thinking too.

So you can hope to catch me in a mistake but really I'm not the one claiming to know anything.  You're trying to prove to us a god exists and theists are trying to make god the law of the land.  You may not think of yourself as one of them but you are.  Sucker.  They'd string you up for your heresy if they could.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the answer to why depends entirely on your own personal pov...in the case of flooding or fires or earthquakes and many human endeavors the how and the why are one in the same...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But how and why are two different questions. To make them the same is called "circular reasoning." That's the most convenient way out when you don't have an answer. It all boils down to the old "JUST BECAUSE" argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> false .. why something happens is most often the same as how it it did.
> circular reason is a hilarious statement coming from you .
> why did that fire happen?  someone was careless with a match.
> how did that fire happen  someone was careless with a match.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False. It NEVER is.
> *Why did that fire happen?* Someone was careless with a match.
> *How did that fire happen?* A sequence of exothermic chemical reactions between a fuel and an oxidant accompanied by the production of heat and conversion of chemical species. (Combustion)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nice bullshit!
> no one who is rational when asking how common event like a fire  happened would need or care hear  the description of combustion most already know it...once again how and why serve the same function...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, *why* and *how* are not the same and I've demonstrated this with your own example. It's not bullshit, it's something your dumb ass can't refute, so you whine bullshit. Anyone who is rational understands that *how* and *why* are two completely different questions on anything. Only some retard loudmouth on a message board would attempt to argue otherwise.
Click to expand...


You've been wrong and not admitted it.

Remember your theory since most people believe and have always believed that must mean it's true?  Neither of those arguments are sound and you have yet to apologize for being a fucking lying retard.


----------



## sealybobo

BreezeWood said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again I ask, why are you busting MY chops when we both agree there is a spiritual nature?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you have a point there - except a true Spiritualist does have a religion and Spiritualism exists in all living creatures and to portray otherwise is heretical.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I don't believe in heresy, since that is a religious precept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Boss:* Why do you keep insisting that I am arguing on behalf of only humanity, ignoring what I've said to the contrary? I don't know that other living things aren't spiritual. I don't see the evidence of it but it doesn't mean it's not possible. Perhaps it's something that can't be seen by us? I'll accept that possibility. It has nothing to do with humans who are spiritual and always have been.
> 
> The example of human spirituality goes back to the very first signs of human civilization, where they practiced ritual ceremonies and burials. This predates your Egyptian statue by tens of thousands of years. What you are showing is signs of early religious beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Perhaps it's something that can't be seen by us?*
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> isn't your argument spiritual nature is not physical and therefore unprovable ... maybe you are simply blind by not having religious conviction, that is not everyone's problem. the physical and spiritual are one in the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bossy: Well I don't believe in heresy ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no religion ???
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> spiritual evidence is non existent. its generally "faith based knowledge", which in itself is an illusion of knowledge and willful ignorance
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> spiritual evidence is non existent. its generally "faith based knowledge", which in itself is an illusion of knowledge and willful ignorance
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *spiritual evidence is non existent ...*
> 
> 
> when a person has vision spiritual evidence is readily assimilated, for the illreligious however there are beginning steps available.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Typically weak minded people or insane people have visions, and it has never been demonstrated to be true to science yet.


----------



## BreezeWood

sealybobo said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again I ask, why are you busting MY chops when we both agree there is a spiritual nature?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you have a point there - except a true Spiritualist does have a religion and Spiritualism exists in all living creatures and to portray otherwise is heretical.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I don't believe in heresy, since that is a religious precept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Boss:* Why do you keep insisting that I am arguing on behalf of only humanity, ignoring what I've said to the contrary? I don't know that other living things aren't spiritual. I don't see the evidence of it but it doesn't mean it's not possible. Perhaps it's something that can't be seen by us? I'll accept that possibility. It has nothing to do with humans who are spiritual and always have been.
> 
> The example of human spirituality goes back to the very first signs of human civilization, where they practiced ritual ceremonies and burials. This predates your Egyptian statue by tens of thousands of years. What you are showing is signs of early religious beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Perhaps it's something that can't be seen by us?*
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> isn't your argument spiritual nature is not physical and therefore unprovable ... maybe you are simply blind by not having religious conviction, that is not everyone's problem. the physical and spiritual are one in the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bossy: Well I don't believe in heresy ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no religion ???
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> spiritual evidence is non existent. its generally "faith based knowledge", which in itself is an illusion of knowledge and willful ignorance
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> spiritual evidence is non existent. its generally "faith based knowledge", which in itself is an illusion of knowledge and willful ignorance
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *spiritual evidence is non existent ...*
> 
> 
> when a person has vision spiritual evidence is readily assimilated, for the illreligious however there are beginning steps available.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typically weak minded people or insane people have visions, and it has never been demonstrated to be true to science yet.
Click to expand...



not visions, vision as seeing something from outside your head ....
.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Boss said:


> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.



Such is the nature of evil... .


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

sealybobo said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again I ask, why are you busting MY chops when we both agree there is a spiritual nature?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you have a point there - except a true Spiritualist does have a religion and Spiritualism exists in all living creatures and to portray otherwise is heretical.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I don't believe in heresy, since that is a religious precept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Boss:* Why do you keep insisting that I am arguing on behalf of only humanity, ignoring what I've said to the contrary? I don't know that other living things aren't spiritual. I don't see the evidence of it but it doesn't mean it's not possible. Perhaps it's something that can't be seen by us? I'll accept that possibility. It has nothing to do with humans who are spiritual and always have been.
> 
> The example of human spirituality goes back to the very first signs of human civilization, where they practiced ritual ceremonies and burials. This predates your Egyptian statue by tens of thousands of years. What you are showing is signs of early religious beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Perhaps it's something that can't be seen by us?*
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> isn't your argument spiritual nature is not physical and therefore unprovable ... maybe you are simply blind by not having religious conviction, that is not everyone's problem. the physical and spiritual are one in the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bossy: Well I don't believe in heresy ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no religion ???
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> spiritual evidence is non existent. its generally "faith based knowledge", which in itself is an illusion of knowledge and willful ignorance
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> spiritual evidence is non existent. its generally "faith based knowledge", which in itself is an illusion of knowledge and willful ignorance
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *spiritual evidence is non existent ...*
> 
> 
> when a person has vision spiritual evidence is readily assimilated, for the illreligious however there are beginning steps available.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typically weak minded people or insane people have visions, and it has never been demonstrated to be true to science yet.
Click to expand...


Science is the quest for truth within the scope of the observable, physical universe.  

Thus the investigations are limited to that which can be observed.    Imagine the level of foolishness, which presumes that the infinitesimal perspective of our species might provide us with some understanding of energies which we can't begin to see, let alone understand.

The sum total of human understanding of the physical universe, can't even explain gravity to any degree of certainty and this is a force, the effects of which are readily observable.

Take the singularity as an example.  Clearly energy is entering in great force.  We 'believe' we understand, collapsing star, which causes a warping of space/time, due to the super-mass that has collapsed upon itself, creating a gravitational attraction so powerful that nothing can escape, not even light.

It is all theory... yet to hear the cult speak of it and it becomes clear that they believe to the core of their beings that 'we KNOW!'.  We don't know.  And in terms of understanding the universe, that is FUNDAMENTAL.  

So... it's hysterical that a species that still doesn't even understand the FUNDAMENTALS of the the physical universe, would be so cure that they've some means to explain that which they've no means to even begin to understand.

LOL!  Funny stuff.


----------



## BreezeWood

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So... it's hysterical that a species that still doesn't even understand the FUNDAMENTALS of the the physical universe, would be so cure that they've some means to explain that which they've no means to even begin to understand.
> 
> LOL!  Funny stuff.




that is funny ...

proper vision is all that is required.

.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> That's because both are true.  Smart people don't typically believe things on blind faith in general and so that's why you'll find in smarter groups you'll find more atheists and in dumber groups you'll find more.  Great example is prison.  Prison is full of people who all believe in god.  Yes Nasa has a lot of doubters.



Well first of all, both can't be true. Either validity of a claim is not governed by intelligence or it is governed by intelligence. You need to make up your mind which is your argument. You can't argue that it's not governed by intelligence when I give you examples of intelligent believers, then claim it is governed by intelligence because some smart people are atheists. In ANY group, you will generally find more believers than non believers. Even in a group of ALL atheists, you find a majority of them are willing to leave the question open. So it seems to me, smart people in general, believe in God or something. Only really stupid people make the claim that God is impossible. 



> Definition of Spiritual should be a person who doesn't believe any religions but wants to still believe in something.



It's not a matter of "wanting to" for me. Sometimes I wish it could be that simple, to just not want to believe in God and do whatever the hell I please. But I can't because I know God is real, I communicate with God daily. 



> So from now on call it Something.  In Something We Trust.  Something Damn You!  Please Something, forgive me, blablabla.  Last night I was watching a black woman preacher.  She was misinterpreting the bible left and right.  Using it to manipulate and bamboozle them.  But she said he created us in his image.  She had a very specific god she was talking about.  She wasn't vague like you.  She didn't define him or it as spiritual energy.  So now that's god?  Energy?  Electricity?



Here's the thing... You don't get to tell me what to call things. I'll call Spiritual Energy and Spiritual Nature "God" because that's what I am comfortable with, and if you don't like that you can fuck off. I don't know about the black woman preacher, you should probably stop watching her if you don't believe in the God she's preaching about. There are thousands of religions and thousands of variations of those religions, so I can't sit here and defend what one in specific is saying or claiming. I'm non-religious, and I've clarified that several times for you, but for some odd reason you keep wanting to cajole me into a religious debate. What's the matter, did the Atheists only teach you how to refute religion? 

God is Spiritual Energy. A form of energy we can't see or measure like electricity, which is a physical energy. I made the comparison once for some hard head who couldn't grasp the concept of a God that wasn't physical. So now it has become a little "meme" to throw back at me, that I believe God is electricity, which I never said. 



> You know what?  Since I don't know, I hope you are right.  I hope there is something higher or more too.  I just don't.  But if our/my energy never dies and lives on forever, that's great.  I'm just telling you that even if you are right there is a creator, that still doesn't mean you live on once your body dies.  That's wishful thinking too.



Your physical body doesn't live on, it can't. Spiritual isn't physical, so it doesn't have to abide by physical rules, entropy and whatnot. Your spirit, the essence of who you are, your mind and thoughts, the things that aren't part of your physiology, are part of your spiritual presence. These things "live on" because there is no such thing as death to them, only physical things die. Your soul will move to some other place or dimension, you will not realize a physical existence anymore, that expired with your physical body. Where you go and what happens next is beyond my ability to understand. That said, I have to assume that Spiritual Nature has some objective in mind because it guides our souls in the physical toward a clear direction of goodness. 



> So you can hope to catch me in a mistake but really I'm not the one claiming to know anything.  You're trying to prove to us a god exists and theists are trying to make god the law of the land.  You may not think of yourself as one of them but you are.  Sucker.  They'd string you up for your heresy if they could.



But you continue to claim you know that God doesn't exist, it's all made up, invented by imagination, a bunch of bullshit to manipulate people, etc. I am fine with you having the stated position of "not knowing" if that's what you have, but you're going to have to stick by that and stop using it as a crutch whenever you're bested in an argument. You either don't know or you believe God isn't real and doesn't exist, you can't have both beliefs at the same time or swap them out depending on the argument. 

And again... I know that you really do care what other people think of you, but I couldn't care less what religious people think of me. It doesn't matter to me.


----------



## BreezeWood

Boss said:


> Your physical body doesn't live on, it can't. Spiritual isn't physical, so it doesn't have to abide by physical rules, entropy and whatnot. Your spirit, the essence of who you are, your mind and thoughts, the things that aren't part of your physiology, are part of your spiritual presence. These things "live on" because there is no such thing as death to them, only physical things die. Your soul will move to some other place or dimension, you will not realize a physical existence anymore, that expired with your physical body. Where you go and what happens next is beyond my ability to understand. That said, I have to assume that Spiritual Nature has some objective in mind because it guides our souls in the physical toward a clear direction of goodness.




*Spiritual isn't physical, so it doesn't have to abide by physical rules ...*

not everyone believes there is such a defining difference between physical and spiritual and the same rules indeed may apply and certainly any composition would be governed in some manner.



*These things "live on" because there is no such thing as death to them ...* only physical things die.

not having a religion has its benefits -

*
That said, I have to assume that Spiritual Nature has some objective in mind because it guides our souls in the physical toward a clear direction of goodness.*

for the religious it is either or - Triumph of Good vs Evil or perish.

in your case if you do not fulfill the prophecy Commandment, you believe you will continue to exist - why then is there your physiology at all ?

.


----------



## daws101

LittleNipper said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the answer to why depends entirely on your own personal pov...in the case of flooding or fires or earthquakes and many human endeavors the how and the why are one in the same...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But how and why are two different questions. To make them the same is called "circular reasoning." That's the most convenient way out when you don't have an answer. It all boils down to the old "JUST BECAUSE" argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> false .. why something happens is most often the same as how it it did.
> circular reason is a hilarious statement coming from you .
> why did that fire happen?  someone was careless with a match.
> how did that fire happen  someone was careless with a match.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False. It NEVER is.
> *Why did that fire happen?* Someone was careless with a match.
> *How did that fire happen?* A sequence of exothermic chemical reactions between a fuel and an oxidant accompanied by the production of heat and conversion of chemical species. (Combustion)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nice bullshit!
> no one who is rational when asking how common event like a fire  happened would need or care hear  the description of combustion most already know it...once again how and why serve the same function...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, you sound highly educated and understanding. So, why do we have matches? Where they the end product of natural environmental evolution or were they_ created_ by man? My educated guess is that you really have no idea why you exist or where you are going. Instead of badmouthing, perhaps you might wish to put your brain to some purpose other than being narrow minded and missing the boat!
Click to expand...

we have matches because it's easier than the friction method to make fire!
your educated guess is nothing more than rationalization of a presupposed and false pov.
we exist, to put it simply ,because we do ,nothing more. there is no grand plan by a "creator " it's a comforting myth , but that is all.
as to where I'm or anybody is going, there is no set destination or destinations .
it's all a matter of choice ...when you grow up you might understand that.


----------



## Boss

daws101 said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the answer to why depends entirely on your own personal pov...in the case of flooding or fires or earthquakes and many human endeavors the how and the why are one in the same...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But how and why are two different questions. To make them the same is called "circular reasoning." That's the most convenient way out when you don't have an answer. It all boils down to the old "JUST BECAUSE" argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> false .. why something happens is most often the same as how it it did.
> circular reason is a hilarious statement coming from you .
> why did that fire happen?  someone was careless with a match.
> how did that fire happen  someone was careless with a match.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False. It NEVER is.
> *Why did that fire happen?* Someone was careless with a match.
> *How did that fire happen?* A sequence of exothermic chemical reactions between a fuel and an oxidant accompanied by the production of heat and conversion of chemical species. (Combustion)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nice bullshit!
> no one who is rational when asking how common event like a fire  happened would need or care hear  the description of combustion most already know it...once again how and why serve the same function...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, you sound highly educated and understanding. So, why do we have matches? Where they the end product of natural environmental evolution or were they_ created_ by man? My educated guess is that you really have no idea why you exist or where you are going. Instead of badmouthing, perhaps you might wish to put your brain to some purpose other than being narrow minded and missing the boat!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we have matches because it's easier than the friction method to make fire!
> your educated guess is nothing more than rationalization of a presupposed and false pov.
> we exist, to put it simply ,*because we do* ,nothing more. there is no grand plan by a "creator " it's a comforting myth , but that is all.
> as to where I'm or anybody is going, there is no set destination or destinations .
> it's all a matter of choice ...when you grow up you might understand that.
Click to expand...


*because we do*

The "Just Because" argument.* 
*
As you've demonstrated, yet again, you don't have an answer. Devoid of an answer, you attempt to interject your profound opinion, which doesn't mean diddly-squat. 

We have matches because man was inspired by God to explore chemistry and discover phosphors and how they work. Monkeys couldn't do this, they aren't so inspired. It takes a human believing in something greater than self to have the inspiration to invent and create as we do. 

You don't comprehend this because you are uninspired and lack any sense of creativity or invention. In essence, you are a monkey who is getting a free ride amongst the humans. Gaining the benefits of our inspired creations and inventions, and spending your time trying to destroy the source of inspiration. 

In the wild, your kind would be eliminated through natural selection. But because humans are spiritual and believe in a power greater than self, we find pity on you and allow you to exist. You mistake this for self-importance and believe your unfounded opinions matter to the world. Not so much.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

BreezeWood said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So... it's hysterical that a species that still doesn't even understand the FUNDAMENTALS of the the physical universe, would be so cure that they've some means to explain that which they've no means to even begin to understand.
> 
> LOL!  Funny stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that is funny ...
> 
> proper vision is all that is required.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Proper vision?  And that is all that is required, for what?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fact is if you put 1000 smart people together, you'll find a lot of atheists.  And if you put a bunch of stupid people together you will get a higher number of believers.
> 
> scientists in the United States are more likely to not believe in God when compared to nonscientists [source: The Pew Research Center]. Here are the numbers from one 2009 Pew Research Center survey:
> 
> 
> One-third of scientists said they believed in God, compared to 83 percent of the general public surveyed.
> Nearly one-fifth reported not believing in God but having faith in a higher power (general public came in at 12 percent).
> Roughly two-fifths said they didn't believe in a God or higher power (4 percent among the general public).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fact is, the most atheistic group you can find shows less than half don't believe in God and more than half believe in God or a higher power. So even with your "1000 smart people" argument, you fail... most of them believe in something greater than self.
> 
> I think it was also a Pew study that examined the most atheist country on the planet, Sweden. They found 33% claimed to be atheist, 66% claimed some spiritual belief. What was really interesting was the follow-up question asked of the atheists... Less than half of that 33% were willing to go so far as to say they did not believe in any possibility of something greater than self. I guess the majority were "agnostic" atheists?
> 
> Scientists, not scientists, smart people, dumb people, atheist country or not... doesn't matter, a majority believe in something greater than self. Even in a group of ALL atheists!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Argumentum ad populum. The popularity of an idea says nothing of its veracity.
> 
> Geocentrism, a flat earth, creationism, astrology, alchemy and the occult were all once pervasive beliefs.
> 
> Furthermore, religions are culturally relative and, for the most part, are inconsistent and mutually exclusive.
> 
> _“A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it.”_ – David Stevens
> 
> And I told you most atheists are actually agnostic atheists.  Remember, we don't know what's on the other side of a black hole yet either.  We remain open to all posibilities.  You're twist on a creator is actually really lame.  You are smart enough to realize religions are made up but you can't imagine that the entire premise is too.  Interesting.
> 
> The validity of a claim, such as the existence of god, is not governed by the intelligence of the minds which hold it. Evidence and reason are the deciding factors.
> 
> The fact that an intelligent person holds an irrational belief is simply evidence that our brains are able to compartmentalize world-views and models from one another, usually in order to maintain a state of ‘ignorant bliss’ and escape the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMFAO... So you are now admitting your original point was "argumentum ad populum?" We're now back to "validity of a claim is not governed by intelligence" and away from "put 1000 smart people together, find a lot of atheists." Can't you make up your mind, silly boob?
> 
> *We remain open to all posibilities.  You're twist on a creator is actually really lame.*
> 
> Wow... you can't type two consecutive sentences without contradicting yourself, can you?
> 
> Pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's because both are true.  Smart people don't typically believe things on blind faith in general and so that's why you'll find in smarter groups you'll find more atheists and in dumber groups you'll find more.  Great example is prison.  Prison is full of people who all believe in god.  Yes Nasa has a lot of doubters.
> 
> Definition of Spiritual should be a person who doesn't believe any religions but wants to still believe in something.
> 
> So from now on call it Something.  In Something We Trust.  Something Damn You!  Please Something, forgive me, blablabla.  Last night I was watching a black woman preacher.  She was misinterpreting the bible left and right.  Using it to manipulate and bamboozle them.  But she said he created us in his image.  She had a very specific god she was talking about.  She wasn't vague like you.  She didn't define him or it as spiritual energy.  So now that's god?  Energy?  Electricity?
> 
> You know what?  Since I don't know, I hope you are right.  I hope there is something higher or more too.  I just don't.  But if our/my energy never dies and lives on forever, that's great.  I'm just telling you that even if you are right there is a creator, that still doesn't mean you live on once your body dies.  That's wishful thinking too.
> 
> So you can hope to catch me in a mistake but really I'm not the one claiming to know anything.  You're trying to prove to us a god exists and theists are trying to make god the law of the land.  You may not think of yourself as one of them but you are.  Sucker.  They'd string you up for your heresy if they could.
Click to expand...



Anti-theists are, in my extensive experience, the least intelligent people on earth.  Nearly without exception, they're sociopaths and are, in general terms, counter productive to the species in general.

But hey, such is the nature of evil... right?


----------



## MOGMOG2014

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fact is if you put 1000 smart people together, you'll find a lot of atheists.  And if you put a bunch of stupid people together you will get a higher number of believers.
> 
> scientists in the United States are more likely to not believe in God when compared to nonscientists [source: The Pew Research Center]. Here are the numbers from one 2009 Pew Research Center survey:
> 
> 
> One-third of scientists said they believed in God, compared to 83 percent of the general public surveyed.
> Nearly one-fifth reported not believing in God but having faith in a higher power (general public came in at 12 percent).
> Roughly two-fifths said they didn't believe in a God or higher power (4 percent among the general public).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fact is, the most atheistic group you can find shows less than half don't believe in God and more than half believe in God or a higher power. So even with your "1000 smart people" argument, you fail... most of them believe in something greater than self.
> 
> I think it was also a Pew study that examined the most atheist country on the planet, Sweden. They found 33% claimed to be atheist, 66% claimed some spiritual belief. What was really interesting was the follow-up question asked of the atheists... Less than half of that 33% were willing to go so far as to say they did not believe in any possibility of something greater than self. I guess the majority were "agnostic" atheists?
> 
> Scientists, not scientists, smart people, dumb people, atheist country or not... doesn't matter, a majority believe in something greater than self. Even in a group of ALL atheists!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Argumentum ad populum. The popularity of an idea says nothing of its veracity.
> 
> Geocentrism, a flat earth, creationism, astrology, alchemy and the occult were all once pervasive beliefs.
> 
> Furthermore, religions are culturally relative and, for the most part, are inconsistent and mutually exclusive.
> 
> _“A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it.”_ – David Stevens
> 
> And I told you most atheists are actually agnostic atheists.  Remember, we don't know what's on the other side of a black hole yet either.  We remain open to all posibilities.  You're twist on a creator is actually really lame.  You are smart enough to realize religions are made up but you can't imagine that the entire premise is too.  Interesting.
> 
> The validity of a claim, such as the existence of god, is not governed by the intelligence of the minds which hold it. Evidence and reason are the deciding factors.
> 
> The fact that an intelligent person holds an irrational belief is simply evidence that our brains are able to compartmentalize world-views and models from one another, usually in order to maintain a state of ‘ignorant bliss’ and escape the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMFAO... So you are now admitting your original point was "argumentum ad populum?" We're now back to "validity of a claim is not governed by intelligence" and away from "put 1000 smart people together, find a lot of atheists." Can't you make up your mind, silly boob?
> 
> *We remain open to all posibilities.  You're twist on a creator is actually really lame.*
> 
> Wow... you can't type two consecutive sentences without contradicting yourself, can you?
> 
> Pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's because both are true.  Smart people don't typically believe things on blind faith in general and so that's why you'll find in smarter groups you'll find more atheists and in dumber groups you'll find more.  Great example is prison.  Prison is full of people who all believe in god.  Yes Nasa has a lot of doubters.
> 
> Definition of Spiritual should be a person who doesn't believe any religions but wants to still believe in something.
> 
> So from now on call it Something.  In Something We Trust.  Something Damn You!  Please Something, forgive me, blablabla.  Last night I was watching a black woman preacher.  She was misinterpreting the bible left and right.  Using it to manipulate and bamboozle them.  But she said he created us in his image.  She had a very specific god she was talking about.  She wasn't vague like you.  She didn't define him or it as spiritual energy.  So now that's god?  Energy?  Electricity?
> 
> You know what?  Since I don't know, I hope you are right.  I hope there is something higher or more too.  I just don't.  But if our/my energy never dies and lives on forever, that's great.  I'm just telling you that even if you are right there is a creator, that still doesn't mean you live on once your body dies.  That's wishful thinking too.
> 
> So you can hope to catch me in a mistake but really I'm not the one claiming to know anything.  You're trying to prove to us a god exists and theists are trying to make god the law of the land.  You may not think of yourself as one of them but you are.  Sucker.  They'd string you up for your heresy if they could.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Anti-theists are, in my extensive experience, the least intelligent people on earth.  Nearly without exception, they're sociopaths and are, in general terms, counter productive to the species in general.
> 
> But hey, such is the nature of evil... right?
Click to expand...

GOD HATING UNBELIEVERS NEED TO FACE THE TRUTH!!!==That man is a fool who says to himself, “There is no God!” Anyone who talks like that is warped and evil and cannot really be a good person at all.Psalm 14:1===Only a fool would say to himself, “There is no God.” And why does he say it? Because of his wicked heart, his dark and evil deeds. His life is corroded with sin. PSALM 53:1 and you??? === The man who finds life will find it through trusting God.”*18 But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, evil men who push away the truth from them. 19 For the truth about God is known to them instinctively; God has put this knowledge in their hearts. 20 Since earliest times men have seen the earth and sky and all God made, and have known of his existence and great eternal power. So they will have no excuse when they stand before God at Judgment Day.21 Yes, they knew about him all right, but they wouldn’t admit it or worship him or even thank him for all his daily care. And after a while they began to think up silly ideas of what God was like and what he wanted them to do. The result was that their foolish minds became dark and confused. 22 Claiming themselves to be wise without God, they became utter fools instead.


----------



## Slyhunter

MOGMOG2014 said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fact is if you put 1000 smart people together, you'll find a lot of atheists.  And if you put a bunch of stupid people together you will get a higher number of believers.
> 
> scientists in the United States are more likely to not believe in God when compared to nonscientists [source: The Pew Research Center]. Here are the numbers from one 2009 Pew Research Center survey:
> 
> 
> One-third of scientists said they believed in God, compared to 83 percent of the general public surveyed.
> Nearly one-fifth reported not believing in God but having faith in a higher power (general public came in at 12 percent).
> Roughly two-fifths said they didn't believe in a God or higher power (4 percent among the general public).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fact is, the most atheistic group you can find shows less than half don't believe in God and more than half believe in God or a higher power. So even with your "1000 smart people" argument, you fail... most of them believe in something greater than self.
> 
> I think it was also a Pew study that examined the most atheist country on the planet, Sweden. They found 33% claimed to be atheist, 66% claimed some spiritual belief. What was really interesting was the follow-up question asked of the atheists... Less than half of that 33% were willing to go so far as to say they did not believe in any possibility of something greater than self. I guess the majority were "agnostic" atheists?
> 
> Scientists, not scientists, smart people, dumb people, atheist country or not... doesn't matter, a majority believe in something greater than self. Even in a group of ALL atheists!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Argumentum ad populum. The popularity of an idea says nothing of its veracity.
> 
> Geocentrism, a flat earth, creationism, astrology, alchemy and the occult were all once pervasive beliefs.
> 
> Furthermore, religions are culturally relative and, for the most part, are inconsistent and mutually exclusive.
> 
> _“A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it.”_ – David Stevens
> 
> And I told you most atheists are actually agnostic atheists.  Remember, we don't know what's on the other side of a black hole yet either.  We remain open to all posibilities.  You're twist on a creator is actually really lame.  You are smart enough to realize religions are made up but you can't imagine that the entire premise is too.  Interesting.
> 
> The validity of a claim, such as the existence of god, is not governed by the intelligence of the minds which hold it. Evidence and reason are the deciding factors.
> 
> The fact that an intelligent person holds an irrational belief is simply evidence that our brains are able to compartmentalize world-views and models from one another, usually in order to maintain a state of ‘ignorant bliss’ and escape the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMFAO... So you are now admitting your original point was "argumentum ad populum?" We're now back to "validity of a claim is not governed by intelligence" and away from "put 1000 smart people together, find a lot of atheists." Can't you make up your mind, silly boob?
> 
> *We remain open to all posibilities.  You're twist on a creator is actually really lame.*
> 
> Wow... you can't type two consecutive sentences without contradicting yourself, can you?
> 
> Pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's because both are true.  Smart people don't typically believe things on blind faith in general and so that's why you'll find in smarter groups you'll find more atheists and in dumber groups you'll find more.  Great example is prison.  Prison is full of people who all believe in god.  Yes Nasa has a lot of doubters.
> 
> Definition of Spiritual should be a person who doesn't believe any religions but wants to still believe in something.
> 
> So from now on call it Something.  In Something We Trust.  Something Damn You!  Please Something, forgive me, blablabla.  Last night I was watching a black woman preacher.  She was misinterpreting the bible left and right.  Using it to manipulate and bamboozle them.  But she said he created us in his image.  She had a very specific god she was talking about.  She wasn't vague like you.  She didn't define him or it as spiritual energy.  So now that's god?  Energy?  Electricity?
> 
> You know what?  Since I don't know, I hope you are right.  I hope there is something higher or more too.  I just don't.  But if our/my energy never dies and lives on forever, that's great.  I'm just telling you that even if you are right there is a creator, that still doesn't mean you live on once your body dies.  That's wishful thinking too.
> 
> So you can hope to catch me in a mistake but really I'm not the one claiming to know anything.  You're trying to prove to us a god exists and theists are trying to make god the law of the land.  You may not think of yourself as one of them but you are.  Sucker.  They'd string you up for your heresy if they could.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Anti-theists are, in my extensive experience, the least intelligent people on earth.  Nearly without exception, they're sociopaths and are, in general terms, counter productive to the species in general.
> 
> But hey, such is the nature of evil... right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> GOD HATING UNBELIEVERS NEED TO FACE THE TRUTH!!!==That man is a fool who says to himself, “There is no God!” Anyone who talks like that is warped and evil and cannot really be a good person at all.Psalm 14:1===Only a fool would say to himself, “There is no God.” And why does he say it? Because of his wicked heart, his dark and evil deeds. His life is corroded with sin. PSALM 53:1 and you??? === The man who finds life will find it through trusting God.”*18 But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, evil men who push away the truth from them. 19 For the truth about God is known to them instinctively; God has put this knowledge in their hearts. 20 Since earliest times men have seen the earth and sky and all God made, and have known of his existence and great eternal power. So they will have no excuse when they stand before God at Judgment Day.21 Yes, they knew about him all right, but they wouldn’t admit it or worship him or even thank him for all his daily care. And after a while they began to think up silly ideas of what God was like and what he wanted them to do. The result was that their foolish minds became dark and confused. 22 Claiming themselves to be wise without God, they became utter fools instead.
Click to expand...

I won't say there is no super being in existence in this universe whom we would name God. But God doesn't even call himself that name. And the bible is a work of fiction. Not because I hide evil in my heart, but because I have logic and common sense.


----------



## BreezeWood

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So... it's hysterical that a species that still doesn't even understand the FUNDAMENTALS of the the physical universe, would be so cure that they've some means to explain that which they've no means to even begin to understand.
> 
> LOL!  Funny stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that is funny ...
> 
> proper vision is all that is required.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Proper vision?  And that is all that is required, for what?
Click to expand...





> *Where_r_my_Keys:  would be so cure that they've some means to explain that which ...* they've no means ... to even begin to understand.




 the means to understand .

you need a long walk in the Garden, Where.  maybe its duration will somewhere allow you the experience of enlightenment ... ( they've no means ) no excuses, there are other senses for the blind as well.

.


----------



## sealybobo

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fact is if you put 1000 smart people together, you'll find a lot of atheists.  And if you put a bunch of stupid people together you will get a higher number of believers.
> 
> scientists in the United States are more likely to not believe in God when compared to nonscientists [source: The Pew Research Center]. Here are the numbers from one 2009 Pew Research Center survey:
> 
> 
> One-third of scientists said they believed in God, compared to 83 percent of the general public surveyed.
> Nearly one-fifth reported not believing in God but having faith in a higher power (general public came in at 12 percent).
> Roughly two-fifths said they didn't believe in a God or higher power (4 percent among the general public).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fact is, the most atheistic group you can find shows less than half don't believe in God and more than half believe in God or a higher power. So even with your "1000 smart people" argument, you fail... most of them believe in something greater than self.
> 
> I think it was also a Pew study that examined the most atheist country on the planet, Sweden. They found 33% claimed to be atheist, 66% claimed some spiritual belief. What was really interesting was the follow-up question asked of the atheists... Less than half of that 33% were willing to go so far as to say they did not believe in any possibility of something greater than self. I guess the majority were "agnostic" atheists?
> 
> Scientists, not scientists, smart people, dumb people, atheist country or not... doesn't matter, a majority believe in something greater than self. Even in a group of ALL atheists!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Argumentum ad populum. The popularity of an idea says nothing of its veracity.
> 
> Geocentrism, a flat earth, creationism, astrology, alchemy and the occult were all once pervasive beliefs.
> 
> Furthermore, religions are culturally relative and, for the most part, are inconsistent and mutually exclusive.
> 
> _“A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it.”_ – David Stevens
> 
> And I told you most atheists are actually agnostic atheists.  Remember, we don't know what's on the other side of a black hole yet either.  We remain open to all posibilities.  You're twist on a creator is actually really lame.  You are smart enough to realize religions are made up but you can't imagine that the entire premise is too.  Interesting.
> 
> The validity of a claim, such as the existence of god, is not governed by the intelligence of the minds which hold it. Evidence and reason are the deciding factors.
> 
> The fact that an intelligent person holds an irrational belief is simply evidence that our brains are able to compartmentalize world-views and models from one another, usually in order to maintain a state of ‘ignorant bliss’ and escape the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMFAO... So you are now admitting your original point was "argumentum ad populum?" We're now back to "validity of a claim is not governed by intelligence" and away from "put 1000 smart people together, find a lot of atheists." Can't you make up your mind, silly boob?
> 
> *We remain open to all posibilities.  You're twist on a creator is actually really lame.*
> 
> Wow... you can't type two consecutive sentences without contradicting yourself, can you?
> 
> Pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's because both are true.  Smart people don't typically believe things on blind faith in general and so that's why you'll find in smarter groups you'll find more atheists and in dumber groups you'll find more.  Great example is prison.  Prison is full of people who all believe in god.  Yes Nasa has a lot of doubters.
> 
> Definition of Spiritual should be a person who doesn't believe any religions but wants to still believe in something.
> 
> So from now on call it Something.  In Something We Trust.  Something Damn You!  Please Something, forgive me, blablabla.  Last night I was watching a black woman preacher.  She was misinterpreting the bible left and right.  Using it to manipulate and bamboozle them.  But she said he created us in his image.  She had a very specific god she was talking about.  She wasn't vague like you.  She didn't define him or it as spiritual energy.  So now that's god?  Energy?  Electricity?
> 
> You know what?  Since I don't know, I hope you are right.  I hope there is something higher or more too.  I just don't.  But if our/my energy never dies and lives on forever, that's great.  I'm just telling you that even if you are right there is a creator, that still doesn't mean you live on once your body dies.  That's wishful thinking too.
> 
> So you can hope to catch me in a mistake but really I'm not the one claiming to know anything.  You're trying to prove to us a god exists and theists are trying to make god the law of the land.  You may not think of yourself as one of them but you are.  Sucker.  They'd string you up for your heresy if they could.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Anti-theists are, in my extensive experience, the least intelligent people on earth.  Nearly without exception, they're sociopaths and are, in general terms, counter productive to the species in general.
> 
> But hey, such is the nature of evil... right?
Click to expand...


You can make that claim but the fact is that atheists tend to be more intelligent than theists.  It has to do with theists blindly accepting a story that couldn't possibly be true.  How can you be a deep thinker if you don't have doubts when the stories are full of miracles, virgin births and rising from the dead after being dead 3 days?

Fact is, there is no evidence that can be used as proof that god ever spoke to anyone, yet religious people not only believe, they claim they too talk to him.  If that is true you should all be put in padded rooms and straight jacketed.


----------



## The Irish Ram

The answer to your question is, Prophecy.
  How did David know about crucifixion?  About piercing of hands and feet? An act that wouldn't exist for a thousand years?  That Israel would be born in a day?  That all nations would come against Israel?  The countries that would invade Israel? That Christians would be beheaded?
1/4 of the Bible is prophesy.  Accurate prophesy.
The Bible is the most accurate source of antiquity ever written.  Those who make that claim use the Bible as the starting point to uncover our ancient past.  IT HAS NEVER , REPEAT, NEVER BEEN FOUND INACCURATE.  To the contrary, it is spot on.  Archeologists depend on it.

Did you know that King David, a key player in the Bible, could have been described as a figment of Bible believers imagination?  There was no evidence that He ever existed.  Atheists had a field day with that one.  Until they unearthed an ancient tablet describing a King's battle against the House of David.  

Whether you believe in the word of God or the diggers, the Bible is sound.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the answer to why depends entirely on your own personal pov...in the case of flooding or fires or earthquakes and many human endeavors the how and the why are one in the same...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But how and why are two different questions. To make them the same is called "circular reasoning." That's the most convenient way out when you don't have an answer. It all boils down to the old "JUST BECAUSE" argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> false .. why something happens is most often the same as how it it did.
> circular reason is a hilarious statement coming from you .
> why did that fire happen?  someone was careless with a match.
> how did that fire happen  someone was careless with a match.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False. It NEVER is.
> *Why did that fire happen?* Someone was careless with a match.
> *How did that fire happen?* A sequence of exothermic chemical reactions between a fuel and an oxidant accompanied by the production of heat and conversion of chemical species. (Combustion)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nice bullshit!
> no one who is rational when asking how common event like a fire  happened would need or care hear  the description of combustion most already know it...once again how and why serve the same function...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, you sound highly educated and understanding. So, why do we have matches? Where they the end product of natural environmental evolution or were they_ created_ by man? My educated guess is that you really have no idea why you exist or where you are going. Instead of badmouthing, perhaps you might wish to put your brain to some purpose other than being narrow minded and missing the boat!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we have matches because it's easier than the friction method to make fire!
> your educated guess is nothing more than rationalization of a presupposed and false pov.
> we exist, to put it simply ,*because we do* ,nothing more. there is no grand plan by a "creator " it's a comforting myth , but that is all.
> as to where I'm or anybody is going, there is no set destination or destinations .
> it's all a matter of choice ...when you grow up you might understand that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *because we do*
> 
> The "Just Because" argument.*
> *
> As you've demonstrated, yet again, you don't have an answer. Devoid of an answer, you attempt to interject your profound opinion, which doesn't mean diddly-squat.
> 
> We have matches because man was inspired by God to explore chemistry and discover phosphors and how they work. Monkeys couldn't do this, they aren't so inspired. It takes a human believing in something greater than self to have the inspiration to invent and create as we do.
> 
> You don't comprehend this because you are uninspired and lack any sense of creativity or invention. In essence, you are a monkey who is getting a free ride amongst the humans. Gaining the benefits of our inspired creations and inventions, and spending your time trying to destroy the source of inspiration.
> 
> In the wild, your kind would be eliminated through natural selection. But because humans are spiritual and believe in a power greater than self, we find pity on you and allow you to exist. You mistake this for self-importance and believe your unfounded opinions matter to the world. Not so much.
Click to expand...


Why?  Who knows.

Proposing a non-physical explanation for what we do not know is not a testable hypothesis and is therefore unworthy of serious consideration. It precludes any deeper insight or understanding and offers no means of distinction from any other possible fantasy story that I could make up.

There are many as yet unexplained phenomena and anomalies in nature. The scientific approach to these is to say “I don’t know yet” and keep on looking, not to presume an answer which makes us comfortable.

Theists have a deep discomfort with uncertainty or ambiguity, demonstrating a lack of critical thinking or poor understanding of a topic. It usually coincides with credulity, which is the tendency to believe in propositions unsupported by evidence. See also: gullibility.

See also: Critical Thinking (a must watch), Open-Mindedness (a must watch), Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman on Doubt and Uncertainty (a must watch), Delusion,Magical Thinking, Superstition, Self-Deception.

_“What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.”_ – Christopher Hitchens

_“I don’t feel frightened by not knowing things, I think it’s much more interesting that way … I have approximate answers, and possible beliefs, and different degrees of certainty about different things, but I’m not absolutely sure of anything. I might think about it a little, but if I can’t figure it out, then I go to something else. It doesn’t frighten me.”_ – Richard Feynman


The Irish Ram said:


> The answer to your question is, Prophecy.
> How did David know about crucifixion?  About piercing of hands and feet? An act that wouldn't exist for a thousand years?  That Israel would be born in a day?  That all nations would come against Israel?  The countries that would invade Israel? That Christians would be beheaded?
> 1/4 of the Bible is prophesy.  Accurate prophesy.
> The Bible is the most accurate source of antiquity ever written.  Those who make that claim use the Bible as the starting point to uncover our ancient past.  IT HAS NEVER , REPEAT, NEVER BEEN FOUND INACCURATE.  To the contrary, it is spot on.  Archeologists depend on it.
> 
> Did you know that King David, a key player in the Bible, could have been described as a figment of Bible believers imagination?  There was no evidence that He ever existed.  Atheists had a field day with that one.  Until they unearthed an ancient tablet describing a King's battle against the House of David.
> 
> Whether you believe in the word of God or the diggers, the Bible is sound.



Doubtful.  Consider these things:

There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible concerning the existence of a god. Any ‘evidence’ proposed by theists to support the Bible’s various historical and supernatural claims is non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.

The Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many religious texts. Like those other texts, it itself constitutes no evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful content do not legitimize it nor distinguish it from other ancient works of literature.

The Bible is historically inaccurate, factually incorrect, inconsistent and contradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time.

So you don't know for sure if or when those prof


The Irish Ram said:


> The answer to your question is, Prophecy.
> How did David know about crucifixion?  About piercing of hands and feet? An act that wouldn't exist for a thousand years?  That Israel would be born in a day?  That all nations would come against Israel?  The countries that would invade Israel? That Christians would be beheaded?
> 1/4 of the Bible is prophesy.  Accurate prophesy.
> The Bible is the most accurate source of antiquity ever written.  Those who make that claim use the Bible as the starting point to uncover our ancient past.  IT HAS NEVER , REPEAT, NEVER BEEN FOUND INACCURATE.  To the contrary, it is spot on.  Archeologists depend on it.
> 
> Did you know that King David, a key player in the Bible, could have been described as a figment of Bible believers imagination?  There was no evidence that He ever existed.  Atheists had a field day with that one.  Until they unearthed an ancient tablet describing a King's battle against the House of David.
> 
> Whether you believe in the word of God or the diggers, the Bible is sound.



You don't know for sure when those prophecies were written.  

There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible concerning the existence of a god. Any ‘evidence’ proposed by theists to support the Bible’s various historical and supernatural claims is non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.

The Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many religious texts. Like those other texts, it itself constitutes no evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful content do not legitimise it nor distinguish it from other ancient works of literature.

The Bible is historically inaccurate, factually incorrect, inconsistent and contradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time.


----------



## sealybobo

The Irish Ram said:


> The answer to your question is, Prophecy.
> How did David know about crucifixion?  About piercing of hands and feet? An act that wouldn't exist for a thousand years?  That Israel would be born in a day?  That all nations would come against Israel?  The countries that would invade Israel? That Christians would be beheaded?
> 1/4 of the Bible is prophesy.  Accurate prophesy.
> The Bible is the most accurate source of antiquity ever written.  Those who make that claim use the Bible as the starting point to uncover our ancient past.  IT HAS NEVER , REPEAT, NEVER BEEN FOUND INACCURATE.  To the contrary, it is spot on.  Archeologists depend on it.
> 
> Did you know that King David, a key player in the Bible, could have been described as a figment of Bible believers imagination?  There was no evidence that He ever existed.  Atheists had a field day with that one.  Until they unearthed an ancient tablet describing a King's battle against the House of David.
> 
> Whether you believe in the word of God or the diggers, the Bible is sound.



This is even better:

A very simple flaw in the prophecy-fulfillment argument is that foreseeing the future doesn't necessarily prove divine guidance. Psychics have existed in every generation, and some of them have demonstrated amazing abilities to predict future events. Their "powers," although mystifying to those who witness them, are not usually considered divine in origin. If, then, Old Testament prophets did on occasions foresee the future (a questionable premise at best), perhaps they were merely the Nostradamus of their day. Why would it necessarily follow that they were divinely inspired? Even the Bible recognizes the possibility that uninspired prophets can sometimes accurately predict the future:

Usually, Bible "prophecies" turn out to be prophecies only because imaginative Bible writers arbitrarily declared them to be prophecies. The same can be said of their alleged fulfillments: the fulfillments are fulfillments only because obviously biased New Testament writers arbitrarily declared them to be fulfillments.

It must involve... specific details--not vague generalities or remote possibilities

And I'm sorrry, but to say one day that he people who live in what is now called Russia are going to start the big war is not that much of a prophecy.  Everyone probably knew one day those barbarians were going to be trouble.  BFD.

I have also heard from theists that the Beast is going to come from Europe & America.  Which is it?  I've also heard them claim the middle east is where all the trouble starts, then Europe, then Russia.  I guess if you make enough prophecies some of them are going to come true.


----------



## sealybobo

Slyhunter said:


> MOGMOG2014 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fact is if you put 1000 smart people together, you'll find a lot of atheists.  And if you put a bunch of stupid people together you will get a higher number of believers.
> 
> scientists in the United States are more likely to not believe in God when compared to nonscientists [source: The Pew Research Center]. Here are the numbers from one 2009 Pew Research Center survey:
> 
> 
> One-third of scientists said they believed in God, compared to 83 percent of the general public surveyed.
> Nearly one-fifth reported not believing in God but having faith in a higher power (general public came in at 12 percent).
> Roughly two-fifths said they didn't believe in a God or higher power (4 percent among the general public).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fact is, the most atheistic group you can find shows less than half don't believe in God and more than half believe in God or a higher power. So even with your "1000 smart people" argument, you fail... most of them believe in something greater than self.
> 
> I think it was also a Pew study that examined the most atheist country on the planet, Sweden. They found 33% claimed to be atheist, 66% claimed some spiritual belief. What was really interesting was the follow-up question asked of the atheists... Less than half of that 33% were willing to go so far as to say they did not believe in any possibility of something greater than self. I guess the majority were "agnostic" atheists?
> 
> Scientists, not scientists, smart people, dumb people, atheist country or not... doesn't matter, a majority believe in something greater than self. Even in a group of ALL atheists!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Argumentum ad populum. The popularity of an idea says nothing of its veracity.
> 
> Geocentrism, a flat earth, creationism, astrology, alchemy and the occult were all once pervasive beliefs.
> 
> Furthermore, religions are culturally relative and, for the most part, are inconsistent and mutually exclusive.
> 
> _“A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it.”_ – David Stevens
> 
> And I told you most atheists are actually agnostic atheists.  Remember, we don't know what's on the other side of a black hole yet either.  We remain open to all posibilities.  You're twist on a creator is actually really lame.  You are smart enough to realize religions are made up but you can't imagine that the entire premise is too.  Interesting.
> 
> The validity of a claim, such as the existence of god, is not governed by the intelligence of the minds which hold it. Evidence and reason are the deciding factors.
> 
> The fact that an intelligent person holds an irrational belief is simply evidence that our brains are able to compartmentalize world-views and models from one another, usually in order to maintain a state of ‘ignorant bliss’ and escape the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMFAO... So you are now admitting your original point was "argumentum ad populum?" We're now back to "validity of a claim is not governed by intelligence" and away from "put 1000 smart people together, find a lot of atheists." Can't you make up your mind, silly boob?
> 
> *We remain open to all posibilities.  You're twist on a creator is actually really lame.*
> 
> Wow... you can't type two consecutive sentences without contradicting yourself, can you?
> 
> Pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's because both are true.  Smart people don't typically believe things on blind faith in general and so that's why you'll find in smarter groups you'll find more atheists and in dumber groups you'll find more.  Great example is prison.  Prison is full of people who all believe in god.  Yes Nasa has a lot of doubters.
> 
> Definition of Spiritual should be a person who doesn't believe any religions but wants to still believe in something.
> 
> So from now on call it Something.  In Something We Trust.  Something Damn You!  Please Something, forgive me, blablabla.  Last night I was watching a black woman preacher.  She was misinterpreting the bible left and right.  Using it to manipulate and bamboozle them.  But she said he created us in his image.  She had a very specific god she was talking about.  She wasn't vague like you.  She didn't define him or it as spiritual energy.  So now that's god?  Energy?  Electricity?
> 
> You know what?  Since I don't know, I hope you are right.  I hope there is something higher or more too.  I just don't.  But if our/my energy never dies and lives on forever, that's great.  I'm just telling you that even if you are right there is a creator, that still doesn't mean you live on once your body dies.  That's wishful thinking too.
> 
> So you can hope to catch me in a mistake but really I'm not the one claiming to know anything.  You're trying to prove to us a god exists and theists are trying to make god the law of the land.  You may not think of yourself as one of them but you are.  Sucker.  They'd string you up for your heresy if they could.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Anti-theists are, in my extensive experience, the least intelligent people on earth.  Nearly without exception, they're sociopaths and are, in general terms, counter productive to the species in general.
> 
> But hey, such is the nature of evil... right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> GOD HATING UNBELIEVERS NEED TO FACE THE TRUTH!!!==That man is a fool who says to himself, “There is no God!” Anyone who talks like that is warped and evil and cannot really be a good person at all.Psalm 14:1===Only a fool would say to himself, “There is no God.” And why does he say it? Because of his wicked heart, his dark and evil deeds. His life is corroded with sin. PSALM 53:1 and you??? === The man who finds life will find it through trusting God.”*18 But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, evil men who push away the truth from them. 19 For the truth about God is known to them instinctively; God has put this knowledge in their hearts. 20 Since earliest times men have seen the earth and sky and all God made, and have known of his existence and great eternal power. So they will have no excuse when they stand before God at Judgment Day.21 Yes, they knew about him all right, but they wouldn’t admit it or worship him or even thank him for all his daily care. And after a while they began to think up silly ideas of what God was like and what he wanted them to do. The result was that their foolish minds became dark and confused. 22 Claiming themselves to be wise without God, they became utter fools instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I won't say there is no super being in existence in this universe whom we would name God. But God doesn't even call himself that name. And the bible is a work of fiction. Not because I hide evil in my heart, but because I have logic and common sense.
Click to expand...


I agree with you but I do have a question.  What do you mean god doesn't even call himself that name?  How do you know what a god does or doesn't call himself?  Unless you believe the bible which you clearly do not.  Are you talking about the Yeshua argument?  If you are, it does bring up another good point about how the actual bible was translated by greeks and then heavily altered/edited/redacted over the years.  

I don't see how understanding that is evil.  Is it mean to point it out to someone when they are either lying to you or even innocently telling you something they believe is true but it actually a lie?  I think it is nice of us to try to wake them up.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Slyhunter said:


> MOGMOG2014 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fact is if you put 1000 smart people together, you'll find a lot of atheists.  And if you put a bunch of stupid people together you will get a higher number of believers.
> 
> scientists in the United States are more likely to not believe in God when compared to nonscientists [source: The Pew Research Center]. Here are the numbers from one 2009 Pew Research Center survey:
> 
> 
> One-third of scientists said they believed in God, compared to 83 percent of the general public surveyed.
> Nearly one-fifth reported not believing in God but having faith in a higher power (general public came in at 12 percent).
> Roughly two-fifths said they didn't believe in a God or higher power (4 percent among the general public).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fact is, the most atheistic group you can find shows less than half don't believe in God and more than half believe in God or a higher power. So even with your "1000 smart people" argument, you fail... most of them believe in something greater than self.
> 
> I think it was also a Pew study that examined the most atheist country on the planet, Sweden. They found 33% claimed to be atheist, 66% claimed some spiritual belief. What was really interesting was the follow-up question asked of the atheists... Less than half of that 33% were willing to go so far as to say they did not believe in any possibility of something greater than self. I guess the majority were "agnostic" atheists?
> 
> Scientists, not scientists, smart people, dumb people, atheist country or not... doesn't matter, a majority believe in something greater than self. Even in a group of ALL atheists!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Argumentum ad populum. The popularity of an idea says nothing of its veracity.
> 
> Geocentrism, a flat earth, creationism, astrology, alchemy and the occult were all once pervasive beliefs.
> 
> Furthermore, religions are culturally relative and, for the most part, are inconsistent and mutually exclusive.
> 
> _“A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it.”_ – David Stevens
> 
> And I told you most atheists are actually agnostic atheists.  Remember, we don't know what's on the other side of a black hole yet either.  We remain open to all posibilities.  You're twist on a creator is actually really lame.  You are smart enough to realize religions are made up but you can't imagine that the entire premise is too.  Interesting.
> 
> The validity of a claim, such as the existence of god, is not governed by the intelligence of the minds which hold it. Evidence and reason are the deciding factors.
> 
> The fact that an intelligent person holds an irrational belief is simply evidence that our brains are able to compartmentalize world-views and models from one another, usually in order to maintain a state of ‘ignorant bliss’ and escape the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMFAO... So you are now admitting your original point was "argumentum ad populum?" We're now back to "validity of a claim is not governed by intelligence" and away from "put 1000 smart people together, find a lot of atheists." Can't you make up your mind, silly boob?
> 
> *We remain open to all posibilities.  You're twist on a creator is actually really lame.*
> 
> Wow... you can't type two consecutive sentences without contradicting yourself, can you?
> 
> Pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's because both are true.  Smart people don't typically believe things on blind faith in general and so that's why you'll find in smarter groups you'll find more atheists and in dumber groups you'll find more.  Great example is prison.  Prison is full of people who all believe in god.  Yes Nasa has a lot of doubters.
> 
> Definition of Spiritual should be a person who doesn't believe any religions but wants to still believe in something.
> 
> So from now on call it Something.  In Something We Trust.  Something Damn You!  Please Something, forgive me, blablabla.  Last night I was watching a black woman preacher.  She was misinterpreting the bible left and right.  Using it to manipulate and bamboozle them.  But she said he created us in his image.  She had a very specific god she was talking about.  She wasn't vague like you.  She didn't define him or it as spiritual energy.  So now that's god?  Energy?  Electricity?
> 
> You know what?  Since I don't know, I hope you are right.  I hope there is something higher or more too.  I just don't.  But if our/my energy never dies and lives on forever, that's great.  I'm just telling you that even if you are right there is a creator, that still doesn't mean you live on once your body dies.  That's wishful thinking too.
> 
> So you can hope to catch me in a mistake but really I'm not the one claiming to know anything.  You're trying to prove to us a god exists and theists are trying to make god the law of the land.  You may not think of yourself as one of them but you are.  Sucker.  They'd string you up for your heresy if they could.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Anti-theists are, in my extensive experience, the least intelligent people on earth.  Nearly without exception, they're sociopaths and are, in general terms, counter productive to the species in general.
> 
> But hey, such is the nature of evil... right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> GOD HATING UNBELIEVERS NEED TO FACE THE TRUTH!!!==That man is a fool who says to himself, “There is no God!” Anyone who talks like that is warped and evil and cannot really be a good person at all.Psalm 14:1===Only a fool would say to himself, “There is no God.” And why does he say it? Because of his wicked heart, his dark and evil deeds. His life is corroded with sin. PSALM 53:1 and you??? === The man who finds life will find it through trusting God.”*18 But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, evil men who push away the truth from them. 19 For the truth about God is known to them instinctively; God has put this knowledge in their hearts. 20 Since earliest times men have seen the earth and sky and all God made, and have known of his existence and great eternal power. So they will have no excuse when they stand before God at Judgment Day.21 Yes, they knew about him all right, but they wouldn’t admit it or worship him or even thank him for all his daily care. And after a while they began to think up silly ideas of what God was like and what he wanted them to do. The result was that their foolish minds became dark and confused. 22 Claiming themselves to be wise without God, they became utter fools instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I won't say there is no super being in existence in this universe whom we would name God. But God doesn't even call himself that name. And the bible is a work of fiction. Not because I hide evil in my heart, but because I have logic and common sense.
Click to expand...


Logic?

LOL!

And part and parcel of that 'logic' is to claim that the Creator of the universe is a 'super-being'.  

Logic provides that the Creator of the Universe is the standard, thus God being 'super' is purely a function of humanities inferior status.  This indicated by your absurd conclusion (due to its baseless nature) that the Bible is a work of fiction.  This being the book wherein THOUSANDS of years prior to any potential for any human understanding of physics, declared that the Universe began as an explosion of light.  

Now, this compared to the foundation of modern physics which proclaimed that the origins of the universe began with a loud BANG.  When in fact, there was no bang, due to their being no medium in space by which to propagate, a wave.  Now the coolest part of THAT is that at the time, which was just over a century ago, the brightest minds in science 'believed' that space was comprised of aether... which would be a medium by which sound could be propagated.

So, the Bible is the word of God and every word is absolute truth.  That you do not understand it... thus can't understand those truths, is on YOU.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

sealybobo said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> The answer to your question is, Prophecy.
> How did David know about crucifixion?  About piercing of hands and feet? An act that wouldn't exist for a thousand years?  That Israel would be born in a day?  That all nations would come against Israel?  The countries that would invade Israel? That Christians would be beheaded?
> 1/4 of the Bible is prophesy.  Accurate prophesy.
> The Bible is the most accurate source of antiquity ever written.  Those who make that claim use the Bible as the starting point to uncover our ancient past.  IT HAS NEVER , REPEAT, NEVER BEEN FOUND INACCURATE.  To the contrary, it is spot on.  Archeologists depend on it.
> 
> Did you know that King David, a key player in the Bible, could have been described as a figment of Bible believers imagination?  There was no evidence that He ever existed.  Atheists had a field day with that one.  Until they unearthed an ancient tablet describing a King's battle against the House of David.
> 
> Whether you believe in the word of God or the diggers, the Bible is sound.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is even better:
> 
> A very simple flaw in the prophecy-fulfillment argument is that foreseeing the future doesn't necessarily prove divine guidance. Psychics have existed in every generation, and some of them have demonstrated amazing abilities to predict future events. Their "powers," although mystifying to those who witness them, are not usually considered divine in origin. If, then, Old Testament prophets did on occasions foresee the future (a questionable premise at best), perhaps they were merely the Nostradamus of their day. Why would it necessarily follow that they were divinely inspired? Even the Bible recognizes the possibility that uninspired prophets can sometimes accurately predict the future:
> 
> Usually, Bible "prophecies" turn out to be prophecies only because imaginative Bible writers arbitrarily declared them to be prophecies. The same can be said of their alleged fulfillments: the fulfillments are fulfillments only because obviously biased New Testament writers arbitrarily declared them to be fulfillments.
> 
> It must involve... specific details--not vague generalities or remote possibilities
> 
> And I'm sorrry, but to say one day that he people who live in what is now called Russia are going to start the big war is not that much of a prophecy.  Everyone probably knew one day those barbarians were going to be trouble.  BFD.
> 
> I have also heard from theists that the Beast is going to come from Europe & America.  Which is it?  I've also heard them claim the middle east is where all the trouble starts, then Europe, then Russia.  I guess if you make enough prophecies some of them are going to come true.
Click to expand...


LOL!

So prophecy is fiction too and this universe is the only universe and anyone who says otherwise is a lunatic?

Poor Neil deGrasse Tyson, whose 'prophecies' suggest otherwise, and himself an atheist.


----------



## sealybobo

The Irish Ram said:


> The answer to your question is, Prophecy.
> How did David know about crucifixion?  About piercing of hands and feet? An act that wouldn't exist for a thousand years?  That Israel would be born in a day?  That all nations would come against Israel?  The countries that would invade Israel? That Christians would be beheaded?
> 1/4 of the Bible is prophesy.  Accurate prophesy.
> The Bible is the most accurate source of antiquity ever written.  Those who make that claim use the Bible as the starting point to uncover our ancient past.  IT HAS NEVER , REPEAT, NEVER BEEN FOUND INACCURATE.  To the contrary, it is spot on.  Archeologists depend on it.
> 
> Did you know that King David, a key player in the Bible, could have been described as a figment of Bible believers imagination?  There was no evidence that He ever existed.  Atheists had a field day with that one.  Until they unearthed an ancient tablet describing a King's battle against the House of David.
> 
> Whether you believe in the word of God or the diggers, the Bible is sound.



I'm looking into prophecies and I'm seeing why they are so important to convince/prove to doubters that god exists.  First of all, even the old testament said a Messiah would come.  They just don't believe Jesus was it.  They are still waiting.  But even they made prophecies and claim they have predicted future events and that is their proof of their religion.  It is why they believe and why you should believe.  

You can't show us miracles or prove their is a god so these are very important to your religion.  Same with Muslims.  They had prophets too.  Anyways, this is almost as lame as the miracles stories.  Who even know if they really predicted the future or wrote prophecies of things that already happened.  You don't know.  These are ancient superstitous men who lied or were crazy.  You know how crazy some religious people can get, right?  Well think 2000 years ago.  I don't know if they were trippin on acid or what, but their claims are outlandish.  And Nostrodumbass was a prophet too.  Not god inspired.  Why do you believe a corrupt church or ancient cults?  Why do you doubt all the other religions and believe yours?  Isn't that funny everyone is capable of calling bullshit on every religion but their own.  Very interesting.  

And which prophicies are so compelling to you btw?


----------



## sealybobo

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MOGMOG2014 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fact is if you put 1000 smart people together, you'll find a lot of atheists.  And if you put a bunch of stupid people together you will get a higher number of believers.
> 
> scientists in the United States are more likely to not believe in God when compared to nonscientists [source: The Pew Research Center]. Here are the numbers from one 2009 Pew Research Center survey:
> 
> 
> One-third of scientists said they believed in God, compared to 83 percent of the general public surveyed.
> Nearly one-fifth reported not believing in God but having faith in a higher power (general public came in at 12 percent).
> Roughly two-fifths said they didn't believe in a God or higher power (4 percent among the general public).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fact is, the most atheistic group you can find shows less than half don't believe in God and more than half believe in God or a higher power. So even with your "1000 smart people" argument, you fail... most of them believe in something greater than self.
> 
> I think it was also a Pew study that examined the most atheist country on the planet, Sweden. They found 33% claimed to be atheist, 66% claimed some spiritual belief. What was really interesting was the follow-up question asked of the atheists... Less than half of that 33% were willing to go so far as to say they did not believe in any possibility of something greater than self. I guess the majority were "agnostic" atheists?
> 
> Scientists, not scientists, smart people, dumb people, atheist country or not... doesn't matter, a majority believe in something greater than self. Even in a group of ALL atheists!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Argumentum ad populum. The popularity of an idea says nothing of its veracity.
> 
> Geocentrism, a flat earth, creationism, astrology, alchemy and the occult were all once pervasive beliefs.
> 
> Furthermore, religions are culturally relative and, for the most part, are inconsistent and mutually exclusive.
> 
> _“A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it.”_ – David Stevens
> 
> And I told you most atheists are actually agnostic atheists.  Remember, we don't know what's on the other side of a black hole yet either.  We remain open to all posibilities.  You're twist on a creator is actually really lame.  You are smart enough to realize religions are made up but you can't imagine that the entire premise is too.  Interesting.
> 
> The validity of a claim, such as the existence of god, is not governed by the intelligence of the minds which hold it. Evidence and reason are the deciding factors.
> 
> The fact that an intelligent person holds an irrational belief is simply evidence that our brains are able to compartmentalize world-views and models from one another, usually in order to maintain a state of ‘ignorant bliss’ and escape the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMFAO... So you are now admitting your original point was "argumentum ad populum?" We're now back to "validity of a claim is not governed by intelligence" and away from "put 1000 smart people together, find a lot of atheists." Can't you make up your mind, silly boob?
> 
> *We remain open to all posibilities.  You're twist on a creator is actually really lame.*
> 
> Wow... you can't type two consecutive sentences without contradicting yourself, can you?
> 
> Pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's because both are true.  Smart people don't typically believe things on blind faith in general and so that's why you'll find in smarter groups you'll find more atheists and in dumber groups you'll find more.  Great example is prison.  Prison is full of people who all believe in god.  Yes Nasa has a lot of doubters.
> 
> Definition of Spiritual should be a person who doesn't believe any religions but wants to still believe in something.
> 
> So from now on call it Something.  In Something We Trust.  Something Damn You!  Please Something, forgive me, blablabla.  Last night I was watching a black woman preacher.  She was misinterpreting the bible left and right.  Using it to manipulate and bamboozle them.  But she said he created us in his image.  She had a very specific god she was talking about.  She wasn't vague like you.  She didn't define him or it as spiritual energy.  So now that's god?  Energy?  Electricity?
> 
> You know what?  Since I don't know, I hope you are right.  I hope there is something higher or more too.  I just don't.  But if our/my energy never dies and lives on forever, that's great.  I'm just telling you that even if you are right there is a creator, that still doesn't mean you live on once your body dies.  That's wishful thinking too.
> 
> So you can hope to catch me in a mistake but really I'm not the one claiming to know anything.  You're trying to prove to us a god exists and theists are trying to make god the law of the land.  You may not think of yourself as one of them but you are.  Sucker.  They'd string you up for your heresy if they could.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Anti-theists are, in my extensive experience, the least intelligent people on earth.  Nearly without exception, they're sociopaths and are, in general terms, counter productive to the species in general.
> 
> But hey, such is the nature of evil... right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> GOD HATING UNBELIEVERS NEED TO FACE THE TRUTH!!!==That man is a fool who says to himself, “There is no God!” Anyone who talks like that is warped and evil and cannot really be a good person at all.Psalm 14:1===Only a fool would say to himself, “There is no God.” And why does he say it? Because of his wicked heart, his dark and evil deeds. His life is corroded with sin. PSALM 53:1 and you??? === The man who finds life will find it through trusting God.”*18 But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, evil men who push away the truth from them. 19 For the truth about God is known to them instinctively; God has put this knowledge in their hearts. 20 Since earliest times men have seen the earth and sky and all God made, and have known of his existence and great eternal power. So they will have no excuse when they stand before God at Judgment Day.21 Yes, they knew about him all right, but they wouldn’t admit it or worship him or even thank him for all his daily care. And after a while they began to think up silly ideas of what God was like and what he wanted them to do. The result was that their foolish minds became dark and confused. 22 Claiming themselves to be wise without God, they became utter fools instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I won't say there is no super being in existence in this universe whom we would name God. But God doesn't even call himself that name. And the bible is a work of fiction. Not because I hide evil in my heart, but because I have logic and common sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Logic?
> 
> LOL!
> 
> And part and parcel of that 'logic' is to claim that the Creator of the universe is a 'super-being'.
> 
> Logic provides that the Creator of the Universe is the standard, thus God being 'super' is purely a function of humanities inferior status.  This indicated by your absurd conclusion (due to its baseless nature) that the Bible is a work of fiction.  This being the book wherein THOUSANDS of years prior to any potential for any human understanding of physics, declared that the Universe began as an explosion of light.
> 
> Now, this compared to the foundation of modern physics which proclaimed that the origins of the universe began with a loud BANG.  When in fact, there was no bang, due to their being no medium in space by which to propagate, a wave.  Now the coolest part of THAT is that at the time, which was just over a century ago, the brightest minds in science 'believed' that space was comprised of aether... which would be a medium by which sound could be propagated.
> 
> So, the Bible is the word of God and every word is absolute truth.  That you do not understand it... thus can't understand those truths, is on YOU.
Click to expand...


What did you mean when you said:  "God being 'super' is purely a function of humanities inferior status."


----------



## sealybobo

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> The answer to your question is, Prophecy.
> How did David know about crucifixion?  About piercing of hands and feet? An act that wouldn't exist for a thousand years?  That Israel would be born in a day?  That all nations would come against Israel?  The countries that would invade Israel? That Christians would be beheaded?
> 1/4 of the Bible is prophesy.  Accurate prophesy.
> The Bible is the most accurate source of antiquity ever written.  Those who make that claim use the Bible as the starting point to uncover our ancient past.  IT HAS NEVER , REPEAT, NEVER BEEN FOUND INACCURATE.  To the contrary, it is spot on.  Archeologists depend on it.
> 
> Did you know that King David, a key player in the Bible, could have been described as a figment of Bible believers imagination?  There was no evidence that He ever existed.  Atheists had a field day with that one.  Until they unearthed an ancient tablet describing a King's battle against the House of David.
> 
> Whether you believe in the word of God or the diggers, the Bible is sound.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is even better:
> 
> A very simple flaw in the prophecy-fulfillment argument is that foreseeing the future doesn't necessarily prove divine guidance. Psychics have existed in every generation, and some of them have demonstrated amazing abilities to predict future events. Their "powers," although mystifying to those who witness them, are not usually considered divine in origin. If, then, Old Testament prophets did on occasions foresee the future (a questionable premise at best), perhaps they were merely the Nostradamus of their day. Why would it necessarily follow that they were divinely inspired? Even the Bible recognizes the possibility that uninspired prophets can sometimes accurately predict the future:
> 
> Usually, Bible "prophecies" turn out to be prophecies only because imaginative Bible writers arbitrarily declared them to be prophecies. The same can be said of their alleged fulfillments: the fulfillments are fulfillments only because obviously biased New Testament writers arbitrarily declared them to be fulfillments.
> 
> It must involve... specific details--not vague generalities or remote possibilities
> 
> And I'm sorrry, but to say one day that he people who live in what is now called Russia are going to start the big war is not that much of a prophecy.  Everyone probably knew one day those barbarians were going to be trouble.  BFD.
> 
> I have also heard from theists that the Beast is going to come from Europe & America.  Which is it?  I've also heard them claim the middle east is where all the trouble starts, then Europe, then Russia.  I guess if you make enough prophecies some of them are going to come true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!
> 
> So prophecy is fiction too and this universe is the only universe and anyone who says otherwise is a lunatic?
> 
> Poor Neil deGrasse Tyson, whose 'prophecies' suggest otherwise, and himself an atheist.
Click to expand...


Every religion has prophecies.  

Should I be a Mormon just because Section 87 of the Mormon _Doctrine and Covenants_, written in 1832, accurately predicts that South Carolina will begin a war of the South against the North and call on Great Britain for assistance

List of fulfilled prophecies - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Members of the Japanese new religious group Oomoto were responsible for several fulfilled prophecies in the early 20th century. Specifically, the prophet Onisaburō Deguchipredicted that Japan would fight a war in 1931, which was realized with the Manchurian Incident

List of fulfilled prophecies - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Anyways, please tell me the top Christian Prophecies you believe are most compelling.  No I don't think prophecies are proof of anything.  

Tyson didn't make a prophecy.  He made a prediction.


----------



## sealybobo

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> The answer to your question is, Prophecy.
> How did David know about crucifixion?  About piercing of hands and feet? An act that wouldn't exist for a thousand years?  That Israel would be born in a day?  That all nations would come against Israel?  The countries that would invade Israel? That Christians would be beheaded?
> 1/4 of the Bible is prophesy.  Accurate prophesy.
> The Bible is the most accurate source of antiquity ever written.  Those who make that claim use the Bible as the starting point to uncover our ancient past.  IT HAS NEVER , REPEAT, NEVER BEEN FOUND INACCURATE.  To the contrary, it is spot on.  Archeologists depend on it.
> 
> Did you know that King David, a key player in the Bible, could have been described as a figment of Bible believers imagination?  There was no evidence that He ever existed.  Atheists had a field day with that one.  Until they unearthed an ancient tablet describing a King's battle against the House of David.
> 
> Whether you believe in the word of God or the diggers, the Bible is sound.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is even better:
> 
> A very simple flaw in the prophecy-fulfillment argument is that foreseeing the future doesn't necessarily prove divine guidance. Psychics have existed in every generation, and some of them have demonstrated amazing abilities to predict future events. Their "powers," although mystifying to those who witness them, are not usually considered divine in origin. If, then, Old Testament prophets did on occasions foresee the future (a questionable premise at best), perhaps they were merely the Nostradamus of their day. Why would it necessarily follow that they were divinely inspired? Even the Bible recognizes the possibility that uninspired prophets can sometimes accurately predict the future:
> 
> Usually, Bible "prophecies" turn out to be prophecies only because imaginative Bible writers arbitrarily declared them to be prophecies. The same can be said of their alleged fulfillments: the fulfillments are fulfillments only because obviously biased New Testament writers arbitrarily declared them to be fulfillments.
> 
> It must involve... specific details--not vague generalities or remote possibilities
> 
> And I'm sorrry, but to say one day that he people who live in what is now called Russia are going to start the big war is not that much of a prophecy.  Everyone probably knew one day those barbarians were going to be trouble.  BFD.
> 
> I have also heard from theists that the Beast is going to come from Europe & America.  Which is it?  I've also heard them claim the middle east is where all the trouble starts, then Europe, then Russia.  I guess if you make enough prophecies some of them are going to come true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!
> 
> So prophecy is fiction too and this universe is the only universe and anyone who says otherwise is a lunatic?
> 
> Poor Neil deGrasse Tyson, whose 'prophecies' suggest otherwise, and himself an atheist.
Click to expand...


Yes.  If men made up the Jewish, Christian & Muslim faiths then it is very possible they made up these prophecies too.  

These prophecies don't prove your god just like other religions prophecies don't prove their gods are real either.  

10 prophecies predicted in the Bible fulfilled in history Sun Shield

Really, the more I look into prophecies the more I am sure no they do not prove anything.  They are just another way the churches con you into believing the unbelievable.  Congrats on being gullible.  Ignorance is bliss.


----------



## sealybobo

The Irish Ram said:


> The answer to your question is, Prophecy.
> How did David know about crucifixion?  About piercing of hands and feet? An act that wouldn't exist for a thousand years?  That Israel would be born in a day?  That all nations would come against Israel?  The countries that would invade Israel? That Christians would be beheaded?
> 1/4 of the Bible is prophesy.  Accurate prophesy.
> The Bible is the most accurate source of antiquity ever written.  Those who make that claim use the Bible as the starting point to uncover our ancient past.  IT HAS NEVER , REPEAT, NEVER BEEN FOUND INACCURATE.  To the contrary, it is spot on.  Archeologists depend on it.
> 
> Did you know that King David, a key player in the Bible, could have been described as a figment of Bible believers imagination?  There was no evidence that He ever existed.  Atheists had a field day with that one.  Until they unearthed an ancient tablet describing a King's battle against the House of David.
> 
> Whether you believe in the word of God or the diggers, the Bible is sound.



You are under the assumption that everything in the bible is true.  Do you do that with other non christian religion texts?

There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible concerning the existence of a god. Any ‘evidence’ proposed by theists to support the Bible’s various historical and supernatural claims is non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.

The Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many religious texts. Like those other texts, it itself constitutes no evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful content do not legitimize it nor distinguish it from other ancient works of literature.

The Bible is historically inaccurate, factually incorrect, inconsistent and contradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time.

How do you ignore this?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

sealybobo said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> The answer to your question is, Prophecy.
> How did David know about crucifixion?  About piercing of hands and feet? An act that wouldn't exist for a thousand years?  That Israel would be born in a day?  That all nations would come against Israel?  The countries that would invade Israel? That Christians would be beheaded?
> 1/4 of the Bible is prophesy.  Accurate prophesy.
> The Bible is the most accurate source of antiquity ever written.  Those who make that claim use the Bible as the starting point to uncover our ancient past.  IT HAS NEVER , REPEAT, NEVER BEEN FOUND INACCURATE.  To the contrary, it is spot on.  Archeologists depend on it.
> 
> Did you know that King David, a key player in the Bible, could have been described as a figment of Bible believers imagination?  There was no evidence that He ever existed.  Atheists had a field day with that one.  Until they unearthed an ancient tablet describing a King's battle against the House of David.
> 
> Whether you believe in the word of God or the diggers, the Bible is sound.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is even better:
> 
> A very simple flaw in the prophecy-fulfillment argument is that foreseeing the future doesn't necessarily prove divine guidance. Psychics have existed in every generation, and some of them have demonstrated amazing abilities to predict future events. Their "powers," although mystifying to those who witness them, are not usually considered divine in origin. If, then, Old Testament prophets did on occasions foresee the future (a questionable premise at best), perhaps they were merely the Nostradamus of their day. Why would it necessarily follow that they were divinely inspired? Even the Bible recognizes the possibility that uninspired prophets can sometimes accurately predict the future:
> 
> Usually, Bible "prophecies" turn out to be prophecies only because imaginative Bible writers arbitrarily declared them to be prophecies. The same can be said of their alleged fulfillments: the fulfillments are fulfillments only because obviously biased New Testament writers arbitrarily declared them to be fulfillments.
> 
> It must involve... specific details--not vague generalities or remote possibilities
> 
> And I'm sorrry, but to say one day that he people who live in what is now called Russia are going to start the big war is not that much of a prophecy.  Everyone probably knew one day those barbarians were going to be trouble.  BFD.
> 
> I have also heard from theists that the Beast is going to come from Europe & America.  Which is it?  I've also heard them claim the middle east is where all the trouble starts, then Europe, then Russia.  I guess if you make enough prophecies some of them are going to come true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!
> 
> So prophecy is fiction too and this universe is the only universe and anyone who says otherwise is a lunatic?
> 
> Poor Neil deGrasse Tyson, whose 'prophecies' suggest otherwise, and himself an atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  If men made up the Jewish, Christian & Muslim faiths then it is very possible they made up these prophecies too.
> 
> These prophecies don't prove your god just like other religions prophecies don't prove their gods are real either.
> 
> 10 prophecies predicted in the Bible fulfilled in history Sun Shield
> 
> Really, the more I look into prophecies the more I am sure no they do not prove anything.  They are just another way the churches con you into believing the unbelievable.  Congrats on being gullible.  Ignorance is bliss.
Click to expand...


The prophecies only point to the means for the human mind to perceive future events.  That proves that future events are predictable, which proves that within nature exist laws which provide for such.  And since within our observable universe, there is no means to make such predictions (beyond actuarial science, which works upon the law of large numbers) that the species is somehow connected to other dimensions, which provides for the possibility that where such 'other dimensions' exist and, where humanity can tap into such, that there exists the further possibility that life beyond our own understanding exists and, it follows that such life would be characteristically common to God.

That such does not prove "God" to you is irrelevant, as you have clearly closed off you mind to the possibility that there exist life, beyond your means to comprehend.

The coolest part of this, is that as science advances, the existence of God becomes more certain.


----------



## sealybobo

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> The answer to your question is, Prophecy.
> How did David know about crucifixion?  About piercing of hands and feet? An act that wouldn't exist for a thousand years?  That Israel would be born in a day?  That all nations would come against Israel?  The countries that would invade Israel? That Christians would be beheaded?
> 1/4 of the Bible is prophesy.  Accurate prophesy.
> The Bible is the most accurate source of antiquity ever written.  Those who make that claim use the Bible as the starting point to uncover our ancient past.  IT HAS NEVER , REPEAT, NEVER BEEN FOUND INACCURATE.  To the contrary, it is spot on.  Archeologists depend on it.
> 
> Did you know that King David, a key player in the Bible, could have been described as a figment of Bible believers imagination?  There was no evidence that He ever existed.  Atheists had a field day with that one.  Until they unearthed an ancient tablet describing a King's battle against the House of David.
> 
> Whether you believe in the word of God or the diggers, the Bible is sound.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is even better:
> 
> A very simple flaw in the prophecy-fulfillment argument is that foreseeing the future doesn't necessarily prove divine guidance. Psychics have existed in every generation, and some of them have demonstrated amazing abilities to predict future events. Their "powers," although mystifying to those who witness them, are not usually considered divine in origin. If, then, Old Testament prophets did on occasions foresee the future (a questionable premise at best), perhaps they were merely the Nostradamus of their day. Why would it necessarily follow that they were divinely inspired? Even the Bible recognizes the possibility that uninspired prophets can sometimes accurately predict the future:
> 
> Usually, Bible "prophecies" turn out to be prophecies only because imaginative Bible writers arbitrarily declared them to be prophecies. The same can be said of their alleged fulfillments: the fulfillments are fulfillments only because obviously biased New Testament writers arbitrarily declared them to be fulfillments.
> 
> It must involve... specific details--not vague generalities or remote possibilities
> 
> And I'm sorrry, but to say one day that he people who live in what is now called Russia are going to start the big war is not that much of a prophecy.  Everyone probably knew one day those barbarians were going to be trouble.  BFD.
> 
> I have also heard from theists that the Beast is going to come from Europe & America.  Which is it?  I've also heard them claim the middle east is where all the trouble starts, then Europe, then Russia.  I guess if you make enough prophecies some of them are going to come true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!
> 
> So prophecy is fiction too and this universe is the only universe and anyone who says otherwise is a lunatic?
> 
> Poor Neil deGrasse Tyson, whose 'prophecies' suggest otherwise, and himself an atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  If men made up the Jewish, Christian & Muslim faiths then it is very possible they made up these prophecies too.
> 
> These prophecies don't prove your god just like other religions prophecies don't prove their gods are real either.
> 
> 10 prophecies predicted in the Bible fulfilled in history Sun Shield
> 
> Really, the more I look into prophecies the more I am sure no they do not prove anything.  They are just another way the churches con you into believing the unbelievable.  Congrats on being gullible.  Ignorance is bliss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The prophecies only point to the means for the human mind to perceive future events.  That proves that future events are predictable, which proves that within nature exist laws which provide for such.  And since within our observable universe, there is no means to make such predictions, that the species is connected to other dimensions, which provides for the possibility that where such other dimensions exist and where humanity can tap into such, that there exists the further possibility that life beyond our own understanding exists and, it follows that such life would be characteristic of God.
> 
> That such does not prove "God" to you is irrelevant, as you have clearly closed off you mind to the possibility that there exist life, beyond your means to comprehend.
> 
> The coolest part of this, is that as science advances, the existence of God becomes more certain.
Click to expand...


1.  Predict 1000 prophecies and 10 come true does not prove anything.  

The future can not be accurately predicted, unless you are predicting things that are easily predictable like "god told you that one day the USA would no longer be the worlds superpower".  That's not so far fetched to believe that one day we might lose that title.  So predicting babylon will beat up Israel one day doesn't prove anything either.  Who knows if that is even true.  Your church might have made those stories of prophecy up.  I wouldn't put it past them.  And even if they did make 1000 prophecies and 10 came true, bfd.  

How come every other religion have prophecies too?  Please don't tell me you are a chrstian light who believes in Christianity but doesn't believe Jesus said he was the ONLY WAY.  

I have a prophecy.  When you die you won't wake up on the other side but don't worry you won't feel it because you'll be dead just like a fish is when you chop its head off.  No after life.  No heaven.  No god or dead relatives waiting to hug you.  Sorry.  Wishful thinking.  Sad and pathetic really that you need this god story.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

sealybobo said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> The answer to your question is, Prophecy.
> How did David know about crucifixion?  About piercing of hands and feet? An act that wouldn't exist for a thousand years?  That Israel would be born in a day?  That all nations would come against Israel?  The countries that would invade Israel? That Christians would be beheaded?
> 1/4 of the Bible is prophesy.  Accurate prophesy.
> The Bible is the most accurate source of antiquity ever written.  Those who make that claim use the Bible as the starting point to uncover our ancient past.  IT HAS NEVER , REPEAT, NEVER BEEN FOUND INACCURATE.  To the contrary, it is spot on.  Archeologists depend on it.
> 
> Did you know that King David, a key player in the Bible, could have been described as a figment of Bible believers imagination?  There was no evidence that He ever existed.  Atheists had a field day with that one.  Until they unearthed an ancient tablet describing a King's battle against the House of David.
> 
> Whether you believe in the word of God or the diggers, the Bible is sound.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is even better:
> 
> A very simple flaw in the prophecy-fulfillment argument is that foreseeing the future doesn't necessarily prove divine guidance. Psychics have existed in every generation, and some of them have demonstrated amazing abilities to predict future events. Their "powers," although mystifying to those who witness them, are not usually considered divine in origin. If, then, Old Testament prophets did on occasions foresee the future (a questionable premise at best), perhaps they were merely the Nostradamus of their day. Why would it necessarily follow that they were divinely inspired? Even the Bible recognizes the possibility that uninspired prophets can sometimes accurately predict the future:
> 
> Usually, Bible "prophecies" turn out to be prophecies only because imaginative Bible writers arbitrarily declared them to be prophecies. The same can be said of their alleged fulfillments: the fulfillments are fulfillments only because obviously biased New Testament writers arbitrarily declared them to be fulfillments.
> 
> It must involve... specific details--not vague generalities or remote possibilities
> 
> And I'm sorrry, but to say one day that he people who live in what is now called Russia are going to start the big war is not that much of a prophecy.  Everyone probably knew one day those barbarians were going to be trouble.  BFD.
> 
> I have also heard from theists that the Beast is going to come from Europe & America.  Which is it?  I've also heard them claim the middle east is where all the trouble starts, then Europe, then Russia.  I guess if you make enough prophecies some of them are going to come true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!
> 
> So prophecy is fiction too and this universe is the only universe and anyone who says otherwise is a lunatic?
> 
> Poor Neil deGrasse Tyson, whose 'prophecies' suggest otherwise, and himself an atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  If men made up the Jewish, Christian & Muslim faiths then it is very possible they made up these prophecies too.
> 
> These prophecies don't prove your god just like other religions prophecies don't prove their gods are real either.
> 
> 10 prophecies predicted in the Bible fulfilled in history Sun Shield
> 
> Really, the more I look into prophecies the more I am sure no they do not prove anything.  They are just another way the churches con you into believing the unbelievable.  Congrats on being gullible.  Ignorance is bliss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The prophecies only point to the means for the human mind to perceive future events.  That proves that future events are predictable, which proves that within nature exist laws which provide for such.  And since within our observable universe, there is no means to make such predictions, that the species is connected to other dimensions, which provides for the possibility that where such other dimensions exist and where humanity can tap into such, that there exists the further possibility that life beyond our own understanding exists and, it follows that such life would be characteristic of God.
> 
> That such does not prove "God" to you is irrelevant, as you have clearly closed off you mind to the possibility that there exist life, beyond your means to comprehend.
> 
> The coolest part of this, is that as science advances, the existence of God becomes more certain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.  Predict 1000 prophecies and 10 come true does not prove anything.
> 
> The future can not be accurately predicted, unless you are predicting things that are easily predictable like "god told you that one day the USA would no longer be the worlds superpower".  That's not so far fetched to believe that one day we might lose that title.  So predicting babylon will beat up Israel one day doesn't prove anything either.  Who knows if that is even true.  Your church might have made those stories of prophecy up.  I wouldn't put it past them.  And even if they did make 1000 prophecies and 10 came true, bfd.
> 
> How come every other religion have prophecies too?  Please don't tell me you are a chrstian light who believes in Christianity but doesn't believe Jesus said he was the ONLY WAY.
> 
> I have a prophecy.  When you die you won't wake up on the other side but don't worry you won't feel it because you'll be dead just like a fish is when you chop its head off.  No after life.  No heaven.  No god or dead relatives waiting to hug you.  Sorry.  Wishful thinking.  Sad and pathetic really that you need this god story.
Click to expand...


LOL! 

That is ADORABLE!

There is no end, in my own experiences, wherein dreams have come identically true; meaning that events unfolded identically as they occurred in my dreams, years later.  Events which I could not have possibly 'predicted'... as the individuals in the dream, while in the dream itself felt familiar or 'known' to me, I in fact had not met them yet and never been to the places where the events occurred.

Now I cannot do this at will... but it has happened in sufficient examples that I dam' well know, that my mind saw the future events.  What's more, I told others about the dreams, the following day and years later when the 'deja vu' occurred, I called them and asked them if they remember me telling them about that dream and they recalled it.

Now you're saying that because that cannot be done at will, that it is not possible, or that because it cannot be measured or otherwise  analyzed that such is not credible. 

To which I say: Fine.  Adding a quick: So what?  It happened... deal with it.

.
.
.

Now with that said, nature, as I noted above has laws which readily provide for the prediction of future events in fairly specific terms.

For instance, if a teenager engages in the abuse of alcohol and illicit drugs, they will most likely fail to gather marketable skills and suffer a life of chronic poverty. 

The female variants who follow this path will likely be lulled into sexual intercourse and either be forced to murder her own child, causing her to suffer life long depression, further irritating her abuse of alcohol and drugs... irritating her circumstances in chronic poverty.

If she bears the responsibility for her CHOICE... she will likely raise that child to become just like her and PRESTO... the origins of socialism are reborn!

Just as, where a teenager is taught to reason soundly and to discipline their biological appetites... learns to humble themselves before their Creator, to focus their mind on that energy of nature which represents good, it will likely make sound choices, avoid alcohol and drug abuse, thus learn marketable skills and enjoy a life of happiness and prosperity.

See how that works?


----------



## sealybobo

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> The answer to your question is, Prophecy.
> How did David know about crucifixion?  About piercing of hands and feet? An act that wouldn't exist for a thousand years?  That Israel would be born in a day?  That all nations would come against Israel?  The countries that would invade Israel? That Christians would be beheaded?
> 1/4 of the Bible is prophesy.  Accurate prophesy.
> The Bible is the most accurate source of antiquity ever written.  Those who make that claim use the Bible as the starting point to uncover our ancient past.  IT HAS NEVER , REPEAT, NEVER BEEN FOUND INACCURATE.  To the contrary, it is spot on.  Archeologists depend on it.
> 
> Did you know that King David, a key player in the Bible, could have been described as a figment of Bible believers imagination?  There was no evidence that He ever existed.  Atheists had a field day with that one.  Until they unearthed an ancient tablet describing a King's battle against the House of David.
> 
> Whether you believe in the word of God or the diggers, the Bible is sound.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is even better:
> 
> A very simple flaw in the prophecy-fulfillment argument is that foreseeing the future doesn't necessarily prove divine guidance. Psychics have existed in every generation, and some of them have demonstrated amazing abilities to predict future events. Their "powers," although mystifying to those who witness them, are not usually considered divine in origin. If, then, Old Testament prophets did on occasions foresee the future (a questionable premise at best), perhaps they were merely the Nostradamus of their day. Why would it necessarily follow that they were divinely inspired? Even the Bible recognizes the possibility that uninspired prophets can sometimes accurately predict the future:
> 
> Usually, Bible "prophecies" turn out to be prophecies only because imaginative Bible writers arbitrarily declared them to be prophecies. The same can be said of their alleged fulfillments: the fulfillments are fulfillments only because obviously biased New Testament writers arbitrarily declared them to be fulfillments.
> 
> It must involve... specific details--not vague generalities or remote possibilities
> 
> And I'm sorrry, but to say one day that he people who live in what is now called Russia are going to start the big war is not that much of a prophecy.  Everyone probably knew one day those barbarians were going to be trouble.  BFD.
> 
> I have also heard from theists that the Beast is going to come from Europe & America.  Which is it?  I've also heard them claim the middle east is where all the trouble starts, then Europe, then Russia.  I guess if you make enough prophecies some of them are going to come true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!
> 
> So prophecy is fiction too and this universe is the only universe and anyone who says otherwise is a lunatic?
> 
> Poor Neil deGrasse Tyson, whose 'prophecies' suggest otherwise, and himself an atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  If men made up the Jewish, Christian & Muslim faiths then it is very possible they made up these prophecies too.
> 
> These prophecies don't prove your god just like other religions prophecies don't prove their gods are real either.
> 
> 10 prophecies predicted in the Bible fulfilled in history Sun Shield
> 
> Really, the more I look into prophecies the more I am sure no they do not prove anything.  They are just another way the churches con you into believing the unbelievable.  Congrats on being gullible.  Ignorance is bliss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The prophecies only point to the means for the human mind to perceive future events.  That proves that future events are predictable, which proves that within nature exist laws which provide for such.  And since within our observable universe, there is no means to make such predictions, that the species is connected to other dimensions, which provides for the possibility that where such other dimensions exist and where humanity can tap into such, that there exists the further possibility that life beyond our own understanding exists and, it follows that such life would be characteristic of God.
> 
> That such does not prove "God" to you is irrelevant, as you have clearly closed off you mind to the possibility that there exist life, beyond your means to comprehend.
> 
> The coolest part of this, is that as science advances, the existence of God becomes more certain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.  Predict 1000 prophecies and 10 come true does not prove anything.
> 
> The future can not be accurately predicted, unless you are predicting things that are easily predictable like "god told you that one day the USA would no longer be the worlds superpower".  That's not so far fetched to believe that one day we might lose that title.  So predicting babylon will beat up Israel one day doesn't prove anything either.  Who knows if that is even true.  Your church might have made those stories of prophecy up.  I wouldn't put it past them.  And even if they did make 1000 prophecies and 10 came true, bfd.
> 
> How come every other religion have prophecies too?  Please don't tell me you are a chrstian light who believes in Christianity but doesn't believe Jesus said he was the ONLY WAY.
> 
> I have a prophecy.  When you die you won't wake up on the other side but don't worry you won't feel it because you'll be dead just like a fish is when you chop its head off.  No after life.  No heaven.  No god or dead relatives waiting to hug you.  Sorry.  Wishful thinking.  Sad and pathetic really that you need this god story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!
> 
> That is ADORABLE!
> 
> There is no end, in my own experiences, wherein dreams have come identically true; meaning that events unfolded identically as they occurred in my dreams, years later.  Events which I could not have possibly 'predicted'... as the individuals in the dream, while in the dream itself felt familiar or 'known' to me, I in fact had not met them yet and never been to the places where the events occurred.
> 
> Now I cannot do this at will... but it has happened in sufficient examples that I dam' well know, that my mind saw the future events.  What's more, I told others about the dreams, the following day and years later when the 'deja vu' occurred, I called them and asked them if they remember me telling them about that dream and they recalled it.
> 
> Now you're saying that because that cannot be done at will, that it is not possible, or that because it cannot be measured or otherwise  analyzed that such is not credible.
> 
> To which I say: Fine.  Adding a quick: So what?  It happened... deal with it.
Click to expand...


Yea it's called De Ja Voo silly.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

sealybobo said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> The answer to your question is, Prophecy.
> How did David know about crucifixion?  About piercing of hands and feet? An act that wouldn't exist for a thousand years?  That Israel would be born in a day?  That all nations would come against Israel?  The countries that would invade Israel? That Christians would be beheaded?
> 1/4 of the Bible is prophesy.  Accurate prophesy.
> The Bible is the most accurate source of antiquity ever written.  Those who make that claim use the Bible as the starting point to uncover our ancient past.  IT HAS NEVER , REPEAT, NEVER BEEN FOUND INACCURATE.  To the contrary, it is spot on.  Archeologists depend on it.
> 
> Did you know that King David, a key player in the Bible, could have been described as a figment of Bible believers imagination?  There was no evidence that He ever existed.  Atheists had a field day with that one.  Until they unearthed an ancient tablet describing a King's battle against the House of David.
> 
> Whether you believe in the word of God or the diggers, the Bible is sound.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is even better:
> 
> A very simple flaw in the prophecy-fulfillment argument is that foreseeing the future doesn't necessarily prove divine guidance. Psychics have existed in every generation, and some of them have demonstrated amazing abilities to predict future events. Their "powers," although mystifying to those who witness them, are not usually considered divine in origin. If, then, Old Testament prophets did on occasions foresee the future (a questionable premise at best), perhaps they were merely the Nostradamus of their day. Why would it necessarily follow that they were divinely inspired? Even the Bible recognizes the possibility that uninspired prophets can sometimes accurately predict the future:
> 
> Usually, Bible "prophecies" turn out to be prophecies only because imaginative Bible writers arbitrarily declared them to be prophecies. The same can be said of their alleged fulfillments: the fulfillments are fulfillments only because obviously biased New Testament writers arbitrarily declared them to be fulfillments.
> 
> It must involve... specific details--not vague generalities or remote possibilities
> 
> And I'm sorrry, but to say one day that he people who live in what is now called Russia are going to start the big war is not that much of a prophecy.  Everyone probably knew one day those barbarians were going to be trouble.  BFD.
> 
> I have also heard from theists that the Beast is going to come from Europe & America.  Which is it?  I've also heard them claim the middle east is where all the trouble starts, then Europe, then Russia.  I guess if you make enough prophecies some of them are going to come true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!
> 
> So prophecy is fiction too and this universe is the only universe and anyone who says otherwise is a lunatic?
> 
> Poor Neil deGrasse Tyson, whose 'prophecies' suggest otherwise, and himself an atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  If men made up the Jewish, Christian & Muslim faiths then it is very possible they made up these prophecies too.
> 
> These prophecies don't prove your god just like other religions prophecies don't prove their gods are real either.
> 
> 10 prophecies predicted in the Bible fulfilled in history Sun Shield
> 
> Really, the more I look into prophecies the more I am sure no they do not prove anything.  They are just another way the churches con you into believing the unbelievable.  Congrats on being gullible.  Ignorance is bliss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The prophecies only point to the means for the human mind to perceive future events.  That proves that future events are predictable, which proves that within nature exist laws which provide for such.  And since within our observable universe, there is no means to make such predictions, that the species is connected to other dimensions, which provides for the possibility that where such other dimensions exist and where humanity can tap into such, that there exists the further possibility that life beyond our own understanding exists and, it follows that such life would be characteristic of God.
> 
> That such does not prove "God" to you is irrelevant, as you have clearly closed off you mind to the possibility that there exist life, beyond your means to comprehend.
> 
> The coolest part of this, is that as science advances, the existence of God becomes more certain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.  Predict 1000 prophecies and 10 come true does not prove anything.
> 
> The future can not be accurately predicted, unless you are predicting things that are easily predictable like "god told you that one day the USA would no longer be the worlds superpower".  That's not so far fetched to believe that one day we might lose that title.  So predicting babylon will beat up Israel one day doesn't prove anything either.  Who knows if that is even true.  Your church might have made those stories of prophecy up.  I wouldn't put it past them.  And even if they did make 1000 prophecies and 10 came true, bfd.
> 
> How come every other religion have prophecies too?  Please don't tell me you are a chrstian light who believes in Christianity but doesn't believe Jesus said he was the ONLY WAY.
> 
> I have a prophecy.  When you die you won't wake up on the other side but don't worry you won't feel it because you'll be dead just like a fish is when you chop its head off.  No after life.  No heaven.  No god or dead relatives waiting to hug you.  Sorry.  Wishful thinking.  Sad and pathetic really that you need this god story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!
> 
> That is ADORABLE!
> 
> There is no end, in my own experiences, wherein dreams have come identically true; meaning that events unfolded identically as they occurred in my dreams, years later.  Events which I could not have possibly 'predicted'... as the individuals in the dream, while in the dream itself felt familiar or 'known' to me, I in fact had not met them yet and never been to the places where the events occurred.
> 
> Now I cannot do this at will... but it has happened in sufficient examples that I dam' well know, that my mind saw the future events.  What's more, I told others about the dreams, the following day and years later when the *'deja vu'* occurred, I called them and asked them if they remember me telling them about that dream and they recalled it.
> 
> Now you're saying that because that cannot be done at will, that it is not possible, or that because it cannot be measured or otherwise  analyzed that such is not credible.
> 
> To which I say: Fine.  Adding a quick: So what?  It happened... deal with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yea it's called De Ja Voo silly.
Click to expand...


Yeaaah...  That's why I said that's what it's called (except I spelled it right.)

Use this as an opportunity to learn: Déjà vu from the French.  Meaning, literally: "already seen".


----------



## BreezeWood

sealybobo said:


> You are under the assumption that everything in the bible is true.  Do you do that with other non christian religion texts?
> 
> There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible concerning the existence of a god. Any ‘evidence’ proposed by theists to support the Bible’s various historical and supernatural claims is non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.
> 
> The Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many religious texts. Like those other texts, it itself constitutes no evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful content do not legitimize it nor distinguish it from other ancient works of literature.
> 
> The Bible is historically inaccurate, factually incorrect, inconsistent and contradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time.
> 
> How do you ignore this?



*

How do you ignore this?*




> "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.



*( No one comes to the Father except through me ).*


there is no proof, physical or otherwise the above statement was ever spoken by any serious person - yet written into the bible and made into the "Christian" religion is a disservice to what should be a centuries old document evolving through time to guide society to answer the question of our origin and what is the prospects for "our" future.

who are the Jews and Muslims to likewise take for themselves what should be a document for all people to learn by, wherever a living book would lead them ?

the Triumph of Good vs Evil is a cornerstone imbedded in the Bible as a pathway to the Everlasting what other messages from beginning to end might be discovered by a purge of the Bibles present condition ?


the Truth should not be ignored and the Bible should be made into the document it was meant to be and has never been - a verifiable documentation of our origin and the consequences for our future with or without Divine intervention.

.


----------



## sealybobo

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> The answer to your question is, Prophecy.
> How did David know about crucifixion?  About piercing of hands and feet? An act that wouldn't exist for a thousand years?  That Israel would be born in a day?  That all nations would come against Israel?  The countries that would invade Israel? That Christians would be beheaded?
> 1/4 of the Bible is prophesy.  Accurate prophesy.
> The Bible is the most accurate source of antiquity ever written.  Those who make that claim use the Bible as the starting point to uncover our ancient past.  IT HAS NEVER , REPEAT, NEVER BEEN FOUND INACCURATE.  To the contrary, it is spot on.  Archeologists depend on it.
> 
> Did you know that King David, a key player in the Bible, could have been described as a figment of Bible believers imagination?  There was no evidence that He ever existed.  Atheists had a field day with that one.  Until they unearthed an ancient tablet describing a King's battle against the House of David.
> 
> Whether you believe in the word of God or the diggers, the Bible is sound.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is even better:
> 
> A very simple flaw in the prophecy-fulfillment argument is that foreseeing the future doesn't necessarily prove divine guidance. Psychics have existed in every generation, and some of them have demonstrated amazing abilities to predict future events. Their "powers," although mystifying to those who witness them, are not usually considered divine in origin. If, then, Old Testament prophets did on occasions foresee the future (a questionable premise at best), perhaps they were merely the Nostradamus of their day. Why would it necessarily follow that they were divinely inspired? Even the Bible recognizes the possibility that uninspired prophets can sometimes accurately predict the future:
> 
> Usually, Bible "prophecies" turn out to be prophecies only because imaginative Bible writers arbitrarily declared them to be prophecies. The same can be said of their alleged fulfillments: the fulfillments are fulfillments only because obviously biased New Testament writers arbitrarily declared them to be fulfillments.
> 
> It must involve... specific details--not vague generalities or remote possibilities
> 
> And I'm sorrry, but to say one day that he people who live in what is now called Russia are going to start the big war is not that much of a prophecy.  Everyone probably knew one day those barbarians were going to be trouble.  BFD.
> 
> I have also heard from theists that the Beast is going to come from Europe & America.  Which is it?  I've also heard them claim the middle east is where all the trouble starts, then Europe, then Russia.  I guess if you make enough prophecies some of them are going to come true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!
> 
> So prophecy is fiction too and this universe is the only universe and anyone who says otherwise is a lunatic?
> 
> Poor Neil deGrasse Tyson, whose 'prophecies' suggest otherwise, and himself an atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  If men made up the Jewish, Christian & Muslim faiths then it is very possible they made up these prophecies too.
> 
> These prophecies don't prove your god just like other religions prophecies don't prove their gods are real either.
> 
> 10 prophecies predicted in the Bible fulfilled in history Sun Shield
> 
> Really, the more I look into prophecies the more I am sure no they do not prove anything.  They are just another way the churches con you into believing the unbelievable.  Congrats on being gullible.  Ignorance is bliss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The prophecies only point to the means for the human mind to perceive future events.  That proves that future events are predictable, which proves that within nature exist laws which provide for such.  And since within our observable universe, there is no means to make such predictions, that the species is connected to other dimensions, which provides for the possibility that where such other dimensions exist and where humanity can tap into such, that there exists the further possibility that life beyond our own understanding exists and, it follows that such life would be characteristic of God.
> 
> That such does not prove "God" to you is irrelevant, as you have clearly closed off you mind to the possibility that there exist life, beyond your means to comprehend.
> 
> The coolest part of this, is that as science advances, the existence of God becomes more certain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.  Predict 1000 prophecies and 10 come true does not prove anything.
> 
> The future can not be accurately predicted, unless you are predicting things that are easily predictable like "god told you that one day the USA would no longer be the worlds superpower".  That's not so far fetched to believe that one day we might lose that title.  So predicting babylon will beat up Israel one day doesn't prove anything either.  Who knows if that is even true.  Your church might have made those stories of prophecy up.  I wouldn't put it past them.  And even if they did make 1000 prophecies and 10 came true, bfd.
> 
> How come every other religion have prophecies too?  Please don't tell me you are a chrstian light who believes in Christianity but doesn't believe Jesus said he was the ONLY WAY.
> 
> I have a prophecy.  When you die you won't wake up on the other side but don't worry you won't feel it because you'll be dead just like a fish is when you chop its head off.  No after life.  No heaven.  No god or dead relatives waiting to hug you.  Sorry.  Wishful thinking.  Sad and pathetic really that you need this god story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!
> 
> That is ADORABLE!
> 
> There is no end, in my own experiences, wherein dreams have come identically true; meaning that events unfolded identically as they occurred in my dreams, years later.  Events which I could not have possibly 'predicted'... as the individuals in the dream, while in the dream itself felt familiar or 'known' to me, I in fact had not met them yet and never been to the places where the events occurred.
> 
> Now I cannot do this at will... but it has happened in sufficient examples that I dam' well know, that my mind saw the future events.  What's more, I told others about the dreams, the following day and years later when the *'deja vu'* occurred, I called them and asked them if they remember me telling them about that dream and they recalled it.
> 
> Now you're saying that because that cannot be done at will, that it is not possible, or that because it cannot be measured or otherwise  analyzed that such is not credible.
> 
> To which I say: Fine.  Adding a quick: So what?  It happened... deal with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yea it's called De Ja Voo silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeaaah...  That's why I said that's what it's called (except I spelled it right.)
> 
> Use this as an opportunity to learn: Déjà vu from the French.  Meaning, literally: "already seen".
Click to expand...


Yea I know.  It is a popular strip club in Michigan where the girls show IT ALL because they don't serve alcohol.  

This weekend this guy hit 2.5 million on a slot machine that hasn't paid out a jack pot in something like 20 years.  He said it was "Divine Intervention".  What a jack ass.  Yea, god ignored all the other people that put their money in and finally decided to bless you, you stupid bastard.  LOL.

But on a positive note, I watched this piece on Dateline where the girl crashed her airplane and she not only survived it but she was in a very remote place where grizzlies are all around and these two hunters who just happened to get lucky and spot her saved her.  You could tell by the way they were all talking that none of them believed in god or at least none of them said god had anything to do with it.  They didn't call it a miracle or divine intervention.  And still yet the piece was a great story about how people help each other out when the chips are down.  Even the hunters who saved her didn't mention god once during the entire show.

This I hope one day is the future.  People being good despite the fact they don't believe in a god.  Belief in god is completely unnecessary.  Maybe its ok to use god on kids but once an adult comes to doubt, that's when theists need to give it up.  No hell for non believers.  In fact I would suggest a real god would reward us for our intelligence not falling for organized religion's scam.  

And keep in mind when I bash christians, I haven't even started on the Muslims, Mormons and Jews.  So don't feel singled out Christians.  You're just the majority here where I live.  And I can't see opening up the Muslim, Mormons or Jews minds on the fact that their god is completely made up.  I wonder how many atheists are in the Muslim world and Israel?  I bet there are a lot more than you think if they could speak their minds.


----------



## sealybobo

BreezeWood said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are under the assumption that everything in the bible is true.  Do you do that with other non christian religion texts?
> 
> There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible concerning the existence of a god. Any ‘evidence’ proposed by theists to support the Bible’s various historical and supernatural claims is non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.
> 
> The Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many religious texts. Like those other texts, it itself constitutes no evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful content do not legitimize it nor distinguish it from other ancient works of literature.
> 
> The Bible is historically inaccurate, factually incorrect, inconsistent and contradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time.
> 
> How do you ignore this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> How do you ignore this?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *( No one comes to the Father except through me ).*
> 
> 
> there is no proof, physical or otherwise the above statement was ever spoken by any serious person - yet written into the bible and made into the "Christian" religion is a disservice to what should be a centuries old document evolving through time to guide society to answer the question of our origin and what is the prospects for "our" future.
> 
> who are the Jews and Muslims to likewise take for themselves what should be a document for all people to learn by, wherever a living book would lead them ?
> 
> the Triumph of Good vs Evil is a cornerstone imbedded in the Bible as a pathway to the Everlasting what other messages from beginning to end might be discovered by a purge of the Bibles present condition ?
> 
> 
> the Truth should not be ignored and the Bible should be made into the document it was meant to be and has never been - a verifiable documentation of our origin and the consequences for our future with or without Divine intervention.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


As far as us Jews, Muslims, Mormon's and Atheists are concerned, we'd rather go with our book(s) or do exactly what we do here in the USA.  We separate our church and government and we go with the constitution.  

In some ways America is an atheist nation.  We keep god out of everything public.  I'm so glad.  Too many of us as soon as we here someone talking about god start to feel real sorry for that ignorant person.  And they assume we all think just like they do.  First of all, they need to stop assuming everyone believes their fairy tale.  And you know what?  It could have all been avoided if he/she just kept that god shit to themselves.  We don't bring up that we don't believe in god so they should't be bringing it up or be open to us pointing out that you have zero proof of this god and your ancient scripts were manufactured supposedly 80 years after Jesus so in other words completely made up.

And it doesn't matter if you agree or not.  The fact is if you believe in a god you need to stop assuming that everyone agrees or that it is a given that everyone believes the Jesus stories.  You all need to realize most people don't take those stories literally.  And if they don't, they can't really be called Christians even though that is what they call themselves.  And to be honest, a lot of people who call themselves christians or say they believe in god will admit they don't really take the bible literally or believe in god, but because its the safe answer they say yes when you ask them if they are christians or if they believe in god.


----------



## Boss

*



			Silly Boob:
		
Click to expand...

*


> This I hope one day is the future. People being good despite the fact they don't believe in a god. Belief in god is completely unnecessary. Maybe its ok to use god on kids but once an adult comes to doubt, that's when theists need to give it up. No hell for non believers. In fact I would suggest a real god would reward us for our intelligence not falling for organized religion's scam.



You're going to have an awful long wait because humans have always believed in something greater than self. You even admitted that if we completely eliminated all religion and religious belief, some human would eventually think up the concept of God again. How are you ever going to totally brainwash every human who ever lives? How many people's minds do you think you've changed here in the several months you've been responding to this thread? 

Since humans are intrinsically spiritual by nature, it's also not likely you will ever see religions go away. Whether their beliefs are right or wrong, they will likely always be around in some form. You can speculate on what you think a "good god" would be like, but you are a fallible human who is prone to error. That's kind of the whole problem I have with organized religions, they tend to create God by what they think should be a "good god" and demand others follow that concept. 

No, boob... YOU are the one who should give it up. Stop fighting something you can never defeat and resign yourself to accepting you will forever be in the vast minority of humans who claim to not believe in something greater than self, so that you can continue living an immoral life. Stop attempting to drag others into the gutter with you, and be content with living in a country that allows you the freedom to be recalcitrant and reject God.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> *
> 
> 
> 
> Silly Boob:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> This I hope one day is the future. People being good despite the fact they don't believe in a god. Belief in god is completely unnecessary. Maybe its ok to use god on kids but once an adult comes to doubt, that's when theists need to give it up. No hell for non believers. In fact I would suggest a real god would reward us for our intelligence not falling for organized religion's scam.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're going to have an awful long wait because humans have always believed in something greater than self. You even admitted that if we completely eliminated all religion and religious belief, some human would eventually think up the concept of God again. How are you ever going to totally brainwash every human who ever lives? How many people's minds do you think you've changed here in the several months you've been responding to this thread?
> 
> Since humans are intrinsically spiritual by nature, it's also not likely you will ever see religions go away. Whether their beliefs are right or wrong, they will likely always be around in some form. You can speculate on what you think a "good god" would be like, but you are a fallible human who is prone to error. That's kind of the whole problem I have with organized religions, they tend to create God by what they think should be a "good god" and demand others follow that concept.
> 
> No, boob... YOU are the one who should give it up. Stop fighting something you can never defeat and resign yourself to accepting you will forever be in the vast minority of humans who claim to not believe in something greater than self, so that you can continue living an immoral life. Stop attempting to drag others into the gutter with you, and be content with living in a country that allows you the freedom to be recalcitrant and reject God.
Click to expand...


OMG I finally saw an old star trek that touched on religion.  The guy on the strange planet told his followers that they needed to bash Captain Kirk and his crew over the head and kill them because RAH told him they had to do it.  I love it that the only episode I know of that touched on religion made the theists look stupid.

I don't see god ever going away completely but one day I see an atheist being able to be President and half the country not affiliating with any organized religions.  I'll be happy then.  If people were like you, that kind of spirituality seems harmless to me.  So as long as people keep evolving and getting smarter, like for example how you don't buy the bible or koran stories, that's all I can hope for. 

And hey, I was just like you.  It isn't that far of a leap from spiritual to atheist.  It's a lot closer than christian to atheist.  At least you understand and reject the idea that a person in India or Muslim in Iraq has to accept Jesus or burn forever.  At least you aren't that dumb.

No I will not accept my position in life.  From what I see, every generation gets less and less religious.  Being spiritual only is a hop skip and a jump to atheism.  Thank god for the internet and that people are getting smarter.  Sure when they go to get married or have kids they'll probably go to church but that's only because of tradition.  The church's can't stay afloat with that kind of support.  Just like every other business if you aren't constantly changing and keeping it fresh eventually you will go out of business.


----------



## Boss

> Silly Boob: And hey, I was just like you. It isn't that far of a leap from spiritual to atheist. It's a lot closer than christian to atheist. At least you understand and reject the idea that a person in India or Muslim in Iraq has to accept Jesus or burn forever. At least you aren't that dumb.



Again... No, you were never like me. If so, you would have no doubt in your mind that God is real and does exist. It would be literally impossible for you to deny that as you currently do. As for the rest of your supposition about what you think I believe, you are incorrect. I've never stated any of that. I don't know what God leads other spiritual people to believe or do. I don't pretend to know better than God or believe I have a better idea of how God should do things. I only concern myself with my connection to God and what God wants me to do. What others do and their relationship with God is their business, not mine.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> Silly Boob: And hey, I was just like you. It isn't that far of a leap from spiritual to atheist. It's a lot closer than christian to atheist. At least you understand and reject the idea that a person in India or Muslim in Iraq has to accept Jesus or burn forever. At least you aren't that dumb.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again... No, you were never like me. If so, you would have no doubt in your mind that God is real and does exist. It would be literally impossible for you to deny that as you currently do. As for the rest of your supposition about what you think I believe, you are incorrect. I've never stated any of that. I don't know what God leads other spiritual people to believe or do. I don't pretend to know better than God or believe I have a better idea of how God should do things. I only concern myself with my connection to God and what God wants me to do. What others do and their relationship with God is their business, not mine.
Click to expand...


HAHA.  You sound like my one friend who said his girlfriend would never leave him after she got that gastro bypass surgery.  She has only lost 40 pounds so far and she already broke up with him.

How do you know for sure how you will feel tomorrow?  I saw a bunch of videos and read a bunch and talked to a bunch of people and all that opened my eyes and woke me up.  How do you know you won't change your mind in a year or 10 from now?  

Oh, and this is another way I was just like you.  I would have said the same thing back then.  But things have changed.  I'm open to all possibilities.  You seem closed minded and set in your ignorant ways.  No surprise there.  

Hell, I almost went back the other day.  I looked on Redbox at Krogers and the first three movies were God's Not Dead, Heaven is Real and Noah.  I thought, "is this a sign?" and then I realized I was just being ridiculous.    

I'm not immune to the brainwashing and guilt.  I too feel the pressure from a society that is overwhelmingly brainwashed into believing a myth.  I was born into it too.  It wasn't easy to set emotion aside and realize that this is a stupid concept/lie that organized religions tell us to control us and take our money.  You may not be a full blown theist but you are a bi product of a society that tells a lie to its people to control them.  

All I have to do to reconfirm my beliefs is turn into those sunday religious shows.  They crack me up.  So obvious what they are trying to do.

I find it fascinating that you figured out the organized religions are completely made up stories but you have somehow told yourself that this doesn't disprove god, even though without their stories you really have very very very little to go on.  Silly almost.  My atheist friends ask me why I even bother with idiots like you guys but to me it is fun and fascinating the human mind and the way people are.  You fascinate me.  And yes I was just like you.  That's why I'm amazed you were able to look Christians in the eye and call BULLSHIT on them but you can't even call bullshit on your own fake story and imagined reasons why you think an invisible man talks to you and helps you other than in your own mind.

I think deep down you know its all in  your head but the fact is it makes you feel better so ignorance is bliss.

*Compartmentalization* is an unconscious psychological defense mechanism used to avoid cognitive dissonance, or the mental discomfort and anxiety caused by a person's having conflicting values, cognitions, emotions, beliefs, etc. within themselves.

Compartmentalization allows these conflicting ideas to co-exist by inhibiting direct or explicit acknowledgement and interaction between separate compartmentalized self states.

*cognitive dissonance* is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values.

I know you better than you know you.


----------



## Boss

> How do you know you won't change your mind in a year or 10 from now?



Because it's not a matter of my mind "thinking" something, it is a  matter of KNOWING something. How can you ever change your mind about something you know?


----------



## Boss

> I find it fascinating that you figured out the organized religions are completely made up stories but you have somehow told yourself that this doesn't disprove god...



Why do you keep repeating this and claiming I said it? I don't know what is made up stories, they could all be entirely true stories. I said I don't believe them personally, that doesn't mean I think they are made up or untrue. Again... you are LIGHT YEARS away from being "just like" me.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> How do you know you won't change your mind in a year or 10 from now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it's not a matter of my mind "thinking" something, it is a  matter of KNOWING something. How can you ever change your mind about something you know?
Click to expand...


People who think they are sure of something later learn something new and then change their minds.  

I mean, as vague and general as your god is, like the energy of light or electricity, how do you go from that to thinking this energy talks or listens to you?  It seems you have taken some of the stories from organized religion and thrown out the details so in reality you believe in the god of the bible as they see him or think about him.  Maybe you don't believe in hell or the noah story, but you believe there is a god that looks out for you.

Where do you get this belief?  I mean if the bible, old testament and koran's are all man made up stories, and your belief is based basically because people have always believed in "something", how do you go from believing something made us to believing in a god you have a personal relationship with?

I'll tell you where it comes from.  The Greeks who translated the bible for the rest of you all feel like we have a personal relationship with god.  It's a Greek thing.  Maybe you heard it from us?  Maybe someone when you were young told you their version of god and this is just you repeating the bullshit they told you when you were very young.  Who knows when  you came up with your hybrid of god, but I'd be interested to know where you would come up with a god that not only created us all, he actually cares about you and you talk to him.  But you don't believe in organized religions.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> I find it fascinating that you figured out the organized religions are completely made up stories but you have somehow told yourself that this doesn't disprove god...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you keep repeating this and claiming I said it? I don't know what is made up stories, they could all be entirely true stories. I said I don't believe them personally, that doesn't mean I think they are made up or untrue. Again... you are LIGHT YEARS away from being "just like" me.
Click to expand...


Admit it.  If you believed their stories you'd be saying you are a christian for fear of going to hell.  The fact that you "don't personally believe them" is enough of an admission.

Of course you think they are made up.  If not Jesus really said only through him can you enter the kingdom of heaven, and he performed miracles.  If all that really happened, then you are going to hell for your beliefs.  So you are not buying the christian story.  

Oh, and I was looking for something that could teach you how to be a good person without god.  God is unnecessary.  Just follow these steps

How to Be a Good Person 28 Steps with Pictures - wikiHow

Take number 15 out.  Says pray/meditate.  That one is not necessary.  But if people followed these steps they would be good people.  The Bible/Koran are not doing a good job teaching people how to be good.


----------



## edthecynic

Boss said:


> [While we are on this subject of light, let me ask you this... Does darkness exist? You can't measure it or quantify it, so it must not exist, right? Yet, when you have absense of light, what do you have?


God claims darkness is something he created! If darkness is the absence of light, then it preexisted the creation of light and therefore existed before God "created" it.

Isa 45:7 *I *form the light, and *create darkness*: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know you won't change your mind in a year or 10 from now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it's not a matter of my mind "thinking" something, it is a  matter of KNOWING something. How can you ever change your mind about something you know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People who think they are sure of something later learn something new and then change their minds.
Click to expand...


But I don't THINK that I'm sure, I KNOW that I am sure. If it were a matter of something I thought, then I might be able to change my mind with new information, but that isn't the case here. For whatever reason, you just aren't grasping that detail. 



> I mean, as vague and general as your god is, like the energy of light or electricity, how do you go from that to thinking this energy talks or listens to you?  It seems you have taken some of the stories from organized religion and thrown out the details so in reality you believe in the god of the bible as they see him or think about him.  Maybe you don't believe in hell or the noah story, but you believe there is a god that looks out for you.



I don't think God looks out for me. That's Bill O'Reilly, isn't it? Actually, I look out for myself, God only provides me with guidance in my life journey. I've discovered that following God's guidance is most beneficial to me in the long run. 

On God as an energy form, you are conflating my analogy with facts and details. I never said God was equivalent to electricity or energy. I related the concept of my God to that of energy or electricity, in order that you might better understand the entity itself. Obviously, that failed. There is nothing physical that is comparative to God. Electricity is an example of something that is physical, that you can relate to in a physical sense, which is why I used it as an example. I figured that maybe you could grasp the idea that electricity doesn't "care" for you or concern itself with what you do or don't do, but is there for your benefit if you choose to utilize it appropriately. In that sense alone, it can be related to the spiritual energy I know as God. 



> Where do you get this belief?  I mean if the bible, old testament and koran's are all man made up stories, and your belief is based basically because people have always believed in "something", how do you go from believing something made us to believing in a god you have a personal relationship with?



Again, it's not a "belief" when I know it to be truth. I never said the biblical/koran stories were made up. That is what you keep saying, in between your claims that we just don't know. I did not say that I believe in God because people have always been spiritual, or that this proves God. You continue to take my words and morph them into arguments that haven't been made. 



> I'll tell you where it comes from.  The Greeks who translated the bible for the rest of you all feel like we have a personal relationship with god.  It's a Greek thing.  Maybe you heard it from us?  Maybe someone when you were young told you their version of god and this is just you repeating the bullshit they told you when you were very young.  Who knows when  you came up with your hybrid of god, but I'd be interested to know where you would come up with a god that not only created us all, he actually cares about you and you talk to him.  But you don't believe in organized religions.



What I know and understand is not a Greek thing. I'm not repeating anything learned as a young child, or anything taught by organized religion in specific. I do believe that most organized religions are reacting to the same spiritual connection that I experience. My spiritual connection isn't something I "came up with" at any time. It's something I have been aware of for probably the past 25 years or so. And AGAIN... My God does not have humanistic characteristics... it isn't a "HE" and it doesn't "CARE" about you. 

It is abundantly clear to me that you are a very stubborn person. You simply refuse to accept things people say and stubbornly insist they are saying what you want them to be saying at any given time. I honestly don't know how to have a meaningful conversation with such a person.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know you won't change your mind in a year or 10 from now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it's not a matter of my mind "thinking" something, it is a  matter of KNOWING something. How can you ever change your mind about something you know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People who think they are sure of something later learn something new and then change their minds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But I don't THINK that I'm sure, I KNOW that I am sure. If it were a matter of something I thought, then I might be able to change my mind with new information, but that isn't the case here. For whatever reason, you just aren't grasping that detail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I mean, as vague and general as your god is, like the energy of light or electricity, how do you go from that to thinking this energy talks or listens to you?  It seems you have taken some of the stories from organized religion and thrown out the details so in reality you believe in the god of the bible as they see him or think about him.  Maybe you don't believe in hell or the noah story, but you believe there is a god that looks out for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think God looks out for me. That's Bill O'Reilly, isn't it? Actually, I look out for myself, God only provides me with guidance in my life journey. I've discovered that following God's guidance is most beneficial to me in the long run.
> 
> On God as an energy form, you are conflating my analogy with facts and details. I never said God was equivalent to electricity or energy. I related the concept of my God to that of energy or electricity, in order that you might better understand the entity itself. Obviously, that failed. There is nothing physical that is comparative to God. Electricity is an example of something that is physical, that you can relate to in a physical sense, which is why I used it as an example. I figured that maybe you could grasp the idea that electricity doesn't "care" for you or concern itself with what you do or don't do, but is there for your benefit if you choose to utilize it appropriately. In that sense alone, it can be related to the spiritual energy I know as God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you get this belief?  I mean if the bible, old testament and koran's are all man made up stories, and your belief is based basically because people have always believed in "something", how do you go from believing something made us to believing in a god you have a personal relationship with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, it's not a "belief" when I know it to be truth. I never said the biblical/koran stories were made up. That is what you keep saying, in between your claims that we just don't know. I did not say that I believe in God because people have always been spiritual, or that this proves God. You continue to take my words and morph them into arguments that haven't been made.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll tell you where it comes from.  The Greeks who translated the bible for the rest of you all feel like we have a personal relationship with god.  It's a Greek thing.  Maybe you heard it from us?  Maybe someone when you were young told you their version of god and this is just you repeating the bullshit they told you when you were very young.  Who knows when  you came up with your hybrid of god, but I'd be interested to know where you would come up with a god that not only created us all, he actually cares about you and you talk to him.  But you don't believe in organized religions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I know and understand is not a Greek thing. I'm not repeating anything learned as a young child, or anything taught by organized religion in specific. I do believe that most organized religions are reacting to the same spiritual connection that I experience. My spiritual connection isn't something I "came up with" at any time. It's something I have been aware of for probably the past 25 years or so. And AGAIN... My God does not have humanistic characteristics... it isn't a "HE" and it doesn't "CARE" about you.
> 
> It is abundantly clear to me that you are a very stubborn person. You simply refuse to accept things people say and stubbornly insist they are saying what you want them to be saying at any given time. I honestly don't know how to have a meaningful conversation with such a person.
Click to expand...


The fact that you say you know either tells me you are delusional or a liar.  You don't know anything.  

Where you been?  Missed you.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> The fact that you say you know either tells me you are delusional or a liar.  You don't know anything.
> 
> Where you been?  Missed you.



Well, when I pray and then gain blessings and benefits from my prayers, that isn't a delusion to me, it really does happen. I don't have any reason to lie, I've already said my God isn't a God who rewards me for converting you. If you don't believe me, that's fine, but you're not offering anything other than your opinion that I am delusional or lying. I find it odd that you can make such a determination yet maintain that you are uncertain about God. Sounds like, if you think I am deluded or lying, you've made up your mind that my God is impossible and can't exist. 

You continue to run the gamut... A. God certainly doesn't exist... B. God may or may not exist... C. God probably doesn't exist... Which one describes you? Because you've taken all three positions in this thread. 

Let's not change the subject to where I've been or how much you missed me... I've been retooling your ass the past several posts and you seem to be avoiding my points. Were you hoping I hadn't noticed?


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find it fascinating that you figured out the organized religions are completely made up stories but you have somehow told yourself that this doesn't disprove god...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you keep repeating this and claiming I said it? I don't know what is made up stories, they could all be entirely true stories. I said I don't believe them personally, that doesn't mean I think they are made up or untrue. Again... you are LIGHT YEARS away from being "just like" me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Admit it.  If you believed their stories you'd be saying you are a christian for fear of going to hell.  The fact that you "don't personally believe them" is enough of an admission.
> 
> Of course you think they are made up.  If not Jesus really said only through him can you enter the kingdom of heaven, and he performed miracles.  If all that really happened, then you are going to hell for your beliefs.  So you are not buying the christian story.
> 
> Oh, and I was looking for something that could teach you how to be a good person without god.  God is unnecessary.  Just follow these steps
> 
> How to Be a Good Person 28 Steps with Pictures - wikiHow
> 
> Take number 15 out.  Says pray/meditate.  That one is not necessary.  But if people followed these steps they would be good people.  The Bible/Koran are not doing a good job teaching people how to be good.
Click to expand...


Too funny... you run and find a web page that tells you "how to be a good person" then you want to start modifying the list of things it says to do? Who the hell put you in charge of determining what is and isn't necessary to be a good person? Since when do we offer up links to support our views under the condition we can cherry pick the information to make it fit our view? 

As for what I believe about the Bible/Koran, they are good sources for how to live a clean spiritual life, as far as I can tell. There are things in there that I consider to be allegory and metaphoric in nature because I believe that is how ancient people told stories back then. I find nothing in the Bible that refutes what I personally believe or my understanding of a spiritual God. Others may make a different interpretation, but I don't worry about what others think. 

Look... I am not a Christian, if that were the case, I've condemned myself to hell by denying Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Why the hell would a Christian do that to fool someone on a message board? I respect their religion, I don't have a problem with what Christians believe... hell, maybe that's how God wants us to all believe? I don't know. What I DO know is, I make a connection with God and realize blessings from it. Take that for whatever it is worth.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you say you know either tells me you are delusional or a liar.  You don't know anything.
> 
> Where you been?  Missed you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, when I pray and then gain blessings and benefits from my prayers, that isn't a delusion to me, it really does happen.
Click to expand...


The god you pray to, if he exists, isn't listening to you.  

Miracles have not been demonstrated to occur and here is why.  Most alleged miracles can be explained as statistically unlikely occurrences. For example, one child surviving a plane crash that kills two hundred others is not a miracle.  God did not save that child.  

Such claims can be dismissed as the result of magical thinking, misattribution, credulity, hearsay and anecdote. Eye-witness testimony and anecdotal accounts are, by themselves, not reliable or definitive forms of proof for such extraordinary claims.

Divine intervention claims most often concern systems and events for which we have poor predictive capabilities, for example, weather, sports, health and social/economic interactions. Such claims are rarely made in relation to those things we can accurately predict and test e.g. the motion of celestial bodies, boiling point of water and pull of gravity. 

If a god is constantly intervening in the universe it supposedly created, then it is with such ambiguity as to appear completely indistinguishable from normal background chance.

Theists like you often fail to adequately apportion blame when claims of your particular god’s ‘infinite mercy’ or ‘omnibenevolence’ involve sparing a few lives in a disaster but the other 999 die.  

Euthyphro dilemma, Confirmation bias,Cherry Picking.


----------



## Boss

Okay, so now you are back to denying any possibility that a God exists... full blown Atheist. I like you better when you're pretending to be neutral and saying that you just don't know one way or the other. At least you sound half-assed reasonable and not like some mindless drone. 

What you are doing in this example is the familiar Atheist tactic of second guessing God with regard to who lives and dies. What is funny about this argument is, for God to be the "perfect God" you expect, all humans would be immortal and never die. We would simply have everlasting life in the physical, never get sick, never suffer, and never perish. Now the problem is, if this were the case, we'd run out of room on the planet very quickly. We'd also have the problem of no need for an afterlife, hence, no reason for spiritual connection with any God. 

I don't know if the God I pray to "listens" ...listening is a human physical sense. But I do know that utilizing spiritual energy to my advantage works, just like plugging a lamp into an outlet. Miracles DO happen that cannot be explained by science. I've seen them happen, they've happened to me.


----------



## ninja007

to the OP. Darkness hates LIGHT.


----------



## ninja007

there is no such thing as an Atheist because you would have to KNOW there is no God. Only God can know all things. Even if there was no God it cannot be proven by a sinful, limited human.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> Okay, so now you are back to denying any possibility that a God exists... full blown Atheist. I like you better when you're pretending to be neutral and saying that you just don't know one way or the other. At least you sound half-assed reasonable and not like some mindless drone.
> 
> What you are doing in this example is the familiar Atheist tactic of second guessing God with regard to who lives and dies. What is funny about this argument is, for God to be the "perfect God" you expect, all humans would be immortal and never die. We would simply have everlasting life in the physical, never get sick, never suffer, and never perish. Now the problem is, if this were the case, we'd run out of room on the planet very quickly. We'd also have the problem of no need for an afterlife, hence, no reason for spiritual connection with any God.
> 
> I don't know if the God I pray to "listens" ...listening is a human physical sense. But I do know that utilizing spiritual energy to my advantage works, just like plugging a lamp into an outlet. Miracles DO happen that cannot be explained by science. I've seen them happen, they've happened to me.



So we die here because we'd run out of room and god created a heaven where we can all live forever?  Why did he bother with here?  Why not just go right to heaven where we can immediately connect with god?  So god has to create little men so he can have friends to connect iwth?  

Do you hear yourself?  Do you hear how silly you sound?

I've heard your miracle stories.  Sound just like my catholic friends stories.  Hogwash.  The mind is an amazing thing.  Even capable of fooling itself.  You could be crazy.  De' Jah Voo.  You think it happened the way it happened.  Science can explain away what happened to you.  Luck?  What about the thousands of people that same day who got killed or raped or are starving?  Why does god help you?  Wishful thinking.  

Anyways, you said a couple things were FACTS and I called bullshit.  I think what you said were facts are not facts and you just moved on.  See what you do?  You say things are FACTS when they are not, so you don't realize your entire argument is wrong because your premise is wrong right from the start.  I called bs and you ignored.  Indian pussy from the dirty south who's had a 3some with his 2 gay but conservative buddies who probably just tell you what you want to hear so you shut the fuck up.  LOL.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Boss said:


> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.



Without God people are unaccountable for their behaviours?  I think the millions behind bars might take issue with that.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Boss said:


> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.



Isn't it a fundamental imperative of Christians to 'recruit' people?  Why don't you compose a rant vilifying them?


----------



## sealybobo

NYcarbineer said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> Without God people are unaccountable for their behaviours?  I think the millions behind bars might take issue with that.
Click to expand...


What do you mean?  99% of the prison population say they believe in god(s).

Also, this is why I know why boss is wrong.  He believes atheism means mean, evil, hate, angry, bad.  He's wrong.


----------



## NYcarbineer

sealybobo said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> Without God people are unaccountable for their behaviours?  I think the millions behind bars might take issue with that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you mean?  99% of the prison population say they believe in god(s).
> 
> Also, this is why I know why boss is wrong.  He believes atheism means mean, evil, hate, angry, bad.  He's wrong.
Click to expand...


99% of atheists generally have little or nothing to say on the subject.


----------



## NYcarbineer

ninja007 said:


> there is no such thing as an Atheist because you would have to KNOW there is no God. Only God can know all things. Even if there was no God it cannot be proven by a sinful, limited human.



That is hardly what an atheist is.  That's like saying everyone believes there's a Bigfoot because no one really KNOWS there isn't one.


----------



## sealybobo

NYcarbineer said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't it a fundamental imperative of Christians to 'recruit' people?  Why don't you compose a rant vilifying them?
Click to expand...


You are right.  Change a few words and we could say the same thing about theists.  They believe they can scare and lie people into being ashamed and ultimately join their church.  If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to try to convert people.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find it fascinating that you figured out the organized religions are completely made up stories but you have somehow told yourself that this doesn't disprove god...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you keep repeating this and claiming I said it? I don't know what is made up stories, they could all be entirely true stories. I said I don't believe them personally, that doesn't mean I think they are made up or untrue. Again... you are LIGHT YEARS away from being "just like" me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Admit it.  If you believed their stories you'd be saying you are a christian for fear of going to hell.  The fact that you "don't personally believe them" is enough of an admission.
> 
> Of course you think they are made up.  If not Jesus really said only through him can you enter the kingdom of heaven, and he performed miracles.  If all that really happened, then you are going to hell for your beliefs.  So you are not buying the christian story.
> 
> Oh, and I was looking for something that could teach you how to be a good person without god.  God is unnecessary.  Just follow these steps
> 
> How to Be a Good Person 28 Steps with Pictures - wikiHow
> 
> Take number 15 out.  Says pray/meditate.  That one is not necessary.  But if people followed these steps they would be good people.  The Bible/Koran are not doing a good job teaching people how to be good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too funny... you run and find a web page that tells you "how to be a good person" then you want to start modifying the list of things it says to do? Who the hell put you in charge of determining what is and isn't necessary to be a good person? Since when do we offer up links to support our views under the condition we can cherry pick the information to make it fit our view?
> 
> As for what I believe about the Bible/Koran, they are good sources for how to live a clean spiritual life, as far as I can tell. There are things in there that I consider to be allegory and metaphoric in nature because I believe that is how ancient people told stories back then. I find nothing in the Bible that refutes what I personally believe or my understanding of a spiritual God. Others may make a different interpretation, but I don't worry about what others think.
> 
> Look... I am not a Christian, if that were the case, I've condemned myself to hell by denying Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Why the hell would a Christian do that to fool someone on a message board? I respect their religion, I don't have a problem with what Christians believe... hell, maybe that's how God wants us to all believe? I don't know. What I DO know is, I make a connection with God and realize blessings from it. Take that for whatever it is worth.
Click to expand...


Ironic that on the anniversary of 9/11 you're here to convince us that it's the atheists who are the real bad guys.


----------



## NYcarbineer

sealybobo said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't it a fundamental imperative of Christians to 'recruit' people?  Why don't you compose a rant vilifying them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are right.  Change a few words and we could say the same thing about theists.  They believe they can scare and lie people into being ashamed and ultimately join their church.  If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to try to convert people.
Click to expand...


Thus the author of this thread is engaging in a fallacy of insisting that atheists be held to a standard (i.e., of minding their own business and leaving other people alone)  that he, as a person of faith, would never hold himself to,

and would in fact be angered at the mere suggestion that he should.


----------



## sealybobo

NYcarbineer said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> Without God people are unaccountable for their behaviours?  I think the millions behind bars might take issue with that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you mean?  99% of the prison population say they believe in god(s).
> 
> Also, this is why I know why boss is wrong.  He believes atheism means mean, evil, hate, angry, bad.  He's wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 99% of atheists generally have little or nothing to say on the subject.
Click to expand...


I think a lot of them don't bother because they don't see the point.  I think society needs to know it's being lied to.  I'm a "militant" atheist.

Atheists are most often called ‘militant’ when they passionately defend reason and advocate critical thinking. The bar theists set for perceived hostility appears to be any atheist simply voicing an opinion in dissent of religious belief. In contrast, the bar atheists set for perceived theistic hostility is any form of religiously motivated violence or oppression.

Theists tell us we're going to hell.  How should we reply?  Or are you saying we shouldn't even reply?  That's what you would love.  Sorry.  If you guys want to be loud and proud about Jesus, I want to be loud and proud about the Constitution and the whole keeping church and state apart.  The religious right reminds me of ISIS.  

Atheism does not preclude someone from being argumentative or insensitive; those things are simply seen as being preferable to killing one another over an imaginary friend.

A ‘militant’ atheist will debate in a University or appeal for the separation of religion and government. A militant theist will kill doctors, stone women to death, incite religious war, restrict sexual and gender equality and convince children they are flawed and worthless – all under the instruction of their imagined ‘god’ or holy book.


----------



## sealybobo

NYcarbineer said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find it fascinating that you figured out the organized religions are completely made up stories but you have somehow told yourself that this doesn't disprove god...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you keep repeating this and claiming I said it? I don't know what is made up stories, they could all be entirely true stories. I said I don't believe them personally, that doesn't mean I think they are made up or untrue. Again... you are LIGHT YEARS away from being "just like" me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Admit it.  If you believed their stories you'd be saying you are a christian for fear of going to hell.  The fact that you "don't personally believe them" is enough of an admission.
> 
> Of course you think they are made up.  If not Jesus really said only through him can you enter the kingdom of heaven, and he performed miracles.  If all that really happened, then you are going to hell for your beliefs.  So you are not buying the christian story.
> 
> Oh, and I was looking for something that could teach you how to be a good person without god.  God is unnecessary.  Just follow these steps
> 
> How to Be a Good Person 28 Steps with Pictures - wikiHow
> 
> Take number 15 out.  Says pray/meditate.  That one is not necessary.  But if people followed these steps they would be good people.  The Bible/Koran are not doing a good job teaching people how to be good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too funny... you run and find a web page that tells you "how to be a good person" then you want to start modifying the list of things it says to do? Who the hell put you in charge of determining what is and isn't necessary to be a good person? Since when do we offer up links to support our views under the condition we can cherry pick the information to make it fit our view?
> 
> As for what I believe about the Bible/Koran, they are good sources for how to live a clean spiritual life, as far as I can tell. There are things in there that I consider to be allegory and metaphoric in nature because I believe that is how ancient people told stories back then. I find nothing in the Bible that refutes what I personally believe or my understanding of a spiritual God. Others may make a different interpretation, but I don't worry about what others think.
> 
> Look... I am not a Christian, if that were the case, I've condemned myself to hell by denying Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Why the hell would a Christian do that to fool someone on a message board? I respect their religion, I don't have a problem with what Christians believe... hell, maybe that's how God wants us to all believe? I don't know. What I DO know is, I make a connection with God and realize blessings from it. Take that for whatever it is worth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ironic that on the anniversary of 9/11 you're here to convince us that it's the atheists who are the real bad guys.
Click to expand...


The god fearing/loving/believing theists who flew planes into our buildings on 9-11 are a great example of how god is not necessary or even necessarily very good at teaching right and wrong.  

I bet the terrorists, like boss, think they talked to god all the time too.  They think god is on their side.  They think they are good because god is on their side.


----------



## sealybobo

NYcarbineer said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't it a fundamental imperative of Christians to 'recruit' people?  Why don't you compose a rant vilifying them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are right.  Change a few words and we could say the same thing about theists.  They believe they can scare and lie people into being ashamed and ultimately join their church.  If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to try to convert people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thus the author of this thread is engaging in a fallacy of insisting that atheists be held to a standard (i.e., of minding their own business and leaving other people alone)  that he, as a person of faith, would never hold himself to,
> 
> and would in fact be angered at the mere suggestion that he should.
Click to expand...


Well he only believes in a generic god so he isn't a bible thumper so he might argue with you on that but there is no doubt he has cherry picked a lot of his half breed beliefs from the bible.  He's a spiritualist.  He believes because primitive man couldn't have possibly made it up.  Not with their superstitious, creative, imaginative, scared, uneducated brains.  No way.  We can come up with angels, devils, ghosts, big foot, boogy men, santa clause, the wild stories of noah and adam and jesus, but boss can't imagine that we originally invented god first.  Just look at how many religions have come and gone in just 10,000 years.


----------



## NYcarbineer

sealybobo said:


> [
> 
> Well he only believes in a generic god so he isn't a bible thumper so he might argue with you on that but there is no doubt he has cherry picked a lot of his half breed beliefs from the bible.  He's a spiritualist.  He believes because primitive man couldn't have possibly made it up.  Not with their superstitious, creative, imaginative, scared, uneducated brains.  No way.  We can come up with angels, devils, ghosts, big foot, boogy men, santa clause, the wild stories of noah and adam and jesus, but boss can't imagine that we originally invented god first.  Just look at how many religions have come and gone in just 10,000 years.



Preaching against atheists is preaching for God.


----------



## sealybobo

NYcarbineer said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Well he only believes in a generic god so he isn't a bible thumper so he might argue with you on that but there is no doubt he has cherry picked a lot of his half breed beliefs from the bible.  He's a spiritualist.  He believes because primitive man couldn't have possibly made it up.  Not with their superstitious, creative, imaginative, scared, uneducated brains.  No way.  We can come up with angels, devils, ghosts, big foot, boogy men, santa clause, the wild stories of noah and adam and jesus, but boss can't imagine that we originally invented god first.  Just look at how many religions have come and gone in just 10,000 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Preaching against atheists is preaching for God.
Click to expand...


So any god will do?  Are you a christian?  Then you must be offended at the fact Jews and Muslims don't believe your story.  And Muslims say their way is the only way.  So do born agains and Mormons.  

We are all atheists.  You just happen to believe in one more god than I do.  When you realize your stories are no more believable than theirs, you'll realize that maybe like theirs, your stories are all made up too.

Sorry if the truth hurts.  Sometimes it does.  Not trying to offend you just like theists aren't when they tell you if you don't believe you'll go to hell.  Or won't go to heaven.  

Honestly, the only theists I can get along with admit that belief doesn't matter, if there is a god/creator and IF that god actually cares about you, only being good would matter.

That is unless you believe the chistian story, where god/jesus said you have to join the cult to get into heaven.  Or the Muslim story where only Muslims go to heaven.  or Mormons or Jehovas so on and so on.  Wake up.


----------



## Boss

Let's be clear, the OP is not "preaching against atheists" at all. It's preaching against "God-haters" who are completely a different breed. My sister, a devout Christian, considers ME an atheist. She will tell you that I am going straight to hell when I die. I love her, she's my sister, I respect what she believes, I just don't agree with it. 

God-haters often hide behind the Atheist brand, or in silly boob's case, the Atheist Agnostic brand. They believe this lends an air of credibility to what they have to say, which is mostly a hate-filled denigration of God-believers. It's important to know the God-haters are not really Atheists, they believe in God, they just hate God.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> Let's be clear, the OP is not "preaching against atheists" at all. It's preaching against "God-haters" who are completely a different breed. My sister, a devout Christian, considers ME an atheist. She will tell you that I am going straight to hell when I die. I love her, she's my sister, I respect what she believes, I just don't agree with it.
> 
> God-haters often hide behind the Atheist brand, or in silly boob's case, the Atheist Agnostic brand. They believe this lends an air of credibility to what they have to say, which is mostly a hate-filled denigration of God-believers. It's important to know the God-haters are not really Atheists, they believe in God, they just hate God.



You mistake hate for being passionate.  Why is my passion hate but a christian who's just as loud and proud about their beliefs not?  Hypocrite.

Listen once and for all fool.  I don't claim to know what is on the other side of black holes.  Because of that fact, I'm not a full blown atheist.  I consider someone who is 100% sure there is no god to be just as ignorant as someone who is 100% sure there is one.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's be clear, the OP is not "preaching against atheists" at all. It's preaching against "God-haters" who are completely a different breed. My sister, a devout Christian, considers ME an atheist. She will tell you that I am going straight to hell when I die. I love her, she's my sister, I respect what she believes, I just don't agree with it.
> 
> God-haters often hide behind the Atheist brand, or in silly boob's case, the Atheist Agnostic brand. They believe this lends an air of credibility to what they have to say, which is mostly a hate-filled denigration of God-believers. It's important to know the God-haters are not really Atheists, they believe in God, they just hate God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mistake hate for being passionate.  Why is my passion hate but a christian who's just as loud and proud about their beliefs not?  Hypocrite.
> 
> Listen once and for all fool.  I don't claim to know what is on the other side of black holes.  Because of that fact, I'm not a full blown atheist.  I consider someone who is 100% sure there is no god to be just as ignorant as someone who is 100% sure there is one.
Click to expand...


But you are 99.999% sure there is no God, right?


----------



## BreezeWood

.



> *OP:* True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny.












*

If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty.*


sure thing Bossy, all believers are the same ... nothing to worry about.

.


----------



## Boss

Are the God-haters now fighting radical Islam? Seems most of them are anti-war nitwits who don't even get the whole "war on terror" thing... maybe I'm wrong? If we could have the God-haters stop bashing and trashing Christians and Jews for a hot second, maybe we could do something about this terrorist threat?


----------



## NYcarbineer

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's be clear, the OP is not "preaching against atheists" at all. It's preaching against "God-haters" who are completely a different breed. My sister, a devout Christian, considers ME an atheist. She will tell you that I am going straight to hell when I die. I love her, she's my sister, I respect what she believes, I just don't agree with it.
> 
> God-haters often hide behind the Atheist brand, or in silly boob's case, the Atheist Agnostic brand. They believe this lends an air of credibility to what they have to say, which is mostly a hate-filled denigration of God-believers. It's important to know the God-haters are not really Atheists, they believe in God, they just hate God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mistake hate for being passionate.  Why is my passion hate but a christian who's just as loud and proud about their beliefs not?  Hypocrite.
> 
> Listen once and for all fool.  I don't claim to know what is on the other side of black holes.  Because of that fact, I'm not a full blown atheist.  I consider someone who is 100% sure there is no god to be just as ignorant as someone who is 100% sure there is one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you are 99.999% sure there is no God, right?
Click to expand...


How sure are you that the God of the most radical Muslims is not the one true God?


----------



## NYcarbineer

Boss said:


> Are the God-haters now fighting radical Islam? Seems most of them are anti-war nitwits who don't even get the whole "war on terror" thing... maybe I'm wrong? If we could have the God-haters stop bashing and trashing Christians and Jews for a hot second, maybe we could do something about this terrorist threat?



Why are you sure their God is not the one true God?


----------



## Boss

NYcarbineer said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are the God-haters now fighting radical Islam? Seems most of them are anti-war nitwits who don't even get the whole "war on terror" thing... maybe I'm wrong? If we could have the God-haters stop bashing and trashing Christians and Jews for a hot second, maybe we could do something about this terrorist threat?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you sure their God is not the one true God?
Click to expand...


Because I connect with my Spiritual God every day. Death and beheadings are not conducive with positive spiritual energy flow. Hate and intolerance are also not indicative of positive spiritual energy. Those people are reacting out of a misplaced understanding of Spiritual God and when their souls depart this physical existence, the price will be paid. 

These are examples of extreme religious fanaticism, and evidence that humans do spiritually connect. Fanatical religion can be very dangerous, which is why I am not a big fan of organized religion.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Boss said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are the God-haters now fighting radical Islam? Seems most of them are anti-war nitwits who don't even get the whole "war on terror" thing... maybe I'm wrong? If we could have the God-haters stop bashing and trashing Christians and Jews for a hot second, maybe we could do something about this terrorist threat?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you sure their God is not the one true God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because I connect with my Spiritual God every day. Death and beheadings are not conducive with positive spiritual energy flow. Hate and intolerance are also not indicative of positive spiritual energy. Those people are reacting out of a misplaced understanding of Spiritual God and when their souls depart this physical existence, the price will be paid.
> 
> These are examples of extreme religious fanaticism, and evidence that humans do spiritually connect. Fanatical religion can be very dangerous, which is why I am not a big fan of organized religion.
Click to expand...


Your version of religion is very subjective, biased, and based on the musings of a temporal flesh and blood creature,

aka you.  You have, in short, invented your own religion.


----------



## Boss

NYcarbineer said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are the God-haters now fighting radical Islam? Seems most of them are anti-war nitwits who don't even get the whole "war on terror" thing... maybe I'm wrong? If we could have the God-haters stop bashing and trashing Christians and Jews for a hot second, maybe we could do something about this terrorist threat?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you sure their God is not the one true God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because I connect with my Spiritual God every day. Death and beheadings are not conducive with positive spiritual energy flow. Hate and intolerance are also not indicative of positive spiritual energy. Those people are reacting out of a misplaced understanding of Spiritual God and when their souls depart this physical existence, the price will be paid.
> 
> These are examples of extreme religious fanaticism, and evidence that humans do spiritually connect. Fanatical religion can be very dangerous, which is why I am not a big fan of organized religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your version of religion is very subjective, biased, and based on the musings of a temporal flesh and blood creature,
> 
> aka you.  You have, in short, invented your own religion.
Click to expand...


Well, no. I have only presented my personal experiences here. I don't have a version of religion. I believe religions are human creations which stem from the human ability to spiritually connect with something greater than self. That can be a good thing and it can be a bad thing. I'm not here to defend any specific religion or their teachings. 

God-haters, as we've seen in this thread, want to cajole people into a specific religious belief, then attack that belief. I don't play their game and it frustrates them to no end. I don't have a religion to attack, I am not a member of any religious group, what I believe is not a religious incarnation. I don't even make the argument that God is a deity or has humanistic attributes. Only that I am aware of a spiritual energy source that I gain benefit and blessing from in my everyday life. I am a temporal flesh and blood creature, my soul is not and my God is not.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Boss said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are the God-haters now fighting radical Islam? Seems most of them are anti-war nitwits who don't even get the whole "war on terror" thing... maybe I'm wrong? If we could have the God-haters stop bashing and trashing Christians and Jews for a hot second, maybe we could do something about this terrorist threat?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you sure their God is not the one true God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because I connect with my Spiritual God every day. Death and beheadings are not conducive with positive spiritual energy flow. Hate and intolerance are also not indicative of positive spiritual energy. Those people are reacting out of a misplaced understanding of Spiritual God and when their souls depart this physical existence, the price will be paid.
> 
> These are examples of extreme religious fanaticism, and evidence that humans do spiritually connect. Fanatical religion can be very dangerous, which is why I am not a big fan of organized religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your version of religion is very subjective, biased, and based on the musings of a temporal flesh and blood creature,
> 
> aka you.  You have, in short, invented your own religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, no. I have only presented my personal experiences here. I don't have a version of religion. I believe religions are human creations which stem from the human ability to spiritually connect with something greater than self. That can be a good thing and it can be a bad thing. I'm not here to defend any specific religion or their teachings.
> 
> God-haters, as we've seen in this thread, want to cajole people into a specific religious belief, then attack that belief. I don't play their game and it frustrates them to no end. I don't have a religion to attack, I am not a member of any religious group, what I believe is not a religious incarnation. I don't even make the argument that God is a deity or has humanistic attributes. Only that I am aware of a spiritual energy source that I gain benefit and blessing from in my everyday life. I am a temporal flesh and blood creature, my soul is not and my God is not.
Click to expand...


You're a phoney.

What if someone believes that humans are capable of self-governing without the crutch of an invisible unidentifiable supernatural being  exerting some sort of invented imaginary power over them?

What's wrong with that?


----------



## Boss

NYcarbineer said:


> You're a phoney.
> 
> What if someone believes that humans are capable of self-governing without the crutch of an invisible unidentifiable supernatural being  exerting some sort of invented imaginary power over them?
> 
> What's wrong with that?



It doesn't work. 

Case in point, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot. Whenever humans are separated from their intrinsic ability to spiritually connect, their civilizations ultimately fail. 

Also... there is nothing unidentifiable, supernatural, invented or imagined about human spirituality.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Boss said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're a phoney.
> 
> What if someone believes that humans are capable of self-governing without the crutch of an invisible unidentifiable supernatural being  exerting some sort of invented imaginary power over them?
> 
> What's wrong with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't work.
> 
> Case in point, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot. Whenever humans are separated from their intrinsic ability to spiritually connect, their civilizations ultimately fail.
> 
> Also... there is nothing unidentifiable, supernatural, invented or imagined about human spirituality.
Click to expand...


So humans are such wretched creatures that superstitition is their only path to the preservation of their species on this earth...


----------



## Boss

NYcarbineer said:


> So humans are such wretched creatures that superstitition is their only path to the preservation of their species on this earth...



If human spirituality were superstition, only about 25% of the species would be spiritual. Not the 90% we find. 

Not sure where you get the "wretched creatures" bit, but I didn't say it. 

Look, I understand the Atheist perspective of believing you can get by just fine without a God. Many individuals who have abandoned their spiritual connection do okay and never have a problem, but civilizations as a whole always fail without spirituality. 

You see, without the human spiritual connection, there is no real moral accountability. It's not that people are wretched, they want to be good.... it's like having a 7-year-old operate a candy store. They may start out with every intention of doing a good job, but they have no business sense and no accountability... so what is going to happen there? Human civilizations simply don't last long without spiritual connection.


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> So humans are such wretched creatures that superstitition is their only path to the preservation of their species on this earth...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If human spirituality were superstition, only about 25% of the species would be spiritual. Not the 90% we find.
> 
> Not sure where you get the "wretched creatures" bit, but I didn't say it.
> 
> Look, I understand the Atheist perspective of believing you can get by just fine without a God. Many individuals who have abandoned their spiritual connection do okay and never have a problem, but civilizations as a whole always fail without spirituality.
> 
> You see, without the human spiritual connection, there is no real moral accountability. It's not that people are wretched, they want to be good.... it's like having a 7-year-old operate a candy store. They may start out with every intention of doing a good job, but they have no business sense and no accountability... so what is going to happen there? Human civilizations simply don't last long without spiritual connection.
Click to expand...


The problem, though, is that there's no reason to believe we've actually seen a human civilization in which the people were not religious or spiritual in general.  In fact, according to your own stated beliefs, this is true.  

What you really seem to be saying is that governments which punish or attempt to prevent spirituality fail.  That is an entirely different proposition.


----------



## Boss

Montrovant said:


> The problem, though, is that there's no reason to believe we've actually seen a human civilization in which the people were not religious or spiritual in general.  In fact, according to your own stated beliefs, this is true.
> 
> What you really seem to be saying is that governments which punish or attempt to prevent spirituality fail.  That is an entirely different proposition.



But there have been civilizations where spirituality was squelched, not allowed, punished by death, etc. They all failed. Humans are intrinsically spiritual, so that's the only way you can have a non-spiritual civilization. Now, I am all for rounding up you atheist non-believers and shipping you off to your own deserted island somewhere to see if you can make a non-spiritual civilization work... but I am willing to bet you'd fail. Of course, we'd have to first sort out the true non-believers from the ones who claim they don't believe but really do. That's at least half of the Atheists by my estimation.


----------



## edthecynic

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem, though, is that there's no reason to believe we've actually seen a human civilization in which the people were not religious or spiritual in general.  In fact, according to your own stated beliefs, this is true.
> 
> What you really seem to be saying is that governments which punish or attempt to prevent spirituality fail.  That is an entirely different proposition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But there have been civilizations where spirituality was squelched, not allowed, punished by death, etc. They all failed. Humans are intrinsically spiritual, so that's the only way you can have a non-spiritual civilization. Now, I am all for rounding up you atheist non-believers and shipping you off to your own deserted island somewhere to see if you can make a non-spiritual civilization work... but I am willing to bet you'd fail. Of course, *we'd have to first sort out the true non-believers from the ones who claim they don't believe but really do. That's at least half of the Atheists by my estimation*.
Click to expand...

So by your "logic" in this country where Atheists are shunned and mocked, at least half who believe in God pretend to be Atheists so they can be outcasts. Wouldn't it be more logical that it is the "believers" who would be more likely to pretend they believe for social acceptance when they actually don't believe? So if 50% of Atheists will pretend for social rejection, at least 99% of believers will pretend for social acceptance. So all those successful "spiritual" civilizations are actually mostly Atheistic and all the failed Atheistic civilizations are at least half spiritual.


----------



## Boss

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem, though, is that there's no reason to believe we've actually seen a human civilization in which the people were not religious or spiritual in general.  In fact, according to your own stated beliefs, this is true.
> 
> What you really seem to be saying is that governments which punish or attempt to prevent spirituality fail.  That is an entirely different proposition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But there have been civilizations where spirituality was squelched, not allowed, punished by death, etc. They all failed. Humans are intrinsically spiritual, so that's the only way you can have a non-spiritual civilization. Now, I am all for rounding up you atheist non-believers and shipping you off to your own deserted island somewhere to see if you can make a non-spiritual civilization work... but I am willing to bet you'd fail. Of course, *we'd have to first sort out the true non-believers from the ones who claim they don't believe but really do. That's at least half of the Atheists by my estimation*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So by your "logic" in this country where Atheists are shunned and mocked, at least half who believe in God pretend to be Atheists so they can be outcasts. Wouldn't it be more logical that it is the "believers" who would be more likely to pretend they believe for social acceptance when they actually don't believe? So if 50% of Atheists will pretend for social rejection, at least 99% of believers will pretend for social acceptance. So all those successful "spiritual" civilizations are actually mostly Atheistic and all the failed Atheistic civilizations are at least half spiritual.
Click to expand...


Huhh? Are you back on the crack again? I thought Atheists were the sophisticated and educated enlightened ones and religious folk were mouth-breathing knuckle-draggers? If anyone in America is shunned and mocked, it has to be the religious... ask Tim Tebow. 

As I point out in the OP, most of who we see posting here are not true Atheists, they are God-haters. These are people who claim they are Atheists but actually just have a chip on their shoulder about God. They resent God and the people who worship God, for various reasons. 

Gallup or Pew (can't recall which) did a survey of Atheism in Sweden, the most Atheist country in the world. 33% are self-professed Atheist and about 66% are religious. The 33% Atheists include about 17% who believe it's possible something may exist greater than self. Another 10% are not sure one way or the other, and the remaining approximate 6% were willing to state they do not believe it is possible that anything greater than self exists. This seems to coincide with study after study which show only about 5% of the human population are Nihilist.  

Now there are lots of civilizations recorded in human history, but we have no example of a long-term civilization existing without spirituality. If there were such an example, it would be the very first word out of every Atheist's mouth when entering these type of debates.


----------



## edthecynic

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem, though, is that there's no reason to believe we've actually seen a human civilization in which the people were not religious or spiritual in general.  In fact, according to your own stated beliefs, this is true.
> 
> What you really seem to be saying is that governments which punish or attempt to prevent spirituality fail.  That is an entirely different proposition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But there have been civilizations where spirituality was squelched, not allowed, punished by death, etc. They all failed. Humans are intrinsically spiritual, so that's the only way you can have a non-spiritual civilization. Now, I am all for rounding up you atheist non-believers and shipping you off to your own deserted island somewhere to see if you can make a non-spiritual civilization work... but I am willing to bet you'd fail. Of course, *we'd have to first sort out the true non-believers from the ones who claim they don't believe but really do. That's at least half of the Atheists by my estimation*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So by your "logic" in this country where Atheists are shunned and mocked, at least half who believe in God pretend to be Atheists so they can be outcasts. Wouldn't it be more logical that it is the "believers" who would be more likely to pretend they believe for social acceptance when they actually don't believe? So if 50% of Atheists will pretend for social rejection, at least 99% of believers will pretend for social acceptance. So all those successful "spiritual" civilizations are actually mostly Atheistic and all the failed Atheistic civilizations are at least half spiritual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huhh? Are you back on the crack again? ...
Click to expand...

When you lead with a personal insult, you admit you are wrong.
Thank you.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's be clear, the OP is not "preaching against atheists" at all. It's preaching against "God-haters" who are completely a different breed. My sister, a devout Christian, considers ME an atheist. She will tell you that I am going straight to hell when I die. I love her, she's my sister, I respect what she believes, I just don't agree with it.
> 
> God-haters often hide behind the Atheist brand, or in silly boob's case, the Atheist Agnostic brand. They believe this lends an air of credibility to what they have to say, which is mostly a hate-filled denigration of God-believers. It's important to know the God-haters are not really Atheists, they believe in God, they just hate God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mistake hate for being passionate.  Why is my passion hate but a christian who's just as loud and proud about their beliefs not?  Hypocrite.
> 
> Listen once and for all fool.  I don't claim to know what is on the other side of black holes.  Because of that fact, I'm not a full blown atheist.  I consider someone who is 100% sure there is no god to be just as ignorant as someone who is 100% sure there is one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you are 99.999% sure there is no God, right?
Click to expand...


I'm 100% sure there is no god that talked to Abraham and that sends people to hell.  Well, 99.9999% sure I guess because how can I know for certain, right?  I wasn't there.

As far as the generic god you describe?  I don't know what percentage I would give your god.  Still pretty low probability.  Lets just say I lean towards the notion that your god probably doesn't exist.  I'm not at all convinced.  If I had to bet I'd bet probably not.


----------



## sealybobo

NYcarbineer said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's be clear, the OP is not "preaching against atheists" at all. It's preaching against "God-haters" who are completely a different breed. My sister, a devout Christian, considers ME an atheist. She will tell you that I am going straight to hell when I die. I love her, she's my sister, I respect what she believes, I just don't agree with it.
> 
> God-haters often hide behind the Atheist brand, or in silly boob's case, the Atheist Agnostic brand. They believe this lends an air of credibility to what they have to say, which is mostly a hate-filled denigration of God-believers. It's important to know the God-haters are not really Atheists, they believe in God, they just hate God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mistake hate for being passionate.  Why is my passion hate but a christian who's just as loud and proud about their beliefs not?  Hypocrite.
> 
> Listen once and for all fool.  I don't claim to know what is on the other side of black holes.  Because of that fact, I'm not a full blown atheist.  I consider someone who is 100% sure there is no god to be just as ignorant as someone who is 100% sure there is one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you are 99.999% sure there is no God, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How sure are you that the God of the most radical Muslims is not the one true God?
Click to expand...


I want to say 100% but again there is a very small chance I could be wrong so 99.9999 their god is made up too.  Just like the Mormon stories.  How sure am I that is not real?  Pretty damn sure.  So I don't think any organized religion has an edge over any of the other organized religions.

I was thinking the other day about people who deny the Holocaust happened.  Why do I believe that happened?  That too could be made up.  

I guess because the Jews didn't tell us that god came and spoke to them or that someone in their camp turned water into wine or was born from a virgin or none of the jews that died came back to life.

There is no reason not to believe the Jews.  But that's not the case for Christians who claim that mary was a virgin, god knocked her up, he turned water into wine, rose from the dead, healed the sick.  See the difference?  If Christians would have just told a better story maybe I'd still be a follower.  

One day Christians will throw out the lies and then maybe they'll have a nice religion that I can get behind.  Until they admit the stories aren't true, I can't be a follower because I can't follow what I know to be a lie.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem, though, is that there's no reason to believe we've actually seen a human civilization in which the people were not religious or spiritual in general.  In fact, according to your own stated beliefs, this is true.
> 
> What you really seem to be saying is that governments which punish or attempt to prevent spirituality fail.  That is an entirely different proposition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But there have been civilizations where spirituality was squelched, not allowed, punished by death, etc. They all failed. Humans are intrinsically spiritual, so that's the only way you can have a non-spiritual civilization. Now, I am all for rounding up you atheist non-believers and shipping you off to your own deserted island somewhere to see if you can make a non-spiritual civilization work... but I am willing to bet you'd fail. Of course, *we'd have to first sort out the true non-believers from the ones who claim they don't believe but really do. That's at least half of the Atheists by my estimation*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So by your "logic" in this country where Atheists are shunned and mocked, at least half who believe in God pretend to be Atheists so they can be outcasts. Wouldn't it be more logical that it is the "believers" who would be more likely to pretend they believe for social acceptance when they actually don't believe? So if 50% of Atheists will pretend for social rejection, at least 99% of believers will pretend for social acceptance. So all those successful "spiritual" civilizations are actually mostly Atheistic and all the failed Atheistic civilizations are at least half spiritual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> most of who we see posting here are not true Atheists, they are God-haters who claim they are Atheists but actually just have a chip on their shoulder about God. They resent God and the people who worship God, for various reasons.
> 
> The 33% Atheists include about 17% who believe it's possible something may exist greater than self. Another 10% are not sure one way or the other, and the remaining approximate 6% were willing to state they do not believe it is possible that anything greater than self exists. This seems to coincide with study after study which show only about 5% of the human population are Nihilist.
> 
> Now there are lots of civilizations recorded in human history, but we have no example of a long-term civilization existing without spirituality. If there were such an example, it would be the very first word out of every Atheist's mouth when entering these type of debates.
Click to expand...


Why do I resent god?  

Sure it's possible.  Anythings possible.  Just not likely or probable.  

So every society that has failed was spiritual?


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are the God-haters now fighting radical Islam? Seems most of them are anti-war nitwits who don't even get the whole "war on terror" thing... maybe I'm wrong? If we could have the God-haters stop bashing and trashing Christians and Jews for a hot second, maybe we could do something about this terrorist threat?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you sure their God is not the one true God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those people are reacting out of a misplaced understanding of Spiritual God and when their souls depart this physical existence, the price will be paid.
> .
Click to expand...


How do you know there will be a price to pay?


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Until they admit the stories aren't true, I can't be a follower because I can't follow what I know to be a lie.



You just finished saying you weren't 100% sure. How can you know something is definitely a lie, yet not be sure? You weren't there, remember? 

To me, it is astonishing how you can completely morph and change from agnostic to atheist in a single paragraph. You seem to be a very confused person who has no concept of basic logic.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are the God-haters now fighting radical Islam? Seems most of them are anti-war nitwits who don't even get the whole "war on terror" thing... maybe I'm wrong? If we could have the God-haters stop bashing and trashing Christians and Jews for a hot second, maybe we could do something about this terrorist threat?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you sure their God is not the one true God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those people are reacting out of a misplaced understanding of Spiritual God and when their souls depart this physical existence, the price will be paid.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you know there will be a price to pay?
Click to expand...


It's probably beyond your ability to comprehend because you don't understand logic. I realize, through my connection with spiritual nature, we are compelled to promote positive flow of spiritual energy. We are guided in the direction of goodness by this spiritual force. Our souls are not physical, so they must continue after our physical vessels expire. I reason that because we are compelled to goodness, there is a purpose beyond our own self preservation in the physical. This is partly because spiritual nature compels us in a specific direction and partly because I see evidence that those without spiritual fidelity are able to preserve a physical existence along with the rest. There is something greater at play. 

It is for this reason I surmise when we die physically, our souls will either ascend to a higher dimension or descend to a lower one. Again, if this is not the case, there is no fundamental purpose for our spiritual interaction with the spiritual nature which compels us.


----------



## Boss

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem, though, is that there's no reason to believe we've actually seen a human civilization in which the people were not religious or spiritual in general.  In fact, according to your own stated beliefs, this is true.
> 
> What you really seem to be saying is that governments which punish or attempt to prevent spirituality fail.  That is an entirely different proposition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But there have been civilizations where spirituality was squelched, not allowed, punished by death, etc. They all failed. Humans are intrinsically spiritual, so that's the only way you can have a non-spiritual civilization. Now, I am all for rounding up you atheist non-believers and shipping you off to your own deserted island somewhere to see if you can make a non-spiritual civilization work... but I am willing to bet you'd fail. Of course, *we'd have to first sort out the true non-believers from the ones who claim they don't believe but really do. That's at least half of the Atheists by my estimation*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So by your "logic" in this country where Atheists are shunned and mocked, at least half who believe in God pretend to be Atheists so they can be outcasts. Wouldn't it be more logical that it is the "believers" who would be more likely to pretend they believe for social acceptance when they actually don't believe? So if 50% of Atheists will pretend for social rejection, at least 99% of believers will pretend for social acceptance. So all those successful "spiritual" civilizations are actually mostly Atheistic and all the failed Atheistic civilizations are at least half spiritual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huhh? Are you back on the crack again? ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you lead with a personal insult, you admit you are wrong.
> Thank you.
Click to expand...


I didn't lead with a personal insult, I asked a question. It was prompted by the convoluted load of horse shit you reeled off.


----------



## BreezeWood

sealybobo said:


> So every society that has failed was spiritual?



that is above the pay scale ... the OP contention the non-atheist are spiritual is absurd, nor is it just their religion that was the cause of their failure, as their scriptures are not endemic of "failure" but collective acquiescence to Evil.










whatever is "greater than self" ... self being what - denying the spirituality existing in all living creatures is no less the reason for failure as any other and that precludes even the true intent of existence, the Triumph of the Everlasting whether accomplished by an individual Spirit or not.

.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Until they admit the stories aren't true, I can't be a follower because I can't follow what I know to be a lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just finished saying you weren't 100% sure. How can you know something is definitely a lie, yet not be sure? You weren't there, remember?
> 
> To me, it is astonishing how you can completely morph and change from agnostic to atheist in a single paragraph. You seem to be a very confused person who has no concept of basic logic.
Click to expand...


Are you sure the Jesus and Mohammad stories happened?  If not, shut the fuck up.  You don't believe them either, right?  

They could be right.  But if they are,  you're going to hell.  So do you believe 99% you are going to hell, 1%?  100%???


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are the God-haters now fighting radical Islam? Seems most of them are anti-war nitwits who don't even get the whole "war on terror" thing... maybe I'm wrong? If we could have the God-haters stop bashing and trashing Christians and Jews for a hot second, maybe we could do something about this terrorist threat?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you sure their God is not the one true God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those people are reacting out of a misplaced understanding of Spiritual God and when their souls depart this physical existence, the price will be paid.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you know there will be a price to pay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our souls are not physical, so they must continue after our physical vessels expire. I reason that because we are compelled to goodness, there is a purpose beyond our own self preservation in the physical. This is partly because spiritual nature compels us in a specific direction and partly because I see evidence that those without spiritual fidelity are able to preserve a physical existence along with the rest. There is something greater at play.
> 
> It is for this reason I surmise when we die physically, our souls will either ascend to a higher dimension or descend to a lower one. Again, if this is not the case, there is no fundamental purpose for our spiritual interaction with the spiritual nature which compels us.
Click to expand...


A dog or fish's thoughts and emotions aren't physical either.  So must their souls continue after their bodies die?  

Why MUST our souls continue just because they are not physical?  If you turn off a computer does it not stop working?  Does the intelligence of the computer continue after I unplug and throw away the computer?  Does the computers non physical "soul" go to computer heaven?

Anyways, I love it how you don't follow any organized religions but you still believe in heaven and hell, just because humans a long time ago made it up.  Dope.


----------



## sealybobo

BreezeWood said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So every society that has failed was spiritual?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that is above the pay scale ... the OP contention the non-atheist are spiritual is absurd, nor is it just their religion that was the cause of their failure, as their scriptures are not endemic of "failure" but collective acquiescence to Evil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whatever is "greater than self" ... self being what - denying the spirituality existing in all living creatures is no less the reason for failure as any other and that precludes even the true intent of existence, the Triumph of the Everlasting whether accomplished by an individual Spirit or not.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Now in english please.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> A dog or fish's thoughts and emotions aren't physical either.  So must their souls continue after their bodies die?
> 
> Why MUST our souls continue just because they are not physical?  If you turn off a computer does it not stop working?  Does the intelligence of the computer continue after I unplug and throw away the computer?  Does the computers non physical "soul" go to computer heaven?
> 
> Anyways, I love it how you don't follow any organized religions but you still believe in heaven and hell, just because humans a long time ago made it up.  Dope.





> They could be right.



I love how you go from believing they could be right to it's all made up. You're 100% sure, but only 99.999% certain, and yet you don't know. You are absolutely positive... but not completely. 

You can unplug and throw away your computer, but amid that metal, plastic and silicon, there remains a hard drive with all the information, programs and data, still in existence. But let's go back to the discussion of atoms again... electrons in specific. They disappear from existence, then they reappear.... they may occupy two spaces at the same time. Pretty fucking remarkable feat, wouldn't you agree? And so, this is happening in everything we observe with atoms. Simply put, that means everything we perceive as "material" in our physical reality. It's all constantly having electrons pop in and out of existence or be two places at once.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> A dog or fish's thoughts and emotions aren't physical either.  So must their souls continue after their bodies die?
> 
> Why MUST our souls continue just because they are not physical?  If you turn off a computer does it not stop working?  Does the intelligence of the computer continue after I unplug and throw away the computer?  Does the computers non physical "soul" go to computer heaven?
> 
> Anyways, I love it how you don't follow any organized religions but you still believe in heaven and hell, just because humans a long time ago made it up.  Dope.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They could be right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love how you go from believing they could be right to it's all made up. You're 100% sure, but only 99.999% certain, and yet you don't know. You are absolutely positive... but not completely.
> 
> You can unplug and throw away your computer, but amid that metal, plastic and silicon, there remains a hard drive with all the information, programs and data, still in existence. But let's go back to the discussion of atoms again... electrons in specific. They disappear from existence, then they reappear.... they may occupy two spaces at the same time. Pretty fucking remarkable feat, wouldn't you agree? And so, this is happening in everything we observe with atoms. Simply put, that means everything we perceive as "material" in our physical reality. It's all constantly having electrons pop in and out of existence or be two places at once.
Click to expand...


I don't believe they are right.  They PROBABLY made up the Jesus and Mohammad stories.  I'm sure enough they can't scare me into going along with the threat of hell.  

Anyways, there is no heaven for you or your hard drive.  Sorry boss.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> A dog or fish's thoughts and emotions aren't physical either.  So must their souls continue after their bodies die?
> 
> Why MUST our souls continue just because they are not physical?  If you turn off a computer does it not stop working?  Does the intelligence of the computer continue after I unplug and throw away the computer?  Does the computers non physical "soul" go to computer heaven?
> 
> Anyways, I love it how you don't follow any organized religions but you still believe in heaven and hell, just because humans a long time ago made it up.  Dope.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They could be right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love how you go from believing they could be right to it's all made up. You're 100% sure, but only 99.999% certain, and yet you don't know. You are absolutely positive... but not completely.
> 
> You can unplug and throw away your computer, but amid that metal, plastic and silicon, there remains a hard drive with all the information, programs and data, still in existence. But let's go back to the discussion of atoms again... electrons in specific. They disappear from existence, then they reappear.... they may occupy two spaces at the same time. Pretty fucking remarkable feat, wouldn't you agree? And so, this is happening in everything we observe with atoms. Simply put, that means everything we perceive as "material" in our physical reality. It's all constantly having electrons pop in and out of existence or be two places at once.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe they are right.  They PROBABLY made up the Jesus and Mohammad stories.  I'm sure enough they can't scare me into going along with the threat of hell.
> 
> Anyways, there is no heaven for you or your hard drive.  Sorry boss.
Click to expand...


Well, there is no heaven for hard drives or dogs and fish because they aren't spiritually compelled, but human souls are a different matter. And again, it's important to note that you are on record as stating you "don't know for sure" so you can't say there is no heaven. Sorry silly boob.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> A dog or fish's thoughts and emotions aren't physical either.  So must their souls continue after their bodies die?
> 
> Why MUST our souls continue just because they are not physical?  If you turn off a computer does it not stop working?  Does the intelligence of the computer continue after I unplug and throw away the computer?  Does the computers non physical "soul" go to computer heaven?
> 
> Anyways, I love it how you don't follow any organized religions but you still believe in heaven and hell, just because humans a long time ago made it up.  Dope.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They could be right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love how you go from believing they could be right to it's all made up. You're 100% sure, but only 99.999% certain, and yet you don't know. You are absolutely positive... but not completely.
> 
> You can unplug and throw away your computer, but amid that metal, plastic and silicon, there remains a hard drive with all the information, programs and data, still in existence. But let's go back to the discussion of atoms again... electrons in specific. They disappear from existence, then they reappear.... they may occupy two spaces at the same time. Pretty fucking remarkable feat, wouldn't you agree? And so, this is happening in everything we observe with atoms. Simply put, that means everything we perceive as "material" in our physical reality. It's all constantly having electrons pop in and out of existence or be two places at once.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe they are right.  They PROBABLY made up the Jesus and Mohammad stories.  I'm sure enough they can't scare me into going along with the threat of hell.
> 
> Anyways, there is no heaven for you or your hard drive.  Sorry boss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, there is no heaven for hard drives or dogs and fish because they aren't spiritually compelled, but human souls are a different matter. And again, it's important to note that you are on record as stating you "don't know for sure" so you can't say there is no heaven. Sorry silly boob.
Click to expand...


A religion made up heaven and hell you cherry picker.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> A dog or fish's thoughts and emotions aren't physical either.  So must their souls continue after their bodies die?
> 
> Why MUST our souls continue just because they are not physical?  If you turn off a computer does it not stop working?  Does the intelligence of the computer continue after I unplug and throw away the computer?  Does the computers non physical "soul" go to computer heaven?
> 
> Anyways, I love it how you don't follow any organized religions but you still believe in heaven and hell, just because humans a long time ago made it up.  Dope.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They could be right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love how you go from believing they could be right to it's all made up. You're 100% sure, but only 99.999% certain, and yet you don't know. You are absolutely positive... but not completely.
> 
> You can unplug and throw away your computer, but amid that metal, plastic and silicon, there remains a hard drive with all the information, programs and data, still in existence. But let's go back to the discussion of atoms again... electrons in specific. They disappear from existence, then they reappear.... they may occupy two spaces at the same time. Pretty fucking remarkable feat, wouldn't you agree? And so, this is happening in everything we observe with atoms. Simply put, that means everything we perceive as "material" in our physical reality. It's all constantly having electrons pop in and out of existence or be two places at once.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe they are right.  They PROBABLY made up the Jesus and Mohammad stories.  I'm sure enough they can't scare me into going along with the threat of hell.
> 
> Anyways, there is no heaven for you or your hard drive.  Sorry boss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, there is no heaven for hard drives or dogs and fish because they aren't spiritually compelled, but human souls are a different matter. And again, it's important to note that you are on record as stating you "don't know for sure" so you can't say there is no heaven. Sorry silly boob.
Click to expand...


So I look up the word Piety and the definition says:  

the quality of being religious or reverent.

Then says:

a belief or point of view that is accepted with unthinking conventional reverence.

Conventional meaning in accordance with what is generally done or believed.

Reverence means a deep respect for something.  

So you may have put a lot of thought into it and still believe but fact is most have not.  And even you are just kidding yourself.  You believe despite all the lies.  You believe because you can't believe otherwise.  You want to believe.  Not everyone needs to believe.  Look at how gay people kill themselves because of what their church says.  Maybe god isn't for everyone.

So you keep on with your unthinking, going along with what we've always done (that's the conservative in you) because you have a deep respect/hope/wishful thinking that this god is your pal.

I know, its a little weird at first when I first went atheist I felt like I let down my god, but I had to realize there was no god.  I've been talking to myself all that time.  

A god that listens to you?  I'm an atheist on that.  Well, again, 99.999 sure about this, that if there is a god/creator, he's not listening to you.  There is no heaven or hell.  No miracles.  This I'm pretty sure about.  When you die that's it.  You are just another living animal here on earth.  Sorry to disappoint you.  Just enjoy the rest of your life and it's good this god keeps  you from being a murderer.  I don't need a god. I have a conscience.


----------



## sealybobo

But maybe that god, just like santa, helped my parents teach me right from wrong when I was a kid.  But it is not ok to lie to an adult and tell them the adam and eve, noah and jesus miracle stories are facts and if we don't believe we go to hell.

We need to come up with a new religion.  One without all the bullshit stories.  Why did Joseph Smith have to say all the crazy shit?  If he would have kept it simple it would have been more believable.


----------



## Boss

How long are you going to prattle on with the erroneous assumptions about what I believe and your flip-flopping back and forth from not believing to not being certain? Do you think maybe if I let you reel off 20 unanswered posts or so, suddenly you're points will be made? What you are saying is inconsistent with itself, as if you are having a change of heart as you post. 

*Sorry to disappoint you.*

Don't worry about it... you see, you're not God, so it doesn't matter to me what your opinion is. My spiritual connection has absolutely nothing to do with your denial and inconsistent view of whether or not God is real. I'm going to keep on praying to God who answers my prayers and blesses me in the process. 

If you're really wanting to make a difference here, what you should be spending your time doing is telling us your testimony of how your life has been changed for the positive since becoming an Atheist. I've heard very little from you on that, and it seems you simply want to try and cajole me into some strange religious belief you can then attack and insult. It should be clear to you by now that isn't going to happen.


----------



## edthecynic

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem, though, is that there's no reason to believe we've actually seen a human civilization in which the people were not religious or spiritual in general.  In fact, according to your own stated beliefs, this is true.
> 
> What you really seem to be saying is that governments which punish or attempt to prevent spirituality fail.  That is an entirely different proposition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But there have been civilizations where spirituality was squelched, not allowed, punished by death, etc. They all failed. Humans are intrinsically spiritual, so that's the only way you can have a non-spiritual civilization. Now, I am all for rounding up you atheist non-believers and shipping you off to your own deserted island somewhere to see if you can make a non-spiritual civilization work... but I am willing to bet you'd fail. Of course, *we'd have to first sort out the true non-believers from the ones who claim they don't believe but really do. That's at least half of the Atheists by my estimation*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So by your "logic" in this country where Atheists are shunned and mocked, at least half who believe in God pretend to be Atheists so they can be outcasts. Wouldn't it be more logical that it is the "believers" who would be more likely to pretend they believe for social acceptance when they actually don't believe? So if 50% of Atheists will pretend for social rejection, at least 99% of believers will pretend for social acceptance. So all those successful "spiritual" civilizations are actually mostly Atheistic and all the failed Atheistic civilizations are at least half spiritual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huhh? Are you back on the crack again? ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you lead with a personal insult, you admit you are wrong.
> Thank you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I didn't lead with a personal insult,* I asked a question. It was prompted by the convoluted load of horse shit you reeled off.
Click to expand...

Now you are just lying. To ask if I am "BACK" on crack is to insult me as a drug addict, as if the logical genius you pretend to be wouldn't know.


----------



## Boss

edthecynic said:


> Now you are just lying. To ask if I am "BACK" on crack is to insult me as a drug addict, as if the logical genius you pretend to be wouldn't know.



Again, when you come up with some convoluted load of horse shit to try and spin something around and make an impossible point, you should expect people to think you are back on the crack again. I didn't say you were a drug addict, I don't know you. I hope you're not and I encourage you to not do crack before you post. 

Back to the point... Most humans believe in something greater than self and always have. Most religious people also believe in something greater than self. AND... even a majority of Atheist people admit that it's possible something greater than self can exist. In fact, only about 5% of the human species are Nihilistic and believe in nothing.


----------



## edthecynic

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are just lying. To ask if I am "BACK" on crack is to insult me as a drug addict, as if the logical genius you pretend to be wouldn't know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, when you come up with some convoluted load of horse shit to try and spin something around and make an impossible point, you should expect people to think you are back on the crack again. I didn't say you were a drug addict, I don't know you. I hope you're not and I encourage you to not do crack before you post.
> 
> Back to the point... Most humans believe in something greater than self and always have. Most religious people also believe in something greater than self. AND... even a majority of Atheist people admit that it's possible something greater than self can exist. In fact, *only about 5% of the human species* are Nihilistic and believe in nothing.
Click to expand...

You don't speak for the human species. As I pointed out, many will pretend to be believers for social acceptance, so there is no way for you to know anything as you are not a mind-reader even though you pretend to be one.


----------



## Boss

edthecynic said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are just lying. To ask if I am "BACK" on crack is to insult me as a drug addict, as if the logical genius you pretend to be wouldn't know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, when you come up with some convoluted load of horse shit to try and spin something around and make an impossible point, you should expect people to think you are back on the crack again. I didn't say you were a drug addict, I don't know you. I hope you're not and I encourage you to not do crack before you post.
> 
> Back to the point... Most humans believe in something greater than self and always have. Most religious people also believe in something greater than self. AND... even a majority of Atheist people admit that it's possible something greater than self can exist. In fact, *only about 5% of the human species* are Nihilistic and believe in nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't speak for the human species. As I pointed out, many will *pretend to be believers for social acceptance*, so there is no way for you to know anything as you are not a mind-reader even though you pretend to be one.
Click to expand...


Yes, we see people every day, lining up to be called Christians so that society won't ridicule them, make fun of them, call them religious wackos and mock their beliefs! ...Crack is wack, ed!


----------



## Montrovant

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are just lying. To ask if I am "BACK" on crack is to insult me as a drug addict, as if the logical genius you pretend to be wouldn't know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, when you come up with some convoluted load of horse shit to try and spin something around and make an impossible point, you should expect people to think you are back on the crack again. I didn't say you were a drug addict, I don't know you. I hope you're not and I encourage you to not do crack before you post.
> 
> Back to the point... Most humans believe in something greater than self and always have. Most religious people also believe in something greater than self. AND... even a majority of Atheist people admit that it's possible something greater than self can exist. In fact, *only about 5% of the human species* are Nihilistic and believe in nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't speak for the human species. As I pointed out, many will *pretend to be believers for social acceptance*, so there is no way for you to know anything as you are not a mind-reader even though you pretend to be one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, we see people every day, lining up to be called Christians so that society won't ridicule them, make fun of them, call them religious wackos and mock their beliefs! ...Crack is wack, ed!
Click to expand...


Because when the vast majority of society are believers of one sort or another, it makes sense that someone would pretend atheism rather than theism to gain acceptance.........


----------



## Gadawg73

How can you hate someone that you believe does not exist?


----------



## BreezeWood

how can there be hatred for all other of life's creatures and expect Admission to the Everlasting ?


----------



## newpolitics

SmedlyButler said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Dawsy's sig:* extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence/ Carl Sagan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual. So are our emotions in the presence of great art or music or literature, or of acts of exemplary selfless courage such as those of Mohandas Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr. The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both."* ~Carl Sagan
> 
> 
> Oh my.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're saying that a person can be an atheist or agnostic and still be spiritual and not 'hate" God I totally agree. Sagan fits in this category. I imagine he would think it silly to hate Osiris or Zeus or Yahweh or whatever mythical being you could name.
> 
> Sagan quotes:
> 
> "If fulfilled prophecy is your criterion, why do you not believe in materialistic science, which has an unparalleled record of fulfilled prophecy? Consider, for example, eclipses.
> 
> Or;
> "The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity."
Click to expand...


Sagan thought religion was stupid, because it is. He was pantheist, which is ontologically indistinct from atheism.


----------



## Boss

newpolitics said:


> SmedlyButler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Dawsy's sig:* extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence/ Carl Sagan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual. So are our emotions in the presence of great art or music or literature, or of acts of exemplary selfless courage such as those of Mohandas Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr. The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both."* ~Carl Sagan
> 
> 
> Oh my.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're saying that a person can be an atheist or agnostic and still be spiritual and not 'hate" God I totally agree. Sagan fits in this category. I imagine he would think it silly to hate Osiris or Zeus or Yahweh or whatever mythical being you could name.
> 
> Sagan quotes:
> 
> "If fulfilled prophecy is your criterion, why do you not believe in materialistic science, which has an unparalleled record of fulfilled prophecy? Consider, for example, eclipses.
> 
> Or;
> "The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sagan thought religion was stupid, because it is. He was pantheist, which is ontologically indistinct from atheism.
Click to expand...


Wrong. Pantheism is completely different from Atheism. 

I've been participating in this thread for months now. Defending human spirituality, defending God, deflecting unwarranted criticisms of my "religious" views. I've had people here mistake me for a Christian repeatedly, my sister who is a devout Christian, says I am an Atheist. I am more of a pantheist than Atheist, but I simply call myself a spiritualist. 

I believe in a Spiritual God, not out of faith or want to believe, but because I sense the presence of it around me in my daily life and communicate with it regularly. I'm not going to deny that in order to be popular, nor am I going to arbitrarily assign humanistic attributes to it in order to conform to some religion.


----------



## emilynghiem

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny if you look at my 1970's encyclopedia it says 98% of the people of Greece were Greek Orthodox.  First, do you really believe all 98% were really "christians" and believed in god?  Then you are gullible.  I know many Greek Americans who call themselves Greek Orthodox because they were born into it, but like me and you they don't really believe all the stories.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Greeks are basically the founders of western culture. We are products of that culture. The Greek philosophers brought the attribute of introspection, questioning of who we are and what we believe, what happens next. It is through that philosophy we have this self-centered belief system which enables us to consider various possibilities regarding Gods and Religions. Native Americans did not have that cultural underpinning. This point seems to be flying comfortably over your head as well as Moonbat's. We're talking about two completely different ways of thinking, schools of thought. Native Americans did not have introspection of self, things didn't revolve around the individual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for the indians.  If penalty was death, how can you know if anyone really believes or are they all just going along not to be tortured and killed by savage indians?  I'm sure some didn't really believe.  I have to believe as savage and barbaric as they were they had to have some phylosophers in the bunch.  I'm sure even some indians themselves feared savage indians from other tribes, or is that just stuff I saw in movies?  Looked like they would concur other tribes, kill the men and take their women.  They'd raise their babies though.  They were at least kind to children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did not say "the penalty was death" ...there was no penalty, it was not an issue. I explained how such an instance would have been handled in the event someone was kicked in the head by a horse or born without a normal brain, and didn't adhere to the Great Spirit. It wasn't something held over their heads... you're gonna 'believe' or we're gonna kill you! Again, you are thinking in western culture terms here and failing to grasp they had a different culture. From their perspective, this was not a "belief" but a truth that was unquestionable.
> 
> It is noted that you continue to disrespect these people by calling them "indians" when you've been told that is highly offensive. Apparently, your bigotry is blind and oblivious. As for savagery, they were no more savage than the Nordics or Mongolians. Yes, much of what you believe is due to myths spread by Hollywood.
> 
> 
> 
> You wouldn't survive one day with any Native American tribe. You'd start spewing your anti-God nonsense and you'd be history. The scant few white men who ever interacted with Native Americans had to be totally respectful of their spirituality. Somehow, I don't see your bigoted ass being able to pull that off. The Puritans, on the other hand, were able to cohabitate with them because they developed a mutual respect through spirit. For nearly a century, there was no problem between Native Americans and early settlers. Of course, there were some tribes who weren't hospitable, and didn't cotton to white men encroaching on their lands, but all-in-all, the early settlers had a generally good relationship with the Native Americans. We could not have ever colonized otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> I've not tried to prove God. I've also not stated that anything isn't real. You're a hypocrite. You claim the best and most rational position is "we don't know" but then you turn around and argue as if you DO know. This is typical of most bigots, they can't support their opinions but they believe their opinions are empirical and anyone who challenges them are wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> If you believe in Karma as you claimed you did several times, and are again tepidly claiming you do... then you are not an atheist or agnostic. You are spiritual, whether you realize it or not. You do believe in something greater than self, Karma. Now it seems to me, the only real difference between you and someone who believes in God is semantics and terminology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I do understand there is the non physical.  Have you ever taken a tuning rod and hit it and the guy across the room's rod starts making noise?  Telepathic stuff.  There is so much you and I don't know.  I watch these shows.  They aren't anti religion but they are scientific shows and just the facts and information they are giving always seems to innocently go against religion.  Thats when I understand why religion hates science.  But they back track and they are slick like you.  No matter how many things they have proved are not god when people thought they were, yet you guys continue to move the goal post.  God keeps getting smaller and smaller.  God of the gaps is what its called.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can go you one better... Look at the scientific study of atoms. An atom is the smallest form of matter, there are 237 quintillion atoms in a grain of sand. Each atom is comprised of a nucleus and the nucleus is orbited by electrons which define the atom. These electrons pop into and out of existence all the time, they can be at two places at the same time. This completely defies any concept of logic we understand in the physical world, yet at the molecular level, it is exactly what is happening with every atom in the universe, of which all matter consists. Can you explain that? I can't. Also... we can take atoms and collide them together, producing subatomic particles of all sorts. We've discovered tens of thousands of subatomic particles this way. It's like, each atom is a little surprise package of particles we've never seen before. Each of these particles has sometimes radically different properties enabling their atoms to do different things. For all intents and purposes, these are little tiny microscopic "miracles" happening on a regular basis to enable existence of everything we perceive as material in our universe. In other words, physical existence itself, is a spiritual miracle happening in real time.
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> so i guess i am the first native to answer this but i am sure i won't be the last. (we are still alive btw)
> 
> we do not worship as you know it. we give thanks. we believe the world and everything in it was created. after that fact there is NOTHING in common with christianity or any other religion. each nation has its own beliefs traditionally.
> 
> no we don't have gods. we don't even have one god. we acknowledge the spirit world. and past what i have said, there is nothing else i wish to share about my beliefs except that they are meant for me and the other people of my nation. they are not even for other natives. they have their own traditions.
> 
> we do not believe one belief is better than another..just better for us as a people.
> 
> you may have to rethink your whole idea that if it is good it must have something to do with your god. my experience is christianity brought nothing to us but death and suffering even into the 21st century. we live our beliefs. it is not lip service. you can see WHAT we believe by what we DO.
> 
> Best answer Boss!!!
> 
> Did Native Americans Indians believe in God
> 
> Clap
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great... You've just proven my point. I have never claimed that Native Americans believed in the Christian God. It is their culture which is centered on spirit and not self. Unlike western culture where individuals can have introspective thought and consider various possibilities regarding the spiritual, these people are tied directly to spirit and everything revolves around that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you have to realize that when it comes to debating someone who thinks like you, I'm an Agnostic Atheist.  But when it comes to any organized religion that claims they not only know god exists they also have stories about when he visited, I am an atheist.
> 
> But I truly do admit that I don't know if there is a god.  Do I think there is?  No.  Do I think there is a hell?  No.  But of course I don't know that either.  I'm just pretty sure that the real god if there is one, doesn't care if we believe.
> 
> Anyways, I still think you, the indians and everyone else who believe in god do so because you've been programmed to believe and because you want to believe.
> 
> As for splitting atoms, I'm sure a scientist could explain all that to you.  I sure can't.
> 
> Anyways, sorry I'm distracted.  My 94 year old grandmother is dying and my aunt just called.
Click to expand...


Dear sealybobo: Sorry I just found this. I thought you had replied to my post on the article about secularism (atheism, liberalism, lack of response to Islamic abuses) but I couldn't find it.

Not sure if you and your family are still going through grief 
but belated sorry and sympathy for losing your grandmother.

thanks for taking the extra effort to keep up with msgs on here
and I hope that gives you some relief and focus while going through these things.

thank you for sharing and continuing to reach out to others,
and please take care!


----------



## emilynghiem

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmedlyButler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Dawsy's sig:* extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence/ Carl Sagan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual. So are our emotions in the presence of great art or music or literature, or of acts of exemplary selfless courage such as those of Mohandas Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr. The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both."* ~Carl Sagan
> 
> 
> Oh my.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're saying that a person can be an atheist or agnostic and still be spiritual and not 'hate" God I totally agree. Sagan fits in this category. I imagine he would think it silly to hate Osiris or Zeus or Yahweh or whatever mythical being you could name.
> 
> Sagan quotes:
> 
> "If fulfilled prophecy is your criterion, why do you not believe in materialistic science, which has an unparalleled record of fulfilled prophecy? Consider, for example, eclipses.
> 
> Or;
> "The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sagan thought religion was stupid, because it is. He was pantheist, which is ontologically indistinct from atheism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong. Pantheism is completely different from Atheism.
> 
> I've been participating in this thread for months now. Defending human spirituality, defending God, deflecting unwarranted criticisms of my "religious" views. I've had people here mistake me for a Christian repeatedly, my sister who is a devout Christian, says I am an Atheist. I am more of a pantheist than Atheist, but I simply call myself a spiritualist.
> 
> I believe in a Spiritual God, not out of faith or want to believe, but because I sense the presence of it around me in my daily life and communicate with it regularly. I'm not going to deny that in order to be popular, nor am I going to arbitrarily assign humanistic attributes to it in order to conform to some religion.
Click to expand...


Yes where pantheism includes beliefs in God that is different from any practice of atheism that rejects and excludes.

I think the issue is whether people take a nontheistic approach or theistic.
Neither of those has to be a problem just because they are different.

What causes conflict is unequal exclusion or rejection instead of equal inclusion.
Just becuse our views are different doesn't mean we have to reject the views of other people.

Remove the emotionalism from the equation, and we can get along despite our differences.
Nothing wrong with religion, just the collective bullying and abuse which happens with politics also.

That behavior is what causes problems, not the religion per se. again if you
remove the emotionalism, religions become neutral just like languages, and don't have
to carry stigmas or grudges for or against other views. that part is coming from people
being divided from each other by groups, similar to how racism is not caused by race but by people.

there is another factor going on besides just the religion that causes the religious abuses.


----------



## sealybobo

emilynghiem said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny if you look at my 1970's encyclopedia it says 98% of the people of Greece were Greek Orthodox.  First, do you really believe all 98% were really "christians" and believed in god?  Then you are gullible.  I know many Greek Americans who call themselves Greek Orthodox because they were born into it, but like me and you they don't really believe all the stories.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Greeks are basically the founders of western culture. We are products of that culture. The Greek philosophers brought the attribute of introspection, questioning of who we are and what we believe, what happens next. It is through that philosophy we have this self-centered belief system which enables us to consider various possibilities regarding Gods and Religions. Native Americans did not have that cultural underpinning. This point seems to be flying comfortably over your head as well as Moonbat's. We're talking about two completely different ways of thinking, schools of thought. Native Americans did not have introspection of self, things didn't revolve around the individual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for the indians.  If penalty was death, how can you know if anyone really believes or are they all just going along not to be tortured and killed by savage indians?  I'm sure some didn't really believe.  I have to believe as savage and barbaric as they were they had to have some phylosophers in the bunch.  I'm sure even some indians themselves feared savage indians from other tribes, or is that just stuff I saw in movies?  Looked like they would concur other tribes, kill the men and take their women.  They'd raise their babies though.  They were at least kind to children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did not say "the penalty was death" ...there was no penalty, it was not an issue. I explained how such an instance would have been handled in the event someone was kicked in the head by a horse or born without a normal brain, and didn't adhere to the Great Spirit. It wasn't something held over their heads... you're gonna 'believe' or we're gonna kill you! Again, you are thinking in western culture terms here and failing to grasp they had a different culture. From their perspective, this was not a "belief" but a truth that was unquestionable.
> 
> It is noted that you continue to disrespect these people by calling them "indians" when you've been told that is highly offensive. Apparently, your bigotry is blind and oblivious. As for savagery, they were no more savage than the Nordics or Mongolians. Yes, much of what you believe is due to myths spread by Hollywood.
> 
> 
> 
> You wouldn't survive one day with any Native American tribe. You'd start spewing your anti-God nonsense and you'd be history. The scant few white men who ever interacted with Native Americans had to be totally respectful of their spirituality. Somehow, I don't see your bigoted ass being able to pull that off. The Puritans, on the other hand, were able to cohabitate with them because they developed a mutual respect through spirit. For nearly a century, there was no problem between Native Americans and early settlers. Of course, there were some tribes who weren't hospitable, and didn't cotton to white men encroaching on their lands, but all-in-all, the early settlers had a generally good relationship with the Native Americans. We could not have ever colonized otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> I've not tried to prove God. I've also not stated that anything isn't real. You're a hypocrite. You claim the best and most rational position is "we don't know" but then you turn around and argue as if you DO know. This is typical of most bigots, they can't support their opinions but they believe their opinions are empirical and anyone who challenges them are wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> If you believe in Karma as you claimed you did several times, and are again tepidly claiming you do... then you are not an atheist or agnostic. You are spiritual, whether you realize it or not. You do believe in something greater than self, Karma. Now it seems to me, the only real difference between you and someone who believes in God is semantics and terminology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I do understand there is the non physical.  Have you ever taken a tuning rod and hit it and the guy across the room's rod starts making noise?  Telepathic stuff.  There is so much you and I don't know.  I watch these shows.  They aren't anti religion but they are scientific shows and just the facts and information they are giving always seems to innocently go against religion.  Thats when I understand why religion hates science.  But they back track and they are slick like you.  No matter how many things they have proved are not god when people thought they were, yet you guys continue to move the goal post.  God keeps getting smaller and smaller.  God of the gaps is what its called.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can go you one better... Look at the scientific study of atoms. An atom is the smallest form of matter, there are 237 quintillion atoms in a grain of sand. Each atom is comprised of a nucleus and the nucleus is orbited by electrons which define the atom. These electrons pop into and out of existence all the time, they can be at two places at the same time. This completely defies any concept of logic we understand in the physical world, yet at the molecular level, it is exactly what is happening with every atom in the universe, of which all matter consists. Can you explain that? I can't. Also... we can take atoms and collide them together, producing subatomic particles of all sorts. We've discovered tens of thousands of subatomic particles this way. It's like, each atom is a little surprise package of particles we've never seen before. Each of these particles has sometimes radically different properties enabling their atoms to do different things. For all intents and purposes, these are little tiny microscopic "miracles" happening on a regular basis to enable existence of everything we perceive as material in our universe. In other words, physical existence itself, is a spiritual miracle happening in real time.
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> so i guess i am the first native to answer this but i am sure i won't be the last. (we are still alive btw)
> 
> we do not worship as you know it. we give thanks. we believe the world and everything in it was created. after that fact there is NOTHING in common with christianity or any other religion. each nation has its own beliefs traditionally.
> 
> no we don't have gods. we don't even have one god. we acknowledge the spirit world. and past what i have said, there is nothing else i wish to share about my beliefs except that they are meant for me and the other people of my nation. they are not even for other natives. they have their own traditions.
> 
> we do not believe one belief is better than another..just better for us as a people.
> 
> you may have to rethink your whole idea that if it is good it must have something to do with your god. my experience is christianity brought nothing to us but death and suffering even into the 21st century. we live our beliefs. it is not lip service. you can see WHAT we believe by what we DO.
> 
> Best answer Boss!!!
> 
> Did Native Americans Indians believe in God
> 
> Clap
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great... You've just proven my point. I have never claimed that Native Americans believed in the Christian God. It is their culture which is centered on spirit and not self. Unlike western culture where individuals can have introspective thought and consider various possibilities regarding the spiritual, these people are tied directly to spirit and everything revolves around that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you have to realize that when it comes to debating someone who thinks like you, I'm an Agnostic Atheist.  But when it comes to any organized religion that claims they not only know god exists they also have stories about when he visited, I am an atheist.
> 
> But I truly do admit that I don't know if there is a god.  Do I think there is?  No.  Do I think there is a hell?  No.  But of course I don't know that either.  I'm just pretty sure that the real god if there is one, doesn't care if we believe.
> 
> Anyways, I still think you, the indians and everyone else who believe in god do so because you've been programmed to believe and because you want to believe.
> 
> As for splitting atoms, I'm sure a scientist could explain all that to you.  I sure can't.
> 
> Anyways, sorry I'm distracted.  My 94 year old grandmother is dying and my aunt just called.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear sealybobo: Sorry I just found this. I thought you had replied to my post on the article about secularism (atheism, liberalism, lack of response to Islamic abuses) but I couldn't find it.
> 
> Not sure if you and your family are still going through grief
> but belated sorry and sympathy for losing your grandmother.
> 
> thanks for taking the extra effort to keep up with msgs on here
> and I hope that gives you some relief and focus while going through these things.
> 
> thank you for sharing and continuing to reach out to others,
> and please take care!
Click to expand...


I love you sometimes.  Then sometimes I read things that make me think you lean right, but still you are a classy sweet kind nice woman for sure.  Sorry if I have ever offended you.  If I did and I'm sure I did you took it like a champ.  Just ignored any insults and moved on.  I wish I were able to be more like you.  

Notice how I believe that even though I've never actually met you before?  You could be a big huge mean horrible man for all I know.  But based on the evidence I've seen, without actually knowing 100%, you seem like a wonderful woman.  

I just see no evidence for a god or creator.  None that don't come without some fatal flaw.  Nor do I see the need for one.  

No proof, no need.  

*God is the universe/love/laws of physics.*
We already have names for these things. Redefining something as ‘god’ tells us nothing. To use the word ‘god’ implies a host of other attributes and if you don’t intend to apply those attributes, using the word is intentionally misleading.


----------



## sealybobo

emilynghiem said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmedlyButler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Dawsy's sig:* extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence/ Carl Sagan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual. So are our emotions in the presence of great art or music or literature, or of acts of exemplary selfless courage such as those of Mohandas Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr. The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both."* ~Carl Sagan
> 
> 
> Oh my.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're saying that a person can be an atheist or agnostic and still be spiritual and not 'hate" God I totally agree. Sagan fits in this category. I imagine he would think it silly to hate Osiris or Zeus or Yahweh or whatever mythical being you could name.
> 
> Sagan quotes:
> 
> "If fulfilled prophecy is your criterion, why do you not believe in materialistic science, which has an unparalleled record of fulfilled prophecy? Consider, for example, eclipses.
> 
> Or;
> "The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sagan thought religion was stupid, because it is. He was pantheist, which is ontologically indistinct from atheism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong. Pantheism is completely different from Atheism.
> 
> I've been participating in this thread for months now. Defending human spirituality, defending God, deflecting unwarranted criticisms of my "religious" views. I've had people here mistake me for a Christian repeatedly, my sister who is a devout Christian, says I am an Atheist. I am more of a pantheist than Atheist, but I simply call myself a spiritualist.
> 
> I believe in a Spiritual God, not out of faith or want to believe, but because I sense the presence of it around me in my daily life and communicate with it regularly. I'm not going to deny that in order to be popular, nor am I going to arbitrarily assign humanistic attributes to it in order to conform to some religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes where pantheism includes beliefs in God that is different from any practice of atheism that rejects and excludes.
> 
> I think the issue is whether people take a nontheistic approach or theistic.
> Neither of those has to be a problem just because they are different.
> 
> What causes conflict is unequal exclusion or rejection instead of equal inclusion.
> Just becuse our views are different doesn't mean we have to reject the views of other people.
> 
> Remove the emotionalism from the equation, and we can get along despite our differences.
> Nothing wrong with religion, just the collective bullying and abuse which happens with politics also.
> 
> That behavior is what causes problems, not the religion per se. again if you
> remove the emotionalism, religions become neutral just like languages, and don't have
> to carry stigmas or grudges for or against other views. that part is coming from people
> being divided from each other by groups, similar to how racism is not caused by race but by people.
> 
> there is another factor going on besides just the religion that causes the religious abuses.
Click to expand...


You're basically saying religion is like a gun.  It's not the gun it's the person holding the gun you gotta worry about.  

Here is why you are wrong when you think...


*God is the source of morality.*
Morality is a cultural concept with a basis in evolutionary psychology and game theory. Species whose members were predisposed to cooperate were more likely to survive and pass on their genes. Reciprocacy, altruism and other so-called ‘moral’ characteristics are evident in many species. The neurochemical thought to regulate morality and empathy is oxytocin.

Religious texts are simply part of many early attempts to codify moral precepts. Secular law, flexible with the shifting moral zeitgeist, has long since superseded religion as a source of moral directives for the majority of developed societies. Secular ethics offers a number of competing moral frameworks which do not derive from a purported supernatural source.

The god character of the Bible is a misogynistic tyrant that condones and even orders the practice of slavery, rape of women and murder of children. The moment you disagree with a single instruction of the Bible, such as the command to kill any bride who is not a virgin or any child who disrespects their parents, then you acknowledge that there exists a superior standard by which to judge moral action and thus no need to rely on an ancient, primitive and barbaric fantasy.

_"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent._
_Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent._
_Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?_
_Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”_ – Epicurus


----------



## PostmodernProph

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmedlyButler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Dawsy's sig:* extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence/ Carl Sagan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual. So are our emotions in the presence of great art or music or literature, or of acts of exemplary selfless courage such as those of Mohandas Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr. The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both."* ~Carl Sagan
> 
> 
> Oh my.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're saying that a person can be an atheist or agnostic and still be spiritual and not 'hate" God I totally agree. Sagan fits in this category. I imagine he would think it silly to hate Osiris or Zeus or Yahweh or whatever mythical being you could name.
> 
> Sagan quotes:
> 
> "If fulfilled prophecy is your criterion, why do you not believe in materialistic science, which has an unparalleled record of fulfilled prophecy? Consider, for example, eclipses.
> 
> Or;
> "The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sagan thought religion was stupid, because it is. He was pantheist, which is ontologically indistinct from atheism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong. Pantheism is completely different from Atheism.
Click to expand...

it may in fact be its direct opposite......"there is no god" versus "everything is a god"......


----------



## emilynghiem

sealybobo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmedlyButler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual. So are our emotions in the presence of great art or music or literature, or of acts of exemplary selfless courage such as those of Mohandas Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr. The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both."* ~Carl Sagan
> 
> 
> Oh my.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're saying that a person can be an atheist or agnostic and still be spiritual and not 'hate" God I totally agree. Sagan fits in this category. I imagine he would think it silly to hate Osiris or Zeus or Yahweh or whatever mythical being you could name.
> 
> Sagan quotes:
> 
> "If fulfilled prophecy is your criterion, why do you not believe in materialistic science, which has an unparalleled record of fulfilled prophecy? Consider, for example, eclipses.
> 
> Or;
> "The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sagan thought religion was stupid, because it is. He was pantheist, which is ontologically indistinct from atheism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong. Pantheism is completely different from Atheism.
> 
> I've been participating in this thread for months now. Defending human spirituality, defending God, deflecting unwarranted criticisms of my "religious" views. I've had people here mistake me for a Christian repeatedly, my sister who is a devout Christian, says I am an Atheist. I am more of a pantheist than Atheist, but I simply call myself a spiritualist.
> 
> I believe in a Spiritual God, not out of faith or want to believe, but because I sense the presence of it around me in my daily life and communicate with it regularly. I'm not going to deny that in order to be popular, nor am I going to arbitrarily assign humanistic attributes to it in order to conform to some religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes where pantheism includes beliefs in God that is different from any practice of atheism that rejects and excludes.
> 
> I think the issue is whether people take a nontheistic approach or theistic.
> Neither of those has to be a problem just because they are different.
> 
> What causes conflict is unequal exclusion or rejection instead of equal inclusion.
> Just becuse our views are different doesn't mean we have to reject the views of other people.
> 
> Remove the emotionalism from the equation, and we can get along despite our differences.
> Nothing wrong with religion, just the collective bullying and abuse which happens with politics also.
> 
> That behavior is what causes problems, not the religion per se. again if you
> remove the emotionalism, religions become neutral just like languages, and don't have
> to carry stigmas or grudges for or against other views. that part is coming from people
> being divided from each other by groups, similar to how racism is not caused by race but by people.
> 
> there is another factor going on besides just the religion that causes the religious abuses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're basically saying religion is like a gun.  It's not the gun it's the person holding the gun you gotta worry about.
> 
> Here is why you are wrong when you think...
> 
> 
> *God is the source of morality.*
> Morality is a cultural concept with a basis in evolutionary psychology and game theory. Species whose members were predisposed to cooperate were more likely to survive and pass on their genes. Reciprocacy, altruism and other so-called ‘moral’ characteristics are evident in many species. The neurochemical thought to regulate morality and empathy is oxytocin.
> 
> Religious texts are simply part of many early attempts to codify moral precepts. Secular law, flexible with the shifting moral zeitgeist, has long since superseded religion as a source of moral directives for the majority of developed societies. Secular ethics offers a number of competing moral frameworks which do not derive from a purported supernatural source.
> 
> The god character of the Bible is a misogynistic tyrant that condones and even orders the practice of slavery, rape of women and murder of children. The moment you disagree with a single instruction of the Bible, such as the command to kill any bride who is not a virgin or any child who disrespects their parents, then you acknowledge that there exists a superior standard by which to judge moral action and thus no need to rely on an ancient, primitive and barbaric fantasy.
> 
> _"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent._
> _Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent._
> _Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?_
> _Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”_ – Epicurus
Click to expand...


1. No, you cannot simply say that God is the source of morality because this doesn't explain why a Jihadist kills in the name of God but a Quaker will stand for abolition of slavery through peaceful legal and civil reforms.

2. I hold that the difference between people who abuse power or influence, whether religious or political, is based on
* fear versus love
* division and exclusion vs unity and inclusion
* scarcity mentality of competing with others vs abundance mentality of serving others
* unforgiveness and projecting blame punishment judgment and rejection on others vs. Forgiveness and seeking mutual coorection and restitution to restore good faith relations and health to all
* ill will and retribution vs. Good will and benefits to others

If you look at all cases of crime abuse corruption violence damages fraud misrepresentation bullying coercion etc,
You will find ill will fear and unforgiven conflicts as the common factor.

Not faith in God as explaining the bad.


----------



## emilynghiem

sealybobo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny if you look at my 1970's encyclopedia it says 98% of the people of Greece were Greek Orthodox.  First, do you really believe all 98% were really "christians" and believed in god?  Then you are gullible.  I know many Greek Americans who call themselves Greek Orthodox because they were born into it, but like me and you they don't really believe all the stories.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Greeks are basically the founders of western culture. We are products of that culture. The Greek philosophers brought the attribute of introspection, questioning of who we are and what we believe, what happens next. It is through that philosophy we have this self-centered belief system which enables us to consider various possibilities regarding Gods and Religions. Native Americans did not have that cultural underpinning. This point seems to be flying comfortably over your head as well as Moonbat's. We're talking about two completely different ways of thinking, schools of thought. Native Americans did not have introspection of self, things didn't revolve around the individual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for the indians.  If penalty was death, how can you know if anyone really believes or are they all just going along not to be tortured and killed by savage indians?  I'm sure some didn't really believe.  I have to believe as savage and barbaric as they were they had to have some phylosophers in the bunch.  I'm sure even some indians themselves feared savage indians from other tribes, or is that just stuff I saw in movies?  Looked like they would concur other tribes, kill the men and take their women.  They'd raise their babies though.  They were at least kind to children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did not say "the penalty was death" ...there was no penalty, it was not an issue. I explained how such an instance would have been handled in the event someone was kicked in the head by a horse or born without a normal brain, and didn't adhere to the Great Spirit. It wasn't something held over their heads... you're gonna 'believe' or we're gonna kill you! Again, you are thinking in western culture terms here and failing to grasp they had a different culture. From their perspective, this was not a "belief" but a truth that was unquestionable.
> 
> It is noted that you continue to disrespect these people by calling them "indians" when you've been told that is highly offensive. Apparently, your bigotry is blind and oblivious. As for savagery, they were no more savage than the Nordics or Mongolians. Yes, much of what you believe is due to myths spread by Hollywood.
> 
> 
> 
> You wouldn't survive one day with any Native American tribe. You'd start spewing your anti-God nonsense and you'd be history. The scant few white men who ever interacted with Native Americans had to be totally respectful of their spirituality. Somehow, I don't see your bigoted ass being able to pull that off. The Puritans, on the other hand, were able to cohabitate with them because they developed a mutual respect through spirit. For nearly a century, there was no problem between Native Americans and early settlers. Of course, there were some tribes who weren't hospitable, and didn't cotton to white men encroaching on their lands, but all-in-all, the early settlers had a generally good relationship with the Native Americans. We could not have ever colonized otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> I've not tried to prove God. I've also not stated that anything isn't real. You're a hypocrite. You claim the best and most rational position is "we don't know" but then you turn around and argue as if you DO know. This is typical of most bigots, they can't support their opinions but they believe their opinions are empirical and anyone who challenges them are wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> If you believe in Karma as you claimed you did several times, and are again tepidly claiming you do... then you are not an atheist or agnostic. You are spiritual, whether you realize it or not. You do believe in something greater than self, Karma. Now it seems to me, the only real difference between you and someone who believes in God is semantics and terminology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I do understand there is the non physical.  Have you ever taken a tuning rod and hit it and the guy across the room's rod starts making noise?  Telepathic stuff.  There is so much you and I don't know.  I watch these shows.  They aren't anti religion but they are scientific shows and just the facts and information they are giving always seems to innocently go against religion.  Thats when I understand why religion hates science.  But they back track and they are slick like you.  No matter how many things they have proved are not god when people thought they were, yet you guys continue to move the goal post.  God keeps getting smaller and smaller.  God of the gaps is what its called.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can go you one better... Look at the scientific study of atoms. An atom is the smallest form of matter, there are 237 quintillion atoms in a grain of sand. Each atom is comprised of a nucleus and the nucleus is orbited by electrons which define the atom. These electrons pop into and out of existence all the time, they can be at two places at the same time. This completely defies any concept of logic we understand in the physical world, yet at the molecular level, it is exactly what is happening with every atom in the universe, of which all matter consists. Can you explain that? I can't. Also... we can take atoms and collide them together, producing subatomic particles of all sorts. We've discovered tens of thousands of subatomic particles this way. It's like, each atom is a little surprise package of particles we've never seen before. Each of these particles has sometimes radically different properties enabling their atoms to do different things. For all intents and purposes, these are little tiny microscopic "miracles" happening on a regular basis to enable existence of everything we perceive as material in our universe. In other words, physical existence itself, is a spiritual miracle happening in real time.
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> so i guess i am the first native to answer this but i am sure i won't be the last. (we are still alive btw)
> 
> we do not worship as you know it. we give thanks. we believe the world and everything in it was created. after that fact there is NOTHING in common with christianity or any other religion. each nation has its own beliefs traditionally.
> 
> no we don't have gods. we don't even have one god. we acknowledge the spirit world. and past what i have said, there is nothing else i wish to share about my beliefs except that they are meant for me and the other people of my nation. they are not even for other natives. they have their own traditions.
> 
> we do not believe one belief is better than another..just better for us as a people.
> 
> you may have to rethink your whole idea that if it is good it must have something to do with your god. my experience is christianity brought nothing to us but death and suffering even into the 21st century. we live our beliefs. it is not lip service. you can see WHAT we believe by what we DO.
> 
> Best answer Boss!!!
> 
> Did Native Americans Indians believe in God
> 
> Clap
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great... You've just proven my point. I have never claimed that Native Americans believed in the Christian God. It is their culture which is centered on spirit and not self. Unlike western culture where individuals can have introspective thought and consider various possibilities regarding the spiritual, these people are tied directly to spirit and everything revolves around that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you have to realize that when it comes to debating someone who thinks like you, I'm an Agnostic Atheist.  But when it comes to any organized religion that claims they not only know god exists they also have stories about when he visited, I am an atheist.
> 
> But I truly do admit that I don't know if there is a god.  Do I think there is?  No.  Do I think there is a hell?  No.  But of course I don't know that either.  I'm just pretty sure that the real god if there is one, doesn't care if we believe.
> 
> Anyways, I still think you, the indians and everyone else who believe in god do so because you've been programmed to believe and because you want to believe.
> 
> As for splitting atoms, I'm sure a scientist could explain all that to you.  I sure can't.
> 
> Anyways, sorry I'm distracted.  My 94 year old grandmother is dying and my aunt just called.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear sealybobo: Sorry I just found this. I thought you had replied to my post on the article about secularism (atheism, liberalism, lack of response to Islamic abuses) but I couldn't find it.
> 
> Not sure if you and your family are still going through grief
> but belated sorry and sympathy for losing your grandmother.
> 
> thanks for taking the extra effort to keep up with msgs on here
> and I hope that gives you some relief and focus while going through these things.
> 
> thank you for sharing and continuing to reach out to others,
> and please take care!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love you sometimes.  Then sometimes I read things that make me think you lean right, but still you are a classy sweet kind nice woman for sure.  Sorry if I have ever offended you.  If I did and I'm sure I did you took it like a champ.  Just ignored any insults and moved on.  I wish I were able to be more like you.
> 
> Notice how I believe that even though I've never actually met you before?  You could be a big huge mean horrible man for all I know.  But based on the evidence I've seen, without actually knowing 100%, you seem like a wonderful woman.
> 
> I just see no evidence for a god or creator.  None that don't come without some fatal flaw.  Nor do I see the need for one.
> 
> No proof, no need.
> 
> *God is the universe/love/laws of physics.*
> We already have names for these things. Redefining something as ‘god’ tells us nothing. To use the word ‘god’ implies a host of other attributes and if you don’t intend to apply those attributes, using the word is intentionally misleading.
Click to expand...




sealybobo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny if you look at my 1970's encyclopedia it says 98% of the people of Greece were Greek Orthodox.  First, do you really believe all 98% were really "christians" and believed in god?  Then you are gullible.  I know many Greek Americans who call themselves Greek Orthodox because they were born into it, but like me and you they don't really believe all the stories.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Greeks are basically the founders of western culture. We are products of that culture. The Greek philosophers brought the attribute of introspection, questioning of who we are and what we believe, what happens next. It is through that philosophy we have this self-centered belief system which enables us to consider various possibilities regarding Gods and Religions. Native Americans did not have that cultural underpinning. This point seems to be flying comfortably over your head as well as Moonbat's. We're talking about two completely different ways of thinking, schools of thought. Native Americans did not have introspection of self, things didn't revolve around the individual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for the indians.  If penalty was death, how can you know if anyone really believes or are they all just going along not to be tortured and killed by savage indians?  I'm sure some didn't really believe.  I have to believe as savage and barbaric as they were they had to have some phylosophers in the bunch.  I'm sure even some indians themselves feared savage indians from other tribes, or is that just stuff I saw in movies?  Looked like they would concur other tribes, kill the men and take their women.  They'd raise their babies though.  They were at least kind to children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did not say "the penalty was death" ...there was no penalty, it was not an issue. I explained how such an instance would have been handled in the event someone was kicked in the head by a horse or born without a normal brain, and didn't adhere to the Great Spirit. It wasn't something held over their heads... you're gonna 'believe' or we're gonna kill you! Again, you are thinking in western culture terms here and failing to grasp they had a different culture. From their perspective, this was not a "belief" but a truth that was unquestionable.
> 
> It is noted that you continue to disrespect these people by calling them "indians" when you've been told that is highly offensive. Apparently, your bigotry is blind and oblivious. As for savagery, they were no more savage than the Nordics or Mongolians. Yes, much of what you believe is due to myths spread by Hollywood.
> 
> 
> 
> You wouldn't survive one day with any Native American tribe. You'd start spewing your anti-God nonsense and you'd be history. The scant few white men who ever interacted with Native Americans had to be totally respectful of their spirituality. Somehow, I don't see your bigoted ass being able to pull that off. The Puritans, on the other hand, were able to cohabitate with them because they developed a mutual respect through spirit. For nearly a century, there was no problem between Native Americans and early settlers. Of course, there were some tribes who weren't hospitable, and didn't cotton to white men encroaching on their lands, but all-in-all, the early settlers had a generally good relationship with the Native Americans. We could not have ever colonized otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> I've not tried to prove God. I've also not stated that anything isn't real. You're a hypocrite. You claim the best and most rational position is "we don't know" but then you turn around and argue as if you DO know. This is typical of most bigots, they can't support their opinions but they believe their opinions are empirical and anyone who challenges them are wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> If you believe in Karma as you claimed you did several times, and are again tepidly claiming you do... then you are not an atheist or agnostic. You are spiritual, whether you realize it or not. You do believe in something greater than self, Karma. Now it seems to me, the only real difference between you and someone who believes in God is semantics and terminology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I do understand there is the non physical.  Have you ever taken a tuning rod and hit it and the guy across the room's rod starts making noise?  Telepathic stuff.  There is so much you and I don't know.  I watch these shows.  They aren't anti religion but they are scientific shows and just the facts and information they are giving always seems to innocently go against religion.  Thats when I understand why religion hates science.  But they back track and they are slick like you.  No matter how many things they have proved are not god when people thought they were, yet you guys continue to move the goal post.  God keeps getting smaller and smaller.  God of the gaps is what its called.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can go you one better... Look at the scientific study of atoms. An atom is the smallest form of matter, there are 237 quintillion atoms in a grain of sand. Each atom is comprised of a nucleus and the nucleus is orbited by electrons which define the atom. These electrons pop into and out of existence all the time, they can be at two places at the same time. This completely defies any concept of logic we understand in the physical world, yet at the molecular level, it is exactly what is happening with every atom in the universe, of which all matter consists. Can you explain that? I can't. Also... we can take atoms and collide them together, producing subatomic particles of all sorts. We've discovered tens of thousands of subatomic particles this way. It's like, each atom is a little surprise package of particles we've never seen before. Each of these particles has sometimes radically different properties enabling their atoms to do different things. For all intents and purposes, these are little tiny microscopic "miracles" happening on a regular basis to enable existence of everything we perceive as material in our universe. In other words, physical existence itself, is a spiritual miracle happening in real time.
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> so i guess i am the first native to answer this but i am sure i won't be the last. (we are still alive btw)
> 
> we do not worship as you know it. we give thanks. we believe the world and everything in it was created. after that fact there is NOTHING in common with christianity or any other religion. each nation has its own beliefs traditionally.
> 
> no we don't have gods. we don't even have one god. we acknowledge the spirit world. and past what i have said, there is nothing else i wish to share about my beliefs except that they are meant for me and the other people of my nation. they are not even for other natives. they have their own traditions.
> 
> we do not believe one belief is better than another..just better for us as a people.
> 
> you may have to rethink your whole idea that if it is good it must have something to do with your god. my experience is christianity brought nothing to us but death and suffering even into the 21st century. we live our beliefs. it is not lip service. you can see WHAT we believe by what we DO.
> 
> Best answer Boss!!!
> 
> Did Native Americans Indians believe in God
> 
> Clap
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great... You've just proven my point. I have never claimed that Native Americans believed in the Christian God. It is their culture which is centered on spirit and not self. Unlike western culture where individuals can have introspective thought and consider various possibilities regarding the spiritual, these people are tied directly to spirit and everything revolves around that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you have to realize that when it comes to debating someone who thinks like you, I'm an Agnostic Atheist.  But when it comes to any organized religion that claims they not only know god exists they also have stories about when he visited, I am an atheist.
> 
> But I truly do admit that I don't know if there is a god.  Do I think there is?  No.  Do I think there is a hell?  No.  But of course I don't know that either.  I'm just pretty sure that the real god if there is one, doesn't care if we believe.
> 
> Anyways, I still think you, the indians and everyone else who believe in god do so because you've been programmed to believe and because you want to believe.
> 
> As for splitting atoms, I'm sure a scientist could explain all that to you.  I sure can't.
> 
> Anyways, sorry I'm distracted.  My 94 year old grandmother is dying and my aunt just called.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear sealybobo: Sorry I just found this. I thought you had replied to my post on the article about secularism (atheism, liberalism, lack of response to Islamic abuses) but I couldn't find it.
> 
> Not sure if you and your family are still going through grief
> but belated sorry and sympathy for losing your grandmother.
> 
> thanks for taking the extra effort to keep up with msgs on here
> and I hope that gives you some relief and focus while going through these things.
> 
> thank you for sharing and continuing to reach out to others,
> and please take care!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love you sometimes.  Then sometimes I read things that make me think you lean right, but still you are a classy sweet kind nice woman for sure.  Sorry if I have ever offended you.  If I did and I'm sure I did you took it like a champ.  Just ignored any insults and moved on.  I wish I were able to be more like you.
> 
> Notice how I believe that even though I've never actually met you before?  You could be a big huge mean horrible man for all I know.  But based on the evidence I've seen, without actually knowing 100%, you seem like a wonderful woman.
> 
> I just see no evidence for a god or creator.  None that don't come without some fatal flaw.  Nor do I see the need for one.
> 
> No proof, no need.
> 
> *God is the universe/love/laws of physics.*
> We already have names for these things. Redefining something as ‘god’ tells us nothing. To use the word ‘god’ implies a host of other attributes and if you don’t intend to apply those attributes, using the word is intentionally misleading.
Click to expand...


2. RE: using the word God:
sure, as long as we agree that those things are what we mean good about God, then we can agree what we are talking about. We don't have to use words that don't mean the same to people, which causes unneeded conflict.

1. regarding your personal message, wow, I am very touched and encouraged by your words. this tells me that despite differences online, the stronger connection is coming through that is positive and loving, so I am encouraged by this.

Thank you sealybobo that is very sweet and kind.

I think it is natural to feel love and connection with others, as the default setting on humanity.
And it is all this other crap that has been programmed on top, for our own protection, to learn how to assess and judge.

I may get frustrated, with trying to discuss complex subtle connotations and interpretations online with sensitive subjects of religion and politics, but generally do not get offended.

If you totally contradict yourself, I will let you know, and there will be "no question" if I have an issue.
I will talk about it until we work it out and I will consider it half my responsibility, and my failure if I cannot explain it well enough to resolve it, I consider it my fault.
If something is the truth, it should be clear by the person's own words and terms, or else I am not communicating clearly.

So no you have not offended me, and I have pointed out where I felt there was a contradiction which is not something to blame anyone for;
but just like math, the conflict needs to be uncovered and fixed so we are on the same page with consistent points and aren't talking past each other.

With you, it is probably terminology, that you happen to associate negative things with the same terms I see as neutral or implying positive things.
That is not your fault if you make these associations, everyone does that because of past experiences.

But it does show me where there is emotional bias from past issues unresolved or unforgiven.
So I hope to locate where such biases come from and neutralize the negative associations.
Being neutral still allows us to discuss the BAD attributes tied to God, Jesus, religion, Bible, Christianity etc.
So it is not like denying these things have been abused, whichof course history speaks to as you point out.
But it is not feasible to emotionally attach negative biases to these words
and expect to communicate with people who don't have that.
Either we need to agree on neutral terms or undo some of the negative conditioning.
Anyway I hope that sharing forgiveness towards these ills WILL remove that negative spin
and allow greater connection on teh positive principles we share in common.
I believe that is the default, the natural love that connects people.
Of course you have this, and thank you for sharing it in such kind words of encouragement.
Tome that connection is what it means to feel God's love,
you do not know me yet you have faith in that positive love.
So forgiveness allows you to feel that when there is all this negative things you could have focused on instead.
but you feel the positive. that is what it means to overcome ill with love.
that is the meaning and message in Christianity, so you have this naturally by Conscience. This is very reassuring and I am grateful and humbled.

Thank you sealybobo for sharing such compassionate thoughts and concerns.
Hugs to you from Houston
and may these same positive connections catch on
and multiply!

Yours truly,
Love, Emily


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are just lying. To ask if I am "BACK" on crack is to insult me as a drug addict, as if the logical genius you pretend to be wouldn't know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, when you come up with some convoluted load of horse shit to try and spin something around and make an impossible point, you should expect people to think you are back on the crack again. I didn't say you were a drug addict, I don't know you. I hope you're not and I encourage you to not do crack before you post.
> 
> Back to the point... Most humans believe in something greater than self and always have. Most religious people also believe in something greater than self. AND... even a majority of Atheist people admit that it's possible something greater than self can exist. In fact, only about 5% of the human species are Nihilistic and believe in nothing.
Click to expand...


atheism – which is typically seen as a modern phenomenon – was not just common in ancient Greece and pre-Christian Rome, but probably flourished more in those societies than in most civilizations since.

As a result, the study challenges two assumptions that prop up current debates between atheists and believers: Firstly, the idea that atheism is a modern point of view, and second, the idea of “religious universalism” – that humans are naturally predisposed, or “wired”, to believe in gods.

People in the ancient world did not always believe in the gods, a new study suggests – casting doubt on the idea that religious belief is a “default setting” for humans.

Disbelieve it or not, ancient history suggests that atheism is as natural to humans as religion


----------



## Montrovant

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are just lying. To ask if I am "BACK" on crack is to insult me as a drug addict, as if the logical genius you pretend to be wouldn't know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, when you come up with some convoluted load of horse shit to try and spin something around and make an impossible point, you should expect people to think you are back on the crack again. I didn't say you were a drug addict, I don't know you. I hope you're not and I encourage you to not do crack before you post.
> 
> Back to the point... Most humans believe in something greater than self and always have. Most religious people also believe in something greater than self. AND... even a majority of Atheist people admit that it's possible something greater than self can exist. In fact, only about 5% of the human species are Nihilistic and believe in nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> atheism – which is typically seen as a modern phenomenon – was not just common in ancient Greece and pre-Christian Rome, but probably flourished more in those societies than in most civilizations since.
> 
> As a result, the study challenges two assumptions that prop up current debates between atheists and believers: Firstly, the idea that atheism is a modern point of view, and second, the idea of “religious universalism” – that humans are naturally predisposed, or “wired”, to believe in gods.
> 
> People in the ancient world did not always believe in the gods, a new study suggests – casting doubt on the idea that religious belief is a “default setting” for humans.
> 
> Disbelieve it or not, ancient history suggests that atheism is as natural to humans as religion
Click to expand...


It seems reasonable to me that there have always been people who disbelieved the religious or spiritual beliefs of their cultures.  However, belief may still be something people are naturally predisposed to consider the preponderance of professed believers, even if there is a small minority of those who do not believe.


----------



## JimBowie1958

Montrovant said:


> It seems reasonable to me that there have always been people who disbelieved the religious or spiritual beliefs of their cultures.  However, belief may still be something people are naturally predisposed to consider the preponderance of professed believers, even if there is a small minority of those who do not believe.


But through most of human history that disbelief was illegal and the idiots kept it to themselves.


----------



## Vandalshandle

I think that god lost a lot of his mojo when he stopped demanding that people kill animals as sacrifices. People began to lose respect.


----------



## Mudda

Boss said:


> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.


Bossy, when I turn out a light, and I turning off your god of electricity? What about when a bulb burns out, is he frustrated?


----------



## Boss

Mudda said:


> Bossy, when I turn out a light, and I turning off your god of electricity? What about when a bulb burns out, is he frustrated?



Well no, when a bulb burns out it's because the filament deteriorated and could no longer conduct the flow of electricity to produce illumination. I don't believe in a God who becomes frustrated.... that's counter-intuitive to an omnipotent and omniscient force. If you stick your finger in a light socket and get shocked, it's not because electricity intends to punish you for doing wrong. If you strap someone to a chair and attach electrodes to them in order to put them to death, the electricity is not going to become angry at you for doing something wicked with it. Electricity is a force that doesn't have humanistic attributes... it doesn't love or hate... it doesn't get angry or spiteful... it doesn't need to. It's simply there to use for your benefit if you so desire... or you can be like the Amish and Mennonites and chose to not use it for your benefit... you have free will. 

The power of God is much the same way, it is there for you to use and some people may even use it to perpetrate evil on humanity... such is the case with religious zealots like radical Islam. Organized religions are merely human constructs devised to utilize our spiritual connections. The fact they have existed for a very long time is merely evidence that our spiritual connections are powerful and not imaginary. If this spiritual connection were a figment of imagination, providing no useful benefit to the species, we would have discarded the attribute through the course of evolution according to Darwin himself. 

Now some will argue, how can we "believe" in something we can't physically prove... but we believe things we cannot prove all the time. For instance, the electrons revolving around the nucleus of an atom... we don't know where they are at any given point in time. They can exist in two places at the same time or exist in no place at any time. Our most fundamental elements of nature refuse to allow us to measure them. (Uncertainty Principle) This defies physics as we know it but we have to believe it because that's what we observe. Light behaves as waves whenever we aren't observing it and when we observe it, it behaves like particles.... again, this seems to defy physics but we must believe it because it's what we've observed. We can't explain why this is... it just is. And this is often what we've discovered in science.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.


It just dawned on me. We persist because you claim to have the answers to questions we all agree we don't really know.

1. Where did we come from?
2. How did we get here?
3. What is the purpose of life?
4. Is there a creator?
5. What happens when we die?

I love living in a free society where we don't have to all be indoctrinated with a Muslim Jewish Mormon or Christian fairytale that claims to know the answers to these questions. Is that so hard to understand?


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> It just dawned on me. We persist because you claim to have the answers to questions we all agree we don't really know.
> 
> 1. Where did we come from?
> 2. How did we get here?
> 3. What is the purpose of life?
> 4. Is there a creator?
> 5. What happens when we die?
> 
> I love living in a free society where we don't have to all be indoctrinated with a Muslim Jewish Mormon or Christian fairytale that claims to know the answers to these questions. Is that so hard to understand?



If we all agreed there wouldn't be these never-ending threads. It appears that is exactly what we don't do... agree. You don't want to accept any view other than one that purports to have no answer... yet you seem to want to promote your non-answer as an answer. You've never answered any of the questions you posed but you always want to claim you have... and you want to exploit science to back you up... that's the part I have a problem with. 

Yes, we are fortunate to live in a free society where you can believe whatever you please... I have no problem with that... this isn't about our faith in beliefs. When it comes down to it, everything in reality including reality itself is a faith in belief. 

In what way have I tried to indoctrinate you? In all the threads we've had this same debate, what have I ever said that you consider me trying to indoctrinate you? I don't care what you believe. I'm only here to challenge you when you make erroneous claims about God being a fairy tale or figment of imagination. You can have that belief but you're not going to assert it as a fact.


----------



## vasuderatorrent

1. Where did we come from? A vagina
2. How did we get here? Sex
3. What is the purpose of life? I'm not sure.  Give me a few years.
4. Is there a creator? No
5. What happens when we die? Rotting

4 out of 5 ain't bad.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It just dawned on me. We persist because you claim to have the answers to questions we all agree we don't really know.
> 
> 1. Where did we come from?
> 2. How did we get here?
> 3. What is the purpose of life?
> 4. Is there a creator?
> 5. What happens when we die?
> 
> I love living in a free society where we don't have to all be indoctrinated with a Muslim Jewish Mormon or Christian fairytale that claims to know the answers to these questions. Is that so hard to understand?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we all agreed there wouldn't be these never-ending threads. It appears that is exactly what we don't do... agree. You don't want to accept any view other than one that purports to have no answer... yet you seem to want to promote your non-answer as an answer. You've never answered any of the questions you posed but you always want to claim you have... and you want to exploit science to back you up... that's the part I have a problem with.
> 
> Yes, we are fortunate to live in a free society where you can believe whatever you please... I have no problem with that... this isn't about our faith in beliefs. When it comes down to it, everything in reality including reality itself is a faith in belief.
> 
> In what way have I tried to indoctrinate you? In all the threads we've had this same debate, what have I ever said that you consider me trying to indoctrinate you? I don't care what you believe. I'm only here to challenge you when you make erroneous claims about God being a fairy tale or figment of imagination. You can have that belief but you're not going to assert it as a fact.
Click to expand...

Science doesn't claim to know the answers to the questions I asked. I didn't either. You did. And I don't care what you believe don't try to pass stories off as fact. You believe for philosophical reasons not because he sent his son or talked to moses


----------



## vasuderatorrent

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It just dawned on me. We persist because you claim to have the answers to questions we all agree we don't really know.
> 
> 1. Where did we come from?
> 2. How did we get here?
> 3. What is the purpose of life?
> 4. Is there a creator?
> 5. What happens when we die?
> 
> I love living in a free society where we don't have to all be indoctrinated with a Muslim Jewish Mormon or Christian fairytale that claims to know the answers to these questions. Is that so hard to understand?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we all agreed there wouldn't be these never-ending threads. It appears that is exactly what we don't do... agree. You don't want to accept any view other than one that purports to have no answer... yet you seem to want to promote your non-answer as an answer. You've never answered any of the questions you posed but you always want to claim you have... and you want to exploit science to back you up... that's the part I have a problem with.
> 
> Yes, we are fortunate to live in a free society where you can believe whatever you please... I have no problem with that... this isn't about our faith in beliefs. When it comes down to it, everything in reality including reality itself is a faith in belief.
> 
> In what way have I tried to indoctrinate you? In all the threads we've had this same debate, what have I ever said that you consider me trying to indoctrinate you? I don't care what you believe. I'm only here to challenge you when you make erroneous claims about God being a fairy tale or figment of imagination. You can have that belief but you're not going to assert it as a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Science doesn't claim to know the answers to the questions I asked. I didn't either. You did. And I don't care what you believe don't try to pass stories off as fact. You believe for philosophical reasons not because he sent his son or talked to moses
Click to expand...


I know 4 out of 5 of the questions that you asked.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Science doesn't claim to know the answers to the questions I asked. I didn't either. You did. And I don't care what you believe don't try to pass stories off as fact. You believe for philosophical reasons not because he sent his son or talked to moses



No, I believe what I believe because logic dictates there is no other option. We obviously came from something... we exist. Physical nature cannot create itself.... it's a paradox. Physical matter cannot create itself... it's a paradox. Physical energy cannot create itself... it's a paradox. All of it necessitates some metaphysical force to initiate a physical universe. There is no other logical explanation. 

Now, when you speak of "stories" and "sending sons and talking to moses" ...those are religious beliefs. I am not a religious person. We've been through this dozens and dozens of times and you just keep going back to it for some reason. I don't try to pass off stories as fact... never have, never will... you won't find a single post by me in that regard... yet here you are, making that false claim about me. It is this kind of dishonesty with you that frustrates me. 

I am a Spiritualist. I believe in a universal spiritual force. And I use the word "believe" loosely because I have personal evidence that proves it to me, if I didn't, I couldn't believe it. I can accept very little on blind faith, that's why I am not a Christian. I have nothing against Christians, they are often very good people with the best of intentions. I just don't have their faith in the same God. And hey... they may be absolutely right... I don't know. All I can go by is what I know. Nothing you will ever say to me is going to change that.


----------



## Boss

vasuderatorrent said:


> I know 4 out of 5 of the questions that you asked.



No you don't. You took everything out of context and made a smart assed reply. It took less than two brain cells to do that.


----------



## vasuderatorrent

Boss said:


> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know 4 out of 5 of the questions that you asked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you don't. You took everything out of context and made a smart assed reply. It took less than two brain cells to do that.
Click to expand...


Do you have better answers?

1. Where did we come from?
2. How did we get here?
3. What is the purpose of life?
4. Is there a creator?
5. What happens when we die?

4 out of 5 of my answers were 100% factual. With the third question I was just sort of making a smart ass reply and taking things out of context.  It only took one and a half brain cells to answer question number 3.

The other 4 were correct to the best of my knowledge and observation.  However if I answered them incorrectly I'd be interested in hearing the correct answers from you or anybody else.


----------



## sealybobo

vasuderatorrent said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know 4 out of 5 of the questions that you asked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you don't. You took everything out of context and made a smart assed reply. It took less than two brain cells to do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have better answers?
> 
> 1. Where did we come from?
> 2. How did we get here?
> 3. What is the purpose of life?
> 4. Is there a creator?
> 5. What happens when we die?
> 
> 4 out of 5 of my answers were 100% factual. With the third question I was just sort of making a smart ass reply and taking things out of context.  It only took one and a half brain cells to answer question number 3.
> 
> The other 4 were correct to the best of my knowledge and observation.  However if I answered them incorrectly I'd be interested in hearing the correct answers from you or anybody else.
Click to expand...

You have a point. We know how we got here. We know how the planets and stars got started. At least we think we do. But we don't know how life got started on earth. And we don't know what was before the big bang.

But what we do know is time and space are infinite and eternal. It's obvious. It's logical. There is no need for a creator. The creation is eternal. No God necessary to create what has always existed.

Why can this God be eternal but time and space can't?


----------



## vasuderatorrent

sealybobo said:


> You have a point. We know how we got here. We know how the planets and stars got started. At least we think we do. But we don't know how life got started on earth. And we don't know what was before the big bang.
> 
> But what we do know is time and space are infinite and eternal. It's obvious. It's logical. There is no need for a creator. The creation is eternal. No God necessary to create what has always existed.
> 
> Why can this God be eternal but time and space can't?



Have you heard that theory that nothing exists?  I can't find the youtube video that I seen that explains the theory. The scientist explains the evidence that there is an equal number of positive energy and negative energy.  Even if the universe continues to expand the amount of positive and negative energy remain equal.

5 positive energy - 5 negative energy = 0 or nothing

Nothing existing does make more sense than something existing.  Our observation tells us that this is impossible because we see things that exist.  It could be that we are only seeing the positive energy.  The negative energy is elsewhere in the universe.  Therefore we do exist but the universe as a whole doesn't exist.  It sounds silly but makes sense.  The logical flaw I see is that it is based on the premise that there is an equal amount of negative energy and positive energy.  I don't know how that would be determined or calculated.  It probably wasn't.


----------



## Boss

vasuderatorrent said:


> Do you have better answers?
> 
> 1. Where did we come from?
> 2. How did we get here?
> 3. What is the purpose of life?
> 4. Is there a creator?
> 5. What happens when we die?
> 
> 4 out of 5 of my answers were 100% factual. With the third question I was just sort of making a smart ass reply and taking things out of context. It only took one and a half brain cells to answer question number 3.
> 
> The other 4 were correct to the best of my knowledge and observation. However if I answered them incorrectly I'd be interested in hearing the correct answers from you or anybody else.



Well let's go through your answers. 1) Where did we come from? Your answer was "a vagina." You don't think that was a smart assed reply taking the question completely out of context? Then you're a moron or retard. Obviously, the context was... where did life, the universe, physical existence, come from? 2) How did we get here? Your answer: "Sex!"  Again... a smart assed reply taking the question out of context. We're not talking about how you were reproduced. 3) You didn't answer, and 4 & 5 you gave your rhetorical opinion without any explanation. 

Like I said, it took less than two brain cells to make your reply. It's not even worthy an intelligent response other than to advise you to stay out of adult conversations. 

If you want to know what I think, read the thread, I've explained it all throughout. If you happen to gain some maturity and wish to engage in adult conversation about the topic, then by all means, do so. Otherwise, you should keep your trap shut because you're just going to be embarrassed and humiliated as a moron.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> You have a point. We know how we got here. We know how the planets and stars got started. At least we think we do. But we don't know how life got started on earth. And we don't know what was before the big bang.
> 
> But what we do know is time and space are infinite and eternal. It's obvious. It's logical. There is no need for a creator. The creation is eternal. No God necessary to create what has always existed.
> 
> Why can this God be eternal but time and space can't?


*You have a point.*
His only point was to be a smart ass. 

*We know how we got here. We know how the planets and stars got started.*
No... We really don't know. You can't explain it with physics because physics cannot create physics. 

*But what we do know is time and space are infinite and eternal.*
No we don't. 

*It's obvious. It's logical.*
No, it's not obvious or logical. It's quite impossible according to physics. 

*Why can this God be eternal but time and space can't?*
Because of the Laws of Thermodynamics. Because of Newtonian Laws of Motion. Because of Einstein's Theory of General and Special Relativity. We know the universe had a beginning and will have an ending... physics proves this. 

The concepts of eternal and infinite are philosophical. They are not physical concepts, thus, are metaphysical. The concept of God is also philosophical and not physical. To believe in an eternal and infinite universe is to believe in God. It's merely a different way to express the same concepts.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have a point. We know how we got here. We know how the planets and stars got started. At least we think we do. But we don't know how life got started on earth. And we don't know what was before the big bang.
> 
> But what we do know is time and space are infinite and eternal. It's obvious. It's logical. There is no need for a creator. The creation is eternal. No God necessary to create what has always existed.
> 
> Why can this God be eternal but time and space can't?
> 
> 
> 
> *You have a point.*
> His only point was to be a smart ass.
> 
> *We know how we got here. We know how the planets and stars got started.*
> No... We really don't know. You can't explain it with physics because physics cannot create physics.
> 
> *But what we do know is time and space are infinite and eternal.*
> No we don't.
> 
> *It's obvious. It's logical.*
> No, it's not obvious or logical. It's quite impossible according to physics.
> 
> *Why can this God be eternal but time and space can't?*
> Because of the Laws of Thermodynamics. Because of Newtonian Laws of Motion. Because of Einstein's Theory of General and Special Relativity. We know the universe had a beginning and will have an ending... physics proves this.
> 
> The concepts of eternal and infinite are philosophical. They are not physical concepts, thus, are metaphysical. The concept of God is also philosophical and not physical. To believe in an eternal and infinite universe is to believe in God. It's merely a different way to express the same concepts.
Click to expand...


All is resolved by retreat to Bossy's Law:

"..... because I say so".


----------



## Boss

vasuderatorrent said:


> Have you heard that theory that nothing exists?



Einstein once said: "Reality is an illusion albeit a persistent one." He is talking about this very thing. Everything we perceive as reality has already happened. It's impossible for mortal humans to have a true realization of present time because physics must happen first. We have a *perception* of what we *assume* to be present time. If you look at yourself in the mirror, you assume that is you in the present but it's not.... it's you a nanosecond ago. Light had to travel, it bounced off you, reflected in the mirror, returned to your eye, was processed by your brain through the optic nerve and became a perception.... all of that took some amount of time to happen. So everything you observe has already happened. We cannot directly observe the present. 

Time itself is problematic... The past no longer exists... the future is yet to exist and the present takes no time at all... so does time really exist? We have a perception of something and we assume it is the present time... in other words, we have faith in reality's existence.


----------



## hobelim

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have a point. We know how we got here. We know how the planets and stars got started. At least we think we do. But we don't know how life got started on earth. And we don't know what was before the big bang.
> 
> But what we do know is time and space are infinite and eternal. It's obvious. It's logical. There is no need for a creator. The creation is eternal. No God necessary to create what has always existed.
> 
> Why can this God be eternal but time and space can't?
> 
> 
> 
> *You have a point.*
> His only point was to be a smart ass.
> 
> *We know how we got here. We know how the planets and stars got started.*
> No... We really don't know. You can't explain it with physics because physics cannot create physics.
> 
> *But what we do know is time and space are infinite and eternal.*
> No we don't.
> 
> *It's obvious. It's logical.*
> No, it's not obvious or logical. It's quite impossible according to physics.
> 
> *Why can this God be eternal but time and space can't?*
> Because of the Laws of Thermodynamics. Because of Newtonian Laws of Motion. Because of Einstein's Theory of General and Special Relativity. We know the universe had a beginning and will have an ending... physics proves this.
> 
> The concepts of eternal and infinite are philosophical. They are not physical concepts, thus, are metaphysical. The concept of God is also philosophical and not physical. To believe in an eternal and infinite universe is to believe in God. It's merely a different way to express the same concepts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All is resolved by retreat to Bossy's Law:
> 
> "..... because I say so".
Click to expand...



He does make certain points though. It is true that for the past thousands of years people have expressed a belief in something, gods, etc. He says its because humans are hardwired to believe even though its obvious that the instinct to survive is what is hard wired and people have expressed a belief in gods because if they didn't they,  and sometimes even their entire family,  were executed.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have a point. We know how we got here. We know how the planets and stars got started. At least we think we do. But we don't know how life got started on earth. And we don't know what was before the big bang.
> 
> But what we do know is time and space are infinite and eternal. It's obvious. It's logical. There is no need for a creator. The creation is eternal. No God necessary to create what has always existed.
> 
> Why can this God be eternal but time and space can't?
> 
> 
> 
> *You have a point.*
> His only point was to be a smart ass.
> 
> *We know how we got here. We know how the planets and stars got started.*
> No... We really don't know. You can't explain it with physics because physics cannot create physics.
> 
> *But what we do know is time and space are infinite and eternal.*
> No we don't.
> 
> *It's obvious. It's logical.*
> No, it's not obvious or logical. It's quite impossible according to physics.
> 
> *Why can this God be eternal but time and space can't?*
> Because of the Laws of Thermodynamics. Because of Newtonian Laws of Motion. Because of Einstein's Theory of General and Special Relativity. We know the universe had a beginning and will have an ending... physics proves this.
> 
> The concepts of eternal and infinite are philosophical. They are not physical concepts, thus, are metaphysical. The concept of God is also philosophical and not physical. To believe in an eternal and infinite universe is to believe in God. It's merely a different way to express the same concepts.
Click to expand...


This/you are just ridiculous really.  You think there was a beginning of time?  That's how small you think.  Sure there was a beginning of time for our universe, but make no mistake that time existed long before our universe got started.  We just have no way of measuring it.  Sucks to suck.  But just because you suck doesn't mean time didn't exist just because your brain can't wrap your brain around it.  

Amazing that you think before our universe a god existed but time did not.  You can accept that god is eternal but not time.  Sorry boss but there is no need for an eternal god.  We have eternal time and space.  Deal with it.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you heard that theory that nothing exists?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Einstein once said: "Reality is an illusion albeit a persistent one." He is talking about this very thing. Everything we perceive as reality has already happened. It's impossible for mortal humans to have a true realization of present time because physics must happen first. We have a *perception* of what we *assume* to be present time. If you look at yourself in the mirror, you assume that is you in the present but it's not.... it's you a nanosecond ago. Light had to travel, it bounced off you, reflected in the mirror, returned to your eye, was processed by your brain through the optic nerve and became a perception.... all of that took some amount of time to happen. So everything you observe has already happened. We cannot directly observe the present.
> 
> Time itself is problematic... The past no longer exists... the future is yet to exist and the present takes no time at all... so does time really exist? We have a perception of something and we assume it is the present time... in other words, we have faith in reality's existence.
Click to expand...


I don't have a problem with time.  Isn't that funny the guy who has a problem with god has no problem with time and the guy who has no problem with god has a problem with time.


----------



## sealybobo

hobelim said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have a point. We know how we got here. We know how the planets and stars got started. At least we think we do. But we don't know how life got started on earth. And we don't know what was before the big bang.
> 
> But what we do know is time and space are infinite and eternal. It's obvious. It's logical. There is no need for a creator. The creation is eternal. No God necessary to create what has always existed.
> 
> Why can this God be eternal but time and space can't?
> 
> 
> 
> *You have a point.*
> His only point was to be a smart ass.
> 
> *We know how we got here. We know how the planets and stars got started.*
> No... We really don't know. You can't explain it with physics because physics cannot create physics.
> 
> *But what we do know is time and space are infinite and eternal.*
> No we don't.
> 
> *It's obvious. It's logical.*
> No, it's not obvious or logical. It's quite impossible according to physics.
> 
> *Why can this God be eternal but time and space can't?*
> Because of the Laws of Thermodynamics. Because of Newtonian Laws of Motion. Because of Einstein's Theory of General and Special Relativity. We know the universe had a beginning and will have an ending... physics proves this.
> 
> The concepts of eternal and infinite are philosophical. They are not physical concepts, thus, are metaphysical. The concept of God is also philosophical and not physical. To believe in an eternal and infinite universe is to believe in God. It's merely a different way to express the same concepts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All is resolved by retreat to Bossy's Law:
> 
> "..... because I say so".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He does make certain points though. It is true that for the past thousands of years people have expressed a belief in something, gods, etc. He says its because humans are hardwired to believe even though its obvious that the instinct to survive is what is hard wired and people have expressed a belief in gods because if they didn't they,  and sometimes even their entire family,  were executed.
Click to expand...

I told my nephew a friend of mine is an atheist and my nephew said he doesn't like him then.  Do you think I told him I too am an atheist?  Nope.  Because he's only 14.  When he turns 18 I'll tell him what a fucking brainwashed idiot he was at 14.  Religious people put a lot of pressure on the rest of us.  Especially when someone dies.  Do I really have to sit and stand when the priest says?  Do I have to make the sign of the cross when everyone else does?  If I don't, why didn't I?  I feel like Colin Kapernick not standing for the national anthem.  LOL.


----------



## Hollie

hobelim said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have a point. We know how we got here. We know how the planets and stars got started. At least we think we do. But we don't know how life got started on earth. And we don't know what was before the big bang.
> 
> But what we do know is time and space are infinite and eternal. It's obvious. It's logical. There is no need for a creator. The creation is eternal. No God necessary to create what has always existed.
> 
> Why can this God be eternal but time and space can't?
> 
> 
> 
> *You have a point.*
> His only point was to be a smart ass.
> 
> *We know how we got here. We know how the planets and stars got started.*
> No... We really don't know. You can't explain it with physics because physics cannot create physics.
> 
> *But what we do know is time and space are infinite and eternal.*
> No we don't.
> 
> *It's obvious. It's logical.*
> No, it's not obvious or logical. It's quite impossible according to physics.
> 
> *Why can this God be eternal but time and space can't?*
> Because of the Laws of Thermodynamics. Because of Newtonian Laws of Motion. Because of Einstein's Theory of General and Special Relativity. We know the universe had a beginning and will have an ending... physics proves this.
> 
> The concepts of eternal and infinite are philosophical. They are not physical concepts, thus, are metaphysical. The concept of God is also philosophical and not physical. To believe in an eternal and infinite universe is to believe in God. It's merely a different way to express the same concepts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All is resolved by retreat to Bossy's Law:
> 
> "..... because I say so".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He does make certain points though. It is true that for the past thousands of years people have expressed a belief in something, gods, etc. He says its because humans are hardwired to believe even though its obvious that the instinct to survive is what is hard wired and people have expressed a belief in gods because if they didn't they,  and sometimes even their entire family,  were executed.
Click to expand...

I think his "point" is malformed. In a historical (hysterical) sense,  everyone's concept of gods comes from various books written by men. It's just so convenient that the various gods display all the attributes of humanity (our wants, desires, frailties, fears and superstitions). Humans have, for much of their tenure on earth, invented many gods to explain what they didn't understand so such projections of spirit worlds as delineated by the currently configured gods are no exception. Specific religions merely evidence cultural bias, a predilection for organization, sanctioned approved behavior, etc. For example, the angry, spiteful god of the OT became a very different fellow by the time he was incorporated into Christianity.  People always get religion wrong because they are fallible humans.

These human defined religions configured around human defined gods pre-define the supernatural (including the god(s), spirit realms, miracles) as "excused" from any verifiable standard and then proceed calmly and "reasonably" inside that paradigm where the gods are presumed to be beyond any constraints of rationality, nature or human understanding. At the theistic level, it's "religious belief". At the level of reason and rationality, it's utter delusion.


----------



## emilynghiem

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are just lying. To ask if I am "BACK" on crack is to insult me as a drug addict, as if the logical genius you pretend to be wouldn't know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, when you come up with some convoluted load of horse shit to try and spin something around and make an impossible point, you should expect people to think you are back on the crack again. I didn't say you were a drug addict, I don't know you. I hope you're not and I encourage you to not do crack before you post.
> 
> Back to the point... Most humans believe in something greater than self and always have. Most religious people also believe in something greater than self. AND... even a majority of Atheist people admit that it's possible something greater than self can exist. In fact, only about 5% of the human species are Nihilistic and believe in nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> atheism – which is typically seen as a modern phenomenon – was not just common in ancient Greece and pre-Christian Rome, but probably flourished more in those societies than in most civilizations since.
> 
> As a result, the study challenges two assumptions that prop up current debates between atheists and believers: Firstly, the idea that atheism is a modern point of view, and second, the idea of “religious universalism” – that humans are naturally predisposed, or “wired”, to believe in gods.
> 
> People in the ancient world did not always believe in the gods, a new study suggests – casting doubt on the idea that religious belief is a “default setting” for humans.
> 
> Disbelieve it or not, ancient history suggests that atheism is as natural to humans as religion
Click to expand...


Dear sealybobo:

I would make a distinction between:
* Anti-theists who are politically and socially against Theists and Religionists for personal and emotional reasons
* Atheists who proactively do not believe in a collective intelligence or personified God acting as its own agent
(but if they were given proof or explanation they might become at least neutral like nontheists)
* NONtheists who are naturally secular in thought and do not personify the forces of Life, God or Nature (but may still believe in what God stands for but just not represent those forces as a Personified Deity). These tend to be neutral and not actively against the concept for any emotional, social or political reasons.

Which one are you?

I have a friend who does not believe anyone really went to the moon, and that the earth is flat.
So of the flat-earthers there are also different types:
* those who hold to these beliefs because they are AGAINST the people preaching that the earth is spherical and that going to the moon is real, out of distrust or fear of some AGENDA
* those who truly do not believe it and would need to see proof or explanation to either change their views or become more neutral about it

What is curious to me is I have never met anyone who was neutral about the earth being flat/round as I have met people who are neutral about God. I know many NONtheist type atheists who are happy to accept an "equivalent" of what God means and be okay with that.  So this tells me a lot of the problem is the "social stigma and agenda" surrounding religion and "theism" that people are so against.  Even Christians against other denominations are  basically against the ABUSE of religion for political agenda, so this is common even among believers.

So that is a separate issue, from believing in "what God means."

Many of the NONtheists I know will readily admit the issue is with the "believers and religionists" who impose conditions and won't be satisfied with a secular explanation of what God means. If these theists "emotionally and proactively" reject/harass nontheists, then a lot of the reaction is in response to that hostile approach.

sealybobo from reading your posts and understanding your issues and concerns,
the impression I get from you is that you DO believe in truth and justice. So these are faith-based concepts
that are part of the driving force and meaning behind God and Jesus but expressed in secular principles.

My impression of you is that you do not reject the intrinsic value, the universal importance to humanity of establishing Truth and Justice.  But you are one of those who 
* thinks in secular nontheistic terms not in religious personifications
* rejects the religionizing, politicizing and social judgments by believers imposed on others who don't share those beliefs or join their groups

Is that a fair assessment of what you do believe in and what you are against?
Thanks, sealybobo I just perceive you as a fair person who seeks truth and rejects false unjust constructs that get in the way of that process of being fair and universally including all people by sticking to common sense, truth and justice based on reason.


----------



## emilynghiem

Hollie said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have a point. We know how we got here. We know how the planets and stars got started. At least we think we do. But we don't know how life got started on earth. And we don't know what was before the big bang.
> 
> But what we do know is time and space are infinite and eternal. It's obvious. It's logical. There is no need for a creator. The creation is eternal. No God necessary to create what has always existed.
> 
> Why can this God be eternal but time and space can't?
> 
> 
> 
> *You have a point.*
> His only point was to be a smart ass.
> 
> *We know how we got here. We know how the planets and stars got started.*
> No... We really don't know. You can't explain it with physics because physics cannot create physics.
> 
> *But what we do know is time and space are infinite and eternal.*
> No we don't.
> 
> *It's obvious. It's logical.*
> No, it's not obvious or logical. It's quite impossible according to physics.
> 
> *Why can this God be eternal but time and space can't?*
> Because of the Laws of Thermodynamics. Because of Newtonian Laws of Motion. Because of Einstein's Theory of General and Special Relativity. We know the universe had a beginning and will have an ending... physics proves this.
> 
> The concepts of eternal and infinite are philosophical. They are not physical concepts, thus, are metaphysical. The concept of God is also philosophical and not physical. To believe in an eternal and infinite universe is to believe in God. It's merely a different way to express the same concepts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All is resolved by retreat to Bossy's Law:
> 
> "..... because I say so".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He does make certain points though. It is true that for the past thousands of years people have expressed a belief in something, gods, etc. He says its because humans are hardwired to believe even though its obvious that the instinct to survive is what is hard wired and people have expressed a belief in gods because if they didn't they,  and sometimes even their entire family,  were executed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think his "point" is malformed. In a historical (hysterical) sense,  everyone's concept of gods comes from various books written by men. It's just so convenient that the various gods display all the attributes of humanity (our wants, desires, frailties, fears and superstitions). Humans have, for much of their tenure on earth, invented many gods to explain what they didn't understand so such projections of spirit worlds as delineated by the currently configured gods are no exception. Specific religions merely evidence cultural bias, a predilection for organization, sanctioned approved behavior, etc. For example, the angry, spiteful god of the OT became a very different fellow by the time he was incorporated into Christianity.  People always get religion wrong because they are fallible humans.
> 
> These human defined religions configured around human defined gods pre-define the supernatural (including the god(s), spirit realms, miracles) as "excused" from any verifiable standard and then proceed calmly and "reasonably" inside that paradigm where the gods are presumed to be beyond any constraints of rationality, nature or human understanding. At the theistic level, it's "religious belief". At the level of reason and rationality, it's utter delusion.
Click to expand...


Dear Hollie 
RE: "everyone's concept of gods comes from various books written by men"

What about God as Nature, the forces of life.

Did "men" make up the rules of nature and life?

Aren't the BASIS behind the symbolism and representations
"Laws of Nature" that we didn't make up but are "SELF EXISTENT."

Isn't that what GOD/YHWH ultimately means is "whatever forces/truth in life
are self-existent, eteranal and unchanging."

Can we agree to make a DISTINCTION between the
"cultural means of representation that are relative to man's social constructs"
and the
MEANING and CONTENT behind the laws, principles and truth 
that we are "attempting" to communicate through these constructs.

Why can't we focus on the MEANING AND CONTENT that is universal.
And quit fighting over whether we call this A B C or 1 2 3 in symbols.

What is the MEANING behind them.
Aren't those concepts UNIVERSAL so that is important:
Truth
Justice
Peace for all humanity

How do we focus on that and not fight over what we call these things collectively in symbols?

Thanks, Hollie
The secular gentiles are supposed to rise in the end times
and bring peace by helping to reason and resolve all these issues.
So it's our turn to rise and shine. Let's use our gifts of reason
and ethics, to work this out like a math and science problem.
Let's prove that consensus can be established by sticking to the
universal concepts behind laws of church and state, and get
people on the same page instead of fighting politically for control of the process.

But if you, I, sealybobo merely jump in and politicize the same process,
then that just doubles or triples the problems. Can we do the opposite
and seek to UNTANGLE the messes, define what terms ALIGN with
what MEANINGS and show we are really aiming for the same goals.
Is the world ready for true peacemaking, to establish "agreed TRUTH
that will set humanity FREE from strife and suffering over conflict"
or are we just in it to fuss and fight and bullying back and forth?

What kind of world do we want to live in and establish as the norm?


----------



## Boss

hobelim said:


> He says its because humans are hardwired to believe even though its obvious that the instinct to survive is what is hard wired and people have expressed a belief in gods because if they didn't they,  and sometimes even their entire family,  were executed.



But in even more instances, they were executed FOR their beliefs in God or the wrong God. 

For as long as we have evidence of human civilization, we have evidence of humans practicing spiritual beliefs. This goes back tens of thousands of years before any organized religion. 

Sigmund Freud, the most noted psychiatrist in history, made the observation about the human mind long ago. We are inherently tied to a belief in something greater than self. He maintained that our complex minds are such that if God did not exist we would have to create him. We would have destroyed ourselves otherwise. I believe humans would have never formed civilizations. It is directly the result of our inherent awareness of something greater than self which enabled us to join together to form civilizations. 

Now, does that in of itself prove spiritual existence? No, but it does prove there is something vitally essential to the belief in something spiritual. This simply can't be dismissed as figment of imagination or mental delusions. There is clearly something more fundamental to it than that. If not, the species would have simply discarded the "superstition" many thousands of years ago and there would have probably never been organized religions.... and I would argue, OR civilizations.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> This/you are just ridiculous really. You think there was a beginning of time? That's how small you think. Sure there was a beginning of time for our universe, but make no mistake that time existed long before our universe got started. We just have no way of measuring it. Sucks to suck. But just because you suck doesn't mean time didn't exist just because your brain can't wrap your brain around it.
> 
> Amazing that you think before our universe a god existed but time did not. You can accept that god is eternal but not time. Sorry boss but there is no need for an eternal god. We have eternal time and space. Deal with it.



Well... no.... sorry... IF you study Einstein's principles you will find that time is relative. There are places in our universe where circumstances are such that the dimension of time passes slower or faster than here on Earth. For instance, at the event horizon of a black hole, time slows down as matter approaches the speed of light. This is basic physics. 

The foremost evidence the universe had a beginning is that the universe is in motion. Newton's Laws of Motion state that things in motion are set into motion by something. Since our universe is in motion it had to be set into motion by some event. It's impossible for it to have eternally been in motion.  Time is also understood from a physics perspective as "space-time" ...it is literally the measure of space expanding. There was no "time" before the universe because there was no expanding universe and no space for time to exist as a dimension. 

You believe in something nonsensical. Time cannot exist without a universe in which it is a dimension. You can believe otherwise, but it's a flying spaghetti monster. You have no evidence or basis for such a belief and it's certainly nothing that is supported by physics.


----------



## emilynghiem

Boss said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> He says its because humans are hardwired to believe even though its obvious that the instinct to survive is what is hard wired and people have expressed a belief in gods because if they didn't they,  and sometimes even their entire family,  were executed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But in even more instances, they were executed FOR their beliefs in God or the wrong God.
> 
> For as long as we have evidence of human civilization, we have evidence of humans practicing spiritual beliefs. This goes back tens of thousands of years before any organized religion.
> 
> Sigmund Freud, the most noted psychiatrist in history, made the observation about the human mind long ago. We are inherently tied to a belief in something greater than self. He maintained that our complex minds are such that if God did not exist we would have to create him. We would have destroyed ourselves otherwise. I believe humans would have never formed civilizations. It is directly the result of our inherent awareness of something greater than self which enabled us to join together to form civilizations.
> 
> Now, does that in of itself prove spiritual existence? No, but it does prove there is something vitally essential to the belief in something spiritual. This simply can't be dismissed as figment of imagination or mental delusions. There is clearly something more fundamental to it than that. If not, the species would have simply discarded the "superstition" many thousands of years ago and there would have probably never been organized religions.... and I would argue, OR civilizations.
Click to expand...


Dear Boss:
Don't be onesided -- remember there are people DYING for the LACK of knowledge such as spiritual healing that could save lives. So REJECTING spiritual beliefs causes death and suffering also that could have been prevented and healed.

People DIE for their spiritual beliefs in peace.
The ones who won't join the Terrorists get killed and so do their families.

Does that mean we should ban such people from believing in nonviolence?
Which side are you going to ban if you are blaming beliefs?

You can't just blame religions when it's people fighting for POWER regardless what the conflict is between GROUPS and TRIBES competing.

You want to blame race? Well, both sides of any issue have their own identity to defend.

The real issue is not resolving conflicts without oppression, bullying abuse and violence.

That's independent of spiritual or political beliefs.
If people want to dominate and control,
DIVIDE and CONQUER then it's that spirit of unfair competition and pack mentality/pecking order
that is behind it.

I think you are a fair person.

If you are going to make a generalization about what is the problem,
make sure it explains ALL cases, BOTH sides of conflicts, and not just the one for your convenience.

You of all people on here are capable of that.
So I expect more of you than the average person who is pushing their emotional bias.

You can rise above it, so I challenge you even more than what you are already doing.
More power to you, Boss

Respectfully yours,
Emily


----------



## emilynghiem

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This/you are just ridiculous really. You think there was a beginning of time? That's how small you think. Sure there was a beginning of time for our universe, but make no mistake that time existed long before our universe got started. We just have no way of measuring it. Sucks to suck. But just because you suck doesn't mean time didn't exist just because your brain can't wrap your brain around it.
> 
> Amazing that you think before our universe a god existed but time did not. You can accept that god is eternal but not time. Sorry boss but there is no need for an eternal god. We have eternal time and space. Deal with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well... no.... sorry... IF you study Einstein's principles you will find that time is relative. There are places in our universe where circumstances are such that the dimension of time passes slower or faster than here on Earth. For instance, at the event horizon of a black hole, time slows down as matter approaches the speed of light. This is basic physics.
> 
> The foremost evidence the universe had a beginning is that the universe is in motion. Newton's Laws of Motion state that things in motion are set into motion by something. Since our universe is in motion it had to be set into motion by some event. It's impossible for it to have eternally been in motion.  Time is also understood from a physics perspective as "space-time" ...it is literally the measure of space expanding. There was no "time" before the universe because there was no expanding universe and no space for time to exist as a dimension.
> 
> You believe in something nonsensical. Time cannot exist without a universe in which it is a dimension. You can believe otherwise, but it's a flying spaghetti monster. You have no evidence or basis for such a belief and it's certainly nothing that is supported by physics.
Click to expand...


Dear Boss and sealybobo
both Time and God exist by definition. Sure, arguments can be made of their existence independent of that, but for all practical purposes, we are concerned with what we can define that we can use. So why not agree to stick to that, regardless what we believe or can or cannot prove outside the definitions we are working with?

Isn't the point to agree what we are talking about, and to use terms
that we agree are accurate and work for us.

However you want to define and frame these things
isn't the point for our mutual convenience so we can communicate like concepts and principles.

Wouldn't it make more sense to ALIGN what meanings and constructs we want to convey or use,
and not argue over if we can prove or disprove the existence or nonexistence of this or that.

The point is to be objective enough where we are "okay" with using subjective terms
that we AGREE are good enough to communicate and establish common understanding.

Can we stick to what is practical here?
Thank you both, I trust you can do this or you wouldn't be pushing so hard if it wasn't getting anywhere.
Of course, we are heading toward working out agreements on this.

So I appreciate your convictions and efforts, which will pay off proportionately to the work it takes to get there.
Thanks for that.

Yours truly,
with love and respect,
Emily


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This/you are just ridiculous really. You think there was a beginning of time? That's how small you think. Sure there was a beginning of time for our universe, but make no mistake that time existed long before our universe got started. We just have no way of measuring it. Sucks to suck. But just because you suck doesn't mean time didn't exist just because your brain can't wrap your brain around it.
> 
> Amazing that you think before our universe a god existed but time did not. You can accept that god is eternal but not time. Sorry boss but there is no need for an eternal god. We have eternal time and space. Deal with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well... no.... sorry... IF you study Einstein's principles you will find that time is relative. There are places in our universe where circumstances are such that the dimension of time passes slower or faster than here on Earth. For instance, at the event horizon of a black hole, time slows down as matter approaches the speed of light. This is basic physics.
> 
> The foremost evidence the universe had a beginning is that the universe is in motion. Newton's Laws of Motion state that things in motion are set into motion by something. Since our universe is in motion it had to be set into motion by some event. It's impossible for it to have eternally been in motion.  Time is also understood from a physics perspective as "space-time" ...it is literally the measure of space expanding. There was no "time" before the universe because there was no expanding universe and no space for time to exist as a dimension.
> 
> You believe in something nonsensical. Time cannot exist without a universe in which it is a dimension. You can believe otherwise, but it's a flying spaghetti monster. You have no evidence or basis for such a belief and it's certainly nothing that is supported by physics.
Click to expand...


I don't care if THE UNIVERSE you know and see now had a beginning and end.  That's not what I said.  Time existed before the big bang and it will continue after our universe dies out.  You keep confusing the time and universe you exist in with general time and space.  Look 1 foot into space in front of your face.  That space will exist in 20 billion years.  There may not be a universe or an earth or air in that spot but it will exist and time will keep ticking after this universe swallows itself.

If not, what will god do?  

And what is beyond this universe?  Can't god travel beyond our tiny universe?


----------



## Boss

emilynghiem said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> He says its because humans are hardwired to believe even though its obvious that the instinct to survive is what is hard wired and people have expressed a belief in gods because if they didn't they,  and sometimes even their entire family,  were executed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But in even more instances, they were executed FOR their beliefs in God or the wrong God.
> 
> For as long as we have evidence of human civilization, we have evidence of humans practicing spiritual beliefs. This goes back tens of thousands of years before any organized religion.
> 
> Sigmund Freud, the most noted psychiatrist in history, made the observation about the human mind long ago. We are inherently tied to a belief in something greater than self. He maintained that our complex minds are such that if God did not exist we would have to create him. We would have destroyed ourselves otherwise. I believe humans would have never formed civilizations. It is directly the result of our inherent awareness of something greater than self which enabled us to join together to form civilizations.
> 
> Now, does that in of itself prove spiritual existence? No, but it does prove there is something vitally essential to the belief in something spiritual. This simply can't be dismissed as figment of imagination or mental delusions. There is clearly something more fundamental to it than that. If not, the species would have simply discarded the "superstition" many thousands of years ago and there would have probably never been organized religions.... and I would argue, OR civilizations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Boss:
> Don't be onesided -- remember there are people DYING for the LACK of knowledge such as spiritual healing that could save lives. So REJECTING spiritual beliefs causes death and suffering also that could have been prevented and healed.
> 
> People DIE for their spiritual beliefs in peace.
> The ones who won't join the Terrorists get killed and so do their families.
> 
> Does that mean we should ban such people from believing in nonviolence?
> Which side are you going to ban if you are blaming beliefs?
> 
> You can't just blame religions when it's people fighting for POWER regardless what the conflict is between GROUPS and TRIBES competing.
> 
> You want to blame race? Well, both sides of any issue have their own identity to defend.
> 
> The real issue is not resolving conflicts without oppression, bullying abuse and violence.
> 
> That's independent of spiritual or political beliefs.
> If people want to dominate and control,
> DIVIDE and CONQUER then it's that spirit of unfair competition and pack mentality/pecking order
> that is behind it.
> 
> I think you are a fair person.
> 
> If you are going to make a generalization about what is the problem,
> make sure it explains ALL cases, BOTH sides of conflicts, and not just the one for your convenience.
> 
> You of all people on here are capable of that.
> So I expect more of you than the average person who is pushing their emotional bias.
> 
> You can rise above it, so I challenge you even more than what you are already doing.
> More power to you, Boss
> 
> Respectfully yours,
> Emily
Click to expand...


Dear emilynghiem, I have no idea what you are trying to say here. I find it impossible to argue *against* a point by being both *for* and *against* the point I am arguing against at the same time. So yes, whenever you find me arguing against someone else's point of view, I am intentionally being "one sided" because, otherwise, it is not an argument.

Bless your heart, I know that you fancy yourself as the "Great Mediator" and genuinely want everyone to sit around the campfire holding hands signing 'Kumbaya' but I actually think USMB would be a totally boring waste of time if that were the case. We all come here to state our opinions and argue our points with one another. 

In that regard, it doesn't accomplish anything for me to make a point, then contradict my own point, then make my point only to contradict it again.... other than to demonstrate that I may suffer from some bipolar neurosis. I respect that other people don't share my point of view, I don't demand they accept my point of view and I don't expect them to. I haven't called for anyone to be banned over their point of view. I am merely here to express my point of view and objective readers can draw their own conclusions. 

I respect your input and perspective but often times it seems you simply want to dance around tossing daisies at everyone and calling for civility. No offense, that's just how it seems to me. I guess I just don't get the purpose in that with regard to objective reasoning.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> I don't care if THE UNIVERSE you know and see now had a beginning and end. That's not what I said. Time existed before the big bang and it will continue after our universe dies out.



*HOW CAN IT BE?* If _*"TIME"*_ is a physical dimension of the universe in which it exists? 



sealybobo said:


> There may not be a universe or an earth or air in that spot but it will exist and time will keep ticking after this universe swallows itself.



But physics has proven this false. Time cannot "keep ticking" if a universe doesn't exist for time to exist as a dimension in. Even within our own universe as it presently exists, time is not ticking the same universally. I know that's a really hard concept to wrap your mind around but it has been proven true by Einstein and others. We observe this as a fact of physical nature. 

As you approach the speed of light, time slows down. Theoretically, time stops at the speed of light. I believe this is precisely why we cannot see anything inside a black hole... there is no TIME for light to escape. Time no longer exists there. Light cannot travel if there is no time for light to travel. If there is no space, there can be no time. 

So... before there was a universe, there was no space and no time. Space IS the universe. Everything IN the universe occupies space. You seem to want to envision a universe existing in time and space but devoid of matter and energy... then some cosmic event transpired and matter/energy was dispersed into the time and space which eternally existed.... that is a contradiction of physics. You can certainly BELIEVE that but it's a faith-based belief that isn't rooted in physics or science.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> He says its because humans are hardwired to believe even though its obvious that the instinct to survive is what is hard wired and people have expressed a belief in gods because if they didn't they,  and sometimes even their entire family,  were executed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But in even more instances, they were executed FOR their beliefs in God or the wrong God.
> 
> For as long as we have evidence of human civilization, we have evidence of humans practicing spiritual beliefs. This goes back tens of thousands of years before any organized religion.
> 
> Sigmund Freud, the most noted psychiatrist in history, made the observation about the human mind long ago. We are inherently tied to a belief in something greater than self. He maintained that our complex minds are such that if God did not exist we would have to create him. We would have destroyed ourselves otherwise. I believe humans would have never formed civilizations. It is directly the result of our inherent awareness of something greater than self which enabled us to join together to form civilizations.
> 
> Now, does that in of itself prove spiritual existence? No, but it does prove there is something vitally essential to the belief in something spiritual. This simply can't be dismissed as figment of imagination or mental delusions. There is clearly something more fundamental to it than that. If not, the species would have simply discarded the "superstition" many thousands of years ago and there would have probably never been organized religions.... and I would argue, OR civilizations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Boss:
> Don't be onesided -- remember there are people DYING for the LACK of knowledge such as spiritual healing that could save lives. So REJECTING spiritual beliefs causes death and suffering also that could have been prevented and healed.
> 
> People DIE for their spiritual beliefs in peace.
> The ones who won't join the Terrorists get killed and so do their families.
> 
> Does that mean we should ban such people from believing in nonviolence?
> Which side are you going to ban if you are blaming beliefs?
> 
> You can't just blame religions when it's people fighting for POWER regardless what the conflict is between GROUPS and TRIBES competing.
> 
> You want to blame race? Well, both sides of any issue have their own identity to defend.
> 
> The real issue is not resolving conflicts without oppression, bullying abuse and violence.
> 
> That's independent of spiritual or political beliefs.
> If people want to dominate and control,
> DIVIDE and CONQUER then it's that spirit of unfair competition and pack mentality/pecking order
> that is behind it.
> 
> I think you are a fair person.
> 
> If you are going to make a generalization about what is the problem,
> make sure it explains ALL cases, BOTH sides of conflicts, and not just the one for your convenience.
> 
> You of all people on here are capable of that.
> So I expect more of you than the average person who is pushing their emotional bias.
> 
> You can rise above it, so I challenge you even more than what you are already doing.
> More power to you, Boss
> 
> Respectfully yours,
> Emily
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear emilynghiem, I have no idea what you are trying to say here. I find it impossible to argue *against* a point by being both *for* and *against* the point I am arguing against at the same time. So yes, whenever you find me arguing against someone else's point of view, I am intentionally being "one sided" because, otherwise, it is not an argument.
> 
> Bless your heart, I know that you fancy yourself as the "Great Mediator" and genuinely want everyone to sit around the campfire holding hands signing 'Kumbaya' but I actually think USMB would be a totally boring waste of time if that were the case. We all come here to state our opinions and argue our points with one another.
> 
> In that regard, it doesn't accomplish anything for me to make a point, then contradict my own point, then make my point only to contradict it again.... other than to demonstrate that I may suffer from some bipolar neurosis. I respect that other people don't share my point of view, I don't demand they accept my point of view and I don't expect them to. I haven't called for anyone to be banned over their point of view. I am merely here to express my point of view and objective readers can draw their own conclusions.
> 
> I respect your input and perspective but often times it seems you simply want to dance around tossing daisies at everyone and calling for civility. No offense, that's just how it seems to me. I guess I just don't get the purpose in that with regard to objective reasoning.
Click to expand...

As much as I consider her a nice person, I don't even bother reading her posts.  I know what it's going to say and she needs to realize how ineffective her tactic or approach is.  What is the definition of insanity?  Doing or saying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.  I know we all do it but god damn Emily!  Your schtick is very ineffective.  Boss don't like it, I don't like it and seems like the Emily Cult is a cult of 1.  Poor Dear Emily.  LOL.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care if THE UNIVERSE you know and see now had a beginning and end. That's not what I said. Time existed before the big bang and it will continue after our universe dies out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *HOW CAN IT BE?* If _*"TIME"*_ is a physical dimension of the universe in which it exists?
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> There may not be a universe or an earth or air in that spot but it will exist and time will keep ticking after this universe swallows itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But physics has proven this false. Time cannot "keep ticking" if a universe doesn't exist for time to exist as a dimension in. Even within our own universe as it presently exists, time is not ticking the same universally. I know that's a really hard concept to wrap your mind around but it has been proven true by Einstein and others. We observe this as a fact of physical nature.
> 
> As you approach the speed of light, time slows down. Theoretically, time stops at the speed of light. I believe this is precisely why we cannot see anything inside a black hole... there is no TIME for light to escape. Time no longer exists there. Light cannot travel if there is no time for light to travel. If there is no space, there can be no time.
> 
> So... before there was a universe, there was no space and no time. Space IS the universe. Everything IN the universe occupies space. You seem to want to envision a universe existing in time and space but devoid of matter and energy... then some cosmic event transpired and matter/energy was dispersed into the time and space which eternally existed.... that is a contradiction of physics. You can certainly BELIEVE that but it's a faith-based belief that isn't rooted in physics or science.
Click to expand...

Is that what time is for you?  Maybe for you that is true.  Maybe for you, before the big bang, there was no time.  And after your universe is gone, you and everything else in it will cease to exist.  Like a bubble.  Once it pops it doesn't exist anymore either.  But what about everything that was inside the bubble?  Doesn't it just get recycled into whatever surrounds the bubble?  Do you really think nothing exists outside your tiny little bubble boss?  Just because it's a big bubble for you doesn't mean it's all there is.


----------



## sealybobo

You are just a Tardigrade floating around in your drop of water boss


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> If not, what will god do?
> 
> And what is beyond this universe? Can't god travel beyond our tiny universe?



Well, what I call "GOD" is a spiritual force that is beyond physical nature. It didn't require physical nature to exist and when physical nature no longer exists, it will still be there. It is not dependent upon the existence of a universe. 

"Travel" is something physical elements do in space. So again, you are attempting to apply physics to a spiritual entity that is beyond physical nature. The "GOD" I believe in doesn't travel... it's universally present with or without a physical universe. 

I think your biggest problem in understanding or comprehending a spiritual God is that your mind is trapped in a belief that only the physical can exist. I agree that only physical things can physically exist. But spiritual nature is not a physical thing. It is not confined to physical parameters. In fact, I believe it is responsible for physical existence because it is the Creator of it. My evidence is logic... physics cannot have created itself. It's a paradox.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care if THE UNIVERSE you know and see now had a beginning and end. That's not what I said. Time existed before the big bang and it will continue after our universe dies out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *HOW CAN IT BE?* If _*"TIME"*_ is a physical dimension of the universe in which it exists?
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> There may not be a universe or an earth or air in that spot but it will exist and time will keep ticking after this universe swallows itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But physics has proven this false. Time cannot "keep ticking" if a universe doesn't exist for time to exist as a dimension in. Even within our own universe as it presently exists, time is not ticking the same universally. I know that's a really hard concept to wrap your mind around but it has been proven true by Einstein and others. We observe this as a fact of physical nature.
> 
> As you approach the speed of light, time slows down. Theoretically, time stops at the speed of light. I believe this is precisely why we cannot see anything inside a black hole... there is no TIME for light to escape. Time no longer exists there. Light cannot travel if there is no time for light to travel. If there is no space, there can be no time.
> 
> So... before there was a universe, there was no space and no time. Space IS the universe. Everything IN the universe occupies space. You seem to want to envision a universe existing in time and space but devoid of matter and energy... then some cosmic event transpired and matter/energy was dispersed into the time and space which eternally existed.... that is a contradiction of physics. You can certainly BELIEVE that but it's a faith-based belief that isn't rooted in physics or science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that what time is for you?  Maybe for you that is true.  Maybe for you, before the big bang, there was no time.  And after your universe is gone, you and everything else in it will cease to exist.  Like a bubble.  Once it pops it doesn't exist anymore either.  But what about everything that was inside the bubble?  Doesn't it just get recycled into whatever surrounds the bubble?  Do you really think nothing exists outside your tiny little bubble boss?  Just because it's a big bubble for you doesn't mean it's all there is.
Click to expand...


It's not a matter of MY opinion... it's not "for me" this is how things are... it has been demonstrated with mathematics by great physicists like Einstein. Mathematics does not lie. Mathematics is not an opinion. Mathematics is not a philosophy. Mathematics is true for you just as it's true for me. 

Now... If I were here arguing that 1+1=4.... and you were arguing that 1+1 doesn't equal 4.... and I insisted that regardless of your "beliefs" 1+1=4 and that's the truth.... what would you say about that? You would certainly argue that 1+1=2 is NOT your "belief" but a proven mathematical equation. And that's the crux of the argument we are having here. Mathematics disproves your assertions about the universe and time/space. e=mc2.... that's mathematics... not an opinion.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If not, what will god do?
> 
> And what is beyond this universe? Can't god travel beyond our tiny universe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, what I call "GOD" is a spiritual force that is beyond physical nature. It didn't require physical nature to exist and when physical nature no longer exists, it will still be there. It is not dependent upon the existence of a universe.
> 
> "Travel" is something physical elements do in space. So again, you are attempting to apply physics to a spiritual entity that is beyond physical nature. The "GOD" I believe in doesn't travel... it's universally present with or without a physical universe.
> 
> I think your biggest problem in understanding or comprehending a spiritual God is that your mind is trapped in a belief that only the physical can exist. I agree that only physical things can physically exist. But spiritual nature is not a physical thing. It is not confined to physical parameters. In fact, I believe it is responsible for physical existence because it is the Creator of it. My evidence is logic... physics cannot have created itself. It's a paradox.
Click to expand...

It appears you have difficulty accepting that your claims to particular, partisan gods, spirit realms and "magic" as an explanation for existence are really no different than the claims for competing versions of gods, spirit realms and "it's magic" as a viable explanation for anything.

Your new fangled religion, obviously, follows from and steals ruthlessly from the claims of so many of the religions invented before yours.

You need a "hook", something unique to Bossy's Religion of Magical Spirit Realms if you really want to gain converts.

Read up a bit about L. Ron Hubbard, Jim Jones and Marshall Applewhite for a primer on the "hook".


----------



## Boss

Hollie said:


> It appears you have difficulty accepting that your claims to particular, partisan gods...



I don't make any claim to a partisan God, particular or otherwise. 

As for claims of "magic" that seems to be YOUR belief. I don't believe in magic. I think logic belies magic. Physical nature did not come to be through magic. In order for it to exist, something had to create it... I believe that was Spiritual Nature... you believe it was "Magic!"


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears you have difficulty accepting that your claims to particular, partisan gods...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't make any claim to a partisan God, particular or otherwise.
> 
> As for claims of "magic" that seems to be YOUR belief. I don't believe in magic. I think logic belies magic. Physical nature did not come to be through magic. In order for it to exist, something had to create it... I believe that was Spiritual Nature... you believe it was "Magic!"
Click to expand...

Well, actually, you often make references to a god. You have simply tried to re-title your invented gods as some magical, "spiritual force".

Your claims to magical spirit realms are actually very different from the perceivable, understandable physical world. While the natural world was once thought to be be ruled by gods not different from your gods, it was science and learning that pulled back the veil of fear and superstition. Our understanding of the physical world has left no room for gods of thunder, lightning, etc.

I can only hope that you can eventually address your fears and ignorance of the natural world.

It appears you're having no success in gaining converts to your new dangled religion so why not drop the charade and embrace a reality based worldview, one not in any need of fear, superstition and "magic" for its existence?


----------



## sealybobo

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears you have difficulty accepting that your claims to particular, partisan gods...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't make any claim to a partisan God, particular or otherwise.
> 
> As for claims of "magic" that seems to be YOUR belief. I don't believe in magic. I think logic belies magic. Physical nature did not come to be through magic. In order for it to exist, something had to create it... I believe that was Spiritual Nature... you believe it was "Magic!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, actually, you often make references to a god. You have simply tried to re-title your invented gods as some magical, "spiritual force".
> 
> Your claims to magical spirit realms are actually very different from the perceivable, understandable physical world. While the natural world was once thought to be be ruled by gods not different from your gods, it was science and learning that pulled back the veil of fear and superstition. Our understanding of the physical world has left no room for gods of thunder, lightning, etc.
> 
> I can only hope that you can eventually address your fears and ignorance of the natural world.
> 
> It appears you're having no success in gaining converts to your new dangled religion so why not drop the charade and embrace a reality based worldview, one not in any need of fear, superstition and "magic" for its existence?
Click to expand...


Here's what bothers me about theists. We all want to know how we got here, what is our purpose and what happens after we die. That's natural. 

What I dont like is people who lie and claim they know, because he visited.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Here's what bothers me about theists. We all want to know how we got here, what is our purpose and what happens after we die. That's natural.



You say it is "natural" but where else do we find it in nature? We're the only species who has such awareness or contemplation of it's existence and purpose. Arguments can be made that our cerebral cortex development just happened to have advanced further than other mammals and primates... but then, how could brains so advanced create something so superficial yet also so satisfying with regard to housing our awareness and contemplation? We're so smart we fooled ourselves into believing a fairy tale and it works to satisfy our superior intellects?. That doesn't comport with rationality. 

To me... it has always made more sense that we are spiritually aware and that is what causes us to contemplate what happens when we die, why we are here and how we got here. In the void of clear answers and with our unquenchable spiritual awareness, we developed what is known as "religions."


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's what bothers me about theists. We all want to know how we got here, what is our purpose and what happens after we die. That's natural.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say it is "natural" but where else do we find it in nature? We're the only species who has such awareness or contemplation of it's existence and purpose. Arguments can be made that our cerebral cortex development just happened to have advanced further than other mammals and primates... but then, how could brains so advanced create something so superficial yet also so satisfying with regard to housing our awareness and contemplation? We're so smart we fooled ourselves into believing a fairy tale and it works to satisfy our superior intellects?. That doesn't comport with rationality.
> 
> To me... it has always made more sense that we are spiritually aware and that is what causes us to contemplate what happens when we die, why we are here and how we got here. In the void of clear answers and with our unquenchable spiritual awareness, we developed what is known as "religions."
Click to expand...

I saw the other day that other great apes are starting to make incredible leaps forward mentally.

And it's possible dolphins believe in God too.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> I saw the other day that other great apes are starting to make incredible leaps forward mentally.
> 
> And it's possible dolphins believe in God too.


Well if that is true, doesn't it kind of completely destroy an argument that someone made all this stuff up? If we find that other species have natural spiritual awareness, that kind of gives us physical evidence of a spiritual existence. We certainly didn't brainwash the dolphins.


----------



## BreezeWood

.


Boss said:


> Arguments can be made that our cerebral cortex development just happened to have advanced further than other mammals and primates...




the same endless obsession for a neural-physiological and limited explanation for a boundless existence shared by all beings equally.

.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I saw the other day that other great apes are starting to make incredible leaps forward mentally.
> 
> And it's possible dolphins believe in God too.
> 
> 
> 
> Well if that is true, doesn't it kind of completely destroy an argument that someone made all this stuff up? If we find that other species have natural spiritual awareness, that kind of gives us physical evidence of a spiritual existence. We certainly didn't brainwash the dolphins.
Click to expand...


Sure. Dolphins wonder how they got here, what's the porpoise and what happens when they die too.


----------



## jillian

Boss said:


> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.



not believing what you believe and not wanting you to force what you believe on others is not hate of anything. thank goodness in this country we have the first amendment and are free to believe or not believe what we want.

yay us


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.


How is calling yourself agnostic playing it safe? Is there a rule you have to believe a God exists? This is why we all know you as a cherry picking Christian. You sound similar to Christians who claim you'll go to hell if you don't accept Jesus as Lord. Are you saying in your religion belief is required? Why? In Christianity we know why. God says so. In yours it's because boss says so.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> How is calling yourself agnostic playing it safe? Is there a rule you have to believe a God exists? This is why we all know you as a cherry picking Christian. You sound similar to Christians who claim you'll go to hell if you don't accept Jesus as Lord. Are you saying in your religion belief is required? Why? In Christianity we know why. God says so. In yours it's because boss says so.
Click to expand...


There is a rule in applying definitions accurately to describe what things mean. Agnostic is the absence of belief in the _*knowledge*_ of whether anything spiritual exists. In other words, and agnostic is A-Gnostic... (gnostic means knowledge of something spiritual) An Atheist is absence of *belief* in a God. The distinction of difference is generally understood to be, an agnostic _*doesn't know*_ whether God exists or not... an Atheist _*doesn't believe*_ God exists. This is why I said long ago, you cannot be both Agnostic and Atheist. If you are Atheist, you are no longer saying you don't know if God does or doesn't exist. You are saying you don't believe God exists. 

I don't understand why you constantly attempt to make allegations that I am a Christian of some kind or that I am somehow promoting religious beliefs. I know that you find it easy and gratifying to trash and bash Christians and Jews for their religious beliefs... that's the only justification I can find for you continuing to make this kind of false insinuation in spite of my consistently asserting otherwise. It's disappointing to me that you continue to want to do this knowing that I am going to reject your allegation and reiterate that I am not a religious person, I don't belong to any organized religion, I am not attempting to convert you to a religion or get you to accept any religious belief. 

Honestly, regardless of what I believe or you believe, the truth is still ultimately the truth. My belief and your belief do not influence the truth. When attempting to have an intellectual discussion about the topic of human spirituality, this point should always be kept at the forefront. The Truth... is unknown. None of us really know the truth.... even some devoutly religious person, like say... Billy Graham... as strong in faith as he is, doesn't KNOW the truth. He believes he knows... that is his faith. You also believe you know that Christianity is a lie... that is your faith. The Truth... is unknown... and it doesn't change depending on your personal belief. 

You could be right, I could be right or we both could be right (or wrong).... I know that sounds odd but it's possible... God may exist and not exist at the same time. In your perception of reality God doesn't exist and in mine God does exist... who knows?  The TRUTH is unknown. It always will be.


----------



## jillian

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> How is calling yourself agnostic playing it safe? Is there a rule you have to believe a God exists? This is why we all know you as a cherry picking Christian. You sound similar to Christians who claim you'll go to hell if you don't accept Jesus as Lord. Are you saying in your religion belief is required? Why? In Christianity we know why. God says so. In yours it's because boss says so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a rule in applying definitions accurately to describe what things mean. Agnostic is the absence of belief in the _*knowledge*_ of whether anything spiritual exists. In other words, and agnostic is A-Gnostic... (gnostic means knowledge of something spiritual) An Atheist is absence of *belief* in a God. The distinction of difference is generally understood to be, an agnostic _*doesn't know*_ whether God exists or not... an Atheist _*doesn't believe*_ God exists. This is why I said long ago, you cannot be both Agnostic and Atheist. If you are Atheist, you are no longer saying you don't know if God does or doesn't exist. You are saying you don't believe God exists.
> 
> I don't understand why you constantly attempt to make allegations that I am a Christian of some kind or that I am somehow promoting religious beliefs. I know that you find it easy and gratifying to trash and bash Christians and Jews for their religious beliefs... that's the only justification I can find for you continuing to make this kind of false insinuation in spite of my consistently asserting otherwise. It's disappointing to me that you continue to want to do this knowing that I am going to reject your allegation and reiterate that I am not a religious person, I don't belong to any organized religion, I am not attempting to convert you to a religion or get you to accept any religious belief.
> 
> Honestly, regardless of what I believe or you believe, the truth is still ultimately the truth. My belief and your belief do not influence the truth. When attempting to have an intellectual discussion about the topic of human spirituality, this point should always be kept at the forefront. The Truth... is unknown. None of us really know the truth.... even some devoutly religious person, like say... Billy Graham... as strong in faith as he is, doesn't KNOW the truth. He believes he knows... that is his faith. You also believe you know that Christianity is a lie... that is your faith. The Truth... is unknown... and it doesn't change depending on your personal belief.
> 
> You could be right, I could be right or we both could be right (or wrong).... I know that sounds odd but it's possible... God may exist and not exist at the same time. In your perception of reality God doesn't exist and in mine God does exist... who knows?  The TRUTH is unknown. It always will be.
Click to expand...


we are not talking about schrodinger's cat. a supreme being cannot exist and not exist at the time time. and some people believe, some don't. and some people aren't certain. any of those configurations is fine. and really, it's no one's business as long as one doesn't impose their view on others (e.g., not permitting you  to worship as you please or forcing *me* to worship as you want) or hurt others.

i'm not sure why that threatens people like you. me? i think it's one of the best things about our constitution.


----------



## vasuderatorrent

jillian said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> How is calling yourself agnostic playing it safe? Is there a rule you have to believe a God exists? This is why we all know you as a cherry picking Christian. You sound similar to Christians who claim you'll go to hell if you don't accept Jesus as Lord. Are you saying in your religion belief is required? Why? In Christianity we know why. God says so. In yours it's because boss says so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a rule in applying definitions accurately to describe what things mean. Agnostic is the absence of belief in the _*knowledge*_ of whether anything spiritual exists. In other words, and agnostic is A-Gnostic... (gnostic means knowledge of something spiritual) An Atheist is absence of *belief* in a God. The distinction of difference is generally understood to be, an agnostic _*doesn't know*_ whether God exists or not... an Atheist _*doesn't believe*_ God exists. This is why I said long ago, you cannot be both Agnostic and Atheist. If you are Atheist, you are no longer saying you don't know if God does or doesn't exist. You are saying you don't believe God exists.
> 
> I don't understand why you constantly attempt to make allegations that I am a Christian of some kind or that I am somehow promoting religious beliefs. I know that you find it easy and gratifying to trash and bash Christians and Jews for their religious beliefs... that's the only justification I can find for you continuing to make this kind of false insinuation in spite of my consistently asserting otherwise. It's disappointing to me that you continue to want to do this knowing that I am going to reject your allegation and reiterate that I am not a religious person, I don't belong to any organized religion, I am not attempting to convert you to a religion or get you to accept any religious belief.
> 
> Honestly, regardless of what I believe or you believe, the truth is still ultimately the truth. My belief and your belief do not influence the truth. When attempting to have an intellectual discussion about the topic of human spirituality, this point should always be kept at the forefront. The Truth... is unknown. None of us really know the truth.... even some devoutly religious person, like say... Billy Graham... as strong in faith as he is, doesn't KNOW the truth. He believes he knows... that is his faith. You also believe you know that Christianity is a lie... that is your faith. The Truth... is unknown... and it doesn't change depending on your personal belief.
> 
> You could be right, I could be right or we both could be right (or wrong).... I know that sounds odd but it's possible... God may exist and not exist at the same time. In your perception of reality God doesn't exist and in mine God does exist... who knows?  The TRUTH is unknown. It always will be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> we are not talking about schrodinger's cat. a supreme being cannot exist and not exist at the time time. and some people believe, some don't. and some people aren't certain. any of those configurations is fine. and really, it's no one's business as long as one doesn't impose their view on others (e.g., not permitting you  to worship as you please or forcing *me* to worship as you want) or hurt others.
> 
> i'm not sure why that threatens people like you. me? i think it's one of the best things about our constitution.
Click to expand...


FYI:  People have always imposed their view upon others since the beginning of time and they always will.  They just change their methods and strategies for their imposition.


----------



## Boss

jillian said:


> we are not talking about schrodinger's cat. a supreme being cannot exist and not exist at the time time. and some people believe, some don't. and some people aren't certain. any of those configurations is fine. and really, it's no one's business as long as one doesn't impose their view on others (e.g., not permitting you to worship as you please or forcing *me* to worship as you want) or hurt others.
> 
> i'm not sure why that threatens people like you. me? i think it's one of the best things about our constitution.



Nothing threatens me.  I don't know why you think that based on me presenting my viewpoints. Perhaps something threatens you and that is the reason you present your viewpoints? But it really doesn't make any difference to me what you personally believe or don't believe. That also has no bearing on what I believe. 

You say this isn't Schrodinger's Cat and a "Supreme Deity" can't both exist and not exist... but have you proven this? When we observe physical matter (atoms) at their subatomic level, we find electrons existing yet not existing at the same time... or existing in two places at the same time. Light exists as a wave or a particle depending on whether it is observed. So there are things even in our logical physical universe that don't really seem possible, yet... they are. 

Check out the Einstein quote "Spooky action at a distance" and you will discover more bizarre phenomenon we can't really explain. Indeed, it is the driving force behind quantum physics. We must be very cautious in proclaiming things that "cannot happen" and keep our minds open to possibilities... even when we think them impossible. 

Our perceptions of reality are unique to each of us. No two persons ever have or ever will have the same exact perception of reality. Even a pair of Siamese twins joined at the hip for life will experience a slightly different reality from their own perspective. So if reality is an illusion of perception and all realities are unique, then it is possible that your reality may have no Supreme Deity and mine could have. Just as it could exist in both or not exist in either... or there could be multiple Supreme Deities existing simultaneously. Whatever our opinions, beliefs or faiths are, have nothing to do with what is ultimately the Truth. That, we do not know.


----------



## Boss

jillian said:


> ...and really, it's no one's business as long as one doesn't impose their view on others...



The problem is... that's civilization in a nutshell. We collectively determine what will be our business and what we will impose on the society in which we live. In OUR society, we value freedom and that means that you and I ostensibly have equal voices and say in what rules, boundaries or limitations govern our society. Every law on the books imposes a will on the views of others. A bank robber has a view that he deserves the money in a bank... we collectively impose our view that he doesn't deserve the money in the bank.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> How is calling yourself agnostic playing it safe? Is there a rule you have to believe a God exists? This is why we all know you as a cherry picking Christian. You sound similar to Christians who claim you'll go to hell if you don't accept Jesus as Lord. Are you saying in your religion belief is required? Why? In Christianity we know why. God says so. In yours it's because boss says so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a rule in applying definitions accurately to describe what things mean. Agnostic is the absence of belief in the _*knowledge*_ of whether anything spiritual exists. In other words, and agnostic is A-Gnostic... (gnostic means knowledge of something spiritual) An Atheist is absence of *belief* in a God. The distinction of difference is generally understood to be, an agnostic _*doesn't know*_ whether God exists or not... an Atheist _*doesn't believe*_ God exists. This is why I said long ago, you cannot be both Agnostic and Atheist. If you are Atheist, you are no longer saying you don't know if God does or doesn't exist. You are saying you don't believe God exists.
> 
> I don't understand why you constantly attempt to make allegations that I am a Christian of some kind or that I am somehow promoting religious beliefs. I know that you find it easy and gratifying to trash and bash Christians and Jews for their religious beliefs... that's the only justification I can find for you continuing to make this kind of false insinuation in spite of my consistently asserting otherwise. It's disappointing to me that you continue to want to do this knowing that I am going to reject your allegation and reiterate that I am not a religious person, I don't belong to any organized religion, I am not attempting to convert you to a religion or get you to accept any religious belief.
> 
> Honestly, regardless of what I believe or you believe, the truth is still ultimately the truth. My belief and your belief do not influence the truth. When attempting to have an intellectual discussion about the topic of human spirituality, this point should always be kept at the forefront. The Truth... is unknown. None of us really know the truth.... even some devoutly religious person, like say... Billy Graham... as strong in faith as he is, doesn't KNOW the truth. He believes he knows... that is his faith. You also believe you know that Christianity is a lie... that is your faith. The Truth... is unknown... and it doesn't change depending on your personal belief.
> 
> You could be right, I could be right or we both could be right (or wrong).... I know that sounds odd but it's possible... God may exist and not exist at the same time. In your perception of reality God doesn't exist and in mine God does exist... who knows?  The TRUTH is unknown. It always will be.
Click to expand...

Let me answer the first. Your definitions may be correct but that's not how people are using the words. Or that's not their meaning when they use a term. Great example is when a theist asks an atheist why they worship Satan. They confuse satanic and atheist.

A theist assumes God is a fact because he visited. Fact. There's no question. An atheist may be someone who doesn't buy that God visited. And he/I don't think there is an eternal creator. I think time and space are eternal. Even you must admit that if there's a beginning of time but God existed before this time then there was a time before time. If God is eternal so is time.

In fact there is no need for a God.

Call me agnostic because I can't know for sure? Then we are all agnostic


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> How is calling yourself agnostic playing it safe? Is there a rule you have to believe a God exists? This is why we all know you as a cherry picking Christian. You sound similar to Christians who claim you'll go to hell if you don't accept Jesus as Lord. Are you saying in your religion belief is required? Why? In Christianity we know why. God says so. In yours it's because boss says so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a rule in applying definitions accurately to describe what things mean. Agnostic is the absence of belief in the _*knowledge*_ of whether anything spiritual exists. In other words, and agnostic is A-Gnostic... (gnostic means knowledge of something spiritual) An Atheist is absence of *belief* in a God. The distinction of difference is generally understood to be, an agnostic _*doesn't know*_ whether God exists or not... an Atheist _*doesn't believe*_ God exists. This is why I said long ago, you cannot be both Agnostic and Atheist. If you are Atheist, you are no longer saying you don't know if God does or doesn't exist. You are saying you don't believe God exists.
> 
> I don't understand why you constantly attempt to make allegations that I am a Christian of some kind or that I am somehow promoting religious beliefs. I know that you find it easy and gratifying to trash and bash Christians and Jews for their religious beliefs... that's the only justification I can find for you continuing to make this kind of false insinuation in spite of my consistently asserting otherwise. It's disappointing to me that you continue to want to do this knowing that I am going to reject your allegation and reiterate that I am not a religious person, I don't belong to any organized religion, I am not attempting to convert you to a religion or get you to accept any religious belief.
> 
> Honestly, regardless of what I believe or you believe, the truth is still ultimately the truth. My belief and your belief do not influence the truth. When attempting to have an intellectual discussion about the topic of human spirituality, this point should always be kept at the forefront. The Truth... is unknown. None of us really know the truth.... even some devoutly religious person, like say... Billy Graham... as strong in faith as he is, doesn't KNOW the truth. He believes he knows... that is his faith. You also believe you know that Christianity is a lie... that is your faith. The Truth... is unknown... and it doesn't change depending on your personal belief.
> 
> You could be right, I could be right or we both could be right (or wrong).... I know that sounds odd but it's possible... God may exist and not exist at the same time. In your perception of reality God doesn't exist and in mine God does exist... who knows?  The TRUTH is unknown. It always will be.
Click to expand...

Every once in a while you dip into Christian talk like an afterlife. What possible reason do you have for believing in an afterlife? Seems like wishful thinking to me


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Let me answer the first. Your definitions may be correct but that's not how people are using the words. Or that's not their meaning when they use a term. Great example is when a theist asks an atheist why they worship Satan. They confuse satanic and atheist.
> 
> A theist assumes God is a fact because he visited. Fact. There's no question. An atheist may be someone who doesn't buy that God visited. And he/I don't think there is an eternal creator. I think time and space are eternal. Even you must admit that if there's a beginning of time but God existed before this time then there was a time before time. If God is eternal so is time.
> 
> In fact there is no need for a God.
> 
> Call me agnostic because I can't know for sure? Then we are all agnostic



First of all, I don't really care how idiots misuse words and it's not a reason for us to adopt the idiot's definitions or usage of said words. 

Time is not eternal according to physics and math. Do you not believe in physics or math? God is not bound by time... Time is a physical dimension of a physical universe. It means nothing to a Spiritual God. 

You say "there is no need for a God" but that isn't what we're discussing. There is also no need for a universe, math, physics, time, space, planets, life, etc. Whether there is a need is not the issue. 

Agnostic doesn't mean you can't know for sure. It means absent the knowledge of something spiritual. Some people believe they have knowledge of something spiritual, therefore, they are not agnostic. They cannot prove the knowledge they believe to have is true but you also cannot prove it's false.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Every once in a while you dip into Christian talk like an afterlife. What possible reason do you have for believing in an afterlife? Seems like wishful thinking to me



I don't see where I've discussed an afterlife in this thread, but let's discuss that for a moment since you bring it up... 

Life is physical existence. If something exists beyond the physical, then it's certainly possible our spiritual essence continues on after our physical life is over. Going back to my previous statement, spiritual nature doesn't depend on the physical and time is a parameter of a physical universe. There is no reason to conclude our spirit "dies" when our physical body does. I think the word "afterlife" is a misnomer because the spirit is not "living" which is the state of carrying on the process of physical life. If our spirit exists, it exists eternally as do all things spiritual. So while I don't believe there is "life after death" I do believe there is eternal spiritual existence. 

What happens to our spirit after our physical body expires, I have no idea. I will say this... it seems to me that our spirits are guided on a deliberate course toward a higher purpose. We are compelled toward good and light... away from evil and dark. Could be that's spiritually natural and means nothing, or it could mean our spirits "evolve" and move on to the "next level" or something? I don't know the answer to this. Maybe inferior spirits are sent to exist inside a physical universe for some reason and we're literally "doing time" as spirits in prison? Maybe when our physical sentence is up there will be a Judge to determine if our spirit was rehabilitated? Again, this is just me spitballing... I have no clue what the answer is.


----------



## BreezeWood

.







reproduction between two adults to create a sibling or the metamorphic process changing from one physical state to another, limbs to wings is proof of a delineation between a physical and Spiritual presence for all living beings ... the mechanism is a selfsustaining non physical interrelationship with the physical, physiological encasement.

.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hubble's observations suggested that there was a time, called the big bang, when the universe was infinitesimally small and infinitely dense. Under such conditions all the laws of science, and therefore all ability to predict the future, would break down. If there were events earlier than this time, then they could not affect what happens at the present time. Their existence can be ignored because it would have no observational consequences. One may say that time had a beginning at the big bang, in the sense that earlier times simply would not be defined. It should be emphasized that this beginning in time is very different from those that had been considered previously. In an unchanging universe a beginning in time is something that has to be imposed by some being outside the universe; there is no physical necessity for a beginning. One can imagine that God created the universe at literally any time in the past. On the other hand, if the universe is expanding, there may be physical reasons why there had to be a beginning. One could imagine that God created the universe at the instant of the big bang, or even afterwards in just such a way as to make it look as though there had been a big bang, but it would be meaningless to suppose that it was created before the big bang. An expanding universe does not preclude a creator, but it does place limits on when he might have carried out his job!
> 
> So what did god do before the big bang?  We know pretty much when the big bang happened.  So what happened before the big bang?  Did god just sit looking at a blank screen for all eternity before the big bang?  It only happened 13 million years ago.  Not that long ago for a god.
> 
> Answer is, there is no god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you meant 13 *billion* instead of 13 million. And what you are measuring is a physical parameter known as "time." While time is still a mysterious and perplexing thing to physical science, we do know that time is not linear it is relative. In physics, time is distance, specifically, the distance light travels per second. What enables our sense of time is merely the universe expanding. If the universe stops expanding, time will end.
> 
> Now you speak of "The Big Bang" and it's interesting to note, the term "Big Bang" itself was originally a pejorative, like "Star Wars" for Reagan's SDI or "Bush's War" for the Iraq War. Many scientists simply dismissed the theory as nonsense at first, hence the name "Big Bang." It was made fun of and joked about in the upper scientific circles. We're talking about less than 100 years ago. Of course, the fact that Hubble discovered the universe is expanding, lent a huge amount of credibility to the theory of a Big Bang. For about the past 20 years, however, the super-telescope which bears his name has discovered a fascinating new piece to the puzzle. The universe is not only expanding, it is accelerating.
> 
> So what does that mean? Well, if you comprehend the dynamics of motion and physics, it could mean there wasn't ever a Big Bang. Physicists such as Stephen Hawking (hardly a dum-dum) would dispute your presentation of "Big Bang" as "proven fact." So this is a THEORY, and one that has been considered a joke, then taken seriously, and now is being questioned once again. You should consider applying your agnosticism to this, it's best to say we don't know at this time.
> 
> You ask, what did God do before he created the universe... Well, time didn't yet exist, so it doesn't really matter. Perhaps God was busy creating other universes? Current quantum mechanics have presented string theories which posit there may be many universes. Perhaps a universe exists where spiritual existence is the "norm" and the spiritual entities ponder the possibility of physical existence?
Click to expand...


There was once life on mars 

What Does A Newly Born Pacific Island Say About Life On Mars?

Remarkably, they saw processes involving complex interplays of water and newly formed rock, whose traces look a whole lot like features seen on Mars. The thing about Mars is we know that planet had a lot of volcanism going on billions of years ago. We're also pretty sure the Red Planet had a lot of water billions of years ago, too. Put that together with particular and puzzling features seen on Mars today, and the connection between Mars then and Earth now begins to take focus.

I don't want to give any more spoilers. Just take five minutes of your day, watch this amazing video, and let its story and its science knock you to the floor as it did to me.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hubble's observations suggested that there was a time, called the big bang, when the universe was infinitesimally small and infinitely dense. Under such conditions all the laws of science, and therefore all ability to predict the future, would break down. If there were events earlier than this time, then they could not affect what happens at the present time. Their existence can be ignored because it would have no observational consequences. One may say that time had a beginning at the big bang, in the sense that earlier times simply would not be defined. It should be emphasized that this beginning in time is very different from those that had been considered previously. In an unchanging universe a beginning in time is something that has to be imposed by some being outside the universe; there is no physical necessity for a beginning. One can imagine that God created the universe at literally any time in the past. On the other hand, if the universe is expanding, there may be physical reasons why there had to be a beginning. One could imagine that God created the universe at the instant of the big bang, or even afterwards in just such a way as to make it look as though there had been a big bang, but it would be meaningless to suppose that it was created before the big bang. An expanding universe does not preclude a creator, but it does place limits on when he might have carried out his job!
> 
> So what did god do before the big bang?  We know pretty much when the big bang happened.  So what happened before the big bang?  Did god just sit looking at a blank screen for all eternity before the big bang?  It only happened 13 million years ago.  Not that long ago for a god.
> 
> Answer is, there is no god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you meant 13 *billion* instead of 13 million. And what you are measuring is a physical parameter known as "time." While time is still a mysterious and perplexing thing to physical science, we do know that time is not linear it is relative. In physics, time is distance, specifically, the distance light travels per second. What enables our sense of time is merely the universe expanding. If the universe stops expanding, time will end.
> 
> Now you speak of "The Big Bang" and it's interesting to note, the term "Big Bang" itself was originally a pejorative, like "Star Wars" for Reagan's SDI or "Bush's War" for the Iraq War. Many scientists simply dismissed the theory as nonsense at first, hence the name "Big Bang." It was made fun of and joked about in the upper scientific circles. We're talking about less than 100 years ago. Of course, the fact that Hubble discovered the universe is expanding, lent a huge amount of credibility to the theory of a Big Bang. For about the past 20 years, however, the super-telescope which bears his name has discovered a fascinating new piece to the puzzle. The universe is not only expanding, it is accelerating.
> 
> So what does that mean? Well, if you comprehend the dynamics of motion and physics, it could mean there wasn't ever a Big Bang. Physicists such as Stephen Hawking (hardly a dum-dum) would dispute your presentation of "Big Bang" as "proven fact." So this is a THEORY, and one that has been considered a joke, then taken seriously, and now is being questioned once again. You should consider applying your agnosticism to this, it's best to say we don't know at this time.
> 
> You ask, what did God do before he created the universe... Well, time didn't yet exist, so it doesn't really matter. Perhaps God was busy creating other universes? Current quantum mechanics have presented string theories which posit there may be many universes. Perhaps a universe exists where spiritual existence is the "norm" and the spiritual entities ponder the possibility of physical existence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was once life on mars
> 
> What Does A Newly Born Pacific Island Say About Life On Mars?
> 
> Remarkably, they saw processes involving complex interplays of water and newly formed rock, whose traces look a whole lot like features seen on Mars. The thing about Mars is we know that planet had a lot of volcanism going on billions of years ago. We're also pretty sure the Red Planet had a lot of water billions of years ago, too. Put that together with particular and puzzling features seen on Mars today, and the connection between Mars then and Earth now begins to take focus.
> 
> I don't want to give any more spoilers. Just take five minutes of your day, watch this amazing video, and let its story and its science knock you to the floor as it did to me.
Click to expand...



LMAO... Sorry, that does not prove there was once life on Mars!


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hubble's observations suggested that there was a time, called the big bang, when the universe was infinitesimally small and infinitely dense. Under such conditions all the laws of science, and therefore all ability to predict the future, would break down. If there were events earlier than this time, then they could not affect what happens at the present time. Their existence can be ignored because it would have no observational consequences. One may say that time had a beginning at the big bang, in the sense that earlier times simply would not be defined. It should be emphasized that this beginning in time is very different from those that had been considered previously. In an unchanging universe a beginning in time is something that has to be imposed by some being outside the universe; there is no physical necessity for a beginning. One can imagine that God created the universe at literally any time in the past. On the other hand, if the universe is expanding, there may be physical reasons why there had to be a beginning. One could imagine that God created the universe at the instant of the big bang, or even afterwards in just such a way as to make it look as though there had been a big bang, but it would be meaningless to suppose that it was created before the big bang. An expanding universe does not preclude a creator, but it does place limits on when he might have carried out his job!
> 
> So what did god do before the big bang?  We know pretty much when the big bang happened.  So what happened before the big bang?  Did god just sit looking at a blank screen for all eternity before the big bang?  It only happened 13 million years ago.  Not that long ago for a god.
> 
> Answer is, there is no god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you meant 13 *billion* instead of 13 million. And what you are measuring is a physical parameter known as "time." While time is still a mysterious and perplexing thing to physical science, we do know that time is not linear it is relative. In physics, time is distance, specifically, the distance light travels per second. What enables our sense of time is merely the universe expanding. If the universe stops expanding, time will end.
> 
> Now you speak of "The Big Bang" and it's interesting to note, the term "Big Bang" itself was originally a pejorative, like "Star Wars" for Reagan's SDI or "Bush's War" for the Iraq War. Many scientists simply dismissed the theory as nonsense at first, hence the name "Big Bang." It was made fun of and joked about in the upper scientific circles. We're talking about less than 100 years ago. Of course, the fact that Hubble discovered the universe is expanding, lent a huge amount of credibility to the theory of a Big Bang. For about the past 20 years, however, the super-telescope which bears his name has discovered a fascinating new piece to the puzzle. The universe is not only expanding, it is accelerating.
> 
> So what does that mean? Well, if you comprehend the dynamics of motion and physics, it could mean there wasn't ever a Big Bang. Physicists such as Stephen Hawking (hardly a dum-dum) would dispute your presentation of "Big Bang" as "proven fact." So this is a THEORY, and one that has been considered a joke, then taken seriously, and now is being questioned once again. You should consider applying your agnosticism to this, it's best to say we don't know at this time.
> 
> You ask, what did God do before he created the universe... Well, time didn't yet exist, so it doesn't really matter. Perhaps God was busy creating other universes? Current quantum mechanics have presented string theories which posit there may be many universes. Perhaps a universe exists where spiritual existence is the "norm" and the spiritual entities ponder the possibility of physical existence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was once life on mars
> 
> What Does A Newly Born Pacific Island Say About Life On Mars?
> 
> Remarkably, they saw processes involving complex interplays of water and newly formed rock, whose traces look a whole lot like features seen on Mars. The thing about Mars is we know that planet had a lot of volcanism going on billions of years ago. We're also pretty sure the Red Planet had a lot of water billions of years ago, too. Put that together with particular and puzzling features seen on Mars today, and the connection between Mars then and Earth now begins to take focus.
> 
> I don't want to give any more spoilers. Just take five minutes of your day, watch this amazing video, and let its story and its science knock you to the floor as it did to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO... Sorry, that does not prove there was once life on Mars!
Click to expand...


Of course not Boss but it's more proof there is/was life on mars than you have presented for a god existing.  

Oh I forgot.  You have determined that if we do find life elsewhere that this will be more proof to you that a god exists.  As apposed to all the other theists who fear finding life elsewhere because then they will feel that means they aren't special.

I agree with you actually.  No way this would be the only planet god would put life and I even doubt this is the only universe.

Here is another thing that should blow your mind:

Astronomers have discovered what may be the most massive black hole ever known in a small galaxy about *250 million light-years* from Earth, scientists say. The supermassive black hole has a mass equivalent to 17 billion suns and is located inside the galaxy NGC 1277 in the constellation Perseus.

You can't even wrap your brain around that.  This black hole can fit 17 billion of our suns inside it.  Kind of makes you feel small and insignificant huh?  It should.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

If the God Pretenders went away, I'm sure the God Haters would be right behind them.


----------



## sealybobo

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> If the God Pretenders went away, I'm sure the God Haters would be right behind them.


Like I don’t hate boss. He’s making the same arguments men were making before Moses lies and said god visited.

Boss doesn’t say you’ll go to hell for not believing. If he does I’d like to know where he came up with such a notion.

I would just be adamant that no there does not have to be a creator. There could be but there doesn’t have to be


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

sealybobo said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the God Pretenders went away, I'm sure the God Haters would be right behind them.
> 
> 
> 
> Like I don’t hate boss. He’s making the same arguments men were making before Moses lies and said god visited.
> 
> Boss doesn’t say you’ll go to hell for not believing. If he does I’d like to know where he came up with such a notion.
> 
> I would just be adamant that no there does not have to be a creator. There could be but there doesn’t have to be
Click to expand...

Right. And I would, personally, never "hate god", because it is an absurd notion to hate something that you do not believe exists. And I think that, if there were "one God", he would be a pretty benevolent entity and would be nothing like the immoral, vain, evil, unethical, and frankly stupid god described in the abrahamic religions.


----------



## sealybobo

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the God Pretenders went away, I'm sure the God Haters would be right behind them.
> 
> 
> 
> Like I don’t hate boss. He’s making the same arguments men were making before Moses lies and said god visited.
> 
> Boss doesn’t say you’ll go to hell for not believing. If he does I’d like to know where he came up with such a notion.
> 
> I would just be adamant that no there does not have to be a creator. There could be but there doesn’t have to be
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right. And I would, personally, never "hate god", because it is an absurd notion to hate something that you do not believe exists. And I think that, if there were "one God", he would be a pretty benevolent entity and would be nothing like the immoral, vain, evil, unethical, and frankly stupid god described in the abrahamic religions.
Click to expand...

I can just see so clearly how are primitive ancestors came up with god heaven and hell. First you must conclude there is a god. Then what is your purpose? What does god want? So then you start talking about good and evil. The golden rule. Etc. 

Then what happens to bad people? Where’s gramma?

It’s so obvious.

So I go about my life not believing in god but still living my life by asking would god approve? So I don’t murder or steal. But I may have one night stands or curse or lie now and again. I may even work on Sunday and use the lords name in vein and I most certainly worship other gods and idols....just in case


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Astronomers have discovered what may be the most massive black hole ever known in a small galaxy about *250 million light-years* from Earth, scientists say. The supermassive black hole has a mass equivalent to 17 billion suns and is located inside the galaxy NGC 1277 in the constellation Perseus.
> 
> You can't even wrap your brain around that. This black hole can fit 17 billion of our suns inside it. Kind of makes you feel small and insignificant huh? It should.



Furthermore, this massive black hole is a mere speck in one galaxy of trillions in the universe.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

sealybobo said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the God Pretenders went away, I'm sure the God Haters would be right behind them.
> 
> 
> 
> Like I don’t hate boss. He’s making the same arguments men were making before Moses lies and said god visited.
> 
> Boss doesn’t say you’ll go to hell for not believing. If he does I’d like to know where he came up with such a notion.
> 
> I would just be adamant that no there does not have to be a creator. There could be but there doesn’t have to be
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right. And I would, personally, never "hate god", because it is an absurd notion to hate something that you do not believe exists. And I think that, if there were "one God", he would be a pretty benevolent entity and would be nothing like the immoral, vain, evil, unethical, and frankly stupid god described in the abrahamic religions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can just see so clearly how are primitive ancestors came up with god heaven and hell. First you must conclude there is a god. Then what is your purpose? What does god want? So then you start talking about good and evil. The golden rule. Etc.
> 
> Then what happens to bad people? Where’s gramma?
> 
> It’s so obvious.
> 
> So I go about my life not believing in god but still living my life by asking would god approve? So I don’t murder or steal. But I may have one night stands or curse or lie now and again. I may even work on Sunday and use the lords name in vein and I most certainly worship other gods and idols....just in case
Click to expand...

I do not give it a single thought, really.  If i reach moral and ethical decisions by reason, I go all in with confidence.  And I certainly have no interest in trying to convince anyone to abandon any religion.  My only interest in religious beliefs is that the same suspension of incredulity required to adopt these magical paradigms is what leads people to believe all manner of nonsense, much of it harmful.  It is not coincidence that so many Evangelical Americans also deny evolution and climate science. It is no coincidence that so many mystic hippies also believe fluoride and vaccination nonsense.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss doesn’t say you’ll go to hell for not believing. If he does I’d like to know where he came up with such a notion.



I don't know about "hell" per say but I do believe there is ultimately "cosmic justice" for allowing your soul to descend to a fallen state of evil. Reason being, natural order and logic. There is a reason we are compelled toward good and away from evil, toward the light and away from the dark. Even the most devout atheist recognizes this. Even other forms of life seem to intrinsically know this. Why would every indicator point to this if there were no reason?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boss doesn’t say you’ll go to hell for not believing. If he does I’d like to know where he came up with such a notion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know about "hell" per say but I do believe there is ultimately "cosmic justice" for allowing your soul to descend to a fallen state of evil. Reason being, natural order and logic. There is a reason we are compelled toward good and away from evil, toward the light and away from the dark. Even the most devout atheist recognizes this. Even other forms of life seem to intrinsically know this. Why would every indicator point to this if there were no reason?
Click to expand...

And some species engage explicitly in forms of behavior that we would consider "evil" if we engaged in them, and they do so for evolutionary reasons. I doubt anyone would hesitate to call a newlywed human bride "evil" for dining on her husband's head, right after consummating the marriage.

Why would our ability to empathize not also arise purely from selective forces, just as does the "evil" behavior we see in other creatures?  It does, of course.  You think we are "guided toward good"?  Hah, no, that is merely a construct.  It's an invention of a mind (yours) gifted with the ability of language and culture,  a culture into which you were born purely by genetic accident.  Go ahead and walk into the territory of an unmet tribe in lower South America... they may kill you immediately, simply in case you trap a small rodent in their territory which _might _have been _part _of their dinner one day.  Of course, in our modern society, which comes with our modern morals derived from REASON, we would consider killing someone over a small rodent (a la, dinner) to be "evil", and we would consider the act itself to be "evil". In fact, we might collectively agree to murder that person (e.g., give them the electric chair) afterward.

Our sense of empathy arose hand in hand with our evolutionary progress toward social groups.  That same tribe that would kill an intruder then eat his brains also does good deeds for one another within the tribe.  Why?  Spirituality? "Higher purpose"?  Pffftt.... there is no need to add these goofy magical layers to explain anything.  It's hard-wired right into their makeup to do so.  If it weren't, our species would have evolved very differently, or even not at all. Without this hard-wired empathy, there would be no "tribe".


----------



## Boss

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boss doesn’t say you’ll go to hell for not believing. If he does I’d like to know where he came up with such a notion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know about "hell" per say but I do believe there is ultimately "cosmic justice" for allowing your soul to descend to a fallen state of evil. Reason being, natural order and logic. There is a reason we are compelled toward good and away from evil, toward the light and away from the dark. Even the most devout atheist recognizes this. Even other forms of life seem to intrinsically know this. Why would every indicator point to this if there were no reason?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And some species engage explicitly in forms of behavior that we would consider "evil" if we engaged in them, and they do so for evolutionary reasons. I doubt anyone would hesitate to call a newlywed human bride "evil" for dining on her husband's head, right after consummating the marriage.
> 
> Why would our ability to empathize not also arise purely from selective forces, just as does the "evil" behavior we see in other creatures?  It does, of course.  You think we are "guided toward good"?  Hah, no, that is merely a construct.  It's an invention of a mind gifted with the ability of language and culture,  a culture into which you were born purely by genetic accident.  Go ahead and walk into the territory of an unmet tribe in lower South America... they may kill you immediately, simply in case you trap a small rodent in their territory which _might _have been their dinner one day.  Of course, in our modern society, which comes with our modern morals derived from REASON, we would consider killing someone over a small rodent (a la, dinner) to be "evil", and we would consider the act itself to be "evil". In fact, we might collectively agree to murder that person (e.g., give them the electric chair) afterward.
> 
> Our sense of empathy arose hand in hand with our evolutionary progress toward social groups.  That same tribe that would kill an intruder then eat his brains also does good deeds for one another within the tribe.  Why?  Spirituality? "Higher purpose"?  Pffftt.... there is no need to add these goofy magical layers to explain anything.  It's hard-wired right into their makeup to do so.  If it weren't, our species would have evolved very differently, or even not at all. Without this hard-wired empathy, there would be no "tribe".
Click to expand...


Our ability to "REASON" is derived from our intrinsic spiritual connection to something greater than self.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Boss said:


> Our ability to "REASON" is derived from our intrinsic spiritual connection to something greater than self.


That's a magical, authoritative declaration for which you have not a shred of evidence.  I, on the other hand, can show that the ability to reason differs among animals by degree, and not necessarily by kind, and I can then trace its evolutionary origins quite nicely.  I can explain this evolved ability to reason (not just in humans) by pointing out how it helps survival by enhancing individuals' ability to evaluate each others statements and arguments, and therefore enhance communication, and therefore enhance survival.



See... explained, without a single iota of magical bullshit required.  Now, to be clear, I am not arguing that what you are saying is false, so please do not make that error.  I am saying it is _useless _and unnecessary_. _ It's like saying your car didn't start yesterday "Because the battery died due to a bad alternator, which happened because of bad karma from smacking that baby that one time".  See which part of that is useless and explains nothing and yields no useful predictions?  Easy answer.


----------



## Boss

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our ability to "REASON" is derived from our intrinsic spiritual connection to something greater than self.
> 
> 
> 
> That's a magical, authoritative declaration for which you have not a shred of evidence.  I, on the other hand, can show that the ability to reason differs among animals by degree, and not necessarily by kind, and I can then trace its evolutionary origins quite nicely.  I can explain this evolved ability to reason (not just in humans) by pointing out how it helps survival by enhancing individuals' ability to evaluate each others statements and arguments, and therefore enhance communication, and therefore enhance survival.
> 
> 
> 
> See... explained, without a single iota of magical bullshit required.  Now, to be clear, I am not arguing that what you are saying is false, so please do not make that error.  I am saying it is _useless _and unnecessary_. _ It's like saying your car didn't start yesterday "Because the battery died due to a bad alternator, which happened because of bad karma from smacking that baby that one time".  See which part of that is useless and explains nothing and yields no useful predictions?  Easy answer.
Click to expand...


I never said a thing about magic.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Boss said:


> I never said a thing about magic.


Because you think your magic is special and is above being called "magic".  You, and everyone else who has a favorite, magical idea.  You all get offended in the same way. I'll call it magic, and you can use prettier phrases meant to beguile and charm, like "higher power" and "spiritual".  Looks like we understand each other.


----------



## Marion Morrison

Boss said:


> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.





3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as [they were] from the beginning of the creation.


----------



## Marion Morrison

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said a thing about magic.
> 
> 
> 
> Because you think your magic is special and is above being called "magic".  You, and everyone else who has a favorite, magical idea.  You all get offended in the same way. I'll call it magic, and you can use prettier phrases meant to beguile and charm, like "higher power" and "spiritual".  Looks like we understand each other.
Click to expand...


The thing is, you understand nothing, and have been robbed of the ability to think for yourself, unlike so many before you.

Denying students critical thinking training is a fairly new occurrence. Sorry bub, you got screwed.


----------



## Indeependent

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said a thing about magic.
> 
> 
> 
> Because you think your magic is special and is above being called "magic".  You, and everyone else who has a favorite, magical idea.  You all get offended in the same way. I'll call it magic, and you can use prettier phrases meant to beguile and charm, like "higher power" and "spiritual".  Looks like we understand each other.
Click to expand...

There are few people as obnoxious as atheists.
Even a Jehovah's Witness will back off after I point out to them they don't know Hebrew.
But you are the 2 year old cynic in the kindergarten room.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Marion Morrison said:


> Denying students critical thinking training is a fairly new occurrence.


Sorry brokeback, you got the wrong guy.  If it were up to me, i would start teaching logic in about 3rd grade.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Indeependent said:


> Even a Jehovah's Witness will back off after I point out to them they don't know Hebrew.


What does that have to do with anyone calling either of your magical religions, "magic"? Nothing, really.


----------



## Marion Morrison

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> Denying students critical thinking training is a fairly new occurrence.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry brokeback, you got the wrong guy.  If it were up to me, i would start teaching logic in about 3rd grade.
Click to expand...


Let's hear some of your logic, then. 

Tell us all about how subjective morality isn't the reason for the increase in mass shootings.

Tell us more about how every man has his own morality and there is no standard moral code.

There is, and then there's people that choose to ignore it,  which they are free to do, because God gave man free will.

If you want to choose to be ignorant, and think you're not living in God's world, then so be it! You are free! 

But you will never understand what's really going on.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Marion Morrison said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> Denying students critical thinking training is a fairly new occurrence.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry brokeback, you got the wrong guy.  If it were up to me, i would start teaching logic in about 3rd grade.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's hear some of your logic, then.
Click to expand...

What would you like to me to argue, fine sir?


----------



## Indeependent

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even a Jehovah's Witness will back off after I point out to them they don't know Hebrew.
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with anyone calling either of your magical religions, "magic"? Nothing, really.
Click to expand...

I don't care that you're an atheist and you shouldn't care that anyone besides yourself believes in God unless they're sticking it up your nose.
And having a relationship with God is not magic.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Marion Morrison said:


> Tell us all about how subjective morality isn't the reason for the increase in mass shootings.



OKay.

 There has been virtually nothing but immoral and moral behavior since the first society sprang up.  Second, all morality is, indeed, subjective, in that the premises we use are chosen subjectively. Trust me, you have better morals than your average equivalent from the year 1400, or 800.  Why? You get most of your morality from reason, not from religion.   But,  the only subjective thing about reason-based morals are their premises.  Do you believe blacks are humans or subhumans, for instance?  Why? Your choice is your premise from which you argue your morals. I have this little feeling most of us here would have had different answers to that question, were we all born 300 years ago. 

So, no, "subjective morality" itself is not responsible for anything, just as a hammer is not responsible for bashing someone's head in. Culture and anti-culture is responsible.

I would argue that much more responsible (as in, 100 to zero) is the information age. People want these mass shootings to be heard and seen around the world. Else, they would be using a different tactic than lone wolf events.  They are deadly, but they are propaganda tools.  A war of information, not attrition, when it comes to terrorist shooters.  When people just lose it and kill mom and dad and shoot up the school?  They want to be somebody. As our culture changes, which is frankly really stupid when it comes to guns, these events change.  Did the guy climb the bell tower and because of "subjective morality"?  No, and saying so explains absolutely nothing.  He was clinically psychopathic and wanted to be famous.


----------



## Boss

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said a thing about magic.
> 
> 
> 
> Because you think your magic is special and is above being called "magic".  You, and everyone else who has a favorite, magical idea.  You all get offended in the same way. I'll call it magic, and you can use prettier phrases meant to beguile and charm, like "higher power" and "spiritual".  Looks like we understand each other.
Click to expand...


Magic is the word you are using for something you can't comprehend. There is nothing "magical" about spiritual nature.


----------



## Marion Morrison

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us all about how subjective morality isn't the reason for the increase in mass shootings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKay.
> 
> There has been virtually nothing but immoral and moral behavior since the first society sprang up.  Second, all morality is, indeed, subjective, in that the premises we use are chosen subjectively. Trust me, you have better morals than you average equivalent from the year 1400, or 800.  Why? You get most of your morality from reason, not from religion.   But, it's the only subjective thing about reason-based morals are their premises.  Do you believe blacks are humans or subhumans, for instance?  Why? Your choice is your premise from which you argue your morals. I have this little feeling most of us here would have had different answers to that question, were we all born 300 years ago.
> 
> So, no, "subjective morality" itself is not responsible for anything, just as a hammer is not responsible for bashing someone's head in. Culture and anti-culture is responsible.
> 
> I would argue that much more responsible (as in, 100 to zero) is the information age. People want these mass shootings to be heard and seen around the world. Else, they would be using a different tactic, than lone wolf events.  They are deadly, but they are propaganda tools.  A war of information, vs. attrition, when it comes to ISIS.  When people just lose it and kill mom and dad and shoot up the school?  They want to be somebody. As our culture changes, which is frankly really stupid when it comes to guns, these events change.  Did the guy climb the bell tower and because of "subjective morality"?  No, and saying so explains absolutely nothing.  He was clinically psychopathic and wanted to be famous.
Click to expand...


You keep telling yourself that. Let me know when you truly believe it.

Ecclesiastes 3 KJV


----------



## Slyhunter

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boss doesn’t say you’ll go to hell for not believing. If he does I’d like to know where he came up with such a notion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know about "hell" per say but I do believe there is ultimately "cosmic justice" for allowing your soul to descend to a fallen state of evil. Reason being, natural order and logic. There is a reason we are compelled toward good and away from evil, toward the light and away from the dark. Even the most devout atheist recognizes this. Even other forms of life seem to intrinsically know this. Why would every indicator point to this if there were no reason?
Click to expand...

If death is simply the transition from a material state to an immaterial one then murder is not evil.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Indeependent said:


> And having a relationship with God is not magic.


But gods are magic and miracles are magic.  What word do you prefer?  "Miraculous"?  "Metaphysical"? "Spiritual"? I have to pick one to describe these beliefs. And I am going to use the same word for all manner of magical beliefs, like chiropractic, , Ouija boards, Wicca, Astrology, Voodoo, Homeopathic medicine.... all of this magical thought goes on the same shelf, for me.  so, if not "magical",.... then, what?  "Bullshit?"   What?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Marion Morrison said:


> You keep telling yourself that. Let me know when you truly believe it.


....and then we get treated to what passes for logic to you.


----------



## Marion Morrison

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep telling yourself that. Let me know when you truly believe it.
> 
> 
> 
> ....and then we get treated to what passes for logic to you.
Click to expand...


Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!


----------



## Slyhunter

Indeependent said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even a Jehovah's Witness will back off after I point out to them they don't know Hebrew.
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with anyone calling either of your magical religions, "magic"? Nothing, really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't care that you're an atheist and you shouldn't care that anyone besides yourself believes in God unless they're sticking it up your nose.
> And having a relationship with God is not magic.
Click to expand...

There was a time I believed in Santa. Then I grew up.
There was a time I had an invisible friend. Then I grew up.
Having a relationship with an imaginary entity, you haven't grown up.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boss doesn’t say you’ll go to hell for not believing. If he does I’d like to know where he came up with such a notion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know about "hell" per say but I do believe there is ultimately "cosmic justice" for allowing your soul to descend to a fallen state of evil. Reason being, natural order and logic. There is a reason we are compelled toward good and away from evil, toward the light and away from the dark. Even the most devout atheist recognizes this. Even other forms of life seem to intrinsically know this. Why would every indicator point to this if there were no reason?
Click to expand...

Because it makes the most sense? I don’t know. The world beyond humans is pretty brutal. Coyotes lurking. Bear. Mosquitos. Poisonous snakes. 

Before we were organized and civilized we took out other tribes. 

But really there is no reason. When this planet dies everything that happened on it is gone. Just like the life that used to be on mars billions of years ago


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boss doesn’t say you’ll go to hell for not believing. If he does I’d like to know where he came up with such a notion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know about "hell" per say but I do believe there is ultimately "cosmic justice" for allowing your soul to descend to a fallen state of evil. Reason being, natural order and logic. There is a reason we are compelled toward good and away from evil, toward the light and away from the dark. Even the most devout atheist recognizes this. Even other forms of life seem to intrinsically know this. Why would every indicator point to this if there were no reason?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And some species engage explicitly in forms of behavior that we would consider "evil" if we engaged in them, and they do so for evolutionary reasons. I doubt anyone would hesitate to call a newlywed human bride "evil" for dining on her husband's head, right after consummating the marriage.
> 
> Why would our ability to empathize not also arise purely from selective forces, just as does the "evil" behavior we see in other creatures?  It does, of course.  You think we are "guided toward good"?  Hah, no, that is merely a construct.  It's an invention of a mind gifted with the ability of language and culture,  a culture into which you were born purely by genetic accident.  Go ahead and walk into the territory of an unmet tribe in lower South America... they may kill you immediately, simply in case you trap a small rodent in their territory which _might _have been their dinner one day.  Of course, in our modern society, which comes with our modern morals derived from REASON, we would consider killing someone over a small rodent (a la, dinner) to be "evil", and we would consider the act itself to be "evil". In fact, we might collectively agree to murder that person (e.g., give them the electric chair) afterward.
> 
> Our sense of empathy arose hand in hand with our evolutionary progress toward social groups.  That same tribe that would kill an intruder then eat his brains also does good deeds for one another within the tribe.  Why?  Spirituality? "Higher purpose"?  Pffftt.... there is no need to add these goofy magical layers to explain anything.  It's hard-wired right into their makeup to do so.  If it weren't, our species would have evolved very differently, or even not at all. Without this hard-wired empathy, there would be no "tribe".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our ability to "REASON" is derived from our intrinsic spiritual connection to something greater than self.
Click to expand...

Your classic fallback comment when someone explains it to you perfectly. You sound like you have cognitive dissonance seriously.


----------



## sealybobo

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boss doesn’t say you’ll go to hell for not believing. If he does I’d like to know where he came up with such a notion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know about "hell" per say but I do believe there is ultimately "cosmic justice" for allowing your soul to descend to a fallen state of evil. Reason being, natural order and logic. There is a reason we are compelled toward good and away from evil, toward the light and away from the dark. Even the most devout atheist recognizes this. Even other forms of life seem to intrinsically know this. Why would every indicator point to this if there were no reason?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And some species engage explicitly in forms of behavior that we would consider "evil" if we engaged in them, and they do so for evolutionary reasons. I doubt anyone would hesitate to call a newlywed human bride "evil" for dining on her husband's head, right after consummating the marriage.
> 
> Why would our ability to empathize not also arise purely from selective forces, just as does the "evil" behavior we see in other creatures?  It does, of course.  You think we are "guided toward good"?  Hah, no, that is merely a construct.  It's an invention of a mind (yours) gifted with the ability of language and culture,  a culture into which you were born purely by genetic accident.  Go ahead and walk into the territory of an unmet tribe in lower South America... they may kill you immediately, simply in case you trap a small rodent in their territory which _might _have been _part _of their dinner one day.  Of course, in our modern society, which comes with our modern morals derived from REASON, we would consider killing someone over a small rodent (a la, dinner) to be "evil", and we would consider the act itself to be "evil". In fact, we might collectively agree to murder that person (e.g., give them the electric chair) afterward.
> 
> Our sense of empathy arose hand in hand with our evolutionary progress toward social groups.  That same tribe that would kill an intruder then eat his brains also does good deeds for one another within the tribe.  Why?  Spirituality? "Higher purpose"?  Pffftt.... there is no need to add these goofy magical layers to explain anything.  It's hard-wired right into their makeup to do so.  If it weren't, our species would have evolved very differently, or even not at all. Without this hard-wired empathy, there would be no "tribe".
Click to expand...

All of this will go in one ear and out the next with boss. I’m picturing a robot and it’s head is smoking saying over and over “intrinsic spiritual connection to something greater than self.”


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Because it makes the most sense? I don’t know. The world beyond humans is pretty brutal. Coyotes lurking. Bear. Mosquitos. Poisonous snakes.
> 
> Before we were organized and civilized we took out other tribes.
> 
> But really there is no reason. When this planet dies everything that happened on it is gone. Just like the life that used to be on mars billions of years ago



You're absolutely right... you don't know!  

But here you have stumbled upon the very thing that separates the believers and non-believers. The comprehension of whether or not life has meaning and purpose. Some of us believe it does, some of us believe it doesn't. And that is seemingly where this line between Atheism and Spirituality is formed. Because of this fundamental core belief, we'll never see things eye to eye.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Your classic fallback comment when someone explains it to you perfectly. You sound like you have cognitive dissonance seriously.



It's a tautological statement.


----------



## Marion Morrison

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because it makes the most sense? I don’t know. The world beyond humans is pretty brutal. Coyotes lurking. Bear. Mosquitos. Poisonous snakes.
> 
> Before we were organized and civilized we took out other tribes.
> 
> But really there is no reason. When this planet dies everything that happened on it is gone. Just like the life that used to be on mars billions of years ago
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're absolutely right... you don't know!
> 
> But here you have stumbled upon the very thing that separates the believers and non-believers. The comprehension of whether or not life has meaning and purpose. Some of us believe it does, some of us believe it doesn't. And that is seemingly where this line between Atheism and Spirituality is formed. Because of this fundamental core belief, we'll never see things eye to eye.
Click to expand...


I read something about that today, it will be all gone, poof! Vaporized.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because it makes the most sense? I don’t know. The world beyond humans is pretty brutal. Coyotes lurking. Bear. Mosquitos. Poisonous snakes.
> 
> Before we were organized and civilized we took out other tribes.
> 
> But really there is no reason. When this planet dies everything that happened on it is gone. Just like the life that used to be on mars billions of years ago
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're absolutely right... you don't know!
> 
> But here you have stumbled upon the very thing that separates the believers and non-believers. The comprehension of whether or not life has meaning and purpose. Some of us believe it does, some of us believe it doesn't. And that is seemingly where this line between Atheism and Spirituality is formed. Because of this fundamental core belief, we'll never see things eye to eye.
Click to expand...

What is your meaning? What purpose? The only thing I can think of is humans could get off this rock and live forever. Then our purpose would be to master the universe. 

If you woke up on an island alone what would be your purpose? To get off the island?


----------



## Indeependent

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> And having a relationship with God is not magic.
> 
> 
> 
> But gods are magic and miracles are magic.  What word do you prefer?  "Miraculous"?  "Metaphysical"? "Spiritual"? I have to pick one to describe these beliefs. And I am going to use the same word for all manner of magical beliefs, like chiropractic, , Ouija boards, Wicca, Astrology, Voodoo, Homeopathic medicine.... all of this magical thought goes on the same shelf, for me.  so, if not "magical",.... then, what?  "Bullshit?"   What?
Click to expand...

And 90% of physical phenomena will never be explained by science.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because it makes the most sense? I don’t know. The world beyond humans is pretty brutal. Coyotes lurking. Bear. Mosquitos. Poisonous snakes.
> 
> Before we were organized and civilized we took out other tribes.
> 
> But really there is no reason. When this planet dies everything that happened on it is gone. Just like the life that used to be on mars billions of years ago
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're absolutely right... you don't know!
> 
> But here you have stumbled upon the very thing that separates the believers and non-believers. The comprehension of whether or not life has meaning and purpose. Some of us believe it does, some of us believe it doesn't. And that is seemingly where this line between Atheism and Spirituality is formed. Because of this fundamental core belief, we'll never see things eye to eye.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is your meaning? What purpose? The only thing I can think of is humans could get off this rock and live forever. Then our purpose would be to master the universe.
> 
> If you woke up on an island alone what would be your purpose? To get off the island?
Click to expand...


----------



## sealybobo

Indeependent said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> And having a relationship with God is not magic.
> 
> 
> 
> But gods are magic and miracles are magic.  What word do you prefer?  "Miraculous"?  "Metaphysical"? "Spiritual"? I have to pick one to describe these beliefs. And I am going to use the same word for all manner of magical beliefs, like chiropractic, , Ouija boards, Wicca, Astrology, Voodoo, Homeopathic medicine.... all of this magical thought goes on the same shelf, for me.  so, if not "magical",.... then, what?  "Bullshit?"   What?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And 90% of physical phenomena will never be explained by science.
Click to expand...


Are you kidding?  If it's a physical phenomena why won't science be able to explain it?

What's interesting is we look at Mars and we are starting to realize that Mars was like earth billions of years before earth was like earth.  

Watch the birth of a new island here on earth.  No god necessary 






Now lets look at this Martian crater




So we see what the future looks like for earth by looking at Mars.  

We think what happened here on earth is special but we don't realize it probably happened on Mars before us.  

One of the hard facts of our solar system is that even with eight perfectly nice planets, Earth remains the only house on the block with its lights on—at least in terms of life. Mars, it’s increasingly clear, was once a warm, watery planet and had a shot at cooking up biology, but only until numerous environmental cataclysms turned it dry and cold.

Now, according to environmental models run by NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and reported in Geophysical Research Letters, Venus coulda’ been a contender too. For up to two billion years, the investigators believe, our cosmic neighbor may have been an entirely hospitable place for life.

Venus May Once Have Been a Garden World


----------



## Indeependent

sealybobo said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> And having a relationship with God is not magic.
> 
> 
> 
> But gods are magic and miracles are magic.  What word do you prefer?  "Miraculous"?  "Metaphysical"? "Spiritual"? I have to pick one to describe these beliefs. And I am going to use the same word for all manner of magical beliefs, like chiropractic, , Ouija boards, Wicca, Astrology, Voodoo, Homeopathic medicine.... all of this magical thought goes on the same shelf, for me.  so, if not "magical",.... then, what?  "Bullshit?"   What?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And 90% of physical phenomena will never be explained by science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you kidding?  If it's a physical phenomena why won't science be able to explain it?
> 
> What's interesting is we look at Mars and we are starting to realize that Mars was like earth billions of years before earth was like earth.
> 
> Watch the birth of a new island here on earth.  No god necessary
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now lets look at this Martian crater
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we see what the future looks like for earth by looking at Mars.
> 
> We think what happened here on earth is special but we don't realize it probably happened on Mars before us.
> 
> One of the hard facts of our solar system is that even with eight perfectly nice planets, Earth remains the only house on the block with its lights on—at least in terms of life. Mars, it’s increasingly clear, was once a warm, watery planet and had a shot at cooking up biology, but only until numerous environmental cataclysms turned it dry and cold.
> 
> Now, according to environmental models run by NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and reported in Geophysical Research Letters, Venus coulda’ been a contender too. For up to two billion years, the investigators believe, our cosmic neighbor may have been an entirely hospitable place for life.
> 
> Venus May Once Have Been a Garden World
Click to expand...

I suggest you stop using the Internet for your "scholarship" and start conversing with actual human beings who have advanced degrees and real life experience.
Sheeesh.
You are willing to believe every web site site thar agrees with and scoff at every site you disagree with.


----------



## sealybobo

Indeependent said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> And having a relationship with God is not magic.
> 
> 
> 
> But gods are magic and miracles are magic.  What word do you prefer?  "Miraculous"?  "Metaphysical"? "Spiritual"? I have to pick one to describe these beliefs. And I am going to use the same word for all manner of magical beliefs, like chiropractic, , Ouija boards, Wicca, Astrology, Voodoo, Homeopathic medicine.... all of this magical thought goes on the same shelf, for me.  so, if not "magical",.... then, what?  "Bullshit?"   What?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And 90% of physical phenomena will never be explained by science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you kidding?  If it's a physical phenomena why won't science be able to explain it?
> 
> What's interesting is we look at Mars and we are starting to realize that Mars was like earth billions of years before earth was like earth.
> 
> Watch the birth of a new island here on earth.  No god necessary
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now lets look at this Martian crater
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we see what the future looks like for earth by looking at Mars.
> 
> We think what happened here on earth is special but we don't realize it probably happened on Mars before us.
> 
> One of the hard facts of our solar system is that even with eight perfectly nice planets, Earth remains the only house on the block with its lights on—at least in terms of life. Mars, it’s increasingly clear, was once a warm, watery planet and had a shot at cooking up biology, but only until numerous environmental cataclysms turned it dry and cold.
> 
> Now, according to environmental models run by NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and reported in Geophysical Research Letters, Venus coulda’ been a contender too. For up to two billion years, the investigators believe, our cosmic neighbor may have been an entirely hospitable place for life.
> 
> Venus May Once Have Been a Garden World
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I suggest you stop using the Internet for your "scholarship" and start conversing with actual human beings who have advanced degrees and real life experience.
> Sheeesh.
> You are willing to believe every web site site thar agrees with and scoff at every site you disagree with.
Click to expand...


Show me a better website than this one:  Why there is no god


----------



## sealybobo

Indeependent said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> And having a relationship with God is not magic.
> 
> 
> 
> But gods are magic and miracles are magic.  What word do you prefer?  "Miraculous"?  "Metaphysical"? "Spiritual"? I have to pick one to describe these beliefs. And I am going to use the same word for all manner of magical beliefs, like chiropractic, , Ouija boards, Wicca, Astrology, Voodoo, Homeopathic medicine.... all of this magical thought goes on the same shelf, for me.  so, if not "magical",.... then, what?  "Bullshit?"   What?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And 90% of physical phenomena will never be explained by science.
Click to expand...


Can you explain this comment you made?  You don't think that most physical phenomenas will be explained by science?  I would think if they are physical science can explain them.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Can you explain this comment you made? You don't think that most physical phenomenas will be explained by science? I would think if they are physical science can explain them.



Explain this:


----------



## Indeependent

sealybobo said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> And having a relationship with God is not magic.
> 
> 
> 
> But gods are magic and miracles are magic.  What word do you prefer?  "Miraculous"?  "Metaphysical"? "Spiritual"? I have to pick one to describe these beliefs. And I am going to use the same word for all manner of magical beliefs, like chiropractic, , Ouija boards, Wicca, Astrology, Voodoo, Homeopathic medicine.... all of this magical thought goes on the same shelf, for me.  so, if not "magical",.... then, what?  "Bullshit?"   What?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And 90% of physical phenomena will never be explained by science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you kidding?  If it's a physical phenomena why won't science be able to explain it?
> 
> What's interesting is we look at Mars and we are starting to realize that Mars was like earth billions of years before earth was like earth.
> 
> Watch the birth of a new island here on earth.  No god necessary
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now lets look at this Martian crater
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we see what the future looks like for earth by looking at Mars.
> 
> We think what happened here on earth is special but we don't realize it probably happened on Mars before us.
> 
> One of the hard facts of our solar system is that even with eight perfectly nice planets, Earth remains the only house on the block with its lights on—at least in terms of life. Mars, it’s increasingly clear, was once a warm, watery planet and had a shot at cooking up biology, but only until numerous environmental cataclysms turned it dry and cold.
> 
> Now, according to environmental models run by NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and reported in Geophysical Research Letters, Venus coulda’ been a contender too. For up to two billion years, the investigators believe, our cosmic neighbor may have been an entirely hospitable place for life.
> 
> Venus May Once Have Been a Garden World
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I suggest you stop using the Internet for your "scholarship" and start conversing with actual human beings who have advanced degrees and real life experience.
> Sheeesh.
> You are willing to believe every web site site thar agrees with and scoff at every site you disagree with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me a better website than this one:  Why there is no god
Click to expand...

For starters, this very long string of bullshit has paragraph 2 and 3 of point one which are completely discredited by the scientists and historians who regularly lecture to Jews, Christians and atheists at Aish Hatorah.
What gives you away is that you are attempting to give the impression that you have carefully studied Tanach for years and then you discovered this site several years ago and have studied it and have come to the same conclusions.

What you have actually proven is my statement that you believe any web site that concurs with your uneducated point of view.

Try harder because you are a pathetic debater on this topic.


----------



## Indeependent

sealybobo said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> And having a relationship with God is not magic.
> 
> 
> 
> But gods are magic and miracles are magic.  What word do you prefer?  "Miraculous"?  "Metaphysical"? "Spiritual"? I have to pick one to describe these beliefs. And I am going to use the same word for all manner of magical beliefs, like chiropractic, , Ouija boards, Wicca, Astrology, Voodoo, Homeopathic medicine.... all of this magical thought goes on the same shelf, for me.  so, if not "magical",.... then, what?  "Bullshit?"   What?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And 90% of physical phenomena will never be explained by science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you explain this comment you made?  You don't think that most physical phenomenas will be explained by science?  I would think if they are physical science can explain them.
Click to expand...

Take my suggestion and associate with real scientists and not the ones nerds masturbate over on the Internet.


----------



## sealybobo

Indeependent said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> And having a relationship with God is not magic.
> 
> 
> 
> But gods are magic and miracles are magic.  What word do you prefer?  "Miraculous"?  "Metaphysical"? "Spiritual"? I have to pick one to describe these beliefs. And I am going to use the same word for all manner of magical beliefs, like chiropractic, , Ouija boards, Wicca, Astrology, Voodoo, Homeopathic medicine.... all of this magical thought goes on the same shelf, for me.  so, if not "magical",.... then, what?  "Bullshit?"   What?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And 90% of physical phenomena will never be explained by science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you explain this comment you made?  You don't think that most physical phenomenas will be explained by science?  I would think if they are physical science can explain them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take my suggestion and associate with real scientists and not the ones nerds masturbate over on the Internet.
Click to expand...


Oh get over your tactic of trying to suggest that I'm not very good at debating this or educated enough on the subject.  I see right through you.  

The fact is you are trying to push an impossible ridiculous belief.  One that a person has to just have "faith" is true because you can't prove it.  You can't prove a god exists, visited and you certainly can't prove Jesus was anything other than a  man.  Your story is all hearsay.  No one that saw Jesus wrote a bible.  Paul did not write a bible.  Peter did not write a bible.  Luke didn't pen any bible.  Your church wrote the bible in the 5th century.

Harrod didn't see Jesus.  He wrote about the stories he was told.  Everyone who converted to Christianity in the year 200 was going on hearsay.  And for the life of me I don't know how anyone buys that story.  I know many were forced to but many believed.  They actually heard that story, just like you did, and they swallowed it just like you did.

Humans aren't that evolved.  We are literally only a couple step out of the cave.  Think about it.  How many of our grandparents were farmers?  So they basically lived the same way as our ancestors did 2000 years ago.  

Anyways, please don't try your lame tactic because it's already annoying me.  Yes I cherry pick what I like off the internet.  So what?  You swallow a book that your reverand handed you.  And if you were born in Iraq you'd be Chanting the koran.


----------



## sealybobo

Indeependent said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> And having a relationship with God is not magic.
> 
> 
> 
> But gods are magic and miracles are magic.  What word do you prefer?  "Miraculous"?  "Metaphysical"? "Spiritual"? I have to pick one to describe these beliefs. And I am going to use the same word for all manner of magical beliefs, like chiropractic, , Ouija boards, Wicca, Astrology, Voodoo, Homeopathic medicine.... all of this magical thought goes on the same shelf, for me.  so, if not "magical",.... then, what?  "Bullshit?"   What?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And 90% of physical phenomena will never be explained by science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you explain this comment you made?  You don't think that most physical phenomenas will be explained by science?  I would think if they are physical science can explain them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take my suggestion and associate with real scientists and not the ones nerds masturbate over on the Internet.
Click to expand...


35% of scientists did not believe in the existence of God.

Overall, 75% of professors contacted by the pair of researchers completed the survey, and it was found that among the different disciplines, disbelief in the existence of God was not correlated with any particular area of expertise. The study suggested the following (the percentages represent atheist numbers):


Physics: 40.8%
Chemistry: 26.6%
Biology: 41%
Total = 37.6%


Sociology: 34%
Economics: 31.7%
Political science: 27%
Psychology: 33%
Total = 31.2%

*This figures suggest that no particular field is associated with disbelief in God’s existence.* However, there are several other factors that do play a role in disbelief, for example, the study found that those scientists who were immigrants disbelieved in God to a greater degree than those who were born and raised in America.

Now I wonder what makes American born scientists so gullible?

Why doesn’t America believe in evolution?

Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals: true or false? This simple question is splitting America apart, with a growing proportion thinking that we did not descend from an ancestral ape. A survey of 32 European countries, the US and Japan has revealed that only Turkey is less willing than the US to accept evolution as fact.

So why don't you move to Turkey were there are more dummies like you?


----------



## sealybobo

Indeependent said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> And having a relationship with God is not magic.
> 
> 
> 
> But gods are magic and miracles are magic.  What word do you prefer?  "Miraculous"?  "Metaphysical"? "Spiritual"? I have to pick one to describe these beliefs. And I am going to use the same word for all manner of magical beliefs, like chiropractic, , Ouija boards, Wicca, Astrology, Voodoo, Homeopathic medicine.... all of this magical thought goes on the same shelf, for me.  so, if not "magical",.... then, what?  "Bullshit?"   What?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And 90% of physical phenomena will never be explained by science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you explain this comment you made?  You don't think that most physical phenomenas will be explained by science?  I would think if they are physical science can explain them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take my suggestion and associate with real scientists and not the ones nerds masturbate over on the Internet.
Click to expand...

This is why I hate Religion.  It makes a stupid person think he is smart.

Religious fundamentalism, bitter partisan politics and poor science education have all contributed to this denial of evolution in the US

“The US is the only country in which [the teaching of evolution] has been politicised,” he says. “Republicans have clearly adopted this as one of their wedge issues. In most of the world, this is a non-issue.”

Let me guess you are a Republican?

the percentage of people in the country who accept the idea of evolution has declined from 45 in 1985 to 40 in 2005 

Proof Republicans are using Religion to sucker stupid voters.


----------



## Indeependent

sealybobo said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> And having a relationship with God is not magic.
> 
> 
> 
> But gods are magic and miracles are magic.  What word do you prefer?  "Miraculous"?  "Metaphysical"? "Spiritual"? I have to pick one to describe these beliefs. And I am going to use the same word for all manner of magical beliefs, like chiropractic, , Ouija boards, Wicca, Astrology, Voodoo, Homeopathic medicine.... all of this magical thought goes on the same shelf, for me.  so, if not "magical",.... then, what?  "Bullshit?"   What?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And 90% of physical phenomena will never be explained by science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you explain this comment you made?  You don't think that most physical phenomenas will be explained by science?  I would think if they are physical science can explain them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take my suggestion and associate with real scientists and not the ones nerds masturbate over on the Internet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh get over your tactic of trying to suggest that I'm not very good at debating this or educated enough on the subject.  I see right through you.
> 
> The fact is you are trying to push an impossible ridiculous belief.  One that a person has to just have "faith" is true because you can't prove it.  You can't prove a god exists, visited and you certainly can't prove Jesus was anything other than a  man.  Your story is all hearsay.  No one that saw Jesus wrote a bible.  Paul did not write a bible.  Peter did not write a bible.  Luke didn't pen any bible.  Your church wrote the bible in the 5th century.
> 
> Harrod didn't see Jesus.  He wrote about the stories he was told.  Everyone who converted to Christianity in the year 200 was going on hearsay.  And for the life of me I don't know how anyone buys that story.  I know many were forced to but many believed.  They actually heard that story, just like you did, and they swallowed it just like you did.
> 
> Humans aren't that evolved.  We are literally only a couple step out of the cave.  Think about it.  How many of our grandparents were farmers?  So they basically lived the same way as our ancestors did 2000 years ago.
> 
> Anyways, please don't try your lame tactic because it's already annoying me.  Yes I cherry pick what I like off the internet.  So what?  You swallow a book that your reverand handed you.  And if you were born in Iraq you'd be Chanting the koran.
Click to expand...

I see you didn't read every post on this Thread before  interjecting your as usual nonerudite point of view.
I specifically stated I don't mind atheists who don't knee jerk non-atheists who aren't sticking their nose in my face.
But I realize that this topic controls your knees.


----------



## Indeependent

sealybobo said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> And having a relationship with God is not magic.
> 
> 
> 
> But gods are magic and miracles are magic.  What word do you prefer?  "Miraculous"?  "Metaphysical"? "Spiritual"? I have to pick one to describe these beliefs. And I am going to use the same word for all manner of magical beliefs, like chiropractic, , Ouija boards, Wicca, Astrology, Voodoo, Homeopathic medicine.... all of this magical thought goes on the same shelf, for me.  so, if not "magical",.... then, what?  "Bullshit?"   What?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And 90% of physical phenomena will never be explained by science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you explain this comment you made?  You don't think that most physical phenomenas will be explained by science?  I would think if they are physical science can explain them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take my suggestion and associate with real scientists and not the ones nerds masturbate over on the Internet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is why I hate Religion.  It makes a stupid person think he is smart.
> 
> Religious fundamentalism, bitter partisan politics and poor science education have all contributed to this denial of evolution in the US
> 
> “The US is the only country in which [the teaching of evolution] has been politicised,” he says. “Republicans have clearly adopted this as one of their wedge issues. In most of the world, this is a non-issue.”
> 
> Let me guess you are a Republican?
> 
> the percentage of people in the country who accept the idea of evolution has declined from 45 in 1985 to 40 in 2005
> 
> Proof Republicans are using Religion to sucker stupid voters.
Click to expand...

Conflating knowledgeable with smart.
Not very smart.
But I didn't earn my PHD in Evolution on 3,000 Internet sites like you did.


----------



## sealybobo

Indeependent said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> But gods are magic and miracles are magic.  What word do you prefer?  "Miraculous"?  "Metaphysical"? "Spiritual"? I have to pick one to describe these beliefs. And I am going to use the same word for all manner of magical beliefs, like chiropractic, , Ouija boards, Wicca, Astrology, Voodoo, Homeopathic medicine.... all of this magical thought goes on the same shelf, for me.  so, if not "magical",.... then, what?  "Bullshit?"   What?
> 
> 
> 
> And 90% of physical phenomena will never be explained by science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you kidding?  If it's a physical phenomena why won't science be able to explain it?
> 
> What's interesting is we look at Mars and we are starting to realize that Mars was like earth billions of years before earth was like earth.
> 
> Watch the birth of a new island here on earth.  No god necessary
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now lets look at this Martian crater
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we see what the future looks like for earth by looking at Mars.
> 
> We think what happened here on earth is special but we don't realize it probably happened on Mars before us.
> 
> One of the hard facts of our solar system is that even with eight perfectly nice planets, Earth remains the only house on the block with its lights on—at least in terms of life. Mars, it’s increasingly clear, was once a warm, watery planet and had a shot at cooking up biology, but only until numerous environmental cataclysms turned it dry and cold.
> 
> Now, according to environmental models run by NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and reported in Geophysical Research Letters, Venus coulda’ been a contender too. For up to two billion years, the investigators believe, our cosmic neighbor may have been an entirely hospitable place for life.
> 
> Venus May Once Have Been a Garden World
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I suggest you stop using the Internet for your "scholarship" and start conversing with actual human beings who have advanced degrees and real life experience.
> Sheeesh.
> You are willing to believe every web site site thar agrees with and scoff at every site you disagree with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me a better website than this one:  Why there is no god
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For starters, this very long string of bullshit has paragraph 2 and 3 of point one which are completely discredited by the scientists and historians who regularly lecture to Jews, Christians and atheists at Aish Hatorah.
> What gives you away is that you are attempting to give the impression that you have carefully studied Tanach for years and then you discovered this site several years ago and have studied it and have come to the same conclusions.
> 
> What you have actually proven is my statement that you believe any web site that concurs with your uneducated point of view.
> 
> Try harder because you are a pathetic debater on this topic.
Click to expand...


I'm glad to hear that Christians who lecture others about Christianity debate these facts but the fact still remains that these are indeed facts.

All historical references to Jesus derive from hearsay accounts written decades or centuries after his supposed death. These historical references generally refer to early Christians rather than a historical Jesus and, in some cases, directly contradict the Gospels or were deliberately manufactured.

The Gospels themselves contradict one-another.  On many key events and were constructed by unknown authors up to a century after the events they describe are said to have occurred. They are not eyewitness accounts. The New Testament, as a whole, contains many internal inconsistencies as a result of its piecemeal construction and is factually incorrect on several historical claims, such as the early existence of Nazareth, the reign of Herod and the Roman census. Like the Old Testament, it too has had entire books and sections redacted.


----------



## pinqy

sealybobo said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> And having a relationship with God is not magic.
> 
> 
> 
> But gods are magic and miracles are magic.  What word do you prefer?  "Miraculous"?  "Metaphysical"? "Spiritual"? I have to pick one to describe these beliefs. And I am going to use the same word for all manner of magical beliefs, like chiropractic, , Ouija boards, Wicca, Astrology, Voodoo, Homeopathic medicine.... all of this magical thought goes on the same shelf, for me.  so, if not "magical",.... then, what?  "Bullshit?"   What?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And 90% of physical phenomena will never be explained by science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you kidding?  If it's a physical phenomena why won't science be able to explain it?
> 
> What's interesting is we look at Mars and we are starting to realize that Mars was like earth billions of years before earth was like earth.
> 
> Watch the birth of a new island here on earth.  No god necessary
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now lets look at this Martian crater
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we see what the future looks like for earth by looking at Mars.
> 
> We think what happened here on earth is special but we don't realize it probably happened on Mars before us.
> 
> One of the hard facts of our solar system is that even with eight perfectly nice planets, Earth remains the only house on the block with its lights on—at least in terms of life. Mars, it’s increasingly clear, was once a warm, watery planet and had a shot at cooking up biology, but only until numerous environmental cataclysms turned it dry and cold.
> 
> Now, according to environmental models run by NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and reported in Geophysical Research Letters, Venus coulda’ been a contender too. For up to two billion years, the investigators believe, our cosmic neighbor may have been an entirely hospitable place for life.
> 
> Venus May Once Have Been a Garden World
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I suggest you stop using the Internet for your "scholarship" and start conversing with actual human beings who have advanced degrees and real life experience.
> Sheeesh.
> You are willing to believe every web site site thar agrees with and scoff at every site you disagree with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me a better website than this one:  Why there is no god
Click to expand...

How does that website disprove Vishnu?


----------



## sealybobo

Indeependent said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> But gods are magic and miracles are magic.  What word do you prefer?  "Miraculous"?  "Metaphysical"? "Spiritual"? I have to pick one to describe these beliefs. And I am going to use the same word for all manner of magical beliefs, like chiropractic, , Ouija boards, Wicca, Astrology, Voodoo, Homeopathic medicine.... all of this magical thought goes on the same shelf, for me.  so, if not "magical",.... then, what?  "Bullshit?"   What?
> 
> 
> 
> And 90% of physical phenomena will never be explained by science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you explain this comment you made?  You don't think that most physical phenomenas will be explained by science?  I would think if they are physical science can explain them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take my suggestion and associate with real scientists and not the ones nerds masturbate over on the Internet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is why I hate Religion.  It makes a stupid person think he is smart.
> 
> Religious fundamentalism, bitter partisan politics and poor science education have all contributed to this denial of evolution in the US
> 
> “The US is the only country in which [the teaching of evolution] has been politicised,” he says. “Republicans have clearly adopted this as one of their wedge issues. In most of the world, this is a non-issue.”
> 
> Let me guess you are a Republican?
> 
> the percentage of people in the country who accept the idea of evolution has declined from 45 in 1985 to 40 in 2005
> 
> Proof Republicans are using Religion to sucker stupid voters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Conflating knowledgeable with smart.
> Not very smart.
> But I didn't earn my PHD in Evolution on 3,000 Internet sites like you did.
Click to expand...


I don't care that my priest has a doctorate or masters in theology.  That's like going to con artist school except for the people in priest school actually believe the bullshit they are studying is true.  At least a con man knows it's a con.


----------



## Indeependent

sealybobo said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> And 90% of physical phenomena will never be explained by science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you kidding?  If it's a physical phenomena why won't science be able to explain it?
> 
> What's interesting is we look at Mars and we are starting to realize that Mars was like earth billions of years before earth was like earth.
> 
> Watch the birth of a new island here on earth.  No god necessary
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now lets look at this Martian crater
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we see what the future looks like for earth by looking at Mars.
> 
> We think what happened here on earth is special but we don't realize it probably happened on Mars before us.
> 
> One of the hard facts of our solar system is that even with eight perfectly nice planets, Earth remains the only house on the block with its lights on—at least in terms of life. Mars, it’s increasingly clear, was once a warm, watery planet and had a shot at cooking up biology, but only until numerous environmental cataclysms turned it dry and cold.
> 
> Now, according to environmental models run by NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and reported in Geophysical Research Letters, Venus coulda’ been a contender too. For up to two billion years, the investigators believe, our cosmic neighbor may have been an entirely hospitable place for life.
> 
> Venus May Once Have Been a Garden World
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I suggest you stop using the Internet for your "scholarship" and start conversing with actual human beings who have advanced degrees and real life experience.
> Sheeesh.
> You are willing to believe every web site site thar agrees with and scoff at every site you disagree with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me a better website than this one:  Why there is no god
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For starters, this very long string of bullshit has paragraph 2 and 3 of point one which are completely discredited by the scientists and historians who regularly lecture to Jews, Christians and atheists at Aish Hatorah.
> What gives you away is that you are attempting to give the impression that you have carefully studied Tanach for years and then you discovered this site several years ago and have studied it and have come to the same conclusions.
> 
> What you have actually proven is my statement that you believe any web site that concurs with your uneducated point of view.
> 
> Try harder because you are a pathetic debater on this topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm glad to hear that Christians who lecture others about Christianity debate these facts but the fact still remains that these are indeed facts.
> 
> All historical references to Jesus derive from hearsay accounts written decades or centuries after his supposed death. These historical references generally refer to early Christians rather than a historical Jesus and, in some cases, directly contradict the Gospels or were deliberately manufactured.
> 
> The Gospels themselves contradict one-another.  On many key events and were constructed by unknown authors up to a century after the events they describe are said to have occurred. They are not eyewitness accounts. The New Testament, as a whole, contains many internal inconsistencies as a result of its piecemeal construction and is factually incorrect on several historical claims, such as the early existence of Nazareth, the reign of Herod and the Roman census. Like the Old Testament, it too has had entire books and sections redacted.
Click to expand...

I don't do the New Testament and I am obligated *not* to preach.


----------



## sealybobo

pinqy said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> But gods are magic and miracles are magic.  What word do you prefer?  "Miraculous"?  "Metaphysical"? "Spiritual"? I have to pick one to describe these beliefs. And I am going to use the same word for all manner of magical beliefs, like chiropractic, , Ouija boards, Wicca, Astrology, Voodoo, Homeopathic medicine.... all of this magical thought goes on the same shelf, for me.  so, if not "magical",.... then, what?  "Bullshit?"   What?
> 
> 
> 
> And 90% of physical phenomena will never be explained by science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you kidding?  If it's a physical phenomena why won't science be able to explain it?
> 
> What's interesting is we look at Mars and we are starting to realize that Mars was like earth billions of years before earth was like earth.
> 
> Watch the birth of a new island here on earth.  No god necessary
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now lets look at this Martian crater
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we see what the future looks like for earth by looking at Mars.
> 
> We think what happened here on earth is special but we don't realize it probably happened on Mars before us.
> 
> One of the hard facts of our solar system is that even with eight perfectly nice planets, Earth remains the only house on the block with its lights on—at least in terms of life. Mars, it’s increasingly clear, was once a warm, watery planet and had a shot at cooking up biology, but only until numerous environmental cataclysms turned it dry and cold.
> 
> Now, according to environmental models run by NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and reported in Geophysical Research Letters, Venus coulda’ been a contender too. For up to two billion years, the investigators believe, our cosmic neighbor may have been an entirely hospitable place for life.
> 
> Venus May Once Have Been a Garden World
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I suggest you stop using the Internet for your "scholarship" and start conversing with actual human beings who have advanced degrees and real life experience.
> Sheeesh.
> You are willing to believe every web site site thar agrees with and scoff at every site you disagree with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me a better website than this one:  Why there is no god
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does that website disprove Vishnu?
Click to expand...


I don't know but I was watching a show on religion the other day.  Morgan Freeman hosts it.  Anyways, they were showing the creation story from the Hindu perspective and the story was 200 before Jesus was even born.  

Or course the Hindu stories are ridiculous right?  We understand that and we understand Jehovas, Mormons and Muslims are full of shit but people always have a problem applying that same logic to their own religion.  I don't have that problem anymore.  I used to believe my religion was the one real religion then I realized it's no different than the other 999 religions.

_“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”_ – Stephen F Roberts

_“A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it.”_ – David Stevens


----------



## sealybobo

Indeependent said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you kidding?  If it's a physical phenomena why won't science be able to explain it?
> 
> What's interesting is we look at Mars and we are starting to realize that Mars was like earth billions of years before earth was like earth.
> 
> Watch the birth of a new island here on earth.  No god necessary
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now lets look at this Martian crater
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we see what the future looks like for earth by looking at Mars.
> 
> We think what happened here on earth is special but we don't realize it probably happened on Mars before us.
> 
> One of the hard facts of our solar system is that even with eight perfectly nice planets, Earth remains the only house on the block with its lights on—at least in terms of life. Mars, it’s increasingly clear, was once a warm, watery planet and had a shot at cooking up biology, but only until numerous environmental cataclysms turned it dry and cold.
> 
> Now, according to environmental models run by NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and reported in Geophysical Research Letters, Venus coulda’ been a contender too. For up to two billion years, the investigators believe, our cosmic neighbor may have been an entirely hospitable place for life.
> 
> Venus May Once Have Been a Garden World
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you stop using the Internet for your "scholarship" and start conversing with actual human beings who have advanced degrees and real life experience.
> Sheeesh.
> You are willing to believe every web site site thar agrees with and scoff at every site you disagree with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me a better website than this one:  Why there is no god
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For starters, this very long string of bullshit has paragraph 2 and 3 of point one which are completely discredited by the scientists and historians who regularly lecture to Jews, Christians and atheists at Aish Hatorah.
> What gives you away is that you are attempting to give the impression that you have carefully studied Tanach for years and then you discovered this site several years ago and have studied it and have come to the same conclusions.
> 
> What you have actually proven is my statement that you believe any web site that concurs with your uneducated point of view.
> 
> Try harder because you are a pathetic debater on this topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm glad to hear that Christians who lecture others about Christianity debate these facts but the fact still remains that these are indeed facts.
> 
> All historical references to Jesus derive from hearsay accounts written decades or centuries after his supposed death. These historical references generally refer to early Christians rather than a historical Jesus and, in some cases, directly contradict the Gospels or were deliberately manufactured.
> 
> The Gospels themselves contradict one-another.  On many key events and were constructed by unknown authors up to a century after the events they describe are said to have occurred. They are not eyewitness accounts. The New Testament, as a whole, contains many internal inconsistencies as a result of its piecemeal construction and is factually incorrect on several historical claims, such as the early existence of Nazareth, the reign of Herod and the Roman census. Like the Old Testament, it too has had entire books and sections redacted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't do the New Testament and I am obligated *not* to preach.
Click to expand...


Oh so your a jew?  Before I became an Atheists I always said if I had to pick one other religion I would pick the Jewish faith. 

You know what I love about Jews?  They aren't afraid to discuss the possibility that God is made up.  Christians don't want to have that conversation and their arguments are horse shit.  I'm suspecting your arguments are bullshit too but at least you aren't claiming anything unbelievable other than the lie that God talked to Moses and gave him 10 commandments.  That to me is the original lie.  Christianity is just a spinoff.


----------



## sealybobo

Indeependent said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you kidding?  If it's a physical phenomena why won't science be able to explain it?
> 
> What's interesting is we look at Mars and we are starting to realize that Mars was like earth billions of years before earth was like earth.
> 
> Watch the birth of a new island here on earth.  No god necessary
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now lets look at this Martian crater
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we see what the future looks like for earth by looking at Mars.
> 
> We think what happened here on earth is special but we don't realize it probably happened on Mars before us.
> 
> One of the hard facts of our solar system is that even with eight perfectly nice planets, Earth remains the only house on the block with its lights on—at least in terms of life. Mars, it’s increasingly clear, was once a warm, watery planet and had a shot at cooking up biology, but only until numerous environmental cataclysms turned it dry and cold.
> 
> Now, according to environmental models run by NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and reported in Geophysical Research Letters, Venus coulda’ been a contender too. For up to two billion years, the investigators believe, our cosmic neighbor may have been an entirely hospitable place for life.
> 
> Venus May Once Have Been a Garden World
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you stop using the Internet for your "scholarship" and start conversing with actual human beings who have advanced degrees and real life experience.
> Sheeesh.
> You are willing to believe every web site site thar agrees with and scoff at every site you disagree with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me a better website than this one:  Why there is no god
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For starters, this very long string of bullshit has paragraph 2 and 3 of point one which are completely discredited by the scientists and historians who regularly lecture to Jews, Christians and atheists at Aish Hatorah.
> What gives you away is that you are attempting to give the impression that you have carefully studied Tanach for years and then you discovered this site several years ago and have studied it and have come to the same conclusions.
> 
> What you have actually proven is my statement that you believe any web site that concurs with your uneducated point of view.
> 
> Try harder because you are a pathetic debater on this topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm glad to hear that Christians who lecture others about Christianity debate these facts but the fact still remains that these are indeed facts.
> 
> All historical references to Jesus derive from hearsay accounts written decades or centuries after his supposed death. These historical references generally refer to early Christians rather than a historical Jesus and, in some cases, directly contradict the Gospels or were deliberately manufactured.
> 
> The Gospels themselves contradict one-another.  On many key events and were constructed by unknown authors up to a century after the events they describe are said to have occurred. They are not eyewitness accounts. The New Testament, as a whole, contains many internal inconsistencies as a result of its piecemeal construction and is factually incorrect on several historical claims, such as the early existence of Nazareth, the reign of Herod and the Roman census. Like the Old Testament, it too has had entire books and sections redacted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't do the New Testament and I am obligated *not* to preach.
Click to expand...


Do you think any non Jewish American takes anything these people say seriously?





I don't care how much Jew U they attended they aren't talking facts science logic and reasoning they are perpetuating a myth.


----------



## sealybobo

Indeependent said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you kidding?  If it's a physical phenomena why won't science be able to explain it?
> 
> What's interesting is we look at Mars and we are starting to realize that Mars was like earth billions of years before earth was like earth.
> 
> Watch the birth of a new island here on earth.  No god necessary
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now lets look at this Martian crater
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we see what the future looks like for earth by looking at Mars.
> 
> We think what happened here on earth is special but we don't realize it probably happened on Mars before us.
> 
> One of the hard facts of our solar system is that even with eight perfectly nice planets, Earth remains the only house on the block with its lights on—at least in terms of life. Mars, it’s increasingly clear, was once a warm, watery planet and had a shot at cooking up biology, but only until numerous environmental cataclysms turned it dry and cold.
> 
> Now, according to environmental models run by NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and reported in Geophysical Research Letters, Venus coulda’ been a contender too. For up to two billion years, the investigators believe, our cosmic neighbor may have been an entirely hospitable place for life.
> 
> Venus May Once Have Been a Garden World
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you stop using the Internet for your "scholarship" and start conversing with actual human beings who have advanced degrees and real life experience.
> Sheeesh.
> You are willing to believe every web site site thar agrees with and scoff at every site you disagree with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me a better website than this one:  Why there is no god
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For starters, this very long string of bullshit has paragraph 2 and 3 of point one which are completely discredited by the scientists and historians who regularly lecture to Jews, Christians and atheists at Aish Hatorah.
> What gives you away is that you are attempting to give the impression that you have carefully studied Tanach for years and then you discovered this site several years ago and have studied it and have come to the same conclusions.
> 
> What you have actually proven is my statement that you believe any web site that concurs with your uneducated point of view.
> 
> Try harder because you are a pathetic debater on this topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm glad to hear that Christians who lecture others about Christianity debate these facts but the fact still remains that these are indeed facts.
> 
> All historical references to Jesus derive from hearsay accounts written decades or centuries after his supposed death. These historical references generally refer to early Christians rather than a historical Jesus and, in some cases, directly contradict the Gospels or were deliberately manufactured.
> 
> The Gospels themselves contradict one-another.  On many key events and were constructed by unknown authors up to a century after the events they describe are said to have occurred. They are not eyewitness accounts. The New Testament, as a whole, contains many internal inconsistencies as a result of its piecemeal construction and is factually incorrect on several historical claims, such as the early existence of Nazareth, the reign of Herod and the Roman census. Like the Old Testament, it too has had entire books and sections redacted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't do the New Testament and I am obligated *not* to preach.
Click to expand...


Do you even know a lot of Jews don't believe in God?  

How important is belief in God? Can one be a “good Jew” without believing in God? These questions–articulated in this way–are relatively modern ones. However, while normative Judaism has always been God-centered, some thinkers–both ancient and modern–have conceptualized Judaism in ways that make beliefs about God less central.

Must a Jew Believe in God? | My Jewish Learning


----------



## sealybobo

Indeependent said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> And having a relationship with God is not magic.
> 
> 
> 
> But gods are magic and miracles are magic.  What word do you prefer?  "Miraculous"?  "Metaphysical"? "Spiritual"? I have to pick one to describe these beliefs. And I am going to use the same word for all manner of magical beliefs, like chiropractic, , Ouija boards, Wicca, Astrology, Voodoo, Homeopathic medicine.... all of this magical thought goes on the same shelf, for me.  so, if not "magical",.... then, what?  "Bullshit?"   What?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And 90% of physical phenomena will never be explained by science.
Click to expand...


Atheism and agnosticism only emerged as real options in the modern era, as consequences of secularization, the separation of church and state, and above all, the reliance on science for explanations of natural phenomena.

Though Jews tended to believe in certain shared concepts–e.g. one God who led them out of Egypt, the eventual messianic redemption–official beliefs or dogmas were not formulated until the Middle Ages.

Rabbinic Judaism, as well as biblical Judaism, has a concept of belief, but not–many would argue– in the sense of affirming propositions, e.g. asserting _that_ God exists. Scholar Menachem Kellner, for one, points out that the biblical word _emunah_, “belief” or “faith” connotes trust, belief _in_, as opposed to the affirmation of propositions. Of course, one might argue that trusting in something implies that that something exists, but the distinction between belief _in_ and belief _that _helps in understanding the priorities and emphases of the rabbinic worldview.

This approach to belief changed in the Middle Ages, when Jewish philosophers began proposing official doctrines of Judaism. Maimonides‘ thirteen principles of faith is the most famous list of creeds; it includes several dogmas about God including the assertion that God exists.

The actual principles articulated by Maimonides were not terribly revolutionary. What _was_revolutionary was Maimonides’ claim that belief in these principles was essential to one’s Jewish identity.

Traditionally, Jewish identity had been defined biologically. According to rabbinic Judaism, if one’s mother was Jewish, than one was Jewish, regardless of one’s actions or beliefs.

Many modern thinkers, particularly liberal theologians, have tried to reclaim the rabbinic attitude toward belief, stressing that religious dogma is anathema to Judaism and that the medieval creation of dogma was, in a sense, a corruption of Judaism. Though most of these thinkers, including Leo Baeck and Solomon Schechter, didn’t use this rejection of dogma to question the existence and relevance of God, others have.

*The Evolution of God: Erich Fromm*
Erich Fromm, in his radical interpretation of the Hebrew Bible, _You Shall Be As Gods_, describes how God becomes progressively less real (and relevant) in traditional Jewish literature. At the beginning of the Bible, God is an absolute ruler who can (and does) destroy the world when He is not happy with it. In the next stage, however, God relinquishes His absolute power by making a covenant with humankind. God’s power is limited because it is subject to the terms of the covenant.

The third stage of God’s evolution (or devolution) comes in His revelation to Moses, in which he presents Himself as a nameless God. The evolution of God does not stop with the Bible. Ironically, Maimonides takes it even further by positing that nothing can be said about God. We can venture to say what God isn’t, but God’s positive attributes are unthinkable.

The next step, says Fromm, should have been a rejection of God completely, but even he–a self-declared non-theistic mystic–acknowledges that this is impossible for religious Jews. He does, however, recognize that because Judaism has not been primarily concerned with beliefs per se, one who does not believe in God can still come very close to living a life that is fully Jewish in spirit.

Very interesting stuff.


----------



## Indeependent

sealybobo said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you stop using the Internet for your "scholarship" and start conversing with actual human beings who have advanced degrees and real life experience.
> Sheeesh.
> You are willing to believe every web site site thar agrees with and scoff at every site you disagree with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show me a better website than this one:  Why there is no god
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For starters, this very long string of bullshit has paragraph 2 and 3 of point one which are completely discredited by the scientists and historians who regularly lecture to Jews, Christians and atheists at Aish Hatorah.
> What gives you away is that you are attempting to give the impression that you have carefully studied Tanach for years and then you discovered this site several years ago and have studied it and have come to the same conclusions.
> 
> What you have actually proven is my statement that you believe any web site that concurs with your uneducated point of view.
> 
> Try harder because you are a pathetic debater on this topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm glad to hear that Christians who lecture others about Christianity debate these facts but the fact still remains that these are indeed facts.
> 
> All historical references to Jesus derive from hearsay accounts written decades or centuries after his supposed death. These historical references generally refer to early Christians rather than a historical Jesus and, in some cases, directly contradict the Gospels or were deliberately manufactured.
> 
> The Gospels themselves contradict one-another.  On many key events and were constructed by unknown authors up to a century after the events they describe are said to have occurred. They are not eyewitness accounts. The New Testament, as a whole, contains many internal inconsistencies as a result of its piecemeal construction and is factually incorrect on several historical claims, such as the early existence of Nazareth, the reign of Herod and the Roman census. Like the Old Testament, it too has had entire books and sections redacted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't do the New Testament and I am obligated *not* to preach.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think any non Jewish American takes anything these people say seriously?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care how much Jew U they attended they aren't talking facts science logic and reasoning they are perpetuating a myth.
Click to expand...

I doubt that anyone in this pictures community would ever preach Judaism to any non-Jew.
As I stated, Jews are forbidden to proselytize.


----------



## Indeependent

sealybobo said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> And having a relationship with God is not magic.
> 
> 
> 
> But gods are magic and miracles are magic.  What word do you prefer?  "Miraculous"?  "Metaphysical"? "Spiritual"? I have to pick one to describe these beliefs. And I am going to use the same word for all manner of magical beliefs, like chiropractic, , Ouija boards, Wicca, Astrology, Voodoo, Homeopathic medicine.... all of this magical thought goes on the same shelf, for me.  so, if not "magical",.... then, what?  "Bullshit?"   What?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And 90% of physical phenomena will never be explained by science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheism and agnosticism only emerged as real options in the modern era, as consequences of secularization, the separation of church and state, and above all, the reliance on science for explanations of natural phenomena.
> 
> Though Jews tended to believe in certain shared concepts–e.g. one God who led them out of Egypt, the eventual messianic redemption–official beliefs or dogmas were not formulated until the Middle Ages.
> 
> Rabbinic Judaism, as well as biblical Judaism, has a concept of belief, but not–many would argue– in the sense of affirming propositions, e.g. asserting _that_ God exists. Scholar Menachem Kellner, for one, points out that the biblical word _emunah_, “belief” or “faith” connotes trust, belief _in_, as opposed to the affirmation of propositions. Of course, one might argue that trusting in something implies that that something exists, but the distinction between belief _in_ and belief _that _helps in understanding the priorities and emphases of the rabbinic worldview.
> 
> This approach to belief changed in the Middle Ages, when Jewish philosophers began proposing official doctrines of Judaism. Maimonides‘ thirteen principles of faith is the most famous list of creeds; it includes several dogmas about God including the assertion that God exists.
> 
> The actual principles articulated by Maimonides were not terribly revolutionary. What _was_revolutionary was Maimonides’ claim that belief in these principles was essential to one’s Jewish identity.
> 
> Traditionally, Jewish identity had been defined biologically. According to rabbinic Judaism, if one’s mother was Jewish, than one was Jewish, regardless of one’s actions or beliefs.
> 
> Many modern thinkers, particularly liberal theologians, have tried to reclaim the rabbinic attitude toward belief, stressing that religious dogma is anathema to Judaism and that the medieval creation of dogma was, in a sense, a corruption of Judaism. Though most of these thinkers, including Leo Baeck and Solomon Schechter, didn’t use this rejection of dogma to question the existence and relevance of God, others have.
> 
> *The Evolution of God: Erich Fromm*
> Erich Fromm, in his radical interpretation of the Hebrew Bible, _You Shall Be As Gods_, describes how God becomes progressively less real (and relevant) in traditional Jewish literature. At the beginning of the Bible, God is an absolute ruler who can (and does) destroy the world when He is not happy with it. In the next stage, however, God relinquishes His absolute power by making a covenant with humankind. God’s power is limited because it is subject to the terms of the covenant.
> 
> The third stage of God’s evolution (or devolution) comes in His revelation to Moses, in which he presents Himself as a nameless God. The evolution of God does not stop with the Bible. Ironically, Maimonides takes it even further by positing that nothing can be said about God. We can venture to say what God isn’t, but God’s positive attributes are unthinkable.
> 
> The next step, says Fromm, should have been a rejection of God completely, but even he–a self-declared non-theistic mystic–acknowledges that this is impossible for religious Jews. He does, however, recognize that because Judaism has not been primarily concerned with beliefs per se, one who does not believe in God can still come very close to living a life that is fully Jewish in spirit.
> 
> Very interesting stuff.
Click to expand...

God's creations can never know anything about God.
We only know how God manifests Himself.


----------



## sealybobo

Indeependent said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> And having a relationship with God is not magic.
> 
> 
> 
> But gods are magic and miracles are magic.  What word do you prefer?  "Miraculous"?  "Metaphysical"? "Spiritual"? I have to pick one to describe these beliefs. And I am going to use the same word for all manner of magical beliefs, like chiropractic, , Ouija boards, Wicca, Astrology, Voodoo, Homeopathic medicine.... all of this magical thought goes on the same shelf, for me.  so, if not "magical",.... then, what?  "Bullshit?"   What?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And 90% of physical phenomena will never be explained by science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheism and agnosticism only emerged as real options in the modern era, as consequences of secularization, the separation of church and state, and above all, the reliance on science for explanations of natural phenomena.
> 
> Though Jews tended to believe in certain shared concepts–e.g. one God who led them out of Egypt, the eventual messianic redemption–official beliefs or dogmas were not formulated until the Middle Ages.
> 
> Rabbinic Judaism, as well as biblical Judaism, has a concept of belief, but not–many would argue– in the sense of affirming propositions, e.g. asserting _that_ God exists. Scholar Menachem Kellner, for one, points out that the biblical word _emunah_, “belief” or “faith” connotes trust, belief _in_, as opposed to the affirmation of propositions. Of course, one might argue that trusting in something implies that that something exists, but the distinction between belief _in_ and belief _that _helps in understanding the priorities and emphases of the rabbinic worldview.
> 
> This approach to belief changed in the Middle Ages, when Jewish philosophers began proposing official doctrines of Judaism. Maimonides‘ thirteen principles of faith is the most famous list of creeds; it includes several dogmas about God including the assertion that God exists.
> 
> The actual principles articulated by Maimonides were not terribly revolutionary. What _was_revolutionary was Maimonides’ claim that belief in these principles was essential to one’s Jewish identity.
> 
> Traditionally, Jewish identity had been defined biologically. According to rabbinic Judaism, if one’s mother was Jewish, than one was Jewish, regardless of one’s actions or beliefs.
> 
> Many modern thinkers, particularly liberal theologians, have tried to reclaim the rabbinic attitude toward belief, stressing that religious dogma is anathema to Judaism and that the medieval creation of dogma was, in a sense, a corruption of Judaism. Though most of these thinkers, including Leo Baeck and Solomon Schechter, didn’t use this rejection of dogma to question the existence and relevance of God, others have.
> 
> *The Evolution of God: Erich Fromm*
> Erich Fromm, in his radical interpretation of the Hebrew Bible, _You Shall Be As Gods_, describes how God becomes progressively less real (and relevant) in traditional Jewish literature. At the beginning of the Bible, God is an absolute ruler who can (and does) destroy the world when He is not happy with it. In the next stage, however, God relinquishes His absolute power by making a covenant with humankind. God’s power is limited because it is subject to the terms of the covenant.
> 
> The third stage of God’s evolution (or devolution) comes in His revelation to Moses, in which he presents Himself as a nameless God. The evolution of God does not stop with the Bible. Ironically, Maimonides takes it even further by positing that nothing can be said about God. We can venture to say what God isn’t, but God’s positive attributes are unthinkable.
> 
> The next step, says Fromm, should have been a rejection of God completely, but even he–a self-declared non-theistic mystic–acknowledges that this is impossible for religious Jews. He does, however, recognize that because Judaism has not been primarily concerned with beliefs per se, one who does not believe in God can still come very close to living a life that is fully Jewish in spirit.
> 
> Very interesting stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God's creations can never know anything about God.
> We only know how God manifests Himself.
Click to expand...


Hilarious.  So you don't know anything about god but you know how god manifests itself?  How do you know this?  You just admitted you know nothing about him.

And I'm sorry but isn't the bible telling the truth?  Because it tells all about God.  Funny you say you know nothing about god after reading all about him in the bible.  Maybe you have reading comprehension issues.

And how come god stopped visiting?  Doesn't seem fair.  Of course the people who saw Jesus believe.  But why should that get me to believe?  I need to see it too.


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> And having a relationship with God is not magic.
> 
> 
> 
> But gods are magic and miracles are magic.  What word do you prefer?  "Miraculous"?  "Metaphysical"? "Spiritual"? I have to pick one to describe these beliefs. And I am going to use the same word for all manner of magical beliefs, like chiropractic, , Ouija boards, Wicca, Astrology, Voodoo, Homeopathic medicine.... all of this magical thought goes on the same shelf, for me.  so, if not "magical",.... then, what?  "Bullshit?"   What?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And 90% of physical phenomena will never be explained by science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheism and agnosticism only emerged as real options in the modern era, as consequences of secularization, the separation of church and state, and above all, the reliance on science for explanations of natural phenomena.
> 
> Though Jews tended to believe in certain shared concepts–e.g. one God who led them out of Egypt, the eventual messianic redemption–official beliefs or dogmas were not formulated until the Middle Ages.
> 
> Rabbinic Judaism, as well as biblical Judaism, has a concept of belief, but not–many would argue– in the sense of affirming propositions, e.g. asserting _that_ God exists. Scholar Menachem Kellner, for one, points out that the biblical word _emunah_, “belief” or “faith” connotes trust, belief _in_, as opposed to the affirmation of propositions. Of course, one might argue that trusting in something implies that that something exists, but the distinction between belief _in_ and belief _that _helps in understanding the priorities and emphases of the rabbinic worldview.
> 
> This approach to belief changed in the Middle Ages, when Jewish philosophers began proposing official doctrines of Judaism. Maimonides‘ thirteen principles of faith is the most famous list of creeds; it includes several dogmas about God including the assertion that God exists.
> 
> The actual principles articulated by Maimonides were not terribly revolutionary. What _was_revolutionary was Maimonides’ claim that belief in these principles was essential to one’s Jewish identity.
> 
> Traditionally, Jewish identity had been defined biologically. According to rabbinic Judaism, if one’s mother was Jewish, than one was Jewish, regardless of one’s actions or beliefs.
> 
> Many modern thinkers, particularly liberal theologians, have tried to reclaim the rabbinic attitude toward belief, stressing that religious dogma is anathema to Judaism and that the medieval creation of dogma was, in a sense, a corruption of Judaism. Though most of these thinkers, including Leo Baeck and Solomon Schechter, didn’t use this rejection of dogma to question the existence and relevance of God, others have.
> 
> *The Evolution of God: Erich Fromm*
> Erich Fromm, in his radical interpretation of the Hebrew Bible, _You Shall Be As Gods_, describes how God becomes progressively less real (and relevant) in traditional Jewish literature. At the beginning of the Bible, God is an absolute ruler who can (and does) destroy the world when He is not happy with it. In the next stage, however, God relinquishes His absolute power by making a covenant with humankind. God’s power is limited because it is subject to the terms of the covenant.
> 
> The third stage of God’s evolution (or devolution) comes in His revelation to Moses, in which he presents Himself as a nameless God. The evolution of God does not stop with the Bible. Ironically, Maimonides takes it even further by positing that nothing can be said about God. We can venture to say what God isn’t, but God’s positive attributes are unthinkable.
> 
> The next step, says Fromm, should have been a rejection of God completely, but even he–a self-declared non-theistic mystic–acknowledges that this is impossible for religious Jews. He does, however, recognize that because Judaism has not been primarily concerned with beliefs per se, one who does not believe in God can still come very close to living a life that is fully Jewish in spirit.
> 
> Very interesting stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God's creations can never know anything about God.
> We only know how God manifests Himself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hilarious.  So you don't know anything about god but you know how god manifests itself?  How do you know this?  You just admitted you know nothing about him.
> 
> And I'm sorry but isn't the bible telling the truth?  Because it tells all about God.  Funny you say you know nothing about god after reading all about him in the bible.  Maybe you have reading comprehension issues.
> 
> And how come god stopped visiting?  Doesn't seem fair.  Of course the people who saw Jesus believe.  But why should that get me to believe?  I need to see it too.
Click to expand...

I already explained this to you before.  We can learn about Him through His creation.


----------



## sealybobo

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> But gods are magic and miracles are magic.  What word do you prefer?  "Miraculous"?  "Metaphysical"? "Spiritual"? I have to pick one to describe these beliefs. And I am going to use the same word for all manner of magical beliefs, like chiropractic, , Ouija boards, Wicca, Astrology, Voodoo, Homeopathic medicine.... all of this magical thought goes on the same shelf, for me.  so, if not "magical",.... then, what?  "Bullshit?"   What?
> 
> 
> 
> And 90% of physical phenomena will never be explained by science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheism and agnosticism only emerged as real options in the modern era, as consequences of secularization, the separation of church and state, and above all, the reliance on science for explanations of natural phenomena.
> 
> Though Jews tended to believe in certain shared concepts–e.g. one God who led them out of Egypt, the eventual messianic redemption–official beliefs or dogmas were not formulated until the Middle Ages.
> 
> Rabbinic Judaism, as well as biblical Judaism, has a concept of belief, but not–many would argue– in the sense of affirming propositions, e.g. asserting _that_ God exists. Scholar Menachem Kellner, for one, points out that the biblical word _emunah_, “belief” or “faith” connotes trust, belief _in_, as opposed to the affirmation of propositions. Of course, one might argue that trusting in something implies that that something exists, but the distinction between belief _in_ and belief _that _helps in understanding the priorities and emphases of the rabbinic worldview.
> 
> This approach to belief changed in the Middle Ages, when Jewish philosophers began proposing official doctrines of Judaism. Maimonides‘ thirteen principles of faith is the most famous list of creeds; it includes several dogmas about God including the assertion that God exists.
> 
> The actual principles articulated by Maimonides were not terribly revolutionary. What _was_revolutionary was Maimonides’ claim that belief in these principles was essential to one’s Jewish identity.
> 
> Traditionally, Jewish identity had been defined biologically. According to rabbinic Judaism, if one’s mother was Jewish, than one was Jewish, regardless of one’s actions or beliefs.
> 
> Many modern thinkers, particularly liberal theologians, have tried to reclaim the rabbinic attitude toward belief, stressing that religious dogma is anathema to Judaism and that the medieval creation of dogma was, in a sense, a corruption of Judaism. Though most of these thinkers, including Leo Baeck and Solomon Schechter, didn’t use this rejection of dogma to question the existence and relevance of God, others have.
> 
> *The Evolution of God: Erich Fromm*
> Erich Fromm, in his radical interpretation of the Hebrew Bible, _You Shall Be As Gods_, describes how God becomes progressively less real (and relevant) in traditional Jewish literature. At the beginning of the Bible, God is an absolute ruler who can (and does) destroy the world when He is not happy with it. In the next stage, however, God relinquishes His absolute power by making a covenant with humankind. God’s power is limited because it is subject to the terms of the covenant.
> 
> The third stage of God’s evolution (or devolution) comes in His revelation to Moses, in which he presents Himself as a nameless God. The evolution of God does not stop with the Bible. Ironically, Maimonides takes it even further by positing that nothing can be said about God. We can venture to say what God isn’t, but God’s positive attributes are unthinkable.
> 
> The next step, says Fromm, should have been a rejection of God completely, but even he–a self-declared non-theistic mystic–acknowledges that this is impossible for religious Jews. He does, however, recognize that because Judaism has not been primarily concerned with beliefs per se, one who does not believe in God can still come very close to living a life that is fully Jewish in spirit.
> 
> Very interesting stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God's creations can never know anything about God.
> We only know how God manifests Himself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hilarious.  So you don't know anything about god but you know how god manifests itself?  How do you know this?  You just admitted you know nothing about him.
> 
> And I'm sorry but isn't the bible telling the truth?  Because it tells all about God.  Funny you say you know nothing about god after reading all about him in the bible.  Maybe you have reading comprehension issues.
> 
> And how come god stopped visiting?  Doesn't seem fair.  Of course the people who saw Jesus believe.  But why should that get me to believe?  I need to see it too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already explained this to you before.  We can learn about Him through His creation.
Click to expand...

Didn’t buy it then or now


----------



## Indeependent

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> But gods are magic and miracles are magic.  What word do you prefer?  "Miraculous"?  "Metaphysical"? "Spiritual"? I have to pick one to describe these beliefs. And I am going to use the same word for all manner of magical beliefs, like chiropractic, , Ouija boards, Wicca, Astrology, Voodoo, Homeopathic medicine.... all of this magical thought goes on the same shelf, for me.  so, if not "magical",.... then, what?  "Bullshit?"   What?
> 
> 
> 
> And 90% of physical phenomena will never be explained by science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheism and agnosticism only emerged as real options in the modern era, as consequences of secularization, the separation of church and state, and above all, the reliance on science for explanations of natural phenomena.
> 
> Though Jews tended to believe in certain shared concepts–e.g. one God who led them out of Egypt, the eventual messianic redemption–official beliefs or dogmas were not formulated until the Middle Ages.
> 
> Rabbinic Judaism, as well as biblical Judaism, has a concept of belief, but not–many would argue– in the sense of affirming propositions, e.g. asserting _that_ God exists. Scholar Menachem Kellner, for one, points out that the biblical word _emunah_, “belief” or “faith” connotes trust, belief _in_, as opposed to the affirmation of propositions. Of course, one might argue that trusting in something implies that that something exists, but the distinction between belief _in_ and belief _that _helps in understanding the priorities and emphases of the rabbinic worldview.
> 
> This approach to belief changed in the Middle Ages, when Jewish philosophers began proposing official doctrines of Judaism. Maimonides‘ thirteen principles of faith is the most famous list of creeds; it includes several dogmas about God including the assertion that God exists.
> 
> The actual principles articulated by Maimonides were not terribly revolutionary. What _was_revolutionary was Maimonides’ claim that belief in these principles was essential to one’s Jewish identity.
> 
> Traditionally, Jewish identity had been defined biologically. According to rabbinic Judaism, if one’s mother was Jewish, than one was Jewish, regardless of one’s actions or beliefs.
> 
> Many modern thinkers, particularly liberal theologians, have tried to reclaim the rabbinic attitude toward belief, stressing that religious dogma is anathema to Judaism and that the medieval creation of dogma was, in a sense, a corruption of Judaism. Though most of these thinkers, including Leo Baeck and Solomon Schechter, didn’t use this rejection of dogma to question the existence and relevance of God, others have.
> 
> *The Evolution of God: Erich Fromm*
> Erich Fromm, in his radical interpretation of the Hebrew Bible, _You Shall Be As Gods_, describes how God becomes progressively less real (and relevant) in traditional Jewish literature. At the beginning of the Bible, God is an absolute ruler who can (and does) destroy the world when He is not happy with it. In the next stage, however, God relinquishes His absolute power by making a covenant with humankind. God’s power is limited because it is subject to the terms of the covenant.
> 
> The third stage of God’s evolution (or devolution) comes in His revelation to Moses, in which he presents Himself as a nameless God. The evolution of God does not stop with the Bible. Ironically, Maimonides takes it even further by positing that nothing can be said about God. We can venture to say what God isn’t, but God’s positive attributes are unthinkable.
> 
> The next step, says Fromm, should have been a rejection of God completely, but even he–a self-declared non-theistic mystic–acknowledges that this is impossible for religious Jews. He does, however, recognize that because Judaism has not been primarily concerned with beliefs per se, one who does not believe in God can still come very close to living a life that is fully Jewish in spirit.
> 
> Very interesting stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God's creations can never know anything about God.
> We only know how God manifests Himself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hilarious.  So you don't know anything about god but you know how god manifests itself?  How do you know this?  You just admitted you know nothing about him.
> 
> And I'm sorry but isn't the bible telling the truth?  Because it tells all about God.  Funny you say you know nothing about god after reading all about him in the bible.  Maybe you have reading comprehension issues.
> 
> And how come god stopped visiting?  Doesn't seem fair.  Of course the people who saw Jesus believe.  But why should that get me to believe?  I need to see it too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already explained this to you before.  We can learn about Him through His creation.
Click to expand...

You really can't learn anything about God through the creation.
Creation cannot be considered a subset of God.


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> And 90% of physical phenomena will never be explained by science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism and agnosticism only emerged as real options in the modern era, as consequences of secularization, the separation of church and state, and above all, the reliance on science for explanations of natural phenomena.
> 
> Though Jews tended to believe in certain shared concepts–e.g. one God who led them out of Egypt, the eventual messianic redemption–official beliefs or dogmas were not formulated until the Middle Ages.
> 
> Rabbinic Judaism, as well as biblical Judaism, has a concept of belief, but not–many would argue– in the sense of affirming propositions, e.g. asserting _that_ God exists. Scholar Menachem Kellner, for one, points out that the biblical word _emunah_, “belief” or “faith” connotes trust, belief _in_, as opposed to the affirmation of propositions. Of course, one might argue that trusting in something implies that that something exists, but the distinction between belief _in_ and belief _that _helps in understanding the priorities and emphases of the rabbinic worldview.
> 
> This approach to belief changed in the Middle Ages, when Jewish philosophers began proposing official doctrines of Judaism. Maimonides‘ thirteen principles of faith is the most famous list of creeds; it includes several dogmas about God including the assertion that God exists.
> 
> The actual principles articulated by Maimonides were not terribly revolutionary. What _was_revolutionary was Maimonides’ claim that belief in these principles was essential to one’s Jewish identity.
> 
> Traditionally, Jewish identity had been defined biologically. According to rabbinic Judaism, if one’s mother was Jewish, than one was Jewish, regardless of one’s actions or beliefs.
> 
> Many modern thinkers, particularly liberal theologians, have tried to reclaim the rabbinic attitude toward belief, stressing that religious dogma is anathema to Judaism and that the medieval creation of dogma was, in a sense, a corruption of Judaism. Though most of these thinkers, including Leo Baeck and Solomon Schechter, didn’t use this rejection of dogma to question the existence and relevance of God, others have.
> 
> *The Evolution of God: Erich Fromm*
> Erich Fromm, in his radical interpretation of the Hebrew Bible, _You Shall Be As Gods_, describes how God becomes progressively less real (and relevant) in traditional Jewish literature. At the beginning of the Bible, God is an absolute ruler who can (and does) destroy the world when He is not happy with it. In the next stage, however, God relinquishes His absolute power by making a covenant with humankind. God’s power is limited because it is subject to the terms of the covenant.
> 
> The third stage of God’s evolution (or devolution) comes in His revelation to Moses, in which he presents Himself as a nameless God. The evolution of God does not stop with the Bible. Ironically, Maimonides takes it even further by positing that nothing can be said about God. We can venture to say what God isn’t, but God’s positive attributes are unthinkable.
> 
> The next step, says Fromm, should have been a rejection of God completely, but even he–a self-declared non-theistic mystic–acknowledges that this is impossible for religious Jews. He does, however, recognize that because Judaism has not been primarily concerned with beliefs per se, one who does not believe in God can still come very close to living a life that is fully Jewish in spirit.
> 
> Very interesting stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God's creations can never know anything about God.
> We only know how God manifests Himself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hilarious.  So you don't know anything about god but you know how god manifests itself?  How do you know this?  You just admitted you know nothing about him.
> 
> And I'm sorry but isn't the bible telling the truth?  Because it tells all about God.  Funny you say you know nothing about god after reading all about him in the bible.  Maybe you have reading comprehension issues.
> 
> And how come god stopped visiting?  Doesn't seem fair.  Of course the people who saw Jesus believe.  But why should that get me to believe?  I need to see it too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already explained this to you before.  We can learn about Him through His creation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Didn’t buy it then or now
Click to expand...

That's because you are ignorant on how science and logic work.


----------



## ding

Indeependent said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> And 90% of physical phenomena will never be explained by science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism and agnosticism only emerged as real options in the modern era, as consequences of secularization, the separation of church and state, and above all, the reliance on science for explanations of natural phenomena.
> 
> Though Jews tended to believe in certain shared concepts–e.g. one God who led them out of Egypt, the eventual messianic redemption–official beliefs or dogmas were not formulated until the Middle Ages.
> 
> Rabbinic Judaism, as well as biblical Judaism, has a concept of belief, but not–many would argue– in the sense of affirming propositions, e.g. asserting _that_ God exists. Scholar Menachem Kellner, for one, points out that the biblical word _emunah_, “belief” or “faith” connotes trust, belief _in_, as opposed to the affirmation of propositions. Of course, one might argue that trusting in something implies that that something exists, but the distinction between belief _in_ and belief _that _helps in understanding the priorities and emphases of the rabbinic worldview.
> 
> This approach to belief changed in the Middle Ages, when Jewish philosophers began proposing official doctrines of Judaism. Maimonides‘ thirteen principles of faith is the most famous list of creeds; it includes several dogmas about God including the assertion that God exists.
> 
> The actual principles articulated by Maimonides were not terribly revolutionary. What _was_revolutionary was Maimonides’ claim that belief in these principles was essential to one’s Jewish identity.
> 
> Traditionally, Jewish identity had been defined biologically. According to rabbinic Judaism, if one’s mother was Jewish, than one was Jewish, regardless of one’s actions or beliefs.
> 
> Many modern thinkers, particularly liberal theologians, have tried to reclaim the rabbinic attitude toward belief, stressing that religious dogma is anathema to Judaism and that the medieval creation of dogma was, in a sense, a corruption of Judaism. Though most of these thinkers, including Leo Baeck and Solomon Schechter, didn’t use this rejection of dogma to question the existence and relevance of God, others have.
> 
> *The Evolution of God: Erich Fromm*
> Erich Fromm, in his radical interpretation of the Hebrew Bible, _You Shall Be As Gods_, describes how God becomes progressively less real (and relevant) in traditional Jewish literature. At the beginning of the Bible, God is an absolute ruler who can (and does) destroy the world when He is not happy with it. In the next stage, however, God relinquishes His absolute power by making a covenant with humankind. God’s power is limited because it is subject to the terms of the covenant.
> 
> The third stage of God’s evolution (or devolution) comes in His revelation to Moses, in which he presents Himself as a nameless God. The evolution of God does not stop with the Bible. Ironically, Maimonides takes it even further by positing that nothing can be said about God. We can venture to say what God isn’t, but God’s positive attributes are unthinkable.
> 
> The next step, says Fromm, should have been a rejection of God completely, but even he–a self-declared non-theistic mystic–acknowledges that this is impossible for religious Jews. He does, however, recognize that because Judaism has not been primarily concerned with beliefs per se, one who does not believe in God can still come very close to living a life that is fully Jewish in spirit.
> 
> Very interesting stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God's creations can never know anything about God.
> We only know how God manifests Himself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hilarious.  So you don't know anything about god but you know how god manifests itself?  How do you know this?  You just admitted you know nothing about him.
> 
> And I'm sorry but isn't the bible telling the truth?  Because it tells all about God.  Funny you say you know nothing about god after reading all about him in the bible.  Maybe you have reading comprehension issues.
> 
> And how come god stopped visiting?  Doesn't seem fair.  Of course the people who saw Jesus believe.  But why should that get me to believe?  I need to see it too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already explained this to you before.  We can learn about Him through His creation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really can't learn anything about God through the creation.
> Creation cannot be considered a subset of God.
Click to expand...

If you created something tangible and I found it, could I learn things from it about you?


----------



## IsaacNewton

sealybobo said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> And having a relationship with God is not magic.
> 
> 
> 
> But gods are magic and miracles are magic.  What word do you prefer?  "Miraculous"?  "Metaphysical"? "Spiritual"? I have to pick one to describe these beliefs. And I am going to use the same word for all manner of magical beliefs, like chiropractic, , Ouija boards, Wicca, Astrology, Voodoo, Homeopathic medicine.... all of this magical thought goes on the same shelf, for me.  so, if not "magical",.... then, what?  "Bullshit?"   What?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And 90% of physical phenomena will never be explained by science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheism and agnosticism only emerged as real options in the modern era, as consequences of secularization, the separation of church and state, and above all, the reliance on science for explanations of natural phenomena.
> 
> Though Jews tended to believe in certain shared concepts–e.g. one God who led them out of Egypt, the eventual messianic redemption–official beliefs or dogmas were not formulated until the Middle Ages.
> 
> Rabbinic Judaism, as well as biblical Judaism, has a concept of belief, but not–many would argue– in the sense of affirming propositions, e.g. asserting _that_ God exists. Scholar Menachem Kellner, for one, points out that the biblical word _emunah_, “belief” or “faith” connotes trust, belief _in_, as opposed to the affirmation of propositions. Of course, one might argue that trusting in something implies that that something exists, but the distinction between belief _in_ and belief _that _helps in understanding the priorities and emphases of the rabbinic worldview.
> 
> This approach to belief changed in the Middle Ages, when Jewish philosophers began proposing official doctrines of Judaism. Maimonides‘ thirteen principles of faith is the most famous list of creeds; it includes several dogmas about God including the assertion that God exists.
> 
> The actual principles articulated by Maimonides were not terribly revolutionary. What _was_revolutionary was Maimonides’ claim that belief in these principles was essential to one’s Jewish identity.
> 
> Traditionally, Jewish identity had been defined biologically. According to rabbinic Judaism, if one’s mother was Jewish, than one was Jewish, regardless of one’s actions or beliefs.
> 
> Many modern thinkers, particularly liberal theologians, have tried to reclaim the rabbinic attitude toward belief, stressing that religious dogma is anathema to Judaism and that the medieval creation of dogma was, in a sense, a corruption of Judaism. Though most of these thinkers, including Leo Baeck and Solomon Schechter, didn’t use this rejection of dogma to question the existence and relevance of God, others have.
> 
> *The Evolution of God: Erich Fromm*
> Erich Fromm, in his radical interpretation of the Hebrew Bible, _You Shall Be As Gods_, describes how God becomes progressively less real (and relevant) in traditional Jewish literature. At the beginning of the Bible, God is an absolute ruler who can (and does) destroy the world when He is not happy with it. In the next stage, however, God relinquishes His absolute power by making a covenant with humankind. God’s power is limited because it is subject to the terms of the covenant.
> 
> The third stage of God’s evolution (or devolution) comes in His revelation to Moses, in which he presents Himself as a nameless God. The evolution of God does not stop with the Bible. Ironically, Maimonides takes it even further by positing that nothing can be said about God. We can venture to say what God isn’t, but God’s positive attributes are unthinkable.
> 
> The next step, says Fromm, should have been a rejection of God completely, but even he–a self-declared non-theistic mystic–acknowledges that this is impossible for religious Jews. He does, however, recognize that because Judaism has not been primarily concerned with beliefs per se, one who does not believe in God can still come very close to living a life that is fully Jewish in spirit.
> 
> Very interesting stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God's creations can never know anything about God.
> We only know how God manifests Himself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hilarious.  So you don't know anything about god but you know how god manifests itself?  How do you know this?  You just admitted you know nothing about him.
> 
> And I'm sorry but isn't the bible telling the truth?  Because it tells all about God.  Funny you say you know nothing about god after reading all about him in the bible.  Maybe you have reading comprehension issues.
> 
> And how come god stopped visiting?  Doesn't seem fair.  Of course the people who saw Jesus believe.  But why should that get me to believe?  I need to see it too.
Click to expand...



"Lo, and the lord thy god shall appear on darkened bread, and it will be good (with butter and apricot jam)."


----------



## Indeependent

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism and agnosticism only emerged as real options in the modern era, as consequences of secularization, the separation of church and state, and above all, the reliance on science for explanations of natural phenomena.
> 
> Though Jews tended to believe in certain shared concepts–e.g. one God who led them out of Egypt, the eventual messianic redemption–official beliefs or dogmas were not formulated until the Middle Ages.
> 
> Rabbinic Judaism, as well as biblical Judaism, has a concept of belief, but not–many would argue– in the sense of affirming propositions, e.g. asserting _that_ God exists. Scholar Menachem Kellner, for one, points out that the biblical word _emunah_, “belief” or “faith” connotes trust, belief _in_, as opposed to the affirmation of propositions. Of course, one might argue that trusting in something implies that that something exists, but the distinction between belief _in_ and belief _that _helps in understanding the priorities and emphases of the rabbinic worldview.
> 
> This approach to belief changed in the Middle Ages, when Jewish philosophers began proposing official doctrines of Judaism. Maimonides‘ thirteen principles of faith is the most famous list of creeds; it includes several dogmas about God including the assertion that God exists.
> 
> The actual principles articulated by Maimonides were not terribly revolutionary. What _was_revolutionary was Maimonides’ claim that belief in these principles was essential to one’s Jewish identity.
> 
> Traditionally, Jewish identity had been defined biologically. According to rabbinic Judaism, if one’s mother was Jewish, than one was Jewish, regardless of one’s actions or beliefs.
> 
> Many modern thinkers, particularly liberal theologians, have tried to reclaim the rabbinic attitude toward belief, stressing that religious dogma is anathema to Judaism and that the medieval creation of dogma was, in a sense, a corruption of Judaism. Though most of these thinkers, including Leo Baeck and Solomon Schechter, didn’t use this rejection of dogma to question the existence and relevance of God, others have.
> 
> *The Evolution of God: Erich Fromm*
> Erich Fromm, in his radical interpretation of the Hebrew Bible, _You Shall Be As Gods_, describes how God becomes progressively less real (and relevant) in traditional Jewish literature. At the beginning of the Bible, God is an absolute ruler who can (and does) destroy the world when He is not happy with it. In the next stage, however, God relinquishes His absolute power by making a covenant with humankind. God’s power is limited because it is subject to the terms of the covenant.
> 
> The third stage of God’s evolution (or devolution) comes in His revelation to Moses, in which he presents Himself as a nameless God. The evolution of God does not stop with the Bible. Ironically, Maimonides takes it even further by positing that nothing can be said about God. We can venture to say what God isn’t, but God’s positive attributes are unthinkable.
> 
> The next step, says Fromm, should have been a rejection of God completely, but even he–a self-declared non-theistic mystic–acknowledges that this is impossible for religious Jews. He does, however, recognize that because Judaism has not been primarily concerned with beliefs per se, one who does not believe in God can still come very close to living a life that is fully Jewish in spirit.
> 
> Very interesting stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> God's creations can never know anything about God.
> We only know how God manifests Himself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hilarious.  So you don't know anything about god but you know how god manifests itself?  How do you know this?  You just admitted you know nothing about him.
> 
> And I'm sorry but isn't the bible telling the truth?  Because it tells all about God.  Funny you say you know nothing about god after reading all about him in the bible.  Maybe you have reading comprehension issues.
> 
> And how come god stopped visiting?  Doesn't seem fair.  Of course the people who saw Jesus believe.  But why should that get me to believe?  I need to see it too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already explained this to you before.  We can learn about Him through His creation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Didn’t buy it then or now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's because you are ignorant on how science and logic work.
Click to expand...

We already settled the fact that sealy has an accredited PhD in Google Search.


----------



## sealybobo

Indeependent said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> God's creations can never know anything about God.
> We only know how God manifests Himself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hilarious.  So you don't know anything about god but you know how god manifests itself?  How do you know this?  You just admitted you know nothing about him.
> 
> And I'm sorry but isn't the bible telling the truth?  Because it tells all about God.  Funny you say you know nothing about god after reading all about him in the bible.  Maybe you have reading comprehension issues.
> 
> And how come god stopped visiting?  Doesn't seem fair.  Of course the people who saw Jesus believe.  But why should that get me to believe?  I need to see it too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already explained this to you before.  We can learn about Him through His creation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Didn’t buy it then or now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's because you are ignorant on how science and logic work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We already settled the fact that sealy has an accredited PhD in Google Search.
Click to expand...

Lots of smart people believe in god. Cognitive dissonance.


----------



## ScienceRocks

God makes people murder other people because they wish to question the world around them. 

There's no evidence for GOD! None at all. The question that should be asked is why do people persist on believing in that isn't real?


----------



## Indeependent

sealybobo said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hilarious.  So you don't know anything about god but you know how god manifests itself?  How do you know this?  You just admitted you know nothing about him.
> 
> And I'm sorry but isn't the bible telling the truth?  Because it tells all about God.  Funny you say you know nothing about god after reading all about him in the bible.  Maybe you have reading comprehension issues.
> 
> And how come god stopped visiting?  Doesn't seem fair.  Of course the people who saw Jesus believe.  But why should that get me to believe?  I need to see it too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already explained this to you before.  We can learn about Him through His creation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Didn’t buy it then or now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's because you are ignorant on how science and logic work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We already settled the fact that sealy has an accredited PhD in Google Search.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lots of smart people believe in god. Cognitive dissonance.
Click to expand...

Atheist pointing to verses out of context...how shocking!


----------



## sealybobo

Indeependent said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already explained this to you before.  We can learn about Him through His creation.
> 
> 
> 
> Didn’t buy it then or now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's because you are ignorant on how science and logic work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We already settled the fact that sealy has an accredited PhD in Google Search.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lots of smart people believe in god. Cognitive dissonance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Atheist pointing to verses out of context...how shocking!
Click to expand...

We’ve all had some great conversations regarding this subject. I discussed with people who are much more intellectually honest than you. Your tactic doesn’t work on us. You aren’t smart. I don’t care if you have a PhD in magic. It’s insane anyone could study it that deeply and not realize it’s all made up. Well that’s what wishful thinking will do.

You have never been in a good discussion about god. Anyone who believes the creation story and denies evolution can’t be taken seriously. And cherry pickers are only slightly better


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Didn’t buy it then or now
> 
> 
> 
> That's because you are ignorant on how science and logic work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We already settled the fact that sealy has an accredited PhD in Google Search.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lots of smart people believe in god. Cognitive dissonance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Atheist pointing to verses out of context...how shocking!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We’ve all had some great conversations regarding this subject. I discussed with people who are much more intellectually honest than you. Your tactic doesn’t work on us. You aren’t smart. I don’t care if you have a PhD in magic. It’s insane anyone could study it that deeply and not realize it’s all made up. Well that’s what wishful thinking will do.
> 
> You have never been in a good discussion about god. Anyone who believes the creation story and denies evolution can’t be taken seriously. And cherry pickers are only slightly better
Click to expand...

I don't know how you can look at the universe and not conclude that rather than being a late outgrowth, intelligence has always existed as the source or matrix for physical stuff.


----------



## BreezeWood

.


sealybobo said:


> It’s insane anyone could study it that deeply and not realize it’s all made up.



or see the forgeries (lies) that negate their writings to pedestrian goals and self indulgence - indeependent ... working hand in hand.


----------



## sealybobo

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's because you are ignorant on how science and logic work.
> 
> 
> 
> We already settled the fact that sealy has an accredited PhD in Google Search.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lots of smart people believe in god. Cognitive dissonance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Atheist pointing to verses out of context...how shocking!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We’ve all had some great conversations regarding this subject. I discussed with people who are much more intellectually honest than you. Your tactic doesn’t work on us. You aren’t smart. I don’t care if you have a PhD in magic. It’s insane anyone could study it that deeply and not realize it’s all made up. Well that’s what wishful thinking will do.
> 
> You have never been in a good discussion about god. Anyone who believes the creation story and denies evolution can’t be taken seriously. And cherry pickers are only slightly better
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know how you can look at the universe and not conclude that rather than being a late outgrowth, intelligence has always existed as the source or matrix for physical stuff.
Click to expand...

Maybe not. Look at the beginning of earth. Single cell aren’t smart. We are the only way the universe knows itself. As far as we know. Three billion years ago it may have been mars. 20 million years ago dinosaurs and trilobites ruled. They weren’t intelligent.

And I just don’t conclude anything.


----------



## Indeependent

sealybobo said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Didn’t buy it then or now
> 
> 
> 
> That's because you are ignorant on how science and logic work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We already settled the fact that sealy has an accredited PhD in Google Search.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lots of smart people believe in god. Cognitive dissonance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Atheist pointing to verses out of context...how shocking!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We’ve all had some great conversations regarding this subject. I discussed with people who are much more intellectually honest than you. Your tactic doesn’t work on us. You aren’t smart. I don’t care if you have a PhD in magic. It’s insane anyone could study it that deeply and not realize it’s all made up. Well that’s what wishful thinking will do.
> 
> You have never been in a good discussion about god. Anyone who believes the creation story and denies evolution can’t be taken seriously. And cherry pickers are only slightly better
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm sure you made a quick phone call to your cigar smoking, beer drinking poker pal and he set you straight.
This is your all time dumbest post.


----------



## Indeependent

BreezeWood said:


> .
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s insane anyone could study it that deeply and not realize it’s all made up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or see the forgeries (lies) that negate their writings to pedestrian goals and self indulgence - indeependent ... working hand in hand.
Click to expand...

Such as?


----------



## Indeependent

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's because you are ignorant on how science and logic work.
> 
> 
> 
> We already settled the fact that sealy has an accredited PhD in Google Search.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lots of smart people believe in god. Cognitive dissonance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Atheist pointing to verses out of context...how shocking!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We’ve all had some great conversations regarding this subject. I discussed with people who are much more intellectually honest than you. Your tactic doesn’t work on us. You aren’t smart. I don’t care if you have a PhD in magic. It’s insane anyone could study it that deeply and not realize it’s all made up. Well that’s what wishful thinking will do.
> 
> You have never been in a good discussion about god. Anyone who believes the creation story and denies evolution can’t be taken seriously. And cherry pickers are only slightly better
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know how you can look at the universe and not conclude that rather than being a late outgrowth, intelligence has always existed as the source or matrix for physical stuff.
Click to expand...

I'll keep that in mind the next time an ant behaves not like an ant.
Only humans can so the unexpected.


----------



## sealybobo

Indeependent said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> We already settled the fact that sealy has an accredited PhD in Google Search.
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of smart people believe in god. Cognitive dissonance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Atheist pointing to verses out of context...how shocking!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We’ve all had some great conversations regarding this subject. I discussed with people who are much more intellectually honest than you. Your tactic doesn’t work on us. You aren’t smart. I don’t care if you have a PhD in magic. It’s insane anyone could study it that deeply and not realize it’s all made up. Well that’s what wishful thinking will do.
> 
> You have never been in a good discussion about god. Anyone who believes the creation story and denies evolution can’t be taken seriously. And cherry pickers are only slightly better
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know how you can look at the universe and not conclude that rather than being a late outgrowth, intelligence has always existed as the source or matrix for physical stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll keep that in mind the next time an ant behaves not like an ant.
> Only humans can so the unexpected.
Click to expand...

This is your dumbest post


----------



## Indeependent

sealybobo said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of smart people believe in god. Cognitive dissonance.
> 
> 
> 
> Atheist pointing to verses out of context...how shocking!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We’ve all had some great conversations regarding this subject. I discussed with people who are much more intellectually honest than you. Your tactic doesn’t work on us. You aren’t smart. I don’t care if you have a PhD in magic. It’s insane anyone could study it that deeply and not realize it’s all made up. Well that’s what wishful thinking will do.
> 
> You have never been in a good discussion about god. Anyone who believes the creation story and denies evolution can’t be taken seriously. And cherry pickers are only slightly better
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know how you can look at the universe and not conclude that rather than being a late outgrowth, intelligence has always existed as the source or matrix for physical stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll keep that in mind the next time an ant behaves not like an ant.
> Only humans can so the unexpected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is your dumbest post
Click to expand...

I’m flattered by your originality.


----------



## hobelim

Indeependent said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's because you are ignorant on how science and logic work.
> 
> 
> 
> We already settled the fact that sealy has an accredited PhD in Google Search.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lots of smart people believe in god. Cognitive dissonance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Atheist pointing to verses out of context...how shocking!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We’ve all had some great conversations regarding this subject. I discussed with people who are much more intellectually honest than you. Your tactic doesn’t work on us. You aren’t smart. I don’t care if you have a PhD in magic. It’s insane anyone could study it that deeply and not realize it’s all made up. Well that’s what wishful thinking will do.
> 
> You have never been in a good discussion about god. Anyone who believes the creation story and denies evolution can’t be taken seriously. And cherry pickers are only slightly better
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I'm sure you made a quick phone call to your cigar smoking, beer drinking poker pal and he set you straight.
> This is your all time dumbest post.
Click to expand...



You have to feel sorry for someone like this.

He was deceived since childhood, subjected to greek orthodox religion, grew some pubic hair and realized it was all bullshit.  He then wagered that all religion is bullshit without studying or reading anything other than  playboy magazine. Then, realizing that he was naked, he latched on to science and exchanged his individuality, his birthright as a human being,  to become an insignificant part of a self-negating multiplicity. Thats why he always refers to himself as "we scientists"  (lol) even though he doesn't even own a lab coat and never went to college...

I think his dumbest post was bragging about going to church and pretending to be  a Christian to pick up chicks...

lol..


And some people do not believe in Gehenna.

Imagine that!


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> We already settled the fact that sealy has an accredited PhD in Google Search.
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of smart people believe in god. Cognitive dissonance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Atheist pointing to verses out of context...how shocking!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We’ve all had some great conversations regarding this subject. I discussed with people who are much more intellectually honest than you. Your tactic doesn’t work on us. You aren’t smart. I don’t care if you have a PhD in magic. It’s insane anyone could study it that deeply and not realize it’s all made up. Well that’s what wishful thinking will do.
> 
> You have never been in a good discussion about god. Anyone who believes the creation story and denies evolution can’t be taken seriously. And cherry pickers are only slightly better
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know how you can look at the universe and not conclude that rather than being a late outgrowth, intelligence has always existed as the source or matrix for physical stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe not. Look at the beginning of earth. Single cell aren’t smart. We are the only way the universe knows itself. As far as we know. Three billion years ago it may have been mars. 20 million years ago dinosaurs and trilobites ruled. They weren’t intelligent.
> 
> And I just don’t conclude anything.
Click to expand...

Do you have any idea how much information is required to make a single  cell function?


----------



## Indeependent

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of smart people believe in god. Cognitive dissonance.
> 
> 
> 
> Atheist pointing to verses out of context...how shocking!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We’ve all had some great conversations regarding this subject. I discussed with people who are much more intellectually honest than you. Your tactic doesn’t work on us. You aren’t smart. I don’t care if you have a PhD in magic. It’s insane anyone could study it that deeply and not realize it’s all made up. Well that’s what wishful thinking will do.
> 
> You have never been in a good discussion about god. Anyone who believes the creation story and denies evolution can’t be taken seriously. And cherry pickers are only slightly better
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know how you can look at the universe and not conclude that rather than being a late outgrowth, intelligence has always existed as the source or matrix for physical stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe not. Look at the beginning of earth. Single cell aren’t smart. We are the only way the universe knows itself. As far as we know. Three billion years ago it may have been mars. 20 million years ago dinosaurs and trilobites ruled. They weren’t intelligent.
> 
> And I just don’t conclude anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have any idea how much information is required to make a single  cell function?
Click to expand...

I don’t.


----------



## sealybobo

Indeependent said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheist pointing to verses out of context...how shocking!
> 
> 
> 
> We’ve all had some great conversations regarding this subject. I discussed with people who are much more intellectually honest than you. Your tactic doesn’t work on us. You aren’t smart. I don’t care if you have a PhD in magic. It’s insane anyone could study it that deeply and not realize it’s all made up. Well that’s what wishful thinking will do.
> 
> You have never been in a good discussion about god. Anyone who believes the creation story and denies evolution can’t be taken seriously. And cherry pickers are only slightly better
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know how you can look at the universe and not conclude that rather than being a late outgrowth, intelligence has always existed as the source or matrix for physical stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe not. Look at the beginning of earth. Single cell aren’t smart. We are the only way the universe knows itself. As far as we know. Three billion years ago it may have been mars. 20 million years ago dinosaurs and trilobites ruled. They weren’t intelligent.
> 
> And I just don’t conclude anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have any idea how much information is required to make a single  cell function?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don’t.
Click to expand...


Ding said "intelligence has always existed as the source or matrix for physical stuff"

What does he mean by that?  Can he explain or prove this comment is true?


----------



## sealybobo

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of smart people believe in god. Cognitive dissonance.
> 
> 
> 
> Atheist pointing to verses out of context...how shocking!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We’ve all had some great conversations regarding this subject. I discussed with people who are much more intellectually honest than you. Your tactic doesn’t work on us. You aren’t smart. I don’t care if you have a PhD in magic. It’s insane anyone could study it that deeply and not realize it’s all made up. Well that’s what wishful thinking will do.
> 
> You have never been in a good discussion about god. Anyone who believes the creation story and denies evolution can’t be taken seriously. And cherry pickers are only slightly better
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know how you can look at the universe and not conclude that rather than being a late outgrowth, intelligence has always existed as the source or matrix for physical stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe not. Look at the beginning of earth. Single cell aren’t smart. We are the only way the universe knows itself. As far as we know. Three billion years ago it may have been mars. 20 million years ago dinosaurs and trilobites ruled. They weren’t intelligent.
> 
> And I just don’t conclude anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have any idea how much information is required to make a single  cell function?
Click to expand...

My mom created me.  She didn't know anything other than take my dads pee pee and put it in her yoo hoo.  She is intelligent I guess but how much information did she need to make me?

How much information does a chicken need to know to lay and egg?  Yet even a stupid chicken can create life.  

The big bang is like the chicken.  In fact a chicken is smarter because it has a brain.  DING wants to believe that an intelligent creator created the big bang and then purposely created us like a scientist in a lab.  

In other words Ding thinks some god that looks like us is sitting in his laboratory and intentionally making birds and mosqueto and fish and frogs.  He's thinking it through.  He's doing it for a reason.  There is a purpose.

Where I think that the single cell just multiplied by itself and because the diversity that we see today.  No god told the single cell to split one day.  It just did.  God didn't decide to make polar bears.  Nature happened and it wasn't intelligent design.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Where I think that the single cell just multiplied by itself and because the diversity that we see today. No god told the single cell to split one day. It just did. God didn't decide to make polar bears. Nature happened and it wasn't intelligent design.



How is what you believe any less of a fairy tale? You can't reproduce this miraculous single-to-multi-cell transformation in a controlled lab environment with sophisticated modern technology at your disposal.... yet we are to believe it somehow just happened to occur "naturally" and has seemingly never happened again?  

And once you've made that quite miraculous leap... however that happened... you then have numerous interdependent kingdoms of life to explain. Nothing from one kingdom of life has ever reproduced something from another kingdom of life, there is absolutely no evidence to support that... and yet, that HAD to happen if everything came from this original single cell. In fact, there isn't even any evidence for evolution beyond genus taxonomy. BUT... you faithfully believe with all your heart, this amazing fantasy happened!  It's actually FAR more far-fetched than ANY incarnation of an intelligent designer. 

I think what the poster is trying to get you to think about is this... Long before any life existed in the universe, the POTENTIAL for life existed. The INFORMATION was there. Where did that come from? It's an interesting premise and one you don't have an answer for. 

Let's imagine you found a box full of parts. You dump the box out and voila, a Maserati assembles itself before your eyes! Now.... You can presume that a.) the box is special, and it was intelligently designed to produce said Maserati. Or-- b.) the box is not special, it just so happened to produce a Maserati.  But what you cannot ignore is that it contained all the essential parts of the Maserati which fit together perfectly with nothing left over and you can't explain how it all came together but some mechanism assembled it.


----------



## hobelim

sealybobo said:


> My mom created me. She didn't know anything other than take my dads pee pee and put it in her yoo hoo.




Seriously Bobo, is that really the best that you can do?


----------



## BreezeWood

sealybobo said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We’ve all had some great conversations regarding this subject. I discussed with people who are much more intellectually honest than you. Your tactic doesn’t work on us. You aren’t smart. I don’t care if you have a PhD in magic. It’s insane anyone could study it that deeply and not realize it’s all made up. Well that’s what wishful thinking will do.
> 
> You have never been in a good discussion about god. Anyone who believes the creation story and denies evolution can’t be taken seriously. And cherry pickers are only slightly better
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know how you can look at the universe and not conclude that rather than being a late outgrowth, intelligence has always existed as the source or matrix for physical stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe not. Look at the beginning of earth. Single cell aren’t smart. We are the only way the universe knows itself. As far as we know. Three billion years ago it may have been mars. 20 million years ago dinosaurs and trilobites ruled. They weren’t intelligent.
> 
> And I just don’t conclude anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have any idea how much information is required to make a single  cell function?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don’t.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ding said "intelligence has always existed as the source or matrix for physical stuff"
> 
> What does he mean by that?  Can he explain or prove this comment is true?
Click to expand...

.


sealybobo said:


> Ding said "intelligence has always existed as the source or matrix for physical stuff"
> 
> What does he mean by that? Can he explain or prove this comment is true?




physiology *: *the organic processes and phenomena of an organism or any of its parts or of a particular bodily process (for the dumbasses that are beyond ignorance) - - is a metaphysical phenomena in physical form that will _appear_ anywhere in the universe that environmental conditions are conducive for the purpose of providing continuity for the metaphysical axioms that guide its existence.

physiology present on earth that no longer is controlled by the metaphysical presence when removed causes the physiology to disappear ...
_*


What does he mean by that? Can he explain or prove this comment is true?*_

there are no tissues on earth that are inanimate / inert, only what is animated ... the animation is derived from the metaphysical axioms of the universe.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where I think that the single cell just multiplied by itself and because the diversity that we see today. No god told the single cell to split one day. It just did. God didn't decide to make polar bears. Nature happened and it wasn't intelligent design.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is what you believe any less of a fairy tale? You can't reproduce this miraculous single-to-multi-cell transformation in a controlled lab environment with sophisticated modern technology at your disposal.... yet we are to believe it somehow just happened to occur "naturally" and has seemingly never happened again?
> 
> And once you've made that quite miraculous leap... however that happened... you then have numerous interdependent kingdoms of life to explain. Nothing from one kingdom of life has ever reproduced something from another kingdom of life, there is absolutely no evidence to support that... and yet, that HAD to happen if everything came from this original single cell. In fact, there isn't even any evidence for evolution beyond genus taxonomy. BUT... you faithfully believe with all your heart, this amazing fantasy happened!  It's actually FAR more far-fetched than ANY incarnation of an intelligent designer.
> 
> I think what the poster is trying to get you to think about is this... Long before any life existed in the universe, the POTENTIAL for life existed. The INFORMATION was there. Where did that come from? It's an interesting premise and one you don't have an answer for.
> 
> Let's imagine you found a box full of parts. You dump the box out and voila, a Maserati assembles itself before your eyes! Now.... You can presume that a.) the box is special, and it was intelligently designed to produce said Maserati. Or-- b.) the box is not special, it just so happened to produce a Maserati.  But what you cannot ignore is that it contained all the essential parts of the Maserati which fit together perfectly with nothing left over and you can't explain how it all came together but some mechanism assembled it.
Click to expand...


You're comparing your fairytale with science?

The  origins of multicellularity are one of the most interesting topics in  evolutionary biology

https://www.quora.com/How-did-a-single-cell-evolve-into-a-multi-celled-organism


----------



## Indeependent

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where I think that the single cell just multiplied by itself and because the diversity that we see today. No god told the single cell to split one day. It just did. God didn't decide to make polar bears. Nature happened and it wasn't intelligent design.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is what you believe any less of a fairy tale? You can't reproduce this miraculous single-to-multi-cell transformation in a controlled lab environment with sophisticated modern technology at your disposal.... yet we are to believe it somehow just happened to occur "naturally" and has seemingly never happened again?
> 
> And once you've made that quite miraculous leap... however that happened... you then have numerous interdependent kingdoms of life to explain. Nothing from one kingdom of life has ever reproduced something from another kingdom of life, there is absolutely no evidence to support that... and yet, that HAD to happen if everything came from this original single cell. In fact, there isn't even any evidence for evolution beyond genus taxonomy. BUT... you faithfully believe with all your heart, this amazing fantasy happened!  It's actually FAR more far-fetched than ANY incarnation of an intelligent designer.
> 
> I think what the poster is trying to get you to think about is this... Long before any life existed in the universe, the POTENTIAL for life existed. The INFORMATION was there. Where did that come from? It's an interesting premise and one you don't have an answer for.
> 
> Let's imagine you found a box full of parts. You dump the box out and voila, a Maserati assembles itself before your eyes! Now.... You can presume that a.) the box is special, and it was intelligently designed to produce said Maserati. Or-- b.) the box is not special, it just so happened to produce a Maserati.  But what you cannot ignore is that it contained all the essential parts of the Maserati which fit together perfectly with nothing left over and you can't explain how it all came together but some mechanism assembled it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're comparing your fairytale with science?
> 
> The  origins of multicellularity are one of the most interesting topics in  evolutionary biology
> 
> https://www.quora.com/How-did-a-single-cell-evolve-into-a-multi-celled-organism
Click to expand...

Interesting and definitive are not synonyms.
Plus you are continuously playing Internet scientist.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where I think that the single cell just multiplied by itself and because the diversity that we see today. No god told the single cell to split one day. It just did. God didn't decide to make polar bears. Nature happened and it wasn't intelligent design.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is what you believe any less of a fairy tale? You can't reproduce this miraculous single-to-multi-cell transformation in a controlled lab environment with sophisticated modern technology at your disposal.... yet we are to believe it somehow just happened to occur "naturally" and has seemingly never happened again?
> 
> And once you've made that quite miraculous leap... however that happened... you then have numerous interdependent kingdoms of life to explain. Nothing from one kingdom of life has ever reproduced something from another kingdom of life, there is absolutely no evidence to support that... and yet, that HAD to happen if everything came from this original single cell. In fact, there isn't even any evidence for evolution beyond genus taxonomy. BUT... you faithfully believe with all your heart, this amazing fantasy happened!  It's actually FAR more far-fetched than ANY incarnation of an intelligent designer.
> 
> I think what the poster is trying to get you to think about is this... Long before any life existed in the universe, the POTENTIAL for life existed. The INFORMATION was there. Where did that come from? It's an interesting premise and one you don't have an answer for.
> 
> Let's imagine you found a box full of parts. You dump the box out and voila, a Maserati assembles itself before your eyes! Now.... You can presume that a.) the box is special, and it was intelligently designed to produce said Maserati. Or-- b.) the box is not special, it just so happened to produce a Maserati.  But what you cannot ignore is that it contained all the essential parts of the Maserati which fit together perfectly with nothing left over and you can't explain how it all came together but some mechanism assembled it.
Click to expand...

So if we can reproduce the single cell to multi cell transformation in a lab you'll shut the fuck up?

Evolution from Single to Multi-Cell Clusters Replicated

And we have explained it to you over and over again about you waiting to see a new species born.  It's not going to happen in your lifetime.  In fact I think mammals birds amphibians reptiles arthropods & fish are all we get.  There is no more so don't hold your breath waiting for a new one to pop up.  But that doesn't prove anything.

It happened.  It may only happen once.  Why are you expecting it to happen again?  What other life would you like to see pop up?  
The kingdom of life has split a long time ago.  It doesn't keep happening.  It has already happened.

At least I have genus taxonomy.  And I'm sure there are dozens of other scientific reasons why evolution is true so I will take your comments with a grain of salt.  You've been wrong so many times it's almost hard to take anything you say too seriously.


----------



## sealybobo

Indeependent said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where I think that the single cell just multiplied by itself and because the diversity that we see today. No god told the single cell to split one day. It just did. God didn't decide to make polar bears. Nature happened and it wasn't intelligent design.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is what you believe any less of a fairy tale? You can't reproduce this miraculous single-to-multi-cell transformation in a controlled lab environment with sophisticated modern technology at your disposal.... yet we are to believe it somehow just happened to occur "naturally" and has seemingly never happened again?
> 
> And once you've made that quite miraculous leap... however that happened... you then have numerous interdependent kingdoms of life to explain. Nothing from one kingdom of life has ever reproduced something from another kingdom of life, there is absolutely no evidence to support that... and yet, that HAD to happen if everything came from this original single cell. In fact, there isn't even any evidence for evolution beyond genus taxonomy. BUT... you faithfully believe with all your heart, this amazing fantasy happened!  It's actually FAR more far-fetched than ANY incarnation of an intelligent designer.
> 
> I think what the poster is trying to get you to think about is this... Long before any life existed in the universe, the POTENTIAL for life existed. The INFORMATION was there. Where did that come from? It's an interesting premise and one you don't have an answer for.
> 
> Let's imagine you found a box full of parts. You dump the box out and voila, a Maserati assembles itself before your eyes! Now.... You can presume that a.) the box is special, and it was intelligently designed to produce said Maserati. Or-- b.) the box is not special, it just so happened to produce a Maserati.  But what you cannot ignore is that it contained all the essential parts of the Maserati which fit together perfectly with nothing left over and you can't explain how it all came together but some mechanism assembled it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're comparing your fairytale with science?
> 
> The  origins of multicellularity are one of the most interesting topics in  evolutionary biology
> 
> https://www.quora.com/How-did-a-single-cell-evolve-into-a-multi-celled-organism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting and definitive are not synonyms.
> Plus you are continuously playing Internet scientist.
Click to expand...


Yes well it's better than your internet televangelism.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where I think that the single cell just multiplied by itself and because the diversity that we see today. No god told the single cell to split one day. It just did. God didn't decide to make polar bears. Nature happened and it wasn't intelligent design.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is what you believe any less of a fairy tale? You can't reproduce this miraculous single-to-multi-cell transformation in a controlled lab environment with sophisticated modern technology at your disposal.... yet we are to believe it somehow just happened to occur "naturally" and has seemingly never happened again?
> 
> And once you've made that quite miraculous leap... however that happened... you then have numerous interdependent kingdoms of life to explain. Nothing from one kingdom of life has ever reproduced something from another kingdom of life, there is absolutely no evidence to support that... and yet, that HAD to happen if everything came from this original single cell. In fact, there isn't even any evidence for evolution beyond genus taxonomy. BUT... you faithfully believe with all your heart, this amazing fantasy happened!  It's actually FAR more far-fetched than ANY incarnation of an intelligent designer.
> 
> I think what the poster is trying to get you to think about is this... Long before any life existed in the universe, the POTENTIAL for life existed. The INFORMATION was there. Where did that come from? It's an interesting premise and one you don't have an answer for.
> 
> Let's imagine you found a box full of parts. You dump the box out and voila, a Maserati assembles itself before your eyes! Now.... You can presume that a.) the box is special, and it was intelligently designed to produce said Maserati. Or-- b.) the box is not special, it just so happened to produce a Maserati.  But what you cannot ignore is that it contained all the essential parts of the Maserati which fit together perfectly with nothing left over and you can't explain how it all came together but some mechanism assembled it.
Click to expand...



Is this the watchmaker analogy you’re getting at?

But let’s think about this for a moment. If you look at a watch lying on the ground and think to yourself, “Oh, this must be designed,” what are you comparing the watch to in order to make that judgment? Would you compare it to the ground, the trees, the grass, the animals, or the sky perhaps? If the watch looks designed compared to its surroundings, the only logical conclusion we could draw is that its surroundings are not designed. If we were unable to differentiate the watch from its natural surroundings, then we would deem it to be a natural object no different from a rock or a tree.

If we say that life is designed, again, with what are we making the comparison? All that is non-life? OK, but then we would still have to say that all non-life is not designed. But suppose we say that the entire universe is designed. Well, we don’t have another universe to compare ours to, and as Hume points out, that’s exactly the problem. We only have experience with one universe, and unless we have the opportunity to examine other universes (if they exist, of course), we cannot say with any degree of certainty that our universe is designed, nor do we have any reason to believe it is in the first place.

So without even having to rely on complex and dense scientific arguments to refute the watchmaker analogy, we can easily see that the argument serves to refute itself.

Now my purpose in bringing all this up is not to beat up on religion (or maybe it is... I haven’t decided), but to point out that most, if not all, modern arguments for the existence of God(s) are rehashed arguments originating centuries ago, and when you boil them down to there basic logical structure, they are easily dismantled by counterarguments that are often just as old.

When searching for the truth, we do ourselves no favors by conjuring strange excuses on behalf of our beliefs in order to reconcile them with reality. What we should strive for is to arrive at our beliefs in an honest way — a way that is mindful of the facts and adapts with change, and not one that bends to our wishes.


----------



## sealybobo

Indeependent said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where I think that the single cell just multiplied by itself and because the diversity that we see today. No god told the single cell to split one day. It just did. God didn't decide to make polar bears. Nature happened and it wasn't intelligent design.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is what you believe any less of a fairy tale? You can't reproduce this miraculous single-to-multi-cell transformation in a controlled lab environment with sophisticated modern technology at your disposal.... yet we are to believe it somehow just happened to occur "naturally" and has seemingly never happened again?
> 
> And once you've made that quite miraculous leap... however that happened... you then have numerous interdependent kingdoms of life to explain. Nothing from one kingdom of life has ever reproduced something from another kingdom of life, there is absolutely no evidence to support that... and yet, that HAD to happen if everything came from this original single cell. In fact, there isn't even any evidence for evolution beyond genus taxonomy. BUT... you faithfully believe with all your heart, this amazing fantasy happened!  It's actually FAR more far-fetched than ANY incarnation of an intelligent designer.
> 
> I think what the poster is trying to get you to think about is this... Long before any life existed in the universe, the POTENTIAL for life existed. The INFORMATION was there. Where did that come from? It's an interesting premise and one you don't have an answer for.
> 
> Let's imagine you found a box full of parts. You dump the box out and voila, a Maserati assembles itself before your eyes! Now.... You can presume that a.) the box is special, and it was intelligently designed to produce said Maserati. Or-- b.) the box is not special, it just so happened to produce a Maserati.  But what you cannot ignore is that it contained all the essential parts of the Maserati which fit together perfectly with nothing left over and you can't explain how it all came together but some mechanism assembled it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're comparing your fairytale with science?
> 
> The  origins of multicellularity are one of the most interesting topics in  evolutionary biology
> 
> https://www.quora.com/How-did-a-single-cell-evolve-into-a-multi-celled-organism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting and definitive are not synonyms.
> Plus you are continuously playing Internet scientist.
Click to expand...


Your religion is interesting but not definitive.


----------



## sealybobo

hobelim said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> My mom created me. She didn't know anything other than take my dads pee pee and put it in her yoo hoo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously Bobo, is that really the best that you can do?
Click to expand...


I basically reply back with an equal response.  If you respond with something good I will respond back with something good.  If you don't like my reply look at what I'm replying to.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where I think that the single cell just multiplied by itself and because the diversity that we see today. No god told the single cell to split one day. It just did. God didn't decide to make polar bears. Nature happened and it wasn't intelligent design.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is what you believe any less of a fairy tale? You can't reproduce this miraculous single-to-multi-cell transformation in a controlled lab environment with sophisticated modern technology at your disposal.... yet we are to believe it somehow just happened to occur "naturally" and has seemingly never happened again?
> 
> And once you've made that quite miraculous leap... however that happened... you then have numerous interdependent kingdoms of life to explain. Nothing from one kingdom of life has ever reproduced something from another kingdom of life, there is absolutely no evidence to support that... and yet, that HAD to happen if everything came from this original single cell. In fact, there isn't even any evidence for evolution beyond genus taxonomy. BUT... you faithfully believe with all your heart, this amazing fantasy happened!  It's actually FAR more far-fetched than ANY incarnation of an intelligent designer.
> 
> I think what the poster is trying to get you to think about is this... Long before any life existed in the universe, the POTENTIAL for life existed. The INFORMATION was there. Where did that come from? It's an interesting premise and one you don't have an answer for.
> 
> Let's imagine you found a box full of parts. You dump the box out and voila, a Maserati assembles itself before your eyes! Now.... You can presume that a.) the box is special, and it was intelligently designed to produce said Maserati. Or-- b.) the box is not special, it just so happened to produce a Maserati.  But what you cannot ignore is that it contained all the essential parts of the Maserati which fit together perfectly with nothing left over and you can't explain how it all came together but some mechanism assembled it.
Click to expand...


What on earth or in our solar system wasn't intelligently designed?  If you look at the planet or the moon you would think that some intelligent designer must have made it.  It's too perfect.  And look at the dirt on the ground.  Too perfect.  The sand.  It's all too perfect.  But we know how all these things were made.  A star blew up billions of years ago and flung out into space.  I could go on and on but ultimately everything on this planet including you was cooked up in a star.  What flings out of a star is a single cell mold bacteria amino protein.  No humans are flung out of a star even though that's where we came from.  So billions of years later our earth is formed and cooled and water is put on it and single cell life starts and eventually all the diversity you see exists.  

So it's funny you believe in a watchmaker but you refuse to believe how the watch was put together.  

All you have is the fact we don't know what started the big bang.  So a theist says, "must be god".  This is god of the gaps.  


"*God of the gaps*" is a term used to describe observations of theological perspectives in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence. The term was invented by Christian theologians[_citation needed_] not to discredit theism but rather to point out the fallacy of relying on teleological arguments for God's existence.[1] Some use the phrase as a criticism of theological positions, to mean that God is used as a spurious explanation for anything not currently explained by science.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where I think that the single cell just multiplied by itself and because the diversity that we see today. No god told the single cell to split one day. It just did. God didn't decide to make polar bears. Nature happened and it wasn't intelligent design.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is what you believe any less of a fairy tale? You can't reproduce this miraculous single-to-multi-cell transformation in a controlled lab environment with sophisticated modern technology at your disposal.... yet we are to believe it somehow just happened to occur "naturally" and has seemingly never happened again?
> 
> And once you've made that quite miraculous leap... however that happened... you then have numerous interdependent kingdoms of life to explain. Nothing from one kingdom of life has ever reproduced something from another kingdom of life, there is absolutely no evidence to support that... and yet, that HAD to happen if everything came from this original single cell. In fact, there isn't even any evidence for evolution beyond genus taxonomy. BUT... you faithfully believe with all your heart, this amazing fantasy happened!  It's actually FAR more far-fetched than ANY incarnation of an intelligent designer.
> 
> I think what the poster is trying to get you to think about is this... Long before any life existed in the universe, the POTENTIAL for life existed. The INFORMATION was there. Where did that come from? It's an interesting premise and one you don't have an answer for.
> 
> Let's imagine you found a box full of parts. You dump the box out and voila, a Maserati assembles itself before your eyes! Now.... You can presume that a.) the box is special, and it was intelligently designed to produce said Maserati. Or-- b.) the box is not special, it just so happened to produce a Maserati.  But what you cannot ignore is that it contained all the essential parts of the Maserati which fit together perfectly with nothing left over and you can't explain how it all came together but some mechanism assembled it.
Click to expand...


If I am walking in the woods and I see a watch laying on the ground I know something intelligently designed it.  But when I pass a mosquito or frog I know it was made the natural way.  I know the difference between something that was man made and I know something that was made naturally.  We even know how and where we were designed.  


*“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”*

― Carl Sagan, Cosmos

Anyone who says Carl Sagan is stupid is stupid.


----------



## Indeependent

sealybobo said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where I think that the single cell just multiplied by itself and because the diversity that we see today. No god told the single cell to split one day. It just did. God didn't decide to make polar bears. Nature happened and it wasn't intelligent design.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is what you believe any less of a fairy tale? You can't reproduce this miraculous single-to-multi-cell transformation in a controlled lab environment with sophisticated modern technology at your disposal.... yet we are to believe it somehow just happened to occur "naturally" and has seemingly never happened again?
> 
> And once you've made that quite miraculous leap... however that happened... you then have numerous interdependent kingdoms of life to explain. Nothing from one kingdom of life has ever reproduced something from another kingdom of life, there is absolutely no evidence to support that... and yet, that HAD to happen if everything came from this original single cell. In fact, there isn't even any evidence for evolution beyond genus taxonomy. BUT... you faithfully believe with all your heart, this amazing fantasy happened!  It's actually FAR more far-fetched than ANY incarnation of an intelligent designer.
> 
> I think what the poster is trying to get you to think about is this... Long before any life existed in the universe, the POTENTIAL for life existed. The INFORMATION was there. Where did that come from? It's an interesting premise and one you don't have an answer for.
> 
> Let's imagine you found a box full of parts. You dump the box out and voila, a Maserati assembles itself before your eyes! Now.... You can presume that a.) the box is special, and it was intelligently designed to produce said Maserati. Or-- b.) the box is not special, it just so happened to produce a Maserati.  But what you cannot ignore is that it contained all the essential parts of the Maserati which fit together perfectly with nothing left over and you can't explain how it all came together but some mechanism assembled it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're comparing your fairytale with science?
> 
> The  origins of multicellularity are one of the most interesting topics in  evolutionary biology
> 
> https://www.quora.com/How-did-a-single-cell-evolve-into-a-multi-celled-organism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting and definitive are not synonyms.
> Plus you are continuously playing Internet scientist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes well it's better than your internet televangelism.
Click to expand...

My issue is not your atheism, it's your eagerness to jump into a religion forum and scream, "Flying Spaghetti Monster!".


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> So if we can reproduce the single cell to multi cell transformation in a lab you'll shut the fuck up?
> 
> Evolution from Single to Multi-Cell Clusters Replicated
> 
> And we have explained it to you over and over again about you waiting to see a new species born. It's not going to happen in your lifetime.



It's not going to EVER happen because it isn't possible. 

I'm sorry, but your link is showing us single cell organisms working together in clusters to essentially NEGATE the need to "evolve" into anything else. You've just shown us proof that single-to-multi-cellular evolution is not necessary and according to Darwin's theory, would not ever happen naturally. Well done!


----------



## Indeependent

sealybobo said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where I think that the single cell just multiplied by itself and because the diversity that we see today. No god told the single cell to split one day. It just did. God didn't decide to make polar bears. Nature happened and it wasn't intelligent design.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is what you believe any less of a fairy tale? You can't reproduce this miraculous single-to-multi-cell transformation in a controlled lab environment with sophisticated modern technology at your disposal.... yet we are to believe it somehow just happened to occur "naturally" and has seemingly never happened again?
> 
> And once you've made that quite miraculous leap... however that happened... you then have numerous interdependent kingdoms of life to explain. Nothing from one kingdom of life has ever reproduced something from another kingdom of life, there is absolutely no evidence to support that... and yet, that HAD to happen if everything came from this original single cell. In fact, there isn't even any evidence for evolution beyond genus taxonomy. BUT... you faithfully believe with all your heart, this amazing fantasy happened!  It's actually FAR more far-fetched than ANY incarnation of an intelligent designer.
> 
> I think what the poster is trying to get you to think about is this... Long before any life existed in the universe, the POTENTIAL for life existed. The INFORMATION was there. Where did that come from? It's an interesting premise and one you don't have an answer for.
> 
> Let's imagine you found a box full of parts. You dump the box out and voila, a Maserati assembles itself before your eyes! Now.... You can presume that a.) the box is special, and it was intelligently designed to produce said Maserati. Or-- b.) the box is not special, it just so happened to produce a Maserati.  But what you cannot ignore is that it contained all the essential parts of the Maserati which fit together perfectly with nothing left over and you can't explain how it all came together but some mechanism assembled it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're comparing your fairytale with science?
> 
> The  origins of multicellularity are one of the most interesting topics in  evolutionary biology
> 
> https://www.quora.com/How-did-a-single-cell-evolve-into-a-multi-celled-organism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting and definitive are not synonyms.
> Plus you are continuously playing Internet scientist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your religion is interesting but not definitive.
Click to expand...

You are correct because otherwise I would have no choice and be a robot.


----------



## Indeependent

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where I think that the single cell just multiplied by itself and because the diversity that we see today. No god told the single cell to split one day. It just did. God didn't decide to make polar bears. Nature happened and it wasn't intelligent design.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is what you believe any less of a fairy tale? You can't reproduce this miraculous single-to-multi-cell transformation in a controlled lab environment with sophisticated modern technology at your disposal.... yet we are to believe it somehow just happened to occur "naturally" and has seemingly never happened again?
> 
> And once you've made that quite miraculous leap... however that happened... you then have numerous interdependent kingdoms of life to explain. Nothing from one kingdom of life has ever reproduced something from another kingdom of life, there is absolutely no evidence to support that... and yet, that HAD to happen if everything came from this original single cell. In fact, there isn't even any evidence for evolution beyond genus taxonomy. BUT... you faithfully believe with all your heart, this amazing fantasy happened!  It's actually FAR more far-fetched than ANY incarnation of an intelligent designer.
> 
> I think what the poster is trying to get you to think about is this... Long before any life existed in the universe, the POTENTIAL for life existed. The INFORMATION was there. Where did that come from? It's an interesting premise and one you don't have an answer for.
> 
> Let's imagine you found a box full of parts. You dump the box out and voila, a Maserati assembles itself before your eyes! Now.... You can presume that a.) the box is special, and it was intelligently designed to produce said Maserati. Or-- b.) the box is not special, it just so happened to produce a Maserati.  But what you cannot ignore is that it contained all the essential parts of the Maserati which fit together perfectly with nothing left over and you can't explain how it all came together but some mechanism assembled it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What on earth or in our solar system wasn't intelligently designed?  If you look at the planet or the moon you would think that some intelligent designer must have made it.  It's too perfect.  And look at the dirt on the ground.  Too perfect.  The sand.  It's all too perfect.  But we know how all these things were made.  A star blew up billions of years ago and flung out into space.  I could go on and on but ultimately everything on this planet including you was cooked up in a star.  What flings out of a star is a single cell mold bacteria amino protein.  No humans are flung out of a star even though that's where we came from.  So billions of years later our earth is formed and cooled and water is put on it and single cell life starts and eventually all the diversity you see exists.
> 
> So it's funny you believe in a watchmaker but you refuse to believe how the watch was put together.
> 
> All you have is the fact we don't know what started the big bang.  So a theist says, "must be god".  This is god of the gaps.
> 
> 
> "*God of the gaps*" is a term used to describe observations of theological perspectives in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence. The term was invented by Christian theologians[_citation needed_] not to discredit theism but rather to point out the fallacy of relying on teleological arguments for God's existence.[1] Some use the phrase as a criticism of theological positions, to mean that God is used as a spurious explanation for anything not currently explained by science.
Click to expand...

The universe is mathematically impossible.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> What on earth or in our solar system wasn't intelligently designed? If you look at the planet or the moon you would think that some intelligent designer must have made it. It's too perfect. And look at the dirt on the ground. Too perfect. The sand. It's all too perfect. But we know how all these things were made. A star blew up billions of years ago and flung out into space. I could go on and on but ultimately everything on this planet including you was cooked up in a star.



Well of course! Who has ever stated that we're not comprised of elements found in the universe? What the fuck else could we be made of? Pixie dust? Magic God particles?


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> So billions of years later our earth is formed and cooled and water is put on it and single cell life starts and eventually all the diversity you see exists.



But that's the part you're not explaining with scientific observation and testable hypothesis. You make this incredible jump from inorganic elements to organic life without any explanation, and then you make another series of incredible leaps to eventually come up with humans. None of what you are claiming has any evident basis in science or biology. It is absolutely no different than claiming an Intelligent Designer did it.


----------



## Indeependent

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So billions of years later our earth is formed and cooled and water is put on it and single cell life starts and eventually all the diversity you see exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that's the part you're not explaining with scientific observation and testable hypothesis. You make this incredible jump from inorganic elements to organic life without any explanation, and then you make another series of incredible leaps to eventually come up with humans. None of what you are claiming has any evident basis in science or biology. It is absolutely no different than claiming an Intelligent Designer did it.
Click to expand...

Internet PhD!


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So billions of years later our earth is formed and cooled and water is put on it and single cell life starts and eventually all the diversity you see exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that's the part you're not explaining with scientific observation and testable hypothesis. You make this incredible jump from inorganic elements to organic life without any explanation, and then you make another series of incredible leaps to eventually come up with humans. None of what you are claiming has any evident basis in science or biology. It is absolutely no different than claiming an Intelligent Designer did it.
Click to expand...

Inside a giant star is where we were created. That’s where all life came from. You think a god proofed life onto the planet.


----------



## ding

Indeependent said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheist pointing to verses out of context...how shocking!
> 
> 
> 
> We’ve all had some great conversations regarding this subject. I discussed with people who are much more intellectually honest than you. Your tactic doesn’t work on us. You aren’t smart. I don’t care if you have a PhD in magic. It’s insane anyone could study it that deeply and not realize it’s all made up. Well that’s what wishful thinking will do.
> 
> You have never been in a good discussion about god. Anyone who believes the creation story and denies evolution can’t be taken seriously. And cherry pickers are only slightly better
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know how you can look at the universe and not conclude that rather than being a late outgrowth, intelligence has always existed as the source or matrix for physical stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe not. Look at the beginning of earth. Single cell aren’t smart. We are the only way the universe knows itself. As far as we know. Three billion years ago it may have been mars. 20 million years ago dinosaurs and trilobites ruled. They weren’t intelligent.
> 
> And I just don’t conclude anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have any idea how much information is required to make a single  cell function?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don’t.
Click to expand...

It's mind boggling.


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We’ve all had some great conversations regarding this subject. I discussed with people who are much more intellectually honest than you. Your tactic doesn’t work on us. You aren’t smart. I don’t care if you have a PhD in magic. It’s insane anyone could study it that deeply and not realize it’s all made up. Well that’s what wishful thinking will do.
> 
> You have never been in a good discussion about god. Anyone who believes the creation story and denies evolution can’t be taken seriously. And cherry pickers are only slightly better
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know how you can look at the universe and not conclude that rather than being a late outgrowth, intelligence has always existed as the source or matrix for physical stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe not. Look at the beginning of earth. Single cell aren’t smart. We are the only way the universe knows itself. As far as we know. Three billion years ago it may have been mars. 20 million years ago dinosaurs and trilobites ruled. They weren’t intelligent.
> 
> And I just don’t conclude anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have any idea how much information is required to make a single  cell function?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don’t.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ding said "intelligence has always existed as the source or matrix for physical stuff"
> 
> What does he mean by that?  Can he explain or prove this comment is true?
Click to expand...

I've been trying to do that for two years but you have been too busy arguing about it instead of trying to understand it.


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So billions of years later our earth is formed and cooled and water is put on it and single cell life starts and eventually all the diversity you see exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that's the part you're not explaining with scientific observation and testable hypothesis. You make this incredible jump from inorganic elements to organic life without any explanation, and then you make another series of incredible leaps to eventually come up with humans. None of what you are claiming has any evident basis in science or biology. It is absolutely no different than claiming an Intelligent Designer did it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Inside a giant star is where we were created. That’s where all life came from. You think a god proofed life onto the planet.
Click to expand...

The Bible says we came from dust.  And we did too.  Star dust.


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheist pointing to verses out of context...how shocking!
> 
> 
> 
> We’ve all had some great conversations regarding this subject. I discussed with people who are much more intellectually honest than you. Your tactic doesn’t work on us. You aren’t smart. I don’t care if you have a PhD in magic. It’s insane anyone could study it that deeply and not realize it’s all made up. Well that’s what wishful thinking will do.
> 
> You have never been in a good discussion about god. Anyone who believes the creation story and denies evolution can’t be taken seriously. And cherry pickers are only slightly better
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know how you can look at the universe and not conclude that rather than being a late outgrowth, intelligence has always existed as the source or matrix for physical stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe not. Look at the beginning of earth. Single cell aren’t smart. We are the only way the universe knows itself. As far as we know. Three billion years ago it may have been mars. 20 million years ago dinosaurs and trilobites ruled. They weren’t intelligent.
> 
> And I just don’t conclude anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have any idea how much information is required to make a single  cell function?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My mom created me.  She didn't know anything other than take my dads pee pee and put it in her yoo hoo.  She is intelligent I guess but how much information did she need to make me?
> 
> How much information does a chicken need to know to lay and egg?  Yet even a stupid chicken can create life.
> 
> The big bang is like the chicken.  In fact a chicken is smarter because it has a brain.  DING wants to believe that an intelligent creator created the big bang and then purposely created us like a scientist in a lab.
> 
> In other words Ding thinks some god that looks like us is sitting in his laboratory and intentionally making birds and mosqueto and fish and frogs.  He's thinking it through.  He's doing it for a reason.  There is a purpose.
> 
> Where I think that the single cell just multiplied by itself and because the diversity that we see today.  No god told the single cell to split one day.  It just did.  God didn't decide to make polar bears.  Nature happened and it wasn't intelligent design.
Click to expand...

That's not what I believe.  Why you gotta go and misstate me like that, bro?

You mad?


----------



## DOTR

Boss said:


> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.



 But isn’t “religion” they attack. It is always Christianity. Very telling.


----------



## ding

DOTR said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But isn’t “religion” they attack. It is always Christianity. Very telling.
Click to expand...

It's the dominant religion here.


----------



## sealybobo

DOTR said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But isn’t “religion” they attack. It is always Christianity. Very telling.
Click to expand...

Muslims christians (which kind?) Mormons Quaker’s jehovas and Jews. Sure there may be a god but now you say it visited?

Mixed bag of nuts. You just happen to be a Christian nut


----------



## sealybobo

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We’ve all had some great conversations regarding this subject. I discussed with people who are much more intellectually honest than you. Your tactic doesn’t work on us. You aren’t smart. I don’t care if you have a PhD in magic. It’s insane anyone could study it that deeply and not realize it’s all made up. Well that’s what wishful thinking will do.
> 
> You have never been in a good discussion about god. Anyone who believes the creation story and denies evolution can’t be taken seriously. And cherry pickers are only slightly better
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know how you can look at the universe and not conclude that rather than being a late outgrowth, intelligence has always existed as the source or matrix for physical stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe not. Look at the beginning of earth. Single cell aren’t smart. We are the only way the universe knows itself. As far as we know. Three billion years ago it may have been mars. 20 million years ago dinosaurs and trilobites ruled. They weren’t intelligent.
> 
> And I just don’t conclude anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have any idea how much information is required to make a single  cell function?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My mom created me.  She didn't know anything other than take my dads pee pee and put it in her yoo hoo.  She is intelligent I guess but how much information did she need to make me?
> 
> How much information does a chicken need to know to lay and egg?  Yet even a stupid chicken can create life.
> 
> The big bang is like the chicken.  In fact a chicken is smarter because it has a brain.  DING wants to believe that an intelligent creator created the big bang and then purposely created us like a scientist in a lab.
> 
> In other words Ding thinks some god that looks like us is sitting in his laboratory and intentionally making birds and mosqueto and fish and frogs.  He's thinking it through.  He's doing it for a reason.  There is a purpose.
> 
> Where I think that the single cell just multiplied by itself and because the diversity that we see today.  No god told the single cell to split one day.  It just did.  God didn't decide to make polar bears.  Nature happened and it wasn't intelligent design.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not what I believe.  Why you gotta go and misstate me like that, bro?
> 
> You mad?
Click to expand...

Sorry I meant boss. I get you two mixed up


----------



## sealybobo

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So billions of years later our earth is formed and cooled and water is put on it and single cell life starts and eventually all the diversity you see exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that's the part you're not explaining with scientific observation and testable hypothesis. You make this incredible jump from inorganic elements to organic life without any explanation, and then you make another series of incredible leaps to eventually come up with humans. None of what you are claiming has any evident basis in science or biology. It is absolutely no different than claiming an Intelligent Designer did it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Inside a giant star is where we were created. That’s where all life came from. You think a god proofed life onto the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Bible says we came from dust.  And we did too.  Star dust.
Click to expand...

It also says a talking snake talked


----------



## BreezeWood

DOTR said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But isn’t “religion” they attack. It is always Christianity. Very telling.
Click to expand...

.


DOTR said:


> But isn’t “religion” they attack. It is always Christianity. Very telling.




very telling because it is the most forged of the three desert documents that have no physical foundation for their beliefs transposed as religions.


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So billions of years later our earth is formed and cooled and water is put on it and single cell life starts and eventually all the diversity you see exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that's the part you're not explaining with scientific observation and testable hypothesis. You make this incredible jump from inorganic elements to organic life without any explanation, and then you make another series of incredible leaps to eventually come up with humans. None of what you are claiming has any evident basis in science or biology. It is absolutely no different than claiming an Intelligent Designer did it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Inside a giant star is where we were created. That’s where all life came from. You think a god proofed life onto the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Bible says we came from dust.  And we did too.  Star dust.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It also says a talking snake talked
Click to expand...

You never could understand allegory.


----------



## Indeependent

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So billions of years later our earth is formed and cooled and water is put on it and single cell life starts and eventually all the diversity you see exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that's the part you're not explaining with scientific observation and testable hypothesis. You make this incredible jump from inorganic elements to organic life without any explanation, and then you make another series of incredible leaps to eventually come up with humans. None of what you are claiming has any evident basis in science or biology. It is absolutely no different than claiming an Intelligent Designer did it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Inside a giant star is where we were created. That’s where all life came from. You think a god proofed life onto the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Bible says we came from dust.  And we did too.  Star dust.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It also says a talking snake talked
Click to expand...

So until the "serpent" you were on board with God creating existence...
Which means you believed God created the universe until you didn't believe that God could create a non-human that could talk.
Very telling.


----------



## ScienceRocks

How many of you idiots would praise a king in the white house with the power to order you to worship him or he'll have you killed???

I doubt very many...That is god. Praise him or else! And he'll as you do praise him will kill your kids, your wife and make your life shitty for his own enjoyment at a time of his choosen.

He will give you cancer
He will order his people to kill each other
Rape women
Dads will fuck their daughters 
etc


----------



## Humorme

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So billions of years later our earth is formed and cooled and water is put on it and single cell life starts and eventually all the diversity you see exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that's the part you're not explaining with scientific observation and testable hypothesis. You make this incredible jump from inorganic elements to organic life without any explanation, and then you make another series of incredible leaps to eventually come up with humans. None of what you are claiming has any evident basis in science or biology. It is absolutely no different than claiming an Intelligent Designer did it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Inside a giant star is where we were created. That’s where all life came from. You think a god proofed life onto the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Bible says we came from dust.  And we did too.  Star dust.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It also says a talking snake talked
Click to expand...


Where is that?????


----------



## Indeependent

Humorme said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So billions of years later our earth is formed and cooled and water is put on it and single cell life starts and eventually all the diversity you see exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that's the part you're not explaining with scientific observation and testable hypothesis. You make this incredible jump from inorganic elements to organic life without any explanation, and then you make another series of incredible leaps to eventually come up with humans. None of what you are claiming has any evident basis in science or biology. It is absolutely no different than claiming an Intelligent Designer did it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Inside a giant star is where we were created. That’s where all life came from. You think a god proofed life onto the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Bible says we came from dust.  And we did too.  Star dust.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It also says a talking snake talked
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where is that?????
Click to expand...

Genesis 3 / Hebrew - English Bible / Mechon-Mamre
Of course, sealy never reads *anything* in context.
It's the Internet PhD syndrome.


----------



## social philosopher

Boss said:


> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.



I certainly do find you amusing. But not in an innocent childish fashion. Your belief is insidious. This belief in a deity is anything but innocent. Too many people die as a result. I can't believe you really wrote all that. It was tedious.


----------



## Indeependent

social philosopher said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I certainly do find you amusing. But not in an innocent childish fashion. Your belief is insidious. This belief in a deity is anything but innocent. Too many people die as a result. I can't believe you really wrote all that. It was tedious.
Click to expand...

More humans have been murdered by atheists than by any religion.
Atheist dictators simply worship themselves.


----------



## ding

social philosopher said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I certainly do find you amusing. But not in an innocent childish fashion. Your belief is insidious. This belief in a deity is anything but innocent. Too many people die as a result. I can't believe you really wrote all that. It was tedious.
Click to expand...

Just look right past the 200 million people murdered by militant atheist nations.  After all that was way back in the 20th century, right?


----------



## ding

ScienceRocks said:


> How many of you idiots would praise a king in the white house with the power to order you to worship him or he'll have you killed???
> 
> I doubt very many...That is god. Praise him or else! And he'll as you do praise him will kill your kids, your wife and make your life shitty for his own enjoyment at a time of his choosen.
> 
> He will give you cancer
> He will order his people to kill each other
> Rape women
> Dads will fuck their daughters
> etc


He mad.


----------



## Humorme

Indeependent said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> But that's the part you're not explaining with scientific observation and testable hypothesis. You make this incredible jump from inorganic elements to organic life without any explanation, and then you make another series of incredible leaps to eventually come up with humans. None of what you are claiming has any evident basis in science or biology. It is absolutely no different than claiming an Intelligent Designer did it.
> 
> 
> 
> Inside a giant star is where we were created. That’s where all life came from. You think a god proofed life onto the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Bible says we came from dust.  And we did too.  Star dust.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It also says a talking snake talked
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where is that?????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Genesis 3 / Hebrew - English Bible / Mechon-Mamre
> Of course, sealy never reads *anything* in context.
> It's the Internet PhD syndrome.
Click to expand...



In Genesis 3, Eve interacts with a *serpent*.  That serpent is clearly identified in the Bible, culminating in Revelations 20 : 2 which reads:

"_And he laid hold on the *dragon*, that* old serpent*, which is the *Devil,* and *Satan,* and bound him a thousand years_..."

In short, the story is about Eve and a fallen Angel named Satan.


----------



## ding

Humorme said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Inside a giant star is where we were created. That’s where all life came from. You think a god proofed life onto the planet.
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible says we came from dust.  And we did too.  Star dust.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It also says a talking snake talked
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where is that?????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Genesis 3 / Hebrew - English Bible / Mechon-Mamre
> Of course, sealy never reads *anything* in context.
> It's the Internet PhD syndrome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In Genesis 3, Eve interacts with a *serpent*.  That serpent is clearly identified in the Bible, culminating in Revelations 20 : 2 which reads:
> 
> "_And he laid hold on the *dragon*, that* old serpent*, which is the *Devil,* and *Satan,* and bound him a thousand years_..."
> 
> In short, the story is about Eve and a fallen Angel named Satan.
Click to expand...

Revelations is about the fall of the Roman Empire.


----------



## irosie91

ding said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible says we came from dust.  And we did too.  Star dust.
> 
> 
> 
> It also says a talking snake talked
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where is that?????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Genesis 3 / Hebrew - English Bible / Mechon-Mamre
> Of course, sealy never reads *anything* in context.
> It's the Internet PhD syndrome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In Genesis 3, Eve interacts with a *serpent*.  That serpent is clearly identified in the Bible, culminating in Revelations 20 : 2 which reads:
> 
> "_And he laid hold on the *dragon*, that* old serpent*, which is the *Devil,* and *Satan,* and bound him a thousand years_..."
> 
> In short, the story is about Eve and a fallen Angel named Satan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Revelations is about the fall of the Roman Empire.
Click to expand...


are you sure?     It is not entirely clear to me------JWs certainly believe so.

Satan is a kind of "angel"  in jewish theology since  it is a creation of  "god"   But
that  "fallen"  thing is something that seems to have been a late invention


----------



## sealybobo

Indeependent said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So billions of years later our earth is formed and cooled and water is put on it and single cell life starts and eventually all the diversity you see exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that's the part you're not explaining with scientific observation and testable hypothesis. You make this incredible jump from inorganic elements to organic life without any explanation, and then you make another series of incredible leaps to eventually come up with humans. None of what you are claiming has any evident basis in science or biology. It is absolutely no different than claiming an Intelligent Designer did it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Inside a giant star is where we were created. That’s where all life came from. You think a god proofed life onto the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Bible says we came from dust.  And we did too.  Star dust.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It also says a talking snake talked
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So until the "serpent" you were on board with God creating existence...
> Which means you believed God created the universe until you didn't believe that God could create a non-human that could talk.
> Very telling.
Click to expand...


God may have created the universe but first you have to prove God exists.

I can tell you he didn't poof land animals on the planet.

I'm learning more and more about why American Christians are so fucking retarded when it comes to evolution compared to the rest of the world and this is very telling.  Makes sense when I argue with theists here about religion and politics.  

This is evidence they have politicized our religion.  The same fools that don't believe in evolution also don't believe in global warming.  PROOF they use religion to keep people dumb


----------



## sealybobo

Indeependent said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So billions of years later our earth is formed and cooled and water is put on it and single cell life starts and eventually all the diversity you see exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that's the part you're not explaining with scientific observation and testable hypothesis. You make this incredible jump from inorganic elements to organic life without any explanation, and then you make another series of incredible leaps to eventually come up with humans. None of what you are claiming has any evident basis in science or biology. It is absolutely no different than claiming an Intelligent Designer did it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Inside a giant star is where we were created. That’s where all life came from. You think a god proofed life onto the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Bible says we came from dust.  And we did too.  Star dust.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It also says a talking snake talked
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So until the "serpent" you were on board with God creating existence...
> Which means you believed God created the universe until you didn't believe that God could create a non-human that could talk.
> Very telling.
Click to expand...

Evolution Is Finally Winning Out Over Creationism, Especially Among the Young


----------



## sealybobo

social philosopher said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I certainly do find you amusing. But not in an innocent childish fashion. Your belief is insidious. This belief in a deity is anything but innocent. Too many people die as a result. I can't believe you really wrote all that. It was tedious.
Click to expand...


Gallup reports that 64% of US adults are worried "a great deal" or "a fair amount" about climate change, but only 50% believe in evolution. That's despite the fact that evolution is the foundation of all modern biology — not to mention much of modern medicine — and has been thoroughly investigated for the 157 years since Charles Darwin published "The Origin of Species."

Here’s why so many smart people don’t believe in evolution


----------



## sealybobo

Religion makes you dumb Why So Many Americans Don't 'Believe' In Evolution, Climate Change And Vaccines | HuffPost

The real question is why people want to believe something that flies in the face of scientific evidence. In some cases, the reason can be political: Solving the problems created by climate change would mean standing in the way of the free market, something conservatives tend to oppose.

When someone’s self-image or social acceptance is at stake, badgering them with facts isn’t likely to change their minds, research has shown.

In fact, a 2010 study found that when people were shown incorrect information alongside a correction, the update failed to reverse their initial belief in the misinformation. Even worse, partisans who were motivated to believe the original incorrect information became even more firm in their belief in that information after reading a correction, the researchers found. For example, conservatives who were told that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction before the Iraq war believed that claim more firmly after reading a correction.

Basically religion is making you people dumb just as I predicted.


----------



## Indeependent

sealybobo said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> But that's the part you're not explaining with scientific observation and testable hypothesis. You make this incredible jump from inorganic elements to organic life without any explanation, and then you make another series of incredible leaps to eventually come up with humans. None of what you are claiming has any evident basis in science or biology. It is absolutely no different than claiming an Intelligent Designer did it.
> 
> 
> 
> Inside a giant star is where we were created. That’s where all life came from. You think a god proofed life onto the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Bible says we came from dust.  And we did too.  Star dust.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It also says a talking snake talked
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So until the "serpent" you were on board with God creating existence...
> Which means you believed God created the universe until you didn't believe that God could create a non-human that could talk.
> Very telling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolution Is Finally Winning Out Over Creationism, Especially Among the Young
Click to expand...

So evolution is “true” by popular vote?
What a stupid post.


----------



## Indeependent

sealybobo said:


> Religion makes you dumb Why So Many Americans Don't 'Believe' In Evolution, Climate Change And Vaccines | HuffPost
> 
> The real question is why people want to believe something that flies in the face of scientific evidence. In some cases, the reason can be political: Solving the problems created by climate change would mean standing in the way of the free market, something conservatives tend to oppose.
> 
> When someone’s self-image or social acceptance is at stake, badgering them with facts isn’t likely to change their minds, research has shown.
> 
> In fact, a 2010 study found that when people were shown incorrect information alongside a correction, the update failed to reverse their initial belief in the misinformation. Even worse, partisans who were motivated to believe the original incorrect information became even more firm in their belief in that information after reading a correction, the researchers found. For example, conservatives who were told that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction before the Iraq war believed that claim more firmly after reading a correction.
> 
> Basically religion is making you people dumb just as I predicted.


You do realize that the overwhelming number of efforts in scientific endeavors result in failure.
But nobody advertises failures.
Yet another stupid post.


----------



## koshergrl

DOTR said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But isn’t “religion” they attack. It is always Christianity. Very telling.
Click to expand...


That's because Christians are the only true enemies of satan..and the anti-Christians are nuts controlled by satan.


----------



## sealybobo

Indeependent said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religion makes you dumb Why So Many Americans Don't 'Believe' In Evolution, Climate Change And Vaccines | HuffPost
> 
> The real question is why people want to believe something that flies in the face of scientific evidence. In some cases, the reason can be political: Solving the problems created by climate change would mean standing in the way of the free market, something conservatives tend to oppose.
> 
> When someone’s self-image or social acceptance is at stake, badgering them with facts isn’t likely to change their minds, research has shown.
> 
> In fact, a 2010 study found that when people were shown incorrect information alongside a correction, the update failed to reverse their initial belief in the misinformation. Even worse, partisans who were motivated to believe the original incorrect information became even more firm in their belief in that information after reading a correction, the researchers found. For example, conservatives who were told that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction before the Iraq war believed that claim more firmly after reading a correction.
> 
> Basically religion is making you people dumb just as I predicted.
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that the overwhelming number of efforts in scientific endeavors result in failure.
> But nobody advertises failures.
> Yet another stupid post.
Click to expand...

Do you realize how ridiculous it is to deny evolution? America is flawed because of our religiousness. It’s definitely a way they control us and it’s proof religion is bad. To deny facts logic and reason because of it.

At least you aren’t as bad as isis


----------



## Humorme

ding said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible says we came from dust.  And we did too.  Star dust.
> 
> 
> 
> It also says a talking snake talked
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where is that?????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Genesis 3 / Hebrew - English Bible / Mechon-Mamre
> Of course, sealy never reads *anything* in context.
> It's the Internet PhD syndrome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In Genesis 3, Eve interacts with a *serpent*.  That serpent is clearly identified in the Bible, culminating in Revelations 20 : 2 which reads:
> 
> "_And he laid hold on the *dragon*, that* old serpent*, which is the *Devil,* and *Satan,* and bound him a thousand years_..."
> 
> In short, the story is about Eve and a fallen Angel named Satan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Revelations is about the fall of the Roman Empire.
Click to expand...


Revelations is yet to come.  America was a far greater nation than the Roman Empire ever was.


----------



## sealybobo

I


Humorme said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It also says a talking snake talked
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is that?????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Genesis 3 / Hebrew - English Bible / Mechon-Mamre
> Of course, sealy never reads *anything* in context.
> It's the Internet PhD syndrome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In Genesis 3, Eve interacts with a *serpent*.  That serpent is clearly identified in the Bible, culminating in Revelations 20 : 2 which reads:
> 
> "_And he laid hold on the *dragon*, that* old serpent*, which is the *Devil,* and *Satan,* and bound him a thousand years_..."
> 
> In short, the story is about Eve and a fallen Angel named Satan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Revelations is about the fall of the Roman Empire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Revelations is yet to come.  America was a far greater nation than the Roman Empire ever was.
Click to expand...

 wonder how China will do next


----------



## IsaacNewton

Boss said:


> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.



Verbiose vomitosus. 

A better question is why 'god' drowns innocent women and children.


----------



## Humorme

sealybobo said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religion makes you dumb Why So Many Americans Don't 'Believe' In Evolution, Climate Change And Vaccines | HuffPost
> 
> The real question is why people want to believe something that flies in the face of scientific evidence. In some cases, the reason can be political: Solving the problems created by climate change would mean standing in the way of the free market, something conservatives tend to oppose.
> 
> When someone’s self-image or social acceptance is at stake, badgering them with facts isn’t likely to change their minds, research has shown.
> 
> In fact, a 2010 study found that when people were shown incorrect information alongside a correction, the update failed to reverse their initial belief in the misinformation. Even worse, partisans who were motivated to believe the original incorrect information became even more firm in their belief in that information after reading a correction, the researchers found. For example, conservatives who were told that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction before the Iraq war believed that claim more firmly after reading a correction.
> 
> Basically religion is making you people dumb just as I predicted.
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that the overwhelming number of efforts in scientific endeavors result in failure.
> But nobody advertises failures.
> Yet another stupid post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you realize how ridiculous it is to deny evolution? America is flawed because of our religiousness. It’s definitely a way they control us and it’s proof religion is bad. To deny facts logic and reason because of it.
> 
> At least you aren’t as bad as isis
Click to expand...


OMG.  You are* very* funny. 

America is the only country on this planet that was built on a foundational principle of *unalienable *Rights.  According to the Declaration of Independence:

"_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their *Creator* with certain *unalienable *Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness_."

Of this document, Thomas Jefferson wrote:

“The Declaration of Independence... [is the] declaratory charter of our rights, and of the rights of man.”

The Washington, Jefferson & Madison Institute: Quotes Concerning the Declaration of Independence

Even in the National Archives, you will find the importance of that document:

"_The Declaration of Independence states the principles on which our government, and our identity as Americans, are based."

The Declaration of Independence
_
The Declaration of Independence is the foundation for the Bill of Rights AND it states the principles on which our government, and our identity as Americans is based.  That's pretty powerful considering that the Declaration of Independence puts forth the proposition that a *Creator* (your God, whomever you deem that to be) bestowed upon you *unalienable* Rights.  The presupposition there is that there are some Rights that are above the reach of mortal man and the duty / obligation / responsibility of government is to do what they can to *insure* your Rights, not limit them.

From that foundational principle, America became the greatest nation in the annals of history.  Our *downfall *can be traced back to the *attacks* against our foundational principles.  What you're advocating is popular, but it is inaccurate.


----------



## Indeependent

sealybobo said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religion makes you dumb Why So Many Americans Don't 'Believe' In Evolution, Climate Change And Vaccines | HuffPost
> 
> The real question is why people want to believe something that flies in the face of scientific evidence. In some cases, the reason can be political: Solving the problems created by climate change would mean standing in the way of the free market, something conservatives tend to oppose.
> 
> When someone’s self-image or social acceptance is at stake, badgering them with facts isn’t likely to change their minds, research has shown.
> 
> In fact, a 2010 study found that when people were shown incorrect information alongside a correction, the update failed to reverse their initial belief in the misinformation. Even worse, partisans who were motivated to believe the original incorrect information became even more firm in their belief in that information after reading a correction, the researchers found. For example, conservatives who were told that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction before the Iraq war believed that claim more firmly after reading a correction.
> 
> Basically religion is making you people dumb just as I predicted.
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that the overwhelming number of efforts in scientific endeavors result in failure.
> But nobody advertises failures.
> Yet another stupid post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you realize how ridiculous it is to deny evolution? America is flawed because of our religiousness. It’s definitely a way they control us and it’s proof religion is bad. To deny facts logic and reason because of it.
> 
> At least you aren’t as bad as isis
Click to expand...

Fact: Ad hominems are all you have.


----------



## Indeependent

IsaacNewton said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Verbiose vomitosus.
> 
> A better question is why 'god' drowns innocent women and children.
Click to expand...

Ad hominem.
The universe is mathematically impossible.


----------



## IsaacNewton

Indeependent said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Verbiose vomitosus.
> 
> A better question is why 'god' drowns innocent women and children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ad hominem.
> The universe is mathematically impossible.
Click to expand...


Riiiight. And a hammer dropped from 5 ft has to fall half way before it falls five feet, then half of that, then half of that and so on along an asymptotic line that never reaches zero. So it should never hit the ground. 

Keep your absolute pronouncements in a sac.


----------



## sealybobo

Indeependent said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Verbiose vomitosus.
> 
> A better question is why 'god' drowns innocent women and children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ad hominem.
> The universe is mathematically impossible.
Click to expand...


Obviously not or it wouldn't be here.  Dumbest comment of the day.


----------



## koshergrl

sealybobo said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religion makes you dumb Why So Many Americans Don't 'Believe' In Evolution, Climate Change And Vaccines | HuffPost
> 
> The real question is why people want to believe something that flies in the face of scientific evidence. In some cases, the reason can be political: Solving the problems created by climate change would mean standing in the way of the free market, something conservatives tend to oppose.
> 
> When someone’s self-image or social acceptance is at stake, badgering them with facts isn’t likely to change their minds, research has shown.
> 
> In fact, a 2010 study found that when people were shown incorrect information alongside a correction, the update failed to reverse their initial belief in the misinformation. Even worse, partisans who were motivated to believe the original incorrect information became even more firm in their belief in that information after reading a correction, the researchers found. For example, conservatives who were told that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction before the Iraq war believed that claim more firmly after reading a correction.
> 
> Basically religion is making you people dumb just as I predicted.
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that the overwhelming number of efforts in scientific endeavors result in failure.
> But nobody advertises failures.
> Yet another stupid post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you realize how ridiculous it is to deny evolution? America is flawed because of our religiousness. It’s definitely a way they control us and it’s proof religion is bad. To deny facts logic and reason because of it.
> 
> At least you aren’t as bad as isis
Click to expand...

We have still not found the missing link between us and apes


----------



## sealybobo

koshergrl said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religion makes you dumb Why So Many Americans Don't 'Believe' In Evolution, Climate Change And Vaccines | HuffPost
> 
> The real question is why people want to believe something that flies in the face of scientific evidence. In some cases, the reason can be political: Solving the problems created by climate change would mean standing in the way of the free market, something conservatives tend to oppose.
> 
> When someone’s self-image or social acceptance is at stake, badgering them with facts isn’t likely to change their minds, research has shown.
> 
> In fact, a 2010 study found that when people were shown incorrect information alongside a correction, the update failed to reverse their initial belief in the misinformation. Even worse, partisans who were motivated to believe the original incorrect information became even more firm in their belief in that information after reading a correction, the researchers found. For example, conservatives who were told that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction before the Iraq war believed that claim more firmly after reading a correction.
> 
> Basically religion is making you people dumb just as I predicted.
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that the overwhelming number of efforts in scientific endeavors result in failure.
> But nobody advertises failures.
> Yet another stupid post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you realize how ridiculous it is to deny evolution? America is flawed because of our religiousness. It’s definitely a way they control us and it’s proof religion is bad. To deny facts logic and reason because of it.
> 
> At least you aren’t as bad as isis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have still not found the missing link between us and apes
Click to expand...


You idiots can continue to deny global warming and evolution.  I'm done with you.  We are dumber in America than the rest of the world because of you.  This is why I say American religions are making America stupider and they are effecting our elections and policies.  It has to stop  Don't ask why we persist.  We persist because you suck.


----------



## sealybobo

koshergrl said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religion makes you dumb Why So Many Americans Don't 'Believe' In Evolution, Climate Change And Vaccines | HuffPost
> 
> The real question is why people want to believe something that flies in the face of scientific evidence. In some cases, the reason can be political: Solving the problems created by climate change would mean standing in the way of the free market, something conservatives tend to oppose.
> 
> When someone’s self-image or social acceptance is at stake, badgering them with facts isn’t likely to change their minds, research has shown.
> 
> In fact, a 2010 study found that when people were shown incorrect information alongside a correction, the update failed to reverse their initial belief in the misinformation. Even worse, partisans who were motivated to believe the original incorrect information became even more firm in their belief in that information after reading a correction, the researchers found. For example, conservatives who were told that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction before the Iraq war believed that claim more firmly after reading a correction.
> 
> Basically religion is making you people dumb just as I predicted.
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that the overwhelming number of efforts in scientific endeavors result in failure.
> But nobody advertises failures.
> Yet another stupid post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you realize how ridiculous it is to deny evolution? America is flawed because of our religiousness. It’s definitely a way they control us and it’s proof religion is bad. To deny facts logic and reason because of it.
> 
> At least you aren’t as bad as isis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have still not found the missing link between us and apes
Click to expand...






You're about 8 years behind the times girl.  Wake up.

Missing link between man and apes found


----------



## sealybobo

koshergrl said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religion makes you dumb Why So Many Americans Don't 'Believe' In Evolution, Climate Change And Vaccines | HuffPost
> 
> The real question is why people want to believe something that flies in the face of scientific evidence. In some cases, the reason can be political: Solving the problems created by climate change would mean standing in the way of the free market, something conservatives tend to oppose.
> 
> When someone’s self-image or social acceptance is at stake, badgering them with facts isn’t likely to change their minds, research has shown.
> 
> In fact, a 2010 study found that when people were shown incorrect information alongside a correction, the update failed to reverse their initial belief in the misinformation. Even worse, partisans who were motivated to believe the original incorrect information became even more firm in their belief in that information after reading a correction, the researchers found. For example, conservatives who were told that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction before the Iraq war believed that claim more firmly after reading a correction.
> 
> Basically religion is making you people dumb just as I predicted.
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that the overwhelming number of efforts in scientific endeavors result in failure.
> But nobody advertises failures.
> Yet another stupid post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you realize how ridiculous it is to deny evolution? America is flawed because of our religiousness. It’s definitely a way they control us and it’s proof religion is bad. To deny facts logic and reason because of it.
> 
> At least you aren’t as bad as isis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have still not found the missing link between us and apes
Click to expand...


It's so nice knowing more than you.

Between 1.5 and 2 million years ago, chimpanzees (_Pan troglodytes_) and bonobos (_Pan paniscus_) evolved from a common ancestor and formed clear physical and behavioural differences. Bonobos are smaller and more slender than chimpanzees. Socially, chimpanzees live in male-dominated groups, while bonobo society is female-dominated.

Until today, no one had considered the idea that these two separate species could exchange genes, largely because of a major physical barrier that separates chimpanzees and bonobos: the Congo River. Chimpanzees live on the northern side of the river, while bonobos live on the southern side.

It has even been suggested that the formation of the Congo River, which also happened between 1.5 million to 2 million years ago, might have been a major driver in causing the two species to differentiate from a common ancestor.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religion makes you dumb Why So Many Americans Don't 'Believe' In Evolution, Climate Change And Vaccines | HuffPost
> 
> The real question is why people want to believe something that flies in the face of scientific evidence. In some cases, the reason can be political: Solving the problems created by climate change would mean standing in the way of the free market, something conservatives tend to oppose.
> 
> When someone’s self-image or social acceptance is at stake, badgering them with facts isn’t likely to change their minds, research has shown.
> 
> In fact, a 2010 study found that when people were shown incorrect information alongside a correction, the update failed to reverse their initial belief in the misinformation. Even worse, partisans who were motivated to believe the original incorrect information became even more firm in their belief in that information after reading a correction, the researchers found. For example, conservatives who were told that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction before the Iraq war believed that claim more firmly after reading a correction.
> 
> Basically religion is making you people dumb just as I predicted.
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that the overwhelming number of efforts in scientific endeavors result in failure.
> But nobody advertises failures.
> Yet another stupid post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you realize how ridiculous it is to deny evolution? America is flawed because of our religiousness. It’s definitely a way they control us and it’s proof religion is bad. To deny facts logic and reason because of it.
> 
> At least you aren’t as bad as isis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have still not found the missing link between us and apes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're about 8 years behind the times girl.  Wake up.
> 
> Missing link between man and apes found
Click to expand...


Speculative nonsense not based in ANY scientific finding.


----------



## koshergrl

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religion makes you dumb Why So Many Americans Don't 'Believe' In Evolution, Climate Change And Vaccines | HuffPost
> 
> The real question is why people want to believe something that flies in the face of scientific evidence. In some cases, the reason can be political: Solving the problems created by climate change would mean standing in the way of the free market, something conservatives tend to oppose.
> 
> When someone’s self-image or social acceptance is at stake, badgering them with facts isn’t likely to change their minds, research has shown.
> 
> In fact, a 2010 study found that when people were shown incorrect information alongside a correction, the update failed to reverse their initial belief in the misinformation. Even worse, partisans who were motivated to believe the original incorrect information became even more firm in their belief in that information after reading a correction, the researchers found. For example, conservatives who were told that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction before the Iraq war believed that claim more firmly after reading a correction.
> 
> Basically religion is making you people dumb just as I predicted.
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that the overwhelming number of efforts in scientific endeavors result in failure.
> But nobody advertises failures.
> Yet another stupid post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you realize how ridiculous it is to deny evolution? America is flawed because of our religiousness. It’s definitely a way they control us and it’s proof religion is bad. To deny facts logic and reason because of it.
> 
> At least you aren’t as bad as isis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have still not found the missing link between us and apes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're about 8 years behind the times girl.  Wake up.
> 
> Missing link between man and apes found
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speculative nonsense not based in ANY scientific finding.
Click to expand...


Science vs. Science™!


----------



## Humorme

sealybobo said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religion makes you dumb Why So Many Americans Don't 'Believe' In Evolution, Climate Change And Vaccines | HuffPost
> 
> The real question is why people want to believe something that flies in the face of scientific evidence. In some cases, the reason can be political: Solving the problems created by climate change would mean standing in the way of the free market, something conservatives tend to oppose.
> 
> When someone’s self-image or social acceptance is at stake, badgering them with facts isn’t likely to change their minds, research has shown.
> 
> In fact, a 2010 study found that when people were shown incorrect information alongside a correction, the update failed to reverse their initial belief in the misinformation. Even worse, partisans who were motivated to believe the original incorrect information became even more firm in their belief in that information after reading a correction, the researchers found. For example, conservatives who were told that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction before the Iraq war believed that claim more firmly after reading a correction.
> 
> Basically religion is making you people dumb just as I predicted.
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that the overwhelming number of efforts in scientific endeavors result in failure.
> But nobody advertises failures.
> Yet another stupid post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you realize how ridiculous it is to deny evolution? America is flawed because of our religiousness. It’s definitely a way they control us and it’s proof religion is bad. To deny facts logic and reason because of it.
> 
> At least you aren’t as bad as isis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have still not found the missing link between us and apes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're about 8 years behind the times girl.  Wake up.
> 
> Missing link between man and apes found
Click to expand...


ONE of the sentences in the quoted article above begins like this:

"_If it is confirmed as a missing link_..."

Those two letters IF destroys your whole case.


----------



## Indeependent

sealybobo said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Verbiose vomitosus.
> 
> A better question is why 'god' drowns innocent women and children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ad hominem.
> The universe is mathematically impossible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously not or it wouldn't be here.  Dumbest comment of the day.
Click to expand...

I see you are selective when it comes to Google.
As I said yesterday, you only agree with those scientists who agree with you.
That's the major flaw of arrogance.


----------



## Indeependent

sealybobo said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religion makes you dumb Why So Many Americans Don't 'Believe' In Evolution, Climate Change And Vaccines | HuffPost
> 
> The real question is why people want to believe something that flies in the face of scientific evidence. In some cases, the reason can be political: Solving the problems created by climate change would mean standing in the way of the free market, something conservatives tend to oppose.
> 
> When someone’s self-image or social acceptance is at stake, badgering them with facts isn’t likely to change their minds, research has shown.
> 
> In fact, a 2010 study found that when people were shown incorrect information alongside a correction, the update failed to reverse their initial belief in the misinformation. Even worse, partisans who were motivated to believe the original incorrect information became even more firm in their belief in that information after reading a correction, the researchers found. For example, conservatives who were told that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction before the Iraq war believed that claim more firmly after reading a correction.
> 
> Basically religion is making you people dumb just as I predicted.
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that the overwhelming number of efforts in scientific endeavors result in failure.
> But nobody advertises failures.
> Yet another stupid post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you realize how ridiculous it is to deny evolution? America is flawed because of our religiousness. It’s definitely a way they control us and it’s proof religion is bad. To deny facts logic and reason because of it.
> 
> At least you aren’t as bad as isis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have still not found the missing link between us and apes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You idiots can continue to deny global warming and evolution.  I'm done with you.  We are dumber in America than the rest of the world because of you.  This is why I say American religions are making America stupider and they are effecting our elections and policies.  It has to stop  Don't ask why we persist.  We persist because you suck.
Click to expand...

You missed the 70s Global Freeze Agenda?
You're an arrogant piece of shit at times.


----------



## Indeependent

sealybobo said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religion makes you dumb Why So Many Americans Don't 'Believe' In Evolution, Climate Change And Vaccines | HuffPost
> 
> The real question is why people want to believe something that flies in the face of scientific evidence. In some cases, the reason can be political: Solving the problems created by climate change would mean standing in the way of the free market, something conservatives tend to oppose.
> 
> When someone’s self-image or social acceptance is at stake, badgering them with facts isn’t likely to change their minds, research has shown.
> 
> In fact, a 2010 study found that when people were shown incorrect information alongside a correction, the update failed to reverse their initial belief in the misinformation. Even worse, partisans who were motivated to believe the original incorrect information became even more firm in their belief in that information after reading a correction, the researchers found. For example, conservatives who were told that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction before the Iraq war believed that claim more firmly after reading a correction.
> 
> Basically religion is making you people dumb just as I predicted.
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that the overwhelming number of efforts in scientific endeavors result in failure.
> But nobody advertises failures.
> Yet another stupid post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you realize how ridiculous it is to deny evolution? America is flawed because of our religiousness. It’s definitely a way they control us and it’s proof religion is bad. To deny facts logic and reason because of it.
> 
> At least you aren’t as bad as isis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have still not found the missing link between us and apes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's so nice knowing more than you.
> 
> Between 1.5 and 2 million years ago, chimpanzees (_Pan troglodytes_) and bonobos (_Pan paniscus_) evolved from a common ancestor and formed clear physical and behavioural differences. Bonobos are smaller and more slender than chimpanzees. Socially, chimpanzees live in male-dominated groups, while bonobo society is female-dominated.
> 
> Until today, no one had considered the idea that these two separate species could exchange genes, largely because of a major physical barrier that separates chimpanzees and bonobos: the Congo River. Chimpanzees live on the northern side of the river, while bonobos live on the southern side.
> 
> It has even been suggested that the formation of the Congo River, which also happened between 1.5 million to 2 million years ago, might have been a major driver in causing the two species to differentiate from a common ancestor.
Click to expand...

It's so cool that you can squeeze 8 years of math, chemistry, physics, biology, physiology and anatomy out of a web site.
Either that or you're fool enough to think you have any knowledge of any article you speed read through.


----------



## ding

irosie91 said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It also says a talking snake talked
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is that?????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Genesis 3 / Hebrew - English Bible / Mechon-Mamre
> Of course, sealy never reads *anything* in context.
> It's the Internet PhD syndrome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In Genesis 3, Eve interacts with a *serpent*.  That serpent is clearly identified in the Bible, culminating in Revelations 20 : 2 which reads:
> 
> "_And he laid hold on the *dragon*, that* old serpent*, which is the *Devil,* and *Satan,* and bound him a thousand years_..."
> 
> In short, the story is about Eve and a fallen Angel named Satan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Revelations is about the fall of the Roman Empire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> are you sure?     It is not entirely clear to me------JWs certainly believe so.
> 
> Satan is a kind of "angel"  in jewish theology since  it is a creation of  "god"   But
> that  "fallen"  thing is something that seems to have been a late invention
Click to expand...

I dunno.  That's what I was taught.  It seemed plausible.  It was written in code so to speak because they were still occupied by Rome so they couldn't just openly discuss the demise of the Roman Empire.  They used commonly know symbols that Jews of that day would recognize and associate with Rome.  One of the keys is early in the text where it says these things will not be far off into the future.  Or something to that effect.   I'm working off of memory here.  

I personally like the idea that satan is an angel working for God to tempt and test us.  Wisdom and knowledge should not be given to just any jack-a-nape.  They should earn it by showing they are deserving.

Plus it sort of fits in with the concept that everything God created was good.  Evil is not extant.  It doesn't exist on it own.  Evil is the absence of good.  Just like cold is the absence of heat and darkness is the absence of light.


----------



## BreezeWood

_*

*_


koshergrl said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religion makes you dumb Why So Many Americans Don't 'Believe' In Evolution, Climate Change And Vaccines | HuffPost
> 
> The real question is why people want to believe something that flies in the face of scientific evidence. In some cases, the reason can be political: Solving the problems created by climate change would mean standing in the way of the free market, something conservatives tend to oppose.
> 
> When someone’s self-image or social acceptance is at stake, badgering them with facts isn’t likely to change their minds, research has shown.
> 
> In fact, a 2010 study found that when people were shown incorrect information alongside a correction, the update failed to reverse their initial belief in the misinformation. Even worse, partisans who were motivated to believe the original incorrect information became even more firm in their belief in that information after reading a correction, the researchers found. For example, conservatives who were told that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction before the Iraq war believed that claim more firmly after reading a correction.
> 
> Basically religion is making you people dumb just as I predicted.
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that the overwhelming number of efforts in scientific endeavors result in failure.
> But nobody advertises failures.
> Yet another stupid post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you realize how ridiculous it is to deny evolution? America is flawed because of our religiousness. It’s definitely a way they control us and it’s proof religion is bad. To deny facts logic and reason because of it.
> 
> At least you aren’t as bad as isis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have still not found the missing link between us and apes
Click to expand...

.


koshergrl said:


> We have still not found the missing link between us and apes





DOTR said:


> And we know life happened once and only once on Earth. Never before and never since.




_*And we know life happened once and only once on Earth ... Never before and never since.
*_

the transition is metaphysical, completed in the genome then translated from one generation to the next, an entirely new species from a single parent to its offspring that from that time forward will represent only the new being when reproducing.

whether a rudimentary example, missing link is manifested or not the process is only accomplished using the original template of life that predated humanity by millions of years. whether from ape or not humans are not the original creation and simply a prototype after its initiation.


at any rate the contradiction between the two desert religionists simply underscores the lack of continuity for all three of their religions and the continued need to search further for the actual truth as having never been accomplished but in their own limited mindset at the expense of humanity as proven by recorded history over time.


----------



## sealybobo

Indeependent said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religion makes you dumb Why So Many Americans Don't 'Believe' In Evolution, Climate Change And Vaccines | HuffPost
> 
> The real question is why people want to believe something that flies in the face of scientific evidence. In some cases, the reason can be political: Solving the problems created by climate change would mean standing in the way of the free market, something conservatives tend to oppose.
> 
> When someone’s self-image or social acceptance is at stake, badgering them with facts isn’t likely to change their minds, research has shown.
> 
> In fact, a 2010 study found that when people were shown incorrect information alongside a correction, the update failed to reverse their initial belief in the misinformation. Even worse, partisans who were motivated to believe the original incorrect information became even more firm in their belief in that information after reading a correction, the researchers found. For example, conservatives who were told that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction before the Iraq war believed that claim more firmly after reading a correction.
> 
> Basically religion is making you people dumb just as I predicted.
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that the overwhelming number of efforts in scientific endeavors result in failure.
> But nobody advertises failures.
> Yet another stupid post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you realize how ridiculous it is to deny evolution? America is flawed because of our religiousness. It’s definitely a way they control us and it’s proof religion is bad. To deny facts logic and reason because of it.
> 
> At least you aren’t as bad as isis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have still not found the missing link between us and apes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You idiots can continue to deny global warming and evolution.  I'm done with you.  We are dumber in America than the rest of the world because of you.  This is why I say American religions are making America stupider and they are effecting our elections and policies.  It has to stop  Don't ask why we persist.  We persist because you suck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You missed the 70s Global Freeze Agenda?
> You're an arrogant piece of shit at times.
Click to expand...

Don’t even take you seriously


----------



## sealybobo

BreezeWood said:


> _*
> *_
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religion makes you dumb Why So Many Americans Don't 'Believe' In Evolution, Climate Change And Vaccines | HuffPost
> 
> The real question is why people want to believe something that flies in the face of scientific evidence. In some cases, the reason can be political: Solving the problems created by climate change would mean standing in the way of the free market, something conservatives tend to oppose.
> 
> When someone’s self-image or social acceptance is at stake, badgering them with facts isn’t likely to change their minds, research has shown.
> 
> In fact, a 2010 study found that when people were shown incorrect information alongside a correction, the update failed to reverse their initial belief in the misinformation. Even worse, partisans who were motivated to believe the original incorrect information became even more firm in their belief in that information after reading a correction, the researchers found. For example, conservatives who were told that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction before the Iraq war believed that claim more firmly after reading a correction.
> 
> Basically religion is making you people dumb just as I predicted.
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that the overwhelming number of efforts in scientific endeavors result in failure.
> But nobody advertises failures.
> Yet another stupid post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you realize how ridiculous it is to deny evolution? America is flawed because of our religiousness. It’s definitely a way they control us and it’s proof religion is bad. To deny facts logic and reason because of it.
> 
> At least you aren’t as bad as isis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have still not found the missing link between us and apes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have still not found the missing link between us and apes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we know life happened once and only once on Earth. Never before and never since.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> _*And we know life happened once and only once on Earth ... Never before and never since.
> *_
> 
> the transition is metaphysical, completed in the genome then translated from one generation to the next, an entirely new species from a single parent to its offspring that from that time forward will represent only the new being when reproducing.
> 
> whether a rudimentary example, missing link is manifested or not the process is only accomplished using the original template of life that predated humanity by millions of years. whether from ape or not humans are not the original creation and simply a prototype after its initiation.
> 
> 
> at any rate the contradiction between the two desert religionists simply underscores the lack of continuity for all three of their religions and the continued need to search further for the actual truth as having never been accomplished but in their own limited mindset at the expense of humanity as proven by recorded history over time.
Click to expand...

This I believe is evidence the rich/republicans and churches In America are in cohorts to control and keep us stupid.

More so in America than any other country we have people who doubt global warming and evolution. This is the doing of fundamentalist Christian churches and republicans. No question


----------



## DOTR

ding said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is that?????
> 
> 
> 
> Genesis 3 / Hebrew - English Bible / Mechon-Mamre
> Of course, sealy never reads *anything* in context.
> It's the Internet PhD syndrome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In Genesis 3, Eve interacts with a *serpent*.  That serpent is clearly identified in the Bible, culminating in Revelations 20 : 2 which reads:
> 
> "_And he laid hold on the *dragon*, that* old serpent*, which is the *Devil,* and *Satan,* and bound him a thousand years_..."
> 
> In short, the story is about Eve and a fallen Angel named Satan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Revelations is about the fall of the Roman Empire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> are you sure?     It is not entirely clear to me------JWs certainly believe so.
> 
> Satan is a kind of "angel"  in jewish theology since  it is a creation of  "god"   But
> that  "fallen"  thing is something that seems to have been a late invention
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dunno.  That's what I was taught.  It seemed plausible.  It was written in code so to speak because they were still occupied by Rome so they couldn't just openly discuss the demise of the Roman Empire.  They used commonly know symbols that Jews of that day would recognize and associate with Rome.  One of the keys is early in the text where it says these things will not be far off into the future.  Or something to that effect.   I'm working off of memory here.
> 
> I personally like the idea that satan is an angel working for God to tempt and test us.  Wisdom and knowledge should not be given to just any jack-a-nape.  They should earn it by showing they are deserving.
> 
> Plus it sort of fits in with the concept that everything God created was good.  Evil is not extant.  It doesn't exist on it own.  Evil is the absence of good.  Just like cold is the absence of heat and darkness is the absence of light.
Click to expand...


   I tend to think Revelations was prophesy of near future events when written but is now past. 
   The seige of Jerusalem was a horror to match what was written there. 
  Titus, a hardened soldier, made a public vow to the gods that he never intended to cause such suffering.


----------



## ding

sealybobo said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that the overwhelming number of efforts in scientific endeavors result in failure.
> But nobody advertises failures.
> Yet another stupid post.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you realize how ridiculous it is to deny evolution? America is flawed because of our religiousness. It’s definitely a way they control us and it’s proof religion is bad. To deny facts logic and reason because of it.
> 
> At least you aren’t as bad as isis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have still not found the missing link between us and apes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You idiots can continue to deny global warming and evolution.  I'm done with you.  We are dumber in America than the rest of the world because of you.  This is why I say American religions are making America stupider and they are effecting our elections and policies.  It has to stop  Don't ask why we persist.  We persist because you suck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You missed the 70s Global Freeze Agenda?
> You're an arrogant piece of shit at times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don’t even take you seriously
Click to expand...

You should.  He knows what he is talking about.


----------



## BreezeWood

.


Indeependent said:


> You missed the 70s Global Freeze Agenda?





ding said:


> You should. He knows what he is talking about.




_*He knows what he is talking about ...*_


really, why don't you fill us in on it ...


----------



## Humorme

DOTR said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Genesis 3 / Hebrew - English Bible / Mechon-Mamre
> Of course, sealy never reads *anything* in context.
> It's the Internet PhD syndrome.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In Genesis 3, Eve interacts with a *serpent*.  That serpent is clearly identified in the Bible, culminating in Revelations 20 : 2 which reads:
> 
> "_And he laid hold on the *dragon*, that* old serpent*, which is the *Devil,* and *Satan,* and bound him a thousand years_..."
> 
> In short, the story is about Eve and a fallen Angel named Satan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Revelations is about the fall of the Roman Empire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> are you sure?     It is not entirely clear to me------JWs certainly believe so.
> 
> Satan is a kind of "angel"  in jewish theology since  it is a creation of  "god"   But
> that  "fallen"  thing is something that seems to have been a late invention
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dunno.  That's what I was taught.  It seemed plausible.  It was written in code so to speak because they were still occupied by Rome so they couldn't just openly discuss the demise of the Roman Empire.  They used commonly know symbols that Jews of that day would recognize and associate with Rome.  One of the keys is early in the text where it says these things will not be far off into the future.  Or something to that effect.   I'm working off of memory here.
> 
> I personally like the idea that satan is an angel working for God to tempt and test us.  Wisdom and knowledge should not be given to just any jack-a-nape.  They should earn it by showing they are deserving.
> 
> Plus it sort of fits in with the concept that everything God created was good.  Evil is not extant.  It doesn't exist on it own.  Evil is the absence of good.  Just like cold is the absence of heat and darkness is the absence of light.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I tend to think Revelations was prophesy of near future events when written but is now past.
> The seige of Jerusalem was a horror to match what was written there.
> Titus, a hardened soldier, made a public vow to the gods that he never intended to cause such suffering.
Click to expand...


Revelations is yet to pass.


----------



## ding

BreezeWood said:


> .
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> You missed the 70s Global Freeze Agenda?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should. He knows what he is talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> _*He knows what he is talking about ...*_
> 
> 
> really, why don't you fill us in on it ...
Click to expand...

Why?  Discussing anything with you is a waste of time.


----------



## Indeependent

sealybobo said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that the overwhelming number of efforts in scientific endeavors result in failure.
> But nobody advertises failures.
> Yet another stupid post.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you realize how ridiculous it is to deny evolution? America is flawed because of our religiousness. It’s definitely a way they control us and it’s proof religion is bad. To deny facts logic and reason because of it.
> 
> At least you aren’t as bad as isis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have still not found the missing link between us and apes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You idiots can continue to deny global warming and evolution.  I'm done with you.  We are dumber in America than the rest of the world because of you.  This is why I say American religions are making America stupider and they are effecting our elections and policies.  It has to stop  Don't ask why we persist.  We persist because you suck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You missed the 70s Global Freeze Agenda?
> You're an arrogant piece of shit at times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don’t even take you seriously
Click to expand...

Ad hominem...your lack of shame knows no limits.
Do you hang a phony Medical Degree on your shingle?


----------



## Indeependent

BreezeWood said:


> .
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> You missed the 70s Global Freeze Agenda?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should. He knows what he is talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> _*He knows what he is talking about ...*_
> 
> 
> really, why don't you fill us in on it ...
Click to expand...

You can't Google the 70s Frace?
There must be tons of books on Amazon.
They *used* to be in the non-Fiction section.


----------



## sealybobo

Indeependent said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you realize how ridiculous it is to deny evolution? America is flawed because of our religiousness. It’s definitely a way they control us and it’s proof religion is bad. To deny facts logic and reason because of it.
> 
> At least you aren’t as bad as isis
> 
> 
> 
> We have still not found the missing link between us and apes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You idiots can continue to deny global warming and evolution.  I'm done with you.  We are dumber in America than the rest of the world because of you.  This is why I say American religions are making America stupider and they are effecting our elections and policies.  It has to stop  Don't ask why we persist.  We persist because you suck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You missed the 70s Global Freeze Agenda?
> You're an arrogant piece of shit at times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don’t even take you seriously
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ad hominem...your lack of shame knows no limits.
> Do you hang a phony Medical Degree on your shingle?
Click to expand...

I don’t believe any Muslim cleric do you? They are experts on the Koran. Don’t you think they would have figured out it was made up if it was?

Maybe now you see how ridiculous you are


----------



## OZman

BreezeWood said:


> really, why don't you fill us in on


----------



## Indeependent

sealybobo said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have still not found the missing link between us and apes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You idiots can continue to deny global warming and evolution.  I'm done with you.  We are dumber in America than the rest of the world because of you.  This is why I say American religions are making America stupider and they are effecting our elections and policies.  It has to stop  Don't ask why we persist.  We persist because you suck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You missed the 70s Global Freeze Agenda?
> You're an arrogant piece of shit at times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don’t even take you seriously
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ad hominem...your lack of shame knows no limits.
> Do you hang a phony Medical Degree on your shingle?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don’t believe any Muslim cleric do you? They are experts on the Koran. Don’t you think they would have figured out it was made up if it was?
> 
> Maybe now you see how ridiculous you are
Click to expand...

Jews don't do private revelations told by a guy with no reputation who then orders his followers to murder anyone who disagrees with him.
You're such a dupe.


----------



## BreezeWood

Indeependent said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> You missed the 70s Global Freeze Agenda?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should. He knows what he is talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> _*He knows what he is talking about ...*_
> 
> 
> really, why don't you fill us in on it ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't Google the 70s Frace?
> There must be tons of books on Amazon.
> They *used* to be in the non-Fiction section.
Click to expand...

.


Indeependent said:


> You can't Google the 70s Frace?



it stood out as a farce simply by your endorsement, your welcome.








global warming as a deflection is equally as unambiguous.


----------



## Indeependent

BreezeWood said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> You missed the 70s Global Freeze Agenda?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should. He knows what he is talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> _*He knows what he is talking about ...*_
> 
> 
> really, why don't you fill us in on it ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't Google the 70s Frace?
> There must be tons of books on Amazon.
> They *used* to be in the non-Fiction section.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't Google the 70s Frace?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it stood out as a farce simply by your endorsement, your welcome.
> 
> 
> View attachment 168716
> 
> 
> global warming as a deflection is equally as unambiguous.
Click to expand...

Wow!  I almost always read my posts after I submit them and I missed *this*?
Yikes!


----------



## Michelle420

Boss said:


> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.



Sometimes they are not God haters. They are organized religion haters. The reasons are because of atrocities committed in the name of religion and the not very nice treatments some religious people give to others who are non-religious.


----------



## Indeependent

drifter said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes they are not God haters. They are organized religion haters. The reasons are because of atrocities committed in the name of religion and the not very nice treatments some religious people give to others who are non-religious.
Click to expand...

Yeah!
Because atheists have never murdered millions in the name of their own egos.


----------



## Michelle420

Indeependent said:


> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes they are not God haters. They are organized religion haters. The reasons are because of atrocities committed in the name of religion and the not very nice treatments some religious people give to others who are non-religious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah!
> Because atheists have never murdered millions in the name of their own egos.
Click to expand...


Nobody said atheists are perfect. I just aswered the question asked in the thread title.


----------



## Indeependent

drifter said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes they are not God haters. They are organized religion haters. The reasons are because of atrocities committed in the name of religion and the not very nice treatments some religious people give to others who are non-religious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah!
> Because atheists have never murdered millions in the name of their own egos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody said atheists are perfect. I just aswered the question asked in the thread title.
Click to expand...

People, regardless of ideology, can  good or bad.
For instance, there is nothing in the NT that lends credence to violence.


----------



## Michelle420

Indeependent said:


> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes they are not God haters. They are organized religion haters. The reasons are because of atrocities committed in the name of religion and the not very nice treatments some religious people give to others who are non-religious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah!
> Because atheists have never murdered millions in the name of their own egos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody said atheists are perfect. I just aswered the question asked in the thread title.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People, regardless of ideology, can  good or bad.
> For instance, there is nothing in the NT that lends credence to violence.
Click to expand...


Agreed people can be good or bad but if someone was really interested in wondering why non believers are so upset at religious people maybe they will consider it.


----------



## DOTR

Humorme said:


> Revelations is yet to pass.



  Maybe. Revelations is certainly canonical...but it is central to only dispensationalists and Campbellites. Not worth arguing over.


----------



## hobelim

DOTR said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Revelations is yet to pass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe. Revelations is certainly canonical...but it is central to only dispensationalists and Campbellites. Not worth arguing over.
Click to expand...


"To the one who is victorious, I will give some of the hidden manna." rev 2:17

"No longer will there be any curse."  rev 22:3

No argument, just something for you to figure out.


What is the hidden manna?

what is the curse ?


----------



## ding

drifter said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes they are not God haters. They are organized religion haters. The reasons are because of atrocities committed in the name of religion and the not very nice treatments some religious people give to others who are non-religious.
Click to expand...

What atrocities exactly?  Crusades?  Inquisition?  Maybe something a little closer to today like maybe only 500 years ago.

Because I am not seeing it today.  Are you?


----------



## Michelle420

ding said:


> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes they are not God haters. They are organized religion haters. The reasons are because of atrocities committed in the name of religion and the not very nice treatments some religious people give to others who are non-religious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What atrocities exactly?  Crusades?  Inquisition?  Maybe something a little closer to today like maybe only 500 years ago.
> 
> Because I am not seeing it today.  Are you?
Click to expand...


Yes I hear about it from friends who are agnostic or atheist.


----------



## ding

drifter said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes they are not God haters. They are organized religion haters. The reasons are because of atrocities committed in the name of religion and the not very nice treatments some religious people give to others who are non-religious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What atrocities exactly?  Crusades?  Inquisition?  Maybe something a little closer to today like maybe only 500 years ago.
> 
> Because I am not seeing it today.  Are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I hear about it from friends who are agostic or atheist.
Click to expand...

Can you tell me some of the horrors?


----------



## Michelle420

ding said:


> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes they are not God haters. They are organized religion haters. The reasons are because of atrocities committed in the name of religion and the not very nice treatments some religious people give to others who are non-religious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What atrocities exactly?  Crusades?  Inquisition?  Maybe something a little closer to today like maybe only 500 years ago.
> 
> Because I am not seeing it today.  Are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I hear about it from friends who are agostic or atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you tell me some of the horrors?
Click to expand...


The atrocities are historical in the name of religion that people don't like.AND the not very nice treatments some religious people give to others who are non-religious. In modern times there is bigotry that some people have experienced discrimination for in the name of religion. In modern times we see terrorists attacking people who aren't conforming to their beliefs attacking people in the name of religion too.


----------



## Michelle420

ding said:


> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes they are not God haters. They are organized religion haters. The reasons are because of atrocities committed in the name of religion and the not very nice treatments some religious people give to others who are non-religious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What atrocities exactly?  Crusades?  Inquisition?  Maybe something a little closer to today like maybe only 500 years ago.
> 
> Because I am not seeing it today.  Are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I hear about it from friends who are agostic or atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you tell me some of the horrors?
Click to expand...


I do my best I am not an intellectual like you ding. I am giving an opinion based on experiences my friends who are not religious have told me they had as the reasons they don't like religious people.


----------



## ding

drifter said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes they are not God haters. They are organized religion haters. The reasons are because of atrocities committed in the name of religion and the not very nice treatments some religious people give to others who are non-religious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What atrocities exactly?  Crusades?  Inquisition?  Maybe something a little closer to today like maybe only 500 years ago.
> 
> Because I am not seeing it today.  Are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I hear about it from friends who are agostic or atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you tell me some of the horrors?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do my best I am not an intellectual like you ding. I am giving an opiion based on experiences my friends have told who are not religious as reasons they don't like religious people.
Click to expand...

If I thought I was an intellectual I would kill myself.  I hate those guys almost as much as I hate philosophers. 

I understand, I don't think your friends understand what it means to be persecuted.  It isn't happening.  Unless of course they come to places like this and seek out conflict and call the fights they get into persecution.

And don't sell yourself short.  The mind is a muscle.  It can be made stronger.  Although smoking a bunch of weed probably won't be the way to do it.  The more curious you become about stuff and the more you drill down by asking questions, you can't help but strengthen your mind.  If you don't understand something you have to stop them and ask them to explain what they are trying to say.  Don't be afraid to ask questions, especially if what they are saying does not seem to be making sense.  I can't tell you how many times people have thanked me for asking a question that they were afraid to ask.  I can guarantee you that if you don't understand it, most of the people in the room don't understand it either.  And it is either because it actually is wrong and doesn't make sense or that the guy explaining it sucks at it and has skipped a bunch of steps.


----------



## Humorme

drifter said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes they are not God haters. They are organized religion haters. The reasons are because of atrocities committed in the name of religion and the not very nice treatments some religious people give to others who are non-religious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah!
> Because atheists have never murdered millions in the name of their own egos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody said atheists are perfect. I just aswered the question asked in the thread title.
Click to expand...


If you are expecting to find a Christian with a halo playing a harp, you are going to be sorely disappointed.  Can't speak for other religions, but all *real* Christians know they are sinners and must strive to do better every day.


----------



## Michelle420

Humorme said:


> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes they are not God haters. They are organized religion haters. The reasons are because of atrocities committed in the name of religion and the not very nice treatments some religious people give to others who are non-religious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah!
> Because atheists have never murdered millions in the name of their own egos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody said atheists are perfect. I just aswered the question asked in the thread title.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are expecting to find a Christian with a halo playing a harp, you are going to be sorely disappointed.  Can't speak for other religions, but all *real* Christians know they are sinners and must strive to do better every day.
Click to expand...


I don't have an expextation.


----------



## Humorme

drifter said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes they are not God haters. They are organized religion haters. The reasons are because of atrocities committed in the name of religion and the not very nice treatments some religious people give to others who are non-religious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah!
> Because atheists have never murdered millions in the name of their own egos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody said atheists are perfect. I just aswered the question asked in the thread title.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are expecting to find a Christian with a halo playing a harp, you are going to be sorely disappointed.  Can't speak for other religions, but all *real* Christians know they are sinners and must strive to do better every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have an expextation.
Click to expand...


It serves no purpose then to belittle or demean Christians because they are not better than anyone else and if they are sincere, they* know *it.  Being a better person is a journey, not a destination.


----------



## BreezeWood

Humorme said:


> but all *real* Christians know they are sinners and must strive to do better every day.





Humorme said:


> Being a better person is a journey, not a destination.



_*real Christians ...*_

somewhere, the 4th century they changed the events of the 1st century to make themselves believe their destiny can not be accomplished while still alive ...

the fact is the surest way to insure harmony is to create it without waiting for it to be done for them.


----------



## ding

<cough> <bullshit> <cough> <cough>


----------



## BreezeWood

ding said:


> <cough> <bullshit> <cough> <cough>


.


ding said:


> <cough> <bullshit> <cough> <cough>



how a hopeless sinner equivocates ....


----------



## ding

^ doesn't think he is a sinner


----------



## BreezeWood

ding said:


> ^ doesn't think he is a sinner


.


ding said:


> ^ doesn't think he is a sinner



for once you have something correct.


----------



## ding

^ he thinks he is god


----------



## BreezeWood

ding said:


> ^ he thinks he is god



because I am not a sinner like you, that's just an admission of reality.


----------



## ding

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^ he thinks he is god
> 
> 
> 
> 
> because I am not a sinner like you, that's just an admission of reality.
Click to expand...

How special of you.


----------



## BreezeWood

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^ he thinks he is god
> 
> 
> 
> 
> because I am not a sinner like you, that's just an admission of reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How special of you.
Click to expand...

.


ding said:


> How special of you.



really, not being a sinner begins by not being a christian ...


----------



## ScienceRocks

I don't hate the concept of God.

Just that there's no real proof for it and why should I devote my entire life to something that probably aint real? 

Probably should hate this god as this god promotes murder, rape, genocide, and idiocy. But, I won't hate him because I don't hate the people that follow him.


----------



## emilynghiem

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^ he thinks he is god
> 
> 
> 
> 
> because I am not a sinner like you, that's just an admission of reality.
Click to expand...


Dear BreezeWood 
would you admit you have biases
and are not perfectly all knowing as God is.
Sin means separation from God.
None of us is God, none of us is perfectly understanding
and loving of all people equally. We are going to have our biases
and understand/love one person more than another person unlike God.

Do you agree that neither you nor I nor ding
nor any other human aside from Christ Jesus
was perfectly all inclusive and unbiased as God is?


----------



## emilynghiem

ScienceRocks said:


> I don't hate the concept of God.
> 
> Just that there's no real proof for it and why should I devote my entire life to something that probably aint real?
> 
> Probably should hate this god as this god promotes murder, rape, genocide, and idiocy. But, I won't hate him because I don't hate the people that follow him.



Dear ScienceRocks
how are you defining "God"
where are you getting that god promotes murder/rape/genocide

If you are referring to these references in the Bible,
the Old Testament is about teaching the history of humanity
which is full of wars rapes genocides because people weren't developed
enough to control our free will, so the letter of the law was corrupted
by greed, and that's what we are still trying to overcome today.

the spirit of the laws in the New Testament
is about Restorative Justice based on truth that brings peace.
So this is about reconciling the laws and love in local/individual relations
with the laws and love of all humanity and universe collectively on a global scale.
This is what is symbolized by the Kingdom of God,
to have perfect restoration and peace on earth.

ScienceRocks if you still believe it is a good goal
to restore the earth and environment, that is like believing we
should seek the perfect paradise and Kingdom of God.

Maybe you spell it out differently, as the laws of nature
that we should be restoring and reconciling with.

Just because you call it the laws of nature
doesn't mean it is against or in conflict with people who call this laws of God.

Those laws being universal have to be referring to the same.
Whatever laws govern the world, earth environment universe
are one and the same with what people call God's laws.
You may be calling this laws of nature or science.
but still we are meant to respect and reconcile with those laws.
And that is what is meant by the Bible,
and why it is urgent that humanity quit repeating the wars and greed
in the past in the OT, and start living by the spirit of peace and harmony
as in the NT.  This is true regardless if you are part of the secular gentiles
under natural laws of science or part of the believers under scriptural laws.
either way, we are supposed to unite and live by laws of equal justice and peace.


----------



## emilynghiem

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^ he thinks he is god
> 
> 
> 
> 
> because I am not a sinner like you, that's just an admission of reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How special of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> How special of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> really, not being a sinner begins by not being a christian ...
Click to expand...


Dear BreezeWood please see previous post above
explaining sin in terms of human bias and not being perfect.

Would you agree that whether people identify as Christian
or nonchristian, or whatever we call or don't call ourselves,
we are still biased and have imperfect perceptions?

Do you agree that you are not omniscient?


----------



## BreezeWood

emilynghiem said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^ he thinks he is god
> 
> 
> 
> 
> because I am not a sinner like you, that's just an admission of reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear BreezeWood
> would you admit you have biases
> and are not perfectly all knowing as God is.
> Sin means separation from God.
> None of us is God, none of us is perfectly understanding
> and loving of all people equally. We are going to have our biases
> and understand/love one person more than another person unlike God.
> 
> Do you agree that neither you nor I nor ding
> nor any other human aside from Christ Jesus
> was perfectly all inclusive and unbiased as God is?
Click to expand...

_._


emilynghiem said:


> Do you agree that neither you nor I nor ding
> nor any other human aside from Christ Jesus
> was perfectly all inclusive and unbiased as God is?



_
“Eli, Eli,_ _lema_ _sabachthani” - - _ “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?


the above was the last scene for the events of the 1st century, not that jesus was not pure simply he was not what the 4th century has used them for, for their own selfintrest. 

admission to the Everlasting is the goal while living there can be no doubt being free of sin is a prerequisite ...


----------



## emilynghiem

BreezeWood said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^ he thinks he is god
> 
> 
> 
> 
> because I am not a sinner like you, that's just an admission of reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear BreezeWood
> would you admit you have biases
> and are not perfectly all knowing as God is.
> Sin means separation from God.
> None of us is God, none of us is perfectly understanding
> and loving of all people equally. We are going to have our biases
> and understand/love one person more than another person unlike God.
> 
> Do you agree that neither you nor I nor ding
> nor any other human aside from Christ Jesus
> was perfectly all inclusive and unbiased as God is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _._
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you agree that neither you nor I nor ding
> nor any other human aside from Christ Jesus
> was perfectly all inclusive and unbiased as God is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _
> “Eli, Eli,_ _lema_ _sabachthani” - - _ “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
> 
> 
> the above was the last scene for the events of the 1st century, not that jesus was not pure simply he was not what the 4th century has used them for, for their own selfintrest.
> 
> admission to the Everlasting is the goal while living there can be no doubt being free of sin is a prerequisite ...
Click to expand...


Okay BreezeWood
so do you believe you are free of bias?


----------



## ding

BreezeWood said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^ he thinks he is god
> 
> 
> 
> 
> because I am not a sinner like you, that's just an admission of reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear BreezeWood
> would you admit you have biases
> and are not perfectly all knowing as God is.
> Sin means separation from God.
> None of us is God, none of us is perfectly understanding
> and loving of all people equally. We are going to have our biases
> and understand/love one person more than another person unlike God.
> 
> Do you agree that neither you nor I nor ding
> nor any other human aside from Christ Jesus
> was perfectly all inclusive and unbiased as God is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _._
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you agree that neither you nor I nor ding
> nor any other human aside from Christ Jesus
> was perfectly all inclusive and unbiased as God is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _
> “Eli, Eli,_ _lema_ _sabachthani” - - _ “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
> 
> 
> the above was the last scene for the events of the 1st century, not that jesus was not pure simply he was not what the 4th century has used them for, for their own selfintrest.
> 
> admission to the Everlasting is the goal while living there can be no doubt being free of sin is a prerequisite ...
Click to expand...

He was forsaken because at that moment He was sin.  Ours.  That was Him sacrificing Himself for us.

And I am a sinner.  100%.


----------



## BreezeWood

emilynghiem said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^ he thinks he is god
> 
> 
> 
> 
> because I am not a sinner like you, that's just an admission of reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear BreezeWood
> would you admit you have biases
> and are not perfectly all knowing as God is.
> Sin means separation from God.
> None of us is God, none of us is perfectly understanding
> and loving of all people equally. We are going to have our biases
> and understand/love one person more than another person unlike God.
> 
> Do you agree that neither you nor I nor ding
> nor any other human aside from Christ Jesus
> was perfectly all inclusive and unbiased as God is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _._
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you agree that neither you nor I nor ding
> nor any other human aside from Christ Jesus
> was perfectly all inclusive and unbiased as God is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _
> “Eli, Eli,_ _lema_ _sabachthani” - - _ “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
> 
> 
> the above was the last scene for the events of the 1st century, not that jesus was not pure simply he was not what the 4th century has used them for, for their own selfintrest.
> 
> admission to the Everlasting is the goal while living there can be no doubt being free of sin is a prerequisite ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay BreezeWood
> so do you believe you are free of bias?
Click to expand...

.


emilynghiem said:


> Okay BreezeWood
> so do you believe you are free of bias?



the metaphysical axioms are necessary to free ones spirit from their physiology being free of bias would be one of them - after the first accomplishment the others will follow. the true message of the 1st century.


----------



## emilynghiem

BreezeWood said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^ he thinks he is god
> 
> 
> 
> 
> because I am not a sinner like you, that's just an admission of reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear BreezeWood
> would you admit you have biases
> and are not perfectly all knowing as God is.
> Sin means separation from God.
> None of us is God, none of us is perfectly understanding
> and loving of all people equally. We are going to have our biases
> and understand/love one person more than another person unlike God.
> 
> Do you agree that neither you nor I nor ding
> nor any other human aside from Christ Jesus
> was perfectly all inclusive and unbiased as God is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _._
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you agree that neither you nor I nor ding
> nor any other human aside from Christ Jesus
> was perfectly all inclusive and unbiased as God is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _
> “Eli, Eli,_ _lema_ _sabachthani” - - _ “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
> 
> 
> the above was the last scene for the events of the 1st century, not that jesus was not pure simply he was not what the 4th century has used them for, for their own selfintrest.
> 
> admission to the Everlasting is the goal while living there can be no doubt being free of sin is a prerequisite ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay BreezeWood
> so do you believe you are free of bias?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay BreezeWood
> so do you believe you are free of bias?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the metaphysical axioms are necessary to free ones spirit from their physiology being free of bias would be one of them - after the first accomplishment the others will follow. the true message of the 1st century.
Click to expand...


So where are you in this process BreezeWood
are you free of your biases? or just aware of them but don't let them affect you?
how would you describe how you manage to avoid sin or biases?
can you describe this and where you are with it? Thanks
for sharing your deep insights and thoughts on this.


----------



## BreezeWood

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^ he thinks he is god
> 
> 
> 
> 
> because I am not a sinner like you, that's just an admission of reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear BreezeWood
> would you admit you have biases
> and are not perfectly all knowing as God is.
> Sin means separation from God.
> None of us is God, none of us is perfectly understanding
> and loving of all people equally. We are going to have our biases
> and understand/love one person more than another person unlike God.
> 
> Do you agree that neither you nor I nor ding
> nor any other human aside from Christ Jesus
> was perfectly all inclusive and unbiased as God is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _._
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you agree that neither you nor I nor ding
> nor any other human aside from Christ Jesus
> was perfectly all inclusive and unbiased as God is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _
> “Eli, Eli,_ _lema_ _sabachthani” - - _ “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
> 
> 
> the above was the last scene for the events of the 1st century, not that jesus was not pure simply he was not what the 4th century has used them for, for their own selfintrest.
> 
> admission to the Everlasting is the goal while living there can be no doubt being free of sin is a prerequisite ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He was forsaken because at that moment He was sin.  Ours.  That was Him sacrificing Himself for us.
> 
> And I am a sinner.  100%.
Click to expand...

_
why have you forsaken me ..._
.
if that were so why were they asking - why _they_ were forsaken, not sin ...


----------



## BreezeWood

emilynghiem said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> because I am not a sinner like you, that's just an admission of reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear BreezeWood
> would you admit you have biases
> and are not perfectly all knowing as God is.
> Sin means separation from God.
> None of us is God, none of us is perfectly understanding
> and loving of all people equally. We are going to have our biases
> and understand/love one person more than another person unlike God.
> 
> Do you agree that neither you nor I nor ding
> nor any other human aside from Christ Jesus
> was perfectly all inclusive and unbiased as God is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _._
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you agree that neither you nor I nor ding
> nor any other human aside from Christ Jesus
> was perfectly all inclusive and unbiased as God is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _
> “Eli, Eli,_ _lema_ _sabachthani” - - _ “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
> 
> 
> the above was the last scene for the events of the 1st century, not that jesus was not pure simply he was not what the 4th century has used them for, for their own selfintrest.
> 
> admission to the Everlasting is the goal while living there can be no doubt being free of sin is a prerequisite ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay BreezeWood
> so do you believe you are free of bias?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay BreezeWood
> so do you believe you are free of bias?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the metaphysical axioms are necessary to free ones spirit from their physiology being free of bias would be one of them - after the first accomplishment the others will follow. the true message of the 1st century.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So where are you in this process BreezeWood
> are you free of your biases? or just aware of them but don't let them affect you?
> how would you describe how you manage to avoid sin or biases?
> can you describe this and where you are with it? Thanks
> for sharing your deep insights and thoughts on this.
Click to expand...

.
I'm not a 4th century christian, the events of the 1st century were an enlightenment of the individuals spirit that is accomplished through purity and attainable during life and necessary for remission.


----------



## emilynghiem

BreezeWood said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear BreezeWood
> would you admit you have biases
> and are not perfectly all knowing as God is.
> Sin means separation from God.
> None of us is God, none of us is perfectly understanding
> and loving of all people equally. We are going to have our biases
> and understand/love one person more than another person unlike God.
> 
> Do you agree that neither you nor I nor ding
> nor any other human aside from Christ Jesus
> was perfectly all inclusive and unbiased as God is?
> 
> 
> 
> _._
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you agree that neither you nor I nor ding
> nor any other human aside from Christ Jesus
> was perfectly all inclusive and unbiased as God is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _
> “Eli, Eli,_ _lema_ _sabachthani” - - _ “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
> 
> 
> the above was the last scene for the events of the 1st century, not that jesus was not pure simply he was not what the 4th century has used them for, for their own selfintrest.
> 
> admission to the Everlasting is the goal while living there can be no doubt being free of sin is a prerequisite ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay BreezeWood
> so do you believe you are free of bias?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay BreezeWood
> so do you believe you are free of bias?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the metaphysical axioms are necessary to free ones spirit from their physiology being free of bias would be one of them - after the first accomplishment the others will follow. the true message of the 1st century.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So where are you in this process BreezeWood
> are you free of your biases? or just aware of them but don't let them affect you?
> how would you describe how you manage to avoid sin or biases?
> can you describe this and where you are with it? Thanks
> for sharing your deep insights and thoughts on this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> I'm not a 4th century christian, the events of the 1st century were an enlightenment of the individuals spirit that is accomplished through purity and attainable during life and necessary for remission.
Click to expand...


okay BreezeWood so where would you
descibe yourself today in the present?
are you free of biases
or just aware of them so they don't cause problems?


----------



## BreezeWood

emilynghiem said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> _.
> 
> “Eli, Eli,_ _lema_ _sabachthani” - - _ “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
> 
> 
> the above was the last scene for the events of the 1st century, not that jesus was not pure simply he was not what the 4th century has used them for, for their own selfintrest.
> 
> admission to the Everlasting is the goal while living there can be no doubt being free of sin is a prerequisite ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay BreezeWood
> so do you believe you are free of bias?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay BreezeWood
> so do you believe you are free of bias?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the metaphysical axioms are necessary to free ones spirit from their physiology being free of bias would be one of them - after the first accomplishment the others will follow. the true message of the 1st century.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So where are you in this process BreezeWood
> are you free of your biases? or just aware of them but don't let them affect you?
> how would you describe how you manage to avoid sin or biases?
> can you describe this and where you are with it? Thanks
> for sharing your deep insights and thoughts on this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> I'm not a 4th century christian, the events of the 1st century were an enlightenment of the individuals spirit that is accomplished through purity and attainable during life and necessary for remission.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> okay BreezeWood so where would you
> descibe yourself today in the present?
> are you free of biases
> or just aware of them so they don't cause problems?
Click to expand...

.
the goal is to defeat evil, The Triumph of Good vs Evil - is the religion given humanity by the Almighty - Noah's Ark, the spoken religion. that religion is for humanity, if not accomplished by all then no one will be accepted. christians are an unsolvable obstacle.


----------



## emilynghiem

BreezeWood said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay BreezeWood
> so do you believe you are free of bias?
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay BreezeWood
> so do you believe you are free of bias?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the metaphysical axioms are necessary to free ones spirit from their physiology being free of bias would be one of them - after the first accomplishment the others will follow. the true message of the 1st century.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So where are you in this process BreezeWood
> are you free of your biases? or just aware of them but don't let them affect you?
> how would you describe how you manage to avoid sin or biases?
> can you describe this and where you are with it? Thanks
> for sharing your deep insights and thoughts on this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> I'm not a 4th century christian, the events of the 1st century were an enlightenment of the individuals spirit that is accomplished through purity and attainable during life and necessary for remission.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> okay BreezeWood so where would you
> descibe yourself today in the present?
> are you free of biases
> or just aware of them so they don't cause problems?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> the goal is to defeat evil, The Triumph of Good vs Evil - is the religion given humanity by the Almighty - Noah's Ark, the spoken religion. that religion is for humanity, if not accomplished by all then no one will be accepted. christians are an unsolvable obstacle.
Click to expand...


If you believe in the triumph of good over evil BreezeWood
why are you saying Christians are an unsolvable obstacle

What specifically is such a problem with Christians
that isn't also a problem with other people or groups?

What sin or bias do Christians have that is
any harder to overcome than people of other biases?

Thanks for explaining in terms that I can start
to understand what you are trying to clarify here
this will really help to understand the content you are trying to communicate
thanks and sorry if it takes a bit of Q and A back and forth to pinpoint and understand the points


----------



## ding

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^ he thinks he is god
> 
> 
> 
> 
> because I am not a sinner like you, that's just an admission of reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear BreezeWood
> would you admit you have biases
> and are not perfectly all knowing as God is.
> Sin means separation from God.
> None of us is God, none of us is perfectly understanding
> and loving of all people equally. We are going to have our biases
> and understand/love one person more than another person unlike God.
> 
> Do you agree that neither you nor I nor ding
> nor any other human aside from Christ Jesus
> was perfectly all inclusive and unbiased as God is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _._
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you agree that neither you nor I nor ding
> nor any other human aside from Christ Jesus
> was perfectly all inclusive and unbiased as God is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _
> “Eli, Eli,_ _lema_ _sabachthani” - - _ “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
> 
> 
> the above was the last scene for the events of the 1st century, not that jesus was not pure simply he was not what the 4th century has used them for, for their own selfintrest.
> 
> admission to the Everlasting is the goal while living there can be no doubt being free of sin is a prerequisite ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He was forsaken because at that moment He was sin.  Ours.  That was Him sacrificing Himself for us.
> 
> And I am a sinner.  100%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _
> why have you forsaken me ..._
> .
> if that were so why were they asking - why _they_ were forsaken, not sin ...
Click to expand...

Because HE became sin.  The red me in your statement above is sin.  Ours.


----------



## BreezeWood

emilynghiem said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> the metaphysical axioms are necessary to free ones spirit from their physiology being free of bias would be one of them - after the first accomplishment the others will follow. the true message of the 1st century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So where are you in this process BreezeWood
> are you free of your biases? or just aware of them but don't let them affect you?
> how would you describe how you manage to avoid sin or biases?
> can you describe this and where you are with it? Thanks
> for sharing your deep insights and thoughts on this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> I'm not a 4th century christian, the events of the 1st century were an enlightenment of the individuals spirit that is accomplished through purity and attainable during life and necessary for remission.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> okay BreezeWood so where would you
> descibe yourself today in the present?
> are you free of biases
> or just aware of them so they don't cause problems?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> the goal is to defeat evil, The Triumph of Good vs Evil - is the religion given humanity by the Almighty - Noah's Ark, the spoken religion. that religion is for humanity, if not accomplished by all then no one will be accepted. christians are an unsolvable obstacle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you believe in the triumph of good over evil BreezeWood
> why are you saying Christians are an unsolvable obstacle
> 
> What specifically is such a problem with Christians
> that isn't also a problem with other people or groups?
> 
> What sin or bias do Christians have that is
> any harder to overcome than people of other biases?
> 
> Thanks for explaining in terms that I can start
> to understand what you are trying to clarify here
> this will really help to understand the content you are trying to communicate
> thanks and sorry if it takes a bit of Q and A back and forth to pinpoint and understand the points
Click to expand...

.


emilynghiem said:


> If you believe in the triumph of good over evil BreezeWood
> why are you saying Christians are an unsolvable obstacle



I've made that perfectly clear, 4th century christianity is a forgery against the events of the 1st century as the enlightenment for humanity to free themselves against evil by conquering it - christianity is the antitheses of the purified spirit.


----------



## emilynghiem

BreezeWood said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> So where are you in this process BreezeWood
> are you free of your biases? or just aware of them but don't let them affect you?
> how would you describe how you manage to avoid sin or biases?
> can you describe this and where you are with it? Thanks
> for sharing your deep insights and thoughts on this.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> I'm not a 4th century christian, the events of the 1st century were an enlightenment of the individuals spirit that is accomplished through purity and attainable during life and necessary for remission.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> okay BreezeWood so where would you
> descibe yourself today in the present?
> are you free of biases
> or just aware of them so they don't cause problems?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> the goal is to defeat evil, The Triumph of Good vs Evil - is the religion given humanity by the Almighty - Noah's Ark, the spoken religion. that religion is for humanity, if not accomplished by all then no one will be accepted. christians are an unsolvable obstacle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you believe in the triumph of good over evil BreezeWood
> why are you saying Christians are an unsolvable obstacle
> 
> What specifically is such a problem with Christians
> that isn't also a problem with other people or groups?
> 
> What sin or bias do Christians have that is
> any harder to overcome than people of other biases?
> 
> Thanks for explaining in terms that I can start
> to understand what you are trying to clarify here
> this will really help to understand the content you are trying to communicate
> thanks and sorry if it takes a bit of Q and A back and forth to pinpoint and understand the points
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you believe in the triumph of good over evil BreezeWood
> why are you saying Christians are an unsolvable obstacle
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've made that perfectly clear, 4th century christianity is a forgery against the events of the 1st century as the enlightenment for humanity to free themselves against evil by conquering it - christianity is the antitheses of the purified spirit.
Click to expand...


So how does this relate to your own state of being free of sin/bias or not free?

You keep talking about how Christians are an obstacle
so if you mean that until we all resolve issues then none of us achieve perfect fulfillment
how does this affect you?

Are you saying that as long as you are not Christian then
you are not part of this problem, so that's all you need to do is not be Christian?

Do you believe you have already achieved and done all you
can to overcome evil or bias that otherwise separates you from perfection in God?

If Christians are some unsolvable obstacle
what does that mean you or I supposed to do about that?

Thanks BreezeWood


----------



## BreezeWood

emilynghiem said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> I'm not a 4th century christian, the events of the 1st century were an enlightenment of the individuals spirit that is accomplished through purity and attainable during life and necessary for remission.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> okay BreezeWood so where would you
> descibe yourself today in the present?
> are you free of biases
> or just aware of them so they don't cause problems?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> the goal is to defeat evil, The Triumph of Good vs Evil - is the religion given humanity by the Almighty - Noah's Ark, the spoken religion. that religion is for humanity, if not accomplished by all then no one will be accepted. christians are an unsolvable obstacle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you believe in the triumph of good over evil BreezeWood
> why are you saying Christians are an unsolvable obstacle
> 
> What specifically is such a problem with Christians
> that isn't also a problem with other people or groups?
> 
> What sin or bias do Christians have that is
> any harder to overcome than people of other biases?
> 
> Thanks for explaining in terms that I can start
> to understand what you are trying to clarify here
> this will really help to understand the content you are trying to communicate
> thanks and sorry if it takes a bit of Q and A back and forth to pinpoint and understand the points
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you believe in the triumph of good over evil BreezeWood
> why are you saying Christians are an unsolvable obstacle
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've made that perfectly clear, 4th century christianity is a forgery against the events of the 1st century as the enlightenment for humanity to free themselves against evil by conquering it - christianity is the antitheses of the purified spirit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So how does this relate to your own state of being free of sin/bias or not free?
> 
> You keep talking about how Christians are an obstacle
> so if you mean that until we all resolve issues then none of us achieve perfect fulfillment
> how does this affect you?
> 
> Are you saying that as long as you are not Christian then
> you are not part of this problem, so that's all you need to do is not be Christian?
> 
> Do you believe you have already achieved and done all you
> can to overcome evil or bias that otherwise separates you from perfection in God?
> 
> If Christians are some unsolvable obstacle
> what does that mean you or I supposed to do about that?
> 
> Thanks BreezeWood
Click to expand...

.


emilynghiem said:


> how does this affect you?



the parable is for humanity, when all humanity at judgement is one or the other, if there is rejection no one will be allow remission. 4th century christianity is acquiescence / capitulation to sin they will never free themselves.


----------



## emilynghiem

BreezeWood said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> okay BreezeWood so where would you
> descibe yourself today in the present?
> are you free of biases
> or just aware of them so they don't cause problems?
> 
> 
> 
> .
> the goal is to defeat evil, The Triumph of Good vs Evil - is the religion given humanity by the Almighty - Noah's Ark, the spoken religion. that religion is for humanity, if not accomplished by all then no one will be accepted. christians are an unsolvable obstacle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you believe in the triumph of good over evil BreezeWood
> why are you saying Christians are an unsolvable obstacle
> 
> What specifically is such a problem with Christians
> that isn't also a problem with other people or groups?
> 
> What sin or bias do Christians have that is
> any harder to overcome than people of other biases?
> 
> Thanks for explaining in terms that I can start
> to understand what you are trying to clarify here
> this will really help to understand the content you are trying to communicate
> thanks and sorry if it takes a bit of Q and A back and forth to pinpoint and understand the points
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you believe in the triumph of good over evil BreezeWood
> why are you saying Christians are an unsolvable obstacle
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've made that perfectly clear, 4th century christianity is a forgery against the events of the 1st century as the enlightenment for humanity to free themselves against evil by conquering it - christianity is the antitheses of the purified spirit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So how does this relate to your own state of being free of sin/bias or not free?
> 
> You keep talking about how Christians are an obstacle
> so if you mean that until we all resolve issues then none of us achieve perfect fulfillment
> how does this affect you?
> 
> Are you saying that as long as you are not Christian then
> you are not part of this problem, so that's all you need to do is not be Christian?
> 
> Do you believe you have already achieved and done all you
> can to overcome evil or bias that otherwise separates you from perfection in God?
> 
> If Christians are some unsolvable obstacle
> what does that mean you or I supposed to do about that?
> 
> Thanks BreezeWood
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> how does this affect you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the parable is for humanity, when all humanity at judgement is one or the other, if there is rejection no one will be allow remission. 4th century christianity is acquiescence / capitulation to sin they will never free themselves.
Click to expand...


So BreezeWood are you saying that if
1. no one is allowed remission (does this mean entrance into the Kingdom of God)
if there is any rejection
2. because Christians will never free themselves
then does that count as rejection so all humanity is then not allowed remission

If all this depends on Christians as an unresolvable obstacle
then what do you believe is the course of action you are supposed to take

Do nothing, since this is unresolvable?
And just wait on God to do something about the Christians
to change this dynamic?

What do you say you are supposed to do
or me or what is anyone supposed to do
if you are saying this is unresolvable?

Am I understanding this all correctly? Thanks!


----------



## BreezeWood

emilynghiem said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> the goal is to defeat evil, The Triumph of Good vs Evil - is the religion given humanity by the Almighty - Noah's Ark, the spoken religion. that religion is for humanity, if not accomplished by all then no one will be accepted. christians are an unsolvable obstacle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you believe in the triumph of good over evil BreezeWood
> why are you saying Christians are an unsolvable obstacle
> 
> What specifically is such a problem with Christians
> that isn't also a problem with other people or groups?
> 
> What sin or bias do Christians have that is
> any harder to overcome than people of other biases?
> 
> Thanks for explaining in terms that I can start
> to understand what you are trying to clarify here
> this will really help to understand the content you are trying to communicate
> thanks and sorry if it takes a bit of Q and A back and forth to pinpoint and understand the points
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you believe in the triumph of good over evil BreezeWood
> why are you saying Christians are an unsolvable obstacle
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've made that perfectly clear, 4th century christianity is a forgery against the events of the 1st century as the enlightenment for humanity to free themselves against evil by conquering it - christianity is the antitheses of the purified spirit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So how does this relate to your own state of being free of sin/bias or not free?
> 
> You keep talking about how Christians are an obstacle
> so if you mean that until we all resolve issues then none of us achieve perfect fulfillment
> how does this affect you?
> 
> Are you saying that as long as you are not Christian then
> you are not part of this problem, so that's all you need to do is not be Christian?
> 
> Do you believe you have already achieved and done all you
> can to overcome evil or bias that otherwise separates you from perfection in God?
> 
> If Christians are some unsolvable obstacle
> what does that mean you or I supposed to do about that?
> 
> Thanks BreezeWood
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> how does this affect you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the parable is for humanity, when all humanity at judgement is one or the other, if there is rejection no one will be allow remission. 4th century christianity is acquiescence / capitulation to sin they will never free themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So BreezeWood are you saying that if
> 1. no one is allowed remission (does this mean entrance into the Kingdom of God)
> if there is any rejection
> 2. because Christians will never free themselves
> then does that count as rejection so all humanity is then not allowed remission
> 
> If all this depends on Christians as an unresolvable obstacle
> then what do you believe is the course of action you are supposed to take
> 
> Do nothing, since this is unresolvable?
> And just wait on God to do something about the Christians
> to change this dynamic?
> 
> What do you say you are supposed to do
> or me or what is anyone supposed to do
> if you are saying this is unresolvable?
> 
> Am I understanding this all correctly? Thanks!
Click to expand...

.
it means we are all in this together, sink or swim - I change you or you change me we are incompatible, I am not a sinner.


----------



## thanatos144

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the God Pretenders went away, I'm sure the God Haters would be right behind them.
> 
> 
> 
> Like I don’t hate boss. He’s making the same arguments men were making before Moses lies and said god visited.
> 
> Boss doesn’t say you’ll go to hell for not believing. If he does I’d like to know where he came up with such a notion.
> 
> I would just be adamant that no there does not have to be a creator. There could be but there doesn’t have to be
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right. And I would, personally, never "hate god", because it is an absurd notion to hate something that you do not believe exists. And I think that, if there were "one God", he would be a pretty benevolent entity and would be nothing like the immoral, vain, evil, unethical, and frankly stupid god described in the abrahamic religions.
Click to expand...

Thats the one in your head because you obviously never read the Bible.


----------



## thanatos144

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the God Pretenders went away, I'm sure the God Haters would be right behind them.
> 
> 
> 
> Like I don’t hate boss. He’s making the same arguments men were making before Moses lies and said god visited.
> 
> Boss doesn’t say you’ll go to hell for not believing. If he does I’d like to know where he came up with such a notion.
> 
> I would just be adamant that no there does not have to be a creator. There could be but there doesn’t have to be
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right. And I would, personally, never "hate god", because it is an absurd notion to hate something that you do not believe exists. And I think that, if there were "one God", he would be a pretty benevolent entity and would be nothing like the immoral, vain, evil, unethical, and frankly stupid god described in the abrahamic religions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can just see so clearly how are primitive ancestors came up with god heaven and hell. First you must conclude there is a god. Then what is your purpose? What does god want? So then you start talking about good and evil. The golden rule. Etc.
> 
> Then what happens to bad people? Where’s gramma?
> 
> It’s so obvious.
> 
> So I go about my life not believing in god but still living my life by asking would god approve? So I don’t murder or steal. But I may have one night stands or curse or lie now and again. I may even work on Sunday and use the lords name in vein and I most certainly worship other gods and idols....just in case
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do not give it a single thought, really.  If i reach moral and ethical decisions by reason, I go all in with confidence.  And I certainly have no interest in trying to convince anyone to abandon any religion.  My only interest in religious beliefs is that the same suspension of incredulity required to adopt these magical paradigms is what leads people to believe all manner of nonsense, much of it harmful.  It is not coincidence that so many Evangelical Americans also deny evolution and climate science. It is no coincidence that so many mystic hippies also believe fluoride and vaccination nonsense.
Click to expand...

If you are nothing more then a bunch of cells why even be moral? Not to mention the whole concept of morality is based on a religious ideal.


----------



## thanatos144

Slyhunter said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even a Jehovah's Witness will back off after I point out to them they don't know Hebrew.
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with anyone calling either of your magical religions, "magic"? Nothing, really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't care that you're an atheist and you shouldn't care that anyone besides yourself believes in God unless they're sticking it up your nose.
> And having a relationship with God is not magic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was a time I believed in Santa. Then I grew up.
> There was a time I had an invisible friend. Then I grew up.
> Having a relationship with an imaginary entity, you haven't grown up.
Click to expand...

you of course have proof there is  no God?


----------



## thanatos144

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boss doesn’t say you’ll go to hell for not believing. If he does I’d like to know where he came up with such a notion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know about "hell" per say but I do believe there is ultimately "cosmic justice" for allowing your soul to descend to a fallen state of evil. Reason being, natural order and logic. There is a reason we are compelled toward good and away from evil, toward the light and away from the dark. Even the most devout atheist recognizes this. Even other forms of life seem to intrinsically know this. Why would every indicator point to this if there were no reason?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it makes the most sense? I don’t know. The world beyond humans is pretty brutal. Coyotes lurking. Bear. Mosquitos. Poisonous snakes.
> 
> Before we were organized and civilized we took out other tribes.
> 
> But really there is no reason. When this planet dies everything that happened on it is gone. Just like the life that used to be on mars billions of years ago
Click to expand...

So then why is life sacred? Why is mass killing wrong? Why protect the elderly or young? Why sacrifice yourself.... Oh wait scratch that last one no regressive makes sacrifices.


----------



## thanatos144

sealybobo said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you stop using the Internet for your "scholarship" and start conversing with actual human beings who have advanced degrees and real life experience.
> Sheeesh.
> You are willing to believe every web site site thar agrees with and scoff at every site you disagree with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show me a better website than this one:  Why there is no god
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For starters, this very long string of bullshit has paragraph 2 and 3 of point one which are completely discredited by the scientists and historians who regularly lecture to Jews, Christians and atheists at Aish Hatorah.
> What gives you away is that you are attempting to give the impression that you have carefully studied Tanach for years and then you discovered this site several years ago and have studied it and have come to the same conclusions.
> 
> What you have actually proven is my statement that you believe any web site that concurs with your uneducated point of view.
> 
> Try harder because you are a pathetic debater on this topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm glad to hear that Christians who lecture others about Christianity debate these facts but the fact still remains that these are indeed facts.
> 
> All historical references to Jesus derive from hearsay accounts written decades or centuries after his supposed death. These historical references generally refer to early Christians rather than a historical Jesus and, in some cases, directly contradict the Gospels or were deliberately manufactured.
> 
> The Gospels themselves contradict one-another.  On many key events and were constructed by unknown authors up to a century after the events they describe are said to have occurred. They are not eyewitness accounts. The New Testament, as a whole, contains many internal inconsistencies as a result of its piecemeal construction and is factually incorrect on several historical claims, such as the early existence of Nazareth, the reign of Herod and the Roman census. Like the Old Testament, it too has had entire books and sections redacted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't do the New Testament and I am obligated *not* to preach.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think any non Jewish American takes anything these people say seriously?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care how much Jew U they attended they aren't talking facts science logic and reasoning they are perpetuating a myth.
Click to expand...

WOW you went straight to bigot there. You need to actually read on the Hasidic Jew before you make even a bigger idiot of yourself.


----------



## thanatos144

ScienceRocks said:


> God makes people murder other people because they wish to question the world around them.
> 
> There's no evidence for GOD! None at all. The question that should be asked is why do people persist on believing in that isn't real?


DNA and its complexity is evidence of God. to think that is just a mistake is just plain absurd.


----------



## thanatos144

BreezeWood said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know how you can look at the universe and not conclude that rather than being a late outgrowth, intelligence has always existed as the source or matrix for physical stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe not. Look at the beginning of earth. Single cell aren’t smart. We are the only way the universe knows itself. As far as we know. Three billion years ago it may have been mars. 20 million years ago dinosaurs and trilobites ruled. They weren’t intelligent.
> 
> And I just don’t conclude anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have any idea how much information is required to make a single  cell function?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don’t.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ding said "intelligence has always existed as the source or matrix for physical stuff"
> 
> What does he mean by that?  Can he explain or prove this comment is true?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ding said "intelligence has always existed as the source or matrix for physical stuff"
> 
> What does he mean by that? Can he explain or prove this comment is true?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> physiology *: *the organic processes and phenomena of an organism or any of its parts or of a particular bodily process (for the dumbasses that are beyond ignorance) - - is a metaphysical phenomena in physical form that will _appear_ anywhere in the universe that environmental conditions are conducive for the purpose of providing continuity for the metaphysical axioms that guide its existence.
> 
> physiology present on earth that no longer is controlled by the metaphysical presence when removed causes the physiology to disappear ...
> _*
> 
> 
> What does he mean by that? Can he explain or prove this comment is true?*_
> 
> there are no tissues on earth that are inanimate / inert, only what is animated ... the animation is derived from the metaphysical axioms of the universe.
Click to expand...

That is your religious point belief with as much evidence as mine that God created life.


----------



## thanatos144

ScienceRocks said:


> How many of you idiots would praise a king in the white house with the power to order you to worship him or he'll have you killed???
> 
> I doubt very many...That is god. Praise him or else! And he'll as you do praise him will kill your kids, your wife and make your life shitty for his own enjoyment at a time of his choosen.
> 
> He will give you cancer
> He will order his people to kill each other
> Rape women
> Dads will fuck their daughters
> etc


Bad shit happens so there is no God? Son Bad shit happens because God gave of free will. Do you think environment or what we did to it had nothing to do with how diseases mutated? This should make you happy there is an actual purpose to bad shit. Normally to  regulate.


----------



## thanatos144

social philosopher said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I certainly do find you amusing. But not in an innocent childish fashion. Your belief is insidious. This belief in a deity is anything but innocent. Too many people die as a result. I can't believe you really wrote all that. It was tedious.
Click to expand...

Look up free will.


----------



## thanatos144

sealybobo said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> But that's the part you're not explaining with scientific observation and testable hypothesis. You make this incredible jump from inorganic elements to organic life without any explanation, and then you make another series of incredible leaps to eventually come up with humans. None of what you are claiming has any evident basis in science or biology. It is absolutely no different than claiming an Intelligent Designer did it.
> 
> 
> 
> Inside a giant star is where we were created. That’s where all life came from. You think a god proofed life onto the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Bible says we came from dust.  And we did too.  Star dust.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It also says a talking snake talked
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So until the "serpent" you were on board with God creating existence...
> Which means you believed God created the universe until you didn't believe that God could create a non-human that could talk.
> Very telling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God may have created the universe but first you have to prove God exists.
> 
> I can tell you he didn't poof land animals on the planet.
> 
> I'm learning more and more about why American Christians are so fucking retarded when it comes to evolution compared to the rest of the world and this is very telling.  Makes sense when I argue with theists here about religion and politics.
> 
> This is evidence they have politicized our religion.  The same fools that don't believe in evolution also don't believe in global warming.  PROOF they use religion to keep people dumb
Click to expand...

I don't have to prove anything. I don't care if you believe or not. We already know your bigotry and hatred for the very thought that your actions have consequences.


----------



## thanatos144

sealybobo said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> But that's the part you're not explaining with scientific observation and testable hypothesis. You make this incredible jump from inorganic elements to organic life without any explanation, and then you make another series of incredible leaps to eventually come up with humans. None of what you are claiming has any evident basis in science or biology. It is absolutely no different than claiming an Intelligent Designer did it.
> 
> 
> 
> Inside a giant star is where we were created. That’s where all life came from. You think a god proofed life onto the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Bible says we came from dust.  And we did too.  Star dust.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It also says a talking snake talked
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So until the "serpent" you were on board with God creating existence...
> Which means you believed God created the universe until you didn't believe that God could create a non-human that could talk.
> Very telling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolution Is Finally Winning Out Over Creationism, Especially Among the Young
Click to expand...

still looking for that missing link.


----------



## thanatos144

IsaacNewton said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Verbiose vomitosus.
> 
> A better question is why 'god' drowns innocent women and children.
Click to expand...

why where women and children living where they could drown?


----------



## thanatos144

BreezeWood said:


> _*
> *_
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religion makes you dumb Why So Many Americans Don't 'Believe' In Evolution, Climate Change And Vaccines | HuffPost
> 
> The real question is why people want to believe something that flies in the face of scientific evidence. In some cases, the reason can be political: Solving the problems created by climate change would mean standing in the way of the free market, something conservatives tend to oppose.
> 
> When someone’s self-image or social acceptance is at stake, badgering them with facts isn’t likely to change their minds, research has shown.
> 
> In fact, a 2010 study found that when people were shown incorrect information alongside a correction, the update failed to reverse their initial belief in the misinformation. Even worse, partisans who were motivated to believe the original incorrect information became even more firm in their belief in that information after reading a correction, the researchers found. For example, conservatives who were told that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction before the Iraq war believed that claim more firmly after reading a correction.
> 
> Basically religion is making you people dumb just as I predicted.
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that the overwhelming number of efforts in scientific endeavors result in failure.
> But nobody advertises failures.
> Yet another stupid post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you realize how ridiculous it is to deny evolution? America is flawed because of our religiousness. It’s definitely a way they control us and it’s proof religion is bad. To deny facts logic and reason because of it.
> 
> At least you aren’t as bad as isis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have still not found the missing link between us and apes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have still not found the missing link between us and apes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we know life happened once and only once on Earth. Never before and never since.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> _*And we know life happened once and only once on Earth ... Never before and never since.
> *_
> 
> the transition is metaphysical, completed in the genome then translated from one generation to the next, an entirely new species from a single parent to its offspring that from that time forward will represent only the new being when reproducing.
> 
> whether a rudimentary example, missing link is manifested or not the process is only accomplished using the original template of life that predated humanity by millions of years. whether from ape or not humans are not the original creation and simply a prototype after its initiation.
> 
> 
> at any rate the contradiction between the two desert religionists simply underscores the lack of continuity for all three of their religions and the continued need to search further for the actual truth as having never been accomplished but in their own limited mindset at the expense of humanity as proven by recorded history over time.
Click to expand...

Arrogance of ignorance is not a argument.


----------



## thanatos144

drifter said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes they are not God haters. They are organized religion haters. The reasons are because of atrocities committed in the name of religion and the not very nice treatments some religious people give to others who are non-religious.
Click to expand...

And yet it is secularists who has caused the deaths of MILLIONS in under a century far more then religion.... Or did you think despotic dictators were motivated by God?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Indeependent said:


> And 90% of physical phenomena will never be explained by science.


90%, eh? Your divine powers of clairvoyance are amazing.

By the way, you could have just said "will never be explained", and left it at that. Magical religious bullshit explains exactly nothing. Only empirical knowledge explains anything.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

thanatos144 said:


> And yet it is secularists who has caused the deaths of MILLIONS in under a century far more then religion.... Or did you think despotic dictators were motivated by God?


No, they create a religion centered on themselves. Yes, it is religion. Just because they are worshipping a fat little asshole in North Korea instead of a magical sky wizard makes it no less of a religion.


----------



## thanatos144

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet it is secularists who has caused the deaths of MILLIONS in under a century far more then religion.... Or did you think despotic dictators were motivated by God?
> 
> 
> 
> No, they create a religion centered on themselves. Yes, it is religion. Just because they are worshipping a fat little asshole in North Korea instead of a magical sky wizard makes it no less of a religion.
Click to expand...

Much like your regressivism or feminism or Global Warming or Atheism.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

thanatos144 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet it is secularists who has caused the deaths of MILLIONS in under a century far more then religion.... Or did you think despotic dictators were motivated by God?
> 
> 
> 
> No, they create a religion centered on themselves. Yes, it is religion. Just because they are worshipping a fat little asshole in North Korea instead of a magical sky wizard makes it no less of a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Much like your regressivism or feminism or Global Warming or Atheism.
Click to expand...

Oh here we go....someone call the waaaahmbulance....

No professor, scinetific theories are not religion . They are precisely the opposite. Feminism? Wha? Got beaten by a girl a few times, didn't ya?


----------



## thanatos144

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet it is secularists who has caused the deaths of MILLIONS in under a century far more then religion.... Or did you think despotic dictators were motivated by God?
> 
> 
> 
> No, they create a religion centered on themselves. Yes, it is religion. Just because they are worshipping a fat little asshole in North Korea instead of a magical sky wizard makes it no less of a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Much like your regressivism or feminism or Global Warming or Atheism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh here we go....someone call the waaaahmbulance....
> 
> No professor, scinetific theories are not religion . They are precisely the opposite. Feminism? Wha? Got beaten by a girl a few times, didn't ya?
Click to expand...

Theories are by definition not fact and only educated belief... Like Religion. Funny how again your ignorance and arrogance flaunting it is amusing.


----------



## Michelle420

thanatos144 said:


> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes they are not God haters. They are organized religion haters. The reasons are because of atrocities committed in the name of religion and the not very nice treatments some religious people give to others who are non-religious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet it is secularists who has caused the deaths of MILLIONS in under a century far more then religion.... Or did you think despotic dictators were motivated by God?
Click to expand...


I never shared what I personally myself thought.


----------



## thanatos144

drifter said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes they are not God haters. They are organized religion haters. The reasons are because of atrocities committed in the name of religion and the not very nice treatments some religious people give to others who are non-religious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet it is secularists who has caused the deaths of MILLIONS in under a century far more then religion.... Or did you think despotic dictators were motivated by God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never shared what I personally myself thought.
Click to expand...

Nope you didn't. You just inferred by attacking all religion for the action of a few. Of course I guess it does depend on what the said religion is. Not sure Islam is a religion of peace like every president says. Yet I am not a Muslim so I dont know.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

thanatos144 said:


> Theories are by definition not fact and only educated belief... Like Religion.


That is some seriously ignorant garbage there. Scientific theories are precisely the opposite of religion and faith. They are testable ideas. They are elevated to the status of "scientific theory" by mountains of mutually supprtive evidence. There are methods in place that can be used to understand who is right and who is wrong. Faith and religion lack all of this . You should maybe never open your mouth about scientific theories ever again.

Yes, some scitinfic theories are indeed considered to be fact. Don't believe me? Stick a fork in a live electrical outlet. Put your baby in a microwave. Repeat both experiments 1000000 times. Let me know if any of them turn out differently than the others.


----------



## Michelle420

thanatos144 said:


> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drifter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes they are not God haters. They are organized religion haters. The reasons are because of atrocities committed in the name of religion and the not very nice treatments some religious people give to others who are non-religious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet it is secularists who has caused the deaths of MILLIONS in under a century far more then religion.... Or did you think despotic dictators were motivated by God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never shared what I personally myself thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope you didn't. You just inferred by attacking all religion for the action of a few. Of course I guess it does depend on what the said religion is. Not sure Islam is a religion of peace like every president says. Yet I am not a Muslim so I dont know.
Click to expand...


Baloney. I shared what my friends say as the reason they are upset at religion. And if you keep reading I mentioned terrorists as an example.


----------



## thanatos144

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Theories are by definition not fact and only educated belief... Like Religion.
> 
> 
> 
> That is some seriously ignorant garbage there. Scientific theories are precisely the opposite of religion and faith. They are testable ideas. They are elevated to the status of "scientific theory" by mountains of mutually supprtive evidence. There are methods in place that can be used to understand who is right and who is wrong. Faith and religion lack all of this . You should maybe never open your mouth about scientific theories ever again.
> 
> Yes, some scitinfic theories are indeed considered to be fact. Don't believe me? Stick a fork in a live electrical outlet. Put your baby in a microwave. Repeat both experiments 1000000 times. Let me know if any of them turn out differently than the others.
Click to expand...

If they were testable they would be fact not theory....Perhaps you need to relearn some things.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

thanatos144 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Theories are by definition not fact and only educated belief... Like Religion.
> 
> 
> 
> That is some seriously ignorant garbage there. Scientific theories are precisely the opposite of religion and faith. They are testable ideas. They are elevated to the status of "scientific theory" by mountains of mutually supprtive evidence. There are methods in place that can be used to understand who is right and who is wrong. Faith and religion lack all of this . You should maybe never open your mouth about scientific theories ever again.
> 
> Yes, some scitinfic theories are indeed considered to be fact. Don't believe me? Stick a fork in a live electrical outlet. Put your baby in a microwave. Repeat both experiments 1000000 times. Let me know if any of them turn out differently than the others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they were testable they would be fact not theory....Perhaps you need to relearn some things.
Click to expand...

Wow dude, you would immediately fail any science class. You are 100% , ass-backwards wrong. The definition of a scientific idea is whether or not it is testable. The ones that become scientific theories have been tested extensively. Seriosuly man, you should stop talking.


----------



## IsaacNewton

thanatos144 said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Verbiose vomitosus.
> 
> A better question is why 'god' drowns innocent women and children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why where women and children living where they could drown?
Click to expand...


You aren't the only one with bizarre questions child, Skeeter has the answers...


----------



## ScienceRocks

There is NO god. Can we please stop attempting to run our society based on this baseless idea of being ruled over by a evil monster in the sky already? Jezzzz.


----------



## JimBowie1958

ScienceRocks said:


> There is NO god. Can we please stop attempting to run our society based on this baseless idea of being ruled over by a evil monster in the sky already? Jezzzz.


No one believes in such nonsense, dude.

The weakness of atheism is fairly well illustrated by the grotesque distortions made by atheists like yourself of the object you claim to understand conceptually but never seem to be able to describe accurately.

You reject what you are completely ignorant about.

That is called prejudice and bigotry.


----------



## thanatos144

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Theories are by definition not fact and only educated belief... Like Religion.
> 
> 
> 
> That is some seriously ignorant garbage there. Scientific theories are precisely the opposite of religion and faith. They are testable ideas. They are elevated to the status of "scientific theory" by mountains of mutually supprtive evidence. There are methods in place that can be used to understand who is right and who is wrong. Faith and religion lack all of this . You should maybe never open your mouth about scientific theories ever again.
> 
> Yes, some scitinfic theories are indeed considered to be fact. Don't believe me? Stick a fork in a live electrical outlet. Put your baby in a microwave. Repeat both experiments 1000000 times. Let me know if any of them turn out differently than the others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they were testable they would be fact not theory....Perhaps you need to relearn some things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow dude, you would immediately fail any science class. You are 100% , ass-backwards wrong. The definition of a scientific idea is whether or not it is testable. The ones that become scientific theories have been tested extensively. Seriosuly man, you should stop talking.
Click to expand...

Theory is not fact. You can postulate yet not test a theory. Why? Because is you could successfully test a theory it would then become fact.  Like gravity is a fact. Relativity is a theory. A educated faith.


----------



## DOTR

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> And 90% of physical phenomena will never be explained by science.
> 
> 
> 
> 90%, eh? Your divine powers of clairvoyance are amazing.
> 
> By the way, you could have just said "will never be explained", and left it at that. Magical religious bullshit explains exactly nothing. Only empirical knowledge explains anything.
Click to expand...


  Says the man who swears he knows of other life forms.


----------



## JimBowie1958

DOTR said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> And 90% of physical phenomena will never be explained by science.
> 
> 
> 
> ... Magical religious bullshit explains exactly nothing. Only empirical knowledge explains anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the man who swears he knows of other life forms.
Click to expand...

And Fort Fuckup doesnt seem to realize that empirical process do not explain mathematics, or basic cosmological concepts at all.

He shits on the back of giants and thinks he is king of a compost mountain.


----------



## DOTR

JimBowie1958 said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> And 90% of physical phenomena will never be explained by science.
> 
> 
> 
> ... Magical religious bullshit explains exactly nothing. Only empirical knowledge explains anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the man who swears he knows of other life forms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And Fort Fuckup doesnt seem to realize that empirical process do not explain mathematics, or basic cosmological concepts at all.
> 
> He shits on the back of giants and thinks he is king of a compost mountain.
Click to expand...


  I have noticed something...the more intensely they deny God and try to set science in opposition...the more devoutly they follow non-scientific fantasies of extraterrestrial life, multiple origins and artificial intelligence. 
  It isn't science they follow. Their religion is materialism and the Mediocrity Principle.


----------



## daisiesRwild

Boss said:


> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.



Any Atheists I have debated with have been so nasty and have proven it is the God of this world they follow


----------



## ding

DOTR said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> And 90% of physical phenomena will never be explained by science.
> 
> 
> 
> ... Magical religious bullshit explains exactly nothing. Only empirical knowledge explains anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the man who swears he knows of other life forms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And Fort Fuckup doesnt seem to realize that empirical process do not explain mathematics, or basic cosmological concepts at all.
> 
> He shits on the back of giants and thinks he is king of a compost mountain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have noticed something...the more intensely they deny God and try to set science in opposition...the more devoutly they follow non-scientific fantasies of extraterrestrial life, multiple origins and artificial intelligence.
> It isn't science they follow. Their religion is materialism and the Mediocrity Principle.
Click to expand...

Very astute observations.

You have squarely struck the nail on its head with your connection to materialism.


----------



## JimBowie1958

DOTR said:


> I have noticed something...the more intensely they deny God and try to set science in opposition...the more devoutly they follow non-scientific fantasies of extraterrestrial life, multiple origins and artificial intelligence.
> It isn't science they follow. Their religion is materialism and the Mediocrity Principle.


I believe in the Creator, transpermia theory, alien sentient life is not only out there, but here already, and that we will have Super AI by 2050.

I guess the exception proves the rule?


----------



## ding

JimBowie1958 said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have noticed something...the more intensely they deny God and try to set science in opposition...the more devoutly they follow non-scientific fantasies of extraterrestrial life, multiple origins and artificial intelligence.
> It isn't science they follow. Their religion is materialism and the Mediocrity Principle.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe in the Creator, transpermia theory, alien sentient life is not only out there, but here already, and that we will have Super AI by 2050.
> 
> I guess the exception proves the rule?
Click to expand...

Where did the microscopic life forms originate and how?


----------



## JimBowie1958

ding said:


> Where did the microscopic life forms originate and how?


I dont know. I am thinking that the life span of our planet is not enough time for them develop here on this planet under our protected conditions.  I am thinking that some kind of extraterrestrial environment had them building up over billions of years like the bacteria we have found in deep ocean thermal vents. I think it must have been very hoit temps under huge pressures, but that is a guess.

When the star went super novae and salted out solar system with iron and other elements that our sun obviously has not given us, it also sent carbonaceous meteors that held these early bacteria, and that seeded our solar system with life.

I think life is more common off Earth than people like to think, especially monotheists seem inclined to believe.


----------



## ding

JimBowie1958 said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did the microscopic life forms originate and how?
> 
> 
> 
> I dont know. I am thinking that the life span of our planet is not enough time for them develop here on this planet under our protected conditions.  I am thinking that some kind of extraterrestrial environment had them building up over billions of years like the bacteria we have found in deep ocean thermal vents. I think it must have been very hoit temps under huge pressures, but that is a guess.
> 
> When the star went super novae and salted out solar system with iron and other elements that our sun obviously has not given us, it also sent carbonaceous meteors that held these early bacteria, and that seeded our solar system with life.
> 
> I think life is more common off Earth than people like to think, especially monotheists seem inclined to believe.
Click to expand...

I believe the more simple explanation is that they originated from here.


----------



## JimBowie1958

ding said:


> I believe the more simple explanation is that they originated from here.


Could be, but I am doubtful. The Stanley Miller experiment was not typical of Earthly conditions, but perhaps could have simulated some very ancient proto-planet.

The presence of iron and gold proves that our solar system has been seeded multiple times by multiple supernovae.


----------



## ding

JimBowie1958 said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe the more simple explanation is that they originated from here.
> 
> 
> 
> Could be, but I am doubtful. The Stanley Miller experiment was not typical of Earthly conditions, but perhaps could have simulated some very ancient proto-planet.
> 
> The presence of iron and gold proves that our solar system has been seeded multiple times by multiple supernovae.
Click to expand...

Whether life made the leap here or somewhere else, it still had to make the leap.  Having the origin be somewhere else just adds more complexity.  There's less moving parts with life originating here.


----------



## JimBowie1958

ding said:


> Whether life made the leap here or somewhere else, it still had to make the leap.  Having the origin be somewhere else just adds more complexity.  There's less moving parts with life originating here.


And less time for it to develop naturally too.  The idea that life developed in some hellish dark place thenn was exported to thrive on our planet just makes more sense given the small time frames involved for it all to  happen on Earth.  Our planet is only 4 billion years old in a 17 billion year old universe.

It seems several times more likely to have happened elsewhere then arrived here.


----------



## ding

JimBowie1958 said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether life made the leap here or somewhere else, it still had to make the leap.  Having the origin be somewhere else just adds more complexity.  There's less moving parts with life originating here.
> 
> 
> 
> And less time for it to develop naturally too.  The idea that life developed in some hellish dark place thenn was exported to thrive on our planet just makes more sense given the small time frames involved for it all to  happen on Earth.  Our planet is only 4 billion years old in a 17 billion year old universe.
> 
> It seems several times more likely to have happened elsewhere then arrived here.
Click to expand...

I think that's plenty of time.  Besides for all we know God gave us a spark of life.


----------



## DOTR

JimBowie1958 said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have noticed something...the more intensely they deny God and try to set science in opposition...the more devoutly they follow non-scientific fantasies of extraterrestrial life, multiple origins and artificial intelligence.
> It isn't science they follow. Their religion is materialism and the Mediocrity Principle.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe in the Creator, transpermia theory, alien sentient life is not only out there, but here already, and that we will have Super AI by 2050.
> 
> I guess the exception proves the rule?
Click to expand...


   I don’t believe life evolved extraterrestrially but even if true then still only once. And that’s the fascinating mystery. Why only once?

    AI I doubt as well though we already have passable imitations so I think we will imitate AI so closely eventually that it won’t matter. If you can’t tell if it’s intelligent or just a very fast, giant abacus then it might as well be intelligent. 
    Then again the Chinese Room already proves that. 

 Intelligence/consciousness is neither reductionist nor algorithmic. It is created.


----------



## JimBowie1958

ding said:


> I think that's plenty of time.  Besides for all we know God gave us a spark of life.


Yes, no doubt the Creator did initiate life, but why only once? And why presume it was not through an entirely naturalistic process?

The awesome demonstration of Gods power in the Big Bang was still done through natural means. Why not the spark of life too?

Everything we think of as a miraculous event, is I think naturalistic but inexplicable with current knowledge. The image on the Shroud I think was formed naturalisticly via bacteria from a two day old corpse that I think proves Jesus was actually dead.

I just do not care for this notion that an Eternal unchanging Creator violates His own natural laws. We just dont understand how He does it when we see it.


----------



## ding

JimBowie1958 said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that's plenty of time.  Besides for all we know God gave us a spark of life.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, no doubt the Creator did initiate life, but why only once? And why presume it was not through an entirely naturalistic process?
> 
> The awesome demonstration of Gods power in the Big Bang was still done through natural means. Why not the spark of life too?
> 
> Everything we think of as a miraculous event, is I think naturalistic but inexplicable with current knowledge. The image on the Shroud I think was formed naturalisticly via bacteria from a two day old corpse that I think proves Jesus was actually dead.
> 
> I just do not care for this notion that an Eternal unchanging Creator violates His own natural laws. We just dont understand how He does it when we see it.
Click to expand...

I see the creation of space and time and the leap from inanimate matter to life as miracles as such. I believe God willed existence into being. The natural laws are the mechanics of how it was done. 

I don’t see how God being eternal or unchanging violates his natural laws. 

I also don’t know this is the only time life was created or that this is the only universe that was created. I would be surprised if either were a one time event.


----------



## JimBowie1958

DOTR said:


> Intelligence/consciousness is neither reductionist nor algorithmic. It is created.


Yes I totally agree with that.  The real display of the human mind is the ability to 'think outside the box' and innovate in unexpected ways.

I doubt a strong AI will ever do that except by some random process filtered through trial and elimination.

Humanity was nearly driven to extinction in the Toba event. For several years there was no visible sun and everything was cold. Neanderthals lost so many that their population was not able to sustain itself much afterwards and finally perished completely about 25k y.o. modern man was almost similarly destroyed, but for our ability to form complex thought, that was expressed in complex sentences.

Primates lie and assume the other is lying by default also, but humans turned a corner and began making the opposite assumption. Maybe it was because in that horrid Toba extermination, being able to reliably tell another member of your tribe or family where food or dangers was became critically important for survival, and so we evolved having this trust and honesty. Maybe humanity was saved through a light touch of evolved autism?

This allowed humans to develop complex sentence structure that reflected more complex thought as trust allowed for an evolutionary advantage to be had through complex language. This was our moment of ensoulment, the first Adam and Eve. But that is hardly more than speculation, we likely wont know for certain until we cross that River into Hades.


----------



## JimBowie1958

ding said:


> I don’t see how God being eternal or unchanging violates his natural laws.


It doesnt, it makes it more likely that he does not violate His laws, IMO.

I think we fundamentally misunderstand the nature of miracles.


----------



## DOTR

JimBowie1958 said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Intelligence/consciousness is neither reductionist nor algorithmic. It is created.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I totally agree with that.  The real display of the human mind is the ability to 'think outside the box' and innovate in unexpected ways.
> 
> I doubt a strong AI will ever do that except by some random process filtered through trial and elimination.
> 
> Humanity was nearly driven to extinction in the Toba event. For several years there was no visible sun and everything was cold. Neanderthals lost so many that their population was not able to sustain itself much afterwards and finally perished completely about 25k y.o. modern man was almost similarly destroyed, but for our ability to form complex thought, that was expressed in complex sentences.
> 
> Primates lie and assume the other is lying by default also, but humans turned a corner and began making the opposite assumption. Maybe it was because in that horrid Toba extermination, being able to reliably tell another member of your tribe or family where food or dangers was became critically important for survival, and so we evolved having this trust and honesty. Maybe humanity was saved through a light touch of evolved autism?
> 
> This allowed humans to develop complex sentence structure that reflected more complex thought as trust allowed for an evolutionary advantage to be had through complex language. This was our moment of ensoulment, the first Adam and Eve. But that is hardly more than speculation, we likely wont know for certain until we cross that River into Hades.
Click to expand...

Steven Pinker “The Stuff of Thought”

   Even grammar is genetic according to him.


----------



## hobelim

JimBowie1958 said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether life made the leap here or somewhere else, it still had to make the leap.  Having the origin be somewhere else just adds more complexity.  There's less moving parts with life originating here.
> 
> 
> 
> And less time for it to develop naturally too.  The idea that life developed in some hellish dark place thenn was exported to thrive on our planet just makes more sense given the small time frames involved for it all to  happen on Earth.  Our planet is only 4 billion years old in a 17 billion year old universe.
> 
> It seems several times more likely to have happened elsewhere then arrived here.
Click to expand...




There have been microbes, bacteria, plankton,  possibly even the seeds of complex  plant and animal life from earth traveling to other planets of distant solar systems for at least the past 65 million years.

40,000 year old microbes trapped in salt crystals in the middle of the mohave desert have been reanimated.

The earth continues to be bombarded with tons of cosmic debris every single day.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

hobelim said:


> There have been microbes, bacteria, plankton, possibly even the seeds of complex plant and animal life from earth traveling to other planets of distant solar systems for at least the past 65 million years.


Interesting thought...but how would these things escape the solar system?


----------



## hobelim

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> There have been microbes, bacteria, plankton, possibly even the seeds of complex plant and animal life from earth traveling to other planets of distant solar systems for at least the past 65 million years.
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting thought...but how would these things escape the solar system?
Click to expand...



The meteor impact that supposedly killed off the dinosaurs was powerful enough to eject in every direction materials from the ocean and land out of the solar system and instantly frozen in the same way we have recently seen objects ejected from other solar systems.

I think it would be more likely that some escaped the solar system than didn't.

Even if nothing escaped the debris could have easily seeded other moons and planets in this solar system with the raw materials for complex life.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

hobelim said:


> The meteor impact that supposedly killed off the dinosaurs was powerful enough to eject in every direction materials from the ocean and land out of the solar system


No, I don't believe it was. That's my point of contention. I think you are wrong about that.

And any mass imparted with that much energy in so short an amount of time would be molten, if not vaporized completely. Though I don't believe any mass was imparted with enough energy to escape the solar system, in that impact.

Panspermia within a star system is easy to believe.


----------



## hobelim

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> The meteor impact that supposedly killed off the dinosaurs was powerful enough to eject in every direction materials from the ocean and land out of the solar system
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't believe it was. That's my point of contention. I think you are wrong about that.
> 
> And any mass imparted with that much energy in so short an amount of time would be molten, if not vaporized completely. Though I don't believe any mass was imparted with enough energy to escape the solar system, in that impact.
> 
> Panspermia within a star system is easy to believe.
Click to expand...


Somehow voyager escaped the solar system.


The meteor hit a place teeming with sea and animal life. Large amounts of water that was not vaporized would have trapped billions of microbes, proteins, DNA, and cellular life that would have instantly frozen and become comets.

Panspermia with a solar system may be more likely but frozen forms of life could have escaped and been reanimated given the right trajectory and environment it ended up in.. And basic life forms could have adapted to hostile conditions and evolved on other planets just as they do on earth..


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

hobelim said:


> Somehow voyager escaped the solar system.


Because, over a relativelt mich lomger length of time, it was accelerated to escape velocity.

That doesnt mean that any of the mass ejected by the impactor was accelerated to this velocity. And, if it were in such a relatively short period of time, that mass woild be molten or vaporized entirely. So bringing up Voyager is not relevant, unless you can show that it is by accounting for the above.

No, the water would not feeze instantly. In fact, it was vaporized.


----------



## hobelim

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow voyager escaped the solar system.
> 
> 
> 
> Because, over a relativelt mich lomger length of time, it was accelerated to escape velocity.
> 
> That doesnt mean that any of the mass ejected by the impactor was accelerated to this velocity. And, if it were in such a relatively short period of time, that mass woild be molten or vaporized entirely. So bringing up Voyager is not relevant, unless you can show that it is by accounting for the above.
> 
> No, the water would not feeze instantly. In fact, it was vaporized.
Click to expand...



even so, a supernova from another long gone solar system would have blasted all the materials from every orbiting planet and moon in every direction easily seeding the entire universe including the earth with the building blocks of life


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

hobelim said:


> even so, a supernova from another long gone solar system would have blasted all the materials from every orbiting planet and moon in every direction easily seeding the entire universe with the building blocks of life


Maybe, but that has no bearing on the claim that such material was ejected from earth out of the solar system 65 million years ago.


----------



## hobelim

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> even so, a supernova from another long gone solar system would have blasted all the materials from every orbiting planet and moon in every direction easily seeding the entire universe with the building blocks of life
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe, but that has no bearing on the claim that such material was ejected from earth out of the solar system 65 million years ago.
Click to expand...



It is more likely that some building blocks of life escaped the solar system than didn't.


Comets are mostly water. Right.

They travel at velocities greater than that of voyager yet are not molten just like voyager didn't become molten.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

hobelim said:


> It is more likely that some building blocks of life escaped the solar system than didn't.


This is just repetition of the claim, not support for it. I know the claim. No need to repeat it.



hobelim said:


> They travel at velocities greater than that of voyager yet are not molten just like voyager didn't become molten.


That is not relevant. We are talking about water ejected in am energetic impact, and accelerated by great forces im a very short amount of time. That water would have been vaporized. Please stick to the claim.


----------



## edthecynic

ding said:


> Whether life made the leap here or somewhere else, it still had to make the leap. Having the origin be somewhere else just adds more complexity. There's less moving parts with life originating here.


And that "leap" was most probably a perfectly NATURAL "leap."
Simple enough for you?


----------



## ding

edthecynic said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether life made the leap here or somewhere else, it still had to make the leap. Having the origin be somewhere else just adds more complexity. There's less moving parts with life originating here.
> 
> 
> 
> And that "leap" was most probably a perfectly NATURAL "leap."
> Simple enough for you?
Click to expand...

Predestined by the laws of nature which existed before space and time itself.


----------



## edthecynic

ding said:


> Besides for all we know God gave us a spark of life.


Who gave God the spark of life?


----------



## ding

edthecynic said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Besides for all we know God gave us a spark of life.
> 
> 
> 
> Who gave God the spark of life?
Click to expand...

No need.  God is eternal and unchanging. 

Consciousness without form.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Predestined by the laws of nature which existed before space and time itself.


Which can be different in every subverse which exists, and which actually are not determined until space and time form in each subverse.

So...wrong, mostly.


----------



## edthecynic

ding said:


> I believe God willed existence into being.


What willed God into being?


----------



## edthecynic

ding said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Besides for all we know God gave us a spark of life.
> 
> 
> 
> Who gave God the spark of life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No need.  *God is eternal* and unchanging.
> 
> Consciousness without form.
Click to expand...

Prove it. 
The only thing PROVEN to be eternal is ENERGY!


----------



## ding

edthecynic said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe God willed existence into being.
> 
> 
> 
> What willed God into being?
Click to expand...

What part of eternal and unchanging did you not understand?


----------



## ding

edthecynic said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Besides for all we know God gave us a spark of life.
> 
> 
> 
> Who gave God the spark of life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No need.  *God is eternal* and unchanging.
> 
> Consciousness without form.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove it.
> The only thing PROVEN to be eternal is ENERGY!
Click to expand...

And eventually equilibrates which we don't see.

Not to mention that matter and energy cannot exist outside of space and time without creating space and time.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe God willed existence into being.
> 
> 
> 
> What willed God into being?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What part of eternal and unchanging did you not understand?
Click to expand...

The part everyone with training in logic understands is that is a fallacy called "special pleading".


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Predestined by the laws of nature which existed before space and time itself.
> 
> 
> 
> Which can be different in every subverse which exists, and which actually are not determined until space and time form in each subverse.
> 
> So...wrong, mostly.
Click to expand...

That would be unnecessarily complex to have different fundamental laws of nature.  

Why do you believe the laws of nature would be any different in another multiverse if each multiverse were created according to the laws of quantum mechanics and conservation?


----------



## edthecynic

ding said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Besides for all we know God gave us a spark of life.
> 
> 
> 
> Who gave God the spark of life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No need.  *God is eternal* and unchanging.
> 
> Consciousness without form.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove it.
> The only thing PROVEN to be eternal is ENERGY!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And eventually equilibrates which we don't see.
> 
> Not to mention that matter and energy cannot exist outside of space and time without creating space and time.
Click to expand...

Equilibrium violates the Third Law of Thermodynamics.
And thank you for admitting Energy created space/time.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe God willed existence into being.
> 
> 
> 
> What willed God into being?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What part of eternal and unchanging did you not understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The part everyone with training in logic understands is that is a fallacy called "special pleading".
Click to expand...

You've never provided your training, so there's that.  

Unlike you I actually have a logical argument for my beliefs that is founded in reality.

Matter and energy cannot exist forever without reaching thermal equilibrium because matter and energy cannot be unchanging.

Matter and energy cannot exist outside of space and time because the existence of matter and energy creates space and time.

So the only solution to what created space and time is no thing.  Because things are made up of matter an energy.

Spirit is no thing.  

Spirit or consciousness without form can exist outside of space and time.

Spirit or consciousness without form can be eternal.

Spirit or consciousness without form can be unchanging.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> That would be unnecessarily complex to have different fundamental laws of nature.


False. The necessity of it emerges all on its own from the mathematics of subverses.


----------



## toobfreak

Boss said:


> *Why do the God-haters persist?*


If no one else has already said it, let me make it very simple for you.  No reason to complicate things.

Atheists HATE the idea of God because it takes control and determination of their lives as the center of power away from THEM--- self-determination.  It also makes them answer to an absolute code of morality rather than their own relative, ego-istic one.  Inconvenient.

Governments hate God for a similar reason, it removes them as the highest power for which man must answer to.  Control.  It also forces them to deal with human morality, the very antithesis of government, a machine.


----------



## ding

edthecynic said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Besides for all we know God gave us a spark of life.
> 
> 
> 
> Who gave God the spark of life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No need.  *God is eternal* and unchanging.
> 
> Consciousness without form.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove it.
> The only thing PROVEN to be eternal is ENERGY!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And eventually equilibrates which we don't see.
> 
> Not to mention that matter and energy cannot exist outside of space and time without creating space and time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Equilibrium violates the Third Law of Thermodynamics.
> And thank you for admitting Energy created space/time.
Click to expand...

Not this again.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would be unnecessarily complex to have different fundamental laws of nature.
> 
> 
> 
> False. The necessity of it emerges all on its own from the mathematics of subverses.
Click to expand...

Horseshit.  What part of the discussion on multiverses did you miss that explains how multiverses are created?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Unlike you I actually have a logical argument for my beliefs that is founded in reality.


False. All of it is founded on magical first premises, the truth of which you could not possibly know, rendering your logic possibly unsound. Not that you have any idea what that word means, in this context.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would be unnecessarily complex to have different fundamental laws of nature.
> 
> 
> 
> False. The necessity of it emerges all on its own from the mathematics of subverses.
Click to expand...

Sounds extremely vague.


----------



## edthecynic

ding said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who gave God the spark of life?
> 
> 
> 
> No need.  *God is eternal* and unchanging.
> 
> Consciousness without form.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove it.
> The only thing PROVEN to be eternal is ENERGY!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And eventually equilibrates which we don't see.
> 
> Not to mention that matter and energy cannot exist outside of space and time without creating space and time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Equilibrium violates the Third Law of Thermodynamics.
> And thank you for admitting Energy created space/time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not this again.
Click to expand...

YOU brought YOUR pontification up, did you really expect it to go unchallenged afterwards???


----------



## ding

edthecynic said:


> And thank you for admitting Energy created space/time.


The existence of energy creates space and time so technically what created energy created space and time.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

toobfreak said:


> Atheists HATE the idea of God because it takes control and determination of their lives as the center of power away from THEM--- self-determination.


False. Most atheists simply pay no mind to the idea and have no use for it. Your whiny diatribe is just an excerise in self soothing and in self affirmation.


----------



## ding

edthecynic said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> No need.  *God is eternal* and unchanging.
> 
> Consciousness without form.
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it.
> The only thing PROVEN to be eternal is ENERGY!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And eventually equilibrates which we don't see.
> 
> Not to mention that matter and energy cannot exist outside of space and time without creating space and time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Equilibrium violates the Third Law of Thermodynamics.
> And thank you for admitting Energy created space/time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not this again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YOU brought YOUR pontification up, did you really expect it to go unchallenged afterwards???
Click to expand...

It's a red herring that has no relation to entropy.  Specifically how useable energy becomes unusable to the system.

But you go right ahead and argue that objects don't equilibrate in the universe.


----------



## Third Party

Boss said:


> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.


I don't think people hate God-I think they hate people who push their beliefs in God on them.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheists HATE the idea of God because it takes control and determination of their lives as the center of power away from THEM--- self-determination.
> 
> 
> 
> False. Most atheists simply pay no mind to the idea and have no use for it. Your whiny diatribe is just an excerise in self soothing and in self affirmation.
Click to expand...

Most atheists aren't here arguing about God.


----------



## ding

Third Party said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think people hate God-I think they hate people who push their beliefs in God on them.
Click to expand...

You do realize that you voluntarily came to a religious forum and chose to discuss the existence of God, right?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think people hate God-I think they hate people who push their beliefs in God on them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do realize that you voluntarily came to a religious forum and chose to discuss the existence of God, right?
Click to expand...

Which is irrelevant whining, as he didn't directly accuse any individual in the thread of this, much less all of them.


----------



## toobfreak

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheists HATE the idea of God because it takes control and determination of their lives as the center of power away from THEM--- self-determination.
> 
> 
> 
> False. Most atheists simply pay no mind to the idea and have no use for it. Your whiny diatribe is just an excerise in self soothing and in self affirmation.
Click to expand...


I see you are so triggered at the thought of God having dominion over your life you couldn't wait to jump in with your stodgy rationalizations justifying it.  The truth is that a man's life is a combination of free will and predetermination.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

toobfreak said:


> I see you are so triggered at the thought of God having dominion over your life you couldn't wait to jump in with your stodgy rationalizations justifying it.


Which is nonsensical self delusion and self soothing, as this is a public forum where that is what everyone does. 

No, I dont believe a magical sky daddy has dominion over anything. And thats all. And this is because I see no need for such a stupid, childish idea. And this is the case for most atheists.

If you have to invent little dollies to play with instead of responding to what I actually say, then you don't need a message board. You only need a mirror and a box of kleenex.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think people hate God-I think they hate people who push their beliefs in God on them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do realize that you voluntarily came to a religious forum and chose to discuss the existence of God, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which is irrelevant whining, as he didn't directly accuse any individual in the thread of this, much less all of them.
Click to expand...

I'm not whining.  I am pointing out that no one is forcing anything upon him.  He is here of his own free will.

You may have been able to understand my point if you knew anything about logic and deductive reasoning.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see you are so triggered at the thought of God having dominion over your life you couldn't wait to jump in with your stodgy rationalizations justifying it.
> 
> 
> 
> Which is nonsensical self delusion and self soothing, as this is a public forum where that is what everyone does.
> 
> No, I dont believe a magical sky daddy has dominion over anything. And thats all. And this is because I see no need for such a stupid, childish idea. And this is the case for most atheists.
> 
> If you have to invent little dollies to play with instead of responding to what I actually say, then you don't need a message board. You only need a mirror and a box of kleenex.
Click to expand...

If that were the case you would have no need to be arguing about it.  

Again... logic.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> I'm not whining. I am pointing out that no one is forcing anything upon him. He is here of his own free will.


Neat! And i am pointing out that he didn't accuse any individual in this thread of forcing anything on him, which makes your comments an irrelevant, whiny distraction.


----------



## toobfreak

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Which is nonsensical self delusion and self soothing, as this is a public forum where that is what everyone does.


  YOU do.  Not everyone.  I'm not the one needing soothing here posting defensive crap.


> I see no need for such a stupid, childish idea. And this is the case for most atheists.


I was an atheist too until sometime in my mid-teens.  I thought it was a stupid childish idea too until I had my great awakening.


> invent little dollies / box of kleenex.


The very reason why you may never wake up.  You know, the very best dreams are the ones where you think you are already awake!  The most ignorant man is the one who thinks he already has all the answers -- -- -- like you.


----------



## Third Party

ding said:


> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think people hate God-I think they hate people who push their beliefs in God on them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do realize that you voluntarily came to a religious forum and chose to discuss the existence of God, right?
Click to expand...

No, I choose to share my thoughts.


----------



## ding

Third Party said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think people hate God-I think they hate people who push their beliefs in God on them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do realize that you voluntarily came to a religious forum and chose to discuss the existence of God, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I choose to share my thoughts.
Click to expand...

Right, so no one here is forcing anything upon you.  We are doing the same exact thing.


----------



## Third Party

ding said:


> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think people hate God-I think they hate people who push their beliefs in God on them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do realize that you voluntarily came to a religious forum and chose to discuss the existence of God, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I choose to share my thoughts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right, so no one here is forcing anything upon you.  We are doing the same exact thing.
Click to expand...

I never said you were forcing me


----------



## toobfreak

Boss said:


> *Why do the God-haters persist?*


Getting back to the actual OP's question, I think it can be answered thusly:

There are more than a few devout Christians (I've seen many here) who absolutely shove their beliefs and faith down other people's throat!  Like it was a calling of theirs.  I fully support each person to make that choice for THEMSELVES.
Probably as a result of #1, a lot of atheists feel the need to adamantly DENY God.  Worse, they put down those who do believe as being silly and backward.  Maybe because some act that way.

The truth always lies in the middle.  I don't pretend to have all the answers but have had powerful experiences that absolutely convinced me of a higher intelligence and all-encompassing force behind the universe.  But I can never prove that to anyone, theists should respect other's choice not to believe and atheists should remember that no matter how strongly their beliefs, they can't prove God DOESN'T exist either, just maybe not "necessary" in their world view.
People ought to leave it at that and quit trying to be "right" in an argument or to "convert" or prove to the other side something they never can.  If you have experienced God, you have no doubts and if you haven't, nothing can ever convince you otherwise.  If the theists are indeed right, then there is a purpose and an intelligent plan to both the universe and life.  But if the atheists are right, life and the universe are one big accident coming from random collisions of dust with no higher purpose or plan and morality is relative.  You decide.


----------



## edthecynic

ding said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> And thank you for admitting Energy created space/time.
> 
> 
> 
> The existence of energy creates space and time so technically *what created energy* created space and time.
Click to expand...

energy cannot be created nor destroyed.


----------



## ding

edthecynic said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> And thank you for admitting Energy created space/time.
> 
> 
> 
> The existence of energy creates space and time so technically *what created energy* created space and time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> energy cannot be created nor destroyed.
Click to expand...

No shit.  But it can have a beginning and useable energy can become unusable energy of the system.  

Inflation Theory, the First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics tells us that it is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool.  In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.


----------



## edthecynic

ding said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it.
> The only thing PROVEN to be eternal is ENERGY!
> 
> 
> 
> And eventually equilibrates which we don't see.
> 
> Not to mention that matter and energy cannot exist outside of space and time without creating space and time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Equilibrium violates the Third Law of Thermodynamics.
> And thank you for admitting Energy created space/time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not this again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YOU brought YOUR pontification up, did you really expect it to go unchallenged afterwards???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a red herring that has no relation to entropy.  Specifically how useable energy becomes unusable to the system.
> 
> But you go right ahead and *argue that objects don't equilibrate in the universe*.
Click to expand...

why would I argue YOUR stupid Straw Man?
While objects within the universe can equilibrate, the UNIVERSE cannot equilibrate!


----------



## ding

edthecynic said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> And eventually equilibrates which we don't see.
> 
> Not to mention that matter and energy cannot exist outside of space and time without creating space and time.
> 
> 
> 
> Equilibrium violates the Third Law of Thermodynamics.
> And thank you for admitting Energy created space/time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not this again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YOU brought YOUR pontification up, did you really expect it to go unchallenged afterwards???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a red herring that has no relation to entropy.  Specifically how useable energy becomes unusable to the system.
> 
> But you go right ahead and *argue that objects don't equilibrate in the universe*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why would I argue YOUR stupid Straw Man?
> While objects within the universe can equilibrate, the UNIVERSE cannot equilibrate!
Click to expand...

You are going to make semantics argument.  Good Lord, you are getting desperate.


----------



## edthecynic

ding said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> And thank you for admitting Energy created space/time.
> 
> 
> 
> The existence of energy creates space and time so technically *what created energy* created space and time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> energy cannot be created nor destroyed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No shit.  But *it can have a beginning* and useable energy can become unusable energy of the system.
Click to expand...

No energy can't! That is what CANNOT BE CREATED means. DUH!


----------



## edthecynic

ding said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equilibrium violates the Third Law of Thermodynamics.
> And thank you for admitting Energy created space/time.
> 
> 
> 
> Not this again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YOU brought YOUR pontification up, did you really expect it to go unchallenged afterwards???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a red herring that has no relation to entropy.  Specifically how useable energy becomes unusable to the system.
> 
> But you go right ahead and *argue that objects don't equilibrate in the universe*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why would I argue YOUR stupid Straw Man?
> While objects within the universe can equilibrate, the UNIVERSE cannot equilibrate!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are going to make semantics argument.  Good Lord, you are getting desperate.
Click to expand...

It is NOT semantics, and nobody knows that better than YOU!


----------



## ding

edthecynic said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> And thank you for admitting Energy created space/time.
> 
> 
> 
> The existence of energy creates space and time so technically *what created energy* created space and time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> energy cannot be created nor destroyed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No shit.  But *it can have a beginning* and useable energy can become unusable energy of the system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No energy can't! That is what CANNOT BE CREATED means. DUH!
Click to expand...

I just explained how.  Here, let me do it again.  

Inflation Theory, the First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics tells us that it is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.


----------



## ding

edthecynic said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not this again.
> 
> 
> 
> YOU brought YOUR pontification up, did you really expect it to go unchallenged afterwards???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a red herring that has no relation to entropy.  Specifically how useable energy becomes unusable to the system.
> 
> But you go right ahead and *argue that objects don't equilibrate in the universe*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why would I argue YOUR stupid Straw Man?
> While objects within the universe can equilibrate, the UNIVERSE cannot equilibrate!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are going to make semantics argument.  Good Lord, you are getting desperate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is NOT semantics, and nobody knows that better than YOU!
Click to expand...

Actually, you are right.  You got it totally wrong. The objects are the universe and you have already aditted that they equilibrate.


----------



## edthecynic

ding said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> And thank you for admitting Energy created space/time.
> 
> 
> 
> The existence of energy creates space and time so technically *what created energy* created space and time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> energy cannot be created nor destroyed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No shit.  But *it can have a beginning* and useable energy can become unusable energy of the system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No energy can't! That is what CANNOT BE CREATED means. DUH!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just explained how.  Here, let me do it again.
> 
> Inflation Theory, the First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics tells us that it is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. *So a closed universe can spontaneously appear* - through the laws of quantum mechanics - *out of nothing*. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that *a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence* and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.
Click to expand...

That is all pore BULLSHIT doublespeak! And you know it!
It actually contradicts itself, but you are too STUPID to see it!


----------



## edthecynic

ding said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOU brought YOUR pontification up, did you really expect it to go unchallenged afterwards???
> 
> 
> 
> It's a red herring that has no relation to entropy.  Specifically how useable energy becomes unusable to the system.
> 
> But you go right ahead and *argue that objects don't equilibrate in the universe*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why would I argue YOUR stupid Straw Man?
> While objects within the universe can equilibrate, the UNIVERSE cannot equilibrate!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are going to make semantics argument.  Good Lord, you are getting desperate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is NOT semantics, and nobody knows that better than YOU!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, you are right.  You got it totally wrong. The objects are the universe and you have already aditted that they equilibrate.
Click to expand...

SOME objects within the universe can equilibrate, but the universe as a whole cannot.
Get it now?


----------



## ding

edthecynic said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a red herring that has no relation to entropy.  Specifically how useable energy becomes unusable to the system.
> 
> But you go right ahead and *argue that objects don't equilibrate in the universe*.
> 
> 
> 
> why would I argue YOUR stupid Straw Man?
> While objects within the universe can equilibrate, the UNIVERSE cannot equilibrate!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are going to make semantics argument.  Good Lord, you are getting desperate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is NOT semantics, and nobody knows that better than YOU!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, you are right.  You got it totally wrong. The objects are the universe and you have already aditted that they equilibrate.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> SOME objects within the universe can equilibrate, but the universe as a whole cannot.
> Get it now?
Click to expand...

So you believe some objects have a super power to prevent their energy from flowing to cooler objects?

That's weird.  You should publish that shit.


----------



## ding

edthecynic said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The existence of energy creates space and time so technically *what created energy* created space and time.
> 
> 
> 
> energy cannot be created nor destroyed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No shit.  But *it can have a beginning* and useable energy can become unusable energy of the system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No energy can't! That is what CANNOT BE CREATED means. DUH!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just explained how.  Here, let me do it again.
> 
> Inflation Theory, the First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics tells us that it is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. *So a closed universe can spontaneously appear* - through the laws of quantum mechanics - *out of nothing*. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that *a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence* and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is all pore BULLSHIT doublespeak! And you know it!
> It actually contradicts itself, but you are too STUPID to see it!
Click to expand...

That's quite a technical argument you just made there, Ed 

Please tell me how it contradicts itself, Ed.  I'm sure Alexander Vilenkin would love to hear about how some anonymous internet troll, found a flaw in his work.


----------



## edthecynic

ding said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> why would I argue YOUR stupid Straw Man?
> While objects within the universe can equilibrate, the UNIVERSE cannot equilibrate!
> 
> 
> 
> You are going to make semantics argument.  Good Lord, you are getting desperate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is NOT semantics, and nobody knows that better than YOU!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, you are right.  You got it totally wrong. The objects are the universe and you have already aditted that they equilibrate.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> SOME objects within the universe can equilibrate, but the universe as a whole cannot.
> Get it now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you believe some objects have a super power to prevent their energy from flowing to cooler objects?
> 
> That's weird.  You should publish that shit.
Click to expand...

Your desperation is showing!


----------



## edthecynic

ding said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> energy cannot be created nor destroyed.
> 
> 
> 
> No shit.  But *it can have a beginning* and useable energy can become unusable energy of the system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No energy can't! That is what CANNOT BE CREATED means. DUH!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just explained how.  Here, let me do it again.
> 
> Inflation Theory, the First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics tells us that it is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. *So a closed universe can spontaneously appear* - through the laws of quantum mechanics - *out of nothing*. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that *a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence* and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is all pore BULLSHIT doublespeak! And you know it!
> It actually contradicts itself, but you are too STUPID to see it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's quite a technical argument you just made there, Ed
> 
> Please tell me how it contradicts itself, Ed.  I'm sure Alexander Vilenkin would love to hear about how some anonymous internet troll, found a flaw in his work.
Click to expand...

The perpetual dumb act!
I highlighted the obvious contradiction, reducing you to name dropping people whose concepts YOU don't even understand.


----------



## ding

edthecynic said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are going to make semantics argument.  Good Lord, you are getting desperate.
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT semantics, and nobody knows that better than YOU!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, you are right.  You got it totally wrong. The objects are the universe and you have already aditted that they equilibrate.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> SOME objects within the universe can equilibrate, but the universe as a whole cannot.
> Get it now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you believe some objects have a super power to prevent their energy from flowing to cooler objects?
> 
> That's weird.  You should publish that shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your desperation is showing!
Click to expand...

I just smoked your ass, Ed.  

So tell me, since you don't believe that all objects in the universe will equilibrate, what would it look like if the universe existed forever as far as the objects that would equilibrate?  

And are we in a special place where the laws of physics break down and our objects won't equilibrate?  How does that work?  What would that look like? Would I be able to make an infinite fire that would never die out?


----------



## ding

edthecynic said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> No shit.  But *it can have a beginning* and useable energy can become unusable energy of the system.
> 
> 
> 
> No energy can't! That is what CANNOT BE CREATED means. DUH!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just explained how.  Here, let me do it again.
> 
> Inflation Theory, the First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics tells us that it is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. *So a closed universe can spontaneously appear* - through the laws of quantum mechanics - *out of nothing*. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that *a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence* and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is all pore BULLSHIT doublespeak! And you know it!
> It actually contradicts itself, but you are too STUPID to see it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's quite a technical argument you just made there, Ed
> 
> Please tell me how it contradicts itself, Ed.  I'm sure Alexander Vilenkin would love to hear about how some anonymous internet troll, found a flaw in his work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The perpetual dumb act!
> I highlighted the obvious contradiction, reducing you to name dropping people whose concepts YOU don't even understand.
Click to expand...

I don't see how they are contradictions, Ed.  Can you explain how they contradict each other?


----------



## Third Party

edthecynic said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> And thank you for admitting Energy created space/time.
> 
> 
> 
> The existence of energy creates space and time so technically *what created energy* created space and time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> energy cannot be created nor destroyed.
Click to expand...

This thread was created-can_ it_ be destroyed?


----------



## edthecynic

ding said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT semantics, and nobody knows that better than YOU!
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you are right.  You got it totally wrong. The objects are the universe and you have already aditted that they equilibrate.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> SOME objects within the universe can equilibrate, but the universe as a whole cannot.
> Get it now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you believe some objects have a super power to prevent their energy from flowing to cooler objects?
> 
> That's weird.  You should publish that shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your desperation is showing!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just smoked your ass, Ed.
> 
> So tell me, since you don't believe that all objects in the universe will equilibrate, what would it look like if the universe existed forever as far as the objects that would equilibrate?
> 
> And are we in a special place where the laws of physics break down and our objects won't equilibrate?  How does that work?  What would that look like? Would I be able to make an infinite fire that would never die out?
Click to expand...

stable atoms do not equilibrate, as you well know. If stable atoms lost energy no matter could exist. Only in your imaginary world of thermal equilibrium do the laws thermodynamics break down.
Quit trying to impose your bullshit as coming from me.


----------



## edthecynic

ding said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> No energy can't! That is what CANNOT BE CREATED means. DUH!
> 
> 
> 
> I just explained how.  Here, let me do it again.
> 
> Inflation Theory, the First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics tells us that it is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. *So a closed universe can spontaneously appear* - through the laws of quantum mechanics - *out of nothing*. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that *a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence* and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is all pore BULLSHIT doublespeak! And you know it!
> It actually contradicts itself, but you are too STUPID to see it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's quite a technical argument you just made there, Ed
> 
> Please tell me how it contradicts itself, Ed.  I'm sure Alexander Vilenkin would love to hear about how some anonymous internet troll, found a flaw in his work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The perpetual dumb act!
> I highlighted the obvious contradiction, reducing you to name dropping people whose concepts YOU don't even understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't see how they are contradictions, Ed.  Can you explain how they contradict each other?
Click to expand...

Still the perpetual dumb act.
Very high energy is NOT nothing! DUH!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

toobfreak said:


> I was an atheist too until sometime in my mid-teens. I thought it was a stupid childish idea too until I had my great awakening.


Which was a physical phenomenon contained wholly within the sack of chemicals called your brain.


----------



## ding

Third Party said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> And thank you for admitting Energy created space/time.
> 
> 
> 
> The existence of energy creates space and time so technically *what created energy* created space and time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> energy cannot be created nor destroyed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This thread was created-can_ it_ be destroyed?
Click to expand...

Yes, but no matter or energy will be destroyed. 

This is fundamental science.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was an atheist too until sometime in my mid-teens. I thought it was a stupid childish idea too until I had my great awakening.
> 
> 
> 
> Which was a physical phenomenon contained wholly within the sack of chemicals called your brain.
Click to expand...

Not if I am right and you are wrong.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Not if I am right and you are wrong.


Well of course, anything becomes possible, when magic is introduced.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not if I am right and you are wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> Well of course, anything becomes possible, when magic is introduced.
Click to expand...

It’s only magic to you. To the creator of existence which I can only describe as consciousness without form it is quite natural. 

You need to push the magic narrative because your arguments are weak. 

I quote science and you call it magic.


----------



## ding

edthecynic said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you are right.  You got it totally wrong. The objects are the universe and you have already aditted that they equilibrate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SOME objects within the universe can equilibrate, but the universe as a whole cannot.
> Get it now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you believe some objects have a super power to prevent their energy from flowing to cooler objects?
> 
> That's weird.  You should publish that shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your desperation is showing!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just smoked your ass, Ed.
> 
> So tell me, since you don't believe that all objects in the universe will equilibrate, what would it look like if the universe existed forever as far as the objects that would equilibrate?
> 
> And are we in a special place where the laws of physics break down and our objects won't equilibrate?  How does that work?  What would that look like? Would I be able to make an infinite fire that would never die out?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> stable atoms do not equilibrate, as you well know. If stable atoms lost energy no matter could exist. Only in your imaginary world of thermal equilibrium do the laws thermodynamics break down.
> Quit trying to impose your bullshit as coming from me.
Click to expand...

I’m not discussing atoms. I am discussing the things that atoms make up. 

The laws of thermodynamics don’t break down.   There is no infinite supply of energy in the universe. Everything will cool down as time approaches infinity. It can’t be helped. 

And since we don’t see that now, this confirms the universe had a beginning.


----------



## ding

edthecynic said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just explained how.  Here, let me do it again.
> 
> Inflation Theory, the First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics tells us that it is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. *So a closed universe can spontaneously appear* - through the laws of quantum mechanics - *out of nothing*. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that *a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence* and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.
> 
> 
> 
> That is all pore BULLSHIT doublespeak! And you know it!
> It actually contradicts itself, but you are too STUPID to see it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's quite a technical argument you just made there, Ed
> 
> Please tell me how it contradicts itself, Ed.  I'm sure Alexander Vilenkin would love to hear about how some anonymous internet troll, found a flaw in his work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The perpetual dumb act!
> I highlighted the obvious contradiction, reducing you to name dropping people whose concepts YOU don't even understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't see how they are contradictions, Ed.  Can you explain how they contradict each other?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still the perpetual dumb act.
> Very high energy is NOT nothing! DUH!
Click to expand...

Read it again.  The very high energy is the universe after it is created from nothing.  The give away was the part you left out. 

Try again.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> It’s only magic to you.


False. It is also magic to you. You simply don't like that word, because it puts your magical fetish on the same shelf as all other magical fetishes, and you think your magical fetish is special.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s only magic to you.
> 
> 
> 
> False. It is also magic to you. You simply don't like that word, because it puts your magical fetish on the same shelf as all other magical fetishes, and you think your magical fetish is special.
Click to expand...

I don’t like that word because militant atheists who condemn respect for people of faith and who want to subordinate religion use it for their evil purposes. 

But putting that aside I haven’t gotten within a hundred miles of magic in my argument so it is incorrect and illogical to use it that way.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> I don’t like that word because militant atheists who condemn respect for people of faith and who want to subordinate religion use it for their evil purposes.


Well, that's a "you" problem. It's not my job to cater to your insecurities and fetishes.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don’t like that word because militant atheists who condemn respect for people of faith and who want to subordinate religion use it for their evil purposes.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that's a "you" problem. It's not my job to cater to your insecurities and fetishes.
Click to expand...

Which makes me your problem.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Which makes me your problem.


False. You are no more my problem than some aboriginal Amazonian who insists the banana god is determinining what I have for breakfast.


----------



## Third Party

ding said:


> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> And thank you for admitting Energy created space/time.
> 
> 
> 
> The existence of energy creates space and time so technically *what created energy* created space and time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> energy cannot be created nor destroyed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This thread was created-can_ it_ be destroyed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, but no matter or energy will be destroyed.
> 
> This is fundamental science.
Click to expand...

Are thoughts energy?


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which makes me your problem.
> 
> 
> 
> False. You are no more my problem than some aboriginal Amazonian who insists the banana god is determinining what I have for breakfast.
Click to expand...

Liar says wut?

You are in the top three of liars here which is saying something. Because the other two are subversive plants.


----------



## ding

Third Party said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> And thank you for admitting Energy created space/time.
> 
> 
> 
> The existence of energy creates space and time so technically *what created energy* created space and time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> energy cannot be created nor destroyed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This thread was created-can_ it_ be destroyed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, but no matter or energy will be destroyed.
> 
> This is fundamental science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are thoughts energy?
Click to expand...

Not that we can measure outside the body.

But if you are asking if they contribute to the mass balance of the universe, no. And since mass and energy are equivalent thoughts are not a part of the total energy of the universe either.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which makes me your problem.
> 
> 
> 
> False. You are no more my problem than some aboriginal Amazonian who insists the banana god is determinining what I have for breakfast.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar says wut?
> 
> You are in the top three of liars here which is saying something. Because the other two are subversive plants.
Click to expand...

Aww, poor ding doesn't like his preferred magical fetish put on the same shelf as others' magical fetishes.

Because ding's magical fetish is SPECIAL.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which makes me your problem.
> 
> 
> 
> False. You are no more my problem than some aboriginal Amazonian who insists the banana god is determinining what I have for breakfast.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar says wut?
> 
> You are in the top three of liars here which is saying something. Because the other two are subversive plants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aww, poor ding doesn't like his preferred magical fetish put on the same shelf as others' magical fetishes.
> 
> Because ding's magical fetish is SPECIAL.
Click to expand...

Get lost.


----------



## edthecynic

ding said:


> *I’m not discussing atoms.*
> I am discussing the things that atoms make up.
> 
> The laws of thermodynamics don’t break down. *There is no infinite supply of energy in the universe*. Everything will cool down as time approaches infinity. It can’t be helped.


Of course not because they blow a hole in your BS.
Energy cannot be destroyed therefore the universe will never run out of energy.


----------



## edthecynic

ding said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is all pore BULLSHIT doublespeak! And you know it!
> It actually contradicts itself, but you are too STUPID to see it!
> 
> 
> 
> That's quite a technical argument you just made there, Ed
> 
> Please tell me how it contradicts itself, Ed.  I'm sure Alexander Vilenkin would love to hear about how some anonymous internet troll, found a flaw in his work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The perpetual dumb act!
> I highlighted the obvious contradiction, reducing you to name dropping people whose concepts YOU don't even understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't see how they are contradictions, Ed.  Can you explain how they contradict each other?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still the perpetual dumb act.
> Very high energy is NOT nothing! DUH!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read it again.  The *very high energy is the universe after it is created from nothing.*  The give away was the part you left out.
> 
> Try again.
Click to expand...

Hogwash!
Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, and there is no such thing as nothing.

And the giveaway to your STUPIDITY is in the part I edited out!
'"In a closed universe t*he gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter*. So the energy of a closed universe *is always zero*. "

So equal amounts of two somethings always equals nothing.


----------



## JimBowie1958

edthecynic said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's quite a technical argument you just made there, Ed
> 
> Please tell me how it contradicts itself, Ed.  I'm sure Alexander Vilenkin would love to hear about how some anonymous internet troll, found a flaw in his work.
> 
> 
> 
> The perpetual dumb act!
> I highlighted the obvious contradiction, reducing you to name dropping people whose concepts YOU don't even understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't see how they are contradictions, Ed.  Can you explain how they contradict each other?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still the perpetual dumb act.
> Very high energy is NOT nothing! DUH!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read it again.  The *very high energy is the universe after it is created from nothing.*  The give away was the part you left out.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hogwash!
> Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, and there is no such thing as nothing.
> 
> And the giveaway to your STUPIDITY is in the part I edited out!
> '"In a closed universe t*he gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter*. So the energy of a closed universe *is always zero*. "
> 
> So equal amounts of two somethings always equals nothing.
Click to expand...

edtheseptic is one of the biggest trolls on these forums, distorting peoples statements, refusing to answer simple questions to explain himself and being rude, crude and pointless.

He is much better on ignore.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

JimBowie1958 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The perpetual dumb act!
> I highlighted the obvious contradiction, reducing you to name dropping people whose concepts YOU don't even understand.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see how they are contradictions, Ed.  Can you explain how they contradict each other?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still the perpetual dumb act.
> Very high energy is NOT nothing! DUH!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read it again.  The *very high energy is the universe after it is created from nothing.*  The give away was the part you left out.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hogwash!
> Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, and there is no such thing as nothing.
> 
> And the giveaway to your STUPIDITY is in the part I edited out!
> '"In a closed universe t*he gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter*. So the energy of a closed universe *is always zero*. "
> 
> So equal amounts of two somethings always equals nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> edtheseptic is one of the biggest trolls on these forums, distorting peoples statements, refusing to answer simple questions to explain himself and being rude, crude and pointless.
> 
> He is much better on ignore.
Click to expand...

There you go. Just ignore everyone who disagrees with you. How many does that make,now?


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see how they are contradictions, Ed.  Can you explain how they contradict each other?
> 
> 
> 
> Still the perpetual dumb act.
> Very high energy is NOT nothing! DUH!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read it again.  The *very high energy is the universe after it is created from nothing.*  The give away was the part you left out.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hogwash!
> Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, and there is no such thing as nothing.
> 
> And the giveaway to your STUPIDITY is in the part I edited out!
> '"In a closed universe t*he gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter*. So the energy of a closed universe *is always zero*. "
> 
> So equal amounts of two somethings always equals nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> edtheseptic is one of the biggest trolls on these forums, distorting peoples statements, refusing to answer simple questions to explain himself and being rude, crude and pointless.
> 
> He is much better on ignore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There you go. Just ignore everyone who disagrees with you. How many does that make,now?
Click to expand...

Just the dishonest ones like yourself. 

You
Hobelim
Breezwood
Hollie
Ed
Taz


----------



## ding

edthecynic said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's quite a technical argument you just made there, Ed
> 
> Please tell me how it contradicts itself, Ed.  I'm sure Alexander Vilenkin would love to hear about how some anonymous internet troll, found a flaw in his work.
> 
> 
> 
> The perpetual dumb act!
> I highlighted the obvious contradiction, reducing you to name dropping people whose concepts YOU don't even understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't see how they are contradictions, Ed.  Can you explain how they contradict each other?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still the perpetual dumb act.
> Very high energy is NOT nothing! DUH!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read it again.  The *very high energy is the universe after it is created from nothing.*  The give away was the part you left out.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hogwash!
> Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, and there is no such thing as nothing.
> 
> And the giveaway to your STUPIDITY is in the part I edited out!
> '"In a closed universe t*he gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter*. So the energy of a closed universe *is always zero*. "
> 
> So equal amounts of two somethings always equals nothing.
Click to expand...

You should write a paper on it, Ed


----------



## ding

edthecynic said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I’m not discussing atoms.*
> I am discussing the things that atoms make up.
> 
> The laws of thermodynamics don’t break down. *There is no infinite supply of energy in the universe*. Everything will cool down as time approaches infinity. It can’t be helped.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not because they blow a hole in your BS.
> Energy cannot be destroyed therefore the universe will never run out of energy.
Click to expand...

Dude, you’ve already been exposed.  Again.


----------



## JimBowie1958

ding said:


> *There you go. Just ignore everyone who disagrees with you. How many does that make,now?*
> Just the dishonest ones like yourself.
> You
> Hobelim
> Breezwood
> Hollie
> Ed
> Taz



I dont have Taz on ignore. 

Just the irrational slogan spewing Nimrods without a functioning brain cell.


----------



## JimBowie1958

ding said:


> You should write a paper on it, Ed



I am sure he would just buy it from a report mill so why bother?


----------



## ding

JimBowie1958 said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> *There you go. Just ignore everyone who disagrees with you. How many does that make,now?*
> Just the dishonest ones like yourself.
> You
> Hobelim
> Breezwood
> Hollie
> Ed
> Taz
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont have Taz on ignore.
> 
> Just the irrational slogan spewing Nimrods without a functioning brain cell.
Click to expand...

Taz is at least entertaining. Same for Sealybobo. They can be insufferable some of the time but nothing like the ones on my list.


----------



## ding

JimBowie1958 said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should write a paper on it, Ed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure he would just buy it from a report mill so why bother?
Click to expand...

He’s arguing gibberish. Same as FF.

Neither one could back up a car let alone the lies they are spewing.


----------



## JimBowie1958

ding said:


> Neither one could back up a car let alone the lies they are spewing.


Critical question:

Would you let any of these 'tards pack your parachute if you knew you were going to use it?

Not unless I had a death wish.


----------



## edthecynic

ding said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The perpetual dumb act!
> I highlighted the obvious contradiction, reducing you to name dropping people whose concepts YOU don't even understand.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see how they are contradictions, Ed.  Can you explain how they contradict each other?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still the perpetual dumb act.
> Very high energy is NOT nothing! DUH!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read it again.  The *very high energy is the universe after it is created from nothing.*  The give away was the part you left out.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hogwash!
> Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, and there is no such thing as nothing.
> 
> And the giveaway to your STUPIDITY is in the part I edited out!
> '"In a closed universe t*he gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter*. So the energy of a closed universe *is always zero*. "
> 
> So equal amounts of two somethings always equals nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should write a paper on it, Ed
Click to expand...

You wouldn't understand it!
You think the quantum fluctuation of positive ENERGY and negative ENERGY created the already existing fluctuating ENERGY from nothing.


----------



## ding

edthecynic said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see how they are contradictions, Ed.  Can you explain how they contradict each other?
> 
> 
> 
> Still the perpetual dumb act.
> Very high energy is NOT nothing! DUH!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read it again.  The *very high energy is the universe after it is created from nothing.*  The give away was the part you left out.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hogwash!
> Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, and there is no such thing as nothing.
> 
> And the giveaway to your STUPIDITY is in the part I edited out!
> '"In a closed universe t*he gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter*. So the energy of a closed universe *is always zero*. "
> 
> So equal amounts of two somethings always equals nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should write a paper on it, Ed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You wouldn't understand it!
> You think the quantum fluctuation of positive ENERGY and negative ENERGY created the already existing fluctuating ENERGY from nothing.
Click to expand...

I think your mom is going to come in and bring you snacks.


----------



## BreezeWood

.
one thing is certain if bossy could reply in this thread he would ... i guess could would be if he first made it to the Everlasting.


----------



## edthecynic

ding said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still the perpetual dumb act.
> Very high energy is NOT nothing! DUH!
> 
> 
> 
> Read it again.  The *very high energy is the universe after it is created from nothing.*  The give away was the part you left out.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hogwash!
> Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, and there is no such thing as nothing.
> 
> And the giveaway to your STUPIDITY is in the part I edited out!
> '"In a closed universe t*he gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter*. So the energy of a closed universe *is always zero*. "
> 
> So equal amounts of two somethings always equals nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should write a paper on it, Ed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You wouldn't understand it!
> You think the quantum fluctuation of positive ENERGY and negative ENERGY created the already existing fluctuating ENERGY from nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think your mom is going to come in and bring you snacks.
Click to expand...

Thank you for proving that the positive and negative ENERGY fluctuations that you say created space/time "from nothing" are actually SOMETHING called ENERGY.


----------



## ding

edthecynic said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read it again.  The *very high energy is the universe after it is created from nothing.*  The give away was the part you left out.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> 
> 
> Hogwash!
> Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, and there is no such thing as nothing.
> 
> And the giveaway to your STUPIDITY is in the part I edited out!
> '"In a closed universe t*he gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter*. So the energy of a closed universe *is always zero*. "
> 
> So equal amounts of two somethings always equals nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should write a paper on it, Ed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You wouldn't understand it!
> You think the quantum fluctuation of positive ENERGY and negative ENERGY created the already existing fluctuating ENERGY from nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think your mom is going to come in and bring you snacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for proving that the positive and negative ENERGY fluctuations that you say created space/time "from nothing" are actually SOMETHING called ENERGY.
Click to expand...

Were the snacks good?


----------



## ding

JimBowie1958 said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither one could back up a car let alone the lies they are spewing.
> 
> 
> 
> Critical question:
> 
> Would you let any of these 'tards pack your parachute if you knew you were going to use it?
> 
> Not unless I had a death wish.
Click to expand...

No. I draw the line at letting them cook my burgers and fries.


----------



## edthecynic

ding said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hogwash!
> Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, and there is no such thing as nothing.
> 
> And the giveaway to your STUPIDITY is in the part I edited out!
> '"In a closed universe t*he gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter*. So the energy of a closed universe *is always zero*. "
> 
> So equal amounts of two somethings always equals nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> You should write a paper on it, Ed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You wouldn't understand it!
> You think the quantum fluctuation of positive ENERGY and negative ENERGY created the already existing fluctuating ENERGY from nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think your mom is going to come in and bring you snacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for proving that the positive and negative ENERGY fluctuations that you say created space/time "from nothing" are actually SOMETHING called ENERGY.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Were the snacks good?
Click to expand...

Again you concede that positive and negative energy are somethings!


----------



## ding

edthecynic said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should write a paper on it, Ed
> 
> 
> 
> You wouldn't understand it!
> You think the quantum fluctuation of positive ENERGY and negative ENERGY created the already existing fluctuating ENERGY from nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think your mom is going to come in and bring you snacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for proving that the positive and negative ENERGY fluctuations that you say created space/time "from nothing" are actually SOMETHING called ENERGY.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Were the snacks good?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you concede that positive and negative energy are somethings!
Click to expand...

Did she bring milk?


----------



## Hollie

JimBowie1958 said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither one could back up a car let alone the lies they are spewing.
> 
> 
> 
> Critical question:
> 
> Would you let any of these 'tards pack your parachute if you knew you were going to use it?
> 
> Not unless I had a death wish.
Click to expand...

Why be concerned? 

Won't the gods will intervene and save you?


----------



## ding

Militant atheist Jew alert.


----------



## edthecynic

ding said:


> Unlike you I actually have a logical argument for my beliefs that is founded in reality.
> 
> Matter and *energy cannot exist forever *without reaching thermal equilibrium because matter and energy cannot be unchanging.
> 
> Matter and energy cannot exist outside of space and time because the existence of matter and *energy creates space and time.*
> 
> So *the only solution to what created space and time is no thing.* Because things are made up of matter an energy.


Energy exists forever because energy cannot be destroyed.
on one line you say energy created space/time, [energy is a something], and on the very next line you contradict your "logic" by saying no thing created space/time.


----------



## ding

edthecynic said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you I actually have a logical argument for my beliefs that is founded in reality.
> 
> Matter and *energy cannot exist forever *without reaching thermal equilibrium because matter and energy cannot be unchanging.
> 
> Matter and energy cannot exist outside of space and time because the existence of matter and *energy creates space and time.*
> 
> So *the only solution to what created space and time is no thing.* Because things are made up of matter an energy.
> 
> 
> 
> Energy exists forever because energy cannot be destroyed.
> on one line you say energy created space/time, [energy is a something], and on the very next line you contradict your "logic" by saying no thing created space/time.
Click to expand...

Red shift and CMB says otherwise.


----------



## vasuderatorrent

Boss said:


> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.



Maybe they are anti-theist. They actually do believe the force of God is an evil force that harms society. Would you want 250 out of the 435 congressmen to literally believe the Easter bunny brings eggs and candy to all the children?  Well some atheists are not atheist at all. They are anti-theist.  They don't care if God is real or not. They passionately hate Him either way. Voltaire boldly claimed he would spit in God's face. Lots of atrocities are done with the assistance of organizations associated with a powerful, scary control freak. Some think that God has too much power and needs to stop using that power to harm people.

Atheism is apathetic like you described. Anti theism is active. They want to stop the spread of this disgusting plague on society. Yes. The secret is out. You can't hate God if God doesn't exist. God does exist either as a real entity or an imaginary entity that inspires submission in children. That submission opens doors to all kinds of abuses by atheists who hold positions of authority in God's church that care nothing about God at all. They just love the power they have when they abuse his name. Yes. Some people hate the evil power that God has to exploit people whether He is real or imaginary.


----------



## vasuderatorrent

Boss said:


> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.



You may say I can't blame God for all the child molesters in the world. That is true but I can blame God for 90% of them.

Speaking out against a man of God is an abhorrent sin. That didn't just happen in the Roman Catholic Church. Every religion is plagued with this common practice. Fuck God hard for creating the perfect environment for them to thrive. Fuck him a million times. No human should have the power to get away with committing crimes no matter how fucking holy they are. God hasn't murdered and killed the men who create churches. Why not?  Because He doesn't exist. Parents need to protect their own children. God's church won't.  Even if there are good churches out there, a parent should never absolve themselves from protecting their own children.


----------



## BreezeWood

vasuderatorrent said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You may say I can't blame God for all the child molesters in the world. That is true but I can blame God for 90% of them.
> 
> Speaking out against a man of God is an abhorrent sin. That didn't just happen in the Roman Catholic Church. Every religion is plagued with this common practice. Fuck God hard for creating the perfect environment for them to thrive. Fuck him a million times. No human should have the power to get away with committing crimes no matter how fucking holy they are. God hasn't murdered and killed the men who create churches. Why not?  Because He doesn't exist. Parents need to protect their own children. God's church won't.  Even if there are good churches out there, a parent should never absolve themselves from protecting their own children.
Click to expand...

.
if you are expecting a response it may be a while - bossy is deceased.


----------



## Hollie

The title to this thread is really contrived. I can't say I know anyone who hates the (christian) gods. It's pointless to hate any fictional character. 

It's more a matter of holding religions and their adherents accountable for the human suffering they have caused.


----------



## BreezeWood

vasuderatorrent said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You may say I can't blame God for all the child molesters in the world. That is true but I can blame God for 90% of them.
> 
> Speaking out against a man of God is an abhorrent sin. That didn't just happen in the Roman Catholic Church. Every religion is plagued with this common practice. Fuck God hard for creating the perfect environment for them to thrive. Fuck him a million times. No human should have the power to get away with committing crimes no matter how fucking holy they are. God hasn't murdered and killed the men who create churches. Why not?  Because He doesn't exist. Parents need to protect their own children. God's church won't.  Even if there are good churches out there, a parent should never absolve themselves from protecting their own children.
Click to expand...

.


vasuderatorrent said:


> a parent should never absolve themselves from protecting their own children.



from antiquity there is no distinction, the desert religions distinguish themselves by the above to the detriment of a collective humanity they ignore for their own selfrightous purposes.


----------



## edthecynic

ding said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you I actually have a logical argument for my beliefs that is founded in reality.
> 
> Matter and *energy cannot exist forever *without reaching thermal equilibrium because matter and energy cannot be unchanging.
> 
> Matter and energy cannot exist outside of space and time because the existence of matter and *energy creates space and time.*
> 
> So *the only solution to what created space and time is no thing.* Because things are made up of matter an energy.
> 
> 
> 
> Energy exists forever because energy cannot be destroyed.
> on one line you say energy created space/time, [energy is a something], and on the very next line you contradict your "logic" by saying no thing created space/time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Red shift and CMB says otherwise.
Click to expand...

You don't even know what they are!


----------



## JimBowie1958

vasuderatorrent said:


> Voltaire boldly claimed he would spit in God's face.


Voltaire was a fool who was addicted to the applause of other fools like him.


The noted French atheist, Voltaire, died a frightening death. Let me quote for you the exact record as published, “When Voltaire felt the stroke that he realized must terminate in death, he was overpowered with remorse. He at once sent for the priest, and wanted to be ‘reconciled with the church.’ His infidel flatterers hastened to his chamber to prevent his recantation; but it was only to witness his ignominy and their own. He cursed them to their faces; and, as his distress was increased by their presence, he repeatedly and loudly exclaimed, ‘Begone! It is you that have brought me to my present condition. Leave me, I say; begone! What a wretched glory is this which you have produced to me!’

“Hoping to allay his anguish by a written recantation, he had it prepared, signed it, and saw it witnessed. But it was all unavailing. For two months he was tortured with such an agony as led him at times to gnash his teeth in impotent rage against God and man. At other times in plaintive accents, he would plead, ‘O, Christ! O, Lord Jesus!’ Then, turning his face, he would cry out, *‘I must die-abandoned of God and of men!’*

“As his end drew near, his condition became so frightful that his infidel associates were afraid to approach his beside. Still they guarded the door, that others might not know how awfully an infidel was compelled to die. Even his nurse repeatedly said, ‘For all the wealth of Europe I would never see another infidel die.’ It was a scene of horror that lies beyond all exaggeration. Such is the well-attested end of the one who had a natural sovereignty of intellect, excellent education, great wealth, and much earthly honor.” _(Dying Testimonies of Saved and Unsaved by Rev. S B Shaw, pp. 49-50.)_​


----------



## JimBowie1958

vasuderatorrent said:


> Fuck God hard for creating the perfect environment for them to thrive. Fuck him a million times. No human should have the power to get away with committing crimes no matter how fucking holy they are. God hasn't murdered and killed the men who create churches. Why not?  Because He doesn't exist. Parents need to protect their own children. God's church won't.  Even if there are good churches out there, a parent should never absolve themselves from protecting their own children.


When I was in the Army we had idiots like you who would claim to have no fear of higher rank, lol.

This one guy was not preparing for our coming battalion inspection, and when asked why, he would say 'The Colonel puts his pants on one leg at a time, just like I do! Fuck him!' Then he would laugh and act so brave, like a blithering idiot.

The day of the inspection he ran around begging people for items he was missing in his TA50.

Everyone replied 'No I need it for the inspection, tell it to the Battalion Commander!'

Fools like you are born a dime a dozen.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

JimBowie1958 said:


> Voltaire was a fool who was addicted to the applause of other fools like him.


As was Aquinas, but you don't seem to have any problem regurgitating his obsolete work ad nauseum.


----------



## G.T.

vasuderatorrent said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.
> 
> True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.
> 
> _Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss!_ Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories.  It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.
> 
> But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout *believers* in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they *fear* God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.
> 
> Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.
> 
> So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You may say I can't blame God for all the child molesters in the world. That is true but I can blame God for 90% of them.
> 
> Speaking out against a man of God is an abhorrent sin. That didn't just happen in the Roman Catholic Church. Every religion is plagued with this common practice. Fuck God hard for creating the perfect environment for them to thrive. Fuck him a million times. No human should have the power to get away with committing crimes no matter how fucking holy they are. God hasn't murdered and killed the men who create churches. Why not?  Because He doesn't exist. Parents need to protect their own children. God's church won't.  Even if there are good churches out there, a parent should never absolve themselves from protecting their own children.
Click to expand...

The OP is deceased..dont expect a reply.


----------



## edthecynic

JimBowie1958 said:


> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Voltaire boldly claimed he would spit in God's face.
> 
> 
> 
> Voltaire was a fool who was addicted to the applause of other fools like him.
> 
> 
> The noted French atheist, Voltaire, died a frightening death. Let me quote for you the exact record as published, “When Voltaire felt the stroke that he realized must terminate in death, he was overpowered with remorse. He at once sent for the priest, and wanted to be ‘reconciled with the church.’ His infidel flatterers hastened to his chamber to prevent his recantation; but it was only to witness his ignominy and their own. He cursed them to their faces; and, as his distress was increased by their presence, he repeatedly and loudly exclaimed, ‘Begone! It is you that have brought me to my present condition. Leave me, I say; begone! What a wretched glory is this which you have produced to me!’
> 
> “Hoping to allay his anguish by a written recantation, he had it prepared, signed it, and saw it witnessed. But it was all unavailing. For two months he was tortured with such an agony as led him at times to gnash his teeth in impotent rage against God and man. At other times in plaintive accents, he would plead, ‘O, Christ! O, Lord Jesus!’ Then, turning his face, he would cry out, *‘I must die-abandoned of God and of men!’*
> 
> “As his end drew near, his condition became so frightful that his infidel associates were afraid to approach his beside. Still they guarded the door, that others might not know how awfully an infidel was compelled to die. Even his nurse repeatedly said, ‘For all the wealth of Europe I would never see another infidel die.’ It was a scene of horror that lies beyond all exaggeration. Such is the well-attested end of the one who had a natural sovereignty of intellect, excellent education, great wealth, and much earthly honor.” _(Dying Testimonies of Saved and Unsaved by Rev. S B Shaw, pp. 49-50.)_​
Click to expand...

LIES all LIES!

Voltaire, when asked to renounce Satan on his deathbed, said, "Now, now, my good man, this is no time for making enemies."


----------



## vasuderatorrent

JimBowie1958 said:


> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck God hard for creating the perfect environment for them to thrive. Fuck him a million times. No human should have the power to get away with committing crimes no matter how fucking holy they are. God hasn't murdered and killed the men who create churches. Why not?  Because He doesn't exist. Parents need to protect their own children. God's church won't.  Even if there are good churches out there, a parent should never absolve themselves from protecting their own children.
> 
> 
> 
> When I was in the Army we had idiots like you who would claim to have no fear of higher rank, lol.
> 
> This one guy was not preparing for our coming battalion inspection, and when asked why, he would say 'The Colonel puts his pants on one leg at a time, just like I do! Fuck him!' Then he would laugh and act so brave, like a blithering idiot.
> 
> The day of the inspection he ran around begging people for items he was missing in his TA50.
> 
> Everyone replied 'No I need it for the inspection, tell it to the Battalion Commander!'
> 
> Fools like you are born a dime a dozen.
Click to expand...


I am talking about an imaginary being not a human.


----------



## ding

edthecynic said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you I actually have a logical argument for my beliefs that is founded in reality.
> 
> Matter and *energy cannot exist forever *without reaching thermal equilibrium because matter and energy cannot be unchanging.
> 
> Matter and energy cannot exist outside of space and time because the existence of matter and *energy creates space and time.*
> 
> So *the only solution to what created space and time is no thing.* Because things are made up of matter an energy.
> 
> 
> 
> Energy exists forever because energy cannot be destroyed.
> on one line you say energy created space/time, [energy is a something], and on the very next line you contradict your "logic" by saying no thing created space/time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Red shift and CMB says otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't even know what they are!
Click to expand...

Stop being silly.


----------



## edthecynic

ding said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you I actually have a logical argument for my beliefs that is founded in reality.
> 
> Matter and *energy cannot exist forever *without reaching thermal equilibrium because matter and energy cannot be unchanging.
> 
> Matter and energy cannot exist outside of space and time because the existence of matter and *energy creates space and time.*
> 
> So *the only solution to what created space and time is no thing.* Because things are made up of matter an energy.
> 
> 
> 
> Energy exists forever because energy cannot be destroyed.
> on one line you say energy created space/time, [energy is a something], and on the very next line you contradict your "logic" by saying no thing created space/time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Red shift and CMB says otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't even know what they are!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop being silly.
Click to expand...

You first!


----------



## JimBowie1958

vasuderatorrent said:


> I am talking about an imaginary being not a human.


So, describe this so-called 'imaginary being' and lets see what it is you think is so comical about Him.

I doubt you h ave the slightest idea and will not answer the fooking question as you fools rarely ever do.


----------



## vasuderatorrent

JimBowie1958 said:


> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am talking about an imaginary being not a human.
> 
> 
> 
> So, describe this so-called 'imaginary being' and lets see what it is you think is so comical about Him.
> 
> I doubt you h ave the slightest idea and will not answer the fooking question as you fools rarely ever do.
Click to expand...


He is omnipotent, omniscient, all loving, just and loves the smell of burnt animal sacrifices. He created something out of nothing. He started from scratch.  He also hates 6 things but yea 7 are an abomination unto Him. He sent His son to be tortured and killed so that He wouldn't be so angry about the sin stuff.  If you pray to Him about medical issues He will heal some of the people who are prayed for. Some of them He will not heal. He picks and chooses based upon His omniscience. Sometimes He heals people that don't get prayed for based upon His omniscience. He has a lot of attributes similar to a business owner or other ambitious personality.  He is the kind of guy that you want to avoid except on payday. Not a fun guy.

He is sorta imaginary but sorta not. He represents real assholes in real life so the Bible really helps us learn how to treat people like that in real life to gain the best advantage. Kiss their ass, don't piss them off, beg them for the things you want and always be grateful for whatever he gives you.

Oh yeah and He is jealous as fuck. Don't you dare go worship another god.  Just like any business owner, he doesn't want you looking for another job.  Don't be tempted by the better paying fun job down the road. Stay here or I will kill you with passionate hate. Not a nice guy basically.


----------



## BreezeWood

vasuderatorrent said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am talking about an imaginary being not a human.
> 
> 
> 
> So, describe this so-called 'imaginary being' and lets see what it is you think is so comical about Him.
> 
> I doubt you h ave the slightest idea and will not answer the fooking question as you fools rarely ever do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He is omnipotent, omniscient, all loving, just and loves the smell of burnt animal sacrifices. He created something out of nothing. He started from scratch.  He also hates 6 things but yea 7 are an abomination unto Him. He sent His son to be tortured and killed so that He wouldn't be so angry about the sin stuff.  If you pray to Him about medical issues He will heal some of the people who are prayed for. Some of them He will not heal. He picks and chooses based upon His omniscience. Sometimes He heals people that don't get prayed for based upon His omniscience. He has a lot of attributes similar to a business owner or other ambitious personality.  He is the kind of guy that you want to avoid except on payday. Not a fun guy.
> 
> He is sorta imaginary but sorta not. He represents real assholes in real life so the Bible really helps us learn how to treat people like that in real life to gain the best advantage. Kiss their ass, don't piss them off, beg them for the things you want and always be grateful for whatever he gives you.
> 
> Oh yeah and He is jealous as fuck. Don't you dare go worship another god.  Just like any business owner, he doesn't want you looking for another job.  Don't be tempted by the better paying fun job down the road. Stay here or I will kill you with passionate hate. Not a nice guy basically.
Click to expand...

.


vasuderatorrent said:


> Oh yeah and He is jealous as fuck. Don't you dare go worship another god.



jimbowie is drunk on the 4th century, that guy will never wake up.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

BreezeWood said:


> jimbowie is drunk on the 4th century,


That's gold, Jerry!


----------



## JimBowie1958

vasuderatorrent said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am talking about an imaginary being not a human.
> 
> 
> 
> So, describe this so-called 'imaginary being' and lets see what it is you think is so comical about Him.
> 
> I doubt you h ave the slightest idea and will not answer the fooking question as you fools rarely ever do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He is omnipotent, omniscient, all loving, just and loves the smell of burnt animal sacrifices. He created something out of nothing. He started from scratch.  He also hates 6 things but yea 7 are an abomination unto Him. He sent His son to be tortured and killed so that He wouldn't be so angry about the sin stuff.  If you pray to Him about medical issues He will heal some of the people who are prayed for. Some of them He will not heal. He picks and chooses based upon His omniscience. Sometimes He heals people that don't get prayed for based upon His omniscience. He has a lot of attributes similar to a business owner or other ambitious personality.  He is the kind of guy that you want to avoid except on payday. Not a fun guy.
> 
> He is sorta imaginary but sorta not. He represents real assholes in real life so the Bible really helps us learn how to treat people like that in real life to gain the best advantage. Kiss their ass, don't piss them off, beg them for the things you want and always be grateful for whatever he gives you.
> 
> Oh yeah and He is jealous as fuck. Don't you dare go worship another god.  Just like any business owner, he doesn't want you looking for another job.  Don't be tempted by the better paying fun job down the road. Stay here or I will kill you with passionate hate. Not a nice guy basically.
Click to expand...

Yeah, well I dont believe in that godling fellow either.

I believe in the Creator and He is not like that at all.


----------



## ding

vasuderatorrent said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am talking about an imaginary being not a human.
> 
> 
> 
> So, describe this so-called 'imaginary being' and lets see what it is you think is so comical about Him.
> 
> I doubt you h ave the slightest idea and will not answer the fooking question as you fools rarely ever do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He is omnipotent, omniscient, all loving, just and loves the smell of burnt animal sacrifices. He created something out of nothing. He started from scratch.  He also hates 6 things but yea 7 are an abomination unto Him. He sent His son to be tortured and killed so that He wouldn't be so angry about the sin stuff.  If you pray to Him about medical issues He will heal some of the people who are prayed for. Some of them He will not heal. He picks and chooses based upon His omniscience. Sometimes He heals people that don't get prayed for based upon His omniscience. He has a lot of attributes similar to a business owner or other ambitious personality.  He is the kind of guy that you want to avoid except on payday. Not a fun guy.
> 
> He is sorta imaginary but sorta not. He represents real assholes in real life so the Bible really helps us learn how to treat people like that in real life to gain the best advantage. Kiss their ass, don't piss them off, beg them for the things you want and always be grateful for whatever he gives you.
> 
> Oh yeah and He is jealous as fuck. Don't you dare go worship another god.  Just like any business owner, he doesn't want you looking for another job.  Don't be tempted by the better paying fun job down the road. Stay here or I will kill you with passionate hate. Not a nice guy basically.
Click to expand...

Bitter much?


----------



## vasuderatorrent

ding said:


> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am talking about an imaginary being not a human.
> 
> 
> 
> So, describe this so-called 'imaginary being' and lets see what it is you think is so comical about Him.
> 
> I doubt you h ave the slightest idea and will not answer the fooking question as you fools rarely ever do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He is omnipotent, omniscient, all loving, just and loves the smell of burnt animal sacrifices. He created something out of nothing. He started from scratch.  He also hates 6 things but yea 7 are an abomination unto Him. He sent His son to be tortured and killed so that He wouldn't be so angry about the sin stuff.  If you pray to Him about medical issues He will heal some of the people who are prayed for. Some of them He will not heal. He picks and chooses based upon His omniscience. Sometimes He heals people that don't get prayed for based upon His omniscience. He has a lot of attributes similar to a business owner or other ambitious personality.  He is the kind of guy that you want to avoid except on payday. Not a fun guy.
> 
> He is sorta imaginary but sorta not. He represents real assholes in real life so the Bible really helps us learn how to treat people like that in real life to gain the best advantage. Kiss their ass, don't piss them off, beg them for the things you want and always be grateful for whatever he gives you.
> 
> Oh yeah and He is jealous as fuck. Don't you dare go worship another god.  Just like any business owner, he doesn't want you looking for another job.  Don't be tempted by the better paying fun job down the road. Stay here or I will kill you with passionate hate. Not a nice guy basically.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bitter much?
Click to expand...


Oh yeah. The god you know isn't in the Bible. That is probably why you didn't recognize Him. Everything I said about God is based on the Bible. You get to make up the attributes of your God to conveniently fit the situation and make you look awesome.

I was talking about Alohem; Yahweh; Jehovah; Adonai; the Father of the trinity; the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; or the God of the Bible. What is the name of the god that you would like me to describe? This is the god that I know the most about. Sorry. I know nothing about the convenient god that you invented that amazingly has attributes of a 21st Century American.  Weird!

Irreverent much?


----------



## BreezeWood

ding said:


> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am talking about an imaginary being not a human.
> 
> 
> 
> So, describe this so-called 'imaginary being' and lets see what it is you think is so comical about Him.
> 
> I doubt you h ave the slightest idea and will not answer the fooking question as you fools rarely ever do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He is omnipotent, omniscient, all loving, just and loves the smell of burnt animal sacrifices. He created something out of nothing. He started from scratch.  He also hates 6 things but yea 7 are an abomination unto Him. He sent His son to be tortured and killed so that He wouldn't be so angry about the sin stuff.  If you pray to Him about medical issues He will heal some of the people who are prayed for. Some of them He will not heal. He picks and chooses based upon His omniscience. Sometimes He heals people that don't get prayed for based upon His omniscience. He has a lot of attributes similar to a business owner or other ambitious personality.  He is the kind of guy that you want to avoid except on payday. Not a fun guy.
> 
> He is sorta imaginary but sorta not. He represents real assholes in real life so the Bible really helps us learn how to treat people like that in real life to gain the best advantage. Kiss their ass, don't piss them off, beg them for the things you want and always be grateful for whatever he gives you.
> 
> Oh yeah and He is jealous as fuck. Don't you dare go worship another god.  Just like any business owner, he doesn't want you looking for another job.  Don't be tempted by the better paying fun job down the road. Stay here or I will kill you with passionate hate. Not a nice guy basically.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bitter much?
Click to expand...

.


ding said:


> Bitter much?



he woke up from your phony book of forgeries.


----------



## vasuderatorrent

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am talking about an imaginary being not a human.
> 
> 
> 
> So, describe this so-called 'imaginary being' and lets see what it is you think is so comical about Him.
> 
> I doubt you h ave the slightest idea and will not answer the fooking question as you fools rarely ever do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He is omnipotent, omniscient, all loving, just and loves the smell of burnt animal sacrifices. He created something out of nothing. He started from scratch.  He also hates 6 things but yea 7 are an abomination unto Him. He sent His son to be tortured and killed so that He wouldn't be so angry about the sin stuff.  If you pray to Him about medical issues He will heal some of the people who are prayed for. Some of them He will not heal. He picks and chooses based upon His omniscience. Sometimes He heals people that don't get prayed for based upon His omniscience. He has a lot of attributes similar to a business owner or other ambitious personality.  He is the kind of guy that you want to avoid except on payday. Not a fun guy.
> 
> He is sorta imaginary but sorta not. He represents real assholes in real life so the Bible really helps us learn how to treat people like that in real life to gain the best advantage. Kiss their ass, don't piss them off, beg them for the things you want and always be grateful for whatever he gives you.
> 
> Oh yeah and He is jealous as fuck. Don't you dare go worship another god.  Just like any business owner, he doesn't want you looking for another job.  Don't be tempted by the better paying fun job down the road. Stay here or I will kill you with passionate hate. Not a nice guy basically.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bitter much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bitter much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> he woke up from your phony book of forgeries.
Click to expand...


No. Ding's god was made up during the 21st century just like yours.

My description was of the fourth century god from the book of forgeries.

I am not sure where you and ding get information about your god(s).  I suspect it is your own imaginations.


----------



## ding

vasuderatorrent said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am talking about an imaginary being not a human.
> 
> 
> 
> So, describe this so-called 'imaginary being' and lets see what it is you think is so comical about Him.
> 
> I doubt you h ave the slightest idea and will not answer the fooking question as you fools rarely ever do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He is omnipotent, omniscient, all loving, just and loves the smell of burnt animal sacrifices. He created something out of nothing. He started from scratch.  He also hates 6 things but yea 7 are an abomination unto Him. He sent His son to be tortured and killed so that He wouldn't be so angry about the sin stuff.  If you pray to Him about medical issues He will heal some of the people who are prayed for. Some of them He will not heal. He picks and chooses based upon His omniscience. Sometimes He heals people that don't get prayed for based upon His omniscience. He has a lot of attributes similar to a business owner or other ambitious personality.  He is the kind of guy that you want to avoid except on payday. Not a fun guy.
> 
> He is sorta imaginary but sorta not. He represents real assholes in real life so the Bible really helps us learn how to treat people like that in real life to gain the best advantage. Kiss their ass, don't piss them off, beg them for the things you want and always be grateful for whatever he gives you.
> 
> Oh yeah and He is jealous as fuck. Don't you dare go worship another god.  Just like any business owner, he doesn't want you looking for another job.  Don't be tempted by the better paying fun job down the road. Stay here or I will kill you with passionate hate. Not a nice guy basically.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bitter much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh yeah. The god you know isn't in the Bible. That is probably why you didn't recognize Him. Everything I said about God is based on the Bible. You get to make up the attributes of your God to conveniently fit the situation and make you look awesome.
> 
> I was talking about Alohem; Yahweh; Jehovah; Adonai; the Father of the trinity; the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; or the God of the Bible. What is the name of the god that you would like me to describe? This is the god that I know the most about. Sorry. I know nothing about the convenient god that you invented that amazingly has attributes of a 21st Century American.  Weird!
> 
> Irreverent much?
Click to expand...

That’s where you are wrong. 

It’s your lack of understanding that has led to your errors. 

I don’t believe you know anything about the God of Abraham.


----------



## ding

vasuderatorrent said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am talking about an imaginary being not a human.
> 
> 
> 
> So, describe this so-called 'imaginary being' and lets see what it is you think is so comical about Him.
> 
> I doubt you h ave the slightest idea and will not answer the fooking question as you fools rarely ever do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He is omnipotent, omniscient, all loving, just and loves the smell of burnt animal sacrifices. He created something out of nothing. He started from scratch.  He also hates 6 things but yea 7 are an abomination unto Him. He sent His son to be tortured and killed so that He wouldn't be so angry about the sin stuff.  If you pray to Him about medical issues He will heal some of the people who are prayed for. Some of them He will not heal. He picks and chooses based upon His omniscience. Sometimes He heals people that don't get prayed for based upon His omniscience. He has a lot of attributes similar to a business owner or other ambitious personality.  He is the kind of guy that you want to avoid except on payday. Not a fun guy.
> 
> He is sorta imaginary but sorta not. He represents real assholes in real life so the Bible really helps us learn how to treat people like that in real life to gain the best advantage. Kiss their ass, don't piss them off, beg them for the things you want and always be grateful for whatever he gives you.
> 
> Oh yeah and He is jealous as fuck. Don't you dare go worship another god.  Just like any business owner, he doesn't want you looking for another job.  Don't be tempted by the better paying fun job down the road. Stay here or I will kill you with passionate hate. Not a nice guy basically.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bitter much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bitter much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> he woke up from your phony book of forgeries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. Ding's god was made up during the 21st century just like yours.
> 
> My description was of the fourth century god from the book of forgeries.
> 
> I am not sure where you and ding get information about your god(s).  I suspect it is your own imaginations.
Click to expand...

You and Breezewood are literally on the exact same page.


----------



## ding

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am talking about an imaginary being not a human.
> 
> 
> 
> So, describe this so-called 'imaginary being' and lets see what it is you think is so comical about Him.
> 
> I doubt you h ave the slightest idea and will not answer the fooking question as you fools rarely ever do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He is omnipotent, omniscient, all loving, just and loves the smell of burnt animal sacrifices. He created something out of nothing. He started from scratch.  He also hates 6 things but yea 7 are an abomination unto Him. He sent His son to be tortured and killed so that He wouldn't be so angry about the sin stuff.  If you pray to Him about medical issues He will heal some of the people who are prayed for. Some of them He will not heal. He picks and chooses based upon His omniscience. Sometimes He heals people that don't get prayed for based upon His omniscience. He has a lot of attributes similar to a business owner or other ambitious personality.  He is the kind of guy that you want to avoid except on payday. Not a fun guy.
> 
> He is sorta imaginary but sorta not. He represents real assholes in real life so the Bible really helps us learn how to treat people like that in real life to gain the best advantage. Kiss their ass, don't piss them off, beg them for the things you want and always be grateful for whatever he gives you.
> 
> Oh yeah and He is jealous as fuck. Don't you dare go worship another god.  Just like any business owner, he doesn't want you looking for another job.  Don't be tempted by the better paying fun job down the road. Stay here or I will kill you with passionate hate. Not a nice guy basically.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bitter much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bitter much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> he woke up from your phony book of forgeries.
Click to expand...

He never understood my so called book of forgeries.  Neither have you.


----------



## vasuderatorrent

ding said:


> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am talking about an imaginary being not a human.
> 
> 
> 
> So, describe this so-called 'imaginary being' and lets see what it is you think is so comical about Him.
> 
> I doubt you h ave the slightest idea and will not answer the fooking question as you fools rarely ever do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He is omnipotent, omniscient, all loving, just and loves the smell of burnt animal sacrifices. He created something out of nothing. He started from scratch.  He also hates 6 things but yea 7 are an abomination unto Him. He sent His son to be tortured and killed so that He wouldn't be so angry about the sin stuff.  If you pray to Him about medical issues He will heal some of the people who are prayed for. Some of them He will not heal. He picks and chooses based upon His omniscience. Sometimes He heals people that don't get prayed for based upon His omniscience. He has a lot of attributes similar to a business owner or other ambitious personality.  He is the kind of guy that you want to avoid except on payday. Not a fun guy.
> 
> He is sorta imaginary but sorta not. He represents real assholes in real life so the Bible really helps us learn how to treat people like that in real life to gain the best advantage. Kiss their ass, don't piss them off, beg them for the things you want and always be grateful for whatever he gives you.
> 
> Oh yeah and He is jealous as fuck. Don't you dare go worship another god.  Just like any business owner, he doesn't want you looking for another job.  Don't be tempted by the better paying fun job down the road. Stay here or I will kill you with passionate hate. Not a nice guy basically.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bitter much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh yeah. The god you know isn't in the Bible. That is probably why you didn't recognize Him. Everything I said about God is based on the Bible. You get to make up the attributes of your God to conveniently fit the situation and make you look awesome.
> 
> I was talking about Alohem; Yahweh; Jehovah; Adonai; the Father of the trinity; the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; or the God of the Bible. What is the name of the god that you would like me to describe? This is the god that I know the most about. Sorry. I know nothing about the convenient god that you invented that amazingly has attributes of a 21st Century American.  Weird!
> 
> Irreverent much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s where you are wrong.
> 
> It’s your lack of understanding that has led to your errors
Click to expand...


Fair enough. Let's describe god together using only the Bible.  Chapter and verse references are obligatory. You point out the things I miss. I will point out the things you miss. It will be a hoot and a holler.

Shall you start the thread or shall I?

Wait. You start it. I don't trust you to use the Bible. I don't want to he guilty of starting a thread for retards to make up their own god. It will be Bible only if I start it.  I don't trust you to use the Bible at all with your arguments. On second thought, never mind.

Ignore the Bible as hard as you can. I won't interfere.


----------



## ding

vasuderatorrent said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, describe this so-called 'imaginary being' and lets see what it is you think is so comical about Him.
> 
> I doubt you h ave the slightest idea and will not answer the fooking question as you fools rarely ever do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He is omnipotent, omniscient, all loving, just and loves the smell of burnt animal sacrifices. He created something out of nothing. He started from scratch.  He also hates 6 things but yea 7 are an abomination unto Him. He sent His son to be tortured and killed so that He wouldn't be so angry about the sin stuff.  If you pray to Him about medical issues He will heal some of the people who are prayed for. Some of them He will not heal. He picks and chooses based upon His omniscience. Sometimes He heals people that don't get prayed for based upon His omniscience. He has a lot of attributes similar to a business owner or other ambitious personality.  He is the kind of guy that you want to avoid except on payday. Not a fun guy.
> 
> He is sorta imaginary but sorta not. He represents real assholes in real life so the Bible really helps us learn how to treat people like that in real life to gain the best advantage. Kiss their ass, don't piss them off, beg them for the things you want and always be grateful for whatever he gives you.
> 
> Oh yeah and He is jealous as fuck. Don't you dare go worship another god.  Just like any business owner, he doesn't want you looking for another job.  Don't be tempted by the better paying fun job down the road. Stay here or I will kill you with passionate hate. Not a nice guy basically.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bitter much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh yeah. The god you know isn't in the Bible. That is probably why you didn't recognize Him. Everything I said about God is based on the Bible. You get to make up the attributes of your God to conveniently fit the situation and make you look awesome.
> 
> I was talking about Alohem; Yahweh; Jehovah; Adonai; the Father of the trinity; the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; or the God of the Bible. What is the name of the god that you would like me to describe? This is the god that I know the most about. Sorry. I know nothing about the convenient god that you invented that amazingly has attributes of a 21st Century American.  Weird!
> 
> Irreverent much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s where you are wrong.
> 
> It’s your lack of understanding that has led to your errors
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fair enough. Let's describe god together using only the Bible.  Chapter and verse references are obligatory. You point out the things I miss. I will point out the things you miss. It will be a hoot and a holler.
> 
> Shall you start the thread or shall I?
> 
> Wait. You start it. I don't trust you to use the Bible. I don't want to he guilty of starting a thread for retards to make up their own god. It will be Bible only if I start it.  I don't trust you to use the Bible at all with your arguments. On second thought, never mind.
> 
> Ignore the Bible as hard as you can. I won't interfere.
Click to expand...

I’ll start. 

What is the meaning of the account of Christ in the storm?


----------



## BreezeWood

vasuderatorrent said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am talking about an imaginary being not a human.
> 
> 
> 
> So, describe this so-called 'imaginary being' and lets see what it is you think is so comical about Him.
> 
> I doubt you h ave the slightest idea and will not answer the fooking question as you fools rarely ever do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He is omnipotent, omniscient, all loving, just and loves the smell of burnt animal sacrifices. He created something out of nothing. He started from scratch.  He also hates 6 things but yea 7 are an abomination unto Him. He sent His son to be tortured and killed so that He wouldn't be so angry about the sin stuff.  If you pray to Him about medical issues He will heal some of the people who are prayed for. Some of them He will not heal. He picks and chooses based upon His omniscience. Sometimes He heals people that don't get prayed for based upon His omniscience. He has a lot of attributes similar to a business owner or other ambitious personality.  He is the kind of guy that you want to avoid except on payday. Not a fun guy.
> 
> He is sorta imaginary but sorta not. He represents real assholes in real life so the Bible really helps us learn how to treat people like that in real life to gain the best advantage. Kiss their ass, don't piss them off, beg them for the things you want and always be grateful for whatever he gives you.
> 
> Oh yeah and He is jealous as fuck. Don't you dare go worship another god.  Just like any business owner, he doesn't want you looking for another job.  Don't be tempted by the better paying fun job down the road. Stay here or I will kill you with passionate hate. Not a nice guy basically.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bitter much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bitter much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> he woke up from your phony book of forgeries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. Ding's god was made up during the 21st century just like yours.
> 
> My description was of the fourth century god from the book of forgeries.
> 
> I am not sure where you and ding get information about your god(s).  I suspect it is your own imaginations.
Click to expand...

.


vasuderatorrent said:


> No. Ding's god was made up during the 21st century just like yours.



what have is said about the Almighty ... what is the prescribed religion of antiquity is the reflection past through time to the present day, the triumph of good vs evil - that's all that matters, your corrupt fundamentalism will be very difficult for you to overcome. you are led astray.


----------



## BreezeWood

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am talking about an imaginary being not a human.
> 
> 
> 
> So, describe this so-called 'imaginary being' and lets see what it is you think is so comical about Him.
> 
> I doubt you h ave the slightest idea and will not answer the fooking question as you fools rarely ever do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He is omnipotent, omniscient, all loving, just and loves the smell of burnt animal sacrifices. He created something out of nothing. He started from scratch.  He also hates 6 things but yea 7 are an abomination unto Him. He sent His son to be tortured and killed so that He wouldn't be so angry about the sin stuff.  If you pray to Him about medical issues He will heal some of the people who are prayed for. Some of them He will not heal. He picks and chooses based upon His omniscience. Sometimes He heals people that don't get prayed for based upon His omniscience. He has a lot of attributes similar to a business owner or other ambitious personality.  He is the kind of guy that you want to avoid except on payday. Not a fun guy.
> 
> He is sorta imaginary but sorta not. He represents real assholes in real life so the Bible really helps us learn how to treat people like that in real life to gain the best advantage. Kiss their ass, don't piss them off, beg them for the things you want and always be grateful for whatever he gives you.
> 
> Oh yeah and He is jealous as fuck. Don't you dare go worship another god.  Just like any business owner, he doesn't want you looking for another job.  Don't be tempted by the better paying fun job down the road. Stay here or I will kill you with passionate hate. Not a nice guy basically.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bitter much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bitter much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> he woke up from your phony book of forgeries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He never understood my so called book of forgeries.  Neither have you.
Click to expand...

.


ding said:


> He never understood my so called book of forgeries. Neither have you.



yours is a forged existence, as long as you are a sinner.


----------



## vasuderatorrent

ding said:


> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> He is omnipotent, omniscient, all loving, just and loves the smell of burnt animal sacrifices. He created something out of nothing. He started from scratch.  He also hates 6 things but yea 7 are an abomination unto Him. He sent His son to be tortured and killed so that He wouldn't be so angry about the sin stuff.  If you pray to Him about medical issues He will heal some of the people who are prayed for. Some of them He will not heal. He picks and chooses based upon His omniscience. Sometimes He heals people that don't get prayed for based upon His omniscience. He has a lot of attributes similar to a business owner or other ambitious personality.  He is the kind of guy that you want to avoid except on payday. Not a fun guy.
> 
> He is sorta imaginary but sorta not. He represents real assholes in real life so the Bible really helps us learn how to treat people like that in real life to gain the best advantage. Kiss their ass, don't piss them off, beg them for the things you want and always be grateful for whatever he gives you.
> 
> Oh yeah and He is jealous as fuck. Don't you dare go worship another god.  Just like any business owner, he doesn't want you looking for another job.  Don't be tempted by the better paying fun job down the road. Stay here or I will kill you with passionate hate. Not a nice guy basically.
> 
> 
> 
> Bitter much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh yeah. The god you know isn't in the Bible. That is probably why you didn't recognize Him. Everything I said about God is based on the Bible. You get to make up the attributes of your God to conveniently fit the situation and make you look awesome.
> 
> I was talking about Alohem; Yahweh; Jehovah; Adonai; the Father of the trinity; the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; or the God of the Bible. What is the name of the god that you would like me to describe? This is the god that I know the most about. Sorry. I know nothing about the convenient god that you invented that amazingly has attributes of a 21st Century American.  Weird!
> 
> Irreverent much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s where you are wrong.
> 
> It’s your lack of understanding that has led to your errors
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fair enough. Let's describe god together using only the Bible.  Chapter and verse references are obligatory. You point out the things I miss. I will point out the things you miss. It will be a hoot and a holler.
> 
> Shall you start the thread or shall I?
> 
> Wait. You start it. I don't trust you to use the Bible. I don't want to he guilty of starting a thread for retards to make up their own god. It will be Bible only if I start it.  I don't trust you to use the Bible at all with your arguments. On second thought, never mind.
> 
> Ignore the Bible as hard as you can. I won't interfere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’ll start.
> 
> What is the meaning of the account of Christ in the storm?
Click to expand...


Where is the thread and what is it titled?


----------



## ding

BreezeWood said:


> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, describe this so-called 'imaginary being' and lets see what it is you think is so comical about Him.
> 
> I doubt you h ave the slightest idea and will not answer the fooking question as you fools rarely ever do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He is omnipotent, omniscient, all loving, just and loves the smell of burnt animal sacrifices. He created something out of nothing. He started from scratch.  He also hates 6 things but yea 7 are an abomination unto Him. He sent His son to be tortured and killed so that He wouldn't be so angry about the sin stuff.  If you pray to Him about medical issues He will heal some of the people who are prayed for. Some of them He will not heal. He picks and chooses based upon His omniscience. Sometimes He heals people that don't get prayed for based upon His omniscience. He has a lot of attributes similar to a business owner or other ambitious personality.  He is the kind of guy that you want to avoid except on payday. Not a fun guy.
> 
> He is sorta imaginary but sorta not. He represents real assholes in real life so the Bible really helps us learn how to treat people like that in real life to gain the best advantage. Kiss their ass, don't piss them off, beg them for the things you want and always be grateful for whatever he gives you.
> 
> Oh yeah and He is jealous as fuck. Don't you dare go worship another god.  Just like any business owner, he doesn't want you looking for another job.  Don't be tempted by the better paying fun job down the road. Stay here or I will kill you with passionate hate. Not a nice guy basically.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bitter much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bitter much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> he woke up from your phony book of forgeries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. Ding's god was made up during the 21st century just like yours.
> 
> My description was of the fourth century god from the book of forgeries.
> 
> I am not sure where you and ding get information about your god(s).  I suspect it is your own imaginations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. Ding's god was made up during the 21st century just like yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what have is said about the Almighty ... what is the prescribed religion of antiquity is the reflection past through time to the present day, the triumph of good vs evil - that's all that matters, your corrupt fundamentalism will be very difficult for you to overcome. you are led astray.
Click to expand...

If you are telling others their religion is wrong, you might just be a religious nut job.


----------



## ding

vasuderatorrent said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bitter much?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yeah. The god you know isn't in the Bible. That is probably why you didn't recognize Him. Everything I said about God is based on the Bible. You get to make up the attributes of your God to conveniently fit the situation and make you look awesome.
> 
> I was talking about Alohem; Yahweh; Jehovah; Adonai; the Father of the trinity; the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; or the God of the Bible. What is the name of the god that you would like me to describe? This is the god that I know the most about. Sorry. I know nothing about the convenient god that you invented that amazingly has attributes of a 21st Century American.  Weird!
> 
> Irreverent much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s where you are wrong.
> 
> It’s your lack of understanding that has led to your errors
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fair enough. Let's describe god together using only the Bible.  Chapter and verse references are obligatory. You point out the things I miss. I will point out the things you miss. It will be a hoot and a holler.
> 
> Shall you start the thread or shall I?
> 
> Wait. You start it. I don't trust you to use the Bible. I don't want to he guilty of starting a thread for retards to make up their own god. It will be Bible only if I start it.  I don't trust you to use the Bible at all with your arguments. On second thought, never mind.
> 
> Ignore the Bible as hard as you can. I won't interfere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’ll start.
> 
> What is the meaning of the account of Christ in the storm?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where is the thread and what is it titled?
Click to expand...

I’m doing it here. 

What is the meaning of the account of Christ in the storm?


----------



## vasuderatorrent

ding said:


> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yeah. The god you know isn't in the Bible. That is probably why you didn't recognize Him. Everything I said about God is based on the Bible. You get to make up the attributes of your God to conveniently fit the situation and make you look awesome.
> 
> I was talking about Alohem; Yahweh; Jehovah; Adonai; the Father of the trinity; the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; or the God of the Bible. What is the name of the god that you would like me to describe? This is the god that I know the most about. Sorry. I know nothing about the convenient god that you invented that amazingly has attributes of a 21st Century American.  Weird!
> 
> Irreverent much?
> 
> 
> 
> That’s where you are wrong.
> 
> It’s your lack of understanding that has led to your errors
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fair enough. Let's describe god together using only the Bible.  Chapter and verse references are obligatory. You point out the things I miss. I will point out the things you miss. It will be a hoot and a holler.
> 
> Shall you start the thread or shall I?
> 
> Wait. You start it. I don't trust you to use the Bible. I don't want to he guilty of starting a thread for retards to make up their own god. It will be Bible only if I start it.  I don't trust you to use the Bible at all with your arguments. On second thought, never mind.
> 
> Ignore the Bible as hard as you can. I won't interfere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’ll start.
> 
> What is the meaning of the account of Christ in the storm?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where is the thread and what is it titled?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’m doing it here.
> 
> What is the meaning of the account of Christ in the storm?
Click to expand...


When you get ready let me know. I see no assertion, no verse reference and no thread. You are a troublemaker and have no desire to learn or to teach.  You just like to criticize people for fun. That is fine. That is sort of what these forums are all about. I want to have a semi serious discussion about the God in the Bible and you are asking me questions about a storm.

I will be up for a couple of more hours. If you ever get serious I notice and participate. Otherwise talk to the wall.


----------



## BreezeWood

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> He is omnipotent, omniscient, all loving, just and loves the smell of burnt animal sacrifices. He created something out of nothing. He started from scratch.  He also hates 6 things but yea 7 are an abomination unto Him. He sent His son to be tortured and killed so that He wouldn't be so angry about the sin stuff.  If you pray to Him about medical issues He will heal some of the people who are prayed for. Some of them He will not heal. He picks and chooses based upon His omniscience. Sometimes He heals people that don't get prayed for based upon His omniscience. He has a lot of attributes similar to a business owner or other ambitious personality.  He is the kind of guy that you want to avoid except on payday. Not a fun guy.
> 
> He is sorta imaginary but sorta not. He represents real assholes in real life so the Bible really helps us learn how to treat people like that in real life to gain the best advantage. Kiss their ass, don't piss them off, beg them for the things you want and always be grateful for whatever he gives you.
> 
> Oh yeah and He is jealous as fuck. Don't you dare go worship another god.  Just like any business owner, he doesn't want you looking for another job.  Don't be tempted by the better paying fun job down the road. Stay here or I will kill you with passionate hate. Not a nice guy basically.
> 
> 
> 
> Bitter much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bitter much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> he woke up from your phony book of forgeries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. Ding's god was made up during the 21st century just like yours.
> 
> My description was of the fourth century god from the book of forgeries.
> 
> I am not sure where you and ding get information about your god(s).  I suspect it is your own imaginations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. Ding's god was made up during the 21st century just like yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what have is said about the Almighty ... what is the prescribed religion of antiquity is the reflection past through time to the present day, the triumph of good vs evil - that's all that matters, your corrupt fundamentalism will be very difficult for you to overcome. you are led astray.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you are telling others their religion is wrong, you might just be a religious nut job.
Click to expand...

.


ding said:


> If you are telling others their religion is wrong, you might just be a religious nut job.



the possessive is obvious ... not to mention your stuttering.


----------



## ding

vasuderatorrent said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> That’s where you are wrong.
> 
> It’s your lack of understanding that has led to your errors
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fair enough. Let's describe god together using only the Bible.  Chapter and verse references are obligatory. You point out the things I miss. I will point out the things you miss. It will be a hoot and a holler.
> 
> Shall you start the thread or shall I?
> 
> Wait. You start it. I don't trust you to use the Bible. I don't want to he guilty of starting a thread for retards to make up their own god. It will be Bible only if I start it.  I don't trust you to use the Bible at all with your arguments. On second thought, never mind.
> 
> Ignore the Bible as hard as you can. I won't interfere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’ll start.
> 
> What is the meaning of the account of Christ in the storm?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where is the thread and what is it titled?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’m doing it here.
> 
> What is the meaning of the account of Christ in the storm?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you get ready let me know. I see no assertion, no verse reference and no thread. You are a troublemaker and have no desire to learn or to teach.  You just like to criticize people for fun. That is fine. That is sort of what these forums are all about. I want to have a semi serious discussion about the God in the Bible and you are asking me questions about a storm.
Click to expand...

You don’t need a reference.

What is the meaning of the account of Christ in the storm? 

Surely you recall this, right?

So come on. You are stalling.


----------



## ding

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bitter much?
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bitter much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> he woke up from your phony book of forgeries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. Ding's god was made up during the 21st century just like yours.
> 
> My description was of the fourth century god from the book of forgeries.
> 
> I am not sure where you and ding get information about your god(s).  I suspect it is your own imaginations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. Ding's god was made up during the 21st century just like yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what have is said about the Almighty ... what is the prescribed religion of antiquity is the reflection past through time to the present day, the triumph of good vs evil - that's all that matters, your corrupt fundamentalism will be very difficult for you to overcome. you are led astray.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you are telling others their religion is wrong, you might just be a religious nut job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you are telling others their religion is wrong, you might just be a religious nut job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the possessive is obvious ... not to mention your stuttering.
Click to expand...

If the shoe fits wear it.


----------



## ding

vasuderatorrent said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> That’s where you are wrong.
> 
> It’s your lack of understanding that has led to your errors
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fair enough. Let's describe god together using only the Bible.  Chapter and verse references are obligatory. You point out the things I miss. I will point out the things you miss. It will be a hoot and a holler.
> 
> Shall you start the thread or shall I?
> 
> Wait. You start it. I don't trust you to use the Bible. I don't want to he guilty of starting a thread for retards to make up their own god. It will be Bible only if I start it.  I don't trust you to use the Bible at all with your arguments. On second thought, never mind.
> 
> Ignore the Bible as hard as you can. I won't interfere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’ll start.
> 
> What is the meaning of the account of Christ in the storm?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where is the thread and what is it titled?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’m doing it here.
> 
> What is the meaning of the account of Christ in the storm?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you get ready let me know. I see no assertion, no verse reference and no thread. You are a troublemaker and have no desire to learn or to teach.  You just like to criticize people for fun. That is fine. That is sort of what these forums are all about. I want to have a semi serious discussion about the God in the Bible and you are asking me questions about a storm.
> 
> I will be up for a couple of more hours. If you ever get serious I notice and participate. Otherwise talk to the wall.
Click to expand...

I am serious. You aren’t serious. 

I told you that I believe you don’t understand the Bible and I am going to prove it to you. 

You have zero understanding of Christianity. None, nada, zip.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

So, let's unpack the term, "God Hater".

What standard does one have to meet to be granted this title? Lets start with antitheists.

Antitheists don't like the idea of gods and don't want there to be gods (especially not the ones described in the world's religions). We find the concept distasteful and absurd. We admit there may be gods, but hope there aren't any. 

Are these people, "God Haters"? "Yahweh Haters"? By what standard? All of them, or just most, or just some? ,


----------



## vasuderatorrent

ding said:


> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fair enough. Let's describe god together using only the Bible.  Chapter and verse references are obligatory. You point out the things I miss. I will point out the things you miss. It will be a hoot and a holler.
> 
> Shall you start the thread or shall I?
> 
> Wait. You start it. I don't trust you to use the Bible. I don't want to he guilty of starting a thread for retards to make up their own god. It will be Bible only if I start it.  I don't trust you to use the Bible at all with your arguments. On second thought, never mind.
> 
> Ignore the Bible as hard as you can. I won't interfere.
> 
> 
> 
> I’ll start.
> 
> What is the meaning of the account of Christ in the storm?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where is the thread and what is it titled?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’m doing it here.
> 
> What is the meaning of the account of Christ in the storm?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you get ready let me know. I see no assertion, no verse reference and no thread. You are a troublemaker and have no desire to learn or to teach.  You just like to criticize people for fun. That is fine. That is sort of what these forums are all about. I want to have a semi serious discussion about the God in the Bible and you are asking me questions about a storm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don’t need a reference.
> 
> What is the meaning of the account of Christ in the storm?
> 
> Surely you recall this, right?
> 
> So come on. You are stalling.
Click to expand...


I started since you weren't willing. The thread is titled, "Who is God".  I used assertions and verses.  Your turn.


----------



## ding

vasuderatorrent said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I’ll start.
> 
> What is the meaning of the account of Christ in the storm?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the thread and what is it titled?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’m doing it here.
> 
> What is the meaning of the account of Christ in the storm?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you get ready let me know. I see no assertion, no verse reference and no thread. You are a troublemaker and have no desire to learn or to teach.  You just like to criticize people for fun. That is fine. That is sort of what these forums are all about. I want to have a semi serious discussion about the God in the Bible and you are asking me questions about a storm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don’t need a reference.
> 
> What is the meaning of the account of Christ in the storm?
> 
> Surely you recall this, right?
> 
> So come on. You are stalling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I started since you weren't willing. The thread is titled, "Who is God".  I used assertions and verses.  Your turn.
Click to expand...

I did start. Quit stalling.


----------



## vasuderatorrent

ding said:


> I told you that I believe you don’t understand the Bible and I am going to prove it to you.
> 
> You have zero understanding of Christianity. None, nada, zip.



Start teaching me. That way I can start learning.

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.

Teach me! Showing me that I am stupid doesn't benefit either one of us. Unless your goal in life is feeling superior to others.  If that is your goal then don't teach me anything. Just burn in hell. God says He hates that.


----------



## anynameyouwish

koshergrl said:


> I see you haven't gained any iq points during my absence.
> 
> Pity.




you would be too stupid to  notice.


----------



## vasuderatorrent

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> he woke up from your phony book of forgeries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. Ding's god was made up during the 21st century just like yours.
> 
> My description was of the fourth century god from the book of forgeries.
> 
> I am not sure where you and ding get information about your god(s).  I suspect it is your own imaginations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. Ding's god was made up during the 21st century just like yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what have is said about the Almighty ... what is the prescribed religion of antiquity is the reflection past through time to the present day, the triumph of good vs evil - that's all that matters, your corrupt fundamentalism will be very difficult for you to overcome. you are led astray.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you are telling others their religion is wrong, you might just be a religious nut job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you are telling others their religion is wrong, you might just be a religious nut job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the possessive is obvious ... not to mention your stuttering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the shoe fits wear it.
Click to expand...


These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren. Proverbs 6:16-19 KJV

Teach us about God and don't make anything up. This is your last warning to stop being a false witness that speaketh lies.  Either tell the truth about God or tell lies. It is yout choice but I am warning you. God hates a false witness that speaketh lies. He hates them really hard and wants to kill them.


----------



## ding

vasuderatorrent said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I told you that I believe you don’t understand the Bible and I am going to prove it to you.
> 
> You have zero understanding of Christianity. None, nada, zip.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Start teaching me. That way I can start learning.
> 
> Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.
> 
> Teach me! Showing me that I am stupid doesn't benefit either one of us. Unless your goal in life is feeling superior to others.  If that is your goal then don't teach me anything. Just burn in hell. God says He hates that.
Click to expand...

My goal is exposing your agenda.  You aren’t genuine. You are playing a sick game for the express purpose of amusing yourself at the expense of others.


----------



## ding

vasuderatorrent said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. Ding's god was made up during the 21st century just like yours.
> 
> My description was of the fourth century god from the book of forgeries.
> 
> I am not sure where you and ding get information about your god(s).  I suspect it is your own imaginations.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. Ding's god was made up during the 21st century just like yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what have is said about the Almighty ... what is the prescribed religion of antiquity is the reflection past through time to the present day, the triumph of good vs evil - that's all that matters, your corrupt fundamentalism will be very difficult for you to overcome. you are led astray.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you are telling others their religion is wrong, you might just be a religious nut job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you are telling others their religion is wrong, you might just be a religious nut job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the possessive is obvious ... not to mention your stuttering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the shoe fits wear it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren. Proverbs 6:16-19 KJV
> 
> Teach us about God and don't make anything up. This is your last warning to stop being a false witness that speaketh lies.  Either tell the truth about God or tell lies. It is yout choice but I am warning you. God hates a false witness that speaketh lies. He hates them really hard and wants to kill them.
Click to expand...

You don’t want to learn about God, bro.


----------



## vasuderatorrent

ding said:


> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> what have is said about the Almighty ... what is the prescribed religion of antiquity is the reflection past through time to the present day, the triumph of good vs evil - that's all that matters, your corrupt fundamentalism will be very difficult for you to overcome. you are led astray.
> 
> 
> 
> If you are telling others their religion is wrong, you might just be a religious nut job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you are telling others their religion is wrong, you might just be a religious nut job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the possessive is obvious ... not to mention your stuttering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the shoe fits wear it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren. Proverbs 6:16-19 KJV
> 
> Teach us about God and don't make anything up. This is your last warning to stop being a false witness that speaketh lies.  Either tell the truth about God or tell lies. It is yout choice but I am warning you. God hates a false witness that speaketh lies. He hates them really hard and wants to kill them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don’t want to learn about God, bro.
Click to expand...


What a coincidence. You don't want to teach about God.

All joking aside, I do love to hear new things that o have never heard.


----------



## ding

vasuderatorrent said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you are telling others their religion is wrong, you might just be a religious nut job.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you are telling others their religion is wrong, you might just be a religious nut job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the possessive is obvious ... not to mention your stuttering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the shoe fits wear it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren. Proverbs 6:16-19 KJV
> 
> Teach us about God and don't make anything up. This is your last warning to stop being a false witness that speaketh lies.  Either tell the truth about God or tell lies. It is yout choice but I am warning you. God hates a false witness that speaketh lies. He hates them really hard and wants to kill them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don’t want to learn about God, bro.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a coincidence. You don't want to teach about God.
> 
> All joking aside, I do love to hear new things that o have never heard.
Click to expand...

Sure. But first you need to tell me what you believe the account of Christ in the storm means.


----------



## vasuderatorrent

ding said:


> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> the possessive is obvious ... not to mention your stuttering.
> 
> 
> 
> If the shoe fits wear it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren. Proverbs 6:16-19 KJV
> 
> Teach us about God and don't make anything up. This is your last warning to stop being a false witness that speaketh lies.  Either tell the truth about God or tell lies. It is yout choice but I am warning you. God hates a false witness that speaketh lies. He hates them really hard and wants to kill them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don’t want to learn about God, bro.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a coincidence. You don't want to teach about God.
> 
> All joking aside, I do love to hear new things that o have never heard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure. But first you need to tell me what you believe the account of Christ in the storm means.
Click to expand...


That Jesus is God.


----------



## ding

vasuderatorrent said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the shoe fits wear it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren. Proverbs 6:16-19 KJV
> 
> Teach us about God and don't make anything up. This is your last warning to stop being a false witness that speaketh lies.  Either tell the truth about God or tell lies. It is yout choice but I am warning you. God hates a false witness that speaketh lies. He hates them really hard and wants to kill them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don’t want to learn about God, bro.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a coincidence. You don't want to teach about God.
> 
> All joking aside, I do love to hear new things that o have never heard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure. But first you need to tell me what you believe the account of Christ in the storm means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That Jesus is God.
Click to expand...

No. Try again.


----------



## edthecynic

ding said:


> I don’t believe you know anything about the God of Abraham.


Whatever YOU know about that God is HEARSAY, and according to Tramp and the Christian Right that is worthless.


----------

